826 The New World

[leo goldsmith]

I'm unenthusiastic about the variety of versions of this film, but I don't see the point (or the sense) in speculating (without more knowledge) that Malick was forced to do something he didn't want to do, or that he is otherwise now a craven studio-whore. He is a Hollywood director who casts big stars in big films. However unconventional his films may be, he's no maverick, and he's no doubt aware and accepting of the role that the Academy Awards and the critics play in the reception of his work. Greater directors than he have had the same concerns, and others have tried to play the maverick role and suffered for it.

I'm sympathetic to your concerns, Barmy, and I'm certainly wary, but I just don't see why we have to mythologize this as an epic struggle between Art and Commercial Interest.

[Barmy]

If nothing else, it's more interesting than typing about "Brokeback Mountain."

[che-etienne]

In my estimation, "Brokeback Mountain" was a far better film than "The New World" although I would be interested in seeing a definitive cut of the film (TNW) if what I saw was really not meant to be that...

[Barmy]

I can't imagine a more damning critique of TNW. I'm sorry I even mentioned the horror film that is BBM.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

From the IMDB today:

Malick Explains 'New World' Recall

Latest: 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 U.S. 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 January 20th.

[Barmy]

Lame excuse.

Maybe he was just waiting for the Colin sextape to come out.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Lame excuse.

Maybe he was just waiting for the Colin sextape to come out.

Yeah, and then it go on The New World DVD as a "Special Feature"

[che-etienne]

haha that's priceless.

[Barmy]

Is it just a coincidence that the length of the Colin sextape is the same number of minutes Malick cut from the film?

[chaddoli]

In my estimation, "Brokeback Mountain" was a far better film than "The New World" although I would be interested in seeing a definitive cut of the film (TNW) if what I saw was really not meant to be that...

Ed....After seeing the film today, that statement is baffling, disgusting, even stupid. The New World is, by leaps and bounds, without question, the best film of the year, of the last five years. Malick's filmmaking is....intolerably beautiful. Some of the most heart wrenching and gorgeous material that exists in cinema. He is a poet. Cribbing a line by J. Hoberman about Bresson, I would say that to not get Malick is to not get the idea of motion pictures.

Malick's films are....like God.

[TedW]

But did you like it?

[Barmy]

Glad to see that Malick posts here.

[GringoTex]

In the name of self-aggrandizing name-dropping: I used to program for a film society and Malick attended many of the screenings. One time we screened Days of Heaven. Malick didn't show up but he did come to a screening of a different film a few weeks later. He was intensely interested in the audience's reaction to DoH and asked me about it. He wanted to know if the audience liked it and if the print was good and if the sound was good and how many people showed up and if I thought the screening was a success. I was caught by surprise, because I didn't realize he was so audience-conscious.

It makes complete sense to me that he would recut a film based on an audience's reaction in a screening. He cares very much what an audience thinks. I think the vision of him as a self-absorbed artist obsessed with the internal methods of his work is an erronious one. Malick wants his films to be liked by as many people as possible.

[Brian Oblivious]

well if you ever happen to see him again, go ahead and tell him for me that I really like this recut version very much, but that I'd also like to be able to see the Oscar-qualifying-run version one of these days, and not just on DVD.

[TedW]

My question is, can (or should) a film still be eligible for an Oscar if the qually run is a different version? Would they then be giving an Oscar to an alternate version of the movie? Is there a precedent for this?

[che-etienne]

In my estimation, "Brokeback Mountain" was a far better film than "The New World" although I would be interested in seeing a definitive cut of the film (TNW) if what I saw was really not meant to be that...

Ed....After seeing the film today, that statement is baffling, disgusting, even stupid. The New World is, by leaps and bounds, without question, the best film of the year, of the last five years. Malick's filmmaking is....intolerably beautiful. Some of the most heart wrenching and gorgeous material that exists in cinema. He is a poet. Cribbing a line by J. Hoberman about Bresson, I would say that to not get Malick is to not get the idea of motion pictures.

Malick's films are....like God.

Ok, Chadd. Sorry I just disagree. To me, "The New World" was indeed beautiful and poetic. Q'orianka Kilcher was fantastic, and many of the themes were in place, but at the same time the film displayed a lack of focus that I disliked and that was also displayed in "The Thin Red Line". There were for me too many moments of introspective voice-over coupled with postcard perfect visuals and repeated motifs. Malick's cinematography though beautiful is for the most part limited to a single tone, a single voice. The images to me are not as provocative as they might be, especially as some of the recurring imagery is used to the point of self-indulgence. The thing that separates this film from a masterpiece like "Days of Heaven" is to me how restrained and calculated Malick is with his use of the beautiful imagery he has recorded, as well as how economical he is with his storytelling. There were parts of the already very little plot in the "New World" that didn't need to be shown, for example when Pocohantas hears that John Smith is still alive. To me, we did not need to see her actually hear the gossip. That was a clumsy piece of storytelling. The film goes like this I think a great deal, and for all the menace that many people said they felt in John Smith's (Colin Farrell's) eyes I felt that Farrell's performance was limited in its range. Yes, I consider that perhaps Malick wanted it that way. Perhaps he preferred Farrell to be a prism for all sorts of audience response, but as this type of character is recurring in Malick's work I am forced to compare him to Richard Gere in "Days of Heaven" or Charlie Sheen's wonderful performance in "Badlands", which are for more provocative. I think in the end the effectiveness of this film is dependent on the audience. I prefer to be provoked into thought rather than awe inspired to the point of contemplation and reflection. Still, there were not aspects of "The New World" that I disliked, and I will admit there are many images that have stuck in my head. It is an easily unforgettable film. I would very much like to see the shortened version, which I imagine is the one you saw as well and that may also be a source of our disagreement. I also cannot wait to see the three hour cut. I am eager to like the film, but for me it just didn't make the distance, whereas "Brokeback" did.

