Saturday, November 22, 2008

Australia redux

So our school got some free tickets to go see "Australia" on Wednesday night, the night after the proper premiere.

As already posted, it was a good movie, I enjoyed it. However, there were a few issues with it that did grate somewhat and a few things that were just silly. I'll try and see what I can remember :)

Firstly, Baz is riding around on his high horse trying to make everyone feel guilty about the stolen generations, including extremely prominent placement in the beginning and ending credits. It is a also a constant theme throughout the film. Baz has never actually done anything to help aboriginal people, but he's assuaging his own guilt and bagging out John Howard at the same time (a combo move of max awesomeness for some people) in his film so it doesn't matter. Of course the way in which he portrays the stolen generations occurring is extremely dubious.

I've never heard of any case of a child being taken from his mother while she was in gainful employment and living on a station. Maybe if his mother was a drunk, or lived in a humpy out in the scrub where the rest of the community was threatening to kill the kid because of his mixed blood. Anyway he does manage to use the kid to tie the movie together nicely, but his hobby horse approach to the issue did annoy me. Incidentally, the kid annoyed me a bit as well, but that's a different matter altogether. The scene where the official talks about breeding the aboriginal out of them is also taking a licence, as there was never any policy anywhere in Australia along these lines (to the best of my knowledge).

And the Brothers in charge of the mission also manage to contradict Baz's narrative, on the one hand, refusing to listen and dragging the kid away (but obviously believing that there were doing it with the best of intentions), and then on the other risking life and limb to rescue the children and expressing joy that they were still alive. Even if Baz's version of events is true (which I don't believe) he still portrays a deeper truth, that they honestly believed that they were doing the right thing.

Something in the film that was stupid (but quite funny) were the couple of aboriginal people chatting to Hugh while running along next to the truck he was driving. This only occurred right at the start, than the movie started to get much less tongue in cheek, I think some of that humour from the earlier scenes could have been retained throughout the movie. A couple of them are very funny.

The scenes in the Bungle Bungles also annoyed me, if I was to guess I would suggest that they were all computer generated. That particular part of the movie was quite annoying in fact, with the fake landscape and the slighty dodgy plot twist.

  • Also of annoyance, the fact that apparently the entire northern Australian cattle industry was controlled by one man, with the exception of one little station, and that the sale of 1500 head would somehow break that monopoly. Considering that the Kimberley itself had 700,000 head in 1917 (with many more in the Northern Territory), it seems likely that putting 1500 head on a boat would have as much impact as an open bar at a Mormon wake.
  • Also, since they were puttting them on a boat, not slaughtering them at Darwin, why couldn't they just get them from down south?
  • And why is a Captain the highest ranking officer to be seen throughout the movie, even during the wartime bits when supposedly there are ships of war and combat units stationed in town?
  • And why is the same policeman the first point of call in Darwin and way to buggery out on the Western Australian border?
  • And why was Hugh carrying so much shit on his truck when he first drives Nicole to the station? I think the story is meant to be that it's all her clothes, but if so it wasn't done very well, it just looked a little farcical, more Beverley Hillbillies than realistic way to travel through the scrub.
  • How does a small Aboriginal boy get on top of a bloody big stallion and ride in the saddle like he was born to it, but he can't tread water for a few minutes? In a place where he would swim regularly and he even talks about being a good swimmer later on?
  • The big thing that really grated though, was the "black fella" magic. They kept on putting it out there and it fitted into the story, but it was of course complete bullshit, you'll know what I mean when you see it.
On top of these, there are a few things I think they could have done slightly better. They use the one campsite about 4 times, which works on some levels because of the memories it evokes. But when they're driving or droving you don't get the feeling of vastness and territory covered. Most of the campsites don't feel like they're in the middle of this incredibly tough terrain. Maybe they could have used some kind of montage effect or more shots showing different campsites in different spots surrounded by the herd, I don't know, but you really didn't get the feeling of the vastness that Baz was trying to convey.

It would have also been good to show more of the waves of planes attacking Darwin, rather than focussing on the smaller detail, however this isn't vital for the plot.

I thought that Nicole did quite well, especially in the earlier parts of the movie where the ice queen persona fitted the character to a T. And of course Hugh Jackman managed tough and laconic rather well, although he's pretty much the most buff stockman in history, I think all that time riding a horse and eating crap food would have you looking a little more lean. As soon as they were together the chemistry definitely worked, in fact the hostility between the two was quite fun and was abandoned a bit too soon, it would have been good to see this continue.

However, Hugh is, lets face it, rather wooden when it comes to acting. I mean he sucked in "Swordfish" and the wooden persona works for the Wolverine, but range of emotions? I think I'm being rather harsh here, in general he suited the movie well, particularly the earlier scenes where he's got no time for Nicole.

The real revelation here is the supporting cast, all these amazing Australian actors you might have forgotten about. David Wenham is excellent, apart from a little bit of overacting right in the final scene, but he is top notch. Bryan Brown absolutely dominates the screen when he's on it, he fits the character perfectly. Jack Thompson is outstanding and quite funny, his death doesn't really have a lot of point to it in terms of the immediate narrative and the mouth organ part of it could have easily be done another way. I think he only died to make the Bungles scene more interesting, as I said, possibly the weakest part of the movie.

Essie Davis, playing Bryan Brown's daughter is very very good in the small amount of screen time she has. Tony Barry, the cop, is very good, portraying his character as sympathetic but also a little bit of a bastard. His black tracker is also very good, giving a real sense of menace on the screen. Ben Mendehlson's character of the Captain is probably the worst performance, in my opinion. It seems overacted and pompous, it just didn't gel with me. David Gulpill is the Grandfather and he is quite good. Once again, all the "black fella" magic was a bit ridiculous, but he gave real gravitas to his closeups, even without speaking he was a very sympathetic character. This contrasted with the kid, played by Brandon Walters, who was just annoying. He wasn't believable, he wasn't endearing and he wasn't lovable, although he was somewhat sympathetic in terms of his background. "Bah Humbug Scrooge McDuck!" is no doubt what you're all saying, but get stuffed, it's my blog!

I actually think that one of the best actors in the movie was Hugh Jackman's aborignal stockman mate, David Ngoombujarra. He didn't have a huge amount of lines, but he delivered them with authority and believability. He seemed one of the most authentic characters in the movie. And the scene near the beginning with Hugh and the bucket was very funny!


In general, the landscapes used in the film worked really well (apart from the Bungles). It was really cool to see lots of the places around here and mostly they conveyed the surroundings effectively. I don't know how, but they could have conveyed the heat a bit better, as you got the impression that the temperature was quite balmy most of the time, not blistering hot and ridiculously humid as it would have been at that time of year. As already said, I think the landscapes could have been done even better, but still that part worked really well.


The story itself also worked really well. It was very long, and almost had the feeling of 2 separate parts joined together somewhat artificially, but it was enjoyable. As mentioned, the feel of the movie towards the start was particularly entertaining but it kept on entertaining, and that's why we see movies after all. It definitely had that epic movie feel, similar to Indiana Jones or older style westerns. And it definitely stacks up very well. I wouldn't be saying it's Oscar bait, but it's got nothing (much) to be ashamed about, hell all the Indiana Jones movies are full of gaping plot flaws and ridiculous juxtapositions.

Oh, one more thing. Lots of reviews I've seen have concentrated on the use of the word "crikey". I was listening out for it and I think I only heard it about 4 times. And it was quite appropriate each time, I think it was meant to be a running joke (not a particularly funny one, but I liked it). I was just disappointed with the lack of other Australianisms. No-one said "I'm dry as a dead donkey's donger!", there wasn't a mention of "stone the crows!" and I didn't hear " Howyagoinmateorright?" once.

Anyway, go and check it out.

Harry

No comments:

About Me

My photo
I am the Hiphopopotumus, my lyrics are bottomless......