Features: Reflections on Baz Luhrmann’s Australia
By Luke Buckmaster on Dec 26, 2008 in Features
When Luke Buckmaster sat down to watch Baz Luhrmann’s much anticipated epic, he could barely believe his eyes. Linking Australia to one of the worst feature films ever made in this country, In Film’s review drew a cyclonic response, including words of encouragement from two notorious media commentators. As a way of rationalising the debacle Buckmaster came up with a theory that many Australians believe it’s simply poor form, even unpatriotic, not to support Baz’s blockbuster. Below are his reflections on Australia.
By Luke Buckmaster
Baz Luhrmann’s Australia was, if you believed the hype, destined to become the almighty saviour of the Australian film industry.
With a white-hot director, a stellar cast, a massive media campaign, more production resources than a small African nation and the most ambitious title of any film ever made in this county, the expectation was that Luhrmann’s film would forge a ne’er before seen harmony between mainstream audiences and picky film critics, and, in the process, romp it in at the box office.
Then reality kicked in and Baz Luhrmann woke up from a beautiful dream. In the cold light of day - or make that, in the comfortable darkness of a multiplex cinema - the film can be seen, stripped of hyperbole, for what it really is: an extensive, near-encyclopaedic amalgamation of clichés, and a big-time flop at the box office.
In the all-important U.S. market, Australia has tanked. According to Variety it earned, in its opening three weeks, US$38.7 million at the box office; by comparison the teenager vampire movie Twilight exceeded US$150 million in four weeks.
In America big budget movies are part-and-parcel with the industry and bear little to no novelty appeal. But locally, at the time of writing, the film has past the AUS$22 million mark, making it a very strong performer in its home country. This begs the question: why is there such a large discrepancy between here and overseas? Is it our parochial instincts? Is it the novelty of watching a blockbuster based in Australia? Or is it an insatiable desire for the Australian public to want to believe in the film despite its hammy content? One thing is for certain: it’s not a love of the Australian film industry that compelled audiences to watch Luhrmann’s blockbuster. If you subtract the box office earned by Australia, 2008 has heralded the worst turnout for local films since they started keeping records.
After writing a scathing critique of this big budget behemoth, I was surprised to discover that many Australian film critics were taking the film seriously, and the public even more so. In the past few weeks an uncomfortable feeling has been sweltering within me, powering the sobering suggestion that most Australians feel they simply must get on the gravy train and extol the film’s supposed virtues. Apparently to do otherwise would be unpatriotic.
Friends have pointed me in the direction of internet forums where my review has been discussed in fire-and-brimstone language and (this is no exaggeration) fans of the film have launched coordinated deployments to visit my website and defend it. This is not the standard course of action for a blockbuster movie. My first thought was that Fox’s $130 million plus budget must have allocated funds for publicists to trawl the internet and, incognito, spread positive word-of-mouth. Then I realised not everybody could be on the payroll.
A common opinion is that the film’s many clichés (even its admirers admit there are oodles of them) are ‘celebrations’ of culture and national identity. That’s a generous appraisal, because clichés are almost always the result of lazy screenwriting. As a film reviewer it is my duty to call a spade a spade and I feel no desire to do otherwise; to paraphrase one of Hugh Jackman’s lines from the film: my opinion is my opinion and I’m not going to shut my damper hole.
In The Age on December 17, Germaine Greer discussed my review, comparing my harsh analysis to a battle against the banks. “It takes courage to let rip like this,” she wrote. Any courageousness was unintentional: I was, of course, just expressing my opinion.
But unfortunately it did feel like waging war on some obscenely powerful institution. Those who agreed with we me – and there have been quite a few – gave me heartfelt encouragement as if I were a soldier returning home from a bloody war, having lost a limb fighting for their freedom.
Some have taken the approach of one commenter who reckoned my review was “a welcome contrast to the parochial, sucky, over nationalistic dribble that has surrounded the build up to and release of this film.” Greer wasn’t the only media personality to comment on my review, with Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt describing it as “a good read.”
