Comments on The House Next Door: "World" travelling

Thought you might enjoy this analysis of The New W...

2006-04-21T18:12:00.000-04:00

Thought you might enjoy this analysis of The New World as a philosphical and even a political achievement.

http://www.bananafishco.com/article.php?id=8

Agape: I would say the ending is transcendant -- o...

2006-02-12T21:44:43.246-05:00

Agape: I would say the ending is transcendant -- or at the very least exultant, affirmative and inspiring -- but of course your mileage may vary.

This is my first post here, but I've been enjoying...

2006-02-12T11:31:00.496-05:00

This is my first post here, but I've been enjoying reading your posts on TNW and the replies to them for quite some time. Please don't stop!

I'm one of those people that have been "branded for life" by TTRL. Every time I watch it I knowingly subject myself to throes of agony and ecstasy, and therefore keep a box of hankies next to the wine and cigarettes. I think what makes it such a deeply bitter-sweet experience (besides the ritualistic substance abuse) is that the uplifting calm and hope of the final images and voice-overs is only partially cathartic for me. Loss is still wincingly palpable. Throughout TTRL, all the words and images that present the dissolution of bodies, minds, relationships, identites and cultures as a kind of transformation leading to rebirth in other forms (i.e. transcendance, i.e. immortality), DON'T imo manage to erase the pain of the dissolution. When the final credits of TTRL start rolling, I'm still partially "in mourning" for everything that seems to have "slipped through the fingers" of the characters we've inhabited so intimately (with the exception of Pvt Witt, naturelment!).

The reason for the lack of total transcendance at the end of TTRL has much to do with its structure, I believe. Representations of death and life, suffering and joy, strife and harmony (etc.!) alternate in counterpoint throughout the film. The crocodile is musically "replied to" by flora and fauna bursting with life; the din of battle is suddenly interrupted by a soldier's discovery of a leaf the closes upon touch. Or, instead of contrapunctally suceeded each other, these representations of opposites often appear as dual values ascribed to one carrier of meaning, like the dead bird in which Witt espies "the glory", or Witt's narration of his mother's death which is contradicted by the diametrically opposed version of her passing that the camera shows us. So at the end, even while your eyes and ears are treated to rebirth, immortality and a beautiful world in harmony, you're still very conscious of the fact that the boat from which we see such luminous images is LEAVING that paradise behind and taking the soldiers to yet another battle, that Bell is still devastated by his Dear John letter, Welsh is still tormented by the loss of Witt and that commanding officers are going to keep ordering them all to their deaths.

If on the contrary, the end of TNW provides a more complete sense of catharsis, or "transcendence" if you will, then it would be as if Malick were picking up where "he left off" to take TNW a step farther than TTRL. I've read this in other comparisons of the two films. Many comments also point to TNW's transcendant ending, one of which you link to. Zach Campbell at elusivelucidity.blogspot.com, who writes, 'The New World'... offers us a glimpse of a great dream: happiness and beauty that transcend all suffering."

Now I haven't actually seen TNW yet. GRRRR! Living in Europe and anxiously awaiting its premiere, I've had to content myself with reading critics' articles, user reviews at imdb and posts on sites like yours. (Actually, there aren't too many sites quite as good as yours - chapeau!) So I throw myself on your mercy and hope you will put me out of my misery by telling me if you (all) think the ending of TNW truly wipes away the tears for "what might have been", and makes you see only the glory behind the dead bird, or if it's more like TTRL?

Btw, Malick is not the kind of filmmaker whose work is sensitive to "spoilers", so please don't spare me! Is the ending of TNW truly transcendant?

- Agape

Possible release date of May 30th for the DVD?(lin...

2006-02-12T10:19:54.996-05:00

Possible release date of May 30th for the DVD?

(linked from the imdb NEW WORLD mess-board):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402399/board/flat/36043421

http://www.moviepublicity.com/ppvvod/newworld_info.html

Alright, lemme flog this horse once more.Armond Wh...

2006-02-11T08:58:51.026-05:00

Alright, lemme flog this horse once more.

