DVD Review: Fitzcarraldo
Published April 05, 2007
This seems an improvement from his previous wacky scheme to sell ice to Peruvian Indians. The catch is that his scheme to become a rubber baron requires him to stake a claim to some land that is upriver, on the Pachitea, an Amazon tributary laden with headshrinkers, and requires him to haul his steamboat, bought for him by Molly and renamed the Molly Aida, up the side of a small mountain, so that he can access a cache of rubber trees on four hundred square miles of land that Molly buys the rights to but are thought to be worthless because deadly rapids prevent boats from reaching them.
However, Fitz makes it over the mountain, then unsuccessfully avoids the rapids in the river on the other side of the mountain. The Indians helped him set his boat free, and it is revealed that the reason they helped him and set the boat free was to fulfill a prophecy to exorcise the rapids of demons. Eventually, Fitz makes it back to Iquitos, having failed to make his fortune, but still able to bring an opera company to his town, if not an opera house, as they sail into town singing an aria from I Puritani, even though he has been bought out by the steamboat’s original owner, Don Aquilino (Jose Lewgoy), and saved from total ruin again.
The film violates so many of the standard Hollywood precepts. First, although we see that Fitz and Molly are in love, their romance is briefly limned. One might complain that more of Cardinale’s legendary looks and flesh should be on display, but for the brief rapture that would bring, the film would pay a price in banality. Then there is Herzog’s famed ‘eye level realism’. Like Aguirre, this film, while it has some airborne shots and vistas, is mostly told as if the camera is right there with Fitz and his crew. There is no God-like, all-seeing eye that lets the viewer know things the characters do not. We thus empathize far more with them. The film also takes a good hour before the journey upriver begins. In this way we spend the first portion of the film getting a sense of Fitz, the town, and the locals, much as is done in a film whose narrative structure is manifestly written into this film’s DNA: Henri-Georges Clouzot’s 1953 black and white masterpiece The Wages Of Fear, which also takes an hour to set up its characters before setting them on their adventure, also in South America.
Too often this film is seen as a simple ode to determination or obsession by the simpleminded who love the film and those equally simpleminded who hate it, and Herzog, whom they always accuse of abuses — many of which, it should be noted, are exaggerated by Herzog to sell tickets. In his film commentary, as example Herzog repeats the old legend that an Indian woodsman was bitten by a snake and saved his life by chainsawing off his own foot. These legend-building canards make for good press, even if negative, for Herzog has always subscribed to the dictum that the only bad press is no press. This can be seen in the very nature of the tale, as well, for there was a real Fitzcarraldo - called Fitzcarrald, although he disassembled his much smaller boat than the film portrays, and hauled it across flat jungle, then reassembled it. Herzog, of course, had to go one - or three - better than reality.
- DVD Review: Fitzcarraldo
- Published: April 05, 2007
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Foreign Language, Video: Drama, Video: Classics, Video: Art House
- Writer: Dan Schneider
- Dan Schneider's BC Writer page
- Dan Schneider's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Perhaps it's because I grew up watching Godzilla films, so dubbing does not distract. I cannot fathom how a few misaligned lips can distract as much as words that can cover up to 30 or 40% of the screen.
I do think, however, the voice is the easiest thing for an actor to use in emoting- physical and facial acting is much more difficult. The great actors emote with their eyes, not their lips.
Criterion Collection, as example, has notoriously poor subtitles- white on black and white films. At least Anchor Bay uses colored subtitles.
I would ask, have you ever been emotionally moved by a cartoon character? If so, then I wd argue that lip synchronization, and emoting in voice tone is not as hard as you claim.
Thanx for the reply.
It is as you point out for a large part what people grow up with, Germany dubs, and so do a lot of other countries. I happened to grow up with subtitles so it is easier for me.
It may also be more easy for me for instance to watch films in their original language since English and German (not my native tongues) come fairly easy to me. I don't expect Americans or Brazillians to understand Dutch for instance.
English is also a very predominant language as much as a 'global' language but very much so in relation to films. But try to ignore this for a moment and imagine an actor like Anthony Hopkins, or Jeremy Irons with a wildly different voice. These are actors who can downplay their facial porfermance to a minimum and compliment it with an almost hypnotic timbre, and how their 'englishness' makes so much difference. Forget even about that, what about Trainspotting in German? Do you really think the impact of hearing this Scottish slang translates well into some local German or French or Spanish whatever, accent? New York street slang substituted for downtown Helsinki 'jive'?
I know most people couldn't care less and may not even recognize these things but on a subconsious level they probably do.
Yes, emoting in voice tone is something voiceactors are off course very good at, it's what they are trained and chosen for. But how well do they stand up to the originals? One could argue that some performances can only be improved because of the dubbing but I wouldn't even bother with bad acted stuff to begin with.
I personally pick up on accents pretty quick and it influences my experience of the movie and understanding of the characters. I had multiple opportunities whereby I was presented by dubbed versions of films, being it from original English to local speech, or the other way round. I feel something definitally gets lost in the translation, of which a part is the literal tranlation itself, but in the feeling for the actor as well.
I did 'force' some people to stop watching dubs because I refuse to watch dubbed films (I don't mean normal ADR) and some of them even turned over and now do feel the dubbed versions sounds 'unnatural'. Others are just lazy and can't be bothered, their choice off course.
Apart from that, don't you think it's a bit bland to watch forreign films in your own language, isn't it part of the charm that you hear another language, the one that is relevant to the place it plays in? It might make communication easier, but wouldn't it be so very bland if the world sounded the same everywhere?
'One Night on Earth' by Jim Jarmush may be a good way to illustrate my point. The couleur locale oozes out of those stories and very much because of the many languages spoken. More recently Babel comes to mind.
Again, just my feeling on this subject.
Cheers!
Well, if one is used to something they are used yo it.
But, I think if you got 100 people, who never saw a foreign language film, and played dubbed and subtitled versions, 80%+ wd prefer the dub, Again, while narrative and story are essential for great films, they work subconsciously, while the image dominates. Esp. w great directors, things go on in the background or corners that enrich a film immensely. I grant a bit may be lost by dubbing, but far more is lost by subtitling. It's similar t translating poetry- does one do a literal word-by-word transliteration, or get the gist? If the latter, your gist may be different from another's, so while the translated poem flows better, is it the same essential gist?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/62056)
You mention that you prefer a dubbed version to a subtitled one. I see your point that reading titles could be distracting. I would argue that the distraction of seeing a persons lips move to different sounds would be equally distracting as it inherently looks awkward. Not to mention the deminishing of the performance, I've heard virtually no dub that really did justice to the performance of the original actor. Instead, I found it usually completely wrecked it. You just can not substitute the performance of an actor in his part, moment and environment, by the dub of some voice-actor in a studio who was never there, didn't get to interact with the other actors, surroundings and overall, director. Also the cadens and choise of words that sound like the emotion they portrait is different from language to language. I would personally value the voiceperformance of an actor to be in some cases even more than half of the total performance. Just my thought. What's yours?
I'm not really arguing about this film as it was shot and dubbed in both German and English and looks a bit awkward in both cases. One can't however appreciate Kinski to the fullest in any other language than German (even if it's him doing the dubbing);)!
Best regards,