Last night The Envelope's Scott Feinberg managed to get on the phone with Australia director Baz Luhrman to discuss various reports about the troubled film, and in particular last Sunday night's report from Australia's Herald Sun that Luhrman -- spoiler-averse, beware! -- has been pressured to go with a "live Hugh" happy ending.
They spoke just before Luhrman boarded a flight from New York (where he and the cast had taken part in an 11.10 Oprah special on the film) back to Sydney, where he's now completing post-production work on the film, which is set to open nationwide on Wednesday, 11.26.
I've read Luhrman's answer about the live-dead ending twice and I'm still not entirely what he's saying, but he seems to saying that in the struggle to finish the film in just the right way he found a theme that he believed in. And that somebody (not necessarily H.J., apparently) That's how I'm reading it, at least.
"What's interesting is [that] I wrote, I think, six endings in all the drafts I did, shot three, and I ended up concluding the film in a way in which I -- probably more than anyone -- least expected," Luhrman begins. "And there is a death in the ending of the film, by the way -- it's a bit of a twist and I won't give it away.
"And, incidentally, the two endings, by the way, tested completely the same essentially, you know? They really did in the numbers. But I came up with a third ending, and the ending that I've created about the film came from a place of a response, actually, to the thing that I wanted the movie to be -- the important, big idea of the movie -- how to amplify that big idea. And, essentially, that's, as the little boy says, 'The rain will fall. The grass grows green. And life begins again.'
"And that idea -- that in a world that is so full of fear, and things are falling down, and people are somewhat concerned -- sending a movie out there that can leave people with a sense that, despite it all, you can go back to Faraway Downs, or that you can go on, and a sense of hope, is something I really felt personally I wanted the movie to give out."
"But I think the big story is how the actual ending I came up with -- which is quite unusual, it's not easy to say it's 'the happy one' or 'the death one' -- it's something quite surprising. And it found itself, really."
"You can go back to Faraway Downs" sounds like a little bit of a push-back on "you can't go home again." Which I know from life experience to be absolutely true. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 12, 2008 at 7:23 AM
comment #1
p.Vice
says ...
Sounds like a plea for ignorance. The movie should be a huge hit.
Posted by p.Vice
at November 12, 2008 8:16 AM
comment #2
ZayTonday
says ...
Translation: I buckled under Rothman's pressure and changed the ending but I want you to think that this helped me realize my TRUE artistic vision for the movie so I don't look like a pushover.
Posted by ZayTonday
at November 12, 2008 8:26 AM
comment #3
Joe M.
says ...
Sounds like the themes/mood/flavor of the closing moments of the film are bigger and more central to the whole thing than whether this or that character bites it. So maybe Baz said, "sure, if the suits need a happy, feel-good resolution to that one aspect of the story, why not?" But maybe I'm just being optimistic and hoping that whatever he's going for isn't being compromised by a sordid dollars-and-cents directive from on high.
Posted by Joe M.
at November 12, 2008 8:34 AM
comment #4
Sabina E
says ...
BIG F--KING MISTAKE. I heard he's not even done editing the movie !!!!!
Posted by Sabina E
at November 12, 2008 8:35 AM
comment #5
Krazy Eyes
says ...
Dead Leo didn't seem to hurt TITANIC. I'm not sure why producers are so adamant sometimes about not letting the leads die at the end of a movie. It it serves the arc of the story . . . let it be.
Posted by Krazy Eyes
at November 12, 2008 8:44 AM
comment #6
Rich S.
says ...
Like I said in an earlier thread, it sounds like a big budget version of Clue. All it needs is Tim Curry running around trying to explain what each of the endings means.
Posted by Rich S.
at November 12, 2008 8:52 AM
comment #7
DavidF
says ...
He wrote SIX endings?
He shot THREE?
I think Rich S hit the nail on the head- you'd think in this multiplex era someone would have tried that gimmick again.
It's one thing to not know the precise ending and to let a story take you where it's going but that shows MAJOR indecision. At some point - probably before you get to the editing room - you should know what this apparently epic story you're telling actually means, shouldn't you? What it's about? This dude sounds like he had no clue.
I'm so meh about this thing I haven't even bothered to watch the trailer.
Posted by DavidF
at November 12, 2008 9:18 AM
comment #8
theultimatebiu
says ...
He really does sound unsure about his own movie. I really don't think I care enough about this movie to go into all the problems this can cause.
Posted by theultimatebiu
at November 12, 2008 9:36 AM
comment #9
transmogrifier
says ...
I notice that the director here prefers the audience not to know the particulars of the ending of his film. How about that?
Posted by transmogrifier
at November 12, 2008 11:53 AM
comment #10
Deathtongue_Groupie
says ...
For the passive-aggressive site owner, this is how you handle this and future instances.
About That Ending For Australia
SPOILER ALERT: Australian director Baz Luhrmann has brushed aside reports that 20th Century Fox was so concerned about unenthusiastic audience response during test screenings of his blockbuster movie Australia that it forced him to change the tragic ending to a more positive one. "You really think that on my films people tell me what to do?" he said to a Reuters reporter. "I don't think so -- on my films I decide." Luhrmann said that he had written six different endings for the movie and had shot three of them. The one that he had selected, he said, will be a "surprise."
Because when even IMDB's Studio Briefing (which in the past was notorious for spoilers) can adhere to the protocol, you really start to look "old media" when you can't.
Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie
at November 12, 2008 1:38 PM
comment #11
bfm
says ...
I still don't get where the terrible spoiler was. All we know from Jeffrey is that the hero is alive at the end of the movie (which incidentally we also know from reading this interview with Baz which you seem to think was nice and vague). Exactly what did Jeffrey "spoil" about the plot of Australia for you? He hasn't given ANY particulars about the way that the film ends.
Posted by bfm
at November 12, 2008 2:45 PM
comment #12
Doug
says ...
There are many stories where whether someone lives or dies at the end is completely arbitrary - the writer's whim. This sounds like one of those cases.
"Cold Mountain" spoiler ahead.
I wish someone had decided Jude Law lives at the end of "Cold Mountain." We spend three hours with this guy walking home from the Civil War and then he gets shot by some yahoos. But he makes a baby and the spring comes again. Yeah, great.
Posted by Doug
at November 12, 2008 4:02 PM
comment #13
Zimmergirl
says ...
"Like I said in an earlier thread, it sounds like a big budget version of Clue. All it needs is Tim Curry running around trying to explain what each of the endings means."
That's so funny.
Re: the spoilers - get over it. How annoying you all are, whining and acting so entitled. You're like kindergartners! There was nothing really to spoil anyway since even now no one knows how it will end. It's not like The Sixth Sense or something.
Posted by Zimmergirl
at November 13, 2008 7:52 AM
comment #14
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability servers
Posted by janee
at May 19, 2011 12:54 AM