The tree of life is a concept that is found in various mythologies, religions, and philosophies around the world. It represents the interconnectedness of all living things and the cyclical nature of existence. A magical examination of the tree of life delves into the mystical aspects of this symbol and explores its deeper meanings. In magical traditions, the tree of life is often seen as a representation of the spiritual journey and the path to enlightenment. Each branch and leaf represents a different aspect of the divine, and by traversing these branches, one can gain wisdom and insight into the mysteries of the universe. It is believed that by connecting with the tree of life, one can tap into the universal energy and harness its power for personal growth and transformation.
(Tip: if your tree is pretty crowded by this point, perhaps try drawing some baskets of fruit at the base of your tree and label them accordingly there.)
He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever, is that he, and us with him,4 would have been plunged into a condition of absolute lostness. At the end of my dream this morning an Asian woman I was staring at bc I thought she was someone else caught my glance, became excited, and whispered to her companions, maybe she s the identity tree and proceeded to move toward me.
It is believed that by connecting with the tree of life, one can tap into the universal energy and harness its power for personal growth and transformation. The tree of life is also associated with the concept of balance and harmony. Just as each branch of the tree is interconnected, so too are all aspects of existence.
The Tree of Life: God and Man Cross-examined
Is Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life a pretentious mess or a profound masterpiece?
A deeply religious meditation on grace, nature and the mystery of suffering, or a philosophically confused, contradictory muddle of themes and images?
Here is a film that not only asks, with unusual insistence, why God allows suffering, but contemplates God’s own answer to that question in the Book of Job, amplified by the sweeping vistas of the natural world available to modern science, the Hubble telescope and Hollywood special effects: God did all this; who are we to think we can judge or question him? It also asks why a stern, bullying father hurts his children. Is God like that father?
The Tree of Life blends an impressionistic portrait of a Catholic family living in a suburb of Waco, Texas, in the 1950s (and glimpsed in later decades) with a majestic procession of images from distant galaxies to microscopic organisms, exploding volcanoes to wounded dinosaurs. There are also surreal images and flashes of magical realism. Some critics have felt that Malick would have done better to omit the IMAX eye candy and focus on the human story; others have argued that it’s the cosmic grandeur that works and the banal human story that bogs it down.
The Tree of Life is probably the most polarizing film from a director whose slow, contemplative style — developed in five feature films over nearly four decades, from Badlands (1973) to his most recent, The New World (2005) — has won him ardent fans and firm detractors. The Tree of Life premiered at Cannes to sustained boos as well as applause and went on to win the festival’s top prize, the Palme d’Or. It has been, for the most part, rapturously received by critics, but walk-outs have been common. Many Christian viewers and critics have embraced it for its overtly religious content, but some have argued for pantheistic or New Age readings.
Occasionally, with certain films, I find it helpful to step back and look through a sociological lens rather than a critical one. For instance, what does the phenomenal success of a film like Titanic tell us about the society that embraces it? With The Tree of Life, I find myself stepping further back, contemplating it through an anthropological lens, as much as an artifact as a work of art. The riddle of existence is not a riddle the universe poses to us, but one we pose to ourselves, as Malick does in The Tree of Life. We are the riddle, and the very fact that we ask the questions we do is one of the best clues we have to the answers we seek.
The questions in The Tree of Life are posed in Malick’s trademark inner monologue voice-overs, with characters carrying on a running cross-examination of God: “Where were you?” “Who are we to you?” “Why should I be good if you aren’t?” Early on, a telegram arrives bringing word that one of the O’Brien boys, now 19 and perhaps in the military, has been killed. In a flashback we see the O’Brien brothers as children dealing with the accidental death of a playmate. What sort of God presides over such a world?
The first question, though, comes from God himself. An opening epigraph asks, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? . When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).
This withering cross-examination, taken from the beginning of God’s response to Job’s complaint, anticipates the film’s most remarkable movement: a lengthy sequence, accompanied by soaring choral work (including Zbigniew Preisner’s Lacrimosa or Requiem), contemplating the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, as well as the origins of life on earth, from microbes to jellyfish to dinosaurs.
