The problem of perception
Showbusiness is about risk. What Australian film takes a risk? Name me one Australian movie in the last 10 years that’s had one special effect in it.
We can think of many that take considerable risks, but how can the industry fight unfounded perceptions such as this one, recently published in The Sun-Herald?
Columnist David Dale compared the Australian film industry to a zombie this weekend.
Every time you think it’s dead, buried and nibbled by maggots, it staggers out of the grave and gives a shocking insight into what Australians want in homegrown entertainment.
Dale laments that Beneath Hill 60 will soon end its cinema run with $3m, just as much as he laments the fact that The Kings of Mykonos: Wog Boy 2 had a strong opening of $2.3m in its first seven days.
We want slapstick gags, stupid heroes, girls in bikinis, lame dialogue, cultural stereotypes and disco dancing. And here’s what we don’t want: strong characters, intelligent acting, historical accuracy and thoughtful analysis of issues.
It’s the old culture vs. entertainment debate that has plagued Australia for decades.
Make something deep and challenging, and it’s accused of being depressing and boring and a waste of money. Make something light and brainless, and it’s accused of being idiotic and tacky and a waste of money.
It seems like there’s no middle ground, and unfortunately, it’s the kind of rhetoric that fuels the perceptions and opinions of the mainstream Australian audience – a majority of which will talk about being burnt out by “boring”, “depressing” films, but can’t actually name the title of one such offending film. It’s a matter of perception; of a self-perpetuating urban legend. That’s the toughest challenge of all. It’s an unkillable beast.
Dale’s column published the opinions of four of his readers. The one that opened this article comes from Mitchell Hall.
At Encore, we can give Hall a list of at least 10 Australian films in 2009/2010 that have taken some kind of risk, particularly in terms of the issues they deal with – from the successful Samson & Delilah and Balibo, to low profile projects such as My Tehran for Sale or Blessed. If anything, Australian filmmakers take too many risks! And, are special effects supposed to be synonymous with ‘risk’, or the only key to success?
If a claymation film about the pen-friendship between a New Yorker with Asperger syndrome and a Melbourne girl whose problems take her to the verge of suicide is not risky, we don’t know what is.
A J. Barrie adds:
While we have fine technical people, we suffer from poor direction, undisciplined production standards … Many Australian films these days look like home movies.
We wonder what films Barrie is talking about. While the limitations of ultra-low budget independent releases might be noticeable on screen, most Australian films deliver high production that other developed nations would struggle to achieve for their kind of budgets.
However, arguing about the quality of our cinema is a pointless exercise because, when it comes to movies, everybody thinks they’re an expert. Even the best of our films have to deal with an audience that has seen few Australian films, yet has strong beliefs and preconceptions that must be addressed with the same urgency as the diversification of our slate. Change that perception, and everything will fall into place.
I can certainly respect a philosophy that puts entertainment value over didactism but, sometimes, creative people try to use the “its just supposed to be a bit of dumb fun” bit to excuse poor work. The truth is, if you aim to inspire, to move, to excite, you will inevitably find yourself (perhaps much to your horror) entertaining.
Arthouse films often simply referse this philosophy, aiming first to lecture us on the ways of the world and second to be entertaining. Its the same philosophy reversed, and both show a lack of ambition. The aim should not merely be to educate or merely to amuse, but to tell a story populated with interesting, engaging, relatable characters.
While its not the case across the board, you can’t deny that there is a very strong attitude of elitism and pseudo-intellectualism running through film culture in Australia, from the small indie producers to the executives at Screen Australia. There’s almost a studio mentality – commercial = stupid, simple, slapstick and arthouse = edgy, provocative, lofty and above all subdued. As you say, apparently there’s no middle ground.
It goes to show that there arent so much “smart films” and “dumb films”, “important films and “shallow films”, as just plain “good films” and “bad films”. So many of the supposedly high-minded films of recent years haven’t failed because they’re intelligent, but because they’re bad. At least recently, the high-minded films have been great – Balibo, Samson and Delilah, The Square…and Animal Kingdom is out there taking the world by storm. The thing is, you can’t expect people to come flying back because a few good films came out.
I can tell you right now that I hated Somersault, Candy and above all The Proposition. The former two were overly-concerned with being edgy and gritty and provocative and, despite being made well in all technical respects, failed to be engaging. The Proposition broke my heart. Here it was, finally, the Australian western we have been waiting for. Here’s a chance to make something gripping and exciting and old-fashioned. But no – instead we get Guy Pearce riding around with weirdo poetry whispering in his head for two hours. That film so staunchly AVOIDED being entertaining and was so concerned with being different and “subverting expectations” that is made me want to give up on Australian cinema altogether.
There is a trust that needs to be re-established, and its going to take a few years of consistently good films – both arthouse and commercial – to get Australian back in the cinema (or hell, get the films in the mainstream cinemas and out of the damn Independent houses).
User ID not verified.
One more thing
I enjoyed Balibo very much, but in many ways it illustrates the problem – as an expose and an indictment of atrocity, it is very very good. But as a film in its own right, its only pretty good. We get a lead character who is slowly drawn away from his complacency and into the middle of conflict. That’s interesting stuff, but hardly groundbreaking.
And if you listen to Robert Connelly’s interview’s about the film, you hear him say very clearly that his interest in film has shifted away from the actual narrative possibilities and further into using film as an educational medium. So right there, one of Australia’s star film makers saying upfront that cinema has limited possibilities for him.
User ID not verified.
As a screenwriter – and also a script developer and one of those dreaded ‘outside readers’ for Screen Australia, et al. – I would endorse the comments of Jonathan Adams, including his choice of non-entertaining films. From the start of my patchy career, I have never seen the validity of the distinction between ‘art’ and ‘entertainment’. True, some films are too demanding or too ‘depressing’ or simply not to someone’s taste. But in the end there are only good films and bad films. Didn’t Oscar Wilde say something to the same effect, even if he wasn’t talking about movies? If you want to preach to the masses, you better disguise it extremely well within a good story. Start where the audience is if you want to take them somewhere else. Filmmakers who only think about the audience in terms of what ‘they’ should know end up with a misery-fest. Such stories do not suit the times.
User ID not verified.