Herzog says about Fata Morgana, "Maybe more than any film I have made, it is the one that needs to be completed by the audience, which means all feelings, thoughts and interpretations are welcome."
Herzog's dear friend, the legendary film scholar Amos Vogel, writes that the film "provides a key to the director's universe. Fata Morgana emerges as a sardonic comment on technology, sentimentality, despoliation of land and people, projected by a suffering visionary tremblingly aware of our limited possibilities, outrageous perseverance, and almost bearable ridiculousness."
Is Fata Morgana, as Vogel goes on to say, "a cosmic pun on cinéma vérité"? With this film, has Herzog "recovered the metaphysical beneath the visible"? If so, how?
Feel free to address Vogel's comments in your post. Regardless, I look forward to seeing how you complete this film with your feelings, thoughts and interpretations - by no later than 12noon next Wednesday, of course.
“In paradise, ruins mean happiness. There, you find gates without borders. This is paradise, as God has intended it to be”.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching this film, my brain immediately connected the imagery, in combination with this specific narration, to what Werner mentioned in Herzog on Herzog about growing up in a city of ruins. To him, that was paradise, mentioning how the kids in his neighborhood would take over entire bombed-out blocks and declare the remnants of the buildings as their playgrounds, allowing their imaginations to run rampant. To listen to this bit of narration and simultaneously watch images of abandoned, broken down machinery spread apart in the dessert, juxtaposed with shots of the native children dancing, interacting with one another and their animals, and generally enjoying life, made me think that Werner intended to show this side of life in the film. Although he has said he welcomes all feelings, thoughts, and interpretations, I believe a bit of his bias finally leaked through onto the cutting room floor as he decided to share just a brief glimmer into his personal life and feelings.
The overall feel and statement that I got from Fata Morgana is essentially that we need to step away from technology, from our civilization, from our ideas of what an advanced society should be and how we should perceive happiness, and reflect on how easy and simple it can all be. Once again, I unfortunately cannot say that this film was enjoyable, but it did remind me of those that I would have to watch in my Ethnographic Films class last semester. This, to me, is an abstract, very art-house version of an Ethnographic Film (albeit lacking many important scientific details that most ethnographers would demand from a film).
The narration in Fata Morgana seemed to encourage me to passively let it wash over me. The poetic language told of bible-esque truths that never seemed to go anywhere. The line, “landscape, even without deeper meaning” was repeated several times, seems to contradict the film’s concept. But perhaps he is trying to comment on how only through the medium of film, juxtaposing music and language, can landscape have meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe music/visual dichotomy is what peaked my interest the most. Often times, over visuals of children playing or traditionally beautiful subjects like waterfalls, a song reminiscent of a country-blues-folk lovechild would play. The framing of these scenes with that particular music was perhaps an attempt to connect a western viewer to this foreign place. While over more sporadic shots of abstract landscapes like the algae-filled shore, more abstract music would play. This music heavily reminded me of Terry Riley, bringing together traditional horns and orchestral bits into music that would start more melodic and slowly break down into beautiful chaos. Is he relating just how ‘broken music’ is beautiful just like worn down, defunkt farm equipment?
One other bit that stuck out was how the only white people were in Part 3. And of that, they were either playing music in that confined room or frolicing amongst black sand. There were not natives in the black sand. Color contrast? Or a stark ideological commentary on how white people treat dark people like sand? I really don’t think so but where do I stop with interpretation?
I honestly wasn't going to post on this week's blog because, quite frankly, Fata Morgana is a film that doesn't deserve to be talked about. By talking about how much I disliked the film I'm giving it some sort of credit, which is not something I had hoped to do. Going to the desert, capturing random shots (most quite beautiful), and stringing them together in post production with a cosmic narrative does not make it a pertinent film. Not even including Leonard Cohen's two greatest folk ballads over the rolling desert landscapes made me enjoy a single moment of this movie. I'm not sure if I would've walked out, given the option, during the airplanes landing, but I can tell you I wouldn't have sat through that entire film if I had stumbled across it outside of class. I do not wish to comment anymore simply because I feel I have said enough. Maybe this was someone else's cup of tea, but this is the exact kind of nonsensical filmmaking I don't buy into. Never have, and never will.
