As I said yesterday, I will be arriving "fashionably late" to class, and Naomi Wallwork from NZFC will be talking to you . .she is drawing on the SOI from the NZFC, so make sure you read that material.
As far as questions for this week, I think last week's questions still pertain so have another think through these.
I hope my lecture gave you a sense of the arguments posed for the formation of of NZFC in 1978. First the need to express "national and cultural identity" (and examining what this is since "decolonization and globalization" both terms that can also be explored) and second, the possibility of financial gain and sustainability. As you saw, the actual film industry has undergone a bumpy ride, with waves of success and visibility and periods of non-productiveness generally tied to the economic, political and cultural climate. This conflict between cultural expression and economic viability has continued, even as as the notion of "New Zealandness" has expanded and globalization has opened up markets, increased the possibilities of co-production and New Zealand itself has been marketed as a location for Hollywood funded epics.
Perhaps discuss some questions you can ask Naomi, or even outline examples from other film cultures and industries that might interest here.
See you at about 10.30!
From Andrea, via Annie (will post some other useful links on Cecil from Andrea too)
ReplyDeleteIn response to the First Question of this Week… about what types of films we grew up with / exposed to:
In 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).
OK. Here's some questions I prepared for Naomi:
ReplyDelete1.The Jackson/Court Review indicates that "a very real problem exists between the commission ([NZFC]) and its client base; this is not only a lack of trust -- it would appear that both sides have lost respect for the other" (quoted from Labour MP David Parker). So how could we describe the current relation between NZFC & local film industry? Will there be significant change/development in next few years in terms of this relationship?
2.What's the profound influences - if there're any of them - of the Jackson/Court Review on NZFC?
3.Facing the "static funding and diminishing
reserves in a recessionary economic
environment" (NZFC, Statement of intent 2011-2013), how to achieve the cultural & economic benefits at the same time in the process of supporting film production?
That's just some general ideas. I believe we could come up with more interesting questions for our guest speaker during the lecture.
See you tomorrow!
After last weeks informative lecture I believe I am now in a position to adequately answer the posed questions. So here goes…
ReplyDelete1. In retrospect I feel that the cinemas I was exposed to growing up was relatively mainstream i.e. commercial Hollywood and Bollywood fares. As a result whenever I encountered national films (mostly ones from Pakistan courtesy of my grandparents) it felt very alien and ordinary to me, perhaps because of its low production values. But my father remembers in the late 1970’s of there being an extraordinary influx of martial arts and kung-fu films in the market. For every one Hollywood film shown, there were three screenings of Jackie Chan films and kung-fu movie marathons primarily catering to a male audience and teenage boys. So it is quite evident that in terms of film distribution Fiji was lagging in the race. This is primarily due to the fact that Fiji (my homeland) did not have that much of a market for alternative and regional cinema. Or maybe there existed a niche market back in the day but I grew up blissfully unaware of it. There was also a dearth of cinema halls, only the big cities had them. Today however with the increase in piracy the situation is vastly different – one can obtain any kind of cinema via a black market supplier if one is willing to suffer through the bad sound and grainy image.
2.I am with my fellow classmates here that lack of private funding constitutes a major obstacle to national cinemas and the Government needs to step in to ensure that the national voice and talent does not get consigned to oblivion by the barrage of international mainstream cinema. And I second Joe in that cinema is now seen as perhaps one of the most effective vehicles for national identity construction and the powers that be are more favourably disposed towards it as it harmonizes with their agenda of promoting ‘brand NZ’. Also New Zealand is fast becoming the location of choice at least for Bollywood. In the words of one Bollywood filmmaker, New Zealand’s appeal lies in the fact that “you can point a camera anywhere and its all postcard”. So the struggle now and forever remains to strike a balance between national culture and economic viability.
ReplyDelete3. Out of the three the only one I’ve watched is Boy and what immediately struck me was that even though the film was distinctly New Zealand (I for one could not get many of the jokes that others enjoyed) its themes transcended borders, language and race. They were decidedly universal and that made it easily relatable. In fact Bollywood has got its own ‘Boy’ (Wake up Sid) and while the two films are worlds apart what binds them together is the theme ‘coming-of-age’. Likewise for Whale Rider the theme could be loss of innocence (another worldwide theme) and I suspect these films enjoy mainstream success because international audiences are curious to know and appreciative of how different cultures treat films with situations common to all.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought about NZ cinema ... there are some great films that have been made here, many with support from the NZFC. However I can't think of a film that's really blown me away. Perhaps that's just my own experience of them, but I feel that many of the feature films which we seem to produce, particularly more recently, are quite formal. There is no culture of really challenging, radical filmmaking. The Danish film industry is an interesting comparison for NZ's own. Denmark has a comparable GDP and population, yet there is a remarkable film culture. I understand the need for profitability in cinema, but perhaps it is a lack of daring in NZ film and an overly keen desire for profitability which is stultifying an intriguing, bold film culture here.
ReplyDeleteI recalled some comments in last weeks seminar about NZ's lack of 'stars' I just thought of the Flight of the Conchords who have moved onto considerable international success. They have quite a unique way of getting the NZ "accent" out there while also drawing on some ideas and jokes that are very NZ orientated. However, their show does fall upon the traditional TV Hollywood comedy format which we have all become accustomed to.
ReplyDeleteComing back to the second part of the first question, I believe cinema itself is such a narrow term that encompasses so much. For me, it stands for movies, it stands as a medium of promotion, it stands as a venue, and it also stands for a broad mechanism consisting of production, exhibition and distribution. As Rita said, even documentaries are a form of cinema; in this day and age can the same be said for amateur youtube videos? Clearly they get enough views to be construed as such. So basically my definition of cinema is very flexible and new elements get incorporated into it frequently.
ReplyDeleteAfter this week's readings, I have to say NZFC have done quite a good job. I realized that it is not a very easy job to balance the cultural values and economic interest of a creative production, as well as whether the films that they have decided to fund will do well in audience reception and box office.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of what question I might ask, I am interested in how NZFC assess whether a film is both culturally and economically viable. Because I think this is a really hard thing to balance, and if the film they decided to fund does not do that well in terms of reception, how do they justify their decision then?
hoho，I still have a hard journey to have finished the reading，but it is much better than week 1，I think NZFC can be seen as a fareware organization for NZ films,before I enter NZ, I was told that the film industry in NZ was so weak and the film couldnot be seenat all ... they are too subjective,but it is true that the film industry in such a small country do need to be support.In my opinion,NZFC can not only support NZ film only domestic ，but also become a more agency to charge NZ film ,for example ,it can become a department of popularizing the film，（maybe it is difficult in a country without a central-authority just like P.R. China）,but sometimes,a powerful core can do something more effectively .
ReplyDelete