Armond White, in his praise of the re-edit, points to part of what irks me so: "He recreates the founding of Jamestown in 1607, going back to a more innocent sense of world exploration and conquest than what most contemporary pundits are willing to consider about Western history."

This avalanche of assumptions reminds me of all the '70s nostalgia that represent the era of Nixon and napalm as a "more innocent time."

An innocent sense of world exploration and conquest? I think all the innocent folks were back in England, waving at the ships. Try to conjure up a pure, guileless perspective on the invasion of Iraq.

"The New World" acknowledges the fact of European settlers' ambition and potential for hostility, but there is very little in this PG-13 epic to suggest that any of these men had functioning penises. Even Wolper's TV "Roots" managed that feat.

Y'all might argue that to delve into the psychosexual particulars of this "national creation myth" would be cheap, obvious and beside the point. But in a film as rigorous in its attention to physical detail (I'm still itching from all the mud), a chaste PocaSmith courtship seems like childish self-censorship.

What's next, a film about the Hottentot Venus in which her gigantic ass merely symbolizes the elliptical unity of history's march?

I do love how Malick's storytelling floats above the fray, wise and far-seeing. But his previous films allowed us to view the ground down there poking through the clouds. In "The New World" the mists are often blinding.

DVD: That was a lovely piece of writing, so thanks...

2006-02-10T22:20:31.120-05:00

DVD: That was a lovely piece of writing, so thanks for the reminder. Consider it linked.

I probably should have given you the link to my re...

2006-02-10T17:09:37.153-05:00

I probably should have given you the link to my review back when I first wrote it, but better late than never...

what a boob is peter rainer.

2006-02-10T11:52:28.023-05:00

what a boob is peter rainer.

Mssr. Adams: You're right: This blog attracts an i...

2006-02-09T15:08:12.563-05:00

Mssr. Adams: You're right: This blog attracts an intelligent lot of people with a sound point of view, pro and con. I never know what I'm going to get when I come here (well, besides all that stuff about the movie named after Roger Corman's '70's era movie studio), which is more than I can say for far too many movies as of late.

Regarding Malick: I loved Badlands and Days of Heaven, both of which I saw in the movies during their original run, and was marginally negative on The Thin Red Line, though another viewing might push me out of the red on that.

The New World just doesn't have a shot no matter how many times I would watch it, unless I watched it with the sound off (or maybe with R. Kelly playing in the background). I think visually it is masterfully crafted, but that's it.

If anything, I can kiss both Malick and MZS for inspiring me to write a slam bang graduate school paper on the problem of representation as it pertains to The New World. If I'm going to be a dick about it, I might as well be a dick holding an A paper.

Besides Scar-Jo's drunk scene, her performance in Match Point unfortunately supports the crix who wrongly say she's a horrible actress. Olivier, with a miracle assist from Jesus, couldn't make Woody's dialogue sound credible, so I don't blame Scar-Jo.

But you are right about the generation of critics and writers who were waiting for Woody to put some Viagra into his writing: they were willing to accept any lousy lay he tossed them. Had it been anybody else rolling over, the johns would have asked for their money back.

re: "psychological depth." not sure this idea appl...

2006-02-09T13:15:30.673-05:00

re: "psychological depth." not sure this idea applies to a film as manifestly mythological as this one. after all, you wouldn't fault wagner for his lack of same in "tristan und isolde," would you? i mean, i know "the new world" is closely based on historical events, but when john smith is rhapsodizing about the naturals' lack of any vice, etc., clearly we're as much in the land of myth as in that of history. and i don't think the idea of psychological depth—in its 19th-century-novel sense—is compatible with a mythological portrayal of the world.

Odie:Just for the record, I'm not opposed to revie...

2006-02-09T09:43:14.086-05:00

Odie:

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to reviews that differ from my own POV on principle, but the anti-TNW reviews seem to be a particularly stupid and wrong-headed lot. There's been a lot more intelligent criticism (pro and neg) on this blog than in the major rags combined. It particularly seems like a number of reviewers of a certain age have hauled out long-simmering anti-Malick grudges that they perhaps suppressed for the coming-out-party of THIN RED LINE and are now letting fly with both barrels. Fujiwara, for example, essentially says he thinks everything Malick's made since BADLANDS is crap, which I'm pretty sure I can disprove on an Etch-a-Sketch, and then goes on to say that all the monologues "do nothing to deepen the characters and bring us closer." How is that even possible? You may dislike the use of voiceover or the way it's employed here, but how can you eavesdrop on someone's consciousness and learn *nothing* about them? I'm guility of employing the Kaelian "us" on occasion, but in this instance, my gut reaction is "leave me out of this."

