Oranges and Sunshine (2010) User Reviews

A quietly angry, lightly fictionalized film

[julian-mumford · 8/10 · 15 February 2012]

A quietly angry, lightly fictionalized film detailing the systematic, organized UK government sanctioned deportation of up to 150,000 children, often as young as three to Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Zimbabwe.

In case you were under the assumption that this occurred in the dark ages, you would be wrong. The last cases are recorded in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Emily Watson plays Margaret Humphreys the tireless Nottinghamshire social worker, who stumbled across an isolated case and then fought almost single-handedly to undercover the truth. Creating the "Child Migrants" trust by necessity to reunite lost families, sometimes decades later and in many cases too late.

The film is based on the the book "Empty Cradles" written by Humphreys to highlight the plight of the families and children involved and raise much needed funds.

Not only were children sent to countries alien to them, in the majority of cases without parental consent or even with the parents knowledge, many were told incorrectly their parents had died leaving them as orphans. Brothers and sisters were systematically split up and many endured harsh conditions, being treated as slave labour and subject to both mental and in many cases physical and sexual abuse, often at the hands of those supposedly charged with their care and well being.

As in many such cases, the Church and charitable organizations, when confronted with the proof of the neglect they oversaw, denied the charges and repeatedly attempted to frustrate attempts to drag the secret into the light.

Eventually in 2010 the UK Government formally apologised for the migrants treatment, finally acknowledging the mistakes that had been made.

Bearing in mind the shocking truths on display, does the film need to be any good? Directed by small screen veteran Jim Loach, this is a sympathetic account with quality naturalistic acting from all of the cast, in particular Watson and Hugo Weaving an adult sent as a child to Australia for "Sunshine and Oranges". Humphreys long suffering and supportive husband deserves a medal of some description as his wife continues to travel the world putting wrongs right or at least allowing closure, seemingly with little regard for her own safety, mental or physical health.

The film resembles "Magdalene Sisters", all the more effective for the lack of moralizing, preaching and sentimentality, apart from one off key line "You got my Mum for Christmas", the dialogue and acting are pitch perfect.

There are always concerns as to how fictionalized true stories are, certainly the facts are undeniable, all films compress time, alter circumstances and timelines. The most important factor is, does the film capture the spirit and feel, this does just that.

Summary

A stirring, largely truthful re-telling of an important story in our recent past, not an easy watch in parts but well worth the time to be aware of this travesty, compounded by the initial failure of anyone brave enough to take responsibility for what had occurred.

Watson embodies the spirit of Humphreys who quite rightly eventually received recognition for all her efforts.

Recommended

http://julesmoviereviews.blogspot.co.nz/

Britain's Shame

[MrGoodMovie · 8/10 · 22 October 2011]

Should anyone ever question the value of the film industry then the innocently titled "Oranges and Sunshine" is a film that, on its own, could quite easily justify its existence.

Whilst the acting, production and direction are superb, the film's dark subject matter overshadows all, and its disturbing revelations require no dramatisation. As the psychological damage caused to a whole generation of "stolen" children becomes clear, it is difficult to comprehend the sheer immensity of the systematic betrayal of trust suffered by a staggering number of British families, and perpetrated by those in authority who should have known better.

"Oranges and Sunshine" covers a mere handful of tragic stories in various ways, all very effective. These stories expose a truly shameful episode in British history, and the way in which those affected adapted to their fate - with varying degrees of success. What is clear though is that for better or worse, this childhood experience has indelibly marked them for the rest of their lives.

Although the children who were torn away from their mothers may not have been marshalled roughly onto rail wagons, on a one way trip to oblivion, a very clear parallel can be drawn between the ghastly regime in Nazi Germany, and the ghastly regimes that allowed this despicable scheme to continue, and which do not appear, from the facts as depicted in this film, to have been brought to account.

The parallel is that when good men and women fall silent, and no-one challenges the systemic abuse of power by those in authority, then the arrogant, the incompetent, the weak-willed, the lazy and, indeed, the downright evil, triumph.

To me that is the enduring message of this brilliant yet incredibly sad film. It is a repeated lesson we seem incapable of learning, no matter how many times emotionally evocative films like this attempt to remind us.

Compelling watching!

[keith-sheppard · 8/10 · 11 May 2011]

Carronas' review could not be more wrong! She could not even get the directors name right. It's JIM not LEN Loach, and the rest of the review is just as inaccurate. I had no trouble following the story line even without any prior knowledge of the events. I had no trouble understanding where each scene was set, be it UK or Oz, it was perfectly clear which was which. The film stock helped to give that dated feel of the 1980's and this was further enhanced by the vehicles, furniture and fashions. The lack of dialogue in certain scenes (meeting the Brothers) added tension where words would have added nothing. This was an excellent film, well filmed and well acted. See it and enjoy.

Amazing film that must be seen. Truly a "jaw-dropper"!

[bethelagcy · 8 October 2011]

I saw this truly extraordinary film last night ... and know now that it will be with me for a long time to come. The story is totally compelling and the acting is superb! Emily Watson is always a wonder to watch and she does some of her finest work here -- perhaps her best performance ever. The supporting players are, without exception, highly gifted and each finds his or her character to the point where you feel, at times, that you are watching a documentary, so fine are their portrayals. Based on the true experiences of social worker Margaret Humphreys (that will leave you with your mouth agape often)and with a beautifully written script that moves briskly ... and, at many turns, into frightening territory, with terrific direction, this is a must-see! Put it on your list! If there is any justice, this one will figure when the awards are handed out!

Heartwrenching

[saadgkhan · 7/10 · 11 July 2012]

Oranges and Sunshine – CATCH IT (B+) The film tells the story of Margaret Humphreys, a social worker from Nottingham who uncovered the scandal of "home children", a scheme of forcibly relocating poor children from the UK to Australia and Canada. Margaret reunites estranged families and brings worldwide attention to the cause. Deported children were promised oranges and sunshine but they got hard labor and life of misery and sexual abuse in institutions such as Keaney College in Bindoon, Western Australia. (Wiki) Oranges and Sunshine is a sensitive subject matter which defiantly put Britain in Shame when Margaret Humphreys broke out the story in 80s. Emily Watson's portrayal of Margaret Humphreys' trouble to help the transported kids all the way to Australia is heart wrenching. The emotional turmoil she goes to work for them while managing her family is something really inspiring. Emily Watson is a great actress and no doubt she brings her emotional range to the real life role model. In supporting cast Hugo Weaving & David Wenhem did a fine job. Overall, it's a sensitive movie about a sensitive issue. Keep in mind its tear jerker, so keep a box of tissue.

The acidic truth of Oranges and Sunshine....

[scunnered_again · 9/10 · 9 March 2011]

I caught this film as part of the Glasgow Film Festival and I'm glad that I did. Knowing very little of the story about the the organised deportation of children in care from the United Kingdom to Australia, I found much of this film was shocking and upsetting. This film concentrates on Margaret Humphrys, the social worker who uncovers this scandal. Under her own steam and then with the support of her employer, Margaret discovers that more than just a few children were deported. She makes it her mission to help those deportees who wish to find out about the families they were forced to leave behind. This proves to be no easy task as the British government stonewall her and provide no help with the details of the deportees or their families. No deliberate attempt is made to overplay the injustice or high emotions running through the story; it is told in a simple, straightforward and affecting manner and it is all the more powerful for that. Take some time out and go and see this film as it's one that deserves a wide audience and stay to the end as that's when the viewer finds out when an apology for this very sad situation was given.

Evil in our names

[paul2001sw-1 · 7/10 · 21 November 2015]

In the years after World War Two, the British government took away children from single mothers considered unsuited for parenthood, told them they were orphans, and sent them to Australia, where they were raised as virtual slave labour by the Catholic church. This shocking but true story is revealed in Jim Loach's workmanlike film 'Oranges and Sunshine', which follows the British social worker who discovered and revealed their plight. The film is interesting because of the awfulness of the tale it reveals; but the story of its protagonist is not so interesting in itself, and indeed, the drama itself makes the point that her story is less interesting than those of the people she helped which, by contrast, are revealed only through retrospection. It's still worth watching as a reminder of the terrible things that are sometimes done supposedly in a good cause.

'Thousands of lost children. A secret buried by time. One woman will bring the truth to light.'

[gradyharp · 9/10 · 4 November 2012]

It is always a jolt when a bit of buried history surfaces and makes us realize that the world is not all that sane as we would like to believe: the Chaos Factor raises its ugly head as in this screen adaptation by Rona Munro of Margaret Humphreys' true story book 'Empty Cradles'. This is a very powerful film, all the more so because of the quality of acting and direction by Jim Loach who never lets the film run out of control despite the unveiling tragedy.

