by Thomas M. Pender
There are a precious few actors and actresses whose names alone on billboards and trailers make me want to see a film. When two come together to make one film, sign me up! Brad Pitt and Sean Penn are two fine actors with great range, so when I learned that Penn was playing Pitt’s grown son (and Pitt would appear in his flashbacks), I was anticipating an emotional journey, led by these two characters. Unfortunately, writer-director Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life is a complete waste of time.
But don’t take my word for it. Penn himself stirred up a bit of controversy in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro about the film. In it, Penn said, “Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context. What's more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.” True enough, Penn has very little screen time, and is mainly seen standing around his high-rise office, moping.
If you’ve ever seen the last 30 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, you’ll understand what I mean when I tell you that the storyline of Tree is no “line” at all, but a kaleidoscope. You never know from one scene to the next whether you’re going to see a scene of Pitt being a bad macho father to his sons, a scene of Penn moping about with little to no dialogue, or . . . a collage of silent scenes featuring leaves and meadows.
Seriously.
The film is 2 hours and 19 minutes long, but the “action” of the film could be shown in about 40 minutes. I didn’t see Tree until its recent DVD release, which is a blessing. Not only did I not waste almost ten times the money on it, but I could fast-forward through the “artsy” nature scenes. Trust me, there are a lot, and they go on and on and on!
The viewer does not end up learning anything about either character when the credits finally run. Dad’s borderline mentally abusive, son’s mopey. The end. We learn nothing of Dad’s background, and nothing of the son’s adult life.
Speaking of the credits, to further illustrate the bizarreness of the film, there is a story out that when shown somewhere in Europe, a projectionist put in the second reel before the first reel . . . and no one noticed! I suppose when credits finally told the audience an hour into the film what the name of it was and who starred in it, someone got suspicious, but this does speak volumes about the design of the film. It’s just scene after scene with no linear or logical pattern, and you gain nothing from watching it.
I won’t give up on either star due to this one film, which is about as “artsy” as a Pollack spill. I do feel I could do some good by waving people away from it, though. Put The Tree of Life on your “NEVER see” list today!
