Ozploitation: Exploitation or Fearless Film making?

In the early to mid 20th century, Australian censorship was really repressive, especially for the western world (Moore, p.3, 2012). It is instances like the banning of George Orwell’s first book Down and Out in Paris and London in 1933 which have given Australian censorship its reputation for severity (Moore, p.3, 2012). Australian censorship not only effected literature but also film making, however the 10BA tax laws and the implementation of the R rating in 1971 changed all this. The 10BA tax laws that were first introduced in June 1981, allowed investors to claim a 150 per cent tax concession and to pay tax on only half of any income earned from the investment, resulting in a period of fearlessness and risk taking in Australian film. Watching ‘Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild untold story of Ozploitation!’ (2008) was like opening up a pandora’s box of Australian films not readily available and rarely referenced in the Australian film industry today. Films like Turkey Shoot (1982), Wake in Fright (1971), Long Weekend (1978) and Alvin Purple (1973) all exemplified how the new R rating was taken full advantage of by film makers and nudity, horror, gore and extreme violence became common themes of Ozpolitation films.

In ‘Not Quite Hollywood’ Phillip Adams admitted “many of us were snobby about genre filmmaking” however Alvin Purple was the most commercially successful Australian movie of the 1970’s, it had a budget of $200,000 but took 5 million at the box office. It was a film with “progressive instincts that were both informed and complicated by the emergence of feminism as a political movement” whilst responding to the changing ideas of sexual freedom and “giving the public what they want and rubbing it in prudes faces”. Many of the Ozploitation films were as popular with audiences as they were hated by film critics, they were often compared to popular art house films of the time like Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) even though they represented an entirely opposite world of film making. Mark Hatley notes that “For every Caddie there was a Felicity. For every Picnic at Hanging Rock there was a Stunt Rock. For every Jimmie Blacksmith there was an Alvin Purple’ (Heller-Nicholas, p.14, 2008) meaning that the boisterous films in Not Quite Hollywood positioned themselves in direct opposition to mainstream Australian film culture. The Ozploitation films act as a “rich mine of valuable cultural artefacts” and ‘Not Quite Hollywood’ along with the use of Quentin Tarantino’s encyclopaedic knowledge of Australian genre films of this era acknowledges the impact, charm and influence of many of these films.

The creative freedom explored during this time is similar to the spirit that is moving across to the popular web series format that has inspired many young people to make film without the constraints of funding or network support. Web series made in Australia went from just 107 episodes in 2012 to 3,248 in 2016 (The Conversation, 2017) and some of these have been major success stories. Just as web series do, Ozploitation films in many ways counteract the contemporary complaints of Australian film, they were not tame and predictable, and now, web series are being given this same chance to create content that would have struggled in a conservative risk-averse broadcast market.

References

Moore, N., 2012. The Censor’s Library. 1st ed. St Lucia Qld: University of Queensland Press.

Buckmaster, L ‘Alvin Purple rewatched – the raunchy heart of 1970’s Ozploitation’, The Guardian, 2014, visited 9/1/2018 https://www.theguardian.com/film/australia-culture-blog/2014/oct/24/alvin-purple-rewatching-classic-australian-films

Swinburne, S ‘How web series are shaking up Australia’s screen industry’, The Conversation, June 30 2017, visited 3/1/2018https://theconversation.com/how-web-series-are-shaking-up-australias-screen-industry-79844

Heller-Nicholas, A, ‘Ozploitation Revisited: Not Quite Hollywood’, Metro Magazine, No.158, 2008:14-17

Advertisements

The Australian Film Industry in the Global Market

As Tom O’Regan has noted, “never was there a time when an Australian film industry could develop in happy and splendid isolation. It was always integrated into a global system” (Poole, 2013, p.86). O’Regan is expressing that the Australian film industry has been part of an international industry since its inception and due to this has always had to compete on the international market as a minor player. While Australian productions have spent on average between $5 million and $10 million over the last decade and a half, foreign productions have spent between $20 million to $60 million (Tunny, 2013, p.9) making some speculate that the box office is almost a ‘rigged game’, we simply don’t have the money to produce the films that will compete. Nevertheless, where would we be without an industry that allows us, as Australians, to tell our stories on the big screen? Think about the story of the ANZACS, films like Gallipoli (1981) and Breaker Morant (1980) that tell stories of mateship, larrikinism, and the continued coming of age of the Australian nation. These are vital stories that define what it means to be an Australian and must be told by Australians.

