We watched two short-to-mid length films in class this week - God's Angry Man and Huie's Sermon - both of which were made by Werner Herzog in 1980. The first is available in six parts on YouTube here, and the second one is also on YouTube here.
For this week's post, please tell me what you thought of one of the two films, focusing in particular on how the work thematically, aesthetically or even holistically connects to other films of Herzog's you've seen so far this semester. And feel free to let me know what you think Herzog thinks about religion based on these two short works.
Oh - and we watched Les Blanks' short film Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe, too, which I love. If you have any comments about that, feel free to include them in your post as well - by no later than noon on Wednesday of course!
I really enjoyed God's Angry Man. Herzog really is a gifted documentarian and gets to the heart of who Gene Scott is. I believe to an extent Scott set out to sell a version of himself to Herzog, but in the end realized he enjoyed and needed someone to understand him and actually opened up. He seems to be two men, both Gods Angry Man and a deeply hurt and lonely Scott. I felt very bad for Scott, Like he was a man who was truly lost in the world and regretted using his genius to swindle people. If the film had a message for me about religion it would be that religion is a not a place for very smart people (such as Scott) and trying to tie ones mind around religion leads to nothing good, you must split yourself in two to be able to swallow all that faith.
ReplyDeleteHerzog continues to leave his film's message up to the audience. Here, instead of using aesthetically pleasing and huge landscapes that tell their own story, he finds a character that he can simply point the camera at and shoot and let their behavior do all the talking for him. With both of these short films, I believe Herzog is still playing with the thin line between genius and madness. Dr. Scott seems pretty insane to me yet he has so many followers. Similarly, Huie has the same charismatic power and seems less nuts by not asking for money in a Kinski-esque fashion, however, what he's preaching had an expiration date that has since come and gone since it was okay to be preaching about God hating homosexuals. Therefore, in hind site, he is just as crazy. Regardless, Herzog calls Huie's film "a pure work about the joys of life, faith and filmmaking." Hopefully, Herzog doesn't necessarily agree with what's being said but he's right in noting that Huie definitely has a joyous effect on his congregation.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to assume Herzog's position on religion, I would assume he is fascinated and interested in the sociological aspects of community attached to religions but also in the charismatic leaders that profit (not prophet) and/or suffer from their position. I see many parallels between Aguirre and the two subjects of these short films. All are characters that will lead their flocks on journey of belief until they or the belief inevitably die.
Well. It wasn't so much the narrative that impressed me in this film, but the how Herzog got this man to open up to the camera. He is gifted at connecting to people. What summed up this man was the toy monkeys, and Herzog capitalized on that in a very effective way by placing it at the end of the film. I have seen several expose documentaries about televangelists and this one actually made me care for this poor guy. You actually saw how this person really believed in what he was saying. I went from thinking of him as a greedy many using god for money to viewing him as someone who just wanted attention.
ReplyDeleteThe story of him as a boy, told by his parents, seemingly on his same 'living room' set explained a lot about why he has this job.
Here are the things I do like about Dr. Gene Scott:
ReplyDeleteHe refers to himself as a philosopher, meaning he thinks of himself as a man that encourages critical thought beyond blindly following a single Christian account
He admits that his faith falters, that nothing is certain, and that he cries
Here are the things I do not like about "God’s Angry Man":
The film dragged on, and had no real sustenance to me.
I felt as if I were watching a never-ending infomercial. Ya know, the kind that comes on late at night when all of the other infomercials are occupying every other channel and you just have to pick one to settle with.
The FCC Monkey Band was disturbing, like a bad acid trip, and yet it somehow still fit in with Herzog’s themes of strange animal acts.
The ending clip “Festival of Faith” immediately reminded me of the opening clip of the sitcom “Family Matters"
I do not think that Herzog aimed to show anything about the church or religion, he was only aiming to explore the interesting character that he saw in Scott. Scott fits the theme of the Herzogian character anyway: eccentric, confusing, contradicting, deep in their own heads, and requiring a hint of humanity. The only objective I think Herzog had with this film, was to help supply that humanity to a man that did not often get to represent himself independently of all the surrounding dogma, the same way he did for Dracula.
God's Angry Man marks yet another chapter in Herzog's quest to understand perception, and is significant of his growth as both an artist and a thinker. The latter is seen in this piece through the way that Herzog is no longer merely analyzing perception and the ways that different cultures view things, but is experimenting with perception on his audience through an analysis of a villain.