The sequence highlights the “tree of life” in the Darwinian sense, a tree whose branches eventually bring together the O’Briens (an earthy Brad Pitt and an ethereal Jessica Chastain) and produce their three boys.
Yet The Tree of Life strains toward something beyond Darwinian ruthlessness. “The nuns taught us there were two ways through life,” Jack’s mother notes in the film’s first minutes, “the way of nature and the way of grace.” Nature “is willful; it only wants to please itself, to have its own way. … It finds reasons to be unhappy when all the world is shining around it.” Grace, by contrast, “doesn’t try to please itself; it accepts being slighted, accepts insults and injuries. … No one who follows the way of grace ever comes to a bad end.”
For Jack O’Brien (played as a boy by terrific newcomer Hunter McCracken and fleetingly seen as an adult played by Sean Penn), his mother represents the way of grace, while his father is the way of nature. Jack’s early life is seen through a scrim of Edenic glory, an aura of bliss and play in which his mother’s joyful personality dominates. Eventually, though, his father’s sternness dominates his life. Mr. O’Brien is the lawgiver: Here is the line between our property and the neighbors’; don’t cross it. You slammed the door; now close it gently 50 times.
Mr. O’Brien says grace at meals, prays in church and mentions tithing every week. Yet his worldview is essentially Darwinian; more than once he tells the boys that you can’t succeed if you’re “too good,” since people will walk all over you. Even his play is Darwinian: He teaches his boys the hand-slapping game and forces them to learn to fight. His real god may be money, and his faith is self-determination. As his professional aspirations slip away from him, he quarrels with his wife and terrorizes his children. When business takes him out of the house, it’s like a holiday for the boys and their mother.
It’s harder to say how Mrs. O’Brien embodies the idea of grace. She’s an archetypal mother, gentle and forgiving, but also passive. When tensions boil over in one excruciating family supper and Mr. O’Brien lashes out at his sons, his wife is unable to protect them or restrain him; instead, he restrains her. It’s queasily persuasive, but we seem to be firmly under the boot of nature, with no sign of the transcendent power of grace.
Young Jack likes his mother better than his father, but as time goes by, he finds more and more in himself what he hates in his father. An inhumane act involving a frog; bullying games with his unprotesting younger brother, whose gentleness mirrors their mother as Jack’s cruelty mirrors their father — these moments sting like guilty childhood memories, all the more in connection with the younger brother, destined to die at 19. (Much of this may be autobiographical; the director grew up in Texas and had a brother who died.)
Malick’s camera wanders and swoops restlessly through these vignettes, capturing moments of power that never coalesce into a narrative or create a sense of characters transcending the individual scenes. The individual moments have only the power of the archetypal situations they evoke. Take any one of them out of the film, watch it in isolation, and it would play exactly the same.
I don’t mind that we don’t understand the O’Briens’ lives (exactly what Mr. O’Brien’s work situation is, for instance). It does bother me, I think, that their voice-over monologues don’t convey a sense of their inner worlds, as the voice-overs did in The New World. Here, they only introduce or perpetuate free-floating themes that would be more powerful if they were more grounded in narrative reality. I’m not drawn into Jack’s story, much less that of the father or mother, who never seem entirely real. I do think of my own childhood — how I could have been kinder to my own younger brother, for instance.
Malick’s moral themes stretch back even to the prehistoric sequence. A beached plesiosaur—Job’s Leviathan, perhaps — contemplating a gash in its side: the problem of evil in a prehuman form. A meteor strikes the earth, presumably wiping out the dinosaurs while ushering in a new era of life on earth. In a much-discussed scene, a predatory dinosaur, coming upon a smaller dinosaur lying wounded near a stream, places its foot firmly on the other dinosaur’s head before moving on. In the film’s schema of “nature” and “grace,” is this “nature” asserting its dominance, or “grace” sparing the wounded creature’s life?
