I'm using the following as a sample of my academic/formal writing. If you're reading this just to follow my adventures in Europe... this may not interest you.
The bushrangers of the colonial era
play a large role in informing aspects of Australian identity, history and
mythology. The legend of Ned Kelly has
risen above all the other bushrangers, being retold in non-fiction and fiction
novels, on film and even through painting.
The popularity of the Kelly story may be due to Kelly’s “tough, bold
anti-authoritarian stance” which is seen as “an essential part of [Australian]
national character, with its roots in [Australia’s] convict history” (Juddery
2008, p. 26). There are a number of key
events from the life of Ned Kelly that are regularly retold - the Fitzpatrick
incident and the bank robbery at Euroa for example. However, slight changes in the representation
of these events and the overall way these events are constructed has an
overwhelming impact on the way Ned Kelly’s character is represented on the page
or screen. A number of slight changes
can construct Kelly across a broad spectrum ranging from a universal hero to a
product of Australian cultural attitudes.
Although Ned Kelly has appeared on
screen many times since the original The
Story of the Kelly Gang (1906) - popularly believed to be the world’s first
feature film - the majority of these have faded into obscurity due to age, were
minor television productions, or were parodies.
Two serious Ned Kelly films still remain relevant and available today -
Tony Richardson’s Ned Kelly (1970)
with Mick Jagger in the title role, and Gregor Jordan’s Ned Kelly (2003) starring Heath Ledger. Both of these films seek to place Kelly in
the realm of universal myth, but slight differences in their approaches affect
the extent to which this universality is achieved. Brief reference to a pair of novels - Robert
Drewe’s Our Sunshine (1991) and Peter
Carey’s True History of the Kelly Gang
(2000) is also relevant in this comparison.
Jordan’s Ned Kelly film was
loosely adapted from Our Sunshine,
and True History of the Kelly Gang
offers an interesting comparison as a text aimed at grounding rather than
mythologizing the Ned Kelly story.
The time at which particular scenes in
the Ned Kelly story took place within each film impacts the extent to which the
audience is position to view Kelly as legendary. Both films begin their story proper at
approximately the same point in the Kelly history, when Kelly was released from
prison after serving three months for accepting a stolen horse, which he
claimed he did not realise was stolen.
Jordan’s version opens with the scene of Kelly’s unfair arrest and
treatment by the police, while Richardson begins with a brief prologue -
subtitled ‘The End’ - in which Kelly is hanged.
It then jumps straight to ‘The Beginning’ as Kelly walks home. The details of Kelly’s imprisonment are
revealed in a folkloric song played over this montage sequence, but the details
are easy to miss. From the very start,
then, Jordan reveals the injustice and pettiness of the Victorian police force,
while Richardson focuses attention on the foreshadowing of Kelly’s inevitable
end. There are five events that
encompass the Ned Kelly legend as represented in both of these films. They are: the Fitzpatrick incident; the
Stringybark Creek killings; the bank robbery at Euroa; the bank robbery at
Jerilderie; and the murder of Aaron Sherritt leading to the Glenrowan
shootout. Although both films are
approximately the same length, these events take place at different times
during the course of the story.
|
|
Ned
Kelly (1970)
|
Ned
Kelly (2003)
|
|
Fitzpatrick Incident
|
40:05 - 43:05
|
21:07 - 27:11
|
|
Stringybark Creek
|
45:54 - 51:46
|
33:14 - 39:38
|
|
Euroa Robbery
|
54:59 - 59:56
|
42:53 - 47:50
|
|
Jerilderie Robbery
|
1:02:21 - 1:05:11
|
49:25 - 53:18
|
|
Aaron Sherritt’s Murder
|
1:17:12 - 1:18:02
|
1:11:00 - 1:13:03
|
|
Glenrowan
|
1:19:17 - 1:39:56
|
1:15:21 - 1:38:28
|
|
Film Ends
|
1:41:27
|
1:41:00
|
For the purposes of this comparison,
the Fitzpatrick Incident is defined as occurring from the moment Fitzpatrick
arrives at the Kelly homestead to when he leaves, Stringybark takes place from
the point the Kelly’s ambush Lonigan and McIntyre to the death of Sgt. Kennedy,
and Glenrowan takes place from the moment Kelly holds up the station until he
is shot down. The other sequences are
self-contained and have clear starting and ending points.
The Fitzpatrick Incident is somewhat of
a turning point in the Ned Kelly history, as it is the moment at which he
became an outlaw. This scene occurs one
fifth of the way through the 2003 film, while taking place two fifths of the
way through the 1970 version. By having
this sequence earlier, the 2003 version is emphasizing the events after this
point, which represents the Ned Kelly outlaw legend. In True
History of the Kelly Gang, this event does not take place until page 256 of
400 pages, well over halfway. This gives
the opportunity to provide contextualization leading up to Kelly becoming an
outlaw, which plays a major role in giving the story a sense of cultural
specificity. Karen Pearlman’s discussion
of ownership in relation to mythmaking (2010) suggests a reason for this. The events described above are the
well-tread, well-known parts of the Ned Kelly myth - it is these moments of
action that are owned by the Australian people and the world at large. These events also represent the grand moments
of the Kelly history, focusing on grand conflicts as opposed to smaller,
personal conflict. In the end, however,
the 1970 Ned Kelly film works to
construct a legendary, universal depiction of Ned Kelly by incorporating the sense
of grand conflict even into those opening forty minutes.
Ned Kelly’s motivation in each of the
texts is a key factor in situating the character within universal legend or
cultural specificity. Grand motivations
suggest heroic or legendary endeavor, while personal motives, especially those
related to the particular social conditions of the setting, are often
reflective of a more subdued and realistic interpretation. Both films present Kelly’s motivations as the
result of large-scale oppression by law, class and government
institutions. In the 1970 film, early
scenes set up a class conflict between the wealthy squatters and the poor Irish
settlers. In one scene Ned argues against
the injustice of the police impounding a settler’s cattle. He later refuses to work for Mr Whitley, one
of the squatters, ridiculing him publically and accusing Whitley of not
offering “honest work.” He then happily
impounds Whitley’s prize bull when an opportunity presents itself, thumbing his
nose to the establishment and wealth.
From the very beginning, then, Mick Jagger as Ned Kelly represents
revolutionary ideals, and his later outlawry becomes more an extension of these
ideals than a response to Fitzpatrick’s shooting or the deaths at Stringybark
Creek. Everything Ned does feeds into
this revolution. His writing of the
Jerilderie letter is a response to his realization that “words are very loud”
and will raise his revolution more effectively than violence. The murder of Aaron Sherritt is treated as an
opportunity to initiate the Glenrowan plan - the guns and armour are prepared
before the gang even learn of Aaron’s betrayal, and the scene itself is almost
clinical, playing out over only fifty seconds and offering only the briefest
glance of Joe Byrne attacking.
Compare this with the motivations of
Heath Ledger’s Ned Kelly. He expresses a
desire (through voiceover) to “walk the straight and narrow” and works hard for
his family. His outlawry is a direct
response to the oppressive machinations of the Victorian Police. In a spontaneous moment, realizing his gang
is despised by many, he is suddenly inspired to write the Jerilderie
letter. The gang only start preparing
their armour and weapons for Glenrowan after Aaron has been killed (though in
the original script the armour preparation scene occurred between their
discovery of Aaron’s betrayal and his murder) - emphasizing the killing’s
emotional motivations over the rational ones.
This more emotional representation of Ned is more sympathetic than the
rational, scheming Mick Jagger, but both offer universal, legendary
motives. Although they are certainly
different motives, they each correspond to different criteria from Graham Seal’s
universal structure of the outlaw hero legend (1996). Ledger’s Kelly, by responding to machinations
of institutional pressures, has motives that correspond to being forced into
outlawry and oppressed (Seal, 1996, p. 11).
By contrast, Jagger’s Kelly has a motive that meets the criteria of
being oppressed and being a friend of the poor. While different, both sets of motivation
correspond to universal aspects of the outlaw hero, and therefore neither
represents culturally specific motives.
