清空播放记录
剧照
更新时间：2023-09-05 18:14
详细剧情
20世纪初南美秘鲁。痴迷歌剧的白人菲茨杰拉德（克劳斯·金斯基 Klaus Kinski饰）被当地人称为空想家“菲茨卡拉多”。菲茨卡拉多经常做出一些令人无法理解的举动，尤其当他在巴西的亚马逊大剧院欣赏到世界著名男高音卡鲁索的演出之后，居然萌生出要在秘鲁小镇上也修建出一座宏大剧院的疯狂念头。为了获得足够的资金，菲茨卡拉多接受了当地橡胶大亨向他提出到神秘恐怖的乌圭里亚林区进行收割的任务，一段惊险刺激的旅程随之开始。 由德国著名导演沃纳·赫尔佐格执导的影片《陆上行舟》，荣获1982年第35届戛纳电影节主竞赛单元-最佳导演奖并入围该届金棕榈奖提名，以及入围1983年第40届金球奖最佳外语片提名。
长篇影评
1 ) 南美史前史的最后一部，但绝不是百年孤独的结局
从某种程度上，《陆上行舟》完全可以看作是霍尔佐格《阿基尔，上帝的愤怒》（1972）的续集。当阿基尔最后和一群猴子一起孤独的死去，经过几百年时间，南美大陆几乎已被欧洲殖民者完全占有和开拓。所剩之处寥寥无几，神秘面纱渐渐揭开，土著印第安人也退入更深的丛林腹地。当既得利益者开始趋于保守时，新的探险也就再次开始了。阿基尔复活后就是菲兹卡拉多，他和一群流浪儿和一只猪在一起。从本质上讲，这两部影片表现的疯狂，强力意志，趋近于幻想的理想，其内核是一致的。只是一个碰巧实现了，而另一个永远死在那里。
从阿基尔的冒险到菲兹卡拉多的冒险，其中疯狂的也是一脉相承的。也只是有的实现了，有的没有实现。而整个疯狂史，正好构成了另一版本的《百年孤独》。把这三个东西合在一起看，也许会更有意思。
说这是一部表现理想主义的影片，倒不如说它是描述理想由狂妄走向幻灭再侥幸成功后走向虚无的一个过程。或许只有那个主人公自己明白，他是如何发现这梦幻背后的寂静的。当众人都害怕那寂静时，只有这种极度自大超越于道德之外的狂徒才会迎难而上。在《阿基尔，上帝的愤怒》里，人们说大屠杀之前有一种寂静能把人逼疯。而对一个疯子而言，那种寂静才是他要找的地方——他要去完成上帝未完成的造化。阿基尔说，他将和他的女儿结婚，建立一个有史以来最纯种的王朝。而在《陆上行舟》，菲兹卡拉多要建立的可能是南美最大的歌剧院。武力征服和血统已不再重要，取而代之的是文化，而且是非基督教的歌剧。他到底有多爱那个情人，这在影片中也显得毫不重要。最后他的情人只在人群中出现了一个“中景”，而只有他一个人在船上的特写。尽管有卡鲁索，有歌剧，恐怕那一刻他想的要更为复杂。
他对不懂歌剧的猪讲过一个故事：说是第一个看见尼加拉瓜大瀑布的白人回来告诉他的同伴，瀑布有多大，他的同伴都不相信，问他“你有什么证据证明？”他只说“我看见了”。我看见了，这就是唯一的证明。而正是在这里，菲兹卡拉多的狂妄得到了平息。在侥幸回来之后，他已经不再执着于开发橡胶园，赚钱建歌剧院的狂想了。他只是把歌剧团请到了船上，让他们在船上演唱。他发现他最真实需要的其实只是一种“看见”，他希望回来之后，告诉人们“他看见了”。而且除了说“看见”，他无法用其他东西来证明。很多东西他是无力的，无论他怎么疯狂。如阿基尔，不成功，便是死（不是成仁）；如菲兹卡拉多，既成功，也不成仁。换句话说，那不如说是对自我的一种超越和再创造，而这之后就是虚无。(艺术或许是这虚无的唯一消遣)人完成它自己，而那上帝未完成的造化之地，在人走之后，上帝会回来继续完成。
在这两部片子中还有一个值得玩味的地方，就是文明和野蛮的冲突以及文明人和印第安人的不同表现（权且不管这种描述对印第安人是否公正）。在《阿基尔，上帝的愤怒》中，印第安人为了把殖民者引入圈套编造了一个“黄金陆地”的传说。最后殖民者果真在利益的驱使下走进圈套，全部死光。印第安人象征性地赢了。而在阿基尔到菲兹卡拉多的几百年间，西方通过理性主义和科学进入了工业文明(文明翻倍)，而印第安人在挤压和掠夺下仍然原封不动（他们的后代或者成了基督徒，或者躲进了更深的丛林——野蛮加倍）。这时，出现了一个“白色神器”的传说（这个传说的来源颇为不明），一方面印第安人笃信这个传说，而另一方面菲兹卡拉多认为他们可以利用这个传说。最后，印第安人再次象征性地赢了：他们帮助菲兹卡拉多把船拖过山，并顺利将船放入激流，以此平息激流中的鬼魂。然后，菲兹卡拉多之后的殖民者再来占领和掠夺这最后的无主之地。整个南美大陆的土著史就此结束，印第安人彻底灭绝。
（说到这里，想起几部片子的结局都是惊人的相似，依顺序排列是梅尔吉布森的《玛雅启示录》（可看作欧洲人第一次来到南美大陆），接着《阿基尔，上帝的愤怒》（欧洲人开始掠夺）然后是佩雷拉德桑托斯的《美味法国人的诅咒》（殖民者开始互相争夺，鼓动土著部落战争），最后是这部《陆上行舟》（也即殖民的终结，宗主国已开始衰落，新的国家开始形成），或可谓南美史前史四部曲也）但上帝还不会出现，因为人类的疯狂史还没有终结。在这里，只是菲兹卡拉多这个人的完成，也是霍尔佐格这部电影的完成。
从阿基尔的冒险到菲兹卡拉多的冒险，其中疯狂的也是一脉相承的。也只是有的实现了，有的没有实现。而整个疯狂史，正好构成了另一版本的《百年孤独》。把这三个东西合在一起看，也许会更有意思。
说这是一部表现理想主义的影片，倒不如说它是描述理想由狂妄走向幻灭再侥幸成功后走向虚无的一个过程。或许只有那个主人公自己明白，他是如何发现这梦幻背后的寂静的。当众人都害怕那寂静时，只有这种极度自大超越于道德之外的狂徒才会迎难而上。在《阿基尔，上帝的愤怒》里，人们说大屠杀之前有一种寂静能把人逼疯。而对一个疯子而言，那种寂静才是他要找的地方——他要去完成上帝未完成的造化。阿基尔说，他将和他的女儿结婚，建立一个有史以来最纯种的王朝。而在《陆上行舟》，菲兹卡拉多要建立的可能是南美最大的歌剧院。武力征服和血统已不再重要，取而代之的是文化，而且是非基督教的歌剧。他到底有多爱那个情人，这在影片中也显得毫不重要。最后他的情人只在人群中出现了一个“中景”，而只有他一个人在船上的特写。尽管有卡鲁索，有歌剧，恐怕那一刻他想的要更为复杂。
他对不懂歌剧的猪讲过一个故事：说是第一个看见尼加拉瓜大瀑布的白人回来告诉他的同伴，瀑布有多大，他的同伴都不相信，问他“你有什么证据证明？”他只说“我看见了”。我看见了，这就是唯一的证明。而正是在这里，菲兹卡拉多的狂妄得到了平息。在侥幸回来之后，他已经不再执着于开发橡胶园，赚钱建歌剧院的狂想了。他只是把歌剧团请到了船上，让他们在船上演唱。他发现他最真实需要的其实只是一种“看见”，他希望回来之后，告诉人们“他看见了”。而且除了说“看见”，他无法用其他东西来证明。很多东西他是无力的，无论他怎么疯狂。如阿基尔，不成功，便是死（不是成仁）；如菲兹卡拉多，既成功，也不成仁。换句话说，那不如说是对自我的一种超越和再创造，而这之后就是虚无。(艺术或许是这虚无的唯一消遣)人完成它自己，而那上帝未完成的造化之地，在人走之后，上帝会回来继续完成。
在这两部片子中还有一个值得玩味的地方，就是文明和野蛮的冲突以及文明人和印第安人的不同表现（权且不管这种描述对印第安人是否公正）。在《阿基尔，上帝的愤怒》中，印第安人为了把殖民者引入圈套编造了一个“黄金陆地”的传说。最后殖民者果真在利益的驱使下走进圈套，全部死光。印第安人象征性地赢了。而在阿基尔到菲兹卡拉多的几百年间，西方通过理性主义和科学进入了工业文明(文明翻倍)，而印第安人在挤压和掠夺下仍然原封不动（他们的后代或者成了基督徒，或者躲进了更深的丛林——野蛮加倍）。这时，出现了一个“白色神器”的传说（这个传说的来源颇为不明），一方面印第安人笃信这个传说，而另一方面菲兹卡拉多认为他们可以利用这个传说。最后，印第安人再次象征性地赢了：他们帮助菲兹卡拉多把船拖过山，并顺利将船放入激流，以此平息激流中的鬼魂。然后，菲兹卡拉多之后的殖民者再来占领和掠夺这最后的无主之地。整个南美大陆的土著史就此结束，印第安人彻底灭绝。
（说到这里，想起几部片子的结局都是惊人的相似，依顺序排列是梅尔吉布森的《玛雅启示录》（可看作欧洲人第一次来到南美大陆），接着《阿基尔，上帝的愤怒》（欧洲人开始掠夺）然后是佩雷拉德桑托斯的《美味法国人的诅咒》（殖民者开始互相争夺，鼓动土著部落战争），最后是这部《陆上行舟》（也即殖民的终结，宗主国已开始衰落，新的国家开始形成），或可谓南美史前史四部曲也）但上帝还不会出现，因为人类的疯狂史还没有终结。在这里，只是菲兹卡拉多这个人的完成，也是霍尔佐格这部电影的完成。
2 ) Opera in an unfinished land: an examination of Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo
研究生Screen Style and Aesthetics课程论文，引用请注明作者Yayi Mo
German filmmaker Werner Herzog’s feature film Fitzcarraldo (1982) begins with the title character (Klaus Kinski), an ecstatic opera lover, who attempts to build a great opera house in Iquitos of the Peruvian Amazon where his idol, Enrico Caruso, can perform. The film ends with Fitzcarraldo achieving a victory of sorts that he brings a small-time European opera troupe to a boat for a single performance. However, the central dramatic action of this film is not the process of building a grand opera house but the protagonist’s attempt and success in dragging an enormous steamship over a nearly vertical mountain that separates two rivers.
Herzog has a distinguishing conception of human and nature. Like its antecedent Aguirre, Wrath of God (1972), Fitzcarraldo also sets the story in the Amazonian jungle, “an unfinished land with curse that God creates it in anger”. In Burden of dreams (1982), a documentary on the production of Fitzcarraldo, Herzog describes the jungle as “the enormous articulation of vileness, baseness and obscenity”, compare to which human is only “badly pronounced and half-finished sentences”. Apart from this, Herzog’s other documentary Grizzly Man (2005) centres on a tragic hero’s life, examining the cruelty of wild animals and the “overwhelming indifference” of nature. It is safe to say that “human struggles against nature” is a recurring theme in his works.
However, what Herzog attempts to explore in Fitzcarraldo is not “human and nature” but rather “opera and nature”, in other word, art and nature. Although Herzog repeatedly asserted the visual primacy of his films (Rogers, 2004, p77), the musical component of Fitzcarraldo should not be disregarded. On the one hand, this Amazonian adventure film has an operatic, grand-scale narrative structure. On the other hand, while the actual ‘opera house’ remains absent during the epic jungle-exploring journey, opera arias in various forms do appear several times in the entire film, including the opening sequence that Caruso performs arias on a grand opera house, the struggle-against-the-rapids scene that opera music is played through a gramophone among hundreds of headhunters, and the ending scene in which a travelling opera troupe preforms Bellini’s I Puritani on a steamship along the river. Especially, in the climactic scene when the boat is slowly rising up the mountain, the operatic accompaniment makes this ship-hailing undertaking a visual-musical spectacular. That is to say, though the protagonist fulfills his operatic dream indirectly, the thematic connection between art and nature is clear in Fitzcarraldo.
Herzog is a distinguished filmmaker not only famous for his precise articulation of filmic themes but also his stylistic idiosyncrasy and monomaniacal obsession, or in other words, he is notoriously difficult to cooperate with (Arthur, 2005), which is similar to his protagonist Fitzcarraldo. Just as the eponymous character in Fitzcarraldo, Herzog pursues his dreams with ultimate madness and crazed energy, which raises the following questions: what is the relation between Fitzcarraldo and Herzog? How has Herzog’s conception of “art and nature” influenced his filmic articulation to his works?
Ultimately this essay focuses specifically on the image of Fitzcarraldo and his relation to Herzog, also on the thematic connection of art and nature in Fitzcarraldo. In section one, I conduct a detailed analysis of the party scene and I first examine the image of the protagonist as “the conquistador of the useless” and then I explore the two images of the protagonist Fitzcarraldo as well as the director Herzog. The latter half of this essay analyses the climactic ship-hauling scene in detail. By examining the complementary treatment of visual and musical aspects, it may be possible to understand Herzog’s attempt to use art as a “human articulation” against the nature.
Section one: the party scene
“The conquistador of the useless”
Fitzcarraldo’s obsession of opera is introduced in the opening sequences that he has rowed 1200 miles for two days and nights down the Amazon to see Caruso’s performance in person. When watching the opera, Fitzcarraldo believes that the dying protagonist on stage is pointing at him. He interprets it as a sacred transferring ceremony that the most renowned opera performer has transferred the musical life to him, he thus has found and absorbed the cultural power embodied in the opera (Rogers, 2004, p92). After this sacred transferring ceremony, he determines to build a grand opera house into the jungle. His lover Molly (Claudia Cardinale) considers him as “a dreamer who moves mountains”, while he identifies himself as a fulfiller of dreams.
At other point, however, a dreamer as Fitzcarraldo is someone who lacks the ability to differentiate reality from dreams. In this very opening sequence, he believes himself has absorbed the musical power of opera and since then he has transferred the real world to a musical make-believe one. To defend his dream against the artless, unmusical ‘old’ world, he fights with crazed energy, including climbs to the top of a Church tower, striking the bell and threatening the Church will remain closed until Iquitos builds an opera house. These establishing scenes demonstrate his refusal to differentiate between the reality and dream. His monomania of the opera dream continues in the party scene when he attends with his lover Molly at a wealthy rubber baron’s house.
This party scene is striking example that Fitzcarraldo lacks the ability to differentiate reality from dreams and thus feels the sense of otherness and alienation in real world. When attends the party, Fitzcarraldo directly brings out his gramophone and begins to set up this musical equipment in the middle of the hall. Meanwhile, Molly walks around waving her feather hand fan, “please, may we have your attention”, but no one seems to be intrigued. Without any introduction, Fitzcarraldo plays the opera music. In the middle of all the indifferent guests, he utterly immerses himself into his beloved opera, while Molly is looking around and trying to attract the guests’ attention. Don Aquilino (José Lewgoy), a rubber baron, the host of the party, keeps talking with another magnate, remains aloof from Fitzcarraldo’s action. Accompanying these is an uncut shot, just as the operatic music sounds absurdly out of place, Fitzcarraldo looks absolutely alienated. Herzog puts Fitzcarraldo in such situation to depict the sense of otherness and alienation that Fitzcarraldo always feels, recalls the previous sequences that he is either surrounded by a group of drunken card-playing barons or a crowd of shirtless foreign-language-speaking Amazonians. While Fitzcarraldo becomes completely engrossed in Caruso’s mechanically reproduced voice that he remains unaware of the other audiences’ inattention, a guest directly walks toward the gramophone and turns the music off. Fitzcarraldo becomes frenzied and attempts to punch the man, at the same time, Aquilino finally aware of Fitzcarraldo’s existence and immediately commands the servants to take him out. Fitzcarraldo gets rid of the servants to grab his gramophone, holding it in arms, looking around the indifferent crowd, causing a minor disturbance. To clam the guests, the amused host shouts “ladies and gentlemen, don’t worries, this gentleman is harmless”, while another steward proposes a meal prepared by “the dog’s cook” to Fitzcarraldo, derides him as “superb”. Accompanying this is a medium close-up shot of the stony, unsympathetic face of the steward and then the medium shot of Fitzcarraldo in an awkward position, with the heavy gramophone in arms, surrounded by the indifferent guests. Humiliated by the guests and the hosts, Fitzcarraldo continuously downs four drinks to his admired opera artists, but the steward stops him by proposing a toast sarcastically, “to Fitzcarraldo, the conquistador of the useless”. As the rubber barons unable to be touched by the opera, Fitzcarraldo cries to the amused audience, “the reality of your world is nothing more than a rotten caricature of great opera”, which demonstrating again Fitzcarraldo’s inability or rather unwillingness of differentiating reality from dreams.
In the eyes of the economic upper crust of Iquitos, Fitzcarraldo is nothing more than a harmless, useless and crazed “strange bird”, his eccentric attempt to bring an opera house to the jungle is nothing more than an unachievable business plan. Fitzcarraldo is juxtaposed with these European financial elites in several scenes, including the above-mentioned party scene, as well as the card-playing scene he tries to enlist the rubber barons’ financial support, while Aquilino taunts and ridicules his obsession with opera. Within the frame of repetitive close-ups, Fitzcarraldo’s face is sweaty, frenzied, contorted in disgust. It is worth noting that the bug-eyed maniac Klaus Kinski’s rendering of Fitzcarraldo is admittedly powerful, with true madness and absolute energy, as if “a beast has been domesticated and pressed into shape” (Herzog, My Best Fiend – Klaus Kinski, [1999]).
Pure dreamers
Some film scholars see Fitzcarraldo as a colonial hero (Prager, 2012, p25) or “an imperial agent of expansion”(Davidson, 1994, p69). Opera is a symbol of the European civilization, and Fitzcarraldo’s attempt to bring the opera house to the barbaric Latin America is viewed as an attempt of cultural enlightenment. In the scene when Fitzcarraldo first confronts the Jivaro, or what he calls, the “bare-asses”, he fires back with the arias of Caruso, the sound of the “white God”. He believes (perhaps at an unconscious level) opera has a particular power against the barbaric headhunters, as Dolkart (1985, p126) discusses, “devotion to and knowledge of opera represented entrance into the elite and disdain for indigenous culture”.
Despite these cultural interpretations of the figure of Fitzcarraldo, I want to discern his image in a more abstract, metaphysical meaning that, Fitzcarraldo is a pure dreamer, who seeks to fulfill his dream and eagers to express himself in an “other” land. In his words, opera “gives expressions to our greatest feelings”. Apart from the party scene, the film also shows his obsession with opera and inability to differentiate between reality and dream in other scenes, for example, when enters to the jungle, Fitzcarraldo is deeply intrigued by the words of an old missionary that “our everyday life is only an illusion, behind which lies the reality of dreams”. Fitzcarraldo replies, “actually I’m very interested in these ideas. I specialize opera myself”, making a connection between illusion and operatic articulation. As Herzog (2010) says, “what's beautiful about opera is that reality doesn't play any role in it at all”. For Fitzcarraldo, the operatic dream is the reason to live, to go through the illusions of life. As an opera impresario once said, “It [opera] lifts one so out of the sordid affairs of life and makes material things seem so petty, so inconsequential, it places one for the time being, at least, in a higher and better world” (quoted from Dolkart, 1985, p131). It is not the visionary of bringing European culture into Iquitos so much as the desire of articulation of “the Self” that distinguish Fitzcarraldo from those philistines, who only care about wealth and “a great name in Europe”.
These sequences raise questions about the Herzog’s conception of dreams and how he endeavors to achieve it. The documentary on the making of Fitzcarraldo, Burden of dreams (1982), continually reasserts the impossibility of the production of Fitzcarraldo: the harsh rainforest climate, the tribal wars, crew revolts and cast changing. Though encounters enormous difficulties, Herzog sticks at this impossible mission and pursues his goal with madness and crazed energy, “if I abandon this project, I would be a man without dreams and I don’t want to live like that”, to a point where the director’s dreams and Fitzcarraldo’s dreams meet. In other words, Fitzcarraldo is such a powerful and complex statement of Herzog’s monomaniacal obsession of “dreams”. The protagonist is a reproduction and a reflection of Herzog himself. Like Fitzcarraldo, Herzog is an aesthete with good ideas and a pure dreamer who attempts to pursue his goals. The word “pure” not only refers to the futility of the reality life and the pursuit of illusions, but also the filmic aestheticisation of uselessness. Fitzcarraldo is once mocked as “the conquistador of the useless” and likewise Herzog entitles his production diaries Conquest of the Useless (Thompson, 2011, p42), which highlights the connection between the two figures, two pure dreams. The concept of uselessness can be viewed in two ways. On the one hand, it refers to the idea of going to nowhere or returning in full circle. Fitzcarraldo’s adventure leads him to nowhere: his ship is damaged by Jivaro, the same crowd who helped him move the ship over the mountain, and he fails to get rubber, coming back where he started. But the concept of uselessness is aestheticized. The final tableau is an opera performance on the boat and although the glorious dream of building an opera house in the jungle fails, this triumphant ending scene is seen as a victory of sorts, a fulfillment of dream. On the other hand, uselessness can be seen as inability of self-expression, of “human articulation”, which I explore in detail in section two.
Section two: the climactic scene
Herzog’s “Ecstatic truth”
Herzog is a well-known auteur for his stylistic idiosyncrasy, recurrent themes and cultural-historical sensitivity (Dolkart, 1985, p126). For a better understanding of Herzog’s distinguishing view of natural landscape, it is essential to look at his own words: “I wanted an ecstatic detail of that landscape where all the drama, passion and human pathos became visible” (My Best Fiend – Klaus Kinski, [1999]). For him, landscape is not a backdrop of outstanding scenic beauty in Hollywood-style commercials, but rather a place filled with “indifference of nature” (Grizzly Man, [2005]), with “almost human qualities” (My Best Fiend – Klaus Kinski) and with “overwhelming and collective murder” and full of “fornication and asphyxiation and choking and fighting for survival and growing and just rotting away” (Burden of dreams, [1982]). Again in Fitzcarraldo Herzog sets the story in the barbaric Amazonian jungle, “an unfinished place with curse that God creates in anger”. Herzog’s view of nature sounds deeply pessimistic, but he claims he admire the nature, “I love it very much. But I love it against my better judgment” (Burden of dreams).
The most striking example to demonstrate Herzog’s obsession with visual authenticity of the natural landscape in Fitzcarraldo is the climactic scene when the steamship is dragged over the mountain separating the two rivers. This climactic ship-hauling scene consists of a series of documentary-like shots and a static one-minute long shot. It begins with several shots of the mechanism within the steamship and details how the complex pulling system works. The long documentary-like sequence also details their effort: cutting a path through the dense jungle, oiling the pulleys, and setting the hauling system. In these shots, the images of the jungle have a very crude, unfinished, and primeval texture, the natural landscape is represented with the visual authenticity that Herzog aims to impart. In the scene, we then hear Fitzcarraldo’s shouting, “we have two dead man”. In a tracking shot, he fretfully climbs over the supporting stakes, while Cholo, the mechanic of Fitzcarraldo’s crew, excitedly explains the ship-hauling plan to him. “We have two dead man!” Fitzcarraldo ignores Cholo and repeats, recalling their last failed attempt that two Jivaroan people died when dragging the ship. Additionally, this scene also reminds us of the director's own ambiguous filmmaking anecdotes, blurring the distinction between filmic reality and reality per se.
To pursue the documentary-like truth or rather what he called the “ecstatic truth”, Herzog prefers shooting on location rather than filming in studio (Ascárate, 2007), no matter how dangerous the shooting sites would be or what enormous difficulties the cast and crew would face. In addition to the authentic shooting sites, Herzog also employ the local Aguaruna people to play the “uncultivated” Jivaro, and insists on using the full-sized steamship in the climax instead of dismantling before the portage and also refuses to adopt miniatures or special effect. He also refuses the Brazilian engineer’s original ship-hauling mechanisms design, which the ship would be hauling at 20 degree up the mountain while Herzog insists on 40 degree. In Filmmakers’ Choices, John Gibbs (2006, p14) points out the significance of filmmakers’ decision-making, and
one of the best ways of determining what has been gained by the decisions taken in the construction of an artwork is to imagine the consequences of changing a single element of the design.
(John Gibbs, 2006, p14)
Perkins also contends “the director’s job is, particularly, to hold each and every moment of performance within a vision of the scene as a whole” (1981, p1143). In the case of Herzog, changing 40 degree to the initial 20 degree may seems insignificant but the vision of the climactic scene (in which the ship is rising up in a quite peculiar angle) may consequently changed. By considering why Herzog refuses the initial doable design and insists on the impracticable one, it may be possible to understand what he calls “the sublimity of images and their illuminating effect” (Weigel, 2010) in his films.
Because of his insistences on visual authenticity, Herzog earned a reputation for his “neurotic obsession” of ecstatic truth, and has been criticized by press and scholars. On the one hand, some dislike the idea of “realism” (Kael, 1982). On the other hand, some question Herzog’s view of nature and criticize it as nihilism (Arthur, 2005). As in Herzog’s films and documentaries, the vivid images of picturesque flora and fauna contradict his concept of nature “vileness, baseness and obscenity”, “the harmony of overwhelming and collective murder”. Despite the criticism, Herzog’s insistences seriously affect the visual authenticity of his works. In Fitzcarraldo, Herzog captures the distinguishing unique beauty and cruelty of nature, and composes his unique images of filmic landscape in the climactic scene.
Civilization’s opera and barbarism’s silence
Despite his obsession with visual authenticity, Herzog does not tend to prioritises the visual over the aural. In this film, music operates on two levels; one is the diegetic music of Caruso’s operatic recordings. Opera is sophisticatedly used in both time and place and functions as a crucial component in Fitzcarraldo, as William Van Wert (1986, P68) contends that, “the spectator may very well marvel at ‘haunting’ visuals in Herzog’s films, but the music that accompanies those visuals is what charges them, providing the ‘haunting,’ as much as the camera or editing”. In the journey, Fitzcarraldo equipped himself with a gramophone that plays arias. Opera becomes a travelling art and a mobile theatrical event, and always function as an external, often incongruous complement to the visual landscape.
The second musical level is the ‘acousmatic’ sound (Chion, 1999): the Latin American folk music composed by Popol Vuh and the ominous chanting and primitive drumming noises of the Jivaros. In an earlier scene when the crew enters the Jivaro Indian domain, they hear the constant noises of drumming and chanting, a threatening signal from the headhunters. As the beating sounds getting louder, Fitzcarraldo brings out the gramophone, and uses opera as a weapon of sorts to confront the Jivaro’s ominous chorus. The two contrasting sounds meet and mix in the midst of the primeval jungle, and then the Indian chorus is swallowed by the sound of opera arias and gradually mutes and disappears. As Dolkart (1985, p135) argues, opera is used to sharpen the contrast between civilization's arias and barbarism’s silences. At that night when Cholo proposes to use violence against the Jivaro's, Fitzcarraldo replies to take advantage of the myths of their gods, “this God doesn't come with canons. He comes with the voice of Caruso”. The next morning, when finds out his crew has deserted him, Fitzcarraldo again plays the opera. In a long tracking shot, the ship equipped with opera arias is slowly sailing up the river, while the Jivaros remain silent and mute. It appears that the civilization’s sounds have dominated the barbaric areas.
These musical and narrative strands converge at the climactic scene. With human efforts and engine power, the steamship is slowly moving over the mountain. Presented in a peculiar shot, the ship is slowly rising up in an oblique angle, while Fitzcarraldo is standing front the ship and shouting, to punctuate this dramatic moment: “we forget something –Caruso! Enrico Caruso!” After a shot of the bottom of the ship showing the mechanism and how it works, Caruso’s beautiful aria resounds in the midst of the primeval jungle, initiating an epic, breathtaking visual-musical interplay. In a one-minute long static shot, the ship is slowly moving up the steep slope with Caruso’s operatic accompaniment.
In the climactic scene, Caruso’s voice is no longer a mere incongruous complement or a contrasting sound against the barbarism, but as an integral component of the performance. Opera is a high art that combines extensive scenery and virtuoso singing, and all integrated into one grandiose visual-musical spectacle (Dolkart, 1985, p131). Herzog reconstructs the natural landscape, transforms the jungle into a grand opera stage. While watching this scene of the enormous steamship slowly moving up in the middle of this jungle stage, we become the audience inside an opera auditorium, and this one-minute long static scene is a breathtaking visual-musical opera spectacle. Despite the terribly scratchy quality of the opera recording, Caruso’s voice is with “an unspeakably dignified beauty, sad and strong and moving” (Herzog, 1982). To some extent, the steep mountain and the barbaric jungle and the steamship hauled by the “wild” Jivaro, are all working together to accomplish an opera performance. “We can feel the theatricality of the place, we see the image of the opera that surges from the sweat of the jungle” (Herzog, interview, 1982). The highly artificial, civilized high art is connected with barbaric jungle in harmony for the first time.
Herzog, with sense of irony, completes his use of opera in the rapids scene when the ship is careering down the impassable river. In Jivaro’s myths, the divine white ship could drift through the rapids to soothe the “the angry spirits” so the chief of the Jivaro's severs the rope and sending the ship floating down the Pongo River, the most dangerous place in the jungle. During the scene, Herzog adopts point of view shots. As the ship crashes helplessly through the raging river, the POV shots are violently shaking. In the shot when the ship is adrift in the treacherous rapids and slams into the cliff and jars the gramophone on, once again the off-stage operatic accompaniment resounds throughout the jungle and the rapids. The opera once again turns the struggle between the steamship and the jungle into a nautical ballet sequence. When the ship eventually drifts through the river, the arias slowly dissolve, completing the final performance.
Unlike the earlier scene when Fitzcarraldo using the opera as a weapon to dispel the violence, the rapids scene is not about the confrontation between civilization and barbarism, but about interconnection between opera and nature, or rather art and nature.
“Human articulation” against the nature
In Burden of dreams, Herzog describes the jungle as “the enormous articulation of vileness, baseness and obscenity”, compare to which human is only “badly pronounced and half-finished sentences”. I borrow the term “human articulation”, and to explore the attempt of human’s articulation against nature in both the ship-hauling scene and the rapids scene. In Herzog’s view, poetry, painting, filmmaking are all about articulation, in which we can reach a deeper truth –“an ecstatic truth”. In other words, art is, in essence, about articulating ourselves.
