In2016,ScreenAustraliareleasedtwomajorstudieson
the value of Australia’sscreensector:the first, prepared
byDeloitteAccessEconomics,measurestheeconomic
valueofthescreensector,^1 whilethesecond,undertaken
by Olsberg•SPI,appraisesits culturalvalue.^2 The findings
of both were collatedinto a report entitledScreen Currency:
ValuingOurScreenIndustry.^3
WhentheScreenCurrencysummarydocument^4 became
availableto the public,it was widelywelcomedamongscreen
communitiesbecauseit providedhard data to bolsterclaims
for the importanceof the sectorto Australia’seconomyand
nationalculture.^5 However,whenI readthecultural-value
reportitself, I was disappointedto see that it did not make
mentionof the teachingor studyingof film; criticalwriting
about film; film reviewsand journalism;or forums,festivals
and screenings– variousactivitiesI considerintegralto build-
ing Australia’sfilm culture.Despiteits focus on culturalvalue,
the Olsbergreport does not considerthe significanceof a film
culture:what it might entail, how it is developedand fostered,
and what contributionit makesto amplifyingculturalvalue.
It is as if the Australianscreenindustries,and even Australian
films themselves,exist in a completevacuumof ideas – as if
they miraculouslyemergefrom nowhereand their reception
by audiencesis completelyunmediated.
The implicationsof excludingthis lively discourseare far-
reaching,and, to appreciatethis, we don’t need to look any
furtherthanthedebateswithintheAustralianFilmTelevisionand
RadioSchool(AFTRS)overthelastfewyearsabouttherole
of film studies,as film historyhas been excisedfrom the un-
dergraduatecorecurriculum,whichnowhasa morenarrowly
craft-basedfocus;as a result,film historyhas been relegated
to optionalelectives.Acrossthe universitysector,the growing
influenceof the ‘culturalindustries’paradigmhas increasingly
had a similareffect,as film and screenstudiesare reframed
withinthe industryrubric.This increasedpredominanceof
the political-economymodelin cultural-industriescurricula
is not restrictedto Australia;film scholarThomasSchatzhas
examinedthe widespreadtendencyto explainculturalvalue
in economicallyquantifiableterms.He asks wherequestions
of aestheticsfit in this model,and arguesfor the retention
of the creativityand humanisticconcernsdevelopedin film
studieswithinthe screensector’sindustry-focusedagenda.^6
ThisarticlesetsouttochallengetheScreenCurrency
report as the most recentiterationof a longstandingmargin-
alisationof film culturethat has the potentialto significantly
reshapescreenpolicyover the next decade.Not only do
I wanttoreframethequestionabouthowtomeasurethe
culturalvalueofAustraliancinema,butI alsoseektoask
additionalones: How does a dynamicfilm cultureenable,
activate,mobiliseand amplifythe culturalvalue of Australian
cinema?And what is the role of film studies, critical writing
and publicdiscussionwithinit?W(h)ither Australian film culture?
The omissionfrom the Olsbergreport’sbibliographyof the
most substantialanalysispublishedto date of the importance
of Australianfilm culture,BarrettHodsdon’sStraightRoads
andCrossedLines, is telling.This 2001 accountdocuments
the decades-longmarginalisationand eviscerationof film-
culturefundingprogramsby the country’speak film bodies;
in the nationalagenda,Hodsdonargues,by 2001 ‘film culture
[had] been seconded [...] to the commercial imperatives ofPreviousspread,L–R:Gallipoli;MadMax:FuryRoadThisspread,clockwise
from top right:Gallipoli;Rabbit-Proof Fence(two images);Australia (two images)
120 • Metro Magazine 201 | © ATOM