I’m still digesting, but here’s my interpretation...
I assumed the townsfolk sobered up in the morning and decided to set Hias free seeing how he wasn’t really guilty of anything...or perhaps Hias running through the snow and having the final vision takes place before he gets imprisoned. The invisible thing was supposed to be a bear. He says something like, “Now I’m going to cook you, bear.” Earlier in the movie Hias tells someone that a hunter needs to go into the woods and kill a bear that has been spooking the livestock. I’m not sure why the bear was invisible. Herzog gets what he wants so I’m sure it wasn’t for time or budget reasons. I think the bear being invisible challenges Hias’s legitimacy as a clairvoyant- it suggests that he sees what he wants to see, so he very well could be crazy and/or a phony.
I think the last scene/vision about the island reaffirms the theme that people are naturally mindless followers. The entire movie looks down on society (Kaspar Hauser anyone?) and portrays it as an institution comprised of violent, idiotic peasants (as Hias’s vision in the bar suggests.) In the final scene, the people on the isolated island believed that the world was flat until a few men decided to challenge that notion by sailing into the endless horizon on a rowboat. This suggests that entire populations are naturally dependent on a few curious people for their well-being and for societal developments. The German town broke into chaos after the man who knew how to make ruby glass died and the townsfolk depended on Hias for incite into the future (as when they were relieved when Hias told them giants didn’t exist.) The village was unable to function on its own without guidance. I find it interesting, however, that when the foreman orders the people to toss ten bushels of ruby glass into the river, they’re smart enough to secretly sell it in the next town (too bad Aguirre’s followers weren’t smart enough to keep the horse.)
The text at the end of the movie reads something like, “It seemed like a sign of hope that the seagulls followed them out to sea.” The men in the rowboat have no idea where they’re going, but they’ve still managed to attract a flock of mindless followers. The men take comfort in the birds following them, and the birds probably take comfort in having a leader. Therefore, ruler-subject relationships are based on the illusion of comfort. In reality, both entities are blind and clueless. In this sense, Hias is clueless himself. Maybe that’s why he fights an invisible bear...because he’s an idiot like his followers.
reply
share
mothboy88
16 years ago
I tend to agree. It's basically the blind leading the blind. However, some of Hias' visions came true, so it is unfair to call him an idiot. He might be a bit insane, but he isn't completely incompetent.
I would argue that it all leads back to the conflict, Man v. Nature, that Herzog is so fond of. But it's the nature of existence itself. Man is in a constant struggle against something which he has no chances of overcoming. Why didn't all those people in the rowboat fall off the edge of the earth? Because they were incredibly lucky that their theory was correct.
As opposed to your argument, I would argue that the ending message is not that we are all hopelessly crazy, about to fall off the edge of the earth. Because in the end, at least we can still choose to have a sense of hope and faith. And that faith carried those men in their boat to land.
I would like to think that the seagull thing is more of a comfort because we are all in this together, even the smallest insignificant creatures; we are all struggling to live and hope.
reply
share
MacAindrais
14 years ago
In the commentary Herzog rarely elaborates about the films mysteries. He says he cannot, as if he himself is unaware of what it means at times. for example, he does not explain the invisible bear when asked about it. He responds saying he can't or something along those lines.
However, mothboy's interpretation that the ending is one of hope, that they men row their boat to land to prove the world is not flat and there is no abyss, is disproven by Herzog himself. He is asked about he men rowing out to to their deaths which he confirms they are ", yes, of course you can't make it to America in a boat like that" is waht he says. He does not elaborate much on what it all means, but the ending is meant to say that these men ARE rowing to their own deaths.
reply
share
TemporaryOne-1
15 years ago
In the final scene, the people on the isolated island believed that the world was flat until a few men decided to challenge that notion by sailing into the endless horizon on a rowboat.
And this is the point Herzog was making -
Curiosity of and exploration into the unknown (the timeless quest for answers) is natural but the quest always results in destruction.
Humankind naturally wants more, and the endeavour to achieve more results in destruction.
Columbus did not just want to discover whether or not the world was flat or round, he did not just want to establish new trade routes, but he also he wanted to see if there was more life somewhere on the globe.
And look what his quest resulted in - the complete exploitation and annihilation of the Americas, the incommensurable rise in the commodification of natural resources and people, the application of global capitalism.
The intentions may have been noble and moral and righteous, but the effect was the ruination of entire civilizations...
...and one day humankind will snuff itself out and the earth will once again be free and untraversed and unfounded and unknown...
reply
share
deanowest
15 years ago
This is a good thread... lots of good ideas.
in referecne to this line "It seemed like a sign of hope that the seagulls followed them out to sea.” I didn't see the seagulls as metphor for humans. the gulls are metaphor for nature or better yet are representatives of nature, a metonym. It was an anti-romantic metaphor. Nature/god just doesn't care about human endevors, no matter how noble. The men falsely interpret the gulls as hope. Nature doesn't give a damn about their journey to find the truth, a truth that will lead to their deaths.
Herzog wrote this in his "Minnesota Declaration": "We ought to be grateful that the Universe out there knows no smile." Got this from Herzog on Herzog page 302.
This theme comes up in many of his films. As much as we like to personify nature or god as interested and caring, nature/god just doesn't give a damn about humans. In the eyes of nature/god humans are just another part of the whole no better or worse than a so-called lower species. I think Herzog wants us to understand this. It doesn't mean to act like a lower animal but to keep acting as a human, which for me, and maybe Herzog, is to continually strive for truth.
The men in the boat in Heart of Glass reminded me of the penguin in "Encounters at the End of he World" and of Aguirre,of course.
Dictated, but not read.
reply
share
Devinm1978
12 years ago
I agree with Deanowest. "they took the birds following them as a sign of hope." I think the film is saying that even after all they could have/should have learned, they are going blindly to their deaths (the rowboat will be no match for the violent sea). There is no hope because the universe is indifferent to their goals. To all of our goals. Seeing the birds following them and taking that as a sign of hope is just more superstition. It's not a happy philosophy, to be sure, but it's the one I think is most likely the truest.
reply
share