well done all, and happy holidays!

Final grades will be posted before midnight tonight.

I thought you all might enjoy reading the blog that Kerry and Lauren created for the creative project, at http://aussiegabba.blogspot.com/.

I have finally caught up on these blog posts and wanted to say I appreciate the effort and interest displayed in them. This blog will stay online indefinitely and is open to the public, so feel free to come visit again.

Hope you all have a safe and enjoyable winter break!

Peg A.

Let Us Go Then You and I...

Before the semester ends and we go off for the holidays, I wanted to put up one more post. It's pretty much just a recommendation for a movie you might enjoy: Till Human Voices Wake Us.
It's a drama, but I would also consider it a bit of a romantic mystery.
In this film, Sam and Dr. Sam Franks (Guy Pierce) is a stable, emotionally guarded man who returns Victoria, Australia. This is where he grew up, found his first love, and lost her through a tragic accident.
Stay with me -- this is not your typical love story.

When Sam comes back as an adult, he must face these ghosts of the past, quite literally. Enter Ruby, a woman he encounters whom he suspects is more than she claims to be...


I'd hate to put the "..." on you but I don't want to give too much away. If you haven't seen Til Human Voices Wake Us, I'd highly recommend it. It has stunning scenery, characters with depth, and a unique storyline.

If nothing else, read some of "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," the poem by T.S Elliot on which the title (and some elements of the poem) are based.
It's quite long, but very beautiful. Here is the beginning:

LET us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherised upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats	5
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question …	10
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.

Anyways, have a lovely break everyone!

PS - Tonight I'm bringing pie. It's no Sweetie Pie, but it's got some quality fruit in it.

Over the Rainbow

Growing up with an older sister who adored The Wizard of Oz and a family that eventually became centered around performing in and auditioning for musicals, "Over the Rainbow," while I never hated it, was a song that came to be overdone and performed on way too many occasions, by people who were just not talented enough to do it any justice. Harsh, I know, but true. As a result, it was a song that I came to like less and less.
Then, I was introduced to Israel Kamakawiwoʻole’s version of “Over the Rainbow” through movies like Finding Forrester and You’ve Got Mail, among others. Not to forget this precious Rice Krispies commercial. Thanks to Mr. Kamakawiwo’ole my love for the song was renewed. The first few films I saw the song used in used it quite well and I was always pleased to hear it. Happy to hear the version of a great song that made me love it as though it was new. That is, until his version too became overplayed and didn’t quite pack the same punch as it had the first time I had heard the song.
And yet again, my love for “Over the Rainbow” has been reborn. Thank you Mr. Luhrmann for showing me the song in a new light. Hearing the song played on the harmonica, especially toward the end when Nullah was playing it on the front of the boat as he, The Drover, and the other mission children returned from the island, nearly gave me chills. It was haunting, beautiful, and romantic. It was wistful, but hopeful and, for me, enhanced the moments of the film when it was heard in ways I cannot eloquently describe.

Despite my best efforts I couldn’t find any online version of the harmonica rendition of “Over The Rainbow,” but a small bit of information about the soundtrack can be found here.

Check out some interesting facts about the song here.

Writing Australia in Tasmania

Not sure if another Australia review is what this blog needed so… Adventure Magazine included an article this month about Richard Flanagan, the Tasmanian novelist and leading conservationist, who spent two years working and writing Australia with Baz Luhrmann. Tasmania (according to this map below) is an Australian island located south of eastern half of the rest of the continent. From the pictures I’ve seen of the island, it is absolutely breathtaking. However, I think its landscape has more of a New Zealand resemblance than an Australian one.

Anyways, in the article, here, Flanagan describes his initial work and creative experiences with Luhrmann. Flanagan explains, “I had no idea how to work with Baz, and I don’t think he had any idea how to work with me. He first came to see me in Tasmania, at my shack on Burnby Island, where it’s so quiet I can identify the birds by the sound of their wings. My home’s surrounded by kangaroos and penguins. We drank, told stories, made up new stories, and eventually a third creative force arose that was neither me nor him but that we both liked. And we discovered, rather improbably, that we liked each other too.” I thought this explanation of Flanagan’s work environment was intriguing and so ideal. What a perfect place to write such a film.