The story is set in the 1980s where Nottingham, social worker Margaret Humphreys (Emily Watson) is a social worker who encounters a middle aged woman who has traveled form Australia to find her birth parents. Margaret at first doesn't want to increase her workload with a wild tale of children having been deported form England by ship to be placed in orphanage work camps in Australia, but with the aid of her supportive husband Merv (Richard Dillane) she begins to investigate the uncovered secret, ultimately traveling to Australia where she meets the 'unwanted children' as adults each longing to return to the UK to meet their families. The children when deported were as young as four to thirteen years old and had been told their parents either were dead or didn't want them and the representatives from the government promised them a safe home with 'oranges and sunshine' in Australia. There are several 'victims' as played by Hugo Weaving, David Wenham, Russell Dykstra and others who help personalize the unspoken crime until Margaret progresses to the point where she can hold the British government accountable for child migration schemes and reunite the children involved -- now adults living mostly in Australia -- with their parents in Britain. Though the deportations occurred from the 1940's through the 1970's it was only after Margaret Humphrey's 1994 book and then much later after when February 2010 Great Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown finally issued a full apology to those deported children and their families.

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent but it is the glowing performance by Emily Watson that makes this revelation of a film remain in the mind long after the credits explain how the solution played out in reality. This is a tough film but an important one and deserves a much larger audience than it has found.

Grady Harp

A little slow and soft but by no means not poignant.

[suspira-483-995391 · 7/10 · 21 November 2012]

I would be lying if I said I didn't want this film to be better. It's not a piece of high drama by any stretch but it IS a slow burn of a film which highlights the stupidity and boorishness of government agencies when they've done something wrong and don't want to accept any responsibility to what happened to those in their care. When it comes down to individuals having to work on their own to get the information these displaced people so desperately need, SOMETHING is wrong. The film is not a far stretch from reality, having personally experienced this for myself.

I was wondering if they'd address the sexual abuse suffered by the children within the system, as well as the physical toil they dealt with. I am glad to see that this was treated with sensitivity and WITHOUT fanfare. Fortunately it is barely mentioned aside from the last 10 or so minutes of the film. There is more than enough of that going on in recent world happenings anyway.

Don't even get me started on the Christian Brothers anyway... that part of the film brought tears to my eyes as it reminded me very much of the tales my own father - also a ward of the state with the rest of his siblings and under the Christian Brothers' care in the 60s and 70s - told me. Frankly, the less said about that organisation of kiddy fiddlers and abusers, the better.

Hugo Weaving is a minor character in this film but he's no less captivating as a broken man who has suffered from the loss of his identity. Indeed, even David Wenham portrays a victim of abuse in sheer, angry denial perfectly.

Unfortunately Emily Watson's character does not carry much weight which is disappointing as she is the main focus of the film rather than the deported (or "Lost") children. Much of her dialogue is stale and it's the actors around her that pull the movie together. The scripting is very weak at times, however if you can put up with that, it's a film well worth watching.

I can't say I enjoyed it because I am very close to it's subject matter but it was a worthy telling of a tragic mishandling of the lives of children of our past.

They were promised oranges and sunshine.

[hitchcockthelegend · 9/10 · 14 January 2012]

Oranges and Sunshine is directed by Jim Loach and adapted to screenplay by Rona Munro from the book "Empty Cradles", written by Margaret Humphreys. It stars Emily Watson, Hugo Weaving, David Wenham and Richard Dillane. Music is by Lisa Gerrard and cinematography by Denson Baker. The film tells the true story of Margaret Humphreys (Watson), a Nottingham social worker who in 1986 began uncovering the scandal of forced child migration from the UK to various countries of the Commonwealth. Thousands upon thousands of children who were either from poor families or orphaned, were sent to British colonies under a banner of lies. Where instead of the oranges and sunshine they were expecting, they were put to work as hard labour and suffered terrible conditions to live in as well as abuse at the hands of their carers.

Lost Children Of The Empire.

It's a story ripe for exploitation, for a bit of shock cinema, the kind that assaults you with horrific images, but Oranges and Sunshine is a rare beast, a true life horror tale that accentuates the outrage by remaining understated and steady in sombre tone. This is expert film making from Loach (son of Ken), letting the story unfold with a naturalism that makes it a deeply moving experience. No histrionic characterisations by the actors, no grandstanding speeches or attempts to paint Margaret Humphreys as an armour plated crusader risking death at every turn. It's cold, yet humane, in its telling, the pain of story etched on the faces of the lost children, now adults searching for identity and a family thread to stitch it together. The emotional uplift of the reunion scenes gladdens the heart, but never once does the film proclaim, like its wonderful protagonist, that what has been lost can be replaced. But identity is comforting, the fragmented pieces of childhoods ruined finally piecing themselves together.

Who was crucified huh? You tell me that.

Thankfully the makers resist, rightly, the urge to show flashback scenes of the children suffering. We know just by dialogue exchanges and character reactions, just what pain and misery was bestowed upon these minors. Yet the film is full of powerful scenes that really grip and hold the heart, where quite often they are just quiet conversations, a statement made or a question asked. Or even in silence for one truly potent sequence as Margaret visits Bindoon Boys Town in Western Australia, an imposing, but elegant structure on the outside, but that elegance belies the terrible crimes perpetrated by the cleric elders within. Loach and his team don't need tricks or historical tampering to make their film dramatic and worthy, the story sells itself on both counts.

Oh, baby, baby, it's a wild world.

Picture is propelled by a wonderfully restrained performance by Watson. A perfect bit of casting, Watson never screams for our sympathies, she hits the right emotional notes required, but never strains to get there, she plays Margaret as a bastion of decency. She deftly blends stoicism with vulnerability as Margaret juggles the emotional strains of the search with that of the safe haven of her family home that she is away from for long periods. Watson is surrounded by three damn fine male performances. Weaving and Wenham as the "lost boys" underpin the story, they perfectly embody the crushing of the childhood spirit, a two pronged acting show that says so much for the thousands of children who were cruel victims of the child migration schemes. Dillane scores high as Margaret's husband, he perfectly understands the tone of the movie and turns in a respectful and appropriate performance as Margaret's loving crutch.

It's not all perfect, Margaret is met with some resistance and finds herself in a couple of tricky situations, but the evil nature of the wrong-doers never fully surfaces to give her a formidable foe to respond too. Nor is anyone made accountable for their heinous crimes, something which leaves a frustrating taste in the mouth. However, the point of the movie, the attention brought to the story it's about and the skill with which said story is told, ensures that these are just minor quibbles in one of the best movies of the year. 9/10

Harrowing but riveting

[The_Celluloid_Sage · 7/10 · 6 April 2020]

Ok this is a tough one to review. Not because it's a bad film or anything as such, but because of its content matter. We saw this on Netflix and thought it looked interesting. Knew nothing about it, or its factual subject matter. The film starts in Nottingham in the mid 80's with Humphreys (Watson, in perhaps her best role to date) as a British social worker taking a child away from its mother, for the best interests of the child. This scene is key to what follows.

What does follow (and I'm not going to go into it here at all) is the discovery by Humphreys of the systematic and organised mass deportation of British children to the colonies in the mid 50's to date. It really is a film you need to watch, not only is it well directed, it is superbly acted by all concerned, especially from Weaving and Wenham as now grown up men who were sent overseas as children. This film is actually based on Humphrey's own book regarding the events so I will assume it is mostly factual. The term ignorance is bliss can perhaps be applied here, as when you find out some of the atrocities your own governments have covered up, along with the consequences of said actions, it truly is horrifying.

Margaret Humphreys received numerous awards for her perseverance and hard work in getting families back together and uncovering this scandal. I for one can only commend for it. Such things should never have happened. Powerful, thought provoking and tragic. Well worth watching.

Admin Rating 7/10

Second chance at an Oscar for Emily Watson?

[jburtroald95 · 8/10 · 20 June 2011]

Sarah's Key was critically lauded for its reliable method of evoking raw anguish in its audience by depicting the trauma of a savage injustice from a child's perspective. In the same year, Jim Loach's feature drama handles the similar material of an scandal that's just about on par with the Vel d'Hiv roundup, but the film's subjects are all well into adulthood by the time we are meeting them. The fact that the victims are always shown as adults (in physical form at least) has given the achievement of pulling off this excellent film a higher degree of difficulty, seeing as the actors and screenplay writers are required to work extra hard to win the audience's sympathy, rather than having the simple forgivable innocence of an actual child on screen doing the job. However, this is not to say that Sarah's Key was mere emotional pornography: it found excellent ways of challenging itself in other aspects which gave it a greater level of sophistication, but in terms of expressing the heartbreak, the feat of Oranges and Sunshine is much more remarkable.

