What is it about Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” that makes it such a difficult film for some viewers? Why was it booed at Cannes? Why do I keep hearing of people who have paid their $10 and then walk out halfway through?
There are certain obvious qualities that make “The Tree of Life” a challenge for some people to watch.
It does not follow a clear linear narrative sequence. There is no obvious story line that can be easily followed from beginning to end. The narrative does not carry the audience along from one event that relates clearly to the next.
The film is predominantly non-verbal. There is very little dialogue and some of the words the actors utter are almost incomprehensible. For most movie-going tastes, there are disturbingly long periods of silence. Much of the energy of the film is carried by music and imagery.
Upon initial viewing the film can be confusing. Images flash on the screen that have no obvious relationship to what has preceded them or what follows. Connections are tenuous at times and the links between characters are not always clear. Many viewers are unsure which of the three boys has died and how the Sean Penn character relates to the film.
We are accustomed to our entertainment being delivered in simple straightforward easily consumable bites. Terrence Malick does not cater to such tastes. He requires patience, openness, and a willingness to allow the film to unfold over time.
But, I have become convinced that these are not the major obstacles to Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life.” There is something deeper going on in peoples’ resistance to this film.
I believe that the difficulty many people are having with “The Tree of Life” has nothing to do with the quality of the film. People are not objecting to the film because the script is bad; it is in fact beautifully and poetically written. It is not that the acting is poor; almost everyone agrees the acting is uniformly superb. Certainly, almost no one argues that the movie is poorly filmed; the cinematography is stunning. It is hard to complain about the music which is stirring and powerful.
None of these things is the real issue people have with “The Tree of Life.” The problem with this film for many people is that our culture struggles with gentleness and vulnerability. And “The Tree of Life” is full of gentleness and vulnerability.
It begins from the opening sequence when Mrs. O’Brien receives the news of her son’s death and crumples to the floor. It carries on with Mr. O’Brien’s silent despair at the death of his son, the awkward spaces between husband and wife as they flounder in their inability to offer one another even the tinniest shreds of comfort.
These are fragile, broken people. They are trapped in their own little isolated confusing worlds. They do not know how to reach out to one another effectively. They don’t know where to look to find hope and healing.
When Jack hurts his younger brother, he is paralyzed with remorse. All he can think to do, is to give his brother the opportunity to retaliate by offering him a piece of wood with which to hit him. When his brother refuses to seize the chance for revenge, Jack is driven to kiss his brother’s arm and finally to say simply, “I’m sorry; you’re my brother,” in a scene that is painfully tender.
When Jack faces his mother after his sexual awakening, he can no longer look her in the face. He pleads with her, “Don’t look at me.” His shame makes him want to hide. He knows that she can see the dark underside of his life and he is frightened to be seen.
RL is shamed by his father. Mrs. O’Brien is trapped by her husband. Jack is paralyzed by his fear and filled with remorse at his own choices. Jack bares his heart in prayer and longs to be able to be a different person than he knows he often is. Mr. O’Brien is filled with a sense of failure and disappointment. He carries a devastating burden that he is an inadequate parent.
Terrence Malick has put our deepest fears, anxieties, and secrets on the screen. He shows us our vulnerability. He displays with excruciating honesty the conflicts we encounter in life. And we are not comfortable with Malick’s exposure of our human condition.
So, we find ways to run and hide from the impact of this film. We analyze, rationalize, and criticize in an attempt to avoid looking into the deep mirror Malick has offered us within which to explore the nature of the human condition.
In “The Tree of Life” we are given the opportunity to face our doubts and our uncertainties about life. We are faced with our anger, bitterness, and resentment towards life. We see our disappointments and our fears. And it is all too hard for us to watch. We want to be relieved of the burden of seeing ourselves as we are. We prefer entertainment that help us escape, that gives us comfort in the midst of our pain.
