New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

What’s the point of it all, you ask? I cannot say for sure, but my theory is that Malick believes the way we relate to our loved ones is not random, but rather a product of nature, and that our feelings are bound by forces we can’t control, let alone explain. To me, the film argues we do not choose who we love, and therefore we should simply accept them and resist the urge to fight. The film makes it clear that any two things in a relationship first bond, then break apart, and then humbly reconnect before restoring harmony.

Whatever Malick’s actual goal, he pours it on rather thick. There were moments during The Tree of Life when I grew tired, and despite how beautiful and ambitious the effects and photography were, they weren’t always stimulating. It’s not that Malick is pretentious, but he may be too in love with his own artistic vision, so much, in fact, it prevents him from trusting us to interpret the film on our own and draw our own conclusions. By constantly bombarding us with the same types of images and themes, it’s almost like he’s telling us the film should only be read a certain way. But this is a case where the old adage “less is more” would’ve come in handy, because if 20 minutes were trimmed from this film, it would have been much that much tighter, effective and ambiguous. As it is, it leaves us a lot to think about, but I think it could have left us more by allowing itself to be open-ended. By overexerting us with the same images and dialogue, each asset takes on less meaning.

If there’s one thing the film does extremely well, it’s the re-creation of those ineffable childhood moments that, when we think about them, put us right back in a specific time and place. They could be the times we fought or laughed with our siblings and parents; or ran around the entire neighborhood like it was our own back yard; or listened to crickets chirping on warm summer nights; or threw rocks into water just to hear the sound they’d make; or looked our parents and siblings in the eye after we caused them pain. Malick probably channeled his own childhood experiences to get this effect, but they feel universal and are recreated uncannily.

It may sound like I’ve written more of an essay than a review, but that’s because I’m not entirely sure how I feel about The Tree of Life. It’s a film that’s more interesting to analyze than criticize. On one level, I applaud Malick for continuing to go a greater distance than most directors and wanting to challenge his audience’s film-watching endurance, but on another, the film can be exacting and it’s easy to become disengaged while watching it.

I mentioned it’s a film I need to see again to better appreciate, but it’s not a film I necessarily want to see again. I responded to its images and themes, but I also lost interest in it the more it pounded these things into me. In the end, I was touched, frustrated and in a state of wonder. That combination of reactions makes it difficult to say whether or not you should see the film, especially if you’re seeking entertainment. But think about this way: how many other film make can you feel this way? The Tree of Life is definitely one-of-a-kind, but not always in the best or most fulfilling ways.

Continued:       1       2