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.

Ned Kelly Film Review

Gregor Jordan’s film, Ned Kelly, is a mixture of Australian history and mythology.  Ned Kelly is the tale of a young man fighting for his rights as an Irish Australian.  It is based off of a true story and he is looked at today as a legend.  Kelly grew up in a hardworking family in the Australian outback.  After a false accusations of stealing a horse he is sent to prison for three years.  It comes to no surprise that after being imprisoned for so long, Kelly comes out with a bitter opinion of the British authority.  To further stir up his emotions, shortly after he emerges from jail he is falsely accused of injuring a police officer named Fitzpatrick.  And so begins the journey of Kelly and his gang (three other Irish Australians) as outlaws roaming through the Australian countryside.  While on the run his mother is imprisoned and his family is harassed.  This is when his hatred for the British authorities really shows.  Kelly becomes a full out bushranger, robbing banks and killing “coppers” (what they call police), sometimes without reason.  He pledged he would avenge his family and fight for justice against the British authorities that were so unrightfully corrupt.  Some people look at Ned Kelly purely as a merciless killer, but to many he is the sympathetic portrayal of one of Australia’s most famous and mythologized antiheros.

                As Jane Freebury states in her article titled, “Screening Australia:Gallipoli – a study of nationalism on film”, “Films set in the past usually have some point to make about the present, and serve an ideological purpose”.  As mentioned above, Ned Kelly is known as a folk hero from the past.  His story is recurrently told because the identities invested in Kelly (bravery, sacrifice, masculinity) fuse with those of Australians to help form Australians national identification.  Not only is Kelly important in Australia’s past, but also the fact of how crooked the British authorities were plays a major role in Australia history.  Fitzpatrick is a prime example of dishonesty in the system.  He lies about having a warrant, falsely accuses Kelly of trying to kill him, and nearly molests Kelly’s sister, Kate.  I believe this history is an important part of the film because Kelly’s story made a huge influence on many of the Australian people, and many say it may have instigated the beginning of Australia’s political movement.

                Over the past few weeks of this course I have learned that myths have helped to formulate Australia’s national identity.  There are many scenes in this film that represent Australian mythology; for example, the idea of Ned Kelly’s metal armour.  In the final scene Kelly emerges from the inn solo and takes on hundreds of bullets being shot at him.  However, not one bullet pierced through him.  The characteristics that Kelly shows in this scene and in others throughout the movie remind me of the Anzac myth as well.  Kelly can be looked at as a “soldier” in this “war” possessing the characteristics of endurance, courage, and ingenuity that the soldiers had at Gallipoli (Rattigan, 3).  What I also find interesting is the glorification of outlaws.  Kelly is robbing banks and breaking the law and yet, he’s a good guy.  If he’s killing to avenge his family and all those who have dealt with the unjust British, does that make it okay? 

                Ned Kelly not only exposes some of the darker sides of Australian history but it also is a great representation of Australian mythology and culture. Historically, it does a great job of exposing the hardships that Irish Australians faced in the late 1800’s. While culturally, it does a great job of representing the anti-heroic bushmen and outlaws of Australian legend.

Sources:

Freebury, Jane. “Screening Australia: Gallipoli – A study of Nationalism of Film.” Media Information Australia

Rattigan, Neil. “Gallipoli 1981”. Images of Australian 100 Films of The New Australian Cinema. 1991.

Gallipoli Concept Analysis

Based on the story of the Anzac battlefield at Gallipoli during the First World War, the film Gallipoli, directed by Peter Weir, is a true representation of the viewpoints of Australians, and the effects that the war had on them.  The film (and the battle’s) heartbreaking ending brought a sense of national identity to Australia. Australians were willing to fight for their country without even the slightest idea as to what they were fighting for.  Gallipoli was such a significant event in Australia’s history that many people believed that it coincided with the start of Australia’s growth of nationalism (Freebury, 17). In light of this, it is evident that nationalism was certainly a key concept in this film.

Nationalism can be defined as allegiance and devotion to the interests of one’s own country (“nationalism”).  Archy Hamilton, and later in the movie Frank Dunne, humanize nationalism in the film through their dedication and eagerness to fight for their country.  From the beginning Archy knew that he wanted to take part in the war. He wanted to defend his country.  While Archy and Frank were venturing through the desert they came across a stranger who asked them why they were going to war.   Archy responded with the idea that he would stop the Turks before they entered into Australia (Gallipoli). I felt that neither Archy nor Frank knew the exact purpose of the campaign or why they were going to fight, but this did not stop them from putting their own lives on the line between Australia and her enemies.  Their naivety to the truth, but willingness to go on and fight in the war, further emphasizes the idea of loyalty to their country. 

                As stated in Jane Freebury’s article, “Screening Australia: Gallipoli – a study of nationalism on film”, “Australian audiences responded to the film’s celebration of the national identity” (Freebury, 17).  National identity is a significant part of nationalism.  National identity is an image of a nation; who and what a nation is made up of.  When Gallipoli was released the Australian audience felt a sense of pride and unity.  It wasn’t just another movie; it was a chance to let fiction and history mix to relive the Gallipoli myth.   Within the film there was a slice of history, Australian ideals (such as bravery, nationalism, and mateship), and the symbol of the outback (Rattigan, 19).  All of these aspects worked together in the film to present a clear vision of Australia’s national identity.

