Thursday, May 22, 2008

So, who wants to move to NZ?

Mr Peek has posted the "trailer"* for the new Baz Luhrmann film, Australia. It is quite possibly the most vomitous thing I have seen in ages, and that includes Ladette to Lady. Baz Luhrmann is vile enough when he confines himself to ruining Shakespeare and making pretentious perfume ads; Baz in epic mode is just too much of an already bad thing. No doubt the sycophantic jingoists in our mainstream media will oblige the great auteur by providing plenty of hype, the New Idea crowd will flock to see Hugh in a drizabone (with whip!), and everybody will pretend that Nicole Kidman can act, Luhrmann's a genius, and we're all so grown up now we've got a fillum named after us. Can't bloody wait.

* Didn't these things used to be called "previews"? I hesitate to ask because it makes me sound like the guy - sorry, bloke - who wrote to the Green Guide this week to have a hissy about the supposed "American stupidity" of radio and news personalities reading 1300 phone numbers as "one, three-hundred" instead of "thirteen hundred" which, Mr Arthur Comer of Sebastopol asserts, is the Australian way. Is Mr Comer correct? Does Australia have a rich tradition of saying "thirteen hundred" instead of "one, three-hundred" of which I have somehow remained unaware thanks to the Americanisation (or as our American overlords would have it: Americanization) of our language?

7 comments:

Kirsty said...

I watched that trailer the other night on my phone while lying in bed--it was a Big Pond exclusive and free to watch, which is really the only time I watch things on my mobile. Anyway, I was so bemused by the sight of Nicole Kidman asking a group of bright faced aboriginal children gathered around her if they wanted to hear a story that I felt compelled to Twitter it. Weird was my verdict, weird. But vile will do in a pinch too. Vile.

I don't know about the Americanisation of the way we say our numbers. I'm fairly sure I've always said one eight hundred and not eighteen hundred though. What about the difference between saying zero and oh for nought. Can we blame the Americans for oh? Oh, lets.

Tim said...

When I hear "one eight hundred" I immediately visualise a one followed by eight hundred. "Eighteen hundred" doesn't have the same effect, I think because while three digits is easy to visualise four starts to become hazy; also because the first syllable, "eight", doesn't represent the first digit of the number, "one". This is all very subjective, I know, but my feeling is that if the Australian way is to say "eighteen hundred" then the Australian way is impractical and in this case we're better off for being Americanised.

mscynic said...

I have always said one eight hundred. But then I say Zee and Zeeeebra. Consequences of being brought up on Sesame Street, I suppose.

I still don't know why you easterners say "dance" and "plant" instead of "darnce" and "plarnt" though?

Imani said...

Well...I rather liked "Romeo + Juliet". *looks shiftily around* I take to Luhrman's bombastic style except that...yeah...I didn't quite get how the aboriginals were a part of the movie. Or I'm reluctant. (I didn't get that entire opening scene in the trailer at all.)

I liked Kidman in "Dogville" and "Moulin Rouge". (That was pre-Botox mania, right? Or just the early stages.)

The Worst of Perth said...

Never heard anyone say thirteen hundred or eighteen hundred. Ever. Maybe that's how they said it on the Kokoda Trail heh heh.
The Worst of Perth

Anonymous said...

We do say 'oh' instead of zero or even 'nought' for telephone numbers.
And we do tend to say 'double two five' instead of 'two two five; for phone numbers . In parts of Europe they would say two twenty five', etc

Simple really

saint
D@B

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, that trailer sure makes the movie look positively BORING

saint