Courtesy of: http://67.media.tumblr.com/d60c2982e276e027240625d2d7fd960d/tumblr_o365hoHwGb1qe4ru4o1_540.gif
Rohan warned us beforehand that this film was going to be some Australian Story-esque style. So we already had these assumptions in our minds about Maree Delofski’s 2002 documentary based on the origin story of Hollywood star, Merle Oberon.
Other than the extended long footage of Delofski’s cute, red beetle along the picturesque Tasmanian landscape, we as the audience plummet into Delofski’s curiosity of whether Merle was really the daughter of Lottie Chintock; a Chinese-Tasmanian native or someone who was of Anglo-Indian ethnicity and had no connection to Tasmania whatsoever.
Throughout the first part of these 55 minutes of our lives, we encounter quite a handful of characters from Tasmania who have the utmost confidence to know Merle’s story and “claim” her as an honorary Tasmanian: A former journalist and current dog judge who says she’s judged enough dogs in her time to know how to spot a certain ethnicity from afar, and a lady with funky, frosted blue eye shadow who claims to be a Merle Oberon expert but refuses to disclose the whereabouts of her birth certificate to prove she is Lottie Chintock’s child – just to name a few.
The second part explored Merle’s origin’s in India through interviewing Merle’s supposed childhood friends and neighbours who used to call her Queenie. Delofski then found herself in Canada to interview Harry Selby, someone who is adamant that he’s Merle’s nephew.
The last part of the film concentrates on Merle’s visit to Tasmania before she passed away and the uncomfortable and unconventional encounters she had with the locals. A Tasmanian local in her mid-40s to 50s reappears on screen to express how Merle’s story that won’t be appreciated by the current generation but is important for her generation and the past few.
The structure of film is quite clear and straightforward, but also seems to be artificially polished against Delofski’s narration. Additionally, the racist comments from the Tasmanian locals and Merle’s supposed childhood friend was unnecessary and should’ve at least been addressed through Delofski’s narration or shouldn’t been added at all. I get how Delofski tried to depict how people often are the product of their environment and time, but it also creates this negative representation of the locals in Tasmania.
More importantly, how much could we trust the credibility of all these characters? Especially the appearance of biographer Charles Higgins who was guilty of fabricating various biographies. Where are the interviews of Merle’s ex-husbands, her children or even fellow actors who knew her personally? Delofski may not have realised these factors at the time in depicting Merle’s story back in 2002, but I guess that’s where her curiosity guided her in concentrating on just finding the truth. Judging from the class discussion we had, we’ve come a long way in society with addressing issues such as institutionalised race and statutory rape from just about 15 years ago.