The Tree of Life
Introspective, fearlessly poetic, and occasionally self-indulgent, are some words that could describe Terrence Malick’s latest film The Tree of Life. So unfortunately trying to explain Malick’s latest work turns out to be undoubtly difficult and therefore insufficient, as any exhaustive attempt to define The Tree of Life runs the risk of disgracing it’s inscrutable nature. The stimulating and instinctive distinctions of the film remain vague and untelling in nature, and they never reveal any accessible definition. The Tree of Life could conceivably be Terrence Malick’s most avant-garde work to date, as he exposes his spiritual and humanistic side more openly than in any of his other films. I plan to analyze the narrative and elocution of Malick’s dogmas in The Tree of Life to determine Terrence Malick as an auteur and this film art cinema as defined by David Bordwell and Peter Schepelern. Because The Tree of Life is Malick’s most intimate film to date it can be viewed more specifically through a romantic interpretation of art film. It remains unbiased, as it is not made to please anyone, but still expresses themes significant to universal culture.
The first hour in The Tree of Life is made up of a compilation of chronologically displaced and discontinuous but nonetheless rapturous shots, with little to no spoken dialogue apart from occasional narration to divide the diegetic space into chapters. A significant portion of the film is spent illustrating creation, including a tour of space and the cosmos, earth and it’s natural elements (volcanos, oceans), and finally a sequence with dinosaurs, that provoked much reaction from viewers and critics alike, described by critic Robert Koehler as “pure anthropomorphism, and precisely the opposite of Kubrick’s [2001: Space Odyssey] apes-into-men.” After the formation of the earth we settle upon a developing family living in Waco, Texas in the 1950s, Malick’s hometown as a child. This chapter of the film is the only representation of conventional narrative as it reaches the peak of dialogue. Thought most of the narrative sequence is shot from the lead child’s point of view, from infancy and the human development of cognition and general motor skills to relational and cultural advancement through the lifespan. Had Hollywood norms played a more influential role in Malick’s technique many of these scenes of development would most likely have to been edited from the film to create a more continuously stimulating experience.
According to Bordwell, in art film, “what is not told through words is told allegorically, as when mise-en-scène serves to convey a particular state of mind” (Bordwell 1985). With this theorietical stand point, I suggest that the depiction of creation in The Tree of Life excemplify that creation began a the history of the world which has brought us up to present day, and beyond, which Malick portrays at the end of the film as an infinite space of wandering with the ones you love. This unconcluded ending helps propel subjective realism. Mainstream Hollywood films commonly consist of a narrative with absolute deadlines, where art films don’t require the necessary structure and favor unconcluded endings by forgoing narrative deadlines. This characteristic can be found in The Tree of Life as the ending begs more questions of religion and the after life than it answers. And the journey for answers the protagonist Jack has trekked throughout the film is not definitively resolved by the end of the film. The ending does not present itself as a set conclusion but more so as a potential beginning, a new journey with an unclear direction. This absence of conclusion spurs the audience to search within themselves for the answers they have been denied. Did our protagonist find peace and resolution? Was it heaven that he ultimately reached? These questions ensure that the film will continue to weave its ways into our thoughts far after it is viewed, for it’s visionary imagery and absence of resolution.
Bordwell also states that “characters in art film lack the clear motives and goals their Hollywood equivalents possess” as well as:
“Their psychological fluctuations are usually expressed by certain mise-en-scène techniques like covert glances, static postures, or smiles that fade, whereas mental states are represented with subjective images like dreams, hallucination, and fantasies”(Bordwell 1985).
