Pub Date : 2022-07-04DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2022.2095160
K. McWilliam, J. Gildersleeve
ABSTRACT In this article, we explore the orientation of queer bodies to the city – and to Lisa French’s (2013) motif of ‘looking from the largely industrialised west at the city’ in particular – in three films directed by Ana Kokkinos: Only the Brave (1994), Head On (1998), and Blessed (2009). In doing so, we take up Sara Ahmed’s queer phenomenological approach to focus on Alex (played by Elena Mandalis) in Only the Brave; Ari (played by Alex Dimitriades) in Head On; and Arthur/‘Roo’ (played by Eamon Farren) in Blessed. We argue that when each queer protagonist looks to the city they are not only multiply disoriented, their disorientations are also specifically triggered by earlier enunciations of queer desire. We argue that these physical, psychological, temporal, and spatial disorientations serve multiple purposes across these films. They symbolise the phenomenological disorientations of queer embodiment; disorientate viewers to offer them a queer spectatorial opportunity; and proffer the ‘hope of new directions’ [Ahmed, Sara. 2006b. Queer Phenomenology. Durham, NC: Duke UP] in the depiction of queerness in Australian cinema.
{"title":"Queer disorientations in Only the Brave, Head On, and Blessed","authors":"K. McWilliam, J. Gildersleeve","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2022.2095160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2022.2095160","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we explore the orientation of queer bodies to the city – and to Lisa French’s (2013) motif of ‘looking from the largely industrialised west at the city’ in particular – in three films directed by Ana Kokkinos: Only the Brave (1994), Head On (1998), and Blessed (2009). In doing so, we take up Sara Ahmed’s queer phenomenological approach to focus on Alex (played by Elena Mandalis) in Only the Brave; Ari (played by Alex Dimitriades) in Head On; and Arthur/‘Roo’ (played by Eamon Farren) in Blessed. We argue that when each queer protagonist looks to the city they are not only multiply disoriented, their disorientations are also specifically triggered by earlier enunciations of queer desire. We argue that these physical, psychological, temporal, and spatial disorientations serve multiple purposes across these films. They symbolise the phenomenological disorientations of queer embodiment; disorientate viewers to offer them a queer spectatorial opportunity; and proffer the ‘hope of new directions’ [Ahmed, Sara. 2006b. Queer Phenomenology. Durham, NC: Duke UP] in the depiction of queerness in Australian cinema.","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49494091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2022.2095159
Diego Bonelli
ABSTRACT This article analyses the development of Wellington tourism film from 1991 to 2008, release years of Absolutely Positively Wellington and Spoil Yourself in Wellington TV commercials, respectively. While performing the textual analysis of five case studies released for domestic TV circulation, it examines their underlying tourism marketing and place-branding dynamics in the broader context of the political, institutional and cultural transformations that marked New Zealand and its capital city from the late 1980s onward. Such political and social context, characterised by the privatisation and sale of public assets and businesses, the transformation of public institutions into profit-driven corporations and the closure or downsizing of government departments and government-led institutions, coincided with the reorganisation of Wellington's economic, institutional and social assets, with the reshaping of the city's identity and with the redefinition of local tourism marketing strategies. This article argues that Wellington tourism film's institutional background started to be increasingly characterised by a process of growing and deepened interaction and partnership between local tourism bodies, creative agencies and private stakeholders. It also intends to trace the succession of different but interconnected urban narratives that informed local tourism film production, before the contemporary narratives about Wellington as a ‘creative city’ took hold.
{"title":"After the National Film Unit, before social media: Wellington tourism film’s urban narratives and production dynamics 1991–2008","authors":"Diego Bonelli","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2022.2095159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2022.2095159","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyses the development of Wellington tourism film from 1991 to 2008, release years of Absolutely Positively Wellington and Spoil Yourself in Wellington TV commercials, respectively. While performing the textual analysis of five case studies released for domestic TV circulation, it examines their underlying tourism marketing and place-branding dynamics in the broader context of the political, institutional and cultural transformations that marked New Zealand and its capital city from the late 1980s onward. Such political and social context, characterised by the privatisation and sale of public assets and businesses, the transformation of public institutions into profit-driven corporations and the closure or downsizing of government departments and government-led institutions, coincided with the reorganisation of Wellington's economic, institutional and social assets, with the reshaping of the city's identity and with the redefinition of local tourism marketing strategies. This article argues that Wellington tourism film's institutional background started to be increasingly characterised by a process of growing and deepened interaction and partnership between local tourism bodies, creative agencies and private stakeholders. It also intends to trace the succession of different but interconnected urban narratives that informed local tourism film production, before the contemporary narratives about Wellington as a ‘creative city’ took hold.","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41991128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2022.2037045
Rob Cover
ABSTRACT This paper reports findings from interviews with key Australian stakeholders involved in Australian films with gender- and sexually-diverse (LGBTQ+) characters, themes and narratives. The paper found that directors, creative producers, screenwriters and actors involved stakeholders of Australian LGBTQ+ film expressed a desire to impact their audiences in ways that emphasise the value of entertainment texts for minority representation, pedagogy and social change beyond pure storytelling. This paper presents an account of three key frameworks through which film stakeholders expressed their understanding of – and motivation towards – impact beyond storytelling: (i) as filling a gap in LGBTQ+ representation in contrast to what was otherwise perceived as relative invisibility; (ii) their perception as stakeholders dealing with LGBTQ+ content as having a special role as ‘educators’ for the benefit of vulnerable youth; and (iii) an understanding of their texts as contributing to social change in Australia, including wider acceptance of LGBTQ+ persons, family members and communities. A significant finding from this study is that screen media films about LGBTQ+ topics continue to be perceived as playing a role connected with but exceeding entertainment.
{"title":"Australian queer screen stakeholders and creative artists: perceptions of value, motivation and impact of LGBTQ+ Australian film","authors":"Rob Cover","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2022.2037045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2022.2037045","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper reports findings from interviews with key Australian stakeholders involved in Australian films with gender- and sexually-diverse (LGBTQ+) characters, themes and narratives. The paper found that directors, creative producers, screenwriters and actors involved stakeholders of Australian LGBTQ+ film expressed a desire to impact their audiences in ways that emphasise the value of entertainment texts for minority representation, pedagogy and social change beyond pure storytelling. This paper presents an account of three key frameworks through which film stakeholders expressed their understanding of – and motivation towards – impact beyond storytelling: (i) as filling a gap in LGBTQ+ representation in contrast to what was otherwise perceived as relative invisibility; (ii) their perception as stakeholders dealing with LGBTQ+ content as having a special role as ‘educators’ for the benefit of vulnerable youth; and (iii) an understanding of their texts as contributing to social change in Australia, including wider acceptance of LGBTQ+ persons, family members and communities. A significant finding from this study is that screen media films about LGBTQ+ topics continue to be perceived as playing a role connected with but exceeding entertainment.","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49248037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2022.2050591
Sanra Reji, Aparna Nandha
ABSTRACT This article studies the carnivalesque subversion of oppressive systems using the narrative gaze of children in Taika Waititi’s three films, Boy (2010), Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016), and Jojo Rabbit (2019). Waititi has a wide range of filmography to his assets and his films, while comically articulating his politics, incorporate new vocabularies to tackle various forms of oppression. The selected films are of both local and international nature, and they voice their politics through the varying presence of carnivalesque motifs of subversion. The current paper attempts to investigate them using Bakhtin’s theory of the carnivalesque. By arguing that these films are a vehicle of his personal and political credence, this paper attempts to bridge the gap in theorizing Waititi’s filmography despite being critically acclaimed.
{"title":"Carnivalesque subversion and the narrative gaze of children: Taika Waititi’s Boy (2010), Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016), and Jojo Rabbit (2019)","authors":"Sanra Reji, Aparna Nandha","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2022.2050591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2022.2050591","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article studies the carnivalesque subversion of oppressive systems using the narrative gaze of children in Taika Waititi’s three films, Boy (2010), Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016), and Jojo Rabbit (2019). Waititi has a wide range of filmography to his assets and his films, while comically articulating his politics, incorporate new vocabularies to tackle various forms of oppression. The selected films are of both local and international nature, and they voice their politics through the varying presence of carnivalesque motifs of subversion. The current paper attempts to investigate them using Bakhtin’s theory of the carnivalesque. By arguing that these films are a vehicle of his personal and political credence, this paper attempts to bridge the gap in theorizing Waititi’s filmography despite being critically acclaimed.","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45282450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2022.2037814
Julia Erhart, K. Dooley
ABSTRACT The first 20 years of the twenty-first century have seen a flourishing of research about women film and media creatives, their industrial positioning, and media output in industries around the globe, but overwhelmingly this research has focussed on the woman director. Women below-the-line workers, their workplace experiences, and their impression of their own creative contributions, particularly in areas of editing, sound design, and visual effects, have been glaringly absent. This paper aims to spotlight the under-examined working conditions and creative contributions of women working in Australian postproduction and visual effects (VFX) areas, what their experiences and perceptions tell us about the sector more broadly at a time of decreasing job security and increasing demand for screen content since the time of COVID-19, and their perceptions about their own creative contributions. These findings are based on our analysis of semi-structured interviews that we carried out with 11 women workers in a range of geographical locations, of varying ethnicities, sexualities, and ages, and at different career points. The insights generated by these interviews speak to the challenges faced by these workers and their perceptions of their work and fill a gap in the feminist production studies literature, about women, postproduction, and VFX.
{"title":"‘Post goblins’ and ‘preditors’: identities, experiences, and contributions of women in Australian screen postproduction and visual effects sectors 2020/2021","authors":"Julia Erhart, K. Dooley","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2022.2037814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2022.2037814","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The first 20 years of the twenty-first century have seen a flourishing of research about women film and media creatives, their industrial positioning, and media output in industries around the globe, but overwhelmingly this research has focussed on the woman director. Women below-the-line workers, their workplace experiences, and their impression of their own creative contributions, particularly in areas of editing, sound design, and visual effects, have been glaringly absent. This paper aims to spotlight the under-examined working conditions and creative contributions of women working in Australian postproduction and visual effects (VFX) areas, what their experiences and perceptions tell us about the sector more broadly at a time of decreasing job security and increasing demand for screen content since the time of COVID-19, and their perceptions about their own creative contributions. These findings are based on our analysis of semi-structured interviews that we carried out with 11 women workers in a range of geographical locations, of varying ethnicities, sexualities, and ages, and at different career points. The insights generated by these interviews speak to the challenges faced by these workers and their perceptions of their work and fill a gap in the feminist production studies literature, about women, postproduction, and VFX.","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45904969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2021.1993566
A. Lambert
As editor in chief of Studies in Australasian Cinema, I’m delighted that we are closing out 2021 with a special issue devoted to ‘Independent and Low Budget Filmmaking in Australia’. In a country where the existence and development of specifically Australian stories cannot be taken for granted, culture, nation and industry work in an explicitly interchangeable way. Tom O’Regan (1996) has famously argued that Australian cinema is a ‘messy hybrid’ or a ‘quasi-object’ that both services and reflects a medium size English-language population and market. So, the definition of what makes a film or TV program Australian is contextual and the borders of such definitions are frequently elastic. For the independent and/or low budget, the exploitation and celebration of Australianness are central to much related scholarship that attends to the economic, politicised and artistic aspects of screen productions; borne simultaneously of an absence of funds and a brash self-reflective cultural urgency. The ‘independent’ and ‘low budget’, have been seen to shape classic national coming of age stories, tales of Australian colonial history, and most noticeably the resurgent nationalism grossly foregrounded in second wave Australian cinema in 1970s and 80s. Low budget and independent screen texts have historically exemplified and played on the perceived extremes Australian characteristics – broadly referred to as Ozploitation (see Martin 2010). Our guest editors, Noel Maloney and Glenda Hambly have expertly drawn together approaches to Australian film that build on, and move away from, the familiar studies of genre cinema (or colloquially Ozploitation) often relied on to make sense of the cheap, crazy locally made cinema of the 70s and 80s (the naughty, rough and rude tradition that produced theMad Max andWolf Creek films). The discursive attention in this collection to contexts of history and contemporary production extend the story of the independent and the low budget as integral to the developing, contemporary, and changing Australian nation – culturally and technologically. This issue charts new conversations about the independent and low budget in Australian cinema, in various relationships to national industries, cultural experiences and as images and ideas about Australianness. At the time of writing, New SouthWales is about to emerge from 106 days of COVID related lockdown, and Victoria’s emergence from its sixth lockdown looks set to follow in the coming months. Beginning new discussions and exploring ideas that are central to the cinema seems only fitting as the larger populations and cities begin to ‘open up’. My heartfelt thanks and appreciation to our guest editors and authors who have worked hard to produce this collection in extremely trying times for those who work in screen scholarship in Australia. As always, enjoy this special edition of Studies in Australasian Cinema.
作为《澳大拉西亚电影研究》的主编，我很高兴我们将以“澳大利亚独立和低成本电影制作”特刊结束2021年。在一个澳大利亚故事的存在和发展不能被视为理所当然的国家，文化、民族和产业以一种明显的可互换的方式发挥作用。Tom O ' regan(1996)有一个著名的观点，他认为澳大利亚电影是一个“混乱的混合体”或“准对象”，既服务又反映了中等规模的英语人口和市场。所以，是什么让电影或电视节目成为澳大利亚的定义是有背景的，这些定义的边界通常是有弹性的。对于独立和/或低预算，澳大利亚的开发和庆祝是许多相关奖学金的核心，这些奖学金关注屏幕制作的经济，政治和艺术方面;由于缺乏资金和轻率的自我反思的文化紧迫性而同时产生。“独立”和“低预算”被视为塑造了经典的国家成长故事，澳大利亚殖民历史的故事，最明显的是在20世纪70年代和80年代的第二波澳大利亚电影中复兴的民族主义。低预算和独立的屏幕文本在历史上体现并发挥了被认为是极端的澳大利亚特征-通常被称为Ozploitation(见Martin 2010)。我们的特约编辑诺埃尔·马洛尼(Noel Maloney)和格伦达·汉布利(Glenda Hambly)熟练地将澳大利亚电影的研究方法结合在一起，这些方法既建立在熟悉的类型电影(或通俗地说，是对类型电影的研究)的基础上，又远离了这种研究，这种研究通常是为了理解70年代和80年代廉价、疯狂的本土电影(即制作《疯狂麦克斯》(mad Max)和《狼湾》(wolf Creek)电影的那种不雅、粗暴和粗鲁的传统)。本作品集对历史和当代制作背景的话语性关注，将独立和低预算的故事扩展为发展中、当代和变化中的澳大利亚民族文化和技术的一部分。这期杂志描绘了关于澳大利亚电影中独立和低预算的新对话，与国家工业、文化体验的各种关系，以及关于澳大利亚性的形象和想法。在撰写本文时，新南威尔士州即将摆脱与COVID相关的106天封锁，维多利亚州将在未来几个月内从第六次封锁中解脱出来。随着越来越多的人口和城市开始“开放”，开始新的讨论和探索电影的核心思想似乎才合适。我衷心感谢和感谢我们的客座编辑和作者，他们在极其艰难的时期努力工作，为那些在澳大利亚从事电影奖学金工作的人制作了这个合集。和往常一样，请欣赏本期《澳大利亚电影研究》特别版。
{"title":"Beyond exploitation: preface to issue 3","authors":"A. Lambert","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2021.1993566","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2021.1993566","url":null,"abstract":"As editor in chief of Studies in Australasian Cinema, I’m delighted that we are closing out 2021 with a special issue devoted to ‘Independent and Low Budget Filmmaking in Australia’. In a country where the existence and development of specifically Australian stories cannot be taken for granted, culture, nation and industry work in an explicitly interchangeable way. Tom O’Regan (1996) has famously argued that Australian cinema is a ‘messy hybrid’ or a ‘quasi-object’ that both services and reflects a medium size English-language population and market. So, the definition of what makes a film or TV program Australian is contextual and the borders of such definitions are frequently elastic. For the independent and/or low budget, the exploitation and celebration of Australianness are central to much related scholarship that attends to the economic, politicised and artistic aspects of screen productions; borne simultaneously of an absence of funds and a brash self-reflective cultural urgency. The ‘independent’ and ‘low budget’, have been seen to shape classic national coming of age stories, tales of Australian colonial history, and most noticeably the resurgent nationalism grossly foregrounded in second wave Australian cinema in 1970s and 80s. Low budget and independent screen texts have historically exemplified and played on the perceived extremes Australian characteristics – broadly referred to as Ozploitation (see Martin 2010). Our guest editors, Noel Maloney and Glenda Hambly have expertly drawn together approaches to Australian film that build on, and move away from, the familiar studies of genre cinema (or colloquially Ozploitation) often relied on to make sense of the cheap, crazy locally made cinema of the 70s and 80s (the naughty, rough and rude tradition that produced theMad Max andWolf Creek films). The discursive attention in this collection to contexts of history and contemporary production extend the story of the independent and the low budget as integral to the developing, contemporary, and changing Australian nation – culturally and technologically. This issue charts new conversations about the independent and low budget in Australian cinema, in various relationships to national industries, cultural experiences and as images and ideas about Australianness. At the time of writing, New SouthWales is about to emerge from 106 days of COVID related lockdown, and Victoria’s emergence from its sixth lockdown looks set to follow in the coming months. Beginning new discussions and exploring ideas that are central to the cinema seems only fitting as the larger populations and cities begin to ‘open up’. My heartfelt thanks and appreciation to our guest editors and authors who have worked hard to produce this collection in extremely trying times for those who work in screen scholarship in Australia. As always, enjoy this special edition of Studies in Australasian Cinema.","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41491036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2021.1993650
Susan Cake, Sean Maher, Tony McGrath
ABSTRACT For independent Australian filmmakers working outside traditional funding sources, the script often provides the sole means of raising finance to take the film into production. In the case of the low budget Australian feature films Pimped ([2018], “Directed by David Barker. Playground Films.” Apple TV) and Watch the Sunset ([2017], “Directed by Tristan Barr and Michael Gosden.” Barr Lipp Productions. STAN), however, script development was elevated and sustained by the filmmakers resisting a rigid adherence to writing, directing, and producing roles and opening up input from actors. This research employs case study analysis supported by interviews with the writers/director of Pimped and co-writer of Watch the Sunset to examine the script development processes that led to the successful completion and distribution of two low budget Australian feature films. Born out of the necessity to self-fund development, Pimped and Watch the Sunset provide insight into script development processes that value flexibility and receptiveness to the contributions of creative practitioners traditionally divided by above and below-the-line roles and exemplify how creative collaboration can facilitate successful development of low budget films operating beyond the constraints of screen funding bodies.
摘要：对于在传统资金来源之外工作的澳大利亚独立电影制作人来说，剧本往往是筹集资金将电影投入制作的唯一手段。然而，就低预算的澳大利亚故事片《皮皮德》（2018年）和《看日落》（2017年）而言，电影制作人抵制严格的编剧、导演，制作角色并开放演员的投入。这项研究采用了案例分析，并采访了《皮姆佩》的编剧/导演和《看日落》的联合编剧，以考察导致两部低成本澳大利亚故事片成功完成和发行的剧本开发过程。出于自筹资金发展的需要，Pimped和Watch the Sunset深入了解了剧本开发过程，这些过程重视灵活性和对创意从业者贡献的接受度，传统上按线上和线下角色划分，并举例说明了创意合作如何促进低成本电影的成功开发，这些电影超越了电影资助机构的限制。
{"title":"Leveraging collaboration: script development processes in low budget Australian feature filmmaking","authors":"Susan Cake, Sean Maher, Tony McGrath","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2021.1993650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2021.1993650","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT For independent Australian filmmakers working outside traditional funding sources, the script often provides the sole means of raising finance to take the film into production. In the case of the low budget Australian feature films Pimped ([2018], “Directed by David Barker. Playground Films.” Apple TV) and Watch the Sunset ([2017], “Directed by Tristan Barr and Michael Gosden.” Barr Lipp Productions. STAN), however, script development was elevated and sustained by the filmmakers resisting a rigid adherence to writing, directing, and producing roles and opening up input from actors. This research employs case study analysis supported by interviews with the writers/director of Pimped and co-writer of Watch the Sunset to examine the script development processes that led to the successful completion and distribution of two low budget Australian feature films. Born out of the necessity to self-fund development, Pimped and Watch the Sunset provide insight into script development processes that value flexibility and receptiveness to the contributions of creative practitioners traditionally divided by above and below-the-line roles and exemplify how creative collaboration can facilitate successful development of low budget films operating beyond the constraints of screen funding bodies.","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44264379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2021.1993649
G. Hambly, N. Maloney
Welcome to this special issue of Studies in Australasian Cinema on low budget, independent filmmaking inAustralia, a sector that has produced some of themost powerful, recent success stories inAustralian cinema. To cite just two, BenjaminGilmour’s Jirga (2018) was nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, and Sophie Hyde’s Berlin and Sundance winner, 52 Tuesdays (2013), garnered global critical acclaim. The low budget sector is noted for bringing new approaches to filmmaking. Unhindered by industry conventions, distributor interventions and screen agency dictates, filmmakers are freer to pursue their passion projects. The sector is an important source of new creative input into the industry. It is also an entry point for new key creatives, cast and crew. All this is well understood, but less well known is the extent and depth of the independent low budget sector in Australia. In 2018, the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA) introduced a Best Indie Film Award for films budgeted under $2 million. The point of the award was to shine a ‘brighter spotlight’ on films ‘deserving of greater representation in our industry’ (2018). Indie films comprised almost 50% of all feature films entered in the AACTA awards between 2018 and 2020 (AACTA). As Screen Australia (2020) notes, in the last decade 52% of Australian feature films had budgets of less than $3 million, with 25% produced below $1 million. Given the importance of lowbudgetfilms toAustralian screen culture, it is an appropriate time for a Special Edition that investigates the opportunities and challenges filmmakers face in the pre-production, production and distribution of their films, as well as the impact national funding agency policy and programmes have on their projects. The adventures offered by low budget filmmaking can be exhilarating. Yet, as these articles demonstrate, working in the sector is not for the faint hearted. Behind the heroic narratives that often shape the reception of successful low budget films are sobering stories of financial hardship, production challenges and lack of distribution. Employing case study methodologies and drawing on interviews with producers, directors, screenwriters and actors, the four articles in the issue profile ten low budget Australian feature films produced over the last five years. Building on emerging scholarship in the field, the articles bring together a range of disciplines including creative labour theory, screen, screenwriting and narrative studies. All of the films profiled in these articles are drawn from the AACTA Indie Awards lists, 2018–2020. While they were all made for far less than $2 million, the AACTA Award definition provided a useful means of identifying a group of films for
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"G. Hambly, N. Maloney","doi":"10.1080/17503175.2021.1993649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2021.1993649","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to this special issue of Studies in Australasian Cinema on low budget, independent filmmaking inAustralia, a sector that has produced some of themost powerful, recent success stories inAustralian cinema. To cite just two, BenjaminGilmour’s Jirga (2018) was nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, and Sophie Hyde’s Berlin and Sundance winner, 52 Tuesdays (2013), garnered global critical acclaim. The low budget sector is noted for bringing new approaches to filmmaking. Unhindered by industry conventions, distributor interventions and screen agency dictates, filmmakers are freer to pursue their passion projects. The sector is an important source of new creative input into the industry. It is also an entry point for new key creatives, cast and crew. All this is well understood, but less well known is the extent and depth of the independent low budget sector in Australia. In 2018, the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA) introduced a Best Indie Film Award for films budgeted under $2 million. The point of the award was to shine a ‘brighter spotlight’ on films ‘deserving of greater representation in our industry’ (2018). Indie films comprised almost 50% of all feature films entered in the AACTA awards between 2018 and 2020 (AACTA). As Screen Australia (2020) notes, in the last decade 52% of Australian feature films had budgets of less than $3 million, with 25% produced below $1 million. Given the importance of lowbudgetfilms toAustralian screen culture, it is an appropriate time for a Special Edition that investigates the opportunities and challenges filmmakers face in the pre-production, production and distribution of their films, as well as the impact national funding agency policy and programmes have on their projects. The adventures offered by low budget filmmaking can be exhilarating. Yet, as these articles demonstrate, working in the sector is not for the faint hearted. Behind the heroic narratives that often shape the reception of successful low budget films are sobering stories of financial hardship, production challenges and lack of distribution. Employing case study methodologies and drawing on interviews with producers, directors, screenwriters and actors, the four articles in the issue profile ten low budget Australian feature films produced over the last five years. Building on emerging scholarship in the field, the articles bring together a range of disciplines including creative labour theory, screen, screenwriting and narrative studies. All of the films profiled in these articles are drawn from the AACTA Indie Awards lists, 2018–2020. While they were all made for far less than $2 million, the AACTA Award definition provided a useful means of identifying a group of films for","PeriodicalId":51952,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Australasian Cinema","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49458394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：