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

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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

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.

I don’t want to spend the holidays dead.

National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989) (SPOILERS) Chevy Chase gets a bad rap. By which, I don’t mean the canvas of opinion suggesting he really is a bit of a tool in real life is misplaced, as there’s no shortage of witnesses to his antics (head of the pack being probably Bill Murray, whose brother Brian appears here as Clark’s boss). But rather that, during his – relatively brief – heyday, I was a genuine fan of his deadpan delivery in the likes of Caddyshack and Fletch . The National Lampoon’s Vacation movies, even the initial trilogy overseen by John Hughes, are very hit-and-miss affairs, but it’s Chase, with his almost Basil Fawlty-esque ability both to put his foot in it and deliver withering put-downs, who forms their irrepressibly upbeat core.