Ads


Tree of Life Yields Little Fruit

“…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:

6.13.2011 | 1:40pm
Nathan Duffy says:
I thought the film was thoroughly Christian, really. Though it isn't enunciated in any kind of discussion, as you rightly recognize. But the whole thing is primarily about the doctrine of Creation, and only in a sense as compatible with Christian or perhaps Jewish thought, and decidedly not with some vague new-age spirituality. Plus it touches on the Fall (shown analogically), deals with Grace and God's relationship to Man. Also, Christ was absent in word, but not in image. There was a pan-up shot of stain-glass image of Christ as one of the characters asks in voiceover "Is nothing in this world deathless?" There are also depictions of eschatological resurrections of the human dead, though they are brief.

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.
6.13.2011 | 3:36pm
Patrick says:
I think this review is too harsh. Malick chose to make an evocative film in a poetic style -- not a formal theological treatise. So it is susceptible to the charge that it's just New Age fluff. But then so is anything that tries to be grandly evocative and poetic. I can certainly see how some viewers might see the dinosaur scenes, for example, as being over the top and pretentious. Me, I'm a fan of over the top and pretentious, but that's just a matter of taste. If you just don't have the patience for 15-minute long sequences of outer space, lava, and dinosaurs set to classical music, then you probably won't like this movie.

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.
6.13.2011 | 3:59pm
Kevin says:
David Bentley Hart, please respond to this!
6.13.2011 | 4:13pm
Nathan Duffy says:
I requested a review of this film from from Professor Hart (given his stated affinity for Malick's work). He said he hasn't seen the film yet (as it's still in quite limited release), and he would only know after he saw it whether he had an inclination to review it.
6.13.2011 | 4:18pm
Patrick says:
Also, I agree that the final beach scene is pretty bad. I wasn't really sure what to make of that. Were they in heaven? On vacation, having a luau? Was it just a dream? The grown-up Sean Penn character's part is the weakest throughout, I think . His character came off as undefined, although I understand he was supposed to have been depressed. It seems like Malick wasn't sure how to end it without becoming either too tragic or too cheerful and ended up sort of in the middle.
6.13.2011 | 4:31pm
Nathan Duffy says:
*** SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN ***




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
6.13.2011 | 4:50pm
Billy Bean says:
For an excellent positive review of the film from a Catholic Christian perspective, check out Father Robert Barron at Wordonfire's video channel (Youtube).
6.13.2011 | 5:53pm
Nathan Duffy says:
I posted a brief response to this review here: http://nateduffy.blogspot.com/2011/06/tree-of-lifes-christian-pedigree.html
6.13.2011 | 6:51pm
John McNees says:
Several of the criticisms in this review seem to betray a deafness to the musical component of the soundtrack. In particular, the visionary conclusion of the film crucially includes the complete last section of the Berlioz Requiem, the Agnus Dei. Then, although that portion of the Mass does come to them in Latin, those with ears to hear can plainly hear a chorus singing: "Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, grant them everlasting rest. Thou, O God, art praised in Sion and unto Thee shall the vow be performed in Jerusalem." And so forth.

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.
6.13.2011 | 7:33pm
A.M. says:
Looked up the faith background of the producer - Assyrian Church member , divorced and remarried ; there could be some ( unintentional ) detachment or even subtle hostility towards The Church !

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 !
6.14.2011 | 9:28am
Mae says:
Kevin Collins wrote: "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."

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.
6.14.2011 | 1:33pm
Chris says:
Not having seen Tree of Life yet (it opens this weekend in my city), I cannot comment about the particulars of Malick's film, though I would ask Mr. Collins several questions about the several questions about the relationship between Christianity and art: Does a work have to be "specifically Catholic or Christian" to relate a sacramental vision of the world? Does an aesthetic representation of God's relationship to His creatures require that God be presented incarnationally or can He be present in a obscurity, following Von Balthasar's discussion of antiquity in The Glory of the Lord? Is the primary function of Christian/Catholic art to evangelize or should it instead function, first and foremost, as an expression of Beauty?
6.14.2011 | 1:54pm
Matt says:
Collins' frustration with the film makes a good point. It is hardly the apologetic for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (or the God of Israel) that one might be led to believe. But it seems to me that he expect, I think wrongly, Malick's film to make a particular kind of argument. Instead, what if we saw it as a description? It is a description of a particular family with, sure, an anemic faith, particularly focusing on the mysterious ways of sin and loss in their life. Consider it the problem of evil from below, experienced by normal folk whose faith isn't much to shout about. (Also note the importance of the context in which Malick sets the family's story, which itself IS something of an argument.)
6.14.2011 | 3:33pm
Thank you very much for this alternative review. Reading it alongside A.O. Scott's review, it is fascinating how the same work can fall short and disappoint in one respect, yet challenge and pull-along in another. Not having seen the film yet, I am willing to wager that both of your assessments are correct.

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.
6.14.2011 | 5:49pm
Josh Larsen says:
Kevin - You wrote: "The viewer is left to project his own vision of God on the film."

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
6.14.2011 | 7:49pm
ech says:
A few comments:
- 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.
6.14.2011 | 8:53pm
Gilbertine says:
Rex Reed, in the negative review he wrote for the New York Observer, accuses director Malick of being "a devout Christian questioning the mysteries of the universe," but that classification might merely be an assumption at best, or at worst a generic slur (at least in Reed's vocabulary). Difficult to tell.
6.14.2011 | 9:05pm
Flow says:
I found this review to be a "tragic misrepresentation" as Sr. Helena coined the phrase in her post to a negative "Catholic" response to Tree of Life. Read her post here: http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2011/06/sr-helena-strongly-disagrees-with-this.html

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.
6.14.2011 | 9:51pm
Gilbertine says:
Even the Village Voice, in a surprisingly good review, points to the film's "Judeo-Christian lingua franca":

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."
6.16.2011 | 8:52am
M. POlesny says:
In repsonse to Collins' short-sighted comment that in the film, "The God represented in the film is not the Christian God, incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ," one must recal that the third person of the trinity is everywhere and, by sense alone, nowhere. Collins' view is in a way Protestant: if it is not in the text than we cannot deduce it's presence.
6.16.2011 | 8:24pm
I became interested in Terrence Malick's films after reading how David Bentley Hart said that Malick dealt with the themes of nature and grace in his films. Malick also lives in my part of Texas, and the local newspaper (Austin American Statesman) noted that Malick studied Heidegger as a graduate student. He translated a work of Heidegger's, translating the title to "The Essence of Reasons," in 1969, before his first film. I have not read Heidegger's work or Malick's translation of Heidegger. Just read Fergus Kerr's chapter, "Heidegger's Cosmogonical Myth," in Kerr's _Immortal Longings: Versions of Transcending Humanity_. I thought Malick's portrayal of the family in "The Tree of Life" portrayed them as devout Christians. It was a very respectful portrayal. But we might ought to look to Heidegger to understand Malick's "Tree of Life." Early in the film there is a saying about their being nature and grace. The movie seems to set the two up as opponents. Does the good but stern father represent nature? Does the the light, loving mother represent grace. I'm not sure. Heidegger's philosophy deals with things, thingness. E.g., a bottle of wine can only be understood in the context of the grapes, the field, the vinedresser, the bottle, the party at which it is opened, the sacrament in which it participates, the wedding that it enlivens! Then you have the stories: the characters are part of nature; a human is a thing in the midst of things. The humans are actors caught up in the dance of the things: earth, sky, divinities and death (Heidegger's quaternity). I get the impression that they are caught up in the flow of things. They are not subjects who create things or make a difference in things (although their actions certainly have consequesnce). E.g., in Badlands, the Martin Sheen character (great work by the young Sheen) does not seem to make choices so much. It seems like the trigger of the gun in his hand pulls of its own accord. This philosophy merges with Native American way of life in "The New World," (another beautiful film) as Captain John Smith, the explorer, and Pocahontas, the thing of nature, collide. Heidegger certainly doesn't handle nature and grace in a Christian manner. The judgement on Malick's handling of them is still up in the air for me!
6.19.2011 | 3:16am
Josh says:
If we must judge a work, let us judge it only by what it was meant to do, not by what it ought to have been meant to do. One can't fault a pitcher for throwing no touchdowns.
6.24.2011 | 1:09am
Kriss Rose says:
I heard the movie was not in the ordinary vein of movies...I like Brad Pitt , so I went....So lets not scare people off talking religion. What an amazing visual poem of life , a wonderment of how did we get here. The story of creating a family with love and how it is degraded with fear. Love created a beautiful child held up in reverence and gradually this turns to harsh discipline and shaming. The soundtrack is outstanding, drawing you into the emotions of the scene. The visuals are truly celestial. Well, we could have a tad of religion, I saw the beach scene as everyone meeting in the afterlife. Which ,of course ,we are visually the age that we were when at our best in life.
6.27.2011 | 2:10pm
Not only is this review incredibly superficial, it is mistaken on a number of points. Enumerating those would take too much effort and probably bear little fruit, but two items are worth pointing out. 1) Malick is not a "Christian artist seeking to evangelize through his art", for all we know about him (which is little). But even so, that's a deficient way of understanding both Christianity and art (see Flannery O'Connor, for one). 2) I think I owe this to my current place of residence, which is in need of any good press it can find, but the film is not set in "a small West Texas town" but Waco, which is neither that small (not even in the 1950's) nor in West Texas. Anyone who's been to either West Texas or Waco would recognize the landscape of Live Oak (which feature prominently in the film) and white Pine (which do not proliferate in Waco, in one of the film's few minor aesthetic errors) as belonging to central and eastern and not western Texas.
6.27.2011 | 2:11pm
Logan says:
This is a tragic review that simply didn't see what the film was trying to do. It's these "spot the Christ" criticisms of fundamentalists that make much of the Christian community look like philistines. Thoroughly disappointed in the lack of insight.
6.28.2011 | 1:49pm
Robert says:
I was absolutely stunned by this beautiful movie. It is full of Christian images and concepts and conveys a deeply Christian view of a universe beautiful and majestic, but suffused with sadness, and ultimately made whole and meaningful by a grace which conveys beauty, forgiveness and love. It would be a shame for faithful Christians and Catholics to miss it.

