The film which i saw in 1975 has remained one of my ultimate favourites. I subsequently loved Peter Weirs work fr then on. Th film has a strange quality about it. I felt it wen i 1st viewed it when i was 17 yrs & hadnt a clue about weirdy stuff / time warps/ other dimensions etc but in that cinema, watching it i felt drowsy, lazily very content & totally oblivious to anything around me. Its prob why ths film made such a lasting impression on me like no other film had ever done. Now im in my late 60's i feel that it doesn't matter if th story was true or not, its HOW it affected each person who saw it. & on a metaphysics level we dont understand yet. Meaning neither time nor distance matters b coz iv never experienced how that film 1st affected me ( & still does no matter how many times iv seen it since) the film was shot at hanging rock & it picked up vibes or wotever fr th surroundings. God, i sound so airy fairy but i don't know how else to explain it. I 1st saw film in Australia, in Sydney wth my boyfriend Andrew who was th kid brother of th artist Martin Sharp, who Janelle in th interview mentions. We didnt know he knew th author of hanging rock. We wer just kids & martin didnt live at home wth family, i didnt realise how influential he was in th art world then but do remember staring for ages at Martin Sharps paintings strewn about th walls of Andrews family home. V v v weird artwork!
Its most certainly not 'true' in that its a novel. Whether its inspired by real events is a separate question but certainly the novel and movie are in no sense 'true'. And even if 'based on a true story' then virtually every aspect has been changed because there is no knowing most of those facts. The most likely 'truth' would be that some men did something unspeakable but sadly not a novelty, somebody could make a movie like this about all the murdered and missing aboriginal women along the 'highway of tears' in British Columbia, but its too sore a spot for canadians. It wasn't THAT long ago that all those deaths and disappearances at a school in Australia would be impossible to find out about. As you say, 'reality' has as little to do with it as Treasure Island, which likely also had a lot of 'truth' to it.
Wonderful to hear this insight into this spellbinding story that still leaves an imprint into the psyche ,not having the ending revealed is a total masterstroke as it ensures the longevity and intrigue remains for generations of readers and movie watchers , it leaves the interpretation of actuality quite ambiguous yet utterly enchanting.
I ordered the biography on Amazon this week. It sounds fascinating.... but I fail to see how "revealing the mystery" would spoil anything. To me, it only deepens it.
"(16:36) In 1987, three years after Joan Lindsay died, a final chapter of the book was published. And everybody had always known there was this chapter that had been excluded from the published version." Nonsense. No one had "always known" about that so-called 18th chapter. No one had been announcing or expecting it. It was published all of a sudden. Its authenticity is dubious. There is no manuscript, no annotated typoscript, no diary entry, no correspondence, no notary document, no copyright transfer, no last will ordering it to be published. Just... nothing. All we have is the publisher's sudden claim that a 'missing chapter' was there, and that it was written by Lindsay. A claim that totally refutes what Lindsay has ever said about her novel. She was a fierce advocate of her story being written as open-ended (you can hear this for yourself in an interview on the Criterion DVD), without any 'solution'. So either Joan Lindsay is a liar, or her publisher is a liar. I put my trust in Lindsay. Particularly because the quality of that 'hidden chapter' is horrible. So if you ask me, this '18th chapter' is a hoax, like there have been so many hoaxes in the history of literature. It is time some Australian student in philology studies the material base for this dubious attribution. Joan Lindsay's literary heritage surely deserves that.
I notice that someone has 'marked' this contribution of mine, according to the CZcams signalling system of unacceptable messages. I wonder who did that, and I wonder why. Is my response totally unacceptable to some? Is someone afraid of the implication of my response? Who can tell?
@@michelcouzijn5862 I must have been smoking some dankass bud to end up here. I can assure you I am not familiar with this subject and not qualified to respond. I'm actually shocked I commented. Weird. I apologize & I'll see myself out👉👉👉
this is a remarkably unsatisfactory interview and I'm not sure if it's because the writer of the biography who is being interviewed doesn't answer the questions she's asked, or if the interviewer asks the questions and doesn't get an answer and just laughs a bit in frustration. listen to this hoping to get the most basic answer about whether there is a factual basis for just The Disappearance of one girl two girls three girls I don't know what at this point. I hope the two of these participants realize that they said nothing for 20 minutes.
Its 'about' the book, so its not 'nothing' just because it doesn't answer your one question. Since day one the author has refused to even ADDRESS that question. Peter Weir said he asked that question during his 'audition' and was basically warned against asking it again. He instead asked about whether she thought the girls could have been abducted by aliens, entered a dimensional warp, run away without telling, been killed by a killer, and her reply to him was "any or all of the above". So that is part of the main point. She wrote the novel shortly after having a dream, so its possible some girls could have disappeared somewhere and that was in the news, god knows girls disappearing is NOT just a modern thing. Ok, so thats three years old, sorry it took that long:)
I was really enjoying this until the gentleman talking started saying mystical people are charlatans. I’m sorry but this isn’t about your opinion and there’s no need to justify Joan’s ideas. They’re HER ideas, and this programme is supposed to be about her. It made me feel the lady being interviewed was put on the “prove yourself” spot and that’s not very enlightened.
I was annoyed too but it felt like he was doing that journalist thing and trying to provoke her in order to provide entertainment. She handled it with incredible grace though.
I think the interviewer has trouble understanding some concepts, like the difference between truth and fact. Now, there are areas of knowledge t hat remain totally the domain of fact--most ordinary use of maths and science for example. But truth is more slippery. When one says, for example, a work of drama shows truth this does not mean it dramatizes journalistic facts. Rather it demonstrates human truths enacted by the characters, words and situations--often using metaphor. These are truths. But not facts. Of course one does not use a poem to calculate the orbit of a comet. I am persuaded PAHG makes little sense without some contemplation of the DreamTime.
Michael, you sound narrow minded. You forget that thousands of people have completely vanished in real life with no explanation and no crime, in famous places like the Bermuda Triangle and more recently the Alaska Triangle, where about 16,000 people have vanished including a famous senator. It's well documented and on the History Channel too. So for the novel and movie "Picnic at Hanging Rock" to be a true story is not as far fetched as you think. You atheists are narrow and assume everything must have a materialistic explanation. But any awakened person knows you are wrong of course.
What an appalling interview - not really the interviewer's fault since his guest is being so ridiculously and unnecessarily obtuse. How can you write a book about something (and it's irrelevant that the book is primarily a biography) and there's uncertainty about the truth of the story that the author says is a 'true story' then you should be prepared to answer the question "Is it or isn't the story of her book true?" Why is she so coy and unable to answer a simple question? This woman needs to work on her communication skills. So frustrating to listen to and I'm none the wiser as to whether the book is based on true events or not. Very confusing.
We are on CZcams at the moment so I am encouraging all viewers to watch the video titled Nature Spirits, Spirit Guides, and Ghosts...... and another title We Are Not Alone. Both videos are in book form by Atala Dorothy Toy. How to talk with and Photograph Beings of Other Realms. Now don't ever let anyone call a Mystic a charlatan ever again...thank you.
The film which i saw in 1975 has remained one of my ultimate favourites. I subsequently loved Peter Weirs work fr then on. Th film has a strange quality about it. I felt it wen i 1st viewed it when i was 17 yrs & hadnt a clue about weirdy stuff / time warps/ other dimensions etc but in that cinema, watching it i felt drowsy, lazily very content & totally oblivious to anything around me. Its prob why ths film made such a lasting impression on me like no other film had ever done. Now im in my late 60's i feel that it doesn't matter if th story was true or not, its HOW it affected each person who saw it. & on a metaphysics level we dont understand yet. Meaning neither time nor distance matters b coz iv never experienced how that film 1st affected me ( & still does no matter how many times iv seen it since) the film was shot at hanging rock & it picked up vibes or wotever fr th surroundings. God, i sound so airy fairy but i don't know how else to explain it. I 1st saw film in Australia, in Sydney wth my boyfriend Andrew who was th kid brother of th artist Martin Sharp, who Janelle in th interview mentions. We didnt know he knew th author of hanging rock. We wer just kids & martin didnt live at home wth family, i didnt realise how influential he was in th art world then but do remember staring for ages at Martin Sharps paintings strewn about th walls of Andrews family home. V v v weird artwork!
