Federal Budget Bad for Film Business

A drop in film production? You mean we can get lower than the current situation? I will not be surprised if Howard is out by the end of the year. He's really doing all the wrong things at the moment. Any mention of the budget for theatre? Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

I'm sure there will be some sort of uproar from the artistic community about any/all of the arts budgets. They seem to be getting worse and worse. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Uh, yeah... except that's usually when the artists start speaking up. It's when we're all fed and happy that we don't protest as much. (It's just we're not using government money to do so) Take the sedition laws... the number of playwrights who started writing about 9/11 and loss of freedom, and Howard spoofs, etc. became quite large after the release of the laws. Now we're used to them, and there doesn't seem to be as much. (Wait til David Hicks' book comes out... there'll be a 1000 and 1 plays about him) Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

One of our biggest problems is obvious from the fact that really only half a dozen people actually cooment on these issues here. Most people don't care or don't understnd the long term implications of what is happening. The most conservative federal government of Australia is in charge of the country at a time when labour is becoming more and more centralist and conservative then ever before. Today's labour pollies look a bit like the conservatives of the early seventies and Howards mob are beginning to look a little to the right of Attilla the Hun. Bob Brown and his mob only care about trees and the Lib dems spend so much time fighting amongst themselves they have completely failed to notice they are now totally irrelevant. The Arts are either strangled or bribed into the establishment. People like La Mama Melbourne lose funding thereby effectively strngling them selves as they have to search for money to keep the doors open and the various State Theatre Companys simply produce unchallenging middle of the road theatre. I think I need to go and lie down. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

While I am lying down already, I think I have to agree. Most people don't know and don't care. (I know I'm generalising - I mean the average Aussie who isn't actively involved in the arts) Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

The same thing happened in the UK recently. While it may be harder to get independent funding: 1) the amount of government funding has gone up 2) there are low-budget feature film initiatives 3) it may actually mean a coherent script makes it to film (you know, one that also makes money) Ask anyone in the street to name 10 australian films. Or even name five successful australian films. Three? Okay yes there were a few in the last year that made tiny amounts of money. Okay three financially successful australian films in the past 10 years. Hmm.

Muriel's Wedding Priscilla, Queen of the Desert Shine (We have to remember these are hot exports) Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

muriel, priscilla, shine, piano, ballroom, romper, castle are all past the 10yr limit Rabbit proof was not successful. Just because a film wins accolades doesn't mean it's any good. Happy Feet? Ahem. Well that one penguin sounded australian...right? Moulin ROuge? australian? last time I checked the moulin rouge was in france. Sure it was shot in australia. Not Mentioned yet The Proposition (2006) was good: probably the slickest looking australian film. Period. (Guy Pierce, David Wenham) Japanese Story. Sure. It looked nice. But wooden actors and a wooden storyline don't win bucks. So the sum of it all: The only movie's in the past ten years that made any money whatsover were by established directors. Like rats from a sinking ship.

How about we start this discussion again, but have more definitive terms? Like what do you define as successful? Is it the ones that made money? Or is it the ones that win awards? Is it both? As usual, we have hit on the more obvious point of: all art is subjective and therefore one man's likes are another man's dislikes. And it does not detract from the original statement, which is that the government is doing its best to hamper any good (whatever that may mean to you) local creativity. Edit: Labrug brings another point. Wolf Creek may have died here, but it was a big international hit. I'd say more and more of our films are bigger overseas than they are here. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip

Rabbit Proof Fence did well in the UK. When was The Dish? Anyway, what exactly is this argument about. Oh and by the way, shot in Australia by an Austtralian crew should count as it brings the bucks into the country and the industry. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

"Today's labour (sic) pollies look a bit like the conservatives of the early seventies and Howards mob are(sic)beginning to look a little to the right of Attilla the Hun. Bob Brown and his mob only care about trees and the Lib dems spend so much time fighting amongst themselves they have completely failed to notice they are now totally irrelevant." - Who the hell are the Lib dems? Ssstinger>>>

Okay for your definitions Successful: Makes money on release. High returns to the artists. Enough to fund the director/producer's next film without having to rely on government grants. Popular: Makes money, but maybe not the greatest written, directed or acted (eg the new pirates movie) A better example would be the fast and furious movies, or american pie movies. Cult: Popular in the long run but didn't make much in release. Usually referred to as long term. Masterpiece: Makes money and is brilliantly everything (eg The Departed) Australian: About australian life/culture (note: this does not mean indigenous). Filmed in australia, by australians about australia. (excludes moulin rouge, happy feet) Memorable: When asked films in general, people say "h Hence: Name a memorable australian masterpiece from the last ten years. ps: Yes okay we forgot about wolf creek in terms of successful. (why did we forget?(!)). Could have been better. any others? no.

Spent too much time in the UK recently. I meant of course the Australian Democrats. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Why do you not include Indigenous work? Surely that should count as Australian? And again, you list all these qualifying terms, but then say 'Wolf creek could have been better'. It is in your eyes that it could have been better. That does not make it unsuccessful. Subjective v objective. I could talk to twenty industry professionals who could all come up with completely different qualifiers for 'successful', none of whom would be wrong. Let's just agree to disagree. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip

we are discussing here. Surely a successful film made in australia with australian crews that increases expertise brings in money and makes the performers used to working here has to count as an australian film. May I make one small comment about some films I have seen in recent times. Some directors and writers seem sometimes determined to make australian culture so australian it no longer has any resonance with overseas watchers, hence the film gains no audience anywhere except New Zealand where they probably won't watch it because it's Australian. Some film makers make australian culture universal enough to strike chords in overseas audiences without making the film american or british The Dish The Castle and Strictly Ballroom come to mind as does "The Man Who Sued God" which was really popular in the UK (Billy Connolly)and incidently must be inside your ten year limit. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I do so like our constructive arguments. Yes. My definition's are my definitions. I think there was a miscommunique about the 'indig' factor. As limited as writing is (without churning out another feature length worthy script to explain my viewpoint), I try at least to convey some of my perspective. So the man who sued god was an austrlian film? See i never knew that. And I should have. FOrgive me for not connecting billy Connolly with australia. 9was it even a good film? i thought it was a lousy concept. certainly it didn't boom at the box office) Okay Let's try again: Name an iconic australian film made in the last ten years. Name an australian film (nonanimation) that did well at the box office. See? it's really hard and it shouldn't be. The above questions 'should' be able to be asked of Joe Schlub on the street, and they should be able to at least answer with "well there was that one with " Ps: And to the question "What's the?" we are pinpointing why the australian movie industry is so abysmal by first analysing market value of product. Understand? Good. PS I suspect 'Australia' will do well. Since it's Baz Nicole Hugh and 150 million.

Of course it's hard to do... this comes back to the funding. There is less Aussie film/TV being made. There has also been a decline in quality. You can't blame the filmmakers for producing less; most people want to produce more (and with better quality), but can't afford to. This is why there is an influx of short films, films produced on mobile phones, etc. Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip

I am getting a handle on where you are coming from. First of all in defence of "The Man Who Sued God" which I really like it may not have been a blockbuster but it did OK once again better overseas then here but it featured an all australian cast other than Billy Connolly and was a very Australian film in many ways. Beyond that I do tend to agree with you I think. The Australian Film industry makes very bad films on the whole. That's largely because of, in my humble opinion, bad writing. I still don't feel that if a film made in this country is not about Australia you can say it is not an australian film unless like some of those fifties Hollywood films made here the entire cast crew and production team are imported. After all if India makes (as they have) films about other countries they are still considered Bollywood and the US make huge numbers of films set in other countries and using nationals of other countrys in them and they are still Hollywood movies. No I can't name an iconic Australian Movie made in the last ten years that was successful. In fact if I'm not allowed to include Baz Luhrman the only Aus film made in the last ten years that I have seen and enjoyed was the road trip movie with Steady Eddy in it and I can't remember what it was called. Oh and "He died with a Felafell in his hand" which proves one of my points because overseas audiences simply won't understand it. Oh and my wife just read this thread and said "Jindabyne" which is recent and seems to have been very successful and very Australian. (Later edit: I have just realised that Jindabyne almost certainly fails your test as an aussie film as it stars Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney.) If this offends I am sorry but your definition of successful seems to include "If I saw it and liked it." Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

For some reason this thread has got under my skin. I'm not sure why but overnight I was thinking what about the Great Australian Cultural Cringe. We don't (we being the man in the street) support Australian art unless it is made overseas. Australian films (with some very honourable exceptions) tend to go well overseas if they can get a distribution deal (next problem) while not doing well here until overseas critics have told us it's all right to like it because it's quite good really. Or am I being unfair. I have to admit I go to the cinema very rarely and then only to see big blockbuster comedies on the whole. I am a simple soul really. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I don't think you're being unfair. I think this is the general feeling about Aussie film products at the moment. I think because the standard has decreased over a period of time, most people in the back of their minds are now looking at Aussie produced stuff in a bad light. And then when it becomes a hit overseas, we're surprised. Or perhaps we have simply gotten into a rut comparing old classics or Aussie blockbusters, with what's being produced now, which is in quite a different style. We have to also remember (and you point it out without realising it) that more and more people are staying home with their DVD players, and that movie tix sales are becoming less important as movie more and more recoup their costs at the local video store. (Hey, Futurama was brought back to TV because of their DVD sales) Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip

Hmm. Interesting Points. It seems that Austrlaia is becoming a hub for outsourcing creativity. I hear a lot of "the industry in perth etc could be as big as eastern states/us" But now I am beginning to ask the question "why?" Why, exactly, would australian talent need to develop in australia? Is it simple naivete that thinks that australia should be a moviemaking hub as is india europe and the US? It certainly isn't a bad thing that talent is outsourced: Nicole Hugh Cate Naomi and Geoffrey all carry major films and are icons in themselves and of australia. Statistically, Australian actors are doing exceptionally in the movie industry considering we have <4% of the western population and greater than 10% of the world's top 50 actors (of course, this is subject to varying opinion) I think the best analogy is this: We could try to be a big fish in a small pond, or a slightly smaller fish in a gigantic pond. Yes it is hard as an actor in the australian industry, but it is that persistence and ability that carries through and makes australian actors memorable in the international industry.

You seem to forget that we also outsource our technical people too - Beyond Productions for example used to (and still do) make programs in Australia about 'the products of the future'. And yet they hit international gold by creating and producing Mythbusters. Many of the big name Aussie actors you list above lament the situation in Australia, and some big names have been known to take huge pay cuts (or offer their services for pay/play) in order to return to Australia and perform in indie films. They want to support the industry here, but know that to further their careers they have to go overseas. By the way, Cate is the AD at STC. If you didn't know. So you certainly can't lump her in. You almost hit on something else many of us forget. Why does Australian talent 'need' to develop here? I know a great performer who went over to America to study. And then she came back and spent years working as a producer (and still does on occasion). I know another actress who came here (yes, she came to Melbourne!) to study acting... and she's from the US! We're not just exporting people, but there are heaps of others coming here to learn. The learning experience, whether it is overseas or in your own country, helps you create a better, stronger industry in the long run. Why should we assume that to make our industry stronger, Aussies must stay here to do it? Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.thepromptcopy.com/pip