I have a rather long queue on Netflix, so it takes some time for a film to work its way to the top. Frequently, therefore, I'm not exactly sure why I added a particular film to my queue. In this case, I had no doubts about why I added it. Surely, a title such as Where the Green Ants Dream would be sufficient reason alone to take at least a look at it. And, then, when I discovered the director was Werner Herzog, how could I resist? The director and the title seem made for each other.
The film is loosely based on a real event that took place in Australia several years before the film came out in 1985. Even before filming began, Herzog was threatened with a lawsuit if he used the name of the mining company in the film. As Herzog pointed out in his commentary, it really made no difference what name he used because Australians knew the details of the incident.
To be brief, a mining company has sent out a exploratory crew to an area that is considered sacred by the Australian Aborigines who live in the area. It is the place where the green ants dream. First, the mining company was going to conduct tests that would involve numerous explosions in order to get a seismic map of the subsoil. If the tests proved positive, it would then go in and begin digging.
The Aborigines believe that if the green ants' dreaming is disrupted, and the explosions alone would do this, there would disastrous consequences for the land and for the Aborigines who live there. I've read some comments that it wasn't just the land but the entire universe that would be disrupted if the green ants were disturbed during their dreaming. I know very little about the Australian Aborigine beliefs so I can't comment other than to say that it was obvious that they believed it would be catastrophic to awaken the ants and interfere with their dreaming. I think it's a bit ironic that the mining company was searching for uranium, an absolute necessity for the development of nuclear weapons.
It is the classic conflict between native peoples and their sacred lands on the one hand and a corporation that wants to profit by engaging in some activity on those lands, activity that will conflict with the beliefs of native peoples and disrupt or change the land for a long time afterwards, if not permanently.
The POV character is Lance Hackett, a geologist who works for the company. When the Aborigines begin to interfere with the tests, he informs the company of the problem. As the presumed leader of the exploratory crew, he becomes the point man for the negotiations between the company and the Aborigines. As the negotiations continue, he becomes, as one might expect, more sympathetic to the Aborigines.
Those who have seen the recent SF film, Avatar, might see some similarities between the two films. They are there, but one of the major differences is in the portrayal of the two companies. In Avatar, the company is a law unto itself. It uses military force in an attempt to drive out or exterminate the native peoples. This does not happen in Where the Green Ants Dream. The company has obtained the appropriate permits to search for uranium deposits and then begin mining operations if the uranium is there in sufficient quantity. The company does its best to recompense the Aborigines, including getting them a military aircraft that looks somewhat like a large green flying insect.
Unable to dissuade the mining company, the Aborigines go to court and eventually reach the highest court in Australia. According to the commentary, this was the first time the Aborigines had gone to the courts for protection. In the end, the Aborigines lose because, as the judge stated in his decision, the Aborigines were unable to produce evidence that would be acceptable in an Anglo-Saxon court of law.
This is a Herzog film. Those who have seen Fata Morgana (a film I commented on in April 2010) will recognize this immediately. There are scenes of vast wastelands with bizarre rock formations and a burned out bus. Occasionally the viewer will spot an abandoned pickup truck in the middle of nowhere, with a piece of earth moving equipment nearby. Why they are there is never clear. Interspersed is a little subplot, one that seemingly has nothing to do with the main plot: an old woman has lost her dog. It has run into one of several caves and apparently can't find its way out.
In Fata Morgana, the viewer meets a biologist who has spent years of his life studying a lizard that lives in the vast deserts of Northern Africa. We meet another biologist who has spent years of his life studying the green ants of this part of Australia. The green ants do exist, and they are partially a bright green. Only, they really aren't ants; they are in the termite family. The dreaming green ants is not part of the Aborigine beliefs; that is Herzog's creation. However, it is based partially on fact: a type of lizard in another part of Australia is believed to dream and therefore plays an important role in preserving the planet.
Some of the most interesting scenes are those of the negotiations between the Aborigines and the company. The camera focuses on the faces of the Aborigines (Herzog somehow managed to get Aborigines to play the appropriate roles in the film), and I could almost hear the Aborigines thinking. The actions of the white men were completely incomprehensible to them. The mining company's activities were going to be catastrophic, including the destruction of the Aborigines themselves, and the company thought that offering money or a share of the profits would be satisfactory.
The camera would then shift to the company representatives, and I could see the same bewilderment. What did the Aborigines want? They were offered a large cash settlement and a share of the profits which would take them out of poverty, as the company saw it anyway. The company would even build a small museum that would focus on the Aborigine culture. It's as if the company and the Aborigines lived on separate planets.
To be simplistic, the conflict is between profit-making activities and the beliefs of native peoples--between the material and the spiritual worlds--and it seems not to be slackening in any way either.
Which should take priority?