Other people were less congratulatory. The response – a bombardment of SMSs, emails, Facebook messages, confronting conversations and comments submitted to my website – has produced some doozies.
“You have decimated it (the film) for your own self gratification,” reads one comment.
“Having nothing at all good to say about Australia borders on pathological,” barks another.
And another: “maybe you should go see it again, but this time, leave your egotistical (profanity deleted) opinionated mind at home.”
And another: “I want to type a series of expletives in response to this review, but I will restrain myself.”
And another (delivered via email): “you are unfair and un-Australian.”
And another: “perhaps you should get back to your screenwriting for a while. I’m sure the world is trembling with anticipation.”
For the record, I don’t have the time to even think about writing a screenplay. For one thing I’m spending far too much of my day trying to shrug off the sensation that, for some uncanny reason, people feel that it’s right and proper to like Baz Luhrmann’s blockbuster and hideously un-Australian to criticise it.
Maybe it is the seductive lure of the blockbuster; the promise of spectacle and grandiosity. Or maybe it is simply because each of us has different opinions, and at times the contrast can be stark.
When the aforementioned internet forums discovered Greer’s story and her appraisal of my review, conversation turned truly nasty, as the writers put on their best misogyny masks and “let rip.” No doubt Greer, whose opinions are often challenging, is used to this kind of knee jerk bigotry.
Sharing and exchanging different viewpoints is one of the great things about art. We shouldn’t shy away from expressing what we believe, despite inclinations to think otherwise.That is why I am grateful in some way to each and every person who contributed to the discussion about Australia. Lacking objectivity is a redundant argument. My philosophy is simple: if you have an opinion, express it. If people don’t agree they will get over it so never, ever, ever shut your damper holes. As George Orwell once said: “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
But just for the record, let me reiterate this point, in no uncertain language: it is OK not to like Australia.
It doesn’t make you any less Australian.
Bookmark and Share:
I’m not Australian and I haven’t seen the movie.
But…..
I AM totally obsessed with Australia. But I have no interest in seeing the movie. It doesn’t look interesting to me.
I think there are other Australian movies I’d much rather see.
It’s sad that people can’t be respectful of other people’s opinion.
That being said, we did sort of attack my sister last night for not liking Juno ; )
Dina | Dec 26, 2008 | Reply
Luke, first you point out that [excluding Australia], “2008 has heralded the worst turnout for local films since they started keeping records”. Then you point out that “most Australians feel they simply must get on the gravy train and extol the film’s supposed virtues. Apparently to do otherwise would be unpatriotic”, which to me seems to contradict the first statement.
I sense that Australians are not particularly interested in Australian films. Even films that haven’t received the vitriole of Australia have done poorly, such as the very respectable Son of a Lion, The Square and even Not Quite Hollywood (which received quite a lot of attention, as the opening night film at MIFF).
As a committee member of Melbourne Cinémathèque, I can tell you that the weeks we screen Australian films, we see a sudden drop in audience numbers and I’m sure you’ve noticed similarly when we hold AFCA screenings at ACMI. My point is that Australian films seem to have a handicap in attracting crowds, a handicap that Australia attempted to overcome.
It is interesting that local takings for Australia have been quite healthy, and so have the audience rankings on both IMDb and Metacritic (both 7.3/10). Clearly, this is a film which has split critics and audiences. Audiences have received the film despite the critics.
You’re entitled to your opinion, no doubt, but I don’t think the endorsements of Bolt or Greer add any credence to your opinions.
Paul Martin | Dec 26, 2008 | Reply
Paul I agree that Australia attempted to appeal to people who don’t like Australian movies. But that in itself is not a listen to like it or not to like it, although it does explain why the movie is so cheesy and why Nicole Kidman scored the lead.
Taylor M | Dec 29, 2008 | Reply
Call me a cynic, but I think it’s no coincidence that the general vibe across Australia is that it would be un-Australian to not like Australia.
I reckon that when Baz realised he had the mother of all turkeys on his hands, he decided to switch tactics and promote the film as more than a movie - it would be sold as nothing less than an endorsement and embodiment of everything that Australia has ever meant or stood for. So we would all be left thinking … gosh, it would be un-Australian not to like Australia.
This is why Baz aligned himself with Tourism Australia. Why else would he cheapen his ‘masterpiece’ by repositioning it as an adjunct to TA’s latest marketing campaign?
Such a position has made him, and the film, unassailable. Clever. But he would never have needed to take this course if the film was even half decent.
Fortunately PT Anderson did not feel a need to link ‘There Will Be Blood’ to a new campaign for Caltex. Tacky …
Da Wong | Dec 29, 2008 | Reply
Paul, I agree with you completely on your last point: the endorsements of Bolt or Greer don’t necessarily add any credence to my opinions. However, I never said they did. In the context of a story that was largely about the reactions my review drew from other people, I think mentioning Bolt and Greer’s reactions was relevant to what I was writing about, and interesting for readers. I also mention responses from a lot of other people too.
I don’t really understand why you think there is a contradiction in my statements: the two points illustrate that the general public really aren’t interested in Australian films, with the exception of this one really big, fatuous blockbuster made in the Hollywood style. So while it’s ok for people to sandbag well-made Australian films for being ‘depressing’ or ‘downers,’ it apparently isn’t OK to can one for being dumb and clichéd – so long as it’s got a very large price tag and it’s made with all the trimmings.
I think it’s a good point you make about how Australia attempted to overcome the ‘handicap’ that local films have in attracting audiences. On rudimentary levels that’s a worthwhile aspiration, though it has nothing to do with the end product of the film itself, so naturally I wouldn’t incorporate it into my evaluation.
Yes – audiences have received the film despite the critics, but as you mention via your metacritic rating, it’s not as if the film has receiving universal panning either. Not even close. It’s a funny film in the sense that it’s generated a lot of mildly positive reviews (not a great deal of raves, by my count) and a vocal minority of critics – such as myself – who were absolutely incensed by it. Why this dichotomy exists is in part why I wrote this story.
Da Wong: you cynic, you. That’s a wacky theory! I like it. Maybe they could have saved Waterworld by somehow linking it to Evian – what do you reckon?
Luke Buckmaster | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Da Wong, I agree with Luke that your theory is wacky. Tourism Australia aligned itself with Australia, not the other way around.
Luke, where is this “unpatriotic to bag Australia” sentiment? I never saw the film getting a free ride any more than any other Australian film. I think it’s an issue that Australian critics go “soft” on Australian films in general, but I didn’t detect any think out of the ordinary with this one. If anything, I saw a cynical backlash against it, even before the film was finished, by both critics and the public. That was a massive handicap to overcome, that and the fact that it’s an Australian film.
Paul Martin | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
I thought it was pretty easy to understand…
Taylor M | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Paul so far I have been called unpatriotic three times since publishing my review of Australia. One was a comment below my review, which claimed I was being un-Australian. Two more were emails – one again said I was un-Australian and the other said that as the editor of an Australian film website, I should thus be supporting a film like Australia, and not to do so, “is not in the interests of our already struggling film industry or this country’s artistic culture.” Quite a few silly peeps out there seem to think it’s unpatriotic to bag Australia – and they’re only the ones who directly come out and say it.
And make absolutely no mistake, my good man: Australia has been given a soft ride from critics in this country. The harshest criticisms have generally came from overseas. This continues to amaze me, simply because it’s such a spectacularly bad movie. Had it been made in America, about America, well…
Here is our current impasse: I am claiming that Australian critics were (amazingly) soft on Australia, and gave the imnpression that nobody wanted to rock the boat. On the other hand you are claiming the opposite and believe there was a substantial ‘cynical backlash against it’. Perhaps there is a way we can work this out. At least it will be an interesting experiment: let’s come up with a list of the major, most widely read Australian film critics (i.e. television, newspaper and magazines) and identify whether they gave Australia a positive or negative review. This will give us a good indication of how the film was received in mainstream media, and if your comments about this ‘cynical backlash against it’ are correct. I’ll list the positive reviews to argue my case. You list the negative ones.
