Ryan McNeil
My TIFF 2012 experience got me very perplexed on Tuesday afternoon when I caught up with my most anticipated film: Terrence Malick’s TO THE WONDER. As expected, the film is introspective and non-linear. What I didn’t expect was how distant and hollow it would be.
The plot – and I use those words very loosely – is that of an unnamed couple played by Olga Kurylenko and Ben Affleck. They have an on-again/off-again relationship that begins in Europe and eventually moves to America. During one of their “off-again” moments, Affleck’s character moves on to a relationship with another unnamed woman played by Rachel McAdams. Through it all, Javier Bardem comes in and out as a Catholic priest offering spiritual guidance, and seemingly struggling with his faith himself.
Sound like a loose story structure? That’s because it is.
The film isn’t interested in relaying a narrative – which is fine considering how much I adore THE TREE OF LIFE. Unfortunately though, it doesn’t play as lush or as grand as the rest of Malick’s filmography, and thus the questions that it wants us to consider don’t have the cinematic muscle behind them that he usually brings. “That shot” is missing…
…The locusts in DAYS OF HEAVEN
…The tall blowing grass in THE THIN RED LINE
…Pocahontas wading through the river in THE NEW WORLD
…Brad Pitt cradling the baby’s foot in TREE OF LIFE
In their stead is a lot of very pretty pictures, but none that seems to have the same precision as what we’ve come to expect from Malick. In addition, where his previous pieces have been built on lyrical renderings of ordinary moments, many of the moments in TO THE WONDER feel staged and artificial.
For instance, there’s a moment where Ben Affleck’s character is absent-mindedly spinning an ornamental crystal ball on a countertop. Nothing we have seen in him up until then leads us to believe that he would own such a thing, nor that he would kill time playing with it. What little we see of Affleck lead me to believe that he might tap a pen while thinking…or toss pebbles. Not stand at a counter and spin a globe.
What’s more, very little is spoken in the film – more than three-quaters is whispered. Fine when you want to use it as voice-over, but I don’t understand why anyone would be whispering to each other standing in a field while the wind violently whips around them.
This film is an unrealized thesis, and my estimation is that it isn’t complete. There hasn’t been a concrete release date announced yet, and I have to believe that is because this film is still being shaped. Its appearances at TIFF and Venice could be a road test, and what ultimately hits theatres might look very different.
If not, that’s alright, but it will leave me of the opinion that this is Malick’s weakest film. It asks a good question or two, looks nifty, and sounds marvellous – but at the moment it is little more than a cinematic EP.
It’s definitely a Malick film alright. Like you, I was feeling kind of indifferent after watching this. It looks great and Olga Kurylenko is a revelation for me. But the movie fails to resonate with me and I think the issue is that Malick has issues conveying what he wants to say in the subject matter. He is famous for shooting a lot of footage and trying to find his movie in the editing room, maybe he couldn’t find that movie this time around.
Given that I just responded to a comment about ROOM 237, I have the notion of extrapolating meaning “after-the-fact” on my brain. Sometimes filmmakers drop breadcrumbs into their films to lead the viewer where they want them to go, other times viewers overlay their own ideas where filmmakers never intended.
Something tells me Malick films require a bit of both, which can get tricky when the former isn’t fully realized.
I read several reviews of these already and seems like people are in agreement that To The Wonder makes them, well wonder just what the heck it’s all about. Bummer that it’s missing that one ‘iconic’ visual, for lack of a better word, that we’ve come to expect from Malick. I’m still curious enough to see it, but I’ll wait for the dvd. Even his weakest film is perhaps still a lot better than most directors’ average work.
Well, I’ll make you a deal. When this eventually gets released in theatres, I’ll see it again and you can read a full-on review then. I’m convinced what hits theatres will differ from what I watched last week, but “how” is the question.
It’s possible that it might only be subtly different, or it’s possible that it might be radically different.
Stay tuned.
Despite your misgivings, I am still intriuged. The unnamed-ness, the struggle with faith, etc. These things still interest me, so im sure i will watch it. But, lets hope he adjusts it to make make it that little bit more engaging.
As you should be, and in truth I too am intrigued to see if/how the film is changed for a wide release. It’s certainly a more worthwhile gamble than many of the films released in theatres, but if it’s put out the way it stands then it will likely take the mark as the weakest Malick.
That’s disappointing. Would you prefer the past trend of one amazing Malick film every 5 or so years or having several with one or two years in between?
Given that I’m a fan of RED LINE, NEW WORLD and TREE OF LIFE, I’d gladly take him going back to the 4-5 year creative process. We’ll see what happens in the wake of this.
This is bound to be tinkered with before its release. Regardless, I’ll be watching.
I might have to send a canary into the coal mine on this one. When it hits theatres, I’ll have to wait until one of my fellow festival-goers sees it so that they can tell me if it’s different or not before I drop down more hard-earned on it.
DO watch it – it still has some interesting elements, just temper your expectations.
Will do.