Inside the Mind of Werner Herzog, Luddite Master of the Internet | Hacker News Reader

Inside the Mind of Werner Herzog, Luddite Master of the Internet

wired.com

48 pointsMrsPeaches14 comments

He was a guest in this monday WTF Podcast:

"...With a new documentary about the internet on his mind, the legendary filmmaker talks with Marc about the achievements and follies of humanity. ..."

http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-733-werner-herzog-godf...

And his book A Guide for the Perplexed worth a read.

Cant help but feel that Herzog is going out of his comfort zone with 'Lo and Behold'. For me, he is at his best when looking at nature and in particularly Human Nature. His documentary Grizzly which the article mentions ends with his voice over “I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I can see only the overwhelming indifference of nature”, highlights his pursuit for understanding of why we do what we do. This is not to say that I wont watch Lo,I'm sure he'll discover the humanity of our technology.

While his grandstanding and self-mythologising have ticked me off for years, I'm also pretty interested to see his take on this subject.

Is there much grandstanding and self-mythologizing? He has opinions, like every artist. If you think he has built a mythology around himself, read "Herzog on Herzog", part of Farrar, Straus and Giroux's great series of interviews with directors. He is very open about his development as a filmmaker, and really about everything. The stories he tells about his filmmaking experiences -- his many fights with Kinski, for example -- may be colourful, but I have not seen any evidence that he has invented any of them. Personally, I find Herzog's perspective refreshingly and uniquely unromantic.

I can't get past the "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" episode. This was Herzog's "re-imagining" of the great film by Abel Ferrara. Ferrara was infuriated, as he had not authorized a remake and was paid a token amount for rights. The kicker: in interviews, Herzog claimed, bizarrely, not only to have not seen the original, but never even to have heard of Ferrara. I realize that many people greatly admire Herzog's work, but there is clearly something wrong with him.

This again. It comes up now and then.

Herzog's film is not a "re-imagining", nor a remake. It has literally nothing to do with Ferrara's film other than the title; it's an original script and an original story. Herzog didn't even want to use the title, but the studio or the producer (Edward R. Pressman, who produced Ferrara's film) vetoed the decision.

I don't know why you think Herzog somehow owes Ferrara anything. The controversy, such as it was, came from Ferrara, who complained to the press without having seen the film other than being told there was a remake being made. He didn't check his facts before making false accusations.

Your claim is that two films with the same title, very similar plots, and the same producer have "literally nothing to do" with each other.

I don't know if Herzog "owes" Ferrara anything, but somebody thought so, because Ferrara was paid (just not much). Why would he be paid at all if the two films have "literally nothing to do" with each other?

What "facts" would Ferrara have to check before deciding to be pissed off about this? What are these supposed "false accusations"?

I'm willing to believe that the two films are artistically quite dissimilar, but everything in my comment is true regardless.

The accusation was that Ferrara was not paid enough for the rights to something that wasn't even adapted. They took his title, nothing else. Ferrara, however, assumed they were remaking his film, which was not the case, so his public comments were out of line. (Also: If Ferrara did not want to sell the rights, he shouldn't have sold them. I don't know what he was paid for, in truth.)

What exactly is "wrong with" Herzog? That was your assertion. It's a pretty bold statement. Herzog made an original film which has nothing to do with Ferrara's. It's not up to him to make things right -- whatever those things are.

In short, what is your exact complaint here?

I've read a handful of accounts of this episode, and my impression is that Ferrara was blindsided and was not a party to the negotiations that led to him being paid for rights - which, again, somebody, perhaps just lawyers, thought was appropriate. He never agreed to the making of a movie using his title.

But you ask a fair question.

Do you really think it's credible that, after having finished this movie, having worked with the producer of the original for over a year, that Herzog had never heard of Ferrara? I can believe that he'd never seen the original movie, but never heard the name of the filmmaker? Read the belittling language Herzog chose to use in the interviews about the incident. Everybody lies. But this lie was mean-sprited and spiteful. And that's what I think is wrong with Herzog.

On the other hand, Ferrara did say he wanted Herzog to die in a fire. So there is that.

Having read a bunch of Herzog's writings, I wouldn't surprised if he genuinely wasn't aware of Ferrara. Herzog, as others have (Tarkovsky being a notable example), has professed to not being that interested in other filmmakers.

Once Herzog was confronted with the "controversy", he was as magnanimous (not belittling at all) as anyone could be about it, saying that he'd gladly meet Ferrara over a beer and make up.

The point remains that Herzog's film has nothing to do with Ferrara's — the whole debacle is just uninteresting, tiring politics. I don't know why you bother mentioning it.

Whiskey, not beer. In the interviews, Herzog's lying is palpable. He protests too much.

You're just going to have to accept the terrible fact that sometimes people are in possession of the same facts as you but simply come to different conclusions.

He's certainly a talented film-maker with a distinctive voice. But his "rogue adventurer" persona is something he has willingly cultivated, which has resulted in a cult-of-personality fanbase and fanboy critics. Which is unfair, because he does actually make some really original films. So it's the Kinski stories (which, agree, were not invented - but certainly were myth-making exaggerations) and the overly delicate "being a solider of cinema" line (talked about in Herzog on Herzog) that's in flagrante delicto in terms of this savvy personal brand building.

Same goes for his "unromantic" view of the world. Yes, lovely, you're unsentimental about human nature and the indifference of the universe. But why do you have to impose yourself on the audio track and personally remind us? Do you realise you're just coming off a rung above the "dark guy" in high school, sitting in the cafeteria scribbling pentagrams into a moleskin? For me, his best films are the ones he remains unseen and unheard.

As an aside, I think Joshua Oppenheimer's 'The Act of Killing' must have put the wind up Morris and Herzog when they first saw it (to be fair, they later signed on as executive producers). But that, by far, is the most innovative and original documentary for many years. Definitely check it out if you're a fan of Herzog.

Herzog has a masterclass for anyone interested in filmmaking and him.

Indeed!

https://www.masterclass.com/classes/werner-herzog-teaches-fi...

There's also his "Rogue Film School", but no news so far as to 2017 dates:

http://www.roguefilmschool.com

Reply on news.ycombinator.com