The paintings on the walls of the Chauvet Cave in southern France are what makes this film interesting. This cave was discovered only in 1994 and the paintings are dated to about 30,000 years ago. Not shown are the early paintings in the Lascaux Cave (also in southern France) discovered in 1940. The paintings in the Chauvet Cave predate those in the Lascaux by about 10,000 years. Lessons were learned from the Lascaux cave about how allowing lighting and large numbers of human visitors changed the cave climate, causing significant problems like lichens, mold, and fungus blemishes on the walls. Lessons learned from the Lascaux cave have been applied to the Chauvet Cave resulting in severely limited access and the use of special portable battery-powered lighting. Human traffic in Chauvet is restricted to a series of metal walkways.
While it is admirable that a high level of care is being taken to preserve the Chauvet Cave, it is unfortunate that so few people can have the privilege of seeing the original artwork. So, we can be thankful that this film offers a wide audience the opportunity to see the treasures of the cave. Given all the restrictions Herzog must have been persistent in his being allowed into the cave with a small crew in order to film the paintings and other items of interest.
In general I have little use for 3D, but it is of value in viewing the paintings, since the contours of the walls play a role in the effect the paintings create. However, I am not sure that viewing in 2D would not be almost as impressive. One can only stand in awe of the beauty of the artwork. I am sure that one thing that fascinated Herzog was evidence of great artistry dating back to such an early time, indicating that such an impulse has been in the history of man for a long time. It's in our DNA.
Outside of the filming of the interior of the cave, I found the 3D effects to be quite distracting. Camera movement often resulted in visual artifacts. I can understand that the lighting could be a bit dark in the interior of the cave, but even the scenes filmed outside the cave seemed dark. This may have been a projection problem in the theater I went to, but I came away with eyestrain and the conviction that 3D is more of a gimmick than an innovation.
I wish there had been some discussion of how the paintings might have been done, no matter how speculative. There was not much pigmentation in the painting, but there was some. What was used for the paint? It looked like mostly charcoal, but there was no evidence of fires having existed in the cave. Was the charcoal brought in from exterior fires? What was the means of application? Interesting that there were no human remains in the cave; wonder why that was? Herzog seems happy to simply dwell on the mystery, but I think it would have been fun to hear speculations from experts on details.
The elements of the movie outside the filming of the paintings I did not find added much. A lot of it struck me as filler so that this could be made into a feature length film. In particular the "postscript" filmed in an interior biosphere that attached some meaning to albino alligators left me totally perplexed and wondering if a segment from some other movie had been spliced in.
I found the musical accompaniment added to the appreciation of the mystery of the paintings.
An introduction followed by a tour of the paintings would have had more of an impact on me.
While it is admirable that a high level of care is being taken to preserve the Chauvet Cave, it is unfortunate that so few people can have the privilege of seeing the original artwork. So, we can be thankful that this film offers a wide audience the opportunity to see the treasures of the cave. Given all the restrictions Herzog must have been persistent in his being allowed into the cave with a small crew in order to film the paintings and other items of interest.
In general I have little use for 3D, but it is of value in viewing the paintings, since the contours of the walls play a role in the effect the paintings create. However, I am not sure that viewing in 2D would not be almost as impressive. One can only stand in awe of the beauty of the artwork. I am sure that one thing that fascinated Herzog was evidence of great artistry dating back to such an early time, indicating that such an impulse has been in the history of man for a long time. It's in our DNA.
Outside of the filming of the interior of the cave, I found the 3D effects to be quite distracting. Camera movement often resulted in visual artifacts. I can understand that the lighting could be a bit dark in the interior of the cave, but even the scenes filmed outside the cave seemed dark. This may have been a projection problem in the theater I went to, but I came away with eyestrain and the conviction that 3D is more of a gimmick than an innovation.
I wish there had been some discussion of how the paintings might have been done, no matter how speculative. There was not much pigmentation in the painting, but there was some. What was used for the paint? It looked like mostly charcoal, but there was no evidence of fires having existed in the cave. Was the charcoal brought in from exterior fires? What was the means of application? Interesting that there were no human remains in the cave; wonder why that was? Herzog seems happy to simply dwell on the mystery, but I think it would have been fun to hear speculations from experts on details.
The elements of the movie outside the filming of the paintings I did not find added much. A lot of it struck me as filler so that this could be made into a feature length film. In particular the "postscript" filmed in an interior biosphere that attached some meaning to albino alligators left me totally perplexed and wondering if a segment from some other movie had been spliced in.
I found the musical accompaniment added to the appreciation of the mystery of the paintings.
An introduction followed by a tour of the paintings would have had more of an impact on me.