Climbing To God (Well No Wonder)

I saw the crowd getting out from the previous showing.  The first group was a young couple.  "That was pretty good," the guy said to his girlfriend.

The next couple that walked by me was maybe 45 to 50.  The husband turned to his wife and just shrugged his shoulders.  It was a nonverbal;  "I don't know?  What did you think?"

The next and last group that came out were in their late 60s, I would guess.  3 couples.

"Wow.  That was the worst movie."

"That has to be one of the worst films ever or I just didn't get it."

"There is no way we could have known how bad that would be."

Such is the nature of a Terrence Malick film.  My favorite filmmaker.

I laughed to myself and walked in with high anticipation to see his latest; "To The Wonder."

There has probably never been an audience for a Malick film (at least in his "later" period) that came out and all agreed how great the film was.   But, there is probably often that one person who is also quite captivated.  I am that one person when I go see his movies.

I was actually the only person in the theater at my 9:45pm showing.  And what I saw, while not quite to the lofty heights of some previous Malick films, was still for me a great and enjoyable movie going experience.  One that is also fairly easy to understand in my opinion.  While still being the type of work that can generate meaningful discussion

Love him or hate him Malick is a legendary director.  One that audiences do not flock to but many critics get excited about.  With "To The Wonder," the critics have not been kind.  And to some extent, I don't understand it.  I know Malick isn't for everyone.  I know even as he won the Palme d 'Or for his last film, "The Tree of Life," people also booed it at Cannes after its screening.  He is divisive.  Very.

But I think there is something more to the derision by critics this time around.  And it is something he has been hitting on in every film since his first.  It is God.

But this time God is loud and clear and its hard to argue its a Christian God and no other.  And I think for critics that was finally too much.

This is a film, overtly Christian enough, I feel church groups could get parishioners together to go see it.  The reason that hasn't or will not ever happen is because:

A:  Its an "art film,"   (see the comments of the last couples above)
B:  Its got sex it in.

The sex part is possibly interesting, being church congregations went in mass to see the extreme violence of "The Passion of The Christ."  But I understand. 

I don't remember sex scenes in any other Malick film.  They give it its R rating, which unlike the well deserved R for "The Passion Of The Christ," here feels a bit silly.  I can't think of a tamer R rated film.

Those scenes are not remotely gratuitous   They help tell a story of a relationship.  And the most loving sex we see in the film, is after the couple has gotten married.  Not before.  I am not the only one who noticed this.

Film critic for The New Yorker, David Denby: "We don’t need to be chastised with the ideal of Christian love to understand that sex isn’t enough.”

Huh?

Critics have called the film shallow; which feels to me like the very last thing it is.  It's only a thin film if you don't like the message.  Which most of them interestingly enough don't mention.  This is like reviewing "Friday The 13th," and not mentioning its intended to be scary.

Is an overt Christian message by definition, a thin one?  This is what they seem to be saying.














As far as the film itself.  I loved it.   I continue to have both an understanding of why people don't like Malick films, as well as an "How do they not like this guy's work?" kind of attitude.

I was worried when I heard Ben Affleck was cast (Christian Bale was the original choice).  But he is fine for what and who he is meant to be and represent in my opinion.  The true accolades for the actors must go to the non American members of the cast.  Olga Kurylenko as Marina; you can not take your eyes off her.  And my favorite performance is by Javier Bardem as a priest who feels far away from God.

As far as settings go, Mont St. Michael is a wonderful choice.














This is the "Wonder" of the title.  Or at least one of them.  The early scenes there between Marina and Neil seem to set the stage for everything that comes after.

Once back in America, Neil works as a type of geologist/environmental advocate, taking soil samples of the contaminated neighborhood near his own home.  The worried locals, in one scene start following him down the street as if he were literally their savior.  Contrast this to Neil and Marina jumping lightly on the mud surrounding Mont St. Michael.  It seems a bit perilous and indeed that area is in fact dangerous.  But they never fall through.  Back in the States, Neil struggles to climb a high mound of dirt, which signifies all of his ongoing struggles at the time, as well as contrasting their earlier "climbing the steps to the wonder."  

In fact steps and stairs are a recurring theme.

