Beauty of Spirit and Nature

Rating: 7/10 (1 February 2006)

This film, if taken on the level(s) of what it sets out to portray, is gorgeous and simply without equal. It has its flaws, but it's a film that ought to be judged by the vision which drives it. On the aesthetic level, one can hardly find flaw with it. Malick is brilliant in that he incorporates elements which mainstream Hollywood has trained itself and its unthinking audiences to avoid and/or have no taste for : long, drawn-out scenes of nature, many times of simple stillness or limited "action"; actors using their bodies and faces rather than the spoken word ; soundtrack-musicless scenes which transport the viewer into that place and time... There are countless other examples to be sure. This was the first film by Terrence Malick that I've seen, and I loved this style. There will be some who will not enjoy it, so be warned. I, however, was prepared for it, having read about the film and Malick's style beforehand. I had moderate expectations of this film, going in, and they were completely surpassed.
Malick is also walking an interesting line between myth and reality in this film. It's a unique combination which I've not seen before. Although the film has elements which are more realistic than in other portrayals of the Pocahontas story, the film's story, in the end, recounts the known 'legend' version. So people will potentially find 'holes' in that aspect of the film. I am not altogether familiar with the most historically accurate chain of events, but I found the reverential treatment of Pocahontas by the white settlers a bit extreme. Especially since she was the only female for quite some time in the colony, and was surrounded by a bunch of desperate, half-starved men.
However, it's important to note the themes which really drive this film, which I am assuming, are Malick's vision : the almost spiritual beauty of the untouched wilderness of Virginia ; the similar purity of the Native tribes, so fittingly referred a few times as "naturals," and the vile intrusion on all this by the white colonization. I believe the portrayal of the English colonists and the elements they brought with them is as close to reality as I've ever seen in a film. They were shown as not necessarily intending evil (well, at least not all the time!), just doing things as they thought fit, without regard to anything else. Malick still doesn't excuse the evil outcome of all this, and is simply contrasting the two societies. And what a stark contrast! I'm not Native American, but to me, the film portrayed the tribes with a post-modern perspective of admiration, almost envy, and the fascination of an outsider. And clearly from a point of sympathy. In the end, one can never escape the fact that people lived on this land, and strangers from afar came with expectations of usurping it. Simple as that. If one reverses the roles, ie, whites in their native land contending with strangers from afar, one can get an idea of that sympathy. At least, that's how I always imagine it, and I never understand people who feel defensive and try to justify colonialism. There is justification for respect for another in their land, and mutual trade and co-existence. There is no justification for hostility, stealing land and genocide.
All of the actors in this film were outstanding. I think all the Native American actors deserve recognition for their amazing transformations. The way they moved, looked, stood, crouched, etc. It was phenomenal to watch. In all the scenes involving the tribe, I was just riveted, in awe. In all honesty, I felt the amazement, curiosity, fascination, and trepidation which those early colonists probably felt. This is probably a result of the whole style, but the Native actors deserve praise for this.
The three main actors, Q'orianka Kilcher, Colin Farrell and Christian Bale, were excellent. Kilcher was completely believable in her portrayal of the instinctual teenaged Pocahontas. She was natural in the role, though she is so young. Between Farrell and Bale, I had much higher expectations of the latter, and he didn't disappoint. He was just amazing. Bale's John Rolfe has much less screen time, and less dialogue but he was able to capture and convey the conflict and past of the character effectively. I have to admit that I am a prior fan of Bale, but Colin Farrell is the one whom I'd vote 'most improved.' His portrayal of John Smith is surprisingly nuanced, complex and rather subdued, the latter in keeping with the whole theme of the film. I think it's quite a feat for Colin Farrell, who really should be proud of his performance. I was going to make a comment about his Irish accent, which he makes no effort to disguise, but since Malick didn't have a problem with it, who am I? :) But truly, I think this has to be one of Christian Bale's best performances, though I haven't seen all his films (just three others). Part of the reason why I enjoyed his performance, and the others, is that I had read that Malick was asking the actors to ad-lib a lot. So I watched for this, and actually noted such a naturalness in many scenes, that I thought they HAD to be ad-libbed! My own favorite is when Pocahontas falls down, and she and John Rolfe dissolve into laughter. That seemed completely genuine / unscripted. It was a very sweet moment to leave in an otherwise awe-inspiring film.
If there is one complaint that I have, it's that I find the love story/triangle rather trite, but then again it has its roots in history, and that's not really a criticism of the cast or director or the others who performed their jobs beautifully on this film.