'the Tree of Life' Wins the Palme D'Or in Cannes

the Tree of Life. The line between love and hate is never so close as when considering Terrance Malik's directorial films. For me, I have to admit I am on the latter side of the line. But this has not prevented Cannes offering it's highest accolade to the controversial Malik.

We cannot say this is a surprise. On the contrary, the Tree of Life is an expected winner. With the likes of the legendary De Niro and the gorgeous Uma Thurman judging on this years panel for Cannes, Malik's arty-Hollywood film is a perfect choice for the lead prize, acting as a nice addition to Malik's mantle of film festival wins. While unsurprising though, was it worthy?

Through his films to date, Malik has maintained a preacher-esque atmosphere to his films. Indeed, with a degree in philosophy from some of the best uni's in America, it is unsurprising as a director he wishes to share his vision of war (The Thin Red Line) or life (this new winner), from a philosophical standpoint. However, in an industry of motion pictures, Malik's ideas should, surely, be reflected more through motion and less through the preaching voice-over's he continually adopts. This lack of subtly can overwhelm some who question why such a director who lays his message on so thick, should be deemed a "genius" (the New York Times).

Indeed, "genius" puts Mailk on the same level as Kubrick and Coppola. Thus, we see events like that in Cannes, when Malik's winner was booed in it's first screening(!), as critics try to tip the balance back to from "genius" to "average". After all, does the Thin Red Line come even close to matching Apocalypse Now's true genius of war? Does the Tree of Life some up modern life better than Kubrick's 'way-ahead-of-it's-time' 2001?

Then again, maybe it's me. Maybe I'm just not appreciating the genius of an artist. I really don't know. Malik the genius or Malik the preacher? Cast your thoughts below. You decide...