Someone asked me on Facebook about the Tree of Life, a film by Terrence Malick: “How was the movie? Would you recommend it?” If anything illuminates our mood, typological and cultural preferences along with systems of meaning making, it would be Tree of Life. So my response reflects a personal experience on a given day so it’s a straightforward…maybe:
Jennifer…it’s an unequivocal…”it depends.” It’s the one movie at which I almost fell asleep that I would also recommend highly to some people. I got sleepy as there is a dreamy sort of quality because it is more of a series of images as experienced through the lens of an adult male (Sean Penn).
Whether or not you would like it? I don’t know. I’d have to ask you a few questions. I know people who did (or would) hate it. If your orientation is towards well-constructed narratives, it might make you crazy or confused. If you, like some people I am seeing on Integral forums, weary of nebulous Integral language and imagery, it might irritate you.
It also depends on your own preferences. For instance, you might find it self-indulgent on the part of Terrence Malick .
I also might ask you about your mood for the day…for me, it was just what I needed yesterday and as I said in my status, it elicited one of the most interesting, illuminating conversations I’ve had in a long time as I had a great day with my son afterwards as we walked while a storm rolled in…it was a perfect sort of mirror for the movie we had just seen and for our discussion.
For me, it will remain one of the more memorable movies I’ve ever seen. The first 30 minutes were absolutely visually beautiful (other people hated the first 30 minutes thinking what the hell was THAT?) as it was laying out the case that the life of a small town Texas family is not only embedded in the evolution of the cosmos but also a mirror for the very nature of the cosmos: replete with paradox and polarities, conflicted between nature and grace, imbued with creativity, stasis, cruelty, love.
As the cosmos awakens to itself so we awaken to ourselves and the discoveries are painful: our caregivers and creators aren’t who they say they are…they’re flawed, they’re broken and whole …we love them and draw them near while pushing them away with a vengeance.
It’s also the Law of Three revealed elegantly. If the natural world is a template for human unfolding (since we are part of the whole) then this is what it looks and feels like.
Were there problems? Yes, I’d say so, but geez, the courage in creating a film that is not only an artistic masterpiece but also completely confusing and irritating to an awful lot of people is pretty remarkable. (I’m usually impressed by ballsy creativity).
The mother was a too passive and perfect and ethereal for me, but that’s my own stuff (after all, isn’t a film a mirror of our own projections?) It could have used some editing (although in the post film discussion with a local critic, he thought it was edited flawlessly).
On another personal note, I felt the way I often do when watching Mad Men (and no, they’re nothing alike): the creators give a masterful felt sense of growing up in the repressed late 50s early 60s. It’s almost creepy…I could feel scenes inside of me complete with the emotions I felt as a kid and as a girl. I am both drawn in like a moth to flame and I want to close my eyes, cover my ears, yell at the screen and sometimes run away.
The ending confused me although the conversation with the critic and then my son helped me understand we were witnessing a conscious return (to Love? grace? to Oneness?)
So, there you have it. I say see it. If nothing else, you may get a lovely nap and have some great dreams when you fall asleep at night. Or, you may be thinking about it and feeling it inside of you for days to come.
