Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 22

Simon_Lepine · 06-25-2003, 10:56 AM

Some interesting debate on Aguirre going on in there

Just thoughts I'd add my 2 cents:

Most of the criticism Seth makes regarding the narrative structure can be considered narrative ellipsis. If you can logically deduce what happened, there is no reason you have to see it onscreen. Do you really need to see the horse in the fire to understand what happened? In another movie, if someone takes a cab to another place, you don't need to see the whole cab ride, just cutting to the new location works fine.

The narrative structure works fine for me, it's a serie of vignettes that sets a mood and describe a descent into madness and hell, it doesn't have to be thorough.

Pascal A · 06-25-2003, 11:02 AM

Seth, regarding Almodóvar, I just wanted to mention that his recent films (All About My Mother and Talk to Her) are probably his most aesthetically accomplished and accessible films. You'll probably find that his earlier works are quite raw and dark in comparison (but still quite outrageous).

I tend to like his early films best, especially Matador and Law of Desire. In some ways, Talk to Her revisits some of the themes of Matador, but with additional allegorical inferences to the legacy of the Franco regime (as does Live Flesh and Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). In that political sense, his later films do tend to be more artistically "liberated" and less subversive than his early work, which is, I think, an important distinction in assessing the evolution of his work.

Lew Crippen · 06-25-2003, 11:34 AM

Seth, your post is perfectly reasonable—we just have different views. Just a reminder that this is a twist on Heart of Darkness, telling the story of descent into madness as the river and jungle (among other things) begin to dominate not only the physical aspects of the party, but the mental ones as well.

So, some of the things which cause you problems are of no (or little) concern for me, as I not only expect, but appreciate as a part of the story, the irrationality and inability to discern what is happening from what is imagined.

Of course this is only my view.

I concede that this is a low budget film, with some of the attendant production issues, some that can be seen in the finished product. But most of these (as George points out) seem to work well and the very few that do not, do not detract from the greatness of the film. But it is understandable that there are other views on this subject as well.

SteveGon · 06-25-2003, 10:29 PM

Seth makes some good points about Aguirre: The Wrath of God. However, the film is such a powerful experience for me, even after multiple viewings, that I can't help but label it a masterpiece despite its flaws. And therein lies the answer to Seth's question.

As for the shortcomings in Aguirre, Herzog can't be blamed entirely: the film had a low budget, difficult (to say the least) location shooting, and a volatile (to say the least) lead actor. That Aguirre was completed at all is testament to Herzog's dedication to his craft.

Quote:

It should be obvious by this point that I do not see any "slowly" or "deteriorating" in the narrative. I see that he WANTED it to be there...

Don Lope de Aguirre was of course, a real person and he did indeed lead a very bloody rebellion. His actions were motivated by the fact that he'd spent a good portion of his life fighting for the Spanish crown only to see all the riches he'd liberated being shipped back to Spain - he'd received little recompense for his services. What I'm getting at here - admittedly not really addressed in the film - is that Aguirre bore a long-standing grudge against his superiors and betrayed their trust at the first opportunity. For more on the real Aguirre (and the changes Herzog made to the story), I suggest you scrounge up a copy of Stephen Minta's book Aguirre - an utterly fascinating read. Among other things, the real Aguirre is said to have stabbed his own daughter to death after declaring that he did not want to see her become "a mere mattress for the unworthy." What a great line, despite the twisted nature of its issuer.

John^Lal · 06-26-2003, 01:02 AM

Just saw King Kong. (A)
There were definately parts of it that seemed rather amateur to me. there was definately on the nose dialogue, but also some lines in there that i thought was great.
Although we get to see total old school special effects, i thought it was awesome to watch this movie. the sound effects were great! lol, they just made me laugh
That brings my total to 67 i think.
wow, that was my first post here in practically a month...absolutely terrible. oh well, i got some other movies to watch, and i think that no more vacation and some good electricity will allow me to get back on track.

