Cinema Papers April-June 1978

Registered for posting as a Publication — Category B

STEVEN SPIELBERG ON CLOSE ENCOUNTERS SWEDISH CINEMA - THE AFRICA PROJECT - JOHN DUIGAN WEEKEND OF SHADOWS - ON LOCATION WITH DAWN APRIL-JUNE 1978

y

ISSUE 16 $2.50*

• : '......

f you’ve got a film project gnawing at your brain and want help, keep us in mind.

Because the newly formed Queensland Film Corporation is here to help. With finance, concessional transport and expertise. Plus many other

I

tangible forms of film production assistance, Give Tony Krimmer a call on (07) 224 7018 and find out more about putting pictures together in one of the most exciting and diverse film locations in the world.

QFC 2571

CINEMA PAPERS READERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE The following questionnaire has been designed for the purpose of providing the publishers of Cinema Papers with information designed to aid them in producing a more informative and entertaining magazine. Your help and co-operation will be greatly appreciated.

N. B. THE FIRST 100 RESPONDENTS WILL RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE SPECIAL CANNES FILM FESTIVAL EDITION OF CINEMA PAPERS WHICH WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE IN AUSTRALIA.

1. How frequently would you like to see Cinema Papers published?

Monthly □

Bi-monthly D

Quarterly Q

11. What do you think are the best features of Cinema Papers?

Half yearly □

2. What is your opinion about the price of Cinema Papers?

Too expensive □

Satisfactory □

C o u ld c h a rg e more □

3. What was your reason for purchasing Cinema Papers?

Educational

D

Q

Entertainment

Professional

D

12. READERSHIP PROFILE

4. How many people read your copy of Cinema Papers?

1□

2-3 □

3-5 □

5-8 □

Female Male

over 8 □

□ □

under 16 16-20 20-30 30-40 over 40

AGE

5. On average how often do you attend the cinema? once per month □

2-3 per month □ 5-8 per month □

3-5 per month □ over 8 per month □

MARITAL STATUS

6. What type of films do you prefer?

Festival/European □ o

a

■o

Australian

CD

too much too little □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

□

D

American □

7. Do you think Cinema Papers contains too much, too little or enough of the following:

Editorial (ie. articles and interviews) Photographs Advertising international content Local content Technical information Australian television Reviews

Married Single

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

EDUCATIONAL

enough □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Secondary School □ Technical School □ Tertiary CD Post graduate D

State other ___________________________

OCCUPATION

8. What suggestions, if any, do you have to make Cinema Papers a better magazine, (please restrict reply to space provided) INCOME

Unemployed Student Film Industry TV industry Self employed Office worker Factory worker

□ □ □ □ □ □ □

nil — $5,000 $5,000 - $10,000

□

$1 0 ,0 0 0 - $15,.000

□

$1 5 , 0 0 0 - $20,000

□

over - $20,000

□

□

Name (optional) _ 9. How did you obtain your copy of Cinema Papers?

Subscription C D NewsagencyCD Bookshop CD Library CD Friend □

Address (optional)

Other___

10. Name other magazines regularly read.

1

?

8

4. _

ALL INFORMATION IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

□ □ □ □ □

Tape or glue this flap

Fold 3

AFFIX STAMP

Cinema Papers 143 Therry Street, Melbourne, Vic., 3000, Australia

Fold 2

Fold 1

HOYTS THEATRES LiMITED PRESENTS THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH A FILM BY FRED SCHEPISI STARRING TOMMY LEWIS AND FREDDY REYNOLDS WITH RAY BARRETT ANGELA PUNCH JACK THOMPSON STEVE DODDS PETER CARROLL RUTH CRACKNELL DON CROSBY ELIZABETH ALEXANDER TIM ROBERTSON PETER SUMNER SCREENPLAY BY FRED SCHEPISI FROM THE NOVEL BY THOMAS KENEALLY DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY IAN BAKER PRODUCTION DESIGNER WENDY DiCKSON EDITED BY BRIAN KAVANAGH MUSIC BY BRUCE SMEATON ASSOCIATE PRODUCER ROY STEVENS PRODUCED & DIRECTED BY FRED SCHEPISI PANAVISION « COLOR

A film by Fred Schepisi

The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith

WORLD PREMIERE: HOYTS CINEMA CENTRE, MELBOURNE, JUNE 19

The Chasers and Squeezers The Brooks White Organisation is in business. . . the business of promoting and publicising Australian feature films.

What does this mean for producers?

Simply a big load off their minds.

No more chasing after publicity when you want to concentrate on getting the product into the can. No more endless months of trying to squeeze that last little promotional drop out of your film when you want to get on to your next project.

We’ll do the chasing and the squeezing.

We offer a full range of publicity, promotion and design services. The full gamut from pre-production visuals and media releases through unit publicity title sequences to total advertising and promotional campaigns.

We’re an independent fee-based organisation. You’ll know in advance exactly what all the promotional work we do for you will cost.

Kevin Brooks is a long-established graphics designer who has already had a lot of experience with Australian films.

David White has had 20 years’ experience as a journalist and publicist.1 Along the way he’s been a foreign correspondent, news executive, Federal Publicity Officer of the Australian Labor Party (1971-72) and Media Secretary to the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam (1972-74).

So we’ve done a lot of chasing and squeezing already. Now we’re concentrating our professional energies on the Australian film industry.

The Brooks W hite Organisation 12 Eden Street Crows Nest, N.S.W. Telephone 922 7607

*s4* «■*i?* nv*nuV*V *M 3F zmm # 3***»»H ¡¡■¡BMWil * n ;# A V i h i sjfnsitiju iir&v/;nfi

::! rp: »;!»*>««**I»ii ■ « • /« v7 v/y, .«, > r y i H/*«1 UI; t SK* ' »<■» v *.4 * % v ”»*J t ****<u 114 v*

miiMilmiSMS

IlllifSlli¡0IIIM

te S S i: is * r

i*»*

Do You Have Our New Catalogue?

All those movies you’ve always wanted to see, but didn’t know were available on 16 mm.

WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? SECONDS MAD DOG MORGAN SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON A CLOCKWORK ORANGE PLAY IT AGAIN SAM Altman’s BUFFALO BILL AND THE INDIANS BADLANDS THE TENANT MEAN STREETS THE LAST TYCOON CADDIE DAY FOR NIGHT THE GODFATHER Parts One and Two DEATH IN VENICE Altman’s NASHVILLE O’ LUCKY MAN CATCH 22

PYGMALION McCABE AND MRS MILLER ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE BETWEEN WARS THE GREAT DICTATOR MARX BROS, MAE WEST & W.C. FIELDS CLASSICS BLUME IN LOVE THE FJHOLDEN STORY OF ADELE H. LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER SWASTIKA WHAT’S UP DOC? PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK AMERICAN GRAFFITI DISNEY AND WARNER BROTHERS CARTOONS

Get your copy of the new and revised A.RH. catalogue, just $3 plus postage.

(Metropolitan area 75c, country areas $1.10) SYDNEY: (02) 2 3 3 5211 BRISBANE: (07) 221 0 0 3 3

r

MELBOURNE: (03) 3 2 8 4 8 0 5

ADELAIDE: (08) 2 23 2 2 9 4 PERTH: (0 9 2) 21 8 5 4 5

SAMCINE SALES ema c

The full range of Elemack camera dolley equipment with a second to none service back up is now available through Samcine Sales, the sales division of Samuelson Film Service (Aust) Pty. Limited.

27 Sirius Road, Lane Cove Sydney, NSW 2066 Australia Phone: 4 2 8 5 3 0 0 THE S A L E S D IV IS IO N O F S A M U E L S O N F IL M S E R V IC E A U S T R A L IA (PTY. ) LTD. *

AlanWardrope sells lms not flags product. Nobody goes to Cannes to sell flags, you go to sell films. The Commission goes to help producers sell product. There won’t be a kangaroo in sight!

The support of individual producers’ selling efforts directly or through their agents is the way we’re moving. 55 iC Speaking of moving.

The movement of Jim Henry’s office from New York—the East Coast—to Los Angeles is overdue and I’m pleased it’s now under way. We’ve been weighing it up, looking literally for the best office location for more than twelve months and I’m pleased to say, our industry will now have a base and direct representation in the middle of activity in the biggest English-speaking market and, clearly our biggest untapped potential—the North American territory. The West coast is essential to our marketing objectives and escalating budget realities. We went to the American Theatre Owners’ Convention just last October and, believe me, Jim Henry and I lit some fires, the first shot fired in our planned approach to North America. 55 CC Australia’s product line-up at Cannes this year is terrific—eighteen features. Probably the strongest most diverse product list we’ve ever seen.

The Australian Film Commission as merchant banker to the Australian film industry wants to lay a broad carpet of logistic support for the producers and their

Ci But back to Cannes: the best product line-up we’ve ever had—we’re screening at the Paris; we’ve had to queue up to get this excellent location. Jim Henry, Ray Atkinson will join me there along with Rea Francis and our bi-lingual office staff. The presentation is going to be strong—I probably don’t have to say it again but—this year—it’s big. 5 5 fiatt tfw ti Commissiotv

The film? Gevacolor type 680

When the makers of T h e Irishman’ decided to film on Gevacolor Type 680, they were breaking a tradition; and they couldn’t be happier with the results.

AGFA-GEVAERT LIMITED.

In the words of producer, Tony Buckley, “ the Agfa-Gevaert colour has given our cameraman that extra dimension...rich in greens, browns and beautiful flesh tones...that wonderful MELBOURNE.

Registered trademark of AGFA-GEVAERT Antwerp/Leverkusen.

SYDNEY.

Tom Roberts look of the Australian countryside”.

Consider Gevacolor Type 680; a high-speed, double-masked original negative film. After all, why stick with tradition?

BRISBANE.

ADELAIDE.

PERTH.

bsh

RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN

THE

IAST Y IR J SPECIAL JURY PRIZE Paris International Film Festival GOLDEN IBEX GRAND PRIX VI International Film Festival Teheran SPECIAL JURY PRIZE Avoiriaz Festival du Film Fantastique Color processing and sound mixing by Atlab. Where you know youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll receive professional care and attention.

GIVING QUALITY SERVICE TO THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY Atlab Film & Video Laboratory Service, Television Centre, Epping, N.S.W. 2121. Australia.

Telephone: (02) 85 0224 A675

Articles and Interviews

Dawn!

Production Report: 337

The Africa Project Vincent O’Donnell “Patrick” — Special Effects Peter Beilby, Scott Murray, Dennis Nicholson Swedish Cinema Jorn Donner Ingmar Bergman Doesn’t Live Here Anymore Tom Ryan Gunnel Lindblom: Interview Tom Ryan John Duigan: Interview Scott Murray Poor Cinema James Ricketson Steven Spielberg: Interview Gail Heathwood Tom Jeffrey: Interview Richard Brennan Womenwaves Barbara Alysen Film Periodicals: Part 3 Basil Gilbert Still Lifes

2 98 303 306 308 310 312 316 3 18 324

Africa Project On Location: 298

328 330 3 32

Features

Stephen Spielberg Interviewed: 318

The Quarter Edinburgh and London Film Festivals Jan Dawson Guide for the Australian Film Producer: Part Antony I. Ginnane, Leon Gorr, Ian Baillieu Box-Office Grosses Production Report: Dawn!

Peter Beilby, Scott Murray Production Survey Film Censorship Listings Book Reviews Children’s Film and Television Seminar Film Study Resources Guide New Zealand Report Other Cinema

2 96 3 22 9 334 336 3 37 349 365 3 67 371 373 373 375

Tom Jeffrey Interviewed: 324

Film Reviews

Mouth to Mouth Reviewed: 356

The Irishman Susan Dermody Mouth to Mouth Jack Clancy Julia Keith Connolly The Mango Tree Brian McFarlane The Lacemaker Inge Pruks Blue Fire Lady Scott Murray Une Sale Histoire Meaghan Morris Listen to the Lion Basil Gilbert

Manager Editor: Scott Murray. Editorial Board: Peter Beilby, Philippe Mora, Scott Murray. Contributing Editors: Antony I. Ginnane, Graham Shirley, Tom Ryan, John O'Hara, John Reid, Andrew Pecze. Design and Layout: Keith Robertson, Andrew Pecze. Business Manager: Robert Le Tet. Office Manager: Mary Reichenvater. Layout Assistance: Peter Kelly. Subscriptions: Gillian Hehir. Correspondents: London — Jan Dawson, Los Angeles — David Brandes, Paris — Meaghan Morris, Rome — Robert Schar, Denmark — Gail Heathwood.

Advertising: Sue Adler, Sydney (02) 26 1625; Chris Davis, Melbourne (03) 329 5983. Printing: Ramsay Ware Stockland Pty. Ltd., 552 Victoria St., Nth. Melbourne 3051. Telephone (03)329 7300. Typesetting: Affairs Computer Typesetters, 74 Eastern Road, South Melbourne 3205. Telephone (03) 699 21 74. Distribution: N.S.W., Vic., Qld., W.A., S.A. Consolidated Press Pty. Ltd., 168 Castlereagh St., Sydney 2000. Telephone (02) 2 0666. ACT, Tas — Book People, 590 Little Bourke St, Melbourne 3000. *

Front cover: Scene from The Irishman (see review p. 355). Photograph by David Kynoch.

Courtesy of Anthony Buckley.

355 356 357 358 359 361 361

Patrick Special Effects: 303

363

Cinema Papers is produced with financial assistance from the Australian Film Commission. Articles represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of the Editors. While every care is taken on manuscripts and materials supplied for this magazine, neither the Editor nor the Publishers accept any liability for loss or damage which may arise. This magazine may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Cinema Papers is published quarterly by Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd. Main Office: 143 Therry St, Melbourne 3000. Telephone (03) 329 5983. Sydney Office: 365A Pitt St, Sydney. Telephone (02) 26 1625. ® Copyright Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd, Number 16, April-June 1978.

-Recommended price only.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 295

AUSTRALIAN SEMINAR During May 1978, the National Film Theatre of London will be presenting a season of Australian feature films, entitled “The New Australian Cinema.”

As a climax to this season, a series of lectures, “ Australian Film: A Weekend Seminar” , will be held at the NFT from June 2 - 4. Presented by the Australian Film Commission and the British Film Institute, the seminar will include excerpts from films, short prepared papers and discussion.

Several Australian filmmakers, including some attending the Cannes Film Festival, will be in attendance.

The main aim of the seminar is to provide a forum for debate on all aspects of the New Australian Cinema.

After much study, Britain js about to embark on its own program of government injected finance in the film industry, and the Australian experience of eight government bodies should prove a basis for debate. And out of this, hope convenors Tom Haydon and Peter Quartermaine, will come some clarification for both industries.

The seminar will not be exclusively on feature films; it will include programs entitled “ The Other Channel” , which examines Australian television; "Finding and Fostering Talent” , on the role of grants and film schools (experimental and 16 mm films will be shown); and “ Writers and Directors” , examining motivations, pre-occupations, themes and styles.

The seminar closes with "Australian Self­ Portrait?” in which the New Australian Cinema will be analyzed for signs of a perspective on Australian society. In large, it will be a debate between critics and filmmakers and could be the start of a c o n tin u in g d ia lo g u e on A u s tra lia n filmmaking. Hopefully, such a debate will be heard in Australia.

P. B.

AUSTRALIAN CINEMATOGRAPHERS’ SOCIETY AWARDS The "A u s tra lia n C inem atographers Awards” for achievements in cinemato­ graphy were presented by the Premier of South Australia, Mr Don Dunstan, at Film Australia on March 10.

The awards, held annually since 1970, are conducted by the Australian Cinemato­ graphers’ Society and are given to Australian cinematographers who are members of the society.

The "Milli Awards” for Cinematographer of the Year was awarded to Ditmar Fill, A. C. S., for his cinematography in A Body Of Still Water, a 15-minute film on the microscopic life in lakes and ponds. It was produced by Film Australia.

The category winners were: Feature Film: Don McAlpine (The G e ttin g of W isdom ); Dramatized Documentary: Dean Semlar (A Good Thing Going); Documentary: Paul Tait (Sydney Hobart Yacht Race); Fiction Drama; Richard Pratt (Follow the Leader); Current Affairs: Richard BailieMace (The Racer — merit award only).

The spe cia l "S tew art-C un ningh am Award” on behalf of the Victorian branch of the Society, went to J. Ward, photographed

by John Bowring.

S. K.

HODSDON DOUBLE UPDATE Following on the Quarter Item in the previous issue of Cinema Papers (“ Hodsdon Report Update” ), is the Experimental Film and Television Fund Distribution/Exhibition Survey released by the Australian Film Commission. Covering 1977 and conducted by the then consultant, Albie Thoms, it states: “ In July 1977 questionnaires were sent to the producers of the 350 films made with assistance of the Fund to that date. Distri­ bution and exhibition information was received for 100 of the films. The details are as follows: Distribution:

Eighty per cent of the films were distri­ buted by the Vincent Library, 50 per cent

by Co-ops, four per cent by other independent distributors or by the National or State Libraries, three per cent

296 — Cinema Papers, April/June

by major distributors. (NB. Films often had more than one distributor). Three per cent had foreign distribution. Two per cent had more than 100 bookings. Ten per cent have had 50-100 bookings. The estimated audience per booking was 30 people.

Exhibition:

Seventy-five per cent of the films were exhibited by Co-ops, 15 per cent by the Australian Film Institute, and three per cent by majors. Twenty-five per cent had been exhibited in one-off non-cinema situations (art galleries, social groups etc.). Thirteen per cent received foreign exhibition. One film had had audiences totalling more than 30,000 people. Fifty per cent had audiences totalling between 1000 and 10,000.

previously acknowledged, and that a greater push in the marketing of these films could increase these figures considerably."

Unfortunately, the survey suffers from a sparsity of detail, and this makes it hard to evaluate the importance of the findings. Mr Thoms’ conclusion is that “ funded films are being seen more widely . . . than has previously been acknowledged” , yet he doesn’t say acknowledged by whom. And since no figures are offered for comparison, one has very little on which to base opinions.

