Can someone convince me that this was good?

I've also been watching Herzog since Fitzcarraldo was in theaters, and I interpret this as a misbegotten project.

As far as I could tell, it looks as if it was shot with one camera, but not by choice. Virtually every scene seems to beg for cutaways or variation in perspective that is not there. I'm guessing perhaps there was a technical problem with the 2nd camera, or some other kind of mishap that prevented the 2nd camera from being in production. Whatever the case, the very static single camera does not feel deliberate or confident at all, especially from an experienced director like WH.

I don't think Herzog is at his best with drama in general, and the whole thing seems pretty slack, but the camera trouble is critical. We can see most of the actors falling slightly out of scene from time to time, because they are anticipating cuts being made or are uncertain as to where to play to. The only performer who rises above the mess is Dafoe. He seems to be aware the movie is a bit out of control, and goes a bit stentorian in grounding it. The other actors would probably have been fine if they were recorded with more technical mastery. Shannon in particular looks here like a beast who's been captured by amateurs; his magic is continually escaping the lens.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087239/

to the OP -

Similar history here - big admirer of both Lynch & Herzog and have been through both of their catalogues almost entirely. I'll try to respond, but I'm not going to try to "convince" you of anything. That admiration has to come from you.

I just really found this a struggle to watch, since it meandered between the ludicrous and the farcical and the whole thing seemed aimless.

See, I found it fascinating to watch for the same reasons you've stated. I like the film's pointlessness, its meandering nature, its rather bastard-child identity. Why should this film exist? Herzog refuses to meet us halfway on that answer.

It's funny to introduce films like this to audiences unfamiliar with Herzog - they'll tear their hair out during scenes like the "jello freeze shot", or the flamingos, or the pizza delivery scene that seems to go on for ages. But to those familiar with the way Herzog rolls, this stuff felt right at home for me. I watch Herzog films looking to watch the man's continually-unfolding obsession with "the periphery", his inability to leave potential magic and accidents unfilmed. Take the scene where there's that "freeze-frame" as mom serves the black jello. It's obviously not a freeze-frame, and Herzog's thematic reasons for filming that scene in this way are almost another discussion. Aesthetically, though, it's fascinating to watch him set up a scene and simply let the camera roll to see what comes through the celluloid. The scene with the little man at the ostrich farm is another moment where the film flies right off the rails - it's exciting stuff, I think.

None of this adds up to much of anything, but one could make the same argument for a lot of art. What remains is Herzog's interest to get this on film, and in any really good Herzog film you get the sense of drive that insists he "goes there".

Now, in contrast, his latest film "Queen of the Desert" was insufferably boring, and absolutely zero edge. I've never said that about a Herzog film before. And THAT movie HAD a point, a plot, a "reason". So I guess, for me, I'd rather have a pointles mess that's plugged right into Herzog's matrix rather than one that seems as if it could be directed by anybody.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -