pothos.org

This Is relative to Alexander.

I was aware that the Colin Farrel movie. The NEw World was basically straight to video. I thought I would ignore the critics and take a look. Fair to say the movie was the most borring tosh ive ever seen. And Colin Farrel looks totally vacant and out of his head.

I just wonder how much the Disapointment with the Alexander movie must have screwed his head up. Alexander should have been the blockbuster to launch Farrel as a leading man. But we know it didnt. Has anyone else seen the New World and can anyone relate to how Farrel seems in the movie. He looks out of his head.

regards

Kenny

Greetings Kenny,
I took my son out to see that wretched little flic on its opening day. Like the Alexander screw up, it was boring, anachronistic in its combination of events, and little more than a childish bore. Colin indeed looked out of his head, he just wasn't there. The John Smith character has fascinated me for years. So much so, that I actually began writing the epic of Jamestown before I started with the Alexaner epic. After ripping off 20 couplets or so, I decided to do Alexander first, and tackle Jamestown afterwards. Hollywood obviously reads these threads and I'm quite certain that both the Alexander movie and the Jamestown movie were ideas born from my enthusiastic posts concerning both subjects.

Nevertheless, I'm still planning on doing Jamestown, and even went there two summers ago to do some research. Smith, in many ways, personified what it means to be an American. His hard working gritty get it done ethic has had a lasting effect on us even to this day. He in many ways, like Alexander, changed the world. If it weren't for him, the Indians would have pushed the English into the Atlantic and potentially delayed the settling of North America for decades or even centuries.

I am not particularly fond of love stories so when heard of a film about the love found and lost of Pocahontas and Smith I was kind of skeptic. I went to a preview of the film in a film festival when I was having time off from college, so I really didnGÇÖt have any review as reference, but I didnGÇÖt feel disappointed at all when left.

I think The New World is a beautiful film, and it actually got very good reviews from the critics (at least in my country), tough it was obviously not a film for everyoneGÇÖs taste.
Regarding technical aspects, the film features an exquisite photography, score, sound and settings as well as strong supporting cast (especially Christian Bale).

The main problem is that, like in films such as Aguirre, The Wrath of God, the director manages unconventional narrative perspectives. Many have claimed that the problem actually is that there isnGÇÖt narration at all and the film mostly left the feeling that it is a succession of panoramic photographs and the cameras just make us travel through them where we discover glimpses of the story rather than develop a plot. That may be only partially true and, in my opinion, thereGÇÖs nothing necessarily wrong with that.
As I said, the director is working with different criteria of rhythm and conception of action if we compare it with more commercial films. When Saving Private Ryan was released very close with The Thing Red Line, (other film of Terrence Malick, The New WorldGÇÖs director) the former seem a more dynamic, entertaining, and action orientated in comparison with the slower motion and meditative nature of the later, which resulted in the fact that The Thin Red Line was just -¿other-¿ world war film at the time.
I believe the annoyance comes as the two films require a very different approach from the viewer. Saving Private Ryan was engaging for its intense depiction of war action while The Thin Red Line and, especially, The New World aim to a more contemplative and patient approach.

So in the end, if you are looking for an action or thrilling orientated plot you definitely should skip this kind of film. Now, if you are willing to take the time and will to get immersed in this beautiful world where nature takes the leading role, and give a chance to Malick-¦ s artistry the experience will be worthy. Of course, the film has its dense moments, it usually holds a kind of na+»ve vision of the clash of cultures and some of the ever present off voicing gets very candid. Also, if we consider historical accuracy it is obvious that Malick -¦s production is based on folklore and the historical frame and characters have a more allegorical and symbolic function and are made to be believable rather than truthful. Still I think the films merits are over it demerits.

Finally, though I still donGÇÖt see Colin Farrel as this generationGÇÖs Al Pacino, I donGÇÖt think he was out of his head; maybe itGÇÖs got more to do with the disenchanted view of Smith that the film portrays and the scriptGÇÖs conception of the character rather than the actorGÇÖs performance by itself. I really doubt Alexander-¦ s let down was any influence in his work either since by the time The New World was shot StoneGÇÖs epic was still on postproduction. I donGÇÖt know if Alexander has hurt ColinGÇÖs career that much (and I know that similar speculation has been made regarding Orlando BloomGÇÖs post Kingdom of Heaven) I hope not, since I think some critics were unfairly hard focusing only in superfluous aspects (like is hair cut) and Stone himself has admit that if Alexander seem kind of too emotional it was his decision to make it so and guided the actor in that way. I guess time will tell.

