« Documentary Short List | Main | A Ben Button Quickie »
November 27, 2008
Review - The Trouble With AUSTRALIA
I love Luhrmann.
I do. I think he is one of those directors who has incredibly good taste, loves to walk on the tightrope without a net (his logo at the top of Australia includes the line – paraphrased – “A Life Live Without Risk Is A Life Only Half Lived”), delivers images and conceits that no one else can manage to imitate effectively, and entertains the crap out of me pretty much every time out.
But Australia, sad to say, is a major malfunction.
I see two major problems with the film. Time, as in “he didn’t really have enough time to figure out what this thing really was” and Hubris, as in “I can’t believe he didn’t realize that he couldn’t deliver on every idea he wanted incorporated in this film without it being 3.5 hours and being much better designed around its tonal shifts.”
The Australia you are seeing in television commercials and the trailer… it’s in there… but that is not the movie, for the most part. It is the third act of the film, essentially. Just yesterday, I was writing about how wild first acts often make third act recoveries indefensible in film critics’ minds. In this case, unlike something like Fight Club, the third act isn’t just a logical extension of the first act or the second act. It is, to some extent, a different film.
Of course, the first act may or may not turn off critics and/or audiences. We’ll see. In the nation of Australia, I suspect that audiences will love it. Why? As it turned out, seeing the great Toronto documentary, Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (which pretty much ends with the Max Max series and doesn’t get to Priscilla: Queen of the Desert or Simply Ballroom), was a good prep for the first act of Australia… because classic Aussie comedic exploitation writ HUGE is mostly what the third act is. And in that context, it makes a beautiful stench.
The “creamy” half-aboriginal/half-white child who is the center of the movie – let’s see him in some ads! – starts to tell us the story of himself, the Lady from EngLAND (Ms. Kidman) and The Drover (Mr. Jackman, as a cattle driver, called by the Aussie colloquialism). And every beat is caricature. Kidman is comedically uptight. Jackman is impossibly rugged and beautiful. The heroic Aboriginal Grandpa is right our of Weir, but lit light a Chanel spokestribesman. And the beautiful little kid is spunky and insightful and ready to live his story.
We see Kidman walk into her outback house, surrounded by dirt, with a tense walk that seems out of the silents. You’re just waiting for the muted “wah wahs” on the trumpet. Jackman enters in the full Eastwood, taking on (and besting, as you know it must be) an entire bar of rude rowdies. The villain is without mustache… but twirling goes on anyway. It’s all played at outback farce speed. The great Jack Thompson plays one of his classic drunks… but he is so rheumy that even his rummy feels way over the top and lacking intimacy until his next –to-last scene. The only thing missing is Bruce Spence (who shows up later), Barry Crocker (who isn’t on the imdb cast list, but could well have turned up in some scene as an aging snoot), and Barry Humphries, in drag or out.
And right then, within 20 minutes, I knew that this film was 90% unlikely to be an Oscar nominee. No, that is not all that counts. But this expensive movie could use the support of a nomination, at least for the U.S. Box office in Australia should be more forgiving, I expect. But the biggest problem in this regard is misleading expectations. I knew, right then, that if the film didn’t snap out of it in a huge way, many audiences – especially the Academy audience, seeing the film in a stampede of other hopefuls - would reject it right then. “We were sold a period drama and we got a wacky Capra-on-acid thing with a kid we didn’t even know was in the movie at the center of it all.”
The tone shifts significantly at about the 80 minutes mark. But for me, while it was not too late for redemption – regardless of many wonderful and wondrous images and ideas up until then – there was a big problem at the heart of this thing. As I write, the child, Brandon Walters, a small 10 when the film was made, is really the center of the film. And more significantly, the issue of half-breed children and The Lost Generation really is the heart of the film. But it’s a romance. But it’s a cattle drive action film. But it’s really a political film about racial tolerance.
Luhrmann might have been able to pull this off with another six months before release. It is a brutal task. Very few directors have the talent to keep all of those diverse balls in the air. It takes a gift for shortcuts and distractions, which Luhrmann has. But it just doesn’t come together here. But unlike any of his other films, you can sense ideas jumping in and out without much support. Hell, in the third act, a MAJOR transition involving the villain of the film is done is a montage. Huh?
Is it a movie about this great romance of discovery… the classic Out of Africa deal with more comedy? Or is it this Weir/Noyce thing about enlightenment? I would say it feels like “too much vermouth” or “not enough vermouth,” but what it really feels like is “why are 20 maraschino cherries in my martini” or “Mommy, my Shirley Temple tastes like he put gasoline in it!” And that, I am afraid, is the kind of thing that a great filmmaker can work out in post. But Baz did not. Not this time.
The film was cut by Dody Dorn and Michael McClusker, both Fox veterans, both Oscar guys, both know their way in and out of fixes. (Dorn, I believe, cut both versions of Kingdom of Heaven for Fox… the much superior original version released on DVD.) But they didn’t have the time this time.
There are many delights to be found amidst the wreckage. Luhrmann is a master of the visual and there are magical images, even when they seem to make little sense in the film. There is a scene, for instance, where a contraption becomes very, very dangerous. But the audience has no way of knowing this… unless they know how the contraption works in real life. Now, the threat to life is beautiful in its way. But as storytelling, it fails to let the audience in on the danger and doesn’t get the benefit of surprising us when it takes the step. While you are gazing at some great visual work (shot by Mandy Walker, working a feature with Luhrmann for the first time), you’re also scratching your head about how and why it is happening the way it is.
If you have any attraction to either Ms Kidman or Mr Jackman, Catherine Martin dressed them to within an air bubble of their skins. You will never see Ms. Kidman look more like a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, in spite of a wardrobe that doesn’t uncover much. It is like Ms Martin took body casts of the two, took the fashions of the time, and made sure that the audience was, either consciously or unconsciously, aware of the exact shape of the butts, the chests, and the lines in between in a way that was as close to naked as clothes can be (sans naughty bits).
Ms. Martin’s production design is also first rate, with an intriguing blend of reality and hyper-reality in the bigger picture period sections.
The ending, much rumored about, is a non-issue. It works fine. It could have been something else and worked fine. But by the time you get there, the emotional swivel headedness of the film will have worn out most people. Every time it states its intentions and delivers upon them, it hits it out of the park. But it just doesn’t happen often enough. And when it does, far too often, it feels like a karaoke of great films that did these scenes better, whether the work of John Ford, Lawrence Kasden or Jim Cameron, amongst many. Pastiche is a key element in Luhrmann’s toolbox, so normally, I would overlook this as an issue. But I couldn’t overlook it… I wasn’t getting nourishment enough from what I was being fed to be in the reverie that great work – especially Luhrmann’s – creates.
I would LOVE to see what Luhrmann could come up with given another six months in the cutting room. I think it might be the odd, but truly powerful film he had in his head after that work. This is not a matter of slicing up something that already works to make it work less well in the name of running time, as was Kingdom of Heaven or the edit of Almost Famous. This is a movie that is not yet well defined, however accomplished. And man, that is frustrating… like Godfather 3 frustrating.
Posted by dpoland at November 27, 2008 01:45 AM
Comments
A red-ass baboon blowing red-ass baboons out its red ass...
Posted by: mutinyco ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 27, 2008 08:59 AM
Didn't Kidman already flub the fish-out-of-water biz in COLD MOUNTAIN? Does she stink any less this go-round?
Posted by: Cadavra at November 27, 2008 11:08 AM
I didn't like Kidman's earlier FAR AND AWAY so I prolly won't enjoy this update called AUSTRALIA either.
It looks like Western kitsh; and I don't mean good Western kitsch like THE BIG COUNTRY and DUEL IN THE SUN.
Posted by: Spacesheik at November 27, 2008 11:40 AM
Seems like I'm the only one who hated that little kid. He's beautiful, but insufferable.
And after someone becomes your boyfriend, wouldn't you start calling them by their actual name rather than profession? It seems odd when Kidman and Jackman are living together and she still calls him "the drover."
Posted by: LYT at November 27, 2008 12:12 PM
"I think he is one of those directors who has incredibly good taste"
This is where you lost me.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 27, 2008 12:34 PM
It's time for Nicole to play another cold-hearted bitch role that she's born to do. Australia looks bad from the trailer and the reviews aren't helping.
Posted by: waterbucket at November 27, 2008 02:55 PM
LYT- I hated the kid, too.
"Insufferable" doesn't begin to describe it: and his accent was so damn thick I could only understand maybe 50% of his voiceover narration.
It even took me awhile to figure out whether he was a boy or a girl.
Posted by: movieman at November 27, 2008 03:57 PM
THE DROVER = HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I still want to see this, though. This kind of (I'm assuming) cornball, oversized, earnest, lush and over-the-top type of old-schoolness comes along so rarely, it kind of demands to be seen, especially on a big screen.
Looking forward to the 20-paragraph rebuttal to Dave's review from Kamikaze.
Posted by: LexG at November 27, 2008 06:02 PM
I'm so torn about whether I want to see this film or not. I want it to succeed because I really respect Kidman and Jackman as actors--they take such wonderful risks in their choice of roles and I like seeing that sense of risk rewarded and encouraged.
In a way, the general chatter around this film reminds me of the response to Peter Jackson's King Kong a few years back. Sure it was a little bloated, but it was not a failure by any means. But because Peter Jackson had just turned out Lord of the Rings, King Kong was viewed as a major letdown.
The same thing seems to be happening here. Sure Australia may not be Moulin Rouge, but there's so much unambitious crap out there I think it's worth at least applauding an effort to tell a story so exuberantly.
Posted by: RedheadedWonder at November 27, 2008 07:43 PM
The comparison to Jackson's Kong is an excellent one. Both take a '30s archetype over the top and are so in love with it that they ignore the fact that brevity was one of the key virtues of those old films.
Posted by: LYT at November 27, 2008 08:19 PM
"Sure it was a little bloated, but it was not a failure by any means."
Yes it was. It wasn't entertaining. And there's no bigger failure for a movie like that.
Posted by: Blackcloud at November 27, 2008 08:37 PM
"There is a scene, for instance, where a contraction becomes very, very dangerous. But the audience has no way of knowing this… unless they know how the contraction works in real life."
Is that supposed to be contraption?
Posted by: Blackcloud at November 27, 2008 08:46 PM
I think so. I think he's talking about the water tower thingy.
Posted by: chris at November 27, 2008 09:09 PM
Yes, "contraption." Apparently, the spell check got the best of me, twice.
Sorry for the confusion... now corrected
Posted by: David Poland at November 27, 2008 09:37 PM
I disagree about King Kong... that movie was bloated, but it knew what it wanted to be, very clearly. Not so much here.
Posted by: David Poland at November 27, 2008 09:40 PM
It was bloated, but I was definitely entertained by it (King Kong, haven't seen Australia yet).
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 28, 2008 02:21 AM
King Kong got 84% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, many of them glorious raves. It ended up with (around) $555 million worldwide on a $207 million budget. The only reason anyone called that film a dissapointment is because the early reviews had pundits and uninformed gossip entertainment journalists somehow thinking it was going to challenge Titanic at the box office (oh... it's a three hour 'doomed romance'... it's the same thing!!). I'm sure Fox would kill for King Kong numbers at this point. And if Australia is even half as good as King Kong, I may have to see it this week.
Posted by: JckNapier2 at November 28, 2008 06:12 AM
A minor note- I believe Dody Dorn is female, it was unclear if you knew her gender from the reference "Oscar guys".
Posted by: counthaku at November 28, 2008 06:44 AM
why the hell is 'australia' being compared to pj's 'king kong'? because both movies were made by antipodeans? thin. pj and luhrmann may live in geographical proximity but they are world's apart in terms of style and technique.
(and say what you will about 'king kong', maybe it's a girl thing but i love that big ape and naomi together - one of the great tragic cinema friendships - and kong himself is nothing short of amazing, one of the first great cg characters of modern cinema, along with gollum, thanks to andy and weta digital; everyone and their dog knows 'king kong' needed a serious trim-trimmity-trim-trim with a very sharp scalpel, but to declare king kong 'not entertaining' and compare it to 'australia' - which is a freakish mess, i saw it last night - is unkind)
Posted by: leahnz at November 28, 2008 12:38 PM
As I wrote on the BYOB post, I actually think the film would have been improved by more time, not less. You referenced the Bryan Brown moment just as I did and the scene where they must cross the Never Never in search of water seems to have been completely excised because once they set off we cut straight to the cattle delivery and it was quite strange.
I actually think the film "settles down" (as if it's meant to?) much earlier than the 80-minute mark. it's more likely only 40 minutes of lunacy.
In regards to Walters, I liked him purely because he made what could have been a really strange and ridiculous character genuine and believable. Although I did wonder what international audiences would make of all the talk of "dreaming" and "rainbow serpents". That sort of stuff is indeed embedding in my country's culture, just as I'm sure there are native American customs/speak that while normal to American audiences would come across as undecipherable to anybody else.
The film sure is gorgeous - Dave, those silhouettes against sunset don't work to good when they're wearing baggy clothes :P - although there is a lot of winky CGI. Nevertheless, I actually think Luhrmann pulled most of it together very well. I don't have any issue with the final act (the WWII segment) and the entire cattle drive sequence is fantastic (well, except for that brief lapse of judgment I spoke about with the Never Never).
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 28, 2008 08:54 PM
COUGHLIN'S LAW:
BRYAN BROWN OWNS.
Posted by: LexG at November 28, 2008 10:37 PM
hey kam, i must confess i feel a bit bad disliking 'australia' like i do because i actually wanted to like it, even after i heard it was a bit iffy, at least baz has guts and i love r+j so i was willing to give him a shot...but you know we sort of hate you guys a little anyway, did ya have to give us just so darn much to make fun of?! ;D the time-honoured adages of 'sometimes less is more' and 'a simple story well told' always apply, even in 'epics'. i'm not sure what baz was going for but, i didn't get it. then again, the film i hate most in the world is 'strictly ballroom', so it's not without precedent.
i'm genuinely glad you liked it tho, because at the end of the day that's all that counts isn't it, everyone else be damned
Posted by: leahnz at November 29, 2008 12:38 AM
what i should have said is, 'fuck em if they can't take a joke'. don't you hate it when you thing of the thing to say well after you've already said something else?
Posted by: leahnz at November 29, 2008 02:51 AM
THINK of the thing...
don't you hate it when you make an ass of yourself
Posted by: leahnz at November 29, 2008 02:53 AM
Maybe it was the low expectations, but I actually enjoyed Australia, once I got past the (admittedly pretty ridonculous) first half-hour or so. I don't ever need to see it again, probably, but I was entertained by it for a decent 2 1/2 hours. It's not a good film, really, and in trying to make up for all the discrimination that Aborigines have dealt with over the last 200+ years, it still makes them into simplistic wide-eyed innocent children of nature, but it certainly means well on that count.
But it's not the third act of this movie that's weird, it's the first. It's obvious that Wenham is the bad guy from the get-go, because he gets more screentime and prominence (SPOILERS - he is the little kid's deadbeat dad, after all, so he already has greater thematic prominence than Bryan Brown). And I wasn't bothered by the 'contraption' scene that DP mentions at all - the emotional danger was clearly established, regardless of whether the mechanics were or not.
That said, I'm not as forgiving of the 'pastiche-ness' of it all (which is really where the comparison with Peter Jackson comes from - both are filmmakers with strong skill in crafting visuals that come from old movies they watched as kids - they're synthetic talents, not original visionaries) because it's a lot harder to feel satisfied, even if you are a fan, of bits and pieces of things you've seen before.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 29, 2008 04:11 AM
I tend to think that at least a fraction of the score that I gave the film is due to the number of noteworthy people Luhrmann managed to finagle into the picture. Apart from, obviously, Kidman and Jackman there was;
David Wenham
Bryan Brown
Ben Mendelsohn
Jack Thompson
David Gulpilil
David Ngoombujarra
Essie Davis
Ray Barrett
Tony Barry
Jacek Koman
Max Cullen
Kerry Walker
Jamie Gulpilil
Bill Hunter
Barry Otto
Bruce Spence
John Jarrett
Crusoe Kurddal
Ursula Yovich
And only one of those I didn't recognise (Jamie Gulpilil) so I think that helps. And the movie just continues to confirm how much of a presence David Gulpilil is on screen. Throw him in something and there's instant gravitas.
But, again, obviously that's something will be of more relevance to Australian viewers than anybody else, which is the tricky situation the movie finds itself in.
In regards to the farcical nature of the opening scenes, I think that was used for two reasons. Firstly, as a way for Luhrmann to get that whole "larrakin" attitude out of the way before all the heavy lifting stuff later on. Can't have Darwin being rained with WWII bombs while kangaroos hop around to Rolf Harris wobbleboard music. Secondly, I think it was a way of lightening the load. For a movie to fun 165minutes and been stone serious for all of it would've been a hard slog. It didn't entirely work in regards to the movie, but I got what he was doing and appreciated that he got it out of the way early. If that makes any sense.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 29, 2008 05:16 AM
What? No Yahoo Serious? Hell with it, then.
Posted by: Cadavra at November 29, 2008 10:24 AM
And no Paul Hogan? Hellooo?
Posted by: christian at November 29, 2008 12:15 PM
Why didn't they cast THE GREATEST AUSTRALIAN EVER, RACHAEL TAYLOR?
RACHAEL TAYLOR OWNS.
So does Naomi Watts. So does Anna Paquin.
They would've made twice as much with any of them.
Posted by: LexG at November 29, 2008 03:02 PM
No.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 29, 2008 03:03 PM
Isn't Paquin a Kiwi?
Posted by: Blackcloud at November 29, 2008 03:15 PM
Isn't it the same thing?
PAQUIN OWNS. She would TOTALLY get my humor and awesome personality. But more to the point, she and Jackman had PALPABLE CHEMISTRY and endless charisma together in the first two X-Men; The kind of sparks-flying, magnetic chemistry and interaction a big, lengthy romance like this needs. I am not saying any of this to diss Kidman, who can be and is WORLD-CLASS (To Die For, Moulin Rouge, EWS, Dead Calm, Days of Thunder) but let's just say, isn't always the WARMEST actress going.
Posted by: LexG at November 29, 2008 03:30 PM
"Isn't it the same thing?"
When Leah busts your ass for that comment you'll know the answer.
Posted by: Blackcloud at November 29, 2008 04:02 PM
the difference?
pub aussie: http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo78/leahnzwgtn/2005_wolf_creek_013.jpg
pub kiwi: http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo78/leahnzwgtn/u23_jpg.jpg
america, you be the judge
(sorry, just couldn't resist ;-D)
Posted by: leahnz at November 30, 2008 01:21 AM
Hey how come this doesn't have JACKO Jackson in it?
THAT WOULD OWN if he showed up doing his 80S battery commercial shtick in the middle of it.
"IN ONE OF THESE! IN ONE OF THESE!"
JACKO FUCKING OWNED. (I guess Vinnie Jones made him irrelevant.)
Posted by: LexG at December 1, 2008 12:11 AM
Saw it tonight. Couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Blackcloud at December 10, 2008 08:20 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)