Ned Kelly

This film has always received a thorough trashing, in Australia at least, & having seen it, I believe unfairly. As a genre film it's pretty solid - boy gets out of jail, still gets hassled by The Man, gets pushed back into crime trying to help his dear old momma, & goes out in a blaze of glory (sort of - he was captured & hanged after the glorious showdown).

Unfortunately, the boy happens to be Ned Kelly, Australia's most ambiguous hero. Debating what sort of a man Kelly really was is irrelevant now - the legend is far more important. An Irish renegade standing up to the imperialist forces, or a glorified criminal, blah, blah, blah. He may have been a horse-thief, he may have been a thug, he may have loved fluffy kittens - we'll never know for sure.

This film hardly attempts to get at any sort of historical truth - it's about rebellious youth breaking free from the stuffy establishment, hence the casting of Jagger. He's actually quite good, but his celebrity overshadows his performance. He might have worked, just not playing such a famous Australian icon. That elevates it to a type of ironic blasphemy.

Pity, really - it's not a bad film at all. Well shot, directed & acted, it does convey a sense of being back in the 19th century, & still manages to have that rebellious 60's/70's charm.

A much better (& far more brutal) Australian bushranger film is 'Mad Dog Morgan', starring Dennis Hopper, & his Irish accent is just a bit more convincing than Jagger's.

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 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.

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.

This film has been criticised too harshly, because of Mick Jagger's lack of experience as an actor and it's failure to stick to verifiable facts. But treat it as the cinematic equivalent of a folk ballad and you'll have a good time with it. Just as you wouldn't hire an opera singer to sing a folk song, you don't need a professional actor to play the lead in a rough-and-ready entertainment about a rough-and-ready character. By the time one gets to the speeded up segment that accompanies Waylon Jenning's singing of Shel Silverstein's "Blame it on the Kelly's" it becomes clear this is not a film that is intended as a serious examination of history. Like the song "The Wild Colonial Boy" which Jagger sings in one of the more memorable scenes in the movie, this is popular entertainment to be enjoyed with a few beers. Taken as such it is very enjoyable, with catchy songs, evocative cinematography and Jagger being very much the lovable, charismatic rabble-rouser he was in real-life at the time. And what matters in a folk ballad is not the truth, but the legend.