By Matt Zoller Seitz
I watched the re-cut "The New World" Saturday night and was knocked out, not just by the movie but by the circumstances. This was my third viewing of a version of the film, but my first time seeing it with a paying audience. It was unbelievably intense, but in the best way, possibly one of the most profound experiences I've ever had in a movie theater. I'm still gathering my thoughts, though -- I don't want to rush into this one -- so look for a full post late Sunday or sometime Monday.
Nutshell verdict: a different, more streamlined, slightly more prosaic and linear "New World" than I saw back in December, more clearly focused on Pocahantas/John Smith/John Rolfe, with less of a Transcendental, One World vibe. But still a knockout; different from, but equal to, the other cut; and most importantly, irrefutable proof that entertainment and art are not mutually exclusive. (The nearly sold out, racially and ethnically diverse audience at Brooklyn Academy of Music was divided on the movie's merits, but during the re-cut's 136 minutes, they barely stirred and almost never spoke, even in a whisper. It was so quiet in there that when somebody five rows down ate a piece of popcorn, you could hear them chewing.) I liked this movie's muscularity, its simplicity. Where the previous cut reminded me of "The Thin Red Line," this one felt more like "Days of Heaven."
More later. For now, I'm going to go all bloggy on you and offer photos of my niece Ivana, as promised long ago in another post. That's Ivana's hand in my brother Jeremy's hand. The group shot is of Ivana, Jeremy and my sister-in-law Valentina.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
One Bloggy Evening
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
One Bloggy Evening! I love it, and so would Chuck Jones! "Hello my baby, hello my honey, hello my newborn niece," sings Matt while kicking up his heels...
Awwwwwww! She's going to be a heartbreaker who has her Daddy wrapped around her finger. Congrats again to the proud parents!
As for the "new" The New World, I'm going to pass on it. I saw it the way nature and Malick intended, and I already wrote my review. Said review, which I wrote for an ex- movie critic friend of mine and will never appear on my site, was my homage to "Colors of the Wind," the Disney song by the Pocahantas old enough for me to look at without Nabokovian intentions. If Malick can have that goofy narration, I can express what I loved and hated about the movie in song!
Congrats again to the proud parents!
I just saw the new cut this evening, and will finally be writing something in depth about it this week. My audience (another mostly packed house) was quiet and (seemingly) appreciative as well; a very pleasant surprise, especially after the sadly dismissive review in the Dallas Morning News.
The last ten minutes actually left me in tears this time. Not to discount the rest of the film, but they're an amazing experience all by themselves.
I was moved to tears the second time I saw it, in late December, right around the point when John Rolfe began reading the letter. I gave in again Saturday night, but I wasn't alone. Scattered around the theater were maybe two dozen people who were hit as hard as I was.
As we already know, not everyone loves this movie, or even likes it. But those who love it truly love it, and consider themselves privileged to have been alive to see it. I am one of those people.
Hey Matt-
I watched the recut "The New World" on Saturday (saw it two times actually) and am currently working on a feature for Slant detailing some of the differences between the two versions. Per some of our in-person discussions, I'll be bringing up what I believe are some re-mixes of the soundtrack that I think more clearly illustrate the importance of sound to Malick's cinema landscape (with ears as a recurring motif). Also want to get into the re-editing, hence recontextualization, of the second love scene - more clearly a memory and/or reverie in the theatrical cut.
I think this cut is best defined by a small, but telling change when Malick cuts between America and London in the film's final act. In the first version he cuts to black, in the theatrical version he cuts to a tracking shot flying over the water. I love this latter addition - feels like the bone-to-spaceship toss in "2001".
Hope you're well.
again, matt, you summed it up perfectly: I feel lucky to have been alive for this. As much as it makes me feel like a terribly silly fanboy, i want to sing in the streets about this film. I want there to be buzz and i want everyone to revel in it. I honestly can't remember when i was affected as much by a film.
I've yet only seen the re-cut version, but look forward to someday maybe getting to see the others. I've heard talk of 3 versions, the NY/LA version, this re-cut version, and a 3 hour version. Anyone know the full details, and if he ever plans on releasing all 3?
My understanding via the New York Times article is that the version that opened Friday supersedes and replaces the previous theatrical version. Presumably this same version will be released to DVD as well. An additional three hour version will also be made available on home video.
But the big question is, will people ever be able to see the original theatrical release version again?
i was just thinking, as much as i love kaufmann's version of "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", I would kill to see Malick's take on it. Or any Kundera, for that matter (Immortality, perhaps?). Kundera's writing and Malick's filmmaking seem to speak the same language.
Speaking of what-ifs: For a long time, Malick was attached to a screen version of A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES, but it fell though, just as screen versions of that novel always fall through. Intriguingly, DUNCES eventually found its way into the hands of Malick's young friend and semi-protege, David Gordon Green, and then fell apart again. (Green's personal take on what happened is somewhere online, I think.)
I'd like to see either one's version, Malick's especially. I wouldn't mind seeing Malick do a Joseph Conrad novella, either, preferably TYPHOON. I wouldn't mind seeing his BILLY BUDD either.
Hi. I really look forward to your full post on the new cut.
As far as Malick's preferred cut is concerned, this interview with the producer says the 3 hour version intended for the dvd was what was worked on FIRST, and both theatrical versions are whittled down from this version, rather than the three hour version being the "added-on" version of the shorter cuts.
I mean I can't say for sure but the order in which Malick worked on the theatrical version seems to indicate that the version he worked according to his instincts is really the 3 hour cut.
If that is so, it is a little sad why there was the reason for the shorter theatrical cuts to exist-I mean Malick did nothing against "his will", to be sure, but releasing three hour version for the theatre seemed to have been not a viable option for the studio.
uh.. sorry I messed up the link.
Post a Comment