The more I hear of the international and national response about Steve Irwin, the more my flabber is gasted. I mean, I came to a grudging respect for the guy when I went to Australia Zoo with my kids about three years ago, and saw the show and the zoo, and it not only didn't suck but was in fact well done, both as a zoo and as a tourist attraction. But why the emotion?
On Friday last I dragged myself from my death bed (hey, I'm male, I have a cold, so pity me!) to take two visiting Canadians, Don and Claudette, to the Zoo. Upon arriving (about an hour after the last of the tickets to Irwin's memorial were given out) the first thing one sees is the Princess Diana-like floral tribute outside the entrance. While were were there, three families arrived with their kids carrying flowers. It struck me - it's the kids. And parents must respect those their kids idolise.
Irwin, as can be seen from every photo of him, spoke directly to the camera, to the viewer, and thus to the children watching. This is an Australian tradition of children's television. A very long running show for preschoolers, Play School, makes the presenters look straight down the lens to the kids, and even though I was 10 when it started, it affected me, though I wouldn't admit it.
Irwin spoke to children. But more than that, he was a larrikin, a great dramatist, and, and here's the really important part, a family man who seemed to be concerned only about good things. The emotion arises from the fact that we all saw Steve as a friend, even if we never met him. And there are too few people like that in our society, with "warts and all" gossip journalism. He was an approachable hero working in a good cause with a good family.
So we went to the zoo Friday, and it was a bit subdued, but still a good place to go to show visitors Australian fauna. We got to chat to the dingo keepers as they took two females for a walk, got to touch some koalas (while I regaled them about the drop bear myth). Harriet's enclosure is still there (still claiming to have been Darwin's pet), and the roos were very approachable.
And I found that while I was faintly embarrassed by the "Aussieness" of it all, from Don's and Claudette's perspective it was not gauche at all. And I took a lot of comfort from that, and felt gratitude to Irwin and his family.
Then we went and looked at volcanic plugs.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Might I add the appeal of his excitement and enthusiasm for his life's work which, media-trained media critic that I am, still I intuitively picked up as genuine from the first moment I saw him.
In addition to the kids and the sincere wnthusiasm, there's the expectation that these nature shows are supposed to just look dangerous, not actually be dangerous. For all the "well, that's no surprise" comments I've seen, it actually is a blow to our expectations about nature show entertainment. Well, that's part of why it affected me as strongly as it did.
I actually suspect it has little to do with Irwin as such. Evidence: similar hysteria is surrounding the death of Peter Brock. I took the tram down Swanston st today, and saw the crowds lining the road where the coffin will pass. He was a racing driver, for god's sake. So what is the explanation? I don't know. One part of it might be the cult of celebrity that has taken hold here (as elsewhere). Think of someone like Pauline Hanson: now on 'Dancing with the Stars' and in the checkout magazines because, though she's racist and extremely stupid, she's, like, famous . Perhaps there are other explanations that are more laudable (maybe a search for heroes in an age and a place where the leaders are moally and intellectually bankrupt).
There's a difference between Brock and Irwin, I think (not, perhaps, as visible in Victoria as from afar). Apart from their personal lives (I'm told by those who knew him he was not nice at home), Brock was a celebrity for celebrity's sake after he retired from racing. Irwin's celebrity was designed to let him do what he always had been doing. Also, note, Brock's family accepted the state funeral (which, to my jaded mind, ought be reserved for servants of the state, not famous people), while Irwin's didn't.
Sports stars are the warrior class of the modern era, and so they retain (unwarranted) status long after they retire. Politicians are also given a (less durable) status beyond what matters. Irwin had the sense to stay out of politics (except once) and his status was earned by a lifetime of work.
I know nothing about either person (I don't watch TV). So I can't comment on their relative merits. My point was that the response they generated was analogous. Flowers, offers od state funerals, tears... In other words, the response to Irwin is not a response to whatever good qualities he might have possessed, since it doesn't support the counterfactuals in the right way. I notice Iemma in NSW has bracketed them, saying that flags on the harbor bridge would be lowered out of respect for both these 'heroes'. Puleease.
I fear I may fail the Australian values test.
Oh, I failed that test years back. I never went to an Aussie Rules match, a racing carnival or a motor race of any kind when I could have. I don't watch or play any sport. I hate the beach. I don't much like barbecues. I believe in rule of law, and checks and balances. All the little things that mark you out as UnAustralian...
Another factor was his strong attachment to animals as distinct individuals.
Here he cries over the death of a favorite crocodile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZP3VMgyzUU