If you have only truth, in acting; you have everything.
That sounds so pat.
It’s not.
Excerpt From “Thompson On Hollywood”:
The winners of this year’s International Documentary Awards were announced Friday [12-5-2008] night at a ceremony at the DGA.
…But the highlight of the night was director Werner Herzog’s tribute. After showing stellar clips from ‘Little Dieter Learns to Fly’, ‘Grizzly Man’ and his most recent doc, ‘Encounters at the End of the World’ (which is short-listed for Oscar consideration), Herzog got a standing ovation and gave a speech.
“There are deeper strata of truth in cinema and there’s such a thing as poetic ecstatic truth,” said the director… “In being a filmmaker I really tried to find an answer about what constitutes reality…we have to individually find our own ways. I have tried to find something much deeper, something that constitutes truth, which is hard to grasp. In my filmmaking I have tried to find some sort of ecstasy where you are deeply moved and illuminated. If you leave pure facts behind…truth can create illumination.”
Directors Werner Herzog + Jonathan Demme
What is your response to what you just read?
How do you think the notion of “truth” relates to acting?
*******
You may have noticed something new, in the navigation bar, above. I added a new page, “Guestbook”.
It’s for you, and this Hollywood Actor Prep community. To write on… you can answer the above question/s. Or, leave a comment there.
Please do.
The first ten blog-users, to leave a comment, will be asked to participate in a chat with me…about acting, and this site…
Here’s a portion of a letter, from Roger Ebert, to Werner Herzog. You can read the rest of letter, at Mr. Herzog’s official site.
A letter to Werner Herzog:
In praise of rapturous truth
November 17, 2007
Dear Werner,
You have done me the astonishing honor of dedicating your new film, “Encounters at the End of the World,” to me. Since I have admired your work beyond measure for the almost 40 years since we first met, I do not need to explain how much this kindness means to me. When I saw the film at the Toronto Film Festival and wrote to thank you, I said I wondered if it would be a conflict of interest for me to review the film, even though of course you have made a film I could not possibly dislike. I said I thought perhaps the solution was to simply write you a letter.
But I will review the film, my friend, when it arrives in theaters on its way to airing on the Discovery Channel. I will review it, and I will challenge anyone to describe my praise as inaccurate.
I will review it because I love great films and must share my enthusiasm.
This is not that review. It is the letter. It is a letter to a man whose life and career have embodied a vision of the cinema that challenges moviegoers to ask themselves questions not only about films but about lives. About their lives, and the lives of the people in your films, and your own life.
Without ever making a movie for solely commercial reasons, without ever having a dependable source of financing, without the attention of the studios and the oligarchies that decide what may be filmed and shown, you have directed at least 55 films or television productions, and we will not count the operas. You have worked all the time, because you have depended on your imagination instead of budgets, stars or publicity campaigns. You have had the visions and made the films and trusted people to find them, and they have. It is safe to say you are as admired and venerated as any filmmaker alive—among those who have heard of you, of course. Those who do not know your work, and the work of your comrades in the independent film world, are missing experiences that might shake and inspire them.
I have not seen all your films, and do not have a perfect memory, but I believe you have never made a film depending on sex, violence or chase scenes. Oh, there is violence in “Lessons of Darkness,” about the Kuwait oil fields aflame, or “Grizzly Man,” or “Rescue Dawn.” But not “entertaining violence.” There is sort of a chase scene in “Even Dwarfs Started Small.” But there aren’t any romances.
You have avoided this content, I suspect, because it lends itself so seductively to formulas, and you want every film to be absolutely original.
You have also avoided all “obligatory scenes,” including artificial happy endings. And special effects (everyone knows about the real boat in “Fitzcarraldo,” but even the swarms of rats in “Nosferatu” are real rats, and your strong man in “Invincible” actually lifted the weights). And you don’t use musical scores that tell us how to feel about the content. Instead, you prefer free-standing music that evokes a mood: You use classical music, opera, oratorios, requiems, aboriginal music, the sounds of the sea, bird cries, and of course Popol Vuh.
All of these decisions proceed from your belief that the audience must be able to believe what it sees. Not its “truth,” but its actuality, its ecstatic truth….
—Roger Ebert
Best,
:-Dana