I also did some research about film production in Tasmania. After see the grandeur and scale of the landscape, I was surprised that I hadn’t heard of any large productions being based within Tasmania. I found Screen Tasmania, which is the “State Government agency responsible for supporting and developing the state’s film, television and multimedia industries by increasing the amount of independent screen production occurring in Tasmania. “ – Screen Tasmania. I couldn’t find any current production information, but found information about specific productions the agency had support in the past. The financial support and funding provided though this agency is very similar of that of The Australian Film Commission, which as of May 2007 has been replaced by an agency called Screen Australia!!!

A Cinematic Extravaganza

I've given myself several days to process Australia, but I'm still a bit befuddled. I don't know what specific facet or aspect of the film to write about with focused concentration. It has been interesting to read my classmates' reviews and Australia-related blog posts before and after watching the film. I think I would be best suited at the moment to just share my general impressions of the cinematic extravaganza.

First, I'll try to focus on the positives that I took away from the film. As has been noted in another blog post, the film is visually captivating. I can't deny that the color schemes and special effects are awe-inspiring. Knowing that Baz Luhrman is responsible for Moulin Rouge, I was worried that Australia would be too over-stylized to enjoy on any level. I was pleasantly surprised (although I had lowered my expectations after reading some of the early feedback posted by my classmates). Now that I think about it, I think that having a forewarning of sorts helped me to enjoy the film more than I otherwise would have. I was expecting a campy, over-done, overly ambitious film... and I got exactly what I was expecting, more or less. The only other positives that I can recall are watching Wolverine return to his Australian roots, getting to see David Gulpilil's familiar (although drastically aged) visage, and being introduced to the young actor that played Nullah.

I don't know whether I'm in the minority or not, but I feel like I was not exposed to a lot of advertisements for Australia before its release or before I went to see it. Even now, after having seen it, I still don't feel like I'm exposed to a lot of advertisements for the film. My girlfriend has, apparently, and she mentioned something interesting after Australia finally ended. The young actor who plays Nullah recieves virtually no attention in the majority of the advertisements that she has seen. I find it curious that the young actor recieves such little attention, especially considering that he puts forth (what I thought was) the best performance in the film... and the film, as the text that bookends it suggests, is narratively strung together by the plight of the stolen generation.

In terms of the negatives that I took away from the film...

While I can identify all of the Australian trademarks in Australia (except for mateship), and the Australian landscape dominated so many hours of screen time, I still don't feel like the film was that Australian in terms of tone or genre. The first half felt like an American Western, and the second half felt like Pearl Habor only set in Darwin. I think that the running time of Australia hurts it or will hurt its success in America. I know I have ADD as an audience member, and I found that I felt lost or confused at multiple points throughout Australia because there was so much to keep tabs on. Luhrman needed to trim the fat a bit more and decide which story he wanted to tell and which movie he wanted to make. Other things that didn't sit well with me were instances of contrived timing (e.g: Drover arriving just as Kidman's character wonders aloud where she will find a driver, the Japanese arriving at Mission Island at the same time as Drover and the rescue crew, etc. etc.) and music that counteracted the mood (e.g: all of the uplifting music during the various and many deaths... The music that plays during the drunk bookkeeper's death scene feels quite uplifting to me).

All in all, it wasn't a movie I would have ever seen had I not been assigned to see it. It's also not a movie I would ever watch again, or at least not in the near future. However, having had a forewarning of sorts from my classmates and consequently altering my expectations, I was able to enjoy Australia more than it seems that some others have. I'll update this blog post with a picture and links to make it "legitimate" in the next couple of days.

Vastly Inferior to Australia, the Country

What else can you say about the film? It was what I like to call "a bit much" with a pace, running time, and excess to make Michael Bay look like Werner Herzog this was definitely not my kind of thing. Granted, I was not expecting it to be.

First, what did not work for me: The fact that everything was so big and flashy - could anything have been shot, or at least remained at twenty four fps in the beginning? I felt all of this was just to mask the thin plot line. Speaking of which, the opening was just too long, with everything needing to be so significant throughout the whole thing I can understand the need for development, but really wasn't everything just significant for the purpose of significance? Then there was the end... I cannot even remember what it was but at one point it was grossly apparent that the film was ending, or at least the "end" was beginning, something did not feel right so I looked at my watch and saw that I had only been sitting in the theater for about an hour and forty minutes. Okay, so bottom line: didn't like it.

