Tree of Life

A review of Tree of Life.

I want to offer a critique of Tree of Life that doesn't resort to mindless populist ideas such as boredom and lack of story and not providing a neat and tidy, Hollywood-esque formula. It strikes me there is a reflexive admiration of certain types of films that manage to go against the grain and exist outside the corporate demands of Hollywood amongst many cinephiles. It is as if to win Canne or Sundance or be the late work of a master (or better yet, both) is enough to garner all sorts of admiration and praise and to be a litmus test of whether you love cinema. I find this attitude different, but equally maddening, to the suggestion that box office receipts can be equated with "success." I think we are too easy, in a way, on filmmakers we admire simply because we lack an alternative. Because we hate the work of Michael Bay, we must love the work of Terrence Malik, or something along those lines.

I don't think it, because I don't feel it. I saw Tree of Life and wanted to love the film. I made a point of seeing it in the theater, alone, with a coffee, for maximum concentration. I was ready to be blown away. I've been looking for inspiration all around. I've been reading about God and virtue and other topics recently, as these things have begun to interest me, as they haven't much before. So I seemed primed to be into this film. And yet I wasn't.

And it wasn't because the film wasn't "Hollywood" or neat or emotionally "satisfying" whatever that means. I found it rather pat. I found the characters rather uninteresting. An abusive father who regrets choices he made. An angelic mother. Sibling rivals. I've seen these things before...and a level of complexity I was expecting just wasn't there. Surely, it was beautiful. And the performances - particular of the boys - were great. But therein lies the problem. It is always when you break down elements of a film to praise, when the elements become the first thing to be discussed, it is then you realize you are talking about a lesser work. In Days of Heaven, the first thing you discuss is the cinematography. In Badlands, you don't discuss the cinematography. You gush - in awe - about how someone could of made such a masterpiece for their first film. You are offended you hadn't seen the film earlier.

All movies can't be masterpieces of course. And Tree of Life is certainly worth seeing if you are a cinema buff. But I can't recommend the movie to regular people. I remember looking at my watch in the theater. I thought the preview was much better than the movie. Those three indications suggest I didn't like the movie, in the same way when you avoid answering the phone when the girl you are seeing is ringing, or when you make excuses for not having sex, these are the early warning signals that something isn't working.

I don't doubt the amounts of praised heaped of Tree of Life are honest. Certainly, we all do not need to agree on all movies, and who is to say one experiences in these things. And timing matters. And expectations. But the fact that I can't imagine rewatching the film strikes me that something is missing and I don't know - movies can be many things - but I don't feel they ought to be a struggle. There are better mediums for stuff like that.