Bodyline

A movie not only on Cricket, but also on values, ego, pride, human achievement. The movie takes place during the Bodyline Series, Between the England-Australia 'Ashes' Test Matches. A movie depicting the world's best ever cricketer - Don Bradman and one of the worlds fastest and most accurate bowlers of that time - Harold Larwood, it was a struggle to dismiss the Aussie Don Bradman.

Douglas Jardine's most outrageous plot, the tense cricket stadium atmosphere, the desire to win make this movie a must see.

It's been twenty years since I last saw this tour de force of war movies, and, having watched it again just last night, it hasn't aged one day. Sadly, I have. And when I was fourteen, in 1985, (when England had just regained the Ashes from the nice version of Allan Border and his chubby Australians) my love of the sport was far more pure and non-partisan. So it's through those youthful eyes, unsullied by nationalistic distortions, that I will rate this production as 'simply terrific', and for so many reasons: production standards, performances, faith to the sport, and editing are all of the highest calibre, all designed to grip and to entertain and never slipping into the badlands of the docu-drama. This is just great drama, dramatically portrayed, and edge-of-the-seat exciting in its frequent recreational sequences, and in its portrayal of the political and international tensions those sequences allegedly caused.

But what about now, twenty years on? Well, we've just won again, so I really don't care about the 'bias' or the occasional inaccuracies. In fact, upon watching it once more, I realised that perceptions are vital when it comes to representing your country in any sport, indeed in any situation: and the Australian perception of the ruthless Jardine and his foot soldiers at the time is, in fact, faithfully reflected. Of course, that gives the film a wonderfully juicy, ironic dimension in 2006: the all-conquering Australian superstars clearly learnt a lot from Jardine (took them long enough) about ruthlessness, while all we learnt from the Aussies of the same era was how to whinge. Although the worm seems to be turning - yet again...

To all cricket fanatics from opposite sides of the world, this is an absolute must-see, or 'must-see again' if you saw it when it first appeared all those years ago, as I did.

I remember when this series debuted in Australia and at the time I thought it was a bit of Aussie flag waving jingoism; another of their rose-tinted historical spectacles which abounded in the 1980s...the kind where the British are the unfair toffs or moustache twirling villains and the Australians are the brave underdogs or larrikins. But viewing this again recently, I'm not so sure that's true. In fact, it might be more on the side of Douglas Jardine's England! Jardine (Hugo Weaving in his first major role) absolutely dominates the series. He's a far more interesting and complex character than the way the series depicts Don Bradman. But he's not the baddie: Jardine is charged with winning the Ashes for England, Bradman is the batsman supreme, almost invincible so he sets about working out if he has a weakness. The way Jardine does this is with intelligence and reason, asking his colleagues for feedback whilst applying his mind to the situation. In any other movie, this would be the act of the hero. He finds his answer in a quintet of fast bowlers, all of whom are honest, decent sportsmen who want to play for their country and win. To balance Jardine's methodical approach is Plum Warner, a former cricket great and, here, depicted as an honest upholder of decency and fair play. He worries that Jardine is being too analytical and single minded.

By contrast, the Australian cricket team are beset by nit-picking officials who prevent Bradman from playing in the early matches and who carry an air of smugness about them; as if the Ashes are theirs by right. The England team are greeted by an angry Australian "fan" who hurls abuse at them from a rowing boat. Is he a cheeky larrikin or is he a vile nutter? I mean, is hurling abuse at a visiting sports team either normal or virtuous in the context of positive movie or TV portrayals? Warner thinks he's a harmless local character but Jardine sees something more base and sinister in the man. Later events show that Jardine's view might be right. This character hovers over the Australian team, being privy to meetings between English and Australian cricket officials, saying rude and abusive things when he hears something he doesn't like. Later on, he leads the crowds in yelling "bastards" at the England team and burning the Union flag. His mind and his actions have not been shaped by Bodyline (a term Australians coin, not the English)...he held angry and aggressive opinions about England before a ball had been bowled. In short, he's an agitator, not a true fan and Jardine knows this.

There's also another scene where English cricketer turned journalist, Percy Fender, shows up in the Australian press box and he's all smiles, friendliness and earnestness as he sets about doing the best job he can whilst slobbish Australian journalists roll their eyes and shake their heads at him. Again, are we meant to side with the slobs over the dedicated and friendly? Jardine pushes his team hard, but he's always fair with them. When they demand to know the tactics, he gives in and tells them. He pushes Eddie Paynter to play when the man should be in hospital, but Paynter scores a century and Jardine is generous afterwards, in an unpretentious and unshowy way. Jardine pays tribute to the talents of his team and while the depiction of Australian cricketers has them smiling at one another and being matey to the point of insular, the director shows the English batsmen in graceful slow motion as captions tell of their exploits and Jardine's voice over extols their talents.

Whilst Jardine increasingly becomes single minded to the point of obsessive, the rest of the England team behave well. Even Bob Wyatt, who was a very serious and taciturn person, comes across in this series as jolly and affable. Some refuse to bowl Bodyline but all back the captain. None of them mock the Australians or twirl moustaches or behave in a villainous way. Australia lodge a complaint, it gets out of control, there's a diplomatic outrage and basically England agree to all of Australia's demands after they win.

But tellingly, the final moments of Bodyline tell of Jardine's life after cricket; as a war hero risking his life behind enemy lines. Bradman gets a line about going on to captain Australia. So, an Aussie hatchet job against England or a sneaky appreciation of sports professionalism and dedication....maybe even a sly tribute to Douglas Jardine? I'm tending to think it's the latter.

Bodyline was a good TV film. It gave the Australian Film Industry the chance to celebrate an Aussie "legend" and paint the poms as mean , vindictive and unsporting in a story centred around the events of 1932-33 Ashes series. Ian Holts, Harold Larwood was great and the actor who played Eddie Painter was a stunning portrayal of an often forgotten English cricket hero.Capt Douglas Jardine was portrayed as a racist and a man who would bend the rules to win at any cost.Whilst Capt Bill Woodfield was the great noble battler trying in vain to play the game against unscrupulous opponents. Bradman (played by Gary Sweet) is the hero , as he is bowled out 1st ball and then proceeds to try and get into journalism so he can get a career.Bradman is swiftly brought back into line and then proceeds to score the centuries he was famous for. Though the producer or director didn't delve into Bradmans popularity with his fellow players...An Aussie will know what I mean.

Tempers fly and International recriminations dog the tour , also the Australian attempt at fairness was the portrayal of Guppy Allen who wouldnt bowl Bodyline , so that the viewer was assured that not all poms are bad.. The sick in the bucket moment was when one of the Aussie cricketers was comparing there experience to there fathers experience in Gallipoli and then urged his players "to kop it sweet". After all the justifiable criticisms , this Made for TV Film should be welcome to any English home , because we just love sentimental Australians.

Bodyline is a 1984 Australian TV miniseries dramatisation of the Ashes Cricket series of 1932-33, starring Hugo Weaving as Douglas Jardine and Gary Sweet as Donald Bradman.

The Australian touring side won the previous Ashes series in England, with débutant Bradman the deciding factor. In order to counter Bradman, who was predicted to be the major stumbling block, the English team set about determining the tactics for the upcoming series. The miniseries, shows the early development of Bradman and Jardine, the analysis of Bradman's weaknesses by the English team and the development of countering tactics and then shows the result over the 5 Test series. The series uses reconstructions of Test matches played and focuses on the key players involved.

The Ashes contest was controversial at the time for the 'Bodyline' tactic which consisted of short pitched leg side bowling combined with a close-in leg side field and leg side boundary protection. The intimidation of the batsmen, who at the time were virtually unprotected, resulted in several batsmen being hit. This caused claims of unsportsman like behaviour, crowd uproar, press headlines and an international incident. The key thing was the win at all costs attitude of Jardine, which led to the development and use of Bodyline and caused controversy within the English team and in Australia.

The TV series was a success at the time, however it was criticised by those that participated and were still alive. While most of the facts are correctly depicted, some are not. There is also dramatic license taken with the underlying story behind the facts.

While I never saw the series on TV, as an Australian and a cricket fan, I was aware of Bodyline. While the series was well acted, I would recommend anyone watching the series, to research Bodyline and contrast the series with the reality.

Of note was the inability of the British public to fully appreciate the tactics used, and there was no live coverage of the games in Australia. Instead, the English team were able to argue they were using 'fast leg theory' and the British public were unable to distinguish this from leg theory - (an existing tactic involving leg side bowling). Eventually Bodyline bowling was agreed to be dangerous and while legal, not in the spirit of the game. The rules of Cricket were changed to reduce the number of close-in leg side fielders behind the stumps and umpires were also given discretion to prevent intimidatory bowling.

Also, the players were amateurs and had little protection against fast bowling. Intimidatory bowling is still a tactic in the modern game, however the players are better prepared and protected. And better paid!