Review: You Can See Everything

Review: You Can See Everything

Well, this is the movie everyone is talking about, and I can see why. You Can See Everything is far more than a conventional documentary about a fraudster. In many ways, it is a kind of commentary on the most troubling question of the contemporary world: What does it mean to tell the truth when so much of our reality is filtered through technology?

The very title of the movie invites this question. Apparently sure of her innocence and eager to prove it to the world, Holmes grants Fielder unlimited access to her home in the days leading up to her incarceration. Surely, there could be no greater gesture of transparency. And yet, even as we see her in the most intimate of private moments, Fielder is always on edge, always suspicious, always unsettled by what he is observing.

Eventually, out of exasperation at his inability to get a straight answer out of Holmes, Fielder starts to suspect that she may be neurodivergent—her understanding of language overly literal, her view of the world extremely naive. This, unfortunately, is as far as we get before she is imprisoned, and the focus inevitably shifts to her husband—a more conventional and obvious slimeball. Perhaps (we are invited to wonder) the overly trusting Holmes is simply a victim of the men in her life.

But this interpretation lets her off far too easily. Anyone who really examines the facts of the case against her will, I think, find unambiguous evidence that she lied knowingly, repeatedly, and for her own personal gain. Indeed, the final, haunting shot—of Fielder playing in the water with Holmes—leaves open the door that he (and by extension, we) have been taken in by Holmes. Given how many people come away from this movie damning the boyfriend and exonerating her, arguably this may be one of her most effective cons.

But I think the most disturbing question is not whether Holmes ultimately manipulated Fielder, but what it even means to be transparent in an age of representation. As the sociologist Erving Goffman noted (and as many a playwright had written before), the self we present to the world is largely a performance; and the self we chose to present largely depends on the context. And yet, this idea still leaves intact the sense that, underneath the performances, there is a true self, a core of our personality.

But if we truly can see everything—if even our most intimate lives will be broadcast for the public—where does this true self have left to hide? Perhaps rather than solid matter, we are more like quantum fields without clearly defined centers—only momentarily crystallizing in one place when observed from a particular vantage point. So does Holmes really love her partner, or is it manipulation? Is she a visionary who sees the world differently, or is she a selfish con-artist? Is Fielder simply transmitting what he sees, or is he shaping our perception?

The film attempts to get at reality through representation—layers of performances meant to get to the truth—but as it shows, there comes a point where transparency and trickery are indistinguishable.

Review: Every Man for Himself and God Against All

Review: Every Man for Himself and God Against All

Every Man for Himself and God Against All: A Memoir by Werner Herzog

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I saw my first Werner Herzog film in my final year at college. I found out at the last minute that, to graduate on time, I needed to take some kind of history class. For some reason that I don’t remember (maybe cultural aspirations), I chose an introduction to Art History. It was taught by an unenthusiastic and disgruntled graduate student (by the end of that semester he would quit his program to become a chiropractor), yet it somehow left a deep impression on me. I had very limited knowledge of ancient and medieval art, and I can still vividly remember first seeing photos of the Book of Kells and the Boudreaux Tapestry.

But probably my most intense experience of art came early in the semester, when we were learning about prehistoric art. In the middle of class, the professor mentioned, offhand, that there was a recent documentary by Werner Herzog about the caves of Lascaux. I had never heard of Herzog, but I decided to look for the film anyway. It was not at all what I expected. Rather than a standard overview of what we know about cave paintings (which is not much, anyway), the film is an attempt to come to terms with the painters as artists. I felt cheated at first—thinking the film unscientific and wishy-washy—but, by the end, I was convinced that Herzog had indeed taken the right approach. For he does the most important thing, which is to try to recreate with his camera the actual experience of being in the caves.

Later on, I saw Aguirre, the Wrath of God and Fitzcarraldo—probably his two most famous films, both with the unstable actor Klaus Kinski—though I have to admit that neither of them left a particularly deep impression on me. It was only this past summer that I fell completely under Herzog’s spell, when my friends invited me to watch Grizzly Man. I was completely transfixed by it, and (as is typical with me, when I find something I really like) I found myself bringing it up in conversation months afterwards. And so I fell down the rabbit hole—or, to put it in more Herzogian terms, I plunged headfirst into the abyss.

One reason that I became so enamored of his films is because Herzog captures images on film that I’ve only dreamed about: What is it like to swim under the ice, or to get lost in the desert, or to walk inside a volcano, or indeed to be in a cave full of prehistoric paintings? The human experiences that Herzog likes to explore also attract my morbid imagination: living on death row, being attacked by a bear, surviving in the jungle after falling from the air (both Dieter Dengler and Julianes Sturz). And I find Herzog’s manner of approaching these images and experiences to be wonderfully human—perhaps, because he is such a pedestrian filmmaker. I mean that literally, in that his films always convey a kind of physical closeness, as if you are there walking beside him. His most characteristic touch as a filmmaker, I’d argue, are his shots in which the footsteps of the cameraman are palpable.

But above all, I appreciate his films and documentaries because they are not about the interpersonal struggles that characterize so much of Hollywood—between children and parents, or between friends, or above all between couples. Granted, this means that his work generally has little value as social commentary, in the way that, say, a classic Victorian novel has. Yet it makes up for it by being about what is, for me, the ultimate theme: the doomed struggle between humanity and the universe. This is summed up in what is arguably the central image in his entire oeuvre, the challenge of Fitzcarraldo: lifting a boat over a mountain in the middle of the jungle. Indeed, the making of the film itself became such an impossible task that it is doubly metaphoric.

Well, I have gone on about Herzog’s work as a filmmaker, but this is a book review, after all. Yet it is apropos, my reaction to this book only makes sense if you know that I am in the midst of a Herzog obsession. And I would only recommend the book to people in a similar predicament. That is, it is difficult for me to imagine someone with only a casual interest in Herzog, or perhaps just wishing to read a good book of memoires, really enjoying the book. Yet if you are a fan, this is wonderful reading.

Or listening. It was an easy decision to experience the book in audio format, narrated in Herzog’s iconic voice. It is certainly good practice for my Herzog impersonation (though it’s still mediocre). Also, it was constantly amusing whenever Herzog pronounced any sort of foreign word—be it German, Spanish, or Nahuatl—as his voice became inundatingly phlegmy.

While Herzog is an extremely thoughtful person—indeed, he seems to be one of the last living examples of the twentieth-century European intellectual, full of strange opinions and oracular pronouncements—while that is true, as I was saying, he is not particularly introspective. To the contrary, he declares himself the enemy of psychoanalysis, and says that there are parts of the human psyche which should remain shrouded in darkness. It is this aversion to delving emotional depths, I think, which makes him spurn human relationships as the focus of his work—and, it seems, as the focus of his life, for he does not seem to be principally motivated by his family or friends.

What motivates him artistically and personally are, rather, what you might call miniature obsessions. The geneses of his films seem to take the following form: He hears a piece of music (such as the madrigals of Carlo Gesualdo) or a story (such as about the simultaneously-speaking twins, Freda and Greta Chaplin) or sees an image (such as man in a protective suit battling an oil fire) and then decides he must make a film about it.

This tendency to get completely lost in a temporary fixation is another quality I share with Herzog. But the big difference between him and sorry devils such as myself is that Herzog is not content to read a book or watch a movie about his latest mania. He actually travels to the ends of the earth to explore it himself.

His absolute determination to see his projects through, regardless of the hardships or the risks, is perhaps his most admirable (and frightening) quality, and the one I identify with the least. I am a soft person who likes comfort, while this book is full of hardship after hardship and injury after injury. It is sometimes difficult to escape the conclusion that the man is a masochist. But I think it is more accurate to say that he has a philosophic attitude to pain. It is woven into his worldview, as something he simply expects to receive from the universe.

Now, I do have to confess at the end of this review that, now and then, I do get a faint whiff of charlatanism. Herzog seems to like telling stories about himself, and he also seems to have a flexible attitude towards the truth (as explained in his theory of “ecstatic truth”). There are precious few flashes of, say, self-deprecating humor to puncture the popular caricature of himself. But even if Herzog the man does not quite live up to Herzog the character, the artistic persona is so compelling that I think we would have to invent him ourselves if he did not really exist.



View all my reviews