Werner Herzog: Grizzly Man (2005)

[Chris Knipp]

I respect your uncertainty and it's shared by Herzog, except for the one point. I think it's very clear from Herzog's previous history that he's very attracted to and sympathetic toward quixotic, deranged, marginal people, as shown by his working with Klaus Kinski so often and with Bruno S. as Kaspar Hauser; and that Herzog perceives a kind of extraordinary quality, a saintliness, in Treadwell. However he does indeed part company with Treadwell as shown in Grizzly Man on the latter's view of nature and particularly wild, dangerous animals as essentially benign and our friends. You like Treadwell are taking a leap of faith when you say he crossed the line and lived among the bears. He came close to the line, but what indication is there that he actually crossed it? Have you interviewed any of the bears? He didn't live "among" them; he lived alongside them. This is an important distinction. Aren't you making a leap of faith here? The best that we can possibly say is that we don't know. But Herzog sees an alien otherness, a blankness in the faces of the bears. He was convinced that the friendliness and kinship that Treadwell saw were purely his imagination.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I respect your uncertainty and it's shared by Herzog, except for the one point. I think it's very clear from Herzog's previous history that he's very attracted to and sympathetic toward quixotic, deranged, marginal people, as shown by his working with Klaus Kinski so often and with Bruno S. as Kaspar Hauser; and that Herzog perceives a kind of extraordinary quality, a saintliness, in Treadwell. However he does indeed part company with Treadwell as shown in Grizzly Man on the latter's view of nature and particularly wild, dangerous animals as essentially benign and our friends. You like Treadwell are taking a leap of faith when you say he crossed the line and lived among the bears. He came close to the line, but what indication is there that he actually crossed it? Have you interviewed any of the bears? He didn't live "among" them; he lived alongside them. This is an important distinction. Aren't you making a leap of faith here? The best that we can possibly say is that we don't know. But Herzog sees an alien otherness, a blankness in the faces of the bears. He was convinced that the friendliness and kinship that Treadwell saw were purely his imagination.

I understand what Herzog thinks. The question is what do you think? Do you just buy everything he has to say lock, stock, and barrel? Herzog is against the sentimentalizing of animals. He also has a nihilistic view of nature and the universe and a low view of environmentalists as indicated by an interview in the LA Times where he calls them "tree huggers". So I understand where he is coming from. Telling me what Herzog was or wasn't convinced about is not an argument that carries much weight. I'm more interested in a balnaced presentation of a man's life. In Herzog's view, the man's death defined his life. In my view, his life gave meaning to his death.

[Chris Knipp]

Of course I don't buy everything Herzog says or thinks! He and I are very different types of people I'm sure, and I find the places he goes strange, but I respect him and I think this is a great documentary.* You will find my views about nature buried back earlier in this thread I think, where I contrast this film with The March of the Penguins. I guess I would have to say I'm midway between Herzog and Treadwell, but in all cases involved in the movie, closer to Herzog. I also tend to be against the sentimentalizing of animals. But I wouldn't use the term "tree-huggers," unless in jest; perhaps Herzog was using it in a friendly way. I am a strong supporter of environmental preservation organizations. And I have a lot of trees on my own land, relative to anybody else around. You can call me a "tree hugger" too if you like. I love trees and can't understand people who just want to chop them down. You make a strong argument, and there is good reason to think that if we two got together and forged a joint review of the movie together both having equal input, it would be a good and balanced review.


*I'm fine with the generally positive resonse to Grizzly Man. It's #5 on the Film Comment poll of best films and it's #4 on the Voice's Take 7 and their Best Documentary.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Of course I don't buy everything Herzog says or thinks! He and I are very different types of people I'm sure, and I find the places he goes strange, but I respect him and I think this is a great documentary.* You will find my views about nature buried back earlier in this thread I think, where I contrast this film with The March of the Penguins. I guess I would have to say I'm midway between Herzog and Treadwell, but in all cases involved in the movie, closer to Herzog. I also tend to be against the sentimentalizing of animals. But I wouldn't use the term "tree-huggers," unless in jest; perhaps Herzog was using it in a friendly way. I am a strong supporter of environmental preservation organizations. And I have a lot of trees on my own land, relative to anybody else around. You can call me a "tree hugger" too if you like. I love trees and can't understand people who just want to chop them down. You make a strong argument, and there is good reason to think that if we two got together and forged a joint review of the movie together both having equal input, it would be a good and balanced review.

Thanks. Here's the link

http://www.latimes.com/travel/outdoo...-home-outdoors

And here is the relevant quote:

"Q: There's this term, biophilia, that describes some innate affinity for humans to gravitate to nature. Do you buy that here?

A: No. It's a very good term, and I would apply it rather to the tree huggers, which is one of the biggest embarrassments in our civilization. It's so deeply embarrassing that if I see a tree hugger, I just pray for the ground to open and a chasm to swallow me. That is how our relationship with nature has gone completely awry. There's something definitely wrong about that."

[Chris Knipp]

Yeah, I don't buy into that at all. The "tree huggers" in some instances may be somewhat foolish, but I am on their side and I don't know why Herzog takes this position. I do agree with him in being opposed to the sentimentalizing and anthromorphizing of animals. And I think I have fully stated my position and explained why I hold to it, earlier in this thread immediately following the posting of my initial review of the film.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Yeah, I don't buy into that at all. The "tree huggers" in some instances may be somewhat foolish, but I am on their side and I don't know why Herzog takes this position. I do agree with him in being opposed to the sentimentalizing and anthromorphizing of animals. And I think I have fully stated my position and explained why I hold to it, earlier in this thread immediately following the posting of my initial review of the film.

I don't like all the "disneyfication" of animals either but on the other hand, I am not bothered by "anthropomorphizing" whatever that is because I feel that on a fundamental level all sentient beings are one.

[Chris Knipp]

I respect this point of view, but it's all a matter of how you interpret it, what implications it has for you in action.