A story about the disappearance of several Appleyard College students, and a teacher, from Hanging Rock.
This was acclaimed director Peter Weir's second film, and now considered one of Australia's most-beloved films... for the rest of us, Weir might better be remembered as the director of "Dead Poets Society" (1989) or maybe the man behind "The Truman Show".
The film is difficult to enjoy, because while it is visually stunning, its slow pace really pushes the patience of the audience. One could argue that the slow pace is necessary to really enhance the feeling of awkwardness and eeriness. Indeed, the film has been called "creepy" by critic Greg Harris; while I am not sure this is the proper word, it does leave the viewer feeling uneasy.
Roger Ebert called it "a film of haunting mystery and buried sexual hysteria" and remarked that it "employs two of the hallmarks of modern Australian films: beautiful cinematography and stories about the chasm between settlers from Europe and the mysteries of their ancient new home."
I am unclear about the "buried sexual hysteria", though Ebert does go on to talk about theories of rape and murder that I think exist more in his mind than on screen. I am also unclear about his "settlers from Europe" idea. I will not argue the beautiful cinematography, though -- the framing is excellent, and the use of Hanging Rock's natural images (including several face-like rock structures) is well-executed. There is some confusion over how big the rock is -- does it require a trail of bread crumbs to get back or is it a five minute climb -- but this may be part of its charm.
Where Ebert really nails the film, though, is when he sums it up as being "free of plot, lacking any final explanation, it exists as an experience." Indeed, many of the film's shots evoke memories of paintings, such as Renoir's "Luncheon of the Boating Party", and in one moment a girl is even compared with Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus". The film exists, like Ebert says, as an experience free of plot... a moving, two-hour painting that we can take away from as we wish, and like or dislike as we would a classic work of art.
Peter Weir's own words further suggest he was not trying to give a clear-cut narrative. "We worked very hard," says Weir, "at creating an hallucinatory, mesmeric rhythm, so that you lost awareness of facts, you stopped adding things up, and got into this enclosed atmosphere." We are free of time and space while watching "Picnic", as we could be in 1900 or 1776 or any other time (and it is interesting to note the film takes place on Saturday, February 14, 1900 -- a date that never existed).
Much more could be made of the film's themes and symbolism with the hearts, the boys, the trances and the swans... but I know of no coherent way to express these things. Which, I think, may be exactly what Weir intended.
This was acclaimed director Peter Weir's second film, and now considered one of Australia's most-beloved films... for the rest of us, Weir might better be remembered as the director of "Dead Poets Society" (1989) or maybe the man behind "The Truman Show".
The film is difficult to enjoy, because while it is visually stunning, its slow pace really pushes the patience of the audience. One could argue that the slow pace is necessary to really enhance the feeling of awkwardness and eeriness. Indeed, the film has been called "creepy" by critic Greg Harris; while I am not sure this is the proper word, it does leave the viewer feeling uneasy.
Roger Ebert called it "a film of haunting mystery and buried sexual hysteria" and remarked that it "employs two of the hallmarks of modern Australian films: beautiful cinematography and stories about the chasm between settlers from Europe and the mysteries of their ancient new home."
I am unclear about the "buried sexual hysteria", though Ebert does go on to talk about theories of rape and murder that I think exist more in his mind than on screen. I am also unclear about his "settlers from Europe" idea. I will not argue the beautiful cinematography, though -- the framing is excellent, and the use of Hanging Rock's natural images (including several face-like rock structures) is well-executed. There is some confusion over how big the rock is -- does it require a trail of bread crumbs to get back or is it a five minute climb -- but this may be part of its charm.
Where Ebert really nails the film, though, is when he sums it up as being "free of plot, lacking any final explanation, it exists as an experience." Indeed, many of the film's shots evoke memories of paintings, such as Renoir's "Luncheon of the Boating Party", and in one moment a girl is even compared with Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus". The film exists, like Ebert says, as an experience free of plot... a moving, two-hour painting that we can take away from as we wish, and like or dislike as we would a classic work of art.
Peter Weir's own words further suggest he was not trying to give a clear-cut narrative. "We worked very hard," says Weir, "at creating an hallucinatory, mesmeric rhythm, so that you lost awareness of facts, you stopped adding things up, and got into this enclosed atmosphere." We are free of time and space while watching "Picnic", as we could be in 1900 or 1776 or any other time (and it is interesting to note the film takes place on Saturday, February 14, 1900 -- a date that never existed).
Much more could be made of the film's themes and symbolism with the hearts, the boys, the trances and the swans... but I know of no coherent way to express these things. Which, I think, may be exactly what Weir intended.