The slate of Australian films for this year is going to be 35, which is pretty amazing. Heaven only knows how this was achieved, but it seems the Australian industry is finally headed back to producing some kind of volume. It's not quite a geyser, but it is much better than the trickle of the previous 2 -3 years.
Such is the time-lag between financing and release that nobody in the industry seems to have realised the impact of a move by the now-defunct federal government agency, the Film Finance Corporation, to boost the struggling production industry using the tax offset scheme that was introduced in 2007. That agency, which funded most of this country's films for two decades, was merged with two other film bodies to create Screen Australia last July.
As a result, the film industry's apparently perennial famine could turn into a feast if these films are as good as their film-makers hope. There is certainly more variety in the line-up than the recent domination of small, dark dramas by first-time directors.
But industry hardheads question whether cinemas will have space for so many Australian films, fearing the crush will force a series of painfully short releases.
"I really do see it as an exciting year," the chief executive of Screen Australia, Ruth Harley, says. "There's a lot of films and there are some really good ones and there are films of scale by experienced directors. So I think there's every chance that we'll get films that meet big audiences as well as films that meet their niche audiences."
The slate has started promisingly with the controversial Lebanese-Australian drama The Combination taking almost $600,000 in three weeks, despite being temporarily pulled from Greater Union cinemas after two violent incidents involving audiences.
So what we're seeing is the last gasp spending of the late FFC coming into play. Of course, the usual caveats apply, seeing that they are Australian films and more importantly, come from the FFC's odd development guidelines that favored many an uncommercial product.
While there is an excellent chance to better the meager Australian share of total box office - 4.4 per cent on average recently - these films face some brutal realities. Outside the Hollywood-backed Happy Feet (which took $31.8 million) and Australia ($37.2 million), none of this country's films has taken $3 million since 2006.
That reflects their limited interest to mainstream audiences and their small-scale releases, often on fewer than 30 of the country's 1900-odd screens, which puts them in art-house and independent cinemas rather than multiplexes. By comparison, the Hollywood comedy Confessions Of A Shopaholic opened on 309 screens last weekend.
Hollywood can cleverly market average movies like Confessions, but Australian releases need to be above average to succeed.
The executive director of the Independent Cinemas Association of Australia, Mark Sarfaty, is guardedly hopeful about the year's prospects. "From what we know, there does appear to be a more commercial mindset applied to some of them. But equally some of them seem to be the same types of Australian films that audiences haven't responded well to. If you double the output of those types of films, they'll struggle to find screen space amongst films that cinema operators have got more faith in."
Sarfaty says that while national box office jumped 5.6 per cent last year, takings for films released on 30 or fewer screens crashed, showing that films in art-houses, like their multiplex counterparts, need to be "events" or "special" to succeed. "My concern is that if we don't manage the mesh between production and exhibition very carefully, we'll be a bit like the container ships lining up outside Newcastle looking for uploading facilities. We'll have all these films lined up and nowhere for them to go."
Oh well. It's still better that it rains a bit too hard than to have more drought. Like the article says, with any luck, one of these films will inspire more people to come and watch Australian films, and there are 35 shots at that this year. It's better than 14-15 attempts.
Criminality And the Aussie Mindset
I have a friend who is a Kiwi and wants to be in the movies. The nly poblem is that there isn't much of a industry to break into in Australia. Anyway, he told me today that he noticed something about Australian audiences. They like criminality.
"What? That's a bit broad isn't it?" I asked. (maybe I should've whined 'you can't generalise...')
"Naah. Think about it. Superman flops but Batman works. Why? Because the leading Aussie plays the crim. Some of the biggest hits in the Australian consciousness are about crims."
"Larrikins," I said,
"Naah. Convicts mate, convicts. It's the convict mentality. The criminal mindset. Heath Ledger does Ned Kelly? They're interested. Bana's turn as 'Chopper'? Aussies are in for it. Heck, they love the books. 'Dirty Deeds'? Great. 'Underbelly'? Ratings winner. Even with American stuff, the Aussies like a good crook. 'Pirates of the Carribbean' series is such an ordinary bunch of movies but they're huge here. Why?"
"Johnny Depp, I guess," I said
"No, no, it's not just because they have Johnny Depp. It's actually because he's playing a crim. Nobody likes Orlando Bloom's character in those movies. It's the shifty criminal pirate that the Aussies love. Then there's 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Reservoir Dogs' by Tarantino - both about crimnals galore. They should just do reality shows with criminal themes like 'Safe crackers' or 'Con men' 'hooker for a month' and the TV Station would never lose in the ratings"
"How did you figure all this?"
"It's because Aussies and Kiwis are so similar, but there are just some crucial differences in our outlooks on things; and I keep thinking about those. Australia really was a convict settlement and hasn't shaken off that cultural heritage."
Whoah! I thought. He went on and on with examples which, while not being completely conclusive, one had to sit there and think about the mass of evidence. That's all just his theory - but it was so out of the blue that I thought I'd blog it here.
As If To Underscore The Above...
David Dale's column says this:
Bert Newton's unfortunate resemblance to a melting wax dummy has not discouraged cool young adults from watching his nostalgia series 20 To 1. It's the 10th most watched show of the week with viewers aged 16-39. The explanation may lie in Channel Nine's ploy of putting the words "Adults Only" in the title, thereby suggesting 20 To 1 has developed the attractions of Underbelly, which is No. 1 with younger viewers.
The violence and nudity of Underbelly has not turned off the senior citizens of Australia - it's the fourth most watched show with viewers aged over 55, although their favourite is the sentimental Find My Family.
The Gruen Transfer stabs at the very heart of capitalism - the right of big business to con poor people out of their money - yet it is the second most watched show of Wednesday (after Spicks And Specks) by the rich - or "OG1/2" (the highest- and second highest-earning occupational groups). Sadly, it is only ninth with "Grocery buyers", who might benefit from Gruen's advice. They prefer Criminal Minds and Australia's Got Talent, where advertisers reach them unfiltered.
In the new demographics of TV, aka the niching of Australia, programmers no longer ask: "How many people watch that show?" but instead: "What kind of people watch that show?" Each morning the ratings measurement agency OzTAM gives its subscribers a dissection of the previous night's audience by age, gender, geography and wealth. Advertisers then know where to get the biggest bang for their buck.
It's possible to answer the questions all viewers shout at the screen sooner or later: "Why did they take off that terrific program, when it has plenty of viewers?" and "Why do they keep showing that ridiculous program, which only an idiot would watch?" The answers will be: "Because it doesn't attract the niche the advertisers want" and "There's always something you can sell to an idiot."
I kid you not!
No comments:
Post a Comment