Books vs. Movies
In this podcast we set out to answer the age old question: is the book really always better than the movie?
Books vs. Movies
Ep. 55 The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon by David Grann vs. The Lost City of Z (2016)
A vanished explorer, a city swallowed by jungle, and a film that chooses myth over method—this week I dive deep into The Lost City of Z to separate the legends from the ledger. I trace Percy Fawcett’s real expeditions across two decades and examine how David Grann’s book intertwines archival research, oral histories, and modern archaeology to reveal a far more grounded, and more gripping, story than the movie lets on.
I unpack the Royal Geographical Society’s role, the truth behind the Murray fiasco, and the persistent misreadings of cannibalism that fueled sensational headlines. From terra preta and moats to ancient road systems, I explore how a sophisticated urban network could thrive in the Amazon, then disappear beneath fast-growing forest—leaving clues Fawcett may have walked past without recognizing. The strongest theory of his disappearance emerges from consistent Kalapalo oral accounts: smoke for five days, warnings ignored, and a likely clash with a fiercely territorial group—not the dreamy rite-of-passage ending the film suggests.
I also talk casting, aging, and why cinematic shortcuts flatten complex people and cultures. The book confronts Fawcett’s eugenicist views and the colonial gaze; the movie softens them, using indigenous communities as mood rather than subject. Between survival realities—mosquitoes, infections, rivers that bite back—and the archaeology that reframes “El Dorado,” my verdict is clear: the book delivers the nuance, science, and stakes the story deserves.
If you’re into true exploration, lost cities, historical mysteries, and smart adaptation talk, hit play. Then subscribe, share with a friend, and leave a quick review telling me: are you team book or team movie?
All episodes of the podcast can be found on our website: https://booksvsmovies.buzzsprout.com/share
Connect with me: Instagram | Threads | Bookshop | Goodreads | Blog
Welcome to Books vs. Movies, the podcast where I set out to answer the age-old question: Is the book really always better than the movie? I'm Juvia, an actress and book lover based out of New York City, and today I will be talking about The Lost City of Z, a tale of deadly obsession in the Amazon by David Graham, and its 2016 adaptation, The Lost City of Z, starring Charlie Hunnam and Robert Pattinson. Hi everyone, so it seems to have quieted down just in time for me to start filming. But there was like, I don't know if it's a Christmas celebration going on outside or if it's some country's independence day going on outside, but there was like a really loud marching band type celebration. Like someone, it was live instruments, this wasn't a recording. So definitely some sort of celebration. They seem to have moved on, but if we start hearing the music again, that is what's going on. But anyway, yes, The Lost City of Z. Let's get into it. So The Lost City of Z, a tale of deadly obsession in the Amazon by David Grant, was first published in 2009. So basically, David Grant is a writer for The New Yorker, or he was at the time that he wrote this book, and he came across a lot of diaries written by the British explorer Percy Fawcett. And Percy Fawcett was trying to find the Lost City of Z. So the Lost City of Z was somewhere in the Amazon rainforest, and in 1925, Fawcett ventured into the Amazon for the last time, hoping to find this ancient civilization, and ended up disappearing. No one ever found out what happened to him. And for years and years afterwards, people set out to see if they could find out what happened to Percy Fawcett, his son, and his son's best friend, who were the three that were in this last expedition of his. David Grant set out to follow in Fawcett's footsteps and find out if he could solve the mystery of what happened to Percy Fawcett. Find out what is in the Amazon. Is the Lost City of Z actually in the Amazon? And he set out on this quest to discover it all for himself. The 2016 adaptation, The Lost City of Z, is a film that's based on a true story that focuses on British explorer Major Percival Fawcett, who disappeared whilst searching for the mysterious Lost City of Z in the Amazon in the 1920s. And this was written and directed by James Gray, and it stars Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, and Sienna Miller. This is one of those true stories. I feel like we're coming across this more and more. This is just one of those true stories that so many changes are made. And I'm not really sure why when what is written in the book is already so dramatic that it's already fascinating and would be quite interesting for the film. Like a lot of times changes are made and overdramatized in films to make it more exciting or whatever, or more interesting, or to fit the visual medium. But I feel like in the majority of the nonfiction books I've read, it's like, why would you change some of these details? Like these details are already dramatic enough. You don't need to create more tension by changing these things, but I don't know. So let's get into it. So the first time that Percy Fawcett went into the Amazon was in 1905, and the last time he went into the Amazon before his disappearance was in 1925. And so this was a span of 10 years. Charlie Hunnam is fantastically cast as Percy Fawcett. I thought he did a really good job in this role. I wish there was more that was done to him appearance-wise. Watching this film, I thought that we went from watching someone go from being in their 20s to their 40s. Percy Fawcett was actually in his late 30s when he went into the Amazon for the first time. And by the time he disappeared, he was in his late 50s. So Charlie Hunnam was in his late 30s when he