Wordless French documentary essentially following a year through the seasons for a two hundred year old oak tree, and all the life that happens on it, from birds and squirrels and insects in its branches to wood mice living in its roots and fungi below the earth, to deer, coypu and boars around it. Great use of sound (breeze through leaves of a tree has to be one of the nicest sounds in the world), this is one to see on the big screen so you can immerse yourself into it. Introduction at the Edinburgh International Film Festival noted that it has been a huge hit in France, accounting for half a million tickets.
3 Reviews
Treemendous
Horst_In_Translation25 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
"Le chêne" or "Heart of Oak" is a French nature documentary film from 2022 and this got released here in Germany not too long ago and I got the chance to see it at the movie theater yesterday and there was no way I would miss out on it as I love nature documentaries, especially animal documentaries. It is still having its wide release and the audience numbers are solid. Nice to see. Parents (and grandparents) are going with their kids it seems, but also everybody else. The good thing here is that you can watch the film no matter where you are from and what languages you are speaking. The reason is that there is no narration in here. It is just nature recordings and music and sound effects. The latter were pretty dominant though, quite loud and permanent basically, but it fits as there is constant movement in nature and consequently also in this film and I enjoyed not only the watch (as you can see from my rating), but also the listen here. It is not a long film all which maybe makes it also easier for very young audiences who still lack the patience, concentration and calmness to watch a three-hour film. This one ends around the 80-minute mark. It was nominated for a César, the biggest French film prize, in the documentary category where it did not win, but this does not make it a worse film. Apparently, according to imdb at least, this was the only awards recognition the film received. Still a big occasion. There are two directors credited here: The first would be Laurent Charbonnier who has worked on (nature) documentaries for many decades now and the second is Michel Seydoux, who was nominated for two BAFTAs in the 1990s and both were live action films, interestingly enough one of them a Russian movie. Had the Academy Awards named attached to their foreign language category winners, he would probably be an Oscar winner now too. But you know that you will find the name Seydoux attached to so many projects and there is way more than just Léa. Michel is her grand-uncle.
But back to this film here: The two directors are also credited as writers and there are three other writers listed there too. One of them has been very prolific over the years, the second only worked on a few short films in the past and the third and final has this documentary as her first writing credit even. So, a mix of everything we have here experience-wise. Luckily, this is not a case of too many cooks spoiling the brother, but I am probably a bit on the biased side here with how much I adore animal documentaries. At the center of the film is a massive oak, but here and there the film drifts a bit away from this one. That is alright though. I like the idea how there are many other oaks in the forest and it gives you the imagination that all the vivid life going on inside the tree is just duplicated with the other trees there. And there is a great deal of water right next to the oak as well, which also attracts all kinds of animals. Nice to see. Water is always a welcome inclusion, also when it comes to taking walks. For me at least. Swimming too, but let's leave this one to the animals. The perhaps funniest occasion here was when the pigs are included here or wild boars I should say and one of them has an itch and is using the oak to scratch. This was included twice I think, but it could have been included a dozen times more and I still would have found it funny. Music is also used on several occasions and literally every single one was a triumph. I think it was a total of four music inclusions, if we also count the song we hear during the closing credits that reminds us again that this is a French film, and literally every single one of those was a winner. With the exception of the French song, you probably have heard them all before. Two songs with singers and two more classical tunes. So catchy and great choices. Of course, the idea of animals copulating during Dean Martin's "Sway" was awesome. Right up my alley, but I adore the song anyway. Always have since the first time I heard it.