In the essay of musical and textual analysis in Fitzcarraldo, Rogers (2004, p97) asserts that Fitzcarraldo’s opera “is able to attack the Amazon on its own terms.” Likewise, in an interview, Herzog describe the moment when Fitzcarraldo plays the opera, “the jungle seems to be paralyzed with emotion by Caruso's beautiful, sad voice” (Herzog, 1982). To be fair, one must admit that the opera, whatever the form, stage performance or the scratchy recordings, has no power against the rapids or the nature. As Kant (2010) says, “the irresistibility of the power of nature forces us to recognize our physical impotence as natural beings, but at the same time discloses our capacity to judge ourselves independent of nature as well as superior to nature”. Art can never really “beat” or “conquer” nature, as much as human is never fully capable of expressing or articulating own self in relation to the nature. What lies in Fitzcarraldo is that self may encounters with other, but not subordinating the one to the other.
This is another aspect of “uselessness” I try to explore, which is the inability of self-expression, of “human articulation”. In several earlier scenes, Caruso’s voice resounds throughout the jungle, while nature is responding to this human articulation with enormous silences and overwhelming indifference. The strangeness and foreignness of opera echoes the earlier party scene that not a single guest seems to care or shows any interest in Caruso’s operatic voice, though Fitzcarraldo is desperate to attract other’s attention and express himself. “Opera’s use lies in its uselessness” (Koepnick, p161). Like poem, and other art, opera is highly artificial and aesthetic. Its values lie in a deeper, purer, more abstract dimension. In other words, in the final rapids scene, opera is not used as a civilization weapon or a practical tool to conquer the nature, but rather as the articulation of humans, an attempt to express the self toward the other.
In the ending scene, Fitzcarraldo brings a small-time opera troupe to a boat for a single performance. With a royal seat next to him, Fitzcarraldo is standing on the top of the ship Molly Aida, before his eyes is a sea of jubilant people –all people unite, his lover Molly, the locals and the entrepreneurs, waving and applauding. The ending is seen as a triumph. The triumph lies not in the achievement of wealth or good names, but the great efforts and desires to articulate, and the admiration of beautiful art.
Conclusion
In conclusion, by interpreting two particular scenes of Fitzcarraldo in detail, this essay examines the images of Fitzcarraldo and Herzog, and explores the interconnection of visual and musical aspects in this film. In section one, I examine the party scene in detail to explore the image of Fitzcarraldo, while he views himself as a dreamer, other may see him as “useless”. And then I explore the interconnection between Fitzcarraldo and the director Herzog. In section two, by interpreting the climactic ship-hauling scene, I look into Herzog’s view of nature and how his pursuit of visual authenticity affects the representation of natural landscape in his film. I then examine the visual and musical aspects of the film, and gain a better understanding that how Herzog attempts to use art as a “human articulation” against the nature.
Fitzcarraldo is such a complex and powerful statement and it is worth closely reading. Herzog is a genius auteur famous for his formidable gifts of expression. He writes and speaks with poetic precision and therefore sometimes it is difficult to paraphrase his distinguishing expressions. As a result, this essay frequently quotes Herzog’s words from different materials, including interviews, documentaries and articles, to directly show Herzog’s views. By doing this, I do not mean to assume the director’s intentions or find the “truth” of his works. The director is not the authority of films but a reader like us. As Dow (1996, p15) notes that, “the act of interpretation and argument by the researcher is paramount”.
Bibliography
Arthur, P., 2005. Burden of Dreams: In Dreams Begin Responsibilities [online]. Available from:
//www.criterion.com/current/posts/367-burden-of-dreams-in-dreams-begin-responsibilities
Ascárate, R. J., 2007. “Have You Ever Seen a Shrunken Head?”: The Early Modern Roots of Ecstatic Truth inWerner Herzog's “Fitzcarraldo”, PMLA, 122(2), 483-501, Published by: Modern Language Association
Chion, M., 1999. The voice in cinema. tr. C. Gorbman. New York: Columbia University Press.
Davidson, J. E., 1994. Contacting the Other: Traces of Migrational Colonialism and the Imperial Agent in Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo, Film & History: an interdisciplinary journal of film and television studies, Volume 24, Numbers 3-4, 66-83
Dolkart, R. H., 1985. Civilization's Aria: Film as Lore and Opera as Metaphor in Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo, Journal of Latin American Lore, 11(2), 125-141, Printed in U.S.A.
Dow, B. J., 1996. Prime-time Feminism: television, media culture, and the women’s movement since 1970, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Herzog, W., 2010. On the Absolute, the Sublime, and Ecstatic Truth. Tr. M. Weigel. A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, Third Series, 17(3), 1-12
Published by: Trustees of Boston University; Trustees of Boston University
Kael, P., 1982. New Yorker, 58:35 (October 18,1982), 173-178
Koepnick, L., 2012. Archetypes of Emotion: Werner Herzog and Opera. In: A Companion to Werner Herzog, ed. Brad Prager, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Prager, B., 2003. Werner Herzog's Hearts of Darkness: Fitzcarraldo, Scream of Stone and Beyond, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 20(1), 23-35
Rogers, H., 2004. Fitzcarraldo's Search for Aguirre: Music and Text in the Amazonian Films of WernerHerzog, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 129(1), 77-99, Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Royal Musical Association
Sheean, V., 1956. Oscar Hammerstein I: The Life and Exploits of an Impresario, New York, 252-253.
Tambling, J., 1987. Opera, Ideology and Film, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Thompson, K. M., 2011. Madness on a Grand Scale. In: The Cinema of Werner Herzog: Aesthetic Ecstasy and Truth, London: Wallflower Press
Wert, W. V., 1986. ‘Last words: observations on a new language’. In: The Films of Werner Herzog: Between Mirage and History, ed. Timothy Corrigan, London, 51–71
German filmmaker Werner Herzog’s feature film Fitzcarraldo (1982) begins with the title character (Klaus Kinski), an ecstatic opera lover, who attempts to build a great opera house in Iquitos of the Peruvian Amazon where his idol, Enrico Caruso, can perform. The film ends with Fitzcarraldo achieving a victory of sorts that he brings a small-time European opera troupe to a boat for a single performance. However, the central dramatic action of this film is not the process of building a grand opera house but the protagonist’s attempt and success in dragging an enormous steamship over a nearly vertical mountain that separates two rivers.
Herzog has a distinguishing conception of human and nature. Like its antecedent Aguirre, Wrath of God (1972), Fitzcarraldo also sets the story in the Amazonian jungle, “an unfinished land with curse that God creates it in anger”. In Burden of dreams (1982), a documentary on the production of Fitzcarraldo, Herzog describes the jungle as “the enormous articulation of vileness, baseness and obscenity”, compare to which human is only “badly pronounced and half-finished sentences”. Apart from this, Herzog’s other documentary Grizzly Man (2005) centres on a tragic hero’s life, examining the cruelty of wild animals and the “overwhelming indifference” of nature. It is safe to say that “human struggles against nature” is a recurring theme in his works.
However, what Herzog attempts to explore in Fitzcarraldo is not “human and nature” but rather “opera and nature”, in other word, art and nature. Although Herzog repeatedly asserted the visual primacy of his films (Rogers, 2004, p77), the musical component of Fitzcarraldo should not be disregarded. On the one hand, this Amazonian adventure film has an operatic, grand-scale narrative structure. On the other hand, while the actual ‘opera house’ remains absent during the epic jungle-exploring journey, opera arias in various forms do appear several times in the entire film, including the opening sequence that Caruso performs arias on a grand opera house, the struggle-against-the-rapids scene that opera music is played through a gramophone among hundreds of headhunters, and the ending scene in which a travelling opera troupe preforms Bellini’s I Puritani on a steamship along the river. Especially, in the climactic scene when the boat is slowly rising up the mountain, the operatic accompaniment makes this ship-hailing undertaking a visual-musical spectacular. That is to say, though the protagonist fulfills his operatic dream indirectly, the thematic connection between art and nature is clear in Fitzcarraldo.
Herzog is a distinguished filmmaker not only famous for his precise articulation of filmic themes but also his stylistic idiosyncrasy and monomaniacal obsession, or in other words, he is notoriously difficult to cooperate with (Arthur, 2005), which is similar to his protagonist Fitzcarraldo. Just as the eponymous character in Fitzcarraldo, Herzog pursues his dreams with ultimate madness and crazed energy, which raises the following questions: what is the relation between Fitzcarraldo and Herzog? How has Herzog’s conception of “art and nature” influenced his filmic articulation to his works?
Ultimately this essay focuses specifically on the image of Fitzcarraldo and his relation to Herzog, also on the thematic connection of art and nature in Fitzcarraldo. In section one, I conduct a detailed analysis of the party scene and I first examine the image of the protagonist as “the conquistador of the useless” and then I explore the two images of the protagonist Fitzcarraldo as well as the director Herzog. The latter half of this essay analyses the climactic ship-hauling scene in detail. By examining the complementary treatment of visual and musical aspects, it may be possible to understand Herzog’s attempt to use art as a “human articulation” against the nature.
Section one: the party scene
“The conquistador of the useless”
Fitzcarraldo’s obsession of opera is introduced in the opening sequences that he has rowed 1200 miles for two days and nights down the Amazon to see Caruso’s performance in person. When watching the opera, Fitzcarraldo believes that the dying protagonist on stage is pointing at him. He interprets it as a sacred transferring ceremony that the most renowned opera performer has transferred the musical life to him, he thus has found and absorbed the cultural power embodied in the opera (Rogers, 2004, p92). After this sacred transferring ceremony, he determines to build a grand opera house into the jungle. His lover Molly (Claudia Cardinale) considers him as “a dreamer who moves mountains”, while he identifies himself as a fulfiller of dreams.
At other point, however, a dreamer as Fitzcarraldo is someone who lacks the ability to differentiate reality from dreams. In this very opening sequence, he believes himself has absorbed the musical power of opera and since then he has transferred the real world to a musical make-believe one. To defend his dream against the artless, unmusical ‘old’ world, he fights with crazed energy, including climbs to the top of a Church tower, striking the bell and threatening the Church will remain closed until Iquitos builds an opera house. These establishing scenes demonstrate his refusal to differentiate between the reality and dream. His monomania of the opera dream continues in the party scene when he attends with his lover Molly at a wealthy rubber baron’s house.
This party scene is striking example that Fitzcarraldo lacks the ability to differentiate reality from dreams and thus feels the sense of otherness and alienation in real world. When attends the party, Fitzcarraldo directly brings out his gramophone and begins to set up this musical equipment in the middle of the hall. Meanwhile, Molly walks around waving her feather hand fan, “please, may we have your attention”, but no one seems to be intrigued. Without any introduction, Fitzcarraldo plays the opera music. In the middle of all the indifferent guests, he utterly immerses himself into his beloved opera, while Molly is looking around and trying to attract the guests’ attention. Don Aquilino (José Lewgoy), a rubber baron, the host of the party, keeps talking with another magnate, remains aloof from Fitzcarraldo’s action. Accompanying these is an uncut shot, just as the operatic music sounds absurdly out of place, Fitzcarraldo looks absolutely alienated. Herzog puts Fitzcarraldo in such situation to depict the sense of otherness and alienation that Fitzcarraldo always feels, recalls the previous sequences that he is either surrounded by a group of drunken card-playing barons or a crowd of shirtless foreign-language-speaking Amazonians. While Fitzcarraldo becomes completely engrossed in Caruso’s mechanically reproduced voice that he remains unaware of the other audiences’ inattention, a guest directly walks toward the gramophone and turns the music off. Fitzcarraldo becomes frenzied and attempts to punch the man, at the same time, Aquilino finally aware of Fitzcarraldo’s existence and immediately commands the servants to take him out. Fitzcarraldo gets rid of the servants to grab his gramophone, holding it in arms, looking around the indifferent crowd, causing a minor disturbance. To clam the guests, the amused host shouts “ladies and gentlemen, don’t worries, this gentleman is harmless”, while another steward proposes a meal prepared by “the dog’s cook” to Fitzcarraldo, derides him as “superb”. Accompanying this is a medium close-up shot of the stony, unsympathetic face of the steward and then the medium shot of Fitzcarraldo in an awkward position, with the heavy gramophone in arms, surrounded by the indifferent guests. Humiliated by the guests and the hosts, Fitzcarraldo continuously downs four drinks to his admired opera artists, but the steward stops him by proposing a toast sarcastically, “to Fitzcarraldo, the conquistador of the useless”. As the rubber barons unable to be touched by the opera, Fitzcarraldo cries to the amused audience, “the reality of your world is nothing more than a rotten caricature of great opera”, which demonstrating again Fitzcarraldo’s inability or rather unwillingness of differentiating reality from dreams.
In the eyes of the economic upper crust of Iquitos, Fitzcarraldo is nothing more than a harmless, useless and crazed “strange bird”, his eccentric attempt to bring an opera house to the jungle is nothing more than an unachievable business plan. Fitzcarraldo is juxtaposed with these European financial elites in several scenes, including the above-mentioned party scene, as well as the card-playing scene he tries to enlist the rubber barons’ financial support, while Aquilino taunts and ridicules his obsession with opera. Within the frame of repetitive close-ups, Fitzcarraldo’s face is sweaty, frenzied, contorted in disgust. It is worth noting that the bug-eyed maniac Klaus Kinski’s rendering of Fitzcarraldo is admittedly powerful, with true madness and absolute energy, as if “a beast has been domesticated and pressed into shape” (Herzog, My Best Fiend – Klaus Kinski, [1999]).
Pure dreamers
Some film scholars see Fitzcarraldo as a colonial hero (Prager, 2012, p25) or “an imperial agent of expansion”(Davidson, 1994, p69). Opera is a symbol of the European civilization, and Fitzcarraldo’s attempt to bring the opera house to the barbaric Latin America is viewed as an attempt of cultural enlightenment. In the scene when Fitzcarraldo first confronts the Jivaro, or what he calls, the “bare-asses”, he fires back with the arias of Caruso, the sound of the “white God”. He believes (perhaps at an unconscious level) opera has a particular power against the barbaric headhunters, as Dolkart (1985, p126) discusses, “devotion to and knowledge of opera represented entrance into the elite and disdain for indigenous culture”.
Despite these cultural interpretations of the figure of Fitzcarraldo, I want to discern his image in a more abstract, metaphysical meaning that, Fitzcarraldo is a pure dreamer, who seeks to fulfill his dream and eagers to express himself in an “other” land. In his words, opera “gives expressions to our greatest feelings”. Apart from the party scene, the film also shows his obsession with opera and inability to differentiate between reality and dream in other scenes, for example, when enters to the jungle, Fitzcarraldo is deeply intrigued by the words of an old missionary that “our everyday life is only an illusion, behind which lies the reality of dreams”. Fitzcarraldo replies, “actually I’m very interested in these ideas. I specialize opera myself”, making a connection between illusion and operatic articulation. As Herzog (2010) says, “what's beautiful about opera is that reality doesn't play any role in it at all”. For Fitzcarraldo, the operatic dream is the reason to live, to go through the illusions of life. As an opera impresario once said, “It [opera] lifts one so out of the sordid affairs of life and makes material things seem so petty, so inconsequential, it places one for the time being, at least, in a higher and better world” (quoted from Dolkart, 1985, p131). It is not the visionary of bringing European culture into Iquitos so much as the desire of articulation of “the Self” that distinguish Fitzcarraldo from those philistines, who only care about wealth and “a great name in Europe”.
