Review of The Lost City of Z (2017) by Ranny L — 04 Apr 2017

This whole film is pinned upon the enigma of Fawcett; who he is and why he does what he does. Is he truly determined to discover this lost city because it will prove that non-white men (or savages as they call them) were capable of greater architectural achievements than they are given credit for, or is he a glory seeker in it so he can restore his family name and prove himself to the bigwigs? The Lawrence of Arabia parallels are obvious. But unlike Lawrence, who was presented as a fascinatingly theatrical and self-aware man convinced of his own destiny, Fawcett's motivations never strike quite the same elemental chord. We do feel for him when he is rejected from advancement due to "poor choice in ancestors" but we never quite understand why he switches from cynical explorer to zealous adventurer. And it really is like he just switched on a light, so quick is the transition.

Now maybe that's supposed to be the mystery. Maybe we're supposed to wonder what hidden depths of idealism were hiding within him to make him suddenly decide to dedicate his life to the discovery of this lost city. But for my part, I think we needed more time spent on his dreams and hopes. We also get a certain Aquirre feeling from some of the film, as he goes slightly mad, but again it's played down for realism's sake. I feel like the film needed to go a little broader. A big part of what made Lawrence (and indeed David Lean films in general) work was the memorable dialogue, and here again the film doesn't quite reach what it was aiming for. The only truly great line is "Nothing can happen to us that is not our destiny". That line says it all really, but it comes far too late in the film and is the only real insight we get.

At the core, a film so dependent on the ambiguities of its protagonist needs a compelling actor at the helm. And Charlie Hunnam is no Peter O'Toole (although they're both delightfully blond). Hunnam isn't awful here, but he has the same awkwardly bland emptiness that he brings to all his roles. You can never tell quite what's going on behind his eyes. Here, at least, that kind of works, but I found myself wishing for a more impressive leading role. Although Robert "Twilight" Patkinson was very good indeed as Fawcett's aide-de-camp and friend.

I did like this film. It was interesting enough and had some good cinematography. And exploration is fundamentally fascinating. But it never quite reaches the heights it was going for. Lawrence of Arabia via Aquirre was the apparent aim, but it lacks the memorable dialogue of the former and the trippy insanity of the latter. It's still not bad, but it didn't quite do it for me, and since I fit right in the bracket for this sort of film (Lawrence of Arabia being about my favorite film, and the rogue adventurer Indiana Jones about my favorite character) that means most other people are likely to feel likewise.