Is ‘industry’ the right word to use in describing the enterprise film story-tellers are engaged in?

If opera, ballet, state and national orchestras, art galleries and all other bodies that produce cultural artefacts were to be re-branded as industries, they would all have to declare bankruptsy quick smart. If car and fruit canning industries can be allowed to go to the wall, why not the various arts 'industries'? 

Is ‘industry’ the right word to use in describing the enterprise film story-tellers are engaged in?

“I work in the film industry.”

“Oh what a coincidence, I work in the opera industry!”

“Opera is not an industry!”

“No, nor is Australian film an industry.”

You see the problem. If opera, ballet, state and national orchestras, art galleries and all other bodies that produce cultural artefacts were to be re-branded as industries, they would all have to declare bankruptsy quick smart. If car and fruit canning industries can be allowed to go to the wall, why not the various arts industries?

As an ‘industry’, ours is demonstrably an abject failure.  Money is poured in at one end but virtually none comes out the other end.

Would it really matter if Screen Australia was abolished, along with the state funding bodies and  tax incentive schemes and the global marketplace allowed to determine which films get made and which do not?

It is not easy to answer this question if we describe ourselves, think of ourselves, as an ‘industry.’

Drop the word ‘industry’ and we are left with ‘Australian cinema’, ‘Australian film’, ‘Cinema of Australia- - expressions that shift the emphasis from film as a product for sale to a cultural artefact whose value is not to be found merely in box office receipts or the illusory promise of profit generated from the investment made in it.

A quick quiz. Which of the following iconic Australian films yielded a profit on the financial investment made them: ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock’, ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’, ‘Romper Stomper’, ‘Shine’ ‘Gallipoli’, ‘Breaker Morant’, ‘Sunday Too Far Away’, ‘My Brilliant Career’, ‘Don’s Party’, ‘The Adventures of Barry McKenzie’ and so on. You can compile your own list.

Which of these films made a profit, in the industry sense of the word?  Does it matter, 20 and more years down the track? Australians can now look at these films with pride and see them as being as an integral and important part of our culture. As ‘Australian Cinema’ at its best, not as products of an industry.

I do not want to make too big a deal of this one word but I think an argument can be made to slowly, quietly and without much fuss, to phase ‘industry’ out – just as the Australian Film Commission (a cold blooded title) gave way to Screen Australia as a more appropriate label to apply to our peak film funding body.

What argument can we present to a bean counter in Canberra who views Australian film as he does fruit canning factories and car manufacturing plants, as an ‘industry’? And with our current government we can be sure there are plenty of these.

“Why should we prop up the failing Australian film industry to the tune of $100 million a year when we have refused to prop up the fruit canning industry in Shepparton to the tune of $20 million?”

It is not too difficult to mount an argument in support of Australian film, Australian Cinema, but it is not one that would focus on ‘industry’ as the word is normally used. If the bean counter in Canberra is talking ‘industry’ and we are talking ‘culture’ the conversation is not going to be very fruitful.

Every now and then I think it worthwhile revisiting the Report of the Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission (Feb 1975) that kick-started this endeavour we toilers in the realm of screen story-telling are all involved in:

“Australia, as a nation, cannot accept, in this powerful and persuasive medium, the current flood of other nations’ productions on our screens without it constituting a very serious threat to our national identity. The Commission should actively encourage the making of those films of high artistic or conceptual value which may or may not be regarded at the time as conforming to the current criteria of genre, style or taste, but which have cultural, artistic or social relevance. Some may not become commercially successful ventures, but these may include films which posterity will regard as some of the most significant films made by and for Australians. Profit and entertainment on the one hand and artistic standards and integrity on the other, are not mutually exclusive. In the long term the establishment of a quality Australian output is more important for a profitable, soundly based industry that the production exclusively as what might be regarded as sure fire box office formula hits.

I think that the Interim Report was spot on, using the word ‘industry’ sparingly and emphasizing film as an important cultural artefact. Of course, much has changed since 1975 and the vast majority of those amongst us who call themselves filmmakers will never feed celluloid into a camera in their lives. It is the spirit of the Interim Report that I think is worth bearing in mind.

The next time you feel the word ‘industry’ on the tip of your tongue, think of some other way of describing the entity to which you have committed your passion. After all, not that many of us earn that much from what we do – as we would if we were a ‘real’ industry.