The Facts:
Synopsis: An English aristocrat who inherits a sprawling ranch reluctantly pacts with a stockman to protect her new property from a takeover plot.
Stars: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Brandon Walters, David Wenham, Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson, Essie Davis, David Gulpilil, Ben Mendelsohn, David Ngoombujarra
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Rated: NR
Running Length: 6 episodes (~220 minutes)
TMMM Score: (7/10)
Review: “Do you like movies?” It was early 2008, and a woman with an official-looking clipboard asked me this question in a local movie theater lobby. I’d been stopped for random surveys before, so I didn’t think anything of it (aside from the fact we were being asked if we liked movies after we had bought a ticket to one), so I naturally answered, “Yes, of course.” Then she asked me if I’d like to see a test screening for a brand new “epic Hollywood blockbuster” later that week. She couldn’t tell me the title but said I “wouldn’t be disappointed by the director or stars.” Hmmm…let me check my scheduYES!
Long story short, the movie was Australia, and my audience at the Mall of America was the first to see a rough cut of the film. I sat across the aisle from the studio executives, producers, and director Baz Luhrmann and his wife Catherine Martin (who was Oscar-nominated for her costumes) and, for the most part, enjoyed it quite a lot. Not being completed, there were a few hurdles to get through. The effects weren’t complete, so most shots of stampeding livestock were crudely rendered computer graphics that elicited laughter from the audience, and the music wasn’t yet added, so the Gone with the Wind score was used, but we all got the gist. Then we got to the ending, and…no. It was just a ‘no’ from me. On the lengthy feedback slip we had to fill out at the end, I made it clear that, in no uncertain terms, they had to fix that ending.
When I saw the film after it was released in November 2008, I started to bite my nails as we got to the conclusion that I knew we were headed toward. The rest of the movie had been smoothed out and looked gorgeous. It was an old-fashioned romance set in the Outback with Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos) and Hugh Jackman (Logan) looking every bit the A-List movie stars they were. Additionally, it brought Australia’s shameful history of the Stolen Generations to light. It may have been a little corny at times, but it was all part of Luhrmann’s intention of resurrecting a cinematic grandeur and glamour that had fallen out of fashion. To my delight, the ending was changed, leaving Australia with a finale that made sense.
While the film was a mediocre success with critics, its domestic box office returns were disappointing considering all involved. It’s Luhrmann’s least successful film in America (but oddly, his most successful in Europe), and the labor of love went down as a costly failure for the studio that released it. The book seemed to be closed on Australia until the pandemic hit, and Luhrmann’s filming of Elvis was halted after star Tom Hanks became one of the most famous people to catch COVID. Suddenly, he found himself revisiting his homeland opus and wondering what he could do with the footage he didn’t use. There are director’s cuts aplenty, but could Australia have a new life if it was re-edited into a limited series?
The result is Faraway Downs (named after the large estate Kidman’s character owns in the dusty Outback), which streaming service Hulu has subtitled A Baz Luhrmann Film Told in Six Chapters. Now, instead of Australia’s 165-minute running time, we have six episodes ranging from twentyish minutes to nearly an hour for a total of 220 minutes. No new footage was shot, though Kidman and Jackman have recorded new dialogue to blend the edited footage seamlessly. Additionally, new music has been recorded by First Nations musicians. Oh, and Luhrmann restored the original ending. That I hated and that most test audiences hated.
So, the question remains: how does Faraway Downs compare to Australia, and does it “improve” upon the original film? Watching the series, you can see how episodic the film written by Luhrmann, Stuart Beattie, and Ronald Harwood was in design and how it naturally seems to fit into a limited series structure. The chapter breaks are often cliffhangers or solid stopping points of transition, making each a satisfying watch on their own or to binge (I watched it all in one sitting). It had been a while since I’d watched Australia, but the threads of that narrative remain fresh in my mind. I can see where Luhrmann has tweaked character arcs and fleshed out some of the stories/lives of the Aboriginal people.
It’s easy to spot where most editing has been done; much of it comes in the first episode. Setting a strange mood and herky-jerky pace when it should be enrapturing its audience, Faraway Downs struggles with staying on track in the opening chapter. Introducing us to Kidman’s character is pivotal. While in the film, she’s presented as a naif but capable fish out of water, in Faraway Downs, she comes across as a Goldie Hawn-esque kook that’s lived inside a terrarium all her life and needs assistance batting her long eyelashes. This recalibration of character might give Kidman some fun antics to play, but it makes her transition to tough homestead woman more of a strain. Jackman (who has never looked better in a movie before or since) doesn’t get much more to work with; his character remains slightly aloof and mysterious until the final chapter.
Filling out the cast with some of the top talent from Down Under, many of whom have gone on to splendid careers of their own (Essie Davis, Ben Mendelsohn, David Wenham), Luhrmann also yields the floor to First Nation actors like Brandon Walters (a child actor that’s a true revelation), David Ngoombujarra (who gets possibly the most emotionally charged scene with Jackman), and the late David Gulpilil as a tribal elder and the meaningful performances of all three have benefitted in the transition to Faraway Downs.
Still, I wouldn’t say I like the ending, and I am disappointed it was added back in. I’ve read some interviews with the director about why he took it out initially and why he felt it was right to put it back in. While that is his prerogative, I don’t think it matches up with the investment audiences made in the movie/series until that point. Being a spoiler-free site, I’m not going to reveal it and am deliberately dancing around the topic, but it’s not fulfilling, having seen it in the context of the test screening and now in Faraway Downs.
A curiosity to be sure, Faraway Downs might not have made Australia into a better movie, but it has introduced an intriguing premise for directors to rethink their previous work in a new format. Could other movies benefit from a similar treatment if given the opportunity? I can think of a few good candidates from recent years, but let’s go back even further and see what middling movies from the famously muddy early 2000s we could toss into the hat for a retool.
Leave a Reply