Among the topics being explored here is the very complicated issue of adoption. The burdensome puzzle of how a child in an unstable family situation or an unhealthy state of living should receive professional help – whether such interference is truly protecting their best interests or inflicting deep psychological harm by depriving them of family – has long been troubling child protection authorities. In mid- twentieth-century England, the popular solution settled on was the organised deportation of these children to Australia. Told that they were orphans, with no living relatives to care for them, they would be sent over in large numbers and, once there, sold into slavery for a respected church organisation commonly refferrred to as "The Brothers".

Several decades later, a determined social worker from Nottingham has begun to single-handedly reunite the victims of the outrage with their family back in England. As they relate to her their heartwrenching stories, each with their own despicable atrocities on top of what has already been mentioned, the irreparable damage of being raised without a proper family becomes apparent, and they are reduced to miserable, vulnerable, homesick little children. Its frequent mentioning of mothers, its claim that the wound of lost parents will never truly heal, and the fact that most of the victims shown are boys creates very distinct allusions to Peter Pan, even before that similarity is actually mentioned by one of the people. An additional noticeable parallel between this film and another classic story is the idea of a child suffering lonesomely at the hands of a cruel organisation under the sneaky pretense that they are an orphan, which is reminiscent of Oliver Twist.

However, it would be grossly unfair to just cynically dissect this film using only comparisons: it displays a very impressive divergence from the typical conspiracy drama. Its most prominent asset is the fully- fledged characterisation of its activist hero and the equal attention spent on showing her suffering as well that of her clients. The delightful Emily Watson obviously does a great deal to bring her to life, playing her so brilliantly that she comes across as both perfectly likable and humanly multi-faceted. Hearing such painful stories is incredibly taxing, and the growing unpopularity she is gaining as she stirs the government and the press results in some truly terrifying personal attacks while she is staying in Australia, but as the authorities are refusing to assist her, she knows that she must not allows herself to withdraw from her mission as no one else will be willing to pick it up. She does, of course, also become estranged from her family as the task begins to consume her, but thankfully not instantly, allowing the satisfying realism to remain intact.

Also a relief is that a handful of the people she is helping are actually showing genuine gratitude and returning the favour by giving her personal assistance. The friendships she forms with these people are truly touching, and effectively lighten the situation for both the hero (Margaret) and the audience.

With a very capable supporting cast, featuring David Wenham, Hugo Weaving and Tara Morice (Strictly Ballroom), in the roles of the victims and Margaret's family, this is a highly commendable and worthwhile piece of filmmaking, let down only by the rather repetitive nature of the script, if anything.

Watchable but with some flaws

[bazookamouth-221-898097 · 6/10 · 20 March 2020]

Looking at the reviews on IMDB here this is the greatest movie ever made! Sad story and theme but my problem with this film started with Emily Watson. Something unhinged about her. She always looks a bit mental. Also I like the way she was flashing back and forth from Australia in seconds. sometimes I never know where she was, until her husband turned up , maybe she could teleport. The story and how it was made never absorbed me. In fact toward the end of the movie I was looking at my watch. Deporting of children from crooked Great Britain to abuse in Australia is very sad but it needed a tad better movie than this. Some of those Aussie actors were Aussie soap level. Not a bad movie but not the classic these IMDB reviewers make it out to be.

An Opportunity To Tell a Fascinating Story - Sadly Lost!

[carrona · 1/10 · 7 April 2011]

Had read the book and a lot of history surrounding the subject matter but the movie was one BIG disappointment. Emily Watson (who I previously liked) seems like she was half asleep and walked through her performance like a corpse. She always has a kind of smirky look around her eyes and that doesn't help when you're supposed to be acting out a character who's sympathetic and crusading. Many scenes seemed contrived and lacked honest emotion. You never felt remotely sympathetic to the characters' stories as they were so under-developed.

Always been a big fan of Ken Loach - Kes and Ladybird, Ladybird are up there with some of the best film-making in British history. Ken's son Len, the director, has used the same writer Rona Munro to adapt the story as a screenplay. What went wrong this time? Viewers will have been puzzled as to which country the action was happening in as the location switched from Oz to England in the blink of the eye. The only clue given was the slight increase in sunlight or an obviously non-British beach-side location. Overall the film stock used must have been ancient. All scenes were murky and dark - even when it was apparently sunny in Oz.

Amongst scenes which particularly stood out was the half-hearted 'love scene' between the Margaret Humphreys (Watson) character and her husband. It was plonked into the film like a gatecrasher at a wedding - a gap-filler with no relevance to the story.

