Sweet Country

The movie has a familiar story and simple dialogue, and this is not a problem by any means, yet it's technically impressive. Sweet Country is a visually stunning film. The cinematography in this movie is similar to Mudbound's, but it's even more beautiful! Actually, it has the best cinematography of the year, so far! And while the movie looks poetic, the same goes for the storytelling. It reminded me of Days of Heaven. As a matter of fact, you may feel if you're watching a Terrence Malick film, except it's more fast-paced.

The similarity between Sweet Country and Malick's movies don't stop there. As Warwick Thornton used symbolism in Sweet Country in a way that resembles Malick's use of symbolism. By that I mean the use of allegories and symbols in a beautiful way that feels literary or poetic. Unfortunately, the use of symbols in Sweet Country often feels superfluous, and completely unnecessary.

Sweet Country is masterly edited, and I think that what makes it very watchable, and often enjoyable despite its poetic style that may indispose some people.

Thornton used intercut flash-forwards and flashbacks heavily. And while sometimes they help us understanding some events that happened, or will happen, therefore build tension, they often seem like nothing but artistic frippery, specially when they are used to make the movie seem if it has a non-linear storytelling.

Sweet Country also should be praised for its non-sentimental approach to its message. Unlike other movies that tackle the same subject matter, Sweet Country doesn't dramatize any aspect of its story. The movie even doesn't have a soundtrack, and that makes it feel more realistic. The movie relies on its bleak and dreary atmosphere to imply its subject matter and moral instead of presenting them in the usual manner.

All the performances are good. Hamilton Morris' performance is impressive because it feels genuine. Sam Neill is also very good even if his character, Fred Smith, is underdeveloped. Fred Smith is a very important character and should have been more developed, but unfortunately, it's a very flat character.

In general, the movie has some issues in terms of its characters. The movie has too many characters for its own good. And the movie tries to give almost every character its fair share of importance.

In the end, Sweet Country a movie of visuals first and foremost, it could hardly be more visually impressive. But, to be honest, it's a very pretentious work.

(7/10)

I saw this film on 25th January with my granddaughter who is Aboriginal. Most fitting on the eve of the last day of freedom for Indigenous people. A very moving film that brought home and really reminded us of the cruel and widely hidden history of this country. Should be compulsory viewing for all high school students and used as a starting point for students to explore and examine their local Indigenous history. I hope to be able to buy a copy in the near future.

In the ever widening divide between colour, cast and creed, director Warwick Thornton takes the traditional setting of a frontier western and builds the foundation for a brutal and angry discourse on racism and savagery. But unlike a typical Hollywood western, the savages here are not the indigenous people who fight for the preservation of their ancestral land-dwelling. Set in 1920s Australia, and just a few decades after independence, Sweet Country seeks to echo the haunting wails of the founding fathers of modern Australia.

Both haunting and tragic, the film is politically provocative and poetically proverbial in narrating a dark era when Australia's justice system was still in its infancy. On the run for killing a cruel white settler, Aboriginal Sam (Hamilton Morris) and his wife have little chance of escaping the law, especially during a time when lawmakers were the laugh of the town. It doesn't help either that a frontier soldier (played by Bryan Brown) is out for blood as a self- proclaimed lawman. Sam's only aid is his charitable employer and preacher Fred (Sam Neil). But there's something about the whole incident that Sam and his wife have kept to themselves and the only way for any sliver of redemption is to get caught.

Although deliberately paced (the very first scene is a symbolic pot on the boil), the final showdown is suspenseful but also gut- wrenching and ultimately heartbreaking. An Aboriginal himself, Thornton (who is also the cinematographer) uses gorgeous vistas of the Australian landscape to juxtapose the ugly nature of this story with the sheer beauty of his land. And amongst all this beauty there is suffering, trauma, barbaric colonialism, and absolute disregard for human life. As impressive as the visuals is Thornton's meticulously composed storytelling and it's a power structure with imposing breath, width and emotional depth.

When Australian cinema is good ,its usually really good and this one can hold its head high in any cinema in the world. Director Warwick Thornton who also made Samson and Delilah has excelled again with this Aussie period Western set in 1929 in the Northern Territory. It has the feel and ingredients of a Western , the Lawman, the fugitive, the posse, even the Saloon gal and the town vigilantes but Its much more than an action Western and even reminded me at times of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird set in the Australian outback. The stars are Hamilton Morris as Sam the hunted fugitive Aboriginal stockman and Bryan Brown as Sergeant Fletcher the hunter . Sam Neill as the minister, is also terrific in his role , showing the only compassion and acceptance to the indigenous population in the entire movie and Matt Day as the judge is also impressive. The cinematography is superb and at times resembles an Albert Namatjira landscape, which is understandable but it takes great skill to capture the light and timelessness of the outback landscape, it should wow overseas audiences . After the dismal film we saw yesterday this was a joy to watch and what good cinema is all about.

I've read here two reviews by Australians, one hated the film, the other loved it. I've seen the film in the company of two other Australians, they both loved it. Yes, I agree to the point made, by the hating reviewer: the movie does judge the past according to modern morals and sensibilities. But this would be a valid point if we were discussing an academic paper or a movie that was made back then. This is neither it's a movie about Australian past that was made at the present and it feels so true it hurts. It hurts because the only way we can see it is with our modern eyes. Saying people thought differently back then, is true but it's beside the point. We, the viewers are here and now and that's the only time and place we can watch it.

So lets speak about other aspects of the film: cinematography, acting and story telling are superb. But I liked most of all the editing, with these tiny flashes forward and backward throughout the movie, flashes we can fully understand only when we've seen the movie all the way through. Please do, I think you won't regret it.