Sad Words From The Tongue Of Penn

Quoted in The New Yorker, Sean Penn isn't thrilled about his appearance in Terence Malick's Tree Of Life:

I didn’t at all find on the screen the emotion of the script, which is the most magnificent one that I’ve ever read. A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What’s more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.

Richard Brody at The New Yorker is rather dismissive of a mere actor questioning an auteur like Malick:

“The Tree of Life” is a marvel, Penn is very good in it—but Malick wasn’t shooting it for the pleasure or the benefit of the actors. What Penn conveys in his performance (as the adult protagonist whose memories, in flashback, provide most of the film’s action) is his very stardom, his charisma, his emotional intensity. Malick’s methods don’t let the actor employ much of his accustomed technique, but this doesn’t at all lessen the beauty and the impact of his performance. [....]Penn brings an acid yellow to the glass-and-metal grays of his scenes, and it adds something important to the film; but he doesn’t get to do the kind of showy and theatrical performance for which Oscars are won.

I haven't read the script so I can't even guess if doing the film more conventionally would have worked, but otherwise I'm with Penn.  Brody is stretching to help Malick.

Penn is at the service of a framing device, as the grown-up son from the Texas suburban family who muses on his past and attempts to come to terms with it.  Most critics agree his scenes are the weakest portion of the film.  He works in a cold, modern building, and doesn't have much to play against except his memories.  I didn't think the film used his "stardom" or "charisma" very well.  Besides, if it needed those two qualities, it already had Brad Pitt, who spends a lot of time (thanks to his role, one assumes) hiding these qualities to play an actual human being.

Malick does things his way.  The story is told impressionistically, along with touches of surrealism and cosmic consciousness. While I can see what he was going for with Penn (even if he didn't communicate it well to the actor), perhaps he should have realized it wasn't quite working.  He's been known to vastly change his films in post. If he couldn't cut out Penn entirely, maybe he could have minimized his appearances.  Actually, Penn is not in the movie that much--maybe Malick already did that.