I haven't seen Fitzcarraldo. Can it be better then the documentary about Herzog making it? I'm sure it's a fiction version of it. Just like Apocalypse Now seems to be about Coppola's own madness too (it also has its matching documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse). But nobody is crazier than Herzog and that's why he's so likeable.
How far can a filmmaker with a dream go? How long will a crew stand by him and his dream? Herzog seems to push all of that to the limit.
This documentary isn't innovative in any way, it's very classic, so classic it becomes invisible. You forget the people making it also spent that amount of time in the middle of the jungle with the crew. That's a good thing in this case where the story it's telling is so interesting.
This is also a nice little comedy. I have to say I prefered El Cochecito.Both films were written by Rafael Azcona. I discovered I've seen so many of the films he wrote! Not all of them are comedies and most of them are interesting. He is very good at writting characters you sympathise with.
His comedies have what Habemus Papam lacked. People are simple, they are human and they have something that makes them likeable. Also, there's a strong sense of criticism of society, real society, of real people not stereotypes. A screenwriter who knows what he's talking about ad who is in touch with his contemporaries. You don't know if things happened like that but they make sense, they could have happened... that thing called verisimilitude that's so important in films.
My favourite of his films probably is ¡Ay, Carmela! , but it's also by Saura so it has an advantage (La lengua de las mariposas was also very good). They also made a film based on a screenplay by him that was out recently. It looks very much like these 60s comedies, filmed old style too, so I'm looking forward to seeing it soon.
We all expect something from a film. Even if we don't know exactly what. Perhaps because there's something that made us think we'd watch it.
It took me a while to figure what was it that I expected from this film and why I didn't get that.
The plot sounds simple and attractive enough: there's an elected Pope who doesn't want to assume his role (so they find him a psychologist to help him). Fair enough.
The problem is that the film isn't that.
It's meant to be a satire of some sort. But it's not. It could be consideered a dramatic comedy, it has funny moments, but it all goes wrong at the end.
Michel Piccoli saves the film. I think he does capture the feelings the character has. He's a very nice old man, with a something in his eyes. He's not over the top either. He is really suffering.
And Jerzy Stuhr! Okay I just recognised him. He's changed a lot since his films with Kieslowski. He's a great actor and here is very good here too. If the story had been about the man who doesn't want to be the Pope and the man whose job is to convince him that he must... that would have been a completely different and excellent film.
It's a very visually attractive film, the photography and art and very nicely done. The sound... has one or two good moments... with a terrible terrible music moment. They picked a nice song and put it in the middle of a sequence meaning nothing but something that was put there just because.
The psychologist (played by the director) shouldn't have been there. He's not likeable, he doesn't have an important role in the drama, he's not even funny... It makes it a completely different picture and a much less interesting one too.
The ending... well I think the film had lost me long before but it's just terrible. I think the script suffered from a lack of direction and in the end it went nowhere.
"A story centered on the relationship between the newly elected Pope and his therapist." No, not really. But this wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't such a boring film in the end.
At the beginning of the documentary Herzog says he's not going to make a film about fluffy penguins. And he doesn't. His fluffy creatures are human, the strangest of them who end up working in Antarctica. You do wonder how Herzog ends up finding characters who are just as crazy as he is.
Recently I saw the BBC Frozen Planet series. They also have an episode about people who live in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. But they are so different in so many ways.
Herzog's documentary isn't just a nature show... it's a story about people. It's human, it's engaging, it's thought-provoking... it's a proper cinema documentary rather than a television one. His characters are very well found. You don't know who's the strangest one and who's your favourite.
The Frozen Planet is beautifully filmed with all sort of HD technology and slow-motion cameras. Herzog doesn't need all this. Apparently James Cameron wanted to do the project as well , with 36 people as crew. Herzog won because he only took a cameraman and himself as sound recordist. It's still works very well with a minor budget.
There's also a nice choice of music and sounds. Perhaps because his music collaborator/friend was very involved in the project as he is also an expert diver. The underwater sounds are amazing. One thing I wasn't sure about the Frozen Planet was if the sounds were all dubbed or how were they recorded. I never saw any sign of a sound crew in the making of (and very limited credits) - something that doesn't make sense with the big budget HD photography.
I think the best thing about it is the questions it raises. Why and how do the strangest people end up in such a remote place? Did humans evolve to escape the underwater world? Are we, like dinosaurs, meant to disappear from Earth some time in the future?
Oh! And there are penguins in it after all! Lost and deranged, just like everyone else in the film.
