spinofflive
The last issue of Woman’s Day produced in NZ at left, and the new Australia-produced issue that came out this week at right
The last issue of Woman’s Day produced in NZ at left, and the new Australia-produced issue that came out this week at right

MediaMay 5, 2020

Bauer’s biggest-selling NZ magazine is back… or is it?

The last issue of Woman’s Day produced in NZ at left, and the new Australia-produced issue that came out this week at right
The last issue of Woman’s Day produced in NZ at left, and the new Australia-produced issue that came out this week at right

One month ago Bauer closed all its New Zealand mags, including Woman’s Day. This week a new issue of Woman’s Day went on the shelves. What’s going on?

After a five-week absence, a major women’s magazine produced by Bauer has returned to New Zealand supermarkets and subscribers’ letterboxes. At first glance, it appears to be the Woman’s Day of old – royals grace the cover, with Newshub presenter Susie Nordqvist and her baby in one corner, and “Kiwi stars at home” in another. 

But despite magazines being allowed to publish again under alert level three, Woman’s Day as we know it has not returned. The title’s dozens of former staff last week were allowed back into their Auckland offices, along with their colleagues from magazines such as the Listener, North & South and Fashion Quarterly, but only to clear out their belongings, in the presence of staff from EY, the company tasked with winding down the operation, who checked bags as the now redundant employees left.

New Zealand’s Woman’s Day was one of the titles shut down by international magazine giant Bauer as it dramatically exited the country in early April. The returning Woman’s Day is in fact the Australian version of the magazine, produced in Sydney, with a few New Zealand stories included to make a “local edition”. To a casual buyer at the supermarket, there would have been no indication they were in effect buying a different magazine. 

While a fair amount of the magazine’s content is focused on royalty and international celebrities, there are large clues that it was written with Australian readers in mind – Aussie cricketers and reality TV stars, few of whom would be familiar to New Zealand readers, feature, and Australian phone numbers and prices in Australian dollars appear in advertorial and lifestyle content. The editor’s letter on the first page makes no mention of it being a New Zealand edition – it’s simply republished from the Australian version. The email address and website at the bottom of the page end in .com.au, and the Facebook page is WomansDayAus.

Former New Zealand Woman’s Day staff have told The Spinoff the two local articles were completed in New Zealand, by the New Zealand team, before Bauer pulled the pin, and have now appeared in the different publication. As owner of the content, Bauer has every right to do that, one former staffer told The Spinoff, but on top of the sudden mass redundancies, it stuck in the craw. 

“It’s weird seeing our work from five weeks ago suddenly appear like that in a magazine we didn’t know was happening,” said the staffer, who noted that sooner rather than later, any left-over local content from the New Zealand operation would run dry. “There has been no indication that Bauer Australia will be looking to use former staffers in New Zealand for their Kiwi content,” she added.

“Friends have been texting saying, ‘Yay, it’s back,’ because they’ve seen it at the supermarket and assume we’ve got our jobs back.”

Woman’s Day is not the only Bauer magazine reappearing on New Zealand shelves this week. An update for subscribers to Woman’s Day, The Australian Women’s Weekly NZ and Lucky Break on subscription site magshop.co.nz reads, “We are very pleased to share that the publishing of these magazines has transferred to our sister company and, with the pending change to Covid Level 3, your home delivery will resume”, followed by the relevant dates. Deliveries of both Woman’s Day and Lucky Break have restarted this week, with the first edition of Australian Women’s Weekly NZ (confusingly, a monthly magazine with, before the shutdown, a New Zealand editor and small staff base in Auckland) being sent out on May 21. 

In a statement, Bauer said that New Zealand Woman’s Day, Lucky Break, and the Australian Women’s Weekly NZ are not part of the Bauer NZ sale process, and have been kept under Bauer Media Group ownership. They will continue to be published.

“It is our intention that they will continue to have a mix of local and international editorial content. We are currently working on plans for future local content.”

Lyn Barnes, the former programme director of magazine journalism at AUT, said it was devastating for readers to lose the local aspects of these publications. “They fill a void in people’s lives and that escapism is even more important in our lives now,” she said.

The reason given by Bauer NZ for its closure was the temporary ban on publishing that came after the government deemed magazines to not be an essential service. While much of the criticism of that decision related to current affairs magazines like Metro, the Listener and North & South, Barnes said women’s magazines really mattered to readers, particularly at a time like this. “People may mock women’s magazines but they serve important roles. Like any magazine, the women’s titles offer that opportunity to switch off and relax for a few moments.” 

Barnes also lauded the professionalism of those working in this part of the industry in New Zealand. “I can assure you that every fact was triple checked and I doubt we will see that standard coming out of Australia either.” She suggested that New Zealand readers should instead turn to a publication like NZ Life & Leisure, which is still produced locally. 

Many of Bauer’s magazine titles are now up for sale, though the deadline for bids has been pushed back. Bauer is also experiencing turbulence across the Tasman, with the company cutting about 130 jobs in two tranches over the space of a week. 

*Updated 5.45pm with comment from Bauer Media.

Keep going!
Taika Waititi has been announced as the director for the new Star Wars film, but should we temper our expectations?
Taika Waititi has been announced as the director for the new Star Wars film, but should we temper our expectations?

OPINIONMediaMay 5, 2020

Taika Waititi directing Star Wars is huge, but there’s one big challenge to overcome

Taika Waititi has been announced as the director for the new Star Wars film, but should we temper our expectations?
Taika Waititi has been announced as the director for the new Star Wars film, but should we temper our expectations?

Today it was announced that Taika Waititi would be directing and co-writing a Star Wars film. It’s great news, but fans should probably not get too excited, writes Sam Brooks.

In 2017, when a user suggested on Twitter that Taika Waititi should direct a Star Wars film, the director quote-tweeted them with this retort:

Which is why it’s surprising to hear the news today that the Academy Award winner himself has signed on to direct and co-write, with Krysty Wilson-Cairns (1917), a new Star Wars film. It’s cause for celebration – he’d be the first man of colour to direct a Star Wars film, definitely the first indigenous person, and as every New Zealander for the next 20 years will boast, definitely the first New Zealander. But, and sorry to set everybody’s phasers to stun for a moment, it’s also cause for pause. (If you got mad at that reference, congrats! You’re a nerd.)

Taika’s great. There’s no disputing that. He’s even great within the confines of a franchise; Thor: Ragnarok is inarguably one of the top-tier films of that franchise, with enough of his personality that it sits as easily within his own canon as it does the Marvel canon. But Star Wars is, frankly, a franchise that has struggled with personalities.

Felicity Jones and Diego Luna in Gareth Evan’s troubled Rogue One

Let’s reflect on the past decade of Star Wars films.

In May 2014, Disney announced that director Gareth Edwards (the 2014 Godzilla) would be directing an anthology film that would turn out to be Rogue One. In August 2016, news broke that Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) would be directing several weeks of reshoots, so extensive that it would move him up from an uncredited script doctor to a credited screenwriter. Rogue One was released that year to mixed-but-largely-positive reviews.

In July 2015, Lucasfilm announced that director duo Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (21 Jump Street, The Lego Movie) would be directing a Han Solo anthology film. In June 2017, Lucasfilm announced that the directors had “left the project” and would be replaced by Ron Howard. Solo: A Star Wars Story was released the following year to middling reviews.

In August 2015, news broke that Colin Trevorrow (Jurassic World) would be directing the then untitled third film in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. In September 2017, news broke that Trevorrow had left the project over “creative differences”, and later it was announced that The Force Awakens director JJ Abrams would take over. The film would eventually be titled Rise of Skywalker, and almost nobody was happy with it.

There’s a pattern emerging here. Out of the five Star Wars films released by Lucasfilm (and Disney) in the past decade, only two have been released without severe, publicised interference from the studio or some form of creative differences. Star Wars is a notoriously precious and troubled franchise, with close to 50 cancelled projects across a range of media (games, TV, books, so on). A project announced is more likely to get cancelled than it is to make it to the hungry eyes of its fanbase.

Alden Ehrenreich and, uh, Chewbacca in Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Somehow, this hasn’t hampered the franchise’s commercial success. With the exception of Solo: A Star Wars Story, all have gone on to gross over a billion dollars. Personality or no, people are coming to see these films. To put it bluntly: Star Wars is not a director- or writer-driven product. It’s a studio-driven product. That was fine, when the studio was named after the guy who created it (and less fine, if you consider two-thirds of the prequels). But not everybody has the eccentric genius of George Lucas, unlimited when it comes to creating a universe, more limited when it comes to writing human emotions. 

As Waititi will well know, cynics can point to examples where the franchise tries to bring in a personality, and that personality ends up being beat into shape to fit what the franchise wants and needs, or what the studio thinks it needs. And if they don’t bend, they break and they get replaced by journeymen like Ron Howard and Tony Gilroy. No shade to them, they get the job done. But if that’s what Disney and/or Lucasfilm wants, why not hire them in the first place?

Every franchise wants an auteur. Every franchise wants the spark of having somebody interesting and award-winning at its helm. But Star Wars, even more so than super-franchise Marvel, has shown itself as being incredibly resistant to actually utilising those people. Gareth Edwards directed Monsters, one of the most inventive and disturbing monster films, but you wouldn’t know it from Rogue One. There’s almost no trace of the zippy fun of Lego Movie or 21 Jump Street in Solo: A Star Wars Story.

The one person who seems to have been able to get his film out there personality intact is Rian Johnson with The Last Jedi. Look how that turned out for him. The film still grossed over a billion dollars, but a vocal minority – and it was a minority, it’s just that a minority looks like a majority when your fanbase numbers several hundred million – made it seem like a risky failure. Johnson is still regularly getting shit from Star Wars diehards, among the most boring people in the world, and the film that followed it ended up being even more reviled for trying to reconstruct what he tore down.

Taika Waititi as IG-11 in The Mandalorian

I think if Taika is left to do what he wants, he could make a great Star Wars film. My favourite Star Wars products are ones that mess with the canon, or critique the parts of it that hold up less well. I loved The Last Jedi, and how it messed with the idea of the Skywalker legacy as being the only one that matters. To be even more niche, I loved Knights of the Old Republic II, a clear ancestor to the Last Jedi, and one that tore down the rigid ideas of the Jedi Order as being just as bad as the chaotic ones of the Sith. 

The franchise could use some of Waititi’s humour, and the way he lightens harsh emotional truths with it. I don’t think a Star Wars film is necessary the best place to deploy it, but I think he could bring something amazing to a television show – he’s already been in and directed an episode of The Mandalorian – which is where Disney seems to be a little more loose. (The other part of today’s announcement was a television show from Leslye Headland, who co-created last year’s excellent Russian Doll, which counts as an even more out-there personality for the franchise to rein in.)

The only director who has made the best or most interesting film in their career under the Star Wars brand is George Lucas. For everyone else, even if they get to the end of the film with the vision they intended, it’s a compromised vision that still has to tick the boxes set out way back in 1977. This is a franchise that has fired more directors than it has hired.

If Waititi makes it to final cut, personality intact, we could have a great film. But a Star Wars film will always be a Star Wars film first and foremost – all names come under the title. Waititi is capable of miracles, but it’s safest to keep your expectations in check: if you’re hoping for Hunt for the Sandpeople or Two Moons, One Night, you’re probably going to be disappointed.