or
by Tearlach Hutcheson
University of Colorado at Denver
This past summer I was sitting in a movie house watching Apollo 13. As the spaceship plummeted towards Earth I held my breath and hoped for the best and when it landed safely I felt a surge of national pride. The only problem is that it was a proud to be an American feeling. I am not an American, I am an Australian. All my life I have been raised predominantly on Hollywood cinema and Hollywood cinema has never taught me to be an Australian. Instead it has taught me to be an American. I do not believe that this is a result of living in the US for many years because these were feelings that I had before I came to the US. I believe that even in Australia my fellow Australians experience a fate very similar to mine.
Since 1918 Hollywood cinema has dominated the world, and even earlier, it has dominated the Australian marketplace. As a result of this hegemony, Australians, through cinematic exposure, have been raised with a U.S. belief system. However, with the reemergence of the Australian film industry in the seventies, and the use of cinema by the Whitlam government to rid Australia of US and British influences, I believe national identity has slowly begun to be re- established for Australians. The renaissance of Australian film has resulted in three outcomes. Firstly, it has attracted the US film industry to Australia to make its own feature productions. Secondly, it has allowed Australian directors to get their start in Australia and then move onto Hollywood. Finally, Australians through the cinema medium are expressing to the world how they truly view themselves. The boundaries of national identity are being re-stated in the Australian/Hollywood cinematic world.
It is a well known fact that the US culture has a profound influence on the rest of the world. I am by no means trying to cover all the methods that the US culture is spread and I am also not claiming that film is the only medium through which the US culture is communicated to other cultures. However, film is a significant way for the US belief system to be dispersed worldwide. In Australia, US film is a significant part of the entertainment industry. It can be found predominantly in three places. Firstly, the traditional forum of the cinema; secondly, the television set where the phenomena of the made for TV movie is not as predominant and is therefore replaced with US film; and finally, the video format which has in the last fifteen years allowed a greater access to Hollywood cinema. It is through the watching of these Hollywood films and the identification with the characters in the films that allows the Hollywood/US belief system to maneuver its way into Australian culture.
Unfortunately, Australians are often ignorant of the place that their national industry has in the world of cinema. The earliest surviving Australian motion picture was shot in 1896 by Walter Barnett and Frenchman Marius Sestier and depicts the running of the nation's premier horse race, The Melbourne Cup. Australia quickly capitalized on the new technology. The Australian government commissioned various cinematographers to record the Federation of Australia celebrations in January of 1901, and The Salvation Army was the first to release a film of considerable length in 1901. Many film historians have argued that the Salvation Army's Soldiers of the Cross was the world's first feature film, but such an argument is misleading. Soldiers of the Cross is in actuality a compilation documentary with a mixture of moving footage, slides, and music.
But this does not mean that Australians would loose the honor of the world's first feature film to another nation. In 1906 the Tait Brothers' The Story of the Kelly Gang was released. Although the film has not survived in its entirety, documents stored in the Australian National Film and Sound Archives attest to the fact that it was over four thousand feet in length. The running time of the film itself is unknown since the speed of the motion picture depended on the cranking speed of the camera operator. This was undoubtedly the first feature film to be released in the world.
However, despite its strong start Australian cinema floundered. From 1906 to 1911 the industry actually increased in strength. In 1911 the longest film made in Britain was two thousand and five hundred feet whereas at least twenty films made in Australia were over three thousand feet, and of these nearly half were over four thousand feet. But between 1911 and 1913 two companies were formed in Australia. The first, Australasian Films, was a distribution company. The second, Union Theatres, was an exhibition company. By creating a partnership, these two companies were able to form a monopoly in the marketplace. Unfortunately the monopoly was not to the Australian filmmakers' advantage. Australasian Films signed deals with American companies to distribute their films Down Under and through bulk buying they were able to receive the films at a better price than the Australian industry could offer. By the late 1920s American films were being imported at the rate of forty a week. Distribution was dominated by the overseas market and Australian films began to be shown mainly as supporting features. This bulk buying and distribution of American films destroyed the Australian industry and despite attempts by some Australian citizens in Parliament to restrict this influence in the 1920s, and the endeavors to revive the industry with the Dad and Dave film On Our Selection in 1932, the film industry completely went under except for government documentaries and a few strong-hearted film producers. The 1930s brought an end to many Australians' film careers. Pressure was also increased to conform to Hollywood models of film making, however directors Raymond Longford, Ken G. Hall and Charles Chauvel concentrated on making films dealing with Australian subjects despite a lack of commercial success. Regardless of all these problems, Australians still loved cinema. In the 1930s the federal government included the price of a cinema ticket when calculating the minimum wage. Along with the feature film, Australians went to the cinema to see their weekly newsreel - a 10 minute reel of news, sport and human interest stories. However, in the feature film world Australia merely became a location resource for the filming of Hollywood and some British productions.
