I hate to criticise since I like many of the people involved and I think it's great this subject matter is getting some exposure but this film really just wasn't very good.
I found the acting and the editing to be a bit amateur but that was secondary to the fact that the film was just a bit dull and extremely clumsy in parts.
For example, the dichotomy between her pursuit of justice for the former children and how her own children were being "neglected" in the process was presented in such a cringeworthy way, "i gave you my mammy for christmas" or whatever the line was. Everything was presented in the most simplistic way possible; having a breakdown - smash up the christmas tree, stressed - lets throw in a scene where some of her hair falls out.
I may be nitpicking but they're the main examples that spring to mind and the whole film seemed to be comprised of such moments. There may be little comparison but good directors and actors find a way to make potentially dull films interesting, like The Insider. It requires a subtle touch that was sorely lacking in this picture.
In my opinion, everything about this screamed TV movie. The fact that it dealt with a topic many of us may feel strongly about doesn't automatically make it an 8 or 9 out of 10 movie. Worthy subject matter doesn't make a film inherently worthwhile...or maybe i'm being too harsh?
"Ah da da dah, like this in the background. What the *beep* is it with you?"- Christian Bale
I have to agree, though I think I am slightly biased. I saw "The Leaving of Liverpool" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103471/ in 1992 and 20 years later it is still so vivid that I kept judging this film against it. I found this film nowhere near as hardhitting as TLOL, possibly because the central character was not one of the children involved but a third party who found out about the injustice and wanted to redress it. A noble cause yes, but in the context of a film such characters (and the films surrounding them) are a dime a dozen.
--- I just want sausages and mash and a bit of cake. Not twigs fried in honey or a donkey in a coffin!
I don't think you're being to harsh but it seems that, for whatever reason, you didn't empathize with the characters and their conflicts. I don't know why you found that line cringeworthy. To me it was perfectly genuine as was the entire movie. If you remember, a government flunky had approached her and implored her to stop meddling in other people's families and stop neglecting her own. They were bringing intricate psychological warfare down on her. The entire government, as well as the institutions involved, were hoping she would go away and save them from embarrassment and responsiblity. And because her children did feel neglected, she was under tremendous psychological pressure. I found every moment gripping and thought it a beautifully realized movie overall. The Insider is a thriller. Oranges and Sunshine is basically a psychological drama, which is just not your cup of tea, evidently.
I know this and the Insider are vastly different movies but the point was that on paper neither film amounts to a whole lot but its what you do with the ingredients that determines the quality of the output. It just seems this movie dealt with it in the most obvious way possible and lacked any form of nuance whatsoever. Subject matter of this nature has had the power to move me in the past but it just didn't really work in this instance. Hopefully it does for other people because its an important subject (just dealt with in the clumsiest way imaginable imo)
"Ah da da dah, like this in the background. What the *beep* is it with you?"- Christian Bale
I don't think the film was clumsy or extremly flawed. It just wasn't as hard-hitting as I expected it to be. Someone said it had "TV movie" written all over it and I think I agree. I'm glad I saw it (I agree it's an important subject) but it wasn't a very memorable experience.
...and I think it's great this subject matter is getting some exposure but this film really just wasn't very good.
I agree.
I thought the acting was very good with Emily Watson and Hugo Weaving standouts.
I didn't understand however why the "reasons" for the deportation of children were never investigated/discussed in the film. What we did get was an overload of "I'm a victim micro-stories", with a fair bit of finger-pointing, but not the macro-story of why it took place and how the governments got away with it for as long as they did.
I would have thought the movie deserved a pre-credits summary, but I don't recall even that occurring.
There seemed to be a huge amount of scene jumping between Australia and England with characters popping up in either country seemingly at the drop of a hat, which didn't assist continuity.
A worthy topic for exploring, but I don't think this movie did it justice.
I didn't understand however why the "reasons" for the deportation of children were never investigated/discussed in the film
Hi spookyrat.
I guess expecting this film to present all the reasons behind child migration is like asking the The Great Escape to detail the causes of WW2. Oranges and Sunshine is based on Margaret Humphreys' memoirs Empty Cradles published in 1994. We see events through Margaret's eyes as they unfold for her. When the film begins, she knows nothing about the schemes, and is deeply sceptical. We learn about the facts, as covert and hushed-up as they were, as she learns them. And she's more or less a lone figure juggling the reuniting of families with the uncovering of unsavoury truths.
