Ned Kelly

I can't believe the comments regarding the use of an Irish accent as opposed to an "Australian" one. It might help if you actually KNEW anything of our convict past. (Have a look at Australian shows produced during the mid 20th century and you'll see that our accent is decidedly British, not the broad Australian accent of today - we are all a product of our past).

As for Ned, his father, John "Red" Kelly, was born in the county of Tipperary, Ireland. He was convicted of stealing 2 pigs & was transported to Australia sentenced to 7 years. It is pertinent to remember that in the 1840's we are dealing with the most wretched period in modern Irish history. The majority of the Irish population of over eight million people (1841) were chronically poor tenant farmers and cottiers. The Kelly's were just another poor, near landless family whose plight was of little concern to the alien administration (British) in control at that time. The Great Famine of 1845 - 1847 left over one million dead and another million gone on the 'coffin ships'. Such was the background to the offences committed by the likes of John Kelly. So he was transported to Australia for stealing for his family to survive. America, following the War of Independence, refused to accept any more convicts from Britain so the British turned to newly discovered Australia.

John Kelly was kept in Jail until 31st July 1841 when he was placed on board the convict ship 'The Prince Regent' in the port of Dublin. On the 7th August (note that he was interned on this prison hulk for 1 month in appalling conditions) 'The Prince Regent' sailed from Dublin with 182 convicts on Board. There was one port of call, Cape Town, and the ship arrived in the Derwent River, Van Diemens Land, now Tasmania, on 2nd January 1842. By this time John Kelly had already served one year of his sentence and the next six years were spent at convict and labouring jobs in Tasmania. He was granted his ticket of leave on 11th July 1845 and on 11th January 1848 he was granted his Certificate of Freedom. He was a free man again but in a different country on the other side of the world. My great great grandfather suffered the same fate - transported from England in 1837 aboard the "Charles Kerr" for stealing a pittance just to survive, he served 7 years before receiving his Certificate of Freedom in Nov 1843 (he was sentenced at the Old Bailey in Oct 1836). Just as John Kelly did, my ancestor married an Irish free settler (yes, there were some, even though my great great grandmother was shipwrecked twice on her way here!!!!).

I know this has little to do with an appraisal of the film (which I saw when it first came out &, yes, like another poster commented it did not have ANY American country music on the soundtrack - from memory it was backed by very early Australian / Irish folk songs of the time). However, I do remember that I thought at the time that Jagger (the iconic rebel) was a great choice for Ned & that it was a somewhat loose & art-based portrayal and was, with this in mind, spot on. I haven't seen the film for years but all I do know is that if I see a film on an American historical character (or even Lithuanian, for that matter) I would do some research on the history to try and understand the true circumstances that surrounded him or her. I recommend you study the history of Ned's time and the history of the time the film was made (1970) - you may then see it in a different light.

There's some confusion about Mick Jagger's accent - is he trying to sound Australian or Irish? Well, as the character Ned Kelly appears to have been born in Australia of Irish parents, who's to say what his accent sounded like? Probably pretty much like Cockney Mick puttin' on a brogue, actually. After all, the Australian accent is probably descended from Cockney and Irish.

And it's unfortunate that someone else is saying that there's a Neil Jordan directed version on the way, because actually it's Gregor Jordan. So there'll be no last-minute revelation that Ned was a woman, then... Phew!

One big problem with the movie is Mick Jagger. Jagger was half-convincing, his biggest problem being that he is not exactly masculine, while Ned Kelly probably was. Otherwise, he fitted the role much better than the stunningly banal H. Ledge in the 2003 remake - that devilish glimpse in his eyes makes him a much better choice for an outlaw who goes as far as challenging the British Empire and proclaiming a fancy republic of his own. Another problem was the poor cutting - some scenes were so drastically cropped that the storyline was getting lost. Still, a far better version of the Ned Kelly legend than the 2003 edition.

This potted history of the infamous Australian outlaw benefits tremendously from Gerry Fisher's frequently ravishing photography but is ultimately doomed by its paint by numbers screenplay and the star turn by Mick Jagger (who reportedly dismissed the film as a "load of s**t"). Frankly, a bearded Jagger speaking in a weak brogue reminded me more of Warwick Davis in the Leprechaun series than it did of a legendary Robin Hood style badman. Shel Silverstein's faux-folk songs haven't aged well either.

The criticism this film seems to receive every few years is quite intense. After viewing it, however, I feel that the comments made by the most vocal of critics are unwarranted.

Had the movie been an entire work of fiction and the Ned Kelly saga made up as an original screenplay, then many may have applauded this movie. The movie can definitely be enjoyed as a work of cinematic art, but obviously as an ode or anthology to the life of such an important Australian historical identity it can do nothing but fail in the telling of Ned Kelly's story. Hopefully, however, Neil Jordan's upcoming offering may get closer in creating such a testament.

On cinematic terms, NED KELLY it is somewhat enthralling, though it does fail to hit the high-note. For this, I can pinpoint no one particular error so it must instead be a combination of many. People will want to know whether Jagger acts well. Surprisingly, I think this is hard question to answer, but it is the least of our worries here.

The direction is rather adequate, though some scenes are quite nicely photographed -especially the end shoot-out. The editing at the start is quite impressive. The first major miscalculation, of course, are the problems encountered when casting a slim, Englishman as the sturdy protagonist who is supposed to be an overwhelming 6'4 Irish-Australian. This miscasting is confounded with Jagger's pathetic attempt at a full-grown beard which makes our hero - or anti-hero - look Amish. The trailer's claim that `if Ned Kelly were alive today.he'd probably be Mick Jagger', therefore, is quite arguable.

There is also an over-abundance of soundtrack music. I have no reservations about that. Most of lyrics to the folky, country soundtrack act as direct commentary to the proceedings of the story we see or are asides that relate directly to it. Almost instantaneously it becomes repetitious and highly corny.

The biggest problem is, however, the lack of any serious character development. The film concentrates mainly on Ned and gives a little consideration to Dan, Steve and Joe, who in reality were as much a part of the gang as Ned was. The development is so negligent that barely even lip service is paid to identity of several key characters. You can be forgiven for not knowing that the man shot in the groin was actually a member of the Kelly gang!

In conclusion, the film gives itself no chance of a being remembered as a classic. It would be nice, perhaps, if the film had of been directed by an Australian. No, forget that. A Victorian.