“Australia” isn’t a totally racist, historically inaccurate, decadence-driven epic like I thought it would be. It’s a mild, Disney-style pseudo-epic that utilizes racism like a comic when his act is bombing. Oh, and I don’t know enough about the continent to comment on the historical accuracy.
“Australia” occurs at the crux of World War II, Australia’s colonization, and the age of English love in the air. It’s as if the writer (who also directed, produced, and even contributed to a song on the movie) asked a film class to put themes into a hat and kept pickin until everyone felt like they contributed. In short, the 2 hour and 35 minute show could’ve ended after 95 minutes.
The story starts with a story and sticks with that theme for at least 25 minutes. Director Baz Luhrmann unleashes a trite, TV-like montage complete with Ducktale map graphics to introduce the characters, setting, and conflict. While the first 10 minutes awaken a bit of interest in the viewer, it’s actually kind of confusing and since the story isn’t that deep, it’s like killin’ itty bitty ants with a sledge hammer.
The narrator of the story is a Aborigine and European child who portrays the plot, his story, with an indigenous flavor that gives insight into the ins and outs of dark-skinned life on the fledgling continent. We find Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman, who delivers an especially ditzy performance even for her, stewing in the lap of boring English luxury as if awaiting an adventure. Luckily, she’s presented with an opportunity to go down-under, and of course, it’ll be no sweat, she imagines.
Within minutes of getting off the plane, Kidman becomes acquainted with the realities of sexist society and Anglo-Australian culture – the other white meat. The scene in which the pale, pompous Kidman encounters the wild, dark, and unkempt Hugh Jackman aptly communicates another couple themes – the gap between Brits and Aussies and the attraction that can arise between such “opposites”.
The setting may be the strongest suit of “Australia”. Besides the obvious pristine landscapes, smaller-scale settings, such as the main homestead, reveal the modest yet intricate trappings of the infant Australian culture. The camera angles embellish the already colorfully lush scenes. There is adequate character development, too much perhaps.
When the audience thinks that the story has just enough motivations and perspectives, the writers present two or three more characters into the plot for good measure. The Brit and the Aussie cultivate a relationship while raising an adopted mixed kid on their mission to avenge a death and save a ranch, salvage the female pride, master the elements, and spite high society. Oh and then WWII comes to town.
There’s every sort of conflict you can imagine in “Australia”, including conflicting themes. There’s something to be said for holding the viewer’s attention, but there are points in the movie where it’s hard to keep up with what’s going on. I would imagine that the characters deserve Oscars for packing 18 motivations into every scene. There are far too many dramatically cliché moments in which the character slowly and with amazement looks up to preface some astounding event. And those landmark quotes that get repeated like inside jokes throughout the movie to sum everything up – yea, well there’s at least 6 o’ those. Mr. Luhrmann put his everything into this movie.
“Australia” combines big-budget excitement with some indie-style content. It sounds like the ticket for a hit; it better be because it also combines no less than two huge Hollywood salaries with explosions and special effects galore. But I don’t think it will be a hit – there’s simply too much going on without enough fluidity and sense made. All in all, if you wanna impress the heck outta some preteens, take em to see “Australia”. It’s not bad – I gave it one eye open. Peace