Much of the acclaim for The Drover's Wife, it turns out, seems suspiciously like virtue signalling. Yes, it's a lovingly crafted, passionately felt adaptation of Henry Lawson's tale. But it is also a very mixed bag of a film, and much less effective than it should have been. The film's chief virtues are some strong performances and striking cinematography. But the storytelling is repeatedly undermined by dialogue and sensibilities that are more 21st century than 19th century. The dialogue also occasionally gives way to poetic patches that, however much they evoke Lawson, further undermine the dramatic intent. Rather than trust the story, Purcell resorts to some extremely heavy-handed underlining of theme and message - moments in which the film plummets into something akin to second-rate political theatre from an amateur women's collective. A somewhat clumsy and largely ineffective score doesn't help either. Reservations aside, Purcell is clearly a good director, and, for all its flaws, The Drover's Wife is infinitely better than most first films. It's well worth your time; just don't expect the masterpiece some have been trumpeting.
