MovieChat Forums > Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (1977) Discussion > I thought the movie betrayed itself... D...

I thought the movie betrayed itself... Didn't like it

posted 16 years ago by martin_033
44 replies | jump to latest

I've been going back and watching a lot of old movies in the IMDB top 250 in the last few months.
I have really liked classics such as Apocalypse now, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, the Sting, Dr Strangelove etc. I have no Bias against old movies or movies where the special effects and sound quality aren't as good as modern movies.

Therefore, I decided to watch Aguirre de Zorn Gottes. I watched it in German with English subtitles.

Firstly, I found many scenes very flat and boring. For example the part where one of Aguirre's prisoners escaped from the cage is not shown. They simply wake up the next morning and find the guards dead body. There is little emotion, simply a couple of dull lines. You never see that character again, his fate becomes as unresolved issue.

Then you have a scene such as when Aguirre commands that the horse be chucked off the boat. Not only is the scene extremely unprofessional in video and audio but it is just stupid. The character of Aguirre as I understood at that part of the movie, would have been more likely to kill the horse and eat it.

Another thing, If Aguirre was so power hungry why did he appoint that fat, useless, nobleman as leader? In the reality of the jungle the title of nobleman would have meant nothing. I really couldn't envisage that.

And the whole thing of taking a cannon on rafts and through thick jungle seemed really dumb to me as well. Its like they were insane before they even started the trek.

Another example is when they bring the native Indian onto the boat and interrogate him. First of all the native Indian willingly moves onto their boat without any fear. Anybody confused? Then the conversation starts out OK asking about where he got his gold. Then it flips into a totally unrealistic scenario of trying to convert him to catholicism in all of 2 seconds. The dialogue is tacky and ends up with the indian mocking the bible at which they instantly kill him. Then the monk comments (something like), as if to insert a tacky joke into the movie: "this conversion stuff is a tricky business". The rash and unrealistic tone of that scene and the unrealistic behavior left me feeling ripped off and cheated. It ran against and mocked the slow and somber flow of the movie.
The scene would have been more convincing if it had been something like: interrogating the indian for: a) location of El dorado b) presence of enemy indians c) geography of the river and surrounding regions d) forces which may have been guarding El dorado, and then after pumping him for relevant information they would take him prisoner or display him as a disincentive for further arrow attacks.

Another thing that annoyed me was seeing (at random moments) arrows sticking out of people without any notion that their had been any conflict... not even seeing any Indians fire at them. It just seemed really fake to me.

They make no effort to do anything against the arrows. They can somehow host a cannon and advanced toilet hut on their raft as well as a perfectly manicured roof, which appears from one scene to the next. But yet they cannot build some shields on the side of their raft to stop the arrows coming in. Did they somehow lack the impetus for practical action? I don't get it.

Maybe it was good back in 1972 when its flaws didn't seem so obvious. But I really think the movie has reached its use by date. I was glad it only went for 95 minutes, I couldn't bear any more of it. The movie seemed intellectually stupid to me and undermined its own purpose. I'm sorry but I just couldn't get into this irritating and disappointing movie.

[–] Anon-Ra 16 years ago

Sorry you didn't like it, and you state your case very well, but to me your post is an example of not seeing the forest for the trees. Aguirre is a surrealistic movie rather than a realistic one. The 'flaws' you describe have a meaning and purpose beyond being factually correct or logical. I hope you watch it again sometime without sweating the details so much.

[–] marfried 16 years ago

If Aguirre was so power hungry why did he appoint that fat, useless, nobleman as leader? In the reality of the jungle the title of nobleman would have meant nothing. I really couldn't envisage that.

He didn't want to be the one officially responsible for the treason against the Spanish king.

And the whole thing of taking a cannon on rafts and through thick jungle seemed really dumb to me as well. Its like they were insane before they even started the trek.

I think this is supposed to show how badly they are prepared for what they intend to do, and how absurd and hopeless their mission is.

Another thing that annoyed me was seeing (at random moments) arrows sticking out of people without any notion that their had been any conflict... not even seeing any Indians fire at them. It just seemed really fake to me.

This also is perfectly intended, as their enemy is always (at random moments) there but never visible.

Like Marcel said, don't take everything litterally and concentrate on the atmosphere of complete desperation and eventually insanity - this is where the movie is strongest.

[–] FZ-FX 16 years ago

You can't really approach a Herzog film in the way that you usually watch movies. He isn't overly concerned with logic or ever believability (distorting fact and fiction is one of his favorite hobbies). He's more interested in actual storytelling and creating atmosphere; pure film making in a sense. The reason why so many critics and viewers (myself included) consider it a classic is because of just how well it evokes a sense of madness and folly, not to mention how amazingly its filmed and acted by Kinski. Everything about the film is directed towards this sense of madness, and as a result conventional logic and story development is sacrificed. I'm guessing by your comments at the beginning of your post that your not huge film fanatic, and Aguirre is the kind of movie that a lot of people just won't get. That isn't to say they aren't intelligent, but film is a very different beast than something like written literature. But its because of how different it is that so many people love it (tons of amazing filmakers have been inspired by it such as Coppola, who admits much of Apocalypse Now was inspired by it). I someone who initially had a similar reaction as you, but after a couple of years (and after watching many different kinds of movies) they gave it another shot and ending up liked it a lot.

[–] supadude2004 16 years ago

Martin033: yours was absolutely spot on criticism; and many of the issues that you mentioned were those I considered myself.

This movie is extremely overrated. And I am as aghast as you are (if not more so) by just how many thought this movie was a work of greatness. It wasn't.

Now, Apocalypse Now was absolutely brilliant. But I will class this movie with Solyaris - another rambling, reasonably forgettable movie from the seventies which in 2008 is well past its sell by date. Having said that, and much as I usually loathe American remakes, I have to lavish praise upon Soderbergh for creating a far more superior movie in Solaris.

To conclude: Aguirre is ridiculously overrated for quite the same reasons which you've so eloquently opined. One is left wondering what sort of person fell prey time and again to its assumed greatness over the years...

A 6/10 at best, but a masterpiece it is not.

[–] funkyfry 16 years ago

" One is left wondering what sort of person fell prey time and again to its assumed greatness over the years..."

Rather, one is left with pity for those who are unable to access the good qualities of the movie, and take it upon themselves to assume that those who do have this ability are somehow deluded. Instead those poor souls should be looking at the comments of those who do enjoy the movie and trying to discover a way to enjoy it themselves. Unless it could be that they never truly wanted to appreciate or understand the movie itself, but are more interested in their own opinions than in the work itself as an independent source of art.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] downandoutdrifter 16 years ago

Clearly, this one just isn't for you. I just watched the film for the first time as well, so you know this isn't a comment coming from someone who has thought about the film for a long time, but my intial reaction was very different to yours. I think all of the flaws you mentioned have ironic intentions and are obviously purposeful. I disagree about the film not being logical. I think almost everything in the film is logical, up until the glimpse of the ship in the trees and maybe even that if you consider it a halluncination.

I think it's a matter your expectations going into the film. Many of Aguirre's actions and the actions of his party are pretty stupid, especially viewed from our perspective, but it doesn't mean it didn't have logic to them. You are presuming that these characters are the kinds of smart and capable people that we are used to seeing as protagonists of films, but Herzog's characters may be closer to the true people who went on these kind of conquests. To speak directly to one of your points- it isn't so far from the truth that they thought they could convert the natives to christianity in two seconds-they really might have. They also could have thought a canon would be useful, as would a horse, and they had various mistaken beliefs to back all this up. They were extremely ill informed and naive.

I think part of the point may be to say- maybe humans aren't always logical or smart, especially ones with illusions of grandeur, blinded by impossible ambition, and out looking a mythic city of gold. The whole thing is stupid and ill fated and yet these people do it anyway and the question is why. So I think a lot of the details you mention are intended to have you react and question the characters behavior, instead of making you say "oh, that made sense in that situation." That's my take. I agree that sometimes it borders on comical but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

[–] subarachnoid 16 years ago

well said downandoutdrifter.. ..

I have seen this film three times now and enjoyed every minute of it immensly.
Kinski performance is so intense throughout it and the film portrayed very well their gradual descent into lunacy to the final magnificent ending with him drifting around in circles and proclaiming he is king of the world.
the music and sound gives a great sense of atmosphere where it is is used (and where it is not).
As Herzog says in the commentary the film has a sortof rythmic flow of documentary type shots juxtaposed against stylistic over the top almost comic scenes, you tend not to notice this rythem while watching the film but it works well in the grand scheme of things i think.

