To The Wonder

[Pubrick]

Terrence Malick's Untitled Romance Now Called 'To The Wonder,'

What'd I tell you..

Andrew Dominik's 'Cogan's Trade' now titled 'Killing Them Softly

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's directorial debut is now known as "Don Jon's Addiction,"

David Chase's period based music movie is now called "Not Fade Away"

and Kathryn Bigelow's Osama Bin Laden thriller fresh (working) title "Zero Dark Thirty."

According to this trend, this will be the year of cryptic three-word titles.

[Reel]

'To The Wonder'

To the wall!

[matt35mm]

'To The Wonder'

To the wall!

Well, that made me out loud.

[MacGuffin]

Venice Review: Terrence Malick's 'To The Wonder' Is A Raw & Heartfelt Film Of Loss And Longing
Source: Playlist

For a man not known for being prolific, an eighteen-month gap between Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life" (the filmmaker's first film in five years) and his latest, "To the Wonder" (only his sixth in forty years) isn't just unprecedented, it's positively mind-boggling, especially given that the director's currently shooting a pair of films, "Knight of Cups" and another untitled film starring Ryan Gosling, back to back.

But hopes of something a little more down to earth for the new film (like, we have to confess, this writer, who wasn't entirely enamored of last year's 'Tree of Life') were seemingly quashed this weekend when Ben Affleck, the star of the film, said that it "makes 'Tree of Life' look like Transformers,' as well as suggesting that like Sean Penn in the earlier film, he'd essentially been cut out of the picture.

But we have to say, having just seen the film in Venice, we suspect that Affleck was exaggerating a little. "To the Wonder" is unlikely to win over many who've sworn off Malick in the past, but it's certainly one that leans towards traditional narrative a little more than "The Tree of Life." And to our eyes at least (there was an awful lot of booing as the credits rolled, although booing Malick has become a badge of pride for a certain section of the press corps) it felt like a more coherent, deeply felt and satisfying film than its predecessor, and one of the highlights of the festival so far.

The plot, such as it is, is more or less the one widely reported, and seemingly based, if some are to be believed, on Malick's own experiences of marriage and divorce. Neil (Affleck), an environmental inspector, and single mother Marina (Olga Kurylenko) meet in Paris, and while he's a little resistant to commitment, asks her and her 10-year-old daughter Tatiana (Tatiana Chiline) to move to Oklahoma with him. They live happily together for a while, but things start to crumble a little when her visa expires and she's forced to return home for a time. Neil then reconnects with Jane (Rachel McAdams), a childhood friend now divorced and managing a ranch on her own. Somewhere in the mix is Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), Marina's priest and confidante, who's suffering from something of a crisis of faith.

As you might imagine given its close proximity to "The Tree of Life," "To the Wonder" acts as a close cousin to last year's film. Emmanuel Lubezki's (typically glorious-looking) cinematography is along much the same lines, if anything taken to more of an extreme, the fluid Steadicam ever-wandering, ever-searching, and rarely straying more than a few feet from the actors. Despite switching out composers (Hanan Townsend for Alexandre Desplat), the music is along much the similar classical-music-temp-score lines, although it's impossible to tell on first viewing, at least for a classical music dunce like this writer, to tell what's Townsend's and what's from the archives. (Unless they're buried in the background somewhere, there was no sign of those reported St. Vincent and Thee Oh Sees tracks either).

And some of the same visual themes are in play too, particularly the interplay of nature and grace, although the intrusion of pre-fab suburbia, along with some positively apocalyptic construction sites that Affleck passes through, gives a little more edge to the landscapes. Indeed, being Malick's first-ever film set entirely in the present day gives it a pulse and vitality that we've found lacking in the last few pictures.

As for early buzz that the film was even less audience-friendly than the last, we're not so sure. Though Malick plays a little with time, it's much less of a stream of consciousness: the director might wander off the narrative backbone of the relationship between Neil and Marina a little, but never strays too far away, and the film feels less self-consciously poetic and meandering. This isn't to say that it's not indulgent – Malick certainly isn't in a hurry, and there's plenty of shots of figures wandering through cornfields, or two people circling around each other. But it also feels like it's working towards a more coherent theme, and the film somehow feels more satisfying as a result.

For us at least, "To the Wonder" feels like a film about absence, about longing, or "thirsting," as Javier Bardem's character puts it at one point. Marina longs for her lover, longs for her daughter when she's away, longs for a reaction from the distant Neil as their relationship becomes strained. Neil, meanwhile, is always looking for something else – a classic grass is greener type, torn between Marina and Jane, loving both, but unable to decide. And Quintana wanders the rougher parts of town, thirsting for a sign that God is listening to him in a world with so little evidence that his Lord exists. They're all characters with a void in their existence (like Penn in "The Tree of Life"), and it hit us on a gut level.

Because for all of the glorious landscapes and images, it's also a film of real, searing feeling, but not necessarily in the way you might expect. If one buys into the reports that Neil is something of a surrogate for Malick's character, it's rather fascinating the way that the director ultimately focuses on Marina, a generous and unexpected perspective, and one that, without psychoanalyzing the filmmaker too much, seems to be a way of airing his regrets about past actions. It's also, it should be said, unexpectedly sexy in places. Malick's always been one of the more sensual filmmakers out there, but there's a bona-fide eroticism at work in places here.

While some would argue that the actors play second fiddle in a Malick picture (particularly when there's a risk of them being cut out, as Rachel Weisz, Barry Pepper, Amanda Peet, Michael Sheen and Jessica Chastain all were here – there's not even a glimpse of any of them), we've never found that to be the case, and certainly not here. Affleck (who's in the film far more than he suggested – while we're sure he has plenty of material on the cutting room, and the film has almost no dialogue, he's front-and-center in the film), has the toughest role: Neil's a cold figure, not unloving, but not someone terribly easy with intimacy. The actor fades into the background a little early on, but he's terrific later in the film, with one near-heartbreaking moment of regret, and one shocking moment of sudden action lingering particularly in the mind.

Former Bond girl Kurylenko, meanwhile, is a revelation. It's arguably Marina's film more than anyone else's, starting and ending on her, and we suspect she gets the most screen time. The actress is luminous in the part, though, a somewhat silly, often child-like woman unable to get her lover to meet her halfway (she reminded us of Nora from Ibsen's "A Doll's House", curiously), and her heartbreaking turn should open a lot of doors for her. McAdams has the least to do of the principals, but is wonderfully haunted and sad in her brief appearances, while Bardem, as you'd probably expect, is the stand-out, able to depict the priest's tumultuous soul simply with the way he walks. There's also a firecracker cameo by Italian actress Romina Mondello late in the film as a friend of Marina's.

There's very, very little dialogue in the film, with much of what is said sometimes buried in the mix or muted altogether. Even so, we might have been tempted to drop much of the narration, which sometimes feels a bit student-poetry, especially as the visuals are normally managing to achieve the same thing. And Malick, and his five (?!) editors, lose the thread a little as the film comes to close, although there's a terrific economy of storytelling in the cutting elsewhere. It's a certainty that the film will prove divisive as its predecessor, but we found the director's latest to be a beautiful, hearfelt and raw piece of work. [A-]

[Kellen]

Some twitter responses:


Peter Bradshaw: The usual storm of sneering, jeering and booing, I'm afraid, for Terrence Malick's flawed, passionate, idealistic To The Wonder #Venezia69

Nick James: To the Wonder has its moments but not many; how many pouts and pirouettes does one need at sunset? #venice2012

Xan Brooks: To the Wonder: gorgeous, crawling offshoot of Tree of Life. Problem: hard to give a toss abt stolid Affleck & pouting Kurylenko #venezia69

Neil Young (UK): TO THE WONDER (6/10). Malick-by-numbers? Oppressively virtuoso god-bothering mega-haiku of enchantment at dusk. #venezia69

Guy Lodge: TO THE WONDER (B+) Malick's Tree of Love, at once less substantial and more satisfying than its predecessor. A thousand Christina's worlds.

[BB]

I saw this today at TIFF. It's great. Stylistically and thematically in line with Malick's previous work, but on a much smaller scale. It's his first film since Badlands that I wouldn't call an epic. Reports of the film consisting largely of twirls and pouts aren't exaggerating much. I didn't mind. Olga Kurylenko is a very watchable lady. To say nothing of her performance. And the film is absolutely hers. Affleck is featured substantially but not centrally, if that makes sense.

I can't imagine anyone booing. Sure, it features some of the same alienating flourishes present in Malick's recent films and I can understand why many (if not most) people won't like it, but how could anyone hate it? Relative to Tree of Life, it's ambitions are so low (in a good way)... Tree of Life I understand booing. If you're not there yet. Its an aggressive film in its own, quiet way. Same goes for The New World or Thin Red Line. They display a sort of stately defiance. This one is just so gentle and sad. It's not trying to pull off anything big enough to be considered pretentious. Haters knew they would boo before they even sat down.   

malick's dystopia is present day.

I think you just explained The Burial.

Yeah, more or less. It's a little more nuanced than that -- the present isn't all bad -- but you're on the right track. Also though, I think, Malick's dystopia is adulthood. Just the basic elements, like general responsibility, seem an almost insurmountable burden. His characters just want to run around and do cartwheels but the world demands something more. I guess both are a loss of Eden. Either way, time is always the villain.

Spoilers:

One additional thing I'd like to comment on is that To The Wonder features actual sex scenes -- sumptuous ones at that -- which is something new for Malick. It actually took me off-guard. For a while there it seemed like he believed babies came from touching a woman's hands and back with fabric. Granted, this happens a lot too. 

[InTylerWeTrust]

I'm really eager to see this movie, even though:









But then again:

guys this is gonna be awesome even Mod hated it

It took me 3 watchings of THE TREE OF LIFE to actually like it. Waiting to see how many times I'll have to watch this one.

[BB]

Yeah, well, nuts to Mod (sometimes).

[modage]

This movie SUCKS hard. It makes "Tree Of Life" look like "The Master."

Terrence Malick's briskly produced follow-up to last year's acclaimed "Tree Of Life" should have his admirers wondering if their emperor is wearing any clothes. I didn't dislike "Tree Of Life," I just wasn't as enamored with it as most people seemed to be and found myself on the other side of a colossal gulf of critical appraisals. Like most people, I admired the grand scale of the film and especially the breathtaking cinematography — admitting it was probably one of the most beautifully shot films I'd ever seen in my life — but was disappointed by how little I felt. The new age narration kept me at a distance from the characters by rarely allowing me to exist in the moment with them. Ever since it was rumored that his latest film would be even more experimental in nature, I approached it with cautious optimism.

To try and describe what actually happens in "To The Wonder" would be a very brief synopsis. In the film, an American man (Affleck) enters into a relationship with a French woman (Olga Kurylenko) and invites her and her daughter to move to the United States with him. Once there he becomes distant and the couple begin to drift apart. She moves back to Paris and he briefly dates another woman (Rachel McAdams) but then comes back and they continue to grow apart. A crumbling relationship isn't exactly new cinematic territory but seeing an auteur like Malick put his personal stamp on a tale like this sounds like an interesting proposition. Unfortunately as depicted here, it's really not. It was recently announced that actors like Rachel Weisz, Jessica Chastian and Barry Pepper had all been cut from the film. But you shouldn't feel bad for them, feel bad for the actors who are actually in the film and have so very little to do.

There are no real characters or relationships onscreen here, just scene after scene of the actors swirling around each other in a field, in the house, gesturing, touching each others faces, smiling. It doesn't read as impressionistic, it just looks like they're being filmed doing acting exercises. It appears that Affleck has literally been directed to "not speak" and for 90% of the film he can only look and gesture at the actresses he shares the screen with. Kurylenko is ostensibly the main character (though she's credited after Affleck) but doesn't have much more to do except narrate her dissatisfaction. It would be hard to pinpoint a single scene in the film where if removed would in any way change your understanding of it.

Affleck said that this film made "Tree Of Life" look like "Transformers" and while his hyperbole was obviously intended to brace audiences to set their expectations accordingly, it's not accurate. The film isn't any more experimental in nature than his last film, it's just less ambitious and far, far less interesting. Using the same cinematic techniques as his last film but taking away the grand themes, epic scope, period setting and breathtaking cinematography and what you're left with is not much. It will likely be ignored come awards time — though it should be a lock for Most Onscreen Frolicing — but I'll be most curious to see if Malick's admirers will start to wonder if their cinematic emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Truly painful.

[Pubrick]

hahaha.. excellent review.

if it's as bad as you say then he really needs to get out of his own ass.

this sounds like it could be his INLAND EMPIRE.

[Alexandro]

the malick backlash is in full steam out there in the world of film journalists and critics.

to be fair, malick has been using the same techniques since the thin red line. in both the new world and the tree of life he has done pretty much the same. yet he has found a way to add layers of meaning to his filmmaking approach and really turn the medium into a philosophical one where the use of visuals, music and voice over join forces to say something unique about whatever is happening in those stories.

let's wait and see.

[Jeremy Blackman]

There are no real characters or relationships onscreen here, just scene after scene of the actors swirling around each other in a field, in the house, gesturing, touching each others faces, smiling.

^ My favorite part of the review.

I honestly get the feeling that you're right about this one. Tree of Life barely gets away with what it does, so I can imagine all of that crumbling when not executed perfectly.

[Drenk]

If there wasn't a trailer, I would think this movie is a lie.

[Just Withnail]

He's pushing this camera-dancing-with-actors to an insane degree in that trailer. I was worried it might look like just more of the same, but it seems like it's more of the same but with the form taken even further. I'm still eager. If it just swirling bodies as you say modage, I think I'll be completely fine with that, as long as they swirl as much as in this trailer. I hope the swirl even more! Also a great something can be written about Malick's wide angle shots.

That said, I feel this could also be the point where I realize fast-Malick isn't necessarily a good thing.

And here's to hoping the beach-sequences in this one will add some un-hokeyfying intertextual weight to the Tree of Life ending.

[HeywoodRFloyd]

I really love Malick's work, but fuck me if that trailer isn't the most pretentious thing I've seen in a long time, it's like a hipster made the film.
I'm just looking forward to the cinematography now, that's all.