Aug 1960 Debate

 

Table Of Contents

 Download Full Day's Hansard    View/Save XMLGo To First Hit

Senator ARMSTRONG - Even the children do not go to the suburban theatres in such large numbers as before.

Senator Willesee - I thought that would be the biggest drop.

Senator ARMSTRONG - It accounts for the biggest drop at the week-end, but the drop in attendances is not confined to the week-end; it affects every night of the week.

Therefore, when we talk of an Australian film industry we must bear in mind that there are not now available the exhibition facilities that were available before for Australian films. It was the object of every one who made an Australian film to get back the capital cost of the film from exhibition in Australia. If a producer could do that he was more or less content, and whatever he could make on the film overseas represented a profit. Even some of the great Australian films that have been mentioned in this debate barely earned in Australia the cost of producing them. In most instances, they were not sophisticated films. They had a particular appeal to Australians, but when we tried to sell them in England or America the people there just did not know what they were looking at. The film " Jedda " that was made here by Charles Chauvel was a magnificent film, showing some of the most fantastic scenery to be seen in the world, but when we tried to place that film in Great Britain it was looked upon as a curiosity. It did not receive the support there that one would have expected in view of its success in Australia, but the background to it was, of course, well known to all of us here. So when we talk of making more pictures in Australia to-day, we must not forget that at the moment the internal market has almost disappeared - and that is the market on which formerly the cost of making Australian films was recovered.

There has been a tendency in the las! few years for American film units to com*: here, spending money in a way in which the Australian film producer has never been able to spend it. I remember that when " Sons of Matthew " was made here by Charles Chauvel, the cost was estimated at between £50,000 and £60,000, but the final cost was, I should say, £120,000 or £130,000. When American units come here they bring with them actors who are known world-wide. They bring also their own equipment and highly-skilled technicians. They use as background, for instance, the City of Melbourne, as was done in " On the Beach ", or South Australia, as was done in " Kangaroo ", and Pinchgut, as was done in a recent film, but they have actors who are known world-wide and they have large sums at their disposal. I would say that Stanley Kramer must have spent well over £1,000,000 in making " On the Beach ". The problem is to recoup that expenditure, and that cannot be done by exhibiting solely in Australia. The film must have a world market. A picture in which top-line stars appear will have a wide appeal, but the Australian producer of pictures cannot make films on that scale. To begin with, he has not got stars of world renown and, except in unusual circumstances, the star value makes a picture. So for the moment I do not think that we in Australia can build up a picture industry that can compete with the large industries overseas.

I think that our salvation lies in making films in a small way. In Australia to-day we have a competent film-making industry that has been in existence for many years. In the days of Charles Chauvel, Ken Hall and other great Australian producers there was no industry in the real meaning of the word. In those days pictures were made one at a time. The producer would make a picture, perhaps taking three months to do so, and then the production unit would be disbanded. The film would go to the cutting room and would eventually reach the theatres twelve months or more later. If the picture was at all successful the boys would get together again and start to make another picture. They would try to get the cameramen and technicians together again. Making a top-class film is a highly technical process. The producer would have to get together all the necessary manpower in order to make his next film. Once again, after the film had been made, the organization would be disbanded. Every time this happened it became increasingly difficult to re-organize the production force because some men who had taken jobs elsewhere were inclined to stay where they were rather than run the risk that is involved in making films in Australia.

I think that the industry could operate satisfactorily if it concentrated on producing films on a small scale. Our hope lies in applying the industry to the needs of television. The making of television films for advertising purposes is no small industry in Australia to-day. The industry is spread over a number of small producers but in all it amounts to a substantial industry.

Senator Brown - There is plenty of room for improvements in quality there.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes. I do noi know what percentage of advertising films are imported. Perhaps Senator Hannan could tell me.

Senator Hannan - There is a prohibition on imported commercial films at the moment.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Does that mean that to-day all commercial films are being made here?

Senator Hannan - Yes.

Senator ARMSTRONG - But some that were imported earlier are still being used, I think.

Senator Hannan - Some are.

Senator ARMSTRONG - I think I have seen some imported commercials on television recently.

Senator Hannan - There is a direction that they should not be used, but it is difficult to police this matter.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Is the direction against showing them or against importing them? Having brought them in twelve months or so ago, can they now be shown?

Senator Hannan - I think the Postmaster-General has given a direction that they shall not be used.

Senator ARMSTRONG - That is a very important step forward. The advertising films that are made in this country are quite good. At first sight they may appeal to be simple types of films, but they form the basis of a highly technical operation which is employing a very large number of people in Australia.

