Werner Herzog: Grizzly Man (2005)

[arsaib4]

Frankly it's difficult to decipher from your review that you're "very up on this movie" and are willing to give it an "A+." You discuss various pertinent issues in good detail, but you only end with "A depressing but important film." That's not exactly high praise.

[Chris Knipp]

The truth is often depressing and it is rare that we get it. Important isn't a word I use lightly.

[arsaib4]

Good.

[Howard Schumann]

GRIZZLY MAN

Directed by Werner Herzog (2005)

In 100 years of keeping records in Alaska, less than 12 people have been killed by grizzly bears, according to German director Werner Herzog. Herzog's film Grizzly Man documents two of them, the first known bear killings in Alaska's 4.7 million-acre Katmai National Park. In October 2003, the bodies of environmentalist Timothy Treadwell and his friend Amie Huguenard were found near Kaflia Bay when a pilot arrived to pick them up and take them to Kodiak Island. A starving thousand-pound, 28-year-old male grizzly, unknown to the area had mauled Treadwell and Huguenard to death. The film tells the story of the self-styled protector of bears and co-author of the book "Among Grizzlies: Living With Wild Bears in Alaska."

Treadwell spent more than a dozen summers living with bears in the area he called the Grizzly Maze and videotaped over 100 hours of footage during the last five years. Complemented by narration from Herzog, Treadwell tells his own story in front of the camera. He was an aspiring actor who dealt with drug and alcohol problems in California before he moved to Alaska in the summer of 1989. It is unclear how much of his determination to live among the bears resulted from his love of nature or from his need to escape his problems at home. In any event, he became a friend to the bears and developed a brash confidence around them, giving them names such as Mr. Chocolate, the Grinch and Sgt. Brown, and often getting so close he could touch them. Though the image of Treadwell is of being reckless and foolhardy, according to John Rogers, owner of Coastal Bear Tours who knew him, "his (Treadwell's) knowledge and understanding of bears was equal to the experience of any commercial bear viewing guide or bear specialist in Katmai National Park, better than most".

Far from being delusional or failing to deal appropriately with nature and recognize its dangers, Rogers says, "he was not one to blithely walk up to a bear, he was cautious, even fearful, around bears he didn’t know, but he developed relationships and mutual trust with a few individual bears over the years". Though the film raises complex questions that do not lend themselves to easy answers, it has nonetheless been seized upon by the corporate media to denounce environmentalists and those who dare to live on the edge of society. Treadwell has been called a nut, a certified madman, foolish, obsessive, an egomaniac, bipolar, paranoid and schizophrenic. While his on-camera behavior is often bizarre and at times repugnant, we don't know how much this represents who Treadwell really was or even whether Mr. Herzog selected particular footage to produce a desired effect.

Bizarre or not, the fact remains that Timothy did what he said. He lived in open and honest communication with wild animals for thirteen long years, a feat that required mental and physical toughness, endurance, and commitment. In the process, he educated thousands of children by speaking in schools without compensation, and founded "Grizzly People", an organization devoted to preserving bears and their wilderness habitat. Though he does express admiration for his filmmaking ability, Herzog makes clear his antipathy to much of what Treadwell stands for. He refers to environmental activists as "tree huggers" and sees nature as "chaotic, hostile, and murderous". Treadwell's nature photography is beautiful, showing things that we may have never seen before, particularly a fight between two huge bears, yet Herzog cannot resist getting in a dig at unions with his remark that his footage is something "studio directors with their union crews could never dream of".

Grizzly Man, under Herzog's direction, veers toward the sensational. In one sequence Treadwell demonstrates the emotional maturity of an eleven-year old in an expletive-laden rant against the Park Service, but the sequence has no timeframe and no context. Herzog also criticizes Treadwell's celebrity status, describing him as "a star by virtue of his own invention." (He had appeared on David Letterman's Late Show, the Discovery Channel's Discovery Sunday, and other television programs.) Although interviews with people who knew Treadwell appear to be balanced, some of them seem staged for melodramatic effect. Herzog films Timothy's parents awkwardly clinging to Treadwell's childhood Teddy bear and we watch as he presents Timothy's still ticking watch to a former girlfriend, Jewel Palovak in a bizarre sequence that feels contrived. In another scene that can only be described as maudlin, the director listens to the audio tape of the bear attack (pretending to hear it for the first time) and cautions Jewel never to listen to it, yet at the same time titillating us with its contents.

Many critics have called Treadwell delusional for thinking he was protecting the bears. Yet perhaps the most telling fact is that during his time in Katmai, no bear was known to have been killed by poachers. In the first year after his death, five bears were poached. According to leading Alaskan conservationist and filmmaker Joel Bennett, "The recent poaching of bears in Katmai National Park shows that Alaskans should never be complacent about the protection of their treasured wildlife resources. Tim Treadwell's vigilance may well have saved other bears from the same fate." Was Treadwell a friend of the bears or their worst enemy? Was he a man that only wanted to share his observations that grizzlies are not the ferocious beasts we have always thought them to be, or a sick egotist, obsessed with his own demons? It is hard to tell from this film. Perhaps the answer is a little bit of both. Though I am grateful to Herzog for exposing Treadwell's work to a wider public, I am unclear as to whether Grizzly Man celebrates his life or exploits it. "For now", in the words of friend Louisa Wilcox, "it is enough to honor the dead and celebrate a rare life, and the places and creatures he brought into ours."

GRADE: ?

[Chris Knipp]

I see that Grizzly Man came in fourth in the best film category of the Village Voice Take 7 critics poll for 2005.

[Chris Knipp]

It is unclear how much of his determination to live among the bears resulted from his love of nature or from his need to escape his problems at home.

Your slightly garbled sentence makes it unclear whether or not you are presenting an either/or, but clearly living among the bears fulfiled both needs for Treadwell -- to experience his love of nature and to -- I would not say "escape," but to find a situation where his personal problems would not trouble him. Your summary is a bit confusing since you say Treadwell developed a "brash confidence" around the bears, and then you cite Rogers' views at length to suggest that Treadwell "cautious, even fearful, around bears he didn’t know, but he developed relationships and mutual trust with a few individual bears over the years."

Though the film raises complex questions that do not lend themselves to easy answers, it has nonetheless been seized upon by the corporate media to denounce environmentalists and those who dare to live on the edge of society.

This may have some truth in it but nonetheless is misleading, since, as the film itself makes clear, the denunciations of environmentalists were going on and took in Treadwell well before Herzog's "complex" treatment came along. Herzog cann't be held responsible for any such crude exploitation of the issues; you acknowledge in this very sentence that Herzog's treatment is "complex," not simplistic.

Treadwell has been called a nut, a certified madman, foolish, obsessive, an egomaniac, bipolar, paranoid and schizophrenic. While his on-camera behavior is often bizarre and at times repugnant, we don't know how much this represents who Treadwell really was or even whether Mr. Herzog selected particular footage to produce a desired effect.

Your logic is unclear, your desire to give Treadwell the benefit of the doubt exaggerated. The film provides a complete picture of Treadwell's accomplishments, even if it is ultimately disapproving of his outlook. (You choose to overlook the fact that he took chances he oughtn't have taken, and that he caused not only his own death but that of another person.) "Who Treadwell really was" surely includes the sometimes (but not exclusively) bizarre moments Herzog shows us. If a person freaks out, behaves bizarrely, it doesn't have to have happened every day to be an important characteristic to consider in evaluating them.

Bizarre or not, the fact remains that Timothy did what he said. He lived in open and honest communication with wild animals for thirteen long years,

You buy into Treadwell's anthromorphism here when you speak of "open and honest communication." What that means, I don't know.

Grizzly Man, under Herzog's direction, veers toward the sensational. In one sequence Treadwell demonstrates the emotional maturity of an eleven-year old in an expletive-laden rant against the Park Service, but the sequence has no timeframe and no context.

I repeat: the occurance itself is significant, not how often -- or when -- it happened, though the film in general does provide careful timelines for events. Treadwell's history and the evidence in the footage show that he was unstable -- although nature and the grizzly world provided a wonderful haven for him where he could be high functioning, on his own terms, and do good.

In another scene that can only be described as maudlin, the director listens to the audio tape of the bear attack (pretending to hear it for the first time)

Herzog has said in interviews and it is pretty well known I guess that he doesn't pretend to be neutral; that his documentaries are works of artifice.

Many critics have called Treadwell delusional for thinking he was protecting the bears. Yet perhaps the most telling fact is that during his time in Katmai, no bear was known to have been killed by poachers. In the first year after his death, five bears were poached.

I doubt that this is good evidence of Treadwell's importance. Bears were pretty safe -- that's why people have pointed out that his "protection" of them was unnecessary -- and delusional.

[Howard Schumann]

Your slightly garbled sentence makes it unclear whether or not you are presenting an either/or, but clearly living among the bears fulfiled both needs for Treadwell -- to experience his love of nature and to -- I would not say "escape," but to find a situation where his personal problems would not trouble him

. Sounds like a pretty straightforward sentence to me, but you seem to have a need to criticize my grammar. I could start attacking your spelling but what purpose would it serve? You might express it a different way but my meaning is clear. I wasn't sure what the biggest factor was in leading him to the wild.

Your summary is a bit confusing since you say Treadwell developed a "brash confidence" around the bears, and then you cite Rogers' views at length to suggest that Treadwell "cautious, even fearful, around bears he didn’t know, but he developed relationships and mutual trust with a few individual bears over the years."

The key word here is developed. He may have been cautious but as he developed relationships, he became more confident. Now how confusing is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the film raises complex questions that do not lend themselves to easy answers, it has nonetheless been seized upon by the corporate media to denounce environmentalists and those who dare to live on the edge of society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may have some truth in it but nonetheless is misleading, since, as the film itself makes clear, the denunciations of environmentalists were going on and took in Treadwell well before Herzog's "complex" treatment came along. Herzog can't be held responsible for any such crude exploitation of the issues; you acknowledge in this very sentence that Herzog's treatment is "complex," not simplistic.

I say the film raises complex questions not because Herzog treats the subject matter with complexity but because it is so ambiguous. Herzog is responsible in a way because of the negative slant he gives the project and shows Treadwell in large part to his disadvantage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treadwell has been called a nut, a certified madman, foolish, obsessive, an egomaniac, bipolar, paranoid and schizophrenic. While his on-camera behavior is often bizarre and at times repugnant, we don't know how much this represents who Treadwell really was or even whether Mr. Herzog selected particular footage to produce a desired effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your logic is unclear, your desire to give Treadwell the benefit of the doubt is exaggerated. The film provides a complete picture of Treadwell's accomplishments, even if it is ultimately disapproving of his outlook. "Who Treadwell really was" surely includes the sometimes (but not exclusively) bizarre moments Herzog shows us. If a person freaks out, behaves bizarrely, it doesn't have to have happened every day to be an important characteristic to consider in evaluating them.

My only question is - was this incident taken out of context and made to seem more important than it actually was. In other words, we are privy to over one hour of 100 hours of footage. I would really like to know what was on the other 99 hours.

You choose to overlook the fact that he took chances he oughtn't have taken, and that he caused not only his own death but that of another person.

How he died does not invalidate his activity over a period of 13 years. We hear so much BS about he was so self serving and how the bears got acclimated to humans yet you cannot come up with a single incident during that period that showed the effects of any of this. He was killed because of several mistakes, in not camping in open ground, in remaining too late in the season but keep in mind that the bear that killed him was not from the area and was not one he had any relationship with. He was not prudent in that regard and the one mistake cost him his life but it does not invalidate his work in educating the public about grizzlies or the organization he formed to protect the environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bizarre or not, the fact remains that Timothy did what he said. He lived in open and honest communication with wild animals for thirteen long years,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You buy into Treadwell's anthromorphism here when you speak of "open and honest communication." What that means, I don't know.

Well you discovered a big word here. Good for you. What it means is exactly what it says. Communication doesn't mean speaking words. It means a relationship that allowed man and beast to live side by side in peace and harmony for 13 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzly Man, under Herzog's direction, veers toward the sensational. In one sequence Treadwell demonstrates the emotional maturity of an eleven-year old in an expletive-laden rant against the Park Service, but the sequence has no timeframe and no context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I repeat: the occurrence itself is significant, not how often -- or when -- it happened, though the film in general does provide careful timelines for events. Treadwell's history and the evidence in the footage show that he was unstable -- although nature and the grizzly world provided a wonderful haven for him where he could be high functioning, on his own terms, and do good.

Who he was certainly includes his rants and I didn't deny that he was unstable, yet what I don't know is if this happened early on or what the situation was that caused this immature outburst. In an interview with a park ranger, he said that he had some differences with Treadwell at the beginning but it was patched up and they had a good relationship.

Herzog has said in interviews and it is pretty well known I guess that he doesn't pretend to be neutral; that his documentaries are works of artifice.

Yes but he does pretend to be honest which he is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many critics have called Treadwell delusional for thinking he was protecting the bears. Yet perhaps the most telling fact is that during his time in Katmai, no bear was known to have been killed by poachers. In the first year after his death, five bears were poached.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that this is good evidence of Treadwell's importance. Bears were pretty safe -- that's why people have pointed out that his "protection" of them was unnecessary -- and delusional.

You doubt it is good evidence. Well isn't that nice? What would you consider good evidence? During the time he was with the bears, no bear was killed by poachers. In the year after he leaves, five bears are killed. If that isn't good evidence I'm not sure what is,

[Chris Knipp]

I'm not criticizing your grammar but your sentence structure. You wrote:

It is unclear how much of his determination to live among the bears resulted from his love of nature or from his need to escape his problems at home.

Obviously "how much of" should have been "whether" (necessitated by the use of "or"). But the main problem was that this is not a necessary either/or. You would have made a better case if your writing throughout had been clearer. It is distressing that you, who write so many reviews, think this a perfectly acceptable sentence.

My only question is - was this incident taken out of context and made to seem more important than it actually was.

My point is, and I repeat, that the incident -- actually not a single one but a whole long string of them, and lengthy diatribes -- is important, period. The fact that Treadwell didn't act crazy every minute doesn't make his bizarre behavior unimportant. Herzog couldn't show us hours of unrevealing tape just to create some kind of "balance." The point is that Treadwell had periods of bizarre behavior, and most of us don't. You don't like this picture of Treadwell because you want to think of him as some kind of saintly communicator with "wild animals."

You obviously don't have much use for Herzog, at least not for his work on Grizzly Man. Clearly you have a fundamental disagreement with Herzog's outlook on nature, an outlook which I happen to find valid and important, particularly in this context. I have discussed this issue in detail elsewhere on this thread. The key statement in your review is:

"Bizarre or not, the fact remains that Timothy did what he said. He lived in open and honest communication with wild animals for thirteen long years...

(Another clumsy sentence, by the way, "Bizarre or not..." -- and what does that mean? Besides which,"thirteen long summers would have been more accurate.) I repeat: the whole concept of the film, which you do not refute but simply reject, is that "open and honest communication with wild animals" is a virtually meaningless statement, based on a delusion, whose implications, if acted upon, are potentially lethal. And in fact Treadwell perfectly well knew and often repeated that his "open and honest communication" [sic] with the grizzlies would probably get him killed one day -- as it did. What he did not anticipate is that he would take another innocent person with him.

[Howard Schumann]

I'm not criticizing your grammar but your sentence structure.

Do me a favor and don't criticize my sentence structure. Are you doing that to make yourself look good? I find it rather arrogant and condescending. I could find a lot to criticize in your reviews as well but this is all rather childish, I think..

Herzog couldn't show us hours of unrevealing tape just to create some kind of "balance."

How do you know that 99% of the tape is unrevealing? Have you seen it?

The point is that Treadwell had periods of bizarre behavior, and most of us don't. You don't like this picture of Treadwell because you want to think of him as some kind of saintly communicator with "wild animals."

I have acknowledged his bizarre behavior and also the conflicts I felt. Do you actually read what I write?

I repeat: the whole concept of the film, which you do not refute but simply reject, is that "open and honest communication with wild animals" is a virtually meaningless statement, based on a delusion, whose implications, if acted upon, are potentially lethal. And in fact Treadwell perfectly well knew and often repeated that his "open and honest communication" [sic] with the grizzlies would probably get him killed one day -- as it did. What he did not anticipate is that he would take another innocent person with him.

I think I discussed this both in my review and in my response to your post. Having a discussion with you often becomes tiresome rather quickly because you simply ignore 90% of what is actually said or distort it to fit your judgments and things have to be repeated over and over again. Besides your tone is really nasty and I do not appreciate it one iota. But we've been here before, haven't we? I thought we had gotten past this sort of stuff.

[Chris Knipp]

There is no need to take offence. I try to keep the dialogue open. I am presenting my point of view, not yours. If you think that is repetitious and boring, that's perhaps because you're not interested in my point of view. I am contrasting my point of view with yours. As for your sentence structure, I am not being "nasty," just a stickler for good writing! I'm sure you consider that important. If you find fault with my writing, in my reviews, you're certainly welcome to point out the errors. We have to keep ourselves on our toes. I am not here to stroke or coddle anybody and neither, from the sound of this, are you. What I do try to avoid but you apparently don't, is getting personal, testy, and ad hominem.

I misstated the case when I said I was "criticizing" your "sentence structure" because that allowed you to take the line out of context. I am only pointing out an error in sentence structure in one of your sentences. That doesn't mean I am "criticizing your sentence structure" in general. There is no need to take the comment that one of your sentences is unclear as a criticism of all your writing.

I have acknowledged his bizarre behavior and also the conflicts I felt. Do you actually read what I write?

Yes, I do read what you write, quite carefully, actually, and your emphatic point was that Treadwell's bizarre behavior was taken out of context and overemphasized by Herzog.

How do you know that 99% of the tape is unrevealing? Have you seen it?

I don't, but this is an odd question for you to ask, since that "99% of the tape is unrevealing" would be what you would want to believe, not me.

Though you express annooyance at my repetition, I still do not think that you have replied to my statement:

that "open and honest communication with wild animals" is a virtually meaningless statement, based on a delusion, whose implications, if acted upon, are potentially lethal.

[Howard Schumann]

I don't, but this is an odd question for you to ask, since that "99% of the tape is unrevealing" would be what you would want to believe, not me.

The bottom line is that we simply do not know what's on the rest of the tape and while I have no evidence I don't believe that Herzog is above manipulating his material to produce an effect consistent with his worldview. Let me repeat again: "Who he was certainly includes his rants and I didn't deny that he was unstable, yet what I don't know is if this happened early on or what the situation was that caused this immature outburst. In an interview with a park ranger, he said that he had some differences with Treadwell at the beginning but it was patched up and they had a good relationship. " I am simply raising a question here as to whether the rant reflects a moment in time or his true personality. I just don't know. Do you?

Though you express annoyance at my repetition, I still do not think that you have replied to my statement:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that "open and honest communication with wild animals" is a virtually meaningless statement, based on a delusion, whose implications, if acted upon, are potentially lethal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what to say except to repeat myself. Where was the delusion? Did he not live in peace and harmony with the bears for 13 summers? Were any bears killed by poachers during that time? Did any harm come to the bears he lived with for 13 summers? The implications of my thoughts right now are potentially lethal. That does not make me a killer.

[Chris Knipp]

I see what you mean, but given what we know of Treadwell's history, his drug and alcohol problems, which were very serious, and his acknowledged difficulty at funcitoning in society, it's likely that he was not a happy or a stable individual -- even out in the wild.

The delusion was that simply because he survived for 12 summers, while clearly pushing the limits, in fact getting much closer to the grizzlies than park ranger requirements day after day, that he was living in peace and harmony with these animals. Your statement that he was in "open and honest communication," I don't know the meaning of. Herzog's view, which I think is justifiable, is that the communication, as well as the sympathy, between himself and the bears was Treadwell's imagination -- not anything really happening.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I see what you mean, but given what we know of Treadwell's history, his drug and alcohol problems, which were very serious, and his acknowledged difficulty at funcitoning in society, it's likely that he was not a happy or a stable individual -- even out in the wild.

That is one side of him for sure but it is largely irrelevant. The other side is not well represented. For those who knew him the best, his work was magical, inspirational, and enlightening. Why is that side of him so difficult for you to acknowledge?

The delusion was that simply because he survived for 12 summers, while clearly pushing the limits, in fact getting much closer to the grizzlies than park ranger requirements day after day, that he was living in peace and harmony with these animals. Your statement that he was in "open and honest communication," I don't know the meaning of. Herzog's view, which I think is justifiable, is that the communication, as well as the sympathy, between himself and the bears was Treadwell's imagination -- not anything really happening.

That is simply your delusion or perhaps yours and Herzog's, not Treadwell's. He was an adventurer who lived life to the fullest, an educator, a preservationist, and a friend to all species. You would rather write off everything that occurred during the 13 summers than have to acknowledge anything positive. Frankly, I would much rather defer to those who knew him the best and do not have such a myopic worldview.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, it's your assumption that those who knew him best had nothing but good things to say about him. That isn't the evidence of the film; the picture is more muddled than that. And it remains muddled to me after I've done some additional research into the subject of Treadwell on my own. I can accept that he was inspirational, but apart from that, and this is Herzog's special concern, there was something dysfunctional about his relationship to the animals, a sense that he was seeking therapy in his feel-good anthropomorphism, and that this wasn't right. Can you see that, at all? This is a complex subject -- I think we both acknowledge that, but it's a great film and I'm not alone in thinking so. Part and parcel of this greatness is the fact that Herzog takes a very definite stand, perhaps more willing to fullyacknowledge the oddness and deranagement -- loveable derangement, at times -- of Treadwell, than you are -- in strong opposition to Treadwell's anthropomorphic view of dangerous beasts in the wild. Herzog is drawn to such people, to the mad, the disfunctional and has long been a sensitive, sympathetic student of them.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Well, it's your assumption that those who knew him best had nothing but good things to say about him. That isn't the evidence of the film; the picture is more muddled than that. And it remains muddled to me after I've done some additional research into the subject of Treadwell on my own. I can accept that he was inspirational, but apart from that, and this is Herzog's special concern, there was something dysfunctional about his relationship to the animals, a sense that he was seeking therapy in his feel-good anthropomorphism, and that this wasn't right. Can you see that, at all? This is a complex subject -- I think we both acknowledge that, but it's a great film and I'm not alone in thinking so. Part and parcel of this greatness is the fact that Herzog takes a very definite stand, perhaps more willing to fullyacknowledge the oddness and deranagement -- loveable derangement, at times -- of Treadwell, than you are -- in strong opposition to Treadwell's anthropomorphic view of dangerous beasts in the wild. Herzog is drawn to such people, to the mad, the disfunctional and has long been a sensitive, sympathetic student of them.

Well as I say I am very conflicted about the film. Maybe Herzog is more admiring than I'm giving him credit for. On the other hand, the interviews he includes in the film tend to promote the same point of view - that it's not possible to cross the line between man and nature and live among wild bears. But Herzog and his experts overlook the most important fact: Treadwell did exactly that, and for a long period of time. Instead of focusing on the one day when he was attacked by a bear, there is little weight given to the hundreds and hundreds of days when he wasn't.