I fratelli Kelly

There have been many attempts to make a film about the famous Ned Kelly story, but none have totally succeeded. This British attempt was undertaken when the Australian film industry was at its lowest ebb, but neither British writer-director nor British pop star-actor Mick Jagger do the story justice.

The pace and tone of the story are both uneven, veering from slow to fast and serious to comic periodically. Personally I found the first half quite dull, though the pace picked up somewhat once the bushranging started, before grinding to an uncertain halt with a confusing climax at Glenrowan.

Similarly it was hard to take Mick Jagger seriously as an outlaw, as he came across as more of a mouthpiece for political statements about freedom and equality which seemed to have more to do with 1960s values than those of 19th Century Australia.

The music was another odd feature, with many US country songs and singers providing a series of outlaw songs to accompany the action, with mixed results.

Despite all these problems, the film does present the Kelly story in a fairly comprehensible way (apart from the ending), and the second half of the film was quite enjoyable. If another lead actor had been chosen this could have been much better.

Even today the character of Ned Kelly is seen by most Australians as more sinned against than sinning. It's a pity then that director Tony Richardson and male lead Mick Jagger couldn't be afforded the same latitude.

Contrary to some comments in this forum, this film was never a cult hit or even very popular at all in Australia. When I studied film criticism during the 'seventies, "Ned Kelly" was often held up as the prime example of just how bad a movie could be. This view is the orthodox one among Australians of generations old enough to have seen it. The trouble with this orthodoxy is that is simply not true.

Jagger gives a surprisingly strong performance given his physical limitations. The story features no glaring inaccuracies of the Kelly legend and the screenplay is very well structured and paced. Above all, the cinematography is simply superb. Some of the scenes, such as the shoot out at Stringybark Creek are highly arresting.

All right, Waylon Jennings singing Shel Silverstein songs is a little corny and intrusive but that's about my only criticism. I would be surprised if the 2002 version is any better.

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!

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.

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.