The sad fact is that fresh information is still emerging. It now appears that a number of children were sexually abused in institutions before they left Britain. There is talk of an international paedophile ring behind some of the child selections: http://www.childmigrantstrust.com/news/calls-for-a-judicial-inquiry-in to-abuse-of-british-child-migrants-in-uk-and-australian-institutions
Oranges and Sunshine isn't a documentary. There have been a number of good documentaries and books/articles over the years. O&S tells the human side of this tragedy, both of the victims and the toll on Margaret. My own feeling is that this film is superb. Beautifully understated, the parallels are subtly done. The only "clunky" moment is when Margaret's little son says at Christmas, "I gave you my mum", but I can forgive that.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain. reply share
I think the film lacks context. It was after all a film about true events.
I certainly wasn't expecting a documentary on those general events occurring between the countries, but I was expecting more than we got dished up here. There's no discussion that I can remember of any of the political, social and historical reasons for what transpired.
There's just a series of episodes of "look what happened to me", "things aren't fair", etc. with Margaret having to spread herself far and wide between England and Australia attempting to remedy situations she encounters.
For me definitely not "superb"! It felt like an All the President's Men trying to be played out with no references to Nixon and the Republican party. It made little sense to me considering the source material the film was based upon.
I'm sorry the film didn't work for you. I understand your frustration at not getting more background and context. The reason why it doesn't bother me is because I don't think an explanation of the politics of child migration was the film's objective. Although the Humphreys came to an early conclusion that an intake of British children would bolster "white Australia", the emphasis is on the personal pain and suffering that such policies caused. Don't forget that the details of the schemes were shrouded in secrecy, and we were on the same voyage of discovery that the Humphreys themselves undertook. I liked that.
As to the film being episodic, well, it only covered a year or two of Margaret's life. There's a beginning, but no middle or end! You get the feeling that her work will go on and on, her task an endless one. In fact, almost 30 years later that has proved to be the case!
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
The settlement of children from childrens' homes in the UK came about for a number of reasons, and was considered to be the best solution to a difficult problem. Britain was virtually bankrupt after WW2 and was faced with the monumental task of getting the country back on its feet with no money to do it. There was a very large number of children in the care of the local authorities and various charities who had to be supported. Many children had been orphaned by the war, others were the victims of broken marriages - fathers who never returned, and others were illegitimate. There was no support either financial or social for unmarried mothers back then - they were pariahs and their children were stigmatized as bastards. There was also a desperate shortage of housing. At that time a family, let alone a single mother, could not go to an agency and rent a house or apartment. Food and fuel were still rationed as were scarce. The winter of 1947 was brutal and the supply of coal just dried up. England was cold wet and miserable.
By contrast, warm sunny Australia was desperate to increase the population. Australia was producing far more food and commodities than it needed, had not suffered the bombing of its cities and was not under pressure. Ergo, a God sent opportunity to solve two problems. Australia kicked in with a heavily subsidized immigration scheme for British settlers, and was willing to take the children to be raised as future citizens. Rather than the biased view of forcible deportation and abuse that some children suffered, we should have had a few success stories. I lived in Australia from 1965 and can tell you that I met many such people who had done very well for themselves and had no regrets.
Whether or not one regards the child emigration scheme as a monstrous cruelty and criminal act, or a golden opportunity for disadvantaged children the film does not give an unbiased view to judge from. We should nit judge actions of the past by the standards of today.
Rather than the biased view of forcible deportation and abuse that some children suffered, we should have had a few success stories. I lived in Australia from 1965 and can tell you that I met many such people who had done very well for themselves and had no regrets.
Yes I agree with your comments. For me, the film lacked an historical context with any degree of depth and then added a storyline which, as you've noted, just focussed totally on doom and gloom episodes. I'm sure the scheme could and should have been handled better at both ends, but this film suggests that it was a total, abject failure, which IMO is incorrect.🐭
reply share
Rather than the biased view of forcible deportation and abuse that some children suffered, we should have had a few success stories. I lived in Australia from 1965 and can tell you that I met many such people who had done very well for themselves and had no regrets.
@spookyrat:
I'm sure the scheme could and should have been handled better at both ends, but this film suggests that it was a total, abject failure, which IMO is incorrect
Hi spookyrat.
I've already posted a lengthy response to emuir's threadstarter elsewhere, but I can't let this go unremarked on, I just can't.
