Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
That's just what this country needs: another film that's a flop at the flicks: a PR perspective on the success of home-grown films at the Australian box office
(USC Thesis Other)
That's just what this country needs: another film that's a flop at the flicks: a PR perspective on the success of home-grown films at the Australian box office
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THAT’S JUST WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS: ANOTHER FILM THAT’S A FLOP AT
THE FLICKS
1
A PR PERSPECTIVE ON THE SUCCESS OF HOME-GROWN FILMS AT THE
AUSTRALIAN BOX OFFICE
by
Harriet Dixon-Smith
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)
August 2014
Copyright 2014 Harriet Dixon-Smith
1
The title is in reference to a well-known quote from Stephan Elliott’s 1994 Australian film The
Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, “That’s just what this country needs: a cock in a
frock on a rock.”
i
Dedication
This work is dedicated to Fiona Nix, without whom I may never have been introduced to
the dynamic world of Australian cinema.
Fiona mentored me during my undergraduate degree at the University of Sydney and
gave me my first full-time job as a junior publicist at her company, NIX Co.
She also helped me reach out to many of the industry professionals who took my primary
research survey and provided invaluable feedback and comments.
I am eternally grateful to the support and friendship she has shown me as my career has
grown and I hope we will be colleagues and friends for many more years to come.
ii
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank my thesis chair, Jennifer Floto, who not only guided me
through the thesis process, but through my entire experience at the University of Southern
California. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Laura Jackson and Mary
Murphy, for offering their sound advice and experience along the way.
This thesis certainly would not have been possible without the support and love of my
friends and family, who listened for many months to my explanations, ideas and frustrations. I
know I can talk a lot when I am passionate about a project, but this one probably took the cake!
In particular, I want to thank Mum and Dad, who helped support me during my time in the U.S.
To Mum, who would call me when filmmakers were on the radio talking about my topic, and to
Dad, who explained basic price economics to me, even if it didn’t end up making it into the my
thesis!
Finally, I want to thank all the film industry experts I called on for help and who provided
their invaluable insights. In particular, I want to thank my ex-colleagues at NIX Co - Fiona,
Zannah, Philippa, Sarah and Millen - who listened, advised and participated in my research.
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ v
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter One: A History of Australian Film at the Box Office ....................................................... 6
The Beginnings (1900s – 1960s) ................................................................................................. 6
The Peaks and Troughs of Culture vs. Commerce (1970s – 2000s) ........................................... 7
Australian Film at the Box Office Today (2010 – 2014) .......................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Schizophrenia, or the Australian Film Industry’s Identity Crisis ......................... 13
Chapter Three: The Australian Film Industry – A SWOT Analysis ............................................ 17
Chapter Four: Australian Audiences Value Australian Stories .................................................... 18
Chapter Five: The Rise of Alternate Distribution Strategies ........................................................ 20
Chapter Six: The Rise of Social Media as a Marketing Tool ....................................................... 24
Chapter Seven: Positioning Opportunities for Australian Film .................................................... 25
Chapter Eight: The Abundance of Australian Film Talent .......................................................... 27
Chapter Nine: The “Australianness” of Local Film ..................................................................... 29
Chapter Ten: The Domination of Hollywood Blockbusters ......................................................... 31
iv
Chapter Eleven: The Declining Success of Traditional Release Strategies ................................. 35
Chapter Twelve: The Negative Public Perception Toward the Australian Film Brand .............. 37
Chapter Thirteen: Creative Weaknesses of Australian Films, in Relation to the Audience ........ 45
Chapter Fourteen: Accessibility of Australian Film to the Movie-Going Public ........................ 51
Chapter Fifteen: Ineffective Marketing and Public Relations Strategies ..................................... 56
Chapter Sixteen: Funding Models Creating a Barrier to Making Audience-Driven Films ......... 60
Chapter Seventeen: The Experts Weigh In – Primary Research Survey Results ......................... 62
Chapter Eighteen: What Can PR Do to Help? .............................................................................. 69
Strategy One: Emphasize the Critical Element ...................................................................... 70
Strategy Two: Utilize Social Media and Content Marketing .................................................... 71
Strategy Three: Create Australian Film Advocates ................................................................. 74
Strategy Four: Start Marketing and PR Efforts Early ............................................................ 75
Strategy Five: Craft Mainstream Messages ............................................................................. 76
Strategy Six: Rebrand Australian Film .................................................................................... 76
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 78
Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 81
Appendix A: Survey Results ........................................................................................................ 86
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Share of the Australian Box Office for Australian Films, 1980-2012 ............................ 3
Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents Who Agree With the Statement ....................................... 65
vi
Abstract
This thesis examines one of Australia’s most divisive and dynamic cultural debates in
recent years: Australian cinema’s disconnect between filmmaker and audience, and how it is
impacting the success of Australian films at the local box office.
In 2013, Australian films’ share of the local box office was 3.51 percent, well below the
34-year average of 6.89 percent and a far cry from the 11.49 percent average in the 1980s
(Screen Australia, “Share”). The author believes that more can be done to improve Australian
films’ share of the local box office and return the industry to its glory days.
In this thesis, the author will study the Australian film industry landscape through a
public relations lens to determine what strategic PR can do to help encourage more Australian
audiences to see Australian films at their local cinemas.
While Australia is well known for its cinematic talents and its screen stories have earned
an important place in the country’s national identity, the success of home-grown films at the
local box office is threatened by a number of internal and external factors.
Three of the key issues affecting the success of Australian films at the local box office, as
determined by the author through primary and secondary research, are the domination of big
budget U.S. films, the negative public perception toward Australian films and ineffective
marketing and PR strategies weakening Australian films’ ability to compete in the marketplace.
In response to these issues, the author provides six strategic public relations
recommendations to encourage more Australian audiences to see home-grown films at the box
office: 1) emphasize the “critical element” of each film; 2) utilize social media and content
marketing; 3) create Australian film advocates; 4) start marketing and PR efforts early; 5) craft
vii
mainstream messages; and 6) create a comprehensive, dynamic campaign to dissipate the
negative public perception of Australian films.
It is the author’s hope that these recommendations might have an impact on the success
of Australian films at the box office; however, they are only one part of the equation. The author
calls on the Australian film industry to recruit talent from all areas of expertise – marketing,
distribution, production, funding, exhibition and filmmaking – to contribute their own skill and
knowledge to find a comprehensive and coordinated solution to the country’s box office
dilemma.
Ultimately, it is the author’s hope that public relations can play a key role in improving
the success of Australian films at the local box office to rebuild an industry that Australian
audiences are proud to call their own.
1
Introduction
In 2009, a group of Australian film experts participated in an industry panel to discuss the
state of Australian cinema in relation to the audience. The moderator, Andrew Urban, called it “a
watershed in Australian film history” (Metro Screen). While introducing the panel, Porchlight
Films producer Liz Watts proclaimed, “The audience versus film in this country; it is probably
the number one problem facing filmmakers today” (Metro Screen).
The two-hour long event, hosted by independent screen learning and development hub
Metro Screen, covered myriad issues pertaining to the apparent disconnect between Australian
filmmakers and Australian audiences. This disconnect, the author argues, is most apparent
through the systematically dismal results for Australian films at the box office.
2
The debate about the success of Australian films at the box office has divided
filmmakers, pundits and the general public for years. As Australian filmmaker and writer Lee
Zachariah puts it, “It’s a conversation that happens so regularly; it could well be illustrated by
Bono clicking his fingers together. The conversation starts with this: ‘What’s wrong with the
Australian film industry?’”
In 2008, according to former film critic and senior writer for The Age, Jim Schembri,
“Australian cinema still occupies only the very margins of the marketplace. . .the harsh truth is
that hit Australian films are freak events” (“At Death’s Door”). Five years later, freelance film
journalist Lynden Barber agrees:
With a few exceptions – a Sapphires here, a Red Dog there – local features have been
dead meat at the box office for at least five years. The overwhelming majority, and this
2
All references to “the box office” will be in relation to the Australian box office, unless stated
otherwise.
2
includes some of the better ones, routinely open to such tiny audiences that it’s hard not
to feel embarrassed for their directors.
The week the author put pen to paper on this work, a young Australian filmmaker,
Courtney Dawson, released her own documentary on the state of Australian film at the box
office, Advance Australian Film, where she interviewed key industry experts about the state of
Australian film today. Some of the most salient responses included, “an absolutely rotten state at
the moment” from The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert director Stephan Elliot and
“it’s in a radical state of flux” from Red Dog director Kriv Stenders (Advance Australian Film).
Dawson notes in the film, “It has been over 20 years since an Australian film reached number
one at the yearly box office – Strictly Ballroom in 1992” (Advance Australian Film). Despite
various attempts by the industry to discuss and improve the situation, in the author’s eyes, not
much has changed. The evidence overwhelming supports the argument that Australian cinema’s
share of box office is drowning and in need of revival.
A review of the share of the box office for Australian films reveals that, despite some
success stories in recent years, the needle hasn’t really moved. Ever since the 1980s, the share of
the box office for local films has been steadily declining. In the 1980s, a decade that included
major hits such as Crocodile Dundee ($47.7 million), Crocodile Dundee II ($24.9 million) and
The Man From Snowy River ($17.2 million), the average share was 11.49 percent (Screen
Australia, “Top 100;” Screen Australia, “Share”). In the 1990s, the average share dropped
substantially to 5.76 percent, where it was upheld by hits including Babe ($36.7 million), Strictly
Ballroom ($21.7 million), The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert ($16.4 million) and
Muriel’s Wedding ($15.7 million) (Screen Australia, “Top 100;” Screen Australia, “Share”). In
the 2000s, the average dropped again to 4.56 percent. Since then, the box office share for home-
3
grown films has wavered on either side of four percent, commanding 4.5 percent in 2010, 3.9
percent in 2011, 4.3 percent in 2012 and 3.5 percent in 2013 (Screen Australia, “Share”).
Figure 1: Share of the Australian box office for Australian feature films, 1980-2013 (Screen
Australia, “Share;” Groves, “8 Year Low”)
A 2010 report commissioned by Film Victoria found that 66 percent of Australian films
have taken in less than $1 million at the Australian box office (“Our Roy Morgan Research” 3).
Of the top 20 Australian films at the box office, only eight were released in the past 10 years
(Screen Australia, “Top 100”). In comparison, U.K. films accounted for 32 percent of the U.K.
box office in 2012, including a nine percent box office share just for U.K. independent films
(British Film Institute 10). Of the top 20 U.K. films at the U.K. box office, 15 were released in
the past 10 years, and only one prior to 2000 (British Film Institute 35). The author uses the U.K.
as an example because it represents another English-speaking country susceptible to Hollywood
domination that is not protected by another primary language.
Fast-forward to the end of 2013 and the industry is still nowhere near ending its drought.
As Inside Film senior journalist Don Groves writes, “An analysis of the Australian films released
4
in cinemas in 2013 makes for grim reading, with a handful of critical and/or commercial
successes outnumbered by misfires and under-achievers” (“Another Tough Year”). According to
data released by the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia (MPDAA), “the 26
Australian films and documentaries released theatrically in 2013 collectively grossed
$38,543,000. That equates to a box office share of 3.51 percent, the lowest since 2005’s 2.8
percent, and below the 10-year average of 3.8 percent” (Groves, “8 Year Low”). Only five
Australian films made more than $1 million at the domestic box office: The Great Gatsby
($27.38 million), The Railway Man ($2.05 million), Goddess ($1.63 million), Tim Winton’s The
Turning ($1.24 million) and Return to Nim’s Island ($1.22 million) (Groves, “8 Year Low”).
Australian cricket comedy Save Your Legs! posted “one of the worst box office opening weekend
performances among Australian films in recent times,” grossing only $164,654 on 176 screens in
its opening week for a screen average of just $936 (Swift, “Save Your Legs!”). The film received
positive reviews, starred two popular Australian actors and was centered on one of Australia’s
favorite pastimes. So, where are Australian films going wrong? As a proud Australian and public
relations (PR) professional that started out in the Australian film industry, the author vehemently
believes it is imperative the industry finds a solution.
Debate has raged for years about what that solution might be, with industry experts, film
journalists and the general public shifting the blame to a variety of parties. As Liz Watts
highlighted at the Metro Screen panel:
There are many theories that can float around about why this issue has definitely arisen –
whether it is quality of script, quality of execution, whether it is the talent, whether it is
the distributor’s fault, whether it is the exhibitor’s fault, whether it is the producer’s fault.
5
First of all, the author has no intention of entering into the discussion of whether
Australia should be making more audience-driven films. While the subject matter and themes of
Australian films are certainly worth considering in the larger story, the author does not plan to
fix the product. For one thing, a bad film does not necessarily equate to poor box office receipts,
as highlighted by Lauren Carroll Harris, who makes the excellent point that “great films fail
financially all the time and terrible films make stacks of cash.” More importantly, though, as a
public relations professional it is not the author’s place to mend the product or the industry in
which it circulates. Instead, the author will examine the Australian film industry landscape
through a public relations lens to determine what strategic PR can do to help encourage more
Australian audiences to see Australian films at their local cinemas.
Chapter One explores the history of Australian film at the box office to bring the reader
up to speed on the greater context in which this debate sits. Chapter Two examines the so-called
“schizophrenic” (Metro Screen) nature of the Australian film industry when it comes to defining
success. Chapters 3-9 survey the key strengths and opportunities for the Australian film industry
and Chapters 10-16 review the key weaknesses and threats impacting the success of Australian
films at the local box office. Next, Chapter 17 reveals the results of the author’s primary research
on the topic: a survey of 30 industry experts asked to comment on which of the key issues
identified in the author’s analysis they agreed with, to form a consensus on what the focus should
be when implementing strategies to improve the performance of Australian films at the box
office. Finally, Chapter 18 offers a number of overarching strategic public relations
recommendations for navigating the issues facing the Australian film industry and to encourage
more Australian audiences to see home-grown films.
6
Chapter One: A History of Australian Film at the Box Office
The Beginnings (1900s - 1960s)
It is a little-known fact that the first full-length narrative feature film was Australian. The
Story of the Kelly Gang, directed by film exhibitor Charles Tait, was a one-hour “fictionalized
account” of the infamous bushranger Ned Kelly, which first screened at Melbourne’s Athenaeum
Hall on December 26, 1906 (Chichester 5). The Story of the Kelly Gang predates the first
European, U.K. and U.S. feature-length films, including France’s L’Enfant prodigue in 1907 and
U.K. and U.S. adaptations of Oliver Twist in 1912 (Robertson 9-10). Only a few years later, the
“golden age” of Australian filmmaking arrived with almost 90 narrative films, including The
Fatal Wedding, directed by one of the country’s most prolific filmmakers, Raymond Longford,
made between 1910 and 1912 (Moran and Vieth 7). Unfortunately, the “golden age” ended
swiftly in 1912 with the banning of bushranger films and American expansion into the Australian
film industry, which “effectively strangled local production” (Moran and Vieth 8). Seven years
later, Raymond Longford directed The Sentimental Bloke, “arguably the most important
production of the silent period, earning better returns and critical reviews than any film to date”
(Moran and Vieth 8).
In 1926, legendary Australian filmmaker Charles Chauvel released his first feature, The
Moth of Moombi. One year later, For the Term of His Natural Life, an adaptation of Marcus
Clark’s novelization of life as a convict, introduced audiences to production values “far ahead of
any film production to date” (Moran and Vieth 10-11). In the 1930s, filmmaker A.R. Harwood
released Australia’s first feature-length talkies, Spur of the Moment and Isle of Intrigue (Moran
and Vieth 11) and internationally renowned Australian actor Errol Flynn starred in his first
feature film, and Chauvel’s first sound film, In the Wake of the Bounty (Moran and Vieth 12).
7
Additionally, to protect the local film industry from the effects of the Depression, the
government passed the N.S.W. Cinematograph Films (Australian Quota) Act in 1935, which
commanded that “at least five percent of all films distributed, and four percent of films screened,
had to be of Australian origin” (Moran and Vieth 12). In 1938, the NSW government provided
funding for the production of four films: Dad Rudd, Forty Thousand Horsemen, That Certain
Something and The Power and the Glory (Moran and Vieth 13).
On December 16, 1949, Chauvel’s “pioneering melodrama” Sons of Matthew was
released (Moran and Vieth 14). According to Moran and Vieth, it was “an epic in both
production and its story” and “his best film and one of the most significant films in Australian
film history” (14). The 1950s brought the first Australian color feature, Chauvel’s Jedda, which
“explored issues of cultural contact between Aboriginal and other Australians” (Moran and Vieth
15), as well as the arrival of television in 1956, which had an initial “further depressing effect on
the already-depressed feature film production and exhibition sectors” (Moran and Vieth 15).
Based on recommendations made by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization Committee (UNESCO) for Mass Communication and the Film and Television
Committee of the Australian Council of the Arts in the late 1960s, the Australian Film
Development Corporation was created in 1970 and the Australian Film and Television School
3
was formed in 1973 (Moran and Vieth).
The Peaks and Troughs of Culture vs. Commerce (1970s – 2000s)
The early 1970s marked the first of what Queensland Institute of Technology lecturer Dr.
Mark Ryan calls “the three phases in the boom and bust of Australian genre filmmaking.” Ryan
3
Now called the Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS)
8
refers to the first phase (1970-1975), as the “early years of the New Wave of Australian cinema”
(144). This period of filmmaking, more popularly known as “Ozploitation,” grew from a 1969
Arts Council report commissioned by Prime Minister John Gordon, which encouraged “the
production of low-budget, ‘frankly commercial’ films as part of its strategy for Australian film to
gain initial success with the Australian public” (O’Regan qtd. in Ryan 145). During this period,
audiences enjoyed films such as The Adventures of Barry McKenzie and Alvin Purple, which
were characterized as “ocker” cinema for their portrayal of stereotypical Australian personalities
(Ryan 144). The films featured “free-wheeling sex romps,” “blood soaked terror tales” and
“high-octane action extravaganzas” (American Film Institute), and were hugely popular. Bruce
Beresford’s The Adventures of Barry McKenzie “earned high returns for its backers, engendered
confidence in the industry and confirmed the Australian feature film production revival was up
and running” (Moran and Vieth 17). However, not everyone was impressed by the offerings of
ocker cinema, with Ryan adding that the films were often viewed as “an affront to cultural
identity. . .[and] gradually phased out by the newly formed Australian Film Commission in 1975
in favour
4
of movies projecting a positive sense of national identity to the world” (144).
In 1975, Peter Weir’s Picnic at Hanging Rock was released to critical and commercial
acclaim, making back its budget four times (Moran and Vieth 18). According to Moran and
Vieth, Weir’s film also “indicated the emergence of the period/art film, with its focus on gentler
but not always less menacing times” (18). For the rest of the decade, films like Fred Schepisi’s
The Devil’s Playground, Bruce Beresford’s The Getting of Wisdom, Peter Weir’s The Last Wave
and Phillip Noyce’s Newsfront won acclaim both nationally and internationally (Moran and
4
Any titles or quotes utilizing British English will be maintained throughout this thesis to keep
them in their native form.
