With Invincible, one of the most visionary and exciting of European directors turns his attention to 1930s Berlin and the increasing stranglehold of Nazi power through the investigation of a central disturbing fact of the twentieth century: Jewish weakness and incredulity in the face of the Holocaust. On paper, this should be great.
Werner Herzog's first non-documentary feature film in over fifteen years tells the true story of Zishe Breitbart, a blacksmith's son from rural Poland blessed with extraordinary strength and destined for the giddy excesses of cabaret and novelty entertainment in Germany. Employed by legendary hypnotist Hanussen to fuel the appetite for iconic and mythical Teuton knights, Zishe plays to the gallery before confronting the terrible reality of impending doom for his people and feels chosen by God to warn the Jews. He returns but, as with all prophets, is disbelieved and defeated.
That such a simple yet important tale fails so disappointingly in the telling has many reasons. Firstly, Herzog casts non-professional actors in central roles, most significantly Zishe himself, played by The World's Strongest Man, Jouko Ahola. Although supported to a large degree by the excellent Tim Roth as the machiavellian Hanussen who wishes to set up a ministry of the Occult in Hitler's government and is himself guarding secrets of his identity, the need for Zishe/Ahola to 'carry' the entire story means that his unbelievability lends the entire film a similar status. Were this to be shot more stylistically as a fable (some indication of which is suggested through two stunning dream sequences involving thousands of giant red crabs on a rocky shoreline) this might have worked. But as it is played straight, the failings of the central performance are too damaging.
Secondly, and related to this, as Ahola is Finnish, is Herzog's decision to film in English, the first time he has ever done so. This allowed the vacuity of much of the dialogue to marry with the truly wooden acting rendering some scenes almost unwatchable. Even a cameo by Udo Kier (in which he bemoans the Nazi lack of 'style') cannot save a dry and leaden depiction of what could and should have been a forceful investigation into the paradoxical strengths and weaknesses of Nazi apparatchiks and centuries-old Jewish communities.
Lastly, despite a magical scene of Anna Gourari performing Beethoven's third piano concerto, the means by which Herzog tells this very linear narrative shows little of the aesthetic invention and daring that has graced his great works. The symbolism is heavy-handed, the delivery of significant dialogue laboured, and the ostensible 'message' of invincibility lost in the failure to fully explore the strengths that make a functioning identity, like that of the Jew, however nomadic and vulnerable, more powerful and ultimately victorious against the overwhelming but temporary evil that was Nazism.
In all, one cannot help wondering that were Herzog to have made this twenty years ago, in German, and with Klaus Kinski as the whirlwind at its centre, it would surely have succeeded in depicting the madness of the time and the issues at stake, making irrelevant the need to have a 'real' strongman at the helm and thus removing the reliance upon a faithful but faltering rendition.
Reviewed by Yoram Allon
Reader comments about Invincible
Thomas Danis (Email address withheld) writes:
Criticising Herzog for casting non-professional actors is idiotic. Have you never seen Kaspar Hausur? The central figure in that film was a "non-professional" actor, and the film is heralded as a classic. People should stop criticising Herzog because he refuses to make Aguirre part 2.
Susan M. (Email address withheld) writes:
In response to Mr. Danis, criticizing Herzog's decision to casting "non-professional" actors is not idiotic if the result hurts the effect and believability of the film. I can think of many examples when inexperienced actors have not damaged the films they were in - in fact,some have enhanced or even elevated them. (Diana Ross in Lady Sings the Blues comes to mind, as does Cher in Silkwood). However, with all due respect to Mr. Herzog, the casting of Jouko Ahola and Anna Gourari in "Invincible" was a big mistake. It goes to show that great directors sometimes make mistakes. Didn't you see Godfather Part III with Sofia Coppola playing the pivotal role of Micheal Corleone's daughter? Yikes! What a disappointment. Likewise, "Invincible was a terrible disappointment for me - especially because I'm a big fan of Tim Roth, and hated having to see him and Udo Kier waste their talents acting circles around everybody in what could have been an interesting film.
leslie Moore (Email address withheld) writes:
Have you know heart? This film is wonderful, and I cried greatly. That was then, this is now, Klaus is gone, and where this film lacks teeth, it certainly has heart.
barbara R. (Delft624@aol) writes:
I strongly disagree with Mr. Allon's critique of Wener Herzog's Invincible, in my opinion an elegant, well crafted work by a master auteur. Herzog (and I) were younger and more passionate in the 1970's. This is a mature work in which Herzog's themes's and characters continue to express his vision. Kasper Hauser is alienated, a stranger - but rough and incoherent. Zeisha is rooted in the Jewish theological tradition that
allows his simplicity to connect with goodness. This jewel of a film is an allegory, folktale becoming midrash.
I suggest Mr. Allon watch the film again, in a non literal, non-realistic
interpretation. Bravo to Herzog for continuing to create, and this time in English, serious , personal statements on celluloid, a dying art.
(Email address withheld) writes:
Ce film est génial. Il passe du réel au fantastique mais le réel lui même était inconcevable
Add your comments about Invincible [About]
