
While the foreplay between the Cannes Film Festival and Terrence Malick’s complex rumination The Tree of Life has been going on for well over a year, it finally climaxed with this morning’s 8:30 AM press screening. There was such anticipation for this film that the cavernous 2300-seat Lumiere Theatre at the Palais was completely full a half hour ahead of showtime — unprecedented. Reactions afterwards seem to be mixed. There was a smattering of loud boos when the picture went to black at the end, but then good (but not spectacular) applause once Malick’s name came up onscreen. One columnist immediately emailed a friend, “the film is terrible,” while another critic rushed to print calling it “major.”
The movie splits its time between the lives of a family in 1950′s Texas with cosmic images of how the Universe was created, a couple of dinosaur cameos and bigger metaphysical questions about our existence than anyone can answer in a 2-hour, 18-minute movie, even Terrence Malick.
It’s not a traditional kind of narrative but rather an experience meant to inspire deep thought about our own lives in a greater context. For those special effects sequences detailing the beginnings of time alone the three companies whose logos appear at the top of the film (Fox Searchlight, Summit, River Road) should be doing everything they can to insure this gets booked on to every available IMAX screen. It’s a visual stunner, as you might expect from a man whose four previous films were Days Of Heaven, Badlands, The Thin Red Line and The New World.
Four-time Oscar nominated cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki was behind the camera and did a sterling job juxtaposing between small-town Texas and the evolution of the world, no easy task. Certainly what’s on display in this much-delayed work is vintage Malick, the kind of auteur Cannes loves (he won Best Director here for Days Of Heaven in 1978), but it can’t help but divide audiences the way many great art films do. It can be compared in ways to Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey, which also split audiences at the time but now is regarded a true classic (not surprisingly, 2001 special effects wizard Douglas Trumball consulted here too).
Some people have the patience and curiosity to endlessly explore movies like this like they would a great painting, others just want the normal popcorn fare. This is anything but that as principals, including star (and producer) Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, tried to explain at the press conference that followed the screening. Missing was co-star Sean Penn, who is en route from Haiti to Cannes for tonight’s premiere (and the preem of his other film here later in the week, This Must Be The Place, as well as Wednesday night’s Cinema For Peace dinner at the Carlton where he is being honored for his humanitarian work) according to producer Bill Pohlad, who also appeared on the panel with producers Grant Hill, Sarah Green and Dede Gardner (Pitt’s producing partner). Most notably absent though was Malick himself, a highly unusual occurence at a Cannes press conference. This is a director-driven fest if ever there was one. Green explained away the absence of the ultra-reclusive helmer. “Mr. Malick is very shy. He likes to think his work can speak for himself,” she said, and when pressed further, it was emphasized “he’s really shy.” The fact is Malick is here for the premiere and will be walking the red carpet tonight, which is an easy thing in Cannes since at premieres directors just wave, pose for pictures and soak up the adulation. One thing they don’t have to do is talk. Searchlight co-president Nancy Utley told me a few weeks ago that Malick would be travelling to Cannes but likely unavailable while he was here. He never gives interviews, not even in the official press notes.
It really didn’t matter, since most of the questions were about Malick anyway, even with Pitt sitting right there in the middle. Pitt explained how he loved Malick’s directorial style. “I could go on about him for a couple of days. He was more interested in capturing what might be happening on that day (rather than what’s in the script), waiting for the truth to come. There was only one light on the set, the rest was all natural and handheld. I don’t know that I could do this a lot. It was exhausting, but you see what you get,” he said. Of this experience Pitt also added, “It’s changed everything I’ve done since. For me, the best moments are not pre-conceived or planned. I now try to go off script and see what happens.”
Pitt said he and Plan B Entertainment partner Gardner jumped on board because they wanted to see Malick’s script made. “I was surprised by the structure. It’s quite ingenious merging the micro with the macro and finding parallel truths in it,” he said. As for the version that was meant to originally come to Cannes last year but was eventually deemed “not ready” compared with the version being debuted today, Pohlad said “there isn’t a huge difference, but there were refinements.”
The film is certainly stirring up talk here, so Malick, the Garbo of directors, will get his wish. People will decide for themselves. As I mentioned in a piece yesterday, Chastain told me Sunday she likes to tell people “this is a movie that could change cinema.” After seeing The Tree of Life, I would say that would only be possible if studios start giving extrordinary visionary but eclectic directors like Malick big budgets to bring their personal art to the screen – and that ain’t happening in Hollywood’s corporate culture anytime soon. Bottom line is every now and then one slips through the system, gets made, even released with the director’s vision intact. And that’s why we’ve finally got this one to argue about up and down the Croisette today.
Before the fest started, many in the media were predicting Malick, with his film sight-unseen, could be the one to beat for the Palme d’Or. It’s certainly possible, but with so many of Cannes’ favorite auteur directors still to come this week, the race for Sunday’s top honors is just heating up.
Awards Columnist Pete Hammond - tip him here.


