Shut up, Werner

I agree with you 100% and I am so very very happy to see someone started a thread about this already b/c it means someone else noticed the issues and found fault with them.
SPOILERS BELOW as well as a very strong opinion.

Call me a purist or a nitpicker, I don't care. I believe documentary films are more than news/journalism but less than movies, but I hold them up to the truth that news agencies and documentary programming channels require as well as the people interviewed or showcased be natural, unscripted, and nothing staged unless that is the type of story being shown.

Here are my issues w/ the film:
As a documentary film maker, there is a sort of unspoken code of ethics that many film makers and major channels providing documentary-esq shows (such as Nat Geo channel) really do hold their crews up to, which in my opinion, is appropriate when dealing with a true life topic using available actual footage. Unless it is an opinion piece or about something in your life, it's inappropriate to write yourself into the film. Another documentary that I found issues with for similar situations was Born into Brothels. Also, unprincipled Michael Moore breaks many many many documentary ethics so I refrain from watching his films as well.

After the interview with the pilot and man hired to help with the clean up, it became obvious Werner slowly took control of people interviewed in the film with the staging and direction becoming more and more evident (omg the horrific over the top coroner presenting the watch to Treadwell's ex girlfriend as if it was a delicate breakable award!!!). I got more and more angry that here he took Treadwell's footage which is gorgeous, amazing and captured some rare wild nature moments that most people would never get the chance to see, added 2 unscripted authentic looking interviews, then takes what could have been a *great* yet debatable (by the viewer) tribute to the man whose footage he was using, but instead turns it into an unethical crapfest with staged events (coroner presenting watch to name one) and interjecting his unsolicited presence and opinions. The film is supposed to be about Treadwell, not Herzog's opinions. If he wanted to introduce his opinions, he should have found people that believed the same way he does and include unstaged, unscripted interviews with them. He changed the entire nature of the film half way through!

You could see the people "interviewed" (acting out their part) looking at Herzog for more direction and the awkwardness of the moments. The freakish coroner describing the metal case the remains arrived in, then talking about the audio and going to far as to explain so ridiculously how someone listens to audio on a cassette was enough for me to stop the film. If Werner wanted to give this guy direction, he should have had him watch a few eps of cold case files or american justice so the coroner could see what information is presented and a professional way to present it. instead they went into a closer tight face shot and got the crazed look in the coroner's eyes which i felt was 100times more disturbing than the content. after his speech, they pulled back into a wide coverage shot. the coroner relaxed and turned into what looked to be a normal person. how much of what the coroner did was encouraged? i was just honestly shocked to the point of anger. I walked it off, regrouped and returned.

I soon had another problem. The extended scene that had absolutely nada to do with Treadwell from the ex girlfriend about how she met Tim. They worked together in the same restaurant was all she needed to say. Was a counter zoom dolly shot *really* necessary during their conversation? Then they took us back into the mauling. Instead of showing investigation photos of the campsite (not coroner photos) or even just shots of Treadwell (or a montage w/ his animal interaction moments) and doing a voiceover saying something along the lines of "upon hearing the tape that recorded the mauling deaths of Treadwell and girlfriend, the producers decided it was too morbid to include", or even too graphic or too disturbing, etc. But what does he do? He does what he always finds a way to do in all his documentaries i've seen...he injects not only his voice into the film but now his body as the shot shows him (from back/profile) listening to the mauling tape. That's followed by a heavy handed emotional manipulative action: silent handholding moments and apparently Werner showing his emotion bringing the ex to tears. I was getting sicker at that point. But then he crossed yet another "i can't believe this!!" screaming at the tv moment. He proceeds to give her unsolicited and ^all knowing^ advice on never listen to the tape, never look at the photos, demanding a promise, etc. If that wasn't bad enough, yes superfriends, it gets worse. He took it even further. How egoistical and i-know-better-than-anyone is this man that he tells Treadwell's ex that she should destroy the tape. After all the manipulation and power craving, it felt like he wanted her to destroy it right there and then, as if he wanted to be the last person "privileged" to hear it. Disgusting. That required another stop and walking off.

I regrouped and came back only to hear Werner later actually say he disagrees with Treadwell's thought processes and idealistic views around the time Treadwell finds the remains of a dead cub and caresses the paw mournfully. For starters, Treadwell being a recovering alcoholic, i'm sure his view of life wasn't idealistic, and that's also evident in several of the frustrated moments we hear Treadwell on film. Outside of the mauling, life wasn't 100% hunky dory for Treadwell out in the wild. There are long moments Herzog chose to put in the documentary, that Treadwell would have deleted in editing, that reveal Treadwell cursing in frustration, being irritated and angry at the foxes, not happy with his life, etc. Yes, on the part of the film Treadwell intended viewers to see, he was very idealistic sounding because he was trying to make a point, no matter how ill advised. While mourning the circle of life moment, Treadwell talks about his beliefs and Mr Ego, er Mr Herzog, says pretty much outright in the narrative "i don't agree." I was once again saying "i don't believe this! I thought this was a film highlighting the life and death of Treadwell and girlfriend, not Herzog's unwanted opinions." I had to stop it and couldn't go back into it. I honestly did give it a try, several tries. Unprincipled documentary film making is something I truly have serious issues with.

I can say that I haven't seen a Herzog documentary that I have liked. They always do something annoying, be it the way they are shot or I find things ethically wrong with them. In the end, the film was falsely advertised at best. A more accurate title would have been "Herzog on Treadwell". I also do not credit Herzog in any way shape or form for the beautiful and rare footage Treadwell caught on tape. Give credit where it is due, and it is due to Treadwell. If the film is beautiful as often described, it is thanks to Treadwell, but most of the time Herzog gets the credit by viewers and critics.

Granted I am extremely opinionated and have extremely high expectations of films, but I hold documentaries to a higher ethical level because they deal in truths. If it is an opinion piece, describe it as one. Alan Berliner's "Wide Awake", Schulman and Joost's "Catfish", Brodsky's "Hear and Now" are perfect examples of that. I'm not against documentary film makers making opinion pieces and/or being in their films, in fact I usually like them. I just don't want to be sucked into something under false pretenses and watch something that has the potential to be very well done (w/o interference) fall completely apart and, in my case with Grizzly Man, become completely unwatchable. Werner simply cannot be trusted with documentaries.



"The mainframe is out of the coolant!" Mace (Sunshine 2007)

I agree Werner is an idiot and it should've been an American directing the movie.

That's the great thing about Werner's docs and his signature style: he puts himself and his thoughts and reflections into his work. And they are pretty much on point.
There are hundreds of others documentarians just documenting with their camera. I'm glad to see someone different.

A great deal of the films success comes from Herzog's approach. Though the interviewees were closely affected by the events, Herzog comes with an outsiders perspective and neither praises Treadwell's ventures, nor belittles him. Herzog merely attempts to analyze the psyche of a man who thinks he can live amongst ferocious grizzly bears and come out unscathed. This lack of judgment on Herzog's part allows the audience to drop their judgmental mindset also, making for one of the most fascinating character studies of the last decade.

Well, the truth is, if it weren't for Herzog, you probably would never even have heard of Treadwell, and certainly not have seen his amateur videos of himself in the wild with bears. Treadwell would simply be part of an internet search of people killed by bears. You'd have no idea who he was, his background, soul, or humanity. You owe Herzog for even selecting his subject for you to witness.

But I had the same thought as you at first: "How is this HERZOG's movie, if Treadwell has created most of the footage?" But as the film goes on, we see it is not Herzog's intention to simply relay Treadwell's summer vacation films back to us. The unedited video of Treadwell is, despite the amazing subject matter, unedifying; it is simply a man who plays and lives with bears for 13 summers.

But Herzog adds his commentary, which is often critical, but always human and searching. He gives full dignity to Treadwell, at the same time criticizing his choices, and even suggesting Treadwell is delusional about nature.

It is quite possible we might come to the same conclusions if we saw Treadwell's unedited videos (how many hours would that be?).
But Herzog shows enough respect to the subject to select it and represent it, and much of the film is completely void of Herzog's narrative. We indeed see Treadwell as, finally, the rejected actor from a Cheers audition, as the star of his own show.

Herzog does this with all of his documentaries. He even admits to writing lines of dialogue and creating fake stories for his interview subjects to read on camera--after being rehearsed, of course. The guy has talent, but you can't trust any documentary he makes.

I agree with statements offered in this thread that there's no such thing as an objective truth or viewpoint, and therefore every documentary is ultimately an opinion piece. But to me, the difference is other documentary film makers at least put forth an honest effort of presenting multiple sides. Or, failing that, stoop to merely manipulating the facts. Herzog outright lies on camera.