The New World

[Max Jacoby]

I saw it 2 days ago and I too was a bit dissapointed by it. Too many scenes of people looking at each other. On the other hand I thought the photogrpahy was stunning, I love the wide angle exterior close-ups of people, they felt really present. The anamoprhic picture looked incredibly sharp and this was definitely not a DI.

[Tom Banks]

I just saw this thread and thought I'd share my experience (not having anything to do with the DI 35mm/65mm process)

 

I had the privelage of visiting my sister in Austin where she was working as the post production office manager for the film. I got to hang around the negative cutters and peak into the AVID room where one of the editors was working on an opening sequence. If it is to anyone's interest, I didn't see any 65mm being cut, but it was surreal to see a film of such huge expected perportions being edited right infront of me. Later on Terry arrived at the office to begin work.

 

I also attended the premier in Houston. Although Terry couldn't make it, the cast playing the Native American family (Kilcher, Studi, Schellenberg) was there.

 

Going into the movie with an open mind, I too found it on the boring side. I expected a slow movie, and it wasn't the slowness that disapointed me much, but the fact that the plot with Pocahontas did not come around to payoff (which is why you invest 3 hrs. to ingest a story like this). Saying that, I thought the photography was beautiful! Lubezki gave a very natural look to the film, as well as capturing beautiful landscapes. I caught a special on HBO on the making of The New World, which explained a lot of the set construction and shooting techniques. As Terry is often doing his own handheld work, the crew had to prepare each setup for a possible 360 degree view of the set (this is done a lot on Days of Heaven too).

 

The Q&A after the film was also interesting. Some of you may have heard the story that Terry didn't let Kilcher and Farrell meet for the first time until moments before shooting their first scene, the kissing scene in the field. They also mentioned that they would only have a vague idea of what was going on before getting on set. Much of the overall directing would be done right before the take. In regards to much of the symbolism that happens throughout the film, a lot of the actors didn't quite understand what Terry meant. In particular, if anyone remembers towards the end of the film, a Native American painted in blue flees the room that Pocahontas had just died in. An audience member asked Kilcher what she thought Terry meant by this, but Kilcher couldnt' give a good explanation.

 

The more I look back on the film the more I would like to see it again. I think this type of film is one that will grow on you with time. I don't want to relate it to 2001: A Space Oddysey, but it shares many of the same elements.

 

Hope some of that was interesting,

Tom

[Dan Salzmann]

While the cinematography in general was quite beautiful, I was disappointed with the film.

Some problems I had with it:

The make-up on the Native Americans looked too modern, Kiss-like, etc.

Pocohantas' clothes were too finely constructed to be realistic.

Pocohantas' didn't have a stray bit of body hair which seems far fetched.

Her phenomenal rate of progress in English was not realistic.

 

Basically I found none of the characters INTERESTING.

There was a distinct lack of tension and or conflict in the screenplay that made it lack momentum.

IMHO, this is by far Malik's weakest film while the others all remain references in terms of cinematography and film making in general.

[Raffinator]

Just saw The New World and I was really taken in by it. I'm not sure why. Obviously, its not conventional storytelling (although the pocahantas/john smith love story seemed somewhat conventional), it is slow in many parts, the characters don't have much to say, and when they do, none of it seems particularly enlightening. And still, I found myself sucked into it's "new world", forgive the pun.

 

I think it had this affect on me largely because of the moods it created, visually and aurally. Sometimes I believe that there is a stronger emotional response to mood, ambience, "texture" so to speak, than there is to narrative, dialogue, moral conclusions and the like. To me, it had the feel of a dream, a distant and yet powerful memory -- this is how I reacted to it, emotionally.

 

Yes, the film is uneven, but in a way, that's how the experience of life is. In the end, I was moved by the story of this woman, her place in history, what became of her. Of course, this all so subjective I can't fault anyone for not liking it.

 

I also found Lubezki's cinematography stunningly beautiful, but not in a typically overt, glamorous way. Save for a few scenes, I didn't "see" any lighting, everything came across naturally, unforced, real.

 

Raffi

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I think this is an amazing film. Terrence Malick has done it again, though this time he has directed a more intimate story than "The Thin Red Line", in the mood of his early works. But I understand why most of the public will hate it.

 

Anyway, the film looks, literally, hand made. Everything looks incredibly real -production design, costumes, cinematography- and Lubezki has achieved some gorgeus images when you consider he has been using (mostly) available light. The camera movements are so elegant and fluid that you almost forget at times that you're watching a movie. "The Thin Red Line" also had those virtues, but John Toll was after a more "polished" look and used a more epic approach through cranes, etc. to the battle scenes, while Lubezki seems to have been more interested in a rough naturalistic look, almost documentary at times.

 

Can't believe yet that the ASC overlooked it! :blink:

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I think Malick is one of the greatest living American film makers today. Great movie all around. In fact, better than those "osacr favorite" pictures. Whatever the highs and lows of this picture, we can all agree that it is top tier material. We are watching an inspired artist at work.

 

Malick is a very interresting figure. His favorite philosopher is Heidegger (?) as is mine, although I can't remember how to spell his name. He actually translated some of his work back in the '70s. Reading works like Being and Time , I feel, gives some insight to Malicks film theory as well as world view through his films.

 

Oh, yeah....The only bad thing about The New World is colin farrel. I really don't think this guy can act. That is to say I feel he just projects suppossed feelings and emotions....? I can't put my finger on it. I've seen some good work of his, Tiger Land, Minority Report, etc., but he is not some great actor that should be working with the talents of Malick!!! (in my humble opinion...) I would go so far to say that Tom Cruise is a better actor!!! Thats right, I said it. Maybe it's just a personal problem....I thought I would be able to get through it like I got through Gere in Heavens Gate. It just didn't happen for me.

[Charles Haine]

Unfortunately, you just can't finance a film like this without a star of that caliber, and that's the compromise Malick has to make, even though he is so uncompromising in other areas.

 

Though this is the first film that I've actually been able to enjoy Colin Farrell in, I think I see your point about him and Gere in DOH; they both sort of feel like they are from a different movie, because they are huge stars, and I personally suspect that if Malick could've made both those films with unknowns in the lead, he would've.

 

But good luck getting a 65mm budget with that restriction.

 

Still, my favorite film of the last year, if only for the sequence of the native american man wandering around the sculptured parks in England. And Christopher Plummer.

 

chuck haine

[Arni Heimir]

I for one believe, that if Hollywood productions would shoot 65mm, the cost would even out. Meaning that so much film is waisted on "acting mistakes", such as forgetting one's lines etc. If it costs more to shoot something. The cast and crew would most likely curb their film usage. Well, that's what I think at least.

[David Mullen ASC]

Unfortunately the real problem with shooting a movie in 65mm is that the number of 70mm venues have dried up over the years, so most people would see a 35mm anamorphic reduction in their theaters. Unless you had the money to get it bumped up to IMAX.

[Craftsman Pictures]

If that's true - I'll be sooooooooo there! Oh my God - Lubezki, Malick and 65mm! Can you imagine? This made my day.

 

 

this is similar to thin red line...........can you tell the techniques he used in this movie to tell the story .......i mean in terms of camera, lenses, staging and lighting

[Michel Hafner]

Quiz of the day:

Went to see 3 films in a row in that order:

New World

North Country

Syriana

 

2 had a digital intermediate, one had not (but some digital color grading)

2 looked good, one looked bad.

2 looked like film, one did not.

2 had no grain reduction artifacts (as far as I could see), one had tons.

 

Which is which?

 

Michel Hafner

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to factor in that one was shot in 35mm anamorphic (so larger negative), the others achieved 2.35 by cropping Super-35. And one was shot all on the old 500T Fuji stock.

 

And all three had different DP's with different visual goals.

 

So a D.I. alone, or lack of one, isn't going to account for all the technical qualities on screen.

[Michel Hafner]

You have to factor in that one was shot in 35mm anamorphic (so larger negative), the others achieved 2.35 by cropping Super-35. And one was shot all on the old 500T Fuji stock.

 

And all three had different DP's with different visual goals.

 

So a D.I. alone, or lack of one, isn't going to account for all the technical qualities on screen.

 

Of course. If two had a DI and one not and 2 looked like film at least one of the two who looked like film was a DI. So DI does not mean either way. The one that did not look like film (meaning film does not look like that as long as you just expose, develop, and copy to other film) was a DI though because only a digital filtering stage can achieve that look. I would love to know how grain reduction nasties fit into one's visual goals, though. I can only guess it's a tolerated 'side effect'.

Michel Hafner

Edited March 5, 2006 by miha

[David Mullen ASC]

Of course. If two had a DI and one not and 2 looked like film at least one of the two who looked like film was a DI. So DI does not mean either way. The one that did not look like film (meaning film does not look like that as long as you just expose, develop, and copy to other film) was a DI though because only a digital filtering stage can achieve that look. I would love to know how grain reduction nasties fit into one's visual goals, though. I can only guess it's a tolerated 'side effect'.

Michel Hafner

 

I only saw parts of "North Country" but otherwise, I'm not sure what you are referring to. "North Country" and "Syriana" but used a D.I., both were shot in Super-35, both used 500T stock throughout. The only difference I can recall is that "Syriana" had some scenes that were less grainy than others, so perhaps more grain reduction was used on those scenes. But neither used unusual digital diffusion tricks (ala "Lord of the Rings") that I can recall. And the less grainy scenes in "Syriana" didn't seem particularly "digital" in terms of artifacts -- I had assumed that they had used less grainy stock for those shots until I read some articles on the movie. I didn't see all of "North Country" so perhaps you're talking about some shots in there.

 

"The New World" was shot in 35mm anamorphic on 200T and 500T stocks and only used a D.I. for some efx shots and probably the few 65mm-to-35mm reductions they had to make.

 

You want to see odd-looking digital grain reduction, see the trailer for "Ultraviolet", unless that was shot in HD... or look at the plastic faces of the bad kids in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (it's odd how the bad kids get digital diffusion / grain reduction in their CU's but Charlie is treated normally...)

[Guest Kai.w]

You want to see odd-looking digital grain reduction, see the trailer for "Ultraviolet", unless that was shot in HD...

Ultraviolet apparently was shot in HD.

 

-k

[Shawn Murphy]

Ultraviolet apparently was shot in HD.

 

-k

 

 

I guess that would explain why in some of the closeup shots of Milla and the rest of the actors you could literally see every single pore and blemish, though I would imagine makeup is partially responsible for some of that, no? Though oddly enough they obviously did post work on some of the footage because their skin in some shots is extremely softened/airbrushed to an almost cartoonish level, I seriously wonder if they ran out of time or money to do it across the board; and some of the FX as well completely miss the mark, particularly in the end.

[Michel Hafner]

I only saw parts of "North Country" but otherwise, I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Have not seen Ultraviolet or Charlie. "North Country" had a nasty DNR look from start to finish. Syriana looked fine (had not much time to look for problems as the story was too involving). New World looked very good. (Far) better than the other two.

Michel Hafner

Edited March 15, 2006 by miha

[Hal Smith]

Syriana looked fine (had not much time to look for problems as the story was too involving).

Michel Hafner

I fully expect a film to break out one of these days that was shot on prosumer equipment (miniDV or HDV), and will gross $50 million. Why? because it'll have a great, involving story and be well shot, acted and directed. I love those great big silver based images too but many stories survive quite nicely on a crappy little NTSC televisions. This miniDV/HDV epic obviously will have to be shot very carefully within the limitations of the medium but isn't that the professional Cinematographer's job description - to get the best pictures possible within the project's constraints?

 

Edmond, OK

 

PS: Retired CIA agent Bob Baer, author of "See No Evil" that "Syriana" was based on, was on NPR a couple of weeks ago. He was bemoaning the fact that he was too old and married to hang out in bars and use what has got to be the greatest pick up line imaginable: "George Clooney won his Oscar playing me in a movie" :)

[Max Jacoby]

I saw 'Syriana' last week and it had that very obvious DI look that I've come to expect from Technicolor. Really, unlike MPC, Framsestore CFC or EFilm this company has not yet managed to make an invisible, natural looking DI depsite tries on numerous movies.

[Dan Goulder]

I fully expect a film to break out one of these days that was shot on prosumer equipment (miniDV or HDV), and will gross $50 million.

It's already been done. Open Water has grossed $53 million worldwide. The credits at the end of the movie listed only a few people involved in the production. One guy pretty much wrote, shot, and edited the whole thing in mini dv.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm working right now with director Dan Myrick, who was one of the two creators of "Blair Witch Project", shot on Hi-8 and 16mm b&w for about $30,000 originally, which earned over 100 mil at the box office I believe (although Dan tells me that the distributor tried to claim that it still didn't earn a profit!)

[Rupe Whiteman]

I'm working right now with director Dan Myrick, who was one of the two creators of "Blair Witch Project", shot on Hi-8 and 16mm b&w for about $30,000 originally, which earned over 100 mil at the box office I believe (although Dan tells me that the distributor tried to claim that it still didn't earn a profit!)

 

... just to add - I've a friend who was in 'The English Patient'. The lovely Weinsteins claimed it never made a profit and he's never been paid as he was on deferred pay in a compicated deal... It sold and sold on tape and dvd and garnered all (too) many awards...

 

Rupe Whiteman

[Michel Hafner]

Apparently the new David Lynch is shot on a prosumer DV camera ~3000$ list price. I fear the worst for the 35mm prints. As much as I love Lynch I will pass this one on the big screen. Definitely better to watch the DVD/HD made from the digital master.

Michel Hafner

[Shawn Murphy]

Apparently the new David Lynch is shot on a prosumer DV camera ~3000$ list price. I fear the worst for the 35mm prints. As much as I love Lynch I will pass this one on the big screen. Definitely better to watch the DVD/HD made from the digital master.

Michel Hafner

 

 

According to IMDB it was the SONY PD150. I've seen several blowups from the Panasonic DVX and they were worth seeing on the big screen nonetheless:

 

 

Lonesome Jim and November were shot with the DVX, and the doc Murderball was as well, though I haven't seen it yet so I guess it will have to be on the small screen for Murderball.

 

 

I'm actually very curious to see how David approaches this visually, I think there's still so much that can be done with creative lighting and in the digital transfer stage that hasn't been done yet with DV (or hasn't been seen yet on the big screen that).

 

 

Here's a Lynch comment on the PD150 from an article:

 

 

"Lynch also spoke of his new film in production, Inland Empire, starring Laura Dern and Jeremy Irons, which is shooting with a Sony PD150. "I discovered DV making small experimental films for my Web site and fell in love with the medium because it's so lightweight. It gives you so much freedom with a much smaller crew [and] longer takes and you're able to do things you can't do with a film camera," Lynch explained, adding wryly, " It has this thing called "automatic focus" that is great. It makes film cameras seem very absurd. DV is not up to the quality of film right now but it's getting closer and closer. We've done tests for Inland Empire and it looks very good."

Edited March 22, 2006 by Shawn Murphy

[Charles Haine]

Transition in this industry never tends to be as fast as the doomsayers warn, though.

 

During the 50s, everyone was afraid television kill film, and there were at least half a dozen different wide-screen formats battling it out, but film survived, and high-quality images survived, and anamorphic survived.

 

When the concept of the project fits it, we'll see more and more DV productions make money, and likely in a few years a lot of HVX productions that are worth watching, but audiences still want to see high quality imagery. For every 17 year old who watched BLAIR WITCH there was a crowd of 35 year olds who complained about wanting to vomit the whole time from the shaky camera, and there still hasn't been a DV film nominated for any Oscars (whatever that means).

 

But until there is a realistic high-qualitydigital format, film will stick around. When the Genesis or whatever comes after becomes established with a realistic workflow in the industry, a lot of people will still shoot film for a long time, even if scientific tests somehow prove digital is more beautiful. A lot of people still drive stick-shift.

 

I for one love that the digital revolution will allow a wider array of artists to have their shot telling a story, but the fact remains that if most working directors in hollywood aren't able to tell a really engaging story, it's a hard thing to do, and making it more widely available will also increase the volumn of unwatchable films out there.

 

My final thought is that I sometimes think film makes you a better film maker, BECAUSE the camera is heavy, and because it's so expensive. There's a lot of pressure, you have to think things out and be very sure of every decision you make, because there's a 50lb camera to put wherever you say, and because when it rolls its like burning money. So you put a lot of effort into making sure you put it in the right place and expose negative on something worth watching.

 

A lot of DV films shoot and shoot and shoot without putting much thought in what they are shooting, hoping to cut it into something interesting in editing, and a lot of DV films have nothing going for them as a result.

 

Not always the case, but a tendency.

 

chuck