God bless Baz Luhrmann. There are few directorial talents with the energetic potential he brings to his projects. Danny Boyle comes to mind. On good days, Fernando Meirelles does as well. But one thing each of these filmmakers capitalizes on through their complicated sense of visual storytelling is the power of intimacy in the scripts they set out to film.
Somehow, Baz Luhrmann forgot about that. Not that he wouldn’t be capable of tacking a project as ambitious as “Australia,” but at least right now, it has proven to be simply too much movie for the filmmaker at this stage in his career.
Visceral satisfaction it has. Larger than life characterizations are its forté. If you’re willing to let it, you’ll probably be swept off your feet. But somewhere in the ambition, Luhrmann loses a grip on his own talents, producing something that is a considerable mess.
“Australia” is really two movies smashed together. The 165-minute run time becomes taxing if only because each thread is so haphazardly meshed with the other. It is all the more ironic considering the film is, at heart, about the power of storytelling.
The first half details the arrival of Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) to the Outback and her husband’s property at Faraway Downs. She comes to the territory with a mind to sell off the land and bring her husband back home to England, but soon discovers the wicked and thieving ways of local beef baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) and his flunky Neil Fletcher (David Wenham).
There to meet her at the boat in the seaside burg of Darwin is the Drover (Hugh Jackman), a rough-and-tumble cowboy cut from the same cloth as Clint Eastwood’s many characterizations. (Drovers move livestock across large distances, real cattle drive type stuff.) A blue collar guy to say the least, with an impeccable physique that Luhrmann never shies away from displaying (and never fails to leave one feeling the need to do a few crunches), the Drover works with and lives among the indigenous peoples of the country: the Aborigines.
This distinction immediately presents the Drover as an equal rights kind of guy, an almost too precious detail that is played up for what’s its worth whenever the time is right. But for his part, Jackman never milks the halo that has clearly been set upon his head in this light.
Young Nullah (Brandon Walters) is one of the Aboriginal children that reside at the property at Faraway Downs, but being a half-cast (half black, half white), he is sought after by local authorities who remove half-casts from their families (some have said out of fear of miscegenation). These children became known as the Stolen Generations, and like our own history of slavery in the United States, like Apartheid in South Africa, it is a deep racial wound that the film seeks to illuminate and perhaps heal.
Lady Ashley, the Drover and Nullah, along with a tight little ensemble, set about droving the Ashley cattle to Darwin and the film’s first half comes to sputtering conclusion around the two-hour mark. Then a whole other narrative kicks in, one detailing the particulars of the Drover and Lady Ashley’s inevitable romance, and their equally inevitable “adoption” of Nullah.
The Drover, though willing to work at Faraway during the “wet” (Australia’s rainy season), remains his own person. “No man hires me, no man fires me,” he says. So he still spends half the year — the “dry” — droving livestock. It is, as you might imagine, a taxing arrangement for the couple. But with the war heating up following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the characters of “Australia” will soon have bigger fish to fry.
The romance that sparks between Lady Ashley and the Drover ultimately falls flat dramatically, even amid eye-soaked third act sequences. Part of the staleness stems from the couple’s first intimate encounter, a trite moment of intoxication that seems begrudgingly concocted to set the characters on their way. But what really affects the impact of this central relationship is the ambiguity of Jackman’s Drover.
We never know much about Drover beyond his iconic mold. Moments that threaten depth (asides concerning his ex-wife, heart-to-hearts with an aborigine cohort) are touch and go amid gratuitous images of his perfect body (the humor of which is not completely lost on Luhrmann). Jackman’s performance is finely tuned, but he only has so far to go with such an empty archetype to work with.
Most distracting of all, we never know him by a proper name, just his career’s description. It’s a peculiarity that ought to seem unsettling to Lady Ashley. One couldn’t easily imagine screaming, “Oh, Plumber,” in the heat of passion.
Kidman is not particularly memorable in a role painted with vague brushstrokes that couldn’t hardly be compared to other heroines of the type: Scarlett O’Hara, Karen Blixen, etc. It is, however, nice to see Bryan Brown getting some decent screen time (in a role that could have been more interesting), while David Wenham seems almost too familiar in the role of the film’s excuse for a villain.