Senator Ormonde - It is quite an industry.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes, and it is providing work for many good cameramen and other technicians. A few weeks ago I was looking over the studios of Cinesound and 1 saw some young cameramen who were developing in a promising fashion. Their seniors spoke well of their capacity to make commercial and other film* for television. So there you have a small but solid foundation on which to build an industry. An advertising film has been made in colour of the capital cities of Australia. It will be used for exhibition in theatres. I do not know whether it has been shown yet in commercial houses. It was made for the Rothman company and gives three-minute views of each capital city, lt is one of the most magnificent films I have ever seen. Any country would be proud to say that it had produced it. We in this country can produce the goods if we have the opportunity and provided a market is available.

The next step, in my view, is the filming of live shows. The production of a live show is a very expensive undertaking. Some television stations, particularly in New South Wales, have been making courageous efforts in what is an unrewarding and thankless job - putting live shows on television. The national television station which televised " Stormy» «Petrel " deserves great credit for its efforts. Channel 7 in New South Wales has made great efforts and has spent substantial amounts of money in using Australian actors and actresses in live shows on television. But sponsors for such shows are hard to get because they do not think they obtain value for their money. In many cases a substantial part of the cost of production of live shows is borne by the television station. Their only chance to cut their costs is to have a wide network of stations and thus share the costs of the live shows that they are putting on television. A half-hour show on Channel 7 could not be made for less than about £3,000 and the one-hour shows, such as the Shakespearian plays, would run to about £6,000 each. Unless the initial expense of those shows is shared by several stations, the stations producing the shows are faced with a heavy burden. I compliment station ATN on its efforts to put live shows on television and to give opportunities to Australian actors and actresses. Within the last month station ATN has purchased the Artransa studios, which is an indication that it is prepared to spend substantial amounts of money to bring live shows to Australian audiences.

Senator Ormonde - That is the " Sydney Morning Herald " station, is it not?

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes. It is useless putting live shows on television in this country if the viewer simply turns the knob to look at " Tombstone Territory ", " Maverick " or some of the other shows that captured the imagination of the viewing public in the early days of television in this country. But this attitude of the viewing public is settling down and we are obtaining a more appreciative audience which is more and more looking at live shows on television. This pattern will continue although I confess that some of us still like to watch half a dozen cowboys shoot it out, with the goodies always winning and the baddies always losing. That sort of entertainment is refreshing after a hard week in the Senate. But that type of programme, which has been popular with adults and children alike, is gradually losing its appeal. I do not suggest that Hollywood is running out of bullets, but it may be running out of bodies.

The problem of diversity of characters is one that will face the producers of "Whiplash". It will be hard to obtain sufficient actors so that the same faces do not appear in scene after scene, even though in one scene they may have a beard and in another they may be clean-shaven. In some American films you find the same faces appearing week after week. One week a particular character may be a hero, next week he is the villain and a week later he is a cripple. But the same faces are emerging on American television because of the tie-up of television stations in that country. One of the problems associated with " Whiplash " - the only one that was made in Australia - was that in one series of television films the producers ran out of different types and so the monotony was retained. Therefore I say that, in the television field, our Australian film industry should be nurtured and developed. If the Government wants to help, of course, it can be drastic and insist on quotas and things like that. Television Channel 9 in Sydney has made a very definite movement in the last month or two towards doing more live shows. Both the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Channel ATN have always done as much, indeed more than, they could be reasonably expected to do at the current stage of development, and they are being rewarded slowly but surely. The filming of live shows is a highly technical and exciting job, involving know-how. The making available to country television stations of these films will, I think, give the industry a needed fillip.

Senator Hannanis worried about the effect of the influx of American films on Australian sentiment and culture. There is a virtual monopoly of foreign films. I do not know how that position could be changed quickly unless we had something to take their place. It is of no use changing something that the people want to see.

Senator Ormonde - They may want to see our local sort of crime.

Senator ARMSTRONG - They , may want some other attraction for a while until the characters become typed again. Of course, it is easy to talk and to be critical of these things. If the people do not like the things provided, the films have no value. lt is of no use making a propaganda film or a documentary if there is no audience to view it; that would be a complete waste of money. The fact that a documentary film is awarded a prize at the Glasgow Exhibition or the Cannes Festival or in Venice does not impress me at all, because a film is meant to be seen, not to be put in the archives with a little label on it saying, for example, that it was awarded a prize at Cannes in 1960. Unless a film is made for people to see, why make it? I believe that the success of a film is measured by the number of people who see it. We are making a lot of films, directly and indirectly, at our own laboratories. Senator Tangney said last night that 500 films have been made there. I suppose that number includes " Australian Diaries ".

Senator Ormonde - The " Australian Diaries " go to about 50 countries.

Senator ARMSTRONG - I do not know that to be a fact but I think it is a good thing if they do. What happens when the films get there? Is it necessary to substitute the local language for our language? I think that the production of " Australian Diaries " over the last twelve or thirteen years has been accomplished in a workmanlike manner. I was a member of the Australian National Film Board when it first started making films for the Government. We got a gentleman from Canada named Foster, and when he left we got Stanley Hawes. He came from England to Australia via Canada, and he is still here.

