criterionforum.org

There was also Mozart for the courtship scenes.

yoshimori wrote:Could someone be more specific about the score? There's Wagner at the end of NW, and Horner before that, but nothing that seems like All The Real Girls to me.

Actually, the opening of TNW uses the opening of Wagner's Das Rheingold beautifully. It then returns at the end.

Wow is this dying at the box office. I know the Malickites will profess not to care, but it will affect his ability to get financing for future films. It's at $8 million after 2 weekends and without Oscar noms I don't see how it gets beyond $20 million. TRL made $35 million or so in the US, but that was an OK amount of money back when it was released (especially for a film of that length, lol).

Barmy wrote:Wow is this dying at the box office. I know the Malickites will profess not to care,

I profess not to care.

Barmy wrote:Wow is this dying at the box office. I know the Malickites will profess not to care, but it will affect his ability to get financing for future films. It's at $8 million after 2 weekends and without Oscar noms I don't see how it gets beyond $20 million. TRL made $35 million or so in the US, but that was an OK amount of money back when it was released (especially for a film of that length, lol).

I profess to care, if only for the reason you mention. And because movies are released in the real world, where money seems to be important. Still, it positively astounds me that he has been able to make two big-budget films at all.

Does anyone happen to know what the film's budget was? (Sorry to be lazy; I'm sure this is easily googled.)

$30 million budget, but only because Colin took upfront comp in the form of a videocamera. Keep in mind that figure doesn't include P&A. This will not be a horrific money loser, depending on foreign. But I'm not sure this story will be of special interest overseas.

Nevertheless, $20 million domestic gross (if it gets there) is a joke. It may end up doing about the same as Capote!

Barmy, are you really Adrien Brody?

Quite an amazing amount of hostility being directed at Malick from you in this thread. Who gives a fuck how much money TNW is making at the box office? Malick will always be able to get big stars to appear in his movies, and thus get financed, although perhaps not as lavishly as before.

Would you prefer that he make BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2? As that took in $28M at the box office this weekend, in your mind it's obviously the huge cinematic success that TNW could only dream of being.

I don't see him throwing any punches at Malick. Perhaps he's not a fan, but he's just relaying his opinion along with some information.

If people would rather see BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2 and NANNY McPHEE, that's their choice. TNW will make money outside the U.S. and on DVD, so it will at least break even.
This reminds me of another lengthy, languid, beautifully-photographed historical epic that starred a well-known actor who was criticized for his performance: BARRY LYNDON.

Though the films are completely different, and I wouldn't call Barry Lyndon 'languid' whatsoever, I think that comparison is quite apt!

I meant leisurely, slow-moving....not a pejorative in any way.

I feel no hostility toward Malick. I loved the Academy version of TNW. I haven't seen the edit. The rags suggested that one of the reasons for the cut of the Academy version was concern about the running time and how it would impact B.O. I am suggesting that I kind of doubt the cut really had a significant positive impact on B.O. Who knows?

Also the rush release in December for Academy purposes seems to have backfired as the film is getting little Academy buzz. Does "Oscar" not like the fact that he was shown the "wrong" version (which the producer has announced will never see the light of day again, not even on DVD)? Would Kubrick, for example, have allowed a film to get released for Academy purposes before it was ready?

In any event, part of my special respect for Malick comes from his maverick nature, and I feel the whole release process with TNW made him look a bit like a castrato. I don't care about the B.O. either, but I do care about the artistic process, which to me was compromised here. Just an opinion--neither I nor anyone else here knows the "truth".

Barmy wrote:The rags suggested that one of the reasons for the cut of the Academy version was concern about the running time and how it would impact B.O. I am suggesting that I kind of doubt the cut really had a significant positive impact on B.O. Who knows?

I think the fact that it was released and then pulled from theaters will negatively impact BO numbers. It also doesn't look like much of a vote of confidence from the studio to yank the damn thing after it plays for two weeks.

And yes, I think Oscar chances (something I really don't care about) are now highly unlikely now that the film that was elgible no longer exists, so to speak.

I just saw this on thedigitalbits.com: "Also today, we've gotten word that producer Sarah Greene has recently informed audiences at special limited screenings of Terrence Malick's The New World that the director has created an extended version of the film that will see release on DVD, possibly as early as March or April (from New Line)."

Yeah, I reported that awhile ago. The DVD will have the truncated version that FAILED at the box office, and a longer version than the Academy version. Whatever. This film is dead to me.

Barmy wrote:This film is dead to me.

You're a real party-pooper, you know that? Incidentally, you might want to read this.

Interesting read. I'm always wary when critics claim to be right where all the other critics are wrong (and then go on to criticize the other critics for not giving the director the benefit of some doubt). There was a long article in Harper's that I kind of agreed with that took the same basic approach to Eyes Wide Shut.

But in The New World, Malick is exploring many things that he's explored before that seemed tolerable in those contexts: the ideal of being close to nature; the innocence of those already there; the corrupting influence of Western culture; the outsider wanting to escape Western culture. As my friend said, in many ways The New World is kind of like Malick's ultimate film in this way. Part of the problem is that it means putting the innocent natives on a bit of a pedestal--not glamorizing them, exactly, just giving them a privileged position, idealizing them in comparison to the settlers--which feels a bit false.

So this guy shooting down the critics for not giving Malick the benefit of the doubt is missing several key things that the critic that did the same for Eyes Wide Shut had on his side. First, the film wasn't "marketed" in the way that EWS was (or Brokeback Mountain was). Second, the film isn't baffling in the way that most EWS critics found it--on the contrary, TNW makes all too much sense, even if it seems like such a disappointment from Malick. The fact that some critics took issue with the editing, or dismissed it by comparing it to Tony Scott is to me an indication that they weren't really grappling with more fundamental problems with the film--I'm sure those critics wouldn't have taken issue with the editing had they felt that the film was really worthwhile and interesting underneath the surface.

Last, but not least, I'd have to say that Pinkerton's writing style is at least twice as pretentious as the film itself. He never really grapples with the film in his article--he seems to take it for granted that his ability to wallow in the film's mood is a sign of its greatness. The critic on EWS at least managed to bring to light a few details that could point to further investigation into the film--ideas about the film that other critics had clearly neglected in their first pass.

Press Release: DVD scheduled for May 9th. Will apparently only contain 135-minute re-edit

More lies from the producer? What a surprise. Her explanation for the re-cut was basically that the Academy version wasn't long enough to justify its "rhythm". She said that TM's preferred long version (3 hours or whatever) would appear on the DVD. Maybe that version will come out later.

Barmy wrote:More lies from the producer? What a surprise.

A bit reactionary aren't we? It's pretty common for a studio to stagger the releases of two different cuts of a movie to maximize profit.

I thought Malick was above such capitalistic concerns. If he wants his preferred version to get the widest DVD audience possible, he should put it on the initial DVD release.

By the way, it looks like the film will struggle to make $15 million US B.O.

Maick was not contractually obligated to recut the movie. He was under no unusual pressure to do so... it was made clear the studio would have preferred a shorter picture, but they didn't force him to do it. It was a "go along to get along" thing, and I don't think he has any problem with the shorter version. There will be a much longer version coming, though.

Barmy wrote:I thought Malick was above such capitalistic concerns.

Thus ever fade my fairy dreams of bliss.

Dream on, Malickites.

The shorter version your "maverick" was forced to produce was a BOMB.

And now he has "agreed" to that noisome practise of re-releasing a DVD with the "Director's Cut" some months after the initial DVD release.

My prediction is that his next film will be "Final Destination 4" (or maybe "5").

Adrien, are you back again?