The true find of “Australia,” however, is nearly reason enough to forgive the film’s numerous flaws. Brandon Walters steals the heart in the role of Nullah, a character that could have crippled the piece had the performance not been a complete knock-out.
Walters isn’t necessarily called on to do much heavy lifting, but there are key moments when Nullah is in the spotlight, an embodiment of theme. And Walters sells them with a twinkle of confidence in his eye. I’m tempted to say a star is born.
Finally, the film’s considerable below-the-line artistry isn’t the stunning example one might have expected, but there are moments of true precision. Much of Mandy Walker’s cinematography is concerned with capturing the picturesque beauty of the Outback, and when clumsy (near embarrassing) CG effects stay out of its way, it succeeds.
David Hirschfelder’s original score had slipped the mind by the time the credits rolled, while war and cattle drive sequences present a showcase for creative sound work. On the whole, though, the film just isn’t the craft stand-out it could have been. The hard work shows, of course, but one begins to imagine the production proving itself a daunting task to all involved.
So it is that the ultimate failure of “Australia” is Luhrmann’s preoccupation with grandiose filmmaking, paradoxically his greatest strength in past examples. It’s a style not suited to a sloppy plot structure that could have used some more attention. Vibrant visuals reveal the scars of a lacking narrative, leaving the frayed ends of a couple of interesting stories to dangle like spilled intentions the director never noticed dragging behind.
Comments
26 responses to “REVIEW: “Australia” (**1/2)”
I think Lurhmanns use of three very different writers is the cause of this end result.
I too am very surprised at the lack of great cinematography coming from this. I know that he cut short the time on location as it wasn’t comfortable enough but thought they would’ve gotten enough good stuff in the not to rely on so much studio time.
I think the story also needed a more realistic turn from the actors.
sorry for nonsensical sentence in the middle there.
Loved it.
Well done Kris
Thanks for your Anti-Australian opinion
Sorry?
Kris, wasn’t Moulin Rouge! your number one from 2001? Just out of curiosity. I honestly don’t know why I remember that.
Anyway, what seemed to me to be the one thing that would hold up should the rest of the film fail (the crafts), ends up being serviceable, but not at the level we were expecting. Hopefully I like this as much as I was thinking I would. It’s been seven and a half years since Luhrmann came out with a movie, so let’s hope the wait won’t be in vain.
Kris,
I’m disappointed by your review. Why such a sudden change in heart? I thought you love Baz’s Mouline Rouge : (
This review is the real dissappointment, not the movie itself.
Whoa whoa, blind Baz followers. I may disagree with the review itself, but every point Kris makes is totally valid and understandable, and I’m sure there will be many who feel that way. I just didn’t, at all.
And Jacky, I don’t think it necessary requires a “change in heart;” this movie represents such a stylistic and thematic change from “Moulin Rouge” that I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that anyone who likes one will like the other.
i loved it, great movie!
Thank you Rob. I know Baz has his legion and expect them to come out of the woodwork on this, but nice to know level heads are among us.
Ryan and Jacky: Yes, Moulin Rouge was my number one film of 2001, a masterful film.
ummm love for Moulin Rouge does not equal love for Australia
Well, count me in as one of Luhrman’s followers (I even liked admittedly rather problematic Romeo + Juliet), but I still have to judge each film on its own merits and just keep Kris’s comments in mind when coming out of the film.
Alfredo: Who said it did?
I thought from the trailer itself that the romance looked very cheap and mushy. Almost all the reviewers atleast agree on one thing, that the love story falls flat on its face.
But I’m really surprised you weren’t impressed by the photography. It seemed like the one thing to watch this film for – spectacle. The trailer looked stunning and some reviews have said some glowing things about the cinematography.
You did not even like the score. Awards-wise, Australia seems in deep shit to me right now.
And people were actually talking about Best Actor buzz about Hugh Jackman(of all people!!!!!!!!!). I thought that was ridiculous to begin with.
red-wine:
The romance is supposed to be cheesy, it’s supposed to melodramatic, heightened. This was never a character study but rather a parody to the past. The cinematography, acting, dialogue, drama, etc emulate the films of Hollywood’s golden age, with of course Baz’s unique touch. Instead of “deep” movie with hidden meanings and such, Baz just wants to take you to a far away place that you’ve never seen before. This is the reason for the CGI and the heightened aspects of the movie. It’s supposed to look different and magical – it’s a far away place!
