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.

[–] scifisam 11 years ago

There were certainly moments of camp, partially to exaggerate how out of her element Nicole's character was. As many Australians have said, the movie is more a stereotypical version of Australia than an accurate one. Camp is good, it helps a movie avoid the accusations of "this movie takes itself too seriously" or other such nonsense.

[–] Morbius_Fitzgerald 11 years ago

I love the actresses that played the snobby, rich women. They were just so over the top that I just had to laugh at them. They at least tried to bring entertainment to the film!

"If you don't like your ideas, stop having them!"

[–] Catgurl22 10 years ago

I have to agree that there were quite a few "over-the-top" moments in the film. Before the film was released, a lot of people (including myself) expected it to be a serious film, as most epic movies are. However, the resulting film was quite different. I can't say that I was grossly disappointed and hated the film. It could have been better. But in the end I enjoyed it as any other ordinary film.

I believe Nicole Kidman said in an interview that she was very unhappy with her own performance. So much so that she dreaded watching the movie herself. I don't know if it was her own decision to play the role of Lady Ashley in that manner or if it was the director's vision for her to act like that.

Mr McGee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

[–] b0sendorfer 10 years ago

I am SO confused as to why people think Kidman's acting was so bad, or she was 'overacting'? In the context of the film, especially in the more lighthearted sections Kidman is a bit more silly - but in no way was it out of place - I mean the whole movie is exaggerated with a cartoonish sort of feel, it's so obvious - I thought she did a great job and had a great presence and was really funny.

Her acting fit the whole tone of the movie perfectly. Towards the beginning she was more uppity and out of her element, and as the film progresses, she becomes a bit more subdued, but still has her moments of her being that uppity woman, trying to loosen up (the rainbow song scene).

As for her 'botoxed face' - she literally has a furrowed brow/creases in a bunch of scenes, to the effect of her emotions, so I don't know what anyone's talking about with that.

[–] jillsand-1 10 years ago

On YouTube there is an Australian radio interview where she explains what she means about reviewing her work in 'Australia'. I think I did a search for 'Australia Movie' and found it. Basically, she never likes to see any of her work after it is finished. Because she is a great friend of Baz's she has seen Moulin Rouge and this film. She asked Keith if she was any good in it? She hates watching herself on screen. However, although she didn't say anything specifically nice about her own work, she loved Hugh and Brandon in it and thought the movie was "amazing". I also know Hugh loved it. He thought it was awesome, unbelievable, an incredible experience that you have once in a lifetime and if he was asked to do it again, he'd be more than happy to.

As Hugh says about the film, it was Baz's homage to the classic Hollywood movies of the 30's and 40's and the brilliance of it is he does everything with an Australian voice, Australian flavour to it, but it is different to what people expect - broad comedy like African Queen, almost slapstick at the beginning. Baz wanted a cocktail of different genres in the movie - drama/action/comedy/war/western and Hugh thought he achieved it.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jajceboy 10 years ago

I don't think it was campy at all. Is there something I have missed?
I just think it was meant to resemble "old" Hollywood epics but with an Australian twist to it.

I suppose that in a broader sense all of the old Hollywood epics looks camp today with very theatrical and melodramatic acting. But I don't think the acting in "Australia" is that melodramatic or over-the-top.

[–] abertawe_cymru 10 years ago

I love this film and I think there was a lot to it - some aspects were intentionally a bit campy. One that comes to mind is when Drover pours water on himself - cheesy and silly.

[–] thebabe3 9 years ago

yes it was supposed to be fun. and I loved it. people are so critical.

[–] Royalcourtier 8 years ago

Camp and 'real historical rendition' are not opposites. There is nothing historical about this mishmash of a movie. And there is never anything good about Ms Kidman's acting.

[–] TheDarkKnightMatter 8 years ago

Your grandmother did a good job acting in her new film Cheap Bang Analized.

State champ in martial arts, trained with firearms, I eFF'n dare you!

[–] Sibyla01 7 years ago

Royalcourtier: absolutely! It was a mess and Kidman was horrible. Jackmann was so good in this rough type role in Oklahoma, but sorry - he had nothing to play here.

[–] Sibyla01 7 years ago

Royalcourtier: absolutely! It was a mess and Kidman was horrible. Jackmann was so good in this rough type role in Oklahoma, but sorry - he had nothing to play here.