DIRT CHEAP

Australia, 1986, 106 minutes, Colour.

Dirt Cheap is an Australian documentary with a particular point of view: an attack on multinationals and their exploitation of Australia, a critique of the Liberal National Country Party coalition and the investment in mining at the expense of manufacturing, a comment on the repercussions for unemployment, a view of white Australians transported to the Northern Territory for the mining towns and having to survive, and, most importantly, a view of the aboriginal tradition and the clash with mining interests.

The film was financed by many southern and federal unions. While the point of view is clear, the message is not hammered home in a moralising way. There is documentary presentation, interview technique, the focusing on particular persons and places for the message to be communicated. It will reinforce the points of view already held by viewers of the film - and will probably not persuade people who differ to change their opinion. It is an interesting example of effective partisan feature documentary film-making.

1. The significance of the title - the focus on the earth and the dirt, cheap with the overtones of money? The slang phrase 'dirt cheap'? Audience expectations from title and ironies?

2. The impact of documentary features: information, emotional response, the instilling of attitudes, changing of attitudes? Calls for decisions? Moralising? How well did this film inform, affect the audience emotionally, stimulate attitudes?

3. The importance of the editing - and the point of view in the juxtaposition of sequences, characters, criticisms? The highlighting of issues by the editing? The style of particular interviews, portraits of characters, the types of shot for emotional reaction? The juxtaposition? The music?

4. The wide spread of the material and its integration into a unified film: the Northern Territory and the aboriginal traditions, the land, the land council, the interaction with the mining interests and the federal government? The mining interests, exploration, digging of the earth, the setting up of the towns, people trying to live in the Northern Territory towns? Melbourne factories and unemployment? Melbourne study groups? The blending of this material? How typical, authentic? The criteria for selection? The final presentation of Ian Viner as villain?

5. The issues of the '70s and the '80s and their importance? This film as a contribution, the sensitivity of the contribution? How much polemic, how much preaching, how much moralising, how much persuasion?

6. The aboriginal themes: the presenting of individual aboriginal people, as characters, as spokespersons? The cross-section presented? The language, and the subtitles? Language difficulties for the white Australian audience? The importance of traditions, religion, mythology, the significance of the land, particular places? The effect of mining interests on the traditional way of life? The role of the Northern Land Council? The meetings and explanations of the situation? The meeting with Mr Viner? The aborigines' plea to the white people to listen and to learn? The inherent racism in white Australia -spooks, coloured cousins? How much was the presentation of the Aboriginal cause influenced by the editing of the film? The personalities presented - the old woman and her explanation of her history, the old man and his explanation of the sacred mountain? The mining themes: the reference to Rum Jungle and its exploitation and abandonment, the visualising of the waste? Conservation issues, Health issues especially for the mines, uranium and safeguards? The establishing of new mines and the digging up of the earth? The frequent sequences of the earth being gouged? The establishment of the towns? Their artificiality, the work and the attitude of the workers? The interest in the money. the pragmatism rather than principle? The social implications of families moving north?

7. The possibility of these sequences - and the wife the drinking, recreation? The presentation of the multinationals - the facts and figures and statistics interspersed throughout the film? Swiss ownership, American ownership? The correctness of information given about the money turnover?

8. The presentation of the government - contracts, deals, the allocation of finance, the exploitation of minerals? Uranium? The role of the unions - the backing of the film, consciousness raising the issues? The transport unions and the discussions about uranium? The picturing of the demonstrations?

9. The repercussions for unemployment: Helen and her work at Mistral and its being photographed? Her comments on the standards and quality of work and of life, seeing her at home, at the study group? The points that she was making about conditions, retrenchment, information?

10. The sequences with Ian Viner - his place as government minister, the investigations for the signing of the Ranger agreement? His presence, his forbidding the filming, his actions at the signing, in meeting the people afterwards? The importance of the signing of the Ranger agreement - preceding discussions, the attitudes of the Northern Land Council, of the government? The representative sitting in his truck outside and not joining in?

11. Presuppositions about Australia and its development? The ethos of money, wealth, exploitation? The role of government in intervening? overseas interests and exploitation? Alternative energy sources? Uranium, nuclear power and the need for safeguards? Social outlook for the Australian way of life? Racist and superior attitudes? The awareness of aboriginal culture and traditions? The white Australians' willing to be open, to learn? towns remaining after the mines finish? The family talking about women's brains going soft? about prisoners of war, for families distressed about the loss of family members? There was much discussion, in the context of Rambo, about the rights and wrongs of such films. Nevertheless, they were immensely popular in the United States during the mid-'80s.