Australasian Cinema

home MASTER LIST inclusive list by date Australian Cinema (2008 unit) film details directors writers producers cinematographers New Zealand films NZ films by date top ten best films AACTA, AFI awards auteurs one-time directors endings couples bibliography links TYPES OF FILMS American art films Asian biopics books=>film bush cars children comedies coming of age crime diasporas disability docos exploitation Fremantle, WA gay horror/SF/fantasy indigenous Jewish metafilm music prison road films Russian shorts social realism sport surf Tasmania teenpics war WA westerns women's films

 

Alison Mackenzie

Australian Cinema H231

Film Information

The film I have chosen for this essay is Romper Stomper 19921. The principal cast and crew are as follows;

Russell Crowe Hando

Jacqueline McKenzie Gabe

Daniel Pollock Davey

Alex Scott Martin

Leigh Russell Sonny Jim

Director/writer Geoffrey Wright

Producers Daniel Scharf and Ian Pringle

Director of Photography Ron Hagen ACS

Editor Bill Murphy

Production Company Seon Films2 (All Credits)

The film was produced in 1991, shown at Cannes in 1992, and was released this same year on November the 9th. The budget for the making of the film was $1.68 million (Australian), and it grossed $3.18 million (Australian)2.

Reviews of this film can be found;

· http://us.imdb.com

Romper Stomper (1992). Essay by Jason Overbeck (no date supplied).

· http://us.imdb.com

Romper Stomper (NC-17). Newspaper review by Richard Harrington, Washington Post Staff Writer. September 24th , 1993.

· http://us.imdb.com

Romper Stomper (NC-17). Newspaper review by Desson Howe, Washington Post Staff Writer. September 24th , 1993.

· http://www.Halle's Russell Crowe Page.com

"Tidbits" (No date supplied).

· Tom O'Regan, Australian National Cinema, TJ Press; Cornwall, 1996.

I gathered this information principally from a copy of the film itself and the Internet, but also from books. First I tried looking at the web page for the Australian Film Commission, but had difficulty extracting information from it, I did not find it user friendly at all. I then tried simply typing "Romper Stomper" into the search engine and found the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), based in the US. From here, not only did I find information on the movie, but on the cast and crew, and reviews and so on. I also looked in books, but found that the book most relevant to my work was Tom O'Regan's book (1996) mentioned above, (no surprise there!). I have found that there was a large presence of information not only on the film itself, but also on actors and crew. This information seemed to be largely American in origin which I took as a sign that both Australian films and actors can be well received in America. Russell Crowe has a huge following and there is no end to the information that can be gathered on this actor. There was a problem in that the sort of information that I was locating was of a specific kind, and that there was little information regarding interviews with cast and crew conducted at the time of release or subsequently. I believe that this may be due to a dearth of interviews around this film, perhaps this reflects the lack of media exposure that the Australian cinema and films receive.

Critical Review of Film and its Literature

Here I shall now provide a short synopsis and plot of the film Romper Stomper. I find it difficult to criticize this film, for I feel that it is a powerful film that deals with many facets of nature with integrity and courage. It is a film about justice and injustice. It is a film about both the failings and virtues of human nature; we see evidence of pure racism, individuality and violence on the part of the skinheads, and unity, solidarity and loyalty on the part of the Asians. The film begins with the brutal bashing of a group of Asians by the skinheads followed closely by further proof of the sexual and social debacle that constitutes the world of the skinheads. Next we are privy to the fear felt by the Asians due to the racism, due to the fact that there is reluctance to retaliate, even though family and friends are those being beaten. Eventually though, there is rage and courage shown by the Asians who proceed to ambush the skinheads in their hideout. The skinhead group begins to fall apart as some are caught by the police, and fighting begins to erupt within the group. 'Davey' wants 'Gabe' who is 'Hando's - girlfriend, and ends the film by killing 'Hando'. Here we see the triumph of peace (as the skinghead group no longer exists), and the triumph of love over hate (as 'Davey' and 'Gabe' are the sole survivors of the skinhead group).

The critical uptake of the film at the time of its release and subsequently was as follows. On the IMDb site were the following comments; "Reviews of the film were divided, with some calling it inflammatory and others calling it innovative… Its reportedly harshest critic, David Stratton, called the film "A Clockwork Orange without the intellect ... a distubing, essentially misconceived pic." (Variety, 25/5/92)… The British Anti-Nazi League staged a protest of the film at its London premiere"3. Yet there was also the opposite response which praised the film both officially and unofficially. From the fact that "(t)he film was the second-highest-grossing Australian film for 1992, behind Strictly Ballroom." 3 we can see that the film was popular if controversial, "(i)t was originally marketed to 18- to 25-year-olds, but the controversy brought in older audiences as well, who more than likely came to see what all the fuss was about…It won three AFI Awards in 1992, including best actor and best musical score. At the 1993 Seattle International Film Festival, Russell won the best actor award for his work in both Romper Stomper and Hammers over the Anvil." 3 Since its release, the film has become something of a cult film, yet the controversy still surrounds it — some love it for its integrity and excellent cinematography, others condemn it for 'promoting' racism and violence. It is this very controversy which reinforces what I have already argued which is that one of the virtues of this film is its total refusal to be mundane. It forces us to think, it is a 'meaty' film, not a Sunday afternoon snooze. It demands that we question what we believe is right and wrong, whether or not there are consequences to our actions, and so on, and this cannot be a bad film for these reasons. I put forward that for the Australian television/video viewer this film is a well-made, exciting and relevant film, and has been popularly accepted. We can see evidence of this in the fact that the three times during my time at University that I have attempted to hire this video to study it, I have come up against barriers; Almost a decade after the making of this film, it is still rented out constantly, much to my chagrin when I wish to study (!), but also to my delight. Another point that I wish to make on the critical uptake of this film pertains to the fact that there was a critical uptake of the film. I have provided a few exampples of people's comments here to demonstrate to diversity of the response to the film, but there is so much more material regarding the film on the Internet and books, and so on.

