by Allan Fish
(USA 2005/2008 178m) DVD1
It was just a dream
p Sarah Green d/w Terrence Malick ph Emmanuel Lubezki ed Richard Chew, Hank Corwin, Saar Klein, Mark Yoshikawa m James Horner (including W.A.Mozart, Richard Wagner) art Jack Fisk
Colin Farrell (Capt.John Smith), Q’Orianka Kilcher (Pocahontas), Christopher Plummer (Capt.Newport), Christian Bale (John Rolfe), David Thewlis (Wingfield), Jonathan Pryce (James I), August Schellenberg (Powhatan), Wes Studi (Opechancanough), Noah Taylor (Selway), Irene Bedard (Pocahontas’ mother), John Savage (Savage), Ben Chaplin (Robinson), Eddie Marsan (Eddie), Janine Duvitski (Mary), Roger Rees,
“Come, spirit, help us sing the story of our land.” The opening words to Terrence Malick’s fourth film, which in its extended version can now perhaps be seen as his greatest, evoke in themselves images of Homer, evocations and invocations of the Muse to tell of Odysseus far from Ithaca. The parallel is not idly evoked, and there are similarities to be gleaned, but to label Malick’s odyssey as Homeric is merely one interpretation, like looking at an object through a prism from one particular angle in one particular light. Turn the prism round, wait for better and darker light, and see other images, other dreams one might say, floating through the ether of the subconscious. Flashes, almost subliminal, of Heidegger, Thoreau, Wagner (themes from whose ‘Rheingold’ mix with those of Mozart to form a hypnotic musical accompaniment) and John Milton, are glimpsed. Milton may be the most telling, bearing in mind the film’s setting. Milton was alive, if only a child, when Pocahontas was alive in England, and alive when her legend began to grow. It’s a legend we all know, of the native American girl who entrances an English captain John Smith, comes to believe he’s dead, marries another Englishman, John Rolfe, only to find out when accompanying him back to England that Smith is still very much alive.
The film had a troubled release, cut from 150 minutes to 135 soon after release following unfavourable reviews, but the cuts made little difference to the response, which could at best be described as lukewarm – Leonard Maltin was not alone comparing it to watching paint dry. Somehow in the original shorter cut it didn’t overpower in remotely the same way. In the longer cut it flows as perfectly as water in a stream, which could not be more appropriate. On the IMDb one user likened it to a film that not only divides audiences but divides them between those who enjoy going to the movies and lovers of cinema. Those in the first camp are liable to be disappointed, and yet Malick’s achievement should not be underestimated. Here’s a film that, in an age when the Iranian masters are seeking to reduce cinema to absolute minimalism, seeks to not only expand the medium’s horizons but to remove them completely. It’s a reality distorting experience, a dream to some, including to its characters, but it’s also true to Malick’s vision of visual paradise become hell on earth, that has run through each of his earlier films. It’s akin to taking the journey through Stanley Kubrick’s Star-gate, and catching sight of the infinite. As Milton said “long is the way and hard, that out of hell leads up to light.”
His actors know that they must bend to their director’s vision, play his tune, become part of his tapestry, and as such they acquit themselves admirably, even the often maligned Farrell, while Bedard’s casting is a very nice touch (after she voiced young Pocahontas in the Disney travesty). Standing out, however, is young Kilcher, who offers such a radiant, guileless turn as the intoxicating princess as to make one believe in this paradise lost or regained, depending how you look at it. It’s all in the prism, of course. All the images are beautiful, as one might expect, the juxtaposition thereof majestic to the point of divinity, and the sound texture enough to make one feel at one with nature. It’s an odyssey into the sensory delights of pure philosophical cinema, subliminal cinema, and as such it is one of visionary works of the last decade. What Milton called “the sum of earthly bliss” is here for all to see and at its most fluid, if you have eyes to see it.
Another work of pure poetry by America’s most sensory helmer, that may well be regarded as his greatest. (if not already thought of as such) I won’t be redundant in spelling things out, but I’ll just say that even this lofty #13 placement will anger a number of people, who would have liked to see it in the Top 5, if not at #1. But I’ll leave the discussion with them.
Count me as one who has no hesitation placing this at #1 for the decade. I’m to the point now where it might be my favorite film of all time. I certainly expected this one to place even higher in Allan’s rankings, but I can’t really argue at this point… slight personal preference is going to be the deciding factor in separating films at this point.
I don’t know how much more I can say on the film without repeating myself, as anyone who has visited my blog knows that I am completely obsessed with The New World. The line that I used in my original review, and one that I continue to use when referring to this film is “an all-encompassing, overwhelming onslaught of all the senses.” That pretty much sums up how I respond to it. It’s a film experience unlike any other I’ve ever had and I don’t know if I can expect to ever have another.
So I love seeing this one finally pop up in the countdown and will be interested to see the discussions/arguments/debates that ensue. I would have loved to see it place higher, but this placement gives it deserved recognition.
And in my “rush to gush” over this film, I forgot to add what a wonderful perspective Allan brings in his essay. In particular I really like this part and agree:
“Here’s a film that, in an age when the Iranian masters are seeking to reduce cinema to absolute minimalism, seeks to not only expand the medium’s horizons but to remove them completely. It’s a reality distorting experience, a dream to some, including to its characters, but it’s also true to Malick’s vision of visual paradise become hell on earth, that has run through each of his earlier films.”
Sam called one of my favorite films of the decade, Sam Mendes ROAD TO PERDITION, a “visual and emotional tone poem”. Since that night in the rain in 2002, i had thought i saw the only film this decade discussed that would flit that bill. I think i can safely say, for myself anyway, that there were two films this decade that could take on Sam’s very correct and loving definition.
With only four films to his name, Malick, as much as i hate to admit it (I find his slow churn out of films annoying-he’s so gifted, he should bless us with more), is some kind of methodical genius. Each film is a work of art and a quiet treatise on the nature of humanity. His silences often speak louder than most other directors noise and the often garagantuan scope of his pictures always reverberate towards something tender.
BADLANDS, DAYS OF HEAVEN and THE THIN RED LINE (that film i had to see 5 times to really soak in what was truly going on) all proved to me that this was the work of a great thinker/philosopher. THE NEW LAND sealed the deal on my thoughts and, again, made me go against my feelings on the size of his output to proclaim him a master. THE NEW LAND is, easily his best film to date: one of stunning visual beauty balanced with an in tenderness that so many strive for and few achieve.
To nit-pick over the placement of this film is a moot point. As Allan said back on the THERE WILL BE BLOOD thread, these top twenty are really interchngeable and any one of them could easily sit in the top position. I have THE NEW LAND at No. 8 on my own list. My feelings could change about that placement at any given moment.
What a stunning experience this film truly is.
ALSO-I think this film is a great place for something to be said about the directors rites with FINAL CUT. THE NEW LAND, if any, is a perfect example where the vision of the director is compromised, and, ultimately, the pitch of the film, its soul, is butchered by the big chairs to accomodate a general audience. First off, i dont know of a Malick film that was genrally geared for an all encompassing general audience. Secondly, rewatching films like BLADE RUNNER, DAYS OF HEAVEN, and, shit, even Cameron’s ALIENS, you get a sense of disjointedness that can only be woven into a film that has been snipped and “brought down to size”. THE NEW LAND, even with only twenty minutes missing from the directors original cut, is DOA in such an abused way to make it almost unbearable in a first viewing (and I was not kind to that cut that I saw on the big screen when it was released here in NYC).
Leave the artists, the true ones like Malick, alone. If your producing a film for this director, then i’m sure you know (looking at his past work) what you’re getting yourself into. Besides, there are dozens of bloated hacks out there, pretending to be real directors and visionaries, whose work nobody would give a shit about if you carved it up like a girl in a shower at the BATES MOTEL.
Go torture those films instead.
I love that you also see the brilliance of Road To Perdition Denns!!! I have another film that would fit Sam’s description of that wonderful Mendes picture…..The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. I still consider The Thin Red Line to be Malick’s best, but this comes in a close second. This is easily top ten material for me.
MAURIZIO-You’ll probably get your wish. Now that THERE WILL BE BLOOD and THE NEW WORLD have surfaced here on the count it seems a foregone conclusion that THE ASSASINATION OF JESSIE JAMES will surface. I have concluded (as im always trying to figure out Allan’s rationale on the placements of these film) that there are FOUR AMERICAN FILMS that will place, without question in the top 20. THERE WILL BE BLOOD, THE NEW LAND, MULHOLLAND DRIVE and THE ASSASINATION OF JESSIE JAMES. If my predictions are correct we’ll see one of the remaining two surface in the next few days. Im also willing to predict MULHOLLAND to place in one of he top three slots if not the top position (yikes! :-().
As for ROAD TO PERDITION: That film sang to me in pictures and silences. It’s wash over me was a like a calming chair next to an open window as rain patters outdoors. It’s as delicate and as haunting as poetry by EE Cummings (I have it at No. 10 for the decade). The assasination of Rooney in the rain is one of the greatest moments in recent Hollywood cinema for me and i find it miraculous that Mendes was wise enough (remember, its only his sophmore film and he’s still learning at that point) to forego any loud sound effects or baudy dialogue. Instead, the rain, Thomas newman’s score, and timed silences did the emotional trick.
Im pleased to see im not alone in my love for that film.
Well I love Mullholland Drive so I hope Allan places it in the top ten. I’m also hoping he finds a place for Zodiac which is my favorite film since The Thin Red Line actually. I agree with you that Road To Perdition is top ten material. From what you write I assume you are not a fan of Jesse James? I think Dominik slightly topped Malick at his own game this decade with that movie. With Perdition I love the scene in the diner when Harlen confronts Sullivan.
I made a boo-boo. I listed DAYS OF HEAVEN as a film that was rediscovered after the directors extended print finally surfaced. The film i meant to list was Michael Cimino’s HEAVENS GATE, a movie i initially despised in its truncated form and now am more open minded to (although i still dont love it) in its directors cut.
I have nothing left to say about this transcendental masterpiece of a film — and BTW, I find nothing to fault with the shorter version other than more Malick is always good so by default the extended cut is “better” — but I would never discourage anyone from seeing any cut of this film…
….but, a rather hilarious aside….did you know that in certain parts of Asia this film was known as “Apocalypto 2”? Which is odd because wasn’t this before Apocalypto? Though not in these parts of Asia I guess.
I wonder…will Apocalypto be making a surprise visit to Allan’s list? LMAO!
GOD-The thought of any Mel Gibson drivel on any of the decades counts is enough to induce nausea. APOCALYPTO, in my opinion, is as disgusting a nightmare of a movie as his THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (I actually sat in a theatre for that crap, astonished by the teenagers in attendance cheering the violence of the Crucifixion). Only a repeat viewing of that awful BRAVEHEART (one of the worst choices the Academy ever made with a best picture trophy) could be worse. He was no actor and he has a real set of balls to think his time in front of the camera seasoned him for time behind the camera. Another Hollywood punk that deserves a good horse-whipping. His films are GARBAGE!
Dennis I had an elderly couple crying uncontrollably behind me during Passion. I liked the opening scenes with Satan in the garden but it slowly went downhill from there. I also am not very religious, so Jesus dying for my sins, doesn’t grip me in any substantial way. The movie is more violent than Hostel. An absolute Turkey. Even my mother who loves Padre Pio hated it.
