NEW New World (DVD)

 

 

Create your own review

It seems obvious what is meant by the title of "The New World" as soon as you find out Terrence Malick's film is about Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher) and John Smith (Colin Farrell). But there are additional layers of meaning to the term, because Malick is trying to evoke the moment of equilibrium where two cultures met and each was confronted with the strange newness of the other. As always, Malick's vision is poetic, relying on images and music more than dialogue in his marriage of sight and sound. Even in terms of the spoken word, the emphasis is more on narration than on conversation. The approach might be frustrating to some viewers, because Malick does not tell his story using the conventions of contemporary cinema. But then we have known for some time that Malick makes movies in his own world. He just does not not invite us for visits as often as we would like.

Judging this film in terms of historical accuracy is difficult, given what little we know about these characters. It is believed that Pocahontas was born around 1595, which would have made her 12 in 1607 when she supposedly rescued John Smith from death when he was captured and brought to Werowocomoco. Whether Smith's version of the story is true, is open to debate, as is the nature of exactly what he was being rescued from, but it is the meeting between them and how the Powhatan Confederacy supported the fledgling Jamestown colony. The actress playing Pocahontas was fourteen when Malick was filming, which would made her a couple of years too old for the initial scenes with Smith, but then Kilcher also has to play "Rebecca" when she travels to England at approximately the age of twenty-two in 1617, ten years after she first met John Smith and a year before she died in the new world she found on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

The character is never called Pocahontas in the film, and indeed the daughter of Powhatan (whose named was really Wahusunacock) was named Matoaka, with "Pocahontas" being a childhood nickname referring to her frolicing nature. The idea of a romance between Pocahontas and Smith is studiously avoided, since she ends up marrying another Englishman, John Rolfe (Christian Bale). Her assimilation is the focal point of the film and there is a sense in which Malick is telling the familiar story of the stranger in a strange land who goes native. In other words, this is the opposite of what we saw in "A Man Called Horse" and "Dances With Wolves," because it is the Native American, the "natural," who is captivated by the alien culture. But notice that this reversal takes place at a time when the "Indian princess" would be welcomed at the court of the king and queen of England. The fate of the woman we know as Pocahontas is relatively unique in our cultural history, especially with the horror stories to come regarding the fates of other Native Americans. That is why Malick's movie presents a vision of a brief moment in American history that was pretty much gone as soon as she passed away.

There are film makers, and there are artists. Terrence Mallick is in the latter category. On the surface, The New World retells the John Smith/Pocahontas love story amidst the grimy mess of the Jamestown colony in early seventeenth-century Virginia. Yet it's so much more. It's a hymn to the unity of man and nature, to the meeting of two cultures, to the rhythm of the seasons, to the simplest of loves. Both Rousseaus - philosopher of the noble savage and painter of the dark wilderness - make their appearances here. Long wordless scenes linger over rivers and streams, over leaves and birds and trees. The film is a pantheist paean, a song to the earth mother. War, the topic of his previous film The Thin Red Line, makes only a brief appearance here when the English colonists fight a short and bloody battle with the natives. Colin Farrell does good work in one of his more restrained roles, while newcomer Q'Orianka Kilcher is charming as the Indian princess who is never named in the film. I felt a real sadness leaving Mallick's world of beauty only to re-enter the banality of a shopping mall. A sad masterpiece, and judging by other reviews on this site, one that separates those who love the art of cinema from those who prefer films that deliver a jolt-per-minute cure for the ADD-addled masses via endless gunfights and car chases. The best film of 2006.

If you liked the slow, deliberate pacing of The Thin Red Line, you will probably like this movie. If not, beware. It is a lot of nature photography, and not too much dialogue. I really enjoyed it, but if you're expecting huge period-film action, you might be disappointed.

Great acting, great cinematography, and emotionally/intellectually stimulating; not great if you want a popcorn munching, 2-hour thrill ride.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 11 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

5.0 out of 5 stars The New World
I love this story - from the breathtaking photography, continuous symphonic background music, subliminal messages between a man and woman(who needs alot of words)add to that a bit... Read more

Published 7 months ago by Demi

4.0 out of 5 stars This movie is rewarding
Few films take you on a journey and makes you feel you've truly experienced another
moment in time. It is based on true events.

This film requires patience. Read more

Published 23 months ago by D. Collard

5.0 out of 5 stars Poetic Visions of Love and Dark and the Nature that Once Was
WARNING: This movie is NOT for everyone

It's not fast-paced.

There are no transforming machines. Read more

Published on Sep 21 2009 by Jonathan Mendelsohn

5.0 out of 5 stars Enchanting and Beautiful
I can't believe anyone would say anything bad about this film. It is one of the best and finest films I've seen in the past two years, and one I am very pleased to own, and set... Read more

Published on Mar 4 2007 by Estrild

1.0 out of 5 stars The Longest 9 1/2 hours of my life!
My wife and I won free tickets to the premiere of this movie in our city. It became a bi-word for the most boring movie ever made. Read more

Published on Oct 31 2006 by Terry Carroll

1.0 out of 5 stars Utterly Boring
With all honesty I am surprised with myself that I actually watched the movie through and through without holding down the fast forward button. Read more

Published on Sep 15 2006 by Josh Rawlings

4.0 out of 5 stars Poetry and nature
I watched this movie the other night, but had to delay the review because, quite frankly, words failed me. Read more

Published on July 13 2006 by Amanda Richards

1.0 out of 5 stars I'll never get that time back...
Not since the likes of "Anaconda" have so many movie-goers had such a side-splitting night of raucous fun at a movie not meant to draw laughs. Read more

Published on May 9 2006

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 11 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!