If you've gone out of your way to watch Fitzcarraldo, it's very likely what drew you to it was the incredible documentary Burden of Dreams. I've read many of the reviews here, most have been glowing, and few if any of those have neglected to mention the fact that "he really did pull that ship over the hill".
I have to question though, is the praise for this film truly based on its own merits? Or does the knowledge of the epic backstory, of Herzog's unrelenting war against the jungle, factor into your review?
I would argue, that if we knew nothing of how this film were made, or were told it was all immaculate greenscreen CGI, that this film would not be so lauded.
A few reasons why: 1. The main character's motives are shaky at best. All this for an opera in the jungle? Why? He is clearly mad from the very outset, and while I can sense the 'romantic' viewing of this voyage that Herzog intended, it just doesn't land convincingly 2. I may as well say it... The film is exploitive. Forgetting the making of the film, and how all of this was done for real, and simply watching it on its own merits, it depicts extensive exploitation of local people and their lands. In doing so it makes no effort to show this as exploitive, but rather seems to expect us to ignore it and cheer on the ignorant white characters leading the charge on their pointless and reckless mission 3. The dialogue is atrocious. The movie is frugal with its dialogue and is mostly silence, and when the characters speak you can understand why
Finally, since everyone is so intent on linking this movie to it's behind the scenes documentary, let's talk about another: Heart of Darkness, and the production it showcases, Apocalypse Now. Apocalypse Now is an immaculate film on every level. It's engaging, it's original, it's complex and it's gripping throughout. It's production was similar in scope and context to Fitzcarraldo. But you do not need to have seen Heart of Darkness to appreciate Apocalypse Now, in the way that you desperately need to have seen Burden of Dreams to see value in Fitzcarraldo. And, in case that wasn't enough, Apocalypse Now, a movie that is beloved to this day, was released 3 years before Fitzcarraldo, a movie that feels like it was released in the 60s.
It's not a terrible film, but in my opinion, it's really not very good and I think if we were to all take a step back and analyse why we rate this movie so highly, we might come closer to seeing it for what it really is: a bit of a mess.
I have to question though, is the praise for this film truly based on its own merits? Or does the knowledge of the epic backstory, of Herzog's unrelenting war against the jungle, factor into your review?
I would argue, that if we knew nothing of how this film were made, or were told it was all immaculate greenscreen CGI, that this film would not be so lauded.
A few reasons why: 1. The main character's motives are shaky at best. All this for an opera in the jungle? Why? He is clearly mad from the very outset, and while I can sense the 'romantic' viewing of this voyage that Herzog intended, it just doesn't land convincingly 2. I may as well say it... The film is exploitive. Forgetting the making of the film, and how all of this was done for real, and simply watching it on its own merits, it depicts extensive exploitation of local people and their lands. In doing so it makes no effort to show this as exploitive, but rather seems to expect us to ignore it and cheer on the ignorant white characters leading the charge on their pointless and reckless mission 3. The dialogue is atrocious. The movie is frugal with its dialogue and is mostly silence, and when the characters speak you can understand why
Finally, since everyone is so intent on linking this movie to it's behind the scenes documentary, let's talk about another: Heart of Darkness, and the production it showcases, Apocalypse Now. Apocalypse Now is an immaculate film on every level. It's engaging, it's original, it's complex and it's gripping throughout. It's production was similar in scope and context to Fitzcarraldo. But you do not need to have seen Heart of Darkness to appreciate Apocalypse Now, in the way that you desperately need to have seen Burden of Dreams to see value in Fitzcarraldo. And, in case that wasn't enough, Apocalypse Now, a movie that is beloved to this day, was released 3 years before Fitzcarraldo, a movie that feels like it was released in the 60s.
It's not a terrible film, but in my opinion, it's really not very good and I think if we were to all take a step back and analyse why we rate this movie so highly, we might come closer to seeing it for what it really is: a bit of a mess.