Fantastic analysis. This is one of my favorite Malick films. One thing you didn't mention is his use of music to enhance scenes and elicit emotional responses. His use of classical music (and some original work by Hanaan Townsend) is absolutely brilliant. Also, one thing I tend to notice is that his films are very impressionistic. Every scene is simply a moment in time, and the camera work is used to immerse you in these moments. Emmanuel Lubezki does a phenomenal job with this, but I'm sure a huge part of it has to do with the editing in post-production. This is the first analysis I've seen on your channel, and I look forward to seeing more!
There is an very unique and humanly touching aspect: The direct participation of the people in the small town where much of it was filmed who brought themselves and their vulnerability to the art of this film.
What I love about your videos the most (all four of them as of current) is that you turn your analysis of the film(s) in question into a review of not just filmmaking, but storytelling and narrative at their most primitive, but most intricate, level. Your videos, whether or not I have seen the film in question, become inspiring. They make me want to go out and just be apart of creating an arthouse or an entertainment or drama, or any combination. Thank you, and keep up the amazing work.
+Jake Pope That's one of the nicest and most humbling things anyone has ever said to me. As someone who aspires to do the same, to know that what I do can inspire someone gives me encouragement to keep putting more of these out. Thank you so much for taking the time to watch, and I hope I keep delivering for you :)
The Long Take dont worry, i think he doesnt fully understand himself and his topics. its really sad to see people call his work pretentious. angry pigs who never posed a serious question to thrnselves at all. a movie can never answer those wuestions and it shouldnt. it should make you think and give pictures for thoughts. thats what theyre about to me. i want story,i read a book. i want action, i play a game.
A film analysis/review often says more about the reviewer than the movie. Thank you for your patient thoughtfulness, and your comfort with ambiguity. I think life requires those very characteristics. Your work has really helped me see what I've been missing, and now I can go watch it again and it will mean so much more to me. . . very grateful..
This is SO great. Thank you so much. As a Malick fan, I absolutely loved this! I'm tired of people criticizing Malick without admitting how original and non-conformist he is. He conveys so many deep things without even using dialog. I had never thought of the parallel between God's silence and Neal's aphasia. That's very interesting. The only thing I don't like about this film and Knight of cups is how Malick portrays women. They all look so childish, weak and oppressed... Keep up doing this!
+Cl Cl Yeah, one of his major themes is toxic masculinity. Most of his films, with the exception of The Thin Red Line, focus on or feature women whose lives are made so much worse by men who can't get their shit together. Knight of Cups is essentially Christian Bale just going through a whole rolodex of women and making them miserable. Anyway thanks for watching, and I hope you'll subscribe and check out my other essays!
Wow, fantastic video! I agree, it's a film that is so non-linear and so esoteric that it really requires a mass amount of effort and time to truly understand it. A lot of the time with Malick, it's what we don't see. As you say, he doesn't need dialogue to spoon feed us information, he just lets the film flow, and develops ideas via visuals, movement, and light. Fascinating stuff. I adore Malick's work, and I loved this video.
Hi Rafael. I'm currently finishing my Master thesis on Malick's use (and evolution) of voice-over which turned out to be quite the ride. His post-Tree films are extremely devisive and not many analyses capture the essence of how Malick establishes an experience of deep emotions. Although your analysis is not focusing on the use of voice-over, I'm so glad I found your take on it - because it helped me to understand his later films.
I'm really glad to hear that. Yeah, there was a lot of stuff I didn't cover here, and it kinda hurt to force myself to keep it succinct. I'm terribly curious about your thesis; Malick is my favorite filmmaker, and I've spent way too much of my time watching his films and reading about them. Can you give me a little summary or taste of your work?
You did a great job with this video essay, don't worry. It's hard to summarize a master thesis here, but basically I looked into the history of voice-over and how it is conventionally used. I read a lot of Chion to understand how sound and voice in cinema works, and then, consequently I was able to understand how Malick uses voice-over in his film. The title of my work is: "From sophisticated irony to transcendental, existential commentary: Voice-over in the films of Terrence Malick'.
