A 21st Century Hero in a 17th Century New World
By James Speese, with comments by Ed Gallagher, Taara Ness-Cochinwala, Tanya Saleh, Jena Viviano, and Jose Berrios
[1] John Smith seems continually re-invented by subsequent portrayals in film; however, that re-invention is not, as one might expect, an attempt at verisimilitude--an attempt to get him “right.†Rather, each film seems to create a “new†hero that represents the qualities that we, as Americans, view as heroic (or, more to the point, particularly “Americanâ€). Of course, that representation is one based on the view of the director. In the case of The New World, one can see that Terrence Malick wants an American to be fair, poetic, innocent, but not naïve. In short, in Malick's version, John Smith is Adam as he represents America in Paradise. John Smith is America before it knows sin. (comment by Jose Berrios)
[2] Nowhere is this representation more obvious than in this scene. As Smith begins his expedition, leading men on a boat up the river to search for and parley with Powhatan, beautiful, natural, unspoiled imagery is juxtaposed with the anxious men on the ship and in Jamestown, as well as Indians watching with curiosity. Meanwhile, Smith speaks in a poetic voiceover that describes his reaction to this New World and what it can mean for mankind.
[3] First, he speaks of that very poetry itself, wondering where this “voice†is that comes to him. Given the context--particularly when this scene is juxtaposed with earlier scenes of Pocahontas in voiceover praying to the Great Spirit (of the Earth) -- the viewer draws the conclusion that Smith has made a connection to that Spirit (or, perhaps, to Pocahontas herself.) Smith, then, has a poetic connection of the natural, the unspoiled, the New World -- Paradise.
[4] That Garden of Eden reference seems to grow as Smith talks of a “new start, a fresh beginning.†Certainly, there's no reason to doubt that Smith (historically speaking) wanted a new start; after all, as shown in the film, he came to America in chains. He (and others) certainly saw the New World as an opportunity. However, while the historical record seems to show that that opportunity is one of commerce, and while previous films show that opportunity as one of adventure and environmentalism (Disney's Pocahontas) or a colony that conquers by assimilation rather than arms (1953's Captain John Smith and Pocahontas), this film shows that opportunity as an America that truly lives up to its ideals. Malick, in essence, reinvents the concept of “America†as it once could have been.
[5] That “lost†America of Smith's (and Malick's) dreams is one of economic prosperity without the backbreaking greed of capitalism. Indeed, when placed next to the scene that comes just before it (14:05) in which greed has driven the men of Jamestown to steal and kill and not trust one another, Smith's poetic voiceover stands in dramatic contrast to the America that capitalism--or perhaps, unbridled greed -- has created. Smith intones, “We shall build a true commonwealth. Hard work and self-reliance our virtues.†Who would argue that this is what we--from a 21st Century standpoint--want from an American Dream?
[6] However, Smith takes this a step further. With no knowledge of Marx, he says, “We shall have no landlords to wrack us with high rents or steal the fruits of our labor.†It is at this point, strangely reminiscent of communism, that one of the crew members notes, “We cannot go any further.†But, in his thoughts, Smith does go further--as far as Malick seems to wish he really would have: “None shall eat up carelessly that which his friends got worthily or steal that which virtue has stored up. Men shall not make each other their spoil.†Here, the description of this America is clearly an ideal, one ruined in intervening years by greed, which, for instance, with slavery, did make men “spoils.†Here he seems to question the basic ideals of capitalism--ideals which founded the nation. It's interesting, then, that at this moment, a crew member tells him that he's “gone too far,†and that we're “lost.†(comment by Ed Gallagher)
[7] Malick seems to create a hero of Smith--what he hopes Smith could have been in an ideal world, one who could have created a New World that lives up to the ideals (not the reality) of 21st Century America (at least from the point of view of a liberal filmmaker!). This hero represents what was lost when Smith and the other first “Americans†despoiled the New World and were cast out of Eden. How were they cast out? They never left, but they destroyed Eden because they didn't live up to the ideals of the New Age Hero, John Smith. (comment by Ed Gallagher) (see comment by Taara Ness-Cochinwala)
Comments:
Ed Gallagher 1/10/08
Jim's point about the relevance of the intercut comments by the crew is very striking! And this section recalled for me another relevant and intriguing section -- Newport's speech (beginning about 1:24:10). Newport actually uses the word "Eden." What's going on here? Is Newport publicly articulating the beautiful Smithian vision? But there's Smith at this low point in his life prowling the rear margins of the crowd in negative counterpoint, and the camera even wanders inside the fort for shots of grim desolation. And Newport's pep talk literally withers into nothingness before completion. Where has the dream gone? And why?
