[1]
“Mexicans with mobiles” is a phrase used by American crews working in Australia (Australia as a Film Location: Wallaby-wood, 84). “Mexicans with parkas” is the Canadian version of the same joke (Weyman). Both these pejorative descriptions demonstrate the American arrogance towards off-shore crews; however, they also reflect interesting ideologies. Apart from different props, both Australian and Canadian crews are conflated as one: they are all “Mexicans.” They are cheap and want to steal American jobs. This could be considered partly accurate – competition for jobs in creative fields can be cut-throat: for these two nations, it was often the reality of past generations of film technicians and creative talents to emigrate to Hollywood if they wanted to work and make a living in films. To a certain extent, this reality still exists, but with the development of a large service industry and a national government- funded industry in each country, the US is now not only a goal for employment, it is also the ultimate market for the sale of Australian and Canadian films.

Certain strategies have been developed by the Canadian and Australian film industries to help build up their markets – not only to support their penetration of the American and other international markets, but also to increase their domestic market standing. This paper examines some ways in which the national cultural policies supporting each of these industries intersect with the transnational at the economic and cultural levels. The emphasis here is on the English side of the Canadian film industry. In Canada, the film industry is divided along its two official languages. In this paper, as well as in the larger project of my doctoral research, I set aside the Quebec film industry due to its distinctiveness [2] .

These two national film industries have quite singular paradigms. They are both peripheral to mainstream commercial cinema: mainly English speaking, ex-British colonies, different yet not so different from each other. Each cinema has often mirrored the other; the development of each domestic industry has been impeded from an early time by US economic dominance. This dominance was displayed through the US vertical integration of the Canadian and Australian domestic markets. Looking specifically at the production level, both countries developed two separate yet interrelated aspects: a domestic and a runaway aspect. Both countries’ domestic production have experienced cycles of boom and bust. Australian and Canadian societies went, and still do go through, nationalist phases where the cultural elites pressure(d) their respective federal and/or state/province governments to revitalise domestic cultural productions reflecting their own national cultures [3] . In the 1960s, these pressures finally produced direct government interventions which were translated in the creation of federal agencies supporting national film production. In the 1980s, both industries experienced a boom constituted largely by an output of tax shelter films; often these films were targeted to “the international market” (meaning producing “copies” of American films). Film such as the Australian Backstage (1986) with American import Laura Branigan, or the Canadian Nothing Personal (1980) with Suzanne Summers and Donald Sutherland are examples of this type of film (Dermody and Jacka The Imaginary Industry 13, 98). As the Canadian scholar, Ted Magder, notes about the Canadian films of the tax-shelter era: “Very few were worth remembering, even though they boasted big budgets and ‘foreign stars'” (187).

After that period, these industries restructured themselves in a similar way. Both industries possess an overseeing federal agency – Telefilm Canada and the Australian Film Commission (AFC) – with a national film fund: The Canadian Film Fund and the Australian Feature Film Corporation. Other funding sources are available through state/province film agencies. In the 1990s, both industries became the site of an increasing service industry producing one type of transnational film: the runaway production. This is where Hollywood- based media conglomerates use the infrastructure (location, below-the-line crew, studios) of each country to produce their films, creating a large economic impact in both countries. According to the last sets of numbers comparing the diverse destinations for American runaway production, Canada had the larger part of the runaway pie with 81 per cent, while Australia’s part, was around 6 percent (Monitor Company, 8-9) [4] . While Canada obviously is making more money from runaway productions, Australia has benefited in other ways by having major studio facilities built and funded by two of the biggest media conglomerates, News Corporation (Fox Studios in Sydney) and AOL Time-Warner (Warner Roadshow Movie World Studios on the Gold Coast). What is of interest in these two national film industries is that while quite similar, they are experiencing very different situations. The Canadian industry has been in crisis for some years in spite of a political will which has translated into more funding (nearly CAN$ 463 million) in the past five years (Beeby). [5] The Australian national film industry, on the other hand, has a healthier glow. Despite its funding stagnating under the Coalition government (with the exception of a bumper year in 2004 where the government more than doubled its funding: from US$ 46 million in 2003 to US$ 104 millions in 2004) [6] (Get the Picture: Australia & the World: International Comparisons, 5). Part of the answer for such differences lies in the intersection of the runaway transnational films and the national funding policies, and also in the relationship between the local concept of the “national” and the audiences of both countries.

One obvious way that transnational film intersects with the national funding policies is at the level of treaty co-productions[7] . Both Canada and Australia are involved in this type of production. (The other type of transnational production is the equity co-production, which usually by-passes the national funding policies[8] .) However, another way that the transnational interrelates with the national is when a film possesses some transnational elements without being part of a co-production or equity co-production agreement. These transnational elements are balanced so their uses do not threaten the qualification of the film as “national.” This balancing act has enabled the producers of such films to have access to the full range of national funding sources or programs. Some elements are at the economic level: part of the funding is coming from other countries which are not necessarily signatories to co-production treaties, as is often the case with US investments in film production. Other elements are at a cultural level, such as the origin of the story on which the script is based, or the use of “non-national” actors.

Australia and Canada have different criteria relating to transnational elements in their films. Australia’s rules regarding the “Australian” qualification of a production are more lenient, providing an easier access to the economic programs that are part of the national funding policy. Films may be described by the AFC as “Australian” even if they are 100% foreign (US) financed, such as Moulin Rouge (Australia, 2001) or The crocodile hunter (Australia, 2002). They qualify as Australian because “the key elements are predominantly Australian and the project was originated and developed by Australians” (National Production Survey 2000/01). These films could not be considered “Canadian” in Canada. Telefilm Canada follows more rigorous criteria where it is clearly expressed that: “Under no circumstances may the copyright for a Canadian production that benefits from assistance from Telefilm Canada be assigned in whole or part to a non-Canadian or to a company controlled by non-Canadians” (Telefilm Canada, 36).

