REAWAKENING OF THE AUSSIE FILM INDUSTRY

Like many a nation that has lived under British dominion for any length of time, Australia suffers from a severe case of “culture cringe.” Although the Aussies may boast of their barbies and their beer, when it comes to matters of art they’re not so sure. Even though they heavily subsidize the arts--opera, dance, theater, movies--it takes recognition from the great world outside to make Australians realize that their own artists may actually have something.

That’s why “Crocodile Dundee” has been so important to Australia. An instant hit in its own country, its huge acceptance in America, where it has grossed $162 million, has been almost as prideful to the Australians as that first win of the America’s Cup, short as the win turned out to be.

Ironically, before Paul Hogan and partner John Cornell decided to produce “Dundee” on their own, the script had been turned down by every company they’d shown it to. And they didn’t even enter the film as a contender in the Australian equivalent of the Academy Awards. Phillip Adams, chairman of the Australian Film Commission and himself a critic, already had written a disparaging review of the movie.

“Dundee’s” success has been like a jolt of electricity to the entire industry Down Under. It made film makers realize, as they never have before, the importance of the foreign market. In the past, that market has meant primarily the art-house circuits, where films like “The Last Wave,” “Gallipoli” and “Breaker Morant” have shown modest profits.

Unfortunately, production costs have risen drastically since those halcyon days. Not so drastically as in America, perhaps; but with a population of only 15 million to draw on, Australian producers have begun to realize that they can no longer count on a domestic release alone to recoup their costs.

Now theater chains like Hoyts and Greater Union are actively searching for scripts (not necessarily Australian or on Australian themes) that they can produce for a world market.

Of course, there is still a great deal of parochialism. The unions--especially the Actors Union--regard the importation of foreign talent with undisguised hostility, even if a star name or two will unquestionably enhance chances in overseas markets. There have been numerous instances in the last 12 months where pictures have been scratched at the last minute supposedly because of union demands.

This situation has been exacerbated by a recent revision in the tax laws, which scaled down tax shelter advantages from 150% to 120%, making investment in films by private individuals less attractive. Which is doubly unfortunate because, despite the existence of the film commission and similar bodies in each of Australia’s states, the bulk of the production money must come from private sources. The commissions merely provide seed money and some guarantee against losses.

Although these commissions were set up with the express purpose of stimulating production, many have complained about their reluctance to underwrite anything “commercial”--such as “Crocodile Dundee”--on the grounds that such movies don’t really need help. As a result, very few of these films were successful, either financially or, oddly enough, artistically.

There also is a strong feeling among Australian independents that the theater chains are virtually closed to any film that is made outside of “the system,” or at the very least that their pictures receive less than prime-time exposure. However, this may not be so much a matter of collusion than of the “culture cringe.” A glance at the downtown marquees in a city like Sydney will confirm that the larger theaters would much rather book American or English movies than any of the local products.

Even so, the prevalent mood is optimistic. Some see the government’s reduction of the tax incentives actually as an incentive to make better movies. As one executive put it: “If a picture has to stand on its own merits, it had better be pretty good.”

There is also the feeling that, despite the departure of some of their best directors and cinematographers for the greener pastures of Hollywood, the talent pool is by no means exhausted. “There are still plenty of first-rate people out here working in the TV studios or doing commercials, not to mention in our film schools,” director Tom Cowan (“The Office Party”) has pointed out.

Perhaps the strongest evidence of this new optimism is the dramatic increase in screens in 1987 and projected on into 1987. Over the last decade, even a casual visitor could not help but note the dearth of movie houses in Australia, especially in suburban areas--or, on the other hand, the prevalence of stores renting video tapes. “There seem to be even more video shops than there are Chinese restaurants over here,” one tourist remarked.

During the last year, the tide has turned. The number of Chinese restaurants may remain unchanged, but the video libraries have been going out of business at a frightening rate.

But, more to the point, Australians seem to be rediscovering the joy of seeing a movie on a large screen with a live audience. And because of the resurgence in attendance (for which, again, “Crocodile Dundee” can claim a major responsibility), the theater chains have taken heart.

In Sydney alone, Greater Union opened an enormous six-theater complex shortly before Christmas; Hoyts is adding two screens to its Warringah Mall duplex; Village Roadshow has torn down its historic Mosman showcase to make way for a new triplex cinema, and Chatswood, in the northern suburbs, has been promised six new screens where before there were none.

But will Australian film makers have access to all the new screens? This seems to be the crux of the problem.

Will the theater chains, which now seem eager to woo international co-production, permit local talent to take the reins or, driven by “cultural cringe,” will they assign creative control to their American and/or English partners?

Will “Crocodile Dundee” inspire a resurgence in Aussie film making, or was that remarkable flow that began about a dozen years ago truly, as critic-historian David Stratton described it, “the last new wave”?