Incident at Loch Ness

Who knew that Werner Herzog – the director of "Aguirre: the Wrath of God", "Fitzcarraldo", and other weighty dramas -- could do comedy? Herzog proves it here in Zak Penn's terrific send-up of "the making of the movie" documentary.

"Incident at Loch" purports to document a film Herzog sets out to make in Scotland about the Loch Ness monster. Overseeing the production is Penn, a successful screenwriter. Along for the ride are a famous cinematographer, an Academy award winning sound man, a Playboy model, and a radio controlled six-foot "Nessie."

Penn puts it all together in a clever, inventive way. The result is one of the most original – and funniest – movies of the year.

This has many things I seek: A faux documentary after the manner of "Lost Silver." Werner Herzog, who is sort of a touchstone for those interested in merged stylization and the documentary-like magic of discovered behavior.

It is a film about a film about a film about a film. It is an examination of truth and fiction merged. Sounds perfect, right?

Some elements are deft. Herzog really is great. I already saw him in a similar real-fiction role in a Harmony Korrine project (similar in spirit to this one). So he really wasn't a surprise. But one gets the impression that he really can live in merged real and fictional worlds. I suppose all great artists can do that.

But the whole thing falls flat, largely I think because the writer went the whole distance with himself. He is the writer/director and he plays that as well. But he doesn't have the oscillating realities that Herzog projects and that is required here. Let's call it the Woody Allen effect: a great idea that the writer had that the same person ruins in the form of an actor.

I have maintained for long that actors cannot understand movies. The interests of filmmakers and actors conflict. But it is also true that asking a filmmaker like Penn to be an actor is just as hard. And just as disappointing.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

The previous user who compared this film to the 'Fishing With John' series has it down fabulously. However, I have to disagree that you need to know anything about Herzog to enjoy the film. All you need to know is supplied in the very deftly-handled exposition.

I'd also compare it to LOST IN LA MANCHA... except, well. And it's kinda like WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, but... but mostly, it's very like THE BL-... well, I should shut up.

All I can say is that the film is proof that there is *something* to this latest onslaught of documentaries. There is great value in the language they use to convey a story and the self-reflexive possibilities are now endless, thanks to Zak Penn.

See this film.

The film appears to be a documentary about John Bailey making a documentary, "Herzog in Wonderland", about director Werner Herzog, who is himself undertaking a documentary seeking the truth behind the Loch Ness Monster and the cultural facts that lead to such beliefs. We witness Herzog and his crew from the earliest stages of their supposed documentary. Problems begin creeping up almost immediately, growing in severity until everyone's documentaries are abandoned in a climactic horrific incident--the Incident at Loch Ness.

This is really a brilliant film. The appearance is just a conceit. What's really going on is a very clever nested mockumentary that is basically This is Spinal Tap (1984) meets The Blair Witch Project (1999) in attitude and tone, with the twist that our protagonists are not fictional characters, but real people playing spoofed version of themselves.

Similar to some other recent faux documentaries, Incident at Loch Ness plays with the difference between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, cinematic illusions and reality, while explicitly claiming to explore the same, occasionally untruthfully, in a cinematic equivalent to Epimenides' famous paradox, where a Cretan is claiming that "All Cretans are liars". It's sly enough to even make a committed postmodernist's head spin, and unlike other attempts at similar material from other filmmakers, Incident at Loch Ness has insightful things to say on many different levels--the postmodern playfulness isn't just pretentious here.

In fact, this is the film, minus the humor perhaps, that The Blair Witch Project and The Last Broadcast (1988) wanted to be. Unlike those films, here documentary really seems like documentary. First-time director Zak Penn (who is an experienced screenwriter) is smart and knowledgeable enough to know that documentaries (and even home movies) do not tend to look like they were filmed by someone having a seizure (both BWP and TLB), and they do not tend to feature monotone, extremely amateur comments from the faux interviewees which are then arbitrarily edited into frequently repeating snippets (TLB). Penn's intelligent approach results in Incident at Loch Ness feeling "real", which is exactly what it needs to do. The verisimilitude is only belied by the very funny, increasingly absurdest plot, when we're firmly in This is Spinal Tap territory.

Like This is Spinal Tap, Incident at Loch Ness is as funny as it is because it is so close to the truth. It only slightly exaggerates what really happens in the world of film and television--the ridiculous moves by producers in the hope of creating a more profitable product, the personality clashes and often "political" and subversive machinations in behind-the-scenes relationships, the toying with "the real" in reality shows and documentaries--giving the satire a lot more weight. For Herzog fans, there is a hilarious spoof overview of his past work near the beginning of the film, and fans will also simply delight in Herzog being able to poke fun at himself so easily and naturalistically.

But in trumping BWP and TLB, Incident at Loch Ness is a very realistic horror film as well, with horror coming not only in the climax when some characters end up dead, but all throughout the film with various minor disasters/problems, all threatening to send the feigned Herzog documentary to hell in a hand basket.

Incident at Loch Ness wouldn't have worked without excellent performances, making it even more notable in that the majority of the cast are not most well known, or even very experienced in some cases, as actors. The DVD is worth checking out, as Penn and Herzog do the main commentary in character. There are ample deleted scenes and lots of Easter eggs, as well, including hidden "serious" commentary.

The acting is so self-conscious and terrible (especially the bald guy), Werner Herzog is completely annoying (he reminded me of the equally annoying Wim Wenders), and the story is just stupid; however, all of this wouldn't have mattered if it had been FUNNY. Even the outtakes on the DVD are UNFUNNY! Herzog's "WOYZEK" has more laughs than this (I hope I got the point across about how unfunny this film is...) I grudgingly admit that Herzog was actually the best actor in the film. Despite how irritating he was, he did seem very natural (so I guess he's just naturally that annoying--but not as annoying as that bald guy!) If you like unfunny comedies, then this is the perfect film for you.