I didn't think the tree ending was odd at all. Malick went through great length to equate the woman with the land, so of course right after she dies and John is talking about her, its natural to actualy have images of the "promising" new earth.

Goldie, she should have been lead. There was a nary a minute when her face wasn't on screen, and probably her footage is the sum of both Johns combined.

I guess I could see that. I just thought it seemed a little out of place in the narrative, as if I remember correctly we had a final narative monologue and then the tree shot.

Maybe if the monologue and tree had been together it would have made better senese. As it was though, symbolic it might have been but it just sort of stood out starkly.

Millions of people have said it a million times before, but I can't open a post regarding THE NEW WORLD any differently: writer/director Terrence Malick (BADLANDS, DAYS OF HEAVEN, THE THIN RED LINE) is a genius. His films are visual masterpieces, of course, and his depiction of the European colonists and Native Americans discovering each other in the Virgina wilderness is, of course, visually beautiful. His script, too, is fascinating and informative, as are the dedicated performances. A film I could spend the whole day watching, it's just so beautiful and moving and "complete." One of the best films of 2005! A+

So, real quick...it's essentially pretty historically sound, right? Besides the love aspect?

Well, the love aspects are what make it not historically sound. The counter-arguement to her whims, is that her tossing herself on him was part of a well-documented ritual of death and rebirth that goes with being incorporated into a new "tribe." She was a ritual figure in the proceedings, and her role was predetermined before he entered the scene. He just assumed he was about to be beheaded, and that only her raw emotion is what saved him. Beheading was very common in Europe, so there's no doubt he really thought he was about to be killed as one who is used to having their ears cut off (here) might think they were about to be cut during a knighting ceremony in England. It was a communication barrier.

The additional arguement is that Virginia natives were matrilinear, so that if someone married into a clan, they became part of it (if the marriage was to a daughter). There is some discussion that locals tried to have John Smith married off to Pocahontas as a way of incorporating Jamestown into their native nation rather than fighting it, since they were unsure what the outcome of a fight would be. Kind of like how England/Scotland/France/etc always tried to marry (and assume power and land) through mixing "national" monarchs.

So in light of that arguement, coaching the encounter as simply "love," (and she may have had emotional attachments to her perceived husband regardless), and not love + politics + other theories, kind of simplifies the famous and fairly mythic woman.

Its fair to see that Smith thought his head was coming off, and Malick makes a smart move by having sentiment voiced through the monologues of the beholder. It moves the experience away from a definitive reality towards what each individual involved perceived was happening. But he ruins it a little by subtitling what the Powhatan coucil was saying, and thus making it "clear" that there is a potential beheading, and that Pocahontas is interceding because she is drawn to Smith.

Does that answer your question?

I think it answers a question I didn't explicitly ask, but it's interesting. (It might answer my question, too, but if so I'm not making the link.)

I'm just curious how accurately the film follows the accepted history to which it relates. I just had someone tell me they didn't wanna see it because the "historical inaccuracies" made them "sick"...and from what I understand, it's supposed to be a rather historically sound film...just that Malick added a clear love angle that didn't necessarily exist.

Well, its told in voiceover and emphasizes personal projection and perception, so I don't know how anyone could fault it with grave inaccuracies. As far as small technicalities, John's trial, the several different men who take turns running the colony, who dies going upriver, when she returns to England, where/when she dies, it's all pretty accurate as far as I know.

The "accpeted history" that is antiquated is that Pocahontas was purely a young girl in love. As far as that goes, yes it is accurate. The newer research and history books being put out (inlcuding a young adult biography that I just read last week that hasn't hit markets yet) say that she "may" have been part of a ritual. That part of her marriage was premeditated diplomacy, hence why she continued contact with colonists even after Smith left. That really alters perception of the encounter. However, there is poor documentation, so we'll never know, and yes, enough people say she single handedly "saved" Smith's life because she was interested in him, a favorite daughter who had special sway, etc. You friendly was probably referring to this when (s)he was "sickened," but let us know if (s)he elaborates.

Um, is that better answer?

Aren't we all part of a ritual?

I posted this in the award forum, I referred to the film as devastatingly brilliant.

Coming from a person who's not warm to Malick, The New World is one of the most romantic films I've ever seen. It's lyrical, the use of score is reminiscent of days past. In fact, the entire opening sequence with the arrival of the ships is better than most of this years so-called contenders in their entirety.

Best Actress should mean just that and Q'orianka Kilcher owned her screentime with such grace and beauty and heart. I'm at the point now where I don't even want to watch this year's Oscars if Kilcher isn't nominated. I fell in love with Pocahontas. I was devasted when she was, laughed when she did, and when she died, my heart sunk.

