I knew there would be many reviewers and critics, for better or for worse, of her new film Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard. So I didn't see writing a review or a critique of her film as the opportunity at hand. As it turns out, I eventually did write a review of her film for which she set up a private screening for me. But the prospect of doing that wasn't my purpose in flying to meet with her for a few hours, and then turning around and flying right back again. It was to get to know who Robyn Symon is. Who is this relatively late comer to the conversation for transformation, this at first skeptical (as I had heard) late comer who has out of nowhere created what some, fans and begrudging naysayers alike, are now calling "the best thing done on Werner - ever"? Who is Robyn Symon like a possibility? Would her exposè be like the evening news, simply a conduit for historical fact? (and biased historical fact, at that). Or could her work actually impart the possibility of transformation, the work of Werner Erhard? I wondered how her vision for her film could possibly succeed. If she says anything great about Werner, his staunchest critics will cry foul. If she says nothing great about him and his work, well ... we don't need another one of those, I mused dryly. And all that aside, she is, after all, a journalist in a medium in which the reputation for objectivity, truth, and integrity weighs heavily. She works in the realm of the television documentary. If she does a hatchet job, by now that's not even original. And if she does something great, surely she would then be characterized simply as an award winning journalist who got influenced by a cult? Aside from which, how will she deal with the already attack mentality that to one degree or another taints many peoples' listening for Werner and his work even if they've never had anything to do with it? It was clear to me whatever her approach was, the woman had a formidable task ahead of her. Her work was clearly cut out for her. |
But the microscope here, the scrutiny of the project, is on Werner Erhard himself. And a question I asked myself as I watched is this: Will it work? Will it create an open, evenhanded forum in which Werner's magnum opus and its current form such as it exists in the world today, can be evaluated? Or will this approach backfire and fry its subject, like an ant caught by a child unceremoniously in the sun's intensity focused through a magnifying glass? It's an approach which takes brass and boldness, and could quickly devolve into a total fiasco. This isn't a feel good hymn to a man who has in transformation created, some say, the most powerful experience of their lives, and for others is nothing less than a slick snake oil salestype charlatan who's simply in it for the money. This is documentary film making at it's best. The depths it probes of simple human foibles as well as sheer heroism are arduous to take in at times. Two mantras meandered through my mind as I watched, not knowing what to expect next, fascinated. The first was: "He who is without sin cast the first stone". The second was: "There but for the grace of God go I". It's riveting viewing which is sure to be as controversial as it is brilliant. The fire is held unflinchingly to the soles of Werner Erhard's life and work. The unspoken questions the movie poses are quite clear. Is what was said about Werner Erhard on 60 Minutes true? If not, why wasn't it ever fully recanted? Why did Werner Erhard leave the USA? What's he up to these days? And, arguably the most poignant question, what's the validity of Werner Erhard's work and legacy today and for the future if even some small fraction of what's been said about him in the full frontal attack were true? |
| © Laurence Platt - 2007, 2008 | Permission |