The New World

[Gamblour.]

I'm seeing this tonight, I'm so excited.

[ShanghaiOrange]

how was this amazing?

It made me very much amazed.

[Gamblour.]

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.

[RegularKarate]

what a strange gripe with this film.  it's from that point that the poetry becomes even deeper and more meaningful (although sad)

[Gamblour.]

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?

[mutinyco]

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...

[ShanghaiOrange]

That old lady teaches her.

[Gamblour.]

That old lady teaches her.

Even before that, she uses idioms and certain phrasings. Maybe Poca was prodigious?

[w/o horse]

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.

[Gamblour.]

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.

[w/o horse]

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.

[modage]

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.

[JG]

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

[w/o horse]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sunrise]

No hate here.

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

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

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

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