Terence Malick is one of the most interesting directors in Hollywood. He made two films in the 1970s, both highly regarded as some of the best films of that decade, then stopped making films for 20 years, releasing the Thin Red Line, an extremely famous war film, in 1998, famous for containing cameos or supporting roles from almost every major actor in Hollywood at the time. In 2005, he made the New World, which received mixed reviews on release, but has since been regarded as one of the best films of the 2000s. And now, in 2011, he has made the Tree of Life. Now, aside from the Tree of Life, I had only seen the New World. I saw it shortly after it came out, and being 12 at the time, I thought it was ok, but nothing special. Since then, I have learned the history and reputation of Terence Malick, one of the most elusive, compelling, and brilliant directors in Hollywood today, and in the history of cinema.
Going into this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I knew the basic plot, and that was it. I knew of the "creation of life" sequence, the 50s storyline, and the modern-day storyline. I had heard all the reviews, praising this film, and I could tell it would blow me away. However, I was completely worried, mostly because of the "creation of life" sequence. What was it, and what was the point of it? However, I was mostly optimistic. And you know what? This film blew me away.
Now while it did blow me away, after the first hour, the film starts to feel like it drags. Let me explain. the first 10-15 minutes is just a setup of the basic plot. We meet Jack O'Brien, in two different timelines (Sean Penn in the modern-day storyline, and Hunter McCracken in the 50s storyline). I don't really want to spoil the plot, so the only other thing I will reveal is in the 50s storyline, the main characters are Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien (both played brilliantly by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain), but seen through the eyes of young Jack. I imagine that the 50s storyline is partly based off of Malick's own childhood, as the setting of the film, Waco, Texas, is the town he grew up in. And it certainly is interesting, especially in the beginning, as we see the children being raised. But after a good while of that, it can be boring, because we've seen it already. It still is good, but it drags on a bit.
That is the only negative about this film. Everything else is a tremendous positive. Brad Pitt is at his best here. He plays a father who genuinely loves his children, but he doesn't know how to show it. Due to this, he ends up beating his children. Very typical of a father in the 50s. You can see the love he feels for his children, but he doesn't now how to express it, and gets very angry over it. Pitt was tremendous at doing this, and I'd have to say, he has a very good chance at winning the Academy Award for Best Actor. I think Leonardo DiCaprio will blow me away when J. Edgar comes out, but I have hope for Brad Pitt.
Jessica Chastain does just as good, but is playing the exact opposite role. She does genuinely love her children, like her husband, but does know how to express it. For her, it's essentially by being a child with them. She constantly plays with them, and acts like she's more of a friend. She does however remain in the motherly role, by enforcing the rules when they are needed. Jessica Chastain was great in this role, and I'd have to say the same about her as I did for Brad Pitt. Jessica Chastain can act like a loving mother extremely well. She's got a good chance at winning the Academy Award for Best Actress this year.
I'm not exactly sure what Terence Malick was thinking when writing this film. Combining a story about the raising of children with the creation of life is an extremely odd choice. Oddly, it works. It really works. The 50s storyline in particular is rather brilliant, not just because of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, but because it feels like the 50s. I couldn't help but compare this to Carnivale, a show that used to air on HBO. There are many similar things between these two shows, but the major comparison I found was in the design. Carnivale was set in the 1930s, and looked like it. There were dust storms everywhere, the buildings were breaking down, and the people wore ragged clothes, covered in dust. In this film, it genuinely looks like the 1950s. There are aluminum cups, the kids wear button down shirts, and all the streets are filled with white houses. I think this is more proof that the 50s storyline was based off of Malick's own childhood, because he got the 50s right. He was a child then, so it only makes sense that he would know the 50s.
Now, I'd like to talk about the "creation of life" sequence. The first 15 minutes establish the plot of the film, but the next 20 are this sequence. It's very odd. Essentially, it is a visual representation of the creation of the earth, life, and a basic history of life. It is beautiful, and visually mesmerizing. It makes you think, and ask the questions that we have all asked at one point or another. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What's the point of it all? It's phenomenal, superb, sublime. There aren't enough positive words to describe it. But what is the point of it in the film? What is its relevance?
We see this after Jack O'Brien, the modern-day version, starts to question his life, and remember. Why is this what we see, as opposed to his beginnings? All throughout the sequence, we here Jack, and various other characters, including his parents and young Jack, asking existential questions, the same ones we've asked ourselves. The only reason I can see for it to be in this film is a juxtaposition of his life against the earth, in an attempt to figure out life, and try to find the answers to those questions he has. It's confusing, it makes you think, and most of all, it mesmerizes. It's a truly brilliant sequence, and takes this film from a very good film, to the best film of the year.
Overall, this film is extremely enjoyable, but there are many people who wouldn't enjoy it. If you love film, and love just how brilliant it can be sometimes, this is the film for you. It reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the "creation of life" sequence. It's not easy to find (I live in Toronto, and couldn't find it here, I just happened to find it while on vacation in Vancouver, strangely enough), but if you can find it, go see it. This film deserves your money. Let's try to get this in as many theatres as we can. Overall, I give this film a 9.5/10, truly brilliant.
I'm not exactly sure what Terence Malick was thinking when writing this film. Combining a story about the raising of children with the creation of life is an extremely odd choice. Oddly, it works. It really works. The 50s storyline in particular is rather brilliant, not just because of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, but because it feels like the 50s. I couldn't help but compare this to Carnivale, a show that used to air on HBO. There are many similar things between these two shows, but the major comparison I found was in the design. Carnivale was set in the 1930s, and looked like it. There were dust storms everywhere, the buildings were breaking down, and the people wore ragged clothes, covered in dust. In this film, it genuinely looks like the 1950s. There are aluminum cups, the kids wear button down shirts, and all the streets are filled with white houses. I think this is more proof that the 50s storyline was based off of Malick's own childhood, because he got the 50s right. He was a child then, so it only makes sense that he would know the 50s.
Now, I'd like to talk about the "creation of life" sequence. The first 15 minutes establish the plot of the film, but the next 20 are this sequence. It's very odd. Essentially, it is a visual representation of the creation of the earth, life, and a basic history of life. It is beautiful, and visually mesmerizing. It makes you think, and ask the questions that we have all asked at one point or another. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What's the point of it all? It's phenomenal, superb, sublime. There aren't enough positive words to describe it. But what is the point of it in the film? What is its relevance?
We see this after Jack O'Brien, the modern-day version, starts to question his life, and remember. Why is this what we see, as opposed to his beginnings? All throughout the sequence, we here Jack, and various other characters, including his parents and young Jack, asking existential questions, the same ones we've asked ourselves. The only reason I can see for it to be in this film is a juxtaposition of his life against the earth, in an attempt to figure out life, and try to find the answers to those questions he has. It's confusing, it makes you think, and most of all, it mesmerizes. It's a truly brilliant sequence, and takes this film from a very good film, to the best film of the year.
Overall, this film is extremely enjoyable, but there are many people who wouldn't enjoy it. If you love film, and love just how brilliant it can be sometimes, this is the film for you. It reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the "creation of life" sequence. It's not easy to find (I live in Toronto, and couldn't find it here, I just happened to find it while on vacation in Vancouver, strangely enough), but if you can find it, go see it. This film deserves your money. Let's try to get this in as many theatres as we can. Overall, I give this film a 9.5/10, truly brilliant.
No comments:
Post a Comment