Why such a policy difference between these two national film agencies? One factor informing this difference is in the relationship between the local concept of the “national” and the domestic audience of these countries. This relationship is an important one to stress because there is still a “persistence of the national as a primary point of identification for audiences” (Cunningham and Jacka, 16). The audience’s response to the output of its national film industry is a good indicator of the health of that industry. There is a marked difference between Canadian and Australian audiences. Canadians (English-Canadians) don’t go to see their own films while Australians do. In 2001, the percentage of Canadians going to see a Canadian film was 0.2%, in 2004 the number slightly raised to 1.6% (Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 10; Beeby) [9] . In Australia, it was nearly 8% in 2001, but started to decline in 2002 at 5%m then 4% for 2003 to the lowest since 1977, 1% in 2004 (Get the Picture: Cinema Industry, Box Office: Australian Share). There are complex reasons why there has been a decline in the Australian domestic box-office share for 2004, too many to examine in a meaningful way in the space of this paper [10] . Even if these numbers seem to announce a decline in the popularity of Australian films in their own domestic market, Australia’s domestic film share tends to fluctuate dramatically every year. The average of the last five years is 5.2% which is still better than the 3.2% average of Canadian (this figure includes the French-Canadian) domestic film share. I argue that the popularity of Australian film with its domestic audience, and also around the world is linked to a “stronger” sense of the “national,” “Australianness” than applies in English-Canada, hence, permitting a more lenient set of rules relating to the transnational elements found in Australian films. This is partly linked to the geographical distance between these two “nations” from the US, but also can denote the limitations of the concept “national,” particularly when one looks at the Canadian example.

To discuss local concepts of nationality such as “Australianness” and “Canadianness” is fraught with difficulty. For the purpose of this paper, “Australianness” will be limited to a specific set of myths and icons which are part of “symbolic repertoires of meaning and values” (Spillman, 6). This particular repertoire is the one associated with the populist white Anglo-Celtic dominant conservative discourse where myths such as egalitarianism, anti-authoritarianism, “fair go,” and mateship; and icons such as the Anzac, digger, pioneer, bushman, larrikin, battler, surfer, etc. are articulated[11] . This specific repertoire when featured in films and other mainstream media could be seen, as Tom O’Regan argues in his seminal work Australian National Cinema, as a “problematization of nationhood” where this Australianness is created at the intersection of four different “socio-political projects:” “A European derived society,” “a diasporic society,” “a new world society,” and “a multicultural society” (305). This particular repertoire represents the dominance of the “new world society” project for defining the national identity. O’Regan comments:

Working within the domain of popular art, the ‘new world identity’ provides relatively unselfconscious public identities that can be readily consented to. It suffers the same opprobrium as do all such popular identities; it is consumer and fashion driven, it is ephemeral, it is utopian, it is serious, it is hegemonic.(324)

Therefore, this Australianness based on the “new world identity” is “the continuing and hegemonic Anglo-Celtic, European and English speaking society routinely produced in the mainstream cinema and television” (my emphasis, 331). These myths and icons form part of this “new world” repertoire and are “routinely” used in the mainstream culture rendering them part of a “banal nationalism.” Michael Billig defines this concept as: “where national identity in established nations is remembered because it is embedded in routines of life, which constantly remind, or “flag,” nationhood. However, these reminders are such a familiar part of the social environment, that they operate mindlessly, rather than mindfully” (38). I suggest that these demonstrations of banal nationalism, the routine uses of such myths and icons in this type of Australianness have had their ideological resonance rendered “mindless.” Therefore, while this Australianness is highly criticised and contested[12] , in day-to-day life this Australianness is used as short-hand for Australia because of its routine utilization which in itself produces a high level of recognition. This recognition factor is not only at work at the Australian domestic population level, but also at a global level. . International audiences recognise this Australianness’ difference from other “local” “regional” or “national” repertoires of meanings, such as the differences between British, American or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ “identities”. Furthermore, the appeal to this type of “Australianness” is strong enough for the Australian domestic population to consume in its films and television dramas[13] , where they interact and negotiate between their own sense of Australianness and how it is reflected back to them. This strength is further seen in the act of reclaiming and celebrating the international success of its expatriate stars: such as “Our Nicole”, “Our Russell”, “Our Cate”, etc.

The strength of this “Australianness” can be seen in Australian films by the use of recognised international narrative forms such as Hollywood genres but where “the content, the flavour, the accent and the social text” is Australian (O’Regan, 218). This present strength has led to “a shift in Australian cinema from the perennial issue of art versus commerce that dominated the 1990s…, it appears that the international (god bless America) and the local (and thank god for Australia) is now the dominant binary informing the reception of Australian films” (Collins, 16). This shift denotes the strength of this “accent” which is recognised worldwide. This can be seen in the debates surrounding Fox studios and its product Moulin Rouge. Fox has been very successful at negotiating the ebb and flow of Australian public opinion regarding its presence and role in the Australian film ecology. Fox succeeded in drowning the dissident voices and held its message which was the celebration of Fox’s partnership with the Australian film industry. They were here to be involved in the production of great Australian films and not here to use their Australian studios as runaway production facilities only[14] . Why such a conciliatory position? Hollywood media-conglomerates did not then and do not now use such debates when they are producing in Canada. I will suggest there is a commercial strategy attached to such message and this strategy is about the use of the strong recognition factor of “Australianness” as a brand. Kim Dalton, chief executive of the AFC, makes use of this branding when he comments in the foreword of the AFC study on foreign film and television drama production in Australia that: “Australia’s competitive advantages include our low exchange rate, English language, range of locations, sophisticated cities, developed infrastructure, range of State-based incentives and support mechanisms, and high profile of the industry internationally derived from our local production. The financial advantage, while important, is not sufficient on its own to attract foreign projects” (3). This strong brand recognition exists in an increasingly competitive international market where the international profits are more important to Hollywood media-conglomerates than ever, and such a brand can present a new and fresh way to market a product. This dynamic is demonstrated in the marketing strategies applied in Moulin Rouge and I will use this film to illustrate this point.

Moulin Rouge, which under Telefilm regulations could never qualify as “Canadian” is qualified as Australian, because its production team was predominantly Australian. Baz Luhrmann has a great track record. He managed to produce a huge critical, popular and economic success with his tricky American high concept film William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. With Moulin Rouge, the studio was again facing a highly risky project but could lower the financial risk involved by using its new Sydney infrastructure and an Australian crew. On top of that they could also recoup some money via an Australian tax concession (which is still under appeal) and make the film at a lower cost than in Hollywood. Furthermore, Fox’s use of the brand “Australian” was a great marketing tool, for the domestic market which was inundated by an aggressive marketing strategy linking Baz, Fox, Nicole and Australia as much as possible. Particularly in the case of Baz, it was further linked to two resonant icons of Australianness: the larrikin and the “little battler” who succeed to make good in the big world of Hollywood. This strategy paid-off, making Moulin Rouge the overall 3rd top Australian film at the Australian box office (Top 100 Australian Films). Furthermore, Fox’s use of this branding helped to make Moulin Rouge an international box office success. This “branding” represented an alternative way to position a Fox-media-conglomerate-product in the European market. It used the association of “Brand Australia” with “popular yet artistic/festival/art-house” reputations as it was done in the publicity coverage of Moulin Rouge at the Cannes Film Festival. However, this “branding” was easily dropped or limited to the director in the US market, where Moulin Rouge‘s publicity coverage stayed far away from its “Australian” branding because of the negative associations with “runaway” productions in that market. Hence, the film could be claimed as a Hollywood prestige product from the “all American” Fox studios stable[15] .

For Canada (meaning English-Canada) there seems to be no such strong “accent or flavour” recognised outside its borders. “Canadianness” doesn’t seem to be strongly linked to “symbolic repertoires of meaning and values” strong enough that could bring an international recognition factor. Often English-Canada is confused with the US. Even an icon such as the “Mounties,” recognised internationally as Canadian, was not produced and propagated by Canadian films but by Hollywood ones (Pevere and Dymond 183; Berton 111) [16] . This was mainly due to the lack of Canadian feature film production which was only made possible in the 1960s due to state involvement (Magder 5). I suggest that one of these reasons for this lack of recognition is that English-Canada cannot be defined by a sense of “Canadianness”. “Canadian” doesn’t express a unifying concept such as “Australian” can represent. “Canadianness” as a cultural landscape can be better understood as an aggregation of local identities rather than a national consciousness. This is partly due to the porous borders between Canada and the US, but also due to its history as dual (French and British) ex-settler colonies and its cultural development linked to its geographical colonisation such as the split between the East, West and the Maritimes. From the beginning these internal forces worked against a unifying mythology[17] . In Canada, this fragmented cultural landscape evolved into the situation where some of the “locals” maintained more cultural links to foreign entities – such as Quebec with France, or the Prairies with Mid-West American states – than the rest of the country. Moreover, some locals can be limited to small groups like the Inuit population of Nunavut, as portrayed in Atanarjuat (The Fast Runner) (Canada, 2002), or the local can represent a geographically dispersed population, like the immigrant experience in the Canadian society found in Atom Egoyan’s early films, which portray the experience of a large number of Canadians dispersed throughout its provinces and territories[18] .

A second reason which can explain the lack of international recognition of “Canadianness” is Canada’s proximity to the US. This proximity and the permeable nature of their borders meant that US culture and capitals had and have no problem to pass through to Canada. One important element illustrating this fact is that from the 1920s, the Canadian domestic market was integrated to the US domestic one (Pendakur 77). This means that there is no space for a celebration or reappropriation of “Canadian” expatriated stars: There is no “our Mike (Myers)”, no “our Jim (Carrey)” or “our James (Cameron)”; they are an integral part of Hollywood. There is a lack of marketing and publicity space for such activities due to this incorporation of the Canadian market, as Laszlo Barna, chair of the Canadian film and television production association in a 2003 speech, comments: “We lack the financial clout of our American competitors – not only to produce shows, but also to promote them. While things are starting to change here, the fact is programs like Entertainment Tonight, Extra!, Access Hollywood, as well as talk show like Late Night with David Letterman and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, serve to promote and cross-promote programs and celebrities and create a “star system” that we simply can’t match” (6-7). This systemic lack of a Canadian star system and the non-reappropriation of expatriated stars was also due till recently to the strict Canadian film policy rules. According to Telefilm Canada if Canadian actors were not principally residing in Canada, they could not be used as a Canadian lead in a Telefilm qualified “Canadian film.” Added to a lack of Canadian nationalist recognition, the lack of marketing, promotion, and a functioning star system can explain why there are few English-Canadians who wish to experience their Canadianness as an on-screen reflection. As already mentioned, in 2001, the English-Canadian box office share for the English-Canadian domestic market was 0.2%, in 2002 it raised to 1.4%, to further raise at 1.6% in 2004. In 2002, the highest English-Canadian TV dramas were ranked at 35th and 43rd in the rating (Stursberg, 4) [19] . Why?

