Oscar 2012: Tree of Life

Here is a film I struggled with. I think it was one of the first true Oscar contenders to hit the theatres. It was directed by Terrence Malik. If you are familiar with Van Gogh, or Picasso, you can see one of their paintings and recognize it is theirs, despite perhaps never seeing the painting before in your life. Similar to Malik, his stroke on the screen is his own. Whether you enjoy his films or not, you know he is working from an inner source, not painting by numbers or copying someone else. And like true art, its impression will not leave you, long after the memory is gone, for better or for worse. As a viewer in the audience I was asking myself all sorts of questions: What is going on? Should I be liking this more than I do? What is this afterlife that Sean Penn seem to be in? One of Pauline Kael’s biggest criticism of directors is when they got lost in chasing the “Big Idea”. In a film that stretches from when the universe was created, to dinosaurs to 1950’s middle America, to the Oedipus Complex, to the afterlife-I am not sure there is a better example of a film chasing the Big Idea. While I think Pauline Kael could be criticized for her criticism of artists chasing the Big Idea, I would argue that it seems to be a masculine obsession, or pre-occupation. Not that women are not concerned about the questions like “Why are we here?”, I think women are better at the here –and-now, and while it is nice to ponder, don’t miss out on the pleasures you can find in the present. And while this broad stroke can paint me as misogynistic, I mean it as a compliment. It is also one of the reasons I think Pauline Kael was a great critic. She had a great female perspective-not feminist, female perspective. From a male’s point of view, you can look at A Tree of Life and go-Wow! Wasn’t that an attempt to sum up everything! From a female perspective I think you could say “What was the point?” There was no pleasure in the film. Yes, it summed up life. Not just a personal life, but all of life. The character you want to know the most about is Sean Penn.

Sean Penn as an adult and Sean Penn as a boy. The film dabs into these areas, mostly when he was a boy. As a viewer, you come out with more questions than you do answers. I read that the childhood scenes, at least the location, were similar to where Malik grew up-smalltown Texas. This film is like an attempt to show you the artist’s inner window. I think if the film would have focused more on the Sean Penn character, and lose the tones of the Big Idea, you would have a more complete picture. Instead, as an audience member, like in the therapy, you want the person to give more. It is nice to see the glimpse, but you want more. You feel that whatever is tormenting the client is still left unhealed. Here is my criticism for the film, you know there is agony in the Sean Penn character-yet you don’t feel it. A movie must make you feel empathy, not just sympathy for its characters. Is it possible for a film to look beautiful, feel beautiful, yet feel empty?