Tracks

9. TRACKS (drama, 1975) Jack (Dennis Hopper), an ex-Vietnam veteran, is escorting the coffin of his dead friend's body, which is to be buried in their hometown. They travel by train, where Jack meets various interesting people.

Critique: Actor Dennis Hopper has said that one of his main influences in acting was James Dean ("he was pure gold man"). He worked with Dean in his first film, the quintessential-classic 'Rebel Without a Cause' (1955) and in his second film 'Giant' (1956). Dean's mannerist style, irreverent mumbling and magnetic charisma made him into an overnight legend never before seen… and then there was Dennis Hopper.

Though at first I saw Hopper as one of Dean's many clones, he has evolved into a surprisingly charismatic presence, full of his own style of anger and psychosis. One can see that early on he was very much influenced by Dean's untimely (or timely) death in 1955. His brief marriage to the daughter of a Hollywood 'mogul' producer landed him in the blacklist for his bad boy streak. Through the 1960s and 1970s he drifted in and out of Hollywood, spending most of his time in Europe (playing the "ugly American" parts). His experiments with drugs and alcohol landed him with his best financial triumph in 'Easy Rider' (1968). But that was all. He again disappeared into obscurity and fell further into disfavor with the "Hollywood crowd".

His career suddenly resurfaced giving a tour-De-force performance in David Lynch's controversial 'Blue Velvet' (1985), and as a director with the influential 'Colors' (1988). Though I still admire his maniacal Frank Booth in 'Blue Velvet' (thus, typecasting him in 'psycho' roles), I rather like him in 'Tracks'. He displays great depth (most of the film's dialog is improvised), passionate mood swings, and a sense of reality. It could well be Hopper himself we see on screen trying to exorcise his inner demons.

Director Henry Jaglom's claustrophobic camera-work, angst written screenplay and fallible pacing serves Hopper perfectly, the non-conformist. Hopper's Jack describes himself as being shy but is, in truth, a disturbed little soul. Lapsing into frequent, uncontrollable fits, anti-social, and traumatized by the loss of his childhood (the film's score works perfectly on the same wavelength). This is his most accomplished role yet.

QUOTE: Jack: "Do you think about your childhood often? I think about mine. When the going gets rough, I think about my childhood.'

I was slightly perplexed that most of the other people who commented on this classic Dennis Hopper film either didn't understand the ending, or thought the ending was stupid. It's very clear to me.

This whole film is nothing more than a symbolic train ride to hell. The 1940s World War II-era soundtrack is a backdrop for a "popular" war. A war where the entire nation banded together to serve and defend their country. Dennis Hopper's character is a baby-boomer brought up with the backdrop of World War II, a war of honor. His "war" is the complete opposite; shunned and protested. He keeps constantly playing the old time music to help him reinforce his beliefs that his service in Viet-Nam was the good and decent thing to do. The people on the train are symbols of our nation; wrapped up in every their everyday lives, totally unconcerned or pre-occupied with the war which was so far away. The ending is a brutal statement that the only way the public could come to grips with the experiences with the combat veterans was to bring the horrors of the war back home. Tracks is an out-standing, yet controversial, and highly symbolic view on the horrors of the Viet-Nam War. Seems to me that this movie couldn't be re-made today; only updating it to the war in Iraq. How sad that some 30 years later, Tracks is still not an out-dated film about the horrors of war, and the public's indifference to the suffering of the soldiers fighting over there.

Transporting the corpse of a fallen comrade by train, a Vietnam War sergeant is haunted by battlefield memories with his anguish exasperated by none of the other passengers being interested in the war and looking down upon him for serving. Made only two years after end of the Vietnam War, 'Tracks' is one of the earliest films to deal with the disillusionment of soldiers fighting an unpopular war. Dennis Hopper is effective and the lead role and the way his ride gradually turns from friendly and joyous (with a love interest no less) to nightmarish (blurring the lines between fantasy and reality) nicely captures this disillusionment. Clocking in at around 90 minutes, the film sometimes feels on the long side since 90% of it is set on the train with mostly dialogue-heavy scenes, but there is lots to like in the natural-sounding conversations that occur between the passengers on topics as diverse as eating chicken skin to chess tactics. The double meaning of the title is especially awesome, with it left open as to whether it refers to train tracks or the World War II music tracks that Hopper keeps playing on his portable cassette player in a futile attempt to convince himself that his war is as honorable as World War II. Some have been critical of the film's ending and the post-train scenes are certainly nowhere near as intense as the train ones, but this is a compelling tale overall of coming home.

Weird flick, a little Altman-esque in terms of rambling dialogue that starts and stops off-screen sometimes. Also a lot of PTSD scenes, can't always tell what's real and what's in the lead character's mind. My friend says he found it reminiscent of Cassavetes. I found Dennis Hopper's performance very compelling and even heartbreaking. Also helps me to understand my dad's generation (Boomers). Still relevant for war vets today. Worth a watch.

I watched this film based on the jacket synopsis, the same one that is surprising repeated here on IMdb, about a train journey and flashbacks. There are no actual flashbacks in this film, although maybe some of the characters on the train are flashbacks in and of themselves.

That is the basic trouble with this film, it is impossible to work out what is real and what is not, Dennis Hopper's character is so tightly wound he is ultimately completely closed to the viewer. There is no intimacy here, no insight into the characters (any of them) or the point of the film as a whole.

And the ending makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and comes out of nowhere.

That said I was fascinated by the film and did watch till the end, hoping to finally make sense of it all. I then watched it a second time, as I am aware it is easy to misunderstand a complex film in one screening. But Alas even after my third viewing i was left as lost and unconnected to the film as I had been previously.

I think this film offers us a promise, one we are surprised not to have fulfilled. But ultimately it lets us down.