Salute...and the archive

Yesterday I saw Matt Norman's documentary Salute at the Film Festival. The film tells the story behind this image - arguably one of the most famous of the sixties, and even the century. Taken at the 200m medal ceremony for the 1968 Olympics in Mexico, Tommy Smith and John Carlos' silent protest (in the same year Martin Luther King Jr and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated) saw them sent home, their athletics careers over. Matt Norman's uncle, sprinter Peter Norman, was the 'white guy' in the medal ceremony - the silver medallist. He endorsed their protest, suggested that they share the one pair of black gloves they had between them, and wore a human rights badge as part of his support for their actions. 

The film is a loving portrait of Norman, who was clearly a good, decent bloke - although I think the film makes a little too much of his participation. After all, what else was he going to do up there? Smith and Carlos were the ones who really suffered in the wake of their protest. But nonetheless, he was in the right place at the right time and did the right thing.

My quibble with the film was the ways that it retrospectively revisited the history of the sixties in a way that rewrote history. For example, we are told at one point that Australia got involved in the Vietnam war in the mid-sixties, 'a war that nobody wanted'. Now this might be true for Australia in 1971, but the war had majority public support for the first few years - it's just that today we think that Vietnam was always an unpopular war. There was also lots of archival footage used out of context - so to represent the unrest of 1968, we get footage of civil rights protests of the early sixties. Having seen footage of the 1968 protests, this stuff would make more sense and have a greater impact on the viewer. So why do this? Perhaps it comes down to budgets, but I also think it is a general lack of understanding about 'the sixties' that only more research and more films will change.

Public History at Gloria Jeans: Part 2

The Blast from the Past exhibition has finally been launched at Gloria Jean's (Epping). It is quite small, and consists of about twenty photographs. Only two people contributed to this collection, which suggests that the idea did not engage many of Gloria Jean's customers. There are no captions to explain the photographs, which include brides and grooms, families, a woman reading, pictures of buildings, a football team, as well as pictures of children at a farm. The presentation of these photographs is particularly instructive. The exhibition consists of about five large photo frames, each containing a number of photographs. The photographs do not fill the entire frame, so they have been placed on brown paper, which gives them the impression of being old. One even has a strip of lace on one side of the border. While the photographs are all black-and-white, and are obviously ‘old’, these touches have been added to reinforce this. It is significant that this technique was used, as it mimics the strategies of many historical television programs. Perhaps the person who created the exhibit was influenced by the historical television programs they had viewed themselves. This certainly raises questions about how people understand what is meant by 'history'.

Indiana Jones and the importance of human history

It’s probably about time that someone wrote something about the latest Indiana Jones film and so, having seen it last Thursday with a fiancée who would be Indiana Jones if he could, I thought I’d give it a shot. The film is getting okay reviews. Not great reviews, but okay. People love the characters. Indy, played by Harrison Ford, comes back in most of his glory- though older and with a few more joint problems than he used to. Shia LeBouf gives a decent performance, as does Karen Allen. Cate Blanchett is receiving mixed reviews for her role as a Russian psychiatrist, with a reasonably average accent but interested part. I think what more people seem to feel let down by, though, is not the tired actors but the plot. This film builds on what was an incredibly popular ‘historical’ film trilogy and takes it just a step too far. Without wanting to spoil it for those who haven’t seen it, the film takes a bigger step away from the historical and into the fantastic than it has before. The pervious trilogy had always sat on the edge of history and fantasy- drawing on the spiritual realm of ancient religions to provide the supernatural elements. A lot of its meaning and historical integrity was located in the ancient mythologies and legends that Indiana and his various sidekicks intersected with. Even if audience members were not religious or spiritual, they could appreciate that the supernatural elements were drawn from something that was a part of human history. There was actually an ark which held the Jewish law, regardless of whether it also held the power of God (Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981); the Sankara stones and the Goddess Kali were actually worshipped by followers of Hinduism (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, 1984). What is interesting about this last film is that people seem quite dissatisfied because the film relies less on human history for the fantastic elements. Perhaps that says something about what the people I have spoken to believe but I think it says a lot about why people like historical films and about pubic history in general. People find meaning in representations of past ‘realities’ that involve people and human history. Perhaps it is because they feel some sort of connection to the people involved in these representations, perhaps it’s the knowledge that what they see did have some profound effect on some people long ago. I don’t know. It’s just interesting that really popular forms of public history almost always involved a human element. When you’re not doing that, then I think it is much harder to make a history that people are willing to engage with.

History as Cultural Capital?

Since it has been far too long since I've posted a blog, I thought I'd take this opportunity to mention how there has over the course of the past 20-30 years an attempt to sell the histories of other cultures for the sake of capitalism and I just have to say that I am truly appauled.

I've come across this issue many times over the course of my life but never really thought about it until I did my essay on The Chinese Cultural Revolution. Looking at all the replicated prints and posters of Mao Tse Tung and Lei Fung made me realise that the world has developed an apathy toward history. A 'post-modern' approach they would call it, but deep down, we all know that it is nothing more than disrespect.

How many people who purchase Mao satchels or Lenin ashtrays take the time to sit back and consider that the images emblazoning these items are imbued with meanings which run far deeper than face value. That whilst they only be something which these people consider 'cool', to millions of other people they propagate times of great hardship and misery. To further illustrate what I mean I would like to draw on two very different examples:

• In the earlier half of my second year, during my 'Hardcore Punk' phase, I entered the train for the city circle at central wearing my almost ritual uniform of pit boots, camoflague shorts and my Communist Party singlet which I brought to this country from Wales. Thanks largely to politically charged Swansea rockers MSP (Manic Street Preachers) and the heavy political edge they injected into the veins of Brit-rock during the 1980s-early 90s, left-wing political fury has played a big role in the Welsh Rock Scene by drawing on the works of Orwell and Camu and relating them to the working class emperialist poverty that has been thrust on industrial South Wales since Thatcherism closed the collieries and crippled our main source of income. Thus I felt I owed it to my homeland and my culture to keep the socialist fires burning (and I continue to do so unapologetically). However, when I boarded the train, I past a woman in her sixties who resembled one of those Eastern European stereotypes you see in so many WWII films, complete with burgandy shaul and weather hewn appearance. At first, I took it with a grain of salt when she gave me the Evil Eye as I crossed her line of vision but when I sat down I soon realised that she had not taken her eyes off me from the moment I stepped onto the train. This worried me greatly. For the remainder of my journey a sat looking at her as she continued to glare at me in contempt and when I exited the train she said something in Slavic under her breath which I assumed was a filthy name. In retrospect, I can't really say that I blame her. For all I knew, the image of the hammer and sickle which I wore on my chest with such pride symbolised one of the darkest periods of her country's history and I know all to well not to judge those embittered by attrocity too heavily.

• The second example comes from a television program which I quote far too often: Curb Your Enthusiasm. The episode in question saw Larry David and his wife Cheryl attending a play at the Chinese Theatre. During the interlude, Cheryl commented on how beautiful the interlude music sounded. Agreeing with his wife, Larry started whistling the song. Seconds later a man approached him and accused him of treason to the Jewish race. The music was by Wagner, the anti-semitic German composer whose works were played at the death camp in Auswitz to cover the screams. Consequently, the remainder of the episode saw Larry struggling to reaffirm his Jewishness to the man and to himself, and all because he was ignorant enough to show a moment of insensitivity toward history.

The point being made here is that one man's gold is another man's faeces. History, like so much else in this world, is subjective in its relevance and it is also reflexive. Was it wrong for me to wear a shirt which promotes Communism only to covertly parody it or for some one to be villified for admitting that they can enjoy something out of context? I think the problem comes from the post modern problem of considering each of these products as self contained events. Whilst these items in themselves are without meaning; they are still open to having myriad social codes thrust upon them, by individuals, events in time and by institutions.

It is truly perplexing as to how fan cultures can arise around events which in essance culturally dark and disturbing. Be it the endless legions of Jack the Ripper fans or James Garrison's evergrowing army of conspiracy nuts theorising about the Kennedy assassination, I think Oliver Stone was right on the money about capitalism when he made Natural Born Killers: the media may try to frame these events as the attrocities they really are but thanks the Marilyn Manson principle (ie. Any publicity is good publicity) the monsters responsible for these events end up becoming cult heroes, guaranteeing the possibility of further disasters in the future and denying the ability to learn from the past.

I look forward to hearing whether any of you agree or disagree with this argument (please respond some one. I won't bite...hard. hehe!)

tourists as history

I must admit I really love museums (I know I’m strange). Anyway bearing that in mind I convinced the family that they should go to the Bateaux Jouets exhibition at the Maritime Museum (I lured them there with the promise of lunch afterwards at Darling Harbour).

Whilst they were looking at the toy boats I wandered off to the exhibition about the life on the Murray Darling River. And indeed this exhibition did deal with the life on this river- the ecology, the people and the boats which were the life-blood of the community along this river. Apparently with the introduction of the railways, boat transport decreased considerably along the river to a point whereby tourism was introduced.

As a result “nostalgic” river boat cruises were introduced along the Murray, where people could immerse themselves in the sights and sounds of a bygone era. I’m not sure if life on a river boat included a BBQ lunch with wine, but nevertheless the cruise seems almost like a re-enactment, except instead of having Stephen Gapp’s team of re-enactors, the tourists are the players. And while not being able to control the environment, the tourist nonetheless can control the experience – so does it really create an experience of “what it must have been like”? Maybe I’m just being too fussy & I should just sit back and enjoy the BBQ lunch as I cruise back in time.

Pip

theatre as history

After hearing from Stephen about re-enactment and the possibilities of 'living history', I noticed with interest that the Quarantine Station (or, 'Q station', as its website notes it will soon be called) has created what they call an 'immersive theatre experience' to tell the history of the site. Called Defiance, the show apparently dramatises the experiences of those who lived and worked in the Quarantine Station throughout its long history. The station opened in the 1830s as (of course) a quarantine site for those coming to Australia after long sea voyages, and as you could imagine, it's a place that has probably seen great sadness in its long history - probably many of the people who were forced to stay there never saw their proper destination (I've long heard stories from historian friends that the place is haunted -  I'm not sure about this, but I did notice the station is also offering ghost tours of the place at night.) The show is designed around the experience of hearing of the stories in the places where they actually happened, which is an interesting idea. This emphasis on authenticity is one of the hallmarks of popular history.

It's interesting - when the redevelopment of the Quarantine Station was mooted almost a decade ago, I think many historians and heritage workers were dubious about plans for the site, which involved turning the buildings into a conference centre and resort. I guess we should be impressed that the building's history has been incorporated into the redevelopment and not turfed as many feared it would be. The politics of heritage these days seem to boil down to one question:  how do you make heritage pay in a market economy? It will be interesting to see if Defiance attracts audiences interested in an historical experience (at 60 bucks a ticket it should be a profitable one for the owners) as well as a fine dining one. 

So apparently Mawson didn't eat his own fingers

I hate to admit it, but I stay in on a sunday night to watch the ABC and nine times out of ten I don't regret my decision.

The latest sunday night offering was 'Mawson: Life and Death in Antarctica' and it was an easy watch (apart from when they killed the dogs). But the fact that it was so easy worries me a little. It didn't challenge the myth of Mawson, the only challenge it made was physical. I say myth because as we all know tales of Australian icons are generally 90% myth.

Relying on little more than Mawson's own diaries, the show used a mixture of footage, and photos taken by Frank Hurley, re-enactments and narration to complement the journey of the modern day adventurer, Tim Jarvis. Of course, due to the time and location we can't really expect many more sources, but the programme seemed to set out to prove everything Mawson wrote was true, rather than challenge or explore other options. The synopsis, describes it as "a bold and unprecedented historical experiment", it provides options, clues not truths, however there are people out there who are going to take this as gospel, as proof.

But how can we know? How can we tell?

There were too many variables. Mawson himself describes the effects on the human mind the tough conditions and Vitamin A poisoning had on his friends, but yet the writers, the producers, perhaps everyone is happy to take Mawson's word without calling into question his state of mind. Mawson did not have a trained medical professional trailing him on a snow-ski, checking his vitals every ten days. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh.

I actually liked it. I learned quite a lot. Most importantly, I am no longer the misapprehension that Mawson ate his own fingers in an act of desperate starvation - apparently it was Mertz, and he only did it to prove to himself he had acute frostbite, not because he was hungry, though he probably was...