What is it about Aguirre? Why does J. Hoberman say in his impassioned review that this is Herzog's "defining work...not just a great movie but an essential one"? Hoberman goes on to to call Kinski's performance "curdled glam rock" - but he means it as a complement. And what about Kinski? Holy shit, right?
You've been watching Herzog's films and reading about him for five weeks now, so you tell me. What's going on here? Say anything, but if you can connect Aguirre to Herzog's earlier work and explain the connection with some specificity, that would be sweet. And if you can let me know what moment or scene or shot you think you will most remember from this film and give me a reason or two as to why - all the better.
Aguirre seems to be a film about men attempting to be more than human. They have come from a place without much terror or threat- a land of the nicest clothes, the greatest food, and most importantly, people who respect their authority. As they travel into this strange unknown world they try as hard as they can to live as lavishly as possible. Eventually they come to find that it's entirely impossible to demand anything of a foreign land. They do not realize that power is often gauged by who or what is willing to submit. Aguirre begins to panic and grow even more power hungry as his realm of influence diminishes. With their swords, armor, and cannons, the conquistadors posses the illusion of power, but they continue to prove what little control they have over anything that goes on. The monkeys and the natives are no different in the minds of the Spanish. Both have a lower "standard" of living compared to their own ideas of what a good life is. However, it is apparent that their opinions of what life is don't do them too much good. They may have possessed the illusion of power, but the natives were doing one thing right that the conquistadors couldn't seem to do-- surviving. I believe in this film, Herzog was trying to show what happens when one culture is forced on another. We lose the ability to relate to each other as individual human beings when we begin to treat one another based on our own social paradigms without any regard to the other's. In Aguirre, Wrath of God, we witnessed two opposite worlds collide. It was a chaotic, empty tale with no resolution, but that two part question the viewer is challenged to ask her or himself is a valuable one: What in me is innately human and what is simply me refracting that haunting light that is my culture?
ReplyDeleteNot much of Aguirre reminded me of any Herzog film I had seen before. There were some distinct Herzogish factors to it, such as the use of landscape shots, particularly that of the sweeping landscape (similar to Fata Morgana), and making the landscape a character in itself (as time goes on both the audience and the characters are made to fear the forest and dread the water). The feeling that I got from watching Aguirre was the same feeling I got from Even Dwarfs Started Small, which is that of a never-ending nightmare, with miserable characters waiting for a miserable demise, and no admirable or favorable characters in sight. I hated Aguirre, as most people probably do. The use of the birds chirping in the background for the entirety of the film also reminded me of the overuse of tiny laughter from Dwarfs, creating a similar eery and creepy vibe.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the shaky camera work and the water stained lenses providing an authentic feel to the film. After reading some of the interviews in our book, Herzog described the filming process to be as grueling for the cash as the journey was for the characters in the story. What made this film most unlike Herzog for me, was how precise each shot and movement was. I mean, to think about the logistics that it took to make a feature film floating down a raft on the Amazon River with a huge cast and crew is beyond anything I would ever dream of getting involved in. Unlike Herzog’s other films, where he admits to planning very little and just letting the camera take him wherever he felt was right, sometimes not even knowing what the final product would look like until getting into the editing room, it was clear that he had to have everything planned out very strategically and methodically for this film. There was no room for error, because the entire time the danger looked very real.
I did not enjoy how useless the women in the film were. I do not even understand the purpose of their presence. Aguirre’s daughter said less than two sentences throughout the entire story, and we forget that she is even there until she dies a very vapid death at the hands of a silent arrow. She does not even utter any dying words, that is how useless she is as a character. Although I will say that I enjoyed the scene where Aguirre hands her the tiny hedgehog looking creature, and it is one of the only glances we have at him out of uniform, without his helmet on, his hair flowing freely as he expressed a rare softer side of himself with his daughter. Meanwhile, Ursua’s wife silently sat by him on his deathbed, just to eventually commit suicide. How romantic. What were these women even doing on this excursion in the first place?
I did not understand the logic of “we stripped the negro to frighten the Indians”. The “Indians” are already half naked. Also, what happened to the two “savages” that were taken captive onto the raft? I did not understand the ending, or what the monkeys symbolized, or how they got on the raft, or how they managed to swim away. I do not even know if the boat in the tree was real. And how about the irony that Runo Ramac, an “Indian” slave who is actually South American, is speaking to his “Spanish" captors in the “Spanish” language that he has apparently learned, even though we are listening to it in German, and reading subtitles in English. That killed me.
Still, at the end of the film I was left with a sense of dread and hopelessness, which I guess is something very consistent with all of Herzog's works so far.
I personally feel that with the previous films that we watched Herzog was still developing himself stylistically speaking. He hadn't found "his voice" as an artist yet. This isn't to say his previous films aren't "Werner Herzog films" in a stylistic sense, because they most definitely are. But with Aguirre we see all the trial and error of his previous films finally paying off. Aguirre speaks with Herzog's voice, and it does it more perfectly than any of his previous films. I found several shots and scenes to be fascinating, particularly the closing shot circling around Kinski as he is the lone survivor left on the raft. Another one that I enjoyed was Kinski watching the horse vanish from his eyesight as the raft slowly drifts away from where the horse had climbed onto shore. I can't say why I like these moments, I just do.
ReplyDeleteAfter class I heard Dan connecting this film to Apocalypse Now and honestly, it is a damn appropriate comparison. That all being said - and maybe this is a good topic for a paper (*wink*wink*) - I think it may be possible for some to argue that Aguirre is in fact the first cannibal film. While there are never are explicit scenes of cannibalism within the film (this is why I personally don't think it is), the film's subplot of cannibalistic tribesmen chasing after and hunting Aguirre and his men is enough for an argument to be made. After all, many (again, not I), consider Umberto Lenzi's film Man From Deep River to be the first cannibal film, even though the film contains only one brief sequence of cannibalism in its southeast Asian setting. Man From Deep River certainly deals with cannibalism less than Aguirre: The Wrath of God does ... and that's saying a lot considering what I've just said.
Herzog's attempt at historical fiction is of course a weird one. I'm still trying to figure out if it took as long as it's taking me for everyone else to figure out Herzog is a genius or if he's one of those filmmakers whose films I will never run out the door to be first in line for.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the filmmaking is aesthetically pleasing by filming in the jungles and including many shots of nature. These shots are effective because they aren't accompanied by music or a soundtrack which is Herzog's way of forcing the viewer to pay attention to their beauty.
However, the narrative was still unclear to me. I get what Herzog is trying to do with his theme of going in circles but it took a while for me to get to the conclusion because of what I'll label again as a "lack of focus". Mainly, Aguirre doesn't seem like the main character in the film. We get to know him by people talking about him, which led me to believe he would act in the way he was being described. But instead, we get a blatantly crazy Kinski (who may not be acting here) that caused me to wonder why any one in their right mind throughout history would ever follow him anywhere. And they listen to him without question even when he instructs someone to be killed for doing absolutely nothing.
I see some parallels to Strozek in Aguirre. They both seem to deal with how warfare culture and mundanity ultimately have negative consequences on the mental state of soldiers. I just wish Herzog would fill in the blanks in between sane and insane. I want to know what exactly causes Aguirre to get the way he is. Or maybe he's always like that and I missed the point, totally possible because you know.... Herzog.
My passion for film was unearthed because of my unabashed love for the great Roger Ebert. Due to my admiration for Ebert I was introduced to Aguirre, Wrath of God at 18, he included it in his last top ten films of all time submission to Sight and Sound in 2012. On to another critic, I believe that Hoberman was so ecstatic upon viewing this film for a variety of reasons, however one could be that he was overtaken just by its sheer power. This is a film of immense scope and Herzog does not hold back on showing this to the viewer. One thing that makes this film so powerful is Kinski. That dude is an absolute nutbag. It is hard to decide whether who is more insane, Kinski or Aguirre. I do not think it really matters and is probably best not to figure out. Herzog takes on everything he knows and loves and puts it in Aguirre, he obviously nailed it. From the opening sequence of the film, it is a constant, beautiful, claustrophobic jungle. He truly does have an eye for nature in all its majesty. To compare something with to the unforgiving jungle, he builds on his initial crazy man, Stroszek from Signs of Life, and he masters it in 1972 with this film. And most importantly Herzog loves physicality, if anyone knows anything about the production of this movie they know that this is a physically made film. It might be the film he is most proud of due to its physical nature. There are two shots in this piece of art that should stand out to movie lovers the most. The first and the last. I do not think there is another film that has been made that the first and last shots are truly the most mind-imprinting. The valley shot and the monkey shot.
ReplyDeleteWatching this film was a lot like revisiting Apocalypse Now (and I'm clearly not to first to mention that film); you're watching this long and arduous journey throughout an inhospitable jungle and observing how it affects these unfortunate adventurers. Since they clearly never reached El Dorado or achieved the power and independence they were striving for, the journey is all we have and need to understand this film, and of the journey, all we need is Aguirre and the jungle.
ReplyDeleteHerzog never lets us forget about the inhospitable nature of the jungle. One of the earliest problems that the mini-expedition encounters is the raft stuck in the currents; by the next morning, all the slaves and party members have already died. Even when they're on calm waters, the party has to deal with unbearable weather or low rations. Almost never shown with fear, weariness, or uncertainty, Aguirre is the only one among them truly defiant to their environment.
Without him, the party would have returned to the original expedition party at the first signs of difficulties; no Wrath of God. It's watching him go to disturbing lengths to conquer nature and find what he's looking for (all the while watching everyone else fall apart) that make this film come off really powerful, and I easily see myself watching this film again in the distant future.
Herzog’s obsession with landscapes encompassing the human soul is back in full force, yet it remains as pure as his first films. The scale of the film is tremendous, and having more access to actors really helped Herzog’s message. In Signs of Life, the film seemed to be hindered by the fact that there wasn’t a large cast; Aguirre, Wrath of God does not suffer from the same issue.
ReplyDeleteThere are many fantastic shots that will stay with me from this film, but the opening shot is the most striking. Watching these ants weave their way in and out of the camera frame on a mountain through the fog is breathtaking. I say, “ants” because this film really portrays them as such. They are all little beings attempting to find a place and control something that is totally beyond them. Aguirre’s mind cannot accept this fact, and like Stroszek he goes insane when the limitations of humanity are displayed before him.
Herzog is nothing short of a master when it comes to incorporating landscapes into his works. With every film we watch, it seems, without fail, we are dazzled by a beautiful scenery. Aguirre, Wrath of God is no exception. The scene i most loved in this film was in which the slaves were carrying the seat (not sure the technical name of the device) that was holding Aguirre's daughter through the mud and every other unideal sort of terrain. I don't know why, I just thought that was so elegant and awesome and it did a BEAUTIFUL job of differentiating the upper from the lower class. I'm also a little jealous of his daughter because that trip honestly looked luxurious for her compared to others, not saying that i condone slave labor, BUT i do condone luxurious travel.
ReplyDeleteAfter this class, I'm going to start a band called the German Spaniards and we are going to tour the world, throwing monkeys out the windows of our tour bus every thirty miles or so.
ReplyDeleteUntil then, I found Aguirre, the Wrath of God to be very similar to Signs of Life, but more masterfully put together. The opening wide shot of the cast descending together down the mountain was very reminiscent to the opening wide of the truck weaving through the roads of the mountain in Signs of Life. The subject matter of many somewhat sane people being subject to the collateral damage of a man descending into madness and delusions of grandeur also harken one another.
One of the first shots of the film might be now one of my favorite shots of all time. Right after the first dialogue between Aguirre and one of his men, Aguirre (with that beautiful wacko Kinski's super-intense thousand mile gaze) stares into the river. We then cut to the river and hold on it for a really long time. That image of the dirty water, bubbling and churning and frothing, for some reason just captivated me. I could've watched that shot for hours. The fact that the shot brilliantly shows the turmoil occurring in Aguirre's head and foreshadowed the ruin to come is just a bonus, and proof that Herzog's cinematic toolkit continues to grow with each film he makes.
- Tim Snow
As many folks expressed, Aguirre Wrath of God explores the Herzog-ian themes of desolation, perception, and civilization (or lack thereof) but in a more accessible, human way. We have a plot to cling to and characters with whom we can potentially relate - which, given Herzog's depictions of land made peaceful by lack of humans, makes me wonder if human presence in films serves, to some extent, as a means of sparing us the discomfort/unease of being alone.
ReplyDeleteThe film reaches its climax as the few remaining characters - delirious, starving, and tired - spot a ship in a tree. They each respond to it differently, questioning its existence and desiring to claim it to continue a pursuit of power and wealth.
The characters continue into a sort of transient state, saying "this is not real, this is not rain, this is not an arrow." One man is shot with an arrow and casually assesses the situation stating, "We just imagine the arrows because we fear them." In this scene, Herzog has broken his characters down to the point of psychological detachment from reality. In order to cope, they have removed their perceptions of the world from material influence and are observing things from an almost divine place of (perhaps delusional) understanding. The physical has taken on purely psychological meaning, as the "real world" becomes less and less manageable.
Well shit. That was one hell of a movie. I felt like wading through the jungle of Herzog's earlier work has finally led me to the river of insanity. It all built towards this film, but I'm not sure I can forgive you Dan for making me watch Dwarfs. It felt like all the insanity that Herzog has built throughout his films has lead to this, it is the most refined and definite of his movies so far. And it was just a real pleasure to watch! It looked beautiful, and by the end I was really questioning my own sanity. Theres just so much crazy shit in the movie. The woman wandering off to join the natives, the men laying on the raft as they are killed by arrows, the damn boat in the tree. From the opening shot to that crazy circling closing shot, I loved this movie. It made sense while also being totally insane, Herzog has finally matured as a film maker.
ReplyDeleteJake Hughes
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI enjoyed reading the conversation about Aguirre, Wrath of God between Herzog and Cronin; It got me pumped to watch the film, which didn’t disappoint. Kinski’s performance was everything I thought it would be, he created a driving presence, especially through his expressions and body language.
DeleteAguirre is a man whose efforts to rule and be great are futile—a theme I believe exists throughout Herzog’s work. Aguirre rails against man and nature, he is mad, and his madness infects everyone on the expedition. Aguirre is blinded by his pride, and his quest will never be anything other than an utter failure. Aguirre and those on the raft eventually lose their sense of reality. The images feel like a dream or hallucination as the film goes on, their expectations and their grim reality blur together and one by one they fall away—I noticed that a lot of the deaths in the film happened off screen, which made it even more eerie.
The final scene was the most memorable for me—Aguirre alone on the raft, surrounded by corpses and monkeys. Despite all that has happened he appears to have not lost hope. I’m not 100 percent on the meaning of the film, but I think it might be the madness in the persistence of man.
It feels disingenuous for me to talk about Aguirre, as I don't feel I've fully comprehended the film. This isn't helped by this class' increasingly frustrating 9am start time causing me to doze off, but also because this film defies understanding. Hitchock once said something about how the future of film is a machine that hooks up to your brain and triggers certain emotions at the push of a button. The pushing of these emotional buttons is a skill that takes years for directors to obtain, and decades to master. Herzog seems to have gotten a grasp of that skill in Aguirre.
ReplyDeleteThe twists, turns, images, and themes of Aguirre all seem paranormal- beyond our comprehension. Their meaning eludes us so we struggle for the answers that make the most sense. It's fairly clear that even Herzog didn't understand what he was doing, he simply knew what buttons to push. In this way Aguirre becomes a very different kind of film.
The characters venture into a land that's beyond their control or understanding, but they still try to conquer it in the attempt to transcend humanity- to become gods. So do we, as we wade our way through a film that shows the scrapes and bruises it endured as it was film. Aguirre makes it clear that their isn't just a story in the film, but outside of it as well. The filmmaking and film fuse together into a mysterious experience that none of us have had and we can only get a glimpse of. Claiming to understand this film is much like Aguirre himself claiming he is the wrath of god. It's our attempt to be more then human, to transcend our senses in order to understand something that can't be understood.
Or everything I just said is bullshit, the ramblings of a college student with far too little sleep. But either way Aguirre is a film with presence. Its energy commands you, with all the fervor of Kinski, to watch and to keep watching for decades to come.
Aguirre, Wrath of God definitely was my favorite film we've screened thus far into the semester. Even though it was really nothing like any Werner Herzog feature we've ever seen before, Herzog 100% was able to keep the plot of this movie in his own style. Like many other films we've seen in class, Werner Herzog films like to feature about society and chaos, well in Aguirre, Wrath of God, I think he did a great job of getting the cast to slowly turn insane. For example in the closing scenes when there were very little crew members left, they had lost all grasp of reality and started killing each other or slowly be killed off by the natives.
ReplyDeleteOverall I really do think that this film was a HUGE step up from his previous work. Like someone literally went step by step on how to create a Hollywood film with him, and gave him guidance to make a very watchable and likable movie.
The only thing I do not understand in this film, is the scene when hes shooing away the monkeys on the boat. I seriously have zero understanding of what this scene even means.
This was one of few films of Herzog that I have watched before back in Poland, because Germany is so close to us and so our cinema is very much influenced by it. In comparison with the previous works that we've seen, this felt extremely different. I felt like he suddenly performed a huge jump from the old style films to this very modern artwork which reminded me a lot of American war dramas from the 80s-90s. That is my favorite genre, and I enjoyed it a lot.
ReplyDeleteCamera work and editing felt very natural compared to Even Dwarfs... and all of his early films. It helped connect with the plot more because there was a feeling of an actual presence in the setting. I especially admired the vibrant colors that this film was full of. However, some of the shots did feel a little longer, and I started analyzing them and asking myself what was the purpose of them being so long.
One more thing I want to touch on is the plot. The plot is universal, and it has always been relevant and will stay relevant forever. People started to forget their place in the world. They invade other countries, destroy other cultures, kill people and their heritage, and think that it is absolutely normal (I'm a part of the alliance for Ukrainian independence, (for those who know what's going on in Ukraine now) so I know what I am talking about.) Cultures literally die out because some people think they have a right to influence their fate. People realized that mind is the most powerful weapon in the world, so they use it against the laws of universe. But even those who don't believe in God know that we are tiny compared to universe. And even though it seems like we can rule the world, we actually can't. And every dictator who wanted to do that, at some point made sure that it didn't work this way. It just doesn't. work. that. way.
One last thing- I really liked the erotic scent of the relationship between the main character and his daughter. Taboos is one of my favorite topics to explore/write on, so I felt like that was a very very nice touch in the film that is full of ruthlessness and drama.
SA
Aguirre was definitely a Herzog film I have heard of prior to this class, but it was still my first time watching it last week. It was a great film, overall, and probably one of my favorite Herzog films we've watched as a class thus far. It reminded me of Signs of Life: a story about a man who slowly descends into madness. Aguirre, unlike the character in Signs of Life, was after something and it was his greed that filled him with rage. Despite all of the warnings and the opinions of his companions, Aguirre continued to pursue the gold that may or may not have even existed. He first struck me as a leader, one of the more reliable men of the group. However, like many others persuaded by the thought of gold or wealth, he showed his true colors. I eventually saw a man unravel before me as he risked the lives of his companions in order to gain wealth.
ReplyDeleteThere was beautiful scenery throughout the film, as I’ve come to expect from Herzog now. I thought it was interesting to see most of the film taking place in heavy forests and on the surface of rivers. Great cinematography, which also complimented the scenery within the film.
If this was considered a monumental film for Herzog, I’d have to agree, but I now only have high expectations for anything we watch after this.
First off, let me say that this film instantly reminded me of Signs of Life. How could it not? With the main character steadily delving into insanity. It was different, however, because it showed what greed can do to the human spirit. In Signs of Life, the main character isn’t chasing anything, necessarily, and that is one reason why he goes man. But Aguirre is chasing something. Aguirre was willing to risk everyone in the group just on the idea of finding gold and riches. I think this film is a very relevant statement even on today’s culture, where the greed of a few can ruin everything for the many.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography in this film was beautiful. I’m somewhat biased on this though, because my favorite scenes in life are that of forests and rivers, and that’s exactly where this film took place. Even the shades and colors in this film were fantastic. Also, the movement and plot of this film was definitely more reasoned and sound than his other works. This is always nice to have, especially from Herzog.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Herzog’s signature is all over it, and that’s what you need from an auteur. I will say that I enjoyed Land of Silence and Darkness a little bit more, though, only because I’ve already seen most of the themes found in Aguirre in Herzog’s earlier stuff.
I personally think Herzog's Aguirre borrows many attributes of his early work, regarding madness and revolt. However, unlike much of his early work, this film presents itself with a more clear narrative and direction. Nonetheless, it is disturbing in it's execution of the effects mutiny and man's corruption of power.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography is absolutely beautiful. His framing for many of the sequences with the soldiers escorting the natives are stunning and surreal. Seeing a long line of natives and troops from one side of the mountain into the next part is gorgeous, but also allows the viewer to establish how big the scale of this narrative is. There's an aggression here that has never been seen before in Herzog's early work, mostly due to the performance of Klaus Kinski.
Rather than build on an impending doom, the Kinski settles us in with a building discomfort and menace that loom throughout the narrative. It's obviously a huge nod to Signs of Life, but here we are immediately greeted with Aguirre being an antagonist during the conquest of this new world.
The portion of the film that really struck me is the use of the mirage. After seeing Fata Morgana, Herzog uses this interesting aesthetic to imply man's discomfort and descent into the chaotic of the jungle. This then leads into a haunting narration that is heavily reminiscent of the The Unprecedented Defence of the Fortress Deutschkreuz. The idea that this menacing narrative is speaking of power and conquest, status of war and achievement, despite the fact that he (Aguirre) is floating into the jungle alone and without ration. It reminded me of the narration of the castle that the soldiers broke into.
Again, an absolute wonderful narrative that definitely borrows from his early work and takes him into new territory and possibilties
Oh boy this is my new favorite film. What a visceral, metaphoric adventure. The monkey scene at the end reminded me of how magnets repel, or how water displaces itself on a hydrophobic surface. What a perfect metaphor for Augirre's slipping grasp on his circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOh boy this is my new favorite film. What a visceral, metaphoric adventure. The monkey scene at the end reminded me of how magnets repel, or how water displaces itself on a hydrophobic surface. What a perfect metaphor for Augirre's slipping grasp on his circumstances.
ReplyDeleteWatching this film after having already scene many of Herzog's early work played a huge role on the overall impact of the film on me, in addition to seeing where Herzog gets his ideas from, that is expanding on attributes from his earlier work.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography throughout the movie is simply stunning. I was blown away by much of his composition, and camera work, something which I have recently been more interested in because of Herzog's works. The long precession shot where the soldiers march down the misty mountainside is truly incredible, the coordination, lighting and composition of the shot creates a powerful image.