Fitzcarraldo

 

‘Fitzcarraldo’, the 1982 epic-adventure film by the German filmmaker Werner Herzog, is the kind of film that can claim few peers. Focusing on a favorite theme of the filmmaker – egomaniac characters doing unbelievable feats and pushing the very limits of humanity – the film certainly reflects Herzog’s rigorous approach to his art. Filming the masterpiece in an unfamiliar part of nature and without resort to any CGI, Herzog has managed to move through so many obstacles that could simply put the project to a definite full-stop. Notwithstanding the daunting special effect the team had to devise, the leading man, originally starred by Jason Robards, had to be changed abruptly when the actor succumbed to illness. Calling in Herzog's many-time partner – and in a sense nemesis – Klaus Kinski to the set, the legendary actor replaced Robards and delivered another brilliant performance of a lifetime, comparable to the memorable Aguirre. The outcome may be unintentional, yet we can all anticipate that when we put Kinski into the equation: who in this universe can be as convincing as an egotistical mad genius other than the great actor from ‘Aguirre, Wrath of God’?

The film, which is based on a true story, is just as extreme as ‘Aguirre’. Brian ‘Fitzcarraldo’ Fitzgerald (who was influenced by the real Peruvian Carlos Fitzgerald) was a rubber baron who wished to explore development in the natural landscapes of Peru. With a great taste in opera, he pitched the idea of building an opera house in the middle of the forest. His ideas certainly raised eyebrows from the locals and his employees. Undaunted by any doubts out of a sound and rational mind, Fitzcarraldo pushed forward with his visions, at one point hauling a steam boat – intact – over a steep hill. Would our protagonist realize his dream, or was he just going too far?

Herzog often adopts unique approaches to his filmmaking, and he can often employ the various filmic elements to his advantage. Not relying on any ‘cheats’ from the possibility of special visual effects, he decided to drag a real boat in the iconic scene. The feat appeared to be insurmountable, and unfortunately led to a few injuries for the cast, yet the final result has demonstrated such a realism that no audience would doubt if that could happen in real life. The pitfalls of Fitzcarraldo’s mission were brilliantly played out, not through a hyped way of portraying action in many modern films, but through a slow-burn approach, banging slowly through a solemn cinematic rhythm. Even when the action did not appear to be fast paced or ‘exciting’ in any modern sense of these terms, the audience could appreciate that something would inevitably go wrong in the plan. 

Klaus Kinski, whose combative and mercurial personality has been legendary on film sets, was again cleverly channeled by Herzog for the effects of the film. Certainly not being very friendly towards others in the project, Kinski’s temperament has been transposed onto the relationships between Fitzcarraldo and his workers, and that is often the case when one has to work for a charismatic, yet egoistical leader. The archetype of charismatic leader, with the mega can-do attitude and insatiable drive, strives hard to achieve the dreams and visions no matter the cost. It is indeed quite chilling to see that these characters are often manipulative and convincing in a sense that their followers are willing to submit to their power and commit sacrifice for them. Thinking of historical figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, one can see that if the leader does not have charisma, or possesses an eloquent rhetoric that can convince the mass that their bigger-than-life dreams are possible to come true, there may never have any of these significant feats in history. Herzog, like what he has done in many of his other films, was not trying to judge if Fitzcarraldo’s obsession was right or not. He shared with us such an impossible achievement just to allow us to make up our own minds. Be it reality or fiction, the ambivalence demonstrated by the troubled geniuses was what has pushed humanity forward.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Reality Check with Parmenides

 

In Plato's 'Phaedrus', there was a famous allegory about a charioteer controlling a pair of winged horses with very different characters. One of them, a mortal black horse, symbolized the impulses and appetites common to all of humanity. That was paired with an immortal and eternal white horse, that symbolized the positive spirit cherished by humans. As the two horses showed very different temperaments, it was up to the charioteer – who symbolized the rational mind – to control them and led their ways to a life of enlightenment. The chariot story is an allegory of Plato's theory of the soul. It is also interesting because the pair of contrasting horses points to an intellectual influence from a number of Presocratic philosophers collectively known as the Eleatic School. That included Parmenides of Elea, and his followers Melissus and Zeno.

