| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 12/27/2008 : 10:18:42
|
Australia
Well, I'm not much more certain of this than before I saw it.
It's so fly-blown, preposterous and unironically corny that it's hard to believe that it got made in this day and age. There is a moment with an animal and a rum bottle that looks as though it's right out of a spoof. Some of the stuff relating to the Aborigines is especially ridiculous. While the little boy gives a good performance, he is made to say some horrible lines. (And why wouldn't the mission have cut his hair? And why are some of the boys there Nordic-looking?!) I didn't like the Aboriginal characters falling borderline under the 'Magical Negro' stereotype that they so often do. (However, I think the film just about avoids showing magic really occurring, so at least it isn't too deus ex machina.) Of the goodies who are dispensible, it's telling that two out of three are still Aboriginal. The title is also absurdly self-aggrandising. That and the whole project made a lot more sense when I found out just before watching it that the Australian Tourist Board provided funding (assuming that's true). I was especially annoyed by the film trying to present itself as being the definitive treatment of the Stolen Generations, when that just isn't the case given Rabbit Proof Fence (which in turn is necessarily simplified). It's fitting to incorporate that into the story, but the film overly tries to pretend that that is its focus and reason for being.
However... I did enjoy it. It may be self-consciously grand, but it is grand. Australia looks the same as usual and thus lends it an epic feel without a lot of effort. Both the leads are stock  characters but they're likeable enough to want them to reach their wholly predictable happy ending. Kidman is quite good in that she doesn't too badly remain within the absurd English stereotype that Australians are so fond of. And Jackman was born to play this part. I forgot my cinema card (as I am at home in Shropshire and thus not in the habit of keeping my wallet on me), and I'm not too frustrated at this being my most expensive film of the year. 3/5 plus a bonus 1 for Jackman.
A little bit of restraint and understatement would have served this film very well. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/27/2008 10:56:45 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/27/2008 : 14:19:46
|
I struggled to enjoy it at the preview I attended last week. I felt like a really good film trying to force its way out of a load of old shit; sometimes it managed it, and sometimes it didn't.
It's too long. Faaaarr tooooo loooong. The screenplay is a total shambles; it deseperately tries to be funny and comes across as stupid, and the shoehorning of "The Wizard of Oz" throughout is an obvious idea played too long.
The amount you actually see of Australia is limited as a huge proportion of the film appears to be shot on sound stages and covered in ugly CGI, and what you do see is pretty much dust bowl Northern Territory and grand, not beautiful. I felt no urge to book myself a ticket to the outback after watching the film no matter what the Aussie Tourist Board may want (I was handed travel brochures and a DVD when I walked in... they're not subtle).
But it does have a charm; Jackman is very good, although *so* stock he isn't even given a name, and Kidman warms up after some seriously unfunny snooty English stereotyping. Actually the Australians suffer a large amount of stereotyping too, both on the white and aboriginal sides. I got bored counting the number of times we saw the mystical magic man standing on one leg on endlessly cracked landscape as the sky wheeled behind him. Ho hum.
I enjoyed the cattle droving sequences on the whole, and the stampede (even with its silly conclusion), but lost interest after that. The stolen generations theme and the Japanese attack felt tagged on because of the amount of time spent on the first half of the film. And here's a serious problems: why set the film two years before the bombing of Darwin if you're going to cast a boy who is not going to grow a day older in that two year gap that occurs in the film? He's a fine little actor, but it's just stupid.
To be fair the woman I sat next to sobbed through much of and the audience did seem to enjoy it, but I was far less convinced. It'll be a big hit with fans of dramatic romantic adventures like Titanic, Pearl Harbour and films of that ilk, but it's pretty expensive, dispensible stuff. I'd rather watch the gritty, nasty, fly infested Australia of "The Proposition" again than this sanitised Hollywood Oz. |
Edited by - demonic on 12/27/2008 14:21:15 |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/29/2008 : 17:17:08
|
I agree - it's such a curate's egg. It reminded me alot of a John Ford western in its visual story-telling conceit - those Australian vistas could easily double for good-ole H'wood backdrops. I'm wondering whether Luhrmann was actually aiming for that feeling of style over substance - or at least style over cliche.
There are some spectacular set pieces, though some turn absurdity on its head - e.g. the cattle/cliff scene.
How many writers can dance on the head of an Australian pin? They're all here, scribbling away. And 2� hours later we've been through every single one of their wringers. Wringing our hands, and village our church bells for it all to stop.
It's a saga. It's a love story. It's a political tract about occupying conquerers and arrogant cultural imperialists. It's a cowboy film with mean Mr Rancher putting the scares up the purty wimmin and hornsnoggling the menfolk. It's a tale of corrupt bureaucracies on the eve of war. It's a tale of humanizing a rigid control freak of a woman and the stubborn man who learns to share his heart. It's a tale of aboriginal magic passed down the generations.
Oh, please, if I promise to eat my spinach and shine my shoesies - please make it stop.
And yet there are beams of light that shine onto some moving moments courtesy of the actors - particularly to do with the restoration of relationships after bouts of separation. Well, those are always heartstring tuggers, ain't they?
If you ignore most of the dialogue -- which also reminded me of those classic H'wood westersn - cliche but serviceable - and concentrate on the directorial choices, whole stretches of the film are bearable, even engaging. Whatever we think of the film, Lurhmann's visual control is in no doubt.
There are some loud smiles, but it could have used a lot more belly-laughs.
I dunno - if I were to be kind I'd say Luhrmann wanted to present the spirit of Australia through a screen of contradiction. A very filtered view.
Just, please, make it stop.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 06:00:11
|
I'd say the aborigines have more common with Magical Indians than Magical Negroes, although there are certainly elements of both.
I saw this one a few months ago, so my memories are fuzzy. What I do remember is, boy, did my butt hurt after that one. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/30/2008 : 07:17:02
|
| 'Magical Negro' is an established name of a stereotype; as far as I know 'Magical Indian' is not. N.B. I'm not suggesting that the characters (or even anyone of African descent) are actually 'negroes'. I take your point, though -- the supposed powers here are within cultural parameters, rather than having been made up for the film. The Aborigines also fall hopelessly into the related 'noble savage' stereotype. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/30/2008 07:18:04 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 15:48:19
|
| I think I've mentioned appalling tourism adverts before. I have now seen the loose Emirates tie-in with this film twice and nothing could make me less want to visit Australia, a country that it is very hard to make unappealing as a holiday destination. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Australia
