Slayterbox1748

While never having considered myself a ‘pretentious’ person (for all those confused by this word because of its overuse, here’s a reminder: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed), it is believed by some that all five of Terrence Malick’s (might help to know that he graduated with a major in philosophy) films are for the pretentious of mind. Having seen one of his previous films (all of which are period pieces and filmed with back dialogue), The Thin Red Line, I can say that with The Tree of Life I believe he has delivered another in depth look at an issue most people seem to avoid. While it might seem ambitious of Malick to take on the issues of human existence, religion, and evolution in a 138 minute film, he is able to sum up one person’s perspective flawlessly (as there are billions of people in this world, having an opinion differing from someone else’s is bound to happen, right?).

I love and found myself admiring the structure of The Tree of Life. Malick, while having made a film full of captivating and breath-taking imagery, has simultaneously made a film exploring the beauty of everyday life. And he couldn’t have spelled out the simple plot of the creation of life better than with images, the Truth Claim (no, this is not made up, it is the idea that film accurately depicts reality). While some points seemed to touch upon the surreal, the film grounded in reality. The 45 minute montage of the creation of the earth and humans up to the 1950’s (a time use for its remaining purity and still rich with energy and excitement for being alive), was not fabricated. Life was created, and if you take a minute to step back and look at it, like it seems Malick has, it is just as beautiful and unbelievable as those images lead on.

The plot and in depth themes of the movie has been making some viewers almost skeptical to the reason’s for the film. Is it true that Malick simply made this film to be able to visualize his own opinion. Wether that was his intention or it was to be able to communicate opinions with his audiences, it makes this film a unique one. It allows the thoughts and visions of the creation and development of the world to be closely examined from a single mind’s perspective.

While the plot may have been confusing to some, and seemed almost implied for others, this  difference was most likely intentional. This allows for more people who might have differing attitudes towards the dimensionality of the characters. If it had been spelled out one way versus another, it would be pointed for a select few. While there was almost no dialogue, and  barely more faint whispers (which one could assume to be prayers), the characters were allowed to be just a regular family but still have a very strong emotional connection. This was shown in the rather extraordinary acting by not very well known actors (sans Brad Pitt of course, we already know he can act). While their development was not plastered on a billboard like probably preferred by most of the viewers, there was a significant emotion to it all, an almost ‘having been there’ feeling; nostalgia.

Repetition was another major aspect found in this film that helped to create this ‘too real’ effect. Repetition is found in almost everything in life, and within this film, the repetition of shapes, colours (blue for instance), and childhood props was enough to draw even the smallest of elements back into the story as a whole. All of these elements created Malick’s ‘dream-like’ effect and his idea that “nostalgia is a powerful feeling, it can drown out anything”. If the audience was paying close enough attention to the small things and picked up on them, then the plot of the movie was there, for all to see. Does this seem like a simple plot complicated by use of imagery in place of dialogue? Yes, it might appear that way to some but to me it seemed to be a lot like real life; if you look closely there is poetry in the mundane and everyday circumstances that we all find ourselves.