![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Film Australia...a review
Back in 1990, when I was 23 years of age, my parents moved to Australia, leaving me behind in Kansas to fend for myself. Was difficult period in my life. The nickname for Australia by the way is OZ. And at the time, we made jokes about Dorothy Gale - as my parents had technically done the same thing left Kansas for Oz. I visited them in Sydney, and stayed for about a month.
They came back before I got to do it a second time. While there, we watched a lot of Australian cinema and television. I saw Nicole Kidman's earlier film - Flipping Out. And it was around this time that she made her big screen debute in the Australian low-budget flick Dead Calm which also starred Billy Zane and Sam Neill. Bryan Brown had done a few films here and there. One of my favorites was The Man from Snowy River. We also picked up quite a few aboriginal pieces of artwork and visited a museum regarding their history. The Aboriginals are Austrilian's version of Native Americans, who were treated just as abysmally as the Native Americans were. The English were not very nice to the inhabitants of the countries they decided to colonize. Actually, come to think of it, human beings in general are downright nasty to the inhabitants and the cultures of the lands they visit and colonize. Not just the English. Bit unfair to single them out, even if they were the imperialists of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries. (Although to be fair the French, Spainish and Italians did do their own colonizing in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries just not to quite the same degree, often to their considerable annoyance.)
The first time I saw a film by Baz Lurham was I think in Australia or soon thereafter. It was Strictly Ballroom - a fun and somewhat offkilter film about the crazy world of ball room dancing. It inspired numerous copy-cats, but none came close to the wacky spirit of the original. A romance between an ugly duckling/wallflower and an handsome, talented dancer. But it was the side stories, the local color, and the commentary of the culture, classism, and prejudices of that sport which made the film memorable.
Baz Lurham, a native of Australia, is an unique director. He has something to say and often says it through odd camera angles, and a twisted lense. Of his films the only one that I didn't like very much was Moulin Rouge - because it was too busy. Probably did not help that it was based on and had more or less the same plotline as La Boheme, a story and an opera that I'm not crazy about. Rent is one of the few musicals based on La Boheme that I like. At any rate, Moulin Rouge felt a bit like Strictly Ballroom on speed, with a La Boheme plot, and prettier actors. That said, I will say that Moulin Rouge was memorable - I've been unable to forget it. Can't say that about a lot of films I've seen. Lurham unlike most directors, goes for the kitsch, the carny, and the melodramatic take - which at times can come across as unintentionally humorous. Watching a Lurham film can at times make one think you are watching a movie by a showman or a carny operator.
Australia is nothing like Moulin Rouge - in style or technique. So if you are thinking of skipping it because, like me, you were not fond of Moulin Rouge, don't. If you are thinking of going to it in hopes of seeing another Moulin Rouge - you might be disappointed. But then again, maybe not - the unique Lurham stamp is still on the picture - much as it is on Romeo + Juliet and Strictly Ballroom. It's not a busy film, nor is it plodding for that matter. The two and half hours speed by, I barely noticed them. In some respects if reminds me a lot of the old technicolor epics of the 1930s, films such as How the West was Won or Gone with the Wind or Red River and The Cowboys, yet unlike those films this is a film that we see mostly through the gaze of a smart and somewhat romantic half white - half-aboriginal boy. An outcast, as he tells us throughout the film in voice-over narration, that sees things through dream-gaze of story.
Australia is not a realistic film, even though it is placed squarely in our reality. It's epic in scope, the color is heightened, the emotions bigger than usual along with the expressions, and the villians well are villians with a capital V. We don't leave the film knowing very much about the lead characters. The Drover - played by Hugh Jackman, who earns his sexiest man alive title in this flick, does not have any other name. Just "The Drover" - which is what he does, he drives cattle across Australia for a commission. This works because of whose pov we are in - the aboriginal boy's (who can't be more than 13). As a result, at times, you may feel at an emotional distance from the story. I should have cried during many of the scenes, but I was dry-eyed. It did inspire laughter - intentionally or unintentionally, I'm not quite sure which. Knowing Lurham, I'm guessing the former. He has a bit of a wicked wit, one that is at times at the expense of his actors.
It's an odd film. I rather enjoyed it. And I'm trying to decide if it is one that should be analyzed or just a popcorn flick - to escape into. I'm thinking the former, oddly enough. While I loved it on the popcorn level and did escape into it with the same thrill that I've escaped into epics like Dances with Wolves or Last of the Mohicans, it haunts me. The director did some interesting things - he deliberately made the film larger than life. Deliberately framed a series of a faux romantic endings, which, while they may have been the ending of a 1930s film - filmed in the style of those films, they aren't the ending of this film. If anything, I think Lurham deliberately heightens the romanticism of these endings, like pretty pictures, grand, and wonderful - a homage to the 1930s films, while at the same time, undercutting them a notch - the final ending, is not one we would have seen in the 1930s, although it is just as happy and comforting in its own way. I'd read Lurham was tinkering with the ending - hoping to convey a sense of realism and openess to it, while at the same time sticking within the framework of the epic beauty of the romantic ending.
Lurham references Wizard of OZ quite a bit, but does so in both a romantic and an ironic context. Wizard of OZ is a child's film and is the story that Lady Ashley tells the aboriginal half-breed, Nualla, to cheer him up after a tragedy. She remembers little of it, and stumbles her way through the song "Over the Rainbow". The boy likes the song and adopts it as his own anthem, calling it a way to the dreaming - an aboriginal term for vision quest, the ability to see into the future and past, although it's more complicated than that. The irony of the reference is two-fold, first a nickname for Australia is OZ. Second, this is taking place at the start of WWII, when the Japanese bombed the Australian town of Darwin - the town where the story is set. OZ is a tale about a journey, a girl who journeys to defeat a wicked witch all in the hopes of finding her way home. In the film - the aboriginal boy is Dorothy with Lady Ashely and The Drover as his versions of the Cowardly Lion, the Scarecrow and the Tinman.
I've read that Lurham wanted to do an Australian version of Gone with the Wind, another 1930s film released around the same time as OZ, but this feels more like OZ than Gone with the Wind. I've seen both films more times than I can count. Of the two, I've always preferred the childlike glee of OZ, which made me hum merrily. Gone...more romantic, often chafed, its racist overtones hard to ignore. I wouldn't say Gone with the Wind was better than Australia, just different. The point of view is different - in Gone we are in the head of a priveleged and somewhat spoiled Southern Belle during the Civil War who has to find a way to handle change. Margret Mitchell's intent in writing the book was to depict how the South viewed the Civil War and its struggle afterwards. Scarlett was a metaphor for the people of the South, Ashely Wilks - the old south, with its privileges, and slaves, Rhett Butler - the North, invading, with its newfangled views and abolitionist rights. When you watch Gone with the Wind, you find yourself in a point of view that is rather uncomfortable, particularly for a modern and self-aware audience. Lurham's intent is somewhat different regarding Australia - here he is telling the story of three people - all outcasts, far from home, and how they come together.
I think the weakness in the film is how fast its pace is. We aren't really given time to fall in love with the characters or their romance. It's thrown at us at record speed, resulting in an odd distancing. I felt like I was on a rollercoaster - one huge dramatic event after another thrown at me. Sort of like watching a movie trailer. The movie didn't have enough quiet moments, small moments. There are a couple, but they don't last long enough. Nor is there enough build-up. We're told that Lady Ashely misses the Drover and time has passed - he's gone for six months - but we don't feel the passage of time, nor are we given a chance to miss him. Same deal regarding the Cattle drive - we're told how bad the journey through the horrible stretch of land is, but we don't really get to see it. In a way this is good, because you don't have time to get bored. One of the few films I've been too in which cell phones and talking didn't occur, although there was one older gentleman who kept getting up to go to the bathroom and he sat in the middle of the row. (Note if you know this is going to happen, pick an end seat.) On the other hand, being told and not shown events - leads to a sort of emotional distancing from the characters. The filmmakers tell more than they show, choosing to show the big stuff, but without the quieter, duller moments, the big stuff doesn't resonate. In Gone With the Wind - we had a chance to miss Rhett along with Scarlett, we felt every bump of that trip through the war ravaged South. And in Wizard of OZ, we felt Dorothy's exhaustion trying to get to the Emerald City, and rejoiced with her when she finally arrived. Joss Whedon once said in an interview - that you have to earn the emotional moments, otherwise they don't work.
I remember thinking during Australia that it was two stories they were trying to tell. What they should have done was cut out one. There's the story of the Cattle Drive. And there's the tale of the WAR. In order to tell both stories in 2 hours and 30 minutes, they had to cut a good section out of the middle of both, as a result both tales suffer, causing the film to be good but not great.
Great films - build up to the dramatic moments gradually. It's all about the pacing. The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of OZ, Titantic...all had slow builds. A lot happens in The Godfather and Gone with the Wind, but there is a build up. Same deal with Lawrence of Arabia - we are shown how hard it is to get through the desert, not told. When you try to put too much in a story, you fall into the trap of telling not showing, and that weakens the emotional impact.
Overall? I do recommend that you see Australia. I left the film skipping and happy. It was a fun, huge romantic adventure, with breathtaking landscapes and touching moments. Certainly worth the 11.50 that I paid for it. Also, Hugh Jackman is beyond sexy in it, assuming of course you are a Jackman fan. Nice to see two tall people on-screen for a change - Jackman is 6'4 and Kidman is 5'11. Both fill the screen. And Kidman's outfits - I want that red ball dress, even if it would never fit me.
[As you may or may not have inferred from the below, I took today off, avoided the dreaded Black Friday shopping hell (why do people do this to themselves, it's not like you can't get good deals later or online), and saw a movie instead. Also did laundry, made the bed up clean, dropped off dry-cleaning, worked on novel, popped online, tried to play Scramble on Facebook - which I completely suck at, everyone is above me - but those seem hardly worth mentioning.]
They came back before I got to do it a second time. While there, we watched a lot of Australian cinema and television. I saw Nicole Kidman's earlier film - Flipping Out. And it was around this time that she made her big screen debute in the Australian low-budget flick Dead Calm which also starred Billy Zane and Sam Neill. Bryan Brown had done a few films here and there. One of my favorites was The Man from Snowy River. We also picked up quite a few aboriginal pieces of artwork and visited a museum regarding their history. The Aboriginals are Austrilian's version of Native Americans, who were treated just as abysmally as the Native Americans were. The English were not very nice to the inhabitants of the countries they decided to colonize. Actually, come to think of it, human beings in general are downright nasty to the inhabitants and the cultures of the lands they visit and colonize. Not just the English. Bit unfair to single them out, even if they were the imperialists of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries. (Although to be fair the French, Spainish and Italians did do their own colonizing in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries just not to quite the same degree, often to their considerable annoyance.)
The first time I saw a film by Baz Lurham was I think in Australia or soon thereafter. It was Strictly Ballroom - a fun and somewhat offkilter film about the crazy world of ball room dancing. It inspired numerous copy-cats, but none came close to the wacky spirit of the original. A romance between an ugly duckling/wallflower and an handsome, talented dancer. But it was the side stories, the local color, and the commentary of the culture, classism, and prejudices of that sport which made the film memorable.
Baz Lurham, a native of Australia, is an unique director. He has something to say and often says it through odd camera angles, and a twisted lense. Of his films the only one that I didn't like very much was Moulin Rouge - because it was too busy. Probably did not help that it was based on and had more or less the same plotline as La Boheme, a story and an opera that I'm not crazy about. Rent is one of the few musicals based on La Boheme that I like. At any rate, Moulin Rouge felt a bit like Strictly Ballroom on speed, with a La Boheme plot, and prettier actors. That said, I will say that Moulin Rouge was memorable - I've been unable to forget it. Can't say that about a lot of films I've seen. Lurham unlike most directors, goes for the kitsch, the carny, and the melodramatic take - which at times can come across as unintentionally humorous. Watching a Lurham film can at times make one think you are watching a movie by a showman or a carny operator.
