Niall Moran
Having seen a documentary about this story a few years ago, I was enraptured by the story and absorbed until its conclusion. When I heard a film was in production, I was interested to see how it would be translated into a motion picture. This should by no means considered a film that delivers on the potential of this story. I suspect budgetary restraints ruled out the possibility of opening scenes such as the prisoner's arrival at Hell's Gates as the prisoners rowed for their lives through the stormy sea. Scenes in the courtroom where Pearce is confronted with the horror of his deeds were similarly ruled out. I also believe budgetary restraints were at the root of so much of the landscape views of Tasmania we were 'treated' to- a previous comment said the film works as an ad for the area, I didn't rent the film to see an ad for the landscape of Tasmania! In one scene the director focuses on a mountain top for longer than five seconds (It was long enough for the thought to enter my mind- did he hike up here with a camera and say, well I made it up here so this shot is taking up at least six seconds of this movie!)Budgetary constraints doesn't mean the film couldn't have been successful, engrossing, and in some ways this gave it an advantage over any big-budget films that may succeed it. Whereas they would spend time on back-story, by cutting straight to the shock value of the cannibalistic 'middle part of a possible trilogy' as suggested by an earlier comment, Auf Der Heide could have given a definitive interpretation of it. Time saved on earlier scenes could have been used to give more depth to the inter-group dynamics, leaving the viewer wondering 'who would be voted off next', in a Survivor-like scenario. If you're making a film like this with a low budget, the focus has to be more on the human aspects of the group. For this to work, a strong narrative voice explaining the group dynamics was needed. Pearce would have been ideal for this, but instead we were presented with 'the quiet man', which proved disastrous. Where could the film have succeeded in the context of it having a relatively low budget? How could it have better elicited tension and emotions?· Fleeing the prison- dialogue about having to escape the deadly conditions would have helped us see the need for escape· The decision to resort to cannibalism- the portrayal of how the resources diminish isn't done in a way that builds tension, it's merely documented. Members of the party were unaware whilst the others plotted, and the first murder took place at night while the first victim slept. This scene should have been shot through the ignorant ones' eyes as they wonder what's become of the group.· This could have been followed by dialogue between the two who ran away about how they thought they were next and the plan of their subsequent escape from the group. · Explaining the sub-groups; the miracle of Pearce's survival is that he was the outsider from the point where there was at least 4 left and in theory he should have been next in the pot. A narrative from him detailing these fears could have done wonders.· When it came down to the two men, the pact that took place between the two men to renounce cannibalism has no place in the film. This could have been developed the theme, added to the tension as we question the two men's sincerity or even broken the pervasive silence. · There was no moment of catharsis where he reaches the village and is 'saved', if a man can be saved after what he has been through.Ultimately it's a poor script that failed to bring out the potential of the subject matter or to deliver any character I would either remember (the Alexander Pearce of my memory is the one whose character was explored in the documentary I saw) or whose survival I actually cared about even in the closing scenes of such dramatic potential.
Muldwych
"Wasn't the devil in you when you brought me here?"'Van Diemen's Land' opens up a window into the darker chapters of Australia's convict settlement past, when the British penal colony was a harsh, unforgiving wilderness populated by struggling pioneers and convicts sent to the other side of the earth for stealing so much as a loaf of bread. Once there, repeat offenders might be confined to Sarah Island, a hellish prison camp in Macquarie Harbour in western Van Diemen's Land, now Tasmania. Conditions there were so extreme that in 1822, Irish-born malcontent Alexander Pearce and seven others, tasked with felling the surrounding forests to provide shipbuilders with high-quality wood, attempted to escape their exile. When plans to steal a moored whaling vessel fell through, the escapees, without much aforethought, plunged into the harsh Tasmanian wilderness intending to travel east to Hobart, some 225km away. Although Robert Greenhill, one of the convicts, could draw upon his many years as a sailor to provide navigational expertise, none present knew how to survive in bushland so inhospitable even the indigenous Australians largely avoided it, and when food supplies ran out, they turned to cannibalism. Few of the ill-fated expedition would survive to tell the tale. In 'Van Diemen's Land', we join the convicts on the day of their escape attempt and follow the grizzly events that ensue.The story of Alexander Pearce is perhaps not unsurprisingly missing from the school curriculum in Australia, and it was only through this film that I myself became familiar with this dark chapter of White Australia. 'Van Diemen's Land' inspired me to fire up my browser and learn more, with the realisation that in movie terms, I was watching the middle part of a trilogy. Part 1 would have dealt with Pearce's repeated offences condemning him to slave labour on Sarah Island. There, he would continue to prove unruly for the authorities, practicing his talent for theft and disruption, ultimately finding himself on work detail felling trees in Macquarie Harbour and seeing an opportunity for escape. Part 3 would have dealt with the consequences of his actions, including one final adventure, which the last sequence of 'Van Diemen's Land' briefly covers. Director and co-writer Jonathan auf der Heide, however, appears to be fixated upon the middle part of the story, and while the moment when Pearce acquired a taste for human flesh strikes an undeniable discord with all but perhaps the Korowai tribe of Papua New Guinea, I can't help feeling that it's a little like telling the tale of Ned Kelly focusing only on the killings at Stringybark Creek. Only a few captions either side of the film quickly fill in the blanks, hinting that there is more to the story. Nonetheless, 'Part 2' is well-crafted for what it is and sheds a memorable, yet gloomy light on this hitherto forgotten saga.auf der Heide wisely chooses a cast of unknowns to inhabit the fateful eight, which ensures the audience will accept their alter egos at face value. Oscar Redding, perhaps the best-known, creates an Alexander Pearce just possibly capable of redemption, up until the moment he agrees to sacrifice a member of the party for food, while Arthur Angel portrays a Robert Greenhill you wouldn't want to be within twenty miles of when it came time to sleep. The rest of the cast fill out the remainder of the ill-fated group with similarly creditable performances, with the Scottish characters delivering their lines in Gallic alongside the 18th Century English dialect to underscore Australia's role as a dumping ground for convicts all across the British Isles. The string-powered score, often more sound than symphony, meshes well with the bleak, washed-out picture to strongly evoke the dark mood of the piece. There are no archetypal heroes, only desperate human animals hastening the decay of civilisation's thin veneer. Filmed on location in south-central Tasmania, the authentic natural backdrop does much on its own to sell the concept that the escapees are not only at the end of the earth as they themselves suggest, but that the land is cold and unforgiving - just as much today as it was in 1822. If I have issues with the film, therefore, it's the storyline.By focusing purely upon the escape attempt and the descent into cannibalism, the tale feels reduced somewhat into a B-grade exploitation horror. It doesn't provide suitable build-up to properly explore the choices certain characters make throughout, though the documentation for this does exist. In consequence, I felt the leap to 'the other meat' was a little rushed, reminding me of an early South Park episode where cannibalism is the first rather than last resort. In addition, the full story would be more satisfying than some of the edited highlights 'cannibalised' for the purposes of a thriller. There is far more to the Alexander Drake story than we are witness to in 'Van Diemen's Land'. Undeniably, the issue of runtime comes into play here, however as I suggested earlier, there is enough scope for more than one feature. However, auf der Heide is the first to explore it cinematically, and perhaps this will spark interest in genuine Australian Gothic from here on. It certainly captures the tone and feel of that bleak world, taking strides towards tapping into a rarely explored period of Australian history that perhaps may now be brought to light free of the nationalist veil. Certainly any proud Australian and film fan should see 'Van Diemen's Land' for this purpose, and genre fans everywhere will appreciate what it does achieve. Let's hope it's a taster of things to come.
vikpk
One star for the opening scene - promising, bedazzling view, along with a somewhat mysterious Irish narrative...And that is it. They should have ended it there to save their reputation. What follows is beyond comprehension - slow paced, boring, badly directed one-dimensional flick... There is nothing original about the story... actually there is no story. Eight criminals escape from a labor camp in Tasmania in the early 19th century. Stupidly, and under the circumstances, they don't want to go back, so they proceed with their escape into the uninhabited forest. And begin to kill and eat each other. One is left in the end, winning the cannibalism contest. And why is this story worthwhile a whole feature film? What amazes me is the fascination of the writers and directors with human depravity and degradation which somehow then ends up being glorified through the cinema art form. Of course they will eat each other -- they are criminals after all. Noble things don't come easy to these guys, how much deeper can you go? To this film's sick fascination with cannibalism we must add such enlightening bonuses as male nudity, foul language, violence and gore, and jokes about it and some god dancing with an ax as a final line... torturous experience for the viewer.
