The New World

[samsong]

shut up mod.

go see it, gamblour.

has anyone seen the dinner for five (ifc) with tim blake nelson (among others)?  he talked about malick as a director..."you're like a squid! washed up on shore, all spread out and letting your ink out all over the shore!" i love it.

[modage]

malicks time is over.  he had a chance to make his mark 30 years ago and he did.  and instead of giving us a few more films then, when he mattered, he decided to hibernate and when he awoke he hadnt evolved.  he just wanted to make more of the same.  and though  his style of filmmaking was really groundbreaking and different and original in the 70s its hardly that now.  if you like malick you will like this, no doubt.  but its hardly going to make a difference when people look back at the directors who shaped this decade.  ahh yes, the 00's: malick.  no, hes an old dude making his 1970s overly narrated visually poetic films.   and thats cool if thats what you want to see, but you know, inconsequential.  give me gondry.  give me anderson.  give me someone who can still make a difference.  someone who WANTS to MAKE a difference.  not some old dude stuck in his ways who refuses to be moved with the times.  robert altman may have a good movie every couple years like Gosford Park or Short Cuts or something but its hardly going to change the face of cinema like it did when he made MASH or Nashville.  its just not.  all artists have a window of relevence and then its over.  even in music, yeah maybe 'time out of mind' is a good album but its no 'blonde on blonde'  and its certainly no 'ok computer' so you know?  radiohead may not be as great as bob dylan was in his time but when it was THEIR TIME and it wasnt his they blew him out of the water.  do you see what i'm saying?  kubrick may have been an exception to the rule but malick is no kubrick.  i mean, i'm not going to say it was terrible because its not.  and i cant really even say there was much better last year because, lets face it, last year sucked.  but i will say that it was an inconsequential film that was received publically as it will be remembered cinematically.  which is to say, a blip.

let the hate begin.

[pete]

that is only if you believe a director's only virtue is in how much other directors talk about his body of work.  your attack of malick has solely been targeted towards his lack of iconic draw.  your preference over radiohead with this pseudo-zeitgeist talk was just a bunch of shit, and your failure to relate to this movie somehow made the movie unrelatable to all of humanity and all of 21st century.

[hedwig]

mod that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read, including everything george bush has said.

and though  his style of filmmaking was really groundbreaking and different and original in the 70s its hardly that now.  if you like malick you will like this, no doubt.  but its hardly going to make a difference when people look back at the directors who shaped this decade.  ahh yes, the 00's: malick.  no, hes an old dude making his 1970s overly narrated visually poetic films.   and thats cool if thats what you want to see, but you know, inconsequential. 

it's the same old thing with you. you're talking about visuals, his "style," the narration. the fact that perhaps the artistic style (the succession of images of the natural world etc.)  might serve as a formal analogue to the subject matter is of no interest to you. in fact it seems like the subject matter itself  is of no interest to you. same shit, different day.

robert altman may have a good movie every couple years like Gosford Park or Short Cuts or something but its hardly going to change the face of cinema like it did when he made MASH or Nashville. its just not. all artists have a window of relevence and then its over. even in music, yeah maybe 'time out of mind' is a good album but its no 'blonde on blonde' and its certainly no 'ok computer' so you know? radiohead may not be as great as bob dylan was in his time but when it was THEIR TIME and it wasnt his they blew him out of the water. do you see what i'm saying?

no more pointless comparisons please.

[matt35mm]

malicks time is over.  he had a chance to make his mark 30 years ago and he did.  and instead of giving us a few more films then, when he mattered, he decided to hibernate and when he awoke he hadnt evolved.  he just wanted to make more of the same.  and though  his style of filmmaking was really groundbreaking and different and original in the 70s its hardly that now.  if you like malick you will like this, no doubt.  but its hardly going to make a difference when people look back at the directors who shaped this decade.  ahh yes, the 00's: malick.  no, hes an old dude making his 1970s overly narrated visually poetic films.   and thats cool if thats what you want to see, but you know, inconsequential.  give me gondry.  give me anderson.  give me someone who can still make a difference.  someone who WANTS to MAKE a difference.  not some old dude stuck in his ways who refuses to be moved with the times.  robert altman may have a good movie every couple years like Gosford Park or Short Cuts or something but its hardly going to change the face of cinema like it did when he made MASH or Nashville.  its just not.  all artists have a window of relevence and then its over.  even in music, yeah maybe 'time out of mind' is a good album but its no 'blonde on blonde'  and its certainly no 'ok computer' so you know?  radiohead may not be as great as bob dylan was in his time but when it was THEIR TIME and it wasnt his they blew him out of the water.  do you see what i'm saying?  kubrick may have been an exception to the rule but malick is no kubrick.  i mean, i'm not going to say it was terrible because its not.  and i cant really even say there was much better last year because, lets face it, last year sucked.  but i will say that it was an inconsequential film that was received publically as it will be remembered cinematically.  which is to say, a blip.

