Critically evaluate the usefulness of the term using at least two films.
When we think of national cinema, we tend to think about films that are attributed to certain countries. For example, when we think of Indian cinema our minds jump straight to the bright and colourful songs and dances of ‘Bollywood’, or when thinking about American films we almost always go straight for the idea of Hollywood’s blockbuster. However, Australia seems to be in an internal struggle with our national identity, our film content “is concerned to establish the difference between the culture of Australia and that of other nations.”
But what does that mean in terms of Australian film? How do we as a nation construct our cinema? One pre-requisite for film funding in Australia is that the film maker present Australian content and ideals in their film. Jacka points out in her writing that the level of Australian content present in the film would be judged by “the subject matter of the film, the place where the film was made, the nationalities or residential status of the leading creative inputs, the copyright owners, the owners of the production company and the sources of the finance of the film.” Meaning that we must present to the rest of the world what it means to be an Australian. We must distinguish our culture from the ever impending force of globalised cinema, in particular, the American culture that has begun to dominate Australian viewing in both television and film.
Therefore if Australian film makers aim to achieve funding to make a film, they must demonstrate that the film is dealing with an identity of a country that we ourselves find increasingly difficult to define. The presumption is that “if one ensures that the film or program makers are Australian and they chose Australian subjects, then the result will be an accurate, or authentic representation of ‘the Australian way of life’ or ‘our’ hopes, fears, history, perspective, sense of humour, etc.” This is an increasingly problematic assumption, which attempts to group Australians into one mass comsumerable target.
If we take films that are said to encapsulate Australian national identity on a global forum, Gallipoli (1981) and Crocodile Dundee (1986), two of the most successful grossing Australian, films we can examine what we as a country are projecting onto the world as our national identity in our ‘National Cinema’.
Gallipoli presents Australian identity through characterisation, providing the audience with the option of rural vs. urban, city vs. Bush. This is offered to us in the contrast between the characters of Archy and Frank. They are described by Neil Rattigan as being exhibited as “stereotypes – indeed almost archetypes” . Gallipoli tells the story of a young, good-looking, innocent bushman (Archy) encountering a cynical, equally good-looking, larrikin from the city (Frank). They enlist together, after several trials and tribulations and they set off to Egypt to be trained (where they are separated), and finally to Turkey where Archy requests Frank be put in his regiment. The film is set on the backdrop of World War I; however, “Gallipoli is not so much about Australians in war as it is a celebration of the national ideology.” What is exhibited to the audience in this film is a construction of the attempt to convey Australian nation identity; it does this by using ‘archetypes’ that represent the common masculinities in Australian film and arguably in Australian culture. Frank is depicted through the characterisation of the ‘larrikin’; a term which “retains something of its antisocial meaning but has taken on the qualities of independence and antiauthority of the true Australian and is frequently used as a term of admiration.” A common representation of the male in Australian film, the larrikin, is shown frequently and has become associated, in a positive light to Australians, with help from the film industry and, possibly in some part, through the character of Frank in Gallipoli. A key scene in examining the idea of the larrikin and its importance to Australian identity in the film is when Frank is in an Egyptian marketplace/bazaar and he imitates English soldiers by riding a donkey past them, feigning a ridiculous British accent, and wearing a monocle. By exhibiting this in the film, Weir is utilising the Australian sense of humour and shows the power of the Australian sentiment in the face of a war. However, what is important in this feature is the contrast, but equally relatable, character of Archy. Archy is the quiet hero, the young, blonde, white male that could be associated with the ‘battler’; a term identified as “an individual who faces up to the difficulties of life in Australia without flinching, complaining or giving up.” This is shown through his barefooted race across the harsh Australian landscape, and his willingness to emerge from the trenches to face the certainty of imminent death. The two protagonists in Gallipoli are parallel heroes, whilst both adhering to the ideals of an Australian male in terms of national identity. This is useful for a film that is attempting to express the idea that it “is largely about what is intrinsically Australian- mateship, endurance, the outback and a nationalistic belief in an as yet unrealised potential”
Another example of how national identity is established on a global forum is the film Crocodile Dundee. The film, once again, presents a young white male living in the bush. His character lives in the outback of Australia and is known as ‘crocodile’ for his amazing confrontation with a large croc. In response to this event, an American journalist travels to Australia to interview him. After many encounters of overtly masculine animal whispering, both journalist (Sue) and Mick (‘crocodile’) travel to New York where his Australian bush background proves to be immensely useful. This film uses, once again, the stereotype of the Australian male. He is a bronzed hero, with a connection to the land... a battler.
