There is a very naïve notion of the nature of conflict permeating in our society. This notion is predicated on the belief that there are pernicious forces destroying the social order. Our culture then is one that attempts to identify such forces and eradicate them. Fair enough, except this ideal state of happiness that we strive for is based on a fundamentally childlike idea of the nature of happiness. If only things could be as they were before my parents got divorced, before 9/11, before the World Wars, before the English arrived in the new world, before my lover left me. This is the way we approach conflict, by longing for a time before it existed. To put it in the terms of our most foundational mythology, we long for Eden, before original sin. Strange however, from my understanding of history, that there has never been a mature individual or culture that has existed free of conflict. We--neither as individuals nor as collective civilizations--have ever been able to escape conflict for any significant amount of our post-childhood existence. So we react to this impossible position in varying ways. We either continue to long for the innocence of the past, or we create imagined fantasy worlds without conflict and then promptly eliminate that which seeks to disrupt these fantasies, or we pity ourselves and our conflicted predicament, or we forsake and rebel against our creator. None of these approaches (as popular as they may be) really solve the actual problem however, which states: If happiness is a life without conflict how are we to be happy in a world where conflict is inescapable.

In The New World it seems that Terrence Malick attempts to address the foundational problem that stems from the intertwined nature of happiness and conflict by revisiting the first mythology in our nation’s history. The story of The New World begins with the meeting of two civilizations, a Native American tribe and the European settlers that land on their shores. While many of the settlers are searching for gold, spices and other riches, some of the pioneers—most notably Captain John Smith (Colin Farrel)—have left their conflict-ridden home country seeking out a new world of order, where people can exist free of calamity and strife. Through a series of events, Smith ends up in the native village and eventually meets and falls in love with Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher), a young native princess on the verge of adolescents. They each become enamored not only with one another, but the possibilities the other one awakens in them. For Smith, the thirty-something European who has been made weary by the life he has left behind, Pocahontas comes to represent the possibility of the return to innocence he longs for. For Pocahontas, who is barely a teenager and has yet to really experience the world, Smith represents the endless possibilities of the world outside of her own. But as their courtship ends and Smith has to return to his camp, conflict again enters into the picture. It seems the two civilizations cannot co-exist. Smith becomes angry and withdrawn; hating himself and his countrymen for the inevitable means they taint what he believes was the innocence of “the naturals” (a fitting term). Acting on her love for Smith, Pocahontas brings the settlers food as they are starving in one instance, and in other she ends up betraying her people to warn them about an upcoming attack. But her action, specifically the second, is problematic towards Smith’s vision of her as the epitome of innocence, because by betraying her people she engages in conflict. Blaming her for not being able to live up to his image and himself for tainting her former conflict-free being, Smith abandons the new world, leaving Pocahontas with the idea that he was killed.

This is apparently where most people stopped watching the film. Scott Foundas of LA Weekly derides The New World as just another of Malick’s films about the loss of Eden; a man dreams of a world without conflict, falls in love with a girl who represents that, then when conflict finds its way into this new situation he becomes bitterly disappointment at the unfairness of the world and disappears, leaving the Eve stand-in to take on the consequences of original sin. Such a reading would be true if John Smith were the central character of some other film that consisted of the first half of The New World. (That description would seem a closer summary of Brokeback Mountain, where the inherent conflict of the world eventually tears apart two lovers, leaving them to drift in what would seem like an eternity of sadness and longing). But The New World is not a film about thesis and antithesis, where thesis is happiness and antithesis is conflict. It does not end as blockbusters do with thesis kicking anti-thesis’ ass, or as fauz-art films tend to do with thesis being poignantly defeated by antithesis. The New World is operating on an entirely different level; that of synthesis. It does not renounce conflict, or happiness, it merely portrays a universe that includes and overcomes their opposition.

As the film continues it becomes increasingly clear that the main character is not John Smith, but Pocahontas. When you’re watching the film take specific notice of how she behaves in the film’s second half; from when Smith leaves, to when she begins assimilating into European society, to her relationship with John Rolfe (Christian Bale), her trip to England and the events that take place there. Pocahontas is a deceptively simple character unlike any women depicted in today’s cinema (and the calm, loving, and surprisingly secure character of Rolfe is an unforeseen upgrade to the mistrustful Smiths that we look up to on our screens). Unlike Smith, she doesn’t run away or become angry in reaction to the conflict that has emerged in her life, she merely continues to exist with the truth of the events without judging them or herself. By remaining patient, what once may have seemed to be a cruel and menacing world emerges into a new world full of reason and meaning. Through the arc of Pocahontas, what the film is finally able to convey is not the loss of Eden through sin, but the exchange of innocence for true wisdom. While conflict destroys the happiness we find in innocence, it is the catalyst for true happiness: growth towards understanding. By the film’s transcendent conclusion, the antithetical nature of conflict and happiness is no more, for conflict is part of a new happiness that is indestructible even in the face of death.

Malick’s Virginia and England always feel new. The camera takes in events without judgment. The environment is captured as it was, the lighting always natural, the music constantly rising as if reaching from the muddy water towards something higher. Just as other Terrence Malick films, the voice-over here isn’t omnipotent; it is the subjective thoughts of individuals captured in time, as a falling leaf or a serendipitous bolt of lighting would be. Because his film begins at the first moments of “America,” and presents everything thereafter “as if for the first time,” it can be seen as a re-imagining of American, even human, mythology. In this manner, The New World is the most responsible and important film to be made at a time when the world is riddled with conflict. If indeed this is our mythology and we are the children of Pocahontas and John Rolfe, then there is still great hope for us all.

Apparently there is a 3 hour cut of this heading to DVD eventually, but given the films poor commercial performance, who knows. Amazon has the DVD of the final theatrical release (the version that was 20 minutes shorter than the original LA and New york release) available. Or just Netflix it.