I think it's a topic that hasn't really been covered all that well, at least in the work I've read. It surprises me how rarely anyone notices that his voiceovers have transformed significantly over time. For example, that in his early work, the voiceovers were more conventional (single character perspective, clearly post hoc, coldly detached, and narrating events) to something entirely unique (from multiple characters, chronologically ambiguous, and deeply personal, emotional, and philosophical in nature). Anyway if you don't mind, I'd love to take a peek at it when it's done!
That definitely helped make sense of it or even relief that sometimes it didn't have to. I really enjoyed how Marina and the priest crossed paths a few times but no relationship was developed. Love.. an act of faith. And Marina and the priest wrestling with who they love and have faith in.. yet those they give their devotion to give so visible back in return. Great insight from you, thanks. Malkick is a challenge, but I appreciate that he respects his audience enough that they don't need to be spoon fed a story as everyone else does, that our lives are a story as well and no one is going to spoon feed it to us either. And I like that Malick used the internal monologue in different languages, to remind us that there are lingering questions and frustrations for everyone. But damn.. notice at 14:15 that was probably Jane walking past Marina?? Whoa.
Malick's films are beautiful films of honest human experiences unlike other films where as a parody of life. I find the characters in his films to be relatable and realistic because they are genuine. Compare this to the stereotypical trope-like characters seen in almost every other film where directors attempt to explore the human condition through characters that are closer to a parody doing something that is completely unrealistic. Personally, I find myself disconnected from these cartoonish characters acting out in pseudo-realistic plots.
subscribed. You've done a great job analysing the movie. I have never seen this work of Terrence but I've admired his other works like The New World and Tree of Life. Now at the end of the video I feel like I've actually seen the whole film. I heard that he directed without a script and went with his intuition allowing the actors to feel the moment and be that instead of "acting acting". I have seen it in The New World, it wasn't acting, it felt real and captured moments that we often look over making it actually more real than our lives. He's a legendary director, I'm going to see this film.
If you meet the man you'll feel the self referential spirituality. You should look into the branch of Christianity he was raised in. I thought what he's always done is try to bring "the mystery" into contact with those who've been distanced from it. ALL his characters lack "faith" yes, he literally means spiritual faith. That the perfection of God's creation is in strained conflict with man's.
Beautiful analysis of an underrated masterpiece. Will it get its due one day as the amazing film that it is? Some say that the characters in To The Wonder are flat and going nowhere. So how come they moved me to tears? How come I managed to understand their struggles and see my own reflected in them? Malick challenges one to think and feel, to interpret and analyze but I suppose many people are not ready to do this and want everything out spelt on a plate for them. Thankfully, there are still some daring artists working as directors out there, and some producers willing to take risks on them.
I personally feel malicks last three films have been his best with 'to the wonder' being the pick of the three. He clearly has 100% control over his films now. The biographical element of them also makes them highly intriguing. Ive always found that malicks characters are striving for utopia or as vision and life that they perceive as pure happiness. Although they never get there, often the strife is enough. It is during the strife when moments of perfection happen but are often missed or never truly appreciated by the characters. The scene between Neil and Jane in to the wonder is beautiful. What is better than walking and laughing through fields with a loved one at sunset?
I think his work right now is at it's most fascinating. He's moved so far away from how one is supposed to make a film that I almost feel like terms like "good" and "bad" no longer even remotely apply. He's in some other universe and we're lucky enough to catch a glimpse of it.
The Long Take to me hes just doing what movies deserve. portray thenhuman condiction, which is ruled by the subconcious is moving pictures. its so satisfying to look at.
i just saw the film and for menit was mostly this: all show, no tell. the topic mostly being spontaneous being in love. the dances, the movements through spaces that symbolize home or prison (st. michel). faith, love, being, all spontaneous acts of living human beings. i love his work, its exactly what movies should be. thank you for restoring my faith in humanity and putting this up! :)
A good analysis of a breathtakingly beautiful movie--not Mallick's best but my personal favorite. That said, I disagree with the way you phrase things at times: "the further he has progressed in his career, the more he has abandoned the prerequisites of good story telling," "Mallick is not a story teller, a fact that is made even more obvious by..."--I know what you mean, but I worry about how willing you are to conflate "story telling" with conventional cinematic story telling. Mallick of course IS a storyteller, and I think we should insist on identifying him as one--he's just one who employs a narrative logic connected primarily by something like deep feeling, revelation, and mood rather than something like verbal or visual coherence and continuity. Mallick searches for what Eliot called the "objective correlative" of a complex feeling, generating a cinematic algebra (pardon pretentious phrasing) calculated to evoke an experience that conventional script writing can not produce. His cinematic "manner" allows him to evoke meanings that could not otherwise be evoked. I'm sure you would agree with me, Long Take, that this is what makes him such a brilliant visionary.
