The Tree of Life is a good film although it is a bit disjointed and fails to meet the ambitious plans of director Terence Malick. This film is supposed to give the viewer a notion about the mysteries of the universe however it recycles theories associated with theology and evolution that are already known. Malick tries to balance the two by first accepting the big bang theory along with the concept of a divine being. This is all done against the backdrop of a domestic suburban drama in the 1950’s where a family is rocked by the death of one of its members. On the level of the domestic drama the film is more or less complete and I found my emotions stirred; whereas on the other level, where there is an attempt at melding abstract theory with this domestic drama, it seems a bit excessive and unnecessary. It is difficult to imagine that most middle class families act so dramatic when a death in the family occurs. Death as a concept in this film should have been more far reaching with regards to humanity for millions (not only humans) die everyday yet we are to believe that when one dies the family experiences such frivolity with regards to spirituality. I was upset because it seems that this is a model for petty bourgeois excess in justifying its right to be seen and heard. This film reminds me that the middle class is a bit too enamored with its significance as a social group. They are lackeys and nothing more for the hegemony of the ruling classes. There are two movies here: the notions of god and the universe and the plain, unremarkable middle class domestic drama that is more about teen angst rather than any profound belief in the universe. God plays an omniscient, impervious character in this film who is unmoved by the family’s plight while setting them on the path of self discovery. This film undermines itself by not focusing solely on the domestic drama with the tree of life as a reflection of the family’s struggle. That is where it should have limited itself. Instead Malick provides shots of the universe that are not at all original. This film can only be compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey because it is a farcical version. 2001: A Space Odyssey worked because it is clear that man himself went on a journey to discover the source of our inspiration to thrive and become who we are. Kubrick never faltered in his discussion about man as a species and highlighted that we were always exposed in some way to the divine, mysterious monolith which pushes us on into the frontiers of space. We saw humans on a quest into space and so it remained highly identifiable because you were asked to imagine the possibilities of this discovery by man. Kubrick’s film was about man as a species with no recourse to petty dramas that is why the film is largely significant. Now that Malick limits it to a petty middle class drama the high handed imagery seems largely insignificant. The opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey was thrilling because I felt I could identify with my own species being born into existence. This is not a great film. Some critics seem to love this film because it seems very artsy but it is also too abstract and it is no surprise that the film failed at the box office because the audience will feel as if that this is for an exclusive class as opposed to being a movie event for the ages such as 2001: A Space Odyssey or E.T: The Extra Terrestrial.
There are good elements here however stemming from the performances of Brad Pitt as Mr. Obrien head of the family household who considers himself a failure since he was not able to become the great musician of his dreams and young Hunter MacCracken as the young Jack Obrien. Their relationship is affecting but that is all. This relationship does lose its force when it stumbles against the vastness of eternity. This review is favourable solely because of this relationship between father and son.
What’s good about this film?
The petty domestic drama is very affecting in this film and it is only too bad that it begins so late into the film. The relationship between young Jack Obrien and his parents and siblings, particularly the brother that died, is affecting emotionally but it is unlikely to resonate with me simply because there are other domestic dramas of such high quality. As a domestic drama the film is not unique in anyway and this is why the motif of the Tree of Life should have been developed further. The tree that is planted in this film should have been the source by which the life of the family is perpetuated and strengthened. I thought that the tree of life was in reference to man as a species that conceives his offspring who branch off into various paths and form their own variants that eventually become species. This evolutionary motif associated with Darwin would have made for a more serious discussion regarding the experience that we go through every generation or so. A tree of life seems to try and reveal the essence of life as opposed to the experience of man and our migratory patterns whereby we establish a new tree of life. When a child dies a father feels his legacy diminish for his bonds with the earth become ever more strained and it increases the chance that he will be forgotten. The more that man is able to perpetuate his line the more is he able to secure a chance of belonging to the earth like a tree even though he as an individual might perish. I thought this was the direction that the film would take and to some extent it does meet the criteria of my expectations for it is clear that the young Jack Obrien comes to the discover that he is more like his father despite the hate he feels. He feels as if he hates him because his father transmits his essence into him by taking him under his arm (literally and figuratively). This was not just the loss of innocence but the perpetuation of the father into the son. This is why we find him imitating his father by working for a big firm as we see the older Jack (Sean Penn) caught up in his reminiscences.
This is why I would have liked to see more scenes with the older jack and how his life mirrored that of his father. This is not forthcoming since he only tries to reconcile the loss of his younger brother. The death should have been secondary for we see a young jack, in his father’s absence, try to fill his shoes while hating him at the same time. He gets some strange romantic urges for his mother, which a critic rightfully says reminds one of Oedipus Rex without the sex. We see him trying to influence the younger brother that dies based on his father’s attitude towards him. The young Jack shouts at the father ‘He loves me more than you.’ which suggests that he is in competition with his father for the affections of the family. There is another touching scene where he says ‘It’s your house. You can throw me out when you want to. You want me dead.’(Not exact quote) Mr. Obrien thought he was strengthening his son when in fact he was transmitting his own failure as an individual. Jack hates his father because he becomes more like him as he grows: a person dissatisfied with his existence and with a constant urge to prove himself. Jack’s younger brother is portrayed as an innocent individual who is very artistic and very in tune with his emotions. This contrasts with Jack, who as an elder, is taken under his father’s arm and instructed on how to be tough. The younger brother is the only one who seems to be outside of the father’s influence when he tells him to be quiet one day at the dinner table. This sends the father into a frenzy, since it is only in his home where he has any power, and so he attacks the young boy. Everyone else felt his influence apart from jack’s younger brother which is why he said what he said. When jack’s younger brother dies it is another means of escape from Mr. Obrien’s influence.