Malick’s glaring light is not a welcome guest in our lives. But, it is the only hope we have for finding freedom. Jesus once said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Malick shows us the truth. When we embrace the truth he portrays, we will encounter the truth that lies deep at the heart of this film. If we allow this film to do its work on us, we will find a dazzling vision of the freedom and beauty for which we were created.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 13, 2011 at 9:20 am
jaqueline
” None of these things is the real issue people have with “The Tree of Life.” The problem with this film for many people is that our culture struggles with gentleness and vulnerability. And “The Tree of Life” is full of gentleness and vulnerability. ”
…those who boo it or walk out may be closed..but why bother with those few? What counts are the many many open, vulnerable, film and art and philosophy savvy people who have trouble with the film on it’s own terms.
It is not fair to dismiss honest critique by saying hating it is a psychological issue. Adore the film if you will, ignore the dolts who have no time for it, but please do not imply that those of us who have honest difficulty with the film have no reason to do so.
In fact for those of us who have seen the film and don’t adore it it is actually the gentleness and vulnerability that stands out as a positive. The narrative is a positive ( for me at least )
Not all of us are blown away by the film, but we are still open to what it is wanting to say and we are still receptive to where it works astonishingly beautifully.
Mallick made what he believed to be a great film wanting to speak to an audience who were young adults when 2001 a Space Odyssey came into being, who were blown away by Altered States and honestly wants to say…”what we need what we have of the universe is here and now and with us in the faces of those we love”. But….Mallick hasn’t cottoned on that the rest of us have had visual feasts for the last 40 years that leave A Tree of Life’s special effects dead in the water. When he tries on special effects it is laughable and clumsy..even genius’s need good editors.
However thankfully, when he brings his camera down to earth to the people and to ‘real life’ there is nothing that can compare to the magnificence of what he achieved with that.
July 13, 2011 at 12:42 pm
John
People walk out because they’re not accustomed to watching Films as opposed to Movies. Most North Americans have no concept of film as art and simply don’t know how to read or respond to a film like this.
July 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm
jaqueline
Your observation doesn’t account for those who do value the art of cinema and and still have difficulty with the film in part or in whole.
July 13, 2011 at 4:04 pm
John
As one who has been watching, studying and appreciating art film for nearly twenty years and who has observed the behaviour of people and critics over the years, I stand by my assessment.
July 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm
jaqueline
Come on John, we don’t need to posture and declare expertise to prove wrong those who disagree with us. You can stand by your assessment I suppose, but it doesn’t make it accurate just because you do.
July 13, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Carlos D.
First of all, this is by far the best description I’ve read of the complicated dynamics at the heart of the O’Brien family. You helped me notice a number of things that I sensed but altogether missed in my viewings of the film.
And yes, I agree that the ever-shifting shades of “gentleness and vulnerability” we see throughout the film make it a difficult experience for a lot of people. The subtlety with which Malick paints his family portrait is really beyond most, if not everything, of what we get in our culture these days. In the hectic day-to-day we may simply overlook how awesome and heroic is for a little brother to put his hand on the shoulder of an older brother who has just hurt him, and grant him forgiveness (not to mention grace).
But, if you allow me to disagree, I think you underestimate the *other* difficulties you catalogue so well. I think the biggest difficulty with TTOL is the way Malick presents his story. He is a consummate artist, both respectful of his chosen medium and anxious to explore new ways of using it. His guiding principle in putting this film together seems to have been: “how can I best convey the emotions I want to convey using only images and sound?” He is not telling a story so much as showing us the emotions of a story whose details we piece together along the way.
Of course this is all great from the standpoint of cinema – and I believe TTOL is a very great and revolutionary film that (sadly or perhaps not so sadly) will have a long and profitable life on Blu Ray and arthouses. But for the casual moviegoer it’s a tough proposition particularly if he or she walks in cold. In fact, long before we get to the family portion of the film (with its deep and compassionate portrayal of a family in spiritual free-fall) some people start heading for the exits. The other day I saw a couple of folks leave as early as the part where Jack is in his office muttering about greedy people. That’s even before the “creation sequence” (which has broken the will of so many moviegoers). I’ve read reviews (yes, reviews!) from bloggers who couldn’t figure out which brother had died, even though it is plain as day (through careful editing) which brother we’re talking about.
Again, that’s before the “creation sequence” and the last segment of the movie, which is not cathartic in the way most people expect.
These are real challenges for a lot of folks, even seasoned moviegoers. I wouldn’t want TTOL any other way and it wouldn’t be the great film it is otherwise. But based of the facts on the ground I have to say that way before the audience is able to engage (or not) with the hard truths Malick shows, they get sidetracked by the other stuff. Which is too bad because IMHO it only takes a bit of effort to get in sync with the rhapsodic language of the movie.
But that’s art for you. TTOL is not a movie for us. We’re just lucky to see it first. it’s really for people down the road…
Thanks again for a most provocative post.
July 13, 2011 at 7:58 pm
jaqueline
“Terrence Malick has put our deepest fears, anxieties, and secrets on the screen.”
but has he? …in the scheme of things are the anxieties of these people that we meet in this movie really that tragic that deep that secret?
Haven’t there been other films that have dealt with things far far more agonising ? Films that have met and dealt with the very face of what we call evil, not just having lost the face of God?
Sophie’s Choice, Schindler’s List, The Bad Lieutenant, Once Were Warriors,
Dead Man Walking to name a very few.
Why must this film be more than it is? Why must it be the greatest, the deepest , the most profound.? It just isn’t, not matter how fond some are of it…the story of a man’s rediscovery of faith..a beautiful one but thank God this is all he has to agonise over. thank God..
It may the the film that has touched you and others most deeply, but that doesn’t mean it’s appeal or importance is universal,
Perhaps forgive the indifference or ridicule of those who might feel that there are stories that can meet the experience of the rest of the world a little more adequately.
July 13, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Kim
There are some wonderful and insightful comments that have come forth from many different people in response to this movie. This has been a great topic Christopher. Thanks to everyone who has added to this ongoing dialogue. I have learned much more about the movie than I took in during my viewing. I am sure I will see it again, although I think at home when I can replay bits as I need to to gain more understanding.
September 11, 2011 at 8:09 pm
spidergal
oh come on. I loved , in contrast,,The Trip.It was entertaining.Period.
But THIS!! I was envious last night of the 10 or so people who got up and left during the ??creation sequences. When it was over, the 20 remaining audience members left in total silence .What, nothing to talk about??NO I think we were just stunned by what we had just endured.
And gentleness? Dad was verbally and physically abusive.
The story ( was there a story) Oh yeh ..oldest son dies in Vietnam,and second son , grown up looking like Sean Penn, mourns his big brother taking the brunt..( I think???) and we review the past to see if there was anything redeeming with this largely dysfunctional family…..Who evolved from dinosaurs..Hey yeh..I get it… was that one creature stomping on the head of the weaker one, a metaphor for the brothers?
Oh brother is right.
After investing 2 1/2 hours of my life, it was too late to leave. Maybe artsy types want to strain their brains with this sort of movie…and come to this movie’s defense.Me, I mourn the loss of two hours of my life I shall never get back.
December 31, 2011 at 6:12 am
c b
sean penn was the older brother, the younger brother was the one who died, hinted at by the room with the guitar.
the father was “nature” – stormy, turbulent, unforgiving. and the mother was “nurture.”
The movie was generally intended to have wisps of content form a whole, but the problem with that is that you have to willfully analyze every frame of it to even piece together the fragmented plot and the concepts within.
even the wikipedia page describing the plot is incorrect, where it states the father lamented not becoming a musician: specifically he lamented ever being sidetracked by music as folly while understanding that natural creative force behind it.
