DVD Review Of The Enigma Of Kaspar Hauser
Werner Herzog is a nonpareil filmmaker. Yes, one might argue that a Stanley Kubrick or an Ingmar Bergman, a Federico Fellini or an Akira Kurosawa, were greater directors of films, but all of them have a more fundamental connection to the central- if not conventional, core of the art of filmmaking. Herzog is farther off into his own cinematic dimension than any other director. If there can be such a thing as instinct into so rigorous an art as filmmaking, then Herzog is as close to a pure beast in that art as one can get.
His hour and fifty minute long 1974 film The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (Jeder Für Sich Und Gott Gegen Alle- literally Every Man For Himself And God Against All; a much more apt and poetic title than the English language version), which he wrote, produced, and directed, and which won that year’s Grand Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival, about the infamous case of a wild child who strode into Nuremburg in 1828, with a note proclaiming his name, and a bizarre tale of being raised in a dark cell for perhaps a decade and a half, which led to decades of articles, books, and a place in Fortean lore, is one of those films that no other filmmaker could make. Yes, there have been other films that have touched upon the case, but none so viscerally, and of all the post-Nazi German filmmakers, often called the New German Cinema, as opposed to France’s New Wave, Herzog is the most, for lack of a better term, feral; thus the perfect man to bring Hauser’s tale to the screen.
The film is not so much a linear screenplay as a string of moments and images (one great moment concentrates on a stork eating a helpless frog; yet it’s a beautiful death, while a dream sequence shows pilgrims climbing a mountain in Ireland during a fog, as Pachelbel’s Canon plays onscreen) which act as a bildungsroman not only for the lead character of Hauser, played by the mentally deranged Bruno S., but for the characters that inhabit Nuremburg, and have to learn to be more accepting of someone whose origin, life, and entry into their world is as close as one could get to an extraterrestrial being without being one. Hauser is not only outside of their experience, but also outside their very realm and conception of difference, and as he learns the 19th Century Germany’s customs and manners he sees how stilted and absurd many of them are, and so does the audience, via Herzog’s ecstatic art beyond analysis.
A number off scenes brilliantly illustrate this, such as when Hauser runs out of a church and describes the congregational singing as ‘howling’, which only ends when the preacher takes to howling. He also questions the absurdity of some clergymen’s claims about God creating the universe from nothingness, as well as exposing the sexism of the era when he asks a female domestic in the home he’s living in what purpose women serve. He sees them only doing household chores and not truly living. But, instead of having the woman uncharacteristically give an answer, she tells him to ask her male employer, a brilliant distillation of that era’s hypocrisy. There is also a scene where that employer, his caretaker Herr Daumer (Walter Ladengast), tries to explain to Hauser that apples are not thinking creatures, then rolls one down a path. The apple rolls off into the high grass and Hauser declares it did not stop where Daumer wished, as promised, but merely went to hide in the grasses. Daumer then rolls the apple back down the path, toward a parson’s foot, who wants to stop it, but the apple hits a bump, and rolls over the foot and away. Hauser declares the apple is indeed smart, for it knew to jump over the extended foot which sought to stop it, and make its escape. In other scenes, Hauser learns that a flame can cause pain, yet the tears that roll down his cheek are from eyes still blank of expression. His reaction is autonomic not emotional, and even his worldview, such as it is, has its own internal parameters, such as when he argues with Daumer that the room in the jail tower he was first put in has to be larger than the tower for he could see the room all about him, but the tower disappears from view when he turns around.
But, the most apt scene is one where a teacher tries to play a game of logic with Hauser, by having him imagine two towns; one filled with constant liars and one filled with total truth tellers. He asks Hauser what is the one question that will tell him what town a traveler is from, since both men, if asked which town they are from, will respond that they are not from the town of liars. The would be logician declares there is only one question that, via deduction, will work, and that is to ask the travelers the question in a double negative form, which will trip up the liar. However, Hauser has a more primitive logic. He declares there is another query that would reveal the liar and truth teller, thus evincing their hometown as well. He says he would ask both men if they are a tree frog, therefore the liar would claim he is, the truth teller would deny it, and Hauser would have his answer. It is every bit as logical as the logician’s, and even more direct, if something out of a Samuel Beckett play. Yet, the teacher rejects it as being outside logical conventions. I recall, years ago, taking an IQ test at the behest of a cousin, and being confronted with similarly culturally blindered queries. I was asked which of four things went with a cup- a saucer, a chair, a napkin, or a table. Intellectually and culturally, I knew the answer wanted was a saucer, but I also new, from experience, that a table was also correct, because children from poorer families only bought and used cups, and were not as acquainted with saucers as middle and upper classes were. So, like Hauser, I went with an answer I knew would be marked wrong, but was every bit as defensible. In the film, when Hauser’s query is rejected by the teacher, the look on Bruno S.’s face, and his disgust over the stupidity of the teacher is palpable. It’s a brilliant moment, for there are many different ways human beings learn, and a to b to c rote education is a waste to creative people such as a Herzog or myself, or to people like Hauser or Bruno S., at the other extreme.
Yet, its import goes beyond the scene or the film, for it’s not an episode from the real Hauser’s life, as was the scene of him running out of the church, or questioning theology, but one from Herzog’s own mind, which demonstrates his unique ability to craft scenes that are based upon a character’s persona yet which are wholly in touch with the greater ‘truth’, if you will, of the character. This is what Herzog calls an ‘ecstatic truth,’ and is something he does better than any other artist in film. His visuals only underscore this ‘logic beyond logic,’ from the gauzey opening shots of a boat on a river- which seem like colorized fragments from Carl Theodor Dreyer’s Vampyr, to Kaspar’s abandonment by his captor (Hans Musaus), to the jarring dream images Kaspar has, filmed in a different style- almost like home movies made with an old 8mm camera (which Herzog confirms in the DVD film commentary by stating they were taken by his brother years earlier, on a worldwide trip, and saved from the garbage by Herzog; although, given Herzog’s penchant for lying, this may be bogus, as well), of an imaginary Caucusus mountains to that of a caravan led by a blind man in the Sahara Desert, where he dreams a tale with no end. Few filmmakers have ever truly followed the real dream logic of real dreams as well as Herzog. Also, Herzog is true to the human spirit, for, although the film is ostensibly a costume period piece, it never has that Merchant-Ivory phoniness to it. The characters’ clothes are not all perfectly tailored, and the people act as unenlightened and ugly as they are today, with some of the townsfolk resenting Hauser, others teasing and mocking him, and others constantly gossiping about him. And, as usual, Herzog uses music in film better than anyone, even if his usual musical scorer, Florian Fricke from the band Popol Vuh, does not do the score (although he makes a cameo appearance as a blind pianist), in favor of classical music from The Magic Flute, and Pachelbel’s Canon.
The DVD is part of Anchor Bay’s Werner Herzog DVD box set and is in a 1.77:1 aspect ratio. There is a film trailer, a Herzog bio, and the commentary track by Herzog with Anchor Bay’s Norman Hill serving as prod. His comments are brief and innocuous, for Herzog needs no co-commenter, for he is simply one of the best raconteurs around, and his commentaries among the best one can get. Particularly informative is when Herzog delves into the life history of the film’s lead, Bruno S.- who was forty-one and playing a teenager when the film was made. The real Hauser was believed to be no older than sixteen or seventeen when found. Yet, Bruno S. gives one of those performances that some people seem only they were born to play. His vapidity, and blankness are not really an act, for he was a mentally ill, vagabond street musician and part-time forklift driver that Herzog spotted in a documentary film. His paranoia was so deep that, even during filming, he felt Herzog and his crew would steal money from him. Herzog claims he was the bastard child of a prostitute, and suffered many abuses on the street and by the state, and goes by the name Bruno S. because he wanted his real name protected. Yet, despite the age difference and many other factors, Bruno S. is Kaspar Hauser, and it is no act, for their lives were quite similar in trajectory, save that Bruno S. was not murdered, like the real Hauser, five years after his emergence. The proof of Bruno S.’s non-acting is evident when compared with some of the mawkish and condescending performances of the mentally ill that Hollywood indulges in- think Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump or Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.
Of course, given Herzog’s past, the whole Bruno S. legend could be just that, for the man did appear in Herzog’s later Stroszek, and other films- hardly the thing someone who did not seek the limelight would do. Regardless, the performance in this film that Bruno S. gives is superb. But, a phony past for the lead actor would be in keeping with both the film’s fictive Hauser and the fact that the real Hauser tale has, by most modern experts, been deemed a fraud for the real boy too easily learnt human language and other skills whereas other ‘feral children’, who truly were never exposed to language, were incapable of learning it, and most modern studies have shown that human beings deprived of language till the age of six or seven simply cannot learn complex language- the window of opportunity for the malleable brain to pick up the abstractions behind language’s symbology disappears. Plus, Hauser’s murder (or likely real life suicide, a point not taken up by Herzog)- in too vivid a red colored fake blood, seems to point to the fact that there was also a political conspiracy involved, despite Herzog’s claims to the contrary.
The film, however, ends with a great scene, and one which touches upon some of the science behind feral children and language development, or rather spoofs it, and it is based upon the real life autopsy of Hauser. Coroners dissected his brain and found many abnormalities- as well in his liver. One odd man, who was recording the case of Hauser for the town’s records, leaves the autopsy elated with the knowledge of Hauser’s brain’s oddities, and feels this is finally an explanation for Hauser’s enigma, as he walks down a long street. Of course, it is not a real explanation for anything, and says far more of the man and the society which produced him than it does of Hauser, but it’s a great way to end the film, for the only character that seemed to truly understand Hauser was the jailer’s young son, who first taught him words.
Thus, The Enigma Of Kaspar Hauser is not a typical ‘outsider tale’, but a film that critiques the inside society that surrounds outsiders, and with its ellipses in time and narrative, one sees how that critique grows steadily harsher and dimmer the more Hauser grows within. He goes from oddity to sideshow freak (where two iconic images from Herzog’s earlier Even Dwarfs Started Small reappear) to ward of the rich to mystery in death. Yet, as Herzog comments, no person is really a mystery, for we are all here due to fornication. It’s merely another of the many brilliant and sardonic comments Herzog makes about this small but great film of his. Thus, as a purveyor of greatness, he earns the right to crow, when he states, ‘I have never made a mistake in music.’ And, having watched many of his films, I can add that he’s made very few mistakes in any other aspects of filmmaking. Perhaps that’s because, if as he claims, Herzog does not dream at night. Thus, his films are his waking dreams, and, if a man cannot or will not make the most of his dreams, then what are any images for?
[Originally posted at Blogcritics]
--
Dan Schneider
www.Cosmoetica.com
Cosmoetica: The Best In Poetica
www.Cosmoetica.com/Cinemension.htm
Cinemension: Film's Extra Dimension

20 comments:
Having just watched The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser just last night for about the 5th time I was struck again by the method used to show Kaspar's vision of the Caucusus Mountains. It looked almost like what I remember looking through a Viewmaster as a child to have been like. Like a dream hybrid between a photograph and a painting.
It brings me joy to find that Bruno S. is still alive and is exhibiting his art. His pair of performances for Mr. Herzog were both revelations, astounding and touching. Sometimes the performances of Bruno S. were overshadowed, in the Herzog filmography, by the blowtorch blast of Klaus Kinski, but nobody who watches Bruno S. "act" can walk away unaffected by his performance.
what is contemplative about Kaspar Hauser?
Watch the film, or see the comment above. The Pachelbel's Canon sequence is amongst the dreamiest and most contemplative in cinema.
Also, there are numerous exchanges that end in images that let one think.
This is Herzog. What did he ever make that was NOT contemplative?
Verlaine: yes, Bruno's 'performances' are nonpareil, for good or ill. It's sort of what would have been had that retarded kid from Deliverance been made the stars of films.
