a sentimental life
by Douglas Messerli
Terrence Malick (screenwriter and
director) The Tree of Life / 2011
"There are two ways through
life: the way of nature, and the way of Grace. You have to choose which one
you'll follow"
—Mrs. O'Brien in The Tree of Life
Winner of the 2011 Cannes Film
Festival's Palme d'Or and recipient of substantial critical praise to date, the
movie I saw this past weekend was one of the most portentously pretentious
paeans to American piety that I have ever witnessed. While one might certainly
call Malick's The Tree of Life
ambitious, the work was stretched so thin that its three parts almost snapped
their sinews, leaving behind a tattered tale of the American dream of the
1950s.
Poor Jack O'Brien (Sean Penn), an extremely wealthy architect living in
(what I presume is) contemporary Houston, is in a funk, a real depression,
conveyed from the moment he dresses for the office and continues while he
drearily performs the tasks of his business day and prepares himself for his
return home.
Raised as a devout Christian (Roman Catholic), Jack is still unable to
understand how a beloved creator can also destroy, how a caring parent can hurt
their children. The film begins with a quote from Job, and God's torments of
Job are repeated as a theme throughout.
Jack's first cries (presented in voice-over) parallel those of numerous
literary children, most notably the child in James Agee's poem "Knoxville,
Summer of 1915," who puzzles that none of the beloved family around him
can tell him "who I am." And how, moreover, can one ever come to
comprehend one's own life without being able to reconcile a loving God with a
destructive one? These are not stupid questions to be waved away, although they
certainly have been voiced countless times. There are, of course, no answers
for true believers. As priests and ministers have repeated over and over (and
so do friends in this movie), "God acts in mysterious ways."
In order to explore this dilemma, Malick apparently feels he must take
us back to the creation, and spends a long portion of his film with images from
lush microbiological pictures, National
Geographic-like spreads of oceans,
Icelandic and Hawaiian volcanoes, marine life and other animals, and, finally,
though his visual effects supervisor, Dan Glass, animations of dinosaurs, both
preying upon others and in the throes of death. The publicity department
described these scenes as not being narratively linked to the other parts of
the film, and certainly there is some
At least, this is what Malick seems to intimate. Unfortunately, the images he tosses out, while quite beautiful, in this cinematic context almost become kitsch as Malick takes all those stunning scientific and geographical images and frames them, as if to say, here is my art. Do we really need to see frame after frame of whirling waters, fiery volcanoes, swirls of various early invertebrates and plants, and unconvincing animations of ancient animals, to comprehend that everything in life is interrelated, that there is, to use Malick's transparent symbol, a tree of life?
At least now the brooding Jack can focus on family itself, as the
director turns his attention to Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien (the beautiful couple of
Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain) of Waco, Texas, beginning with their early
years as a couple and growing a family of what eventually become three boys,
Jack, R. L, and Steve.
As in his other films, Malick works less through narratively
conventional scenes than through a series of fast-moving images. As film critic
Dave Kehr (in his 2011 collection of reviews, When Movies Mattered) describes Malick's Days of Heaven, so too might we characterize the director's
approach to The Tree of Life:
Throughout the film,
the director seems remarkably stingy
with his visual
creations. A brief glimpse is all we are given of
a particular
composition, and then Malick is off to something
else, rarely granting
us the leisure to contemplate and assima-
late the images he
puts before us. If this movie is a coffee
table book, someone
is turning the pages too fast. For all the
languor of the plot, Days of Heaven plays like a taut, driven
film,
relentless in its
rhythm, hurrying the viewer along from image
to image, scene to
scene, tableau to tableau. The dialogue
scenes, few and far
between, are terse, clipped. Exchanges
seldom last longer
than three or four lines, as Malick insists
on cutting away just
as the characters seem ready to reveal
themselves.
In one scene, in particular, I recognize the appropriateness of Malick's
technique. An elderly man suddenly falls to the ground, suffering what seems to
be a seizure, while in the foreground the mother draws her children to her,
moving in the other direction, as if to protect them from what is probably the
death of their grandfather. If we blinked we could miss the entire scene, but
obviously Jack has subliminally witnessed it in a split-second that reminds us of
another young child of cinema, from Carson McCullers' A Member of the Wedding, Frankie Addams' quick glimpse of boys
sexually intertwined in an alley.
