A Man's Home is his Castle

We’ve seen many critically acclaimed Australian films in class that have garnered attention around the world.  The Castle is a lesser known, but equally entertaining Australian comedy from 1997.

The Castle concerns the contended life of the Kerrigan family.  Father Daryll Kerrigan purchased the family home adjacent to the Melbourne Airport and beneath several major power lines for next to nothing.  In fact, the son proudly reports the house is worth “almost as much today as when we bought it.”  The house features numerous add-on rooms and a fake chimney.  Daryll is exceedingly proud of his offspring and their achievements, the greatest of which is the degree his daughter earned at Sunshine Taffe Hairdressing.  All seems right with the Kerrigans until an eminent domain case threatens the family’s home.

The film was shot in 11 days for less than $500,000 and went on to gross over $10,000,000.  Though the film did not receive much international attention, it is critically acclaimed in Australia.  At face value, the film is a comedy but it also touches on themes of land rights, the Australian constitution and the concept of the Aussie Battler.  The Castle was Eric Bana’s first film and it also starts Sophie Lee (Muriel’s Wedding).

NY Times Review

The Castle and Eminent Domain

First 8 Minutes on YouTube

Blind Photographers

After watching Proof and reading about Joceyln Moorhouse’s inspiration to write the story after hearing a story about a blind photographer, I decided to search for blind photographers myself on the Internet. Google instantly gave me 10,600 websites, articles and pictures that were relevant to the phrase, “blind photographer.” The idea of being blind, yet channeling your creative energy into an art that is purely visual is astonishing to me. I don’t think any non-visually impaired individual will ever truly understand the relationship between photography and the visually impaired. There seems to be a sort of magical connection between the impossibility of this relationship.

Google’s search varied from articles about exhibitions, newspaper articles and photography programs for blind people. There was one article that really stuck out to me the most. The San Francisco Chronicle had written an article about a man named Pete Eckert who had hadn’t always been blind, but lost his sight due to a eye disease called retinitis pigmentosa. Eckert, however isn’t just an ordinary photographer. Besides being blind, he also works with infrared photography. Eckert describes using all his senses the feel the world around him. "I can see lots of ... really weird things," Eckert says in the Chronicle article written by Delfin Vigil. Eckert is also quoted in the article by Vigil saying, "I can feel light so strongly that it allows me to see the bones in my skeleton as pulsating energy, or like in an X-ray. At times I can sort of see sound. Sometimes I can even see things from the back of my head."
The photo shown here is one of Eckert’s and is titled “Saloon.” In the article, Vigil talks about Eckert’s photography process. Vigil describes that the photo was “shot at the old Saloon on Grant Avenue in North Beach, once a favorite hangout. Relying on his hazy memories of past drinking days, Eckert entered the Saloon, scoped out a spot in the back and waited for tourists to fill up the bar and create sounds of the room. He then snapped the pictures in about the same time it took to drink a Manhattan.” The process of feeling and understanding all the aspects of an environment before photographing it makes perfect sense to me. So many people are so quick to take a photograph of a location, event, or area before they even know all its nooks and crannies. As also shown through the character Martin in Proof, blind photographers may be visually impaired, but their intuition and relationship with their other senses is well beyond those of sighted artists.

The Missing Genre

In American film, there has been a recent increase in musicals. With films like Mamma Mia, Sweeney Todd, Hairspray, Across the Universe, Dreamgirls, The Producers, and The Phantom of the Opera all released within the past four years fans of the musical have had no shortage of films to watch. Add to that the extraordinary success of Disney's High School Musical trilogy and it becomes evident that audiences are not solely comprised of people looking for a film reminiscent of the classic musicals, but also of young people only first getting introduced to the genre. Still, the rebirth of musicals is exactly that a re-birth. Stateside, the musical is a genre that has been around for decades, bringing an appropriate amount of cheese (with exception of the particularly gory Sweeney Todd) to bring a smile to everyone's face and, perhaps, to get people singing along and maybe even dancing in the aisles. Peruse through the AFI website and you'll find out that while their final list of the Greatest Movie Musicals only consisted of 25 films, 180 films were nominated.

http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/musicals.aspx

Yet, Australian cinema seems to lack such an enthusiasm to the genre. The classic American musicals of yesteryear, think Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Gene Kelly, etc, lack a counterpart in Australia. Visit australianscreen.com and see the sparse selection of Australian musicals.

http://australianscreen.com.au/genre/musical/

If the difference between American and Australian opinion on musicals wasn't evident by the vast difference in number, it is also apparent in the theme found in musicals. While most American musicals are overly upbeat, candy-coated versions of society (especially in classic musicals), Australian musicals investigate things like disappearances as seen in One Night the Moon. Even in Moulin Rouge!, Baz Luhrmann's musical that had great American success and features a great many references to classic musicals, is about a prostitute with tuberculosis--not quite dance in the aisle material.




Perhaps, it's all a result of the countries being in completely different phases at different times, but, still, the fact that the musical has not been explored much in Australia, but perhaps over-explored in American, is certainly something to think about.

