Nature & Grace in “The Tree of Life”

The movie that took the top prize at Cannes is entitled The Tree of Life.  Most critics laud the beauty of its scenes from nature but were puzzled by it all.  But Rev. Robert Barron, priest and theology professor at the University of St. Mary of the Lake, sees the Book of Job–which is directly referenced in the film–as the key.  His review in the Chicago Tribune is worth reading for his own reflections on that Book and on the way it resolves the Problem of Evil:

What could possibly tie together the following scenes: a flock of birds cavorting in breathtakingly harmonious patterns, the meeting of flowing lava and crashing waves, a larger dinosaur dominating a smaller one, a young boy throwing a baseball through a window just because he is forbidden to do so, a depressed middle-aged man sitting in a coldly modernistic office building, and a meteor crashing into the primordial earth?

If I am at all correct in my reading of Terrence Malick’s meditative film, “The Tree of Life,” in which those and many other seemingly disparate scenes occur, what ties them together is that they are all ingredient in the plan and purpose of God. I realize how pretentious that can sound, but this is a filmmaker (and a film) with very grand ambitions indeed.

The movie opens with a quotation from the book of Job: “where were you when I founded the earth…while the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38: 4,7)?

These are some of the first lines of the magnificent speech that God delivers to Job, the righteous man who had been beset with every imaginable suffering and who had challenged God to explain himself.

Malick’s film opens with a couple (played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain), who have been informed that their 19 year old son has died and who are experiencing a Job-like confusion and indignation: how could God have done this to them and to their son?

God’s answer to Job is puzzling, for it does not directly address the matter at hand; instead, it unfolds as a grand tour of the cosmos, in all of its strangeness, beauty, and complexity, culminating with a detailed description of the virtues of Leviathan (probably a whale) and Behemoth (perhaps a hippopotamus).

Malick’s film mimics the speech of God in the measure that it takes us away from the suffering couple to a visually stunning sequence of scenes depicting dynamics within the cosmos, from the birth of stars and the splitting of cells to the demise of the dinosaurs and the ballet-like movements of a jellyfish swimming toward the surface of the ocean.

The author of the book of Job and Terrence Malick both are suggesting that the “answer” to this most painful and searching of questions is found through the widest possible broadening of one’s perspective, so as to see what God is up to everywhere in his creation.

On Malick’s telling, the universe—from its primordial beginnings to now—is marked by a play of two forces, nature and grace. Nature is strong, conflictual, hard-edged, and violent; whereas grace is gentle, loving, and forgiving. Both are constantly in play, constantly in tension with one another, and somehow both are part of God’s design.

One of the most striking images in the film–the meeting of lava and ocean wave that I mentioned above—is a particularly apt symbol of the way that nature and grace come together to produce something beautiful.

Having made his literally “cosmic” point, Malick sharpens his focus and returns in flashback to the young couple now just beginning their family. The father, played with convincing understatement by Pitt, is a decent man who loves his children, but he is, first and foremost, a disciplinarian, eager to make his boys tough and self-reliant. He is the embodiment of the principle of nature.

The mother, delicately evoked by Chastain, is the avatar of grace. She is playful with her children, exuberant, lively, sensitive, quick to forgive.

It would be quite wrong, I think, to read them simply as evil and good, respectively. Both parents awaken something positive and negative in their children; each calls out to the other for completion. . . .

What I find particularly fascinating—and it brings us to the theological heart of the film—is that both nature and grace are grounded in God and are part of his providential design. The brutal and the gentle; the violent and the peaceful; the competitive and the cooperative come together in a way that produces the rough order that we see in the cosmos and in human affairs. Thomas Aquinas, very much influenced by the book of Job, said that God is a “wise provider” who permits certain evils in order to bring about a greater good in the totality of his creation, and I think Terrence Malick is making much the same point in “Tree of Life.”

Perhaps just a word in closing about the title. In the third chapter of Genesis, we hear that Adam and Eve, after having eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were expelled from the Garden of Eden and denied access to the Tree of Life.

What prevented them from participating in life, in other words, was the attempt to gain a knowledge of the play of good and evil that belongs to God alone. Grasping at perfect knowledge, they fell.

A basic message of the Bible is that, in the play of good and evil, in the tension between nature and grace, God is up to something beautiful, though we are unable to grasp it totally. The way to life, therefore, is a path of surrender and acceptance. I think that “Tree of Life” is communicating this same difficult but vital lesson.

via The Seeker: Tree of Life glorifies God.

This sounds like a movie (which has not yet been broadly released) that is more of a Christian work of art than the typical problem+conversion+happy ending film that generally defines the genre.   The nature/grace dichotomy, which Thomists are so fond of, finds an interesting application here.   Missing, though, is the true high point of Job:  “I know that my Redeemer liveth.”

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Dennis Peskey

    The lutheran in me recoiled upon reading this review; how could a theologican attribute the existance of evil to the Creator God. Father Barron twice states the movies contention of the existence of nature and grace to first “part of God’s design” then to “part of his providential design”. Despite the first disclaimer of assigning roles of “good and evil” to the respective parents, in the final concluding paragraph, Fr. Barron directly linked his perception of good and evil to the dichotomy of nature and grace.

    I find this a serious problem for a movie touted as christian. But I am unable to attribute this to the movie based upon Fr. Barron’s review. After a brief review of Robert Barron’s rather immense corpus of internet offering (he is a well-referenced Roman apologetic), I attribute this more to Fr. Barron’s historical/critical hermeneutic which lends itself to the “Lot’s wife” understanding. For a differing opinion, I sought several other reviews (both pro and con); Roger Ebert offered this review in the Chicago Suntimes: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/a_prayer_beneath_the_tree_of_l.html.

    I do look forward to viewing The Tree of Life with lutheran eyes. Terrence Malick is noted for worthy film productions and this movie seems to have merit from a religious perspective.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    The lutheran in me recoiled upon reading this review; how could a theologican attribute the existance of evil to the Creator God. Father Barron twice states the movies contention of the existence of nature and grace to first “part of God’s design” then to “part of his providential design”. Despite the first disclaimer of assigning roles of “good and evil” to the respective parents, in the final concluding paragraph, Fr. Barron directly linked his perception of good and evil to the dichotomy of nature and grace.

    I find this a serious problem for a movie touted as christian. But I am unable to attribute this to the movie based upon Fr. Barron’s review. After a brief review of Robert Barron’s rather immense corpus of internet offering (he is a well-referenced Roman apologetic), I attribute this more to Fr. Barron’s historical/critical hermeneutic which lends itself to the “Lot’s wife” understanding. For a differing opinion, I sought several other reviews (both pro and con); Roger Ebert offered this review in the Chicago Suntimes: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/a_prayer_beneath_the_tree_of_l.html.

    I do look forward to viewing The Tree of Life with lutheran eyes. Terrence Malick is noted for worthy film productions and this movie seems to have merit from a religious perspective.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dennis (@1), I’ve only read as much of the review as Vieth quoted here, not any of the man’s other reviews, and I haven’t seen the film (or any Malick films, though I believe this to be a failing of mine), but …

    I think you’ve got the review wrong, at least to its theological statements. I don’t think he actually “attributes the existance of evil to the Creator God”. Where do you see that?

    And though not claiming to be a “theologian”, I will admit that I am baffled by the existence of evil. The Bible never really explains how or why it is allowed to exist — at least, not to my understanding. Not that I feel that God needs to explain this; I trust what God has revealed to us, and realize that there is more to him than that.

    Nor does the reviewer create an equivalence between “good and evil” on one hand and “grace and nature” on the other — he merely states that God works through the interplay of both sets. And that’s a pretty biblical concept (cf. Genesis 50:20).

    Nor do I think this movie is being touted as “Christian”, per se. I think Veith’s point is that it makes deeper statements, discusses God’s truths more accurately, than does the average film that does trumpet its “Christianity”. There have been discussions before on this blog on other such films — usually not all that Christian as to their overt themes, but much more meaningful as to the deeper themes.

    It does sound like a very good film, either way.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dennis (@1), I’ve only read as much of the review as Vieth quoted here, not any of the man’s other reviews, and I haven’t seen the film (or any Malick films, though I believe this to be a failing of mine), but …

    I think you’ve got the review wrong, at least to its theological statements. I don’t think he actually “attributes the existance of evil to the Creator God”. Where do you see that?

