(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fnew_line_cinema%2Fthe_new_world%2Fcolin_farrell%2Fjohnsmith.jpg&hash=c941cd81869949b191a11db076ad499e393fa7ac)
Release Date: Fall, 2005
Starring: Colin Farrell, Christian Bale, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Michael Greyeyes, Ben Mendelsohn, August Schellenberg, Christopher Plummer, Wes Studi, David Thewlis, Noah Taylor, Raoul Trujillo, Will Wallace ,Yorick Van Wageningen
Director: Terrence Malick
Screenwriter: Terrence Malick
Premise: Inspired by the legend of John Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas, acclaimed filmmaker Terrence Malick transforms this classic story into a sweeping exploration of love, loss and discovery, both a celebration and an elegy of the America that was...and the America that was yet to come. Against a historically accurate Virginia backdrop, Malick has set a dramatized tale of two strong-willed characters-a passionate and noble young native woman and an ambitious soldier of fortune-torn between the undeniable requirements of their civic duty and the inescapable demands of the human heart.
Trailer Here (http://www.movie-list.net/exclusive/the-new-world-teaser-720.mov)
Hey, it's Wes Studi from Last of the Mohicans and Dances with Wolves. God I love that guy in these roles. He's such a bad ass. Wonder if he's a good guy in this or another baddie.
Early prediction: best film of 2005.
Quote from: GhostboyEarly prediction: best film of 2005.
Melinda and Melinda, The Interpreter, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Elizabethtown, and War of the Worlds all look great as well. But I agree that this film looks awesome too.
The beginning made me think this was Thin Red Line Part Duex
Love the ships
Pretty exciting to get a new malick film so quickly, but im not complaining
Yeah, nice ships, but already to much Farrel in one trailer.
It looks ok; it didn't take my breath away :yabbse-undecided:
well it got mine.
Yeah. I didn't know Malick was even for sure making this.
It's a fascinating subject.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgetreligion.typepad.com%2Fgetreligion%2FOscar.jpg&hash=990e25b15639831e6574321a121977bb9150fe60)
so is Colin Farrell actually good? i've only seen Minority Report and from that i just remember he made too many gum-chewing sounds.
Quote from: picolasso is Colin Farrell actually good? i've only seen Minority Report and from that i just remember he made too many gum-chewing sounds.
I think he's a decent actor with really poor judgement. I could see him doing really well in this role.
Quote from: PwaybloeYeah. I didn't know Malick was even for sure making this.
It's a fascinating subject.
you know what's more fascinating? Malick. i wonder if a single interview with him or a picture will be published during the publicity for this film. not likely.
this looks wonderful -- terrance really knows how to shoot
Why didn't they show any Christian Bale?
Quote from: UltrahipWhy didn't they show any Christian Bale?
Oh, they will after Batman, I'm sure.
The site (http://www.thenewworldmovie.com/) is up. Pretty cool photo gallery on there.
I foresee a New Line Platinum DVD of "New World" for release in June of 2006, which features a director's commentary, a 90-minute video diary of Malick giving viewers an in-depth look at his creative process, plus an extra disc of Terry Malick's appearances on The Charlie Rose Show, The Tonight Show, and Larry King Live. There will also be outtakes and bloopers.
Quote from: GhostboyEarly prediction: best film of 2005.
Bloody Well Right!
Malick's New World a "Love Story"
Plus, new stills are now online.
In an article about upcoming historical epics, USA Today spoke with producer Sarah Green about writer-director Terrence Malick's The New World, which opens November 9th.
The New Line period piece recounts the first encounter between white settlers and Native Americans in Virginia, especially focusing on the legendary relationship between explorer John Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher).
"It's first and foremost a love story," Green advised the paper. "Any understanding there was between these two cultures stemmed from this relationship. ... This relationship, the way we use it, has a complete and utter impact on everyone around them. The personal can be inherently political and have widespread consequences."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monstersandcritics.com%2Fdownloads%2Fdownloads%2Fmovies%2Fthenewworld_1%2Fimages%2Fnewworldposter.jpg&hash=b00090276f3564db34739a5e76a44af70b80072a)
Sorry about the size.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monstersandcritics.com%2Fdownloads%2Fdownloads%2Fmovies%2Fthenewworld_1%2Fimages%2Fgroup4%2Fnwdf04970max.jpg&hash=d9dd2fe23b72b1e630df505468e42d773357bb49)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monstersandcritics.com%2Fdownloads%2Fdownloads%2Fmovies%2Fthenewworld_1%2Fimages%2Fgroup4%2Fnwdf06450max.jpg&hash=adb1083ebe17a40e6cb8a6adc9715be5f7d3cbc8)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monstersandcritics.com%2Fdownloads%2Fdownloads%2Fmovies%2Fthenewworld_1%2Fimages%2Fgroup4%2Fnwdf08570max.jpg&hash=d3191e2fa278f8d6196b009beb876d29c3704e44)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monstersandcritics.com%2Fdownloads%2Fdownloads%2Fmovies%2Fthenewworld_1%2Fimages%2Fgroup4%2Fnwdf06955.jpg&hash=ef3fdeff3e7998abb90b8a522385fde4a0d1349d)
Ha, love story. About a month or two ago I had a dream that this movie was about Pocahontas
Quote from: SleuthAbout a month or two ago I had a dream that this movie was about Pocahontas
and that's strange.. cos we've always known that?
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: SleuthAbout a month or two ago I had a dream that this movie was about Pocahontas
and that's strange.. cos we've always known that?
It's a nightmare come true!
Quote from: SleuthQuote from: PubrickQuote from: SleuthAbout a month or two ago I had a dream that this movie was about Pocahontas
and that's strange.. cos we've always known that?
It's a nightmare come true!
dumb
in that last picture how come pocahauntus has small tits :saywhat:
but the hair looks right
Quote from: NEON MERCURYin that last picture how come pocahauntus has small tits :saywhat:
but the hair looks right
Dear god, sometimes I wonder why I come here. I can understand if it was a Hillary Lohan movie, but come on man.
Quote from: POZERHillary Lohan
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Flohanswank.jpg&hash=0925e5da9ac9048e0cf3519734634e15275e9640)
now who's crazy.
Like, I was totally talking about Hillary Duff but whatever.
it's the same gag. duff is a BLOCK. saying lohan after the reference to breasteses was the ambiguous part.
NEW TRAILER! (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/newline/gl/newline/trailers/theNW/NewWorld_Trailer_latimes_700_dl.mov)
Quote from: MacGuffin
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monstersandcritics.com%2Fdownloads%2Fdownloads%2Fmovies%2Fthenewworld_1%2Fimages%2Fnewworldposter.jpg&hash=b00090276f3564db34739a5e76a44af70b80072a)
Did this poster remind anyone of
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scoop.co.nz%2Fstories%2Fimages%2F0108%2F61079050b7d0303d1d42.jpeg&hash=f9b5131bec338e0d1c882d71af9d1faa22ad8e69)
Not to mention Farell looking a bit like Aragorn.
not a bit.
Quote from: GhostboyNEW TRAILER! (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/newline/gl/newline/trailers/theNW/NewWorld_Trailer_latimes_700_dl.mov)
"i beg u. let not america go wrong in the first hour" -- wauv. *drools a bit*
this'll be beyond brilliant. i'm beginning to think that mallick was just waiting for kubrick to die so he could take over being The One. there just couldn't be two.
Watching the trailer reminded me of how much of a treat that Mallick's films are. If there's any director I'm bummed doesn't have more films, it's him.
My God...This is going to be Amazing. P is right, Mallick is the new Kubrick.
Quote from: SiliasRubyP is right, Mallick is the new Kubrick.
is kubrick old!?
MY GODMAN!
Quote from: GhostboyNEW TRAILER! (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/newline/gl/newline/trailers/theNW/NewWorld_Trailer_latimes_700_dl.mov)
I want to cry. First, at how beautiful this film is going to be. Secondly, at how shitty Brazoliange's posts are.
it was a failed attempt at sarcasm
This does look fascinating and I'm excited as much as the rest of you, but, with reluctance. Very "Dances-with-Wolves-ish." Maybe that's just how they're marketing it.
History of the west in 2 hours? Wouldn't an accurate movie be at least 6 weeks long. I wonder how much they'll choose to show and how accurate it will be. I see from the stills that Collin is going all Last Samuri and training(???) with the native americans. I wonder if plot point two will be "here's some chicken pox...now give us your land. Now I'll steal your best looking squaw and slaughter your people."
Man I'm unimpressed by all these epics and by Colin Ferrel himself.
I know you guys here at Xixax can't see a movie without my approval, well here you go. Judging by the trailer and things I'm reading about it, it seems all right.
Quote from: metroshaneHistory of the west in 2 hours? Wouldn't an accurate movie be at least 6 weeks long. I wonder how much they'll choose to show and how accurate it will be. I see from the stills that Collin is going all Last Samuri and training(???) with the native americans. I wonder if plot point two will be "here's some chicken pox...now give us your land. Now I'll steal your best looking squaw and slaughter your people."
Man I'm unimpressed by all these epics and by Colin Ferrel himself.
i guess they shouldn't even bother releasing this then, huh? two words for ya: Terrence Malick. his films should hardly be compared to Alexander, The Last Samurai... if you don't think his films are a gift from God, then i don't understand you.
Quote from: metroshaneHistory of the west in 2 hours? Wouldn't an accurate movie be at least 6 weeks long.
I didn't get the sense that this is trying to tell the"history of the west". Just using that moment in history as a framing device for a story. A story that seems pretty intimate in scale, even though grand in scope, visually at least.
this really does look amazing.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: metroshaneHistory of the west in 2 hours? Wouldn't an accurate movie be at least 6 weeks long.
I didn't get the sense that this is trying to tell the"history of the west". Just using that moment in history as a framing device for a story. A story that seems pretty intimate in scale, even though grand in scope, visually at least.
this really does look amazing.
Metros Hane was just promoting his latest gig
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falt.tnt.tv%2Fitw%2Fsplash1.jpg&hash=3b107d074723dcccafee06dcd88dc6dbc70d0492)
Quote from: metroshaneHistory of the west in 2 hours?
i wouldnt worry about that. with Malick at the helm I'm sure it'll feel like 2 years.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: metroshaneHistory of the west in 2 hours?
i wouldnt worry about that. with Malick at the helm I'm sure it'll feel like 2 years.
it's no Sith. :yabbse-rolleyes:
I must have been confused by the title.
Is that a real miniseries? If so, I'm going to buy a lotto ticket.
re-direct this if you need to.
anyone else get the feeling that Spielberg is Malick's bitch? First, Malick releases Badlands in '73 which is followed by Spielberg's more commercial version of the "lovers on the run" theme, '74's Sugarland Express. Malick is set to film The Thin Red Line and Spielberg comes out with the more commercialized version of the WWII drama with Saving Private Ryan. Now, Malick's got his American Indian epic coming out and Spielberg executive produces Into the West. how 'bout you stop biting the master Spielberg?!
Quote from: metroshaneI must have been confused by the title.
Definitely. Did you even watch the trailer? Or know a bit about American history?
I only saw a teaser. But I don't usually get my American History from Hollywood movies...except for that economics bit in Good Will Hunting.
Quote from: GhostboyNEW TRAILER! (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/newline/gl/newline/trailers/theNW/NewWorld_Trailer_latimes_700_dl.mov)
Quote from: lamas
anyone else get the feeling that Spielberg is Malick's bitch?
...No...
OK, watched the trailer and I must admit is looks fascinating. NOT! What a yawn fest.
FYI, the film's website www.thenewworldmovie.com has been updated with a blog, podcasts, sketchbook and other assorted poop.
there's even sumthing for Metros Hane..
http://thenewworldmovie.com/readinglist.pdf
right-click and save target as.
Maybe Collin Ferrel will come over to my house, read to me, make me learn to smoke and then punch me in the nose.
New World, New Date
What do Pocahontas and Rudolph have in common?
New Line had set a November 9, 2005 release date for writer-director Terrence Malick's The New World, a retelling of the legend of Pocahontas and John Smith. But now, according to Box Office Mojo, the new release date is December 25th.
The New World had been expected to open wide on Nov. 9 but instead it will only open in L.A. and New York City on Dec. 25. The Christmas release date would allow the period drama to be eligible for Academy Award consideration. The film's new wide release date is set for Jan.13, 2006 (Friday the 13th!).
Quote from: name deleted by modage
The New World had been expected to open wide on Nov. 9 but instead it will only open in L.A. and New York City on Dec. 25. The Christmas release date would allow the period drama to be eligible for Academy Award consideration.
Does this sound right? Is the Academy's annual nomination range not within a calender year? Or is it just saying, "whew, we just got this movie in before the end of the year, dude. Party at Malick's house!"
It just means that it's a movie expected to get Oscar heat, which would be the main point of sale for this movie's target audience. The Oscar nomination range is from Jan 1 to Dec 31.
By releasing it at the very end of the year, you could have it playing in theaters still while all the Oscar buzz is going around. If it does well enough, it could even be playing after it's been nominated. The period between nomination and awards ceremony is Oscar season, which is very enticing for studios with films that they feel are Oscar worthy.
If released in early-November, it would be out of theaters by the time any serious Oscar buzz surrounds it.
I understand the marketing. That's the one thing that I do understand about Hollywood. The statement just sounded incorrect.
If they just put "better" in front of "elgible," the sentence would make more sense.
Oh. I read the sentence as meaning that they wanted to push it back, but by keeping it within this year, it is still eligible for this year's Oscars.
Quote from: flagpolespecialwho shot this film?
Quote from: flagpolespecialread this on imdb
Cinematography by
Emmanuel Lubezki
And jeers to you for not looking it up yourself when you were there. smiley face with a wink.
i didnt realize that sweet lil ben chaplain was in this bitch..
he made me cry in the thin red line
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviecitynews.com%2Farrays%2Fimages%2F2005%2Fnewworld%2Fposter_newworld.jpg&hash=75e1dd66b1f357509c9c437490f0e0efd20c0a23)
Quote from: flagpolespecial
Although it was ultimately determined to be fiscally unfeasible to shoot the entire film on 65mm film stock, this has the distinction of being the first feature film in nine years to shoot on 65mm stock for non-visual effects shots.
Just when I thought my anticipation had reached it's pinnacle...
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: flagpolespecial
Although it was ultimately determined to be fiscally unfeasible to shoot the entire film on 65mm film stock, this has the distinction of being the first feature film in nine years to shoot on 65mm stock for non-visual effects shots.
Just when I thought my anticipation had reached it's pinnacle...
I think maybe somewhere, a kitten just died.
and a big kitten it was
'New World' Heads to Colonial Williamsburg
Colonial Williamsburg is rolling out the red carpet for Hollywood's newest rendition of the old story of Capt. John Smith and Pocahontas.
"The New World," a big-budget movie about the settling of Jamestown in 1607, will make its East Coast debut Dec. 21 at Kimball Theatre.
It will have two red-carpet, invitation-only screenings, Colonial Williamsburg and the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation announced Friday.
The film dramatizes encounters between white colonists and American Indians, focusing on the relationship between Smith, portrayed by Colin Farrell, and the Indian princess Pocahontas, who intervened to save him when he was captured by her tribe.
Q'orianka Kilcher plays Pocahontas. Christopher Plummer, Christian Bale and August Schellenberg also star.
Director Terrence Malick filmed scenes at Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America, and nearby locations.
Officials hope "The New World" will boost tourism in Jamestown as "The Lord of the Rings" did in New Zealand. Both films are from New Line Cinema.
"The New World" opens in limited release Dec. 25 and nationwide Jan. 13.
I already posted an article about Spielberg's silence in the Munich thread, so I'll put this one here that also talks about Malick's:
Will silence be golden for Spielberg, Malick?
By Anne Thompson, Hollywood Reporter
Besides their weighty historic subject matter, Universal Pictures' "Munich" and New Line Cinema's "The New World" have something else in common: Their respective directors, Steven Spielberg and Terrence Malick, aren't chasing after press.
This is unheard of in this media age of overhype. For his part, Spielberg is the most famous movie director in the world. He's a star whose name above the title is such an entertainment guarantee that it always puts butts in seats. "Only Steven Spielberg could get away with this," one studio marketing executive says. "Only his name as a director means anything. He's not Terrence Malick, who will have a visibility problem."
After the media circus that surrounded his summer tentpole "The War of the Worlds," starring Tom Cruise, Spielberg is avoiding advance press on the dead-serious political thriller "Munich," which is about a Mossad team's hunt for the Palestinian terrorists behind the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. According to his spokesman, Marvin Levy, the director wants word-of-mouth and reviews and not appearances on Jay Leno to drive audiences to the movie, which opens Dec. 23 in Los Angeles and New York and breaks nationwide Jan. 6. Says Levy: "It's whatever is on that screen. That's what it's about."
