Saturday, January 28, 2006

Terrence Malick's The New World

photo: Lake Nipissing summer 2005

Five hundred years on and still it brings me to the verge of tears when I imagine or I am shown a depiction of what we've lost, of what our ancestors crushed. There are those that would find it trite, overly sentimental, pining for a lost paradise that never was a paradise, they would scoff, ridicule, mock, taunt but what should that matter to me? Why should it be of my concern, their reaction to these same images, these same facts and this same legacy and their reaction to my own? Why, if they cannot comprehend my sorrow, or think it ill advised, repulsive, not pragmatic or just generally contradictory to their own sense of the "way the world works", should I attempt to retreat, retract, rephrase or rethink what I feel to be true and right? I have "rethought" much, and in the end there is nothing I can change, nothing I should change, of how I react to these things, how the shortsightedness of our ancestors' actions have lead to so little, are leading us to a dead-end. In short, why should the emotional reaction and response to these facts by others that do not share my wish that things could have been different become somehow my responsibility to explain or challenge or acknowledge? It is a way in which we can get derailed from thinking along the good path. They should look at themselves and question their own reactions and not demand that I do so. They do not know me. They do not know how I arrived at my own conclusions and way of seeing. I believe in many cases the antagonists of the world know that this works, that attacking those who do not agree with harsh words will often cause them to react and defend and be on the defensive and spend energy simply on reiterating opinions to those who do not listen and do not care when that same energy could be used elsewhere to better ends.

History teaches us nothing not because it cannot but because, for the moment, we have little more than the word history, as well as a misunderstanding of how to study it and to what ends. We also lack the ability to comprehend how it is still with us. We are and have been repeating what was left behind in Europe; we are becoming what our ancestors, in part, believed they were fleeing. We are mutilating even the very sins of our fathers and mothers. And we are doing it at a time in the phase of human techno-cultural means that will see us enslaved in ways that could render us incapable of survival without them. Today, if I did not have at least the change in my pocket, with the skills I possess I would be dead in less than a month.

I walked home on the same earth depicted in the film, with those same horrifying trees lined out in rows as they were in horrific England. I walked across places where forests had stood for millennia, where hunters hunted and people worshipped and made love and fought and died and wondered at their existence. Now there is a grid of streets bearing the names of saints and politicians and long dead public figures whose stories no longer mean anything to us and perhaps should not. There is no New World, only a corpse dressed up in European garb.

The editing was a dance and a dream, obeying no rules of classic continuity. I watched thin strong leaves augment the light of the sun and pages turned with the wind of a breath. Some will no doubt find it hard to endure, as did the giggling girls a few seats over from mine, but I believe this form was conducive to the theme, the collision of one way of seeing with another and the tantalizing disorientation that can ensue. It also works to keep it ethereal, somewhat impossible to possess, to own, to claim to know. It is about loss after all, an immense loss that we cannot truly comprehend and shrink from attempting. It was less about the facts (though they were there) than it was about the human reaction to the world and an homage to this moment when the opportunity to come to know and be in the world was there before Western man. A moment that was so quickly lost and may never be repeated. I want to see it again and again, and at least once more on the big screen, for there are still questions, not questions of plot or story but rather questions of meaning, of how to take in the work as a whole and how it should inform and alter one's life. There is no one making films like this man anymore.



PS: sorry Blog Monkey, I just decided on the spur of the moment on the way home from work to go see it, but I'll see it again with you, honest I will!

3 Comments:

Blogger Sinkchicken said...

Yes, it's sad that the experience of seeing a film in a theatre with other fellow beings is now so trying. Honest to god, the cellphone of one of the tittering girls I mentioned went off almost at the end, when the full weight of what we'd lost was being made so palpable. I came so close to just standing up and screaming at them, no words, just the best angry vocalization I could muster and sustain! Even the old man and woman beside me, obviously retired professionals, munched on popcorn and slurped up pop (and kept passing a straw back and forth bizarrely) for what seemd the first 40 minutes. They also enjoyed discussing things out loud and some of the most tranquil moments. I'm hoping that film experiences such as these might still have a mild effect on those that claim to find them boring. At the very least it might make them realise that there are other kinds of voices out there. Maybe. Maybe not.

Thanks for reading the 'review' and commenting.

3:25 p.m.  
Blogger Blog Monkey said...

you fucker.

i'll check it out wit' cha.

but, judging from your commentary, and my demeanor, i may cry like a spurned child.

alas, we have been banished from the wilderness on our own accord.

3:08 p.m.  
Blogger Sinkchicken said...

Just reread my post: not sure how clear that first part was.

What I was basically trying to say is that there is something interesting in the dynamic of the belittling form of argumentation that comes from the mouths of the Ann Coulters/Bill O'Reillys and Rush Limboobs of this world. Their attacks are based on very little of substance and instead derive their force of presence through being vehement, unidirectional and thick. One is seemingly obliged to explain and defend one's beliefs even though the attack may be deliberately meant to throw one off balance by coming on too strong, too intensive and seemingly from an insane place. That is, one may have well intentioned, well thought out reasons for one's beliefs but this type of attack does not operate on any kind of intelligent or civil level. If one begins to defend oneself, one simply sinks to their level, giving their so-called "point of view" merit. It came to me that to do so is to allow them to flourish rather than blather on and fall into obscurity. If one responds, one is obliged to use a specific set of defenses that move the debate away from the facts, from any reasonable argumentation and into a kind of school yard "bully versus bullied" dynamic.

If this isn't all astrategic, planned way of defeating their oppoenents (or at least making them look bad for the soundbyte moment that they are TV) and if they truly think that they have a point and speak intelligently, then, well, they are wrong and stupid but it is not my job to point that out to them, or those like them (for I have never yet been questioned directly by any of these losers) and that to just turn away from these types and let them stew is the best thing to do. Why let them sap your energy into channels that are ultimately meaningless. K, was that just as muddled?

4:39 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home