The New World (2005) (1 Viewer)

[JPCinema]

I saw the film today and I was transported to another time and place. What an incredible film...and yes ,walking out of the theater I was startled to see cars and buildings. so I turned around and saw the film again.

 

[David Brown Eyes]

Ok so I saw the film, just got home. Not as bad as I thought.

It was far far worse than I imagined, as harsh as I have been regarding this film I held back, I truly did. I held out a small bit of home that Malick would do the right thing but it turns out that Mr. Malick just prettied up the same old story, with the same old stereotypes.

I have seen Native portrayed in many ways, this was the first time I had seen them as hopped up crack monkeys. I had flashbacks to the Dawn of Man sequence in 2001 a Space Odyssey, very sad indeed. He relies on the old Noble Savage, a people with no concept of property, jealousy, forgiveness, and revenge. Nice notions but pure BS. These are human emotions and Indian people had and still have them. Yet at the same time the people drop to give respect to the Powhatan leader like a king or emperor? That is not the Native way to do things. I am quite offended.

To the historical facts yes the film is accurate but far from truthful. This would not be a problem if the film was marketed as a fictitious interpretation of events without study guides to be handed out to students based on this film. The only saving grace for people like me is that this film although beautiful, is so full of itself that it will never be popular outside the film snob community. Dances with Wolves had its flaws in its presentation but they pale in comparison to the New World.

Over the next few years I wish I could have the chance to kick Malick in the balls for every time someone will say to me “But that is not Native, I saw The New World”.

David Brown Eyes
Oglala Lakota Nation

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

David,

I'm sorry the film offended you so. It's dear shame... it's a great piece of cinema made by one of the artform's most respected philosophers and humanitarians. I expect him to seek the truth in every film he makes and I'm not going to support a film that propegates a negative stereotype.

That said, I'd like to ask you how you are so sure that Mr. Malick is wrong? Neither of us were there, so we can't say for certain.

And to tell you the truth, I too wish that everytime someone said something ignorant I could simply kick them in the balls, but that would entail every person on this earth having sore nuts. Maybe it's time to recognize that there are more than two camps - ignorant and enlightened - and give some respect to the other two categories that are actually much more common: ignorant people striving for understanding and people who only think they are enlightened, but are merely self-rightous, and in their own way, also ignorant.

I think Terrence Malick has done a good thing in making this film. Just because the film is onlu 90% accurate doesn't make it evil. Most of the people walking out of this film are going to think better of Native Americans than they did before. And Mr. Malick clearly intended this film to be an open-minded film that encourages open-mindedness. I don't think that this is an entirely unworthy message. In fact, the lesson could be learned inside this very thread.

Cheers

 

[David Brown Eyes]

Please don't patronize me Elija, The film portrays a negative stereotype and you support and encourage it.

The very stereotype that has already penetrated this board and one that unlike you I will have to deal with for I do not know how long. I have plenty of open mindedness but being portrayed as moving and behaving like animals.

sorry my openmindedness stops right there.

It only goes to strengthen my belief that the Native image can only be properly handled by Native people.

 

[Kirk Gunn]

uh.... yeah.... whatever floats your boat.

I asked you in a previous thread where you displayed your indignation, and I'll ask it again. Instead of bashing us, why don't you educate us ? Surely some of your history lessons are on the web, and links are very easy to post on the forum.

Or... a link to particular books that detail an objective analysis of Native history is ok too.

btw - while I have not seen the movie, the "making of" was on HBO recently. The first few remarks clearly state this movie is the DIRECTOR'S vision and not historical fact. Anyone notice if, during the credits, it has the typical disclaimer: The chararacters in this fim are fictional and any resemblance to people, living or dead, is purely coincidental

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Wow.

Saw it tonight. Malick is a rare breed, and this film is a rare, rare treat. I'm going to let it percolate tonight and tomorrow before organizing my thoughts and sharing them, but it was one of the best moviegoing experiences I've had. Malick is an artist.

Just beautiful in every way.

 

[JonZ]

"The first few remarks clearly state this movie is the DIRECTOR'S vision and not historical fact."

Every film is the directors vision. I remember Oliver Stone saying after JFK came out "Its my opinion. If you dont agree make your own movie"

They had advisors on set. If they had Lakotas on the set can you place all the blame on Malick since he has to rely of advice from the "experts" to make it as accurate as he can.

