Malick Movie Confirmed for Oklahoma, Shooting Begins
ROCKVILLE EXCLUSIVE
Terrence Malick's Newest Production Begins Filming in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
by jhs
Terrence Malick's newest, and still untitled production, long rumored to be shooting in Malick's home town of Bartlesville, Oklahoma has indeed began production.
Malick arrived with a small film crew and actress Olga Kurylenko around 7 p.m. at the Bartlesville Community Center which was hosting Oklahoma's Indian Summer Festival.
Indian Summer is a Bartlesville tradition going on its 23rd year of celebrating Native American heritage. The three day festival focuses on Native American culture and has strong roots in the Bartlesville community.
Festival goers took note of the Redbud Pictures LLC signs throughout the grounds alerting the public of filming. Redbud Pictures was incorporated in Oklahoma and Texas in the spring of 2010. A representative in the Texas Secretary of State's office confirmed Terrence Malick is the manager of Redbud Pictures.
Actress Olga Kurylenko was filmed interlacing with the Indian Summer crowd and was also filmed twirling with a local girl, who's parents were taken aside to sign a release.
Organizers of Indian Summer were overwhelmed Malick chose their yearly festival to be included in his untitled project.
Locals were content to watch Hollywood unfold before them and remained respectful of Malick's film crew while they moved freely, without security, throughout the Indian Summer crowd.
Malick's newest project is rumored to continue filming in Bartlesville, Oklahoma (and the surrounding community) throughout late November.
Malick's project, listed on IMDB.com, is reported to star Rachel McAdams, Ben Affleck, Javier Bardem, Rachel Weisz, and Olga Kurylenko.
Malick has made no formal announcement about his new project and Oklahoma Film and Music cannot confirm the production being filmed in Oklahoma.
http://www.rockvillemusicmagazine.com/2010/09/malick-movie-confirmed-for-oklahoma.html
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi7.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy251%2Ffbv%2FMalick_Production01.jpg&hash=d381efc96d1123355b53d435ab9dc99e15fc3099)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi7.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy251%2Ffbv%2FMalick_Production04.jpg&hash=92d2c5d9cf1cd351ee7ee5bdc1e60f16d3a6b7a2)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi7.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy251%2Ffbv%2FMalick_Production014.jpg&hash=9e45976aeb1201d7e448f4db1baac9cd3d8e0987)
Production On Terrence Malick's Untitled Oklahoma-Set Romantic Drama Begins; Set Photos Featuring Olga Kurylenko, includes video from facebook
Video here (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1421090843880&ref=mf)
With a distribution deal finalised last week for his 'cinema-changing' epic "Tree Of Life," Terrence Malick has started production on his next directorial effort, a romantic drama set in his home state of Oklahoma.
The project already has the likes of Rachel McAdams, Ben Affleck, Javier Bardem, Rachel Weisz and Olga Kurylenko attached to star and recently shot at Oklahoma's recent 23rd annual Indian Summer Festival — a celebration of Native American culture and the Bartlesville community. Attendees this year were greeted with a warning noting that Redbud Pictures, LLC "will be filming at these premises today" with the company, of course, being the same one registered earlier this year with Malick as manager.
Malick and a small crew were spotted filming Kurylenko as she floated around the festival's attractions. One notable moment definitely captured involved the actress interacting with and twirling a young local girl around in dance; all likely to be improvisation as the girl's parents signed release forms after the fact.
When approached, Oklahoma Film and Music continued to deny the production's existence but, with things scheduled to kick into full gear early October and run through November in Bartlesville and Oklahoma City, surely they won't be able to hide it much longer. Glen Basner's Film Nation is financing the pic with Bill Pohlad producing.
http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/09/production-on-terrence-malicks-untitled.html
Sweeet. I linked The Playlist to the Facebook video a few days ago, which I found quite by accident when I searched for Terrence Malick on Facebook and up popped this thing from a non-profit organization that promotes spaying and neutering your pets (they happened to be at the Oklahoma Indian Festival at the same time as Malick).
I'm sorry I forgot to also post the videos here.
This video (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1419507804305&ref=mf) is also interesting. It shows a bunch of stuff from the festival, but 48 seconds in, you see Malick actually shooting a scene, and he's operating the camera himself.
Quote from: matt35mm on September 27, 2010, 04:49:27 PMThis video (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1419507804305&ref=mf) is also interesting. It shows a bunch of stuff from the festival, but 48 seconds in, you see Malick actually shooting a scene, and he's operating the camera himself.
Is this the greatest discovery in the history of XIXAX?
considering he didn't even show his face in the damn MAKING OF THE NEW WORLD documentary i would say yes, both of these clips are quite a find.
actually, it's the greatest xixax discovery since the time john told us about the time eli roth told him about the time eli thought cmbb was all about him (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=11297.0)..
(i just made it a separate thread.)
i think a top 5 is in order..
Quote from: matt35mm on September 27, 2010, 04:49:27 PM
This video (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1419507804305&ref=mf) is also interesting. It shows a bunch of stuff from the festival, but 48 seconds in, you see Malick actually shooting a scene, and he's operating the camera himself.
"CUT! Don't you dare touch those lemons!"
Quote from: matt35mm on September 27, 2010, 04:49:27 PM
This video (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1419507804305&ref=mf) is also interesting. It shows a bunch of stuff from the festival, but 48 seconds in, you see Malick actually shooting a scene, and he's operating the camera himself.
Should I stare at Olga Kurylenko or the rarely-seen Terrence Malick?
A friend of mine teaches at a grade school in bartlesville, OK...yesterday she saw olga, ben affleck and malick all milling about and shooting scenes. She said they'll be there for two months and they've been shooting for the past three days.
i asked her if she was in the movie and she said:
Quoteno. i could have been yesterday but I was wearing a bright colored skirt and they want no bright colors. they asked me to audition for a speaking part...which i did but i didn't get it and I'm glad because its all improv
So affleck's in this and its all improv? and there are scenes at a school and an indian festival? hmm....
More Details Emerge On Terrence Malick's Next Film, Javier Bardem & Barry Pepper Will Play Priests
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi7.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy251%2Ffbv%2Fbardemmalick.jpg&hash=9ec1c03450d3fcb5266faaeb9a62e4bb9f0c818e)
Now that we know "The Tree Of Life" will finally hit theaters in 2011, we can start obsessing on the director's next project, the untitled feature that currently is shooting in Oklahoma.
Starring Rachel McAdams, Ben Affleck, Javier Bardem, Rachel Weisz and Olga Kurylenko plot details are as usual, completely under wraps, but all during the the film's production, numerous pics and video of Malick and his crew shooting the film have made their way online. Now, more pics emerged thanks to local Osage County newspaper The Bigheart Times, along with a couple intriguing bits of info.
First up, the solid and continually underrated Barry Pepper has joined the cast of the film and along with Javier Bardem, plays a priest in the pic. So what does this indicate about the plot? We have no idea except that perhaps there will be some thematic crossover from "The Tree Of Life." The article goes on to indicate that shooting wrapped in Osage County last week, but no word yet on how many work weeks are slotted for filming. And of course, after that, comes Malick's painstaking editing process so this is one is still a long time from being seen (hell, we're still waiting on something official from "The Tree Of Life"; a release date even, not to speak of an official still or trailer).
But, we're mostly just thrilled not to have a wait a decade for another Malick film. That said, we don't expect this one to be ready until 2012 at the earliest so we will have to be patient. But two Malick films within such proximity is something to be excited for.
source: theplaylist
Exclusive: Details from the Set of Terrence Malick's New Drama
Source: TheWrap
Terrence Malick is a notoriously secretive, fiercely press-shy filmmaker who has always kept a tight lid on his projects.
If you're a fan of the reclusive director of "The Thin Red Line" and don't want to be spoiled, read no further -- because we've got tons of details about Malick's follow-up to "The Tree of Life," which is rumored to be titled "The Burial."
The Oscar-nominated director recently wrapped principal photography on the "romantic drama" starring Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Rachel Weisz and Olga Kurylenko - the recent Bond girl - along with Javier Bardem and Barry Pepper.
An individual inside the production provided TheWrap with call sheets, the details of which Deal Central has pieced together to reveal much of the plot. And that nude scene? Read below.
Once again, be warned: SPOILERS FOLLOW
Partial plot summary:
Set over a period of years, the film stars Affleck as Neil, a failed writer stuck in a loveless marriage with Marina (Kurylenko), whose expiring visa put pressure on Neil to propose. Neil and Marina have a daughter (Tatiana Chilin) together, but both of them are looking outside the marriage. Neil is drawn to Jane (McAdams) and Marina betrays her husband by having an affair with Charlie (Charles Baker).
Both Neil and Marina seek guidance from Father Quintana (Bardem), a priest frustrated by his inability to live his own life because he's too busy advising his parishioners on theirs. The couple's dysfunctional relationship begins to take a toll on their daughter, who starts having problems in school.
Other news from the Bartlesville, Oklahoma set include:
• "Casino Royale" beauty Olga Kurylenko filmed a nude scene from the waist down at a local pool, as well as a steamy sex scene in a motel with Baker.
Rachel Weisz demanded $100 protein bars that craft services provided exclusively to the Oscar-winning actress during her four days on set.
More plot details:
Neil is investigating a treatment plant that may be distributing contaminated water. He's also still in love with a woman from his past and doesn't have the courage to let her go, imagining her as a blindfolded ghost throughout the film.
After Marina dents her car and burns dinner, she and Neil have a fight and discuss splitting up. Marina feels like she and Neil are brother and sister and Neil admits that he feels burdened by her. After Neil storms out, his daughter begins talking in her sleep.
Charlie takes an interest in Marina and begins to seduce her by giving her a wind harp.
Quote from: modage on December 01, 2010, 04:15:10 PM
The Oscar-nominated director recently wrapped principal photography on the "romantic drama" starring Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Rachel Weisz and Olga Kurylenko - the recent Bond girl - along with Javier Bardem and Barry Pepper.
wait what? so he shot it in less than 70 days? oh my..
maybe we can expect this to show in....two years? because 2011 at he's editing pace seems unlikely.
It will come out before Tree of Life haha.
Sounds awesome. A real departure for Terry. I wonder if he woke up one day, looked in the mirror and asked himself what he's doing with his life. Then he cashed his chips in and sold out. Good for him. This sounds really different and I can't wait. I wonder what the narrative will be like.
Quote from: modage on December 01, 2010, 04:15:10 PM
Rachel Weisz demanded $100 protein bars that craft services provided exclusively to the Oscar-winning actress during her four days on set.
haha fer real? pretty high demands from an actress who's proven to be box office poison. I can see why she's married to a dude who wears a scarf in the summertime.
Quote from: Stefen on December 01, 2010, 05:05:45 PM
Quote from: modage on December 01, 2010, 04:15:10 PM
Rachel Weisz demanded $100 protein bars that craft services provided exclusively to the Oscar-winning actress during her four days on set.
haha fer real? pretty high demands from an actress who's proven to be box office poison. I can see why she's married to a dude who wears a scarf in the summertime.
at least his fuzzy garment soaks up his tears cos him and B.O.P. are done.
^Oh, psh, like I know. I wear a wife beater to work.
Any other Hollywood romances, breakups/shakeups you want to get us up to date on, Us Weekly? :love: :boxing:
:yabbse-cool:
Quote from: Stefen on December 01, 2010, 07:01:25 PM
^Oh, psh, like I know. I wear a wife beater to work.