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...”
6.30.2011 | 8:46am
M. Polesny says:
I agree with Robert (above). Malcik gives credence to the necessity of that fuller (versus midget-maintream) Christian vision often found in Dostoyevesky, especially that passage in Brothers K, Part II, Book 6, Chpt. 3:

"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.
6.30.2011 | 12:27pm
Austin Ruse says:
here is the link to Father's Barron's review of the film, which I think is a better reading of the film than Mr. Collins':

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.
7.13.2011 | 8:20pm
Gilbertine says:
A Los Angeles Times article interviews a nun, a rabbi, and an Episcopalian seminary professor for their comments on the film's conclusion:

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
7.29.2011 | 7:35am
Shaina Fader says:
Creation is seen to be showered with grace, particularly in images of waterwaterfalls, waves, rivers, but baptism too and small acts of love like the mothers giving a drink of water to a doomed criminal. The mother, of course, is the icon of graceshe recalls Dostoevskys Staretz Zosima in her sheer joy and in her imparting (straight from Brothers Karamazov), Love, forgive, love everything, love every leaf. This is a tragic review that simply didn't see what the film was trying to do. It's these "spot the Christ" criticisms of fundamentalists that make much of the Christian community look like philistines. Thoroughly disappointed in the lack of insight.
8.2.2011 | 10:41pm
After seeing this film, I stand by my earlier analysis above (drawn from the various reviews I had read) that this is a film about the religious sense of man. This in and of itself is a very good thing, in that we live in a culture that has largely abandoned the religious sense to utilitarianism or nihilism.

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).
8.19.2011 | 3:24pm
jorge says:
I really think you didn´t understand the movie the same way I did. And I think this is the greatness of this film. As a Catholic and scientist, I found very interesting ideas in this film. I agree it is not Christian, as there is no reference of Christ at all. But I think it is closer to monotheist religions than it is to new-age or other nature-godness movements . This movie is about the search for the true meaning of pain, death and imperfection in our world, even though a Perfect God created it. It tries to explain the constant collision between nature and grace and why God allows bad things to happen. And I think he gives the perfect answer with the quotation from the Book of Job. We are part of a divine plan and we cannot pretend to understand everything because our comprehensiveness is limited to the physical world (energy and matter). We need faith to trust in God´s plan, who always allows bad things to happen in order to get better things from it. And this is very very important for me as a scientist, because I understand the scientific method and I know that there are things that are not in the science´s domain.
11.2.2011 | 8:29pm
ginny says:
I have enjoyed reading all these comments. As a clarification, Malick is a devout Episcopalian, and the priests in the film were played by actual Episcopal priests -- even the hands of the bishop confirming Jack. As an Episcopalian, I saw Anglicanism footprints everywhere, so it seemed obvious to me that they were Episcopalians. However, it is a film. These people exist only in human imagination and on film (digital, I guess). Viewers can respond to the film out of the context of their own faith tradition. It doesn't really matter what the family's church affiliation was.
12.29.2011 | 10:40pm
Ben says:
Quite frankly, after having just watched the movie, reading this review makes me somewhat sick. He is trying to accurately portray reality and people's experience. Not every Christian in America is the perfect Christian. I think this movie gives a great insight into where a lot of people are at in their faith, ESPECIALLY children and adolescents. From that starting point, it helps the viewer, following the main characters journey, open themselves up to God and to his action in their lives.

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.
1.15.2012 | 7:03pm
Prodigal Son says:
One of the Single Best Truly Religious Movies of all time! Yes it is a reflection of our modern time, but I know for me this movie helped me get back to Confession and Mass for the first time in 2 years! I even reconcilled with my earthly father. Obviously I can't say it was because of this movie for it was only through God, but this movie was instrumental. Period. And moved me in a way I can't ever express!
2.26.2012 | 8:05pm
Gilbertine says:
Fr. Robert Barron of "The Catholicism Project" fame hits the nail squarely on the head about the now Oscar-nominated film in his two reviews:

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
3.16.2012 | 2:35pm
Jack says:
Oh come on. This film has explicit Roman Catholic themes in it. It's just not "hitting you over the head" obvious, because that would have alienated most of the audience.

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.
3.27.2012 | 10:50pm
Binx Bolling says:
PBS aired a very insightful segment about Malick and THE TREE OF LIFE on "Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly," admitting in the copy for the program that "Terrence Malick's new movie is a meditation on traditional Christian questions about evil, suffering, grace, and beauty":

http://video.pbs.org/video/2045614200/
4.17.2013 | 12:27am
Good Lord, did we see the same film?

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.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact