Tree of Life

Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life, one of the stand out movies of 2011, is the type of film that will continue to generate reams of discussion for years to come. Already the web is sagging under the weight of words written about this film. The most commonly used phrase to describe it is that it is a hugely ambitious undertaking. So it is. It is also magnificently ambiguous, wide open to interpretation. It demands many repeat viewings, if only I could afford the time. So many movies, so little time. After one viewing I can only say two things for certain about Tree of Life. One, it will stay with you. It will rattle around your head for days to come. You will find yourself thinking about it at the strangest moments. Two, it is visually beautiful in every respect. From the grand scale visualization of the Big Bang, to the scenes involving dinosaurs, to the seemingly mundane scenes of family life, every shot is lovely. As far as deeper interpretation goes, we will all have our personal views. This is indeed what makes a great work of art. I’ll leave that to other, deeper thinkers to write about, or perhaps to Malick himself. This is an extract from an early version of his script: Is nature mere weather, doing and undoing without end? What does it work toward? What purpose does it have in view? [...] The first fishes with amphibian traits gain the shore. Swamp and marshland have replaced the wide, windy plains of the preceding agers. The forms of vegetation are simple, few. There are no reeds or grasses. No flower breaks the gloom. The earth is a vast, wet Eden. Except near the poles, there are no seasons. Each year is like the last. Reptiles emerge from the amphibians, and dinosaurs in turn from the reptiles. Among the dinosaurs we discover the first signs of maternal love, as the creatures learn to care for each other. Is not love, too, a work of the creation? What should we have been without it? How had things been then? Silent as a shadow, consciousness has slipped into the world.