Rediscovering the mania of Werner Herzog's films

It had been a long while since I watched anything from Werner Herzog. And I mean awhile, going back perhaps to the 1980s, where Herzog’s films were in their heyday. Herzog is one of a small handful of German filmmakers who redefined post-war German cinema in the 1970s and 80s. His films were ambitious, to say the least, often shot in remote locations with inexperienced locals in grand plots worthy of the films of David Lean or Cecile B. DeMille. When The Criterion Collection announced this month its slate of Herzog films was disappearing by the end of April, I got to it and started watching. And while I am sure I had seen at least two or three of these films before I can’t remember them. Maybe they were a figment of my imagination as per a character in one of Herzog's films. And with Herzog you get two for one. I mean the actors. In this case the extraordinary Klaus Kinski (top photo) and Bruno S (bottom photo)…..First up was 1972’s Aguirre, the Wrath of God. Many of Herzog’s films are set in South America. Here Aguirre played by the riveting Kinski, leads a group of Conquistadors and Indian slaves deep into the Amazon jungle in search of El Dorado (gold). The journey to say the least is perilous. Kinski as Aguirre is his maniacal self, a creature so wound you can’t take your eyes off him. Then there was Fitzcarraldo, another film set in South America where an ambitious white gringo, the namesake played by Kinski (his wife the esteemed Claudia Cardinale) is

consumed with conquering an area of the jungle for a vast rubber plantation. There are scenes in the movie that today would have been recreated by special effects, not so here. The sure audacity of this filmmaking is breathtaking. Then there is Woyzeck, where Kinski plays a personally diminished Polish soldier, fraught with mental pain. Then in Cobra Verde, Herzog take us on a voyage from South America to Africa during the slave trade where Kinski as the namesake is convinced he is the only white man on the continent as he seeks a bargain with African tribes to turn over their captives. Here we have a cast of seemingly thousands in tribal arrays and confrontations. As always Kinski’s character is consumed by a kind of madness – in reality he was diagnosed a psychopath – so, folks, this ain’t acting! The famous collaboration between Herzog, who can only be described as a genius for the making of these and countless other films that pushed the limits, and Kinski, is depicted in the documentary My Best Fiend. That’s right, fiend not friend. Kinski, father of the famed Natassha Kinski, may sear his presence into a character but he alienated virtually everyone around him. There are scenes of him raving at the camera crew and women especially despised him. But Herzog, another searing but actually sane individual, had just the personality that made their collaboration “magic.” Kinski is one great Herzog film character. The other is Bruno S, as in The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, based on a true story of a boy locked in a dungeon until freed and having to learn the rules of life. Even with Kinski, Herzog says Bruno Schleinstein was “the best” actor he ever worked with.....With just under a week to go, there are many, many other Herzog films to watch before the online screen goes dark. 

98th Oscars - an admittedly blinkered view

As typically I avoided Sunday night's Oscars. I'm of the same view as Woody Allen and this year Sean Penn (who also skipped them and he won), that these ceremonies are a lot of over the top hokum. The Brits have a good term for actors at awards ceremonies - "luvies" - because they sing each other's praises and throw their arms around one another ad nauseum. (What really happened on those film sets?) And I also didn't see most of the nominated films, either because of lack of interest or they never made it to my city (thanks film distributors!). But let me take a stab at some of the nominated films and winners anyway, as blinkered as my view is. As everyone everywhere predicted One Battle After Another (Paul Thomas Anderson) won. I avoided because, well, I wasn't interested in seeing a violence-spewed flic about ex-radicals. I did see nominees Hamnet, Marty Supreme and Sentimental Value. Of those I'd select Marty Supreme - fast-paced and fine acting in a realistic period setting. Hamnet (Chloé Zhao) was basically a family drama about an errant husband (Will Shakespeare) in the 16th century. Screen wife Jessie Buckley won for best actress but I would have chosen Rose Byrne in If I Had Legs I'd Kick You.  Michael B. Jordan won for Sinners, which I didn't see - not really into vampires. I would have chosen Ethan Hawke in Blue Moon, a superb performance to an extent I didn't even know who the actor was (and I'm a long time fan) given the makeup and captivating changed persona. For Best Director I would have chosen Josh Safdie for Marty Supreme (see above). I'll pass on the supporting male and female actors. Norway's Joachim Trier won for Sentimental Value in the international category. For me it was just a meh movie. It's hard for me to comment on some of the other awards because I didn't see most of those movies or have little to compare the winners with. For best documentary I would have liked to have seen the winner Mr. Nobody Against Putin (David Borenstein & Pavel Talankin) and I did think The Perfect Neighbor (Geeta Gandbhir) was excellent, especially given the story was all told from "third party" police bodycam or prison cell footage...... And next year I'll probably also have not seen most of the films on offer. 

Raw footage of a neighbourhood dispute

Here's one film up for an Oscar this month (March 15) you can watch on Netflix. It's nominated for best documentary. It's called The Perfect Neighbor. Directed by Geeta Gandbhir this "immersive" documentary lets the "characters" and action speak for themselves. There is no voiceover or separate third party interviews. The entire film is raw footage taken from police bodycams, dashcams, doorbell ring cameras and police station interrogation videos. The events take place in a working class suburb of Ocala, FL in spring 2023. It's the true story of a neighbourhood conflict between Susan Lorincz, a single middle aged white woman, and her mostly black neighbours. It's a type of dispute that occurs everyday. Lorincz keeps complaining about the kids who live across the street often playing on her property and making a lot of noise. She says the police don't respond enough and she can never get the kids - or their families - to cooperate. When police are called we see the raw footage of their interactions with both Lorincz and the neighbours - both kids and parents. Lorincz seems to have a point though comes across as a little paranoid or in fact mentally disturbed. The neighbours say they cooperate and the kids don't purposely try to harass her but yes sometimes their playthings or they themselves end up on Lorincz's property. There are several instances where the police are called and the tension between Lorincz and the other families escalates. The police are caught in the middle and try to mediate. Without giving too much away eventually a confrontation happens and an arrest is made. We then view the accused in a police cell being interviewed by detectives. This film will hold you because of its stark everyday realism that everyone who lives in an average neighbourhood can relate to, but with the building sense of what's going to happen next. It will make you think about how people interact and the legal framework in which confrontations take place and are dealt with. And while I felt terribly sorry for the victim I also felt some sympathy for the person arrested, guilt notwithstanding. 

Last night I caught a documentary, The Storms of Jeremy Thomas, on the Criterion Channel, about a famed producer I had never heard of. His name is Jeremy Thomas and he's produced or directed more than 30 films with some of the major stars of our time - from Brando to Nicholson and Bowie. And worked alongside such famed directors as Bernardo Bertolucci, David Cronenberg and Nicolas Roeg. The central feature of this film is a road trip as Thomas takes this doc's director Mark Cousins through rural France to the 2018 Cannes festival. The film has snippets from major films of the last four decades and interviews with some of the actors who've worked with him. It's a respectful portrait and certainly interesting for anyone who likes cinema. Thomas is one of those people well known and hailed in the film world but to someone like me it was "who knew?"

All about Melania

I wasn’t going to see the self-produced film Melania about - who else - Melania Trump, the First Lady of the United States. I’d read that it was boring and frankly not great filmmaking. But I was curious. Then I saw the massive discrepancy between the critics' approval score of 10% versus the public's score of 99%.  And the film smashed documentary records with a first week box office return of $7million, the best opening for a doc in more than a decade (will it be shown at Toronto’s Hot Docs? Hmmm)  By Feb. 16 it had grossed $15.6M.  At my screening there was applause at the end. My hunch was something was wrong. This seemed more than critics' taste; alas, could it be bias? Film critics, as is Hollywood, are almost universally liberal or left wing. Had this self-indulgent film (and it is self-indulgent) been about Michelle Obama or Jill Biden the critics may not have swooned but they wouldn't have wholesale derided it, would they have? Because, after all, their opinion was likely more against Donald Trump than Melania - she was just the proxy. Melania produced the film herself - that's interesting - and the director was Rush Hour's Brett Ratner. So, being the sometimes contrarian that I am, I went to see it. And, yes yes, the film is highly one-sided and shows Mel (can I call her that?) in the best light possible. Nevertheless I still found it absorbing. Perhaps it's because, if nothing else, it provides a close insight into the executive branch of government and the kind of "insider's view" we'd never see anywhere else. The film follows Melania in the 20 days leading up to the 2025 Inauguration. There's her in the Trumps’ gilded Fifth Ave apartment with her fashion courtesans, measuring gowns. A former model she proves exacting and highly knowledgeable. Interesting that most of her wardrobe staff are immigrants. Then there's film of her in her limousine between NYC and Mar-a-Lago and the US Capitol on the eve of the Inauguration - simply the kind of behind the scenes images we never see. There's even a scene in the White House’s family quarters at 2 am after all the Inauguration balls have ended and Donald waves goodnight. Someone wishes him "sweet dreams" and he replies, "ha." Another aspect of her personality which stands out is her commitment to oppressed women and children around the world, as she meets with Queen Rania of Jordan and with Aviva Siegel, kidnapped during the Oct. 7 Hamas atrocities against Israel. There’s some humor when on election night she takes a call from hubby Donald, informing her of his across-the-board vote wins. She says she hasn’t been watching the coverage and is almost disinterested, noting she will watch a recording later. She's ultimately her own woman. 

