Alan Seymour (1927–2015)

Of course, I had heard of this play...it certainly generated a lot of controversy when it was first produced in the early 60's. I think there were even call for it to be banned and there was a lot of hostility towards the author. And I knew the gist of the story line: that it was de-mythologising Anzac Day. But I'd never actually seen the play nor read it until now. And, I must say, that I was impressed. In the 60 years since it was written, Anzac Day has developed more and more into show more Australia's holy day ...in a way that Alan Seymour merely hints at. In fact, the play is not really anti-Anzacs as much as against the drunken excesses that always accompanied Anzac Day.
I found it curious that Seymour seems torn between his sincere admiration for the men who had shown heroism at Gallipoli and the braggadocio and drunkenness around Anzac Day. There are throw away references to the fact that Australian soldiers lives were thrown away in a campaign to invade Turkey which always seemed to be doomed. A campaign that was dreamed up by British commanders and overseen by British officers. What the hell were Australians doing there? It was the supposed trade-off. Britain would be responsible for Australia's security but Australians were supposed to answer Britain's call when it needed extra military support. Though when the Japanese invaded Malaysia in WWII and then took Singapore, Indonesia and invaded PNG......the British were conspicuous by their absence.
Seymour has introduced some interesting social commentary in the play: the working class origins of Hughie, his proud sad dad ...a lift driver with aspirations; the girlfriend, Jan...from the North Shore. Class distinctions in supposedly classless Australia.
And Hughie .....ashamed of his origins, ashamed of his dad, and his mum.....and possessed of that dangerous commodity ...education that forced him to confront the hypocrisy that he saw around him. I found it fascinating that Seymour, in this preface identifies that he never quite got the character of Jan right. Actually, I think he did rather well. I'm currently at the stage where I have a 2nd year Uni student at home who's just brought a girlfriend home and can see a lot of parallels ...though we haven't had the conflict. And, in my younger years I wrote a play (which was produced at a regional play-fest) which similarly had an angry young man as a central character. Actually, I thought Seymour did a great job of the character development and dialogue. Especially Alf. Though, in a way, Wacka came across as one of the most profound characters in the play. "When we went in there we was nobody. When we come out we was famous.....Anzacs ....Ballyhoo. Photos in the paper. Famous. Not worth a crumpet." I must admit I found myself moved by the play. And, I think that Seymour himself probably reflects the ambivalence that Hughie feels....... a strange mixture of abhorrence and love for Alf ..a sympathy for the survivors of the war who ...for one day of the year, could relive their youth and cry about mates who were lost. I had a boss whose whole life had been irredeemably moulded by his experience of enrolling in WWII along with most of his final year high school class. there was no way he could ever forget it or put that experience behind him.
Bottom line. I liked the play. Left me a bit conflicted (which is probably what Seymour wanted). Five stars from me. show less

I read this so long ago, perhaps 1979 or 1980, post adolescent. Yet it made such an impression, the dialogue and setting are so clear in my mind.

The spirit of the age was debunking myths. Australia, like everywhere, has piles of myths to debunk, from mateship, to tough rural blokes, bushmen, and our naive sense of being nice in that special way we seem to have. And we had Anzac legend. The story of a battle fought for the allegiance to a mother land that used soldiers for canon fodder.

If show more you come from somewhere else, you always look at the myths of the place with curiosity. If you're not really part of the spirit of the times, you're kind of an imposter. Not really Australian.

The saddest thing about a play like this is that 100 years after the events that it refers to - such a reverence for those times has developed. The myth gets deeper, impenetrable, uncritical. And yet, Seymour had written about it critically so long ago, I can only think the national debates have gone backwards. The memorials to the past get bigger and more expensive at the same time as discussion gets smaller and narrower.

Anzac Day just passed. And all I can think about it is this play, about the reverence. Old soldiers who fought naturally have an affinity with each other that I will never understand. They have a right to their mourning and consolations. So do their families and friends. The nation can give them thanks. But wrapping oneself in a flag entrenches myths about warfare and forces us to go to wards that totalitarian zone that is so scary whenever a flag is raised.

I'd love to see this play performed again today. To see if it holds up, and if it inspires narrow-minded reactionaries to stand up and condemn it. show less

BBC version movies of the books by C.S. Lewis

"The magical land of Narnia is ruled by the corrupt King Miraz. His nephew Prince Caspian calls on Lucy, Peter, Susan, and Edmund to help him defeat Miraz and restore Narnia to its former glory. Years later, Caspian, Lucie, Edmund, and obnoxious cousin Eustace set sail to rescue the six lords who were banished by Caspian's evil uncle. Their adventures lead them to a golden lake, a giant sea serpent, a fierce dragon, and finally, the edge of the world."