The production circumstances for this film were those of frugality; the film was shot on Super 16 film rather than 35 mm film, and principal photography was kept to six weeks to keep the costs down3. It was shot on location in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia, called Footscray. Director Geoffrey Wright submitted the first draft to the AFC in 1986. The film went into production in 1991. As mere trivia for the reader, Russell and some of the members of the cast were arrested near a Melbourne housing estate while out in full skinhead regalia.3

If we wish to situate this film within the context of the director and within the trends of Australian cinema, we must take a look at a film called Metal Skin4 . This was a film that Wright directed in 1994 and begins with very similar themes to those found in Romper Stomper. The themes of sexual immorality and the depiction of 'real' people shown in their believable lack of the grace, make up and perfection found in typical Hollywood films are found in both the films mentioned. Also there are themes of the male Australians 'bonding' over working on a car together, which can be equated to the skinheads bonding over their hatred of Asians in Romper Stomper. We are also shown glimpses of dysfunctional families in both films. In Romper Stomper the dysfunctional family is assumed, for the audience assumes that if these skinheads came from functional families then they would not live the way that they do, and in Metal Skin we actually see two of the main characters fighting physically with their parents. I shall not list all the similarities between these two examples of Wright's work, I think that these are sufficient to show that his work has preoccupation with reality and/or human suffering, anguish and failings. This desire to portray reality with warts and all also demonstrates that Wright's work is very reflective of Australian trends in general, which have a fascination with the 'real', the true, and the relevant. On the other hand, the latter half of the film was totally disjointed from the first half of the film, for the film changed from the mode of realistic portrayals of realistic narrative progression to an extremely dreamlike portrayal of unrealistic events. I argue that the latter half of the film reflects the Australian film industry's tendency towards expression over commercialism for it is extremely bizzare and far fetched, which it would not have been if the aim was to make a widely accepted film.

Now I would like to situate Romper Stomper within Russell Crowe's acting career as a context. Having watched Virtuosity5, Gladiator6 and The Sum of Us7, in addition to Romper Stomper, I argue that Crowe does not chose roles of a particular genre that would tie his work together, neither does he chose Australian films to act in, necessarily. It appears that his desire to make 'good', entertaining films outweighs his desire to be tied to any type of film. Virtuosity is a sci-fi action thriller which strongly reflects a very 'Hollywood' trend for happy endings, where the 'baddie' dies, there is total narrative conclusion, expensive pyrotechnics and stories that are escapist for the audience rather than reflective of the audience. Gladiator is a historical epic, which is again escapist and fantasy orientated rather than realistic and believable for the average audience member (if there is such a thing!). It again displays the total narrative conclusion with the obligatory happy ending that is achieved despite the fact that the hero dies — he is reunited with his family in the afterlife. To take Crowe away from this Hollywood trend, The Sum of Us is a modern day drama that depicts experiences and situations which many members of an Australian audience would be able to identify with, seen in the fact that Crowe's character has a loving but sometimes inharmonious relationship with his father among other examples. The film also shuns true narrative conclusion. The topics of death and love are treated in the way that the 'average' audience member might understand them, with grief and awkwardness respectively, rather than treating death as a heroic infliction on the opposition, and so on. Again I say that there is no real trend in Crowe's work beyond his superb acting, perhaps this reflects the Australian desire to express oneself through film and experience variety, rather than Crowe being willing to typecast himself to advance his economic career.

If we wish to look at this film as an indicator of the place of Australian national cinema on critical and market horizons, let us begin with what O'Regan has to say. O'Regan says "Local films are expected to disclose awkward truths about Australian society… "(Romper Stomper) was a comment, a mirror, a microcosm of what we see out there. Racism does exist and should be exposed…It's a film about ignorance and intolerance." " 8. In this way I argue that this film reflects Australia's place in the world market. Australia's place is such that we provide realism and controversy to a global market dominated by American fantasy/non-controversial product. I argue further that Australia's place is to bring film-making back into the realms of artistic expression and away from commercialism. I put forward that from the profit made by Romper Stomper, and its stylistics the film employed that the goal was to 'make a good film', a 'meaty' film that would go further that providing a way for the family to pass the afternoon. I argue that Australian national cinema is valued for this sense of expression also.

We can also use this film in relation to Australian national cinema specifically as a medium English speaking cinema. As I have already demonstrated with my comments that placed Australian film in a binary with Hollywood film, Australian film — due to its English speaking nature — is instantly in competition with American cinema for exposure. Australian film makers have the choice of either mimicking American film to be competitive, which is a difficult option as we are only a medium sized cinema - we do not have enough capital in the industry to produce such 'polished' and extravagant films as can Hollywood, or we can make a distinct style that grabs a niche market that Hollywood has not yet exploited. I argue that Romper Stomper — whether intentionally or otherwise — has tapped into a niche market which desires realism, perhaps a little mental challenging and so on. This second choice of tapping a niche market can also be seen, as I said earlier, as a move away from making films for moneys' sake to making films for expressions' sake.

Romper Stomper, dir. Geoffrey Wright 1992.
http://geocities.com/Hollywood/Cinema/1501/index6.html
http://us.imdb.com
Metal Skin, dir. Geoffrey Wright 1994.
Virtuosity, dir. Brett Leonard 1995.
Gladiator, dir. Ridley Scott 2000.
The Sum of Us, dir. Kevin Dowling and Geoff Burton.
Tom O'Regan, Australian National Cinema, TJ Press; Cornwall, 1996 (including quote by Daniel Scharf).