About that Amanda Seyfried, and dear old Will

Two weeks ago I didn't even know who Amanda Seyfried was although probably a good chunk of the rest of the world did. Then I saw The Housemaid. I certainly knew who Sydney Sweeney - today's H'Wood It-Girl - was but didn't know who the hell the opposite character in this  comedic-horror picture exactly was. Long blond hair and very pliable acting persona, check and check. The Housemaid isn't that great a film but adequate and will bring a smile to your face. It's directed by Paul Feig, who seems to specialize in suburban comedy-mysteries. I really liked his A Simple Favor (2018) with mischievously quirky - and cute - Anna Kendrick. In this film Sweeney as the maid is paired

against Seyfried as the house chatelaine. I'll let you decide how the dynamic unfolds. The story actually had me going, not expecting the monumental plot twist that eventually happens. Seyfried, however, plays a blend of personalities showing off quite a wide breadth of styles. That's enough about The Housemaid. A few nights later I caught The Testament of Ann Lee,  Mona Fastvold's take on the 18th century Quaker Shakers sect, which apparently only has two remaining members. Seyfried plays Lee. Of course this is an entirely different character and extends Seyfried's range - is it limitless? But not only that, this is a musical - the best thing I loved about the film although the numerous scenes of Shakers doing their shaker thing - wild stiff hypnotic body movements -  was pretty awesome. And her voice is sweet and melodic voicing a score (Daniel Blumberg) based on traditional Shaker hymns. Fastvold may have conceived the film as a feminist take on evangelical Christianity as Shakers believe Jesus' Second Coming will be as a woman. 

Hamnet - It was a big in-theater movie week last week for me - count 'em, three nights is a row! - when I took in the movie everyone is talking about. I shouldn't have got my hopes too high. Hamnet (Chloé Zhao) is a very well made film and the acting by Jessie Buckley as Agnes Shakespeare and Paul Mescal (another one who is everywhere these days) as good ol' Will, is fine indeed, even though I wondered about that earring in Mescal's ear. But if you're expecting a wide sweep about Shakespeare's life and times forget it. This is essentially an intimate family drama - substitute the Shakespeares, in fact, for any modern family - and not about the Bard's genius. In fact he comes off as a bit of an oaf. And it might even resonate with that whole "long distance relationship" thing. The last scenes of the production of the play Hamlet (another name for Hamnet) at London's Globe Theatre, however, are magnificent. Everybody says this movie will wring out your tears. I must be a pretty insensitive type because it didn't do that for me, though the woman sitting beside me did take out a Kleenex and dabbed her eyes at the very end. 

Seyfried redux: Despite her stupendous acting I can't let mention of her go by without commenting on her Marie Antoinette tendencies. Our dear Amanda recently spent tens of thousands to have her pooch transferred on private jets to her Testament shooting locales in Hungary and Sweden. "It was not in my best interest financially, but it was in his best interest, and my emotional best interest, because I needed him there," says the diva. Revolutions were started because of behavior like this. 