There are many ‘public good’ arguments surrounding the funding and protection of Australian media content. Gene Tunny argues that a public good is something that is “non-excludable in consumption, and non-rivalrous meaning that one persons consumption does not limit another person’s consumption in any way” (Tunny, 2013, p. 13). A classic example of a public good is a defence force in that people do not have to pay for the benefit they receive. In the strictest sense, he argues films would not be considered a public good because they don’t meet this test. However, this relies on a very narrow and technical argument because Australian films promote, protect and enrich Australian culture, and are an extremely important public good. They serve as an integral part of our society, just as any other art form. This view is reflected in Section 6 of the Screen Australia Act 2008 where the parliament of Australia, recognises the importance of Screen Australia’s role to “promote and develop a highly creative, innovative and commercially sustainable Australian screen production industry”. This means that whilst Australian screen production should develop and reflect a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity, it must also be commercially viable.

Keeping the Australian film industry commercially sustainable in recent years has meant that the Australian government has supported Hollywood productions with no discernible Australian content through providing incentives to make these productions in Australia using Australian resources. So arguments surrounding the protection of Australian media content in this context have arisen. In 2015 Julie Bishop announced $47.25 million in direct funding for the Thor and Alien sequels to be filmed in Australia which sparked disdain amongst supporters of the cultural protection argument. Alternatively, industry supporters would argue that it is Australian content if Australians are working on the productions. These are large scale and labour intensive productions in which specialists are employed to “rig the lights, weld the steel into place, hang the green screens, create the snow, the rain…” (Court and Tabone 2015). Cultural manufacturing does create jobs, Wolverine in 2013 brought in $300 million of off-shore investment and created 3,000 jobs in Australia (Jericho, 2015). The downside to all of this is that these jobs are essentially temporary and work in the film industry is subject to cycles of boom and bust (Burns and Eltham, 2010, p. 103) often dictated by the value of the Australian dollar and the attractiveness of Australia as a location through lower labour costs and construction materials. A study conducted by Abi Tabone shows that most specialists working in this space average just 60% of their annual work time in employment in film (Court and Tabone, 2015). So as production wraps up for films like Thor and Alien, as do many people’s jobs.

As explained by Burns and Eltham (2010), runaway productions in Australia such as The Matrix (mainly filmed at Fox Studios in Sydney) are often framed between two poles, “internationalist” and “Australian content” (Burns and Eltham, p. 112). But embracing the international does not mean excluding the national (Poole, 2013, p.90). This has been emphasised through the tax rebate, namely the “producer offset” introduced in 2007, which provides a 40% rebate on production costs for feature films if production qualifies as “significantly Australian” as well as international co-productions. What is “significantly Australian” is open to interpretation, but the producer offset has increased domestic film production, of both overseas and domestic films (Jericho, 2015) and has consequently opened doors for Australian film-makers on the world stage whilst increasing tourism and related industries experiencing flow-on growth (Poole, 2013, p.90). In the Screen Australia Report Skin in the Game: The Producer Offset 10 Years On, 91% of surveyed production companies indicated that the producer offset was ‘critically important’ to retain staff and keep developing projects in Australia.

Whilst the Australian film industry is global and many Australian performers relish the opportunity to work with international colleagues (Fletcher, 2015), the issue at stake is finding and maintaining the appropriate balance between foreign and local influences in the telling of our stories. In 2015 the Abbott Government proposed drastic changes to the guidelines that ensure quotas of Australian actors and crew have access to significant jobs. In response to that threat the Make it Australian Campaign was launched vying for the restoration of funding to public broadcasters and Screen Australia, rallying for rules that ensure Australian stories appear on new players like Netflix, Stan and Youtube, and outlined that tax incentives that encourage production in Australia are no longer competitive. Gillian Armstrong, award winning feature film and documentary director has shown her support for the campaign by saying, “without support, we won’t have our own jokes, our own culture, our own stories on screen”(Quinn, 2017).  Campaigns like Make it Australian are vital to the protection of Australian media content in the domestic market.

