Movie Review: Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)

Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972) written and directed by Werner Herzog

A group of 16th-century Spaniards travel through South America looking for the city of El Dorado, a place Native Americans claim has more gold than anyone could possibly want. The large group bogs down after coming down a mountain. Supplies are dwindling, so the leader picks forty men to go on rafts down a river to look for a Christian settlement or El Dorado. The rafters should come back in a week if they are successful or not. The raft group is led by Ursua (Ruy Guerra) who has to bring his wife along. The second in command is Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) who has to bring his daughter along. Brother Caravajal (Del Negro) also goes with the group because they are ostensibly there to spread Christianity to the locals. The river journey is fraught with peril as the elements and the natives slowly take the lives of the Spaniards. If that were not problem enough, Aguirre has his own ambitions and attitudes (and takes some lives himself).

Since this is a Herzog film, the theme of man versus nature is the primary interest, with nature being brutal and nearly overwhelming. The natives are lumped in on the "nature" side of the conflict--they are unseen killers from the jungle shadows or enslaved coolies for the Spaniards. Their characters do not quite achieve the level of personhood. Aguirre is a laconic anti-hero. He seems only interested in getting to El Dorado. He works to keep the group going in that direction. When people want to return to the main group, they are killed outright. Ursua is wounded at one point and Aguirre has another nobleman put in charge rather than himself. The new nobleman is even easier to manipulate. Aguirre looks on himself as a force of nature (he calls himself "the Wrath of God") but he isn't an equal with Nature herself. The expedition falls apart by the end of the film (not a spoiler, since the movie opens with excerpts from the priest's journal, the only surviving element from the expedition). Aguirre is both practical and insane, recommending expeditious actions that aren't always morally worthy choices.

Visually, Herzog has a brutal realism in his depiction of the jungles and the river. The passage downriver is either chaotically dangerous or languidly drifting, threatening to take lives instantly under the water or slowly without enough food. The Spaniards look miserable and weary. Hope fades and fades as the story goes on. The film is a bit mesmerizing even as things get worse and worse.

Recommended--there's a lot of interesting stuff here but it is a bit of a slog to get through, even for the viewers.

Dual/Duel Review: Nosferatwo

Dual/Duel reviews are an online smackdown between two books, movies, games, podcasts, etc. etc. that I think are interesting to compare, contrast, and comment on. For a list of other dual/duel reviews, go here.

Since this year (2022 as I publish) is the one hundredth anniversary of the release of Nosferatu, I thought it was high time to give it a review. Since I hadn't seen the remake by Werner Herzog from the 1970s, I couldn't resist the opportunity to make another Dual/Duel review.  

The Hypnogoria podcast has a series celebrating the anniversary with some history and analysis that is well worth listening to. I wouldn't have known about the centenary without listening to this fine podcast.

This year is also the fiftieth anniversary of The Godfather, so another Dual/Duel review is coming soon. Or maybe it's a The Sequel Was Better candidate...

Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Graunes (1922) co-written and directed by F. W. Murnau

Hutter (Gustav von Wagenheim) is very happily married to Ellen (Greta Schroder). They live an idyllic life in Wisborn, Germany. That life changes when Hutter's boss Knock (Alexander Granach) sends him off to Transylvania to complete a contract with Count Orlok (Max Schrek) who wants to buy a house in Wisborn. Ellen is worried about her husband and has a tearful goodbye. She moves in with some neighbors while he's gone. 

Hutter's trip gets interesting when he stops at a tavern about a day's journey from Orlok's castle. He asks to hurry up the meal because he has to visit Orlok; every patron at the bar suddenly looks somber and afraid. They convince him to wait until morning to continue his trip. In his room, he finds a book on the occult that describes various vampiric practices. He laughs and sticks it in his bag. The next morning, he continues on, though the stage coach will only take him as far as a bridge that leads to Orlok's lands. Hutter walks across the bridge and is picked up by a mysterious carriage with a heavily cloaked figure. He has a spooky ride to the castle. The castle is mostly empty except for Orlok, who claims his servants are asleep already. At dinner, Hutter cuts his finger and Orlok sees blood...and goes after it. Hutter is disturbed though the next morning he laughs it off. He also discovers two wounds on his neck. In a letter to Ellen, he claims the mosquitos are bad here. Ellen has been having troubled sleep because of her husband's jeopardy. The next night, Orlok sees a picture of Ellen and is smitten, telling Hutter she has a beautiful neck. In the morning, Hutter discovers Orlok's resting place, a coffin in the lower rooms of the castle! He tries to flee but is trapped in the castle. 

He sees Orlok load up six coffins filled with dirt. Orlok gets into the final coffin and magics the lid on. The driverless cart then speeds off. The cart arrives at a ship where the sailors load up the coffins. The crew opens one coffin on the shore and are surprised by the dirt. They tip it over and tons of rats go crawling out. Undaunted, they load the rest of the sinister cargo and sail off. On board, one sailor gets sick and sees visions (or are they?) of Orlok below decks. Eventually the crew is wiped out and the captain ties himself to the steering wheel, forcing the ship to Wisborn. 

Meanwhile, Hutter has escaped from the castle by tying strips of sheets together and descending out of his window. He still has a bit of a fall and is eventually found by farmers who take him to a hospital. He recovers and races off overland to Wisborn to protect his wife. 

Back in Wisborn, Knock has been locked up as insane. He starts eating flies and spiders with glee, waiting for "The Master" to return. Ellen is still having hard times sleeping; a local doctor thinks it's nothing to be worried about, just a blood disorder. Local Paracelsian, Professor Bulwer (John Gottowt) lectures on carnivorous plants and other weird horrors of nature and seems more open to supernatural explanations. 

The ship arrives in Wisborn. Orlok sneaks into town with his coffins of dirt. People claim there's an outbreak of plague and a quarantine is declared. Hutter makes it back to his wife, who discovers the occult book and reads about how to defeat the vampire--a virtuous woman must freely offer her blood and trick the vampire into staying up past dawn. She asks her husband to go and get Bulwer. Orlok comes over and she makes her sacrifice. Orlok realizes too late that the sun has risen. As he tries to cross the window, the sunlight reduces him to ashes. A closing shot shows his castle reduced to ruins, joining the fate of its owner.

The movie is clearly based on Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, though it does take significant liberties. The massive cast of characters is reduced to a handful (which is understandable for a 94 minute movie). Names and locations are changed. The filmmakers were sued by Stoker's estate and the movie was suppressed with more or less success. The plague subplot is not in the novel and was meant to capitalize on the fear generated by the Spanish Influenza epidemic that just ended. Watching it in 2022 as the Covid pandemic is winding down makes it a good time to watch with hundred-year old eyes.

Murnau was one of the most popular German Expressionist directors and uses the style here. Orlok's castle has a lot of weird rooms. Even the trip to the castle has a many strange and unsettling visual effects. Bulwer is in the show mainly for atmosphere, showcasing the creepy side of science and nature. Characters' facial hair is often exaggerated, including some amazing eyebrows. Orlok himself looks very feral and rat-like. His fangs are two sharp incisors. His long, boney fingers contrast with his bulbous, bald head. Schreck gives a great performance with his creepy eyes and stilted mannerisms. Some of the vampire's movements, like rising out of his coffin, show his unnatural abilities. His walk through nighttime Wisborn carrying the coffin is a bit comical, the only flaw in an otherwise great depiction.

The movie is visually amazing and does a great job getting a lot of action and some nice bits of comedy in its short running time. I watched the Image DVD which features the Alloy Orchestra accompaniment along with an organ score and a commentary track and some nice special features. The movie is also available on streaming from Kanopy.

Highly recommended.

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) written and directed by Werner Herzog

Jonathan Harker (Bruno Ganz) is sent by his employer Renfield (Roland Topor) to sell a house to Count Dracula (Klaus Kinski). Renfield is already fairly crazy but the promise of a huge commission gets Harker's interest. He wants to get a larger, better house for his wife Lucy (Isabelle Adjani). She's been disturbed in her sleep with bad and surreal dreams of doom. He turns her over to some neighbors (the neighbor's wife is called Mina) in Wismar, and heads off on horseback to Transylvania. He has the same meal-in-a-tavern scene as Hutter, though the bar has a social (and physical) distance between the owner and the gypsies. The owner appeals to the gypsies to dissuade Harker from going to the castle. Around a campfire, the owner translates a speech from the head gypsy describing the horrors that lay ahead. Harker is undeterred, even after the owner's wife gives him a cross and a book of folklore about vampires. He sets off on foot the next day to the castle.

The trip is long, and a bit boring/scenic, but he is eventually overtaken by a coach that transports him the rest of the way. At the castle, he sees a boy playing violin outside. Inside, it's the usual spooky doors and lone count who wants to get the paperwork done quickly. Dracula is pale and bald with two pointy teeth in front, but he's not as extreme looking as Orlok. There's the dinner scene with the finger cut. Dracula at first resists forcing himself on Harker, but does suck on his finger. The horrified Harker retreats to a fireplace where Dracula suggests they just sit and wait for dawn. Harker has already been backed into a chair. He falls asleep after a while of Dracula waxing poetic about "The children of the night" making music--that's the sound of wolves howling in the distance. Dracula is a very melancholic figure, complaining about some creatures who can never die, even if they want to. When Harker falls asleep, Lucy wakes up back home, shrieking. Dr. Van Helsing comes to treat her. He is strictly focused on scientific answers to her problems.

The next day, Harker explores the castle and discovers the tomb of Dracula. The next night, they finish up the paperwork. Dracula locks Harker in, then he stacks a bunch of coffins on a cart, putting himself in one. The cart trundles off as Harker desperately searches for an exit. He's reduced to tearing up sheets to make a rope. The rope isn't quite long enough and he crashes just outside the castle. The violinist discovers him and Harker winds up in a hospital.

Meanwhile, the coffins are loaded onto a boat with a nosy inspector discovering one of the coffins full of rats. Undeterred, he lets the ship depart with its cargo. There are a lot of loving shots of the ship at sea. The captain logs that the crew is slowly disappearing or getting sick. The remaining crew think a stranger is on board. The captain winds up lashing himself to the wheel as Dracula comes on deck.

Harker leaves the hospital before he is fully cured because he wants to beat the black coffins back home. He finds a horse and races on. The ship gets their first, though the only human body left on the ship is the captain's. The ship has tons of rats on board, who come onto land when a party boards to investigate. The captain's body is taken to the town council who can't make heads or tails of the situation. They read the captain's log entries and panic when he suggests that plague is the cause of the on-board deaths. The councilmen all race home and the town goes into lockdown. Renfield has been doing his crazy bit on and off in the local jail.

At this point, Harker returns though he is a shell of his former self. He's taken to the neighbor's house though he does not recognize Lucy. They take him in and she reads the occult book about vampires and Harker's journal of what happened at the castle. She tries to enlist Van Helsing, though he refuses to give in to superstition and faith. They have a little argument where she claims faith is believing in things you know to be false. She starts her campaign against Dracula by taking Eucharistic hosts and crumbling them up in one of his coffins (thus preventing him from returning). The townsfolk have given in to despair and are partying in the town square, trying to die happily. Lucy refuses to join in. When she gets back to the house, Mina has died and Mina' husband has gone insane and fled. Renfield breaks out of jail and goes to "The Master," who informs Renfield to go north and have the army of rats follow him, presumably to spread the plague. 

Harker is also deteriorating, so Lucy corners him in a chair and crumbles up hosts around him, effectively trapping him in the chair. She then prepares to summon Dracula so that she can keep him out till after "cock crows" so that he will be defeated. Dracula shows up, starts fondling her, and then gets to the business of drinking her dry. He almost quits but she forces him back down on her neck. Finally, the cock crows and he curls up in a corner incapacitated. Van Helsing shows up and realizes Dracula really is a vampire and Lucy is dead. He fetches a hammer and stake and kills Dracula off-screen. Harker is distraught at this. When Van Helsing comes back downstairs, Harker accuses him of murdering the Count. Some local officials have shown up and have an argument about whether they can arrest him and where to take him. One of them takes Van Helsing into custody. Harker then orders one of the servants to dust up all the crumbs. Once he is free, he shows his two pointy teeth and heads off, presumably to start more trouble elsewhere.

This movie is much more comfortable using the names of characters from the novel. Some of the roles from the novel are mixed up, like Lucy being Harker's wife and Mina being the friend, or Van Helsing being a strict scientist who lacks occult expertise. The plot is still essentially the one from the first movie with some additionsThe changes are a big shift in the Orlok/Dracula character and at the end. 