[hearthesilence]

Martin Sheen, not Charlie.

I have not seen the "NY cut" (I was going to say long cut, but I guess the DVD will take that title), but the Chicago Tribune arts critic, Michael Phillips, did and felt the new cut was improved.

I think Phillips pretty much nails it, what works (i.e. the visuals) works beautifully, what doesn't can be pretty tedious. Or, in Phillips words, "you focus on what works."

[chaddoli]

Ok, Chadd. Sorry I just disagree. To me, "The New World" was indeed beautiful and poetic. Q'orianka Kilcher was fantastic, and many of the themes were in place, but at the same time the film displayed a lack of focus that I disliked and that was also displayed in "The Thin Red Line". There were for me too many moments of introspective voice-over coupled with postcard perfect visuals and repeated motifs. Malick's cinematography though beautiful is for the most part limited to a single tone, a single voice. The images to me are not as provocative as they might be, especially as some of the recurring imagery is used to the point of self-indulgence. The thing that separates this film from a masterpiece like "Days of Heaven" is to me how restrained and calculated Malick is with his use of the beautiful imagery he has recorded, as well as how economical he is with his storytelling. There were parts of the already very little plot in the "New World" that didn't need to be shown, for example when Pocohantas hears that John Smith is still alive. To me, we did not need to see her actually hear the gossip. That was a clumsy piece of storytelling. The film goes like this I think a great deal, and for all the menace that many people said they felt in John Smith's (Colin Farrell's) eyes I felt that Farrell's performance was limited in its range. Yes, I consider that perhaps Malick wanted it that way. Perhaps he preferred Farrell to be a prism for all sorts of audience response, but as this type of character is recurring in Malick's work I am forced to compare him to Richard Gere in "Days of Heaven" or Charlie Sheen's wonderful performance in "Badlands", which are for more provocative. I think in the end the effectiveness of this film is dependent on the audience. I prefer to be provoked into thought rather than awe inspired to the point of contemplation and reflection. Still, there were not aspects of "The New World" that I disliked, and I will admit there are many images that have stuck in my head. It is an easily unforgettable film. I would very much like to see the shortened version, which I imagine is the one you saw as well and that may also be a source of our disagreement. I also cannot wait to see the three hour cut. I am eager to like the film, but for me it just didn't make the distance, whereas "Brokeback" did.

Let me first apologize for the asshole-y tone of my last post. I was still riding the high from seeing the film and was not in the mood to read anything negative. You clearly have this well thought out.

However, I can't find anything in your post to agree with.

The lack of focus you speak of in this in The Thin Red Line I have heard before, but can't get behind. For TRL at least, the focus -in simple terms -is clearly on these men and how the war is weighing down on them. Of course, for both films there isn't much plot to speak of, but I guess I am so drawn in by its style and feelings that I can't intellectualize the film even if I particularly wanted to.

As to John Smith, I strongly disagree that there is a big similarity between him and Malick's other characters. John Smith, using so few words, is a very observational character, seeing and feeling everything around him, unlike someone like Kit Carruthers.

As to the cinematography, I feel like you might be hung up on the comparison to Days of Heaven because of how recently you saw it, because I don't feel the films to be that similar. I understand what you're saying about Malick's so-called overuse of these images in TNW, but I think that is just part of the evolution of his style that he chose for this film. It is not the farmland in Days of Heaven, not the jungle in TRL, so it must be shot and looked at in a different way.

I think we as moviegoers (especially on this board) could be benefitted from a little more emotion in our filmviewing instead of endless analysis. An attitude like "I prefer to be provoked into thought rather than awe inspired to the point of contemplation and reflection" is one that would anger and frustrate someone like John Cassavetes or David Lynch. I think a pure emotion reading of a film, one where you let yourself be taken in by it, can be the best reading.

[leo goldsmith]

The lack of focus you speak of in this in The Thin Red Line I have heard before, but can't get behind.

I hear you. Especially since the earlier (and almost universally praised) films exhibit the same (willful) lack of focus. Badlands and Days of Heaven are structured around the random and the freely associative, in both voiceover and imagery. None of these films would strike me as lacking in focus unless in the most conventional sense of narrative structure.

but I guess I am so drawn in by its style and feelings that I can't intellectualize the film even if I particularly wanted to.
...
I think a pure emotion reading of a film, one where you let yourself be taken in by it, can be the best reading.

I never understand why these types of responses are so often framed as mutually exclusive. I think it's quite necessary (and not even particularly difficult) to have both of these types of responses simultaneously. What bothers me about a lot of discussion of The New World (and Malick's films in general) is that most people criticize it as "unfocused" or somehow lacking intellectual rigor, while others defend it as some kind of poetic "mood piece" that simply demands to be experienced. The film clearly intends to evoke the sublime, but it's also an incredibly smart film about cross-cultural interaction, memory, love and romantic idealization, and a host of other things. It seems to me that if you're engagment with the film stops at how lyrical it is, then you're missing half the film.

As to John Smith, I strongly disagree that there is a big similarity between him and Malick's other characters. John Smith, using so few words, is a very observational character, seeing and feeling everything around him, unlike someone like Kit Carruthers.

Smith is one of Malick's great, unreliable narrators, like Holly, Linda, Witt, Bell, etc. His mutually deifying love for Pocahontas, his understanding of the "Naturals" ("without guile"), his hope in finding a new world where he can absolve himself of his past life and "make himself anew" -- these are all analogous to the ways the narrators of the previous films participate in creating their pasts or their surroundings through narration and memory.

[che-etienne]

I never understand why these types of responses are so often framed as mutually exclusive. I think it's quite necessary (and not even particularly difficult) to have both of these types of responses simultaneously. What bothers me about a lot of discussion of The New World (and Malick's films in general) is that most people criticize it as "unfocused" or somehow lacking intellectual rigor, while others defend it as some kind of poetic "mood piece" that simply demands to be experienced. The film clearly intends to evoke the sublime, but it's also an incredibly smart film about cross-cultural interaction, memory, love and romantic idealization, and a host of other things. It seems to me that if you're engagment with the film stops at how lyrical it is, then you're missing half the film.

I agree on both accounts. The two should be connected, and it is not that I feel a strict analytical approach should be taken to a film over an open-mind and heart. I think the two are not emotionally exclusive, and that is probably why "Oliver Twist" and "Brokeback Mountain" are two of my favorites this year. I also totally agree about your definition of Smith as one of Malick's unreliable narrators. Also, my favorite film this year I haven't really thought too analytically about and that is "The Beat that My Heart Skipped" which was just so very moving at the end it's hard to go back an face it. I don't know... I think I need to see "The New World" again and in its shortened form. It is an interesting and yes I agree very lyrical film, even if I still believe not entirely successful or effective.

edit: I'm going to go hang myself now for saying Charlie Sheen, when I meant Martin Sheen.

[Floyd]

I don't know I liked this alot as I do anything else from Malick. It is hard to not feel like some things are kind of difficult to pull off like the interactions or Farrell acting in the woods (because well this is acting in a film not spontaneous bewilderment) but eventually the film pulled me in and my thoughts of how the interactions seemed so difficult to orchestrate went away. Kilcher as Pocohontas I think helped me with the accepting of the interactions because she was so radiant and just had this stature to her that just drew me.

I appreciated how the film was fueled by the fact of the confusion rather than the dislike between the two factions. I understand the very last shot to end the film but at the same time it seems to be somewhat of a cop out just to throw a single shot like that to end a film. I didn't mind it but at the same time it was somewhat frustrating.

On another note did anyone else happen to notice in the score near the end that seemed to bring in the closing of the score from (I believe) All the Real Girls which seemed to be an ode to David Gordon Green. It was very brief.

[che-etienne]

On another note did anyone else happen to notice in the score near the end that seemed to bring in the closing of the score from (I believe) All the Real Girls which seemed to be an ode to David Gordon Green. It was very brief.

That would be interesting if it was an ode to David Gordon Green, since Green has cited Malick as the filmmaker who has most profoundly influenced his own style.

[Andre Jurieu]

On another note did anyone else happen to notice in the score near the end that seemed to bring in the closing of the score from (I believe) All the Real Girls which seemed to be an ode to David Gordon Green. It was very brief.

That would be interesting if it was an ode to David Gordon Green, since Green has cited Malick as the filmmaker who has most profoundly influenced his own style.

... and Malick has a producer credit on Undertow.

[yoshimori]

Could someone be more specific about the score? There's Wagner at the end of NW, and Horner before that, but nothing that seems like All The Real Girls to me. On the contrary, there was much in the film reminiscent of Herzog, especially Nosferatu, especially the use of the opening to Das Rheingold and shots of birds and one of the 'natural' running out the door, the clothes flaring out behind him.

and btw. Just saw the shortened version of NW and, though it's still as good as anything to come out of Hollywood in a while, it seems to me not nearly as poetic and mesmerizing as the longer version. And it seems there were several additional lines of dialogue which tried to 'tie emotional ends together' in a fairly crass way. But maybe I just don't remember them from the earlier cut.

[Floyd]

It was a very brief passage, not exactly important, I was just pointing it out to those that may have noticed it as well. It didn't go on for long at all. I wish I could pinpoint where exactly it occurred but I cannot exactly remember. I would say I could be wrong but in my mind it just seemed to occur to me when I heard it.