MovieChat Forums > Fata Morgana (1972) Discussion > Be honest...

Be honest...

posted 15 years ago by geordiebianconeri
16 replies | jump to latest

If this film wasn't from Herzog but some film-school kid you'd never heard of, would you still be praising it?

This is the sixth or seventh WH film I've seen - all of which, until now, I've loved. But this was dire - practically unwatchable, in fact. I have a thing about switching films off without finishing them, but the only way I could get thru this was to watch it in three sittings - and it's only short...

Where do I begin?
Sticking a camera through a bus window and recording what's out there does not count as great art - and don't get me started on overlong shot length.
In fact, as a semi-professional photographer, I'm stunned that he managed to get such distinctly mediocre images from the desert. On the rare occasions when the eye was attracted by the scenery, it was spoiled by sweeping pans that were too fast, not to mention wobbly.

And lest you think that I'm unable to handle such provocative film-making, I should point out that I love Koyaanisqatsi. OK, it may have been heavily influenced by FM, but it was far more structured and professionally produced.

Oh yeah, and apparently he didn't know what he was filming for at the time, and only came up with the idea of an alien film crew when he was in the editing suite... hardly the Citizen Kane approach, is it?

And to top it all off, it's lumbered with a narration that at best can be described as utter cobblers.

Absolute pile of shoite.

"Wait till they get a load of me!"

[–] dombrewer 15 years ago

All I can say is - yes, I felt frustrated and baffled and annoyed watching this film tonight. I'm a Herzog fan, and have seen probably 9 or 10 of his films and am in the process of working through the boxset this film is included on. My girlfriend and I were both baffled but she suggested we watch it again with the commentary track. I was intrigued but not really prepared not to make the effort having thought little of the film, but we did watch it again, and my estimation changed from a 2 star film to a 4 star film within 80 minutes. Try it; watch it with the commentary, it will supply some context (as far as Herzog is concerned that's a bit like cheating - he expects the audience to supply their own links and conclusions) as well as fascinating detail involved with the concept, the filming and the intent. You know that Herzog is a smart man from the films you've seen already - this is no different. I still think some of his choices of material and his juxtapositions are so-so, but on the whole, it's a very smart and very involving piece of film-making, not to mention groundbreaking.

[–] haewatein 15 years ago

I didn't like the film very much either... also think that if it wasn't a Herzog it wouldn't be that special. For me it's nice but will I watch it again and love it like Aguirre or Nosferatu? No.

_
SEUL CONTRE TOUS
www.myspace.com/anzycpethian
www.pbase.com/anzycpethian

[–] magnetspline 15 years ago

This might be my favorite of Herzog's films. This film means a lot to me. There are films that suggest things and then if they are done well, as this one is, then it makes my mind think of so much more than films that pretend to be all knowing. For me this may be Herzog's best!

[–] berzelmayr 13 years ago

(...) as a semi-professional photographer (...)

Do I sense some envy? :)

[–] MyNeighborFanboy 13 years ago

If this film wasn't from Herzog but some film-school kid you'd never heard of, would you still be praising it?

Terrible, tired argument that needs to die.

Yes, Dad, I'm positive. Black was Mom's favorite color too.

[–] Bodine 12 years ago

"Terrible, tired argument that needs to die."

I think you need to qualify that statement rather than toss it out there as a stand-alone argument...

[–] TheWanderingFish 11 years ago

No, he really doesn't need to quality the statement - it's objectively, independently true. The "people only say they like this film because it's by a famous director" "argument" is one of the dumber arguments out there, and it says absolutely nothing about the film.

Any commentary that tries to "analyze" the motives of those who come to a different opinion about a film - to show why those who disagree are more biased, poorer thinkers, etc. - is always going to be wrong. Always. Why? Because it's based on the idea that the commentator has the "one true" opinion about the film, and that anyone who disagrees must be deluding themselves in some way. And that's dumb.

There are a whole lot of film watchers in the world, and they all come to each film with their unique set of expectations and experiences. To try to label an entire group such as "everyone who likes Fata Morgana" as "blinded to the 'true poorness' of the film" is self-evidently ridiculous.

I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

A voice of reason, Germanesque. Good to have one about.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Zoomorph 12 years ago

I was bored after the first scene. Herzog made numerous poetic films with lovely music that were a lot more captivating, beautiful, or meaningful than this. To say its his best is stupidity.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] dyahrmarkt 12 years ago

@geordie -

You'd have to ask your question to someone who has never heard of Herzog before. Most of the people coming to the IMDB thread to talk about "Fata Morgana" and actually post on it probably have some degree of familiarity with Herzog. You're going to have to take your question elsewhere. For me, the fact that it IS Herzog is essential to the viewing experience - what's wrong with that?

"Fata Morgana" isn't simply 'sticking a camera out a window' - it's the context with how those images are presented, along with the musical backdrop, and the overall placement of such images in the film. The whole "i'm a professional" argument doesn't work - the fact is, it's clear Herzog is NOT a professional when it comes to a great many shots, but does that matter? I've sometimes found some of the richest photos I've ever seen come from amateurs, not professionals. In fact, many professional photos wind up looking so staged and self-conscious I'll take the opposite for the "spontaneous" effect - that's what works here. Werner is filming guerilla-style in freaking Chad or whatever more than forty years ago - I think he used what he was able to get for his film and didn't have the time or wherewithal to do it "professionally". I'll take this ANY DAY over some elaborately self-conscious nonsense.

Koyaanisqatsi, for me, suffers from its overt need to insist on a "message". I think the feeling of liberation "Fata Morgana" produces is due, in part, to its whimsical overall mood. It's not making a somber commentary on the "fungus" of humanity or whatever.

You wrote: "Oh yeah, and apparently he didn't know what he was filming for at the time, and only came up with the idea of an alien film crew when he was in the editing suite... hardly the Citizen Kane approach, is it?"

**The "Citizen Kane" approach?!? What are you talking about? If you REALLY want to go there, ok - but trying to compare the editing and production processes of "Fata Morgana" with "Kane" makes absolutely zero sense. Werner is clearly operating on a budget of nothing - the film he managed to extract from these images is what it is. There was no 'team' of overseers to ensure a certain product, no contract that gave him 'final cut' or whatever. You might want to consider revising that comparison.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] magnetspline 10 years ago

It is also a wonderful film partially because it sits in the realm wherein there will be people who get annoyed or upset that other people find the film to have a lot in it. Many truly great films have that quality. This is one of them and one of the best in sitting in the space where many people find so much to think about with it and then some get irritated that they can not get that same thought process from it. This definitely part of what makes it a genuinely brilliant film.

[–] daveoafc77 12 years ago

Don't think I've ever seen a film with such a difference of interest with the commentary on to without.

Was not impressed at all until I watch the film with Herzog and co speaking through it. Not what Herzog intended of course but very interesting with the com on!