'Australia' entertains, doesn't reach epic heights
Jared Peoples, Staff Writer
Published On: 12/ 1/2008
Throughout the history of Hollywood, there has been one genre of film that has displayed its ability to separate itself from the perpetual barrage of new releases: epic films.
The epic film does have one major problem: consistency. In terms of consistency, a few have been great, some have been really good, some have been just OK, and others have just been bad. If these films tell us anything, it is that there is no recipe for a successful epic.
Epics with amazing content are rarely rewarded in U.S. box office receipts. “Schindler’s List” is one of the greatest films of all time, but the abysmal “Pearl Harbor” amassed over 100 million dollars more in domestic theaters than the Steven Spielberg film. In fact, if you added the gross revenue of “The English Patient” to the domestic revenue of “Schindler’s List,” you still would not equal the financial superiority of “Pearl Harbor.”
On the other hand, “Schindler’s List” took home the Oscar for Best Picture while “Pearl Harbor” managed only one win for Best Sound Editing.
Still, this is overall a sad state of affairs. It means that not only are domestic audiences being deprived of great films, but they are also contributing to the glorification of mediocrity.
Someone very familiar with films presented on a grand scale is “Australia” director Baz Luhrmann. Could we ever forget 1996’s “Romeo + Juliet,” which reintroduced the Shakespeare play to an MTV audience? Nor will we soon forget 2001’s “Moulin Rouge!” which taught many people the only French phrases they know, via the song “Lady Marmalade.” These two films made it clear that Luhrmann does not do small.
The vague trailers for “Australia” do not reveal what the film is truly about. The impression is that it is a timeless love story, set in the country known as Oz. Perhaps this is the reason that I was the only person under the age of 45 in the theater. While there was a clear age gap between myself and everyone else, I think that everyone present was somewhat surprised as to what “Australia” truly entailed.
The love story element to “Australia” is, sadly, something you have seen before on numerous occasions. While the minor details are different, the film is the typical aristocratic lady-meets-cowboy formula.
In a predominantly Australian cast, Nicole Kidman plays English aristocrat Lady Sarah Ashley. She is forced to go to Australia in 1939 because … well, does it really ever matter in films like this? The point is, she needs a guide to reach her destination. Who better than a barroom-brawler whose manner of speak eerily mimics that of Steve Irwin? Hugh Jackman plays this character, known only as the Drover, to comedic perfection. Dramatic perfection is much more elusive within the film, however.
This age-old combination of pairing completely opposite characters in stressful situations makes up the banal portions of the film. It is those unexpected parts, though, that make up the heart of the film.
Being an Aussie himself, Luhrmann uses his film’s long run time to inform the general public of the mistreatment of aboriginal Australians, while admonishing the Australian government at the same time. The main aboriginal character employed to fulfill these tasks is a young boy named Nullah, played by Brandon Walter.
Nullah is the illegitimate child of an aboriginal mother and a white father. The father is the film’s main villain, and one of his primary goals is to do away with the child. Not only does Nullah face the problem of a nefarious father, but he also must avoid becoming part of the historical Stolen Generations.
Australia’s racial follies are not as familiar to American audiences as our own racial follies, but it is easy to see the similarities between the two countries.
The juxtaposition of a love story against an unfamiliar racist legacy is what makes “Australia” unique. As World War II threatens to expand, Lady Ashley and Drover must not only tackle their feelings for each other, but also the prejudicial treatment they incur for being sympathetic to the plight of the aborigines.
We have already seen that an epic can tell an important story and still be a bad film, though. So the question must be asked, is “Australia” a good film? The answer is complicated. Visually, it is very beautiful. Kidman is believable as an aristocrat, but the love story with Jackman feels forced at times.
Jackman is a bit too comical throughout the film to be believable. Walters makes “Australia” worth seeing and is clearly the film’s standout. He is able to narrate the story, bring the main characters together, and all the while, make “The Wizard of Oz” enjoyable again; no easy task for such a young actor, but he pulls it off seamlessly.
So what will the legacy of “Australia” be? Oscar nominations will undoubtedly occur, but they are more likely to be in the more artsy departments instead of the more- publicized categories.
While the film is very easy to watch, even with its long run time, it is just not an epic in the mold of “Schindler’s List.”
Its historical background is important, but just like “Pearl Harbor,” an important message still necessitates a great story to achieve a place in cinematic history. For this reason, Luhrmann’s epic falls short of greatness.
Email: jrodppls@yahoo.com
