The biggest problem with Australian films is to do with the wool industry, yes, befitting isn't it? It's to do indirectly with what is involved mainly to do with the wool industry and that is sheep. Now, I know that a film like A Dying Breed is not my cup of tea, nor was Wolf Creek, never saw it, or should I say, never Saw it, and don't really have a problem with those who do like watching films like this.
Films are relative to their audiences and fans so the old tug-o-war with what should be ... should be ... is kind of irrelevant. The issue I have is with the copy-cat syndrome that infects our industry, and it isn't copy-cat because the crowds can't get enough, it is the notion of copy-cat that purely stems from the golden dollar. Yes, funding bodies don't like to take "chances", so they always pick the flavor of the month to pursue when making their financial decisions.
That's right. If Wolf Creek does well, then we'll see thirty odd Wolf Creek like films pumped into try hard advertising campaigns, "Come and see this film, it's very much like the last one, you'll love it" and fair enough I guess. Just in the same way we saw all the Love and Other Catastrophes films come prancing out of the same period, just as when Muriel's Wedding hit the screens, we saw all the same attempts to copy-cat that.
Then we must recreate Bad Boy Bubby, re-do Looking for Ali Brandi and rehash Wog Boy.
It's frustrating because it doesn't allow for any variety, with such a small industry it is as if we can only cram one type of film making into the public view at any one time.
As far as thrillers go I liked The Interview with Hugo Weaving, not because of the storyline as such although the ending was very decent but more so by the way it was plotted and shot, and especially the way Hugo Weaving munched on big shiny juicy olives. Craig Monahan went on to make one other film called Peaches, also featuring Hugo Weaving, I never saw that. He should have made a film called Olives, that would have made much more sense.
Now, A Dying Breed is about cannibalism which we have seen before in films like Ravenous with Guy Pearce. I think the story is somewhat far fetched and too historically reliant to interest me. Why do we always have to seek out some kind of historical context or social relevancy to our movie making. Hey, I am even Tasmanian, so I should at least be somewhat biased. Heck, if the film does well, I might as well honor it some sort of kudos for sparking up interest in Van Diemen's Land. On a side note this film should have called itself Demon's Land, as that is why the name was changed to Tasmania, because the small island was becoming so notorious for its unruliness the rest of the world made a connotation between its Dutch name Diemon and the word Demon thus it was duly changed to Tasmania after Abel Tasman.
I have come across Henry Miller mentioning Tasmania and Tasmanians several times in his novels.
A Dying Breed makes no sense as the title anyhow. The Breed that is killing is killing not Dying, the Dying are not a Breed. Yes, I know it was plucked from the sub-plot of the Tasmanian Tiger, but it's a weak link. It just doesn't work. This film would possibly have worked in the style of Black Sheep which I never saw either.
So all in all I don't know what I am talking about, because this is basically a review of a film I haven't seen, referenced by other films I haven't seen either, but it's a post anyway.