Writer-director
Terrence Malick’s Pocahontas tale bears his trademarks-spare dialogue,
Oscar-nominated cinematography, and annoying, mumbly narration--but still
wields power in its story of 17th-century culture clash.
Terrence Malick is the only
director most famous for inactivity. His last movie came after a 20-year
layoff, so a seven-year wait for his Pocahontas tale isn’t bad. That 1998 effort,
The Thin Red Line, was either a brilliant, moving war epic or a
three-hour bore-fest with characters who are “instantly forgettable” as I
recall one review saying. No one will mistake this either for a Quentin
Tarantino film or a David Mamet script. It bears Malick’s trademarks:
Oscar-nominated cinematography, spare dialogue, and annoyingly mumbly
narration. So it’s still not for everyone, but, at a pared-down 2:15, seems
less self-indulgent. I don’t know if Q’Orianka Kilcher, who’d barely acted before
and turned 15 during filming, is a great actress, but she has a memorable face
and convincingly appears older when necessary. For a lot of the movie, that’s
all that’s necessary. The film begins from the viewpoint of John Smith (Colin
Farrell), who helped found the Jamestown, Virginia, colony for Great Britain in
1607. At some point it shifts to that John Rolfe (Christian Bale), if you
remember your American history. Partly the film is about the conflict between
the colonists and the people who they call either “naturals” or “savages.”
Partly it’s a love story that wields some power. Finally, the film is the story
of a woman borne an Indian princess (and not called Pocahontas in the movie)
who, bridging the gap between cultures, becomes a model of American
self-transformation before there was such a concept.
posted 9/15/13
No comments:
Post a Comment