Burden of Dreams

I saw this enjoyable documentary film in 1983 and have recently seen it again (2001) at the National Film Theatre in London, together with "Fitzcarraldo" and "Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe" - sore bum!

In 1983 I thought it was brilliant and it was immensely valuable to get an insight into the tortured making of the film "Fitzcarraldo". Seeing it again, almost two decades later, I feel the film skims the surface as Les Blank seems to have little interest in drawing out what went on. He just observes and accepts the events at face value. Only Herzog is interviewed at any length and the burden of his dream(s) does become apparent as the film progresses, however there is virtually no comment from Kinski or the other actors. Les Blank might argue that the film is about Herzog's state of mind and his attitude to the production of Fitzcarraldo. In this, I think it is largely a success. To look for more from the film is perhaps to unfairly employ the benefit of hindsight.

I suspect my disappointment (relative) at seeing this again is the release of "My Best Fiend" in the interim. I find my memory conflating the two films, the piece about Kinski's "hate hate" relationship with the jungle (and almost everything else!) would seem more appropriate to "Burdens" but is in "Fiend".

"Burden of Dreams" and "My Best Fiend" would make a good double bill, giving a much more rounded impression of the context of the production of Fitzcarraldo and the relationship between Herzog and Kinski. If you are interested, try to see them both.

I originally wondered why the Criterion Collection would choose to release this documentary. I knew that Herzog was a cinematic titan, and that the filming of Fitzcarraldo was supposedly a journey of it's own, and I even believed that the filming of a 30 ton ship being hoisted over a mountain deserved a documentary, but why would a prestigious DVD house choose to release this among the likes of Rashomon, The 400 Blows, Band of Outsiders, etc. After watching this film, it becomes very evident as to why Burden of Dreams deserves the criterion treatment. Les Blank's film does a better job of portraying the insanity and spirit of Fitzcarraldo than the film itself. The similarities between the character Fitzcarraldo and Herzog himself are endless. Despite Blank's poetic filming of the amazon jungle, despite all of the conflicts the cast and natives encounter, and despite the brilliant documentary footage displayed, the heart of this film is the the essence of cinema. This movie is about film-making and the art of it; it's passion, it's plight, it's entirety. When Herzog closes the film by stating, "It's not only my dreams, it's my belief that they are your's as well, and the only distinction between me and you is that I can articulate. and that is what poetry or literature or film-making is all about. it's as simple as that. I make films because I have not learned anything else. and I know I can do it to a certain degree. and it is my duty, because this might be the inner chronicle of what we are, and we have to articulate ourselves, otherwise we would be cows in the field." You truly begin to understand this man, and this film, and cinema itself. Strongly recommended!

If I'm not mistaken Roger Corman once told to Francis Ford Coppola before making his mandatory tour-de-force "Apocalypse Now" to not go to the jungle film this movie. He went through countless troubles and challenges, almost thought of committing suicide and three years later he released his masterpiece to the world, winning lots of praise, money and awards and mentions in lists of best films ever made. After him, other directors went to do the same trying to make their dreams come true: Ruggero Deodato, Roland Joffé and Werner Herzog, the latter having one great similarity with Coppola: both films they made were also followed by a documentary revealing the troubles of the production from beginning to end; "Apocalypse Now" is followed by "Hearts of Darkness" while "Fitzcarraldo" is followed by "Burden of Dreams", an documentary directed by Les Blank pointing the semi-disastrous filmmaking of one of the greatest films ever made.

We are guided by Herzog and a female voice over that tell us the unfortunate series of events that surrounded the filming of "Fitzcarraldo" during four years in Peru (I was disappointed by the fact they didn't show what happened in Brazil, where they filmed some scenes too but I guess the major problem was in Peru). From possible attacks of Indians who disliked the film's production in their territory to the point of threatening the crew, then moving to another location; the day-by-day of shooting in complicated locations and with many different cultures; the forced departure of two of the main actors (Jason Robards and Mick Jagger) which caused a delay in production since they had to film all over again; an aerial accident that left some serious victims (this wasn't well explained) these and more are among the several problems encountered by everybody involved in "Fitzcarraldo".

