According to Brian McFarlane, “The sentimental ideal of mateship may well be Australia’s chief contribution to the history of human relationships” (McFarlane, p. 62). Mateship depicts a code of equality, solidarity and friendship – usually amongst males. Mateship is a prominent concept in the way Australian’s think of themselves. This concept is weighed very heavily not only in terms of Australian culture, but especially Australian cinema. In James Page’s article, Is Mateship a Virtue?, he proposes, “The phenomenon of mateship is often claimed within public discourse to be a defining characteristic of what it means to be Australian” (Page 2002, p. 193). So what exactly does mateship entail? Page goes on to further state, “Mateship involves a state of being. Mateship involves action or at least a willingness to be committed to action. A mate is prepared to do things with and for certain others (mates). Additionally, mateship involves an affective element of solidarity. Mateship implies a certain bond or feeling of oneness which is felt with and for others” (Page 2002, p. 194).
Mateship cannot fully be understood unless it is looked at from the prospective of Australia’s myth of national identity as a whole. Mateship is not necessarily unique to Australia; however, it is an important aspect of their nationalism. Mateship became important in early colonial times because the harsh environment meant sticking together was essential for survival (Lovett 2007). The importance of mateship further emerged after World War I, which includes Gallipoli. In 1915, Australian troops landed at Gallipoli, cementing themselves into what was to become the ultimate Australian legend. Australia was a fledgling nation at the beginning of World War I, but emerged from it with newborn pride and a burning sense of national identity spawned by the year’s hardship and of eight months of continuous warfare in Gallipoli. The military defeat created an ironically celebrated notion, the Anzac spirit of mateship, courage, bravery and sacrifice which extends beyond mere comradeship. The intensity of the spirit was such that its significance not only encompassed Gallipoli, but extended to more recent times as well. The Anzac spirit was forged by the men at Gallipoli, peaking in a display of heroism and unity at the Battle of the Nek in 1915 (Australian Government, 2010). It was rekindled by future generations in the battlefield by the soldiers at the Kokoda Trail during World War II. The Anzac legend is still considered to be a key foundational narrative in terms of Australia’s national identity, and these values it entails dominate Australian cinema.
An important aspect of having a film industry is that it allows a very powerful medium (film) to reflect back on and present images of their country’s values and origins. Many films help to define the national identity and values of Australians to the rest of the world by encompassing the Anzac spirit and focusing on its specific ideals such as mateship (Freebury 1987, p. 16-18). The exclusive nature of the concept of mateship can best be demonstrated in film from the perspective of the adversity and experience of war. Gallipoli and Kokoda are two highly comparable Australian war films that embody the idea of mateship at their core as part of Australian identity.
Based on the historical battle against Turkish trenches in 1915, Peter Weir’s film Gallipoli not only captures the tragedy of war, but is also a story of mateship, courage and bravery of those who fell in the battle, and those who felt pain by their fall. It is a coming of age story of a young nation. The portrayal of Australia’s emerging nationhood is humanized with the focus on two young and inexperienced protagonists, Archy Hamilton and Frank Dunne. A series of shared events throughout the film bond these two boys powerfully, and by the time they hit the trenches of Gallipoli, they have become best mates. Gallipoli is a true representation of what mateship means to Australia. In Jane Freebury’s article, Screening Australia: Gallipoli – a study of nationalism on film, she does not fail to mention, “For Australians, Gallipoli reads ‘This is Australia.’ It projects the national identity” (Freebury 1987, p. 17). As mentioned earlier, mateship is a key concept of national identity.
Although Archy and Frank are two inherently different characters, the journey they share achieves a growth of feeling between the two. These two Australian’s have two very different views on war and made a friendship from it, and this friendship grew throughout the movie. Frank, the city slicker, and Archy, the country boy, began with many social barriers which were slowly broken down as the need for each other began to escalate. Their only real commonality is that they are both runners and this serves as a motif throughout the film. Mateship is captured in the film throughout many different scenes. One in particular expresses mateship to a point of borderline homosexuality. The two mates race to the pyramid, carve their names into the stone, and shake hands as the sun sets. The depiction of the race to the pyramids symbolized the bond between these two people and further displayed why they became so close.
The final scene is what really hits home to the concept of mateship and was by far the most powerful. Earlier I discussed how Page states, “A mate is prepared to do things with and for certain others.” Loyalty and selflessness are qualities that arise out of mateship. These qualities are shared between these two characters and portray what the true meaning of mateship means. Archy willingly switches roles with Frank and takes Frank’s place at the trenches, allowing Frank to be the runner (messenger). “In Australia, a ‘mate’ is more than just a friend. It’s a term that implies a sense of shared experience, mutual respect and unconditional assistance” (Australian Government, 2007). The obvious respect and unconditional assistance these two share for each other is clearly evident in this last scene.
The final minutes of the film contains dramatic back and forth scenes between Archy and Frank as Archy scrambles out of his trench, in the last sprint of his life, and Frank sprints to the front trying to save the life of his best mate. Archy’s death comes so suddenly and unnecessarily that we feel the blow as harshly as the Turkish rounds ripping into his chest in the final still frame. This scene symbolizes how mateship and bravery are embedded into Gallipoli and how they intertwine to give Australia its national identity. In an article by Neil Rattigan, he describes Archy’s death as, “he makes the ‘ultimate sacrifice’. His death is the death of the mythically true Australians” (Rattigan 1991, p. 135-138).