Thanks! I watched this film several times and I’d like to ask you about one scene I really can’t understand: almost at the end of the film we see Neil house where there’s a woman (Marina?), a girl (her daughter Tatiana?) and a small kid in the garden. You show some frame here at 17:20 Marina’s voice over say “thank you” It’s her broken dream? It’s a possible future happy ending? Or it’s Neil’s new family? Thanks for any answer
The Ben Affleck Character and the two women he falls in love with has a lot of parallels to Malick's second (Kurylenko character) and third wives (Rachel McAdams). So it's sort of an auto-biographical piece and is interrogating himself to a degree. Ben Affleck is an Environmental inspector of some kind and in many ways, that is Malick's style: inspecting nature. And with this film, I think he's inspecting his own nature and why he's failed in these major relationships. And he frames this against the larger questions that people have been grappling forever in terms of god and our existence.
This was a great, thoughtful discussion of the film. One of the best I've seen on a Malick film, so than you! Ultimately I disagree about Malick's films not being religious. I find them intensely Christian- not the vapid, prosaic Western Christianity we are constantly exposed to-but the profound plumbing of the nature of God, the soul and reality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers and the early Church.
Thank you. I actually don't use a mic, I use a Tascam DR-40 recorder. I lock myself in my room, turn off the AC and put the recorder about a foot and a half away from me on my desk. Then I crank it up a little in post.
Thank you for your great analysis, I think you became very close to the core of the movie. To add to your interpretation, I can point to a simple point, there are three main language in the movie: English, French and Spanish. Somehow malick wanted to show misunderstanding and poor communication with using of different languages in depicting it's characters
Mama mia! Thank you for the analysis and the video! Seamlessly edited! I can't put anything less than 8 our of 10 to the movie! Funwise - yes, its 3 out of 10. Beautywise - 11 out of 10. Some scenes literally made me cry. They are just too beautiful to embrace! Every Malick's movie puts me in some sort of poetic drunkenness! "Nature porn" they say... well... give me more... pls...please
I think you have things pretty wrong regarding Malick’a religiosity. You are right that he is not preachy, but he is more interested in sharing an experience of God through film, much like a classical composer or painter. Not only does the ending of this film point to a pretty explicitly Christian message, so does his most recent film A Hidden Life. Again these are not preachy, but deal with that actual challenges that a person of faith deals with, such as reconciling silence and prayer, suffering and love.
Totally agree which id exactly why when the Priest had demonstrated to Neil what REAL love is instead of self and lust, he finally mustard up to courage to bow in submission through final the defeat of his marriage that he himself slowly destroyed. He knew he wasn't capable anymore and until he heals will likely deal with bad marriages the rest of his life. Then he'll maybe find a great wife like Jennifer Garner & leave her for another Jennifer ( same name, totality different character ) he could likely end up hurt like he hurt his wife. Not an Affleck fan. Definitely a Malick fan though and cannot wait for his film about Jesus, The Way of The Wind. Counting down the days.
@TheiPodStation completely agree. this is a great video essay but i think he missed the mark there. Quintana’s monologue on the end really hammers home how Malick intended to implement an overall Christian message into the film.
I got the idea that Neil and Marina were both unhappy in life and tried to find happiness by being together. But slowly they realized that being together wouldn’t fix the problems in their individual lives. This is made clear because their relationship is very vibrant in the beginning of the film, and it slowly cools off throughout the film, showing us how depressed both Neil and Marina are. That’s the impression I got. Still, I think Terrence Malick is a very interesting director with his visual style. If only he worked with a great writer, his films would have been more accessible to the general audience.
Star Wars vs. Star Trek next month will surely garner views, but I think your Godzilla comparison worked well because it contrasted old with new within the same franchise model. I think a comparison of the 'best' and most thematically similar of the OT and the PT would be interesting. Why "The Empire Strikes Back" works so well and why "Revenge of the Sith"doesn't.
