Talk:The New World (2005 film)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The New World (2005 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Algonquin dialogue
editI have searched far and wide, but I have been unable to find anything out on the web that explains the non-English dialogue in this movie. If anyone knows of such a site, please add a link. 203.58.241.190
Underage Controversy
editI'm removing the 'underage controversy'. The cited article was printed at the time of the film's theatrical release, but doesn't give any sources other than to say that 'reportedly' some scenes were removed because of child pornography fears. This is not the Village Voice's own investigation, but simply reference to a rumor that emerged early in 2005. At the time, representatives of New Line and the film responded that no such edits had taken place; Malick and his post-production team were editing the film in Austin and no one from the studio had seen footage yet. The rumor was brought up on The View and the following week the hosts issued an apology/correction for discussing a false story. There's no evidence pointing to the rumor being of any substance and a denial from all involved, so it gets removed. --Krevans (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Edits 8/18/11
editI have removed 2/3 of the last paragraph under "Historical accuracy" for the primary reason that it is WP:COPYVIO, a direct plagiarism from the linked Powhatan site - but there are other reasons as well. As a source, the Powhatan site is not NPOV: the page on the girl promotes a single and controversial thesis on what she was like and, more importantly, why the romantic myth has grown around her. There are other NPOV WP:RS sources, such as this one from the University of Vienna (U. of Vienna on Pochahontas) and this from the PBS Nova series (Notes from Nova) that present credible but different ideas.
Further - the Powhatan article is a specific response to the 1995 Disney movie, not to this one by Malick. It is also significant that, credits in the article and the plot summary notwithstanding, the name of the girl is never uttered in the film: she is referred to only as "the princess," characters are shushed and taboo invoked when two characters begin to say it, and Rolfe's voice-over asserts that he does not even know her name.
There is an important and broader problem with the concept of historical accuracy at all. Malick is making a film, not a docudrama. He is blending fact with myth and fiction to present a series of ideas expressed cinematically. As with all of his films, those ideas are complex and irreducible to simplified POV/ax-grinding political statements. No such section exists for TM's Badlands though it is clearly a creative re-telling of the Starkweather-Fugate murders - and "historical accuracy" in film articles reaches the height of absurdity when Bergman's The Seventh Seal - a film in which a knight plays chess with a personified Death who stalks him throughout a movie whose self-evident purpose is the exploration of faith and doubt - is criticized for its lack of fidelity to history.
More might be said about the history behind the film if it is presented with balance and objectivity, though such edits would be far more appropriate to the Pocahontas article itself. Sensei48 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)