Australian film and television is undoubtedly a public good that must be protected. The Australian film and television industry, while always seeking to be international as well as being national, is increasingly reaching across borders and must continue to do so to stay commercially sustainable. It is true that the small budgets that Australian films attract compared to the Hollywood blockbusters make it extremely difficult for Australian films to compete in a global market. However bringing international productions to Australia does produce employment opportunities, increases tourism and growth in related industries. Australian stories deserve our support and protection because as Gillian Armstrong says, ‘It’s so important that we see things that are about us, that talk to us, that make us think about our lives” (Quinn, 2017).

Reference List

Burns and Eltham, “Boom and Bust in Australian Screen Policy: 10BA, The Film Finance Corporation, and Hollywoods, ‘Race to the Bottom'”, Incorporating Culture & Policy, No.136, August 2010, p.103-118

Court and Tabone, ‘Call the Specialists: What Thor and Alien could really do for the Australian film industry”, The Conversation, October 2015 https://theconversation.com/call-the-specialists-what-thor-and-aliens-could-really-do-for-the-australian-film-industry-49750 viewed 13th December 2017

Fletcher, A “Australian Film Talent and Stories deserve protection in order to be heard”, The Guardian, June 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jun/17/australian-film-talent-and-stories-deserve-protection-in-order-to-be-heard viewed 13 December 2017

Jericho, G, “How much does Australia really subsidise overseas films and is it worth it?” The Guardian, October 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2015/oct/26/how-much-does-australia-really-subsidise-overseas-films-and-is-it-worth-it viewed 12th December 2017

Make it Australian, https://makeitaustralian.com/take-action/

Poole, M “Internationalising Australian Film and Television: The AFI and an Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA)”, Metro Magazine: Media & Education Magazine, No. 176, 2013: 86-91

Quinn, K “Gillian Armstrong lends her voice to campaign to save Australian screen content”, The Sydney Morning Herald, September 18 2017 http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/gillian-armstrong-lends-her-voice-to-campaign-to-save-australian-screen-content-20170917-gyj16x.html

Screen Australia, 2017, “Report Released – A decade of the Producer Offset”, viewed 14 December 2017 https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/sa/media-centre/news/2017/11-15-a-decade-of-the-producer-offset-report

Screen Australia Act 2008, Part 2 Section 6, Australia https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2008A00012

Tunny, G “Moochers Making Movies: Government assistance to the film industry”, Policy: A Journal of Public Policy and Ideas, Vol. 29, No.1, 2013

 

 

Assumptions of Australian Film and Television

Admittedly I spend a lot of time watching film and television…. probably way more than is considered ‘healthy’, but its what I really enjoy!. I’m a subscriber to both Stan and Netflix and whilst I do watch more American content than Australian content overall, I have recently really enjoyed Australian television shows like Cleverman which aired on the ABC, The Kettering Incident on Foxtel, Matt Okines The Other Guy on Stan and Josh Thompson’s Please Like Me also on the ABC. Whilst watching all of these shows, in none of them did I have the feeling of the show trying to be overtly Australian or too culturally specific yet all of them tell an Australian story. Whilst Cleverman is clearly reflective of how Indigenous Australians are treated in Australia and so undoubtedly Australian content, it could easily be reflective of how any minority group is discriminated against.

ketteringPleaseLikeMe_headerp14107240_b_v8_ab

This is why I was really surprised when I sat down in my first summer session class and my peers described their assumptions of Australian film and television like this…

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 11.26.23 am

What my class came up with when asked what their assumptions are of Australian content…

