 "Photo: N/A")
Being a Baz Luhrmann fan, I expected that his latest film, “Australia,” would completely sweep me off my feet. After maintaining a hopelessly romantic relationship with both “Romeo and Juliet” and “Moulin Rouge!,” the anticipation for this seven-year-long project couldn’t have been greater. With the highly promotional trailers and TV appearances by the cast teasing me, I was on the edge of my seat when the lights lowered in the movie theater, and the show finally began.
Any fan of Baz Luhrmann knows what to expect from his movies: breathtaking cinematography, beautifully crafted dialogue, and signature camera angles. But about an hour into the film, I couldn’t help but wonder, where’s Baz?
The first thing I noticed about the film was its over-exaggerated costumes and setting, and the period piece cinematography. This delighted me, as I enjoyed these qualities in previous Luhrmann films. It created a romantic, almost performance theater feeling which drew me into the film. Set between the years of 1939-1941 in Australia, the costumes were a mixture of western-style upper class garments and rugged outerwear, creating a very adventurous mood. To add to this mood was the gorgeous cinematography, done by Mandy Walker, which stylized the film in a very Luhrmann-esque way.
Past that, the movie fell short of my expectations. Although the costumes and cinematography were stunning, the camera shots and angles that Luhrmann is famous for were not evident. Stylistically, this film did not resonate “Luhrmann” as his films usually do; it was almost as if his signature style was sold out for a (hopefully) larger box office number.
Beyond that, the dialogue was rather cheesy, causing the lead romance between Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman to seem forced. Instead of gently playing out their passion, it all happened quickly and unrealistically – usually in a Luhrmann film, the romance plays out this way, but it works due to the outrageous nature of the film. But this film was intended to be more realistic and epic; after all, it was three hours long. Thus, the relationship between Jackman and Kidman should have likewise been played out as such. But instead, Luhrmann mixed his traditional romantic style with his anticipated realistic background, and the two did not mesh well together.
The best part of this movie was Nullah, played by Brandon Walters. Walters’ portrayal of an aboriginal child, with an almost believable naivety of how the world works, was right on target. His character was endearing and very well acted, and truly drew me into the film more than any other character. I found myself rooting for him the entire way through, almost forgetting the central relationship of Jackman and Kidman. I even found myself shedding a few tears, as Walters elicits emotion from the audience unlike any other character in the film.
Overall, the film was not terrible and it was not incredible. Although I believe a more realistic relationship between Jackman and Kidman could have been fleshed out, if you’re a Luhrmann fan, you should go and see for yourself. If you’re not a fan of the director, but are interested in seeing the film, you might be less critical as you’re not accustomed to Luhrmann’s particular style.
