Recently, I’ve noticed that Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” was on a good number of film critic's and blogger's list of, including mine, top ten movies of 2011. Considering this was probably the most polarizing, “over-hyped” film of 2011, it was surprising to see so much backlash and affection over a small film from Terrence Malick. Audiences across the country and the Internet were puzzled by “The Tree of Life” and somewhat feel duped by showing up to the theater to see the latest film featuring Brad Pitt. As a majority of moviegoers stormed out of mega-plexes and demanded their money back, to many, “The Tree of Life” was considered the worst film of 2011, so why was this film held in such high regard by cinephiles?
Why were people so upset with this film? Was it the unconventional narrative? Was it the lofty melodrama expressed? Or was it simply the “over-hype” machine of Internet bloggers and pundits? Personally, I feel a lot of the outcry towards “The Tree of Life” was due to the fact that most people really haven’t seen a Terrence Malick film, and if they did, they didn’t fully understand what they were watching. Because if they did, they would notice that, “The Tree of Life” was exactly what it claimed to deliver, a Terrence Malick film.
But what makes a Terrence Malick film, a Terrence Malick film? How could so many people love “The Tree of Life,” while at the same time so many people hated it? In this series of essays, I will try to examine the loose trilogy of humanity, existence and ideas of the American Dream Terrence Malick is trying to examine. Namely focusing this on his 1978 film, “Days of Heaven,” his 1997 film, “A Thin Red Line” and his 2011 film, “The Tree of Life.”
Terrence Malick’s “Days of Heaven” is a beautiful film, not only in its photography but in its narrative. “Days of Heaven” follows the story of a small family of drifters, finding work in the Texas panhandle during the 1920s. At the start of the film, we get an idea of what kind of approach Malick wants to put on to this film. I’d like to point out that it’s vastly different from his 1973 film, “Badlands,” a film that would be considered to be more conventional than his later work. In “Days of Heaven,” Malick let’s his camera and story unfold organically. It seems like he had no concern of delivering a direct storyline but rather he felt fit to “find” the film in editing. But what he found was something more than what can be found on the page.
In the Criterion Collection’s release of “Days of Heaven,” there’s an exclusive interview with Richard Gere, who played Bill. During the interview, which is really just an account of his time while working on the film, he states that, at times, he would butt heads with Malick over the character of Bill and the story of "Days of Heaven." They both came from different schools of thought on acting, Gere being more theater oriented and Malick, obviously, being more cinematic. This reminded me of Sean Penn’s experience on “The Tree of Life,” in an interview with Le Figaro, Penn states:
“I didn’t at all find on the screen the emotion of the script, which is the most magnificent one that I’ve ever read. A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What’s more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.”
Understanding this approach is the key to understanding the films of Terrence Malick. Watching one of his films could be frustrating and intimidating but if you accept Terrence Malick on his own terms, then it’s really easy to enjoy his films and ultimately find something rewarding.
I have a feeling if we read the script for “Days of Heaven” it would be vastly different from the final product. But inside of “Days of Heaven,” I feel Malick is exploring ideas of the existence of man and his conflict with other human beings. The dramatic conflict in “Days of Heaven” is the struggle between Bill (Richard Gere) and The Farmer (Sam Shepard) for the affections of Abby (Brooke Adams). But what’s deeper is how these characters relate to each other, their environment, along with notions of the class system in America, rich and poor, as well as the pursuit of happiness or the American Dream.
The conflict between Bill and the Farmer is very interesting considering that in a typical movie, Bill would be considered the hero, he his the one we are following, he is a hard worker and he is the love interest of Abby, and the Farmer would be considered the antagonist, he is rich and ostensibly a slum lord, he is an obstacle between Bill and Abby, but in “Days of Heaven” no one is really considered good or bad, they are defined by their actions. After all, Bill is crooked, sly and unhanded, taking advantage of the Farmers illness by pawning off Abby to marry him with the thought that the Farmer will soon die and they will inherit his fortune. And in contrast, the Farmer is kind-hearted, a fair businessman not driven by greed but by good work. When we first meet Bill, he is a worker in a steel mill in Chicago. He gets in an argument with a co-worker, most likely over Abby, which leads Bill to murder. This is a major clue into how we should view Bill. But strangely, as the audience, we continue to root for Bill, even when he kills the Farmer and is on the run from the law. Why is this? Are we just conditioned by Hollywood filmmaking to believe that Bill is the good guy because the handsome Richard Gere plays him?
I feel Terrence Malick is making the point, that man will be the end of man by showing all of this in the backdrop of the beautiful Texas panhandle (but really this was all shot on location in Canada). Despite how man treats the environment, it will always come roaring back but the destruction of man comes from man himself more so than the environment that surrounds them. To Malick, the world is beautiful and man is the one that makes it ugly. This is a theme brought up over and over again in all of Terrence Malick’s work. Some would slight Malick as being more interested in nature photography than cinema, considering that a good chunk of his pictures are deliberate close-ups of trees, plants and animal interactions. To some, this serves no real purpose to the narrative of his film, but on the contrary, nature plays a big role in Malick’s exploration of man’s place in it. Overall, exploring his personal reverence to nature and the environment.
In “Days of Heaven,” the idea of work and play happen in the same location is interesting. All to the end, when the locusts invade the wheat fields and then set ablaze. None of this destroys man; it is Bill’s jealousy that kills the Farmer, not the fire that surrounds them. A jealousy fueled by greed and the promise of the American Dream. After all Bill and Abby were poor, working class people that married into wealth. Linda (Linda Manz), Bill’s alleged sister, makes the point, “All the time in the world to play. Boy! The rich have it all figured out.” This would suggest the “ease” of climbing the social ladder in America. Hard work isn’t enough, but the ability to take advantage of the people around you is the key to real success in America. For Terrence Malick, “Days of Heaven” is a model for finding the American Dream.
Seemingly, I feel that, “Days of Heaven” is Terrence Malick’s most accessible film. It’s his easiest film to understand and less intimidating than his later work. It’s full of beautiful photography, all set famously during the “magic hour” of the day. “Days of Heaven” is a good entry point to the work of Terrence Malick and should serve as a template or a blueprint into understanding his brand of cinema. I feel that Terrence Malick is exploring notions of humanity, how it fits into the world and the conflicts people have with other people. Overall, how humanity’s downfall will not be nature’s undoing but man’s, and that nature will live on, long after man has left this world.
0 comments:
Post a Comment