I also liked the episode where Mr. Obrien comes to the realization that he is nothing (because he does not have money).
These elements were well done and so I must give the film credit for I was able to understand some elements of the tree of life.
What’s bad about this film?
It is pretty obvious what is bad about this film: the abstract nature of the art design which is supposed to reveal the nature of god and the vastness of the universe. This is ambitious but it does not work because I could predict these sequences with ease. If you are going to put something of this magnitude on screen then you must at least try and be original. He recycles a lot of theories here. With regards to the evolutionary progression of life on earth I was able to predict the various stages based on my own reading of Darwin’s works On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. I was therefore not impressed with this sequence because it follows the arguments to a tee. The notion of the tree of life was popularized by Darwin who said that every species descended from one source as it branched out to create variants that were dispersed to varying geographical regions. All these elements are here and so Malick is not as ambitious as some critics assume. When the mother, Mrs. Obrien, and Jack Obrien try to speak to god we are treated to several images about the vastness of God and the universe. It assumes nothing apart from our own insignificance and this has been done before in film. I understood what Malick was trying to do but he should have focused solely on the concept of the tree of life. He tried to branch out too far without making anything stick. He should have shown the transitions that take place between father and son and then branch out into it as he goes along so as to form a parallel with past evolutionary developments of existence. A omniscient narrator who does not have to be god could have given people a clue on what it is they are viewing. An actual delineation of the philosophy would have made it palatable to average filmgoers for they would be more willing to accept what it is Malick was trying to say. His artsy images cannot resonate since we have seen them in some shape like this before. A notion of man’s existence should have been articulated. His only theoretical justification is the question of our insignificance as human beings. Does god relate to us in anyway? Has he abandoned us? Are there mechanisms, such as nature, that he leaves behind so as to regulate our behavior and further hide his nature from us? These are good questions to answer and we understand the notions of the life force but Malick should have focused on the tree of life and then regurgitate the many theories of existence. He spends close to 40 minutes on the subject of god’s vastness which could have been reduced to 15. Instead of interspersing it he should have stuck with his initial opening that questions the vastness of nature and grace (a subjective human concept). Instead of allowing it to unfold naturally through the experience of this family it is superimposed on them. They do not come to any self discovery that seems reasonable. In the end there is a beach where people passed on before are preparing to return to the sea from which the first animals came according to evolution. The question is: how did the older jack come to these conclusions from the perspective of the objective realities of earth? His only reasoning seems to be that man has gone to the dogs based on our greed. Man has always gone to the dogs based on this sort of reasoning.
Malick seems to be trying to emphasize the spirituality within us however there is no material determination for this apart from the tree. The question is how far can the tree branch out before it begins to rot? If he did away with these generic images and focused on the concept of the family then he would have made a more interesting film. These grandiose images seem pompous when it is limited to a petty bourgeois family. These grandiose images should have been applied to man as a species. Had he focused on the family he would limit himself to a more palatable and refreshing look at humanity through this microcosm. I understand what he was trying to say however but it seems a bit too far fetched for one family. The music that goes along with these images on screen was generic with its choral arrangements and high pitched opera sound. Stanley Kubrick utilized the music more effectively in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The film will appear too bloated to many and therefore unnecessary. It will seem farcical because there is no justification for Malick to try and recreate evolutionary theory through images. It is because of this that the character of older Jack appears frivolous and the domestic drama is exposed as a shallow enterprise which is reflective of bourgeois ideals associated with money. The father grumbles a lot because he does not have money. If he had money would he be in such a state? It does not seem significant therefore so why try and make it bloated by making it more than what it is. If he wanted to make it significant Malick had to find a way to discuss humanity as a whole and not just a simple bourgeois family. When people die everyday because they have no money to survive how does that tie into these postulations about life? How does he account for murder and the carnivorous type? How does he account for the fact that our existence is determined by each other and not just god? It seems petty in this instance and not far reaching. Why is this family singled out because of one death in the family? Is it a simple bourgeois tragedy that must be treated with the utmost significance by being tied into the cosmos? Does everyone who deals with death come to the same conclusion that we are all wandering on a beach? Kubrick came to some of these conclusions regarding evolution but the focus was always placed on that mysterious monolith that drives man on into the unknown.
Marx was right history repeats itself first as tragedy or a larger than life person or event and twice as farce. 2001: A Space Odyssey was a film larger than life when exploring the destiny of man and Malick tries to make it large but cannot because it is grounded in a pretty insignificant episode.
No comments:
Post a Comment