Ed Gallagher 1/10/08
I'm not sure how I feel about Smith as hero or whether (or how much) Jim sees Smith implicated in the despoiling of the ideal. Early on in the film Newport talks of Smith's capacity to be a leader, and then later he appeals to Smith's ambition (and in connection with material wealth, if not for him, for others?) when he offers leadership of the New England expedition (1:22:30). And Smith bites. I'm trying to square that with the edenic monologue in this scene.
Jim, it is quite bold to make the statement "John Smith is America before it knows sin," and it captures the feeling Malick wanted of him. Even more intriguing is the fact that such a notion of a poetic and innocent Smith makes Pocahontas the character of experience, wisdom, and arguably guilt. If we look at Christine Rapp's scene analysis of the warning scene, the observation becomes much more concrete. Pocahontas has a more realistic and mature grasp of the situation, though these traits are most likely a result of her environment as she learns of the future attacks on Jamestown. Even so, I agree that Smith is the Adam of this new world. He is a man of honor and intelligence who cannot comprehend the danger that exists outside of Jamestown's walls. What allows us to make such claims is the vulnerable and malleable nature of his story. History is fragile regarding his endeavors and that allows art to bend it seamlessly for its liking. I am sure you would agree on Malick's addition of scenes such as the participatory dance of Smith with the natives as a sign of a man who defines "verisimilitude," as you said, in character but does not grasp it in time to stall the attacks on Jamestown.
In my opinion, the New World that is represented in this scene is beautiful, natural, unaltered, and indeed reminiscent of Eden. John Smith and Pocahontas are privy to and enjoy this seemingly perfect world, frolicking in the natural heart of it all, and communing with the spirits that have connected them (as Speese previously commented). While I agree with this physical description of the New World, I disagree with the idea that Smith is portrayed as a hero per se, and certainly not as a representation of the biblical figure, Adam. While he may be living in this Eden-esque world, he is merely an ephemeral inhabitant. Shortly after this scene, Smith leaves this world to return to his albeit brutish, but suffering men, for whom he was supposed to be a leader. While they were starving and awaiting his direction, he was enjoying this paradise. Smith also later abandons Pocahontas, both physically and emotionally. He does not possess the strength as a person to choose what he loves and believes is of greater moral value -- Pocahontas and her lifestyle -- claiming an absence of a place to live as an excuse. (A great point of juxtaposition is when John Rolfe later has no issue with the same conflict of where to live, demonstrating greater chivalry and morality than Smith.) When the fight breaks out between a native people who have fed, clothed, and loved Smith, and his countrymen, he does not have the charisma as a leader to put an end to the fighting and stand up for what he truly believes to be right. These do not seem to be characteristics that a true leader, and certainly the male figure of perfection, Adam, would possess. While Smith does have some redeeming qualities, and he for a time inhabits a place similar to Eden, he does not demonstrate the moral and other strengths necessary to be a great leader or be on the same level as the figure of Adam. (see comment by Jena Viviano)
I am going to have to say that I disagree with Taara's statement. While I can see where she is coming from, it should be noted that Adam and Smith actually do have a lot of similarities. Taara comments, "These do not seem to be the characteristics that a true leader, and certainly the male figure of perfection, Adam, would possess." The truth of the matter is that Adam wasn't perfect. That is the whole purpose of the story of Adam and Eve. They were given the perfect life but then fell because of sin. If anything, Adam was the definition of imperfection. He let Eve and temptation get the best of him. He let the opportunity to achieve the wisdom of God get the best of him, and he succumbed to the pressure and the greed. If anything, Smith and Adam have a LOT in common. Smith, like Adam, failed to see the outcome of his actions and how it would affect others around him. He placed his own interests above those in his life. Adam and Smith did not represent themselves in the moralistic, upstanding way that we would hope that they would. And for that, I can see how Speese would compare the legend and the biblical figure. (see comment by Tanya Saleh)
I agree with both Taara and Jena that Smith is not portrayed as a hero, at least in the conventional sense of the word. He is sensitive and poetic, not chivalrous and overly masculine; he is portrayed as whimsical and carefree rather than responsible and altruistic (as seen upon his return to Jamestown in shambles after spending time in "paradise" with Pocahontas); and he doesn't get the girl and live happily ever after. By portraying Smith as a more normal, flawed human, I think Malick makes an excellent departure from the romanticized perception of Smith as a Greek-style tragic hero to a modernized one -- a good person who is flawed; a realistic persona.