Another scene saw Humphreys attending what appeared to be some sort of Sunday-school picnic type of event (presumably a gathering of people who had been sent over to Oz as children by the British government/social work department). Humphreys stood on a small stage in a field and made a short speech, addressing an audience of attendees who appeared to be largely ignoring her - asking anyone who had a story to tell or questions regarding their childhood 'kidnapping' to contact her. She sat down in said field and was ignored until one man approached her and started to tell his tale. This appeared to be a catalyst for a large crowd to suddenly take it upon themselves to walk over like a bunch of zombies and join the discussion. It was like a scene out of a horror movie.

Another turgid scene saw Humphreys driving around Oz(?) streets for no apparent reason with one of the grown-up victims and suddenly joining in singing along to Cat Steven's on the car radio singing "Wild World".

Love scene - check!

Singing scene - check!

When in England, the director seemed to have no clue how to convey a 1980s feel other than to stick old-style metal dustbins in front of homes or use the same half dozen 80's vintage cars parked strategically whenever they were forced to film outside. Bizarrely, the one scene where a grown-up Oz emigrant is re-united with a parent, they choose to film it on a suburban street full of homes with brand new white uPVC doors which would have been rare if not non-existent at that period in time.

Towards the end, one of the now-grown child refugees drove Humphreys into the wilderness where the 'brothers' lived in a large mansion-like building miles from civilization. Apparently this is where much of the sexual and physical abuse took place when the victims were children. There was never any real analysis of the 'brothers' story. The mansion was obviously their religious HQ. A stupid scene where Humphreys and a former victim strolled into the mansion and sat like wallies whilst the dreaded 'brothers' sat eating and ignoring them (speaking not one word) was comical in its complete and utter lack of drama. It seemed that the director was more immersed in setting up camera angles to film the vast dining hall where they all sat, than actually telling us a story. Words fail me! Honestly, there were so many holes in the story - it was like a sieve of vague facts. If you hadn't read the book or followed the historical fact through news sources, you wouldn't have had a clue what the hell was going on.

The real Margaret Humphreys must be SO disappointed. I'm sure she's a great person but this film made her look cold and morose.

Can't understand the largely positive reviews given by the media.

Len Roach needs to take some big lessons from his father's film history. Now that's a guy who deserves praise!

Brilliant

[nightingaleron · 15 August 2011]

I can only give this a 10/10 due to the fact that i grew up with many of the fairbrigians and the Bindoon and Clontarf boys. I am a 62 year old and still socialise with some of these people. Fairbridge in Western Australia is situated just south of Perth and very close to Pinjarra. Every year they hold a Fairbridge festival that lasts for a whole weekend and hosts lots of activities including top groups and singers. I myself was once committed to a boys institution and met many of these kids that had ran away from Bindoon and other institutions that were abusive to them. Kingsley Fairbridge was not the abusive type and most Fairbrigians do not tell the same story as the Christian brothers torture. This movie portrays the story of Margaret Humphrey and her quest to find these -(now grown ups) to find their real parents. Only a very small portion found relatives. The goof here says that Margaret couldn't have moved to a stone house in Perth. Fremantle was the first landing and the first settlers along with convicts dug out a huge section of one of the hills which was limestone. Limestone was used for the building of almost -ALL the first buildings including the Fremantle prison. Many more houses and buildings in both Fremantle and Perth still stand today. I loved the movie and i believe it is very much close to the truth. A must to see.

Really O.K

[ha-selle · 6/10 · 24 April 2012]

I can only give this film a 6/10 due to the fact that it's a really interesting theme but sometimes it's a bit boring and I was wondering:"Wh y did Jim Loach do that?!" At first I will say that Jim Loach did a great work with his first film and I also appreciate his other works. Commentaries like "He should take lessons from his father" are disgusting and not really nice. After this film I really wanted to know more about the deportation of these poor children. I never heard before about that. But also I must say that some scenes are a bit long, boring and unrealistic. Sometimes I feel asleep but then out of nothing there was a drama like when somebody tries to kill Margaret. Why did Jim Loach do that? So to conclude I can say that when you're interested in this theme it's a must-see film whether if you're young or old. It's a film for everybody, this film is "Really O.K".