let the hate begin.

It sounds like you're just intentionally trying to stir shit up because it amuses you how xixax will reliably fight with you over Malick.

But if you're actually serious, then I'll just say that some people are fascinated by the precise thing that you are attacking: Malick's whole living in his own bubble and doing his own thing instead of "wanting to make a difference."  Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.  People who make films to make some sort of difference or make the world a better place are just assy.  That's pussy art.  Give me the selfish old coot who has no desire but to do what he wants to do.

That said, it does make a difference, as all great (i.e. selfish) art does.  It makes a difference on an individual level.  It reminds people that you don't have to go with the flow, you can be a stubborn bastard in your art, and that you don't have to be consumed with the sissy idea of deliberate innovation.

[ono]

Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.

Agreed.

People who make films to make some sort of difference or make the world a better place are just assy.  That's pussy art.  Give me the selfish old coot who has no desire but to do what he wants to do.

Wait, what?  I haven't seen The New World yet, not that it matters.  But to me, this is a contradiction.  Maybe it's just how I look at film: as an altruistic endeavor.  The selfish thing, the thing that I'd want to do, is to make a film that's what I want.  That in turn WOULD "make the world a better place".  Malick does both, from what I've seen.  He lives in his bubble, does what he wants, and somehow, those in tune to his channel will have their world view changed.

[modage]

that is only if you believe a director's only virtue is in how much other directors talk about his body of work.  your attack of malick has solely been targeted towards his lack of iconic draw.  your preference over radiohead with this pseudo-zeitgeist talk was just a bunch of shit, and your failure to relate to this movie somehow made the movie unrelatable to all of humanity and all of 21st century.

yes i'm a little frustrated that everyone is raving about a film that did very little for me.  "barry lyndrome".  i guess i'm taking comfort in the fact that outside of a small circle of worshippers here and elsewhere the film will end up meaning very little as time passes.  not that, you know, Batman will mean a lot or anything, so to each his own, but people are raving about this like its really an EXPERIENCE.  2001 was an experience, this is a movie.

mod that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read, including everything george bush has said.  same shit, different day.

start with invalidating me end with frustration.

it's the same old thing with you. you're talking about visuals, his "style," the narration. the fact that perhaps the artistic style (the succession of images of the natural world etc.)  might serve as a formal analogue to the subject matter is of no interest to you. in fact it seems like the subject matter itself  is of no interest to you.

do i have to walk into a film with a pre-invested interest in the subject matter to appreciate it?  shouldnt the FILM make me interested in its subject?  yes yes it was a formal analogue to the tired subject matter of pocahantas and the early colonization of america.  its not as if he was telling a new story here, so it cant be the subject matter that is issuing these raves.  it has to be the way he is approaching it and the way he is choosing to tell a story you've heard versions of 1000 times before.   because i'm pretty sure that if it werent for his 'style' of filmmaking this would not be topping xixax's best of year lists. (i dont recall Pocahantas doing that when disney made it?)  people are going into this movie bringing their love and worship of the director and being happy with it.  if you want to love it, you will.  but he's not going to meet you halfway and convert anybody else.  you're with him or you're against him.  i do the same thing with plenty of other directors, malicks just not one of them.

It sounds like you're just intentionally trying to stir shit up because it amuses you how xixax will reliably fight with you over Malick.

But if you're actually serious, then I'll just say that some people are fascinated by the precise thing that you are attacking: Malick's whole living in his own bubble and doing his own thing instead of "wanting to make a difference."  Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.  People who make films to make some sort of difference or make the world a better place are just assy.  That's pussy art.  Give me the selfish old coot who has no desire but to do what he wants to do.

That said, it does make a difference, as all great (i.e. selfish) art does.  It makes a difference on an individual level.  It reminds people that you don't have to go with the flow, you can be a stubborn bastard in your art, and that you don't have to be consumed with the sissy idea of deliberate innovation.

i'm really not trying to stir up shit because it amuses me how xixax will react.  actually i've been biting my tongue on a lot of things recently mostly because i know what the backlash will be and i dont feel like dealing with it. especially in a situation like this where it will literally be me arguing EVERYONE, however, this is a message board and i do come here everyday so i figured better to just rant now and suffer the consequences of being shat on later.  i dont think i implied people who make films to make the world a better place.  i was referring more to young filmmakers who are selfish and stubborn because they think they can make a difference cinematically.  like young altman instead of old altman who is just frozen in his way.  so give me the selfish young filmmaker who is delusional enough to think he can actually have an impact and does.  i'm more interested in artists who want to push forward and not ones who are content to stay in place.

[cine]

Malick's whole living in his own bubble and doing his own thing instead of "wanting to make a difference."  Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.

selfish?! what the fuck is selfish about wanting to be an artist in the purest sense of the word? wheres the selfishness in that? its not selfishness: its FILMMAKING, folks. welcome to cinema!

mod, i dont know whats wrong with you. if malick had done Batman Begins you would've sucked him off on here until we all banned you for excessive posting/worst pictures ever.

but because all you could comprehend from this movie is "yeah couple good actors did a good job but man that was long and man what was that story ABOUT?" you feel the need to trash him and call him useless. disgusting.

i'm sorry, but i think you need a serious reality check to what cinema is.. why people make films.. and why people see them. you need a real general wake up call to cinema. it's not about "lets make a difference" or "who can make the best movie ever".. people go out and make a piece of art that means something to them that they're particularly passionate about and see if people will go out, buy a ticket and appreciate what they made.

thats about it. then theres some marketing and celebrities thrown in. but when it boils down to it, thats how things are. you have the most narrowminded sense of what films SHOULD ALL BE LIKE. and its so wrong, i cant believe i'm going on like this. because it seems like you're just doing this to stir the pot of hate. everyone is ripping on you cause its stupid. sorry, but thats it. stupid.

also, what is "give me gondry" and "give me anderson". they're still making movies, you don't need to wish they made every movie for you. see, they're artists too, get it? just like malick! they all make different art, see? malick doesn't need to be shit on just cause you don't get it.

[Pubrick]

Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.

Agreed.

selfish is the wrong word to use here. mallick is introspective and mod has always had a problem with that.

[matt35mm]

i'm really not trying to stir up shit because it amuses me how xixax will react.  actually i've been biting my tongue on a lot of things recently mostly because i know what the backlash will be and i dont feel like dealing with it. especially in a situation like this where it will literally be me arguing EVERYONE, however, this is a message board and i do come here everyday so i figured better to just rant now and suffer the consequences of being shat on later.  i dont think i implied people who make films to make the world a better place.  i was referring more to young filmmakers who are selfish and stubborn because they think they can make a difference cinematically.  like young altman instead of old altman who is just frozen in his way.  so give me the selfish young filmmaker who is delusional enough to think he can actually have an impact and does.

The "make the world a better place" was actually just me mocking the people who think that people should make art to make the world a better place.

I think you and I define selfishness differently.  I see "old altman who is just frozen in his way" as selfish, moreso than those who want to "make a difference cinematically."  See, Altman has always been the same: original, not purposely innovative.  My favorite artists live in their own heads, who obsess about making their own films in their own way.  They don't have to grow or adapt.  An Altman film now doesn't stir things up as much as an Altman film did in the 70s, but that's just because times have changed, and cinema has swallowed up his influence.  All the so-called innovative directors just brought their own unique vision to the stage, and now you're knocking them for having that vision instead of a new vision?  I'd hate it if they were all just about new new new new new all the time.  The next generation of filmmakers will bring something new just because they're different people who have grown up in a different time, and because they said I'm Gonna Do It MY Way, not I'm Gonna Do It Innovatively.  So nothing's changed--Malick, Altman, as well as Gondry and PTA are all just doing it their way.

That said, Malick seems to be making movies as well as he used to, so that's another thing.  Altman, less so, and I'd definitely say Scorsese is simply a weaker filmmaker now than he used to be.  That's a separate issue though.  Plus The New World seems to be the kind of movie that's not supposed to be connected to any timeline.  So just imagine you rented a Malick movie from the 70s.

Additionally, old people have little desire to change things.  That's the business of young people.  It's always been this way.

Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.

Agreed.

People who make films to make some sort of difference or make the world a better place are just assy.  That's pussy art.  Give me the selfish old coot who has no desire but to do what he wants to do.

Wait, what?  I haven't seen The New World yet, not that it matters.  But to me, this is a contradiction.  Maybe it's just how I look at film: as an altruistic endeavor.  The selfish thing, the thing that I'd want to do, is to make a film that's what I want.  That in turn WOULD "make the world a better place".  Malick does both, from what I've seen.  He lives in his bubble, does what he wants, and somehow, those in tune to his channel will have their world view changed.

I don't see it as an altruistic endeavor.  Yeah, it makes the world better to have magnificent works of art in it, but that's not what would motivate me, personally.  It's an indirect thing.  Your last sentence is just a rewording of what I already said, also, or at least what I meant to communicte.  I said it does make a difference.  That's the wonderful thing about art.  But I was responding more to that whole "innovation" business.  Innovation is also generally indirect.  I don't mean that artists don't want to do something different from what's been done before, but that's usually a selfish thing, also.  Or at least it is for me.  In my mind, it's more like, "I want to produce an original piece of work that's different than anything that's been made before because otherwise I would feel like I just copied somebody, I wouldn't feel like a real artist, and I wouldn't be happy with it no matter how many accolades it got if I didn't feel that I put something real into it."  Look at all the I's in that sentence.

I just know that I'm not motivated by altruism.  I don't do it for anybody but myself.

Malick's whole living in his own bubble and doing his own thing instead of "wanting to make a difference."  Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.

selfish?! what the fuck is selfish about wanting to be an artist in the purest sense of the word? wheres the selfishness in that? its not selfishness: its FILMMAKING, folks. welcome to cinema!

I don't mean it in a bad way.  I agree, that's cinema, that's art.  I just think that yeah, artists have to be more selfish.  Not in every way.  They can be all up into those charity events like many celebrities do, but being that pure artist is selfish.

See, if they're driven by a desire to please, then that's not selfish.  They'd be wanting to make people happy moreso than tapping into their own self to bring out something real.  A lot of the best art has that element of "I just made what I wanted to see."  That's the ultimate in selfishness, but fortunately, it was something new and something that we all wanted to see, too.

As Pubrick said, selfish may just be the wrong word, but it's the word that I'm using anyway because it makes sense to me.

[hedwig]

because i'm pretty sure that if it werent for his 'style' of filmmaking this would not be topping xixax's best of year lists. (i dont recall Pocahantas doing that when disney made it?)

yeah. Disney's version was equally as thoughtful, meditative and meaningful as Malick's New World and it was snubbed i tell ya, SNUBBED! this is getting ridiculous. it's funny that you accuse Malick and Altman of being stuck in their old ways when your approach to cinema hasn't changed a bit in at least two years. go read the Terrance Malick thread for proof.  observe, from two  years ago and just as true now as it was then, regarding The Thin Red Line:

because i dont see it.  so maybe someone can help me understand what i missed.

no dude, see that's impossible, no one can do that. ur insistance that it can be done is what's driving this and every other why-didn't-i-get-it discussion into boring circles.

i wasn't talking down to u, but lately u've been dissing "arty" movies like there's sumthing wrong with the ppl who like it or "get it". i've noticed that ur a normal and decent person, and u seem to hav a consistently normal and decent taste in movies. that's all that can be said about this. what ur lookin for in a movie is way different to what say I or budgie found.

the first thing i think about when watching a "meaningful" film is the idea it's working with, if the performances and the visuals are working to expand it. this is a perfect example of a movie i can absolutely agree would SUCK if u didn't grab onto one of its ideas. all this shit to u comes off as "three hours of ppl talking deep shit that doesn't mean anytjhing". that's fine. i think ur totally normal. and i think u hav to come to peace with that.

end of discussion.