Im 1/3 Cherokee and seeing it again tomorrow.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't want to get into the debate with David. I will say that it is narrow-minded to believe only members of a culture can make art about that culture. Ang Lee should never have made Sense and Sensibility and Brokeback. Spielberg and Malick should never have made SPR or TTRL...they aren't soldiers. And none of David's complaints have been about the portrayal of the non-natives in the film. And they were probably just as "wrong" as those of the natives. Long story short, David, you are open to your own feelings and opinions. But I think you began biased and stayed biased, regarding the film. I believe it's your loss.

The New World is not historical fact. No film is. One of the very (brilliant) themes of the film is: Once discovered, it was changed forever. The very act of making a film changes what is being shown.

I think Nathan's page 2 post covered a lot of what I wanted to say, so I can afford to be brief(er). I loved the film, more than I even thought I would. It was more intimate and focused than TTRL, and I was ready for it. I had no idea what to expect in 1998, and that distorted my viewing. This time, I knew what set the director apart. What made him, and his films, special. I was still struck again and again, and the simplicity with which Malick creates beauty. He makes simple shots into something much richer, much more layered. But as much as I want to talk about why Malick is so special, I'd rather talk about how incredible this film is. None of the artifice or pretense that is a staple of filmmaking seems apparent in the film. The viewer is directly coupled to the story, and is never cheated or manipulated. As a film lover, it's almost liberating.

The imagery is second to none. The film never relies on large vistas or impossible camera shots. In doing this, the viewer always feels he is there, not that he is watching, but that he is connected. What is remarkable is that the imagery still moves the audience, often in ways they never expected.

The acting is fantastic. Not every character has an arc, but each delivers a brilliant performance. I'll admit to being worried about Farrell. I think he is very talented, but his spins with the tabloids and poor script choices lately had me worried. No need. Bale has a smaller, but equally critical, role. Very little dialogue, he acts with his warmth and presence. The film itself belongs to Q'Orianka. And she delivers in spades. The heart of the story, the film, and the themes presented, she is always luminous. Like Nathan, I was touched by her "transformation" in the second and third acts. More importantly, the cheap and easy theme of "caged bird" is never even hinted at. It's far more transcendant than that, and that surprise is what really hit home with me. Yes, watching her walk in shoes for the first time is hard. It's a great scene, done without a hint of judgement by the camera. Her final scenes in England are among the best I've ever seen.

The battle scene is among the best ever filmed. As before, the camera is never in a place that a person couldn't be. The viewer is in the battle, and emotionally invested on both sides. As stated in this thread earlier, sad that such battles become part and parcel of our national history.

I want to just sit here and call out shots or scenes or beats all day long. I want to praise Malick over and over and over for what he has accomplished. I would be thrilled to get a longer cut of this or The Thin Red Line as a gift on HD, Blu-Ray, or standard this year...any way I could.

This sounds pretentious, but it's just my excitement talking. Film has quite a few directors who elevate the medium. Malick makes the medium something new and pure.

Like The Thin Red Line, the film is an experience, and not something you can watch on the fly. It demands more of the viewer, and gives more back. I look forward to my next viewing, whenever it may be.

One of the best of the year, one of the gems of the decade.

 

[Cory S.]

"None of the artifice or pretense that is a staple of filmmaking seems apparent in the film. The viewer is directly coupled to the story, and is never cheated or manipulated. As a film lover, it's almost liberating."

100% on the money, Chuck. After seeing this film, you wonder why all films don't strive for this type of filmmaking. It's just an extrordinary piece of work in terms of visual storytelling.

Masterpiece is a word that film critics and fans throw out there year end and year out. 90% of the time, it tends not to be the case. Since Goodfellas, which I consider the last masterpiece of American Cinema, I can think of maybe three films that deserve to be called masterpieces. Malick's film is definitely one of them.

 

[teapot2001]

Chuck, that's not good enough! Make it your best of the year!

I'm surprised by how many views this thread has had, a 1000 more than BM.

~T

 

[Nathan V]

Great post Chuck.



Wisdom.

It's amazing how strongly the film lingers in the viewer's head. I saw the film over a week ago and those incredible lines of narration are still swimming through my head. He takes the medium and does something completely different with it, operates on a completely different plane. This is surely one of the most immediate & personal cinematic works of any period. We aren't simply watching people interact here. The connection between the audience and the characters is a lot closer. I not even sure what to call it.