Another thing i got from the commentary was how they started with such direction and as they got deeper and deeper into the jungle (and their own madness) they started losing their way and eventually going around in circles. The cinematography and the river seem to mirror this.

besides i resent that comment supadude about the origional Solaris being overrated,
I consider that film a masterpiece, well deserving of its praise. Tarkovsky's films are very profound and poetic, many people don't understand them because they can't be bothered thinking about a film they prefer to have opinions and emotions (and resolutions) thrust at them without leaving any time for contemplation. I havn't seen the remake myself and i don't care to.

[–] gillianmadeira 16 years ago

Spot on. I just finished watching it perhaps half an hour ago--watching it for the first time as well. Many of the actions that seem ridiculous to us, indeed ARE ridiculous--are things the conquistadors actually did. They actually brought, in an expedition that actually happened, horses and cannons and such. The thing I thought was the worst idea, incidentally, was bringing the women and their velvet dresses. However, stupid though it was, it wasn't terribly surprising to me.

Maybe it's because I came at the movie with a sense of history; maybe it's because I came at the movie with a sense of cinema. However, I, too, got caught in its spell. This is a story of obsession and hubris; if it made complete sense, it would be a betrayal of what it's trying to convey. These are men who think they can do as they please and the world will fall into their grasp. Of course that means they can bring a horse and a cannon and women in velvet dresses.

Oh, yeah--the Indian had probably never seen Europeans before, so he didn't know he had to fear, and Aguirre didn't kick the horse off the boat; Guzman did.

[–] wshand-1 16 years ago

The whole point of the suddenly appearing arrows was the maintain the mysteriousness of the indians they were facing, death seeming to come out of nowhere. It's not like Herzog couldn't have shown every arrow hitting (one person does get hit by a spear clearly in a shot), it was a concious choice. Leaving all those important details out adds to the feeling of mystery and creates almost a documentary like feeling. Not seeing the prisoner escape leaves us feeling the same way as Aguirre or the other remaining spaniards, same with the arrows.

Yes there were a few corny parts like the horse kicking the fire over, but overall none of it detracts from the absolutely great atmosphere this film has. The main problem today is people who've grown up watching hollywood movies all their lives have no context to put films like this in.

[–] spamtar 16 years ago

This movie has some gold nuggets in it yet like the movie and the mutiny within the movie it is substantially flawed. I can not relate to any of the actors. I understand the ‘minimalistic movement’ and can see how it works for some who seem to want to like this movie and add meaning where there is none or very little.

This is a movie about a crazy guy, who apparently was crazy before he instituted a mutiny, instituting a mutiny and leading it to nowhere besides infectious madness. That madness seems to be infectious enough to have spread to 2008 where movie buffs continue to infected by the 1970s film critics groupthink that this is a good movie.

The movie is incongruent and sloppy. The scene interrogating the Indians clearly shows the movie running out of its budget and simply going for the "Oh well, we are out of money, lets do the 'everyone goes crazy together' thing and call it an 'art movie'. Its not so much a bad movie rather a so so movie, a movie that could have been good but ran out of steam.

For example, when I was a kid we would make up games like this and the story was a lot better all the time. Its like the kids who where locked up in the house and not allowed to play or the kids who never had the imagination to have played this game many times before are the ones who like this movie. Most, however, who like this movie are the adults who are told this is a good movie before they see it and thus convince themselves it is so.

Think for yourselves for a change.

[–] bry13 16 years ago

Think for yourselves for a change.

I could say the same thing to you in regards to your opinion of McDowell's acting in A Clockwork Orange. But I wouldn't, because it's a stupid thing to say.

[–] don-lope-de-aguirre 16 years ago

I can see clearly that you have not seen any other Herzog movie.

I saw this movie the first time with 19 or 20 years of age by accident cause I liked the title - otherwise I didn't know anything about Herzog, Kinski or the critical acclaim this movie got (by the way the critics were BAD as it got released and it bombed at theaters - only 4 years later an audience was bilding up) and was fascinated by it.

