I’ve been visiting my family and friends this last week, so I’ve been pretty busy hanging out and having fun. I’m sure a lot of other people are doing that, too (I know that’s the main reason it’s been quiet at Cinematic Attic in the last week or two), and it’s good people are having a nice break. I’ve also been watching a lot of movies, about 5 or 6 in the last week, and I’ve been meaning to write a review of at least one. We’ll be doing a series of year-end/new-year posts in the next week, but for now I just wanted to talk a little bit about a film from a year or two ago: The Tree of Life.

We watched this movie at Deuce’s house on a lovely, lazy afternoon a few days ago. I didn’t really know anything about the movie except that a few people had said it was good. And also that it had no plot, apparently. That second part may only be partially true, though. It’s not exactly something like Koyaanisqatsi, but it does share some similarities with that music- and image-fest. It is hard to argue it has a “plot” in the traditional sense of the word, but it does certainly have a theme, which you can likely guess from the title.

So, after you realize it’s not really about trees, you realize that the movie is about life, of course. In the opening voice-over you hear a woman say that there are two ways to live life: by living in grace, or by living in nature. You’ll have to see the movie to get what that means exactly, but basically “nature” is represented by a father figure, and “grace” by a mother figure. It even has characters: Brad Pitt is a father in the 50s, and Sean Penn plays his grown son in the modern day. The “story” develops as we see how the father tries to raise his children, but ends up fairly alienating the oldest son.

Along the way there are very beautiful, slow images showing the family’s life, their interactions, and also things completely unrelated to the 1950s family. Think “dinosaurs” and “lava.” It’s really hard to describe, but I thought it was great. It’s a much more moving and contemplative movie than most that come out these days, and its strength is its subtlety. The acting is also great. Penn plays a fairly minor part, so it’s hard to comment much on his acting, but the whole cast from the 50s section is great. The mother (Jessica Chastain) is great, and she seems like the embodiment of motherly love. Pitt is also excellent as the father, mainly since his performance is very nuanced and believable, in that he doesn’t portray the man as one-dimensional. Yes, he has failings and he doesn’t always treat his kids and family as well as he should, but he does do what his instinct tells him is right, and he’s a product of his era. I don’t know if he got nominated for an Oscar for this and it’s too late (and I’m too lazy) now to look it up, but if he wasn’t, he should have been.

I’d give the movie a 16 out of 17. As a testament to how good it is, consider this: My wife Angela fell asleep at the start of the movie, before the opening credits had even finished. She was just tired and, as I mentioned before, it was a lazy afternoon. So no foul: no one can really blame her for that. But then she woke up around 45 or 50 minutes into some strange, impressionistic movie, and she stayed awake from then on until the end. Sure, we all know people who have fallen asleep during movies, but when have you heard of that movie sleeping pattern? Never, right? That’s how much this movie can grab your attention.