Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life

Reviews of the latest films.
May 27 2011 3:29 PM

TheTree of Life

When Terrence Malick sees a tree, he really sees it.

Elsewhere in Slate, Jessica Winter examines unknown actors in juicy parts, and Forrest Wickman tests your ability to tell apart Terrence Malick scenes from nature documentaries.

After you've seen Tree of Life, check out our Spoiler Special discussion:

You can also download the program here, or you can subscribe to the Spoiler Special podcast feed via iTunes or directly with our RSS feed.

Brad Pitt in the Tree of Life. Click image to expand.
Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life

I'm typing this review outdoors, looking up intermittently at the leaves of a tree in the wind. It seemed an appropriate place to work, given that the movie I'm reviewing is The Tree of Life, in which the director, Terrence Malick, returns obsessively to an image he's long favored: a tall tree seen from far below, sun filtering through its dense branches. But, truth be told, I'm doing a crap job of looking at this tree. When Malick sees a tree, he really see s it—and by some alchemy of camerawork, language, and music I'm still trying to figure out, he offers you that experience in such a way that it feels like your own. Here's a testament to this reclusive, stubborn, visionary director's stunning achievement: His films can change the way you look at the world by showing you how another person sees it.

Dana Stevens Dana Stevens

Dana Stevens is Slate's movie critic.

The Tree of Life is Malick's fifth movie in a 38-year-long career as a filmmaker. That averages out to about one movie every eight years—though in practice the gap between films has varied from as short as five years (between his first film, Badlands, and his second, Days of Heaven) to as long as 20 (between Days of Heaven and his next, The Thin Red Line).His films feel like events both for their rarity and for their uniqueness of voice: Malick doesn't seem to come from any particular school or movement or, indeed, era.


This timeless quality is more apparent than ever in The Tree of Life, a movie that is, in large part, about time and the mystery of our passage through it. "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?" God asks Job in the Biblical epigraph that opens the film. In the context of the Book of Job, this reads as a somewhat guiltifying rhetorical question: Who are you to complain, buddy? But Malick's intent is to pose the question seriously. Where were we when the earth's foundations were laid, whether by God or by the inexorable laws of science? (Either way, the mystery is equally great.) And if we could somehow be present to witness the beginning of everything, would that help us to understand our own lives?

The particular life at stake is that of a man named Jack, played by Sean Penn as an adult and by Hunter McCracken as a child. (McCracken is a nonprofessional actor, a Texas boy Malick found at the end of a long casting search, whose round, serious face registers emotion with the sensitivity of a wind chime.) Jack the adult seems anxious and disconnected; an architect, he spends most of his days alone in sterile skyscrapers and cold minimalist apartments. But Jack's memories of his Waco childhood are just the opposite, filled with trees and rivers and the warm, pressing clutter of family life. That doesn't mean Jack's childhood was completely happy—his father (Brad Pitt), an aerospace engineer, could be rigid and tyrannical, though he also had a fierce love for his three sons. And, like every child, Jack struggled with the difficulties of being a human, coming to terms with the reality of suffering and the certainty of loss.

But wait! To fully understand Jack's situation you have to know something about his mother (Jessica Chastain), a nature-loving free spirit who might, in the Romantic era, have been called a "beautiful soul." (She's certainly a beautiful body, a tall freckled redhead with a pre-Raphaelite gleam.) And you should probably witness a moment or two of his mother's childhood. And—oh, screw it, to get the whole picture you really need to go back to the Big Bang. In a perhaps 15-minute flashback (hard to tell as this movie suspends the viewer's sense of time), Malick takes us through a few billion years of cosmic history: the formation of the universe, stars, and planets; the cooling of the Earth; the first microscopic signs of life; and, eventually, the dinosaurs, two of whom we witness as they enact a short reptile drama that will be the subject of many a post-movie discussion.


Justice Ginsburg’s Crucial Dissent in the Texas Voter ID Case

The Jarring Experience of Watching White Americans Speak Frankly About Race

Here’s Just How Far a Southern Woman May Have to Drive to Get an Abortion

The Most Ingenious Teaching Device Ever Invented

Marvel’s Civil War Is a Far-Right Paranoid Fantasy

It’s also a mess. Can the movies do better?


Sprawl, Decadence, and Environmental Ruin in Nevada

Space: The Next Generation

An All-Female Mission to Mars

As a NASA guinea pig, I verified that women would be cheaper to launch than men.

Watching Netflix in Bed. Hanging Bananas. Is There Anything These Hooks Can’t Solve?

The 2014 Kansas City Royals Show the Value of Building a Mediocre Baseball Team

  News & Politics
The World
Oct. 20 2014 1:50 PM Why We Shouldn’t be Too Sure About the Supposed Deal to Return the Abducted Nigerian Schoolgirls
Oct. 20 2014 2:16 PM Even When They Go to College, The Poor Sometimes Stay Poor
Oct. 20 2014 2:19 PM A Procedural Rule Could Keep Gay Marriage From Ever Reaching SCOTUS Again
  Double X
The XX Factor
Oct. 20 2014 1:10 PM Women Are Still Losing Jobs for Getting Pregnant
  Slate Plus
Tv Club
Oct. 20 2014 7:15 AM The Slate Doctor Who Podcast: Episode 9 A spoiler-filled discussion of "Flatline."
Brow Beat
Oct. 20 2014 2:39 PM Gwen Stefani Does Her Best Rihanna Impression on New Song
Future Tense
Oct. 20 2014 1:51 PM Will Amazon Lead Us to the Golden Age of Books? A Future Tense Event.
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Oct. 20 2014 11:46 AM Is Anybody Watching My Do-Gooding? The difference between being a hero and being an altruist.
Sports Nut
Oct. 20 2014 10:23 AM Where I Was Wrong About the Royals I underestimated the value of building a team that’s just barely better than mediocre.