Whilst these things aren’t the first words that come to mind when I think of Australian film and tv, once we started listing iconic Australian film and television, this mind map seems completely accurate and made me think twice of my initial understanding. Think, Crocodile Dundee (1986), Neighbours (1985-), Home and Away (1988-), McLeods Daughters (2001-2009) and The Castle (1997). Whilst these are a select few that fit a specific idea of Australian content, there are many perspectives on Australian film and a frequent complaint was summed up by Louis Nowra who wrote in 2009 that “Australian films are so dispiriting that they make Leonard Cohen seem positively cheery”. Another is that they are full of outmoded ocker stereotypes. So what is Australian creative content supposed to do?, well in actual fact it is supposed to have cultural benefits for Australia and in many ways is based on the understanding  “… that film serves the identification and refinement of essential Australianness”(Dermody and Jacka, 1987, 35) and yet I don’t feel any of these iconic films and tv series listed above are insightful into my day to day life as an Australian.

So what is considered an Australian Screen Production? 

Screen Australia determines whether a project has significant Australian content with regard to:

  • The subject matter of the film
  • The place where the film was made
  • The nationalities and places of residence of the persons who took part in the making of the film
  • The details of the production expenditure incurred in respect of the film, and
  • any other matters that we consider to be relevant.

But this also means that a film like The Great Gatsby (2013), a great American novella by a great US Author F. Scott Fitzgerald can be considered an Australian film even if it is not an Australian story. This is because it was directed by Baz Luhrmann, was filmed in Australia with an Australian crew and mainly Australian actors (even though it stars Leonardo DiCaprio).

But maybe moving away from Australian content having to be identifiably Australian is a good thing and a films merits should be determined not by its cultural appropriateness but the film as a whole. Julius Avery, the director of Australian film Son of a Gun said, “This label ‘Australian film’, I don’t know. I think we need to drop that and just make universal films that connect.” Whilst I think more recent tv shows like the ones mentioned earlier (Please Like Me, The Kettering Incident, and Cleverman etc) are succeeding at this, there seems to be a struggle between the responsibility to tell Australian stories in order to enrich national identity and creating Australian content  that doesn’t have to be identifiably Australian in order to be successful.

The success or failure of the Australian film and Television industry is dependent on multiple issues like the audience, tall poppy syndrome, lack of funding and advertising and policy making. These will all be discussed in future weeks as this topic is explored in depth.

Imparja and NITV as initiatives to combat Inequality in Australian Media

In my previous post I aimed to explain the role television media has in Australia in constructing the cultural understanding of individuals and also political understanding through news and current affairs. There is therefore a relationship between a lack of media representation in television and inequality for Indigenous Australians. In this half of my case study I will explore the role Imparja Television has had in addressing the issue of access as Australias first Indigenous controlled commercial television station broadcasting to remote and sparsely populated regions of Australia. I will also look at the impact NITV (National Indigenous Television) has had on the issue of representation, as a station focused on creating content for and by Aboriginal Australians and the trickle down effect this has had in creating social and institutional change.

Imparja, owned by The Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association (CAAMA), first commenced broadcasting in 1988 and still broadcasts today to over 700,000 people across remote eastern and central Australia. CAAMA was successful in vying for the first ever license to bring commercial television to 30 different remote Australian communities by claiming that “38% of the potential audience were Aborigines”(Molloy, 1993), and so CAAMA was best suited to serve the target audience. Imparja was seen as a huge break through after years of government intervention that neglected to support social and cultural movements which would benefit Indigenous people. In addition to the intervention that Imparja created in addressing an inequality in media access, NITV was launched in 2007 as a way for a diverse group to tell their own stories.

The need for a station like NITV was first recognised in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 when a new section of the Act was pushed through parliament stating:

S 3(1)(n) “To ensure the maintenance and, where possible, the development of diversity, including public, community and indigenous broadcasting, in the Australian broadcasting system”. (Rennie, Ellie and Featherstone, Daniel, 2008, page 57)

This development outlined that there was a clear gap in the diversity of Australia’s television media and that a distinction needed to be made between the community based media model and an Indigenous community media sector. NITV continues to grow as a representative of Indigenous Australians, just last month in July 2017 they launched NITV Radio in partnership with SBS, and in the same month partnered with Choice Magazine to shed light on advertising and sales tactics targeting Indigenous Australians (Kirkland, Choice CEO, 2017).

A more recent initiative than Imparja or NITV is the website ICTV Play. It was launched in early 2016(IRCA, Annual Report, 2016, page 17) and is almost like ABC iView in that it is an extensive data base of recordings of stories, dance, song, hunting, language and bush tucker videos submitted by those living in remote Indigenous communities. It features a segment called ‘Young Way’ which allows students in community to upload their own music videos and stories made by them. ICTV Play is really an incredible device for digitally recording and therefore preserving ancient languages, stories and dance through shared media that is able to be accessed by anyone with internet. The importance of platforms like ICTV Play, NITV and organisations like CAAMA is observed through Michael Meadows when he says;

“Indigenous media produced in remote, regional and urban environments have the capacity not only to offer alternative ideas and assumptions about the world that enable their audiences to make sense of their places within it, but also to offer a critique of mainstream media processes” (Meadows, 2009, pg 121).

ICTV PLAY

In conclusion, initiatives like Imparja, NITV and ICTV Play are imperative to creating a diverse media landscape which represents and gives a voice to those who face every day inequalities in Australia.

P.S check out the hashtag #indigenousdads on Instagram as a response to Bill Leaks cartoon.

Reference List.

Indigenous Remote Communications Association (IRCA), Annual Report 2016, viewed 18 August 2017 http://irca.net.au/sites/default/files/public/documents/IRCA-Annual%20Report%202016-Web-S.pdf

Kirkland, A 2017 ‘A Spotlight on Change for Indigenous Consumers’ Choice magazine, July, viewed 21 August 2017https://www.choice.com.au/about-us/from-our-ceo/2017/a-spotlight-on-change

Meadows, M, May 2009, ‘Walking the Talk: Reflections on Indigenous Media Audience Research Methods’ Participations Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, Vol 6. Issue 1 https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/30199/60693_1.pdf?sequence=1

Molloy, B, 1993 ‘CHANGING CULTURAL CHANNELS: SBS-TV, IMPARJA AND AUSTRALIAN
TELEVISION’, The Electronic Journal of Communication, Vol 3, No. 3 viewed 19 August 2017 http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/003/3/00334.HTML

Rennie, Ellie and Featherstone, Daniel 2008, ‘The Potential Diversity of Things We Call TV’: Indigenous Community Television, Self-determination and NITV’,  Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, No. 129 52-66  <http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=909934871951567;res=IELLCC>ISSN: 1329-878X,  viewed 21 Aug 17

SBS Radio, 2017, ‘NITV Radio has Arrived!’ SBS, 3rd July 2017, viewed 21 August 2017 http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/aboriginal/en/article/2017/07/03/nitv-radio-has-arrived-sbss-flagship-indigenous-radio-program-living-black-radio

Access and Representation of Indigenous Australians in main stream media

Our modern culture is saturated with imagery and how this imagery is presented to us is crucial to the formation of individuals cultural understanding. Stuart Hall (1997) describes representation as how culture interlocks with how things are presented to an audience. He goes further to say that the practices of representation are one of the key processes in the “cultural circuit” (Hall, 1997, pg. 3). The representation of Aboriginal Australians in television has vastly improved both on and off the screen with characters identified as Indigenous Australians at 5 per cent, compared to their proportion of the population (3 per cent) as of 2011. Contrast this with figures in 1992 of no Indigenous actors on screen and only 2 in 1999 (ScreenAustralia, pg 6), this is a major improvement of cultural diversity in Australian television.

However, Indigenous characters were concentrated in fewer programs than characters from European or non-European backgrounds and nearly all programs were aired on SBS or ABC. This is important because it means that although there are more Indigenous actors and characters, they are not widespread throughout main stream media and therefore according to Hall’s theory, effects audience’s cultural understanding of Indigenous Australians.

