BLOOD BROTHERS

Australia, 2011, 90 minutes. Colour.
Lisa Mc Cune, Michael Dorman, Rick Donald, Frankie J. Holden, Tony Martin, Denise Roberts, Sarah Snook.
Directed by Peter Andrikidis.

Blood Brothers is based on an actual crime story, a son murdering his parents and brother in outer Sydney in the early 1990s.

The film recreates the murders from the point of view of the accused. He stated that his brother killed his parents and he, in a frenzy, killed his brother. He was charged with manslaughter and served some time, later being released from prison, marrying and having a family.

However, his father’s brother, who had initially welcomed him, is suspicious, spends years and a great deal of money trying to bring the case to trial again. It costs him something of his sanity as well as his marriage.

The film focuses on Lisa Mc Cune as Margaret Kennedy, asked to prosecute the case again but given a limited time. The film shows many of her interviews with witnesses, her speculating on what might have happened. It also offers alternate hypotheses – especially with the imitation of the Menendez brothers in the United States that the two had conspired to kill their parents.

However, her conclusion is that the accused man did the murders, finds inconsistencies in his account, presents them to the court – and he is found guilty and imprisoned, always protesting his innocence.

Lisa Mc Cune is cool and calm as the prosecutor, a disciplinarian at home, with difficulties in giving time for her family. Tony Martin is the brother, obsessed. There are various supporting roles including Frankie J. Holden as the police investigator and Denise Roberts as a neighbour.

However, the film also depends on Michael Dorman’s performance as Jeffrey Gilham, the accused man, seen in the various re-creations and imaginings of the crime, seen in ordinary life, seen in his rather impassive presence in the courts.

The film was directed by Peter Andrikidis, veteran director of many of Australia’s chief television series, of miniseries like Mary Bryant, of Blackjack films as well as The Kings of Mykonos.

A post-script: in December 2011, Jeffrey Gilham was found not guilty of the murders of his parents.

1. The crime reconstruction, interpretation, for the television audience?

2. The Australian atmosphere? The audience knowledge of the crime and the criminals? The linking of the crime to the Menendez brothers in the United States?

3. The title, Jeffrey and Chris, as brothers, the bonds, the differences, the difficulties? Relationship to their parents, the role of the parents in the life of each?

4. The initial reconstruction of the crime, Jeffrey’s story? That Chris had killed the parents, that Jeffrey had hurried from the boathouse, had become anxious, in frenzy killing his brother, phoning the police, getting help from the neighbours? The vivid re-creation, the detail, the anguish of the parents?

5. The audience initially accepting this reconstruction? Jeffrey charged with manslaughter, guilty? His family and his uncle sad but giving him support?

6. Time passing, the inspector and his continued investigations, not believing Jeffrey? The case coming to court again, the prosecutor, the evidence? The inconsistencies in the accounts?

7. Margaret Kennedy, her workload, her prosecutor boss, asking her to take on the case, her relationship with her family, not being able to go away on holidays, her husband and his support, the sons and their different attitudes, the older boy and his truancy? Her being a disciplinarian, missing events for the family, her ambiguous attitudes?

8. Margaret and the short time for prosecuting the case, her thinking it over, accepting it, examining the evidence in detail, the various stories, the various people that she interviewed, the work of her assistant?

9. Jeffrey, married, his children, his in-laws? The love of his wife? His job, the boat and his lifestyle? Seemingly innocent?

10. The uncle and his mania, the pursuit of Jeffrey, the prosecution, the police, his interviews with Margaret, the effect on his own life, his wife leaving him, the obsession?

11. The detail of the interviews, the neighbours, friends, Jeffrey’s girlfriend – the cumulative effect of knowledge about the parents, the domination of the mother, the more passive father, how the two boys got on with each other? Favouritism or not?

12. The other possibilities, dramatised in flashback? The role of the parents, the mother and her control, her demands on Jeffrey, her attitude towards Chris? Jeffrey helping his brother, the envy, the need for affection?

13. The hypothesis of Chris killing his parents, yet the issue of where his glasses were found, his taking a shower, the bathrobe? The time-lapses before the phone call to the police? The speed of getting from the boathouse to the house and Margaret testing it? The position of the knife, her son explaining handling a knife?

14. The hypothesis of Jeffrey’s killing, the timing of going to the house, the phone calls, his reaction to his brother, the knife?

15. The hypothesis of the Menendez brothers, visualising this, Chris being the murderer, Jeffrey then killing Chris, the planning between the two?

16. Jeffrey and his trial, his wife and her anxiety, the in-laws, the explanations, the wife not accepting his guilt?

17. Margaret’s son, the point about Jeffrey’s lack of care for his mother when she was dying? This being used in the case?

18. The summation, Jeffrey as guilty, his wife’s protest? His uncle’s relief?

19. The information about the case and the sentences given at the end? The value of this kind of re-creation of a well-known crime?