The last time I taught a course on Herzog, the students proclaimed Stroszek their favorite film of the semester up to this point. Was this your favorite so far, too? If so, why? If not, why not?
Please write whatever you'd like, but I would of course love it if you were to get specific about the ways in which Stroszek is both similar to but also very different from the other films of Herzog's we've seen.
And what about Herzog's view of America? He says this film "does not criticize the country; it is almost a eulogy to the place." How so?
And what about the animal-oriented sequence that ends the film? What is it with Herzog and chickens, and was that an effective way to finish this story?
In general, I look forward to hearing what you thought of Stroszek (which is definitely one of my favorite Herzog films, too) - by no later than this coming Wednesday at noon of course.
Strozskek is hands down my favorite Herzog film. The departure from his usual misc-en-scene is a striking, seamless transition. The beauty is that Herzog manages to maintain his auteurship, while coming as close to Scorsese territory as I've seen from any of his film work. An urban landscape in a way that is both authentic and complementary of the era of cinema (crime, pimps and prostitutes), but is very much his world. His manages to maintain a sense of his fantastical tone, but uses the urban decay of city life as a means of exploring human purpose, escapism and geographical turmoil, along with several other themes within this masterful work.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting dynamic of the film that stands out is the tone and form of the film. This is an emulation of the American New Wave style, that manages to float between an analyzing of urban life (the first half of the film) and the compare and contrast of "southern comfort". It floats between cynical humor and drama, effortlessly as it plays out.
The cinematography captures the city's rusted danger and character, making me feel confused (in a good way) of what city the first half takes place (the city feels a lot like New York.) This familiarity of sorts made me become that much more empathetic towards Bruno and Eva, as their character archetypes play on these backdrops in a fashion that is only different by foreign language.
Herzog explores their turbulent difficulties of Bruno and Eva with an un-romanticized presentation and direction, that only adds depth and interest to their plights. It pulled me into the narrative much more, because their union of friendship (and implied desire for more on Bruno's part) took me deeper into the conflicts of life, purpose and pursuits of something more. Their journey is covered in a sincere presentation, that is absent of the "two leads must fall in love" structure, and presents us with two troubled souls, finding companionship, rather than romance.
An important factor of this film is that Herzog is indeed commenting on America's economical structure, but it may arguably be involuntary. It's impossible for this film to not turn into a criticism. However, it is not a "middle-finger" to America, but a perverse statement on the unavoidable difficulties of transitions in life. An example of this is seen as Eva's plight with prostitution and the attempts at the legitimacy of wages.
When we meet Eva, she is a victim of abuse and prostitution, at the hands of her handlers/pimps. She manages to flee to Wisconsin with the intentions of starting over, along with Scheitz and Bruno. Working at a diner, she soon becomes pulled back into prostitution after not being able to pay bills with her legal wages. Equally interesting is the plight of Bruno and alcoholism, which is both cultural to location and stress.Bruno soon loses his trailer due to lack of payment, but before then is stressed to the point of alcoholism again. A circumstance he fought to change after his failures as a street performer and frequent incarcerations.
The difference between Eva and Bruno's arcs are the implied reasons behind their decents into previous habits. Eva seems to be bored with her new life. The scene where Herzog holds on to Eva eating in bed, in a dark bedroom is an indication of boredom. One could argue that it is a sign of stress of taught, but the stillness of her in the frame and how she eats indicates pure disinterest in her life. Her return to prostitution can be considered as a fall back into bad habits, but also an example of American inequality of opportunity in pay. Just as Bruno is a victim of bad circumstances in his inability to obtain a good job, but also the culture of alcohol in more "country" based settings. He is not able to handle the depression in a newer sense, but is rather able to access old habits through the geographic culture he is now a part of, to cope with his problems
As I touched on in class. The use of animals at the end of the film is the metaphor for the structure of human existence within a capitalist society. We are dependent on the dollar to live, boxed in by our jobs and requirements to live. If we do not satisfy these social demands, we will be "removed". The use of the unsettling rodeo music, almost a yelping of madness over the imagery of the animals trapped in a cycle of activity.
DeleteAbsolutely beautiful, heartbreaking film that reminds me why 70s cinema transcends time.
While I appreciated the nihilism of Stoszek, it was nowhere near being my favorite Herzog movie that I’ve seen so far. That honor I’d probably bestow upon Even Dwarfs Started Small or Aguirre: the Wrath of God. Overall, I enjoyed Stroszek a lot but I didn’t feel as if I had just experienced something beyond words the way I did with the other two films I just mentioned. In other words, I enjoyed it – but I wasn’t thinking too much about the film once it was over. This is somewhat surprising, I suppose, given that this film shares with the two I mentioned as being my favorites an underlying sense of nihilism. Stroszek comes to America to achieve the American dream, and instead encounters the American reality – the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Maybe a negative comment on America on Herzog’s part, but I don’t choose to view it that way, more of a constructive criticism really.
ReplyDeleteWhat I enjoyed most about this movie is that it seemed to be, to me anyway, Herzog’s ultimate comment on social outsiders. Mainly those outsiders will always be discontent with being an outsider, they want to achieve success whatever that may mean to them on a personal level. But, what Herzog is trying to say – again, in my opinion – is that outsiders ought to be content being outsiders. In the end there’s nothing they can do about the fact that that’s what they are and have always meant to be. This ties into the film’s final shots of circus animals continuously performing obscure tasks.
Stroszek was interesting because it really didn't feel like a Herzog movie to me. Very little in it felt like Herzog's influence and seemed like another rags-to-riches-to-rags story. The cinematography was quite Herzogian, but the story itself didn't really amaze me. It just didn't really wow me the way Aguirre did. The ending was by far the most interesting part of the film, when Stroszek and the old man go on their little robbery adventure that ultimately leads to their destruction. That I liked, how those last desperate moments of resistance are truly what destroys us. I would like to see the film again because I feel as if I didn't quite grasp everything in it, but at the same time I don't feel there is much more to grasp. If Herzog has ever made a film that I felt was truly average, it's this.
ReplyDeleteStroszek was the most un-Herzog like Herzog film that we have seen so far. Herzog really stepped up his game aesthetically and cinematically for this one, with well thought out color schemes, muse-en-scene, and even camera movements. In the films we had seen so far, Herzog had used a combination of low-budget car window dollies and handheld shots. In Stroszek, there was a noticeable amount of polished camera movements, and extremely detailed set design, such as the long opening shot of Bruno staring out the window, where the camera tracks out very slowly and smoothly, the long tracking in when Bruno sits down by himself in the booth at the diner, and the various objects, instruments, and hoarder-like material found throughout Bruno’s flat. Every shot, and every detail about its creation seemed purposefully placed with intent throughout the film, which is not something I usually associate with a Herzog film.
ReplyDeleteStroszek also had much more humor in it than the other films, albeit dark humor still. Bruno’s “yah” response when asked if he still enjoys the taste of beer, his ad libbing in between his already strange lyrics while performing with his accordion, the awkward tension whilst his trailer is being auctioned off, and of course “we cannot stop the dancing chicken”. On that note, there is also a repetition of some very Herzog motifs in this film, that remind us what we are still watching. These motifs include chickens, of course, acting as ominous creatures and foreboding doom and unfortunate circumstances, a car spinning in circles endlessly, the use of the piano as a tool for expression, and long, static holding shots on a character’s face or during a moment in which nothing seems to be happening so that we may project our emotions and beliefs onto the shot.
Another constant idea with Herzog’s previous works, is his protagonist as the deeply flawed, average joe, anti-hero character. Bruno never stands up for himself, allowing him to be physically abused by the pimps (for which Herzog switched back to his intimate handheld camera movements), emotionally abused by Eva and by the mechanics on the farm, and neglecting to intervene when he watches Eva get beaten up and his own personal property destroyed. Bruno allows Eva to repeatedly pimp herself out for money that he cannot raise, and he even harms himself with his alcoholism, and his pessimistic victim mentality that keeps him from trying to learn English or get a real job. This barrier immediately separates him from Eva and their new American friends, and Herzog emphasizes this through the scenes in which stories are repeated twice: first told in English, and then translated in German for Bruno. These scenes allow us to begin to understand the boredom and burden that Eva will eventually bare by being with Bruno: just as we have already heard these stories, so has Eva, and she must go out of her way to translate every element of the moment for Bruno so that he will remain included. Eva was initially dependent on Bruno, living in his flat, hiding from the pimps, and transitioning to a happy house-wife who cleans and dusts, but as their new life in America begins to emphasize Bruno’s victim mentality and reluctance to adapt, this causes him to becoming increasingly dependent on her, as she desires to branch out and make friends and a fresh start.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and all of the layers of direction that Herzog implemented, whether it be through camera movement, frame composition, mise-en-scene, subtext in dialogue, character blocking and development, and motifs. I could honestly talk about Stroszek for days, but just in case we have another essay coming up on the film, I’ll save the rest of my discussion material for then.
I wouldn't say that "Stroszek" is an un-Herzog like film. In fact it suits most of what he expects in his own films. He kept to his roots of showing the setting. Like when they were in Germany and how the streets were beat up/ragged. As well as how you got this overwhelming sensation of poverty, whoring and drug abuse because all grasp of society went into the dirt. So we see Bruno attach to a girl that he just has an attraction too and leaves the country to Wisconsin to pursue a new life since he was recently out of prison. It fits Werner Herzogs vision of giving a voice to the voiceless. When they get to Wisconsin you see the emptiness and the hopelessness of Bruno and the woman he came to the United States with.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that was VERY different experience for me watching a Herzog film was that I don't think that the music really made all that much of an impact on the film like it did in "Signs of Life" or "Aguirre Wrath of God".
However, Herzog always does an astonishing job with leaving the viewer with an extremely powerful image. When Bruno is up in the mountain after essentially giving up on life we see him turn on the chicken show boxes or whatever they are called. And I think it was another clever Herzog style of symbolism that all Bruno's life was in this world was to be just entertainment to the world. Which was heartbreaking.
Overall, I really did like this film. Definitely not my favorite Herzog film, but it was very easy to enjoy.
For most people, this will be their favorite Herzog film. It is not mine. People will easily connect more to Stroszek considering there are many American motifs. While Stroszek is certainly a great film, I would never say it is his best. Herzog takes too large a step into the mainstream pool than I prefer. Don’t make it an assumption that I disregard all mainstream film, because that is not true. However, I do prefer seeing Herzog doing something more daring or over the top. Again Herzog casts Bruno S. brilliantly as a character that has a lot of trouble communicating. No one could be better for this role or the role of Kaspar Hauser. I honestly don’t quite know what Herzog is saying about America in this film, I don’t know if he is necessarily trying to say anything about America. His choice or rural Wisconsin is truly an intriguing one, I am sure it is due to the fact that most people that live outside America view this country as the small town Wisconsin stereotype with its auto-mechanic shops, small truck-stop diners, and the prostitutes that come with them. The end sequence is definitely something to behold. I am a believer in patient cinema. I love nothing more than a director or cinematographer who can hold on a shot and make the audience think so much they become antsy and uncomfortable. Herzog is phenomenal at this and I was already able to see how it bothered so much of the class while watching his films. This end sequence is one of the best moments of patience I have seen. Usually in a Herzog film the patience is accompanied by a beautiful shot or calming music. This ending contains neither, instead it is a shot of some caged chickens performing mindless tasks for low-paying audiences. Is Stroszek the chicken? Are we the chicken? Is film itself the chicken? Whatever the chicken is, Herzog doesn’t like it.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't my favorite but it wasn't my least favorite. It's fun to see some images repeated in different ways in Herzog's works such as the car with no driver driving in circles by itself. We have another film here that deals with characters on a long journey to get somewhere but in the end the whole journey is as Stroszek says, hopeless. This is very similar to Aguirre. But where Aguirre continued forward on his hopeless journey with some monkeys, Stroszek kills himself on a ski life.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe Herzog isn't criticizing America with this film. By saying this film is a eulogy for the country means he believes it's a dead country which seems like a really strong critique actually. Stroszek sees americans and eventually realizes theres no hope. Just by being around americans, hope is sucked out of him.
And then there's the comparisons to the chickens at the end. It seems to be comparing americans to them because after you put a quarter in the machine, the chicken will do what is expected of them. Very similar to american life. Pay someone to do a job but most of us end up hating that job anyways, right?
I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying it's definitely a critique.
Stroszek is a masterpiece and stunning cinematic adventure. Once again, Herzog conquers the medium of filmmaking with scenes that simply could not exist without a camera to take them in. Stroszek is meant to be an experience—a disturbing look at the mechanics of modern civilization.
ReplyDelete“We simply know so little about human beings,” a doctor states during one of the scenes. Herzog emphasizes this fact with contrasting characters—antagonists that meet our trio at every step. These antagonists have the faces of everyday people, but have devious ulterior motives that put less fortunate people below them. “Who knows where I’d be without it,” Stroszek says referring to his piano during a vital piece of foreshadowing. Thanks to the interests of those who would like to keep humanity crippled, he is soon without his piano. Bruno is already on the brink after the destruction of his property and the constant bullying he and Eva are receiving in Germany.
When Bruno, Eva and Scheitz escape from their dismal future in Germany, they decide to try again in America; the land of the free, the home of the brave. There is a shot of not the Empire State Building, but its shadow cast on the city. As the three stand atop the structure, we feel the gravity of the situation—will this work out, or fail horribly?
The disturbing part about Bruno, Eva and Scheitz is that they are truly good people. Herzog is showing what society can do to good people. Two men with tractors ride around in a modern “joust” with shotguns in their arms. This doesn’t seem like a place for good people, but then, where is that place? The film gets more and more depressing as they fail to keep up with the payments on their newly acquired home. Eva reverts back to prostitution. Bruno talks to himself in the midst of people who don’t understand him. “At least the nazis didn’t hide their actions, now they do it with a smile on their face and that’s worse,” Schmitz says of the American banking system as it takes away their means of survival.
To go from downright depressing to downright funny is a spectacular feat in cinema. Bruno and Scheitz hold up a bank and then proceed to go shopping despite the obvious risks. They are desperate, maniacal, and no longer care. “Everything and everyone is gone… I wouldn’t worry about it. Prost!” Bruno leaves the car going in a circle as he mounts the ski lift in a reservation town. As the car goes in circles, he goes in circles. The cycle of ups and downs is presented and Bruno kills himself. Another casualty of not only American society, but humanity in general.
With scenes like the babies, dancing chickens, cars going in circles, robberies followed by shopping and riding a ski lift with a shotgun, Stroszek is a terrific representation of what film can be capable of in the right hands. Bravo, Werner Herzog, this film should be proudly shown to everyone and considered among the finest of all time.
Herzog's landscapes seem to be as much of a character in his films as any of the humans. In Stroszek, Herzog's taste for peculiar human sensibilities and dry, perhaps cynical, wit finds itself married perfectly with the Wisconsin setting. Shot largely in the hometown of Ed Gene, one of the characters even recounts to the immigrants the local lore of missing persons believed to have been murdered (just about every rural Wisconsin town has a psycho killer tale and an old farmer gleefully waiting to tell it). Later, we are introduced to a painfully timid bank official, suffering under the agonizing Midwestern burden of potentially upsetting people with bad news.
ReplyDeleteThe film is freeingly odd. It adheres to its own logical progression. Its characters are held in an almost comical juxtaposition - the blunt, disillusioned Germans vs. the simplistic, nice Americans. There are times when the immigrants certainly seem to be square pegs in a round hole.
Ultimately, Stroszek is pursuing the "quintessential immigrant tale" - coming to America to become better off, but discovering that the reality of working life does not so closely adhere to the work-hard-get-rich formula. In fact, it is a struggle to make ends meet and Eva even falls back on her former job as a prostitute - nothing changes - they are simply at the mercy of a different system.
The final scene certainly feels the most Herzog-ian, as Stroszek, alone and left to his own devices, resorts to a primal psychotic state. He sets an arcade into a state of chaos, causing the machines to play endlessly, his truck to drive in circles without stopping until it burns itself out, and the ski lift to carry him on an unending loop until he presumably decides to take his own life.
To me, this scene comes back to the theme of cyclical enslavement leading to chaos. The chicken dances until the money runs out, trapped and incapable of possessing autonomy over its own actions - it's easy to understand Herzog's militant compulsion to produce work independent of the system.
I keep asking myself how you guys read the name of the film because it clearly belongs to Polish language, and has to be read "Stroshek."