====================
P. S.
Steven Riddle of A Momentary Taste of Being, (see his blog listed on the sidebar) made a comment that started me thinking (which he so often does) . He mentioned the images from the film that stayed with him. That struck a chord and provided an answer to something that was bothering me about this post. There was something I hadn't said yet: it had to do with what images have stayed with me after watching the film. The following is the comment I made on Steven's blog and I decided to post it here also.
"What stays with me are the faces of the Aborigines. Herzog has the camera linger on them much longer than on the white faces. It's almost as though they are a force of nature and not ephemeral beings such as we "civilized people" are. They are rooted solidly while we are transients, if that makes any sense."
I am reminded of the Zen dictum by Yun-Men:
In walking, just walk
In sitting, just sit
Above all, don't wobble
In the film, the Aborigines walked and sat, while the whites wobbled.
Showing posts with label Fata Morgana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fata Morgana. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Friday, June 4, 2010
Fata Morgana: a film by Werner Herzog
Fata Morgana is my nominee for the strangest film I've viewed this year. It came out in 1971, but I just recently noticed it and decided to give it a viewing. Werner Herzog is the director, and this is one of his earliest films: the third to be exact. In the commentary included on the DVD, Herzog said that this film contains many of the themes that he explored in greater detail in his later films. I watched the film twice; the second time with the commentary by Herzog. If you do watch the film, I highly recommend watching the commentary version at some point. It helps.
The title, Fata Morgana, is an Italian term that refers to an unusual and very complex type of mirage. It refers to Morgan le Fay, from the Arthurian cycle, and suggests the belief that the mirage is produced by witchcraft. Several mirages are presented throughout the film, some of which I didn't realize were mirages until it was pointed out during the viewing with the commentary turned on.
The film has no plot, at least not in the accepted sense of the term. In addition, Herzog states that this is not a documentary. I agree with him--at least, again, not a documentary in the usual sense. Herzog also insists that "there is a coherence there which is inexplicable but somehow there." Ultimately, I consider it unclassifiable. For the most part it is a series of short scenes and images shot in the northern Sahara Desert. The dialogue is almost non-existent, consisting of short voice-overs: readings from the Popol Vuh, which is the Mayan creation myth, and music ranging from classical ecclesiastical works to songs by Leonard Cohen.
Herzog says that initially it was to be an SF film. Aliens land on a planet and film what they see. This was to be a photojournal of their visit. However, he quickly dropped the idea and decided that he would just present the film images without the story.
The film has three parts: "Creation," "Paradise," and "The Golden Age." One commentary I read stated that on the surface, the titles appear ironic in contrast to the film images, but are not ironic at a deeper level. Unfortunately I am unable so far to get to that deeper level.
The film opens with an airport scene: we see a number of planes landing, each one getting more and more blurred and distorted as the day warms up.
Part I: Creation
As we hear a woman's voice reading the Mayan creation myth in German (English subtitles) we see images of the desert with buildings off in the distance, sand dunes, an oasis with palm trees, and huge storage tanks. Other scenes include a wrecked plane, an oil field perhaps burning off natural gas, and a flat landscape with sand and brush. One might almost call it a collage of images.
People occasionally appear in brief glimpses, but with no discernible purpose. Herzog commented that he couldn't communicate with them, so they were free to do what they wanted. Some just glanced at the camera and walked on. Others stood there and stared back. One man gestured with his hands, first pointing in one direction, then another, and then shrugged his shoulder and walked off.
I was startled when lush vegetation and once a beautiful waterfall appeared. These were not from the Sahara but scenes shot later in the Canary Islands. Again, the commentary was helpful here. However, there seemed to be no attempt to draw any conclusion from the juxtaposition of the barren scenery and the waterfall. It was up to the viewers, I guess, to make of it what they would or could.
Part II: Paradise
Again, a series of images that contrast with the usual concept of a Paradise. There are people again engaged in inexplicable, to me anyway, activity. A man and a woman approach the camera, both taking very short steps. He wears a coat that has many medals and begins speaking. There is no translation, and Herzog commented that they had no idea of what he was saying. During this segment Leonard Cohen sings two songs, one of which is "Suzanne." One scene is of a German researcher who is holding a monitor lizard that obviously fascinates him. He wears what appears to be swim or diving goggles. At one point a man appears holding a very worn and creased letter that is falling apart. He says, in German, that he is going back to rejoin his people in Germany. He got the letter over 25 years ago. Other images are of a Moslem cemetery, a military camp, and the site of a French test of a nuclear weapon.
Part III: The Golden Age
The most striking image in this section consists of a man and a woman on a small stage: she plays the piano and he sings and plays the drums and cymbals. He is singing in Spanish, but the sound quality is so bad I couldn't tell what language it is. The music and the movement of the two are so repetitive that I wonder if it is just one short clip of ten or fifteen seconds that has been repeatedly copied and spliced together. But, in spite of the repetition and monotonous tone, it is strangely compelling. Even now, almost a week after I watched the film, I can still recall that scene.
At one point, a voice intones that there "the landscape was as God commanded it to be." The scene was of a military camp. Another scene is of a huge unfinished factory building, only the structural girders have been installed. It is surrounded by desert; there is nothing, absolutely nothing to be seen for miles. Who built it? Why was it built there, in the middle of nowhere? Who was supposed to work there? Nobody knew anything about it.
Fata Morgana reminds me of a type of psychological test called a projective test: the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test, for example. They consist of ambiguous images which the individual is supposed to interpret and say something about. What the person says about the images is supposed to reveal some aspects of that individual's personality.
Overall Rating: It's one that I put back in the queue for another viewing, perhaps next year. I'll leave it sit and percolate in my subconscious for awhile.
The title, Fata Morgana, is an Italian term that refers to an unusual and very complex type of mirage. It refers to Morgan le Fay, from the Arthurian cycle, and suggests the belief that the mirage is produced by witchcraft. Several mirages are presented throughout the film, some of which I didn't realize were mirages until it was pointed out during the viewing with the commentary turned on.
The film has no plot, at least not in the accepted sense of the term. In addition, Herzog states that this is not a documentary. I agree with him--at least, again, not a documentary in the usual sense. Herzog also insists that "there is a coherence there which is inexplicable but somehow there." Ultimately, I consider it unclassifiable. For the most part it is a series of short scenes and images shot in the northern Sahara Desert. The dialogue is almost non-existent, consisting of short voice-overs: readings from the Popol Vuh, which is the Mayan creation myth, and music ranging from classical ecclesiastical works to songs by Leonard Cohen.
Herzog says that initially it was to be an SF film. Aliens land on a planet and film what they see. This was to be a photojournal of their visit. However, he quickly dropped the idea and decided that he would just present the film images without the story.
The film has three parts: "Creation," "Paradise," and "The Golden Age." One commentary I read stated that on the surface, the titles appear ironic in contrast to the film images, but are not ironic at a deeper level. Unfortunately I am unable so far to get to that deeper level.
The film opens with an airport scene: we see a number of planes landing, each one getting more and more blurred and distorted as the day warms up.
Part I: Creation
As we hear a woman's voice reading the Mayan creation myth in German (English subtitles) we see images of the desert with buildings off in the distance, sand dunes, an oasis with palm trees, and huge storage tanks. Other scenes include a wrecked plane, an oil field perhaps burning off natural gas, and a flat landscape with sand and brush. One might almost call it a collage of images.
People occasionally appear in brief glimpses, but with no discernible purpose. Herzog commented that he couldn't communicate with them, so they were free to do what they wanted. Some just glanced at the camera and walked on. Others stood there and stared back. One man gestured with his hands, first pointing in one direction, then another, and then shrugged his shoulder and walked off.
I was startled when lush vegetation and once a beautiful waterfall appeared. These were not from the Sahara but scenes shot later in the Canary Islands. Again, the commentary was helpful here. However, there seemed to be no attempt to draw any conclusion from the juxtaposition of the barren scenery and the waterfall. It was up to the viewers, I guess, to make of it what they would or could.
Part II: Paradise
Again, a series of images that contrast with the usual concept of a Paradise. There are people again engaged in inexplicable, to me anyway, activity. A man and a woman approach the camera, both taking very short steps. He wears a coat that has many medals and begins speaking. There is no translation, and Herzog commented that they had no idea of what he was saying. During this segment Leonard Cohen sings two songs, one of which is "Suzanne." One scene is of a German researcher who is holding a monitor lizard that obviously fascinates him. He wears what appears to be swim or diving goggles. At one point a man appears holding a very worn and creased letter that is falling apart. He says, in German, that he is going back to rejoin his people in Germany. He got the letter over 25 years ago. Other images are of a Moslem cemetery, a military camp, and the site of a French test of a nuclear weapon.
Part III: The Golden Age
The most striking image in this section consists of a man and a woman on a small stage: she plays the piano and he sings and plays the drums and cymbals. He is singing in Spanish, but the sound quality is so bad I couldn't tell what language it is. The music and the movement of the two are so repetitive that I wonder if it is just one short clip of ten or fifteen seconds that has been repeatedly copied and spliced together. But, in spite of the repetition and monotonous tone, it is strangely compelling. Even now, almost a week after I watched the film, I can still recall that scene.
At one point, a voice intones that there "the landscape was as God commanded it to be." The scene was of a military camp. Another scene is of a huge unfinished factory building, only the structural girders have been installed. It is surrounded by desert; there is nothing, absolutely nothing to be seen for miles. Who built it? Why was it built there, in the middle of nowhere? Who was supposed to work there? Nobody knew anything about it.
Fata Morgana reminds me of a type of psychological test called a projective test: the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test, for example. They consist of ambiguous images which the individual is supposed to interpret and say something about. What the person says about the images is supposed to reveal some aspects of that individual's personality.
Overall Rating: It's one that I put back in the queue for another viewing, perhaps next year. I'll leave it sit and percolate in my subconscious for awhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)