The New World

[JG]

i think how we interpret our art defintley depends on the source.  if kubrick put out the island, we're certainly going to look a lot deeper than we normally would.  i think that's obvious.  and i think if you see an "independent" movie your defintiley going to look at it from a different perspective than a big hollywood movie.  i would say that because it is malick -- a man who has proven that he is into "art" and doesn't really have a commercial interest -- we are more likely to look at the movie as an art piece, not just entertainment.  how would our thoughts differ if ratner made this movie?  we'd probably be scared to think that we consider this movie a piece of "art."   and this certainly applies to the pacing as well.  if it's slower, we're more likely to look at it like an art movie.  so sure, i agree.   if it were a more average hollywood filmmaker, we'd probably discredit him for making a boring movie.   

[w/o horse]

Well, Gamblour's point doesn't need to be settled under Malick's genius hat, it's just a matter of accepting an instance of hyper realism, which occurs in most any film, from Bay to Malick, and always turns heads away.  I see what you're saying mod, but that's a bad springboard.

The pace of the film is a much better one.  You've used The Island and The New World, and if I might sully the argument a moment and include a defense of Brakhage I'd say that he is faster than The Island, and the polar opposite of The New World.  You can have a superficial understanding of The Island, right, because there is a plot and a point of last explosion, but with Brakhage the film is over and then you have to begin deciphering the images.

It would seem that any genre film would be considered less intelligent because it places the plot on you first and the characters on you second.  There's a wall between the viewer and the meaning right away.  While a raw character based film has no paragraph long explanation and requires that the viewer build the meaning of the film with each viewing.

There's the slow film's advantage, that it both gives the audience more time to think and gives the audience more control over the interpretation (by and large).  As usually a plot is a metaphor for or psychologically similar to the character of the film, you know, take Die Hard, or Rushmore.  ShanghaiOrange recently made a topic observing that this is true for the filmmaker as well.

The mark of a talented filmmaker is if he puts the triggers in the film, if there is incentive to think beyond the celluloid, which can happen inside of any framework.

[Sunrise]

No hate here.

here's another query. do we/critics/moviegeeks/people give films more credit than they deserve when they're slower?

I would hope not. I do not think I'm giving Malick more credit than he deserves simply because of the pace and editing of his films. I feel his work allows me room to engage it at my own pace and to contemplate while viewing. Recall that many parts of The New World involve frantic and disorienting cuts that I wouldn't classify as slow. I certainly enjoy, however, the fact that he gives his audience the time to let the images, sounds, etc. soak in. Everyone will have a different take on this, but that is a good thing.

like, because The Island is wall to wall action you dont think about what the intentions are behind the story because the film doesnt give you a chance to do so. so it's 'dumb'. but when you're forced to sit in your own head while looking at nature photography and listening to the tedious narration you start giving a film credit for letting you do that? like, ah nothings happening, he's a genius! is the film REALLY that smart or are we projecting onto the film? the ideas being brought up in certain genre films may be just as worthwhile as the ones in a film like The New World but because of the nature of the film are we more inclined to take these ideas seriously?

Once again, I would hope not. How serious I take a film's ideas, it's maturity, and it's value are not negatively impacted per se by action and rapid-fire editing. What a quickly-paced film may do is not allow you to do the contemplating while viewing. That certainly doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about and discussing after you watch it and it may warrant repeat screenings. I don't know that The Island is the best comparison here...maybe The Matrix. I'm sure someone else can do even better than that.

[Fernando]

here's another query.  do we/critics/moviegeeks/people give films more credit than they deserve when they're slower?  like, assume malick is a genius.  do we due to the slow nature of the story start filling our own heads with ideas about what he must have in mind and what is going on UNDERNEATH the film.

i think how we interpret our art defintley depends on the source.  if kubrick put out the island...

I was gonna comment something like that but unlike you (jg) my point is, you see a kubrick flim or a malicks and it's their flim, had another director done it what if...stop right there, no one could make films like those guys period, you may be biased when you watch them or you may not, but I don't think we can really use that example here, and as a matter of fact unless it's a remake or something, when you have certains directors with such unique voice, it's almost pointless to say what if this other guy did it? would I like it the same? Of course not, it would be a totally different flim.

Mod, I can't comment about TNW but since you mentioned slow movies and recently called BL Barry Lyndrome...this last weekend I saw BL again, from start to finish without any interruption, and I can safely say that the pace is a key element in the flim, we see how Barry goes to the top and then the many mistakes that cause his downfall, and besides that it's such a beautiful film I find fascinating how all these desicions and actions build something and his castle is really just hanging from a thread, a thread that lasts several years but inevitably will break.

[pete]

modage, man, if you fail to see something that a lot of people see on this here board, and fail to convince anyone that your point of view is valid, then just walk away, man.  It's not worth raising the stakes and getting irrelevant with a generic attack on people liking slow movies.  I was thinking of jumping in to defend it but man, lets just drop the madness while it's still somewhat relevant to the movie.  We've all been jumped on this here board because of our taste.  I had my Lost in Translation thing and MutinyCo's wrong about pretty much every movie.  It's cool man, why don't we all wait until a latter time when pride is not such a big factor anymore to debate this out?  You insist that you're right, and that should be good enough.  I know I'm right about the Lost in Translation thing and I've got Chris Doyle on your side.  And you, I'm sure you'll find someone for your cause.  Maybe Chris Nolan will hate it.  Lets just cool our heads collectively.  If we keep on going, first of all, the argument will only grow more absurd as we pull out our third fourth seventh most valid points, and also the cheap shots will run more amoke.  There is just no need to get there, for now.  You're a good guy and you don't deserve it.