It also proposed that the film confirmed the general image of “Australian backwardness and "outback"-ness rather than affirming the image of a modern urban society”. This quote is interesting when we compare both Crocodile Dundee and Gallipoli, for we see that Mick is shown to us in his natural habitat, the bush, as is the character of Archie, however, we do not get the same in-depth look at Franks life, only a quick glimpse of his house, but not his friends, or relation to the city he lives in. Urban dwelling seems to be avoided in big budget production; it would seem that we would rather be associated with the masculinities of bush life and the hardship one has to overcome in those surroundings than the seemingly monotonous life of the city-dweller. Not to mention being of a different ethnicity or race in a city atmosphere. Films such as Cedar Boys (2009), The Combination (2009) and Two Fists One Heart (2008) have been given a substantially lower budget than both Crocodile Dundee (1986) and Gallipoli (1981). Twenty years later we are still presenting the white bushman hero in our big budget blockbusters, an example of this is Baz Luhrmann’s Australia (2008).
The reason I have not brought up Australian films that are more diverse in their representation of gender, ethnicity and location, is that films of this nature have not had the international success that films such as Gallipoli and Crocodile Dundee have had. This means that they are the films that are associated with our way of life on a local platform. Although Australian films are being recognised in film festivals across the world, they simply do not have the recognition that the above films do.
This is just one of the common problems with identifying and creating an Australian national cinema, it would seem that the purpose of creating a national cinema is to provide the world with an idea of what it is to be an Australian. The problem is, however, that “describing something as Australian depends on differentiating it from something which it is not.” This is where the usefulness of the term ‘national cinema’ enters a grey area for Australians. We must attempt to separate ourselves from other cultures, especially English speaking ones. With this in mind, we return back to the film Crocodile Dundee, which provides, whether intentionally or not, an austere comparison between the Australian larrikin/battler and the American. The second half of the film when Mick goes to New York is where we see this stark contrast of cultural norms in America to that of a bushman from down under. However, given that “nationalism seeks to bind people to identities” , are we comfortable with this image of ourselves as a blonde male from the bush? It is commonly accepted that “Film, above all other forms, has the means to give Australia an image of itself.” , but is that image real, or just a construction of a nation desperately denying its multiculturalism and attempting to purport an all-encompassing national identity?
This concept attempts to consolidate our identities into one exportable identity that we can call Australian national identity. However, this is an impossible task that continues to put pressure on our film makers and film industry. ‘National Cinema’ is an idealised term that has trouble with all of the different interpretations and representations that live inside it when referring to Australian cinema. The fun, white, bronzed bushman that we would like to show the world as being exclusively ours, is unrealistic. The term ‘National Cinema’ can only be useful if we represent all the cultures, races and genders of our diverse Australia, and give the big budgets to those films which explore those concepts.
Bibliography
· ‘Glossary’, Neil Rattigan, Images of Australia (1991), SMU Press, pp. 332-336
· Elizabeth Jacka, ‘Australian Cinema: An anachronism in the 1980’s?’ in Nation, Culture, Text: Australian Culture and Media Studies (1993), Graeme Turner (ed.) Routledge, pp. 106-122
· Jane Freebury, ‘Screening Australia: Gallipoli – a case study of nationalism on film’, Media Information Australia, (1987)
· Gallipoli, Neil Rattigan, Images of Australia (1991) SMU Press, pp. 135-138
· Phillip Bell and Roger Bell, ‘Introduction: The Dilemmas of Americanisation’ in AmericaniZation and Australia, (eds.) Phillip and Roger Bell, UNSW Press (1998), pp. 1-14
· Tom O’Reagan (1996) ‘Formulations of Value’, Australian National Cinema, Routledge: London, NY., pp.111-144
· Paul Willemen (2006), ‘The National Revisited’ in Theorising National Cinema, V.Vitali & P. Willemen (eds.), London: BFI, pp. 29-43
· Vanderbent, Saskia (2007), Australian Film: the Pocket Essential Guide, Pocket Essentials.
· "Fair Dinkum Fillums": the Crocodile Dundee Phenomenon ,Tom O'Regan (This article appeared in Elizabeth Jacka and Susan Dermody eds. The Imaginary Industry: Australian Film in the late '80s (Sydney: Australian, Film Television and Radio School and Media Information Australia, 1988). 155-75.)
http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/film/Croc.html
· ‘Gallipoli’, By Janet Maslin, Published: August 28, 1981
· Paul Attanasio, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 04, 1986 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/crocodiledundeepg13attanasio_a0ad58.htm
Filmography (films reffered to in the writing):
· Gallipoli (1981), Dir. Peter Weir
· Crocodile Dundee (1986), Dir. Peter Faiman
· Australia (2008), Dir. Baz Luhrmann
· The Combination (2009), Dir. David Field
· Cedar Boys (2009), Dir. Serhat Caradee
· Two Fists One Heart (2008), Dir. Shawn Seet
No comments:
Post a Comment