Luhrmann: It's Australian for movie

By Steven Zeitchik

Where, oh where, to begin on Baz Luhrmann's period epic "Australia," which screened for the first time stateside Wednesday? Perhaps down under is appropriate, below a whole heap of adjectives.

Fox's entry in the fall movie sweepstakes is ambitious, confounding, sprawling, splashy, schizophrenic, noble, labored, moving, endless, jarring, melodramatic, hammy, New Agey.

Yes, that feels better.

The Western/Wartime hybrid features an aristocrat played by Nicole Kidman, the working-class thorn-in-her-side, cattle "drover" Hugh Jackman, who becomes her lover, their struggles, their adopted aboriginal boy and fight to keep him, their skirmishes over land deeds, a strange leitmotif of "The Wizard of Oz" (Oz as a metaphor for a magical quest, Oz as in Australia -- get it?), ehtnic tensions percolating, bombs falling... We could go on. You get the idea. Descriptions fail.

So comparisons to other movies will have to do. Imagine Lonesome Dove, think of the schmaltzier parts of The English Patient, remind yourself of Crocodile Dundee, recall that international movie you saw at a festival way back when about aboriginal people, think of the schmaltzier parts of the English Patient, try to remember Changeling, think of the schmaltzier parts of the English Patient, recount World War II movies with explosion-filled climaxes. You'll begin to not only get an idea of this movie -- you might become as bewildered as those of us who've seen it.

Whatever you do, don't think of Baz Luhrmann. Classic Luhrmannish themes are here -- doomed love is here, doomed love involving Nicole Kidman is here -- but the director cuts out a lot (not all, but a lot) of the stylized camerawork and flash that marked efforts like "Moulin Rouge." Instead the grandiosity comes in the form of scope and theme.

Which is a good thing for those wanting a more straightforward story, though is it the maximal use of, and proper showcase for, Luhrmann's quirky talents? (Some reviewers, including our own, say it just might be.)

And speaking of epic -- the movie is 2 1/2 hours long. But with many slo-motion shots accentuating melodrama, one can only wonder if it would have might clocked in at 1 1/2 hours had all scenes been shot at regular speed.

Then there's the issue everyone's wondering about: the ending (warning: spoiler alert) which seems worth mentioning not as much for plot reasons but because it goes to perennial questions of studio-director relationships.

There've been a lot of question in blog circles -- read: people who had not yet seen the movie -- over whether Jackman's character was supposed to die at the end of the movie. He doesn't (and we'll never fully know, unless an unlikely blame game breaks out, if that was or wasn't Luhrmann's intention; Fox, for its part, has said that all of the choices are the director's). What many of these debates ignored or didn't know is that there's a double twist, since Kidman believes Jackman's died but Jackman (and for a second we) believe Kidman's died.

So sure, the happy ending is could be construed as too neat. But give Luhrmann credit for finding a clever way to build up the tension with what is basically the wartime-drama equivalent of the double cross.

Of course the happy ending, like Oprah's rave (which we can only assume was driven by the romantic drama; hers doesn't seem like a shrimp-on-the-barby sense of humor), will boost word of mouth and could counteract those perplexed by the mix of styles and setting. Seeing a romantic drama on a Saturday night doesn't usually entail aboriginal chants and kangaroos. Because of a boy from Oz named Baz, this big holiday movie now does.

Comments

[Slarragnolavy]

http://rilulwg.100webspace.net/lathedstti.html visiting nurses association foundation