Internationalization of Australian Screen Industry - Essay Example

Internationalization of Australian screen industry and the effects on national identity and localization of content al affiliation Tutor Date Internationalization of Australian screen industry and the effects on national identity and localization of content Australian screen industry has been concerned about local content and the portrayal of national identity since its inception. The use of local actors, producers, content and resources was the ideal way to show national identity in the Australian film industry. However, in the 1920s, economic ties with the United States lead to the importation of new concepts for the Australian film industry. At this time, Australia even witnessed the importation of actors from the United States to star in Australian films. This type of importation was fuelled by a production studio set up in Australia, which reflected the United States model of Cinesound (Kindem, 2000, pp.63). Nevertheless, the year 1968 saw the revival of Australian cinema, in a quest to nationalize its content to address local and national interests. Accordingly, by the 1980s, Australian cinema produced respectable and morally cultivated films that fit the interests of the middle class viewers, as well as middle-aged ones (Ryan, 2009; pp. 45). The Australian government had put in place several regulations to ensure that the film content adhered to the preservation of Australian identity, culture, and character. Australian cinema was national in every sense, since it produced images that reflected the everyday life of the Australian people, the challenges they faced and their aspirations (Kindem, 62, 2000). The images in Australian film showed the Australian landscape and resources, while all the actors were of Australian origin, thus, enhancing the localization of Australian cinema. For a long time, Sydney has been the center of film production in Australia as the New South Wales (NSW) became the leading national producer of audio-visual films. This dominance by NSW and Sidney in Australian film production was a result of heavy federal funding and the presence of many institutions for training in cinematography. In spite of this growth in nationalized films, the Australian cinema was in a dilemma because the cultural and goals were in conflict with the goals of global economy. Evidently, the global economy affects each and every sector of the society, thus, the Australian film industry had little choice but to shift towards the goals of the global economy. During the twentieth century, Australia was also struggling with exhibition venues for its content, especially after the disintegration of the European movie production after World War II. Essentially, this is what made the Australian film industry form an alliance with the producers in Hollywood, leading to the importation of actors and production techniques from the United States. The latter took advantage of Australia’s reliance on its technique and exhibition markets, to establish its hegemony over Australian films. By the time Australia was trying to recover from Hollywood’s domination of Australian film industry, it was virtually too late, as the Australian audience had already got used to the foreign content. During the 1970-80s, the Australian government led by the Australian Labor Party reestablished the Australian film industry by ensuring that the content being produced had a national appeal to the Australians, yet it could also appeal to global audiences. Production houses such as Warner studios and Fox studios set up base in Queensland and NSW, respectively. According to FitzSimons, Laughren, and Williamson (2011), the government funded most of the film production in Australia through the Film Finance Corporation (FFC), albeit emphasizing the globalization of content. The Australian screen industry has undergone drastic changes since its content became internationalized and started reaching global audience in the 1990s. As Kindem (2000; pp.60) puts it, the Australian film industry has always been trying to emulate Hollywood. With Hollywood as a role model for the Australian film industry, the nationalization of cinema was forgotten and the films being produced were intended for the global entertainment economy. This means that Australia officially became part of the Global Entertainment Corporations, thus, its film content became undifferentiated and ended up losing its national identity in the process. While in earlier times localization of film content was entrenched in using local actors and resources, the internationalization of cinema today means that different countries should engage in collaborative engagement. Before the 1990s, actors did not have a right to bargain for their remuneration, but the rise in trade unions led to increased bargaining power for employees in the Australian film industry. Now that employees could bargain for their compensation, the Australian market was dependent on the United States dollar, thus, making Australian film economical and the centre of attention for Hollywood. The Australian film industry has been at a loss over how to maintain its national identity, while at the same time internationalizing its local film production. O’ Reagan and Ward (2006; pp.17) are of the opinion that the internationalization of local content is crucial in ensuring that market shares do not drop and guaranteeing foreign funding. For example, since the early 2000s, the Australian film industry has been producing horror movies, for example, Saw (2004) which received great viewership all over the world. This was one of those international films that earned Australia recognition and revenue internationally, but domestically, ethical issues arose (ibid). For most domestic viewers in Australia, the horror scenes were a violation of Australian cultural ethics. This is because mainstream Australian films have pre-dominantly comedic, depicting the Australian culture and national identity. The domestic market has, therefore, found it hard to adapt to the new gothic images. Another area of contest concerns the creative control of Australian films. According to Ward (2004; pp. 117,) the Australian Film Commission’s (AFC) idea of an “Australian” film is one which has been produced by Australians, acted by Australians, used resources from Australia, and showed cases of Australian national identity. In view of that, films that are produced by foreigners in collaboration with Australians are not seen as authentically nationalistic. According to the AFC, these collaboratively produced films are unable to capture the true culture of Australia and use it to project the national image and identity of Australia. This is a very awkward mindset that has seen most Australian talent go unnoticed domestically, merely because the film featuring that talent has the hand of foreigners in its production. Therefore, the localization of content is killed, while internationalization is promoted, owing to the fact that such films continue to receive international recognition. Australia’s adoption of popular culture in the making of films has ensured that the international substitutable texts are promoted. In everyday life, every form of change is met with some form of resistance and dilemma. Accordingly, the Australian film industry is no different, as its internationalization has resulted in concerns over the fate of national identity and localization of content. In the world of cinema and film production, many countries have found themselves disadvantaged as they try to emulate the American success story, which is Hollywood. In a quest to produce films that have appeal to global audience, the Australian films have lost their history and identity (Rayner, 2000; pp. 4,). The film industry in Australia was and has continued to be concerned about the erosion of cultural and ethical values, brought about by the influx of films from Hollywood. Evidently, there will always be a conflict between internationalization of Australian screen industry and the preservation of national identity, culture, and the localization of cinematography. The cultural policies of Australian cinematography have been derailed by the globalization of film production. Mainstream Australian films whose content has always reflected the way of life of the people has been replaced by imported concepts that have a larger global following. This has been largely attributed to the quest by Australian film makers to emulate what is produced in Hollywood. Since the culture of the United States and that of Australia are evidently different, the content of films produced with a touch of Hollywood are dissimilar from the conventional Australian films. It is important to note that the dilemma faced by Australian film makers between internationalism over society, culture and national identity have in some ways slowed down film production in Australia. Limbrick (2007; pp.70) states that the over insistence on culturally acceptable films depicting Australian identity has led to the shunning of other genres of films that do not necessarily reflect Australian culture, although there are globally accepted. Horror films fall in this category, with mainstream Australian film industry failing to recognize their success, despite “Aussie horror” being a brand in global film market (ibid). In conclusion, if the Australian film industry is to find its way out of this dilemma, then it needs to shift way from the traditional cultural policies and embrace the integration of national and international cultures brought about by the digitization of cinematography. This means that the government agencies in charge of film production in Australia should issue directives to filter the content of the said films. By filtering the content, the relevant authorities should ensure that there is a balance between Australian culture in films and other aspects that would appeal to international agencies. By so doing, the Australian cinematography will preserve its hegemony and authenticity, while at the same times reaping the benefits of the global marketplace (Ward, 2004; pp. 116). Today, nationality of cinematography is not about the geographical location of a place, but the lifestyle that defines the peoples of that locality. The preferences of people change over time, depending on their gender, ethnicity, political orientation, and social structures. Accordingly, the cultural policies of the twentieth century differ from those of the twenty first century. In essence, what the people had considered immoral or contrary to the Australian nationhood in earlier years may be acceptable today. The collaboration of Australian producers with foreign ones only serves to propagate localized globalization of film, which is beneficial for Australia and the global film industry. The sooner the Australian population realizes this, the better for the Australian screen industry. References FitzSimons, T., Laughren, P., & Williamson, D., 2011. Australian Documentary: History, Practices and Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kindem, G., 2000. The International Movie Industry. New York: State of Illinois University Press. Limbrick, P., 2007. The Australian Western, Or a Settler Colonial Cinema Par Excellence. Cinema Journal, March, No. 46, Pp 68-80. O’Regan, T., & Ward, S., 2006. Experimenting With The Local And The Transnational: Television Drama Production On The Gold Coast. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, March, Vol. 20, No. 1, Pp. 17-31. Rayner, J., 2000. Contemporary Australian Cinema: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ryan, D., 2009. Whither Culture? Australian Horror Films and the Limitations of Cultural Policy. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, No. 133 Pp. 43-55. Ward, S., 2004. National Cinema or Creative Industries? Film Policy in Transition, Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, No. 112, Pp. 116-130. Read More