Haunting, heartbreaking

[AnnieLola · 10/10 · 18 July 2013]

Here is another example of past British governmental ideas of what was 'good' for disadvantaged or otherwise unprotected children. One recalls the heartless relocation of aboriginal children in Australia so vividly portrayed in "Rabbit-Proof Fence". After watching "Oranges and Sunshine" (and I didn't even see it from the beginning) I couldn't stop thinking of all those thousands upon thousands of helpless little boys and girls, deprived of any human rights whatsoever and doomed to cheerless and loveless childhoods. And then added to the flawed concept of this wholesale export of the underage needy is the fact that there are always predators who will pervert power over the weak into a free hand with abuse of every kind.

Of course the greater part of the 'migrants' were profoundly damaged by the appalling treatment they received in a program officially perceived to be 'beneficial', at least in some quarters. Who was to benefit from the production of scarred adults, one has to wonder? Disposing of unwanted people by transporting them to far-flung colonies or Dominions was business as usual a couple of centuries ago; what's especially shocking is the discovery that this was occurring not in Early Georgian or Dickensian England, but only decades ago-- recently, uncomfortably recently. And this in a supposedly civilized nation! This film should have been made thirty years ago...

Good portrayals, but slow progress

[nicolechan916 · 6/10 · 6 December 2016]

The film took awhile to start off, and I almost switched it off. When I found out that it is based on a real story though, I got more intrigued. But, this was only possible when I decided to search it up on Google. A film that needs more explaining , and is better understood from the internet than from watching the film, makes it a hard watch. I would have guessed that it is made from a British company, but apparently it is from an Australian company. The reason I say this, is because American cinema likes to exaggerate and blow things out of proportion, while British films tend to be more subtle which also makes it hard to keep up with sometimes.

In addition to the slow start of the film, I had a hard time comprehending the speech from some characters. Especially from Weaving, and the male characters in the film, who tended to murmur with their low voices. I couldn't catch what they said, and also, was not really that bothered by it. I didn't feel like I missed much, but only towards the end of the film did I realize I had missed some key elements. Again, this was rectified by online sources.

However, there is a pretty strong cast. Watson shows her character's tenacity and dedication well, with good supports from her husband, played by Richard Dillane. Another notable character, would be Len (David Wenham) who we find has many depths to him - that of which I am also unsure of. Thinking back, I did not get much of the film, but just the overall picture.

While it is a good watch in that it made me aware of the situation that happened, and that is still ongoing, the film just progressed too slowly for my taste. I also noticed that there is very limited background music for certain scenes. This definitely makes the audience more aware of their own time and space, making scenes dry and unfinished.

Very moving everyman story of loss and the search for our origins

[bartersiobhan · 8/10 · 25 May 2011]

This is a story of the organised deportation to Australia of over 120,000 British children since the late 1890s until the 1960s. It is a must-see for people of our generation, if only to gain some insight into what some of our forebears had to endure.

Emily Watson - if she weren't such an accomplished actress - would make a fine counsellor/social worker. She shines in the lead role and the scene where she wakes up with breathing difficulties is very moving - she literally has the weight of all the people on that deported list on her compassionate heart. Hugo Weaving is deeply moving as the man who all his life wanted only to see his mother again. David Wenham's Len provides the only relief as the boy-made-good who finds his mum and begins a relationship with her.

Watch it and consider how lucky you are.

why are children being shipped to australia ?

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 13 December 2023]

When social worker margaret humphreys discovers that infants have been shipped from england to australia, she starts digging deeper into the mystery. Why were the children told their birth parents were dead? And why were the mothers and parents told their children had been adopted.. when they hadn't been? What happened here? Siblings split up, sent to various far-away countries, usually without anyone's consent. And the deeper she digs, the worse the conditions seem to be; abuse, beatings, bad living conditions. The church says she is attacking them, but she just wants to reunite families, and help them get counseling if they need it. A sad but true story. Based on the actual experiences of margaret humphreys, the author. Directed by jim loach. It's good! For more detailed info, check out the wikipedia entries for "oranges and sunshine" and for margaret humphreys.

True Portrayal

[johnnymilne · 10/10 · 5 May 2020]

In the early 60's my wife was thirteen when she, her older brother and younger sister were sent to Australia for a "better life" They endured several years of abuse at the Fairbridge Farm School being used as slave labour and in her case sexually abused. This movie is based on Margaret Humphrey's attempts to help some of the "children" find their parents and to be able to discuss their individual experiences. Very well documented. Shame on the British and Australian governments for not investigating the conditions in which these children had to endure.

