The Demise of the Ocker
The crudeness of the ocker eventually wore thin on many Australian social types and led to a demise. Critics and politicians alike demanded a less vulgar, more culturally superior form of film making in order to keep government support. As well as this, the ocker seemed to be more than catered for and government support for it became too hard to justify. “Regarded as the worst form of close-minded exploitation”(O’Regan), the ocker failed to bestow the type of national and cultural stature that was expected.
The Age detailed its concerns that films such as Barry Mckenzie “would only serve to confirm the world’s suspicions that we are a Wake in Fright nation of Bazzas and Storks.” (Moore, 2006) It became clear to modernist artists and critics from earlier generations that the ocker actually (in their opinion) represented a failure for the Australian film industry and that we had ‘lost the war’ and were back at the beginning, having to develop sophistication in filmmaking all over again.
The introduction of the ‘quality’ film, a higher budget alternative to the ocker paved the way for a distinct change in the Australian industry. The most notable film reflecting the emergence of the quality film is Peter Weir’s 1975 beauty, Picnic at Hanging Rock. With films such as Picnic, the ocker was severely downgraded in the opinion of government bodies and film industry personnel alike, deeming the style both ‘too Hollywood’ and ‘too unsophisticated’ at once. This belief meant that the ocker was viewed as unlikely to secure recognition in an international setting. Films such as Picnic met the international expectations of Australian films as well as retaining sufficient cultural relevance in the Australian landscape. “These films certainly invited their audience to position itself in a social knowingness about society's archetypal values and figures.” (O’Regan)
At this time it was becoming clear that filmmaking in Australia was defining itself in correlation with the society it was representing, leaving no opportunity for generalized claims of national identity. “By not being concerned with either sensibility or well rounded characters, it could not provide good role models, traditional heroes, nor a warm sense of national pride.” (O’Regan). As suggested in the previous quote from Tom O’Regan, this way of presenting characters in film meant that the Australian industry was failing to develop in a crucial way, manipulating what should be considered acceptable or unacceptable rather than relying on the audience to make that judgment. Consequently, a sense of tastelessness now surrounded the ocker film. The ocker’s local success was viewed as embarrassing as it reflected poorly upon Australia and its audiences.
The Age detailed its concerns that films such as Barry Mckenzie “would only serve to confirm the world’s suspicions that we are a Wake in Fright nation of Bazzas and Storks.” (Moore, 2006) It became clear to modernist artists and critics from earlier generations that the ocker actually (in their opinion) represented a failure for the Australian film industry and that we had ‘lost the war’ and were back at the beginning, having to develop sophistication in filmmaking all over again.
The introduction of the ‘quality’ film, a higher budget alternative to the ocker paved the way for a distinct change in the Australian industry. The most notable film reflecting the emergence of the quality film is Peter Weir’s 1975 beauty, Picnic at Hanging Rock. With films such as Picnic, the ocker was severely downgraded in the opinion of government bodies and film industry personnel alike, deeming the style both ‘too Hollywood’ and ‘too unsophisticated’ at once. This belief meant that the ocker was viewed as unlikely to secure recognition in an international setting. Films such as Picnic met the international expectations of Australian films as well as retaining sufficient cultural relevance in the Australian landscape. “These films certainly invited their audience to position itself in a social knowingness about society's archetypal values and figures.” (O’Regan)
At this time it was becoming clear that filmmaking in Australia was defining itself in correlation with the society it was representing, leaving no opportunity for generalized claims of national identity. “By not being concerned with either sensibility or well rounded characters, it could not provide good role models, traditional heroes, nor a warm sense of national pride.” (O’Regan). As suggested in the previous quote from Tom O’Regan, this way of presenting characters in film meant that the Australian industry was failing to develop in a crucial way, manipulating what should be considered acceptable or unacceptable rather than relying on the audience to make that judgment. Consequently, a sense of tastelessness now surrounded the ocker film. The ocker’s local success was viewed as embarrassing as it reflected poorly upon Australia and its audiences.