filmed this. So he was in the correct age range on the earlier side, but he was in the correct age range. But I do wish that more was done to age him a little bit more. Because honestly, I like I said, I thought we were watching a man go. Like, if I hadn't read the book, like I would have thought that Percy Fawcett did all this the majority of the exploring while he was in his 30s, as opposed to the majority of it happening while he was in his 40s. So just like a very, very minor thing. I have no issues with Charlie Hanum's casting outside of this. I just wish that more was done to reflect that change. And mind you, I don't think there's too much of maybe someone would disagree with me. Like if you look at a picture of someone in their 30s and you compare them to now how they look in their 50s, I'm sure there's gonna be noticeable changes. But it's not like it's such a drastic change comparing a picture of someone in their 30s versus looking at a picture of someone in their like 70s or 80s. So I do understand that there isn't probably that much of a drastic change in someone's appearance, especially if they live a good lifestyle and take care of themselves and all that. But still, I feel like more could have been done to kind of show that Percy Fawcett was in his late 30s to late 50s during all these exploration times. But anyway, that's just a minor nitpick with that portrayal. But yeah, nothing against Charlie Hunnam. He himself did a good job in the role. So it's always tricky with films that are based on true stories because sometimes things are added to the film. For example, the very, very first scene of the film takes place. Percy Fawcett is leading a stag hunt. He's the one that brings the stag down, and they're having the stag hunt in honor of the visiting Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And even though he's the one that brings the stag down at the party afterwards at the feast, he is ignored by everyone, and other people kind of take credit for the stag hunt. Did this happen? I have no idea. This is not included in the book, so it's always a little bit tricky when scenes like that are added, because it's like maybe this really did happen. This was something historically that did happen, but it wasn't in the book. Because in that, in this instance, like that was not any pertinent information that would have added to the book because it exclusively focused on Percy Fawcett's different trips into the Amazon. So, like adding this information, it wouldn't have really added anything. And honestly, I'm not really sure that it added anything to the film. The main focus of the film is also the expeditions. So I don't know if this was just written as like expositions we could get introduced to Percy Fawcett. I mean, that's more than likely why it was included, so we can get an introduction into Percy Fawcett before he's sent into the Amazon. So the reason he sent into the Amazon is because he was in the military, and one of his jobs in the military, he was a land surveyor, and he was really, really good at it. And so he was initially sent into the Amazon to survey the border between Bolivia and Brasil. So the two countries were having a dispute about like this is where Brasil begins and Bolivia ends, and they were having a border dispute. And so the two countries reached out to a neutral party, so in this case England, to survey the land and determine the borders. And that way there wouldn't be like a Brazilian surveyor that adds more land that technically, whatever our made-up construct of borders are, essentially to say that. So he was in the military and he was initially sent out as I guess you could kind of say it was part of his like military duty to do that. But other than that, like it didn't really add anything to the film. I didn't think so, at least other than to serve as our introduction. And that's fine if that was the easiest way to introduce us to this character and introduce us to the idea that he's in the military and he was known for his surveying, blah blah blah. But in terms of like having the people ignore him and all of that, I don't know. I'm speculating maybe this is to show that he was never taken seriously. This was definitely some added drama that they added to the film because in the book he didn't really have that issue. Like he was very respected and taken seriously in reality. So yeah, I think that's why this was added to the film to kind of just show, like, oh, he wasn't taken seriously. And this is kind of foreshadowing to how much he struggles to get funding for his Amazon trips, when in reality that was not the case. I mean, he did struggle for funding, but it was not against him personally, it's the usual kind of struggles that anyone that needs funding for anything struggles with, and it's just lack of money and needing to fundraise and all of that. But he himself was highly respected and he did not face any issues because people didn't want to fund him personally. So yeah, but otherwise, I don't know if that scene was based on any historical truths, as I said, and it's always tricky with stories that are based on reality because it's like, was this based on anything? And I mean, I guess I could look it up myself, but you know, I'm doing books versus movies, so I compare everything based on just on the content of the book itself and the content of the film itself. So I do want to give those disclaimers always that like if things are added to films that are based on real people, real events, sometimes I don't know if things were added and they actually happened, but they just weren't included in the book for whatever reason, or if they're just being added to be added. So yeah, just a disclaimer like maybe this actually did happen, but I'm basing this just exclusively on the content of the book. Anyway, Corporal Henry Coston is introduced in the film at this point, shortly before Percy Fawcett goes into the Amazon for the first time to do the surveying. Henry Coston goes with him to assist with the surveying. So Henry Coston is the one that joined Percy Fawcett on most of his expeditions to the Amazon, but he did not join him in this initial surveying expedition, and he also didn't go with him on his first few trips into the Amazon. He ended up joining him around 1910 and he did most of the 1910s explorations with Fawcett. He ended up stopping at the start of World War I, both Coston and Fawcett put their expedition on hold to join the frontline fighting. And after the war was over, at that point Coston got married and started a family. So he decided to prioritize his family life and not join Percy Fawcett anymore in his expeditions. But from 1910 up until the start of World War I, all of those expeditions that were done in between those years, he was the one that joined Fawcett the most. So he was a very important person for the expeditions, and he is the one that did the majority of them. But the film does show him joining immediately and ended up joining about five years after Fawcett initially went to the Amazon and after his first few expeditions. So in the film, they're doing the surveying work, and then their native guide kind of tells them the story about this ancient city, and initially Fawcett kind of brushes it off and is like, eh, I don't believe it. And then he finds evidence of like pottery and just other anthropological stuff, and he's like, Oh my gosh, like my native guide was telling the truth. Now I need to find this lost city. But at that point, they have to go back, their serving job is done, and while he continues exploring a little bit longer in the film, he has to go back, they're out of money, the job's done, they're just not allowed to stay and keep exploring. So when Fawcett goes back, he goes to the Royal Geographical Society. So I'm just gonna call them RGS, that's what they're known by. But the RGS is the one that is in charge of funding expeditions and everything. So he goes and he tries to appeal to them, and they're like, No, we're not funding this. Like, this is a really dumb expedition. And then he they like laugh at him, they laugh in his face, they're like, that's ridiculous, there's no such thing. And then they finally end up funding it after Murray, who is another explorer, joins the Murray agrees to back the Amazon expedition, and then that's kind of when the RJS is like, okay, fine. It like if you have Murray's approval, then we will also provide some funding for you. So Murray did join on one of the trips to the Amazon, but it the film definitely makes it seem like he got Percy got back from surveying, and then immediately he's not able to get funding. Murray's the one that says I'll fund it, and then Murray joins him on his expedition. So, as I said, Fawcett didn't really have that much trouble securing funding for his expeditions. So he had, it wasn't until later that Murray was like, I want to join this expedition with you. And the RGS was like, this time around, we do want you to take Murray with you. Murray was known more so for exploring the Arctic and discovering a lot of things in the Arctic, discovering is in rotations. But yeah, so Murray was known more of an Arctic explorer. So he thought, like, I can do the Arctic. The Amazon is like gonna be a piece of cake. And he was severely wrong. The Arctic, yes, is very, very cold, but that's pretty much the only thing that you gotta worry about in the Amazon. You gotta worry about a lot of things. A lot. And I will get into that because that is one of the things that terrified me about reading this book. So Murray was severely underprepared and he just went in really cocky and severely overestimated his abilities to handle the Amazon, and it ended up reaching a point in which he had to be sent back just to focus on this point really quick. So, in the like Murray is already screwing things up for them a lot, but he kind of ends up screwing himself over, so they faucet is able to become friendly with one of the native tribes that lives in the Amazon. I don't think they're ever named in the film, but there's a lot of tribes that live in the Amazon. I think they were just referred to as Indians, regardless of which native tribe they were talking about. So he is able to make friends with one of the native tribes. And Murray is like, I don't trust them, like these are cannibals. We saw the body, we know that they ate like that person. So I'm out of here. I'm not sticking around to be eaten by these cannibals, and he leaves. And then they find him a few days, like they recuperate in the native village, like Fawcett and Coston and all the other members of this expedition. They recuperate in the village and then they head out and then they find Murray in the Amazon injured. And it's one of those things where, like, if he doesn't get medical treatment right away, it's just gonna get worse and he's gonna get blood poisoning and die. And so Fawcett is like, I'm not quitting this expedition because this guy's an idiot. So we'll send him off on his own. So they give Murray their last pack animal and say, you know, head back and get medical attention. And then Murray ends up screwing the rest of the expedition by pouring paraffin all over all like their supplies and stuff. So they have to end the expedition right there because they have no supplies, they have no rations, they have nothing because Murray screwed them over. So this does not happen in the book. Like in all that happens in the book, or what happened in reality, is that Murray, again, did severely overestimate his ability to survive in the Amazon. And he screwed up. Like at one point, he just felt like his pack was so heavy and that he was slowing everyone down because his pack was so heavy that he threw all like his stuff away, essentially. He