----------------------------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