Has Baz Luhrman tried to include too much in Australia?
Well, here's an interesting notion - what lies
ahead is one of the few reviews of Baz Lurhman's Australia
that is in no way influenced by advertising dollars, or the fact that
the publication is owned by the same studio releasing the picture.
So, it should be an unbiased opinion right?
Right?!
Damn
it - I'm an Aussie... and an Aussie that gets sucked up in patriotism
for the world stage's awkward and over-eager little brother, an Aussie
that swells with pride for this great big brown land every time I hear
"Walzting Matilda" played on American TV.
So there is no
way of ever being truly objective in this review, not a chance. Because
of Aussie
pride, I'll never be sure whether I really enjoyed Australia - or if
I was just desperate to want
to enjoy it.
But we soldier on...
For
those who have been living under a sound-proof rock for the last six
months (is it possible every company in Oz has some kind of vested
interest in the film?)
Australia is the sweeping romantic action-adventure epic
from visionary director Baz Lurhman.
Set
in the land Down Under, in a time where we were on the brink
of World War II, the film follows an English aristocrat (Nicole Kidman) as she
travels to our faraway continent to
save a cattle farm she recently inherited.
But it seems the evil King Carney (Brian
Brown) wants to keep his monopoly on the meat market - at any cost.
Upon
arrival, she meets a rough-headed local known only as "Drover" (Hugh
Jackman) who reluctantly agrees to embark upon a journey across
hundreds of miles of the world's most unforgiving
terrain.
Throw
in the stolen generation, the bombing of Darwin and a climactic cattle
run... and you've got yourself one ambitious spectacle.
Normally Australians are guilty of looking for flaws in the successful.
It's called
"The Tall Poppy Syndrome".
Yet strangely
this film brought out the
opposite in me. I was desperate
to find every positive I could.
Why?
Perhaps
it's because there is so much riding on this one film. It's the most
expensive Australian movie ever made, costing upwards of a $140
million.
Word on the
street is that Australia needs
to rake in $400 million worldwide to break even, and the
closest big budget Aussie movie I can think of is Ned Kelly which
cost just over $30 Milllion.
If it doesn't do well, you can well and truly say goodbye to the local
film industry ever getting a chance like this again...
You
often wonder if it would have made more sense to make three $50 Million
films - offering up less risk, more commercially viable Aussie products
and a chance for the Australian and international public to see that
our industry is
capable of churning out more than just dark, low budget stories about
drug addicts, or quirky over-the-top comedies about yobbos.
But what would I know? I'm sure the company that released What Happens In Vegas
knows more about making quality films that people want to see than
most...
But back to the film itself: There
is no denying Luhrman has a unique visual flair.
He does what he
does
very
well. He knows how to create romance, he knows how to make normal
cinema look like the golden age of cinema and he's also responsible for
making sure every Aussie film since 1992 looks like it was edited by a crew
on
an acid trip.
So, in terms of visual grandiosity and romance, Australia triumphs.
There
are some moments here that are truly breathtaking. Baz makes you feel
proud of the land you live on (despite the fact most of us still
haven't left the 'Burbs, let alone seen a kangaroo in real life), he
knows how to make an audience swell and swoon with emotion, he knows
when and how to
make us laugh and he knows when and how to make us cry.
But it's almost as if the silver-haired Baz has decided "Right, we
are never getting the chance or the budget to make a decent war movie,
or a decent dramatic epic, or a decent action movie... so let's just
make one with the lot and hope it meshes together".
The film kicks off with that the type of quirky pacing that made Moulin Rouge a
breath of fresh air. Yet, for some reason, it just doesn't seem to
click.
Luhrman has been
quite vocal about wanting Australia
to embrace the notion of the "Sweeping Epic" (which he achieves
amazingly well for the most part) - yet the "Sweeping Epic" doesn't mix
well with the "quirky melodrama" and it soon becomes quite obvious that
the early scenes in the film are in dire need of some
speedy edits.
Thankfully (and oddly), the cartoonish quirk dissapears by the 20
minute mark and we head into the epic territory that was originally
promised, with Drover and his mixed bag of stockmen embarking on a
treacherous cattle drive to Darwin.
And from there,
things pick up. In fact, Australia
charges forth in leaps and bounds.
The cattle muster sequence is just phenomenal and delivers everything
you could possibly hope for. Forget being the next Gone With The Wind,
Australia
becomes the next Man
From Snowy River - and it's downright awesome.
It's a sequence that is tragic, uplifting, and intense... it almost
makes you believe we might make it through this film unscathed.
But wait, what's that? There is still a solid 90 minutes and a war /
romance story to go? Sit back down everyone, this puppy ain't done yet!
And so we continue on. And so we endure the romantic cheese. And so we
put up with the hero shots. And so we listen to the unsubtle messages
about racial tolerance. And so we try to decipher why every Australian
actor that exists (except "that guy from The Secret Life Of Us")
has a role and why Bill Hunter pops up for less than 10 seconds for no
apparent reason.
And so on, and so on.
The major
problem with Australia seems
to be that Baz isn't quite sure
what he wants this time around.
There are just too many
styles at play and it feels like there are multiple movies all running
similtaneously here to ever offer up a truly cohesive film.
A lot has
been made of the "Nicole Kidman" factor
already, however, I've got to say - I really didn't mind her turn.
Sure, she
is often quite cold and unendearing - but it seems to work for this
particular character; it's what the role required.
I could go on, but
I'll leave the easy botox gags for EVERY OTHER film review outlet to
make.
But this isn't Kidman's film. Australia
is about one man, and one man alone. And that's Jackman.
The
guy single-handedly makes the movie gripping, fun, emotional and
watchable for the full
running time. He'll make the girls swoon, and makes the guys think to
themselves "I want to be like him".
Hugh Jackman is
charming, charismatic and
downright enjoyable to watch in every possible way. Let's just all
thank the heavens
that Russell Crowe dropped out of the role of "Drover" at the last
minute, because the film
would have fallen flat on it's face without Wolverine's contribution. That's not
to say Australia
isn't enjoyable for its non-Jackman merits, because when it's
working - it works better than any Australian made film ever has.
But
when it isn't working, it really lacks the punch it is aiming
for. It feels like the last
thirty minutes is just a desperate
attempt to include hero shots, inspiring one-line dobs of dialogue and
forced "classic movie moments". And you have to wonder if the film could have been cut down to a breezy 90 minutes if only everything wasn't shot in slow motion. As
David Wenham's character suggests in the film... endlessly (in fact, it
becomes absurd at certain points because he throws the line in so
often)... "Pride Ain't
Power".
And perhaps that's a notion Baz
Lurhman has ignored - preying on Aussie pride to help his $100 million
epic across the line, hoping that our hunger for national pride will
give him the power to make
punters gloss over Australia's
glaringly obvious flaws.
That said, I'm compelled to go see it again... 3 out
of 5
Australia Australian release: 26th
November,
2008 Official
Site:Australia Cast: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman,
David Wenham Director: Baz Luhrmann
