“It’s up to each person to find their own personal, emotional or spiritual connection to it.” Sean Penn, in response to THE Tree of Life.
After spending some time considering pieces of abstract cinema work that has inspired me, a film I have always admired popped into my head: The Tree of Life (2011) directed by Terrence Malick.
An American experimental drama written and directed by Terrence Malick, Tree of Life chronicles the origins and meaning of life by way of a middle-aged man’s childhood memories of his family living in 1950s Texas, interspersed with imagery of the origins of the known universe and the inception of life on Earth.
Although it offers a narrative with character development the story and theme(s) unfolds through a non-liner structure and rushes of symbolic abstract imagery. The ending also feels abstract with poetic voiceovers and the opportunity for a viewers’ personal interpretation.
Early reviews for Tree of Life at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival were polarized, being met with both boos and applause at its premiere. It is curious a film that divided audiences went on to be awarded the prestigious Palme d’Or and nominated for three Oscars. Yet, this film doesn’t succumb to Hollywood expectations.
Terrence Malick pitched the concept of Tree of Life to River Road Entertainment head Bill Pohlad who initially considered the idea “crazy”. However as the film concept evolved, Pohlad came to feel strongly about the idea and ended up financing the film. I think it’s worth noting that a concept initially considered ‘crazy’ and potentially unpalatable commercially become personally backed by a head producer. The film’s estimated production budget was $32 million and with domestic and foreign figures had a gross of $54 million.
I am inspired that a film of this nature can receive a wider audience.
So, why am I so moved by this film? It is one of those pieces of cinema that stirs up something from deep within, you just can’t ignore. It also seems to achieve the balance between an abstract and narrative vision. Whilst the film may not be everyone’s cup of tea, the film’s form remains accessible for all audiences.
Brad Pitt spoke of Terrence Mallick’s methods as a director and described him as “an extremely internal man. A Rhodes scholar, studied philosophy, has a love of science, a love of nature, a love of God.”
“When he started making films in the 1970s, you just made films. Today there are two parts to the job: you get to make something, but it’s also become incumbent on us to suddenly sell our movies and that’s just not his nature. Terry’s more the painter…”
I am left wondering and questioning Malicks original vision. Did he set out to make an experimental drama, or did he just go for it and stay true to his story/characters/vision while we, the consumer, fit it into the ‘abstract’ film box.
When viewing a film with abstract imagery and symbolic storytelling, it is worth considering that our current state of mind may influence the way we receive and respond to a film of this nature. Would our interpretations differ if we watched it in another time and place? Consequently, this form of cinema may risk ‘success’ as it relies on the audience’s participation however taking the risk somewhat defines this form of filmmaking.
“There is simply nothing like it out there: profound, idiosyncratic, complex, sincere and magical; a confirmation that cinema can aspire to art.” Ian Nathan, Empire