True History of the Kelly Gang

◊ ◊ ◊ ½

Ned Kelly is Australia’s criminal cult icon. He is their Billy the Kid. A bad guy who did bad things but is beloved for his rebellion against authority. He’s their cultural Robin Hood. As such, he has shown up in virtually every artistic form: plays, novels, poetry, TV shows, video games, and some ten films since “The Story of the Kelly Gang” in 1906. This version seems to want to stray far from the 2004 Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom vehicle, “Ned Kelly.” Where that one was a big, very standard Hollywood film, this one has all the sharp edges and messiness of an indie flick. From the first time you see the adult Kelly with short cropped hair in front of the British flag, looking just like he stepped out of a 70s punk band, this movie announces its anarchic intentions. This isn’t a feel good biopic. It’s rough, angry, chaotic, and strangely erotic. Kelly is played by George MacKay (who has been a standout in films like “Captain Fantastic,” and “1917”). He currently seems to be circling the edges of stardom, and I bet he’ll be a household name in a few years. He is magnetic here, erupting all over the screen as the volatile Kelly. This Kelly does not look destined to be a beloved hero. He’s moody, impetuous, insecure, and so very very angry. And he is driven by an almost Oedipal enmeshment with his mother that seems to undergird so many of his choices. He pinballs around the movie smashing into things in every direction and, if he becomes any sort of hero at all, it’s quite by accident. It’s a terrific performance that propels the film forward. Other actors, including Charlie Hunnam, Russel Crowe, and Nicholas Hoult do just fine in their roles, but this is really MacKay’s movie. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the other edgy (one might say anarchic) and surprising element to the film: its not so subtle homo-eroticism. MacKay’s Kelly barely seems to notice his wife, but there is a sexual tension and deep longing need between him and gang member Joe Byrne (Sean Kennan). Also, the gang members spend most of their time in dresses. I could not find anything to corroborate this as historical fact. It’s visually arresting and keeps the whole story at a strange tilt for the audience, which does seem to be exactly what it’s trying to do. Like I said, this is not a regular Hollywood movie, and it is much better of for it.