There is a poetic assigning of meaning at every turn, almost ignoring a statement in the middle of the film that Treadwell didn't "realize that seemingly empty moments had a strange, secret beauty." Or, from the last scene of the film: "Out of all the bears we see, only in this one do I not see reflection only the indifference of nature."
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
People in Grizzly Bear Costumes
Herzog's ongoing VO commentary resides somewhere between an intense interest in reality and a (contemporary) concern for intersubjectivity. Through this odd (read: not usual in doc) blend he both challenges the importance of the documentary (form) while still maintaining an interest in the real.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Herzog seemed to have a contradictory nature himself in that he said he wanted to represent Treadwell in the right way that Treadwell would have wanted, but throughout the film he makes little comments about how he disagrees with the way treadwell acts and engages with the bears. As Dr. Roberts said he does give Treadwell the benifit of the doubt but in the last fifteen minutes of the film Herzog comes up with his own inturpritation of Treadwell's footage rather than using Treadwell's own personal words as he had done through the majority of the film. In addition to this I did enjoy the editing style Herzog used in Grizzly Man for the reason that the shifts in time and space between Treadwell's footage and Herzog's footage made the film more of an investigation of Timothy Treadwell as a person rather than a film about the tragety of his death. If Herzog had just used a traditional timeline sytle of editing the film would seem more of a dedication to a tragic hero for the bears rather than a look into Treadwell's life and how he ended up where he did.
ReplyDeleteAddressing Dr. Robert's question, "Is realism malleable?", I suggest Herzog's "Grizzly Man" to be a great example of the malleable nature of documentary film. Strong supporters of direct cinema might argue that Herzog's infiltration of his own opinion and experiences with Treadwell are not entirely ethical and that strictly the edited version of Treadwell's footage, as he intended, would be the closest to realism as Treadwell's story should get.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with Herzog's VO and including different opinions on Treadwell's life, Herzog is able to introduce the audience to a broader outlook (as well as evidentiary material) so that the audience can develop an opinion for themselves based on, not only footage, but supporting material.
In this way, Herzog utilizes a more tradition-based approach than cinema verite style, but still arrives at a well rounded documentation of the subject. Essentially, Herzog is tackling his subject by delving further into Treadwell's life, rather than only using Treadwell's self documentation. Through Herzog's style, he is able to prove that an unbiased, realistic documentation can be made without taking the filmmaker out of the film.
Herzog diverted the film from the question of reality and truth of Treadwells documentation to truth of Herzogs film. Treadwell sufficiently documented his story and his film,which makes Herzogs personal judgment unwarranted in telling the story. His interjections of personal opinion rises the question of the authenticity of his representation of Treadwell. It is clear he was analyzing the psychology of Treadwell, but his level of interference assumes that we wouldn't be able to deduce Treadwells mental state without the voiced opinions of Herzog, which is why we are now speaking more about Herzog imprint than the Grizzly man himself or how film was used to tell this seemingly clear cut story. His credibility can be questioned from the beginning where he clearly staged the watch passing to the ex-girlfriend. In that shot he fails at realism and exploits true emotions, next he interferes with the exes decisions to listen the tape or not, encouraging her to destroy it. He says something to the effect of "you must never listen to it...you must destroy it" directing the ex as if she was an actor in his film. This attitude is overarching the film as he does not allow or reply on the natural documentation to unveil the story and pull on spectator's emotion and intellect, Herzog carefully guides the viewer with his opinions. His choice seems a bit insensitive since it is based of the tragedy of a deceased man.
ReplyDeleteWhat we're ending up talking about here is a question of authorship and whether or not this film should really be about Timothy Treadwell or the way that Herzog sees him. We've already (I think) defined realism in documentary film as subjective, and this film is very much told from Herzog's perspective, as everyone who is writing here has pointed out. It's very probable that when Herzog first learned of Treadwell he saw in the man a chance at using the man's story to thematically enforce one of his own beliefs, the aforementioned "indifference" and "cruelty" of nature. Were Treadwell not so eccentric and as kindred a spirit to Herzog the director might have chosen to spit on the man's grave, as the activist's belief in community with nature is not only contradictory to Herzog's, but also disproven by his eventual demise. Herzog eventually finds himself in a somewhat contradictory position, admiring and envying Treadwell's love of life but disagreeing with his philosophy. It is this discrepancy I find to be the most interesting part of the documentary, and perhaps the only bit of criticism I can really throw at it is that Herzog positions his voice-over as a stance of authority instead of allowing a debate from opposite ends of the aisle (in regards to nature).
