January 05, 2006
A few notes on two Austin filmmakers while I work on a more substantial post:
I promptly invalidated my previous prediction regarding DVD purchases when I bought a copy of Kat Candler's award-winning first film, Cicadas, which she was in post-production on when I first met her almost six years ago. After some sustained distribution hassles, the rights have reverted back to her, and as of the other day it's finally been released. All proceeds from the DVD go towards finishing her new film, Jumping Off Bridges, which made the decision to buy a copy even more of a non-issue than it already was. Filmmakers should always help each other out; getting a good movie in return is just gravy.
The reports flying about concerning the multiple cuts of The New World are tremendously exciting; the fact that New Line is supporting these efforts is practically unbelievable. I'm glad I had the chance to see the 155 minute version in LA last week, so that I won't have to wait until DVD to compare and contrast. The film is such fluid, amorphous piece of work, though, that I wonder if the changes will even be noticeable.
It's been a long time since I've seen a modern filmmaker experiment to the extent that Malick has here with basic juxtaposition. The leaps and bounds in time and place he takes are not marked by normal spatio-temporal transitional devices, and as a result the film seems to exist in an ephemeral state, working contrary to conscious expectation; it almost asks you not to use your head while watching it. It's narrative is propelled not by standard plot points but by an almost Eisensteinian form of sensory logic.
I'd love to know what the process of cutting the picture was like. A whole team of editors is credited on the film; one of them, Sarr Klein, cut The Thin Red Line; Richard Chew won an Oscar back in the day for Star Wars and Hank Corwin has done a handful of Oliver Stone films (I'm not familiar with the fourth, Mark Yioshikawa). How did they handle the miles and miles of footage? Did they each take sections and work on them independently, or did they each take a pass through the whole film? And at this point, as Malick finishes up the new, shorter version, has he taken over the reigns himself?
Every edit in the picture is worth studying, I think (perhaps I'm going overboard, having only seen the film once), and the opportunity to examine those edits within the context of three different cuts seems like a rare treat - and an opportunity to understand Malick better in a way that the interviews he refuses to give wouldn't allow. I can't wait to see it again when it opens in Dallas at the end of the month, at which point I'm sure I'll have more to write about it.
Posted by David Lowery at January 5, 2006 12:49 PM
Comments
"[I]t almost asks you not to use your head while watching it."
I can't tell you how much this sentence worries me, for reasons that are perhaps better left until I've seen the film.
Posted by: Matt at January 5, 2006 03:21 PM
I'm pretty sure I understand your reasons, and rest assured, The New World isn't entirely a product of, say, the Malcom Gladwell school of filmmaking. It's certainly an intelligently made picture, and intellectual consideration of it is reciprocated. But Malick is a true impressionist in terms of both composition and form, and as such, his film works against narrative norms; he trusts audiences to comprehend it on a deeper level. When I say that one shouldn't think too hard while watching it (a base comment, I suppose), what I really mean is one shouldn't try to fit the film into a preconceived notion of what a narrative should be; not so much a problem for you or I or our peers, perhaps, but plenty of trouble for the vast majority of folks who want to see a good old fashioned historical piece.
Posted by: Ghostboy at January 5, 2006 03:39 PM