Details wither under fruitful cinematography in The Tree of Life

Cassie Dinges- Features/Human Interests Editor
2/10/12

When I saw The Tree of Life this past summer, my initial reactions were: “What did I just see?” and “I’m glad I don’t have to write a review about that.” Here we are, seven or so months later, and here I am.  The Tree of Life is a drama with a heaping portion of experimental cinematography. Whether or not this addition improves the film is a matter up to interpretation. The viewers at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival could not make up their minds, and the film received both boos and hardy applause. Simply put, this movie is for you, or it’s not. The trouble is, when it comes to The Tree of Life, making up one’s mind isn’t so easy.
The movie centers on Jack O’Brien—who in the “present” scenes is played by a silent, weathered Sean Penn—reflecting upon his childhood in 1950s Waco, Texas. In the beginning of the film, the audience is told that each person must choose either a path of nature or one of grace. Most of Jack’s reflections center on how the events of his youth shaped who he is today. Does he become a man that embodies the gentleness of his kind, but subservient mother (Jessica Chastain), or his hard-nosed authoritarian father (Brad Pitt)?
As a child, Jack (Hunter McCracken) despises his father and what he and his brothers must do to keep the household seemingly happy. Some of the action involving Mr. O’Brien plays out like a bad sitcom: boxing lessons for his boys in the front yard and explosive anger because he had to wait for dinner. We also see the growth of Jack as he begins to explore deeper themes of life including life and death, violence, cruelty and blossoming sexuality. The dialogue is scarce and wholly forgettable.  Strong religious themes permeate film and are reflected in the little of the dialogue that is memorable. McCracken, as young Jack, breathes a new life into the self-deprecating words of the Apostle Paul stating: “What I want to do I can’t do. I do what I hate.”
The real star of the show is the cinematography that gives 1950’s rural Texas a vintage grit. Writer and director Terrence Malick leaves the dialogue wanting, and that shifts attention to the sheer beauty in some of the scenes. I cannot remember much about the characters—their names were lost on me, save Jack—but I do remember some of the visual artistry that took place. The experimental sections of the film were visual wonders as well. What were dinosaurs, grand trees and images of the Big Bang doing in cow country? Frankly, I was too enthralled by the beauty of what I was seeing to care. Impressive as they are, beautiful pictures do not a commercially successful movie make. I do not believe they can snag the movie an Academy Award for best picture, either.
The story was fluid enough that no two audience members can take away the same experience. See it as many times as you want, you’ll flip-flop on meaning each time. I cannot recommend it for everyone, as not everyone will “get it.” Even those who claim a cerebral understanding of the movie cannot be any more correct than the next person. I would like to think that the cast and crew of The Tree of Life have a secret that no one will believe: there’s nothing to “get.”