To The Wonder, Terrence Malick’s impressionistic take on love and religion, was met with a mix of bravos and boos at the end of this morning’s first screening in Venice. Applause was hearty in my section of the Sala Darsena, but people I ran into outside were struggling with the almost all-voice-over competition entry that is “the least narrative” of Malick’s movies. Ben Affleck appears in most of To The Wonder, but he probably has less than 10 lines, an occupational hazard that goes along with working on a Malick picture. Rachel McAdams seems to have suffered the same fate, showing up about a third of the way through for a brief thread that involves Affleck’s character – or “prop,” as one person put it to me. Last week, I reported that Malick left Rachel Weisz, Barry Pepper, Amanda Peet and Michael Sheen on the cutting room floor.
Malick’s last picture, Tree Of Life, certainly had its fans and detractors, but people I spoke to today felt that film had “more of a story” and “real characters.” I’ve confirmed that some footage from Tree Of Life was used in To The Wonder: the footage is “imagery that was licensed” for Tree Of Life and that what is used in To The Wonder is “less than 10 seconds”. (Fox is thanked in the credits for the footage.) Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki shot both. At least one film connoisseur told me they truly enjoyed To The Wonder because images of wheatfields, trees and water abound and the classical music had a “lovely effect of floating you away”.
Olga Kurylenko is Wonder‘s central character who sets the scene talking about love in voice over as she and Affleck wander through Paris and on to Mont St. Michel – the “Wonder” of the title. But the voice over isn’t used solely to set the scene, it’s almost the only dialogue device Malick uses throughout. Javier Bardem plays a disillusioned priest in the Midwest town where Kurylenko and Affleck’s characters set up house. A house that never has a lot of furniture, but a fair bit of frolicking and fighting. McAdams is a woman struggling after the loss of a child with whom Affleck takes up briefly. The storylines of the four characters are only vaguely intertwined. The film often employs circles and moving objects spinning in rounds – including ferris wheels and a rollercoaster – for symbolism. But, after the screening, people were talking about the constant twirling that Kurylenko’s character engages in. She almost never stops moving – leading folks to wonder if she wasn’t dizzy for half the shoot.


Less is more when it comes to Affleck……The less he speaks the more I like the movie.
I dunno, there’s a silver lining to this dark cloud. Ben Affleck not saying much somehow doesn’t disappoint me because mostly his value as a prop is more important for this picture – and every picture. Truthfully, the less Ben says about anything – even when he’s portraying an alleged “character” in his roles on film, during the moments he’s on screen as an “actor” – the better off the world really is.
Anyone who produces or directs a movie starring Ben Affleck in any capacity where it requires Ben Affleck to say as little as possible is a winner in my book, and I support this movie wholeheartedly for Terrence Malick’s vision in making sure he says as little as possible.
I hope this movie makes a lot of money just because Ben Affleck says almost nothing. It is what he should be doing a lot more of.
A silent Ben Affleck is a bad thing?
His movies are just too artsey fartsey. My daughter worked on Pocahontas in the costume dept. She made many of the things the indians wore. If she had not taken pictures of the things she made and shown them to me I would never have seen them. Most of the items were worn by the indians when they were filmed in the long houses and it was so dark, you barely saw the actors. I have watched the movie many times, there are more scenes of the sky or water flowing in the river or of the marches in Jamestown then there were of the actual actors. It was not a movie about people, it was just his excuse to do a nature film. It is hard to enjoy a movie that does not tell a story and grip your attention from the get go. It seems pointless. But he does not need the money and is doing the art he wants to do which is fine, but most people do not have time for that.
I’ll never forget (though heaven knows I’ve tried) watching “Last Year at Marienbad.” Not the film itself. The excruciating experience of sitting through it. OTOH I did learn a valuable lesson in filmmaking — namely, that audience expectations & frames of reference control a lot of audience response to a movie.
Most Americans like movies with classical storytelling — beginning, middle, end; characters, conflict, twists & payoffs, climax, etc. Comprehensible plots? Yes please. That’s what we’re used to. HECK YEAH we like to be entertained. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. The phrase “mindless entertainment” was coined to distinguish it from the other kind.
Philosopher filmmakers? You’re in luck. Thanks to technology, your world audience is on your digital doorstep, closer than ever. Shoot away! (But if your masterpiece ends up being less enjoyable than the Animaniacs’ French film satire, don’t say you weren’t warned.)
Personally, if I’m going to take a strong dose of philosophy with my movie, I’d prefer to wash it down with something smooth & fizzy like “Groundhog Day”!
I loved tree of life, but I also love tarkovsky and ozu. Malick is unique taste. A particular kind of film as art which looks at deep existential questions of life. Film as meditation. If you like Malick films, try also “into great silence” and “the mill and the cross”
I’d rather watch a tree grow than watch “Tree of Life” again. What a waste of time in a person’s life…and you only get so much.
What is Malick’s philosophy? What is his point? Can’t someone just say what it is??
Foolish to comment on films one hasn’t seen.
As for Malick: The man is a genius. “Badlands” is worth more than many more popular movies (box office take is a poor guage of quality). And Sissy Spacek’s narration rocks!!
Im surprised at how many anti Malick comments there are here. The guy made Badlands and Days of Heaven! That’s why everyone wants to work with him. No matter how many bad movies he makes, he’s made two of the best films ever made. So you don’t have to like him, but all this Malick sucks talk just shows that you haven’t watched his early films. The guy has major mystique because he made these two amazing films and then disappeared for twenty years. Imagine if JD Salinger released a couple of bad books a couple of years ago. All you ignorant fools would talk about how lame he was. Before bagging on a guy over his latest film, get informed. Watch all of his movies, particularly the ones that everyone agrees are good. Then come on deadline and debate. If all you know of Malick is Tree of Life or The New World, then shut up and stop talking. You sound like a bunch of bratty ignorant teenagers.
ben is so 12 years ago. why not do a story on foghat?
I really wanted to like TOL…
I waited and watched… Waited… And waited some more…
Godot actually showed up and we went out for drinks before it finished…
The fact that Malick’s “philisophy” is so impossible to define is what makes jis work so special to me. I like pieces of art that connect to everybody differently. I’ve spent hours analyzing his films with others and picking apart what they mean to us, how they moved us and what it is inside of each of us that shifted our interpretations of the work. The Tree of Life restored the faith I had in life and assisted me in realizing that heaven is the world around me. A friend of mine vewed it as a great tragedy and it motivated him to sort out why his relationship with his own father was so muddy.
I don’t watch new movies much as they all seem to be poor remakes of classics, with very little originality. The description of this movie makes it sound like a nature film portraying “young love”. Like a National Geographic, or Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom film, you would occasionally hear the lion roar, or the elephant trumpet, but the narrator gave voice to the thoughts, and intent of the subjects on the screen.
I always think Malick is too into himself as a director that he never lets the actors shine. The thin red line was like that. Lots of beautiful pictures and I never got close to the characters. Fincher is like that too, framing and composition is more important than the performances and the actors. I wonder how it is to work with Malick. Tree of life is some pretentious BS, imho. I like character driven movies. Malick appeal seems to be that he is elusive, but his movies don’t do it for me.
Sean Penn couldn’t even sit through his first screening without leaving for long periods of time out of boredom to smoke cigarettes. He said after the screening “I guess there is a movie in there somewhere”.
Malik is the undisputed poet of cinema and he only major direcor whocan get away with making films like he does on a studio level. So anytime you go to see one of his films you have to keep an open mind to them and know they don’t follow conventional filmmaking. Twilight this is not…
Wow! Intelligent dialogue. How refreshing. I haven’t seen any of Malicks films. But I will now.
Academics write books anyone hardly reads and the few who do read them feel gifted to be standing in the light. Terrence Malick films have the same kind of followers. You know enlightened people.
Just another trend here today gone tomorrow . If you have no money you then really have to have an artist which is a word that really does not fit with this guy .He is experementing with other peoples money and falling but you attach the word art and it’s okay to lose other peoples money .
Those who don’t like or get Terrence Malick films remind me of a middle aged fellow I came across while visiting the archeological site of Tulum in Mexico. The fellow wasn’t following the guided tour and he was sitting down on a boulder and looked bored out of his mind. When I was close to him, taking photos of the site, he blurted out: “I don’t get it…what’s the big deal. It’s just a bunch of rocks.”
He’s very deep and I like that. Sometimes he just goes overboard
Someone actually wrote, and I was a member of mensa! like that means anything. It doesn’t, by the way. The first three malick movies are daring and inventive. The last few are more derivative, though Tree of Life made dramatic moves into changing the way we look at movies. It’s ending sucked. And I’m not a member of Mensa!!!
I liked “Tree Of Life” because it was so stunning visually, and as a “sensory experience”, but I almost don’t want to like it because of how annoying his supporters are on this thread.
We get it; he’s an “auteur”, and only a select few can enjoy his films, while everyone else is scratching themselves watching Adam Sandler get kicked in the balls or CGI robots getting blown up!
I am glad that at least there is someone out there trying to make artistic films on a somewhat commercial level but it’s unfortunate that it has to appeal to such awful people!
The Greatest Director of his Generation.