quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Have you seen any other Terrence Malick film before The New World?.

---

No.

quote:

---

What exactly is your definition of "pretentious"?

---

Pretty much precisely the dictionary definition:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
As for Erik: Meet someone from Scotland and ask them what they think of Braveheart! Tell us what your answer is, because I've heard several that are quite hilarious and un-postable.

---

I honestly don't care. I loved the movie. It's a friggin' movie for Christ sakes! It's goal is to entertain... it did just that and did it very well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoVoyager:

Pretty much precisely the dictionary definition:

Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed

---

The New World features the artistic talent of its director, Terrence Malick. Malick studied philosophy at Harvard University. After graduating, he became a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. After his stint at Oxford (ultimately unfinished), Malick took up teaching (again, philosophy) at MIT. He also wrote articles for many major American publications. In regards to filmmaking, Malick holds an MFA from the AFI Conservatory. Anything that needs to be read in regards to his film career can be found here.

The film features cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki; who is considered one of the greatest cinematographers of this current generation. He's also lensed Children of Men, Sleepy Hollow, and Ali (as well as many other amazing films). The New World features lighting comprised of entirely natural light; a dangerous and difficult task in traditional filmmaking senses.

The acting ensemble is composed of Christian Bale, Wes Studi, Christopher Plummer, August Schellenberg, and David Thewlis. All of these actors are considered very strong and willing performers; and this film stands as a testament. Even Colin Farrell, whose personal life often seems to overshadow his strength as an actor, provides a surprising quiet and soft performance as John Smith. His role is tragic, and Farrell brings that to the screen. Young actress Q'Orianka Kilcher is certainly the star of the show; and her performance was often the most remarked upon by a majority of critics. The film even features small roles for Jonathan Pryce and Noah Taylor; two very wonderful character actors.

The production design by Jack Fisk is remarkably striking in its simpleness. All of the sets and props are historically accurate; as is the film's dialogue and Native languages. And not to mention it's depiction of the harsh times of the settlers and the early beginnings of Jamestown. The sound design has to be heard in full to be believed; it's defintely one of the best of the decade. The use of music is very important, especially Wagner's prelude in Rheingold (from Der Ring), and the film carries itself well among cinema scholars.

Once again, I'm not criticizing the talent of the director or crew on the project, merely their decisions and ideas for what this film should have been. The pretentiousness I see stems from their apparent intent to have this movie viewed as if it is some piece of highest order art that can only be appreciated on a special psycho-spiritual level... the ethereal, meta-physical tone systemic to the whole film.

In that way, it bears a lot of similarity to another film in 2006 which I have similar feelings about (though admittedly stronger): The Fountain. I'm just not the type of person who watches a movie like "The Fountain" and comes away impressed with what a deep thinker Aronofsky is. Quite the contrary, I think it's just another piece of New Age drivel. I'm REALLY getting myself in trouble now.

I'm very close to being done arguing about it, but I might have resilience left for a post or two more.

But, it seems we see different films for different things. You seem to be of the "cinema-entertainment" minded crowd; and I of the "cinema-art" crowd. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either of our thought processes, we just want different things. It's inherent in all of us, I suppose.

I always reject the "it's just a movie!" line, an argument which if applied to other media would put Paganini on the same level as the Backstreet Boys ("it's just a bit of music!"), Paul Klee on the same level as Thomas Kinkade ("it's just a painting!") or Milton on the same level as Danielle Steele ("it's just a book!").

Oh yeah, the scores. Ironically, I like Braveheart more, though it's not a favorite and I can't remember the last time I listened to it. And I haven't heard The New World divorced from the film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
I just didn't want your efforts to be in vain.

But, it seems we see different films for different things. You seem to be of the "cinema-entertainment" minded crowd; and I of the "cinema-art" crowd. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either of our thought processes, we just want different things. It's inherent in all of us, I suppose.

Thank you for keeping the discussion very mature though. I have a tendency to get people very angry in real life during these such discussions. I find it's much easier here.

---

Yeah, I guess that's where the root of the matter lies. Interestingly, though, I am known among my friends as being the person who usually dislikes the huge blockbusters and opts instead for difficult and thought-provoking movies. Some of my very favorite movies include Twelve Angry Men, On the Waterfront, and To Kill a Mockingbird.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
I just didn't want your efforts to be in vain.

But, it seems we see different films for different things. You seem to be of the "cinema-entertainment" minded crowd; and I of the "cinema-art" crowd. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either of our thought processes, we just want different things. It's inherent in all of us, I suppose.