That brings me to Senator Hannan's assertion that our culture is being jeopardized because the people are looking continually at foreign films. I can only agree with Senator Hannan. I have never agreed with him so much in my life; he must be improving out of sight. The effect of films on our culture is real. I do not intend to get into an argument concerning our culture. Even the poets Adam Lindsay Gordon and Henry Kendall were not Australians. I maintain that we need the influence of people from all parts of the world to develop our culture. Nobody can deny that the American way of life has an important bearing on us which it did not have 50 years ago, when the most important bearing on our culture came from the United Kingdom because 98 per cent, of the people in Australia were British. Is it a good thing to have only British culture? I suggest that, due to the great influx of new Australians, in 40 or 50 years' time we will have a better developed and wider culture than we have now. As I have said, I do not want to be dragged into an argument on culture. The last GovernorGeneral was not in this country ten minutes before he attacked our beer and our betting habits. He seemed to think that that was all that our culture embraced. He might not have been wrong because they are a part of our way of life. The fact that we do drink beer and that we have a casual approach to betting undoubtedly influences some aspects of our nature. I am quite certain that what we see on television, whether it be American, British or European, does affect our culture. I am a very simple fellow. I do not think that merely because I can appreciate a painting, or can do one, I am cultured. I might listen to most beautiful singing by a bird in the bush and not take any enjoyment out of it at all. The culture that I admire, and which I myself try to develop, is that which leads one to be a gentleman at all times. I think that the attainment of gentleness in men and women is a big step towards culture, by whatever name it is described.

There has been a great deal of talk about the impact on Australians of American films. A young boy in South Australia wrote what I thought was a horrible letter to the " Saturday Evening Post " describing his reactions to some of the television programmes. I think that the reactions he mentioned were ridiculous. I listened to Senator Hannan read the letter, and I thought as he proceeded that mum and dad must have helped the boy with it. I thought it was very weak.

Is it not strange that as far back in life as we can remember the aspect of violence has been presented to us? It was first presented to us, not during adolescence, but when we were babies, by means of the nursery rhymes. Fancy in modern days any one writing about Little Red Riding Hood in the way presented in the story; about the wolf dressing in the grandmother's clothes and then waiting in bed to eat Little Red Riding Hood.

Senator McCallum - There were two versions of the ending to the story.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Later, educationists devised a happier ending; the grandmother hid in the cupboard from the wolf. In the unexpurgated version, the grandmother was eaten by the wolf. Then the wolf dressed itself in grandmother's clothes and waited in bed to eat Little Red Riding Hood when she arrived at the grandmother's house. What an impact that story would make on the mind of a little child. So also would " Jack and the Beanstalk ". If I remember aright, Jack stole from the giant the goose that laid the golden eggs, and chopped down the beanstalk when the giant came in pursuit and the giant was killed. I think that Tom, Tom the Piper's Son was the first juvenile delinquent, when he stole the pig and ran away. When one thinks of Jack being at the top of the beanstalk and stealing the goose that laid the golden egg-

Senator McCallum - All giants are wicked.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes. But I do not think that justifies their destruction. Incidentally, we have even eliminated the death penalty in our modern law. Is it not extraordinary that this sort of violence is presented to children from their earliest days? But I do not believe it does the slightest harm. We see little babies playing on the carpet with guns, and almost the first words they learn are, " Lie down. You're dead! " I am quite sure that the violence we see portrayed on television and cinema screens is not harmful.

Senator Dittmer - It is not harmful to normal minds.

Senator ARMSTRONG - It is not harmful to the normal mind because it is part of the release - part of the game. The goodies always win and the baddies always lose, and in the overall picture no harm is done. Of course, a person with an unbalanced mind may go off at a tangent if he sees violence portrayed in a television film or in some other way. Trying to protect people against such things is like trying to protect people against alcohol. If one is weak, the weakness will show through, whether it be in the doing of violence or becoming a cat burglar.

We have had an opportunity to discuss what could be a matter of great importance in Australia, particularly with the development of the television industry over the next few years. I should say that a government subsidy in such fields is always welcome. I like Senator Hannan's suggestions as to how assistance could be provided for the proper development of the Australian film industry. The industry is important in all its aspects. Films, more than any other medium, are able to depict to people overseas our way of life. We must develop in our own country a highly trained, technical industry which will be of tremendous value both culturally and economically. Although I am pleased that Senator Hannan submitted this matter for discussion, I am rather disappointed, as I said in my opening remarks, that he did not ask for the appointment of a select committee or seek a resolution of substance that could be conveyed to the Government.