Written by Andreas Babiolakis

This review is a part of the Palme d’Or Project: a review of every single Palme d’Or winner at Cannes Film Festival. The Tree of Life won the fifty sixth Palme d’Or at the 2011 festival.

The film was selected by the following jury.
Jury President: Robert De Niro.
Jury: Jude Law, Uma Thurman, Martina Gusmán, Nansun Shi, Linn Ullmann, Olivier Assayas, Mahamat-Saleh Haroun, Johnnie To.

When Terrence Malick vanished off of the face of the Earth post Days of Heaven, it felt like we lost one of the most promising visionaries film had ever seen. Two masterworks in and he was gone. He would eventually return decades later with The Thin Red Line: one of the most punishing war films ever made. It wasn't until The New World that we finally got around to the signature Malick tone that would set the bar for everything that came later: soft voice over ponderous confessions, naturally lit cinematography that would blow your mind, and chronological fragmentation that make you feel like you are in the best daydream. Without crossing over into the unnatural (usually), Malick's films in the twenty first century would feel as surreal as life itself can be: as if we are zoned out and trapped in our own minds.

However, The New World wasn't loved all that much upon release. It took time for the overall collective opinion of the film to improve. That wasn't the case for its follow up: the magnificent The Tree of Life. Of course, the film won the Palme d'Or and was instantly recognized as something miraculous. Well, not by all: it is one of the handful of winners that still got booed during the same festival (so there was still some of that disregard present). Even still, it's the mark it left on cinema that I am referring to: it was already a classic of the new millennium upon arrival. Not many films are this breathtaking and profoundly soulful. Malick was always a man of faith, and his magnum opus (a term I'm not using lightly with a man of this caliber) is bound to even resonate with the biggest anti-theists. The Tree of Life connects everybody through history, circumstantial experience, and the great beyond. It's impossible not to feel like you are a part of it somewhere.

Protagonist Jack O'Brien lets his mind wander at work at then-present day 2010. He remembers the day his younger brother died and how all of his family responded to this. It's when The Tree of Life dips into its biggest question: what happens when we die? Not just where we go, but what happens on Earth as well. In order to tackle a thought this large, Malick has to start from the beginning, and I do mean the very beginning: the big bang. For someone as religious as Malick, he sure is transfixed by the marvels of biological and astronomical science, as he devotes literally a generous portion of his film towards the slow gestation of the universe, Earth, and the planet's life forms (yes, including those polarizing dinosaurs). What Malick gets at here is an analysis of turning points in the same way Stanley Kubrick sought after these same pivots with 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick pointed to the dawn of man to see when the first weapon was made to hunt and hurt other primates. Malick uses this time to search for something more hopeful: the first signs of sympathy. A dinosaur on the verge of killing another decides to refrain and let his fellow animal survive. It's this kind of mercy that would take us far.

Cut to young Jack's childhood, and we are wondering where this own change of heart will come from. He is a bit of a bully when he wants to be, but the film is always showing that he doesn't mean to be a bad kid. His father is extremely religious and strict, often to the point of being borderline abusive. He represents the ways of nature: dinosaurs that act instinctively to survive ahead of the pack. His mother is kinder to the point of being walked all over. She represents the ways of nurture: learning to understand and act through emotion like the dinosaurs that decided it couldn't kill. You can also say that both parents have a bit of the other style within them: the father's tough love as a means of teaching and preparing a child, and the mother being as much of a maternal figure as possible (to the point of biologically and psychologically one with her children). Either way, what wins? Nature, or nurture? Did either method prevent a nineteen year old child from dying? Can anything?

There still isn't an answer for why we die, despite how much Malick explores the ways of the living. That is until the very end. The Tree of Life is a monumental film about being gifted this experience, and it was already a work to behold. Once we reach the final portion – effectively the gates of the afterlife – it becomes an untouchable work of brilliance. Malick can't tell us why we die, but he can present us his version of hope: that we will all unite one day and never be painfully ripped from our loved ones again. We can absolve the sins of our family and friends, and cleanse ourselves of our own blemishes. Jack acknowledges that he should have been nicer throughout his salad days, and this is his chance to show everyone how much he loves them. There aren't many film moments as overwhelmingly gorgeous as this, and I am brought to tears every time, despite not being of the same mindset: Malick takes me there anyway.

All of this is possible thanks to Malick's spiritual direction, the subliminal acting of all of the featured stars (veteran or newcomer), and the holy music that courses through my veins. A special shout out has to go to Emmanuel Lubezki, whose photography is the best of the twenty first century (and one of the peak examples of cinematography of all time). The use of natural, angelic lighting brings everything to life. The entire world is illuminated. Malick sincerely loves this planet that we live on, and he is appreciative of being alive as well. All of this is found in his greatest achievement: The Tree of Life. It’s so monumental that Malick wanted to revisit this world again, again, and again. Not only has he been more prolific than ever, he has tried to replicate the same sensation via different avenues (personal vices in Knight of Cups, interpersonal dilemmas in To the Wonder, the chasing of freeness in Song to Song, and perseverance in A Hidden Life): aesthetically, these films are all cut from the same cloths of The Tree of Life and The New World. I think that even he knows that The Tree of Life will never be made again. It’s impossible to pull off the ascendency that The Tree of Life effortlessly achieves. It is a singular cinematic journey, and it is even more sensational as time goes on and we get older. Not a day goes by where I don’t remember The Tree of Life and its beauty.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.