"Nonsense at its best"

Title: The Tree of Life
Year: 2011
Genre: Drama
Director: Terrence Malick
Writer: Terrence Malick
Runtime: 139min
Cast: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken, Sean Penn
Produc.: Brave Cove Productions, Cottonwood Pictures, Plan B Entertainment, River Road Entertainment
Budget: $32 million approx.

In The Tree of Life we meet the O'Briens, a family of the 50's, where Mrs. O'Brien (Jessica Chastain) is the loving mother and Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pit), a hard father who raises their children in a very strict and controversial way. Jack (Hunter McCracken), one of those kids, who after going through that childhood, once adult (played by Sean Penn) won´t be able to forget those moments so far away, that changed his life forever. 

After six years of absence behind the cameras, Terrence Malick has returned to the director's chair. This time to devote to a movie whose plot is simpler than its execution. 

There are those who claim to have perfectly understood it and to have been captivated by its unfolding, especially, in a visual level. Others, however, say to have not understood anything at all, and this is partly, understandable. 

What in it is stressed out, is the clear need to watch it, with the senses quite sharpen. This is, because it´s almost certain that if you were thinking of something else, you would end up letting out some essential elements of its thread. 

Something that struck me, even, before having seen it, was to run, on the Internet, with reviews ranging from those who had loved it, to those who had hated it. This curious fact made me become more analytical. Considering that The Tree of Life is not easy to digest and that Malick himself has taken care of complicating our existence, I would say that it is not odd that many feel confused and upset (and even, a little bit mad with this man) and might wonder what on earth did he intended, with this unique cocktail of images. 

Several hundred people who went through a before and after this experience, decided, without even noticing, to join into two different streams of very extremist views, each of which was completely opposite to the other. On the one hand would be the Malick worshipers, to whom the veteran director had been able to convey very strong feelings and to touch them deep inside, and therefore, saw in the movie the excellence of a filmmaker whose sensitivity was extraordinary. 

On the other hand would be those who, feeling insulted, would be able to throw it into the toilet and flush it away. The Tree of Life would not even qualify as a consumable product, in the eyes of its members, but as the meaningless indifferent assembly of several sequences, taken and mixed by a man without much clarity of ideas. 

In the end, I still have some questions. For example, if those who claimed to have grasped the message without difficulty, had actually achieved it. Or, if any, had maybe played a key role, one´s level of understanding. That is, if perhaps to tune in with Malick in his complicated odyssey, had maybe been essential to, whether, be very smart, or have a high level of "cinephile culture" already built up. 

All these would represent valid alternatives. Although I believe, that many of those who had the nerve to say that they got everything right away, have not been sincere even with themselves. There are people for whom the more complicated and intelligible a film is, the more they like it, who knows why, and who are able to look for the fifth paw to the cat, where sometimes, in fact, there is nothing there.These geeks, who enjoy pretending to be the enlightened consumers of the “good cinema”, one could hear them mention under the label of snobs, although, this is incorrect. 

Another element to consider responds to the ease that some people has when praising certain films over others. Lets suppose that Malick had approached it in a different way, with the traditional narrative, with a beginning, middle and end, all, well defined. The question that arises to me is if these intellectuals, enthusiast of the odd, would dare, to this approach, to stand out with the same excitement. Or perhaps, having in hand a flick of too lineal content, could lead them to put into question its apparent, narrative quality. 

With already a few films under my belt, some, more simple, and others less so, some more linear, and others, not so much, I believe to have been relatively well trained when to judge, when one has stood out for its good use of the cinematic expression, and I do not think that approaching an idea in a simple, linear way, understandable and uncomplicated, can often mean nothing more than, that it has come to the right filmmaker or filmmakers. Because "simplicity" should not be confused with "poverty." Erroneous would be to think that, by telling a story through the more direct of the languages, you were sinning by a lack of "artistic stamp." Such language, translated into an effort to make us reason and not wanting to give us the information already diggested, so that we squeeze our brain. 

Any good director should be able to reach out the mass audiences without falling into the offensive and ridiculous simplicity. Then, that a director wanted to shoot something just for himself, of more than three hours, in silent cinema, and told, for example, in one single shot, fixed and frontal, would also be permissible, why not? But, then. Better forget about exposing it to a wide audience, because the personal whims of a filmmaker are just his business and no one elses. Otherwise, should better wake up and forget about his absurd fantasies, leave aside the nonsense and produce something for which nobody will want to hang him. 

I think that, a more or less lucid director is one that, beyond his artistic and/or financial interests, would care to attract and not repel, his audience. I do not see nothing more pleasant and comforting that to know that when you expose your work, the halls of the theaters are going to be quite or very full, and thus, you were going to be able to convey your viewers a certain personal perception of something your care about. On this basis, if then they started to fall asleep or get up from their seats, it would sound to me as a cheap excuse to argue that, that was because of a too complicated pose and was not within reach of the most. Because, if the first were to occur, it would not have failed the public, but, the director. 

If filmmakers like Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have been able to tell their stories without entangling us, and likewise, they are described as geniuses, what sense would have to present a family with shots where they almost never speak, in which mattered, more than anything, the expressivenss or inexpressiveness of their faces, and where we repeatedly heard voice-overs of some of these characters, by the way of their thinking? On top of this, after the introduction, the director comes to us with the occurrence of mounting a number of images worthy of the Discovery Channel, to see from The Big Bang, to the early days of the Earth, the appearance of the dinosaurs, and again, the use of the voice-over, throwing loose phrases. The problem arises when one realizes that, all that to what Malick has dedicated about half an hour could have been skipped through or reduced to five minutes, not to get us bored. It is possible that Malick may have wanted to reach us through our senses, looking for something different to what we were accustomed. Equally true is that movies have always been to be addressed in many ways, being very well seen, to innovate. However, Malick here has been anything, but, realistic, directing a picture just for fans of the oddities. Always has been and will continue to be admitted, that everyone direct his own projects as pleased, as long as one has the means to. The issue is that Malick crossed the line. In the same way that he has made us look at shots of the universe, planets, volcanoes and even underwater takes, he could have perfectly added two timeless minutes of a pan on a deserted beach, and we would have had someone explaining us its meaning, like a greek philosopher. 

Finally, I see as importat to point out that if we departed from the idea that in the movies anything goes, then, today we have Malick with this (I say it again) "rareness". But, lets imagine that tomorrow, three of four similar films like this one began to be distributed. What would we, the spectators, do in that case? Which would be the benchmark, to define between a good movie and bad one, between a fun movie and a boring one?, if then we are saying that all of this is part of the same objective to communicate something to us all, only varying the structures. Because if we saw another flick like this, say that we do not like it, and to what then appear to counterattack, the offended ones who thougth we should open up more to new things, rather than criticize, where would, our “linear and menaingful cinema” end up being positioned"? If someone else came to refute our negative comments, saying: "Why do you say that it is slow? Maybe that's what the director wanted. Why do you say that? Maybe what Malick wanted was the other".

Then, no matter what kind of flaws we saw in an extremely rare and complicated, or rare and boring movie, for all of this we would have someone playing the defense attorney. For every negative that pulled it down, there would be an answer to raise it back to the podium. The same as saying that, it does no longer matter to follow any criteria. Anything is valid. 

My rating: 1/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí