So here's the plot, which you can use as a cheat-sheet when you're actually watching the film: Jack (Sean Penn) is sad. He is a sad, melancholy architect who ponders his early life after spotting a tree being planted out on the street. He grows up in Waco, Texas with a domineering father (Brad Pitt) and a kind-hearted mother (Jessica Chastain). Intercut images of the birth of the universe. And the death of the universe. Et cetera.
Now, I'm not saying that that amounts to nothing. The film is unquestionably beautiful, and we go into it knowing we're not going to be getting the plot of Inception. But what I fail to see is why we need another 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The similarities are uncanny.
Both films feature extensive cosmic in-camera special effects done by the same man, Douglas Trumbull (he actually came out of retirement to work on this film). Both feature three different timelines proceeding semi-simultaneously (prehistoric, the contemplative present, the conflict-filled past). Both films are intentionally sparse on dialogue. Both are impressionist pieces.
But where the crucial differences lie is in their ability to generate catharsis. 2001 does, The Tree of Life doesn't.
Even when you have no clue what's literally happening on-screen at the end of 2001, you still feel something for it. Even though "starman" isn't in your vocabulary, you still know that Dave has crossed an incredible new threshold, and it means something grand for the whole human race (the score helps generate catharsis when the action does not).
At the end of The Tree of Life, you kinda know what emotion you're supposed to feel, but you don't really feel it.
None of this adds up to a terrible movie. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen for the first hour, and every time Terrence Malick cuts away to space it takes my breath away. Remember the trailer? It's a beautiful trailer. It just doesn't make me feel much that can subsequently be put into words, or transmit into action.
--Serge
Entirely agreed.
ReplyDelete