The above video is in response to the Sydney Morning Herald’s article Australian film disaster at the box office.Here, Geoffrey the robot is chatting to Siemen about Australian filmmaking. Additional reading and information about Australia’s very few box office successes can be found here on Wikipedia.
Top grossing Australian films
This local box office information is really hard to find. Most of these successful films had to recoup their investment overseas.
- Crocodile Dundee – $44.7m [cost $11.5m]
- Australia – $36.78m [cost $78m]
- Babe – $36.77m [budget unknown]
- Happy Feet – $31.8m [cost $133m]
- Moulin Rouge – $27.7m [cost $100m
- Crocodile Dundee 2 - $24.9m [cost $16m]
- Strictly Ballroom – $21.8m [cost $3m]
- The Dish – $18m [budget unknown]
- The Man From Snowy River – $17.2m [budget unknown]
- The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert – $16.5m [cost $2m]
Interesting list. The question is what constitutes an Australian film these days. Weren’t 2-5 heavily funded from overseas sources? Would that mean that LOTR would be considered a kiwi film?
The Australian industry never really recovered from the throttling and cancellation of 10BA IMHO. I feel that the bulk of our film gems came from that era. Lots of crap too but that’s the nature of creativity.
Yeah, you’re spot on, I reckon. Basically, though, rather than supporting several $5-7m Aussie films, my opinion is that they could make 100 x $250K films. They’d have more chance of getting a hit or at least getting their money back. I believe one has to finance a lot of box office failures in order to have one hit. As you point out – the only films (besides “Kenny”) that have returned anything decent were the US-backed films (or even US-financed with maybe A$1m from our government so they can gloat). I suspect it’s a matter of sacking administrators who have been there for 30 years or more and letting newer, more progressive (and less risk-averse) backers run the show.
Mediocre films? No thanks.
Also interesting to note is this – unlike in the US – heavily AFI-awarded films hardly ever return the investment. The awards are pretty much always swapped for a US Green Card.
Hardware… a bit over $1.5M and seriously kicks butt.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099740/
Damned if I know why it only scored 5.6 in IMDB
“After all the horrible things I heard about this movie, I wasn’t expecting much when I found it for $3 in a pawn shop… and, after watching it a couple of times, I don’t know what the hell people who say this is “the worst movie in the world” were smoking… because this is one of the best low-budget sci-fi flicks I have ever come across.”
That pretty much defines it.
Stuff this big budget stuff, all that pays for is named stars, big lunches and feeds the Fox / Warner movie machine which couldn’t give a stuff about Australia unless the dollar is worth 50 cents. There is massive space on free to air TV now that is filled with crap from the 60s & 70s. That’s the space that needs to be filled with content, get that American crap off. (What’s that you say… we can’t as they get it for free with major film purchases. ;)
I’m with you. If I was an investor, it’s a no-brainer to think that if I invest my $1m in 10 x $100K films, I’m more likely to get a return. But it’s more complicated and exploitative than that. Using tax laws, employment points and other financial acrobatics, investors have already made their money back before a film is released. It’s nearly a 100% write-off against their income and they get to play Executive Producer for a day (it’s usually only ever the one day). Unfortunately for Australia, if the film bombs, the investor gets his money anyway. In the US, they’re driven by “incentive to make money” not write-off losses. Here it’s all about screwing the (stupid) Nanny state and the taxpayer. The actual “movie” is an after-thought. And the screenplays demonstrate that. Directors and writers are judged on the way they wear their business suit, rather than their ability. It’s all about delivery, not “content.” ”
“Can X writer deliver by Friday?”
“Will shit in a bag do, Sir ?”
So we have a crude film industry made up of Lawyers and Accountants and well-dressed people who can take great photos and “deliver” on time. NOT creative people seeking to push the envelope. Peter Jackson, in his shorts and bare feet would never get a look in here. “Come back when you’ve put your clothes on Peter, this is taxpayer’s money you’re wanting to spend!”