The New World (2005) (1 Viewer)

[Elizabeth S]

I'm not a Malick fan, but I thought the film was quite good. Certainly can see that it'd be much too "poetic" and langurous for many viewers.

Q'Orianka Kilcher was wonderful -- she had many wordless scenes where the emotions playing across her face said everything. The longer cut which will eventually be on DVD should be interesting -- I felt certain passages were a bit abrupt, and others could have used further explanation.

I don't like romantic films, but

the scene where Rebecca comes up from behind Rolfe and takes his arm has to be one of the most romantic scenes I've ever seen.

 

[Nathan V]

mega-post alert-

The New World (2005)
[many small spoilers, which I’m not spoilerizing because the film’s focus isn’t its story]

“It’s more of an experience film,” Terrence Malick recently said, in a rare public appearance at a Bartesville screening of his new film. “Just get into it. Let it roll over you.”

Indeed, pure cinema, or the idea of using the cinematic medium to its full extent (as opposed to simply a storytelling device derived from theatre and literature) to convey a visual and aural EXPERIENCE, is an approach so far removed from traditional film that to apply typical Hollywood standards for judging a movie to any of Malick’s works is a profound mistake.

The New World isn’t about plot progression and conflict resolution; it doesn’t reduce human actions to cookie-cutter motivations and easy cause and effect relationships. This is a film about many things. It is about people alone with their innermost thoughts. It is a film of moods, sounds, emotional textures. It is about the atmospheres of being in an alien (or “new”) territory, whether external or internal. The film washes over the viewer as if a dream; it achieves a level of communication beyond the verbal. The film reaches us on a plane below the ‘gut,’ engaging our souls more than our intellect. Malick’s work speaks to me on a level that no other filmmaker can quite reach. How he accomplishes this rare feat I will never know.

Here are my initial reactions to the film’s complex thematics, which are bound to change as I rewatch the film in the future-

The film is comprised of 2 sections: the “Colin Farrell section” and the “Christian Bale section.” In the Farrell segment, we see, from an omniscient POV, the English “discovery” of a world and people new to them. Colin basks in the area’s natural beauty, and we hear his yearnings to “start over,” establish a utopian society. The Indian community he is inducted into shares many of the characteristics of Smith’s (Farrell’s) utopian dream. It is here that he discovers purity, in the form of Pocahontas (who is never referred to by name). The sequences involving the 2 of them, Farrell and Pocahontas, are utterly transcendent. I don’t believe there has been a more powerful or beautiful cinematic realization of the joy of innocence, the sheer exhilaration of pure love and the sense of discovery inherent. The sense of discovery exists on 2 levels: Pocahontas’s first experience of love as an emotion, and Smith’s rediscovery of and subsequent delight in simple purity. We hear the private thoughts of each of them, offering character development like no other.

Smith’s realization that his very presence around Pocahontas will eventually degrade that aspect of her he values most- her purity and innocence- leads to the end of the relationship. Malick’s use of voiceover is astounding, nowhere more so than during the main battle, in which the sound and fury of the chaos surrounding Farrell evaporates, replaced by his quiet plea to God, asking that he not turn away. The moment is reminiscent of the Ben Chaplin wife cutaways in Thin Red Line, and is equally as powerful. (Incidentally, Chaplin has a role in the New World, as a colonist, and onscreen for somewhere around 15 seconds.) Malick’s soundscapes are also worthy of note, particularly his use of silence or near-silence, as when Farrell overturns a table in anger, with no sound and a quick cut to black.

The remainder of the film shows us the gradual ‘westernization’ of Pocahontas, as she reluctantly marries Christian Bale and adopts European clothing styles. It is here that the film takes a turn I did not expect; I thought the film was going to be about the westernization of Pocahontas as a negative event (i.e. the tragic loss of innocence), but instead it actually takes the opposite approach, which is something I did not even notice until the film’s final shot. Pocahontas grieves a great deal for Smith, whom she believes dead. She is living in the past, yearning for an existence that is not present, nor will ever take place again. During this period, she is told by an English maid that she must continue to “grow upward,” using the metaphor of a tall tree, which does not, she says, stop growing when one of its branches is broken. At the moment Pocahontas steps into western wear for the first time (a profoundly heartbreaking scene) and begins her grieving stage, we hear her inner voice, plaintively speaking on the soundtrack: “I will find joy in all that is around me.” She does not take up this worldview until the film’s final moments. The Christian Bale segment is the journey towards the realization and adoption of this viewpoint. Consider the contrast in which Kilcher (Pocahontas) greets her new world (England) to the manner in which the Englishmen greet theirs (America). The settlers reject the new world, whereas Kilcher learns, tentatively, to embrace it. The film, for me at least, after first viewing, is about learning to “move on,” to grow upward, to live and experience the present. Before seeing the film, I had assumed Pocahontas would reject the new world, but this would mean she is no better than the English settlers who reject Virginia; the film advocates the embrace of new experience, new culture. The trait that separates Pocahontas from the rest of the film’s characters is her awareness of “the big picture,” as Roger Ebert puts it. In this respect, the film, especially with its final, glorious shot, is incredibly optimistic.

Not enough can be said about the film’s impeccable atmosphere. We get a pervading sense of newness; through the entire film, we are with characters in environments they have never seen before. Witness Wes Studi wandering around the sculpted English park in a daze, or Farrell sifting his hands through the tall reeds. Jump cuts are used with abandon; the concern is not physical continuity, but in creating an intuitive flow. Cutaways of daily activities and the aching beauty of the nature surrounding are peppered throughout the film. Shots are shown at one point and revisited later. There are a number of tremendously effective cuts to black. I am pretty sure this is one of those rare films, like Michael Mann’s Heat, that is composed entirely of straight cuts, with no fades or dissolves. Malick and his cinematographer (a Mann veteran) shoot exclusively in natural light, almost entirely with handheld steadicam, eschewing dollies, filters, tracks, long lenses, and cranes. Much of the movie has that beautiful “10a.m.” look that is rarely seen in movies, and the natural lighting brings an immediacy to the proceedings. Malick’s command of visual technique simply must be experienced. All the acting is excellent, but Kilcher is a revelation; she is quite literally perfect here. Her eyes and expressions, both facial and bodily, betray such incredible vitality and youthful energy, and at the same time show the gradual “maturation” and change in worldview. She is so alive.

As in The Thin Red Line, the narration, this time by the three protagonists, is achingly beautiful. To type out lines of narration diminishes their immense power; they have to be heard as intended, with the appropriate flow of images. The use of Wagner’s swelling horn intro and especially Mozart’s 23rd concerto are sublime. Like Wong Kar Wai, Malick will use the same cue repeatedly and effectively, subtly changing its meaning each time. Even in moments of supposed silence, there’s always something going on on the soundtrack, ambient tones, subtle bass, leaves rustling, bids in the distance, wind, barely perceptible strains of music (which are hugely effective in the main battle scene).

And then there are the shots. As a photographer, you can imagine my ecstatic reaction; my mouth had to have been open for well over half the movie. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It would appear as if Malick is incapable of creating a normal-looking image. Every single shot is either very good or breathtaking, and more often the latter. This is all the more amazing with the use of only natural light. He uses a lot of low angles, and moves the camera freely around his characters, observing their faces, reactions, and surroundings. There is a palpable freshness in the cinematography that contributes a great deal to the atmosphere; every image adds something to the mood, or changes it. We really do feel as if we are seeing this world for the first time. Note the shafts of light reaching through the hut in the scene in which Farrell is captured. The harsh shadows on the Indian’s faces. Note lush green backgrounds. Or the shadows on Kilcher’s face when she opens the window of her hut in the English colony. Or the opening shot of Kilcher with her hands reaching to the sky, a shot which is revisited and concluded later in the film. Or the unique mise-en-scene, such as when Smith looks at Pocahontas for the last time in America; we don’t even see Farrell, just a shaft of light of an opening door in Pocahontas’s room.

I could go on, but I think the film’s power is diminished by breaking it down and discussing it, although I find that irresistible. I can’t stop thinking about the movie. The best thing is to simply experience the film itself. My best advice to people is to just go and watch the movie. Just don’t expect a narrative-based picture; expect a dreamy wave of an experience, like a long sunrise. Premiere magazine smartly stated that if you’re the sort of person who finds a sunrise tedious, or worse, anti-climactic, then this isn’t your movie.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Still not local for DC fans But maybe we'll get it soon. Good to hear that it impresses...

 

[Paul Case]

Nathan,

Excellent post about an extraordinary film. I can't wait to see it again.

 

[TonyD]

not playing near or in DC?
it went wide today, no?

"And then there are the shots. As a photographer, you can imagine my ecstatic reaction; my mouth had to have been open for well over half the movie. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It would appear as if Malick is incapable of creating a normal-looking image. Every single shot is either very good or breathtaking, and more often the latter. This is all the more amazing with the use of only natural light. He uses a lot of low angles, and moves the camera freely around his characters, observing their faces, reactions, and surroundings. There is a palpable freshness in the cinematography that contributes a great deal to the atmosphere; every image adds something to the mood, or changes it. We really do feel as if we are seeing this world for the first time. Note the shafts of light reaching through the hut in the scene in which Farrell is captured. The harsh shadows on the Indian’s faces. Note lush green backgrounds. Or the shadows on Kilcher’s face when she opens the window of her hut in the English colony. Or the opening shot of Kilcher with her hands reaching to the sky, a shot which is revisited and concluded later in the film. Or the unique mise-en-scene, such as when Smith looks at Pocahontas for the last time in America; we don’t even see Farrell, just a shaft of light of an opening door in Pocahontas’s room."

that is the paragraph that has me lookking forward to seeing this tonught.

going with friends so i wont be going to my usual theater.
i hope the theater doesnt mess it up by misframing or someother stupid thing that usually happens.

 

[ChrisMatson]

Chuck:
Show Times in DC

 

[Holadem]

If it's playing in Connecticut, it's most certainly playing in DC.

--
H

 

[Nathan V]

Thi Them, are you passing up a chance to see a cut of a Malick movie that you haven't seen before on the big screen? Sure you're not taking too many meds?

I was worried about stupid audiences as well, so I saw it at 10:30 am Friday. Naturally the only people in there were Malick freaks, so no problems there.

Could somebody who's seen both cuts maybe talk about the differences between the two? Roger Ebert said there's "no startling differences," but I mean, 15 minutes of footage is a lot of screentime. I noticed that much of the footage and dialogue in the trailers isn't in the film.

Thanks for the compliment, Paul. I'm glad people read my enormous posts.

BTW, the moment Farrell sees Kilcher in the film for the first time is the the first time those two actors laid on each other.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Thanks for the showtimes. As of yesterday, Fandango had nothing. I'll see it this week. Can't wait.

Thanks

 

[teapot2001]

I am on meds, actually. How did you know?

I think my 90" screen at home will suffice. No other theater will top the presentation at the Arclight and I fear non-Malick fans in the audience. Also, I think it'll be good if I wait months to watch it again so that it'll be fresher.

~T

 

[JonZ]

I thought it was great and some parts were beyond fantastic.
Amazing really.

One person walked out before the battle,everyone else stayed put and one person said walking out "that was beautiful".

There were 3 younger people there with their father and the daughter remarked liking it but thought it was long, when she asked what time it was her father said "sunday"

It didnt feel like 2 hours and 30 minutes to me.

Despite what was written by Nathan, I found the voice overs to be a bit intrusive here and that my only complaint on a otherwise outstanding effort. Ill have to see it again, but I dont think the film needed it.

 

[Adam_S]

just an fyi, I read through the American Cinematographer article on New World and Lubeski says that they considered shooting on 65, or even half and half. Vittorio Storraro told him to shoot it all on 65 but because of cost and logistical reasons they only used 65 for certain sequences that they wanted an extra oomph, the rest was shot anamorphic 35.

 

[Steve Blair]

Just got back from seeing this great film. My previous #1 Walk The Line and #2 Munich have now been bumped down one notch. The New World is my pick for best picture this year. Run, don't walk to see this one...

 

[Patrick Sun]

This film does a good job of being a cinematic poem of sorts. It's all about visuals, inner thoughts, and emotions. The film engages you on a dreamy subconscious level, it does play with time to further mood and momentum of change at a frightful pace through the eyes of Pocahontas/Rebecca. In addition, the viewer is taken on a journey of what it was like to experience the cusp of such an important event in history as the Indians did when the ships of England show up on the shores of Virginia in 1607. "New World", indeed, is a film expressed with such assured cinematography and deliberate pacing. I wasn't as keen on the inner monologues at times, some of those scene felt over-written, but it's a minor offense given the tone and flavor of this tale of learning to be open to new change and challenges, even those that change the status quo forever.

I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.

 

[Andrew-V]

I saw it tonight and feel it is easily the best film of the year.

I absolutely love Malick's manner of relaxing the viewer with astonishing imagery. The portrayal of 17th century England was unlike anything I've seen before and is proof of what can be done without CGI.

I do wish that there were more scenes with Christopher Plummer, because I thought his character was worthy of more depth. It makes me wonder if he was present more in the 20 minutes of footage that were removed from the film during the wide release. The trailers contain several lines of dialogue that were omitted from the cut of the film that I saw.

However, it's good to hear that most of the cut footage will be available on home video. I'm still dreaming of the day when the cut footage from The Thin Red Line will find its way to DVD. Maybe 20th Century Fox will take advantage of the opportunity and release a new DVD to coincide with The New World.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

There are sequences in this film that are just overwhelming. People notice the cinematography and narration in Malick's films, but it's also some of the cutting that makes his films unique. Not just the splintering in of nature shots, but also some shots that hark back to what the Soviet filmmakers had tried to do with montages. For example, when Pocahontas saves Smith's life, the Naturals engage in a ceremonial baptism for Smith, Malick cuts to sails being opened for probably less than one second. The effect of these type of cuts engages the viewer to make meaning out of the film for himself; it's fascinating. I am dying to see the different cuts Malick has assembled.



Aren't they all?

 

[Citizen87645]

I read in an article that she is Jewel Kilcher's cousin.

 

[Arman]

I saw 2 (they are together) walkouts halfway thru the 1st act only last Friday. @#$##@@ @#$##! . But wow, the surprising positive reactions by everyone else at the end is phenomenal. I've never seen any of his previous works in theater but this would be the 1st and probably only '05 film that am going to see more than once in theater. I could not stop thinking about this magnificent film.

Casual average moviegoers need not see it but for all lovers of cinema like what Steve said don't walk, RUN and EXPERIENCE it!

 

[teapot2001]

Christopher Plummer didn't have much screen time either in the version I saw.



I saw her on Ellen and she has an awesome, soulful voice, kind of like Josh Stone.

I'm loving the love for this movie!

~T

 

[Andrew-V]

I guess it's just typical Malick. (Same goes for Travolta and Clooney in The Thin Red Line).