Any other Hollywood romances, breakups/shakeups you want to get us up to date on, Us Weekly? :love: :boxing:
:yabbse-cool:
Damn, first the Credits thread now this ^ Stefen is on a role tonight. :bravo:
Quote from: Stefen on December 01, 2010, 07:01:25 PM
^Oh, psh, like I know. I wear a wife beater to work.
Any other Hollywood romances, breakups/shakeups you want to get us up to date on, Us Weekly? :love: :boxing:
:yabbse-cool:
you nerds all xixax on the toilet i catch up on hot gossip (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi272.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj184%2Fbefje%2Fsmileys0%2Fbf-citroenwcsmiley.gif&hash=a2ea339ad8a958a186dbfe3a648cfbd0e7f047eb)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F02%2Fmalickcrop_a_l_0.jpg&hash=3e82ca6b72c883ce5746a5ac3ba664c893254274)
Who's that girl?
Rachel McAdams?
Ben Affleck?
Marlo Thomas?
Watch Malick release this in December for awards season and then he gets nominated twice for everything. Then imagine Spielberg does too for War Horse and Tin Tin and everyone in Hollywood has to pick sides. It would be the closest thing prissy ass Hollywood would ever have to a sports rivalry.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.blogs.indiewire.com%2Fimages%2Fblogs%2Ftheplaylist%2Farchives%2Fmalick-affleck-mcadams.jpg&hash=fac2639afe284ae371201dc14a5bd178c5331b3a)
New Malick Film With Ben Affleck & Rachel McAdams Reportedly More Experimental Than 'Tree Of Life'
Brad Pitt Still Narrating 'Voyage Of Time' But It Has Been Pushed Back For Now
Source: The Playlist
2011 is a good time to be a Terrence Malick fan. The notoriously reclusive director doesn't talk to press so for the most part, before this year, getting any info on "The Tree Of Life" or anything else he was working on required patience, digging and a bit of teeth pulling. But with the "The Tree Of Life" beginning its rollout this weekend, the producers of the film are talking to press on his behalf and in addition to chatting about the film are also offering up morsels on some other projects Malick is currently cooking up. As you already know, last year he shot a new untitled film—referred to as "The Burial" in some cirlces—starring Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Rachel Weisz, Olga Kurylenko, Javier Bardem, Barry Pepper and Jessica Chastain. Details have been scarce, and while some bits and pieces leaked last fall, as we guessed, it'll probably be nothing like whatever those scrapings of info suggested. 24 Frames reports that Malick recently wrapped reshoots and finished photography on the film and that according to their source it is "even more experimental than 'Tree of Life.'" Of course, that's fairly vague and could mean anything, but given that Malick has taken fusing drama with much larger spiritual and existential questions in "The Tree Of Life," we're not surprised that his next effort may be even more boldly freeform in its approach. But "experimental" means many things to many people so don't cling to that descriptor too hard. As for the gestating documentary, "Voyage Of Time," the site confirms the reports that surfaced yesterday about the film's development, with producer Bill Pohlad revealing that there was a plan to release it simultaneously with "The Tree Of Life" as a parallel IMAX film, but they put it off fearing the films would dilute one another. "It was important not to cannibalize 'Tree of Life,'" Pohlad said. "But we want to do it. He just has to find the time to do it." The site got their hands on some official documents pertaining the to the film and say that Brad Pitt will indeed narrate as was first revealed a couple of years ago, and that it will cover "the whole of time, from the birth of the universe to its final collapse." But what does that mean? Well, "the first signs of life, bacteria, cellular pioneers, first love, consciousness, the ascent of humanity, life and death and the end of the universe" will all apparently be among the topics covered. Amazing. Malick is working with 20 consultants on the project to ensure it's artistically and scientifically credible and apparently, the business plan for the project has endorsements from Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese. Looks like Team Malick is stacked. Of course, when we'll get to see any of these is anybody's guess. While an official still for the other, untitled film popped up in February (see above), that doesn't mean anything as Malick's unconventional editing process could literally take years. While we have fingers crossed that we'll see it in 2012 (back-to-back Malick, can one dare to dream?) we won't be entirely shocked if it takes longer than that. And it seems to be the priority, with Pohlad suggesting that "Voyage Of Time" could be even further off. But hey, let's enjoy the Malick film we have right now. "The Tree Of Life" will open nationwide on July 8th. And if you're seeing it at the Arclight Hollywood, bring your bong.
And somehow Mod will still see it before anyone else here.
Quote from: polkablues on May 26, 2011, 02:48:01 AM
And somehow Mod will still see hate it before anyone else here.
fer real.
It's not gonna be called The Burial.
And suddenly a new insider emerges..
What's the lowdown on Terrence Malick's Ben Affleck movie?
Source: Los Angeles Times
Terrence Malick was back in the news Tuesday when he announced two new films –- a mysterious project starring Christian Bale and Cate Blanchett titled "Knight of Cups" and an equally enigmatic one starring Bale, Blanchett and Ryan Gosling called "Lawless.
Both will shoot in 2012, and both will be seeking financing via foreign-territory sales at the upcoming American Film Market (hence the timing of the announcement). Of course, just because they shoot in 2012 doesn't mean we'll see them anytime before 2015.
But there's a movie that will be ready before either of those, an untitled film (formerly called "The Burial") starring Ben Affleck (who actually replaced Bale) that Malick shot right after he finished editing "The Tree of Life." He's tweaking the movie in the editing room now, and it's expected to be finished by next year (though that doesn't mean a distributor that buys it will bring out then).
