Art Film: The Interdependencies and Distinctions of High and Low Culture - An American and Australian Study

Hierarchy exists within the medium of film through social, economic, and stylistic distinctions. Elite interests and biases that run counter to those of the majority (or mass culture) construct models and prototypes for high art and prestigious cinematography. High art, in film and other artistic expressions, is defined as entertainment and culture aimed at upper-class, distinguished members of society, while low art caters to the interests of the average masses as popular culture. That which is considered to be high or low art is constantly evolving, reformulating, and adapting to current cultural, political, and economic movements of the particular environment and time. Distinction established between high and low art in film is drawn from aesthetics, intellectual content, societal reflection, exhibition methods, and artistic independence and license to control all aspects of production. While high art strives to be distinct and self-actualized, it is its interdependence with, and reliant relationship on, “low” art and culture that constructs its identity and objectives. The art film and the ideologies embedded within its creation are derived from the contrast with what is considered to be low or mass cultural art. Examining the rise of the art film and comparing its significance and influence on different societies internationally, we can further understand from where and how the contrast between high and low cinematography was bred. Developing and progressing in film industries since the 1920s, art film continues to challenge more mainstream forms of film. This research paper will explore the introduction and rise of art films in America and Australia, the rise and complications of the independent system, and the implications of defining high cultured forms of artistic expression against the culture of the masses and majority. I will argue that the divide between high and low art, pertaining predominantly to art film, is a fading distinction that has created a dichotomy between two concepts that are very interdependent. I will also argue that the differentiation between high and low art has stratified audiences internationally and has placed limitations on cultural and artistic expression.

The Introduction of Art Films

Art film, and what it eventually came to represent, rose out of a response to the growing moving picture industry establishing itself during the first few decades of the twentieth century. Both in America and Australia, technological advancements and growing economies where providing more space for creativity and incentives to build industry around the arts. Hollywood and other film industries were emerging excitedly and “the cinema” was becoming ingrained in social life. The 1920s marked an era of cultural stratification and hierarchy among the arts that elevated certain forms of artistic expression above others. The result of “the emergence of a growing differentiation of cultural products” was that it “brought with it a nearly simultaneous differentiation of performance, space and audience” (Hawkins 18). Industrialization and the rise of capitalism provided it to be only natural that “the cultural products consumed during leisure time [like film] would themselves emerge as important signifiers of social prestige and class standing” (Hawkins 18). Art cinema catered to a developing stratified culture and took an alternative, but assumed position, to Hollywood cinema on the ladder of artistic hierarchy.

Art film is difficult to define as it encompasses most movements that were striving to build alternatives to the Hollywood and commercialized systems of film writing, production, and distribution. David Bordwell, in his article “The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice”, acknowledges that the American studio style of feature filmmaking in Hollywood during these times rested upon “particular assumptions about narrative structure, cinematic style, and spectatorial activity” (57). Mainstream cinema used prescribed cinematographic devices to advance narratives in order to help “the viewer make sense of the classical film through criteria of verisimilitude, generic appropriateness and of compositional unity” (Bordwell 57). Art cinema approaches the objectives of film quite differently in that it “defines itself explicitly against the classical narrative mode” and is “less concerned with action than reaction” (Bordwell 57-58). Characterized as “puzzle-like”, art film is often “constructed in such a way that the audience plays the game of interpretation” throughout and after the viewing process (Moran &Vieth 30). The puzzle construction is “part of the textual strategy of the art of film” that is aimed at encouraging “explicit explication and hypothesizing as part of the total viewing situation” (Moran & Vieth 30). Described as realistic cinema, art films showcase real and raw problems, locations, and psychologies that undeniably contribute to very distinctive cinematic experiences. Bordwell constructs the art film as rebellious in nature as “the aesthetics and commerce of the art cinema often depend[ed] on an eroticism that violate[d] the production code of pre- 1950 Hollywood” (57). Created in deliberate contradiction to mainstream Hollywood films, art cinema established an alternative form of filmmaking and film-consuming that both implicitly and explicitly critiqued the growing hegemony of the commercial feature and its form, as well as the audience it was creating.

Hollywood, and its efforts to build a commercial industry out of film, established set formulas for filmmaking, which spread on an international scale. The First World War and the rise of globalization provided the United States with the power to dictate what and how films would be made. Hollywood became the master of the filmmaking blueprint, inherently molding national cinemas outside of America and creating a homogenous film climate in which rebellion was guaranteed to burgeon.

Australia emulated this influenced process and has been struggling with the consequences of American hegemony in the film industry ever since. Attributed to its physical remoteness, a natural and unadulterated cinema was developing in Australia during the silent era (Rayner 9). This infrastructure soon withered in the wake of the First World War and in the rise of Hollywood to international economic dominance. Australian film companies were soon monopolized and owned by “American and British chains that soon began to favor cheap American and British imports over indigenous films” from Australia (Rayner 9). In an essay co-written by Australians Ruth Balint and Greg Dolgopolov, American hold over Australian cinema is explained as shocking as by 1927, 90 per cent of all films screened in Australia came from America, resulting in the near extinction of independent film production in the 1930s (35). The circumstances of the faltering Australian film industry are as follows:

“[o]nce Hollywood was established as the main film producer and exporter, Australia was reduced to a consumer status. The few locally made films looked to America for style and subject: To recap their costs in the home market, they had to appeal to an Australian audience that [had become] acquainted with and that preferred to watch American products” (Rayner 10).

Drenched in American influence almost a century later, Australian audiences and filmmakers on large are still consuming and creating classical Hollywood methods of filmmaking. While this influence has suppressed the evolution of a strong Australian film identity, it has provided much opportunity and space to rebel against the system and make films, genres, and styles in response to such homogenous and hegemonic forces.

While Australia took longer to establish insurgents in the film realm, there was no shortage of non-conformists in America. Art cinema was born out of organized opposition to the commercial film industry, establishing alternative forms of artistry as well as alternative means of distribution and advertisement. In the United States, the Little Theatre Movement of the 1920s worked to “rejec[t] Hollywood’s formula of a disposable, mass produced and impersonal cinema” and instead, sought to favour a personal cinema that would explore the boundaries of film art established within the respected and highly regarded sphere of fine arts (Guzman 261). The movement would create an alternative exhibition system that would cater to smaller audiences of the intellectually elite and oppose any commercial influence. Art films were those that would engage an active audience and breed discussion and analytical criticism. American films artistic and alternative enough to showcase for educated and wealthy audiences were difficult to find, forcing the Film Theatre Movement to turn to Europe for superior work (Guzman 262). Foreign films popularized these art film house exhibitions and sustained their national growth until the mid 1920s. The Releasing cinema from commercial constraints, the Little Theatre group was able to create “a site for serious discussion of film aesthetics” as well as nurture the growing experiments in film form (Guzman 283). The Little Theatre Movement, a simple example of alternative mobilization, sparked the beginning of organized resistance to mainstream cinematic culture, ultimately contributing to future successes of experimental and independent films, festivals and organizations both in the United States and abroad.

Transitioning Times

Art cinema was introduced and materialized throughout the 1920s with successes drawn from those who believed alternative cinema to be important enough (ideologically, aesthetically and economically) to deserve distribution. Art cinema and its alternative elements depended on the growing propagation of popular and mass culture in order to construct its own identity and techniques. Hollywood with its strict corporate systems, prescribed production methods, and economic power, established a strong and secure platform upon which the alternative filmmakers could contradict, oppose, and criticize in the name of high art. Movements of resistance were gaining speed with advancements in technology (like the introduction of 16mm film in 1924), resulting in thousands of amateur filmmakers, film clubs, national Little Theatre expansion, and the debut of the avant-garde movement (MacDonald 3). Despite some dry periods during sore economic, political, and war environments throughout the 1930s and 1940s, movements of counter-culture were growing in number and in recognition. After the Second World War, there was opportunity and economy finally available to rebuild alternative film industries and societies that would ultimately communicate and create an increasingly global non-mainstream movement.

At this point, both in America and abroad, advancements within the art cinema movement were propelled by the desire for independent and complete artistic control. The stratification of culture and art was reaffirmed when art cinema began prospering again, re-establishing a strong distinction between the mainstream and the alternative. Hollywood and commercial cinema made for the masses was publicized on a large scale with massive budgets, stars, directors, and low culture advertising schemes, while art film, on the other had, was gaining reputation and spectatorship through word of mouth, film festivals and high culture exposure at museums and reputable exhibitions (MacDonald 4).

In Australia, film councils and societies began to grow, while film festivals became integral to Australian metropolitan institution. Arthouse venues began popping up, taking cues from other international alternative movements. Underground and experimental filmmaking emerged in both Australia and the United States through European avant-garde influences during throughout the 1950s and 1960s, providing even more opportunities for alternative filmmaking as well as the resources and support to do so successfully (Balint & Dolgopolov 37). Filmmaker cooperatives were established and promoted as embodying concepts of self-sufficiency and autonomous creation, promotion, and distribution amidst the commercial industry that was controlled entirely by studios, banks and corporations. This distinction and necessity of the alternate has always defined the art film industry and culture. Art cinema and its methods and objectives has given rise to a genre that is distinguishable merely through its deliberate attempt to counter anything that could be representational of Hollywood form or style. While many forms of cinematic expression fall under the umbrella term of film art and Hollywood rebellion, the progression of time has blurred the line of strict distinction between what is considered mainstream and what is created as alternative to this.

The Contemporary State of Art Film

There are countless changes and challenges that have shaped the independent and mainstream cinema industries over the past century. Within the past fifty years alone, issues such as competition from foreign film industries, changes in public taste, severe government regulations, labour relations and the advent of television and other visual technologies have complicated and blurred the lines between what holds artistic agency and superiority and what doesn’t (Holm 53). A rejection of Hollywood studio power after the Second World War resulted in a newfound autonomy for many producers, directors, and writers as well as a deliberate move away from many traditional Hollywood methods (Holm 20). The rise of art film under the title of independent film also mirrored “advances in light weight and inexpensive filmmaking technology”, making the medium of artistic expression more accessible to people wanting to create for the sake of art and not necessarily for the same of commerce (Holm 22; Berra 9). These changes in the American film scene set the stage for many debates regarding alternative film’s legitimacy, especially in very economically driven societies.

The contemporary state of alternative cinema is one of little independence. Many films marketed as independent of off the mainstream are, in reality, created under independent branches of the largest film corporations and studios (Holm 115). Since there is no economic classification of an independent film, it has evolved into a genre that has cultivated expectations of what a non-mainstream film production might entail. Major film distributors can cater to these expectations and promote them as “independent films” even though they have dipped into large cash reserves to produce, distribute, and exhibit them. Contemporary distribution methods have also drastically affected the art film culture, blurring it’s superior stats as high art. The internet has created an arena of access to alternative material that does not require specific social membership, education, or insight to engage with it. Advancements like this one are very important to the perpetuation of interest in the art film and genres that it promotes. Accessibility provides the creative work with legitimacy, providing more people with incentive to participate and engage in discussion and exploration of the art form.

The reality of the success of the art film is incumbent upon a national movement to embrace art and culture beyond what is considered mainstream or created for the masses. This can be especially difficult in countries like Australia that have always been shadowed by the United States and the perpetual prosperity and hegemony of Hollywood. Australian and other relatively developed and economically stable countries are continuously trying to maintain their position in the film industry while experimenting with film production formulations that will both boast national identity and bring revenue. Australian art films of the 1970s and early 1980s jump-started the Australian film revival, creating a film fusion between Hollywood cinema and European auteurism (Rayner 9). Government and funding agencies were, for a time, more liberal and more willing to support projects that were not necessarily mainstream or Hollywood driven. Some of Australia’s most iconic, discussed, and analyzed films came out of this period like Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), eventually leading to the absorption of art film elements into the contemporary Australian cinema identity. Since the 1990s, “the perversity of government film funding and the closure of independent arthouse venues” has resulted in a contraction in the production and consumption of alternative feature films in Australia (Balint & Dolgopolv 37). While there will always been booms and busts in artistic creation, motivations, and resources, success, especially of alternative art forms, is reliant on a public willing to seek out projects, filmmakers willing to make sacrifices for the sake of art, and government institutions ready to support these avenues.

Under the present-day economic conditions of our societies and industries, it is relatively impossible to work entirely outside of the field of economic power that ultimately controls studios, distributors, exhibitors, and promotional media. Film art has, under the circumstances of economic integration and dependency, become difficult to create and promote outside of the dominant mainstream industry of filmmaking. There has been a very obvious shift in art film from experimental, autonomous, self-made filmmaking to a genre that is now very closely linked to corporations and the very essence of Hollywood (Holm 33). Where might this leave the distinctive high and low culture and art divide?

Art film and the forms of expression it encompasses have been historically defined by strict contrast to mainstream media and culture generators. While this direct opposition and contradistinction is what has previously characterized and identified the art forms, it is also what has hindered its successes and popularity. The essence of the art film is one of independence, restriction and engagement, while mainstream media is perceived to be controlled corporately, available to the masses, and easily consumed and forgotten. Under more contemporary economic circumstances, these distinctions have become blurred, and art film has become very integrated into mainstream, mass-culture systems of filmmaking. By distinguishing art and culture into high and low categories, American and Australian societies have stratified audiences, dividing them into a hierarchy of classification with high and superior spectatorship at the top, and low and common commercial consumerism at the bottom. Understanding that high art is completely dependent upon low art as a system to be defined against, the contemporary blurring of the two spheres is not as detrimental as many critics believe. A recognized co-dependence provides art films with the economic means to create and inspire while providing more people with the opportunity to engage with art outside of the mainstream system. Expressive limitations can be removed by the blurring of the high and low distinction, providing a richer body of creative text to be explored and criticized by an ever-increasing number of people.

A Comparative Analysis

Comparing Australian and American films is both easy, because there are so many American films known and available to choose from, and difficult because Australian films are not widely circulated, promoted or advertised outside of Australia. Through my recent explorations into the realm of Australian film, I have discovered a few gems that stand up against many American knockouts and are able to hold there own in the Hollywood climate. Australian experiences, while taking place on a separate continent, are no different in emotional strength than many American experiences. Films tap into these emotions and are able to connect to audiences regardless of their nationality. In the case of this comparative analysis I am going to collate the likeness of experience, emotion, and familial dynamics in two coming-of-age films from the United States and Australia.

Black Balloon (2008) and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (1993) are both films that explore the difficult subject of autism and the ways it affects family lifestyles, emotions, responsibilities, and development. Both Black Balloon and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape use teenage boys dealing with an autistic sibling as protagonists to drive the evolution of learnt lessons and accepted love. The boys are faced with adversity that they have been familiar with since they were born or their brothers were born, but find themselves dealing with it very differently when their attitudes and desires start to change as teenagers and they are dealt much more familial responsibility as a result of it. The films are incredibly similar in that the drama is ignited by the autistic brothers’ unpredictable and often unmanageable actions, outbursts, and curiosities. Charlie, in Black Balloon, and Arnie, in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, have multiple moments throughout the film that stimulate commotion and chaos that not only affect and disrupt the families and communities within the film, but impact and challenge the audience as well. While these tense moments create anxiety and stress, they are also, in many cases, the reason the plot evolves, develops, and spawns opportunities for new relationships and personal reflection. The ways in which the characters deal with these events showcase a continuous learning process through humility, compassion, tolerance and forgiveness.

A point of interest in both the films is the overwhelming sense and power of female agency in both the stories. Becky, the teenage girl in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, and Jackie in Black Balloon, both convey assured acceptance of the teenage boys and their autistic brothers. They are compassionate and free-loving without judgment or criticism. They provide support and emotional outlets to the boys who, at various points in both the respective films, are on the verge of lashing out because of the injustices of their situations and their desires to lead “normal lives”. The girls are genuine and sources of strength and wisdom in both the stories providing security and praise to the boys who are in desperate need of it. The mothers in both the films are also very dynamic characters. Both women, despite their own struggles and vices, represent the core of the families; central to the reasons things are looked after and people are loved.

The concept of the “dysfunctional” family is explored in both the films as well. Their own circumstances as well as the pressures and judgments of the communities they find themselves within challenge both families. The tagline for Black Balloon is “Normality is relative”, which could work easily for What’s Eating Gilbert Grape as well. Gilbert Grape’s family is quite a bit more dysfunctional with his obese mother who will not leave or look after the house, his stubborn siblings, and the loss of his father to suicide, however, there is normalcy in the way the family is growing and learning and loving each other. All the things they feel and convey to the audience are integral to the narrative and also to the process of growing up and accepting yourself and the ones you love. Autism, in this sense, is just a complexity of both the stories that adds detail and depth to family expectation rather than an excuse for character development and coming-of-age.

While representing two separate countries and cultures, the films to not necessarily promote or showcase blatant American or Australian traits. Without the accents, the stories could be internationally interchangeable. Focused more on family values and the trials of growing up, the films use universal themes to get their messages across instead of elements of specific national identity. This said, there are certain landscape and lifestyle traits that do act as national subjects, representing each respective country and providing opportunity for the national audiences to make deeper connections.

Black Balloon was criticized for using stereotypes of the ocker father and the tireless mother and was said to have “darkened sooner than you would expect for an Aussie drama” which made some audiences uncomfortable watching the film. The landscape is representative of Australian suburbia and mirrors modern “western” style family landscapes in most ways. Comfort and freedom is sought by venturing into the bush away from civilization, and the ideologies behind Australian spirit and tenacity provide an emotionally and narratively strong and positive ending.

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape is set in a small American town, which is associated with typical American fried food, motor-homes, and the free landscape. Again, the characters drive or run out into the country and the open space to get away from the stresses of their lives. The film forays into other themes of corporate takeover and the demise of family run businesses and honest independent entrepreneurship; themes that are central to American culture.

Both films deal with the concept of acceptance and societal judgments and expectations of a certain degree of order and normality. In challenging these conventions, both films bring to light the raw importance of family and love, tolerance, and compassion for those we care about which transcend the borders of national film. Both Black Balloon and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape are films that showcase emotions that the human race, no matter the nationality, can connect to. National cinemas, while influenced by culture, politics, and social systems, are integral to other national cinemas in inspiring comparative differences and sharing common and universal themes of natural human nature and emotion.

Commodifying experience: Representations of Stories that are not Ours

A Concept Analysis:

The entertainment industry functions to identify with a public through familiar sentiment and experience. While many motion pictures project fantastic storylines that are hard to relate to for common audiences, they usually establish strong universal emotions that are received and understood by the spectators. Over exaggerated and unrealistic storylines can be compensated for through themes of sentiment like love, sadness, longing, anger, etc. Phillip Noyce’s film Rabbit-Proof Fence recounts an unbelievable tale of three young, half-caste girls escaping the Moore River Native Settlement and walking some 1600km home to their families in Jigalong. Based on actual events and true life stories of 3 Indigenouns women, sensitivity is essential in the recounting of such emotional circumstances, consequences, and realities. This particular series of events is difficult to relay to, and provoke identification with, audiences who have not experienced the struggles of many native indigenous peoples. The commodification of experience is a controversial issue that questions genuine empathy, accurate representation, and the exploitation of struggle.

Empathy is a selling agent as well as a powerful method of rousing activism. When promoters of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence created a “marketing campaign that asked its audience to celebrate, deplore, feel, and reflect upon, in equal measure, the experiences of the girls,” their goal was to breed a reaction that would spark sympathy and the sensation of shared experience to give the film powerful emotional resonance. The problems with empathy and sympathy are not in their sincerity, but in the idea that these experiences, struggles, and emotions, cannot be fully understood or shared when one has only identified with them through the medium of a film. In the case of Daisy, Gracie, and Molly, their experience seems almost cheapened if, for example, a Caucasian, middle-class, North-American audience can draw emotional equality from an experience very far from anything they can even begin to comprehend. The concept of owning or associating oneself with an experience that is not entirely personal can create a dissonance between the sentiments and actions of the actors of the specific experience and the spectators consuming the experience.

The idea of ownership of experience, as described by Tony Hughes D’aeth, is ultimately reasserted throughout the entire story-building and filmmaking experience. Who has agency within the experience? Molly and Daisy who are still alive and speaking openly about their real-life struggles? Is it the filmmaker Phillip Noyce who has re-created the story through his own personal lens and gaze? Or is it the audience who decides what holds emotional importance, and what they will do with the knowledge they have gained or been reminded of? Accurate representation is dependant upon who holds agency and who is responsible in the re-creation and the event. Recreating a story, whether it is for commercial response or social movement, still involves the re-creation of an experience to sell, exhibit, and consume. Representations, identities, and raw emotion will change according to who is making this re-creation and their personal identification with the film and the cause driving it.

Film as part of the culture industry must grapple with ideas that are positive as well as negative. The most influential and striking films revolve around uncomfortable, emotional, and very difficult issues. Rabbit-Proof Fence provides the grounds for devastation and the ability of the filmmakers to create an audio and visual experience that will shake an audience whether they have any association with the real events. It is almost disturbing to think that people are profiting from a commodity which trades on traumatic memories, but maybe these are the kinds of stories that need to be told in order to make social progress and a more conscious society.

Drawing from class material, The Good Woman of Bangkok is a film by Dennis O’Rourke that exemplifies the vulnerability of the subject and the dissonance that is created between the audience and the reality of the experience. The question of ethics is obviously in question in this case, but the representation of the Thai prostitute’s life and person seems more appropriate to the idea of commodifying experience. Using the “interventionist”, “observationist” and “participatory” gaze, two terms researched by Linda Williams in her article on “The Ethics of Documentary Intervention”, this documentary is aiming to provoke emotions and reactions from those who watch and consume it. Whether or not the documentary was made to fulfill a political or problematic social agenda, it succeeds in bringing an honest and serious issue to light. The filmmaker and the camera use Aoi, the Thai prostitute, to get to the core of the issue and, in a way, exploit her emotions, opinions, undesirable lifestyle and mental state to dramaticize a problem for audiences that are very far removed from the realities of the lives of women in sex industries in lesser developed countries. The article suggests that there can be “no morally pure position” in the documentation or representation of another. Any story that is not our own could then be understood as a commodification of experience that provides a subscribed lens through which audiences are instructed to see situations, people. events, and emotions through.

Rabbit-Proof Fence and The Good Woman of Bangkok identify with their audiences through the establishment of emotional response. Audiences can relate to the depth and the drive of love and family in Rabbit-Proof Fence as well as find themselves compassionate and empathetic towards Aoi and the sacrifices she makes for her family in O’Rourke’s documentary. Providing the opportunity to make connections with the characters and events despite potential distance between our life experience and “theirs” is what connotes a strong and emotional film for most. Commodifying experience is not inherently negative as it can provoke thought and create a consciousness that may not have been there in the first place. Critical inquiry as to why events, people, and experiences are represented certain ways is crucial to a respectful and informed opinion of the implications affecting the subjects of our entertainment.

Ethics in Documentary Filmmaking

The documentary.

Who knew such a word could carry so much weight, ability to influence, and potential to be dismissed? The art of “documenting” requires conscious positioning within the story being investigated as well as an acceptance of great ethical responsibility.

Interested in the documentary stream myself, questions about proper technical and moral procedures provoke ideas that extend beyond the subjective opinions of what I could /would ever want to document. What responsibility does the filmmaker have towards the people they film? How does the filmmaker redress the unequal balance of power that exists between them and the people they collaborate with? What is the relationship between ‘fact’ and ‘truth’, between ‘actuality’ and ‘reality’, between ‘knowing’ in the sense of being informed and of ‘understanding’ in the sense of being made concerned? Representing ‘others’ and representing ‘reality’ to make a case or to suit the interests of agencies that are supporting or funding the filmmaking activities raise debates about ethical representation and film theory as a social-change medium. The process of filmmaking and the construction of a narrative based on the “real” are far more constrictive and potentially destructive when they are not fictitious.

The Good Woman From Bangkok raised a number of these ethical questions. Denis O’Rourke’s decision to play a participatory and intervening role in the documentation of a Thai prostitute’s life for the purpose of self-discovery after a failed marriage prompts many questions of power, purpose, reason, and representation. All aspects of the film could be argued to be positive in the sense that it relays a message to a very blind and ignorant audience about the objectification and financial insecurities of women in third world sex industries, but also negatively in the sense that the film itself objectifies these women and was made by participating and contributing to the system that is creating this inequality and abuse. Can one document or reveal without participating?

The questions that rise out of projects dealing with “real” people and situations requires a sensitization of the author about their role and the limitations that are sometimes inevitable as a documentary filmmaker. Grappling with such questions does not necessarily mean ever finding any answers, but remaining conscious of such complications is probably a vital process for self understanding of the people, places, and issues filmmakers want to document and make public.

Indigenous Representation

Indigenous representation in the film industry is a problem that extends beyond the parameters of Australian cinema and Australian Indigenous discourse. As a problem that has only really recently come to light in academia and popular culture, skewed representation is just starting to build support and appeal networks across nations that construct such images and identities. Among these nations, Canada and the United States of America are large contributors to films that objectify populations, promote out-dated stereotypes and discriminate statistically against indigenous participation in the making of such representations. There is a strong “culture of forgetting” that acts as a convenient amnesia with regards to settler and indigenous relations in history and a lack of recognition of indigenous identity as being Australian identity. Assimilation and the policies that justified the destruction of indigenous identity, culture and dispossession have slowly been integrated into narratives concerning and/or involving indigenous peoples, however there are still many instances of racism and discrimination through written roles, casting, and representation in feature films.

The struggle for honest and politically correct representation is not something new or innovative. In 1972 Marlon Brando’s performance as Vito Corleone in The Godfather was praised and selected as the Academy’s selection for Best Actor. Brando turned down the Oscar and boycotted the award ceremony sending instead an American Indian Rights activist to advocate the issues surrounding the depiction of American Indians by Hollywood and television. Australia and Canada have had similar lobbying groups and many academics have written on the subject, but there is still not as much critical thinking, analysis, or action working towards stronger and more positive Indigenous representation in these film industries. This weekend’s Indigenous Film Festival (MessageSticks) is exemplary of the kinds of information, images, and attitudes that need to infiltrate into more international communities to change the perceptions that have been constructed by decades of colonialism and racism.

Follow this link to watch Sacheen Littlefeather refusing to accept the Best Actor Oscar on behalf of Marlon Brando for his performance in "The Godfather" in 1973 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QUacU0I4yU

Gothic Cinema

Gothic cinema, as explored by David Thomas and Gary Gillard, cannot be considered a genre of a category of classification as it infiltrates through a “broad range of cultural literacies”. Within these streams the concept of “gothic” is constantly evolving and changing with times, people, and places. “Threads of Resemblance in New Australian Gothic Cinema” investigates the idea that “gothic” is a cultural characteristic of Australian cinema, and while seemingly impossible to actually determine what Australian cinema is in a definition, gothic elements are recognized as running rampant through many Aussie productions. The ordinariness and ugliness that is popular in projected Australian culture stands as the foundation upon which narratives of discomfort and disorder can be realized. The “unsettling” and the “terrifying” in common everyday spaces creates stylistic opportunities to establish eeriness and curiosity. Many Australian films use these conventions to create intrigue by introducing familiarity to the audience and then drawing them in through their own anxiety and inquisitiveness as to why they feel something is not quite right. These feelings of perversion of the senses is what drives gothic cinema and the opportunity to create “the remarkable out of the unremarkable”.

Immanuel Kant, an 18^th century German philosopher, identified a split in perception between the seen and the unseen. Integral to this study is the concept of the “phenomena” as a complex sensation that is accepted through the perception of objects as we see them and its relationship with the noumena as something understood as the sensory feelings that are attributed to things that are beyond our visual capabilities. Embedded in the characteristics of Gothic culture, Kant’s exploration of both phenomena and noumena relate to the eccentric, perverse, uneasy, and uncanny-ness that is often implied through cognitive understandings that can be known to, or completely independent of the senses.

Gothic cinema plays with sensations that are derived, seemingly, from no physically sensory source. Eeriness and dark undercurrents flow through many gothic films providing audiences with a sense that something is wrong, unusual, or about to happen. Perversion is a very popular word in gothic discourse, and I am under the impression that gothic phenomena and noumena are merely that: perversions of what we feel and sense. They are perversions because often times they are feelings that are beyond our rational cognitive understanding. Such sensations could easily be compared to a “gut-feeling”; a feeling that we recognize but do not yet understand.

Muriel’s Wedding is an Australian film that is very contested as to whether it is an example of gothic cinema or not. In my opinion, the film does not project an entirely gothic narrative, but it does have gothic threads within the narrative that aid in the evolution of the story and the construction of the characters. The mother’s dark emotions in the very familiar family home are a subtext to Muriel’s story; however, they intensify in order to alter the course of events that impact Muriel and the rest of the characters. The unease and the anxiety of her mental state is something we as an audience can physically see, but also feel on an emotional level. The mother is a mystery that the audience feels unsatisfied not knowing about until the end of the film.

There are far more examples of suspenseful feeling within Muriel’s wedding as well as in Australian cinema as a category. The sensation of feeling unsatisfied or unquenched of information or reason for feelings of uneasiness is a common denominator in many Australian films. Whether or not it is embedded in all classically Australian films depends on the definition of what is understood to be Australian as well as what is classified as gothic. Too many distinctions and categories contradict the essence of the “gothic” itself as it is something that we cannot define or put a finger on… it’s just a feeling.

- “Noumenon is distinguished from phenomena, the latter being an observable event or physical manifestation capable of being observed by one of the five human senses. The two words serve as interrelated technical terms in Kant's philosophy. As expressed in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, human understanding is structured by "concepts of the understanding", or innate categories that the mind utilizes in order to make sense of raw unstructured experience.”-

A Sequence Analysis

“Rabbit Proof Fence”, a film directed by Australian Phillip Noyce in 2002, shines light on the displacement of Indigenous peoples by White settlers working to assimilate the Aboriginal population. Set in Western Australia during the 1930s, the film provides some perspective on the colonialist initiatives that were implemented in Indigenous populations throughout the country.

The sequence I have chosen to analyze is composed of the first two scenes of the film. This sequence, although relatively short, divides the characters into two camps: the colonizers and those being colonized. In my analysis I will explore how certain cinematographic decisions have constructed these power dynamics and how they lay the foundation for the events that will take place throughout the rest of the film.

The very first shot of the film is one that I find very iconic, especially for an Australian production. The camera sweeps over a vast desert landscape establishing a very powerful position for the viewer as if they are themselves taking over that land. There is equality between natural sounds (like those of birds) and the mechanical sound of an airplane. The next shot maintains a high angle position and suggests inferiority as it falls onto a young Aboriginal girl explaining that because her father was White she is designated the status of “half-caste”. The girl blends into the land by way of her dress and her expression establishing a relationship between her and the territory. She speaks a native language which also suggests she is a part of rural landscape. The airplane noise has been completely replaced by the sounds of birds and nature bringing all attention to the ground.

The action switches to a medium shot of Aboriginal mothers very obviously distressed about something. Their screaming signals the beating of drums that instantly raises the excitement of the scene. They make up their environment what they wear and how they are filmed in relation to the earth. The introduction of the White officer and his vehicle presents a stark contrast to the Aboriginal women and their muted landscape. A dark, crisp and clean uniformed man has instilled fear and hysterics in the women and children. While they run barefoot through the dirt, the officer climbs in his car and races after them. There is juxtaposition between the modern and the primitive within the entirety of this scene. The White man’s laws, uniformity, and orders contrast greatly with the wild Aboriginal women and children running and screaming through the rugged landscape.

Throughout the next sequence of shots, the White man is given authority and agency within the frame as the commanding character. Often shot from a low angle, he is showcased as superior to the Aboriginal women and children as he throws them around and rips them away from each other. He portrays dominance both physically and mechanically as he advances across the land in his vehicle that shoots dust up into the faces and path of the women running away. There is a hierarchy that is established by the man, the official documents he holds, and the vulnerability of the women and children. The use of the handheld camera provides opportunity for the viewer to get close to the emotion of the scene in a way that showcases the brutality of the event that is taking place.

The car is an integral element to this scene as it poses as a cage for wild children. Needing “domestication”, the vehicle holds them captive and removed from their “savage” mothers. Unfamiliar with the technology, the children and mothers paw helplessly against the glass in desperation. The scene is very animalistic in the sense that the captive are frightened, helpless, and at the mercy of their captor. The White man leaves the community victorious.

The following scene in the film creates even more distinction between the White settlers and the Aboriginal population. The environment within which the White men and women find themselves within is starkly different from that of the Aboriginal women and children of the last scene. The meeting takes place in a room within what is assumed as a relatively fancy establishment boasting primness and wealth. All of its occupants are dressed in modern and very proper costume and there are elements of technology that emulate contemporary advancements in technology. The noise in the room resonates only from the directors seemingly educated words and from the projector. There are no elements of the natural world within this scene. The director speaks fluidly and comprehensibly while the audience sips tea politely. Lit by the projector light, the director and “chief protector of the Aborigines” is given the same kind of command and agency within the room as the White officer did out in the Aboriginal community. Again, the camera is positioned at a low angle in order to optimize the effect of superiority that is held by the character that is looked up at. The viewer feels almost as though they are in the meeting sitting amongst the other guests. The room is emotionless compared to the previous scene. The White guests at the meeting show no facial expression and are instead meant to symbolize a tame and domesticated culture.

Introducing the contrasting ideologies within the film is done so very carefully and powerfully throughout the first two scenes. Through this film analysis, the audience can understand the injustice of the situation, but also the perspectives that led to the policies and assimilationist practices that were initiated throughout the 1900s. Director Phillip Noyce does impressive work in establishing the characters and the power dynamics between them from the onset of the film. These meticulous details are often overlooked, but when analyzed carefully, they are realized as the elements that bind the emotional connections between the characters of the film and the sympathetic responses of the audience watching it.

“Rabbit Proof Fence” is a film and a story that is important and valued within Australian culture. Representing such a sensitive subject would be a very difficult task especially when dealing with political issues that continue to leave stains on the democratic relationships, policies, and processes of today. While there was controversy as to how the story was told and whom the film vilified, I think that its representations are accurate enough to spark discussion and reflection of some events that are incredibly influential to a people, a nation, and an international community that continues to strive to protect the rights of Aboriginal peoples.

AmericaniZation : Inherently Negative?

In an article titled “ ‘Americanization’: Political and Cultural Examples from the Perspective of ‘Americanized’ Australia” by Phillip and Roger Bell, “American-ization” is understood as a process that is responsible for what is seen as “the growing homogeneity and interdependence of cultures”. In addition, “American-ization” is also understood to be the perpetrator in the “erosion of cultural diversity, ideological difference, and at times, political sovereignty”. These definitions shape “American-ization” into a very menacing form. While I find the “melting-pot” theories and movements to be increasingly unattractive in a globalizing world, I recognize that some homogeneity may be inevitable. The international world is so interconnected. Our ideas, our systems, our politics, economies, and our relationships all rely heavily on shared information and the collaboration and cooperation of actors that move and communicate freely across any and all borders.

Australia is commonly caught up in the theory of “American-ization” and the consequences and repercussions it holds for national cinema and cultural preservation. I can sympathize with those who feel cast under the shadow of the American dream and all its prosperities; I am from the country that humbly sits on its shoulder after all. This said, I think the situation is far more complex.

The United States of America, much like Australia and Canada, is a country that has grown because of large influxes of migration. While each nation has its indigenous histories and differences, these three countries, are made up of decedents of the same countries (predominantly in Europe). There will be natural similarities across states when ancestral backgrounds are shared.In lecture we spoke about the foundation of stories that are shared and passed on through generations. Mythology links lessons and messages that are embedded in films, literature, and art in every single country in the world. Why can’t we embrace these connections?

I will not argue against the obvious global spread of American taste. On an international scale, we have adopted many ideas, mentalities, and aspirations that have derived from what is considered to be American culture. Maybe in an idealist sense, we could consider all of these traits as international and not solely American. Perhaps these tastes have derived from a people that have evolved and transcended from global communities and are able to project and international conglomeration of concepts. It is hard to reject cultural cues that you agree with or enjoy. This should not be looked down upon or considered to be contributing to the “beige-ing” cultural diversity. I think that we need to embrace differences while promoting what we have in common as well. “American-ization”, whether it means McDonalds on the streets of Pakistan or messages that can be understood and appreciated across nations, should be understood as a reality that is not inherently all that bad.