It is unfortunate that Tree of Life is only getting a limited release and that we won’t find out how it would have done commercially if released nationwide. It has an interesting cast and it would have been interesting to see how a smaller film for Brad Pitt and Sean Penn would do commercially.
i don’t mean to be naive / absurd, but how could someone with a ticket to “tree of life” at cannes really find it appropriate to boo (any) film? who gets to be in that crowd of 2,300?
well..then I guess you are a naive..
even a film called the tree of life can be a bad film..
Answer: The French.
Knowing what I do about Malick’s past films, it’s doubtful that any of the members of the press in the audience have ever done anything as meaningful or as impressive in their lives.
If we want art film to find an audience, then it’s up to the press to increase awareness… but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the members of the press just prefer comic book movies.
Either way, an embarrassment that they would boo; especially in front of the filmmakers.
It would have been the press screening, so admittance only with press accreditation, and the audience does make its feelings felt. It’s a Cannes and other festivals tradition and at least provides some kind of advance warning what can be expected at the following press conference. Mind you Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoniette almost had the audience attacking the screening afterwards. and she walked into the conference totally unprepared for the merdestorm!
I liked The Thin Red Line but critics hated it!?
Oh Butters, Critics didnt hate, Audiences did. Critics led it to its 7 Oscar Nominations and remember that year another WWII movie dominated audiences & critics, and that was SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
I would be disappointed if everyone did applaud! He’s a true artist, and his work will never be universally embraced. Regardless, this is the only movie I am truly excited about seeing this summer and I can hardly wait to see it!
This film is fitting for times like these. Times of great change.
It’s almost like a photograph album of the progression of human consciousness, yet also an instruction manual. A reminder from whence we came… and where we shall return.
The images haunt me. In a good way.
The deep breath before the plunge…
Well, done, sir.
Even if this movie did well and audiences embraced it, studios would be scared of the implications: the directors should once again have control of their films. Studio execs need to have some sort of creative control to feed their egos. Once 1980′s HEAVENS GATE changed the structure (directors aren’t in control anymore, studios are!) things haven’t been the same. Art is considered dangerous and a director in control is considered embarrassing (see TOWN & COUNTRY). So even if a film like this did well, the culture wouldn’t change and it wouldn’t really be discussed.
My question is this: Can anything truly change the current system? INCEPTION was supposed to remind studios that original screenplays/ideas (not a sequel? not a comicbook flick? not a “based on”?) can be box office gold, but the original screenplay market hasn’t improved much (granted financial reasons play something of a role, but INCEPTION should have proved investing in these are less of a risk than the studios convinced themselves they were). It’s a real shame.
I still remember the first time I saw “Days of Heaven” still one of the most beautiful, memorable films ever made. And having not seen this, from what is printed here, I can imagine a general audience hating this. It sounds, well…stupid. And having movie stars expound on the message makes it sound unbearable. I like Pitt but in serious roles he seems to shut down as if it’s okay to play everything internal and leave the audience out in the cold. Sean Penn on the other hand could read someone’s junk mail and make me want to get life insurance and join a gym. But dinasours? Really? Oh man… I’ll wait for the screener.
what a shocker. Malik’s movies are a torturous bore. why is he given money to make them?
So I just came out of the 3pm screening. I like Terence Malik. I get into huge arguments with people over The Thin Red Line and The New World. Days of Heaven is wonderful. I did not like this film.
It’s beautiful, glorious, lyrical and poetic. And I can’t recommend it. I was up in the Balcony near an entrance and I can honestly say I saw about 40 people walk out, from about 40 minutes in til the end. What gave me an indication of what the crowd was thinking was during the first act, I heard lots of coughing. People cough when they are uninvolved. The crowd got more involved when the movie went back to the Pitt/Chastain story, about 40 minutes in. But the whispered voice over narration drove me nuts. Hunter McCracken (I think) plays the brooding son and the center POV of the story (hence Sean Penn as an adult). Wonderful young performance.
But I cannot recommend this film.
It’s a platform release which means that if there’s a positive response, it will go wider to more theaters. Black Swan ended being in over a thousand theaters.
If Malick’s name is on it, I’m there.
Aren’t these the same journalists who were applauding that gigantic egg Coppola’s daughter laid last year? Somewhere?
I’ve loved three of his films and liked one (The New World – still excellent but too long for my taste). This man need not make another movie and he’d still be in the pantheon of “the greatest”. I mean, see Days of Heaven and Badlands and try to bunch him in with any other director. Won’t happen.
Malick probably doesn’t do press because he’s not a business guy, he’s an artist and maybe he’s too emotionally attached to his work to discuss it with schlog journalists only to have them turn his words into Hollywood sound bytes.
I’m VERY stoked to see this movie. I like those immersive films, like Herzog’s Fata Morgana, that you settle back into your seat and just experience. Can’t wait!
Ps Terrence Malick is shy and elusive, but he came to visit us on the Almost Famous set one day. Super nice guy. It was an honor to see him in 3D.