Out of context comment on somebody's messageboard:
---
Hm. That does seem odd. I wonder why he would do that?
Perhaps by treating the same subject matter in two so divergent ways, Herzog is attempting to make some point. He could be trying to underscore the need for audiences to distinguish between a documentary approach, where depicting the true facts is legitimately the top priority, and a regular movie, where certainly no one should ever assume that's the case! I mean, there are a lot of people out there who go to a movie "based on a true story" and come out of the theater saying "and the most unbelievable thing is, it all really happened!"
I like to go to those movies and, as people say that to each other on the way out, smack as many of them in the back of the head as possible. My record is 3.
I'm just hypothesizing, of course. I'd be surprised if he had that specific point in mind, but I bet he had some point. I remember hearing that he'd done a documentary version before this, and I don't think I've ever heard of a director doing something like that - same basic subject twice, once as documentary and once as drama. But that could be because very few directors jump back and forth between the two, though.
Maybe Herzog really wanted all along to make the "movie" version, and he decided to do it as a straight docu first so as to "get the truth out of the way" as it were. So if anyone takes him to task for the dramatized approach, he can point them to the other: "hey, I made a fine documentary about it as well if that's what you're interested in."
I'm kind of interested to see the documentary, myself. I bet it's just as bad!
No comments:
Post a Comment