Djo-2

"After the Deluge" has to be the pinnacle of Australian television. Bringing together an impeccable cast which includes Hugo Weaving, Rachel Griffiths, David Wenham, Samuel Johnson, Catherine Clements and Ray Barrett the show seems set for acting brilliance. But Australian productions have brought together amazing acting talent such as this in the past and failed to deliver.

Fortunately, here we not only have brilliant acting but writing talent that defies words. Moving and inspirational comes close. Andrew Knight who has been responsible for a lot of what is good about Australian TV (Simone de Beauvoir's Babies, My Brother Jack, Kangaroo Palace and Sea Change) has brought it all together with "After the Deluge". Here is an intricate weaving together of the lives of three brothers trying to come to terms with their own failures and the destruction of their hopes and dreams, as their father slips further into his past life via the White Rabbit hole of Altzheimers. What they can never know and what the audience is privileged to be allowed to see, is that their father also suffered through the destruction of his hopes and dreams. To them he was just a cantankerous, domineering father who never showed them or their mother any love. But the audience knows the truth and all the characters are portrayed sympathetically despite their faults.

The imagery of water reflected in the title is used to represent birth, death and rebirth. The score is superb. A combination of classical violin and contemporary rock guitar, it reflects not only the musical generation gap represented by the struggle between patriarch Cliff Kirby (Ray Barrett) and his oldest son Martin (Hugo Weaving), but the movement between the eras as Cliff slips in and out of the past.

`After the Deluge' is superb Television and in this era when Reality TV and lifestyle programs dominate the ratings and Australian production companies, it's so good to see quality dramatic television still getting commercial attention. Kudos to Channel Ten for producing what is usually left up to the beleaguered ABC.

Gregor Jordan's Ned Kelly has already sparked debate. What was the real Ned Kelly like? Was he a hero or villain? Jordan has chosen to go with the myth that paints Kelly in a sympathetic light but it is with satisfaction that I say he has not painted him in a completely innocent light. This is no black and white depiction of the myth. In fitting with its sepia toned cinematography, the story remains ambiguous. There are many times in the film where the viewer is left questioning Kelly's actions. Should he have given himself up? Was he right to put innocents in the line of fire? Of course Kelly's inner monologues and his speeches to bystanders indicate that this Kelly felt he had been unfairly treated and that the Victorian Police had unfairly targeted the Irish community. Nevertheless, there are times when Ned and his gang could have chosen a different path. This may have been at the expense of their pride, even their lives, but it may have saved others. In having Ned's love interest say `Please don't make me grieve for you' the audience is made aware that Ned has other possible choices other paths to take.

The true achievement of this film is that having been shown Ned making mistakes the audience is still dragged into Ned's world and right from the start we are with him. The audience knows what Ned is doing is wrong in the eyes of the law but it is Ned's story and we can't help but feel that he is justified.

The movie itself is beautiful to watch. It's hard to say that about a movie that is set amongst mud and squalor. Where you can see the dirt under Ned's nails as he slashes the throat of a horse. But it is beautiful. The sepia tone of the film not only evokes the time but it evokes a feeling of uncertainty. This was a turning point in the history of Australia. When those born in Australia still had ties to the country of their parents' birth but felt that they had rights and freedoms of a new land. Australia had not yet achieved nationhood but it had begun to think towards it as the new generation came to maturity. That is one of the reasons Ned Kelly remains such a strong symbol of Australian mythology. He was seen to challenge the colonial mentality. His myth and Jordan's' film sets him up as someone who was just trying to get on in the life and build up his world. His legacy, true or not, is as a symbol of the beginnings of nationhood.

Another part of the beauty of the film is the Australian setting. It's setting that is different to your stock standard Australian outback or set views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House. This is Kelly country. Rural Victoria, grey and overcast most of the time. The bush is lush and green with ferns and heavy under growth, while other scenes show a stark grey landscape of bare trees and muddy fields. There is of course the gratuitous Kangaroo shot, just to remind International audiences of where the film is set. There are also the black trackers and a particularly interesting scene is when Ned turns his gun on a fur covered Aborigine. They look each other in the eye and Ned knows the Police are on their way.

Ultimately though this is Ned Kelly's story and Heath Ledger has managed to become Ned Kelly. He brings him to life in such a way as we see his fallibility, his pride, his lack of education and his inherent intelligence. Ned could neither read nor write but his myth has been continued through the letters he had others write and through the eyewitness accounts of his oratory skills. In the way of many a mythologised outlaw, he was said to an interesting and charismatic speaker. Heath Ledger convincingly portrays this aspect of his persona without ever lapsing into melodrama.

The supporting cast is exceptional. Orlando Bloom is unrecognisable from his LoTR role. He is the cocky, womanising Joe Byrne, the `handsome one of the gang' and manages to remain so despite the blood and mud. Joel Edgerton is spot on as the `traitor' Aaron Skerritt. He is the most laid back of the bunch and again there's that ambiguity. Joe Byrne his life long friend asks Ned `Why did he do it'. To Ned it's because he had gotten too big for his boots but the audience knows something that Ned and Joe don't. Kerry Condon is so good as Ned's mother you forget she is an actress. The same can't be said for Naomi Watts but it is the nature of the role rather than the acting that is at fault. The part seems irrelevant to me. Apart from the line `Please don't make me grieve for you' she does nothing of importance. Ned's mother or even his sister could have said that line. The love story is irrelevant but at least the chemistry between Naomi and Heath works . That's in contrast to the irrelevant love story of Gangs of New York and the unnecessary goings on of Cameron and Leo.

Rachel Griffiths character is also irrelevant but at least she is humorous. Does she relish being typecast as sexually adventurous or is she starting to get sick of it? It seemed like the producers had demanded that as many internationally known Australian actors as possible, should make an appearance in this film.

Geoffrey Rush as usual provides an effective and understated character role and manages to add to the ambiguity of the myth. Were he and his men bastards for shooting at innocents? At one point he calls for the men to cease firing just as earlier Ned had called for the Police man to stop running or he would shoot. These are questions loom large at this time when we are turning on our TV's every morning to stories of innocent casualties in a War against oppression and Terrorism.

This ambiguity is what made the movie for me. Some will criticise the movie for being far from the truth in not portraying Ned as the criminal he really was. Others will criticise it for not expanding the myth. I love that it is not cut and dried, not black and white. It is shades of grey and brown. It is a debate worth continuing and a film worth seeing.