WITH PREJUDICE
Australia, 1982, 72 minutes, Colour.
Scott Burgess, Terry Serio, David Slingsby, Max Cullen, Richard Moir, Chris Haywood, Tony Barry, Paul Sonkkila, Peter Whitford.
Directed by Esben Storm.
With Prejudice is a very interesting film made by Esben Storm. During the early 70s he had collaborated with Hayden Keenan to make an expose of mental institutions, 27A. Danish-born Storm made a number of feature films including In Search of Anna as well as the interesting Aboriginal thriller, Deadly. However, he worked mainly in television, series as well as a number of children’s films in The Winners, More Winners and Round the Twist series. He also served as a writer and actor.
This film is about a court case and the script, by Leon Saunders, is based on court transcripts. The case involved terrorism in the 1970s in Sydney. The sect, the Ananda Marga, were accused of planting a bomb in a Sydney hotel.
When the case came to court, it exhibited a lot of prejudice in the Australian public. The central characters, played by Scott Burgess and Terry Serio, were brought to trial – and condemned by a prosecution witness. However, the prosecution witness (played by David Slingsby) was discredited. The film illustrates the course of justice as well as means to pervert the course of justice. The brevity of the screenplay means that it serves almost as a docudrama.
The film is interesting in the light of terrorism in later decades. The film offers the background of terrorism in the 1970s, the reality of religious sects in Australia during that decade, especially those from the East, India with prayer and meditation. The film shows a certain xenophobia in the Australian character. The film also is interesting in its presentation of the police and their handling of the situation.
1. An interesting telemovie? In itself, trial, issues? The relationship of law and justice? Facts and interpretation? Individuals. their relationship to a suspicious sect? The police and their accountability?
2. The impact of the telemovie: for a home audience, interest and concentration, sympathies, questions? An emotional response to the issues, the persons, the trial? The judgment of the home audience on issues and justice? The difficulties for releasing the film on television, legal difficulties? The impact of the film in initial theatrical release in the early 80s?
3. Production qualities: the atmosphere of the court, the Ananda Marga offices, police stations, Sydney streets and suburbs? Authentic atmosphere? The importance of photography: profiles, close-ups, tableaux, tracking shots? The action shots with the police and the young men? The importance of editing and pace?
4. The quality of the cast? so many of Australia's leading male character actors? Their contribution to their personalities? Audiences identifying each individual quickly in a short film?
5. The structure of the film: the introduction and newsreel, the setting of the situation and the Hilton bombing, the use of names and dates? Situating the various attitudes? The police version, Richard Seary's version. the defence, the cross-examination, the return to Seary, the comments of the judge, the information given in the postscript about the second trial and the 'guilty' verdict. The cumulative effect of the audience immersed in the various versions? The credibility of each? Each version commenting on the other?
6. The screenplay based on transcripts – authenticity, the selection of material reported, interpreted, edited and acted? How objective a treatment from the transcripts?
7. The dramatising of events mentioned in transcripts: the cast for the three men and their clean-cut appearance, audience sympathies with them or not? The audience response to the police and their attitudes and actions? To Richard Seary in himself, his evidence, his appearing in the various versions of events? The final comment about his disappearance? The audience's emotional response to people rather than issues? The ironies and contrasts of the various views of the characters? The relationship between emotion and justice as events are dramatised? The interrelation of evidence, facts, human situations, intuitions? Just conclusions from this process?
8. The reality of the religious sect in Australia during the 70s? Vaguely known, not known? The name of the sect? Reputation in India – violence, revolution? Association with prayer and meditation? The Asian and Indian background? Australian suspicion, racist suspicion, suspicion of Oriental religions? The publications and the attempts to inform the Australian public? Comparisons with American and Asian sects and the brainwashing of young people? The use of Indian names? The points about revolution? spiritual revolution? How distinct was the Ananda Marga sect as a religion? Its influence in Australia, on events? The linking with the Hilton Hotel bombing? The history of the sect given by Alistair during the trial? His explanation about violence? The points made about meditation? And the critical attitude of the police? The glimpse of the headquarters, names and greetings? Australian suspicions that young men could be attracted to and belong to such a sect?
