MovieChat Forums > To the Wonder (2013) Discussion > Whats happened to Terrence Malick ?

Whats happened to Terrence Malick ?

posted 12 years ago by umar-nadeem1
45 replies | jump to latest

First of all I just want to start of by saying that Malick has been one of my favorite directors for a long time. 'Days of Heaven' and 'The Thin Red Line' are cinematic masterpieces for me (and for a lot of others I am sure), and even though The Tree of Life had an experimental feel to it, its undeniable that the movie was both visually and emotionally moving and one of the best of 2011. However as much as I was looking forward to To the wonder, I was disappointed to find the movie nowhere near the standard set by its predecessors or the quality of film Malick is capable of producing. (Even die hard Malick fans must admit that!)

The visuals are obviously given more importance than the story and characters which unfortunately never makes for a good movie. Its magnificent on the surface but completely hollow inside. But what surprised me the most was the non existence of any dialogues or interaction between any of the characters and instead we are left to watch them for two thirds of the movie walking through various fields without any notion of conversation,direction or purpose. And the constant cutting did not help either but make it all look like a concoction of wonderfully mismatched commercials. The movie is beautiful to look at granted (all Malick films are after all) but not as beautiful and praise deserving as Badlands or Days of Heaven where the characters,story and 'conventional' direction added to the stellar camera work and cinematography. And sorry but Javier Bardem was criminally underused in this and I wouldn't be surprised if he is as confused by the final product as I am.

I tried not to make this a rant, but I am fearful that after The Tree of Life and To the wonder, Malick might never be able to match his earlier masterpieces, as he seems more interested in making films where the story,acting,dialogues and characters are no longer the focus but in which we are constantly zipping through a 5-6 camera frames in a minute, listening to his musings on life and
trying to enjoy movies on a mere 'visual' level alone like the numerous 3-D movies being shown. I for one rather liked his more balanced approach in his first three movies than what he is indulging in at the moment. Just my opinion!

[–] jab670 12 years ago

"Even die hard Malick fans must admit that!"

Nope, I completely disagree. I found the cinematic technique to be masterful and it's immersion in its environment reminded me of many French New Wave films.

"The visuals are obviously given more importance than the story and characters which unfortunately never makes for a good movie. "

This always makes me skeptical when people make broad "rules" for cinema. I found the visuals, art direction, sound design, and dialogue all to be given equal importance. Proportions or quantity doesn't mean it's less important. There's plenty of films that given exponential weight to "story" and "character" and most of it is insignificant.

I can understand why people prefer Malick's former style over his new methods, but I don't see them detracting from one another. I enjoy many films from the silent film era and see Malick as modernizing such cinema to be accessible for modern cinemas (and not in the way "The Artist" did, which was merely emulative).

[–] umar-nadeem1 12 years ago

Its interesting that you compared what Malick is doing to the French New Wave and silent film era. Even though I haven't seen too many silent movies except those Chaplin is in, I completely agree with your view on 'the Artist' which I felt did everything silent movies had already tried and used way back during their time and offered nothing new to the genre. If 'The Artist' was released back in the 30's or 40's, I think it would have hardly caused much stir with the competition then. Released more than half a century later it mostly evokes nostalgia for a forgotten film era, without being superior or an upgrade to the silent films. As for the french new wave, I admit the only similarities between them and Malick's movies I see is the overflowing questions about existentialism and humanity. The Frech new wave directors were definitely experimenting with ways to tell stories, but I don't think even they went as far as challenging the 'rules' of cinema as Malick is embarking on.

