In a perfect world, every film would be a masterpiece.
From the lowest brow of comedies to the headiest of dramas, each and every one would be an expertly crafted magnum opus. This being the case, I never enjoy writing negative reviews of movies. Unfortunately, however, occasionally I must be put to this task. That I must write a negative review of a Werner Herzog film, who, for my money, is one of the greatest living directors, only adds insult to injury.
Herzog’s Queen of the Desert tells the story of Gertrude Bell, one of the great archeologists of the twentieth century. In the early part of the century, she charted the Middle East, documenting the land and its peoples, ultimately aiding Winston Churchill in creating the modern borders of the region (whether this Western intervention was good or just is another conversation entirely).
The film opens with a young Gertrude Bell (Nicole Kidman) trapped in her family home. As is expected of a young woman of her high class, she attends parties and fends off suitors who are nowhere near approaching her level of intellect and curiosity. Sick of her life in England, she convinces her father to let her stay with her uncle at the British Embassy in Tehran.
From there, we see Gertrude’s development from an eager young mind desperate to learn the languages and cultures of the peoples of the Middle East to accomplished archeologist and documentarian of the region’s land and civilizations. Well, I *say* “see,” but that’s not entirely accurate. But I’ll get to that shortly.
Herzog, while regarded for his fiction films, is arguably an even greater documentarian than he is a dramatic auteur. Throughout his career, he has shown us the extremities of existence, the darkest and most wondrous parts of nature and civilization with films such as Grizzly Man and Into the Abyss. It only makes sense then that this great aggregator of the disparate pieces that compose the human condition would turn his dramatic attention to one of the self-same pack.
It’s unfortunate then that Queen of the Desert does not so much present us with a clear picture of Gertrude Bell, the people she loved, or the methods she used to educate the Western world about the rich cultures of Arabia (abused though this knowledge was). Instead, what we have is an incoherent mess that fails to educate, enlighten, or entertain.
In his clear reverence for his subject, Herzog has bitten off more than it is possible to chew over the span of two hours. Stylistically, Queen of the Desert is in the vein of the great epics of the ’50s, with the clear comparison being David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia (T.E. Lawrence even makes an appearance, played, in a great casting call, with youthful energy by Robert Pattinson). While Queen of the Desert may match that film in its visual splendor (major props to frequent Herzog collaborator Peter Zeitlinger for his superb cinematography), it falls well short of its three-and-a-half hour run time. The two hour run time of Herzog’s film leaves little room for the multi-decade tale of Gertrude Bell to breathe. We’re shown everything from her early love affair with Third Secretary of the British Embassy Henry Cadogan (James Franco with a questionable British accent) to her final condemnation of the British Empire’s meddling in the affairs of the Middle East.
Now, back to an earlier point. When I said we “see Gertrude’s development,” what really happens is a parade of scenes and plot threads that are nigh indecipherable and often lead to nowhere. Yes, it may be true to the history, but without a clear dramatic arc to follow, we’re left trying to *decode* the history rather than relishing it. What’s more, there’s no clear sense of the characters changes over time; we don’t *see* Gertrude’s changes from ingenue to archeologist, we merely see the results. We don’t *see* her chronicling of her travels, we just take the film’s word for it (it’s word being mostly clumsy dialogue and narration).
Everything about the pace seems rushed. Scenes can go by at lightening speed, leaping from one locale, time, and plot point to the next, all while occasionally managing to say nothing at all. Herzog has attempted to give us too much of Bell’s biography in too short a time rather than focusing in on one aspect of her life and career. If any of the characters were well developed, then some of this might be forgivable. Instead, we’re left watching imitation humans spit out exposition, which makes the two hours it takes somehow feels much, much longer. While I generally shy away from critiquing a film for being boring (it’s cheap and non-specific), I must admit that I was bored. When the credits began to roll, I didn’t feel as though I had any more understanding or appreciation of Gertrude Bell than I did before I watched the film.
Perhaps, if you have a great (or greater) understanding of the history of the period, you might appreciate the film more. If you go in blind, however, Herzog does a poor job of providing the context to make you understand or care about the historical importance of what you’re watching.
If Queen of the Desert has one saving grace, it’s the performances. The principals give it their all, adding depth to scenes which are otherwise two-dimensional (with James Franco being the major exception, but not for lack of trying).
Overall, though, Herzog has presented us with a trying, frustrating, almost indecipherable mess of a picture, although it’s not for a lack of trying (or, apparently, budget). If you’re interested in learning more about the life of Gertrude Bell (and you should be), you’re better off reading a biography.
Opening Friday April 7th in theaters & VOD April 14.
Opening in New York at the IFC Center
Opening in Los Angeles at the Arena Cinelounge Sunset