This Herzog film is unorthodox, as usual. It is approximately an hour and a half long, and somewhere in the middle it might seem like the film is not going anywhere. However, those who permit themselves to feel the power of this harrowing documentary will discover in the ending of the film a moment well worth their persistence. What is the purpose of mature film making? I like to think it is the sincere attempt to help us understand what it means to be human. If this generalization is accurate, Herzog's LAND OF SILENCE AND DARKNESS is mature film making. It is literally investigating what it means to be human without the sense of sight and speech. It has a heroic figure in 56-year old Fini Straubinger and a number of other characters who are compellingly mystifying. We wonder what is happening inside the minds of these human beings who are partially cut off from the world around them.
Reviews
8 Reviews
King Kong
(2005)
Three Kongs
2 January 2006
Three Kongs With Peter Jackson's KING KONG (2005), we now have three different versions of the King Kong fable in three distinct eras of Hollywood cinema. The 1933 original was a huge commercial success; the 1976 remake was widely criticized; and the 2005 version is another gigantic box-office hit. There is perhaps much to be learned by now looking at all three versions with an objective, well-informed, and analytical mind (something I will leave to those more qualified). I would just like to suggest that it is far too easy to be nostalgic about the original KING KONG, to be overly critical of the 1976 version, and to be overly enthusiastic about the most recent attempt. Objectivity is rare for the human mind, but, setting aside emotional responses as much as possible, what do we see as we compare these three versions? The original KING KONG was a difficult story to make convincing: a beautiful woman kindles some strange, relatively gentle response in a giant ape, and a highly commercialized culture ultimately exploits the ape for its entertainment purposes. This story obviously provides grist for an intelligent and provocative perspective on what it means to be human, but problems of narrative plausibility abound, starting with the problems of scale. How big and powerful is this ape and how can his size and power be represented consistently in narrative detail? For example, how do they get this creature back to New York? The original version took a stab at something remotely plausible, mentioning that the adventurers would build a raft to haul Kong back behind the boat. The 1976 version brought Kong back in a different and enormous boat. Peter Jackson simply ignores this narrative problem and probably expects that his enthusiastic viewers, besotted by contemporary cinematic spectacle, will overlook whatever is convenient for him to avoid. The King Kong story raises a plethora of other narrative problems, and in each version one can find many implausible details. It's a hard story to tell if one is looking for a seamlessly convincing narrative.
It's also a hard story to tell if one is looking for an intelligent point. What does this bizarre relationship between the woman and the ape add up to? The original puts its faith in a cliché about beauty taming the beast, whatever that might mean. The 1976 version seems to offer a number of possibilities, and Peter Jackson may be ignoring the need for a point altogether. Perhaps in an attempt to make a more compelling point, both revisions provide more back story and elaboration, which makes the movie longer. This elaboration, although satisfying in most cases for plausibility, is perhaps unnecessary, especially if KING KONG must ultimately be successful as a fable. For my money and for what it's worth, the 1976 version has been unjustly bashed and is the most intelligent, interesting, and affecting of the three.
It's also a hard story to tell if one is looking for an intelligent point. What does this bizarre relationship between the woman and the ape add up to? The original puts its faith in a cliché about beauty taming the beast, whatever that might mean. The 1976 version seems to offer a number of possibilities, and Peter Jackson may be ignoring the need for a point altogether. Perhaps in an attempt to make a more compelling point, both revisions provide more back story and elaboration, which makes the movie longer. This elaboration, although satisfying in most cases for plausibility, is perhaps unnecessary, especially if KING KONG must ultimately be successful as a fable. For my money and for what it's worth, the 1976 version has been unjustly bashed and is the most intelligent, interesting, and affecting of the three.
