There are no particular questions I want you to address this week, just tell me what you liked (loved?) and/or didn't like. And if you want to watch all or part of it again online (kind of a travesty considering this is one film that was made to be seen on the big screen), you can do that here.
I encourage you to freestyle as much as you like. All I ask is that you be specific and go deep (by Wednesday at noon, of course). I trust you will.
I really wanted to like Fitzcarraldo. I hadn't heard a great deal about Werner Herzog prior to this class (I know, kind of shocking) but one of the few things I had heard was that this was supposed to be his best movie. If this is so ... I'm not impressed.
ReplyDeleteI want to clarify that Fitzcarraldo is by no means in my opinion Herzog’s worst movie. In fact, I’d be utterly shocked if the man made anything worse than Fata Morgana in his entire career. I just really didn’t love Fitzcarraldo the way everybody who I had heard talk about it does. It was neither a complete waste of time, nor was it time well spent.
The core of my problem I think lies with the premise of the film. Somebody probably should have told old Werner that if you’re going to write a film script around one grandiose idea (i.e. the boat being pulled over the mountain) then you better come up with a damn good story to fit around it. And that’s really it – Fitzcarraldo is a long, breathy, story with very little to absolutely no point.
The characters, for one thing, have no arc – or at least none I could observe – and because of this they are boring. The character of Fitzcarraldo starts off the film wanting to bring an opera house to Iquitos. By the film’s end, despite the failure of his plans to become rich enough to build said opera house, Fitzcarraldo is still attached to his dream – so much so that he creates an impromptu opera house in Iquitos upon his steamship. He goes from point A to, well … point A without any change whatsoever to whom he is as a character. Many of the other characters are the same, including Claudia Cardinale’s character Molly, who really isn’t given enough screen time in this lengthy film to develop any kind of arc for herself.
I understand Herzog loves his landscape shots, and in his previous films I didn’t mind them or feel them unnecessary (with the exception of the cinematic abortion that is Fata Morgana, of course) – but I did mind the landscape images of the jungle in Fitzcarraldo. They almost felt like time-fillers that Werner stuck into the film in order to beef up its overall running time around the one idea of pulling the boat over a mountain. It became almost masturbatory and off-putting to the point where I found myself checking the time hoping for some sort of point to come to fruition … it never did.
The film wasn’t all nonsense though, in my opinion. Kinski is as good as ever – although he was certainly much better in Nosferatu and Aguirre. Claudia Cardinale is stunning, even if this film was later in her career, and she holds her own against Kinski the way she did with Henry Fonda and Sean Connery, even though she isn’t given enough screen time. The film has some underlying messages that seem to be commenting on the sheer boredom that surrounds capitalism. The whole story follows men who are bored with being rich – so bored that they plan dangerous endeavors into the jungle and throw thousands of dollars into the mouths of hungry arapaimas. Unfortunately, this theme isn’t explored in depth enough to save the film and make it interesting. And of course, there’s the sequence of the boat being pulled over the mountain – which despite what you think of Fitzcarraldo as a film is an impressive feat that has to be commended.
But still, if Herzog had really taken the time to flesh out the story surrounding the grandiose idea of dragging a steamship over a mountaintop, I would have found Fitzcarraldo to be an incredibly enjoyable movie, and not a boring time-filler.
Fitzcarraldo was a bit of a scattered film for me. I liked some moments of it and disliked others, and I realized watching it that I wish I hadn't done the reading because it spoiled a lot of the film for me. I quite liked the beginning of the film, where Fitzcarraldo makes ice of all strange things in the middle of the Amazon, setting him up as a dreamer and a fool. This was the one Kinski performance where I felt like Kinski was a sympathetic character. I never felt like he was insane or evil like in other performances, but I genuinely felt bad for him, he's a dreamer in a world too small and realistic for his dreams. That being said, I felt the film didn't really go anywhere. Takes the boat up the mountain, Indians who clearly want to screw him over do so, plays some opera on his wrecked boat. Done and done. I never felt any tension in the film, as Fitz was clearly set on getting that damn boat over the mountain one way or another. Even in his defeat he still gets to bring opera to the jungle, he still succeeded to some extent. The supporting cast was pretty boring to me, I didn't particularly like any of them besides the mechanic. I just didn't feel as if enough happened in such an epic film to cause any tension in my viewing experience.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read about Fitzcarraldo in the Cronin book prior to watching the film, I had a very distinct idea about how the film was going to play out. Overall, I really enjoyed Fitzcarraldo, but there were a few minor things that I did not like about it. First, the plot of the film was a little loose and choppy. I was just a little confused at times about Fitz's intentions and overall purpose. I think by the end, everything came full circle, however, at times I asked: "why is this necessary for Fitz?" It seems as though Herzog thought more about the plot of the film this time around rather than developing the character Fitz himself. This relates to my second issue, the length of the film. I do not mind longer films by any means, but this film dragged on in certain scenes, and if it had been a little tighter, it could have been better, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe positives would have to be Kinski and the structure of the film. Kinski's performance was truly captivating. He was determined to achieve his goal and was resilient throughout, something that everyone can relate to. As for the structure, I enjoyed how the film followed Fitz's journey from the moment he watches Caruso on stage all the way to the opera performance on his steamboat. It was the perfect amount of time for the film to take place in (other than the run time).
I would have to say that despite the issues I had with the film, it's thus far my favorite Herzog film I've watched.
I liked Fitzcarraldo a lot. But I think it had something to do with how un-Herzogian it felt. It felt more like a studio film than an independent film which definitely made it more "approachable." The characters and aesthetics are still very Herzog but I think this film had a lot more dialogue than past films as well as the usual grandiose imagery that accompanies Herzog wherever he goes. The inclusion of more dialogue guided me through the story as opposed to other films where I feel lost due to a lack of explanation of events. Not to point any fingers but screw you Aguirre! Also, I believe the making of Fitzcarraldo is arguably more fascinating than the film itself. It's un fathomably awesome that Herzog actually pulled the ship over the mountain and it's great knowing that the studio asked him to use miniatures but he still went forward with his vision. I love that because it's Fitzcarraldo in a nut shell. (Pun intended) Someone must have told Fitzcarraldo that you can still listen to Caruse on a record player but Fitz, like Herzog, would be disgusted with himself if he brought anything into the jungle other than the real Caruso. I plan on viewing Burden of Dreams soon because that's the real story of Fitzcarraldo. I find it interesting that Jake didn't find any tension in Fitzcarraldo because I thought it was Herzog's most suspenseful film. Early in the film there's a moment where the boat is headed up the river and as it goes through the twists and turns we don't know what the ship is going to find behind the next bank. It caused a great deal of anxiety for me because I know Herzog likes to have arrows come from invisible people in the trees and I just kept waiting for that.
ReplyDeleteFitzcarraldo was not the breath taking film that I thought it would be. Perhaps its because I built up the hype in my head, the same way I did for Boyhood, which I finally got around to watching the other day. But like Boyhood, I felt myself wondering if all of the hype was for the film's viewing potential, or the production potential. Was all of the recognition only because of the efforts that went into making the films?
ReplyDeleteI will say this, I thought that Fitzcarraldo was Klinki's most emphatic, believable, understandable, and human character. Not for a moment did I look into his character's eyes and see the crazy actor throwing tantrums in all of Herzog's other films. Fitz was motivated by passion, and he was relatable in his failures. The film was anti-climactic to me due to the slow pacing, and the plot felt almost static. Still, Herzog pulled a boat up a mountain, and thats something I couldnt do.
It seems Fitzcarraldo is in the process of being misinterpreted by the class. Regardless of your personal thoughts on Werner Herzog, it would be foolish to say the man hasn’t pushed the boundaries of film as far as it can go. Is this not an artist? Is Fitzcarraldo not art?
ReplyDeleteTake Herzog at his word when he says filmmaking is athleticism. Sure the script of Fitzcarraldo can be clunky at times, but isn’t the damned thing beautiful all the same? Despite numerous setbacks in the filmmaking process, Herzog dealt with Kinski’s insanity making him a reputable character with whom we could empathize; hauled a ship from river to river, neglecting to use a model; and shot the thing 500 miles from civilization.
This film is realism. It is not about the man trying to build an opera house—this is merely the surface. Fitzcarraldo is about the triumph of will. Herzog is telling all the naysayers to stick it as he pulls a boat over a MOUNTAIN. We are watching humanity pursue the impossible and impractical. We are watching a genius disregard all calls of normality and simplicity. We have watched him toil with his art form thus far, why take credit away from him for such an outstanding achievement? We can discuss character arcs if you like, but I’d rather discuss this director’s arc—or rather, this auteur’s arc. Who gives a damn about the script, this is about passion, suffering, sweat and mother nature. It is an honor to be able to watch it.
Fitzcarraldo was absolutely my favorite Herzog film that i have scene thus far. The shear absurdity of the story was truly fantastic. I love films which play on the absurdity of life similar to in 11 dwarfs started small, or Strozek for I feel that life is very absurd, and showing preposterous imagery similar to in Fitzcarraldo can be incredibly impactful.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography of Fitzcarraldo was simply stunning, I felt it embodied Herzog's style showing development from both Aguirre, and Fata Morgana for both of their beautiful rugged landscapes where audiences are thrown into the world of Herzog.
I am also very interested in the filming of the project, for it is always reassuring to see one's idols perceiver through the overwhelming obstacles, ironically similar to the immense journey of bringing the boat over the mountain.
Fitzcarraldo was honestly a great film, however I wouldn't agree that it was his personal best. From our readings you read about all the stuggles of finding the ship, and moving it on set while endangering his cast. You also read about the military actually shooting warning shots at the ship and his cast to relocate their shooting of the film because they did not approve of it.
ReplyDeleteWhen Werner Herzog first mentions that he created Fitzcarraldo's love for music, that it wasn't initially intended to be in the film. Which to me, blew my mind. The imagery of the amazon, character representation was impressing and of course, Klaus Kinski absolutely played a great Fitzcarraldo. The entire film was believable because it was portrayed in such an astonishing matter like the relationship between Fitzcarraldo and his love, the children and their love for the music, the crew members, the natives and the aggression they showed towards them for taking advantage of the river.
Like I said before, I don't think that it was his best film yet, but I will say this film was a completely breathtaking film.
Fitzcarraldo, while still appearing very Herzogian, had a certain air of commerciality that many of his films do not have. If You had not told us ahead of time that this was a Herzog film, I may not have been able to come up with that conclusion on my own. It had a very sort of modern-film feel to it, especially in the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this was not my favorite film we have viewed, it was by FAR not my least favorite, either. I feel as if we are now in the era of Herzog that is slightly less experimental and a bit more purposeful and tactful. Every decision feels smoother, more thought out. His films have progressed majorly in terms of story, overall quality, and taste level. What thrills me the most about this evolution, however, is the immense growth in his storytelling.
Overall, I'm very, very happy with the change in Herzog's film-making and if this trend continues, I may finally begin liking more of the films we screen in class.
So, fortunately for me (and very unfortunately for my quiz), I haven't done the reading about Fitzcarraldo prior to watching the film, and I think it helped me a lot, as it wasn't spoiled, and my opinion wasn't influenced by the book. I can say that this is one of my favorite Herzog's films that we've watched so far. I thought the actors were great, and Kinski did a much better job than in the films before this one- he looks more believable now as if age helped him become a better actor and look better on camera. The costumes and decorations were outstanding for me. The story was great too, and I especially related to the relationship between Fitzcarraldo and the woman that he was with. She supported him in whatever he wanted to do, even though sometimes his plans sounded absolutely ridiculous, she took his side. I think this is how it should be between the two who love each other, and a woman always plays the leading role in such case.
ReplyDeleteI especially want to mention the opening and closing soundtrack, which was very disturbing, ominous and somewhat very ceremonious.
This is, simply put, one of the greatest and most important films of all time. Films are adapted year after year from novels or other media sources. However, I cannot think of another time that the film takes the actual story a bit further. This is a story loosely based on a tale about a man who disassembles a ship to carry over a mountain from river to river in the Amazon. Now, Herzog being Herzog, this was not enough for him. Instead he decides to portray the story with the full ship being dragged over the mountain, on top of that, he actually dragged the ship over the hill. This is unbelievably Herzogian, the culmination of everything he loves to make films about; Beautiful landscapes, delusional men on an unconquerable quest, and most of grandiosity. This is the grandest thing I have ever had the privilege to see. I am disappointed that people are still trying to focus heavily on narrative in this class, it should be clear now that Herzog is not too keen on developing his story to a Hitchcockian importance. His films are not hear to bring you a clear cut story.
ReplyDeleteFitz's dream to build an opera house in the amazon was as insane and outlandish as Herzog's dream to make Fitzcarraldo, but both did it. And it was nice, for once, to see a character's dreams not trampled on by Herzog's hopelessly empty philosophy. In his previous work, every protagonist eventually is forced to face his own reality and is ultimately overwhelmed by it. This isn't the case at all in Fitzcarraldo. Where Aguirre, Stroszek, and Bruno all found themselves on the brink of insanity, Fitz saw a way out.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe the idea of the ship being dragged over the mountain is a bit larger than the story itself, I appreciate the feat. The film seems to be essentially Herzog flexing his film muscles. Where his past were extracted from his mind, Fitzcarraldo is a film from the gut.