The decline of the Australian film industry allowed the film narrative to be removed from Australian cultural discourse and consequently the Australian audiences were subjected to American narratives. American mainstream cinema steamrolled its way over any history of cinema, in the process presenting an image that it was the only true cinema. There have been many essays written about the influence of Hollywood cinema during the forties and fifties, particularly in the realm of feminist cinema. However, the most detailed discussion can be found in Jackie Stacey's essay "Feminine Fascinations: Forms of Identification in Star-Audience Relations." Stacey, via advertising in publications throughout the world, asked women to write to her about their favorite stars. Her replies came from not only her native country, the U.K., but also the US and Australia. Stacey noted the various methods through which the movie stars affected the ways that the audiences reacted outside the cinema. But perhaps most importantly is the implications that her essay has when it comes to discussing the influence that Hollywood films had over other cultures. Through the identification with female movie stars Australian women were influenced by US culture. Given this fact we can only surmise that Australian males were also affected by what they saw on the screen and responded accordingly.
During and after WWII, the American influence on Australian culture intensified. The huge influx of Americans into Australia during the Pacific campaign meant a large scale importation of American culture into Australia. Chewing gum, Coca-Cola, hamburgers, and of course Hollywood film, became regular staples in the Australian diet. During WWII the Australians saw a failing in the military support by the British, who were consumed by the Desert and European wars and couldn't spare the support for the Pacific campaign, forcing Australia to seek U.S. military might for protection. Following the Second World War America took its claim as the world superpower and minor Western nations like Australia signed military treaties with the U.S. for their own security. America took over the role once held by the diminishing British Empire for Australia.
It wasn't until the early 1970s that Australian cinema underwent its first revival, or renaissance as many historians like to call it. Up until this time the predominant cinemas in Australia had been Hollywood cinema. The Australian revival of film in the 1970s began with a series of male audience orientated soft porn features known as the Alvin Purple series and Bruce Beresford's Barry McKenzie adventure films. However Ocker Films, as they were termed, displayed a vulgar and chauvinistic side to the Australian culture which made Australia appear to be different than it actually was to overseas viewers. In 1972 Gough Whitlam rose to power and used his political arm, the Australian Film Commission (AFC), to reestablish a national identity. Gough Whitlam writes; "I saw the encouragement of the film industry as essential to the rekindling of Australian national pride and self-confidence". Gough Whitlam's political aims were to reform Australia as a country and therefore sweep away British colonialism and to attack the American influences that were so predominant in the Australian culture. This was achieved through the period film.
During the mid-seventies, in order to receive financing from the AFC to make a film the text of the film had to be approved by the Australian government. Gough Whitlam's government tended to finance historical dramas that would illustrate Australia as it should be seen, at least according to Whitlam's political agenda. The belief was that by portraying historical dramas Australia could prove that it did indeed have a history and therefore a culture of its own. Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) & Gallipoli (1981), Gillian Armstrong's My Brilliant Career (1979), Bruce Beresford's Breaker Morant (1980) and Fred Schepisi's The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith (1978) were all contributors to this particular style of period film.
Despite all the good intentions of the Whitlam government, the Australian period films had a problem: they were Hollywood-centric. The Australian film industry observed its surroundings not in an Australian perspective, but instead the way that Hollywood and the media, as well as the Eurocentric education system, had forced Australians to view themselves. All these period films were set at the turn of the century, and normally with a rural setting. They played on the stereotypes and myths of the Australian demeanor. They turned back the clock to consider what it meant to be an Australian in an attempt at seeking a national identity. The films themselves, except for Schepisi's work, illustrated a white European, predominantly British heritage. In fact, one state film commission refused to invest in films that had aboriginal characters. In the period of 1971 to 1977 there were 87 features produced and only 10 of these dealt with contemporary urban Australian culture seriously, which is particularly interesting in view of the fact that Australia is the most urbanized Western nation with approximately 87.5% of its population living in a metropolitan environment. Ross Gibson comments on the rural setting: "featuring the lands so emphatically in the stories, all these films stake out something more significant than decorative pictorialism...why this preoccupation with the natural environment?" Despite these problems, the Australians, as a majority, identified with their legends and if not beneficial in any other way, this era of films became a great historical text and education for the youth of the country about Australia's past.
Until 1982 there had been no cinematic attacks deliberately against American culture. However, many film theorists believe that Beresford's Breaker Morant was a commentary on the Vietnam War. The filmdepicted Australia in a supporting military role for the British during the Boer War, as they were for the Americans during Vietnam, in a nation far away from both their own and their allies, in the same manner that Vietnam was geographically opposed to Australia and the US. The film also portrayed an unruly war where orders were re-interpreted and villagers were relocated into special camps, similar to the military behavior and the relocation of villagers in Vietnam. However, Beresford upon being questioned about these similarities has always appeared surprised and more than a bit baffled as to why anybody would draw these conclusions, a feeling very similar to my own. I do not believe that Breaker Morant was intended as an anti-US text, instead it was always in my mind an anti-British text. Nonetheless, the sub-text remains.
It took until 1983 with the production of Simon Wincer's Phar Lap that a direct attack was made on the American culture. Australians had turned towards the United States for political support ever since World War Two and the consequent Cold War. But in a post Vietnam era, in which the Australians became disgruntled with the U.S., there was even a stab taken at the Americans and questions asked concerning their loyalty to others. The ending of Phar Lap depicts the death of Australia's greatest racing horse at the hand of Americans, and it implies that the Mafia was involved. Newspaper articles and editorials at the time of the film raised questions about the American involvement and reminded Australia of an earlier incident in which Les Darcy, an Australian boxer, went to the U.S. only to also die quickly at the hands of so-called American criminal involvement. Of course, all of these claims have never been proved either way, but the feeling that they have for Australians leaves the culture open to discussion about which nations they should trust.
Hence Australia was thrust out on a limb. Film, as a reflection of political movements and sentiments within Australia, had disallowed them to turn to either of their two previously powerful allies. They were forced to look inwards. Australian film appeared to go stagnant. Graham Shirley wrote that Australian film "went into decline as [national] identity failed to be developed". With a highly urbanized population, the vast majority of Australians failed to truly identify with the rural settings and characters that were presented to them on the screen. The new generations of immigrants, particularly the Mediterranean wave of the 1950s, could not participate in the Australian period films. But the Australian film industry failed to acknowledge this fact and instead turned towards ways to make films more profitable in overseas markets since the Liberal party, the opposition to Whitlam's Labor party, no longer provided as much support to the film industry. This was done by including marketable American actors in the films. Movies such as Simon Wincer's Quigley (1991), released in the U.S. as Quigley Down Under starring Tom Selleck, George Miller's The Man from Snowy River (1982) starring Kirk Douglas, and Richard Franklin's Roadgames (1981) starring Jamie Lee Curtis are all examples of this type of film. Perhaps the most significant of these films was Peter Faiman's Crocodile Dundee (1986) which had half the movie set in the Outback and the other half in New York City. Ironically this film has made the most money to date of any Australian film (as well as any foreign film) in the U.S. marketplace, and yet its content was disapproved of by the AFC for the way it portrayed Australians.
The mid eighties, if anything, was a time of restructuring for the Australian film industry. The Australian industry had begun to set up its infrastructure. The industry had developed a stronger financial base and with the input of various people who had begun to graduate from the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, preproduction and postproduction began to become more proficient and the available production resources advanced technologically. The importing of more and better film making equipment became a must and this was achieved through the encouragement of using American dollars to finance Australian productions. Australia finally had the resources to allow a strong film industry to continue. However, just as the industry was increasing in strength the auteurs were leaving.
Many of Australia's successful film directors up until this time moved onto Hollywood to direct hugely successful films during the mid and late eighties. Peter Weir went on to direct such films as Witness (1985) and Dead Poet's Society (1989). Fred Schepisi went on to direct Roxanne (1987) and The Russia House (1990). Gillian Armstrong went on to direct Mrs Soffel (1984), and Bruce Beresford went on to direct the film that won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1990, Driving Miss Daisy. The success of Australian directors overseas was surely a result of growing up with Hollywood cinema. They had initially learnt their trade from watching Hollywood films and their understanding of the US was perhaps so prolific that they did a better job of telling the US audiences about themselves than Hollywood directors. How else could a white Australian male know so much about the relationship between an African American male driver and his elderly white female boss? Unfortunately, this exodus to Hollywood appeared to many as though what Australia had done up until the eighties was now lost as the cream of the crop left the sunny shores. But this was not to be the case.
In the late eighties the generation of Australians who were raised on the period films, came to the fore with their own interpretations of national identity. Referred to by many film theorists as the second wave of the Australian film renaissance, this new set of directors began to offer their own perspectives on Antipodean culture. Jocelyn Moorehouse's film Proof in 1991 began the renaissance by attacking the typical Hollywood style of characterization by denying the audience any type of distinction between protagonist and antagonist. All the characters had features that were both undesirable and likeable, which made them more realistic than the facades of Hollywood movie stars that Australians had been raised on. In Proof, a lovelorn housekeeper named Celia heaps vengeful humiliation on her employer, an anal retentive blind photographer who spurns her advances. She places hat-stands smack in his path, takes pictures of him sitting on the toilet, lures away his guide dog and seduces his only friend. Besides its breaking down the antagonist/protagonist paradox this film was also important in that it had an urban setting, the setting that was most common for the Australian population. Finally, there was a substantial move away from the Outback to the inner city.
Then along came Baz Luhrmann's Strictly Ballroom (1992). This film was claimed to be the Australian version of the American dance films of the 1940s. Scott Murray commented that the film "enticed from the suburbs thousands who go to see films most infrequently and, even more rarely, Australian ones" (116). Strictly Ballroom was extremely important because it depicted a multi-cultural Australia in an urban environment. Luhrmann contrasted the lifestyles of Fran's family, dignified Mediterranean immigrants living close to the poverty line, with Scott Hastings' crass Australian working class family of British heritage. There is a scene in Strictly Ballroom that contains an image which illustrates Australian feelings about their position in the world. That scene is the one where Scott and Fran are dancing on the rooftop of the dance studio. The mis-en-scene depicts behind them a huge neon Coca-Cola sign and at the same time they dance beneath a Hills Hoist, a typically Australian clothesline that can be found in the vast majority of Australian backyards. This scene can be read as Australians fighting against the overwhelming American culture. The Hills Hoist is the flower amongst the gaudy weeds.
Other films were to follow in this new wave such as Stephan Elliott's The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994), Kevin Dowlings and Geoff Burton's The Sum of Us (1994), and P.J. Hogan's Muriel's Wedding (1994). The Adventures of Priscilla is a deliberate contrasting between the inner city reality of Australian life against the mythological Outback that the period films depicted. The Sum of Us is a film about a father with a homosexual son which instead of conforming to the Hollywood stereotype of such a relationship allows the father to accept his son's sexuality and consequently it becomes an exploration of a father and son's relationship in its most essential form. Finally Muriel's Wedding, the best received Australian film by Australians to date, plays on the images of Australian urban and coastal lifestyles. Film critics often commented that the characters in Muriel's Wedding were readily identifiable and that most Australians could point to a character that resembled a personal friend.
A new national identity for Australians was being created. The urban Australian was coming to the fore and the significance of the Outback was being placed into the background. Australian audiences were finally being allowed to readily identify with characters that appeared on the screen, instead of attempting to identify with mythological war heroes from the Outback. Sexuality came to the fore and films dealing with violence were placed to one side (even though films like Romper Stomper (1992) had a large following). Australians were finally moving away from the stereotypes and landscape images that they had of themselves and moving towards an identity that they could adopt easily.
The new generation of Australians had begun to express their opinions and at the same time those directors who had gone overseas began to return disillusioned by the Hollywood industry. Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Fox network and the vertical integration of the network with the production companies began to influence the Film industry in Australia. Many of Fox's US television series pilots are filmed in Australian studios. The only problem is that Australia remains a locational resource for Hollywood films with pre-production and post- production work being done in the US. However with the go ahead given to Murdoch for his studio plans for the Sydney Showground and some of the deals now being cut by Australian directors this is expected to change.
Gillian Armstrong returned to Hollywood to film Little Women in 1994 and yet the deal she made to direct the film illustrates the changing of the tide. Approached by Winona Ryder who had seen My Brilliant Career, Gillian Armstrong was asked to work on Little Women. However, after being disillusioned by the male dominated Hollywood industry Armstrong said she would only go ahead with the project if all the pre and postproduction work was done in Australia. Ryder and the film's producers agreed to the deal. This is an American film that reversed the tradition by being shot in America and produced in Australia. Also, this is not the only phenomena that has resulted because of the second renaissance of Australian cinema. With the strong feminist content in Australia cinema Australian (and New Zealand ) female directors are being asked to direct films about American women based on literary texts. Ironically, every film directed between 1994 and now about American women has either been done by an American male or Antipodean females. What has happened to the American female directors?
So where to from here? It is impossible to discern the future of the Australian industry. With the re-gaining of power by the Liberal party in the Australian federal government, concerns have been raised as to the availability of funding for Australian productions. Will the Australian Film Commission lose a lot of its budget forcing film makers to go elsewhere for money, and hence sign deals that adversely affect the industry? Or will media magnates like Murdoch encourage an industry to blossom in Australia? Or perhaps Murdoch's time spent in the American marketplace, and his profit orientated intentions, will force films that he finances to be more Hollywood in style. Finally, the new wave of graduates from AFTRS want to make more realistic films, films that are truer to life. But will they have the marketplace for these films? And if there is no marketplace how can they affect Australian national identity? The industry and the future remains full of questions.
Return to Conference page.