While Spielberg has willingly promoted movies that he felt needed his help -- such as "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," "Minority Report" and "Saving Private Ryan" -- because "Munich" is about a well-known historic subject, Spielberg wants to take the old-fashioned route and let the movie speak for itself. "Sometimes silence speaks louder than everyone else," DreamWorks marketing chief Terry Press says. "There's so much blather in the world that sometimes quiet makes an impression."
Starting Monday, Universal, which co-produced the project with DreamWorks, will unspool a series of screenings for press and a wide swath of opinionmakers worldwide. "Steven hasn't committed to any Q&As," Levy says, "and no press junket." What Spielberg did do is talk to Time magazine for a possible cover story which could run as early as Monday. "We'd be crazy not to," Levy admits.
There will be some industry screenings but no flashy premiere. The film's star Eric Bana ("Troy") has done some advance interviews, and "other people will be doing interviews after the movie has been shown," Levy says.
Clearly, the marketing team behind "Munich" is not only expecting but also counting on controversy over the film's hot-potato topic -- Middle Eastern terrorism. Editorial coverage off the entertainment pages is a great way to build interest in a movie. "It's the Holy Grail when a movie goes beyond the entertainment world," Press says. In 2003, for example, "The Day After Tomorrow" got a serious boxoffice boost from numerous nonentertainment stories about global warming.
To that end, Universal has hired Sitrick PR's Allan Mayer and Washington foreign policy insiders Mike McCurry and Dennis Ross. "This subject matter will be popping up all over," Levy says. "While this movie deals with this 1972 incident and its aftermath, the overriding theme is relevant to the way things are going today, and not just the Middle East. This is a film people will have opinions about. Everyone will bring their own feelings, knowledge and sensitivities. Steven didn't want audiences to have preconceptions. He wants them to figure it out for themselves as much as possible."
With a platform release, "Munich" and "The New World" don't have to open like big-event movies in thousands of theaters. They have the luxury of building buzz through reviews and 10-best lists. "They're in for the long run as opposed to a quick hit," one rival studio marketing executive says. "They'll be fueled by the Golden Globes and year-end attention. This is very much an Academy play to capture voters (and) build momentum to get through Academy season. Their success doesn't need to be monumental. But with the long run, you have to have fantastic playability and word-of-mouth, like 'Chicago' or 'Shakespeare in Love.' You have to catch a wave."
If "Munich" is a huge success, there is one side benefit. It will lend Spielberg and his DreamWorks partners some much-needed leverage in their ongoing talks about selling their company to NBC Universal -- which are at an impasse, according to sources close to the negotiations, over the fine points of Spielberg's obligations under the new deal.
New Line Cinema also is facing a marketing challenge with its Dec. 25 opener, "The New World" (which goes wide Jan. 13). In that case, Texas-based writer-director Malick -- whose most recent film, the World War II drama "The Thin Red Line," earned five Oscar nominations -- is known to be reclusive, hates to have his picture taken and refuses to talk to the press on the grounds that "he's not any different from anyone else who worked on the film," New Line Cinema marketing president Russell Schwartz says.
Luckily, this great-looking epic is about a well-known piece of Americana, the founding of Jamestown in 1607 and the relationship between American Indian princess Pocahontas (played by newcomer Q'orianka Kilcher) and British explorer John Smith (Colin Farrell). With no filmmaker available for interviews, New Line will rely on producer Sarah Green ("State and Main," "Frida") as well as the film's two stars, Farrell and Christian Bale, who plays a tobacco magnate who marries Pocahontas.
The studio also will focus on turning Kilcher, 15, into a star, much the way Newmarket Films did with "Whale Rider's" teen lead, Keisha Castle-Hughes, who landed an Oscar nomination. "Q'orianka is our hook," Schwartz says, to selling the film's central love story to women. New Line is banking on the film earning strong critical response, not only because of Malick's singular cinematic vision but also because "it's so unlike anything else," he says.
That's for sure. Whatever anyone thinks about this movie, it is unexpected, even avant garde. "Terry doesn't spoon-feed anyone. He doesn't say, 'Here's what to think,' " producer Green says. "He lets you make those choices."
"The New World" began to take shape four years ago when Sony Pictures Classics co-president Michael Barker recommended Green to Malick, who called her out of the blue. The two got to know each other, and she responded enthusiastically to the idea of his going forward with his script for "The New World," which had been sitting on the shelf for some 25 years. "There are so many parallels going on today," Green says, "with cultures seeing foreignness in each other instead of sameness. It's also the journey of a young woman learning about love."
But even with Colin Farrell attached, it was tough to raise money for the historic epic. Former 20th Century Fox chairman Bill Mechanic, who backed the $52 million "Red Line," tried to bankroll "The New World" at his new production company Pandemonium, but "everyone was looking for an automatic blockbuster," he says. Finally, New Line chief Robert Shaye picked up global distribution rights for the independently financed $40 million picture, which is executive produced by New Line executives Mark Ordesky and Rolf Mittweg.
According to Green, Malick shot about a million feet of film (for the most part, without artificial light and using hand-held cameras) on location in Virginia and London over 17 weeks (the norm would be 300,000 feet over 10 weeks), allowing for many impulsive changes of scenery and dialogue. Like "Munich," there was no press on set.
Malick then retired with four editors into the cutting room for a year, whittling the movie down to 2 hours and 40 minutes, deleting reams of dialogue -- the movie is often silent -- and adding interior voice-overs for the three leads that were not in the original script. (Malick also used voice-overs in "The Thin Red Line.") Everything in the movie is real, including the three ships, except for one CG-enhanced bird -- an extinct Carolina parakeet.
Green insists that they were close to making the original November release date but were happy to be given more time by New Line to polish the final cut, partly because Farrell was still filming "Miami Vice" and was unavailable to do press. Now the stars will all participate in press junkets; the film will have an American Film Institute benefit premiere Dec. 15 in Los Angeles as well as special showings at Washington's Smithsonian Institution and the Museum of the American Indian in New York. And then the critics are expected to weigh in. Even with strong critical backing and five Oscar noms, "The Thin Red Line" did not make its money back theatrically. For "The New World," silence may not be golden.
That's not really a news-worthy thing for Malick. I didn't know (or maybe I just forgot) that it's an independent film, though. That's interesting.
What's interesting is that Munich is apparently a well known historical topic (I'd never even heard about Olympic murders and assassinations and what not), so I hope Spielberg doesn't assume we know all about it.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the voiceover thing + hand held cameras should be really interesting for a historical piece.
Quote from: Gamblour on December 02, 2005, 07:27:18 PM
What's interesting is that Munich is apparently a well known historical topic (I'd never even heard about Olympic murders and assassinations and what not), so I hope Spielberg doesn't assume we know all about it.
on the other hand, i hope he doesn't present it as if no one has ever heard of it before.
it's no holocaust, but it's well known.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 02, 2005, 08:48:11 PM
Quote from: Gamblour on December 02, 2005, 07:27:18 PM
What's interesting is that Munich is apparently a well known historical topic (I'd never even heard about Olympic murders and assassinations and what not), so I hope Spielberg doesn't assume we know all about it.
on the other hand, i hope he doesn't present it as if no one has ever heard of it before.
it's no holocaust, but it's well known.
That's a good point.
Looks like Malick finally finished editing...and at least a couple of fortunate sons at Reverse Shot were impressed:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/006454.html
Also appears Malick may have wisely used Farrell.
Quote from: Sunrise on December 08, 2005, 11:49:21 AM
Also appears Malick may have wisely used Farrell.
there's no maybe about it. all malick's choices are "wisely".
QUITE excited.
I think Colin Farrell's voice will work perfectly in a Malick film.
That's interesting...I had not considered his "voice". Is there any word on whether Malick used multiple narration for The New World like The Thin Red Line or the singular point of view like Badlands and Days of Heaven? My guess would be the latter but I have not heard.
Quote from: Sunrise on December 08, 2005, 03:06:35 PMIs there any word on whether Malick used multiple narration for The New World like The Thin Red Line or the singular point of view like Badlands and Days of Heaven? My guess would be the latter but I have not heard.
From the article I posted on the previous page:
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 02, 2005, 03:24:48 PMMalick then retired with four editors into the cutting room for a year, whittling the movie down to 2 hours and 40 minutes, deleting reams of dialogue -- the movie is often silent -- and adding interior voice-overs for the three leads that were not in the original script.
Great. I'm wrong and lazy.
I love how Malick whittled it down to 2:40. Perfect.
It's a brave 'New World' for Malick
Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
He has made just four films in 32 years, but Terrence Malick has a legendary, almost mythical, reputation in Hollywood as a director unrivaled in plumbing the depths of the human psyche. Except his own.
Malick, 62, whose movies include Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, remains the J.D. Salinger of filmmakers. He refuses to grant interviews and is rarely photographed.
So it should come as no surprise that the reclusive director's latest project, The New World, which opens in New York and Los Angeles Dec. 25, arrives relatively quietly amid the crush of films with Academy Awards aspirations.
Instead of press junkets, talk shows and magazine covers, Malick sends forth as his envoy the film's young star, a 15-year-old former street performer whose first-ever kiss came on screen with co-star Colin Farrell.
"I'm still not sure how to handle questions and reporters," says Q'orianka (pronouced kor-e-ahn-ka) Kilcher, the ingénue who plays Pocahontas in the $30 million film and who, until recently, was making money singing on the streets of Santa Monica, Calif.
"I know Terry is famous and classrooms study him and he's a genius," she says over a plate of fruit in a Santa Monica deli. "So why me? I'm just ... me."
But for friends and colleagues of the director, the pairing is fitting for a man who at once dazzles and puzzles Hollywood with his reticence, brilliance and occasional disappearing acts.
"Terry has never played the game," says Sarah Green, a friend of Malick's and producer of New World. "He doesn't live here (in Los Angeles), he doesn't worry with marketing and test screenings and box office. He just wants to tell a story that speaks to him. Like Q'orianka did. I don't think it mattered to him whether she was someone people really knew."
There's a lot in New World that breaks from the Hollywood norm. To re-create the story of the 1607 settlement at Jamestown, Malick built a fort and Native American village 5 miles from the original site in Virginia.
He insisted that the sets be constructed only with wood available in the Virginia forests. Costumes for the Indian tribes were hand-stitched with materials available at the time of the colonial settlements. He used no artificial lighting for most of the film, relying on sunlight to illuminate his outdoor sets.
And he wanted a child to carry his film.
The actress needed to be young, about the same age as the real Pocohantas, who historians believe was 12 or 13 when she came upon explorer Capt. John Smith.
She needed to be beautiful, but still a child. Naive, but learning fast. "She was going to have to represent America," says Green. "We must have gone through 800 actresses before we lucked onto Q'orianka. But when we found her, we knew right away."
Will audiences find the movie? Historical epics, particularly centered on colonial America, aren't typical blockbuster fodder. Pocahontas has already received the Hollywood treatment, in Disney's 1995 animated film that raked in $141 million. And Malick's film was shut out at this week's Golden Globes nominations.
And for all the accolades from his peers, Terrence Malick isn't a household name. His three previous films have generated 11 Academy Award nominations and one win, but none has been a box office hit. His biggest movie, 1998's Line, did $36.4 million.
"Terry may not get nervous about it, but I do," Green says. "I really want people to find his work. And find Q'orianka. There's a lot to discover in this movie."
Kilcher came close to going undiscovered. The distant cousin of singer Jewel Kilcher had hopes of becoming a singer and dancer when she and her family moved to Los Angeles from Hawaii nearly a decade ago.
Kilcher, who is Peruvian on her father's side and Swiss on her mother's, built a sizeable following on Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade, where she would perform her own pop and folk songs while her family played backup.
But in 2000, the family's musical equipment was stolen from their car. The Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story about the theft. The story caught the eye of an agent at William Morris, who gave her money to replace the equipment and offered to help the 9-year-old audition for films.
She landed a bit part in 2000's Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas as a choir singer, but got no other nibbles until she auditioned last year for a role in Steven Spielberg's television series Into the West. A casting director saw her head shot and decided she looked more appropriate for New World auditions, tossing the photo onto a pile of hundreds of other hopefuls.
"Everything happens for a reason," Kilcher says. "If I hadn't got my equipment stolen, I never would have been found by an agent. If I hadn't tried out for one role and not gotten it, I wouldn't have found this movie."
Not that she realized what she had found. When told that she would get to read for the lead in a movie by Malick, starring Farrell, Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer, she had just one question: Who are those guys?
"I really don't know the whole Hollywood thing," she says, grinning at an uncle who accompanied her by bus to the interview. "I knew it was about Pocahontas, and that it would be like a camping trip."
Indeed, the New World crew essentially created its own for the four-month shoot.
"We were going for authenticity with everything we did," says Jack Fisk, the set designer for New World and a friend of Malick's for more than 25 years. "We were going to build real villages. We were going to film in the woods with a camera and as few people as possible. Nature has always played a big part of Terry's movies, but I'd never worked on anything like this."
It's a common sentiment among those who have worked with Malick, whose movies are as much a meditation on life as a depiction of it. He was the toast of Hollywood by his first film, 1973's Badlands, a drama starring Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek (who is married to Fisk) based loosely on the case of a 1950s serial killer and his teenage girlfriend.
He followed that five years later with Days of Heaven, a lethal love triangle starring Richard Gere. Both films, which blended the beauty of nature with the tormented nature of man, cemented his reputation as a filmmaking virtuoso.
Then he disappeared. For 20 years, he lived in Paris and Texas with no public explanation for his exit. The hiatus fed wild theories: He had become consumed by early fame; he was consumed with a masterwork; he was driven from the business by numbers-crunching executives and egotistical stars.
Friends remain fiercely loyal to Malick and refuse to engage in much speculation. Most say he continued writing scripts, but didn't pen one that inspired him until The Thin Red Line.
"Terry once told me that pondering is important to storytelling, to films," says Peter Guber, former head of Columbia Pictures and current Mandalay Pictures chairman. "He's always taken his time not only making movies, but thinking about them. Do you know how rare it is to find someone who thinks as much as he talks?"
That's not to say Malick is a brooding, mad filmmaker, Green says. When in a comfortable social circle, he's quick to joke and is a fan of comedies, especially There's Something About Mary and Meet the Parents.
"He loves Ben Stiller," Green says. "I think because his movies are so thoughtful, they think Terry is a very serious guy. That's not true. He just is careful with his words."
And he asks actors to be the same. In one of Kilcher's first meetings with Malick, the director asked her to act out a scene that included several pages of dialogue, but she had to do it silently.
"He just wanted to see how I could express myself with my face, my eyes," she says. "I guess it worked."
And how. Shortly after the silent audition, given in front of Malick and Green, the producer asked what else Kilcher could do.
"Well, I can sing," Kilcher offered.
"We were expecting something childish, like Mary Had a Little Lamb," Green says.
Instead, Kilcher belted out the blues classic Doctor Feelgood.
"She made you think she'd had her heart broken 10 times," Green says. "That's when we knew she was the one. She can say a lot with a little. Just like Terry. That's what makes them such a good match."
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 16, 2005, 02:44:48 PM
"We were expecting something childish, like Mary Had a Little Lamb," Green says.
haha what a bitch.
I haven't seen it personally, but my grandmother told me that Ebert and Roeper called the New World the best movie ever made. They might have said best of the year. Anybody see the show? Furthermore, what's the word on releases for this movie?
Quote from: JimmyGator on December 17, 2005, 11:58:46 AMFurthermore, what's the word on releases for this movie?
Very last line of this post:
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=7024.msg209092#msg209092
Quote from: JimmyGator on December 17, 2005, 11:58:46 AM
I haven't seen it personally, but my grandmother told me that Ebert and Roeper called the New World the best movie ever made. They might have said best of the year. Anybody see the show? Furthermore, what's the word on releases for this movie?
they said it was one of the best of the year.
I am the only one who thinks that the trailer for this makes it look like the biggest piece of shit, hokey, crap-flinging, joke-version of the first 20 minutes of Thin Red Line???
Why do seemingly smart directors keep casting Colin Farrell? This guy's as Irish as drunkenness and a huge head -- he just doesn't fit as anything else but a useless Irish twat. I wanna believe that Malick is still untouchable, but you just gotta laugh when someone asks what your new movie is (especially when your new movie comes out on average every 5 - 10 years) and you say "the pocahontas story"... "no, really, what's your new movie", "seriously, it's the whole Indian thing -- you know, them old Indians, the ones we can't call Indians anymore"... "(laughing) oh you kidder, you, no really, you must have picked something interesting, right?", "no, I swear, we got this huge budget so we could make the white guy - native chick love story".... (looks at him sideways, like he just shat on the table) "um... whatever, man..."