You might be reminded of Jacob's steps.  His stairway or ladder to Heaven.

Later, we see Neil looking up the stairs of the home he shares with Marina.  Looking for her as she looks down from above.  Neither really wanting to be seen by the other.

Marina being above Neil is not happenstance.  Marina seems on a higher spiritual plane; maybe than anyone in the film.  Though I argue Bardem's preist, is a sympathetic  portrayal.   Something actually rare in movies.


Amongst all the classical music and hushed tones is the fact that most of the time these actors are constantly moving.

Something I felt was intentional became reinforced to me by Bilge Ibiri.  His theory being "To The Wonder," is really a ballet.


"He wanted his films to break free of typical narrative methods and to adopt a more musical style of discourse.  Malick seemed to achieve that with the movement-based structure of The Tree of Life.  There, what we were seeing and hearing on screen seemed more often to correlate to the meter of a symphonic movement than to the typical narrative "acts" of a film."  (1)

Even when people are not moving fast like Marina, the movements do feel intentional and even akin to dance.  As in the scene where Neil and Jane (Rachel McAdams) are out amongst the Bison.  Neil and Jane have deliberate head movements.  Jane looks everywhere she can but at Neil.  Once she finally does look at Neil she quickly averts her gaze, as if she just looked at the sun.  It is just one example of literal physical movement telling the story.


The beach as afterlife in "The Tree of Life," might help us better look at this film as well.

This is in many ways the smallest Malick film in scope.  And yet there is a lot here to ruminate on and enjoy if one goes into it with the right state of mind.

I believe the reputation of this film (like "The New World" and "The Thin Red Line") will improve over time.

If Malick or this specific film, isn't your thing, I'm ok with that.

But if its something more.  If a film concerning God isn't your thing, then let us be honest about that.  It does not seem so obvious until you never mention the themes in the first place.

(1)  http://ebiri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/to-wonder-i-write-on-water-things-i.html


(2)  I almost did not write anything on this film, because I see there are more than a few very strong pieces written on it already.  For a very strong piece on the film, read Jugu Abraham's review, linked below.

Though I might suggest you read only after you have seen the film.

http://moviessansfrontiers.blogspot.in/2013/04/144-us-director-terrence-malicks-sixth.html

The Last Critic

For the first 21 years of my life, I never knew life without my dog. She came along the same time as my brother. And picking her out amongst a sea of golden retriever puppies is one of my  earliest memories of anything. Her death as I was entering an age of adulthood signaled a true ending of a time frame for me.

As silly as that sounds, I think any of us can look back on people and things that were always there, even beyond our parents and siblings.  I recently realized Roger Ebert was always there too.

 

I remember discovering Siskel and Ebert at a very young age and having to see every episode. This was before I even decided I loved movies. I surely did not see that many. And through no fault of her own, taking me to see the next Werner Herzog film was not a priority of my mother's at the time.

Shortly before Gene Siskel's death, he talked about "The Thin Red Line," as one of his favorite movies of that year. Roger Ebert preferred the "realism" of "Saving Private Ryan," to the "poetry" of Terrence Malick's "Red Line." Siskel’s counter argument was the notion that there are no atheists in foxholes. He preferred the poetry.

I watched this review and then went out and saw "The Thin Red Line," the next day.  I have loved Terrence Malick films ever since.  And in the back of my mind, I always figured one reason for my love of his films, was my belief in God.    

It was one of the last films Siskel would have the energy to talk about on camera.  Just two weeks after taping his last show, he would die.  As Ebert himself got sicker and closer to death, he had a noticeable increasing appreciation for Malick. I do not think this is wish fulfillment as a fan of both critic and filmmaker. His 3 Star review of "The Thin Red Line," (1998) seemed to grow over time into a greater love and admiration. When Martin Scorsese named it the best film made in the 90s, Ebert gushed his admiration for it as well. 

"The New World," (2005) would receive his highest rating of 4 stars and "The Tree of Life," (2011) would make Ebert's final list of the Top 10 Films Ever Made. Malick’s "Days of Heaven,"(1978) would open EbertFest, a film festival with movies hand picked by the critic, just a week after his death.

