Stringybark Creek and the upcoming movies

A short trailer for the short film Stringybark Creek has just been released, but it will be some time before the film itself is made available to the general public.  What little is shown in the trailer looks pretty dramatic, but it gives nothing away – its a teaser, as trailers always are.

 

The thing that has intrigued me since its release has been the remarks that have been posted by Kelly apologists in response to the Trailer. Almost universally they exhibit an intense hostility toward the movie and its maker, and an extreme willingness to attack and criticise the slightest suggestion of an inaccuracy. Several think that the only sash that ever appeared in the Kelly story was the green one given to Ned for rescuing Richard Shelton, and so immediately and gleefully pointed to the red one Ned was shown wearing in the Stringybark trailer, claiming the moviemakers had already blundered. Obviously very few Kelly sympathisers know that it was the custom of the Greta Mob to wear coloured sashes, and that McIntyre had reported Ned wearing a red one at SBC. “As much as I hate it, that’s something they got right” wrote one person, leaving me to shake my head and wonder why anyone would hate them getting it right? Surely getting it right and being accurate should be applauded?

 

According to others the actor playing Ned Kelly is too old, and another objects that the photo supplied of him shows their intent to portray Ned Kelly as ‘callous and hard’. We won’t know how Ned Kelly is portrayed until the film is released, but who on earth would think it unreasonable if Ned Kelly was portrayed as ‘cold and hard’? This movie, after all is about the day he armed himself and his mates and went to the police Camp and murdered three of them. This was the man who later declared that ‘any policeman or for that matter any other man who doesn’t throw up his arms immediately as I called on them to do – they know the consequences which is a speedy dispatch to Kingdom Come’ . What the hell is that if it isn’t ‘cold and hard’?

 

Some of the discussions were about the other upcoming Kelly movie “True Story of the Kelly Gang”. The hostility exhibited towards this movie is even more difficult to understand than that directed towards the SBC short film, because this movie is based on a novel. ‘True story’ is a kind of historical fiction loosely based on the Kelly story, and it centres around characters that everyone knows never existed. It  would make as much sense to point out ‘mistakes’ in a movie based on Kelly fiction as it would to point out ‘mistakes’ in the famous Nolan series of paintings about Ned Kelly, or in the various musicals and plays that have been written about the Outbreak  over the years. Imagine this being posted by some disgruntled Kelly sympathiser:

“Those Nolan Kelly paintings are rubbish because everyone knows Fitzpatrick was a Constable but he’s shown with three stripes on his uniform. And when Ned Kelly had his helmet on you couldn’t see his neck”

 

In fact most of us recognise those paintings as works of art not as historical records, and the same can be said about Peter Careys acclaimed novel. Its a work of art not an historical record. Criticising the book or the movie for historical and other inaccuracies is missing the point completely. Works of art reflect themes, emotions and concepts rather than facts and figures.

 

Oddly enough, the Kelly sympathisers have just run a writing competition and happily promoted pro-Kelly historical fiction and imaginative writing. They’ve also promoted an entirely fanciful Kelly style comic strip figure, a ‘badass zombie slayer’. What this demonstrates is that they are not actually opposed to historical fiction or artistic re-interpretations of the Kelly story – what they’re opposed to is re-interpretations that don’t portray Kelly in the light that they want him to be seen in, as a hero. What they’re opposed to is any suggestion their interpretation might be wrong.

 

When it comes to correctly understanding what happened at Stringybark Creek, I think its important at the outset to recognise that to try to protect himself, Ned Kelly lied about much of what happened. His obviously self-serving version of events cannot be trusted – and the only other version is Constable McIntyre’s. In particular Kelly lied about the killing of Constable Lonigan, who couldn’t possibly have received multiple wounds on various parts of his arms and legs if he had been hiding behind a battery of logs when shot, as Ned Kelly claimed. On the other hand, Macintyre claimed Ned Kelly shot Lonigan within a few seconds of the order to bail up, that he would have been out in the open and wouldn’t have had anywhere near enough time to draw his weapon let alone run back and hide behind logs. That description fits perfectly with the detailed autopsy findings made by Dr Reynolds a few days later.

There are two other points I think that ought to be accepted about what happened at Stringybark Creek. The first is that it was a reckless and foolhardy plan in the first place. When you claim to be innocent of a charge of attempted murder of a policeman, evading arrest is never going to help your cause, but to then actively seek out a party of police sent to arrest you, and then to engage them in an armed confrontation, for whatever reason, is pure madness. Kelly was delusional to imagine police would meekly surrender to his orders, and though he may have forseeen the serious possibility that someone was going to get killed, he was more than prepared to make sure it was police who were shot rather than gang members. He turned the odds heavily against the police party by waiting till only two of them were at the camp and one was unarmed before his gang of four bailed them up.

 

Kellys plan was to bail up Police in the way he and Harry Power used to bail up travellers on the roads, with a display of force that was never used. However, Ned Kelly stupidly failed to realise that innocent travellers on the road and an armed police search party are two very different entities, and as could have been predicted, the Police didn’t react they way he expected them to. Kelly lost control of the situation as soon as it began. If he could have got to the logs no doubt Lonigan would have returned fire – but as soon as he made a move, and Ned Kelly realised he had lost control of the situation, he resorted to killing. He fired a load of swan-drops at Lonigan and killed him instantly.

Now, with a murder on his hands, Kelly must have known his fate was sealed. His potential sentence of six years, if found guilty of attempted murder of Fitzpatrick had suddenly become a sentence of death by hanging for the actual murder of Lonigan, should he ever be caught. He immediately began concocting his excuse of needing to kill in self-defence.

 

The ghastly result of the first attempt to bail up police taught Kelly nothing, and so when the remaining two police returned to the camp the Gang attempted to bail them up as well, in exactly the same way, the way that had just failed and ended with a killing. Unsurprisingly, predictably, the exact same thing happened again: the police reacted like police not travellers, Kelly immediately lost control of the situation again, and again resorted to killing –  but this time both Police were murdered. Isnt it said that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is a sign of madness?

 

Like everyone interested in the Kelly saga I am greatly looking forward to Ben Heads “Stringybark Creek”.  I am hoping that he also has realised that SBC was not a ‘gunfight’ but an entirely avoidable bloody debacle, brought about by the mad thoughtless reckless stupidity of Ned Kelly.  For everyone involved it was ghastly tragedy.

(Visited 622 times)

19 Replies to “Stringybark Creek and the upcoming movies”

  1. David,

    Oh Dear, you’ve stirred the lamebrains into a tizz with this one.

    Lots of bile and venom. Toad even resurfaced with a ludicrous comment. Doesn’t he realize its all over. He is a non-entity with a dead site.

    His handful of supporters seem like nongs. They should find another site.

    Cam West

  2. The whole self-defense thing is laughable imbecility.

    The Kelly Gang deliberately WENT TO the police camp to get firearms and horses. There they killed Constables Lonigan and Scanlan and Sgt. Kennedy, whose pockets were looted including his watch. Firearms, equipment and horses were taken. The borrowed police tent was burnt and destroyed.

    Where is the self-defense in any or all of that?

    Roy

  3. Northcote fan says: Reply

    “I had to shoot them or they would of shot me” says Ned the chief lame brain.

    Attachment

  4. At last the real truth about Edward Kelly and his thieving family and cohorts is coming to light.
    Thanks to Leo Kennedy (great grand son of Micheal) and others in revealing the untold truth.

  5. From your FB page: ” Kurt and Isabella, and they both got it right. Well done!”

    So, what was the answer?

    Chongo

    1. Well if you could have been bothered to scroll down a couple of clicks you would’ve seen Isabella guessed ‘C’.

      So, the person who rubbished the suggestion. that Ned Kelly was something other than a criminal, was a Kelly descendant. Who better to give us an insight into the truth about the man?

  6. Ned Kelly was a scumbag humbug bumbag
    Wild Wright said he was a mad bad sadbag
    Daniel Kelly was a pretty little liar
    Running round the bush with his pants on fire
    Poor young Ned, you’re better off dead
    At least you get some peace of mind
    That’s a damn sight more than you ever gave
    To the victims you left behind

  7. Doug Morrissey has demolished the upcoming film of Peter Carey’s Ned Kelly novel as hogwash in The Age.

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/another-hogwash-film-peddles-fake-history-of-the-kelly-gang-20190714-p5274i.html

    But I bet it will get long re-runs on Channel Nine, like the abominable Heath Ledger version they keep on fobbing on us.

    Cam West

  8. How wise is it to rubbish a movie you haven’t seen? Morrissey is damaging his credibility by making these hyperbolic criticisms of a movie based on a novel that openly admits to NOT being historically accurate.

  9. David, don’t hold your breath waiting for a prompt reply from Mark Perry to your choice of best Kelly books. He is probably a bit beholden to some of the notorious Heffalumps on his site. They wouldn’t like it if Mark’s choice was the same as yours.

    David those are my most preferred books too. Graham Jones The Larrikin Years is a brilliant, neglected masterpiece.

    Roy

  10. Yes, both are brilliant, well-researched books.

    Horrie and Alf

  11. The Actor who played Ned Kelly in Stringybark was I, Joshua Charles Dawe. It was an incredible experience. One I will cherish. What the Bens were able to pull off was amazing.
    And I challenge anyone to find a 24 year old actor today who looks like a man from the late 1800’s 😉.

  12. Hi Josh, I was at the first insider’s screening at ACMI. Amazing is correct. A packed house and dead silence at the end, right through and a little past the entire credit roll. I’ve never experienced such a powerful emotional impact on an audience. For the benefit of readers, Ben Head said then that it was the first time you guys (actors and crew) along with the audience had seen the finished product. Stunning. I hope it ends up on DVD after the festival run and public release. So glad I went to experience that, as well as to see the movie. A great effort with the historical accuracy too, costuming, equipment and everything, as well as great in the acting department! Ben 2 is a great camera guy – from the bush scenes he filmed in Ben Head’s previous short film “Quiet” (on YouTube), I was confident that Stringybark would be stunning visually, and I was right. 10/10.

  13. So an issue is that Ned was played by a seemingly much older actor. How old are you Joshua?

  14. They are bloody legends. Loved working with them.

  15. Sounds like this might be a mega-Movie. Hope so!

    The stunned silence at the end was a good omen, Stuart.

    SBC needed this.

    So did we.

    Roy

  16. On your FB page, Alice Richardson belittles Sir Redmond Barry’s “sexually promiscuous behaviour”. He had four children from mistress Louisa Barrow and left her his Estate.

    Where is the promiscuity there?

    Rebecca

  17. David, I agree that Ian Jones’s contribution needs to be more carefully examined. When writing my humble book about the gang, it irritated me to constantly find the thorniest mistakes in the Kelly saga were made by Ian Jones. This was a major part of the reason that galvanised me to write it. The body straps yarn, and ‘republic’, were among the worst…

    That being said, I admire Mark Perry for his deep loyalty to Ned and Ian Jones. And Mark also has an refreshingly open mind, and courtesy, which is rare among Kelly adherents. (Wink).

    Future historians will have to deal with all this. But Jones’s histories must be deeply scrutinised – even here.

    Ian MacFarlane

  18. David,

    Should Alan Mason be allowed to plant codswallop on your FB site?

    Place him on your tiny banned list.

    We don’t want to hear from him ever again.

    Rebecca

Leave a Reply