Filming a glorious victory

JULIA Gillard was such a disaster as Prime Minister that her own party replaced her with someone despised by at least half the former government.

Actor Rachel Griffiths will star as Julia Gillard in a new film about Gillard's prime ministership. Picture: Bradley Hunte

JULIA Gillard was such a disaster as Prime Minister that her own party replaced her with someone despised by at least half the former government.

Naturally, that view isn't shared by Australia's creative community, who adored Gillard's deceptive misogyny speech and thought her carbon tax lie was all in a good cause. According to film producer Richard Keddie, Gillard "was extraordinarily successful in her performance as a prime minister".

The polls somehow never reflected that extraordinary success, which is evidently measured by different methods within film circles. Labor lost 11 seats under Gillard in the 2010 election and Labor lost another 17 seats in September following three further years of Gillard's extraordinarily successful leadership.

When you hear anyone in the Australian film industry describing something as "successful", keep in mind that to them this word clearly has an alternative meaning. Using the luvvie definition, Verema's Melbourne Cup performance was a triumph.

Stand by for a celebration of Gillard's success, because Keddie is set to produce a film about the former PM starring Rachel Griffiths as Gillard.

It should be an entertaining work, although perhaps not for the reasons Keddie would wish. For a start, Gillard has endorsed the film. "I know Julia well and I've chatted to her about it - she is really happy about it," Keddie told The Guardian.

Kevin Rudd shouldn't anticipate friendly treatment, to say the least. Gillard is to be portrayed by an A-list glamour babe who is keen on making "a stunning drama that will reframe this historic period in our cultural and political life", but who or what will play Rudd? The CGI wizards who devised Gollum for the Lord Of The Rings movies might expect a call.

Another indication of the film's approach may be seen in the planned use of Kerry-Anne Walsh's book The Stalking Of Julia Gillard as research material.

Here's an extract: "Public support for Gillard and her government started crashing in February 2011, after she announced she would introduce a carbon pricing scheme. Her critics claimed she had broken an ironclad election promise not to introduce a 'carbon tax'. During the election campaign she had stated: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme.' This is what she announced, but not as far as those in the opposition and hysterical commentariat were concerned."

Whoa! Walsh's claim that Gillard was somehow quoted out of context on her carbon lie is completely bogus. These words were never spoken by the ex-PM: "But let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme." Walsh, who says Keddie's film will "expose the brutal truth about (Gillard's) doomed prime ministership", just picked them up from some junk website.

So it's all looking good, especially for fringe actors seeking supporting gigs as loathsome media types. As Keddie says: "This is the story of the trial by media of Julia."

If I miss out on the key role as John McTernan, Julia's imported adviser, I'm auditioning for any scenes featuring shadowy journalists driven to bring down the brilliant Gillard government. Call me, Richard. Let's talk.

THE SAME OLD STORY ... PUNISHMENT DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME

ONE day a perfectly average Australian will face court on a violence charge. This person will be from a middle-class family in a plain suburb. He'll be a middle-ranking employee at an ordinary business, earning the national average wage. Nothing from his background will be exceptional.

This bloke, whoever he is, can expect the longest sentence in Australian judicial history.

Australian courts only give sentence discounts to those with unusual life histories. Last week, for example, NSW Supreme Court Judge Stephen Campbell found several mitigating factors for 19-year-old Kieran Loveridge, the killer of Thomas Kelly.

Explaining his obscenely light sentence for Loveridge, Campbell cited the killer's Aboriginal background ("it may be a circumstance relevant to a degree of social disadvantage"), his father's imprisonment when Loveridge was an infant, his mother's pregnancy, his father's drug use, his fractured education ("partly due to an expulsion for his involvement in his juvenile criminal activities") and even the cancer death of Loveridge's rugby league coach ("which the offender's mother states was very confronting for the offender"). All of this gave reason for Campbell to deliver an unimaginable light jail term. But what if Loveridge had a privileged background, with private school education? What if he was a fancy lawyer instead of a tattooed thug?

Well, it turns out the same rules apply. If you're different, you get a discount. In April, Melbourne man Liam Danial Sweeney glassed and bashed a fellow drinker at that city's Crown casino.

His target remains facially scarred by the unprovoked attack. Just as Loveridge fled the scene of his assault on Thomas Kelly, so too did Sweeney.

Like Loveridge, Sweeney was drunk at the time of the attack. Like Loveridge, Sweeney entered a guilty plea, in his case to intentionally causing injury. He faced a potential 10-years jail. Instead Sweeney received an 18-month sentence - completely suspended.

Magistrate Jack Vandersteen found Sweeney would be traumatised by prison. When sentences are decided on the basis of who you are rather than what you did, it helps if you've got a compelling tale to tell. Average folk, on the other hand, can expect above-average penalties.

PLAYING ON FEARS OF THE FUTURE

CLIMATE crybabies tell us they're concerned about the world we're leaving to our children or our children's children. A new National Geographic online map, however, depicts Australia's collapsing coasts 5000 years from now. This means the climate panic community is now worried about our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children. Anyway, some good news for the kids of 7013: according to National Geographic, Adelaide won't exist. So there's that.