I feel like I have to warn somebody before I show them a Terrence Malick film. The conversations go something like this:
It's hard to talk about Terrence Malick's films without sounding like a pretentious jackhole.
Incidentally, Malick films earn you a popcorn bucket full of film snobbery points, but only if you sit all the way through them. I just earned film snob butter by sitting through the extended version of The New World. Dozens more minutes of passing glances, wandering silhouettes, and static greenery!
Again, there's a lot of empty space. In art you can create an image by manipulating the non-image around it, and I suppose you can do the same in film. And like the way empty space forces you to reevaluate how you look at a picture, Malick's use of nothing in particular forces you to approach movie-watching differently. It becomes less about entertainment and more about the ebb and flow of life.
Putting it another way, The New World is like watching a fish tank. Fish tanks are pretty. The fish are pretty. The bubbles are pretty. And it all moves in slow motion. Nothing much happens, but you get to learn the habits of the fish, their routines, the way they interact. You see a couple fish fall in love. Aw, that's nice. They dart in and out of the plastic castles and fake seaweed. Then one day you wake up, check out your fish tank, and notice that all of the fish are fighting and there are fins and scales and bones strewn about everywhere and somehow the plastic castle is on fire. Now THIS is interesting. But then the fish work something out and they stop fighting, and later a couple of them visit the fish bowl way over in England. You tell your friends about your awesome fish, and they seem uninterested because you're talking to them about fish.
In the end I'm conflicted. The New World is certainly a film I can (and do) appreciate, but I can't see myself recommending it to anybody, not because it's bad -- which it definitely is not -- but because ultimately this is a film you don't watch for fun. It's a film to study. It's a film meant to enrich. It's a FILM more than it is a MOVIE.
In fact, if you must watch one Terrence Malick film, or you need a proper Terrence Malick introduction, I'd recommend The Thin Red Line. In addition to all of Malick's usual quiet cinematographic brilliance, it's got war and explosions and a bunch of unexpected cameos. You know, all that stuff that will keep your attention. Woody Harrelson blows his butt off.
So, to over-succinctly summate, here are reasons why I like The New World:
- it's pretty
- wonderful subtle performances
- it causes me to reevaluate (or at the very least consider from a different perspective) how I approach my own life
- Batman
- some fightin' and killin'
- film snob points
And reasons why I might balk at a second viewing:
- looooong
- considerable amount of non-action
- mushy love story (although if I'm honest with myself I was actually quite moved in the final few minutes of the film... not enough to cry or anything, but, well, you know...)
- Native American men never wear enough clothing
- I'm bad with accents, and I have a hard time with Colin Farrell's
Overall I give The New World 3.5 intrusive English colonies... out of 5
"Okay, this movie is going to be pretty long. And if it isn't actually long, it's going to feel long. Not that this is going to be a bad movie, but Malick likes to fill his films with a whole lot of nothingness. You'll get a lot of quiet extended random shots of trees or grass or lawn gnomes or scampering natives or whatever have you. Not that this is bad either as it's all very beautifully shot. In fact, you could pause the movie at any time, take that image on your screen to Kinkos, and have them create a very serene poster for you. So I guess really it's the imagery that drives the film as none of the characters say much and often times there's not a whole lot going on. But it pays off at the end as you feel like these characters and events are very real, like you're actually physically there observing these events instead of watching on TV or at a theater. And you feel like you know these characters even though they spent the bulk of the movie hiding their feelings instead of emoting them. But you really have to invest yourself in Malick's movies, and you'll get bored, so you have to stick it out."
"Wait, which Clarence Gaylick movie are you talking about?"
"Terrence Malick, and... all of them."
"Yeah, can't we just watch a Fast & Furious movie instead?"
"NO."
It's hard to talk about Terrence Malick's films without sounding like a pretentious jackhole.
Incidentally, Malick films earn you a popcorn bucket full of film snobbery points, but only if you sit all the way through them. I just earned film snob butter by sitting through the extended version of The New World. Dozens more minutes of passing glances, wandering silhouettes, and static greenery!
Again, there's a lot of empty space. In art you can create an image by manipulating the non-image around it, and I suppose you can do the same in film. And like the way empty space forces you to reevaluate how you look at a picture, Malick's use of nothing in particular forces you to approach movie-watching differently. It becomes less about entertainment and more about the ebb and flow of life.
Putting it another way, The New World is like watching a fish tank. Fish tanks are pretty. The fish are pretty. The bubbles are pretty. And it all moves in slow motion. Nothing much happens, but you get to learn the habits of the fish, their routines, the way they interact. You see a couple fish fall in love. Aw, that's nice. They dart in and out of the plastic castles and fake seaweed. Then one day you wake up, check out your fish tank, and notice that all of the fish are fighting and there are fins and scales and bones strewn about everywhere and somehow the plastic castle is on fire. Now THIS is interesting. But then the fish work something out and they stop fighting, and later a couple of them visit the fish bowl way over in England. You tell your friends about your awesome fish, and they seem uninterested because you're talking to them about fish.
In the end I'm conflicted. The New World is certainly a film I can (and do) appreciate, but I can't see myself recommending it to anybody, not because it's bad -- which it definitely is not -- but because ultimately this is a film you don't watch for fun. It's a film to study. It's a film meant to enrich. It's a FILM more than it is a MOVIE.
In fact, if you must watch one Terrence Malick film, or you need a proper Terrence Malick introduction, I'd recommend The Thin Red Line. In addition to all of Malick's usual quiet cinematographic brilliance, it's got war and explosions and a bunch of unexpected cameos. You know, all that stuff that will keep your attention. Woody Harrelson blows his butt off.
So, to over-succinctly summate, here are reasons why I like The New World:
- it's pretty
- wonderful subtle performances
- it causes me to reevaluate (or at the very least consider from a different perspective) how I approach my own life
- Batman
- some fightin' and killin'
- film snob points
And reasons why I might balk at a second viewing:
- looooong
- considerable amount of non-action
- mushy love story (although if I'm honest with myself I was actually quite moved in the final few minutes of the film... not enough to cry or anything, but, well, you know...)
- Native American men never wear enough clothing
- I'm bad with accents, and I have a hard time with Colin Farrell's
Overall I give The New World 3.5 intrusive English colonies... out of 5
Your review came out better than mine, and you didn't even plagiarize LOL. I think you pretty much nailed it on the head, particularly the fish tank analogy. It's definitely an artsy fartsy type film and I think Malick films should indeed come with a warning lol
ReplyDelete