MovieChat Forums > Tracks (2014) Discussion > Not Worthy of Its Subject?

Not Worthy of Its Subject?

posted 10 years ago by JSFound
10 replies | jump to latest

I would have to read Robyn Davidson's memoir but did this movie sharing its title do it and her justice? I don't know. The movie felt Hollywoodized. In voice over, Robyn repeatedly says she likes to be alone--one of the reasons she took on the trek--but for the first half of the movie, she is not alone. The photographer National Geographic sends, Rick Smolan, is almost always with her. She finds him annoying; so do we. Then they sleep together and I thought the movie had turned into a Hollywood version of this unique story, where the two would fight before becoming a couple at the end. To be fair, Davidson's Wikipedia entry says she did have an "on-again, off-again" relationship with Smolan. Perhaps I was biased by the producers, the Weinsteins, who like to meddle and cut directors film to make them more commercial(see the fight over Snowpiercer). But, truly, this could have been a Disney film. We got many shots of irate camels. Then an Aboriginal Australian who is comic relief.

Making any film is difficult. Making an endurance film must be impossible. You have to convey the traveler's hard journey, get as close to making us feel it as she does. I did not feel Robyn's journey. I liked the scenes where she was alone and when she hallucinated, was burning up with heat, and was disoriented. Maybe I wanted more of that. But the first half of the picture, with her in constant company plus the Hollywoodization of the movie prevented me from feeling her experience.

But see the movie anyway for an introduction to this woman and for some wonderful breathtaking desert scenery.

Edit: John Curran is a New Yorker. During the film, I was thinking what Australian Peter Weir could do with the project. I haven't seen it, but he made a similar long walk movie starring Colin Farrell.

[–] LifeVsArt 10 years ago

You should read the book, the events depicted in the film re the photographer, Rick, and Robyn Davidson's relationship are pretty much as shown in the film. There's no Hollywoodization, as you call it. Also, the film was produced by the same producers who did "Shame" "The King's Speech" and "Rabbit Proof Fence" (SeeSaw, Australian Emile Sherman) - the Weinstein Co. picked it up for U.S. distribution AFTER it was well received at the Venice Film Festival. There was a very strong internal story going on in the film, just as much as the external, I'm sorry if you didn't tune into it, but it hit me quite strongly, as it has many others.

[–] JSFound 10 years ago

That's good to know. Knowing what The Weinstein company was trying to do with Snowpiercer and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby, as soon as I saw their logo doubts surfaced on whether this film was true to its director's vision or whether it had been tampered with. If Robyn's story is actually like that, it seems life imitated art. I'm in the minority, looking at the positive score and reviews on Metacritic, though the few bad reviews have different problems with it than I did. I wanted more of her walking and the tactile difficulty of it conveyed to us. But I'll see it again without the subjectivity. Though I do have to say, teasing out a trauma throughout the film as a reason for her walk felt cliched. If it does play a role in her journey as described in the book, it's once again life imitating art.

[–] talkinhorse 9 years ago

It's interesting if the film is true to life, but your point that it feels like Hollywood is valid. In watching, I had a sense of running through the litany of clichés and obligatory plot points. Relationship with photographer, check. Menace dog, check. Native sacred territory, check. White people misbehaving, check. As the film progressed, my interest in the story diminished, because my interest in the character diminished. She became a collection of agenda-driven scenes rather than a real person.

I understand a lot of people liked this, and for all I know the story was completely real. But that was my reaction.

I'm contrasting this with "Into the Wild", which I can't say I liked, but I thought it was better. My problem with "Into the Wild" was I didn't find the lead character that interesting, but at least I believed in him, as portrayed on the screen. That film is also based on a real character, although I don't know how many liberties they took.

[–] andyd-1 10 years ago

The film glossed over sadism against animals and how it had been called by some bad upbringing and possible abuse. Her compassion to animals was only partial, and badly misplaced.

[–] el_Tore 9 years ago

I've read quite a few threads about this film now, and in nearly every one you bring up her cruelty to animals and even call her a "sick animal abuser" or something. Did we watch the same film? The only scene I can remember that contained any cruelty to animals on her part, was the one in which she beats one of her camels with a stick after they wander off. I agree that's not cool, but hardly worthy of the condemnation you keep dishing out on this board. What exactly did she do that was so bad?

[–] nerowolfgal 9 years ago

he only scene I can remember that contained any cruelty to animals on her part, was the one in which she beats one of her camels with a stick after they wander off.

1) a small woman hitting a 2000 pound animal with a stick two or three times is not going to do the camel any damage.

2) what she was doing was re-establishing that SHE, not the male camel was herd leader, the alpha. Playing the role the herd leader was only way she could control the group and have them follow her requests as well as remain near her when she loosed them to graze. No abuse was happening.

I have not dealt with camels but have been around horses and cattle all my life. The lead mare or cow, let alone a stallion or bull, is not shy at dealing out a sharp kick, a quick bite, or major, forceful shoulder check to herd members stepping out of line. And they are MUCH stronger than a human women.

[–] Johnny_Wrong 9 years ago

andyd-1 trolling the board AGAIN and proving he just didn't grasp the point of the film.

Moron.

[–] willjohn 9 years ago

In interviews Robyn has said that she was very happy with the film.

[–] niqeux 9 years ago

I think "Tracks" is, overall, a fine film, but you've made a fair point about one of its flaws. Rick Smolan interrupted Robyn Davidson's actual trek about once a month, but for a while the film is dominated by these moments. It seems Curran felt screen time of Davidson alone had to be reduced in favour of her meetings with Smolan, at least for this part of the journey. This may tie into his disagreement with Mia Wasikowska over the amount of dialogue in the film, which LifeVsArt has mentioned. Smolan's interventions had to be shown, as the initial annoyance they caused Davidson are part of the story, but stringing a series of them together broke up the rhythm of the story and denied us part of the trek experience. Davidson wrote about lying under night skies gloriously ablaze with stars (we see such a moment in a scene where she's with Smolan but it only lasts a few seconds), the search for bush food, and the dilemmas she faced when her maps proved inaccurate. Maybe Curran felt that including all this would make the film too long for many people. It would have worked for me. Thankfully, as the film progresses the trek takes precedence. Plenty of people have dismissed it as boring and complain of the absence of clearly stated motivation for Davidson's journey. I think they're failing to see the subtle ways it communicates important themes. Davidson felt a deep need to escape civilisation and be at one with a primitive environment. The scene of her walking naked in the desert, her burnt shoulders and back resembling, as some have remarked, the very land she's traversing, convey this wonderfully. Mia Wasikowska's performance is brilliant. Soon after "Tracks" was finished she made her directing debut on a short film. I'm intrigued by the thought of how "Tracks" would have turned out if she was the director as well as the star. The screening I attended included a Q & A session with Robyn Davidson, Rick Smolan and Andrew Harper, the chief cameleer on set. Their presence made it a cinema outing to remember.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]