The Tree of Life (2011)

"I'm not smart enough to understand it," said Jack. He's definitely smart, but not always patient. I, too, grew impatient during this patchwork of dreamy, beautifully photographed vignettes of 1950s small town life, modern day skyscrapers, celestial and terrestrial cataclysms, whispered voiceovers, and barely a whisper of plot. If not being awed by what is supposed to be director/writer Terrence Malick's masterpiece makes us philistines, so be it (my favorite explanation of philistine is at 1:04 in the trailer for The Squid and the Whale (2005)). My faithful readers know I like to concentrate on the good parts and say nice things, but these two and a quarter hours just rubbed us both a bit the wrong way. I suspect I'll hear from Archie about this (he took exception to my negative posting on How Do You Know, and has posted on his own facebook page a video of directors David Fincher and Christopher Nolan rhapsodizing about this one). Someone else who felt as we did is Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel, who wrote "This challenging time-skipping rumination is the big screen equivalent of watching that 'Tree' grow." To read his entire review see this link. As Craig Ferguson likes to say, I look forward to your letters.

Not one to rush anything, 68 year old Malick has directed five features in thirty-eight years (he wrote them all, plus a few more) (I saw and enjoyed Days of Heaven (1978), which won him Best Director at Cannes, and The New World (2005) and can't remember if I saw Badlands (1973)--but it was The Thin Red Line (1998) that was most acclaimed) and this one won the Palme d'Or at Cannes 2011. The critics are mostly agreeing with the Cannes jury (apparently the reception at the actual screening was mixed and the link also reveals something about Malick's style on the set, which may explain our reactions), as do many who have posted on the imdb message boards. Contrary to current popular practice, most of those posting have good things to say, except for their snide reactions to people like us and the more extreme people who walked out during the long creation/destruction sections. On rottentomatoes the critics have given this 86% while audiences clock in at 67%.

Here are some things we liked about it: the photography, as noted above, the magnificent sets (the 1950s house and its furnishings, though the family is supposed to be of modest means, are new for the time and, by my standards, fabulous), the skyscrapers, the metal walkways, the locations, the songs (a Malick devotee has provided a complete list on his blog and another fan has made a set of some of it available for download until September 2 here), the original score by Alexandre Desplat which you can hear here (after I wrote about him in The Ghost Writer and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button he was Oscar nominated for scoring The King's Speech), newcomer Hunter McCracken's performance as brooding young Jack O'Brien, Brad Pitt's (I wrote about him in Inglourious Basterds) as the unfulfilled and angry Mr. O'Brien (well, it made me uncomfortable but I recognize it as good acting) with his jutting lower jaw, the baby and toddler scenes, and the other two sons, played by Laramie Eppler and Tye Sheridan, the former of whom really looks like he could be Pitt's son (thanks, Judy, for suggesting that).

Here's something else I didn't like: quick camera movements (in the 1950s sequences) sent me back several rows and reaching for my motion sickness remedies--ginger candy this week. This is going on the Motion Picture Motion Sickness (MPMS) list.

Although Sean Penn is listed as a star, he is in perhaps 20 minutes, as the 21st century Jack O'Brien, who is still troubled--we know that from his face and body language. But he doesn't talk. Jessica Chastain (soon to be seen in The Help (2011)), as Mrs. O'Brien, with her ethereal porcelain skin and pale copper hair, has more to do.

We saw two movies Monday: first this, then Midnight in Paris, as we suspected we would need some comic relief. Did we ever! The good news: it made the latter all the more enjoyable.