I decided to check out this film for a few reasons, one of which is that I was considering taking Werner Herzog's masterclass online in which he claims to have every answer and everything a filmmaker needs to know. In the trailer for the class, Herzog admits that he doesn't use story boards, calling them an instrument for cowards, and that he sees himself as a thief, stealing whatever cool, interesting footage he can. Herzog rightfully has the reputation of being a bad ass, world traveler, and daredevil, who will film whatever he can, and I commend him for that. He has a distinctive style, that I think works especially well in documentary form.
But out of principle, I find myself hating "Aguirre" simply because people love to call it a visionary work, and it's anything but that. Granted, it is a wonderful character study and leading man Klaus Kinsky lends to the film tremendously. But Herzog went in without a plan, shot what he could, got the hell out and put it all together in a way that made sense... which works better in a documentary than in a narrative film. We can call it Cinema Verite if we want to ignore the flaws, but if I'm being honest with myself, it just feels lazy. Justified, maybe... being out in the jungle requires some shortcuts, and having a low budget would limit the ability to enforce one's vision... I still respect Herzog for doing what he could with his limited resources and living to tell the tale.
But my point is that there is no vision in this film. Herzog had an idea, rushed to write a screenplay in 2 days (not something worth bragging about in my opinion. Malick's opus "The Tree of Life," my personal favorite, took years and years) and he wanted to go film it somewhere cool, and once again, mad props to him for being adventurous, but out of principle I can't get behind a film people are calling visionary when this is just not one of those films. "Aguirre" is only proactive in that Herzog and his crew went on an expedition. Meanwhile the only shot that feels planned is the wonderfully ambitious opening shot of hundreds of conquistadors hiking Machu Picchu, which reminds me of the thing I admire about the film, Herzog's ambition and his exploration of a remote part of the world.
Why do you think he's been able to make so many films in his lifetime? It's because he shoots them like documentaries, without any plan, just running around with a camera. We can't hail "Aguirre" in the same ball park as films of great, proactive, visionary filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman, etc.
That's what drives me crazy about "Aguirre." I'm not going to call it lazy, because I appreciate Herzog's efforts in exploring the jungle, but it lacks the vision of what I believe to be great films. While Kinski's performance is great, the feeling I'm left with overall is quite bittersweet. And I won't be taking Herzog's master class, because I don't plan on being a documentary filmmaker, and that is where the skill set and the answers Herzog seems to have belong. Me on the other hand, I'd like to execute thought out vision, which I believe to be a pillar of cinema.
But out of principle, I find myself hating "Aguirre" simply because people love to call it a visionary work, and it's anything but that. Granted, it is a wonderful character study and leading man Klaus Kinsky lends to the film tremendously. But Herzog went in without a plan, shot what he could, got the hell out and put it all together in a way that made sense... which works better in a documentary than in a narrative film. We can call it Cinema Verite if we want to ignore the flaws, but if I'm being honest with myself, it just feels lazy. Justified, maybe... being out in the jungle requires some shortcuts, and having a low budget would limit the ability to enforce one's vision... I still respect Herzog for doing what he could with his limited resources and living to tell the tale.
But my point is that there is no vision in this film. Herzog had an idea, rushed to write a screenplay in 2 days (not something worth bragging about in my opinion. Malick's opus "The Tree of Life," my personal favorite, took years and years) and he wanted to go film it somewhere cool, and once again, mad props to him for being adventurous, but out of principle I can't get behind a film people are calling visionary when this is just not one of those films. "Aguirre" is only proactive in that Herzog and his crew went on an expedition. Meanwhile the only shot that feels planned is the wonderfully ambitious opening shot of hundreds of conquistadors hiking Machu Picchu, which reminds me of the thing I admire about the film, Herzog's ambition and his exploration of a remote part of the world.
Why do you think he's been able to make so many films in his lifetime? It's because he shoots them like documentaries, without any plan, just running around with a camera. We can't hail "Aguirre" in the same ball park as films of great, proactive, visionary filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman, etc.
That's what drives me crazy about "Aguirre." I'm not going to call it lazy, because I appreciate Herzog's efforts in exploring the jungle, but it lacks the vision of what I believe to be great films. While Kinski's performance is great, the feeling I'm left with overall is quite bittersweet. And I won't be taking Herzog's master class, because I don't plan on being a documentary filmmaker, and that is where the skill set and the answers Herzog seems to have belong. Me on the other hand, I'd like to execute thought out vision, which I believe to be a pillar of cinema.