Tree of Life - Movie - Terrence Malick

[Coito ergo sum]

I saw Tree of Life in the movie theater and I liked it a lot.

I wasn't really aware of the religious controversy surrounding it, with many atheists not being enthused by the movie, because Malick is supposedly very religious.



I did not see what Scott Silverman saw. I did not see it as a "Christian film."

In fact, I knew nothing of Terrence Malick when I saw the movie, and I went into it with a completely open mind. I didn't even intend to go see it - I was invited to go by some friends of She Who Must Be Obeyed and I went just to go with her.

I ended up liking the movie and I thought the message of the film was "god doesn't answer, because he isn't there." And, to the extent that there was an extant god in the film, I saw it as pantheistic not Christian. It was more of a "we are all from god because god is everything, including us," concept. I came away with the idea not that there is in reality a "grace" vs. "nature" dichotomy in the universe, but rather that there is no such dichotomy whatsoever in the universe and it is man that creates that dichotomy in his mind.

One controversial scene in the movie is towards the beginning when the movie depicts a dinosaur age Earth and there is an injured or weak dinosaur in the picture and then a predator dinosaur runs up and we are waiting for the predator to kill and eat the vulnerable dinosaur. But, for an inexplicable reason, the dinosaur just kind of sits there, puts its foot on thehead of the weak dinosaur, and then trots off without killing it.

Some atheists appear to take umbrage with this, but I don't agree with their objections. To me, it illustrates clearly that there is no "why." That's why the characters in the movie don't ever get an answer to the question "where were you?" and that's why they don't get any explanation why horrible things happen to kids and good people. Sometimes the predator dinosaur will rip your head off -- sometimes it won't. There is no overarching "why" that will make sense to us.

The characters keep calling out to god, but those calls seem to be depicted as traveling out into the universe and there is nobody there to hear them. God, if he exists, isn't listening -- a pantheist god would be that god. A pantheist god is not a god that promises to be "good." It is just the universe. The universe is god and things happen. People we think are innocent will die in ponds or be killed by dinosaurs, or they won't. There is no explanation.

That, to me, jogs well with the opening sequence which quotes from the Book of Job. The quote is god's answer to Job's inquiry about where was god when all these terrible things were happening to Job. God answers in a non-answer "where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth..." etc. The Bible quote is not there to send a Christian message per se, but only to say that we aren't going to get a logical answer to this question.

And, to me, the reason is that there is no God, or that God is the universe itself and grace/nature are not separate things. We only make them separate things. We only separate ourselves from "god" (the universe) by our own thoughts.

In the end, we are talking to ourselves.

What did everyone else think of that movie? I liked it, but I think I need to see it again, because if everyone came away with the feeling that it was a Christian movie, then I need to leave open the possibility that I am missing something.

[Audley Strange]

I like your review.

You are missing something. We all are, we cannot know the mind of Terrence Malick, but we can get hints of his thoughts in the symbols he employs. I took it as we are consequences of a blind but staggeringly beautiful and awful machine. Which is what he plays with a bit in other movies, especially "The Thin Red Line" where the personal and group tragedy of WW2 is played out in a small scale in comparison to the nature surrounding it.

[rachelbean]

I love Malick and am looking forward to this film. Since I haven't seen it I can't know for sure, but it's possible Silverman is taking things too literally. Anyway, I'll share my thoughts once I've seen it

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah --

I read one review where the atheist writer complained about the depiction of the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs. The atheist was upset that idea of all the dinosaurs being wiped out was presented without feeling, without any horror about what happened.

But, to me, that is the point. There is no feeling or horror in that event. It just was an event that occurred and all the dinosaurs were wiped out. Humans impute a feeling or judgment on it, that it has no meaning or purpose or that it was evil or senseless. We are entitled to our judgments, but "the universe" is essentially blind, pitiless indifference. The universe - god - is indifferent to the dinosaurs and to the child who drowns in the pond. To a pantheist god (wherein god is a reference to the universe as a whole) the universe really doesn't "hear" us. We are calling out to ourselves and the voice goes out through the vastness and nobody is going to take action because the universe is just operating as it does. It doesn't care about the Earth, the dinosaurs, or people any more than it cares about Pluto or lifeless asteroids smashing into each other.

That's why I came away with thinking it was an atheist movie (not knowing that Malick was renowned for being religious). It jogs well with atheism, which doesn't set an "objective" value judgment on various happenings.

And, this carries through to the dichotomy in the movie between Jack's mother (representing "grace") and his father (representing "nature"). These are false dichotomies. We -- tiny pieces of the universe -- invent the dichotomy in our minds, but it's really just part and parcel of "the universe" -- ie. god. And, our whole lives, we perceive ourselves as separate from the universe/god, and we strive to return to it (heaven). But, it's all just part of the same thing.

So, at the end, I didn't see heaven for Jack. I saw oblivion, which is nothing more than saying "the same as it is now" except that our bits and pieces are continuing on the universal journey. That's it.