Anyway, I imagine this will be just like MR! – divisive among critics. You (Kris) aren’t too keen on it, Variety thinks it’s good but flawed, and Hollywood Reporter loves it. This is just Baz. You either get him or you don’t; you either go along with the ride or get lose in the flaws.
Please stop telling us that we either get him or we don’t. That cannot be used every time someone says his film is flawed.
Watch the itunes pod cast with Mandy Walker, she talks about not being able to tell which is location and which is studio. They are meant to mesh.
If the crappy CGI and bluescreen were intentional to make it look “different and magical”surely he would have let the DOP in on this.
Danielle: The film never goes all the way over-the-top, and pulling its punch in that way, it finds an awkward place somewhere in the middle. So the criticisms of lacking characterizations are valid here, whereas with “Moulin Rouge,” for instance, I don’t think that’d be the case, since the characters in that film stood for ideas more so than people. Not the case in “Australia,” a film that is trying to have it both ways.
Just one more example of the narrative’s sloppiness, I feel.
Also, Variety seems unwilling to be too harsh on any film lately, McCarthy’s reviews being much more vague and poorly written than usual. Must be a ploy to keep ad dollars coming in. Or just sheer laziness.
Rosie: I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I should have said you like his style or you don’t.
Kris: I appreciate your comment, and I think that you will find many people who will go along with the characterizations and be swept up in it all, and those that find it lacking.
I wasn’t offended. I really want this film to do well and think it will.
I am not a huge fan but I appreciate his passion. I was worried about his choice of scriptwriters and that does seem to have played out unfortunately. I think our film industry really needs a win right now so I’m hoping people are looking for this type of escape. That said I do think even his most rabid fans must accept some of the criticism.
Kris, it seems Jeff Wells thinks the movie is exactly like Moulin Rouge! in terms of over the top.
I appreciate that you’re review is actually constructive rather than.. well, I just won’t go there.
Kris, I think your review is very fair and accurate. It seemed to me that it contradicted itself thematically. The first act was very Swiss Family Robinsonesque to me and I thought the set up was poor making think “Oh boy, this is gonna be tough to sit through for 2 more hours” but midway through the second act it started gathering steam for me. The stakes were raised, the scenes became bigger and more beautiful and the theme of the movie seemed to change for me into something on more of a serious note, relative to act I that is. By the third act I was completely on board and despite the epic proportions of this film and the shortcomings it had I was very intrigued, interested and enjoying myself. The film was definitely different and for that I respect it and actually like it. It’s theater movie for sure in my opinion, not sure it would have kept my attention on the couch.
Visually it was gorgeous, I would have thought it would at least be considered as a getting possible noms in Art Direction, Costume Design and possibly even Cinematography. Editing was all over the place but it was still beautifully shot I thought for what it’s worth.
Beyond Act I I thought Hugh Jackman did a stellar acting job and Brandon Walters was adorable, he really did a great job.
It’s one of the weird movies that I just can’t seem to stop thinking about. I guess I must have liked it more than I even originally thought.
It’s neither a mess nor a masterpiece. It is a vastly entertaining movie with a very rough script. It really all comes down to that screenplay that needed many more rewrites. Walters, Kidman and Jackman all do great work as an unusual family unit, and the movie does achieve at times that special epic feel with grand characters. But the second half of the film is like a bad sequel to the great first half, like a Scarlett to Gone with the Wind. I don’t think it’s gonna get nominated for much, other than Art Direction and Sound. It was a good time nonetheless.
I mostly agree with what G said. Entertaining and worth your time, but ultimately a forgettable movie.
However, I believe that I’m the only one who doesn’t see the films necessity of being an epic. I’ve heard a lot of people, even Kris, say that this was a big project to tackle. To me, I thought the film could have worked better if Luhrmann had placed most of the focus on the relationships between the characters, instead of attempting the drama from the overall plot of the film.
This is a great movie! I will never get tired of watching it. Great job from the actors, staff, directors, everybody! If you do not like the movie, then you are a no good cheeky bull! lmao