It took almost 10 years, but Terrence Malick has finally made another film I love, and it is a film that far exceeds the reaches of THE NEW WORLD. In all truth, TO THE WONDER is my favorite. It is a story of romantic love as essential and necessary as the Gospel. Is it really so long to wait 8 or 9 years for a great film? It is, but that is because I feel as though i've been waiting forever. I have been waiting for both this film and a sense of my own happiness and personal freedom. Waiting for the great Malick film to soar above the promises of his greatness. And what is TO THE WONDER about? It's actually about waiting....(wait for it) ...for a sense of happiness and personal freedom.
Malick's movie is the best film I never saw last year.
I am in love.
I am not in love in actual life; I am a survivor of a betrayed and abandoned heart. But in my filmgoing life, my virtual life that I live in lieu of an actualized life, I have just been shown the hope of the Promise's arrival.
I became aware of Malick, and the myth of his greatness, around the time that I became aware that movies and the love of them would be my life. I was a pre teenager. I made a list, several hundred items long, of all the movies I would learn about that were must -sees to help advance me on my road of film appreciation. BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN were early entries on my list. The first one I saw was BADLANDS. I just knew that i would love it. I had marked up the Washington Post weekly free tv schedule (I would spend a couple of hours every sunday highlighting and creating VHS recording and home viewing schedules to maximize tv and film viewing ) and i still recall my excitement when i one day saw BADLANDS would be playing, on an evening when the upstairs TV was free, on a local Baltimore station. I must have been in 8th or 9th grade. Of course the film was edited for television, but I still clearly remember it's impact. Its cynicism, its style, and the way it used American landscape as a sort of visual storytelling shorthand; all iconic movie watching elements. I soon followed that up with a VHS rental. A few yrs later, upon moving to NYC, i saw it screen on 35. I still think it's a strong film, but I also recognize the gap between the expectation i had awaited and the final moment of watching. This is something not at all foreign to a cinephile. As cinephiles we continually are waiting for certain films we have heard of. In my preteens and teens it was Malick, Truffaut, Warhol, Godard, Franco, Resnais, Ferrara and Ashby. In my twenties it was Rivette, Ruiz, and a zillion other films not defined by their filmmakers; my scope widened considerably. It goes further than waiting for certain films. Every cinephile has their golden chalice; their OUT 1 print or LAST MOVIE or HARDLY WORKING...I believe, that as cinephiles, we are often people looking to movies to fulfill a promise that we do not expect fulfilled within our own lives.
When I finally saw DAYS OF HEAVEN, it was a rental situation in high school. I was horribly disappointed. When i went to study film at NYU it was a personal favorite of my film school boyfriend, so we went to see a print screen at Film Forum. My viewing was more substantial this time around, but i still felt let down. I went back to Film Forum to see it screen yet again in the early -mid aughts, still disappointed. I've always liked BADLANDS more, but I guess I don't love either of them. The eventual theatrical opening of THE THIN RED LINE was a major event. I was barely alive that year, but all of my film school friends were obsessed with it. I managed to see it opening day in my temporary new town of Washington, D.C. I believe I saw it at the Uptown(DC's Ziegfeld), so that made everything better. This Malick was more of a stunner to me. It was more difficult to nail down and explain. It was the first Malick I saw that was closer to the type of film I was usually drawn to. It demanded repeated viewings and was experimenting with something new.
I loved THE NEW WORLD. It was on the top of my favorite films of 2005 list.
The mythic great Malick film you wait for had finally arrived: poetic storytelling and technique finally married with the content of the story..about newness and narrative of the formation of a physical place.I never connected with it emotionally, but with this film it seemed Malick had finally lived up to expectation.
I waited several more years to come across the next promised land...and then came TREE OF LIFE. I can only say that this is the Malick film I find the least connection and interest in. I can liken the experience to that of watching a magazine editorial come to life.
So I dicked around a while before sitting down for TO THE WONDER. My god. Terrence Malick, I'm almost 40, where have you been all my moviegoing life? I felt that note being struck; the coexistence of innovative technique, visual beauty, and FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY- a spiritual center I could place myself in. The film uses shortcuts, formerly less fully realized in earlier pictures like TREE, to economize the storytelling in a chiefly visual manner. We are watching a love story but one that happens in leaps and bounds, all in the opening moments. We understand, even without the subtitles translating the French.
Wes Anderson gets criticized for a very similar idea. People call Anderson's presentational style of storytelling overly mannered or precious, even Twee. I think Anderson explores alternative ways to do exactly what filmmakers like Walter Hill and Michael Mann do so well (THE DRIVER, THIEF...) It is all about searching for an appropriate way of economizing and streamlining the way we are told a story. With his latest film, Malick does this as well, and to great effect. I realize now that he has been trying to do this, with varying measures of success, in his last few films, but i do not think it has been fully realized or coherent until now. The film opens with the
arrival of a lifetime of want and of not having. Do i know anything about these characters backgrounds or if they'd ever had love before? NO. I say this because what I am shown and what I experience in this opening is ..the end. A woman has reached her penultimate happiness. She spins through life. Everything is beautiful, everything and everyone is connected. She is in love. She is radiant and she beams outwards to others.
It is just about halfway through the film when she is, in some ways, replaced and cast aside. She stops spinning through the frames. Her voiceover tells us she is lost, and she is walking around alone, not knowing where go but to go home and collapse.
She tries to kill herself. She returns to him. Her voiceover remarks that it is only the Weak who never take a stand (by ending a relationship i presume.) Her world turns dark and her spirit is in crisis.
I am used to waiting for things that never come. At this point in my life I'm pretty much at peace with the idea that the heartbreak and rejection from my latest relationship can only lead to my suicide or to a loveless life of utter misery.
It took 35 years of being alone, often hopeless, but foolishly hopeful for me to find true love. I was to lose that love forever in just less than three years.
I first heard about Terrence Malick when I was approximately twelve years old. I saw my first Malick film when I was about 13 or 14 years old. I saw TO THE WONDER tonight and I am currently about 38 years old. 24 years is less than three decades. Not so unreasonable. How many 24s do I have left? Do I remain resigned to life and the possibilities I do not believe will ever cross my path? Do I confuse hope with the impact of the truth I recognized in the depiction of falling in love in TO THE WONDER? How truthful Malick can be! How right he is when he shows how love is the spirit, it is the 'wonder' in life, the thing missing that we need..the answers we seek, the prayer, the meaning, the everything...
How could her lover not see how earth and soul shattering the withdrawal of his romantic love would be? Her love for him was devotional, religious, and eternal.
It sounds like crap to say it and I almost cringed when the priest showed up until i realized that this is the other side of falling in love onscreen. The love she experienced was Holy. Without that miracle she is equivalent spiritually to the junkie, the criminal and the laborer who need Bardem's Priest. It is the wait...IT IS THE WAIT that is the other storyline. The one that crisscrosses as the French bride falls in and out of her rapture. She is back in Paris. She is alone on the subway. She no longer dances to transport herself from place to place. She walks with her head down, and stares unhappily on the Metro.
It is the wait for the new great drug, for the new 12 step fellowship to save and rebuild your spirit, that one person in the world who finally came along who would become your best friend and one true love and then leave you forever. The wait for that next great film to give you life as a cinephile.
some people don't have anything substantial inside of them. some people aren't addicts or artists or water signs or other such sensitive types, and they haven't listened closely enough to feel themselves die every day that they don't live for a love or for a spiritual principle bigger than their own self will.
Some people think they admire and love, but they admire without being able to see.
here is a clip of someone thinking they love someone who does not love her boyfriend..she is dying and she is dying from addiction which she adopted to ease the pain of dying every day from not loving or being loved anymore.
it's valentines day. i hope the news stops reporting famous nyc addicts that are dying.
Two died very recently; both of them got clean for long periods of time through 12 step fellowships, so yes, they work.
one died clean.
it's valentines day which means nothing beyond hallmark cash, unless you prefer it to mean something. There are those that prefer nothing means nothing and there are those who are atheists and also not capitalists and KNOW nothing means nothing, but they also CHOOSE to infuse meaning in life. They are those people who connect to their spirit and try to love instead of finger an internet on a phone.
valentines is lame if you are lame.
isolation is death.
be connected in real ways in real love.
some of it is mysterious. connection and separation and identity are nebulous and confounding in this film. also, his character is an addict who doesn't use anymore.
Do you want to survive or do you want to LIVE?
can you feel yourself dying more every morning you wake up to go out into the world unloved? Keep your head down! The people who live and love don't want to see you or remember you are still a little alive , or rather, not all dead.
Jacques Deray's RIFIFI A TOKYO (1962) is painted in thick strokes, yet damn effective as a mod-noir caper film. The moody eyes of its varied Japanese and French protagonists give more narrative information than is in the somewhat thin script, or what i can sense of it with the horrible subs I've acquired.
I am left with the images of car chases in industrial Tokyo, quick, clean cutting, and the nervous sensual lure of Barbara Lass. Whether she is imploring with a straight on gaze or adorably dancing to Japanese music in her hotel room, Lass' appeal is perhaps the foregrounded subject of the film.
The pared down economy of the narrative style is echoed in the way the film captures the movements of cars. There are chases, yet they are glimpsed in cleaved sections; reasons for motion unclear. A car advances; a car reverses...each action is life or death.
The gangsters in Deray's film are stealing jewels, but the characters are suspicious, antagonized, never glamorous.