Skip to main content

The jungle is hell, but... one kind of likes it.

The Lost City of Z
(2016)

(SPOILERS) It’s probably no coincidence that the two films I’ve enjoyed most in the last couple of months have adopted an expressly stately pace, slipping effortlessly into the style and narrative form of features of yesteryear. That might be interpreted as a symptom of getting older and failing to appreciate a frenzied assault on the senses the way I once might have, but I suspect it rather derives from surprise and appreciation that this kind of picture still has a place (if not necessarily a wide audience), and that, when it suits the material, the results can still be impressive. The Lost City of Z, like Blade Runner 2049, has variously been described as long-winded and boring, but contrastingly, I found it an immersive, rewarding experience, one that wrestles valiantly with the problems inherent in adapting a decades-spanning, unresolved historical tale.


Indeed, I may have done James Gray something of a disservice by tending to avoid his pictures in the past. I recall being underwhelmed by We Own the Night, assuming he belonged to the Gavin O’Connor brand of serviceable but undemanding character-based crime genre directors. Gray admits, however, that Z is something of a departure for him, and he was unsure why Brad Pitt’s Plan B approached him with the project (Bradley did better than me, since I began reading David Grann’s account of Captain Percy Fawcett’s Amazon expeditions but failed to finished it). While Gray may not bring the same identification with, and eye for, the environment that, say, Werner Herzog or John Boorman have previously, this may be in part a function of the need to retreat from the jungles periodically and stick to the broad outline of the story itself.


As always with the Hollywood movie, though, one has to navigate the ins and outs of fidelity to the facts, and as always (or usually) the ultimate test resides with “Is it a good movie regardless?” This has been true for past explorer biopics (1492: Conquest of Paradise, for example; it’s a long time since I saw Mountains on the Moon). To read John Hemming’s take on the historical figure, you’d think Fawcett had massacred his entire family (he evidently has a bee in his bonnet over what he perceives to be Grann’s numerous and flagrant fabrications). Was Fawcett in fact an ill-prepared idiot, and an ill-prepared racist idiot at that, who got what was coming to him? Hemming certainly thinks so and has been backed up in the “blundering and racist flake” stakes by others who have been there (the rainforest), so “know” (it’s with a case like this that the problem with going to a Hollywood “fact vs fiction” site presents itself; they aren’t really researching, merely quoting opinion pieces such as Hemming’s. As am I, of course, but I’m not holding myself out as a bastion of accuracy).


While I’m not sure Gray’s (commendable) willingness to engage his critics quite gets to the nub of this issue (I suspect the attacks on Fawcett have more to do with professional elitism than class, although those areas may intertwine), one real tester of adverse claims is if alterations to the record leaving one feeling one has being taken out of the movie. It’s a cliché to use “product of the time” to defend unenlightened views in an individual one wishes to esteem in some way, but in this case, it could be argued that it serves the plot motor to transpose Fawcett’s conceptual problems with what he saw as primitive savages existing upon the remains of an advanced civilisation onto his peers at the Royal Geographical Society.


It’s when Gray conflates this with bursts of not only progressive views on race and culture but also the environment and gender equality that one feels the writer-director may be laying it on a bit thick (although, to be fair, the portrait of Nina Fawcett appears to have been at least partially accurate, and Gray does much better in showing Percy’s limited flexibility around this subject than elsewhere).


Gray expressly wanted to get acrossan evolved sense of politics”, but I think he underestimates the medium if he feels he needs to achieve that by making his characters lily-white advocates of his own views. Nevertheless, the scenes where Fawcett wittily presents his views to get the Society onside, or stands up for his beliefs (and friends) when the entirely trashed arctic explorer James Murray (Angus Macfadyne, great), who has proved a wretched impediment to their expedition and been rid of, turns up demanding apologies and reparations, are rightly rousing.


Indeed, many haven’t been at all sold on Charlie Hunnam’s performance (Pitt, then Benedict Cumberbatch were lined up to play Fawcett at various points), and I can entirely relate if you’re talking Pacific Rim, say, but he really meets the challenge of portraying the unflappable, dedicated explorer. Certainly, though, if you don’t buy into him, it’s unlikely the picture as a whole will yield approval. Whenever Gray is in the jungle, The Lost City of Z is fascinating, but there just isn’t enough of it, and the intrusion of World War I in particular breaks the flow.


There are many fascinating aspects of Fawcett’s life closer to home, but Gray appears cautious about how much he can deliver. We have a rather clumsy scene in the trenches at the Somme (while Fawcett commanded heavily artillery at Flanders, he didn’t go over the top at the Somme, or get blinded by mustard gas) when an occultist – complete with Ouija board – reads to him, but it’s insufficient to relay how much a flavour of the time such interests where, or that Fawcett was a Helena Blavatsky enthusiast (“charlatan psychic” as Hemming calls her, which as bluntly dismissive a summation as you get) – his brother Edward assisted her in preparing The Secret Doctrine and shared his arcane passions with Arthur Conan Doyle and Rider Haggard.


He also advocated Z as an outpost of Atlantis and believed his son Jack was the reincarnation of an advanced spirit (one theory has it that Fawcett never intended to return home, but instead to set up a commune in the Amazon dedicated to worshipping Jack). While it’s understandable that Gray didn’t want his hero to appear a complete fantasist, he arguably forwent the more fascinating depiction of the character. For Gray, it’s enough that Fawcett had a dream, one that has (in part) been vindicated.


If Hunnam rises to the occasion, so does Robert Pattison, sporting a mighty beard as Henry Costin, right hand explorer to Fawcett, and continues his flair for strong character work that began with Cronenberg collaborations. Sienna Miller is strong as Nina Fawcett, swallowed into her own jungle of the mind at the end, while Tom Holland gets rather short shrift as son Jack, required to go from young rebel to young apprentice without anything much to tell you the hows and whys.


On the debit side, you’re also consistently aware that this is epic storytelling on a budget, from Fawcett hacking through undergrowth that doesn’t need hacking to coming across the grand opera house of Franco Nero’s baron (it’s like something out of Apocalypse Now, but occurs much too early to have any kind of bewilderingly, hallucinogenic quality). This feeling of the curtailed means that the adverse elements – the disease, the desperation, the starvation – aren’t allowed sufficient time to set in, and you’re left wanting more.


But Darius Khondji’s photography is splendidly transporting – this definitely needed to be on film stock, not digital – and adds to the sense that Gray’s picture could have been shot thirty years ago, unaffected by subsequent cinemtatic styles and trends. Christopher Spelman’s score adds to that feeling, unhurried and ennobling.


The greater emotive force of the film is Fawcett’s self-awareness of his obsession and that it could not be fought. He doesn’t even struggle internally with himself, except rhetorically, such that any right-minded man would have put away foolish dreams of a return to the jungle with his offspring in tow. There’s a sense of inevitability to the final mission (he went on more than the three depicted here, but 1925 was where it culminated), and Gray allows for non-commital creative licence in interpreting the fates of Fawcett and his son (to make this a more personal affair, their other companion, Raleigh Rimmell, has been excluded). He also instils a certain admirable quality into Fawcett’s acceptance of whatever is coming (“So much of life is a mystery, my boy” he movingly comforts his son “And you and I have made a journey other men cannot even imagine”). I was reminded a little of the dreamy melancholy of Barbet Schroeder’s La Vallée (after writing this I checked in on Mark Kermode’s review, only to hear him also namecheck it; I’d say something about great minds thinking alike, but I don’t like skiffle).


As to whether Fawcett’s end was then, well, at least as much of the ongoing attraction of his story relates to his fate as his elusive city. For Hemming, it’s an open-and-shut case (despite his source for this being unreliable). The picture’s note of ambiguity comes with a returned compass, strategically positioned by Gray such that it’s proof to Society member Keltie (Clive Francis) that Fawcett lives (in which case, the ceremony with his son surely constitutes a spiritual death and rebirth). I find Fawcett’s returned signet ring more compelling, whatever the truth there may be (Hunnam’s take, interestingly, is that he was murdered for his possessions by white party/ies unknown).


So Gray might have made a more illuminating picture about a flawed man of his time, one obsessed with Atlantis and theosophy and given to seeing such notions reflected in the world around him, with all the accompanying distortions that would likely ensue. What we get is undoubtedly much more vanilla, and infused to its moderate detriment with contemporary mores on the part of its director. Which doesn’t mean The Lost City of Z isn’t a curiously commanding, lingering experience on its own terms, and that its elegiac pace isn’t something of a balm.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You killed my sandwich!

Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020)
(SPOILERS) One has to wonder at Bird of Prey’s 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, such things are to be taken with a pinch of salt at the best of times, but it would be easy, given the disparity between such evident approval and the actually quality of the movie, to suspect insincere motives on the part of critics, that they’re actually responding to its nominally progressive credentials – female protagonists in a superhero flick! – rather than its content. Which I’m quite sure couldn’t possibly be the case. Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) isn’t very good. The trailers did not lie, even if the positive reviews might have misled you into thinking they were misleading.

Afraid, me? A man who’s licked his weight in wild caterpillars? You bet I’m afraid.

Monkey Business (1931)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers’ first feature possessed of a wholly original screenplay, Monkey Business is almost brazenly dismissive towards notions of coherence, just as long as it loosely supports their trademark antics. And it does so in spades, depositing them as stowaways bound for America who fall in with a couple of mutually antagonistic racketeers/ gangsters while attempting to avoid being cast in irons. There’s no Margaret Dumont this time out, but Groucho is more than matched by flirtation-interest Thelma Todd.

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

You’re a disgrace to the family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.

Horse Feathers (1932)
(SPOILERS) After a scenario that seemed feasible in Monkey Business – the brothers as stowaways – Horse Feathers opts for a massive stretch. Somehow, Groucho (Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff) has been appointed as the president of Huxley University, proceeding to offer the trustees and assembled throng a few suggestions on how he’ll run things (by way of anarchistic creed “Whatever it is, I’m against it”). There’s a reasonably coherent mission statement in this one, however, at least until inevitably it devolves into gleeful incoherence.

Bad luck to kill a seabird.

The Lighthouse (2019)
(SPOILERS) Robert Eggers’ acclaimed – and Oscar-nominated – second feature is, in some respects, a similar beast to his previous The Witch, whereby isolated individuals of bygone eras are subjected to the unsparing attentions of nature. In his scheme of things, nature becomes an active, embodied force, one that has no respect for the line between imaginings and reality and which proceeds to test its targets’ sanity by means of both elements and elementals. All helped along by unhealthy doses of superstition. But where The Witch sustained itself, and the gradual unravelling of the family unit led to a germane climax, The Lighthouse becomes, well, rather silly.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…