The survey has obviously been hampered by the small returns of forms sent to film­ makers, but, in its present form, it asks far more questions than it answers.

S. M.

OVERSEAS AWARDS

Festivals:

Thirty per cent of the films were screened in Australian festivals; ten per cent in foreign festivals.

Television:

Ten per cent of the films were screened on Australian television. Another 10 per cent have had excerpts screened. Two per cent have been screened on foreign television.

“These figures apply to one-third of the films that received assistance from the Fund.

It would be wrong to assume the pattern applies to the other two-thirds for which information was not forthcoming.

"However, the information does suggest that Funded films are being seen more widely and used more often than has been

LETTER TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir, I noted with interest a quarter item on p. 200 of Cinema Papers, No. 15, under the heading “Tax Break Through” .

It was in reference to the Liberal Party’s election announcement that the write-off of investments for feature films be lifted from 25 years to three years. While the Australian Film Commission and other bodies, including the Independent Feature Film Producer’s Association, were hoping for a 12 months write-off, this new incentive is a much awaited step forward. It is now a matter of awaiting the implementation and seeing if this will, in fact, encourage private investment in an industry sorely in need of a new injection.

I regret to say this, but I cannot see this change on the part of the government helping bring forward the much needed investments. How do you explain to an investor that his loss on his investment will be written off quicker in future than in the past?

If the government is really sincere in its desire to help the infant Australian film industry it must look far beyond writing off failures. Maybe it is aware we have more failures than successes commercially.

When a person says he is going to make a film, there are two questions that must be answered satisfactorily. They are: Have you got sufficient money? and what are you going to do with the film when you have made it?

In the past those questions were unan­ swerable satisfactorily. There was no money from any source and distribution was in an international straitjacket.

It has taken the government 50 years to recognize the potential of a healthy film industry. The U.S. rose to its greatest achievements in the period backed by a great film industry which was in turn backed by private investment.

Countries such as India and Egypt have flourishing film industries, as has Japan and even Hong Kong.

It took John Gorton to make the first move with $1 million. That money, in many cases, was spread around like pocket money in a candy store. It was not until the present AFC came into existance with a staff of professional personnel that a few films of merit began to emerge^ Most of the producers and technicians associated with them almost starved to death waiting for a hand out, which was subject to them prosti­ tuting themselves to get the necessary private investment. Usually the technician, director or producer has the ability in his own

During the past months, several Australian features have won major critical awards overseas: The Last Wave won the Special Jury Prize at the Paris Film Festival in October, 1977, and the Golden Ibex (Grand Prix) at the Tehran Film Festival in November, 1977.

Then, in February 1978, following up on the success of Summer of Secrets, the film won the Jury Prize at the Sci-Fi Festival at Avoriaz.

The Picture Show Man was awarded the Grand Prix by popular vote at the Festival de Chammouse in France which specializes in comedy. The film was also selected in the U.S. National Board of Review’s 10 Best list for 1977 — a first for an Australian film.

Summerfield, edited by Sara Bennett, was

field to do his job competently, but he is not qualified to raise money, especially in the amounts needed for top quality features. It is most difficult to convince a private investor to risk a few hundred thousand when you are on the dole. To raise this kind of money means that there is no time for other work.

The AFC has come to the rescue of some of these people and more credit should be given in this direction. It’s the carburettor money that starts the wheels turning.

Then what can be done to encourage the private sector of investment?

In the first place stimulus should be arrived at that will change the flow of some investment money. The government can do this by act of parliament changing the structure upon which the AFC is based.

Legislation should be passed allowing all private investment in the Australian film industry as a tax deduction. This tax deduction could only be claimed if the money was invested in the film industry through the Australian Film Commission for use of the Commission at its discretion or by a nominated producer of the investors choice through the AFC. The AFC then would be in a position to determine the tax deductability of the investment. The govern­ ment would loose a little in the first place but gain a lot in the long run.

Profits from a successful investment in a production that is a commercial success would produce a tax return all down the line, far in excess of the original tax that would be lost to the government in the first place.

Only about half of Australia’s technicians and actors are employed full time. There is little or no continuity of production by film companies even with a success or two behind them. They have plans, but plans need money. If Australia is to break into world markets films must be made on world standards, and that takes money, big money.

If the government can be induced to come to the party and make the first move, the AFC, together with the Australian investor would have little to lose and a tremendous lot to gain, as would the government with the great pool of employment this revitalised industry can create. Such a move would benefit the nation and every industry beyond measure.

It is up to the individual members of the Independent Feature Film Producer’s Association and the AFC to press for this sorely needed government innovation.

Almost without exception, we have state government film commissions chafing at the bit. There is no reason why an investor cannot nominate his money to go to a state film corporation for re-investment in that state if the money is tax deductable in the first place.

Very sincerely, Lorraine Hamilton-Webb

given the Best Editor prize at the Asian Film Festival in Bangkok in November.

All these aw ards dem onstrate an increasing recognition of the achievements of the Australian cinema, and one waits hopefully for the day when an Australian feature wins a major prize at Cannes or such an important national award as a Caesar or

ANNUAL REPORTS During the past three months, two im portant annual reports have been published — those of the South Australian Film Corporation and Australian Film Institute.

1. SOUTH AUSTRALIAN FILM CORPORATION

The SAFC’s activities are divided into (a) Film Production and Distribution, and (b) Film Library: (a) The operating expenditure during 1976/77 was $1,621,666 ($1,679,473 in 1975/76). Income for the period was $1,31 1,874 ($1,238,390) leaving a deficit of $309,792 ($441,083). This represented an improvement of 29.8 per cent on 1975/76. Of the $309,792 income, $15,000 (5 per cent) came from the State government as a grant. (b) The lib ra ry ’s expenditure was $454,847 ($590,449). Grants totalling $476,0591 ($590,510) were received leaving a surplus on library operations of $21,212 ($61).

Thus, taking into account a non-operating revenue of $92, the resultant net deficit of the Corporation was $288,388 ($441,022).

The operating loss [as per section (a)] is $309,792. Listed as contributing factors are: (i) Deferment of a major part of Storm Boy’s revenue through a delaying of the non-South Australia release till August 1977; ' (ii) Delay in obtaining acceptable contracts in some overseas territories for Picnic At Hanging Rock;

(iii) Depressed cinema attendances; (iv) Unused space at the Corporation’s Norwood studio; and (v) The establishment of other state cor­ porations.

On p. 7 of the report is printed the following (it refers to section (v) ): “The national and international publicity and business earned by the corporation obviously have prompted the estab­ lishment of similar corporations in other States.

“These are competing directly with this corporation for some of the most attractive film projects, directors, writers and technical personnel. While the corporation welcomes this widened financial support for the industry nationally it has resulted in several important projects (for which the corp­ oration was negotiating) being produced in other States, with a consequent need to prepare replacement projects.”

This, of course, raises that touchy ques­ tion: Does Australia need eight film bodies? 2 The SAFC’s assets total $3,031,478 with liabilities of $258,790 leaving a net asset deficiency of $227,312 ($184,740).

2. AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE

The Australian Film Institute's annual report for 1976/77 has been published and ratified at their general meeting on March 18.

The excess of income over expenditure is listed as $71,585 “ before extraordinary items.” However, these items must be taken into account before one can gain a realistic picture of the AFI’s financial year.

Under the Film, Radio and Television Board, the AFI was assigned the handling of some monies for the video centres. This has now changed, and the AFI during 1976/77 transferred monies and fixed assets to the Incorporated Video Centres, the Paddington Trust and the AFC to the total of $76,595.

This then left an operating excess of expen­ diture over income of $5010.

The level of AFC funding, on which the AFI is partially dependent, is not listed specifi1. Includes a $10,000 Community and Education grant and $26,559 from the Unemployment Relief Scheme.

2. For one view, see Phillip McCarthy’s article in The Age, February 18,1978.

THE QUARTER

cally. The only reference is that the overall level of assistance was 12 per cent less tharv during the previous period.

There are, likewise, no figures directly attributable to the Vincent Library or Longford Cinema, but the text does state the Longford as having some 40,000 admissions during the financial year (approx. 80 per session).

As at June 30, 1977, the AFI’s total assets were $71 2,377 with total liabilities of $483,701, leaving net assets of $228,676.

Government's wish that its ’seed-bedding’ policy, together with the assistance of the AFC and the growing confidence of the private sector, will enable the program film industry in the state to become a stable, self­ supporting operation by the end of the initial five-year period.” p

3. AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

The long saga of Bertolucci's Novecento (1900) has drawn to a close in Australia with the release of the abreviated, 4-hour 8minute version. Despite pleas from various sources, the distributors, United Artists, have taken the conservative road. Their decision may, however, be less commercially astute than first believed.

In the April 5 edition of Variety there is an item entitled “ 1900: Longer is Better” and begins: “The original, uncut version of Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1900 is out-grossing the stunted English version by 5-to-1 in Montreal, much to Paramount’s surprise and delight.”

The cut version is the one that has been shown throughout the U.S. Montreal, because of its large French-speaking popu­ lation is an exception. But while the over­ whelming support for the longer version is in part due to language, most industry sources believe there are other factors involved — audience preference, for example.

There has not as yet been a test of version against version in an English-speaking situation. Had there been, Australians may have been given the chance to see those extra 70 minutes.

NOVECENTO FIGHTS BACK

The examination of the AFC’s 1975/76 and 1976/77 (if available) annual reports has been held over till issue 17.

CENSORSHIP ROUND-UP The major censorship decision of the November — January period was the passing of L’Empire des sens (Empire of the Senses) in a cut version. Originally listed, and rejected, at 2946.90 m, it has since been cut by its distributor, Richard Walberg, to 2821.50 m. These deletions total 125.40 m or 4 min. 34 sec. As mentioned in the previous issue of Cinema Papers, the cuts were of explicit, though never prurient sexual scenes.

The Australian film Fantasm Comes Again also received an “ R” classification after censor cuts, which shortened the film by 2 min. 30 sec — from 2682.60m to 2614.00m.

During the three-month period, seven films were refused registration: The Big Snatch, Captain Lust, The Hills Have Eyes, Eruption, The French Governess, Hard Parties and Hostess of Sex. None are of

critical importance.

Four films went through the appeal channels: The Spy Who Loved Me,

AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE

Northville Cemetery Massacre, Deep Love

and Sex and the Office Girl — all were turned down. The appeals lodged for the first two films were against the classifications, the second two against rejection. The Spy Who Loved Me is of interest because the feelings of the distributors — that “ M” was too severe a rating — matched the feelings of several industry commentators. Once again, in merely rubber-stamping decisions of the Censorship Board, the Board of Appeal has highlighted its redundancy.

Nine films were obliged to accept cuts before being registered. One worrying trend to emerge from this was the degree of cuts being made. In November 1977, for example, the five cut films had deletions of 3 min. 51 sec. (The Erotic Diary of a Lumberjack), 5 min. 2 sec. (L’Amour a la Bouche), 4 min. 26 sec. (Satan’s Love) and 2 min. 3 sec. (Jack the Ripper). Audiences have, therefore, been placed in a very difficult position, as the film they choose to see may be severely cut, though they will be unaware of it. And in the case of sex films, the audience may find the only source of interest has been removed in its entirety. Certainly exhibitors are no help.

This is the case of the Italian film Suspiria where the advertisement gives an unfair image of the film, though no doubt unintentionally. The advertisement reveals that, “The only thing to prepare you for the terrifying last 12 minutes is the first 90.’’ In other words, Suspira is being advertised as 102 minutes long.

However, in January 1978 the film was cut by 30 sec. by the censor to 2660.70 m, or 97 min. Clearly the advertisement was incorrect before the censor made his cuts, and one may well ask why the censor vigorously polices advertisements for sex films, yet allows misleading advertisements like this to pass unchecked.

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies will hold a six-day symposium on ethnographic film from May 12-17 in association with its biennial meeting. The aims of the symposium are “to stimulate ethnographic filmmaking and further the development of new approaches to under­ standing human society through the visual media” . Sessions will include screenings of new and s ig n ific a n t w o rks, panel discussions, informal colloquia, and present­ ations by participants from around the world.

The conference is funded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission and Film Australia.

The preliminary program consists of: Ethnographic Film in Australia (May 12); Ethnographic Film in Teaching and Research (May 13); Styles of Ethnographic Film (May 14);

A still of Nobuhiko Ohbayashi’s House, which was shown at the 23rd Asian Film Festival in

Bangkok.

24TH ASIAN FILM FESTIVAL IN AUSTRALIA The 24th Asian Film Festival, which is to be attended by 300 Asian delegates and a similar number from Australia, will be held in Sydney for the first time, from October 1 - 6.

The Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, will open the Festival at the Sydney Opera House on October 2.

The 11 countries participating are Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, India, South Korea and Australia. There may also be guest participation by Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and some of the eastern states of the Soviet Union.

Each country represented at the Festival

will present five feature films and five short subjects. The films will be sub-titled in English (if applicable), and screened continuously throughout the Festival at two city cinemas.

Before the official opening of the Festival, there will be a three-day board of directors meeting and seminar of the Federation of Motion Picture Producers in Asia, which will also be held in Sydney.

The AFC, which was represented at the 23rd Asian Film Festival in Bangkok by commissioner John McQuaid, will be involved in supporting the festival. p

New D ire c tio n s in E th n o g ra p h ic Filmmaking (May 15); The Public View: Ethnographic Film­ making (May 16); Democratising the Visual Media (May 17).

Papers have been invited on all the subjects within the program, as well as films and videotapes.

“The criteria for WAFC investment will be along the following guidelines: 1. Projects will be filmed in Western Australia.

2. Submissions by Western Australians will be given some priority.

3. With the exception of sound mixing, post-production will be carried out in Western Australia.

4. A percentage of the crew budget will be spent on Western Australian tech­ nicians. This percentage of local crew involvement will increase as confidence and expertise develops within the state.

5. Investment by the Australian Film Commission in the selected projects will be a pre-requisite condition in the fore­ seeable future.

6. As a general rule, resident Western Australian actors, writers and production personnel will be given first consid­ eration from the outset of the operation. “ Perhaps the major difference between the philosophy of the WAFC and the equivalent bodies in the eastern states is that of private sector administration of the fund locally. There will be no government involvement or representation on the council. Members have been appointed from commerce, law, and the television and cinema industries. “ R e cou pm en ts from p ro d u c tio n investments will be ploughed back into the Trust Fund for further re-investment. “ At this time it is not envisaged that the WAFC will become a statutory body. It is the

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FILM COUNCIL On January 22, 1978, the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, announced the formation of the Western Australian Film Council. This interim body comprises : The chairman, Bernard A. Wright; members, Russell Twogood, Syd Donovan, Brian Williams, Owen Burns, Bill Bowen and John Pye. Brian Williams has issued the following statement on behalf of the Council: “The State government has allocated one million dollars over a five-year period to be invested in program film projects for distribution through cinemas and television stations. The entire allocation will be channelled into what are considered to be viable commercial properties through a Trust Fund.

“The administration of the Council will be funded separately through the Department of Industrial Development.

Mr David Roe, the executive director of the Australian Film Institute for the past four years, has resigned his position to become marketing and production consultant at the New South Wales Film Corporation. Mr Roe, however, will continue with the institute on a part-time basis as a consultant. His successor as executive director has not yet been appointed.

Mr Alan W. Simpson is the new member of the AFI’s board of directors. He succeeds associate member Matt Carroll who has retired.

Full members, John Flaus and Susan Dermody, also stepped down (under the board’s rotation system), but were re-elected unopposed.

The first book to be produced under the AFI's publication policy, Australian Film Posters 1906-60, has been published, and their epic history of local filmmaking, A u s t r a lia n Film 1 9 0 6 - 7 6 , is being completed by authors Andrew Pike and Ross Cooper. It will contain technical details, as well as background and critical information on every feature, and most short features, made during that period.

FILMWAYS PACKAGE Filmways Australasia have announced a six-feature deal with the French Orphee Arts Production Company. The first of the package is Stars, featuring Australian actress/model Linda Kerridge. The film deals with the life of Marilyn Monroe after she was accepted as a star.

Shooting will begin in Los Angeles in January and the film will be directed by Francis Giacobetti, the French photographer whose first feature was Emmanuel — The Anti-Virgin.

Other films in the deal are Girl in Blue Velvet (budget $2 million) and starring Michel Piccoli, Monica Vitti and Fernando Rey; The Plague, a $5 million project slated for production in early 1979 in Los Angeles; Giants On The Road; One Two Two, which is to be shot in Paris on an estimated budget of $2 million; and Louisiana Love which is to be shot in New Orleans in late 1978.

R. O. T.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA Cinema Papers would like to acknow­ ledge the McDonagh Sisters for loaning the photograph printed on p. 277 of issue 15.

In the credits of The Last Wave review, the film was incorrectly listed as having music

by Bruce Smeaton. It was, in fact, composed

by Charles Wain.

On page 21 2, the caption for the Birth of New Zealand photograph stated “ Patch” Mason was “one of Faulkner’s few non­ villainous roles.” This role was, however, another of Faulkner’s portrayals of lowerclass evil.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 297

ili .V

HÜ B ill g

;

.

Wm

';vàé?Ò§i

■■

In May 1977, the National Nine Network the extensive use of commentary. The sent a six-man film crew to Africa to produce a o m n ip o ten t voice-over explained and docum entary on contem porary Africa. interpreted the on-screen events, and pre­ Entitled The Africa Project, it was an empted any deep sense of involvement by the ambitious first for Australian television. It is audience. now in post-production in Sydney, and The Africa Project relies heavily on the negotiations have been concluded with U.S. voices of Africans, black and white, for its interests which will assure the series of verbal content. They are the voices of men and international distribution and a profitable women who hold presidential positions, work return — that in itself might be another first. on oil rigs in the Sahara, fish in the The subject, Africa as a continental whole, Mozambique channel, or have seen the insides had been tackled only once before. More than of South African jails. They are communist, 16 years ago, the American Broadcasting capitalist and nationalist.