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 05:19:23 AM
but you just gotta laugh when someone asks what your new movie is ... and you say "the pocahontas story"...
i don't get it, the story of the american indians is extremely fascinating.
that whole bit you played out is a conversation with a total moron. are you saying american history is not interesting? cos that's what the idiot (who thinks he's being funny) is saying in your scenario.
I don't find it interesting in any way. Don't you think it's a little odd that Malick is doing a Disney Story? Not that his version will suck like Disney's, but from the trailer it seriously looks like a live action version of the cartoon.
In which case, the brilliant young man (in my scenario) has a fantastic point.
holy shit you think the story of the first permanent English settlement in America is first and foremost a disney movie????
fuck. that's all i have to say to that. FUCK.
yeah to say or be convinced that the colonization and discovery of a new race of people and then the eventually rape and genocide of those people, a noble kind defeated by greed and Christianity.....yeah, that's naive. you need some original Zinn in your life.
:violin:
oooh oooh sorry guys soooooo sorry I don't love your precious new world story
It's been Disneyed to death, and by the looks of the trailer, will be again. Poor noble savages, destroyed by whitey and his corporations, where's Michael Moore? Maybe he can do the making-of...
you know, you're right, I'm wrong. I TOTALLY missed the singing dancing raccoon in the trailer. Malick, you are a genius.
Hahaha, you guys are proof that PC-ism still lives on. Read less between the lines, and just answer my initial question: does anyone think the trailer made the film look like a huge waste of time? Should I take your flaming of anything negative I say in this thread to mean that everyone saw this preview and got really excited for anything besides the fact that it had Malick's name on it?
Three years later and we're still railing against the fact that I write in a smarmy, racist, condescending, sexist, right-wing, reactionary, bigoted tone? Cos of course it is all those things to not be interested in a pocahontas movie...
note: my sarcasm made a whole lot more sense when there was a post from hedwig above... which is now gone... so I guess just concentrate on the top part...
SoNowThen, you are rivalling pyramid machine with your mind-numbing stupidity in this thread.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 09:57:52 AM
It's been Disneyed to death, and by the looks of the trailer, will be again. Poor noble savages, destroyed by whitey and his corporations, where's Michael Moore? Maybe he can do the making-of...
what a ridiculous paradox. first you complain that the story's been "Disney'd to death," then you give that smarmy, condescending, racist description of the story as "poor noble savages destroyed by whitey" which makes it sound like you're AGAINST a film that truly depicts how ruthlessly whitey treated the native americans -- well then you should LIKE the Disney version, because it's a sugar-coated piece of shit!
i deleted my post because i wanted to add this: by deyning the story's historical significance, you're exposing that you were born yesterday. by denying the importance of this story because you think it exaggerates the suffering of Native Americans, you're just exposing that you're a racist moron.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 11:15:43 AM
does anyone think the trailer made the film look like a huge waste of time?
since that's just asking for our opinion, the answer is no. your claim that it shows a disney story is ridiculous, gamblour proved this.
so this is just about a trailer and not the huge rant you went on based on it? about how u don't give a fuck about native american history, or the history of the american continent in general? ok then. there's a simple rebuttal to that.. it's a fucking trailer. it showed everything malick's films have always shown, voice overs and a lot of languid shots. what more is there to say about it? surely not a long winded racist rant.
From Hedwig's thing:
2 important considerations:
1. Does a "historically significant" story justify being made into a movie, and does cinema suit the telling of such a story?
2. Has anybody seen the movie? If not, how can we say how it portrays the "suffering of the native americans"?
To P:
Yes, I'm obviously going on the trailer, which I made fun of for a solid minute, even saying to a friend "this looks like a bad version of the start of TRL", then heard Malick's name and had my draw drop at how disappointed and surprised I was.
If you say it's racist to not be interested in this story, then I guess you can call me racist. With rare exceptions I've never enjoyed films in this type of context. It could turn out to be amazing, and not a good poor indians getting slaughtered by all bad (except maybe one) white guys, cartoon-style simple conflict movie... but I'm not holding my breath.
perhaps it's also worth pointing out that no one took exception to the whole Irish-as-drunks comment, but went nanners on the injun thing
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 11:28:58 AM
Yes, I'm obviously going on the trailer, which I made fun of for a solid minute, even saying to a friend "this looks like a bad version of the start of TRL", then heard Malick's name and had my draw drop at how disappointed and surprised I was.
if your drawers are dropping you should think of purchasing a smaller size.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 11:28:58 AM
It could turn out to be amazing, and not a good poor indians getting slaughtered by all bad (except maybe one) white guys, cartoon-style simple conflict movie... but I'm not holding my breath.
maybe u don't like malick. that's your problem. case solved as far as i'm concerned.
oh and about the irish thing, yeah so u continue to be a stereotyping jerk who thinks it's progressive to not care about the past. case solved as far as i'm concerned.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 05:19:23 AM
I am the only one who thinks that the trailer for this makes it look like the biggest piece of shit, hokey, crap-flinging, joke-version of the first 20 minutes of Thin Red Line???
Why do seemingly smart directors keep casting Colin Farrell? This guy's as Irish as drunkenness and a huge head -- he just doesn't fit as anything else but a useless Irish twat. I wanna believe that Malick is still untouchable, but you just gotta laugh when someone asks what your new movie is (especially when your new movie comes out on average every 5 - 10 years) and you say "the pocahontas story"... "no, really, what's your new movie", "seriously, it's the whole Indian thing -- you know, them old Indians, the ones we can't call Indians anymore"... "(laughing) oh you kidder, you, no really, you must have picked something interesting, right?", "no, I swear, we got this huge budget so we could make the white guy - native chick love story".... (looks at him sideways, like he just shat on the table) "um... whatever, man..."
Worst-post-ever. The stupidity of your words in your follow up posts as well makes you a useless... whatever you are twat.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 11:28:58 AM
From Hedwig's thing:
2 important considerations:
1. Does a "historically significant" story justify being made into a movie, and does cinema suit the telling of such a story?
yes of course. the story must be told, i don't see why cinema is an inappropriate means of telling it. as with any artform, it's up to the artist to utilize it as a powerful storytelling medium, which cinema can certainly be.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 11:28:58 AM2. Has anybody seen the movie? If not, how can we say how it portrays the "suffering of the native americans"?
well you haven't seen it either so shut the fuck up. i was responding to the way
you trivialized the suffering of native americans, which you're continuing to do.
and please, this isn't "SoNowThen's Hate Speech thread," this is a thread about the movie. what a pathetic hijacking. in the future take that trash where it belongs. (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=8422.0)
Actually, my thread was more about subtle, subconscious manifestations of racism. his is a little overt and as subtle as a lynching. but I'll let him post in my thread, because I don't discriminate.
SoNowThen can Malick my balls.
Quote from: Hedwig on December 18, 2005, 11:52:13 AM
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 11:28:58 AM
From Hedwig's thing:
2 important considerations:
1. Does a "historically significant" story justify being made into a movie, and does cinema suit the telling of such a story?
yes of course. the story must be told, i don't see why cinema is an inappropriate means of telling it. as with any artform, it's up to the artist to utilize it as a powerful storytelling medium, which cinema can certainly be.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 11:28:58 AM2. Has anybody seen the movie? If not, how can we say how it portrays the "suffering of the native americans"?
well you haven't seen it either so shut the fuck up. i was responding to the way you trivialized the suffering of native americans, which you're continuing to do.
and please, this isn't "SoNowThen's Hate Speech thread," this is a thread about the movie. what a pathetic hijacking. in the future take that trash where it belongs. (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=8422.0)
Now:
What story must be told? What is this movie about? What story about the first settlers is worth telling, and where are we getting our info from?
Don't get so defensive about me not seeing either, cos I never claimed to. I was making comments about the trailer. You're the one who made a statement about the story and the movie. Now, that's what I went on to point out, that sometimes some fellas have selective reading, where I post something as a question, statements, whatever, throw a little goofiness into it, and BANG all of a sudden it becomes me against the world. The initial post made no attempt to hijack, but I have to defend myself subsequently, don't I?
I don't think "historically significant" things make good movies. I think it's kind of pompous and useless to go for some great meaningful assessment of an event or an era, except, as I said before, in special cases where the filmmaker does something above and beyond, such as Malick did in TRL. So I have hope to believe he will do something wonderful here. And no, P, of course I don't hate Malick -- you silly goose.
As to movies about the Native American plight, I get annoyed with them. The native american plight annoys me, and I'm not trying to "spread hate", I'm stating an opinion that I don't give any support to them for any current agenda. As to the history of said plight, I don't think it will do any good via awareness, because those people are dead and that time is past. Now you can say it's good to remember it, keep it in the public light, so to speak, but really if anyone wants to know about these things they can go read a bunch of books, which is most likely what the storytellers had to do in the first place. And to those who say cinema can bring info to those who won't actively go seek out the info, well your answer to wanting people who are too lazy to get the info you want them to have is that most likely they aren't gonna place the same respect on retaining and meditating on it as you want them to. In other words, I don't want the one movie I get this decade by one of my favorite directors to be on this subject. It upsets me. If you're not upset, be happy, feel lucky, cos I don't.
As to trivializing the suffering of native americans, it's not that I trivialize it... I don't care about it in the least. Not even enough to trivialize it. Many many many peoples have had to suffer attempts at genocide, colonies have come and gone, horros have been perpetrated all across the board. What does such a general retelling of this fact of life serve to the artist? Is there something specific he can touch upon (I use "he" not for Malick but for us all)? Suffering happens everyday, on a daily basis, to us all. Somewhere someone starves, someone is killed, someone's lover lies to them, someone can't communicate to their parents. This native american thing and the holocaust thing are just beloved little stories for people to hide behind. Lazy lazy lazy storytellers, I say. Now, if you think about it, this is leaning more towards a hijack, because we can't refute or support anything I say based upon the actual movie, which none of us have seen. I never wanted to get into all this, I just wanted to express some frustration and fear regarding the quality of the trailer, and the seeming subject of the movie.
As to the case being "solved" regarding the Irish thing, I think far from it. I don't think anything about being progressive, I just don't start warning bells when someone makes a statement using a hot-topic race. The fact that I can slide with using blunt shorthand to slag Colin, but must cover myself with mounds of paperwork and legal-ese to even approach pocahontas is something I find unfair and short-sighted.
But I must now admit, I must be the only person who isn't stoked on the new Malick movie here. And it's really surprising to me, cos I really feel it is a wasted topic and a horrible trailer.
I'm nowhere near the biggest supporter of Malick, but I'm really excited to see this film. I thought the biggest problem with The Thin Red Line was not its poetry, but that the film was 40 years too late. The topic of war has been rammed through our heads by countless other films that The Thin Red Line never swayed my sensibilities. I liked Apocalypse Now more even though it was pop culture symbolism at its most superficial. The New World is fresh but important material. The story of Pocahontas, before even being bred to Disney identification, has a carried an aura of myth to American beginnings that still stands to this day. Much of that myth can come down now. A Malick translation could do that but more importantly it could be the fresh ground Malick needs to bleed his camera to.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 18, 2005, 02:34:10 PM
it could be the fresh ground Malick needs to bleed his camera to.
Nice meaty description there.
anyway i agree with sonowthen. The plight of the dead indians is of no interest to me. in fact, anything dead or anything past is not suitable for cinema. it's just not relevant and we can all go read about it if we stupidly felt the need. I mean, the only reason I'd watch a film about history is for the information itself. not the emotional resonance or the moral lessons that might appeal to us today, as seen through the unique poetic lens of a Malick film. Cold hard text, that's all I wants ta hears about it. You know those Jews? Why do people keep making movies about them and their "plight" during the "holocaust" which may or may not have happened! (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/index.html) Spielberg needs to quit teaching us about these people and just let us read about it.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 02:26:01 PM
As to trivializing the suffering of native americans, it's not that I trivialize it... I don't care about it in the least. Not even enough to trivialize it. Many many many peoples have had to suffer attempts at genocide, colonies have come and gone, horros have been perpetrated all across the board.
wow, so you don't care about the suffering of Native Americans because they're not the only group who's suffered. great.
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 02:26:01 PM
What does such a general retelling of this fact of life serve to the artist?
hey here's a thought -- maybe the ones who tell stories about human suffering aren't doing it to "serve to the artist."
Quote from: SoNowThen on December 18, 2005, 02:26:01 PM
This native american thing and the holocaust thing are just beloved little stories for people to hide behind.
what the fuck is this? are you really this stupid? that shit right there will prevent me from ever taking anything you say seriously again. now it's crystal clear where you're coming from.
I'm glad Hedwig edited the posts appropriately. I find it alarming such cold tendencies can exists for those historical subjects, but I want to know why SoNowThen, when pressed for opposing arguments, feels that way. Certainly it is understandable film has no chance to compete with the information of a book, but it is also glaringly obvious the best historical films are not merely historical documents. They are interpretive works that present the situation with a new realism that define and underline so much more than a 'lesson'. Being personally linked to a Native American society and background, I can attest to the feeling of many Native Americans that there never has been a completely realized film that understands the Native American. Myths, folklore and other tales just get sprinkled with realism here and there. SoNowThen, you champion filmmakers who share opposite convictions. They address the past with vigor and passion and try to speak for people unspoken for. They also understand certain films muff the truth for exploitation. When addressing history in film, try to understand each film is an individual case and broad opinions can't be spoken for.
*Inserts foot in mouth*
I dunno about speaking for people unspoken for. The filmmaker should speak for himself. And I don't understand the need for anyone, Native American or otherwise, to want so badly a movie that "understands them" as a culture. Everyone seems to get pissed off when I make a generalization, so why ask for a film that tries to generalize a race or culture during a specific time. If anything, a movie that singles out a specific "race" role as the point, contributes to the problem rather than helping it (which, yet again, I must state that I don't think film can "help" or "hinder" racism).
A myth or folklore could be very interesting, since it is less reliant on reality -- more on the open space and wonder of a good story told. In cases such as this, in Canada we got a lot of Native myths sold to us when we were growing up in school. Personally, it's not something I have any interest in. For some reason, Greek myths are more exciting to me, Oriental myths less so. That doesn't mean I have a little table in my room, whereby I rate Greeks higher than Chinese, it's just the way my interests lie at the moment.
And anyone using a Speilberg movie to show me how great a historical flick can be -- ugh. That's everything I rail against. I DO think he's a fuck for making Schindler's List and assuming he's doing us all a favor.
And Hedwig, do you really think an artist does something without wanting to serve himself? True, he may do it for "the audience" as well, but c'mon, artists aren't charity workers. I certainly hope it's "crystal clear" where I'm coming from... :roll:
Canada?
Interview: Christian Bale
The actor talks New World.
It's been a very big year for Christian Bale. He received wide praise his late 2004 performance in The Machinist, although the film was unfairly shunted opposite bigger, inferior performances come Oscar time. Soon after, Bale followed with a summer blockbuster that no one could ignore. As Batman, Bale brought to life the most multi-dimensional, fascinating portrayal of the dark knight yet seen on screen. Batman Begins was loved by critics and geeks alike. Although nothing concrete has been announced, Bale will likely return for a sequel and is welcome by fans to play the caped crusader until the end of time.
Never one to simply rest on his laurels and avoid an upcoming challenge, Bale chose a pretty interesting follow-up with one of Hollywood's most notorious and mysterious directors, the seldom heard from and seldom seen Terrence Malick. New World is Malick's first film since 1998's The Thin Red Line and only his 5th film since his directorial debut in 1969.
Starring Colin Farrell as John Smith, Bale as John Rolfe and a newcomer named Q' Orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas, New World is the epic story of the 17th century English settlement in North America and their brutal clash with the Native Americans. John Smith falls for Pocahontas, but their love can never be. Eventually, Pocahontas meets Rolfe, an English gentleman who becomes infatuated with the young and storied native. Pocahontas soon falls for the socialite's charm and becomes the toast of England.
Bale was on hand at the press day this past weekend to talk to press. Along with New World, FilmForce tried to eek out a few details on the actor's upcoming re-teaming with Christopher Nolan, The Prestige.
