Published via Ecency

(source: tmdb.org)

Religious minorities, especially when they are very small and relatively unknown, are likely to be misunderstood by the mainstream society and even subjected to fantastic rumours about their practices, the most notorious being “blood libel” related to Jews. The author of this review experienced that phenomenon while discussing certain religious communities; I found that the accusations were accepted as fact even by seemingly enlightened people who should have known better. This might happen even in the societies that are supposed to be the most civilised or progressive. One such case, which occurred in Australia and resulted in the most sensational trial in the history of that country, is the subject of A Cry in the Dark, 1988 docudrama directed by Fred Schepisi.

The film is based on Evil Angels, book by John Bryson that dealt with bizarre criminal case which began in 1980. Protagonists of the film are Michael Chamberlain (played by Sam Neill), pastor of Seventh Day Adventist Church and his wife Lindy (played by Meryl Streep). They decide to go on a holiday in the Outback with their two sons and nine-week old daughter Azaria. The family visits scenic Ayer’s Rock (todays Uluru) and decides to spend the evening camping and barbecuing with other tourists. A pleasant evening is interrupted when Lindy hears a cry and later claims that dingo took away Azaria. Search is started but Azaria remains missing, with everyone convinced that the baby is dead. Since it was the first case of a dingo taking a human baby, Australian media becomes interested. Chamberlains handle media scrutiny badly, with their reaction based on their deep religious convictions looking bizarre. Although initial judicial inquest backs Lindy’s claims, large segment of Australian public becomes convinced that she actually killed Azaria as part of ritual sacrifice and later invented fantastic story to cover up her crime. Under pressure police start investigation and gathers enough circumstantial evidence for Lindy to be brought to trial. In October 1982 she is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, while her husband as an accessory receives three years of suspended prison sentence. Chamberlains continue to fight to prove their innocence until chance discovery in 1985 proves their claims about Azaria’s fate.

A Cry in the Dark deals with incredibly unpleasant subject – bizarre and tragic death of a newborn child – and Schepisi wisely decides not to sugar-coat it with cheap sentimentality and other Hollywood-like tricks. His style is very cold and almost clinical. Film begins with introduction of Chamberlains and Adventist practices that might look strange to the outside observers and continues with very detailed reconstruction of the events before, during and immediately after Azaria’s disappearance, which might bit a little slow to audience, at least those familiar with the subjects. A Cry in the Dark switches gears and the tempo accelerates when media gets involved and Chamberlains soon get tried not only by regular court but also by court of public opinion. The latter is presented in quick sequences that show how many ordinary Australians comment, argue and sometimes even brawl over the affair in the homes, streets or public venues. The sequences showing how those events affect Chamberlains and the criminal case are presented in the same tempo and A Cry in the Dark is very quick film despite two hours of running time. This no-nonsense quasi-documentarian approach is, on the other hand, slightly compromised with the use of uninspired musical score by Bruce Smeaton. On the other hand, film benefits greatly from main cast. Meryl Steep delivers another masterful performance (and gets another “Oscar” nomination) by playing arguably one of the least likeable characters of her career. Lindy Chamberlain is woman who is, whether her story was right or wrong, ultimately responsible for death of her child. Streep doesn’t try to win audience’s sympathy for her character and ultimately follows real Lindy Chamberlain’s example; she is cold and aloof and fails to emotionally connect with the jury during the trial even when advised by her experienced attorneys. Sam Neill is also great as her husband who, unlike her, becomes too emotional and falls apart at the most critical moment. Those two performances are the only ones that stand out in the entire film; all other characters appear and disappear too quickly to have an impact. Yet, Streep and Neill do just enough to make this film work and perhaps make audience think about whether they would give other people benefit of a doubt when the media and their own biases tell them otherwise.

RATING: 6/10 (++)