9. The background of terrorism in the 70s? Its infrequency in Australia but growing? Bomb scares? The explosion at the Hilton Hotel in 1978? Richard Seary's associating the Ananda Marga with it? The fact that the mystery has not been solved ? and no arrests? The poss ibility of the Ananda Marga three being considered as scapegoats?
10. The picture of the police? the reputation of the New South Wales police? Strengths, weaknesses? Corruption? Their supplying information? The way that they gave their testimony - police and legal answers? Their being information by Seary? Scepticism about it? Following it and observing the three, the chase, the violence in the arrest? Interrogations? Taking notes? Bashing? What is fair in police interrogations and what is not? Their appearance in the court, manner of addressing the court? The behaviour of the police in court, their chattering while the spirituality of the Ananda Marga was discussed? The Judge's impatience and sending them out? The chief police investigator and his interrogation? The highlighting of inconsistencies in his testimony? Previous depositions being compared with the current testimony? His work in interrogating Seary and believing him, the follow-up and the arrest of the three? In questioning Seary and the three? The implications in the testimony of the other police? How well did the film highlight their differing personalities? Their different roles: observation, arrests, violence, interrogations, brutality? Their presence in the court? The implication of the police having a conference - even? the possibility of a conspiracy? The relationship of the three to the Hilton bombing? Seary as a paid informant? His infiltration of the Ananda Marga? Connections with ASIO? Audience antipathy towards the police? The title of the film and its relevance to the presentation of the police?
11. The personalities of the prosecutors, their efficiency in their tasks? Their speeches and the nature of the cross-examination? Highlighting aspects, discovering the truth? Comparisons with defence counsel and their interrogations? Their abilities? The appeals to the audience. to the jury? The importance of their exasperation with the police witnesses? The defence counsel interrogating Seary and the elaborate discussion of his interest in science?fiction, his concocting a fantasy implicating the three men? The persuasiveness of the positions taken by Counsel?
12. The possibility of the Ananda Marga conspiracy against Cameron? Cameron as relatively unimportant, his neo-Nazi attitudes and racism? His suburban home? Seary's invitation to go wall-writing? The gradual transition from wall-writing to a conspiracy to murder Cameron? The interrogations in court about the death-threat to Cameron and by extension to his family? Seary's inconsistency about the plots and the talk about the death of the family?
13. The portrait of the three men: clean-cut and well?dressed? Their sombre appearance in court? Seeing them in action at the Ananda Marga headquarters? Their being seen at a distance by the police in the first part of the film - in the street. in the car, arrested? Being presented to the audience more closely by Seary's testimony? Their conduct in court and their own story? Work background, friendship, belonging to the sect? Cameron and wall-painting? Their age, experience, writing articles, meditation? Their lack of knowledge of explosives? The variety of versions about what, they did, especially about carrying the bombs, places in the car, clothes they were wearing (and the police testimony indicating extraordinary eyesight)? Meditative sleep, interrogations and their silence? Quotations nude, notes taken and reports made - but their not being given the opportunity to check the police reports? Their reaction to the testimony in court? The giving of the verdict? The judgment beyond reasonable doubt and the second trial and their sentence after being pronounced guilty? The heaviness of their sentence?
14. Seary as the focus of the film? His being a plant? The information he gave to the police and their wariness, checking his motives? His description of the plan, the invitation to go to Cameron's, his accusation of the three for having the bomb, getting the car? The visualising of the discussions on the trip ? who was alert, who was asleep, the nature of the discussions? His surprise reaction on being violently arrested? His giving his own version and being caught up in it? His being a victim? The testimony of the three and the emergence of Seary egging them on? His knowledge of bombs and explosives from his work in the mines? Seary's history - convictions, espionage, heroine and a dead man, Spain and the use of inverted comma, the letters to the paper - in anticipation of the event? His knowledge of explosives? The importance of his journal and the quality of the writing? His writing science-fiction? His theories? Counsel's reconstruction of his fantasy and. accusing him of concocting the whole plot? The verdict and his disappearance?
15. Justice and trials, the role of the jury, the summary of the Judge? The possibility of a just verdict?
16. The film's comment on the quality of society where justice is not done or seen to be done?