“Apocalypto” is fun in an absurdist, historically inaccurate torture-porn sort of way. “Passion” was just plain boring, which is the worst thing of all for any object of controversy to be. The only time I was entertained was when I noticed the resemblance the actor playing Judas Iscariot bore to a young Roman Polanski. Still, I was half-looking forward to that Viking movie Gibson was talking about, as I sort of dig the fetishistic level of detail and epic scope he packs into his stupefyingly awful movies. He’s like Ridley Scott for tea-baggers– a world-builder who doesn’t pay any attention to the real world, except for the parts of it that bleed.
Mel is a total idiot. Its a sad world when people like Cimino and Malick have to struggle to make films and Gibson gets to make all sorts of mind numbing garbage. Braveheart had me rooting for the Brits due to Mel’s pompous spiel. It reminded me of Dances With Wolves where I wanted every indian slaughtered just to refuse Kevin Costner the opportunity of a happy ending.
I found PASSION OF THE CHRIST both saddening and uplifting. A really good film.
THE NEW WORLD is one of the best films I’ve seen though I would have to put Hou Hsiao Hsien’s THREE TIMES as the best of the decade.
As someone who had eagerly anticipated Thin Red Line but ended up despising it, I took a while to finally watch the theatrical version of New World. It’s a huge comeback as far as I’m concerned and Malick’s best since Badlands. I was warned away from it by some people, but I found myself quite tolerant of Malick’s cumulative, reiterative approach to his theme. It has some powerful battle scenes and the role-reversal of Pocahontas and Opechancanough’s discovery of England is brilliantly realized. I’m still obliged, however, to malign Colin Farrell;his stardom remains a mystery to me, though the problem here may be Malick’s conception of John Smith as a naive seeker. Fortunately, this film proves to be bigger than Smith’s story, and I’d recommend it to patient filmgoers in spite of Farrell.
MAURIZIO-No, im a VERY BIG admirer of THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES. Unfortunately for that film, im more in love with a few others a little bit more (including the film that Allan reviews above).
For me it got no better than THERE WILL BE BLOOD. That film floored me upon my first screening. In the meantime, I was also smitten with a few American films that nobody sems to care for or are willing to say they liked as well. CAPOTE with Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a big favorite of mine as well as two wonderful Sci-fi ficks by Spielberg (MINORITY REPORT and the unjustly maligned and totally misunderstood WAR OF THE WORLDS-that one’s a metaphorical treatise on the senselessness of terrorism).
Also in the running for the American movies that I liked ALOT this decade: Paul Thomas Anderson’s quirky PUNCH DRUNK LOVE, Brad Bird’s terrific meditation on surburban angst gone haywire-THE INCREDIBLES and David Fincher’s modern spin on Hitchcock’s REAR WINDOW (kind of): PANIC ROOM.
I’d also give high grades to:
Von Trier’s DANCER IN THE DARK
Almodovar’s TALK TO HER (i’ll have this one real high)
Christopher Nolan’s THE DARK KNIGHT
Cuaron’s Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN (sexy as hell)
Spike Jonze’s ADAPTATION (twisted fun at its best)
last years supreme fright-fest, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (i’ll take heat on that one! LOL)
and Clint Eastwood’s haunting MYSTIC RIVER.
Just few to drop a hat….
This may be your best piece – wonderful opening paragraph, astute pinpointing of the film’s appeal, and full of interesting details (I didn’t know that Pocahontas’ mother was played by the woman who voiced her in the Disney flick).
An excellent film – I love the statement “Here’s a film that, in an age when the Iranian masters are seeking to reduce cinema to absolute minimalism, seeks to not only expand the medium’s horizons but to remove them completely.” When I saw The Assassination of Jesse James (a film, like others, I expect to see soon – though I don’t think it will crack the top 10, you’re having too much fun unveiling the obvious picks outside of it!), comparisons to Malick came to mind. But that film was more about limiting, streamlining vision, whereas Malick is all about opening it up – a rare tendency in contemporary cinema (or at least European-Middle Eastern-American cinema; I think the Asians tend to break away from this trend, which is one reason I’ve expressed my fondness for their output this decade).
