Film theorists, Arthur and Corinne Cantrill believed that Spencer became quite proficient at utilising the film stock so that the end of ceremonies would be included.16
Spencer was also hampered by the lack of a panning mechanism on the camera to record the entire area covered by the dance ceremonies. Gillen records their frustration and Spencer’s resignation at the dancers moving out of the field of vision wasting valuable film stock.17 Gillen also records how Spencer often staggered under the weight and bulk of the camera as they trudged over the hills to arrive at a secluded spot to film a ceremony.18 Added to this, the lack of operational instructions, specifically, how fast to crank the wheel that fed the film through its various sprockets inside the camera.19 At times the film became a tangled mess when it popped out of the complex pathway of sprocket feeds, resulting in fogging and loss of useful footage. At this time there were no sprocket holes on the film stock to help feed it through the sprockets in the camera. There were also problems with the focusing mechanisms and viewfinders that made shooting more of a hit-and-miss affair.20 The heat and dry climatic conditions caused the wooden camera body to split and crack, leaking light and dust onto the film.21 To remedy this they enlisted Aboriginal technology, using resin and spinifex grasses to plug the gaps. It was a culmination of these difficulties that Spencer and Gillen believed would increase as they travelled further north to more humid and hotter climes, so they decided to use the entire 3,000 feet of film stock at Charlotte Waters.22 This decision satisfied Spencer and Gillen’s three considerations: it enabled them to capitalise on their ←23 | 24→friendly relations with the Arrernte, who allowed them to record their ceremonies;23 it solved the technical problems that arose when using the camera in harsh conditions and; it allowed for greater ease in dispatching the film to Melbourne to be developed.24
The serendipitous discovery of the films was made by filmmaker Ian Dunlop in 1966 when he was researching the history of ethnographic films made in Australia. Stored in a tin shed at the back of Museum Victoria, away from any other collections because of the safety hazard they posed, the films were found in their original cardboard boxes.25 This undoubtedly played a vital role in their survival. The Museum received them in 1916 when Spencer’s collection was annexed to Museum Victoria from the University of Melbourne.26 At Dunlop’s insistence the films were transferred to the NFSA where they were copied onto safety film.27 These are the duplicates that are now available for viewing. The original films are now stored in a special unit at the NFSA in Canberra, formerly known as the National Historical Film and Speaking Record Library (within the then Commonwealth National Library). Museum Victoria holds the copyright for access to the copied Spencer and Gillen films held at the NFSA.
Spencer and Gillen’s expedition was funded from various sources and not all contributions were monetary. The University of Melbourne did not contribute financially to the expedition but granted Spencer a year’s unpaid leave from his teaching post. In addition, Spencer contributed funds to the sum of £400 from his father, Reuben, an amount debited to his share of his inheritance when his father died.28 Gillen was granted leave for the year from his position at the post office as well as receiving allowances of approximately £400. The South Australian government granted approximately £200 in concessions for railway transport between Adelaide and Oodnadatta.29 The pair also received support from the ←24 | 25→Governor of South Australia, Sir Fredrick Holder, in addition to the rail concessions, he supplied a trap and tackling as well as “four suitable horses from the Govt”.30
By far the largest financial contribution of £1,000 came from The Age (Melbourne) newspaper proprietor, David Syme who in return for this donation published regular field reports from Spencer during the course of the expedition. The articles greatly increased sales for The Age’s weekly magazine supplement, The Leader, and captured the popular imagination.31 Both Spencer and Gillen used their professional connections to gain any small advantage possible. Spencer acquired letters of introduction from “Alfred Deakin and other politicians supporting their expedition” and through Gillen they used telegraph stations as supply bases.32 They were granted the services of Mounted Trooper Chance as driver, cook and handyman, however this cost them £200.33 They were also accompanied by two Arrernte men from Charlotte Waters, Purunda (Warwick) and Erlikiliaka (Jim Kite) as horse handlers.34
From Gillen’s correspondence about the preparations, it is clear that the expedition was underfunded for its ambitious objectives.35 Long, physically exhausting days in the field were followed at night by hours of developing photographs from glass plates, processing collected animal specimens, writing up field notes and journals as well as correspondence to Syme and family members could have been made less arduous had more funds been forthcoming to hire another assistant.
←25 | 26→
Reception and Distribution
By the time Spencer and Gillen returned to Melbourne the articles in the The Leader, had achieved their objective. The films were highly anticipated for their promise of conveying images of primitive and exotic people and for the novelty of the new technology of film.
In the new century, moving films became a popular form of entertainment for the masses, generating the production of short films. Known at the time as actualities, many portrayed scenes from everyday Western life but a large number contained images of exotic and primitive peoples that drew voyeuristic interest. Considered by some at the time as a cheap and vulgar form of entertainment, images of exotic peoples were shown in nickelodeon arcades, circus side-shows and Coney Island-like venues around the Western world; titillating a mainly working-class audience. At numerous venues, still photographs could be purchased to take home as a souvenir. Under the guise of anthropological science, Spencer and Gillen’s films similarly permitted this transgression for their patrons. Although their films were shot with a scientific lens, the unfamiliar customs established the Aboriginal people in the film as the “exotic” Other to the audience. Screening these “stone age” people confirmed for Western audiences that they were far more civilised and scientifically advanced; the films presented this stark contrast. The humanity of the Aboriginal people in the film was subsumed as they became objects to be observed, studied, watched, or to provide titillating entertainment. Presented by an authoritative and popular scientist to the general public, the films depict the subjects of the films who have little say in how and where the films could be presented – as objects they are what is being shown rather than the ones doing the showing, or being shown to. These images and the ideas surrounding them also became commodities.
While
