Jim's Film Festival Diary for Friday, April 7th

I mean, I do know what it was literally about. The story follows a man named Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce), a member of the notorious Burns gang. The gang is a familial force of lawlessness throughout the deathly hot, fly-infested, desert-like lands of the outback, and lawman Stanley (Ray Winstone) means to stop them and bring order to the area. The film opens with a brutal, bloody gun battle (and there's plenty more blood and brutality to come) during which Stanley captures Charlie and his younger brother, the weak and defenseless Mikey. He offers Charlie a proposition (thus the title of the film): find, shoot, and kill the leader of the gang (and their elder brother) Arthur, and Charlie and Mikey will be released with full pardons. Fail to do this, and Mikey will hang on Christmas Day. Charlie accepts and sets out immediately. But what will he do when he finds his brother? And what will Stanley do if his wife (Emily Watson) and fellow townspeople find out that he's let one of the terrible Burns gang go?

The story is pretty easy to follow, and intriguing. The acting is good, the photography is impressive, the soundtrack is effective and interesting. But why tell this story? What's the point? Is it just to show us a lot of people doing terrible things to each other for a while? And who are these people, anyway? Winstone's Stanley comes into strong focus as a man who wants desperately to protect his wife from the evils of the world by eradicating them from this land, but who lacks the strength sometimes to do what needs to be done. But Charlie, who appears to be the main character, never really solidifies for me. He and Mikey were both a part of the gang for some time and we must suppose took part in at least some of the gang's terrible deeds (which include the ruthless slaughter of a family, and the rape of the woman). But the film does not go into the details of this at all, thus allowing us, rather cheaply and unfairly, to sympathize with Charlie and Mikey. We don't know why Charlie left the gang - perhaps because he was horrified by the wanton atrocities Arthur committed? Is that why he agreed to kill Arthur - because he knew he had to be stopped? It's hard to say. (Warning: Some spoilers coming up.) Upon finding him, Charlie is unable to do the deed right away, I assume because Arthur is his brother and he still has some feelings for him. When he discovers Arthur in the midst of another awful act, however, he finally finds the strength to do him in.

But really, I made all of that up to fill in the blanks. In fact we get almost no insight into Charlie's thoughts and self at all. I like the idea of having a character whose motives we must infer by his actions alone, but I don't think we're given quite enough to go on here. Meanwhile, Arthur spouts ridiculous monologues about love and family, and then goes around slaughtering people. What's his deal? Is he just crazy? And why is John Hurt's bounty hunter character in the movie at all? Just so Hurt can read a few poetical lines in that incredible voice of his?

Ultimately we watch these puzzling characters wander about for a time, hurting and killing each other, and then the film ends. If we have learned anything, it's the old lesson that people can be really nasty to other people. Which is a good lesson to learn, I suppose, and well taught here. The film is undeniably entertaining, and I really did like it. I just can't shake the odd feeling that there's not much reason for it to exist.
Festival rating: Good

Image via the DIY Walk of Fame at Boutell.com