Movie Review: The Tree of Life

One of the most agonizing experiences in life is crying out for meaning in the face of suffering and loss of innocence – and getting no answer from God or the universe. In the face of silence to our questions, what gives meaning to life? Terence Malik’s The Tree of Life tackles this most profound of questions.

Set in the 1950s, we follow Jack, one of three brothers, as he moves from the marvellous innocence of childhood to the loss of that innocence following his troubled relationship with his father (Brad Pitt), experience of sickness, suffering, and death, and into adulthood (Sean Penn) as he works in a competitive concrete jungle business world where the self is the only thing that matters.

The Meaning of Life is a very unusual movie. The narrative is minimal and much of the 2 hours and 19 minutes consists of impressionistic cinematography around our universe and on our earth. The experience of the story’s protagonists are almost overwhelmed by the vastness of the universe’s history from its birth to its death – once again not told in linear form but rather in frenetically wonderful glimpses that are thematically related and which build to an experience of awe-fullness in which human life is reduced to near triviality. The overall experience of the film is one of meditation and humility as Jack struggles to answer the big questions of human existence. An answer is provided at the end of the movie – there is a meaning to life – but depending on your current point of view, you may or may not agree with it. I won’t reveal it here because it will have more impact if you discover it in the ambiguity of this stunning meditation.

Many Christians provide inadequate and insipid answers to the why questions when it comes to suffering. They appeal to nonsense like ‘God has a plan for your life’; ‘This was meant to be’; or ‘We will understand the meaning of our suffering in heaven’. All of these are inadequate and, for many Christians who cry out to God in their darkest moments, become downright offensive when there is no response from God to our cries – a God that is supposed to love and care for us. It may be that this film provides the answer – whether we are Christian or atheist, religious or secular.

The Meaning of Life is definitely not a mainstream film. Don’t go to see it just because your favourite film stars are in it – you’ll be disappointed. When it was shown in an Italian cinema over one week, the first two reels of the movie were accidentally switched and no one noticed – attributing the result to the director’s editing style. In some American cinemas, signs were posted warning cinema goers ‘about the enigmatic and non-linear narrative of the movie – following some confused walkouts and refund demands in the opening weeks.’ (IMDB) That should give you an idea of the nature of this film. As one reviewer has described it, The Tree of Life is a ‘total sensory immersion’ film.

But if you are willing to immerse yourself in an almost unfathomable meditation that takes patience, courage, and perseverance to survive nearly 2 and a half hours of ambiguity and slow exploration, there is much to be pondered. The Meaning of Life reminded me of the book of Job in the Old Testament (the movie opens with a quote from the book) – except The Meaning of Life proffers a different answer and one which may be more satisfying to some. Near the beginning of the film, we are told that ‘there are two ways through life, the way of nature, and the way of grace, and we have to choose which way to follow’. If you dare to experience a completely different type of movie – go and see it and make up your mind which way you will choose.

Nudey Rudey

Right; let’s tackle this nudity, nakedness issue.

I admit to being a little surprised – perhaps better yet, quite stunned, with the reaction that came through when we showed the movie the other night, with two scenes of what I would consider to be very modest nudity.

I do understand how things are when we are being brought up and parents like to keep us from misunderstanding some of the racier things we might see.

 I get that and I respect that. And I do understand the respect for others that goes with that. 

But guys – we’re all grown up now.

Naked is not, of necessity, dirty. That line of reasoning leads to the burkha (burqa etc).

I exist in a state of perpetual puzzlement that we can sit happily watching a DVD which has extremes of violence of almost every kind, but we should fast forward past a female breast.  I truly don’t understand what we think God thinks about us when we do this. Watching Bruce Willis exterminate half of some large American city (and the people therein) is apparently fine with God but catching a glimpse of a person in the state they were created is somehow naughty?

So I guess I’d like to start with some of the theology of it all, a la Rob Bell.

Genesis 2:

Just two people wandering around the Garden, naked as the day they were created and pretty happy with that state of being. The essence of Genesis 2 is the unity between God and people.

Genesis 3 – The Fall (that should have big, bad, minor chords)

Apple eating and much hiding and sewing of fig leaves because they were “afraid”.

So, the shame of being naked is somehow associated with the Fall – the descent into sin if you must. 

The question then arises; are we Genesis 2 or Genesis 3 people; Fallen or living in God’s grace?

The burkha is the great acknowledgment of our perpetual dwelling in sin – no part of the female form can be displayed because men are so out of control of their sexual impulses that the only way we can be amongst women is if they are dressed as a sack. Women apparently don’t suffer from the same impulses so I am perfectly safe in my shorts and jandals.

My suspicion is that the “Importance of Beginning at the Beginning” line of reasoning is to give us a vision of how the world is supposed to be.  Jesus brought a declaration of the restoration of that existence and Revelation acknowledges the promise of the fulfilment of it.

Does that mean that I think we should all walk around naked? Not at all. We should dress properly (and preferably warmly) for whatever occasion we might encounter. Our cultural and social norms have established patterns of attire which most of us choose to conform to – no troubles with that.

What would be a good thing, in my opinion, would be for us to become comfortable with our own bodies and comfortable with the sight of other’s bodies.

One of my early points of revelation around this issue was when the chefs from St. John’s College came down to visit us a couple of years after we’d finished college and were working in ministry. Garry and Ellen were late middle-aged by then and not utterly gorgeous physical specimens by any means.  The day was bright and Akaroa-warm, the sun was wonderful on the skin. Garry told us that they were members of a naturist group and asked if we minded if they stripped off. Somewhat astonished by this we said that this was fine and they just took their clothes off and we sat around chatting and eating and having a drink. After a couple of minutes we suddenly found that it was not uncomfortable at all. It seemed surprisingly normal.

I don’t belong to a naturist group; I don’t spend much of my time wandering around naked – if I do it is generally within the confines of our own four walls. I’m fairly conservative in lots of things but I think I have figured out that nakedness is not about sexuality or sin, unless I make it that. And I choose not to.