MovieChat Forums > Australia (2008) Discussion > Was it supposed to be campy?

Was it supposed to be campy?

posted 14 years ago by r_waggs-1
36 replies | jump to latest

The acting - especially at the beginning, and especially by Nicole Kidman - makes me think they were going for "camp" and not a real historical rendition. But it's so uneven - sometimes she show cartoon-style reactions, and sometimes more subtle and realistic - that I can't tell which is the true intention. Perhaps it's a Baz/Nicole thing - there was lots of it in Moulin Rouge, but that was supposed to be fun. Australia seems as though it should have a more serious/straight tone, but Nicole's cartoony expressions has me confused.

[–] ednorton-fan 14 years ago

Her performance certainly had it's campy moments, but as you say, maybe it was over the top on purpose.

[–] JaraPT 14 years ago

I think it was exactly the purpose. I think Hugh was kind of more able to balance the comic and serious acting but Nicole seemed a little lost and uncertain in what Baz wanted from her in some places. But I guess Hugh can do "over-the-top" better simply because it´s a little his style, to make fun from it but stay serious in the same time. He can do irony and a self-irony. If it makes sense? Nicole is an amazing actress but she isn´t a comedy actress so it looks like she overacts parts where she is supposed to be over-the-top...

er, whatever, I just lost myself :-))

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hoz49 14 years ago

I see this film as a modern day epic. Jackman is the John Wayne character, Nichole Katherine Hepburn. Some scenes are cute and funny, others more realistic. I don't think American audiences "got it".

[–] The_Yellow_Wallpaper 14 years ago

THANK YOU.

[–] heaintloveu 14 years ago

I'm American. I "got" it. Thanks.

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

One person doesn't constitute "audience[s]", plural... It was obviously a generalisation, but not necessarily inaccurate.

Love United. Hate Glazers.

[–] ccr1633 14 years ago

hoz49 wrote:
"I don't think American audiences "got it"."
------------------------------------------------

Oh, we got it alright. We got a lot of bad acting from Australia. Thanks mates.

[–] hemkit 14 years ago

I think that was the point. Lady Ashley couldn't relate to her surroundings (Faraway Downs, cattle, children) and didn't know how to show Nullah "mothering." What's being mistaken for camp is Kidman's potrayal of a woman who is WAY outside her element.

[–] jillsand-1 12 years ago

No she didn't. She did what she was supposed to do, what the director instructed her to do, come across as awkward when remembering how to sing the song to Nullah. She was a prim, British upper class type that wouldn't feel comfortable in the situation she found herself in. The scene was meant to show her vulnerability and it is a key scene in showing the audience that she is learning to adjust and loosen up in her new environment.

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

I guess Hugh can do "over-the-top" better simply because it´s a little his style, to make fun from it but stay serious in the same time. He can do irony and a self-irony.

Probably comes from his solid grounding in musical theatre, where such adroit switches are often necessary...

You did fine.

Love United. Hate Glazers.

[–] layamaheshwari 14 years ago

You know what else I found campy? The supposed action scenes. As in, in the cattle scene, the closeup of David Wenham's character, the way the protagonists were shown on the horses while they were riding etc. etc. ruined the moment, bought me out of the movie. It all seemed so fake.

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world

[–] chrds3_trth 14 years ago

i think this movie was meant to be a bit "mythical", a bit dreamy, and so a little fake-feeling.

i agree with the folks who said this movie is a throwback, or even tries to pay homage, to the old American epic westerns - but adapted for the "wild west" of Australia, with modern cinema effects.

that's what i took from it, and rather liked it. maybe it helped that i heard a lot of negative reviews beforehand, so i wasn't expecting much. my girlfriend hated it, and she loves corny *beep* usually. perhaps the intentional dream/myth-like quality of the film didn't click with her. but once you accept it, "suspend your disbelief", it unabashedly touches on the typical hero/hollywood movie themes - which at times can be read as campy and/or corny. hell, it was made by the guy who made Romeo + Juliet and Moulin rouge, what the hell do you expect?

as an Asian, though, i do have to mention the stereotypical role of the cook, Singsong, i think his name was? i mean come on, jeez! although, he did look like my uncle ;)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jon364 14 years ago

I said in a previous post that this movie wanted a "Broadway gayed up" vibe.

I guess what you said, is more accurate and also more politcally correct. :P

It was definately camp and cartoonish. The desired effect. Whether or not it's your taste, is up to the viewer to decide.

For me, I would always take a movie more serious if it was going for a more realistic tone.

---
One thing that irritates me about imdb boards it's the "looks like" topics. Never even close.

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure that there were parts of it that were meant to be that way, yeah. Anyone familiar with Baz Luhrmann at all knows that such occasional operatic extravagance is one aspect of his style. In some scenes it works, and in others it doesn't... usually in the same film!

It has been that way in every one of his films I've seen - whether intended to be serious, or not - starting from Romeo + Juliet...

Love United. Hate Glazers.

[–] ValkyrieOakenshield74 14 years ago

For sad people everything got to be "campy"

It´s romance, not campy.

Do you recognize my voice...?

[–] tiani23-1 14 years ago

I don't think of it as being campy. To me, it was more of a melodrama.

[–] r_waggs-1 14 years ago

I saw part of the movie again the other day. There is a scene where Kidman is "storming" and moving like a cartoon character who is angry. This was a scene I thought particularly campy, but in re-watching it, perhaps the imagery is based on it being from the child's perspective. The child knows Nicole is angry and maybe that's why the scene is shown with her walking severely...

I don't know - it's been interesting to read the commentary to my original question. I appreciate your feedback and insights everyone!

[–] PlatinumScreen 13 years ago

i felt the same way during the beginning of australia. i had this idea it would be a serious, epic-like movie, but the first half hour i expected kidman to break out into a musical/dance number at any moment complete with dancing kangaroos in sequined tuxedos and top hats behind her.

if the intent was to show her as an english fish suddenly thrown into australian waters, then may i suggest another one of kidman's movies in which this same situation was portrayed much better--far and away.

australia had an identity crisis. i found the sobering moments that came later hard to take seriously.

[–] Mrs_Mills 13 years ago

It's terribly kitsch and campy and over-acted. At times it feels like you are watching a parody of scenes from a dozen other movies, but without any clever humour or insight.

[–] catpeee 13 years ago

A real stinker. Better off watching The Apprentice on BBC1.

you rip my knitting

[–] c_dilla 13 years ago

Yes, I was shocked and appalled about how bad this movie was. I watched it on a plane by accident and I didn't expect much but I did not expect it to be this cringe-worthy. And they had the guts to try and weave in some serious historical subject about the lost generation into it as well, wow... what an embarrassing stinker.

And just for the record, I consider Jackman and Kidman to be solid actors but I don't know what happened to them here. Baz Luhrman has to take the blame for this one.