These sequences raise questions about the Herzog’s conception of dreams and how he endeavors to achieve it. The documentary on the making of Fitzcarraldo, Burden of dreams (1982), continually reasserts the impossibility of the production of Fitzcarraldo: the harsh rainforest climate, the tribal wars, crew revolts and cast changing. Though encounters enormous difficulties, Herzog sticks at this impossible mission and pursues his goal with madness and crazed energy, “if I abandon this project, I would be a man without dreams and I don’t want to live like that”, to a point where the director’s dreams and Fitzcarraldo’s dreams meet. In other words, Fitzcarraldo is such a powerful and complex statement of Herzog’s monomaniacal obsession of “dreams”. The protagonist is a reproduction and a reflection of Herzog himself. Like Fitzcarraldo, Herzog is an aesthete with good ideas and a pure dreamer who attempts to pursue his goals. The word “pure” not only refers to the futility of the reality life and the pursuit of illusions, but also the filmic aestheticisation of uselessness. Fitzcarraldo is once mocked as “the conquistador of the useless” and likewise Herzog entitles his production diaries Conquest of the Useless (Thompson, 2011, p42), which highlights the connection between the two figures, two pure dreams. The concept of uselessness can be viewed in two ways. On the one hand, it refers to the idea of going to nowhere or returning in full circle. Fitzcarraldo’s adventure leads him to nowhere: his ship is damaged by Jivaro, the same crowd who helped him move the ship over the mountain, and he fails to get rubber, coming back where he started. But the concept of uselessness is aestheticized. The final tableau is an opera performance on the boat and although the glorious dream of building an opera house in the jungle fails, this triumphant ending scene is seen as a victory of sorts, a fulfillment of dream. On the other hand, uselessness can be seen as inability of self-expression, of “human articulation”, which I explore in detail in section two.
Section two: the climactic scene
Herzog’s “Ecstatic truth”
Herzog is a well-known auteur for his stylistic idiosyncrasy, recurrent themes and cultural-historical sensitivity (Dolkart, 1985, p126). For a better understanding of Herzog’s distinguishing view of natural landscape, it is essential to look at his own words: “I wanted an ecstatic detail of that landscape where all the drama, passion and human pathos became visible” (My Best Fiend – Klaus Kinski, [1999]). For him, landscape is not a backdrop of outstanding scenic beauty in Hollywood-style commercials, but rather a place filled with “indifference of nature” (Grizzly Man, [2005]), with “almost human qualities” (My Best Fiend – Klaus Kinski) and with “overwhelming and collective murder” and full of “fornication and asphyxiation and choking and fighting for survival and growing and just rotting away” (Burden of dreams, [1982]). Again in Fitzcarraldo Herzog sets the story in the barbaric Amazonian jungle, “an unfinished place with curse that God creates in anger”. Herzog’s view of nature sounds deeply pessimistic, but he claims he admire the nature, “I love it very much. But I love it against my better judgment” (Burden of dreams).
The most striking example to demonstrate Herzog’s obsession with visual authenticity of the natural landscape in Fitzcarraldo is the climactic scene when the steamship is dragged over the mountain separating the two rivers. This climactic ship-hauling scene consists of a series of documentary-like shots and a static one-minute long shot. It begins with several shots of the mechanism within the steamship and details how the complex pulling system works. The long documentary-like sequence also details their effort: cutting a path through the dense jungle, oiling the pulleys, and setting the hauling system. In these shots, the images of the jungle have a very crude, unfinished, and primeval texture, the natural landscape is represented with the visual authenticity that Herzog aims to impart. In the scene, we then hear Fitzcarraldo’s shouting, “we have two dead man”. In a tracking shot, he fretfully climbs over the supporting stakes, while Cholo, the mechanic of Fitzcarraldo’s crew, excitedly explains the ship-hauling plan to him. “We have two dead man!” Fitzcarraldo ignores Cholo and repeats, recalling their last failed attempt that two Jivaroan people died when dragging the ship. Additionally, this scene also reminds us of the director's own ambiguous filmmaking anecdotes, blurring the distinction between filmic reality and reality per se.
To pursue the documentary-like truth or rather what he called the “ecstatic truth”, Herzog prefers shooting on location rather than filming in studio (Ascárate, 2007), no matter how dangerous the shooting sites would be or what enormous difficulties the cast and crew would face. In addition to the authentic shooting sites, Herzog also employ the local Aguaruna people to play the “uncultivated” Jivaro, and insists on using the full-sized steamship in the climax instead of dismantling before the portage and also refuses to adopt miniatures or special effect. He also refuses the Brazilian engineer’s original ship-hauling mechanisms design, which the ship would be hauling at 20 degree up the mountain while Herzog insists on 40 degree. In Filmmakers’ Choices, John Gibbs (2006, p14) points out the significance of filmmakers’ decision-making, and
one of the best ways of determining what has been gained by the decisions taken in the construction of an artwork is to imagine the consequences of changing a single element of the design.
(John Gibbs, 2006, p14)
Perkins also contends “the director’s job is, particularly, to hold each and every moment of performance within a vision of the scene as a whole” (1981, p1143). In the case of Herzog, changing 40 degree to the initial 20 degree may seems insignificant but the vision of the climactic scene (in which the ship is rising up in a quite peculiar angle) may consequently changed. By considering why Herzog refuses the initial doable design and insists on the impracticable one, it may be possible to understand what he calls “the sublimity of images and their illuminating effect” (Weigel, 2010) in his films.
Because of his insistences on visual authenticity, Herzog earned a reputation for his “neurotic obsession” of ecstatic truth, and has been criticized by press and scholars. On the one hand, some dislike the idea of “realism” (Kael, 1982). On the other hand, some question Herzog’s view of nature and criticize it as nihilism (Arthur, 2005). As in Herzog’s films and documentaries, the vivid images of picturesque flora and fauna contradict his concept of nature “vileness, baseness and obscenity”, “the harmony of overwhelming and collective murder”. Despite the criticism, Herzog’s insistences seriously affect the visual authenticity of his works. In Fitzcarraldo, Herzog captures the distinguishing unique beauty and cruelty of nature, and composes his unique images of filmic landscape in the climactic scene.
Civilization’s opera and barbarism’s silence
Despite his obsession with visual authenticity, Herzog does not tend to prioritises the visual over the aural. In this film, music operates on two levels; one is the diegetic music of Caruso’s operatic recordings. Opera is sophisticatedly used in both time and place and functions as a crucial component in Fitzcarraldo, as William Van Wert (1986, P68) contends that, “the spectator may very well marvel at ‘haunting’ visuals in Herzog’s films, but the music that accompanies those visuals is what charges them, providing the ‘haunting,’ as much as the camera or editing”. In the journey, Fitzcarraldo equipped himself with a gramophone that plays arias. Opera becomes a travelling art and a mobile theatrical event, and always function as an external, often incongruous complement to the visual landscape.
The second musical level is the ‘acousmatic’ sound (Chion, 1999): the Latin American folk music composed by Popol Vuh and the ominous chanting and primitive drumming noises of the Jivaros. In an earlier scene when the crew enters the Jivaro Indian domain, they hear the constant noises of drumming and chanting, a threatening signal from the headhunters. As the beating sounds getting louder, Fitzcarraldo brings out the gramophone, and uses opera as a weapon of sorts to confront the Jivaro’s ominous chorus. The two contrasting sounds meet and mix in the midst of the primeval jungle, and then the Indian chorus is swallowed by the sound of opera arias and gradually mutes and disappears. As Dolkart (1985, p135) argues, opera is used to sharpen the contrast between civilization's arias and barbarism’s silences. At that night when Cholo proposes to use violence against the Jivaro's, Fitzcarraldo replies to take advantage of the myths of their gods, “this God doesn't come with canons. He comes with the voice of Caruso”. The next morning, when finds out his crew has deserted him, Fitzcarraldo again plays the opera. In a long tracking shot, the ship equipped with opera arias is slowly sailing up the river, while the Jivaros remain silent and mute. It appears that the civilization’s sounds have dominated the barbaric areas.
These musical and narrative strands converge at the climactic scene. With human efforts and engine power, the steamship is slowly moving over the mountain. Presented in a peculiar shot, the ship is slowly rising up in an oblique angle, while Fitzcarraldo is standing front the ship and shouting, to punctuate this dramatic moment: “we forget something –Caruso! Enrico Caruso!” After a shot of the bottom of the ship showing the mechanism and how it works, Caruso’s beautiful aria resounds in the midst of the primeval jungle, initiating an epic, breathtaking visual-musical interplay. In a one-minute long static shot, the ship is slowly moving up the steep slope with Caruso’s operatic accompaniment.
In the climactic scene, Caruso’s voice is no longer a mere incongruous complement or a contrasting sound against the barbarism, but as an integral component of the performance. Opera is a high art that combines extensive scenery and virtuoso singing, and all integrated into one grandiose visual-musical spectacle (Dolkart, 1985, p131). Herzog reconstructs the natural landscape, transforms the jungle into a grand opera stage. While watching this scene of the enormous steamship slowly moving up in the middle of this jungle stage, we become the audience inside an opera auditorium, and this one-minute long static scene is a breathtaking visual-musical opera spectacle. Despite the terribly scratchy quality of the opera recording, Caruso’s voice is with “an unspeakably dignified beauty, sad and strong and moving” (Herzog, 1982). To some extent, the steep mountain and the barbaric jungle and the steamship hauled by the “wild” Jivaro, are all working together to accomplish an opera performance. “We can feel the theatricality of the place, we see the image of the opera that surges from the sweat of the jungle” (Herzog, interview, 1982). The highly artificial, civilized high art is connected with barbaric jungle in harmony for the first time.
Herzog, with sense of irony, completes his use of opera in the rapids scene when the ship is careering down the impassable river. In Jivaro’s myths, the divine white ship could drift through the rapids to soothe the “the angry spirits” so the chief of the Jivaro's severs the rope and sending the ship floating down the Pongo River, the most dangerous place in the jungle. During the scene, Herzog adopts point of view shots. As the ship crashes helplessly through the raging river, the POV shots are violently shaking. In the shot when the ship is adrift in the treacherous rapids and slams into the cliff and jars the gramophone on, once again the off-stage operatic accompaniment resounds throughout the jungle and the rapids. The opera once again turns the struggle between the steamship and the jungle into a nautical ballet sequence. When the ship eventually drifts through the river, the arias slowly dissolve, completing the final performance.
Unlike the earlier scene when Fitzcarraldo using the opera as a weapon to dispel the violence, the rapids scene is not about the confrontation between civilization and barbarism, but about interconnection between opera and nature, or rather art and nature.
“Human articulation” against the nature
In Burden of dreams, Herzog describes the jungle as “the enormous articulation of vileness, baseness and obscenity”, compare to which human is only “badly pronounced and half-finished sentences”. I borrow the term “human articulation”, and to explore the attempt of human’s articulation against nature in both the ship-hauling scene and the rapids scene. In Herzog’s view, poetry, painting, filmmaking are all about articulation, in which we can reach a deeper truth –“an ecstatic truth”. In other words, art is, in essence, about articulating ourselves.
In the essay of musical and textual analysis in Fitzcarraldo, Rogers (2004, p97) asserts that Fitzcarraldo’s opera “is able to attack the Amazon on its own terms.” Likewise, in an interview, Herzog describe the moment when Fitzcarraldo plays the opera, “the jungle seems to be paralyzed with emotion by Caruso's beautiful, sad voice” (Herzog, 1982). To be fair, one must admit that the opera, whatever the form, stage performance or the scratchy recordings, has no power against the rapids or the nature. As Kant (2010) says, “the irresistibility of the power of nature forces us to recognize our physical impotence as natural beings, but at the same time discloses our capacity to judge ourselves independent of nature as well as superior to nature”. Art can never really “beat” or “conquer” nature, as much as human is never fully capable of expressing or articulating own self in relation to the nature. What lies in Fitzcarraldo is that self may encounters with other, but not subordinating the one to the other.
This is another aspect of “uselessness” I try to explore, which is the inability of self-expression, of “human articulation”. In several earlier scenes, Caruso’s voice resounds throughout the jungle, while nature is responding to this human articulation with enormous silences and overwhelming indifference. The strangeness and foreignness of opera echoes the earlier party scene that not a single guest seems to care or shows any interest in Caruso’s operatic voice, though Fitzcarraldo is desperate to attract other’s attention and express himself. “Opera’s use lies in its uselessness” (Koepnick, p161). Like poem, and other art, opera is highly artificial and aesthetic. Its values lie in a deeper, purer, more abstract dimension. In other words, in the final rapids scene, opera is not used as a civilization weapon or a practical tool to conquer the nature, but rather as the articulation of humans, an attempt to express the self toward the other.
In the ending scene, Fitzcarraldo brings a small-time opera troupe to a boat for a single performance. With a royal seat next to him, Fitzcarraldo is standing on the top of the ship Molly Aida, before his eyes is a sea of jubilant people –all people unite, his lover Molly, the locals and the entrepreneurs, waving and applauding. The ending is seen as a triumph. The triumph lies not in the achievement of wealth or good names, but the great efforts and desires to articulate, and the admiration of beautiful art.
Conclusion
In conclusion, by interpreting two particular scenes of Fitzcarraldo in detail, this essay examines the images of Fitzcarraldo and Herzog, and explores the interconnection of visual and musical aspects in this film. In section one, I examine the party scene in detail to explore the image of Fitzcarraldo, while he views himself as a dreamer, other may see him as “useless”. And then I explore the interconnection between Fitzcarraldo and the director Herzog. In section two, by interpreting the climactic ship-hauling scene, I look into Herzog’s view of nature and how his pursuit of visual authenticity affects the representation of natural landscape in his film. I then examine the visual and musical aspects of the film, and gain a better understanding that how Herzog attempts to use art as a “human articulation” against the nature.
Fitzcarraldo is such a complex and powerful statement and it is worth closely reading. Herzog is a genius auteur famous for his formidable gifts of expression. He writes and speaks with poetic precision and therefore sometimes it is difficult to paraphrase his distinguishing expressions. As a result, this essay frequently quotes Herzog’s words from different materials, including interviews, documentaries and articles, to directly show Herzog’s views. By doing this, I do not mean to assume the director’s intentions or find the “truth” of his works. The director is not the authority of films but a reader like us. As Dow (1996, p15) notes that, “the act of interpretation and argument by the researcher is paramount”.
Bibliography
Arthur, P., 2005. Burden of Dreams: In Dreams Begin Responsibilities [online]. Available from:
//www.criterion.com/current/posts/367-burden-of-dreams-in-dreams-begin-responsibilities
Ascárate, R. J., 2007. “Have You Ever Seen a Shrunken Head?”: The Early Modern Roots of Ecstatic Truth inWerner Herzog's “Fitzcarraldo”, PMLA, 122(2), 483-501, Published by: Modern Language Association
Chion, M., 1999. The voice in cinema. tr. C. Gorbman. New York: Columbia University Press.
Davidson, J. E., 1994. Contacting the Other: Traces of Migrational Colonialism and the Imperial Agent in Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo, Film & History: an interdisciplinary journal of film and television studies, Volume 24, Numbers 3-4, 66-83
Dolkart, R. H., 1985. Civilization's Aria: Film as Lore and Opera as Metaphor in Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo, Journal of Latin American Lore, 11(2), 125-141, Printed in U.S.A.
Dow, B. J., 1996. Prime-time Feminism: television, media culture, and the women’s movement since 1970, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Herzog, W., 2010. On the Absolute, the Sublime, and Ecstatic Truth. Tr. M. Weigel. A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, Third Series, 17(3), 1-12
Published by: Trustees of Boston University; Trustees of Boston University
Kael, P., 1982. New Yorker, 58:35 (October 18,1982), 173-178
Koepnick, L., 2012. Archetypes of Emotion: Werner Herzog and Opera. In: A Companion to Werner Herzog, ed. Brad Prager, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Prager, B., 2003. Werner Herzog's Hearts of Darkness: Fitzcarraldo, Scream of Stone and Beyond, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 20(1), 23-35
Rogers, H., 2004. Fitzcarraldo's Search for Aguirre: Music and Text in the Amazonian Films of WernerHerzog, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 129(1), 77-99, Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Royal Musical Association
Sheean, V., 1956. Oscar Hammerstein I: The Life and Exploits of an Impresario, New York, 252-253.