Anyway, as far as how this relates to class: I felt that this film could have been tailor-made to by analyzed from the perspective of this course. Of course there was the obvious allusion to Walkabout in the opening, but at a slightly deeper level, it was clear that Luhrman's intent was to capture nothing more than the country itself. I just don't feel that should take three hours. We've got the landscape, everything that makes "Oz" (that was a bit much too, right?) so otherworldly was there, and in my opinion this was by far the best part of the film. One example being the thought that crossed my mind of the stampeding cattle reminiscent of America's great planes. These animals are not indigenous and could a continet so unfertile support such life? Just a thought. Then of course, there's the aborigines. We've got the stolen generation - the presentation of which was practically stolen out of Rabbit Proof Fence. Oh and the British - what is there to even say about the way the British are interpreted? The same stuck up pricks they are always portrayed as in every Australian film, though understandably.

Then of course, there's the big buzz word we have been discussing since the beginning that was pounding us over the head constantly in this film - "Man's Country". In future classes a 30 second clip of this film would be enough for everyone to get that trademark.

So yeah, not my kind of thing, but very, very, Australian.

Just Another Australia Review

Well, here it is. With almost every aspect of this film having been dissected and scrutinized, I feel the only contribution worth giving is my own review of the film as a whole. Baz Luhrman, though obviously a successful director, is not usually my cup of tea. Romeo and Juliet and Moulin Rouge were both heavily stylized, with a unique set design and camera work that has become Luhrman's calling card.
I was hoping, however, that this film would be different. When one names a movie after an entire continent, it's kind of implied that the nature of the film itself will be pretty epic. In some ways, this film was. Luhrman certainly hit just about every topic we've talked about in class, from wide open land to the Aussie battler, and managed to scrape together a story that included members of every culture and race on Australia, which widened the umbrella even more. He also threw some obvious shout-outs to the canon of Aussie film, with a lot of Walkabout references scattered all over the place.
And this might be my biggest problem with the film, for by trying to hit every little marker, the story and conflict were cheapened. Every character was essentially brought to their cliche base. The half caste kid can stop a herd of stampeding cattle through his understanding of nature, Nicole Kidman's British character is stuffy and originally is seen as unfit to survive the harshness of the Outback, and Hugh Jackman is a class A Australian badass who doesn't take shit from anyone, except maybe Kidman. These are just a couple, but really the whole film tries to do too much because it scatter bombs, attempting to hit every cultural point in a film that's three hours long. Had they picked a few points to hit, instead of so many, they would have been able to concentrate more on creating real characters and not archetypal placeholders. Of course, this film was made to be marketable, like most films, which in this case was a problem only because it so clearly dominated every aspect of it. The story had to be relatively simple, and they probably felt like they had to hit every point to increase the amount of people who would want to view it.
But I digress, since I started by talking about the style. I was happy to see that he had at least toned it down, enough so that I didn't immediately pass the movie off as utterly ridiculous. Still pretty stylized, with a lot of unecessary camera movement and a set design that was also fairly characteristic of Luhrman. This didn't do too much to hamper the movie to me however, and was to be expected in the end.
All in all, I can see why we were assigned to view this movie, as in some ways it is a culmination of everything we've spoken of in class. I just wish it could have been culminated a bit better.

Female DP

I saw the film am immediately looked p the cinematographer, and it was a female! I was very excited because I am a girl majoring in cinematography. Typing that word a lot is difficult. I found this youtube video about the cinematography of Australia and Mandy Walker, the DP. Watching this makes me get camera and equipment envy. It also makes me feel bad that such a beautiful film is getting such terrible reviews. It takes so much work to make a film like 'Australia' that it is sad that someone didn't stop them along the way and say, okay, it's a little long for the general public. Anyway back to Mandy- here is an article about her nomination for Hollywood Film Festival's Cinematographer of the Year.
Lines like: "...things are looking good for Walker to become the first female Best Cinematography nominee in Oscar history." are pretty inspiring. I happen to agree that she does incredible work and I hope she gets the recognition she deserves.

Here are some interesting statistics about female cinematographers from the article:


- By genre, women were most likely to work on romantic comedies, romantic dramas, and documentaries and least likely to work on science fiction, horror, and action-adventure features.
- Among the top 250 films, women were most likely to serve as cinematographers on documentaries (17%), followed by comedy dramas (9%) and animated features (9%), and comedies (7%).
- Women did not serve as cinematographers on dramas, romantic dramas, romantic comedies, action- adventure features, sci-fi features, or horror features.
- Only 4% of cinematographers on the largest budget American films are women.

