August 24, 2011
Terrence Malick’s new film The Tree Of Life is not just great, it’s important.
While it is not rare that a film is made with heavy philosophical aims, it isn’t common either. Of the films that do address big questions, very few use scientific discoveries to frame their stance, barring the eccentric fancies of science fiction.
Terrence Malick’s new film The Tree of Life alludes to ideas about evolution, the origin of life, and the big bang not as footnotes or metaphors for the human experience, but as vital context for it – the closest answers to the age-old question, “What The Hell Am I Doing Here?”
Art has, and will likely always be primarily concerned with the human experience. Romeo and Juliet, for instance, grapples with the opposing forces of love and tribal allegiance, Pride and Prejudice explores the psychological pressures of social propriety, Beethoven’s 3rd is a monument to the intensity and complexity of heroism, and the Velvet Underground’s “Heroin” mimics the leering psychosis of addiction. A vague, cursory list like this could go on forever, but needless to say, great works of art don’t just entertain, they cut to the core of humanness.
Artistic expression is an amazing tool for looking at the “whats” and “hows” of humanity – What makes us tick? How do we cope? In many cases, one can learn more about psychology by reading literature than they can by reading textbooks. But what about the “why” questions? Can art answer those? Why do we tick? Why do we cope?
Until the most recent couple of centuries, this question, in my view, had an unsatisfying answer – God. Religion, it seemed, was the only mode of thought that dealt with such puzzles. Even art often relied on religious imagery to invoke grand ideas. But religion’s lack of any tangible evidence and its cross-cultural incongruities make it a poor tool for reaching a logical answer to any of the “whys.” Cue the Enlightenment.
The rapid pace of technological advancement and the wide dissemination of the scientific method quickly gave us some pretty good answers. By Darwin’s time, we could know why we were here in relation to other animals, by Einstein and Hubble’s time we had a good theory concerning the origin of the universe (and saw the invention and flourishing of film), and by the 1950’s, Miller and Urey had given us a front row seat to the origin of life. Three of life’s biggest “why” questions were much closer to an answer (if not already at one) than they had ever been in the history of human knowledge – Why is the universe here, why is life here, why are people here.
It is these same three questions that Malick confronts in the crucial, celestial segment near the beginning of The Tree of Life. Before launching into the heart of the film that is a stark, beautifully rendered portrait of childhood set in 1950’s Texas, Malick takes us through the birth of the universe, the birth of life, and the birth of psychologically complex animals. These scenes bounce from placidity to violence, colorfully depicting nature’s entropic path of change and destruction, and the appearance of cosmological and biological form. The sequence concludes with portraits of living, feeling creatures on earth (dinosaurs), and hints at their burgeoning minds. Psychological complexity soon becomes the center of the film (as it is the center of myriad works of art), and, for the young human protagonist, Jack, the why questions come flooding in. Jack is in a constant state of puzzlement – Why do I feel jealousy? Why are my parents the way they are? Why do I hate? Why do I love? I won’t go too far trying to explain the progression of the film in words. There are few words in the film itself – the story is primarily told, like other Malick projects, in images and sounds.
While so many other films investigate the proximate causes of our psychological states – “perhaps Jack is jealous because he envies his brother’s stoicism,” and “his parents are who they are because their parents were like this and that” – The Tree of Life doesn’t bother with proximate causes. Malick’s concerned with ultimate causes. He presents you with the scenes, images, and sounds of a child’s maturation and loss of innocence, you empathize with him and feel his feelings, but you are left not to try and guess why he feels the way he does, but to try and know why.
After witnessing the origin of everything, the viewer has been primed by a sequence that no other modern piece of art before the 1950s could have shown – we didn’t have any good theory on the origin of life yet – and is left to watch a film about a small family of humans not in the context of a town, decade, or country, but in the context of the history of the universe. I couldn’t help but think – Jack is ultimately the way he is because he, like I, is a product of the natural forces of the universe.
Evolution has shaped humans as the storms of primordial earth shaped its clay, and even with the added caveat of natural selection, we are filled with imperfections, contradictions, and that kludgy machine, the brain, that can only do the best it can to make sense of it all, and usually fails in doing so. This may not be a satisfying answer to the big questions we have about ourselves, but it certainly puts things in perspective. Our own minds will always be the center of our personal worlds – we can’t help it – but now, because of science, we are starting to know why our minds behave the way they do. Science is telling us who we are: We aren’t beholden to supernatural beings, and have no purpose or place – we are a small branch on the Tree of Life, pushed and pulled by nature’s unyielding winds.