The problem with a lack of representation is that it can mean misrepresentation, stereotyping and racism. An example of this was published last year in The Australian. The below cartoon by Bill Leak depicts an Aboriginal father with a beer can who can’t remember his son’s name, a hurtful and degrading stereotype that clearly illustrates how main stream media marginalises Indigenous Australians by representing them as incapable of parenthood. This negative sort of representation in main stream media continues to foil Aboriginal advancement. Aboriginal people face shorter life expectancies of up to a decade, make up 50% of all Australian suicides as of 2010 and equate to over a quarter of the adult prison population (2013) despite only making up 2.3% of the adult population.  Negative main stream media representation not only shapes cultural understanding by perpetuating stereotypes but also prolongs inequality.

53a5099c7991c37bb152ddf53f2bc429.jpeg

Bill Leak 2016 The Australian

The issue of representation for Aboriginal Australians can not be overcome without overcoming the issue of access to culturally diverse creative goods. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity promotes access to culturally diverse creative goods as a basic human right. However, in Australia, as of 2006, 25% of Indigenous people were living in remote areas of Australia compared to only 2% of non-Indigenous people. It can be hard to access media in remote Australia at all, especially media that is reflective of and relatable to those living in remoteness. Indigenous programming on mainstream television accounts for less than 2 hours per week, or around 1.2% of the total airtime (Ausgov 2016), which is arguably a severe under representation of the indigenous people of Australia and hardly culturally diverse. For Australians cultural understanding of Indigenous people to improve, the diversity of Australia’s media landscape must also improve. It is arguable that when there are few relatable and tangible role models, you  ‘can’t be what you can’t see’ and so the “cultural circuit” continues. In the second part of this case study I will explore several organisations and initiatives that have been created to address the under representation of Indigenous Australians in media, as well as access to relatable and relevant media for those living in remote Australia.

Resources

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/uploads/52321/ufiles/Op_Ed_items_in_The_Australian_re_Bill_Leak_cartoon.pdf

https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/157b05b4-255a-47b4-bd8b-9f715555fb44/TV-Drama-Diversity.pdf

http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/indigenous-radio-and-television

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/the-gap-indigenous-disadvantage-in-australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-20/bill-leak-singled-out-for-racial-discrimination-investigation/7952590

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage/2011/key-indicators-2011-factsheet-remote.pdf

Planned Obsolescence and It’s Consequences

Chances are, you’ve heard someone from an older generation once say “things just aren’t made to last anymore!”, and chances are they’re right!. My grandpa had an old Plymouth  for nearly 40 years, these days we upgrade cars after 5-10 years or even less. Is this because in the modern age we all want the best and brightest? Maybe, but whats more likely is that electronics have a much shorter life span. There is actually a term for this policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, its called “planned obsolescence”. It originates as early as the light bulb with General Electric handing out fines if producers light bulbs lasted longer than 1,000 hours. What’s the purpose? – obviously to reduce the period of time between repeat purchases increasing profit. The consequence? – 50 million tons of E-waste every year..

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report, entitled Global e-waste systems – Insights for Australia from other developed countries said “In Japan, consumers do not have to pay a fee when recycling smaller e-waste, as they do for larger items. Meanwhile, in the US state of California, consumers incur an advance recovery fee. This fee is paid when buying devices such as TVs and laptops,”. This is certainly a good way to ensure devices get recycled and consumers are taking responsibility. In Australia the problem of e-waste is still in its infancy, e-waste is growing 3 times as fast as other waste categories (EIU Report), so Australia is going to have to adapt. E-waste not only effects the environment, but people too. Australia’s E-waste is shipped off to countries like Ghana in Africa or Guiyu in China where 80% of children suffer from lead poising (Greenpeace). The electronics are burnt in order to create space which releases toxic fumes into the air, they are then picked apart to find the precious metals like gold and silver, so they can sell them and make a small reward.