Moving from World War I to World War II, Kokoda, directed by Alister Grierson, is a very similar war movie yet it involves the mateship between a group of soldiers, rather than just two individuals. Both Gallipoli and Kokoda focused on the strong bond between youthful and innocent men who are on the brink of manhood, a status that will only be achieved by facing heroic challenges. The film follows the fortune of a young Australian, Jack, and his band of inexperienced soldiers as they battle through the jungle of Papua New Guinea to protect the village of Isurava on the Kokoda track. Once a Japanese assault is confirmed, Jack’s platoon is dispatched and soon cut off from supply lines. Stalked by an enemy that’s never clearly seen, the squad is reduced in number from ten to ultimately three. In order to make it through the most unforgiving terrain to get to safety, allegiances form and strengths and weaknesses emerge as the going continues to get tougher.
Once again, mateship is seen throughout the entirety of the film. Kokoda is said to have rekindled the Anzac myth and helped turn around the nation’s attitude towards war. With this being said, like Gallipoli, it embodies the values of the Anzac myth such as mateship sacrifice, bravery and endurance. Earlier, I mentioned that Page describes mateship as, “a certain bond or feeling of oneness which is felt with and for others.” This idea encompasses the movie’s attitude as a whole. As the soldiers in Jack’s platoon were slowly dying off, whether it be from battle or disease, they had to stick together as a team in order to survive.
The times of adversity bring out a person’s true character. In one particular scene, Max (Jack’s brother and one of the five remaining men of Jack’s platoon) was shot in the stomach. The men refused to leave him behind, and instead carried him through the rough terrain until they found a hut to keep him safe. This platoon was a team and they relied on each other. The bond they shared was one that represented them as a whole. If one man fell, they would do everything in their power as a group to keep him going. This also displays the durability of the connection between the men at war. This tight knit group represents a cement like bond, advancing through the adversity that is thrown their way. The text equally depicts the greatness of mateship and how the importance placed on it, is increased when placed under the threat of losing a mate, which could happen at any time during the film.
This film is different than Gallipoli in that, in a way it challenges the idea of mateship in war. In Kokoda there were two types of Australian soldiers: the AIF, who were the trained soldiers, and the other type who were scornfully referred to as “chocos” by the enlisted men – “chocolate soldiers who would melt in the heat of battle” (Kokoda, 2006). These two groups of soldiers did not get along with each other due to the fact that the AIF looked down upon the “chocos”. However, a quote from the Australian Government website in reference mateship defined through the experience of warfare states, “In the [Japanese POW] camps the Australians discarded their differences and became a tribe, a tribe which was always the most successful group. The core of this success was an ethos of mateship and egalitarianism which not only survived the ultimate dehumanizing duress of the death camps, but shone through as the dominant Australian characteristic. Mateship between soldiers helped define their manhood, and in turn, this helped define Australia as a nation” (Australian Government, 2007). This is ultimately what happened in the final minutes of the film. The “chocos” earned the respect of the AIF by uncommon courage and determination, by staying on to fight along side the AIF, even after their relief arrived. Mateship was looked at in a whole new light during this scene. It brought together the true meaning of Australia’s nationalism. The soldiers pride in who they were, and their love for their country exploded on the screen and left the viewer with a clear idea about what it meant to be an Australian, not an AIF or “chocos” during the war.
Mateship definitely has strong military resonances. Even though I’ve been talking about Kokoda as the film, the actual war memorial in Papua New Guinea commemorates the Kokoda Track. In remembrance of this bitter fight between the Japanese and Australians a memorial is set up with the words courage, mateship, endurance and sacrifice are inscribed on its pillars (Bird, 2002).
Both films, Gallipoli and Kokoda, helped to define the national identity of Australia to the rest of the world by focusing on nationalism, bravery, and mateship. Mateship is a uniquely Australian bond. It gave our country its identity, forged in the furnace of war. It is an integral part of Australian culture and its importance can be found wherever you look. In Freebury’s article, she also states, “Gallipoli is not much about Australian in war as it is a celebration of the national ideology. It is largely about what is intrinsically Australian – mateship, endurance, the outback, and a nationalistic belief in an as yet unrealized potential – sacrificed to an alien cause” (Freebury 1987, p. 17). I completely agree with this quote and I believe it is representative of not only Gallipoli, but also Kokoda. These two films deepen our understanding of the mateship between men. As the viewer in these films, I appreciated the power that mateship holds in Australia’s culture. It has enlightened me on what a true mate is, and depicted the strength of such a bond.
Bibliography:
Australian Government 2007 ‘Mateship, diggers and wartime’. Web. 25 May 2011
Australian Government 2010 ‘Gallipoli and the Anzacs’ Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Web. 25 May 2011 http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/
Bird, A 2002 ‘Kokoda’s heroes return’ Army The Soldiers Newspaper. Web 27 May 2011
Freebury, J 1987 ‘Screening Australia: ‘Gallipoli – a study of nationalism on film’ Media Information Australia, pp. 16-18.
Lovett, T 2007 ‘Mateship as an Australian Value’ The Epoch Times. Web. 28 May 2011.
McFarlane, B ‘Ch. 4: Mates and others in a wide brown land: images in Australia’ Australian Cinema 1970-1985, pp 62.
Page, S 2002 ‘Is Mateship a virtue?’ Australian Journal of Social Issues. P. 193-195. Web. 28 May 2011.
Rattigan, N 1991 ‘Gallipoli’ Images of Australia, pp 135-138
Filmography:
Gallipoli (Peter Weir, 1915)
Kokoda (Alister Grierson, 2006)
Kokoda badooya Shapooya
ReplyDelete