Over the last couple of nights, I watched the film "The Tree of Life" on Netflix DVD. I've enjoyed all the Netflix movies that I've chosen so far, some more than others, but "The Tree of Life' was the absolute worst. The movie was filled with beautiful images, some from the Hubble telescope, others such as a view of the silhouette of an actor projected against sunlight shining through trees, with a soundtrack that includes Brahms, Bach, and Schumann, along with original music, but - hey! - where's the story? A character comes on the scene, we see images, strange landscapes, then the character thinks or talks in a low voice, mostly to her/himself. (Before the movie begins, the viewer is instructed to turn the volume to loud. Good advice.) What's going on? I broke my viewing into two parts, because I was bored/impatient/mystified. The actors, especially the young boys, were very good when the camera was on them, which it was far too little of the time. There is a story in the movie, but it's broken in pieces and lost in interruptions that serve to lengthen the movie to over two hours to no good purpose.
I went back to read the reviews again, because I always check them out before I put movies in my Netflix queue, and more than 80% of the critics gave the movie positive reviews, but when I went to audience reviews, it was a different story. The moviegoers either loved the movie or they hated it. The scores were either 0 or 10. I'd score it far on the low end, either 1 or 0.
The Tree of Life is nonetheless a singular work, an impressionistic metaphysical inquiry into mankind’s place in the grand scheme of things that releases waves of insights amid its narrative imprecisions. This fifth feature in Terrence Malick’s eccentric four-decade career is a beauteous creation that ponders the imponderables, asks the questions that religious and thoughtful people have posed for millennia and provokes expansive philosophical musings along with intense personal introspection.Crikey! If I'd read the overblown review from Cannes beforehand I'd have known not to put the movie in my queue, that it was not for little me of "the masses". I ask you, what would I know about "great, heady things", me of "the wider public"? The film won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. Not for everyone, surely. Not for me.
As such, it is hardly a movie for the masses and will polarize even buffs, some of whom might fail to grasp the connection between the depiction of the beginnings of life on Earth and the travails of a 1950s Texas family. But there are great, heady things here, both obvious and evanescent, more than enough to qualify this as an exceptional and major film. Critical passions, pro and con, along with Brad Pitt in one of his finest performances will stir specialized audiences to attention, but Fox Searchlight will have its work cut out for it in luring a wider public.
Movie poster from Wikipedia.
I recently watched that myself, not sure what I would think. Having read the great reviews and the reviews that were not so great, I did not know. Some friends of mine had loved it, others - well, not so much. So I was not at all sure what my experience would be.
ReplyDeleteAnd I loved it.
Yet I can understand why many would not.
I just felt swept away in it all, but it was not easy to watch. It was one of those movies that I was not sure that I liked until the very end.
In a way, I can understand why you liked the movie, Fran. When you say you were swept away, I think that is a key point, and either you're swept away, or you're not, and of you're not then the film is difficult to watch. I thought the end was creepy, most unsatisfying.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAwesome movie! The images, the music, the underlying story! Pompous, yes, but its virtue was in forcing you to stop and think "What the hell was that?"
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Clumber
Ozzie, the beautiful images, the lovely music, the fine, underlying story, all that was there, but it was not put together in a way that I found in any way satisfying. I was impatient, and even a little angry at myself that I wasted my time. Trust me when I say that I don't mind movies that make me think.
DeleteThere were two things in this movie that particularly struck me.
ReplyDeleteOne was how it captured growing up in Texas in the '50's. As one who grew up close by, at about that time, I found the portrayal pretty remarkable, bringing back memories and feelings long lost.
The other was the theme articulated, if I remember correctly, in the first lines, the difference between the way of nature and the way of grace. I think the film was attempting to see life through those distinct lenses, a very old, very Christian approach not exactly on the frontburner of most movies.
I would add that I don't blame you for your reaction. A movie like this is much better seen in a theater, where the lights go out and all your attention is focused on nothing else. Last night my wife and I watched the moving conclusion of the BBC's recent version of Bleak House--that is, when I wasn't trying to get the dogs to quit barking at the neighbors or answering robocalls from politcal pollsters.
Rick, there's a gem of a story hidden away in the movie, and that's part of what made me dislike it, for much of the other stuff, although well done, distracted from the wonderful story.
DeleteI don't think seeing the film in a theater would have made much difference. I probably would have been angrier because it would have cost so much more. When I watched, there were no interruptions but those of my own doing, because I simply could not get into the movie.
The mystique of being in a dark theater with no distractions is very appealing, but a good many of the movies I want to see don't even show around here, I suppose because they're too arty. And the cost of an evening at a theater is becoming ridiculous.
PS: Thank you all for weighing in. I'm outnumbered 3 to 1, so I see it's not just the snobs amongst the critics who enjoyed the movie. :-) Anthony Lane in The New Yorker pretty much agrees with me, which makes me feel somewhat better. I must have read his review when the movie came out but had forgotten until I reread it last night.
ReplyDeleteI very much enjoyed the film, but James did not, for many of the same reasons you note. Perhaps it takes a specific mindset to enjoy what is essentially an "elegy" on the smallness of human existence in the scope of the cosmos -- very much like the Book of Job, with which the film shares a good deal in the way of theme, and also the mixed reviews!
ReplyDeleteTobias, the scenes from Texas were beautifully and authentically done, and I wanted more of them, and less of the rest. Please thank James for helping my ego to recover. We are now 4 to 2, and I no longer stand alone here. :-)
Delete