La Soufrière

Werner Herzog's documentary 'La Soufrière' captures the tense anticipation of an impending volcanic eruption on the island of Guadeloupe, as the filmmaker and his crew risk their lives to document the event. Although the eruption never came, the film remains a fascinating meditation on human mortality and ecological disaster, revealing Herzog's unwavering dedication to capturing the elusive cinematic sublime. While the lack of a violent climax adds an element of self-mockery to the final product, 'La Soufrière' remains a must-watch for film enthusiasts seeking a potent exploration of the intersection between human curiosity and natural danger.

I love Herzog. I love travel movies, and I love documentaries. Anybody who is into "abandoned porn" would love this. The abandoned city seemed like a dream for a zombie film maker back in the day. Now computers could probably do it, but to see a whole city deserted like that, especially with the volcanic smoke in the background, truly was apocalyptic.

The conversations with the people left behind were a little hard to follow, but still interesting. If a guy has nowhere to go, why should he leave? It's his home and, in the end, the volcano didn't interrupt after all. Vindication if there ever was.

Check it out. It's only 30 minutes anyway.

What makes a movie worthwhile? Do you get whatever value is there while you watch it, or afterward. Is it always complex? Is it always a mix?

I think not. I am coming to the opinion that in addition to all the other variety in films we find, films are weighted differently in their strategies for what rewards the viewer.

An example of this are the films that are otherwise lackluster, but have a particularly intriguing ending. All they have to do is keep you from rebelling through the film, which is all about setting up that end. You wander out of the theater dazzled, and that is the experience you recall.

Other films are all weighted on the entry. The filmmaker takes us to strange and wonderful places. Its actually not difficult to create those places. What's difficult is getting us there in the first few moments of a film. The thrill is all in the beginning of these, and much of the charm of being a tourist in these strange environs is the fact that you are there at all.

I think there is a small catalog of these strategies, just as you can say that there are only a few of what we call genres, which in fact are a collection of conventions agreed upon between the makers and viewers. And which are used as shorthandles in the cinematic grammar.

One of these — the film reward types — are films that aren't compelling as films themselves, but the idea of the film is. Perhaps there are several types within this. I suspect so, one of them having to do with the nature and intent of the filmmaker. I have a small study of one sort of these, where the filmmaker (usually a man) features the woman he loves in the film. Knowing that changes everything.

Herzog may have invented his own type, or at least be the modern exemplar. I've spent some time recently with films about the antarctic, because of my fascination with Frank Hurley. He was a photographer/filmmaker who about 100 years ago accompanied Shackleton on an expedition to the south pole. Even if the journey had been successful, it would have been hard, incredibly hard. But it turned disastrous. The story is one of the most amazing in history, but during this whole time, Hurley kept his cameras active.

Seeing these are transformative because you know the man put himself in harms way, encountered danger and hardship and STILL took those photos (the movie camera being too heavy to keep). Its the IDEA of the photograph, not the things themselves.

Here we have Herzog. He hears that a volcano is to blow. An entire island has been evacuated, streetlights still operating, TeeVees still on. The mountain is seething. Scientists know an eruption exceeding a nuclear bomb is certain. They have the example of a neighboring island where just the same preface presaged disaster. What does Herzog do? Why rush there of course with two cameramen.

He breaks rules, he cheats, he sneaks past barriers to actually climb the mountain where if the wind is blowing right the acidic clouds won't dissolve his lungs. And he waits for the thing to blow. As it turns out it didn't. The mountain settled and the people resettled. But the very idea. It isn't the sort of journalism that war correspondents practice, where we really need to know and danger is involved. Its different.

Herzog went there because the story was in his going.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

When word that La Soufriere, a volcano, was about to explode Werner Herzog dropped everything and ran off to try and find the one inhabitant of the small island that didn't leave. Scientists were expecting an explosion of catastrophic proportions and fled themselves. When Herzog and his camera men arrived on the island they were greeted by a eerily silent landscape and a sense of impending doom. The film that resulted from Herzog's trip is strange viewing experience. As Herzog remarks its as if he were dropped into a science fiction movie where everyone in the world has disappeared but the electric, phones and TVs still worked. Its a place where thousands of snakes fled the rumbling mountain by going into the ocean while the only humans around spend time getting closer to the danger. Its an odd experience as we watch and wait for what we are told is inevitable....

Herzog has made a film of stark beauty that is also deeply disturbing. There is something about it that is not quite right. Of course it has to do with the fact that the film is like real life Waiting for Godot, we are waiting for the end that never comes, despite all the signs. Its an unnerving proposition that messes with your head, but in a good way. Its 30 minutes well spent.

A 30-minute documentary film by Werner Herzog in which he and a couple of cameramen visit a remote island in Guadelope, where an active volcano threatens to erupt at any second. They discover a deserted township with starving dogs roaming the streets, as well as at least three homeless men who seem consigned to their eventual fates.

It's a great premise and you can instantly see why Herzog was attracted to this story: the images of the deserted town are haunting in the extreme, and nature plays a big part. Unforgettable shots include snakes evacuating the volcano slopes and dead dogs lying rotting in the lonely streets. The human stories which conclude this brief report are even more devastating, a study of loneliness and the acceptance of fate. All of these are themes commonly explored by Herzog, and they're just as intriguing here.