There are contemplative sequences in the film, like there are in Deliverance... but it's not a film fundamentally structured as a contemplative approach to cinema. It still is based on melodramatic dialogued scenes, formulaic shots.
It is a great film. But I don't think it is especially representative of the trend we are concerned with here.
Anyway, whether it is or not a contempaltive film, I'd prefer to read an argument about what is contemplative in the language of this film (which is the purpose of this blog), rather than a standard DVD review to promote a film worth watching (which every other blogs are doing).
Your reviews are great, I appreciate your work. Though it would be more helpful if you could write essays specificaly designed in the spirit of this blog.
Instead of including more and more contemplative-looking films to the list, we need to narrow down to its essentials. Because the idea of "contemplative cinema" dilutes into a vague mass as we go.
I think you have a very narrow definition of contemplative.
I just read Schrader's Transcendental Style In Film and he has a very mushy and narrow approach to how he defines both transcendental and style.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/contemplation
Main Entry: con·tem·pla·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-t&m-'plA-sh&n, -"tem-
Function: noun
1 a : concentration on spiritual things as a form of private devotion b : a state of mystical awareness of God's being
2 : an act of considering with attention : STUDY
3 : the act of regarding steadily
4 : INTENTION, EXPECTATION
The Herzog film qualifies on all scores, save, perhaps the God aspect, which wd be missing from Ozu, as well.
From the first shots of Hauser in his hole and being foisted on the back of his master, to the last shots of the little man thinking he has an explanation for Hauser;s oddities, the film is nothing but a meditation.
'based on melodramatic dialogued scenes, formulaic shots'
I have to seriously question if you've ever seen a Herzog film to use such descriptions on any of his films. Even in far less successful films than Hauser- like Where The green Ants Dream, Herzog ALWAYS undermines melodrama- look at that film's courthouse scene.
And, as for visual flair, contemplative does not mean simply masturbatory long shots that track nowhere, and add nothing to the film. They can be done very well- ala Theo Angelopoulos, or not so well- see Godard or Truffaut.
This is a curious online phenomenon- the utter parsing down of terms and ideals to get to small bands of people with the most delimited opinions and views. Whether politics or the arts. Granted, you're free to think Herzog melodramatic, but the film asks many questions, and answers only a few. This is what contemplative art- including cinema, does.
As the Buddhists say, there's more than one road to Nirvana- try a few others.
But, if all you want are essays, so be it.
And I'll have to seriously question if you've ever read anything that was posted on this blog. You should start by reading this instead of looking for our (homemade) stantement of purpose in the dictionary.
We don't use Schrader's Transcendental Style as a model, only as a comparison. Ozu is no more "contemplative" than Herzog. He's most definitely a narrative filmmaker, and melodramatic at that. It's not because their style is different that we don't like them.
Check out some Weerasethakul films or Bartas' and you might see the difference between a dialogue-driven drama (of the Ozu type) and a visual lapse.
We did appropriate this word of "contemplative" and we did give it our own narrow definition (that is not Webster's). This is "C.C.", this is "Unspoken Cinema".
Ozu, Herzog, Antonioni, Bergman, Dreyer, Kieslowski set themselves apart from the traditional narration indeed, but not in the way C.C. does. They are a fundamental inspiration to the C.C. trend, so we can discuss the contemplative aspect of their style here. But I think actual C.C. films take this to the next level. So we shall focus on that.
I'm sorry if you don't like this exclusive club, but this blog is not a place to talk about ALL films we like. It's a topical blog with the purpose to analyze certain films that have a certain characteristic in common. And this thing is a visual language in rupture with the narrative tradition.
I invited you here because I thought you were interested by this type of cinema. I thought you noticed what was going on in our blogathon. Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
This blog is a spotlight to highlight a very special type of films. Not because they are better, or superior, or the only worth watching... so if some don't make the cut it doesn't mean they are bad or uninteresting. Just unfit for our narrow survey. I don't know how to explain it better.
There are many ways to look at cinema, and on this blog here, we decided to only look at one unique way.