Malick is known for his long, storied productions. He's also often been known for cutting his actors out of the film almost entirely. Adrien Brody voiced similar issues with the final cut of Thin Red Line and, during the course of the New World press day, co-star Wes Studi had similar issues. Bale comments: "A lot of them were cut. But, when Terry first asked me to do the movie, at the time I was setting up a movie with Werner Herzog that we were doing and I just called him to check about the progress and the dates and everything. And then, they're very good friends. Werner was at the premiere the other night, and I'd heard about the Adrien Brody story. I'd also spoken with Gary Oldman about it, because he had had early involvement with Thin Red Line and stuff and had a lot of good stories about that. And then, Werner's first comment to me was, 'Oh wonderful, Terry's a wonderful man. You'll have a fascinating time working with him. Just don't expect to be in the movie.' (Laughs) So nothing could surprise me after that. And then I was actually communicating with Terry a great deal throughout his editing process. And it was very interesting. He explained, he had a requirement to bring the movie in at two and a half hours. I know that he's working on a three hour version which hopefully will be released on DVD. And, you know, consequently, a number of scenes had to go and you really have to get down to the essence of the story. And so, much of the dialogue was actually removed. He felt, and it was things that we would experiment with while we were filming as well… There were often times, we would try to do scenes that may have had a great deal of dialogue, maybe two pages, and we would see, 'Can this work without ever saying a word? Can we make it work and make it understood without saying anything.' And it seemed as though that ended up being more the way to go."
"Of course, you know, from a selfish point of view, I'd like every single scene that we shot to have ended up in the movie. But I'm not a moron. I understand it. That's not always what's important to the movie. You often have to cut very nice scenes for the better of the movie. So nah, there's absolutely no bitterness whatsoever. The only thing that I would have liked is just to have been involved more actually there, actually in the filming. You know, because I ended up only being there for I think four or five weeks or something. And I just like his style of working so much. He's such a calming director. He's so curious and he's appreciative of absolutely everything and there's never a sense that you're kind of being tested. Sometimes, with a movie, where there's such a hard, fast idea from the director about exactly what the scene should be, then it's very much like you are being tested, you know? You better achieve that line there, you better get that one in there and this one has to have this inflection and you've gotta switch here. And it stops being natural. With Terry, he was all about you do what you feel is correct to the degree that he would say end and the rare thing with him was that he actually would mean, if you don't want to say anything in this scene, then don't say anything."
Malick's methods on set have been said to be unique by some and require a bit of adjustment by others. "He has this nice way of kind of creeping up on you with filming. He doesn't announce, 'Hey everybody, tighten up. This is it. Film costs money. You better get this scene right, right now.' So you're feeling a little bit of, 'Oh, all right.' And you're running it through your head beforehand, 'Okay, I've gotta get that line in that way, then I have to make this one sound this way.' With Terry it was never like that. Half the time he would start filming and you didn't even know that he had begun filming. You'd just be sitting there doing whatever and then you just kind of realize it. Nobody was talking for some reason and then you just kind of go, 'Oh right, oh we're filming.' So, you know, and you start talking and it really seems like you're talking and I think that was something wonderful that he did, especially with it being a period movie, because so often with period movies you get this… Uptight, you know, human interaction that just, it's so difficult for me to believe that they actually behave that way outside of books. He just really masters that, you know? It was really great. I wish more movies could be done that way."
Coming off Batman Begins, New World was already well into production when Bale arrived on set. "I'd been a little bit nervous before arriving, because I'd spoken to a friend of mine who was working on the movie and he said to me, 'Oh, we do a lot of improvisation,' which to me, I thought, 'Holy crap. 1607, how do you improvise in the correct language?' And I thought, I imagined all the other actors had been studying for months and had learned how to speak like that without even thinking, so I was thinking, 'Oh man, I'm out of my league here, I'm out out of my depth.' But then got there, experienced that first improvised thing, and he didn't care that I came up with a whole bunch of anachronistic sayings. (Laughs) There were some of them which were great, so he just used those bits. I also accidentally credited John Rolfe with the discovery of gravity. (Laughs) Which, that was pointed out, that Newton had not actually written that yet. So, I hope that the Rolfe family were happy that I gave him that distinction." (Laughs)
Either you like Malick or you don't. There isn't a whole lot of in-between. One undeniable aspect of his work is the visual beauty of the things he films. He often takes breaks in the scheduled production for that perfect sunset or unexpected visitor. "He always kept himself busy. He never stopped. There were never times when we were sitting around twiddling our thumbs waiting. As I'm sure you know, whenever it was exteriors, there was no artificial lighting. Even when we did go interior, he would just go one lighting set up in the morning and that's it. It wouldn't change, the lights would say the same. So consequently, you just filmed and filmed and filmed and filmed and filmed, you know? And so you would go way off of what the scenes were, you'd come up with different things and then he would edit it and you had a look back on the scene and you'd go, 'Wow, look at that. He took that bit by bit and wow, he's woven it together wonderful.'"
"There were absolutely times where we'd be in the middle of doing a scene and it was, 'Oh God, look at the sun, look at the way that, look at the trees, the way they're moving right now. Quick!' And people would run over there, get that, you know, or hey, 'Q'Orianka, chase that grasshopper.' (Laughs) 'Go on. There you go.' Or somebody would walk past with a caterpillar on their hand and it would be, 'Heeeey! Come on, get the caterpillar now!' But it was great, so you never knew what was gonna happen and Terry was just endlessly enthusiastic and had a great humor, you know, about him, and I found it just incredibly easy working with him and would really be honored to do that again."
Bale always heavily researches the role he takes on, but admits he may have overdone it prepping for New World. "I did. I did a whole lot. As usual, I tend to find that by the time I finish the movie I think, 'Ah yeah, once again Christian, you did all that research and it wasn't needed.' But I just can't help it. It's nice to know. I just enjoy finding out as much as I can. I was in London at the time. I went along to the British Public Library and found these great little, you know, documents that they had and old books with John Rolfe's writings actually in them. Assessments of his character and everything that was happening at the time. And I like having that, I like having that background…."
Next for Bale is another film with Batman Begins director Christopher Nolan. The Prestige co-stars Hugh Jackman, David Bowie and fellow Batman co-star Michael Caine. They're magicians, you know? And so we're working out all sorts of shenanigans that we can get up to for that. It's a very interesting cast, and obviously working with Chris Nolan again is nice. Many of the crew that I've worked with before and some of the actors as well. Yeah, I think it's going to be a really interesting piece."
The actor admits even he doesn't know whether a Batman sequel will follow Prestige. "I don't know, yeah."
here's a super positive review :
http://film.guardian.co.uk/patterson/story/0,12830,1672911,00.html
i get to confirm that this is, in fact, the greatest film ever made (outside of bresson's films) in a few days.
Craziness
worked
Q'Orianka Kilcher / Pocahantas
Christian Bale / John Rolfe
didnt
Colin Farrell / John Smith
length
multiple (redundant) narration
winner
ben chaplin (along with Noah Taylor and Jonathan Pryce) as an extra
thanks mod, your review was really insightful and thought-provoking.
this is the greatest film ever made.
not quite but WHAT A FUCKING FILM. easily, easily the best film of the year and in recent memory... whatever. months and months hyping myself up for this and it still blew me away. at this point i have nothing but hyperboles and some more digesting to do.
:shock: + :inlove: + :notworthy: = me during the entire film
mod i'd love to know what you didn't like about colin farrell.
Malick's messy, beautiful frontiers
At once exasperating and awe-inspiring, the sporadic auteur's films are like nobody else's. And that alone is worth celebrating.
By Peter Rainer, Special to The Times
LIKE some fleeting cosmological phenomenon, the appearance of a new Terrence Malick movie always seems to augur a shift in the Hollywood heavens — or at least that portion of heaven inhabited by cloud-borne cinéastes. Now that Stanley Kubrick has passed on, Malick is the undisputed recluse/auteur of the film business, the director the most movie people would most like to work with if only they could find him.
"The New World," his new film about John Smith and Pocahontas and the Jamestown colony, is only his fourth in 32 years. That's the kind of statistic of which mystiques are made, and Malick's has held up surprisingly well. The question is: Why?
I think the answer has more to do with the idea of Terrence Malick than with the overall quality of his films. At 62, he is one of the most gifted directors of his generation, though even his most ardent enthusiasts concede he has yet to make his "Citizen Kane." But Malick remains the sole poster boy from that '70s era when it was still possible for idiosyncratic artists in Hollywood to make in their own way the projects that they truly cared about.
The directors he started out with, like Coppola and De Palma and Scorsese and Spielberg, long ago entered the mainstream, but here is Malick in "The New World" making very much the same kind of lacework movie he might have made in 1973, the year of his "Badlands" debut. He's been called the J.D. Salinger of movies, but Rip Van Winkle is closer to the mark.
The '70s, of course, was also the era when Hollywood directors were at their most self-infatuated. But not all the peacocks were poseurs. The good and great movies from that era — ranging from "Mean Streets" and "The Godfather" films to "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" and "Carrie" — represented a triumph of artistic, not narcissistic, sensibility. They were made by directors with a new way of seeing, which was, in essence, a new way of imagining.
This is what many of us miss most from American movies now — a visual daring that is at one with a daring conception. This lack is felt even in the so-called independent realm, which has been singularly unadventurous cinematographically and dramatically. Even a film as distinctly and personally shaped as "The Squid and the Whale" is nothing much to look at.
If there is a modern-day equivalent to the superstar auteurs of Malick's generation it would be Quentin Tarantino, and this is largely because, unlike most of the interchangeable functionaries and music video mavens making studio movies right now, his films are flagrantly his own. His relish for the sheer effrontery of moviemaking links him to the '70s even though beneath all the swagger in his films is simply more swagger. The vogue in this country for the Hong Kong director Wong Kar-Wai is part of the same signature-style syndrome. Emotionally his movies are a dreamier and more ambiguously melancholy version of '50s Hollywood kitsch à la Douglas Sirk, but all that pretty patterning sure gives your eyes a show.
Malick may seem an odd duck in this current movie climate, but then again, he has never quite fit in anywhere. Unlike his contemporaries, he has never really drawn on popular sources of entertainment, even though movies like "Badlands" and "The Thin Red Line," at least thematically, have a long Hollywood lineage. Scorsese and Coppola may have been inspired by Visconti and Fellini, but their most obvious antecedents early on were American crime melodramas; De Palma raided Hitchcock; Bogdanovich raided Hawks and Ford.
Malick, by contrast, although he was part of the first wave of film school graduates in the early '70s, didn't seem to be reacting to or against anything in either the Old or the New Hollywood. He was a high culture guy in a mass culture medium — a Rhodes scholar who once translated Heidegger — and he didn't seek to overwhelm us with pyrotechnics. He was offering us a look into his own private dreamscape.
The signposts in this dreamscape have remained remarkably consistent from movie to movie, whether he is filming the Dakota Badlands or "Days of Heaven's" Texas Panhandle, or Guadalcanal or Jamestown. His great theme is the despoiling of Eden. "How did this horror enter the world?" asks a soldier in "The Thin Red Line" as guts spray the supernal vistas.
For Malick, nature's beauty, which he captures using only natural light, is defined by the depravity that will always seek to undo it. His films, which have been graced by the longtime collaboration of his production designer Jack Fisk and the cinematography of such masters as Nestor Almendros, Haskell Wexler and John Toll, are filled with breathtaking close-ups of animals and birds and insects — creatures who are elementally connected to the terrors in the wild.
He tends to film his people in the same way, as exalted specimens in the cosmic laboratory. This is why there are few memorable performances in his movies; he is more interested in actors for their sculptural and spiritual qualities than in what they can bring to bear psychologically. Sometimes he comes up very short: Richard Gere in "Days of Heaven" and Q'orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas in "The New World" are prettified blanks, while Colin Farrell's Capt. John Smith isn't even pretty.
Nature is a riddle for Malick, a rune that, if only it could be decoded, would yield up the secret of why we are placed on this Earth. (An early, aborted project of his was an epic about the creation of the planet, no less.) Because he is always divining the ineffable, his movies can sometimes seem absurdly high-flown and, from a real-world standpoint, insubstantial. He makes movies about sociopathic serial murderers, the agrarian poor, a major war theater in the Pacific and America's founding colony, and yet there is hardly any direct political engagement to these films at all.
Not that some people haven't tried to find it anyway. "Badlands," for example, was misinterpreted by a number of critics as an elitist snob's attack on the soullessness of a mass culture that would turn wayward youths into killers and even media heroes. But Malick, who grew up in Oklahoma and Texas, wasn't mounting a cultural attack on rural hickdom. The Badlands in that great, spooky movie, which I think is easily his best, are entirely metaphorical; the wide-open spaces are maddening because they isolate and distill our own worst impulses. Nature is forever putting our souls in jeopardy.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2005-12%2F21204725.jpg&hash=7f8cfd3a0aa767c6f6565a5d9c4022ad9234ddac)
When the world was innocent
IN "Days of Heaven," Malick is similarly unconcerned with the sociopolitical class consciousness ostensibly at its core. The film, which despite its extraordinary picturesqueness seems more than ever to me an hors d'oeuvres tray posing as a full meal, exists primarily to showcase the climactic biblical-style conflagration of the landowner's wheat fields — the light that nature, in all its awakened cruelty, sends off. In "The Thin Red Line," which came 20 years after "Days of Heaven," the strategies of war and the bearing of the soldiers pale beside the Rousseau-like idylls of Jim Caviezel (warming up to play Jesus?) cavorting with the uncorrupted Melanesians. For Malick, being AWOL is a state of grace.
The Native Americans in "The New World" are equally uncorrupted. Pocahontas certainly is — she's practically a woodland nymph. Despite his super-sophistication, Malick has a deeply childlike conception of innocence. This must be why his films, which are sensual in an almost pantheistic way, are nevertheless without a carnal dimension. There is no sex in his movies, not even in "Badlands" or "Days of Heaven." Sex occupies a baser realm than the rarefied one he inhabits. The real action for Malick is all in the head, in his characters' inner musings that crowd the soundtrack. A major problem with "The New World" is that, despite its visual ravishments and convincing note of woe, its people don't seem to have much going on between the ears.
Malick's films may not always live up to his mystique, but it would be a major blow if he were to take another decade-long siesta. The freedom he incarnates as an artist is not something deserving only of nostalgia for a bygone era. What about our own era? Something is lost in a culture when artists are not allowed to make fools of themselves, because foolishness is often the flip side of greatness. Despite all the floss in his films, Malick has had his share of that too. He has dedicated his life to his own exalted idea of beauty, where even the tiniest dabs of creation have oracular power, and he has given us images, like the torched house in "Badlands" or the long shot of the train in black silhouette against a powder blue sky in "Days of Heaven," that will resonate for as long as there are movies.
The best passages in Malick's films are all about paradise lost. His career, with its inexplicable absences, represents another kind of loss. But he is still among us, and his way of seeing is worth championing in these machine-tooled times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Rainer is the film critic for the Christian Science Monitor and DVD critic for Bloomberg News.
Congratulations to everyone who saw this already... you've seen a version of The New World no one will ever see again.
This will teach me to wait.
Malick Explains New World Recall
By WENN|Wednesday, January 11, 2006
HOLLYWOOD - Director Terrence Malick withdrew latest film The New World from cinema screens just days after its release because he was convinced it needed more editing.
The bizarre recall came just nine days after the historical drama made its debut in movie houses, but Malick is confident his cuts will be beneficial.
The Colin Farrell film, which focuses on the clash between native Americans and English settlers in the seventeenth century, has been cut by the Texan director by 17 minutes.
The revised version will be released on Jan. 20.
Quote from: modage on December 30, 2005, 11:11:26 PM
didnt [work]
length
looks like Malick and I see eye to eye.
He's just doing that so he can release the "Semi-Unrated" Version later on. :roll:
ummm... no.
Quote from: modage on January 11, 2006, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: modage on December 30, 2005, 11:11:26 PM
didnt [work]
length
looks like Malick and I see eye to eye.
The first thing I thought of was all the complaints that Thin Red Line was so long, which it was long, but it was still great and if Malick is cutting damn near 20 minutes from this and left Thin Red Line alone... then DAMN!
To make things even more confusing, Malick has an approximately three-hour cut in mind for the dvd (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/movies/13shor.html).
Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that by the time this gets to dvd there will have been three different versions released on one medium or another? And the article also expresses that Malick prefers the shortest version for the theater and the longer version for dvd. I guess the positive is that he is apparently "approving" both versions. However, even though I'm a fan of Malick's work, I prefer the approach Scorsese takes with dvd in that the cut that appears in theaters is what we see in our homes as well.
that article for anyone who doesnt want to sign-up...
Films in Need of a Little Nip and Tuck
Source: NY Times
By CARYN JAMES
Published: January 13, 2006
"The New World," Terrence Malick's poetic film about John Smith, Pocahontas and the Jamestown settlement, played for a week last month in New York and Los Angeles, but that version is already obsolete. "The New World" that will open around the country next Friday runs two-and-a-quarter hours, 15 minutes shorter than its earlier incarnation (whose brief run qualified it for Academy Awards) and a lot shorter than the three-hour cut Mr. Malick is preparing for the DVD release. The original is now something like "The New World 1.0," and you might wonder if these multiplying versions are part of some Microsoft-inspired marketing ploy, the film equivalent of the endless tinkering that makes you keep updating Windows.
Mr. Malick, who doesn't give interviews, wasn't about to explain himself, but the film's producer, Sarah Green, did it for him in a telephone interview. Like anybody else, she said, "Terry gets impatient sitting in theaters," and while preparing the DVD of "The New World" he saw that the film he had raced to deliver to New Line for the qualifying Oscar run "would play better if it were tightened up a little." He initiated the change, and people at New Line - with a sleeker, shorter movie to sell - must have felt as if they'd won the lottery.
The common-sensical view that an audience might actually have a better experience if the film were tauter is rare among directors, especially this season when some of the most prominent movies are needlessly long. These films achieve their bloated status for different reasons: the old "New World" and "Brokeback Mountain" (running 2 hours and 14 minutes) take too much time getting started. If the audience knows that the English settlers will land and the cowboys will turn out to be gay, the movies shouldn't waste 15 minutes getting there.
Both Peter Jackson's popcorn movie "King Kong," a gargantuan 3 hours 7 minutes, and Steven Spielberg's ultraserious "Munich," 2 hours and 44 minutes, seem slacker than they should, probably because their powerful directors can do whatever they want. Who's going to tell them no? What all these films have in common, though, is that their length adds minutes likely to make viewers fidget instead of drawing them in.
As Mr. Malick realized, the issue is not length itself, but what works on screen. The original "New World" created the satisfying sense of having been through an epic experience, following Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher) from her innocent youth, through her romance with Smith (Colin Farrell), her marriage to another settler, John Rolfe (Christian Bale) and her trip to London, where she is presented to the king. But that version also included more of what Ms. Green calls "leisure shots" and others might call travelogues: pretty pictures of birds flying, water flowing, trees growing, many appearing at the start, when Pocahontas inhabits a world before the English.
Those preliminary scenes, which slowed things down, have been trimmed, and the voice-overs - interior monologues in which Pocahontas and Smith meditate on their lives - are less likely to accompany picturesque views of nature. Instead, Ms. Green said, the voice-over "pulls you into the next scene." The editing was the kind of snipping that, like a good face-lift, should be inconspicuous if it works. Besides, Mr. Malick can put it all back (and more) in the DVD. "He always had it in mind that he would make a longer version that would allow people to take bathroom breaks," Ms. Green said.
Films aren't all about plot, of course, and artistically a work may need time to establish its characters and its pace. But viewers now walk into theaters already so crammed with information about the film that those establishing scenes almost take care of themselves. A 2-hour-and-14-minute movie isn't unusual today - the bloat has been happening for years - but "Brokeback Mountain" spends so much time offering scenic views of the range and all those sheep that you begin to wonder if Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger's characters are ever going to sidle up to each other. The film takes off only after their romance begins, nearly a half-hour in.
There is an anomaly behind these elephantine movies: as viewers' attention spans seem to grow shorter, accustomed to fragmented computer screens and television sound bites, films get longer, hoping to compete by creating an event. The hugely hyped "King Kong" gained even more publicity when word arrived that it had ballooned to more than three hours. The problem with "Kong" isn't the setup, though. The first section, in which the starving actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is hired by the film producer Carl Denham (Jack Black) and they make their way to Skull Island, is entertaining enough to sustain its 45 minutes.
The slackness arrives with the special effects, those magical tricks that Mr. Jackson seems so reluctant to trim. There aren't entire sequences that need to be cut from "Kong." (Well, maybe the too-cute episode in which Kong ice skates in Central Park en route to the Empire State Building.) But each set piece - the rampaging dinosaurs, the spiders, those toothy-wormy things that look like refugees from the "Alien" movies - includes a few scenes too many. And there are too many lingering shots of Kong's face and expressive eyes. These are signs of a director so enamored with his own clever accomplishments that he sacrifices the pacing of the film. Snipping a few seconds here and there would have made it a little shorter and much sleeker.
The far more trenchant "Munich" has a terrific beginning, too. Mr. Spielberg swiftly and horrifyingly depicts the murders of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics, then introduces the Israelis assigned to retaliate. But after Avner (Eric Bana) and his team begin to hunt down the 11 men on their list, the film settles into a repetitious pattern. There are slight variations in the action; bombs are planted in different places. Every now and then that action stops so the characters can question the morality or effectiveness of what they're doing. About two hours in, viewers might begin to worry that the film will drag them through all 11 names. In fact, the team doesn't assassinate all its targets, but as the body count rises over a half-dozen - and some of the Israelis are killed in return - the murders blur together in a way that lessens their impact.
Mr. Spielberg made "Munich" quickly, and at times it shows. You can almost see where the screenplay, by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, was stitched together, the philosophical and the action halves never making a cohesive whole. Its best parts - the moral questioning of political assassination, Avner's emotional anguish - are so good that you wish Mr. Spielberg had made a more cogent, compressed film, one that matched his ambition. In such cases, a Malick-like return to the editing room can seem like inspiration rather than a director's indulgence.
Thanks for posting the full article. Completely slipped my mind not everyone would be able to link to it without signing up.
SPOILER
I just saw this movie and never have I been in a theater with a more hateful audience. I saw so many walkouts and people laughed when the credits started rolling, sarcastically cheering and clapping their hands. They were so urgently picking up their phones and so quick to call it the worst movie ever and such and such. It was a little bit heartbreaking. I can safely be a snob and say this is a filmlover's film, it's Ozu in the West, it's rewarding only to people who like to absorb and experience rather than process information. I mean, that much is obvious, but this film really separates us from them, the lovers from assholes. I bet it'll be encouraging someday when you make a film that everyone hates and you can remind yourself, hey, I walked outta A New World where everyone reacted the same exact way.
Okay, onto the film itself, I don't really have that much to say about it, it's great and I actually did not expect the ending. It was heartbreaking, but everything happened so naturally and logically, it made the "cultivation" of Pocahontas that much more human and convincing--that it wasn't just some kinda nostalgia/ white guilt--it mourned the tragedy of complacency and was able to make complacency as tragic and as epic as any other type of downfall--pride and greed and lust and what have you.
You just gotta love lines like this from the reviewer at CNN:
Watching "The New World" is like watching a snail cross an eight-lane highway. Perhaps there's a director, or editor, who could make that concept enthralling, but as for me, I kept longing that Jerry Bruckheimer would speed along in a Hummer and squish it flat.
That guy got paid to write that, too.
This could be the first time that a critic has longed for Bruckheimer. Let's hope it's the last.
Sure enough the best film of the year!
How could I have expected any lesser. To think I actually worried a bit with early negative buzz toward its slow pacing and lack of story. This film is full of beauty painted with a combination of tender and aggressive strokes by an artist who never fails to show how he puts great care into his masterworks. The music blending into sounds of nature, the extravagant costume and set design, the sweet sound and mix of poetic narratives, the wonderful Q'orianka Kilcher who captivates each emotion she's put through so amazingly with hardly muttering a word, Colin Farrell's portrayal of a man who his both sensitive and uncapable of love, the illuminating photography that sketches and guides Malick's vision... a fourth masterpiece indeed from an artist who simply stays true to his form.
It's my King Kong.
I should say more.
Spoilers.
A maturation of Malick as a filmmaker, storyteller, and moralist.
I want to express to you how the autumn camp turning into the winter camp affected me. How the young boys pleaing to Smith affected me, and how the arrival of Pocahontas shortly after told the end of the story at the height of the middle of the story. Who did not think that they themselves would prefer the colony to England? The hedge field maze. The tile floors. It felt as ridiculous to all of you as it did to me, right? The blooming colony on the swampland, Smith deadend in the artic. Quiet moments in the tall grass.
Perhaps I can only express how much I enjoyed the movie by describing the movie.
Quote from: pozer on January 20, 2006, 01:36:34 PM
You just gotta love lines like this from the reviewer at CNN:
Watching "The New World" is like watching a snail cross an eight-lane highway. Perhaps there's a director, or editor, who could make that concept enthralling, but as for me, I kept longing that Jerry Bruckheimer would speed along in a Hummer and squish it flat.
How can you write that and not just feel the invalidation setting in?
No matter who it's about... the man could really not like Malick, but to express impatience for some Bruckheimer action, it seems a dead giveaway that you probably shouldn't be reviewing movies.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 21, 2006, 01:14:39 AM
It's my King Kong.
I should say more.
Spoilers.
A maturation of Malick as a filmmaker, storyteller, and moralist.
I want to express to you how the autumn camp turning into the winter camp affected me. How the young boys pleaing to Smith affected me, and how the arrival of Pocahontas shortly after told the end of the story at the height of the middle of the story. Who did not think that they themselves would prefer the colony to England? The hedge field maze. The tile floors. It felt as ridiculous to all of you as it did to me, right? The blooming colony on the swampland, Smith deadend in the artic. Quiet moments in the tall grass.
Perhaps I can only express how much I enjoyed the movie by describing the movie.
...what?
Quote from: samsong on January 22, 2006, 09:56:49 PM
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 21, 2006, 01:14:39 AM
It's my King Kong.
I should say more.
Spoilers.
A maturation of Malick as a filmmaker, storyteller, and moralist.
I want to express to you how the autumn camp turning into the winter camp affected me. How the young boys pleaing to Smith affected me, and how the arrival of Pocahontas shortly after told the end of the story at the height of the middle of the story. Who did not think that they themselves would prefer the colony to England? The hedge field maze. The tile floors. It felt as ridiculous to all of you as it did to me, right? The blooming colony on the swampland, Smith deadend in the artic. Quiet moments in the tall grass.
Perhaps I can only express how much I enjoyed the movie by describing the movie.
...what?
I think that it was Malick touching the most humane aspects of his poetry. That he stripped away satire and inexperience and came to pure beauty of truth and emotion and nothing else.
I had this great visceral experience in which my emotions were entirely obliged to an ethereal plain. I did not sense a recognitive value to the film but rather felt that it touched inside a deep chamber of emotion which is withheld from many mainstream films. It stirred me with its transcendence, and I felt at once in love and at once torn from that same love. I questioned modern values and understood Malick's motive of questioning the same; I felt that the temperamental values we place on objects and space were challenged with supreme validity and the opulent and supressive England was a fine choice to verify this speculation. The entire film was subjective but it felt whole and complete which are the cornerstones of objectivity which left me conflicted which made me like the film more. I can express this most clearly by describing the film which most confuses that who want to understand the film with tired, hackneyed reviews.
I liked the film a lot and can only express that by telling you the scenes and hoping you enjoyed them in the same way. It's my King Kong = it was the experience I was waiting for all year.
Better, worse? I don't know.
This film was a wonderful experience. I agree with what pozer said above...especially the blending of the score with natural sounds in the film's opening sequence and again toward its conclusion. In fact, the entire opening sequence is astonishing and that goes for how the "naturals", English, and I felt. Spoilers--I loved how the native Americans touched the English's clothes and garments...reminded me of ape-man's reaction to the monolith in 2001--end spoilers.
The contrasts between the naturals and the English could not have been more straightforward. That goes for their respective camps, the ideals and beliefs of community shown by each, and, of course, unsettled America vs. London in 1616. There is nothing substantively new here (the West needs to conquer, rather than coexist, with nature and other civilizations), but Malick's imagery and the surrogates used, especially Q'Orianka Kilcher, are inspirational.
There seems to be a general malaise out there right now for this film, but that may be just an unwillingness to engage Malick's unique style. I would encourage everyone to give it a chance and you will hopefully feel as rewarded as I do.
you've missed the point.
just saw this last night - its almost useless to even use words to decribe such a transporting experience - utterly bueatiful - effected me deeply - best film of the year.
Quote from: pete on January 23, 2006, 12:21:00 PM
you've missed the point.
Tough to respond...enlighten me.
spoiler
I don't think the film really was about the contrast between the naturals and the English. It was all about Pocahontas and mourned for her maturity. That was the big substantial insight that no other film had. It wasn't just a retelling of the dances with wolves story or whatever. the new world obviously was referring to England, when Pocahontas finally set foot there. The natives touched the garments out of curiosity, not because they were man-ape-like or unsophisticated, but precisely the opposite--they were people without the sense of ownership nor much inhibition.
Quote from: pete on January 23, 2006, 05:32:48 PM
they were people without the sense of ownership nor much inhibition.
But Malick didn't make it that easy. He presented the idea, Smith talked about it in his v.o. even (which is fabulous of Malick, his narrations always work for me because he does this, he has his characters talk about what they see only, without a sense of story or perspective), but the Natives did have a sense of ownership. Their land, right. It was their fucking land, and the blocking agent here, the inhibition, was that they knew the Europeans would keep coming and taking their land. What the purpose of the hatchet stealing scene then? It had already been established that they were curious about the European's property, but in this scene one of them attempted to own. Whether he coveted or was curious, whether it was nervousness or disrespect, the worth of the object in his culture, is outsie of the fact that he wanted the hatchet. Simply.
wouldn't it be easier to read the stealing of the hatchet as someone with no sense of ownership taking something he thought belonged to everyone? you brought up a good point about the land and I wouldn't disagree, but I still didn't think that contradicted with what I was saying about the naturals touching the garment of the soldiers not out of some ape-like unsophistication.
Spoilers.
QuoteI don't think the film really was about the contrast between the naturals and the English. It was all about Pocahontas and mourned for her maturity. That was the big substantial insight that no other film had. It wasn't just a retelling of the dances with wolves story or whatever.
I do not disagree with you that the film operates on the individual level and I think that is its most compelling aspect. But what you and I have said is not mutually exclusive. It also tackles the opposing cultures. That is why I felt the characters double as surrogates for the masses which they represent. I certainly do not want to limit The New World to simply Pocahontas.
Quotethe new world obviously was referring to England, when Pocahontas finally set foot there.
...and so much more. A new world for the English in unsettled America, a new world for the natives once the English arrive, a new world for Smith and Pocahontas on the personal level, new thoughts on history, experience and memory, a new world for Rolfe after meeting and finally winning over Pocahontas, and certainly a new world for Pocahontas and her father's brother upon arriving in London.
QuoteThe natives touched the garments out of curiosity, not because they were man-ape-like or unsophisticated, but precisely the opposite--they were people without the sense of ownership nor much inhibition.
I would never claim that they were man-ape like or unsophisticated. Rather, their physical actions in touching the clothes, the awe and astonishment at something so impossible...that is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
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?
It's Malick! Of course it's worth it, this flim has to be seen on the big screen.
I haven't seen it thou and god knows when it'll show around here. :yabbse-sad:
I have seen it twice and had to drive just under an hour to see it both times. You can catch up on sleep this weekend...once the film leaves the theatres...that's it. See it on the big screen.
I really need to see it again before it escapes the big screen. Is it worth not getting enough sleep the next day for work... how could you ask that?
thedigitalbits has gotten word that producer Sarah Greene has recently informed audiences at special limited screenings of Terrence Malick's The New World that the director has created an extended version of the film that will see release on DVD, possibly as early as March or April (from New Line).
Quote from: MacGuffin on February 08, 2006, 11:34:55 AM
thedigitalbits has gotten word that producer Sarah Greene has recently informed audiences at special limited screenings of Terrence Malick's The New World that the director has created an extended version of the film that will see release on DVD, possibly as early as March or April (from New Line).
Thank Christ.
This only came out here two weeks ago and I've only had the chance to see it twice (the same weekend). It's terrible that it's leaving so soon, but probably not at all unexpected.
I was actually contemplating a bootleg.... :ponder:
But this is extraordinarily great. :bravo:
shut up mod.
yes gamblour, it's definitely worth it. like fernando said, it's malick, and beyond that it's one of the best films of the decade, FUCK work and see the movie. i never reviewed it because i'm having trouble articulating how i felt about it. i think it's alexander payne who said that truly magnificent works of art often leave the viewer mystified, not knowing what to think. i was reminded of this when a woman after the movie told me she thought The New World was "very strange."
spoils.
i want to see the film again, but as of now i cannot stop thinking about the scenes in England. my feelings watching those scenes are comparable to the first time i saw the white room in 2001.
Quote from: Hedwig on February 08, 2006, 03:57:56 PM
shut up mod.
:bravo:
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.
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.
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.
mod that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read, including everything george bush has said.
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:00:28 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:00:28 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:00:28 PM
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.
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 10:37:44 PM
Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.
Agreed.
Quote from: matt35mmPeople 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.
Quote from: pete on February 08, 2006, 10:16:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Hedwig on February 08, 2006, 10:21:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Hedwig on February 08, 2006, 10:21:23 PM
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.
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 10:37:44 PM
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.
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 10:37:44 PM
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.
Quote from: onomabracadabra on February 08, 2006, 10:48:11 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 10:37:44 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:56:07 PM
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.