From the end of the war till around 1970, around 3,300 children were sent to Australia alone. The Child Migrants Trust was set up in 1987, and soon became inundated with queries. Here is an excerpt from an article in the Guardian dated 20 February 2010:
...Expecting that the Observer piece, published in July 1987, would bring many more migrants out of the woodwork, Humphreys established the Child Migrants Trust. It received hundreds of queries, all of which Humphreys began to investigate. Four months later the pressure was so great she had to give up the day job she had had for 15 years. When a documentary, Lost Children of Empire, was screened in 1989 the trust was inundated. But even that was nothing compared to the reaction when The Leaving of Liverpool, a dramatisation of the story, was screened in 1992. In Australia the phones were overwhelmed; in Britain helplines received 10,000 calls. http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/feb/20/margaret-humphreys- child-migrants-trust
Maybe not a total abject failure but hardly a runaway success, either. The Trust continues to work to reunite former child migrants with their families (although, sadly, this is fast becoming a lost cause with the passage of time).
I don't want to bang on about this ad nauseum, but can you imagine being shipped half way round the world as a child, told that your parents are either dead or don't care, separated from siblings at the dock, and denied a birth certificate? Even if no further abuse takes place, the foregoing is an abuse in itself.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain. reply share
Maybe not a total abject failure but hardly a runaway success, either.
Well exactly! That's my point.
... told that your parents are either dead or don't care ...
I'm sorry Supergran you state that as if it was never true. The fact is in many instances it was and the degradation of the post-war infrastructure was such that it was not always possible to seek out extended family members.
And why wouldn't there be a lot of inquiries at a later time?
I stand by my comments.
It's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. There is virtually no historical context to the story, which is designed to emotively appeal to those who really are only attracted to one side of the story and not particularly interested in the other side, which emuir discusses.🐭
reply share
I certainly have no wish to argue with you. But I would just like to comment on this, if you don't mind:
told that your parents are either dead or don't care ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Supergran you state that as if it was never true. The fact is in many instances it was and the degradation of the post-war infrastructure was such that it was not always possible to seek out extended family members.
The article in the Guardian that I linked to says this:
Although many were told they were orphans when they left, Humphreys says she has encountered only one, in 23 years, who actually was.
Also, just because children were placed in care by their mothers it doesn't follow that those mothers didn't love them.
I appreciate the difficulties that would be involved in the post-war authorities tracing living family members. However, Margaret Humphreys has managed to do it, even before the advent of online BMD indices. And, given that the motives for sending the children away were not among the purest, one wonders how much effort went into the searching.
I'll finish now. Best wishes.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain. reply share
I'm going to remember many of these kinds of comments the next time some dude is screaming at me about how "nobody cares about male rape victims!!1 eleven!".
Is it too much to ask of people that they set aside nitpicks about production values and how the subject of rape is just too doom and gloom to hold their interest?
It's important that this film got made at all; it should not be held to the same standards of regular fare entertainment. Doing so is unfair to the persons it depicts and the message they need the rest of society to hear.
It's important that this film got made at all; it should not be held to the same standards of regular fare entertainment. Doing so is unfair to the persons it depicts and the message they need the rest of society to hear.
I couldn't agree with you more.
If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic. reply share
It's important that this film got made at all; it should not be held to the same standards of regular fare entertainment.
Laughably naïve! I can't help but think, by your comments, that you haven't read the thread all that closely and I'm certainly not going to go over old ground. I think the thread title says enough.🐭
reply share
Just tried (and failed) to find this movie streaming online free so that I could re-watch the climatic scene and better articulate why it disappointed me so resoundingly!
I agree with Phantom that the topic, while worthy, goes ill-served in this film. There was something disingenuous, almost coy, about the finale, that failed to honor the woman portrayed and her decades of courageous effort. And, along with that, of course, all the displaced & exploited children.
Variation on this theme: The Catholic Church in Ireland had quite the lucrative industry selling off *illegitimate* children for adoption to wealthy Americans (whom they kept pestering for donations annually). And when the poor children grew old enough to return to the Old Sod in search of their blood parents, the Church policy was, "Lie until they die."
There was something disingenuous, almost coy, about the finale, that failed to honor the woman portrayed and her decades of courageous effort. And, along with that, of course, all the displaced & exploited children.
That's an interesting thing to say. I think the film is very understated, which I like very much but others don't, but I didn't think it failed to honour and respect Margaret (who, in real life, is quite a self-effacing woman) and the migrants.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain. reply share
I should note that I speak from way too much experience with Church & State sex-scandal exploitation in the U.S. which informs and perhaps skews my outlook.