In the end is a coda flashing forward to contemplate the death of the universe. When nature has exhausted itself, does grace have the last word? It’s here Malick leaves himself most open to disparagement from religious and non-religious critics alike. Yet most viewers, regardless of religious persuasion, will probably accept Malick’s coda if they have been on board for enough of the preceding two hours.
The vision of the coda isn’t necessarily a Christian picture (there is no suggestion of a divine encounter, or of judgment — of the film’s “two ways” potentially leading to different destinations). Yet, with the rest of the film, it offers a genuinely religious vision — a vision of creation and man’s place in it that is spiritual in the best, not the worst, sense.
I’m not sure that Malick has succeeded in evoking the idea of grace in the way he seems to have wanted. But I think that the workings of grace are evident in the film nonetheless, and that for receptive viewers, unbelievers as well as believers, the film may offer an unexpected occasion of grace.
Recent
- Ethan Hunt’s second act and Tom Cruise’s third: The unending impossible mission
- Indiana Jones movies and Raiders of the Lost Ark: Why the original still stands alone
- The Lourdes Effect: The Miracle Club director Thaddeus O’Sullivan on Irish trauma and miracles
- An Elemental misstep: Does Pixar still need — or benefit from — anthropomorphic fantasy?
- Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is an incomplete triumph
Now Playing
Home Video
Copyright © 2000– Steven D. Greydanus. All rights reserved.
Malick’s camera wanders and swoops restlessly through these vignettes, capturing moments of power that never coalesce into a narrative or create a sense of characters transcending the individual scenes. The individual moments have only the power of the archetypal situations they evoke. Take any one of them out of the film, watch it in isolation, and it would play exactly the same.
This interconnectedness is reflected in the idea of the tree as a symbol of the divine feminine and masculine energies, which must be in balance for the tree to thrive. By aligning oneself with the energy of the tree of life, one can seek to harmonize their own energies and find a sense of inner peace and wholeness. Furthermore, the tree of life is often depicted as having roots that reach deep into the earth and branches that reach into the heavens. This symbolism represents the connection between the physical and spiritual realms, and the idea that all aspects of existence are intertwined. In magical practice, this connection is often explored through meditation, ritual, and spellwork, as practitioners seek to commune with the divine and manifest their desires into reality. In conclusion, a magical examination of the tree of life reveals its profound symbolism and significance in various mystical traditions. As a representation of interconnectedness, balance, and the connection between the physical and spiritual realms, the tree of life offers a powerful tool for personal and spiritual growth. By exploring and connecting with this ancient symbol, one can tap into the divine energy of the universe and embark on a transformative journey of self-discovery..
Reviews for "The Tree of Life and the Power of Intuition: A Magical Introspection"
1. Jane - 2 stars
I was really excited to read "A Magical Examination of the Tree of Life" based on the glowing reviews I had seen. However, I was left feeling disappointed and underwhelmed. The writing was confusing and lacked coherence, making it difficult to follow the story. Additionally, the characters were one-dimensional and hard to connect with. Overall, I found the book to be a struggle to get through and did not find the magical elements to be as enchanting as I had hoped.
2. Mark - 2 stars
I had high expectations for "A Magical Examination of the Tree of Life" but unfortunately, it fell short for me. The pacing was slow, and the plot seemed to drag on without much action or development. The magical elements felt forced and didn't add much to the story. Moreover, the dialogue felt unnatural and forced, making it difficult to connect with the characters and become invested in their journeys. Overall, I was left feeling bored and unsatisfied with this novel.
3. Sarah - 1 star
I strongly disliked "A Magical Examination of the Tree of Life". The writing was pretentious and overly flowery, making it difficult to understand what was actually happening. The plot meandered, and the characters were shallow and lacked depth. The magical aspects felt tacked on and didn't serve a purpose in driving the story forward. I found myself struggling to stay engaged and ultimately gave up on finishing the book. I would not recommend it to others.