 |
 |
>At which point does _Aguirre, the wrath of God_, become >documentary? What makes it more documentary than any other >historical epic? From the moment it begins, AGUIRRE never ceases to make reference to its own production, from the water drops on the camera lenses, to the bright red paint-blood, to the real locations and indigenous people. When watching we feel the filmmaking crew embarking on the same odyssey as the characters in the film. All accounts hold that Kinski's volatile personality was in fact not all that different from Aguirre's, and that the crew suffered all kinds of physical and emotional hardships, mirroring the casualties depicted in the film. One of Herzog's innovations is not to have his actors "act"; essentially they play themselves. Similarly, one could say that Stroszek and Kaspar Hauser are two variations on Bruno S. himself (the ex-mental patient and the wild child). In a sense, any fiction film is a document of its own making, but Herzog's special brand of performative "realism" lends itself to this kind of reading.