The Advancement of National Film Industries.

Many say the Age of Imperialism has long passed. However, that can be argued to the contrary. Of course, the British Empire has all but nearly dissolved, but now the American Empire has most of the rest of the world under its control. Its film and television industries remain the centre-point of its influence – the “Hollywood” sign in the hills of California is universally recognized, the Indian film industry is known as “Bollywood,” and the national cinema and television industries of dozens of countries continually struggle to find an audience when competing against the familiarity and attraction of American movies and television programs. Subsequently, most have to take notes from these more luring American imports in order to become a hit.

In this essay, I shall attempt to decipher three expert readings on the adapting of national film and television industries by their governments in order to regain the loyalty of their audiences and the respect of the people those governments represent.

In India, a nation populated by over one billion people as opposed to the almost four-hundred million in the United States, the youth market is especially important for the catching-on of new trends. One of the most groundbreaking American media outposts of the last thirty years was MTV, which hastened the spread of innumerable youth trends, not least of all music videos, and continues to do so today. In 1996, Indian television network Star TV tested an MTV clone titled Channel V (which subsequently has been adapted for mass consumption in Australia). One way in which Channel V differed from MTV, however, was in that it also chose to promote Indian musicians as well as foreign musicians, and this fusion of Hindi and English pop and its making its deejays household names highlighted the great potential of Indianized music programs (Mankekar, p. 347).

Closer to home, there have been objectives put forward in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 with regards to local content, in relation to the overall job of broadcasting and its powers of influence over the public. Keeping a certain level of activity for our film and television industry is not one of the legislation’s top priorities, yet it is frequently argued that if production activities fall below a certain level, the cultural impacts the governments is trying to achieve with them might not eventuate. The reading on the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 highlights the findings of an inquiry conducted into the legislation and how many participants of it refused to directly discuss the application of the BSA’s objectives while many emphasized the importance of diversity and choice in everything. Even the then-Prime Minister Paul Keating sided with those involved with the inquiry. The inquiry was especially concerned about its possible impact on children’s programming and how networks could start to take advantage of the innocence and impressionability of young children. One participant is quotes as saying, “Children’s programming remains a strong area of community concern, with focus on providing child-specific entertainment, on the educative role of children’s programming and about levels of “adult” content to which children are exposed.” (Author/s not given, p. 382).

Reading 3-2 compares and contrasts censorship and content regulation in Australian film and television now and how it was in the past. In both industries there has always been a prevailing need to cater to all tastes and age-groups, in order for a film or television program to be successfully sold both here and overseas. It also delves deeply into the fierce rivalry between television and radio, a rivalry especially close with regards to advertising. The several categories of content regulation are explained, and the rigidity of censorship laws (understandable given the number of child-viewers) are described to the point where it would be possible to think that the media thinks we as adults don’t see what is often only implied.

Later in the same reading, the argument over the Australian content policy’s top priority being the promotion of social and cultural objectives rather than assistance to the Australian production industry is put under the microscope. Rather than choosing one side to this argument or even attempting to solve it, Reading 3-2 provides evidence to suggest that both sides of this argument work. “Current content regulation is complex and media specific. In general, the level of regulation is related to the assumed influence of each type of media.” (Author/s not given, pp. 382-384). And there is even what is known as a “creative control” test designed to road-test the genuine appeal and Australianness of Australian television shows, relating to the nationality of key personnel and production and post-production locations. The test is not concerned with the filming locations or subject matter of the production (Author/s not given, pp. 382-384).

This prevalent kind of neo-imperialism, like the kinds we have seen in the past, has both helped and hindered people whose civilizations it conquered. In her commentary The Myth of Unadulterated Culture Meets the Threat of Imported Media, Nancy Morris considers just what defines an “indigenous” culture just how far the repercussions of damage to cultural identity can stretch. While some of us believe that mass media consumption and identity go hand-in-hand and others do not, Nancy Morris attempts to pinpoint the catalyst for this assumed relationship and backs away from raising her own views as it whether it exists or not. She writes, “Phrases such as “cultural distinctiveness” and “local specificities” refer to the unsullied culture perceived to exist before the intrusion of external influences. “Regional consciousness” and “loyalties” are ways of describing collective identity.” (Morris p. 279) With this extract Morris illustrates how smaller cultures can be threatened by imperialist temptation and power, only to be reunited by cultural ties in an attempt to fight off such threats.

However, what Morris highlights here – underprivileged people fighting oppression – can itself have repercussions. They are fighting fire with fire, and subsequently if one uprising overthrows a tyrant, the nation home to the culture that uprising was led by runs the risk of essentially turning into their former oppressors, which keeps the chain of imperialist oppression going.

Nancy Morris also uses her commentary to express concerns about cultural purity and mixing. The opening paragraph of this part of the essay reads: “The concern that imported media fare causes members of national or ethnic groups to lose their sense of themselves as a collectivity is often expressed as the fear of the dilution of cultural purity.” (Morris p. 280) At a glance Morris could be re-hashing the argument that critics of television had when it was unleashed that it turns people into zombies, but when we analyze this statement more closely we see that is not the case. Morris is simply trying to expose the negative influences of one of the biggest juggernauts of Western globalization.

Nancy Morris provides a detailed study of the history and positives and negatives of globalization though imported media. Refreshingly, she avoids analyses of capitalism and communism, and how the two are inextricably linked with globalization. Her commentary also discusses how some items that are thought of as staples for a certain culture are often produced elsewhere or are mistakenly thought to have originated in that country. Of course, when products are made in a different country to the one in which they are to be sold, this creates jobs in the manufacturing country but not in the selling country, as well as the exploitation of sweatshop workers. In short, Nancy Morris, in her commentary, illustrates that for all the disputes between supporters of one or the other, capitalism and communism are not really that different after all.

Reading 3-2 attempts to pare down the sections of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, deciphering all the laws contained in it for a less-learned reader to be able to digest the information. Of course a document such as this is not widely distributed outside the government, in magazines or newspapers or even over the internet, and thus the actual existence of legislation like it is often completely unknown to the majority of the general public. The reading exposes identity, diversity, character and community as the major cultural objectives of the Act as well as the Australian Content Standard but still describes the cultural objectives of the two as being “necessarily broad.” This essentially just means that both the Act and the Australian Content Standard embrace the wide-ranging demands of all Australians. The reading also proves that the quality and innovation of productions prevail (Reading 3-2, Resource Materials, p. 380).

In her scathing, yet restrained and thankfully biased commentary The Myth of Unadulterated Culture Meets the Threat of Imported Media, Nancy Morris dissects the very topical and relevant debate surrounding imported media in and from every country in the First and Second Worlds. Nancy Morris shows how both sides of this debate could have level playing fields. On the one hand, Morris writes about “cultural homogenization,” not denying that it is caused by exposure to other cultures but clearly saying that it has helped advance smaller civilizations. On the other hand, she also claims, “A fundamental reason to support local media is because they serve local expression. As is the case with intercultural change, media are not necessary for this; social groups always find channels of expression. Indeed the enthusiasm of collectivities for images and representations of themselves is one explanation for the resilience of identity. But given this propensity, local media can provide something important.” Basically, Morris is simply saying that with or without imported media, individuality and freedom of expression would both still prevail (Morris pp. 284-286).

Reading 3-4 is an enlightening critique of just what non-damaging effects globalization has. With the establishment of MTV-esque television station Channel V tested by Star TV, India was economically brought up to the levels of other Western countries (that is, of course, with television, at least) without having any of its traditional ties cut. Its devotion to having half its programming being Indian was a hint taken by the founders of Channel V in Australia. Transnational media theorists maintain that expansion of transnational revenue requires a state strong enough to provide safe investment environments and trademark protection. India’s struggle to maintain its ability to forge cultural production is of much political significance. Thus, the case study provided in Reading 3-4 shows that rather than debating whether some nations have been made obsolete by imported media, we should really focus on investigating how transnational information and revenue regimes have played a role in the updating of communities not only in India but in every other developed country in the late-twentieth- and early-twenty-first centuries (Mankekar pp. 344-347).

Many of the national television and film endeavours performed by various Australian and foreign governments that are discussed in these readings could be read as pure propaganda, but what might seem like propaganda to a foreign reader is just a way to raise national pride for the endeavour’s national audience. Then there are those that raise national pride without even trying to make a political statement – Australia’s Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and India’s Channel V are two such examples. But which method is more effective?

Productions endorsed by national governments that are intentional propaganda have historically been produced during times of war, and due to the increasing cynicism of the general public, over the last forty years they have been successful in few countries. Apolitical pieces that usually just try to tell tall tales – a classic Australian example of these is the 1996 film The Castle – are nowadays much more successful because they do not talk down to their national audiences. Many governments have been slow to pick up on this way of cracking into this subtle way of cracking into the minds of the people they represent, but what ground they lose here they make up with exceedingly cleverly-placed advertising. Ultimately, advertising, rather than film or television, is what governments use to ensnare the minds of voters.

But in productions that are distinctively tied to one nation, can patriotism be misconstrued as racism? With regards to India’s “copying” of MTV into Star TV, for example, were they trying to say, “Anything you can do, we can do better”? Of course, here the Indian government was simply trying to lessen the influence of Western globalization without erasing it or making a statement of hate. The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 was attempt to do the same thing in Australia, working in conjunction with the Free Trade Agreement to provide Australian viewers with abundant, quality Australian programs without ignoring the demands of viewers from different backgrounds.

Nobody needs to be told that globalization is seen by many governments the world over as a threat to the continuity of their way of life. That’s been known since television was invented. However, over the decades, many countries that have been influenced, either positively or negatively, by it have found ways to fight back and subsequently influence the larger power that influenced them in the first place. For example, the Beatles became Britain’s response to Elvis Presley and they led the “British Invasion” of the 1960s, India’s Star TV exposed the true appeal of embracing multiculturalism, and Australia has provided many of the world’s most popular film stars in response to Hollywood’s domination of the Australian box office, as well as numerous highly acclaimed worldwide hit films which were designed from the outset as having universal appeal. Arguably these examples helped to fix the possible flaws of what the U.S. used as a weapon for influencing cultures in other countries.

Where there is a link between time and change, there are also ideological conflicts thrown into the mix. The Cold War may be over, but it still reverberates today – we no longer have fears of communism but Western fears of invasion by others are still felt by many. Governments all over the world know how eager their people are to get out and see the world and that television and film can enable them to do that without leaving their own living room, so they continually strive to create productions that will re-instill a strong pride of one’s country, without making them believe that they belong to a superior race. Such productions ultimately help to reminds us all of what unites us as human beings, and that we are all links in a very big chain.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

· Mankekar, P. 1999, “Epilogue: Star Wars,” taken from Screening culture, viewing politics, pp. 344-347, Reading 3-4, pp. 10-13, Resource Materials
· Author/s not given, Productivity Commission 2000, “Australian content regulation,” taken from Broadcasting Inquiry Report pp. 380-384, Reading 3-2, pp. 2-5, Resource Materials
· Morris, N. 1994, “The myth of unadulterated culture meets the threat of imported media,” taken from Media culture and society, pp. 279-280, pp. 284-286, Reading 3-3, pp. 2-3, pp. 7-9, Resource Materials