Thank you for keeping the discussion very mature though. I have a tendency to get people very angry in real life during these such discussions. I find it's much easier here.

---

Neo Voyager, I agree with your interpretation of The Fountain. I walked away from that with the same sense of boredom and shrug of the shoulders about it's would-be high-concept attempts and ultimate failures across the board.

Erik, you take great offense to people not liking Braveheart, which is your prerogative.

Michael, I agree, but I don't agree that Braveheart is a better score: Horner's Celtic scoring is a nuisance and his recycled action material is laziness on his part, which leans solely on his past efforts. The popularity of Braveheart with mainstream crowds obviously elevates the music to a level it doesn't deserve, like Titanic (another mediocre score, and even worse film). Sure, the score works, but only at the most basic level: There's no replay value in it, IMO. The New World isn't great either, by any stretch, but I think it's a bit more competent on Horner's part. I do see why Malick elminited a lot of Horner's cues for the film's final cut, finding his classical selections to more infinitely more appropriate (and they are).

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
In your opinion, can a film be both cinematically artful and cinematically entertaining enough to entertain vast audiences? If so, what are your personal examples?

---

Absolutely and certainly. Here are some ones that I thought up:

Orson Welles' Citizen Kane
Federico Fellini's 8 1/2
Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Ridley Scott's Blade Runner
Christopher Nolan's The Prestige
Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, Vertigo, and Rear Window
Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights and Punch-Drunk Love
Wes Anderson's Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Darjeeling Limited
Luc Besson's The Professional
Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard
James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein
Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, part II, and The Conversation
Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man and Fitzcarraldo
Fritz Lang's Metropolis
Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption and The Mist
The Coen Brothers' Fargo, Miller's Crossing, and O'Brother Where Art Thou
David Cronenberg's The Fly
George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead
John Carpenter's Halloween and The Thing
Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch

And may others, too. These just struck me right away.

That's a very good question, I might add. I'm curious as to others' thoughts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Erik, you take great offense to people not liking Braveheart, which is your prerogative.

---

Bah! I take great offense to comments like "This is all very disturbing" after my review of this certain film. But it obvious that I missed the "humour" in that sentence. Silly me.

Look, I honestly don't care if you like the film or not. But I mention I like Braveheart and you guys take great offense to it. Just look at what happens when someone doesn't agree with the rest of the artsy fartsy movie goers around here. I'm all of a sudden some sort of outcast and there are five bazillion posts trying to prove me wrong. I understand this is a discussion forum but man... chill out.

-Erik-

In any case, as a Scot, I think I'm pretty well qualified to comment on this thread. I haven't seen The New World, nor The Patriot, so my comments will only refer to Braveheart.

First, it has to be said that whatever problems you might have with the historical accuracy of the movie, Mel Gibson did manage to capture pretty well the troubled relationship between the Scots and the English. The details really aren't that important. This is a movie that I have been known to use in my English classes (here in Japan) to convey to my students the depth and degree of historical animosity between Scotland and England. It's also very useful for explaining why the UK should not be referred to as England, and why Scots don't like being called English. Of course these are historical (or semi-historical) events, but they ring true nonetheless.

(Obviously it's important to frame this in the current state, which is a sense of rivalry with the English, and a usually harmless teasing relationship. I'm about as far from a Scottish nationalist as you can get.)

Next, the accent. He was aiming for an Inverness (Highland) accent. I come from Orkney in the far north - not all that far from Inverness - and I have to say, it was pretty good. If you didn't think so, perhaps you haven't heard a real Scottish accent before. Yep, that's really how we speak - he really got the intonation down quite well. Broad Scottish accents often do sound a little strange or unbelievable on the screen, but I'm not kidding, we do speak like that. Thus, it probably didn't seem strange to most Scots, and probably to most Brits.

quote:

---

And, is it just me, or are Braveheart and The Patriot nearly the same movie? They both make out the Brits to be sadists and rapists (not to mention the ultimate evil) and they both feature mad Mel performances that are equally laughable.

---

Was it the accent that put you off? If so, I'm afraid that's your problem rather than Mel Gibson's. If not, I won't argue - I don't tend to worry about acting unless it's so atrocious that even I can't maintain my sense of disbelief.

Also, you seem to have made a big error regarding who the "Brits" are. Braveheart made the English look evil and nasty; sure, the English are also Brits these days, but so are the Scots. Thus you are saying that both the bad guys and the good guys in Braveheart were sadistic and evil.

quote:

---

And Horner's Celtic music is some of the worst music ever commited to film.

---

To each his own. I used to really love the soundtrack, but I like it a lot less after realising that Horner uses Irish pipes. Why would you use Irish pipes in a movie about Scotland? Obviously he preferred the Irish pipes, but it detracts from the integrity of the film far more than anything else, in my opinion.

And in what way is Braveheart ridiculous?

Regarding Michael's comments about the futility of an independence that lasted only a few hundred years: the first time, Scotland was a vassal of England. The second time, Scotland's king became England's king too, and the countries were eventually joined in a union. That seems rather different to me than being conquered. Regardless, I assure you that the whole issue really does matter to a lot of Scots. That's all there is to say on that, really.

Someone mentioned Legends Of The Fall: Now, that's a really strong effort from Horner, and far better than the mash-up we have here. Andrew, being a new battle royale. <HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I have been listening to a variety of film scores for some time now and one score I always go back to is Titanic. It is a score that isn't as dominated by the celtic influence as most might think. Titanic IMO is better than Braveheart and The New World combined. This is one prime example where Horner proves that he is a master of writing music for the screen. Fits perfectly. I think it's easy to dislike Titanic because the score was so popular with the general public (mainly because of the Dion crap). The action music (Hard to Starboard) is fantastic, the pieces with the real choral music (not the synth) is beautiful. It's a touching score, and that is how Horner writes. The film was fantastic too. The dicaprio character wasn't written well but the sinking sequence? Amazing. People do like to hate good films, though. I just don't understand why people dislike GOOD films with a mainstream popularity, just to rebel. But, it's all about your opinion, because I loathed the POTC films...I hated them.

You know Titanic is a good score. One decision the academy made that I am actually happy with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
You like the film, we don't; it's that simple.

---

I've been saying the exact same thing for a week now. Have we finally come to an understanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:

As for my disturbing post, it was purely comical, nothing to lose sleep over or take "great offense" to. I'm certainly not offended by anything you've posted. And, FYI, I am nicely chilled out at the moment.

---

Alright. However, before you mentioned that it was comical I thought it was down right rude and not funny at all.

Are we finally over this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
In your opinion, can a film be both cinematically artful and cinematically entertaining enough to entertain vast audiences? If so, what are your personal examples?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
That's a very good question, I might add. I'm curious as to others' thoughts.

---

Films that set out solely to entertain can certainly be artistic, and I would extend this even to filmmakers I absolutely loathe. Michael Bay, for instance, is a director whose work I can't stand, but he has a very recognizable and rather original aesthetic that has radically altered the way action films are approached by mainstream filmmakers. For better or worse, he's a true auteur. So I would say that many films geared toward mass audiences are certainly "artful".

Things get a little rougher if I apply the criteria I mentioned in my previous post -- films that seek to inquire, discover, and challenge rather than simply tell or amuse. As long as cinema remains as popular a medium as it is, I don't think films with those goals in mind can form a sizable chunk of what people go to see. However, there are some films that manage to be stimulating in the way that I like as well as wildly popular. For instance, I think that with The Incredibles and Ratatouille Brad Bird succeeded marvelously. (The Iron Giant was just as great, but for reasons I don't entirely understand, it never reached as many people.) Children of Men turned out to be a much bigger financial success than I expected it to, much to my delight. I'm wearing a Star Trek shirt right now, so there's another example (though obviously some incarnations are better than others, in terms of both entertainment and "artfulness"). Andrew's list has many great examples, though obviously a lot of them wouldn't fly with today's audiences.

I have no idea what the "secret" to striking this balance is. Most of the time I have trouble understanding why audiences flock to the movies they seem to flock to, even thinking solely in terms of entertainment. I can understand why people like Braveheart and Titanic, but (to pick a random example) I thought Shrek 2 was one of the most ugly, worthless, humorless, and genuinely excruciating films I had ever seen, and I can't even begin to comprehend how it became so beloved. People I respect have tried to explain it to me and they've probably done a good job, but nothing seems to be capable of making me understand its appeal. If I saw movies more often I would probably experience this a lot.

