American viewers who expect an old-fashioned story about race in which the minority is treacherous and the white guys are mostly honorable -- "The Birth of a Nation" with African-Americans or "Stagecoach" for Indians -- will be disappointed. So will those looking for a more politically correct story about white arrogance and noble savages -- "Tell Them Will Boy Was Here" or "In The Heat Of the Night".Instead they'll get something more along the lines of William Faulkner's more mature stories, in which race place a central part and there is a history of injustice, but people are people.I don't think I want to get into the plot too much. Jimmy Blacksmith is a handsome, cheerful young man, half white and half Australian Aborigine, industrious and polite. When he leaves the family of the Methodist minister who raised him, he runs into racism in forms that are both petty and materially important.Without much adumbration, there is an explosion of violence involving axe murders and shootings of men, women, and children. We attribute it to racism or, as the Brits call it, racialism. Jimmy feels insulted beyond endurance and finds retribution in murder. But as I write this, a week ago, a twenty-two year old American, went on a killing spree that left seven dead and thirteen wounded. He looked and acted normal, but left behind a long list of complaints about having been mistreated by others and having his importunings turned down by attractive women.Are people like Jimmy Blacksmith and Elliott Rodgers driven to madness by their mistreatment? Or do they decide to kill and then figure out the most logical reasons for feeling the way they do? Both, probably, but to what extent does each process contribute to the act? Deep, isn't it? The film is a reflection of its time. In the 1960s and 70s there were a spate of movies critical of what was sometimes called "the establishment." (Poor Bonny and Clyde, just a couple of kids.) This one isn't so easy. It's ambiguous in the way that life is often ambiguous. You'll have to work at it.

Deals with the antihero that goes over the edge...beyond obvious comprehension. Many miss the point...."he's half white." This film explore what structural racism produces, especially in that individual that seems to have the chance of crossing lines. Instead these are the individuals that are repeatedly humiliated and demeaned by those they are seeking acceptance from. This is the point of the film. It is the potential from the "half breed" that contextualizes the journey to where is own people/ family see him as a devil. He is a man gone rabid...tormented by the world he does not fit. This film is moving on many levels and provides a glimpse into a history foreign to many. A tragedy in the deepest sense.

(Spoilers) Jimmy Blacksmith is a young, half-caste Australian Aborigine who has been raised into adulthood by an English minister and his wife. It is 1901 and, as presented, systemic racism is in full effect. To show concern for the Aborigines the minister is intent on "imbuing one with decent ambition." Being half white gives Jimmy an entry into the minister's world, the thinking being that the white half of him might allow him to turn out acceptably well. Jimmy goes along with the thought and tries to fit into the white world, the outcome being that he is tragically caught between two cultures. The minister, seeing that Jimmy has applied himself to getting an education and worked hard, sends him out into the world with a letter of reference. Jimmy takes on fence building at a couple of farms and both times he is given less compensation than agreed on and then given the boot. Then he takes a position with the local police where he obligingly executes the law, even against his own people. After witnessing a monstrous miscarriage of justice he quits that job. Finally Jimmy winds up working on a sheep ranch.The movie is well paced in that with each indignation Jimmy suffers we see his change in attitude from eagerly trying to join the dominate culture to resenting the abuse he suffers because of his race. With each event I also became more indignant. The fuse was set and a sequence of events at the ranch results in a spontaneous explosion of violence. Many may want to avert their eyes during that scene. It left me with conflicting emotions. Everything that happened was perfectly understandable, but hard to condone. When the bad guy finally gets his in a movie, you can usually accept it since he was the bad guy after all. Here the people who are killed are not necessarily bad people. True, they have bought into an evil doctrine, but how many people are independent thinkers enough to buck societal norms?After the killings Jimmy goes on the lam with his brother Mort. The second half of the film deals with tracking them down. And that is not easy, since Jimmy and Mort are skilled at moving about the countryside, being able to move fast and cover their tracks. As a late attempt to stave off the massive search effort Mort and Jimmy take a hostage, a school teacher. The teacher is the unusual person who cares even to think about the problem of racial oppression and how it can lead to violence. He comments to Jimmy and Mort, "You can't say we haven't given you anything. We've introduced you to alcohol, religion, influenza, measles, syphilis, school. A whole host of improvements."The acting is solid, especially considering that playing Jimmy was Tommy Lewis' first screen appearance. The cinematography is noteworthy, with the Australian countryside being used to great effect.Being an American, English subtitles would have helped me.This is based on real events in the life of one Jimmy Governor. Any fictionalized version of real events is always a bit suspect, but this movie has the feeling of authenticity. I hope that is the case, since the movie deals with topics of such gravity that it would be a sin to rewrite the history to any great extent.

This is a fine example of the breed of excellent Australian films released in the 1970s during the Australian film renaissance (it's interesting to note that virtually all of the directors of these films, including director Fred Schepisi, later moved to the U.S. to make big budget Hollywood films). This tale of a young aboriginal man who eventually turns to violence following one humiliation after another by white settlers in 19th century Australia asks some very uncomfortable questions of the audience such as: Is it morally justified to use violence against a corrupt, racist, violent system in which there are no lawful means to receive justice? Additionally, it is up to interpretation whether the violent reactions of the title character are justified: we are clearly sympathetic to him in the beginning, but once he perpetuates incredible brutality on the settlers, can we remain sympathetic? He is definitely not a monster, but a well-mannered and educated Aboriginal brought up by missionaries. After all, his actions are not simply heat-of-the-moment reactions; he has formally "declared war" on the perpetuators of injustice. Does that legitimize what he is doing? The U.S. has been asking itself these exact same questions for the past 50 years: Jimmy is very much a close Australian cousin to Bigger Thomas, the main character in Richard Wright's classic American novel "Native Son" - a black man pushed to violence by virtually every aspect of white society.However, like Wright, I admired director Schepisi's decision to carefully straddle the line between whether Jimmy can be viewed as a simple societal construct or whether he is a man in control of his own actions. One could easily make a case for either of these scenarios or probably both of them. That makes the movie even more uncomfortable when one thinks about it afterward.In many ways, this is a very depressing movie; in the end there is no closure, no justice, and nobody has learned a damned thing, except possibly the audience, if they truly think about what they have just seen. I really respect filmmakers who tackle incredibly difficult subject matter such as this, with moral quagmires and complex characters. My only complaint is that it is very difficult to understand much of the Aussie English, so an American viewer must listen very closely. This is a film definitely deserving of a U.S. audience. Too bad that its controversial (i.e. thought-provoking) nature has probably prevented it from being released on VHS or DVD in the U.S. I understand copies of this are quite rare abroad, as well, so I suggest viewing it if given the opportunity.