You hit it on the head Nicator. With the reports od adictions etc with Farrel it was evident that he was totally blotto. He looked like a guy totally out of his head. Call the film panoramic or poetic. But it was way too borring. And no matter how much poetic excuses are brought up it was a mess. I recall Daniel Day Lewis and The Last of The MOhicans.Both Panoramic charming and engrosing.

I asked if my wife thought Farrel looked odd and as you say he just wasnt there. The Lights were on but there was no one at home. I always thought Farrel a bit of a rebel with the Women Drugs and Drink but its quite apparent he cant really take the Pace like the old so called REbels. Richard Burton. Lee Marvin and Peter Otoole to name but a few. If Farrel dont sort himself out I can see in his eyes hes gonna burn himself out.

With relation to addictions maybe we can identify that a person with an addiction does become found out and it does effect the wauy they operate. Is whyI always maintain the argument against Alexander been an Alcoholic if he were hed have hardly Achieved anything without becoming unwinded Let alone gone to the ends of the Earth.

Kenny

Wow, I have not been here in awhile. I hope you all are well. I like the new digs!

Just a few comments on The New World. Like val, I saw the film in the theatre and I thought it was a beautiful piece of work with a stellar cast and first rate acting. But, like Alexander was this film is not for everyone (as we all have seen). It's an aquired taste.

It's a Terrance Malik film and most of his films are like this. His films are very big on cinematography and stunning images. Even a film like The Thin Red Line, as it displays the horrors of war it also has some very detailed camera work, with vivid images. Take a look at a few of his films some time. He doesn't make many of them (I think he has made all of 5 films), but nearly all of them are critically aclaimed. He does one film every 5 to 10 years. But, thats just his style. I guess the actors adapted to that. I think Colin wasn't so much out of his league as that is the type of acting that the film required. I thought he was fine. Contrast that to a Michael Mann directed film like Miami Vice and you will see the difference. Mann also directed Last of the Mohicans.

As far as Farrell goes, I don't think Alexander will make a huge dent to his film resume. He did check himself into rehab and is doing better from what I have read (I don't follow every detail about him). At least he is sober now, from all reports. He has Miami Vice coming out this summer, which certainly couldn't hurt him much. It has many of the elements that the younger demographic likes (I am not in the younger demographic, but I liked the 80's series. I love Michael Mann, too). He also has another cop film called Pride and Glory coming out next year and a Woody Allen film out in '07, as well (imdb.com has all this information). So, I don't think his career is hurting right now. He seems to be getting various roles. I thought he did well in Alexander and I loved the film, so there is not much of a rebound factor for me. But, you have to admit the guy takes on varied roles and that shows a bit of versatility that will continue to serve him well in the future.

Dara

birdlover wrote: I think Colin wasn't so much out of his league as that is the type of acting that the film required. I thought he was fine. Contrast that to a Michael Mann directed film like Miami Vice and you will see the difference. Mann also directed Last of the Mohicans.

Didn't Michael Mann also create the TV Miami Vice? So he's directed the film spin-off of his own TV show ... cool!

I saw a preview for MV the other day - doesn't really appeal to me, but Farrell looked as if he was doing a good job. I thought he was excellent in Phone Booth (which, again, I only saw a week or so ago); and, for all that it was a popcorn movie, he was good in SWAT, too.

At the end of the day, one "dud" movie doesn't rebound on the actor(s) - and I don't think Alexander was a dud, anyway. He's an actor, he does his job and gets paid for it. I would bet good money that Farrell has/had no emotional connection with Alexander at all, and "moved on" as soon as his last scene was in the can.

A few years ago I worked for a company that made corporate training videos. We used pretty 'big' British comedy stars in our movies; and people were always saying to us "ooh, would so-and-so come and speak to our delegates about interviewing techinques". We always had to say, as politely as possible, that so-and-so didn't have the slightest interest in interviewing techniques, and possibly didn't know anything about them - she'd turned up for 3 days, learned her lines, shot the video, then gone back to her family. I don't see that Hollywood actors should, or would, be any different.

Cheers

Hi Marcus,

Nice to see you again! I enjoyed reading your comments.

I remember reading comments that Farrell made after Alexander came out and he really did take it quite hard when the film did not do well. He put a lot into that film and it was a film that meant a lot to him. I remember him saying that his son was born around the time he started making the film and that had an impact on his performance. He also took less money to do it, just to work with Oliver Stone.

