Terrence Mallick's "The New World"

[Scotness]

Just saw The New World the other day and was mightily impressed - a few interesting points:

*Apparently they shot 1,000,000 feet of film - which in my estimate comes to 18.5 hours (35mm at 24fps) - but for a film at 135 minutes that comes to a shooting ratio of 1:8 -- still pretty high though - it's like they were shooting it like video - what a luxury to have on 35mm

*It was shot mainly on 200T and 500T - I don't understand why it wasn't shot on daylight stock - considering it only uses existing daylight

*The photography was beautiful and the use of existing light gave it a great and natural energy -- apart from Barry Lyndon anyone know of any other film that was shot on just exiting light? I spose all the dogme films are - I got Mifune for that purpose but they'd tweaked the colour so much it no longer looked natural

*the internal narratives that you hear were interesting and worked well, but for me there were too many of them and for a bit too long - but it really is a good technique to look at the internal conflicts and journeys of the characters (apart from the external story story story as Hollywood likes to shove it down our throat)

* Mallick's genreal ethos (or one of them) seems to be to construct the reality and film in it - as opposed to making the edifice and filming on it - hence highly realistic sets were built and the filming often took place in 360 degrees (which mae if fun for the crew) and the lack of lights and cables etc helped the actors with the reality of the situation as well. The actors also trained for a few months leading up to the filming, and you get the feeling there was alot of improvisation going on, apart from the scripted sequences.

Anyway I could go on - there was alot that I liked about it - he and his DOP Emmanuel Lubezki came up with a list of rules before they shot

* 1) No artificial lights. All is shot in natural light.
* 2) No crane or dolly shots, just handheld or Steadicam shots.
* 3) Everything is shot in the subjective view.
* 4) All shots must be 'deep-focus shots', that is everything (foreground and background) is visible and focused.
* 5) You (the camera crew) are encouraged to go and shoot unexpected things that might happen in accident or if your instinct tells you so.
* 6) Selective shots: any shot that does not have visual strength is not used.

source

I can't see why it all had to be deep focus - just taste? What is subjective view too? - one based on the characters feelings?

Apparently too alot of the shots had to be ADR'd to as Mallick can be heard shouting directions in the back of alot of them - but I guess you can do this if your film doesn't have much dialogue!

Anyway it's a very good film I thought - a divisive one for film makers I think, because it is so different and so distinct in it's style - but there is alot to think about in it from a film making point of view, apart from the subjec t matter.

It only used a minimum of 65mm too - most I think was 35mm anamorphic - but apparently very sharp too, according to someone on cinematography.com who saw it in the cinemas. I think they wanted to shoot it all on 65mm but couldn't afford it. According to IMDB the last film shot entirely on 65mm was Branagh's Hamlet - I don't understand why that had to be, but I can certainly see the arguement for The New World.

Anyway, anyone's thoughts on it?

Scot

[flatwood]

...any thoughts on it?

Well, I picked up the dvd when first out and watched it solid for about a week. Like you, Im fascinated by the use of available light as thats primarily the way I like to shoot. I was glad to see somebody in the big time shooting a modern film that way. I also like his inside out approach. ll have to go back and pull it out and take another look at it soon.

What did you think of the acting??? The opening boat scene kind of reminded me of your film, In My Image I think it was.

[Scotness]

The opening boat scene kind of reminded me of your film, In My Image I think it was.

Huh - I wish! To be mentioned in the same breath..... we are not worthy we are not worthy......

Can't remember the first scene though - I'll have to go back and look at it - (I've only watched it once)

I thought the acting was good - I liked Farell in it - I'm not a fan of his- but I thought he was good - he seemd to catch the contradictions Smith was caught up in well.

One criticism I read on the net though was that Pocahontas's costume seemed a little too well cut, and that the Indian's make-up was a little too modern or KISS like. Both criticisms I tend to agree with. On the extras one of the make up artists said they were wanting to experiement with all sorts of make-ups/effects/patterns - and I serioulsy doubt if the patterns were applied using the same materials/application tools/or techniques that the Indians would have used, and I think that shows.

Scot

[yolia]

The New World is a masterpiece although I doubt Indians greeted the English in that manner--howling, sniffing them like dogs, etc. Malick "amended" the history of John Smith and Pacahontas. Nevertheless, the film is beautifully shot. Some people disliked the film's pacing, but that's one of the things I enjoyed. Malick lets the shot linger, allows the audience to absorb the scene, relish it really. His films (all four) are visually driven. They have minimal dialogue--the way movies ought to be made. "Chivo" Lubezki is a great DP. His most recent work of course is Children of Men--another masterpiece directed by Alfonso Cuaron.

I just saw Malick's first two films--Badlands and Days of Heaven--and that lyrical, languid and protracted style is there too. All four of his films (Thin Red Line was his third) are masterpieces, true works of cinematic art inspite of the fact that the American audience generally does not appreciate them.

[BigBeaner]

I thought the movie was beautiful but there just wasn't enough there to keep me coming back. I can't even really remember if I enjoyed it, but I think I would've watched it more than once. I think this is because I've seen Badlands and that is one of my favorite movies, I just love it and got to get it on DVD so I think there was too much I was anticipating.

[Will2]

Nice to know there are still some areas of Virginia that look like that.

Cinematography was amazing and interesting to hear about the "no crane" shots.

Reminds me of when Phil Collins was playing on Peter Gabriel's first solo album and after Phil setup his drums, the techs came in and took away all the cymbals and said, "Phil doesn't want any cymbals." It gave that album a much different sound than it would have.

Limiting techniques can sometimes bring on more creativity since you can't rely on methods you're used to.

[Will2]

*It was shot mainly on 200T and 500T - I don't understand why it wasn't shot on daylight stock - considering it only uses existing daylight

Seems like most cinematographers know those two stocks and the results they'll get with filters... maybe it was a creative choice; daylight stocks never seem to match tungsten with a filter to me (although I prefer daylight stocks).

Maybe that stock costs less in quanity since they are the most popular stocks anyway.

[Mike P]

The photography was beautiful and the use of existing light gave it a great and natural energy -- apart from Barry Lyndon anyone know of any other film that was shot on just exiting light?
Scot

I'm a huge fan of available light. I assume you've seen 'Days of Heaven'? It remains one of the greatest uses of available light of all time (esp the use of the golden hour - the time between when the sun set and it gets dark) Also, Badlands and the Thin Red Line both use available light to great effect.

[flatwood]

....Nice to know there are still some areas of Virginia that look like that.....

My understanding is that the Jamestown set was built only about ten miles away from the original settlement so the natural enviroment in the film is very accurate. A monumental work, really. I do wish I had the resources to do something like this. Fantastic.

My mother who can trace her ancenstry to the second passage was put off by Ferrells portrayal of Smith thinking that because of her schooling thought that Smith was a man in his 50s however Im pretty sure Smith was about Ferrell's real age at the time of the original settlement.

[flatwood]

....Nice to know there are still some areas of Virginia that look like that.....

My understanding is that the Jamestown set was built only about ten miles away from the original settlement so the natural enviroment in the film is very accurate. A monumental work, really. I do wish I had the resources to do something like this. Fantastic.

My mother who can trace her ancenstry to the second passage was put off by Ferrells portrayal of Smith thinking that because of her schooling thought that Smith was a man in his 50s however Im pretty sure Smith was about Ferrell's real age at the time of the original settlement.

[flatwood]

....Nice to know there are still some areas of Virginia that look like that.....

My understanding is that the Jamestown set was built only about ten miles away from the original settlement so the natural enviroment in the film is very accurate. A monumental work, really. I do wish I had the resources to do something like this. Fantastic.

My mother who can trace her ancenstry to the second passage was put off by Ferrells portrayal of Smith thinking that because of her schooling thought that Smith was a man in his 50s however Im pretty sure Smith was about Ferrell's real age at the time of the original settlement.

[flatwood]

....Nice to know there are still some areas of Virginia that look like that.....

My understanding is that the Jamestown set was built only about ten miles away from the original settlement so the natural enviroment in the film is very accurate. A monumental work, really. I do wish I had the resources to do something like this. Fantastic.

My mother who can trace her ancenstry to the second passage was put off by Ferrells portrayal of Smith thinking that because of her schooling thought that Smith was a man in his 50s however Im pretty sure Smith was about Ferrell's real age at the time of the original settlement.

[flatwood]

....Nice to know there are still some areas of Virginia that look like that.....

My understanding is that the Jamestown set was built only about ten miles away from the original settlement so the natural enviroment in the film is very accurate. A monumental work, really. I do wish I had the resources to do something like this. Fantastic.

My mother who can trace her ancenstry to the second passage was put off by Ferrells portrayal of Smith thinking that because of her schooling thought that Smith was a man in his 50s however Im pretty sure Smith was about Ferrell's real age at the time of the original settlement.

[Scotness]

I haven't seen his other films but will make sure I do. The Thin Red Line was shot here a few years ago actually.

About cranes - I'm not sure what their reasoning for that was - the steadicam work is so fluent it could almost be small crane moves - I wonder if it was more to do with set up times, and lack of being in the moment for crew/cast - just creating more of an artificial air etc to the set?

Scot

[fastwind]

I saw the film in the theater. I really enjoyed the cinematography and
acting. Two scenes were shot on 65mm. The first arrival of the British ships to the Indian territory. Go back and watch it again. The image has a "bigness" about it. The second scene was a compilation of playful
forest interludes between John and Pocahantess.