Australian horror movies

The Australian horror film is a fascinating specimen. While a tradition has antecedents in the silent era of cinema, and at times has produced popular and commercially successful titles, Australian horror films have existed among the shadows of Australian cinema. Within a national cinema funded by public subsidy to foster a sense of national identity, emphasizing ‘quality’ cultural films and refusing to recognize popular movie genres in attempt to differentiate itself from Hollywood, generic and low-culture horror films have been in opposition to these objectives. Consequently, horror movies have been heavily marginalized within public funding environments and mainstream film culture, and either ignored or despised by mainstream critics. The chapter provides a historical introduction to Australian horror cinema before reviewing a selection of recent Aussie horror titles, namely: Wolf Creek, Undead, Black Water, Dying Breed, Lost Things, Prey, Cut, Rogue and Storm Warning.

Towards an understanding of Australian genre cinema and entertainment : beyond the limitations of ‘Ozploitation’ discourse

While Australian cinema has produced popular movie genres since the 1970s, including action/adventure, road movies, crime, and horror movies, genre cinema has occupied a precarious position within a subsidised national cinema and has been largely written out of film history. In recent years the documentary Not Quite Hollywood (2008) has brought Australia’s genre movie heritage from the 1970s and 1980s back to the attention of cinephiles, critics and cult audiences worldwide. Since its release, the term ‘Ozploitation’ has become synonymous with Australian genre movies. In the absence of discussion about genre cinema within film studies, Ozploitation (and ‘paracinema’ as a theoretical lens) has emerged as a critical framework to fill this void as a de facto approach to genre and a conceptual framework for understanding Australian genres movies. However, although the Ozploitation brand has been extremely successful in raising the awareness of local genre flicks, Ozploitation discourse poses problems for film studies, and its utility is limited for the study of Australian genre movies. This paper argues that Ozploitation limits analysis of genre movies to the narrow confines of exploitation or trash cinema and obscures more important discussion of how Australian cinema engages with popular movies genres, the idea of Australian filmmaking as entertainment, and the dynamics of commercial filmmaking practises more generally.

Creative industries after the first decade of debate

It has now been over a decade since the concept of creative industries was first put into the public domain through the Creative Industries Mapping Documents developed by the Blair Labour government in Britain. The concept has developed traction globally, but it has also been understood and developed in different ways in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and North America, as well as through international bodies such as UNCTAD and UNESCO. A review of the policy literature reveals that while questions and issues remain around definitional coherence, there is some degree of consensus emerging about the size, scope and significance of the sectors in question in both advanced and developing economies. At the same time, debate about the concept remains highly animated in media, communication and cultural studies, with its critics dismissing the concept outright as a harbinger of neo-liberal ideology in the cultural sphere. This paper couches such critiques in light of recent debates surrounding the intellectual coherence of the concept of neo-liberalism, arguing that this term itself possesses problems when taken outside of the Anglo-American context in which it originated. It is argued that issues surrounding the nature of participatory media culture, the relationship between cultural production and economic innovation, and the future role of public cultural institutions can be developed from within a creative industries framework, and that writing off such arguments as a priori ideological and flawed does little to advance debates about 21st century information and media culture.

Sharing with Creative Commons : a business model for content creators

Creative Commons (CC) is often seen as a social movement, dismissed by critics as a tool for hobbyists or academics who do not sell their creations to make a living. However, this paper argues that the licensing of creative copyright works under a CC licence does not preclude commercial gain. If used wisely, CC licences can be a useful tool for creators in their quest for commercial success. In particular, this paper argues that the sharing of creative works online under a CC licence allows creators to circumvent traditional distribution channels dominated by content intermediaries, whilst maintaining a level of control over their copyright works (i.e. explicitly reserving some rights but not all rights). This will be illustrated by case studies on how CC is being used by content creators and intermediaries respectively, and how successful their respective methods are in harnessing this tool.

Everything is child abuse

In 2008, the Australian federal Senate held an Inquiry into the Sexualisation of Children in the Contemporary Media Environment. I made a submission to this Inquiry, noting that in public debate about this topic a number of quite distinct issues, with distinct aetiologies, were collapsed together. These included: child pornography; children being targeted by any form of marketing; young people becoming sexually active; sexual abuse of children; raunch culture; protecting children from any sexualised material in the media; and body image disorders. I suggested that commentators had collapsed these issues together because the image of the helpless child is a powerful one for critics to challenge undesirable aspects of contemporary culture. The result of many different ideological viewpoints all using the same argument - that the forms of culture they didn't like were damaging children - gives the impression that there is no element of culture today that isn't (somebody claims) causing harm to children: everything is child abuse. The danger of such discourses is that they draw attention away from the real harm that is being caused to children by sexual and other forms of maltreatment - which overwhelmingly occur within families, and for reasons ignored in these debates.

Searching for a feminist voice : film festivals and negotiating the tension between expectation and intent

International Film Festivals play a vital role in shaping filmmakers’ careers. This paper presents some initial findings from a current major research project, highlighting the significance of particular festival programming of emerging female directors from developing nations. Some filmmakers showcased at festivals actively privilege the voices of women in their films as a means of commenting on pressing cultural and political issues. Ironically, other filmmakers do not subscribe to the label of “feminist” or “woman filmmaker”, even if their respective films represent a strongly coded woman’s point of view. Tensions also arise inevitably when scrutinising women filmmakers from developing nations within a first world film festival context. The expectations of the researcher, the festival, film critics and audiences inevitably must negotiate with the original intentions of the filmmaker. This paper explores the significance of women filmmakers in attendance at the Brisbane International Film Festival (2009) and the International Film Festival Rotterdam (2010).

Directing Democracy : The Case of the John Lewis Partnership

The John Lewis Partnership was founded in 1929 as an “experiment in industrial democracy” (Lewis, 1948). This thesis explores the meaning of democracy in the Partnership and examines the wider implications of the case. It argues that democracy in work should be viewed as something which is intrinsically valuable because of its connection to furthering justice, equality, freedom and the rights and interests of all workers. The thesis makes three main contributions. Firstly, the production of a historically situated exploration of democratic participation in the John Lewis Partnership – the largest co-owned business in the UK. Secondly, an analysis of power relations in the organisation and an examination of the ways in which disciplinary power and regimes of truth both constrain democratic practice and offer the potential for resistance and challenge. Thirdly, the thesis challenges critics of the Partnership who have dismissed it as a form of “pseudo democracy” (Pateman, 1970: 73) and “suffocatingly paternalistic” (Ramsay, 1980: 52). Despite the constant threat of degeneration and dilution of the value framework laid down by the founder, the Partnership’s continued commitment to democratic participation provides an important contribution to our understanding of co-ownership and democratically organised forms of work. The analysis shows that management have attempted to direct and define democracy in a highly constrained way, assigning it an instrumental purpose, and privileging the ‘business case’ for democratic engagement. However, the study emphasises that the meaning of democracy is heavily contested and fraught with contradictions and paradoxes. This creates a space in which understandings of equality, solidarity and democracy are debated by the 69,000 employees who are co-owners of the business.

Everything is political

Everything is Political Ben Eltham, Kieran Lord, Jeff Brand, Truna. Chair: Daniel Golding Videogames don’t exist in isolation. They are part of artistic, cultural, and political spheres – even if some would much rather they weren’t. This panel takes a look at the way videogames are used as political tools and how we as developers and critics can better engage with that, and perhaps wrestle some of the conversation back into our hands.

That one piece of advice - microlecture

Programme: In these microlectures, developers, educators, critics, and artists give you the one piece of advice that they hold above all others. That one piece of advice: It's about the passion: Excerpt: Shades of madness - Creativity - Passion: There is something very important to observe about an industry that engages in these intense weekends. The monolithic Hollywood model is not viable, we need to scaffold the next gen of game designers, foster the passion, provide opportunity, CHANGE the model – not just dress it in new clothes

Rare chicken rescue

Sound design for documentary is an under-researched field. The specific context of representation of emotional or mental states is particularly open to clichéd treatment. Such treatment in the media often ‘perpetuates inaccurate or negative assumptions about mental health issues in the wider community’ (Francis et al 2005: 11) by employing, for example, either jarring sound/music combinations to signify ‘madness’ or overtly saccharine music to educe sympathy. This project adopted a practice-based approach to discovering a considered aesthetic treatment designed to elicit a more empathetic audience response. A more discriminating engagement with the intentions of the film was cultivated by abandoning both the ‘representational naturalism’ and the ‘distilled, evocative realism’ of documentary sound design (Davies 2007: 18) in favour of a more lyrical or musical approach. To achieve this we manipulated perspective, tonal character and perceptions of space in the final mixing stage. The project was funded by the Film Australia National Interest Program, ABC TV and the Pacific Film and Television Commission. As a crucial contributor to the aesthetic of the project I was nominated in the funding application, and ultimately received an AFI Award for Best Sound in a Documentary in 2008. The film was honoured by The Film Critics Circle of Australia, The Slamdance Film Festival in Utah and The Sydney Film Festival. It has been favourably reviewed in national and international print media (The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, among others) as well as online film/culture zines and blogs.

The Corio Oval tribe: Geelong Football Club in colonial times

Geelong, Victoria’s second city, has an AFL football club whose culture and identity is closely tied to the city itself. An analysis of its playing group for the colonial period demonstrates that this local tribalism began early. As football became professionalised towards the end of the nineteenth century, country Victoria lost power in relative terms to metropolitan Melbourne: for example, Ballarat’s three main clubs lost their senior status. But Geelong, with its one remaining senior club, prospered and was admitted to the VFL ranks in 1897. The Geelong players were the sons and nephews of the Western District squattocracy and so had access to networks of power and influence. Many attended the prestigious Geelong Grammar School and the worthy Geelong College (in surprisingly equal numbers). They pursued careers both on the land and in professional roles, and maintained the social connections they had built through the club and other local institutions. Despite their elite standing, however, they continued to be regarded by the supporter base as an embodiment of the city and a defence against the city’s Melbourne critics that Geelong was a mere ‘sleepy hollow’.

Creative industries after the first decade of debate

It has now been over a decade since the concept of creative industries was first put into the public domain by the Blair Labour government’s Creative Industries Mapping Documents in Britain. The concept has gained traction globally, but it has also been understood and developed in different ways in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and North America, as well as through international bodies such as UNCTAD and UNESCO. A review of the policy literature reveals that although questions and issues remain around definitional coherence, there is some degree of consensus emerging about the size, scope, and significance of the sectors in question in both advanced and developing economies. At the same time, debate about the concept remains highly animated in media, communication, and cultural studies, with its critics dismissing the concept outright as a harbinger of neoliberal ideology in the cultural sphere. This article couches such critiques in light of recent debates surrounding the intellectual coherence of the concept of neoliberalism, arguing that this term itself possesses problems when taken outside of the Anglo-American context in which it originated. It is argued that issues surrounding the nature of participatory media culture, the relationship between cultural production and economic innovation, and the future role of public cultural institutions can be developed from within a creative industries framework and that writing off such arguments as a priori ideological and flawed does little to advance debates about twentieth-century information and media culture.

Towards an understanding of Australian genre cinema and entertainment : beyond the limitations of ‘Ozploitation’ discourse

While Australian cinema has produced popular movie genres since the 1970s, including action/adventure, road movies, crime, and horror movies, genre cinema has occupied a precarious position within a subsidised national cinema and has been largely written out of film history. In recent years the documentary Not Quite Hollywood (2008) has brought Australia’s genre movie heritage from the 1970s and 1980s back to the attention of cinephiles, critics and cult audiences worldwide. Since its release, the term ‘Ozploitation’ has become synonymous with Australian genre movies. In the absence of discussion about genre cinema within film studies, Ozploitation (and ‘paracinema’ as a theoretical lens) has emerged as a critical framework to fill this void as a de facto approach to genre and a conceptual framework for understanding Australian genres movies. However, although the Ozploitation brand has been extremely successful in raising the awareness of local genre flicks, Ozploitation discourse poses problems for film studies, and its utility is limited for the study of Australian genre movies. This paper argues that Ozploitation limits analysis of genre movies to the narrow confines of exploitation or trash cinema and obscures more important discussion of how Australian cinema engages with popular movies genres, the idea of Australian filmmaking as entertainment, and the dynamics of commercial filmmaking practises more generally.

