Search

(1998). Education or exploitation: The exhibition of ‘social hygiene ‘ films in Australia. Continuum: Vol. 12, Censorship and pornography, pp. 31-46.

Much of the history written now about the early days of film is told with hindsight; we know what was important then, because we know what happened afterwards. But that may not have been what was important at the time. In an attempt to better understand early cinema from the perspective of the consumer, I want to share with you some entries in an old journal, between 1896 and 1902. It was kept by Harry Graham, who earned his living as a bootmaker though he still lived with his parents and brothers in Nicholson St, North Carlton (an Inner suburb of Melbourne). Let's start with Saturday, 1 August 1896, even though this particular entry doesn't mention film at all.

Albert Auster and Leonard Quart. How the War was Remembered: Hollywood and Vietnam. New York: Praeger, 1988. Pp. 171. David E. James. Allegories of Cinema: American Film in the Sixties. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Pp. 388. Susan Jeffords. The Remasculinization of America: Gender and the Vietnam War. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. Pp. 215. Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner. Camera Political the Politics and Ideology of Contemporary Hollywood Film. Bloomington and Indianopolis: Indiana University Press, 1988. Pp. 321 William J. Searle, editor. Search and Clear: Critical Responses to Selected Literature and Films of the Vietnam War. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1988. Pp. ix, 215. Jeffrey Walsh and James Aulich. Vietnam Images: War and Representation. London: Macmillan, 1989. Pp. xv, 224.

(1984). ‘National identity’/‘National history’/ ‘National film’: the Australian experience. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television: Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 179-188.

(1988). From Silence to Reconciliation: The representation of the Vietnam war in Australian film and television. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television: Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 75-89.

In 1916 and 1917 Australian voters twice rejected an appeal by Prime Minister Hughes for a mandate to introduce compulsory military service overseas. After the referendums contemporary commentators tried to account for this result.2 However, they could only guess at the effect of the Irish rebellion, or of Hughes' egomania and blundering, or of the introduction of conscription in other countries, or of the general war situation. Many preferred to evaluate the influence of the vote of certain sections of the electorate, with a known interest to which both No and Yes campaigns had been directed: the women, the employers, the trade unionists, the Empire patriots, the Australian and/or Irish patriots, the Catholics, the Protestants, the relatives of men who had lost their lives or who were still at the front or who