You have been studying Herzog and his work for a while now, so for this week just write what you like. Please keep in mind that I really do love seeing you make connections between the film you're commenting on (in this case, Kaspar Hauser) and what you know about Herzog and the films of his we've already seen. I would be especially interested to hear about any similarities or differences - thematically, aesthetically or otherwise - that you see between Hauser and Aguirre, Woodcarver Steiner and Silence and Darkness.
Regardless, freestyle and enjoy. I look forward to reading what you write - by no later than noon on Wednesday, of course.
I found Enigma to be a decent film, but I was certainly more impressed with Aguirre and frankly even with Even Dwarfs Started Small. Enigma was intriguing and had my genuine approval until the film's last few minutes. The scene involving the autopsy of Kaspar Hauser's body was out of character for Herzog in my opinion that it crumbled away everything the film had tried to accomplish. If you had showed me this movie with the opening credits wiped away I would never have guessed it to be a Herzog movie - simply because of the last few minutes. Why this seemed out of character for Herzog as a filmmaker, again in my opinion, is because it attempted to neatly wrap up and provide an explanation for Kaspar Hauser's behavior (i.e. everything that happened within the film prior to this moment). Aguirre, Dwarfs, Signs of Life, even Fata Morgana (which I hate to even ever have to mention) all didn't need wrap ups because Herzog is a man who is above a wrap up denouement. It's like when people see Psycho for the first time. What's the scene most frustrating in that film? The wrap up conclusion. Herzog's a better filmmaker than that, and honestly it just felt like a cheap cop out that was out of character for him as a filmmaker.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Just as a side note, I got super excited because I thought the dwarf-king character in the circus scene was the actor who played Hombre in Even Dwarfs Started Small. I checked on imdb and it was not. I was hoping to hear that infectious laughter once again.
CHECKED AGAIN (this time not on my phone) - IT WAS HOMBRE!!!
DeleteI will start by saying that this film definitely sparked my curiosity in the real mystery that is Kaspar Hauser, so points to Herzog for the exposure. On the film itself, it was definitely my favorite Herzog work that we have seen so far. Aguirre was good, but it was a little too dark for me, and left me feeling depressed. While The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser definitely did not have a happy ending, I for some reason felt calm and satisfied with the work. Throughout the film, Kaspar maintained a sense of innocence and boyhood in my eyes, and I cannot help but think that even on his death bed he seemed child-like, especially while describing the dream sequence in the desert. For the first half of the film he wears the same constant look of surprise on his face, eyes wide open, mouth slightly agape, and this helps to give off the same impression, as he makes the same expression that a baby does when observing the world. He actually reminds me of the children from Land of Silence and Darkness, as they are in a state of constant hesitance, confusion, and awe, with a strong desire to learn. By building on this sense of innocence and sensitivity within the grown-man child, Herzog was able to emphasize how toxic the relationships were between Kasper and the people that cared for him, unlike in Land of Silence and Darkness, where their care takers seemed to be completely earnest. This is particularly evident during the party scene in the mansion, when Kasper walks up to meet the mayor and his wife. The snobby partygoers remark that he is a noble savage, and this implies that he has no social manners as we watch him awkwardly shake hands and make small talk. However, it is in this moment that the real savages are revealed as the first thing that the mayor’s wife asks Kaspar is “Tell me, what was it like in that dark cellar?”. Completely abandoning any social abilities of her own, of course, Kaspar responds with “Better than outside”, when he has to constantly deal with being put on display like a science experiment. At least when he participated in the freak show, the intentions were clear, and he did not have to beat around the bush, pretending to make small talk with wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me very much of the parallels that Herzog draws between the nature and intent of humanity in his other films that we have seen so far. Just like in Dwarfs and Aguirre, humans are depicted to be scheming, corrupt creatures if left up to our own devices, the world is depicted as a large, scary, unknown vessel of which we can never be fully aware of knowledgable, and our protagonists are deeply flawed, yet blunt about the chips on their shoulders.