ReplyDeleteHerzog chooses to study Gene Scott, a man running a church like a pyramid scheme via a television program that sustains itself through donations garnered by Scott quite literally screaming at his audience to give him their money. Scott is introduced through shots of him bragging about his accomplishments and counting money, intercut with shots of live religious music which simultaneously showcase the hollow beauty and raw ugliness of the business of God. It is not a far leap to assume that Herzog wants us to dislike the character, but as the documentary continues on, Scott's bravado crumbles and falls, revealing a small man living behind a large shroud. He admits that he really has nothing. He really has... No one. His only private possession is a black leather bag. He admits his fears, he admits his doubts, he admits his humanity. He becomes relatable. And suddenly we are the monster as well, for we all have these same emotions and fears under our skin. The intercuts of religious music change in tone to parallel with the universal human search for love and acceptance.
"I'd like to be um.... Let me tell ya what makes me happy."
Personally, I loved this. I'm deeply affected and inspired by the mission of Werner Herzog, and I would be proud to find influence from Herzog in my own work. I have a strong reaction when I see the frightened masses taken advantage of through the promise of God. I loathed this man at the beginning of the film and I pitied him when it ended. I felt for him, and I respect Werner Herzog's brilliance at being able to change my mind.
- Tim Snow
“When I yell I wanna be heard.” Herzog once again proves himself to be an amazing documentarian. He does not impose questions often, but when he does they get to the heart of the issue: “Have you been threatened?” Or, “Would you like to have children?” Herzog allows this man his space, but slowly breaks him down for an audience wise enough to see through Scott’s ruse.
ReplyDeleteThe slow camera zooms into characters on screen makes them feel fake-it’s wonderfully designed. The music scenes work well in coordination with the donation sections; it all sounds like a big business, not the spreading of truth as its concentration. Even though Scott can speak well the clever combination of camera and editing shows a glimpse of the indecency of an Evangelical scam.
Scott is such an intriguing character. He is very open and honest about challenges and fighting back. He would like to get away from this mess. When he is sitting there not saying a word and Herzog keeps with him the entire time it is impactful. It shows this man’s grit and refusal to give up; he has always gotten what he’s wanted through manipulation. When no one is calling and the woman near a phone begins to cry is perfect evidence of this manipulation. This is the kind of man who could enslave a nation. God’s love=financial donation. Herzog shows he is just another smart crook trying to outfox everybody. “Yeah, I’m lonesome,” Scott says during another slow zoom. Not even the clapping monkeys at the end of the film look quite so depraved.
I had missed class last thursday and finding this film was much harder than I thought it would be. To my surprise, I was able to find this film online and glad I had. This was another film by Werner Herzog that depicted a classic Herzogian technique and perception. "Similar to Aguirre, Wrath of God", Dr. Gene Scott reminds me of Klaus Kinski's character. They both set themselves as sort of social outcasts. In Dr. Gene Scott's case he was a philosopher and in Klaus Kinski's character had portrayed himself as a man doing what gods will WOULD have been with guidance. "God's Angry Man" was another classic Werner Herzog film that left his audience on a cliffhanger.
ReplyDeleteI really liked God’s Angry Man. I have been led to believe that Herzog has somewhat of a fascination with faith and how people can be so blindly led by it. Mostly without questioning whether or not some individuals’ faith-based choices are right or wrong. Herzog somehow managed to paint a very complex picture of Glen Scott, and portrayed him in a way that was rather humanizing and very revealing in terms of who Glen Scott truly was as a person, outside of his extremely entertaining preaching of Christianity. I’ve noticed the idea of faith, particularly the questioning of faith has come up frequently in Herzog’s work. However, I do not think that he is attempting to make a stand against faith because I believe there had to have been a great deal of faith on Herzog’s part to realize a lot of the work that he has, just probably not in a religious sense. Regarding religion Herzog does not seem to be very fond of organized religion and their tendencies to take advantage of the masses, but I do not believe that he condemns religion on a more personal level. Where the religion is more of just a form of spirituality that focuses on the self rather than an institution that leeches off of individual’s assets while promising inner peace.
