Australian feature films and distribution: Industry or cottage industry?

Feature films remain critical flagships to any national film industry. Australian feature films can be highly commercial endeavours that also perform symbolic functions by embodying the national imaginary in big screen based sound and imagery. They conduct a dialogue with domestic audiences as well as showcase key aspects of Australia in the global film festival circuit. As the pre-eminent filmmaking form, feature films also serve as important launchpads for the careers of many Australian writers, directors, actors and technical crew. In the wake of over a decade of diminished share of local box office obtained by Australian feature films, Australian Feature Films and Distribution: Industry or cottage industry, examines issues in the production sector affecting the performance of Australian feature films and some responses by the central funding and support screen agency, Screen Australia.

Australian animated feature films

Building on and bringing up to date the material presented in the first installment of Directory of World Cinema : Australia and New Zealand, this volume continues the exploration of the cinema produced in Australia and New Zealand since the beginning of the twentieth century. Among the additions to this volume are in-depth treatments of the locations that feature prominently in the countries' cinema. Essays by leading critics and film scholars consider the significance in films of the outback and the beach, which is evoked as a liminal space in Long Weekend and a symbol of death in Heaven's Burning, among other films. Other contributions turn the spotlight on previously unexplored genres and key filmmakers, including Jane Campion, Rolf de Heer, Charles Chauvel, and Gillian Armstrong.

Whither culture? Australian horror films and the limitations of cultural policy

Cultural policy that attempts to foster the Australian film industry’s growth and development in an era of globalisation is coming under increasing pressure. Throughout the 2000s, there has been a substantial boom in Australian horror films led by ‘runaway’ horror film Saw (2004), Wolf Creek (2005), and Undead (2003), achieving varying levels of popularity and commercial success worldwide. However, emerging within a national cinema driven by public subsidy and valuing ‘quality’ and ‘cultural content’ over ‘entertainment’ and ‘commercialism’, horror films have generally been antithetical to these objectives. Consequently, the recent boom in horror films has occurred largely outside the purview and subvention of cultural policy. This paper argues that global forces and emerging production and distribution models are challenging the ‘narrowness’ of cultural policy – a narrowness that mandates a particular film culture, circumscribes certain notions of value and limits the variety of films produced domestically. Despite their low-culture status, horror films have been well suited to the Australian film industry’s financial limitations, they are a growth strategy for producers, and a training ground for emerging filmmakers.

A silver bullet for Australian cinema? Genre movies and the audience debate

There has been a renaissance in Australian genre cinema in recent years. Indeed, not since the 1980s have Australian genre movies across action, adventure, horror, and science-fiction among others, experienced such prominence within production, policy discourse, and industry debate. Genre movies, typically associated with commercial filmmaking and entertainment, have been identified as a strategy to improve the box-office performance of Australian feature films and to attract larger audiences. Much of this conversation has revolved around the question of whether or not genre can deliver on these high expectations and transform the unpredictable local film industry into a popular and profitable commercial production sector. However, this debate for the most part has been disconnected from analysis of Australia’s genre movie heritage in terms of their position within Australian cinema and their reception with domestic audiences, and how this correlates to contemporary trends. As this chapter argues, genre production is not a silver bullet which will single handedly improve the Australian feature film industry’s commercial performance. Genre movies have occupied, and continue to occupy, a difficult position within Australian cinema and face numerous challenges in terms of reception with national audiences, limited production scale and enterprise structures, and ongoing tensions between culture and commerce.

Rules of engagement: Cross-cultural glances in critical writing on recent French and Australian 'youth' films

This Article does not have an abstract.

At breaking point? Challenges for Australian film policy through the lens of genre (horror) films

Cultural policy settings attempting to foster the growth and development of the Australian feature film industry in era of globalisation are coming under increasing pressure. Global forces and emerging production and distribution models are challenging the “narrowness” of cultural policy – mandating a particular film culture, circumscribing certain notions of value and limiting the variety of films produced through cultural policy driven subvention models. Australian horror film production is an important case study. Horror films are a production strategy well suited to the financial limitations of the Australian film industry with competitive advantages for producers against international competitors. However, emerging within a “national” cinema driven by public subsidy and social/cultural objectives, horror films – internationally oriented with a low-culture status – have been severely marginalised within public funding environments. This paper introduces Australian horror film production, and examines the limitations of cultural policy, and the impacts of these questions for the Producer Offset.

Dutch tilt, Aussie auteur : the films of Rolf de Heer. 2nd ed.

Dutch-born Australian director, Rolf de Heer, is Australia's most successful and unpredictable film-maker, with thirteen feature films of widely varying style and genre to his name. Arising from the author's 2006 - 2009 PhD research at the Queensland University of Technology (which focussed on the psychoanalytic use of sound in his films), and a fixed term Research Fellowship at the National Film and Sound Archive in Canberra, Australia, "Dutch Tilt, Aussie Auteur: The Films of Rolf de Heer" was first published in 2009 by VDM in Saarbrucken, Germany. This second edition addresses de Heer's additional film-making since 2009, and as with the first edition, is an auteur analysis of the thirteen feature films he has directed (and mostly written and produced). The book explores the theoretical instability of the concept of auteurism and concludes that there is a signature world view to be detected in his oeuvre, and that de Heer (quite possibly unconsciously) promotes unlikely protagonists who are non-hyper masculine, child-like and nurturing, as opposed to the typical Hollywood hero who is macho, exploitative and hyper masculine. Rolf de Heer was born in Heemskerk, Holland, in 1951 and migrated to Australia with his family in 1959. He spent seven years working for the ABC before gaining entry to Australia's Film, Television and Radio School, where he studied Producing and Directing. From his debut feature film after graduating, the children's story about the restoration of a Tiger Moth biplane, "Tail of a Tiger" (1984) to his breakout cult sensation "Bad Boy Bubby" (1993) which "tore Venice [Film Festival] apart" to the first Aboriginal Australian language film "Ten Canoes" (2006) which scooped the pool at the Australian Film Institute awards, de Heer has consistently proven himself unpredictable. This analysis of his widely disparate films, however, suggests that Australia's most innovative film-maker has a signature pre-occupation with giving a voice to marginalised, non-hyper masculine protagonists. Demonstrating a propensity to write and direct in a European-like style, his 'Dutch tilt' is very much not Hollywood, but is nevertheless representative of a typically Aussie world-view.

Sejong Park's Birthday Boy and Korean-Australian encounters

This chapter focuses on some of the flows of film work between Australia and South Korea and some of the roles taken by Australians in the performance (and particularly the sound) of Koreanness in different film contexts. We explore Korean-Australian collaboration on film, through case studies of Sejong Park's Oscar nominated short animated film Birthday Boy (2004) and two Korean feature films - Musa (Kim Sung-su, 2001) and Shadowless Sword (Kim Young-jun, 2005) - for which Australian firms provided sound post-production services. We show how these films instanciate and expand Korean, Australian, diasporic and transnational filmmaking.

Australian horror movies

The Australian horror film is a fascinating specimen. While a tradition has antecedents in the silent era of cinema, and at times has produced popular and commercially successful titles, Australian horror films have existed among the shadows of Australian cinema. Within a national cinema funded by public subsidy to foster a sense of national identity, emphasizing ‘quality’ cultural films and refusing to recognize popular movie genres in attempt to differentiate itself from Hollywood, generic and low-culture horror films have been in opposition to these objectives. Consequently, horror movies have been heavily marginalized within public funding environments and mainstream film culture, and either ignored or despised by mainstream critics. The chapter provides a historical introduction to Australian horror cinema before reviewing a selection of recent Aussie horror titles, namely: Wolf Creek, Undead, Black Water, Dying Breed, Lost Things, Prey, Cut, Rogue and Storm Warning.

