Creating myths for Australia

Australia lacks the foundation myths that great nationalism is based on. Some of the most well-known historical figures are criminals (like Ned Kelly) or failures (who can forget Burke and Wills). Australia (2008) Baz Luhrmann’s sweeping epic (is there any more appropriate phrase to use?) can be considered a milestone in Australian mythmaking and perhaps film. On a basic level it is encouraging to see a big budget film with high production values come out of this country (though arguably this is a Hollywood film, Luhrmann has his roots in Australia). It looks great. The outback is a star. Formulaic? Of course. But most importantly it is done well.

I approached this film with skepticism, partly due to its marketing (as a Tourism Australia exercise) and its big budget epicness (all I can think is Titanic and shudder slightly). I also dislike Nicole Kidman. I think she is neither a good enough actress nor attractive enough to be made into the star that she has. There is something wooden about her and Australia is no exception. Luckily the rest of the acting makes up for it. Hugh Jackman is all man! He has real screen charisma. Brandon Walters as Nulla is satisfactory, though his contrived pidgin English is somewhat bothersome.

The first half an hour is a little bizarre. Baz is back using his Moulin Rouge tricks, which is fine but the tone it sets is quickly abandoned in favour of more traditional drama. The scenes of Sarah’s arrival in Australia and Faraway Downs are almost cartoonish, with quick cuts and close-ups of exaggerated facial expressions. You feel like you have fallen through the rabbit hole into a 1930s screw ball comedy! What is the purpose of this when the film seamlessly moves into epic blockbuster mode for the rest of its duration?

Australia has all the ingredients of a successful blockbuster: a sizzling love story, heroes and villains, action chase scenes, explosions, extended length, rousing musical score and of course, a happy ending. But it offers nothing new to this genre. It is interesting to view it in the context of the Western tradition, which is what it essentially is complete with renegade cowboy, money hungry land owner, uptight school marm (or close enough in Kidman’s English lady), bar room brawls, and a community dance. There are clearly delineated good and bad characters. No ambiguity there! The bad are bad through and through. It could have made a more interesting film if the lines between good and bad were blurred a little.

What is ambiguous is the film’s treatment of Aboriginal issues. There is nothing new or revolutionary in this respect. It wants to have its cake and eat it too. While attempting to stick to history portraying the abuses and indignities faced by Aboriginals at the hands of the whites, in the spirit of reconciliation it also allows Aboriginals their same victories (having a drink in the bar, saving stolen generation children from the mission, allowing the half-caste child to go walkabout). But this changes nothing. What happens to the children after they have been rescued? Assumedly taken off to another mission. The only reason the Aboriginal gets to have his drink is because Darwin has been bombed and the bar is about to be abandoned anyway. In the end he has to give up his life for the white hero anyway. There is always the sense that Nulla is better off being adopted by white parents and Sarah inherently deserves to have him.

Aboriginal issues are a touchy and much neglected subject in Australia. Luhrmann’s film takes the safe ground.

Overall this film is an enjoyable experience, if not a forgettable one.