NED KELLY

UK/Australia, 1970, 104 minutes, Colour.
Mick Jagger, Clarissa Kaye, Mark Mc Manus, Ken Shorter. Frank Thring.
Directed by Tony Richardson.

Ned Kelly was intended as a film to give new life to the Australian cinema. It did not, although it was fairly well received at the box office, but not by the critics. On the whole the film was a disappointment, although it is quite interesting and entertaining. There are a number of things which spoilt; Mick Jagger seems too slight and high-pitched as Ned, the ballad commentary is too American, the minor characters are not well enough delineated merely sketched and this does not provide enough contrast for Ned himself.

On the other hand, the re-creation of Victoria in the 1870's is good and shows something of the style of life in those days, the colour photography of Australia is beautiful and some of the sequences, as the Stringybark Massacre and the hold-up at Glenrowan are well done. The climax of Ned in his armour is effective. Whether the social conditions of Victoria and the Kelly rebelliousness are well
enough and convincingly combined is a matter for discussion. Perhaps people expected too much. It is generally an average film, and not one of Tony Richardson's best, but it has some interesting features.

1. Was this just an adventure-action film or did it attempt greater significance?

2. What was the effect of showing 'The End' first? Was this just a gimmick or did it give a sense of direction to the film which followed?

3. Was the Australian environment well presented - the harsh beauty of the country, the country style of life with its comradeship and hardships. the bush and its animals? What scenes were memorable?

4. Was Ned presented as having been formed by his environment? How was this done?

5. Comment on the use of the ballad commentary. Were the songs appropriate. their words and mod of the tunes? The ballads sung by Ned and Glen Tommassetti? Were the commentary ballads too American?

6. Was Ned presented sympathetically - as a victim of police injustice? Comment on Ned's relationship to his mother. family. friends. The Kelly homestead.

7. Were the minor characters in the film clearly presented - did they leave an impression? How well were the Victorian settings and style of life in 1870 well presented and did this give a realistic picture of Ned?

8. What drove the Kellys into conflict with the law - police, social discrimination, cattle stealing?

9. Were the police presented fairly or in caricature? How did the police chief, the magistrate, Fitzpatrick spiking the drinks give occasion for Kelly rebellion?

10. Did Ned have any choice about going into the bush? Why did Aaron Sherritt betray them? Comment on the revenge?

11. Was the Stringybark massacre a turning point in Ned's life? How? Whose fault was it that the police were killed? Should Ned have surrendered?

12. How were the preparations for Glenrowan a climax for the film? What had Glenrowan intended to prove and how harshly was the siege presented?

13. What did you think of Ned in the armour? Was this well filmed, especially the subjective shots from Ned's point of view?

14. Did you think Ned Kelly was a hero or not? Was the judge's sentence just?

15. Did the film contribute to your understanding of Australian history, of attitudes and their influence on contemporary attitudes and thinking? How?