[dreiser]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

If I had to guess your problem, it'd be that you're a cunt.

lol

[Errol Flynn]

I honestly thought it was a stitch-up.

[radioman970]

Loved it. It really worked on me.

I had no idea they weren't going to show/allow us to hear the final footage from the camera. My stress level rose more and more as the film played out. Ultimately, I was very happy we never got to hear it. Way too haunting just guessing what was on it, and my imagination ran wild. I did like the scene where the director listened to part of it and told that lady to destroy it. I think I paused the thing at the point and took a short break. All these horror movies I watch year round don't compare to such a real horror. Poor guy.

I understand how he developed such a passion for the creatures he encountered in the wild, how he cared about what happened to them. He was a sensitive guy. I took him at his word that he wasn't gay but it wouldn't surprise me if he was, or maybe bi. He did have his hippie chick !

Extremely sad ending. If for no other reasons than he is dead and bears (and other creatures) no longer have this (odd) guy helping them out.

[Mounix]

Originally Posted by radioman970

Extremely sad ending. If for no other reasons than he is dead and bears (and other creatures) no longer have this (odd) guy helping them out.

Agree with everything you wrote and this last part especially. Thought the ending was really sad as well and the song in the end fitted the scene perfectly.

[SpasticNed]

It just didn't work for me overall, it's like watching a docu of a guy playing russian roulette. It struck the same chord as Into the Wild, I don't find myself romanticizing along with someone when they're doing something mortally moronic.

[Uncle Luke]

Originally Posted by SpasticNed

It just didn't work for me overall, it's like watching a docu of a guy playing russian roulette. It struck the same chord as Into the Wild, I don't find myself romanticizing along with someone when they're doing something mortally moronic.

THANK YOU. Into The Wild was one of the most "overrated" (I know that's a touchy term these days here) movies of the last decade. I was absolutely baffled by it. Looked nice, scenic locations. That was all it had going for it for me. Did not understand it whatsoever, completely missed the apparently transcendent nature of the story.

I don't know why these movies about people that go off into the wilderness and do stupid things and then get killed are supposed to be so impacting, and win such critical acclaim.

[Master King Sexington]

Originally Posted by SpasticNed

It just didn't work for me overall, it's like watching a docu of a guy playing russian roulette. It struck the same chord as Into the Wild, I don't find myself romanticizing along with someone when they're doing something mortally moronic.

It's not romanticizing. It's sympathizing with a very sad man desperately trying to find purpose. It's also not as though he didn't have an idea about what he was doing. He was there for 13 summers surrounded by bears. Walking with them. Punching them. Etc. And he likely would have stayed there for many more summers had he not stayed too long when all of "his" bears had left.

[SpasticNed]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

It's not romanticizing. It's sympathizing with a very sad man desperately trying to find purpose. It's also not as though he didn't have an idea about what he was doing. He was there for 13 summers surrounded by bears. Walking with them. Punching them. Etc. And he likely would have stayed there for many more summers had he not stayed too long when all of "his" bears had left.

And I'm sympathetic with his search for a purpose, I really am. I just found little benefit in getting to know more of him.

Into the Wild was certainly a more 'romanticizied' view of the events, but I rather mean that I don't find myself romanticizing with the views or actions from the protagonists, and that includes Grizzly Man. At no point do I as a viewer say 'wow, he kind of has something there. I'm going to go think about some things.' It seems the movie can be also described as pretty much a docu on a mentally ill person doing inadvisable things that eventually led to his grizzly death.

What's more, what he was doing is actually bad for bears, it's harmful to let them get used to a human presence in the wild. There's nothing really 'good' about what he was doing, or at least, I failed to see it. That's my rub I guess, I'm still not certain why we need to see a docu about this person. Even reading this thread doesn't exactly shed much light on that, nobody's saying 'everyone should take the chance to see the light in this incredibly unique soul that we're fortunate enough to be shown a glimpse of', most of it is about how Herzog is a good director. Which I agree with. I just don't give 2 ****s about the Grizzly Man, and the docu failed to make me think I should.

I've always been out in the cold on this one though...I watched it because of the praise(and I love nature shows and stuff) and it just didn't sink in with me like it did with everyone else.

[Master King Sexington]

Originally Posted by SpasticNed

And I'm sympathetic with his search for a purpose, I really am. I just found little benefit in getting to know more of him.