+Vic Randolph That's an interesting idea. I try to avoid negativity to focus on the idea that appreciating the qualities or value of a film is a separate thing from liking a film (and trust me, fewer movies make my blood boil more than the PT) but what's really interesting to me is that behind its obvious failings of execution (bad script, bad acting, poor visuals), from a mythological and thematic perspective, it holds up fairly well. It has enough good in it that we'll keep talking about them for decades to come. I'll give it some thought, see if I find an angle that's fresh.
I am fascinated by this movie... For those with an interest in such things, would anyone care to venture a guess on the MBTI types of the characters in this film?
This was a fantastic analysis. Thanks so much! Keep making videos; IMDb and other similar sites are wonderful, but their format of rating often weights the understandably frustrated low-raters' scores equally with the minority group of those who want to really look at Malick's work (and others) as a cohesive work rather than a vacuum with a "X out of 10 starts" slapped on it. This buries the complexities of this and other films from those who would otherwise pursue it, or have watched it and then find validation in their initial lack of understanding, and stop pursuing where they would otherwise continue to search for the true feeling of the films.
Did anyone else think that his relationship with Rachel McAdams was like a cheap, bastardized, imitation of his relationship with Marina? The juxtaposition of the first relationship set against the backdrop of awe inspiring beauty in France versus that of a dry, dull field surrounded by ugly cattle. He had a shot at true beauty and his lack of faith ruined it. Now he has to settle for something worse, though it could still be made beautiful, but alas his faithlessness ruins it again. To me this was a film about a normal man who, without faith, destroys everyone and everything in his path.
I was hoping you'd comment on the words of the priest in his sermons. Perhaps you didn't because the kinda shoot down your thesis of Malick's view of love in this film.
Good analysis, nice supporting details. I especially liked your opinions on movement. But the video is pretty subjective to the religious themes in the film. Still, I love seeing interesting and intelligent TH-cam videos. Thanks!
i really start to loose my patience with people that complain about the absence of "story" in games and movies. does it really take higher education to grasp the concept of filming concepts instead of facts!? this is what film is made for! moving pictures that resonate with the mind. dreams, thoughtscapes. what else would you do with film!? just like games first and foremost are experiences and learning. silly people. im starting to wonder,mif malick will be appreciated soon. the thin red line was criminallymoverlooked over pricate ryan. a film without "a story" can easily replace ten with a story. get a grip. really.
Body languages have been getting old in Malick's films. Absolutely insightful essay Rafael. Check this out. I believe this premise would have made To The Wonder more engaging. www.thewrap.com/exclusive-details-terrence-malicks-untitled-drama-revealed-22882/
Terrific work -- have you read Richard Neer's article/essay on The New World? He talks about the idea of "worlds" a LOT and goes into how the formal elements of the film (composition, editing, camera movement, etc.) are just as important as what a character says or does.
Fantastic analysis. This is one of my favorite Malick films. One thing you didn't mention is his use of music to enhance scenes and elicit emotional responses. His use of classical music (and some original work by Hanaan Townsend) is absolutely brilliant.
Also, one thing I tend to notice is that his films are very impressionistic. Every scene is simply a moment in time, and the camera work is used to immerse you in these moments. Emmanuel Lubezki does a phenomenal job with this, but I'm sure a huge part of it has to do with the editing in post-production.
This is the first analysis I've seen on your channel, and I look forward to seeing more!
There is an very unique and humanly touching aspect: The direct participation of the people in the small town where much of it was filmed who brought themselves and their vulnerability to the art of this film.
What I love about your videos the most (all four of them as of current) is that you turn your analysis of the film(s) in question into a review of not just filmmaking, but storytelling and narrative at their most primitive, but most intricate, level. Your videos, whether or not I have seen the film in question, become inspiring. They make me want to go out and just be apart of creating an arthouse or an entertainment or drama, or any combination.
Thank you, and keep up the amazing work.
+Jake Pope That's one of the nicest and most humbling things anyone has ever said to me. As someone who aspires to do the same, to know that what I do can inspire someone gives me encouragement to keep putting more of these out. Thank you so much for taking the time to watch, and I hope I keep delivering for you :)
This is one of my favorite movies! I've watched it already twice. Malick is genius!!!. Thank you for the amazing analysis!
What a beautiful analyses of one of my favorite movies (unfortunately - very much underestimated by "experts" ) ! Thank you !!!
Thank you for watching! Malick is criminally misunderstood, in my opinion.
The Long Take dont worry, i think he doesnt fully understand himself and his topics. its really sad to see people call his work pretentious. angry pigs who never posed a serious question to thrnselves at all. a movie can never answer those wuestions and it shouldnt. it should make you think and give pictures for thoughts. thats what theyre about to me.
i want story,i read a book. i want action, i play a game.
A film analysis/review often says more about the reviewer than the movie. Thank you for your patient thoughtfulness, and your comfort with ambiguity. I think life requires those very characteristics. Your work has really helped me see what I've been missing, and now I can go watch it again and it will mean so much more to me. . . very grateful..
This is SO great. Thank you so much. As a Malick fan, I absolutely loved this! I'm tired of people criticizing Malick without admitting how original and non-conformist he is. He conveys so many deep things without even using dialog.
I had never thought of the parallel between God's silence and Neal's aphasia. That's very interesting.
The only thing I don't like about this film and Knight of cups is how Malick portrays women. They all look so childish, weak and oppressed...
Keep up doing this!
+Cl Cl Yeah, one of his major themes is toxic masculinity. Most of his films, with the exception of The Thin Red Line, focus on or feature women whose lives are made so much worse by men who can't get their shit together. Knight of Cups is essentially Christian Bale just going through a whole rolodex of women and making them miserable.
Anyway thanks for watching, and I hope you'll subscribe and check out my other essays!
Wow, fantastic video! I agree, it's a film that is so non-linear and so esoteric that it really requires a mass amount of effort and time to truly understand it. A lot of the time with Malick, it's what we don't see. As you say, he doesn't need dialogue to spoon feed us information, he just lets the film flow, and develops ideas via visuals, movement, and light. Fascinating stuff. I adore Malick's work, and I loved this video.
Hi Rafael. I'm currently finishing my Master thesis on Malick's use (and evolution) of voice-over which turned out to be quite the ride. His post-Tree films are extremely devisive and not many analyses capture the essence of how Malick establishes an experience of deep emotions. Although your analysis is not focusing on the use of voice-over, I'm so glad I found your take on it - because it helped me to understand his later films.
I'm really glad to hear that. Yeah, there was a lot of stuff I didn't cover here, and it kinda hurt to force myself to keep it succinct. I'm terribly curious about your thesis; Malick is my favorite filmmaker, and I've spent way too much of my time watching his films and reading about them. Can you give me a little summary or taste of your work?
You did a great job with this video essay, don't worry. It's hard to summarize a master thesis here, but basically I looked into the history of voice-over and how it is conventionally used. I read a lot of Chion to understand how sound and voice in cinema works, and then, consequently I was able to understand how Malick uses voice-over in his film. The title of my work is: "From sophisticated irony to transcendental, existential commentary: Voice-over in the films of Terrence Malick'.
I think it's a topic that hasn't really been covered all that well, at least in the work I've read. It surprises me how rarely anyone notices that his voiceovers have transformed significantly over time. For example, that in his early work, the voiceovers were more conventional (single character perspective, clearly post hoc, coldly detached, and narrating events) to something entirely unique (from multiple characters, chronologically ambiguous, and deeply personal, emotional, and philosophical in nature). Anyway if you don't mind, I'd love to take a peek at it when it's done!
It surprised me as well and that is why I wanted to cover it ;) And you can take a peek, but I have to say... it's in Dutch :)
Sven Hollebeke ik ben benieuwd naar je thesis (en ook nog Nederlands)! kan ik 'm misschien ergens lezen?
Amazing analysis Rafael! Thank you very much for uploading this. It's beautiful what you have done.
That definitely helped make sense of it or even relief that sometimes it didn't have to.
I really enjoyed how Marina and the priest crossed paths a few times but no relationship was developed.
Love.. an act of faith. And Marina and the priest wrestling with who they love and have faith in.. yet those they give their devotion to give so visible back in return. Great insight from you, thanks.
Malkick is a challenge, but I appreciate that he respects his audience enough that they don't need to be spoon fed a story as everyone else does, that our lives are a story as well and no one is going to spoon feed it to us either.
And I like that Malick used the internal monologue in different languages, to remind us that there are lingering questions and frustrations for everyone.
But damn.. notice at 14:15 that was probably Jane walking past Marina?? Whoa.
Yup
Malick's films are beautiful films of honest human experiences unlike other films where as a parody of life. I find the characters in his films to be relatable and realistic because they are genuine. Compare this to the stereotypical trope-like characters seen in almost every other film where directors attempt to explore the human condition through characters that are closer to a parody doing something that is completely unrealistic. Personally, I find myself disconnected from these cartoonish characters acting out in pseudo-realistic plots.
brilliant analysis of one of my favourite films
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
You should watch more movies man.
subscribed.
You've done a great job analysing the movie. I have never seen this work of Terrence but I've admired his other works like The New World and Tree of Life. Now at the end of the video I feel like I've actually seen the whole film. I heard that he directed without a script and went with his intuition allowing the actors to feel the moment and be that instead of "acting acting". I have seen it in The New World, it wasn't acting, it felt real and captured moments that we often look over making it actually more real than our lives. He's a legendary director, I'm going to see this film.
If you meet the man you'll feel the self referential spirituality. You should look into the branch of Christianity he was raised in. I thought what he's always done is try to bring "the mystery" into contact with those who've been distanced from it. ALL his characters lack "faith" yes, he literally means spiritual faith. That the perfection of God's creation is in strained conflict with man's.
Almost reads like Kierkegaard. Thank you for a wonderful analysis.
One of my favorite films. So hard, so deep, so real.
Beautiful analysis of an underrated masterpiece. Will it get its due one day as the amazing film that it is? Some say that the characters in To The Wonder are flat and going nowhere. So how come they moved me to tears? How come I managed to understand their struggles and see my own reflected in them? Malick challenges one to think and feel, to interpret and analyze but I suppose many people are not ready to do this and want everything out spelt on a plate for them. Thankfully, there are still some daring artists working as directors out there, and some producers willing to take risks on them.
I personally feel malicks last three films have been his best with 'to the wonder' being the pick of the three. He clearly has 100% control over his films now. The biographical element of them also makes them highly intriguing. Ive always found that malicks characters are striving for utopia or as vision and life that they perceive as pure happiness. Although they never get there, often the strife is enough. It is during the strife when moments of perfection happen but are often missed or never truly appreciated by the characters. The scene between Neil and Jane in to the wonder is beautiful. What is better than walking and laughing through fields with a loved one at sunset?
I think his work right now is at it's most fascinating. He's moved so far away from how one is supposed to make a film that I almost feel like terms like "good" and "bad" no longer even remotely apply. He's in some other universe and we're lucky enough to catch a glimpse of it.
Brilliant comment, man. I totally agree.
The Long Take to me hes just doing what movies deserve. portray thenhuman condiction, which is ruled by the subconcious is moving pictures. its so satisfying to look at.
i just saw the film and for menit was mostly this: all show, no tell. the topic mostly being spontaneous being in love. the dances, the movements through spaces that symbolize home or prison (st. michel). faith, love, being, all spontaneous acts of living human beings.
i love his work, its exactly what movies should be.
thank you for restoring my faith in humanity and putting this up! :)
Terrence Malick is probably the only art-house director I've seen who manages to get all these huge stars somehow
A good analysis of a breathtakingly beautiful movie--not Mallick's best but my personal favorite. That said, I disagree with the way you phrase things at times: "the further he has progressed in his career, the more he has abandoned the prerequisites of good story telling," "Mallick is not a story teller, a fact that is made even more obvious by..."--I know what you mean, but I worry about how willing you are to conflate "story telling" with conventional cinematic story telling. Mallick of course IS a storyteller, and I think we should insist on identifying him as one--he's just one who employs a narrative logic connected primarily by something like deep feeling, revelation, and mood rather than something like verbal or visual coherence and continuity. Mallick searches for what Eliot called the "objective correlative" of a complex feeling, generating a cinematic algebra (pardon pretentious phrasing) calculated to evoke an experience that conventional script writing can not produce. His cinematic "manner" allows him to evoke meanings that could not otherwise be evoked. I'm sure you would agree with me, Long Take, that this is what makes him such a brilliant visionary.
Yeah I agree. You have a good point. And look, you don't have to apologize for using pretentious phrasing to me, of all people!
Thanks! I watched this film several times and I’d like to ask you about one scene I really can’t understand:
almost at the end of the film we see Neil house where there’s a woman (Marina?), a girl (her daughter Tatiana?) and a small kid in the garden.
You show some frame here at 17:20
Marina’s voice over say “thank you”
It’s her broken dream?
It’s a possible future happy ending?
Or it’s Neil’s new family?
Thanks for any answer
Very good job! I loved your video, i think you deeply understood the movie of Malick.
great analysis about an often underestimated masterpiece.
Wow. Amazing anaylsis! Really loved it.
Love your videos Rafa! Keep it up.
The Ben Affleck Character and the two women he falls in love with has a lot of parallels to Malick's second (Kurylenko character) and third wives (Rachel McAdams). So it's sort of an auto-biographical piece and is interrogating himself to a degree.
Ben Affleck is an Environmental inspector of some kind and in many ways, that is Malick's style: inspecting nature.
And with this film, I think he's inspecting his own nature and why he's failed in these major relationships. And he frames this against the larger questions that people have been grappling forever in terms of god and our existence.
I rather watch To the Wonder 100 times than to watch 1 minute of a Kentucky Fried Chicken movie like The Avengers.
Amazing analysis. Thank you for this.
15:48 this shot is abslute beauty
Made me appreciate this film a lot more than before ! Great analysis
This was a great, thoughtful discussion of the film. One of the best I've seen on a Malick film, so than you! Ultimately I disagree about Malick's films not being religious. I find them intensely Christian- not the vapid, prosaic Western Christianity we are constantly exposed to-but the profound plumbing of the nature of God, the soul and reality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers and the early Church.
Nice work...The doubtful believer might be the soul of art.
Well put!
Nice analysis. What mic do you use? Excellent audio ✌
Thank you. I actually don't use a mic, I use a Tascam DR-40 recorder. I lock myself in my room, turn off the AC and put the recorder about a foot and a half away from me on my desk. Then I crank it up a little in post.
Thank so much! Keep it up dude, already subscribed. :)
Thank you for your great analysis, I think you became very close to the core of the movie. To add to your interpretation, I can point to a simple point, there are three main language in the movie: English, French and Spanish. Somehow malick wanted to show misunderstanding and poor communication with using of different languages in depicting it's characters
Great vid!
Never saw this film but I just like listening to your analysis of these films.
Is this movie good.
Mama mia! Thank you for the analysis and the video! Seamlessly edited!
I can't put anything less than 8 our of 10 to the movie!
Funwise - yes, its 3 out of 10. Beautywise - 11 out of 10.
Some scenes literally made me cry. They are just too beautiful to embrace!
Every Malick's movie puts me in some sort of poetic drunkenness!
"Nature porn" they say... well... give me more... pls...please
You have a nice voice - you made me want to listen
You know, that's the first time anyone has ever said that to me. Thank you!
I think you have things pretty wrong regarding Malick’a religiosity. You are right that he is not preachy, but he is more interested in sharing an experience of God through film, much like a classical composer or painter. Not only does the ending of this film point to a pretty explicitly Christian message, so does his most recent film A Hidden Life. Again these are not preachy, but deal with that actual challenges that a person of faith deals with, such as reconciling silence and prayer, suffering and love.
Totally agree which id exactly why when the Priest had demonstrated to Neil what REAL love is instead of self and lust, he finally mustard up to courage to bow in submission through final the defeat of his marriage that he himself slowly destroyed. He knew he wasn't capable anymore and until he heals will likely deal with bad marriages the rest of his life. Then he'll maybe find a great wife like Jennifer Garner & leave her for another Jennifer ( same name, totality different character ) he could likely end up hurt like he hurt his wife. Not an Affleck fan. Definitely a Malick fan though and cannot wait for his film about Jesus, The Way of The Wind. Counting down the days.
@TheiPodStation completely agree. this is a great video essay but i think he missed the mark there. Quintana’s monologue on the end really hammers home how Malick intended to implement an overall Christian message into the film.