I'm hard pressed to recall a film that took me on a journey like A New World was able to.

I'm stunned really.

A+

Wow, your reactions are very similar to mine. I really thought Malick was extremely poetic in his filmmaking. If I wrote my review based solely on the it would have easily gotten a solid A. As I started to look at some of his underlying themes though it just didn't all work for me. Still, it was possibly the most romanticlly (is that even a word?) shot films I have ever seen.

Gonna check it out this afternoon/night, finally. I can't wait.

And yeah, dolce, that answers my question pretty throroughly. I'll let you know if he elaborates, but I think the biggest problem was the "Disney romantic" angle. Oh well, whatever, that doesn't bother me. :o

The score went on sale today. Nothing this year even comes close to it.

This is no Disney-massacre of the historical content.

Well, for me it was genius. Really, had it not been for the subtitles, I would have given it an A+. There is nothing I would change about the style, sound, narrative, but those subtitled sections meant Malick wasn't 100% ready to move the discussion into the realm of the perceived. He does most of it, but comes just shy. Could you picture if the scene where Smith was captured he just "overheard" all this language he didn't understand? Since so much of his (and the film's) work is based off of his diaries/memoirs, it's all about what he "thought" was happening anyways. And Malick's use of voice-over suggests that. I wish he'd taken that final leap and really embraced language barrier to the fullest.

He does it with Rolfe (Bale) much better. Where he's sitting there, thinking out loud, questioning what must be going on in the silent Pocahontas's mind. Kilcher is great, since for the most part her voiceover's are about finding a path, and how she's unsure of her own sentiments, even when she's in love. Her emotions vs. her duties vs. finding a path she's comfortable travelling. But since we chose to include peripherla characters, I wish they'd either been granted voice-overs, or not been directly quoted (much like most of the English visit, etc).

The sad thing is this film isn't even going to get acting, cinematography, or score, and somehow has been overlooked even for the Technicals, in the Academy nomination process. It's a grave disservice, I agree with Loyal about the great sweeping scene when the ships first arrive and everyone is running up to the banks of the river.

I have no idea why people would be bored by this film. On a visceral level at least, it was truly rivetting and engaging.

Yeah, for me it wasn't necessarily the subtitles that lowered my grade but similar reactions. It just felt like Malick was on a great train of thought if you will, but somehow just didn't quite work it to the fullest. I guess I just felt there was something missing in the end from film.

Visually, it was stunning. One of the most beautifully shot films I think I've ever seen. The production was amazingly put together. There were a few scenes with Smith (Ferrall) that I thought really didn't fit together properly. And somehow the relationship aspects got a little muddled I thought in the middle of the film.

And yeah I loved the monlogues, I thought they were a great touch. I especially thought the idea of giving them to various different people instead of one set narrator was great. Pure filmmaking genious.

I'm really bordering on an A-/B+.

Boredom would be the last thing I'd imagine an audience would feel. I was emotionally exhausted at the end of the film, I truly felt a connection with it, something that can't be weighed or debated or expounded upon.

I concur. I'm going to go buy it for sure, its by far the strongest score, and that and cinematography are being depressingly overlooked this year.

Seriously, I sum it up by saying the aesthetics were incredibly painterly, period.

Did you guys love the opening when the score was playing and the maps were slowly getting filled in?

I'm going to see this again this weekend. I think y'all should too. If it grosses less than End of the Spear two weekends in a row, I'm going to ball my eyes out.

edit** Yeah, Jeff, that's why its on my best of the year list despite my B+. Because its a rich ground for future filmmaking, and the direction I pray some films will go. It had content errors, but was such a masterful use of medium. It truly embraced the unique qualities that only film can bring, and I hope people take note of that. I liked the Ebngland scene, and found her final monologue about chosing where she'll stand and how she'll be remembered quite strong. I just wish the love angle had some ambiguity to it. She was smart, not just whimsical, or she would have never made such a splash in England.

I need to see it again as well, but I might wait until the DVD comes out.

You need to develop your imagination...

Fine, I'll go see it tomorrow. Loyal got me.

Same here, granted my top 10 got a little messed up so I have to edit it slightly before I re-upload it, but it will be somewhere around #5 or #6 in the end.

I agree, it was an amazing use of film as an artistic piece rather then just for entertainment value.

I fell in love with a movie. I didn't think that was possible.

Will be seeing this or Munich tomorrow

Loyal and Galia you two have officially hyped it up for me... It better live up to those grades

Our tastes are close enough. I better love it. The whole turn of has been Colin Farrel, but this reviews... they've been enticing me to see it. There is a show right after school tomorrow- perfect!

If you have a romantic spirit, you'll feel the same way.

The story was completely secondary for me, which isn't how I normally operate.