陆上行舟

The "real" Fitzcarraldo had once dismantled a boat, carried it overland from one river to the parallel tributary and reassembled it back. But this film is not about Fitzcarraldo.

I finally understood the truth of it being more a documentary than a feature film, and all Herzog's films having some "documentary" quality. It is always about human life, about his struggles with getting to know the chaotic world around him, during which about him chasing his dream, or his absoluteness.

In this particular film, Herzog, is Dieter in Little Dieter Needs to Fly, is Goldsworthy in Rivers and Tides, is Christo in Running Fences. It is his pursuit of a myth and his realization of a dream.

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。

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

下午花了两个半小时仔细地看了一部电影，这么多天来的浮躁被影片中亚马孙的流水和Caruzo美妙的嗓音冲走。本来打算在豆瓣上写个评论的，后来发现把自己的影评和别人的放在一起，写起来会有压力，所以我觉得凡是以后要上豆瓣的书评也好乐评也好影评也好，一律先上SPACE一趟——一个人自己的地盘还是随意些，呵呵。

想来知道这个影片还是因为那个恐怖的Cahill 的考试，看了关于这个片子拍摄过程的纪录片the burdens of dream,然后写一个essay来解构这个纪录片, 后来这个阎王给了我期末98的成绩，让我惊慌失措。但是今天看了这个片子之后发现其实阎王miss掉了很多重要的细节！我那篇essay其实也没写到多少正题。到头来把整个阎王课程都解构了一遍。到英国之后被ebay诱惑买了整套的赫尔佐格和金斯基的DVD套装一共15碟，一直没有看，然后它乘着邮轮被运回来，今天又被我从橱柜里面找出来了。

现在开始切入正题。这个片子讲的就是一个不靠谱的男人为了在秘鲁一个鸟不拉屎的地方建起歌剧院上演Caruzo 主唱的歌剧而付出的不屈不挠的努力。此不靠谱男人原先以制冰为营生，这样不够钱造歌剧，但是因为他傍了一个对他死心塌地的款姐儿出钱资助他转行，就承包了一片橡胶林。搞了一条破船，招了些船员，包括一个视力不好的船长，一个老是喝高了的厨子，一个喜欢玩炮仗的机械师，和一群后来弃船跑掉的家伙。

船开着开着遇到很多困难，比如船员为女人打架，比如有些人中途散伙，比如机械师因为玩炮仗和船长闹了别扭，比如不靠谱男人被一群人当做了神——这其实不就是Sarhlins的库克船长的翻版吗？所谓的Cargoism? 就是一群印第安人一直有Myth以为他们的祖先会在未来还魂驾驶着船或者飞行器来带给他们福祉降妖除魔或者带他们离开是非之地去另一个更好的地方。

显然不靠谱男人因为他的不靠谱而没资格被印第安人认为是神，只是那条白船实在很拉风。印第安人不但没把不靠谱男人和船长，机械师，厨子给煮了，还帮他们把大白船拖过了一座山。尽管中间还牺牲了两位印第安兄弟宝贵的生命。后来真是这群印第安哥们（说实话从外型上看他们真的很像中国人，这也不难理解为什么雷科巴有个名字叫中国娃娃，演员中间有一个人酷似郭富城还有一个完全是潘玮柏翻版但是据说他们是如假包换的亚马孙丛林土著）把这个船弄到了激流上以实现他们借这条船来平息河流之目的，破船最后居然有惊无险地回到了出发的港口。

再后来这个不靠谱男人虽然没搞到钱修建歌剧院但是还是拿钱请了乐队，合唱队和歌唱家在他的破船上举行了一场别开生面的歌剧表演，这也是为了履行他对一头猪的承诺，因为这个猪跟他臭味相投灰常喜欢Caruzo

演到这里影片就结束了。我不想再重复在期末考试里面的答案，说实话我觉得这个片子其实破绽挺多的。不靠谱男人和印第安人的关系可以说非常站不住脚，是西方中心论者一厢情愿的想象。Cargoism 成也萧何败也萧何的故事在库克船长身上演了一遍再在不靠谱男人身上演一遍感觉挺没创意的，也不知道Sahlins 授权了没有。倒是中间传教士给不靠谱男人解释秘鲁实施公民化项目的一段挺发人深省的。印第安小孩都被归化为“秘鲁公民”，从此他们认为自己是“秘鲁人”，而印第安人是那些文盲且不洗衣服的光屁股家伙。事实上欧洲人往前数几个年头也差不多可以归于此类。国籍与民族甚至部落之间的这些身份标签是不是一定要互相冲突然后再官方认定一个Priority才算是完成了公民化的任务呢？