I thougt it was an mediocre or OK movie with a GREAT and an even more FASCINATING Klaus Kinski than the rest of the movie was fascinating.

So I watched it agian and LOVED the movie.
I watched the other Herzog/Kinski collaborations like "Nosferatu - Phantom der Nacht" (a movie I saw as a kid with my parents and found totally boring. On the other hand I knew "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from rancis Ford Coppola which I loved - now I think Herzog's "Nosferatu" is the best vampire movie I've ever seen and Coppola's "Dracula" is mediocre at best.), "Woyzeck", "Fitzcarraldo" and "Cobra Verde" but although I thought the movies were interesting I was only really hooked by Kinski's performances.

I have to explain that I loved Hollywood cinema like "Star Wars", "Alien", "Terminator" and the most artsy stuff I knew and liked was "Blade Runner", "The Godfather" and films by David Lynch.

So Herzog and his style grew and today he is my favourite director and I couldn't miss such masterpieces as "Lebenszeichen", "Fata Morgana", "Auch Zwerge haben klein angefangen", "Herz aus Glas", "Stroszek", "Nosferatu - Phantom der Nacht", "Woyzeck" and "The Wild Blue Yonder" or Herzogf's acting in "Julien Donkey-Boy" (or the genius book "Herzog on Herzog" and the audio book "Vom Gehen im Eis" [Of Wolking on Ice]).
There are no films except for "Julien Donkey-Boy" and "Gummo" by Harmony Korine or "Der Himmel über Berlin" by Wim Wenders which fascinate me or give me more than Herzogs films.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] funkyfry 16 years ago

spamtar, your post is just completely ridiculous!

"For example, when I was a kid we would make up games like this and the story was a lot better all the time. Its like the kids who where locked up in the house and not allowed to play or the kids who never had the imagination to have played this game many times before are the ones who like this movie. Most, however, who like this movie are the adults who are told this is a good movie before they see it and thus convince themselves it is so."

You make so many assumptions about the people who appreciate this movie.... doesn't it even enter into your universe of ideas, that there might be things going on in the movie that you don't have access to? Have you seen the movie more than once? Did you actually see it in a theater, or on a little TV screen? How can you be so confident that you are personally capable of seeing every aspect of this film as it really is? Don't you think that just as there are different kinds of people and not every one of them is someone you would want to be your friend, that there are different kinds of movies and not every one is something you would want to cherish?

I just can't stand for this kind of thing at all. You barely talked about the movie, you only talked about how naive the people who like the movie must be. I think there's some things going on in this film that you didn't understand, or that you didn't personally appreciate because of your own tastes. That's fine, but it actually makes you seem naive where your intention was I presume the opposite. It's naive to think that you personally at this point in your life completely understand the movie, to the extent that you can dismiss everyone else's opinions as "groupthink." Especially when you have so little of any substance to say about the actual film.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] MrBook_ 16 years ago

I'm getting increasingly weary of people who prove how free-thinking they are by bashing anything unconventional. You're all turned around, kid.

It is 5 AM, and you are listening to Los Angeles.

[–] lolo-kakapoum 8 years ago

That madness seems to be infectious enough to have spread to 2008 where movie buffs continue to infected by the 1970s film critics groupthink that this is a good movie.

So, if a LOOOOOOT of people like a movie, this is because they are infected.
Jesus, I have to quit watching movies before I get infected too!!!

[–] iamahorsenut 8 years ago

I really enjoyed the movie. I just watched it without any expectations, so enjoyed it. Maybe being German myself I see it in a way that is not the usual Hollywood 'quick fix' style. Not that that is bad, but it is a different way of experiencing films.
Also how could the two Indians be fearful, they didn't know they were going to be beheaded for not understanding the Bible.
I own horses myself, so had a mixed reaction to the horse being put off the boat. The horse was constantly slipping, it could have easily broken a leg, being pushed off the boat, horses are amazing swimmers, and most likely would have done better on the land where it could at least eat natural grasses than on the boat where everyone was starving. No horse would be able to survive on a few rations of corn they were distributing amongst themselves. I was surprised they did not kill it for food, but maybe with the outburst of the leader they reacted without thinking, plus the daughter of Aguirre seemed upset about the loss of the horse, so maybe eating it would not have been an option considering how devoted he was to the daughter.
As for the lady Inez, what ends up happening to her? I wonder if she died or if some way the Indians would have taken her in, considering she was female?

