December
7
Why Australia is a Dud
Well, Australia's second-weekend drop indicates that it isn't doing well enough with adult audiences to ever make it into a success here.
Here are some of the reasons this movie couldn't make it.
The heart of the movie--the part that works--is the story of the half-breed Aborigine boy (Brandon Walters). But in order to make a Hollywood epic of big-budget scale and scope, Baz Luhrmann had to embellish that core, adding a western cattle drive, a bodice-ripping romance, wicked villains, an air battle and CG effects. How could any movie sustain all that?
Australia proves yet again that it's dangerous for a studio to back art-film epics. Remember Memoirs of a Geisha? Zodiac? The Assassination of Jesse James? Australia is the sort of movie that supervising exec Peter Rice would have known how to do--or not do--at Fox Searchlight.
I don't want the studios to give up on making these risky movies. But there is certainly an argument for not taking the risk on the big-budget version of them.
Another problem, as Patrick Goldstein pointed out in the LAT, is that the movie starred Nicole Kidman. The ads actually stressed Hugh Jackman, more than Kidman, one of our great actresses, but not a movie star. Never has been. She's made some hits. But she's not the reason people go to a movie. She doesn't put butts in seats. But just to make it clear: nobody does these days. (Seven Pounds, a tragic romance a la Love Story, will be an interesting commercial test of the one star we do have, Will Smith, who seems to be able to open anything.)
Truth is, Jackman's stardom is based on his he-man role as Wolverine. He's a one-franchise guy who isn't worth as much when he leaves that role. He can do anything, and I am thrilled that he might do a musical (as Mark Antony in Steven Soderbergh's Cleo). But stardom is about the persona audiences want to see.
Big art-house movies require another thing. Reviews. Many critics killed this movie, which earned 52% on Rotten Tomatoes. (Here's David Denby's New Yorker slam.) That won't get you into the Oscar race. Technicals are all they can hope for, which won't boost box office.
The other thing that went wrong was the marketing. The movie looked old-fashioned, period, tonally confusing. Was it comedy or tragedy, western or romance? Moviegoers like to know exactly what they're getting.
But Luhrmann also dive-bombed Fox's chances of making Australia a success by not handing the movie in early enough. This trend of directors hanging on to their movies until the last minute and studios letting them get away with it should stop. This was not the kind of movie that could be sold in one weekend with ads. It needed longer careful nurturing. But when movies cost $120 million or more, studios talk themselves into the notion that the only way to make their money back is to go out big with lots of P & A. Not always true. The smaller, less chaotic version of this movie might have had a better chance. Too bad.
One solution suggested by a friend of mine: Australia the musical. Fox should put the Broadway show into development forthwith.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
One other thing...Kidman's face. Is it creepy or what?
Posted by: Sergio | December 08, 2008 at 05:39 AM
Ironically, this was the first Luhrmann movie I actually liked. Everybody's been attacking Nicole Kidman and her botox but I'd like to say she was wonderful and wonderfully cast in this movie. I'm as fascinated by her forehead as the next person but there was so much else going on that I didn't pay it any attention whatsoever when it was going on.
Posted by: Amrita | December 08, 2008 at 06:50 AM
I actually really enjoyed Australia. Went in not expecting much but I loved it. My only complaint is the twist after the 2 hour mark, where the movie goes from action,comedy adventure to a much more serious somber film, it was a little jarring but the ending put it right again.
Posted by: Tim Bryant | December 08, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Baz Luhrmann has yet to make a watchable film and is immune to subtlety and storytelling, a more ham-fisted director that Oliver Stone and I didn't think such a thing possible.
Romeo + Juliet was the single worst re-imagining/adaptation of Shakespeare I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot of them. Peter Sellars he most certainly ain't. He wouldn't know a proper line-reading if his life depended on filming it.
Moulin Rouge was an education in headache-inducing visual saturation. The only thing I've ever seen him shoot worth the money was his Channel #5 Commercial with Nicole Kidman.
Why anyone continues to give him money for to make films is a question only the patrons of con "artist" Jeffrey Koons can answer, an answer that lies in their need to embrace completely artless endeavors because they think it indicates to others that their sensibilities are cutting-edge.
Bad art is just that -bad friggin' art.
Baz Luhrmann is cinema's leading practitioner of Bad Art and I personally hope he retires, so we're spared the awful results of a good script that may otherwise fall into his congenitally inept hands.
Posted by: MB | December 08, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Most of my friends who saw it think that Jackman played the lead role a bit more vibrant than gruff. Kidman's role could have been money for a relatively unknown actress.
Most of middle america has no idea or concern as to what happens in Australia. The last epic , Thornbirds, was made for television.
The bulkload of its audience could have come from mid 30-50 crowd which is the same crowd dramatically affected by the recession.
Posted by: seanH | December 08, 2008 at 08:39 PM
The problem with Australia starts with the script. There are three movies competing within one screenplay. The 'love story set against the cattle drive,' the 'aboriginal mistreatment story,' and the 'war story.' Baz should have picked one and told it well.
Posted by: Stephen Purvis | December 12, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I loved the whole show - right from the start to the finish - laughed, cried and shouted - every scene was well worth the time. Oscar winning as far as I'm concerned. Hugh Jackman was lucious, Nicole Kidman was great, but Brandon Walters stole the show.
Posted by: DM | December 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I loved the idea of the movie and just got to see it this weekend but it was far too many plots in one movie. I wholeheartedly agree with Thompson's piece, which puts it neatly into perspective. Everyone needs an editor! Even creative artistic directors. It's a shame because no one sets out to make a bomb.
Posted by: Alison Woo | December 14, 2008 at 08:54 PM
I got a free ticket from my travel agent and went for the scenery. I was not impressed with how they showed it.
This movie will never do for the Northern Territories what The Hobit did for New Zealand.
Posted by: Donald Schoengold | December 15, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I have to agree...the plot excess was to try to suit perceived American taste. Overload, sure. However, there were A LOT of good points concerning casting, acting, locations, storyline message and more.
Posted by: Katherine | December 16, 2008 at 01:23 AM
Too many plots in one movie? You seriously couldn't handle having more then one story line going on in a movie? I thought it was a beautiful story and very well done. It wasn't overly complicated but it certainly wasn't simple. If you want simple and predictable go see Gran Tarino. I love Baz Luhrmann's "art house" films. I want to see something other than your typcial cookie cutter blockbuster where you have such gorgeous visuals throughout the movie. Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman were completely entertaining to watch. I too felt every emotion while watching it and for the people that didn't, you aren't true movie lovers.
Posted by: Annie | December 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I thouroughly enjoyed it, along with both Hugh and Nicole, i thought they did great job, and for once Nicole was able to move her face. Great scenery, though not as stunning as I thought it would be, but a very enjoyable, sweeping epic. I think the problem lay with thepromotion of the film. It is definately worth watching.
Posted by: Steve | January 07, 2009 at 12:30 AM