The New World

[Szlia]

After seeing The New World by Terrence Malick I was completely dumbfounded as to why it is only nominated as best cinematography at the Academy Awards. I thought at first it was because it was released a long while ago, so the producers did not lobby the AA voters to get the nominations and awards since there were no ticket sales to boost. Oddly it seems to be the opposite, the movie had a limited release very late in 2005 and a USA wide release at the end of January. This makes its almost absence that much more astounding.

The New World is by far the best american movie of 2005 and I don't even have to see them all to be able to affirm that, because no other, by their nature and treatment, can have the lyricism and grace of The New World. In fact, I can't think what was the latest american movie to be this fascinating. Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me are technically french films and Crash (Cronenberg's one) is a canadian one. On top of my head I can only think of Manhunter by Michael Mann back in 1986 that has similar qualities.

The genius of Malick with The New World, is to go even further in the "sensoriality" and in the almost mystic relationship to nature than what he displayed in his previous movies. The story is dissolved and traditional narration atomized only to leave a haunting romance made of movements, glances and internal monologues. Someone on imdb made an astute point in saying Malick tells the story not like it is happening before us, but like we are remembering it. It's a kaleidoscope of visions, somewhere between the hallucination and the dream: pure Cinema. Pure Cinema.

The experience is as extreme as it can be when produced by a semi-major (New Line). Going further would be entering the realm of experimental underground. Obviously, since it goes so far, it also means the movie will not "work" on everyone. I am sure some people find it boring and sappy and hate the repetitive music, etc. I am also sure that most viewers, if they accept to enter Malick's dream, will be as amazed and fascinated by this movie as I was two days ago when I saw it in theater.

Do not miss it if it's still in a theatre near you!

[dooeet]

Sorry mate, I have to disagree in almost all respects. That the cinematography was the best thing about this film however is true. It was pretty spectacular. However cinematography without a solid story line in place does not a movie make. The movie was easily 45 minutes to long, the narrative was unfocused and meandered once John Smith returned to his camp and remained that way until John Rolfe and Pocahontas went to England. It seems as though Malick was going so much for style that he forgot about plot. For example, the tension and infighting of the settlers which was actually interesting was completely dissapated in a one minute scene with Christopher Plummer.

If you want to see a beautiful picture don't miss this film but if you want to see a movie...I'd pass.

[Szlia]

Malick did not forget about plot: his movie is not about plot. You mention the infighting of the settlers, but no one cares about that, not even Smith. You accuse the narration to be unfocused while in fact your frustration seems to come from the fact it is hyper focused: Discovery of Virginia by Smith, discovery of England by Pocahontas and the romance and states of mind of Smith, Pocahontas and Rolfe. Everything else gets the boot or just enough treatment to allow the story to be understandable. The little story that remains is bathed in some themes like the relationship to nature (first the harmony/battle duality, then farm work and then gardens) and obviously cultural clash/discovery.

Malick uses this material and perform a tour de force: telling this story with almost no dialog, telling it in the most cinematic way possible. The New World is a story told by movements. In fact there is very few other films that deserve more than this one to be called movie.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

My favorite movie of the year as well, as far as an artistic work at least. It really works to explore a lot of aspects of film that have been thrown to the floor lately for flashy dialogue and plot twist upon plot twist.

[dooeet]

Originally Posted by Szlia

Malick did not forget about plot: his movie is not about plot.

You just summed up my entire point in your first sentence. A truly great movie finds a blance between plot and visual. If you disagree then that's fine by me. I just wouldn't consider this a great "movie". For an example check out The Station Agent...not particuarly stunning visuals but a great and very enjoyable balance between minimal dialouge/plot and visual while still making the audience understand the most minute aspects of the three characters relationships.

[Communistbloc]

This was not a movie. It was like going to an art show. I'm not saying art shows are bad, but don't give me an art show and say it's a movie.

If I had more hands, I'd give this movie 4 thumbs down.

[Quincey_Cueva]

Originally Posted by dooeet

You just summed up my entire point in your first sentence. A truly great movie finds a blance between plot and visual. If you disagree then that's fine by me. I just wouldn't consider this a great "movie". For an example check out The Station Agent...not particuarly stunning visuals but a great and very enjoyable balance between minimal dialouge/plot and visual while still making the audience understand the most minute aspects of the three characters relationships.

Truffaut would disagree with you along with every other person who has studied film. The film is a masterwork so far as modern films can be called masterworks. End discussion.

[Faille]

Originally Posted by Quincey_Cueva

Truffaut would disagree with you along with every other person who has studied film. The film is a masterwork so far as modern films can be called masterworks. End discussion.

Yes, clearly a movie that makes 12m in the box office is a masterwork.

I was so bored watching the movie. Nothing about the characters, or plot was gripping enough to hold my attention.

[Szlia]

Clearly the box office by itself is a great tool to measure the quality of a movie. I am sure you would say the same for music too, because 50 Cents clearly delivers the best music of our times.

More seriously, dooeet, when you say "A truly great movie finds a balance between plot and visual" I think you are being too specific and maybe a little misleading in your formulation.

Too specific, because "plot" and "visuals" are only a tiny part of the movie experience. "Content" and "container" or "what is told" and "how it is told" would be more generic categories that seem to me more appropriate.

Misleading, because saying "balance" makes it sound like there is an opposition between the two. I think a great movie would be one where there is a synergy between what is told and how it is told so that the end result is more than simply the addition of the content and the container.

I think we all agree that in The New World the container is nothing short of brilliant, but you seem to think there is no content and with that I strongly disagree. It's true that there is very little "plot" in the sense that there are not many characters, not many problematics, not many resolutions to these problematics, not many unexpected revelations or twists, not a lot of character progression, etc. The thing is "plot" is not the only form of content. The aforementioned romance, discoveries and themes are the content. They are all pretty static in nature, so that's why the movie has very little plot and is very descriptive, but it's content nonetheless.

It is certain that both what is told and how it is told are very far from what we could consider as "mainstream cinema" so it is natural that it is enjoyed by fewer people. But it goes with Art as it goes with cooking: it's not because something is not of your taste that it is poorly prepared. I am sure The New World is not to everyone's taste, but it certainly is not due to flaws in its execution. So saying "it is not a movie" is at best very unfair or at worst very stupid.

[dooeet]

Originally Posted by Quincey_Cueva

Truffaut would disagree with you along with every other person who has studied film. The film is a masterwork so far as modern films can be called masterworks. End discussion.

So...in say 20 years from now...The New World will be on the same level as say Citizen Kane? After all it is a masterwork. If that's what you get by studying film, I'd go back to school.

[dooeet]

First let me say that I do like Terrance Malick and I wanted to like this film, really. I had a friend that was working on it that hyped it up so much I thought it was going to start the next great era in cinema. It simply left me disapointed. On to your points Szlia

Originally Posted by Szlia

More seriously, dooeet, when you say "A truly great movie finds a balance between plot and visual" I think you are being too specific and maybe a little misleading in your formulation.

I don't think it was misleading, perhaps too narrow a focus, but I didn't say that a great movie only has those elements, rather they must be there and there should be a balance between them.

Originally Posted by Szlia

Too specific, because "plot" and "visuals" are only a tiny part of the movie experience.

Yep totally agree with that. Music, dramatic tension, hell even lighting make up additional parts of the movie experience.

Originally Posted by Szlia

"Content" and "container" or "what is told" and "how it is told" would be more generic categories that seem to me more appropriate.

I get the content, what is told & how it is told and agree, but I'm not sure what you mean by container. Do you mean the container is both what is told and how it is told? It's a little broad if so.

Originally Posted by Szlia

Misleading, because saying "balance" makes it sound like there is an opposition between the two.

No, in fact just the opposite. They must be working together (plot & visuals...again not the only two factors) to pull off a good movie.

Originally Posted by Szlia

I think a great movie would be one where there is a synergy between what is told and how it is told so that the end result is more than simply the addition of the content and the container.

Right, basically what I said above, but I'm still confused by container.

Originally Posted by Szlia

I think we all agree that in The New World the container is nothing short of brilliant, but you seem to think there is no content and with that I strongly disagree.

No, I think there is content, I just think it's not put together coherently and in a fashion that keeps the audience's interest throughout the movie. There is no build to the plot, it just sort of meanders along, terribly little dramatic tension and when there is dramatic tension it is almost immediatly resolved. No little buttons that are introduced in the beginning of the movie that the audience is waiting for to be resolved at the end, save what is going to happen between Pocohantas and John Smith when they finally reunite which by the time it happens is almost a foregone conclusion.

Originally Posted by Szlia

The thing is "plot" is not the only form of content. The aforementioned romance, discoveries and themes are the content. They are all pretty static in nature, so that's why the movie has very little plot and is very descriptive, but it's content nonetheless.

Sure it's content, but is it satisfying? That's like saying, "Sure the Viper has a Volvo's engine...but it has an engine none the less". I still wouldn't call the fucker a Viper even though from the outside it looks pretty

Originally Posted by Szlia

It is certain that both what is told and how it is told are very far from what we could consider as "mainstream cinema" so it is natural that it is enjoyed by fewer people. But it goes with Art as it goes with cooking: it's not because something is not of your taste that it is poorly prepared. I am sure The New World is not to everyone's taste, but it certainly is not due to flaws in its execution. So saying "it is not a movie" is at best very unfair or at worst very stupid.

I maintain what I said, it's a great picture but not a great movie. You bring up interesting points but I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one bud

[Szlia]

I used "container" in the sense "what is allowing to deliver the content". In retrospect, I should have used "form", but I was not sure at the time it was the proper word to use. So here the "content"/"container" pair is just another formulation for the "what is told"/"how it is told" pair.

That clarified, even if you are not satisfied with the content of The New World - even though I still believe it says and shows more and better than most conventional plots ever dream of saying and showing - I cannot understand why you would call it a picture over a movie. I mean look at the etymology of it: Cinema-cinematic-movement-movie. Can you think of a movie that is more about movement than The New World? It's practically a filmed and edited ballet in natural setting. I can't think of a movie that deserves more the denomination than this one.

You Got Served maybe... :P

[dooeet]

Originally Posted by Szlia

Can you think of a movie that is more about movement than The New World? It's practically a filmed and edited ballet in natural setting. I can't think of a movie that deserves more the denomination than this one.

You Got Served maybe... :P

Recent examples? Sure...Crouching Tiger, Hero, Gladiator to a certain extent (while not as visually stunning as New World). I don't know if these are more movement centric than TNW but they certainly deserve to be in the same category. *edit* I get what you are saying about the natural setting however. I think though you are taking the definition of a movie a bit to literally in this instance. When I say movie I mean the sum total of all of the parts including personal qualifiers such as, did the film move me, did the film entertain me etc.

[James]

This is the one with Colin Ferrel right? That's why I didn't go see it, that guy is the biggest let down of the 21st century.

[Szlia]

Usualy I don't like Colin Farrell, but here he works very well. There is a little accidental humor though. His first line comes so late in the movie that you think at first that Malick did not want him to deliver a single one!