On the question of What Constitutes a Truely Australian Cinema? (cont)

To the forum: 

I think that's the point: that we can't really define where such a line that clearly demonstrates what constitutes a truly Australian cinema is, or should be, or even needs to be, in this context - as long as there is a viable industry - for economic and cultural reasons as well - that allows different generations of Australians the opportunity to make the stories and films they want to make, then that's all that matters. How we achieve and have achieved this is the history of our cinema industry, and in that only, perhaps, you might find such a line. 

As long as there is an industry and not just an exhibition market, is really the point and legacy of Australian cinema. We have been there and should not return, for whatever reasons anyone would want to attach to it as 'self-evident' justifications, be they one of nationalisms, cultural relativism’s or economic isms - or whatever others that may seem appropriate at any one point in time! 

As long as we are the ones doing it, and however we form under such a banner as Australian Cinema, than that is the point of this exercise, first and foremost, and not because we need to be making Australian cinema, but as well, because we can.

The 'Major’ international film distributors do have a stranglehold on Australian 'mainstream' exhibition markets, with their vertical integration mechanism of releasing, predominantly only Hollywood productions, in a simultaneous ‘parallel’ pattern in up to 300 multi and mega-plex’ screens across the country at once -and  there is very little screen time left for anything locally produced.

 
Not only is that a mouthful, but what a cultural machine! Governments could only dream of such free-reining power and access to audiences!! And even more so with the new 'you-beaut-fair-trade engine', ramping up and opening even more ancillary viewing pipelines into our leisure-time possibilities. And that’s not even mentioning similar arrangements for free-to-air commercial television, gaming, and music. How many Australian films now do we see on our televisions, and even if a major film distributor has not picked them up? So, it’s hard to imagine how any ‘specialist (Art House) market'  like that can compete with such a monster in the nation-wide cinema market. 

But we do, and will continue to do so in the future. The rule now of course is  ‘commercial appeal’ – or how ever else you want to socialise or sex-up the idiom. The term‘Uber-coolness is ’also, - as it was used in the discussion to describe Ron Perlman’s role as Hell Boy, is an important insight into this new industry model, (and also disregarding how the term, Uber may have been used previously, and historically), and in other such contemporary precedents for the term, where the point is, that through social media outlets, the term underpins the notion of how important a ‘marquee cast,’ as I mentioned elsewhere, is, and especially for Australian productions. 

Where such a thing helps locate and ‘lock-in’ markets, by increasing the chances of a successful venture, not only in terms of marketing it to the right audiences but also in securing production funding, marketing distributors and even down to ‘key principles” as well. It has that effect in such a potent market-place driven industry, if we want to really understand how films are made (and I mean that in the broadest possible sense), and how audiences are compelled to want to go and see them - and especially in the first three weeks, where 90% of the profits are made!

There is the perception in the drama-industry now, that television drama, i.e., “Neighbors” etc. are the best place for important stylistic and melodramatic reflections to grow future audiences in order to deliver positive box-office performances. Such a thing as a television drama being able to preform such a function, if ever, have not been fruitful before. but I am ready to be corrected here. 

My position for this would be: that there is more of a chance for  future revenues happening. Of say, David Wenham using television to grow other types of audiences - to spread his star appeal - which he most certainly has, into different demographics than to expect that television dramas would only ‘platform’ him to greater and greater appeal. Such audience appeal, and coupled with his great dramatic depth and performance style makes him a selection possibility for many roles. Although he seems to have exhausted the local market with his LOTR performances, and it would be unlikely that he would expect to return back to such small roles, except perhaps in an off beat Ray Laurance production, maybe.

To understand the effect of television one only has to peruse the trajectories of such ‘heartthrobs” as Jason Donovan or Kylie Monouge: as some of its major ‘stars’ to have ever made it ‘big’ as international celebrities. Monouge’s career has been so huge at different times in the past that she can safely be considered to be in a close orbit with Madonna. And like The Material Girl, their translation onto the big screen has been poorly, to say the least. Donavon is certainly a great character actor, as witnessed in relevant ABC dramas’ however his film performances has been meagre – nothing much more than shorts. And likewise with Monouge, a successful transition to song, her ‘star appeal’ is obscured by the novelty-value of such a compelling Diva, Any realistic expectation that she could make a production preform, solely as a central character would be difficult. Although she has been successful when cast as an interesting ensemble member in a music genre - as seen as in her performance as the Green Fairy in Moulin Rouge.

If such a thing as television were to be used as a reliable and bankable predictor of possible box office takings, outside the universal and easy appeal of comedy: Eric Bana, Jimeoin and Magda Szubanski - where audiences do not become so readily attached, and performers typecast, then perhaps such a thing may only be possible in the domain of a radically reconceptualized synthesis of that fraction of the television market’s insertion, directly into the cinema industry - as part of a ‘parallel release’ marketing strategy for example. 

In cinema, we would want marquees to be fresh and not from television. To know of them but not about them, to not necessarily be so familiar or have some understanding of them but instead, to be surprised to find them in such a different and new context - if we must choose from such a stable, and under such conditions. However, that said, clearly, such fetishizing of performers in other media is important if box-office returns are to remains a critical financing model and marketing strategy of global cinema markets. This of course is to say nothing negative about casting an unknown into a perfect role, or near enough. It is that in doing so, a production can easily shift from one considered to have a ‘mainstream’ potential to that of an ‘alternative’ production, where financing and marketing models shift accordingly.

Everyone wants to make a ‘quality’ film and everybody then thinks that they have these ‘mainstream’ films that can be played in mega/multiplexes. More often than not ‘quality’ usually mean ‘Arthouse.’ In some instances the ‘majors’ distributors can pick these up for mega/multiplex release - consider Warwick Thornton’s Samson and Delilah (2009 - but if they do not preform well then they are quickly pulled for other material. Such a rational can be to the detriment of the production: where in the past a film was allowed to build its audience and widens its release run in line with the buzz generated, a parallel release can also be its death.

It comes down to how desperate you are to have you film made and how realistic you are in understanding what you actually hold in your hands to make.

On the question of What Constitutes a Truely Australian Cinema?

 

For me, this flags the venerable Nobel Laureate for Literature, Alexander Solzhenitsyn - who struggled with how to tell the truth about the horrible and savage things that people can do each other and who, sadly, died earlier this week.  A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich was for Solzhenitsyn a fondly remembered twenty-year stretch in Joseph Stalin’s dystopian ‘Gulag Archipelago’, followed by a further three-year exile in the ‘decedent’ West for such treason! (Go figure) A dissident to the end, Solzhenitsyn, and after a pardon from good old ’Gorby,’ returned to his beloved Russia only to now reject the ’reforming’ Russia of Vladimir Putin and his predecessor, the ubiquitous tea-totter, Boris Yeltsin, arguing that Russia was intrinsically a separate civilisation with its unique culture and destiny and not Euro-centric, and as such, requires a separate system, whether it be economic or cultural, adapted to its history and traditions.

Perhaps the point here is that of hegemony, of the parallels with nationalist sentiments raised around questions of a successful national cinema for Australia: Can we, as Australians, consider ourselves to be in a similar position and make a similar claim as Solzhenitsyn? Russia historically has the advantage of a cultural tradition dating back a thousand years, whereas Australia's colonial history, since its brutal beginning as a savage and ruthless penal colony, is less than a quarter of that. Yet like Solzhenitsyn's claim for Russia, and doubly more so for us now with the contention that Australia lies on the precipice of itself as a republic, must it be also then that Australia too should go its own way, so as to demonstrate through our cinema that we, and like Russia, are no longer so Euro-centric, nor even American for that matter, to be able to produce a successful cinema that reflects who we are?

But then, are even nationalist sentiments an appropriate call in which to find a successful and prosperous cinema within?

I agree with the premise thus far about 'divergent points': that the smart play is a game-plan for both camps: "to be unique to... national origins, but as well, to represent points of connection to other cultures. However, both of these are also problematic in that a definition of how each is constituted must be attempted, and that certainly limits Carmine's point about the misguided appeal of universal themes.

Interestingly, if Philip Adams is to be understood, in his contribution to "Australian Cinema" (Allan and Unwin, 1994), on articulating the proposition for the new Australian national film industry - his historical ‘godchild, it was George Miller’s Mad Max, produced by Adams, that broke the mould of an Australian film for only 'reflective audiences', i.e., Art House, and which made the transition to the truly 'big time', as the first international blockbuster success. So the question then also is, what was so Australian about Mad Max that it should become such an international blockbuster if being ‘Australian’ was the basis of its success?

If not, then what was for sale—a sample of our unique national origins? (Mel is certainly far closer to that in his roles as Fletcher Christian than he is in this rendition of a ‘national character' or type, surely?) 

Or was it the films ‘connectivity’ with other cultures: post-holocaust, future holocaust, or American collective cultural paranoia? It seems unlikely, or do we really share a universal distress about lawlessness and tribalism in a possible post-holocaust or cataclysmic-event world? Do we honestly feel that Australia's first-world prosperity and security conditions are under threat from such events, even after seeing the film? 

I think not.

Perhaps, instead, and this is my point: there is also a separate and different category or approach that can be set apart from these sentiments that are only to do with a nationalistic type of unique cinema? 

A category that parallels and can, if need be, respect such clustering and sentiments - as vague and problematic as they may be, that is more attuned to the economics and universal themes of an international spectacle, a category more along the lines of a blockbuster production style? 

Cinema, as spectacle first: to overcome the dominant economic model of parallel distribution, maximising box-office revenues, and competing successfully in global distribution markets for television, DVD, and merchandise also? 

I'm not suggesting that I would or do disregard films that fit a national or cultural profile (yet to be determined), but consider that there seem to be historical difficulties in attempting to define a successful cinema only in terms that must cogently reflect us: as to who we are, where we have come from, what we might possibly be, or what we want for ourselves.

Is it possible, then, that alternatively we can have the same sort of confidence in such a thing as trans-national cinema, where we uniquely participate with production skills first, so as to be competitive for film productions globally, then next with acting talent working in global markets, and eventually with writers and the production and distribution sector, competing in the global market with strong resources to commission their own competitively funded productions with refocused and invigorated visionary production crews? 

To model our industry economically on a Hollywood style of production is to compete technically and financially while gaining access to the means of distribution that have so long hampered and strangled the Australian cinema industry.

To speak culturally, or 'traditionally', and only in terms of national characters is, to my mind, to eventually limit all productions only to us, and then, as we become bored with ourselves once again, to diminish our potential to keep funding stories and to make films.

Anyway, that’s enough of my musings.
So of course, vodka! Solzhenitsyn!

Thank you for your life.