Perhaps part of an answer can be found in the nature of the Canadian state and how it manages its cultural institutions. As Martin Seymour Lipset notes in his comparison between the Canadian and US values and institutions, Canada’s population, due to its accommodation with the country’s geography, its small number, its urbanisation patterns and the influence of the dominant presence of its neighbours “has encouraged the state to protect the nation’s economic [and cultural] independence” (51). This state interventionism has been deployed particularly in times of rising Canadian nationalism, such as in the late 1960s and early 1980s “to resist increased cultural and media influence by Americans”. Lipset sees this as “the traditional Canadian remedy” against US cultural penetration (73). Consequently, the state via its cultural agents (politicians, bureaucrats, writers, scholars and journalists) came to define and regulate the repertoires of “Canadianness”. These cultural agents, according to Lipset, “preferred English and European elitist aesthetic models.” (65) These models helping to differentiate Canadian cultural products from US ones. Therefore, in the creation of the cultural policies applied to the Canadian feature film industry and television drama, this elitism can be reflected in the establishment of Canadian film canon which define and evaluate the Canadianness of the projects under scrutiny for funding. One element which was part of the canon, (therefore becoming one of the criteria) was the presence (or not) of a realist aesthetic. Peter Morris comments about this: “Firstly, it was assumed that a realist tendency had its roots in documentary and the production of the National Film Board of Canada. Secondly, more precisely, it was assumed that the observational documentary (exemplified by the NFB’s Unit B and, in Quebec, by the series Temps présent) was fundamental in its influence” (35). This realist aesthetic was a definite differentiating element which was proof of the Canadianness of a film which could be part of the Canadian canon: therefore a film which differed from the commercialism and audience friendliness of Hollywood products. This explains Peter Harcourt (a leading Canadian film scholar)’s definition of Canadian cinema as an “invisible cinema – that is, a film culture that exists but that nobody sees” (in Zion). Which in turn explains why few English-Canadian are going to see so few English-Canadian films.

To remedy this situation, the Canadian government had indicated a new funding policy direction. Richard Stursberg, the Executive Director of Telefilm Canada, in late 2002, stated that “Telefilm Canada intends to support ‘a range of genres that connect with theatre audiences on many emotional and intellectual levels’ to build up a Canadian audience of 5 percent by 2006” (Telefilm Canada Builds). This change can be seen in the 2002-2003 Canadian Feature Film Fund Guidelines where there is a leeway regarding the choice of performer, where a “non-Canadian actor” can be used, if s/he “is integral to the market potential (that is, marquee cast)” (36). Another change introduced in these guidelines is in the selection for projects’ funding which is related to their producer(s)’ history. The funding of a project can be fast tracked through a “performance-based” component where the amount of funding is calculated according to certain criteria which include the Canadian box-office track record of the producer (28-29) [20] . If the producer doesn’t have an established track record, his/hers project’s funding application goes through a lengthier evaluation called the “selective component” (33-34). These changes underline the shift in the Canadian film industry’s cultural policies. The relaxing of highly prescriptive rules and the focus on the producer and his/her box-office track record echoes not only the Australian laid-back attitude on the use of transnational filmic elements but also the production strategy of contemporary global Hollywood which could be illustrated by the “package” where the producer has to put together all the production elements (including at the creative level: the story, the director, the stars, the director of photography, etc; and at the technical level such as the choice of filming locations), then can submit his/her project for financing. The “package” is a preeminent component of the dominant Hollywood products: the high concept and blockbuster films (Wyatt 22; Cook 19-21). This later connection emphasises further the decision of Telefilm Canada to orientate Canadian films towards an audience friendlier cinema.

This shift in the direction of Canadian cultural policy is not only illustrated through the Feature Film Fund Guidelines. It is expressed in the public sphere not only by the cultural bureaucrats but also via film critics and film scholars, as already mentioned. One example is to look at the English- Canadian, Toronto-based filmmaker David Cronenberg and his works. Cronenberg’s feature films career started with a “bang” after being “blasted” by an important Toronto film journalist, Marshall Delaney, following his schlock/horror feature film debut Shivers (Canada 1975). This critic couldn’t believe that public funds helped “the most perverse, disgusting, repulsive film he had never seen” (Rodley, 51-2). After this critical backlash, whilst most of Cronenberg’s films received some funding by the Canadian government[21] , his standing in the Canadian national film canons was always pushed at the edge. His choice of the “popular and friendly” genre of horror/science fiction films clashed with the Canadian cultural film elite’s preference for introspective and realist works (Beard 144). Only now, when his reputation is internationally recognised and his projects are more personal and introspective, the government funding policies and critics turn finally to these “audience friendly films” and Cronenberg is rehabilitated as one of the important Canadian auteur[22] .

This shift in Canadian cultural policy is perhaps a tentative step toward the construction of similar banal nationalism found in Australianness, where the repertoire of values and meanings are part of a “popular identity”, one where a Canadian could be enable to reclaim a Canadianness firmly rooted in popular culture. Geoff Pevere and Greig Dymond, in Mondo Canuck: A Canadian Pop Culture Odyssey, are ready for such a challenge. They ask: “What if, contrary to the established Canadian tradition of disowning anyone who dares to seek and find success elsewhere, we were to expand and ventilate our notion of what Canadians are doing on the global stage?” And answer: “If one does begin to think about Canada in terms of the pop culture it produces, both nationally and internationally, one not only begins to move away form the us-versus-them national-victimhood model of the past, one in fact starts to see something so different as to be strikingly so: a “Canada which is not only sly, dynamic, intelligent and resourceful but one that’s also a helluva lot more fun than the old one.” (ix)

Works Cited

“Australia as a Film Location: Wallaby-Wood.” Economist, 30 May 1998, 84.
Australian Film Commission. Foreign Film and Television Drama Production in Australia: A research Report Australian Film Commission, June 2002 [cited 20 November 2002]. Available fromhttp://www.afc.gov.au/downloads/policies/foreignprod.pdf.
Barber, Lynden. “Chief Executive from Central Casting.” The Weekend Australian, 16 October 1999, 2-3.
Barna, Laslo. Dramatic Dreams: Working Together to fix Candian Drama ACTRA, 2003 [cited 6 January 2004]. Available from http://www.cftpa.ca/newsroom/speeches/ACTRAspeechNov15-2003.pdf.
Beard, William. “Thirty-Two Paragraphs About David Cronenberg.” In North of Everything: English-Canadian Cinema since 1980, edited by William Beard and Jerry White, 144-59. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2002.
Beeby, Dean. Selon une etude le cinéma Canadien se fait beaucoup au Québec [Newspaper article]. La Presse, 20 September 2005 [cited 21 September 2005]. Available from http://cyberpresse.ca.
Berton, Pierre. Hollywood’s Canada: The Americanization of our National Image. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1975.
Billig, Michael. Banal Nationalism. London and Thousand Oakes, Ca: Sage, 1997.
Canadian Film and Television Production Association. Profile 2003: an Economic report on the Canadian film and television production Industry. Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 2003 [cited 24 March 2003]. Available from http://www.cftpa.ca/newsroom/pdf_profile/profile2003-english.pdf.
Canadian Film and Television Production Association, Association des Produceurs de films and de Télévision du Québec, Department of Canada Heritage, and PwC Consulting. The Canadian Film and Television Production Industry Profile 2002 Canadian Film and Television Production Association and L’Association des Produceurs de films and de Télévision du Québec, February 2002 [cited 24 March 2003]. Available fromhttp://www.cftpa.ca/newsroom/pdf_profile/profile2002-english.pdf.
Collins, Felicity. “God Bless America (and Thank God for Australia).” Metro, no. 131/132 (2002): 14-24.
Collins, Felicity, and Therese Davis. Australian Cinema after Mabo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Cook, David A. Lost Illusions: America Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970-1979. Edited by Charles Harpole. 10 vols. Vol. 9, History of the American cinema. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000.
Cunningham, Stuart, and Elizabeth Jacka. Australian Television and International Mediascapes. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Dermody, Susan, and Elizabeth Jacka. The Screening of Australia: Anatomy of a Film Industry. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Sydney: Currency Press, 1987.
———. The Screening of Australia: Anatomy of a National Cinema. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Sydney: Currency Press, 1988.
———, eds. The Imaginary Industry: Australian Film in the Late ’80s. Sydney: Australian Film Television and Radio School, 1988.
Dorland, Michael. So Close to the State/s: The Emergence of Canadian Feature Film Policy. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto, 1998.
Franklin, Karen. 29 May 2002.
George, Sandy. “In the Hot Seat: Kim Vecera.” Screen International, 12-18 January 2001, 12.
Get the Picture: Australia & the world: international comparisons Australian Film Commission, 30 August 2005 [cited 11 October 2005]. Available from http://www.afc.gov.au/gtp/.
Get the Picture: Cinema Industry, Box Office: Australian Share Australian Film Commission, 2005 2005 [cited 12 October 2005]. Available from http://www.afc.gov.au/gtp/wcboshare.html.
Gittings, Christopher E. Canadian national cinema. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Gray, Cathy, and Rosemary Curtis, eds. Get the Picture: Essential Data on Australian Film, Television, Video and Interactive Media. 6th ed. Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne: Australian Film Commission, 2002.
Leach, Jim. “The Reel Nation: Image and Reality in Contemporary Canadian Cinema: The Martin Walsh Memorial Lecture 2002.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies/Revue canadienne d’études cinématographiques 11, no. 2 (2002): 2-18.
Lipset, Martin Seymour. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge, 1990.
MacKenzie, Scott. National Identity, Canadian Cinema, and Multiculturalism (vol 4. Summer/Eté) Canadian aesthetics journal/Revue canadienne d’esthétique, 1999 [cited 5 July 2005]. Available fromhttp://www.uqtr.ca/AE/vol_4/scott.htm.
Maddox, Gary. Playing to Tough Audiences (15 August) The Age, 2005 [cited 15 August 2005]. Available fromhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/film/playing-to-tough-audiences/2005/08/14/1123957943720.html.
Magder, Ted. Canada’s Hollywood: The Canadian State and Feature Films. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.
“Meaa in Agreement with Sag.” Encore, 9 October 2002.
Melnyk, George. One Hundred Years of Canadian Cinema. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 2004.
Miller, Toby, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, and Richard Maxwell. Global Hollywood. London: British Film Institute, 2001.
Monitor Company. US Runaway Film and Television Production Study Report Director Guild of America (DGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG), 1999 [cited 24 June 2003]. Available fromhttp://www.ftac.net/assets/applets/runaway.pdf.
Morris, Peter. “In Our Own Eyes: The Canonizing of Canadian Film.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies/revue canadienne d’études cinématographiques 3, no. 1 (1994): 27-44.
National Survey of Feature Film and tv drama production 2000/01 Australian Film Commission, 2002 [cited 20 November 2002].
National Survey of Feature Film and TV Drama Production 2004/05 Australian Film Commission, 2005 [cited 11 October 2005]. Available from http://www.afc.gov.au/downloads/pubs/nps.pdf.
News Releases: Telefilm Canada annual report for 2001-2002 Telefilm Canada, 2002 [cited 24 November 2002]. Available from http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/data/Communiques/rel_264.asp?lang=en.
News Releases: Telefilm Canada builds box office success with audience-friendly film projects Telefilm Canada, 2002 [cited 24 November 2002]. Available from http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/data/communiques/rel_273.asp?lang=en.
O’Regan, Tom. Australian National Cinema. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.
Pendakur, Manjunath. Canadian Dreams and American Control: The Political Economy of the Canadian Film Industry. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.
Pevere, Geoff, and Greig Dymond. Mondo Canuck: A Canadian Pop Culture Odyssey. Sacrborough: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc, 1996.
Pow, Leigh-Ann. “Fox Files.” Vogue Australia, August 2000, 132, 35, 65.
Rayner, Jonathan. Contemporary Australian Cinema: An Introduction. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2000.
Rodley, Chris, ed. Cronenberg on Cronenberg. Toronto: Knopf, 1992.
Shirley, Graham, and Brian Adams. Australian Cinema: The First Eighty Years. Sydney: Currency Press, 1989.
Spillman, Lyn. Nation and Commemoration: Creating National Identities in the United States and Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Study of the decline of foreign location production in Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage, March 2005 [cited 13 October 2005]. Available from http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/sujets-subjects/arts-culture/film-video/pubs/Mar2005/4250Study_e.pdf.
Stursberg, Richard. The ABC of Audience Building in Canada: Can we do it? Telefilm Canada, 20 November 2002 [cited 20 January 2003]. Available from http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/upload/flash/discours-montreal-en.pdf.
Telefilm Canada. “2002- 2003 the Canada Feature Film Fund: Development, Production and Marketing Programs.” Telefilm Canada, 2002.
Top 100 Australian Films at the Australian Box Office. Australian Film Commission, 2002 [cited 11 May 2002]. Available from http://www.afc.gov.au/GTP/mrboxaust.html.
Turner, Graeme. National Fictions: Literature, Film and the Construction of Australian Narrative. 1993 ed. Sydney: Allan & Unwin, 1986.
Weyman, James. 28 May 2002.
White, Richard. Inventing Australia: Images and Identity 1988-1980. 1992 ed. St Leonards: Allan & Unwin, 1981.
Wyatt, Justin. High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994. Reprint, 3rd, 2000.
Zion, Lawrie. “Nation in search of itself.” The Australian, 9 June 2004 [cited 10 june 2004].

Films Cited

Atanarjuat (The Fast Runner). Dir. Zacharias Kunuk. Perf. Natar Ungalaaq, Sylvia Ivalu, Peter-Henry Arratsiaq, Lucy Tulugarjuk. Odeon Films and Lots 47 Films. 2001.

Backstage. Dir. Jonathan Hardy. Perf. Laura Branigan, Michael Aitkens and Noel Ferrier. Burrowes Film Group. 1986

Little Fish. Dir. Rowan Woods. Perf. Cate Blanchett, Sam Neill and Hugo Weaving. Dirty Films, Film Finance Corporation, Porchlight Films Pty Ltd. 2005

Look Both Ways. Dir. Sarah Watt. Perf. William McInnes, Justine Clarke, Anthony Hayes. Hibiscus Films .2005

The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course. Dir. John Stainton. Perf. Steve Irwin, Terri Irwin, Madga Szubanski, David Wenham. Twentieth Century Fox and MGM. 2002.

Moulin Rouge. Dir. Baz Luhrmann. Perf. Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, John Leguizamo, Jim Broadbent. Twentieth Century Fox. 2001.

Nothing Personal. Dir. George Bloomfield. Perf. Suzanne Summers and Donald Sutherland. American International Pictures (AIP), Famous Players, Fildselle, Purple Heart, Quadrant Films, and Triarch. (1980)

The Proposition. Dir. John Hillcoat. Perf. Guy Peirce, Ray Winstone, Emily Watson. Autonomous. 2005

Shivers. Dir. David Cronenberg. Perf. Paul Hampton, Joe Silver, Lynn Lowry, Allan Migicovsky. DAL Productions Ltd. 1975.

William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. Dir. Baz Luhrmann. Perf. Leonardo Di Caprio, Claire Danes. Twentieth Century Fox. 1996.

Wolf Creek. Dir. Greg McLean. Perf. John Jarratt, Cassandra McGrath, Andy McPhee. True Crime Channel. 2005.

Endnotes

[1] This work is part of my doctoral thesis. This research would not have been possible without the financial assistance of an Australian Postgraduate Award. The field work undertaken for this paper has been greatly facilitated by a La Trobe Humanities Faculty Research Grant. I wish to thank Dr. Felicity Collins, Dr. Maryrose Casey, Jodi Gallagher, Stephen, and Samuel for their continuing help and support.

[2] For further discussion about this division see, among others, Michael Dorland, So Close to the State/S: The Emergence of Canadian Feature Film Policy (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto, 1998), Christopher E. Gittings, Canadian National Cinema (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), Ted Magder,Canada’s Hollywood: The Canadian State and Feature Films (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), George Melnyk, One Hundred Year of Canadian Cinema (Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 2004).

[3] For further details on the historical development of the Australian film industry see Susan Dermody and Elizabeth Jacka, The Screening of Australia: Anatomy of a Film Industry, 2 vols., vol. 1 (Sydney: Currency Press, 1987), Susan Dermody and Elizabeth Jacka, The Screening of Australia: Anatomy of a National Cinema, 2 vols., vol. 2 (Sydney: Currency Press, 1988), Susan Dermody and Elizabeth Jacka, eds., The Imaginary Industry: Australian Film in the Late ’80s (Sydney: Australian Film Television and Radio School, 1988), Jonathan Rayner, Contemporary Australian Cinema: An Introduction (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2000), Graham Shirley and Brian Adams, Australian Cinema: The First Eighty Years (Sydney: Currency Press, 1989). For further details on the history of the Canadian film industry see Magder, Canada’s Hollywood: The Canadian State and Feature Films, Melnyk, One Hundred Year of Canadian Cinema, Manjunath Pendakur, Canadian Dreams and American Control: The Political Economy of the Canadian Film Industry(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990).

[4] For these countries, the rise in runaway productions in the 1990s was due to several factors. One of the most influential was the exchange rates between the domestic currency and the American dollar. For Australia, from 1997 to 2002: “the value of the Australian dollar has[d] fallen by around 33 per cent against the US dollar, from US$0.75 to around US$0.50.” in Australian Film Commission, Foreign Film and Television Drama Production in Australia: A Research Report (Australian Film Commission, June 2002 [cited 20 November 2002]); available from http://www.afc.gov.au/downloads/policies/foreignprod.pdf., 14.

Even with the Australian dollar’s rise of the past years against the American currency, the number of runaway productions “continues to be high”: 9 films in 2004/05, with a drop from 7 in 2001/02, to 5 in 2002/03, back to 7 in 2003/04. The ten year average is five films per year, see National Survey of Feature Film and TV Drama Production 2004/05 (Australian Film Commission, 2005 [cited 11 October 2005]); available fromhttp://www.afc.gov.au/downloads/pubs/nps.pdf., 3.
For the Canadian case, according to the Monitor Company’s report about American runaway productions’ trends:

In 1990, Canada captured 63% of all U.S. economic runaways; by 1998, Canada captured 81%. The number of U.S. economic runaway productions captured by Canada grew phenomenally from 63 in 1990 to 232 in 1998, a 268.3% increase. Australia and the U.K. also captured some economic runaways; Australia’s total grew from 5 productions in 1990 to 18 in 1998.

In Monitor Company, U.S. Runaway Film and Television Production Study Report (Director Guild of America (DGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG), 1999 [cited 24 June 2003]); available fromhttp://www.ftac.net/assets/applets/runaway.pdf.,8-9.

In the last few years, even if the overall activities in runaway production in Canada have been influenced by the rise of the Canadian dollar against the American, the level of runaway films has been slightly increasing: “In 2003-04, foreign theatrical volume increased by 18 percent to $1.16B from the previous year. Likewise, foreign theatrical activity also increased, growing by 7 percent from 2002-03 to 2003-04.” This set of numbers translates as 57 projects in 2002/03 to 61 projects for 2003/04 in Study of the Decline of Foreign Location Production in Canada (Department of Canadian Heritage, March 2005 [cited 13 October 2005]); available fromhttp://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/sujets-subjects/arts-culture/film-video/pubs/Mar2005/4250Study_e.pdf., 29.

[5] In term of funding policies the Canadian government has always been more generous towards its film industry than the Australian one. In 2004, Canada ranked at number 9 on the list of the top 20 countries by production investment in feature films. Its percentage share was 0.8. Australia ranked at number 13 with 0.5 %. It had risen from the 22nd position it has held in 2003. See Get the Picture: Australia & the World: International Comparisons (Australian Film Commission, 30 August 2005 [cited 11 October 2005]); available from http://www.afc.gov.au/gtp/., 5-7.

[6] The Australian film industry is more popular than the Canadian one as I will discuss further in this paper. If one calculated the average of the Australian domestic films’ share of the last five years, this number (at 5.2%) is still higher than the Canadian one (the average of English and French Canada is 3.2 %) see Ibid.([cited).,17.

However this doesn’t mean that the Australian film industry is not fragile. It is still under enormous pressure in its own market. The percentage taken by Australian films at the Australian box office fluctuated each year. In 2004, it reached a 27 years low at 1% of its box-office share, see Get the Picture: Australia & the World: International Comparisons ([cited)., 17. This result triggered the usual declaration about the death of Australian cinema. As Jonathan Rayner remarks about this national cinema: “In addition to being the most ‘written about’, it has also been the most frequently written off, with exaggerated reports of its demise in the 1920s, 1950s, and 1980s.”see Rayner, Contemporary Australian Cinema: An Introduction, 168.

[7] For a treaty co-production, the resources from different national film industries are pooled together in a partnership which follows the particular rules undermining the co-production treaty. Usually it involved a points rating system, where over a certain amount of point the films is deemed to be an official co-production. Once the film is classified as an official co-production, the producers can have access to subsidies, tax breaks, etc according to each national film funding policies. The argument supporting such treaties is a cultural one; these countries want to be able to express their own culture, their own stories on their own screens see Toby Miller et al., Global Hollywood (London: British Film Institute, 2001), 89.

[8] Equity co-productions can also be known as “non-treaty co-productions” where international partners are investing in a Hollywood product but they no longer only possess the territorial rights but also have some creative rights. They can be directly involved in the project to address and/or redress elements which they perceived as going against their own market. With the equity co-production, the contract is basically between international conglomerates which by-passes national co-production treaties, therefore stepping aside any national cultural agenda. This emphasises a new shift in Hollywood power base “from Hollywood-controlled theatrical distribution to European-owned pay-TV conglomerates, because of the expansion of cable/satellite technologies, these rights-buyers have stepped-up their equity positions in Hollywood” (Miller et al, 108). Equity co-productions may be runaway productions, but cannot be co-productions.

[9] In 2004, the Canadian films box-office share was 4.6%, this is including Quebec’s films. This result was mainly reach because of the amazing resurgence of Quebec cinema which in 2004 represented 21.2% of its (provincial) domestic box-office share. These results have been reached after a five year program which injected nearly half a billion Canadian dollars in film production. According to Susanne Vaas, the speaker for the Canadian film television production association (CFTPA): “Nous venons de très, très loin, mais les chiffres du marché Anglophone sont encore embarrassants tellement ils sont bas.” [“We’re coming from far, far behind, but the numbers from the English market are still embarrassing, they are so low.” (my translation)] in Dean Beeby, Selon Une Étude Le Cinéma Canadien Se Fait Beaucoup Au Québec [Newspaper article] (La Presse, 20 September 2005 [cited 21 September 2005]); available from http://cyberpresse.ca.

[10] One of these reasons, which has been mentioned already, is the great fluctuation of the domestic market share taken by the Australian products. This is related to the level of funding for feature films, numbers of films released, their qualities and the level of marketing and publicity they have received. In 2005, some observers are predicting cautiously an increase for Australian domestic film share due to a better production year reflected in products such as Look Both Ways (Australia, 2005) already winner of major international prizes such as the Toronto Festival, Little Fish (Australia, 2005), The Proposition (Australia, 2005) and Wolf Creek (Australia, 2005), see Gary Maddox, Playing to Tough Audiences (15 August) (The Age, 2005 [cited 15 August 2005]); available from http://www.theage.com.au/news/film/playing-to-tough-audiences/2005/08/14/1123957943720.html.

[11] For further exploration of the development of Australian repertoires of national identities see Dermody and Jacka, The Screening of Australia: Anatomy of a Film Industry, Dermody and Jacka, The Screening of Australia: Anatomy of a National Cinema, Greame Turner, National Fictions: Literature, Film and the Construction of Australian Narrative, 1993 ed. (Sydney: Allan & Unwin, 1986), Richard White, Inventing Australia: Images and Identity 1988-1980, 1992 ed. (St Leonards: Allan & Unwin, 1981).

[12] For a further discussion of the revision of such myths and icons in feature film production of the beginning of this new millenium see Felicity Collins and Therese Davis, Australian Cinema after Mabo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

[13] As an example: five Australian dramas and serials were found in the top 20 ranking dramas and serials in Australian television in 2000: at no.4 Blue Heelers, no5. Seachange, no 9. All Saints, no 11 Home and Away and no.18 Water Rats. See Cathy Gray and Rosemary Curtis, eds., Get the Picture: Essential Data on Australian Film, Television, Video and Interactive Media, 6th ed. (Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne: Australian Film Commission, 2002), 239.

[14] For example of such ‘spin’ see as examples: see Lynden Barber, “Chief Executive from Central Casting,”The Weekend Australian, 16 October 1999.; Sandy George, “In the Hot Seat: Kim Vecera,” Screen International, 12-18 January 2001. and Leigh-Ann Pow, “Fox Files,” Vogue Australia, August 2000.

[15] There is growing vocal dissatisfaction in American unions connected to the film and television industry relating to runaway productions. For an illuminating discussion see Miller et al., Global Hollywood, 76-82. A year after Moulin Rouge‘s premiere, The SAG (the Screen Actors Guild of America) were imposing new rules regarding the wage for their members when shooting off shore – asking for the same amount as if they were shooting in the US. This would mean higher budget for runaway projects make it them less appealing for Hollywood based media-conglomerates. The Australian Actors Union (MEAA) was in discussion with the SAG to give its Australian members a dispensation when they were shooting in Australia on Australian projects. See “Meaa in Agreement with Sag,” Encore, 9 October 2002.

[16] Hollywood even got it wrong when portrayed the Mounties. As Pierre Berton comments: “… one RCMP official was forced to explain to a Hollywood producer that the force’s motto was not “Get Your Man” but “Maintain the Right.”” Pierre Berton, Hollywood’s Canada: The Americanization of Our National Image (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1975).,113.

[17] See Scott MacKenzie, National Identity, Canadian Cinema, and Multiculturalism (vol 4. Summer/Eté) (Canadian Aesthetics Journal/Revue canadienne d’esthétique, 1999 [cited 5 July 2005]); available fromhttp://www.uqtr.ca/AE/vol_4/scott.htm.

[18] For further discussion of the difficulty to define Canada as one national cinema see Jim Leach, “The Reel Nation: Image and Reality in Contemporary Canadian Cinema: The Martin Walsh Memorial Lecture 2002,”Canadian Journal of Film Studies/Revue canadienne d’études cinématographiques 11, no. 2 (2002).

[19] At position 35 is Da Vinci Inquest and 43 is Degrassi see Richard Stursberg, The ABC of Audience Building in Canada: Can We Do It? (Telefilm Canada, 20 November 2002 [cited 20 January 2003]); available fromhttp://www.telefilm.gc.ca/upload/flash/discours-montreal-en.pdf., 4.

[20] The Canadian box-office has to be calculated according to diverse elements such as the “collection of Canadian box office figures, festivals and awards bonus, Canadian content weighting, children’s films adjustment” see Telefilm Canada, “2002-2003 the Canada Feature Film Fund: Development, Production and Marketing Programs,” (Telefilm Canada, 2002), 29.

[21] The Dead Zone (USA, 1983) and The Fly (USA, 1986) didn’t receive any funding from the Canadian government, see Chris Rodley, ed., Cronenberg on Cronenberg (Toronto: Knopf, 1992).

[22] For further discussion on Cronenberg as a Canadian auteur see William Beard, “Thirty-Two Paragraphs About David Cronenberg,” in North of Everything: English-Canadian Cinema since 1980, ed. William Beard and Jerry White (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2002).

.
Created on: Monday, 13 March 2006 | Last Updated: 13-Mar-06