Dr. Martha M. Lauzen, a professor at San Diego State University in the US, recently published a report called The Celluloid Ceiling that revealed only 2% of the people working as cinematographers on the top 250 films made in 2007 films in Hollywood were female. Ninety eight percent (98%) of the films had no female cinematographers, which translates roughly to a grand total of five (5) camerawomen working on the top 250 big budget movies.

Even so Mandy Walker may be the woman to start making a change in those numbers. I also found an interview with her in which she states:

"I never knew until I started working in the industry that there weren't many women in the camera department, and I couldn't see why. Basically, I have never taken it on as an issue, and I think that people will hire me because I am good at my job, not whether I am male or female"



right on.

The Lost Generation...still lost?

Since almost every topic that I wanted to write on from the film "Australia" has been covered (thats what I get for waiting too long) I thought I too would delve into the aboriginal culture it portrays.  The Lost Generation seems to be a major theme in many Australian films, and Luhrman does not leave it out of "Australia".  However, I find that his take on the abuse of the aboriginal people was very generic.

Already we have seen many films where the abuse of the aboriginal people has been shown, and it has been disturbing to say the least.  However, I decided to google search "the lost generation australia" and see what the first hits would be.  I was surprised when I discovered that even the minor websites that appeared featured more information than what I had gathered from watching multiple films.  While I was happy to find that Luhrman addressed the abuse that the aboriginal women faced, and how it affected their lives, he (and many other film makers) left a crucial part of the story untold.  Perhaps because the abuse of the aboriginal people was so horrible, or perhaps because modern societies like to romanticize older cultures, but never once in a film have I seen the portrayal of a drunk, homeless, or down on their luck aboriginal.

Since before the 1900's the aboriginal people were being persecuted.  This website has the basic information on the history.  With a history of abuse this long, it was not surprising when I read that many aboriginals, in order to try and adapt to the new culture being forced upon them, became drunks and beggars.  While this may not fit the the romantic notions of an oppressed culture, it is real.  The only images we as an audience get through film, are those aborigines who defy the white man and continue to live in their own culture.  The grandfather in "Australia" is a perfect example of this.  He teaches his grandson the old ways, and the boy Nahla learns from him and grows to love the culture.  However, this was not the only option, many of the children were taken away (an estimated 8,000-great website for information on the children) and sent to work in white homes.  Those who were cared for by nuns and priests were not treated like real children. According to one website, they were fed food with maggots in it.  While the notion of taking children away from their families is bad enough, why not address the actual conditions that these children lived in.  It was lightly touched on in "Rabbit Proof Fence" when the children had to dump their toilet (a bucket) outside every morning.  However, "Australia" had many opportunities to address the actual conditions these children were forced to live in, and it skimmed over the topic.

Many are saying that Luhrman tried to attack too many topics, and that it why his film suffered.  I kind of agree with this, and perhaps if he had created a less romantic notion of how the aborigines rose above their treatment, it would have been too much; however, why address a topic and not fully show all sides to it.  Luhrman is not the only one, I have yet to see a true rendering of what really happen to the culture.  Obviously it is a strong one, since it is still around today, but instead of romanticizing the pain and suffering by only showing those characters who rose above the persecution filmmakers should feel free to explain how many were beaten down into an existence of poverty.

Today's screening

I had planned to show WOLF CREEK today but do not have access to it at the moment. (But I can bring it for next week).

If anyone has a copy, feel free to bring it to class today. Otherwise, we may watch SIRENS...or, more likely, AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE.

Or if anyone has other ideas, let's hear 'em. Other choices might include: LAST DAYS OF CHEZ NOUS; DANNY DECKCHAIR; ANGEL BABY; THE PIANO.

"Australia" a dud?? Where does Kidman go next?

According to a recent E! Online article (as well as a number of other reports I've come upon), Australia does not seem to be doing very well at the box office - and neither does Nicole Kidman's career. Interestingly enough, despite its blockbuster appearance and budget, the film did not do nearly as well as expected it seems...at least in America. The movie hit the top of the box office in Australia and is currently the number one film in its respective country. But critics and other moviegoers do not seem to feel the same sentiments about the film in America for some reason.

Many attribute this failure to Nicole Kidman's drastically dwindling career and performances which do not seem to stand out any longer, no matter the variation of roles she continues to play. Is this a fear that is keeping Kidman up at night? It seems as though the diminishing success of her latest film (which may be quite personal considering the plot revolves around her home country) is affecting her on one level or another after multiple articles have been published, including one from the Boston Globe which describes the film's setting as "depressingly unconvincing" at times. A recent interview (link below) on the Dave Letterman show features a very scattered Kidman who pauses awkwardly at some of Letterman's questions and seems to have no idea what's going on at various times throughout the interview.

An AP review of the film (link below) describes Australia using terms such as "repetitive", "predictable", and "self-indulgent." And the chemistry between Jackman and Kidman is likened (however unsuccessfully) to the onscreen legends of Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn in The African Queen. And despite his awe-inspiring performance, the half-caste boy in the film is also commented upon playing to a racial stereotype. The AP review also comments on the homage the film makes to The Wizard of Oz, declaring that you'll never want to hear the song "Over the Rainbow" again after leaving the theatre.

I found the film's strong points lay in its breathtaking cinematography and visual effects which can't be missed, no matter what one may think of the performances. I must admit Kidman's acting and chemistry with Jackman was a bit cliche and at times didn't work as successfully as director Luhrmann would have hoped for. The biggest disappointment for me was the outcome of the film after discovering they worked with an astronomical budget of $130,000,000!!! With the economy still stuck in a place similar to the Depression, I am surprised and sickened by the fact that this film's allowance wasn't put to greater use with a better script and possibly cast. I like both actors separately in their own regard but they just weren't convincing enough for my taste. Definitely a film I could have waited to Netflix.....not worth the $10 in the theatre in my opinion.

The articles/video below make some very interesting arguments in regard to Australia and are definitely worth reviewing.

Is Nicole Kidman over?

This is the article from which I titled this blog post. The E! online article presented by Yahoo discusses Kidman's performance in the film and speculates the possibility that her career may be close to over, after the repeated failure of some of her latest films.


Dave Letterman Interview

Hilarious interview with Kidman which highlights the extremely awkward moments between her and Dave, including the long, confusing pause when he asks her about her husband's music career (which she seems to know nothing about).


AP Review of Australia

Film critic Christy Lemire rips apart the film, commenting on Kidman and Jackman's lackluster performances and "self- indulgent" plot.

Australia: An Elaborate Joke

This review, which is directly out of the country of Australia, elaborates on how they absolutely detested this film on every level possible.

Luhrmann: Idiosyncratic Goofball or Hardened Conformist? Either Way: Blechh.

Baz Luhrmann

During the brief clip screened in class of Moulin Rouge, a favorite back in 8th grade, I wondered how I could have once taken such grotesquely heightened drama seriously. I wondered that too, a bit, during Australia, but the feeling had settled from bafflement into inquiry. Baz Luhrmann isn’t my cup of tea, but he’s not pompous, either: the new film has a tonally jarring, anything-goes approach that is fascinating, if not satisfying.

Anyone eager to fill out a perfunctory checklist of Australian themes should be satisfied: David Gulpilil is back, now taking his grandson on a Walkabout of his own, and as for Landscape, a character says, “this land has a strange power,” followed by the usual ominous pan across the outback. (It has always seemed obvious to me that there’s nothing more inherently mysterious or deep about the Australian landscape than, oh, the streets of Cambridge, and the former has only been enshrouded so because of formal techniques—a customary didgeridoo here, a swooping crane shot there—used to frame it. Any place in the world—the Commons, the Taj Mahal, any old bathroom—can be associated with mystery or banality, depending on context.) Any “foreignness” with which the land is perceived, however, is emphatically reversed: Nicole Kidman, scowling, trampling, and sulking, is not inaccurately called “the strangest woman I’ve ever seen” by the film’s half-caste narrator.

In some respects, Luhrmann retains a cartoonish sensibility, which one imagines he is to some extent incapable of resisting: this is the sort of movie where men anxiously gulp upon seeing an attractive woman, and the score gracelessly flails about, trying to find a suitable refrain for each moment. Luhrmann is indifferent to moral perspective: he’s equally likely to beautify kangaroos one moment and cackle at their murder the next. And even if one can’t find a coherent sensibility amidst the muck, there’s a rule of adjustment that works for films like this, even if it doesn’t make them any more tolerable: that if it seems bizarre that minds of adult intelligence felt inclined to inflate the sensitivities of adult characters far past the point of plausibility, then Drover and Sarah’s behavior might make more sense were both characters about 12 years old. Were this Luhrmann’s goal, I’d be impressed, but my guess is that this is the effect of adherence to convention.

Australia Review

  

  Baz Luhrman's, "Australia" has received mixed reviews and has done less than anticipated at the box office.  In US markets (a main target audience for the film), it came in fifth place this past weekend with just $14,800,723.  "Australia" came behind "Four Christmases," "Bolt," "Twilight" and "Quantum of Solace."  For such an expensive movie to make, and with all the hype leading up to its release, this was definitely a disappointment.  However, the film is still good, and may still be award worthy in several regards, but this may not be that huge influential epic they had hoped it would be.

  In the film, there are several references to old-time Hollywood movies such as "Gone With the Wind," and "The Wizard of Oz."  While interesting, it can be a little distracting and take one out of the film.  Baz seems to enjoy this postmodern style of artwork that mimics other art forms though, as he uses the same style in many of his past films including, "Moulin Rouge," and "Romeo + Juliet."

  The movie is long, and at times extremely slow and boring.  The acting chemistry is good, not great, and the story is okay.  The cinematography and production quality, however, is amazing -   the sweeping camera shots of the landscape are phenomenal.  The visuals keep me interested for a while, but generally three-hour-long romantic period pieces are not my cup of tea.  I do like Baz Luhrman though, and many of his past films.

  An interesting article about our pal, David Gulpili, about his nomadic lifestyle removed from modern society, and how he was unaware of the passing of his old friend Jimi Hendrix.

  As I mentioned in my first blog post, Baz worked with Apple to create the "Set to Screen" podcast series.  Interesting stuff in regards to filmmaking, Australia, and Baz Luhrman himself.

 - Matt Colbert

'Australia' and the Stolen Generation

So yesterday evening I saw Baz Luhrmann's 'Australia.'
I made a point to avoid reading any reviews or even watching any trailers prior to seeing the film, simply because what little hearsay I had heard already began to skew my perspective. "I hear that film is like an Australian 'Pearl Harbor'" someone told me. Recalling the three hours of torture I had endured watching 'Pearl Harbor' back in 2001, I found this comment to be extremely unsettling.

Regardless, yesterday I watched ‘Australia’ and I have to admit.. it wasn’t bad. Though running at close to three hours seemed rather long, I was definitely entertained for a good portion of the film (or at the very least visually stimulated by the beautiful cinematography). I especially enjoyed noticing the references to Peter Weir’s ‘Walkabout’ that occur at a handful of places throughout the film, as well as seeing our friend David Gulpilil making another appearance on the big screen. Having said that, I feel that the film was a little too ambitious; covering too many plot points and historic events in the span of one two and half hour movie.

Upon glancing at various reviews online, I find that others shared this opinion. In fact, I’ve come across numerous reviews by actual Australians who found this film rather offensive. One reviewer went as far as saying it was tactless of Luhrmann to discuss so many aspects of Australia’s young history in such a brief and over the top approach. Particularly on the topic of the ‘lost generations,’ an event still so recent in the countries history – especially in light of the fact that only now, in 2008, a formal apology was issued to the Aborigine population by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

But what of the ‘Stolen Generations’? Now that time has passed, what was the outcome of ‘The Aboriginal Protection Act’?



The alleged goal of the act was to help these Aboriginal children integrate into a modern western society - so that they could gain and education and one day be employed. Unfortunately, the outcome for these children turned out to be very different. One study I found in ‘Decades of Change: Australia in the Twentieth Century’ compared statistics of removed children in the city of Melbourne to children who remained with their Aborigine parents, and the results are rather shocking. The study showed that removed children were less likely to gain a secondary education, twice as likely to use illegal drugs and three times as likely to have a police records. The only real area of improvement according to the study, was that those removed had a slightly larger income – though this probably attributed to the fact that the removed children in the study were living in the city and hence had better access to welfare checks than those non removed living in their home communities.

Today the indigenous community suffers from increased unemployment (20% of Aborigines unemployed verses 7.6% of non indigenous Australians), more health problems and according to this study they are twice as likely to be victim of violent crime. Furthermore there is reported huge increases in alcoholism and sexual abuse amongst present day Aborigine families.

Considering that I've only found two cases of reparations being paid, and that only this year has an apology been issued by Australia's Prime Minister.. I wonder what the future holds for Australia's Aborigine population?

Whales

This is a very disturbing story of whales were beached themselves and died on the coast after being unable to swim back to the sea, near the town of Hobart in Tasmania.