Strange fruit

Alternately powerful and pretentious, “The Tree of Life” is everything you love about TerrenceMalick and everything that drives you crazy about Terrence Malick in onedistinctively Malickian package.

If that name doesn’t mean anything to you, you probablydon’t want to read much further because if you’ve never been exposed to thework of this fascinating/frustrating/innovative/infuriating director, “Tree” isnot the place to begin. Although Malick has only made five films since hestarted in 1973 (a sixth was recently completed), that’s enough of a body ofwork to inspire deep devotion in millions of movie lovers. Let other filmmakersconcentrate on plot, action and helping their actors win Oscars: Malick’spictures are driven by haunting moods and indelible images that combine into asort of cinematic poetry.

If you completely give yourself over to his signature style,you will be seduced. If you resist, you’re likely to be bored to tears. (Ican’t think of Malick without recalling the unfortunate couple sitting in frontof me at the screening of Malick’s “The Thin Red Line” in 1998: “I thought thiswas supposed to be a war movie!” the man hissed to his wife. “But it’s moreabout grass blowing in the wind!”)

Pity the unwary ticket-buyer who thinks he or she is goingto see “the new Brad Pitt movie”: While Pitt is prominently featured, heremains merely one piece in Malick’s provocative, perplexing jigsaw puzzle.

Unapologetically abstract from start to finish, “Tree” mightbe his most audacious effort yet, a mosaic made up of domestic drama,otherworldly visions and stunning depictions of the origins of the universe andthe beginnings of life on Earth. The rush of awe-inspiring imagery isreminiscent of “Koyaanisqatsi.” Malick and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezkioffer up grand pictures of the rings of Saturn, the eye of Jupiter and galaxiesas works-in-progress. Whatever else you might say about Malick, he’s definitelynot making movies that are designed to be watched on iPods or smartphones.

“There are two ways through life: the way of nature and theway of grace,” a voice informs us at the beginning of the film. “You have tochoose which one you’ll follow.”

Malick sees patterns, rhythms, beauty and violence in both.Shots of the elongated shadows of children playing on a suburban street late inthe afternoon mirror the movements of a swarm of locusts swooping and sweepingthrough an urban skyscape like a fluttering black-brown ribbon. Volcaniceruptions are contrasted with the emotional explosions of anguished people,unable to hold in their sorrow and fury any longer. Wounded dinosaurs cry out,but nothing comes to assist them; humans angrily demand answers from God andreceive no reply.

That’s the simple part of Malick’s concept — taking in thefull scope of what he’s trying to say is considerably trickier. The backbone of“Tree” is an intentionally incomplete portrait of the O’Brien family in theTexas town of Waco. We seem to be seeing them sometime in the 1950s, althoughnothing is ever specified: There’s apparently no TV in the home, and there areno references to major news events, celebrities, songs or pop culture events tohelp us nail down the exact era.

Mr. O’Brien (Pitt, who is outstanding in a difficult role)is a disappointed, dispirited former musician who’s now an executive with acrew-cut and a clear-cut take on life that he shares with his sons: “If you’regood, people take advantage of you,” he warns. “You wanna succeed, you can’t betoo good.” His wife (Jessica Chastain), however, is the embodiment of goodness,generosity and gentility, a woman who practically radiates kindly maternalwarmth.

These are the two extremes pre-teen Jack (Hunter McCracken)sees in his home. The father sets and enforces the rules, pushing Jack and hisbrothers to be tougher, more conformist and less idealistic. The mother, incontrast, seems to have drifted in from a fairy tale: No wonder Jack picturesher in a Snow White-style glass coffin, or floating cheerfully in the breezelike Glinda the Good Witch.

The O’Briens’ story is told in fits and starts, in and outof order, the narrative sometimes racing ahead then backtracking. Malick seemsto be saying that many of our memories dwell in a realm outside of time, inwhich emotional truth takes precedence over actual fact. It’s as if we’reflipping through the pages of someone’s treasured photo album, filled withundated snapshots, or looking at long-lost home movies made by people we’llnever meet. We see so much, and yet we’re left with dozens of questions thatcan’t be answered.

Interspersed throughout the film are brief sequences of anow-grown Jack (Sean Penn), who seems restless and unsettled, still incapableof putting his past in perspective. This is Malick’s most raggedy story thread,though, suggesting a far more complex subplot that was trimmed down to its bareessentials.

There isn’t much dialogue, and much of what is heard (asidefrom Pitt’s lines) is mumbled or whispered. It’s pointless to expect that “ahha!” moment in which everything falls into place: “Tree” is a mystery without asolution, something closer to a meditation than it is to a drama. How do thecataclysmic shake-ups in the cosmos tie in to the O’Briens’ problems? Malickchallenges his audience to create those connections.

For some viewers, this will be impenetrable and aggravating;for others, it will be an experience worth contemplating and re-examining forsome time to come. Malick has never made kick-back-and-relax Saturday nightentertainment, and one thing everyone will agree on when it comes to “Tree” is that it's nobody’sidea of escapist fun.

"The Tree of Life" is now playing at NCG Eastwood Cinemas.