The members of the Eleatic school were staunch rationalists. The ontology advocated by these thinkers were all speculative and rational, and their ideas were more abstract than the perceptions most people had regarding the universe in their times.

The remaining fragments of the poem by Parmenides can be considered the locus classicus of Western Metaphysics. The Presocratic philosopher was probably the first ever to propose a consistent account of the nature of reality. Parmenides wrote his poem in Homeric hexameter, chronicling the journey of a young man to meet a goddess, who the latter promised that she would tell about 'all things' to him. What she has shared with him, however, was an approach to arrive at the real knowledge of things.

The poem suggests that humanity can choose between 2 approaches to understand about themselves. The Way of Opinion (Greek: doxa) is to acquire knowledge by the action of seeming, and to know the world merely through the senses. In contrast, the Way to Truth (Greek : aletheia) is to acquire knowledge by the exercise of reason. The dialectal aspect of the 2 choices was evident: Parmenides was among the first thinker to distinguish rationally between appearances and reality, and proposed that what ‘appears to us’ is not necessarily equate what ‘is’.

Parmenides designated the metaphysical substance of his philosophy as ‘Being’. It was an unity, and some sources even stated that Parmenides proposed a spherical shape for that, which was indeed a good analogy for the idea of unity. Contrary to the human perceptions that there were motion and changes around us, the metaphysical substance for Parmenides was static, unchangeable and timeless. Parmenides’ metaphysics was revolutionary because the reality he has speculated was very different to the way humans perceived the world, through the application of the common sense. The speculative aspect of the Eleatic school, by the rigorous exercise of reason and logical deduction, would influence the future philosophers who took a rationalist approach to metaphysical issues. 

Thus Parmenides’ system was a philosophical monism, which proposed only one type of metaphysical substance. His ideas denied the notion of plurality and void (vacuum). Parmenides asserted that his metaphysical substance of ‘Being’ was indivisible and continuous. These beliefs were in the starkest conflict to the later atomists, who accepted the presence of void and divisibility of matter. More important, the Eleatic philosopher denied the possibility of ‘non-being’, which he argued as logically impossible.

The teachings by the Eleatic school were important in Greek Philosophy because many subsequent thinkers would response to the questions posed by this school of thought. That included the development of various pluralist schools and challenges from the sophists of Classical Athens. Gorgias, an acclaimed sophist, wrote 'On What is Not', spoofing the Eleatic system. He challenged the metaphysical possibility of ‘Being’, and laterally denied the possibility of Divine or a first cause. The sentiment was not dissimilar from the agnostic or atheistic views by many other fellow sophists. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Xenophanes : Presocratic Slasher

Xenophanes was a slasher in ancient Greece. He was a poet, a philosopher, a theologian and also an avid traveler. He has lived a long life and has travelled to a number of places. If Xenophanes is a person of today, he is certainly a key opinion leader, writing travel blogs and poems and doing Facebook live. But when you look up for his username, take care and don't mix it up with 'Xenophon', who was born in later era than Xenophanes and he was one of Socrates' students.

Xenophanes was against 2 things in life – human-looking gods and jocks. Through his understanding of poetry and satirical wit, he has written a lot of poems to satirize, criticize and think about issues in the culture of his days. His critique on theological issues has led to a rational inquiry of religious and spiritual themes evident in later philosophy, like Parmenides and his successors. For his problems with the jock culture, we will deal with that in the end.

Xenophanes was original because he was one of the first Western thinkers to have a string commitment in rationalism. Through his exercise of reason as evident in his writings, he was an original architect of rationalist theology, using reason and valid speculations, rather than mythological sources, to explore the concepts of the Divine. Xenophanes was well-versed in a number of different style of poetry, yet his poems always exhibited a satirical tone and impressive witticism.

The conception of gods has already been described in the epic poems of Homer and Hesiod. Xenophanes, who was alive centuries after the two epic poets, had issues with their ideas of the Divine. First, Xenophanes was very against the notion that the Greek gods and goddesses were anthropomorphic. In his poems, the pre-Socratic philosopher mocked the idea of human-looking gods, and stated that if an ox could conceive of a ‘god’, that god would likely look like an ox too. In a satirical comment that would be considered a nasty racial slur for today, Xenophanes believed that the Ethiopian gods would resemble Ethiopians with their own facial features, which he was not particularly fond of.

Why did Xenophanes think that humans would believe their gods to be mega-versions of themselves? With an explanation that had a lot of resonance to the science of today, he believed that the images of human-looking gods were merely the psychological projections of humans. Humans made their attempts to shift the center from the Divine back to themselves, and projected their own opinions on the attributes of gods. It is as if the ancient humans were saying: ‘The gods, after all, are just like us.’ Ironically, this opinion has shared similarities in the views of some future philosophers, who embraced atheist or materialist doctrines, yet that is in no way true that Xenophanes would have denied the existence of the Divine.

Other than the issue of human looks, what concerned Xenophanes even more with regard to the Homeric conception of the gods was that they were often immoral. Indeed, the divine family on Mount Olympus has often been compared to a dysfunctional family, and every member was more than capable to claim their fair share of moral transgressions. The immorality of the Homeric gods is often overlooked by many, yet to Xenophanes that was an important issue.  Because the thinker opined that the behavior of these divine figures, who were expected as ‘role models’ for humanity, were morally inconsistent. The lack of objectivity in these antics paralleled human’s own projections of the Divine. What Xenophanes was looking for all the time was a theological outlook that was rational, objective, and could serve as an ethical guide to humanity.

‘One god, greatest among gods and men, in no way similar to mortals either in body or in thought.’

-Xenophanes

‘All of him sees, all thinks, and all hears.’

-Xenophanes

Hence for Xenophanes’ rational theology, there was a single, non-anthropomorphic God, which he often termed ‘The One’. Xenophanes’ God, to start with, is timeless. Just that all the other Pre-Socratic thinkers’ ideas of First Cause, it exists outside of time and had no beginning or end. The Divine is also rational and omniscient – it knows everything in the world. It is omnipotent, meaning that it is so powerful that it has the ability to do anything possible. We may find these attributes similar to what we think about God, and indeed it is, because the philosopher’s revolutionary way of understanding God has shaped the way how later generations would have approaches the issues of religion.

There is a caveat to Xenophanes’ assessment. From a philological perspective, many commentators have questioned the implications of the word regarding the divine in Xenophanes’ original version. As we may not be aware there are some careless duplication errors, the commentators are unsettled by the fact that ancient thinker has used a plural form for the words ‘Greatest among gods and men'.’ That appears to be contradictory to the theological views he has been expressing throughout his poems, namely that there is only one God in the universe. Most commentators have agreed that the specific issue of wording should not impact our understanding of Xenophanes’ ‘One-God assumption’, for which he has maintained firmly and consistently throughout all his surviving work.  Many scholars in the classical studies have advised the readers not to take the word too literally, saying that maybe the word ‘gods’ was just representative of Xenophanes’ often satirical tone. These ‘gods’ can just be the deputies and underbosses of the Big Boss, and no matter one wants to designate them as ‘gods’, ‘angels’ or ‘spirits’, the idea does not change. Xenophanes’ philosophical system is strictly rational and monotheistic.

Xenophanes’ opinions regarding the Divine has two important implications for later understanding of religion and spirituality. First, by abandoning the polytheistic system of Homeric gods, he introduced a monotheistic conception of the divine. Not only this has influenced much of the philosophical systems of the Presocratic thinkers, almost all these thinkers searched for and proposed a first cause of things, the theological outlook would influence many other religions that still existed today.

Second, by asserting a non-anthropomorphic divine figure , Xenophanes has provided the readers a more abstract conception of the greatest being. Ancient beliefs in gods tend to rely on some concrete conceptions, that the gods resemble humans, only are way more powerful and immortal. Early people may easily think that the gods resembled King Triton of Little Mermaid, without the little brat Ariel - an old gentleman with white beard, holder of a crane that symbolized power, and talked in a commanding yet fatherly tone. That makes sense as that would lead to an easier identification with the divine though this might be unintentional. That took the evolution of human mind to have the capacity to believe in an abstract idea, and thus Xenophanes conception could be seen as a revolutionary one.

