4 ms·

While I applaude and admire his effort, I am somewhat concerned with the result. Can anybody elaborate why his movies are considered great? (This is not a rheto

While I applaude and admire his effort, I am somewhat concerned with the result. Can anybody elaborate why his movies are considered great? (This is not a rhetorical question, I am curious what other see that I do not.)

mitchbob 6y ago
Here's Roger Ebert on Herzog's Nosferatu, one of my favorites: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-nosferatu-the-vampyre-1979 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-herzogs-the-great-ecstasy-of-woodcarver-steiner.html 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-hauser-1974 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-enigma-of-kaspar-haus...
beloch 6y ago
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".
saiya-jin 6y ago
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.
spiderjerusalem 6y ago
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.
leephillips 6y ago
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.
- brooklyn_ashey 6y ago
  An artist is always fundamentally speaking about themselves— they have no choice in this. Herzog’s self applied to various subjects is just really compelling.
- wazoox 6y ago
  But I've loved this film. It was one of these rare 3D movies where the 3D made sense.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    Hmm. I didn’t have the benefit of 3D, I saw it on TV.
    - wazoox 6y ago
      The atmosphere inside the cave was as real as you can imagine in 3D, in a cinema. You really feel inside the cave. Another fantastic documentary to see in 3D, in a cinema, was "Pina".
allenbrunson 6y ago
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.
rahimiali 6y ago
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.
- kinghtown 6y ago
  This is such an interesting take. I find it exceedingly difficult to argue with any of your points but I might add one which, though subjective or arguable, may change your mind or at least offer some insight into why some people love his work. I find Herzog to be low-key hilarious. Pretty much all my friends, who also dig his work, do as well. I think he tips his hand in this regard quite a bit with Bad Lieutenant 2. Also, notice how when he speaks to live audiences the way he feeds off their laughter and I would argue here is also playing them for laughs in a way a comedian would. I’m not saying that Herzog is a pure comedic film maker such as Mel Brooks or something but his movies take on a whole new dimension when you realize that yes he is taking a hard look at horror sometimes but I think he also laughs at absurdity quite a bit as well. Also, his DIY attitude and strong work ethic are admirable qualities as well.

mitchbob 6y ago

Here's Roger Ebert on Herzog's Nosferatu, one of my favorites: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-nosferatu-the-vampyre-1979 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-herzogs-the-great-ecstasy-of-woodcarver-steiner.html 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-hauser-1974 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-enigma-of-kaspar-haus...

beloch 6y ago

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".

saiya-jin 6y ago

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.

spiderjerusalem 6y ago

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.

leephillips 6y ago

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.

brooklyn_ashey 6y ago
An artist is always fundamentally speaking about themselves— they have no choice in this. Herzog’s self applied to various subjects is just really compelling.
wazoox 6y ago
But I've loved this film. It was one of these rare 3D movies where the 3D made sense.
- leephillips 6y ago
  Hmm. I didn’t have the benefit of 3D, I saw it on TV.
  - wazoox 6y ago
    The atmosphere inside the cave was as real as you can imagine in 3D, in a cinema. You really feel inside the cave. Another fantastic documentary to see in 3D, in a cinema, was "Pina".

allenbrunson 6y ago

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.

rahimiali 6y ago

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.

kinghtown 6y ago
This is such an interesting take. I find it exceedingly difficult to argue with any of your points but I might add one which, though subjective or arguable, may change your mind or at least offer some insight into why some people love his work. I find Herzog to be low-key hilarious. Pretty much all my friends, who also dig his work, do as well. I think he tips his hand in this regard quite a bit with Bad Lieutenant 2. Also, notice how when he speaks to live audiences the way he feeds off their laughter and I would argue here is also playing them for laughs in a way a comedian would. I’m not saying that Herzog is a pure comedic film maker such as Mel Brooks or something but his movies take on a whole new dimension when you realize that yes he is taking a hard look at horror sometimes but I think he also laughs at absurdity quite a bit as well. Also, his DIY attitude and strong work ethic are admirable qualities as well.