I read an acount of someone who met him while on the set of Miami Vice and by this persons account he still feels the same way about the film. So, I think it is a film that is still near and dear to him and not one that he just moved on from. At least that is the impression I got in my reading about the film and his reaction to it.

Mann did do Miami Vice. I love his style of filmaking. Collateral was a terrific film. I think this one will probably appeal to a mass audience more than Alexander or The New World. But, you never know these days, so I guess we have to wait and see.

Dara

birdlover wrote: I remember reading comments that Farrell made after Alexander came out and he really did take it quite hard when the film did not do well. He put a lot into that film and it was a film that meant a lot to him. I remember him saying that his son was born around the time he started making the film and that had an impact on his performance. He also took less money to do it, just to work with Oliver Stone.

I read an acount of someone who met him while on the set of Miami Vice and by this persons account he still feels the same way about the film. So, I think it is a film that is still near and dear to him and not one that he just moved on from. At least that is the impression I got in my reading about the film and his reaction to it.

Hi Dara,

I don't doubt all of this. I do, however, think it unlikely that he's allowed it to affect his performance in other films - to be honest, if he has, then he shouldn't be in the movie industry!

Anyway, I have to be careful, because I don't want it to sound as if I'm one of the "anti" crowd - I liked Alexander (Director's Cut was better than theatrical release, though), even with it's flaws; and if Farrell didn't play Alexander quite according to my own ideas about Alexander ... well, they never asked me what my ideas on A were. Even if they had, I'm sure my ideas are different from the next man's.

All the best,

Terrance Malik makes beautiful films. "The Thin Red line" is one of my favourites. I want to see "The New World", but haven't gotten around to it. I am embarrassed at my fellow Americans and their desire for the rootin' tootin' epic that requires little thought.

Colin Farrell was jarring at first as Alexander. Don't we all have our own image of what he looked and acted like? But then I remembered reading that ATG did talk fast, walk fast. I must confess that a part of my earlier image had a little Richard Burton thrown in. I saw that film when I was young.

I hope that in the future Stone's "Alexander" will be more appreciated. A flawed film, but not the absolute turkey many like to call it. I remember reading a critic lambasting it for cheesy dialogue, which might be the case, but his "example" was the line about Alexander never being conquered, except by Hephaistion's thighs. The critic thought that Stone had written that himself. SIgh... I like theatre, go to a lot of Shakespeare plays, so the dialogue never seemed cheesy to me.

I do know that my very uncurious son was caught up in it. He still asks me questions about the historical Alexander and occassionally asks to borrow one of the dvds to watch with friends. So I am pleased that it has awakened a curiosity about the past in him. A friend of his has even started borrowing my history texts from college, though his interest lays more in medieval Europe.

The movie left enough unanswered questions for my son. He had read about ATG in school, but he had NO idea about what happened after ATG defeated the Persian Empire. He thought that ATG had pretty much died right after that anf then the Roman Empire took over.. This film opened a whole new history to him. With the wars going on over there right now, I can explain that where we are, ATG was there first. It has given him a context he never had before. We have spent time together going over maps comparing the modern countries with the ancient world.

It is, for it's faults, one of my favourite films.

I think Colin Farrell will be fine. He does big films, but he also does little ones. In the same year "Alexander" was released, so was "Intermission", an indie Irish film where he plays a crazy thug and "A Home at the End of the World" where he played the utter complete opposite. Both very well.

Hi Marcus,

I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't say that the failure of Alexander affected his other performances. I was trying to say in response to what you wrote, is that from what I read, Alexander was not just one of those films that he put in his time for, collected a paycheck and then just "moved on", as soon as the director said "it's a wrap" (or whatever they say). He did feel an emotional attachment to this film. I know he has moved on from the film and has gone onto other things, but it sounds like the whole thing was memorable for him.

I am sure he feels that each film is a new experience for him and he doesn't drag the success or failure of one film into the making of another. I highly doubt it. Otherwise, you are correct, why be in the film business. I am sure he would have been gone a long time ago. I think Oliver Stone could say the same, as well.

Here is part of the article I was referring it. I saved it from a now defunct board I used to post on. It shows his feelings toward the film and Oliver Stone. This was written around the time that Alexander came out:

"I don't usually read them," he says of reviews, "but I read them this time because I love the film so much and I have so much invested in it emotionally -- and I'm worried more for Oliver than for me because he's highly sensitive, as tough as he is.

"(Yet) this is an important thing in my life," a disappointed Farrell says, peppering the conversation with the f-word in a variety of situations, some angry, some bemused, some just because he needs a shot of spice, like pepper on a plate of pasta.