Ultimately I don't think it's important for filmmakers to be striving to strike this balance anyway. Of course you want your work to reach as many people as possible, but usually (not always, but usually) to appeal to as many people as possible means finding the lowest common denominator, and I don't think filmmakers (or ANY sort of artist, for that matter) should compromise their intentions just to sell a few extra tickets. I guess it's like trying to pick up dates at a bar or a party -- people try to downplay anything they think will turn people off and exaggerate what they think will turn people on: you'll probably get more phone numbers with that method, but they won't be from people who saw an accurate picture of who you are. I think the same thing happens when artists try to stress accessibility (or marketability) over personal expression and the communication of ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BackToTheFutureFan:
People do like to hate good films, though. I just don't understand why people dislike GOOD films with a mainstream popularity, just to rebel.

---

Honestly, every film music fan should be able to understand this. None of us prefers Jerry Goldsmith over Hannah Montana just because we're trying to be rebels, do we?

I get angry sometimes, too, but that's because when people use lines like "it's just a movie" and imply (whether intentionally or not) that films cannot or should not dig a little deeper than the average blockbuster, I feel like they're denigrating what I've chosen to devote my life to, and I think it's natural to get a little upset about that, within reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
If we need to bash anyone, let's bash that franz_conrad fellow. Now there's an artsy-fartsy ho-hum bum who gets his fancy off of pretension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:

Hey, it's my birthday. Be nice, or I won't go and see EASTERN PROMISE just to spite you - and it will be on your consience!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Michael, go see it for me because it's the best film of the year (and I've seen No Country for Old men, let me know when you want to talk about that)!

Please, please, please!

---

Call me biased.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
StarlessWinter, please describe exactly what you mean when you write "cinematically artful." Just for clarification.

---

"Cinematically artful" meaning that the film is more about social commentary, poetic beauty, and "artsy" (for lack of a better term) stuff than about entertaining audiences.

To me it seems as if critics and even many aspiring directors analyze the tiny individual pieces of a film so much that sometimes they lose sight of the overall feeling of a film. They don't allow themselves to be emotionally drawn into the story or the characters, as if that deep connection would prevent them from "truly" analyzing the film.

Emotion to them is only effective when it is in its subtlest form. No character is allowed to express his or her feelings unless they are extremely subdued; otherwise, it's "soppy sentiment" (even if the development and buildup earn the emotional payoff).

If a film has both action and emotion, it is often viewed completely differently by groups of people. Some like only the action, and so any thought-provoking dialogue or heartfelt scene is found boring. Others think that a film with special effects and action cannot possibly have any morality or heart to it. But most people don't respond to that subdued quality. Not everything is most powerful when it is subtle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Hey, like this thread has proved: diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. I will agree that the music in The Mist was quite atrocious. That is not the techinque needed to score that film, especially if Darabont wanted to evoke a classic monster film feeling towards it. I didn't mind the Dead Can Dance piece, but I can see how others would. To me, The Mist represents the first serious, intelligent monster movie since The Thing (it was better than The Descent, IMO). It had a good, fair bit of social commentary and I thought the acting was quite good across the board (including Jane, though I wish that Andre Braugher had stuck around a little longer).

---

Andrew, there's been really, really good monster movies since The Thing. For example, James Cameron's Aliens (Ridley's Scott's Alien was before Carpenter's Thing, was it not?). I'm actually quite surprised that you enjoyed this movie. The "style" and mode of direction was quite amateurish: Framing was bad and inconsistent, and the "snap" (too slow) zooms were poorly placed and executed; I see what Darabont was going for, but it's been done before and been done better. Add to that his "Written for the Screen..." is not good: Dialog ranged from ungainly to dumb and predictable. As for "social commentary": This approach by Darabont to tell us all about his politics mirrored the attempts that M. Night Shyamalan has made in his films (the faith rejuvenation, pseudo-Christianity that little green men bring to Mel Gibson in Signs; the radio broadcasts about "the war" during said director's pompous cameo in The Village; and the TV news of "the war" running in the background of various scenes in Lady In The Water, or his own character's life/world-changing book he's working on and will supposedly be assassinated for... I have no doubt that you agree with me on the ridiculousness of these examples). Marcia Gay Harden's Christian psychopath character either ruined it because she was so good at conveying that idiocy from a bad script, or she was plain terrible; it's hard to know--regardless, the audience had no choice but to hate her and feel superior for their own intellectual capacity to see through the s.h.i.t. she churned out, and was forced again to feel great pride at her fate. Andrew, these are easy easy tricks Darabont is using, and I think you should take a second hard look at this movie before accepting it's liberal-empowering "social commentaries": It shows like "Enlightenment Thinking for Dummies"; "Philosophy 101 by Frank Darabont." Also, the crux of this problem lies in the scene where Jane and a few other of the principals discuss human nature in the back room before deciding on an exit strategy from the store. That was just plain silly: A good portion of the audience was laughing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
Emotion to them is only effective when it is in its subtlest form.