Collective equipments of power: The road and the city

A year ago, I became aware of the historical existence of the group CERFI— Le centre d’etudes, de recherches, et de formation institutionelles, or The Study Center for Institutional Research and Formation. CERFI emerged in 1967 under the hand of Lacanian psychiatrist and Trotskyite activist Félix Guattari, whose antonymous journal Recherches chronicled the group’s subversive experiences, experiments, and government-sponsored urban projects. It was a singularly bizarre meeting of the French bureaucracy with militant activist groups, the French intelligentsia, and architectural and planning practitioners at the close of the ‘60s. Nevertheless, CERFI’s analysis of the problems of society was undertaken precisely from the perspective of the state, and the Institute acknowledged a “deep complicity between the intellectual and statesman ... because the first critics of the State, are officials themselves!”1 CERFI developed out of FGERI (The Federation of Groups for Institutional Study and Research), started by Guattari two years earlier. While FGERI was created for the analysis of mental institutions stemming from Guattari’s work at La Borde, an experimental psychiatric clinic, CERFI marks the group’s shift toward urbanism—to the interrogation of the city itself. Not only a platform for radical debate on architecture and the city, CERFI was a direct agent in the development of urban planning schemata for new towns in France. 2 CERFI’s founding members were Guattari, the economist and urban theorist François Fourquet, feminist philosopher Liane Mozère, and urban planner and editor of Multitides Anne Querrien—Guattari’s close friend and collaborator. The architects Antoine Grumback, Alain Fabre, Macary, and Janine Joutel were also members, as well as urbanists Bruno Fortier, Rainier Hoddé, and Christian de Portzamparc. 3 CERFI was the quintessential social project of post-‘68 French urbanism. Located on the Far Left and openly opposed to the Communist Party, this Trotskyist cooperative was able to achieve what other institutions, according to Fourquet, with their “customary devices—the politburo, central committee, and the basic cells—had failed to do.”4 The decentralized institute recognized that any formal integration of the group was to “sign its own death warrant; so it embraced a skein of directors, entangled, forming knots, liquidating all at once, and spinning in an unknown direction, stopping short and returning back to another node.” Allergic to the very idea of “party,” CERFI was a creative project of free, hybrid-aesthetic blocs talking and acting together, whose goal was none other than the “transformation of the libidinal economy of the militant revolutionary.” The group believed that by recognizing and affirming a “group unconscious,” as well as their individual unconscious desires, they would be able to avoid the political stalemates and splinter groups of the traditional Left. CERFI thus situated itself “on the side of psychosis”—its confessed goal was to serve rather than repress the utter madness of the urban malaise, because it was only from this mad perspective on the ground that a properly social discourse on the city could be forged.

Conflict and seduction in the public sphere

In a critical but sympathetic reading of Habermas’s work (1984, 1987a, 1987b, 2003), Luke Goode (2005) recently sought to rework his theory of deliberative democracy in an age of mediated and increasingly digital public spheres. Taking a different approach, Alan McKee (2005) challenged the culture- and class-bound strictures of Habermasian rationalism, instead pursuing a more radically pluralist account of postmodern public spheres. The editors of this special section of Media, Culture & Society invited us to discuss our differing approaches to the public sphere. Goode holds that the institutional bases of contemporary public spheres (political parties, educational institutions or public media) remain of critical importance, albeit in the context of a kaleidoscopic array of unofficial and informal micro-publics, both localized and de-territorialized. In contrast, McKee sustains a ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ toward the official, hegemonic institutions of the public sphere since they tend to exclude and delegitimize discourses and practices that challenge their polite middle-class norms. McKee’s recent research has focused on sexual cultures, particularly among youth (McKee, 2011). Goode’s recent work has examined new social media spaces, particularly in relation to news and public debate (e.g. Goode, 2009; Goode et al., 2011). Consequently, our discussion turned to a domain which links our interests: after Goode discussed some of his recent research on (in)civility on YouTube as a new media public sphere, McKee challenged him to consider the case of pornographic websites modelled on social media sites.1 He identifies a greater degree of ‘civility’ in these pornographic sibling sites than on YouTube, requiring careful consideration of what constitutes a ‘public sphere’ in contemporary digital culture. Such sites represent an environment that shatters the opposition of public and private interest, affording public engagement on matters of the body, of intimacy, of gender politics, of pleasure and desire – said by many critics to be ruled out of court in Habermasian theory. Such environments also trouble traditional binaries between the cognitive and the affective, and between the performative and the deliberative. In what follows we explore the differences between our approaches in the form of a dialogue. As is often the case, our approaches seemed less at odds after engaging in conversation than may have initially appeared. But important differences of emphasis remain.