criterionforum.org

Posted: **Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:25 pm**

Jun-Dai wrote:With TRL, I had heard rumors that the theatrical version was a compromise and that Malick had considered the film finished in his 5 or 6 hour-cut. I have no idea if this is true, but if it is, it would certainly explain the fairly jumbled character set (I had difficulty telling the characters apart the first time I saw the film), and I'd be very curious to see what a longer version would have to offer.

Not to mention several actors getting cut out (like Mickey Rourke and Bill Pullman) and some actors having their roles drastically cut down (like Adrien Brody who basically does little but cower in fear in the existing cut but had a much more substantial role). I would love to see a longer version some day. Hey, maybe a future Criterion release?

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:26 pm**

It is possible -- I know this is hard to believe -- that Malick would like to recut the movie based on the initial reaction. It is possible he agrees, now with a bit of distance from the post process, with the opinion it is too long and too slack.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:40 pm**

Not to mention several actors getting cut out (like Mickey Rourke and Bill Pullman) and some actors having their roles drastically cut down (like Adrien Brody who basically does little but cower in fear in the existing cut but had a much more substantial role). I would love to see a longer version some day. Hey, maybe a future Criterion release? :wink:

A bit like pulling Maggie Cheung (mostly) out of 2046, of which she was supposed to be one of the stars, no?

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:58 pm**

TedW wrote:It is possible -- I know this is hard to believe --

You and your wacky, abstract "possibilities"!

Jun-Dai wrote:A bit like pulling Maggie Cheung (mostly) out of 2046, of which she was supposed to be one of the stars, no?

I always thought this was just because Wong couldn't manage to get Cheung in for more than a couple of days of rolling around on a bed. I'm probably wrong about that though.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:00 pm**

People seem to have forgotten that TRL was greeted with rapturous reviews:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1084146-thin_red_line/

Had TNW gotten the same reaction, it would not be cut. It suits New Line's, as well as Malick's, purposes to make the public (and the Academy) believe that Malick wanted to do this all along.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:22 pm**

It suits New Line's, as well as Malick's, purposes to make the public (and the Academy) believe that Malick wanted to do this all along.

This statement could not be truer, but that does not mean that Malick didn't want to do it all along; it just means that we'll never know for sure unless we somehow find out that he prefers the longer version.

Of course, whatever opinion he has five years from now were he to decide to do a director's cut is not necessarily the same as the opinion he's working off of currently, but if the film is at all interesting, I certainly wouldn't mind having a couple of versions to compare.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:08 pm**

Hang on a second. What is all this nonsense about The New World getting bad reviews?

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/newworld

As far as I can see, they're pretty respectable, especially for a filmmaker as naturally divisive as Malick.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:38 pm**

Metacritic's too new to have TRL from the theatrical release, but from rottentomatoes.com:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1084146-thin_red_line/ TTRL - 79%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/new_world/ TNW - 53%

That's a pretty significant drop with several big hitters casting their votes against, enough to cause concern with the studio, I'd think. I wonder if films like Malick's are more or less affected by critical response than more mainstream films.

Of course, once the critics have already spoken, it's a little late for more editing. I wonder if they are mostly writing about the longer cut or the new shorter cut (I'm too lazy to check).

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:14 pm**

They are writing about the longer cut of TNW. Not only does TRL have a MUCH higher tomato rating, but the blurbs themselves have a much higher ecstasy factor. No one is saying TNW is "the best Pocahontas movie ever made!!!"

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:24 pm**

It's ridiculous to judge critical reaction to a serious movie like TNW from a site like Rotten Tomatoes. They count anyone on the Internet with an opinion, and the majority of these so-called critics are morons for whom movies began with Lucas and/or Tarantino. Horrible though it is to assign a number to any movie, at least Metacritic's system only counts the "serious" critics.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm**

Metacritic sucks. The Salon review got a "50", even though they said:

This is like a Tony Scott movie on quaaludes: Words and pictures are matched up in counterintuitive ways, and although the cutting is much slower than in Scott's hyperactive showboating, it makes just about as much sense. The movie's leisureliness is aggressive; the picture is artfully designed to make you feel that if you're bored, it's your own damn fault.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:50 pm**

Barmy wrote:No one is saying TNW is "the best Pocahontas movie ever made!!!"

They ought to be. Regardless of one's opinion of this version, the only serious competition comes from the Disney film.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:11 am**

I went to today's screening of TNW at Walter Reade with producer Sarah Green and production designer Jack Fisk in attendance.

The event started with a fairly useless 20 minute "documentary".

Then Sarah and Jack came on. The most interesting thing said was Sarah's remark that Terry was inspired to shorten the initially released version when he was working on the 3-hour dvd version. He felt somehow that the 2-1/2 hour version didn't work as a "slack" (to use the pejorative) film, so the new 2-1/4 hour version was created. We will probably never see the 2-1/2 hour version again.

