Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and all-round nice guy once joked that ‘if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.’ For his new film, The Tree of Life, Malick takes his traditional non-linear storytelling style to its illogical conclusion: If you wish to tell the ultimate non-linear story of a child growing up in the 1950s and his progression into adulthood, then you must first show the creation of the universe and the emergence of life on earth. And since you’ve already got the special effects artists going, why not throw why not throw in a couple of shots of the heat-death of the universe too, just for good measure?
Malick’s films are introspective, philosophical essays draped over a story. The Thin Red Line, for example, ostensibly told the story of the fighting in Guadalcanal, but spent a large part of its running time with Jim Caviezel and Ben Chaplin musing about the nature of being. The Tree of Life has the flimsiest story of any Malick film so far. For that matter, it also has the flimsiest philosophising. But this is no bad thing. At times, Malick has a tendency to bludgeon his audience with the point he is trying to make. ‘Right now, you should all be thinking about how life is fragile and life is precious. Once you are all thinking this exact thought, we can move onto the next point.’
Instead, what The Tree of Life gives us are suggestions. There’s very little action, and very little narration. At times, it’s almost Koyaanisqatsi-like in its refusal to present a direct pointIt’s interesting to note that the film has one writer (Malick) and five editors. As I said, over the course of the film, Malick shows us the life of the universe, from birth to death. He shows us the scale of the universe and how small life actually is, and even then, how small a particular human life is. He shows us the death of the Earth, billions of years from now, as the Sun expands and consumes it. Is he just doing this because he wants us to be awed at the scale of it all? Or does he want us to be terrified? Or is he just showing us pretty pictures? I’m not entirely sure he’s trying to do any of these things, but that’s why the film is so effective. Malick isn’t trying to crudely describe an epiphany, he’s planting the seed of one and leaves it up to the audience what to do with that seed.
I think Roger Ebert nails it when he compares the film to a prayer
Many films diminish us. They cheapen us, masturbate our senses, hammer us with shabby thrills, diminish the value of life. Some few films evoke the wonderment of life’s experience, and those I consider a form of prayer. Not prayer “to” anyone or anything, but prayer “about” everyone and everything. I believe prayer that makes requests is pointless. What will be, will be. But I value the kind of prayer when you stand at the edge of the sea, or beneath a tree, or smell a flower, or love someone, or do a good thing. Those prayers validate existence and snatch it away from meaningless routine.
At the end of the screening I attended, the credits began to roll and a single audience member started to clap. No-one joined in. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I didn’t clap because it didn’t feel right. Would you clap a deeply heartfelt prayer?