Tambling, J., 1987. Opera, Ideology and Film, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Thompson, K. M., 2011. Madness on a Grand Scale. In: The Cinema of Werner Herzog: Aesthetic Ecstasy and Truth, London: Wallflower Press
Wert, W. V., 1986. ‘Last words: observations on a new language’. In: The Films of Werner Herzog: Between Mirage and History, ed. Timothy Corrigan, London, 51–71
3 ) 为什么不能是一个偏执狂
偏执狂（paranoia ），精神病的一种，以逐渐发展的按逻辑构筑的系统化妄想为特征。最常见病症的是夸大、被害或有关躯体异常的妄想。偏执狂的发生机理，按巴甫洛夫的意见，是强而不可遏制型的人所发生的，这类人的神经系统具有抑制过程不足，兴奋过程占优势的特点。偏执狂大多具有特殊的个性缺陷，表现为主观、固执、敏感多疑、易激动、自尊心强、自我中心、自命不凡、自我评价过高、好幻想等等。
没有任何证据显示沃纳•赫尔佐格先生是一个偏执狂。但是能拍出像《陆上行舟》这样的电影的人，绝不是一个轻易接受改造并轻易妥协的人。作为新德国电影的代表人物，文德斯和赫尔佐格是从那个时代走来的，为数不多的还在继续电影实践的导演。和文德斯越来越好莱坞化的表达所不同的是，赫尔佐格始终都在固执地坚持自己的个人口味。从早年的剧情长片到最近几年的纪录电影，他一直按自己的节奏拍摄电影。票房、赞誉这些对于他来说是没有意义的，至少不是促成他拍摄电影的主要动机。
拍摄于上世纪80年代的电影《陆上行舟》是赫尔佐格的代表作，它讲述的是一个在秘鲁制冰的叫菲茨杰拉德的商人，在听了著名男高音卡鲁索的演出之后，他非常激动，决定在自己居住的小镇上也修建一座宏大的剧院，以此来邀请卡鲁索去演出。修建剧院需要花费大量的资金。于是，菲茨杰拉德开始游说那些有钱的商人，但没有人愿意为这个听上去有如天方夜谭的计划买单。在他们眼中，菲茨杰拉德的举动太疯狂了。
为了募集资金，菲茨杰拉德答应当地橡胶大亨前往乌圭里亚林区进行收割。唯一支持他的人就只剩下她的情人，一所妓院的老板娘。在她的帮助下，菲茨卡拉多购买了一艘旧船，开始率领着船员向那片雨林深处进发。越来越多的人加入了菲茨杰拉德的队伍，甚至还有雨林中的土著。正是靠着他们，菲茨杰拉德一步步接近着自己的梦想。他硬是活生生让大船跨越了高山，缓慢进入河道。在经历了很多困难之后，菲茨杰拉德终于如愿以偿。
影片的最后，菲茨杰拉德等来了卡鲁索与歌剧，更等来了他的爱情。电影并没有花太多的笔墨在菲茨杰拉德的情人身上，但这个人物的存在却是菲茨杰拉德最终能“陆上行舟”的关键。她提供给菲茨杰拉德的不仅仅是金钱，还有强大的精神动力。这让我想起一句话，就算全世界都抛弃了我，至少还有你在我身边。当所有人都不信任他时，只有她坚定地站在他的一边。真正为理想主义买单的人，不是那些有钱的商人，而是一个从心里默默支持菲茨杰拉德并且并不重视结果的女人。其实，菲茨杰拉德最后是否能成功对她而言并不重要，对于女人来说，还有什么能比和一个有梦想和有激情，并敢于行动的男人在一起更难得的事？
菲茨杰拉德靠着强大的激情，完成了不可能完成的任务，同时又得到了自己的爱情。两个行动，一个信念。赫尔佐格正是用《陆上行舟》传递了这个信念：对梦想和爱情始终的执着与狂热。
执着与狂热，没错，《路上行舟》不是一部在摄影棚鼓捣再加上一些电脑特技就拍出的电影，它所有的东西都是实实在在的。在这样艰苦的环境中拍摄电影，没有一点偏执狂的执着与狂热，恐怕很难实现。危险还是有的，困难也还是存在的，关键看你以什么样的心态去面对它。在《赫尔佐格谈赫尔佐格》一书中，赫尔佐格谈到这部电影时曾说，“作为一个巴伐利亚人，热点丛林的丰饶、狂热和生机勃勃都对我有一种天然的吸引力。对我来说，热带丛林永远代表着某种更深刻的现实，但身处其中绝算不上是很难战胜的挑战。一座热带丛林之只不过是一座森林，仅此而已。是旅行社虚构了那些丛林危机四伏的说法，我实在不觉得那里有什么危险”。正是这种基于一种狂妄心态之上，赫尔佐格和他的摄制组才完成了这样一部电影。其实赫尔佐格不正是那个菲茨杰拉德吗？那些和他一起的摄制组伙伴们，正有如受到菲茨杰拉德手下的老船长、土著一样。他们的狂热与行动，其实正来自于他们领导者的强大的精神感召。在这种感召之下，他们才把那种看似空想的念头变成了现实。
《陆上行舟》从某种意义上讲，可以算是一个疯子拍出的讲述另一个疯子疯狂行径的故事。疯狂，如果仅停留在头脑的想象之上，那它还算不得真正的疯狂。而对于赫尔佐格来说，他和他电影的主人公则完全把这种别人眼中的疯狂付诸了实践。无论是影片中的菲茨杰拉德还是赫尔佐格，他们是梦想家而不是空想家，他们都是彻头彻尾的行动主义者，都是有梦想的偏执狂。
赫尔佐格曾说过，假如我的电影，能够使一个人感到安慰，我就满意了。但很显然，他的电影安慰的绝不仅仅是一个人。
没有任何证据显示沃纳•赫尔佐格先生是一个偏执狂。但是能拍出像《陆上行舟》这样的电影的人，绝不是一个轻易接受改造并轻易妥协的人。作为新德国电影的代表人物，文德斯和赫尔佐格是从那个时代走来的，为数不多的还在继续电影实践的导演。和文德斯越来越好莱坞化的表达所不同的是，赫尔佐格始终都在固执地坚持自己的个人口味。从早年的剧情长片到最近几年的纪录电影，他一直按自己的节奏拍摄电影。票房、赞誉这些对于他来说是没有意义的，至少不是促成他拍摄电影的主要动机。
拍摄于上世纪80年代的电影《陆上行舟》是赫尔佐格的代表作，它讲述的是一个在秘鲁制冰的叫菲茨杰拉德的商人，在听了著名男高音卡鲁索的演出之后，他非常激动，决定在自己居住的小镇上也修建一座宏大的剧院，以此来邀请卡鲁索去演出。修建剧院需要花费大量的资金。于是，菲茨杰拉德开始游说那些有钱的商人，但没有人愿意为这个听上去有如天方夜谭的计划买单。在他们眼中，菲茨杰拉德的举动太疯狂了。
为了募集资金，菲茨杰拉德答应当地橡胶大亨前往乌圭里亚林区进行收割。唯一支持他的人就只剩下她的情人，一所妓院的老板娘。在她的帮助下，菲茨卡拉多购买了一艘旧船，开始率领着船员向那片雨林深处进发。越来越多的人加入了菲茨杰拉德的队伍，甚至还有雨林中的土著。正是靠着他们，菲茨杰拉德一步步接近着自己的梦想。他硬是活生生让大船跨越了高山，缓慢进入河道。在经历了很多困难之后，菲茨杰拉德终于如愿以偿。
影片的最后，菲茨杰拉德等来了卡鲁索与歌剧，更等来了他的爱情。电影并没有花太多的笔墨在菲茨杰拉德的情人身上，但这个人物的存在却是菲茨杰拉德最终能“陆上行舟”的关键。她提供给菲茨杰拉德的不仅仅是金钱，还有强大的精神动力。这让我想起一句话，就算全世界都抛弃了我，至少还有你在我身边。当所有人都不信任他时，只有她坚定地站在他的一边。真正为理想主义买单的人，不是那些有钱的商人，而是一个从心里默默支持菲茨杰拉德并且并不重视结果的女人。其实，菲茨杰拉德最后是否能成功对她而言并不重要，对于女人来说，还有什么能比和一个有梦想和有激情，并敢于行动的男人在一起更难得的事？
菲茨杰拉德靠着强大的激情，完成了不可能完成的任务，同时又得到了自己的爱情。两个行动，一个信念。赫尔佐格正是用《陆上行舟》传递了这个信念：对梦想和爱情始终的执着与狂热。
执着与狂热，没错，《路上行舟》不是一部在摄影棚鼓捣再加上一些电脑特技就拍出的电影，它所有的东西都是实实在在的。在这样艰苦的环境中拍摄电影，没有一点偏执狂的执着与狂热，恐怕很难实现。危险还是有的，困难也还是存在的，关键看你以什么样的心态去面对它。在《赫尔佐格谈赫尔佐格》一书中，赫尔佐格谈到这部电影时曾说，“作为一个巴伐利亚人，热点丛林的丰饶、狂热和生机勃勃都对我有一种天然的吸引力。对我来说，热带丛林永远代表着某种更深刻的现实，但身处其中绝算不上是很难战胜的挑战。一座热带丛林之只不过是一座森林，仅此而已。是旅行社虚构了那些丛林危机四伏的说法，我实在不觉得那里有什么危险”。正是这种基于一种狂妄心态之上，赫尔佐格和他的摄制组才完成了这样一部电影。其实赫尔佐格不正是那个菲茨杰拉德吗？那些和他一起的摄制组伙伴们，正有如受到菲茨杰拉德手下的老船长、土著一样。他们的狂热与行动，其实正来自于他们领导者的强大的精神感召。在这种感召之下，他们才把那种看似空想的念头变成了现实。
《陆上行舟》从某种意义上讲，可以算是一个疯子拍出的讲述另一个疯子疯狂行径的故事。疯狂，如果仅停留在头脑的想象之上，那它还算不得真正的疯狂。而对于赫尔佐格来说，他和他电影的主人公则完全把这种别人眼中的疯狂付诸了实践。无论是影片中的菲茨杰拉德还是赫尔佐格，他们是梦想家而不是空想家，他们都是彻头彻尾的行动主义者，都是有梦想的偏执狂。
赫尔佐格曾说过，假如我的电影，能够使一个人感到安慰，我就满意了。但很显然，他的电影安慰的绝不仅仅是一个人。
4 ) 梦想家的电影，痴迷者的神话
恐怕有很少导演能像赫尔佐格一样，拍一部电影，不但电影本身成为话题，连他的拍片过程都成为话题，他总是有很多电影以外，同时又与电影相关的疯狂举动。所以，由这个疯子来拍《陆上行舟》――另一个疯子的疯狂故事就显得顺其自然了，何况还要搭上另一个疯子演员金斯基。
本片的主人公是费兹卡拉多，一位卡鲁索歌剧的狂热爱好者，一位无可救药的理想主义者，一位将理想付诸实践的实践主义者，同时，结合他的举动，我们或许还可以说他是极具创意的行为艺术家。在本片的一开始，他便如一个追星族一般手舞足蹈的赶一场卡鲁索的歌剧，又手舞足蹈的恳请门卫放他进去。接着，他道出了他的远大理想，或者说是痴心妄想，在热带雨林中的小镇建造一座歌剧院，让卡鲁索来首演。无疑，这样的举动在如我一般无比“正常”的人看来都是不具可行性的计划，不提具体实施，首先这需要一笔钱，一大笔钱，但是我们的费兹卡拉多先生不是捣鼓石油的，也不是折腾房地产的，他当时只是一个制冰的，一笔巨额的款项不是靠冰块可以得到的。于是，他开始了游说，但是，对于现实的，视利润为生命的商人们来说，我们的主人公提供的既不是一个具有商业可行性的商业方案，也不是一个可以创造美好声誉的慈善项目。看到这里时，我丝毫没有觉得这些商人多么无情，或是愚蠢，因为，试问我是商人，又怎样可以认为在雨林修建剧院是一个可以投资的事业，试问这样的项目拿到今天能获得风投吗？于是，可以理解的，费兹卡拉多成为一个笑柄，甚至他对歌剧的热爱也成了他人嘲笑的地方。
费兹卡拉多是孤独的，因为他的想法为大多数人所不容，同时，他又是幸运的，因为他也有着同道与他同行。比如，他的红颜知己，那位开妓院的莫丽夫人，她一直支持着她的理想主义的爱人，无论从财政上还是精神上。理想主义的男人通常让女人又爱又恨，因为这样的人不同于常人的思维和行为让他们有种吸引人的独特魅力；同时他们为了理想不顾一切，甚至可以不顾爱情的独行作风和倔强性格又成为令人伤心的特质。在本片中，我们更多看到了前者，一个疯狂的理想主义者为一个女人深深的爱，为了取得足够的金钱，他不得不深入丛林试图采集橡胶。于是，他上路了，遇上了又一个同伴，一位经历丰富的老船长，他最传奇的故事也开始了。他率船逆流而上，一路上经受着被土著袭击的恐惧，他的船员一日逃走殆尽，但是他和留下的人们依然向前，甚至凭借土著的神话得到了大量土著的帮助。我们可以发现，即使追随费兹卡拉多的人也并不是赞同他的这些理想，更多是被他的精神力量所感召，于是，他总是在逆境中逢凶化吉，甚至可以让一班土著为其效力，有了这样的感召力和意志，或许在这位梦想家看来世上没有做不到的事情，比如，将一艘大船拖过一座高山！
“陆上行舟”，在本片中这远不是什么具有浪漫主义气息的意境，费兹卡拉多等人指挥着一批土著艰难的铺设铁轨，设计动力装置，在这里，一直以来就善于思考的费兹卡拉多充分发挥了自己的特长。很多人只好空想，而他却具备着一种脚踏实地的精神，所以在巧妙的设计和艰苦努力下，在一些人的生命的牺牲下，终于，这艘船翻过高山，缓缓的驶入水中。这一幕的画面拍的很有种神圣气息，船缓缓的又摇摇晃晃的驶入水中，同时配以颂歌般的音乐，让人不禁为这样的奇迹赞叹。值得一提的是，在这部电影中，帮助费兹卡拉多完成梦想的很大程度上是一些在文明人看来无知的土著，甚至连费兹卡拉多本人也无法理解“为什么他们像狗一样为我们干活”。赫尔佐格的电影常常带有对所谓文明的嘲讽，这里照我的理解也是嘲讽了一把现代文明，土著们之所以去做一件“文明人”看来荒唐的事情，在于他们依然相信奇迹，相信神话，他们还没有“理智”的失去梦想。所以，费兹卡拉多在文明社会就像一个为身边人蔑视的“野蛮人”，所以，来到了雨林，来到了远离文明社会的地方，他显得更加如鱼得水，在这项令人惊叹的创举中，他两眼放光，他激动不已，他终于可以快乐的将梦想付诸实施。最后，尽管歌剧院尚未建成，但是，卡鲁索来了，歌剧来了，在他那象征着梦想的跨越了高山的船上，一场歌剧开演。而费兹卡拉多，他在一旁，看着自己一手铸造的奇迹，以一个胜利的梦想家的姿态回家，迎面而来的是奔跑的知己莫丽，人生至此，夫复何求。
