note: the following critique may contain images and/or the names of Australian Aboriginal people who are currently deceased.
I became aware of this film many years ago but never got around to watching it, and if I were to be frank, it’s taken a project like this to prod me into seeing it. However there are always certain things that I have to do for each selection before I can sit down and watch it, and for this title I’ll share some of these steps. First, I ‘ll look up the title on IMDB to see who directed the film, which in this case was Bruce Beresford. Based off the information found on IMDB, Wikipedia and elsewhere it’s pretty clear that he’s Australian. Second, I’ll check the filming locations on IMDB which in this case indicated that the film was shot in Queensland. Nothing that I’ve encountered anywhere else on the Internet has contradicted this and generally I’ve been able to faithfully accept this information on IMDB without any issues. Third, I have to confirm the national identity of the performers. And all I’m looking for here is simply any bit of information from a trusted source that established were they’re from or even where they’ve spent most of their life. If IMDB lists where they were born, most of the time I’ll just rely on this. In some cases I may have to search pretty extensively on the Internet to find articles that contain this information. Typically I do this for the top-billed performers and after confirming a handful of actors or actresses, I’m good.
Once the selection criteria are verified I have to figure out how to access the film. Fourth, I’ll check the production companies link on IMDB to see if there was any US distribution. In this case Atlantic Releasing handled the theatrical distribution while Sony Pictures Home Entertainment put out a VHS copy of the film in 1987. I did briefly investigate any possible theatrical release, but for some strange reason BoxOfficeMojo.com didn’t list any information for this title. I know that Roger Ebert and Canadian film critic Michael Walsh (2) wrote reviews of this film in the early part of 1987, and I don’t see any reason why they would have done this had the film not been shown in theaters. Fifth, I went to worldcat.org to research any library holdings. Here I was able to confirm that the only home media distribution to the US was Sony’s 1987 VHS release which is currently being held at only two libraries in all of Illinois. Both though were within 40 miles of where I live. Sixth, I investigated any online options to access the film through either the ‘used home media’ market or through streaming. Simple Google searches that included the film’s title combined with either ‘VHS’ or ‘online streaming’ gave me the information that I needed. While I could confirm that the title was available on Amazon Prime, it wasn’t available in the region where I lived. I did find other sites where I could access the film and even download a copy to watch offline. Seventh, I contemplated whether or not I should download a copy at the risk of being branded a nefarious infringer of peoples’ copyright. … … … Oh! what the hell, let’s do it! Eighth, in the interim between downloading the film and watching it, I had to resist all temptation to change my selection to Cane Toads: An Unnatural Film. I have to hand it to you Australia, that Cane Toads movie was a real fun one. And you know what, now that I think about it I haven’t done a documentary film so far in this series … … …. …., no, no!, I can’t do a 40 minute film about toads!, I should do a proper film. Ninth, I have to write an introduction for this piece and I should try to come up with something interesting that I haven’t done before in order to keep this series from getting stale. Perhaps I could talk a bit about the stuff that I have to do behind the scenes when I write a critique. People might like that.
Speaking from a purely technical viewpoint I generally found favor with the way this film was shot. The mise-en-scène was often quite exquisite and the film displayed a good mixture of vantage points and camera angles that often exhibited a certain creative flair. For instance when the girls were in the fish and chips shop, one saw a shot of them from the empty table that they were not granted permission to sit at. Typically the scenes were shot from a moderate distance which suggested an intent to incorporate the encompassing environment in which the characters lived. Early in the film one could argue that this helped capture the rustic, impoverished nature of the family’s home. Although at times the filmmakers relied too much on this approach. In the scene where Trilby and Phil discussed their future together, there was never any transition to a close-up shot in order to put more emphasis on the acting during what was an important moment in the character development. This decision seemed rather baffling. Another peculiar facet of the camerawork was the use of low angles on the action with its upward tilted perspective adding an aura of prominence and stature to the characters in the film. This quality clashed with the main characters’ social status enough to where I felt as if camera was compensating for how they were often seen by others. It was as if the film was artificially attempting to glorify the downtrodden and the marginalized.
The use of motion was excellent especially with its numerous moving takes of a character entering a building which I thought were interesting shots. The zoom in pans were also executed gracefully which one can see in the scene where Joe returned home one evening resulting in an absolutely beautifully framed shot as his daughters swarmed him in an effort to convince him to visit the housing commission. I also liked the zoom in movement during Eva’s monologue which made her speech seem rather intense. Although I didn’t like the inter-cutting of this scene with a shot of Trilby listening in from a distance. While the filmmakers generally captured a good pace to the story, the editing and sequencing at times could have been better. For instance between the two lengthy classroom scenes involving Trilby and Bartie, why was there a 10 second clip of a male patient flirting with Noonah at the hospital? Given the poor rhythm of these three scenes, the hospital scene felt like random, inconsequential filler.
Another mild complaint could be directed towards the audio quality of the film which clearly indicated at times spoken dialogue that was poorly dubbed in post production. Not only did this make the film seem like a lightweight, amateur effort, but it may have negatively affected my view of the acting. While I wouldn’t necessarily say that the acting was horrible, there were noticeable deficiencies. Line deliveries often felt a little flat and were not performed with a great deal of conviction or style. There were times where I certainly felt this in regards to Kylie Belling’s performance as Noonah. It was as if she was merely reciting her lines and not ‘performing’ them. Her physical acting was also a bit too sterile and rigid. In the scene where the daughters beseeched Joe to visit the housing commission there was a sharp difference in how both Trilby and Noonah acted. Later in the film when she had to assist in the care of an aboriginal child, her performance managed to be both sappy and banal. At the end of the film she did show some promise with the emotion of seeing her father again, but apart from this the performance wasn’t particularly captivating. Ernie Dingo managed to inject a bit more charm into his performance of Phil, but much like Belling, it was generally too conventional and placid. Combined with his modest amount of screen time and how some of his scenes were shot, it didn’t leave much of an impression.
