Wednesday, 10 February 2010

The New World


Terence Malick takes us back to the beginning of America as if back to the beginning of time itself. Water, wind, fire, the sun and the moon, The New World revitalises the first of symbols by pruning away at their pabular metaphorical entanglements. Here they are no more than what they are -
life itself.

In Days of Heaven or The Thin Red Line similar compositions of sunsets and swaying fields appeared somewhat cool in their glossy impeccability.
I think there is a difference between a beautiful view in real life and a beautiful cinematic image; a distinction that is hard to quantify and a skill difficult to master.

The slow sunrise in Carlos Reygadas' Silent Light, for example, did not for me have anything like the sheer force of a sunrise outside of the theatre. There is an altogether separate and possibly unconscious mindset when approaching art and the representation of the real. In The New World the beautiful of our world is not only preserved in the transition to the screen but heightened, our senses always pricked to the clanking of sails, the crackle of thunder, the rustling of leaves.

As threadbare as the phrase may be, The New World really is pure cinema. Its images are its heart and they slide with such graceful ease into ours like the oiled hull of a boat through the tide.

Ephemeral and eternal, the title The
New World refers to the first steps on American soil, the first shivers of love, the first glimpse of heaven (the tall trees stretching ever upward are like the spires of great Cathedrals) And yet it catches us between the old and the new, at the cusp of transcendence and at the threshold of understanding. It feels like we are slipping in and out of consciousness, sometimes within, sometimes without, sometimes just lost - internal monologues, wordless sequences, moments that seem like meadow-bound dreams and ones that are live and filthy and crawling. 1st, 2nd, 3rd person narratives pass balletically across each other.


Thus The New World is an immersion. It does not want you to pass by on the waters as the English ships, but dive beneath as the natives. Once he is taken captive, captivated by Pocahontas, Smith swims in the ocean.


However, this is not conveyed as a two-dimensional tract on the evils of materialism or a call to return to man's essence as there is no hard and fast dichotomy made between pure-of-heart 'naturals' and English 'invaders'. We see that, through fear and mistrust, both sides jealously guard what is theirs and both sides may turn to violence in defence of it. Captain Smith's dialogue is not ours or the film's. We can see beyond the idea of love and paradise that has so enchanted him and the glimpse of heaven is rapidly revealed to be the distorted face of a mirage.

However, love and openness can bridge any divide, a divide between cultures, the vast Atlantic itself. In the honourable, steadfast and strong John Rolfe 'Rebecca' finds the truth that lies behind the
myths of peoples and idealised emotions and sees that is something even deeper and even more powerful:

"Mother, I know where you live".


Words, words, words. Is it ever enough in film criticism to say with humility and awe that something is beautiful and yet not know exactly how or why? Is its beauty any less if its nature is not finally comprehended? Or is it greater still when it is too overwhelming and too ethereal to seize and hold to one's breast?

16 comments:

  1. I couldn't agree with you more! What always stikes me most about Malick is the fluidity of his themes and images and sounds. THE NEW WORLD is his greatest achievement. It ranked third on my list of best films of the decade.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, David.

    Yes, I think 'fluidity' is the right word. Do you have this list on your blog? I'll go and have a look...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Looks like you found it already...but just in case others are interested...

    http://davethenovelist.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/revisiting-there-will-be-blood-the-best-film-of-the-2000s/

    I am very much looking forward to Malick's TREE OF LIFE! Hopefully it will be out by year's end.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lovely extended capsule here Stephen, which right brings out the celebratory aspects of this truly great film. I placed it among the very best films of the decade as well -and as did David - though my own personal #1 choice was Haynes's FAR FROM HEAVEN. But it's tough to numerically assess the greats, and this ruminative masterpiece may well be Malick's masterpiece. I second the motion to gleefully anticipate TREE OF LIFE! No other film is more desired at this point!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've never been that big of a Malick fan. This film, especially, just looked odd to me-- am I wrong in thinking that 2:35.1 was a mistake for him, as a director? I'll concede that I'm just on a very different wavelength than his work exists, and also that I've always felt he recieves an undue amount of praise for an extremely small creative output. However, out of all his films, this is probably the one I'm most likely to give a second chance at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'll avoid throwing up a link to my own review, but I will just say that I poured out pretty much everything I had when I wrote that. This is just one of the best films I've ever seen and without question one of the best "experiences" I've ever had watching a movie. This is easily my #1 for the decade.

    We'll just disagree about Malick's previous output, Stephen - I love everything he's done besides Badlands (which actually places me in a minority among Malick fans!). I cannot wait for TREE OF LIFE to be released... last thing I saw was talking about Fall of this year.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Sam.

    I don't have quite the anticipation for Tree of Life as you because The New World is the only one of his films that I have really enjoyed.

    I'm particularly looking forward to Godard's SOCIALISME - hence this blog's header. I think his films from Numero Deux onwards are where the gold is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob,

    "I'll concede that I'm just on a very different wavelength than his work exists, and also that I've always felt he recieves an undue amount of praise for an extremely small creative output"

    Well I would have agreed with you before I'd seen THE NEW WORLD. Making one film that is this brilliant more than compensates for the small and disappointing creative output that came before.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...but I will just say that I poured out pretty much everything I had when I wrote that."

    Yes, it was an excellent review Dave.

    I'm a little wary of TREE OF LIFE (I'm hoping THE NEW WORLD was not a one-off - THE THIN RED LINE was such pretentious waffle to me) and the presence of Sean Penn makes me especially concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yikes......we couldn't get past the first opening moments of this film, when we rented on NF.

    I keep reading glowing reviews, so perhaps we need to revisit and view the whole film and then decide.

    Sadly, I haven't found it in me to criticize anyone person in particular, be it film, music, art etc. Maybe they had a bad crew, or were themselves over run with other things in their lives that turned their product in a direction it wasn't meant to go. No one can do anything perfect every time, or why would anyone bother.

    Cheers and Thanks for stopping by!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Coffee Messiah.

    "Yikes......we couldn't get past the first opening moments of this film, when we rented on NF.

    I keep reading glowing reviews, so perhaps we need to revisit and view the whole film and then decide."

    I really didn't like his other films (so I can see how Malick's films can have that effect) and maybe you had a similar experience with this one. Give it another go and you never know!

    "No one can do anything perfect every time, or why would anyone bother."

    Indeed!

    Btw, what are the films you've been most impressed with recently?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You put me on the spot.....rarely get to the cinema around here, too MOR for us, although we did see Avatar (which to me, if I hadn't seen any previous films with the central theme running through it. When we saw it, a young boy was with his grandparents and he was sitting on the edge of his seat, and turned every once in awhile with a big smile on his face. That surely could have been me at that age ; ) But, it seemed long and drawn out, although the effects were good.

    I saw 9 with a handful of people when it came out, and I enjoyed it, although it too seemed rather drawn out in the fight scenes, over all though, I plan to see it again at some point.

    Obtained: Plagues & Pleasures on the Salton Sea by John Waters and am looking forward to watching it this week. Otherwise, we try to stay on the creative side, for the brain to remain functional, I hope. ; )

    ReplyDelete
  13. Aha. I haven't seen 9 nor that John Waters film (which I actually haven't even heard of).

    Avatar I liked a hell of a lot. Maybe I had the same expression on my face as that boy!

    "Otherwise, we try to stay on the creative side, for the brain to remain functional, I hope. ; )"

    Well your site is very creative and inspiring too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just discovered your blog through Wonders In The Dark because of your relation to Sam's article on Kane, this is my #1 of the decade as well. I have a great deal of respect for anyone willing to shake up the status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That is, your article on Kane's in relation to Sam's on critics.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you very much, Doniphon.

    It's a shame to me that The New World has not really taken hold in non-critical circles (the everyday film-goer). It is slow and contemplative - the kind of film that may take getting used to - but not at all pretentious or purely intellectualised.

    To me it's a rapturous emotional experience first and foremost.

    ReplyDelete