导演赫尔佐格便是一个充满着激情与梦想的人，在这部电影中，他并没有可以的渲染激情而使得影片失控。本片的节奏倒是更像一出歌剧一般，并不那么激烈，却不时引出冲突，又慢慢回复平静，而雨林的美丽，不时插入的歌剧唱段都使得本片带着神圣的美学色彩。金斯基在本片中显得“斯文”了不少，甚至在片子开始显得像一个孩子一般，但是越到后面他越富激情，同时一种坚韧的毅力也使得他显得极具人格魅力。本片起初并不是圈定金斯基为男主角，但是，最终他出色的演绎了这一执着的梦想家的角色，富于激情而不显得狂躁。更令人赞叹的当然还是这部电影的拍摄过程，赫尔佐格竟然真的带着一班人将一艘大船拖过了高山，他似乎是想证明，爷不是拍部片子教条的叫你们坚持梦想，不是光来来特技或是镜头拼接来讲个煽情的故事，而是告诉你们，我也做到了，我真的将一艘大船拖过了高山，绝对的知行合一。所以，我要向赫尔佐格这样的疯子致敬，他以一部电影的拍摄过程完成了一出极具感召力的行为艺术。如果你时常因为自己有些奇思怪想而怀疑自己是不是“不够踏实”，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，比起在雨林修歌剧院，拖船翻山，你的想法应该还算正常；如果你只是一天躺在床上为奇思怪想激动不已，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，因为无论是修贯穿印加山脉的铁路，在雨林造冰块，修剧院，他都想到了同时踏实的去准备，去付诸实施，或许你也该跳起来活动活动了；如果你因为你的奇思怪想而被他人嘲笑而沮丧不已，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，费兹卡拉多已经惨到了几乎被整个社会嘲笑，被整个社会抛弃，所以你大可以你的微笑面对他人的嘲笑；如果你因为实现理想的路途挫折不已而痛苦，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，费兹卡拉多深入不毛，为了让大船过山，披荆斩棘，他面对挫折坚毅的玩命儿，所以你也不妨咬咬牙，以一种死磕的精神战斗到底。
《陆上行舟》，一部负载梦想的电影，当我们已经“理智”或是“现实”的无力梦想的时候，看看赫尔佐格一样的疯子费兹卡拉多如何演绎一段热带雨林的传奇，如何让梦想跨越高山，到达彼岸，或许适当的冲淡理智，我们会发现生活的另一处风景。
http://hi.baidu.com/doglovecat/blog/item/ef586c382ace8e2297ddd896.html
本片的主人公是费兹卡拉多，一位卡鲁索歌剧的狂热爱好者，一位无可救药的理想主义者，一位将理想付诸实践的实践主义者，同时，结合他的举动，我们或许还可以说他是极具创意的行为艺术家。在本片的一开始，他便如一个追星族一般手舞足蹈的赶一场卡鲁索的歌剧，又手舞足蹈的恳请门卫放他进去。接着，他道出了他的远大理想，或者说是痴心妄想，在热带雨林中的小镇建造一座歌剧院，让卡鲁索来首演。无疑，这样的举动在如我一般无比“正常”的人看来都是不具可行性的计划，不提具体实施，首先这需要一笔钱，一大笔钱，但是我们的费兹卡拉多先生不是捣鼓石油的，也不是折腾房地产的，他当时只是一个制冰的，一笔巨额的款项不是靠冰块可以得到的。于是，他开始了游说，但是，对于现实的，视利润为生命的商人们来说，我们的主人公提供的既不是一个具有商业可行性的商业方案，也不是一个可以创造美好声誉的慈善项目。看到这里时，我丝毫没有觉得这些商人多么无情，或是愚蠢，因为，试问我是商人，又怎样可以认为在雨林修建剧院是一个可以投资的事业，试问这样的项目拿到今天能获得风投吗？于是，可以理解的，费兹卡拉多成为一个笑柄，甚至他对歌剧的热爱也成了他人嘲笑的地方。
费兹卡拉多是孤独的，因为他的想法为大多数人所不容，同时，他又是幸运的，因为他也有着同道与他同行。比如，他的红颜知己，那位开妓院的莫丽夫人，她一直支持着她的理想主义的爱人，无论从财政上还是精神上。理想主义的男人通常让女人又爱又恨，因为这样的人不同于常人的思维和行为让他们有种吸引人的独特魅力；同时他们为了理想不顾一切，甚至可以不顾爱情的独行作风和倔强性格又成为令人伤心的特质。在本片中，我们更多看到了前者，一个疯狂的理想主义者为一个女人深深的爱，为了取得足够的金钱，他不得不深入丛林试图采集橡胶。于是，他上路了，遇上了又一个同伴，一位经历丰富的老船长，他最传奇的故事也开始了。他率船逆流而上，一路上经受着被土著袭击的恐惧，他的船员一日逃走殆尽，但是他和留下的人们依然向前，甚至凭借土著的神话得到了大量土著的帮助。我们可以发现，即使追随费兹卡拉多的人也并不是赞同他的这些理想，更多是被他的精神力量所感召，于是，他总是在逆境中逢凶化吉，甚至可以让一班土著为其效力，有了这样的感召力和意志，或许在这位梦想家看来世上没有做不到的事情，比如，将一艘大船拖过一座高山！
“陆上行舟”，在本片中这远不是什么具有浪漫主义气息的意境，费兹卡拉多等人指挥着一批土著艰难的铺设铁轨，设计动力装置，在这里，一直以来就善于思考的费兹卡拉多充分发挥了自己的特长。很多人只好空想，而他却具备着一种脚踏实地的精神，所以在巧妙的设计和艰苦努力下，在一些人的生命的牺牲下，终于，这艘船翻过高山，缓缓的驶入水中。这一幕的画面拍的很有种神圣气息，船缓缓的又摇摇晃晃的驶入水中，同时配以颂歌般的音乐，让人不禁为这样的奇迹赞叹。值得一提的是，在这部电影中，帮助费兹卡拉多完成梦想的很大程度上是一些在文明人看来无知的土著，甚至连费兹卡拉多本人也无法理解“为什么他们像狗一样为我们干活”。赫尔佐格的电影常常带有对所谓文明的嘲讽，这里照我的理解也是嘲讽了一把现代文明，土著们之所以去做一件“文明人”看来荒唐的事情，在于他们依然相信奇迹，相信神话，他们还没有“理智”的失去梦想。所以，费兹卡拉多在文明社会就像一个为身边人蔑视的“野蛮人”，所以，来到了雨林，来到了远离文明社会的地方，他显得更加如鱼得水，在这项令人惊叹的创举中，他两眼放光，他激动不已，他终于可以快乐的将梦想付诸实施。最后，尽管歌剧院尚未建成，但是，卡鲁索来了，歌剧来了，在他那象征着梦想的跨越了高山的船上，一场歌剧开演。而费兹卡拉多，他在一旁，看着自己一手铸造的奇迹，以一个胜利的梦想家的姿态回家，迎面而来的是奔跑的知己莫丽，人生至此，夫复何求。
导演赫尔佐格便是一个充满着激情与梦想的人，在这部电影中，他并没有可以的渲染激情而使得影片失控。本片的节奏倒是更像一出歌剧一般，并不那么激烈，却不时引出冲突，又慢慢回复平静，而雨林的美丽，不时插入的歌剧唱段都使得本片带着神圣的美学色彩。金斯基在本片中显得“斯文”了不少，甚至在片子开始显得像一个孩子一般，但是越到后面他越富激情，同时一种坚韧的毅力也使得他显得极具人格魅力。本片起初并不是圈定金斯基为男主角，但是，最终他出色的演绎了这一执着的梦想家的角色，富于激情而不显得狂躁。更令人赞叹的当然还是这部电影的拍摄过程，赫尔佐格竟然真的带着一班人将一艘大船拖过了高山，他似乎是想证明，爷不是拍部片子教条的叫你们坚持梦想，不是光来来特技或是镜头拼接来讲个煽情的故事，而是告诉你们，我也做到了，我真的将一艘大船拖过了高山，绝对的知行合一。所以，我要向赫尔佐格这样的疯子致敬，他以一部电影的拍摄过程完成了一出极具感召力的行为艺术。如果你时常因为自己有些奇思怪想而怀疑自己是不是“不够踏实”，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，比起在雨林修歌剧院，拖船翻山，你的想法应该还算正常；如果你只是一天躺在床上为奇思怪想激动不已，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，因为无论是修贯穿印加山脉的铁路，在雨林造冰块，修剧院，他都想到了同时踏实的去准备，去付诸实施，或许你也该跳起来活动活动了；如果你因为你的奇思怪想而被他人嘲笑而沮丧不已，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，费兹卡拉多已经惨到了几乎被整个社会嘲笑，被整个社会抛弃，所以你大可以你的微笑面对他人的嘲笑；如果你因为实现理想的路途挫折不已而痛苦，那么你可以看看《陆上行舟》，费兹卡拉多深入不毛，为了让大船过山，披荆斩棘，他面对挫折坚毅的玩命儿，所以你也不妨咬咬牙，以一种死磕的精神战斗到底。
《陆上行舟》，一部负载梦想的电影，当我们已经“理智”或是“现实”的无力梦想的时候，看看赫尔佐格一样的疯子费兹卡拉多如何演绎一段热带雨林的传奇，如何让梦想跨越高山，到达彼岸，或许适当的冲淡理智，我们会发现生活的另一处风景。
http://hi.baidu.com/doglovecat/blog/item/ef586c382ace8e2297ddd896.html
5 ) 当男高音在热带雨林中响起
看《陆上行舟》的时候一直在思索一个问题，男主想在雨林中建歌剧院的目的是什么，他也是一个商人，怎么头脑里只想到建歌剧院，难道没有想过以后要怎样把它维持营运下去？
看到后面他们一点点把船拖上山，拉到河里的时候，想到以前很多的冒险家不也是凭着信念开拓出一片新疆土的吗？不论是哥伦布、麦哲伦还是那些形单影只的传教士，他们不仅要跟陌生的自然环境打交道，还要面对不同的文化带来的误解和冲突，最后经过种种努力完成使命，促进文化的交流。
菲茨杰拉德想把歌剧带到一个荒蛮之地的心理动机跟那些传播福音的人出奇一致，所以我很愿意把他看成是一个传教士，歌剧就像是福音。这样一来，看似荒诞疯狂的行为其实是有现实根根基的。电影中极其写实的细节也跟历史上一些事件丝缕相连。比如给土著人冰块，让土著人帮他拉船，这就是一个文明的交流。另外金斯基在这里演的也是一个进入美洲的冒险家，但跟在《天谴》里的阿基尔有很大的不同，虽然都很疯，但没有阿基尔那么傲慢。他是一个强势的外来者，但也在学习适应土著文化。比如电影中他喝下土著用好像椰壳的容器盛的饮料，那种饮料的制作需要吐入唾液让其发酵，具体情况不太清楚，但看过纪录片和一些书籍确实有这样的。不是Herzog游历列国的背景，很难拍出如此写实细腻的电影。
看到后面他们一点点把船拖上山，拉到河里的时候，想到以前很多的冒险家不也是凭着信念开拓出一片新疆土的吗？不论是哥伦布、麦哲伦还是那些形单影只的传教士，他们不仅要跟陌生的自然环境打交道，还要面对不同的文化带来的误解和冲突，最后经过种种努力完成使命，促进文化的交流。
菲茨杰拉德想把歌剧带到一个荒蛮之地的心理动机跟那些传播福音的人出奇一致，所以我很愿意把他看成是一个传教士，歌剧就像是福音。这样一来，看似荒诞疯狂的行为其实是有现实根根基的。电影中极其写实的细节也跟历史上一些事件丝缕相连。比如给土著人冰块，让土著人帮他拉船，这就是一个文明的交流。另外金斯基在这里演的也是一个进入美洲的冒险家，但跟在《天谴》里的阿基尔有很大的不同，虽然都很疯，但没有阿基尔那么傲慢。他是一个强势的外来者，但也在学习适应土著文化。比如电影中他喝下土著用好像椰壳的容器盛的饮料，那种饮料的制作需要吐入唾液让其发酵，具体情况不太清楚，但看过纪录片和一些书籍确实有这样的。不是Herzog游历列国的背景，很难拍出如此写实细腻的电影。
6 ) Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers （大蒜好过十个妈）
Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers
——赫尔佐格与陆上行舟侧记
1942年9月，二战时期欧洲的东线战场上，德军将对斯大林格勒展开新一轮的进攻。而我们的主人公沃纳•赫尔佐格（Werner Herzog）也将在这个处女月降生于慕尼黑，此时距离他的第一部享誉国际的长片《天谴》（Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes）上映，还有整整三十年。当然 ，Herzog这三十年也没有闲着，14岁的时候从慕尼黑就独自徒步到了前南斯拉夫边境；中学的时候做过电焊工、停车场管理员之类的工作；退学后在美国身无分文四处流浪；因签证到期逃到墨西哥干些走私、掷绳套牛的工作；在拍完首部长片《生命的迹象》之后跑到了非洲乌干达、阿尔及利亚、喀麦隆、刚果等地拍摄了几部纪录片；跟演员们打赌，然后跳进了仙人掌地里，自己也成了仙人掌。
1972年，Herzog用其从慕尼黑电影学院偷来的35毫米摄像机前往亚马孙丛林拍摄《天谴》，资金全靠积蓄和变卖的靴子手表，整个拍摄过程只花了一个半月，在即将拍摄结束之时，克劳斯•金斯基（Klaus Kinski）发飙毁约要走，Herzog找到金斯基平静的说：我有把枪，我会饮弹自尽，但在此之前我会先杀了你。我们都知道这只是这两位狂人15年合作的开始，1979年两人合作连续拍摄《诺斯费拉图》(Nosferatu)和《沃切克》(Woyzeck)，值得一提的是，同年金斯基在夜总会做舞女的小女儿娜塔莎•金斯基（Nastassja Kinski）与大其25岁的罗曼•波兰斯基（Roman Raymond Polański）同居，并出演《苔丝》（Tess)而声名大噪远超父亲。
无所不能的Herzog总能在自己穿越五大洲四大洋拍剧情长片的同期拍一堆纪录片，同样在拍摄一堆纪录片的同时筹备另外的史诗电影，这一点非常困扰我，总是无法理解其到底是拍纪录片《蜃景》时筹拍了《《侏儒也是从小长大》，还是筹拍《《侏儒也是从小长大》时，顺道拍了下《《蜃景》。这一优良传统居然也传递到了莱斯•布兰克（Les Blank）那里，后者在赫尔佐格筹备《陆上行舟》（Fitzcarraldo）的时候拍了《赫尔佐格吃了他的鞋》，在赫尔佐格拍《陆上行舟》的时候顺便拍了《梦想的负担》（Burden of Dreams），同期还漂亮了植入了其《大蒜好过十个妈》（Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers）的硬广。
在Herzog的字典里，没有“艺术家”这一个词，他觉得自己更多的是像那种中世纪的工匠，和自己的学徒一起默默无闻的打造自己的作品，对于正在制作的材料有着一种正式的感情。 他和DOGME 95（DOGME将自己的电影纳入一种规条之中，他们从前卫的定义中看到，个人主义的电影必定走向衰亡！）有许多共通之处，他认为创作者本身并没有什么内在的重要性，只有作品本身才会成为唯一重要的东西。
上世纪70年代是Herzog产出的高峰期，几乎每时每刻都穿梭在世界各地的丛林和沙漠甚至火山之中拍摄电影，对于一个灵感与运动神经一同迸发的家伙，Herzog的这辉煌十年一直都是在寻找外景地，寻找各类型土著演员，忽悠投资人，挖掘各类纪录片题材，与金斯基斗争中渡过。所以我们就不奇怪《陆上行舟》的筹备期是从他跑到加勒比海小岛上拍摄《苏弗里耶尔火山》后伊始的。通过上文Herzog编年简史的佐证，我们轻而易举的就可得出，Herzog是一个疯狂的人，没有他做不到的事情。再经过下去对《陆上行舟》筹备拍摄过程的梳理，我们将对我们的老友Herzog具有更理性的认识——他也只不过是一个爱捣鼓些事做的普通人罢了。
萌发：
Herzog少年的时候曾是一名跳台滑雪运动员，并且在慕尼黑的一支地方足球队做了很长一段时间的球员，当然他还是一个徒步旅行爱好者，在拍《陆上行舟》之前至少四次徒步穿越了欧洲美洲非洲。他曾拿跳台滑雪运动员的经历对比自己的导演生涯，拍电影一旦开始，就没人能帮你了，你必须克服恐惧，把片子拍到底。
关于其学思历程上，Herzog认为一个人一生中可能只有五六次欣赏完别人作品后豁开朗、醍醐灌顶的难忘经历。Herzog在克莱斯特（Kleist Heinrichvon，德国剧作家）身上，在巴赫的《音乐的奉献》（MUSIKALISCHES OPFER ）中，在知之者甚少的诗人奎林•库尔曼身上，在托德•布朗宁（Charles Albert Browning，cult先驱）的电影《畸零人》以及德莱叶（Carl Theodor Dreyer，丹麦导演）的《圣女贞德受难记》中都感受到了这一点。
多年前Herzog开车经过法国布列塔尼半岛的小镇卡纳克（Carnac）看到巨石阵后引发思考，古人是如何只用石器时代的工具就把这些重达几十吨的巨石立起排列好的呢？思考了2天后，Herzog决定拍一部与之有关的电影。
一位朋友告诉了Herzog有关菲茨卡拉多（Fitzcarraldo）的故事，他是19世纪和20世纪之交的一个贪心橡胶大亨，其曾将一艘船拆散了，然后通过陆路运输到相邻的河道中重新组装。Herzog对菲茨卡拉多的身份进行修正，并对这段经历进行了改编，勾勒出了《陆上行舟》的草图。
另外一则轶事不知当时在Herzog的心底起到怎样的作用，当时在亚马孙丛林里在拍摄《天谴》期间，这片林子里还发生了一件惊人的事情，一个17岁的德国女孩，在1971年所乘的飞机坠毁在秘鲁从林中，所有人都丧生只有她一人幸存并靠自己的努力走出丛林。这架班机赫尔佐格刚好错过，当赫尔佐格在丛林里拍《天谴》时，这个女孩就在不知的附近为生存斗争。这个故事Herzog在1999年拍成了《希望之翼》（Julianes Sturz in den Dschungel），同年Herzog拍摄了纪念金斯基的纪录片《我的魔鬼》（Mein liebster Feind - Klaus Kinski ）。
筹备：
很难像读塔可夫斯基的《时光中的时光》一样，从Herzog的《赫尔佐格谈赫尔佐格》（Herzog on Herzog）了解到整个筹备的来龙去脉，但可以身处在同时代，倾听隐去的声音，假想出这段历史。
剧本：
Herzog的剧本到底长什么样，我没有见过，但我知道《陆上行舟》上映的版本和之前开拍时候的版本相去甚远，不仅男主男配换了，甚至连角色设定也做了大幅度的删减。唯一不变的是把船拉上山再拉下水。与其说是为了完成电影的这样一个情节，倒不如假定之所以拍这样一部电影，就是为了完成Herzog移山倒海的痴梦。
资金：
关于金钱，Herzog曾谈到，你每次拍电影都必须准备好与魔鬼搏斗。但你得坚持下去，妈的！先把火点起来再说。你要努力先创造出一些强有力的东西来，让它自己再创造出动力来。最终，金钱会像丧家之犬那样夹着尾巴跟随着你而来。
当然这只是Herzog的心灵鸡汤罢啦，每次拍电影他总要为资金问题大费周章，比如说据他所说的第十一部电影《天谴》就是用积蓄多年的钢铁厂做焊接工的工资以及借来的款项、偷来的摄影机拍摄而成。
为了拿到投资，你必须讨好投资人，选择投资人推荐的主角，比如刚演完库布里克《闪灵》的杰克•尼科尔森（Jack Nicholson），全球火热的摇滚巨星米克•贾格尔（Mick Jagger，滚石乐队主唱），至于即将凭借《皮肉生涯》（Pelle, La，1981）提名金棕榈奖的克劳迪娅•卡汀娜（Claudia Cardinale）与新浪潮传奇制作人Renzo Rossellini（意大利导演罗西尼尼的儿子）进入那是后话。
作为一个名满全球德国新电影旗手找不到投资？看看同期全球都是哪些片子在闪耀吧，1981？单Renzo Rossellini参与制作的就有英格玛•伯格曼的《芬妮与亚历山大》，法斯宾德的《水手奎雷尔》，安东尼奥尼的《一个女人身份的证明》，塔可夫斯基的《乡愁》，费里尼的《船续前行》《女人城》等，而好友文德斯更是在疯狂圈钱创作了《水上回光》、《666房间》、《事物的状态》《哈麦特》等一堆影片。回头看看美日阵营，库布里克、波兰斯基、科波拉、黑泽明、大岛渚等等都在闷身憋大招。一个凭借疯子金斯基打天下的德国古怪导演又怎么去说服那么热钱涌向自己呢？
拍《陆上行舟》就像搞传销一样，转向了身边的好朋友或者生意上的小伙伴，最终三位《天谴》《诺斯费拉图》《史楚锡流浪记》的投资人以及Renzo Rossellini（真的没有指定克劳迪娅•卡汀娜来出演女主角吗）帮助Herzog走上了光辉或者灾难之路。
选角：
为什么是杰克•尼科尔森、米克•贾格尔而不是金斯基以及伊莎贝尔·阿佳妮呢？厚黑一点猜测，对洛杉矶和纽约非常有感情的Herzog 准备进入好莱坞，不然他干嘛在美国筹备了那么长时间，还面对着一千多年把自己的鞋子给吃了。杰克•尼科尔森再疯狂也只不过是疯狂湖人球迷罢了，金斯基可是用绳命来走路的家伙。现实一点的话，金斯基在1979年连续演了Herzog两部戏，两人整天拿着枪指来指去，这家伙终于忍不住脚底抹油跑到欧洲教训女儿不许和恋童癖波兰斯基鬼混。而伊莎贝尔•阿佳妮片约一堆又一堆，同年排了七八部戏，既然是充当花瓶摆一摆，那也抵不住热带雨林的折腾。
那么为什么杰克•尼科尔森、米克•贾格尔都跑路了，金斯基又被拖过来接班呢？在热带雨林中印第安土著的地盘上，有哪几个好莱坞影星能折腾得起呢，更别谈整天飞叶子的摇滚巨星了，趁着还有半条命，赶紧逃回温柔乡吧。据说金斯基是在纽约被Herzog 偶遇拉过来的，谁信呢？金斯基虽说性格爆裂举止怪异行为不端，但至少从来没有撂挑子过，看着赫尔佐格头发白了一圈又一圈，岂有不帮之理。
开拍：
《陆上行舟》位于秘鲁丛林的外景地，居然有三个剧组的存在，一个是Herzog和杰克•尼科尔森剧组，一个是Herzog和金斯基的剧组，另一个是跟拍Herzog把自己的鞋煮了吃掉的那个导演的剧组。
第一个剧组仓皇解散，第二第三个剧组迎难而上准备攻下山头。那么在拍摄的过程到底都发生了什么？
造两艘船，一只放在水里，一艘拉过山头。实景拍摄恐怕是现在的导演很少会采用的手法，不管是什么的场景，只需要在摄影棚里借助声光电特级就可实现，而新浪潮或者DOGME都对此类好莱坞手法嗤之以鼻，比如塔可夫斯基在拍摄《牺牲》时一把火烧掉了房子，黑泽明拍摄《乱》时放火烧掉了苦心搭建的城楼，而到了Herzog这里，不外乎准备钱，找当地的印第安土著造两只拍摄用的船。然后将一艘350吨重的蒸汽船拉过山头前行1800米，扔进激流之中。
伪造各类假公文，游走在各方势力之中。“做好准备，学习一下如何伪造文件。身上随时都带枚银币或是奖章，把它放在纸下压一压就造出了一个“印章”，然后再在上面来个粗体的签名，记住一定得签得像。拍电影会遇到很多的阻碍，最糟糕的就是官僚主义，你必须想出各种办法来对付这种威胁。你必须要比它更聪明，胜过它，以便完成你的电影。况且，官僚主义最爱的就是文件。所以你得不停地拿文件去喂他们，哪怕是一份伪造的文件都能让他们变得乐呵呵的，前提是它是写在看上去显得很高档的纸上。”Herzog如是说。
地区冲突和危险拍摄造成多人伤亡。1981年 1～2月,秘鲁以及厄瓜多尔两国在亚马孙森林孔多尔山脉地区多次发生武装冲突，除了军事冲突外，当地石油寡头、橡胶农场主、各部族土著之间的冲突不断，其中一只土著攻击了剧组雇佣的当群众演员的当地土著，直接死伤3人。后来在用定滑轮动滑轮钢索拉船上山的过程中，即使是剧组请来的巴西工程师也不相信这个装置可以搬运那个大家伙，工程师因此退出摄制组留下“只有30%成功机会，如果失败还会有人会死”的话。
又爱又恨的金斯基。作为Herzog电影的灵魂人物，金斯基常常因为琐事大发雷霆喜怒无常，比如因为咖啡冷了，在剧场中大发脾气一整天。当然这比起在慕尼黑与Herzog同住一栋楼时，动不动就把自己关进卫生间，连续发火吼叫辱骂48小时的记录，已经和蔼可亲多了。Herzog后来谈到，（金斯基）就像一颗彗星那样烧尽了自己。金斯基是为我而生的，为我的电影而生。
之后：
1982年影片上映，Herzog获得了第35界戛纳电影节最佳导演奖。
1984年，Herzog在完成纪录片《小兵之歌》以及《发光的山脉》后独自从童年的居住地扎赫兰出发开始徒步旅行，一路走遍了东西德的边境，大概走了2000公里后生病于是坐火车返回。
1987年在与金斯基合作拍摄完《非洲黑奴》后，两人关系破裂，至此中断联络。
1991年金斯基因病去世，Herzog捧着他的骨灰撒向了太平洋。
之后Herzog几乎悄无声息的帮BBC或者好莱坞拍拍片，不可否则，Herzog依然是Herzog，但没有了金斯基，Herzog不再是Herzog。
值得一提的是杨德昌在美国念大学时还只是影迷，因为看了Herzog的《天谴》醍醐灌顶，后来辞掉工程师的工作转行做电影，凭借《一一》或者第53届戛纳电影节最佳导演。
——赫尔佐格与陆上行舟侧记
1942年9月，二战时期欧洲的东线战场上，德军将对斯大林格勒展开新一轮的进攻。而我们的主人公沃纳•赫尔佐格（Werner Herzog）也将在这个处女月降生于慕尼黑，此时距离他的第一部享誉国际的长片《天谴》（Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes）上映，还有整整三十年。当然 ，Herzog这三十年也没有闲着，14岁的时候从慕尼黑就独自徒步到了前南斯拉夫边境；中学的时候做过电焊工、停车场管理员之类的工作；退学后在美国身无分文四处流浪；因签证到期逃到墨西哥干些走私、掷绳套牛的工作；在拍完首部长片《生命的迹象》之后跑到了非洲乌干达、阿尔及利亚、喀麦隆、刚果等地拍摄了几部纪录片；跟演员们打赌，然后跳进了仙人掌地里，自己也成了仙人掌。
1972年，Herzog用其从慕尼黑电影学院偷来的35毫米摄像机前往亚马孙丛林拍摄《天谴》，资金全靠积蓄和变卖的靴子手表，整个拍摄过程只花了一个半月，在即将拍摄结束之时，克劳斯•金斯基（Klaus Kinski）发飙毁约要走，Herzog找到金斯基平静的说：我有把枪，我会饮弹自尽，但在此之前我会先杀了你。我们都知道这只是这两位狂人15年合作的开始，1979年两人合作连续拍摄《诺斯费拉图》(Nosferatu)和《沃切克》(Woyzeck)，值得一提的是，同年金斯基在夜总会做舞女的小女儿娜塔莎•金斯基（Nastassja Kinski）与大其25岁的罗曼•波兰斯基（Roman Raymond Polański）同居，并出演《苔丝》（Tess)而声名大噪远超父亲。
无所不能的Herzog总能在自己穿越五大洲四大洋拍剧情长片的同期拍一堆纪录片，同样在拍摄一堆纪录片的同时筹备另外的史诗电影，这一点非常困扰我，总是无法理解其到底是拍纪录片《蜃景》时筹拍了《《侏儒也是从小长大》，还是筹拍《《侏儒也是从小长大》时，顺道拍了下《《蜃景》。这一优良传统居然也传递到了莱斯•布兰克（Les Blank）那里，后者在赫尔佐格筹备《陆上行舟》（Fitzcarraldo）的时候拍了《赫尔佐格吃了他的鞋》，在赫尔佐格拍《陆上行舟》的时候顺便拍了《梦想的负担》（Burden of Dreams），同期还漂亮了植入了其《大蒜好过十个妈》（Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers）的硬广。
在Herzog的字典里，没有“艺术家”这一个词，他觉得自己更多的是像那种中世纪的工匠，和自己的学徒一起默默无闻的打造自己的作品，对于正在制作的材料有着一种正式的感情。 他和DOGME 95（DOGME将自己的电影纳入一种规条之中，他们从前卫的定义中看到，个人主义的电影必定走向衰亡！）有许多共通之处，他认为创作者本身并没有什么内在的重要性，只有作品本身才会成为唯一重要的东西。
上世纪70年代是Herzog产出的高峰期，几乎每时每刻都穿梭在世界各地的丛林和沙漠甚至火山之中拍摄电影，对于一个灵感与运动神经一同迸发的家伙，Herzog的这辉煌十年一直都是在寻找外景地，寻找各类型土著演员，忽悠投资人，挖掘各类纪录片题材，与金斯基斗争中渡过。所以我们就不奇怪《陆上行舟》的筹备期是从他跑到加勒比海小岛上拍摄《苏弗里耶尔火山》后伊始的。通过上文Herzog编年简史的佐证，我们轻而易举的就可得出，Herzog是一个疯狂的人，没有他做不到的事情。再经过下去对《陆上行舟》筹备拍摄过程的梳理，我们将对我们的老友Herzog具有更理性的认识——他也只不过是一个爱捣鼓些事做的普通人罢了。
萌发：
Herzog少年的时候曾是一名跳台滑雪运动员，并且在慕尼黑的一支地方足球队做了很长一段时间的球员，当然他还是一个徒步旅行爱好者，在拍《陆上行舟》之前至少四次徒步穿越了欧洲美洲非洲。他曾拿跳台滑雪运动员的经历对比自己的导演生涯，拍电影一旦开始，就没人能帮你了，你必须克服恐惧，把片子拍到底。
关于其学思历程上，Herzog认为一个人一生中可能只有五六次欣赏完别人作品后豁开朗、醍醐灌顶的难忘经历。Herzog在克莱斯特（Kleist Heinrichvon，德国剧作家）身上，在巴赫的《音乐的奉献》（MUSIKALISCHES OPFER ）中，在知之者甚少的诗人奎林•库尔曼身上，在托德•布朗宁（Charles Albert Browning，cult先驱）的电影《畸零人》以及德莱叶（Carl Theodor Dreyer，丹麦导演）的《圣女贞德受难记》中都感受到了这一点。
