Tree of Life - Cindy

A brief reflection to begin. The point and substance of movie-making has changed over my life-time from feel-good story telling – all tied up in a beautiful bow by the end (“It’s a Beautiful Life,” etc.) to real life, not necessarily pretty, figure it out yourself half-stories (“Tree of Life”, etc.). This subject always makes me remember one of Goldie Hawn’s first movies (maybe her first), “Butterflies are Free.” She played a young, bohemian, aspiring actress with a butterfly tattoo somewhere. (I forget where, specifically.) Her character, much to her mother-in-law’s dismay, was caste in a then considered raunchy off Broadway play. In an argument about it Goldie explained, “But this play depicts real life.” The mother-in-law retorted, “So, does diarrhea. But, I don’t consider that entertainment.” I loved that movie 30 years ago. What’s the deal with that?

The point of all this rambling is to say that I sometimes still struggle with being entertained by movies and allowing movies to define life and life’s realities and disallusions.

So… abrupt transition…

After watching the trailer for this movie I was sort of afraid to see it. Grace and nature have been engaged in mortal combat within me for a long time – perhaps three or four years. So, when I heard the words that we all make a choice for one or the other – grace or nature – I shuddered a bit. Really, we have a choice? Isn’t it just in our “nature” to live by grace or nature? Lots of thoughts. And, then, when I heard that faith in God was going to be a theme, I really wanted to save this one for rental. Theology, grace, nature – I have so little to say these days, and kind of like it that way.

But, I wanted more than attempting to escape the uncomfortable, to spend time with Kyle doing what he likes to do best or almost best, watching a movie. And, I was intrigued by the title and trailer, albeit still “chicken.” So, I employed my usual mantra when movies get too scary or disturbing or real, “It’s just a movie, right?” But, then, on the way to the Esquire as Kyle was sharing with me the discussion he had with James about the writer and director of the film, Terrence Malick, and his attempt in his studies to capture life in the context of God my mantra was being smashed to smithereens. “Oh no, this movie is some really smart, existential guy’s attempt to ‘voice.’ Help!”

Happily, I loved the movie. Many scenes were emotionally trying, especially those that captured the mother’s love for her sons in the throws of abuse from the father. You would need to be a mom of a son to get it. Really tough to watch. The scenes of mother and son playing made the opposite bearable. Watching boys play with reckless abandon was heartwarming. Loved it. However, seeing the angst that interrupted innocence was hard on the heart.

Ultimately, several thoughts came to mind that reflected where much of my theological thinking goes today, at least. In an effort to really review the film, I’ll resort to bullets in the negative.

So, finally,

You should not see this film if…

* …you think you have any vocabulary that in any way speaks honestly or adequately about God. You will be bored.

· …you pretend to understand what it means to define, give, or accept grace. You’ll find the film theologically shallow.

· …your definition of nature stops with trees and flowers. You will be intellectually confused.

You should see this film if you are willing to emotionally, intellectually, or theologically hash out what it means to live, to love, to hate, to know, to doubt, to hurt, to celebrate, to die; being content to have not one conclusion, one truth, or one definitive word to utter.