MovieChat Forums > To the Wonder (2013) Discussion > Sex and love

Sex and love

posted 11 years ago by JackBluegrass
4 replies | jump to latest

Malick's cinematic beauty in story telling continues again with talented Emmanuel Lubezki as cinematographer.

Malick's trademarked visual images of wind-blown window curtains, flowing water, flowers, insects, sun flares, and underwater images of turtle and underwater plants are all here, familiar from his past films.

But, here Malick focuses on the emptiness and non-existent morality of Ben Affleck's desire for sex without commitment. Surprising, it also addresses the emptiness of his women's lives who want a stable life and family, but give sexual access to Ben in hopes he will marry them. Of course, Ben is so passive and irresponsible toward women that he has no intention of marrying them, or even tolerating them long-term.

Ben comes across on screen as a single-minded automaton whose occupation is some kind of environmental scientist checking for pollution from the petroleum industry, when he doesn't want sex at the time.

As a basically script-less movie, we must try to understand on-the-fly emotions of actors and actresses, whose work is very good. Many viewers will hate this movie. Fans of Malick's movies will understand.

[–] rooee 11 years ago

This seems like a rather bleak reading of the film. You seem to be saying that Malick depicts men and women as irreoncilable. For me, the film was about the dynamic of romantic love, from reparation to destruction to reparation, etc. Meanwhile, the priest finds a sustainable form of love in helping to alleviate the suffering of others. I suppose it's a cautionary tale about the difference between possessive love and love of humanity as a whole.

The Films of Stanley Kubrick: www.fosk.weebly.com

[–] jab670 11 years ago

I agree with rooee here. I think the OP focuses too much on sex. It's not really access to sex and sex without commitment — recall Neil does eventually marry Marina.

I think it shows the fluctuation with romantic love, whereas divine love never stops "shining" (for a lack of a better word) even when we think it has - it's only on us to see it. Whereas romantic love is like a tap that can be turned on and off. But we can't forget that the life of a priest is very lonely. I think Malick's main point is that a healthy relationship with God (or really, oneself and the world as whole) will lead to healthier relationships because you're not needing love, just receiving.

[–] DinosaurAct86 11 years ago

I heard in one of the interviews with the cast that Malick made the cast members read Anna Karenina by Tolstoy during the shooting of the film. This makes perfect sense to me if the film is indeed aspiring to show the difference between "divine love" as you say and "romantic love"---Anna is obsessed with the superficial, romantic love in Tolstoy's novel, whereas the character Levin seeks true companionship with mankind. He works in the fields to feel a kinship. I see the priest as a kind of Levin-esque character in this; the Affleck-McAdams-Kurylenko relationship is naught but circular suffering because they don't seek to give love to humanity.

Philosophy aside, this is by far my least favorite Malick film. I just don't really care about any of the main characters' struggles or motivations except for Bardem's. In The Tree of Life, I cared deeply for the family and wanted so badly for Brad Pitt to be a good father to those boys and treat his wife with respect. I really wanted Sean Penn's character to find redemption and forgive himself for his past wrongs. Plus, in this film, the images just seem like they're there to look pretty instead of convey emotion or narrative.

[–] Prelude (1443) 8 years ago

The way you see the women as "giving access to sex" tells me you know nothing about women or even relationships. "Give access"? UGH.

I was going to explain further, but I know your type.