Week 8 – Not Quite Hollywood

                This week in cinema class we talked about the topics of exploitation and bad taste in Australian film.  When first reading these topics I wasn’t sure what to expect this week.  What did bad taste necessarily mean?  In lecture we discussed the two different values in film: commercial and cultural.  We then further talked about what exactly a genre was, and what an exploitation cinema was.  In lecture we defined exploitation cinema as aesthetic trash with a commercial focus.  It is often sensationalist and perverse with superficial storylines, and references to the ‘forbidden’ and cheap production values. I personally do not think that these exploitation films are a genre.  I think it is more based on people’s opinions and what appeals to them.  Many people look at these exploitations of sex, drugs, race, and murders as purely just trash, while others appreciate it.  Some also believe it was necessary to have this era of film to build off of it and also because even if people don’t want to admit it, this type of film appeals to many people.

                In tutorial we discussed the question of whether or not these films should be funded by the government.  In my opinion, I do not think they should be.  These films are going against the norm and society.  In a way it is almost giving Australia a bad reputation.  If people want to produce these films, I believe they have the right to, but I don’t find it necessary for them to be funded by the government. 

                In O’Regan’s article he discussed that there were 2 ways for cinema to possess value: commercially and culturally.  Cultural value is looked at as a national cinema which is more significant than just a Hollywood film.  It has meaning and are more worthy than a movie made just for a commercial aspect.  O’Regan quotes that, “Films of a local minor stream are more credible than those of the commercial mainstream.  These more valuable aspects of the cinema accrue the symbolic benefits of higher cultural authority by being associated with notions of heterogeneity, innovation and diversity at social, aesthetic and political levels”.  As I said before, the other value is commercial value.   Commercial value has a better feel of being able to connect with the whole world.  Cultural value may hit home for many Australians, but commercial allows the whole world, not just Australia, to appreciate the film.  This is not to say that all of the world will appreciate the films, but it allows for a much wider audience.

                As Nicholas writes her in article, “Not Quite Hollywood is not merely successful, but victorious in its pursuit of reviving interest in a grossly neglected field of truly spectacular, locally produced film”.  As state before, many people enjoyed these types of films.  It was something new and raw to Australia and much of the world.  To some it may be gruesome and hard to watch, but to others it was a turn in the film industry that was necessary for Australia’s future.

Week 7 - Beneith Clouds

               This week in lecture and tutorial we learned about Indigenous Australia.  I found this week to be very interesting because I only know so much about Australia’s history.  I knew about Aboriginal Australians; however, I didn’t realize how big of an impact they had on Australia’s history and film productions.  The Aboriginals were the earliest known humans in Australia many thousands of years ago.  Today, they barely make up any of Australia’s population.  It wasn’t until I saw the movie Australia did I even realize that years ago legislation’s were passed to segregate and protect the Aboriginals by restricting what they could do and who they grew up with.  Australia was the first time I realized that they actually went to the extent of taking children from their families to be sent off to white families in order to reconstruct their cultures and who they were.  It wasn’t until the past 50 years or so that some of their rights were given back to indigenous people.  This amazes me that it has gone on for so long without people stepping up to say it was wrong.  I think that films incorporating aboriginal people and their ideals into the films are definitely good ways to get people thinking about the past and what was so wrong about it.  I think it is also important to incorporate this into movies because without watching these films that I’ve watched in this class, I would never have realized what happened to these people since I am from America. 

                I thought that Beneath Clouds was a very interesting film.  At first I found it was a bit boring, but after thinking about the message that it gives the audience, I realized there is much more to it.  It intertwines the life of a girl (Lena) who is looking to figure out what world she belongs in with a boy (Vaughn) who despises his mother for abandoning him, and yet still breaks out of jail to see her before she passes away.  After listening to the presentation in tutorial I realized that these two characters represent two opposing ideals.  Vaughn represents full Aboriginality which is what Lena is running from, while Lena represents the White Australian who stole his people’s identity and land. 

                In tutorial we also talked a lot about the film Jedda.  Throughout this film, many myths and discourse were apparent.  Just in the one scene that we watched in class, you can see that the husband is insistent on the idea that Aboriginals cannot be tamed.  He argues with his wife by telling her that you can’t change hundreds of years of a culture in one lifetime.  I found this scene very interesting because I’m sure that was the viewpoint of a lot of people back in the day.  However, this specific scene makes people look back and realize what was happening and instead of making the Aboriginals look bad, it makes the White Australian look ruthless in thinking they could judge others and be superior of them.  This film definitely showed racism at its greatest degree. 

                In Marcia Langston’s article she talks about the recent occurrence of Aboriginal people in Australian films.  As I said before, I think this is an important part of Australia’s film industry.  Aboriginal’s want their story to be told.  They want people to know the pain and hurt that they had to go through without a choice or say in the matter.  What better way to express this than in film?  It allows people, not only Australian’s, but American’s like myself to learn about their history and how it has helped to shape Australia’s culture as a whole.  This leads me to the fact that I found it very interesting in Langston’s article when they talk about how the Australian Film Commission agreed, ‘to fund the film through to completion, and to establish policies and guidelines on the funding of future Aboriginal film projects..’.  It then goes on to quote an Aboriginal woman who says she did not completely agree or support it, but ‘at least it didn’t portray us as drunks’.  If the AFC were going to fund Aboriginal films it would be the best way of making people aware of what Aboriginal people represent.

                To tie in the film Beneath Clouds with this topic I found it interesting how Langston brought up the topic of the Aboriginal audience upset by the portrayal of alcoholism and consumption by the indigenous people.  I found it interesting that the movie showed the scene with the mother sitting at the table surrounded by beer cans that had once been full.  Whether or not alcoholism is a problem in the Aboriginal culture or whether it is just a simple myth, I found it intriguing to think it was still represented in the movie, or if this was just a simple coincidence. 

Week 6 - Wake In Fright

                During week 6 we watched the movie Wake in Fright.  To be honest I found this movie a bit unnerving.  There were many parts of the movie that I could barely stand to watch such as the scene where they are massacring the kangaroos and stabbing them to death.  However, I know that this was not the whole movie.  Our main goal this week was the bush legend and masculinity.  I think that although I did not particularly enjoy this film, it was a good representation of both of these ideas.

                In lecture we learned that masculinity is never a stable formation and it is constantly changing.  During tutorial we also learned that masculinity is not exactly a natural character type or role, but more simultaneously a place in gender.  I think masculinity was very strongly portrayed throughout the movie.  The massacre of the kangaroos is a prime example showing that men have power over the animals.  Another scene where it was evident was when Grant goes to Tim’s house and begins talking to his daughter Janette.  The other men are sitting around drinking and begin to question Grant’s sexuality since he would rather talk to Janette than play drinking games with them.  Women also did not play a huge role in this film.  When they were present, it was almost something of embarrassment for women.  Such as Janette, the only time she was around was when she had a short sexual interaction with Grant, and then she was talked about by Doc and all the men she’s had sexual relations with. There were many other examples of masculinity throughout the movie, these were just a few.

                During tutorial the group who went discussed a lot about the Ocker Films.  They described them as a film that refers to an Australian who speaks and acts in an uncultured manner.  They are often used to describe working class men from rural areas, often rough around the edges, and they often use slang or harsh language.  However, these men are often sympathized with and accepted by many people.  I thought it was very true when one of the girls in our class brought up the American movie,  Joe Dirt.  I think it is a perfect example of an Ocker male.  Thinking of him in this light definitely gave me a better handle on what exactly they were trying to describe.