“What the hell did I just see?” Those are the direct words that ran through my head as I walked out of the premiere of “The Tree of Life” at Cannes. As I looked over at my peers, I realized that they too had dumbfounded and puzzled looks on their faces. Clearly I was not the only one who spent the past two hours arguing with myself trying to contemplate what was happening in the film. Considering the film’s all-star cast, I was extremely disappointed in the lack of a clear storyline and its inability to keep me entertained.
Now, like I said, I am not entirely sure what I saw other than a bunch of clips that made me feel like I was watching Planet Earth mixed with clips of a man reminiscing about his childhood. Nevertheless, I was able to recognize some of what the movie was about. Sean Penn plays an older Jack O’Brien, who begins to question the meaning of things in his life, life in general, and the idea of faith. The film goes back in time to Jack’s childhood in the 1950s, and we learn about his different relationships with both of his parents. His father, played by Brad Pitt, is demeaning, demanding, and often times harsh on Jack (Hunter McCracken) and his two brothers. On the other hand, his mother, played by Jessica Chastain, is loving, caring, and playful with the boys. Such drastic differences between his relationships with each of his parents help us understand why he is questioning so much in his life currently.
On a broader note, the film alternates between showing Jack’s childhood, present day, and shots of nature and the universe. For instance, throughout the film Malick periodically transfers us from Jack’s family playing outside to 15-20 minute segments of dinosaurs, outer-space, canyons, and so on. Naturally, (spoiler alert, sort of) the film ends with the inclusion of all three: the past, the present, and the universe. This is Malick’s way of tying all of this randomness together.
The upsetting part is that I could tell in the very first few minutes of the movie that I did not like it and that it was not going to get any better. The immediate flashes back and forth from present day and the past in conjunction with the hushed voice over made for a confusing and dull film from the get-go. I really got worried the first time Malick transitions to images of the universe and nature. It seemed unique at the beginning, but when it dragged out past 5 minutes, I was getting a little bored and concerned. I mean come on, 15 minutes of Planet Earth-like sequences with no dialogue and classical music in the background does not scream compelling. I kept waiting for the Morgan Freeman voice over that would explain all of this nonsense. At this point, I had already checked my phone at least 3 times, and I was not even in the movie for an hour! Not only was the lack of dialogue and dreary music putting me to sleep, but also when there was a voice over, it was almost inaudible. I had to really pay attention to catch even a snippet of what was being said. Personally, I don’t want to have to work so hard to understand what is being said.
Furthermore, Malick’s decision to explore controversial topics like religious faith, nature, and female roles was rather risky. With so many problematic subjects, I ended up being more mad than happy throughout the film. I was required to be on my toes searching for that underlying message and instead began questioning my own beliefs about the ideas of God, love, forgiveness, grace, and the harsh, more direct ways of nature. Sure frustration is an emotion you feel during most films, but never for the entire duration of a movie. I understand that Malick was trying to convey the different roles of men and women in the 1950s and tying those into the concept of nature versus nurture. He, however, would have been perfectly fine showing this notion without incorporating the useless segments of Planet Earth. I would have enjoyed the film much more if Malick had chosen this path. He would have still gotten his point across perfectly quite simply from the fact that he was showing nature versus nurture through the rolls of Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien: Mr. obviously being the rash way of nature, and Mrs. being the loving, forgiving way of God/faith.
While Brad Pitt did deliver his part well, so much hype revolved around Sean Penn. You can imagine my dissatisfaction when I realized Penn is only present in the film for roughly 20 minutes. And I will say it again, the film was over two hours! In addition to this particularly deceptive piece of information, the overall advertising and trailer for this film was misleading. Nowhere in any of the advertising or the trailer does it warn you of the long and unnecessary nature clips. Pitt, in the advertising, comes across as a loving and gentle person, which is not the case at all. Sean Penn is credited in the trailer way more than is relevant considering his minimal time on screen in the entire production. Overall, the advertising and trailer leads you to believe you are seeing an emotionally driven film starring some big name actors when that is only half of the truth.
If you’re into artistic, controversial subject matter, then “The Tree of Life” is right up your alley. It did win the Palm d’Or, so obviously it did something right; but if you are like most Americans who go to the movies to be entertained, do not waste your money or your time, for that matter, to see “The Tree of Life” in theatres. If you’re willing to spend money at all on a film that will leave you disheveled and confused, your best option is to wait until the film comes out on DVD rental or even cheaper, Red-Box.
Directed by Terrence Malick
Starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken
Distributed by Europacorp Distribution
Running Time 138 minutes
No comments:
Post a Comment