DOWN UNDER ALL DRESSED

Australia
By Baz Luhrmann

It is hard to believe that Baz Luhrmann has only directed four films to date ‘cause his got this macho Aussie swagger imprints round his films – even if they are films with effeminate touches – His movies are built with a sense of security, like a ton of bricks, with a cocky spirit of self-assurance and a clear confidence that he’s on top of his game and has made dozens of these films, just like this one, before. Yet he hasn’t.

It also makes perfect sense that he’d use Hugh Jackman – as his photogenic alter ego and poster boy – the ballsy, hunky leading man - yes, him too, of the effeminate touch - in this over-the-top, quite fantastical variation of the historical drama, a GONE WITH THE WIND down under. After all, Jackman most likely represents the ideal physicality as envisioned by Luhrmann; a Clark Gable for our times, seen as the ultimate Outback man – maybe even as Luhrmann himself would like to be perceived. Ideally it should be a marriage made in heaven. Yet it isn’t.

Then there’s Nicole Kidman, she of a delicate, structured beauty, a petite but sturdy actress. Despite only two collaborations, Luhrmann would have us believe that she is his cinematic muse, the fairy dust of good fortunes. And it did work for them once before on MOULIN ROUGE. But here, he has Kidman playing against the tide, slightly manic, wound-up and neurotic, not the common traits of beauty. While visually splendid to watch, the union of stoic character actress and overly animated material just doesn’t spark much magic on the big screen no matter how lovely the imagery.

For one, here Kidman, the film’s heroine, with her exaggerated mannerisms, does not have a script that works in her favour and Luhrmann has her do unnatural things – like walking at a purposeful rapid pace - for the sake of impressive camera work. These decisions sacrifice much of her character’s desirable virtues and the actress’ natural talents. It’s as if she’s trusted her Director to delve her into untried territory and it simply backfired. After all Luhrmann may be talented but he’s no Kubrick.

In any case, the dangers and trappings of making every effort to recreate an epic-scale event in the Cinerama mode, is that it needs to have the content to back it up. Alas, Luhrmann has way too much story and a surplus of ideas to conjure. On top of that, he mixes a handful of genres at once giving the film a misguided feel, even if it very much the desired effect he was after. I read somewhere that the film has not plot whatsoever but if anything I found it way over-plotted, crammed and way too busy a film.

With AUSTRALIA, unfortunately, perception is everything and at 2h45m that’s a hell of a lot of perception to take in. It becomes exhausting to watch everything in AUSTRALIA. A film that is aims at mimicking, more so than honouring GONE WITH THE WIND, should not then be using what seems like Bollywood blueprints as its formula. It would have served Luhrmann well to keep focus. By the end AUSTRALIA’s saga leaves you somewhat cold, dissatisfied, if not dismayed, at its overwhelming mediocrity.

Yet AUSTRALIA as a story is not a complete failure and it’s easy enough to spot its better storybook elements [i.e. a half-caste child in need of family, greedy cattle baron, and small town corruption]. It is hard to say if it would have worked better had Luhrmann carefully picked and zoomed in on one particular subject matter but as it stands it’s like he’s chosen his cake and ate it too. Too much of a good thing will only lead to tummy ache and a heartburn Baz.

By the end, even in all its earnestness [and, trust me, it is earnest], Luhrmann, using metrosexual Jackman and a fussy Kidman, can only seem to paint a sumptuously empty visual treat. In his least successful film to date, Luhrmann has a pot pourri of genres and ideas competing one against the other. Turns out that the pastiche celebration he planned here was way too ambitious for his own good.