Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, and Thoughts on Film

I’ll start this bluntly: the Tree of Life is one of the best films I have ever seen.

Terrence Malick is a unique artist, and displays his filmmaking ability with absolute control. This film, if you allow it, will remove your ability to think and replace it with complete domination of your emotions, allowing you to, for some time, live through it. It is a great achievement in world cinema.

The Tree of Life uses the medium of cinema in a way that few directors have ever done – he allows it to be a format for creating a work of art; a great canvas, if you will, to create a piece of self-expression. He has full mastery of the primary elements of film and uses them to the limit of their potential.  As brushes, he uses image and sound and juxtaposition are his brushstrokes. He recognizes that a plot needs not be a burden to a work – the plot is and should be subservient to the work as a whole. This isn’t to say that the film is plotless, but it is sprinkled over the work as an integral seasoning is applied to a recipe. The seasoning is necessary to create the specific taste desired, but is just one of many flavors.

In this film, we are presented with what I interpreted as a man reflecting back on his life and the people in it, on the anniversary of his brother’s death. Through this we are faced with many images, stark or flowing, that take us through his emotions and experiences which are memories. We see the cosmos, representing the unknown (especially God and Death). We see fragments of his childhood, moments of the present. We finally see his reconciliation to his life’s path. This is all done in such a way as to be completely captivating in the truest sense of the word if you allow it – it takes you captive. In its self-reflection, you self-reflect. But you must be open-minded to it; you must allow it to take you on its path.

In format, Malick creates a film which can be described with a term often used loosely to describe films: a “visual poem.” I must say that I agree with this term when applied to this film, just as I agree to its application to Andrei Tarkovsky’s work. But what is a “visual poem?”

First, let us quickly define or, failing that, describe a poem. Loosely, a poem is a literary form which uses words in a nonstandard way (i.e. not prose) to create an emotionally subjective experience, generally in the attempt to convey one’s own emotions. A visual poem then, is the attempt to share an emotional experience through the techniques available to filmmakers in a nonstandard way (i.e. not simply presenting a story.) In cinema, these techniques are the juxtaposition of image and sound.  This is not available in any other medium, with the exception of interactive software. In a word, through Eisenstein’s touted concept of “montage” when applied to sound cinema. I actually had to think several times of Eisenstein while watching this film, and felt that perhaps he might appreciate it as much as I did. It’s of course not Bolshevik propaganda, but…

But The Tree of Life is, I feel, one of the great masterpieces of cinema because of its use of the format. I must say that no work of art can be called perfect in and of itself, for what makes a piece liked or not liked is wholly subjective to how it resonates with the complicated personality of the viewer, but The Tree of Life uses the cinematic form in its most perfect way – to create an experience of humanity, emotion and life. It gives us a glimpse into the eternal. Every art form can do this, but no other method of art, be it literature, painting, dance, music, or interactive software can do it in such a way, and have it connect in such a way. No art form is necessarily “better” than the next, but it is undeniable that each allows one a different way with connecting with something inexplicable, some experience which can only be felt in short, “the eternal.” Everyone knows what I mean by this, and although eternal is a terrible word for it, no single word can sum up this experience; that is why we create art in the first place, as an attempt to express this. Art is the only means available to humanity to do this. And achieving something artistic is the loftiest goal to which a filmmaker can possibly aspire.

With this opinion, perhaps it might seem surprising that the film has been received in such a polarizing manner. However, I am not so surprised. It was amusing hearing that the ticket vendors would refund my ticket if I left in the first half hour. Let us just say that I am more surprised that this film exists and although it may sound derogatory towards my countrymen, that it was created by an American. I certainly do not mean this in a derogatory way; to say that no American would ever create this is absurd because I, myself am American and this is the exact type of film that appeals to me. I say this based off of the reality of American cinema.

The United States has a very strong film culture, easily the strongest in the world outside of Kim Jong-Il’s mansion. Our history of filmmaking, which has been dominant ever since the advent of film, has solidified in a sort of reactionary conservatism. That isn’t necessarily to fully withdraw all merit from the average American film. In terms of technique, no culture can boast such a vast array of professional quality filmmaking; in terms of quantity too, we surpass the bulk of other countries. In terms of content, though, we cannot by any means say to be the leading supporters of filmmaking as an art.

The cause for this can be attributed to several sources.

First, filmmaking in America has never been supported by the government.  It is indeed a relatively recent phenomenon that the Library of Congress has preserved prints. Therefore, we have rarely had would-be Ingmar Bergmans or Andrei Tarkovskies or Federico Fellinis. Filmmaking here has evolved as a business venture – it is one of our few remaining exports alongside weapons and technology. And as a business, it’s a big one. Most films easily cost upwards $100 million. Films are treated as a product to invest in, in order to turn a decent profit.  The factory which produces these products is called Hollywood, and the location is Los Angeles. In order for this investment to be successful, it is only logical and economically feasible to create films directed towards the lowest common denominator.

This mentality, that of the desire to create profit instead of the desire to create art, is the absolute norm in America. In fact, I have more often heard the terms “art film” and “artsy” in a derogatory manner than as a compliment. To me, this seems ludicrous. It is true though, that many see the technical creation of the film the artistic point, such as beautiful photography created by the cinematographer (which, by the way, is omnipresent in this film thanks to the very talented Emmanuel Lubezki of “Children of Men” fame) and his team, or moving, incredible acting complimenting a film with utterly shallow content. But filmmaking, in the end, is the creation of a single piece of work – the film. Many people must donate their talents to it, but in the end it is one single piece – the film. We can separate it in pieces, we can admire one aspect and dislike another, but in the end it is a film. And using film to create a work of art is the noblest endeavor a filmmaker can aspire to.

I hope that this work will be taken seriously and aspiring filmmakers will learn from it. We are entering a new age, where the Hollywood movie-factory is naturally losing clout and power due to the impending onset of the digital age and the internet’s utilization as a film distributor. Independent film is becoming more and more present. Perhaps the jarring reaction to this extremely unique film will plant a small seed in the average viewer’s idea of what film should be so that the movie-factory will experience a demand for more such “art films” and will supply them as all neoliberal economists would suggest it should. At any rate, the film well-deserves the Palm d’Or, and reinforces my belief that the Cannes Film Festival is the premier and highest film festival in the world.

Well done, Mr. Malick. And thank you for this piece.