ReplyDeleteFata Morgana was probably one of the worst film I've actually watched. It was actually one of the very few films that was able to drift me in and out of sleep. I found little to no reason to actually watch this film because there was no real reason to watch it in the first place. I first thought of the first 8 planes landing had a meaning but I really couldn't come up with a conclusion or make a comparison. I really did think this movie was probably one of my most disliked films of all time.
ReplyDeleteWhat an odd film. Despite the other comments, I quite liked Fata Morgana. It didn't pretend to have a story or a reason for existence other than to shoot the otherworldly nature of Africa and how we reuse our own garbage. The whole film felt very much like Mad Max to me, where people have repurposed the husks of the old world to their needs. It was strange, unnerving, like a mirage (oh right). I don't know how much I cared for the final section of the film, it goes a bit too experimental at that point and tries for some sort of plot that just isn't necessary. The images are the powerful things, the crashed planes and forts made of scrap metal, those are the heart of the film, not an oddball german talking about a lizard.
ReplyDeleteHerzog, in Paul Cronin’s book Werner Herzog: A Guide for the Perplexed, when speaking of the opening shot said. “I had a feeling that audiences who were still watching by the sixth or seventh landing would stay to the end of the film; the opening sequence lays out the challenge of what is to come.” Right from the first shot this film is a test of one’s viewing ability. How long can you watch a beautiful shot? How long can something go on before you have to put in a narrative? Herzog loves landscapes, one such landscape that he holds very dear is the desert. The desert is long, repetitive, and often times boring. Herzog gets that, and he wants his audiences to get that. Herzog, in making this film, is weeding out the people in the audience who cannot handle something of this magnitude. Herzog has spoken about how viewers’ attention spans have shortened due to television and its incessant commercials. He is finding out who has been affected by this and who has not. As far as I have read and saw, he was right, many people have been losing their attention spans, people can’t watch something for just beauty if it is too long. That is a shame. I guess the constant death, action, deceit, lie, and sexually arousing scene from shows like Game of Thrones is good enough for them.
ReplyDeleteFata Morgana was a quite inspirational film, I found I much preferred it to both signs of life, and eleven dwarfs started small. Perhaps it was because of the vivid imagery of the scorching african plane, or simplicity of the subjects in the frame. One shot stuck with me-for its simplicity baffled me, as i couldn't understand why I liked this shot, Its a park ranger holding large lizard which is attempting a breech towards freedom. This shot continued for probably 45 seconds. I felt that because Herzog dwelled this much on something so simple which could have be captured in less than 3 seconds set a line for the overall impact of the image. Similarly the 8 planes landing also measured up to the simple repetitive shots i now associate with Werner Herzog. Something which i believe will help me in my filmmaking, specifically editing where i can learn to dwell on something for a longer period of time. I think this is especially necessary for me because i have a rather fast editing style and frequently will edit by the frame allowing for very quick changes. Overall I would say Fata Morgana was a great film considering you go into it with the right mind set, that is understanding that there is much that is implied, and therefore discovered by the viewer, and may not be always apparent.
ReplyDeleteThis is Matt Hardin
DeleteI don't know what to take away from Fata Morgana. I guess I'm used to going to movies to see some sort of story play out but there's no narrative here, at all. The film is split into three parts which normally is a helpful device to string a story together but I couldn't figure out what was Herzog was trying to say here. Therefore, it basically made this film harder to watch than Even Dwarves Started Out Small.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing that took me out of the film was the voiceover. At first, I thought he was reciting the bible but then he started talking about airplanes and I don't remember any mention of those in the Good Book. I tried looking at it as a documentary but even those have a purpose. All I could do while watching this film was soak in the beautiful landscapes and try to enjoy the music (shoutout to Leonard Cohen).
The Herzog theme that stuck out the most to me was how he always manages to find beauty in death, decay, and danger. He doesn't look for the story in the images. He lets the image speak for itself. Which is probably why I have such a hard time figuring out what's going on in his films. I'm accustomed to narrative being laid out for me on a silver platter. I appreciate his neglect for narrative because it's refreshing but it's also exhausting. I think I'll get to an appreciation with more viewings.
After watching this, however, I admittedly wish he had stuck with his plan to make a sci-fi film with this footage. That probably would've been awesome.