Malick is known for creating very a different sort of cinematic art. Like the late Stanley Kubrick, he moves away from standard Hollywood material, and creates a style of his own. What we see in his films are brief narratives by different characters, beautiful shots of natural scenery, and some moments that place no insight on sound (we just see the beauty of the surroundings, and the only sound we hear is either the breeze or distant animals). If you’ve seen The Thin Red Line (one of my favorite films), then you know what I’m talking about. Like his other films, this one delves into the meaning of life, love, war, hate, violence, etc. But now, in the new millennium, we have seen something different from Malick. “The New World” is yet another beautiful film by the master filmmaker, and like his other films, it relies on history when telling the story. Here we have the creation of Jamestown, Virginia, and the bond between John Smith and Pocahontas. While it isn’t entirely historically accurate, it does borrow certain elements from popular American folklore respectively.
MOVIEMAN/BILL RILEY-I think you’re both hitting the nail on the head. Malick pulls his films away from the ordinary clap-trap we’re used to seeing by “airing” his films out. There are, in all of his films, sequences that just silently stop for introspection. shots of the landscape, with no dialoque or sound design other than that of the natural surroundings have this intense quality of transporting the view to both the state of mind of a character or the setting to inform the viewer that he is IN the film, rather than just viewing it.
BILL is correct in his comparison to the late, great STANLEY KUBRICK on this point. Like that mad genius, Malick feels that there should be no time costraints in presenting the world his films are setting out to create and thinks nothing of stopping the “action” to create a mood or comment (through sound and picture) the inner feelings of a particular character. This can be readily seen in numerous moments during 2001, BARRY LYNDON and THE SHINING. The design is apparent in all of Malick’s work, although blatantly obvious in DAYS OF HEAVEN and THE THIN RED LINE. It was only natural, considering the subject matter of this film, that the director would follow suit. I think this is part and parcel of the feeling/theory both directors have about pushing the vision past the confining restraints ofbeing just a film and making it an all encompassing EXPERIENCE for the senses and the soul. With Kubrick, this really doesn’t kick in until 2001 and seems to end with FULL METAL JACKET. With Malick, however, this seems to show itself with every film in his canon.
Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Malick is a better film-maker than Kubrick. On the contrary, i think Malick is more of a student in the school of Kubrick. But, where I think Malick is content in honing his skills and dichotomy set out by the late, great master, Kubrick is willing to go wild and experiment with new ideas outside of the perameters set up by himself. in essence i feel that Kubrick is more of a maverick in his wanting to try new things to incorporate within his set structure of methodical building of a film, whereas Malick is content on staying within that set structure. This can be seen, specifically in THE THIN RED LINE and THE NEW WORLD.
I would have bet the farm that this was a lock for the Top 10 and thought it would have a shot at #1. For me personally, I can’t come up with 12 films in the history of cinema that I would put before The New World, but as I noted earlier, I’m a complete nut for this movie.
I can think of a few that I think are locks for the remainder of the series, but Allan definitely has me intrigued by what is to come… really looking forward to the homestretch.
LOL!!!!! I was just informed of my senility by none other than the illutrious ALLAN FISH (via e-mail). Ive been referring to this film as THE NEW LAND….. But, then again, im also the guy that says calls spagehetti sauce GRAVY and refuses to drink tea out of ANYTHING other than a cup WITH a saucer under it. BOY, DO I FEEL FOOLISH!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!!! Thanks for the correction Allan!!!!!!! 🙂
One final word from me on this one that I didn’t mention before: the use of Wagner’s “Rheingold” throughout the film is absolutely magical. It’s use at the beginning as the boats enter Jamestown and then at the finale with the end of Pocahontas’ life… spine-tingling stuff whenever I watch it.