MovieChat Forums > To the Wonder (2013) Discussion > Reaction to 'To the Wonder'

Reaction to 'To the Wonder'

posted 12 years ago by kelly-wilson
14 replies | jump to latest

While I write about Terrence Malick with great trepidation --- he's a genius, right? --- I find conversation about his work helpful insofar as it might offer something that someone else might not have initially perceived.

To that end, can I introduce to readers my own reaction:

http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/to-the-wonder-2013/

I am trying to build readership at my site, and therefore thank you for any interest and would be honoured by any conversation...

KW.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kelly-wilson 12 years ago

Hello folkblue,

Thank you for the comment. I acknowledge your observation that another viewing may be in order and please be assured that I certainly intend to watch "To the Wonder" again (and again).

Having said that, I haven't excluded the possibility that some of the choices Malick made contributed to my initial inability to respond empathically, and I have noticed others observe just how bored they were. These are subjective experiences, I grant, but still are very real as experiences. I am open to having my experience further broadened by future reflection on "To the Wonder".

As per your comments on another thread (regarding whether “To the Wonder” is a “Christian film”) here's what I think happens: Because Christians believe that Jesus reveals how to authentically live as human beings, when Christians see others striving for that authenticity, it appears as striving after Christ (however unintentional one's striving may be). Consequently, I think a tendency among Christians to recognize that where good exists, it exists because their God exists at the source of that good (whether acknowledged or not). If you have read Graham Greene’s “A Burnt-Out Case”, the superior’s homily about Christian love would indicate this sort of orientation.

That said, I don’t like prefacing films or books or music with the word Christian. It excuses such materials from having to survive on their own merit, and Malick is more than able to do so.

KW.
http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/

[–] nhoj441 12 years ago

Have you spent time with Thin Red Line, and if so, do you see Witt as a Christ-like figure? What about The New World, where the emphasis is more on Native, rather than European religion? 1John4:4

[–] kelly-wilson 12 years ago

I've seen both films but I don't have a specific answer for you.

KW.
http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/

[–] thepalestfire 12 years ago

I've heard of Witt as a representation of Christ before. I think it is easy to play that game, but I don't see it. I doubt Malick intended, and I don't see much evidence in the film that suggests such a connection.

[–] nhoj441 12 years ago

Understand, but I think there's a lot of room between "representation of Christ" and "Christ-like figure". And I'm not sure what game is being played. 1John4:4

[–] thepalestfire 12 years ago

I really don't think there is a connection to either, but that is just my opinion.

[–] thepalestfire 12 years ago

Fantastic write up, Kelly. What are your thoughts on the ending sequence?

[–] kelly-wilson 12 years ago

Let me add one piece to those conversations already occurring on this matter:

With about ten minutes left, there's a scene where Marina is seated in a rocking chair with a book, and Neil approaches her. He kneels before her, and places his head in her lap. She brushes her hand through his hair and I sense that he is crying.

Now ... Fr. Quintana has told Neil that the one who loves less is the one who is stronger" but he counsels Neil to "struggle with" himself and his own strength because a sort of strength can inhibit love. Neil has previously struggled to let himself be loved to point that, on one occasion, Marina asks him "What are you afraid of"? I think even Neil creates in Marina a sense that, because he is so strong, nothing she can do or be for him will be of value to him. This contributes to her own infidelity (looking for someone who seemingly wants her).

But when Neil plants his face in her lap, I see him as finally letting Marina love him.

Therefore I think this anticipates either their ability to love each other again or creates in Neil the ability to actually have a life with someone else (as we see him with a woman and child as the film draws to an end).

KW.
http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/

[–] thepalestfire 12 years ago

The only thing that baffles me is the ending. Where we see the home with Neil, and then Marina wondering alone with the light flashing on her face. The house was different than any we had scene previously though. It was more alive, for a lack of a better word. But then, if I am remembering correctly, that scene was almost underexposed. It had an almost foreboding feel to to. Then it goes to Marina walking alone. Is this some guilt on Neil's part? A flash of hope on Marina's face? Any ideas?

[–] kelly-wilson 12 years ago

No strong ideas about this hurtslikehellfire...

When I watch it again, I'll be watching more closely though.

KW.
http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/

[–] snelling 12 years ago

This is a bad home movie, edited to possibly be released as a feature. It was so disappointing because it sucks. I could not wait for it to be over.

Enter my contest! I need help for a new signature! Maybe I'll choose yours and you'll win a cash prize!

[–] jab670 12 years ago

I don't see it as "letting Marina love him". She did, he knew it - there's nothing to "let" happen.

I saw it as a humbleness on his part. You see Marina often on her knees before him in devotion and - essentially - in weakness. And most people have experienced relationships where they are the dominant partner or the submissive partner - which usually reveals itself to be unhealthy.

Neil finally humbles himself before her so that she would feel empowered for once.

[–] kelly-wilson 12 years ago

We might agree but be using different terminology. I don't want to assume that, however.

I see the difference as being between supposed “strength” and vulnerability, and how each impacts love.

When you write “she did [love Neil], he knew it – there’s nothing to ‘let’ happen”, I suppose I disagree with something implied therein. I’m not going to say that they did not love each other, but with Neil we see both Marina and Jane reach points where whatever love exists can go no further.

I see the interpretive key as existing in the words of the priest to Neil. Quintana says that the one who loves less is the one who is stronger and then he encourages Neil to struggle with his strength (because it is inhibiting).

Here’s why, I think: I don’t see it as being about submission and dominance (which I understand as unhealthy) but rather as about having the vulnerability to reveal something deeper within (something often hidden for fear of not being loved if exposed). Neil is finally able to kneel before someone and actually so abandon his supposed strength that he cries in the woman's lap. In a sense, I think, it opens him to the possibility of having a more authentic relationship with someone else. Perhaps we get that sense in one of the closing scenes with a female partner and child.

I don't know, though. That's how I see it.

KW.

http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/to-the-wonder-2013/