Nowadays, period movies that look convincing aren’t hard to find. Given the vast amount of resources at the disposal of filmmakers nowadays, any period piece worth its salt will be chock full of authentic-seeming costumes, props, and sets, and what can’t be built in real life can often be re-created with computers.

What’s more difficult to find is a period piece that truly captures the spirit of its time. To make a film like this requires more than top-notch art direction and costume design. It requires an ability by the filmmaker to imagine the period from the inside out, and to portray it as though he’s living through it, rather than seeing it through hindsight. Robert Altman managed to pull off this feat with MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, as did Mike Leigh with TOPSY-TURVY. However, films like this are few and far between, and often the difference can be in the small touches- for example, compare the way TOPSY-TURVY had Sir Arthur Sullivan quietly marvel at a fountain pen with the heavy-handed treatment of the 80s in THE WEDDING SINGER (a film that admittedly had greater problems than an unconvincing portrayal of the Bad Hair Decade).

Simply put, THE NEW WORLD deserves to be ranked with the greatest period pieces of all time because one never gets the feeling that writer-director Terrence Malick views the action from a distance. What makes it an even more remarkable achievement is that the action took place four centuries ago, with an entire nation’s history separating us from that time, yet Malick places the audience so squarely in the world it’s as though the story is playing out for the first time. THE NEW WORLD feels entirely pre-industrial, not just in its hand-hewn props, sets, and costumes, but more importantly the story it tells.

The film’s basis in history is almost beside the point. Yes, Pocahontas and the Johns Smith and Rolfe were real people who played roles in the building of our nation. However, the people we see in THE NEW WORLD are not figures out of the history books but living, complicated people (consider that Pocahontas’ name is never mentioned aloud in the film). Each has a personality, complete with flaws and foibles, and each seems to be making his decisions for personal reasons rather than with an eye to how history will judge him. In short, the film doesn’t re-create history as much as it tells a story that just happens to be based on fact.

That the film is visually stunning is to be expected. After all, Malick has made some of the most visually impressive films of the last thirty years. But the film is hardly empty calories for the eye. All of the beauty on display here (kudos to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki) has a point. Both John Smith and Pocahontas are inquisitive people, and they see the world through curious eyes. We see Smith wandering alone in the woods, exploring, after reaching the New World even before his capture, and Pocahontas is often see looking up toward the sky rather than keeping her eyes on the here and now. As such, the world holds wonder for these people that it wouldn’t necessarily hold for the film’s more pragmatic characters- not only the practical John Rolfe but also Smith’s shipmates and fellow colonists, who upon landing inquire about the possibility of “poking about,” in other words pillaging and raiding.

In addition, the gorgeous imagery underlines the element of discovery that the film has for its protagonists. Smith, who calls England home, finds in America a sort of paradise, a land unformed, unspoiled. After his capture by the natives, he welcomes their lack of guile, and despite his being their prisoner they bear him almost no ill will, including him in their everyday activities and games. During the scenes the film’s soundtrack is soothing, dominated by natural sounds like the wind as well as calm human voices. Once he returns to the colonists, he is confronted almost immediately by insistent, ill-tempered voices, which in contrast to the serenity that has come before clangs against the eardrums.

For Pocahontas, this is also a story of discovery. Her journey begins with Smith’s capture, when she insists that her father, the chief, spare the prisoner’s life. From there, she discovers love befitting of her open and giving personality, which might be called “young love” if such a phrase didn’t seem quaint and childish. But like the loves of most of our younger years, this one doesn’t last, and the two are carried apart by their respective fates. Eventually, Smith bows out of her life, leaving behind a half-hearted excuse, and Pocahontas, perhaps for the first time, learns what it means to lose something she cares about.

But her journey of discovery is far from over. She later meets John Rolfe, and while he is not the ideal man as Smith was, he is kind and cares deeply for her, and proposes marriage. Eventually they have a son, and he takes her and the child to England, where she sees a modern city for the first time. All of the tall buildings, sharp angles, and carefully manicured gardens are as new to her as the New World was to Smith, and palace where she is received by King James is a far cry from the tent where her father held court.

There has long been a debate about Pocahontas’ role in history. Are her defenders correct in stating that she provided valuable help to a group of struggling settlers who went on to build this country? Or did she sell out her race and help to bring about its near-eradication, as her detractors claim? Malick wisely doesn’t address this argument, since the film aligns itself too closely with her as a person to see her as a point of contention. Ultimately, she was a girl who got caught up in a great and difficult situation and followed her heart, and while the results may have been disastrous for many this was hardly her intent.

One of the most divisive elements in Malick’s work is his use of voiceover. Some believe that the elaborateness of the language is far-fetched, with his characters voicing thoughts beyond their intelligence. However, I disagree- Malick deliberately contrasts the poetic voiceover with the more mercenary dialogue to underline the disconnect between the things we say to others and the thoughts we keep to ourselves. Just because none of the characters muses at length about love or death or spirituality doesn’t mean they’re incapable of expressing these thoughts, if only in their minds. Malick’s characters are poetic souls, despite the faces they present to the world.

In a film like this, the characters are simultaneously specific and archetypal, so casting is important. Malick wisely uses actors who embody their roles, rather than casting people who might be able to act them if they put forth the required effort. Here, they’re so well-suited to the characters that they disappear into them. I’ve never cared much for Colin Farrell in his previous work, but it’s undeniable he’s the right Smith for this film- unkempt, roguish, but with a kind of boyishness that makes him open to this new experience. In contrast, Christian Bale is ideally cast as Rolfe, whose reserved and courtly nature dovetails nicely with Bale’s. In supporting roles, Christopher Plummer, David Thewlis, August Schellenberg, Wes Studi and others all contribute memorably to the film without calling attention to themselves.

However, the real star of the film is newcomer Q’Orianka Kilcher. Kilcher, whose only previous credited role was as a Singing Who in THE GRINCH, is transcendent in this film. Her performance is so natural, so lacking in self-consciousness, that it’s impossible for me to say whether she is a blazing talented actress or just magnificently suited to the part (I’d have to guess that it’s a whole lot of both). In a way, I’m torn- while I’d be curious to see her tackle other juicy roles, I fear that the rest of her career might be anticlimactic, and perhaps, like Falconetti, she might be better served by going out on top.

When THE NEW WORLD was first released in limited engagements in December 2005, the film was 150 minutes long. The version that was released to screens across the country in January had been cut down by Malick to 135 minutes. I’ve only seen the shorter version, so I can’t attest to the differences between the two, nor can I discuss each version’s strengths and weaknesses. All I can say is that the version I saw, the version that is now out on DVD, is a towering masterpiece. Not only is it easily the best film or 2005, but it’s one of the greatest movies ever made. And if Malick takes another decade or so to make his next film, THE NEW WORLD will more than satisfy me until then.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD