In the middle of a sheep paddock in Parkes, a town in rural NSW, is a satellite dish the size of a football field. In 1969, the dish was selected by NASA to be the back-up link to broadcast the first landing on the moon. The town is ecstatic; this is their big chance to put Parkes on the map. The film focuses as much on the reactions of the characters as the ensuing brush with disaster when the satellite link is lost. The townsfolk are determined to make a good impression when the American ambassador comes to town, whilst out at the dish itself the Australian team have to deal with the American NASA observer sent out for the duration of the project. The loss of the satellite link acts as a catalyst for the characters’ self-reflection, not to mention its basis for comic relief. The ambassador comes to visit the dish whilst the link is down, and converses with ‘Neil Armstrong’ (aka Al the NASA observer, played by Patrick Warburton). This is reflective of the central source of comedy, Parkes’ (and Australia’s) fear of looking inept in front of the rest of the world. When the link is fixed, high winds threaten the capacity to relay the broadcast, and tension is heightened when the landing occurs earlier than planned, meaning that the Parkes dish is the primary relay. Needless to say all ends well, and everybody is happy. The perpetual theme of David (Australia) and Goliath (America) is once again played out.
The Working Dog team have excelled again in their dry, self-deprecating humour, which is easily the best aspect of the film. A good example of this occurs when the town holds a party for the American ambassador. The Mayor organises a local band to play the US national anthem. The band proceeds to play the theme from Hawaii 5-0. The humour in the film is similar to that of The Castle. Some criticise it as being anti-Australian, reflecting on the stereotypical view of the blasé, ocker characters. Instead, I see it as being more realistic than the humour typical to Hollywood cinema. The saying that truth is stranger than fiction certainly seems sustained. The characters’ quirks and foibles are both humorous and endearing.
This leads me to another strong aspect of the film - the cast and the characterisation. Rudi (Tayler Kane), the security guard, takes his job of protecting the dish far from the rampant hoards of sheep far too seriously. He is overwhelmed by the ‘importance’ of his role, and believes that he can talk to Neil Armstrong through his walkie-talkie. He makes a stark contrast to Marie (Lenka Kripac), the mayor’s daughter, who is the voice of resistance in the face of the town’s excitement. Not wanting to have a film that presents any great challenge to the status quo though, she comes around to everyone else’s way of thinking by the conclusion of events.
Snaring big-name actors such as Sam Neill certainly worked in the film’s favour, adding to its international presence. Mainstream audiences tend to seek points of identification, and a well-known star such as Neill adds to the film’s allure, domestically and internationally. The casting of Patrick Warburton was also successful, in that he is internationally recognisable after his role in Seinfeld. Familiarity with actors never fails to draw an audience, especially in the US market. Even critics that were unimpressed with the film overall, noted the excellence of the casting. In the Cinema Papers review, Andrew Mast noted that "The Dish is at least host to an easy-to-watch cast that know exactly how to handle the dry humour and, more importantly, the often mushy script."
The film’s soundtrack has been both criticised and acclaimed. IF magazine hailed it as ‘Soundtrack of the month’, describing the soundtrack as ‘Greatest hits, golden memories, and a real cinematic score’. In contrast to this, Cinema Papers commented that "Every Important Moment is telegraphed far too often by what is possibly the worst soundtrack ever composed for Australian film." These opinions highlight the two sides of an ongoing argument in the context of Australian cinema. Does The Dish ‘sell out’ by conforming to Hollywood’s dictated cinema methodology, or should it be acclaimed for its international success largely due to its mimicking the tried and true Hollywood style? The former argument seems to be associated with the purist side of Australian cinema, in which it is an outlet for creative manifestations that fall outside Hollywood norms and should be praised for doing so. The latter argument relates better to seeing Australian cinema as a commercial industry.
The film’s success on release in Australia would suggest that the commercial side of the argument is substantiated. Grossing over $17,000,000 domestically makes it the 6th most successful film in Australia last year, as well as the 6th highest grossing Australian film of all time. Critically, the film has received wide acclaim, receiving awards at the 2001 Australian Film Critics Circle Awards and at the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival, where The Dish debuted. The Dish was recently released in the USA, and so far has done remarkably well for an Australian film, grossing over $800,000 (by April 22, 2001). 11:36 AM 6/09/2002
The Dish was released at the Toronto International Film Festival, increasing its exposure to international audiences and critics. This is indicative of the film’s international focus, a growing interest as the cinema industry moves towards globalisation. Following this, The Dish was released in Australia in the latter part of October 2000. The timing of the release may have, in part, aided the film’s success. After the Sydney Olympics, the international gaze remained on Australia, providing the perfect opportunity to release a film such as The Dish. Also, with the ensuing school and Christmas holidays approaching, family oriented films have added interest to the general audience.
