Like the great Stanley Kubrick, Terence Malick makes films only when and how he wants them to be made. The immediate analogy that springs to mind when watching THE TREE OF LIFE (Terence Malick, Fox Searchlight, 2011) is Kubrick's opus 2001. There are stunning visuals, a wonderfully juxtaposed musical arrangement for those visuals, superb special effects, an examination of the human condition and a narrative that is not easily followed. The result is a marvelous film, one that can be viewed over and again and interpreted in a multitude of ways by the viewer of the film.
A multitude of visually beautiful shots is the first and foremost thing that springs to mind when viewing the film. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki accomplished a Herculean job with the film. As I watched all I kept thinking about the cinematography was how many setups they did. The number was astronomical (again, Kubrick). The shots were all unique as well, it wasn't as if they set up their shot and then just re-positioned the camera multiple times. And the depth and intricacy was breathtaking. You can watch the film silently and just be awed by the work Lubezki and Malick accomplished.
Malick pulled a trick from Kubrick's bag by placing these visually stunning images against a lyrical and beautiful score. This use of sound, placing the images with sound that really doesn't pertain to the images, is masterful. The images, which seemingly clash, are brought together by the flow of the music. The musical choices also serve to further the film as a work of art.
The special effects alone can be seen as a work of art. Here, Malick used the genius of special effects man Douglas Trumbull. After viewing the film I read up on Trumbull and the man worked on some impressive films and much like Malick reclusively avoids Hollywood. But the real treat is to learn that they created many of the effects without computers, and did them the "old fashioned" way. The fact that Malick used Trumbull also gives the film more of that Kubrick feel to it.
Finally, the narrative is similar to a Kubrick one in that it is hard to follow and gives an examination of the human condition. Malick uses a non linear format for his narrative and this form, combined with a story that isn't explained to its audience by simplifying it makes for a hard to follow film. This is okay though, films do not have to be explained fully for our enjoyment. Part of films greatness lies in individual interpretation and Malick provides it for us here wonderfully.
Malick also provides a nice parallel examination of two father/son relationships. The first of these is the relationship between Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt) and young Jack (Hunter McCracken). The strained relationship between the two, one bred of fear and misunderstanding, is a microcosm of underlying tensions in America during the late fifties and early sixties. One has to wonder, knowing Malick is from Waco, TX (one of the films settings) and his age, if this isn't a semi autobiographical narrative storyline? And the second father/ son relationship is the examination of our bigger struggle with God. How Mr. O'Brien treats Jack (and Jack's confusion towards this treatment) parallels our own confusion towards God. Malick brilliantly weaves the two narrative themes.
The film is not for a mass audience. My initial reaction was to think that I knew why so many had disliked the film. That said, I think the film was amazing and beautiful, deserving of its Oscar nomination and something to be watched and interpreted for years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment