TASK #2 – ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
As group leader, I have decided with my group and achieved consensus on splitting this task (Task #2 – Annotated Bibliography) into three different parts.
Each group member was given a part to research and focus on. Details are as follows (including links directly to their Annotated Bibliographies):
1. Australian Cinema – Nikita (Myself)
2. National Identity – Xiaodi Liu (Fiona)
3. Bollywood Cinema – Antoninho Bernardino
For my part, I am focusing on ‘Australian Cinema’ and will be looking at a number of different sources – ranging from books, journals and articles.
In terms of research, I tried to explore and understand how Australian Cinema developed through social, historical, economical and political contexts, and how these factors have changed and represented Australian cinema and the idea of ‘National Identity’.
Entry 1: Book
In Tom O’Regan’s ‘Australian National Cinema’, paying particular attention to chapter two: ‘Theorizing Australian cinema’, O’Regan explores the notion of how Australian cinema is unique and culturally significant in terms of identifying itself as a ‘National cinema’. He theorizes this notion by splitting the different elements within Australian cinema and how these elements play a prominent role when classifying Australian cinema as ‘National’. For example, O’Regan supports this claim by stating that ‘Australian cinema could be seen as a hybrid form made of object, people, stories and problem solving’. (PG.10). Discussed through this chapter, O’Regan considers that when socializing Australian cinema – it begins with an act of social bonding (similar to the media) as it provides cultural and substantial information about Australian people and their relation to other people. Furthermore, he communicates through this chapter that Australian cinema is ‘culturally significant’ as films investigate and disclose ‘truths’ about Australian society and lifestyle. This chapter in itself is beneficial for our research as not only does it draw upon multiple elements that make up Australian cinema but it gives our group a platform for discussion when seeing Australian cinema not only as a vehicle of information, but rather, how it could be seen as an descriptive device used to bring together the diverse range of cinema produced in Australia.
O’Regan, Tom, Australian National Cinema “Theorizing Australian Cinema”, Routledge, London and New York, 1996, pp.10-41.
Entry 2: Book
Bill Routt discusses in ‘The Emergence of Australian Film’ the historical, social and economical context and background that Australian Film derives from. In particular, Routt examines the first pioneers and early features that emerged in Australia (from what could be seen as early as 1896) right up to the First World War and post 1940’s and how the historical context that has shaped Australia as ultimately affected the Australian Film industry. For instance, Routt states, “the First World War represents a watershed for Australian cinema as it does for the rest of the world as the war actually stimulated local feature productions”. Through the discourse, an interesting notion that Routt builds upon is that Australian Film is a heavily subsidized industry that is governed by the government – whether this is a form of propaganda or tourism is what Routt is trying to express and question throughout this book. Whilst this book stimulates it’s own idea and purposes, it is useful for our research in terms of situating and realizing how the Australian Film industry emerged as a result of its historical context – resulting in essentially questioning the funding of the Government in Australia.
Routt, Bill, ‘The Emergence of Australian Film’, in Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (ed.), The Oxford History of World Cinema, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. 422- 447.
Entry 3: Journal
Adrian Martin’s ‘Ozploitation compared to what’ is an academic journal based on the 2008 Australian documentary entitled “Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!”. This journal published in 2010, explores and articulates itself around the idea of the documentary that centralizes its research on the exploitation of Australian New Wave cinema during the 1970s and 1980s. Martin discusses how during the 1970s, the beginning of what can be now identified as the ‘Australian New Wave’ came an idea in the writing of global film history. He shows through his interpretation of the documentary, how Australia was the “long unrecognized home of fantasy, horror, supernatural thrillers and sex comedies”. (PG.10). Martin explores this idea of ‘unrecognized’ attention to Australian Film because of the context that Australians faced during the 1980s. This is supported when Martin writes, “The worst factor with the 10BA period was known as the ‘tax dodge’ or ‘rort’, which allowed investors to largely write off their investments in film production”. (PG.13). By reading this journal, it explains how Australians faced a particularly depressing decade for their National cinema during the 1980s and how this significantly took a role in Australia’s film future. Furthermore, this gives us a visual material to study and gain more insight.
Martin, Adrian, ‘Ozploitation compared to what?’ A challenge to contemporary Australian Film Studies, Studies in Australiasian Cinema, Vol.4, No.1, 2010, pp.9-21.
Entry 4: Journal
Ben Goldsmith’s 2010 journal ‘An Outward Looking Australian Cinema’, focuses on how Australia’s cinematic territory has been punctured in some way or form by International production. An observation from the journal is when Goldsmith introduces how state and federal governments in Australia have redrawn screen policies to enable International production and recalibrated tests of Australian content and expenditure. To support this, Goldsmith states “these policies bring the national and the International into new relation”. (PG. 213). Goldsmith focuses his conversation on how Internationalism is integrated and embedded within Australian cinema. I thought this journal really expressed how ‘Internationalism’ is heavily a part of Australian cinema and ‘identity’. I believe this journal will prove useful in terms of seeing Australian cinema not just as a singular element, but rather how it is made up of a collective range of relations.
Goldsmith, Ben, ‘An Outward Looking Australian Cinema’, Studies in Australiasian Cinema, Vol. 4, No.3, 2010, pp. 199-214.
Entry 5: Article
In Jane Freebury’s 2001 article on National Identity in Australian Cinema: A Symposium, Freebury highlights information that was discussed about the Australian film industry in the current, recent and historical context and what this will mean for the future of film culture in Australia. Freebury attended the conference ‘National Identity in Australian Cinema’ being held at the National Film and Sound Archive in Canberra, ACT, in late October 2000. A discussion that Freebury often mentioned was the idea of the ‘Australian National Identity’. Freebury quotes Justine Saunders in saying, “despite recent local hits such as Wog Boy (1999) and Head On (1998), multicultural Australia was ‘still not getting a look-in’”. She then quotes Peters-Little who agrees with Saunders in saying “that by not including all aspects of our cultural identity, the local industry was losing audience support”. This suggests the problem of ‘cultural identity’ still being unresolved within it’s own country resulting in complications of audience support for film in the future, consequently even have an effect of distributing Australian Films Internationally. Although, the publishing date could be identified as a non-updated or revised source, what’s crucial about this in terms of our project is that the question of ‘cultural identity’ was still being asked in the past and is still being asked today, which ultimately lead me to think ‘is there an exact representation or definition of ‘cultural identity?’. This is a question that I hope to answer and research more about with our research project.
Freebury, Jane, 2001. National Identity in Australian Cinema: A Symposium. Australian Screen Education, Issue 25, 3p, p54.
Entry 6: Book
Paying particular attention to Marcia Langton’s chapter on ‘Grounded and Gendered: Aboriginal Women in Australian Cinema’ , Langton studies how ‘Authorship’ must be understood in terms of an individual. In this case, she studies how the contribution of Aboriginal women filmmakers are taken from their identities and backgrounds. The chapter discourses that within Australia, Aboriginal and Indigenous involvement in film have had a direct link on a historical scale and it was only until the 1970s did Aboriginal media workers start to represent themselves ‘behind the scenes’ through the use of new media technologies emerging. A particular idea that is of importance with authorship is when Langton states “each of the director’s work must be read in it’s own right as an artistic work bringing into mind all sociological and textual skills”. (PG. 45). The ideas of ‘authorship’ and questions of authenticity will help with our idea of ‘National Identity’ and whether or not a film can be truly identifiable as ‘National’ (as elements from the auteur are taken and put into film without a conscious choice).
Langton, Marcia, ‘Grounded and Gendered: Aboriginal Women in Australian Cinema’, French, Lisa (ed.) Womenvision: Women and The Moving Image in Australia, Damned Publishing, Melbourne, 2003, pp.43-57.
Entry 7: Journal
James Bennett’s ‘Head On: Multicultural Representations of Australian identity in 1990s National cinema’ is a 2007 published journal detailing the reliance of small national cinemas in Australia (that are supported through Government funding) and how these National cinemas survive not only the economy, but the global dominance of Hollywood with references to the film ‘Head On’. Bennett takes a different approach with this journal. For instance, he states “Head On exposes some of the underlying tensions subsumed by this rhetoric: it (also) represents Australian multiculturalism but treats its topic as problematic”. This journal may not be useful in terms of identifying with ‘Hollywood’, but it gives us a different approach to address our research project; it examines this notion of whether in fact the term ‘Multicultural’ is elevating or destroying the idea of ‘National Identity’ within Australian Film.
Bennett, James, ‘Head On: multicultural representations of Australian identity in 1990s national cinema’, Studies in Australasian Cinema, Vol.1, No.1, 2007, pp.61-78.
Entry 8: Article
In Rekhari’s article entitled The “Other” in Film: Exclusions of Aboriginal Identity, Rekhari focuses her article discussion on how cinema in the 21st century has shaped and played a significant role in depicting the narratives of Australia. In particular, she focuses on how filmic narratives such as articulation and representations are used with characterizing Aboriginal identity, thus making the effect of representation itself exclude the Aboriginal identity from Australian cinema. What is interesting about Rekhari’s use of analysis is how she draws on certain filmic elements to support her argument. In particular, she focuses on how these images come together to somewhat eradicate the narrative, making the viewer and the film more self-serving, rather than acting on a passive level. Rekhari exemplifies throughout her article that often the representation of reality is always constructed – as there is no way to tell truly define a realistic moment. This is supported when Rekhari says “the ‘truth’ can easily be distorted, depending on its positioning in relation to the subject, especially in the case of representations of the world of Aboriginal reality.” (PG.132). Whilst it could be said that Rekhari has a bias judgment of viewing the representation of Aboriginal reality, it could also be asked, what is the ‘truth’ and how do we as a nation, represent this for the future of Australian cinema.
Rekhari, Suneeti, (2008): The “Other” in Film: Exclusions of Aboriginal Identity from Australian Cinema, Visual Anthropology: Published in cooperation with the Commission on Visual Anthropology, 21:2, PP.125-135.
TOTAL WORD COUNT: 1,856