Burden of Dreams

A documentary which begs the question, who was crazier, Werner Herzog or Fitzcarraldo, the character in his film? To be fair, I loved getting the behind the scenes look at the conditions the film was made under, and I also loved Herzog opining about art and his dreams, as that was pretty inspirational stuff. I also liked Fitzcarraldo, Herzog's finished film, giving it four stars. However, in seeing Les Blank's documentary, it's much harder to reconcile Herzog's maniacal approach, one that put the natives acting in the film in significant danger. Did he really need to haul that boat up a hill with a 40 degree angle instead of the recommended 20 to achieve his artistic vision, when an engineer told him it had a 70% chance of killing many more than five people? Did he really need to be in the absolute middle of the wilderness? No, of course not.

Director Les Blank did a reasonably good job at showing the risk in pulling the boat up the muddy hill, but he wasn't effective in asking the harder questions of Herzog. Herzog rationalizes the deaths from plane crashes to the remote location as something that could just as easily have happened to him, and Blank doesn't ask for a full accounting of the people who died in those incidents or others. Herzog rationalizes bringing in prostitutes into the camp as being "expected," rather than ensure his crew wouldn't go into town and not cause trouble with the local women. We only see one woman interviewed who affirms she does it out of necessity, not enjoyment, and no one else commenting about this arrangement. Herzog gives a rather revolting speech about nature being a fornication and an obscenity, a place where harmony doesn't exist, and we see no one else interviewed (like perhaps a native) who may have a differing view. We get a small glimpse about how some of the natives feel about the risk, with one pointing out that Herzog himself should be pushing the boat with them if they all have to, but Blank doesn't relay this to Herzog for his reaction. Heck, we somehow don't even see any of the significant animosity that took place with Klaus Kinski. The documentary is just a little too in love with Herzog to be great, as unique as it is.

I don't say all that to suggest Herzog was evil, it's just that there is so much adulation for how he fulfilled his artistic vision in an uncompromising way that I don't think it's balanced. I am happy that he secured native land rights for the Machiguengas people. I was impressed with his film, and the moments the documentary provided that showed his attention to detail (giving an actor direction) and perfectionism (waiting days to ensure a shot of the natives in their boats would be in the best light, near sunset). There are nuances and complexities here that are fascinating to think through. In the end, I suppose Les Blank was successful, because he made me ponder Herzog's problematic, colonial attitudes and his approach vs. His artistry.

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.

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

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.

Werner Herzog. If you've seen one of his films, you're probably wondering "Okay, what's with this guy?" If you haven't seen one of his films, you probably have absolutely no interest in this film, so I suggest you go see one of his films then return to this page and see this film after you see his film and think, "What's with this guy?" This movie follows a movie of his called Fitzcarraldo which is a mix of the true-life account of an Irish man who founded a city in the Amazon jungle and the tale of Sysiphus, the Greek myth about the guy in Hades who had to carry the heavy rock to the top of the mountain, only to have it roll back down again at the end of the day.

In typical Herzog fashion, his movie begins almost to reflect it's very subject, as Herzog finds himself in the Amazon dealing with hundreds of natives, a dangerous political climate, unaccommodating weather, and having to take a three-story thousand ton ship over the same journey Fitzcarraldo would have to (all in the name of realism). In the meantime he discussing the importance of movies, his own fascination/love/hatred of the jungle, and we see a film nearly self-implode many times over.

It's actually pretty grueling work to watch (as is pretty much most of Herzog's films), and Les Blank definitely shows himself to have an intimate understanding of the situation so that he isn't judgmental of Herzog but still able to reveal some of his more, let's say, quirky traits. Some more interesting subject matter is Klaus Kinski, who as you watch you can never tell if he's acting in a scene or just being himself.

--PolarisDiB