-How did Arthur know Charlie was Lying??
Just after he burned the camp to get rid of all their tracks he said "Molly O'Boyle my arse".
What suddenly made him not believe this story? Am i missing something or did he just have a sudden realization that he wasn't telling the truth?
That was because he had gotten word that Mikey had been flogged. Thus he knew that he hadn't been with some girl. We don't know how, but word travels fast at times.
He was already suspicious when he asked Charlie about the girl. "Mary?", he asks, as a test, because Charlie said Molly.
I agree Arthur was suspicious of Charlie's story right from the start, and all the questions he peppers him with are a way of taunting him about it. But I think since Charlie was so badly injured Arthur chose to wait a bit before making an issue of it.
shareYeah, I got that feeling aswell, that he knew Charlie was up to something. I belive he pretty much wanted Charlie to kill him. Remember how he says "Why don't you ever just stop me Charlie?" or something along those lines in a scene later (can't remember which one)
share^ the death scene of Jellon Lamb. Arthur is torturing him with a slow death, when Charlie points his gun at him, Arthur says, "Why can't you ever just stop me?" when Charlie drops his aim to finish Lamb quickly.
What I would like to know is, when Lamb is lowering Charlie to the floor, and then he, too, suddenly slumps down, unable to speak, we see that he is wounded in the gut. Then, we see Arthur and Two-Bob returning, the latter ejects a bullet casing from his rifle - the meaning being that Two-Bob has just shot Lamb in the back. So, is it just me . . . or do we never hear a shot? A mistake in the sound track - or has Two-Bob got a magically silenced rifle?
It's a joke. It's all a joke.
You do hear a shot, though it's very very quiet, it's one of those things that have bothered me a bit, I mean, it doesn't seem that they were very far away, so the shot should have been more loud, then again, I'm no expert and have no idea what sort of rifle he was using.
shareWell, going by the nature of the cave-ridden hills they're in, the flat expanse of bush that surrounds, the fact that they must have been no more than a few hundred meters away, and the fact that shots from a couple miles away were heard clearly (when the Troopers were slaughtering Aborigines) . . . the only thing we're left with is that the sound effect was purposfully omitted/made covert in order to preserve the shock value for the audience.
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware they this kind of thing happens all the time in movies, but, being a creature of logic they tend to stand out to me as a viewer more than probably intended. Like this one for instance . . . it just bothers me a little that, we're told visually that he's just been shot, but we don't hear it - the question immediatly becomes (after "why is he bleeding?") "why didn't I(we) hear it?".
Unless, there's some 'bushman' technique to suppressing the discharge of a rifle, so sort or ranger trick? Because I've never heard of a way to sound-suppress late 19th century firearms.
It's a joke. It's all a joke.
Yeah, I was a bit annoyed by it aswell, since they don't really give us any reason who the shot is hardly heard. Maybe they just made a mistake in the sound-editing? haha, nah, I guess it's made for the shock-value, which is a shame, since it's really not needed in this movie, (still, one minor thing like this doesn't prevent the movie from being great).
shareThose who didn't hear a shot probably need to turn up the volume or get a hearing check. It's a great touch to have it not-too-loud though, in the same way that you barely see the blokes head shot off in an earlier scene. Subtle. We get so used to American films that linger too long on a shot and over-emphasise or explain something that you have to readjust your 'tuning'.
share