Anne Billson 

Why Baz Luhrmann is a sucker for Australia’s happy ending

Anne Billson: Luhrmann has given his latest epic a happier ending to increase its box office potential. But why stop there?
  
  

Australia
Smiles better ... Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman in Australia Photograph: PR

Here's a spoiler for you. We always knew studio executives were not the finest arbiters of artistic expression, but they've outdone themselves this time. Head honchos at 20th Century Fox have persuaded Baz Luhrmann to change the ending of his wannabe blockbuster Australia. The film stars Nicole Kidman as an English toff who inherits a ranch at the start of the second world war and, threatened by Japanese bombing, teams up with Hugh Jackman for a spectacular cross-country cattle drive. At the end of Luhrmann's original cut, Jackman dies.

According to reports in the Australian Sunday Telegraph, however, responses at test screenings were negative. "There is no reason to kill off Wolvie!" whinged one early reviewer. Evidently the powers-that-be concurred, in the belief that an upbeat ending would result in bigger box office. And Luhrmann, it seems, has caved in to studio pressure.

They've got to be kidding! Presumably these guys have never heard of Titanic. Obviously James Cameron misjudged the ending there; Leonardo DiCaprio should have clambered up on to that bit of flotsam so that he and Kate Winslet could shelve their class differences, have lots of kids and live happily ever after. Maybe that would have increased the box office takings.

What about the other films on Luhrmann's CV? Romeo + Juliet? Pah! Clearly, that Shakespeare chap didn't have a clue. Wouldn't the story have been more memorable if, say, Leonardo had opted for a less lethal potion, so that Claire Danes could have pulled him back from the brink with the defilibrator she'd thoughtfully stowed in her baggage? Dry eyes all round! Or how about Moulin Rouge? No need for Kidman to die in that - she only had TB, after all. Surely Ewan McGregor could have rustled up a last-minute cure, or offered one of his own lungs for transplant?

But why stop there? Let's face it: Casablanca would have lingered far longer in audiences' minds had Humphrey Bogart knocked Paul Henreid unconscious and hopped on that plane with Ingrid Bergman, instead of sacrificing personal happiness for the greater good. Gone With the Wind might have increased its frankly rather pathetic box office takings if Clark Gable had said, "My dear, I do give a damn. Shall we try it one more time?"

I honestly think Love Story would have been more popular if Ali MacGraw had shaken off whatever photogenic wasting disease she was suffering from. The Notebook would surely have struck more of a chord with younger viewers if Gena Rowlands had been miraculously cured of her Alzheimer's at the end, so she and James Garner could wander off into the sunset holding hands. Breaking the Waves? Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Million Dollar Baby? Pan's Labyrinth? Think of all those tear-sodden paper hankies. Where were the studio executives when we needed them?

Yes, that's what we want - upbeat endings all round! In future, it will be illegal to kill off the hero. Let's have happy endings in thrillers and horror movies as well. After all, that's what audiences want. Isn't it?

 

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*

*