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? I was THERE! I just wasn't in my present form. We were all there when "god" laid the foundations of the Earth -- as all of our particles were there. We are part of the universe and as part of the universe we are part of god as part of god we are talking to ourselves when we ask the universe/god why bad things happen to good people. Why don't we get an answer? Because we don't know and we're talking to ourselves.

[SteveB]

This is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen in my life and I'm into artsy films.

There's like a creation of the universe or the earth in the movie and that's somehow supposed to connect with the smaller story of the family, but literally any story can connect with the creation story because it's so overarching. That's just one of problems I saw with this movie.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen in my life and I'm into artsy films.

There's like a creation of the universe or the earth in the movie and that's somehow supposed to connect with the smaller story of the family, but literally any story can connect with the creation story because it's so overarching. That's just one of problems I saw with this movie.

I think what the creation sequence does is align with the idea of the "birth" of Jack and the death of the universe aligns with his death. Our births and deaths are the births and deaths of the universe (from our perspectives) and we are part of the universe, so our "birth" is analogous to the birth of the universe.

It also sets a tone for the movie - the unimaginable vastness of the universe -- the whole swaths of what to us is a lot of pointless nothing. Most of the universe, and most the 13.7 billion years before we came along has not much to do with is. It puts humanity in perspective -- we aren't really all that important to the universe, and in fact we're not important at all. So, the constant asking "where is god?" Is presumptive hubris -- that we are for some reason the object or the purpose of god/the universe.

Billions of year going by with vast gas clouds turning. Dinosaurs exist. And, a predator opts not to eat a vulnerable prey. Maybe it was not hungry. Maybe it was bored. Maybe a million different things. None of it matters. Same for the extinction of the dinosaurs by the asteroid. It's like the predator that skips the vulnerable prey. There isn't an answer. And, there isn't an answer for the asteroid killing off the dinosaurs because the dinosaurs just were not more or less important than the asteroid that hit them. It just was.

So, I think those long, boring sequences were necessary. The history of the universe IS long and boring. We can't imagine the time scales or the physical scales involved, most of which -- 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of it has absolutely nothing evidently to do with us.

[SteveB]

This is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen in my life and I'm into artsy films.

There's like a creation of the universe or the earth in the movie and that's somehow supposed to connect with the smaller story of the family, but literally any story can connect with the creation story because it's so overarching. That's just one of problems I saw with this movie.

I think what the creation sequence does is align with the idea of the "birth" of Jack and the death of the universe aligns with his death. Our births and deaths are the births and deaths of the universe (from our perspectives) and we are part of the universe, so our "birth" is analogous to the birth of the universe.

It also sets a tone for the movie - the unimaginable vastness of the universe -- the whole swaths of what to us is a lot of pointless nothing. Most of the universe, and most the 13.7 billion years before we came along has not much to do with is. It puts humanity in perspective -- we aren't really all that important to the universe, and in fact we're not important at all. So, the constant asking "where is god?" Is presumptive hubris -- that we are for some reason the object or the purpose of god/the universe.

Billions of year going by with vast gas clouds turning. Dinosaurs exist. And, a predator opts not to eat a vulnerable prey. Maybe it was not hungry. Maybe it was bored. Maybe a million different things. None of it matters. Same for the extinction of the dinosaurs by the asteroid. It's like the predator that skips the vulnerable prey. There isn't an answer. And, there isn't an answer for the asteroid killing off the dinosaurs because the dinosaurs just were not more or less important than the asteroid that hit them. It just was.

So, I think those long, boring sequences were necessary. The history of the universe IS long and boring. We can't imagine the time scales or the physical scales involved, most of which -- 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of it has absolutely nothing evidently to do with us.

Agreed; life, the universe and everything is pointless and boring and so is this movie. Good job, Malick!

[rachelbean]

People's main critique of a film being boring generally makes me want to see it more. Films I was told were horribly boring, and ended up loving:

2001: Space Odyssey
Broken Flowers
There Will be Blood (Seriously?!)
Eraserhead
Lost in Translation
No Country for Old Men
The Hours
Eyes Wide Shut
Every Terence Malick film made

[rachelbean]

Especially Thin Red Line, which is in my top 10 of all time and my dad told me he was so bored after the first half hour he walked out of the theater

[SteveB]

2001: Space Odyssey: Liked it, classic
Broken Flowers: Seen parts of it, so not sure
There Will be Blood: (Seriously?!) It was pretty good
Eraserhead: Not seen
Lost in Translation: Liked it
No Country for Old Men: Loved it, it's a freaking suspense movie, how could people think this is boring?
The Hours: Not seen
Eyes Wide Shut: Liked it
Every Terence Malick film made: I liked Thin Red Line, but I thought The New World was BOOOORING! Don't think I've seen any other Malick movie

[SteveB]

I may have never seen The Hours but I did recognize Nicole Kidman's ankles in that movie when asked about it in a trivia question in the board game Scene It? to my siblings' utter bedazzlement. I have crazy good memory for useless celebrity nonsense.
I must have recognized it from the trailer or something.