I sat through Mary Bryant and I was completely bored. It was a totally overblown and long drawn out saga, heavily padded with long, lingering, meaningless close ups and many trivial mistakes. Without those close ups which added nothing, the piece would have been half as long which would have been better. It was also totally unrealistic and laughable to watch.
In the very first scene Mary (Romola Garai) robbed a women in an isolated wood in Cornwall and then, from nowhere, up came two men and arrested her. That was just funny. It looked for all the world as if the robbed woman had called the police on her mobile. Where did they come from? How did they get there?
Then Mary was sentenced to go to Australia, and the appalling conditions on the boat were depicted in great detail. People were starving and dying of disease, the lucky ones survived.
Mary's baby was born on this boat and then arrived at Sydney Cove fit, clean and healthy. Yes, Mary's baby truly did survive this voyage, presumably fed by Mary, but if Mary herself was starving, how was the baby so bouncing? In spite of the desperate hunger and hardship the baby then grew up to be quite a sturdy little girl (Charlotte).
At Sydney Cove there was one scene where a character wrote a list of supplies with what looked suspiciously like a ball point pen, it could have been a fountain pen, but it certainly wasn't a quill pen. The quills appeared later.
Then Mary Bryant had another baby. This one also thrived and stayed healthy looking throughout the drama never losing any weight during it's long 3,000 mile journey in a boat with few supplies and what did they do for water? In fact none of the actors lost so much as an ounce on that long journey. They did have signs of scurvy at one point but that miraculously disappeared in sight of land. Also realistically their white skins would have been terribly burnt in that open boat. Why was that not shown?
The scenes in Timor were just ludicrous. Jack Davenport (as Lt. Ralph Clarke) is always worth watching, but even his endless close-ups began to pall, and Mary Bryant's husband (Alex O'Loughlin) was very handsome in a 2006 way and had cosmetically perfect, shiny, white teeth which helped very much with his close-ups, but added not atouch of realism to the drama.
Romola Garai was great in "I captured the Castle", but I did get tired of staring at close ups of her. Her expressions were rather blank as well.
As befits British people arriving in Australia the convicts all had British accents, bar one, actor David Field, who had an Australian accent, however he was one of the few convincing looking convicts. I don't expect accents to be uniform, but uniformly British would be desirable.
As this was a true story I stayed with it in order to see what happened to Mary.
At the end Mary Bryant all dressed up, clean and looking not a minute older, returned to Cornwall. Presumably she had received financial assistance, however she had absolutely no luggage. With nothing in her hand at all, she walked cheerfully down to her village, which we never see (and in which she was originally starving) and then we do not know what happens to her. Not even a little hint in the credits at the end.
I think when actors are portraying great suffering they should miss a few meals on location and perhaps a smaller baby could be used to show malnutrition. I also expect more from the make-up department. I do not expect the children to be starved for the role, but perhaps less bonny looking children could be used, and less obviously well fed actors.
A lot of money went into this production but God is in the details and the details weren't there.
My husband's comment was "Well I'll sleep well tonight!"
In the very first scene Mary (Romola Garai) robbed a women in an isolated wood in Cornwall and then, from nowhere, up came two men and arrested her. That was just funny. It looked for all the world as if the robbed woman had called the police on her mobile. Where did they come from? How did they get there?
Then Mary was sentenced to go to Australia, and the appalling conditions on the boat were depicted in great detail. People were starving and dying of disease, the lucky ones survived.
Mary's baby was born on this boat and then arrived at Sydney Cove fit, clean and healthy. Yes, Mary's baby truly did survive this voyage, presumably fed by Mary, but if Mary herself was starving, how was the baby so bouncing? In spite of the desperate hunger and hardship the baby then grew up to be quite a sturdy little girl (Charlotte).
At Sydney Cove there was one scene where a character wrote a list of supplies with what looked suspiciously like a ball point pen, it could have been a fountain pen, but it certainly wasn't a quill pen. The quills appeared later.
Then Mary Bryant had another baby. This one also thrived and stayed healthy looking throughout the drama never losing any weight during it's long 3,000 mile journey in a boat with few supplies and what did they do for water? In fact none of the actors lost so much as an ounce on that long journey. They did have signs of scurvy at one point but that miraculously disappeared in sight of land. Also realistically their white skins would have been terribly burnt in that open boat. Why was that not shown?
The scenes in Timor were just ludicrous. Jack Davenport (as Lt. Ralph Clarke) is always worth watching, but even his endless close-ups began to pall, and Mary Bryant's husband (Alex O'Loughlin) was very handsome in a 2006 way and had cosmetically perfect, shiny, white teeth which helped very much with his close-ups, but added not atouch of realism to the drama.
Romola Garai was great in "I captured the Castle", but I did get tired of staring at close ups of her. Her expressions were rather blank as well.
As befits British people arriving in Australia the convicts all had British accents, bar one, actor David Field, who had an Australian accent, however he was one of the few convincing looking convicts. I don't expect accents to be uniform, but uniformly British would be desirable.
As this was a true story I stayed with it in order to see what happened to Mary.
At the end Mary Bryant all dressed up, clean and looking not a minute older, returned to Cornwall. Presumably she had received financial assistance, however she had absolutely no luggage. With nothing in her hand at all, she walked cheerfully down to her village, which we never see (and in which she was originally starving) and then we do not know what happens to her. Not even a little hint in the credits at the end.
I think when actors are portraying great suffering they should miss a few meals on location and perhaps a smaller baby could be used to show malnutrition. I also expect more from the make-up department. I do not expect the children to be starved for the role, but perhaps less bonny looking children could be used, and less obviously well fed actors.
A lot of money went into this production but God is in the details and the details weren't there.
My husband's comment was "Well I'll sleep well tonight!"