多年前Herzog开车经过法国布列塔尼半岛的小镇卡纳克（Carnac）看到巨石阵后引发思考，古人是如何只用石器时代的工具就把这些重达几十吨的巨石立起排列好的呢？思考了2天后，Herzog决定拍一部与之有关的电影。
一位朋友告诉了Herzog有关菲茨卡拉多（Fitzcarraldo）的故事，他是19世纪和20世纪之交的一个贪心橡胶大亨，其曾将一艘船拆散了，然后通过陆路运输到相邻的河道中重新组装。Herzog对菲茨卡拉多的身份进行修正，并对这段经历进行了改编，勾勒出了《陆上行舟》的草图。
另外一则轶事不知当时在Herzog的心底起到怎样的作用，当时在亚马孙丛林里在拍摄《天谴》期间，这片林子里还发生了一件惊人的事情，一个17岁的德国女孩，在1971年所乘的飞机坠毁在秘鲁从林中，所有人都丧生只有她一人幸存并靠自己的努力走出丛林。这架班机赫尔佐格刚好错过，当赫尔佐格在丛林里拍《天谴》时，这个女孩就在不知的附近为生存斗争。这个故事Herzog在1999年拍成了《希望之翼》（Julianes Sturz in den Dschungel），同年Herzog拍摄了纪念金斯基的纪录片《我的魔鬼》（Mein liebster Feind - Klaus Kinski ）。
筹备：
很难像读塔可夫斯基的《时光中的时光》一样，从Herzog的《赫尔佐格谈赫尔佐格》（Herzog on Herzog）了解到整个筹备的来龙去脉，但可以身处在同时代，倾听隐去的声音，假想出这段历史。
剧本：
Herzog的剧本到底长什么样，我没有见过，但我知道《陆上行舟》上映的版本和之前开拍时候的版本相去甚远，不仅男主男配换了，甚至连角色设定也做了大幅度的删减。唯一不变的是把船拉上山再拉下水。与其说是为了完成电影的这样一个情节，倒不如假定之所以拍这样一部电影，就是为了完成Herzog移山倒海的痴梦。
资金：
关于金钱，Herzog曾谈到，你每次拍电影都必须准备好与魔鬼搏斗。但你得坚持下去，妈的！先把火点起来再说。你要努力先创造出一些强有力的东西来，让它自己再创造出动力来。最终，金钱会像丧家之犬那样夹着尾巴跟随着你而来。
当然这只是Herzog的心灵鸡汤罢啦，每次拍电影他总要为资金问题大费周章，比如说据他所说的第十一部电影《天谴》就是用积蓄多年的钢铁厂做焊接工的工资以及借来的款项、偷来的摄影机拍摄而成。
为了拿到投资，你必须讨好投资人，选择投资人推荐的主角，比如刚演完库布里克《闪灵》的杰克•尼科尔森（Jack Nicholson），全球火热的摇滚巨星米克•贾格尔（Mick Jagger，滚石乐队主唱），至于即将凭借《皮肉生涯》（Pelle, La，1981）提名金棕榈奖的克劳迪娅•卡汀娜（Claudia Cardinale）与新浪潮传奇制作人Renzo Rossellini（意大利导演罗西尼尼的儿子）进入那是后话。
作为一个名满全球德国新电影旗手找不到投资？看看同期全球都是哪些片子在闪耀吧，1981？单Renzo Rossellini参与制作的就有英格玛•伯格曼的《芬妮与亚历山大》，法斯宾德的《水手奎雷尔》，安东尼奥尼的《一个女人身份的证明》，塔可夫斯基的《乡愁》，费里尼的《船续前行》《女人城》等，而好友文德斯更是在疯狂圈钱创作了《水上回光》、《666房间》、《事物的状态》《哈麦特》等一堆影片。回头看看美日阵营，库布里克、波兰斯基、科波拉、黑泽明、大岛渚等等都在闷身憋大招。一个凭借疯子金斯基打天下的德国古怪导演又怎么去说服那么热钱涌向自己呢？
拍《陆上行舟》就像搞传销一样，转向了身边的好朋友或者生意上的小伙伴，最终三位《天谴》《诺斯费拉图》《史楚锡流浪记》的投资人以及Renzo Rossellini（真的没有指定克劳迪娅•卡汀娜来出演女主角吗）帮助Herzog走上了光辉或者灾难之路。
选角：
为什么是杰克•尼科尔森、米克•贾格尔而不是金斯基以及伊莎贝尔·阿佳妮呢？厚黑一点猜测，对洛杉矶和纽约非常有感情的Herzog 准备进入好莱坞，不然他干嘛在美国筹备了那么长时间，还面对着一千多年把自己的鞋子给吃了。杰克•尼科尔森再疯狂也只不过是疯狂湖人球迷罢了，金斯基可是用绳命来走路的家伙。现实一点的话，金斯基在1979年连续演了Herzog两部戏，两人整天拿着枪指来指去，这家伙终于忍不住脚底抹油跑到欧洲教训女儿不许和恋童癖波兰斯基鬼混。而伊莎贝尔•阿佳妮片约一堆又一堆，同年排了七八部戏，既然是充当花瓶摆一摆，那也抵不住热带雨林的折腾。
那么为什么杰克•尼科尔森、米克•贾格尔都跑路了，金斯基又被拖过来接班呢？在热带雨林中印第安土著的地盘上，有哪几个好莱坞影星能折腾得起呢，更别谈整天飞叶子的摇滚巨星了，趁着还有半条命，赶紧逃回温柔乡吧。据说金斯基是在纽约被Herzog 偶遇拉过来的，谁信呢？金斯基虽说性格爆裂举止怪异行为不端，但至少从来没有撂挑子过，看着赫尔佐格头发白了一圈又一圈，岂有不帮之理。
开拍：
《陆上行舟》位于秘鲁丛林的外景地，居然有三个剧组的存在，一个是Herzog和杰克•尼科尔森剧组，一个是Herzog和金斯基的剧组，另一个是跟拍Herzog把自己的鞋煮了吃掉的那个导演的剧组。
第一个剧组仓皇解散，第二第三个剧组迎难而上准备攻下山头。那么在拍摄的过程到底都发生了什么？
造两艘船，一只放在水里，一艘拉过山头。实景拍摄恐怕是现在的导演很少会采用的手法，不管是什么的场景，只需要在摄影棚里借助声光电特级就可实现，而新浪潮或者DOGME都对此类好莱坞手法嗤之以鼻，比如塔可夫斯基在拍摄《牺牲》时一把火烧掉了房子，黑泽明拍摄《乱》时放火烧掉了苦心搭建的城楼，而到了Herzog这里，不外乎准备钱，找当地的印第安土著造两只拍摄用的船。然后将一艘350吨重的蒸汽船拉过山头前行1800米，扔进激流之中。
伪造各类假公文，游走在各方势力之中。“做好准备，学习一下如何伪造文件。身上随时都带枚银币或是奖章，把它放在纸下压一压就造出了一个“印章”，然后再在上面来个粗体的签名，记住一定得签得像。拍电影会遇到很多的阻碍，最糟糕的就是官僚主义，你必须想出各种办法来对付这种威胁。你必须要比它更聪明，胜过它，以便完成你的电影。况且，官僚主义最爱的就是文件。所以你得不停地拿文件去喂他们，哪怕是一份伪造的文件都能让他们变得乐呵呵的，前提是它是写在看上去显得很高档的纸上。”Herzog如是说。
地区冲突和危险拍摄造成多人伤亡。1981年 1～2月,秘鲁以及厄瓜多尔两国在亚马孙森林孔多尔山脉地区多次发生武装冲突，除了军事冲突外，当地石油寡头、橡胶农场主、各部族土著之间的冲突不断，其中一只土著攻击了剧组雇佣的当群众演员的当地土著，直接死伤3人。后来在用定滑轮动滑轮钢索拉船上山的过程中，即使是剧组请来的巴西工程师也不相信这个装置可以搬运那个大家伙，工程师因此退出摄制组留下“只有30%成功机会，如果失败还会有人会死”的话。
又爱又恨的金斯基。作为Herzog电影的灵魂人物，金斯基常常因为琐事大发雷霆喜怒无常，比如因为咖啡冷了，在剧场中大发脾气一整天。当然这比起在慕尼黑与Herzog同住一栋楼时，动不动就把自己关进卫生间，连续发火吼叫辱骂48小时的记录，已经和蔼可亲多了。Herzog后来谈到，（金斯基）就像一颗彗星那样烧尽了自己。金斯基是为我而生的，为我的电影而生。
之后：
1982年影片上映，Herzog获得了第35界戛纳电影节最佳导演奖。
1984年，Herzog在完成纪录片《小兵之歌》以及《发光的山脉》后独自从童年的居住地扎赫兰出发开始徒步旅行，一路走遍了东西德的边境，大概走了2000公里后生病于是坐火车返回。
1987年在与金斯基合作拍摄完《非洲黑奴》后，两人关系破裂，至此中断联络。
1991年金斯基因病去世，Herzog捧着他的骨灰撒向了太平洋。
之后Herzog几乎悄无声息的帮BBC或者好莱坞拍拍片，不可否则，Herzog依然是Herzog，但没有了金斯基，Herzog不再是Herzog。
值得一提的是杨德昌在美国念大学时还只是影迷，因为看了Herzog的《天谴》醍醐灌顶，后来辞掉工程师的工作转行做电影，凭借《一一》或者第53届戛纳电影节最佳导演。
一部南美版的愚公移山，导演和主演一样疯狂，那份执念甚至能令船跳出水面。在当时来说拍摄难度无法想象。酋长举起冰的一刻，能感觉到世界都静了...
2018.3.28重看@北电。确实是伟大的电影。
一部反映文化冲突和意识形态差别的、近乎疯癫的片子。与其说是一部带纪实风格的假想片，不如说是一部社会实验片，台词十分黑色幽默，每个独立细节都引人深思。这是一部杰作，是运镜的疯子在拍摄一个奇想的天才，而天才往往也是疯的：赫尔佐格此人，不止侏儒、狼人、傻子或吸血鬼，应该注意的是他本身
奇观的代价（纪录片叫burden of dreams），在泛滥的殖民主义情绪和暴君的行事方式中通向了电影层面的节制：因为没有一个“超人镜头”不是用血汗换来
三十年过去了，这部电影依旧保持着某种特异性，拒绝被分类，也不可能被归类。它只代表创造电影，无中生有这件事情本身。
"船只—剧院"即身体及其欲望延展的可能性之喻。逆流等同意志提纯。《陆上行舟》建置在"I want"和"I've seen"两个前提，接近于神性，在影片内外共同完成。一种理想化的自由意志:在荒蛮中创造文明的可能，在"上帝式施予"之中，"经验"以臣服于激情的"同路人"角色在场。
布鲁姆们也许会说‘这部电影受到麦尔维尔的影响，它是电影中的《白鲸》，一个陆地上的亚哈船长怀着不可告人的目的带着一群不明就里的魁魁格出发了……’我只想说，有时候并不是后面的人受到前面的谁的影响，而是疯子们想到一处去了。
难以用简单词汇定义这样的电影，想起赫尔佐格用战士形容自己。集中呈现文明与野蛮执着抗争的角力，歌剧与揶揄、冰块与信仰成就完美主义的一体两面（戏里戏外的疯狂人生，波澜壮阔的雨林奇观），要死命违抗物质存在本能，才能初见陆上行舟的奇迹；他说，要让船在惊涛中重生，我们才可能获得上帝的宽恕。
9/10。将失败变成凯旋的菲茨卡拉多穿着晚礼服，叼着雪茄向两岸欢呼的人群得意地挥手，把请来破船演奏的歌剧献给爱人，以他人的艺术完成自我的艺术，上演了人类疯狂梦想的歌剧。菲茨卡拉多代表现代性启蒙者，从开心地把冰分给当地小孩、半途而废的铁路到船头播乐平息两岸原住民狂野的鼓声，运用知识引导秘鲁人和原住民的伙伴完成文明的拓荒。有一点值得注意：被视为神器的船翻过山顶解掉缆绳，破船在急流中荡漾，现代性的启蒙让位于自然神话。赌桌外商人将美元喂鱼，晚宴上鱼变成佳肴，菲茨卡拉多受到政商人士的羞辱，庸常的物质社会使人堕落挥霍沦为失去梦想的死鱼，他在教堂疯狂敲钟宣告要反抗庸常建立梦想。妓院和歌剧的设置形成联系：爱人用开妓院的钱赞助菲茨卡拉多的梦想，他送来两人并肩而坐的画像，梦想分别所在艺术和色情的两者达成了精神同盟。
很震撼，真正展现人类文明力量的电影，那种不同肤色、种族，不同文明间百川汇聚迸发出的力量，让人对我们自身产生难以言表的骄傲与希望。赫尔佐格经常着眼于文明社会的边缘人，让他们与自然或融入、或纠缠，而本片更进一步，逐步剥离了主角身上疲软的社会性与幼稚的自我满足，最后在超现实的镜头下使其展现出希腊神话般的壮志伟力。歌剧与金斯基炽热的面孔为电影增色不少，唯一的遗憾是这场冒险没有带上美艳的Cardinale。
疯狂的赫尔佐格从来都只为探险家、理想主义者和堂吉诃德们作传，一种伟大的偏执和缺心眼。
瞠目结舌叹为观止，最后船缓缓移动的时候忍不住想哭啊！赫尔佐格和金斯基的组合就是神一般的存在，他们展示了人类和大自然最原始的关系，征服
1.陆上行舟，喜爱歌剧的倔强之人将大胆固执的想法变成了现实；2.查亚休亚里·亚居，雨林里的印第安人说这个地方是"上帝未创造完成的疆域"，他们相信只有人类消失后，上帝才会回来完成他的工作。3.-要不要告诉他(冰)会化没的？-不行，他们的语言里没有冰这个词。4.我要给你讲个故事，那时北美还远远没被征服。有一个法国捕猎者从蒙特利尔向西走，他是第一个看到尼亚加拉瀑布的白人。回来后，他告诉人们瀑布壮阔得...人们根本想象不到。可没人信他，他们认为他不是疯了，就是在撒谎，他们问他：“你有什么证据？” 他说：“我的证据就是，我看到了。”
2个小时30多分钟，讲述一个人，一艘船，如何为了追寻一个看似荒唐的梦想，在漫长的亚马逊河上，行走了一个来回。
四星半,相当通俗. 真正与本片可有一比的作品要算《阿拉伯的劳伦斯》:二者都既是纯粹视觉的(辽阔的自然与人的对比)又是纯粹精神的(征服一切的偏执欲求),故进入此类电影所需要的仅仅是睁大眼睛去捕捉,打开头脑去感受和想象――既是有关故事本身亦有关拍摄历程. 在高超的节奏控制与"奇观"性质的文明对立之下,电影的形式便自然显示为朴实无华而富于感染力的了;此可谓"意志的胜利".
哥还能说什么 能拍这种电影的人什么拍不出来？！ 、元来哥还不够疯狂！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！我的女神怎么成了妓院的老鸨了！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
整部电影充满冒险神秘和大气偏执的精神，不过不喜欢电影的结尾，在我想象中的的结局他要么建起了歌剧院，要么死于土著人的乱箭之下。
所以，你那个把某领导扒光了拖过单位肮脏走廊的梦想也是可以实现的。
沃纳·赫尔佐格代表作，获1982年戛纳最佳导演。影片事无巨细地描述了一位执着狂热的理想主义者追寻唐吉坷德式梦想的过程。片中大量场景实地实景拍摄，痴狂的导演甚至真的将整艘蒸汽船运上山顶，技术难度可想而知。本片另一特色是迷人的丛林风光镜头。经过艰苦卓绝的旅程，结尾令人心潮澎湃。（9.0/10）
2018年3月24日第三次重温；“他们的语言里没有冰这个词”这个意象堪比『百年孤独』；文明和蛮荒的对峙角力，体力和意志的互补拉锯；唯有赫尔佐格能将纪实与神奇调教得波澜壮阔，也唯有金斯基能传达如此这般狂热不息的斗志，热带雨林里的华丽咏叹。