This criticism is also raised in reference to Herzog's later documentary, 'Wings of Hope', in which he describes his crew clearing a patch of land so that they might land a helicopter for the filming. I have also heard Herzog discuss this, in reference to 'Wings of Hope', and assume the same answer or one very much like it applies to 'Fitzcarraldo'.
Herzog, obviously, has a love for wild places and would not wantonly destroy them. The jungle is incredibly fecund and has a great ability to replenish itself. The amount of land cleared for 'Fitzcarraldo' or 'Wings of Hope' would regrow to their original state - I would guess that if you traveled to the location where either film was made you would find absolutely no trace of the filming at either.
These small amounts of land, cleared for a short period and then left to regrow, are not environmental disasters of a severity anywhere evenly remotely near that of land that is cleared for agriculture. Modern environmental sensibilities, like may modern sensibilities, tend to be categorical rather than reasonable - according to modern sensibilities, cutting down the jungle, for any reason, is 'wrong'. When we compare Herzog's clearing of small parcels of land for short periods of time to make beautiful and inspiring films, compared to the millions of acres being cleared continuously for agriculture, we can see how little of an impact his passage made upon the jungle. As I said - I would bet a large amount of money that the passage of Fitzcarralsdo's steamship has already been swallowed by the jungle, that is, if it has not been turned into farmland.
m
reply
share