Lessons of Darkness
(1992 TV Movie)
Mission Accomplished
30 December 2005
Lessons of Darkness (1992) looks and acts like a companion piece to Fata Morgana (1971). As with the earlier film, Lessons either captures viewers or leaves them confused and bored within the first few minutes. Early in Lessons we see an aerial shot of an unusual city. It is obviously a contemporary urban area because we see highways, traffic, stoplights, and large buildings, but it is also obvious that it is not an American city. The narrator (Herzog) announces that this city is about to be destroyed by war and the thought of this strange but vibrant place being destroyed becomes completely repugnant. Thus, Herzog succeeds here with the approach he initially planned and then abandoned in Fata Morgana. Lessons of Darkness triumphs as a mock Science Fiction story of an apocalypse that threatens all of civilization. Luckily, it doesn't take a college education to realize that the footage is shot in Iraq in the aftermath of the First Gulf War. Luckily as well, Herzog's anti-war statement does not need to be explicit to be effective. Early in the film, interviews with two Iraqi women suggest the human price of this military event. In the rest of the film, humans appear to be on the periphery of the "action" but they keep coming back to the center of our consciousness. Those who persist in their viewing will eventually encounter a chilling repetitiveness in this film (the fires are still burning!) However, that repetitiveness can become cumulative and mesmerizing. This is not a film experience for everyone, but for those who have a taste for it the film will be unforgettable.
Fata Morgana
(1971)
The Viewer as Collaborator
10 December 2005
You will be able to tell within the first 30 seconds of this film whether you want to finish watching it. The film opens with images of planes landing at an airport, one plane after another diving into a mirage-filled runway. You will be able to accurately guess that this movie is not about a "story." At first viewing, it's even easy to think the opening images are repetitive shots of the same plane. The initial drama is in the acuteness of your perception, which is built on your willingness to experience the film simply as a series of images. If after this opening, you want to see the movie, you will not be bored. You may even be mesmerized. The movie may be an emotional experience; it may be an intellectual experience; it may be both. Judging from the DVD commentary, which is essential, it was primarily an emotional experience for Herzog, and, at one point, he talks explicitly about how the film is a collaboration between filmmaker and viewer. There's plenty of room for the viewer to make of this film exactly what he or she wants to make of it. Take a gamble?
The White Diamond
(2004)
Herzog is a "gutsy" documentary filmmaker
3 December 2005
I like Herzog's films generally, but I think that he is most satisfying as a documentary filmmaker. It seems to me that Herzog is not really interested in "story," the aesthetic feature which dominates the response of probably about 99% of the people who watch films in the United States. Herzog is interested, it seems to me, in visceral experiences, and the documentary form frees him more to explore this kind of experience. I found this film thrilling. What is it "about"? There are lots of false leads for those viewers who want to reduce it to something package-able, but I don't think it's about "obsession," as the Netflix blurb suggests. I also don't think it's simply about Dorrington, the Guyanese rain forest, adventure, or "atonement," which is another Netflix suggestion. I think that, as Herzog would have it, the film is about something ineffable, perhaps whatever is behind that mammoth waterfall where millions of swifts live. Is that cave a metaphor for the world the camera is always trying to connect us to? It doesn't matter. I think Herzog wants us to "experience" this film rather than to analyze it. Herzog seems to me to make films by following his gut instincts and there are times when his cinematic choices are thrilling. I am especially fond of his courage with long takes, holding the camera on Dorrington's confessions long after we have become uncomfortable with them. I think Herzog is forcing us to experience Dorrington as a human being. If we choose to distance ourselves with analysis, that is our choice and I suspect that Herzog would shrug that response off and simply make another movie.
Little Dieter Needs to Fly
(1997)
extraordinary
28 November 2005
I consider this a breathtaking but deceptive film because it seems so simple and straightforward: a Vietnam survivor tells his harrowing tale and some of the story is reenacted on location. Reviewers sometimes even claim that Herzog's presence in the film is minimal, but how wrong they are. We know that all documentaries are "mediated" to some extent and this one has Herzog's subtle hand all over it, most notably in the stunning music, the unbelievably expert selection of archival footage, and the management of cascading images. The evocative power of this film is astounding, starting with its title, the opening title card from the book of "Revelation," and the initial voice-over. This is a movie that one can watch repeatedly with increasing wonder, not a simple commodity that is gulped down with one's favorite beverage on the way to the evening news. This is one of those movies that can resonate with you for a lifetime.