The film’s popularity is at least partially due to the distinction of Working Dog’s prior release, The Castle, as well as their television shows. The Castle was recognised for its unique humour and portrayal of the Australian family. The Dish is reminiscent of that style of cinema, however I would argue that it perhaps lacks some of the subtleties of The Castle. Perhaps this is a symptom of the film’s international outlook, that an audience viewing a different culture would miss subtleties that a domestic audience may appreciate, hence the subtleties are discarded in favour of more generic implications.
To define The Dish as an Australian movie theoretically, there are certain considerations to take into account. The first of these is the naturalisation of the film. Which elements of the film make it Australian prima facie? The cast is largely Australian, and the production company, Working Dog is Australian. The setting of the film is also uniquely Australian. The constant landscape shots locating the satellite dish in the quintessential Australian sheep paddock highlight this. The somewhat quirky notion of one of the most important televised events in history being broadcast via a sheep paddock in rural Australia also works to denote the film as being Australian.
The second consideration is the film’s social aspects; what societal issues does the film adopt? In this sense the film is also uniquely Australian. The Dish looks at the relationship between the ‘all-powerful’ United States, and the still-developing Australia, by highlighting the cultural differences between the two. This formula has been successful in the Crocodile Dundee movies. Discursively, The Dish is often spoken about in terms of its relationship to The Castle. The former is rarely spoken about without some reference to the latter. The Dish follows on from The Castle in that the comedy is similar, as are the characters. It would not seem out of place for the Kerrigans (central characters of The Castle) to appear in The Dish. This works to draw popularity by association between the two films.
The popularity of The Dish is reflective of the direction of mainstream Australian cinema. It draws greatly on the modes of representation common to Hollywood style cinema. In terms of Lotman’s model of cultural transfer, I would argue that The Dish exists simultaneously at stages two, three and four of the model. In the second stage, the ‘imported texts and the home culture restructure each other’. The Dish exists as an example of Australian cinema homogenising the Hollywood comedy-drama genre. The film is Australian in its quirkiness, characterisation and humour. It is reflective of Hollywood techniques stylistically, favouring a blatant narrative, appreciable by a wider audience than other Australian films. The Castle did not go this far, retaining more ‘Australian’ aspects of style, and as a result it had to be modified before its release overseas. In their second feature, the Working Dog team has instead adopted a more universal stance from the beginning. By doing this, they have effectively taken a step towards indigenizing Hollywood style cinema into the Australian mainstream. This is not a new notion though. To an extent, Australian cinema must imitate international cinematic styles in order to appeal to international audiences. The Australian industry alone is too small to compete with the likes of Hollywood directly. As a result it must seek to complement the juggernaut. However, the question that this continues to raise is at what point is the line drawn? Can Australian cinema maintain its artistic integrity whilst striving to imitate that which it is not and never can be? The popularity of The Dish suggests that at least commercially, the future of Australian cinema lies down this path. Australia’s most popular film in America to date, Crocodile Dundee, also dealt with the relationship between Australian and American cultures. By adding elements of the American culture to an essentially Australian film, as is the case in The Dish, a greater international audience is drawn.
This brings me to the third stage of Lotman’s model — where the Australian films become better than those from which they drew their influence. The Dish, whilst certainly taking a more global outlook than other Australian films, maintains a distinct ‘Australianness’ in the face of the international market. By maintaining aspects of quirkiness, and playing on our distinctive landscape within the constraints of the familiar Hollywood style, the world is offered a different take on the tired genre films that pour out of the USA. In this sense, I think The Dish is extremely successful, blending the elements of the two industries.
The fourth stage occurs when the ‘imported texts are entirely dissolved in the receiving culture’. The constructed Australian ‘audience’ is discursively involved with The Dish in terms of its relationship to The Castle and other Working Dog productions. In this sense, I would argue that the stylistic assimilation has occurred seamlessly. However, Hollywood films dominate the Australian screen, and as a result Australian audiences are conditioned to accept the Hollywood style as the norm. Australian audiences are not likely to be consciously aware that they are seeing an Australian film with characteristics that reflect the Hollywood style. However, in the case of a film such as Bad Boy Bubby (1994) which is more reminiscent of Eastern European art film, there is an increased likelihood of their being aware of the unusual stylistic elements, as Eastern European art film is not a form of film to which the audience are used to decoding.
The Dish is a generic film, conforming stylistically to Hollywood cinema norms. This has been hailed as both a positive aspect and a pitfall of the film. It does not present any radical ideology, and the narrative is constructed in such a manner as to invite identification from audiences both domestically and in the United States. Perhaps its most successful aspect is its ability to conform to the demands of the international audience whilst maintaining its appeal to the local audience. In this respect, The Dish is a hugely triumphant example of Australian national cinema competing to make itself a name as a medium-sized English language cinema.