---

Dammit, these people just don't care about things the way we do!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
To me it seems as if critics and even many aspiring directors analyze the tiny individual pieces of a film so much that sometimes they lose sight of the overall feeling of a film. They don't allow themselves to be emotionally drawn into the story or the characters, as if that deep connection would prevent them from "truly" analyzing the film.

---

Here's an example of a film that for me works under and even begs for strict analytical scrutiny and a great deal of somber contemplation, but succeeds so brilliantly for its atmosphere, overall feeling, and overwhelming emotional impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFmu7BYbthY
That's the opening scene from Bela Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies, which I think is the greatest, most beautiful, most heart- and head-wrenching film made in the last decade. When I first saw it (on DVD) I watched only this scene and then had to stop it and take a long walk outside at night because I was so emotionally overwhelmed by it. In the days afterward I watched the opening scene several more times, but it was two weeks before I was able to bring myself to watch the rest of the film because I had been so staggered that I was afraid either the rest of the film wouldn't be able to live up to the beginning, or that it would and I would have a difficult time handling the experience. And the film is replete with ideas and nuances, social, philosophical, religious, and political implications, enough to keep me very busy even after it has become quite familiar to me. And as a filmmaker its technical mastery is just awesome (a 2 1/2 hour film and it only has 33 shots in it). But its emotional impact is as vital to its greatness as any of that, and is ultimately what leaves the gravest impression.

Bottom line: I don't separate my "head" from my "heart," since I know my thoughts and my feelings come from the same place; and I don't separate the details from the "big picture," since I know neither has any meaning without the other.

Kirk

I thought it was inpossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BackToTheFutureFan:
You know Titanic is a good score. One decision the academy made that I am actually happy with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoreguy16:
Do you mean Courage Under Fire? Because I think that might've come out first and does feature the exact same action music.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkinson:
Here's another long-winded and uncalled for reaction from me.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
[b]To me it seems as if critics and even many aspiring directors analyze the tiny individual pieces of a film so much that sometimes they lose sight of the overall feeling of a film. They don't allow themselves to be emotionally drawn into the story or the characters, as if that deep connection would prevent them from "truly" analyzing the film.<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>
Without citing specifics (i.e., WHICH critics, WHICH aspiring directors) it's difficult to know how to respond to this. I'm an aspiring director who gravitates toward the "artsy" stuff and does often meticulously analyze the films he watches, but they also make me cry rather frequently and can sometimes cause huge emotional upheavals for me.

Here's an example of a film that for me works under and even begs for strict analytical scrutiny and a great deal of somber contemplation, but succeeds so brilliantly for its atmosphere, overall feeling, and overwhelming emotional impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFmu7BYbthY
That's the opening scene from Bela Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies, which I think is the greatest, most beautiful, most heart- and head-wrenching film made in the last decade. When I first saw it (on DVD) I watched only this scene and then had to stop it and take a long walk outside at night because I was so emotionally overwhelmed by it. In the days afterward I watched the opening scene several more times, but it was two weeks before I was able to bring myself to watch the rest of the film because I had been so staggered that I was afraid either the rest of the film wouldn't be able to live up to the beginning, or that it would and I would have a difficult time handling the experience. And the film is replete with ideas and nuances, social, philosophical, religious, and political implications, enough to keep me very busy even after it has become quite familiar to me. And as a filmmaker its technical mastery is just awesome (a 2 1/2 hour film and it only has 33 shots in it). But its emotional impact is as vital to its greatness as any of that, and is ultimately what leaves the gravest impression.

Bottom line: I don't separate my "head" from my "heart," since I know my thoughts and my feelings come from the same place; and I don't separate the details from the "big picture," since I know neither has any meaning without the other.

Kirk

[Message edited by Kirkinson on 11-29-2007][/B]

---

It's not the "artsy" quality that such people love that bothers me. It's that some films are often discriminated against because they contain scenes other than the "artsy" kind (Lord of the Rings, for example, which contains beautiful scenes, but also contains much action, which suddenly makes the whole film a fault for some).

Subtlety is great sometimes, but not always. I found nothing emotionally satisfying about Pan's Labyrinth (a good film), for example, but critics praised it for its great emotion. I supposed it's just subjective, though.