The House Next Door

Hmm, what's this movie called again? ;-)

Too bad it always takes Europe a bit longer to catch up. But you sure know how to get this film lover excited!

Matt, I've seen it three times, and it's a better movie evey time. After the second viewing, I was still a little skeptical about your "generation-defining event" proclamtion, but after the third time (with my aunt, who loved it), I fully agree.

I had a dream I was talking to Andrei Tarkovsky last night. I can't remember if I told him about The New World.

I didn't know you could speak Russian, Grand Epic. I speak a little of it, if only because I spent years on a team with Russian programmers. Da!

I once dreamt that Kubrick was trying to kill me because of the mean things I said about Eyes Wide Shut. He was with Haley Joel Osment, who was after me over Pay it Forward. It ended with my mother shooting both of them with a cannon. See why I'm in therapy? :)

As for the New World, unless you pony up $12 and a way for me to get my time back afterward, there's no way in Hell I'm going to see this again. Like I said before, I think the film looks gorgeous and there are some excellent scenes, but I grew restless fighting to stay in the film when Malick's narration kept dragging me out. I also was far from impressed with some of the performances in this film, and at times it felt like I was watching R. Kelly's Indian home videos.

I know you told me the narration "is supposed to do that." I don't buy that argument. I don't buy the "generation defining event" either, nor am I willing to choke on the communion wafer that equates this film with some kind of out of body experience. But you knew that.

As the only dissenter of this film on this blog, I'm going to do what I used to do at church picnics when I was outnumbered by the zealots: Shut up and let you guys worship this movie together. And as my pastor used to say: "The collection plate better not be empty when it gets back up here."

You're not the only dissenter, Odie--my esteemed colleague Edward Copeland, who often posts here, has been sticking hatpins in THE NEW WORLD and its adherents for weeks now. And I get many e-mails privately from people who appreciate the passion I and others bring to the topic, but don't care for the movie and probably never will.

But dammit, it's the arguing part that really matters. I love MUNICH and I like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN -- in my opinion, the only financially successful mainstream Hollywood releases from the last few months that could give THE NEW WORLD a run for its money in the "art plus entertainment plus a budget" category -- but they haven't inspired anything like the deep divisions of THE NEW WORLD, nor have they inspired adherents to throw down in the same way they throw down for Malick. Shit, man, I'm basically staking my entire career as a critic on my wild-eyed evangelical defense of this one movie. In 20 years, or even 10, I'm either going to seem prescient or totally idiotic. It's like "AI" times 10.

That's what I mean by a generation defining event -- maybe not for the culture at large, but for moviegoers. People who love this movie and people who hate this movie often feel as if the other side is crazy or stupid.
And I think that's great! Better that reaction than a Larry David-style, "Eh."

I have yet to see the New World (I live in Australia) but Matt's reactions have been astounding and I wait with bated breath for its release. In fact
his feelings seem very similar to how I feel about The Thin Red Line, although my initial experience was somewhat different.

I must have seen Thin Red Line about 30 times now. The strange thing was, the first time I saw the film, I actually found it quite boring and pretentious. I even struggled to keep my eyes open. Six months later: faces, sounds, images stayed with me and, curious, almost haunted, I got it out on DVD. The viewing was like a religious experience. I opened myself up and it washed over me - like I'd slowly opened my eyes and found myself floating down a river of pure transcendent consciousness. It got to the stage where I couldn't go more than a week without seeing just a moment, or a scene from it (the soundtrack alone was a daily drug).

Yes, I guess it has 'faults' but mostly in that Malick's essential openendedness leaves you inevitably wanting to see more (I dream of that six hour cut). His films aren't films, they transcend such
boundaries. In a sense they're almost like living beings, changing, growing, breathing as you watch them, and especially after you've watched them (perhaps that is why they inspire such unbearable love...). You don't feel like you're on a pre-determined narrative line, but more as if you're emersed in a collective consciousness which doesn't cease once the films ends, where each being (human, plant and animal) produces its own view (its own film) but yet all are somehow simultaneously the same ('one big face').

I can fairly say that the movie changed my life and has forever affected the way I've viewed the world (and film of course). I haven't seen the New World yet but Matt's feelings towards it sound very similar to the explosion of feeling I felt towards TRL. So if you've seen TNW once, I would strongly recommend that you see it again. To paraphrase Malick's comments at a Q&A for the film: Emmerse yourself in it. Let it roll over you. It's more of an experience film. I leave you to fend for yourself.

this is a fairly interesting article mentioning a few commonly held misbeliefs of the Smith-Pohcohantas story. Thought it might be of interest to some of you (though I'm not posting it to discredit the movie, as I realize an exact retelling wasn't what Malick was concerned with):

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/index/WEdsliv.html

Brett: Thanks for the link. Dave: Thanks for joining the discussion, and I hope you get a chance to see "The New World" soon.