再说一下这个不靠谱男人还真是非常不靠谱。但是我喜欢他，因为我觉得很多时候我跟他就是一路人。所谓那些并不考虑“市场”的人，其实从某种角度上来说是很无私也很自私的。一门心思想提供一种公共物品，但是买单的不光是自己还要拖上别人（比如那个死心塌地的款姐）。我也喜欢Caruzo, 而且我在现实生活中也从来少不了把自己喜欢的东西推荐（有的时候可以说是imposed on ）别人。比如我以前经常在宿舍里面播放肖邦拉赫玛尼诺夫格里格，也引起了不少的摩擦，而我还觉得灰常委屈因为这些音乐是多么美妙的东西啊！那些不且实际的人，那些Majasties of Kingdom of Uselessness, 不是往往都有玩炮仗的机械师，眼神不好的船长，喝高了的厨子和一群相信你是神的印第安人来帮忙的，或者说，并不是所有的人都像那头特义气的猪愿意和你一起欣赏Caruzo 的。甚至反过来那些影片里醉心于歌剧的印第安小孩子可能在现实生活中更喜欢节奏感更强的部落鼓点都说不定的。有什么必要一定要修个大歌剧院呢？又有什么必要一定要把自己喜欢的东西推荐甚至强加给更多的人呢？本质上这和秘鲁政府推行公民化教育有什么非常大的不同吗？自己抱着一台留声机怡然自得其实也是很好的事情呀。

话说到这里我从理性上开始找到一些critique的眼，但是从感性上来讲我已经开始说违心的话了。我无法控制喜欢他。因为，如前所述，我大概就是跟他差不多的一枚同学。

唉…… 说点儿轻松的。亚马孙丛林这样的地方可能我这辈子都不会亲身体验一次，看看那些蚊子，光听他们嗡嗡两声我就崩溃了，一定不会受得了他们围着我团团转，更别谈那些蛇啊什么的乱七八糟的东西了。但是那美丽的河流，茂密的树林，奔流而下的瀑布是那么的美，对于我这样叶公好龙的人来说，在影片里欣赏一下美景也算是很大的收获了。

最后感叹一下，印第安人和中国人长得怎么内么像呢~~~
                    

   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

菲茨卡拉多是疯子Werner Herzog在电影《菲茨卡拉多》（《陆上行舟》）里描述的一个疯子。不管是导演还是他的男主角，身上都有着让我向往不已的癫狂气质。
这个叫菲茨卡拉多的疯子痴迷于各种极其不现实的事情，他在热带雨林里造冰并企图以此发财，为了看一场卡鲁索的歌剧徒手划了两天的船，还想在热带雨林的镇子里开一家歌剧院，请卡鲁索来演出。这个有着极其诡异外貌和“爆炸式”发型的理想主义者，从出场伊始便成了我的偶像。他总是充满热情，在旁人的嘲笑里偏执地相信很多愚蠢计划的可行性，不管失败了多少次也还是坚定不移地认为自己会取得巨大的成功，完全是乐观得无可救药的典范。
就是这个人，为了取得一片未被开采的橡胶地，带着船队逆流而上，试图把船拖上山，竟然在土著的帮助下取得了成功。你无法想象那种工作的强度，那些茂密高耸的树木、遍地的蛇和其他野生动物，徒步穿越那座山已经不易，还要把数吨重的船拖过去？在土著们像牛马一样每日为“陆上行舟”劳作的时候，我的心里始终充满了恐惧，害怕自己脆弱的心灵承受不住最终失败的消息，害怕自己没有勇气亲眼目睹一个理想主义者的失败。因此你也不难想象，当那艘船终于从山的那一面滑下，逐渐进入急流中的时候，我是怎样如释重负、欢呼雀跃，恨不能随便逮着一个人，摇他的肩膀并大喊：“你知道什么叫疯狂的伟大吗？！你知道什么叫伟大的疯狂吗？！”

你们都说我是理想主义者、乐观主义者，其实我不过是消极的不行动主义者。我体内长存这这种“疯狂情愫”，在现实生活中却总把头埋得那么低，甚至于从小到大也没做过什么很“出格”的事情，于是自从意识到自己体内可悲的浪漫主义以后，就开始了与之长期不懈的斗争。我不知道怎么判断“现实一点”和“疯狂一点”的好坏，只觉得二十岁的人拥有半百的人那种只求平稳、碌碌度日的想法实在可悲至极。
从前香港来的一个教授来给我们上新闻采访课，几乎每节课都要问发表“真想不明白这么年轻的你们为何那么消极被动、没有一点激情”的感叹。我第一次听了心里是有些难过的，因为我费尽心力同样找不到这个问题的答案。后来听惯了，也会跟大家一起不痛不痒地说：那是因为他不生活在我们生活的社会，很多东西他不懂的啦。
但是因着我对“疯狂”和“热情”的强烈向往，私下里便还是忍不住思索：我们的激情和梦想都是怎样失去的？还是我们从来不曾拥有过？我们可以万众一心、不看别处，只使劲指责我们这些年来所受到的教育和这个万恶的不适合我们健康成长的社会吗？是啊，我们生来是一张白纸，没有选择是否出生的能力也没有选择被如何抚养的资格，这是不是给了我们把一切推脱给社会的权力？
这一切我也没有答案。我只知道太少太少的人血液里有疯狂的基因，而我们都向往自己所没有的、都羡慕自己做不到的，就像我仰望疯狂的菲茨卡拉多一样。我不是在推崇他那种确实有些愚蠢的做法，也没有试图推翻一切理性，只是我太嫉妒那种彻头彻尾的理想主义与将之变成现实的巨大行动力。他的激情就是他的信仰，可以让他有永不倒下的勇气。而我太需要那种激情、那种信仰，把我从理想和现实的矛盾里解救出来。

使劲在心底一层一层地挖，你心里住着一个菲茨卡拉多吗？我知道我很迫切的希望我的心里住着Ta.