But now back to the visual side: What you see in here is nothing short of mesmerizing. So many stunning recordings. The framework is really the idea of four seasons and as a consequence they kept winter as short as it gets as almost everything and everybody is sleeping or at least resting there, but oh well. The focus was on the other seasons. There are also many inclusions of cute animal babies, like mice. They get a great deal of screen time. Squirrels are also always appreciated. So are ladybirds and we see what kind of impact a single drop of water can have on those. All a matter of perspective, proportion and dimension. Here and there, a deer passes by. The comment early on why you can also make a point for this being a scripted movie and not only a documentary is because there are certain stories. Just look at the lengthy sequence with what happens when an acorn falls down from the tree, or actually many do at the same time. This did not happen like this in reality of course, but it was interesting to see the animals react to this. Especially the squirrel is totally agile and on alert right away to collect the precious fruit. And literally every animal nearby hears it and reacts. This was also maybe a bit exaggerated. Just take the wild boars there in the distance. I am sure they did not pay any attention in reality and what we see them react to was surely something completely different. Maybe something man-made. But yeah, this moment surely catches the attention of the audience, especially the young audience members. This is really a film for them. They kept the violence out completely.
I remember two segments and inclusions here that had a bit of danger, namely when a fox shows up and tries to catch an animal, a mouse it might have been, but the mouse disappears into a hole quickly and the fox leaves with frustration and hey life goes on. He will be more successful elsewhere. So there they kept the cruelty of nature out. The second, more memorable segment, almost a dramatic plot towards the end, then happens when a snake shows up and is going for the eggs in the nest of a bird couple and it moves its way up the tree and you wonder if there can be any harmless solution because the bird most likely cannot fight a fully-grown snake and its target (namely the eggs) is even static, so should be a very easy catch. But what happens there? The animals of the tree collaborate to remove the snake and the branch on which the snake is that very moment falls down and the snake falls with it. "Ritze ratze" as we say in Germany. Oh well, the oak had a bit of a loss there too, but the animals are safe. But yeah, this was really more of a written and edited plot there than authentic nature documentary without human impact. The snake falls then in the water and we cannot be sure if it survives. Some snakes can get to the shore, but I am not sure about this one.
Anyway, I just mentioned the editing, and this is definitely a crucial component to this film as there are more little stories told like this one. I would not have needed this approach overall as I rather enjoyed the images, but it is not bad either and they kinda had to use it for the young audiences and also to make you forget there is no narrator. You don't get have numbers and facts thrown at you, only the images, so they had to develop a bit of another idea to keep people interested. Many ideas in fact to go with the snippets you see. And still they only make it to way below 1.5 hours, which shows you why they also included some of the footage form far above there and a lot of the action from the lake or river nearby, but it is never to an extent where I would say the title mentioning the oak is no longer suitable. In any case with the English-language title, they even used one that is not just "The Oak" and same is true with the words that follow "Die Eiche" in the German title. This is all then. No need to further stretch my review here to infinity, just like they also did not stretch the film more than they had to. I give this movie an enthusiastic thumbs-up and positive recommendation and highly recommend checking it out, also inside your living room if it does not come to your country. This probably won't get a global release.
But back to this film here: The two directors are also credited as writers and there are three other writers listed there too. One of them has been very prolific over the years, the second only worked on a few short films in the past and the third and final has this documentary as her first writing credit even. So, a mix of everything we have here experience-wise. Luckily, this is not a case of too many cooks spoiling the brother, but I am probably a bit on the biased side here with how much I adore animal documentaries. At the center of the film is a massive oak, but here and there the film drifts a bit away from this one. That is alright though. I like the idea how there are many other oaks in the forest and it gives you the imagination that all the vivid life going on inside the tree is just duplicated with the other trees there. And there is a great deal of water right next to the oak as well, which also attracts all kinds of animals. Nice to see. Water is always a welcome inclusion, also when it comes to taking walks. For me at least. Swimming too, but let's leave this one to the animals. The perhaps funniest occasion here was when the pigs are included here or wild boars I should say and one of them has an itch and is using the oak to scratch. This was included twice I think, but it could have been included a dozen times more and I still would have found it funny. Music is also used on several occasions and literally every single one was a triumph. I think it was a total of four music inclusions, if we also count the song we hear during the closing credits that reminds us again that this is a French film, and literally every single one of those was a winner. With the exception of the French song, you probably have heard them all before. Two songs with singers and two more classical tunes. So catchy and great choices. Of course, the idea of animals copulating during Dean Martin's "Sway" was awesome. Right up my alley, but I adore the song anyway. Always have since the first time I heard it.
But now back to the visual side: What you see in here is nothing short of mesmerizing. So many stunning recordings. The framework is really the idea of four seasons and as a consequence they kept winter as short as it gets as almost everything and everybody is sleeping or at least resting there, but oh well. The focus was on the other seasons. There are also many inclusions of cute animal babies, like mice. They get a great deal of screen time. Squirrels are also always appreciated. So are ladybirds and we see what kind of impact a single drop of water can have on those. All a matter of perspective, proportion and dimension. Here and there, a deer passes by. The comment early on why you can also make a point for this being a scripted movie and not only a documentary is because there are certain stories. Just look at the lengthy sequence with what happens when an acorn falls down from the tree, or actually many do at the same time. This did not happen like this in reality of course, but it was interesting to see the animals react to this. Especially the squirrel is totally agile and on alert right away to collect the precious fruit. And literally every animal nearby hears it and reacts. This was also maybe a bit exaggerated. Just take the wild boars there in the distance. I am sure they did not pay any attention in reality and what we see them react to was surely something completely different. Maybe something man-made. But yeah, this moment surely catches the attention of the audience, especially the young audience members. This is really a film for them. They kept the violence out completely.
I remember two segments and inclusions here that had a bit of danger, namely when a fox shows up and tries to catch an animal, a mouse it might have been, but the mouse disappears into a hole quickly and the fox leaves with frustration and hey life goes on. He will be more successful elsewhere. So there they kept the cruelty of nature out. The second, more memorable segment, almost a dramatic plot towards the end, then happens when a snake shows up and is going for the eggs in the nest of a bird couple and it moves its way up the tree and you wonder if there can be any harmless solution because the bird most likely cannot fight a fully-grown snake and its target (namely the eggs) is even static, so should be a very easy catch. But what happens there? The animals of the tree collaborate to remove the snake and the branch on which the snake is that very moment falls down and the snake falls with it. "Ritze ratze" as we say in Germany. Oh well, the oak had a bit of a loss there too, but the animals are safe. But yeah, this was really more of a written and edited plot there than authentic nature documentary without human impact. The snake falls then in the water and we cannot be sure if it survives. Some snakes can get to the shore, but I am not sure about this one.
Anyway, I just mentioned the editing, and this is definitely a crucial component to this film as there are more little stories told like this one. I would not have needed this approach overall as I rather enjoyed the images, but it is not bad either and they kinda had to use it for the young audiences and also to make you forget there is no narrator. You don't get have numbers and facts thrown at you, only the images, so they had to develop a bit of another idea to keep people interested. Many ideas in fact to go with the snippets you see. And still they only make it to way below 1.5 hours, which shows you why they also included some of the footage form far above there and a lot of the action from the lake or river nearby, but it is never to an extent where I would say the title mentioning the oak is no longer suitable. In any case with the English-language title, they even used one that is not just "The Oak" and same is true with the words that follow "Die Eiche" in the German title. This is all then. No need to further stretch my review here to infinity, just like they also did not stretch the film more than they had to. I give this movie an enthusiastic thumbs-up and positive recommendation and highly recommend checking it out, also inside your living room if it does not come to your country. This probably won't get a global release.
Beautifully photographed tree-based action
Red-Barracuda15 August 2022
When I checked out the programme for the 2022 Edinburgh International Film Festival, I was a little alarmed when I noticed the best film I could find was a documentary about a tree. So, the question has to be, did it meet my lofty expectations? In all honesty probably not but it still was a beautifully shot nature doc which was well crafted throughout. There is no voice-over, so things are conveyed by the often very impressive imagery captured. My overall middling assessment was because I thought it maybe lacks a bit of variety and the music was somewhat on the nose/cheesy at times. Still, its a nice bit of work and if you are in the mood for some weevil action then this is the place to come.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
