Introduction to the ‘Ocker’ Term
The term “ocker” in itself is a representation of Australia, with the most common understanding of the word dating from the late 1960s. The ‘ocker’, in terms of film, generally refers to films that relied upon forms of social type. Ocker films were originally designed for an Australian audience and represented very ‘Australian’ characters, like the Aussie Bloke, as well as the Australian landscape, both rural and urban. Two of the most renowned ockers are Alvin Purple (Tim Burstall, 1973) and Adventures of Barry McKenzie (Bruce Beresford, 1972). The ocker can be described as overtly sexist films and to a point racist, neglecting to reflect women and indigenous Australia’s as important character types. The introduction of the ocker film changed the cinematic experience and proved that it was possible for the Australian film industry to have a solid public profile for feature films with Australian audiences.
However, what did happen is by the mid 1970s the public criticism of the ocker began to suggest that these films were an embarrassment to the industry and the Australian culture in general, being referred to as vulgar and sexist. This general feeling from the Australian audience eventually paved way for the emerging feminist movement that was located in the ocker cycle.
For a time the word was used as a derisive nickname for a person who exploits an exaggerated Australian nationalism. The term came to describe a rough and uncultivated Australian male, often aggressively Australian in speech and manner. This idea is appropriately summarised in a passage from a 1977 issue of the Bulletin:
"And you have the poofter problem. There seem so many poofs in Sydney as might cause serious concern about overcrowding to the housing authorities of Sodom. It is a statistical and biological impossibility for all these poofters to be homosexuals. They are refugees from the other tyrannical Australian myth, the ocker. Any young Australian man with a normal fondness for dressiness, an interest in the arts, a liking for a varied diet, a penchant for European travel, a preference for comfort, even a weakness for after-shave, measures himself against the ocker and instantly assumes himself queer."
This highly explicit identification of the idea of ocker represents a negative placement of the term within Australian culture. As well as this, the term is clearly seen as a definitive element of the lifestyle and social archetype of the time.
However, what did happen is by the mid 1970s the public criticism of the ocker began to suggest that these films were an embarrassment to the industry and the Australian culture in general, being referred to as vulgar and sexist. This general feeling from the Australian audience eventually paved way for the emerging feminist movement that was located in the ocker cycle.
For a time the word was used as a derisive nickname for a person who exploits an exaggerated Australian nationalism. The term came to describe a rough and uncultivated Australian male, often aggressively Australian in speech and manner. This idea is appropriately summarised in a passage from a 1977 issue of the Bulletin:
"And you have the poofter problem. There seem so many poofs in Sydney as might cause serious concern about overcrowding to the housing authorities of Sodom. It is a statistical and biological impossibility for all these poofters to be homosexuals. They are refugees from the other tyrannical Australian myth, the ocker. Any young Australian man with a normal fondness for dressiness, an interest in the arts, a liking for a varied diet, a penchant for European travel, a preference for comfort, even a weakness for after-shave, measures himself against the ocker and instantly assumes himself queer."
This highly explicit identification of the idea of ocker represents a negative placement of the term within Australian culture. As well as this, the term is clearly seen as a definitive element of the lifestyle and social archetype of the time.