Xenophanes’s divine foreshadowed the Parmenidian Being, but there was a difference in terms of both philosophers’ focus. Xenophanes had a more religious motivation and tried a provide a justified and rational picture of divinity, while Parmenides and his successors was concerned to postulate a metaphysical reality.

Xenophanes apparently did not share the ancient view of metempsychosis, the reincarnation of souls, with thinkers like Pherecydes and the Pythagoreans. In a satirical tone, he mocked at the notion that one should not harm a dog because the animal might be a reincarnation of one’s family in a previous life. Given this rather caustic-toned example, many would have proposed that the philosopher was not into this theory.

Xenophanes was a very special type of nerd. Believing in the power of reason, he despised the values of athleticism and festivity of his days. He certainly felt that a sound and rational mind was more preferred to physical prowess. In fact, his inclinations had a lot of influences on later Greek philosophy, as people turned their aspirations from Homeric warriors to orators with eloquence and intelligence. This slasher of the ancient times, who has contributed to so diverse fields and possessed such a dynamic stream of thoughts, was certainly no basketcase for current standard!

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

 

How The West Was Won

 

I have a deep fascination with history. When I write about cinema, I always place a lot of emphasis on the historical perspectives of the film in question. In particular, I have a strong interest in the cultural and historical aspects of the late 19th and early 20th century. ‘How The West was Won’, a Western directed by John Ford, Henry Hathaway and George Marshall, is an epic film about America in the 19th century.

The 19th century is an interesting era for human history. It is very relevant for our era because many things in our culture today have their origins and foundations from this particular century. From the modernization of our lives since the Industrial Revolution, to the imperialism and colonialism that would eventually shape our current geopolitics, we can always find the origins from this century if we want to. And don't forget the stunning intellectual development of this era. Thinkers like Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud and Marx have influenced the thoughts and opinions of the modern consciousness. The late 19th century, abound with the presence of brilliant novelists, poets and playwrights, also harbored a happy surprise - the birth of cinema. When the Lumiere brothers showed their first work to an audience – a film showing a train moving forward – the viewers were overwhelmed. Having no previous concepts of anything about motion pictures, the members of the audience were so frightened by the scene that they attempted to escape the theatre, lest the image of the ‘train’ would crash into the showing room. This incident may sound silly for today's audience, who are so well acquainted with motion pictures and television, yet it testified the excitement and fascination of a new art, and served as an anecdote for the future audience to look for the origin of the arts they love. 

John Ford was the grand master of the Western genre. With films like ‘Stagecoach’, ‘My Darling Clementine’, ‘The Searchers’, he defined the way of the traditional Western film. Ford was the master of horizontal composition, and he has adopted the painterly approach to the beautiful landscape of the American West. His classicism also included his preferred use of deep focus cinematography. He has also created the archetypal Western hero, known for his self-sufficiency and high moral standard. Ford has influenced many subsequent filmmakers: Akira Kurosawa, Orson Welles, Kenji Mizoguchi and many more. Henry Hathaway and George Marshall, while being lesser-known filmmakers, were also skilful craftsmen of the art and experienced Western directors. ‘How The West was Won’ was a very successfully film. Not only it performed well financially, it received 3 Academy Awards. An interesting side story is that the success of this film has inspired the idea of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. Originally, MGM has planned an epic taken in space, and they wanted to call it ‘How The Solar System was Won’. The project would eventually become the Stanley Kubrick masterpiece in 1968.

The story is epic in scope. It was centred around the few generations of a single family, chronicling the most salient historical events in America from the mid-19th to the late 19th century – the Gold Rush, the Civil War, the Railway and the Wild West. The film is divided into 5 segments and the three filmmakers directed different parts of the film. Since the earliest films of D. W. Griffith, the issue of family has always been a focus in American cinema, and this motif is often placed in a larger social or historical context. The approach is quite reminiscent of the Epic Cycles from ancient Greece poems, where the myth of individual families was placed in a grander historical background. 

The history of the American West has not only left a lasting impression in people’s minds, but also exerted a huge influence on the art of cinema. The cultural significance and dramatic potential of the American West has led to the ‘Western genre’ of cinema, giving the audience some of the true masters of the craft: John Ford, Howard Hawks, Sam Peckinpah, Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood, just to name a few. One can easily observe that the classic Westerns tend to be more simplistic in terms of worldview, though not necessarily inferior in terms of quality – no one would doubt John Ford’s mastery of his art form, for instance. Later revisionist Westerns are often more confronting and they explore complex issues that have been polished away by the simpler outlook. For ‘How the West was Won’, it can be considered as a culmination of the classic Western, with the trio of directors giving their best shots in the creation of an American epic.  

Rivers have been associated with human lives since the earliest civilizations. In the ancient times, the concept of a co-operative community commenced with the formation of river valley civilizations. While the fluvial environment provided conditions for the development of communal and life-sustainable activities such as agriculture, that also posed problems as humans have not fully grasped nature itself. In ‘How The West was Won’ and many more films, nature is often perceived as a formidable opponent to humans. The fact that the characters had to brave themselves through the river signified the impact of the force of nature on humanity. Having an attempt to control nature was a testament of not only of the courage of the adventurers, but also the confirmation of the curiosity of humans towards their world.

The differing perspectives of the people regarding human rights and slavery would eventually lead to the Civil War, a crisis for America in the mid-19th century. The segment was directed by Ford himself and it was of course masterful. The filmmaker was not afraid to show the contradictory perspectives inherent in the war, and the disillusionment the violence would most certainly lead to. The young son of the family wanted to escape from his mundane life as a farmer, so he joined the army for the sake of patriotism. It was when he was in the combat that he appreciated that no one really won in a war, and the illusion of ideology and beliefs have often masked the individuals behind the war, and that was so especially when the young son befriended another soldier on the enemy side. True, in a historical context President Lincoln had not much choices to engage in the Civil War, and at the end a lot of slaves were liberated, yet anyone would ask for an alternative approach to resolve conflicts rather than recourse to violence. After the Civil War the country was concentrated on setting up the telegraph lines and the building of railways. Yet the conflicts in corporate interests have led to a complex web of problems, including the threats of outlaws and exploitations of the weak.

The notion of the American West has led to the important yet controversial ‘Frontier Thesis’ by Turner, which proposed that many national values of America – like individualism, democracy, and egalitarianism – were facilitated by the people’s exploration of the Frontier through their westward movement. The thesis has been very instrumental in the formation of the orthodox American values of the 20th century, and it has achieved an idealistic and almost mythical status for the later generations, where people would view these people from the past as role models of how to lead an ethical and committed life. Yet, the thesis has led to a lot of criticism in later 20th century with a more progressive academic atmosphere. The key limitation of the Turner thesis, though it was certainly a reflection of the era it originated, is that it has undermined many complex issues, such as gender and racial inequalities, bureaucratic issues and corporate greed. Life in the West might not be as idealized and fair as it might appear: exploitation and injustice towards immigrants and certain racial groups were very noticeable issues. These issues were addressed in later Westerns films like ‘The West Bunch’, ‘McCabe and Mrs. Miller’ and ‘Heaven’s Gate’, and they often took a cynical anti-Western tone. 

These issues provide us an opportunity to appreciate the purpose of historical inquiry. One should not merely listen to one single version of history and be misled by someone’s indoctrination. An objective frame of mind has to be cast in the analysis of any historical data. There is no such thing as a perfect system in this world. Be it a concept, an opinion, or a theory, they will always be limited by their design, their circumstances, and the limits of the human mind. Every issue has its pros and cons, and mere faith in a single, authoritative version of history will undermine the critical stance humans are gifted in. To be critical is not only important for studying history in an academic setting - it is just as important for inquiries of all subjects in Humanities. 

by Ed Law 

Film Analysis