826 The New World

[TedW]

Malick allows a good amount of the film to pass before letting its theme and intent become clear

Lol. That must've been the part where I couldn't follow the plot and nodded out.

[leo goldsmith]

I just saw this with the late afternoon, retired NYers crowd and there was more open snoring than I've ever seen in a theater. And before the credits rolled, people were out of their seats and loudly broadcasting their expert analyses of the script's inadequacies. It made me wonder why they went to see the film in the first place. Did they not see Thin Red Line? Do they know who Terrence Malick is? Or was it the double-hunkage of Farrell and Bale that drew them to theater?

I found the film utterly astonishing in every way -- not just the obviously beautiful cinematography and sound design (this was particularly impressive), and not just the Oscar-worthy jail-bait that is Jewel's cousin -- but so lovingly paced and, yes, very intelligently written. Never has Malick trodden such a fine line between faux-naïve anachronism and shrewd human drama, and characteristically the film is without even the slightest hint of irony of any kind. I think most people will be puzzled that the white people aren't portrayed as racists or rapists or both, prefering to see their cross-cultural encounters dramatized in a more Pat Buchanan-esque, "when civilizations collide!" kind of mode. In this light, I'm a little surprised Slant is so big on it, being typically sensitive to the quasi-ethnographic in films (I'd love to hear their take on that ridiculous gorilla movie).

Anyway, if you're lukewarm on Malick, I wouldn't really bother. It's remarkably close to The Thin Red Line in tone and structure, but there are fewer explosions, so it's (apparently) easier to fall asleep.

[TedW]

You know, it is possible -- I know this is a stretch -- that people in New York, as elsewhere, actually went to the movie knowing who Malick is, knowing his work (even liking it), and were still bored fucking silly. In short, that they freely and independently assessed it to be just not good. Just because it's Malick, Great God of All Things Non-Narrative, doesn't necessarily mean the movie works. I would offer that it clearly does not... but that's just me.

(Not to mention, it's hard to imagine a bunch of Batman or SWAT fans stumbling into what is essentially a high-budget art picture just based on the casting alone.)

[leo goldsmith]

Talk about free of irony.

To be honest, I think it has more to do with the fact that it was an upper west side audience and was therefore about 60% geriatric and wealthy. (It's a holiday week, it's after lunch, they're not sure whether they ought to see Munich or not.) Not, generally speaking, an audience whose opinion I value highly, especially after the New York Film Festival.

However, even if the holy name of Malick is quite familiar to them, I don't see a vast difference between this and his previous film, so I'm not sure why they would be so ardent to see this after the last. Perhaps they were hoping -- like you, maybe -- that Malick would return to his earlier, sparer, more overtly cryptic style. But Days of Heaven is, of course, a very different film, and like Thin Red Line, New World takes the themes of the early films and goes well beyond them, if in a more rambling, expansive manner.

Of course, I'm mostly just bitching about the obnoxious audience that I saw this film with this afternoon, but it points to my wider bewilderment about why people value Malick so highly when they are clearly not interested in his films. I find it puzzling that he's able to make big-budget films these days -- and I imagine he won't be for much longer. Maybe then he won't be able to linger so long in the editing room, and perhaps we'll both be happy.

On an unrelated note, it's funny that this and another recent favorite, 2046, are both accused of being overlong, meandering, all-style-and-no-substance films. But then I also loved Caché, which is edited with utmost precision.

[Elephant]

Of course, I'm mostly just bitching about the obnoxious audience that I saw this film with this afternoon, but it points to my wider bewilderment about why people value Malick so highly when they are clearly not interested in his films. I find it puzzling that he's able to make big-budget films these days -- and I imagine he won't be for much longer. Maybe then he won't be able to linger so long in the editing room, and perhaps we'll both be happy.

Leo, maybe we saw the same screening--4:10? Lincoln Square? Anyway the audience was just stupefying. Snoring, walking out, razzing, talking, and when it was over there was scattered booing. People running to get out even before the film was over, and the crush getting out filled with "what a waste of two and a half hours," "worst film I've ever seen," etc, led me to believe that these people were not here because they were familiar with Malick's previous work. (I saw Match Point immediately following this and in addition to being sold out, there was applause after the film; but it is Woody Allen, and it is New York, but clearly not everyone was in such a horrific mood as The New World's crowd.)

My initial reaction to the film (which I'll have to see again to catch all the stuff I missed due to snoring, screaming tripping, shuffling, zipping, scrunching, complaining, etc) is that it's Malick's 'worst' movie, but still one of the best films of the year. It does have problems which haven't been present in any of his three prior films (feels much longer than it is, and it's a bit clunky narratively), and it does bear enormous similarities to The Thin Red Line, but just the fact that a Hollywood movie can be so unapologetically beautiful is celebratory (cf. the final shot of the swaying trees, from below).

[leo goldsmith]

Yeah, we were at the same screening alright. Another favorite criticism from those who've been studiously reading the Times recently: "It didn't really happen that way!" Incidentally, the guy that screamed was my fault -- he was snoring loudly and I nudged the back of his seat. I guess he was so deep in slumber that my rousing him gave him a jolt. Pretty weird.

(Fairly predictable about Match Point, too. Now there's a film that needs editing.)

I guess I have a hard time finding this film to be all that different from Thin Red Line. Both films are structured in the same way (quite precisely, in fact) and handle characterization and storyline more or less identically. I just feel that those who dislike these aspects of one film ought to find the same things to dislike in the other -- am I wrong?

I mean, the similarities are sometimes very strange -- John Savage delivers an identical cameo as a crazy guy; there's a scene in a white tent two-thirds through the film; there are lines of monologue that are almost verbatim from the earlier film; and did you peep Ben Chaplin in that canoe? I think it just as likely that some won't like it because it's too similar to Thin Red Line.

Contrary to what Ted has been saying, I actually think that the main difference is that ... drumroll ... it's more focused, at least in certain respects. There are fewer characters and subplots, fewer voiceovers (and fewer voices), and the action and story are much easier to follow than in Thin Red Line.

[Elephant]

I guess I have a hard time finding this film to be all that different from Thin Red Line. Both films are structured in the same way (quite precisely, in fact) and handle characterization and storyline more or less identically. I just feel that those who dislike these aspects of one film ought to find the same things to dislike in the other -- am I wrong?

I mean, the similarities are sometimes very strange -- John Savage delivers an identical cameo as a crazy guy; there's a scene in a white tent two-thirds through the film; there are lines of monologue that are almost verbatim from the earlier film; and did you peep Ben Chaplin in that canoe? I think it just as likely that some won't like it because it's too similar to Thin Red Line.

Contrary to what Ted has been saying, I actually think that the main difference is that ... drumroll ... it's more focused, at least in certain respects. There are fewer characters and subplots, fewer voiceovers (and fewer voices), and the action and story are much easier to follow than in Thin Red Line.

Yeah, I had my mental Thin Red Line checklist going while I was watching--caught Ben Chaplin's ten seconds of screentime, the disjointed voiceovers which can't always be attributed to a specific character, the John Savage cameo, the dolly shots through ravaged villages as warring factions dole out violence upon each other. Even the music was very similar. One noticable absence though was animals--other than a snake, a fish, a few birds, a dog, and two oxen, the only animals seen in the first two hours or so are dead and being eaten or worn. This is definitely a film of foliage, with more tracking shots through grass and wheat than anything. Swaying trees, lapping water, etc. Contrasted with The Thin Red Line where every few shots is punctuated with parrots, bugs, etc.

And while there are fewer characters, subplots, etc, that's one of my favorite things about The Thin Red Line. At no point during The New World, though, was I bored, but I did notice that it felt much longer than it was, whereas The Thin Red Line feels like about ninety minutes to me, this one felt like about four hours, and that can't be good (although the fact that I'd just sat through Cache and was already really irritated with the audience no doubt contributed to this feeling, so I'll have to re-assess this when I see the film again in a couple weeks).

[Elephant]

This from davekehr.com:

reportedly, Malick is still cutting the film down for its general release in January

This is interesting. If the exit conversations from yesterday's screening are any indication, if this film is going to have any commercial success it's going to have to be shorter and a bit tighter, less meandering. Glad I got to see the longer version, though clearly I'd be interested to see a shorter version--but with so many tiny, quick shots of trees and water and wheat, I wonder if one would even notice what had been taken out.

[Barmy]

I went to the 11:15pm screening at Lincoln Square last night and the audience seemed VERY engaged, with many people staying through the credits even though it was 2am. This is definited NOT a movie to see with a bunch of retirees.

I think TRL is TM's best film, and TNW probably his "worst", but still one of the best films of the year.

Also I posted a link above to a Variety story on the possibility that TNW will be cut 15-20 minutes.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

A rare Malick public appearance!

From the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise:

[quote]Tuesday January 3, 2006

Local theater group hosts Hollywood night out
By Susan Albert

E-E Community Editor

For a short time Monday evening, Theater Bartlesville played host to a Hollywood-style screening of New Line Cinema's “The New Worldâ€

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

According to Jeffrey Wells, the 149-minute version will be closing this Friday and will be replaced by the shorter cut on the 20th. Those of you in New York or L.A. (or wherever this is currently playing) might want to move up your plans to see the film, assuming you haven't already.

[leo goldsmith]

It seems to have already closed in NY. (Actually, Wells's page says that it was closing at midnight on the 3rd).

Anyway, a pretty odd turn of events, but I suspect, as with The Thin Red Line that there will be no alternate version released on video, at least not for a long while. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing -- the initial release of multiple versions of 2046 on dvd was a mistake, I think.

In any case, I wonder what the differences will be. Having seen it again (I know, I know ...) on Monday, it seems that the last third of the film would not benefit from being shortened (if anything it feels too fast in relation to the earlier portion).

[Andre Jurieu]

For all you Malick fans in the NYC area...

The Film Society of Lincoln Center's Walter Reade Theater and New Line Cinema presents

The Making of "The New World"
Sunday, January 8th at 4pm

A conversation with producer Sarah Green and production designer Jack Fisk featuring behind the scenes excerpts on the making of Terence Malick's THE NEW WORLD followed by a screening of the film.

Terence Malick is one of American cinema's few genuine mavericks, a great, singular artist with a genuinely metaphysical turn of mind. In BADLANDS, his legendary 1973 debut, DAYS OF HEAVEN and THE THIN RED LINE, Malick has explored the line between innocence and experience, and taken us to the limits of cinematic beauty in the process. His transcendentalist epic, THE NEW WORLD, casts a fresh eye on a great American myth: the love affair between John Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher), and the encounter between the British colonists and the Powhatan tribe of Native Americans. While the reclusive director does not make public appearances, the film's creative team—producer Sarah Green and Malick's old friend and erstwhile production designer Jack Fisk will appear at the Walter Reade Theater for an in-depth look at the making of one of 2005's most memorable films.

Sarah Green has produced films for John Sayles, David Mamet and many others. Jack Fisk was production designer on Malick's THE THIN RED LINE as well as David Lynch's MULHOLLAND DRIVE and THE STRAIGHT STORY, and art director on BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN.

Ticket prices: $10 for FSLC members, $12 for students and $15 general admission.

BUY TICKETS ONLINE NOW!
https://tickets.filmlinc.com/php/calend ... &year=2006

[Anonymous]

Just to give myself some closure, I am a huge Malick fan and have been looking forward to The New World since its announcement. However, my vacation plans have me away from NYC until the 17th. After reading this post and some others, am I correct in assuming there won't be any way for me to see the extended cut of the film? I know it's wishful thinking, but maybe theyy'll keep the longer versions playing in select theaters for at least a few more weeks?

[Barmy]

"The New World" has left NYC, until its wide release on 1/20. I sincerely doubt the longer version will be shown anywhere upon its re-launch.

I am frankly shocked about the lack of reaction on this board to the cutting of this film. A group of people who can debate endlessly about extremely obscure and unimportant directors seem to have nothing to say about the suppression of Malick's cut. And do you really believe the PR, in Variety and elsewhere, that Malick is trying to make this "the best film it can be" by cutting it?

To a degree I almost wish they had never released the "longer" version, as, having seen it, I have no desire to see the edited version. The film is flawed, but cutting out the "boring" bits is the last thing it needs.

I'll check it out for the last time at this weekend's Walter Reade screening, and I will be interested to hear what the producer has to say about all this.

[rs98762001]

...but Malick doesn't seem to be the type to just go along quietly with the recutting of his film. I'm sure whatever contract he had with New Line stipulates that the final released cut of the movie is his, and his alone. That's not to say that pressure wasn't exerted upon him by the suits, but even Kubrick would continue to recut his movies once they had been released. Beautiful and brilliant though THE NEW WORLD is in its long form, it's still in my opinion the slackest of Malick's films, especially in the middle section, so I am curious as to whether a little cutting will help or harm the movie.

[Barmy]

Does Malick have final cut? I don't know, but few directors really do. For me, the worst parts of the film were the choppy/PG-13 battle scenes, and I fear these will remain intact. What makes the film so unique is the slackness. And, leaving aside the major surgery Kubrick did on the non-US version of "The Shining", Kubrick's other post-release edits were limited to discrete sections of a film. Here I just think Malick's assignment is to get TNW as close to 120 minutes as possible.

[leo goldsmith]

As with The Thin Red Line, Malick edited The New World for months on end (10 months, I believe, which is very long). And as with the previous film, it was the end of the year, the Oscar race, and probably some connected contractual stipulation that forced him to release the film. All of this leads to a lot of speculation about whether or not there's a "director's cut" floating around somewhere, or whether the film would have benefited from more editing, and so on. So basically, detractors use this work method to argue that the film needed more (or better) editing, and apologists use it to argue that a longer or less interfered-with cut would have been more in line with the director's vision, etc.

I don't really like either of these arguments because I happen to think that both of these films are excellent as they are. But films of any kind, by any director, are rarely -- or actually never -- singular, univocal, complete artifacts to be contemplated as perfect little spheres. There is an infinite number of films that Malick can edit from his material, and each would be interesting, because he's a great director with a fully realized project.

So, one could well be up in arms about the alternate cut he's working on, but a number of directors do the same thing. 2046 was, in my opinion, among the very best films of last year, and Wong would still be editing the damn thing if he could. And in any case, all reports on this re-editing suggest that he's doing more of a nip-and-tuck than an amputation. I'm curious whether most of us will be able to point out what has been excised.

[Barmy]

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but 17 minutes or whatever of cuts is going to be noticeable to anyone who saw the film--although maybe it won't be "omigod that tree shot got cut!!!".

And doesn't this whole thing doom any Oscar nomination chances?

I haven't followed the 2046 edits, but isn't that example a little different because WKW was literally editing the damn thing hours before the Cannes premiere? I can understand why he wanted to take more time.

I am VERY skeptical that this is a matter of Malick thinking "oh I'll get this released in December but I really want it to be 2 hours long so I'll keep working to shorten it". If the reviews had not been so negative, I truly doubt a further edit would have happened.

The problem with TRL was not that it was too long! It was that a few of the characters were underdeveloped.

I still think this boils down to New Line "ordering" a shorter cut.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

[leo goldsmith]

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but 17 minutes or whatever of cuts is going to be noticeable to anyone who saw the film--although maybe it won't be "omigod that tree shot got cut!!!".

Fair enough.

I haven't followed the 2046 edits, but isn't that example a little different because WKW was literally editing the damn thing hours before the Cannes premiere? I can understand why he wanted to take more time.

That's more or less what's going on here, I suspect. Malick presumably had to release the film by the end of the year (possibly for contractual reasons), and (whether he volunteered or was asked) is now continuing to edit it. Still, 10 months is no rush-job. As with Wong, he just likes to take a long-ass time in post and, for me, it pays off. Then again, if it means waiting another 20 years between films, I'd rather somebody pull the trigger and get the damn movie out.

I am VERY skeptical that this is a matter of Malick thinking "oh I'll get this released in December but I really want it to be 2 hours long so I'll keep working to shorten it". If the reviews had not been so negative, I truly doubt a further edit would have happened.

You're probably right, but that might mean that Malick was only allowed to continue to edit it after receiving mixed criticism. Here I'm just playing devil's advocate -- neither of us knows what really went down, so this is just speculation.

The problem with TRL was not that it was too long! It was that a few of the characters were underdeveloped.

This is an oft-repeated criticism that I happen not to agree with. It's also an oft-repeated criticism of The New World.

And doesn't this whole thing doom any Oscar nomination chances?...

I still think this boils down to New Line "ordering" a shorter cut.

Until the film rematerializes, it definitely does look like floundering on New Line's part, and if nothing else, is simply bad publicity for the film. Fortunately, with "Director's Cut" dvds popping up everywhere, it's possible that no one will bat an eye.

[Andre Jurieu]

And doesn't this whole thing doom any Oscar nomination chances?

There are a considerable number of Malick supporters in Hollywood and among Oscar voters. The Thin Red Line also had to contend with bad-press (mostly over actors being completely/significantly cut out of the final film) and mediocre critical consensus, but it still was able to obtain an Oscar nomination.

[Barmy]

Maybe, but check this out from today's Oscars article posted at Movie City News:

"When you tell people the movie is not the movie, they aren't going to vote for the movie."

[Jun-Dai]

Whether we're dealing with a 2046 problem or a Fanny and Alexander problem, we'll never really know until we hear it from the director. New Line is no stranger to DVDs and their special features, so hopefully, they will allow for a Malick-preferred "director's" cut in the set, if it differs at all from the final version he is to put out.

With TRL, I had heard rumors that the theatrical version was a compromise and that Malick had considered the film finished in his 5 or 6 hour-cut. I have no idea if this is true, but if it is, it would certainly explain the fairly jumbled character set (I had difficulty telling the characters apart the first time I saw the film), and I'd be very curious to see what a longer version would have to offer.

But there are certainly other explanations for TRL--perhaps Malick actually wanted the characters to seem kind of undeveloped; after the second and third viewings, I no longer came to see it as a "problem" with the film--it made the perspectives less personal and more philosophical, which certainly sets it apart from other mainstream films.

[Kirkinson]

From Ain't it Cool News, bastion of accuracy:

I asked [producer Sarah Green] if it was true (as Moriarity mentioned in his article from 12/31/05) if Malick had cut a shorter version of the film for the nationwide release on 1/13/06 and she mentioned the following three details.

1.) The version we saw is the 155 minute version that is presently playing in NY and LA. She mentioned that this version "will always exist" but . . .

2.) Malick has trimmed this version and it will be this new cut that will be released when the film opens nationwide. She said that "none of the scenes were cut out, all the scenes are intact, but he did trim down scenes and made a tighter cut of the film."

3.) But, more importantly, she said New Line has agreed to release an extended cut of the film, even longer than the 155 minute cut, to DVD. Again, this was info straight from Producer Sarah Green. It's not as official as if it came from execs at New Line, but that's what she said, for what it is worth. She didn't confirm if the nationwide theatrical cut will be packaged with the extended cut or if New Line will drop the Extended Cut Super Special Edition (with flair!) some months after a bare bones DVD of the nationwide theatrical cut is released. I love Malick's work and I love this film but I can't see the public willing to double-dip for this film, so who knows what the DVD roll out will be exactly?

[zedz]

But there are certainly other explanations for TRL--perhaps Malick actually wanted the characters to seem kind of undeveloped; after the second and third viewings, I no longer came to see it as a "problem" with the film--it made the perspectives less personal and more philosophical, which certainly sets it apart from other mainstream films.

That was my reading of the film: that it was not a character-driven (or plot-driven) piece, but rather a pantheistic, philosophical exercise camouflaged as a war film. The American characters and their inner thoughts are just another element in Malick's world, along with the indigenous people, the wildlife, and the landscape, and the mutual indifference of these elements was a large part of the film's point.