Into the Wild was certainly a more 'romanticizied' view of the events, but I rather mean that I don't find myself romanticizing with the views or actions from the protagonists, and that includes Grizzly Man. At no point do I as a viewer say 'wow, he kind of has something there. I'm going to go think about some things.' It seems the movie can be also described as pretty much a docu on a mentally ill person doing inadvisable things that eventually led to his grizzly death.

What's more, what he was doing is actually bad for bears, it's harmful to let them get used to a human presence in the wild. There's nothing really 'good' about what he was doing, or at least, I failed to see it. That's my rub I guess, I'm still not certain why we need to see a docu about this person. Even reading this thread doesn't exactly shed much light on that, nobody's saying 'everyone should take the chance to see the light in this incredibly unique soul that we're fortunate enough to be shown a glimpse of', most of it is about how Herzog is a good director. Which I agree with. I just don't give 2 ****s about the Grizzly Man, and the docu failed to make me think I should.

I've always been out in the cold on this one though...I watched it because of the praise(and I love nature shows and stuff) and it just didn't sink in with me like it did with everyone else.

Why should you watch any character piece? You're exploring the life and mindset of someone that did something "different". I never feel like he was onto something by being with the bears, but I found the footage he got, the way he was able to walk with them, interact with them, his troubled past, and his ultimate fate all to be fascinating.

Much of the discussion tends to fall in line with being about Herzog because the film is inextricably linked to his perspective on the events. He goes out of his way to give a well rounded impression of the events, maintaining derogatory interviewees that speak negatively about the man and his actions which could have easily been left on the cutting room floor if he were a more manipulative filmmaker. Yet despite this he interjects his own opinions and fascinations because this subject is one he's touched on in many of his films from Aguirre to My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done and that's an exploration of the nature of man and within man: The line between chaos (nature) and civilization.

So we see this man that's tempting to cross into that world with such naive and innocent intentions and the investigation of what would make this man attempt something we so offhandedly reject is worth exploring. Audience members who are unwilling to examine this and cling to their "Well they were bears, stupid" mentality will close themselves to a brilliant film and documentary.

[radioman970]

Originally Posted by Mounix

Agree with everything you wrote and this last part especially. Thought the ending was really sad as well and the song in the end fitted the scene perfectly.

I don't remember the song. I'll have to watch it again some time.

I ended up buying a copy for my dad for Christmas. My folks found it extremely fascinating.

[Makeumhotplz]

Herzog's reaction to the recording still lingers in my memory.

[post tenebras lux]

Originally Posted by harkin banks

IIRC no one sees it, they listen to it because he or his gf (whomever activated the camera) never got the lens cap off and all that was recorded was audio.

That and the fact that Herzog chose not to play all of the audio out of respect for the family. I don't think it would have added anything to the already powerful film. We know what happens.

[Methuselah]

[ergill sanchez]

We're talking about "the jungle is collective murder" Herzog. He doesn't identify with Treadwell's romanticized view of bears and nature. He even says something along the lines of: "Treadwell looked at bears and saw fuzzy people, friends who could give him sympathy and comfort - I look into their eyes and see only a bored, mindless pursuit of food."

[YARN]

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

That and the fact that Herzog chose not to play all of the audio out of respect for the family. I don't think it would have added anything to the already powerful film. We know what happens.

It's theater, OK? We get to watch Herzog react emotionally to listening to the film. We get to seem him ask/demand that the owner destroy the tape. You must destroy this! We are left thinking, "Wow, that must've sounded bad!" Our imagination does the work. Spielberg didn't let us see the shark. Herzog didn't let us hear the bear. And the kicker is he gets to claim the moral high ground because he didn't play it!

[Master King Sexington]

Originally Posted by YARN

It's theater, OK? We get to watch Herzog react emotionally to listening to the film. We get to seem him ask/demand that the owner destroy the tape. You must destroy this! We are left thinking, "Wow, that must've sounded bad!" Our imagination does the work. Spielberg didn't let us see the shark. Herzog didn't let us hear the bear. And the kicker is he gets to claim the moral high ground because he didn't play it!

A touch pessimistic. Everything I've ever seen of Herzog hints at the very least of a genuine person. I believe that was probably his legitimate immediate reaction.

[YARN]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

A touch pessimistic. Everything I've ever seen of Herzog hints at the very least of a genuine person. I believe that was probably his legitimate immediate reaction.

