Sean Penn Can’t Understand Why Terrence Malick Didn’t Let Him ACT! More

Will Leitch
·Editor

It is very important to Sean Penn that everyone gets to watch him act. Penn's occasional brilliance and his staggering self-regard have always been inextricably linked, and when Penn talks about the craft of acting and The Mindset Of The Artist -- to the point that he was actually offended that Chris Rock joked about Jude Law acting too much -- what he's really talking about is how important it is to him that you understand how difficult his work is, how important of an actor he truly is. When everything clicks for Penn, he's capable of performances of almost primal power. He'll be happy to tell you all about it.

Penn tends to enjoy directors like Clint Eastwood and Tim Robbins, fellow actors who understand The Process and focus their cameras solely on capturing Penn's Brilliant Performance. (Though a director like the famously hands-off Woody Allen is too much for Penn; he doesn't want that much freedom.) If a director has something else in mind than merely serving as Penn's concierge, trouble brews. This isn't about your movie: It's about Sean.

Thus, Penn isn't happy about "The Tree of Life," the Terrence Malick film in which his character has no real narrative and, thus, no opportunity for Penn to be Penn, man. If you were confused about what Penn was doing in "The Tree of Life," so was Penn.

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 of The New Yorker, who was the first to note the original Le Figaro interview, makes a strong argument as to precisely why Malick chopped up so much of Penn's performance, and what sort of obligation a director like Malick has to his actors over his audiences. (That's to say: None. Though Penn didn't exactly "trash" the film, as a lot of people are saying this morning.) Brody's right, of course, but it's also worth noting: We're not 100 percent sure what Penn was doing there and what he was supposed to add in that context either. Which is not to say we minded, of course. But we're the audience, not the actor. We didn't show up at the theater just to see Sean Penn, unlike, say, Sean Penn.

Malick is now the next in a line of authority figures for Penn to rebel against, from Woody Allen to George W. Bush to Mr. Hand.

Sean Penn Vs. Terrence Malick [The New Yorker]