To the Wonder

“He doesn’t give us things on purpose. I kind of know what’s happening, but I’m not sure. I was doing something not knowing exactly where it leads, and maybe that’s good, because in life, we don’t know where we’re going.”

That’s about as fine an encapsulation of Terrence Malick’s new moving poem of a film, To the Wonder, as we’re likely to get. The quote was said by the film’s star, Olga Kurylenko, and, to me, brings the entirety of the film together.

When you enter the dark, fluid, seemingly illogical world of Terrence Malick, you enter into a vision unknown. A story untold. A fragmented daydream of despair. Malick makes films his own unique way, demanding that the viewer participate as opposed to simply watch.

To the Wonder tells the story of one couple’s continuing ability to fall in love as quickly as they fall out. We first meet Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Kurylenko) as they silently tour the picturesque commune Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy. They drive, they walk, they look, they embrace. This is happiness. We follow them to Paris as they do much of the same – letting love wash over them as gently as the tides that surround Mont Saint-Michel. Shortly after, Neil moves Marina and her young daughter to his home in suburban Oklahoma. Although she’s plucked from the richly texturized streets of Paris to the barren fields of electrical towers in Oklahoma, Marina doesn’t mind. As her French narration tells us, as long as Neil loves her, she can be happy wherever.

But love fades. Whether it’s Neil’s indifference or Marina’s hinted-at emotional instability, the two are driven apart. A new love enters, and is nursed accordingly. Jealously takes hold, indifference reappears, reconciliations are discussed, then disregarded, then considered again. Though, this being a Malick film, nothing is as direct as I might be making it sound. Very little dialogue motivates the story, and just as much is inferred as is made clear. The film flows round and round, shifting seamlessly and inexplicably to new moods, abrupt tones, and fluctuating ideas. Not all of which, it must be said, are welcome.

In addition to Neil and Marina’s story, To the Wonder runs a parallel storyline of an apathetic priest (Javier Bardem) who we see giving sermons and visiting homes in the white trash, Oklahoman slum town he lives near. He visits, listens to people’s problems, and returns to his home to sulk in private. In short, I haven’t the slightest clue what Bardem’s narrative is doing in this movie. With the exception of the priest occasionally taking confession from Marina, he has nothing to do with the film’s central love story. And although Bardem’s story is gorgeously shot and compelling on its own, I fail to see how it fits.

Malick famously overshoots his films, routinely resulting in several actors having their work taken out of his final pictures. Had Bardem’s slum subplot been cut, I’d be tempted to label To the Wonder as masterful. But as it sits now, I’ll consider it a great film with faults.

I stand as an ardent enthusiast of Malick’s films, but it’s clear that the man has his fair share of detractors. For one, Malick’s films make us uncomfortable. I watch a lot of movies – new, old, whatever – and I would estimate that 90 percent of the films made (especially today) have a firm beginning, middle, and end. They introduce characters, bring about a conflict, and have the characters resolve said conflict. And that makes people comfortable; that’s what they’re used to. They enter a film knowing that they’ll leave with a definite understanding of what happened to the people on screen.

And believe me, I’m not knocking the three act structure – many of the best films ever made are constructed as such. But there is room for more. There is room for ambiguity, transference, change. At least in my cinema-obsessed world. Would I want every film to play out like a Malick film? No, of course not. But the man has made six pictures in four decades, and every time a new one is released, I’m more than willing to participate.

With Malick, you watch, you take in, you discuss, and you decide whether or not the film was worthy of your time. But maybe it grows. Maybe its opaque ideas become more rooted in truth. Maybe you understand. I have yet to see a Malick film that is best taken at face value – they all get better with time and repeat viewings. It’s not in my nature to dissect a film, but with Malick, I love to let his work tease me – to bait my most innocent questions. His films are puzzles that may or may not be missing some pieces. To the Wonder may not know where it wants to go, possibly because its characters don’t know where they want to go. When was the last time you had a conversation with someone and you knew for certain how and when it was going to end? Me? Never. A-