[modage]

pete, i really dont think i failed to convince everyone on this board that my opinion is valid.  (just because i liked lost in translation and you didnt doesnt make your opinion invalid.  why should this make my opinion that?)  and while my initial argument may have been more of an attack, this is not.  it's a geniune question about the value we place on different kinds of films and i dont see why its not worth discussing.  i also dont see how its more noble to say 'i loved it and i dont know why' than to say 'i didnt and i'll try to explain why'.  i think part of that lies in this issue, giving a film credit for something we assume is implied.  i doubt there are many films that you would read into every glance or shot of a tree as having meaning.  and i think it has something to do with, when there is little else to grab onto your mind starts looking for connections and finding meaning in things that may or may not be intended.  assuming everything was planned.  does it matter if it wasn't?  i dont know. 

[w/o horse]

This is a sensationalistic argument when aired out in the public like this and should perhaps be taken to pms.  Or, if you really wanted to talk about it mod, which I don't believe you did anymore, why didn't you fucking talk about it instead of responding to pete?  Because pete is right and there is too much pride involved here.

Also, http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=8223.0

[hedwig]

and i think it has something to do with, when there is little else to grab onto your mind starts looking for connections and finding meaning in things that may or may not be intended.  assuming everything was planned.  does it matter if it wasn't?  i dont know. 

when you say the viewer is "looking for connections and finding meaning" in things, i don't see why that's a bad thing to you. we're talking about films that are worth rediscovering, breaking down, and learning from with repeated viewings. you say it like it's a negative!

why do you feel the author of a text is necessarily the author of its meaning?

edit: i  didn't see LTH's post, but yeah he's right.  i guess this can be moved elsewhere if necessary.

[polkablues]

This is a sensationalistic argument when aired out in the public like this and should perhaps be taken to pms.

It took me a minute before I realized this was "p.m.'s" rather than "p.m.s."

Though it kinda works either way.

[modage]

This is a sensationalistic argument when aired out in the public like this and should perhaps be taken to pms.  Or, if you really wanted to talk about it mod, which I don't believe you did anymore, why didn't you fucking talk about it instead of responding to pete?  Because pete is right and there is too much pride involved here.

where are you drawing these conclusions?  i got 4 responses before pete told me to just drop it.  i wanted to read what people had to say on this and you know, LISTEN and think about it before i chimed in with some sort of retort. this is not some issue i have my mind made up on.  i dont know how else to say i am GENUINELY CURIOUS about this.  if you dont feel like talking about it, dont.  i'm sure most people wont.  but i felt it more neccesary to respond to pete rather than what you, jimmy gator, fernando or sunrise said because pete was implying that this was a worthless discussion and me poking at some corpse of a lost argument with a stick, which i think is completely untrue.  so now i'm doing the same thing to you to explain that 1. this is nothing to do with pride.  i didnt set out to change anyones mind on this film.  i only wanted to discuss it.  and 2. this issue is a completely seperate one from my first post about malick.  if this grows to 4 pages, it'll be split off.  if it remains 4 posts and a pointless argument (this one) it'll stay here. 

[mutinyco]

Hmmm...

I don't recall saying anything to Pete, so his swipe at me is a little odd.

Suffice... Pete, of the two of us, you're the one with the Herzog quote as your signature. I'm the one who met him, filmed an interview, and generated several thousand hits from the encounter.

Remember your place.

[RegularKarate]

I hope you realize what a totally worthless prick you just made yourself seem like.

[ShanghaiOrange]

Hmmm...

I don't recall saying anything to Pete, so his swipe at me is a little odd.

Suffice... Pete, of the two of us, you're the one with the Herzog quote as your signature. I'm the one who met him, filmed an interview, and generated several thousand hits from the encounter.

Remember your place.

One time I saw Matt Damon in a clothing store on Rodeo Drive, so I guess that makes me Jesus fucking Christ.

[mutinyco]

Pete can take it.

[Gamblour.]

wow this thread was reaching for a new low and I think it's been found.

let's bring this back. mod, I know how you feel. I feel like your fear of not liking a movie that everyone likes caused you to lash out a bit and then get equal and opposite lashing. here's the deal, this movie is a tough one. I sat there the entire time on the fence between objectively, consciously considering this film and subjectively letting myself be taken away by it. There were moments so beautiful that I couldn't help but be taken and that was awesome. Other times, I felt like it had its problems. I see the point you're making by giving Malick the benefit of the doubt just because he is a renowned director. Some artistic or moving films you can totally be absorbed based on their merit and your connection with the film. But here, and other times, I've felt the need to meet the movie half way in seeing what it wants to say. Every nouvelle vague film I've seen, I've had to really make it cerebral and I end up appreciating it.

Here, I felt both ways towards the film. Sometimes it absolutely worked and others I really had to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was just really aware of what I was feeling, and that's not always the best thing when watching a movie, in fact it never is. it is ok to not like this movie. if everyone liked it, that would be weird. I know that I like movies that are slow, but I also hate movies that are slow. I love Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring, and that's one slow fucking movie. But I hated watching Last Year at Marienbad, but I'm going to give it another shot. If you feel like somewhere along the way, you didn't give them its proper chance, then go see TNW again.

Anyhow, mod, I feel you man. And I see some points you're making. but some people just love this movie, which is great. and you don't, which is great. and mutiny is better than us.