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this film because films about immigrants are always my favorite. I like to see how immigrants adjust or never adjust to a new culture, language and people. In this case, the main character never adjusted, and as a result, committed suicide. I completely disagree with the opinion that society ruined his (their) life, and that they were actually good people. First off, there is no good or bad people. People are all equally good. Second, we are looking at the people who can't work and can't earn money. The only way Ewa can earn money is to offer herself. I didn't quite understand what the main male character was doing for living. They immigrate to America for a better life. Now, I am twice an immigrant (Poland-Germany, Germany-the U.S.) And yes, if I was a teacher in Poland, I will work as a restaurant singer in Germany and as a cashier in America. ITS NORMAL. If you immigrate to a country which is more developed and wealthy, if you want your kids to grow up in that country, be ready to face the challenges and have maybe not the best job you can have. America is not a place where you automatically get a dream job and start earning millions. At first. But then you can grow. You can take your time, work hard and get what you want. No one discriminates you here based on your accent or country of origin (yes I know what I'm saying.) Employers want to hire people who can work. Lets now overdramatize. I get really pissed when immigrants come here and start complaining. Who forced you? Were you a refugees? No one forces anyone to move to another country unless you have to leave for the sake of your life. But that's not what we usually have. What we usually have is people who come here for the "american dream", sit down and wait for wealth to fall on their heads. And if you indeed want to live a better life (because it's clearly better in America than in Europe, especially nowadays)- shut up and work instead of being stupid and killing yourself. This is in my honest opinion.
Let's noT overdramatize*, sorry about that.
DeleteContain your excitement and fasten your seatbelt because I actually loved this film (I know, right? even i was surprised). To me, this film had everything that a successful film has; characters with insight and depth, a plot with a tangible ups and downs, and an ending that goes against the traditional "happily ever after" structure.
ReplyDeleteThe plot summary alone was enough to make me laugh and the film itself did not fail to deliver. Herzog tactfully wove together humor and a sort of drama in this film, creating a piece that was able to tell a more serious story but to not get bogged down in a "boo hoo woe is me" mentality, which is vital in a film with a plot like this one (fleeing a country to escape troubles).
This was the first time when I really saw Herzog following more traditional forms of filmmaking (even though he still found ways to twist them into something of his own) as opposed to what we have seen him do in the past, which is just basically whatever he wanted to do. While at times this film appeared a bit outlandish when held to the standards of commercially successful films, it still maintains enough of a presence in the "mainstream" that i feel like its the film that I find myself able to appreciate the most.
My favorite scene in this film is the final scene in which Stroszek rides the ski lift as all of the animals are doing their respective things (dancing, playing the piano, etc...) I find that this part of the film was beautifully chaotic with all of the opposing sounds and visuals.
All in all, I loved this film. I would watch it again, and I plan to. I am silently praying that at least some of these other films we will watch will emulate some of these qualities of Stroszek that I loved so much.
There is one thing I remembered as I was watching this movie, something a former professor of mine once said: your stories should not be driven by plot, but by the characters; what they think, how they behave is ultimately what should fuel your script.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to recognize that Herzog (at least in a selection of films we've watched) is an avid follower of this idea. Sometimes, it's easy to start thinking about what should happen in a film rather than think about what would the character do in a situation and whether or not we should go follow what they would do. Herzog, I believe, is more interested in what his characters are thinking and how they react rather than exciting plot lines that have no correlation to it's character's traits.
I do not have much more to say, because I'm going to be honest and say I did not finish this film as I was not in class at the time of the screening, but I am interested to see the remainder of it.
Thus far, Herzog's films have all been woven around stories rooted in extremes. In Signs of Life a man commandeers a military fort as he descends into madness. Fata Morgana abandoned plot altogether. Land of Silence and Darkness focused on the culture of the deaf-blind. Aguirre tells the story of a mad mutineer battling his way down the Amazon in search of gold. At no point in his career had he tackled a "normal" story in his chosen works, not including the "accountant's truths" found in The Flying Doctors of East Africa.
ReplyDeleteStroszek's story is exactly that however, and it could potentially be viewed as a milestone in Herzog's growth as a filmmaker that he felt comfortable not hiding behind a daunting, extreme narrative and instead tell the story of a lonely man, both too sensitive to the cruel realities of the world and too lazy to do anything about it. His "auteur" stature finds itself manifested in the way that Herzog toys with the "extreme normality" of this world.
I view his choice to set the film in Wisconsin as a testament to his genius. I don't believe any place other than rural Wisconsin can provide the sense of underlying, lonely hopelessness while also being as naturally beautiful, and Herzog's way of showcasing that natural beauty is as strong as it ever was.
The story of Bruno is a beautiful one, even though it is soul-crushing and sad. He is a pathetic man, a passive character that largely allows the world to happen to him, instead of actively "happening" to the world, if that makes sense. He's sensitive and peculiar, originally a street musician, and his character is epitomized in the way that he plays his music. When Bruno sits down at a piano, he plays in the same manner he lives: clumsily, staring at his hands all the while with a bemused expression on his face as if he can't quite believe that they are able to play that proficiently. There is a wonderfully uncomfortable long shot in this film of a baby laying on it's stomach, uncomfortable itself and struggling to right itself and lay on it's back, but too premature and weak to do so. Metaphorically, I saw this image as a visual representation of who Stroszek is. He is too weak to effectively help himself, but damned if he won't try his best to roll over.
The one active decision he does make in the film is not, in fact, very active at all, this being his move from Germany to Wisconsin. He is pushed into this by Eva, herself a similarly helpless character, and only together with the help of their eccentric and elderly friend are they able to do so. So, these characters find new life, and for a while they revel in their new freedom from the trappings of the world they left behind, free to reap all of the benefits of the new world they discovered. Bruno finds work as a mechanic, and Eva finds work as a waitress. But is it really all that different? Is it really more free? Bruno is still the sensitive and peculiar outcast, even in his new workplace, cringing as his salt-of-the-earth coworkers pull their teeth out with wrenches and wax poetic on the ways they would prove their manliness in the bedroom with Eva, taunting him. Eva is still objectified by the men around her in her new workplace. Nothing has really changed for them, the new world is the same as the old world. Their initial slap-happy nature and companionship devolves into fights, Bruno turning to the drink for solace and Eva retreating within herself again, staring longingly off into the distance as if looking for something, anything.
"Nobody kicks you."
- E
"Not physically. Here, they do it spiritually."
- B
And so it goes. Eva finds a route to escape and takes it, leaving Bruno and the eccentric little old man to fend for themselves. Up against a wall, these passive characters take desperate action, and the little old man is hauled off to prison, leaving Bruno all alone, and the world, to big to tackle alone, begins to spin round and round as Bruno is left reeling with the realization that this is what his life has become. This is what it always was. Herzog's visualizations for the madness of the world come through in full force with this crescendo. Bruno's last asset, a shitty old truck, spins flaming in circles, going nowhere but never stopping. He walks one last time through the circus of life, antagonizing the characters into action and leaving them behind, unable at this point to be anything but indifferent. He goes to a chairlift that will perhaps lead him up to heaven, and there is a sign on the back of it.
Delete"Is this really me!"
This isn't a question, but a realization. A statement. The last desperate shout of a man at the world before unloading a gun into his mouth.
Stroszek is a wonderful film, fantastic in it's bleak hopelessness. Herzog no longer has to hide behind fantastic and outlandish stories, because he possesses the strength within himself as a storyteller to showcase the fantastic and outlandish nature of our everyday world.
- Tim Snow
So far this looks to be the most easily relatable story of all of Herzog's that we've seen in class, and yet also still just as bizarre as usual (otherwise I'd be too much reminded of every other immigration film). The familiar story is certainly there: The hopes and dreams that come with journeying to somewhere better and away from the problems of where you are now, only to realize that you can never really escape your own problems. We see that as soon as ten minutes into the film, when we see Bruno immediately visit the local bar just as soon as he's been released from prison, which he got into in the first place because of his alcoholism.
ReplyDeleteHaving seen his other works already, we understand that there's some underlying messages to Herzog's recurring images, particularly the truck spinning in an endless loop and literal and figurative entrapment of animals. It's enjoyable to be watching these films one after another because you start to differentiate what you see from an author's use of an image collectively from what you see from each's film's own use of it. Whereas in Dwarfs I related the spinning car to the growing chaos around it, here I related it more to the animals trapped in little boxes for entertainment purposes. It certainly is fascinating watching Herzog grow as an author in the span of a semester.
It’s hard not to pull a capitalist critique out of Stroszek or even an American critique. After all we are narcissists. Of course we would think this movie is about us, because it takes place in America. But while Herzog may be fascinated by the people and landscapes of America, he’s fully aware that it’s hardly different from the rest of the Western world. The arc of Bruno & friends could have taken place in the UK, Canada, France, even a different part of Germany. It’s less a tale of how capitalism can chew you up and spit you out, and more about the enchantment of foreign lands.
ReplyDeleteBruno and Eva, although I doubt they’re the smartest financial planners, are blinded by the notion that going to a new country will give them a fresh start. It’s the American Dream yes, but it’s the same kind of hope you get when you move to any country, or even a different city. Frankly they are failures in their own country, an alcoholic ex-convict and a prostitute, and they’d be failures anywhere else. The changes they need to make are internal not external.
