By watching Herzog's Grizzly Man and reading through Noys' "Antiphusis: Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man," one can infer that Treadwell and Herzog have completely opposite views about human position in nature. Treadwell has a "sentimentalized" view of nature. He believes humans and nature should coexist, and gets extremely angry when he believes humans are mistreating nature or the grizzly bears. He constantly feels like he needs to protect the bears from human cruelty, putting his life in danger in order to "save" the bears. Treadwell believes humanity is corrupting nature. He thinks humans do not respect or appreciate nature. He also believes he has formed a deep connection with the Alaskan nature and the bears, and feels like he belongs with them in the natural world.
On the other hand, Herzog believes nature is "discordant and chaotic." He believes nature is unkind, unconcerned, and violent towards human activity. He also believes that Treadwell cannot face "the harsh reality of wild nature." Treadwell thinks nature is innocent and harmless, and believes humanity is the key factor in the corruption of nature. On the contrary, Herzog believes nature is corrupt in itself, and humanity has no part in its corruption. Herzog, unlike Treadwell, does not believe nature and humans can exist in harmony. Herzog also states that the bears did not need or appreciate Treadwell's protection. He thinks that humans and nature do not belong together in the world.
Both Treadwell and Herzog believe humans do not belong in the natural world, but approach that conclusion in different ways. Treadwell believes humanity is cruel and is destroying the natural world, while Herzog believes nature is corrupt in itself and is hostile towards human activity.
Nice argument. I also agree with what you've said here. It is apparent that the majority of the class was too caught up in the battle between Herzog and Treadwell to come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, implying the same results while using two opposite philosophies to back up their claims. One question: are you trying to highlight the differences in approaches or the similarities in conclusion?
ReplyDelete