[modage]

robert altman may have a good movie every couple years like Gosford Park or Short Cuts or something but its hardly going to change the face of cinema like it did when he made MASH or Nashville. its just not. all artists have a window of relevence and then its over. even in music, yeah maybe 'time out of mind' is a good album but its no 'blonde on blonde' and its certainly no 'ok computer' so you know? radiohead may not be as great as bob dylan was in his time but when it was THEIR TIME and it wasnt his they blew him out of the water. do you see what i'm saying?

no more pointless comparisons please.

you mean the only comparison that might have a chance to let people know what i'm talking about?  bob dylan is a great artist, no one is denying that.  but did he make the best album of 1997?  i dont think he did.  and that doesnt even imply as time moves on that radiohead are somehow greater than dylan but in that moment they were.  bob dylan didnt matter like he did in the 60s and radiohead did.  and they made the best album of the year/decade.  so argue my 'window of relevency' theory all you want.  but its my belief and it usually holds up pretty true.  sure, there will always be exceptions and it is a total matter of opinion.  its just my opinion.  i really dont care to see what Godards up to these days or Bergman.  many of you do.  Saraband and In Praise Of Love on lists abound.  but i just feel like the time for them to really make an impact is over with and i'm more interested in watching films from people who have a chance to make them.  maybe as i get older i'll have clung to anderson or whoever until they get bad or worse irrelevent.  but for now, i'm mostly interested in where its going.  and malick is really making the same films that he couldve made 30 years ago and i'll agree theres something beautiful about that.  ESPECIALLY if you love his films and the way he makes them.

but because all you could comprehend from this movie is "yeah couple good actors did a good job but man that was long and man what was that story ABOUT?" you feel the need to trash him and call him useless. disgusting.

i never called him useless.  and as far as trashing him goes i said "he had a chance to make a mark 30 years ago AND HE DID, his style of filmmaking was really groundbreaking and different and original, and i cant really even say there was much better last year."  my argument and feel free to prove me wrong is that Malick has NOT CHANGED.  he is making films the same way he made them before he left for better or worse.  no?  i did say he was irrelevent and if you want to tell me why or how he is not, i'd like to hear it.

i'm sorry, but i think you need a serious reality check to what cinema is.. why people make films.. and why people see them. you need a real general wake up call to cinema. it's not about "lets make a difference" or "who can make the best movie ever".. people go out and make a piece of art that means something to them that they're particularly passionate about and see if people will go out, buy a ticket and appreciate what they made.

hold on...

I think you and I define selfishness differently.  I see "old altman who is just frozen in his way" as selfish, moreso than those who want to "make a difference cinematically."  See, Altman has always been the same: original, not purposely innovative.  My favorite artists live in their own heads, who obsess about making their own films in their own way.  They don't have to grow or adapt.  An Altman MALICK film now doesn't stir things up as much as an Altman MALICK film did in the 70s, but that's just because times have changed, and cinema has swallowed up his influence.  So nothing's changed--Malick, Altman, as well as Gondry and PTA are all just doing it their way.

That said, Malick seems to be making movies as well as he used to, so that's another thing.  Altman, less so, and I'd definitely say Scorsese is simply a weaker filmmaker now than he used to be.  That's a separate issue though.  Plus The New World seems to be the kind of movie that's not supposed to be connected to any timeline.  So just imagine you rented a Malick movie from the 70s.

Additionally, old people have little desire to change things.  That's the business of young people.  It's always been this way.

hey, EXACTLY.  out of the mouth of a sane person.  and thats pretty much my point right there. 

see, people are putting words in my mouth because you're so blinded with hate and disgust you're trying to immediately villanize me.  how about argue 1 of 2 points. 

1. i say Malick has not changed or evolved.

i didn't get one disagreement on that.

2. i also say that most artists have a window of relevency.  when it closes their time is over with.  thats not to say all their work will be bad or shit and its not to say that they will never make something great again.  it IS to say that they will never have the chance to make an impact on art that way again.  (this is especially true to those artists who refuse to change). 

another example being, Match Point was pretty great.  but its never going to be Annie Hall no matter how many critics hold it up there beside it. 

so i guess my outburst was born out of everyone praising this like it blew their minds.  and i dont see how it could.  this film is nothing that he couldnt have and didnt do 30 years ago.  (he even wrote the script 30 years ago and dusted it off to film today!) so if you really want to make an argument tell me how this film is great.  and how malicks statement will make a difference the way other great films of this decade might.  because nobody is walking out of this film surprised. maybe surprised that its as good as his other films but not surprised by the film.  you know exactly what you're going to get with him and to me, who is not enamored with him, is a little boring.  perhaps the same could be argued with people who dislike spielbergs consistent sentimentality but i would argue that atleast he has evolved as a filmmaker (again, for better or worse). 

because i'm pretty sure that if it werent for his 'style' of filmmaking this would not be topping xixax's best of year lists. (i dont recall Pocahantas doing that when disney made it?)

yeah. Disney's version was equally as thoughtful, meditative and meaningful as Malick's New World and it was snubbed i tell ya, SNUBBED! this is getting ridiculous. it's funny that you accuse Malick and Altman of being stuck in their old ways when your approach to cinema hasn't changed a bit in at least two years. go read the Terrance Malick thread for proof.

you said SUBJECT MATTER.  subject matter is "Explorer John Smith and the clash between Native Americans and English settlers in the 17th century."  thats the subject matter of the film, its not what its about but what its about. so are you really going to convince me that everyone here loves the film because of that?  they love it because they love Malicks STYLE of filmmaking.  the way he makes them, the way they look, the way they sound, the themes he brings up, the STYLE.  call it something else if you want but it aint subject matter.

[Ghostboy]

I think Malick's personal style has evolved quite a bit, actually, in keeping with but at a higher level than that of his previous work; he's hit a rather transcendentalist epoch, cinematically speaking. The reason people who really love this do really love it, and respond to it as if it is 2001, is because Malick has pushed certain cinematic techniques - primarily in terms of juxtaposition - further than they have in the past, resulting in a.) various subconscious reactions that Eisenstein would be proud of and b.) a formal mode of narrative that really hasn't been seen before at this level. To use a rather overblown analogy, this film has a bone-to-spaceship cut in it every five minutes. No one had seen anything like that cut at the time of 2001's release; likewise, although they're more subtle, the editing throughout this film, on the whole, is pretty groundbreaking.

I have to cop out, though: I think the film is absolutely extraordinary, and while I'd love nothing more than to explain exactly why, I've only seen it twice and haven't completely grasped its form (which is great, actually - I love that it's a mystery to me). I make an early attempt at explaining it in my review, but I'll be doing a more analytical look at the film once I have it on DVD.

[modage]

i love you because i believe what you say and because fire doesnt come out of your mouth when you talk. 

[Sunrise]

2. i also say that most artists have a window of relevency. when it closes their time is over with. thats not to say all their work will be bad or shit and its not to say that they will never make something great again. it IS to say that they will never have the chance to make an impact on art that way again. (this is especially true to those artists who refuse to change).

another example being, Match Point was pretty great. but its never going to be Annie Hall no matter how many critics hold it up there beside it.

so i guess my outburst was born out of everyone praising this like it blew their minds. and i dont see how it could. this film is nothing that he couldnt have and didnt do 30 years ago. (he even wrote the script 30 years ago and dusted it off to film today!) so if you really want to make an argument tell me how this film is great. and how malicks statement will make a difference the way other great films of this decade might. because nobody is walking out of this film surprised. maybe surprised that its as good as his other films but not surprised by the film. you know exactly what you're going to get with him and to me, who is not enamored with him, is a little boring. perhaps the same could be argued with people who dislike spielbergs consistent sentimentality but i would argue that atleast he has evolved as a filmmaker (again, for better or worse).

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. Certainly Malick's art will have much less impact on today's audiences than it did in the 70s, but I do not think that diminishes its quality in any way. It's more of a reflection of the expectations of today's movie-going public, which is unfortunate. I am of the opinion that while each of his films has similar, recognizable traits, they have gotten successively more complex and are of increased artistic merit. Many would say the same for Kubrick's films, but are reluctant to claim his later films had no impact.

Ghostboy made a great point by admitting to the difficulty of pinpointing exactly why The New World is so extraordinary on only one, or maybe even two, viewings. For those who engage with a filmmaking style that allows the viewer to find their own way through, it may take awhile to reach the point where analysis can be articulated coherently. That is one reason The New World, for me, is so intoxicating.