"The New World" -- let the rants begin
One of member of the class said something along the lines of "You so owe us extra credit for that" as we exited the theater last night. I would have to agree. I did not expect a Colin Farrell historical epic (anybody see Alexander?) to be good, exactly, but I also did not expect the longest 135 minutes of my life, which is only a slight exaggeration. All I can say is, we should count our lucky stars that New World director Terrence Malick cut the film down by 15 minutes or so before its wide U.S. release, and doubtless way more than that earlier. Apparently he shot more than a million feet of yawn-inducing film for this.
At any rate, come and get your extra credit by posting your thoughts on the film here, as comments on this message.
I will state my own views just briefly so as to give you guys plenty of space.
At any rate, come and get your extra credit by posting your thoughts on the film here, as comments on this message.
I will state my own views just briefly so as to give you guys plenty of space.
- Given the obvious care Malick took to provide realistic sights and sounds -- the movie was actually shot in Virginia, largely without artificial light -- I was shocked at how closely it followed the most extreme and mindlessly patriotic versions of the romantic mythology about Captain John Smith and the Indian "princess" Pocahontas. Here we have America as the virginal young Indian maiden swooning for her manly (but kind and sensitive) Englishman -- actually 2 of them -- and then giving birth to a new land of hybrid vigor and natural liberty for you and me. Pocahontas/Rebecca dies of disease on her trip to England and her people are defeated and demoralized, but the movie insists on a happy ending, with her young son Thomas Rolfe shown scampering into a future of blue skies and amber waves of grain (and tobacco!)
- Probably Malick's worst cinematic crime was taking one of American history's greatest characters, the grinning con-man/adventurer (and tough soldier) John Smith, and turning him into the moping, dewy-eyed lump we see in the movie.
- Ditto for the Indian leaders Powhatan and Opechanacanough, a wily, ruthless empire-builder on one hand and Virginia's worst nightmare on the other, the man whose 1622 rebellion killed the Virginia Company.
posted by Jeff Pasley at 2:10 PM
5 Comments:
ASHLEY NELSON SAYS
(I have forgotten my blogging password, so I had to log in as anonymous)
I enjoyed the movie (I know, I know! Don’t hate me!), even though it was not historical at all. Here are my comments:
1. I found it interesting how there was a totally separate person who cast the Indians. On the credits there was a separate name. I wonder why they did that. 2. In the lecture we had talked about how the chiefs had limited power. In the movie, people bowed to him and he overruled the elders opinions easily. 3. The way they had the Indians moved was interesting. They almost crept while crouching, especially when they were watching or interacting with the English. It made them seem more savage and contrasted them more. It really stood out in the scene where the settlers and Indians meet for the first time. The settlers are all standing straight and still while the Indians are tentatively creeping around them. 4. In the lecture, Professor Pasley had said that the Indians were probably just adopting Smith when he thought they were killing him. The movie maybe hinted at this when the women seemed to be performing a ceremony on him after he was saved, but the chief later said, “he is not one of us.” 5. It was interesting that Smith said she brought out his good side, while she said that he brought out her god-side. She kept saying that Smith was like a god to her. Implications, whether true or not, could be drawn to their countries and the whole national situation. Was this the writer’s intentions? 6. In lecture, we had discussed how the Indians had welcomed the settlers and were willing to share the land with them. However, the movie Indians ordered them to leave as soon as they arrived. Eventually, even she was sold for giving the settlers seeds for long-term survival. 7. Odd how the director went for accuracy in lighting, casting Pocahontas, the Indian language etcetera, but not on the broad historic details.
I do understand your point about Smith. During the movie, I kept wondering how he was supposed to be a good leader when he mostly gave moody silent significant looks at all of the men. Also, the length of his hair varied slightly at some points.
---Sorry this was so long, but then again, the movie was long too. :)
Actually I'm glad some of you liked it, since I suggested people go see it. Also, Ashley, you don't need to log in to comment. Just click the "Other" button and fill your name in the box.
I have to say that I truly, honestly hated the movie. But that's just me. I realize that it was mentioned in class that the Powhatans had a more patriarchal society, but it seems strange to me that the natives would have gotten the custom of bowing like they did in Europe. I agree with Ashley's comment on the power of the chief. Also, I thought it was a bit over the top to contrast the main fight between the colonists and the natives against Pocahontas' (Rebecca's) personal strife, running through the fields, hurt, disillusioned, etc. My other question, whether valid or not, concerns the issue of the land. When John Smith is first introduced to the tribe, one of the men says something along the lines of "sure, they just want a piece of swampland right now, but what about in the future?" Was this really the thought process of the natives, or was it supposed to be some kind of foreshadowing of things to come outside of the time represented in the movie?
In general I did not enjoy the movie, and even some of the guys I went with jokingly said they should have got up and walked into Brokeback. However, I did enjoy trying to find similarities and differences with the movie and what Professor Pasley spoke about in class. Although it was annoying to see obvious historical details ignored, such as Pocahontas and John Smith all over each other half of the movie, I did like how they portrayed the Indians most of the movie. They dressed, spoke, and acted a great deal how they were described in class, with a few minor details that seemed incorrect. Such as Pocahontas kissing John Smith and how the Indians treated Powhatan. But yeah, next time Hollywood wants to make a historical movie, they should probably consult with a history teacher first.
Let's just say, I was definately glad that I went to the matinee for this movie. At least it didn't cost as much! As far as the actual movie went, I honestly thought that it was horrible. The movie had little talking and was basically Pocahontas twirling around laughing while John Smith swooned over her. It also played basically the same music the WHOLE movie. I agree with Val that it is the Disney story made over. They just combined Pocahontas I and II into one extremely LONG movie.
Post a Comment
<< Home