By
Director:
Starring: | | |

To the Wonder

Country: united_states

Year: 2013

Running time: 112

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1595656/combined

Brett says: “Terrence Malick has a new film out. Did you take your pill this morning?

“Malick’s TO THE WONDER follows in the footsteps of his previous works, that of a slow-paced stroll through a series of  contemplations against the backdrop of what is anything but a slow-paced series of conflicts. What results is a sort of poetic consideration of the burdens bore by the central characters of the film, which proceeds to function as an amplification of those burdens on the audience itself. If viewers do not enjoy wallowing in the experience, whether good or bad, this type of film may not be for them.

“To explain away the action of a Terrence Malick piece is seemingly contradictory to the purpose of the piece. TO THE WONDER is an experience rather than a film reliant upon complex attention to the elements of character and plot—at least in the conventional sense. It can certainly be argued that some serious conflict and repeated attempts at resolution are at play in the work, but the vehicle that gets the audience there is the artistic camerawork and highly deliberate pace of each scene, true to form from this modern poster boy for auteur theory in film. The cinematography that usually takes on a more nature-centric focus in other Malick films is more focused on the movement, interaction, and expressions of actual characters in this particular film. This proves to be perhaps the biggest standout in this particular work when compared to previous endeavors of the director. It could be argued that while Malick engages in this same kind of artistic camerawork with the characters in each of his other films, the use of environment in those works provides an essential balance so that the focus on characters in that trademark Malick sense does not become too saturated. The focus on environment and surroundings is certainly still at work here as well, but the balance may be a little underwhelming when compared to other experiences viewers have had with this director. That, or the attention of the camera to characters in this particular movie may be more overwhelming than one is used to.

“In this particular piece, the focus is on two plot fronts: one is a love triangle among Neil (Ben Affleck), Marina (Olga Kurylenko), and Jane (Rachel McAdams), and the other storyline centers on Father Quintana (Javier Bardem). In the same vein as TREE OF LIFE, there is a cosmic contemplation at work, so be advised that what may have worked for you could carry over into this film; or, if that meticulous handiwork did not suit before, it is unlikely that this experience will be any different. The craftsmanship of linking the two plotlines in this particular movie is something of a marvel. Malick takes a storyline where a pair of women—at different times in the life of the main character Neil—cannot seem to reach that pinnacle of mutual understanding within a relationship and unites it with a priest who is seeking the same from God above, using each situation to intensify the other. On paper, what is transpiring points to a possible train wreck of a plot, but there is a sort of mastery in the director’s ability to pull this off and allow it to actually make sense; this, of course, as a trademark of the film-maker requires a little work out of the audience, however.

“Like most Malick works, the heart of the matter takes quite a bit of digging from the audience. The main conflict of two women who cannot seem to break through the appealing façade of their lover is very obvious, but the attention to whether they will or they won’t is secondary to the actual experience of the struggle of pulling that feat off. Likewise, Father Quintana cannot match this breakthrough in his own inner turmoil. The startling juxtaposition of these two concepts points toward a very metaphysical depiction of love and lust. The struggles of a priest mirror the struggles of Parisian resident Marina who has made the American oil entrepreneur her god, more or less. For her, there was an immediate appeal to this man, one that had to be experienced, but when Marina takes this interaction to the next level, more questions about her role in the relationship arise than what she had anticipated. The relationship is placed on a pedestal in the film so that a mere superficial perspective does not derail the magnitude required of such an ambitious series of metaphors and symbols. The mutual attraction is obvious, but as is the case between lust and love, the gap between emotional fulfillment and overexposure is not as wide as one might think. This concept is designed to match the religious devotion that the priest must follow in his initial leap of faith toward an all-powerful God. In a very daring move, Malick seems to hint that the priest’s involvement with the service to an almighty Father was a curious preoccupation with the cosmos that resembles that of two lovers, one of whom is seeking to unveil a new experience that is brought about by a wild fascination with the other. Once that type of connection is made, what is left is a series of questions from a different tier in the relationship, which seem to be neglected in the early stages of the relationship’s formation. In essence, there seems to be a sort of correlation between the lust factor of a relationship and the devotion required out of a religious follower. The alarming question that pervades, however, is that it is not merely the curious pursuant who may be experiencing this conflict of emotion. God himself is called into question for toying with the priest’s emotions and remaining distant after intense engagements in that spiritual realm. Neil, the object of Marina’s affections, helps the viewer personalize this on a different level as he seems to mirror the inconsistency of an omniscient figure who seems to be able to call all the shots in the relationship at his own ‘lustful’ convenience. It appears to be love at times (many times, in fact), but the distancing of God and Neil at times leaves that doubt in the ‘lovers’ minds.

“A highly cognitive work, the film walks a loose tightrope between convoluted/esoteric and aesthetics/art. A staple of Malick films is the use of voice-over narration that assumes the role of a dreamlike wonderment rather than focusing directly on the action of a conventional plot. Each character delves into this realm of contemplation at some point (Marina and Father Quintana more so than the others) and the experience can be quite overwhelming for impatient viewers; this is not a mere dip in the pond of cosmic struggle. Viewers are reminded to be on alert because masked within the narration and camerawork are a handful of symbolic references that can be contemplated at different points in the movie. It is easy to overlook some of these moments, especially when one pivotal symbol hits you with the first word of the film, is forgotten about, revived, and even leaves its footprint on the film’s closing moments. At the same time, one might find it easy to say that Malick has gone too far this time in expecting the audience to follow such an overemotional set of star-crossed lovers. If one can forgive the sometimes-maudlin reflections compiled in the film’s narration, the crossing over of the two storylines just might work for some moviegoers here. One might want to go in mentally prepared for a film like this, however.”

 

 

 

To the Wonder

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *