Film & TV

Jan 27, 2012

Australia doesn’t need better films, just better distribution

Australian films only took 3.9% of the domestic box office last year. The Adelaide Film Festival's outgoing director Katrina Sedgwick argues the entire business model of cinema is changing fast.

Ben Eltham — <em>Crikey</em> arts commentator

Ben Eltham

Crikey arts commentator

Screen Australia released the latest figures for the 2011 Australian cinema box office this week. Unsurprisingly, it was dominated by major Hollywood studio films. The top box-office performer was none other than the final instalment from golden wizard, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, which took $52.6 million, followed by Transformers: Dark of the Moon with $37.5 million and The Hangover Part II with $32.7 million.

Forty-four Australian titles were released. They accounted for $42.9 million of the $1.09 billion in total box-office takings. The top Australian film was Red Dog, which came in 11th with $21.3 million.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “Australia doesn’t need better films, just better distribution

  1. Amanda Diaz

    Katrina Sedgwick is the outgoing Adelaide Film Festival director. Katrina Strickland is the arts editor for the Fin Review.

  2. Roderick

    There are many innovations in both distribution and fund raising that work to raise awareness and garner the attention of audiences by exploring the unconventional. For instance, take a look at the Australian first, ‘The Tunnel’ (2011), which in addition to conventional methods, used BitTorrent to freely distribute the work and expose the film to potentially millions, and in the vein of Keiser’s attempted to crowd source at least some of its funding.

  3. Zjonn

    Rather than looking for excuses, perhaps what’s really wrong with the local film industry has more to do with too many arty farty films and not enough entertainment.

  4. The_roth

    To be blunt mostly the critically acclaimed Australian Films are depressing witness Animal Kingdom, Snowtown et al.

    It looks like a pervous examination of the worst side of the Australian underclasses by fascinated rich kid film makers that are tied at the hip pocket to our funding bodies.

    The same people keep getting the grants and making the same kinds of films. If there is a fault here it is that those who make the decisions as to who gets the cash have a limited criteria as to who gets the bucks.

    Film makers are in it to make a living as well as make films if they see there is one narrow path aesthetically to funding they will with out hesitation go that way and we will continue to produce films that made be well made but of low interest to those who watch films for their entertainment value not their artist merit. And there is no reason with a little broader mindset in the funding area we as consumers can’t get a bit of both.

  5. The_roth

    Sadly my spelling isn’t what it used to be of course I meant to type “perverse” not “pervous”. My apologies.

  6. Bohemian

    The French and the Italians (and soon the Indians will) have the same problem; only for them it is worse because they actually have their own culture as well as a fair go! The Hollywood Juggernaut and its purulent SOPA bill are usurping the rights of each country to run its own propaganda which must now take a back seat to Imperial Rome and its barking dogs. US funny money is buying up the world at a clip. Watch this space. We will all be using US dollars in three years, buying US crap, watching US crap and speaking US crap, assuming you have a TV/Computer/IPad/Phone/New wave Frig that is.

  7. msmith

    Can I join in with ZJONN and THE_ROTH with more complaining?
    To be fair, I get the feeling that there’s been a bit more variety in Aust films over the last 2 or 3 years, so things might be improving, but I think the complaints over the last decade have been totally valid. Boring, depressing, predictably worthy films. Not totally without merit, but it sometimes seems the filmmakers are after a pat on the back, rather than wanting to give the audience something in return for the 2 hours of their lives they’ve given up.
    The need for our films to get govt funding and to attract the attention of our film stars is part of the problem. Govt funding leads to political correctness. That’s fine in some cases, such as if it leads to funding for good films with indigenous themes that otherwise might struggle to get financed (Ten Canoes, Samson & Delilah), but it also means we get a lot of other ‘worthy’ films that please nobody. You’re not very likely to see flashy crims getting away with enjoyably elaborate crimes in very fast cars in our movies (I don’t like it when they throw gratuitous gun-play into Aust films, but that doesn’t mean our films have to always be action-free). And our actors with international reputations are often tempted to work here with a role where they get to dress down and do a character part. They get the big bucks for working in Hollywood in films people actually want to see, and come here for the roles that are a bit chewier and might get them an award nomination. And if it’s a flop, at least it’ll be a worthy flop that nobody will hold against them. But a good actor in a good role does not automatically leave us with a good movie. A lot of white-trash films (I think The Boys started it – a bunch of white loser males sit around their mum’s loungeroom getting drunk and smoking pot while planning a small robbery that’ll inevitably go wrong – and I’m sure I’ve seen at least half a dozen variations on that single idea since then, each of which received varying degrees of critical acclaim). Little Fish – did anybody really believe Cate as an ex-junkie working in a Cabramatta video store? The Tracker – ‘worthy’ theme, great performance by David Gulpilil, but Gary Sweet was terrible in a terribly written role, making the central plot of the film unbelievable. Yet both films got lots of critical praise. We get very little comedy, which is a shame considering the wealth of Aust humour (Kenny showed how it could be done without resorting to lazy characterisation). Very little sexiness, which is a crime considering how many handsome leading men and glamorous leading ladies we let overseas films glorify (I’m not calling for films full of good-looking teens, but on the other hand it didn’t hurt Mad Max that it had a hero looking like Mel and made the most of it). Why is a lot of s*x in Aust films now bad s*x? Is it that conservative/politically correct idea that movie sexiness is somehow cheap and tacky, but worth taking seriously if everyone involved has quite an unpleasant time of it? From the 70s to the 90s, Aust was pumping out new directors taking our films in imaginative directions every year, and they weren’t afraid of making popular colourful films (Mad Max, Babe, Muriel’s Wedding, Priscilla, Young Einstein, Storm Boy, Crocodile Dundee), without having to worry that trying to make a popular film would be a black mark on their name. Popular and entertaining doesn’t have to mean brainless (Muriel’s Wedding is a great example). In 1992, Australian movies gave you Romper Stomper and also Strictly Ballroom, so you really couldn’t get bored. Boredom is what I felt most often with watching Aust films in the noughties. Most of our ‘artsy’ films can’t even claim to be all that challenging (the way a Von Trier film can be). This decade is looking a little better. I’m hoping for more input from crazily talented & imaginative directors who want to really move their audience, even if it’s done in ways that scare our actors, film critics, and govt funding bodies.
    I don’t think I stuck to the point of the original article. But I enjoyed getting that out.

  8. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    One of the problems of the Australian film industry is the pricing of DVD and Blu-Ray in Australia.

    Sales of discs can account for half of profits – yet most analysis ignores this and just looks at cinema attendance.

    For a very long time the blu-ray of Samson & Delilah was about $40 in Australia. It’s down to $24 now, but who would by this Oz flick when most big international hits are priced much lower?

    The blu-ray of Snowtown is now $30 at JB. I am waiting to see this – but get real – not at that price.

    Sleeping Beauty (the Oz film) is NOT available from JB on blu-ray, but JB has the DVD for $29. has the blu-ray for Pd12 (less VAT with free shipping if you order over Pd25, so well under A$18).

    I’m in the part of the market that now prefers to watch movies at home. But when an interesting Australian movie gets released on blu-ray the price is so high for so long in Australia that by the time the price comes down I’ve forgotten all about the Oz movie.

    The industry is also stupid about video-on-demand.

    People like to collect, and many will pay more to have something in their collection. Give me Snowtown on blu-ray for $10 and I’ll be in heaven for getting such a bargain. But what will I pay to watch this on demand? No, it’s now an old movie, no-way would I pay $10 to view this.

    Certainly when it comes to DVD & blu-ray the greed of the Australian distributors is the main impediment to sales.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details