Carey’s True History of the Kelly Gang offers a Ned Kelly whose motives are
far less grand than the two films and are a product of a specific social and
cultural background. Throughout the
novel, it becomes clear that Ned’s central motive is to protect his
mother. The book goes as far as to
suggest an Oedipal relationship, as Ned mistakes his lover Mary Hearn for his
mother and the community ridicules him for his love. While this is still a
universally-recognisable motivation, with its roots in psychoanalytic theory
and family bonds, it is a much more personal motive, and the manifestation of
the motivation is therefore specific to the Australian colonial era. As opposed to surviving a shootout, running
from police, or robbing a bank, this version of Ned Kelly works the land of
Eleven Mile Creek, fends off suitors such as the bushranger Harry Power and
becomes caught up in cattle duffing.
These activities contribute far more to a feeling of place and time than
the actions Ned takes in either film, where the robbing of a bank could occur
anywhere and any time a bank exists.
Ned’s motivation spawning from
socio-cultural context is reflective of a broader condition related to his
place within the world of the text. In
the 1970 film, as is suggested by his revolutionary motives and actions
protecting the poor, he is represented as a leader within the community,
protecting the poor, loved by the settlers and loathed by the squatters and
police. Similarly, the 2003 film represents
Ned’s character as being somehow separate from, or even above, that of the
community he grew up in. Although he is
not a revolutionary leader, he is a well-respected man in the community, as
indicated by Wild Wright’s desire to get back into his favour after causing his
imprisonment, asking the words, “Are we square?” and showing great relief when
Ned replies in the affirmative. The Ned
Kelly of True History of the Kelly Gang
is not special. He is constructed as a
product of the society he grew up in, and is treated with no more or less
respect than any other member of the community.
He is taken advantage of by Harry Power, ostracized when his family
believe him to have betrayed Power, and even occasionally falls out of favour
with his mother. He is not a special
person - he is simply the product of his cultural upbringing, and his move to
outlawry is a result of events outside his control. Lacking a specific antagonist, Ned instead
faces the social problems of colonial Australia. The two films, on the other hand, ensure that
the audience has a specific antagonist they know to be working behind the
scenes to catch the Kelly gang. In the
1970 film it is Sgt. Nicholson, a somewhat bumbling officer who often expresses
guilt at the way things turn out, saying that he “has no wish to oppress
anyone” when instructing his men on how to seek the Kellys. However, the character only exists for the
benefit of the audience, as there is never a direct confrontation between Ned
and Nicholson, and there is never any evidence Ned is even aware of Nicholson’s
existence. From the moment
Superintendent Hare is introduced in the 2003 film - brought in by the colonial
government as a response to the Euroa robbery - he plays a very active role in
the hunt for the Kellys, and it is made clear through voiceover that Ned
himself sees Hare as his principal enemy.
Hare cruelly imprisons all Ned’s associates on no charge, burns the
bushland and poisons the rivers to chase out the Kelly gang. Ned lists Hare’s presence at Glenrowan as one
of the parts of his overall plan, and is given an opportunity to shoot Hare
face-to-face once Hare arrives. When Ned
is finally captured, he shares a moment with Hare, and Hare asks to have the
famous sash, awarded after Ned saved a drowning child, showing Hare’s respect
for the man. This exchange cements Ned
as being a grand figure, as even his most brutal enemies pay their respects to
him. By having an active antagonist,
Jordan constructs a more heroic portrayal of Ned Kelly than either Richardson’s
passive antagonist or Carey’s complete lack of a single antagonist.
Although these broad tendencies across
the course of each film provide many interesting points of contention, a deeper
analysis of the manner in which the Stringybark Creek killings play out in each
film reveals how each film constructs their differing representations of Ned
Kelly. The 2003 film takes much greater
pains to make Kelly a sympathetic figure and justify his use of violence
against the police officers. When
scouting the creek, Ledger’s Kelly notices the police have stretchers with
them, apparently revealing that “the bastards aren’t taking prisoners.” There is no such revelation in the 1970
film. Further, Joe Byrne’s claim that
“they’ve got us hemmed in on wither side, whether they know it or not” suggests
the gang have no choice but to confront the police if they are to survive - a
suggestion absent from the 1970 version.
Both films then follow a similar trajectory as the gang surrounds
Lonigan and McIntyre and hold them up.
