Baz Luhrmann Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Can you ever successfully modernize Shakespeare? I've been thinking back to all of the 're-imagined' Shakespeare films I have seen over the years, and as someone who has spent more time than she would have liked studying the Bard, I have to tell ya, most of them are pretty darn bad. I don't claim to be an expert, but for some reason watching Ethan Hawke deliver To Be or Not to Be in a Blockbuster really didn't add much to the experience. Well, that's what I thought anyway when I read the news over at Sci Fi Wire that Terrence Howard has announced the start date for his very own 'Modernized Macbeth' which will be replacing the misty moors of Scotland with the Caribbean sun.

For those of you who skipped high school English, Macbeth was the story of a Scottish warrior who is so affected by a 'witchy prophecy' that he is driven to usurp the Scottish throne through treachery and murder. It is by far one of Wilie's bloodiest plays, but there just must be something about it, because there have been Macbeth updates set in everything from rave culture to the fast food business.

So how to do you successfully transplant Shakespeare to modern day? Well, I happen to think that the films that work the best are the ones that are willing to throw the language right out the window -- sacrilege I know, but hear me out. I think for a lot of audiences the mismatch of modern settings with iambic pentameter just doesn't work as well as it should, and ends up distracting audiences from becoming truly involved in the story and instead spend their time trying to figure out what the hell people are saying. Granted there are some exceptions; Baz Luhrmann did a fair job with his Romeo and Juliet update (although he did a little trimming with the dialog), but I still think the best Shakespeare films are the ones who only look to the plays for inspiration, and not as the script.

So what do you think? Does modern-day Shakespeare ever work? Sound off on some your favorite Shakespeare adaptations below...

How do you spice up the Academy Awards this year? How about adding more Judd Apatow! That's exactly what show organizers plan to do for the Oscar telecast on February 22, as the director of films like Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin and this summer's Funny People has created a brand new short film to debut during the ceremony along with "fresh live material on stage." While we don't yet know what the film will be about, apparently "filmmakers of all stripes will participate" and it will air during a special tribute to comedy.

Apatow isn't the only one producing fresh content for this year's Oscars; last week we were informed that Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!, Australia) would be creating a production number featuring show host Hugh Jackman, and Capote director Bennett Miller is tossing his own film sequence into the yay basket. We kid, of course, but if they want to get this show back on track, a good place to start would be by bringing a bunch of talented filmmakers together to create ... fun content. Stuff to entertain us in between having to watch multi-millionaires accept gold statues while thanking their agents and managers and dog nannies.

What do you think: Does Apatow's involvement make you want to watch the ceremony just a tiny bit more?

[via USA Today]

F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, long considered one of the greatest of American novels, has never had a definitive big-screen treatment. Neither the 1949 Alan Ladd/Betty Field version nor the 1974 Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version is particularly well regarded, and to even attempt an adaptation of such a beloved classic is fraught with peril.

Naturally, that means Baz Luhrmann wants to take a stab at it. Nikke Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily is reporting "exclusive" inside information that Luhrmann -- whose Australia is currently struggling to make back its bloated budget -- will make The Great Gatsby for Twentieth Century Fox as his next project. Finke says the Aussie director is looking for cast members now.

I love this book and would love to see a film version that captures it -- but honestly, I don't see Baz Luhrmann doing that. His loose, frenetic, slapsticky style (which is great in the right context, like Moulin Rouge) is all wrong for Gatsby. Will he restrain himself? Or will he turn it into a Baz Luhrmann story?

Consider also that The Great Gatsby, set in the Roaring '20s, is a quintessential American story. Assuming he keeps the Long Island setting (and woe betide him if he doesn't), it would be Luhrmann's first film to take place in a real, non-stylized United States. Romeo + Juliet seems to have been set in Miami, but it was a whacked-out version of it. Part of the magic of Gatsby is that it captures the flavor of a real era in American history (which wasn't history yet when it was written, of course). I hope Luhrmann can stay true to that.

For fans of the book, who do you think should play Daisy, Nick, and Gatsby? Is the whole thing a terrible idea, or can a proper film version be done?

I think critics should start boycotting the yearly Christmas Family Comedy. It's amazing: these movies are never good. I can't think of another distinct subgenre with such a poor track record over the last decade. And of course, I went and saw Four Christmases, of my own free will. I'm an idiot.

In any event, it was silly of me to imply that Four Christmases didn't have the muscle to win the weekend; high-profile Christmas movies almost always do well. The $31.7 million three-day is one of the best openings ever for a movie of this kind; last year's Fred Claus, also starring Vince Vaughn, only managed $18.5 million in early November. Four Christmases even squeaked out Elf. Its five-day gross was an impressive $46.7 million.

Australia, on the other hand: oh boy. Baz Luhrmann's ultra-expensive, ultra-long epic made $20 million over the five days, which is less than inspiring -- especially considering it has now basically exited the Oscar race. Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge! only ended up with around $57 million at the end of its domestic run -- but it didn't cost $130 million, either.

Transporter 3 -- the weekend's best new offering, for my money -- did okay with $12.3 million over three days and $18.5 over five. The three-day is a slight decline from what Transporter 2 did three years ago, but overall I'd put them even. This franchise continues to be profitable.

Twilight fell considerably, which isn't too surprising given the rabid-fan phenomenon that packs theaters opening weekend. Around $160 million is looking like the endgame. Meanwhile, Bolt, facing no new kid-centric competition over the weekend, held up almost miraculously well, actually gaining slightly over the three-day weekend. The folks at Disney have surely turned last weekend's frown upside down.

Slots 10 and 11 on the weekend's chart are occupied by limited releases: Milk and Slumdog Millionaire, on 36 and 49 screens, respectively. Their success bodes well for their Oscar chances.

The full five-day estimates after the jump.

With his previous feature film Australian director Baz Luhrmann came within tasting distance of a Best Picture Oscar, as well as several other awards. Moulin Rouge! (2001) did win two, for Costume Design and Art Direction, but all the glory that year went to other things. He must have taken notes; The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring cleaned up in the technical categories with four Oscars, and Black Hawk Down took two more. Two serious, disease-of-the-week dramas won in the "upper" categories: A Beautiful Mind and Iris. The following year, Luhrmann must have watched while the jaunty Chicago won Best Picture, and Roman Polanski won Best Director for his lengthy Holocaust drama, The Pianist.

So Luhrmann set out to work on his fourth film, Australia. Maybe it started out once, many years ago, as a 90-minute pop-Western about driving cattle and saving the farm. This entire section is bright and quick and exciting -- and lots of fun. But then perhaps he decided that that just wasn't enough, or at least it's not enough for anyone who wants to win a great big Best Director trophy. So at the 90-minute mark, Australia more or less stops, transforms itself into a giant-sized World War II drama, complete with grayness, dropping bombs and angel choruses, and keeps going for another interminable hour. But is it enough to fool Academy voters?

I'm going to attempt to write this as spoiler free as possible, saddened that as a Cinematical blogger, I inevitably ruin every single movie for myself.

According to The Guardian, Baz Luhrmann was reportedly convinced to change the ending of Australia after "intense discussions" with 20th Century Fox. Early test screenings were quite negative towards the original ending which is, apparently, quite a downer. Now, you'll save on Kleenex, because it's being rewritten for everyone to live happily ever after. (You're probably saying "Just say what the ending is, it's not a spoiler if it's changed!" but I don't want to take the risk. Please don't blab it in the comments, either.)

Over at Rope of Silicon, they say Fox insists Luhrmann has the final cut, and his vision is being respected. If the ending has been changed, it's because he wanted to change it. So there's both sides, and I guess we'll be able to put two and two together after we see the film. To add a little extra credence to this story, the fact that The Australian was reporting as of Halloween that the film still wasn't done suggests the ending could be one of the final difficulties. The Guardian only mentions a rewrite, and not a reshoot, so let's hope they filmed some alternate versions in order to avoid further delay. Now that I've lost The Road, I'm counting on The Drover to brighten up Thanksgiving weekend.

A few new images from the film were also just released, and we've added them to our brand new Australia gallery below. The ending might be changed, but she certainly is a beauty to look at.

All the movie studios are just hellbent on messing with my fall season. Australia is the latest movie to get the old switch-a-roo, as Variety reports that Fox is moving its release date from November 14 down to November 26. I know, it's only a matter of weeks, but it's just the principle of the thing. And it's now pitted against The Road, forcing me to chose which one to see opening day. I don't need that kind of stress, particularly on Thanksgiving which isn't exactly the most relaxing of holidays.

The delay is apparently the result of director Baz Luhrmann needing some extra time to polish the film. He brought everyone back for some pick-up shots, which explains the paparazzi shots I've seen of Hugh Jackman riding around Oz in full drover gear. I thought he just did that sort of thing all the time.

The fact that Australia's delay means it now neatly dodges the release of Quantum of Solace is, I'm sure, mere coincidence. I suspect we'll see more November rearranging -- Variety is reporting that The Time Traveler's Wife is also coming out on the 26th, though IMDB is still showing a Christmas release. If Variety is right (and why wouldn't it be?), I wouldn't be surprised if it ran to the 14th to steer clear of competing with another romance. Plus, I just don't think America could handle Viggo Mortensen, Hugh Jackman, and Eric Bana all having a movie out on the same day -- not when us girls are supposed to be home making pumpkin pies and turkey.