THE AUSTRALIAN “MOVIE.”

Hokitika Guardian, 13 March 1920, Page 4

THE AUSTRALIAN “MOVIE.”

ITS GROWTH AND PROSPECTS,

(By Expert, in Sydney Herald)

Prejudice dies hard. Prejudice, however, is most frequently the direct outcome of oft-repeated shibboleths originated by interested parties, and circulated with a persistency that causes them to be accepted as truth by a large proportion of people who either lack the time, the inclination, or the ability to reason out such matters tor themselves.

The Australian moving picture industry is a case in point. A vast majority of “movie” going people have shown their approval of recent locallyproduced pictures. The box office, that infallible thermometer of public approbation, rose to the limit of its capacity wherever one particular picture was shown. That in itself is the best answer to those who doubt the accepted popularity of the “Australian Made” film. Why, then, are Australian pictures not more general P Why is the vast sum of' £250,000 spent annually by one big film concern alone on imported drama? There are two reasons.—First, the Australian moving picture industry is in its infancy. Second, there are strong outside interests whose main object is to keep it there.

The production of moving pictures is the third biggest industry in the United States. Fifteen years ago, even ten years ago, the American picture drama was a crude affair, full of absurdities and -anachronisms. Every thing must have a start; and, with the exception of a few desultory ductions of some years hack, which were about on a par with the earlier efforts of American and other enterprises, no serious attempt had been made to firmly establish the “movie” industry in Australia,, until the present period. It will take time to grow, but it is starting with the benefit of up-to-date methods and material, and the experience gained by others, and Australia has natural facilities for picture-making that are absolutely unique. The growth of the industry should be rapid, and the day close at hand when the bulk of the millions going abroad will be kept in this country.

“Location,” the technical name for the ground where moving pictures are made, abounds in this State alone. In America, producers send their scouts out hunting the length and breadth of the country seeking suitable environment. Whole companies are transported to secure the right atmosphere, or else huge outdoor “sets” are erected at enormous cost Here no such difficulties exist. Within a 20mile radius of Sydney can be found an abundance of ocean, lake, river, forest, and mountain scenery that for beauty and grandeur would gladden the heart of any “movie” director. As recent Australian films have shown, there is no lack of talent in the country. Natural acting is the keystone of successful “movie” popularity, and the home-grown actor is nothing if not natural. “Camera” men of great experience speak in terms of rapture concerning the atmospheric conditions for making photographs, comparing the general conditions with selected spots in America. Nature has done her best to foster progress. Enterprise, organisation, and finance must do the rest. The’ cost of production was formerly one of the greatest hand*-

caps to the moving picture industry in Australia, but that obstacle has now been overcome. The war gave Australia a world-wide advertisement, so that a foreign market for artisticallyproduced local films, and a substantial cash return, are assured. The advertising possibilities for Australia opened up by international traffic in Australian films are enormous. The beauty, the resources, the products, the character of the country will be placed before other nations in a manner more forcible and realistic than could be effected by an army of AgentsGeneral fully equipped with printed matter. Look at the advertisement America has got in this country through its films—which brings us to the second reason for the slow development of Australian-made pictures. It is common knowledge that the film business in this country consists of one or more combines which practically control not only the whole of the imports of outside films, but also the vast majority of the picture theatres in the cities and towns everywhere

throughout the country. These theatres are virtually in the position of “tied houses” indirectly compelled to purchase their. programmes through the particular combination to which they are allied. They may secure certain “star” films by arrangement, but in most cases the balance of the “programme” is made up by the company with which they deal. That is one reason why the audience, in order to see a film the title of whicli appeals to them, is condemned to sit a considerate portion of their time regarding pictures in which they have little or no interest. The vast majority of these pictures are imported from America—and imported cheaply in comparison with local production. At- the present time the showman who through patriotic or other reasons wishes to screen an all-Australian production has to pay for the privilege out of his own pocket, and in addition to the cost of his usual programme. This American “influence” is so great, and has suoli a complete organisation behind it, backed by unlimited capital, that the only means of successfully combating it is complete co-operation between the pic-ture-going public and Australian filmproducers. If the latter continue to produce films up to the standard of public requirements, it is “up to” the public to insist that these pictures be shown at tho theatres they frequent. In a recent article in the “S.M. Her-

aid” on “Picture Shows” the following'statement was attributed to a filmdirector:—“The public shuns the educational film. If we announce a long scenic film people will say, ‘Yes, that should be very fine,’ and stay away.” Well, that may be in a measure time as far as “long scenic” films are concerned. The public naturally prefers its education in homeopathic doses. The of modern education is to make the instruction as brief and varied and free from monotony as possible. There is no need for scenic or industrial films to be dragged out and

padded to boredom, as is the case with many American films of this type. The most direct refutation of the “direc- ’ torial” statement quoted above is the fact that a recent Australian-produced star film was supplemented by an educational film entitled “The West Australian Timber Industry.” Showmen right throughout the Commonwealth made strenuous efforts to secure this film, stating that it was “exceptionally good,” and “went down well” wit’ audiences everywhere. The audience that will look coldly on a film depiotinging the “Shrimp Industry of Patagonia” or a “Snowball Factory in Lapland,” or whose emotions are left unstirred by a graphic picture of the “Local Gasworks at Bluff stakes, Pa,” takes a very different view of an artistic representation of the industrial life of their homeland. Australian timber, wheat, sheep, cattle, and mining in all its branches—these open up a vast field for interesting film action that will prove vastly more entertaining than the slushy padding or allejged comedy films with which Yankee filmhouses are flooding this country. Their exportation abroad must also have a most beneficial influence on the immigration Australia so badly needs.

Another factor that militates against tlie rapid growth of the Australian picture-producing industry is the inconsisent attitude adopted towards it by the various State Government departments. Gunplay, bushranging, and kindred subjects are strictly tabooed. Ned Kelly is anathema, and anything that reflects on the work or intelligence of the police force is promptly squashed beneath the large foot of officialdom; and quite right, too, perhaps. But why, then, is the screenic crook and “badman” from America allowed to invade these peaceful shores, shoot up whole communities at his leisure, rob respectable citizens, ruin irreproachable maidens, and behave himself generally in a most reprehensible manner? If we must have “gun-men” and bushrangers, train robbers, and other impolite people, let us have our own, or else drop them altogether. Nobody would miss them, anyhow, and the cry about juvenile crime would no longer be heard in the land. It is a most difficult matter to screen a street scene without introducing a policeman, but even when his conduct is intended to be heroic and a demonstration oh the mighty muscle and brain of the “force,” the laws of this State prohibit the employment of a real “John Hop,” or even a realistic substitute. Confronted with this difficulty, a producer of a recent local film overcame it by employing the Commonwealth police from the Naval Dockyard. Although outwardly similar in appearance and uniform, the sharp eye of the Australian small boy quickly spotted a discrepancy, and the “N.D.” on their caps was immediately transformed into the soubriquet “nit dinkum” by the delighted youngsters. As another example of this senseless “red rape,” permission to film a highly peaceful and respectable scene in one of our public gardens was sternly refused, and although finally granted, was accomplished with the grudging remark, “This must not be accepted as a precedent.” These are just some of the difficulties under which the Australian picture industry is labouring; but • time will bring a broader outlook, and public support will place it on a firm and profitable basis, owing to the great natural advantages previously mentioned, the saving in freight, duty, brokerage, middleman’s profits, and other reasons, the Australian film can even now be produced at a quarter the cost of American imported pictures. The industry opens up a field of employment for thousands of people throughout the various States, and the millions of pounds that are going out of the country will be applied to its development or some equally useful purpose. Let us make our own movies, and instead of filling our minds with the senseless rubbish of other countries, advertise broadcast throughout the world the life, resources, and possibilities of Australia.