No, what they are are piss-poor scientists (in the field of Climatology) who, having failed at the game of arguing in the peer-reviewed literature, think that persuading the public to believe them will grant them their victory anyway.
Yeah, it often seems like some have been burned by academia at some stage and that therefore academia is the source of the world's problems. And not just those who rail against peer reviewed science, but other fields as well.
I dont think much effort has gone into telling our own stories lately: There certainly is "Boy" - and everything directed by Gaylene Preston - but otherwise? And, therebye saying, I am not denying the huge input - in telling our own stories - that especially Jane Campion & Vincent Ward have made...
Fair enough but I do think that telling our own stories often becomes a meaningless mantra, and a genre in itself. As Craig said, most of it is still commercial cinema. And what is our own? 'Our own' very quickly becomes a way of editing or a kind of score. Abstractions. That's why I think Florian Habicht's films are so cool. They definitely reflect something about New Zealand but they also reflect a filmmaker who just likes to be with the people he's filming.
Geoff, not sure if this is useful, and I'm not sure why I remember this in particular, but Ngati has an Australian character.
"Reality TV is 29 years old, and counting: any advances on that?"
I'd say Reality TV is older than that, or at least that early models can be found in the 60s with shows like Hidden Camera (punked), or 7 Up (is that what it's called?)
Then there were some documentary type American shows back in the late 60s early 70s that clearly owed some debt to the Direct Cinema of roughly the same period. But the Reailty was manufactured in the same way it is now. In other words, conflict was gold, but it was framed as educational because we were looking at 'real' people doing real things.
Maybe I'm pushing it with those...There must be a bunch of others?
Thanks Mark, I now remember the song. It's stuck there now. There's something about that show, and that song in particular, which seems to exist in this weird dimension that doesn't know if it's for children or adults. The dimension where Dad steals chips of your plate and you go Daaaad! And he winks.
"Your worst light entertainment nightmare."
Totally. Which lives on in shows like the Singing Bee which seems hilariously anachronistic, especially the honey bees.
That reminds me of a show called " Put a Bucket on Your Head." Not a reality show but hosted by Nick Tansley. Anyone remember that? It had a studio audience, but I have no idea what it was about.
I love it too... Just one thing: what the hell are you on about?
If you're answer is to just make "decent films" then maybe you'd like to elaborate on what a decent film is, Mr Pauline Kael.
Firstly, I think both ideas are great, and also that someone is so keen to get local filmmakers onto the big screen. It seems like such an impossibility for most filmmakers because the powerful feeling you mentioned, that one experiences when they see a movie on the big screen, is thought to be only achieved through accessing power by way of money and convention. One has to constantly 'get approval' before they can even begin to begin to begin. Of all the arts in this country I have a feeling that we have an unnecessary feeling of the divine when it comes to film which is clearly a disappointment when the divine often turns out be less than. One needn't constantly pray and flagellate to end up with paradise in the darkness of the cinema.
The reason I like both ideas is because they implicitly imply that filmmakers can just make films and then be judged on their merits later. And this is especially true in terms of production, where there has been a shift that filmmakers should take advantage of, which is that making films is much cheaper. Why should being in the film business necessarily mean climbing endless screenwriting ladders and jumping through production hoops just to get a bunch of money?
Both of these ideas would obviously help the exhibition end of things which in turn would no doubt help with distribution if the film is good. Now someone's throwing money at films that have actually been made rather than at treatments or drafts.
I guess I like idea 1 more because it involves a year 'round opportunity for local filmmakers to show their films. But I dunno, idea 2 is also good because, unlike NZ Music Month, which I'm not such a fan of, a concentration of NZ films in a month could actually be a big deal not just for filmmakers but local film goers too...it could have a festival feeling about it!