Werner Herzog: ‘Film-making is always some sort of risk-taking’

Everytime I read the words "but why?", I hear them in his voice over here.

There's something so absurd about tiny flapping, waddling penguins as an animal, and yet they seem relatable too as they go about their day everyday, including the insane penguins in question.

It's Kinski that is lucky to have survived the filming:

"In My Best Fiend, Herzog says that one of the native chiefs offered in all seriousness to kill Kinski for him, but that he declined because he needed the actor to complete filming"[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzcarraldo

Here's Roger Ebert on Herzog's Nosferatu, one of my favorites: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-nosferatu-the... . For me, the quality of Herzog's films is wildly variable, but in his best films, he's a poet of human extremes and vulnerabilities, as in his documentary The Great Ecstasy of the Woodcarver Steiner, about a champion ski jumper https://slate.com/culture/2018/02/the-genius-of-werner-herzo... and The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-enigma-of-kaspar-haus...

I love many of Werner's movies (and dislike a couple). He tends to root things in historical fact without going too far afield. His protagonists are usually realistically flawed and frequently outright unhinged (e.g. most of Kinski's roles). Many of his films have a uniquely lyrical character, and his taste in music usually coincides with my own. (If you hate the music a director chooses it often makes it hard to like his films). His documentaries (e.g. "Little Dieter Needs to Fly" or "Grizzly Man") feature unique and fascinating people, and Herzog digs deep into their stories.

It's okay to hate good films though. A big part of appreciating culture is learning to recognize when something is good, but not for you. e.g. Many go gaga for Antonioni's "L'Avventura". It may have done some pretty revolutionary things for film, but I hate it with a passion. I can't stand it's plot structure and loathe every one of it's characters. I recognize that it is a good film, but also that it's not for me.

Be careful to say, "I didn't like that film" instead of "That is a bad film because I didn't like it".

Must say, his portrait of Rheinhold Messner's and Hans Kammerlander's double summit of both Gasherburms in one go is on another level compared to basically any mountain documentaries of that era. Name is Dark glow of the mountains, german speaking but I found some english subtitles.

You have dark aspects of protagonists revealed, questions about what to do with belongings if they don't come back and so on. Its not the style that was common at that time. I mean, it gives you perspective on extreme mountaineering and people doing it like few documents do, even in these days.

Whether you like Messner's personality or not, its a damn fine documentary and shows why these guys are not mere athletes like world champions/olympic winners.

He said somewhere that he wants to portray the 'madness in the hearts of men' and I think that is a very good guiding principle to view his oeuvre from.

They're considered great by the people who consider them great. Personally, I think he's insufferable. He was granted exclusive access to make a documentary about the Chauvet caves, and made a film mostly about himself. What a waste.

i can only speak for myself ...

as directors go, herzog is wildly uneven. a lot of his stuff strikes me as right on the money, exposing truths i wouldn't have known otherwise. a bunch more of it seems self-indulgent and unnecessary.

having said all that, i'm inclined to watch anything from him i haven't already seen. he's always trying something new.

i would say i value novelty over almost any other quality i might find in movies and teevee. herzog delivers that in spades.

His movies are insufferable, they mock humanity, they are low-ingredient-count/genuine, and they convey very few life lessons to take outside the movie. But the flip side of these attributes also make these movies great.

Insufferable: He doesn't just convey a feeling to his audience. He makes the audience feel it directly. If he wants to convey boredom, he bores you. If he wants to convey patiences, he makes you wait patiently. If he wants to convey discomfort, he'll make you feel uncomfortable.

Mocking: He mocks his subjects in many ways, but mocking also seems to be his main way to express admiration. He mocks man's battle against nature. "Man is a fool. Nature wins" is a binding theme, yet he believes greatness only comes form that struggle (hunting in the taiga, an impromptu hike through France and Germany, Fitzcarraldo, playing chicken with an active volcano, etc). The more highly his subject thinks about himself (and it's always a "he"), the more he savages them with mockery (that includes all PhDs in his movies, and every character who wants to be on camera). The more prestigious the character, the more he lunges at them. And if he can't make them flinch with his mockery, he holds the shot steady long enough for the viewer to flinch. He needs someone to flinch in his mockery/respect/admiration game.

Low-ingredient/genuine: In his older films, his actors were raw (either because they weren't actors, or because they were Kinski). Hertzog portrays himself on the scene through his characters, and criticizes himself. The struggles he documents remind him of his own follies. He makes fun of his characters to criticize himself. It's a form of bullying for sure, but it's also a genuine form of self-criticism.

No life lessons: You might walk away thinking "what did i learn from that movie?" Usually you'll have learned nothing (Rescue Dawn might be an exception, because it's really a Hollywood film. But think about his documentary about the skiing wood carver. You learn zero things about skiing or wood carving). But you've walked away with a shitload of feelings. You've been through the ringer. These feelings seem to dissipate soon after the movie, but the sounds, the music, the tone of his voice, the periodic movements in the scene all stay with you. These images have a taste, and you'll remember their taste for years to come.

I hate his movies, but I've watched every one of them to understand why I hate them. I wish kinski had succeeded in strangling him, or that pellet had not be so insignificant, or that Alice Waters had let him choke on that shoe. But there's no escaping the images, I'll always feel haunted.

I’m not sure hired is the right word — Herzog was very clear that the indigenous people were independent contractors not employees.

In Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber, one of Travis Kalanick’s lieutenants said the director’s commentary of the Criterion Collection edition of Fitzcarraldo provided the final spark that set the whole business idea in motion.

Wow, finally indeed. That's been a pain for the longest time. What was the holdup anyway?

That tends to be intermittent, with some domains responding, some not, at any one time.

I see what you mean, but wow, his description of Klaus Kinski frothing at the mouth while shattering a wine glass by screaming at it (whether true or not) definitely makes me want to keep watching -- Herzog is unapologetically over the top, but he sure knows how to tell a story.

My read was similar, I also couldn’t get through Lo and Behold which set off bullshit alarms [0] and just gave me the impression of confidence being used in the place of actual explanation.

It feels like an emperor has no clothes situation. For some reason people think it signals high status or intellectualism to like Herzog so they say they do.

I haven’t watched all of his movies so this may be unfairly harsh, but that was my initial impression.

Portal podcast also came across that way to me. First interview with Thiel was interesting, but I stopped somewhere after the next couple.

Too much “the media doesn’t want us to talk about this” and “the Clintons are a globalist conspiracy against the people”.

If you have real arguments then make them.

Don’t just confidently state things as fact without backing them up.

Thankfully when Sam Harris was on he at least pushed back on some of the bullshit.

[0]: https://youtu.be/Bqx6li5dbEY

There are plenty of self-absorbed and self-congratulatory people who do nothing. I'm inclined to give artists a free pass. Authenticity is so endangered these days. After all, you can just ignore them, which is in fact a terrible punishment for an artist.