(Images thanks to: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Moulin-Rouge-Posters_i306935_.htm
and http://www.movie-forumz.org/showthread.php?t=38195)

From Dusk till Dawn-Tasmanian Style

While skimming the blogs, I came across a mention of Tasmania and how it isn't represented very well, or really at all, in Australian cinema. This could be due to the fact that it is small and not heavily populated, but if I had to guess I'd say it's because most Australians view Tasmania the way most Americans view Appalachia. Anyway, I got curious, so I decided I'd check out what film industry Tasmania might or might not possess.
Low and behold, Dying Breed. Coming out in Australia today, it is the story of four travelers to Tasmania coming across a town of flesh-eating cannibals descended from Alexander "Pieman" Pierce. Pierce, an actual historical figure, escaped from the penal colony on Tasmania and did actually survive by eating people.
Now I'm sure there's going to be some naysayers for this movie, but I think it's awesome. What better way to show the rest of Australia that Tasmania isn't a bunch of inbred psycho's: by throwing it in their face. Tourism Chief Daniel Hanna was definitely excited. "Any film that shows the key parts...like the rugged wilderness, is going to be a good thing and hopefully spark some interest." Of course, he later said, "Obviously as long as visitors don't expect there to really be cannibals in Tasmania." Apparently, some Tasmanian's were disappointed that they couldn't be involved as extras. "Most of us would have fit the bill admirably and true to life. Because we're all descendants of the Pieman." Of course, West Coast Mayor Gerrity was joking, but whatever.
The film was mostly shot in western Tasmania, a first for Australian cinema, and was directed by Jody Dwyer, who also wrote it. He's done some other smaller films, but this is his foray into more commercially viable work.
Whenever this gets shown here, I'm definitely seeing it. It's almost like the Australian Deliverance, without the banjo playing and anal raping. And of course, it's good to know that Tasmania is finally getting its just desserts.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24581134-26103,00.html

-Brady Nelson

Weir turns his back on Australia

At this point we are all very aware of Peter Weir and some of his earlier works. In this class alone we have watched 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' and 'Gallipoli'; two films that encapsulate almost all of the traditionally Australian themes we have seen, studied and written numerous papers about. However, unknown to many, Weir has directed and contributed enough to Australian cinema that on June 14th, 1982 he was awarded the 'Member of the Order of Australia' medal as a recognition for his achievements and celebration of Australian culture.

Interestingly enough, Weir directed his first feature film in 1974 - less than a year before he released his groundbreaking feature 'Picnic at Hanging Rock'. This first film was called 'The Cars that ate Paris' - taking place not in Paris, France but rather a fictional, middle of nowhere small town called Paris. While unfortunately the film has had little staying power in history, it does act as a sort of prelude/inspiration both to the 'Mad Max' saga - through the concept, use of vehicles, violence and portrayal of the outback; and as the inspiration and celebration of the Australian quirkiness found in films like 'Muriel's Wedding' and again in 'Mad Max'.

The following years he directed several other landmark Australian films:

• Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)
• The Last Wave (1977)
• Gallipoli (1981)
• The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)

So, as I previously stated in June of 1982 Weir received the 'Member of the Order of Australia' medal celebrating his contributions to Australian National cinema. This was the same year as the last film he directed in Australia. Since then he has directed 8 feature films - starring everyone from Jim Carrey, Sigourney Weaver to Harrison Ford, yet not one of these films takes place in Australia or was even filmed in Australia.

So my question is; after contributing so much and being internationally recognized as a pioneer of Austrian Cinema, why did he all of a sudden decide to turn his back and no longer celebrate the land that created both him and his renowned career?

Review of 'The Cars that ate Paris'

The Order of Australia Medal

Newcastle

     Australia is a country known for the outback, reptiles/wildlife, and gorgeous beaches.  however, Australian films rarely showcase the ever-popular beach and surf culture.  The outback and wildlife are shown over and over again in films like, "Picnic at Hanging Rock," "Walkabout," "Australia," etc.  However, surfers aren't seen as much.  There was a Russell Crowe narrated documentary about Sydney's notorious Maroubra surfing gang in 2007, but an actual surfer's tale hasn't been seen since 1972's "Morning of the Earth," or 1981's "Puberty Blues".

     Well, recently released in Australia was "Newcastle," a coming-of-age surfer's story about elusive dreams and the eternal wave.  The film is set in the coastal Australian town, following a teen, Jessie, as he tries to become surfing's next big thing.

In a recent Australian news article, Lachlan Buchanan, who stars as the protagonist, Jessie, says, "Surfing's something that hasn't been touched on much before... We keep coming out with all these movies in the Outback and the bush, and it's funny - these movies are meant to depict us, but not everyone can relate to."

     The film is directed by American, Dan Castle.  This will be his first feature.  Castle is a critically acclaimed director of short films, including "Visitor," starring Barry Otto, which received awards at the national and international festivals including an AFI (Australian Film Institute) nomination for best short fiction film in 2003.

-Matt Colbert

Australia's Electoral System

Some of you may have noticed that the United States of America has elected a new president.  All this talk of high voter turnout and history-making moments got me to thinking.  How does voting go down in the land down under?

Australia practices compulsory voting.  All citizens, ages 18 and above, must enroll to vote and in turn, attend a polling location during election time.   In 1924 compulsory voting was enacted on a national level.  Aborigines were let off the hook until 1984, whereupon they too were made to partake in their (former) country's electoral process.  If an Aussie doesn't want to cast a vote, electors are known to cast 'informal votes' whereby one turns in a blank ballot.

The penalties for not voting aren't excessively severe.  If a citizen fails to show up on election day, they must provide a reason for their absence or face a $20 fine.  If the citizen does neither within 21 days, they face an additional $50 fine, plus court costs.  Ouch.

What nation, you ask, can call itself a democracy when it forces its citizens to vote!?  Consider these statistics, dear reader.  The voter turnout in Australia during the last election was 91.4%.  That's pretty good, right?  In fact, Australia has the highest voter-turnout of any democratic nation in the world.  And the U.S.?  Preliminary estimates are showing that on Tuesday, November 2nd, 2008, 64.1% of eligible U.S. citizens cast their votes.

Interpret those numbers as you will but ask, dear reader, what citizen can call themselves part of a democracy if they do not exercise the right to vote?

For more information on Australia's Electoral Process and the debates surrounding compulsory voting, check out these links: 

Voting Within Australia • Frequently Asked Questions

Compulsory Voting