The Oscars are tomorrow and when the list of Best Picture nominees came out I realised I had already seen 5 out of 9 of them; and actually wanted to see 3 out of the remaining 4. Since then, I have taken up the mission to watch all the films (even the elusive 9th film I had no interest in) before the awards ceremony on Sunday. So, what was that 9th film? The Tree of Life starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn (kind of), nature, and a red-headed lady. There were also appearances by space, doors to nowhere, dinosaurs, waves, holes in the ground, kids, and the Loch Ness Monster.

My initial reaction to this movie was, Huh. When one watches a film like The Tree of Life, one has a lot of time to decide what you think about it. Not like a regular movie, where you might be so engrossed in the plot or action of it that all you can think about is what is happening on screen, what these characters are doing, what is going to happen next, etc. It’s not until the film ends where you can finally take a step back and decide how it made you feel. Not with The Tree of Life. Immediately as the film started, I found myself thinking, Wow. What is this? What is the point of all this?

First thought, this film reminds me of the episode of the Simpson’s where Barney Gumble wins the film festival with his short Pukahontas  and its unforgettable closing line “Don’t cry for me, I’m already dead.” His film documents his life as an alcoholic, and showcases sweeping scenes of wind blown curtains, black and white roses in half empty beer bottles, operatic music, and time-lapse clouds rolling across the sky.

After about 20 minutes of “setting up the story,” I guess, Tree of Life turns into 10 solid minutes of what I can only describe as screen saver imagery. Supernovas, cell division, jellyfish, landscapes, anything you might find pre-loaded into your Microsoft desktop appearances folder. Then BAM, Loch Ness Monster. And, to add that extra level of Film School Final Project it’s all set to the sounds of sad opera interspersed with wind. And out-of-the-blue whispers like “Did you know?” and “What does it mean to you?” Also, I’m not an opera connoisseur but I’m pretty sure she is singing “lacrimosa,” which in Latin means “to cry,” so, there’s another layer for you.

Then the film does some other weird stuff, but for the majority of time it focuses on Brad Pitt’s family, for what purpose I’m not sure. And when I say “focus” I don’t want you to take that literally. There’s barely any dialogue. There is certainly no obvious point. At first I thought we might be watching the life cycle of the oldest son (it is revealed in the first 20 minutes that he dies at 19 years old, possibly at war? Not sure), but the film never gets to that point. Because that would be too non non-sequitur. Then it ends the way it started; totally insane.

Despite everything, the dysfunctional and depressing state of the lives of the characters, I was still in love with their neighbourhood. What lovely trees (of life) and big flat roads for playing and riding bikes. Would have loved that growing up!

I am not surprised this film has been acclaimed. It’s interesting to look at. Each scene is beautifully shot; meaning I think any frame would make a lovely photograph. But other than that I don’t see its appeal. And I certainly don’t see how anyone can think it’s worthy of the best picture of the year! I definitely think its release should have been limited to art galleries and planetariums.

If you see this film…I… good luck.

Also, in case anyone was wondering, the other 8 nominees for Best Picture are:

The Artist (EDIT: WINNER!) The Descendants Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close The Help Hugo Midnight in Paris Moneyball & War Horse