This movie is a lot more contemplative, lingering on scenes and visuals. The opening credits are over an extensive montage of desiccated corpses. Harker's trip through the mountains is more detailed and scenic. The feasting on the town square is shown at length as empty bravado in the face of the plague-caused doom. The movie's philosophical discussions about faith, science, and the undying nature of the vampire show a lot more thought, even when they are hard to agree with (e.g., faith is believing in things you can't be certain of, not things you know are false).

This vampire is quite sympathetic, often pathetically going after blood when he can. He also seems depressed and reluctant to do evil. Dracula shows a lot of existential anguish. The ending is different from the book and the first movie, with Harker going off to be the next Dracula and the heroine left dead. It's quite shocking and pessimistic.

Which is better?

Let's look at some elements of each film:

• The depiction of the vampire: The original film treats Orlok as a predator and a horror. He is unsympathetic in the extreme and a force for evil. Herzog's Dracula is a lot more sympathetic as he causes a lot of destruction in his wake. Viewers are clearly meant to feel bad for his burden of immortality. He's not quite as ugly though he is just as aggressive. Personally, I like the rat-faced monster much better as an honest look at how bad a vampire is. Slight advantage Murnau.
• The depiction of religious elements: The first film is chock-full of occult writing and imagery. Christianity is left out, depriving the characters of the typical tools of the vampire-fighting trade. There's still a sense that occult matters are something to be avoided, i.e. they are bad. The second film has a more Catholic sensibility, even using the Eucharist to hamper the vampire (which is something that happens in Stoker's novel). When it comes to dispatching the vampire, Herzog's heroes follow the typical methods. This winds up as a tie.
• Relation to the original novel: The first film starts off quite faithful to the novel, with just name and location substitutions. The second half is more original, making the wife the true hero and slayer of the vampire, not the novel's set of male hunters. The second film takes its cues from the first film, though it does use the names from the novel. The jumbling of the character names is a little confusing but not too bad. Advantage Murnau. 
• Visual style: As mentioned above, the first film is a classic in Expressionism, which has a distinctive style that is especially suited to fantastic stories. Nobody makes films like this nowadays, so it looks fresh and different. Some of the special effects are fairly primitive but I usually make allowances for when a film was made as long as they made a sincere effort (like the original King Kong) and do have some talent (unlike Plan 9 from Outer Space). The second film has the lingering, existential style the Herzog has displayed throughout his career. I like it as well though viewers may find bits too drawn out. It's hard to compare the two styles without reverting to personal preferences, so: Tie.
• The ending: The first film has the vampire completely vanquished. The second film has Dracula being dispatched, but vampirism lives on in his disciples, leaving viewers on a down beat. Advantage Murnau

Winner:

Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Graunes 

Loser:

Nosferatu the Vampyre 

Both are interesting films and are available to stream on Kanopy. Try them out yourself!

Movie Review: Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010)

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010) written and directed by Werner Herzog

In December of 1994, some spelunkers in France stumbled upon a cave with wall paintings that date back over 30,000 years. They are the oldest works of art extant, have been studied by a variety of scientists, and kept under lock and key by the French government. German filmmaker Werner Herzog was given limited, supervised access to the caves for a few weeks to make a documentary about the paintings. This movie is worth seeing just for the chance to see the amazing pre-historic artwork. Herzog films them with an expert eye, catching the details and simulating what the flickering lights of the torches early men and women must have used. The music is appropriately primal and evocative. The occasional use of heartbeats is a little on the nose but work on occasion.

Herzog also interviews the scientists, a mixed group of archeologist, paleontologists, art historians, and others. He draws out the scant details of what the lives of the ancient artists may have been like. The cave paintings were done by more than one person and the evidence points to the possibility that some paintings were done 5000 years after the oldest paintings. Herzog explores the possible meaning of the drawings (most of which are of animals, though there is half of a human female form and several handprints) and their context. The cave is full of animal bones but no human ones. One bear skull is set in the middle of a flat rock suggesting an altar. Bridging the gap between the twenty-first century A.D. and 28,000 years ago is a great challenge. A lot of tantalizing bits lead to interesting speculation by the scientists and Herzog. Herzog's postscript trying to create a new perspective was a bit much for me. Even so, the movie brings up a lot of interesting issues about human nature, history, and art.

Even with its G rating, the movie is a bit too slow and meditative for little kids. I didn't show it to J and L because I don't think it will capture their imaginations the way it did mine.