And of course I cannot fail to mention the comically tragic jump cuts repeated throughout the film whenever Kaspar is supposed to be revealed in tears. I can only assume that it was not possible for the inexperienced freshman actor to cry on command, and that is why they had to cut. However, it seemed very un-Herzog to force such a shot, as he so often speaks about letting things flow naturally, letting actors improvise, and letting the natural outcome of events dictate the production’s next move.
Also, shout outs to Hombre, the Flea King.
Personally, I think "The Enigma of Kasper Hauser" was a fantastic film. I think it reflected a classic style of Werner Herzog's work of showing the people the other side of a story. Or even showing a story that we have never heard of. There was a scene is this film that I will never forget and its when Kasper was playing with the candle and burned his own finger without knowing any better. It depicted that everyone watching him was society frowning down upon Kasper because of how different he was from everyone else, but when he burned his finger.. He looked to the side of the camera and you could see the tears coming down his face. And I couldn't help but just notice his innocence in a world filled with violence. Like when he had answered the door or was opening the gate to go for a walk, he was attacked by a man that we've never seen before. He went back to the closest thing that he found comforting which was the darkness of the basement which really stood out to me. Only because there was a scene when he was at that gathering with the British man and he said he preferred that cold dark room over the open world.
ReplyDeleteHonestly the more I think about the movie I love it.
I really hope to watch this film again in the near future when I have some free time!
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is a film that, coming two years off Aguirre, Wrath of God, reiterates Herzog masterful storytelling ability. Herzog, although being known more for his style and crazy production of his films, is showing that he was and is a top rate teller of stories in the cinema world. I believe that something Herzog is not appreciated enough for is his casting. This film might be his most profound in terms of casting. Choosing a 40 year old man to play a 16 year old illiterate is a bold move to say the least, however after viewing the film one forgets age and understands that this casting of Bruno S. is a true stroke of brilliance. This should be on a list of Herzog greatest achievements along with his virtuoso shooting of Skellig Michael in Heart of Glass and his literal heaving of a boat over a small mountain during the production of Fitzcarraldo. At first viewing many might feel the dream sequences to be not as polished as they could, however I believe that the cloudiness of the dreams brings the audience even into an even deeper understanding of Kaspar’s mind. In 1970 Francois Truffaut made the film The Wild Child which, much akin to Hauser, is about a boy who could not read, write, walk, or talk was discovered in the forests of France at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century. Truffaut decided to cast a child. This allows for too much emotional attachment. Herzog casted a full-grown adult male. Herzog made the finer film.
ReplyDeleteThe Enigma of Kasper Hauser was definitely prime Herzog material. It combines in my eyes the best of the weirdness of Aguirre with the social commentary and warmth of Land of Silence and Darkness. How does someone who has been locked away for 16 years deal with the world once they are thrust into it? I found it interesting that Kasper sort of forges his own path of human understanding, knowing he will never understand it all. Kasper is a very good man, who doesn't understand the "need" for religion and other pet peeves of Herzog that he's trying to debunk. The ridiculousness of bureaucracy, mysticism, etc all get a dressing down. My favorite scene is definitely where the professor asks Kasper the logic question, which Kasper answers in his own way, only to have the professor declares that he is wrong. It goes a long way to showing Kasper's continuing evolution of humanity and his own interpretations of it. The casting of a 40 year old was a strange move in my eyes, while he isn't in the role or anything like that, I think that casting an actual 16 year old would have been even better, as you get the youthfulness of it in the actors face and a more childlike demeanor. All in all, a great film showcasing Herzog's ability for warmth and care.
ReplyDelete-Jake Hughes
Herzog enjoys dealing with characters who are either on the brink of genius or madness. Herzog also likes to make it clear that sometime the line between the two is not as clear as some would think. For example, Herzog deals with characters who lean more towards the mad side with Aguirre and Woodcarver Steiner. Aguirre is definitely insane, but he doesn't know it and acts almost like a bully on the playground. He claims he is the wrath of god and therefore no one will step up to him, which is basically like a child cutting in line for the big slide and claiming, "it's because my daddy said I could." Woodcarver Steiner is a little different because his madness doesn't bring harm to others but could very well lead to his own death. He can make a living carving wood but it's his hobby that fascinates himself and others. He knows ski jumping is dangerous but the feeling it gives him is worth the risk which I can also relate to children who rough house and jump from high heights giving their parents heart attacks. I feel like his reasoning for doing something so dangerous is simply because he has fun doing it which seems very close to child-like logic.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of this unclear line we have Kaspar Hauser and the subject of In The Land Of Silence and Darkness (whose name eludes me). It's interesting how these characters can be connected to children much easier than the previous two, however, these characters have some really interesting and profound things to say about their lives. I think Herzog can identify more with these characters but still makes the other characters because often times he feels that is how people see him. When he first started making films, many people didn't enjoy them, but he had a vision and an understanding that he wanted to bring others into. Just like the characters in Kaspar Hauser and Silence and Darkness, Herzog has difficulty in communicating with people who don't see the world the same way he does.
I really enjoyed Kaspar Hauser. It's like The Hobbit meets The Miracle Worker. It was funnier than past Herzog films as most fish out of water stories usually are. Kaspar reminded me of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Tom Hanks in The Terminal, and even Peter Sellers in Being There. All those characters have usually won the audience over by the end of the film and Kaspar Hauser is no different. It was enjoyable to watch him learn thingas about life so quickly and nice to see people from the community help him out but there were also others who wanted to hurt him for no reason other than he is just different. I'm sure Herzog can relate to the feeling and it seems he also believes that sometimes, you must continue doing what you're doing and maybe cross the line over into madness if only to find out whether or not your vision is truly one of genius, or rather one of insanity.
I remember seeing parts of this film in high school and had no idea that it was directed by Herzog. Back in that German class, we occasionally learned about the story of Kaspar Hauser, and it was always an interesting story to me.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I really enjoyed the film; it was unique and one that I wouldn't initially think was done by Herzog. It had a little bit of a feel-good vibe to it, but there were elements of Herzog's presence within. From what I remembered in that high school class, the film is very accurate with just a few scenes that may have been 'altered' for film.
The most memorable scene would have to be Hauser in his death bed. He describes a vision he has about nomads in the desert, following a blind elder. I think Hauser compares himself to the elder; though blind or handicapped, he is the one that leads the others to the town. I think this is his way of saying that even the most surprising and least qualified people can lead others to prosperity. He then goes on to say that he doesn't remember the rest of the story, but to him, it doesn't matter.
It's definitely more interesting to see Herzog apply his filmmaking style and technique to narrative stories that focus on a single or small group of characters.
A shot of tall grass blowing in the wind for a lengthy period of time is a good introduction to the film. After awhile, the grass seems more like relentless waves—it is beautiful. The film itself failed to really catch my attention, but there are things I can appreciate about it nonetheless. Setting is of utmost importance (as we’ve grown accustomed to in Herzog films), and most shots are caked in strangeness and reverie. From Kaspar’s confines, to the hill where he is released, to the circus full of Herzog motifs the places our auteur is attracted to are truly memorable. This film felt distinctly German to me; it had a strong philosophical content, landscapes (as mentioned), and a dark component lurking beneath. What made this film not truly grasp my attention were the precursor films we watched in the weeks previous. I thought his work was going in one way, and then it went in another. I have a feeling it will impact me down the road, but for now I’m looking for something more. The impact of Land of Silence and Darkness followed by Aguirre Wrath of God is a type of tempo and mood hard to follow up with something so artistic and peculiar. Again, I’m not saying The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is particularly bad, but I was looking for something that wasn’t there. In a way, I was a bit put off by the fact that this film bit off quite a bit from his others. Dreamlike quality from Aguirre and Signs of Life, motifs from Even Dwarfs Started Small, meditative sequences like Fata Morgana… Up until this point each film has been drastically different so it came as a shock to see some recognizable themes. I’ll give the film time to soak in and try it again.
ReplyDeleteIn this film, there were several creative decisions made my Herzog that confuse me and kind of cheapened the whole experience for me. By including the scenes with Kaspar in the cave in the beginning and his autopsy in the end, it seems to contradict the whole concept of the story which is "where did he come from? whats wrong with him?" etc, etc.. It sort of felt like Herzog presented us with a riddle but gave us the answer before he started.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this film made no impact on me, unlike most of Herzog's other pieces did. I usually leave class feeling some sort of emotions about the film for at least a few minutes, but, to me, this film was so unremarkable that it left my mind the second it was over. It sort of just felt like once of those foreign films you're forced to watch in school that you never think of again once you finish the assignment attached to it.
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser demands a second viewing of me.
ReplyDeleteHerzog, in his narrative films at the very least, is a director that deals in grand scope, though until now this scope has been of the visual sense, manifested in the marvel of the world. What both intrigues and throws me in this narrative piece is that the lens is turned inward here. We are studying the grand scope of the mind, through the Enigma that is Kaspar Hauser. I felt and maintain that Aguirre was, in ways, a revisiting of the story presented in Signs of Life, and I believe that in an adjacent fashion the Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is a narrative reimagining of the questions asked in Land of Silence and Darkness. I believe this film is his own way of further exploring his fascination with the relativity of perception.
The pace in this film is slow, plodding and peculiar, which I found to be fantastic. The philosophy of this film takes it's time, setting it apart from Aguirre in it's purpose. With Aguirre, we are simply audience to the glorious madness of the Wrath of God, but with Kaspar Hauser, we are invited to think critically of his situation, and by this begin to question the concrete nature of the perceptions upheld by the majority.
As an aside, I believe that casting Bruno S. in this film, while controversial and on the surface foolish, is what truly sets this film apart. Sometimes the actor is just perfect for the STORY, though they may not meet some of the requirements of the role. Herzog's utter indifference to conventionalism is an inspiration.
- Tim Snow
In true Herzog fashion, the film begins with this beautiful shot of windy grasslands, accompanied by fittingly beautiful music. And, also in true Herzog fashion, a quote appears that talks of the horrible nature of silence; the juxtaposition implies that there's something horrible about this really beautiful landscape. In the case of Kaspar Hauser, his was the silence that the townspeople couldn't stand. So, they ridiculed him, tried to civilize him, and just about anything (ridiculous) to understand where he came from. The very few times where we do see him open up are when he's being shown care and affection by his surrogate family.
ReplyDeleteThis film is one of my lesser favorites of Herzog's. From what I'm understanding of his films as a whole, there's some sort of symbiotic relationship between nature and man, man being the symbiotic one. That relationship certainly can be found in this true story. However, this one didn't connect to me as well as Fata Morgana or Aguirre did; the story was there, and I understood what was going on, but it didn't feel as personal. Like Tim, I might have to see this one a second time.
(Good seeing Hombre again, though!)
In Kaspar Hauser, Herzog continues to explore the idea of perception and how people view the world from different points of view - how one perspective is no better or worse than another just because it may be different from the societal norm.
ReplyDeleteKaspar Hauser is "stunted" in his mental development - he cannot read, write, or speak to any mature extent. However, rather than casting him aside or mistreating him, he is brought into a family, accepted, and cared for.
Herzog's ongoing theme of reality/perception/the worlds that we create in our mind is really at play here. In the autopsy scene, the doctors quite literally pick apart a man to explore his inner workings - to see what causes him to perceive the world in the way that he does. It's as if this is Herzog's way of reminding us that we are all merely flesh and organs put together to allow us to generate our own unique ways of seeing.
It’s hard not to make connections between Herzog and Hauser. They’re both men struggling against the world’s confining rules of life, thought, and art. Of course, Hauser has it far worse off. Hauser being introduced to this world reminds me a lot of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. It seems as if Hauser has come out of the cave, into the world of true and pure concepts. You can do and think anything and everything you want. Well sort of, there are rules. Okay a lot of rules, but still kind of. Alright fine, not really.
