I'm going to the Melbourne Film Festival to show my new film today, back on Saturday. I'm thinking on Monday I will do a more historical lecture on the origins of the New Zealand Film Industry, as many of you would not have been here to see these films, or were born well after they were produced!
Please read the three articles I assigned. Two of course are on Australian cinema but their theoretical underpinnings are relevant to the New Zealand situation and one film they discuss The Piano, could be seen as a "New Zealand" film. If you don't know a lot as yet about New Zealand cinema, do your best with the following questions which I want you to respond to. However, after my lecture this coming week, you will have another opportunity to answer them. The following week Naomi Wallwork will visit us from the New Zealand Film Commission.
Some questions to think about and to respond to here while you read:
What cinemas have you been most exposed to growing and what do you see as "cinema"?
Why does a national cinema such as Australian or New Zealand cinema require Government subsidy?
Why do you think representations of Maori culture, in Once were Warriors, Boy and Whale Rider figure in what can be considered New Zealand's most successful film exports?
Bon voyage!
ReplyDeleteI guess now the blog works well. I'll post my "reading responses" later.
Looking forward to seeing you next Monday.
I'm afraid I am not at all familiar with NZ cinema, hoping Monday's lecture will rectify that. However to answer the first question - Hollywood and Bollywood films were staple in my life while growing up and nowadays I watch quite a few Korean films too for a very curious reason. Apparently Bollywood is going through a phase of remaking Korean films and when I watch those films I end up searching for the original version as well. Moreover, Bollywood which epitomizes mainstream commercialism is nowadays also remaking South Indian films which are a product of its national/regional cinema. And this trend is currently at its peak in the Indian film industry. Which begs the question: what constitutes Bollywood nowadays and what differentiates from regional Indian cinema?
ReplyDeleteFor the first question, my answer would be Hong Kong films produced from mid-1980s to mid-1990s (a period which is designated as the "golden age of Hong Kong cinema") & Hollywood blockbusters. During that time tons of Hong Kong films, especially kung fu movies and comedies, were produced and flooding into mainland China. In addition, after the exhibition of first officially imported film (The Fugitive, starring Harrison Ford) in Chinese market in 1994, Hollywood blockbusters made by "the majors" were also embraced by large numbers of enthusiastic Chinese audiences.
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about conceptual cinema, I believe Albert Moran has made a valid (yet not perfect) point in his article: "on the one hand, the term can refer to the venue of theatrical exhibition while, on the other, it can apply in an inclusive sense to the three sectors of film production, distribution and exhibition". But why don't we go back to the origin of this term beyong film industry to discover its meaning of its own? The origin of "cinema/cinematograph" is Greek word "kinema" (movement) and French term "-graphe" (recording instrument). So cinema means movement or recording something motional. That's why I believe all motion pictures or moving images which record something, describe the relation between time and space, and combine motion and emotion could be seen as "cinema". So that all feature films, documentaries, avant-garde films, and experimental films with or without regional/national/international distribution & public exhibition could be inclusively described as cinema.
Something wired happend again. I signed in my google account but I couldn't post comments as a user who has already signed in. I have to type in my name manually when posting my last comment and this new one.
ReplyDeleteThis happend last week as well. I don't know what's going on.
I was exposed to quite a dynamic choices of cinemas when I was growing up. I watch quite a lot of hong kong movies when I was young, and I remember watching quite some Bollywood films as well. Of course, Hollywood blockbusters are always there.
ReplyDeleteI see cinema mainly as a venue for film viewing, although with the increasing readings and understandings, I do realized the meaning of cinema can be contested. Now I tend to associate cinema with nationality and genres, where each cinemas have their own distinct characteristics and aesthetic features.
I think national cinema requires subsidiy due to the fact that many countries might not have a long and well established film industry like Hollywood, where they have the audience base, and as the second reading in the course reader has pointed out, it has international audience base as well. Therefore, financially they might not require subsidy from their represent government, since they could generate sufficient profit from their audience base.
I think national cinemas like new Zealand requires government subsidy because there might not be many private investors out there to fund new Zealand content- oriented films, and when national cinema increasingly being seen as an important element for national identity construction, the government are more willing to invest money in the industry to fund cultural creative productions that reinforce our national identity.
This is a post from Andrea via me -- referencing last week. Seems like lots of the class are still struggling to get online. . hmmm, will try again to rectify.
ReplyDeleteThis is my first 701 post, which relates to the topic and the set question for Week 2:
As with the discussion thread, I gather news from radio bulletins, print media/newspapers, television news, and by accessing websites. During the week, my main news source is Radio New Zealand National, especially the hourly news and the programmes Checkpoint, and Late Edition, which gives a wrap-up of the day’s reports and interviews. (see: www.radionz.co.nz). I also listen to BBC World Service (broadcast from Bush House, London). I have subscriptions to the NZ Herald (Monday to Saturday), the NZ Listener magazine (weekly) and the Guardian Weekly. I read the article that appeal tome and I read the letters to the editor, opinions, comment and analysis.
Online, I tend to access the NZ Herald, and other NZ newspaper sites, as well as stuff.co.nz.
For television news, I prefer to watch BBC World (Sky Channel 93) programmes: BBC World News; World Business Report; Weekend World; and especially Newsnight, which gives a wrap-up of the news stories of the week (Saturday 10:30PM-11:00PM).I also watch CNN Newstream (Sky Channel 91), and Al Jazeera English News (on Sky Channel ‘Stratos’ 89). For free-to-air-news I have drifted away from TVNZ / TV One News. If I do watch free-to-air news, it is usually Prime News – First at 5:30 (PM). I find the half-hour format of Prime News to be well packaged and informative. TVNZ news at 6PM has – in my opinion – too much chit-chat between presenters... and there is too much focus on the weather forecast, which is mentioned 3 or 4 times throughout the news hour. In saying this though, in the week of Sunday July 17 2011 to Saturday July 23 2011, TVNZ One News was the highest rating television programme in New Zealand (source: AGB Nielsen Media Research – The Dominion Post, Tuesday July 26 2011 TV Week, p.6).
For the class discussion thread: I will add to the debate that there is an interesting component to modern television news – something called the ‘ticker’, which appears at the bottom of the television screen. This is the moving line of data stream (or news text) that gives constant updates and headlines to the viewer. But, where did the ticker come from? According to Time Magazine’s James Poniewozik (Timeframes, Time, Dec 06 2010, Vol. 176 No.23) the ‘ticker’ has appeared in regular use since the New York 9/11 crisis. Poniewozik states that “... ‘crawls’ were used before 9/11 – but temporarily, for major breaking news, weather emergencies, elections, national crises.... ...But nine years later, our news screens remain cluttered with data. Once the media’s volume level goes up, it’s hard to take it back down. I just keeps ticking... on... and on... and on...” And, I include this news source, because I often get my news from the ‘ticker’.
Cinema has been a huge part of my life. I grew up watching all the Hollywood blockbusters and, due to an older sibling, also had an early introduction to more low-budget, independent films, foreign and domestic. I’ve come to view “cinema,” as I view all art forms, as a vehicle for telling stories or presenting old ideas in new and interesting ways (good cinema, at least). It’s a doorway into other worlds and a temporary escape from our own. I realize this is a very narrow view. It’s how I’d like to see it, though I’m completely aware a film can say absolutely nothing of any real worth and still be considered “cinema.”
ReplyDeleteBased on the readings, it would seem that Australian and New Zealand cinema are both competing with Hollywood imports, and they are on the losing end. Without government assistance, Aussie and Kiwi film makers would struggle even more than they do already do to complete their projects. According to the Regan article, American films accounted for 60% of Australia’s theatrical releases in 1991, while Australian films only accounted for 9%. Amidst such adversity, it would seem to be in the best interest of Australian film makers and the Australian government to improve the state of their national cinema.
I saw Whale Rider years ago when I was still living in Los Angeles. At the time, I had no knowledge of Maori culture. Although the characters portrayed in the film were very different from people I’ve known in real life, there were universal themes running throughout the film that I could easily identify with. The same can be said about Once Were Warriors and Boy. Both films, along with Whale Rider, deal with issues of family and loyalty that transcend national borders, which I believe has led to their success outside New Zealand.
Wei, excellent breakdown of the origin of the word, "cinema." I did not know that. Thanks.
ReplyDeletei think cinema is include motion picture like film ,documentary and music and the people who work for the film
ReplyDeletenew zealand is small contry, so goverment support can help to make things happend
ReplyDelete1.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up, I was mostly exposed to Hollywood blockbusters and Hong Kong cinema, especially at a very young age. My father in particular was an avid viewer of western, action, martial arts and kung fu films and it was here where I began to enjoy and appreciate these film genres as I grew older. I admired the works of legendary actors such as Henry Fonda, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Lee and Steven Seagal to name a few. There are various definitions of what “cinema” is, but I see cinema as a collation of different film genres. I also see cinema as a venue for film watching.
2.
I believe they require Government subsidy because they are very niche cinema markets compared to Hollywood and Bollywood for example. Looking at New Zealand’s case, the majority if not all major filmmakers often sought to some form of Government funding to support their projects. In reference to New Zealand television, we have witnessed over the years how unsuccessful local television shows/series are; failing to survive on our screens for more than one season due to a lack of funding, television ratings and/or support. A local series such as Shortland Street however is a success story which is in its nineteenth consecutive year on our screens.
3.
I believe these were successful film exports because they showcased and educated international viewers about New Zealand’s indigenous culture and the realities that many Maori face in New Zealand. These films enlightened cinema goers to an impenetrable aspect of modern culture New Zealand life. Because a lot of international viewers are unfamiliar with New Zealand’s indigenous culture (customs, traditions, etc); the representations and themes evident in these films led to its international success i.e. Boy – Kiwi humour; Once Were Warriors – gang and domestic violence amongst Maori families; Whale Rider – a shift in gender leadership and the breaking of Maori tradition.
My pleasure, Ed.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I find a revised & updated version of Gregory Waller's article, published in 2008 with other essays in the collection Contemporary NZ Cinema:from New Wave to Blockbuster.
In this essay, he claims that "NZ language films", a new cinematic category, was introduced in the 1986 NZFC annual report. This new category refers to high quality films made for NZ by kiwi, but without necessarily having international appeal and thus, according to Gregory Waller, "dependent on government subsidy".
I suppose it explains, to a certain extent, why does a national cinema such as NZ cinema require government subsidy. Without enough audience base and international appeal, it would be really hard for filmmakers to get enough fund to produce a feature length film.
Moreover, NZ and some other countries do not have a long and well established film industry like Hollywood (like Joe mentioned). It is amazing that between 1941 & 1972 only one NZ documentary & three NZ features were made. More than 80% of films made by NZ are produced after 1977, the year that cinema's New Wave finally began in this country. I think that's another reason why NZ cinema needs assistance and why NZFC which aims to "participate & assist in the making, promotion, distribution and exhibition of films" was established in 1978.
(source: Views from the Edge of the World:NZ Film)
Looking forward to learning more about NZ national cinema in today's class.
Hollywood cinema was seen as the 'norm' for me in terms of film I was exposed to growing up. However, as time progressed I guess my movie tastes and what was constituted as 'cinema' evolved and I became more interested in other forms i.e: music documentaries.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of successful Maori exports. I'm with Sio here in that it educated a more global audience. Also, I find that the films have a somewhat universal theme. For example, while Boy depicted Maori culture in the 1980's, it also drew on a 'loss of innocence' theme that other people could draw upon.
Today we talked a little about British heritage film and whether we have the same kind of movie in China. I re-think about this topic after class, maybe those Chinese films I mentioned today should not be regarded as "heritage film", because this term is usually used to describe a specific kind of British film which has been criticised for its romanticised portrayal of the past.
ReplyDeletePerhaps those Chinese films could be seen as movies which deal with historical issues or have historical background, but "heritage film" may not be a suitable description.
And the third question, why representations of Maori culture can be considered New Zealand's most successful film exports, could be answered from different aspects.
ReplyDeleteFrom cultural aspect, Maori culture is definitely quite unique. It's the icon & mark of distinction of NZ. Thus, also from economic point of view, films which represent Maori culture are unique/distinctive cultural products and economic commodity in the international film market.
Moreover, from what we've learned in today's class, the 1980s saw the biggest and most significant/profound change in NZ film industry. And according to Gregory Waller, under Labour in the 1980s, "Labour’s ... increased responsiveness to Maori demands for full biculturalism" and NZFC's support & assistance to Maori filmmakers were a big help to representations of Maori culture in NZ cinema. Thus from 1980s to the twenty-first century, with political & financial support from government, NZ films which represent Maori culture gradually and understandably became the most successful film exports.
I just realized I forgot to answer the third question in my previous comment. Personally, I think these films gain a wide success globally because of the authenticity in terms of cultural representation. It is not something that international audience are exposed to in most the the films. I absolutely agree with Sio on his reasons for the success of such films, and I would just like to add in a bit of my personal perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI think these films such as Boys, Once were Warrior etc were so successful in box office term can also due to the fact that it's contents are seen as exotic and related to the Antipodean myths of the other parts of the world towards new zealand culture, where new Zealand and Australia are seen as a place of myth, far, isolated and hostile, and people from the other side of the world such as people from britain and America are interested to know what life and culture is like in new Zealand. And such films provided them a gateway to gain a better understanding of new Zealand culture and lifestyle, as well as presenting a culture that is distinctive and rarely being portray in other films. Therefore I believe these films succeed because of it's authenticity and the presentation of a culture that is so different from the others that we are too used to, and numb on Hollywood blockbusters.
Bingo，I can post comments by installing firefox, I am so sorry for my late
ReplyDeleteWhat cinemas have you been most exposed to growing and what do you see as "cinema"?
ReplyDeleteIn my childhood ,I was always forced by school to watch some "patriotism"film, such as some films about Chinese civil war ,which made by CCP and so on,but for my family and me, we prefer some interesting film ,such as disney,I can remember that when the lion king showed and my mother took me to see it .At that time ,in my opinion ,it is a huge gap between domestic china and overseas films,in china ,all film for children made by domestic is in a same mode,such as telling children how to help each other ,how to deal with hard life ,how to be ambitious and so on, but I prefer cartoon and entertainment film 。In that decades ,the carton film was weak in china ,there is seldom cartoon movies at all ;not until 1999 ,when " lotus latern "showed , the situation seemed to be changed.I think " lotus latern "is a leap of china children movie.
Andrea said…
ReplyDeleteIn response to the First Question of this week… about what types of films we grew up with / exposed to:
the mid-1970s it was the film The Rocky Horror Picture Show that made me aware of cinema as production: Richard O’Brien, the writer and actor, was regarded in NZ as a New Zealander (though he was born in UK) as he was raised on a NZ sheep farm. O’Brien returned to England in the mid-1960s and wrote/produced the rock-horror-musical in the 1970s. For me, it was the first indication that a ‘New Zealander’ could be a part of cinema culture on an international scale. However, I knew the film was not about the representation of New Zealand or about national identity. I also knew that O’Brien had left NZ to create Rocky Horror, because he was not able to produce such a film in NZ.
The first New Zealand films I can recall knowing about – though not viewing – are Skin Deep, Middle Age Spread, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Smash Palace, and Utu. After that came films that I did see - Goodbye Pork Pie, The Scarecrow, and Vigil.
The first film which related to Auckland, and its identifiable cityscape, was Queen City Rocker. Then Auckland appeared again - in a disjointed way - in The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey.
From then on, the following films are foremost in my awareness: An Angel at My Table; Ruby and Rata; The Piano; Heavenly Creatures; Once Were Warriors; Rain; Whale Rider; In my Father’s Den; World’s Fastest Indian; Second Hand Wedding. I also recall the NZ short-film Kitchen Sink (1980s), and, Two Cars, One Night (late-1990s).
ARTICLES:
About the New Zealand Herald newspaper articles I brought to lecture… I’ve found one article available online. It’s titled: Our $500m ‘gift’ to Hollywood. This article was a Business Herald Investigation, by Karyn Scherer, and it featured in the NZH, News, A1, on December 3, 2010.
To access it online see:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10691715
NZ FILMS ON TV:
For anybody wanting to see NZ films, there are some screening on free-to-air TV and on SKY TV -
On Saturday, 06 August 2011: TVOne is a screening of the NZ feature film ‘No.2’ from 8:30pm to 10:25pm. The film was directed by Toa Fraser in 2006. Here’s a link to read about No.2 (Number Two):
http://www.nzonscreen.com/person/toa-fraser
And, if you have SKY-TV, on the TVNZ Heartland Channel 17, screening each Saturday night from 11:00pm is the ‘TVNZ HEARTLAND FEATURE FILM’ series. This Saturday, the film screening is ‘Lawless’ (1999). However, I think this may have been a TV film?
Why does a national cinema such as Australian or New Zealand cinema require Government subsidy?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion，the national cinema should be a symbol of one conutry ,it is a window to show cultures of a nation ,in that case ,to subsidy a national cinema means to protect national culture.What is more ,it is a kind of self-defendant of national industry,when facing outer threaten such as Hollywood ,it's goverment's responsibility to protect local industry.The last one is the special need for domestic market,such as non-English speakers in those countries, for them ,different language-based or some natural film may feed their specific need.