[–] Ezekiel_Stone 16 years ago

I would like to comment about the fate noble man as leader point you raised. I think that Aguirre appointed him leader because he needed someone to legitimise his mutiny, plus if anything goes wrong this guy could take the fall. The fat nobleman was also a weak leader, Aguirre was the real power behind the throne, he could basically control the fat nobleman. After the mutiny im guessing alot of the men were showing reservations especially after thinking about such an endeavour to find El Dorado, so what better way to keep law and order but appoint a nobleman. As the film continues the nobleman is claiming lands left and right as if it was his kingdom, he was needed to provide everyone hope and fantasy to keep the expedition going. He was also a scapegoat when things started going wrong.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mister-rube 16 years ago

I have read Hernan Cortez and Bernal Diaz' firsthand accounts of the Mexican conquest, they took on huge numbers of 'Indians' with only a handful of soldiers,
horse, and cannon. They often turned tribes against one another in order to better their odds. This is how Cortez and less than 600 men conquered Mexico
city (tenochtitlan) and its surroundings. The city at that time was the most populous city yet known to Europeans, as is the modern city today. We are
hundreds of thousands perhaps more than a million inhabitants. In any case, Cortez was committing open treason as he was commanded back to his post before
the penetration of the interior even began. This is why Aguirre cited Cortez as an example. If they could have pulled off even a fraction of what Cortez
had done, then they would have been a huge success. That said, I think this film is beautiful. It captures an eerie mood and holds on to it. It is
very well done and although Herzog admittedly didn't research the period beyond reading a single book about Pizarro, he does a great job. Kinski gives
a brilliant performance. On top of all that, Herzog filmed this movie for a paltry 300,000 dollars. If you don't like it and don't believe it, I don't
know what to tell you.

'the horror... the horror...'

[–] stirner-1 16 years ago

I don't get why people need to justify that they dont like a film, by saying it really sucks. It may be just not for them. Aguirre is not for people who were raised on Hollywood movies or anything like that.
It doesnt mean it sucks. It does mean it needs some slow and deep thinking, and emotions.

[–] mister-rube 16 years ago

It didn't require any special effort on my part to enjoy this film. I loved every second of it right from the start,
without any 'deep-thinking'.

'ICH BIN DER ZORN GOTTES ! ! !'

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Equilibrium71 13 years ago

true, but i also don't get it why people need to use words like perfect or best ever or something similar like a lot of people do in their reviews or comments about this movie.
and how can one be raised on Hollywood?
I know what you are trying to say but then say 'people that mainly see of have seen Hollywood movies'.

[–] funkyfry 16 years ago

"Then you have a scene such as when Aguirre commands that the horse be chucked off the boat. Not only is the scene extremely unprofessional in video and audio but it is just stupid. The character of Aguirre as I understood at that part of the movie, would have been more likely to kill the horse and eat it."

I guess you weren't paying that much attention then, because Aguirre didn't have the horse thrown off the barge, his appointed "Emperor", Guzman, did. And it's pretty clearly implied that Aguirre killed Guzman because of it.

"Another thing, If Aguirre was so power hungry why did he appoint that fat, useless, nobleman as leader? In the reality of the jungle the title of nobleman would have meant nothing. I really couldn't envisage that."

Well you don't understand how power works then. A real powermonger, someone who really understands power, would never want the symbolic title of leader. They would rather place the easiest person to manipulate in that role. It's useful to have someone else that you can blame, that's basically why Aguirre does this. Kings and Emperors lose their thrones and their heads with great ease, but the man behind the throne stays the same. Think of Dick Cheney in American politics.

"And the whole thing of taking a cannon on rafts and through thick jungle seemed really dumb to me as well. Its like they were insane before they even started the trek."

I think you might be on to something there... they took their women with them too which seems bizarre. But on a certain level that's what the film is about -- what exactly did they expect to find there in the jungle? How much of the insanity of their own culture did they bring with them?

"Another thing that annoyed me was seeing (at random moments) arrows sticking out of people without any notion that their had been any conflict... not even seeing any Indians fire at them. It just seemed really fake to me."

Well it was supposed to annoy you, that is very un-nerving. These natives that we're talking about surely wouldn't have marched out in single file where Aguirre and the soldiers as well as the audience could see them, would they? But a stupid Hollywood movie would go ahead and show the Indians anyway just because they wouldn't want to disturb the audience's sense of cause and effect, which is exactly what Herzog does want to do.

"Maybe it was good back in 1972 when its flaws didn't seem so obvious. But I really think the movie has reached its use by date."

What the heck? So are you saying that people were stupid in 1972 or something like that? Why would its "flaws" (which are mostly things that annoyed you because they were supposed to annoy you) be less obvious then? Are movies, or human beings, particularly more sophisticated now than they were then? I don't see that at all. I think part of the problem is that nowadays people watch movies on little TV screens and they don't get the sense of total envelopment that you have when you see a movie like this in the theater. You see the same thing with kids who can't comprehend Kubrick's "2001." It's because they're looking at it, not really watching the movie. The fact that you missed the bit with Guzman throwing the horse off the raft isn't just trivial, it shows that you weren't really immersed in the film the way you need to be. If you really give yourself over to it, you will see that everything has a consistent logic within the framework of the film's own universe.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] apaininmegulliver 16 years ago

thanks for explaining where you're coming from. i think aguirre is a great film but i had similar questions, some of which i've explained away.

Firstly, I found many scenes very flat and boring. For example the part where one of Aguirre's prisoners escaped from the cage is not shown. They simply wake up the next morning and find the guards dead body. There is little emotion, simply a couple of dull lines. You never see that character again, his fate becomes as unresolved issue.

the less the director tells you, the more you are required to think, and therefore reach interesting conclusions.

Then you have a scene such as when Aguirre commands that the horse be chucked off the boat. Not only is the scene extremely unprofessional in video and audio but it is just stupid. The character of Aguirre as I understood at that part of the movie, would have been more likely to kill the horse and eat it.

well.. he's insane

Another thing, If Aguirre was so power hungry why did he appoint that fat, useless, nobleman as leader? In the reality of the jungle the title of nobleman would have meant nothing. I really couldn't envisage that.

i think he was being sarcastic

And the whole thing of taking a cannon on rafts and through thick jungle seemed really dumb to me as well. Its like they were insane before they even started the trek.

why is that insane? cannons are effective weapons that could, and did, come in handy in attacks against injuns

Another example is when they bring the native Indian onto the boat and interrogate him. First of all the native Indian willingly moves onto their boat without any fear. Anybody confused? Then the conversation starts out OK asking about where he got his gold. Then it flips into a totally unrealistic scenario of trying to convert him to catholicism in all of 2 seconds. The dialogue is tacky and ends up with the indian mocking the bible at which they instantly kill him. Then the monk comments (something like), as if to insert a tacky joke into the movie: "this conversion stuff is a tricky business". The rash and unrealistic tone of that scene and the unrealistic behavior left me feeling ripped off and cheated. It ran against and mocked the slow and somber flow of the movie.
The scene would have been more convincing if it had been something like: interrogating the indian for: a) location of El dorado b) presence of enemy indians c) geography of the river and surrounding regions d) forces which may have been guarding El dorado, and then after pumping him for relevant information they would take him prisoner or display him as a disincentive for further arrow attacks.

i felt scenes like these were there to show the audience in a way how backward and clueless the spaniards were, at least in the new world.

Another thing that annoyed me was seeing (at random moments) arrows sticking out of people without any notion that their had been any conflict... not even seeing any Indians fire at them. It just seemed really fake to me.

how is having arrows sticking out of people fake? also, there were injuns visible in several cases, but the point was how surrounded they were by an unseen enemy.

They make no effort to do anything against the arrows. They can somehow host a cannon and advanced toilet hut on their raft as well as a perfectly manicured roof, which appears from one scene to the next. But yet they cannot build some shields on the side of their raft to stop the arrows coming in. Did they somehow lack the impetus for practical action? I don't get it.

well the arrows usually came when they weren't expecting them. if they were, they could have taken cover. by the end, think about surrealism. the spaniards are so starved and such that they don't even know what's going on.

[–] mister-rube 16 years ago

That dude just doesn't get it.

'ICH BIN DER ZORN GOTTES ! ! !'