ReplyDeleteAs said by everyone, I believe the editing style of the film and its subjective point of view should have either been done away with, or incorporated at a later time. The film overall is about Timothy Treadwells adventure with grizzly bears and gives the viewers insight of his experiences/passion through a direct cinema like approach. If one really wants to get a hand on the film, it needs to be Timothy telling the story. The film cuts through different interviews, older shots of charity work, and other random documenting that takes away from the story. Although it easy to see where the film is going by talking about his love for bears, it is easy to get lost in the editing style and one persons view of Timothy rather then leaving it up to the viewers to conclude any truthful meaning.
ReplyDeleteThere was in my opinion absolutely no need for Herzog to interfere with the reality and truth that Treadwell presents. We lose the sense of REALISM with Herzog’s interference. I appreciate Rachelle’s comment but I disagree that the audiences were introduced to a broader outlook with Herzog’s voice over and the different opinions. Anybody can have an opinion and I am not interested in their opinions. I am especially not interested in Herzog’s voice over, it did nothing but try to force us to accept his judgment or perspective of Treadwell. He gets us thinking that we’re going to see the footage of the attack but then he tells the ex girlfriend to destroy it. Where’s the sense of REALISM when he’s clearly telling her what to do. RandyMoo is right on point with the opening footage. Oh my Gosh can you say “Staged?” Seriously, are we to believe that it was real life unfolding before our eyes? And that actor guy, “nice monologue” because that’s all it was an audition. It is obvious that Herzog want us to see Treadwell the way he sees him. Heck he doesn’t even allow us to get to know Treadwell and come up with our own judgment. He judges him for us.
ReplyDeleteI also couldn’t help but notice that Herzog seemed to add his own style to the film. He used Treadwell’s film to show what he went through while in Alaska, but every time he narrated over a scene all of Treadwell’s footage was the second most important aspect. The scenes with the coroner were also strange. When the coroner is explaining how Treadwell and his girlfriend died, he seemed to be acting for the camera or maybe for Herzog. It’s as if Herzog told him to make the whole scene as sad as he could and the coroner listened. This scene, as well as the scene with the coroner and Treadwell’s ex-girlfriend, seems to bring out the director’s influence quite clearly.
ReplyDeleteTo me it almost seems that Herzog was an opportunist. When I say that I feel like he took the opportunity to take the many hours of footage left by treadwell and at some points try to creat tear jerkers and dramatic responses. The footage would have done that naturally. For a lack of a better word there were times it just seemed cheesy. The coroner and the ex girlfriend just seemed really staged and the coroner just seemed to have more to say than a coroner should about his opinion of how things "probably" went. To me it just seemed as though Treadwell was a platform for Herzog and in a way Herzog was making an attempt at throwing his hand in for a future Biop.
ReplyDeleteI did think about Herzog's motives while watching the film, but I would hesitate to call him an opportunist. One could say that Treadwell's footage would be enough to create a memorial piece with narrative in itself, making Treadwell's life and passion the focus. Maybe it would be a more detailed examination of Treadwell the Hero vs. Treadwell the flawed man. Instead, Herzog's VO, interviews, and music not only enhance the dramatic elements, but are his tools and prerogative as the filmmaker. More interestingly, it allows him to ask the questions that were discussed earlier about his own philosophy about man and nature in opposition to Treadwell's. Does that allow him to dramatize and exalt Treadwell's story and claim it as proof that his own philosophy is correct? I don't know what Timothy would say about that. Herzog's depiction is empathetic (as filmmaker to filmmaker) as he praises Treadwell's fantastic images and captured moments in the VO. However, it did ultimately feel argumentative in that way. I think the beauty of the film is it's empathetic yet brutally honest depiction of the primary footage, layered with the philosophical questions unpacked from the voice over, and the drama and exposition of the interviews.