The trouble is that in shooting this glowingly-lit world of the 1950s,
the camera becomes mannered, lingering endlessly on the strawberry-haired
mother and the serious-minded music-loving father. The boys are all action,
racing through the streets with sticks, cans, and other play toys with which
boys have done battle since the beginning of time. In the fairly well-to-do
neighborhood in which the O'Briens live, lights come on with a golden aura,
children are called inside, and meals are served with formal pleasure. It is a
flow of Norman Rockwell scenes that, at times, is so saccharine that I was
afraid my teeth might rot. And, of course, there are trees, one tree in
particular, that the camera, obviously flat upon the ground, looks longingly up
at again and again and again.
Just as in that earlier film, Malick associates the shadowy figures of The Tree of Life with different natural
elements. Mrs. O'Brien—a woman who believes less in nature than in grace,
representative in the film of (who'd have guessed?) love ("Unless you
love, your life will flash by," she tells her son)—is associated with
water, as she sprays that element over the yard again and again, gracefully
washing her feet in the pulse of the hose.
Mr. O'Brien—a would-be musical artist, disappointed with his job, but
determined to make the best of it—is tied to the earth, warning his son to make
something of his life, continually insisting that he learn the simplest of
gardening skills so that he might redeem their Eden. The impossibility of that
redemption is what begins to transform him into a stern taskmaster, as
simultaneously he turns his son against him and nature itself, the force he has
chosen to obey.
That transformation, finally, is the most satisfying element of Malick's
prose song to everyday American life. As one might not have perceived back
then, the tensions between his parents, his secret witness of death and
intimations of evil, ultimately begin to show up in psychological
manifestations that include violence, breaking and entering, petty robbery, and
even thoughts of patricide. He's on his way to becoming what we would have
called a "bad kid." Disobedience clearly is the only way he can begin
to define himself. In short, he associates himself with the element of fire,
forging eventually the world of steel and glass he later inhabits.
In this rebellion he even comes to torture his beloved younger and more
passive brother, a child who, like his father, is musically inclined, but
gentler, lighter in manner, almost air-born, returned to them in the film's
earliest scenes as a body borne by an airplane.
A temporary resolution comes in the form of the humbling of the
ambitious father, as he loses his job, and they must move to another town or
house. Father and son draw closer in the crisis, while his mother slides into
silence. But the guilt of that childhood rebellion remains. Self-hate is
inevitable, and we finally come to suspect it is what Jack describes as his
life-long wrestling with his mother and father within that has brought this
successful man to such a terminus.
The last scenes in Malick's film, while inevitable I suppose, are the
emptiest, revealing just how vacuous is the director's vision. Exhausted by his
memories, Jack plays out various Jungian tropes along with visions of an
afterlife in a desert landscape, following figures of his mother, father, and
brothers until he reaches a door frame through which, with some hesitation, he
passes only to discover himself now walking a beach upon which the dead stroll
in small groupings, greeting and holding one another with tenderness and love.
To me it resembles something like a Mormon vision of the afterlife, a world
into which I would never want to be reborn. But to Malick, clearly, it is a
grand resolution to the questions Jack has posed: Who am I? Who is our creator?
What is the purpose of life?
The film closes with an image of a bridge, connecting, quite obviously,
Jack's past and present, while symbolizing his trip home to his possibly
redeemed relationship.
Thinking back to my dismissals of the Coen brothers' approach to some of
the same questions in their 2009 film A
Serious Man, I now feel a little guilty; at least they had a sense of
adolescent humor about it all. Malick is dead serious, and clearly doesn't give
a damn about those of us who don't share his angst and ready-made solutions.
I am certain that those who desperately seek out this kind of spiritual
reconfirmation, will love this film. If nothing else, one has to admire Malick
for considering these issues and for presenting them in way that Hollywood
producers might not have allowed. Yet, it seems to me that he might have been
better served by an old-fashioned studio head shouting out, "Cut the
crap!"
Los Angeles, May 30, 2011
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment