Metal City - Hai Ina Ia Mai Ana Ka Puana

Peter Andre is a failure, I'll grant that. But Kylie Minogue? She's a huge hit with the British audiences, and she continues to make music (not good music, true, but music that sells.) Tina Arena, she's a huge hit with the French market - they just love her.

Nicole Kidman? - an interesting example. She was attacked a month back by Kerry Fox - a bad Australian actor - for 'being a bad actor' and for not 'doing enough for the Australian film industry'. Well, she is successful, so good for her. And she doesn't have any obligation whatsoever to the Australian film industry. Not that she's a typical 'Hollywood' actress, either. Think of some of the films she's starred in: Moulin Rouge (directed by an Australian, starring many Australian actors and a lead Irish actor); The Others (written and directed by a Spaniard - he also composed the music - starring mostly English actors, and set on the Channel Islands.)

One of the reasons Australians want to succeed in America is because of the hideous difficulties of making a decent buck in Australia through film, because the audiences are simply too low. There are ways of getting about this, basically because of the inherently collaborative nature of film. Films are made by huge numbers of people from a vast number of different backgrounds, and made all over the world. There's plenty of room here for the Australian industry to develoop.

I guess my point - aside from sitting down to write what was possibly the most boring post in the history of the internet - is that it's easy to fall into old stereotypes about our 'cultural cringe'. I just think reality is more complex than that.

Hey, you forget Marcia Hines. She turned her back on a promising music career in the States to come to Australia to be propelled to the dizzy heights of Queen of Pop and Australian Idol judge. Well, apart from the bit about her having a promising music career in the States.

And Don Lane....

Think I'll shut up now.

Yes, but... you want to do her, don't you? Despite your hatred, there's still room in the Smut Centre of your brain for a fantasy involving you, Delta and a couple of canned pies in the after-glow.

At least this means we can be assured a few months of silence on the Delta Front while she takes her bogan warblings to a place where they'll fall on deaf ears...

As this is my first visit to metal city, I've not yet recovered from the adoration I'm feeling right now. Hi, I'm a new loyal reader.

Go TimT . . . I've never seen you so serious. Your essay is worthy of publication in any prstigious film magazine.

And David, I'm with you. At least Delta pissing off to the land of Freedom Fries will keep her off the front page of the Daily Tele' for a while. Who knows. We might get a chance to read about Australian Idol again.

P.S. Do you know your comments field just censored my post??

Ahhh, Tim.

Tim, Tim, Tim.

Kerry Fox DESERVED to attack her. Indeed, Kidman is not simply a bad actor, she is a truly hideous actor. Since she is a brainless knucklehead with a stock in trade that previously extended simply to cinematic fluff (BMX Bandits, Days Of Thunder, Far And Away), her laughable recent attempts at Serious Forays Into The Thespian Arts have found her technique being polarised - she veers with a staggering lack of discipline between being Stoic And Reserved... and Burning Up With Internal Fire. She is an airhead. A loud and meaningless beast with no working intelligence and absolutely no taste.

She IS a typical Hollywood actress, Tim. 'Moulin Rouge', apart from being utterly worthless, insipid, insulting garbage, was directed by Baz Luhrmann - a talentless hack who is basically owned by the American studios. He is the Australian Joel Schumacher - he makes product. As for The Others... well, it was simply a tedious exercise in style over content. But, still, it was mainstream film. Through and through.

One of the reasons Australians want to succeed in America is because, as usual, we have taken the American paragidm as the one that we need to replicate. You speak of the inherently collaborative nature of film - you're both right and wrong. In order to adopt the American model of film production - a model which dictates Millions In, Millions Out. It simply will not do to make a film that costs, say, $10,000 - is shown on a limited scale, but is artistically and critically successful. The American film industry has become an extension of the hypercapitalist machine - it is utterly consumed with the idea of production and consumption. ANd one of the tools it uses to keep the wheels of production and consumption moving is the heirarchical 'star system' - of which Nicole Kidman is a major part. She isn't an actress, Tim. She's a Star. She looks good on the front of GQ - which lessens the requirement for her to have any actual ability. She is a part of the zeitgeist that was initiated in the late 1980's, in which body fetishization began to move towards its economic and cultural zenith - breasts, legs, buttocks, and the face became the four quadrants of inquiry. Anything else is superfluous. And that's where Our Nic fits in. Notice that from the late 1980's on, it seems that most of our 'stars' are, magically, also very good looking? And don't give me any guff about 'oh, but it's ALWAYS been like that'. It hasn't, and you know it - there is the body, and there is the metabody. If Britney Spears didn't exist, the media would have created her - and, as it turned out, thanks to the late 1980's... they got both.

I guess my point - aside from writing what is possibly the most incisive and relevant post in the history of the internet - is that this isn't about cultural cringe. It's about the fact that trying to retrofit the American template onto the Australian film industry simply doesn't work - trying to make Hollywood-style 'high concept' films with the loose-knit band of stars we have is simply an exercise in failure. If the Australian film industry was smart, we'd be following the French or the British - and we'd be making smaller, more intimate films, which showcase the genuine talent of writers and actors, and don't necessarily need to break a billion dollars to be considered successful.

After all, let's face it - for every 'He Died With A Felafel In His Hand's, there are ten 'Mr. Accidents'.

Delta sucks!

Let's review some of the film and TV successes from America:

Lord Of The Rings - produced and directed by a New Zealander who cut his teeth on cheap horror films, starring British, New Zealand and Australian actors, featuring animation and special effects from New Zealand.

The Simpsons - features Indian, African American, Italian, Gay, Straight, Spanish, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist or - miscellaneous characters. Worldwide TV success.

The Sixth Sense - produced and directed by an Indian, with a prominent role given to an Australian.

(And of course, there's Katzenberg, Spielberg, Gutenberg, and thousands of other Jewish folks involved in the American film industry, not to mention Pay TV, internet TV, their own national network - funded entirely by donations, and community TV)

Now let's see - what has the Australian film industry produced? Ummm... I dunno ... ah ... there's Crocodile Dundee, and, ah... Crocodile Dundee... and ooh! don't forget Crocodile Dundee, and, of course, Neighbours. Plus five 'major' television networks and a handful of community TV stations - who have not produced anything of worth whatsoever.

Face it, David: the system of 'hypercapitalism' which the American TV industry thrives on has allowed more artistic diversity and opportunity than the combined forces of ABC, SBS, AFI, MEAA, and the three cruddy commercial networks in Australia ever could.

Tim,

To save time, let's address your points one by one.

Lord Of The Rings - Owned by New Line Cinema, one of the largest film proprty owners in America. That's where the cashola goes, my boy. And, cinematically, LOTR was a very American film.

The Simpsons - Um, I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, The Simpsons has a multi-racial cast. So?

The Sixth Sense - Hollywood product, owned by Americans and dedicated to making money for Americans and pandering to American cinematic tastes.

The Australian film industry? Well, let's see.

There's George Miller, who did the Mad Max trilogy - the second Mad Max having a final chase scene that is studied in film classes across the globe.

Peter Weir - The Cars That Ate Paris... The Mosquito Coast... Picnic At Hanging Rock...

Let's run down the list of groundbreaking, relevant, culturally worthwhile Australian films - most of which are from the pre-Hollywoodization of the Australian film industry...

In roughly chronological order, as my memory allows.

Fantasm... Puberty Blues... Mad Max / Mad Max 2.. Winter Of Our Dreams... Monkey Grip... Turkey Shoot... Kitty And The Bagman... Phar Lap... Annie's Coming Out... Alvin Purple... The Big Hurt... Frog Dreaming... Playing Beattie Bow... Dogs In Space.. The Year My Voice Broke... Shame... Ghosts Of The Civil Dead...Proof... Romper Stomper... Until The End Of The World...

The list could go on. But I'll stop there. As for the Australian television industry...

Blue Murder.. Aunty Jack... The Norman Gunston Show... The D-Generation... Homicide... Matlock Police... Division 4...

Tim, you are sadly misinformed and doing your usual button-pushing schtick to try and get results. The American film and television industries run on a very simple principle: they deal in show buisiness. If there's no business, there's no show. And there's no business unless you give the people what they want. When you're dealing in millions and millions of dollars - sometimes hundreds of millions for an A-list Hollywood film, there is absolutely no scope for failure: they are market researched and focus grouped to hell. Ever heard of a sneak? A sneak showing is when a film is shown to a test audience, and the audience has to rate pieces of the film on a card. If it looks like the film is going to be a commercial dud - or, indeed, if it looks like there is an area where a few more punters can be squeezed in, the studio has control over the final edit. Artistic diversity? Give me a break.

Timbo, you've inadvertendly proved the whole point of my argument. As you so roughly dismissed the entire Australian media industry, citing Neighbours and Crocodile Dundee as your primary sources of inspiration, you prove that most of us - particularly the younger ones - have been brainwashed and hoodwinked into believing that Australia is incapable of worthwhile film and television simply because we have a market that cannot sustain a multi-billion dollar industry.

Australia's a fine place that has produced some fine things, Timothy. Sounds like you're the one with cultural cringe. Put your stars and stripes away and start digging into the treasure trove of Australia's cultural history and you may find yourself pleasantly surprised that there is a bit more to it than Crocodile Dundee.

"Plus five 'major' television networks and a handful of community TV stations - who have not produced anything of worth whatsoever."

Tim, I take offense at your comment. Maybe there is no decent community television in Newcastle, but more civilised places produce some fine telly indeed. Why, a couple of years ago there was a fine show called Bollocks, that almost burst out of your tv set with talent.

Btw. it think the Mad Max trilogy is the perfect example here. MM1 & 2 -- made in Australia for a low budget and unbelievably good; MM3 - made for US market and unbelievably crap.

George Miller: living and working in Hollywood

Peter Weir: same

Mel Gibson: as above.

Russell Crowe, star of Romper Stomper: ditto

Barry Humphries, writer of Bazza McKenzie: works all round the world, but has home in London.

So, my first point: our cinematic talents - and heck, we've had a lot of them - prefer to work in other industries. Mostly Hollywood.

Those films you mention: how many of them have had worldwide success, and stick in the memory? One? Two? Maybe three? We can probably put both of the Mad Max films into that category, and - what else?

Not one of the television shows, certainly. Not one of them, I put it to you, have achieved any success outside of Australia, whatsoever.

So, second point: DESPITE the talents involved, we've been completely unable to produce any real box-office successes.

Now - and here's the important thing - it's true that box-office success, the earning of millions of dollars, etc, doesn't necessarily equate to artistic merit. But it CAN be. Think about it: films are made to entertain, or to inspire, or to make people think - to be, in some way, interesting. And if they are interesting, then people will recognise that quality and be willing to pay money for it.

So, third point: yeah, the American film industry is about box-office success. So what? It's way better than our system, which seems to be about Government and a small group of actors and producers shoving their hands in one anothers pockets and indulging in mutual pleasuring. It's about how the monopoly of a miniscule group of people have over the Aussie film industry, and how that monopoly virtually ruins the chances of our real talents to develop and progress.

Because I have the gift of foresight, I knew that this argument would come up at some point, which resulted in this:

http://www.metalcity.org/archives/000026.php

Covers most of what we're talking about.

Getting back to Delta Goodrem, though..

Cultural representations by, of, and for Australians have been all but destroyed by American cultural imperialism. Delta Goodrem's music was trite, unlistenable, Americanised bullshit, yes - but it was OUR trite, unlistenable, Americanised bullshit. It gave the kiddies an Australian that they could look up to, follow, and believe in. This, of course, sets up a whole other series of problems - but it pulls us back into the core issue: Australians loathe Australia. Australia isn't good enough. Australia is a joke compared to the rest of the world. Delta is a goddess for fleeing this godforsaken hellhole for the greener pastures and artistic wonderland that is the United States. All of this is, of course, utter bullshit. It has been ALLOWED to happen through U.S domination of our media delivery systems, and a chink in Australia's armour that allowed us to swallow the lie.

But Tim, why is worldwide success important? Why should it be an issue? Isn't it enough to simply be successful in Australia?

Of the American films and television shows that we are forced to endure - how many of them are GENUINELY successful?

The studios own the cinemas. The cinemas play American films. The American films have multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns behind them. If I go out with a camera, and I make The Best Film Ever... where am I going to show it? Festivals? My friend's houses? Am I going to get it into Hoyts/Village? Of course not. There is a vested interest in protecting the cultural property of the United States, and the economic power that it brings.

The problem with our system isn't cultural elitism, or a cabal of filmmakers and writers who dominate the industry. Our problem is that we care more about Americas success than our own. Here's the thing, Tim - your argument is hinged on the idea that the financial benefits of a work of art outweigh the social benefits.

Films are made to entertain?

Not necessarily.

'Eraserhead' is one of the greatest films ever made. Is it entertaining? Not in any conventional sense of the word. Does that mean that it is a failure? To some, yes. To others, no. And that freedom of choice is at the crux of the problem - through adopting an American model, whereby 'concept' cinema is all that we make, we have destroyed our ability to think rationally and openly about film as a medium, and as a springboard for social change. People don't necessarily pay money for Good Films. They pay money to see A. Whatever's playing, and B. Whatever has had the maximum advertising penetration. This is a fairly new phenomenon, and it grew out of the U.S.

Unfortunately, you're right. A lot of the directors that I listed have left Australia due to the restrictions of our film industry. Perhaps if we stop being so obsessed with trying to produce the next Matrix or There's Something About Mary, and get back to the idea that you win some and you lose some, but at long as you are in a state of cultural flux, the ends justify the means.

American film tends to be successful because of the size of the American market and the diversity of the industry. We miss out on a lot of this because we simply don't look for/aren't interested in that background. As a result, we tend to label everything that comes over from America with a generic label - 'Cultural Imperialism'. It's not true: take a close look at different American products -

King Of The Hill (Texas?)
The Simpsons (Middle America)
NYPD (New York)
The Day After Tomorrow (not sure which category to put this in)
There's Something About Mary (Californian wanker America)
Frasier (Upper Class/Republican big city America)
Friends (Urban Democrat America)
Seinfeld (Urban, Jewish America)
Buffy The Vampire Slayer (Southern America)

All aimed at different markets, all dealing with different parts of America.

The size of the market and the amount of material coming out of it helps it be so successful. Australia could do much better, in both respects - we need a bigger market (ie, more investors) and more producers (ie, more television stations). That's the real reason for our failure to capture world markets - we've been overprotected; we're dominated by a tiny group of people who have come to rely on Government handouts; and the producers are usually too lazy to go after Australian audiences and markets with any patience or tenacity.

... I will read the link you gave me, BTW.

Some brief random points:

- Of course worldwide success isn't necessary. But nor is it necessarily a bad thing.

- I find the jingoism and the attempts to force an 'Australian identity' on us by self-appointed authorities in the AFTA, the ABC and SBS much more disgusting than the success of American films in our market.

- Eraserhead - one of the greatest films ever made? Er, okay, haven't seen it, but I do know it was made in America by an American. What's that say about the nature of art in modern hyper-Capitalist society???

- Film has a social purpose, and can make social change? Hmmm, maybe. I'm pretty suspicious about this idea - if it is true, then it ain't necessarily a good thing. John Cage once wrote a piece called '100 ways to change the world'. He said, simply, 'You'll only make matters worse'.
How are we going to be sure that artists - who are expert in making art, not in changing society - won't simply make matters worst? Still, if the idea rings your bell, go for it.

Guys, I've read your tit-for-tat debate with curious fascination. Furthermore, I am impressed by both your impassioned and educated arguments. You both put across pretty well-rounded views. I'm just not sure what you're arguing anymore. (And I'm sorry if that sounded like a load of over-formalised pig swill -- it was just the way it came out).

I've decided not to debate any of your points as this could go on for years. But I would like to say a few things of my own. Note: These aren't facts really, but merely my own worthless opinions.

1) The American studio system stinks. And most films Hollywood spews out each year have little or next to no artistic merit. But then again -- some of the greatest pieces of film ever made have stemmed from that loathesome lump of rock known as America. Some from the studio system and others not. Writer/directors like Lynch, Jarmusch, Lee, the Coen Brothers, Scorcese, Tarantino, Peckinpah, just to name a few. Even if you do find my taste questionable.

2) It's a shame that Australians want to break into the American market David -- I'm with you there. But I see it less out of Australian shame than a simple motivation for fame and money.

3) It doesn't bother me in the slightest that they want to go there to work in Hollywood. It only bothers me that they rarely return. I was extrememly happy when Goeffry Rush and LaPaglia returned to make Lantana. As quite often, that rarely occurs.

4) I would also love to see Australians make more European films. But in the end, I don't see that happening. Whether it's because we simply aren't European, or whether it's because the market here won't allow it, it is hard to know. One thing is for sure though. It always comes down to whether a film will be a box office success for it to ever be made. No matter where you're from. Europe is just lucky enough to have a market that appreciates art as opposed to just big-budget entertainment. And therefore a market where investors can risk their money on arthouse productions with faith they will make a profit.

5) It's sad, but across the globe, the film industry will always be a collaborative effort. Artists trying to find money from investors so they can create their visions. And investors trying to find banakble properties so they can make a buck. Sadly, this extends to all artforms whether we like it or not. Literature, music, painting, etc. It's just that the U.S. is truly a parasitic capitalist market beyond any others.

6) Yes -- I read literature that isn't considered mainstream. Most movies I watch are subtitled. I despise most Hollywood films. But I am in the minority. While I like films that strike the heart, make me think, develop my views, most audiences these days don't. I wish that wasn't so. I wish the audiences were more like me. But I can't argue against other people's bad taste. They just like shit movies with sexy stars, big bangs and genre plots. Not much I can do about it except cringe. There's no right or wrong here, just a question of taste. And taste cannot be questioned.

7) Finally, speaking of the American capitalist system, I was reminded of a Michael Caine quote when he was brought to task on some of the "Hollywood" films he has worked on. He said: "Look, I haven't seen Jaws 3. I don't want to see Jaws 3. But I have definitely seen the house it built." Mmm, not much I can say to that really.

Oh well . . . sorry to have wasted your time. I love art in all its expressions. And I hate products. Simple as that. And if Delta wants to break the American market, good on her. I hope she succeeds. I wasn't listening to her before, and I won't be listening to her afterwards either.

Thanks for the stimulation guys and gals.

Forget Delta. We have a bigger problem - the fucking self-titled 'minority' who believe that smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee are innately cool activities ... and that boring French films about people smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee (between screwing and pouting) are endlessly fascinating.

Yes Irrelevant, people like me are a worry. But at least you don't have to wake up to my face each morning. It's really quite terrible.

Maybe I could stop smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee too. But then, without such cool activities where would that leave me? Just pouting I guess. But hey -- at least that's still cool right?

Mmmalright. This may take a while.

Tim:

Yes, you listed a bunch of American productions in an attempt to illustrate the cultural divertisty of the American entertainment industry, and to deflect cries of 'cultural imperialism'.

The one thing that all of these programs have in common is... surprise... they're all about America. For America. They say that to be a successful writer, you should write what you know - and all America knows is America. All America CARES about is America. The problem is that America wants US to know and care about it too - so, it forces us to do that through economic force. THAT is why the U.S is a culturally imperialist nation, and that is why Australia's artistic and cultural disintegration has reached a point where it looks unlikely that, without a severe remodelling of the industry, we can ever go back.

We need a bigger market? Why? And why do we need do 'compete on a global scale'? Of the American programs we get here, and - indeed - of the British ones, can you imagine how many thousands more never make it to our shores, and are very likely failures in their native countries? It is far more conspicuous for a television show to fail in Australia, when you have 5 stations and a population of 20 million. When you have thousands of stations and a population of 200 million, the triumphs are heralded and the losses are swept under the rug. Or, are broadcast in Australia during the Xmas season - whichever makes more cash. The point is, Tim, that you shouldn't be pointing a finger at America as some kind of guiding light of artistic freedom and socio-political supremacy... it isn't. It just has a hell of a lot of muscle, and can impose its regimes on anyone it chooses.

Worldwide success isn't a bad thing at all. But by the same token, it's not necessarily a GOOD thing either. Is it not enough to produce entertainment and cultural material for our own country, that operates at a level which economically sustains the industry enough for it to simply continue to exist?

I agree with you on the subject of jingoism. But, I think you're missing the reasons behind a lot of the CorkHatThrowAShrimpOnTheBarbieAwMaaaate stereotype of Australia that a lot of media outlets are so obsessed with perpetuating. I think they don't know what to do, and the whole Crocodile Hunter Syndrome was a reaction to watching the core of Australia's identity being eroded over time. What do people do when they panic? They look for the most obvious solution - in this case, the media felt that perpetuating some of the more set-in-stone elements of the Australian mythos would re-energise the industry. Of course, the opposite effect was had - and we began to be percieved as a nation of Crocodile Dundees. I can't help but wonder, though, what would have happened if we'd managed to maintain the momentum of the 1970's and 1980's, when Australia felt confident enough to express itself with at least a bit of purity?

Yes, Eraserhead is a masterpiece. Yep - made in America by an American. I never said that I detest America, or Americans. I don't like the invasive nature of their media machines, and I don't think they have any regard for the culture of anyone but themselves. That has nothing to do with my ability to appreciate a work of stunning originality - a work which, by the way, was created long before the militaristic approach to media delivery was adopted.

Film absolutely has a social purpose and can generate social change. Suspicious about this idea? Timothy, Timothy. Let me give you a few examples of what I'm talking about:

Without explicit images of the Vietnam war, would the opposition have been as strong? Without 'Platoon' or 'Born On The Fourth Of July' or 'Full Metal Jacket', how do you think the legacy of the Vietnam era have been remembered? I guarantee you, with a far lesser degree of bitterness and shame. And that would be truly criminal.

Indeed, there is no greater cultural barometer than film and music - what better way to observe the transition in attitudes, cultural mores, and the atmospheres at both ends of the 1970's than through film? The nihilism-drenched, war-ravaged early years became the neon-tinged later years - and the obvious point of contrast is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Saturday Night Fever. Did The Texas Chainsaw Massacre effect social change? Absolutely. In terms of the interiority of the motion picture industry, it sent seisemic shock waves around the globe - nobody could believe that anything so genuinely upsetting could be made. In terms of the wider public? TCM is a brilliant allegory of the cannibalistic nature of humanity, and an attempt to explore the rural/urban divide that had taken place in the states. And, for a lot of people - not simply academics - it became held up as a kind of filmic martyr for these reasons, particularly after it was vilified by the media.

And what about Saturday Night Fever? The darkness is still there, but by 1977 - people were sick of the lingering memory of Vietnam, and they simply wanted to dance. So, what kind of impact did Saturday Night Fever have on the public? It allowed them to release their old paranoias, and generated a sub-strata of mainstream culture which could be followed and embraced and loved. The flip-side to this, of course, became punk - which sought to destroy the movement, due to the vapidity and self-indulgence of its perpetrators.

The point is, Tim, that film is culture - and culture is film. When one is taken away, the other suffers irrevocable damage, and in terms of Australia, this is exactly what has happened. The Australian film industry is in tatters because the emotional bedrock of the Australian experience has been subjugated to the percieved cultural supremacy of U.S interests.

And I want to bang Delta.

Mr Flea,

Point by point, shall we?

1. The American studio system does, indeed, stink. Interestingly, most of the directors you've named prefer to work independantly, because they can't abide Hollywood. Peckinpah's films weren't particularly expensive, but through the sheer force of the man's genius, he seized cinema by the scruff of the neck and kicked a hole in it. So much for bucks = good.

2. I agree with you, but I think that the motivation for fame and money stems from the very American idea that an 'actor' or an 'actress' is defined as 'really, really rich and really, really famous'. It's nice to be rich. Nice to be famous. Do either of these things have anything to do with your work? Not really. Ben Affleck is rich and famous - I am a better actor than him. And I can't act. Most of the actors that I really admire never made a cent - they did it out of the love of the craft. Look at Ed Wood - died broke, made technically inept films, yet there is more genuine passion, love, and heart in a single frame of 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' than in any 'blockbuster' Hollywood film of the last 15 years.

3. Absolutely. Geoffrey Rush is a great man. My ex-girlfriend used to get his mail by mistake. He lives in Camberwell. It's when Portia De Rossi, Russel Crowe, Mel Gibson etc. return here talking in an American accent that my blood starts to boil. How utterly rude and disrespectful.

4. And why is that, Flea? Why does Europe support the idea of the 'art film' - which I think is an archaic concept in the post-Lynch era, anyway - while Australia is obsessed with making really shitty, self-loathing comedies about 'bushmen', or bad, bad dramas about cops who yell a lot? A culture doesn't develop in a vacuum - and a lot of disparate elements are blended in its generation. Could it be that Europe simply had the drive, the dignity, and the disinterest in the American model of consumption to retain their own organic identity? If we weren't so utterly tied to America - economically, politically, militarily, culturally, and socially - could it be that we wouldn't be quite so interested in A. Adopting America's worldview, and B. Mimicking America's industrial configuration, despite its unworkability in a reduced population?

5. I don't know about that. Francis Ford Coppola once said that if he gave anything to the film world, he'd want it to be that he inspired some little girl from some town in the middle of nowhere to take her Father's camcorder and 'make a very beautiful film about... anything'. Film CAN be a collaborative effort, but it can also be a very insular one. Look at Abel Ferrara - the man upon whom I base my every waking thought. Abel makes movies that make no money, cost very little, are aggressive, disgusting, morally bereft, and - most of the time - extremely blasphemous. And, he edits them, writes them, directs them, stars in them, is the cinematographer, and often has a hand in the art direction. What about Russ Meyer? Orson Welles? George A. Romero? Sure, these guys employed staff - but they were still auteurs, who worked very much alone, with economic and artistic independance. If you want to make 'The Matrix'... yes. Then you need to have team upon team of staff, and millions of dollars at your disposal. For some reason, the multi-million dollar film is seen as the acme of creative achievement in film these days - and my response is... why? When you can take $200 million and NOT make as good a film as Lewis's 'Year Of The Yahoo', there's something seriously wrong.

6. That's the thing though, Joel - without wanting to sound elitist, most people are simply not interested enough in film to seek out alternatives to what is immediately accessible. Go back to the 1970's (again). This was a decade that saw Straw Dogs, The Driller Killer, Dawn Of The Dead, Shivers, Last House On The Left, The Ninth Configuration, Deliverance, A Clockwork Orange, and Alien achieving massive, mainstream support. They're all extremely complex, challenging, difficult films - and all bear a high level of original thinking. Try and release any one of these films, as they were released back then, today - and their success would be miniscule. The west has become addicted to certain structures which every film must adhere to - a jittery, MTV-style editing rhythm, clearly defined moral codes, chronological diegesis, a soundtrack consisting of pop songs, and the Stars which we read about every day in magazines. None of this stuff happened by accident - a set of parametres were put in place, and the west was conditioned to accept them. Twenty years ago, they weren't there. So, I don't buy the 'People are so STUPID' argument - because, I don't think they are. I do think, however, that when you've got kids to get to school and a mortgage to pay - you're not especially interested in your cultural freedoms. So, as long as you can relax, sip pepsi, and stare at Gwyneth for 90 minutes, the first thing that's playing at Hoyts is the best thing.

The only American market I want Delta to break is the porno market.

Kathryn,

Sorry, missed your comment while I was posting my own huge wad of text. We're actually trying to get Community Tellie here in Newcastle, but so far it's been unsuccessful. And yes, I am bitter - my own idea for a TV project has so far, been met with sustained unenthusiasm.

David:

"The one thing that all of these programs have in common is... surprise... they're all about America. For America. They say that to be a successful writer, you should write what you know - and all America knows is America. All America CARES about is America. The problem is that America wants US to know and care about it too - so, it forces us to do that through economic force."

You appear to have been inflicted with a Grade A case of Leftoiditus Rantiferous, common to most readers of The Fairfax papers. Symptoms include: obsession with America, susceptibility to a number of classic anti-American cliches, ability to ignore all contrary arguments and facts.
Of the shows that I mentioned - not one deals with 'America', so called. The focus of all of them is on a) Local affairs/ characters b) International affairs/characters c) Alien/Supernatural affairs and characters.
This isn't the sign of an insular society - it's the sign of a thriving, multicultural society, full of different communities and peoples. I don't see how you can say that the only nation nowadays which is bothering to continue space exploration at a meaningful level is 'insular' or 'inlooking'.
I made the point about diversity before, though you seem to have overlooked that.

Re: jingoism. Sadly, it's not a recent phenomena. It's been with us since day one. Just look at Henry Lawson - bad poet, writer of interminable bush ballads about rugged Australian types with weird camp-sounding names like 'Clancy' - socialist, unionist - and supporter of the White Australia policy. He didn't want any of those 'yeller-skins' coming into his pure, Anglo-Saxon Australia.

Films making social change? Interesting examples. Some examples that come to my mind are:

- Joeseff Goebbells propaganda films comparing the Jews to rats;

- Leni Riefenstahls films of the Nuremberg rallies.

Or what about the interminable films put up by John Pilger and his ilk, fudging the facts about people like Castro and Hussein, in order to foment discontent and move the world closer to a 'glorious socialist revolution'?

Oh yeah. Films can make social change, but it's usually called 'propaganda'. When I go to a film, I don't want to be preached to or to be subject to the moral guidance of the 'artist' - who isn't in anyway superior to me. I want to be interested, entertained, and, yes, challenged.

Flea: I don't know what we're arguing about either. It could be we're just quarrelling to earn Delta's love. David says, 'Delta sucks', I say, 'How do you know?'.

Timothy.

Why'd you have to reach for that card? You know the one. "Oh, you communist, anti-American, tree-hugging lefty! You're so blinded by Michael Moore and John Pilger that you fail to see the FACTS!"

I'm neither left nor right. Politically, I align myself with 'reality'. Of course, one HAS to be obsessed with America. For better or worse, America plays a massive role in ALL our lives - why should it be given special treatment which excludes it from criticism?

Anti-American cliches? Tim, you've fallen for the trap of using the phrase 'Anti-American' as a weapon. Why is it so wrong to be anti-American? Would you feel the same if I was anti-Iraq? Anti-North Korea? And Tim - what if the cliches are... true? Does that lessen their value in discourse? What if the same old arguments against America are simply just as relevant now as they ever were? Does that nullify their potency?

Clearly, you have a big stiffy for America. That's fine. But don't declare America off-limits for criticism, simply because you see nothing wrong with the extremism of American capitalism.

Of the shows you mentioned... well... they ALL deal with 'America'. America is a fragmented country - there are many Americas, to be sure. But they're all still 'America'. Your argument seems to be that variations in narrative and genre move the focus away from America, and the genre becomes a narrative in and of itself. An American science-fiction show isn't about America... it's about science-fiction. This is utter hogwash. American media is specifically about, of, and marketed to Americans. America has taken self-mythology to all new levels. You don't think that The Simpsons is about America? The Simpsons is a show about a run of the mill AMERICAN family. The X-Files is a science fiction program about the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT'S response to aliens. It is, absolutely, the sign of an insular society - America exists because people NEED America to exist. It is a country of cultural and racial fragments which are perpetually attempting to define themselves AS Americans.

The U.S space program is your argument against America being an insular nation? Oh, Tim. Tim, Tim, Tim. You've blinded yourself with your efforts to distance yourself politically from the 'bloody hippies' that you so despise. It's an AMERICAN space program, designed to benefit... AMERICA. Good grief, Tim - we're talking about a nation that is rejecting environmental treaties left and right, that refuses to join the International Criminal Court because they don't want to be prosecuted for misbehaviour in foreign territories under international law... that has effectively destroyed the U.N...

And don't bother telling me how corrupt and evil the U.N is. That argument is totally irrelevant. America's utter contempt for anyone but their own interest speaks for their own morality better than any accusatory essay I could write - and is indefensible.

Jingoism?

Tim, you seem to be mistaking jingoism for reflection, through your use of Henry Lawson.

Henry Lawson was talentless, had a horrible moustache, and is dead. His writing, however, reflected the time in which it was written. What is jingoism NOW isn't what was jingoism THEN. Of course, the relentless mythology of 'the bush' is irritating, condecending, and flat-out incorrect. Henry Lawson was a racist old man. So? Trying to force some kind of morally-responsible historical revisionism in order to paint Lawson as some kind of a political anomaly simply doesn't work. He was a product of his time, just as we are products of ours. And his time was very much focused around rural life in Australia, and our ties to Britain. If you start looking back through Australia's recent cultural history, we were starting to grow out of The Wide Brown Land. Then... well. You know what happened.

You are absolutely right. Goebbells and Riefenstahl and Pilger make propoganda. So does Michael Moore. So what?

Because films which are openly designed as propaganda films exist, they cancel out social and cultural change that has been effected by narrative filmmaking? Come on, Timothy - that's a cheap shot.

You don't want to be prechaed to or be subjected to the moral guidance of the artist?

Shit. You mustn't see many films.

ALL film is biased towards the politics and morality of the artist. Everything, from Disney's representations of Indians and blacks... to August Underground Mordum's deeming it acceptable filmmaking to portray a woman's chest wound being raped by a Nazi. All art and media is politicised in some way - some are just more open about their message than others. If you want to be interesetd, entertained, and challenged - then you have to pay. If you want to ride that train, Timbo, you've got to pay the fare - and the fare is that you may be subjected to loathsome politics, morality that makes you aghast, or simply a stream of opinion and thought which you find ignorant and nonsensical. All art and media is, in some way, 'propaganda' - you're never going to find a truly apolitical piece of filmmaking or art. And, maybe you shouldn't.

The danger, though, is when a nation's ability to encode propaganda is perfected to the point that the narrative/political alloy perfectly disguises the component parts. Hence - the American media machine.

Okay David,

I've resisted the impulse for almost a day, but I've decided to return to this topic once again. It's just too damn interesting for me to resist. But rather than remark on the ever-growing subject matter which seems to be billowing out of control, I'll simply speak on my original six points. (Sorry TimT).

1) I actually think we are in agreement on this point. As I was never implying that bucks = good. As you so rightly said, most of the directors I mentioned are loathe to work within the confines of the Hollywood system. And yet, this aside, every one of them, to a greater or lesser extent, have chosen to comply with many of the system's constraints. Whether this is due to there being no other choice for them is open to debate. Although I lean towards it being simply too tough for them to do otherwise. I'm referring to distribution channels, etc. And I guess, this quite obviously proves your point about the overwhelming power of the Hollywood system. Also proving your point though that courageous filmmamkers can go against the grain.

2) I agree with you here as well. The "star" is fundamentally a Hollywood concept. And, as an actor, if you don't fit the mold, you'll have an uphill struggle to compete with those that do. As an example, lets look at the mature/semi-mature actors from America. (Of course their acting ability is open to question -- but I cannot avoid this). Okay -- there are the stars like Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson, Sean Connery, Robert Duvall, etc. Now these guys all have star qualities to varying degrees, and some are even great actors as well. But when I think of guys like Gene Hackman, Victor Argo, John Turturro, Tom Sizemore, Tcheky Karyo to name a few, its plain to see they'll always have much more trouble finding lead roles in comparison to the bankable stars. Even if their acting ability far outweighs the stars.

3) Damn it! I agree with you here as well. LOL

4) Now, when you ask why Europe continues to make "European" films, without chasing the tail of America, I would answer along similar lines that you already have. Although, I would add that Europe has some things which Australia seems to be lacking -- and that's pride and a sense of identity. I think after our Honeymoon with Britain was over at the end of WWII and our affair with the US was just beginning, was when it all came tumbling down. Since then, it really does appear that we're trying to emmulate the American stereotype. Maybe it's me, but why do we look to others to provide us with an identity, when we have something most nations don't? And that's a blank canvas -- the opportunity to create something amazing. We have such a young and vibrant nation with so many opportunities -- it just baffles me.

5) I guess what I was trying to say here wasn't that it is impossible to work outside the system, but very difficult to. Now, while Coppola financed "Apocolypse Now" off his own back and made films like "The Conversation" on a very limited budget. If either of these films had failed dismally, I don't think he'd necessarily be the man he is today. And speaking of Abel, you're 100% right. We could also mention Jarmusch here in the same regard. These men have proven one can go out on their own and make what they want to make -- keeping their artistic integrity intact. But let's not beat around the bush. Both these guys have had a hard time of it, and I tip my hat to both of them for their endurance.

6) Finally, we come to my tongue-in-cheek snobby comments about people's taste. In the end, a lot of people would hate the films I watch. One just need look at "Irrelvant's" comments about me at the top of this post. But this does not mean I can comment on their opinions. Hey -- Titanic won 11 Oscars and I hated that film. I think the Academy's opinion of film carries more weight than mine. I guess if "arthouse" films (for want of a better term) had the advertising budgets of the major Hollywood productions, plus the immense distribution channels, people would watch them and quite possibly even enjoy them. I'm not too sure. One things for sure though, Abel Ferrara's "The King of New York" is one of my prize posessions. Love that film man.

P.S. Somewhat off the topic here, but since it appears you're also a bit of a film buff, I wonder whether you have seen any of Gaspar Noe's films? I first saw "Irreversable" about two years ago and was blown away by it. Then, just the other day, I saw his first feature film "I Stand Alone". My goodness. Gaspar is a genius if you ask me -- and if you haven't seen his work yet, I advise you check it out. I'd be curious to know what you think.

Ciao. I think it's time I went and pouted, blew some smoke rings and pretensiously sipped an espresso. Since I'm so cool and all that.

" Europe has some things which Australia seems to be lacking -- and that's pride and a sense of identity"

That may be true, but they're also very insular and inward looking. Australia, Britain and America don't just share the English language, they also share a much more open approach to immigration. America and Australia in particular have a much more multicultural population than many of the European nations, and they're much less likely to feel 'threatened' by this immigration. The Europeans are the ones who feel the need to 'protect' their language and constantly buttress their culture with protectionism and regulations.
The old adage about the English language - that it has more foreign-born words than any other language - also extends to other part of Anglo culture.

Tim, I don't deny what you have said. I just point out that Australia seems to be searching for an identity. And I often fear that in searching for one it may wrongly adopt another. Instead of using its rare position of youth to create its own.

And while the US and Australia have open borders I don't think this necessarily translates into an outward-looking posture to the rest of the world. Yes -- Australia shares the English language with the US and the UK, but this does not mean we share all their cultural attributes. For example; the US seems to breed in its citizens a sense of confidence and patriotism. Wheras, Australia seems to breed doubt and a sense of inferiority. (Or so I believe).

Maybe this stems from our youth and the weak symbols of our national identity. I'm not sure. Although, I do believe the old symbols of Australia are fast crumbling, leaving us in a cultural void. Which may in fact, turn out to our advantage if we can see the opportunities this grants us. I guess only time will tell.

Flea, here's a letter to the Skeptic which I quite liked, and which sums up some of my feelings on this matter:

"Why is it that when minor politicians, orotund columnists, underemployed lecturers in improbable disciplines and other pundits of like kidney are at a loss for something to pontificate about, they trot out the old cliche about "Australians are searching for a national identity?" More puffed-up nonsesne has been written and spoken about this non-topic in recents years than about almost anything else, and we should be skeptical whenever the question arises.

What the hell is a "national identity" when it's at home? And how does it differ from a "national stereotype" or does the difference lie only in the eye (or prejudice) of the beholder? What is the national identity of Italy? Malaysia? Iceland? Bolivia? Botswana? and are the citizens of these disparate nations also being constantly badgered by their punditocracy to search for one?
Shouldn't we leave pontificating to the Pope who is, after all, the only person who is actually paid to do it?"

My thoughts exactarooni. Let people live their lives as they see fit, and not be forced to conform to some national stereotype because of the wishes of a bunch of navel-gazing academics.

PS David, why won't the italic tags work? Have you turned off html because of spam attacks?

I think I've scared everybody else off with my raving. Come back everyone. I promise I'll be good.

Haha . . . I love it Tim. Could not have said it better myself.

To be honest, I kind of agree with you. Even if this proves me to be a hypocrite. I only despair at our national identity because I loathe the corny symbols we are supposed to latch onto. Which ultimately stems from a similar feeling to the one you've just espoused. Which additionally, could be why I so wrongly end up saying some of the shit I do.

I'm not a beer drinker. I don't like rugby, cricket or AFL. I don't wear thongs. I don't have barbeques. I don't like Holdens. I don't have a Hills Hoist either. But does that mean I'm not Australian?

Maybe I'm just Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde -- at odds with the two sides of his character. Unless I'm just a navel-gazing academic who never went to university. I'll let you decide.

P.S. Yes -- come back everyone, Tim promises to be good.

Fuck u pathetic egoistical Americans. U are the reason that cause the world unrest. No one likes america. We just want a piece of ur money. FUCK U!

Fuck u pathetic egoistical Americans. U are the reason that cause the world unrest. No one likes america. We just want a piece of ur money. FUCK U!

go fuck your mum

go fuck your mum america !!! :P

wtf is DElta doing ?? wat a fucken bitch