So wait, Matt, is it the unity that matters, or is it the arguing? Is it the commonality you feel with your fellow critics and "disciples of Malick," or is it the chance this film affords you to articulate--endlessly--your "smart," "passionate" position? Where was your defense of "blockbuster art" when Mr. 3000 was released in 2004? Finding the commonality between Charles Stone III and Terrence Malick is the project of a real critic; your bug-eyed opportunism is the furthest possible thing from a contribution to film discourse.

I smell a disciple of Armond. Don't engage it, Matt, or you'll catch something.

Gee, "anonymous," let me cogitate on that and get back to you.

Keep cogitating, Matt. I'll be over here, thinking.

"Don't engage it"? Is that what you people believe?

So much for "One World" much less a "New" one.

(this post awaits being deleted)

Anonymous: What a sarcastic reply to an affectionate, colloquial placeholder remark. But based on your specific references, I know exactly who you are, so I am not surprised.

You ask, "Is it the unity that matters, or is it the arguing? Is it the commonality you feel with your fellow critics and "disciples of Malick, or is it the chance this film affords you to articulate--endlessly--your "smart," "passionate" position?" It says a lot about you that you would describe those two reasons for praising Malick as being mutually exclusive.

Unlike some critics, I don't believe in aesthetic or political litmus tests -- i.e., "Liking director A means you must also like director B, otherwise your affection for director A is insincere based on false premises." That's adolescent anti-logic. The purpose of criticism is not to get everyone to believe the exact same thing you believe, and then pout and bitch about how stupid and corrupt the unbelievers are. It's to provoke people to seek out, experience, think about and come to a conclusion about the thing being discussed.

I like the company of people who argue in detail about works that mean something to them, and who are interested in hearing contrary points of view, and who don't view disagreement as a personal slap in the face, proof of society's corruption, etc.

A disciple of Armond is the wrong phrase. A true disciple of Armond would not be threatened by anything said on this blog, and would not express himself in a petty and cowardly fashion. Armond White has guts. This guy, who has been shadowing me for years, just has issues.

"You people"? How predictably patronizing. What other projects are "real critics" devoted to? I ask because Matt appears to have missed the memo, or failed to get a copy of the Handbook. Though you speak hopefully of "one world", the path you follow is devoted only to tearing our world and its people apart. Why be civil when you can be cruel, correct? I cry for you. Have you learned nothing from God? Matt: your love for "The New World" may be approaching a fetish. I don't share this fixation, but I still value your contribution to the film's ongoing debate. You’re a smart guy. Turn your back on this sad person like you would Satan.

Like I said, I knew who this guy was the second I read his syntax. The irony is, he writes so distinctively that a blind person could probably figure out who "anonymous" is. Whether all that talent will amount to anything remains to be seen. For now, all that comes across is a furious bitterness, and a closed-off dogmatic anger that is the exact opposite of Malick's open-ended aesthetic.

Anybody who wants links to this anonymous hater's work should e-mail me. I have a couple of URL's I think you'll enjoy.

We have our answer.

At that time, it appeared as though posts were being deleted. Maybe they were or maybe it reveals my ignorance of blog technology; either way, they have been restored.

The phrase "don't engage it" established the use of the phrase "you people;" i.e. those who don't "engage" but merely call names ("Armond disciple," "issues," "hater") or delete posts.

I did write the post with the "you people" phrase; I did not write any of the others. Would that I could take credit for the eloquence of "anonymous" (the one who digs Mr. 3000). I'd give anything to have the gift for syntax of "anonymous" (the one who suggests the connection between Malick and Stone III).

I let that be known because I wouldn't want others to be confused for me -- particularly this person who appears to have been providing the challenge Matt seemed to be inviting, if only as more opportunity to exclaim over The New World.

"anonymous" was talking film and the practice of film criticism. Why do these discussions always seem to get reduced to "the cult of personality" -- or is it "The Church of the New World"?

Well, that narrows it down.

PS -- Despite JD's insinuations, I never delete comments from this blog except for my own, and then only to fix mistakes.

The following is directed not specifically to John, but to all my guests:

This is my House. The door is open. You can say whatever you want in it as long as you're civil, and as long as you stand behind your words and don't hide from the consequences of what you say.

Thanks very much for the praise, Matt. By which I don't mean your vague references to my "talent" that hasn't amounted to anything, but rather your use of the word "dogmatic" to describe my particular brand of anger. It just so happens that last night I was re-reading some of Flannery O'Connor's correspondence, in which she states, "Dogma is the guardian of mystery." By contrast, Matt Zoller Seitz is the bane of mystery--and of meaning.

Why else would he fixate on my identity, as though I were doing something criminal, something other than forthrightly engaging in a debate, which Seitz says he encourages?

Supposedly, my "issues" precede me. Surprising wording, coming from a man whose Chris Penn obit reads like the rantings of a drunken necrophiliac. Questioning the sanity of his opponent, offering up Googled treasure ostensibly to discredit his opponent: clearly these are the tactics of a critic who cherishes debate.

