Werner Herzog analyzes Juno

Brilliant. Excessive capitals and all.

The link leads back to itself, Jim.

Having not read the article, let me just state up front that using Capital Letters to denote something of epic importance isn't a bad thing...when used sparingly. This is a mess.

JE: Link is fixed, Nate. But not the Overdone Capitalization.

Okay, now I get the point of the article. That's quite good, and I retract my previous statement about unnecessary capitalization.

"In the Ruins of the Battleground of Creation lie the Tarnished Remains of Zingers Flogged and Tortured, of Timeless Quips Raped and Pillaged by the Emblems of our Spiritual Assassination: YouTube and Google Video."

Snicker.

As a fellow who write his master's thesis on Herzog's films, let me just play the grump and say that while the language is a reasonable parody of Herzog's occasional tongue-in-cheek bloviations, but the man has a pathological disinterest in anything psychological or psychoanalytical.

On the other hand, it was pretty funny.

I think Herzog would make a great critic: "The ecstatic truth is... this movie stinks."

Isn't it strange that Werner Herzog sees only three or four films per year (as per his admission during last year's Ebertfest - is that right, Jim?)... I've met a few filmmakers, all of them Europeans, who are similar in that regard. Anyway, it's just a thought.

Congrats on reaching 600 posts.

I will do Christopher Long one better and suggest that due to his pathological disinterest in the psychological or psychoanalytical, in no way is this humor piece relatable to Herzog at all. Anyone who's heard or read nearly any sort of Herzog interview should know this, which makes me think that the writer of the piece either hasn't read any sort of Herzog interview or is just generally unfit to write a celebrity-impersonation sketch.

On the other hand, it wasn't that funny! (...but that's just me.)

I dunno. I couldn't picture Herzog using a word like "Physiognomy." I could more easily picture Slavoj Zizek making this rant (although his voice doesn't do it the same justice as Werner's).

To Spencer Owen, I don't think it was written as Werner Herzog. I'm pretty sure Jim just placed it into that context.

I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Long and Mr. Owen. While Herzog postures himself as a man who has as pathological disinterest in anything psychological or psychoanalytical, he actually is quite obsessed with both subjects. He just doesn't speak about them in the conventional terms and themes that we normally associate with classic psychology.

The one constant in almost all of Herzog's films are central figures that have extreme psychology. I find it hard to believe that he could make these films, and make them so well, if he had no interest in the psychology of man.

There is some truth to your assertions, though. If you ask Herzog a direct question about his characters' psychologies, he will not give you an answer. I've tried this personally and it doesn't go well. However, whenever I have seen Herzog speak to a crowd, and led by a professional interviewer, he invariably will talk at length about psychological concepts. He just addresses them indirectly and mysteriously, and in his own way and language.

"I loathe psychology as one of the major faults of our
civilization nowadays. There's something not right about this amount of introspection. I can only give you a metaphor: When you move into an apartment, you cannot start to illuminate every last corner with neon light. If
there are no dark corners or hidden niches, your house becomes uninhabitable. Human beings who are trying to self-reflect and explore their innermost being to the last corner become uninhabitable people." - Werner Herzog

There's a difference between showing characters of "extreme psychology" and in actively seeking psychological explanations for their behavior.

Bruno S. is not interesting as Kaspar Hauser or Stroszek because we learn that he was abused as a child or what have you, but simply because of who he IS, how he looks, how he acts, how he speaks, etc.

Likewise, Kinski's manifestations of insanity and megalomania would not gain any depth by a psychoanalytical analysis that traces Aguirre's desire back to his fear of castration.

Herzog's films emphasize presence, the shape and heft of tangible being, not from navel-gazing.

Even in a film like Grizzly Man, Herzog does not commit the unpardonable sin of attempting to explain exactly what made Timothy Treadwell tick. This is unknowable. Herzog presents some evidence that might encourage the reader to entertain a few guesses, but the "why" of Timothy Treadwell takes a back seat to the "what." "What" can be answered; "why" is just a mug's game.

Like I said: "Herzog postures himself as a man who has a pathological disinterest in anything psychological or psychoanalytical..." I do not disagree with you on that point. I would argue that Herzog is almost always talking about psychology whether he knows it or not.

In one short interview alone for Grizzly Man, Herzog says the following about Treadwell:

"But I think he tried to address an audience who was feeling like him"

"I like him also for the times when he failed and wrestles some meaning for his existence"

"he allows us inside, into our innermost human condition"

"I wanted to know more about her, because she's almost excluded from his film. Is he misogynist? Does he not like her?"

This sounds like a man who is interested in psychology.

1) Do people talk like they do in Shakespeare? No, and does that detract from the power of Macbeth or hilarity of Much Ado?
2) Who says people don't talk like, or as well as, the characters in Juno? I'm 16 and me and my friends (devout fans of Shakespeare and poetry) have plenty of lingo to impart on those who do, perhaps not as heavy as Juno's but well enough to rock you yuppies' worlds.
3) What is the real reason for everyone's complaints?
A cold heart, calloused and completely forgotten of the real world you once lived in before becoming the subject of the hamster wheel tests you call your job? The movie is about a person dealing with something. In this world, Juno is a real person. How can you say that she wouldn't handle it the way she does in the film. A different person would handle it differently. In this vast world and all of those created in our minds-which are just as 'real' as any other- there are many different types of people. what's the problem with that?

This is inane and completely off the mark. Herzog does not speak, write, or think like this. Has the author ever seen him interviewed? There is nothing of "theory" in him.

This reads as a shallow caricature of some third-rate postmodernist, not the great filmmaker it purports to lampoon.

I HAVE interviewed Herzog personally, and while this is an exaggeration and distorted caricature, it is still funny. Lighten up there, Aguirre!

This seems way more like Thomas Pynchon than Werner Herzog.