To the Wonder

By T

There are many reasons to dislike Terrence Malick’s films. I think this is particularly true of his latest, To the Wonder, which is supported by the fact that despite its credentials — Malick himself aside, it also features Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Olga Kurylenko, and Javier Bardem — Malick has not found a U.S. distributor.

Which is too bad, as this is, maybe even more than his other films, a movie about America.

I think that the best defense of Malick is to say that (do not gasp) he and Hegel would probably agree about what makes a movie a piece of art. Hegel thinks beauty (and so art) is about not only a thing’s formal characteristics but its content too. And that content must be about freedom and spirit, and it must display the divine in human form or in humanity. [See here.]

I think that is the point of To the Wonder, to say it crudely. I think we are seeing a portrait of divinity and freedom in humans and humanity. And whatever formal faux pas you think he makes are overwhelmed by the force of the content.

M might be horrified at this idea, but as she writes about Tree of Life there is a combination of naivety and despair, like maybe innocence, in this movie and in all Malick’s movies. Perhaps this is a more accurate way of describing what I’m calling freedom and divinity. This is the quality of To the Wonder that I think makes it beautiful and worth watching, regardless of what other aesthetic choices you find unacceptable.

In any case, let’s catalogue some things people will say, and which there is no disagreeing with, about the movie: it feels like three hours despite its lasting only two; it is in this way positively soporific; the obsession with Olga in the sunlight is kind of embarrassing; Javier Bardem’s character lacks depth; there is no narrative; America is an old subject; and so on, or whatever.

Fine. If similar problems caused you to dislike other Malick movies, then you may well find this one unbearable.

But if you don’t really care — because none of that is important — then I think what you will find is what M called ‘the heartbreak of America’ and an utterly innocent portrait of humans and humanity (and relationships) in the best of Malick’s style.

I recommend you see it.

The Tree of Life

By M

I adore Terrence Malick. Yet, I find his movies particularly difficult to defend because, in general, people around me dislike them, and for good reason.

Put yourself in my shoes: conversations about cinema generally start with people expressing their feelings about the movie, right? So, logically, you need to say pretty soon that you liked it, to which everyone replies reminding you of all the scenes that are ‘ridiculous’, ‘phony’, and, especially, ‘corny’.

The problem you have, you see, is that they are right.

This had happened to me with The Tree of Life, and more recently with To the Wonder, which I both liked a lot. Both times, I was tempted to tell people: ‘yeah, you are right, but just forget about the movie and pay attention to X’, but I realize how problematic it is to ask people not to pay attention to the movie when the conversation is about the movie. I’ll talk about The Tree of Life, which I watched when it came out, but it left me a scar deep enough I think I can still write about it.

Having said all this, I don’t quite know how to review this movie, so I’ll try to address the criticisms I remember, and tell you why I vehemently defend it.

So, after the 139 minutes that The Tree of Life lasts, and after I said how beautiful I found it, my friend tried to understand:

– Is that because you were sleeping when he showed us the dinosaurs?

– No… I was awake

– Oh, you must have fallen asleep when he showed us the planets

– Nop

– The lava?

No, of course I wasn’t, I saw all that and I acknowledge it’s almost impossible to defend such choices, but then, I read this interview with Brad Pitt explaining how challenging it was to work with Malick because he would wait until the light is exactly the one he wants, the butterfly flies the way he has in mind and… the dinosaurs interact? I mean, how great is that?

Malick is all about that, he is all about innocence and I understand innocence as a mix of naivete and despair.

Take another criticism: ‘Showing us nature for the sake of it is unbearable’, it would be, if that was what he was doing. But it isn’t. He is showing us a particular nature, a nature that is human made, that is as nature as human, which is actually what nature is. Think of the grass freshly cut, think of the singing noise of the irrigation system, think of Jessica Chastain’s bare feet on that grass.

Malick’s characters don’t talk much, they don’t usually go to work. I mean, they probably do, but that is not what he shows us, because he literally investigates how they feel, what they feel. The expression of pain in this movie is the most powerful expression of pain I have seen. And it lasts. You feel their pain from minute 1 to the very last. You feel how pain has repercussions (The Tree of Life – I know, his titles aren’t great), how it is transmitted from one generation to the next.

All the actors are absolutely astonishing. All of them express pain in their own way, in their own silence. Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Brad Pitt, three lost gazes on the floor.

The images are beautiful, they move as the characters move, because feelings are about that, because people are moving, so why shouldn’t the camera move, all the time, like the sea, does it ever stop, no, it doesn’t, why should it, it’s the sea… The close-ups, Chastain’s hair. The colors, the contrast, the black and white of Sean Penn’s measured life, in the urban America, far from the suburban America that intervenes nature, in an America that pretends to have forgotten that, except it can’t: the tree of life.

And finally, of course, the music. So obvious in its innocence. It’s like a child who would draw a heart and tell you ‘I think I should color it red’.

One last thing: I agree with everyone who said that he only got the Palme d’Or because Lars Von Trier went crazy. Still.

I recommend that you watch it.

Days of Heaven

By N

Days of Heaven (1978) is Terrence Malick’s second movie. Despite not being a wide-spread popular success, it won Malick the prix de Cannes for best director in 1979.  Malick’s movies always come with anecdotes which make you admire him and his work even more – for example, most of the filming in Days of Heaven was made either in sunrise or sunset, with the final result being some magical lighting effects. Also, it took him 2 years of editing before releasing the movie. The result is astonishing with precision and beauty. Would I be wrong to say that one of the most important parts of making a movie is not shooting or directing actors but is editing. Malick clearly understands it and takes the matter seriously.

Today no one could contest that this movie is a classic you should add to your ‘10 (yes, 10) movies I should see before I die’ list. I don’t think you’ll watch it for the story though. In short: three siblings – a young Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and Linda Manz – run away from Chicago to work in a farm in Texas.  Richard Gere and Brooke Adams pretend to be siblings when they are in fact lovers. Sam Shepard, the owner of the farm, falls in love with Brooke Adams and asks her to stay with him in the farm. Knowing that Shepard is dying from illness, Richard Gere asks Brooke Adams to be with him until he dies to inherit his fortune – she decides to stay in the condition that her siblings can too, and here begins a triangular love story. As you can imagine, it is not going to end well.

Apart from that, nothing much happens. One will also note the infrequency of dialogue, for most of the story is told through the narrative spectre of Gere’s little sister, Linda Manz. Having said that, this is not problematic, and you are not bored at all; indeed, the absence of dialogue is complemented by an absolutely stunning use of scenery. His strength is not to make things look intentionally attractive; that would be too easy and superficial. Prettiness is pointless when trying to flatter reality. His two major recurrent themes, which you can find in his movies such as The tree of life (2011) and To the wonder (2012), are more than ever present in this one: dominant nature and (despair of) humanity. Malick’s shots of imposing nature are incredible; his sense of aesthetics genuinely touches you – Everything is expressed through images and music. And this is where Malick excels.

This movie is undoubtedly a wonderful cinematographic experience. Watch it in the cinema if you can – but watch it in whichever way you can.