Tuesday, April 16, 2013

To the Wonder


“He doesn’t give us things on purpose. I kind of know what’s happening, but I’m not sure. I was doing something not knowing exactly where it leads, and maybe that’s good, because in life, we don’t know where we’re going.”

That’s about as fine an encapsulation of Terrence Malick’s new moving poem of a film, To the Wonder, as we’re likely to get. The quote was said by the film’s star, Olga Kurylenko, and, to me, brings the entirety of the film together.

When you enter the dark, fluid, seemingly illogical world of Terrence Malick, you enter into a vision unknown. A story untold. A fragmented daydream of despair. Malick makes films his own unique way, demanding that the viewer participate as opposed to simply watch.


To the Wonder tells the story of one couple’s continuing ability to fall in love as quickly as they fall out. We first meet Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Kurylenko) as they silently tour the picturesque commune Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy. They drive, they walk, they look, they embrace. This is happiness. We follow them to Paris as they do much of the same – letting love wash over them as gently as the tides that surround Mont Saint-Michel. Shortly after, Neil moves Marina and her young daughter to his home in suburban Oklahoma. Although she’s plucked from the richly texturized streets of Paris to the barren fields of electrical towers in Oklahoma, Marina doesn’t mind. As her French narration tells us, as long as Neil loves her, she can be happy wherever.

But love fades. Whether it’s Neil’s indifference or Marina’s hinted-at emotional instability, the two are driven apart. A new love enters, and is nursed accordingly. Jealously takes hold, indifference reappears, reconciliations are discussed, then disregarded, then considered again. Though, this being a Malick film, nothing is as direct as I might be making it sound. Very little dialogue motivates the story, and just as much is inferred as is made clear. The film flows round and round, shifting seamlessly and inexplicably to new moods, abrupt tones, and fluctuating ideas. Not all of which, it must be said, are welcome.
In addition to Neil and Marina’s story, To the Wonder runs a parallel storyline of an apathetic priest (Javier Bardem) who we see giving sermons and visiting homes in the white trash, Oklahoman slum town he lives near. He visits, listens to people’s problems, and returns to his home to sulk in private. In short, I haven’t the slightest clue what Bardem’s narrative is doing in this movie. With the exception of the priest occasionally taking confession from Marina, he has nothing to do with the film’s central love story. And although Bardem’s story is gorgeously shot and compelling on its own, I fail to see how it fits.

Malick famously overshoots his films, routinely resulting in several actors having their work taken out of his final pictures. Had Bardem’s slum subplot been cut, I’d be tempted to label To the Wonder as masterful. But as it sits now, I’ll consider it a great film with faults.

I stand as an ardent enthusiast of Malick’s films, but it’s clear that the man has his fair share of detractors. For one, Malick’s films make us uncomfortable. I watch a lot of movies – new, old, whatever – and I would estimate that 90 percent of the films made (especially today) have a firm beginning, middle, and end. They introduce characters, bring about a conflict, and have the characters resolve said conflict. And that makes people comfortable; that’s what they’re used to. They enter a film knowing that they’ll leave with a definite understanding of what happened to the people on screen.
And believe me, I’m not knocking the three act structure – many of the best films ever made are constructed as such. But there is room for more. There is room for ambiguity, transference, change. At least in my cinema-obsessed world. Would I want every film to play out like a Malick film? No, of course not. But the man has made six pictures in four decades, and every time a new one is released, I’m more than willing to participate.

With Malick, you watch, you take in, you discuss, and you decide whether or not the film was worthy of your time. But maybe it grows. Maybe its opaque ideas become more rooted in truth. Maybe you understand. I have yet to see a Malick film that is best taken at face value – they all get better with time and repeat viewings. It’s not in my nature to dissect a film, but with Malick, I love to let his work tease me – to bait my most innocent questions. His films are puzzles that may or may not be missing some pieces. To the Wonder may not know where it wants to go, possibly because its characters don’t know where they want to go. When was the last time you had a conversation with someone and you knew for certain how and when it was going to end? Me? Never. A-

26 comments:

  1. Alex: Although I haven't seen this film yet, I've seen a few other Malick films, so your review paints the picture for me well.

    "The film flows round and round, shifting seamlessly and inexplicably to new moods, abrupt tones, and fluctuating ideas. Not all of which, it must be said, are welcome." --> You have such a unique way with words and I never grow tired of reading your writing. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much Julie! It means the world to me that you appreciate my writing style.

      I think you'll like this one. But hell, it's hard to tell who will or won't.

      Delete
  2. Great review sir!
    I absolutely loved this film and was actually quite surprised by the impact it had on me at it's conclusion(...?). As much as I love everything that Malick's films represent, I don't love them all (I have yet to see Days of Heaven and all of The New World), but his films always have a way of touching a part of me that no other film maker can. I feel like of the films of his that I have seen, Badlands is the only one I can claim to be perfect and a masterpiece, but this one is right up there with it/just below it. The characters are so hauntingly captivating and I was just blown away on every level.
    Even Bardem's story hit home with me, paralleling against the main love story(s) with his own conflicting love towards God/faith/etc. I thought his story fit in perfectly as a sort of conflicting love story. He wants to be filled with love for his partner (God in this case I would say) but finds his own life to be rather empty and hollow and cannot find comfort in the words that he speaks to others. Maybe I'm just rambling, but I thought it worked. Not perfect but pretty damn close (imo).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man, glad you liked the review!

      Damn, I had no idea you were such a Malick fan. That’s so cool. I’ve seen all of his films many times over (well, with the exception of this, which I’m sure I’ll watch again very very soon), and I’m so taken with his work as well.

      I really appreciate you lending your comments about Bardem’s storyline. You weren’t rambling at all, in fact, I think your description is as close to “accurate” (accurate for me, anyway) as I’ve heard yet. That makes sense. Now, does it still take away from the main love story at hand...? I don’t know, possibly. But either way, I loved this movie. Another Malick work of art.

      Delete
  3. I have read many divisive reviews about this film yet I will still take a mediocre Malick film over everyone else's films unless it's by masters who are equal to the stature of Malick like Scorsese, Almodovar, Bergman, Kubrick, Kurosawa, and etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, I agree completely - I'll take an average film by any of those guys over most any other film.

      Delete
  4. Fantastic review man. I've seen it twice, and I'm still on the fence. Right now, I'd go with a weak A.

    Bardem's subplot might seem out of place, but maybe Malick overshoots his films because he has a lot he's trying to accomplish with each film. I'm in line with maskofgojira's argument. Is the priest's struggle with faith supposed to connect to the relationships problems of Neil? Are man and woman at odds like man and God (at least on man's part)? Is that love the same imperfect, day-to-day struggle? Maybe I'm overthinking it. Like you said, does it take away from the main love story? Perhaps. Oh well. Fascinating stuff, regardless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man, a weak A is where I'm at as well.

      Love your remarks about Bardem's story. I should've been clearer: but I am DEFINITELY open to ideas and new thoughts concerning that subplot. I haven't shut the book on it or written it off by any means. So I don't think you're overthinking it at all. In fact, I think you and maskofgoijra are on to something solid.

      Fascinating indeed.

      Delete
  5. i like this film and it is obviously gorgeous to look at, but i think it is beyond pretentious. while i appreciate that malick has its own style, but both mcadams and bardem's characters aren't necessary and, especially mcadams, add nothing to the plot. though i love bardem in the movie, his role and mcadams' role were very arbitrary. i actually think bardem should have played affleck's character, since bardem can do a lot with very little (affleck cannot as an actor). kurylenko is also good in this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, very interesting. I'm definitely on the fence about Bardem's character, but I truly thought McAdams' character added a great deal to the material.

      Never a common line to be reached in a Malick film. Such a divisive filmmaker.

      Either way, I really appreciate you stopping by and lending your thoughts!

      Delete
  6. The more I talk to others about it, the more I think they're on to something when they say Bardem's character connected the movie back to reality. So much of the film takes place in the happiness of the two leads, that the grim life of a preist and his shaken faith kinda keep the film grounded. I do wish it was fleshed out a bit more, as well. I liked the film fine, but not quite as much as you. I think it's Malick's worst, which is still pretty solid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think when I rewatch it, and I bring the context to Bardem's character that you and a few other people are talking about, then I'll appreciate the movie more as a whole. I too agree that this is Malick's weakest film so far. But an A- is a damn fine weak film indeed.

      Delete
    2. That's fair, no qualms against you liking it more than I did. I've noticed it's been on-demand, I may catch it again soon. But my backlog of films to watch is growing.

      Delete
    3. I really want to watch it again too.

