Samson and Delilah was screened to a full house at Cinema Nova in Carlton, Melbourne last night. Knowing little about the film other than it being a hard-hitting insight into the lives of two Aboriginal kids growing up in a remote community in central Australia. Also, hearing that it had received glowing reviews from well-known film critics, I was prepared to be treated to a 5-star piece of Australian cinema.
Unfortunately, I found S&D a real disappointment. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to shoot this film down. Indeed, it is a laudable attempt at tackling some of the issues faced by many Aboriginal youths in Australia. The cinematography was excellent, though I think this suggests Warwick Thornton is more comfortable as a cinematographer than a writer/director.
My gripe is with the film critics (David Stratton, Margaret Pomeranz, et al.) who unanimously appraise this film as a 5-star crown jewel of Australian cinema. Quite simply, this movie is NOT the pinnacle of Australian film making and to advertise it as such is a disservice to the Australian film industry. In my opinion, the highest level of appraisal should be reserved for the absolute cream of cinema. This is not cream, people! Is it somehow un-PC to call it like it is because of the politically sensitive content in this film? These critics need to put down the champagne and caviar, pull their heads out and start being honest and accountable.
I'm not going to reiterate the synopsis here, I only want to point out a few of the main issues, which in my view, let this film down: * The lack of dialogue gave us little insight into the main characters. Although we felt a great deal of sympathy for their situation, they were painted very 1-dimensionally and thus the viewer had a hard time empathising with their actions. Why didn't Thornton expand the relationship between Delilah and Kitty? They only managed to exchange a handful of lines before she died early in the film.
Samson and Delilah don't speak to each other during the entire film. If this was supposed to be for cultural reasons then Thornton completely failed to convey that important detail to the non-indigenous members of the audience. Lack of dialogue aside, there were too few other devices used to develop their relationship. Their interaction was minimal –even contemptuous– and most of the time they just followed one another around in silence.
Finally, to turn around at the end and suggest that Delilah actually really cares for Samson and they both live happily ever after in a little shack in the outback is quite a stretch given how little Thornton developed their relationship. To market this as a "love story" is an absolute joke.
* When Delilah was abducted it was unrealistic that she didn't break her silence. In real life someone being abducted by two hooded men would be screaming for their life. But no, Delilah just silently taps them on the head with her rolled up piece of canvas as they muscle her into the car.
* The car accident involving Delilah was dramatic and unexpected. Indeed, most of the audience in the cinema audibly gasped during the shock of the scene. Surely if Delilah was hit by a car with such force she would have been either killed (as Thornton lead us to believe) or severely injured and placed in hospital for a considerable period of time (weeks to months). However, when she shows up to rescue Samson she's hobbling on one crutch, her leg in a brace, and nary a scratch to be seen.
Logic provides the viewer with two options here: either she was in hospital for such a long time that she had recovered from more serious injuries, in which case Samson would not be sitting under the bridge in the same spot. The other option is that the car miraculously hit only one of her legs and that she sustained no other injuries whatsoever.
* The fact that Samson didn't hear the car accident (only metres behind him) and turn around is laughable. He was walking along, out of it, but not unconscious. It would be a reflex reaction to turn and look. He was in a similar state when Delilah was abducted, but there he heard the car screech away and ran after it.
* Delilah cuts her hair with a knife after Kitty dies. For the rest of the film, her hair looks professionally cut. Unless she's supposed to be an expert in knife-blade hair dressing this is a major oversight in the continuity of the film.
* Similarly, Samson cuts his hair with a knife after he thinks Delilah was killed in the car accident. However, for the remainder of the film his hair cut is unchanged.
* It's unrealistic that the priest would ignore a young woman (of any race) who wondered into a church looking like she'd just been severely assaulted.
* It's unrealistic that in their small community there were no other children around. There would at least be some (if not many) young kids running around.
All in all, there are some memorable moments in this film, but overall it's grossly overrated. If it wasn't for the cinematography I'd feel like I was watching a half-baked student film. Definitely not a 5-star experience.
Unfortunately, I found S&D a real disappointment. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to shoot this film down. Indeed, it is a laudable attempt at tackling some of the issues faced by many Aboriginal youths in Australia. The cinematography was excellent, though I think this suggests Warwick Thornton is more comfortable as a cinematographer than a writer/director.
My gripe is with the film critics (David Stratton, Margaret Pomeranz, et al.) who unanimously appraise this film as a 5-star crown jewel of Australian cinema. Quite simply, this movie is NOT the pinnacle of Australian film making and to advertise it as such is a disservice to the Australian film industry. In my opinion, the highest level of appraisal should be reserved for the absolute cream of cinema. This is not cream, people! Is it somehow un-PC to call it like it is because of the politically sensitive content in this film? These critics need to put down the champagne and caviar, pull their heads out and start being honest and accountable.
I'm not going to reiterate the synopsis here, I only want to point out a few of the main issues, which in my view, let this film down: * The lack of dialogue gave us little insight into the main characters. Although we felt a great deal of sympathy for their situation, they were painted very 1-dimensionally and thus the viewer had a hard time empathising with their actions. Why didn't Thornton expand the relationship between Delilah and Kitty? They only managed to exchange a handful of lines before she died early in the film.
Samson and Delilah don't speak to each other during the entire film. If this was supposed to be for cultural reasons then Thornton completely failed to convey that important detail to the non-indigenous members of the audience. Lack of dialogue aside, there were too few other devices used to develop their relationship. Their interaction was minimal –even contemptuous– and most of the time they just followed one another around in silence.
Finally, to turn around at the end and suggest that Delilah actually really cares for Samson and they both live happily ever after in a little shack in the outback is quite a stretch given how little Thornton developed their relationship. To market this as a "love story" is an absolute joke.
* When Delilah was abducted it was unrealistic that she didn't break her silence. In real life someone being abducted by two hooded men would be screaming for their life. But no, Delilah just silently taps them on the head with her rolled up piece of canvas as they muscle her into the car.
* The car accident involving Delilah was dramatic and unexpected. Indeed, most of the audience in the cinema audibly gasped during the shock of the scene. Surely if Delilah was hit by a car with such force she would have been either killed (as Thornton lead us to believe) or severely injured and placed in hospital for a considerable period of time (weeks to months). However, when she shows up to rescue Samson she's hobbling on one crutch, her leg in a brace, and nary a scratch to be seen.
Logic provides the viewer with two options here: either she was in hospital for such a long time that she had recovered from more serious injuries, in which case Samson would not be sitting under the bridge in the same spot. The other option is that the car miraculously hit only one of her legs and that she sustained no other injuries whatsoever.
* The fact that Samson didn't hear the car accident (only metres behind him) and turn around is laughable. He was walking along, out of it, but not unconscious. It would be a reflex reaction to turn and look. He was in a similar state when Delilah was abducted, but there he heard the car screech away and ran after it.
* Delilah cuts her hair with a knife after Kitty dies. For the rest of the film, her hair looks professionally cut. Unless she's supposed to be an expert in knife-blade hair dressing this is a major oversight in the continuity of the film.
* Similarly, Samson cuts his hair with a knife after he thinks Delilah was killed in the car accident. However, for the remainder of the film his hair cut is unchanged.
* It's unrealistic that the priest would ignore a young woman (of any race) who wondered into a church looking like she'd just been severely assaulted.
* It's unrealistic that in their small community there were no other children around. There would at least be some (if not many) young kids running around.
All in all, there are some memorable moments in this film, but overall it's grossly overrated. If it wasn't for the cinematography I'd feel like I was watching a half-baked student film. Definitely not a 5-star experience.