And I believe that he also knew it was a good touch of theater. If he was really that sensitive, he wouldn't dance around the issue, having us to experience the audio through him. He literally features minutes in the film which he is not letting us listen to the audio. We sit there watching him listen and being made aware that we are NOT being allowed to listen.

Never trust a documentary filmmaker to tell the truth. They have to sell the narrative as much as everyone else.

[dreiser]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

Everything I've ever seen of Herzog hints at the very least of a genuine person.

I might agree with this sentiment if I hadn't seen Incident at Loch Ness.

[Master King Sexington]

Originally Posted by YARN

And I believe that he also knew it was a good touch of theater. If he was really that sensitive, he wouldn't dance around the issue, having us to experience the audio through him. He literally features minutes in the film which he is not letting us listen to the audio. We sit there watching him listen and being made aware that we are NOT being allowed to listen.

Never trust a documentary filmmaker to tell the truth. They have to sell the narrative as much as everyone else.

I understand that last part and I'm not outright dismissing that your claims were part of it, but your reaction implied that he was completely disingenuous for the sake of theatricality, of which I'm doubtful. Herzog's documentaries seem to be very personal to him and it's just as much his experience with the subject as ours. For that, I think in those moments, he really was trying to share how impactful that was on him. He also knows how to make it quality entertainment.

Originally Posted by dreiser

I might agree with this sentiment if I hadn't seen Incident at Loch Ness.

Haven't seen it so the reference is lost on me.

[dreiser]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

Haven't seen it so the reference is lost on me.

Let's just say he misrepresents what the film is about.

[Master King Sexington]

Originally Posted by dreiser

Let's just say he misrepresents what the film is about.

I looked it up and netflix lists it as a mockumentary made by Zak Penn to look like a Herzog documentary, starring Herzog.

[dreiser]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

I looked it up and netflix lists it as a mockumentary made by Zak Penn to look like a Herzog documentary, starring Herzog.

I rarely read a Netflix synopsis. Obviously a problem in this case.

[Hello Heino]

Originally Posted by YARN

It's theater, OK? We get to watch Herzog react emotionally to listening to the film. We get to seem him ask/demand that the owner destroy the tape. You must destroy this! We are left thinking, "Wow, that must've sounded bad!" Our imagination does the work. Spielberg didn't let us see the shark. Herzog didn't let us hear the bear. And the kicker is he gets to claim the moral high ground because he didn't play it!

And I believe that he also knew it was a good touch of theater. If he was really that sensitive, he wouldn't dance around the issue, having us to experience the audio through him. He literally features minutes in the film which he is not letting us listen to the audio. We sit there watching him listen and being made aware that we are NOT being allowed to listen.

It is weird how playing cynical task-master looks trite when it comes to Herzog.

Originally Posted by YARN

Never trust a documentary filmmaker to tell the truth. They have to sell the narrative as much as everyone else.

Gadzooks.

[YARN]

Originally Posted by Hello Heino

It is weird how playing cynical task-master looks trite when it comes to Herzog.

There's a sucker born every minute.

[Viraus]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

Why should you watch any character piece? You're exploring the life and mindset of someone that did something "different". I never feel like he was onto something by being with the bears, but I found the footage he got, the way he was able to walk with them, interact with them, his troubled past, and his ultimate fate all to be fascinating.

Much of the discussion tends to fall in line with being about Herzog because the film is inextricably linked to his perspective on the events. He goes out of his way to give a well rounded impression of the events, maintaining derogatory interviewees that speak negatively about the man and his actions which could have easily been left on the cutting room floor if he were a more manipulative filmmaker. Yet despite this he interjects his own opinions and fascinations because this subject is one he's touched on in many of his films from Aguirre to My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done and that's an exploration of the nature of man and within man: The line between chaos (nature) and civilization.

So we see this man that's tempting to cross into that world with such naive and innocent intentions and the investigation of what would make this man attempt something we so offhandedly reject is worth exploring. Audience members who are unwilling to examine this and cling to their "Well they were bears, stupid" mentality will close themselves to a brilliant film and documentary.

Perfect post.

[SpasticNed]

Originally Posted by Master King Sexington

Why should you watch any character piece? You're exploring the life and mindset of someone that did something "different". I never feel like he was onto something by being with the bears, but I found the footage he got, the way he was able to walk with them, interact with them, his troubled past, and his ultimate fate all to be fascinating.