Now while they’re going through this slow spiral into despair, Herzog revels in the America-ness of Wisconsin. From the trailers to the auctioneer to the tourist spot, the plot revolves around these different aspects of America. I wouldn’t be surprised if half the film was made up on the spot as Herzog discovered these things. I certainly thinks this applies to the chickens. I doubt Herzog would have known these existed before the film was being made, but once he saw them, he had to incorporate them. Who wouldn’t? They’re a fascinating image that can read a thousand ways. It supports any anti-capitalist, anti-american, or even anti-chicken reading you take from the film. My interpretation? I think the chickens are so confoundingly stupid that it’s amazing anyone found a use for them outside of food. It’s a shame we couldn’t do the same for Bruno.
While most of the films we've watched have dealt with far more universal issues that apply to all of humanity, this is the first film which seems to focus solely on the modern man and his dilemma. The dilemma is one we struggle with everyday: contentment. Stroszek lived in a world much like ours where the grass always seemed to be greener somewhere else. However, he finds that no matter what he attributes his problems to, misfortune seems to follow him to the greener grass time after time.
ReplyDeleteAt first, America looked like everything they hoped it would be. The vacationer's high left them feeling elated about their new home, but it was only a matter of time before the hell of routine life came back to eat at Stroszek's sanity. It wasn't Germany or the people there he was running from. It was himself. He'd spent his life looking for an escape and none would do until he finally escaped himself.
I really enjoyed Stroszek because it was unlike any of the previous Herzog films that we have watched in this class. Nature played less of role in this film than any other film by Herzog that I have seen so far and it was interesting to see his style of filmmaking take place in a fairly modern day, urban setting. The imagery seemed to be a little less spectacular because of the overall lack of nature shots and more focus on the characters than the environment. I don’t know if I am the only one but I really like this Bruno S. guy’s acting. It seems so genuine like he isn’t even acting, or like he simply doesn’t know how to act in a conventional sense. He plays the role of a misunderstood outsider so well that it is pretty apparent that he probably wasn’t a professional actor. The story was not too uplifting but there were many moments where I found myself laughing usually because whatever happened to be on the screen was so absurd that all I could do was laugh. I liked that he chose to not show Bruno in the film again after you he goes up on the ski lift and you hear the shotgun blast. Herzog does a great job of not spoiling or underutilizing the viewer’s imagination when watching his films, and I believe that’s why they never cease to amaze me and truly show me new images that I have never seen in film before.
ReplyDeleteBruno S. has become one of my favorite actors after this film. Honestly. He’s the most natural man on camera that I’ve ever seen. Saying that, this film is somewhat of a breathe of fresh air. Herzog’s main focus on the characters and storyline is different than his older films where he chooses to incorporate the environment heavily into whatever he may be shooting. The characters in this film are seen trying to start anew in America, where they believe everything will work out. They seem to be running away from something, however. Instead of looking within themselves for an answer to their problems, they get wrapped up in chasing the American Dream and fall incredibly short. I don’t think this was a film that criticized America and capitalism. I think if anyone were to just pick up and start over in a country where they don’t speak the native language and have no clue on how things run, they, too, may fall short of achieving what Stroszek and Eva were trying to achieve. In fact, I think this film was a statement on the society we all live in today rather than just American capitalism. The ending of this film showed exactly that, with Stroszek leaving the truck running in circles while he runs to the weird carnival-like arcade and sets all the animals in action. He then proceeds to hop on the chairlift where he, like the truck, goes in circles until he kills himself. The ending of this film was the most Herzog-ian moment, in my opinion. Just like the chicken, Stroszek stops dancing once the money is done. This film was absolutely fantastic, but I think that goes without saying.
ReplyDeleteTo me Stroszek was a very interesting, and probably most unique different Herzog film we have scene so far. Bruno Schleinstein's role was festinating, I couldn't help but relate it to Kasper Hauser, for his performance in both films was uncomfortable funny, and incredibly sad.
ReplyDeleteAs this is Herzog's first American shot film we can see his interpretations of american culture throughout the piece. In Herzog on Herzog He discusses his reasons for bringing Stroszek to america and saying that it was for the culture and perseverance of the american people. throughout this film i found my self associating Stroszek with America, in essence rationalizing that the entire piece was a social commentary on America. Of corse looking at this from a different light it is clear that i was delusional, but yet its still interesting. Primarily that a film could be interpreted in so many different ways, and that each member of the audience will have a different outcome from watching the film.