                The true bravery of the soldiers became apparent in the final scene of the movie.  The Australian soldiers willingly put themselves in a situation of inevitable mass suicide by leaving the trenches and attacking the Turks.  Even though the soldiers knew they had no chance of survival, they followed their orders because their pride for their country took over and propelled them forward.  This final scene also captured the true meaning of mateship. From the beginning of the movie, Archy’s dedication to the war was clearly much stronger than Frank’s.  Originally Archy was assigned the job of the runner, which would take him out of the battle in order to relay messages. Almost without thought, Archy passed the job of runner to Frank, and took Frank’s spot in the line of soldiers. Archy knew why he had enlisted in the war, which was to fight for his country.  He loved his country and would do whatever it took to help keep it safe.  And though Frank loved his country too, he felt stronger about the mateship he had developed with his fellow soldiers. He would do anything to protect them from what could only be described as an inevitable slaughter. In the beginning of the movie when the others are talking about joining the war, Frank states that he wouldn’t be joining because he had no interest in dying for his country, but by the end of the movie Frank would have died for his country in an effort to protect his mates. Nationalism and mateship are both part of the Australian national identity, and both shine proudly in this film.

                The film Gallipoli helped to define the national identity of Australians to the rest of the world by focusing on nationalism, bravery, and mateship. 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 Australian during the war. I can see why Australians were so proud of this film because I think that it portrayed them as a unified young nation determined to protect itself. Before the battle Archy tells his fellow soldiers to “make our country proud,” and clearly, they did.             Gallipoli is truly a tribute to Australia’s undeniable sense of nationalism and national identity.

Sources:

Freebury, Jane. “Screening Australia: Gallipoli – A study of Nationalism of Film.” Media Information Australia

Gallipoli. Peter Weir. Film. 1981.

“nationalism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 29 Mar. 2011. <Dictionary.com

                http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism>.

Rattigan, Neil. “Gallipoli 1981”. Images of Australian 100 Films of The New Australian Cinema. 1991.

Week 5 - Mad Max

This week in lecture we watched the movie Mad Max.  I actually really enjoyed this action type film.  There seemed to never be a dull moment so I was constantly at attention.  Mad Max was an action film based in Australia that included themes of love, vengeance, and society.  The gang in the area kept the cops constantly on edge and after the death of his best friend, wife, and child, the protagonist in the film Max turned into what you could consider a madman and was basically an executioner.  He went after every member of the gang in revenge for what they took away from him. 

                Before the lecture we talked a lot about the influence of land and how landscape can affect film.  Landscape can help shape a national identity, especially in Australia.  The Outback is often a symbol of Australia.  We also talked a lot about the sublime which is a mixed feeling of pleasure and pain that we feel in the face of something of great magnitude and grandeur.  This sublime is so great we can’t even comprehend its limits.  It was given an example as the ocean.  We know how beautiful the coastline is and we can conceive the ocean, however we cannot understand the center of the ocean and the loneliness it contains.  The extent of its magnitude is just too great.

                When I watched the movie I tried to think about the landscape and its part in the movie.  To be completely honest I couldn’t find exactly how it tied in.  However, during our tutorial we further discussed the landscape theory and the influence it had on the movie.  I understand now that the movie couldn’t have taken place if it wasn’t in this location.  Every time we saw the highway with empty land all around it you knew something extreme was about to happen. 

                From the reading by Morris I also learned the importance of “premonition of repetition” which is, ‘It is almost mandatory in action films that a shot of calm, beautiful scenery anticipates terrible events, in Australian film, and idyllic beach scene in particular..’.  I would not have picked up on that myself in the movie but now thinking back I can remember Jess lying peacefully on the beach when she hears seagulls call and she looks around to find complete “nothingness”. 

Week 4 - Newsfront

This week in lecture we talked a lot about Americanization and how Australia can just not compete with America in the film industry.  They do not have the money or budget to it.  We also continued discussing how American and Australian films are different.  I found it very interesting how Australian films have much more freedom in what their movies are about.  American films are often very specific in their genre.  I also was very intrigued by the discussion of the difference between American figures and Australian figures in film.  I learned Americans are often problematic figures and Australians often need to negotiate and come to terms with which can make them feel inferior. 

After lecture we watched the movie Newsfront.  I found this to be a very interesting movie. The movie was about a group of news reporters who risk their lives for the sake of making the news. I think I enjoyed it because the movie kept me guessing what exactly was going on.  It almost seemed to be missing transitions between scenes so you had to pay careful attention to interpret what exactly was happening.  I also saw some key concepts that often tend to be part of Australia’s identity.  There was definitely a great amount of bravery and sacrifice in this movie.  For example one man even dies in a flood while in pursuit of a story.  Along with this incident there were multiple other times the news men sacrificed their lives to get a good shot or a better angle.