John,
Easily one of the most divisive films in popular culture in the past decade, opinions of “The Tree of Life” range from the opinion that it is an absolute masterpiece, and others who simply found it inaccessible and even boring. I think that this is a difference you can also find among many of the main agents of artistic expression in film. There are those who want a formula that consists of a normal plot, beginning, middle and end, and no more than 2 hours. There is also the tradition of Godard, Malick, Bergman, Kurosawa and many others who seek to create a certain atmosphere in their films. I like a simple, straightforward narrative as much as anyone else, and I don’t think it diminishes a film in any way to follow this structure and indeed many of the films I hold so dear in my heart owe themselves to such a structure. However, what interests me most as filmmaker, and as a member of an audience, is the ability to create reality and truth using this fine medium we have in film.
In “The Tree Of Life” Jessica Chastain's character says that the nuns in her youth taught her that there are two ways through life. There is the way of nature and the way of Grace. The way I interpret that in the film is that the father character (played by Brad Pitt) is the representation of Nature and that the mother (played by Jessica Chastain) is Grace. The way that Malick presented it, in my opinion, is that we should choose Grace over nature because nature is inherently animalistic and flawed because it only seeks to serve itself. Grace on the other hand is a force of forgiveness, love, and peace. We first see this in the scene when the father leaves town for work and the children parade around the house mocking him directly and exhibiting pure freedom while the beautiful piano of 'Les Barricades Mistérieuses' plays and eventually even the mother joins in. Perhaps Malick is saying that nature oppresses the spirit inside us and our animal instincts are the only things keeping us from being a more pure being. One of my favorite quotations is "The only difference between God and Man is that God knows he is Divine.'
Arguably the only difference between human beings and every other living creature on earth is the capacity for rational thought. Perhaps this gift was given as a test? We first have the choice to focus on our own wellbeing for the point of survival. After all the goal of all living beings biologically is to survive long enough to reproduce. Or we have the choice to break that bond and try and lift up everyone around us? These are the questions that have plagued humanity since the dawn of thought and I think it's completely apt that these are the questions that Malick asks in all of his films. The reason why I love Malick so much is that he has found a way to speak directly to my soul, to all of the questions that I've asked since I was a boy.
When my first draft of this essay was posted for feedback, a commentator offered a very important view on this question. The father character, Mr. O’Brien, treats his children in this way because he sees this as the only way to ensure that his sons have a good and successful life. He has been on the losing end of a court case that sees his life’s work end up in the hands of another man and he worries that his sons could fall victim to a similar fate. So the commentator asks: Is he really so much a representation of bad or is it more of a situation of a different perspective with pure intentions?
I think that Duality is just as much a given in life as Death or Taxes in that we can never expect to have a world of pure good, or pure evil. If we didn’t live through strife, how could we appreciate prosperity? If we didn’t survive the bad days, would we relish the good as much? Surely we’ve all had the experience of a relationship where someone felt that the only way to teach you was to push you to your absolute limit and along the way unknowingly degrade you in some fashion. It’s easy to lash out, and I certainly have that initial response myself, but perhaps it’s worth taking a step back and respecting their intentions to make you better. This is where you find the paradox in the characters and their representations of nature and Grace, although I think it’s fair to say that even in respecting Duality there is one path that may speak more to each person, and for me it is the path of Grace.
Now to move on to your question about the aesthetics of his films. Many critics, casual filmgoers and lovers of film alike will still criticize Malick for what they feel is a lack of content. This is because in his films the dialogue may only take up a fraction of the film and instead he uses beautiful imagery to create an atmosphere to allow sights to speak directly to your own personal experiences. Although many people find similar themes in his films, almost everyone will inevitably see a different film because it's going to be related to your own personal experiences. In the screenplay for The Tree of Life there is a statement at the beginning:
“The “I” who speaks in this story is not the author. Rather, he hopes that you might see yourself in this “I” and understand this story as your own."
You are correct in that this is a very personal film, in that he grew up in a similar part of Texas with a similar family structure and his brother even broke his own hands under the pressure of learning classical guitar under Segovia and then eventually committed suicide which you can see in Jack's brother in the film. Some reports say that Malick is a Christian and the actors close to him have said he's more spiritual than anything and I think that part of the reason why he's so reclusive and doesn't give up that information easily is because he doesn't want to inform people, or even merely guide them, he just wants them to see the cinema in themselves. I mentioned Tarkovsky early on in this essay and I think he is the closest director to Malick in both their styles and substance. Tarkovsky seemingly tried so hard to avoid explaining things to his audience. He avoided the traditional narrative of a beginning, middle and end in that order because in life we often live within our own memories while wrestling with the present and hoping for a certain future in our dreams. With that in mind you may start your day with the future, reminisce in the past and then end your day finally living in the present. This is most evident in his spectacular film The Mirror which plays like an auto-biographical dream which jumps from his adolescence to adulthood seamlessly. He doesn’t want you to remember his story after finishing the film, but instead to illuminate your own story. You mentioned that in your early study you are looking for more examples of filmmakers like Malick and I think that Tarkovsky is a perfect segue into this type of filmmaking and art in general. With that I leave you with a quotation from the man himself that I think sums it up perfectly:
“Never try to convey your idea to the audience - it is a thankless and senseless task. Show them life, and they’ll find within themselves the means to assess and appreciate it.”
Andrei Tarkovsky (4/4/32 - 12/29/86)
Sincerely,
Andrew Liebelt