The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith

Well intentioned and well meant, I am sure, but director Fred Schepisi is perhaps a little too reverent in his interpretation of the original book to the detriment of a smooth and effectively flowing cinematic narrative. There is an awful predictability here and for a lengthy film not really enough for the viewer to get their teeth into. It is true that the violent incident that transforms the action does come as a surprise in so far as the extent of the violence is concerned but it is something that has been signalled for a while. Beautifully shot, this is an attractive looking outback and countryside that is presented but the film is preceded by Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) which is far more beautiful overall and Walkabout (1971) which is far more dramatic. Jimmie Blacksmith has some fine sequences portraying the indigenous peoples but less maybe is more and these do not seem as dynamic as those in Nick Roeg's film. it is tempting to wonder just how much Schepisi was influenced by the rock formations and aboriginal depiction in the earlier films but it seems a little unfair and if the political and racial issues are a little heavy handed is to be applauded that he tackled them at all.

Deals with the antihero that goes over the edge...beyond obvious comprehension. Many miss the point...."he's half white." This film explore what structural racism produces, especially in that individual that seems to have the chance of crossing lines. Instead these are the individuals that are repeatedly humiliated and demeaned by those they are seeking acceptance from. This is the point of the film. It is the potential from the "half breed" that contextualizes the journey to where is own people/ family see him as a devil. He is a man gone rabid...tormented by the world he does not fit. This film is moving on many levels and provides a glimpse into a history foreign to many. A tragedy in the deepest sense.

Truly startling and mortifying and a real challenge because it shows everything as plain as it needs to be shown. It takes its time to show Jimmie as a man who is put down upon at every step by those he works for, under so many who see him at every turn as less than. Compounding that is that he elopes with a white woman, and she seems to have his child (until, well, you should watch to see the reveal on that which makes for a further wrinkle for Jimmie), and that others tell the woman to get away because... he's Black, after all, what, he cant be a farher.

So when Jimmie finally snaps, it is not shown as some inevitable act, it is more as many common acts of violence are in the world: brutal, stupid and sudden escalation, which gets reframed by everyone, Jimmie and the White citizens, as "right" and "wrong." The thing aboht "Chant" is it's a story that means to reckon with the very real horrors of racism (it could be America or Australia or South America or anywhere), while at the same time the filmmakers are not making Jimmie Blacksmith into a sympathetic figure (which would be... not sure what that movie looks like!)

Or, let me amend that, it is not that there isn't some sympathy that Shlepsi and company have for Jimmie, rather that he and the writers show that he is a man, originally shaped by a very low-wrung working class life with little education and the double problem of being mixed race (which is commented on later on in the film by the white folks who did care for him, in their way, once), so he is of his time just like everyone else is of their time. And everyone is already so scared of their own shadows that the murders make it into bedlam.

You know Jimmie has gone way over the edge once he commits those murders, but going into the movie I had the (very) mistaken impression it was a series of revenge killings. But there isn't any sense in what is going on as being righteous or worth having some vicarious "yeah, you go, Jimmie!" Like say, oh, Django Unchained to give a basic example. While it's extreme to compare it to, oh, 12 Years a Slave, it is a film that looks on in despair at what humanity is capable of.

The violence here is quick and ugly and senseless, and by the end there is little catharsis. But throughout the film there are nuances to the depictions of the Whites, and not everyone is out to immediately snuff out one of the Aborigines like Jimmie - the focal point to me about three quarters in with the more bookish man that Jimmie and his brother take along and they actually sit and talk, and while he brings up to Jimmie the bigger picture of what White's have given to Aborigines (alcohol, diseases, school), what so powerful is how muted it is. This isnt some giant dramatic scene, it is low key and sad and grubby.

Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith is not always an easy watch except that Shlepsi is a terrific director of actors (Tom E Lewis's debut! But also Thompson, Barrett and Punch in a difficult role) and keeps the pacing here moving along well while finding time for meditative images (extreme close ups of ants and bugs in perpetual violence and conquering of their own), and even though it's set in the late 19th century, turn of the 20th, it packs a message without being preachy.

Thomas Keneally's THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH novel works on so many levels - a period piece, as a biting satire and as a wonderfully composed drama. This film of the same name attempts to capture the poignancy and strength of the original classic novel. It achieves this wonderfully. The film is excellently acted and the violence is both well shot and vibrantly enacted. The score is great too. Also the Australian landscape - not to mention its social underbelly, was never shot with as much insight.

An excellent starting point to understand such great Aussie films like the tracker and rabbit proof fence.

10/10

This is a fine example of the breed of excellent Australian films released in the 1970s during the Australian film renaissance (it's interesting to note that virtually all of the directors of these films, including director Fred Schepisi, later moved to the U.S. to make big budget Hollywood films). This tale of a young aboriginal man who eventually turns to violence following one humiliation after another by white settlers in 19th century Australia asks some very uncomfortable questions of the audience such as: Is it morally justified to use violence against a corrupt, racist, violent system in which there are no lawful means to receive justice? Additionally, it is up to interpretation whether the violent reactions of the title character are justified: we are clearly sympathetic to him in the beginning, but once he perpetuates incredible brutality on the settlers, can we remain sympathetic? He is definitely not a monster, but a well-mannered and educated Aboriginal brought up by missionaries. After all, his actions are not simply heat-of-the-moment reactions; he has formally "declared war" on the perpetuators of injustice. Does that legitimize what he is doing? The U.S. has been asking itself these exact same questions for the past 50 years: Jimmy is very much a close Australian cousin to Bigger Thomas, the main character in Richard Wright's classic American novel "Native Son" - a black man pushed to violence by virtually every aspect of white society.

However, like Wright, I admired director Schepisi's decision to carefully straddle the line between whether Jimmy can be viewed as a simple societal construct or whether he is a man in control of his own actions. One could easily make a case for either of these scenarios or probably both of them. That makes the movie even more uncomfortable when one thinks about it afterward.

In many ways, this is a very depressing movie; in the end there is no closure, no justice, and nobody has learned a damned thing, except possibly the audience, if they truly think about what they have just seen. I really respect filmmakers who tackle incredibly difficult subject matter such as this, with moral quagmires and complex characters. My only complaint is that it is very difficult to understand much of the Aussie English, so an American viewer must listen very closely. This is a film definitely deserving of a U.S. audience. Too bad that its controversial (i.e. thought-provoking) nature has probably prevented it from being released on VHS or DVD in the U.S. I understand copies of this are quite rare abroad, as well, so I suggest viewing it if given the opportunity.