I got the idea that Neil and Marina were both unhappy in life and tried to find happiness by being together. But slowly they realized that being together wouldn’t fix the problems in their individual lives. This is made clear because their relationship is very vibrant in the beginning of the film, and it slowly cools off throughout the film, showing us how depressed both Neil and Marina are. That’s the impression I got.
Still, I think Terrence Malick is a very interesting director with his visual style. If only he worked with a great writer, his films would have been more accessible to the general audience.
Star Wars vs. Star Trek next month will surely garner views, but I think your Godzilla comparison worked well because it contrasted old with new within the same franchise model. I think a comparison of the 'best' and most thematically similar of the OT and the PT would be interesting. Why "The Empire Strikes Back" works so well and why "Revenge of the Sith"doesn't.
+Vic Randolph That's an interesting idea. I try to avoid negativity to focus on the idea that appreciating the qualities or value of a film is a separate thing from liking a film (and trust me, fewer movies make my blood boil more than the PT) but what's really interesting to me is that behind its obvious failings of execution (bad script, bad acting, poor visuals), from a mythological and thematic perspective, it holds up fairly well. It has enough good in it that we'll keep talking about them for decades to come. I'll give it some thought, see if I find an angle that's fresh.
I have not watched that's movie but i wonder some time in my life, thanks
Omg someone please tell me the song that plays at the very end when he says, "A new beginning." I need to hear the full version of that.
It's from Wagner's Parsifal.
I am fascinated by this movie...
For those with an interest in such things, would anyone care to venture a guess on the MBTI types of the characters in this film?
citizen kane is an EXCELLENT COMEDY
This was a fantastic analysis.
Thanks so much! Keep making videos; IMDb and other similar sites are wonderful, but their format of rating often weights the understandably frustrated low-raters' scores equally with the minority group of those who want to really look at Malick's work (and others) as a cohesive work rather than a vacuum with a "X out of 10 starts" slapped on it. This buries the complexities of this and other films from those who would otherwise pursue it, or have watched it and then find validation in their initial lack of understanding, and stop pursuing where they would otherwise continue to search for the true feeling of the films.
I feel the same way, man. Thanks for watching, and stay tuned for more! Working on an Aliens essay right now.
great job
Nice Job!
Did anyone else think that his relationship with Rachel McAdams was like a cheap, bastardized, imitation of his relationship with Marina? The juxtaposition of the first relationship set against the backdrop of awe inspiring beauty in France versus that of a dry, dull field surrounded by ugly cattle. He had a shot at true beauty and his lack of faith ruined it. Now he has to settle for something worse, though it could still be made beautiful, but alas his faithlessness ruins it again.
To me this was a film about a normal man who, without faith, destroys everyone and everything in his path.
Great video. I love that movie.
I was hoping you'd comment on the words of the priest in his sermons. Perhaps you didn't because the kinda shoot down your thesis of Malick's view of love in this film.
Wow man honestly you are a fucking genius
Good analysis, nice supporting details. I especially liked your opinions on movement. But the video is pretty subjective to the religious themes in the film. Still, I love seeing interesting and intelligent TH-cam videos. Thanks!
i really start to loose my patience with people that complain about the absence of "story" in games and movies. does it really take higher education to grasp the concept of filming concepts instead of facts!? this is what film is made for! moving pictures that resonate with the mind. dreams, thoughtscapes. what else would you do with film!?
just like games first and foremost are experiences and learning. silly people.
im starting to wonder,mif malick will be appreciated soon. the thin red line was criminallymoverlooked over pricate ryan.
a film without "a story" can easily replace ten with a story. get a grip. really.
Body languages have been getting old in Malick's films.
Absolutely insightful essay Rafael. Check this out. I believe this premise would have made To The Wonder more engaging.
www.thewrap.com/exclusive-details-terrence-malicks-untitled-drama-revealed-22882/
9:18😂
Big mistake casting Ben Asslick.
maybe he should make video games instead?
This may have been Malick's worst film when it came out, but the dung heaps knows as Knight of Cups and Song to Song have since surpassed it.
This movie was pretty but SO boring.
Terrific work -- have you read Richard Neer's article/essay on The New World? He talks about the idea of "worlds" a LOT and goes into how the formal elements of the film (composition, editing, camera movement, etc.) are just as important as what a character says or does.