Saturday, August 27, 2005

Werner Herzog

Werner Herzog has a new film, 'Grizzly Man', playing soon at the Grand. What follows is some recent research I did on Herzog, by watching the 2004 film he stars in, called 'Incident at Loch Ness.'

Spoiler Warning: Most of this text is a spoiler, so if you have not seen the film and plan to, wait to read this another time.

What seems to be a Herzog film, actually is not. He is the star of the film, but does not direct it. We are led to believe from the beginning that a documentary on Werner Herzog is being shot while he is shooting a documentary film about the myth of the Loch Ness monster, called 'The Enigma of Loch Ness.' What we are actually watching is called 'The Incident at Loch Ness,' so this implies that something went wrong, that there was an incident.

Many things seem to be, and are not. Here is an excerpt from the dvd extras, which is a kind of summary of Herzog, and how the filmmakers of Loch Ness play on his reputation. It is in script form:

HERZOG
You would not believe me. If I told you the tale of what
actually occurred on the Loch, you would scoff and call
me a madman. I, myself, am not quite sure what was real.
I simply know that I am alive.

Even in the dvd commentary, the ruse is kept up, that Zak Penn and Werner made a film, and that much of the actual footage we are seeing is from the ‘documentary’ made by John Bailey.

If all this seems confusing so far, it is simply a reflection of the nature of this film, and apparently the nature of anything Herzog is connected to. I was surprised that he was not the director, because it feels so much like one of his films, like a stunt he would put on. It’s very ‘Herzogian,' as is suggested by Zak early on in the film.

What is especially noteworthy about this film, is how well we are tricked. Herzog immediately addresses how he has a reputation of being reckless, dangerous, and perhaps even unbelievable. By putting this up front, he gains our trust by then saying how ‘Nessie’ is just a myth, and that he is searching for the psychological reasons why people need to believe in such things. He comes across as a kind of voice of reason. This would be our first mistake as an audience. Werner Herzog is not the voice of reason. He is indeed, or at least he plays, the part of the madman, and this is so much his style, to let the madness sneak in past the mask of reason. We never know with him, whether to be laughing at him, or along with him… or is he laughing at us?

Many things in the film are hilarious: Herzog at the drugstore buying razor blades; the playboy model playing the sonar expert; the problems with the boat; the expedition jumpsuits with the misspelling on the back reading ‘EXPEDITITION’; the mistrust of the crew for Zak. What I found funniest was the point when I realized I had been duped. It made me mad at first, and then I had to burst out laughing, at myself, for going along so far into the film before I realized what was going on.

For all of these reasons, I believe seeing 'Incident at Loch Ness' is a kind of required viewing before seeing 'Grizzly Man.' A way of sharpening the senses, preparing for the Herzogian madness which is sure to come.

The Jarmusch / Eustache Connection

The Jarmusch / Eustache Connection

Jim Jarmusch’s new release, Broken Flowers is not only an excellent film, but is also a great dedication to a modern French director, Jean Eustache. Jarmusch says that Eustache (who died in 1981 from a suicide) has inspired him over the years as an artist, and that "as I made this film, his presence was there with me."

Jarmusch has a distinct style, a metered pacing with space between words, characters almost visibly thinking. We are made very aware that we are watching a film. He plays with the Classical Hollywood Cinema model where great efforts which are made to make us believe we are in reality, rather than a theater - seamless editing; natural lighting and camera; ‘realistic’ characters and dialogue; classical three-act structure followed since Poetics.

Jarmusch turns this around and reminds us constantly that we are an audience. He shares this, as well as stylistic tendencies, with Eustache. A good example would be to compare Jarmusch’s earlier work, Stranger than Paradise, with Eustache’s The Mother and the Whore. Stranger than Paradise has a few scenes where the blocking and camera set-ups look to be exact copies of The Mother and the Whore. The central question of the films is also shared: characters are trying desperately to make a connection with each other, to understand, to truly, if only for a moment, touch. Eustache often has the characters looking directly into camera while addressing each other, but in a way, we become that other character. Hollywood avoids this mostly because it is unnerving, but for Eustache, as well as Jarmusch, that is exactly the point.

The fourth wall between audience and artist seems to break down in these films. We are not able to get lost in the film so much, to escape, but are rather pushed into a kind of involvement with the film which disallows the glossy eyed viewing which the Classical Hollywood model tends to encourage.

By the end of Broken Flowers, we are left with questions. As he gives the simple, Buddhist-like advice to a young man he mistakes for his son, Bill Murray’s character seems to be realizing something which is not only difficult to put in words, but which the filmmaker refuses to spell out for us. Don has not found what he was looking for, but it seems to me that he has found what he needed.

-shawn@grandcinema.com