...Or is this Malick playing loose with continuity?
Hmmm. I didn't see a conventional "narrative" at all; in what I saw the whole concept of "continuity" is irrelevant.
The images I saw followed the "many worlds" hypothesis, where the story keeps branching and branching ...and we see _both_ branches. Whenever a film does this, we're used to one branch being portrayed as "a dream" and the other as "reality", and being able to tell which one is which (if we just watch carefully enough:-). But even that's not what I saw in this film. Here it becomes impossible to tell what's imagined by the characters and what's imagined by the filmmaker and what actually happened.
A few examples: we see both a divorce and a new house. We see both the two of them raising the child together and Marina as a single parent. We see Marina end up both in Paris and in Oklahoma.
Talking about "continuity" problems is like putting just one toe in the water when there's a whole ocean in view. This film doesn't even try to respect conventional continuity - after all, it doesn't narrate a single coherent sequence of events - its point and structure is something else entirely.
reply
share