The film critics of Christianity Today Movies have voted.
And these are the Cream of the Crop … the Top 10 Films of 2006.
Quite a few critics contributed here, and we all had strikingly different opinions, so it’s interesting to see how it all worked out. And hey, look what’s at #3! The New World!
Oh, and I should also note that a couple of weeks ago, CT posted the list of the Most Redeeming Films. And look… The New World made it to #2!
Okay then! I don’t feel so lonely anymore!
(Great to see titles like Sophie Scholl and The Second Chance getting more screen time too!)
For those of us – the vast majority – who wished to watch a “traditional narrative”, the New World was a tedious venture.
That much is clear.
But then, my moviegoing interests have changed considerably over the years, like my dining interests, and I don’t spend much time eating where “the vast majority” eats anymore.
I don’t mean that in any way to sound “elitist” … just to testify that I’m on my own individual journey through film.
Part of that is because I’m less and less interested in things that are familiar. I’m more and more interested in artists who are out in uncharted territory, discovering not only new stories, but new ways to tell them, and new forms to cast them in. (And in saying that, I am in no way denying the power of traditional storytelling.) But we remember the pioneers, and Malick is pioneering territory that has other filmmakers speaking of him with awe and reverence.
And plus, Malick’s film is quite a technical marvel in many ways. Alfonso Cuaron, who worked with cinematographer Emanuel Lubezki on “Children of Men” after Lubezki filmed “The New World,” told me that Lubezki did not use one single electric light in the whole of Malick’s film. Everything is lit with natural light. That’s amazing.
And that’s just one of myriad details that makes it such an enthralling experience for me.
My own movie tastes have changed considerably over time. Once you watch a few hundred films a year (thank you Netflix!), you get bored with the formulaic, pattered Hollywood junk. Over time, I’ve found myself going to more and more art house, winter, Oscar films and less traditional blockbuster Summer flicks. There will always be a place for the popcorn, Summer movie, but most of them are just poorly made. Or worse – predictable.
Film is still a reletively young art form and I appreciate the innovators, like Mallick, who are trying to find new ways to say the same thing.
However, the true innovation comes when a genius combines the avante-garde with the traditional to form something the masses can get their mind around. And Mallick has failed here. Oftentimes, great filmmakers seem to fall into two camps:
1. Those that understand the visual nature of film
2. Those that understand narrative storytelling.
Mallick obviously falls into the former. My interest in Mallick ends at his cinematography.
One more quick point: Who cares if it’s natural or electric light?
There were two magicians: one used real magic and the other used trickery. But ultimately, their magic shows were identical. Do you get where I’m going with this?
It doesn’t matter how you got what you got. All the audience sees is the final product.
I know this is an old post, so perhaps this rebuttal will go unheard. However, in response the comment about electric light vs. natural light, one only has to watch a behind the scenes clip on lighting to understand how dependent most DPs are on artficial lighting and how courageous it is for one to light even a single scene entirely with natural light, let alone an entire feature.
So I must correct you (and I’m trying to be respectful, an attitude which is difficult to convey on blogs) on your attitude towards Lubezki’s technical achievement on that film. To light naturally is a challenge…to light naturally and create something of beauty is a miracle.