Its most certainly not 'true' in that its a novel. Whether its inspired by real events is a separate question but certainly the novel and movie are in no sense 'true'. And even if 'based on a true story' then virtually every aspect has been changed because there is no knowing most of those facts. The most likely 'truth' would be that some men did something unspeakable but sadly not a novelty, somebody could make a movie like this about all the murdered and missing aboriginal women along the 'highway of tears' in British Columbia, but its too sore a spot for canadians. It wasn't THAT long ago that all those deaths and disappearances at a school in Australia would be impossible to find out about. As you say, 'reality' has as little to do with it as Treasure Island, which likely also had a lot of 'truth' to it.
On a lesser scale, I saw an episode of a tv show that was taped at a notoriously creepy cemetery in England. Yup, it was definitely atmospheric!
Wonderful to hear this insight into this spellbinding story that still leaves an imprint into the psyche ,not having the ending revealed is a total masterstroke as it ensures the longevity and intrigue remains for generations of readers and movie watchers , it leaves the interpretation of actuality quite ambiguous yet utterly enchanting.
Why so many critics. This is people's opinions which should be respected. Agree to disagree why have we forgotten this.
That movie was trippy.
I have loved picnic at hanging rock since I was young, had no ideas that there was a book after it.
My feforite story and meny many more dreams lovely dreams .
The interviewer needs to do his homework and pay attention!
Went their as a kid, beautiful place
I ordered the biography on Amazon this week. It sounds fascinating.... but I fail to see how "revealing the mystery" would spoil anything. To me, it only deepens it.
"(16:36) In 1987, three years after Joan Lindsay died, a final chapter of the book was published. And everybody had always known there was this chapter that had been excluded from the published version."
Nonsense. No one had "always known" about that so-called 18th chapter. No one had been announcing or expecting it. It was published all of a sudden. Its authenticity is dubious. There is no manuscript, no annotated typoscript, no diary entry, no correspondence, no notary document, no copyright transfer, no last will ordering it to be published. Just... nothing.
All we have is the publisher's sudden claim that a 'missing chapter' was there, and that it was written by Lindsay. A claim that totally refutes what Lindsay has ever said about her novel. She was a fierce advocate of her story being written as open-ended (you can hear this for yourself in an interview on the Criterion DVD), without any 'solution'.
So either Joan Lindsay is a liar, or her publisher is a liar. I put my trust in Lindsay. Particularly because the quality of that 'hidden chapter' is horrible.
So if you ask me, this '18th chapter' is a hoax, like there have been so many hoaxes in the history of literature. It is time some Australian student in philology studies the material base for this dubious attribution. Joan Lindsay's literary heritage surely deserves that.
I notice that someone has 'marked' this contribution of mine, according to the CZcams signalling system of unacceptable messages. I wonder who did that, and I wonder why.
Is my response totally unacceptable to some? Is someone afraid of the implication of my response? Who can tell?
Yep, calling bullshit 🐂💩
@@briansmith1896 Thank you. That answer must have caused you a lot of deep thinking.
@@michelcouzijn5862 I must have been smoking some dankass bud to end up here. I can assure you I am not familiar with this subject and not qualified to respond. I'm actually shocked I commented. Weird. I apologize & I'll see myself out👉👉👉
this is a remarkably unsatisfactory interview and I'm not sure if it's because the writer of the biography who is being interviewed doesn't answer the questions she's asked, or if the interviewer asks the questions and doesn't get an answer and just laughs a bit in frustration. listen to this hoping to get the most basic answer about whether there is a factual basis for just The Disappearance of one girl two girls three girls I don't know what at this point. I hope the two of these participants realize that they said nothing for 20 minutes.