    And though not claiming to be a “theologian”, I will admit that I am baffled by the existence of evil. The Bible never really explains how or why it is allowed to exist — at least, not to my understanding. Not that I feel that God needs to explain this; I trust what God has revealed to us, and realize that there is more to him than that.

    Nor does the reviewer create an equivalence between “good and evil” on one hand and “grace and nature” on the other — he merely states that God works through the interplay of both sets. And that’s a pretty biblical concept (cf. Genesis 50:20).

    Nor do I think this movie is being touted as “Christian”, per se. I think Veith’s point is that it makes deeper statements, discusses God’s truths more accurately, than does the average film that does trumpet its “Christianity”. There have been discussions before on this blog on other such films — usually not all that Christian as to their overt themes, but much more meaningful as to the deeper themes.

    It does sound like a very good film, either way.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    A couple’s 19 year old son dies. Is that evil? Well, it’s horrible and painful. It’s not necessarily evil, since a moral failure may not have caused it. (Say, if he were murdered.) Some want to say God is evil for allowing that to happen. That’s not right. The son’s death was a function of “nature.” (He got sick, or had an accident, or whatever–I haven’t seen the movie.) Nature grinds on, for better and for worse. God is the creator and sustainer of nature. But God’s grace continually breaks in, making things happen and reaching out to us, through Christ. (Using “nature” for that purpose, as in the pages and ink and sound waves of God’s Word and the water, bread, and wine of the Sacraments.) So I think there is a very Lutheran way to see this.

    The movie sounds like a modern rendition of the Book of Job, who also lost his children and whom God answered, though out of the whirlwind, in terms of the mysterious wonders of the natural order.

    The reviewer specifically said that he’s not identifying “evil” with “nature,” which would be the gnostic heresy.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    A couple’s 19 year old son dies. Is that evil? Well, it’s horrible and painful. It’s not necessarily evil, since a moral failure may not have caused it. (Say, if he were murdered.) Some want to say God is evil for allowing that to happen. That’s not right. The son’s death was a function of “nature.” (He got sick, or had an accident, or whatever–I haven’t seen the movie.) Nature grinds on, for better and for worse. God is the creator and sustainer of nature. But God’s grace continually breaks in, making things happen and reaching out to us, through Christ. (Using “nature” for that purpose, as in the pages and ink and sound waves of God’s Word and the water, bread, and wine of the Sacraments.) So I think there is a very Lutheran way to see this.

    The movie sounds like a modern rendition of the Book of Job, who also lost his children and whom God answered, though out of the whirlwind, in terms of the mysterious wonders of the natural order.

    The reviewer specifically said that he’s not identifying “evil” with “nature,” which would be the gnostic heresy.

  • http://www.gethsemanelutheranchurch.org Gregory DeVore

    For a theistic evolutionist evil must ultimately be good. Suffering and death are not an evil intrusion on a good creation but are the very creative touch of God. If God sculpts a universe through natural selection then it must be very much like what the reviewer describes.
    Yet this is not the God who we meet in Jesus. There we find a God who rebuked the fever in Peter’s mother in law and who wept when Lazarus died. For this God evil, death and suffering are totally tragic and not ultimately good. This is the God who overcame suffering and death in the cross and the empty tomb.

  • http://www.gethsemanelutheranchurch.org Gregory DeVore

    For a theistic evolutionist evil must ultimately be good. Suffering and death are not an evil intrusion on a good creation but are the very creative touch of God. If God sculpts a universe through natural selection then it must be very much like what the reviewer describes.
    Yet this is not the God who we meet in Jesus. There we find a God who rebuked the fever in Peter’s mother in law and who wept when Lazarus died. For this God evil, death and suffering are totally tragic and not ultimately good. This is the God who overcame suffering and death in the cross and the empty tomb.

  • Tom Hering

    “For a theistic evolutionist evil must ultimately be good … If God sculpts a universe through natural selection …”

    Wow.

  • Tom Hering

    “For a theistic evolutionist evil must ultimately be good … If God sculpts a universe through natural selection …”

    Wow.

  • Tom Hering

    Conceptually, what I know of the movie strikes me as Mallick riffing off of Kubrick’s 2001. Without the spaceships and aliens. With a family instead. Another attempt to find meaning within evolution, presented as a very vague story.

  • Tom Hering

    Conceptually, what I know of the movie strikes me as Mallick riffing off of Kubrick’s 2001. Without the spaceships and aliens. With a family instead. Another attempt to find meaning within evolution, presented as a very vague story.

  • Pete

    Gene Veith (@3)
    “A couple’s 19 year old son dies. Is that evil? Well, it’s horrible and painful. It’s not necessarily evil, since a moral failure may not have caused it.”

    Isn’t the Lutheran spin on this that it is precisely a moral failure that caused the son’s death: his own – just like my moral failure will cause mine and your moral failure will cause yours, etc? The only One who’s ever lived without moral failure, hence without need to die, DID die to atone for OUR moral failures.

  • Pete

    Gene Veith (@3)
    “A couple’s 19 year old son dies. Is that evil? Well, it’s horrible and painful. It’s not necessarily evil, since a moral failure may not have caused it.”

    Isn’t the Lutheran spin on this that it is precisely a moral failure that caused the son’s death: his own – just like my moral failure will cause mine and your moral failure will cause yours, etc? The only One who’s ever lived without moral failure, hence without need to die, DID die to atone for OUR moral failures.

  • Pete

    In fact (I’ve thought some more about this overnight) it’s my understanding that our sinfulness – individual and collective – is why we move around day to day in this realm where we can be drive-by shot or get cancer or the wall of Siloam can fall on us or terrorists in jets can fly into our building. And some of us live a long and happy life and die peacefully in our sleep. But regardless – we’re dying. And, when we die, it’s my understanding that unless we are among those who “believe and are baptized” we graduate to the place of perfect and eternal dying. As opposed to the place of perfect and eternal living. (Bob Dylan, “Summer Days” – “a place where there’s still somethin’ goin’ on.”)
    So, back to the death of the 19 year old and “is that evil?” Heck yeah it’s evil. I’m with Gregory DeVore’s take @4.

  • Pete

    In fact (I’ve thought some more about this overnight) it’s my understanding that our sinfulness – individual and collective – is why we move around day to day in this realm where we can be drive-by shot or get cancer or the wall of Siloam can fall on us or terrorists in jets can fly into our building. And some of us live a long and happy life and die peacefully in our sleep. But regardless – we’re dying. And, when we die, it’s my understanding that unless we are among those who “believe and are baptized” we graduate to the place of perfect and eternal dying. As opposed to the place of perfect and eternal living. (Bob Dylan, “Summer Days” – “a place where there’s still somethin’ goin’ on.”)
    So, back to the death of the 19 year old and “is that evil?” Heck yeah it’s evil. I’m with Gregory DeVore’s take @4.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Todd – When I initially read this review, my first impression was Terrance Malick misnamed this film; instead of The Tree of Life the description more aptly described The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. After reading several other reviews of the film (which offered quite a contrast to Fr. Barron’s opinion), I returned to the initial post seeking to remove the foul taste left over from reading this review.

    Since Dr. Veith provided the answer via Thomist theology, I viewed far too many of Fr. Barron’s “YouTube” videos and found the answer to my distaste. This review is drenched in theistic evolutionary terminology which is the paradigm Fr. Barron presents, i.e. the presentation of the narrative interspersed with scenes of the universe, terrestrial and cosmological, primordial and present tense. Now, I can not say if this viewpoint is proper having not seen the film; I can say Fr. Barron stands alone in this perspective.

    I will readily concede I am no fan of Thomas Aquinas nor of his followers. When Fr. Barron speaks of primordial beginnings, he does not believe as Lutherans in a literal six day creation. Indeed, he terms the Genesis account of creation to be theological poetry, mysticism, spirituality, metaphorical and a “great humanistic text”. His viewpoint allows death before Adam (as in the dominating dinosaur citation) which is directly opposed to our understanding of death as a consequence of Adam’s sin. I personally find it repulsive and heretical that the trinitarian God would declare creation to be very good as Adam and Eve stood among the millions of dead carcases of rotting dinosaurs.

    Then, the juxtaposition of the two pairs of terminology used throughout the review cemented my opinion. The adjectives used to define “nature” are: strong, conflictual, hard-edged, violent, disciplined, tough, self-reliant, brutal, violent (again), and competitive. “Grace” is: gentle, loving, forgiving, playful, exuberant, lively, sensitive, quick to forgive (this bears repetition), gentle (again), peaceful and cooperative. Where would you locate “the play of good and evil” amidst this listing? After listing the virtues of the respective parents, Fr. Barron offers a disclaimer that “It would be quite wrong, I think, to read them simply as evil and good, respectively.” If the writer did not sense this review portrayed the parents thusly, why does Fr. Barron feel a need for this caveat?

    Now, to the heart of the problem. Here, I would differ from Dr. Veith’s contention of the death of the son as a function of “nature.” Death is always a result of sin alone whether is comes early (as in abortion), in mid-life (accident, illness or by violent means) or if we meet this enemy in old age. God did not create the cosmos to our detriment; our created status enjoyed a position of dominion over creation to properly tend and administer this blessing. What made nature a curse was Adam’s sin and our sin. We’ve earned this.

    Finally, I do not wish to diminish the point Dr. Veith makes in conclusion. Whether we find ourselves dealing with the trials of Job or more likely, the death of teenage son, our answer should always be grounded in Christ and His resurrection. Death has no more dominion over us; the victory has been secured for all times. Yes, we experience a temporal death and suffer the loss of loved ones. On May 21, while many awaited a false “rapture” I had the blessing of attending the home-going for a member of our church. Our Lutheran sermons always stress the presence of the dead body is evidence of the wages of sin but through Baptism our member gained adoption through Christ into the eternal home. This always concludes with the pronouncement of the resurrection of that dead body and its glorification in the blood-drenched robes of Christ. That is our concept of a Lutheran rapture and how to dead with an untimely death of a child.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Todd – When I initially read this review, my first impression was Terrance Malick misnamed this film; instead of The Tree of Life the description more aptly described The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. After reading several other reviews of the film (which offered quite a contrast to Fr. Barron’s opinion), I returned to the initial post seeking to remove the foul taste left over from reading this review.

    Since Dr. Veith provided the answer via Thomist theology, I viewed far too many of Fr. Barron’s “YouTube” videos and found the answer to my distaste. This review is drenched in theistic evolutionary terminology which is the paradigm Fr. Barron presents, i.e. the presentation of the narrative interspersed with scenes of the universe, terrestrial and cosmological, primordial and present tense. Now, I can not say if this viewpoint is proper having not seen the film; I can say Fr. Barron stands alone in this perspective.

    I will readily concede I am no fan of Thomas Aquinas nor of his followers. When Fr. Barron speaks of primordial beginnings, he does not believe as Lutherans in a literal six day creation. Indeed, he terms the Genesis account of creation to be theological poetry, mysticism, spirituality, metaphorical and a “great humanistic text”. His viewpoint allows death before Adam (as in the dominating dinosaur citation) which is directly opposed to our understanding of death as a consequence of Adam’s sin. I personally find it repulsive and heretical that the trinitarian God would declare creation to be very good as Adam and Eve stood among the millions of dead carcases of rotting dinosaurs.

    Then, the juxtaposition of the two pairs of terminology used throughout the review cemented my opinion. The adjectives used to define “nature” are: strong, conflictual, hard-edged, violent, disciplined, tough, self-reliant, brutal, violent (again), and competitive. “Grace” is: gentle, loving, forgiving, playful, exuberant, lively, sensitive, quick to forgive (this bears repetition), gentle (again), peaceful and cooperative. Where would you locate “the play of good and evil” amidst this listing? After listing the virtues of the respective parents, Fr. Barron offers a disclaimer that “It would be quite wrong, I think, to read them simply as evil and good, respectively.” If the writer did not sense this review portrayed the parents thusly, why does Fr. Barron feel a need for this caveat?

    Now, to the heart of the problem. Here, I would differ from Dr. Veith’s contention of the death of the son as a function of “nature.” Death is always a result of sin alone whether is comes early (as in abortion), in mid-life (accident, illness or by violent means) or if we meet this enemy in old age. God did not create the cosmos to our detriment; our created status enjoyed a position of dominion over creation to properly tend and administer this blessing. What made nature a curse was Adam’s sin and our sin. We’ve earned this.