9
Vieth). Despite this, the arrival of color television in Australia coincided with “a period of
unemployment, and inflation, correlating with a slump of 30 percent to 40 percent in cinema
attendance” between 1975-1977 (Moran and Vieth 18). In 1979, two lasting critical and
commercial successes were released to audiences: Gillian Armstrong’s My Brilliant Career was
“one of the first Australian films of the art and period cycle to achieve success at the box office”
and “George Miller’s Mad Max earned $1 million in its first week, to become the highest
grossing film in Australia up to that time” (Moran and Vieth 19). At the end of the first period/art
film era, Beresford’s Breaker Morant received widespread acclaim at the Cannes International
Film Festival and Rupert Murdoch and Robert Stigwood invested $2.6 million in World War I
film Gallipoli, which set Australian box office records and became the first Australian film to be
released by a major American studio, Paramount (Moran and Vieth 19). The Man From Snowy
River hit cinemas in 1982, “grossing $8 million in its first eight weeks, beating the record set by
Star Wars as the quickest-earning film in Australia” (Moran and Vieth 20).
The 1980s are characterized by Ryan’s next phase of genre filmmaking, “the shift toward
commercial and genre filmmaking during the peak of the 10BA tax incentive” (143). According
to Ryan, the initiative was designed to “shift the burden of film financing from government to
private investment” (144) with a new tax incentive from 1981-1988 that “increased the deduction
to 150 percent for funds invested in film” (Moran and Vieth 19). Ryan highlights that over 40
horror films, along with other genres including “action/adventure, kung fu, thrillers and science
fiction,” were produced during this time (144). Miller’s Mad Max II broke “box office records in
Australia and the Unites States, taking in US$12 million in the first three weeks” (Moran and
Vieth 20). This period also saw the release of Australia’s biggest box office success to date,
Crocodile Dundee, still the number one Australian film with $47.7 million (Screen Australia,
10
“Top 100”) and the most successful Australian film in the United States (Moran and Vieth 21).
In spite of these box office success stories, the 10BA tax incentive was perceived as a cultural
failure, with Ryan stating “films were produced for tax relief with little regard for quality” (45).
The Film Finance Corporation Australia replaced the 10BA in 1988 (Moran and Vieth 21) and
Ryan contends that its departure “slowed private investment and stymied the diversity of
Australian cinema” (144).
Stephen Rowley argues that in the 1990s, “the tendency to chase after Hollywood success
declined. . .the trend, in the last five years, has been to more ‘local’ films that aim at the
Australian market and feature recognisable, everyday settings” (qtd. in Ryan 146). In 1991,
Jocelyn Moorhouse’s Proof won the Camera d’Or Jury at Cannes Film Festival (Moran and
Vieth 22) and in 1992, Baz Luhrmann released his first feature film, Strictly Ballroom, which
became the top film at the box office that year with $18.8 million (Moran and Vieth 22). In 1993,
Jane Campion’s The Piano was the top Australian film at the box office and won a slew of
awards, including the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, Best Actress for Holly
Hunter and Best Supporting Actress for Anna Paquin, as well as the Cannes Palme d’Or (Moran
and Vieth 22). In the mid to late-1990s, the top Australian films at the box office included
Stephan Elliott’s The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert ($16.4 million), P.J. Hogan’s
Muriel’s Wedding ($15.7 million), Babe ($36.7 million) and Rob Sitch’s The Castle ($10.3
million) (Screen Australia, “Top 100”). Many of these films still occupy the forefront of
audiences’ minds when they think about popular Australian cinema.
In the early 2000s, the share of box office for Australian films held steady at around
seven percent with films such as The Dish ($16.8 million), The Wog Boy ($11.4 million),
Looking for Alibrandi ($8.3 million), Chopper ($5.7 million), Lantana ($9.8 million) and Moulin
11
Rouge! ($27.4 million) (Screen Australia, “Top 100”). In 2002, Phillip Noyce’s Rabbit-Proof
Fence “opened to critical acclaim over its treatment of the ‘stolen’ indigenous children issue”
(Moran and Vieth 23); however the share of box office experienced a significant decrease to 4.9
percent (Screen Australia, “Share”). According to Ryan, by the mid-2000s, “the Australian film
industry had reached a crisis point. In 2004, the local share of the box office dropped to a dismal
1.3 percent, its lowest level in recorded history” (146). Ryan adds, “Industry was accused of
producing, and government agencies of supporting, dark, depressing, and self-indulgent movies
with little regard for audience or entertainment” (146). Films released in this period include Ned
Kelly ($8.3 million), Gettin’ Square ($2.1 million), Somersault ($2 million), Wolf Creek ($5.8
million) and Little Fish ($3.7 million) (Screen Australia, “Top Five”). The share of box office
rose to 4.6 percent in 2006, fell to four percent in 2007 and fell again to 3.8 percent in 2008,
supported by titles including Happy Feet ($31.7 million), Kenny ($7.6 million), Ten Canoes
($3.2 million), Romulus, My Father ($2.5 million), Australia ($37.5 million) and The Black
Balloon ($2.2 million) (Screen Australia, “Top Five;” Screen Australia, “Share”).
Australian Film at the Box Office Today (2010 – 2014)
The end of the 2000s saw the arrival of Ryan’s third phase in the boom and bust of
Australian genre filmmaking, “the return to Aussie blockbusters and genre movies following the
implementation of the Producer Offset in 2007 and the inception of Screen Australia in 2008”
(145). After the introduction of the Producer Offset, a refundable tax offset, the box office rose
slightly to five percent in 2009, before falling again to 4.5 percent in 2010, 3.9 percent in 2011,
up slightly to 4.3 percent in 2012 and, finally, down again to 3.5 percent in 2013 (Screen
Australia, “Share”). Audience-pleasing films produced in the third phase included Mao’s Last
12
Dancer ($14.9 million), Tomorrow, When the War Began ($13.4 million), Kings of Mykonos:
The Wog Boy 2 ($4.9 million), Red Dog ($21.3 million), Happy Feet 2 ($10.7 million), The
Sapphires ($14.4 million), Kath & Kimderella ($6 million) and A Few Best Men ($5.2 million)
(Screen Australia, “Top 100”). There were also many critically acclaimed films released in this
period, including Samson & Delilah ($3.1 million) and Animal Kingdom ($4.9 million), which
both took home awards at Cannes Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival respectively (Screen
Australia “Top 100”). However, there were also some spectacular failures. In 2011, Jim
Schembri reported on the release of three Australian films, A Heartbeat Away, Griff the Invisible
and The Reef, which all “failed dismally to connect with local audiences” (“Disaster”). Schembri
commented that, “There’s never a good time to see Australian films fail, but the sorry spectacle
of three films tanking at once couldn’t come at a worse time for the local industry” (“Disaster”).
In 2013, the share for Australian films at the box office was 3.51 percent, the lowest since
2005’s 2.8 percent (Groves, “8 Year Low”). Only five Australian films made more than $1
million at the box office: The Great Gatsby ($27.38 million), The Railway Man ($2.05 million),
Goddess ($1.63 million), Tim Winton’s The Turning ($1.24 million) and Return to Nim’s Island
($1.22 million) (Groves, “8 Year Low”).
While Australian cinema’s performance was disappointing in 2013, in 2014 it is off to a
good start. As of May 7, 2014, The Railway Man had taken $7.3 million since its December 26,
2013 release, Wolf Creek 2 finished its run with $4.7 million and Tracks had taken $2.36 million
since its March 6, 2014 release (Groves, “Scorecard”). Stuart Beattie’s I, Frankenstein, on the
other hand, has been a major disappointment, taking in a mere $388,276 at the Australian box
office since March 20, 2014, against a $65 million budget (Groves, “Scorecard”). The gothic
action film, starring Aaron Eckhart, also bombed at the U.S. box office (Groves, “Scorecard”).
13
Chapter Two: Schizophrenia, or the Australian Film Industry’s Identity Crisis
During the Metro Screen panel, one particular debate raised a vitally important question
for the industry -- what constitutes success for Australian film? It seems that the Australian film
industry is suffering from an identity crisis in this regard, unable to decide on a clear business
goal for the industry as a whole. This identity crisis, or schizophrenia, is summed up in the
comments made during the Metro Screen panel by Australian producer and former Screen
Producers Association of Australia (SPAA) president, Antony I. Ginnane, who proclaimed that,
“For 40 years, this industry has been driven by schizophrenia. Is it culturally driven, or is it
commercially driven? We have never ever decided, unfortunately, which way it is meant to be”
(Metro Screen). Garry Maddox, also a panellist, concurred in a 2012 Sydney Morning Herald
article:
It has been a question almost since the Australian film industry leapt back into life with
Stork, Alvin Purple and Picnic at Hanging Rock in the 1970s: what sort of films should
the country make? Should our directors try to compete with Hollywood? Or given
smaller budgets, is it easier to make more ‘culturally important’ films, even if they only
reach limited audiences in art house cinemas?
At the panel, Ginnane gave a descriptive insight into the nature of the crisis:
The way it has been used for over 40 years has been a cloaking device. . .When we’ve
had a good year and we’ve made two or three films that have made a chunk of money
we’ve said, ‘Isn’t it great? It’s a business!’ Then, when we’ve had two or three years
when nobody’s gone to see the films but they’ve won the Golden Shell at San Sebastian
and they’ve won this or won that, Margaret [Pomeranz] loved it, we’ve said ‘Hey, this is
14
great. This is all about culture.’ So we’ve cheated, we’re a lying, hypocritical, duplicitous
group and we really need to decide once and for all, what side are you on?
The panel moderator, Andrew Urban, put the question to the panelists, “Is box office a
genuine, valid and only measure of the value of Australian films when it is financed for the
purpose of making money at the box office?” Urban agreed with Ginnane that the industry is
schizophrenic about this particular topic. Dr. Ruth Harley, then-CEO of Screen Australia, said,
“It’s genuine, it’s valid, it’s absolutely essential! We must not turn away from it, but it isn’t the
only thing” (Metro Screen). She argued that:
I think it is absolutely right that Samson and Delilah should receive huge accolades for
getting the Camera d’Or, and I think it’s right that Mao’s Last Dancer, at $10 million, is
fantastic … So, there are different measures for success, but that should not take our
focus away from the fact that popular culture requires the populous. (Metro Screen)
Groves highlights that, “Australian grosses should not be seen as the sole barometer of
each film’s success, given many have multiple viewings on VOD, pay-TV and free-to-air TV. .
.Festival exposure and critical acclaim are also key indicators” (“Another Tough Year”). In an
article for the Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS) publication LUMINA,
filmmaker Robert Connolly presented his own nine-step measure of success of an Australian
film, which included gross box office, DVD sales, pay TV sales/ratings, free-to-air sales/ratings,
VOD sales, talent creation, cultural impact, artistic vibrancy and financial returns.
On this topic, Australian director Kriv Stenders offered an excellent point about
calibrating success in an article by Don Groves about the box office success of Wish You Were
Here. Stenders, who directed the box office smash Red Dog, argued that:
15
We need to be calibrating a film’s commercial success to what the potential return is,
who its audience is and how large the release is. Red Dog was released on 250 screens,
Wish You Were Here on 35. Do the math. Therefore from my perspective, I think Wish
You Were Here is actually a relative success, both commercially and artistically. (Groves,
“Turn Off?)
In this regard, the film’s budget and screen average should be key factors in reporting on box
office results so that when low-budget films are released their smaller box office takings on 20
screens are not reported as a failure against colossal tentpole films releasing on 200+ screens.
Omitting these factors makes it harder for those outside the industry to get a true sense of
whether box office takings for a film represent a success or failure. The often-negative reporting
condemning the results, whether justified or not, is all readers have to judge a film’s success.
On the other hand, in an article about the box office success of Australia, Michael Bodey
argued that the industry often turns it nose up to films that are commercially successful, but not
considered culturally important:
The film industry’s own reluctance to cite the film as an achievement is disturbing. It’s
reminiscent of the film industry's skittishness when Working Dog’s debut film, The
Castle, became such a box office hit and cultural phenomenon. Or The Wog Boy. They
didn’t win film festival awards in Europe. While no one needs to defend Australia as
perfect, no one in the industry ever discusses the film as a case study of what the industry
could be.
At the panel, Ginnane not only commented on box office as an indicator for success for
individual films, but also as an indicator of success for the industry as a whole. He contended
that not all films are going to make money because “all over the world, most films lose money
16
and a few films make money” (Metro Screen). In his opinion, it should be about the share of the
box office, not the success of each individual film (Metro Screen). Of course, the success of each
individual film is important to the overall share, but we should not conduct post-mortems on
films without looking at the bigger picture. He argued during the panel that:
The goal for the Australian industry is not necessarily to fight, or punch it out over which
film or whether it is a $1.5 million it should take $3 million; or $100 million should take
$250 million. The collective goal should be to craft a number of releases, in any given 12
month period, that lift the total box office share from the 3.5, 3.7, four percent. . .up to
some reasonable number, attainable number. My view on that should be that we should
be struggling and striving to get to 10 percent of the national gross box office.
While the author agrees that cultural importance must not be swept aside as a measure of
success for an Australian film, for the purposes of this work box office will remain the primary
measure of success. As the author’s aim is to present strategic public relations recommendations
to encourage Australian audiences to see home-grown films in theatrical release, box office must
be the benchmark. However, share of box office will be the key, rather than individual films’ box
office takings. Not only is box office success important for keeping the industry financially
stable, it is also important in branding Australian film to Australian audiences. Ginnane argued
this point when discussing the impact of Australia: “its success is not just in dollars and cents, its
success is for a brief moment in time, making Australians feel that there was an Australian film
that they wanted to see” (Metro Screen).
Some pundits, such as Australian journalist Greg Jericho, think this goal is unattainable.
He wrote that, “Within the film industry there is a vague hope that one day we might see
Australian films account for 10 percent of the box office. It is a pipe dream.” However, Jericho
17
does agree with the strategy to create a number of films that combine to lift the share of box
office, adding that, “The key is to not have just one breakout success, but have three or four that
bear the $10 million mark.” As Zachariah points out, we might not be “one Die Hard franchise
away from kickstarting our own Hollywood,” but the author believes that there is a lot that can
be done to try and get the Australian box office closer to its heyday. We may never get back to
the years of a 20 percent plus box office share, or come close to competing with the U.K.’s 35
percent local box office share, but the author believes that the Australian box office can rebuild
its share to somewhere closer to the five to 10 percent it enjoyed at the beginning of the 21st
century. If the U.K. can enjoy an independent film share of nine percent, then the entire
Australian film share should be able to reach nine percent -- The Great Gatsby and all.
Chapter Three: The Australian Film Industry – A SWOT Analysis
The following chapters will chronicle what the author believes to be the key strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats that exist for the Australian film industry. There are
countless SWOT elements, such as the growth of the box office worldwide, the growth of
international markets, the enduring popularity of movies as a form of entertainment, the
historical success of Australian films at the box office, the availability of talent for PR
campaigns, online piracy, the loss of talent to Hollywood, the stronghold of television in
Australian screen content market share, the success of Screen Australia’s Producer Offset and
Enterprise Program, the risk adverse nature of distributors, exhibitors and investors toward
Australian film and the high ticket price for Australian film that are applicable to the Australian
film industry. Therefore, it will be impossible to include them all here.
18
Instead of exploring all these elements in detail, the author will focus on what she
believes to be the most critical trends, attributes and issues affecting the success of Australian
films at the local box office, as examined from a public relations perspective: 1) Australian
audiences value Australian stories; 2) the rise of alternate distribution strategies; 3) the rise of
social media as a marketing tool; 4) the positioning opportunities for Australian film; 5) the
abundance of Australian film talent; 6) the “Australianness” of local films; 7) the domination of
Hollywood blockbusters; 8) the declining success of traditional release strategies; 9) the negative
public perception of the Australian film brand; 10) the creative issues with Australian films, in
relation to the audience; 11) the accessibility of Australian films; 12) the ineffective marketing
and PR strategies for Australian film; and 13) the current funding models that create a barrier to
making audience-driven Australian films.
Chapter Four: Australian Audiences Value Australian Stories
In a Screen Australia press release issued on January 17, 2014, the agency’s newly
appointed CEO, Graeme Mason, stated that, “Australian stories are incredibly important to the
cultural fabric of our society and they contribute to our social belonging and sense of national
identity” (“Breadth of Industry Talent”). Mason’s statement is supported by the results of several
market research reports, which all concluded that Australian audiences value Australian stories.
According to Screen Australia’s report What to Watch?: Audience Motivation in a Multi-
screen world, “Nine in 10 people feel it’s important to have a local film and television industry
that makes Australian stories, with the most commonly cited concern being to ensure local
stories aren’t overrun by Hollywood productions” (3). Additionally, 49 percent of survey
respondents said they would rather watch an Australian movie than a foreign one (Screen
19
Australia, “What to Watch” 19). A 2008 report conducted by market research company Bergent
Research for the Film Finance Corporation (FFC), Maximising the Appeal of Australian Movies
with Australian Audiences, found that “Australians are proud to watch good Australian movies”
(34), with one focus group participant stating “after watching them you feel more Aussie. . .more
pride. . .more emotional” (34). Bergent found that “Australians can relate to the Australianness
of a movie” (35), with participants indicating that they enjoyed seeing places they recognize or
would like to visit, and “can see aspects of themselves or their friends in the characters” (35).
Ipsos Australia’s focus group research study Hearts & Minds: How Local Screen Stories
Capture the Hearts & Minds of Australians, conducted for Screen Australia, also found that,
“While Australian content only formed one part of their screen diets, many participants firmly
believed that a strong local film and television industry that produced good quality content was
essential to their sense of culture and identity” (Ipsos 8). One participant stated that, “There is a
place for them [local shows and films] absolutely. They are part of our cultural identity. . .they
tell our history” (Ipsos 8).
One noteworthy example highlighting the value Australian audiences hold for their own
screen content is the continued success of Australian television. Lynden Barber argues that:
Feeble cinema turnouts do not mean that Australian viewers are shunning Australian-
made stories. The success of quality Australian television shows such as ABC’s The Slap,
Rake and Redfern Now, Ten’s Puberty Blues and Offspring and Nine’s Underbelly (at
least in the first series) show that audiences are keen for more.
Australian television programs dominated the TV ratings for 2013, with home-grown series
accounting for 46 of the top 50 shows for the year (Groves, “Dominate Top 50”). Groves posits
that the statistics “confirmed that Australian audiences continue to overwhelmingly prefer home-
20
grown shows to U.S. and British imports” (“Dominate Top 50”). The top-rated fictional
television shows included A Place to Call Home, Packed to the Rafters, House Husbands and
Winners and Losers (Groves, “Dominate Top 50”).
While the strength of the Australian television industry could also be seen as a threat
given the possibility it may command a larger share of audiences’ consumption of Australian
screen content, it is also an opportunity for Australian cinema because it elevates the reputation
of the entire screen industry and indicates that Australian audiences do have an appetite for
native screen stories.
Chapter Five: The Rise of Alternate Distribution Strategies
Across the world, platforms such as iTunes, Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu and LoveFilm
have allowed content creators to reach wider audiences online. According to Screen Australia’s
report What to Watch?, “The Internet has broken down supply constraints, with most online
viewers watching more screen stories overall as a result” (2). The report revealed that, “Most
online viewers use the web as a complementary content source, not as a replacement, with 57
percent saying that overall they’re now watching more feature films, TV drama and
documentaries than they did five years ago” (Screen Australia, “What to Watch” 12). The
implications are clear, “For producers, the opportunity for online viewing to extend the
experiences of traditional platforms offers not only new ways to distribute content but also new
ways to promote it” (Screen Australia, “What to Watch?” 2).
Video on demand (VOD) services have given rise to what Wired editor Chris Anderson
calls “the long tail,” which offers great opportunity for Australian films (often more independent
and niche in style) to find greater audiences online. Anderson’s theory is that:
21
Online retailers were generating new supply economics, offering a wider range of
physical and digital goods and services with reduced storage and transactions costs.
Customers were buying a wider range of products using search engines and
recommendation tools, pushing demand away from hit-driven blockbusters into a “long
tail.” (Given, Curtis and McCutcheon 51)
University of New South Wales (UNSW) PhD candidate in film studies Lauren Carroll
Harris recently published a study into new distribution platforms for Australian film, Not at a
Cinema Near You: Australia’s Film Distribution Problem. Harris argues that Australian films
need to be released in a variety of innovative ways, such as simultaneously in cinemas, on DVD
and VOD, and that blame for the failure of Australian films at the box office should not be
placed on the films themselves, but on how they are distributed. She cites Screen Australia
statistics that claim, “only one in 10 first-release films are now viewed at the cinema. Sixty-five
percent are viewed on video-on-demand and DVD/Blu-Ray” and calls on the industry to create
its own distribution system that works for Australian films. She concludes that “the box office is
not where audiences are heading for local content; online and post-cinema markets are the real
markets” (Harris).
Director Kriv Stenders echoed this sentiment in Advance Australian Film:
Personally, I think the future of cinema is in the Internet, I really do. I mean, that’s
nothing new, people have been saying that for decades, but, I really believe cinema will
live and breathe and evolve and more forward via that platform. Whether it is streaming
into cinemas or streaming at home, to me it is about movies and it is about storytelling -
the form, the art, the craft, the magic of movies is still alive no matter where you see
them, and that’s what excites me.
22
With the rise of VOD services across the world comes the opportunity for the industry to find
more innovative distribution models that will herald the success of home-grown films.
Online distribution and the arrival of VOD are not the only changes currently happening
in the theatrical distribution game. Many filmmakers, distributors and exhibitors are
experimenting with event-style cinema offerings such as Q&A screenings with filmmakers and
talent. One such offering is Australian director/producer Robert Connolly’s new CinemaPlus
initiative, which he calls a “unique cinema event” (Valentine) and is already seeing success with
a number of Australian films. Connolly told 702 ABC Sydney presenter James Valentine in an
interview on September 26, 2013:
We as filmmakers want to value the audience for coming to the cinema. We want to say,
you could see these things other ways, but we're going to make the cinema experience so
amazing you'll never get to see it this way unless you come to the cinema. . .Some of the
cinemas were throwing in a glass of prosecco the other night. . .It's part of that thing
where people out there are expecting something more from the cinema.
CinemaPlus’ first release was Underground: The Julian Assange Story, which previously
screened on Network Ten and offered Q&A sessions with the WikiLeaks founder’s mother
Christine Assange and lead actor, Alex Williams; meet-the-filmmaker sessions and “Directing
the Actor” workshops; and a DVD packed with additional features (Groves, “CinemaPlus”). The
idea is that cinemas would rather have one packed session for a film with special offerings than
six sessions throughout the day with only a handful of people attending each screening (Groves,
“CinemaPlus”). Connolly commented that, “the response we’ve had so far suggests this kind of
event cinema experience is what people are after” (Groves, “CinemaPlus”). Later in 2013,
Connolly premiered his Australian anthology film Tim Winton’s The Turning with event
23
screenings through CinemaPlus and co-distributor Madman Films. The film went on to become
the fourth highest grossing Australian film of 2013, bringing in over $1.2 million at the box
office, and “encourage[ing] other filmmakers to stage Q&A screenings for Backyard Ashes and
Circle of Lies” (Groves, “Another Tough Year”). In its opening week, the film earned $215,522
on 16 screens, “an impressive average of $13,472 per screen” (Groves, “Sizable Turn-Out”).
Harris noted that, “Tim Winton’s The Turning has successfully pursued an alternative distribution
strategy of touring special events, which have made more than $625,000 (an incredible figure
given how few screens the film played on, and a great base from which to launch the DVD), and
expanded its presence across the country.”
Harris also draws on other examples of innovative distribution strategies, including Carlo
Ledesma’s cult horror thriller The Tunnel, which was crowdfunded and released on torrent sites.
According to Harris, The Tunnel “profited from being given away freely,” because “filmmakers
commandeered file-sharing to effectively reach their identified audience and drive interest in
ancillary products.” She revealed that, “They reached over four million viewers, sold over
25,000 DVDs, over 800,000 streams and also released their film as an iPad app – a much more
effective and expansive model than the traditional box office route” (Harris).
In October 2013, Australian actor/director Eric Bana announced he would be touring the
country with Q&A screenings in capital cities to release his film Closed Circuit. Fairfax Media’s
film editor, Karl Quinn, commented that Bana’s efforts are:
The latest example of what appears to be a slowly emerging trend in which local
filmmakers attempt to combat audience apathy by building a personal conversation with
the people who might perhaps be persuaded to see their movies.
In an interview with Quinn, Bana observed that:
24
It’s really easy to throw your hands in the air and say, ‘Oh, the state of cinema blah blah
blah; bloody blockbusters blah blah blah.’ But I think it’s important where possible to roll
your sleeves up and at least try and have some sort of impact on the outcome. . .There’s
no guarantees, but it’s easier to roll with the punches if you’ve thrown a few.
These alternative distribution strategies offer a multitude of opportunities for Australian
films to reach audiences and bring in money at the box office, as well as ancillary markets.
Chapter Six: The Rise of Social Media as a Marketing Tool
The Internet has also given rise to social media as an effective and engaging marketing
and PR tool, which provides an excellent opportunity to Australian filmmakers to reach and
connect with potential audiences to drive up box office. Screen Australia’s What to Watch?
report provides excellent insight into the importance of online platforms for marketing Australian
film, stating, “Social media networks offer a strategic opportunity to build awareness as word-of-
mouth evolves in speed and scale.” The report found that social networks such as Facebook and
Twitter have not only “given trailers a new lease on life,” but also improved conversations about
feature films: “30 percent of online viewers now say they often read posts on these sites before
deciding what to watch and half of those post comments back once they’ve viewed” (Screen
Australia, “What to Watch” 3). What to Watch? further contends that:
What used to be friends talking in the playground or colleagues around a water cooler has
dramatically changed. These one-to-one dialogues have become one-to-many with posts
on social media sites expanding conversations to unprecedented levels at previously
unimaginable speed. Simultaneously, this has given rise to new ways of sharing reviews
25
and marketing messages, with trailers, clips from behind the scenes and interviews being
more pervasive now than ever before. (18)
Screen Australia used its research to present strategic opportunities to the industry,
including the idea that social media should be used to drive advocacy and the word-of-mouth
network (“What to Watch” 19) and concludes that that the challenge is clear: “Creative, dynamic
efforts are needed to ensure audiences continue to be engaged with Australian stories in an
increasingly competitive multi-screen world” (“What to Watch” 20).
Social media has been used with varying levels of success by Australian filmmakers,
however there is much more that can be done. The release of Australian horror film 100 Bloody
Acres emphasized the importance of a $70,000 online marketing campaign to the film’s success,
with producer Julie Ryan highlighting “an active dialogue with fans between our characters Reg
and Lindsay.” However, the film ultimately suffered at the box office due to a small release
(Inside Film, “100 Bloody Acres”). At the end of the article, one reader commented, “Great
social media campaign (it’s how I found out about it). You made a pearler. However, woeful
distribution in this country has killed any chance it had” (Inside Film, “100 Bloody Acres”).
The rise of social media as a marketing and PR strategy will be key to the success of
Australian films at the box office in the future, although it is by no means the only factor.
Chapter Seven: Positioning Opportunities for Australian Film
Bergent Research’s report Maximising the Appeal of Australian Movies with Australian
Audiences revealed that there are a number of positioning opportunities for Australian films. This
study for FFC, which involved intercept interviews, focus groups and a survey, found that the
mainstream sell increases the appeal of Australian film to a wide audience. Bergent reached this
26
conclusion by showing survey respondents four posters for a fictional movie – Australian art
house, Australian mainstream, U.S. art house and U.S. mainstream – and while there was no
difference between the art house and mainstream sells overall, the mainstream sell performed
better for Australian films (95-97). In particular, the mainstream sell generated more interest
among people under 35 and “those who dislike Australian movies,” and also increased urgency,
with “more people intending to see the movie in the first week of release” (Bergent 99). Bergent
concluded that one implication of this data is that “Australian movies would benefit from more
mainstream posters” (126).
Bergent also conducted a “BrainDump” to investigate positioning opportunities for
Australian films by mapping out where other national cinemas fell in participants’ minds,
revealing that there is an opportunity to re-position Australian movies as “entertaining,” “feel
good movies,” “good acting” and “fun,” as other national cinemas do not already occupy these
positions (141).
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, the now-former Screen Australia CEO,
Dr. Ruth Harley, told Garry Maddox that there is a “new niche for Australians films” that is an
“elevated art house crossover,” or “smart stories that work in both art house and mainstream
cinemas,” as well as “elevated art house” and “elevated genre.” Clearly, there are a number of
messaging and branding opportunities for Australian films that could be employed in marketing
and PR strategies to bring in broader audiences for local films.
27
Chapter Eight: The Abundance of Australian Film Talent
In Advance Australian Film, director Dr. George Miller (Mad Max, Happy Feet)
proclaimed, “We’re a very small country, we’re 20 million people, it’s a big, wide world out
there and we do punch above our weight.” Australian film distributor and producer Troy Lum
concurs, stating at the Metro Screen panel, “I think one of the big fallacies about the Australian
business is that it is not doing very well creatively. I read about five scripts a week from all over
the world and the majority of them are crap.” Australia does have an abundance of film talent
and one key indicator of this is the country’s history of success on the international stage.
In the U.S., Australia has garnered great success at the Academy Awards
®
and film
festivals such as Sundance. Just a sampling of Australian talent accolades at the Oscars
®
include
three wins and eight nominations for The Piano; one win and seven nominations for Shine; two
wins and eight nominations for Moulin Rouge!; and, acting wins for Nicole Kidman, Cate
Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and Russell Crowe. In the last 10 years, five Australian feature films
have screened in competition at Sundance Film Festival, including Wish You Were Here, Mad
Bastards, Animal Kingdom, Noise and Wolf Creek, with Animal Kingdom taking home the World
Cinema Jury Prize in 2010 (Screen Australia, “Sundance Film Festival”).
Australian films have also been lauded on the European film festival circuit, with three
features screening in competition at Cannes Film Festival (Sleeping Beauty, Bright Star and
Moulin Rouge!) and nine selected for Un Certain Regard (Toomelah, Samson & Delilah,
Suburban Mayhem, Ten Canoes, 2:37, Jewboy, Yellow Fella, Somersault and Japanese Story)
(Screen Australia, “Cannes Film Festival”). Additionally, Samson & Delilah won the Camera
d’Or, Ten Canoes won the Special Jury Prize and Australian dramatic thriller Snowtown took
home the Special Mention–President of the Jury prize when it screened at Critic’s Week in 2011
28
(Screen Australia, “Cannes Film Festival”). One Australian feature film, Candy, has screened in
competition at the Berlin International Film Festival in the past 10 years, with three Australian
features taking home the Crystal Bear for Best Feature Film: 52 Tuesdays, The Rocket and The
Black Balloon (Screen Australia, “Berlin International Film Festival”).
In 2014, Australia has continued to succeed on the international stage. Cate Blanchett
won the Academy Award
®
for Best Actress for her performance in Blue Jasmine and designer
Catherine Martin became the first Australian to win four Oscars
®
after taking home statues for
Best Production Design and Best Costume Design for her work on The Great Gatsby. Sophie
Hyde won a Crystal Bear for Best Film in the Generation 14+ section at the Berlin International
Film Festival for her directorial debut 52 Tuesdays (Bunbury) and four Australian films were
selected for the South by Southwest Film Conference and Festival: Predestination, The Mule,
The Infinite Man and Ukraine Is Not a Brothel (Screen Australia, “Screen Australia News”).
Finally, Sundance Film Festival screened two Australian feature films, 52 Tuesdays and The
Badadook (Screen Australia “Selected at Sundance”). Sundance festival director John Cooper
noted, “We’ve had good luck with Australia” (Gibbs).
On the business side, it was announced earlier this year that NBCUniversal International
Television Production had taken 100 percent ownership of Australian production company
Matchbox Pictures (Groves, “Matchbox Pictures”). Of the purchase, president of NBCUniversal
International Television Production, Michael Edelstein said, “Matchbox is one of the most
exciting and dynamic production companies we have encountered” (Groves, “Matchbox
Pictures”). It is clear that Australian-made content is attracting the attention of respected industry
eyes across the globe, on both a commercial and critical/cultural level, highlighting the
abundance of film talent that exists within the country.
29
Chapter Nine: The “Australianness” of Local Film
While there is a negative perception among Australian audiences toward Australian films
that creates a barrier to seeing local films at the box office (more in Chapter 12), research has
shown that when Australian audiences do see local films they relish in the “Australianness” of
that content. According to Ipsos Australia’s study for Screen Australia, Hearts & Minds,
Australian audiences like to watch Australian screen stories because they can relate to them and
the content is unique to their own personal experiences, which heightens their emotional
connection with the material. Ipsos found that, “Participants enjoyed the sense of ‘home’ and
familiarity they experienced when watching Australian screen stories full of characters, humour,
locations and a way of life they recognised and could relate to” (3). One participant commented,
“What sets Australian films apart is their capacity to convey feelings and characters in a subtle
way. Things that American films simply can’t do well” (Ipsos 3). Another said, “A lot of the
Australian films I’ve seen seem to be down-to-earth and realistic. It’s real life. It’s the drama of
your life” (Ipsos 3). Other feedback that demonstrated the appeal of uniquely Australian content
included, “[The Castle] was iconic. I do actually relate to it. I know so many people who go and
have holidays out at disgusting dams in tiny little towns. That’s their idea of peace and quiet”
(Ipsos 3). On the topic of The Castle, another participant concurred that she liked “those
absolutely quintessential Australian elements -- like the Trading Post -- who is going to have that
[in an overseas film]?” (Ipsos 3).
The nation’s self-deprecating humor was noted as another strength of Australian films.
One participant said, “[We’re] good at taking ourselves off [on screen]. We understand the way
we live. Our lifestyle. Australians are a bit different,” and another agreed that “Australians
compared to Americans, they are totally different. They don’t get us at all. They haven’t got a
30
bloody clue. I’ll take Australian comedy any day” (Ipsos 3). When discussing the Australian TV
series The Slap, participants raved about the unique “Australianness” of the series, with one
participant commenting, “I loved The Slap. Imagine trying to do that in America – it just
wouldn’t work” and another saying, “The Slap didn’t try and gloss over it. That was very
Australian. That was very warts and all” (Ipsos 8).
Ipsos’ Hearts & Minds also contends that location and landscape are huge draw cards for
Australian audiences when it comes to local screen content. According to Ipsos, “Location
emerged as a strong element attracting viewers. They [participants] enjoyed seeing ‘places we
know’ on screen, which helped them forge a more intimate connection to content” (4). One
participant said that she liked seeing places she had been to: “We have been to the cities where
they have been filmed. Or the outback where they have been filmed and you can relate to those
places,” and another commented, “Kununurra was the best thing about Australia, especially the
river where they made it. I’ve been to that river. Camped right beside it” (Ipsos 4).
These findings were reminiscent of Bergent’s study, where focus group and survey
research found that “Australians can relate to the ‘Australianness’ of a movie,” with respondents
indicating they “enjoy seeing places they recognise or places in Australia they’d like to visit” and
“relate to the characters more and enjoy the Australian sense of humour” (35).
According to Film Victoria’s study Australian Feature Films, Fictional Television and
Documentaries: The Results From Our Roy Morgan Research, “12 percent of respondents rated
‘Australianness’ of the content as a reason for their enjoyment of films” (6). Moreover, it is
interesting to note that “Australianness” was cited as a reason for enjoyment by 22 percent of
people aged 35-49 years old. Additionally, men aged 35-49 years old were the most likely to cite
31
“Australianness” as a reason for enjoying feature films at 29 percent compared to 12 percent
overall (Film Victoria “Our Roy Morgan Research” 7).
Dr. Mark David Ryan also argues for the “Australianness” of local cinema, stating that:
The most successful Australian movies of all time at the local box-office have traded
upon Australianness in the marketplace: distinctively Australian characters, cultural
themes, cinematic tropes, mise-en-scene and so on (for example, Crocodile Dundee, The
Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, Muriel’s Wedding). The most successful
Australian film and television programmes, at both home and abroad, have achieved a
fine balancing act between retaining a distinctively Australian cultural identity and
appealing to domestic audiences, while achieving universal appeal for international
audiences.” (49)
This evidence suggests that the “Australianness” of local cinema is a major draw for
audiences, and should be considered as a focus for any marketing or public relations campaigns.
Chapter Ten: The Domination of Hollywood Blockbusters
Arguably the biggest threat to the success of Australian films at the box office is the
domination of Hollywood blockbusters, which enjoy key advantages of colossal production
budgets, mega-star casts and huge prints and advertising (P&A)
5
budgets. Research by Screen
Australia revealed that the main supplier of feature films for Australian cinemas between January
2005 and October 2009 was the U.S., which accounted for 55 percent of films released
(“Marketplace” 2). Additionally, U.S. films dominated across the majority of release categories,
including limited (less than 20 prints), mainstream (100-199 prints), wide (200-399 prints) and
5
Prints and advertising, or P&A, refers to the cost of distributing and marketing a film.
32
blockbuster (400+) (Screen Australia, “Marketplace” 3). Research conducted two years later by
Screen Australia also revealed that “60 percent of films released in Australian cinemas over the
past 28 years have come from the U.S.,” but that there had been a “downward trend” for the
U.S., “falling below 50 percent in 2010 for the first time in 27 years” (“No. of Australian and
Overseas Films Released”). Despite this trend, Screen Australia found that U.S. films, which
accounted for 44 percent of the total number of films released in 2011, still earned 82 percent of
the total box office for all films released in Australia that year (“No. of Australian and Overseas
Films Released”).
Screen Australia’s head of marketing, Kathleen Drumm, argued in a piece for Encore
Magazine that it is difficult to market local films because, “Big films with big marketing
budgets. . .take advantage of multi-million dollar campaigns coming out of Hollywood. .
.Australian films have to compete in this environment, vying for screens and sessions, as well as
media attention.” Drumm suggested that distributors and producers must “work creatively, often
with limited budgets, to generated excitement for their films” and argued that “there’s a lot of
evidence to suggest they’re going a great job,” citing Red Dog and A Few Best Men as examples
(Encore Magazine).
Numerous industry experts have echoed these marketing implications on Australian
audiences. Film distributor Troy Lum explained at the Metro Screen panel:
You’re competing against. . .films that have a global campaign, so you may not realise it
but when you're exposed to something like. . .Transformers 2. . .you might be seeing it on
The Letterman Show, seeing it on some American or English piece of media that's come
through on Foxtel that's not actually created here, it’s actually part of a worldwide
campaign.
33
Rabbit-Proof Fence director Phillip Noyce supported this argument in an article by Garry
Maddox, “It’s always hard for a little Australian film to compete for awareness with Hollywood
product that has already been sold into Australian hearts and minds by global culture platforms
such as the web and the Hollywood publicity machine that feeds it.”
In Advance Australian Film, respected Australian film critic David Stratton stated that,
“Hollywood has always had this enormous budget to advertise their products, so they swamp
everything and anything, and they always have” and Australian Film Festival director, Barry
Watterson, added that, “If you gave $3 million to a filmmaker, they’d lap it. ‘$3 million, I can
make a great film for $3 million!’ But, the marketing budget for Avatar alone would have made
57 of those films. So, it is impossible to compete on the marketing level.”
One observation to note is that Australia is not the only English-speaking country to
suffer from the domination of U.S. films when it comes to theatrical releases. Between 2000 and
2009, the U.S. had an average domestic share of national box office of 95 percent and the U.K.
of 23.5 percent, but Canada had just 3.4 percent and New Zealand had a domestic share of four
percent (Screen Australia, “Share Selected Other Countries”). Looking at it from this
perspective, Australia’s performance is slightly better than most of its English-speaking
counterparts, with an average domestic share of 4.7 percent during the same period (Screen
Australia, “Share Selected Other Countries”).
It has often been noted that U.S. domination is a particular problem for countries with
English as its primary language, as articulated by Troy Lum at the Metro Screen panel:
We’re not a territory that is protected by its language, meaning that when you quote
Korean figures or Japanese figures, when these are films that are in their own language
and there is a certain pleasure in seeing a film in your own language. In Australia,
34
obviously we speak English; we’re completely culturally dominated, not just in film, but
in everything we do, magazines, radio, television. . .Not speaking our own language is a
really big indictor of why our market is so low. We’re so easily dominated.
U.S. domination also impacts the Australian film industry when it comes to competition
for media space, which affects the marketing and PR strategies for Australian films and their
ability to reach audiences. At the Metro Screen panel, Lum said on this topic:
You’ve got newspapers that won't publish your actress on the front page because she's
not Scarlett Johansson or Penelope Cruz. You've got critics who say; well we don't want
to do two films a week and this week we're doing Transformers 5 and whatever.
Australian films have to compete against Hollywood stars, as well as each other, for media
space. Australian stars miss out on magazine covers, hindering the star power of the film and, for
a quality independent film, missing out on a review in a major metropolitan newspaper can have
a huge effect on visibility.
Furthermore, America is not the only country that threatens the success of Australian
films. Other international cinemas have a stronghold on the Australian market, with popularity of
films from regions such as Asia rising rapidly. Australian Films in the Marketplace: Analysis of
Release Strategies and Box Office Performance revealed that the second largest supplier of
feature films for Australian cinemas between January 2005 and October 2009 was Asia with 16
percent (Screen Australia 2). French films dominate the limited release category (less than 20
prints), with a median box office of $239,578 compared to $59,307 for Australian films and
Australian films are beaten handsomely by U.K. films in the speciality release category (20-99
films), with a median box office of $785,130 compared to $580,257 for Australian films (Screen
Australia, “Marketplace” 3). Screen Australia also revealed that Asian films accounted for 21
35
percent of the films released at Australian cinemas in 2011, well above the 28-year average of
seven percent (“No. of Australian and Overseas Films Released”).
When talking about the risks taken by distributors in Advance Australian Film, Palace
Cinemas CEO, Ben Zeccolla, stated that, “For the cost of acquiring a French film that can go on
to do terrific box office in Australia with minimal stress, just the cost of buying that French film
that is what we would spend on doing the legals for the contract for an Australian film,”
highlighting the advantages international titles have in the distribution business.
Ultimately, the threat of U.S. cultural domination is here to stay, a statement supported by
The Australian film editor Michael Bodey, who said, “I fear the struggle will forever be a
problem for an industry fighting for space against the cultural behemoth, Hollywood. We’ll have
our little wins but it will be a never-ending battle.”
Chapter Eleven: The Declining Success of Traditional Release Patterns
While the rise of online distribution platforms is an opportunity for Australian films, the
subsequent decline of traditional release patterns is also a threat, particularly because Australia
lags behind other countries in developing online platforms. During Metro Screen’s panel,
moderator Andrew Urban argued:
In the new world, the old world model is not sufficient -- the old world model being the
theatrical first, then the DVD and then the ancillaries. It seems to me that the Australian
film industry, like most other film industries really, to be fair, is battling tooth and nail to
stay in the old world when the new world is beckoning. And the new world is online.
Distribution online is coming, whether you like it or not, and if you want to be proactive
about it, you will probably do better than it you're not.
36
This argument was heavily debated in an article written for Inside Film about the release
of Australian horror film 100 Bloody Acres. According to Inside Film, the film’s producer, Julie
Ryan, “sees an urgent need to re-think the traditional film distribution model” (“100 Bloody
Acres”). Ryan states that the failure of her film at the local box office, “makes me think that
releasing a film these days should have a global strategy and come out day-and-date on cinemas
and VOD. It’s the only way to minimise the piracy effect on revenue” (Inside Film, “100 Bloody
Acres”) Comments from readers supported her claims, with “Jose Maturana” saying, “woeful
distribution in this country has killed any chance it had. . .Your audience is ready to consume this
film, just not in a mainstream cinema” and “Mathew Harvey” adding, “The cinema model is
dead unless you have a tentpole film and Australia doesn’t have the means to produce these big
studio films” (Inside Film, “100 Bloody Acres”). Ryan concluded that, “unless we start trying to
come up with a solution, we’re pretty well stuffed” (Inside Film, “100 Bloody Acres”).
One of the issues is that film exhibitors refuse to shorten the window between theatrical
release and ancillary markets like DVD, VOD and TV. The two sides of this argument were
debated in Groves’ article, “Momentum Builds for New Approach to Releasing Oz Films.” In the
article, SPAA president Brian Rosen argued:
By the time they [films] get to home entertainment, the publicity from their theatrical
launch has dissipated. We’re not getting the full bang from the (marketing) buck. Release
windows have changed in the U.S. and they need to change here. We are not trying to
take money away from cinemas, but there should be an ongoing discussion. (Groves,
“Momentum Builds”)
Independent Cinema Association of Australian (ICAA) CEO, Adrianne Pecotic, challenged him,
stating, “All the exhibitors I speak with on a regular basis are certain that a reduction in the
37
theatrical window will reduce cinema attendance. Content is the principal driver of attendance
and if the content is on offer elsewhere the theatrical share of box-office will reduce,” while also
offering, “That does not mean that distributors and exhibitors should not talk about more flexible
terms, more efficient and effective access to theatrical product and alternate business models”
(Groves, “Momentum Builds”).
Lauren Carroll Harris argues that:
Ancillary markets are no longer ancillary, they are the markets. It is the cinema that is
supplementary. However, we are yet to catch up with this reality. Australian films are
released stillborn into a theatrical system that is not designed for them and that therefore
reduces their ability to compete. (Groves, “The Case for a New Distribution Model”)
Furthermore, Screen Australia’s Dr. Ruth Harley warned in 2012, “the current release
paradigm is not working for small Australian films in an economic way” (Barber). This
sentiment was echoed by former Inside Film editor Brendan Swift, who stated in Advance
Australian Film that, “following these traditional release patterns does not work for 90 percent of
Australian films and will never work them.”
It is clear that the declining success of traditional release patterns is of particular concern
to Australian cinema and must be addressed soon if Australian filmmakers want to reach
audiences in the way they did in the 1980s and 1990s.
Chapter Twelve: The Negative Public Perception Toward The Australian Film Brand
A popular reasoning for why Australian films fail to connect with Australian audiences is
that the public has a negative perception toward these films. Some have even argued that
Australian films have a negative brand that is badly in need of significant rebranding.
38
At the Metro Screen panel, attendees were shown a series of vox pop interviews
conducted on the streets of Sydney, which asked participants what they thought of Australian
film. While there were a few positive comments supporting the need for a national cinema, the
negative comments spoke to a deep-seated theme for Australian film. A few examples included,
“Honestly I didn’t think much of them until I saw the movie Australia, but before that I really
thought they were quite ordinary, I really didn’t watch them;” “The dramas are pretty much all
the same, and the comedies are pretty much all the same as well;” and “In general, I think they’re
quite boring and pretentious” (Metro Screen).
This sentiment has been mirrored, for many years, in the comments sections of articles
discussing the state of Australian cinema. In 2014, “Andy Cameron” commented on an article by
Screen Australia researcher Rebecca Mostyn for The Conversation:
I gotta say, over the past 15 years, Australian films more and more look like they’ve been
written and produced by a committee of politically correct bureaucrats, who will only
green-light a film if it ticks all the politically correct boxes. To that extent they are as
gripping as Soviet cinema.
In the comments section of the same article, “Jarrod Chestney-Law” seconded Andy’s
statement, “Australian film is great if you want to be depressed, bored or lectured to. I’d visit the
dentist for complex work before I’d watch most Australian films. . .When Australian films stop
being almost universally miserable, I might watch them” (Mostyn).
In a 2012 article about the success of Australian film Wish You Were Here, one reader,
“Ian Brown,” commented:
Of course the brand of Australian film is damaged. No matter how good the film is, or
how it’s advertised or distributed, the very fact that it’s an Australian film is a turnoff to
39
audiences … It would take ten years of pretty much nothing but hits to turn this
perception around. (Groves, “Turn-Off?”)
In a 2008 article by Jim Schembri, aptly titled “At Death’s Door – An Industry Lost in the Dark,”
one reader, “JC,” wrote, “The audience is so tired of Australian films that many simply choose to
avoid them altogether, which is a damn shame because often good Australian films are ignored
along with the rest.”
In a 2013 article about the failure of local film 100 Bloody Acres, “Josh Reed” argued
that, “Unfortunately Australian audiences have been burnt by years of sub-ordinary Australian
films, and are very unwilling to risk going to Australian films anymore. This won’t be fixed
quickly, and a lot of great films will go by the wayside before it is” (Inside Film, “100 Bloody
Acres”). Finally, in the documentary film Advance Australian Film, one vox pop interview
subject claimed that, “If you ask most people, they do not go to Australian films. They have seen
the same three Australian films, however they do have a preconceived idea that they are boring,
that they are not well made, that they are dramatic.”
Market research into audiences’ perceptions of Australian film has reached similar
conclusions. Bergent Research’s Maximising the Appeal of Australian Movies with Australian
Audiences discovered during focus groups that Australian audiences perceive home-grown films
as “low budget” and “not glamorous,” as well as “realistic” and “thought-provoking” (15). Some
of the observations made by participants included, “Australian movies are crap generally;”
“Australia does make them [good films] every so often. Its like Halley’s Comet; only comes
around once every so often;” and “When it’s a really high profile movie you don’t think it’s
Australian” (Bergent 14). The focus group research also revealed that audiences perceive
Australian films as “sad or depressing,” with one participant commenting that “They’re more
40
arty, like, ‘I’m so depressed,’ they’re too deep” (Bergent 78). Bergent also found that
participants think Australian movies look low budget and cheaply made (79). Bergent utilized
the BrainDump to “understand what attributes moviegoers unconsciously gave to different
movies,” (129) revealing that Australian movies are seen as too serious, appeal mainly to old
people, are slow and potentially boring (Bergent). One participant said, “you see the Australian
Film Finance at the bottom of the film and half the time that explains why it’s so bad … it’s just
a bunch of 50 year old bureaucrats sitting around without a single opinion about what’s
marketable and appeals,” (Bergent 129) and another added that, “there were six films in a row
released that were all depressing, it made me not want to go see them” (Bergent 131). Finally,
the BrainDump also revealed that Australian movies are associated with being “bogan”
6
and
“average” (Bergent 144). “It is important to note here, however, that Bergent’s second stage of
research, which consisted of a survey of 997 people across five states who had seen six or more
movies that year, found that Australian movies are not disadvantaged and Australian films don’t
suffer from a handicap (151). These conflicting findings suggest that more research needs to be
done on this subject, but for now there is considerable qualitative evidence to suggest that
Australian audiences do perceive Australian films in a negative light and Australian films do
have a negative brand.
In addition to the wealth of commentary from consumers about their perceptions toward
Australian film, many industry experts have also weighed in on the debate. In 2008, Schembri’s
article “At Death’s Door – An Industry Lost in the Dark” said of the box office failure of Gillian
Armstrong’s Death Defying Acts, “People certainly knew about the film. But they also knew it
6
Bogan is a derogatory term used commonly in Australia to refer to “an uncouth or
unsophisticated person, regarded as being of low social status” (Oxford Dictionaries).
41
was Australian. The film industry as a whole simply can’t recover until that fact ceases to be a
punchline.” On the release of Nash Edgerton’s The Square, Schembri claimed that, “It’s likely
The Square also fell victim to the allergy local audiences gave now developed for local films
after enduring decades of dreck” (“At Death’s Door”). Finally, in his closing remarks at the end
of the comments section, Schembri concluded, “From what I am being told, there is growing –
and totally understandable – reluctance for local distributors to screen local films simply because
of the deeply entrenched negative branding in the marketplace. It’s a serious issue.”
The debate continued at the 2009 Metro Screen panel, where publicist Susan Hoerlein
argued that, “It is important to remember that Australian film is a brand. . .and it does seem that
Australian audiences ‘en masse’ are not connected to that brand, they don’t respond to it
necessarily favorably.” In Hoerlein’s opinion:
I think that it would be a fairly comprehensive campaign that you would need to
undertake to rebuild how Australians connect with that brand Australian film. . .I don’t
think it’s impossible, but I think also there needs to be an awareness that if a brand has
actually failed, you do need to change what that brand say or represents for a successful
rebranding campaign to work. (Metro Screen)
She was refuted by two of the panelists, Troy Lum and film critic Margaret Pomeranz, who both
stated that they didn’t believe in the idea of an Australian film brand (Metro Screen).
In the December 2009 issue of The Monthly, respected Australian writer, playwright and
screenwriter Louis Nowra discussed the Australian film brand after he set out to watch most of
the Australian films released in 2009. On his experience, Nowra said, “When I told friends I was
writing this article, they were amazed that I would put myself through what they thought would
be an ordeal. The general consensus was that Australian films were boring, grim and
42
unsatisfying. After watching over 20 films, I had to agree.” Nowra referenced “the monotonous
bleakness of most of the films” and concluded that “the crux of the present crisis in our film
industry” is that “Australians don’t like seeing their own movies.” Nowra echoed Hoerlein’s
statement that:
It is going to be a long and arduous process to convince Australians that we should want
to see our own films, but it will be easier if we remember that cinema’s tenacious grip on
our imaginations came about because of its extraordinary capacity to entertain and
astonish us.
The Australian film brand was also the topic of conversation in Robert Miller’s 2009
article “Living in Denial: The Australian Film Industry,” where he claimed that:
There’s nothing wrong with making “worthy” films about “serious” subjects. . .but if
“worthy” is all we’re making it’s a problem because it poisons the well. It creates a
situation where most of the cinema-going public consider the “made in Australia” tag to
be a setback. The term “Australian film” (unfairly) becomes synonymous with
“pretentious wank-fest.”
Miller added that:
As we churn out the unseen, the problem of the negative “made in Australia” tag
becomes more and more difficult to remedy. We are digging ourselves deeper into
trouble. . .The worsening situation means that if producers want to find private
investment for films aimed at making a profit (yeah, I know, a crazy idea!) they face an
uphill battle against the common conception (and supporting facts) that Aussie films are
profitless and devoid of any real audience beyond the filmmakers and their friends and a
small latte sipping crowd of genre-hating posers.
43
Schembri reinvigorated the topic in 2011 in an article for The Age about three films that
bombed spectacularly at the box office in the same week. He first highlighted the strides that had
been made since his 2008 article on the topic:
Australian cinema has undergone something of a rebirth over the past two years. Popular
hits such as Tomorrow When The War Began, Animal Kingdom and Mao’s Last Dancer
have been accompanied by a new mindset among filmmakers and financiers that puts
audience-friendly, genre-driven films before the type of niche, introspective, art house
films that have dominated the movie landscape for so long, usually to empty houses.
(Schembri, “Disaster”)
However, he also mentioned that:
Much like the Allied progress in Iraq, the gains made by quality, successful local films is
[sic] fragile and reversible. The public perception that Australian films are automatically
bad has been around since the 1980s; changing that will take an unbroken run of several
years in which good, crowd-pleasing Australian films dominate discussion about the state
of our cinema. (Schembri, “Disaster”)
Schembri concluded on a positive note, however, stating, “Thankfully, that has been happening
and hopefully it will continue to happen. All signs point to the long-belated evolution continuing
apace” (“Disaster”).
In Advance Australian Film, released in early 2014, respected film critic David Stratton
lamented, “There are an awful lot of Australian movies around at the moment that are not very
good. They get out there into the market, people see and hear about them and it reinforces their
prejudices against Australian films, which is very sad.”
44
There are positive signs that Australian filmmakers are working to eliminate the negative
“made in Australia” brand, with more audience friendly, genre-driven films, however it will take
time to shift audiences’ perceptions of Australian cinema.
An important factor in the negative “made in Australia” brand is the paradigm of
Australian cultural cringe. Melbourne critic and social commentator A.A. Phillips coined the
term “cultural cringe” in 1950 to refer to “the tendency to perceive Australian literature, music,
theatre and art as inferior to British and European high culture” (Smith). Now, cultural cringe
can also be used to describe Australia’s inferiority complex in the face of Hollywood’s
ownership of beloved entertainment content. Deakin University fellow Michelle Smith describes
not only Australia’s inferiority complex, but also that the emergence of an Australian desire for
“overseas recognition in order to prove the worth of Australian creativity has extended to include
all kinds of popular culture, including film and television.” Smith also highlights how cultural
cringe affects audiences’ perceptions of home-grown content, arguing that, “Australians
continually express cultural cringe about how our own comedic inflections, especially in
programs [that] give an impression that we are unsophisticated, racist, sexist and homophobic.”
Sydney Morning Herald columnist and media commentator David Dale also made
observations about how cultural cringe factors into Australians’ perceptions of home-grown
films, particularly comedies. In his article “The Year of the Cringe in Australian Film,” Dale
recites a number of quotes from Australian films released that year that highlight a “less than
sophisticated period in the history of Australian screenwriting, and that the current generation of
producers believe Australian moviegoers are cretins or bogans, or at least that they love to see
cretins and bogans represented on screen.” In support of the theory that cultural cringe affects
Australian audiences’ perception of Australian film, Dale argues that “the lukewarm response of
45
audiences this year may suggest the producers have assessed us wrongly.” Dale characterizes
cultural cringe as “the tendency of Australians to be embarrassed by their own artistic
endeavours, and to feel that any work by Americans and the British is automatically superior to
anything we can do.”
Australian cultural cringe is an important paradigm that must be taken into consideration.
Much qualitative evidence suggests that Australian film does have a branding issue when it
comes to Australian audiences’ perceptions, and the author suggests that more quantitative
research should be conducted to further investigate this issue. In the meantime, marketing and
PR strategies need to take this issue into consideration when marketing Australian product to
local audiences.
Chapter Thirteen: Creative Weaknesses of Australian Films, in Relation to the Audience
As previously stated, the author has no intention of entering into debates over whether the
quality of Australian films needs to be improved or that Australian filmmakers should be
creating more audience-friendly stories. It is important, however, to identify what some of these
overarching weaknesses may be so that PR strategies can be built around them.
The following observations are only overarching theories from industry professionals,
pundits and audiences. They are, at best, generalizations. Nonetheless, PR professionals must be
aware of the stigma Australian audiences attach to Australian film at large, as well as all the
attributes of the products they sell – whether positive or negative – to develop a strategy that
highlights the strengths and either downplays the weaknesses, or turns them into opportunities
for the brand. In this vein, when it comes to marketing a film, each needs to be considered on its
own merits.
46
In a piece for the December 2009 issue of Australian politics, society and culture
magazine The Monthly, leading Australian writer, playwright and screenwriter Louis Nowra
conducted an experiment into the state of Australian cinema by attempting to watch all the
Australian films released in 2009. In Nowra’s opinion:
Herein lies the key to why so many of our films don’t work. Nearly all of the films I saw
this year felt like short stories. They lacked a “second act.” Most Hollywood movies are
based on a three-act structure. The first act sets out the characters and main story, the
middle act is an intertwining of plot and subplots, and the third act resolves them. The
skill in writing a second act is to have plots and sub-plots affecting each other and driving
the story forward. But our screenwriters refuse to do this, as though, like creating a hero,
it would somehow be selling out to Hollywood values … This dismissive approach to the
second act is a sullen rejection of what movie audiences have been brought up to like: the
sheer pleasure of watching a master storyteller twist elements of plot and subplot into a
surprising third act.
Film critic Jim Schembri supported Nowra’s thesis in an article about the failure of Australian
film The Reef in The Age:
The Reef, a straight-up shark thriller, is well-directed but doesn’t have a third act – a
problem so deeply embedded in local filmmaking culture for so long that even raising the
issue often results in caterwauls of protest, as though the idea of designing a narrative to
communicate with and please a broad audience violates some holy writ. (“Disaster”)
Sydney Morning Herald film editor Garry Maddox stated at the Metro Screen panel that
one of the key creative problems for Australian cinema was their lack of a hero story and their
inability to connect with a broader audience:
47
In the first half of the year there were clearly a lot of dark stories, as there has been in
recent years. Now, some of those stories were great films, terrifically made, but they also
came out very close together, so there was a sense of similarity with them. There weren’t
many films where the producer had said to the screenwriter, ‘How can we make this a
broader story?. . .How can we actually tell people - rather than life is difficult, which they
pretty much already know - to actually tell them that we can endure things and get
through things.’ And I think that was one of the biggest triumphs of Samson and Delilah
was that these two adorable kids had gone through terrible times, but they’d survived it.
A lot of films, a lot of great films, a lot of art house films, are stories where people face
terrible challenges in their lives and they get through them. And that’s what often
audiences connect with. . .That, to me, is one of the issues that the industry is facing. We
don’t have many hero stories. . .but most of our successful films have been hero stories
with Crocodile Dundee, Happy Feet, Strictly Ballroom. . .The Adventures of Priscilla. All
sorts of different kinds of heroes, very much Australian identities, a real range of people
from a portaloo plumber to drag queens in the desert. But they’re heroes in the sense that
they actually stand up to something, and they survive something, and they’re someone we
can identify with and get some kind of lift from watching a film. . .Often our Australian
kind of fear of getting too caught up in the story stops us from actually celebrating
something, and we can do that.
Head of screen studies at AFTRS, Dr. Karen Pearlman, makes a similar argument in her
article for LUMINA, “Make Out Myths,” in which she states that the issue is Australian cinema’s
propensity for naturalism and a lack of “scale, dynamics and ownership.” Pearlman writes:
48
Usually when the question of purpose is raised at the level of government policy making,
our fiction feature film industry is justified as needed to “tell our own stories.” But this
justification has worn out, if indeed it ever energised us. “Telling our own stories” has led
us down the garden path of naturalism to a rut so deep that it seems that people would
rather stay at home and fight with their own families than go and watch another
Australian domestic drama on screen. The purpose of Australian feature film production,
I propose, is not to tell our own stories. The purpose of our feature film industry is to
make our myths. What’s the difference? Three things – scale, dynamics and ownership.
(32)
Pearlman later expands on her argument at the Metro Screen panel:
The point I am making about telling our own stories is suggesting that there might be a
different purpose, and that purpose might energise us. . .One of the purposes I identify
with. . .is scale. Things have to be big enough to have a purpose, a reason for being on the
big screen. And this might be scale of cinematics, but it might also be an emotional scale.
The stakes need to be high enough to engage us. Then that brings me straight to the
question of dynamics. Things need to move. The dynamic part of cinema, the root of
cinema, is kine – it’s movement. We have to move between dark and light, we have to
move between hope and fear. To stay all at one dynamic level is very enervating for an
audience, so it’s something we really have to think about and teach and work with. And
finally, I suppose, ownership is really about that question of ‘Whose story is this?’ And if
we, say, tell our own stories then perhaps we’re saying the story only belongs to the
filmmakers and maybe when thinking about the purpose we need to think about a story
being owned by a much broader range of people.
49
At the Metro Screen panel, SPAA president Antony Ginnane contended that Australia
needed “more engaging stories,” adding, “Remember what Hitchcock said. . .‘Film is life with
the boring bits cut out.’ We don’t cut the boring bits out.” In Advance Australian Film,
filmmaker Joel Edgerton weighed in on the issue, stating “we work within a lot of small budgets
for our movies, and so a lot of people tell small stories or they write small stories, so a lot of our
movies feel small” (Advance Australian Film).
Another creative issue pundits have drawn on in the past decade is that Australian films
are not genre-driven, nor are they made with an audience in mind. According to Australian film
industry veteran Tait Brady, who had worked on both the creative and business sides of the
industry, genre is incredibly important in sending a clear message to audiences (Tiley).
According to Brady, “Genre is, if anything, a really useful tool that sets up audience
expectations. It is a contract between the film and the audience” (Tiley). This point is particularly
important when it comes to marketing a film, as it communicates a strong message to audiences
about what they can expect from a film and why they might enjoy it. Dr. Mark Ryan, however,
argues that “genre production is not a silver bullet which will single handedly improve the
Australian feature film industry’s commercial performance” (152). Ryan maintains, “Genre
movies have occupied, and continue to occupy, a difficult position within Australian cinema and
face numerous challenges in terms of reception with national audiences” (141).
A report conducted by Film Victoria in 2010, Australian Films and Genre, found that the
top five Australian film genres at the box office, according to the average box office takings by
genre from 2000-2009, were musical ($7.69 million); animated ($6.86 million); teen ($4.57
million); war ($3.18 million); and period drama ($2.47 million). However, the top five genres
released in Australian cinemas in 2000-2009 were drama (72); comedy (42); documentary (39);
50
horror (9); and period drama (8). An analysis of Film Victoria’s data found that drama was
ranked first in terms of number of films released by genre, however was ranked sixth in terms of
box office takings by screen average. Alternatively, musical ranked first in terms of box office
takings by screen average but only ninth by number of films released (“Genre”).
There is also evidence to suggest that many Australian films are not made with audience
in mind. In an article for The Australian, “Films in Search of an Audience,” film editor Michael
Bodey examined the critical backlash against Baz Luhrmann’s commercially successful
Australia and the introduction of the Australian Film Institute’s Box Office Achievement Award
at the annual AFI Awards (now AACTA Awards). Bodey commented that:
It is a make-good that only draws attention to a glaring problem for the local film
industry – in essence, it recognises the film that Australians liked but at which the
industry sniffs. In broader terms it only highlights the inability of the Australian film to
relate to its audience or the broader socio-political environment.
Bodey continues, “Australia’s year out of the spotlight is a stark reminder of the
disconnection between the film industry, and to a lesser extent the media, and its audience.” He
tells an anecdote of a conversation with one Australian director a week before his film released
theatrically:
After years developing and making the film, one week before it hit cinemas he was
asking himself for the first time, ‘Who would want to see his film?’ He’d made a film
without considering his audience. Some auteurs can get away with that. Probably about
10 to 20 globally. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard such myopia from an Australian
director. (Bodey)
51
When considering whether Australian filmmakers produce films with audiences in mind
and the creative weaknesses of Australian cinema, it is imperative to also look at market research
exploring why Australian audiences don’t enjoy home-grown films. On this topic, Film Victoria
found that “when they [participants] didn’t enjoy screen content this was mainly due to aspects
associated with writing (badly written, unbelievable) and emotional engagement (slow, boring,
wasn’t entertaining) across feature film, television fiction and documentary formats” (“Our Roy
Morgan Research” 8). Overall, the six reasons cited by respondents for lack of enjoyment of
Australian films were: “unbelievable, wasn’t entertaining/interesting, disliked genre, didn’t relate
to content, badly written, too sad/depressing” (Film Victoria, “Our Roy Morgan Research” 8).
Bergent Research’s report Maximising the Appeal of Australian Movies with Australian
Audiences found that Australian audiences “perceive American movies as catering to a broader
market, whereas Australian movies are made for the filmmaker or reviewers” (28).
While it is important to remember that each film will have its own unique audiences,
whether it is a blockbuster action film or an arty drama, it is still essential to understand what
audiences think of Australian films creatively as it can have a detrimental impact on the
Australian film brand, and thus the success of Australian films in general. Therefore, the creative
weaknesses of Australian films, whether perceive or real, are essential to consider when thinking
about how to market Australian films to audiences to ensure the right messaging is being
conveyed to audiences and, in turn, those audiences vote with their wallets at the box office.
Chapter Fourteen: Accessibility of Australian Films to the Movie-Going Public
Another key weakness of Australian films is that they are often not very accessible to the
movie-going public. This is most prominently because they are often screened at very few
52
cinemas, but also because of Australia’s slow uptake of VOD platforms and exhibitors’ refusal to
allow a shortening of the gap between theatrical and ancillary releases. Both distributors and
exhibitors have been blamed for the difficulty in securing wider releases for Australian films,
although some pundits argue that this is just an economic reality that filmmakers need to accept.
The inability to find Australian films at the cinemas was characterized in Nowra’s piece
for The Monthly, where he stated “On a practical level, it was often hard to find these films; they
seldom stayed in the cinema long enough. I became used to tracking them to small independent
cinemas that, judging by the tiny crowds, seemed to be showing them as a national duty.” A
Screen Australia report on the release strategies and box office performance of Australian films
found that between January 2005 to October 2009, 82 percent of Australian films were released
on less than 100 prints, with 39 percent on less than 20 prints (limited release) and 43 percent on
20-99 prints (specialty release) (“Marketplace”). Screen Australia researcher Rebecca Mostyn
crunched the numbers for 2012 releases in an opinion piece for The Conversation Australia and
found that “At their widest point of release, they [Australian films] averaged 75 screens across
the country, with a median of 19, and at their narrowest they averaged four screens.”
Garry Maddox explained what he called the “structural issue that a lot of Australian films
face” at the Metro Screen panel, where he told the audience that of the first 21 films released
since Australia, Love the Beast had the largest release, on 59 screens out of 2000 in Australia.
Maddox vocalized:
That's two percent of the screens in Australia. . .So, films might not succeed just because
they're inaccessible for so many people in the audience. . .There's so many people that
cannot actually geographically get to see these films without travelling across the city,
parking and doing all those other complicated things.
53
The difficulty to secure screens for Australian films has been vocalized by a number of
filmmakers, including 100 Bloody Acres producer Julie Ryan, who told Inside Film that “none of
the major cinema chains wanted to play the film so Hopscotch booked it into Sydney’s Chauvel
Cinema, Melbourne’s Cinema Nova and Palace’s locations in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth”
(“100 Bloody Acres”). Additionally, Inside Film’s Don Groves noted at the end of 2013,
“Patrick and 100 Bloody Acres got good reviews but their fates were probably sealed when the
major exhibitors refused to screen them and the releases were limited to a handful of screens”
(Groves, “Report Card”). In Advance Australian Film, director Andrew Traucki told Dawson:
For The Reef, we had one screen in Sydney and one screen in Melbourne, so the
distributor couldn’t get screens because the exhibitors have got all this American product
floating in, and why are they going to risk their money on a relatively unknown
Australian film?
Film exhibitor and CEO of Palace Cinemas, Ben Zeccolla, agreed, “The exhibitors have an
extraordinary amount of power when it comes to how many Australian films are going to get
screened. . .They want to play every successful film. So, we’ve stopped almost completely from
investing in local production.”
Peter Cody, general manager of film and entertainment content for Amalgamated
Holdings Limited, which owns Event Cinemas, Greater Union and Birch Carroll & Coyle
Cinemas, says in Cinema in Australia: An Industry Profile:
At most of our sites we have eight or more screens. We can accommodate films for as
long as people want to come to see them. . .You’ve got to be there, be first, get in early,
be part of the conversation. . .The days when you could do a press release, then the
review would come out in the weekend papers, word-of-mouth would start after the first
54
weekend and the second weekend would be bigger. It’s a different world. (Given, Curtis
and McCutcheon 57)
Cody highlights a salient issue for public relations and marketing professionals, the importance
of building awareness for a film well in advance of release so that the impact has been made by
opening day. As David Stratton says in Advance Australian Film, “The bitter truth is that if
people don’t go and see it in sufficient numbers on the opening weekend, it’s dead.”
The issue of accessibility of Australian films is also highlighted by commentary from the
general public, who often lament that they were not able to find many Australian films. In
Bergent Research’s 2008 report, focus group research revealed that Australian movies were often
shown at smaller cinemas. One participant commented that Australian films are “not made for
cinema … they just run it for a few weeks to see how well it will go, then if it picks up steam
they give it publicity,” while another added “I wanted to see it [Footy Legends] but by the time I
went to see it, it was gone” (Bergent 81). That same year, in the comments section of Schembri’s
“At Death’s Door” article for The Age, many readers mentioned the issue of access. One reader,
“Amanda,” said:
I love Australian cinema and I continually support it with my hard earned money. I have
heard of all the AFI nominees and I have seen The Square (a VERY good movie). The
others I will see on DVD. The thing I find frustrating about Australian cinema is its
availability to me. I live in outer SE Melbourne and find that most Australian movies I
want to see are only being shown at screens located in CBD or inner city. If they opened
up screens in outer areas and spent more time marketing and advertising local content I
believe the industry would be more accessible, more relevant and more successful.
55
As previously mentioned, Australia’s slow uptake of VOD platforms and exhibitors’
refusal to allow a close in the gap between theatrical and ancillary releases has also affected
audiences’ ability to connect with home-grown cinema. Lynden Barber echoes this sentiment:
It doesn’t help that most local film distributors have failed to meet the challenges of the
21st century and its huge changes in consumption habits. Instead of maximising the
audience for specialist releases by simultaneously opening in all formats (cinema, DVD
and download) on the same day, as many of their U.S. peers are increasingly doing to
great success, they have lagged behind.
In his article for The Guardian, Barber draws on:
The outgoing chief executive of Screen Australia, Ruth Harley, who warned that “the
current release paradigm is not working for small Australian films in an economic way”
and partly blames the industry’s failure to move quickly to new release patterns including
video on demand – mainly, she says, the fault of Australia's “monolithic” cinema sector.
The Metro Screen panel also touched on the debate; with moderator Andrew Urban
claiming that there was a new, bigger market for screen content, referring to digital platforms.
However, Antony Ginnane correctly pointed out that the new markets had not been “properly
monetized yet in any way,” and that while “online distribution is the answer, its just not there
yet” (Metro Screen). Four years later, though, not much has changed. Companies such as
Quickflix and iTunes Australia offer some content, often on a delay to theatrical release, and new
video streaming services from Dendy Cinemas and Foxtel have been announced, but the release
window has not be shortened much to provide content for these platforms in a timely manner.
In Groves’ article for Inside Film, in which Brian Rosen and Adrianne Pecotic debated
the topic of closing the gap between theatrical release and ancillary markets like DVD, TV and
56
VOD (see Chapter Eleven), producer Tom Broadhurst also weighed in on the debate, “We are so
behind the eight ball it’s ridiculous. We’re still giving out speeches about the changing climate of
distribution. It’s changed. The talent, the tech, the will is here… unleash the hounds!” (Groves,
“Momentum Builds”).
For now though, Australia continues to lag behind and rely on traditional release patterns
that fail to deliver Australian content to audiences in the way they want to consume it. As
Brendan Swift argues in Advance Australian Film:
Either we radically change the content. . .or maybe they should be distributed on different
platforms, whether that is straight to television or more intricate deals, or simultaneous
release across online and very small theatrical, whatever it takes. But we don’t really see
that, all we see is the same of traditional release. Australian film gets put out on 10-20
screens, David and Margaret give it a tick or a cross, filmmaker gets happy and does a
little dance, no one goes to see it, repeat the cycle.
Until the industry can catch up, audiences will still face difficulty in accessing Australian
content, severely impacting its success at the box office.
Chapter Fifteen: Ineffective Marketing and Public Relations Strategies
The blame for the failure of Australian films at the box office has also been thrown on
distributors’ marketing and public relations efforts. In one article by Jim Schembri for The Age,
the writer vocalized in the comments section, “The strong response to this piece has been
characterised by the type of passion, intelligence, anger and occasional flourishes of wit that
typically surfaces when the issue of Australian film comes under our collective scrutiny”
57
(“Disaster”). Schembri’s parting comment on the issue was that “marketing remains key. Many
people say they’ve never even heard of these films” (“Disaster”).
Marketing and PR is critical to a film’s success, with Film Victoria finding that
“marketing and word of mouth are the most significant deciding factors” (“Our Roy Morgan
Research”). In addition, Bergent Research found that “there is a need to increase awareness of
Australian movies,” (80) with 31 percent of survey respondents indicating that the number one
reason why they don’t go to see Australian movies is “not enough publicity” (146).
In Advance Australian Film, director Andrew Traucki told Dawson “I just think we
haven’t got any solid thinking around marketing and distribution, and I think that’s hurting us. It
is a tough problem, and I can see why people are avoiding it, but I don’t think it helps by just
assuming it is just going to sort itself out or let the market force determine things,” with
Australian cinematographer Jules O’Loughlin agreeing, “A film really lives or dies based on, I
think, one of two things – how much it is marketed, or secondly, how good it is and its word-of-
mouth.”
One key issue is that Australian films lack mainstream, large-scale advertising. Jindabyne
producer Garry Charny said in an interview with Don Groves for SBS Film that the problem lies
in the “total lack of advertising [for] the great [and not so great] movies we make.” In the article,
Charny asked, “When was the last time you saw a co-ordinated, smart campaign that sold a
movie?. . .Sometimes audiences need to be told how good something is, and not just the week
it’s on.” In 2010, directing duo Michael and Peter Spierig blamed Hoyts Distribution for the
lukewarm performance of their film Daybreakers, telling Brendan Swift:
The Australian release was terrible – Hoyts did a terrible job. . .That is generally the
problem with Australian marketing departments – they have no clue how to market
58
movies. It has to do with poor poster campaigns, poor awareness, just generally not
knowing how to release films to the public. (“Daybreakers”)
In response, Hoyts Distribution chief executive Robert Slaviero told Swift “the company spent
over $1 million on prints and advertising [P&A] and the local box office performance of the film
was above the normal average percentage for this genre, when ranked against the U.S. result”
(“Daybreakers”).
On the success of Australia, attributed in part to a huge P&A budget, Antony Ginnane
said at the Metro Screen panel, “It comes back to the scale issue. It is very hard to do that on a
small scale.” Hopscotch’s Troy Lum agreed, stating “If you wonder why an Australian film goes
out with less money or no TV spend etc., it’s not because the distributor doesn't believe in the
film, it’s just that the numbers don't add up” (Metro Screen). Indeed, advertising is not always
the right solution for poor box office. Ruth Harley supported Ginnane and Lum’s claims, stating,
“I think it would be very, very, very easy to throw a lot of money down the drain because you
can spend the money and not get the result. And we've seen it plenty of times” (Metro Screen).
Another key weakness is that marketing and PR efforts do not start early enough to have
an impact on audiences. According to public relations professional Cath Lavelle, “Preferably, a
publicist and the marketing team would be brought on at a very, very early stage” (Advance
Australian Film). On The Square, in Jim Schembri’s opinion:
One big problem was the film’s lack of profile before landing in cinemas. As with most
Australian films it just seemed to pop up out of nowhere before disappearing almost as
quickly. Lack of marketing has long been a major issue with local films, and whereas
American films allocate a good portion of their effort to branding a film in the
marketplace, here it remains an afterthought. (“At Death’s Door”)
59
Another argument is that distributors do not know how to properly market Australian
content. Dr. Mark Ryan contends that:
There is a strong view among genre filmmakers that domestic distributors, who have long
specialized in promoting imported [particularly Hollywood] movies or specialty/art house
pictures, do not have a viable or differentiated approach suitable for marketing local
genre flicks.
In “Living in Denial: The Australian Film Industry,” Robert Miller argues that:
The fact is Australian films are marketed poorly. So badly, that often the marketing
unfairly damages the film, as I think was the case with The Square, Nash Edgerton’s
feature debut. It’s a solid noir-ish thriller with stolen money, an illicit affair and murder.
It could’ve been a crowd pleaser. But how is it marketed? Like another dull art house
film. . .Marketing should sell a movie, not under sell it.
This topic elicited a vocal response from the public in Schembri’s “At Death’s Door – An
Industry Lost in the Dark.” One of the most relevant comments came from “Moya,” who said:
I’ve never heard of most Aussie movies. . .the last decent Aussie movie I saw was Ten
Canoes, which was great but only raised about $2.5 million locally and $3.3 mill [sic]
worldwide. The marketing was abysmal – I only heard about it through a friend.
Clearly, marketing and PR efforts are major factors in the success of Australian films at
the local box office and, for obvious reasons, they are incredibly important to this work. A large
number of the public relations strategies offered by the author in Chapter Eighteen will focus on
improving the effectiveness of marketing and PR tactics for Australian films, as well as
improving the overall brand of Australian film in the eyes of local audiences.
60
Chapter Sixteen: Funding Models Creating a Barrier to Making Audience-Driven Films
The final weakness affecting the success of Australian films at the local box office,
according to some pundits, is the funding models in place that create a barrier to producing more
audience-driven films.
This sentiment has been pressed by former SPAA president Antony I. Ginnane on
numerous occasions, with the producer commenting that, “Perhaps collectively our ability to
read the marketplace and audience appetite has been so dulled by the subsidy drug that we have
completely forgotten what audiences want” (Bodey). Robert Miller agrees, arguing:
I’m well aware that national funding body Screen Australia, formerly the austere
sounding Australian Film Commission, and its state equivalents don’t need to fund
movies aimed at making a profit. After all it’s just taxpayer money they’re spending. But
does anyone else think that this is having a detrimental effect on our cinema? Even other
heavily protected industries, such as the car industry, have a profit-driven system.
According to Dr. Mark Ryan, “for much of the last four decades, the dominant paradigm
for understanding Australian film has been ‘national identity;’ a framework which has shaped
film output, film culture, policy and criticism” (143). Ryan adds, “In a national cinema where
production is predominately funded by public monies, critical and policy attitudes have soured
towards periods of commercial filmmaking at the expense of culture, and such strategies have
eventually been wound back, or dismantled – often led by the lobby of cultural critics” (144).
One of the key issues with public funding when it comes to attracting audiences to see
Australian films at the cinema is that Screen Australia requires a film to be released theatrically
to receive the Producer Offset. This means that many films that many not otherwise see the
inside of a cinema force themselves through theatrical distribution to receive the funding. They
61
generally fail dismally and help support the negative public perception of Australian cinema.
Courtney Dawson highlighted this argument in Advance Australian Film:
Essentially, this means that almost all Australian films that get made with a $500,000
budget or more will be released in cinemas. This impacts the quality of Australian films
that are on offer to Australian audiences. If you think about it, distributors seek out the
best of the best when it comes to foreign films, meaning that local productions are up
against some pretty strong competition.
Another funding weakness is the lack of private investment, which means that the
majority of Australian films are low budget and independent in nature. Director Rachel Ward
highlighted this theory at the Metro Screen panel, stating, “We just have to get into perspective,
we are independent filmmakers. That is what we can afford to do. Who’s going to fund these $17
million movies? Where’s the private funding?”
Some experts have argued that the government should be providing funds for marketing
Australian films. In an article for Encore Magazine, Andrew Traucki maintained that “there’s
plenty in the budget for development and production but there’s really nothing for marketing. .
.In this country it’s development, production and then God be with you.” Robert Miller agrees,
arguing, “They [the government] subsidise production, why not advertising?” However, then-
CEO of Screen Australia Ruth Harley argued in 2009 that it was not the organization’s job to be
“the marketer of Australian films” (Metro Screen).
Thus, there are a number of considerations to make here about how Australia’s largely
government-subsidized industry is able to compete and attract audiences to Australian films in
their theatrical release.
62
Chapter Seventeen: The Experts Weigh In – Primary Research Survey Results
After analyzing the myriad strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats affecting the
success of Australian films at the local box office, the author conducted primary research -- a
survey of 30 industry professionals -- to provide a more definitive diagnosis of the issues
affecting Australian cinema at the box office.
This primary research is essential to providing accurate and valuable strategic public
relations recommendations because many of the arguments in the previous SWOT analysis were
conflicting and came from disparate parties. While some of the SWOT elements were supported
by market research studies, others were offered by individual pundits everywhere from industry
panels to opinion pieces and even in the comments sections of online newspaper articles.
Therefore, it was important to compile a list of the potential issues and present them to a
collection of experts to quantify which of the issues they consider to be the most relevant.
The author condensed the preceding SWOT analysis into what she believed to be the top
10 potential issues affecting the success of Australian films at the Australian box office and,
between December 4, 2013 and February 21, 2014, asked 30 industry professionals those with
which they agreed. The condensed list is:
1) Big budget U.S. films dominate the market and Australian films do not have the P&A
budget to compete with them;
2) Marketing and PR strategies start too late to build enough awareness and interest for a
film among Australian audiences;
3) Marketing and PR strategies lack the originality/differentiation/innovation required to set
them apart from/compete with big budget U.S. films;
63
4) Australian films are not shown on enough screens, and leave cinemas too quickly, to be
accessible enough to Australian audiences;
5) The industry is too reliant on Screen Australia funding, which does not support the
production of audience-pleasing and/or commercially viable films and places too much
emphasis on making culturally important films;
6) There is insufficient private funding for Australians to make big budget films to compete
with the U.S.;
7) In past years, the release of a large number of bleak/depressing Australian films has led to
the perception by Australian audiences that home-grown films are frequently
bleak/depressing;
8) In past years, the release of only a small number of audience-pleasing, genre-driven
Australian films has led to the perception by Australian audiences that home-grown films
are often not made with audience in mind;
9) Cultural cringe leads Australian audiences to perceive home-grown films as inferior to
films from the U.K. or U.S; and
10) The insufficient enterprise structure for production companies and lack of funding for big
budget films has led to the perception that Australian films have poor production values
in comparison to U.S. films.
Participants were asked how long they had worked in the film industry and in what
capacity. They came from a wide variety of film professions, including production (18),
distribution (15), exhibition (7), funding (4), marketing and publicity (13), directing (2), acting
(1), screenwriting (4), academia and education (4) and film journalism (7). The majority of the
respondents reported having worked in the film industry for over 25 years (37 percent), followed
64
by 16-24 years (27 percent), 11-15 years (20 percent), 6-10 years (13 percent) and 0-5 years
(three percent).
Of the top 10 potential issues affecting the financial success of Australian films at the
Australian box office, the majority of respondents (83 percent) agreed with the statement, “Big
budget U.S. films dominate the market and Australian films do not have the P&A budget to
compete with them.” In a similar vein, the second most agreed-upon statement was “There is
insufficient private funding for Australians to make big budget films to compete with the U.S,”
with 60 percent of respondents agreeing with this statement. In third place was the statement,
“Cultural cringe leads Australian audiences to perceive home-grown films as inferior to films
from the U.K. or U.S.,” with 50 percent of respondents agreeing.
Tied for fourth place, with 47 percent each, were “Marketing and PR strategies start too
late to build enough awareness and interest for a film among Australian audiences,” and “In past
years, the release of a large number of bleak/depressing Australian films has led to the perception
by Australian audiences that home-grown films are frequently bleak and depressing.” With 37
percent each, the statements, “Australian films are not shown on enough screens, and leave
cinemas too quickly, to be accessible enough to Australian audiences,” and “In past years, the
release of only a small number of audience-pleasing, genre-driven Australian films has led to the
perception by Australian audiences that home-grown films are often not made with audience in
mind” tied for sixth place. In eighth place was “Marketing and PR strategies lack the
originality/differentiation/innovation required to set them apart from/compete with big budget
U.S. films,” with 33 percent. Finally, tied in ninth place were “The industry is too reliant on
Screen Australia funding, which does not support the production of audience pleasing and/or
commercially viable films and places too much emphasis on making culturally important films”
65
and “The insufficient enterprise structure for production companies and lack of funding for big
budget films has led to the perception that Australian films have poor production values in
comparison to U.S. films” with 23 percent each. Only two respondents (seven percent) indicated
that they did not agree with any of the statements. Figure 2 graphs the results, highlighting the
percentage of respondents that agreed with each statement.
Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents Who Agree With the Statement
66
When examined according to respondents’ professions, it is not surprising that each
profession was less likely to agree with statements that blamed their area of expertise. Most
interesting and relevant to this work is the finding that film journalists were far more likely to
blame marketing and PR efforts. Of the seven journalists who took part in the survey, 57 percent
agreed that “Marketing and PR strategies start too late to build enough awareness and interest for
a film among Australian audiences” (compared to 47 percent overall) and 71 percent agreed that
“Marketing and PR strategies lack the originality/differentiation/innovation required to set them
apart from/compete with big budget U.S. films” (compared to 33 percent overall).
At the end of the survey, participants were also given the chance provide any relevant
comments they had on the author’s thesis topic. The majority of participants took the opportunity
to make a comment, and many highlighted the numerous strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats already discussed in this work. (For a full account of the comments provided by
participants, please see Appendix A.) When it came to the topic at hand, i.e., how PR strategies
can encourage more Australian audiences to see home-grown films in their first-run theatrical
window, participants had dynamic and varied feedback.
Timing was critical to NIX Co publicist Zannah Marchand, who said, “More time needs
to be put on the development of a film, taking into consideration marketing and PR opportunities
in the production stages.” Scale of marketing, on the other hand, was important to producer Sue
Maslin, who said:
Every feature film is a new start up business destined for a saturated buyers market. The
manufacture and marketing of Australian film can be likened to the manufacture of other
boutique speciality products and in any other industry (e.g. wine, cars) - success relies
heavily on marketing. It can be up to 50 percent of the total cost of bringing a new
67
product to market. Australian films, on the other hand, generally have pitifully small
marketing and P&A budgets and are often doomed to failure irrespective of the quality of
the film. Until we invest as substantially in marketing and innovation as we do in project
development and production, nothing will change.
According to Madman Films national marketing manager Gabrielle Oldaker, there are a
number of ways that good PR strategy can help encourage local audiences to see Australian
films. For example, Oldaker argues that:
With films that are considered "art house” there is a dependency on the film to receive
extremely strong critical acclaim before Australians will see it as credible enough to pay
money for. Mostly this must come from international festivals as endorsement from a
source outside Australia. . .A strong PR campaign will help to facilitate the praise at an
early stage and build momentum from the start of a release if launched at international
festivals. It will also help to ensure social media elements are integrated early so that
community engagement occurs ASAP through online word-of-mouth and by engaging
key media to champion a film from its inception. . .There must also be a demand for the
product, but ensuring the right people know about those things that will interest them to
see a film can be achieved via good strategic PR.
The issues of public perception, cultural cringe and U.S. domination were top of mind to
Fairfax Media’s national film editor, Karl Quinn, who argued that:
It is frequently insisted that Australians refuse to watch Australian movies at the cinema
because they are uniformly bleak or depressing, when in fact many are not. Yet those that
are not - Save Your Legs!, Goddess, The Rocket, among last year's offerings - frequently
fail to connect anyway, while some of those that do connect - The Turning, The Railway
68
Man, Snowtown, Animal Kingdom - are pretty dark indeed. In my view, the great
challenge is that the audience is unwilling to grant the same grace to an Australian film
that has had mixed reviews as they would to a Hollywood movie in the same category. A
classic example: Save Your Legs! opened around the same time as The Incredible Burt
Wonderstone. Both got some mixed reviews (and some outright hostile), yet the
Australian movie left the cinemas with a haul of $385,000 and its tail between its legs
while the Hollywood release took $2.6 million.
Finally, Quinn concludes that:
An Australian movie effectively has to have wall-to-wall rave reviews, great word of
mouth or eminently bankable stars before it will have a shot with an Australian cinema
audience - and even then it's far from guaranteed. Australia makes all sorts of films - and
Screen Australia backs them - so the perception that they are all gloomy is simply wrong.
Convincing an audience that there is something there worth taking a punt on, however, is
a very real challenge.
From these results, the author concludes that there are three key issues affecting the
financial success of Australian films at the box office. First, Australian films are threatened
by the domination of big budget U.S. films. Second, there is a negative public perception
toward Australian films that affects audiences’ desire to see Australian content at the
cinema. Third, ineffective marketing and PR strategies are weakening Australian films’
ability to compete in the marketplace. These three issues will represent the cornerstone of the
author’s subsequent strategic public relations recommendations to help encourage more
Australian audiences to see home-grown films at the local box office.
69
Chapter Eighteen: What Can PR Do To Help?
The majority of the discourse about the failure of Australian films to connect with
audiences at the box office has thus far centered on how the industry can change the stories it
tells, improve the funding structures and make Australian films more accessible to the public.
What the author is interested in investigating, however, is how strategic public relations fit into
the equation. Rather than trying to change the product or industry structures, the author seeks to
provide strategic public relations recommendations that might assist in encouraging Australian
audiences to see Australian films – whether they are more audience-friendly stories or gritty,
independent dramas – in theatrical release. First, however, the author will examine the strategic
implications of the SWOT analysis by connecting the dots to draw major conclusions and insight
that will affect the strategic PR recommendations for the Australian film industry.
First, the domination of Hollywood films remains a major threat to the success of
Australian films at the box office. However, the fact that Australian audiences value Australian
stories suggests that there is an opportunity to utilize alternate distribution strategies and more
innovative, original and tailored marketing and PR efforts starting much earlier in the production
process to help cut through the noise created by Hollywood and instead engage with audiences
and build awareness for Australian films.
Second, the negative public perception toward Australian films and the creative
weaknesses many contain need to be combated by marketing and PR strategies that highlight the
elements of Australian film that are attractive to local audiences. Additionally, positioning
opportunities should encourage audiences to give Australian films at chance in theatrical release.
Finally, a large-scale effort must be made to dissipate negative public perceptions toward
Australian film. This effort must come from one of the organizations actively involved in the
70
production and distribution of Australian screen content, or preferably a partnership between
these organizations. It must utilize the positioning opportunities available to Australian cinema,
as well as the country’s abundance of film talent, and highlight qualities that are attractive to
Australian audiences. It must also draw on the country’s rich film history to remind audiences
that Australian film is worth their time and money, and is critical to national identity.
It is important to note that PR and marketing strategies can only go so far to affect
change. As the author has identified, a multitude of operational changes need to be made for
home-grown films to once again dominate the box office. However, as a PR professional and
proud Australian, it is the author’s hope that the following recommendations help encourage
more Australian audiences to see home-grown films at the box office and elevate the country’s
national cinema.
The following strategies act as overarching recommendations for the Australian film
industry. They are by no means definitive, exhaustive or conclusive, but should be used as a
guide instead. Obviously, each film should be marketed on its own merits using tailored
strategies and tactics; however, these recommendations should be referred to as a guide to help
combat the overarching issues Australian films face in the marketplace.
1) Emphasize the “critical element” of each film, focusing where possible on an
element that is proven to engage Australian audiences, such as a high-profile
Australian cast or the uniquely Australian humor or locations present in the film.
The idea of a “critical element” comes from an article written by Australian producer
Vincent Sheehan for AFTRS’ LUMINA publication. In the white paper, “Why Australian
Producers Should Think More Like Distributors,” Sheehan argues that:
71
Assessing the value of a film’s rights also requires an understanding of what I would call
its critical element. Every film has one, possibly a set of them, yet Australian producers
rarely acknowledge, discuss or even ask the question: what is the critical element of this
project and if it is not in place how will you find it?
Sheehan uses the example of the film Crash, in which he says the high-profile cast was the film’s
critical element. While he is talking about the value of a film to investors, the idea of a critical
element can also be applied to marketing and public relations efforts.
PR professionals building a strategy for a film’s release need to work in tandem with
producers to identify the critical element from a PR perspective. Furthermore, they should have
these discussions early on, preferably at the script or production stage to ensure that messaging
for the film stays consistent and the PR wheels can start spinning as early as possible to build
awareness and advocacy among audiences. The poster, trailer and key messages all need to speak
to this critical element to ensure audiences are receptive and engaged from the beginning.
2) Utilize social media and content marketing as a low budget way to build awareness
and advocacy for Australian films
Strategic social media is vitally important if Australian films wish to see returns at the
box office. First, it plays an important role in how Australian audiences make decisions about
what to watch in an increasingly saturated marketplace. Secondly, social media is an essential
tool for combating Hollywood’s domination of the Australian media landscape, as it provides
filmmakers a way to reach audiences on their own terms. Thirdly, social media is perfect for
Australian films, which are generally independent and low budget in nature. Without large P&A
budgets to blanket cities with advertising, Australian films need to find more innovate ways to
72
reach audiences. Social media and content marketing present excellent opportunities for
filmmakers working within very small budgets to literally reach millions at the click of a mouse
or tap of a smartphone screen.
The most important rule of social media strategy is that content is king. This means that a
PR strategy needs to be in place before production on the film starts to ensure that the most
engaging and relevant content is collected during production and rolled out to followers in the
most effective manner. For a film, this content would usually include behind-the-scenes photos
and videos, which can build excitement and awareness during principal production, and then roll
into the pre-release campaign once the film has secured screens. On the most basic level, social
media can be used to spread traditional marketing materials like trailers and clips. However,
filmmakers and PR professionals should be looking to provide innovative and tailor-made
content for their audiences. Social media content should focus on the film’s critical element, as
well as the “Australianness” of the film to draw in audiences. If the film is shooting at a beautiful
location, ensure that the stills photographer is taking additional photography for exclusive rollout
on social media platforms. Or, if the film stars a high-profile cast, the publicist and filmmakers
should work with those actors’ representatives to encourage the cast to post their own updates to
fans from set and create social media content featuring the stars, such as short behind the scenes
videos and interviews. The content must be unique, engaging and targeted at specific audiences
identified before production starts.
It is also not groundbreaking to suggest that when it comes to content marketing for a
film, storytelling is a must. Content should tell a story and let audiences in on the rich world the
filmmakers are creating. Transmedia storytelling is an excellent strategy to introduce here. It has
been used on numerous occasions to engage audiences in media products and spread elements of
73
a media text across multiple platforms. Leading transmedia scholar Henry Jenkins defines
transmedia branding as “a process where integral elements of a brand get dispersed
systematically across multiple media channels for the purpose of creating a unified and
coordinated brand experience.” There are a number of successful case studies of transmedia
storytelling being utilized in Australia for television series such as Conspiracy 365 and Slide;
however, it has yet to be used with lasting impact in Australian film. With evidence suggesting
that Australian audiences connect with the unique Australian elements of content, transmedia
storytelling may provide an excellent opportunity to dig deeper into the worlds created by
filmmakers and expand the uniquely Australian elements of a text. This is likely to drive
advocacy among audiences and heighten a film’s spreadibility to reach wider audiences without
having to spend big on advertising, over which Hollywood has a monopoly anyway.
Finally, social media provides an excellent opportunity for driving advocacy. Screen
Australia’s What to Watch? report found that:
One-to-one dialogues have become one-to-many with posts on social media sites
expanding conversations to unprecedented levels at previously unimaginable speed.
Simultaneously, this has given rise to new ways of sharing reviews and marketing
messages, with trailers, clips from behind the scenes and interviews being more pervasive
now than ever before.
Screen Australia’s study also found that “30 percent of online viewers of screen stories
agreed that reading posts on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter often played a role
in their decision of what to watch” (“What to Watch”). Social media opens up conversations and
allows audiences to become advocates, in the same way that film reviewers can be advocates for
a film. This idea will be discussed in more detail in the next strategy.
74
3) Create Australian film advocates among key groups of avid fans to grow awareness
and intent to see with more mainstream audiences
The power of word-of-mouth marketing is not a new concept and, in the world of film,
finding and educating advocates has always been a key strategy. On the most basic level, as
characterized by film publicist Cath Lavelle in Advance Australian Film, “If you can expand the
virtues of a film through word-of-mouth and have a personal campaign in terms of people
actually saying, ‘This is something I really enjoyed and I think you would too,’ then it’s worth its
weight in gold.” Nonetheless, with the rise of social media, this strategy has taken on a new life.
In the past, an advocate for a film might only be able to influence those physically around them,
their family, friends and co-workers for example. Now, with a Twitter account or Tumblr blog,
anyone has the opportunity to reach thousands of people.
In the Australian film landscape, advocates should be people who already have an
appreciation for Australian film and an understanding of its history. Film organizations should
make a concerted effort to connect with these advocates, make them feel special and educate
them with key messages so that they have the desire and knowledge to spread content and
messaging to their followers. Australian audiences do believe that it is important to have a
national film industry, therefore Australian film advocates need to feel like they are a part of
something special and they are part of the effort to improve the national cinema. There are
myriad ways to engage avid fans – whether it is on a large-scale effort or for an individual film –
so individual tactics will not be discussed here, but filmmakers should keep this strategy in mind
with any campaign they manage.
75
4) Start marketing and PR efforts early, preferably when a film is in pre-production or
principal photography
One of the most repeated comments in this work about marketing and PR has been that
efforts to promote Australian film do not start early enough to build awareness. While a unit
publicist should be employed during production to ensure that assets such as a press kit, stills and
an EPK are collected, they should also be working with the producers and distributors to ensure
that a PR strategy is in place from the beginning. A strategic plan that contains a comprehensive
SWOT analysis, as well as a solid understanding of key audiences, messages and strategies is
essential from the earliest possible stage to ensure that outreach starts early and messaging is
consistent. Australian films have the luxury of time to put these things in place; however budget
can be an issue. It is important to remember, though, that the presence of PR professionals from
the beginning will be essential in ensuring success and revenue for the filmmakers down the line.
Marketing and PR efforts also need to start early so that awareness can build for a film in
enough time for potential audiences to pass through the four stages of the purchase decision
process. These four stages are often characterized as awareness, interest, desire and action.
Seeing the trailer for a film a week or two prior to its release is not enough time to move
someone through this purchase process. Audiences need to be made aware of a film months
before its release, then PR strategies and tactics need to generate interest and desire through
engaging traditional, tradigital, owned and social efforts such as interviews, reviews, features and
content marketing long enough in advance to draw the audience in so that by the time the film
hits cinemas they have made it to the action stage.
76
5) Craft mainstream messages to position Australian films when promoting to
Australian audiences
As Bergent Research’s Maximising the Appeal of Australian Movies with Australian
Audiences study found, “the mainstream sell increases the appeal of Australian film to a wide
audience” (95-97). In addition, Bergent also found that there is an opportunity to re-position
Australian movies as “entertaining,” “feel good movies,” “good acting” and “fun,” as other
national cinemas do not already occupy these positions (141). While not all films will be able to
be positioned in one of these four categories or sold as “mainstream,” this recommendation
should be taken into consideration for films that wish to reach a wider audience than just the art
house crowd. As former Screen Australia CEO Dr. Ruth Harley told the Sydney Morning Herald,
“the new niche for Australians films” is an ‘elevated art house crossover,’ or smart stories that
work in both art house and mainstream cinemas” (Maddox). For films wanting to reach that
crossover audience, the mainstream sell should be emphasized over the art house sell. This
messaging should also incorporate the “Australianness” of the film, such as location, talent and
humor, where possible. These recommendations apply to marketing materials such as the poster
and trailer; PR materials, such as key messaging documents for filmmakers and actors to refer to
in media interviews; and content being disseminated through social media platforms.
6) Create a comprehensive, dynamic campaign to dissipate the negative public
perception of Australian films
This final strategy is a call to action for the Australian film industry. Some industry
professionals do not believe in the existence of a negative public perception toward Australian
film, or the extent of its impact on the success of Australian films at the box office, however the
77
author vehemently disagrees with this sentiment. In her opinion, the negative brand of Australian
film is very real and needs to be dissipated to ensure the financial success for Australian films in
the future. Australia has a great reputation for film talent and a rich cinematic history. Good
films do not deserve to fail at the box office because Australian audiences are poorly educated
about what Australian cinema can offer.
Therefore, the author believes that the Australian film industry needs to create a
comprehensive, dynamic campaign to dissipate the negative public perception of Australian
films. This campaign should come from leaders in the field, such as government bodies like
Screen Australia, industry groups like the Australian Film Institute or business leaders like
Village Roadshow or Madman Entertainment, but ideally would come from a partnership
between these organizations. A comprehensive campaign that faces negative perceptions head on
should be top of mind for all players in the industry to ensure overall growth and sustainability.
In the author’s opinion, the industry will continue to flounder if it does not buy into the idea of
branding Australian film and back a strategy to turn the tides.
While the above strategies are intended to help Australian films individually, and in the
long run may help dissipate the negative public perception, they will not be enough on their own
to change the brand once and for all.
Branding does not just exist for consumer products and corporations. For example, there
are a multitude of cases of national tourism bodies branding a country to attract tourists.
Additionally, as Susan Hoerlein argued at the Metro Screen panel, organizations such as Triple J
have been successful at branding Australian music. Why not do the same for Australian film?
A re-branding campaign for Australian film must involve building a community around
the brand and initiating advocacy at a grassroots level, as discussed in strategy four. It might
78
involve transmedia storytelling elements spread across multiple platforms, such as
documentaries similar to Advance Australian Film, crowdsourcing or a call for user-generated
content advocating for the support of Australian film. A transmedia campaign could incorporate
various media texts that dig deep into the world of Australian cinema to bring beloved
characters, stories and settings back to life and to remind audiences what they love about
Australian cinema. Finally, support from Australian film talent will be essential in reaching
audiences. This might be through PSA-style content or calls to action through social media.
These ideas are just a start, and more specific strategies and tactics should be developed
by organizations taking up the challenge. Thinking back to the schizophrenic debate on success,
the author notes that a comprehensives re-branding campaign will not only help Australian film
on a cultural level by building and re-defining Australia’s cultural national identity, but it will
also help Australian film on a commercial level by encouraging Australian audiences to go see
home-grown films at the cinema, thus bringing in larger returns for filmmakers, distributors,
exhibitors and investors. In the end, however, audiences vote with their wallets and the
Australian film industry will not be able to thrive if audiences are not engaging with its content.
Conclusions
Australian cinema earned an important place in the country’s national identity and
research supports the claim that Australian audiences value Australian screen stories. However,
there are a number of weaknesses and threats affecting the success of Australian film at the local
box office, most prominently the domination of big budget U.S. films, the negative public
perception toward Australian films and ineffective marketing and PR strategies weakening
Australian films’ ability to compete in the marketplace.
79
The author believes that more can be done to improve Australian films’ share of the local
box office, which in 2013 was only 3.51 percent. This thesis provides six strategic public
relations recommendations to encourage more Australian audiences to see home-grown films at
the box office: 1) emphasize the “critical element” of each film; 2) utilize social media and
content marketing; 3) create Australian film advocates; 4) start marketing and PR efforts early;
5) craft mainstream messages; and 6) create a comprehensive, dynamic campaign to dissipate the
negative public perception of Australian films.
It is the author’s hope that these recommendations might have an impact on the success
of Australian films at the box office; however, they are only one part of the equation. The
declining success of traditional distribution strategies and government funding initiatives, as well
as the creative issues with Australian cinema are issues that industry experts continue to debate
and provide solutions for that, if successful, may work in tandem with PR strategies to improve
box office performance. As Courtney Dawson says in Advance Australian Film:
We have produced some amazing Australian films over the years and if we can find
investors who recognise ambition, find ways to nurture our talent, generate more co-
productions and embrace new technological development and new funding, marketing
and distribution models in the future, I think we can reinvigorate the passion for our
home-grown cinema. . .So, let’s Advance Australian Film.
Looking to the future, Inside Film senior journalist Don Groves believes that the 2014
slate is “shaping as potentially one of the strongest years for Australian films, commercially and
critically, in recent memory” (“A Banner Year”). According to Groves:
Given the writing, directing and on-screen talent involved, I am optimistic about a line-up
that includes John Curran’s Tracks, Greg McLean’s Wolf Creek 2, Matt Saville’s Felony,
80
Julius Avery’s Song of a Gun, David Michôd’s The Rover, Kriv Stenders’ Kill Me Three
Times, Rob Connolly’s Paper Planes, Tony Ayres’ Cut Snake, Zak Kilditch’s The Final
Hours, Stuart Beattie’s I, Frankenstein, Wayne Hope’s Now Add Honey and Peter and
Michael Spierig’s Predestination. (“Another Tough Year”)
Asked about how he would rate the health of the Australian film industry so far this year,
Screen Australia CEO Graeme Mason said he would give the industry a seven out of 10 (Groves,
“7/10”). As of May 7, 2014, success stories include Jonathan Teplitzky’s The Railway Man,
which brought in $7.3 million; Wolf Creek 2, which finished its run with $4.7 million; and
Tracks, which grossed $2.36 million since its March 6, 2014 release (Groves, “Scorecard”).
In the end, the industry must draw on talent from all areas of expertise – marketing,
distribution, production, funding, exhibition and filmmaking – to contribute their own skill and
knowledge to find a solution. Public relations is just one piece of the puzzle, but it is a piece the
author believes needs far more attention and evaluation from industry leaders.
The author hopes that these strategic public relations recommendations will provide a
starting point for more discussion exploring where marketing and PR fit into the solution for
Australian film.
81
Works Cited
“‘100 Bloody Acres:’ What Went Wrong?” Inside Film. Intermedia, 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 5 Aug.
2013.
“‘52 Tuesdays’ and ‘The Babadook’ Selected For Sundance.” Media Releases 2013. Screen
Australia, 6 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
Advance Australian Film. Dir. Courtney Dawson. Midnight Session Films, 2014. Film.
“Australian Films in the Marketplace: Analysis of Release Strategies and Box Office
Performance.” Screen Australia Research. Screen Australia, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
Barber, Lynden. “Better to Fund High-End Global TV Than Back Australian Films.” The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Bergent Research. “Maximising the Appeal of Australian Movies with Australian
Audiences.” Film Finance Corporation Archive. Film Finance Corporation,
June 2008. Web. 17 May 2013.
“Berlin International Film Festival.” Screen Australia Festival Profiles. Screen Australia, n.d.
Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
Bodey, Michael. “Films in Search of an Audience.” The Australian. News Limited, Dec. 11
2009. Web. 17 May 2013.
“Bogan.” Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
British Film Institute. “Statistical Yearbook 2013.” Statistic Yearbook. British Film Institute, n.d.
Web. 29 Jan. 2014.
Bunbury, Stephanie. “Berlin Film Festival Wrap: Australian Film ‘52 Tuesdays’ Wins Second
Award.” Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media, 16 Feb. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
Chichester, Jo. “‘Return of the Kelly Gang.’” The UNESCO Courier 60.5 (2007): 5-6. Web. 28
Feb. 2014.
Connolly, Robert. “Measuring Success.” LUMINA 3 (2010). Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
Dale, David. “The Year of the Cringe in Australian Film.” Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax
Media, 29 Dec. 2012. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
“Domestic Films’ Share of the Box Office in Australia and Selected Other Countries, 2000
2009.” Screen Australia Research. Screen Australia, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
82
“Festivals and Awards Cannes Film Festival.” Screen Australia Festival Profiles. Screen
Australia, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
Film Victoria. “Australian Feature Films, Fictional Television and Documentaries: The Results
From Our Roy Morgan Research.” Film Victoria Resources. Film Victoria, 23 Sep. 2010.
Web. 17 May 2013.
---. “Australian Films and Genre.” Film Victoria Resources. Film Victoria, 23 Sep.
2010. Web. 17 May 2013.
“For & Against: Is Australia Getting Better at Marketing Our Films?” Encore Magazine. Focal
Attractions, 16 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
Gibbs, Ed. “Australian Films and Actors are Riding High at Sundance Film Festival.” Sydney
Morning Herald. Fairfax Media, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
Given, Jock, Curtis, Rosemary and McCutcheon, Marion. “Cinema In Australia: An Industry
Profile.” Swinburne Research Bank. Swinburne Institute of Technology, June 2013. Web.
17 Jul. 2013.
Groves, Don. “2013 Report Card: Another Tough Year For Aussie Films.” Inside Film.
Intermedia, 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.
---. “2014: A Banner Year for Oz Cinema?” Inside Film. Intermedia, 19 Sep. 2013. Web. 25 Sep.
2013.
---. “Aussie Films Hit 8-Year Low.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
---. “Australian Films B.O. Scorecard.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 6 May, 2014. Web. 7 May,
2014.
---. “Australian Programs Dominate Top 50.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 1 Dec. 2013. Web. 2 Dec.
2013.
---. “Why Are Many Australian Films a Turn-Off?” SBS Film. Special Broadcasting Service, 21
May 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
---. “CinemaPlus: A Game Changer for Indie Films?” SBS Film. Special Broadcasting Service,
15 Mar. 2013. Web. 6 Jun. 2013.
---. “Mason: 7/10 for Australian cinema.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 28 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 Mar.
2014.
---. “Mason Sets the Agenda at Screen Australia.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 19 Nov. 2013. Web.
20 Nov. 2013.
83
---. “Momentum Builds For a New Approach to Releasing Oz Films.” Inside Film.
Intermedia, 9 Aug. 2013. Web. 9 Aug. 2013.
---. “Sizable Turn-Out for The Turning.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 30 Sep. 2013. Web. 30 Sep.
2013.
---. “The Case for a New Distribution Model.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 25
Oct. 2013.
---. “U.S. Studio Takes Full Control of Matchbox Pictures.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 31 Jan.
2014. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.
Harris, Lauren Carroll. “How Do You Solve a Problem Like the Australian Film Industry?”
Junkee. Sound Alliance Group, 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Ipsos Australia. “Hearts & Minds: How Local Stories Capture the Hearts & Minds of
Australians.” Screen Australia Research. Screen Australia, 17 Jun. 2013. Web. 19 Jun.
2013.
Jenkins, Henry. “Transmedia Storytelling 101.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan. Henry Jenkins, 22
Mar. 2007. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
“Local Screen Stories Demonstrate the Breadth of Industry Talent.” Screen Australia News and
Events. Screen Australia, 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.
Maddox, Garry. “Local Filmmakers Hope Familiarity Will Breed Content.” Sydney Morning
Herald. Fairfax Media, 1 Sep. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2014.
Metro Screen. “Oz Film vs. Oz Audience.” Metro Screen. Sydney, Australia. October
22, 2009. Panel.
Miller, Robert. “Living in Denial: The Australian Film Industry.” HomepageDAILY. Home Page
Media, 31 Dec. 2008. Web. 17 May 2013.
Moran, Albert, and Vieth, Errol. Historical Dictionary of Australian and New Zealand Cinema.
The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
Mostyn, Rebecca. “Explainer: Where’s the Audience for Australian Films?” The Conversation
Australia. The Conversation, 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.
Nowra, Louis. “Nowhere Near Hollywood.” The Monthly. The Monthly, December 2009. Web.
10 Mar. 2013.
“Number of Australian and overseas films released in Australian cinemas, 1984 - 2012.” Screen
Australia Research. Screen Australia, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
84
“Ozploitation: Australian Genre Classics.” AFI Silver Theatre and Culture. American Film
Institute, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
Pearlman, Karen. “Make Our Myths.” LUMINA 2 (2010): 31-38. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.
Quinn, Karl. “Eric Bana and the Great Film Distribution Shake-Up.” Sydney Morning Herald.
Fairfax Media, 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.
Robertson, Patrick. Film Facts. Billboard Books, 2001. Print. 30 Apr. 2014.
Ryan, Mark David. “A Silver Bullet for Australian Cinema? Genre Movies and the Audience
Debate.” Studies in Australasian Cinema 6.2 (2012): 141-157. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
Schembri, Jim. “At Death’s Door – An Industry Lost in the Dark.” The Age. Fairfax Media 6
Dec. 2008. Web. 17 May 2013.
---. “Australian Film Disaster at the Box Office.” Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media, 23
Mar. 2011. Web. 18 May 2013.
Screen Australia. “What to Watch?: Audience Motivation in a Multi-Screen World.” Screen
Australia Research. Screen Australia, 14 Jun. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.
“Screen Australia News – Latest 2014.” Screen Australia News. Screen Australia, 14 Feb. 2014.
Web. 14 Mar. 2014.
“Share of the Australian box office for Australian feature films, 1977-2011.” Screen Australia
Research. Screen Australia, n.d. Web. 12 Sep. 2013.
Sheehan, Vincent. “Why Australian Producers Should Think More Like Distributors.” AFTRS
Centre for Screen Business. Australian Film, Television and Radio School, June 2009.
Web. 6 Jun. 2013.
Smith, Michelle. “Cultural Cringe and ‘Ja’mie, Private School Girl.’” The Conversation
Australia. The Conversation, 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
“Sundance Film Festival.” Screen Australia Festival Profiles. Screen Australia, n.d. Web. 14
Mar. 2014.
Swift, Brendan. “‘Daybreakers’ Promotion ‘Terrible:’ Spierigs.” Inside Film. Intermedia, 22 Jun.
2010. Web. 17 May 2013.
---. “‘Save Your Legs!’ Posts Disappointing Opening Weekend at Box Office.” Inside
Film. Intermedia, 4 Mar. 2013. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.
Tiley, David. “Arresting Audience: Sweating the Truth About Genre.” Screen Hub. Screen Hub,
27 Sep. 2010. Web. 17 May 2013.
85
“Top 100 Australian feature films of all time, ranked by total reported gross Australian box
office as at January 2012.” Screen Australia Research. Screen Australia, n.d. Web. 10
Mar. 2013.
“Top Five Australian Feature Films in Australia Each Year And Gross Australian Box Office
Earned That Year, 1988-2011.” Screen Australia Research. Screen Australia, n.d. Web.
10 Mar. 2013.
Valentine, James. “Interview with Robert Connolly.” Breakfast with James Valentine. ABC 702
Sydney, 26 Sep. 2013. Radio.
Zachariah, Lee. “‘Patrick’ and ‘Mystery Road’ Might Disprove Your Argument.” Vice. Vice
Media Inc., 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
86
Appendix A: Survey Results
Initial Report
Last Modified: 03/19/2014
1. Do you currently work in the Australian film industry, or have you previously worked
in the Australian industry?
# Answer
Response %
1 Yes
30 100%
2 No
0 0%
Total 30 100%
87
2. In which area(s) of the Australian film industry do you currently work, or have you
previously worked? Please check all that apply
# Answer
Response %
1 Production
18
60%
2 Distribution
15
50%
3 Exhibition
7
23%
4 Funding
4
13%
5 Marketing/Publicity
13
43%
6 Directing
2
7%
7 Acting
1
3%
8 Screenwriting
4
13%
9 Academia/Education
4
13%
10 Film Journalism
7 23%
88
3. How many years have you worked in the Australian film industry?
# Answer
Response %
1 0-5 years
1
3%
2 6-10 years
4
13%
3 11-15 years
6
20%
4 16-24 years
8
27%
5 25+ years
11
37%
89
4. Secondary research conducted has revealed a list of potential issues affecting the
financial success of Australian films at the Australian box office. The Top 10 Potential
Issues are listed below.
Please select from the following statements all you agree with.
# Answer
Response %
1
Big budget U.S. films dominate the
market and Australian films do not
have the P&A budget to compete
with them.
25 83%
2
Marketing and PR strategies start
too late to build enough awareness
and interest for a film among
Australian audiences.
14 47%
3
Marketing and PR strategies lack
the
originality/differentiation/innovation
required to set them apart
from/compete with big budget U.S.
films.
10 33%
4
Australian films are not shown on
enough screens, and leave cinemas
too quickly, to be accessible enough
to Australian audiences.
11 37%
5
The industry is too reliant on Screen
Australia funding, which does not
support the production of audience
pleasing and/or commercially viable
films and places too much emphasis
on making culturally important
films.
7 23%
6
There is insufficient private funding
for Australians to make big budget
films that compete with the U.S.
18 60%
90
7
In past years, the release of a large
number of bleak/depressing
Australian films has led to the
perception by Australian audiences
that home-grown films are
frequently bleak/depressing.
14 47%
8
In past years, the release of only a
small number of audience-pleasing,
genre-driven Australian films has
led to the perception by Australian
audiences that home-grown films
are often not made with audience in
mind.
11 37%
9
Cultural cringe leads Australian
audiences to perceive home-grown
films as inferior to films from the
U.K. or U.S.
15 50%
10
The insufficient enterprise structure
for production companies and lack
of funding for big budget films has
led to the perception that Australian
films have poor production values in
comparison to U.S. films.
7 23%
1
1
I do not agree with any of these
statements
2
7
%
91
5. The purpose of this thesis is to explore how public relations strategies can encourage
more Australian audiences to see home-grown films in their first-run theatrical window.
Before you finish the survey, do you have any comments you would like to provide on this
topic or anything else you would like to add on the above ten statements?
NB - If you do provide a comment below, please provide your full name so your quote can
be properly attributed. Your answers to all previous survey questions will remain
anonymous.
Text Response
I think it's easy to blame poor marketing, PR or funding models on the lack of successful
Australian films. It has been proven time and again that if you make a good movie people will go
see it, the marketing and PR elements will support the film but are not the sum of it. More time
needs to be put on the development of a film, taking into consideration marketing and PR
opportunities in the production stages.
If you make a rushed movie that is trying to cash in on its target market due to previous success
in a similar genre then you are not giving enough credit to your audience. It's true that Australian
films do not have the budget to compete on the exhibition circuit with films like that as they rely
on marketing alone, you can't do what bad US movies do and just rely on a huge spend to carry it
through opening weekend.
Zannah Marchand
Per above, in my view, most of the challenges to Indie-Australia film making have their gensis in
scale. A $1-15 Million dollar production is unlikely to compete successfully against $150-250
million dollar offerings.
Seph McKenna
Every feature film is a new start up business destined for a saturated buyers market. The
manufacture and marketing of Australian film can be likened to the manufacture of other
boutique speciality products and in any other industry (e.g. wine, cars) - success relies heavily on
marketing. It can be up to 50 percent of the total cost of bringing a new product to market.
Australian films on the other hand generally have pitifully small marketing and P&A budgets
and are often doomed to failure irrespective of the quality of the film. Until we invest as
substantially in marketing and innovation as we do in project development and production,
nothing will change.
Sue Maslin
It's simplistic to blame funding mechanisms, public perceptions, budgets or public perceptions
for the failure of many Australian films at the box office. The reasons are often inclusive of
some or all of these factors and numerous others - including the timing of the release, the
92
ambitions and expectations of the filmmakers, the classification of the film, the weather, piracy
and the increased costs of creating all the publicity materials that Australian films require. With
over 400 films released annually, it's tough - and getting tougher - for any independent, foreign
or art-house film to cut through for a reasonable theatrical run on limited screens. Australia is a
small market and films need to have a strong plan for ancillary revenue.
In script writing, it is a cardinal sin for the hero to be saved by an act of god rather than their
own action, similarly, there is no point in the Australian screen industry waiting for or
demanding some third party intervention to 'fix' the problem. It is the filmmakers and film
industry that needs to take decisive action. Additionally, there is no point blaming the audience
or dismissing them as having the 'wrong' idea. The product needs to be made, and sold, to the
audience on their terms. In other words, it's the films that need to change, not the audiences.
Giles Hardie, film critic.
I think it is fallacious to blame the shortcomings of the Oz film industry on the inability to
compete with bigger budgeted and more lavishly marketed Hollywood films. Nor should all the
blame be laid at the door of Screen Australia, which can only evaluate the projects presented to it
for development and investment. The chief problem lies in the culture or mindset of our writers,
directors and producers, many of whom do not place audiences at the forefront of their thinking,
planning and execution. I do see a stronger desire among new and emerging filmmakers,
especially in the DIY field, to engage more strongly with audiences, often using social media
from the concept stage through production to delivery. And I have faith in the new regime at
Screen Australia, led by Graeme Mason, that there will smarter and better-targeted decisions on
funding development and investment. Lastly, Oz filmmakers need to break out of the traditional
releasing structure, with its anachronistic 10-day holdback, to ensue their films reach audiences
quickly and on multiple platforms
Donald Malcolm Groves
I don't believe in the "Australian films are too bleak and depressing" theory at all; I recall a
period around 2003-05 when there was a huge media and public backlash about the spate of
lowbrow Australian comedies. And many of these "dark" films have been successful locally too.
I feel that the real issues are much bigger - namely cultural and creative.
Only a very small audience really feels that Australian films are of any worth; previous research
has illustrated the general public perception that Australian films are not "movies" that one
would pay to see at a multiplex. They don’t have the cast, the production values, the spectacle,
the exoticism.
Instead, they are happy to see them on TV or DVD. Ratings and sales support this.
Creatively though, Australian feature films rarely contain the fresh, innovative story concepts of
93
the best international films, either mainstream or more upmarket.
Instead they fall into very predictable, pre-established models and genres that audiences
understandably perceptive as tired, dated and more akin to television. Many of the better
Australian films still fall into this trap. Only the very few - Snowtown, Chopper, Lantana,
Samson and Delilah come to mind - transcend this. No coincidence that they are also amongst
the most acclaimed overseas and help build careers for their directors.
Finally - too much value is placed on the theatrical GBOR performance of a film in Australia,
not recognising that for distributors, one film grossing $1m can be seen as a success, and another
grossing $2m can be seen as a failure. Not all films are the same business model; not all have the
same release costs or production budgets; or the same intended audience or size of audience.
Measuring and defining their "success" against the performance of $150m Studio blockbusters
with $3m Australian P&A budgets is a ridiculous exercise, perpetrated by ill informed Australian
media.
Tait Brady
Australian films are not the only films struggling with a theatrical release, as this also applies to
American films that may not be at blockbuster level as well as quality foreign/UK films and even
documentaries. There needs to be an understanding of how much film product is out there and
competing with each other to firstly get a slot on a screen and then to hold that screen before
another film comes in and pushes it out.
It is like any product - if there is an over abundance of choice and not enough shelf space to sell
it, then it gets pushed aside and never seen or used. The industry needs to look at the reality of
the business and the costs involved (not just in production) but in distributing the film and
working hard with the exhibitors (who hold great power with film release on screens).
It is also worth noting that it is very hard for any film to make a large profit at the box office and
this is why many studios are moving towards franchise/event/special effects films, as this is
where a crowd can be drawn upon. Making filmmakers wanting a theatrical release of their
feature film need to focus on the amount of product/content that is out their grabbing peoples
attention for free e.g. FTA TV, downloadable content etc, as there is so much to be entertained
by these days that the challenge is how to convince an audience that the film on offer is worth
leaving their lounge room, driving, parking and paying for a feature film in a public space, when
they have so much content options at home (or on the move). So a film production team need to
really consider if their film being considered is any better than what is available for free on
peoples viewing devices, which in many cases they are not...especially to try and make profit on
(which means making 3 times the amount at the box office to what you have spent releasing it!).
Australian TV - albeit assisted by quota- draws large audiences because producers are- as a
generalisation- making shows Australian audiences want to see. Australian feature film
94
producers- as a generalisation- are making films exclusively for the art house speciality audience
which while a growing sub group is ultra picky and like mainstream audiences like feel good
material. The Australian subsidy system has rarely encouraged or provided a funding structure
for mainstream productions aimed at the teen and early 20's audiences i.e. mainstream audiences.
There is no reason Australian producers cannot compete in tat space as Working Title in the UK,
or Luc Besson in France or Constantin in Germany have demonstrated- save for failed subsidy
policies that have pushed a cultural agenda in lieu of a commercial agenda- at a taxpayer cost of
$1.5 billion dollars over 40 plus years.
Antony I Ginnane-producer.
We have strictures of exhibition in this country meaning getting and holding screens is extremely
hard. Often, campaigns are slim with little P&A and competition between former so called 'art
house' screens and multiplexes (taking same product), has entailed that aust films often simply
do not hold their sessions for long enough. Innovative campaigns need to be more encouraged,
and we need to encourage distributors not to walk the same line in terms of release patterns and
lead up campaigns. I have films, which have had both brilliant campaigns (well thought through,
starting early, alert to social media, well publicised along key messages) and bad ones- so my
answers above are not meant to be all encompassing!
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Our industry lacks its competitive advantage by trying
to emulate the US studio genre based cinema and release patterns, we ideally need to find a way
to do things differently and provide a higher value proposition for Australian audiences,
culturally, and in the cinema experience.
Unfortunately there are a number of factors outside a good PR strategy that need to be in place to
encourage local audiences to see Australian films (mainly those listed above) however there are
some ways PR can assist. With films that are considered "art house' there is a dependency on the
film to receive extremely strong critical acclaim before Australians will see it as credible enough
to pay money for. Mostly this must come from international festivals as endorsement from a
source outside Australia (mainly UK / Europe 7 The US) holds more weight - almost as if saying
that a film must only be good if it is seen that way by people in international markets. A strong
PR campaign will help to facilitate the praise at an early stage and build momentum from the
start of a release if launched at international festivals. It will also help to ensure social media
elements are integrated early so that community engagement occurs ASAP through online word-
of-mouth and by engaging key media to champion a film from its inception.
For larger commercial films, it all depends on the calibre of talent and the interest audiences
have in seeing them on the big screen. PR strategies that create awareness around the cast and
their credential s or controversial backgrounds will help. A big obstacle in my opinion to
Australia releasing bigger films in cinemas is due to the risk involved. A lot of money goes in to
the marketing and distribution of a big scale production and the fall is hard on those that don’t
95
make it at the box office. Unless there are a number of other highly successful films in the
schedule to make up for the shortfall it makes it very hard to continue to spend large sums of
money/ fund more large scale releases and it becomes a cycle. Strong PR will generate
maximum awareness. There must also be a demand for the product but ensuring the right people
know about those things that will interest them to see a film can be achieved via good strategic
PR.
Gabrielle Oldaker
The following sentence 'Please select from the following statements all you agree with’ did not
make sense...
Some of the options are too broad. i.e. 'The industry is too reliant on Screen Australia funding,
which does not support the production of audience pleasing and/or commercially viable films
and places too much emphasis on making culturally important films'.
The industry is too reliant on SA funding but not for the reasons you give.
Random points: What is often overlooked in these discussions is that audiences have had
decades of training to like Hollywood blockbusters. Australian films, when they do well, do
very well. The system insists that 100% of publicly funded films are released and this perhaps
shouldn't be the case. It is more appropriate to compare the performance of Australian films
with UK or US indie films. My strong belief is that Australians like quality Australian films
much more than the media lead Australians to believe.
I believe the issue is as much one of perception as it is of fact. It is frequently insisted that
Australians refuse to watch Australian movies at the cinema because they are uniformly bleak or
depressing, when in fact many are not. Yet those that are not - Save Your Legs!, Goddess, The
Rocket, among last year's offerings - frequently fail to connect anyway, while some of those that
do connect - The Turning, The Railway Man, Snowtown, Animal Kingdom - are pretty dark
indeed. In my view, the great challenge is that the audience is unwilling to grant the same grace
to an Australian film that has had mixed reviews as they would to a Hollywood movie in the
same category. A classic example: Save Your Legs! opened around the same time as The
Incredible Burt Wonderstone. Both got some mixed reviews (and some outright hostile), yet the
Australian movie left the cinemas with a haul of $385,000 and its tail between its legs while the
Hollywood release took $2.6 million, about eight times the local release's box office. An
Australian movie effectively has to have wall-to-wall rave reviews, great word of mouth or
eminently bankable stars before it will have a shot with an Australian cinema audience - and
even then it's far from guaranteed. Australia makes all sorts of films - and Screen Australia
backs them - so the perception that they are all gloomy is simply wrong. Convincing an audience
that there is something there worth taking a punt on, however, is a very real challenge.
96
Karl Quinn - National Film Editor, Fairfax Media
"Australia only produces a small number of feature films per year - and really good ones are
incredibly difficult to make. Given the size of the industry, Australia's strike rate is actually
pretty strong. Screen Australia production investment, however, has generally and
understandably required that all financed films - the good, the bad, and the ugly - have an
adequately promoted theatrical release, which perhaps distorts the public's perception of the
overall quality of Australian cinema. If we had to see every film made in any other country in
any given year, we'd most certainly think the state of that country's cinema was pretty dire too.
It's the same all over the world. Good films are really, really hard to make. And competing with
the Hollywood machine is incredibly difficult - I would guess even more so in English-speaking
markets than in foreign-language markets that will always have an appetite for films made in
their native tongue." David Michôd
I believe the problem is the stories that are told. Very often I think how come that film got made.
We do have some good films and our technical expertise is excellent. We just need to choose
better subject matter.
Also attention to funding talented directors. Too much bureaucracy for some to make it through
to be funded
Natalie Miller
Australian distributors do not fund local films during the lead up to release in the same way they
do with internationals and hence many Oz films go under the radar. Also, some distributors seem
to put all their eggs in just a few baskets meaning that they might support one film at the expense
of another. If they knew that going into the relationship they should have not picked it up and let
another distributor maybe put their attention and focus on it and enable it to have a chance of
success. Distributors are also very quick to blame others (filmmaker, actors) when films do not
"succeed" when a great level of responsibility falls to them.
Much of the film critical press comes from international sources. Therefore, without exposure to
international media, local films can miss this feed.
Further, trailer and teaser play when shared to a major larger population gather far greater
momentum in terms if ratings & views. Australian films arguably are not tested to a non-
industry audience enough and not given the time to be fine-tuned.
Paul Wiegard, Madman Entertainment
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Public relations vs. advertising for the big screen: the ever-growing role of strategic public relations in the effective marketing of theatrical motion picture releases
PDF
The color of beautiful: the case against skin whitening
PDF
A comparison of corporate PR practices in U.S. and China: a case study approach
PDF
Tailoring pharmaceutical public relations strategies to different markets: a case study of the launching strategies of Gardasil in the U.S. and China
PDF
Lights, camera, (call to) action: global public engagement in film launch campaigns
PDF
An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing
PDF
The influence of new media marketing public relations on the South Korean film industry -- in relation to the U.S. film industry
PDF
Getting genetically modified animals to market: the Mount Everest of public relations issues
PDF
Once a Lakers town, always a Lakers town? An in-depth comparison of the branding and communications strategies of the LA Clippers and the LA Lakers
PDF
Municipal place branding for economic development
PDF
The Digital Revolution and its impact on the beauty industry
PDF
Corporate social responsibility strategies, standards and consumer awareness in the jewelry industry: what does it mean to be socially responsible in the jewelry industry? A specific look into pr...
PDF
The changing landscape of higher education: experiential learning in public relations for the millennial generation
PDF
One more thing: experiential economies and the future of public relations
PDF
Wake up PR practitioners, the Lovemark is here to stay: an analysis of the Lovemark theory with a discussion of the future of brands
PDF
Nostalgia: more than just the flavor of the week: a critical look at the movement of nostalgic food from "trend" to "mainstream"
PDF
Corporate reputation crisis in the digital age: a comparative study on Abercrombie & Fitch’s reputation crisis in the U.S., China and Taiwan
PDF
The influencer break-down: a history, categorization, and analysis of success for health & wellness influencers
PDF
Are U.S. colleges being “oversold” to today’s students? A look at the realities of public relations in undergraduate higher education
PDF
Comparative analysis of peer-to-peer lending in China and the United Kingdom: an assessment of the Lending Plaza’s market entry prospects
Asset Metadata
Creator
Dixon-Smith, Harriet
(author)
Core Title
That's just what this country needs: another film that's a flop at the flicks: a PR perspective on the success of home-grown films at the Australian box office
School
Annenberg School for Communication
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Strategic Public Relations
Publication Date
07/03/2014
Defense Date
07/02/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Australia,Australian film,communications,Entertainment,film,Marketing,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public Relations,publicity,strategic PR,Strategic Public Relations,unit publicity
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Floto, Jennifer D. (
committee chair
), Jackson, Laura Min (
committee member
), Murphy, Mary (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hdixonsmith@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-430222
Unique identifier
UC11286858
Identifier
etd-DixonSmith-2609.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-430222 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DixonSmith-2609.pdf
Dmrecord
430222
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Dixon-Smith, Harriet
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Australian film
publicity
strategic PR
unit publicity