Dig up as much of my past work as you like, Matt. I hope you reached deep inside the nostrils of the World Wide Web and picked yourself a real winner. I hope, in other words, that you're a better manipulator of search engines than you are of language.

Your tactics don't shock or irk me in the least. They're the natural outgrowth of your poisonous worldview, which positions the unwashed non-disciples of The New World against the well-read, polite Malick-lovers who are smart enough to know just how puny their own emotions are.

Since you say you cherish opposing points of view, Matt, here's another one: My emotions aren't puny. They're the heart of my mystery, just as yours are of your mystery. Our portion of the larger human mystery is the most precious possession any of us has: it's our soul. Movies that effectively evoke emotion are valuable because they reveal the soul of mankind. That's what's at stake when we talk about the state of film criticism.

But this is Seitz's House, and no mystery shall stand within these walls. Okay: My name is Benjamin Aaron Kessler. But you can call me The One to Blame. Must I take another leaf from the peerless Ms. O'Connor book and call myself The Misfit?

I knew it was either you or John, Ben. Thanks for clearing up the mystery.

Great, great post, Matt. While I'm not sure I totally agree with you about the newer, leaner New World cut (I think it suffers slightly in comparison to the "original," 150-minute version), I'm nonetheless thrilled by your enthusiasm for Malick's latest tour de force, and your dedication to maintaining a discussion about a film that I firmly believe was last year's finest. Keep up the great blogging (and non-blogging) work!

I appreciate the feedback, and I'm doing what I can to keep people talking about this movie. It may be somewhat more difficult now that the Oscars have failed to validate Malick; it doesn't matter to me, but matters a great deal to the general public.

Matt—So great to know there are a few critics out there who can still recognize great art; I share your enthusiasm for the film. But now I'm feeling like I need to see it again.....and soon. My question is, which New York City theater would you recommend as providing the ideal viewing environment, i.e., biggest screen, good sound, etc.? My first viewing was slightly marred by a small screen and chatty Cathies, so I'm eager for a more operatic experience.

Nicosian: The BAM-Rose Cinema is Brooklyn isn't gigantic, but the picture and sound are exceptional and the crowd, while certainly more diverse and less predictably collegiate-boho than most arthouse theaters, tends to be enthusiastic yet respectful, a perfect balance for a movie like Malick's.

If you live in or near lower Manhattan, I think there are currently three choices: Chelsae, AMC Empire and Union Square. (Here's the link for THE NEW WORLD's Moviefone theater search page: I hope it works.) Of those three, I personally think AMC Empire has the best projection and sound, but the audiences are pretty dicey; sometimes they're terrific, other times distracted or rude. But any of those three theaters necessitates a bit of a dice roll.

You might luck out if you go to the AMC Empire in the afternoon, or on a non-weekend night. I encourage anybody reading this comments section to chime in with your own evaluations of where to see THE NEW WORLD in NYC.

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/ has an account today [2/3] of a Seattle showing of TNW that reads like a hypercondensed Sherman Alexie story.

TNW lasted all of two weeks at the local mall multiplex. Sigh. Wishing I'd gone to see it more than twice.

Anyone like to comment on resonances / contrasts with Vollmann's Argall, which I must admit to not having read?

another pro-Malick review

http://moviesintofilm.com/malick.htm

Might be time for another Malick roundup item. Thanks for the links, folks.

And here I thought I was all alone. It wasn't until happening upon Hoberman's article this morning that I knew of this cult. Well, consider me a member. I saw the initial version a day or two after it opened. I had never seen a Malick film on the big screen and was determined to see this one that way.

Well, I too had a religious experience that day. I told all of my friends (I had gone alone), but none of them took my lead. These are people who were anticipating the film nearly as much as I was and who trust my opinion enough to give something a go if I espouse it as strongly as I did The New World (a rare occurrence).

For various piddling reasons, no one went. There was something about this film that kept its natural audience away (besides an innate antipathy toward Colin Farrell—I found myself having to assure them that he’s “actually pretty good” in the movie).

I don't know why that was.

Yep, it's a cult. I am obsessed with this movie. I've seen it numerous times and now I have the screener copy on my computer, so I can rewatch my favorite scenes.

My experience is the same as most here. I was spellbound the first time I saw The New World, and I immediately emailed my friends and posted a myspace bulletin about it, but basically none of my friends saw it (it was out of theatres not long after I frist saw it).

I do have one question, though, since this topic is about a "cult" and possible "midnight screenings".... Did anyone else smoke weed before seeing this? Because I blazed some right before walking into the theatre, and it was the most well-timed bowl ever smoked. I was practically in tears just due to the sheer beauty of this picture.

The opening scene is amazing. The scene in the golden grass when she emerges... wow. And of course the scene where she tries to learn the english words for sun and wind... BEST MOVIE SCENE EVER?? Maybe.

I simply cannot believe that this movie did not win best cinematography... what a complete and utter joke! The Academy shamed and embarrased itself by ignoring "The New World."

I for one am praying that New Line will release this movie on HD DVD or Blue-Ray.