Comments on: Structure: Australia

By: frances

frances — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:25:21 +0000

I’ve finally seen ‘Australia’- having been warned off it by almost everyone I knew. I found it an interesting parody of everything from American cinema to American notions of Australia generating Australia as the last bastion of the spaghetti western genre. The Good the Band and the Ugly (the first image we see of Hugh Jackman is a duplication of the classic image of Clint Eastwood in The Good The Bad and The Ugly (hardly surprising as it is held that he was originally given his break in the US because of his resemblance to Clint Eastwood.) There is also the parody of a parody (the parody of the ‘Where the Bloody Hell are You?’ commercial – where they were cleaning up the beaches (same fighting style and moves and shot.) The list goes on. The film was less of an Australian film than a Spaghetti Western set in Australia with a few iconic Australian bits thrown in. BUT… one thing I would really like to know is where did he get off calling the ‘cattle stations’ ranches – I know it was made to exploit the American market but surely a bit more cultural accuracy would be better.

It is interesting how different generations view the film differently – perhaps those who lived through the 60’s and 70’s or have a grasp of film history and genres see the parody where as those who haven’t experienced it view the film in its own right because they have no other frame of reference. One really good thing the Americans can no longer claim that they were the only ones attacked by Japan.

I am amused to say that my teenage students when they want me to ‘throw another shrimp on the barbie’ (thanks a lot Paul Hogan) I ask for the smallest persona in the room to put up their hands and explain that in Australia a shrimp is a small person and it is illegal to chuck one of the barbie. But no so amused when dealing with teenagers thinking Australia has a different language to English or that we are American (they can probably be forgiven for this by the fact that we keep trying to make American movies). At the moment the cultural representation of Australian’s is as fair as a ……. Stone the crows mate can’t we have a bit less C. J. Dennis or maybe a bit more in context where we don’t have to self-consciously explain our culture (and colloquialisms) to others or dismantle them for a better projected profit margin.

By: hoang

hoang — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:36:15 +0000

Tottally lapping it all up.It’s one of those movies that just takes you far far away,yet you feel so much at home through images of this great land of ours.Australia,let us all rejoice.Baz, are you ready for a gay musical?Email me and we’ll talk.xxx.

By: Mel Parker

Mel Parker — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:53:13 +0000

‘Australia’ was pure entertainment – classic Baz Luhrmann that had the elements of fantasy, parody and stunning visuals.
I felt like there were two movies for the price of one. The movie could well have ended once the cattle were on the ship and as often happens with engaging movies, I would have walked out thinking ‘I wonder what happened to the characters and if they ended up getting back to and keeping Faraway Downs?’
Well ‘Australia’ answered that. However, it felt as though Luhrmann was trying to fit another whole movie into the second part of the story which seemed fragmented and not structurally tight.
I enjoyed most the performances from the stellar cast but Nullah was fabulous.

By: Aarhon Silver

Aarhon Silver — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:00:00 +0000

Okay, saw it. It was Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Jedda, Pearl Harbour and Rawhide all bunched up into a visually stunning gigantic Chanel No.5 TVC with every famous Australian actor who had time in their schedule. Aside from that, wow, if I only had the ability and the energy to do something like it. It really was several movies in one, I’m glad I got a Gold Class ticket at Greater Union because you really do need a couch to watch the damn thing. The art direction was of course meticulous, the structure… well I’ll leave that to you, there was so much, I just couldn’t keep up with the fog machine that moved you from one scene to the next.

The gay boys had to be loving that outback scene with Jackman and the soap suds.

And another thing. Why would ‘the drover’ go for Ashley you ask? Why did John Wayne go for Maureen O’Hara in all those oldies, it was the classic set-up. Opposites attract… (but sometimes, I admit, it was just too corny.) However, she was okay by me the minute she horsewhipped Fletcher.

Aarhon

By: kerry heubel

kerry heubel — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:09:32 +0000

I partly agree with you but differ only in what I see as an area constantly overlooked by anyone critiquing this piece. That is, I believe there is an extra genre in this work running concurrently with several others. This is ‘parody’. I think the role of Sarah is set up as a parody, which if we take her seriously makes her appear an unattractive character. The same for the role of the Drover, which plays on cliches and parodies the ‘chick flick’ idea that had the audience laughing, at least through the performance I attended. The film rolls through the different genres, melodrama, western, romance, adventure until it gets to the war film genre and my impression was that the passing through all of those genres was to demonstrate, and I think adequately the personal growth of the Sarah character from the different points of view.

I take umbridge at the labelling romantic films with women as the love interest ‘chick flicks’. It’s a derogatory term, demeaning to women and meant to imply that men don’t find them worthy intellectually. We need a new term to label, insignificant, light, sentimental films with a romance theme.

Thanks for sending me this I find it very interesting