This may not be the rave you think it is - the Oz’ OpEd page isn’t known for thoughtful analysis. An American equivalent would be “this needs to be ranted on Fox News by Ann Coulter”.
I’d happily step up on the equivalent of the plinth that they had in London last year.
I’m not sure I buy any of the assumptions here.
For one, the American system certainly does not reward financial failure. Carolco was a major Hollywood player for many years but was essentially destroyed by “Cutthroat Island,” a movie that stands as the absolute pinnacle of wasteful and stupid filmmaking. Michael Cimono’s career was seriously derailed by “Heaven’s Gate.” Elaine May’s career was badly (ad unfairly - she was a talented writer and director) derailed by “Ishtar.” People who make duds are not easily trusted with more money. You might not like movies like “Transformers” but at least it made money, and it’s those filmmakers who keep getting financial backing.
Secondly, the “90% of everything is crap” bit holds true in both countries. As lissener has very correctly pointed out, Australia has made a number of fine movies. The number of good Australian movies is more or less proportional to the size of the film industry as the number of good Hollywood movies. (I hesistate to say American, since the US-based film industry is a very international thing.)
The Australian system can’t make a lot of $200 million movies, true, but then, neither can the AMERICAN system. $200 million movies are unusual, not the norm. Most Hollywood productions are riun on budgets, even the ones made by known quantities. Clint Eastwood is famously economical with his productions.
I think there might be something to this. I’m Canadian, and Canadian movies seem tilted towards portrayals of misery and incest and boredom and more misery. Such Canadians movies as try to appeal to the masses are usually of very low quality. But then, we’re intimately connected with the USA so holding on to film talent is much more difficult here.
Nonetheless, as Peter Jackson proved, if you can sell investors on a movie that will make big buckolas, the investors don’t care where it’s made.
A film with Jenny Agutter in was always a safe bet for kit-offage when I was a young man. Apart from The Railway Children, obviously.
That sounds like the Canadian movie business, but with less snow.
That reminds me, surely there must be some classic low budget Australian horror films?
Whatever you think of Canadian movies, they did make some of the best cheap horror movies of all time.
I’ve listed a couple of pretty good Australian scifi/horror films. Look up “Ozploitation” and you’ll usually find a list of watchable ‘cheap’ movies. Probably one of the better horror films Wake in Fright (aka Outback) has just been rediscovered, but it’s more a psychological horror than a monster/slasher horror.
This reminds me of a question that I meant to ask. Did Australia have a tax shelter law for movies in the 1970s to mid-1980s? During the same time period, Canada had many of the films made just as tax write-offs. Then when the tax laws were changed, the film industry folded a bit. This was the same time period as Porky’s, which was Canada’s most grossing film until a few years ago.
BTW thanks BigNik for the information. I always wondered what happen to the Ozploitation genre. I’ve always been curious as to the cause of a highly to moderately successful genre to disappear. For example, Spaghetti Westerns disappeared not because they were no longer profitable but because the Italian directors began thinking it was beneath them.
Just a quick comment - there is a lot more “crap” from Hollywood that you never see or hear of, but because of the sheer volume of films, those that are good rise to the top and become hits.
In other words, if Australia made, say, 800 films a year, I am sure there would be some really good films popping up.
That said, it does take some pretty hefty budgets to make even a small film these days, so if you can’t find the funding, it is hard to make a film in Australia or even Hollywood these days. Yes, there are some exceptions (Paranormal Activity for instance that cost next to nothing) but for the most part, money talks.
I’ve only seen 3 of those. Japanese Story and Latana were fine, but nothing special. Dirty Deeds was crap and throws the rest into question. Maybe Kenny would be better if you’re trying to sneak in a comedy.
The list is an example of why Australia shouldn’t be in the film industry at all. If these, the best films of the last decade, weren’t ever released, my life wouldn’t’ve been diminished at all. I would’ve rented something else and enjoyed it just as much.
Well-meaning yanks and others keep popping into the thread to say, “yeah, but most Hollywood films are forgettable junk, too.” Sure, but it’s not like people threaten to take unruly children to a Hollywood movie. More importantly, Hollywood makes money. The Australian film industry wastes taxpayer money. It’s like the island of misfit toys was some sort of government boondoggle. Good word, that. Fits the situation.
Should add here that there are some good Aussie documentaries and news-- better imo if the government got out of the kind of movies released to theaters, not the whole lot.
This year there has also been The Boys are Back (72% on Rotten Tomatoes), and Balibo (100%).
No answer for the OP, but Breaker Morant is one of my favorite movies of all time. It’s thrilling, and touching, and poetic, and heartbreaking; a courtroom drama and historical/military adventure that will really stay with you.
Well, the difference there is that Dirty Deeds was enjoyable and Kenny isn’t. By anyone. Even the cretins that thought that the Castle was watchable.
And though I’m older than you, and she’s actually older than I, I can still respect your beliefs.
The last good, low-budget, Australian horror film was Saw - the 2003 short that the makers took to the US to get the money to film a feature-length version.
There have been others (Wolf Creek, Dying Breed, Bloodspit - which was described as “what happens when Troma tries to do without the budget entirely”), but they’re not exactly Ginger Snaps.
Typically they have a budget of about AUD 25 million, and make back about a tenth of that at the box office.
That wasn’t what I was getting at. It’s an important and popular fact that the Australian has a fairly low daily readership- 100,000 or so. But their readership is made up of a fair few “Movers and shakers” (and, importantly, Academics- nearly all my tutors and lecturers read it, for example), and if GuanoLad’s excellent summary was on their OpEd page, it would indubitably be seen by people with some clout to say “You know what? He’s right. Let’s make a fun movie that’s not a no-budget horror, something about Aborigines, or a slice of life set in one of Melbourne’s outer suburbs”.
So I was actually intending praise, not being a sarcastic so and so, in case anyone was in doubt about that point.
The South Koreans of all people recently made an excellent Spaghetti Western (Set in Mancuria c. 1940) called The Good, The Bad, The Weird. Well worth seeing, IMHO.
This is off topic, but I must bring it up. I haven’t seen The Good, The Bad and The Weird yet, not have I seen Takashi Miike’s Sukiyaki Western Django either. I’ve been meaning to though. However, a few years ago I did see Tears of the Black Tiger, a Thai musical spaghetti western, that was quite entertaining. Yes, I did say musical.
What Australia needs is an entrepreneur with a Roger Corman-like approach, to encourage a steady stream of low budget filmmakers to be supported and nurtured, and develop into mainstream successes.
never mind
Kenny was shown by our local highbrow art-house indy film series last year, and later brought back as an “audience favorite.” :eek: I didn’t see it either time.
Maybe I saw a different Dirty Deeds. We’re talking about a late 60s mob story revolving around a young man who wants to bring pizza to Australia? Because that one was only enjoyable in a loose sense of the word. “Endurable” fits better. It has a 72% at RT, but I chalk that up to +30% “let’s encourage those poor bastards” vote. I say that because 42% sounds about right to me.
Kenny, incidentally, has 100%, so at least a few people enjoyed it. Again, subtract 30% for the pity vote and 70% sounds about right.
You’re off on Wolf Creek as well, if you’re saying that it grossed about 2.5 mil. All up it pulled about 27 mil. I don’t know what the budget was, but 25 mil sounds high to me.