ReplyDeleteHauser attests many times that it was better off in the cave. It makes sense, his argument being that ignorance is bliss, right? That being introduced to our world is overwhelming, and Hauser can’t keep up with it. However, as the film progresses this arguments shifts. By the end of the film it becomes clear that Hauser has merely moved from one cave into a larger one. It’s likely none of us will ever get to that ocean of purity and truth, but it’s Hauser’s journey from one cave to another (or to the mountain we’ve never been off of) that gives him the perspective we’ll never know. And like in the Allegory, he who tries to explain his findings to those blindfolded in the cave will be ridiculed and outcast.
Perhaps only Herzog could have brought this story to the screen, at least with any modicum of justice to the original man. He’s uniquely equipped as an artist to understand Hauser’s frustration with science, religion, and his own inability to bring his artistic visions to life. It is incredibly apt that the criticism this film received was over its lack of historical accuracy. To criticize Herzog of that is like criticizing Hauser that “Are you a tree-frog?” isn’t a proper question. Both miss the point entirely, suggesting that we could all use a change in perspective.
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser was one of my favorite films of Herzog’s that I’ve seen so far. I think any connection the audience can make with a character in the film helps tremendously. Now, I’m not entirely sure if this happened in the actual story, but the whole attempt to civilize Kaspar in the film really got to me. Herzog always seems to make a statement in his films, especially on the society that he lives in. In Kaspar Hauser, Herzog shows the main character going from a man who has no contact with the outside world to being thrown into fancy parties where he meets important and powerful people. He even goes so far as to learn the piano. I think what fascinated me the most about this film was that I could put myself into the shoes of the main character more so than any other film I’ve seen of Herzog’s so far. The whole time, I was just as amazed as Kaspar was when he encountered a new experience. The fact that Kaspar was looking at life through eyes practically like that of an infant really made this film for me. I think, for me, this was a film on the rapid destruction of innocence. And we all know by now that Herzog had to grow up at a very young age after his neighbors and surrounding town were bombed, so this theme in this film does’t surprise me one bit. It seems that Herzog’s themes in his films are always universal, though, and I enjoy that very much. As far as narrative goes, I think this film was more digestible than others, and that always helps with the likability factor (for me, at least). Ultimately, Kaspar Hauser captivated me from start to finish, and it is clearly stamped with the aesthetics and characteristics of a Herzog film.
ReplyDeleteNow this film made me feel uncomfortable. Hauser's blank slate of a personality made me think about societal norms in a different lens. The way the doctors handled the brain in the autopsy scene reminded me of how Hauser was treated at first, like some delicate artifact.
ReplyDeleteThe Enigma of Kasper Hauser was a fascinating, disturbing, and very uncomfortable to watch at times. I was festinated by Herzog's approach to creating Kasper's character, that is in terms of his innocence, and child-like attitude towards his surroundings. I was especially intrigued that Herzog chose to continue this attitude even on his death bead creating a confusing morbid tone.
ReplyDeleteIn this film, Werner Herzog introduces his favorite character - a lovely misfit that has a hard time living among people. Just like in "The flying doctors...", in "Kaspar Hauser" Herzog talks about how the perceptions of the world differ from person to person. He doesn't understand the sense of all the noisy events that are happening around him. He doesn't want to be around those people that drag him with them. I found interesting that throughout the film, we don't even understand what is wrong with him, and the director doesn't let us now.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, Herzog mentions how hard it was sometimes to work with Bruno. Bruno was a deeply damaged person who experienced deaths of the dear people and later was put to the mental institution and even prison as far as I remember. On set, he slept a lot and didn't talk much. Herzog had to learn his language to communicate with him. However, in my opinion, such character was the best fit for the role. He often didn't have to play because he could drive the inspiration from his own experience.