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!

[–] hamrick-2 12 years ago

couldn't have said it better myself. I really wanted to like this film, but I just didn't. Ben Affleck speaks 3 times that I can remember.

[–] jab670 12 years ago

But you found other things wrong with it then Affleck not speaking, right?

I've seen several people say that and I'm confused why this was an issue. We establish that he's sort of emotionally distant. The fact that he is a big name star adds to the tension of wanting to hear him speak and yet you're in Marina's shoes wanting to scream at him to be more emotional available to us. It's a brilliant choice, not sure why people keep objecting to this.

[–] hamrick-2 11 years ago

I have no problem with him not speaking if the story seems to have some sort of purpose without him speaking. The fact he's a big name star does not mean anything, it's that he is a character that never does anything and yet we're suppoised to believe in him.

I thought the movie failed on a lot of levels. How does Jane fall in love with him? He never speaks and then she is kissing his feet. I really really love early Malick, but I feel there is a lot missing from his most recent 2 films. I will not be watching his next work. But, hey, that's just me....

[–] jab670 11 years ago

"if the story seems to have some sort of purpose without him speaking"

Um... that's very much the case here. Have you ever dated someone who at times feels close to you, but others like a stranger? You are right to feel frustrated with him or like you don't know him. That's the established point of view of Marina. She says this much numerous times throughout the film. "I feel you are so close like I could almost touch you" and "you never said much, but you were kind" (paraphrasing).

How does Jane fall in love with him? Easy, look at where her life is at the time. She seems to be living alone. She is divorced, her first and only child died. Then enter Neil who appears slightly charming ("so I caught you on the right day"), listens to her, makes love to her. And you don't think that she might grow infatuated by him - even though unjustly?

Just think of all your friends who've dated someone that made you want to slam your palm into your forehead. It's not always logical - or at least I hope not.

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

it's that he is a character that never does anything and yet we're suppoised to believe in him.

Who says we're supposed to believe in him? Just look at how Malick frames the shots that he's in. In all the close-ups he's always cut out of the frame. It makes the fact that he's so distant even stronger. We can feel what the women feel. He's there, but he's not there. So many men are like this. It makes it easy to understand why women always suspect their husbands of having affairs. "If you asked me to stay I would have." But he doesn't ask her to stay. He lets her leave, doesn't even driver her / accompany her to the airport. Then goes and finds a new woman, only to break that woman's heart and waste her time. Like so many men, he doesn't know what he wants ("do you know what you want?" McAdam's character whispers. "What we had was nothing. You made it nothing."). So why would you think the film wants us to "believe in him?"

"Whether I left society or it me I cannot say. I suppose you could make an argument for both sides."

[–] jematticusxe 11 years ago

I have not yet seen the film but I have been following enough directors to note that every great director has his slip. Even Kubrick ended his career with the less-than perfect Eyes Wide Shut. That doesn't mean you should base the future quality of a director on one misfire. We can safely say that Malick will not become a Shyamalan at this point, because, for one, he is a lot wiser I'm sure and would know better, and for two because filmmakers DO listen to criticism.
Whatever Malick comes out with next, I am excited. But we can't judge the future of his career on one "failure" alone. Do remember that he released The New World, at that time his most flawed film, before following it up with Tree of Life, as you said one of 2011's best.

[–] umar-nadeem1 11 years ago

Even though I didn't like To the Wonder I am not writing Malick off and I do hope he comes back stronger than ever. His style of direction might not be the same as before but lets see if he can come up with another tree of life. Eyes Wide Shut is actually one of my favorite Kubrick movies....and that's saying something considering we are talking about Kubrick.

[–] jematticusxe 11 years ago

Yes, I believe that 20 years has given him time to think and he'll continue to be one of the strongest filmmakers working today. A lot of people are worried that he's working at a faster pace because of pressure or lazier writing, but I believe that it's just something that happens when you've been given 20 years to plan. I have no idea what Knight of Cups is supposed to be about, but his other film is apparently about two intersecting love triangles in the Austin music scene. Sounds like he'll be revisiting themes from "Days of Heaven."
Funny about Eyes Wide Shut, it seems as mysterious as the man himself (also, the fact that it was his final work makes it more interesting). When I watched it I admit I wasn't quite as compelled as I was by his previous films. I've heard so many different reactions, ranging from "it's his best" to "it's his worst." What I saw was a barely less-than-perfect movie (which half of my favorite movies are anyway, The Thin Red Line being one) that I will have to revisit and think deeply about before forming an opinion. I'm sorry if I've made this too much about Kubrick...but from what I understand, his name is welcome everywhere :)

[–] Carl-LaFong 11 years ago

The problem with this film was the trite dialogue. It was gruesome. He really should let someone else write his scripts.

Looks bobbins.

[–] jab670 11 years ago

Some of it, yeah. But there was hardly much dialogue anyway. But the difficulty I find in his style, is that it has such a poetic and ethereal tone that it is almost hard to imagine any dialogue fitting well in the world of the film. I am sure all Malick fans can agree that if Malick could make it a silent film, he would.

I'll be curious to see how the untitled Austin film will turn out.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blessmathis-3 11 years ago

you my friend, must not know what thought actually is

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Recidi 10 years ago

I was with you in your "rant", all up until you mentioned Tree of Life. Tree of Life is one of my favorite films along with his others. To the Wonder being one of his weakest films. The fact that you clumped Tree of Life with To the Wonder really discredits your entire post. Sorry.

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

I honestly don't understand how Tree of Life fans can say this film is [one of] his weakest films.

The style that he has been developing in his last few films has culminated into this masterpiece imo. I'd even go as far as to say that this is the film he's been working toward his entire career. It's the epitome of Malick. And given how [semi-]autobiographical it is it's probably deeply personal and important to Malick himself. Like all his films it's unbelievably gorgeous, poetic, contemplative, and sincere. Like with his other films, especially TTOL, I'd find myself with tears in my eyes due to the sheer beauty of it. He can make such mundane, everyday life look like the most beautiful gift, despite all the sadness and hardships. While the subject matter and words can be pessimistic and depressing, the beauty of images and music make it optimistic, warm, and beautiful at the same time.

"Whether I left society or it me I cannot say. I suppose you could make an argument for both sides."

[–] prplayer 9 years ago

i know how you feel, Badlands and TTRL are 2 of my favorite movies of all time

and i enjoyed Days of Heaven and TTOL

but his last two movies were sorta meh, i wish he would so something different

so many movies, so little time

[–] edrisi 9 years ago

I both agree and disagree.There were some extraordinary "longeurs" in this latest Malick Opus.
I am fortunate in that I have seen the full uncut version encompassing some 5 and a half hours of visual exposition.

The coupling of the mundane with the divine is extraordinary - such as the slow tracking shot around a gently steaming pile of canine faecal extrusions to the accompaniment of the BACH Mass in B Minor screams "see the beauty"
The astounding meal scene where an entire Boar is consumed -the oldest male participant then leaning back and gently breaking wind which seamlessly elides into Mozart's bassoon Concerto-K191/ 186e..
Oh so many visual and sonic celebrations.

A couple in the theatre watching this film concomitant with my own experience were moved to make love-an act somehow all of a piece with the mood of the afternoon.

As I walked that day around the avenues of Penge I felt I was part of something quite extraordinary--a not altogether unique experience in Penge.

Bless you all.