Tomorrow, When the War Began

[Rii]

Despite my low opinion of Australian cinema, I've been keeping a loose eye on this film; a cultural zeitgeist thing. It's only a few days from release now and the reviews are starting to trickle in. As of this writing the film holds a 100% RT rating (5 reviews) and 8.0 IMDb rating.

Flicking through the reviews and comments it seems one constant is the issue of race:

I think the issue of hiding the invaders’ faces is a very tricky one, and the film goes to great lengths to keep them nondescript, acutely aware that it could trip over the line into racist fear-mongering at any moment. It would be impossible for a film such at this one to avoid that sort of implied subtext, but to its credit it makes every effort to keep its distance. [....] The only moment we see a close-up of an invader’s face is a sympathetic moment.

To add my own uninformed commentary: perhaps the film's reluctance to lend clarity to the identity of the invaders is admirable under the circumstances, but it's also a standard dehumanisation technique: the heroes have eyes, the villains have boots. Some reviewers chide the film for depicting the invaders as Asian at all, which seems ridiculous. The only even vaguely plausible candidates are China, Indonesia, Japan or India. Oh well; this is one issue the books never really had to deal with.

If it's any good I hope it does well enough to justify a sequel. Could probably condense The Dead of the Night and The Third Day, The Frost into Film #2. In any case, I think I'll wait on a few more reviews. Anyone else thinking of checking it out? AFAIK the initial release is limited to Australia and New Zealand, so the potential audience is rather limited. I recall reading somewhere that the books are quite popular in ... Sweden? They might want to look into a release there too. At the very least I hope we get another run of the books out of the film. Put out an omnibus hardcover (or two) and I'd pick it up for old time's sake.

 

[Jono]

I read the first three books back when they came out when I was in primary school and I enjoyed them. Never read the follow ups though. I'll most likely go see the film. If it comes out in America it will probably be compared to "Red Dawn", even more so if the remake sees the light of day given that it involves the Chinese instead of the Americans.

One thing that I've always remembered from the novels is that the US bones us.

 

[Rii]

RT holding at 100% w/7 reviews.

I read the first three books back when they came out when I was in primary school and I enjoyed them. Never read the follow ups though.

In addition to the seven books of the original series, he's actually done another Ellie-centric trilogy, this one focussed on her post-war experience. I haven't checked it out, but I'd like to one day.

One thing that I've always remembered from the novels is that the US bones us.

Wouldn't be much of a story if they didn't.

 

[FordSVT]

Never heard of the series before, but reading the Wiki article leaves my head scratching. The political and tactical assumptions you have to make in order to suspend belief are extraordinary. Red Dawn had the same problem, really.

 

[Rii]

Never heard of the series before, but reading the Wiki article leaves my head scratching. The political and tactical assumptions you have to make in order to suspend belief are extraordinary. Red Dawn had the same problem, really.

It's implausible in the here and now, but it wasn't always so farfetched. It's certainly rather more plausible than Red Dawn. Copypasta from Wikipedia:

In early 1942 elements of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) proposed an invasion of Australia. This proposal was opposed by the Japanese Army and was rejected in favour of a policy of attacking Midway Island and isolating Australia from the United States via blockade by advancing through the South Pacific.

[....]

In December 1941 the Navy proposed including an invasion of Northern Australia as one of Japan's 'stage two' war objectives after South-East Asia was conquered. This proposal was most strongly pushed by Captain Sadatoshi Tomioka, the head of the Navy General Staff's Planning section, on the grounds that the United States was likely to use Australia as a base to launch a counter-offensive in the South-West Pacific.

[....]

In speeches before the Diet on 12 January and 16 February 1942, Tojo stated Japanese policy was to: "eradicate the British colonies at Hong Kong and in the Malay peninsula as these were "evil bases used against East Asia", and turn these places into strongholds for the defense of Greater East Asia. Burma and the Philippines would get independence if they co-operated with Japan; the Netherlands East Indies and Australia would be crushed if they resisted; but if the recognized Japan's true intentions would receive help in promoting their welfare and development."[7]

[....]

The Army and Navy's calculations of the number of troops needed to invade Australia differed greatly and formed a central area of discussion. In December 1941 the Navy calculated that a force of three divisions (between 45,000 and 60,000 men) would be sufficient to secure Australia's north-eastern and north-western coastal areas. In contrast, the Army calculated that a force of at least ten divisions (between 150,000 and 250,000 men) would be needed. The Army's planners estimated that transporting this force to Australia would require 1.5 to 2 million tons of shipping, which would have required delaying the return of requisitioned merchant shipping.[8] This invasion force would have been larger than the entire force used to conquer South-East Asia.[9] The Army also rejected the Navy's proposal of limiting an invasion of Australia to securing enclaves in the north of the country as being unrealistic given the likely Allied counter-offensives against these positions. Due to its experience in China the Army believed that any invasion of Australia would have to involve an attempt to conquer the entire Australian continent, something which was beyond Japan's abilities.[10]

[....]

"The generals of the Army General Staff, and the Prime Minister of Japan, General Hideki Tojo, did not see a need to commit massive troop resources to the conquest of Australia, with the massive logistical problems that would produce. The generals were confident that Australia could be bullied into surrender to Japan by isolating it completely from the United States and by applying intense psychological pressure."[17]

In the novels, the conflict is brought to an end with the continent divided into two nations, with much of former Australia belonging to the invaders. And there are allegations that the Australian government - correctly assessing Japan's immediate interest in the nation as serving as a gateway for the United States into the region - planned to offer Japan just that in the event of an invasion:

The “Brisbane line” was an alleged plan to abandon Northern Australia in the event of a Japanese invasion. The allegation was made during an election campaign in October 1942 when Edward Ward, the Minister for Labour and National Services accused the previous government of planning this strategy.

[....]

The allegations created much public controversy and led to a Royal Commission of Inquiry in June 1943. Mr Justice Lowe was appointed Royal Commissioner. The terms of the commission were to focus on whether any document concerning the so called “Brisbane Line” was missing from the official files and if so what was the nature of this document.

The Royal Commission found the documents to be complete and that no such plan had been official policy under the Menzies government.

While Ward’s allegations were unfounded the War Cabinet had put in place strategies prioritising defence for vital industrial areas in time of war. The plans were well known to members of parliament and while they were not connected to Ward’s charges they did form part of his belief in the existence of a Brisbane Line. Ward’s allegations were constructed from these ideas as well as evacuation policies and existing plans for a scorched earth policy.

 

[Jono]

More importantly, these novels aren't meant to be Tom Clancy-like works of geo-political techno thrillers, they were written for teenagers and the lives and tribulations of the main characters (all teenagers) is the focus of the books. Plus given they are in first person of Ellie you get a very contained and narrow view of the "bigger picture".

Trying to decide if I should hunt down my old copy of the novel and read it before I see the movie...

 

[Rii]

More importantly, these novels aren't meant to be Tom Clancy-like works of geo-political techno thrillers, they were written for teenagers and the lives and tribulations of the main characters (all teenagers) is the focus of the books. Plus given they are in first person of Ellie you get a very contained and narrow view of the "bigger picture".

Indeed; the war itself isn't really the point and doesn't get much in the way of page space. At least, that's true of the books. No clue about the film.

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

Never read the books when I was a teenager, but probably will see it, after I get back from Melbourne next month. If I recall it was filmed around areas of Hunter Valley (remember hearing about last year)

 

[Roger Wilco]

Wiki says the books are "young adult" novels - are they worth reading or annoying?

And I doubt an invasion of Australia by Japan would've ever been remotely plausible except in the wider context of WWII, with most of Australia's best troops being in Africa, the UK unable to help and US involved in its own operations.

 

[Rii]

RT down to 83% (11 reviews). Common complaint amongst the negative reviews is emphasis on action over character. Should've guessed; fuck film, srsly.

Wiki says the books are "young adult" novels - are they worth reading or annoying?

Stuffed if I know. Some adolescent literature holds up, some doesn't. My own recollections are those of a 15yr old.

Amazon UK has the first dozen or so pages from each novel available to read. Here's the link for Darkness be my Friend (#4).

And I doubt an invasion of Australia by Japan would've ever been remotely plausible except in the wider context of WWII

Which, incidentally, is when they proposed it.

The invading power in the novels is never identified, although the candidate list isn't a long one. Nor are the broader political circumstances clarified. I only listed Japan as one such candidate in a long-term 'raw capability' sense; I would've listed the United States too if the possibility wasn't excluded on account of the invaders not speaking english.

In any case, Australia would be easier to control than one might expect:

Of course there are tactical advantages to having several thousand kilometres of space to play with too. The Fulda Gap it is not.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Not a very habitable island, eh?

 

[Rii]

^ Sure it is, just so long as you don't need much in the way of water.

RT down to 76% based upon 17 reviews.

Stuart Beattie’s awkwardly-titled Tomorrow When The War Began works best in its quieter character-driven moments, most of which occur in the film’s first hour. This commitment to the honest portrayal of teenage complexities is the greatest asset held over from the source material – author John Marsden’s award-winning 1993 novel, which captured perfectly the personalities and frustrations of life as a teenager (in this case, those caught in a rural warzone).

[....]

[Yet the film goes on to jettison all this] in the name of stock heroics and sellable stunt work. The producers should have been careful what they wished for - Tomorrow When The War Began is [ultimately] every bit as generic and disposable as similarly-budgeted efforts from anywhere else in the world.

Blech. Think I'll be giving it a miss.

 

[Reverend]

Not a very habitable island, eh?

Well for one it's not an island, it's a continent.
As for being habitable, the only thing that keeps people away from the middle part isn't so much the arid climate so much as that's where the larger concentrations of drop bears live. Vicious, sneaky little bastards. Can't walk under a tree out there without putting you life in your hands.

As far as the film goes, I can't say as it looks particularly interesting from the trailer, but then it's a trailer so they've just edited in all the action scenes without getting much of a sense of the actual substance of the story (assuming there is one.) One of the things that rather bugged me about the book back when I read it was that (iirc) we don't get involved at all. Not that I'd put it past those shitbags in Westminster to cut a close ally loose like that mind, but still...

 

[Lonemagpie]

If it comes out in America it will probably be compared to "Red Dawn", even more so if the remake sees the light of day given that it involves the Chinese instead of the Americans.

At which point, Eric L Harry should sue the remake makers. Or get sued by John Milius, whichever.

 

[unimatrix7]

Not a very habitable island, eh?

Well for one it's not an island, it's a continent.

Actually, it's both. The world's smallest continent, and the world's largest island

Anyway, I saw the film last night and thought it was oustanding. I haven't read the books (and don't want to), but it's nice to see an Australian film that's 'good' and not just 'good for an Australian movie.' It holds its own against anything I've seen this year, including the overwrought claptrap of Inception and brilliant awesome amazingness of Toy Story 3. I'm quite happy to call Tomorrow... the best film I've seen all year.

I wonder though if my reaction to it will be common amongst my countrymen, or even if parallel reactions are common amongst Americans. For instance, after seeing LA threatened six seasons in a row in 24, or various North American metropolises invaded, flooded, earthquaked, hurricaned, snowstormed, firestormed, or whatever in a zillion Hollywood movies, do Americans feel the same sense of unease at seeing their country threatened as I did when watching Tomorrow?

For instance, one scene from Tomorrow really left a lump in my throat. It was the execution more than the bones of the scene itself, since it was hardly anything original:

Spoiler: PLOT SPOILER

Two of the protagonists are having a quiet conversation on a farm, during broad daylight, after coming to grips with the reality of the situation they find themselves in. Suddenly, overhead, a jet roars past and one of the characters recognises it as 'one of ours.' For a moment it seems like, perhaps, something positive is about to happen and it will perhaps drop a bomb on something or blow something up in a display of the Royal Australian Air Force's impressive military might...but instead, we see it's being pursued by a squadron of other, non-Aussie jets. One of them fires a missile at it and blows it out of the sky.

Maybe my reaction was unique, but I just found it frightening.

I dunno.

I'll conclude by saying it's a good movie, and it's nice to see Australian film productions moving away from wannabe horrors starring Playschool stalwarts and comedies that aren't funny even to those of us who 'get' the humour.

 

[Rii]

^ I was pleasantly surprised by Strictly Ballroom recently - yeah, recently - bringing the total number of tolerable Australian films I'm aware of to, oh, at least four.

One of the things that rather bugged me about the book back when I read it was that (iirc) we don't get involved at all. Not that I'd put it past those shitbags in Westminster to cut a close ally loose like that mind, but still...

I vaguely recall the UK being mentioned as providing some limited form of assistance in one of the later novels. I could be wrong though; even if I'm not it's certainly not a major plot point.

 

[Rii]

Stumbled across the following image in my files; seems almost uniquely germane to this thread:

 

[Miss Chicken]

I went and saw this movie, mainly because I have want to support the Australian film industry by going to the cinema to see at least two Australian movies a year. This is my first for the year and I plan to see South Solitary next week.

I enjoyed Tomorrow, When the War Began more than I though I would. I will give it 8/10. I thought the characters were a little clichéd but that is about the only real fault I had with the movie,

 

[Aragorn]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D6gi29P_vE[/yt]

 

[Rii]

Final update: RT up to 79%, certified fresh.

I got a kick out of this review excerpt:

"Patchy acting, fantastic action and some great slivers of humour in a movie that only gives off the faintest whiff of a xenophobic nation terrified of being invaded. It's not like the rest of the world didn't already think we were red-necks."

I enjoyed Tomorrow, When the War Began more than I though I would.

This seems to be a common sentiment, albeit one borne seemingly of low expectations more than anything else.