There's a film doing the rounds that chronicles the genre film days of the Australian cinema. Yes, the on that would occasionally make some money, but above all, the politically-correct cadre spent a hysterical amount of energy burying. I hope they're happy with the industry they have now. Here's an article here sent in by Pleiades.
THE official history of Australian cinema records that the modern industry flourished in the 1970s on the back of new interest and investment from prime ministers John Gorton and Gough Whitlam.Sometimes it just makes you want to cry when you think about the opportunities lost.A clutch of well-received art films by directors who would become respected Hollywood figures, such as Fred Schepisi, Phillip Noyce and Peter Weir, consolidated that investment.
The reality, of course, was more complex and, for some, a little more embarrassing. The '70s also generated a raft of genre films that were culturally regressive, provocative and occasionally very successful.
The Barry McKenzie and Alvin Purple films are the best-remembered commercial beachheads for what became a fertile period for soft porn (including The Naked Bunyip and Pacific Banana), action (The Man From Hong Kong), horror (Dead-End Drive In, Patrick) and thriller films (Turkey Shoot, Road Games, Long Weekend).
Many were atrocious, particularly in the '80s as mediocrity flourished under the 10BA legislation that allowed film investors to claim a 150 per cent tax concession.
But most were ambitious and, despite their narrative shortcomings, they often recouped their money or played well overseas.
"Whether these films are good or bad, there's certainly an energy you don't find in a lot of contemporary Australian cinema," says Mark Hartley, the director of a loving, frenetic and very funny paean to this forgotten period of Australian cinema, titled Not Quite Hollywood.
"There was an enthusiasm and a can-do attitude in them that possibly doesn't exist today," he says.
Hartley's film is an exercise in can-do. The Melburnian's energy and scholarship excited the interest of some early investors but notthe Film Finance Corporation, which rejected funding for the film despite its historical significance.
"The FFC was a major, major stumbling block," Hartley says. "I could be totally wrong but I always got the sense we were suffering the same fate these films do, that we were still being seen as a documentary that wasn't necessarily worthy enough.
"It's not the public's reaction to these films that has remained; what has remained is the critics' reactions, which were scathing. When you talk to anyone who saw them or worked on them, they're fond and not embarrassed by these films."
No comments:
Post a Comment