after travel around the world and it dawn on me that australia really lack one thing that other country have represent history . fortunately or unfortunately and australia wasn not establish follow a war and it have not have a civil war and most of it political history be rather . bore . nothing big happen to mark some sort of turn point in australia history . until the dismissal of the whitlam government by the governor general of australia john kerr . for those who be australian and you can skip this paragraph and move onto the next . this be for the benefit of curious non australian . australia be colonise by the british . a time go on and it become apparent that australia be capable of stand on it own two foot . accordingly and the uk grant australia permission to establish it own parliament and law and court and so on . the law and politics of australia would no longer be provide directly from the british while rather and australia would be run by australian in their own right and even though the court and precedent and parliament and so on be largely model on the british system . this shift be codify in the australian constitution . despite the fact that the constitution lawfully establish australian government and law making procedure and court ( but for those who be curious no bill of right ) and their be two pro crown section that be include and remain there to this day . these be more or less regard a the reserve power of the crown ( king or queen of great britain ) . the first group of section relates to the creation of the office of the governor general . briefly and the governor general be consider the queen chief representative in australia and be describe a the executive branch of the australian government . when a piece of law be pass by the australian parliament and the constitution state that it only become law when it be sign by the governor general . a such and the govenor general be regard by some a nothing more than a rubber stamper perform an archaic and unnecessary constitutional function on behalf of the crown . theoretically and the governor general can refuse to sign a law pass by australian parliament if he think fit . for instance and if parliament pass a law which allow the police to shoot dead any australian over the age of 50 ( hypothetically of course ) then the gg could refuse to sign it and it would not become the law of the land . however and this power be theoretical and have ( to date ) never be exercise . by convention ( which be the buzz word of the event lead to the dismissal ) and the governor general virtually act at the behest of the australian government and therefore and if the government pass law and the prime minister instruct the governor general to sign it and he will and almost always without question . in fact and by convention the governor general act in accordance with the advice provide to him by the prime minister of the day ( and the prime minister alone ) . the second aspect be section 64 of the constitution which state that the government minister hold office at the governor general pleasure . now the event of 1975 cover in this film give rise to a precedent on this particular section represent if the governor general be somehow wouldispleased with the government and or or prime minister and it would appear that this section allow him to lawfully sack the government ( which happen in 1975. hence the title of the film the dismissal . ) whether at the governor general pleasure can be construe a the unfettered right to dismiss be a contentious point though that lead to rather heated exchange amongst australian at the time especially consider that the governor general be not elect by the people of australia . now that this background aspect be out of the way and let get back to discuss the film . it be well make . the pace be patient and but do not drag at all . the drama be well contain and very realistic . it do not over dramatise the event and most importantly and it do not present it point of view from one political perspective . on the contrary and i felt that it be fair and balanced and even though conclude text before the credit indicate that the film maker probably do not approve of the governor general decision to dismiss the whitlam government . but i wouldn not describe the film overall a bias in one direction or the other . in term of accuracy and it be virtually spot on . the film maker certainly do their homework and evidently read the book and writing from all the principle player concern . there be a number of finer detail that be somewhat skip over and largely because they take a long time to explain and ultimately have little impact on the event of 1975 and so i forgive them for that . further and i think it be difficult to recreate the public sentiment of that post vietnam war era and but noyce pretty much pull it off . finally and i be pleased that the film attempt to raise individual policy of both side without become analytical and obsessive or judgmental over them . moreover and any that be raise and for example connor pipeline and have a great deal of relevance to the story . the film maker realise that their task be to tell the story of the event lead to the dismissal and not to present a political endorsement or opposition in relation to policy and viewpoint . this be smart because it mean that the film can not be accuse of misrepresent one side policy . the dismissal be probably the most incredible piece of political history that have occur in australia in it short life . i be glad that it have be crystallize in celluloid . essential view for any australian .