“…for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter…” (TS Eliot, The Wasteland)
The press and others are making much of the religious or theological character of Terrence Malick’s new film, Tree of Life, a tremendously ambitious work featuring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, and Sean Penn. It is rare, after all, that a Hollywood film delves into the subject of the numinous.
The film captures the joys and sufferings of a young, ostensibly Catholic family—the O’Brien’s—(Chastain, Pitt and three remarkable young actors playing their pre-adolescent sons) living in a small West Texas town in the 1950s, placing their lives in the context of larger cosmological questions about God, suffering, and the meaning of life.
With Tree of Life, Malick has created a cinematic tone poem abounding in visual beauty. The viewer is seduced by the swirling movement of images, landscapes, and light that fill Malick’s canvas, accompanied by beautiful sacred music, an atmospheric soundtrack, and natural sound.
Water swirls beneath the ocean surface in great waves and cascades hypnotically over magnificent falls; sand blows starkly across the desert floor; the sun shimmers in varied tones of blue and red sky and casts a beautiful light on everything. Malick masterfully places the viewer inside the full beauty of Creation, and he is to be commended for making a work so unapologetically philosophical and painterly.
Faithful Catholics and other Christians, however, should beware of expecting too much of the film’s supposedly faith-friendly view of the universe. While the characters speak openly about and to God and perform some very basic rituals of Catholic family life, there is nothing specifically Catholic or even Christian in Malick’s treatment of God, eternity, and the meaning of life.
The God represented in the film is not the Christian God, incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ (Christ is in fact strangely absent from the family’s collective and private prayer and gets no mention in the film). Nor is he the God of the Old Testament, who comes not in the wind, or the earthquake, or the fire, but in a still small voice. This is not the God of Moses, Elijah, and the psalms.
The god of the Tree of Life is a pre-Judaic force, an impersonal, mute entity manifesting itself through the power of nature, in erupting volcanoes, galactic storms, the Big Bang, and puzzling shots of sharks, dinosaurs, and cellular division. The only still, small voices we hear are the internal mutterings of the central characters in the voiceovers that accompany much of the film’s action. It is an evocative and aesthetically pleasing dramatic device, but there is very little substance in what the characters have to say.
Tree of Life would not have been substantially different had Malick depicted a family of observant Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims. The film’s “Christian” elements—glimpses of sacramental initiation rites, prayers at mealtimes, and meandering Sunday homilies—are like a cloak hiding the deep spiritual poverty of this family; their gestures and rituals do not form or symbolize a coherent fabric of faith, woven deeply into the family’s life, but are an afterthought, with little bearing on their existential search for God. Even the Mass itself is depicted as a mere weekly obligation, without any incarnational or supernatural meaning.
If this is Malick’s point—that the family represents a people who have no language for prayer, no real relationship to their God, and are largely ignorant of their inherited religious tradition (a timely subject for today’s Catholics)—he could have made it in much more rigorous and convincing ways.
Instead of placing eternal questions within the context of any serious theological or artistic tradition, Malick has made a film of religious indifference and easy, new-age spiritualism. The viewer is left to project his own vision of God on the film, because Malick’s characters seek a god with no face and no identity. It is a god without a voice or intelligibility, who has not entered into history. It is a god incapable of protecting his people.
Viewers hoping for a glimpse of salvation will be disappointed. The final beach scene, supposedly depicting some kind of beatific vision, is abysmally sentimental and looks like a soft-focus video advertisement for a Raelian spirituality conference. If eternal bliss is anything like Malick’s sad vision of it, many discerning viewers will leave his film hoping for eternal damnation.
The film is remarkable as a formal exercise in filmmaking. The performances—particularly Chastain’s and Pitt’s—are excellent. The cinematography is unparalleled in its detail and beauty. But as an artistic meditation on spiritual themes, let alone Christian themes, much of the film is trivial and pretentious. Its very title—which suggests both the tree in the garden of Eden and the Cross—is an empty promise of something more than Malick has delivered.
The Church needs some of her saints in the modern-day Areopagus, speaking the language of our age, but the Christian artist seeking to evangelize through his art must be wary of acclimating to the world so deeply that he sheds the mantle of Christ. The modern-day evangelist, and especially the Christian artist, must endeavor to avoid this great temptation.