McIntyre surrenders and Lonigan takes out his gun. In both films Lonigan fires. In the 1970 film, Ned immediately fires back,
while in the 2003 version there is a half second pause - enough time for the
bullet to be seen impacting a tree close to Ned’s head - before Ned shoots
Lonigan through the eye. Lonigan is
treated fairly well by Ned in both films - in the 2003 version Lonigan drinks
tea with the gang as they sit waiting for Kennedy and Scanlon - he even offers
to “leave the force first thing tomorrow” suggesting his recognition that he is
on the wrong side in this conflict.
Assumedly as a device to maintain tension through the scene, the 1970
film does not have this tea-drinking interlude.
Ned only has time to promise McIntyre not to cuff or hurt him as long as
he co-operates before the arrival of Scanlon and Kennedy. Again, in both films the police are the first
to fire, and Ned immediately shoot Scanlon dead. At this point Kennedy flees and Ned
follows. In the 1970 film, Kennedy takes
cover behind a log, initiating a brief shootout in which he is shot and
killed. The 2003 film has Ned following
Kennedy as he fires desperately over his shoulder. Ned shoots him once, injuring him, and
promises not to shoot him if he surrenders.
Kennedy spins once more, fires and misses, Ned raises his gun, taking a
little under a second from when Kennedy’s shot was fired, and shoots Kennedy
down. The key difference between the two
during this chase is that it is only in the 2003 film that Ned offers Kennedy the
opportunity to surrender. With Kennedy
then still alive on the ground, Jagger’s Kelly looks to the rest of the gang
and asks why “the silly bugger” didn’t surrender. Ledger’s Kelly asks the same question
directly to the dying Kennedy, then, horrified at what he has done, leaps down
and tries to save him, constantly apologizing.
The audience is positioned to feel that Kennedy’s death is actually a
personal tragedy for Kelly, as Kelly’s apologies reveal that he blames himself
for the incident, when all the evidence of the sequence suggests otherwise. Jagger’s more rational character asks the
question rhetorically, externalizing the blame and therefore neither asking for
nor receiving audience sympathy.
Jordan’s film goes to much greater lengths to justify the violence
perpetrated by the gang and reveal Ned’s regret and guilt for its occurrence. Richardson’s version, while definitely
justifying Ned’s role in the violence, does so in a much less definite manner,
encouraging the audience to distance themselves from Jagger’s Kelly. This impression is assisted by the folk song
playing over the top:
“They say that Ned Kelly ain’t never done
wrong
but tell that to Lonigan’s widow.”
There is the suggestion that Ned is
responsible, and that the killings were not justified. This is enough to ensure that this
representation of Ned Kelly does not adhere strictly to Seal’s criteria, as he
claims the outlaw hero “must not indulge in unjustified violence” (1996, p.
11). Within this single scene, then, the
slight difference between the extent to which Ned Kelly is represented as
belonging to universal myth in each film is revealed.
Ned Kelly’s role as a historical figure
has become secondary to that of his role as a mythic one. Although Gregor Jordan’s Ned Kelly goes to greater lengths to represent Ned Kelly as a
universal myth, both versions do so far more than they attempt to reveal Ned
Kelly as a product of his sociocultural context. By maximizing the scale of Ned’s motivations
and separating his character from that of the community he existed within, the
films offer a vision of Ned as an outlaw hero similar to Robin Hood or Jess
James. They are both divorced from their
Australian colonial context, creating films that add very little to the
development of Australian on-screen cultural practice.
Reference List
Carey,
P 2000, True History of the Kelly Gang,
University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, Queensland.
Drewe,
R 1991, Our Sunshine, Penguin Books,
Camberwell, Victoria.
Hartley,
N 1970, Ned Kelly, video recording,
MGM.
House,
J & Woss, N 2003, Ned Kelly,
video recording, Universal Pictures (Australasia) Pty Ltd.
Juddery,
M 2008, ‘The Story of the Kelly Gang’, History
Today, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 24-30.
McDonagh,
JM 2003, Ned Kelly: The Screenplay,
Currency Press, Strawberry Hills, NSW.
Pearlman,
K 2010, ‘Make our Myths’, LUMINA – Australian Journal of Screen Arts and
Business, vol. 2, p. 31.
Seale,
G 1996, The Outlaw Legend: A Cultural
Tradition in Britain, America and Australia, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
