Sunday 11 January 2009

Australia

Bea says: Although made slightly nervous by poor reviews, I never like to let reviewers influence my film-going, so Cecil and I went along to see this much-hyped epic from my home country - and I loved it. I like Baz Luhrmann's quirky style anyway, and he didn't disappoint here. Like all Luhrmann's films, tongue is firmly planted in cheek, and if you get into the spirit it's just great, great fun. A sweeping love story etc etc, it draws cleverly on lots of Australian experiences rather than only the big Hollywood blockbusters like Gone With The Wind, but the Australian classics of the 70s and 80s (all the same actors reappear, and all the stockmen, droving, Aboriginal mysticism of films like Storm Boy, The Man from Snowy River and Breaker Morant is drawn upon), and also some funny little observations (no women served at the front bar, everyone rushing out into the street in celebration when it rains). The cinematography is fantastic, particularly the bombing of Darwin, which was kept hushed up if I'm not mistaken, so I certainly don't have a visual memory of photographs or film footage from that event. Nice to see David Gulpilil again - he features in one of our first blog posts of course, in 10 Canoes. Yes, the story is hackneyed, and defies belief, and glosses over what would really have happened - instead, it's the magic of cinema.
***1/2

Cecil says: I too was drawn along by the epic drama of 'Australia' - the 2h45 really flew by and I was actually quite surprised when the credits began to roll at the end. Many of the reviewers seemed really critical of Nicole Kidman; some said she was wrongly cast in the role - I actually thought she played the English lady rather well, whereas I found Hugh Jackman a bit of a caricature, a kind of Crocodile Dundee meets Richard Gere, if that's possible. The actors that stole the show were David Gulpilil, though he did little more than stand on one leg and look mystical most of the time, and the young boy described as 'creamy' by the Whites because of his mixed blood - fantastic performance and someone I hope we see as much of as we have of David Gulpilil over the years.

When the film was first previewed - you know, with those deep-voiced Americans who do the voice-overs for all the previews we see in the cinema - there was a suggestion that this was a film was defining the country, that went deep into the 'soul' of Australia. Having seen it, I'm not convinced (though far be it for a non-Aussie like me to try to judge this) - I have a hunch this was the marketing line both for the film producers and for the Australian tourism industry. I don't think this film goes to the 'heart' of what is 'Australia' any more than Rabbit Proof Fence, 10 Canoes or Picnic at Hanging Rock for that matter! Having said that, as Bea says, it was good entertainment and maybe that was all Baz Luhrmann was trying to achieve?

***

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

FROM OLDSTAGER: I was a bit wary about this film after a succession of reviews that seemed almost contemptuous, particularly one by Germaine Greer. Was I prepared to sit doggedly with aged joints for well over 2 hours or would I want to leave halfway through and disappoint my companions? Not a bit of it! Like Cecil and Bea I was hooked from start to finish. Yes, it was built round an undemanding and fairly conventional love story withe some implausible outcomes, but that seems a legiitimate device to highliigh a fascinating period in Australian history in a part of that country rarely given such exposure. The photography throughout is stunning, from the panoramic shots of panicking cattle in an awesome landscape to the bombing of Darwin. The plot, pace Greer, doesn't gloss over the policy of "civilising" aboriginal children or the general attitudes of the whites to the aborigines but, if anything, makes it pretty clear. The film doesn't take itself too seriously (is that what the reviewers disliked?) and there were many sly touches that brought a smile to one's lips. All told, I thought this was rattling good entertainment - wasn't that the general idea? As far as I know, the filmmakers didn't promise anything they didn't deliver - sp yah-boo to the reviewers.