ReplyDeleteThis week's films really left an impression on me, personally. As someone who has been accused (more than one time) of having anti-religion undertones in my writing, I had a bit of an immediate connection to Gods Angry Man. I personally feel that Herzog did a fantastic job twisting this documentary in a way that left the viewer confused as to what their opinion on this man was. You hated and feared him for most of the film, however, Herzog did include moments of sympathy and vulnerability that created a very interesting juxtaposition to me. I believe it showed some negative aspects of this sort of all consuming faith, which is a theme i've hit on more than a couple of times myself, which has left me thinking about this short film a whole week later. Overall, i enjoyed these short films. almost more than any of Herzog's full length features.
ReplyDeleteI felt that God's Angry Man and Huie's Sermon explored Herzog's conflicting impressions of religion and spirituality and how they relate to the civic order that he returns to so often in his films.
ReplyDeleteIn God's Angry Man, religion is a vehicle for delusion, greed, and madness. It is an illustration of the corruption and chaos of man's pursuit of ultimate power. Gene Scott is a human - but a human weighed down with the very human struggle of being driven mad with the need for wealth.
Conversely, in Huie's Sermon, Herzog hangs on a long, continuous shot of building spiritual furor and energy - it's almost primal. It seems less dogmatic and more ritualistic, as Huie refers to the corruption of man, in a Herzogian outlook about the social corruptions of humanity.
In Huie’s Last Sermon, religion played a more ritualistic role, one that was more quintessential. Through the long shot of Huie singing with the choir and preaching, the more hypnotic and spiritual it became. Isn’t this what religion is all about? Coming together and feeling the same spirit run through your veins? Feeling connected to something bigger than yourself?
ReplyDeleteIn God’s Angry Man, however, Herzog shows what can also happen within religion. Greed can start to replace spirituality. I think both of these films are an exploration of Herzog’s into the conflicting sides of religion, and the fine line between them. These films, without a doubt, are very much connected to each other. That being said, if we only saw one of these films, it would not have much of an impact on me as viewing both of them in a row.
God's Angry Man was an interesting subject for a doc, but at this point, I expect no less from Herzog. What stuck out to me the most about the doc was Dr. Scott's behavior when not on stage. It was at these moments in which he truly opened up and conveyed his thoughts. Also, as Herzog says in the book, Scott's "performance" on his show is truly compelling. It's almost as if viewers are hypnotized by his wrath, and it's just an interesting thing to see.
ReplyDeleteOn the outside, without viewing, it is easy to think that God’s Angry Man is a film about religion. However, this film is not about religion and does not care to think about religion. This is a film about a man. A passionate, religious, disillusioned, lonely man. Herzog once again is showing us that he does not really care for what the character is or what he does, he is much more interested in how the character acts. Gene Scott is a nutbag, he being a religious zealot only enhances the viewers thought of him. Much like Aguirre, he is consumed by the thought of monetary worth. Both are striving to endless degrees in the pursuit of money or gold, the only difference being that Scoot is apparently doing it for the church and God. Focusing on religion is worthless when talking about films such as these. Herzog does not care about religion, he cares about the man.
ReplyDelete"God's Angry Man" first outraged me, but after a while just made me really tired. Unlike other Herzog's films, this one seemed absolutely boring and looong. Some shots where Scott was just saying nothing and staring at the camera were just unbearable to watch. I absolutely hate this guy and didn't understand WHY he is hating on church so much and never quits. It reminds me very much of Stroszek, where I just went - WHY are you complaining about America that helped so many immigrants who actually came here to WORK. Go home if you don't like the country and are not willing to work to provide for your future! Period, nothing else can be added. Now, I do understand that Scott's mother had a lot of influence on him, but come on! We are not always influenced by our parents. At some point, we develop our own opinion on things and follow our own path. I would never blame my parents for forcing me into doing something. There are so many resources that can be used when one wants to form his own opinion on something. I have no idea what this person can teach other people who come to him to confess or for an advice. I would never want to run into him when I go to church. I do understand that some people see a deep sense in the documentary and are amazed at how Herzog explores a complicated-and-truthful-and-sincere character, but I just didn't care about him. I couldn't relate to him and his issues. I probably sound conservative (which I am fine with), but I do believe that church is for another kind of people. If you are filled with anger, leave. Don't spread it among the people who come there for anything but your anger and bitterness.
ReplyDeleteThe second guy seemed quite the opposite. He looked like a religious fanatic, although I believed him more. At least, things that he was teaching people, were adequate.
SAndress
(I meant to post this yesterday but just opened my computer and found it only typed and not posted!)
ReplyDeleteGod's Angry Man was a frustrating film at first. It was tough to watch someone with such a god complex that he felt it was his personal duty to isolate himself and speak for everything divine in the universe. Televangelists, FOX news anchors, and Kim Davis all make themselves pretty easy targets and humans love few things more than tearing apart the shortcomings of the pretentious and ignorant. It's not hard to point fingers at the finger pointers, but it can be extremely difficult to see ourselves in them. At a glance, I don't see many "human" qualities in Gene Scott. He seems to be nothing but an angry monster, void of any real human emotion, and lacking empathy entirely. Ergo, my instinct is to retract any empathy I would have had for him. However, the way WH dove into the softest side of this seemingly cold hearted individual was fascinating. As the film progressed, my once absent empathy for Pastor Scott replaced my eager judgement. His personal feelings, experiences, and desires became apparent, and the monster on screen became a devastating facade to witness. He was vulnerable. By the end of the film he was not a monster or condemner, he was utterly human and nothing more.
I assume many would watch "God's Angry Man" and perceive a Herzogian agenda to mock religion, but I believe his views on religion are not even communicated in this film. It seems to me that WH merely wanted to break down any viewer's preconceived judgements of an unfamiliar world. That theme so organically communicated in this documentary is one that frequently appears in Herzog's films. The characters of Bruno, (the other) Stroszek, and Aguirre all find themselves lost and overwhelmed by their own unfulfilled expectations of how the world should treat them. Fitzcarraldo and Woodcarver Steiner had equally "unrealistic" expectations for their own lives. Though all five characters have these crazy dreams, the latter half are the only two who actually succeed. The secret to their success lies in how they adapted to adversity. The first three were defeated when they allowed their circumstances to consume them. "God's Angry Man" thematically tuns the tables on the viewer and presents the audience with the option of playing the part of Aguirre and allowing all preconceived ideas or judgements of how people ought to act determine how they viewed the film, or of playing the Woodcarver Steiner, accepting every new obstacle as an opportunity to learn more and understand. Initially, I was Aguirre, assuming my general position and outlook on life was greater than Gene Scott's simply because I didn't understand him. Although, when his sensitive soul began to shine through his angry cluttered mess of a profession, I was presented with this choice. I could have chosen to ignore his genuine cry for help and view only the television segments as accurate depictions of him as a terribly inhuman creature. This would result in me being an angry, lost viewer, possessing a harder heart than I'd had an hour earlier. However, I did not choose to play the victim. As the true person of Gene began to unfold, I found myself playing Steiner, slowly accepting his career as a secondary, false depiction of a human being, and seeing his raw self in a new light. The choice to understand is a daily one, and this film was a beautiful reminder of that.
Also:
Delete"God's Angry Man" takes on a whole new meaning though when paired with "Huie's Sermon" and "How Much Wood Could a Woodchuck Chuck..." All three flow together to present a hypnotic, semi-comical, foreign perspective of our Western World. Herzog satirizes our mob-centered culture's yearn for affiliation and affirmation through these three documentaries. In all three, we can see inside from an outsider's perspective the different ways large groups of Americans buy into things, that, outside of the moment and void of communal influence, would appear absurd. It's strange how often we claim to possess certain values, but with enough persuasion or the right amount of peer involvement, we'll succumb to just about anything. I believe Herzog noticed this trait in humans and sees how frequently American culture at large mimics this. The seemingly endless drones these films eventually fall into perfectly depict an image of our cultural hypnosis. If Herzog wasn't my favorite filmmaker before last week, he most certainly is now. This class has without a doubt made a fan out of Hampson Sollander.
God's Angry Man was a deeply disturbing film, the way Herzog shows Gene Scott is festinating. As the film started I was convinced it was going to be a slam of christianity exposing its many flaws throughout the years through the eyes of a member of Clergy. Rather it was so much more. Herzog portrays Gene Scott as a lonely, disconnected, delusional man controlled by religion, and duty. This portrayal focuses more on the actions of the character sympathizing with him, rather than centering around his accomplishments, or the life of a member of the clergy. This is very festinating, for one can clearly see how Herzog relates to the character.
ReplyDelete