threw away like all his extra change of clothes, his hammock, and everyone on the expedition was like, Don't do that. Like, those that's stuff you need. And he's like, No, I don't need this stuff. We'll travel a lot faster because I'll be traveling lighter and we'll I'll be fine. I'll be fine. And then, like, pretty much immediately he regrets throwing his hammock away. Cause now instead of sleeping on a hammock, he has to sleep on the floor with all the bugs that live in the Amazon, which there are already a lot, and he threw away all his clothes. So he's not changing clothes, so all of his clothes just star. You can imagine what happens. You're in the jungle, you're you're in the rainforest, you're sweating through everything. And not only is it are you sweating through everything and not changing it, like that can cause sores and things like that because it's the same dirty clothes rubbing against you. So, yeah. So that's essentially what happens. There is no, they don't come across a native tribe, and Murray is like, no, I don't want to deal with these native tribes. It's just, it's essentially like his own cockiness and quite frankly, stupidity that caused him to get sores, and those sores led to infections, and that led him to having to be sent away in order to survive, or else he would have died. So it was not natives that caused him to do something rash. It was just his cockiness and stupidity. And he did try to screw over Fawcett and the expedition. He didn't pour paraffin wax like he does in the film. In reality, he didn't do that. He left and got better, and he did try to screw them over eventually by screw faucet over eventually by saying, like, this man left me in the jungle to die, and blah blah blah. But nothing, Fawcett was never punished for it. It his accusation accusations never went anywhere. And so eventually he just went back to exploring the Arctic and eventually disappeared and was never seen again on one of his Arctic expeditions. And just a really clarifying thing, because this was a detail that was mentioned in the book, there were native tribes that did partake in cannibalism, but they partook in cannibalism for ritual purposes. This wasn't like they just killed people and like they were not violent, is what I'm trying to say. They were not like violent savages that were out killing ever any person, any stranger, and just killing them and eating them. These were consenting. Yeah, consenting's the right word, consenting, ritualistic cannibalism rituals within the tribe itself. So just wanted to point out that little detail. And if you're listening to this wondering how the heck does one consent to be cannibalized, simple. You say, I volunteer to be eaten when I die, or yes, you may eat me when I die, or I'm aware that you're going to eat me when I'm dead. So, yes, as recently as of 2009, there was a report that a white farmer was killed by a native tribe in the Amazon and was cannibalized after he was killed. This turned out to be false and just essentially a way to keep fear-mongering people about the native tribes. So, not true. There are no cannibalizing tribes in the Amazon, at least not within their own tribes, and they're worth very much aware. But are they going around killing strangers? No, they're not. Okay, anyway. So, moving on. In the film, to add some drama, there were some issues between. Percy and his eldest son, Jack, played by Tom Holland. So Tom Holland, before Percy Fawcett goes back to war for World War I, is kind of like you've abandoned us so many times, like, screw you, father. And like Percy ends up slapping Jack, and there's like tension between them. And then once Percy gets injured in the war, Jack asks for forgiveness, and then things are all right between them. There was no such tension between Jack and Percy. There was a little bit of tension between Percy and his second oldest son. It's just one of those things where Jack, the oldest son, was kind of like his golden child, and his second oldest son would even say to his mom, like, I kind of like it when dad's not here because then there's no favorite children. So very clearly, Jack was his father's favorite, his golden child, so much so that his second eldest son just felt that tension of like, I'm very clearly not my father's favorite. So I kind of like when he's not here. So there was tension between one of his sons. It wasn't Jack, but I guess cinematically it probably made more sense for Jack to have the most tension with his father, just because we don't get a lot of screen time between Fawcett and his children. The most screen time is between Fawcett and Jack, and that's because Jack is the oldest. There still isn't that much screen time, but in the film we see Jack as an only child for a few years, and then Fawcett goes to the Amazon, returns, and his second son is born. So there's like a few years in which Jack was an only child. So that's probably why they made that change for the film. Again, I'm if I had to make the guess, that would it makes more sense to have a tension be between Jack and his father just because there's been more screen time between the two of them simply because Jack is the oldest. And the other two, it's kind of like, oh, your son is born, go back to the Amazon and then come back, oh your daughter's born, go back, and the kids are a little bit older each time. So it's probably just a lot easier to have the oldest one notice how much their father's gone. But yes, in reality, Jack was the golden child, his father's favorite, and the tension was more so between Brian and Tercy. So, as mentioned, the final expedition that Fawcett went on before he disappeared. At this point, he'd been going on these expeditions on and off for 20 years. And every single time he went back, it was harder for to have the RGS fund his expeditions. And it was just a lot harder in general to receive funds because it's like you've gone and there's nothing to show for the fact that you've gone several times. Like there's you haven't found this lost city of Z. Like, I at this point, I'm not too sure this place exists. So this is a waste of time and resources. And he always did manage to find a way to fund his expedition. But the last one that he went on, it was pretty much like, no, we're not. This is a wild goose chase. We're not funding this. And he said, Okay, I'm going to take my son and my son's best friend, and we're gonna fund the majority of it. And this will be the expedition. Like, you don't need to pay for more supplies for more rations or anything. It's just three people, and we're all like, we got this, we're good. So that's what ended up being Fawcett's final expedition, and his team was just Jack, his eldest son, and Jack's best friend. So in the film, Fawcett and his son Jack are the only ones that go. There's no third member of this expedition, but they go, and we don't know what ended up happening in reality to these travelers or to these explorers. There's hints and theories and as to what happened to them, and there's stronger evidence for one over the others, but it has never been proven for sure, and the mystery has just never been solved. But in the film, the ending is where the film takes the most creative liberty since we don't know what happened to them. The film is just like, all right, well, here's the version we're gonna go with. And essentially, Beck and Fawcett end up with the native tribe, and the native people are like, You're not of this world. We'll help you move from this world into the next. And they're drugged in a ceremony and carried away, and we don't see what happens to them. Before they leave on this expedition, though, Fawcett, like to the head of the RGS, is like, when I find the lost city of Z, I will mail this compass back to you so you know that I found it and that it exists. So that they're drugged and they're carried away somewhere, and then we flash forward a few years in which Nina is asking for the RGS to send a team to find Fawcett. And at this time, they're like, We've sent a lot of people to go find him. We've never found him. This is also a waste of time and resources. Like, he's dead. Like, I don't know what to tell you. And Nina at that point is like, but this compass arrived in the mail, and it's the compass that Fawcett said he was gonna send to prove that he found the lost city. But at this point, they're kind of just like, no, sorry, there's nothing we can do about it. And the film ends with Nina walking away, and then there's she's still in the RJS building, but they do this shot in which she turns a corner and, like, in the reflection of the mirror of the building, you can see the Amazon, and she walks into the Amazon, kind of suggesting that she went into the Amazon to look for him. And that's how the film ends. That is not what happened, or more than likely, that probably did not happen. That was made for the film. Nina never did go searching for him in the Amazon. Hundreds and hundreds of people did go looking for Fawcett, and people were like, I found evidence. There was some bones that were found, and some natives said those are the bones of Fawcett. And then when they were sent to be studied, it was proven that they were not, in fact, Fawcett's bones. And it was just one of those things where the tribes had said, like, we don't know what happened to this man, and they essentially were getting intimidated and threatened and being like, What happened to him? And they're like, Oh, he's buried over there. But it was the tallest native that was buried in that spot, like the tallest native they they knew of, and because Fawcett was significantly taller than the natives he came across, so they pointed to those, and those, like I said, turned out to not be Fawcett's bones. So, yeah, so Nina never went searching for him in the Amazon. She wanted to, but she was denied the ability to because people were like, You're not equipped to go to the Amazon and you're a woman. Like, that's no, you can't go into the Amazon to search for him. Jack's best friend's little brother also volunteered to go at one point, and they also told him that he wasn't allowed to go. Nina never gave up hope that her husband and her son would show up, but they never did. And Nina, for many years, her second oldest son, Brian, ended up resettling in Peru and working for a company there. And he would send money home to her into England for many, many years, and then she moved with him to Peru for a while, and then she moved back to England with her daughter. But there did reach a point in which neither her son nor her daughter could take care of her, and so she ended up in an old people's home, like a nursing home, but not as nice. And that's essentially where she ended up dying. But she died never giving up hope that her husband and her son would show up. So yeah, so Nina never went into the Amazon to look for him the way it's implied in the film. As for what happened to Jack, Percy, and Jack's best friend, David Grant, what I really liked about the book is that David Grant finds diaries written by Fawcett, and he gets really intrigued by the story, and he, like a lot of people that find out about Fawcett, go to the Amazon to see if they could solve the mystery of what happened to him. So the book kind of goes back and forth between Percy's expedition and Bran's expedition to find out what happened to Percy. So it cuts back and forth between like his narrative and the things he's experiencing, and in some ways, how some of them mirrored what Fawcett went through, some things he didn't have to worry about because he traveled in 2009, which is a much different time period to be traveling in than the early 1900s. So I really did like that that these stories were intertwined. But at one point during Grant's search for what happened to Fawcett, he ended up visiting members of the Colapalo tribe, which is one of the tribes that Fawcett encountered. And the oldest living member of the tribe in 2009. So again, Fawcett was last seen in 1925. So the oldest living tribe member, when David Grant went to do this expedition, she had been alive when Fawcett visited for the last time. And she said they feasted with us, they recuperated, and then they walked into the Amazon rainforest and we never saw them again. They never returned. So that was her account. But oral history, the colopolos are known for their oral histories, and the oral history of what happened to Fawcett and Jack and Jack's friend was passed down from generation to generation on top of the oldest living colopalo woman. Her testimony, this oral history had been passed down and it never changed, regardless of who they interviewed. And this was just like a story that was passed down, and the details never changed. Like it stayed pretty consistent. So it's safe to say that this wasn't made up or that it's not reliable. So the oral history is that again, it matches what the woman said. Fawcett and the other two men stayed in the collapso village for a few days. And eventually the collapso said, Listen, you cannot go any further. There are fierce natives deeper into the Amazon. Like we don't even mess with them. We interact with them as little as possible. And if we do have to interact with them, like there's a whole thing that we gotta do. Like, we you cannot just march into their territory because they're dangerous. And Fawcett and the two other men did not heed these warnings. They went into the forest, and for five days, the Kolapalos observed smoke from the campfire rising through the forest. And so that's how they knew that they were safe. After the fifth day, though, no smoke rose. And that's when they knew that, or they didn't know for sure. Sorry, they they didn't know for sure, but they were pretty sure that those fierce, non-friendly territorial natives had killed them. So there have been other theories as to what possibly happened, like maybe they ended up succumbing to the harsh environment of the Amazon rainforest. There's also a theory that they simply ran out of food and starved to death. Experts kind of feel that these two are more than likely not what happened to them just because Fawcett had at this point like 20 years' experience of exploring the Amazon. So for him to not know how to survive is just very improbable. Same thing with like the probability of them running out of food just didn't seem plausible. Again, because Fawcett had explored this area so many times, he knew how to ration appropriately to make the food last and they could stay as long as possible. Those are still theories, they're kind of more dismissed, not as widely accepted as the theory that they were killed by a particular tribe. That seems the most widely accepted, and most experts kind of seem to think that this is the most likely scenario. Just how all the other theories don't really make sense with Fawcett's experience. And I mean the fact that the Colapalo natives saw smoke for five days, like you wouldn't starve to death in five days. You could run out of water, I guess, in five days. They could have gotten dehydrated, but they really seem to think that they met their demise at the hands of a more non-friendly violent tribe. And that seems to be the most accepted theory. So them getting drugged and carried away is definitely not on anyone's radar. That was definitely full creative liberty taken by the film. So, yeah, the book also points out that it's very, very possible that Fawcett actually stumbled across Z and he never even realized it. So the lost city of Z is also known as El Dorado. I think we all have an image when I say El Dorado, or you're searching for like ruins. Most people, and I think Fawcett included, have this image in their mind of what these ruins should look like. Whether it be Machu Picchu, that was quote unquote, again, in quotations, discovered around the same time that Fawcett was searching for the lost city of Zeus. So we have like these ruins. We have the ruins of the Aztec pyramids and the Mayan pyramids. So those are very like tangible, kind of impressive evidence and structures that's kind of just like these massive impressive structures that's like concrete proof that this place once existed. So during Grant's trek into the Amazon to figure out what happened to Fawcett, he came upon Michael Heckenberger, who is an archaeologist, and Heckenberger was another one that was like fascinated by Fawcett and was like, well, I want to see if there's some truth to the fact that Z did exist, that El Dorado did exist. So Michael Heckenberger did show Goran the excavations at his site. That is quite possibly Fawcett's lost city of Z. So there were ruins, but they're not the ruins that we have in mind when we picture something like this. So I don't want to say that it's any less impressive or anything like that. It's still incredibly impressive, but it's just that it's easier to ignore as like that's nothing, that's not what I'm looking for, which is maybe what Fawcett did if he came across this site himself. Like he might have been in the city he was searching for this whole time, but because it didn't look like what we envision when we think of, like when I say El Dorado, that invokes a particular image. And so I think it's fair to say that he probably envisioned something similar to what you're envisioning when you say El Dorado or what I'm envisioning when I think El Dorado. There's probably gonna be some interlap. Like if I were to draw a picture and you were to draw a picture, there's gonna probably be some interlap. There's gonna be some differences because we still have different imaginations, but there's probably gonna be some interlap in the way we