Upon Further Review

Last year, I put off watching "127 Hours" until moments before the Oscar telecast. As a result, my Academy Predictions were skewed in such a way that only hindsight could correct. I am not a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but I do pride myself on the number of nominated films that I take in each year before they start handing out little gold statues. This year my wife and I were very pleased with ourselves for having taken in eight of the nine nominated best pictures, but even with her insistence I kept putting off "Tree of Life." Like its namesake cereal, I felt it was just some movie, supposed to be good for me. I had heard how intense/ponderous it was. I had read how thoughtful/boring it was. I was afraid.
As it turns out, I needn't have been so full of dread. It had Brad Pitt. It wasn't "Moneyball," but it wasn't "Un Chien Andalou" either. It was a story of a family. Three sons rang a bell for me, even if the images of the birth of the universe and dinosaurs did not. Perhaps the fact that we chose to watch it in the morning, shortly after we had awakened helped keep the dreamlike imagery from overwhelming me. The flowing water and the vast expanses of sky kept it from spinning off into the void. Somewhere inside was buried a story of grief and reconciliation, but it wasn't going to be easy. Terence Malick doesn't do easy. That's okay. I studied film with Stan Brakhage. I've seen "Mothlight" more times than I can count. I've talked about it and his other non-narrative films knowingly and with gusto. I like the pretty lights and colors.
I confess that I also like a little story with my pretty lights and colors. That's why I was happily relieved when "Tree of Life" turned out to be a much more accessible film than I had anticipated. I'm happy my wife and I accessed it. It didn't cause me to re-evaluate my Oscar ballot, since there was no category for "Best Tone Poem." Maybe next year.