Fata Morgana makes great background imagery, a visual stimulus to keep your eyes distracted while your thoughts go while. Of course this means you’re not really paying attention to the movie, but at least that’s better than falling asleep, which I ashamedly did. To say that this film requires audience participation is, frankly, an understatement. I can understand people’s frustration with Fate Morgana because it isn’t even a movie. Well, in a traditional sense at least.
ReplyDeleteIt has been decided collectively as a culture that movies are vehicles for storytelling. You go to movies to watch a story unfold and get invested in characters. However, while that may be our definition of a “movie,” that in no way is what the medium of moving images are limited to. Cinema as an artform is a combination of moving image and sound, that’s all. With that being said our definition of “movies” explodes to include so much more. Of course this isn’t anything new to those versed in experimental film, but it’s a hard pill to swallow nonetheless.
So when watching Fate Morgana you’re not watching a “movie,” you’re watching moving images and sound. What those images and sounds and up to is not a story or even a message., but visual poetry. Actually, I’d argue it’s more akin to a cubist or expressionist painting. It says little, instead concentrating on creating an experience. The same way reading a poem, staring at a painting, or listening to music can create a wild variety of experiences and emotions. What you pull from that experience is completely up to you, but the fact that Fate Morgana even begins to evoke the reactions it has shows that Herzog has not just made a “movie”, he’s made art.
Herzog was young when he made this film. I suppose that is what I have to keep reminding myself. Fata Morgana is a pretty abysmal excuse for a feature. There are beautiful shots and good music, but it just isn’t working for me. It should have been a short film at most.
ReplyDeleteThe issues confronted in the film are obviously death and decay and what ever, but it all seems a bit pseudo-intellectual. It’s setting out to make a film (a sci-fi), coming back with nothing, deciding you are too talented to be denied, then piecing together a bunch of stock footage you took. I just can’t fully appreciate this expressionist piece; it seems like a last resort. I’m too familiar with doing this myself to find much inspiration in it. There are themes in this film that will be revisited in his future work—the future work will be vastly improved. There is also always someone who will get something out of any film so I suppose that plays to Herzog’s advantage. So far, however, he has left me a bit unimpressed. I understand his themes and beliefs, they are not dissimilar from mine, but it is time to take the medium into account and make me feel passionate about something. I know Herzog the philosopher; I know Herzog the ambitious, young German with a camera; I know Herzog the rugged adventurer; It is time to see Herzog the storyteller. It is dumb to hate on an expressionist film in the end because there is no right or wrong way. I can only speak from personal experience when I say that this attempt to preach the horrors of earth came off feeling quite fake.
I thought this was a very difficult film to sit through, compared to the other features we've watched in class. I think Herzog had very clear intentions for what he wanted his audience to see, but i just don't think it was such an appealing film overall.
ReplyDeleteThe long tracking shots made it hard to maintain focus, and other than dividing the three sections of the film: Paradise, Golden Age, and I forget the other, there was no real connection to me. I understand that Herzog created this film during the editing process, maybe this actually helped the film have some sort of structure, but it was still hard to make out any clear construct.
I didn't know what Fata Morgana meant until I looked it up, and I think it is a very fitting title for the film. In fact, I guess you can kind of describe the entire film as a mirage, which would be one of the more positive things I have to say. If I were to look at the film in this way, I can see how Herzog stayed true to a central theme of mirages.
In Fata Morgana, we see a still young Werner Herzog beginning to blossom into the existentialist documentarian and filmmaker we know today. Because of the extensive pans across the immensity of the Sahara, and constant reminders of its vast emptiness, it seems almost like a Herzogian cut of Lawrence of Arabia. Herzog shows us, though, how full of life these seemingly dead masses of land are. The shots of the area’s natural beauty were reminiscent of Koyannisqatsi, though the soundtrack is more fitting for the location. More so, I think the overall message and feel of the film, and Amos Vogel’s own interpretation of his friend’s film, are very much so similar to Koyannisqatsi, just with Herzogian observational and metaphorical narration. This is not a film for people who expect an A+B=C narrative, like many of Herzog’s works. You have to really immerse yourself in the world he shows and not question what you think you’re watching, or at least not drive yourself mad trying to create meaning if you can’t find it yourself. I hate to make the comparison to the Koyannisqatsi triology again but I really do believe it’s in the same vein as Fata Morgana, though Herzog beat that film by ten years. This isn’t a “movie” per se; it’s more like an abstract painting with a soundtrack and transcendental voice-over. It is completely open to interpretation, and it invites it. Like many other members of the class, this was not my favorite film, but that doesn’t mean I disliked it. This is a film about life and death, which, I think, anyone should be able to appreciate.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Giacomazza
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWatching Fata Morgana was a meditative, sparse, and introspective experience for me. As we move throughout the landscape, being presented, gradually, with more and more products of civilization (folk music, construction sites, communities of people, etc) it is as if the languid pacing and extended tracking shots are giving us time to absorb and explore the environment as though we were participatory characters, attempting to (perhaps in vain) connect the dots that allow what we are seeing to make sense.
ReplyDeleteI felt as though Herzog had constructed a desolate space wherein the viewer was the "first human," and, with no plot - save for extended attempts to align creation mythology with what we see before us - we move through time and space, observing humans interacting with their surroundings in ways that become obsessive, garish, and dominating - kinda like life.
Fata Morgana made me feel powerless and insignificant within the vastness of his landscape and my inability to comprehend my place in it.
Fata Morgana was thought provoking to say the least. I cannot say that I hated it, but at the same time I cannot say that I loved it either. To me it seemed like a film that should watched more than once. There seems to be a lot to take in, and it quickly becomes kind of overwhelming, but interestingly enough at the same time the pacing is a bit underwhelming. Overwhelming in a sense that the constant display of mirages seems so abstract and out of this world that it has a hypnotizing effect. This leads the viewer to think that there must be some deeper meaning behind why these bizarre images are being used repetitively and relentlessly even when there could be no meaning behind them whatsoever. I think these long, mind-numbing takes are meant to do exactly what the director intended, which is force the audience to contemplate on what they are seeing and find a deeper meaning within themselves. Whether or not it develops into a profound experience or simply provokes a feeling inside, it has succeeded in fully allowing the individual to decide what the film means to them. Even if in the viewers' eyes the film is considered to be a complete waste of time.
ReplyDeleteOf the three films we've watched so far, Fata Morgana is my favorite. With no characters or plot to carry out a traditional narrative, I can understand what Herzog meant when he said that this film requires the audience to complete it. With most other films, you're understanding a story about man's relationship with man. Sometimes, you'll find a story about man's relationship with nature. In those stories, the audience/reader will most likely understand the story through man's point of view. Here, I believe Herzog is trying to tell that story from nature's point of view.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found a bit intriguing was the use of at least two narrators. In Signs of Life, any narration was followed by subtitles; Herzog could have easily taken that approach, instead. Arguably, that probably would've been easier, too. I think that with any narration in any story, there has to be some sort of relationship between the narrator and the story itself. Since there were multiple narrators presenting the same story, I found myself understanding the story more through my own interpretation more so than any of the narrator's if that makes any sense.
Warren DeCastro
Delete
ReplyDeletePaul Cronin describes Herzog as someone who has a stupendous curiosity and love of the world. Herzog’s images in Fata Morgana stir up a desire to consider their significance, because he certainly found them significant.
The opening sequence of airplanes landing over and over really contrasts the rest of the film. It made me consider how grandiose these machines are and the land that’s taken up to accommodate them. I love the contrast between the opening sequence and the images of plane wrecks on barren plateaus and desert. In II. Paradise, part of the narration stood out to me: “In Paradise, ruins mean happiness. In Paradise, plane wrecks have been distributed in the desert in advance. There the landscape is as God commanded it to be.” I feel that those words have a great connection to the images in Fata Morgana.
The sentence, “In Paradise, ruins mean happiness,” brought to mind the people living in the landscapes that we see; people living simply or simply with what they have. While the man holding the monitor wonders how they survive in the “hot country”, I wonder the same of these people.
I believe Herzog has “recovered the metaphysical beneath the visible” with Fata Morgana through the contrast of his images and our every day experience of the world. It’s a sharp contrast.
