Bella Leonora ëlla

Baz Luhrmann’s Australia – A Shared Experience

Posted in Art and About, Politics, Social Comment by Inga Leonora on 25 March, 2009

 

Hugh Jackman & Nicole Kidman in 'Australia'

Hugh Jackman & Nicole Kidman in 'Australia'

I recently had the misfortune of viewing Baz Luhrmann’s Australia. I say, misfortune for two reasons; the first, like every one else apparently, I felt the film was probably Luhrmann’s worst yet, and possibly one of the greatest epic film failures of all time. The second reason is far more concerning; in amongst Nicole Kidman’s terrible performance and over-sized forehead, Hugh Jackman’s posturing and ‘crickey’-ing and an unmentionable treatment of the Indigenous characters, a portrait so fundamentally true of my country appears, and I’ve been embarrassed to think that other people in other countries might actually have seen it.

Many would be disappointed after Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet. Australia is really two films, held together by a middle section something akin to a damp fold running down the middle of a single sheet of a paper. The dialogue is shockingly bad, and Kidman and Jackman oscillate between periods of dreadful slapstick and extended forehead to chest hair posturing. There are brief moments of triumph in the cinematography, but you needn’t watch the film to appreciate it. It really is at it’s best in the promotional stills.

The highlight is Brendan Walters as Nullah, the half-aboriginal, half-white boy, who somehow makes a completely undeveloped and poorly scripted character work, possibly because he’s absolutely adorable and manages to demonstrate a greater range and depth of emotion than his ‘seasoned’ counter-parts. Lurhmann seems to be almost making fun of this character’s (and arguably the entire Stolen Generation, which Nalluh represents in it’s entirety) complete cultural isolation. There are scenes in which the young actor is forced into singsong, magical, jazz-hands moments that you feeling as if you should look away! Whilst these moments are given the ‘slow motion to make people realize I’m serious’ effect, truly tragic moments in the child’s life, like the death of his mother are washed over, notably by Kidman, and her awful rendition of ‘Somewhere over the Rainbow’.
Brendan Walters as Nullah in 'Australia'

Brendan Walters as Nullah in 'Australia'

That the 1939 masterpiece The Wizard of Oz should feature at all in the film is mind-boggling! Until of course Nullah verbalizes the connection between the Wizard of Oz and his grandfather, King George, a totem full blooded aboriginal elder (played by David Gulpilil) who, like a good totem, speaks little, does less and assumes the stereotypical position, literally. In fact all the minority characters of the film are so hopelessly stereotypical it is embarrassing, and so indicative of an entire generation for which Asian equals food and Eastern European equals ‘shifty’ but not servant, mostly because they too are white.  

The ‘magic’ of the indigenous Australian culture is entirely lost on the viewer. In fact, it is fair to say that it isn’t at all depicted beyond a few songs and the aforementioned jazz-hands moments. Lurhmann has said the film is a “mythologized Australia“. But he has failed to provide one of the most important characters required in all good myth, that being the landscape. Certainly, it is there, but in the hybrid, make believe place he’s created there is nothing more than an implied connection between King George’s/Nullah’s ‘magic’ and a knowledge of the land. The viewer doesn’t experience this connection with King George or Nullah. Further, in his attempt to stylize the environment to allude to the great American epics like Gone with the Wind, Lurhmann has removed any possibility for the audience to experience the Outback of Australia in any new or authentic way.

David Gulpilil as King George in 'Australia'

David Gulpilil as King George in 'Australia'

There is a grotesque amount of historical repositioning here. White English aristocracy caring for half-indigenous boys is so far removed from the reality of the experience of the Stolen Generation it borders on offensive. In preparing for this post I did a little reading, picking my way through the countless reviews of the film. For those who haven’t had the pleasure, I strongly suggest Germaine Greer’s scathing review featured in The Guardian, Tuesday 16th December 2008, in which she describes the film as “a  fraudulent and misleading fantasy”.
 
Fantasy it may be, but within all Lurhmann’s 21st Century political correctness smeared across a plethora of historical incorrectness, is an indisputable truth about Australian culture. If Jackman’s Drover and Kidman’s Lady Sarah could have produced a child, they probably would have done so after the war. And that child would have been, like my parents, a Baby Boomer. And they have about as much cultural heritage as would be plausible for the offspring of these fictional characters: Drover, a rough and questionable character with no apparent past and Lady Sarah, an immigrant who brought with her nothing of her culture but tea. And that is the cultural experience of a half a nation spanning a whole continent. Onlookers might be curious as to why so little of the Aboriginal culture actually managed to find it’s way into the film. Don’t be, because European settlers destroyed it, and my generation as taught by the vast majority of those who represent the offspring of Drover and Lady Sarah, know absolutely nothing about it. And since white Australia failed to manifest their own mythology connecting them to this harsh, ancient and shape-shifting land, or to preserve anything substantial of their own ancestral culture, we simply lack the empathetic response to an authentic mythology or cultural experience. Moreover, in the years since 1939, whole generations of white Australia have been forced to live entirely devoid of either and there is an underlying sense of resentment within the discourse regarding the preservation of indigenous myth and culture. The 1939 white cultural imperialism that is still so evident in Lurhmann’s Australia increasingly contrasts the disenfranchised and dissatisfied white youth.

 

Emerging generations, which, if they could stay the three hours to the end of the film, might have, like me, experienced something like jealousy as they watch Nullah and his grandfather walk away to go walkabout. Realizing that, should we desire to go walkabout ourselves, there is no longer a guide, and finally begin to understand what horrible conditions we have enforced upon our indigenous fellows.

It is in this way that Australia does some small service. In it’s utter failure to demonstrate an authentic mythical experience, in the complete cultural void of the film we are given a most accurate picture of the underlying issues regarding Reconciliation. We can not go forward as a whole nation together until we recognize our shared impoverishment and until white Australia embraces the fundamental importance of authentic mythology intrinsically linked to environment to cultural growth.

Hugh Jackman & Nicole Kidman in 'Australia' 2

Hugh Jackman & Nicole Kidman in 'Australia' 2

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Garry said, on 2 April, 2009 at 7:47 am

    Loosen up you uptight, snotty asses. I just watched the film and found it an entertaining and enjoyable experience. I watch movies to escape from the harsh realities of the life. If I want total reality, I will just continue on with my day to day life. Critics!

    • Inga Leonora said, on 2 April, 2009 at 3:55 pm

      “Loosen up you uptight, snotty asses.” I think I will come back to that one…

      Thank you for your comment Garry, certainly, you can see in the comments examples of many people who did enjoy the film. Of which you are aparently one. As I said, I thought the cinematography was lovely, but I hardly felt a full three hours were required to enjoy that particular aspect. That is, as always, just my opinion.

      I think someone who requires any form of art, film or otherwise, to escape the harshness of their reality, is perhaps the one who needs to loosen up. Being quite loose already, I am either perfectly happy with my reality or feel confident I can either change my reality, or that a good purge on my blog will make me feel better about it. Have you considered that the harshness of your reality is a direct result of your being an uptight, snotty ass? Its just a thought…

      Seriously though, part of my problem with the film was the fact that it presented a very fixed and rigid idea of reality, when actually, the truth of the matter is far more complex and beautiful and fascinating…

  2. Mr Dandy said, on 27 March, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    In regards to considering a myth that is unrelated to the landscape and all I thought of was Scientology, -their creation story is completely unreleated to the climate and landscape in which they currently live!

  3. Simon Holloway said, on 25 March, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    Germaine Greer didn’t like the film? Normally, when that bitter and sexless old has-been dislikes something, it means that it’s probably fairly good. Even so, I shall give this one a definite miss.

    • Inga Leonora said, on 26 March, 2009 at 2:27 am

      Not a fan of Germaine Greer? I think she is an aquired taste, but mostly I like her. And I did think she made some very important points in her review of the film.

      Still, I don’t think the film is worth the trouble, I would not encourage anyone to see it.

  4. Mr Dandy said, on 25 March, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Ouch!

    Wow. That was ball-shriveling in all it’s condemning, hell-fire glory!

    I have wood.

    • Inga Leonora said, on 25 March, 2009 at 8:15 pm

      Mr Dandy, I am glad that my posts continue to ‘inspire’ you so…

  5. Simon Holloway said, on 25 March, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    I wasn’t planning on seeing it, yet you’ve firmly driven the nails into that coffin anyway. Funnily enough, one of my friends (whose opinion I certainly respect very highly) thought it was excellent. Roger Ebert, whose opinion I tend to favour a little too highly, gave it three stars. Odd.

    In any case, your observations regarding the necessity of landscape to mythology are fascinating. I want to hear more about your opinions on this! I am no mythology buff but can nonetheless not think of an example that lacks an emphasis on geography. Perhaps if I loosen the definition of mythology? Or tighten the definition of landscape?

    • Inga Leonora said, on 25 March, 2009 at 8:41 pm

      Its one of ‘those’ films I think Simon; so much coverage that one feels one aught to watch it just to keep up with what’s in the news (if I can call it that.)
      I can’t stress enough how tame my comments were compared to Germaine Greer’s, her review details many more errors specifically. And I thoroughly enjoyed it. Whilst she makes mention of the fanciful landscape and the merging and blurring of The Kimberly in WA and Arhnem Land of the NT, for me that was probably one of the major failings of the film.
      Lurhmann makes no effort to hide any link between the indigenous culture and the landscape, in fact ‘Nalluh’ at one point says of his grandfather, “he can sing you anywhere”. That is also a fantastic example of the poor dialogue of the film. Certainly like all oral traditions, the aboriginal one is also very musical, and tells the stories and myth as it relates to the land. But the statement is pathetic. For me it was just a pity we could not experience more of that story telling within the environment with the indigenous characters and whenever a perfect opportunity for the audience to do so occurs we are promptly interupted by Kidman’s forehead.

      I think a strong and organic connection to environment is integral to myth. I tried also to consider a myth without an emphasis on the environment in which it was born, but I couldn’t come up wiht one. I may have to consider this more, just because you asked so nicely.


Leave a Reply