Australian cinema’s dark sun : the boom in Australian horror film production

There has been a boom in Australian horror movie production in recent years. Daybreakers (2010), Wolf Creek (2005), Rogue (2007), Undead (2003), Black Water (2008), and Storm Warning (2006) among others, have all experienced varying degrees of popularity, mainstream visibility, and cult success in worldwide horror markets. While Aussie horror’s renaissance is widely acknowledged in industry literature, there is limited research into the extent of the boom and the dynamics of production. Consequently, there are few explanations for why and how this surge has occurred. This paper argues that the recent growth in Australian horror films has been driven by intersecting international market forces, domestic financing factors, and technological change. In so doing, it identifies two distinct tiers of Australian horror film production: ‘mainstream’ and ‘underground’ production; though overlap between these two tiers results in ‘high-end indie’ films capable of cinema release. Each tier represents the high and low-ends of Australian horror film production, each with different financing, production, and distribution models.

Australasian horror special issue editorial : putting Australian and New Zealand horror movies on the map of cinema studies

This Australasian horror special issue is an important step forward in putting Australian and New Zealand horror movies on the map of film and cinema studies as a subject worthy of intellectual debate. The journal issue is the first devoted solely to the academic discussion of Australasian horror movies. While an Australian horror movie tradition has produced numerous titles since the 1970s achieving commercial success and cult popularity worldwide, the horror genre is largely missing from Australian film history. While there have been occasional essays on standout titles such as Wolf Creek (Mclean, 2005), an increasing number of articles on ‘Ozploitation’ movies, and irregular discussion about Australian Gothic, overall the nature of Australian horror as a genre remains poorly understood. In terms of New Zealand, debate has tended to revolve around ‘Kiwi Gothic’ and of course Peter Jackon’s early splatter films, rather than Kiwi horror as a specific filmmaking tradition.

Monster factory : International dynamics of the Australian horror movie industry

From the early-to-mid 2000s, the Australian horror film production sector has achieved growth and prosperity of a kind not seen since its heyday of the 1980s. Australian horror films can be traced back to the early 1970s, when they experienced a measure of commercial success. However, throughout the twenty-first-century Australian horror gained levels of international recognition that have surpassed the cult status enjoyed by some of the films in the 1970s and 1980s. In recent years, Australia has emerged as a significant producer of breakout, cult, and solid B-grade horror films, which have circulated in markets worldwide. Australian horror’s recent successes have been driven by one of its distinguishing features: its international dimensions. As this chapter argues, the Australian horror film production sector is an export-oriented industry that relies heavily on international partnerships and presales (the sale of distribution rights prior to a film’s completion), and on its relationships with overseas distributors. Yet, these traits vary from film to film as the sector is comprised of several distinct domains of production activity, from guerrilla films destined for niche video markets like specialist cult video stores and online mail-order websites to high(er)-end pictures made for theatrical markets. Furthermore, the content and style of Australian horror movies has often been tailored for export. While some horror filmmakers have sought to play up the Australianness of their product, others have attempted to pass off their films as faux-American or as placeless films effaced of national reference points.

From Aussiewood Movies to Guerrilla Filmmaking: Independent Filmmaking and Contemporary Australian Cinema

Independent filmmaking within the context of Australian cinema is a multifaceted subject. In comparison to the United States, where production can be characterised as bifurcated between major studio production and so-called “indie” or independent production without the backing of the majors, since the 1970s and until recently the vast majority of Australian feature film production has been independent filmmaking. Like most so-called national cinemas, most Australian movies are supported by both direct and indirect public subvention administered by state and federal government funding bodies, and it could be argued that filmmakers are, to a certain degree, “dependent” on official mandates. As this chapter demonstrates national production slates are subjected to budget restraints and cut-backs, official cultural policies (for example pursuing international co-productions and local content quotas) and shifts in policy directions among others. Therefore, within the context of Australian cinema, feature film production operating outside the public funding system could be understood as “independent”. However, as is the case for most English-language national cinemas, independence has long been defined in terms of autonomy from Hollywood, and – as alluded to above – as Australia becomes more dependent upon international inputs into production, higher budget movies are becoming less independent from Hollywood. As such, this chapter argues that independence in Australian cinema can be viewed as having two poles: independence from direct government funding and independence from Hollywood studios. With a specific focus on industry and policy contexts, this chapter explores key issues that constitute independence for Australian cinema. In so doing it examines the production characteristics of four primary domains of contemporary independent filmmaking in Australia, namely: “Aussiewood” production; government-backed low-to-mid budget production; co-productions; and guerrilla filmmaking.