Concept Analysis: AmericaniZation

Americanisation in Australian film and television has implications beyond the celluloid and digital realm, with Philip and Roger Bell aptly describing the concept as both “a model and a menace”. Americanisation is a social, cultural and economical predicament that can be viewed as either a model or a menace depending on how one looks at it. Many see Americanisation as a serious threat to the identity of Australian cinema as a national cinema. Others see it as an artistic dilemma, in that the economic desire of Hollywood budgeting and box office gross may impact negatively on the artistic integrity of many Australian films and television. These two points would be thus categorised by the Bell’s as a menace. On the other end of the spectrum, Americanisation is often seen as a Model as it is a dominating precedent in global cinema that may benefit a film or television programme, and indeed the entire industry, economically if Americanisation is employed.

The ‘menace’ of Americanisation is something that is both feared and combatted in Australian cinema and television, as it seen as an attack, regardless of intentionality, to Australian uniqueness, particularly the Australian national character. This threat is explored in great detail in Philip Noyce’s 1978 Australian film, Newsfront. The film relies much on the Australian sensibility of not selling out, and in the case of Newsfront, Americanisation is presented in a way that suggests it is a menace that is imminent and altogether inevitable. The villain of the film, Frank becomes a villain when he succumbs to Americanisation and thus ‘sells out’, essentially destroying his Australian character. This ultimately portrays Americanisation as a cultural vacuum that thrives on transforming, assimilating, or deforming (depending what perspective you take), the cultural identity of the Australian screen, and therefore a menace.

This brings forth the issue of what the Bell’s call creolisation, that is, the blending of two national filmic languages. This is something that is inevitable with the existence of globalisation, but still bears a hostile reaction, such as in the somewhat recent American remake of Kath & Kim. However, ironically, Kath & Kim is in essence aesthetically and structurally a creole. Although the humour, the characters and their surroundings are unmistakably Australian, the way it is shot and edited is not. The absence of a laugh track and the handheld camera was a trend at the time with American sitcoms such as Curb Your Enthusiasm and Arrested Development, rising in popularity and emulation. This thus seems hypocritical of Australian cinema and television to reject Americanisation when there is most certainly a presence of Australianisation.

“The United states remains a powerful social model and cultural precursor which other societies cannot ignore” – Bell’s. This statement by the Bell’s is one that best illustrates the aforementioned unavoidable pressure of America as a social and cultural model for the Australia screen industry. It also best illustrates the considerably negative artistic downfalls that are bundled with it. It begs the difficult question of whether it’s fair, as Australians, to substitute genuine Australian artistic integrity with Hollywood characteristics in order to succeed financially.

In order to answer this, one needs to look no further than Baz Luhrmann’s filmography. Mart Anne Reid describes Luhrmann as a director who has a “confident sense of audience”. His 1992 film Strictly Ballroom, for example, is definitely a more Australian film and indeed more highly acclaimed than the films that followed (Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge! and Australia), however it did not perform nearly as well at the box office. In other words, Luhrmann Americanized the latter films for a more positive economic turnout. One may ask: is this fair? Or to put it more bluntly: Did Luhrmann, as an Australian, sell out? Does Luhrmann immediately and unquestionably have to adhere to the proud Australian standard and integrity? Although many may disagree, there are evidently both rigid, however, powerful forces on both artistic and economic sides.

It therefore seems justified to say that, although Americanisation is certainly seen as a menace, its social, cultural and economic influences on Australian cinema and television seem unavoidably crucial. It is a concept that is incredibly complex as it is in constant evolution, but can be most easily categorised as the Bell’s suggested, as both “a model and a menace”.