Cirrus@Austlit

'This is the story of the Vietnam War but it is not in any way a chronological military history. A patrol on the last day was the same as a patrol on the first day. What hasn't been told so far is what really happened on patrols: how men fought, died and came back damaged in some way.

'It ranges from a superb and moving account of the Battle of Long Tan to the effect of a war where a man could come off a patrol in the morning and that evening be back in Australia, discharged from the army, and drunk in the Bourbon and Beefsteak. We hear these men speak and tell of what it was really like. The Vietnam Years also tells the story of those who stayed at home the Army wives who had to cope then and now and the wave of political protest at home that was such a part of this turbulent era.' (Publisher website)

An attempt to re-invoke the popularity that police procedurals had enjoyed a decade earlier, Special Squad was the most expensive program produced in Australia up to 1985 (at $150,000 per episode), yet received such lukewarm ratings that Channel Ten chose not to commission a second series.

According to Moran, in his Guide to Australian TV Series,

it was good to watch, with expert stunt work and special effects. With well-paced narratives, intelligently and nicely worked out situations and plenty of emphasis on the villains and victims, Special Squad was just as watchable and entertaining as Homicide had been in its last series.

According to Moran, the failure of Special Squad lay both in its difference from and its similarity to Homicide. The novelty (of Australian accents and Australian locations) that had helped make Homicide so successful was no longer in play, and 'the sight of tough men (on both sides of the law) made the program [Special Squad] seem very old-fashioned. In addition, the plethora of other Australian dramas on air at the time gave viewers more than enough alternatives.'

'The film tells the true story of a remarkable relationship between a young teacher and deeply disturbed 13 year-old boy. [...] The product of a broken home, Tom vents his aggression through playing truant, stealing cars and motor bikes, and violent behaviour towards others.

'He and his cronies hang around outside pubs, sipping from cans of beer and taking part in generally anti-social behaviour such as street fights and "gang bangs".

'Not without reason, he is dismissed by most adults as a hopeless case, a delinquent headed for a life of crime.

'Embling attempts to understand Tom's problems, committing himself fully to the boy and providing him with a relationship that is honest and physically secure.

'The teacher and student pass through stages of hostility and caring, frustration and hope, suspicion and trust.

'The relationship is constantly thwarted by the apathy and active opposition of other teachers and officials whose approach is often as brutal as it is archaic.

'Ultimately, Embling and Tom win their fight to a better future.'

Source:

'"Fighting Back" Moved Marshall to Tears', Canberra Times, 12 May 1982, p.24.