Why Mr. Himes Should Take My Class – A Rebuttal

By: Mr. Sanem

Let’s get two things straight:

1) Mr. Himes does not get “Tree of Life.”

2) It’s not his fault.

Regarding the former, Himes seems to think that my assertion that film critics do not get the film’s theological underpinnings is in some way a ploy to dismiss them rather than address their arguments. He is mistaken.

In Himes’ critique of my movie review he attempts to prove that he has the chops to understand the theological themes present in the film. He writes, “It’s a cinematic meditation on the Book of Job… a man in crisis asks God why he’s suffered the loss of his brother, the harsh discipline of his dad, and the collapse of his architecture career, as if the movie is a prayer on suffering.”

Right? Wrong. This film is no more about a harsh father, a collapsed career, or even the death of a brother than it is about botany. How does the movie start? With the protagonist Jack, who represents the everyman questioning what it means to be human, whispering “Brother, Mother, it was they who led me to your (God’s) door.” This “brother,” who Mr. Himes dismisses, is very obviously the Christ. Himes and other critics miss the very obvious Christological spine that binds the film together, and therefore, do not “get” the movie.

Throughout the film, this same Christ character is favored by the mother (who represents grace), beloved yet challenged by the father (Brad Pitt, who represents flawed but majestic nature), and is shot and thrown to the ground by Jack (Sean Penn, who, once again, represents humanity). Even though he is “true” and “kind,” the little brother dies young, yet his death brings the whole family together (Humanity, grace, and nature reconciled through Christ). His “parents” battle each other throughout the film, while he is among them, until grief over his death breaks down their barriers and they are reconciled. They are made whole by sharing in his suffering.

Either by omission or ignorance, Himes and many of the film’s detractors do not point this very overt theological symbolism in their critiques. Instead, they miss this important point presented in the first five minutes. Because they don’t “get” this symbolism, their critiques devolve into trite generalities and misinterpretations. Exhibit A: ‘“I bet that DDT truck is a metaphor for Vietnam.” No, Mr. Himes, the DDT truck is not a metaphor for Vietnam, it is introduced when the film is discussing sin and temptation, it is the poison that Jack (and all of humanity) accepts that turns him against his brother (Christ), his mother (grace), and his father (nature). It is the fall of humanity we’re dealing with here, Mr. Himes, not Forrest Gump.

Mr. Himes and many film critics’ critiques of Malick’s genius are filled with such misinterpretations, but it is not their fault. Without having a firm foundation in the theological themes that form the basis for Western civilization, the film would seem to be “lecturing” and a form of “cinematic abuse,” but that’s only because the lecture is going over their heads. Malick is not throwing a bunch of pretty pictures on screen to dazzle you into thinking his movie is profound. Every frame, every symbol, has a purpose, represents something else. The entire film is an allegory, and icon to be read and studied, not a linear narrative meant to entertain. If Mr. Himes doubts this conviction, I will personally explain every symbol to him.

The imagery is as heavy-handed and indulgent as a stain-glassed window, as the Book of Job, Genesis, and the Gospels. Like “Tree of Life,” these works use over the top, pre-modern symbolism to communicate the complex and ineffable reality of being a human, of being an upper level primate with the divine spark of the Great Mystery Itself burning within us, of finding our redemption through the woundedness at the heart of all creation.

As such, it’s not an easy film to watch. It treats its audience like intelligent and thoughtful adults who (hopefully) won’t dismiss it just because it’s demanding, allegorical, and overtly Christological. As such, it’s a masterpiece that rivals the great cathedrals themselves, and apparently, a film best understood in the light of faith.