-APRIL MASSEY
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was nature. Then there was peace. Then came humans and they fucked everything up." This is the general message I received from Fata Morgana. At the end of creation, when humans have brought chaos, everything we made is destroyed. Then comes Herzog's paradise. After that comes the Golden Age where the purpose of the human race is called into question. The film goes on to portray human existence as ultimately purposeless. Herzog shows peace as only possible outside of the human race. I disagree. I think Herzog is unnecessarily nihilistic. Peace is an entirely human idea measured on human scale, therefore it can not exist outside of us. Love can not exist without us. Sure, humans bring chaos, but any observation of the universe void of humans or not will show you that where one thing exists, so does its opposite. It's the same with chaos. Where there is chaos, there will also be serenity. Though we may steal, kill, and destroy, we also give, love, and create. Fata Morgana was a visually beautiful film but I don't think I'm on board with Herzog's philosophy. I give it a 4.5.
ReplyDeleteAs I’m sure you’ve come to expect (and loathe from me), I found myself exhausted, lost, and the tiniest bit irritable after Fata Morgana. HOWEVER, I do have positive comments (a pause for your gasps and audible noises of confusion).
ReplyDeleteFor me, above all the other films we have watched, Fata Morgana presented itself with a visual beauty that fully encompassed the viewer and really allowed us to feel like we were almost a part of this landscape. The sweeping shots of desert sand and blue skies painted a gorgeous canvas that the audience felt fully submersed in, as if we had been standing right next to Herzog when the shots were captured. Herzog also chose appropriate music to accompany the visuals he presented. Instead of loud, screeching melodies (the likes of which appear often in his work), the vast desert-scapes were backed by beautifully orchestrated music and occasional moments of pure silence, which helped in giving the audience a glimpse at the overwhelming scale of these locations.
As stunning as the visuals and music were, there got to be a moment in part one (I want to say about 20 minutes in or so) that the static shots of the landscape got to be a bit repetitive and the awestruck affect turned into a bit of uncomfortable impatience. The best way to describe part one of this film is with a quote from part one which stated: “there was only the nothingness”, which is exactly what we saw in the longest portion of this piece… the nothingness (which is swell for about 15 minutes but after that it just gets excessive).
Once again, we were presented with a film that had no significant plot, which, as I have said before, drives me beyond insanity. I also don't have a smooth transition into the next sentence but I don't feel like restructuring this paragraph any more than I already have so here are my thoughts on part two of Fata Morgana: The majority of Herzog’s choices in part two confuse me. The individuals that actually spoke all spoke of completely random, unrelated things. One man spoke to an outrageously excessive extent about a lizard as he held the lizard and other people talked about other random things, but none of it tied together, which left me feeling unresolved in the matter of the inanities of these people. Unlike Part One, part two seemed a bit aimless, almost as if it was a collection of footage and soundbites that Herzog had collected while filming and he thought “Fuck it, let’s put it in”.
The third part left me confused. Period. The scenes with the musical duo were uncomfortable in every sense of the word; in the way that they were positioned, in their facial expressions and posture, and most importantly, in the ungodly length of their segment. I have no clue why Herzog that it was necessary for us to see this couple the whole time they performed, but that could've been almost excusable if they hadn't performed MORE THAN ONE SONG. I just have no words to properly describe my discomfort and confusion when it comes to part three.
But, overall, this movie was a visual masterpiece. The landscapes and environments captured by Herzog seemed like something out of a National Geographic photographer’s wet dream (too graphic of a visual? whoops) and they did a phenomenal job of creating world that felt almost otherworldly even though it exists not too far from our own.
Herzog captures landscapes in a way that makes me question human existence. The scale of his shots are not the focal point, but rather the depth and importance of their own presence.
ReplyDeleteFata Morgana is Herzog's Ode to Genesis by pointing out the insignificance of man to nature's wonder. In his book, he discussed using the plane sequence as a means of testing the audience's patience and interest in the film. But what I found interesting in the concept of the plane within this narrative is it's insignificance to the wonders of nature. The idea of man having flight is a wonder that is completely muted by the anatomy of nature. Extensive long shots of desert planes are exhilarating and stunning, which render the aircraft in obscurity. What is the ability of man's temporary ability to fly, marked with the need of fuel and maintenance, when natural is endless and full of unlimited discovery?
The voice overs reminded me of Cecil B Demille's narratives for many of his epics, which added a sense of biblical tone to the film. The idea of the mirage as sort of metaphor for man's own perception of himself amidst natures wonders, lends itself to the film. There are three scenes which human interaction with animals are all threatening and discomforting towards the creatures. Man is seen as a bully, an almost perverse idiot that can not see his own shortcomings because of his ego. The child holds the desert fox by the neck, as the man holds the lizard tight until he gets scratched. However, he still displays expertise despite his pain and wound. Lastly, the turtle is picked from the water, presented to camera by the diver and then put back into a pool. He then explains, he'll go and get her again. I found this to be interesting as Herzog seems to display this "trinity" of ignorance, between the shots of beauty and nature. It's almost a reminder that we are not worthy of the beauty we have around us, or maybe we're too foolish to even notice it.
I found it a breath of fresh air to see something that manages to show us as smaller than nature. Many films place man in a situation where he can conquer the elements, but this film instead shows we are not the giants we think we are.
This, to me, was definitely more excruciating to sit through than the other Herzog films we’ve watched so far. Most of the time I got sidetracked by the narration. It was somewhat hard for me to make sense of what I just heard and what I just saw at the same time. And I think that is solely why this film was hard to get through. Nevertheless, this film is still a great statement on imagination. Herzog needed us, the audience, the most in this film. And that’s because it’s a film about a desolate paradise where most people would go mad if they had to live in these places. But Herzog being Herzog, that’s what he loves most. In fact, he grew up in ruins and desolation. He had to make his own fun with what lay before him. And I think that’s the sole aim of this film, in my opinion. It’s a film about how us, as a culture, need to step back from technology, from the materialistic, and enjoy this life no matter our status or location. As we grow older, our imagination and sense of exploration seem to dwindle. Our lives and our senses are constantly busy and overstimulated, which disconnects us from our humanity. I think, even though this film was pretty damn hard to sit through, it spoke to me more so than the other films we’ve watched. And for a little side note: this is what I love most about Herzog’s films. They make you think so damn hard. They make you go so far deep into your mind and into your soul, that it takes awhile for you to even remotely understand what you saw.
ReplyDelete"There was (nothing), only the heavens were there."
ReplyDeleteI think this film is so beautiful that it actually sort of pissed me off. I saw in this film a biblical-esque chronology of mankind's bastardization of the natural world. The use of unsubtitled multitudes of language in the narration harkened the confusion of our various cultures as we struggle to understand each other. The film starts with sweeping landscapes set to classical music, in my opinion an attempt to both reflect the beauty of the visual and to play up the feeling of how ancient the landscapes in these images truly are. As the film progresses, the discernible parts of the voiceover become steadily more profound to me, as the subject of Paradise, what that could actually be, is analyzed.
"In Paradise, you cross the sand without seeing your shadow."
"There is landscape, even without deeper meaning."
"In Paradise, Man is born Dead."
The film crescendos and ends on the awful depression that we have destroyed our paradise, pulling all of the shiny things from where they belong in the rock and placing them where they don't belong.
"In the Golden Age, remnants of Paradise can still be discerned."
Beneath the EARTH, the children have found a FIRE, and now the parents wish to return to houses of STONE.
Tim Snow
DeleteFata Morgana was a very impactful film the inventive exploration of cinematography, and the editing process is very interesting, and looking at his other works one can see his progression as an artist, and a filmmaker. I also believe that this experimental approach Herzog takes towards the construction of the story in the editing room rather than in preproduction is a fascinating technique which brings a whole new dynamic to story telling which is more sporadic, and in my opinion more natural. One of my favorite scenes in Fata Morgana is the rolling desert shots taken near the beginning of the film, and which are truly stunning. These shots are very nostalgic for me, and remind me of home. They also are very inspirational, for I would love to include similar shots to this in my short film which i will be shooting in the Emirati Desert.
ReplyDeleteFata Morgana was a very slow film for me. I was a little bored with it, although some shots were incredibly beautiful (especially the landscapes that Herzog loves so much.) Compared to "Even Dwarfs" that we watched right before this one, "Fata Morgana" was a lot easier to watch, although it made less sense. My heart didn't beat as fast as when I watched the dwarfs, because they disturbed me too much. This was sort of a boring calmness, and my thoughts often left the sequence of the movie and moved somewhere far from the classroom.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the book, I found out that Herzog filmed the actual mirages, which amazed me. Before I didn't know that those things could be filmed. When I rewatched some scenes after doing the reading (the scene with buses, for example), I understood that those were indeed the mirages. I can't recall a single film which has ever done that, and that's why "Fata Morgana" will always stand out for me.