The New World

[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.

[Pozer]

Just a bit more Johnny come lately fire because I just read through most of the malarkey.

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.

Dude, you didn't like the movie, we got it 20 posts ago.  Most who have seen it here did, get over it and move on.  Don't write 'Malick's time is over' (cannot stand when those in the minority on a subject state crap like that).  Yes he made his mark 30 years ago and his films are better with each progression.
aaah never mind.  Little Ghost did it justice.

[cine]

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.

right. you EXPECT malick to change and that's unfair. that's like US expecting YOU to change your beliefs eventually and there's no chance in hell that's going to happen. and why is that? that's because we're all human beings and we're going to say and do what we feel is in our nature. calling him irrelevent is just harsh to him as an artist. those are the terms you should be thinking in cause you're missing the points here.

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.[/u]

and thats pretty much MY point right there.  people like malick are just doing it THEIR way. not the way you EXPECT people to do it.. they're being ARTISTS. that's why its wrong to say malick is "irrelevent" now. an artist isn't irrelevent because an artists job is NOT to change. by definition, an artist is: "One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts." you're not going to agree with this definition but that's what it is. and that's malick. you aren't going to agree with that either because you were bored but that's you. fine. but this is why mostly everyone here feels the exact opposite. thats where all the hate is coming from: your ignorance to what art is, not what you expect it to be for you.

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). 

well Sunrise said it great right 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.

[modage]

Dude, you didn't like the movie, we got it 20 posts ago.  Most who have seen it here did, get over it and move on.  Don't write 'Malick's time is over' (cannot stand when those in the minority on a subject state crap like that).  Yes he made his mark 30 years ago and his films are better with each progression.

no, you apparently dont get it.  i liked the movie fine.  i just didnt think it was the 2nd coming like most of you around here.   and while i may be the only one around here not in malicks church, outside of xixax i'm hardly in the minority.  56% Rotten Tomatometer.  51% on critics who matter.  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/new_world/ 

That sound you're about to hear is the cracking of spines as Terrence Malick enthusiasts like me bend over backward trying to cut The New World a break. Warning: All but die-hards should call the travel agent and change itineraries.

""Did you find your Indies, John?" Pocahontas asks when they meet once more (in a formal garden) toward the end of her remarkable life. "I may have sailed past them," Captain Smith mumbles meaningfully. So too Malick: The New World scarcely lacks for ambition, but to provide the disorientation the filmmaker courts, he would need the restraint of Bresson or the chops of Tarkovsky. Some 25 years in the making, The New World offers only a glimpse of an unattainable realm that fades into the mist even as you search for it.

   

That's because Malick is of the introspective sort. He's the only man in history who could make a boring movie about the battle of Guadalcanal ("The Thin Red Line") and turn a Charles Starkweather-like mad dog's kill spree into a philosophic inquiry ("Badlands.") Here his distance from emotional engagement keeps the players far away, as if through the wrong lens of a telescope; thus it's hard to feel much for them or their turmoil, if it's turmoil at all they're feeling. "The New World" is stately almost to the point of being static and thus has trouble finding a central story around which to arrange itself; it's not quite the thin dead line, but it's close.

   

But the film's impact begins and, disappointingly, ends with these tactile, impressionistic effects. Minimalizing dialogue in favor of mostly unilluminating voice-over narration from Smith, Pocahontas and, later, newly arrived Englishman John Rolfe, screenwriter Malick (who first penned the script 25 years ago) can't get inside the heads of any of his characters and fails to establish a connection for the audience.  In the end, there is also a feeling of pictorial repetition of what Malick has done before, particularly in the reliance on nature shots; more than once, one is made to recall the old saw about how, if a scene isn't cutting together, you cut to a seagull flying overhead. With this and the heavy narration, one senses a certain artistic treading water, the opposite of what the churning waterborne motifs of "Das Rheingold" are meant to suggest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

right. you EXPECT malick to change and i think that's unfair. that's like US expecting YOU to change your beliefs eventually and there's no chance in hell that's going to happen. and why is that? that's because we're all human beings and we're going to say and do what we feel is in our nature. calling him irrelevent is just harsh to him as an artist. those are the terms you should be thinking in cause you're missing the points here.

i dont expect him to change.  but i think if he had he might've had a better chance at making a difference in todays film landscape.  why?  because as matt35mm pointed out above cinema has already swallowed up his influence.  the torch has been passed and i honestly feel like a director like David Gordon Green (who i'm not crazy about either) has a better chance TODAY in 2006 at making a landmark film than Terrence Malick.  because he's learned from Malick and because as an artist is still finding his way.

and thats pretty much MY point right there.  people like malick are just doing it THEIR way. not the way you EXPECT people to do it.. they're being ARTISTS. that's why its wrong to say malick is "irrelevent" now. an artist isn't irrelevent because an artists job is NOT to change. by definition, an artist is: "One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts." you're not going to agree with this definition but that's what it is. and that's malick. you aren't going to agree with that either because you were bored but that's you. fine. but this is why mostly everyone here feels the exact opposite. thats where all the hate is coming from: your ignorance to what art is, not what you expect it to be for you.

i dont think an artists job is not to change and i think its sort of a ridiculous assertation to make.  its completely up to the artist to change or not change as naturally as it comes.  the artists responsibility is to be true to himself, not to 'not ever change'. and i'm not going to argue your broad definition of an artist because that pretty much encompasses without excluding anyone that dares call themselves a filmmaker.  ratner included.  but what we do here on xixax is determine the 'good' films from the 'bad' ones.  simply by our own reaction to them, nothing more.  why do you presume to KNOW what ART is and that i know nothing of it?

well Sunrise said it great right 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.

sure he said it great, and you yelled at me.  i never said it was a terrible film, only an inconsequential one.  the quailty of the film isnt diminished, only it's impact.  like Malick himself the film exists in a bubble untouched by the modern world, seen by few and it will affect just as many.

[cine]

i dont expect him to change. but i think if he had he might've had a better chance at making a difference in todays film landscape.

right so you think it would be better if he did. that's why you wanted us to argue your "i say Malick has not changed or evolved." and you said nobody disagreed with you. that's because nobody needs to. he never needed to change. he's still malick doing what malick does best. end of story. its not about making a difference. its about creating art that one wants create. its seriously as basic as that but you think they should be more relevent in today's society or their time is up. that is what you're saying and it's not fair to artists who want to make art. because it's not about that. i don't know how many times i need to keep stressing these really basic points. i'm not saying i know everything about art and you know nothing. i'm one of many here on the board that just are praising it as a great piece of art. in the SIMPLEST terms, that is what everyone here is doing. and your problem was that people were overpraising it. so you were bored with it, great, move on.

the torch has been passed and i honestly feel like a director like David Gordon Green has a better chance TODAY in 2006 at making a landmark film than Terrence Malick.  because he's learned from Malick and because as an artist is still finding his way.

so what exactly is your point in saying that? what are you trying to say here? are you saying malick should stop making movies and let people like green do them instead? i just don't see the point in what you said. i don't see what it has to do with anything.

[killafilm]

Mod I don't think I can really explain why I think this is the best movie of the year.  But I can tell you why it is certainly my favorite.  It was the only movie that had me leaving the theater thinking "this is why I want to be a filmmaker." The same thought was in my head driving home, going to sleep, waking up, the next day at work, and so on...

and it had me homesick

[©brad]

no, you apparently dont get it.  i liked the movie fine.  i just didnt think it was the 2nd coming like most of you around here.   and while i may be the only one around here not in malicks church, outside of xixax i'm hardly in the minority.  56% Rotten Tomatometer.  51% on critics who matter.  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/new_world/ 

i guess it's an acquired taste, a polarizing film like all great works of art.

i'd say 56% of the critics on rotten tomatometers blow monkey ass anyway, so take their comments with a big old grain of salt, if at all.

[JG]

mod, i get and agree with a lot of what your saying, but i have one question:  if 2001 was to be released today, would you still consider it a masterpiece (if u don't consider 2001 to be a masterpiece, then substitute another movie you consider to be one)?  clearly the great filmmakers of today (anderson, aronofsky) have absorbed a movie like 2001.  would it be inconsequential?   

[life_boy]

Mod:
The movie has only been out for two months...I think it's a little early to say whether it will stand the test of time or not.

[Pozer]

56% Rotten Tomatometer.  51% on critics who matter.

I'll take xixax member critique over anyone of those 'critics who matter' any ol' time.  I honestly come only here for reviews.

[Sunrise]

So this is leaving theaters quickly. I work tonight and tomorrow night. The only chance I would see is if I got out of work early enough Thursday to head straight to this theater a few blocks away. But then I wouldn't get any sleep for work the next day. Is it worth it?

So...did you see it? Little did you know that one simple question would lead to the ensuing storm.

[mutinyco]

I fall somewhere in between. I am a fan of Malick's. I've watched his movies well into double digits. Each of his previous films, no matter how few, spread out over 3 decades, significantly built on what had come before both in technique, scale and concept. In my opinion, The New World, while perfectly fine, did not feel like a progression -- it felt, if anything, more like a summary of what he'd previously done. A neat marriage of the period setting/love triangle/class critique of Days Of Heaven to the machinery of progress/culture clash/cycle of life ruminations of The Thin Red Line.

There was nothing in the first 3/4 of the movie that terribly impressed me in perspective of his other films. I already knew the images. The moments. The rhythms. He could've done it all in his sleep. Not to mention how bad the VO was -- it never struck me as existing within the vernacular of the people who were thinking it, unlike the uneducated fractured thoughts of Linda in Days Of Heaven. Furthermore, Colin Farrell seemed totally lost and miscast. He has yet to give a performance that seemed as natural as in Minority Report, where he blew off the screen. As well, and this is more the result of censorship, the relationship between Smith and Pocahontas was portrayed as a cute, cuddly puppy love. No kissing. Nothing mature about it. And while the movie created a conceit through this (she kisses her husband at the end), it was glaringly obvious why this underaged romance was depicted as it was. (More explicit scenes had been shot, but they were forced to reshoot to pass muster with child pornography statutes.)

The filmmaking only got interesting to me once it moved to England in the 3rd act. Only in that setting did the juxtapositions attain a level of wit -- even if the raccoon in the cage was a bit of a sledgehammer. It was also nice to see Malick move his camera into a setting that he'd never been before. And yes, the final 3 minutes were a brilliant use of montage. But it seemed the only genuinely inspired section of filmmaking in the movie.

The New World, by most standards, would be a great movie. It was beautifully designed, and I appreciated its visual representation of the stages in life -- from a pool of unmuddied water, to fields of freedom, to the trees (reaching upward) being used to build a civilization, to the strict manicured lines of England as adult responsibility, back to the flowing water as one's life gives way.

With a few exceptions, it's probably as good as anything Malick has done previously. It just doesn't feel new, inspired or important. And for that, I'm just not terribly excited about it.

[modage]

i think thats what i've been trying to say.