The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1974)

From the first time I saw Aguirre, I knew Werner Herzog was a filmmaker I can really identify with. Aguirre is long overdue for a re-viewing, so I'll hold off on my in-depth thoughts, and the same goes for Fitzcarraldo. I've also seen My Best Fiend, Burden of Dreams and Incident at Loch Ness, and despite all their greatness, they're documentaries about or starring Herr Herzog, so I'm not sure if they'd count towards the 'real' Herzog count. When I first read the synopsis for The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, I knew it was a film I'd have to see ASAP. It was one of those films that, just from the synopsis, I thought it would be amazing and would immediately become one of my favorites. Well, Kaspar Hauser doesn't quite have that impact at first. In fact, about halfway through, I was kind of unsure if it was an amazing piece of work, or merely average. Though, it really gets under your skin and sticks in your head.

Supposedly, it's a true story, but Herzog also said the same thing about Aguirre, so we know better than to trust him. In essence, it functions almost like a fable, with an intriguing story, with plenty of metaphor underneath its surface. Probably the best aspect of the movie is the performance by Bruno S., a street performer, 'found' by Herzog, who turns in an incredible performance. It's not so much a performance as it is simply his presence. He's got this really intense stare, and you can almost see right into his soul sometimes.

Most of the film is incredibly detailed, especially in the beginning, which might turn some off, but really adds to the mood of the film. Herzog shows his 'education' in really long takes that are sure to try some viewers' patience, but really characterize Kaspar. The same goes for a later scene, in which the authorities rifle through Kaspar's belongings, examining each little thing for clues.

I really liked seeing Kaspar's thoughts on some things. He grew up inside of a tower, and later returning, he concludes that the tower is not where he grew up, because when he was inside, he saw walls all around, but outside, he sees no walls. Yes, it sounds insane, but to hear Kaspar explain it, it somehow makes sense. And then he asks why he can't play the piano like somebody else can. He can do other things just as easily, so why not the piano? It's extremely strange logic, because we're used to seeing things our own way, but if you really open your mind and try to see through his eyes, it makes a lot of sense, in a way.

The entire film is a mystery, and despite its ending, which offers up a fairly clear-cut solution, nothing is really solved, when you think about it. Many would simply accept it, the initial letter outlining Kaspar's situation, the final letter, the ending sequence where we learn why Kaspar was the way he was. Yet, who's to say either letter is real? And, does simply examining his brain, physically, really explain why Kaspar is Kaspar?