What a ridiculously great film. Those last five minutes are just out of this world. Oh, man, yeah. I need to go see this again

Regards,
Nathan

 

[JonZ]

Upon my second viewing, I was wrong about the voiceovers.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'm still processing the film, but I am pretty certain it'll be my #1 of the year. I had a few films kind of circling the spot, but I believe The New World deserves it. I'm shocked to be stating that, as I expected to like the film from a distance, knowing that Malick would put the most beautiful film of the year out there. I did not expect this level of emotional awareness and interest. I did not expect the intimacy. I am seeing one more 2005 before making my personal 2005 list (Syriana), but I think it's been a good to great year already. No pressure from Thi, though...I was just working through the film

Continuing on with what sets The New World apart: I teared up once during the film, whereas I cried during BBM, and positively wept during King Kong. All three are great films in their own ways. But in each of the other films (and in almost all films in general), the director and story are pushing the audience towards an emotional reaction, towards a conclusion. Not always manipulatively, but the hand guiding the audience is there. What astounded me about The New World is that I never felt that presence. It wasn't hidden better, it simply wasn't there. Every ounce of emotion was mine, based on my slowly increasing investment in the film. There is no judgement on characters or decisions. There is just observation, and I was free to love Smith, Rebecca, and Rolfe on my terms. I was simply expected to keep up.

The scenery and music were superb. I can dink the score here and there for reminding me of Braveheart (and it did periodically), but it always served the film and never overshadowed the story. The behind the scenes craft was extraordinary as well. The settlement, the ships, the native tribe, the costumes, the weapons.

The simplicity and directness of the film are what keep me involved and thinking about it.

I enjoy turning (what I believe) the themes (are) over and over in my head, trying to work them out. Smith's last words just stick with me.

 

[GerardoHP]

In a nutshell...

I didn't hate this movie, but I certainly did not love it. I enjoyed aspects of Malick's personal vision like his refusal to fall into many Hollywood stereotypes of both the natives and the English.

I thought the first half with John Smith at the center of the story dragged the most, and the second half with Pocahontas was much more interesting, although honestly, the last 20 minutes I was praying for the damn thing to end.

At two and a half hours, I thought the movie was waaaaaaaay too long. Also, the voice-overs felt like a Calvin Klein commercial. Many scenes and shots within scenes seemed redundant and self-indulgent. Plus, I was not as impressed with the cinematography as others obviously have been.

The audience I saw it with at the WGA theater in LA seemed to have a similar response: tepid applause at the end, plenty of sarcastic giggles in the lobby following the show. The friends I saw it with all had similar reactions.

I wish I had seen the 135 minute version instead. I definitely think it needed to be tighter. It is my least favorite of Terrence Malick's films.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I for one thought of this word after watching the film tonight: Magnificent.

David, for what it's worth, it's the characters in 1607 Jamestown that use the term "Natives", not Malick. Frankly, you are making the mistake of believing that just because Malick has his characters speak and act a particular way that he is endorsing that behavior. That is not at all the case. It's as though you want the 1607 English settlers and Native Americans to have a 2006 PC compliance. Well, I'm sorry, but the 1607 English settlers viewed the Native Americans as "natives" and "savages" and stereotyped them as John Smith does in the film as having "no concept of possessions", etc. That isn't Malick's philosophy, it's the philosophy of the characters. The characters are stereotyping (and indeed represent the origins of such stereotyping). Malick's purpose is far from intending to perpetuate these concepts and stereotypes, I assure you.

 

[JonZ]

Its understadable for someone who came there in 1607 to think the of the people here at the time as " Noble Savage, a people with no concept of property, jealousy, forgiveness, and revenge" becuase its so different from Europe at the time. A place were they have to deal with taxes, greed,currency,sailors who explore for trade routes and will often risk their lives at sea so they can eat.

 

[Holadem]

Magnificent indeed, though not perfect. My awe is mitigated by some of David's concerns, among other things. The Natives at the very begining did remind me of the Dawn of Man sequence, unfortunately.

More later.

Why does it seem like only a handful of HTFers have seen this movie? Where are all the reviews? .

--
H

 

[Justin_S]

I saw it, but haven't posted a review because to me it's a film that transcends anything I could possibly say. Some films are just hard to write about no matter how much you loved them, and I absolutely loved this one from beginning to end. It was pure poetry in motion. Perhaps I'm the only one, but it reminded me of Herzog at times. I also loved The Thin Red Line, but this film was so much more. I have Badlands and Days of Heaven ready for rental now that I finally have a Netflix account.

 

[teapot2001]

There's definately a connection between Herzog and Malick.

~T

 

[Tim-H.]

One of the best theatrical experiences I've ever had.
Perfect? No. History lesson? Certainly not. Why I love film? Absolutely.