Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" and Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life"

Just before heading down to Florida last week I went to see Woody Allen's film "Midnight in Paris," and after returning to NYC, I went this afternoon to see Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life."  Two more different films in such a brief interval are hard to imagine - but they actually had something very much in common:  a commanding director's sensibility and eagerness to take on big questions about the nature of life.

Allen's film is a comic fantasy.  Owen Wilson plays a modestly successful screenwriter who yearns for the literary life and is plugging away at a novel.  Accompanying his fiancee and her parents to Paris, where future father-in-law, the right-wing industrialist, has business meetings, he suddenly finds himself engaged in time travel, turning up in Paris of the 1920s, where he becomes involved with Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Cole Porter, Gertrude Stein, Pablo Picasso, and -- most significantly -- Picasso's latest girlfriend.  But there is a serious theme about the nature of artistic creation and human striving, as Wilson confronts facts about himself and his quest.  I found it vastly entertaining - talky and witty in the way Woody Allen follows in all his films, and lots of fun.  The entire thing is beautifully photographed, and the costumes and sets quite stunning.

Malick's is also a fantasy, but not comic in the least.  Indeed, unlike Allen's purely linear plotting, Malick does not provide a real plot.  Rather, focusing on the nature of life and its inevitable ups and downs, he takes us from the creation of the universe (in flashbacks) to the present and the immediately prior present, as a brooding middle-aged architect, played by Sean Penn, reflects on his childhood and his tortured relationship with his parents (dad is Brad Pitt) and his brothers.  There is no chronological order here, just seemingly random jumping about.  Penn is only briefly on-screen, and the film seems to center heavily about his memories of his father, who gets the lion's share of the screen time.  There is little dialogue to help with the story, as is Malick's way through his series of taciturn films.  The occasional voiceover narration is sometimes unintelligible, especially the lines delivered by the child actors who impersonate Penn and his siblings during the 1950s.  The color photography is spectacular, the special effects are overwhelming, and the scene with the dinosaurs is something else, putting Jurassic Park to shame.  I'm of two minds about this one.  Either it is incoherent and pretentious or brilliant and profound.  Perhaps a bit of both.  There are certainly many individual scenes that are crushingly moving, and the actors seem to be giving Malick everything he asks for.  Definitely worth thinking and pondering, but not for those with short attention spans, as it can at times move at a glacial pace.  Lots of great classical music on the soundtrack, as well as some fine original contributions by Alexandre Desplat.

Comments

[Home Inspector Expert]

I saw this movie over the weekend. I had to be talked into it cuz the last Malick movie I saw in the theater was The Thin Red Line and I spent most of that counting the hairs on my head. All I really remember is Clooney in fatigues and lots of shots of trees blowing in the wind (during which I did my Nell impression for my date… horrible impression, but much more entertaining than that movie).
So, for the first 20 minutes, I was like “uch, what am I doing here?” Then came all the footage of the creation of the universe and the Earth. While that footage was actually kinda awesome, I started to wonder if they had accidentally spliced in a reel from an IMAX movie cuz at the time, it had nothing to do with what was going on.
After those 20 minutes cuz the hour or so with the family stuff. And I have to say this was fantastic. The kid that played the eldest son was great – and he has the unfortunate last name of McCracken. Anyway, the only kinda problem I had was Brad Pitt. Nothing against Mr. Pitt at all, but everyone else in it was so unknown, it made me feel like I was watching someone’s home movies or, dare I say, a reality show of their life. But then, there was Brad Pitt with that shining “MOVIE STAR” sign following him around and it kinda took me out of it. I know this was a pet project for him and he was a producer, but it would’ve served the film more if he got a relative unknown to play the father.
What I loved about this whole section was that it brought me back to another time when life seemed so simpler. I grew up long before the internet was created and I remember just hanging out with kids in the neighborhood, walking around. I remember being outside and climbing trees (wow, trees in a Mallick movie!) and throwing a stick around and it was the greatest amusement. Don’t get me wrong… I love the internet, I love my iPhone, but I still long for those times when you had to be creative on your own and not rely on a screen for social interaction. This whole section of the movie is quite enjoyable.
And then… now, I love me some Sean Penn. But for the life of me, i don’t know what the heck he was doing in this movie. The whole last half hour with him and the “afterlife” or whatever it was and meeting the kid he once was… uch, if I hadn’t started shaving my head, I would’ve spent the time re-counting the hairs on my head to see how many have vacated the scalp. For me, the movie was over when they were driving away from the house.
I still don’t see why it was boo’d at Cannes (yet it then went on to win one of the top honors). But I can understand why people didn’t like it or found it boring and pointless. However, i do plan to buy the blu-ray when it comes out so i can relive the whole middle section. And it’s all gorgeously shot and all, but you can be artsy without being pretentiously boring.

[Art Leonard]

Thanks for this detailed comment, with which I certainly agree. I found many of the family scenes very moving, as I also grew up during that time period, being a 1952 baby of the suburbs...