With this theory in mind, Jack is the archetypal art cinema protagonist, as he clearly does not possess clear direction, and tumultuous psyche, portrayed by Sean Penn’s acting due to the absence of dialogue, insertion of diegetic score, and cinematography that uses ultra wide lenses to give the audience no specific focal point. Jack’s thoughts are shown through transcendental chapters that portray what is unclear as ethereal or Jack’s dreams. Jack as a child expresses his thoughts through single statement voice-over, statements that are adjacently felt and expressed by young and old Jack: “Mother. Father. Always you wrestle inside me. Always you will.” The protagonist’s psychological standing is experienced in the non-diegetic world, an ethereal place where he reunites with his parents and two younger brothers still with the physical appearance they had in Jack’s childhood. In this heavenlike place of surrounded by peace and grace the family hold’s one another tightly in their arms as they are bathed in sunlight on an infinite beach. While on this beach Jack shows no sign of resolution or peace, but maintains a vague expression that leaves the audience with the absence of resolution.
The book Visual Authorship: Creativity and Intentionality in Media contains an article written by Peter Schepelern called “The Making of an Auteur.” This is the article I will base my auteur argument on. Schepelern attests that “both Romanticism and Auteurism are based on the implicit understanding that great art - as least as a rule- is the achievement of one remarkable person and not the result of a team or an industry” (Schepelern 2005) In the article two different types of films are defined, “those that are individual works that carry traces of an individual director who is allowed to make the film according to his or her personal wishes; and those that are industrial work of a more anonymous and collective filmmaker” (Schepelern 2005). On the basis of this theory Terrence Malick is applicable to the first, an auteur filmmaker. Terrence Malick has an unparalled eccentricity in his work and films only what he finds stimulating, as he also authors and produces his films. The longest uncut take of The Tree of Life reaching four hours is an applicable example of this. Malick seeks no commercial achievement or recognition as stated by the cinematographer Nester Almendros: “Malick would never let any do anything that went against his own ideas” (Michaels 2009).
Almendros’ statement about The Tree of Life’s director is only confirmed in what is known as Malick’s “dogmas.” This is a list of “rules” Terrence Malick creates as he is developing the vision for his films, and decides in order to achieve such vision certain techniques need to be manipulated and adhered to in order to reach that vision. Malick has only released his own list of dogmas for one film, the rest are comprehensive techniques noted by his crew. So the list of dogmas for The Tree of Life was compiled and released by Malick’s executive producers. Some of these dogmas include:
o Shoot in available natural light
o Do not underexpose the negative, keep blue tracks
o Preserve latitidue in the image
o Seek maximum resolution and fine grain
o Seek depth with deep focus and stop “compose in depth”
o Use negative fill to avoid light sandwiches
o Shoot in crosslight only after dawn or before dusk, never front light
o Avoid white and primary colors in frame
o Shoot with short-focal-length hard lenses
o No filters except polarizer
o Shoot with handheald or steadicam
o Z-axis moves instead of pans or tilts
o No zooming
o Do some static tripod shots
o Avoid lens flairs
o Accept the exception to the dogma
The Tree of Life is not a very accessible film for its audience, as Malick makes no attempt to convey materialistic experiences. The audience therefore cannot interact with the characters as they have been classically trained to by Hollywood films. However the use of topic associations are heavy and evoke weighty feelings in the viewers, but never felt in full potency but only for brief moments and then vanished. This creates a dichotomy between reality and dreams that supports The Tree of Life’s centrality of internal and emotional phenomena that is not fully understood by the viewers. Tree of Life’s inconsistent narratives, and transcendental concerns, create long lasting impact. Such a conclusion of the film plays hand in hand with the concept of romantic art and expression of an Auteur’s intimate perception of the world, and this auteur being Terrence Malick.
Works Cited
Bordwell, David (1985). "Art-Cinema Narration" in David Bordwell
Narration in the Fiction Film. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Koehler, Robert. (2011) “Cannes: Ears to the Ground (2)”. www.filmjourney.org
Malick, Terrence (2011).The Tree of Life. Fox Searchlight.
Michaels, Lloyd (2009). Terrence Malick. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. (113)
Schepelern, Peter (2005). "The Making of an Auteur" in Torben Grodal, Bente Larsen & IbenThorving Laursen. Visual Authorship. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
