ARTS2062 Course Esasy

How useful is the label ‘national cinema’ in describing Australian film. Critically evaluate the usefulness of the term using at least two films.

By the sound of it, ‘national cinema’ designates an assumption that it aims to portray the nation as consolidated as it as and to reinforce the unification of its nationals within this framework of the nation. Nations, as opposed to countries, are not the physical entities in which individuals reside but are conceptual entities in which the individuals of the countries share languages, sense of belonging and identity. This ideal would have functioned perfectly for Australian national cinema if it were not for the diversity we see today. In addition to this, there are economical, ethical and political demands for the national cinema not only within Australia but also outside the country. This is to say that cinema is no longer or has never been a pure artistic creation with implications due to these demands. Films, whether they are considered as national cinema or not, must make their budget back in order for the film-makers to continue making films, hence it is unavoidable for film-makers to purposefully choose what is to be represented and what is not to reach for wider audience, which in return will bring the figures back. This dilemma between the desire for full creative control over the products and the need for alterations in the content due to financial and economical demands for the continuous opportunities is what is making the term ‘national cinema’ more and more elusive.

So who constitutes the Australian nation? Rural areas mainly consist of indigenous people and Anglo-Saxon Australians, though the closer it is to capitalist cities such as Sydney and Melbourne, the more diversity there is, which consists of English, Irish, Scottish, Chinese, New Zealander, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Indian, Italian Philippine. The question with this diversity is – what is the chance of seeing this dense combination of races in our Australian films? We are mostly exposed to Anglo-Saxon Australians, and the Aboriginals for there is a historically enormous emphasis on the equal representation of the Aboriginal race to that of the Anglo-Saxon Australian. If the above statement about the aims of the national cinema is right, then the national cinema in its current state is portraying Australia in a different light.

There are two possible escape routes, provided by Jacka, from this precarious position for Australian national cinema. One is ‘the nationalist, the populist, the touristy – projections of a mythicised essentialist Australian image, which has a reassuring and consensualist force at home and an impact overseas that is a mixture of the spectacle of the exotic and the presentation of nostalgic myths of innocence that bring comfort to audiences caught in confusing, difficult and even violent times’ and the other is the focus on the local for ‘the local doesn’t necessarily mean the veristic, in the sense o mirroring or reflecting a society or subculture, because the local can be intensely medicated or mythologized or fantasised or transformed by generic and other operations’ Jacka, 1993). These possible directions sit on the extreme ends of the spectrum and are more concrete conceptual directions than the current indirect direction the film industry is following, or to be more precise, forced to follow. With these two opposing positions in mind this essay will examine two major Australian films, one of Baz Luhrmann’s ‘Red Curtain Trilogy’, Moulin Rouge! (2001), and Peter Faiman’s Crocodile Dundee (1986) with guidance of SAC (Significant Australian Content) from Screen Australia.

Screen Australia provides SAC (Significant Australian Content) to examine whether a film is eligible for funding. The test is based on key components of the film: the subject matter of the film, the place where the film was made, the nationalities and places of residence of the persons who took part in the making of the film (including producers, directors, authors, scriptwriters, composers, actors, editors, directors of photography, production designers and other film technicians), the details of production expenditure incurred in respect of the film, and any other matters that Screen Australia considers to be relevant (Screen Australia, 2009). The criteria does provide guidelines which the film-makers could follow, though there are no clear definitions of what the Australian content is. The decision is made upon discussions by the senior members of the agency. The two films chosen are both considered Australian with difference balance of distribution of Australian-ness across various aspects of the film. Let us examine the two films.

Baz Luhrman, the director of Moulin Rouge!, is an Australian citizen, and so are a number of other cast in the film including Nicole Kidman, Kylie Minogue, Richard Roxburgh, Garry McDonald, and Natalie Mendoza. Due to Kidman’s injury, although the completion of filming was in Madrid, Spain, majority of filming proceeded in Fox Studios in Sydney. Accordingly, the expenses for the set entirely created within the studio in Sydney was to circulate around the country. Although some alterations, which took the film away from being authentically Australian, might have been necessary for the film to be musical, these are the possible Australian-ness of the film that granted it the funding for containing a ‘significantly Australian content’. The film, however, definitely does not look any Australian. What connections with Australia would one make upon watching this film? The only significant Australian content would be, for an ordinary spectator, would have been the director, who is highly recognised globally as an Australian director, the star, Nicole Kidman and perhaps some other minor casts such as Kylie Minogue. The scenery within the film reminds us more of the glamourous town of Paris than Australia, which is emphasised more by the costumes, accent, attitudes of the people… etc. Despite all this the film was a major success not only in Australia but also globally, producing more than double the amount of the fund. This is a very good example of the problems Jacka points out, ‘private greed tends to overcome public purpose, and the desire to realised these dreamt-of-riches (which can only be achieved in the American market) means that movies are made here whose “souls” are trying very hard to lie elsewhere’ (Jacka, 1993).

