Rupert Murdoch press to 'Australia': Drop dead

Despite his openly conservative views and stewardship of the always right-leaning Fox News channel, home to Sean Hannity and a thousand Obama-linked-to-terrorists theories, Rupert Murdoch seems to give his newspapers an astoundingly free rein to befriend or backstab whomever they want. As the New York Times recently noted, when it became apparent that Barack Obama would win the presidency, the New York Post -- which had endorsed John McCain -- began a serious charm offensive, publishing warm 'n cuddly stories about Obama's family life and running flattering front-page photos, with such headlines as "Dashing" and "One Cool Dude."

Cynics would say this is simply Murdoch's way of ingratiating himself with the new man in the White House, noting that the media baron is a master of going the way the wind is blowing. If so, that bodes ill for "Australia," Fox's costly new Baz Luhrmann film that has been getting most of its negative press from the Murdoch camp. (Just how costly the movie is has become a Hollywood guessing game, with Fox admitting to $130 million, while rivals claim the film's budget is closer to $200 million.) First, Australia's Murdoch-owned Sunday Telegraph reported that Fox executives had pressured Luhrmann into changing the ending of the film after the movie received "disastrous reviews" at early test screenings. The claim was rebutted by Fox's Tom Rothman, who said the studio loved the film and had given Luhrmann total control of the movie.

But now the Murdoch-owned New York Post is sniping at the film. One Post critic has linked to lukewarm early reviews from Australia. Another Post writer, blogger-critic Kyle Smith, ran a post today with the headline: " 'Australia' Looking Dead as a Road-Kill Wombat," full of derisive shots at the film. Smith termed the film a "looming flop," seemingly "ruthlessly engineered for the goal of losing money." He adds: "Let's see, stars that aren't actually draws? ... Obese running time? ... Dusty long-ago historical subject matter, story line impossible to summarize or even approximate in TV ads? ... Check. Check. Check."

While it's true that the film's TV ads aren't especially eye-popping and the bland images on the movie's billboards appear lifted from an Australian tourist bureau brochure, one has to wonder: Why has the film provoked so much venom from Murdoch's own newspapers? Are they just showing their editorial independence? Or do they know something the rest of us don't? I'm going to an "Australia" screening tomorrow to see for myself. Let's just say that Murdoch's press corps has done a great job of lowering my expectations.

Photo: Rupert Murdoch. Credit: Daniel Acker / Bloomberg News 

Comments

[James Berry]

"Dusty long-ago historical subject matter." WW II - "long ago"?!?!? You Americans are so, funny... If my folk's lifetime is "long ago", what on Earth did the Post make of Titanic or Gladiator?

[Hayley from AUS]

Murdoch's a wimp who belongs in the US. The so-called Australian should be happy he left when he did. He's just an old codger with a disliking towards his 'home' country. Whatever.

[Scott]

What is interesting to note is that Kyle Smith sounds like a studio executive with that. Lets look at the biggest box office hit of all time Titanic. Were DiCaprio and Winslet massive box office draws? Was the running time extremely long? Was the matter long ago and historical?

Basically he is saying "I have the answer to make a hit! Biggest stars in the world, just over an hour long, and the storyline has to be so simple that the dumbest people in America will get it. And cant have any foreigners in it."

[Graham]

Dude
Check your facts. Murdoch runs media that fill niches neither his Australian or British papers are in the least conservative and quite often anti-American. This is a Friend of Bill remember. Getting your talking points from Kos confirms Murdoch's recent lecture about journalists losing the public's trust.

[faizal deen forrester]

It's quite interesting to read articles that suggest the momentary interdependence ofAustralia, the movie, with Australia, the one time tourist destination.
What people don't seem to realize (and those of us who live outside of Australia do) is that the reason why no one wants to go to Australia is because that country has become synonymous with the Bush Tyranny in Washington. Images of white Australians making images of the American flag on their beaches, in solidarity with post-9/11 America; images of white, anti-immigrant, racist prime minister, John Howard; images of the "yahoo" southern hicks pf the Outback, with the whole "convict still in my blood" dynamic; all of these images, compounded with anti-Australian sentiments generated by Australia's support of Washington's white greed, the whole destruction of other countries and the hundreds of thousands of uncounted lives across Afghanistan and Iraq, just for oil, territorial hegemony and good old fashioned colonial "manifest destiny" politics; all of these images (and you see there are so many I haven't been able to even complete this sentence, yet, and that's after three or four semi-colons!) have led to a liberal boycott/backlash against countries such as Australia that have supported the worse attrocities against humanity that this generation has seen.

[Caroline]

Yup. That's a great business idea. Produce a wonderful film, which I'm sure it is, then have your own newspapers tear it apart and destroy it before anyone has a chance to see it.

[Jonathan]

While I agreed with you about Fox's summer, although you do seem to go on and on about them, which I don't see you doing with other studios, I don't get why you go after them for Australia. Seems hypocritical. You call them to task for making drek like The Happening, but don't give them any credit for making something risky like Australia. You seem to be more focused on being provocative than fair.

[David Reilly]

i have absolutely nothing nice to say about murdoch, so i won't.