View Full Version : New World


John P
05-21-2006, 09:36 AM
Terrence Malick gets off his duff and brings us yet another stunningly visual work of art to rival his "Days of Heaven."

"New World" is a breathtakingly beautiful celebration of unspoiled nature. Even James Horner's haunting score is often quieted for the sounds of birds, wind in the trees, locusts, babbling streams.

It's the story of Pocahantas, played by lively young newcomer Q'Orianka Kilcher, (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0452963/) beginning with the arrival of English Pilgrims on the shores of Virgina, including John Smith (Colin Farrel), and their faltering attempts to live with the natives. The story barely flashes over Pocahatas' legendary saving of Smith's life, then lingers on their growing affection while he's her father's captive. The editing and photgraphy make the relationship, and much of the film, dance like a dream, with jump-cuts, in-head soliloquies, and uncertain hand-held camera work.

The film follows history, rather than legendary romance, so Smith takes his reassignment when relief ships return from England in the spring (oh, and the tiny 1600-vintage sailing ships are quite pretty!), and new colonist John Rolfe (Christian Bale) falls for Pocahantas after she's exiled from her tribe and joins the colony, taking the Christian name Rebecca.

The film's great strength is its astounding photography and dream-like presentation. But it has one serious weakness: if you haven't read your grade school history, you'll have no frigging idea who these people are. While John Smith is called by name on many occasions, Pocahantas' name is not spoken once during the film! In fact, the one time someone almost said it, she was cut short with the announcement that Pocahantas' exile has forced her to abandon her given name, and thus has none. Nor is her father's name mentioned, the great king Powhatan. And in fact, when Christian Bale's character shows up, he's never called by name either. I would think this is a basic movie essential - letting your audience know the names of the people whose lives you're watching!

One other thing I'll fault the film for is its mumbling dialog, and the tendancy to mix the score and "sounds of nature" tracks louder than the actors' voices. I think I missed at least half of the dialog. But there really isn't very MUCH dialog anyway, Malick allowing the action and mood to tell most of the story.

The film's editing technique can be taken as either a strength OR a weakness - I found it beautiful, my wife found it annoying. While the plot is mostly linear, there are a few in-head moments and flashbacks, and the occasional jumpcut or random shot of nature that may make someone think the editor threw a handful of scenes up in the air and spliced them together however they landed.

But I have no hesitation recommending the film to anyone who likes gorgeous photogtraphy and a good historical epic.

F91
05-21-2006, 11:50 AM
My DVD player has a feature where dialogue is enhanced over the audio track.

Zorro
05-21-2006, 11:50 AM
Watched most of it last night. You either like Malick or you don't. I very much do. He makes movies like no one else. Agreed on the sound mix though. The combination of heavy brogues and nature's music presents a challenge to the ears.

John P
05-21-2006, 01:13 PM
^Well phrased! :lol:

Griffworks
05-22-2006, 10:47 PM
Indeed, John! He certainly turned an interesting phrase there.... :tongue:



Got to see this on the plane ride back over from The Desert, on the Amsterdam to Detroit leg. Visually very interesting and I, too, was glad that they didn't fall in to the standard "A Love Story" script. I was a little disappointed for the same reasons that are listed here, too. Overall, tho, I recommend it!

Zorro
05-22-2006, 11:21 PM
Good to see Wes Studi again although it's a shame he gets pigeonholed to so many "Native American" roles. He's a better actor than that.

John P
05-23-2006, 07:59 AM
^On the other hand, it's good to see Indians being played by Indians (Wes is Cherokee) these days, instead of some blue-eyed white boy in red makeup.

In the "making of" featuette, they show the actors setting up for the big attack on Fort James. Wes Studi looks at his fellow "savages" before the cameras roll, throws his arms up, fists balled, and yells "We gonna KILL some people now!!" :lol:

I guess that passed for a pep-talk :).

ChrisW
05-24-2006, 01:47 PM
We went to see it in the theater, couldn't wait for it to be over. At some points we couldn't help but to giggle hysterically at the inane editing, pointless cuts, Alpine horn interludes. I've seen (and heard) much better use of ambient sounds in movies - "Deliverance" comes to mind. I wanted to stand up and shout in the theater "The Emperor has no clothes, people!!!"

Um, in other words, I'll pass on the DVD...

terryr
05-25-2006, 02:02 PM
Pocahantas was really 12 years old. John Smith was a middle aged man. Nuff said.

John P
05-25-2006, 02:37 PM
Well, it was also 1607, when men were men and brides were 12, so....

Zorro
05-25-2006, 02:45 PM
Yes, things have changed a bit in 400 years.

scotpens
05-25-2006, 03:21 PM
In the "making of" featuette, they show the actors setting up for the big attack on Fort James. Wes Studi looks at his fellow "savages" before the cameras roll, throws his arms up, fists balled, and yells "We gonna KILL some people now!!" :lol:

I guess that passed for a pep-talk :).So, you were expecting maybe George Carlin's "Indian Sergeant" routine? :tongue:Yes, things have changed a bit in 400 years.Except in some parts of Utah.

Zorro
05-25-2006, 03:48 PM
Except in some parts of Utah.

... exactly.