It seems to me that there is an outstanding difference in philosophy between Herzog and Treadwell. They have completely different opinions on the characteristics of nature. Treadwell believes that it is innocent and pure- nothing in nature is harmful or wrong. Herzog believes that nature is indifferent, wild, and hostile. While Treadwell believes that anything deemed as "evil" in nature by society is caused by human corruption, Herzog believes that nature itself is corrupt, by human standards. Although, at first glance, these two philosophies seem incompatible, upon further inspection they are quite similar.
The similarities begin in how they perceive humanities role in nature. Both believe that humans do not belong, but display their beliefs in completely different ways. Throughout the film, it is apparent that Treadwell yearns to become a bear. These tendencies, paired with the fact that he lives with them for months at a time while feeling outcasted from society, leads to the conclusion that Treadwell believes that humans, except him, have no place in nature. That all humans do is destroy and ruin the purity of the natural world.
Herzog also believes that humans do not belong in the natural world, although his intentions are entirely different. Herzog believes that humans do not belong in nature because we cannot handle it. Again, he believes that nature is too wild, hostile, and indifferent. His reasoning is completely different, but the results of both are the same. Humans do not belong in nature- whether it is nature's or human's fault, no one can rightly say.
Interesting take on the film and article, Chris. I certainly was so transfixed on the differences that I couldn't see the similarities that you did. But, now that I have been enlightened by your post, I can really see where you are coming from. When you look beyond the battle that Herzog has fabricated, they both have similar thoughts, just different approaches.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting, Chris. I agree with Nick that the differences were so apparent that it was hard to notice that the two men shared an underlying backbone that supported both of their philosophies. As the different approaches that they took in communicating their beliefs were radically different, I was wondering which you found to be more effective?
ReplyDelete