Abstract
In the 1970s and 1980s New Zealand experienced significant socio-economic upheaval due in part to the global economy, economic experiments, and the gains of Māori activism. Despite the divisiveness of this period (or possibly because of it), anxieties over notions of New Zealand national identity were heightened. There was a general feeling among many Kiwis that New Zealand culture (however it was defined) was in danger of extinction, mostly due to the dominant influences of the United states and Britain. New Zealanders sought ways to distinguish themselves and their nation. One of the ways in which this desire was manifested was in the establishment of the New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC). This government sponsored body corporate was designed to provide an infrastructure for New Zealand filmmaking, through which New Zealand and New Zealanders could be represented. As a result, New Zealand filmmaking boomed during the early to mid-1980s. Significantly, this boom occurred simultaneous to the increasing relevance and importance of notions of biculturalism, both in cultural and socio-political terms.
The question that drives this thesis is how (or whether) biculturalism was articulated in the explicit or implicit relationships between cultural debates, governmental policies, the NZFC's own policies and practices and its interaction with filmmakers. This thesis examines the ways in which aspects of the discourse of biculturalism feature in New Zealand cinema of the 1980s in terms of the content, development, production and marketing of three films of this era that share particular bicultural themes and elements: Utu (Geoff Murphy, 1983), The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy, 1985) and Arriving Tuesday (Richard Riddiford, 1986). This thesis also examines the role of the NZFC in these processes as prescribed by legislation and in terms of the NZFC's own policies and procedures.
This thesis consults a variety of primary and secondary sources in its research. Primary sources include film texts, public documents, archival material, trade journals, and interviews with important figures in the New Zealand film industry.
Conclusions suggest that the interaction of numerous socio-historical factors, and the practices and policies of the NZFC, denote a process that was not direct in its articulation of notions of biculturalism. Rather, this involved an array of complex cultural, fiscal. industrial, professional and aesthetic forces.