There are quotes from sean penn stating the movie would have done much better and retained its quality if the experience the family went through wasn’t presented so disjointedly. Healthy people don’t experience life as whispers and ghosts, we buy in to the concept of reality we have.
This is why the beautiful, concrete images of nature are compelling as they show measurable scientific processes occurring while contrasting the “big deal that’s human life” is shown as a meaningless fracture.
The ending is hamfisted at best, and vastly literal “memories are alive within us” and it comes across as artsy pretention. Most missed the whole “in the future the sun will engulf the earth” scene because it was buried in a strange sean penn vision quest type scenario.
I appreciate the film and don’t understand how people can say TWO HOURS OF LIFE GONE. First of all, why would you leave after 2.5 hours when the movie is 2.5 hours long? If a movie strains your brain it is worthy of defense?
Not at all. The core concept of the movie really couldn’t have been done any differently, and claiming a critique of the movie involves tweaking it so it might be “better” is in direct odds with the message within the movie itself! So obviously someone showing how fickle and meaningless life ultimately is, a chain reaction of chemicals, would not agree that an outside force influencing your creative impulses is relevant at all. Anyone who’s gone to any sort of creative school realizes this immediately.
If you want to give it another chance, read the script. It states literally what is being shown on the screen, and makes for a more spelled out version. When you see “the earth is shown as a lifeless, frozen mass” it is far more impactful than seeing something that might be earth for 6 seconds.
January 26, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Why You Should Give The Tree of Life a Chance « brisuitt
[...] love it. I’m asking you to consider it and also consider these thoughts from another blogger, Christopher Page who wisely points [...]
September 5, 2012 at 4:54 pm
donalddhaene
I couldn’t stand The Tree of Life..wrote about it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/donald-dhaene/tiff2012_b_1850649.html
September 10, 2012 at 4:49 pm
bijalba
Since this is waiting approval at huffpost…
I didn’t understand the vitriol for tree of life, nor the heaps of praise. I liked portions of it, I liked the style. And I don’t see any need for a pseudo-review “warning” like yours. People who saw tree of life and hated it aren’t at any risk to see this film, so your bit about $14 makes no sense.
That’s where a critical review comes in. If perhaps someone liked or disliked tree of life and this defies those expectations, its up to you to clarify that. Instead, you’re preaching to the choir of those who didn’t like that film.
So actually – nothing justifies your column. You didn’t even see the movie yet you assume its more of the same. You can cite as many anecdotes and OH BOY it sounds like tree of life. UH OH i remember this time when i saw tree of life YIKES it was terrible OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
More importantly, it gives more attention to you as you’ve gone on various blogs/criticisms and crossposted a link to this non-review.
“Potential viewers of To The Wonder, be warned.”
Aren’t you a potential viewer of To The Wonder, since you’ve not seen it? At least you’ve embodied Malick in your hazy, vague impression piece where it is never explicitly stated that YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE YOU ARE “reviewing.”
So, great, 700 in your career. I hope you don’t consider this one of them!
September 11, 2012 at 4:16 am
Donald D'Haene
Ps. Peter Howell, film critic at TIFF says of To The Wonder: It’s a “follow-up to The Tree of Life, parts of which are actually incorporated into this film. Ben Affleck plays an Oklahoma man who finds a woman (Olga Kurylenko) and passion in Paris; their stateside return brings domesticity, regrets and Affleck’s involvement with a woman from his past (Rachel McAdams). And while the angles of this awkward triangle are calculated, the local Roman Catholic priest (Javier Bardem) cries out to God for guidance. Little is explained in the film, much of it operates subconsciously and all of it demands serious study and reflection.”
September 10, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Donald D'Haene
I posted a reply to your last comment on Huffington as well: by memory, so not word for word: Thank you for your comment. I definitely have had a response to my column. I have enjoyed discussing the film with people who loved it. I have quite the response to the column. I rather enjoyed yours!