    Finally, I do not wish to diminish the point Dr. Veith makes in conclusion. Whether we find ourselves dealing with the trials of Job or more likely, the death of teenage son, our answer should always be grounded in Christ and His resurrection. Death has no more dominion over us; the victory has been secured for all times. Yes, we experience a temporal death and suffer the loss of loved ones. On May 21, while many awaited a false “rapture” I had the blessing of attending the home-going for a member of our church. Our Lutheran sermons always stress the presence of the dead body is evidence of the wages of sin but through Baptism our member gained adoption through Christ into the eternal home. This always concludes with the pronouncement of the resurrection of that dead body and its glorification in the blood-drenched robes of Christ. That is our concept of a Lutheran rapture and how to dead with an untimely death of a child.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I don’t believe that at any point in the Book of Concord, it is asserted that the six days of creation are literal 24-hour periods.

    I’m with Augustine on this one:
    “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”

    I also see an odd dichotomy in that we hold the Millennium of Christ isn’t literally a thousand years but are completely closed to the idea that the Days of Genesis are figurative.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I don’t believe that at any point in the Book of Concord, it is asserted that the six days of creation are literal 24-hour periods.

    I’m with Augustine on this one:
    “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”

    I also see an odd dichotomy in that we hold the Millennium of Christ isn’t literally a thousand years but are completely closed to the idea that the Days of Genesis are figurative.

  • http://www.gethsemanelutheranchurch.org Gregory DeVore

    I have not seen this film but the more I think of the title and the description of the movie I wonder if the filmaker is trying to make a Kabballaistic point. The tree of Life in Kaballa is the emmanations of God/sephiroth and Kaballa has this same stern/kind dichotomy at the heart of its view of God, tree of life and creation.

  • http://www.gethsemanelutheranchurch.org Gregory DeVore

    I have not seen this film but the more I think of the title and the description of the movie I wonder if the filmaker is trying to make a Kabballaistic point. The tree of Life in Kaballa is the emmanations of God/sephiroth and Kaballa has this same stern/kind dichotomy at the heart of its view of God, tree of life and creation.

  • Tom Hering

    SAL @ 10, the BOC probably doesn’t assert it because it wasn’t a point of controversy. Certainly Luther believed in both a literal six-day Creation and a literal thousand-year Millennium, with the latter being the first thousand years of the Church – a time of relative peace for the spread of the Gospel. Since about 1000 A.D., Luther believed, we’ve been living in the time when Satan is loosed upon the Earth. Which is why it was possible for Luther to consider the Pope the literal Antichrist.

  • Tom Hering

    SAL @ 10, the BOC probably doesn’t assert it because it wasn’t a point of controversy. Certainly Luther believed in both a literal six-day Creation and a literal thousand-year Millennium, with the latter being the first thousand years of the Church – a time of relative peace for the spread of the Gospel. Since about 1000 A.D., Luther believed, we’ve been living in the time when Satan is loosed upon the Earth. Which is why it was possible for Luther to consider the Pope the literal Antichrist.

  • Louis

    So Dennis, am I a heretic for being both a Lutheran and an Old earther?

  • Louis

    So Dennis, am I a heretic for being both a Lutheran and an Old earther?

  • Robert Hagedorn

    Tree of life? Tree of knowledge of good and evil? What are these strangely named trees? Do a search: First Scandal.

  • Robert Hagedorn

    Tree of life? Tree of knowledge of good and evil? What are these strangely named trees? Do a search: First Scandal.

  • Pingback: the tree of life | Bert Altena

  • Pingback: the tree of life | Bert Altena

  • Ehsan Davodi

    I want kinda help!
    I think this comments is all wrong , because movie doesn’t anything with cristiant religion. Film is about Jews and Tree of Life philosophy!
    I want someone tell me I’m wrong or right!
    I mean , Is movie about cristians perspectives or Jews perspective?
    Film is Jews propaganda or define manners of cristians?

  • Ehsan Davodi

    I want kinda help!
    I think this comments is all wrong , because movie doesn’t anything with cristiant religion. Film is about Jews and Tree of Life philosophy!
    I want someone tell me I’m wrong or right!
    I mean , Is movie about cristians perspectives or Jews perspective?
    Film is Jews propaganda or define manners of cristians?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X