Likewise, the Christian viewer must also be wary of confusing his generous desire to see Christ in all things with a naive tendency to project meaning and substance where there is none. Some may find it flattering that a film concerning God has won the Palme d’Or at Cannes. But the Christian has a moral duty to develop his faculties of understanding so that he may discern between artistic works of real substance and works that are only superficially beautiful or pleasing. References to God and beauty do not a Christian film make, nor do they necessarily make a good, substantial, and beautiful film.
In short: Go see Tree of Life if you are interested in cinematic form and if you can sit through more than two hours of visual and aural massaging. Do not go expecting to see an intelligent discussion of God, man, and the last things.
Kevin Collins is an actor and theatre director. He is one of the founding members of the newly formed Catholic Artists Society.
Comments:
I do think there is more to the film than that, though. The point is not "that the family represents a people who have no language for prayer, no real relationship to their God." Malick's theme here (the book of Job quotation is a hint) is the difficulty of submitting to God's will. Brad Pitt's character, who is some kind of aviation engineer, symbolizes the modern attempt to control life. His son bristles at the father's overbearing discipline. And the mother cannot understand why she, who was is so holy, would have a son taken from her. The family dynamics are key to understanding the film.
Also you say that the scenes of religious ritual are short and basic. Well, that's true -- it's not about ritual. I found myself thinking often of Rilke and the way that he addresses God, one of the questioned asked by one of the characters in the film to God, "What are we to you?" seems like it could have been lifted directly from one of his poems. So there is a sense of an unmediated personal relationship that comes off as in a way Protestant, I'll give you that.
Finally you say, Malick doesn't "give us" the tree in the Garden of Eden or the Cross. Well, no, he doesn't quite manage that. But I think he does offer a fine meditation on intimacy and alienation from God, in the spirit of the Book of Job and Rilke.
I think the placement of the final scenes -- with Penn's character descending the elevator after the beach sequence -- and with him having the look of epiphany on his face, suggests that the beach scenes were not in any sense literal but either a vision he was given, or just representative of an internal experience of Faith that he had. Him hesitantly stepping through the doorway there seemed to indicate his hesitantly coming to terms with God and accepting the 'answers' he had been given to his questioning. I think there's more going on there than just this, but this is how I interpreted the primary substance of what was occuring on screen
In the present age, how much further can orthodox evangelization in an American movie go and not end up preaching, idly, to the choir? The apostolic challenge has always been to reach unconverted hearts by slipping in under their defensive radar. To an amazing extent, "The Tree of Life" seems to be succeeding.
This, esp. so , considering how often The Name is invoked in The Liturgy !
The reluctance to mention The Name as noted above can be rectified , since the viewers can do so , in all places that one gets 'tarnsported ' to in the movie as well as out of it and on behalf of the many who would / could not do so -
good article here , on The Name , how that distinguishes our faith and even helps to deal with the impersonal newage spirituality -
http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/01/kreeft-the-jesus-prayer/
May the faith thus enriched , in turn help to bring the presence and power of His Name , into even more areas , with more renewed faith and to do His will , inorder to do away with all causes of the slackening of faith in The Name !
Yeshua , help us to trust in Thee , increase our faith and heal us as well as the many who need same , that Your Name is ever in our hearts and on our lips !
Haven't seen the film, but this review makes me wonder if Malick meant to show works in the absence of faith. I wonder if he is grappling with his own emptiness. Which is not to accuse him of nihilism but to commiserate him for annihilation.
From the vantage point of evangelization, however, I am encouraged by what I know of this film from the various reviews. I am encouraged because we live in an age where the religious sense itself (which precedes the encounter with Christ) is dead. That is, we don't even ask questions of meaning anymore. We don't acknowledge a numinous aspect to our existence. And, most alarmingly, we have denied our intrinsic need for truth, beauty, love, and justice, thereby subjecting ourselves to whatever the dominant power of our culture might tell us is the primary good of our existence -- money, sex, distraction, success, health, etc.
So, to my mind, any film that can possibly reawaken the religious sense of man is an astounding achievement. Because we can't even talk of Christ or the Church unless that religious sense is first acknowledged and enlivened. Then, and only then, can we introduce that religious sense to the Christian claim; that is, Christ, who proposes Himself as the answer to the infinite needs of our heart.
Otherwise, if not proposed as an answer to the needs of the "I," Christ becomes reduced to a ritual or a doctrine without any relevance to life. This, I think, is the very phenomenon that you have observed here in this film's depiction of the family. Christ is absent, because Christ isn't encountered as an answer to the needs and questions being raised. He is simply "added on" and thus "optional." That is, in fact, sadly the current situation in our Church, as you acknowledge. Christ is all too often preached and understood as an "ethical choice" or "lofty idea" rather than an "encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction." (Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, Introduction).
I look forward to following this conversation. Many thanks.
Exactly. I would rather be offered this opportunity by a work of cinema than be preached at any day. To me, "The Tree of Life" is Malick's best film yet because he finally personalizes his career-long obsession with original sin, which is a very Christian concept. I wrote about this further for ThinkChristian.net: http://bit.ly/jHb0NO
- the O'Brien family are probably, given the architecture of the church, Episcopalian, not Roman Catholic. (Malick is Episcopalian, and his wife has a master's from an Episcopal seminary.)
- Mr. O'Brien works at a power plant.
- the film is explicitly Christian - for example, others have pointed out much of the music is from a requiem mass. There are also other hints and lines that portray a Christian theme.
Tree of Life is a movie that is refreshingly pro-life, pro-family, pro-faith. It offers elevation of the mind and the senses towards the contemplation of transcendent truths - inviting us to contemplate the nature of suffering, death, sin, grace, forgiveness, beauty, nature, God. This in a time and culture in which all these things are constantly under attack or philosophically held in doubt, is a remarkable thing to see. Also, anyone who calls this "New Age" spirituality is highly confused. You want new age spirituality, go watch Eat, Pray, Love, but please don't tell me that Malick is leading us down the same wishy washy, feel good, ego centric path as that.
Also, i think that Tree of Life is not first and foremost aimed at putting forth a complete Christian theology. If Malick was trying to do that, then yes, this review has legitimate concerns to raise. But the story is one which invites us to contemplate a Christian philosophy more than anything. (read about Malicks life as a student of philosophy - wikipedia). The movie is more an inquiry into the nature of man's place in the cosmos, as a creature, not only with limits and a fallen nature, but with a deep yearning for purpose and for God. The voiceovers throughout the entire movie express how essential it is to ask questions, to wonder, to desire to know and to seek an invisible God in the midst of lifes paradoxes and hardships. How is this not true to the Catholic mind and spirit?
From its beginnings, Roman Catholicism addressed itself first to the philosophers, not to other religions, to borrow Pope Benedicts words. To forget the rich intellectual tradition of the Church, with the great works of St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, to name a few, is a grave tragedy. Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology -people away from the Catholic faith are not going to be easily converted by being force fed Christian theology, especially not in a movie theater, however, if they are invited to contemplate Christian ideas via their intellect and reason, if they are invited to ask questions, invited to wonder and contemplate the order and beauty of the universe and mans place in it, then there is a much greater opportunity for them to find valid answers offered by the Church and therefore become more open to the mysteries of the Catholic faith.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-05-25/film/the-difficult-gifts-of-the-tree-of-life/
"Like anything ambitious, Tree of Life will be called 'pretentious,' but its characters address the gauche subject of the eternal, naturally, through the Judeo-Christian lingua franca instead of via a vague, enervated 'spirituality.' In this, it is quite direct and accessible."
The grand creation sequence set to the beautiful and penetratingly sad Lacrimosa is reminiscent of the Tolkien Creation myth wherein Creation is sung into existence by joyful song but wracked by the dissonance of the Fall and then re-worked by the Creator into a new song, beautiful but imbued with sorrow.
The “mutterings” as they are referred to above are actually prayers conveying the deepest questions we humans ask, and, if the viewer pays attention, answered in the scenes immediately following, including scenes of cosmic events and of everyday lives as well; the drama of the cosmos, we surmise, is linked to the drama of our individual lives.
Creation is seen to be showered with grace, particularly in images of water—waterfalls, waves, rivers, but baptism too and small acts of love like the mother’s giving a drink of water to a doomed criminal. The mother, of course, is the icon of grace—she recalls Dostoevsky’s Staretz Zosima in her sheer joy and in her imparting (straight from Brothers Karamazov), “Love, forgive, love everything, love every leaf.”