Quote from: onomabracadabra on February 08, 2006, 10:48:11 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 10:37:44 PM
Selfish filmmaking is the best filmmaking.
Agreed.
Quote from: matt35mmPeople 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.
Quote from: Cinephile on February 08, 2006, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 10:37:44 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:56:07 PM
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:
Quote from: Pubrick on February 06, 2004, 12:57:07 PM
Quote from: themodernage02because 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.
Quote from: Hedwig on February 08, 2006, 10:21:23 PM
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:00:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Cinephile on February 08, 2006, 11:01:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Cinephile on February 08, 2006, 11:01:38 PM
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...
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 11:21:30 PM
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).
Quote from: Hedwig on February 08, 2006, 11:23:02 PM
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:56:07 PM
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.
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 (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/reviews/archives/2006/01/the_new_world.html), but I'll be doing a more analytical look at the film once I have it on DVD.
i love you because i believe what you say and because fire doesnt come out of your mouth when you talk. :bravo:
Quote from: modage on February 09, 2006, 10:44:34 AM
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.
Just a bit more Johnny come lately fire because I just read through most of the malarkey.
Quote from: modage on February 08, 2006, 10:56:07 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 09, 2006, 10:44:34 AM
Quote from: Cinephile on February 08, 2006, 11:01:38 PM
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.
Quote from: matt35mm on February 08, 2006, 11:21:30 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 09, 2006, 10:44:34 AM
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:
Quote from: Sunrise on February 09, 2006, 11:39:33 AM
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.
Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As on February 09, 2006, 01:19:36 PM
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/
Quote from: Mike Clark, USA Today
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.
Quote from: J Hoberman, Village Voice
""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.
Quote from: Stephen Hunter, Washington Post
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.
Quote from: Todd McCarthy, Variety
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Cinephile on February 09, 2006, 01:43:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Cinephile on February 09, 2006, 01:43:54 PM
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?
Quote from: Cinephile on February 09, 2006, 01:43:54 PM
well Sunrise said it great right here:
Quote from: Sunrise on February 09, 2006, 11:39:33 AM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 09, 2006, 02:06:01 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 09, 2006, 02:06:01 PM
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.
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
Quote from: modage on February 09, 2006, 02:06:01 PMno, 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/
Quote from: Pubrick on December 24, 2005, 03:14:53 AMi 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: modage on February 09, 2006, 02:06:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 08, 2006, 08:47:45 AM
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.
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.
i think thats what i've been trying to say.
Quote from: Sunrise on February 10, 2006, 02:28:47 PM
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 08, 2006, 08:47:45 AM
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.
haha nope, didn't see it in the way that I had asked. but I did find another theater around here still playing it, so that gives me one more week to not see it.
Honestly, this was amazing.
how was this amazing?
I'm seeing this tonight, I'm so excited.
WHOO finally saw it. Here's the deal. SPOILS and such
The score is simply incredible, maybe one of the best scores ever made. The beautiful dense swirling orchestra, running up and down scales frantically, it was just oh so beautiful when it would happen, especially when combined with the gorgeous imagery. The best part was when Poca was describing her love for Smith.
The movie was very lovely until Christian Bale shows up. I bought everything, the love story, Smith's return to the wretched fort, but then he goes away and Bale shows up. That just killed the poetry and the pace of the film. It felt not as inspired, even cliche. And my biggest complaint is that Poca learns English so goddamn fast. How does she know every nuance of the language but then Bale can question her knowledge of the word "marry"? Better yet, how can she know every nuance from just a few months with taciturn Smith? Pretty big problem logistically, but otherwise pretty nice film.
what a strange gripe with this film. it's from that point that the poetry becomes even deeper and more meaningful (although sad)
Quote from: RegularKarate on February 14, 2006, 12:14:27 AM
what a strange gripe with this film. it's from that point that the poetry becomes even deeper and more meaningful (although sad)
Bale or the language thing? Bale, yeah I can see how I'm wrong on that one, I'll probably change my mind when it's out on dvd, but the language problem is a big one. Why has no one mentioned this?
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 14, 2006, 12:17:04 AM
Bale or the language thing? Bale, yeah I can see how I'm wrong on that one, I'll probably change my mind when it's out on dvd, but the language problem is a big one. Why has no one mentioned this?
Because there's no freakin' dialogue in the movie...
That old lady teaches her.
Quote from: ShanghaiOrange on February 14, 2006, 09:36:02 AM
That old lady teaches her.
Even before that, she uses idioms and certain phrasings. Maybe Poca was prodigious?
Is the movie going to walk us through her learning the language? It'd so annoying and frustrating for the audience. It's one of those 'be smart enough to figure it out' things. Here're Smith and Pocahontas learning words like mouth and fornicate, a period of time passes in which they spend a lot of time together, a longer period of time passes, Pocahontas comes to live with the English and is immersed in the language, Bale shows up. What is unreasonable here.
I have a friend of dim intellect who was able to understand Japanese from having only Japanese friends over a period of six months.
Especially the way Malick is, there's no way he's going to write "Me live in house" lines.
I'm not asking that we see her grammar courses. I'm just saying given the amount of time she's said to have spent with him, and considering the film doesn't show him speaking her language at all, it's a big jump. It's not a matter of "being smart enough to figure it out" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. If being smart enough means you're cutting Malick too much slack because his free form piece loses its logic at one point, then I apologize. I'll join your dim witted friend.
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 14, 2006, 01:37:55 PM
I'll join your dim witted friend.
You're going to learn Japanese?
Malick touched it up to accommodate his plans for the narrative, without a doubt, but it's hardly a logical fallacy. What I mean by 'smart enough to figure it out' is that we know she's going to learn the language, Malick shows her being taught the language, and so why not give her the language. It made it a better experience for the audience. It's implied so it's applied.
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. because clearly he wants us to think something or else something would be happening, right? 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?
i mean, even as far as excusing things that you wouldnt in a movie that had more going on. like something small like gamblour pointed out, the language thing pulled him out of the story. well is that an issue with the film? because clearly he and the film were sailing smoothly until that point and then it didnt work for him. so is that just gamblours fault cause malicks a genius and there is no such thing as a mistake? or is it yeah, the films not perfect and that could be a problem? maybe the same way we cut films slack when they're subtitled because they seem more exotic/intellectual/interesting and if there is something that doesnt seem right it MUST be some sort of cultural divide and something you 'dont get' through no fault of the storytelling?
dont begin hate. these are serious questions.
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.
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.
No hate here.
Quote from: modage on February 14, 2006, 02:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 14, 2006, 02:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: modage on February 14, 2006, 02:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 14, 2006, 02:56:43 PM
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote from: modage on February 14, 2006, 03:56:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on February 14, 2006, 04:07:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on February 14, 2006, 04:07:29 PM
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.
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.
I hope you realize what a totally worthless prick you just made yourself seem like.
Quote from: mutinyco on February 14, 2006, 10:09:15 PM
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.
Pete can take it.
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.
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 14, 2006, 11:22:44 PM
wow this thread was reaching for a new low and I think it's been found.
I'll disagree for one reason. What Mutinyco said really made me laugh hard. I think Pete has elevated himself to become one of the best posters on the board. Much love to Pete. But Mutincyo really got me to laugh hard and its just Mutincyo being Mutinyco.
You gotta at least qualify that shit with a winky face or rolly eyes or something.
Anyway! Seriously guys, The New World was great. It was not the best movie ever, but it was very enjoyable. It was like Barry Lyndon or something. If you didn't like it, that's fine! If you did, that's great too!
Also, here's an anagram of mutinyco: I'm Tiny Cunt
This thread is over now.
Quote from: mutinyco on February 14, 2006, 10:09:15 PM
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.
whoa, you have a WEBSITE?! What's that like? A thousand hits from something someone else said and done! That must feel better than chocolate.
Oh yeah, and between two of us, you have St. Joe in your quote, but I'm the one who fucked him in the ass. So remember your place as well. And speaking of remembering, do you remember that time when you tried to pull the same shit in the napoleon dynamite thread and then you got owned so bad that you quitted the board (probably generating all that clicking on your website) for a few months? 'Cause I do.
Interesting. Pete fucked a dead man.
I knew he was freaky, but that's pretty out there. Did you rake your dick on his crooked British teeth, too?
that was the most pathetic comeback i've ever seen, mutinyco. please stop trying. and speaking of fucking dead men, i think that's an apt metaphor for this thread. it's been killed and hijacked so many times, this is just becoming cyber-necrophelia here. how many times, i say, HOW many times can you fuck a dead thread?!
mutinyco, SHUT UP.
people who saw The New World and actually want to discuss it, and do away with these idiotic insults -- people who are interested in discussing the CONTENT of the film: SPEAK UP.
Hedwig, put down the glass pipe for a moment. Read back a page.
Quote from: pete on February 14, 2006, 03:39:05 PM
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.
Furthermore, I'd suggest the bulk of this thread has been written by people who loved the movie. And because Mod didn't he was getting a bit of flack for it.
But be caureful. He'll fight you!
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm totally going to now. A) Because I loved Thin Red Line, and B) Because I want to know which side of this West-Side-Story-style dance fight we've started up I should be on.
Mostly 'cause I loved Thin Red Line.
Here's my question: in the pantheon of Malick's work, where does everybody think New World falls? Rehash of previously trod themes? Bold new vision? Midget snuff porn? Somewhere in between?
Discuss.
Quote from: ShanghaiOrange on February 14, 2006, 11:37:15 PMIt was like Barry Lyndon or something.
This really struck me for some reason. Maybe because Mod doesn't love Barry Lyndon either. And I know you enjoy some 'slow' movies. Which doesn't seem like the right way to put it. Ghostboy or whoever mentioned how The New World has a 2001 cut every five minutes I think really summed up why those who love the movie, really love the movie. For myself at least it really was an experience. I was more than able to get sucked into it all and just let it hang over me.
I kinda find it odd that someone who totally enjoys The New World would not enjoy Last Year At Marienbad. I think both movies owe a lot to their cinematraphy and editing for setting the mood. Somehow similar... stretching though. And as far as giving the movie slaw since it's from Malick, what if it was a first time directors movie? It would be George Washington all over again, with people calling it the great Malick movie Malick never made.
Quote from: polkablues on February 15, 2006, 12:02:04 AM
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm totally going to now. A) Because I loved Thin Red Line, and B) Because I want to know which side of this West-Side-Story-style dance fight we've started up I should be on.
hahah, me too.
polka, I'd say it's the first time a film has ever transcended time and space and actually gone back to 1607. The more I think about it, the more I want to see it again. In the scope of his oeuvre, though i've only seen part of Days of Heaven, can I say that it's a less narrative, more minimalist type of Thin Red Line, and in that way it's progressive for him because he doesn't rely on voice overs so much as visuals? It's less verbal poetry, more visual poetry. Which might go back to Days. Hm i need to rewatch every Malick movie.
And killa, I'm only sort of lovin TNW. Last Year at Marienbad....man, I think Hiroshima mon amour is such a better film, Last Year I will have to give a second chance. Malick has hints of hope and utter elation in his music and editing, while Last Year is nothing but pity and sorrow.
Can we get back to the music? This film had the best score I think I've ever heard. Of course there's no oscar love. But I've never sat during a film and been so aware of the music in the best of ways. Not at all like I'm aware of Resnais' music. His scores are so bad, especially Night and Fog and Last Year.
Quote from: polkablues on February 15, 2006, 12:02:04 AM
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm totally going to now. A) Because I loved Thin Red Line, and B) Because I want to know which side of this West-Side-Story-style dance fight we've started up I should be on.
Mostly 'cause I loved Thin Red Line.
Here's my question: in the pantheon of Malick's work, where does everybody think New World falls? Rehash of previously trod themes? Bold new vision? Midget snuff porn? Somewhere in between?
Discuss.
Polka, I came to The New World as a Malick admirer and enthusiast of The Thin Red Line. It will be interesting to see how you respond to the new film. It's obvious by now that I am an ardent supporter of The New World. I can't get it out of my head. But it has been tough for me to articulate exactly why.
Spoilers
Gamblour and others have commented on the nearly silent nature of the movie. Malick sprinkles voiceover at odd and inspired moments throughout, but it is drastically different from The Thin Red Line's nearly constant voiceover (where Line's voiceovers move from one character to another, New World stays with Kilcher, Farrell and Bale). The New World's diminished use of dialog (and voiceover) certainly makes it his most ambitious work in that Malick substantially relies on visuals to tell his story. While all of his films contain incredible beauty, it is The New World's reliance on its images that places it at or near the top for me.
In addition to this visual reliance, I agree with Gamblour that the film's music is inspired. The crescendo of Wagner at the beginning, especially at the end, and I believe at least one other time toward the middle of the movie, gave me chills. Overall, the music (score and soundtrack) enhance the visuals expertly. One other comment is the sound design. Several moments stand out for me, including the opening credits, when Smith is captured by the Naturals (you know what it's like in that helmet), any scene with one of the large ships (you can feel the wood creaking, expanding, and bending), and the attempted siege of the fort (especially enjoyed those moments of total silence during the battles).
End Spoilers
I realize this is more of a list of reasons why I love the film and not an articulated analysis. A true analytical approach to film of this kind may require many viewings. My thoughts, I suppose, are related more to the experience and enjoyment I received from it. To your original question, although I don't know if this is a ranking of Malick's films, The New World now stands alongside The Thin Red Line as my favorite. It hasn't quite eclipsed it yet...but I've seen Line many more times.
Quote from: mutinyco on February 14, 2006, 11:20:22 PM
Pete can take it.
it's pathetic that you would dish it.
Quote from: polkablues on February 15, 2006, 12:02:04 AM
B) Because I want to know which side of this West-Side-Story-style dance fight we've started up I should be on.
i wouldn't call one person a side.
Yeehaw!!!!!
Title: The New World
Released: 9th May 2006
SRP: $27.95
Further Details:
Warner Home Video has officially announced The New World which stars Colin Farrell, Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer. This Terrence Malick directed film will be available to own from the 9th May, and should set you back around $27.95 in total. The film itself will be presented in 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with both English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround and 2.0 Surround tracks. As far as we know, the only extra features will be a sixty minute making of documentary, and the theatrical trailer.
http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/the-new-world.html
I can't wait 'til you get it on DVD and say:
Quote from: modage on December 05, 2005, 11:22:24 PM
so i rewatched (The New World) tonite. i liked it. :oops: :doh: :ponder: :yabbse-undecided:
Quote from: modage on February 27, 2006, 01:44:04 PM
As far as we know, the only extra features will be a sixty minute making of documentary, and the theatrical trailer.
Wow, I've never seen a 60-minute making-of that features not a frame of the writer-director. Looking forward to it.
Paradise Now
The heart of The New World: Feverish fans turn a box office bust into a cult film
by J. Hoberman
March 7th, 2006 11:51 AM
The Oscars went almost as expected, but the best-loved movie of 2005—the year's other tale of love and loss on the American frontier—received only a single nomination, for cinematography. (It lost.)
As of last week, The New World's domestic grosses were $12.2 million—far less than Brokeback Mountain ($75 million), Crash ($53 million), or even New Line's matching art-house release A History of Violence ($31 million). According to online services that track such things, The New World's reviews were mildly favorable to mixed. But, as anticipated by the Voice Critics' Poll's ballot-crunching Passiondex Terrence Malick's impressionistic retelling of the Pocahontas story was the movie that inspired the most fervent devotion.
Not everyone adores The New World, but those cineastes who like it, really, really like it. The movie has not only admirers but partisans—it can only be truly loved by attacking those too blind to see the truth. Fielding her readers' online Oscar queries, New York Times critic Manohla Dargis found only one possible explanation for The New World's failure to attract more than cursory Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences attention: "With the exception of my few dear friends in that august body, [the Academy members] are idiots."
The blogosphere resounds with similar insults and shriller declarations. Having seen The New World three times, N.P. Thompson of moviesintofilm.com proclaimed a virtual fatwa, declaring that those " 'critics' who are either impervious to or openly contemptuous of the movie [are] worse than mere idiots—they are monsters who are indifferent to art, to poetry, to life, to the air we breathe." Love The New World or die! Nick Pinkerton of stopsmilingonline.com attacked the snide, snarky, simpleminded infidels who swarmed out of their hidey-holes to sneer at Malick's masterpiece. Unlike Thompson, Pinkerton named names (full disclosure, mine included).
New York Press critic Matt Zoller Seitz, the most benignly inclusive of the movie's online advocates, simply declared The New World his "new religion" and used his blog to spread the joyful news. Where other movies have fans, Malick's produces disciples. Even holy relics: "On my desk beside my keyboard," wrote Seitz, "lies one of my most prized possessions: a ticket stub from the January 21, 9:30 p.m. showing of The New World at BAM-Rose Cinemas in downtown Brooklyn."
Welcome to the realm of My Own Private eBay. Yet, if nothing else, the response to The New World reflects the collective utopian yearning still bound up in the movies—and the religious fervor this particular film has generated is fascinating, not least to an agnostic like myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should The New World garner a real cult, it would hardly be the first commercial failure to do so. The Rocky Horror Picture Show had an actual opening back in 1975 before it was revived as the ultimate midnight phenomenon. Every decade since has produced at least one example: Blade Runner, Showgirls, and Donnie Darko were all flops that found their audiences at late-night weekend screenings.
As the distribution company that scored an early bonanza with Pink Flamingos (and a subsequent one, a million times greater, in the Lord of the Rings trilogy), New Line may yet promote The New World at midnight. Still, movie cults are only facilitated by exhibitors; they are created by audiences. And critics are largely irrelevant. The blogospheric pressure behind The New World is a matter of film nerds signaling their peers—a kind of sectarian chatter.
What is it with the motion picture medium? The inimitable Pauline Kael, who took her movies as personally as anyone you'll find beyond the first row at MOMA, not only panned Antonioni's
Blow-Up but mocked its fans: "They get upset if you don't like it—as if you were rejecting not just the movie but them." You are what you love, and there's no accounting for taste—or rather, as we are reminded nightly, the unconscious is profoundly tasteless. As connoisseurs of the irrational, the surrealists were impressed by the passionate arguments movies regularly inspired, concluding that it was all a matter of sublimated sexual preferences. The New World certainly invites such fantasy. One critic I know compared it favorably to Jack Smith's underground celebration of the polymorphously perverse, Flaming Creatures.
Known to all, yet surprisingly under-leveraged in American culture, the Pocahontas myth is a dream of love in the woods: A white soldier of fortune is reborn in the arms of a dusky Indian princess. Racial reconciliation is crucial, although the fact that Smith was nearly 30 and his D.I.P. would have been the age at which Dolores Haze first met Humbert Humbert infuses their imaginary encounter with another taboo, too tasteless to mention. This love is not just love but impossible, forbidden love—as the Disney imagineers realized when they conceived their Pocahontas as a buckskin Betty Boop.
Indeed, given that the Pocahontas myth is a fig leaf to conceal the actual relations between English settlers and "natural" inhabitants, it may even be evil: Argall, William T. Vollmann's massively researched historical anti-novel, is named for the baddie who kidnaps Pocahontas and sells her to Jamestown. Small wonder New Worldites regard those besmirching the innocence of their New World Adam and his innocent Eve as snakes or worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As pointed out by Umberto Eco in his canonical essay on Casablanca, cults favor "imperfect" movies, as well as movies that are, in some sense, All Movies. Trimmed by 20 minutes after its release, The New World has already been violated. And it is not surprising that its acolytes would stress the primacy of the visual and the importance of the shared experience.
There is the sense that The New World won't work on DVD, even though Malick is preparing a new, three-hour collectors' version; its presence is dependent on the big screen. "A few years from now, when those of us who love [The New World] are re-watching it and wrestling with it, we will literally not be able to imagine that," as Pinkerton wrote, "it once was writ large simultaneously in Cary, North Carolina, and Middletown, Ohio, and Durango, Colorado." The New World did receive a fairly wide release, opening on over 800 screens. (Still, the movie has performed most strongly in New York City, as well as the Bay Area and Pacific Northwest—the market one distributor characterized as "New Age Country.") The pastoral Virginia that The New World represents does not belong to Smith and Pocahontas alone. Malick's movie is its own Golden Age.
For some, paradise might have been lost when New Line withdrew the original cut; for others, The New World is less a vision of paradise lost than of paradise itself: "I bore witness to American commercial cinema's ability to astound, move and inspire masses of people," Seitz testified. More than a reconstruction of 17th-century America, The New World creates an idealized America: "At 9:30 p.m. on January 21, 2006, I sat in the upper reaches of the BAM theater, on the aisle near the back. The audience was a demographic mosaic: white folks in the row behind me, an African-American couple ahead of me, an Orthodox Jewish couple to my left, and just beyond them, a young Asian man."
Why not Walt Whitman and the crew of the Pequod? Who will deny that America has seldom needed a redemptive myth as badly as it does now? On the evening of February 23, 2006, I attended the movie's last screening at BAM, along with a rapt audience of 19. Many had obviously seen The New World before. Now it was about to vanish from their world. Sitting closest to the screen, a few remained in their seats for the entire bird-call-scored credits, waiting until the last avian note faded to silence in the empty room.
'Smello-vision' becomes a reality in Japan
April 12 2006 at 02:00PM
By Yuri Kageyama
Tokyo - A theatre audience in Japan will be sniffing their noses - literally - at a new Hollywood adventure film when it opens later this month.
A new service from major telecommunications company NTT Communications will synchronise seven different smells to parts of The New World, starring Colin Farrell as American colonial leader John Smith, who is said to have been saved from execution by North American Indian princess Pocahontas.
A floral scent accompanies a love scene while a mix of peppermint and rosemary is emitted during a tear-jerking scene.
The smells waft from special machines under the seats in the back rows of two movie theatres, which create different fragrances by controlling the mix of oils stored in the machines, company spokesperson Akiko Suzaki said on Wednesday.
Theatres will be able to download different scent sequences for upcoming films from the Internet, she said.
The company began a similar service for homes last year in Japan, in which people download different programs to emit smells from a ¥73 500 (about R3 800) home version of the machine.
The smells aren't for watching movies but designed to accompany a horoscope reading or work as aromatherapy.
Owners must keep refilling the machine with fragrant liquids. NTT Communications would not disclose how many machines it has sold. - Sapa-AP
This is the PERFECT movie to initiate this in, THANKS JAPAN!
if malick had anything to do with the creation of the smell, it's one thing, but if it's whoever created the technology forcing his fragrant interpretation of the movie onto the audience, that's another.
I forgot to post this a few weeks ago, but here's an early draft of Malick's script for The New World. (http://www.movie-page.com/scripts/the-new-world_early.pdf)
I've only skimmed it so far, but it's interesting to see how dense his screenwriting is, and to imagine how it serves as an outline for the eventual film. A lot of the script is made up of the sort of descriptive passages you'd find in novels - the sort of thing that would make any Robert McKee tear his hair out.
I also like how he includes alternate endings.
pubrick edit: fixed link
"The New World pines sway back and forth in ecstasy, forever awaiting the determined sailor."
:cry:
Quote from: flagpolespecial on May 04, 2006, 06:02:18 AM
saw this today.
will see tomorrow and the next day and the next day....
Welcome aboard.
Best Buy is selling the DVD ($18) with exclusive box art:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fakimages.crossmediaservices.com%2Fdyn_li%2F600.0.90.0%2FRetailers%2Fbestbuy%2F0507BA14A001P1_6.JPG&hash=151d79be9155f18551ec954f0f74f734e0f93db4)
Regular artwork:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000ESSUL4.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_V54141304_.jpg&hash=b75d2b178278db7776e8c1a94b182296192c2b00)
Non-existent EXCITING Edition!
Quote from: matt35mm on February 27, 2006, 04:18:10 PM
Wow, I've never seen a 60-minute making-of that features not a frame of the writer-director. Looking forward to it.
How true this is. I wonder if the making-of cameras ever accidentally caught a smidgen of Malick.
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 07, 2006, 12:25:23 PM
Best Buy is selling the DVD ($18) with exclusive box art:
Just in case anyone here was planning on going out of their way to get this, it's just a slip cover over the original box and they even put that goddamn price sticker on it.
Quote from: RegularKarate on May 10, 2006, 02:55:10 PM
it's just a slip cover over the original box and they even put that goddamn price sticker on it.
Ha Ha. How true this is. I was thinking about that as I was standing in line waiting to purchase it.
yea okay, so tell me again why we're talking about this movie?
dude, voicing your dissatisfaction towards a movie is one thing, chiming in every other page just to shit on other people's delight is another.
for anybody who watched the making of doc, was i seeing things, or did Emmanuel Lubezki answer his cell phone in the middle of a shot?
you are correct sir, he sure did.
after watching the doc I was amazed by how completely hilarious all the LA people were trying to deal with normal Virginia weather. Listening to them you'd have thought they were making Apocalypse Now. Very boring doc all together.
Nice film tho.
If the movie stinks, well, that's scent-ertainment
An odoriferous version of "The New World" is showing in Japan. Call it Smell-O-Vision redux.
By Jesse Leavenworth, Hartford Courant
Bad films inspire olfactory terms. Exiting a bomb with their noses wrinkled, people will say, "Whew, that stunk!" or "Man, did that reek!" One-word reviews would include "rotten," "offensive," "garbage," "putrid" and "P.U."
Now, a telecommunications company is adding actual aromas to a movie. A revival of an old idea that failed the smell test 46 years ago, the latest version of scented cinema is being piped into Japanese theaters to accompany showings of "The New World."
Audiences in Tokyo and Osaka whiff flowers while characters make love, and peppermint and rosemary during a sad scene. A mix of orange and grapefruit will convey joy, while a concoction with a hint of eucalyptus and tea tree accompanies anger.
Disney World also has entered the "smellertainment" arena with two films showing at its Magic Kingdom in Florida. Scents piped to the audience in "Mickey's PhilharMagic" include apple pie, while the title character's belch in "Stitch's Great Escape" is accompanied by an odor meant to replicate partially digested chili dog.
"Research has shown that the human sense of smell can create stronger, more lasting impressions than sight, suggesting that the system has the potential to greatly heighten the intended effect of communication for diverse purposes," according to a news release from Japan-based NTT Communications.
"The New World" is about 17th century America, however, and considering the way people smelled back then, it's probably a blessing that NTT technicians stopped their scent transmission efforts at flowers and citrus.
On the larger point of whether fragrant flicks will take hold in the U.S., theater group manager Joe Masher quickly answered, "No."
"It's one of the '60s gimmicks, and you'll get a crowd of people to experience it once," said Masher, general manager of a business that owns Criterion Cinemas in New Haven, Conn.
The failed "gimmick" he referred to was Smell-O-Vision — introduced in 1960 with the movie "Scent of Mystery." The brainchild of Swiss "osmologist" Hans Laube, Smell-O-Vision employed vents under theater seats to transmit scents — including flowers, brandy and pipe tobacco — corresponding to different scenes and the film's evolving plot. Martin J. Smith and Patrick J. Kiger described the device in their book "Oops: 20 Life Lessons From the Fiascoes That Shaped America."
Opening in three specially equipped theaters in February 1960, the scented "Scent of Mystery" was a stinker. People in the balcony seats "complained that the aromas reached them a few seconds after the action on the screen and were accompanied by a distracting hissing sound," Smith and Kiger wrote.
Smell-O-Vision evaporated, but the idea of adding fragrance to enhance drama dates back as far as ancient Greece. In more recent years, scratch-and-sniff cards accompanied both John Waters' "Polyester" in 1981 and "Rugrats Go Wild!" in 2003.
Like Smell-O-Vision, NTT's scent-transmission system also is hooked under theater seats.
Quote from: meatwad on May 10, 2006, 07:17:30 PM
for anybody who watched the making of doc, was i seeing things, or did Emmanuel Lubezki answer his cell phone in the middle of a shot?
Quote from: analogzombie on May 11, 2006, 12:31:38 PM
you are correct sir, he sure did.
Not only that, it actually looks like he's placing a call to check a voicemail.
Quote from: pozeR on May 10, 2006, 12:16:25 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on February 27, 2006, 04:18:10 PM
Wow, I've never seen a 60-minute making-of that features not a frame of the writer-director. Looking forward to it.
How true this is. I wonder if the making-of cameras ever accidentally caught a smidgen of Malick.
They did. In the very last segment of the doc (England), at about the 1:14 (56:48) minute mark, when they talk about hurricanes and footage is shown of the waves crashing, Ferrell says something like, "Terry, could you bring up the (?) like we had on the river that day?" On the right side of frame is the white-bearded Malick. (Note: the guy in the forefront could be mistaken for him, but Malick is behind)
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 15, 2006, 03:59:28 PM
Quote from: pozeR on May 10, 2006, 12:16:25 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on February 27, 2006, 04:18:10 PM
Wow, I've never seen a 60-minute making-of that features not a frame of the writer-director. Looking forward to it.
How true this is. I wonder if the making-of cameras ever accidentally caught a smidgen of Malick.
They did. In the very last segment of the doc (England), at about the 1:14 (56:48) minute mark, when they talk about hurricanes and footage is shown of the waves crashing, Ferrell says something like, "Terry, could you bring up the (?) like we had on the river that day?" On the right side of frame is the white-bearded Malick. (Note: the guy in the forefront could be mistaken for him, but Malick is behind)
A
smidgen of him indeed.
Quote from: flagpolespecial on May 27, 2006, 07:18:07 AM
my dvd arrived the other day. i liked the doco. and 'the new world' is still playing at a cinema 50 meters from my house.
haha, i know where you live now.
Q'Orianka Kilcher to Produce, Star; Fans to Edit
Remember those days, mere months ago, when Q'Orianka Kilcher was simply a teenager, chilling with her parents and friends, making her own dresses, and not knowing who Colin Farrell was? Ah, youth. Now she's not only a big fancy movie star who shared her first-ever kiss with skeevy, smoke-smelling Mr. Farrell, but also a lady who owns her own company, and is producing her own films. Makes sense -- I mean, after all, the girls IS 16 now. It's about time she pulled herself together and started making things happen, right?
According to Variety, the first film for her newly launched Q Films will be The Power of the Few, in which Kilcher herself will star. The film's summary -- a "complex urban tale center[ed] on terrorism and cloning told from five perspectives" -- suggest that it's basically Rashomon, except with terrorists (whether one of the perspectives will be that of a dead person remains to be seen); Kilcher will play "a courier who rescues a man on the run."
The unusual (read: "cool" or "gimmicky," depending on your perspective) thing about The Power of the Few is that the crazy kids who are producing are going to allow random web denizens to edit the film via Jumpcut.com -- and not just for fun either, they're going to use a fan-edited action sequence in the movie. Say wha? Man, I hope people with some ability are interested in this, otherwise they could have a really crummy sequence smack in the middle of their movie (which one assumes will at the very least be professionally edited).
Hey man, more power to bizarre shit. This at least has the "I didn't see that coming" factor going for it. At least.
So finally this was released here last friday, yesterday I called the theater if they were going to keep it showing, as expected they didn't and went to the 10.30pm show where me and other 15 ppl saw it, not single walk out.
As I watched it I kept thinking how these guys (kubrick and malick) can make a simple shot of whatever you want and make it so memorable, just pure visual poetry.
workedscore
Q'Orianka
editing
everything else
didn'tdamn release date
winnerus sans modage :yabbse-grin:
I whole heartly agree with the followong posts.
Quote from: samsong on December 31, 2005, 02:39:03 AM
this is the greatest film ever made.
not quite but WHAT A FUCKING FILM. easily, easily the best film of the year and in recent memory... whatever. months and months hyping myself up for this and it still blew me away. at this point i have nothing but hyperboles and some more digesting to do.
:shock: + :inlove: + :notworthy: = me during the entire film
Quote from: cowboykurtis on January 23, 2006, 01:23:37 PM
just saw this last night - its almost useless to even use words to decribe such a transporting experience - utterly beautiful - effected me deeply - best film of the year.
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 30, 2006, 01:03:43 AM
Have any recent movies or filmmakers captured Wenders' attention? "I saw one of the greatest films of my life not so long ago, and I've now seen it four times. For me it's one of those movies above everything in the Oscars, and there were some great movies, but it was in a class by itself, way above all of it, and that was The New World, Terrence Malick's movie. That was one monster movie, and it was so good that nobody could even grasp it. It got nominated just for Best Cinematography and it should have won that by a landslide. I don't know why it completely disappeared. In ten years it will be a classic and everybody will say, 'That was the movie that mattered in 2005. ...'"
Quote from: Pubrick on June 12, 2005, 05:49:21 AM
i'm beginning to think that mallick was just waiting for kubrick to die so he could take over being The One. there just couldn't be two.
I'm pretty late on this but...
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 14, 2006, 12:03:17 AM
And my biggest complaint is that Poca learns English so goddamn fast. How does she know every nuance of the language but then Bale can question her knowledge of the word "marry"? Better yet, how can she know every nuance from just a few months with taciturn Smith? Pretty big problem logistically, but otherwise pretty nice film.
About the 'marry' word knowledge, could it be because her dad had many wives and Bale wanted to know if the concept of 'marry' (being with just one person not many) meant the same to her?
Now I must buy the dvd, I look forward to many viewings.
Quote from: Fernando on June 30, 2006, 04:58:48 PMI whole heartly agree with the followong posts.
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 30, 2006, 01:03:43 AM
Have any recent movies or filmmakers captured Wenders' attention? "I saw one of the greatest films of my life not so long ago, and I've now seen it four times. For me it's one of those movies above everything in the Oscars, and there were some great movies, but it was in a class by itself, way above all of it, and that was The New World, Terrence Malick's movie. That was one monster movie, and it was so good that nobody could even grasp it. It got nominated just for Best Cinematography and it should have won that by a landslide. I don't know why it completely disappeared. In ten years it will be a classic and everybody will say, 'That was the movie that mattered in 2005. ...'"
I said that? :shock:
So... was there any more word on whether or not there'll be another edition of this being released on DVD sometime? I've been looking to buy it, but don't want to have it be another Me And You And Everyone We Know. I remember the producer saying that a longer cut will be out sometime, but has there been any word since?
I'm not a big fan of Sterritt generally, but this is a nice article on the film and the man. Link with pictures: http://www.fipresci.org/undercurrent/issue_0206/sterritt_malick.htm
Film, Philosophy, and Terrence Malick
By David Sterritt
Terrence Malick clearly isn't in it for the fame. He avoids press interviews, keeps public appearances to a minimum, and doesn't like to have his picture taken. But it's harder for a filmmaker to dodge publicity than it is for, say, a novelist like Thomas Pynchon, also known for an aversion to cameras. About five clicks on the Internet brought me to a gallery of online Malick photos showing the shy celebrity as a teenager, then a fledgling movie director, and now an éminence grise of independent cinema. One picture is labeled "the ubiquitous Malick photo." So much for the cloistered auteur as master of his own public image.
While it's interesting to look at these, I can't help sympathizing with Malick's wish for privacy. That ubiquitous photo — snapped in 1998, when his World War II masterpiece The Thin Red Line was in production — is a standard-issue shot (big smile, casual clothes, earphones draped around neck) conveying no hint of what makes this director different from countless others who've obediently said "cheese" for studio photographers. While there may be a whiff of aloofness in Malick's disdain for the publicity fray, it's possible he just doesn't want to distract attention from what really matters, which is the work he does. He also has an egalitarian streak, refusing interviews on the principle that "he's not different from anyone else," as a New Line Cinema executive claimed recently.
New Line released The New World to theaters late last year, and the company would surely have been happier if Malick had glad-handed journalists the way less reclusive directors do. Such marketing work is especially important when a film might have trouble "finding its audience" without some extra pushes. The New World was such a film theatrically, and while its DVD edition (from New Line's home-video division) will surely do well over the long haul, it's hard to imagine copies of this artfully diffuse drama flying pell-mell off the shelves.
The story itself is commercial enough, revolving around colonial-era characters — the seventeenth-century English explorer John Smith and the Native American adolescent Pocahontas, his friend and perhaps his lover — who have enthralled Americans for ages. The movie chronicles their deepening intimacy in the context of Jamestown's gradual evolution from a frontier outpost to a burgeoning North American town. It also shows Smith's flight from Pocahontas when adventures beckon in other climes, her subsequent marriage to tobacco pioneer John Rolfe, and her eventual visit with Rolfe to England, where they and their young son are greeted as exotic celebrities from afar.
This frequently heroic, often bittersweet material has paid Hollywood dividends more than once over the years; but true to his reputation, Malick didn't handle the story with big-time ticket sales in mind. While he serves up the love scenes and battle sequences most moviegoers demand from historical sagas, he's couched the story in a loosely strung-together structure with a dearth of dramatic climaxes. Nor is the cast exactly lustrous: Colin Farrell as Smith, teenager Q'orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas, and Christian Bale as Rolfe, who doesn't enter the picture until it's two-thirds over. The film has so little dialogue that it's been likened to a silent movie. And sometimes the screen goes blank simply because Malick's sense of visual rhythm calls for it.
All of this must have given New Line the jitters, especially since Malick's previous epic (The Thin Red Line) failed to recoup its $52 million budget theatrically despite seven Academy Award nominations and many good reviews. (Plus the fact that it opened at a propitious moment for World War II films, vying with Steven Spielberg's vastly less interesting Saving Private Ryan in the Oscar race.) The New World is a less expensive movie, at $40 million, but it's certainly been a considerably harder sell — due to both Malick's uncompromising style and the fact that (aside from the animated Pocahontas released by Disney in 1995) there's never been an automatic audience for films set in Jamestown some 400 years ago. Malick is obviously not alone in his deep commitment to film as a fine art, but comparatively few of his indie peers share his increasingly keen taste for epic formats, correspondingly high budgets, and the meticulous attention to detail that distinguishes even his smaller-scale works. Given the paucity of risk-taking production companies, it's little wonder that his filmography comprises only four features: Badlands, his 1973 melodrama about serial killers on the road; Days of Heaven, his melancholy 1978 romance; The Thin Red Line, based on James Jones's eponymous 1962 novel; and The New World, a project dear to him since the late 1970s, when he started to write the screenplay. Each contains Malick's distinctive trademarks: sumptuous images of the natural world, a great deal of voiceover monologue, and an unabashed interest in such grand issues as the purpose of life and the meaning (if any) of death. Pay attention to the resonant layers of image, word, sound, and music that weave through these movies and you'd think you were communing with a philosopher.
Which is exactly what Malick is. Although he's no more extroverted about his biographical data than about his photo, some aspects of his personal and intellectual history have made it into the public record. They are atypical, to put it mildly, of the movie-directing crowd.
Born in Texas in 1943, he earned a philosophy degree at Harvard College, graduating (Phi Beta Kappa) in 1965. His honors thesis on Martin Heidegger's theory of knowledge was overseen by Stanley Cavell, whose books on cinema (including The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, his major theoretical work) are the most influential by any American philosopher. This took Malick to Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship, which he chose not to complete, reportedly because tracing conceptions of "world" in Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, and Ludwig Wittgenstein didn't seem "philosophical" enough to his Oxford supervisor. Back in the United States he taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and penned articles for Newsweek, the New Yorker, and Life.
He reached a crossroads in 1969, publishing a significant philosophical book — an edition of Heidegger's essay The Essence of Reasons in Malick's own translation — and being accepted by the American Film Institute's fledgling Center for Advanced Film Studies, then in its first year. He decided to enroll at the AFI, earning his MFA there and making such helpful movie-world contacts as Jack Nicholson and agent Mike Medavoy, who found freelance script-doctoring work for him.
After launching his directorial career with Badlands and Days of Heaven, both of which fared better with critics than at the box office, Malick vanished from public view for some twenty years (living and teaching in Paris and Texas, by some accounts) before The Thin Red Line went into production. With that movie and now The New World he stands as a last Mohican of the personal-epic mode pioneered in the 1970s by the likes of Francis Ford Coppola and Michael Cimino, who had the resourcefulness to obtain — and the audacity to risk — many millions of other people's dollars on highly intuitive, even eccentric visions.
At a glance, it appears Malick made a comprehensive career decision by choosing film school over philosophy. But he's not an either/or sort of thinker, and his intensely idiosyncratic pictures are philosophical to their bones, exploring an ambitious set of ideas in terms at once cinematically concrete and intellectually abstract. The New World is no exception. Its marketers have presented it as a romance ("First and foremost we've created a love story," producer Sarah Green told a reporter) and as both an "elegy" and "celebration" of the American past, to quote New Line's publicity. Yet while the film does portray Smith and Pocahontas as lovers, its leisurely pace and discontinuous style work against the emotional impact most romantic movies strive for. As history it's even more dubious, starting with the fact that — as most scholars agree — Pocahontas and Smith weren't lovers at all, just a friendly couple whose allegedly torrid relationship was less a matter of reality than of Smith's tendency to write about his adventures in exaggerated, self-aggrandizing terms. From all appearances, neither love-story passion nor historical veracity were what attracted Malick so persistently so this project or induced him to film it in his characteristically painstaking way, shooting for months on authentic-looking locations with few artificial lights and almost none of the digital enhancement common in movies today.
The true motivation for Malick's fascination with The New World lies in his intellectually based insistence that human personalities and behaviors are phenomena no less "natural" than the environments (invariably far from the "normal" terrains of industrialized civilization) that surround them in his films. The New World affords Malick a perfect opportunity to examine contrasts between the Romanticist notion of a timeless "harmony with nature," represented by Native American society, and the post-Enlightenment ideal of instrumentally taming and harnessing nature to accomplish humanly determined goals, as the English colonists do. Malick doesn't just ponder the contradiction between "harmonizing with" and "prevailing over" nature, moreover. He explores it within the very fabric of his film, testing whether cinema itself can function as an organic part of the natural world. He thus questions the widely held assumption (articulated most forcefully by Siegfried Kracauer in his 1960 book Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality) that film's essential purpose is to capture and record reality (therefore "dominating" nature) rather than to blend with reality in a seamless, harmonious whole. This assumption has been questioned by filmic philosophers in the past, including the hugely influential André Bazin, who argued in the 1940s that material objects are physically linked with their photographed images by the particles of light that travel between them when a picture is taken. This doesn't apply to computer-driven techniques, of course, and it's revealing that Malick bucks the contemporary trend toward heavy use of digital imagery by using it only once in The New World — to show a Carolina parakeet that couldn't be filmed "live" because its species is now extinct.
Malick also shies away from tripods, steadicams, and other devices that give conventional movies a synthetic visual stability. He prefers hand-held cameras affected by the moment-to-moment jolts and wobbles of actual, spontaneous movement through actual, real-world space. He even took the unusual step of shooting some New World sequences on 65mm film, which is costly but provides a more expansive surface and therefore a crisper, richer image than standard 35mm stock. This bears out Malick's interest in unifying the natural and the cinematic — an effort with an almost mystical ring, intimating that an extra-large emulsion layer might absorb not just the light but the mysterious essence of people, places, and things. Bazin, who saw photographic "tracings" as clues to hidden spiritual realities, would surely have cheered Malick on.
Such techniques mark Malick as a sort of cinematic alchemist, hoping to unveil occluded connections between physical and metaphysical realms. Related to this is his great affection for voiceovers, from the drawling narrations of Badlands and Days of Heaven to the intricate webs of internal monologue woven through the Thin Red Line and New World sound tracks. While conventional movies use voiceovers to explain plot events or reveal the psychology of characters, Malick employs them for profound semiotic purposes, implying that language is the inescapable bedrock of all thought and activity. "Everyday language is a part of the human organism," wrote Wittgenstein in 1921, "and is no less complicated than it." Malick makes an aesthetically powerful case for that contention in every one of his films, subordinating the social dimensions of dramatic dialogue to the meditative dimensions of unspoken inner speech.
Besides being a philosopher and (arguably) an alchemist of film, Malick might be called a theologian as well. His films incorporate a broadly pantheistic vision in which a sort of divine spirit suffuses the ordered, integrated whole that our limited mentalities divide into natural and human domains. He's concerned with the origins as well as the attributes of that whole, and on many levels The New World is a cinematic Creation story, using an American legend to explore the idea that all stages of existence — birth, growth, maturity, death — are entwined with one another in both cultural histories and individual lives. Even the music score expresses this: The film's first shots are accompanied by a passage from Richard Wagner's overture to Das Rheingold, wherein the ripples and ridges of a single minimalist-style chord conjure up the gradual journey from a river's dark, primordial depths to the sunlit, smoothly flowing surface that brushes against the sweeping realms above.
In some respects Malick is a dualist and a skeptic, wondering if forces of creation and destruction are forever battling each other in the world — if we humans are subject to "not one power but two," as the Thin Red Line character named Witt phrases it. Both that movie and The New World narrate large-scale sagas of violent, sometimes deadly struggle involving denizens of an Eden-like land and "civilized" interlopers with utterly different agendas. In the end, though, these epics reflect an optimistic belief (with almost a gnostic tinge) that the cosmos is ultimately harmonious, in the all-embracing realm of spirit if not the circumscribed one of materiality. "Darkness and light, strife and love," muses Witt in The Thin Red Line, "are they the workings of one mind? The features of the same face? Oh my soul... look out through my eyes. Look at the things you made, all things shining." The New World again suggests that all things, properly perceived, partake of cosmic harmony — as when a matronly English guardian exhorts Pocahontas to face life's tribulations like a tree, always reaching for the light even after vital branches have been stripped from it.
The noncommercial slant and deeply personal preoccupations of Malick's cinema make him hard (and maybe undesirable) to imitate; although he's been a filmmaker for more than three decades, the only American director who might be called his disciple is the relatively little-known David Gordon Green, whose George Washington (2000) and Undertow (2004) are openly influenced by Malick's poetic imagery and leisurely, allusive storytelling. In the big picture of modern American cinema, Malick's main legacy (aside from his own films) may be less as an "influence" than as an increasingly active producer of movies directed by others. In the eventful year of 2004 he produced both Undertow and Hans Petter Moland's drama The Beautiful Country, about a Vietnamese man searching for his American father. His current producing projects include Michael Apted's historical thriller Amazing Grace, about an English abolitionist in the 18 th century; Carlos Carrera's drama The Marfa Lights, about two young men exploring a possibly paranormal phenomenon; and Robert Redford's action movie Aloft, based on Alan Tennant's book about adventurers tracking a peregrine falcon. This is a busy schedule, suggesting that if Malick's movie-directing pace has been less than fiery (four features in 32 years!) it's just because he likes operating at his own deliberate speed. Like a handful of other radically original American filmmakers — from the prolific Robert Altman to the decidedly unprolific Stanley Kubrick, perhaps the figure Malick resembles most — he has managed to play the film industry's game (telling stories with appealing stars) just cooperatively enough to fund a (very limited) number of (extremely risky) productions that he finds truly, philosophically compelling. Then again, Malick's influence on other screen artists may be quietly increasing, albeit in ways that elude the money-fueled radar screens of commercial film. The superb Australian documentary The Ister, written and directed in 2004 by David Barison and Daniel Ross, subtly echoes Malick's meditative revisionism vis-a-vis cinema's kinetic properties — interweaving streams of poetically inclined philosophical discourse with lucidly edited depictions of topographies shaped by nature and humanity alike — as well as his fascination with the intricacies of Heidegger, whose study of Friedrich Hölderlin's hymn to the Ister river undergirds the film's visual, intellectual, and political trajectory.
The main conclusion to be drawn from Malick's career so far is that intellectual interests have far more importance for him than practical considerations of career momentum and Hollywood street creds. While the complexities and conundrums of his work can't be neatly clarified with quotations from his favorite thinkers, Wittgenstein's observation that "the world and life are one" could be his guiding motto. Like that philosopher, Malick is concerned less with the psychological self (crucial to conventional fiction) than with the "philosophical self," defined by Wittgenstein as "the metaphysical subject, the limit of the world — not a part of it." Few film directors give much thought to where the limit of the world might lie. Malick makes movies about it.
David Sterritt
© FIPRESCI 2006
A different version of this essay appeared in the Review section of The Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2006.
Ghostboy, I thoroughly enjoyed your review. Thanks.
Love this film. If you liked Thin Red Line, you'll like this one, I reckon.
foray
Warner has just announced The New World: Extended Cut for release on 10/14 (SRP $19.97). This is one of the titles the studio picked up when New Line was folded into Warner. The disc will include 30 minutes of additional footage unseen in theatres, along with the 10-part Making the New World documentary. There's no official word yet whether the title will be released on Blu-ray, but our sources say one isn't currently on the slate.
Yes.
i just got the extended blu-ray and it's destroying me.. does anyone know of a list of the differences between this and the other cut? google isn't doing it for me this time. much thanks
Me, too. Got the Blu-Ray at Best Buy for $12.99. Haven't found a free three hours to sit down and watch it yet, though.
Q'orianka Kilcher ARRESTED At White House
source: AP
WASHINGTON — U.S. Park Police have identified a woman arrested for tying herself to a White House fence as actress Q'orianka (kohr-ee-AHN'-kuh) Kilcher.
Authorities say the 20-year-old tied herself to the fence Tuesday and her 41-year-old mother, Saskia, poured a black substance over her.
They told officials they were protesting a visit by the president of Peru. Q'orianka Kilcher's father is a Peruvian Indian.
Park Police spokesman Sgt. David Schlosser identified the mother, who's charged with defacing government property, and daughter, who's charged with disorderly conduct.
Kilcher's agent Carlyne Grager confirmed the arrests and said the actress is a strong supporter of indigenous populations around the world.
Kilcher played Pocahontas in the 2005 film, "The New World."
you go girl.
It's 2010. She needs to act like it. Unless she was there for Brando, she just needs to focus on school.
dude, what are you talking about? is it now an ancient practice of primitive people to protest for the rights of natives in front of the white house?
you know who are the ones not acting like it's fucking 2010? the guys who arrested her.