Harry - I have to say, I think Kasper Hauser is a pretty good fit with "contemplative cinema" - and where it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit in instructive ways. Herzog's treatment of story, plot and narrative, of characterization, his interest in landscapes, his tendency to make people incidental to the landscape, I think are all very close to the way these things are treated in "contemplative" films. Things like the way he links scenes - or doesn't - treating episodes as if they were self-contained, not flowing from previous to subsequent scenes... He certainly emphasizes duration in his work, extending shots and moments to make you notice the passing of time... even things like his overt representation of inner states: dreaming of the caucuses - he shows inner and outer worlds differently than most expressionist or surrealist inspired directors: it seems to fit more with what later directors do. Where he differs? I think he goes for a more explicit ecstasy in his films, where something like Tropical Malady seems to aim for something more contemplative (in a more textbook sense). He also fills the screen more than "contemplative" filmmakers - I still emtiness, and images of emptiness/blankness are important stylistic markers of the style... Herzog doesn't do that very often. But in general....
And, I suppose, finally - in the historical sense - his influence on "contemplative" directors seems inescapable - maybe less pervasive than Antonioni's or Tarkovsky's, but not far behind. I think a lot of the tonal difference from the coolness of high modernists like Antonioni and the warmer style of 90s and 00s "contemplative" filmmakers comes from the German new wave - Herzog's ecstasies and Wenders' romanticism... Fassbinder's stories, often enough.
You're right weepingsam, I exaggerated just to make my point. What you just said on Kaspar Hauser is what I'd prefer to see on our blog than a standard DVD review recounting the plot.
Ozu, Tarkovsky and Antonioni are very much "contemplative", and undeniable influences. But still they operate within an older context of narrative cinema. Obviously I'm not suggesting their cinema is inferior (on the contrary they are not, but that's beside the point), so questioning whether Herzog belongs is not dissmissive.
As we've discussed before, considering whatever "contemplation" means, is not enough to define the trend we're talking about here. It's more than just an apparent contemplative touch, or isolated contemplative sequences. There should be a genuine contemplative structure at the core of the film. We can't just include all slow films because they look good.
Aguirre is very much "contemplative" too, despite the voiceover commentary. But not quite C.C. because the period setting and the suspense drama give a narrative drive to the film and the characters that is absent from other C.C. films.
Tropical Malady is a good comparison to Kaspar Hauser, for it's similar extraneity and fantasy of a stray character. But if we think of it, Kaspar Hauser stages witty/poetical dialogue to express through literal words the psychology and otherworldlyness of the character, and ultimately to highlight by contrast the vanity of the bourgeoisie around him. Herzog carries a good deal of his story through intellectual dialogues and dramatized situations.
If we compare with other C.C. films dealing with the alienation of a protagonist unable to communicate with the society around him, we can see the obvious difference in terms of narrative economy and dramatic treatment : Last Days, La Blessure, Dolls, Blissfully Yours, Mother and Son, The River, or even L'humanité. There is a degree separating their narrative strategy from one by Tarkovsky, Ozu, Antonioni, Herzog, or even Bresson.
Though I did include Herzog on the chronology map. Maybe I thought of his documentary Land of Silence and Darkness. But Kaspar Hauser is not far out... we just have to contrast its similitude and distance with C.C. like you did.
You mean Lessons Of Darkness, and I'll post a review of that in the future.
Several points. I do not use terms like 'like' and 'dislike' in reviews or criticism for they have no place- they are subjective.
You are free to define contemplation as you will, but apparently even few of the folk who read this blog (see above) agree with it.
Also, given the rate of posts (excluding me) one would think there would be some appreciation that anything is being posted.
The Tropical Malady example is not a good one to compare to Hauser for a) it's not in a league with Hauser as a film b) its pseudomysticism lacks depth- looking and feeling more like a Roger Corman 1950s schlockfest on voodoo, and c) (speaking of silliness) it has a bizarre singalong scene that utterly undermines any deeper thought.
Apocalypse Now is far more contemplative.
And, I did read the blog b4 contacting. It's called diversity. If everyone simply apes others opinions it forms an echo chamber (which is what most blogs- despite their thematic differences) usually become.
