Aguirre, Wrath of God ~ Werner Herzog (1972)
Aguirre is a film I've been very curious about, having read so much praise for it. It was a favorite of Roger Ebert's, who called it a film of "almost foolhardy ambition" and included it in his S&S top 10 in both 2002 and 2012. In that 2012 poll it was ranked #90 by Critics and #59 by Directors. Having now seen it and listened to Herzog's commentary, I still find it a very curious film. It's a unique experience that Francis Ford Coppola has acknowledged to be a strong influence on Apocalypse Now. It was a remarkable feat just to film it, and Klaus Kinski gives an amazing performance as the titular megalomaniac.
Werner Herzog is a German filmmaker whose career is diverse and unusual. His early years were filled with truly ambitious projects that were considered visionary, especially if you define that word as "attempting incredibly difficult film shoots that would be considered the height of insanity by most directors." These unusual projects were poorly funded, but Herzog's passion and vision always helped him to adapt and keep shooting even in the midst of disaster.
The film is based on reality to a surprising degree. When Spanish conquistadores led by Gonzalo Pizarro conquered the Inca Empire in South America in the mid-1500s, the natives told of El Dorado, a mythical land down the Amazon that was filled with gold. In Aguirre, Herzog combines elements of two expeditions attempting to find this treasure. There really was a Lope de Aguirre who was on one of these expeditions. Filming for an intense five weeks in the Amazon jungle, Herzog traces the expedition through mud, dangerous rapids, sickness, starvation, sniping attacks by mysterious local Indians (perhaps cannibals), and ultimate death and madness. It's obvious that the assembly of actors, crew (only eight persons), and local extras experienced many of the same difficulties.
Herzog really only had a general prose outline before he started filming, often improvising on the spot. When the river flooded by 15 feet and washed away all their rafts while they slept one night, he immediately wrote that into the plot and filmed the construction of new rafts. There is even one scene where a sedan chair carrying one of the two women on the journey is in danger of toppling into knee deep mud, and in his commentary Herzog points out his own hand darting into the frame attempting to steady it. If not for the fact that his later film Fitzcarraldo was even more ambitious (actually dragging a ship overland through the same jungle), Aguirre would be one of the most audacious (or crazy - take your pick) film shoots in all of cinema. In fact, I'm convinced that just the feat of making the film in such circumstances is a substantial part of the acclaim for Aguirre. This may explain why the film ranks even higher with Directors than with Critics - but it does have many compelling aspects:
Werner Herzog is a German filmmaker whose career is diverse and unusual. His early years were filled with truly ambitious projects that were considered visionary, especially if you define that word as "attempting incredibly difficult film shoots that would be considered the height of insanity by most directors." These unusual projects were poorly funded, but Herzog's passion and vision always helped him to adapt and keep shooting even in the midst of disaster.
The film is based on reality to a surprising degree. When Spanish conquistadores led by Gonzalo Pizarro conquered the Inca Empire in South America in the mid-1500s, the natives told of El Dorado, a mythical land down the Amazon that was filled with gold. In Aguirre, Herzog combines elements of two expeditions attempting to find this treasure. There really was a Lope de Aguirre who was on one of these expeditions. Filming for an intense five weeks in the Amazon jungle, Herzog traces the expedition through mud, dangerous rapids, sickness, starvation, sniping attacks by mysterious local Indians (perhaps cannibals), and ultimate death and madness. It's obvious that the assembly of actors, crew (only eight persons), and local extras experienced many of the same difficulties.
Herzog really only had a general prose outline before he started filming, often improvising on the spot. When the river flooded by 15 feet and washed away all their rafts while they slept one night, he immediately wrote that into the plot and filmed the construction of new rafts. There is even one scene where a sedan chair carrying one of the two women on the journey is in danger of toppling into knee deep mud, and in his commentary Herzog points out his own hand darting into the frame attempting to steady it. If not for the fact that his later film Fitzcarraldo was even more ambitious (actually dragging a ship overland through the same jungle), Aguirre would be one of the most audacious (or crazy - take your pick) film shoots in all of cinema. In fact, I'm convinced that just the feat of making the film in such circumstances is a substantial part of the acclaim for Aguirre. This may explain why the film ranks even higher with Directors than with Critics - but it does have many compelling aspects:
- The opening scene is riveting. A long expedition snakes through high mountain passes, shot from an extremely high angle. The music is created on an early (1972, remember) example of a synthesizer that has vocal samples stored on tape. This layered sound is ethereal and beautiful.
- Klaus Kinski, whom Herzog had known for years, was perfect for the part of Aguirre. He became almost obsessed with the role, collaborating pointedly on the development of the character's madness, costumes, and even his grotesque walk. Indeed, Kinski and Herzog had frequent arguments/debates about how Aguirre should be played, and at one point Herzog even confiscated a rifle from Kinski when he threatened the local extras with it. Their late night partying was annoying him.
- The film is very slow to build, but eventually creates almost a dreamlike world as the men lose touch with reality due to the strange environment, disease, and hunger.
- The movie has a realistic, handheld, documentary feel. Rather than a film about the 1550s, it seems like it's really taking place in that time period, but with a camera along to record the events. The priest that accompanies the group to bring the gospel to the natives serves as a narrator, but his comments seem almost improvised on the spot. However, there are sections that break this up by taking a completely opposite approach. At times the entire group gathers in static, stiff compositions for declarations or announcements by the leaders. Herzog in his commentary explains that as a break from the cinema verite approach he wanted these contrasting scenes to almost seem like carefully composed formal portraits.
- Aguirre eventually descends into total madness, claiming all this land for himself. All others will fall before him, as he is The Wrath of God. He plans to marry his daughter and start his own dynasty. Conveniently, his daughter is one of the two women with him on the journey but, less conveniently, is already dead by the time he makes this pronouncement. His final predictions of future gold and glory are only heard by a group of monkeys - all his comrades are dead.
- There are some famous moments in the film. At one point, the men see a boat in the top of a tree. Was it placed there by flooding, or are they hallucinating from hunger? When a soldier talks of deserting the mission, Aguirre beheads him so swiftly that the disembodied head finishes the word he was about to speak. At one point a soldier is captured in a trap, hauled up out of sight into a tree, and the only indication of his fate is blood dripping from above onto his fellows travelers. One of the women in despair just walks off alone into the jungle, never to be seen again. We never truly see the enemy Indians, just the results of their clandestine attacks. The men are in a daze at the end due to sickness and starvation, it doesn't even seem real when arrows suddenly pierce their body - they can't decide if it's real or not.
Ultimately, this was another film in my study that did not measure up to its reputation. I look with amazement at the achievement of its filming, but it just seems too unplanned and haphazard to achieve true greatness. I find the juxtaposition of the documentary-like sections and the posed, stiffly acted scenes just awkward rather than interesting. It is a film to gape at rather than admire, and is not one that I feel compelled to watch again or recommend. Herzog has a strong passion and is an utterly unique filmmaker, but his is a world that does not draw me in. B-