While we're on the subject, I think most of the MATCH POINT reviews have been pretty unenlightening as well, particularly those of the "Woody's back!" variety. Again, I think a lot of it is generational -- a lot of people who grew up with WA meaning the world to them who've been waiting for a chance to proclaim his comeback, and now's there chance. I don't think MP is awful -- I actually like Scarlett Jo in it, for one -- but it's pretty run-of-the-mill, and massively classist to boot. I like the fact that Woody's moved the camera back and actually let us take in the surroundings for a change (a side-effect, no doubt, of his relocation), but I think it's safe to say that if anyone else had made MP, no one would look at it twice.

I would add that while the view of the human race ...

2006-02-08T22:54:12.560-05:00

I would add that while the view of the human race in "Match Point" might be cynical, the filmmaking itself isn't. Divorced from contemporary commercial modes of filmmaking, outside of Allen's comfort zone, it reflects a willingness for change. And it is also possibly Allen's least-indebted film (which isn't necessarily saying that much). Bergman, Fellini, and the Marx bros. are all but absent in the form.

Odie's the last guy who needs me to explain his op...

2006-02-08T22:17:53.926-05:00

Odie's the last guy who needs me to explain his opinions, but I think that he felt, as you did, that MATCH POINT was "a completely dull and uninspired film," and that's why he hated it. I've known Odie long enough to figure out that nothing makes him angrier than mediocrity. That's why he tolerates my pie-eyed mooning over Malick; he respects Malick's passion and the passion of people who respond to him, but thinks the Woodman is just covering old tunes.

I thought MATCH POINT was kind of interesting, BTW. Not great, but an indication that Allen was heading toward a fresh visual style. And I liked the corrosive tone. What Odie calls cynicism seems to me like integrity, the courage to paint as bleak a portrait of humankind as we've ever seen in a glossy A-list Oscar bait picture.

But I digress.

i honestly don't understand how one could be unint...

2006-02-08T20:39:43.113-05:00

i honestly don't understand how one could be uninterested enough to not "dislike the [New World] enough to have that passion," yet, "truly, truly, truly hate Match Point." To me Match Point was a completely dull and uninspired film, worthy of no such passion on either side of the opinionated coin. I can't understand how one could be indifferent to The New World, like it or not...

This is one reason among many that I hate the Osca...

2006-02-08T19:48:12.453-05:00

This is one reason among many that I hate the Oscars. Now that The New World has received no Academy love, the studio has no reason to advertise it as an "important" film in that way that Brokeback or Good Night get advertised. Now it's just a curio that lost them a lot of money.

Joel

Anonymous PS: I'll probably do more "New World" po...

2006-02-08T18:43:10.030-05:00

Anonymous PS: I'll probably do more "New World" post next week and then shut up for a while, and I'll try to go at it from the angle you suggested.

In the meantime, forgive the film's admirers for what surely seems an excess of enthusiasm. We don't get this worked up very often, and anyway, the movie's nothing like a hit, it's running about 55 percent on the Tomatometer, it got shut out of every major critical and guild awards and only got one Oscar nod, for cinematography, and it'll be gone from theaters soon. It'll probably be a while before this comet comes around again, and when it does, the critical establishment, such as it is, will probably complain that it's too hot and gassy and lacks substance.

