Grandiose. A single adjective that the dictionary defines as impressive or magnificent in appearance/style and excessively grand or ambitious. As soon as I left the doors of my local multiplex, I began to ponder on what my answer would be when my friends or colleagues inevitably asked me: 'What did you think of the movie?' There is no way I could begin to accurately describe the narrative to them (I doubt very few could). Furthermore, they will never understand the emotion I felt throughout this cinematic experience, as it was not shared. Therefore, I was left with only one confidant on which to unburden myself of all the thoughts and feelings I'd kept inside for the past 139 minutes. A fellow journalist, a film lover and my partner-in-crime at nearly all my cinema viewings during the past year or so. More importantly than of all that though, this is a person that I knew would give me their brutal, honest opinion on what had just transpired on the screen.
He didn't enjoy it. At all. We spent the next twenty minutes discussing everything from the actors to the narrative (hell, even religion and the dawn of time entered into the conversation!). This exchange of words took place against a backdrop of thunder and lightning as the rage of the rain beated down on the figures below. I leaned across and stared out the glass walls of the cinema. Truly, there has never been a better example of pathetic fallacy in the 24 years I've been on this planet. After the film had ended, all of my fellow punters left the auditorium in complete silence. A first for me, which is surprising given that 'Cineworld' is practically my second home. The thunder roared against the lofty, glass panelled roof. The harshness of the weather in the middle of summer. The eerie silence as we exited Screen 12. The divided opinions. I gazed up and couldn't help thinking it was all connected. Like I was having some out-of-body experience. In that second, I felt like my life was being directed by Terrence Malick. And that's when I started to understand 'The Tree of Life'.
Let's start by saying this is a Malick film. For those unfamiliar with his work, it's like going to see a Tarantino or Scorsese film. You enter into an invisible contract in which you expect certain connotations and stylistic elements to go along with that particular director. Malick is no different. Google his name and you will see a whole host of interesting words crop up. Genius. Recluse. Sound. Sight. These four words pretty much sum up the essence of a Texan man who is revered by critics, seen as an enigma by the media and perhaps misunderstood by many film fans. Malick has made four films previous to 'The Tree of Life'. The first two have been dubbed 'classics'. The last two didn't fare as well against close scrutiny. Still, there's no denying that Malick pours his heart and soul into every single movie and is the only director that shows beauty on screen in its rawest form.
Needless to say, going into 'The Tree of Life', I had a lot of preconceptions. I'd read all of the Cannes 'buzz' (if you're not aware, this film won the coveted Palme D'Or award - which in itself was controversial to many in attendance). I'd also read Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) singing Malick's praises and awarding it the full five star treatment. Still, I wanted to go in with a fresh perspective and make my own mind up about 'The Tree of Life'. Yes I'm a Malick fan but that doesn't mean I agree with every cinematic choice he makes.
The loose narrative of 'The Tree of Life' is essentially split into three sections. We have Sean Penn living his life in the modern world as an architect, who spends his time dwelling on thoughts of the past. We then have the flashbacks to his childhood, living with an authoritarion father (Brad Pitt), angelic, naive mother (Jessica Chastain) and three brothers. This section makes up the main crux of the film's plot (which is very fragmented). Footage of the dawn of time/birth of creation is interspersed with these scenes and Malick spends a good 15 minutes examining this. The majority of the film is spent following Penn as a boy (played by Hunter McCracken). The ending goes into a completely different tangent that is best described as being 'heaven-like'. The films begins with the death of the one of the three brothers.
If reading that sypnosis makes you head spin, then you're in good company. I didn't fully understood a large portion of the 'The Tree of Life'. While you may think this is a bad thing, I assure you it's not. Malick is merely presenting the world through his eyes. It's the birth of nature which can be both beautiful and a cruel mistress. He is showing us how our childhoods can shape and affect our futures. It's a bold move for a bold director but it's one that doesn't quite pay off. During the lengthy 'birth of time' scenes, I glanced around the cinema to see a lot of confused, uninterested faces. If I'm honest, even I found it tough to comprehend what was happening. Halfway through a woman got up out of her seat and left. Apparently, this has been happening frequently across America. It's a real shame because in order to get the most out of Malick's movie, you have to be patience and willing to invest your time in the film.
It's safe to say that this isn't going to be a film that will suit everyone's taste. It has more in common with early Kubrick films like '2001' than anything we've seen in recent years. 'The Tree of Life has great strengths - namely the acting (especially the young McCracken), the beauty of the visuals (no living director can touch Malick on this) and the sound (a haunting score by Alexandre Desplat). Its flaws then lie in its disjointed, often baffling narrative and the religious issue. This is something I want to touch upon briefly. Malick uses the idea of 'God' throughout 'The Tree of Life' so frequently, that at times it can feel slightly suffocating. The message he is trying to deliver is a positive one but I can't help feeling that maybe it's being forced on the audience a little too much. There's one scene with two dinosaurs (don't ask) which is so completely abstract that you don't even question what it's supposed to mean. Malick should cut this for the DVD version. Oh and on that point - there's a supposed six hour extended cut of 'The Tree of Life' in the works. You can't say the man's not ambitious!
One final point in a review which perhaps could be conceived as slightly pretentious (interesting that this is the same criticism garnered towards 'The Tree of Life'). In the past week I watched this and 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon'. Halfway through the latter, I considered walking out as it's the worst film I've ever seen. It's interesting that nobody walked out of a film which is so patronising and overly simplistic that it's borderline offensive. Yet as soon as Malick presents the general public with something slightly intellectual and different, they're in uproar about it. The next time you hear someone moan about the 'state of cinema' after seeing yet another terrible 3D blockbuster, tell them it's not the studios or the multiplexes that need to change their habits - it's you.
No comments:
Post a Comment