Grace—love and forgiveness—embodied in the mother and in his younger brother—bring Jack to God. “Brother, mother…they brought me to you,” we hear Jack pray, and perhaps the central theme of the movie is how one little soul—Jack—finds himself with God. Jack’s prayerful reflections on the anniversary of his brother’s death recall how his brother’s forgiveness of Jack for an act of particular meanness arrested Jack’s freefall into sin.
And in the Eschaton scene we gain a deeper understanding of the profound role the mother has played in the redemption of the whole family, now together in peace, as we see her unite her suffering to the central act of cosmic history, offering up her son, as the musical score intones, “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi.” As St. Paul said, “In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions...”
"On earth, indeed, we are as it were astray...Much on earth is hidden from us, but to make up for that we have been given a precious mystic sense of our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds. That is why the philosophers say that we cannot apprehend the reality of things on earth...God took seeds from different worlds and sowed them on this earth, and His garden grew up and everything came up that could come up, but what grows lives and is alive [and Malick's movie is about characters "growing" into "life," "alive-ness"--coming into contact with the Tree of "Life"] only through the feeling of its contact with other mysterious worlds. If that feeling grows weak or is destroyed in you, the heavenly growth will die away in you. Then you will be indifferent to life and even grow to hate it. That's what I [Father Zosima, aka Terrence Malick] think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh4FS8OOn3A
i saw the movie last night and was blown away. The Agnus Dei at the end was shocking and beautiful. A nearly perfect God movie for a secular audience.
What does the climactic scene in 'The Tree of Life' mean (and why does it evoke the final episode of 'Lost')?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/07/tree-of-life-terrence-malick.html
And I agree with most comments here -- that this was a profoundly beautiful, moving, and religious film imbued with great meaning.
But all that does not make this a Christian film, its strong Christian allusions notwithstanding. It isn't a Christian film for the simple reason that the complete answer given to man's longing isn't Christ.
The Christian claim is precisely this: that man longs for God and God answers with his very self made flesh in the historical body of Christ and the continued presence of that body in the Church. Man never attains God; God comes to us. The God portrayed by this film, in contrast, is an entirely disincarnate God who remains elusive and above the main characters; a God that the subjects of the film are left to grope for largely alone. This is not Christianity. If anything, it is deism or panentheism (to be distinguished from pantheism) that merely speaks in the superficial tone of Christianity, appropriating its symbolism without its substance.
Again I will reiterate -- this analysis in no way detracts from or demeans this masterful film. But I agree with Mr. Collins -- let's appreciate it for what it is, rather than trying to label it something it isn't. The danger in doing so is that we begin to follow a Church of Christ without Christ ("Wise Blood," Flannery O'Connor).
This has to be the starting point. It's art like this that opens people up and then we as evangelist can then say, and look, look what Christ has done for us. You noticed what the family was looking for? Yes, I am looking for it too, and Jesus is the answer.
If you wanna make a movie that's basically a catechism, go ahead. But I guarantee few people will watch it.
The difference between the time of the early Church and today is that in the time of the early Church people were looking for God. Take a second look at your own Aereopagus reference. People today are willingly closing their hearts and their reason to the very idea of God. It's art like this that makes evangelization possible.
If you'd really like to educate yourself on this topic, take a look at Fr. Luigi Giussani's The Religious Sense.
PRINT REVIEW
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2011/05/tree-of-life-is-film-about-god.html
VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh4FS8OOn3A
The film opens and closes with an image of the FLAME, which is a reference to the Holy Spirit, The Lord and Giver of Life.
How about the obvious symbolism for the Blessed Mother as seen through Jessica Chastain's character? In order for the son, Jack, to grow closer to his Father (Brad Pitt), he does so through his mother. Sound Catholic yet?
Or how about at the end when we see Jessica Chastain's character praying and saying "I give you my son"? If that'a not a direct reference to Mary accepting Christ's sacrifice, I don't know what is.
Or the Purgatory reference towards the end, where before we see the Heaven sequence with Sean Penn, it shows at the same time, the world being scorched by the sun, but its also an image of purification, before entering the eternal life.
This film is explicitly Roman Catholic, one just needs to look at it the right way.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2045614200/
You want, what, a move of the "Four Spiritual Laws"?
Should we have a character look into the camera and ask "Do you know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?"
How about an alter call at the movie theater?
Some people just can't be pleased.



I agree with you about the absence of a robust Faith depicted in the lives of the characters, but don't think that hinders the film from being profound and robust itself.