I hate to admit it, but I stay in on a sunday night to watch the ABC and nine times out of ten I don't regret my decision.
The latest sunday night offering was 'Mawson: Life and Death in Antarctica' and it was an easy watch (apart from when they killed the dogs). But the fact that it was so easy worries me a little. It didn't challenge the myth of Mawson, the only challenge it made was physical. I say myth because as we all know tales of Australian icons are generally 90% myth.
Relying on little more than Mawson's own diaries, the show used a mixture of footage, and photos taken by Frank Hurley, re-enactments and narration to complement the journey of the modern day adventurer, Tim Jarvis. Of course, due to the time and location we can't really expect many more sources, but the programme seemed to set out to prove everything Mawson wrote was true, rather than challenge or explore other options. The synopsis, describes it as "a bold and unprecedented historical experiment", it provides options, clues not truths, however there are people out there who are going to take this as gospel, as proof.
But how can we know? How can we tell?
There were too many variables. Mawson himself describes the effects on the human mind the tough conditions and Vitamin A poisoning had on his friends, but yet the writers, the producers, perhaps everyone is happy to take Mawson's word without calling into question his state of mind. Mawson did not have a trained medical professional trailing him on a snow-ski, checking his vitals every ten days. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh.
I actually liked it. I learned quite a lot. Most importantly, I am no longer the misapprehension that Mawson ate his own fingers in an act of desperate starvation - apparently it was Mertz, and he only did it to prove to himself he had acute frostbite, not because he was hungry, though he probably was...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Euww! I didn't know that there were rumours that Mawson ate his own fingers...that would make him the only person on our old currency to have performed an act of self-cannibalism (unless Caroline Chisolm had a secret life we don't know about).
But seriously, I think Bron has raised some really interesting points in relation to these kinds of 're-enactment' documentaries. We've probably all seen them - where someone sets out with an original account of a journey and attempts to retrace it to prove (or disprove) its 'truth'. It is interesting that this one was keen to preserve the heroism of Mawson by affirming his diary, rather than questioning it - as Bron asks, can we really rely on Mawson's account completely? Like reality history, these sorts of programs tell us more about what we in the present think about history than the history itself.
Post a Comment