but it’s difficultto really know what to make of this, espe-
cially in an era when the idea of ‘genius’ is not necessarily
particularlypotent.^2
Surprisingly,Keating’seulogyoffers little to help us un-
derstandhis elevationof Tozer’sstatus.The speech– or, at
least, what we see of it in the film (as re-enactedby Keating)- focusesheavilyon the Australianarts community’sneglect
of Tozer and his music.As well as being largelywithout
politicalcontent,it’s withoutthe senseof wit that Keating
is often best rememberedfor. What we see and hear of
the eulogyis aggressivewithoutbeing cutting,and angry
withoutbeing evocative.Lines like ‘the bitchinessand pref-
erencewithin the Australianarts’ – which is given particular
emphasisimmediatelybeforethe film’s titleandrepeated
later– suggesta benefactor’sanger,notinsightfulcultural
and artisticrevelation,and there’slittle to assist the unfa-
miliar to truly appreciatewhat elevatestechnicalprowess
to the level of genius.Thosewho were not alreadyfamiliar
with Keating’seulogymay, rather than being impressedby
its impassionednature, be turned off by the vitriol hurled
at vaguetargets.
The film’s use of Keatingalso feels cautiousrather
thanprobing.TheformerprimeministeradmitsthatTozer
‘was the inspirationfor’ the AustralianArtistsCreative
Fellowships,whichthe pianistwas awardedtwice;this,
unsurprisingly,resultedin questionsfrompoliticaloppo-
nents and othersabout Keating’sinfluenceand motivation.
TheEulogydirectlyacknowledgesthe criticisms– we’re
assuredby intervieweesthat the doubledawardingof
the grant to Tozer had nothingto do with any interven-
tionfromKeating– butthematteris thenbrushedaside
with disconcertingspeed.Whetheror not the controversy
is worth revisitingis up to individualviewers.For me,
however,it provedtopicalfor a differentreason:around
thetimeI caughtTheEulogyatthe 2018 AdelaideFilm
Festival,the Coalitiongovernmenthad been embroiled
in its own controversyover the independence– or seem-
ing lack of independence– of the ABC.^3 Yet influencein
policymakingcontextsis far more complexthan whether
or not a specificsomeonespecificallytold someoneelse
to do a specificsomething,so this sectionmay feel, on
the whole,like a frustratingsidestep– even to viewers
who are reluctantto give any retrospectiveendorsement
to such decades-oldattackson Keating.
ThismayalsoultimatelydolittleforKeating’sreputation
amongyounger,unfamiliaror more progressiveviewers,
asa shiftagainsttheneoliberalismingrainedin suppos-
edlyleftistfactionsgainsmomentum^4 and variouslegacies
ofKeating’sremainopentoquestion.^5 TetheringTozer
toKeatingmayseethemusician’slegacy drifting further
away, along with the politician’s.
So what are we left to make of Tozer’smusic– and his
apparentgenius– in the midst of all of this? To declarege-
niusis notthesameasdemonstratingit.Perhapsgenius
by its naturecan’t be demonstrated;at least, those who
embracetheideaofgeniusmightsuggestso.In anycase,
a viewerunacquaintedwith Tozer will largelyhave to take
Keating’sand the interviewees’word for it. At times,the film
just seemsto paint Tozer as an immenselytalentedman
who achieveda great deal while facingnumerousproblems
in his life – not exactlya uniquesituationamongcreatives–
but who also happened to have a supporter in an extremely
high place to insist on his prominence.Preciselywhat
makeshim a genius,or even someoneworthyof Keating’s
aggressiveeulogyand of being pluckedfrom the apparent
indignity(in Keating’sview) of a part-time teaching job and
riding a bicycleto work, is less clear.
AsforTozer’smusic,there’slittleaboutit in the film,
even if we do hear a lotofit – discussionof his achieve-
ments,yes; clips of him performingand recordedmusic on
the soundtrack,yes; but not any real attentionon the music
itself. Tozer’swork peppersthe film, but Hoskingneglects
to clarifyfor an unfamiliarviewer(which,by the film’s un-
derlyinglogic, most of the audiencewill be) what makes
it trulyspecial.Withsomuchclassicalmusicrelegatedto
being genericfiller in modernculture,and with a concomi-
tant over-relianceon backgroundscoringin film, simply
havingTozer on the soundtrackisn’t enoughto address
this shortcoming.Certainly,Gill, who was himselfappar-
ently not overlyfamiliarwith Tozer when the projectbegan,^6
takes some steps towardsengagingmore deeplywith the
music– butthearduousfeathe’sattemptingoftransferring,
or even just communicating,the experience of appreciating
artcan’thelpbutcomeupshort.
Thesestepsmay,in fact,beTheEulogy’s most awk-
ward moments.In some scenes,Gill standsin front of a
contrivedclassroomof youngmusicstudentswho, with
dutifulreverence,respondto questionsabout Tozer’stal-
ent and abandonmentby Australia’sarts scene.In another,
we’re broughtto a room in BenedictHousein Queanbeyan,
New SouthWales,whereTozer lived after his first fellow-
ship; here, Gill sits alone (save for a cameraor two), listen-
ing for the first time to a recordingof Tozer playingNikolai
Medtner’sPianoConcertoNo. 1. ForGill,it’san‘amazing
revelation’,and the sceneis an effectiveconceit– but it
ultimatelybringstheuninitiatednoclosertoapprehend-
ing what is quite so ‘spectacularlybrilliant’about Tozer’s
recording.Althoughit plays behindthe visualsand nar-
ration,we’re not placedin a positionto truly listen to the
performanceourselves.We’re left with another‘trust me’
moment:authentic,perhaps,and sincere,no doubt,though
one that can’t help but fail when it comesto communicat-
ing what the musicitself carrieswithinit.
Someof the overallevasivenessin connectionwith
largerideasmaystemfromthefactthatTheEulogyrelies
on a fairly standardiseddocumentarystructurethat cen-
tres on unexpecteddevelopmentsat key narrativepoints
to reshapean audience’sunderstandingof the subject.It’s
a formatdependenton delayedrevelation,presentingcore
detailsasstructuralturningpointsratherthantryingto
tackleall the muddiedcomplexitieshead-on.It’s difficult
to avoid the slight sensethat this structuretoo strongly
servesthe film ratherthan its subject.Somenotable
aspectsof Tozer’slife that are withheldinTheEulogy’s
earlierpassagesseemtobepresentedascomplicating
moments,but are, in essence,fairly unsurprising:the
difficultieshe encountersas a professionalmusician,
forinstance,are hardlyunexpectedbut aren’t directlyad-
dresseduntilmuchlater.Similarly,thediscussionsaround
Tozer’ssexualorientationlosepotency,asthey,too,hap-
pen towardsthe film’s conclusion.This isn’t, of course,to
suggestthat the film’s makershave any intentionof avoid-
ing or downplayingTozer’ssexuality.The negativefeelings
towards Tozer’s partner displayed by a number of Tozer’s94 • Metro Magazine 201 | © ATOM