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!
@sky44david6 жыл бұрын
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.
@jakepope47709 жыл бұрын
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.
@TheLongTake9 жыл бұрын
+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 :)
@sobrevida1572 ай бұрын
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..
@nataliashestakova7604 жыл бұрын
This is one of my favorite movies! I've watched it already twice. Malick is genius!!!. Thank you for the amazing analysis!
@tatjanapetrovicrava36768 жыл бұрын
What a beautiful analyses of one of my favorite movies (unfortunately - very much underestimated by "experts" ) ! Thank you !!!
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
Thank you for watching! Malick is criminally misunderstood, in my opinion.
@oooodaxteroooo7 жыл бұрын
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.
@Eric-xt3os7 жыл бұрын
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.
@herewegokids74 жыл бұрын
Yup
@davitzeiro8 жыл бұрын
Amazing analysis Rafael! Thank you very much for uploading this. It's beautiful what you have done.
@davidsb19998 жыл бұрын
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.
@svenniefcb8 жыл бұрын
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.
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
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?
@svenniefcb8 жыл бұрын
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'.
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
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!
@svenniefcb8 жыл бұрын
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 :)
@RensFindhammer8 жыл бұрын
Sven Hollebeke ik ben benieuwd naar je thesis (en ook nog Nederlands)! kan ik 'm misschien ergens lezen?
@wilde57498 жыл бұрын
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!
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
+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!
@BD-qc8zz7 жыл бұрын
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.
@antonyriley18548 жыл бұрын
brilliant analysis of one of my favourite films
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
@kevfoda8 жыл бұрын
You should watch more movies man.
@shivzzi7 жыл бұрын
Terrence Malick is probably the only art-house director I've seen who manages to get all these huge stars somehow
@andrewgaleadebono58214 жыл бұрын
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.
@petersmith96336 жыл бұрын
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.
@An7h0nY8 жыл бұрын
Almost reads like Kierkegaard. Thank you for a wonderful analysis.
@yougianfir4 жыл бұрын
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
@oooodaxteroooo7 жыл бұрын
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! :)
@jclcrow26214 жыл бұрын
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.
@outismind19818 жыл бұрын
Very good job! I loved your video, i think you deeply understood the movie of Malick.
@christopheredwards1908 жыл бұрын
Love your videos Rafa! Keep it up.
@synthphonix Жыл бұрын
One of my favorite films. So hard, so deep, so real.
@MaxiEliShorter8 жыл бұрын
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?
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
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.
@davidsb19998 жыл бұрын
Brilliant comment, man. I totally agree.
@oooodaxteroooo7 жыл бұрын
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.
@shomingeki7 жыл бұрын
great analysis about an often underestimated masterpiece.
@matienazemy1382 Жыл бұрын
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.
@PBGreen-pn8yt8 жыл бұрын
Nice work...The doubtful believer might be the soul of art.
@danieldelarocha17317 жыл бұрын
Well put!
@drummersnail1153 жыл бұрын
Made me appreciate this film a lot more than before ! Great analysis
@DanDylan3 жыл бұрын
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
@danieldelarocha17317 жыл бұрын
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.
@TheLongTake7 жыл бұрын
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!
@aminkh68724 жыл бұрын
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
@muhammaddadanachdian7 жыл бұрын
I have not watched that's movie but i wonder some time in my life, thanks
@davo2497274 жыл бұрын
Wow. Amazing anaylsis! Really loved it.
@BruceShigi7 жыл бұрын
Amazing analysis. Thank you for this.
@TheiPodStation5 жыл бұрын
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.
@liasunshine7470 Жыл бұрын
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.
@megamatt1915 Жыл бұрын
@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.
@TheGeorgeD135 жыл бұрын
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.
@MovieMaster00018 жыл бұрын
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.
@williamhammond72998 жыл бұрын
It's from Wagner's Parsifal.
@madridspain38187 жыл бұрын
I rather watch To the Wonder 100 times than to watch 1 minute of a Kentucky Fried Chicken movie like The Avengers.
@yusufyusuf7913 Жыл бұрын
15:48 this shot is abslute beauty
@bastiat83225 ай бұрын
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.
@alexlozowski6726 Жыл бұрын
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?
@anneweber56928 жыл бұрын
You have a nice voice - you made me want to listen
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
You know, that's the first time anyone has ever said that to me. Thank you!
@fashizzlebadizzle65529 жыл бұрын
Great vid!
@heroperseus0077 жыл бұрын
Never saw this film but I just like listening to your analysis of these films. Is this movie good.
@VictorEzra9 жыл бұрын
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.
@TheLongTake9 жыл бұрын
+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.
@yash15518 жыл бұрын
Nice analysis. What mic do you use? Excellent audio ✌
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
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.
@yash15518 жыл бұрын
Thank so much! Keep it up dude, already subscribed. :)
@sperimentalpower32749 жыл бұрын
great job
@dvsteve718 жыл бұрын
Nice Job!
@dannykansas91098 жыл бұрын
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.
@TheLongTake8 жыл бұрын
I feel the same way, man. Thanks for watching, and stay tuned for more! Working on an Aliens essay right now.
@itsmethemusicman47043 жыл бұрын
citizen kane is an EXCELLENT COMEDY
@adverseinperpetuity3 жыл бұрын
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.
@NickySmartFLA6 жыл бұрын
Great video. I love that movie.
@evadwall10576 жыл бұрын
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.
@bautistagonzalez4989 Жыл бұрын
Wow man honestly you are a fucking genius
@stevensong87847 жыл бұрын
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/
@DaleRobby7 жыл бұрын
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 KZbin videos. Thanks!
@yusufyusuf7913 Жыл бұрын
9:18😂
@oooodaxteroooo7 жыл бұрын
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.
@pachecoking1009 жыл бұрын
maybe he should make video games instead?
@dudeonyoutube6 жыл бұрын
Big mistake casting Ben Asslick.
@SirRunk6667 жыл бұрын
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.
@LordJagd8 жыл бұрын
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.