Much of the discussion tends to fall in line with being about Herzog because the film is inextricably linked to his perspective on the events. He goes out of his way to give a well rounded impression of the events, maintaining derogatory interviewees that speak negatively about the man and his actions which could have easily been left on the cutting room floor if he were a more manipulative filmmaker. Yet despite this he interjects his own opinions and fascinations because this subject is one he's touched on in many of his films from Aguirre to My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done and that's an exploration of the nature of man and within man: The line between chaos (nature) and civilization.

So we see this man that's tempting to cross into that world with such naive and innocent intentions and the investigation of what would make this man attempt something we so offhandedly reject is worth exploring. Audience members who are unwilling to examine this and cling to their "Well they were bears, stupid" mentality will close themselves to a brilliant film and documentary.

We're talking about "the jungle is collective murder" Herzog. He doesn't identify with Treadwell's romanticized view of bears and nature. He even says something along the lines of: "Treadwell looked at bears and saw fuzzy people, friends who could give him sympathy and comfort - I look into their eyes and see only a bored, mindless pursuit of food."

See, I feel kind of like Herzog did then - no matter what Treadwell may be able to say about the subject, you can't see the animals like he does. But nor should you it seems, because it's dangerous and improper.

So, is there a satisfying answer to the bolded? What I remember was not only unsatisfying personally, but seemed to not be unexpected given the circumstance. I came away thinking little more of him than a guy who's chosen to play in traffic, who happens to think he has good reasons to do so.

[radioman970]

Originally Posted by SpasticNed

See, I feel kind of like Herzog did then - no matter what Treadwell may be able to say about the subject, you can't see the animals like he does. But nor should you it seems, because it's dangerous and improper.

So, is there a satisfying answer to the bolded? What I remember was not only unsatisfying personally, but seemed to not be unexpected given the circumstance. I came away thinking little more of him than a guy who's chosen to play in traffic, who happens to think he has good reasons to do so.

(butting in) Why would you feel this way? I think living creatures are a little different than traffic..? People actually care about the welfare of living creatures, you knew that right?

[SpasticNed]

Originally Posted by radioman970

(butting in) Why would you feel this way? I think living creatures are a little different than traffic..? People actually care about the welfare of living creatures, you knew that right?

I do, I for one care a great deal about wildlife. I think 'choosing to live side-by-side with grizzlies' is just about as certain to end in tragedy as 'choosing to play in traffic' is, and most people even with a cursory knowledge of the animals are well aware of this.

It's not like Gorillas in the Mist where people may think gorillas are these gigantic and terrifying creatures and then through the incredible dedication of someone you get to see them as the gentle and noble creatures they are and start protecting them. These are grizzly bears. They are gigantic and terrifying creatures that are terribly dangerous. He showed that they can become acclimated to his presence, which is a bad thing. We do not want wild bears acclimated to human presences, they are too dangerous to be close to people. So I don't exactly put him in the same category as a naturalist who's doing what's needed to save bears. From what I can tell, the greatest 'discovery' he made is that 'grizzlies are indeed insanely dangerous to be around, take precautions at all times or risk death', which everybody with any sense already knows.

Kind of like 'don't play in traffic'.

[radioman970]

Oh... I follow you. He never had that moment like Fosse and the gorillas. You kind of wait for him too. But it doesn't happen. Animal experts have had those moments with bears though. Maybe not out in the wild though...

[SpasticNed]

Originally Posted by radioman970

Oh... I follow you. He never had that moment like Fosse and the gorillas. You kind of wait for him too. But it doesn't happen. Animal experts have had those moments with bears though. Maybe not out in the wild though...

yes, and of course bears can be very well trained and used in circus acts and such, and can be handled by expert trainers that know what they're doing and not be in too much danger at any given time. But people just walking through Yellowstone minding their own business get attacked and killed by bears all the time, just because Grizzlies are like that(I think there have been more fatalities this year by bear than any other, and it's outstripped sharks in that danger...considering how many people are around sharks vs. grizzlies, that's quite a statement). Not very long ago and entire wilderness scout troop was attacked by a Griz in Alaska and it killed at least one of the kids(I believe it was mandated that at least 1 of them be carrying bear spray, and that one of them had a firearm, neither of which could be used fast enough to stop the attack).