The actress who played Mollie also struggled with her “funny old words” monologue at the hospital. While she delivered this with some good inflection and changes in tone, at her meticulous pace she really lumbered through that speech. Granted I thought the whole bit was a tad too long, rambling and unfocused which suggested that the performers didn’t always have good material to work with. If anything Mollie was better in her nonverbal acting. The slight look of sorrow that she gave after Joe had left was flawless. I also thought highly of her sudden stark reaction when Joe suggested to have Charlie’s family live with them. Honestly she did some splendid work when playing off the actor who played Joe, who really brought the best out of her performance. You really see this in the scene where she got angry at him for breaking her furniture. In the scenes between the parents Mollie brought a lot more charm and fervor to the film. And yet the actress played the role with enough depth to where she portrayed a different side to the character in her scenes with Trilby. Here Mollie seemed more pleasant and good-mannered, with a touch of geriatric feebleness. As for the actor who played Joe it was hard for me to formulate an opinion about his performance, since early on he was so causal and laid-back in the role that it really didn’t leave much of an impression. Granted I still liked the coy smile in his first scene when he explained that he could put off his work until Monday. I also enjoyed the sly, sardonic manner in which he delivered the line “Work?” when first discussing their new home. There were small doses of personality that offered some evidence of the actor’s true talent as a performer. Towards the end he had more presence in the film during the family fight scene and the poker game and I thought he did solid work in both. He also showed some good emotion when reuniting with the rest of his family.
As for some of the supporting roles, I thought there was good work from Michelle Torres, in the role Audrena, who for me stood out with some better inflection and personality in her line deliveries and in her nonverbal, physical acting. She did an especially good job of establishing her character as a cynical, rabble rouser who late in the film effectively instigated its one true moment of dramatic intensity. I also liked the performance of the actor who played Skippy. There was something about the strange texture of his voice and/or the awkward cadence of how he delivered his lines that appealed to me. It was a unique and distinctive performance that managed to be accidentally charming.
Kristina Nehm, as Trilby, though was the standout performer here, portraying what was easily the most interesting character in the film. I liked the subtle swagger and attitude that she displayed when paying for her drinks in the fish and chips shop. She got this moment completely correct and would consistently play a rebellious, defiant character with great verve. When trying to convince her parents to get a new home Nehm often carried a wonderfully stern and persistent visage that effortlessly expressed that this was a person who gets what she aims for. It was also an incredibly nuanced portrayal that saw Nehm act with outright giddy zeal at the prospect of living in a new home with modern amenities and yet saw her just as assuredly withdraw into a reflective, sullen disposition when she got pregnant. There was certainly more conviction and passion in how she played her role when compared to the other performers and it was the pride of the character that really made her stand out. And for Trilby pride wasn’t just about not being treated like an inferior, but also about not benefiting from any special treatment either. Since Nehm was so committed to the latter, it allowed the film to probe deeper into the complexities and nuances of race relations.
During a scene between Trilby and a school administrator, she delivered the most salient and resonant line of dialogue as Trilby openly questioned her social status in the country. This easily allowed one to view the narrative as being about the plight of Aboriginals in their aim of becoming Australian. I thought this was an interesting concept for the film, even if did show potential in becoming a tame comedy of manners as seen during a discussion between Trilby and Mollie in the middle portion of the film. Although an even greater misstep was taken in the ultimate abdication of this premise as the filmmakers transformed The Fringe Dwellers into an overwrought family melodrama in the latter stages of the film.
Prior to this the film could be applauded for chronicling the racial tension of present day Australia and for doing so in a manner that was candid and unflinching and which didn’t shy away from its complex intricacies. In the fish and chips scene alone, one encountered various shades of racism, from the subtle, implicit racism of the staff in her suggestion that they consume their drinks at the counter, to the more overt racism of the other patrons’ catty remarks, to the benign, subconscious racism of the gentleman who felt it necessary to defend the presence of the Aboriginals.
On the other hand the film could also be interpreted as participating in the same type of subtle, benign racism that it gave expression to. If unfounded notions of inferiority are an essential element of racism, such notions (nor matter how valid that they may appear to be) seem like a given when people are viewed through the prism of first world, capitalist virtues, which was the main perspective of this film. It is not difficult to see that the film clearly showed favor with life in the affluent, white community as opposed to life in the bush. A move to the former was cast as a step upward in social standing. The film also made note of the poverty and the lack of education of Aboriginal characters. In the case of Noonah, it showed how people were subjected to white standards for professional success. It also doesn’t help that the film showed Aboriginal characters in the midst of a long-term process of cultural assimilation. The Aboriginal characters all spoke English. They dressed in ‘Western’ attire. They possessed furniture and other material belongings that were worthy of being held on to. They went to school and engaged in modern labor trades. They played cards, a leisure activity that they clearly adopted from white culture. All of this emboldened and validated the dominant culture perspective of the film.
Overall The Fringe Dwellers suffered from an obvious lack of quality in certain areas that kept me from thinking of it as an excellent film. The fact that it attempted to tackle issues of racial inequality was probably its’ most interesting aspect and would currently offer the best reason for one to sit down and watch it today.