"A lot of my life has gone into it," Farrell says of filming Alexander in England, Morocco and Thailand.

"My son (14-month-old James, whose mother is Farrell's now ex-girlfriend, model Kim Bordenave) was born during it, and a lot of my son is there in my performance, whatever my performance is. So it certainly affects me. I can't abstract myself from it at all. I can't be subjective. Having said that, I do think a lot of it is personal, with respect to Oliver."

While some critics offered "intelligent" if negative reviews, others just trashed Stone, Farrell says. "He's a f---ing easy target and they love to have a go at him because he's extreme and he takes gambles. In a world that celebrates sameness, he is an (expletive) original and I think that is undervalued.

"Look, I'm fine with a bad review. God knows I've gotten plenty in my time and I've got plenty left in me. I'm fine. This is par for the course. But I just wish they (some critics) didn't go in with respect to Oliver's work with daggers in their pockets.

"I say that with very little bitterness. I just wish they would take time ... (he frowns) ... there is an element of witchhunt to it."

Farrell's choice of metaphor, like his profane language, is colourful, real, provocative. And he provides his own translation. "It's the journey that's the destination!"


The Making Of Alexander book By Robin Lane Fox also gives some more insight into what went into the making of the film and the actors feelings about it. It's a good read, but if you were not a fan of the film, it might not be something you would be interested it.

Hi athenas owl I liked reading you post and I agree with what you said. I pretty much feel the same way you do. I like what you said about your son. Even if it is flawed, it's nice that you could use some of the film as a springboard to show him links between the ancient world and the modern world. Thats great! (thats the teacher in me talking).

Dara

Thank you birdlover. Is the defunct site you are talking about "Epic-films" or something like that? I came across it and there were some interesing articles on the thinking that went into the film, changes, etc.

Yes, I love using film, and any popular medium to get to my kids and pique their interest. Try as I might, though their father and I are avid readers, books do not engage them. Even "King Arthur"....now THAT is my field of study. It worked out very well....now the boy knows a bit more about that period as well. That was an interesting film, I enjoyed it, but the historian in me was picking out the strange details (as I am sure the folks here were with "Alexander" . Though, overall, it was closer to reality than a medieval romance, there were a few jarring moments. But I am easy to please...they are only movies after all. I have a bigger gripe with the History Channel type shows when some whooper gets told as "truth". The family is used to me yelling at the television.

In "Alexander" there was one glaring thing...well not really glaring, kind of pleasant but completely out of it's time: the Sumerian goat in the tree statue from Ur that was in Olympias' room. It did seem to fit, but when my husband asked why I had a bemused smirk on my face, I had to go into this long explaination about that statue and why it was about 3000 years older than the era it was placed in. But even here, explaining this to the kid, he found out just how old civilisation is in that region. That statue in reality was far more distant from Olympias and Alexander than they to us. As you all well know.

Yes, the site was Epic Film Talk. Unfortunately it is a thing of the past. I was one of the moderators there and I moderated the Alexander forum. We had a great close knit group that did a lot of talking about the film and a lot of other ATG related topics (I just moderated, I let the experts do the posting, when it came to history and knowledge of ATG). We had Jeanne Zimmerman who posted with us for quite awhile. She is a great fountain of knowledge.

I enjoy your insights too, as well as the many here who are very knowledgable. I learn so much just by reading what everyone has to offer. I get a great and rich picture of history and who ATG was.

Dara

Why, Kenny, I have enjoyed all the responses to this question, and wonder at why it is that a film on Alexander would have any lasting effect on Colin's career. I heard some shoddy gossip about how he obtained the part but will refrain from repeating it. I tjust made sense to me and I believe it. I suspect that kind of rumor would affect any film project that Colin makes.

Colin is a big boy as they say, and I am sure that he knows how to get roles. He just does not know how to say no to a few that may not be fit or right for him is all. He was a bit too eager to play the role of Alexander from what I heard, and probably Oliver Stone is who made the fatal error.

But I like your question. I daresay that maybe Alexander may fall into the like of the play MacBeth. Beware to all who! You know what I mean, I am sure.

I don't doubt that Colin may make an interesting Sonny in Miami Vice, as he knows the story about that role too, I am sure. He conveyed that much to me anyway! I think that the only problem with Colin is his boyish quality. He is a bit of a chld actor type to my way of thinking...reminds me of Bobby Driscoll and Dean Stockwell in some respects...good looking to certain kinds of girls who like the type. Just doesn't fill Alexander's sandals well enough!