A shorter version of this review was written for Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).
Director: Terrence Malick
Actors: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain
Rating: 4 out of 5
We might leave our childhood, but it never leaves us. It follows us, taunts and haunts us, often presenting no scope for absolution. And it is this haunting that auteur Terrence Malick presents with a camera that is as discerningly close to his characters as it is detached from the entire human condition when it looks at life and creation in both microscopic and macroscopic visions.
At the beginning of the film, we see a light and a few words that says that there are two ways of living life - the way of nature (human nature) where you take and are mean to others, and the other is of grace, where you suffer but where, there is hope for absolution. The film is a journey of absolution for Jack, whose ruminations is based on the Biblical Job from the ‘Book of Job’.
Through a series of hallucinations Jack (Sean Penn) recollects his childhood of growing up in a small town and a younger brother he was close to who died when he was still young. In through the agony of Jack the film travels further back in time, (once even into the future), into the childhood of planet earth itself, right from its creation, infancy to the time when it became the ‘tree of life’.
For a film of just over two hours, this has the ambitions of one that never ends. In its short span it tries to encompass everything, love, bliss, agony, loss, pain, ambition, control, origin of earth, life, violence, death… to create a film that is as much grounded as it is a fantasy.
Terrance Malick is a man in control of his medium. He has demonstrated his artistry in films made, it seems, only when he has something to say leading once to a gap of two decades in his career. And here, in ‘The Tree of Life’ you see Malick at the helm of his craft so far. Only a man in total awareness of the grammar of cinema can attempt to bend them or even try and create something more as he does here.
With visuals that are mesmerizing, and surprising if you are aware that they were not created through CGI, the film creates the tranquility and turmoil of the soul through the images of space and volcanoes. In that it becomes a film to be seen in theatres, and not at your home. The full intensity of those images, the back ground score directing them and through them all the violence and absolution that the story wants to convey, comes out best in the darkness of the theatre. And in that dark magic of cinema, if you are feeling more than you are thinking, you might find yourself crying.
Malick’s camerawork could be extremely disconcerting to someone taken aback by its difference, and very liberating for others. His camera is so intimately close to his characters, you often wonder how the actors can act amidst such infringement. Even the most daring directors in the history of creative cinema, have not dared to go so close for so long. And succeeded.
Malick’s intimate camera thus throws the discomfort of his characters right at your face with every twitch, every move blowing up on screen. In contrast he gives you a macroscopic view of the universe, and a microscopic view of the birth of life. This back and forth, this reliance on seemingly unrelated visuals, might be a little disconcerting for the average viewer of cinema. But be patient, even if you don’t fully understand, the rewards will be well worth it.
And it is this attempt at making his audiences understand, that is the biggest flaw of the film. It uses words far too many than were needed. That might seem a strange accusation for a film that has very few dialogues anyways. Sadly when something is in short supply, whatever is presented acquires greater significance. Malick tries his hands at explanation and resolution, using religion and the ‘Book of Job’ and that is where he falters.
Indeed, the film can be called a modern interpretation of the ‘Book of Job’ with Job’s character being played by Jack who like Job has theological discussions albeit with himself on the nature of life, his suffering and his anger with god for making him suffer. Like Job, he even asks god the question, ‘where were you when…’ the answer to which is given in the very first quote presented on the screen and the visuals of the earth’s creation that come later. That is perhaps gods answer to Job and Jack and that is the final absolution.
Thus, if you are the religious kind, or if one of your overarching concerns is why bad things happen to good people, like it was for the Biblical Job, this is a film custom-made for you. Indeed, in the galactic scenes, or of the earth’s history that Malick presents, you might even find god’s response to your queries like Job does at the end of his trials.
Cinematically though, his explanations using words, feel like sore notes in an otherwise masterful composition, unnecessary lines and colours in a Van Gogh painting. Malick did not need to say it, when he is literally showing it. Remove that, and you have perhaps one of the most perfect films ever made in filmdom.
In the last scene of the film, the same light that was flickering in the beginning appears, but there is no dialogue this time, just silence. That silence was needed a little more in the film.
Also, one might find it strange, but for a film that uses a different grammar, it does offer an absolution in the end. In one of Jack’s hallucinatory wandering, he meets everyone from his childhood, including his own childhood self, near a sea. Here he unites with his father, and most importantly he unites his dead young brother to his mother who thanks him. And in one scene, we see that the hand the mother is touching of Jack, is old and wrinkled signifying that the film has now travelled into the future and Jack does not find this absolution till he is old and about to die. The setting of this scene, near the ocean is also significant, considering that it is the sea, that is the cradle, or the tree of life for earth where the first life forms emerged, and it is thus to the sea where all must perhaps finally merge. It can also be looked at as an allegorical sea of tranquility where we all must go after our end.
And it is this absolution that might be another drawback. For not many of us find that absolution, now or at the far end of our life. Perhaps it is Malick who is seeking that absolution and his wishful thinking finds representation in the film.
Audiences going in to watch Brad Pitt and Sean Penn need to be wary. Pitt is perfect both in his toughened and vulnerable state and Penn is agonizingly good in his small role. But the film is not about them. It is about life and if there’s one thing life teaches, it is patience. Those without patience to try and feel, not understand a truly ‘different’ film will find this one excruciatingly painful. The rest will soar.
Director: Terrence Malick
Actors: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain
Rating: 4 out of 5
We might leave our childhood, but it never leaves us. It follows us, taunts and haunts us, often presenting no scope for absolution. And it is this haunting that auteur Terrence Malick presents with a camera that is as discerningly close to his characters as it is detached from the entire human condition when it looks at life and creation in both microscopic and macroscopic visions.
At the beginning of the film, we see a light and a few words that says that there are two ways of living life - the way of nature (human nature) where you take and are mean to others, and the other is of grace, where you suffer but where, there is hope for absolution. The film is a journey of absolution for Jack, whose ruminations is based on the Biblical Job from the ‘Book of Job’.
Through a series of hallucinations Jack (Sean Penn) recollects his childhood of growing up in a small town and a younger brother he was close to who died when he was still young. In through the agony of Jack the film travels further back in time, (once even into the future), into the childhood of planet earth itself, right from its creation, infancy to the time when it became the ‘tree of life’.
For a film of just over two hours, this has the ambitions of one that never ends. In its short span it tries to encompass everything, love, bliss, agony, loss, pain, ambition, control, origin of earth, life, violence, death… to create a film that is as much grounded as it is a fantasy.
Terrance Malick is a man in control of his medium. He has demonstrated his artistry in films made, it seems, only when he has something to say leading once to a gap of two decades in his career. And here, in ‘The Tree of Life’ you see Malick at the helm of his craft so far. Only a man in total awareness of the grammar of cinema can attempt to bend them or even try and create something more as he does here.
With visuals that are mesmerizing, and surprising if you are aware that they were not created through CGI, the film creates the tranquility and turmoil of the soul through the images of space and volcanoes. In that it becomes a film to be seen in theatres, and not at your home. The full intensity of those images, the back ground score directing them and through them all the violence and absolution that the story wants to convey, comes out best in the darkness of the theatre. And in that dark magic of cinema, if you are feeling more than you are thinking, you might find yourself crying.
Malick’s camerawork could be extremely disconcerting to someone taken aback by its difference, and very liberating for others. His camera is so intimately close to his characters, you often wonder how the actors can act amidst such infringement. Even the most daring directors in the history of creative cinema, have not dared to go so close for so long. And succeeded.
Malick’s intimate camera thus throws the discomfort of his characters right at your face with every twitch, every move blowing up on screen. In contrast he gives you a macroscopic view of the universe, and a microscopic view of the birth of life. This back and forth, this reliance on seemingly unrelated visuals, might be a little disconcerting for the average viewer of cinema. But be patient, even if you don’t fully understand, the rewards will be well worth it.
And it is this attempt at making his audiences understand, that is the biggest flaw of the film. It uses words far too many than were needed. That might seem a strange accusation for a film that has very few dialogues anyways. Sadly when something is in short supply, whatever is presented acquires greater significance. Malick tries his hands at explanation and resolution, using religion and the ‘Book of Job’ and that is where he falters.
Indeed, the film can be called a modern interpretation of the ‘Book of Job’ with Job’s character being played by Jack who like Job has theological discussions albeit with himself on the nature of life, his suffering and his anger with god for making him suffer. Like Job, he even asks god the question, ‘where were you when…’ the answer to which is given in the very first quote presented on the screen and the visuals of the earth’s creation that come later. That is perhaps gods answer to Job and Jack and that is the final absolution.
Thus, if you are the religious kind, or if one of your overarching concerns is why bad things happen to good people, like it was for the Biblical Job, this is a film custom-made for you. Indeed, in the galactic scenes, or of the earth’s history that Malick presents, you might even find god’s response to your queries like Job does at the end of his trials.
Cinematically though, his explanations using words, feel like sore notes in an otherwise masterful composition, unnecessary lines and colours in a Van Gogh painting. Malick did not need to say it, when he is literally showing it. Remove that, and you have perhaps one of the most perfect films ever made in filmdom.
In the last scene of the film, the same light that was flickering in the beginning appears, but there is no dialogue this time, just silence. That silence was needed a little more in the film.
Also, one might find it strange, but for a film that uses a different grammar, it does offer an absolution in the end. In one of Jack’s hallucinatory wandering, he meets everyone from his childhood, including his own childhood self, near a sea. Here he unites with his father, and most importantly he unites his dead young brother to his mother who thanks him. And in one scene, we see that the hand the mother is touching of Jack, is old and wrinkled signifying that the film has now travelled into the future and Jack does not find this absolution till he is old and about to die. The setting of this scene, near the ocean is also significant, considering that it is the sea, that is the cradle, or the tree of life for earth where the first life forms emerged, and it is thus to the sea where all must perhaps finally merge. It can also be looked at as an allegorical sea of tranquility where we all must go after our end.
And it is this absolution that might be another drawback. For not many of us find that absolution, now or at the far end of our life. Perhaps it is Malick who is seeking that absolution and his wishful thinking finds representation in the film.
Audiences going in to watch Brad Pitt and Sean Penn need to be wary. Pitt is perfect both in his toughened and vulnerable state and Penn is agonizingly good in his small role. But the film is not about them. It is about life and if there’s one thing life teaches, it is patience. Those without patience to try and feel, not understand a truly ‘different’ film will find this one excruciatingly painful. The rest will soar.
No comments:
Post a Comment