A powerful story in the 80s

[dorianne-barlaguet · 6/10 · 12 April 2012]

I think it's a true story in which we can learn much about life because it's a really emotional experience and it's a shocking and upsetting film. In the film we often have poignant scenes. I think it's really pity because there is no mention of a father in the whole film. I think a parallel can be drawn with the Nazi regime because there are traumatized children and we have dead children. Margaret Humphreys is a really good social worker because she tries to find the children's true identity. She play her role very well owing to her determination and she convents emotional feelings. She is really fascinating. To finish with, I think I would have preferred a documentary film to a story.

Migrant orphans

[Prismark10 · 8/10 · 12 December 2013]

This film was written by Rona Munro a noted playwright who has also worked in film, television, radio and various genres including science fiction as she wrote that last ever story for the original run of Doctor Who.

The film is based on the the book 'Empty Cradles' by social worker Margaret Humphreys that highlights her real life tale of the supposedly orphaned children sent to Australia and their fight to discover or be reunited with their real parents.

The film is directed by Jim Loach, son of radical filmmaker Ken Loach and together they make a good pair to bring a tale of social injustice and fighting against the establishment to the screen.

What makes the film heart wrenching that this migration took place up until the 1970s and some of the kids who ended up in Australia lived a life of systematic abuse and/or indentured labour until they became old enough. Many were suffering from mental scars as well as some physical ones.

Although the film is shot in UK and Australia it is a low budget film. It might be slow going for some but the focus is on the actors to bring the tale alive. In that case Emily Watson, Hugo Weaving, David Wenham do a excellent job.

It is a film that requires investment of your time and it is not a movie that takes the easy way to cynically, manipulate your emotions that a lot of Hollywood films would do.

It is a slow burner but the scenes near the end at Bindoon when the full horrors of what the kids have to face is revealed is gut wrenching.

Take out your tissue !

[auberi-fanguede · 7/10 · 2 June 2012]

This film was a very interesting story because formerly, I had never heard about this deportation. I think it is important to see this movie because the message is brilliant. It's an emotional movie, children are shattered by this deportation, they were taken away from their family, sometimes from poor families but they weren't all orphans. Emily Waston, who has the lead role is a poignant actress, Jack's character shines in his role, the casting is top-notch ! The film fails action scenes but it isn't boring, because it's very important to speak about this true story. I would like to read the book too, I hope it is as compelling as the movie. I rate Oranges and Sunshine seven to ten stars ! And I advise all people to see this movie. Warning : emotional people, take out your tissue !

Like father, like son

[dharmendrasingh · 5/10 · 6 April 2011]

Nepotism isn't always a bad thing. Jim Loach (Ken's son) continues in his father's footsteps by showing us a warts-and-all Britain. In this, his debut feature, he recreates the story of Margaret Humphreys, a Nottingham Social Worker, who in the 1980s uncovered the abuse of thousands of British children before and after the Great Wars.

So that Britain could save money, and eschew its responsibility, as many as 130,000 'degenerate' (institutionalised) children were forced to migrate to Australia and other colonies, where they were promised they'd have 'oranges and sunshine'. Instead they were foully mistreated by members of the Christian Brothers and other institutions. They were the 'lost children of the empire'.

With such an emotive story I'm not sure why I wasn't more moved. The acting is appropriately controlled, particularly Hugo Weaving's depressive orphan. And Emily Watson affects a confidential, assertive tone for her evangelical Social Worker.

Rather than admit to a cold-hearted detachment on my part, I'm suggesting that Loach's subdued style doesn't grab our attention. The tragedy of these children was uncovered years ago; there's no fresh reason to remind us. No recent occurrence has prompted the re-unearthing, and because of this I, sadly, almost didn't care. I wonder, though, if that's the point. No aspect of this story is entertaining and so the film shouldn't be.

Could it have been better as a T.V. drama? Were too many orphans interviewed? Aren't religious extremists too easy a target to be censured? What possessed Humphreys – possesses her still – to forsake her family and ruin her own mental health to help repatriate people she will never know? My guess is that Loach's reason to dramatise this abuse is to remind us how dangerous forgiveness is. When we forgive, we forget. Loach insists we remember.

It's a noble first effort, and it's clearly too early to label Jim Loach. One thing is clear: he's a dogged truth-seeker, just like his old man. I would add that the censors have yet again mis-certified. I caught only one swear word and one straightforward – gratuitous, really – love scene. These things in or out, the film should have been (in Britain) a 12A.

www.scottishreview.net