On the other hand, Peter Faiman’s Crocodile Dundee, is an original mixture of Australian-ness and American-ness, succeeding at connecting and satisfying both Australian and American audiences. This cheesy and corny love comedy seems to do more than to make the audience laugh at seeing Dundee failing to adjust himself to civilisation in overpopulated America. The subject matter of the film is not strictly but mostly Australian as the contexts in which the Australian character exists change but the camera is almost always with Dundee, displaying him as the focus of the narrative. There are numerous scenes of the usual pub where Dundee and his ‘mates’ go to, which allows the Australian audience to familiarise themselves with the context while the American audience is informed of the bourgeois culture – and this locality is the key to its authentic Australian look. The glorified legend, Dundee, becomes closer to us or the general crowd as he reminds us of the Ocker era, with his masculinity, violence and sexist yet somehow embracing treatment of women. The major cast, Dundee (Paul Hogan) and Sue (Linda Kozlowski) are Australian and American, and perhaps there are more American characters that play an important role in the film, though the authenticity depending on this is questionable for much of the time spent in Australia consists of just the two and wild animals such as crocodiles and snakes! In terms of the locations of the film, the balance between Australia and America is quite even in both the sequential time and narrative structure. The film succeeds in involving the Aboriginal race by having Dundee as their friends and making available the ‘sacred ritual’ of the tribe – and making the spectator aware that it is strictly secretive by deploying Sue’s presence.What is interesting about this film is (and crucial for it to be Australian) that wherever Dundee is he is praised of his nationality, his masculinity and his confident (perhaps arrogant) talk, which in the end steals the heart of the bride from an arrogant and self-obsessive boyfriend who happens to be American. The only exclusion visible are those considered as the outcast of society devoid of their nationality (kangaroo hunters, pimps and the wicked boyfriend of Sue’s). It is the celebration of the Australian legend striving in the unknown civilised society which results him to have a beautiful and intelligent American girl, who also appreciates the Australian rural culture, that leaves no collision between the mentioned cultures. It could also be assumed that the locality of American culture is exposed especially in the closing scene where Sue finally reaches Dundee in a overly crowded subway station where the locals kindly and warmly operate as the bridge, both metaphorically and physically, for the two to be together. Perhaps this explains why this film was well appreciated by both cultures and satisfied Screen Australia for its potential of attracting a wide range of audiences whilst representing the Australian nation.

It seems inevitable to recognise the external influences on the framework of the so-called ‘nation’, for the sense of ‘being one’ as a nation is becoming far more detached from us with the general trend for individualisation. What is more problematising for Australia is that the external influences we receive are not only outside but also inside the nation for the diversity we experience today. Would it then be a promising future to unify the country based on our multicultural heritage, to say that Australia is Australia for its ever-changing and increasing diversity? This is where localism comes into play to deny the unification as a whole, but to concentrate more on the local scenes, to represent what we witness in our daily lives because this multidimensional crossovers of culture is what makes real Australia unique. This is not to say that the films have to stay ordinary to our eyes – just like Crocodile Dundee alteration or exaggeration of the content might be necessary to fuel the narratives. However, as long as we have our distinct Australian accent, local locations and perhaps a more diverse cast could establish the sense or the ‘look’ of Australia to revitalise our national cinema.

Reference List

Bell, P. and Bell R. (1998). Introduction: The Dilemmas of Americanisation. In AmericaniZation and Australia. UNSW Press. pp.1-14.

Freebury, J. (1987). Screening Australia: Gallipolli – a Study of Nationalism on Film. In Media Information Australia.

Jacka, E. (1993). Australian Cinema: Anachronism in the 1980s? In Turner, G. (ed.) Nation, Culture, Text: Australian Culture and Media Studies. Routledge. pp.106-122.

Rattigan, N. (1988). “Crocodile Dundee” : Apotheosis of the Ocker. In Journal of Popular Film and Television. pp.148-155.

Screen Australia. (2009). Producer Offset: Guidance on Significant Australian Content (SAC).

Advertisement