THE THIN RED LINE wasn't a box office hit or an across the board critical success, either, and in retrospect it seems clear to me that the film was the beneficiary of a lot of goodwill (and some Oscar nods) because Malick had been out of the game for 20 years, and because of the mystique that had built up around him, not because large numbers of people really loved the movie. I know that probably sounds conspiratorial at worst, or a sourpuss gripe at best, but consider that a lot of the stylistic/thematic/rhythmic stuff that drives detractors crazy about THE NEW WORLD was also present, to an even greater and less distilled degree, in THE THIN RED LINE. Why complain about it now and not then? I have to think the "Welcome Back" goodwill evaporated at some point during the last seven years, and the consensus we're seeing now (with most reviews falling somewhere on a continuum between "hated it," "whatever, Terry" and "I'm going to say nice things about this just in case history judges it a masterpiece") represents how a lot of people reallly felt toward THE THIN RED LINE, although for whatever reason they weren't inclined to admit it.

Rooting for Malick is like being a Cubs fan -- any way you slice it, it's not a winner's position, and you have to be a bit pigheaded and romantic to embrace it. So I don't see any harm in partying till the sun comes up and the management orders everyone to clear out.

Anonymous: Yeah, I thought about not linking to th...

2006-02-08T18:21:51.676-05:00

Anonymous: Yeah, I thought about not linking to the Malick photos page, since it seemed kind of fannish. But then I did it anyway. I went overboard on this man a long time ago, so I'm not sure I have much dignity to lose.

As far as respecting Malick's privacy, the picture I chose to post above is a Warner Bros. publicity photo, and Malick is looking right into the lens and grinning, so I don't see it as a violation.

Regarding masturbation, the subject on which everyone is an expert, I wouldn't jerk off to a Malick picture. Young Orson Welles, maybe.

I don't think Rosenbaum's criticism is exactly lev...

2006-02-08T17:58:41.520-05:00

I don't think Rosenbaum's criticism is exactly levelling, nor is it really different in perspective from his normal critical approach. Though I do wish he would write a longer piece on his feelings - I haven't been able to really pin them down. From what I understand, he objects to the historical liberties taken in the name of "transcendentalism" - Malick's reinforcing the false myth of our beginnings. And a suspicion of what he regards as "faux-innocence", a harking back to a clean and pure legend. I'd like to hear a response to these criticisms, one I am not capable of writing.

I admire the passion, but the link to pictures of Malick is taking it a bit far. The dearth of pictures produces a desire to see the man, I understand, I feel this curiosity, but within the context of this New World love affair, I imagine fans masturbating to his photo gallery.

Again, it feels like I'm farting in church here, b...

2006-02-08T12:09:27.956-05:00

Again, it feels like I'm farting in church here, but I am glad to be in the minority (a minority in the minority? sounds redundant ta me) on this blog. I'm not sorry that I found as much to dislike about The New World as I did to admire.

I truly, truly, truly hated Match Point, but I never said something like "I avoided the positive reviews and don't regret that I did." Give me a break, people. If anything, reading all those reviews (as well as all the reviews of The New World that are as revering as this blog's) gave me more ammunition while allowing me to understand others' opinions, to know what my opposition is thinking.

My opinion carries the same weight as anybody else's. Sure, I said I wanted to clobber the Match Point lovers with a pimp stick, but I wouldn't expect then to do anything less than want to clobber me.

You were right, MZS. I should have come back tomorrow when there wasn't a New World post. I've yet to read any post here that attacks the film with as much passion as you endorse it, to challenge you at every turn. I don't dislike the movie enough to have that passion. I wish someone out here did. If I weren't already bald, the one-sidedness would make me pull out my hair.

I feel much better now. I've been wanting to say that for a long time. Screw my blog probation!

Mr. Boone: Now that you've clarified your victory statement, I better understand what you meant. And I agree.

As for $50 million being a lot of other people's fuggin' money, I should mention that it costs $35 million for Will Smith's S-curls. Malick could do visual wonders with that--maybe have a Daddy Long Legs slipping around on Will's greasy head.

Reading through the excerpted neg. reviews (which ...

2006-02-08T10:27:04.686-05:00

Reading through the excerpted neg. reviews (which I've mainly avoided, and now don't regret doing so), it seems pretty unlikely the two sides will ever meet on this one -- you either hear it or you don't. As Rosenbaum was, it seems to me Fujiwara is pushed into levelling criticisms he'd never be caught dead making elsewhere: more realistic character depth? A more "momentous" (i.e. cliched) first meeting between colonist and colonized? If you insist on reading the movie's strengths as weaknesses, then I can't help you.

The excerpted criticism from Stephen Hunter seems particularly obtuse -- the encounter between the Indian man and the sculplted greenery suggests not criticism but mystery, similar to "Rebecca's" first arrival on English shores. To them, *this* is the New World. Uh duh.

Odie: $50 million of somebody else's money is a lo...

2006-02-08T10:06:01.723-05:00

Odie: $50 million of somebody else's money is a lot of fuggin money. Even if you take out $20 million for Will Smith's S-curls. So many folks are still bound to a 20th Century notion of filmmaking as an aristocratic enterprise, something on the order of architecture and construction... no wonder so many filmmakers are so artistically timid, for all their acclaim.

There are folks out there doing what Malick does, but with a 24P camcorder and some bounce cards.

The "victory" I speak of is not so much over direct impositions the studio itself places upon Malick, but in the intense concentration one has to muster, in the face of monumental daily practical concerns, in order to fulfill even a tenth of one's original vision. Most filmmakers granted this almost existential freedom would wind up making something like "Patton."

James Longley writes, shoots, records sound and edits his documentaries, and the intensity of that individual point-of-view moves the earth in films like "Gaza Strip." The miracle of Malick is that he works similar wonders in fiction, but with hundreds of union employees where his two hands should be.

"“Our” view is no longer privileged [as it is in t...

2006-02-08T09:43:53.620-05:00

"“Our” view is no longer privileged [as it is in the Hollywood-type film], no longer the only right or best view. Other views become possible...

This sounds like a very postmodernist assessment. I will have to go read the entire thing.

Jeff: I agree with you that complaining about "psychological depth" in Malick's films is moot. Malick uses a lot of narration that seems designed to purposefully keep you in the shallow end of the character psyche pool.

Steven: $50 million dollars for a Hollywood movie nowadays is like paying $20 for a BMW: It's a real bargain. I don't see it as a victory at all. Malick has final edit control on his movies, and it is not like he's an unknown. If they had given him $100 million, it still would have resulted in the movie Malick wanted to make (and subsequently re-cut).

MZS: Your obsession with this movie makes Fitzcarraldo look disinterested in his obsession. As brilliant and impassioned as your posts are, I'm still a New World atheist. If I'm going to get a lightning bolt up my ass for worshipping a false prophet, it won't be this one.

Thanks for the Stop Smiling link. I love film crit...

2006-02-08T08:42:22.900-05:00

Thanks for the Stop Smiling link. I love film critics who have eyes to go with their Masters degrees. Taken together with your "New World" love letters, the piece points to what I've always said is missing from 99.9% of films made on that scale, in that system: subjectivity.

American audiences are used to stuff like "The Chronicles of Narnia" flick, which, unlike the book, opens with a lingering depiction of the Blitz, towering orchestral music and aerial shots of a steam locomotive plowing through the countryside. NFL Films turns out more intimate montage.

Malick's victory is in safeguarding the tones and rhythms of a poem written in solitude--with $50 million worth of commercial expectations on his back. All other considerations (including my distaste for the way he Waldenizes even the abduction and re-education of Pocahontas)are secondary.

Matt:Since you mentioned the NEW WORLD thread at t...

2006-02-08T03:49:45.226-05:00

Matt:

Since you mentioned the NEW WORLD thread at the Slant forums, I thought it might be appropriate to suggest some other boards where there are also discussions about the film...

http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17851

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=235801

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=320

I'm sure there are others as well.

Fujiwara has a whole bevy of dislikes about the fi...

2006-02-08T02:44:30.986-05:00

Fujiwara has a whole bevy of dislikes about the film, but on the subject of "psychological depth", the traditional sense of the word (I believe) is the kind of depth provided by rich acting and writing in the post-Actors Studio/Marlon Brando style of acting. However, I would not say that this school of characterization is applicable to The New World, or part of Malick's goals in general. His notion of character is less theatrical/literary, more abstract/impressionistic.
It's all part of the package in Malick's films, though, so to complain about a lack of psychological depth in a Malick film is like saying that the characters in a Sirk or Hawks film seem melodramatic or larger than life; it's part of the style.