The Tree Of Life

[carllooper]

Terrence Mallick's film, The Tree Of Life, is a beautiful film (shot on 35mm) but a few of my "friends" refer to it as arty, pretentious, etc. One of the stars of the film, Sean Penn (upon seeing the film himself) denigrates the film in the same way.

Taking ownership of the word "pretentious" I respond by saying, that if that film is pretentious, then I very much appreciate pretentious films.

The film is typically misunderstood. Most reviews interpret it at the level of poetry and mystery (whether appreciatively or otherwise). It's certainly poetic. Intensely so. But there is much more to the film than this. It reminds me of 2001 A Space Odyssey. It too is intensely poetic. And it too suffers the same insults (regarding intelligibility). A friend of mine from years ago (the writer/filmmaker behind the series of Saw films) once wrote a review of 2001 (for a 2001 re-release) trying to make fun of the light trip, asking rhetorically what "does it all mean"? While that might have been a question for audiences in 1968 I responded by saying that in 2001 that sort of question no longer held. It is obviously a visualisation of a wormhole. In the new millenium far weirder things had already taken place in the highly popular X Files TV show. If anything 2001 was generally tame by comparison (on the weirdness front). Leigh admitted he was doing no more than re-appropriating reviews from 1968.

Anyway.

The Tree Of Life begins with the loss of a child (the news of which is delivered by letter). We don't know how he died but presumably in war. A grieving mother asks God to give him back. God does so (I'd argue) by creating the universe from scratch. Douglass Trumball special effects issue forth. We witness the evolution of life from it's inception in violent physical forces, through various forms: microbial to jellyfish to dinosaurs to a mother in the 1950s giving birth, and the ensuing childhood of that new life.

In effect the child has been given back.

But it's not necessarily a factually different story the second time around. Presumably he will be taken again. But there is a conceptual difference. One is that we're physically witnessing the story where before we could only have imagined it. The second is at the point in the (re)telling where the son would die again. Instead we see all the actors in the film (including others) gathering on a beach. They appear to be an audience for some sort of art installation on the beach. The mother is there with her child.

The mother kneels down looking skyward and says to God "I give you my child".

The relationship between son and father mirrors, to an extent, the relationship between the mother and God. The father who giveth (eg. the father plays beautiful piano music) and the father who taketh away (eg. the father loses his temper). The son chooses not to kill his father (under the car) - something he could have done, but doesn't. He has decided to love his father instead. Earlier in the bigger narrative (the universe), when a dinosaur decides not to kill another dinosaur it's the same (albeit slightly unconvincing) story. When the mother eventually gives her son to god it is a similar thing. A decision she has made, rather than God. She is powerfully inverting one interpretation "the father who taketh" into another: "the mother who giveth". In this she becomes the equal of God.

I give you my child.

The central story here is the power and beauty of Grace. Sean Penn was not so gracious. Where Terrence Mallick giveth Sean Penn and others taketh away.

Carl

[Nicholas Kovats]

I saw the Tree Of Life as a digital projection considering Mallick insists on film as the acquisition media of choice. In this case both 35mm and 65mm. In fact Trumbull had been asked to replicate some of the analog techniques he utilized on 2001. To what extent I am not sure.

While I am waiting for a 70mm print to re-circulate I predict it will win the Oscar for best picture.

Doug Trumbull was here recently at TIFF whereby he hosted a very well attended public Q/A on 2001's production techniques. I asked what happened to his gorgeous Showscan 65mm 48FPS cameras. He replied that they have been "mothballed" and in fact he stated "film was dead". I was pissed but I didn't feel it was my place to publicly counter what I consider his flippant reply.

He appears to be quite involved in 3D digital acquisition.

But his filmic pedigree is undeniable. His work is technological poetry and compliments Mallicks work beautifully. Lucky for me TIFF has repeated a 70mm film presentation of 2001 over this Christmas season. It is a gorgeous print.

[etimh]

While I absolutely loved Tree of Life and in fact think it is the second best film of the year, the Best Picture nod should definitely go to Hugo. And coming from someone who really despises 3D as I do, I have to say that here it goes way beyond gimmick and is actually part of the essential meaning of the film--the ultimate "magic" possibilities of cinema, etc. (without giving away too much for those that have yet to see it).

Tim