Friday, May 5-----Filmfestivals.com Industry Editor Sandy Mandelberger sat down last week with legendary director Werner Herzog , recipient of the San Francisco Film Society Directing Award at the San Francisco International Film Festival, for a heart-to-heart discussion about what has kept Herzog going in a career that spans 40 years and almost 30 films.
Sandy Mandelberger (SM): I first encountered your films while I was studying at New York University, and attended the New York Film Festival, which was the first event in America to show your work. You have since disassociated yourself from what was then called the New German Cinema, which included your colleagues Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Wim Wenders and Volker Schlondorff. Why is that?
Werner Herzog (WH): There was no new German cinema, just something that was invented in the media. Our films were always linked togetherk, even though they were of different genres and were shot completely differently. I would not call this a movement, the way that the Nouvelle Vague in France or Neo-Realism in Italy was a movement. What we shared in common was a similar moral attitude about our society and a feeling that film could influence social and political trends.
SM: So, what is the legacy of that moment in time when the German cinema of the 1970s was celebrated around the world?
WH: I do think that our films did influence filmmaking, not only in Germany and Europe, but internationally. Film was always so expensive, and needed a great deal of money to be made. Our films were made on ridiculously small budgets, and yet we were able to make some great films at that time. Another important part of this was the development of the subsidy and distribution systems that still exist in Germany. We pushed the government to get involved in promoting new films and talents that would not otherwise have been able to survive in the commercial marketplace.
SM: After several well-received films in the 1970s, you won the Best Director Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 1982 for your epic film FITZCARRALDO. What was that experience like for you?
WH: I'm not interested in awards, they are more for cattle. I must admit to feeling a certain embarassment about it. But the good part is that it created media attention for the film and attracted a larger international audience. But Cannes itself is very far from what motivates me as a filmmaker.
SM: In FITZCARRALDO, you worked with the actor Klaus Kinski, who was a notoriously difficult actor to work with. How did you get the performances out of him that you wanted in this film and AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD, and what do you think his legacy is?
WH: He was so unique and his contribution to the art of acting was not really recognized. You know, he made almost 200 films in his career, most of them rather bad ones, but some great ones. As a personality, he was very difficult on the set. Nobody wanted to work with him. I would have producers, actors, and crew members come to me and complain about how impossible he was. But I had a good working relationship with him, because the more wild he would become, the more I would respond by being calm. It was job to domesticate the wild beast, and sometimes I even succeeded.
SM: Speaking of awards, you won last year's Directors Guild of America Award for your documentary GRIZZLY MAN, but the film did not even get nominated for the Academy Award. How does that make you feel?
WH: The DGA Award was important to me because it came from my director colleagues. As far as the Oscar is concerned, I did not even notice. I heard from many friends how unjust it was, but I told them not to lose any sleep over it. I certainly did not. I think that the Academy follows old rules, but with the new technologies that challenge our concept of what is real, they will have to adapt. The audience is interested in finding a deeper illumination of truth, and the Academy, like all institutions, is way behind the audience, and will need to catch up.
SM: You are one of the only directors who has successfully directed both narrative and documentary features. What attracts you to mixing this up and why do you think other filmmakers do not try their hands at the documentary form?
WH: I am really not a role model of any kind, and I don't want to be. In my career, I follow my own fascination and am not interested in being a director clone, who makes the same film over and over again just for the fame and the money. I believe in bringing a greater truth to the projects I work on, whether they are narrative scripts or non-fiction, or a mix of the two. I am more interested in the changing nature of truth than I am in the "pure" forms of narrative or documentary filmmaking. That is why when I am accused of staging scenes in my documentaries, I always laugh. I care more about the intricacies of truth than I do about supposed truth. My interest in taking the audience along with me on a journey, so that we may both learn more about human nature.
Comments