Skip to main content

The decision to act was in itself the beginning of the journey.

Tracks
(2013)

A young woman’s journey of self-discovery across the Outback. It’s a description that could be aptly applied to Walkabout, but it also fits this oft attempted – but hitherto unsuccessfully, can you imagine the Julia Roberts version without shuddering? – adaptation of Robyn Davidson’s novel. Tracks is a very different bactrian to Nicolas Roeg’s classic rites of passage tale, and takes a literal, methodical approach to its trek. Surprisingly, this staunch linearity (how else would one depict a quest, one might ask), so typical of the biographical movie, is not a drawback; John Curran’s film unfolds measuredly, slowly weaving its spell as it encourages us to embrace the barren beauty of Davidson’s expedition. And in Mia Wasikowska he has found a naturally sympathetic lead, inviting empathy with the sometimes-difficult protagonist.


Davidson was compelled by a nomadic yearning to embark on a 1, 700 mile trek from Alice Springs to the Indian Ocean.  No one thought she could it, and tried to dissuade her, but as she says at the start, there are two kind of nomads; those at home everywhere and those at home nowhere, and she is the latter. Davidson just wants to get away from people, and her plan involves travelling the route with a quartet of camels and her faithful hound Diggity. Her fitful attempts to get started take up a portion of the opening passage,as she gets fleeced by a disreputable camel farmer who doesn’t make good on his promise to pay her in the animals. When finally she sets off, it looks initially as if director John Curran and screenwriter Marion Nelson have misstepped. Robyn’s journey looks as if it will be entirely defined by her monthly meetings with National Geographic photographer Rick Smolan (Adam Driver, fast becoming ubiquitous, but nothing like as ubiquitous as the ubiquitous James Franco; luckily, and surprisingly, he doesn’t show up), assigned to record the foot-first feat. This serves to more than establish her frosty façade, giving the haplessly well-meaning fellow continued short shrift, but it seems as if they are missing the point of what she is doing.


Not to fear, as once Curran really gets underway, and Robyn encounters an Aborigine elder who leads her across their sacred ground (women are not allowed unaccompanied), we see a different, more accepting side and with it the picture hits its groove. When she sets out into the vastest stretch of desert, where Rick has very decently laid a trail of water cans lest she perish, the picture even allows itself to slip into an unfussily meditative gear. Robyn is (literally) unfettered – in one scene she has her own Jenny Agutter bathing moment - and enters her own altered state of abandon amid the desolation. Her most eventful encounters – an attack by bull camels, her camels making off without her one morning, the horrible fate that befalls Diggity – provide some dramatic meat but Curran is mainly content to allow the picture to be what it is, to meander when it needs to and not push it along or pep it up. I enjoyed his two previous pictures, The Painted Veil and Stone – both with Edward Norton – very much, and this might exceed either.


We reach the point where, rather than wishing Robyn would spend time with those she encounters, we want her to leave them as soon as possible so she can be free again. For all its great untamed expanse, the desert is a place of (mostly) safety and comfort. So when a crowd of noisy reporters sets upon her, desperate to interview “The Camel Lady”, the distress of one who has spent so long in solitary contemplation is palpable. Curran is too smart to attempt a dissection of what goes on under Robyn’s lid; his trick is that he enables us to empathise with her doing what she does rather than overtly explaining it.


That said, there is an undercurrent of cod-psychology in the unnecessary flashbacks. They are a bit eggy, leading us by the hand (do we really need the fateful departure of her childhood hound as a foreshadowing of the incredibly upsetting demise of her current pooch), when it might be more satisfying to allow us the benefit of speculating as to her drive (the unfortunate effect of the flashbacks is that they suggest she does nothing but think about the loss of her mother, and going to live with her aunt; there’s clearly much more backstory as we discover when she happens upon a kindly sun-beaten farming couple, that isn’t directly to do with those events). The picture is better at making us conscious that the adverse consequences that come with her strong-willed decisions, not out of overt criticism but because to illustrate that to do what she wants to do she must also face what she really doesn’t, be it having her male camel castrated, angrily beating him after he runs off, shooting the male bulls or having to put down Diggity.


Wasikowska is outstanding in the lead, and it’s with her solo that we spend the majority of the picture (with an accompanying menagerie, of course). At first Robyn’s voiceover announces itself in an off-puttingly over-written manner, a mouthful of words, but that in itself works in fostering a gradual appreciation of her.  If we aren’t invited into Robyn’s inner world, Wasikowska makes those things that bring her peace and validation more than clear.


Driver is lends strong support as the likeable goof towards whom Robyn gradually thaws. Roly Mintuma’s Eddie, persuasively benign and ever chatty to an uncomprehending Robyn, also makes a strong impression (this might be the most upbeat section of the picture). Then there’s Diggety, charmingly played by Special Agent Gibbs; there’s a lovely uplifting scene in which Robyn, searching for her compass, is unable find her way back to the camel train; she instructs “Diggity, go home!” and the faithful hound leads her back to them.


Mandy Walker, who lensed Australia for Baz Lurhmann is given the chance here to allow the desert images to linger and sing. It’s a gorgeously shot film, with vistas both familiar (a flickering mirage) and uncanny (a motorcyclist arriving out of the darkness like an astronaut stepping onto the Moon; he may as well be from a dream world to Robyn, who turns over disinterested in his prattle and goes back to sleep). Garth Stevenson’s percussive score is also a perfect match, gently pushing the picture forward but holding back on the urge to get overly inspirational.


Biographical adaptations often go astray through being over earnest or trying to cram in too much exposition. Curran has done neither and the result is captivating picture, one that gently musters reflection on our lives and what we do with them, how we see others and ourselves, by letting Robyn’s obscurely motivated trek speak for itself. As she says, “I believe when you’ve been stuck for too long in one spot, it’s best to throw a grenade where you’re standing and jump – and pray.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.