There is no doubt Malick is branching out to a side and creating material that no one has dared to touch upon. He's an innovator and deserves credit for that when as you mentioned people are content to 'emulate' already successful styles. However I believe Terrence Malick was an amazing storyteller and director even when he did stick to some of the conventions of cinema and produced works that were unique in their own. Every body has their own taste i guess and personally I didnt like the different montages strewn together and the underdeveloped characters in 'To the Wonder'. I dont know if I am the only one who felt this, but a large quantity of the shots and editing in 'To the wonder' to me felt recycled from the 'Tree of Life' and the 'The New World' which raised the question how long can you claim something to be 'new' and 'challenging' when you have already done 3 to 4 times before. I know its his trademark style, but thats the point you cant simply make a movie to show how different you can make films from the rest or how creative you can be in your editing. There has to something more. The Tree of Life was grand in its subject matter and attempt, had the same style as 'To the wonder' and then had some amazingly simple and moving moments as well which made it perfect. I still think the script and final outcome should have been better considering this is Terrence Malick we are talking about but unlike you I was hopelessly disappointed. Still I guess hes making movies now at a more rapid pace than usual and I hope somewhere along he makes something that can please all his fans and followers.

[–] thepalestfire 12 years ago

I will never understand The Artist. It was a silent film made in the style of screwball films of the 30's.

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Meh, to each their own. I have my issues with To the Wonder, as I do The Tree of Life. I feel they are complimentary pieces in some regard - especially with their autobiographical nature. The Tree of Life was also in the works for four decades, so it bound to be a bit weaker.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the characters were underdeveloped. But yes, you do feel distanced from them.

That said, I do hope the style of his next films are a substantial departure from The Tree of Life and To the Wonder. I would like to view these two films as a pair. I feel this might be the case as the content of Knight of Cups and the Untitled project appear to be about the entertainment industry... but who knows.

[–] OldSamVimes 11 years ago

I agree with your post jab.

I enjoyed it.

But I seldom care enough about what others think to spend lots of time explaining my point of view, so that's it from me.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StreetPneuma 12 years ago

To the Wonder is arguably Terrence Malick's weakest film to date. I'm not sure what kind of a fan would like it. I liked it enough though.

I took it as a companion piece to The Tree of Life. Hunter McCracken's character was now played by Ben Affleck. You've now watched the center of his life being one filled with failed love. I think of these two films as companion works with different actors playing the same roles. It helps meld it together. And it works, and it makes it all the more interesting.

To the Wonder will ALWAYS be his weakest work. If you think of Ben Affleck playing Hunter McCracken's character as an adult, it makes it that much better.

6.3/10

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jab670 12 years ago

I've seen it four to five times (for different reasons).

I will say it has weak moments, but all Malick films do. But it's never without a cause. I think there are moments that the voice over is not as strong as his older films (i.e. Affleck saying, "You knew I didn't have faith. Were you afraid?"). But I don't view it as a negative. His voice overs suit the characters saying them. Affleck is never portrayed in the film as a poetic thinker.

I agree about Marina dancing in the fields. She was an f'ing ballerina. If anyone has known someone who used to sing or dance or has learned another language, you'll notice they tend to rehearse in daily life almost subconsciously.

"I guess all his films are companion pieces in that sense." - they are. he has had repetitions of visual motifs, language, themes, music, plots, etc. (Marina + Pocahontas = foreigner in the "New World", just to name one).

@folkblue, some people will want to discredit the film as ToL 2 or whatever. Or say it's Malick's weakest. I would say Days of Heaven is his weakest film narratively.

[–] umar-nadeem1 12 years ago

Days of Heaven is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Though I can understand the issues people have with Linda Manz's narration, because at times it isn't great to listen to, and people mostly either love it or hate it. But on the whole it doesn't ruin an absolutely brilliant movie for me.

I don't think TOW should be viewed as TOL 2 or something even though it certainly makes the events in TOW more interesting. Although both contain a lot of biographical content from Malick's life, I doubt they were meant to be viewed that way and are standalone movies rsepectively.

The question of Malick's weakest film depends more on personal choice. Fans of the older Malick movies, like myself, I guess wouldn't hold to the wonder as his greatest accomplishment but I as I have come to notice people do seem to appreciate the visual poetry he seems to be shooting these days.

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Days of Heaven is a great film. I'd personally rank it on the bottom if I had to rank Malick's films... not that there is ever really a reason to do so. I agree, it's personal choice, many have different preferences o his films.

" I doubt they were meant to be viewed that way and are standalone movies rsepectively. "

I don't think they were meant to any more than all his films. I think he's very aware of his body of work. But I wouldn't completely rule out them not being meant to be viewed as complimentary until after Knight of Cups and Untitled film. They are standalone films as all Malick's films are, but they also have progression throughout.

But Knight of Cups and Untitled both look at the entertainment industry - movies and music. To the Wonder and The Tree of Life are both semi-autobiographic... It'll be interested to see if his next films have any similarities. They don't seem to be biographical.

[–] HarryPowell 12 years ago

His upcoming films may still draw on his life to some extent. He does have some experience of the film industry, so I imagine he will draw on that ;) and seems to have some musical ability too (he is credited as composer for Lanton Mills) and of course his brother was a serious musician and played in bands.

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Very true. But it'll be difficult to know until a central male figure emerges (i.e. the Sean Penn/Ben Affleck character). So far, the cast is too ensemble to be blatantly biographical in the same way ToL and TtW will be... but yes, it'll be quite quite interesting to see where these films go.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Loved every word you said there. I can't wait until this film comes to DVD because I've seen it in two film festivals, once in cinemas, and once on VOD... And I guess you can include half-a-viewing on VK dubbed in Russian. I just want to own it so I can return to it often.

[–] nhoj441 12 years ago

I'm similarly surprised by the seeming rarity of praise by the usual Malick supporters, at least in this forum. I think the film is brilliant. I suspect that we'll be hearing more here once the DVD is available so that it can be digested through further viewings. Whether this particular approach to movie-making is commercially feasible is entirely another issue. 1John4:4

A thing of beauty is a thing forever

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Many hated The New World or thought it wasn't as good as his previous work... then flash forward 5 years and people were calling it in the top ten of the decade.

[–] blessmathis-3 12 years ago

malick has evolved as a director like nobodies business. anyone who can't see that never really grasped the occult essence of his films. i love all of his films with a fervor, but if you really see malick you'll see that ttw is his most brilliant yet!

[–] davidsask 12 years ago

His movies are such feces for the masses,why does this art-house stuff get such acclaim on name only from long ago good films?

[–] politicaldefiance 12 years ago

I'm a big Malick fan and I agree with you. I loved all of his movies up until To the Wonder, which I found to be genuinely disappointing and an overall mediocre experience. Hopefully whatever he has up his sleeve next is better, but I do think he needs some more critical heads in the room from time to time so he doesn't make more movies like To the Wonder in the future. I know he's an auteur and his style has worked in most of his movies, but when you let a director start to believe that they are God's gift to filmmaking, they will inevitably start to believe their own hype and become increasingly self-indulgent with each film. Just look at Michael Cimino's career and Heaven's Gate in particular. That has to be one of the best examples of a director showing just how self-indulgent they are to ever grace the silver screen.

[–] umar-nadeem1 12 years ago

Never thought I would contemplate comparing Malick to Cimino ( what a nosedive his career took after the Deer Hunter ). I would throw Coppola's name in as well. Couldn't get anything right after Apocalypse Now unfortunately.

"I do think he needs some more critical heads in the room from time to time"

You know what I think anyone would agree that's exactly what he needs right now but at this stage of his career I doubt he would tolerate any interference regarding his artistic control over the filming/final version of his films. I remember Sean Penn being critical over the way the Tree of Life was presented to audiences and saying that a more linear and conventional style would have added more merit to the movie without reducing its impact or aesthetic value. I strongly feel that Malick has gone overboard with his project and mission of making movies to please his own film making tastes and in the process has discarded more vital components that any good story,drama,play,film etc should contain. His career might not turn out to be the same as Cimino or Coppola's, but in the future when we look back at Malick's career I do genuinely fear there will be a reference point to mark a dramatic shift in his filmaking ideaology and when he stopped receiving the acclaim he deserved for his work.