Australia is nothing like Moulin Rouge - in style or technique. So if you are thinking of skipping it because, like me, you were not fond of Moulin Rouge, don't. If you are thinking of going to it in hopes of seeing another Moulin Rouge - you might be disappointed. But then again, maybe not - the unique Lurham stamp is still on the picture - much as it is on Romeo + Juliet and Strictly Ballroom. It's not a busy film, nor is it plodding for that matter. The two and half hours speed by, I barely noticed them. In some respects if reminds me a lot of the old technicolor epics of the 1930s, films such as How the West was Won or Gone with the Wind or Red River and The Cowboys, yet unlike those films this is a film that we see mostly through the gaze of a smart and somewhat romantic half white - half-aboriginal boy. An outcast, as he tells us throughout the film in voice-over narration, that sees things through dream-gaze of story.
Australia is not a realistic film, even though it is placed squarely in our reality. It's epic in scope, the color is heightened, the emotions bigger than usual along with the expressions, and the villians well are villians with a capital V. We don't leave the film knowing very much about the lead characters. The Drover - played by Hugh Jackman, who earns his sexiest man alive title in this flick, does not have any other name. Just "The Drover" - which is what he does, he drives cattle across Australia for a commission. This works because of whose pov we are in - the aboriginal boy's (who can't be more than 13). As a result, at times, you may feel at an emotional distance from the story. I should have cried during many of the scenes, but I was dry-eyed. It did inspire laughter - intentionally or unintentionally, I'm not quite sure which. Knowing Lurham, I'm guessing the former. He has a bit of a wicked wit, one that is at times at the expense of his actors.
It's an odd film. I rather enjoyed it. And I'm trying to decide if it is one that should be analyzed or just a popcorn flick - to escape into. I'm thinking the former, oddly enough. While I loved it on the popcorn level and did escape into it with the same thrill that I've escaped into epics like Dances with Wolves or Last of the Mohicans, it haunts me. The director did some interesting things - he deliberately made the film larger than life. Deliberately framed a series of a faux romantic endings, which, while they may have been the ending of a 1930s film - filmed in the style of those films, they aren't the ending of this film. If anything, I think Lurham deliberately heightens the romanticism of these endings, like pretty pictures, grand, and wonderful - a homage to the 1930s films, while at the same time, undercutting them a notch - the final ending, is not one we would have seen in the 1930s, although it is just as happy and comforting in its own way. I'd read Lurham was tinkering with the ending - hoping to convey a sense of realism and openess to it, while at the same time sticking within the framework of the epic beauty of the romantic ending.
Lurham references Wizard of OZ quite a bit, but does so in both a romantic and an ironic context. Wizard of OZ is a child's film and is the story that Lady Ashley tells the aboriginal half-breed, Nualla, to cheer him up after a tragedy. She remembers little of it, and stumbles her way through the song "Over the Rainbow". The boy likes the song and adopts it as his own anthem, calling it a way to the dreaming - an aboriginal term for vision quest, the ability to see into the future and past, although it's more complicated than that. The irony of the reference is two-fold, first a nickname for Australia is OZ. Second, this is taking place at the start of WWII, when the Japanese bombed the Australian town of Darwin - the town where the story is set. OZ is a tale about a journey, a girl who journeys to defeat a wicked witch all in the hopes of finding her way home. In the film - the aboriginal boy is Dorothy with Lady Ashely and The Drover as his versions of the Cowardly Lion, the Scarecrow and the Tinman.
I've read that Lurham wanted to do an Australian version of Gone with the Wind, another 1930s film released around the same time as OZ, but this feels more like OZ than Gone with the Wind. I've seen both films more times than I can count. Of the two, I've always preferred the childlike glee of OZ, which made me hum merrily. Gone...more romantic, often chafed, its racist overtones hard to ignore. I wouldn't say Gone with the Wind was better than Australia, just different. The point of view is different - in Gone we are in the head of a priveleged and somewhat spoiled Southern Belle during the Civil War who has to find a way to handle change. Margret Mitchell's intent in writing the book was to depict how the South viewed the Civil War and its struggle afterwards. Scarlett was a metaphor for the people of the South, Ashely Wilks - the old south, with its privileges, and slaves, Rhett Butler - the North, invading, with its newfangled views and abolitionist rights. When you watch Gone with the Wind, you find yourself in a point of view that is rather uncomfortable, particularly for a modern and self-aware audience. Lurham's intent is somewhat different regarding Australia - here he is telling the story of three people - all outcasts, far from home, and how they come together.
I think the weakness in the film is how fast its pace is. We aren't really given time to fall in love with the characters or their romance. It's thrown at us at record speed, resulting in an odd distancing. I felt like I was on a rollercoaster - one huge dramatic event after another thrown at me. Sort of like watching a movie trailer. The movie didn't have enough quiet moments, small moments. There are a couple, but they don't last long enough. Nor is there enough build-up. We're told that Lady Ashely misses the Drover and time has passed - he's gone for six months - but we don't feel the passage of time, nor are we given a chance to miss him. Same deal regarding the Cattle drive - we're told how bad the journey through the horrible stretch of land is, but we don't really get to see it. In a way this is good, because you don't have time to get bored. One of the few films I've been too in which cell phones and talking didn't occur, although there was one older gentleman who kept getting up to go to the bathroom and he sat in the middle of the row. (Note if you know this is going to happen, pick an end seat.) On the other hand, being told and not shown events - leads to a sort of emotional distancing from the characters. The filmmakers tell more than they show, choosing to show the big stuff, but without the quieter, duller moments, the big stuff doesn't resonate. In Gone With the Wind - we had a chance to miss Rhett along with Scarlett, we felt every bump of that trip through the war ravaged South. And in Wizard of OZ, we felt Dorothy's exhaustion trying to get to the Emerald City, and rejoiced with her when she finally arrived. Joss Whedon once said in an interview - that you have to earn the emotional moments, otherwise they don't work.
I remember thinking during Australia that it was two stories they were trying to tell. What they should have done was cut out one. There's the story of the Cattle Drive. And there's the tale of the WAR. In order to tell both stories in 2 hours and 30 minutes, they had to cut a good section out of the middle of both, as a result both tales suffer, causing the film to be good but not great.
Great films - build up to the dramatic moments gradually. It's all about the pacing. The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of OZ, Titantic...all had slow builds. A lot happens in The Godfather and Gone with the Wind, but there is a build up. Same deal with Lawrence of Arabia - we are shown how hard it is to get through the desert, not told. When you try to put too much in a story, you fall into the trap of telling not showing, and that weakens the emotional impact.
Overall? I do recommend that you see Australia. I left the film skipping and happy. It was a fun, huge romantic adventure, with breathtaking landscapes and touching moments. Certainly worth the 11.50 that I paid for it. Also, Hugh Jackman is beyond sexy in it, assuming of course you are a Jackman fan. Nice to see two tall people on-screen for a change - Jackman is 6'4 and Kidman is 5'11. Both fill the screen. And Kidman's outfits - I want that red ball dress, even if it would never fit me.
[As you may or may not have inferred from the below, I took today off, avoided the dreaded Black Friday shopping hell (why do people do this to themselves, it's not like you can't get good deals later or online), and saw a movie instead. Also did laundry, made the bed up clean, dropped off dry-cleaning, worked on novel, popped online, tried to play Scramble on Facebook - which I completely suck at, everyone is above me - but those seem hardly worth mentioning.]
no subject
no subject
I think Lurham cut out all that, because he was trying to cram the film into two hours and thirty minutes as opposed to the three and half to four hours that Gone With the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia were. But, it hurt the film. Remember the scene where Lady Ashley tells Nulla the story of the Wizard of OZ? She doesn't really tell him the story, so much as breezes over it, highlighting the best bits in a sort of summary fashion. That's what I felt the director was doing here - breezing over bits like the transformation of the ranch, her job at the army office in order to get Nulla freed from the island, the fact that she and the Drover were apart for so long, and Nulla's life on the mission. We were told what happened, but not shown, much the same way she tells Nulla the tale of the Wizard of Oz. Which makes me wonder if it was deliberate? Nullah learns how to tell a story from Lady Ashley, and breezes over the uninteresting bits, focusing on the action and cool stuff or the stuff he recalls. Which makes the film interesting, but still lacking in emotional impact.
no subject
Cheers.