imagine it'll look like the way the buildings look and all that. So I think it's safe to say that he probably envisioned it like this. So when he came across these ruins, it didn't even register to him that he found the lost city without realizing it. So these ruins were surrounded by moats. There was evidence of wooden structures and roads. There was what's called Black Indian earth, which is a way that the natives found a way to make the soil of the Amazon, which is not good for growing crops, to make it very fertile to support the crops they needed to grow to keep their people fed. So there's evidence of all these different things. And this is more than likely the lost city of Z that Fawcett had been searching for this whole time, and he more than likely came across it and just didn't realize that he had found what he was looking for this whole time. It's also easy to miss because the jungle had reclaimed a lot of the land. It reclaimed the land very quickly. The lost city of Z was more than likely still thriving and around by the time that Europeans made contact with this part of South America. However, the natives that lived in this city were very quickly killed off by the infectious diseases. Seems like they were more than likely introduced to these infectious diseases by their indigenous trading partners that had come into contact with the Europeans. So as opposed to like the Europeans directly giving them these infectious diseases, the Europeans came into contact with the indigenous traders. Traders, that's a T-R-A-D-E-R-S, then the indigenous traders who then traded with the people that lived in the lost city, and this virtually killed them all off. The earliest conquistadores that came to this area did get a glimpse of the civilization, but they didn't like really fully explore it. And by the time they did want to come exploring, pretty much all the indigenous people that in this lost city of Z were wiped out, and the jungle works quickly to reclaim its land. So it reclaimed the land very quickly and they couldn't find this area again. So because it was reclaimed by the jungle and because it wasn't necessarily what Fawcett was looking for, like he may have overlooked it and not even realized he had found it. So yeah, this man spent 20 years exploring the Amazon and probably found it without even realizing it. So there's the act. So my thoughts. I never want to go to the Amazon, that's for sure. I'm sure it's beautiful. I will look at pictures of the Amazon, but do I have any desire to go myself? Not after reading this book. No, because reading of all the things that can kill you in the Amazon, and I'm not even just talking about exposure to the elements. It's a rainforest, it's very hot, it's very humid. You can get dehydrated so easily. That sounds like a walk in the park compared to all the other stuff that you can come across. There's like the wild animals that live in the Amazon rainforest that can kill you. They live on land, but there's also plenty of animals that live in the river that can kill you. There's piranhas, and then there's also this other fish that I don't remember the name of, but it's a fish and it'll latch onto any orifice. And when I mean any orifice, I mean literally any orifice. So think about what orifices are more than likely to be underwater. You're not swimming, you're just walking through it. What orifices are more likely to be underwater? Yeah, they'll latch onto those. So that's absolutely horrifying. So not only are there's piranhas, there's the suckerfish. I'm gonna call them the suckerfish. Don't want anything latching onto any orifice, I just want to say. So there's that. There's the mosquitoes, which carry malaria, but there's also a lot of other bugs. There's stuff that you can come in contact with that if you touch it, your flesh can literally dissolve. Yes, I said dissolve. Your flesh can dissolve if you come in contact with this. So yeah, I don't know. Like if I was faucet, to me, it's like that's the Amazon brain forest saying, You're not meant to find the lost city of Z. You're just leave us alone. Like, we clearly don't want you in here. What's in here right now is all that's meant to be in here. All of you are not meant to come in contact with the Amazon, so leave us alone. So uh that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna leave the Amazon alone. I'm gonna listen to it. It's telling me to stay out, I'm gonna stay out. So, yeah, that's horrifying. Something I also thought was interesting was there is another well known British explorer named John Hemming, and he was not happy with the way that Fawcett was portrayed in the film. He took great issue with Fawcett being called one of the greatest explorers. John Hemming argued that the portrayal of Fawcett in the film. Was actually an insult to many true explorers since Fawcett was a racist, a nutter, and a dangerous incompetent who never discovered anything but caused the loss of many lives. So I found that to be interesting because, yeah, this book and the film both do really kind of glorify this image of Fawcett. His story, as I said, has captivated people for so many years. I mean, it's been a hundred years at this point since he disappeared. So yeah, so it's it's kind of just like reading this and watching this film, I would never guess that. Well, from the book, you get a little bit more glimpse into Fawcett's racism. It's one of those things where he was considered progressive and is because of his belief towards the indigenous peoples of the Amazon. And it's like technically, yes, like he was more progressive in his views than a lot of his counterparts. But if you really look at his beliefs, they're still incredibly racist, and he still held a lot of eugenicist beliefs about the indigenous peoples. So more progressive than his counterparts, sure, but not any less racist and not any less of a eugenicist. So yeah, so he's was not a great person. So I did like that the book did bring that into account. I will say I think my biggest problem with the film was just that I felt like it glorified colonialism a lot and just like the portrayals of the natives just felt very stereotypical and kind of like, like I said, glorifying colonialism and just again, this idea that they're so like that they're savages and just not as smart as the Europeans were. It wasn't like like they were friendly in the film, but still just the way they were portrayed, like especially when Mario's like, they're cannibals, they're cannibalistic rituals were not explained in the film. It's just kind of there to give that vibe of like savagery, which is why I really wanted to take the time and kind of explain that aspect of their beliefs. We don't understand it and we don't necessarily have to, but it is kind of dangerous to still be portraying them in this modern day and age because it just keeps reinforcing this idea to ignorant people that we're smarter than them or we're better than them, even though David Gran points out like so many of the cool things that they figured out that we haven't like thought about approaching when it comes to hunting and growing things. And yeah, so it's like their approach to life is just different, but it doesn't mean that they're less educated or whatever. They just, yeah. So I just felt like the way they were portrayed in the film was a little too simplistic and kind of just like, oh, how quaint. Look at them. There's one cool thing that they discovered that is smart that's like, oh wow, that's a clever way to go about doing that. But otherwise, like we're still smarter and better than them. You know, like that kind of vibe that really bugged me when I was watching the film, and I it kind of prevented me from fully getting into it. Also, this was named one of like the best films of 2016. I don't know about that. I didn't like putting my uncomfortableness about the way the natives were portrayed aside, I just didn't think it was a very interesting story or film. Like, I didn't find it to be that engaging. I thought it was kind of slow and kind of boring at times, honestly. So there were some beautiful shots and the acting was good, but I mean it's I don't think it's for this to be named one of the best films of 2016. I don't know. It must have been a very slow year, if that's the case. But yeah, so I wasn't personally a huge fan of it. So yeah, anyway, so I rated the book three and a half stars, and I rated the film three stars. So I initially I rated the book three stars as well, but after I do bump up the grade to three and a half for the book. So the winner is the book. Yes, The Last City of Z, the book is definitely the winner in this situation. I was a lot more engaged in the story. I thought it was really interesting how David Grant really interwove his exploration and Fawcett's exploration. Usually, like I've said it before, I'm kind of just like, I don't really care about this side story, stick to the main story. But in this book, the way it was written, both stories, since they were interwoven, became one big story. So it didn't bother me when we cut to David Grant's chapters, the way it sometimes bothers me when that happens. So, and I liked how some moments of his expedition married Fawcett's expedition. And yeah, I just thought it was a lot more interesting. It was a lot more descriptive about the Amazon, which makes sense. You can't really describe everything that can kill you in the film because that's not the point. And but overall, I just thought the story was a lot more interesting. Uh, I thought reading it was a lot more interesting than watching it. The details that were added to the book that David Grant was able to add just really expanded upon the story and upon the dangers and the things he encountered and the relationship. Like, I got so much more out of the relationships that Fawcett had for his family in the book as well. In the film, it's kind of it's interesting because the director of the film talked to Sienna Miller, who played Nina, and he really wanted to make sure that Nina was a three-dimensional character as opposed to just like a doting wife. And so he talked to Sienna and consulted with her and really added onto Nina's character. So she had more of an art and a three-dimensionality to her than that she didn't have originally. And yet she did do a lot for him in the film. But the relationship in the book, I felt like there was just so much more to her and to their relationship, and to his relationship with Jack, and to his relationship with Brian, and to his lack of relationship with his daughter, it seems, because his daughter wasn't really brought up all that much. So there is that. And yeah, I just found it a lot more fascinating. And I love that he went into detail about what could have possibly happened with Fawcett and his the team and the more widely accepted theory as to what happened to him. I just found that really interesting. I just I thought it was just so much more fascinating. And to find out that there more than likely is a lost city of Z and how frustrating would it have been to like for Fawcett to know that he found it and he just he didn't know. So yeah, I highly, highly, highly recommend the book. I don't know, if you're like a film buff and you're interested in checking out one of the top films of 2016, by all means check it out. I would say it's okay to skip it and just read the book. But that is it for this episode of Books versus Movies. If you like what you heard, please leave it a rating and a review and tell your friends all about it. Help me grow this little community of mine. And I can tell you that there will be another episode next week in which I will be talking about Monster by Naoki Orosawa and its anime adaptation monster. See you next time. Bye.