Marty Supreme: a lot of sound and fury

Poor Johnny Oleksinski of the NY Post and myriad other critics in thinking Josh Sadie's Marty Supreme is the best movie of 2025 - "It’s cinematic Mountain Dew. You’ll be wired for the entire 2½ hours." Not quite. With laurels like this - it has a 95% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes (and admittedly an 83% fan one) - I couldn't wait to run to a theatre to see it. But, alas, disappointment reigns. Okay I'll give the movie props for an exceedingly realistic re-creation of the early 1950s. And undoubtedly star Timothée Chalamet's acting is a tour de force as much as his metaphoric ping pong player character's tour of Europe and Japan is in the film. He deserves the Oscar (he's already been awarded two acclaims). I'll also credit Sadie with laboring an astonishingly meticulous depiction of the game of table tennis, and good direction generally. The problem is: is this a story to have slaved over so much? Sure, ping pong is a niche underrated - especially when you see the gamesmanship here - sport. And it's great (I guess) the Sadie is bringing it out of the doldrums. Some people would say who cares. But it doesn't matter what the subject is so long as the movie depicting it makes sense and flows with enough energy. Okay, Marty Supreme flows heavily and is fast-paced. But after awhile all this kinesis starts to become numbing and rather unrealistic. Scene after scene Marty is engaging in some over the top argument or scam or physical confrontation with family members, friends and indeed enemies. Can one person - let alone a nebbish ping pong player - display such extreme vim and vigour? And I couldn't figure out why he would steal money after a seemingly successful tour albeit as a freak athlete. If this is a movie about a little known but wondrous marginal sport I wanted to see it, not another gangland style picture. A phrase kept coming to mind, "full of sound and fury, signifying...." as I also looked at my watch wondering when the conclusion would come to this 2.29 minute somewhat extravaganza. Meanwhile, an over the hill Gwyneth Paltrow - why her? - as Marty's Hollywood heartthrob actress, was meh. But I must say it was a gas to see Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary not just in cameo but throughout as a ruthless businessman. Is more acting in Mr. Wonderful's future?

Chase's everyman a comic delight, and hi-def's loss of mystique

I tuned into CNN's I'm Chevy Chase and You're Not much hyped doc last night. Usually I don't get sucked into hype but I have a genuine interest in Chevy Chase going back to the first iteration of SNL characters. I never realized what an over the top outrageous guy (some have used other terms) in real life he was/is. Hard to believe he's now 82 and looks every bit it. What was almost as interesting was watching interviews with seminal characters in his rise to fame and how they have aged along with him, like Goldie Hawn (still looking pretty good) and SNL producer Lorne Michaels (who looks as aged as Chase) and how so many look a respectable "older person" as opposed to their hairy hippyish 70s versions. Regardless, on screen, there was always something uproariously funny and everyman about Chase's characters as per European Vacation (Amy Heckerling, 1985), Christmas Vacation (Jeremiah Chechik, 1898) or Caddyshack (Harold Ramis, 1980). He's one of those comedians I'll never get tired of watching.

I'm not sure if I like hi-definition video. I have been watching Turner Classic Movies (TCM) on an advanced/contemporary TV during my vacation stay (or "advanced" to me since I don't have TV at home) and the experience is somewhat jarring. I'm simply not comfortable with it. Sure the video is clearer - much clearer - almost like being on the set of the film shoot with the camera crew all around me. There is Joan Crawford as Mildred Pierce (in Michael Curtiz's 1945 Mildred Pierce) walking out of a living room with her dead lover (Zachary Scott as Monte Beragon) sprawled on the floor - a little too close for comfort. Or Orson Welles as John Foster Kane (in Welles's 1941 Citizen Kane, photo above) marching into the city room of the New York Inquirer about to turn the staid newspaper into an exuberant journalistic force to be reckoned with. Whoa, I'm loving the scene but a little distance please! Or Anthony Newley's Charlie Blake making clumsy romantic overtures to Sandy Dennis's Sara Deever in the original version of Sweet November (Robert Ellis Miller, 1968). Don't get me wrong, it's astonishing that movies can be shown this clearly. Hi-definition technically refers to at least 480 vertical scan lines compared to standard definition or analogue viewing. It reminds me of video from some early-1960s television shows which also had a higher - or clearer - look to them and which to me are too realistic. Interestingly, when we see movies on the big screen in theatres, despite digital projection, the result is still the same as it's always been, a kind of "distance" between viewer and action. Perhaps it's simply what I'm used to, but by being so absolutely intrusive, hi-def takes away a certain mystique.