Reviews

*** for some weird reason every time I publish this review IMDb's edit program changes the lead actress' name to Maya Strange, despite her being present on IMDb as her real name, so I've had to spell out and space her name***

The title of this review is drawn from an Urbancinefile interview with the director Bill Bennett: "I don't know if "In a Savage Land" is mainstream … it's a thinking person's film ... look at Dr Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia, or The Piano – they're all thinking people's films." I think that quote sums this film up very well.

I was surprised that this film did poorly during it's Australian release. As Michael Roche noted ("Exploiting The Exotic - A Cinematic Journey Into Darkness", Metro Magazine, 8-2-2000, No 121/122, pp 125 - 128): "it looks destined to be remembered as a critical and commercial flop ... attract(ing) poor reviews before vanishing from Australian cinemas only three weeks after its release".

Some people have argued this was due to poor marketing and that could be the case, because it would have been a tricky film to market. "Thinking Person's films" often are. Others have targeted it's script (Greg King's review calling the film "plodding, lack(ing) any real sense of passion and emotional depth").

For whatever reason, the film certainly seems to have vanished from public awareness. When checking IMDb today I was amazed to see how few reviews remain here to encourage others to seek the film out. I only write reviews here when I really have something to say. Time to add this film to my very short review list!

I found "In a Savage Land" quite extraordinary.

Let's take the location first.

The director apparently found photos as a child, taken in the Trobriand Islands in New Guinea by relatives in the Australian Army during WW2. I understand his fascination, and desire to engage with the culture he saw in those images. I spent time there as a child when my mother studied local languages during a teaching contract in TPNG . So the film resonated on several levels.

Life was on the cusp of change when I was there, just before Independence. I remember the missionaries had had more success by then (than the pre WW2 period depicted in the film) ... grass skirts had been replaced by Western garments, for example. So it was quite magical to see local tribal society depicted more traditionally. Cinematographer Danny Ruhlmann's work was just stunning.

Having been there meant I knew how much hard work must have gone on behind the scenes (later confirmed by Michael Roche) to make the film in that remote and extremely isolated location.

So back to what makes it a "thinking person's film". There has been some criticism of the script, and especially the love story. It's not perfect but I didn't find it plodding and I found it full of passion.

I can certainly confirm European anthropologists and missionaries did swan in with the kind of stilted and pompous arrogance depicted - often studying sex as shown here - and that some came out the other end of their experience vastly changed. Perhaps not quite as changed as this story depicts, despite the fact the film is supposed to be a "true story". But my God, what a role for young actor Maya S t a n g e, who was deservedly nominated for the AFI's Best Actress award for this film.

Greg King writes that "In her first major film appearance, S t a n g e delivers a solid performance in a quite complex and emotionally demanding role, and she carries the film". He's not exaggerating the "complex and emotionally demanding" bit. I remember S t a n g e saying in an interview on Urbancinefile: "I knew this would be confronting and testing. I expected I would lose the plot at some point and I was a bit disappointed when I didn't ... Playing a role that is emotionally demanding can put you into an irrational head space in yourself, making it difficult to operate with the technical demands of filmmaking while keeping emotionally on track ... As an actress, you live a thousand lives and you learn to experience things you wouldn't otherwise. It's always a life changing experience – and this is an extreme case".

I was certainly convinced by her acting and the story being told. There has also been criticism that the director allowed a slightly happier ending to be tacked on after testing the film on an American audience. I hope some day to see the original ending but am glad I saw the "happy ending" version in the cinema, because I was involved enough by the end of the film to need it.

I've kept an eye out for the team that made "In a Savage Land" including Maya S t a n g e and I regret that they've done so little since this film. The director has finally made another feature film (in 2010 ... again set on an island, the man must be a masochist) but his wife (who co-wrote "In a Savage Land" and of whom I have been a fan since 1973) and even Maya S t a n g e (since her AFI Best Supporting Actress nomination for "Garage Days" in 2002) have done little. I sincerely hope I'll hear about something they are each working on soon, because otherwise the waste of talent is criminal.

Final word: if you are a "thinking person" and have the chance to see this film, do. I think you'll enjoy it. If you can't get hold of the film, there are some short videos on YouTube that will give you a feel for it.

Apologies to other reviewers here who find terms like "brave" and "courageous" unhelpful - Book of Revelation was all of those things to me, and much more.

This film took perhaps the most difficult subject I have seen raised in cinema - male rape and torture by a group of women - and confronted it. From its original source material to its script to its director to its casting - to say nothing of its final audience - it was never going to please everyone. Nor was it going to be perfect. But it sure as hell raised the profile of its subject matter and made its audience think.

It is not easy to review in detail, but it certainly is easy to say: seek it out and watch it. Its difficult to watch in places, but it is important both for its subject and as an example of film making. It's director is innovative and always interesting. It's cast is great. It's score ... despite some comments here ... is excellent.

I won't provide plot details, there are enough of them in the surrounding reviews. I would like, though, to point out that the original novel was extraordinarily powerful, the technique of a first person narrative with the exception of the section about his captivity (which reverts to third person and so takes us outside the victim's mind) working very well. While this could not be transferred to a screenplay I think the remnants of it are responsible (for some reviewers) for patches of seemingly stilted dialogue where the internal monologue was removed.

In regard to the issues of Daniel and his abductors, the book differed somewhat. Although little was given from their point of view, I found the relationships Daniel built with them very important. I regret not only that these were hardly touched upon in the screenplay but that the length of his captivity (which created a longer environment for those relationships to form) was significantly reduced. I would have liked to have seen more of what he experienced in captivity and his dialogues with his abductors utilized, although I can understand why this would have been very tricky. To show the further tortures and sexual assaults he endured - and upped the sensual nature of his captors - may well have made the film unbearable for many, as well as increased the "pornographic" element for those who have sadly seen the film in those terms.

But these are small issues in a very powerful film. I found his psychological damage - and the ways (both negative and positive) he dealt with that damage - very realistically portrayed. Why reviewers worldwide have sought - and criticized the film for not revealing - the motives of his abductors amazes me. When are the motives for sexual assault ever given? You get along with your life without knowing them. To me the gender element became almost irrelevant: it was Daniel's journey during and after his captivity which captured, and continues to haunt, me.

Sincere congratulations and commendations to all involved.

All the important points about this film have been well covered by other reviewers, so I would like instead to draw your attention to a smaller sub text that is well worth keeping an eye on within the film's wider themes:

Animals are utilized in incredibly effective ways in this film, from the horror of watching piles of burning cattle carcasses in the countryside (drawing our attention to environmental / food disasters) to Theo's surreal encounter with a startled deer within a long abandoned school (reminding us we now exist in a world where the teaching of the next generation is no longer an issue). And of course domestic animals such as cats and dogs are shown everywhere, their presence as pets providing comfort for the children missing from everyone's lives.

Watching animals respond to Theo is something else again. I am sure I missed many of these small interactions because they often occurred during important scenes when my attention was focused on wider issues. But do watch for how pets react to him and follow him, often wanting to get as close to him as possible - for example, he invariably has a cat asleep behind him on the couch at Jasper's, and watch for the tiny kitten with sharp claws that determinedly climbs his trouser leg during a political meeting.

These interactions are never elaborated upon, nor can I recall if they featured in the original P D James' book. They can easily be missed as one gets caught up in the drama of the story. But I found they provided an excellent devise for moments of unexpected humour as well as insight into Theo's character, and most importantly revealed yet another example of the director's extraordinary attention to detail in this very impressive, and very moving, film.

What is interesting about adding a comment about Kundun in 2001, is to see how over the years since it's release, there have been so few reviews or comments from Buddhists. I would have very much like to have read their thoughts about this film.

I found it to be an utter joy to watch, and greatly appreciated the effort that has gone into every aspect of the production, from adapting parts of His Holiness's 1990 autobiography "Freedom in Exile" to the intricate sand mandalas edited so effectively into the film. I find comparisons to films like "Seven Years in Tibet" hilarious. This is not a film about Heinrich Harrer, it's a film about His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Are we saying that every European that made it to Tibet prior to 1959 should be featured in the personal story of the 14th Dalai Lama?! What amazing Eurocentric arrogance!

This is a film that has been made with great care and great love and great reverence. Everyone - and I really mean everyone - associated with it has my overwhelming thanks for making the richness and beauty of Tibetan culture and Tibetan Buddhism, and the life story of His Holiness, accessible to us all. As Phillip Glass says in a recent interview with Vickie MacKenzie "Kundun provided a document of a world that no longer exists...a world which is not recoverable".

Glass goes on to tell the story of a young Tibetan woman watching the filming of Kundun: "did it really look like that?"[she asked an older Tibetan friend] "Yes, it did". "Our culture was really that rich?". "Yes, it was" and Glass remembers how she cried.

It was an honour and a privilege to see this film.