Surprise: ‘Tree of Life’ is a modern masterpiece

I’ve wanted a few days to write about Terrence Malick’s new movie “The Tree of Life.” That’s because I’m still … stunned. And, honestly, I’m a bit taken aback by that.

Look, Malick is not for everyone. My own wife, whose opinion I generally respect, is up and down on the guy. She loved “Badlands,” couldn’t stand his previous film, “The New World,” and her overall reaction to “The Tree of Life” was … well, meh. Even at Cannes, where it won the Palme d’Or , Malick’s new film reportedly drew as many boos as it did cheers.

I, however, have no such doubts. I think “The Tree of Life” is one of the most ambitious, most  beautiful, most earnest attempts to look at the nature of existence I have ever seen. It is nothing less than Malick’s attempt to probe the very nature of what it means to be human, to live an existence limited both by time and information, one that offers us all the natural beauty we can handle even as it tortures us with emotional interiors that … want … answers … now.

Most of us find answers that work. Religion is one. Its cousin, philosphy, is another. Obsession with the world immediately before us is popular, too. As is connection with others, even though such connection can cause as much torture and pain as it provides relief.

“The Tree of Life” seems to be saying all of this. But it doesn’t say it in a simple, straightforward manner. It works as a meditation, as a dream within a dream, one that moves from 1950s Texas to the age of the dinosaurs to the timelessness of space, and it depends on a narration provided by characters speaking as if in a waking sleep or as if projecting thoughts to their future selves.

Many audience memberss are likely to emerge from “The Tree of Life” confused and maybe even a little angry. Some moviegoers across the country have even demanded their money back.

Each to his or her own. To me, “The Tree of Life” is a masterpiece. And, yeah, I’m as surprised by that as anyone.