Twelfth Night, or What You Will
(2003 TV Movie)
For Those With an Open Mind and Open Heart
15 October 2005
I find this an almost impeccable film version of this very subtle Shakespearean comedy, far transcending my former favorite, the 1996 film version by Trevor Nunn, which now pales in comparison. Shakespeare's TWELFTH NIGHT was probably written shortly after HAMLET, around 1601 or 1602, and thus embodies all the complexity of thought and feeling that dominated Shakespeare's greatest period of dramatic productivity. This is not COMEDY OF ERRORS or even MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. This is a hilarious comedy tinged with darkness, with Shakespeare probably finally processing the death of his only son, Hamnet, in 1596. This film version of the play captures all that complexity. It is outrageously funny in its dark way, deeply thoughtful, and very powerful in its emotional resonance. This film elucidates characters, character relationships, and situations as no other production I have ever seen. Even the usually, nearly invisible Fabian becomes an important figure in the play. I am especially thrilled by the fresh line readings, many of which have opened new doors for me after nearly 40 years and dozens of experiences with this text. However, many people will be put off by this version's style, which is liberated and far from what people expect from Shakespeare. If one can open one's mind and heart to what is actually here and accept the film's style as a legitimate artistic choice, the appropriateness and power of the camera work and soundtrack become part of this film's strongest features. It is a version that can move those inexperienced with Shakespeare and those who know the text intimately.
Dogville
(2003)
A Commentary on American Slavery?
12 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
You can add me to the list of people who find DOGVILLE an extremely powerful movie. I have just seen it at the Florida Film Festival in Orlando, Florida, where some people seem to have hated the film but where I found it to be one of the most important films I have ever seen. Why do I consider it important? Because I think it deals with very large and crucial ideas for our extremely troubled times. If it is true that von Trier is examining America in his latest films, I believe that he is serving a very important function in our country's awareness of itself. It seems to me that DANCER IN THE DARK finally metamorphoses into an indictment of capital punishment, an institution that some might say has no place in a highly civilized society. What does DOGVILLE seem to be about? I think it might be von Trier's attack on the history of American slavery. I don't know if what follows should be considered a spoiler, but, to be safe, I should warn that I am about to outline what I think the ending of the film is about. It is clear from the beginning of the film that von Trier has American issues in mind, not only because he sets the film in America but because he mimics Thornton Wilder's OUR TOWN, a classic text of literary Americana. Grace arrives in Dogville mysteriously and her father, at first, appears to be a villain, and the town, at first, appears to be her savior. But after Grace survives initially by giving the townspeople her labor, she becomes increasingly exploited until she is literally put in chains. The progression of Grace's exploitation in the town and the film's use of chain imagery is too striking to be an insignificant detail in the film. Grace's docility under this enslavement is only broken by her father, who turns out to be not a villain but a liberator, a brutally honest man who helps her see her captors more clearly. Grace comes finally to see herself not as a noble martyr but as a cleansing agent who will bring hard justice to an arrogant community. She spares the dog, who is not a rational animal, because it cannot be blamed for simply following its natural instincts. The townspeople have no such excuse. As creatures capable of rationality, the citizens of DOGVILLE have a responsibility to lead rational lives. Thus, DOGVILLE is a wake up call for a nation that often fails to see itself honestly. For hundreds of years, America violated its own Constitutional principles by refusing to recognize the humanity of its dark-skinned people. Now, in its continued arrogance, America generally sees slavery as an irrelevant problem of the past and considers affirmative action a new kind of injustice. For centuries, America refused to recognize the equality of women and now blithely considers sexism a dead issue. But as we enter a new century, America is once again refusing to recognize the basic human rights of a large portion of its citizens, its gay people, and once again this blindness is perpetrated in the name of tortured logic and tawdry Christian principles. America needs effective gadflies, even if they turn out to be Danish.
Tell Your Friends