Wyn posted his own reply to the ongoing discussion on the DLF mailing list concerning Australian cinema. He has kindly given permission for me to repost his message here as long as I add disclaimers concerning the probable inaccuracy of some of his claims :)
The real key to how many people go to see a film is distribution and promotion, two things that australian films do hardly get a look-in.
If it makes a lot of money its because a lot of people have been seduced into spending a lot of money on a overpriced BCC ticket, plus $4 water bottle, and $7 popcorn. They make the money BEFORE people see the movie. If moves collected the ticket AFTER the screening, and offered a 100% money-back satisfaction guarantee, hollywood would be dead, and we would be seeign a whole lot of different films in our cinemas.
How often do you go out of your way to "finding" a good movie, and then finding out where it is beign screened, only to discover its on for only two sessions at a cinema two hours drive away? Even with a cheap ticket, they just can't compete. The movie does not fail becuase it is bad, it fails because it is innacessible, and not enough people can get to see it and rave about it.
IMDB is full of perfect examples of fantastic movies that never saw the light of day, and blockbusters that although we all hated (we had to see them to find out, so we have already spent the money and made them "sucessful" - even though they may have been utter garbage!) raked in the millions, and were plastered for months 12 times a day in every megaplex in Australia?
Suren, your view of this problem is very simplistic. I think most here will agree that a money-spinner does not immediately mean the movie is a work of genius, and likewise, a local movie is not automatically bad because only 3 people got a chance to see it. Your definition of successful movie is based on the level of hype and resulting ticket sales, fine. But as I said, if a fantastic movie is innacessible to people, then it is already limited from becoming "successful", and that is truly not a reflection ot its quality, but the infrastructure and funding. And australian movies do not get a lot of distribution because generally they do not fit the Hollywood mould, and hence are far to risky for Warner et al to take on.
A great example: the vanishing: how mouch money do you think the origianl french move made?, and how much money the kiefer sutherland late 80's remake, complete with a ridiculous happy ending? Or City of angels/wings of desire? or more current, The ring?
Hollywood went as far as to BAN the original move from international cinemas until TWO years after the US version was released (restricted to dvd/video only). Why could'nt they take the orignal move and offer him a distribution deal? It is virtually an identical scene-by-scene replica with western actors/setting. and more importanly, why did they not officially give credit to the original authors?
Money in Hollywood is certainly NOT driven by diversity, but by a simple formula based approach. Diversity inherently requires taking risks, and that is one thing that hollywood does not do, period. Foreign movies have been snapped up by big distributors AFTER thay have shown a level of following. And the few that catch their eye like that are indeed very lucky.
Money spinning does not encourage diversity, but monopoly. And that is precisely why the australian movie industry is having it tough. The monopoly of what you call sucessful films can only be broken into with very deep pockets and a lot of good luck. Noone her has that kind of fat wallet, not is willing to chance it on a lucky gamble.
"the industry should fuel itself" - sure in an ideal world, where the hollywood style monopoly was outlawed that would certainly happen automatically. But we don't live in an ideal world, and we have just signed our own industrie's death warrants with the FTA that allows foreign crap to be sold here cheaply but does not reciprocate the same support for our own artist's work to be sold in the US.... fair? Not. Hence there is more than ample justification for state investment, since it was our government who have so kindly helped the monopoly entrench itself here too, weakening our industry even further....
Someone here on the list was talking about getting a kids series off the ground. Five years ago that would have been easier. Today He's up agains subsidised foreign imports. And because of that alone he will get little or no funding, the project will then be poorly resourced and promoted, and it will eventually fizzle out and be classifed as to waht you call "unsucessful"....and so the downward spiral continues. Tragic indeed.
wyn
The real key to how many people go to see a film is distribution and promotion, two things that australian films do hardly get a look-in.
If it makes a lot of money its because a lot of people have been seduced into spending a lot of money on a overpriced BCC ticket, plus $4 water bottle, and $7 popcorn. They make the money BEFORE people see the movie. If moves collected the ticket AFTER the screening, and offered a 100% money-back satisfaction guarantee, hollywood would be dead, and we would be seeign a whole lot of different films in our cinemas.
How often do you go out of your way to "finding" a good movie, and then finding out where it is beign screened, only to discover its on for only two sessions at a cinema two hours drive away? Even with a cheap ticket, they just can't compete. The movie does not fail becuase it is bad, it fails because it is innacessible, and not enough people can get to see it and rave about it.
IMDB is full of perfect examples of fantastic movies that never saw the light of day, and blockbusters that although we all hated (we had to see them to find out, so we have already spent the money and made them "sucessful" - even though they may have been utter garbage!) raked in the millions, and were plastered for months 12 times a day in every megaplex in Australia?
Suren, your view of this problem is very simplistic. I think most here will agree that a money-spinner does not immediately mean the movie is a work of genius, and likewise, a local movie is not automatically bad because only 3 people got a chance to see it. Your definition of successful movie is based on the level of hype and resulting ticket sales, fine. But as I said, if a fantastic movie is innacessible to people, then it is already limited from becoming "successful", and that is truly not a reflection ot its quality, but the infrastructure and funding. And australian movies do not get a lot of distribution because generally they do not fit the Hollywood mould, and hence are far to risky for Warner et al to take on.
A great example: the vanishing: how mouch money do you think the origianl french move made?, and how much money the kiefer sutherland late 80's remake, complete with a ridiculous happy ending? Or City of angels/wings of desire? or more current, The ring?
Hollywood went as far as to BAN the original move from international cinemas until TWO years after the US version was released (restricted to dvd/video only). Why could'nt they take the orignal move and offer him a distribution deal? It is virtually an identical scene-by-scene replica with western actors/setting. and more importanly, why did they not officially give credit to the original authors?
Money in Hollywood is certainly NOT driven by diversity, but by a simple formula based approach. Diversity inherently requires taking risks, and that is one thing that hollywood does not do, period. Foreign movies have been snapped up by big distributors AFTER thay have shown a level of following. And the few that catch their eye like that are indeed very lucky.
Money spinning does not encourage diversity, but monopoly. And that is precisely why the australian movie industry is having it tough. The monopoly of what you call sucessful films can only be broken into with very deep pockets and a lot of good luck. Noone her has that kind of fat wallet, not is willing to chance it on a lucky gamble.
"the industry should fuel itself" - sure in an ideal world, where the hollywood style monopoly was outlawed that would certainly happen automatically. But we don't live in an ideal world, and we have just signed our own industrie's death warrants with the FTA that allows foreign crap to be sold here cheaply but does not reciprocate the same support for our own artist's work to be sold in the US.... fair? Not. Hence there is more than ample justification for state investment, since it was our government who have so kindly helped the monopoly entrench itself here too, weakening our industry even further....
Someone here on the list was talking about getting a kids series off the ground. Five years ago that would have been easier. Today He's up agains subsidised foreign imports. And because of that alone he will get little or no funding, the project will then be poorly resourced and promoted, and it will eventually fizzle out and be classifed as to waht you call "unsucessful"....and so the downward spiral continues. Tragic indeed.
wyn
posted by stu willis at
11:13 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home