[–] Orlando_Gardner 12 years ago

To an extent I agree. However I see The Tree of life as a far superior film than To The Wonder. While essentially they do seem like companion pieces, I think TToL had a far greater strength at it's emotional core. I was genuinely drawn in and interested in all of the main characters lives and I was also very moved by their stories. I also believe that structurally it was a stronger piece, book-ended by the creation and entropy sequences which gave the middle section of these half remembered moments from a man's life a real context. I didn't feel TTW had the same strengths. Yes it is stunningly beautiful throughout and the journey through the film is always interesting, but that's about it for me. I thought it lacked a real heart and it's message was lost on me. I also felt no emotional connection to any of the characters and really only found Bardem's priest to be in any way a character I wanted to know more about.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." Ambrose Bierce

[–] umar-nadeem1 12 years ago

There is absolutely no question that the Tree of Life was the better film (admittedly the best film of the year for me). The construction of the movie and its characters, and even the acting was incredibly moving at times and like you mentioned there was an emotional connection between all the characters which you could resonate and respond to. Plus visually the movie looked like pure poetry and even some frustrating moments were outdone by what the movie aimed and strove for.
TTW felt hollow and erratically put together with no real direction unlike the TOF. Although both movies are autobiographical and similar visually, I am still not entirely convinced we should consider one with the other as a sort of sequel, continuation or something. But what is for sure is that Javier Bardem deserved a better role or more screen time to showcase his talents.

[–] Orlando_Gardner 12 years ago

Although both movies are autobiographical and similar visually, I am still not entirely convinced we should consider one with the other as a sort of sequel, continuation or something.

Agreed. I only meant that they were complimentary pieces insofar as thematically, visually and structurally they have a lot in common. However I will say that TTW would have been a far inferior piece of work in just about anyone else's hands. Even though it is narratively very loose (and I'm sure a lot of people find this very frustrating) I never once felt that the director wasn't fully in control (almost like an impressionistic painter dabbing, blobbing and painting here and there but always with an eye on the piece as a whole) and my attention didn't wander from what was happening on screen.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." Ambrose Bierce

[–] jab670 12 years ago

"There is absolutely no question that the Tree of Life was the better film'

I question that. I find more enjoyment thinking about the Tree of Life than watching it. Whereas To the Wonder, I have quite a bit to think about, but I prefer to just watch the film. Its grasp seems so limited and small, and yet as equally profound that the film feels divinely inspired and less over-thought. But that's not to discredit The Tree of Life - because I still love that film.

Personally, I loved the hollow and erratic nature which you describe. It felt close to capturing genuine heartbreak and vulnerability in a means that felt so close to you.

[–] anahita777 10 years ago

I totally agree with you umar-nadeem1.
Tree of life for me is a great movie. The message is powerfull, and every detail in the movie is great. But "to the wonder", I really wonder what happened to him !
The scenes are all the time the same, kissing, running, dancing... I was waiting for Jane to dance the same way in the field and she did it!
I saw the interview's with the actors, they don't even know what the movie is about and they say it's philosophical, should a movie always have a meaning ?! The main caracter wonders if she was in the movie until she saw it! She was afraid that he cut the scenes!
However... I can't believe I can say such things about a Terrence Malick's movie but I really felt like I've wasted my time watching this movie. As I can see after 3 years, there is no good critic about this movie.

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Firstly, one-less-than-stellar film does not change a good filmmaker into a bad one. Secondly, all of Malick's films are somewhat experimental in nature. If you were able to appreciate the essay style he adopted in Tree of Life, it shouldn't be so dissatisfying here. Thirdly, visuals have always taken precedence over characters and story in Malick films - that's one of the reasons he's considered to be a great filmmaker. It should be mentioned that Days of Heaven isn't renowned for the characters and story but rather for the way in which it is shot and the way Malick creates a compelling audiovisual experience through a familiar story.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] bigballs-4 12 years ago

Shame or not, this was my first Malick movie.

Perfectly amazing sadness, 9/10.