But the problem that gets honorable mention is the one that concerns putting a 300 ton steamship over a hill, pushed by a bulldozer. That was really complicated to make, people got injured with that and after failing in the first attempt, the movie was delayed for one year until they finally made it right. And also sailing with the same boat over rapids that damaged parts of it and injured members of the crew as well. Here's a dream that almost became a nightmare and a heavy burden to carry...literally! Just reading my words in here is not enough, you gotta see with your own eyes how painful and exhaustive was to shoot "Fitzcarraldo". But when you see Herzog's film you are rewarded with one of the most beautiful and poetic masterpieces of all time. And to think that he said that after that film he would never direct any film again...but he went on and made many other works.

Now the criticism: the difference between these documentaries lies in the fact that the one related with Coppola's film was something with beginning, middle and ending, very well structured which is something that this film failed at some parts, and the reason why this happened is simply because the director didn't wait one essential advantage that "Apocalypse Now" had: the test of time if a work will be relevant in the years that passed and in years to come. When the movie ends we keep asking ourselves if it worth all the while to go through enormous difficulties. They couldn't say if the movie was well received by public, the money spent vs. the money earned, those things. "Burden" was released practically simultaneously with "Fitzcarraldo"; "Hearts of Darkness" was released 11 years later, so that they could look back and have some proud over their work. The language barrier wasn't respected in terms of presenting everything to viewers, at least in the version I watched, where German, Spanish, Portuguese and other dialects are spoken throughout the film but there's no caption to translate what people are saying.

I liked the insights made by Herzog about the jungle, and about taking chances in order to make dreams into reality means to him. Everything is well presented, the fascinating behind the scenes of "Fitzcarraldo" was very cool to watch but more interviews with actors should be included (the one with José Lewgoy is the most interesting when he tells about acting makes him feel an complete person, and the instruction he gets of Herzog in how to act in a certain scene). And "Burden of Dreams" is not only about problems, it's about not giving up of a dream even if takes forever to be made real, fighting the most dangerous adversities. Sounds like an Hollywood film but that was very real just like the real Fitzcarraldo at one time placed a steamboat over a hill. Only after seeing this you'll understand the power "Fitzcarraldo" has over its viewers. 10/10

Here's a remarkable phenomenon.

"Fitzcarraldo" is to my measure a special film, meaning that it evokes in me a profound and lasting response. Indeed, I have it on my list of films you really must see (if you take me seriously). Elsewhere, I have celebrated this filmmaker, and how the twists in his being seem to (at least in this period) have created work that matters.

This is a documentary on the making of that film. Its made by a good filmmaker himself. It tells the tale, an interesting story. And it features two segments of Herzog on the scene, speaking coherently and somewhat poetically of the disruption that is the jungle. Its disturbing in its own right.

So what's wrong? Something significant, I think. Watching this takes much of the richness, the lush smell, out of "Fitz."

It explains it. It flattens it. It surrounds it with a story that is clear and thus takes away the space it naturally has for us to surround it with our own story.

Not all great art works this way, but some apparently does: it designates holes that we readily fill with ourselves and stitch together with the story our life might have been, or might not have. The design of "Fitz" is such that it contrasts the real (meaning "natural") with the stylized (meaning "civilized"). It has a simple spine that we can read and ignore while we understand instead the invisible lace of inner lust, lonely desire.

We need the space that surrounds it. We need the madness, the jungle, the lack of containing story. Its what we fill in with the jumble of our own jungles.

Seeing this takes away the experience of "Fitz." Its not just another case of an encounter with a filmmaker being less rewarding than an encounter with his (her) film. Its a matter of story walls where there shouldn't be.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Werner Herzog's film Fitzcarraldo was one of the most daunting tasks to put on in cinema history. This documentary follows the making of that film and all of the troubles Herzog went through. Fitzcarraldo is a sight to behold and going back now I would probably have much more of an appreciation for it. This film follows Herzog through his passion to tell this story and the incredible almost unfathomable lengths he had to go through. I thought the film could have been a little more well rounded covering more parts of the production more closely, but it still shows the grand scale of the film, and that is what I wanted to see.