South West Pacific (film)

A special screening of the movie for Members of Parliament and other special guests took place in July. The screening did not go well: reportedly several MPs laughed at sequences and walked out of the theatre. The general consensus was the film compared poorly to its companion feature, Desert Victory (1943), and should not have used actors instead of real people.[11]

According to a journalist from the Brisbane Sunday Mail who was present at the screening, one viewer said it had "enough ham to feed the whole Australian army". The journalist went on to criticise the film:

The artificiality of the sequences, false values, false sentiments, and complacency of the whole film made almost a painful impression on many of the vice regal, diplomatic and parliamentary audiences upstairs at the theatre. Downstairs, where the audience comprised soldiers, mostly taken from the front line to attend a special training school at Duntroon, there was loud laughter at some scenes intended to be impressive. There was no smell of battle in the film as in the wonderful Desert Victory, which had preceded it. There were no actors and no politics in Desert Victory, only fighters and workers. There were only actors and a strong political flavour in South-west Pacific... Any audience ran be forgiven for laughing in the wrong place. In the search for lightness and brightness, comedy has been over emphasised. The film misses a glorious opportunity to show some thing of the real work of Australian soldiers.[12]

The movie was then released in Adelaide. The Adelaide Advertiser said it should not be exported:

Despite the excellence of its pictorial matter, its sentiment is out of key, it is boastful, and its characters talk incessantly. Some of the characters employed are more caricatures or comedians than average Australian people (Bert Bailey is there in his Dad part of On Our Selection fame), and the servicemen types are quite inadequate. The pictorial representation of factory development, of farm and pasture, and of the Allied Works Council projects, is good, but in all else Producer-Director Ken G. Hall has made a far too low assessment of the intelligence of his prospective audiences.[13]

However, a critic from the Hobart Mercury liked the film, writing that "Script is direct, forceful. Photography good. Worth seeing."[14] The Adelaide News thought the film had good and bad points:

It is undoubtedly comprehensive for a 3,000-ft. film. Producer-Director Ken G.Hall and commentator Tom Gurr have snapshotted Australia's war effort from a good many angles. They seem out of perspective at times. 'Tough! Of course it's tough.' booms the voice of Australia. No-it's not one of Damien Parer's sweaty heroes from "Road to Kokoda" speaking, but the ex manager of a cosmetics factory talking about his taxes. The emphasis throughout is on the home front, its trials, and Its achievements, the last' described with a complacency that's naive and perhaps ill judged in a film intended for export. Even so, as a home-front documentary the film has a good deal to commend it, except that the workers portrayed are an over-clean and actorish lot. Not enough footage is given to servicemen. Those who do appear are stock types.[15]

The Adelaide Mail reported that:

Points in its favor... were its crisp photography, clear commentary, economical dove-tailing of sequences showing many aspects of war work, and its patient sincerity in trying to give industrial war workers a pride in their jobs. On the debit side were a naive boastfulness ('things we taught the Allied Nations'), emphasis on the amateur aspect of Australia's war work (plenty about factory operatives who used to make and sell cosmetics, but not a word about the sizeable heavy industries operating for years), too much home front, too little front line, and too many of those old familiar faces — like 'Dad' Bert Bailey — from screen and vaudeville. There seemed to be a feeling of 'Dad 'n' Dave' in types and dialogue right through the film.... Summary — 'South-West Pacific' good enough as a civilian morale booster, for home consumption, but definitely not for export.[6]

The film was subsequently screened by Senator Ashley, after a speaking engagement in Brisbane, Queensland during which Ashley praised the achievements of the Curtin government, and claimed the film illustrated these.[16][17]

The then-leader of the opposition, Arthur Fadden, complained that the movie was being used for electioneering purposes (it was near the time of the 1943 election) and asked for it to be withdrawn from distribution.[18]

Despite Ashley's protests, Curtin ordered that all future screenings of South West Pacific be stopped, and the movie be replaced by an entirely new documentary to be made later. Curtin claimed this was not because of Fadden's complaint, but due to his belief that South West Pacific was not sufficiently realistic and vivid to do justice to Australian services fighting in the South-west Pacific area; he wanted a better portrayal of the war in this zone, with more emphasis on fighting troops.[19][20]

Curtin later stated "I make it clear that the decision to make what I have described as a better film than South-west Pacific in no way reflects on the ability of Cinesound Productions Ltd. as producers of motion pictures. That company was asked to do a Pacific film and it did so in accordance with the specifications given to it."[21][22]

Queensland Theatres Ltd then wrote to Curtin requesting that they continue to be allowed to show the film and Curtin said he would have another look at it.[23]

The government later made Jungle Patrol (1944), set during the Finisterre Range campaign, which used real soldiers and emphasised fighting troops. It was made by Tom Gurr who wrote South West Pacific.[24]

Doc Evatt took a copy of the film to the US and Britain.[25]

Filmink magazine wrote that the plot involving Steinbeck was strong enough for a feature.[26]