When Anthony LaPaglia moved to the US from Australia in the 1980s, he quickly realised that his accent was more like an Achilles’ heel, disqualifying him from many roles. Today, Aussie actors have mastered American accents to chase the Hollywood dream. Many have also achieved it, now recognised by Academy Awards or nominations. Delving beyond Oscars’ glory, Peter Zerzan, an American independent filmmaker, poses a critical question: is it worth it, or is it a Faustian bargain for the Land Down Under’s creativity?
After all, directors like Peter Weir and George Miller have shown that unique perspectives – uninfluenced by US expectations—are more than enough to succeed. When Weir directed his first Hollywood film, “Witness” (1985), he had already become known for his signature visually rich, oneiric and atmospheric style. But even when chasing the American Dream, he didn’t lose his dreamy, ethereal touch. “He brought a fresh angle, and the film’s box office numbers speak for themselves,” says Zerzan.
George Miller’s career followed a similar trajectory. Since his full-feature debut with “Mad Max” in 1979, Miller’s strong, violent and montage-heavy style has become synonymous with his name – whether he directs in Australia or the US. The ’70s and ’80s nostalgia still reverberates through the industry, but reality has changed drastically.
Today, actors dedicate themselves to mastering all kinds of American accents, with Margot Robbie, Toni Colette, Chris Hemsworth, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman and thousands of others fitting seamlessly among Californian locals, NYC cops, or southern cowboys.
Since the first major migrations, many talented Australians have been assimilated into American culture. With valuable perspectives, fresh filmmaking approaches and Land Down Under’s own success stories, the question remains: why is there an evident lack of a strong counter-culture to Hollywood’s dominance?
According to Zerzan, the problem starts at the industry’s core, “The reality is, it’s never really been a place that encouraged true creativity, and even the greatest artists struggled.” He alludes to the rocky relationship between Hollywood and F. Scott Fitzgerald, described by Billy Wilder as “a Renaissance sculptor hired to do a plumbing job.” This historical disparity between untamed artistry and on-screen productions has shaped (or swallowed) Hollywood’s essence, with creativity replaced by the IP affair.
For most of the 20th century, Hollywood was challenged (quite successfully) by independent filmmakers creating masterpieces with mid-size budgets and star casts – think John Cassavetes, Jim Jarmusch, or Robert Altman. Since the franchise machine has overpowered theatrical releases and cinema screens, this category has disappeared into oblivion.
“It’s either a Hollywood-style, grand action film,” says Zerzan, “or a smaller production straight away classified as ‘arthouse.’ It seems like many creatives are not trying to chart a different path; instead, they focus on analysing every detail about franchises, hoping this knowledge will be enough to direct the next huge sensation.”
The Hollywood supremacy issue cascades down to the art house scene which, though it exists, simply can’t compete with high-budget productions. It’s clear that the independent realm doesn’t have the same cultural impact as it did in the ’70s, ’80s, or ’90s, and Zerzan explores why. “If you look at previous decades, a film like ‘Conclave’ – based on a bestseller, with a mid-sized budget and an all-star cast – was the bread and butter of Hollywood,” he says. “But now it’s all about franchises, and ‘Conclave’ is relegated to the art house category.”
The rising role of streaming makes it more challenging for independent films to succeed, often depriving Hollywood-primed productions of a theatrical release. Small, truly art house pictures feel this impact too, forced to compete with medium-sized films. Without a rebellion, those who don’t fit into the IP franchise format will continue to struggle.
As Zerzan emphasises, chasing opportunities in Hollywood will never cease, but it isn’t the only way. By realizing that, global cinema landscapes, including Australia’s movie scene, will be able to preserve their unique stories and amplify their distinct voices – without compromising success.
Inspired by his own experiences as an independent filmmaker, this award-winning director believes that Hollywood’s dominance can, in fact, be challenged. Zerzan advocates for distributors to prioritise theatrical releases over online launches which, according to him, is especially crucial for medium-sized films. “The longer it spends on theatre screens, the more a film will be remembered,” he concludes. “But that can’t happen without allocating adequate budgets to the right marketing strategies.”
And as for filmmakers, directors, and writers, the only thing that can be done is to let go of Hollywood’s franchise prison and simply let artistry flow. “Any movie is a risk, and outcomes can’t be predicted. It makes sense why independent creators try to mimic the success of other productions, but that fuels the issue, cementing Hollywood’s dominance,” Zerzan reflects.
“We’ve seen some miraculous successes over the years, and many of them happened because they offered a new take on cinematic style. What if the answer has been simple all along? What if, at the end of the day, the only Hollywood counter-culture that exists is creativity?”
Variety Australia newsroom and editorial staff were not involved in the creation of this content.