Ready, set, go!
Margaret and David - positive (At the Movies)
David – positive (The Australian)
Leigh Paatsch - positive (Herald Sun)
Tom Ryan - positive (The Age)
Clare Sutherland - positive (The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun)
Urban and Keller - positive (Urban Cinefile)
Erin Free - positive (Filmink Magazine)
Sandra Hall - positive (Sydney Morning Herald)
Ben McEachen - positive (Empire Magazine)
Jason DeRosso - positive (ABC network)
Schembri – neutral, erring on positive (The Age, WA Today)
I have listed Schembri as ‘erring on positive’ because the headline that accompanied his review read ‘Good, but no classic…’
So just to summarise: both of the major Australian movie magazines gave it positive reviews, as well as all the major newspapers including The Australian, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun and WA Today. In my opinion this is the equivalent - if you’ll pardon my analogy - of attempting to dress up a turkey into a prize pony, but of course you still can’t ride it and it still goes “gobble gobble.”
Your turn. Either that, or it’s pistols at dawn.
BTW, happy New Year – and thanks, as always, for your ongoing interest and feedback.
Luke Buckmaster | Dec 31, 2008 | Reply
I’m not going to scan the internet for quotes, but I started looking from your list, and none of those critics I checked gave the film unqualified support. I found them balanced, considered and mentioned various flaws.
For example:
Louise Keller:
He’s gone for broke and the result, while true to his vision, will divide opinions. The film looks magnificent but is far too long. The star power is dazzling but I didn’t believe the central characters or their relationship.
There’s little chemistry between [Jackman and Kidman]
Andrew Urban:
There are a couple of quibbles
David Stratton:
“At the outset, the director’s trademark theatrical approach to the material – a very heightened form of reality which worked well in a very different context in STRICTLY BALLROOM and MOULIN ROUGE – is a bit grating.
What worked in interior situations in those films seems glaringly intrusive in a realistic outback setting, and there’s a forced jocularity to the scenes in which the main characters are introduced. Some of the actors seem uncomfortable with this approach”
“Its approach to the Stolen Generations is superficial. Plot points are repeated unnecessarily and melodrama constantly threatens to swamp the production, though it’s mostly kept under control.
It’s not the masterpiece we’ve been waiting for.”
“It is a bit perfunctory at times.”
Margaret Pomeranz:
“It isn’t the great film that we had hoped for”
“The characters lack substance and so in that way - and I think it’s full of clichés, the film, in a lot of ways.”
“A lot of money has been spent on this film and for the amount of money I think we might have expected something a little bit more. And to tell you the truth, I think it would benefit from a longer version, because there are some events in here that don’t make any sense at all.”
“It seems somehow compromised.”
My point here is that none of these critics have given the film a free-ride as you seem to suggest.
I don’t intend taking up your challenge beyond this; I don’t see the point. I know from speaking to other film critics before the film came out that there was a lot of cynicism about it. I was cynical myself.
Paul Martin | Dec 31, 2008 | Reply
The quotes you selected underscore what I’ve been getting at all along: that any rational critic would have to acknowledge that the film is swamped with vices, but, bafflingly, Australian reviewers insisted the public should go and see it anyway – as if they were for some reason afraid of rocking the boat or separating themselves from the pack. No film can get a critical ‘free ride’ (your words) – if this were possible Fox surely would have allocated a few million for it in the budget. We’ve proved beyond doubt that there was no substantial ‘cynical backlash’ against this film; at least, no more than the average blockbuster and far less than most. I don’t think I’ll ever understand why, amongst a mountain of generous reviews, a molehill of Australian critics who called a spade a spade (or a turkey a turkey) are targeted as the perpetrators of something horribly uncouth. I mean honestly…
Luke Buckmaster | Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
We’ve proved beyond doubt…
Have we?
I think you have attracted criticism because you seem to be on a crusade against the film. Fair enough to not like it, but you seem to want others to not like it or to go to see it. It’s an important film in spite of its flaws and people should be allowed to make up their own minds.
FWIW, as an aside and I know that few will agree, I thought The Dark Knight is as flawed as Australia. TDK, however, has Heath Ledger’s amazing performance that saves it. Other than that, it was a horribly mediocre film that has major problems with coherency and consistency.
Paul Martin | Jan 3, 2009 | Reply
I thhink it is harder to dislike The Dark Knight than it is to dislike Australia. The film I thought was technically great with editing, special effects, acting, but thought the film was very ‘toxic’ and ugly. I didn’t really like them either but Heath Ledger was amazing in Dark Knight. It would have helped if Australia had had one really great performance. Do you think this is the fault of Baz Luhrmann or the actors?
Taylor M | Jan 3, 2009 | Reply
I think everything you see in the film is the responsibility of the director. He takes both credit and blame.
I think it is easier to dislike Australia, and there is a subtle difference, Taylor. I didn’t want to think about The Dark Knight too much or I’d end up hating it. I didn’t want to dwell on the faults, but rather relish Ledger’s performance. Australia, on the other hand, was more enjoyable on second viewing (and a friend I saw it with had the same experience) and made more sense than the first time.
Paul Martin | Jan 3, 2009 | Reply
Or maybe these critics that have been accused of “going soft” actually just liked it.
I generally don’t care in the slightest whether you or anybody else disliked it, but just because I liked it doesn’t mean I have some deep-seeded emotional investment to it. I merely respond well to Luhrmann’s aesthetic and liked most of the parts in the movie (I agree they didn’t fit that well on occasions) and - and this appears to be the major sticking point to the Australians who don’t like it - I didn’t care that the film generally rewrote history on several counts. Although i’ve been known to get angry at films for fudging the historical truth I didn’t mind it here. I can’t explain why, I just didn’t. Maybe because he wasn’t sugarcoating history like in most cases of history re-writing. Maybe not. I don’t know. I just hope you don’t see it as me being an apologist for the movie. I enjoyed it and my opinion is valid.
Of course, some of the comments I read on your review page were quite baffling - both from fans of the movie and detractors alike.
Glenn | Jan 4, 2009 | Reply
Fair enough Glenn.
I still think it should have been a musical: coax Lloyd Webber out of retirement, or - better yet - get Casey Bennetto on board and POW, you got yourself a classic. If the actors were singing and dancing I doubt people who have complained so much about historical inaccuracies.
Luke Buckmaster | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
Hey Luke, I finally saw this over the weekend and intend to write something on my site on Thursday. I hope you’ve seen enough of my views over the years to not believe I’d be jumping on some crazy vindictive bandwagon.
And I liked it. Of course it’s not a classic, but I think it’s a solid and enjoyable film. I don’t really understand your objection to “cliche;” there will of course be familiar generic devices - call them cliches if you like - in a genre film. What matters is the execution, and I thought Australia was generally very well done. If we’re tallying up numbers of positive and negative reviews for a bias scorecard, and Australia has received (as you argue) mostly positive reviews, it doesn’t *have* to be biased, or vindictive, or whatever. Those critics, I suspect, just honestly enjoyed it, as I did.
As Paul noted, those positive reviews are full of acknowledgments of the film’s flaws. Given how purely negative your review is, with barely any mention of a positive point at all, I think there’s a real argument those critics have made more attempt to wrestle with the varied qualities of the film they saw than you did; I think you need to be careful getting on the high horse about the response to your review in those circumstances.
Last point: Bernard over at Cinephilia made the single best point I’ve seen about this film: it should have been called “Once Upon a Time In Australia.” I think that would have got the tone of what Luhrmann was going for perfectly, put it in appropriate company with the works of Leone, Tsui Hark, Robert Rodriguez etc, and headed off some of the accusations of ego right from the start.
Stephen Rowley | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
Very well done? Yeek. I wonder which film you found solid and enjoyable Stephen - the one with the comedy and the slapstick, or the cross-country adventure one, or the mooshy romantic one, or the historical epic one, or the stolen generations one, or the WWII one? It’s interesting that you mention the film’s cliches in the context of them belonging to a genre film, but you didn’t finish the sentence: which genre? Take your pick. Some examples above. As you know, ‘genre film’ refers to a particular genre, not any kind of hodgepodge the director feels like slopping onto the table. Without naming a genre the term ‘genre film’ doesn’t mean much.
I see where you’re going with the varied qualities spiel, but you’d know by reading me over the years that I have little interest in ‘balancing’ my opinion/review so that it’s more palatable to people who disagreed with me. While there can be some merit in the ‘recognising the varied qualities of the a yada yada’ approach, that in relation to this film is probably more the stuff of film essays, and the logic only extends so far: if I were reviewing the old fish tank on Channel 31, for example, you wouldn’t expect me to explore the varied qualities of the fish’s fins and their place in aquatic life - and if you look hard enough, they’re there. If you can understand why I link this film to the Channel 31 fish bowl then you’re one step closer to enlightenment.
P.S. please update Cinephobia more often and be very careful when mentioning this film in relation to Hark, Rodriguez and Leone
Considering yes the titles of some of their work you get away with it and I’m actually with you on this one: I saw Bernard a few weeks ago and couldn’t agree more that ‘Once Upon A…’ would have made a far better choice. It wouldn’t have changed the film itself, but it would have placed it inside a more appropriate context. Still think it should have been a musical if it had to be made at all. If it were up to me I’d cross my arms and say “no deal.”
Luke Buckmaster | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
Well for what it’s worth, my review is now up so you can see my defence of it there. I should also clarify that Luhrmann, Leone, Hark and Rodriguez are linked by certain similarities of tone and the (suggested) “Once Upon a Time” title. I would obviously never argue that Luhrmann is equal to Leone, in particular.
As to your specific points above - I’m not suggesting you balance reviews to make them more palatable to anyone. I’m just working on the basis that a reviewer will honestly want to analyse why a film does or doesn’t work. In that context I was genuinely puzzled by your review: I can totally get not liking it, but I struggle to believe you couldn’t recognise any positive qualities in it.
As to your thesis, described as follows: “As a way of rationalising the debacle Buckmaster came up with a theory that many Australians believe it’s simply poor form, even unpatriotic, not to support Baz’s blockbuster.” Putting aside our different views, I struggle to accept you really believe that. Many Australians have indeed jumped with relish to bag the film; those positive critics you have referred to have provided generally very well reasoned critiques of it. Your review was met with some intemperate responses, but they were just matching the fire-and-brimstone tone of your review. Do you really need this whole patriotism thesis to describe what’s going on here?
Stephen Rowley | Jan 9, 2009 | Reply
Maybe not Stephen, maybe not.
‘scuse the back patting, but this review is the latest example of why it’s borderline criminal that you don’t update Cinephobia more often (I know you’re busy, but still). I appreciate the way you’ve explored the gulf of differences in opinion that the film can generate and you’ve done so pretty accurately. There are a few points on my mind… i.e. you discuss Australia in the context of it being a genre film, but unfortunately you still haven’t mentioned what genre it belongs to.
Maybe I will have some time to respond in greater detail to some of the points raised in your review. Since I started responding to comments awhile back, I feel compelled to continue doing so, but I’m grateful that the discussion is scaling back because responding to comments from people such as yourself and Paul takes time.
Believe it or not I am also surprised by the vitriol Kidman and her forehead attracts, and Lynden Barber wrote a good piece about that here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2446271.htm. Somebody wrote on the comments of my review that I didn’t identify a single positive thing about the film (apparently this was being borderline pathological) which isn’t exactly true: I did call segments of it “weirdly stimulating,” said that that humour was (temporarily…very temporarily) a redeeming feature and acknowledged Jack Thompson’s death scene as the delicious treat that it was. Kind of back-handed, but still. I liked this line in your review: “Luhrmann breaks one of the basic rules of film storytelling: never let the audience think the movie has finished when it hasn’t.”
I also agree that the visual effects in the film were very poor. If great effects can’t be achieved with a $100 million plus budget then sheesh, that’s pretty disappointing. Some of those shots of the cattle, it’s almost like you can see the streak left behind from a Photoshop airbrush - like the film went to an Adobe toilet and forgot to wipe its bum afterwards.
Luke Buckmaster | Jan 9, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for the kind comments / nagging about Cinephobia. If it’s any consolation, the absence is mostly due to long-form film writing for my studies, some of which should be available online soon-ish.
Stephen Rowley | Jan 12, 2009 | Reply
Luke, I sense that you think those of us who enjoyed Australia are afflicted with The Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome? You think we see something of merit in the movie that doesn’t exist? I’m not on anyone’s payroll and I’m not a lackwit and I am happy to go on record to say I loved it. Saw it twice. Found it entertaining and clever and suprisingly touching. David Wenham was painful - felt like spearing him myself. Nicole K was brilliant. I’ve never really been a fan of hers but she was a stand out in this film.
Now I am not a lone voice in the wilderness - here’s the tally - those who loved it: me, my daughter, my best friend, her sister (both SO hard to please), my son’s girlfriend (from South Africa), my friend from Darwin, the majority of the movie-goers attending both screenings I went to (here I have to admit that I only have the vibe, their faces and body language, and the bums that stayed on seats to see the credits to go by), my best friend’s daughters-in-law - and I am still polling reactions because I am so intrigued by the fact that people either love it or hate it. My son liked it, my husband did not. A grumpy old woman of my acquaintance called it “dreadful” so she is in the “hate it” box.
Apparently the residents & tourists of Victor Harbor loved it as I was there last week and the little town’s cinema had “Back by popular demand” pasted across its Australia poster.
As bedevilling (bemusing?) as it is to you, there are lots of us who enjoyed the movie who are not saying so out of a misguided sense of patriotism, but because it is true! We like what we like and we don’t judge movies with an academic appraisal of what meets certain criteria and what ignores all the rules.
You know what was so engaging? It was cliche packed and yet it was so refreshingly different. Whereas the cliches in Quantum of Solace were so boringly familiar. I admit I have only seen two films in two months.
But one of them I saw twice.
And I loved it.
Caroline in Adelaide
Caroline Mc | Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Hi Luke,
Having worked on the film I can be described as having once been on the payroll….however my friends and family have seen the film and loved it - and when I have gone and seen the film I feel like one of the punters… so make of that what you will.
I have read so many bad reviews of the film Australia that I feel I have had to bite my tongue all day every day not to get onto my computer and tap out an angry reply. Finally I am unable to resist! I have read the above and I accept that you genuinely didn’t like the film, and the comment about it being unpatriotic not to like is “tongue in cheek.”.,. and certainly a comment to rouse healthy discussion. Fair play to you!
When the reviews first came out they reminded me of the Manning Clark’s descriptions of the Sydney Gazette of the 1820s. It seemed the Aussie jouranalists were falling over themselves to see who could write the worst, most outrageous review. I think Germaine Greer safely won that race - I think we can safely describe it as inaccurate, horrible and in the poorest taste. Fortunately by then I think the public had gotten the joke, and decided to go and see it and make up their own minds…which I am glad to say that they did, as it looks like (based on the response in Europe) that Australia might become the most successful Australian film ever.
The most perplexing thing I found was that you and others were saying was that the film was unoriginal. I can only really put that down to my belief that the film is truly original, and does not fit into any neat genre or age group catergory. Perhaps because it does defy those genres, the critics have been so harsh on it, Basically it seems because the critics have not ben able to catergorise it they have either hedged their bets or dismissed as outrageously as they can believing the film was going to fail.
The same seems to have happened to all Baz’s films - disbelief, bewilderment, then finally acceptance and celebration. Baz was once told by one of the top film executives in Australia (before it went to Cannes) that no-one would ever see or like Strictly Ballroom!
While your comment that it seems unpatriotic not to like the film is democracy at work, I should point out that I do believe the bad reviews nearly killed the film. In Australia, the box office seems to have recovered from the spate of bad reviews, but in the USA it seems that they seriously dampened the public’s curiosity about it. Friends in the US have reported that many people have been put off by the reviews to the extent that they wouldn’t risk going to see it. Elsewhere, from what I can gather from internet reports the public’s response has been immediate and enthusiastic.
While it might be too early to say this officially, its getting to the stage where can say where we can say the critics were wrong. By and large the public loves this film, and by and large the critics didn’t see it…and Luke you’re one of them. Can I suggest you go and see it again!
Felix Meagher
Felix Meagher | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
It seemed the Aussie jouranalists were falling over themselves to see who could write the worst, most outrageous review.
Felix, I’ve written this almost verbatim several times. I’ve been shocked at the level of vitriole thrown at the film, even before it was seen. It’s not a type of film I’m generally interested in, but was genuinely surprised at how good I found it to be.
Paul Martin | Jan 22, 2009 | Reply
This is Hands Down The worst australian film Ever Made
150 Million Dollar Flop
im gonna go and play with my kangaroos out on the street now
Gabe | Jan 29, 2009 | Reply
Australia….What! Are we still in the Stone Age
Ridiculous There are no other words to explain
my utter disbelief in this crappy film
Cmon guys Surely this doesnt represent Australians or does it maybe?
Nick | Jan 29, 2009 | Reply
I waited until Australia was available in the US on Blu-ray. After about 20 minutes I was wondering why. I came across your original review while sitting through this seemingly never-ending nightmare and I only wish I had the writing skill to write what you have already written–it was right on the money. At least we were spared the two images that Americans are so frequently served as the real Australia: Ayres Rock and the Sydney Opera House.
Ted | Jun 21, 2009 | Reply
I echo the experience of Ted. I saw the film in the US and actually travelled 2 hours to see it on the big screen. I was stunned at how incompetent it was considering the hype, time, money, support and ensemble of cast and crew.I know these elements don’t guarantee a great film always but geezzz… frankly the film was an embarrassment. I was left desperately trying to rationalize its raison d’etre - I got to thinking maybe it was trying to mimic the old Hollywood B-grade movies but adopting the ‘epic’ formula but I was on a road to nowhere with that thought form.
All of the reviews I read were mostly oomplimentary and I was seriously confused at this consensus. When I discovered Luke’s review it was a light at the end of the tunnel, cathartic and as a bonus very well written and highly amusing. I am still bemused at what appears to be restraint and industry etiquette from some good critics.
I arrived back in Sydney and asked my friends (in the film industry) how they enjoyed the film and I got “dogs breakfast”, ” a mess” and a complete waste of $150M and worse and again I didn’t feel I was in the wilderness on this one.
On the other side I do know people who liked it but they are few and far between - Mum and Dad liked it and I was pleased that they didn’t feel they’d wasted their gold tickets I gave them for Xmas.
As an aside I like Da Wong’s phraseology “mother of all turkeys” and the very operative “switch tactics”. We Aussies love stats and I suspect that Baz holds some kind of record for the number of switched tactics ever crammed into a feature film, and very possibly a hands down record for the most filmic cliches married with Australian cultural cliches compiled in one sitting.
On a positive note I enjoyed a few good laughs from the film - the death of the Jack Thompson character had me in the aisles (and I love JT). How so many good actors could end up adopting pantomime gesturing is some feat!
Good for you Luke - keep up the honesty.
Nicola | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply