The New world eau de toilette

The New World is a flick that I liken to eau de toilette fragrances; it’s not quite good as perfume, but it’s said to awaken the senses, offering lighter aromatics than perfume. Like a great scent that sometimes lingers in a room after the source of the smell is long gone, this film sneaks up on you well after it’s end. Watching the film however, is a bit of an awkward experience. Well, with the forest frolicking (which was probably this group's favorite part), snail pace, and lack of in movie dialog, this movie could easily be turned off before you come to the end. To me, it’s the end (the last 45 mins or so) that really showcases the best elements of this movie. A broken Indian girl blossoms into multi-cultural woman, the pace picks up considerably, the cinematography is showcased via two continents, and two beautiful men compete for one striking woman’s stoic affection.

A lot of concepts in this movie could easily be overlooked though, as they’re either subtle or could not be considered of interest (in a movie). I value the use of the land/nature as it's own character, the nuances of human condition, and the challenges of two groups of people coming to terms with the existence of each other. What I love in particular is Mataoka’s emotional/spiritual journey and the behaviors of the settlers vs that of the Indians. The Indians have life down to a science; their connection to the land, commitment to each other, and savvy life skills (particularly farming/hunting) afforded them a truly simple, yet meaningful life. Met with the contrast of the Settlers, whose first steps onto the virgin land are filled with betrayal, and a sense of entitlement, begin the long and treacherous relationship between the white man and the reds. This yin/yang brings forth a lot of thoughts for me, with voyeuristic opportunities abound. I often think of how scary it was for both communities to encounter each other - it’s one thing to travel to another land and know that you will be greeted by another race, and people who speak another language, but how does your mind process the discovery of a new persons, on an unknown land? Mataouka’s story is truly poignant, whether autobiographical or not. Her growth from being a tribe leader’s daughter, to a lover, to a woman, while also overcoming her failures, and remaining open enough to take on the settler’s culture, leads to the arrival of a unified spirit/mother.



What ties things together is the cinematography, filmed in some of the remaining pristine areas of the Virginia coast, a beautiful glimpse into the “old world” is captured. The authentic feeling of the wardrobe, makeup, props (the ships in particular), and the actors afford this movie a feeling of being in a forgotten era. The lack of dialog, leads to some great acting - particularly by Farrell and Kilcher whose pained love is literally worn on their faces. Kilcher’s performance - filled with highs and lows, flows effortlessly like that of a tenured actor. Bale’s warm and genuine demeanor shines with every smile and glance at Kilcher. This movie is romantic in many ways, it's almost a love story – as told by the land. The land does have a limited way of revealing a story, but her repertoire is quite stunning. Every shot in the film seems to be the crème de la crème, to the point you might overlook their individual strengths, as they are surrounded by so much beauty (it’s like saying, “Have the hot one come over here.” To a group of Victoria Secret models). It’s said that Malick and his Cinematographer agreed on the following visual rules for competing the movie:

1. No artificial lights. Everything is to be shot in natural light.
2. No crane or dolly shots, just handheld or Steadicam shots
3. Everything is shot in the subjective view
4. All shots must be 'deep-focus shots' - that is everything (foreground and background) is visible and focused
5. The camera crew is encouraged to go and shoot unexpected things that might happen in accident or if your instinct tells you so
6. Selective shots: any shot that does not have visual strength will not used

The list seems impossible, as if it would stifle an artist like a bad school project. Though, many of these items really speak to the success of the film’s images (particularly 2 &5). However beyond the images, there’s something about this film that makes you wonder, what is this movie really supposed to be about? Visually it’s about the land; story wise it’s the beauty and hatred of those who can live upon it, but somehow the purpose of this film loses it’s focus.

Supposedly, Malick began fiddling with this story in the 70s, working on it off and on over several decades, which is evident in watching the film. Like a half read book you try to pick up exactly where you left off some 10 years ago. It was also said that in post prod. Malick took scenes with a full page of dialog in them, and cut them down to simple 20 sec shots of an actor not speaking (i.e. Matoak’s passing). I think the major issue with this film is too much Malick. This movie is screaming for an outside source of producers who can lend a fresh perspective and creatively take the reins to refine an overly artsy Malik [who is both writing and directing]. Otherwise, you get a movie with little to no on screen dialog, actors frolicking in a field, and a film that feels like 3 hours (but is only 2). The visuals and human dramas that set sail in this film are not quite enough to surpass some of it’s shortcomings. Just like with ladies’ fragrances - each person will smell something different; for some they’ll smell nothing but toilet water or soap, while others will experience the heady mix of floral and woody notes that this flick has to offer.

3.5 notes out of 5