To delimit your idea of contemplative cinema to the very narrowest definition (and one only you fully agree with) is like stating (on a blog about novels), you will only discuss those books whose first word is a preposition.
It excludes depth, and ignores context, devolving into fetishism, or out of touch pseudo-psychobabble of the old Cahiers du Cinema sort.
A couple points:
You mean Lessons Of Darkness, and I'll post a review of that in the future.
Harry may have misspoken, but I doubt it. I suspect he noted "Land of Silence and Darkness" because that's what he meant. Either film would work, I imagine, though the explicit politics of "Lessons of Darkness" might create complications - or raise specific questions about CC and politics... "Land of Silence and Darkness" is a pretty strong fit.
You are free to define contemplation as you will, but apparently even few of the folk who read this blog (see above) agree with it.
You misunderstood Harry's point in this thread. He said, he likes your reviews, but he set up this blog as a place to discuss a certain trend in film aesthetics. Discussion of this trend does not imply perfect agreement, even on whether the trend exists or is worth devoting all that much thought to it. It does imply that material posted here is oriented toward questions about that trend. The fact that something doesn't fit here doesn't mean it isn't interesting in itself; the fact that we're arguing about contemplative cinema here and what it is and isn't doesn't mean we think this is the only worthwhile type of film. It just means that this blog was established to talk about one type of film (however that type of film is defined - with defining it being a big part of the point....)
To delimit your idea of contemplative cinema to the very narrowest definition (and one only you fully agree with) is like stating (on a blog about novels), you will only discuss those books whose first word is a preposition.
While no one agrees more than I do that a man's best friend is hyperbole (as a great man once put it), as a serious analogy this is silly. The comparison is more like considering novels written in the present tense, or disguised memoirs, or some similar device or structure, especially one that seems to be more common than it used to be. You might make some progress in these little arguments if you could stick to the topic at hand and argue the merits. Jumping straight to distortions and non-sequiturs does not bode well...
Thanks for the help weepingsam, I was running out of arguments and patience.
Bluntly, this team-blog is not like every other film blogs where they review movies in general. Here we discuss a certain pre-defined question, that's all.
There was a couple of films discussed during the blogathon that were not strictly C.C. films, and also standard reviews were accepted then, because the purpose of the blogathon was to gather various points of view and define this group of particular films.
But now, the life of this team-blog, after the blogathon, should focus solely on C.C. films, because it's hard enough to define the common features of these already.
Now I encourage everyone to write new posts on the C.C. related questions. It's also time to narrow down the list of films that belong here.
I agree that Kaspar Hauser could fit in eventually, if we focus on the contemplative segments. Though I fear it would be confusing, and leave the door open to more of the same kind : Ozu, Antonioni, Dreyer, Bresson, Kubrick, Wenders, Jarmusch... who are precurssors but different on many aspects to the new trend working today.
P.S. yes I meant "Land of Silence and Darkness" the documentary on blind-deaf people, though there are a lot of didactic talking. Maybe I'm wrong too on this one.
I agree that Kaspar Hauser could fit in eventually, if we focus on the contemplative segments. Though I fear it would be confusing, and leave the door open to more of the same kind : Ozu, Antonioni, Dreyer, Bresson, Kubrick, Wenders, Jarmusch... who are precurssors but different on many aspects to the new trend working today.
I suppose that's a point of disagreement - I still think I lean more toward seeing "contemplative cinema" as a collection of traits more than a coherent body of films. I dug around for the comment and found it: your question, is there "a real aesthetical coherence in this family, or if they only share formal similitudes" - I'd probably answer, formal similitudes. And part of it is that often films of this type seem, to me, to share more with their influences than with each other - Tarr and Dumont, say, have more in common with Tarkovsky and Jansco and Dovshenko (Tarr), or with Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Bresson, Pasolini, etc, (Dumont) than with each other.... And they're coming from very similar influences.... Pedro Costa or Jia Jiang-ke, sharing many of the formal traits, arrive at them through different paths...
All that got hashed out in January - I don't know if we ever really came to much of a consensus. Either approach, though, strikes me as opening up a number of ares worthy of further consideration.
I see what you mean, and I remember our discussion on this subject, this is not yet a disagreement I think, since we haven't defined the bounderies of this trend yet. Personally I find it easier to circonscribe it to certain films that seem to go together well, without being able to pin point the theoretical justification yet.
I agree with you, it's very difficult to distinguish today's contemplation from all their past inluences, notably Ozu, Tarkovsky, Bresson, because they paved the way for everyone else and had a more visible formal novelty then.
But when we talk about Film Noir, we know that the inspiration comes from German Expressionism and French Poetic Realism, the formal influence is obvious. Do Hawks, Hitchcock or Welles have more in common with Murnau and Lang, than with eachothers? In the end, Film noir is a movement defined by films produced between 1941 and 1960, the plot structure also helps to find out which one belongs in this case.
But that's my goal, to find new angles (other than plot or visual signature) that draw them together.
I know Tarkovsky is very close, but I believe it will only confuse our definition of C.C. if he is taken as a defining model, because he historicaly and aestheticaly precedes the apparition of this trend. But I could expend on the contrast between C.C. precursors and contemporean C.C. I just need to put together my notes and give it some time.
P.S. I just watched Wenders' King of the Road and I should reconsider what I said above... this film could certainly fit in. Its contemplation is not quite fully developped to the extreme ways Tarr and Weerasethakul achieved, but the disolution of the narrative plot and the wandering is there.
There's no doubt that thinking in terms of the category of contemplative films makes me see things in films I might not otherwise... it opens up a lot of questions. Like dialogue - is CC typified by lack of dialogue, or by dialogue that functions in certain ways? There's lots of talk in the Kasper Hauser film, but it functions oddly - it doesn't serve to characterize people, or to reveal their psychology - it's more that it describes their psychology, their character: it states things rather than reveals them.... (I suppose that's pretty vague - I've been reading Burch again, and I'd probably have to summarize his books to explain what I mean better...) I think talk - and action - that doesn't quite integrate with the story can create the same effects as films without dialogue... very similar anyway. At the limit - I think you could make a case that something as noisy as Death Proof might fit as a contemplative film - the talk, and the pictures, events and so on, are almost irrelevant to the story. Characters don't matter in the least. Even the pace - the long takes, meandering conversations, emptiness - in story terms - fits, sort of.... At least, something like that might help draw the lines a bit more precisely around CC...
Anyway, back to the topic a bit... I do think Wender and Herzog (and probably Fassbinder) are influential on later CC - and might be especially influential on the Asian branches. Wong Kar-wei, for instance, is clearly influenced by Wenders (almost as strongly as he is by Godard and Hou), and Wong seems to be equally influential on a lot of the later Asian directors, like Weerasethakul or Ratanaruang. They have a different tone than the more extreme European CC filmakers - Tarr, Dumont and company - that might be from Wenders and Herzog (in his ecstatic modes)...
Well, as far as I'm concerned, Death Proof definitely doesn't fit in my understanding of "contemplation".
If you say that saturation of talking equates to no talking at all, you've anihilated the polar opposites we are trying to compare.
Besides Tarantino plays with genre codes up to his neck, so it's really not the same approach to passive cinema.
Your last comment should be developped in a new post, don't you think?
Your last comment should be developped in a new post, don't you think?
It needs something. I was thinking this morning that post was like a recipe that called for baking for 45 minutes, but I took it out of the oven after 10.... There is a point to it, though! something about how non-speech or irrelevant speech can be different, but related, strategies for undermining conventional illusionistic filmmaking.
By "last comment" I meant the idea in your last paragraph. But if you want to develop the first one, it's ok. Actually I would rather take the example of Kiarostami for a cinema of constant speech where words only fill time, without building a suspense or a denser plot. It's daily speech, mundanities. While the mise-en-scene and the camera remain totally contemplative.
very interesting blog
greetings from Chile
Thank you and welcome.
Post a Comment