ReplyDeleteI could see how this piece could be a tribute but why have the interviews of people bashing Treadwell's name? If it were a tribute wouldn't Herzog leave out the negative responses? That's why this makes more sense as a neutral argument piece. Whether Timothy Treadwell was mental he was a brave soul with a large passion. Not everyone is going to understand Treadwell and nor are they going to agree with him. I believe that's why Herzog interviewed both sides of society, the ones that did believe in Treadwell and the ones that didn't. He left out interviews with his family because that would have pushed the film to an argument. I think Herzog came across a large amount of footage and thought this could be a movie...
ReplyDeleteI feel Herzog did an excellent job of presenting a real person in Timothy Treadwell. Treadwell was a kind and passionate soul who's only care in the world was to spend his life living in the wild amongst bears in Alaska. Was he a little crazy? Probably. I mean you would have to be a little to live so closely to bears.
ReplyDeleteHerzog's flaw is the presentation of his on footage with Treadwell's parents, the autopsy guy and his ex-girlfriend who received his old watch. In particular, this scene felt very staged and rehearsed because neither his ex-girlfriend nor the man giving her the watch looked or acted natural. There is even an instance when both of them look towards the camera as if looking for direction of what to do or say next. What was the point of this scene? When she cries are we to feel sympathy? I felt more awkward and confused than sympathy simply because she looks off screen then back and begins crying as if she is on cue from the director.
Either way the film is quite fascinating and by far, in my opinion, the most intriguing (besides maybe Alma) documentary we have watched.
The "empty moment" when Treadwell sets up his camera and disappears momentarily has an eerie yet beautiful ambiguity. The wind gusting back and forth whirling up the brush and trees provides a picturesque quality to the film as if for that moment we the audience are trapped in time with this one shot in nature.
i would have to agree that this is a neutral argument documentary which makes it more credible. it let's the viewer consider both sides and decide what they believe in rather than leading them one way or the other.
ReplyDeletei think that it is an accurate representation of treadwell, and i believe that herzog's decision to include the negative opinions is realistic to how everyone is viewed in real life. you cannot wholly love or hate someone (i would hope not), i think that herzog tries to show you that there are two sides to everything. i also feel like herzog was trying to understand treadwell and the only way to do so is to show the good and bad. what drove treadwell to do what he did?
from watching this film, i have a respect for treadwell but i also recognize that he may have had a mental illness. it seemed like he replaced one addiction (alcohol) with another (bears). alcohol eventually would have killed him or ruined his life, but ultimately his new addiction is what "saved" him and gave him purpose and he was willing to die for it.
I think herzog's depiction of treadwell was accurate and not as negative as it seemed.
I am in agreement with evan about the scene with the coroner and the watch, i'm not so sure what that was about and i did feel quite awkward when i saw it.
To link Herzog's depiction of Treadwell to George Butler and Robert Fiore's of Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Pumping Iron", it seems that both offer material that can be read ambiguously by the audience.
ReplyDeleteHerzog's interpretation of Treadwell's story and the evidence provided, (i.e. interviews, chosen Treadwell footage, chosen interviewees, etc.) describe as unbiasedly as possible, Treadwell's adventures. The interview clips that focus on Treadwell's insanity along with the contrasting footage of his humanitarianism and love for bears allow the audience to determine which viewpoint they want to take.
Butler and Fiore's structure is similar in that it presents material that can be read both positively and negatively by the audience. Through the strategies that Arnold tells the audience he is going to pull on his opponents in order to psyche them out, the audience is able to view Arnold as an egotistical jerk-off or as a strategic genius. A specific example is when Arnold and his opponent, Lou, are on the back of the bus leaving th match. The audience gets a picture of Arnold being dangerously self-confident and proud before the scene. When he sits down next to Lou, already having defeated him, the natural reaction would seem to be a cold, awkward situation. However, Arnold's robust charisma and his contagious laughter make him seem like the good guy who would never dream of planning to psyche out his opponent. In this way, I believe that the audience is left to wonder and decide what they should think of the character.