Malcolm
PART 1:
The Australian film 'Malcolm' was an award winning comedy about the story of an innocent, socially retarded mechanical genius named Malcolm (played by Australian actor Colin Friels). The plot for the film involves Malcolm losing his job at the tram station in Melbourne, after taking a joyride on one of his tram-like inventions on the public tramlines one afternoon. Then, after almost a month of being unemployed and staying at home inventing gadgets and toys, Malcolm is forced to take on two boarders (a couple) into his home to pay rent and to help Malcolm get by with money. After weeks of awkwardness and funny incidents around the house, Malcolm soon learns his two boarders are criminals. After realizing Malcolms' awareness, the couple (played by John Hargreaves and Lindy Davis), soon entice Malcolm to use his mechanical genius in assisting them to pull off the ultimate heist.
The film was shot and set in Melbourne, and was casted, co-produced and directed by Greek/Australian Nadia Tass. Her regular production team also assisted her, including husband David Parker, who was the cinematographer, co-producer and scriptwriter for 'Malcolm'. The team also consisted of the likes of Ken Sallows (editor), Bryce Menzies (executive producer) and Brian Pearce (special effects) who were all responsible (including Tass and Parker) for such films as Rikki and Pete (1998), The Big Steal (1990), Darkman (1990), Pure Luck (1991) and more recently Mr Reliable (1996) and Amy (1998). However, 'Malcolm' was Tass and Parker's biggest project. The character 'Malcolm' is actually based on Tass' real life late brother, and the film is actually dedicated to him. Tass and Parker had an emotional connection to the central character of the movie, so it was understandable why they went through such considerable financial and artistic lengths to make the film, so much so they actually mortgaged their home and forfeited their fees for it.
The opening date for 'Malcolm' to be released was on the 18th July 1986 (USA), and it was first seen on Australian shores roughly three months after this date. At the box office, 'Malcom's domestic gross stood at $544,000, which was quite impressive, considering it was 1986, and the Australian blockbuster Crocodile Dundee was released the same year, a film which still remains (after fourteen years) as the second highest grossing Australian film ever. So 'Malcolm' was a relatively successful film for its time. It was critically acclaimed to a degree as well, because the film picked up eight major awards at the 1986 Australian Film Institute Awards….including Best Film, Best Actor and Best Director….overcoming other Australian film nominations in that year such as Mad Max 3 (George Miller), Proof (Jocelyn Moorhouse), Dogs in Space (Richard Lowenstien) and Crocodile Dundee (Peter Faiman).
During my research however, I noticed some mixed opinions about 'Malcolm' between numerous film critics in their film reviews for this film. I found a majority of the critics who were cynical of the film were actually American critics. I didn't find one Australian critic however, who didn't praise and commend the film. John Hartley was one of these Australian critics. He claimed…
"…There was not a wasted or awkward moment in
all of its 90 minutes…"
Numerous American critics however, were not so kind. Desson Howe, who wrote film reviews for the Washington Post in 1987, claimed…
"…'Malcolm' tries to take on several Hollywood
conventions- the heist flick, hardware flick, slapstick
triangle flick- and fails at all of them. What you're
left with is a grainy look at by-now-familiar Australian
trappings- the accents, the idioms, the beer, the grocery
shops, the occasional Greek immigrant. And the
Aussieness of it all isn't enough to sustain the film…"
Could this sort of opinion be put down to American patriotism and arrogance? Or the impact Crocodile Dundee made on Americans with its half American subplot? Or was 'Malcolm' really just a bad movie? What did Americans expect from Australian films? Did they think the accents and idioms are simply put into a few Australian films on a one off basis just for effect? These sort of arguments will be dealt with later on.
The film 'Malcolm' is now almost fifteen years old. It's becoming more and more rare in the video shops now and there isn't an awful lot written about it. Personally, I was restricted to just the internet when looking for information on 'Malcolm', and even then the information given wasn't all that informative. 'Malcolm' doesn't have a large online presence on the internet, and what presence it does have is mainly brief point form information on Australian film websites. Most of the reviewers and critics I noticed on the internet gave Malcolm a general rating between 2 and 3 stars. I was lucky however to find a film rating chart on 'Malcolm', whereby a number of film critics join their knowledge and rate the film in different categories out of 10. I found the following results…
SEX (2)
VIOLENCE (2)
ACTION (6)
HUMOR (8)
FAMILY APPEAL (5)
ROMANCE (2)
SUSPENSE (6)
HOLLYWOOD STYLE (4)
OFFBEAT ENERGY (7)
CINEMATOGRAPHY (6)
SPX (6)
The general lack of information on the film 'Malcolm' could be put down to a number of things:
The era the film was made in (the 'dodgy' TBA tax Australian films of the 80s)
The other films that overshadowed it at the time
The quality and popularity of the film
It's age (14)
Overall, the Australian film 'Malcolm' can basically be seen as a warm hearted, old Australian comedy that remains one of Australia's classic movies, whether it was a good film or not.
PART 2:
For the second half of this assignment I'll be giving my own personal critical review of the film 'Malcolm', as well as providing other critical reviews of the film, along with other issues, circumstances and arguments surrounding the film, its production and its status.
Firstly, considering 'Malcolm' was first released in 1986, it's easy to see how it was then classed as a good quality film. It had the very funny humour, the fascinating inventions, the good direction and the progressively exciting storyline. However nowadays, considering some of the quality films which have superseded 'Malcolm', it's much easier to find flaws in this particular film. Although it can still be seen as a good quality movie, I feel it would be more accurate to rate 'Malcolm' as an ordinary film in today's society.
Personally, I enjoyed 'Malcolm'. The Australian stereotypes, the familiar landscapes and the intelligent 'Aussie' humour are all aspects of Australian cinema that appeared in Malcolm that I enjoy watching. In particular I enjoyed watching the central character, Malcolm. Colin Friels played the role of the shy, socially disabled yet brilliant Malcolm so well, it resulted in his character drawing sympathy from the audience. This is a sign of quality acting and it's probably this reason why Friels won Best Actor at the AFI Awards in 1986. It's amazing how an audience seems to attach themselves to the central character if that character is mentally impaired in some way, but still has some sort of brilliant ability…like Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot. In 'Malcolm's case it was Malcolms' social shyness and isolation connected with his amazing ability to make mechanical toy's and inventions which captured the audience. I think this fact, along with the films sharp humour is what carried the film. Of course, a film's genre and its central character must always be good, but a film also needs to be solid in other areas such as cinematography, acting, and the scripts character interaction for it to be classed as a good quality movie. It was some of these latter aspects I feel that slightly let the film 'Malcolm' down.
My first criticism of the film lies with its cinematography. Visually, the film was dull and not very exciting. Considering the film (particularly its ending) portrayed an exciting, humerous, family-like theme, the images should really have been brighter, friendlier and more cinematic than what they were. The film seemed to be set in dark, shadow filled houses and garages, gloomy pubs, and dirty and dark Melbourne streets. 'Malcolm' dealt with all sorts of exciting things such as inventions and robberies, yet it was boring to look at. So visually, this was one of the films downfalls.
My second criticism is that the film started too slowly. At the start of the film when Malcolm was fired, all we got to see, as an audience, was Malcolms' visually boring unemployed life at home with his (at that stage) mundane inventions. Filmmakers know the introduction to a film has to catch the audience's attention, and then its up to the filmmaker to use other methods to hold that attention throughout the rest of the film. If you loose an audience at the start of the film, you've lost them for the rest of it as well. I found myself fidgeting during the first fifteen minutes of this film, and that made me lose interest in it all together. It wasn't until I watched it a second time I began to appreciate the humour, the central character and the plot development. So the beginning, I felt, was the second downfall of 'Malcolm'.
The overall acting in 'Malcolm' I felt was very good, especially Friels and Davies performances. However John Hargreaves' performance as Frank seemed to be lacking something. While he still did a good portrayal of his character Frank, the stereotypical working middle class, 'bogan' like, bumbling small time crook, his performance wasn't delivered with such passion as some of his other films such as Dons Party, My First Wife and Careful, He Might Hear You. Personally, I had bigger expectations of him for 'Malcolm', so this was a little disappointing.
I had some trouble with the script for 'Malcolm' as well, particularly the interaction between the two main characters, Malcolm and Frank (Friels and Hargreaves). Malcolms' sudden transition from a socially disabled and shy man to a sophisticated robbery accomplist seemed to happen alarmingly quick, as did Franks' sudden liking towards Malcolm… because initially Frank was quoted in the film as saying, "Malcolm? He's a moron!" The interaction between the characters in this script seemed very basic, brief and rushed, and it discredited the movie as a whole.
However, overall, besides all of these minor criticisms, as mentioned before, 'Malcolm' still had enough positive aspects to it for it to pass as a good Australian film.
The details about 'Malcolm's production and release, as well as the other films that followed it made by the same production crew is very interesting. The production team for 'Malcolm' spent almost all of 1985 making the film. The husband and wife team of Nadia Tass and David Parker took up most of the major production jobs for the movie, including direction, production, casting, cinematography and scriptwriting. Parker in particular spent an incredible amount of time on the film. Parker was personally responsible for inventing and constructing all of the gadgets and inventions we see in 'Malcolm', so between the two of them, it's understandable why it took Tass and Parker the best part of a year to complete their first full length feature film. Being their first film, it obviously meant the most effort and enthusiasm was put into it. As mentioned before, the idea for the film was based on Tass' late brother, so a considerable amount of time, effort, emotion and money was contributed by Tass and Parker into making this a successful film. However, 'Malcolm' was merely the first film of many for Tass and Parker and their regular production team.
Because information and specific details are so hard to find now about 'Malcolm', details about the films' release and the impact it had on America and Australia is sketchy. Although, what is known, is that seven months after production on 'Malcolm' was finished, it was first screened in America on the 18th July 1986. Again, it's gross stood at just over half a million and considering the year, the value of money in that year, and the position of Australian cinema on the American market at that time, these were quite good figures. Most of the hype that surrounded the film was centralized around Parker's small inventions and gadgets. Some other American films such as the robotic 'Short Circuit' (which dealt with mechanical inventions and robots just as 'Malcolm' did) were also released roughly the same time as 'Malcolm'. This robotic, inventive, gadget theme was sweeping the film market all over the world between 1985-1987. Hence by (perhaps unwittingly) following these trends in American film, Tass and Parker received very successful results from the release of their film, both in America and Australia….the only downfall was that perhaps the Australian blockbuster Crocodile Dundee overshadowed it in the same year.
For Tass and Parker and team, the good response from 'Malcolm' led to them making many more films, keeping roughly the same production crew for over a decade (1986-1998). The comedic element in 'Malcolm' can also be seen as a good guideline for their future films. Rikki and Pete (1988), The Big Steal (1990) and the American film Pure Luck (1991) all carried out the trademark Tass and Parker humour that can be seen in 'Malcolm'.
Amazingly, over this decade of making and producing films, it was extremely rare for this team to make a bad one. Their latest film Amy, which was released in 1998, is still receiving critical acclaim. Their only film, which flopped at the box office, was their 1996 Australian film Mr Reliable, which ironically also starred Colin Friels as the central actor, along with Jacqueline McKenzie. To make such a quality 'first film' like 'Malcolm', and to continue that quality of filmmaking for over a decade is highly commendable.
Many of 'Malcolm's film reviews and criticisms, past and present, can also act as a good indication to Australian cinemas general position, past and present, in the global film industry. As mentioned before, 'Malcolm' received mixed reviews, with specifically different opinions held by Australian and American critics and audiences. These opinions have remained constant for both sides, from when the film was first released to the present time. There are reasons for this. American critics and audiences were especially cynical of 'Malcolm' when it was first released, and still are today. Their most popular criticisms were based around 'Malcolm's characters, its humour, its storyline and the overall 'aussieness' of the entire film. Desson Howe, writer and film reviewer for the Washington Post in 1987 was extremely negative and cynical about 'Malcolm'. He wrote…
"…The 'aussieness' of it all isn't enough to
sustain the film…"
The 'aussieness' of 'Malcolm' however was definitely enough to sustain it, and unless one understands Australian culture and humour (which a majority of Americans do not), one will obviously be cynical about a film like 'Malcolm', simply because they do not understand it. This American 'misunderstanding' of Australian films and the humour and culture they portray, has been existent for a very long time. Judging by the American critic's reaction to 'Malcolm', this understanding was obviously existent in 1986, and it still is for most Australian films today. Recent Australian films such as The Castle (1997) and Muriels Wedding (1994) were smash hits in Australia, however they didn't do well at the U.S box office simply because American audiences didn't understand the culture and humour being portrayed in Australian films. The main reason for this is because the American film industry is so large and dominant; it overshadows most other Australian and foreign films. American audiences have become so used to watching mainstream, textbook Hollywood films that promote American culture, that when they see a foreign film they simply do not understand it. So when a foreign, low budget film such as 'Malcolm' is screened in the U.S, American audiences simply don't familiarize themselves with the film, and therefore they don't enjoy it. This is possibly a reason why American critics such as Desson Howe were so cynical of 'Malcolm'. On the other hand, even though 'Malcolm' did have its downfalls, it was still regarded as a good film by Australian critics and audiences….past and present.
One may now ask, why then did a movie such as Crocodile Dundee (which promoted Australian humour and culture), become a smash hit in American as well as Australia, whereas 'Malcolm' was only mainly successful in Australia? The answer to this lies with Crocodile Dundee's plot. Half of the film was set in Australia, the other half in America. The central actress, American Linda Kowalowski, appeared throughout the entire film promoting U.S culture the entire time. So even though Crocodile Dundee was an Australian film, the 'American' element in it allowed U.S audiences to familiarize themselves with the film. If the film was set entirely in Australia, as 'Malcolm' was, it wouldn't have had the same successful effect.
The response 'Malcolm' received when it was released, particularly from U.S audiences, acts as an accurate guide to Australian cinema's position and value on the global film market. Australian films can be seen on a global scale as being underrated and overshadowed by the American industry's films. This was especially the case in the 1970s when the Australian film industry began to first establish itself and put films onto the world market. Most of these films were overshadowed by major U.S blockbusters at the time. However since then, Australian cinema has come a long way. It has begun to produce quality actors, directors and films, yet it still remains a distant second to the dominant American cinema. The American cinema is so dominant simply because it has the largest English language population base in the world, therefore it also has the largest English speaking film industry.
"…Hollywood, as the dominant English language
cinema, places consistent pressure upon non-American
producers…" (O'Regan, 1989, 128)
This reason, along with the American misunderstanding of Australian cinema is just a few of the reasons why Australian cinema will never dominate and expand to the extent of Hollywood cinema. The responses and criticisms the Australian film 'Malcolm' received helped show some of these reasons.
3, 033 WORDS
Bibliography
O'Regan, T, (1989) The Enchantment of the Cinema: Films in the 1980s, in A. Moran & T O'Regan eds, 'Australian Screen', Ringwood: Penquin, pp118-145
Websites
All Movie Guide (http://allmovie.com)
2. Film .COM (http://www.film.com/film-review)
3. Washington Post .COM (http://www.washingtonpost.com)
4. Reel .COM (http://www.reel.com/movie.asp)
5. The Oz Film Database (http://online.murdoch.edu.au/H231/studentwork/index.html)
Filmography
Malcolm (dir. Nadia Tass) 1986
Rikki and Pete (dir. Nadia Tass and David Parker) 1988
The Big Steal (dir. Nadia Tass) 1990
Darkman (dir. Sam Raimi) 1990
Pure Luck (dir. Nadia Tass) 1991
Mr Reliable (dir. Nadia Tass) 1996
Amy (dir. Nadia Tass) 1998
Crocodile Dundee (dir. Peter Faiman) 1986
Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome (dir. George Miller & George Ogilvie) 1985
Proof (dir. Jocelyn Moorhouse) 1986
Dons Party (dir. Bruce Beresford) 1976
Dogs In Space (dir. Richard Lowenstien) 1986
My First Wife (dir. Paul Cox) 1984
Careful, He Might Hear You (dir. Carl Schultz) 1983
The Castle (dir. Rob Sitch) 1997
Muriel's Wedding (dir. Paul J. Hogan) 1994