The cynic in me says: bullshit.

Anyway, I might buy the DVD now, so I guess that aspect of their marketing ploy worked on me. However, my respect for Malick as someone who does not play by the rules is gone.

On this, my third viewing of the 2-1/2 hour version, I see very little, if any, "slack", IF you keep in mind what I believe Malick was trying to "say".

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:17 am**

Why bother cutting a film by fifteen minutes? If the reason they cut it is due to the demands of the studio and not the director to fit more sessions in per day to boost revenue, then I doubt that cutting the film by only 15 minutes will add more sessions and boost the coffers. It would need to be cut by more than 30 minutes to do this so maybe what Sarah said was true and it was a decision by the director himself.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:16 am**

TedW wrote:It is possible -- I know this is hard to believe -- that Malick would like to recut the movie based on the initial reaction. It is possible he agrees, now with a bit of distance from the post process, with the opinion it is too long and too slack.

Lynch did it with Eraserhead. Cut more than 20 minutes, if memory serves correct.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:56 am**

How sad that people WANT to believe New Line's hype.

Much of TM's rep is premised on his being a maverick, exempt from the studio machine.

However, it is impossible to conclude otherwise than that the cutting was due to either (1) TM being FORCED to release TNW in December before it was ready or (2) TM being FORCED to cut the film after most critics concluded it was "crap".

Also, I am sick of directors claiming that the "real" version will appear on dvd. Shit or get off the pot. The fact that a 3 hour dvd version awaits us does not enhance my respect for TM, at all. Antonioni, among many others, would never play this silly game.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:04 am**

However, it is impossible to conclude otherwise. . .

Well, the fact that most of the people in this thread have either concluded otherwise or have decided that they cannot draw any conclusions yet from the scant evidence would prove this point wrong.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:04 am**

Barmy wrote:(2) TM being FORCED to cut the film after most critics concluded it was "crap".

The New World has been ranked in many Top 10 lists of 2005 and has been universally acclaimed by many film critics apart from Variety which is not a surprise.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:48 am**

Can someone give a better explanation as to why a version that the producer herself has stated "will never be seen again" was ever released in theaters? Oh, and coincidentally in December for a fruitless one-week "Oscar-qualifying" (lol) run. And you still argue TM doesn't care about such things (or was not forced into the December release)?

Please.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:56 am**

They obviously rushed the release to qualify for the Oscars and other awards knowing that the film needs the critical acclaim as well as the recognition from the Oscars to do any decent business.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:08 pm**

and has been universally acclaimed by many film critics

What does this mean? That the amongst the many film critics that acclaimed it, it was universally acclaimed? That's a tautology if ever I saw one.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:24 pm**

Universally? I heard the Uranian critics largely panned the flick.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:30 pm**

Jun-Dai wrote:
Not to mention several actors getting cut out (like Mickey Rourke and Bill Pullman) and some actors having their roles drastically cut down (like Adrien Brody who basically does little but cower in fear in the existing cut but had a much more substantial role). I would love to see a longer version some day. Hey, maybe a future Criterion release?
A bit like pulling Maggie Cheung (mostly) out of 2046, of which she was supposed to be one of the stars, no?

I found out a bit more about the various cuts of Thin Red Line:

In the AICN Talk Back under the story (also posted here) about the
three different cuts of TNW, someone posted this about the exact
gestation of the cut of TTRL that was shown in theatres. Does anyone
here know anything more about this story (Caviezel instead of Brody),
or if there's any reason to hope that another cut of TTRL may surface
on DVD?

"The long cut of Thin Red Line
by Flansy January 4th, 2006
02:07:42 PM CST
There was a piece about this in Entertainment Weekly during the January1999 Oscar hooplah. Apparently, the full unedited version of TRL runs close to 6.5 hours. Never intended to be released as-such, the original edited-down 3hour cut was a radically different film than what was eventually released, featuring Adrian Brody's character more than any other (who had top billing on some teaser posters at the time.) A week before the NYC premiere (a few days before Xmas), Malick realized that the Jim Caviezel story was the better "more human" story, and recut the film into what we now know. Apparently Adrien Brody was never informed before the premiere that his character was reduced to a 2-line cameo and had to sit there confused with his whole family who'd turned out for what would allegedly be his starmaking oscar lead-role. I do hope the full TRL cut surfices someday, or at least the "Brody version" as a 2nd disc in an inevitable Criterion set or something"

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:26 pm**

Another possible measure of TNW's critical "success"--it is #16 in the Movie City News "Top 10" compilation:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/200 ... chart.html

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:25 pm**

Well I, for one, would not consider the 16th best Hollywood film of a given (recent) year to be much of a recommendation.

criterionforum.org

826 The New World