This film definitely is drifting down a river. A slow, hopeless river. As you drift, your hopes rise, and your chances fall. At some point that divergence crosses common coping into insanity. I'm not talking about Aguirre expecting to find El Dorado, I'm talking about myself expecting this movie to pay off. A pleasurable movie was my El Dorado. And we drifted. And we drifted. And I heard rumors it was near. And I'm still drifting, like Aguirre; all my companions are dead; my raft is infested with monkeys, who never expected gold or God -- they're the wisest ones -- they're just stopping by as long as it's convenient, while I cling to my abstractions in the face of all reality. This journey is like the journey to heaven: you cherish some rumors, you search for signals, and the closer you get to the crux -- to the cross -- the less chance you stand and therefore the greater the psychological compensation: hope. Because doubting is not an option. No one can accept that suffering for nothing. So hope rises as probabilities fall, to delusional effect. Heaven and El Dorado were only ever rumors, deceiving the masses. Yet is there a better way to spend your time than drifting in the direction of such hope? Even if you never find it -- there's nothing to find -- you've sought what was worth seeking and you've lived with purpose. That is, if the purpose and the hope persist for you, as for Aguirre. If so, then no improbability should turn your raft. You should drift until you die or until your hope dies. Or until you reach it. Maybe you're the only one ever. Maybe it was meant for you.
Echoes of Apocalypse Now and Stalker: literal and figurative descent into the absurd. But Aguirre is even duller, you heard me, duller than Tarkovsky. It doesn't help that the lead is unlikable in every way, and to contrast Tarkovsky, I don't think there was really any interesting dialogue. Just Aguirre's reflection at the very end. So Aguirre really forces contemplation of the unsaid: the images and themes. However, I didn't even think the visuals were all that beautiful! Isn't the film known for that? I thought it was cool to be immersed on-location in the Amazon, but I didn't think the cinematography was all that interesting. A couple of nice mountain shots at the beginning, plenty of greenery, and some fun passing shots (I've been playing a lot of pickleball) from the drifting raft. The camera is literally on a raft.
Okay I actually love the idea of this movie, technically and artistically. Technically, the crew is actually floating on a raft in the Amazon, shooting chronologically because that's how rivers work. Artistically, you're chasing a fantasy deeper into the unknown, deeper into your own fantastical heart, at meditative speed, pausing as long as you can on the images before they float away. Are they passing you or are you passing them? Maybe you're static on standing water and time is a conveyer belt of world running by on either side. But the belt is only so long.
I also love the historical context. When I noticed this movie on my library's streaming partner, I was pretty excited. "Historical epic" is exactly what I wanted. So why didn't it work?
The dub was pretty brutal, partly because I just didn't understand it. Was this English dubbed over German? Over Spanish? Over English?? Was there a subtitled version available? This distracted me for a while. Also, what terrible work by the voice actors and their editors. What awful professional work. How do they get away with that? It's a shit match to the live actors' mouths, and an even worse match to their tones. I suppose my local children's theater director could have done a better job. Act like you're in the situation the actors are in! Act!
The woes transcend the technical though. As I mentioned, the dialogue wasn't really interesting. The characters were not likable. None of the acting hit home, and I don't just mean the voice acting. The photography was not striking enough. It was all just kind of shoddy. Amazing concept, shoddy execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment