Why, oh why didn't they give these things a little bit more thought? Did they think nobody will notice or care? Or was believability not even a consideration? With all the time and effort that has to go into getting a film up in Australia, you'd think that just a little could be expended on, I don't know, maybe actually MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHEN IT'S SET AND STICKING TO IT.
The book was apparently set in the thirties, but somewhere along the line someone thought it would be a good idea to update the movie to a generic "60s". Why, who knows. More "groovy"? Easier on the art department budget? As it is, they don't even get that right - they include explicitly post-60s elements.
The other problem is, they didn't change the elements of the book that firmly root it in an earlier time. It's conceivable that the old fashioned style of clothing and cars are just indicative of a less sophisticated environment. I'm sure some people in the outback were still driving 1940s cars thirty years later. I must confess, though, that I had assumed it was set in the 50s or earlier until the trail bike showed up. Then I was just confused.
But the big goof that there's just no getting around is the age of the actors in the last scene. The characters in the book were, I suppose, old men. I guess having guys in their forties coming back wouldn't have had exactly the same resonance as men in their sixties. But unless that scene is set in about 2037 or something, it just doesn't add up.
The one thing that absolutely, positively declares the setting is the music. "Who'll Stop the Rain" was recorded by Creedence Clearwater Revival in 1970. Which means that, for a teenager in a cave in regional Australia to be listening to it this can't possibly be the 1960s. AT THE VERY EARLIEST, IT'S DECEMBER 1970. That's before we even consider the makes of motorcycles, which is yet another can of worms.
I'm not sure if the boy's ages were specified, but Misty appeared to me to be about 10. If it was set in 1970, therefore, we can assume he was born about 1960. Max Cullen, the actor who plays Misty in the final scene, was born in 1940, making him a full TWO DECADES TOO OLD for the role if it's set in the present day!
He looks every day of his 67 years in the scene too, which (incidentally) makes it all the more ridiculous that he appears to have not purchased a new pair of spectacle frames in well over half a century!
It's "little" things like this that destroy the suspension of disbelief in a movie and ruin the experience for the audience, which is why I can't understand why they don't just THINK a little before they start shooting. The investment is well worth it.
reply
share