Brook K · 06-26-2003, 03:42 AM

I had a post going through Seth's points and making my own counters that I lost yesterday when my battery gave out. Recharged, I think I'll just rest on what George and Steve said. I'm tired and ready fly home and see all the movies waiting for me. I have 5 Fassbinder's and the r2 Bunuel discs, plus more Netflix. Not to mention 28 Days Later and Capturing the Friedman's at the theater.

Holadem · 06-26-2003, 08:40 AM

Annie Hall (revisit)

A blind buy last year, I started it then quit 15 minutes into it. I half heartedly pop it in a couple of days ago and was hooked. I can certainly see why this beat Star Wars at the 1977 Awards.

--
Holadem

george kaplan · 06-26-2003, 01:07 PM

I think you were right the first time.

I too can see why it beat Star Wars, but still feel it was a horrible decision.

Spoiler:

Seth Paxton · 06-26-2003, 05:53 PM

I'll end my Aguirre thread hijacking, although I do like discussion of this and other films that we have in this thread.

Brook, I've lost posts like that before and it is truly disheartening. You've poured out all these thoughts and then they get wiped out.

Simon,

My complaint is not narrative ellipsis, at least with the horse/fire, because the scenes ARE directly together in time. They just aren't cut/shot correctly, they don't match. No different than if I shot some coverage at night and some other during the day and then put them side by side as I showed 2 people talking.

My complaints are not about "leaving it up to the imagination" in the least, but rather staging and mise-en-scene flaws.

Quote:

difficult (to say the least) location shooting, and a volatile (to say the least) lead actor.

But its been my understanding, admittedly limited, that Herzog brings much of this on himself by insisting on making his shoots extremely challenging. One person at IMDb cited Fitzcarraldo involving a river boat being taken over the mountains in which the real person did it by taking it in pieces while Herzog insisted on building a real ship and really taking it over in one large piece. Perhaps admirable for whatever reason, but it also undermines the defense of his work due to "difficult shoots". And I believe he was fully aware of what he was getting with Kinski but went for it anyway. He wanted the screen presence (which is the best thing in the film) so he bargined with the devil on that one.

I realize that the low budget was a more realistic constraint, but if you have a low budget then maybe dragging all your crew on a real Aguirre journey is not the most prudent choice for making the film. (however, many of the resulting shots are quite spectacular)

Also, regarding the truth of Aguirre, I note that in his real rebellion (remembering that the film itself is almost total fiction) he ordered that no one whisper because he was paranoid that another rebellion might occur against him. Here is how I would change that beheading scene to a more serious one and fit this in. Don't have the audience able to hear this guy's conversation, really have him whispering and in not such an obvious way sitting to the side while the rest of the group stands. Then have Aguirre still notice this whispering though not hearing the words, kill the man, and yell "No whispering!". To me that is more madness and yet also more believable because at least then the men were trying to conceal their possible plot. And the madness is enhanced because now the audience isn't even sure that the guy was plotting anything, it would just make Aguirre look more paranoid/insane, yet also understandable from the "no honor among theives" view. As it stands we see one of the silliest efforts to "secretly" discuss a revolt that has ever been shown in film and Aguirre is even justified, at least in the sense that the man really was talking against him.

And one final point. I have no problem with the "its getting surreal, what is real, what isn't" angle. A GOOD example from the film is the boat in the tree. These are the sorts of scenes and moments in which I can see what he's going for and interpret the rest, but that doesn't change the fact that I found the telling most of the time to be very sloppy and/or Corman-like. And while people point to Corman's efforts in light of limited budgets and his influence on filmmakers, I don't see a single Corman film on the S&S list. I guess in the end that is my primary complaint here, why is Herzog given a free pass when other filmmakers dealing with the same restrictions in an equally adept fashion not given those same breaks.

If I put Apoc Now side by side with Aguirre, in my mind it's not even close, not even the same ballpark. But based on what is being told and its place on the S&S list, I would expect them to be very close to equal.

Okay, enough of this. I think you guys have presented many well-thought opinions on the matter and with hundreds of other films on the list I should probably leave space for less frustrating conversations between everyone.

I did just get Chungking Express in, but haven't watched it.

Arman · 06-27-2003, 09:59 AM

Viridiana (A) is my #166.