SCREEN-L Archives

March 1995, Week 4


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
lissa mitchell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 21 Mar 1995 14:27:44 CST
text/plain (68 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Having suggested recently that New Zealand film can stand up to analysis
>as well as any other nationality's, I have since spent sleepless nights
>(that's days to you!) trying to define "New Zealand film".
yay! something from/about nz,
>Does the collective works of a nation comprise "X" film?
most nzer's could be forgiven for thinking the only nz films being made
are the piano and once were warriors, the industry is only interested in
pushing a few possibile money-makers. alot of real-low budget film gets
made in nz but hardly ever seen and the makers all have to compete with
each other , not help, in order to get noticed by the conservative, money
grabbing film commission.  shorts are not even surported by being played
before features because it would slow down the turnover of screenings of
US films in a day!
>What happens to
>those films or filmmakers who deliberately make film to subvert that
>supposed national thread?
ignored. shown to a few friends and/or the small number who would turn up
if you organise your own screening.
>How does a New Zealander break the mould, be seen as not a New
move to: australia - jane campion, US: vincent ward, len lye, lee tamahori.
 Uk: anna campion  ,etc etc etc .   nzer's still leave this little land
for the same reasons our early artists did - contact with the big world
that makes the 'real' art/films. nzer's have to become someone else because
nz is not a real contender in relation to bigger nations.  look at the success
of ONCE WERE WARRIORS, it now means that tamahori is trusted to try something
in hollywood but not nz and hollywood is probably where he'd rather be anyway.
making money on what he does.
because nz so immersed in american culture (TV,films,fastfood,clothing,music,
phone companies,etc,etc) that they would rather go to an american shit
blockbuster than almost
anyother nz film except ONCE WERE WARRIORS.  america's monoply of the film
industry and it's approach to filmmaking teach audiences to accept what
constitutes a 'good' film, therefore blocking mass-audience interest in film
that does not fit this image. i still believe people would rather watch shit
anyday, so long as it's structured in the way they are used to.
new zealand is a confused mess at the moment, we don't know who we are
Are we part of asia? the southpacfifc? maori? nz(one people)? yet most often
we embrace america - perhaps we are the 57th state?
>As a small nation clutching for a cultural identity, we tend
>to "own" our sportspeople, our millionaires, our supermodels and our
yes, we love to see/hear someone from this little country socking it to the
rest of the world.... we take it that it means anyone (it could have been me)
can beat or be as good as the rest of the world. a'real' person making it
attitude not just a super untouchable american star.
>Coversely, how do filmmakers from the US break the mould and free
>themselves from the international assumptions audiences bring with them
>when "consuming" film? How does an American subvert the American film
>mechanism to produce something else?
can they?  how could anyone american or otherwise escape america???????
????? lissa ??????