Its 'about' the book, so its not 'nothing' just because it doesn't answer your one question. Since day one the author has refused to even ADDRESS that question. Peter Weir said he asked that question during his 'audition' and was basically warned against asking it again. He instead asked about whether she thought the girls could have been abducted by aliens, entered a dimensional warp, run away without telling, been killed by a killer, and her reply to him was "any or all of the above". So that is part of the main point. She wrote the novel shortly after having a dream, so its possible some girls could have disappeared somewhere and that was in the news, god knows girls disappearing is NOT just a modern thing.
Ok, so thats three years old, sorry it took that long:)
"A Mystic is a Charlatan." Whether or not that guy's Australian, that sounds soundly like an Australian guy! XD
She didn't speak till she was 4?
sooo why write the book???what was behind the book??what happened
Hanging Rock is a work of fiction
Something tells me this book isn't going to offer much, shame really as I'd love to hear more about the real life case that inspired the novel.
There wasn't a real life case, it's all fictional
Saya tinggal di daerah sumtera utara, indonesia.
I was really enjoying this until the gentleman talking started saying mystical people are charlatans. I’m sorry but this isn’t about your opinion and there’s no need to justify Joan’s ideas. They’re HER ideas, and this programme is supposed to be about her. It made me feel the lady being interviewed was put on the “prove yourself” spot and that’s not very enlightened.
I was annoyed too but it felt like he was doing that journalist thing and trying to provoke her in order to provide entertainment. She handled it with incredible grace though.
Beautifully filmed movie but is pure fiction. No way that happened.
This sounds a lot like Charles Kos, is it? Y
The opening music is not the classic theme at all
this interviewer was annoying & wouldn't let the Author speak.
Entirely TRUE is TRUTH with a capital T
A mystic is definitely TRUTH.
your truth, no one elses
we deal in facts these days, empirical evidence or it didn't happen
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”
I think the interviewer has trouble understanding some concepts, like the difference between truth and fact. Now, there are areas of knowledge t hat remain totally the domain of fact--most ordinary use of maths and science for example. But truth is more slippery. When one says, for example, a work of drama shows truth this does not mean it dramatizes journalistic facts. Rather it demonstrates human truths enacted by the characters, words and situations--often using metaphor. These are truths. But not facts. Of course one does not use a poem to calculate the orbit of a comet.
I am persuaded PAHG makes little sense without some contemplation of the DreamTime.
The woman who says “it’s a very simple story “ oh please hardly baha
Michael, you sound narrow minded. You forget that thousands of people have completely vanished in real life with no explanation and no crime, in famous places like the Bermuda Triangle and more recently the Alaska Triangle, where about 16,000 people have vanished including a famous senator. It's well documented and on the History Channel too. So for the novel and movie "Picnic at Hanging Rock" to be a true story is not as far fetched as you think. You atheists are narrow and assume everything must have a materialistic explanation. But any awakened person knows you are wrong of course.
As soon as the male interviewer called Lindsay a charlatan I lost interest in this interview.
What an appalling interview - not really the interviewer's fault since his guest is being so ridiculously and unnecessarily obtuse. How can you write a book about something (and it's irrelevant that the book is primarily a biography) and there's uncertainty about the truth of the story that the author says is a 'true story' then you should be prepared to answer the question "Is it or isn't the story of her book true?" Why is she so coy and unable to answer a simple question? This woman needs to work on her communication skills. So frustrating to listen to and I'm none the wiser as to whether the book is based on true events or not. Very confusing.
We are on CZcams at the moment so I am encouraging all viewers to watch the video titled
Nature Spirits, Spirit Guides, and Ghosts...... and another title We Are Not Alone.
Both videos are in book form by Atala Dorothy Toy. How to talk with and Photograph Beings of Other Realms. Now don't ever let anyone call a Mystic a charlatan ever again...thank you.