When you watch this movie with the picture in your head of a man doing some shooting on an active volcano, you're going to get the idea that either this man and his crew are either crazy or extraordinary achievers. I like to think this is what growing as a director looks like; you just keep on setting higher and higher benchmarks for yourself. And it's certainly present in his works; Signs of Life was a story of a protagonist struggling with inner chaos. Now, we have characters/Kinski channeling some of that inner chaos to do great things. Such as bringing an entire ship over a mountain, for instance.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just Fitzcarraldo that's a part of the impressive feat either, clearly; if anything, the natives did the bulk of the work. Everyone in this film is driven by something; whereas Fitzcarraldo was driven by Carcuso, the natives were driven by religion. It's a fairly basic story told by just about everyone (Herzog included), but the reality of something like this makes this adaptation of said story stand apart from all others.
Herzog did stress a lot that at no point were crew members in an any serious danger; that I feel he may have exaggerated a little, if mostly to save his own ass a little. Doesn't make me respect his work any less, though.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Fitzcarraldo" really comes out of nowhere. You can tell that it was a pivotal point in Werner Herzog’s career where his focus seems to shift towards a more conventional form of cinema. I will have to say that watching the film on a big screen made all of the difference. It really allowed for me to become fully immersed in the environment that the filmmaker had created. Other than the film taking place on a river in the Peruvian jungle and featuring the same actor, I did not think that this film bared much resemblance to any of the previous films we watched because the whole just felt so epic. I mean pulling a steamboat over a mountain…come on. It was really spectacular visually and the acting was also very captivating. Kinski was not a completely raving mad man in this film or creepy monster, he plays a very broad character that allows him to really show his talent and versatility with acting. I will have to say that overall the films was very entertaining and visually stunning, but this film did not really resonate in the way that "The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser", "Nosferatu", or "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" did, and this may be why I see such a transition from "Herzogian" cinema to a more mainstream, yet still unique approach to filmmaking. Popol Vuh was still a part of the soundtrack so I know it wasn’t that. I think I just need to watch it again to get the full effect.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this film was Herzog’s statement to the world: that he can achieve anything he sets his mind to. And so can we, but only if we are persistent, dedicated, and have help along the way. I feel like that last point is always overlooked by people trying to prove something to the world or to themselves. You won’t get far without help from others. And just like in the film, the feat that Brian Fitzgerald accomplishes is not only his to celebrate, but also the natives and everyone else who helped. I’m still very much unsure what my favorite Herzog film I’ve seen so far is. Fitzcarraldo is near the top of my list, though. Throughout the course of this film, I was not only fascinated by Klaus Kinski’s acting, but I was also loving the cinematography. This is probably one of the only signs that this was a Herzog-ian film. Everything else seemed much smoother and more fluid, like most of the films we see on screen. Even though I’m more of a fan of his in-between works (experimental with a pretty solid storyline), this film was enjoyable and nice to sit back and watch. Any film with Klaus Kinski will hold me captive.
ReplyDeleteThis film was surprisingly underwhelming. This film seemed to lack the almost magical realism that many of his other films poses. The protagonist's unrealistic lust reminded me of other Herzogain characters from some of the dwarfes to my dear Augierre. For some reason I could not connect to Kinski or any of the other actors. The plot seemed a bit contrived and far too much time was spent on the set up. Perhaps it was the '''''cinematic'''' style of the cinematography that took me out, or Kinski's plane-Jane performance. I was excited to see this film because I saw Burden of Dreams but it was a tragic let down. Maybe if I liked opera...
ReplyDeleteThis film was surprisingly underwhelming. This film seemed to lack the almost magical realism that many of his other films poses. The protagonist's unrealistic lust reminded me of other Herzogain characters from some of the dwarfes to my dear Augierre. For some reason I could not connect to Kinski or any of the other actors. The plot seemed a bit contrived and far too much time was spent on the set up. Perhaps it was the '''''cinematic'''' style of the cinematography that took me out, or Kinski's plane-Jane performance. I was excited to see this film because I saw Burden of Dreams but it was a tragic let down. Maybe if I liked opera...
ReplyDelete