Toxics e-waste documentation (China : 2005)

A child sitting amongst cables in Guiyu, China. (Greenpeace)

One computer can contain lead, mercury, cadmium, brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (The guardian, 2013) which when burnt creates catastrophic pollution that is ingested through the drinking water, air and becomes part of the soil that they grow their crops in. Even more alarming is the majority of people who work on the dump sites are children.

But instead of just looking at how to better recycle electronics, shouldn’t we be looking at how to make them last longer and who’s responsible for that?. Solutions need to be found “upstream” in the way electronics are manufactured and consumed in the first place. A viable solution to this problem has in fact been created, its called the Fairphone.  The Fairphone contains conflict free minerals, is built by employees who are paid fair factory wages, is easily recyclable, durable, repairable and actually costs less than an iPhone. It costs approximately $795 Aus dollars compared to an iPhone 6 which retails for about $930. The Step Initiative is another organisation run by the United Nations set up to tackle the E-waste problem and is releasing annual reports to create awareness. Western countries can not continue to dump their own waste and the problems that go a long with it on poorer countries who have no choice but to live with it.

 

Geisha’s and Godzilla

Orientalism is, in a nutshell, “the way that the West perceives of — and thereby defines — the East” (Edward W. Said). Since colonialism, the West has perpetuated the idea that the eastern world is deeply rooted in tradition, exoticism, and is generally undeveloped. This is in order to create the picture of it being a problematic area that needs taming and therefore justifying colonialism as “the white man’s burden“. Using the word oriental to describe someone could mean they are from several different countries, including  China, Japan, Turkey, India, Greece or Egypt just to name a few. All of which have very little in common culturally  except for their geographical proximity to each other. This is why the term is out dated, inappropriate and possibly even offensive. Early orientalism is seen in European art and photographs like the one below on the cover of “The Thief of Baghdad” depicting two women on a flying carpet in exotic dresses and head scarves reflecting a long history of orientalist fantasies.

7_0

1924 film poster

 

More recently, In 2014, Air France launched a new ad campaign featuring women dressed as different iconic symbols associated with the countries that it flies its aeroplanes to. However, the two cultural appropriations for Beijing and China have been criticised as being racist. As Asian-American feminist and activist Jenn Fang notes on Reappropriate , “If only you hadn’t ended up with an ad campaign that actually features (mostly) White women wearing stereotypical racial and cultural drag to depict all those exotic non-Westernized countries.”(Fang,2014). The ads are perfect caricatures of exactly what the West has made up about these two Asian cultures, both symbols of the geisha and the dragon have very little to do with Modern China or Japan. Further, they are representations of what the West thinks Asian women are or should be, the Geisha expresses the exoticism, sexual decadence, submissiveness and seductiveness in her gaze that Jenn Fang describes as the “white fetishization of Asian women“(Fang,2014).

airfrance-tokyo

Air France, 2014 

air-france-beijing

Air France ad for Beijing, 2014

 

 

The second ad for Beijing has the woman wearing yellow face make up and her eye liner mimics the shape of the Asiatic eye, how they didn’t think that would be offensive? – Who knows. Just like Katy Perry’s 2013 American Music Awards Performance where she performed as a geisha girl, they are just a way of depicting the East exactly how the West wants it to look, continuing the damaging stereotypes which have dated back as far as 1908 from Lord Cromer the consul general of Egypt who wrote, “the main characteristic of the oriental mind is untruthfulness”.

katy-perry-ama-2013-650

Katy Perry’s AMA’s 2013 performance was orientalist and stereotypical

 

Many defendants of orientalism argue that it is a declaration of admiration and love for the oriental, but whether there is truth to this or not it still categorises the East as ‘the others‘ and portrays no sense of the universality of humanity. It is hard to know whether or not had this campaign been constructed by an Asian marketing team for an Asian company, would they still be offensive?, my guess is yes, because they are the symbol of an oppressive and anti-Asian sentiment that believes the West is the norm and the East, the abnormal.

Here are a couple of very funny adaptations made by twitter users of Air France’s advertisements, comparing it to some other stereotypical Asian images.

air-france-dragonballair-france-godzilla