      Delete
  7. Is it just me, or did this one just sneak up without much warning? (It's probably just me, I'm woefully uneducated when it comes to Malick).
    Still no release date for this one here :( I have my fingers crossed for Melbourne Film Festival perhaps. Wonderful review! I'm looking forward to seeing Affleck and Bardem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ruth!

      Ha, well, it made the festival rounds last year, and was at risk of not picking up a distributor. Finally, Magnolia Pictures picked it up, and they released it in theaters and on demand this past Friday. So it's been pretty easy to get ahold of in the States. Hope it comes your way soon!

      Delete
  8. I'm very hesitant about seeing this one. I was completely bored with The Tree of Life despite it's beauty and great acting. To the Wonder seems like it has more depth that I could appreciate, but I still haven't been persuaded yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I'm being totally honest... if you were bored by The Tree of Life, I think you'll be fucking bored by To the Wonder. I didn't think this was as obscure as The Tree of Life, but there is much less dialogue and much less of a coherent narrative. I loved it, but it definitely isn't for everyone.

      Delete
  9. Happy to find someone that gives this movie a favorable review. Most that I have seen did not like it. But thanks for convincing me otherwise.

    [Also, tough to hear about the hack. You do a phenomenal job with this blog and don't deserve that in the slightest. Please do re-post, and keep up all the hard work.]

    We all love it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey man, great to hear from you. I loved this film, but it really is for Malick fanatics only. Hope you enjoy it!

      Thanks for the kind words about the hacking nonsense, I really do appreciate that.

      Delete
  10. Loved this film. Loved it, loved it, loved it, even when I hated it. And you know, I totally understand why someone might watch this and - as that quote at the top implies - not know what's happening but this was the first time I've seen a Malick film where I felt the whole time like I knew exactly what he was up to the entire time. It just opened up for me in a way none of his other films (most of which I've liked) have.

    I feel like Bardem's character fits in thematically with the rest of the film just fine and while the film wouldn't suffer without him I also don't necessarily think his story seems out of place. Malick's structure is always so incongruous to begin with that it's allowed to fit right in.

    I like to imagine that Malick's movies aren't even "edited" so much as they are assembled by the spirits. In that way (and I admit that's insanely obtuse), it all works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awesome man. I loved that you loved this. You know, they more I reflect on the movie, the more I appreciate it (which is always the case of Malick's films for me).

      I'm hell bent on watching it again and paying particular attention to Bardem's scenes. I think a rewatch (or two...) will help me get to where you're at in terms of understanding his subplot.

      Thanks as always for such a great comment!

      Delete
  11. A hard film to watch, I felt the pace was taxing and personally I think that's what Mallick was going for. He wanted to show this tender love between Affleck and Kurlyenko's characters deteriorate in a cold, dragging fashion. Their interactions become so uncomfortable to watch. Mallick's visual work is exceptional as always. I really liked this movie but man, I can see how lots would not. You raise a number of very strong points. Great read!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much! Really glad you liked this one - seems like we're both really on point here. I agree that Malick's intentions were exactly what is presented on the screen. I really dug it, but can completely understand why many would not.

      Delete
  12. I can try to offer a theory into Bardem's troubled preist character, with Malick one can only offer theories, he is the physical manifestation of the disillusionment the lovers feel as their affair wears on. Marina is seemingly in a constant ballet with herself, always smiling and energetic, on the other hand Neil is grounded and a blank slant. "Why doesn't he share my enthusiasm for everyday things?" she must think. So she goes to the local church, she is a foreigner in a strange land tradition is her only comfort, in hopes of finding the answers as to why her love is not what she thought it would be. Something everyone has experienced, I myself one too many times, but instead of comforting her the preist can only relate to her crisis. As he is also disillusioned with the world around him "Where is god/love amongst all this suffering?", so instead of helping her, he only exacerbates the growing divide between the two. In the end both the Preist and Marina have epiphanies, that even though God and Neil don't show them love everyday doesn't mean they are not helpless. The preist can still help the down-ridden and poor, and Marina can leave and be her on her own... she sees that she can be just as happy as when she was with her supposed "great love" in the Mount Saint Michel. Don't know if that helped you out or not, it's only my own way of putting together the beautiful film mosaic here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that helped tremendously. Seriously, Jeff, well done.

      I knew once I let this film settle for a few months, the impact of it (and Bardem's scene specifically) would fully sink in. And it have. I'd now give the film an A. And I'd love to watch it again with the understand of Bardem's character through your theory. And you're right, one can only have theories with Malick. And yours is a damn fine one.

      Delete