The company selling rights to the movie, FilmNation, has been secretive, to say the least, about the details (think executives reading the script in locked offices, and the "Men in Black" amnesia-laser administered afterward). Malick's been protective, too. Several U.S. distributors made offers just on the basis of the script and some footage, said a person familiar with negotiations. So far, he's declined to sell it.
So what's the movie really about?
There have been scattered reports about it, but according to a person who read the script, it's a love triangle with an international subtext. It's also the only film Malick has ever done that's set in the same time as the period in which he's making it.
Here's the breakdown, with the caveat that things could change drastically from script to screen (on "Tree," Malick would sometimes rewrite scenes on the day of the shoot).
Basically, it concerns a philanderer (Affleck) who, feeling at loose ends, travels to Paris, where he enters a hot-and-heavy affair with a European woman (Olga Kurylenko). Said Lothario returns home to Oklahoma, where he marries the European woman (in part for visa reasons). When the relationship founders, he rekindles a romance with a hometown girl (Rachel McAdams) with whom he's had a long history.
According to the person who read the script, there's a bit of a happier ending than some other Malick movies (or at least a less ambiguous one than at the end of "Tree"). And a person who saw the footage said there's also the trademark visual showiness--shots of Affleck and McAdams in Malick's trademark man-in-nature style--as well as intriguing supporting actors: Javier Bardem, for instance, plays a priest whom Affleck's Lothario visits for advice.
The more accessible dramatic premise makes one think Malick could be heading to a commercial place, at least by Malick standards. Also helping the film's prospects is the overall visibility of the director's work: After bringing out just four Malick movies in 35 years, he now can churn out three films in just a couple of years. We still wouldn't count on any interviews, though.
Terrence Malick's Untitled Romance Now Called 'To The Wonder,' Lands R Rating
Source: Playlist
It was just a couple of weeks ago that we wondered if we were going to be seeing Terrence Malick's then-untitled romance starring (deep breath) Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko, Rachel McAdams, Rachel Weisz, Javier Bardem, Barry Pepper, Michael Sheen and Amanda Peet before the end of the year. And at the time, the answer was: who knew? The enigmatic director keeps to himself and likes to continually tinker, but with two more movies gearing up this year in the formerly titled "Lawless" and "Knight Of Cups," we hoped that meant this one was finally nearing the finish line. And it appears that's the case.
The Classifications & Rating Administration (CARA) has revealed (via The Film Stage) that the film is now called "To The Wonder," and has been rated R for "some sexuality/nudity." Hot. To refresh your memory, the story centers on a man (Affleck) who, feeling at loose ends, travels to Paris, and enters a hot-and-heavy affair with a European woman (Kurylenko). He returns home to Oklahoma, where he marries the European woman (in part for visa reasons), only for the relationship to fall apart. He winds up rekindling a romance with a hometown girl (McAdams) with whom he's had a long history. And while that sounds like a traditional storyline, early word was that the film was even more experimental than "The Tree Of Life" (whatever that means). But either way, nothing is ever very ordinary in a Malick film.
However, whether or not this means we'll see the movie in 2012 is unknown. "To The Wonder" is still without a domestic distribution deal (though rights to Canada, U.K. and other territories have already been sold) so it remains to be seen where this will land. Malick is on the board of advisors for Tugg, the web platform that lets users vote and organize screenings in their town for various films. Could he strike it out on his own and self-distribute? Or will he go down the traditional path? Footage from "To The Wonder" has screened for domestic buyers, though no deals have been made thus far. Could he be waiting for a festival before shaking hands with a distributor in the U.S.? All we can do is speculate.
So in short, we now have a title and a rating for "To The Wonder." But as for when we'll see it? Again, your guess is as good as ours, but it's a baby step forward.
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 15, 2012, 08:37:31 AM
Terrence Malick's Untitled Romance Now Called 'To The Wonder,'
What'd I tell you..
Quote from: Pubrick on March 03, 2012, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 03, 2012, 11:34:01 AM
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.
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-]
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.
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.
Quote from: picolas on June 02, 2011, 06:22:19 PM
malick's dystopia is present day.
Quote from: Pubrick on June 02, 2011, 07:26:51 PM
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.
I'm really eager to see this movie, even though:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2kyzVbCMAAxdz1.jpg:large)
But then again:
Quote from: pete on September 09, 2012, 05:38:37 PM
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.
Yeah, well, nuts to Mod (sometimes).
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: modage on September 16, 2012, 02:24:12 AMThere 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.
If there wasn't a trailer, I would think this movie is a lie.
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.
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.
That trailer actually looks better than I expected. But yeah, the only thing that excites me about Malick films now is the cinematography. He puts a lot of emotion and poetry into his visuals, I don't know many other filmmakers who can say so much with just a shot (Kalatozov, Kubrick, maybe Antonioni?). My problem with these last few films of his, is the lack of dialogue and lack of a narrative thread. Yeah, the shots are beautiful and meaningful, the music is powerful and the voice-overs are always touching, but is not entertaining in any way. It's artistic, but not entertaining.
I'm still gonna watch this when it comes out on Blu-ray though.
art and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive. or rather in this case, i don't understand how you can find something beautiful and meaningful but not entertaining.
trailers for malick movies are always misleading and are worthless outside of the chance to see footage, and in that sense this looks more wonderful than i could've anticipated. like withnail pointed out, malick's newfound love of kinetic camera movement approaches hyperactivity and there is cause for concern, but i have faith. mod's reaction to this was expected and means nothing.
Ben Affleck's in it. Count me out
Quote from: Reelist on December 19, 2012, 01:06:57 PM
Ben Affleck's in it. Count me out
But yo, he was
THE BOMB in "Phantoms"! (Word bitch, PHANTOMS like a mothafuckaa)
The only Kevin smith joke that never gets old.
I'm just glad Malick was wise enough to avoid any shots of the actors twirling in The Thin Red Line.
Quote from: samsong on December 19, 2012, 12:59:31 PM
mod's reaction to this was expected and means nothing.
We'll see. This was literally the worst movie I saw in 2012.
Hyperbole is literally the worst thing in the world.
What was figuratively the worst movie you saw, and how does that work?
Quote from: Alexandro on December 19, 2012, 02:33:42 PM
I'm just glad Malick was wise enough to avoid any shots of the actors twirling in The Thin Red Line.
:)
I'm actually serious when I say I want more twirling. I'd like more abstraction and twirling, please.
But, again, not to bring this boring subject in this thread as well, for me there's also this fear of him starting to repeat himself, or to focus on the parts of himself I find constantly teetering on the brink of hokeyness but held together or excused by a whole lot more greatness. It's of course crazy to gauge so much from a trailer, but I don't feel like it presents something new the way the trailer for Tree of Life promised a pretty prominent rising of the bar with an excitingly explicit way of dealing with of his cosmic themes.
I guess it's crazy to expect constant renewal from my favorite filmmakers, but I can't help it.
Quote from: samsong on December 19, 2012, 12:59:31 PMmod's reaction to this was expected and means nothing.A LOT.
At least to me.
Quote from: samsong on December 19, 2012, 12:59:31 PM
art and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive. or rather in this case, i don't understand how you can find something beautiful and meaningful but not entertaining.
Eh I think you're splitting hairs. Beautiful, meaningful shots/sequences don't necessarily add up to a thoroughly entertaining movie.
the problem with the trailer, and with Malick's approach these days, is that his images aren't that rare anymore and there are plenty of ads (particularly by W+K) that all look and sound exactly like his stuff. It's not malick's fault, but he's not the type of guy to rise above the noise because he doesn't seem particularly interested in the landscape outside of his films.
I was not a fan of Tree of Life, but Javier Bardem's character in this looks to be the most interesting part (i'm gathering this strictly from the trailer) and I'm actually really intrigued by this and am looking forward to it (It probably doesn't hurt that a lot of this was filmed in my home state)
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on December 19, 2012, 11:42:02 AM
it's like a hipster made the film.
This might be the dumbest thing i've ever read on this board.
Quote from: squints on December 19, 2012, 11:13:01 PM
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on December 19, 2012, 11:42:02 AM
it's like a hipster made the film.
This might be the dumbest thing i've ever read on this board.
Really now? That trailer is practically equivalent to a majority of videos indie hipsters with dslr's have on vimeo. And I'm a fan of Tree Of Life.
I'm still going to watch it, but it's the least interesting Malick trailer I've seen, atleast the others had a transcendental atmosphere.
I think the problem is that word is now just a lazy substitute for any actual thought or even a zinger. I liked your explanation - the onion av club had an article a long long time ago about how DSLRs turned everyone into Malick and that's definitely a conversation there.
But these days calling something pretentious or hipster has just become a big cliche that people hurl when they don't care enough to finish a thought or attempt at wit - I'm not even talking about you specifically, it's an epidemic.
[edit: for the record, I used to be that guy.]
People who complain about hipsters are more annoying than hipsters themselves.
Quote from: ©brad on December 20, 2012, 05:30:15 PM
People who complain about hipsters are more annoying than hipsters themselves.
I might just steal that shit an post it on facebook.
Well my hipster argument lies upon the idea of diminishing substance by making a film solely with a string of unrealistic evocative images one after the other (most occurring in magic hour) capturing a sun flare here and there, preferably one in a wheat field (the hand must bristle along the wheat). The camera must be preferably hand held, most of the shots must be unsubtle and nonsensical tracking shots of the rear of a person walking out to the horizon. No one barely speaking to each other, but being natural poets inside their psyche. And don't forget about the swirling and twirling.
It's beautiful to look at, but it's also so unrealistic and overused to create an illusion of substance and meaning, I couldn't help myself but coining it 'hipster'.
Maybe it lost it's value and emotional impact as pete said, now that everyone is riffing off it and since most likely Malick isn't concerned or even aware with this style being overused, and by default his films aren't as unique as they once were, and are defaulted into being cliche and even the creator of this style is being subjected to this cliche. Is it his fault? I don't know, but every filmmaker usually tries to reinvent themselves..
Am I the only one that finds this to be a problem? I'm getting bashed for it on this thread, which I think is completely unnecessary and actually something that really needs to be discussed rather than sitting down and eating the same meal everyday without objection.
I'm even more confused now 'cause your original statement was
Quotelike a hipster made the film.
I'm just looking forward to the cinematography now, that's all.
but now you're saying the cinematography was tied to the hipster compfdk;add
Hell, even I'm bored with this post, and I'm still writing it. It wasn't your criticism people objected to, it was the way you packaged it into a stock phrase that was unpackable from the exterior, for reasons that are being actively demonstrated.
What the hell is a hipster? And how do I know if I've come in contact with one?
For instance, if I were to shove one of a cliff, what might be the result?
My fav use of hipster
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FASiJs.png&hash=f2b715c087387e4275a53dc7ca036b9262a8b64f)
Leaving this as an inside joke for the hipsters (aka pimps)
Quote from: trashculturemutantjunkie on December 20, 2012, 08:59:01 PM
I'm even more confused now 'cause your original statement was
Quotelike a hipster made the film.
I'm just looking forward to the cinematography now, that's all.
but now you're saying the cinematography was tied to the hipster compfdk;add
The cinematography statement was referring Lubezki's brilliance, and how much I hold him in high regard.
Sure, sure, I get it now. You're talking about the arrangement of the images and their overall context. There's some parallel here between the 'hipster' criticism and the moviemaking, but fuck that. Seriously, no one else posts here, right.
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on December 20, 2012, 08:28:01 PM
Well my hipster argument lies upon the idea of diminishing substance by making a film solely with a string of unrealistic evocative images one after the other (most occurring in magic hour) capturing a sun flare here and there, preferably one in a wheat field (the hand must bristle along the wheat). The camera must be preferably hand held, most of the shots must be unsubtle and nonsensical tracking shots of the rear of a person walking out to the horizon. No one barely speaking to each other, but being natural poets inside their psyche. And don't forget about the swirling and twirling.
It's beautiful to look at, but it's also so unrealistic and overused to create an illusion of substance and meaning, I couldn't help myself but coining it 'hipster'.
Maybe it lost it's value and emotional impact as pete said, now that everyone is riffing off it and since most likely Malick isn't concerned or even aware with this style being overused, and by default his films aren't as unique as they once were, and are defaulted into being cliche and even the creator of this style is being subjected to this cliche. Is it his fault? I don't know, but every filmmaker usually tries to reinvent themselves..
Am I the only one that finds this to be a problem? I'm getting bashed for it on this thread, which I think is completely unnecessary and actually something that really needs to be discussed rather than sitting down and eating the same meal everyday without objection.
Well, in the context of films in general, I don't know. But in terms of Terrence Malick's work, I think so far he has been surprisingly good at honing that particular style and keeping it fresh. I do feel that the ending of Tree of Life (in the beach) was pretty close to ruin everything, and that felt weird. He walks a very fine line where it could all very easily fall into self parody. But so far so good.
Here's the trailer again (a higher res one), in case people missed it a few pages back.
Apparently modage wasn't exaggerating when he described it as "just scene after scene of the actors swirling around each other in a field, in the house, gesturing, touching each others faces, smiling."
In trailer form it comes across like a perfume ad or something, but on the big screen, with some context, I'm willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt. Modage's review doesn't give me hope, though. Maybe this movie should be called "Pretty People At Magic Hour."
Better already! If the film has more incredible sudden contrasts in energy like the sudden spinning glass ball cut to the waterfall, like the boy tapping the window making the universe explode in the Tree of Life trailer and several moments in the film, then I really don't think I care about the lack of plot. I just want Malick to show me the roller-coaster raptures of life through completely off the hinges swirling and twirling. More more more!
It might be time to start thinking of these films as dance films instead.
What she says at the beginning. It's prettier in french.
I love that feeling. I don't know where I go. I open my eyes...in order to climb the steps. To the wonder. (It's more At the wonder in french, actually.)
At 1:29.... Just casually twirling in the supermarket... LOL
No, but that trailer definitely looks A LOT better than the first 2. I'm still gonna just wait for the Blu-ray though.. I prefer to watch my Malick ALONE, in the comfort of my home.
You end up alone at the theater anyway when you watch the movie at the good time. People are dancing toward the exit. It's cool.
Yeah.... But you can't PAUSE the movie to check your facebook when you're watching it in the theater... Well, at least not yet.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2F12271_577381168944882_327748292_n.jpg&hash=6b74c6596df56190c88ce72c88a4fbc4696ca3eb)
And HD:
I've seen it...
Tree of Life is one of my favorite films.
But To The Wonder isn't good. Modage was right. About everything. (I don't think it's the worst movie of the year, but what he wrote about the film itself is right.)
(I've loved some seconds, though.)
It's a self-parody. Really. Olga and Rachel dancing. Just that. Again and again. And again, yes. And again. Someone was sleeping at my right, when he opened his eyes, he must have felt weird, thinking he didn't sleep at all, because it was the same thing again. And again. And Ben Affleck being here, wondering of Argo or thinking "What am I doing here?" I mean, I love when Jessica Chastain is dancing, moving her hands, etc, in Tree of Life; I think it's beautiful. I feel it. Here, it's just ridiculous. Empty.
I loved Javier Bardem in it, his character and, actually, all the others characters (an italian woman is fantastic.) If you care about Olga, you might enjoy it. I was connected to the childhood in Tree of Life and the not-loving (but loving in his way) father and it worked. It's Tree of Life Face B without the magic.
Waiting for someone to love it here, now.
I'm a big fan of Malick, I wasn't really anticipating that movie, though, but...I thought he could show everything. He can't.
While I wouldn't say I LOVED it, I certainly enjoyed it and, honestly, I can't see how it's all that different from everything Malick has done since TTRL. Not to say Malick is above reproach, but TTW is so much of a piece with the rest of his stuff it's bizarre to me that fans would turn on it. If Tree of Life is among your favourite films, I find it bewildering that you would hate this one.
It's a pretty little character piece. A minor work, sure, but what's so wrong with that?
Edit -- re: the complaints about dancing. That's what women do in Malick movies. Every primary female character in every one of his films dances and canters and twirls. It's silly when you think about it. But not any sillier here. Furthermore, what do you have against dancing?
I didn't hate it. It's Malick, I love him. But it was an empty movie (most of the time) about emptiness. The disappointment made me sound harsh.
It's everything like Tree of Life but I don't connect to it. For the dancing, here, I thought I would not mind, because I love that in Malick films; but when you don't care about the characters, the dancing is annoying. When it's just a dancing body, I don't care. I had the impression (maybe wrong impression) that Olga was a big fan of Malick, so she tried to be the best for Malick, making it look like a parody sometimes. (I'm sorry to write that, it used to make me angry to read about the "dancing" in Malick's movies in a negative way; even in The New World, my favorite with Tree, I didn't have the impression that I was seeing the characters dancing all the time. I don't even know if they dance a lot in The New World because, yes, I love dancing.)
SPOILERS
And, I know TTW is not really about love, more about the lack of love, but I don't understand why Olga and Rachel love Ben. He's a wall.
It was working for me when the characters were speaking: Olga and her italian friend, Javier and the people of the town, one short moment between Ben and Javier.
When not speaking: Olga cheating Ben with the skinny guy, really weird and fascinating moment; and Javier Bardem voiceover about Christ at the end.
Nothing wrong about the "minor film". But I thought Tree codes were not the right thing for this film; and it's an unpleasant experience to see what you loved about a movie minus the emotion. What "worked."
But yes, being a Malick fan, I see that I should love this. I'll see it again. Maybe it will change.
Quote from: Drenka on February 21, 2013, 04:26:27 AM
But yes, being a Malick fan, I see that I should love this.
There are some very light SPOILERS below.
It's not that I'm saying you
should love this film. Just that I don't really understand your reasons for not liking it. I didn't feel this emptiness you describe -- at least not any more so than other Malick films. I understand these criticisms when generally applied to his work, but to me this film is not enough of a departure to make it a target, and is not so exactly similar as to incur charges of self-parody. How can you be cool with compassionate dinosaurs and "that's where God lives" and not be cool with a lady goofily dancing in a grocery store?
As for not understanding why the women love Affleck (look at him and tell me you don't love him), I could ask the same thing about Brad Pitt's character in TOL, Christian Bale in TNW, or the Bell character in TTRL. Sure, Affleck's pretty stony, but it's not as if he's without redeeming and attractive qualities. He's good with her kid, he's hunky as hell (as are the others), there's an obvious passion there. We get a glimpse of the good times. I think that with this impressionistic style, these sort of details just have to be taken at face value. We're only getting moments, not a well-rounded story with clear motivations. I understand completely why this would frustrate some people, but I'd think a Malick fan wouldn't get hung up on it.
"That's where God lives" is not ridiculous. It's Texas. The fifties. And dinosaurs existed. After the Big Bang.
I've seen it with a friend, we both love Tree of Life and the rest of his filmography, and we thought TWW was soulless. Watching this movie was like meeting a woman you used to love, wondering what was so special about her. The same cooking but no taste.
Anyway, two more movies are coming. I hope the emotion will be back. Meanwhile, I'll watch Tree of Life again.
SMALL SPOILS
I saw this at the red carpet gala presentation back in September at TIFF. i honestly don't know if it's changed at all. I didn't write about it then because I wanted to wait for everyone on the site to have had the chance to respond. as I've said before, I'm a huge malick fan but was very disappointed with the tree of life. in many ways To the Wonder seems to still be on autopilot; yet another iteration of the same thought, often pretentious. however with that said, i liked it, at least a lot more than the previous effort.
after the film was over Olga and malick's wife came on the stage to talk a little about the film. gotta say i really dug Olga because she talked about the making of the film candidly, and in front of about a thousand people, admitted she really didn't like what Terrence malick did with the final product.
she went on to explain that malick's direction was that her character suffered from bipolar disorder. she would act frantic in scenes, taking her rage to an extreme and then in others she would be sweet and understanding or depressed. She was a woman of these extremes. She argued malick made her appear like a free spirit in the final film, marginalizing her complexity (in in turn what it took to deliver this performance) to simple abstract poetry (doing his normal pensive arms in the wind/grass thing, her words not only mine... but i might have fallen in love with her that moment). She was upset the disorder her character was put by the wayside. i do believe it's still there, but I also understand her concern.
I fell in love with someone very similar a few years ago, and maybe my own baggage brought both subjective insight and appreciation for the film. It felt very heart wrenching and cathartic to see the essence of such a love be told on the big screen.
Malick's wife talked about how for him it was a film that was about losing love, finding another love to find and lose the original love again. how love ebbs and flows as we all try to find our way.
so despite the forced malick artiness that seems to be his only go-to these days, on a personal level i connected to the film, something i sadly wish i had for the tree of life.
It was also nice to see a malick film set exclusively in contemporary times, without a backdrop to give context on his style.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.tinypic.com%2F34t1w21.jpg&hash=10819f8d7e0e07449a2a6788e400a605fd510e3e) (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fcriterion-production%2Frelease_images%2F3073%2F536_BD_box_348x490.jpg%3F1328128344&hash=906ae91a468281950fcaf08474522fd7bd066329)
Same designer, apparently.
I love how Malick has suddenly decided to become crazy prolific. He's doing the best stuff of his life and I want more of it. He's not going out like Kubrick with decades between movies and dying with a movie he may or may not have finished. Malick has seemed to have found his voice and it's utterly fucking beautiful. More, more, more.
Quote from: The Ultimate Badass on March 10, 2013, 01:53:46 AM
Malick has seemed to have found his voice and it's utterly fucking beautiful. More, more, more.
malick's "voice" hasn't changed since the 70s. in fact it emerged almost fully formed.
if the abysmal reviews for this film are anything to go by, the opposite of what you're saying is actually true -- that is he's over using his voice and it's becoming croaky and weird.
in any event, the kubrick comparison could easily have been switched around if malick had died before making the thin red line. in the time he went AWOL kubrick made 3 movies (even if not completely finishing the last one). That alone is more features than Malick had made in his entire career up to that point.
it's good that he's trying to be woody allen, but i'll withhold judgment until i get to steal this dud to see how much quality is being lost in the mad rush.
As time progresses, sometimes it seems like he wants to be an American Tarkovsky.
Badlands may be one of the greatest debuts and it did seem like his voice was fully formed. Badlands seemed incredibly mature or however you would like to say it. However, how do we come to describe his voice, especially if it hasn't changed? There's certainly been a tendency towards letting go of traditional form.
Quote from: Pubrick on March 10, 2013, 03:24:53 AM
Quote from: The Ultimate Badass on March 10, 2013, 01:53:46 AM
Malick has seemed to have found his voice and it's utterly fucking beautiful. More, more, more.
malick's "voice" hasn't changed since the 70s. in fact it emerged almost fully formed.
I don't know how you can say that. You're saying Badlands, or even Days of Heaven, is the same type of movie as Tree of Life. I'd like to see you try to defend that statement.
You can clearly see the evolution of Malick's voice throughout the years. Whereas Badlands was a fairly orthodox narrative-driven movie, each of his subsequent movies relies less on narrative and more on communicating raw emotions, cinematically. By Tree of Life most of the extraneous narrative has been jettisoned and we're left with an almost abstract, purely sensual, emotional experience. And, IMO, it works. It's effective and it's masterful and it's beautiful.
What's up with the hating on Malick?
Roger Ebert's Last Review (http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/19293543-421/roger-eberts-last-review-to-the-wonder.html)
Shit, now this bad movie will forever be immortalized because Ebert wrote a perfect last review.
I thought this movie was swell. I liked it a lot.
I think there will be two mistakes that are made in watching this movie that will result in a bad experience.
First is to expect what you're seeing to match up to real life (people don't act like that, people talk more, people twirl less, etc.). I think the movie has the same impulse as mythic Greek plays, but where the old plays would use immensely dramatic dialogue to create the larger-than-life, this movie uses the extreme lack of dialogue to create a similar larger-than-life-ness. I know that the actors all had a lot of backstory, but Malick cut all of that stuff out. They aren't people so much as the shape of people, and it's not as much about the specific situations as much as it is about the mythical sense of romantic love/loss of love/God's love.
The movie then observes the characters as if they were birds, wordlessly pecking, dancing, chirping, and otherwise sending signals to try and attract a mate, or indicate disinterest in the other, whatever. But it's like watching how attraction and coupling works in the animal kingdom. Whenever you watch bird documentaries, you don't think, "That's what THAT bird is doing." You think, "That's what birds do." There is a similar effect here.
So wanting the characters on screen to be more directly relatable in an obvious way is going to result in frustration. They are exaggerated and distilled emotions in the shape of people, moving around in the environment. If you're keyed into that, then it works quite well.
Second mistake that will result in a bad experience is to think that Malick is just doing same-old-Malick. I think the ingredients and technique are similar, but the emphasis and balance between humans/environment are different than what he's done before. It's a wilder movie than anything he's made before, and that re-contextualizes the standard nature shots that he still has in there. Nature offers less comfort here, and some uglier environments are seen. Using actual townspeople and having, apparently, no written dialogue, means that the camera and editing has to hunt more, and there's an interesting quality of the camera never really knowing where it's supposed to be, but desperately trying to find it. That's not really how I would describe any other Malick movie. Some/most may not care for it, and want something more stable and sure of itself, but I liked it.
"Look at the glory around us--trees, birds. I lived in shame. I dishonored it all, and didn't notice the glory. I'm a foolish man."
one of my favorite lines from the tree of life, the sentiments from which course through every glorious frame of to the wonder. on first viewing i'm not entirely blown away and it's by no means perfect, but i'm nowhere near displeased, and i can't wait to see it again. that is to say i liked it very much and it lingers. malick pushes his new mode of expression to varying degrees of success. i found the majority of the film to be blissful. at its best it engages and evokes purely through form. it's his most involved use of sound to date, which i found to be enthralling. his love of antonioni is on display in big, bold letters in this one. there's definitely a lot that invites easy cynicism but that's always the case with a malick film. i for one am grateful.
maybe there will be more to say after a second viewing/more people have seen it.
glenn heath jr on letterboxd:
The toxicity of emotional stagnation is all encompassing. It seeps from the ground, drifts like dust in the air, lingers on the wind's breath, infecting us all no matter how hard we try to avoid it. "I'd hoped to never love again..." but is there another conceivable path? It starts from a place of instinctual bliss and slowly evolves toward an unthinkably silent, confused state of indecision and panic, or everyday life. Malick is once again measuring all things great and small through a cinema of vibrations and tones, and he's created a massive/miniature tidal wave of momentum, filling the gaps where "narrative" should be with titanic images of lived experience devoid of wordplay. Heartache and joy, rage and confusion are no longer internal feelings, but external prayers sent outward for those around us to decipher and engage. Some people are more attuned to understanding than others.
This is a film of confessions and releases, towering industrial castles and deep horizons. A spinning glass orb, a spiraling camera that never stops swirling in harmony with the birds in the sky and the horses on the ground. Choosing to commit blissfully is the highest achievement, while choosing to commit out of convenience or necessity is a breach of all that is natural and right. We all dance around each other, pacing from one end of the frame to other, waiting to touch, hoping to graze against skin, yet afraid of realizing this sustained connection when it all happens gracefully enough. Eventually, after the fear and doubt and lust and desire and sadness subside, one final truth is revealed: we are ourselves at all times, but we are so much more than ourselves when we are in the right place, at the right time, with the right frame of mind, enjoying it all at once. That is transcendence, and sometimes, it does happen.
I kept thinking Malick is such a shy person that when he finally makes an autobiographical film with an actor as his stand in, that actor barely speaks or shows any sign of a personality through the whole damn film. I don't think Ben Affleck was the right choice for this. Olga and Rachel MacAdams have a weight to them, which makes their characters work, even in the sketchy manner that Malick is attempting here. But Affleck comes off as a log. Maybe that's what Malick wanted. If that's the case, to me it was a mistake.
The film is a visual joy, but it's true that it mostly consists of shots of the main actors walking or twirling or touching grass. At this point is a little silly that it seems twirling and touching plants is about the only way Malick knows of portraying good times, and looking sully or scared is the way he has of portraying "bad times". In general I felt that the theme of love was better explored in The New World than here. The real interesting stuff was with Bardem's character. I think Bardem can make anything work. He should have been the lead.