----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Rebecca Robinson writes: "Does the collective works of a nation comprise "X" film? What happens to those films or filmmakers who deliberately make film to subvert that supposed national thread? New Zealand has a small (comparatively) but active film industry; it is tempting to say there is a national voice expressed, some qualities that are universal among them. That presupposes "good faith" on the part of the filmmakers to contribute to the New Zealand film tradition. I'm using NZ here as I can't speak for those traditions of other countries; presumably (help me here) other small countries have the same questions. How does a New Zealander break the mould, be seen as not a New Zealander?" Look at your neighbors from Australia and the expatriates who are now grinding out thoroughly "American" films like DRIVING MISS DAISY (Bruce Beresford), WITNESS and THE DEAD POETS SOCIETY (Peter Weir), and PATRIOT GAMES (Phillip Noyce), to name just a few. Whatever virtues these and other similar films might have, I miss the freshness that seemed to mark PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, THE LAST WAVE, NEWSFRONT, and STAR STRUCK, among others. I know that some of these directors have tried to maintain their Australian roots, but how are these exiles regarded now that they have hit the big time in the U.S.? Or, is there a Hollywood deal in the works for Jane Campion now? --Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN