Change Your Image
brucelei-1
Reviews
The Tree of Life (2011)
Pretentious, pietistic drivel
O.K, I'm a rationalist, and a supreme being, or a belief in such, plays no role in my life. This doesn't mean, however, that I can't appreciate a work that assumes a deistic definition of reality, but sitting through the "Tree of Life" is like being forced to listen to a seemingly endless Tent Meeting Sermon, gussied up with startling photography and made a bit more politically correct by giving a nodding acceptance to evolution (or at least to dinosaurs).
An artist has a right to impose his definition of reality upon us, but even if we leave Mr. Malick's pietistic beliefs aside, the reality he presents simply makes no sense historically and sociologically: We know from the family's name that they are Irish American Catholics, but the church they attend every Sunday seems to be ecumenicized. Aside from Brad Pitt's quick kneel (without crossing himself) and a flash of religious imagery, there is no trace of Catholic ritual (no Latin mass, no communion, no confession.) It's a homogenized Christian church, and the religion the family practices seems, really, quite Protestant. Such a non denominational Christianity would be believable in a secularized family, but religion is the center of this family's existence. In short, it's a piety that could not have existed in Waco in 1950.
But is it really 1950? It is assumed that the son who is killed was killed in combat. But in which war? From the costumes and cars, the action of the film when the boy to be killed was growing up was the early to mid 1950s; the boy is somewhere between 10 and 12. he was killed when he was 19, that is to say 7 to 9 years later. The date of his death, then, could be at the latest, 1964, when very, very few US military were killed. The serious fatalities among US military personnel didn't begin until much later. In short, possible, but highly unlikely. Moreover, the war itself is totally absent from the film. It was hardly absent from US society in the mid 1960s.
But the most absurd aspect of the film is Brad Pitt's character's relationship to his sons. His main function is to act as a stern, tyrannical disciplinarian. But he has to be humanized to show how much he really loves his sons. Otherwise, there would be no story. So, he is constantly kissing and embracing them. Such physical expression of paternal affection was all but unknown among Irish Americans, especially lower middle class Irish Americans in Texas. It is totally unbelievable. Especially since the character is not otherwise physically demonstrative; he hardly ever touches his wife, except to fend off her aggression.
That he is a musician manqué helps a bit; but even that is not particularly credible. Couperin in Waco in 1955? Please! In short, this is a family that never could have existed.
I'm sure a scientist could say similar things about Mr. Malick's version of the Creation.
Le fil (2009)
Why must everyone be beautiful?
This is actually a very good film. the plot-line is intelligent and interesting; it is well acted, directed, and filmed. Its major flaw is that, like most gay oriented films, the major characters are all beautiful. This film deals with real social problems that should be able to move gay audiences particularly, but also a straight public. Why, then, must the action be transported to the realm of the beautiful people, whom the majority of the audience can envy and even empathize with to some extent, but somehow not quite identify with? Having the action take place in beautiful surroundings among beautiful people is, of course, not limited to films that treat gay issues. But it seems to be endemic in films with gay social content, and in that sense, it is particularly harmful. What gay audiences need to see, and what straight people interested in gay issues also need to see, are gay social issues treated as taking place among average looking people in average looking surroundings. These are everyday issues touching the lives of the large majority of gay people. They are not abstractions; they are painful realities. This is no place for physical idealization. The issues are too serious for this type of useless, distracting decoration.