So what? People's admiration for an artist's work grows over the years. Yes. But no director is more spiritual (in the best sense of that word I so often hate) than Malick. No one makes you think of God more, while often rarely mentioning Him. I've wondered if Ebert, like Siskel before him, started to love the poetry over the realism.

And being Ebert was a non-believer makes this observation all the more interesting to me.

 

I preferred Siskel. I believe he was a superior critic based on shared preferences and arguments. 

 

But based on writing ability, Ebert had few equals. He was a hell of a writer. He could write about a film you did not enjoy (or did) and almost, convince you that you were wrong.  He could condemn a film in ways wanna be critics of today do not understand.  He could explain why with much more than "that sucked," because he understood film.     

Writing about a film myself, I would make it a goal not to quote Ebert. But I usually failed with this; he was so extremely quotable.

Ebert was always at a computer; I am sure more so after he lost his ability to speak. As a follower of his on Twitter, one could feel more of a connection to him than any other "celebrity," who might tweet where we could see their new film or stand up routine. Ebert would tweet throughout the day. Maybe 50 times a day. He would read every comment from his blog. He would often answer questions directly to you, if he did not find a place for them online (as in his Movie Answer Man Section). I know this because he emailed me with an answer to a question once. I do not remember the question or the answer, just that it appeared it was really Ebert corresponding with me.

In this insight of a kind of knowing, few famous people give you, you got to know Ebert a little bit. And it wasn’t all great.

Ebert could be kind of an ass.

 

His condescending way of speaking could grow tiresome.  Bashing Right Leaning Christians, or anyone that has ever disagreed with him or voted differently.  My twitter account is a who's who of people I do not agree with.  But Ebert would venture into the Michael Savage realm of unnecessary meanness in his arguments.  I know I unfollowed his account at least once. 

When a cast member of the film, "Jackass," died in a car accident, Ebert quickly tweeted,"Friends don't let Jackasses drink and drive."

While alcohol may have been a factor, it was too soon to know for sure as well as highly insensitive to call a dead man a jackass. Ebert was disingenuous with part of his defense being, the deceased was on Jackass, so he therefore did not say anything wrong.

Other times he could be far more intelligent and clever with his venom.

His exchange with director Vincent Gallo is classic. Ebert reviewed Gallo's "The Brown Bunny," at Cannes, calling it the worst film he had ever seen play at the French Film Festival.

Gallo responded by unoriginally insulting Ebert's weight as well as wishing that Roger would catch colon cancer. Ebert responded by saying his colonoscopy was more entertaining than Gallo's film. And concerning his weight, "Someday I will be thin, but Vincent Gallo will always be the director of The Brown Bunny."

After his initial illness and time off from his show. New partner Richard Roeper used various guest hosts, waiting in vain for Ebert to be able to return. Eventually "At The Movies" was retooled with Ben Lyons as a co host with Ben Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was and is a respected critic. Lyons was horrible. The privileged son of critic Jeffrey Lyons, viewers not only felt they knew exactly why and how Lyons got the job, they also knew he wasn't ready for such a leap.

 

And Ebert responded with a highly entertaining criticism in the form of an article titled, "Roger's Little Rule Book." In it he mentions rules for film critics. All of which were things Lyons was reportedly violating at the time. "Accept No Favors," "Be Prepared To Give a Negative Review," "Never Review A Film You Had Anything To Do With," "No Posing For Photos," (meaning actors or directors)" "No Autographs," etc.

 

The producers of the show surely took on Lyons to attract a younger audience. But viewership immediately took a nose dive and the show Ebert had kept afloat for years was cancelled quickly. Ebert's reputation only grew from the debacle. While he still gets some work, Lyons is mostly a joke now in the industry.

I don't believe Gene Siskel was a religious man at all. I know Roger Ebert was not. He wrote of it often; his atheism, or agnosticism or whatever label he would accuse others of putting on him. “Secular Humanist,” is the label he came to prefer.  But for a nonbeliever, and one critical of religion, he did seem to acknowledge a continual religious respect of some kind. 

Maybe this was an example of a God-shaped hole theory, that all us knowingly or not want to fill. 

Maybe he just enjoyed the pomp of religion.

For Atheists,
There's no good news.

They'll never sing,

A song of faith.

In their songs,

They have a rule.

The "he" is always lowercase.

- Steve Martin

"If I were to say I don't believe God exists, that wouldn't mean I believe God doesn't exist. Nor does it mean I don't know, which implies that I could know." -Roger Ebert How I Believe In God

Interestingly, the former Catholic altar-boy married a woman that is from his descriptions, a strong Christian. 

“I consider myself Catholic, lock, stock and barrel, with this technical loophole: I cannot believe in God. I refuse to call myself a atheist however, because that indicates too great a certainty about the unknowable.” -Roger Ebert How I am a roman catholic

“I believe mankind in general evidently has a need to believe in higher powers and an existence not limited to the physical duration of the body. But these needs are hopes, and believing them doesn't make them true." 

Concerning his awe of how we were possibly here in the first place He surmised quantum theory. And he did seem to be fascinated by it all.  "I am not a believer, not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am still awake at night, asking how? I am more content with the question than I would be with an answer."   -Roger Ebert    How I Believe In God 

Ebert might have written a story he was unaware of.  I suppose his story could be read differently by everyone.  But I read a most fascinating journey, written out in opinion pieces and movie reviews.  Sometimes I would find beauty in his words; even in the way he would describe his non belief.  Other times he seemed to hit all around something and in my opinion, miss the true meaning.  Or just fall short of making a more perfect connection. 

"Some few films evoke the wonderment of life's experience, and those I consider a form of prayer. Not prayer "to" anyone or anything, but prayer "about" everyone and everything. I believe prayer that makes requests is pointless. What will be, will be. But I value the kind of prayer when you stand at the edge of the sea, or beneath a tree, or smell a flower, or love someone, or do a good thing. Those prayers validate existence and snatch it away from meaningless routine."    -Roger Ebert         "A Prayer Beneath The Tree of Life"

 
Roger Ebert, was a lot of guys. His reviews would show both aggravating closed mindedness as well as other times huge levels of open mindedness; to enjoy a film whose subject matter he might not agree with.

“The Passion of the Christ”: “My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably.

I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.”     4 Stars

Other times Ebert was far less gracious for films that went against his view of things. For the longest time, he refused to even see Ben Stein’s Anti-Darwin film, “Expelled.” Eventually he did write a lengthy article about it, in which he eviscerates it completely.

If Ebert did have a religion, it was Darwinism.

Ebert's death was a long time coming.  He knew his days were getting shorter, faster than most.  The way he decided to face this, might be what I admired about him the most.

"Movies idealize the dying."  -Roger Ebert

He coined the phrase, "Ali MacGraw Syndrome."

"That's the medical condition in which you grow more and more beautiful until you die,” he said.  

Ebert knew that is not the case.  His appearance in losing his jaw to cancer, was off putting to many.  While he was always "the fat one," to Siskel's, "the bald one," his appearance was now such that he could not appear on television regularly.  But this did not stop him from showing the world what he looked like.  What dying looked like.  And how it did not resemble a young Ali MacGraw.  

He would liken his appearance to the Phantom of the Opera (the old silent film version).  A local NC comic, upon just recently seeing his appearance at the news of his death, joked he looked like the Puppets in Genesis' "Land of Confusion," video. 

It is a blessing he possessed the Type A personality that would not allow him to die a recluse.  He probably worked as much as ever. 

"Here is a character who says, I see it coming, I will face it, I will not turn away, I will observe it as long as my eyes and my mind still function."  -Roger Ebert  (Describing the main character in the film "Melancholia.")     Melancholia Descends on Toronto

"I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear."   -Roger Ebert             Roger Ebert:  The Essential Man

Ebert seemed in my outsider’s view to follow the way of Nature. And I understand that. But my prayer was (indeed to someone) that he maybe followed the way of Grace at the end as well.

The last film Roger Ebert ever reviewed was Terrence Malick's "To The Wonder."

The least regarded film in the love him or hate him, director's canon; Ebert found much to love in his 3.5 star review.

"There will be many who find "To the Wonder" elusive and too effervescent. They'll be dissatisfied by a film that would rather evoke than supply. I understand that, and I think Terrence Malick does, too. But here he has attempted to reach more deeply than that: to reach beneath the surface, and find the soul in need."