Company produced a highly credible, fourAfrica is an immensely complex continent hour production, hosted by Gregory Peck. The from every point of view. To distill that weakness of this production, however, lay in complexity to its elements, and then present it

on hard, cold celluloid, so that it lives and b re a th es, and, m ore im p o rtan tly , is understandable to an audience who have radically different social and cultural values, is the real challenge.

Moving a crew of six people, with more than 300 kg. of equipment through 15 countries, keeping them housed, fed, supplied and reasonably happy, is a problem of rather less aesthetic moment, but is equally vital to the successful conclusion of such a project.

Each production has a unique set of problems, or “ opportunities for creative solutions’’, as an American production manager called them. The following is a discussion of some of those creative solutions:

llowan Ayers■ -Executive producer

difficult planning the production so far from a place of which I knew very little. Australia is not particularly well served with material on Africa. There are only three diplomatic representations in Canberra which were relevant to countries that we wanted to visit: Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa. As it was, we failed to get into Ghana and Nigeria. “ The research resources were very limited, and apart from a few academics and students concerned with African history or economics, and the odd African migrant who was here, we could do very little about getting a feel for the place. “ Certainly for a program of this complexity, we had very little at our disposal.”

Rowan Ayers, Executive Producer for Special Projects at TCN Channel 9, came to Australia five years ago. For most of the previous 19 years he had worked for the BBC in London, and had produced such innovative programs as Late Night Line Up and the BBC’s first foray into access television, Open Door.

In Australia, he lectured at Macquarie University in Sydney, until, at Bruce Gyngell’s invitation, he joined TCN 9 in 1976 as executive producer of the National Nine Network’s coverage of the Montreal Olympic Games. “ The network not only liked what they saw, but they were also very impressed by the fact that you could get rating figures by investing a bit of money and by getting an outsider like myself to bring a different view to the thing. “ At the end of that, they felt that the unit I had set up should be kept on. They weren’t quite sure why or how, but we had produced something which had been successful, and profitable, and therefore we might do the same thing again without knowing exactly what it might be. “ In any event, the unit comprising myself, David Salter, Michael Dean, and Sue Hoxley broke up. Before it did, it had submitted more than 50 projects to the network. One of these, Dateline Third World, contained the seeds of The Africa Project. “ Africa was, of course, a very important part of the Third World, but I thought we should concentrate initially on our close neighbors — areas more relevant to Australia — like Indonesia, Timor, Thailand, China or this part of the Pacific. But Kerry Packer, on discussing the whole project, quite rightly said Africa seemed to be the most important and that in the next few years it would emerge as a very vital continent of which Australians ought to know a lot more. “ Packer is an Africa-phile; he has been there many times. He likes hunting, he likes the people and he is very conscious of the emergence of Africa. “ We talked very generally over lunch about Africa. One of his particular suggestions was that we should come up with a program which revealed that Idi Amin was nof the only dictator in Africa; that we should look for some of the other dictators and tyrants.

Opposite: Masai herdsboy in Tanzania.

“ That- was all right, and seemed quite interesting at the time, but events overcame that idea. We found it would be difficult — or impossible — to get into those countries. “ The whole idea of. Africa became a bit bigger then, and what we thought we would try and do was create an African tapestry, a background against which the events in Africa, and dictatorships like Idi Amin’s, could be better understood. “ We put up the scheme, roughly along those lines, and it was approved with one or two minor caveats. It was defrayed for a while, for at that point the Nine Network was negotiating for the enormous cricket deal, and they didn’t feel up to coping with another, though smaller, project. “ My original thought was that we should get co-production money up front because I knew it would be expensive. Fortunately, the Nine Network was able to dispense with that, and we were able to go ahead in February 1977. “ This, of course, could not be a one-man production; what I needed was a team who could cope with this rather curious and demanding task. We would be away from home for a long time, in countries of which few, if any of us, had any experience, dealing with problems which, at most, we might have read about in a travel guide book. In addition, we w ould be w orking in an area, programmatically of which we were not sure. “ We would, of course, be doing a lot of research, but if events did not tie into research, then the crew had to be flexible and creative enough to restructure the program on the spot. “ My first move was to contact an Australian director named Tony Wheeler. He had worked in my group of people at the BBC, and had done a number of interesting, slightly unusual and way-out documentaries. I had admired quite a lot of what he had done, and I thought he might be the sort of person who would bring som ething new to an A frican documentary. “ Wheeler had returned to Australia, so I asked him if he was interested, and he was. He and I then worked out the type of people we would like to get to join us. We then saw a number of people and selected a team. “ I think the largest single problem was distance. In the first instance, I found it very

The production chose London as a base for operations. Most African countries have diplomatic representatives there, and there is a wealth of easily available research material and contacts. In addition, with a bit of asking around, and having your credentials checked, you can contact the representatives of the various liberation movements.

London also offered the possibility of hiring equipment there and saving the cost of freight from Australia.

Ms Suzanne Cronje, a journalist and authority on African affairs, was retained to prepare research briefs and initiate contacts with African governm ents in selected countries.

Vincent O’Donnell and Tony Wheeler went to London in early May, and the crew followed (after being delayed on an airline strike) towards the end of May. After a 10-day shoot in Algeria, and some problems with the new cameras which necessitated the return of four of the crew to London, Rowan Ayers and Max Hensser proceeded to Ghana, via Senegal and Sierra Leone. Attempts to get film permits through London for these two countries had been unsuccessful and an on the spot attempt was judged necessary. The attempts bore fruit, but too late to be of use to the production.

On arrival in Accra, Ghana, Ayers and Hensser were detained without explanation, and deported at their own expense. Thus the crew, who expected to meet in Accra, were suddenly reunited in London.

In the space of little more than one week the production, which had taken months to design, was restructured, and Ayers was on his way to Kenya. From this point on, things went fairly smoothly.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 299

THE AFRICA PROJECT

Tony'Wheeler-Director Was “The Africa Project’’ the largest documentary you have ever handled?

Yes, though I think every film, in the way that you think about making it, becomes the largest. Each is unique and you have to go through a lot of processes to finish it. But in terms of logistics, the sheer amount of time spent, the amount of footage shot, and the problems, this was certainly the largest.

Tony Wheeler was born in Brisbane, and after sharing an ABC specialist traineeship with, among others, Albie Thoms, Bob E llis and Richard Brennan, he worked briefly with the ABC before going overseas — first to Hong Kong, later to the BBC.

Africa is an im m ensely complex place. How did you learn about it?

1 had lived in a house in London for about a year and a half with some people who were concerned with Southern Africa, so I knew a lot of what was going on there. I didn’t know the detail, bift I knew the implications of it. I spent almost two mont hs with Suzanne Cronje — sometimes for 14 hours a day — just talking about Africa.

What I was t ryi ng to understand were the principles — political and social — that existed in all the countries that we were going to, so that when something happened, big' or small, 1 could see whether it was relevant to the film we were making, and how to shoot it to fit into that film.

I .

I :

Did you often find you had to rethink your concepts?

I did, because unless you have lived in a country for a long time, all you have to go on is research. If you are going there cold, with only that research, you often find that outside people’s opinions don’t really tell you what is going on.

300 — Cinema Papers, April/June

You tend to use the wide angle lens as much as possible.

What does that lens offer you?

When I was at the BBC a lot of the directors were against the zoom lens. They felt it turned a camera into a gun platform: the cameraman standing in one spot and shooting away.

Wh a t we w a n t e d was involvement with our subject.

We had a very simple principle: if you can’t take the camera up to something, then it isn’t worth filming.

The wide angle lens offers me a more or less stable frame at a moment’s notice, and if you have a r e a s o n a b l y good c a m e r a m a n , you can be confident of using almost every frame. I also like the depth of field because the audience can look directly at the central subject, as well as then letting their eye wander around it.

Often in documentaries, it is not just what is in centre frame t hat is i n t e r e s t i n g . The background can tell you a lot about the location and what other people are doing; how they react, can tell you a lot about what is going on.

T h ere were no r u s h e s available during the trip. Did this bother you?

Did you start with a formal structure in mind?

Originally it was going to be a four-hour documentary. I think I was trying to refine a principle that people are the most interesting thing — that is, people and the environments they inhabit.

There was no scenario as such. What I was trying to do was create circumstances where we could photograph a series of events in some people’s lives in a way that showed these events to be controlled by larger principles and forces. I wanted to see what their lives were really like, how they lived and what things mattered to them.

with the way I subsequently made films.

School children in a Ugana village, Tanzania.

Also, things fall apart when you are on location oh a job like this; and when things fall apart, you have to be able to do something else.

You know Louis M alle’s “ Phantom India” , and the work of D.A. Pennebaker. Are you influenced by those films?

A long time ago I thought t h e r e were many really important things to be said by documentaries, and that in a lot of respects the documentary had been put down by television and the cinema. I w a n t e d to m a k e t h e documentary cut and look like a feature film; I wanted to use feature film conventions to explain what people were seeing on the screen. To that

extent 1 was very influenced.

As a kid, my parents took me to the cinema a lot and I saw many films by John Ford. I was influenced pictorially and in terms of content. His films had people in them and they had c u l t u r e s ; you not onl y understood the characters, but also the characterizations.

I also felt there were similar things in some of the early Ealing comedies. If something was happening in a room, then I really had a feeling of what the room looked and felt like, more than just having bits of it shown to me.

I was also influenced by Peter W a t k i n s ’ early films — Culloden in particular, and The War Game. I worked with one of Peter Watkins’ cameramen, and I think that had a lot to do

When I started in television I was working in circumstances which made it virtually impos­ sible to see rushes, so it didn’t really bother me. I rather like the idea of shooting right through to the end, then sitting down and making a film out of what one has. But I don’t have a hard and fast rule about rushes.

You are now three months into post-production. How is it shaping up?

We have six important films that I think are very relevant to Western audiences. They are partly about the impact of Western culture, particularly industrialization, in African countries, and partly about people.

I want the audience to come away with a sense of having met an African and feeling they know about life there. There are really no s h a t t e r i n g revelations, but there is a very personal electricity that is lacking in everything else done on Africa.

THE AFRICA PROJECT

Midiacl Edols - Director of Photography Did you have any problems going from a feature to a documentary like “The Africa Project” ?

What is important is that you psyche yourself into a particular channel. When you work as a director of photography on a f e a t u r e , you work as a ‘photographer-cameraman’. In a situation with someone as free as Tony Wheeler, who he wants to get involved with the people as an ongoing thing, you take on a different role. You become more a Pennebaker­ style cameraman.

I think it is very interesting to t a k e s o m e o n e as wel l established as Haskell Wexler: he can shoot a feature like Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, or Medium Cool, yet work with Emile de Antonio on a film like Underground.

These roles are at the ext remes of the ci nema ­ tographer’s art and it took a real effort for me to adjust. It was d u e m a i n l y to V i n c e O’Donnell, Tony and Peter Levy, who later became a full­ t i me c a m e r a m a n on the project, that I was able to psyche myself into the role.

Were you able to draw on your experience in India with Film Australia?

No. Bob Kingsbury [the director Mike worked with in India] I would call a dramatized documentary filmmaker. His work was so well researched that it was like working as a photographer-cameraman.

It was the same on a film we did called Mr Symbolman, w h i c h was a b o u t t h i s marvellous eccentric, an

M ichael Edols is known outside the hard, commercial scene in A ustralia as a talented cameraman. He has worked for Film Australia and has freelanced in Australia, India and Niugini.

Before “ The Africa Project” , Edols was Director of Photography on Esben Storm’s “ In Search of Anna” .

humanity of the people. We were in their homes and filmed many of the ordinary things about their lives. Now, if the crew could have seen those rushes they would have been in a better position to integrate the filming of the home life of the white African family in Pretoria with what Danny and I had done in Soweto.

There was another thing, too.

We were in a country where there was apartheid, so you didn’t have the normal kind of relations with the people you were filming. There were all sorts of things going on, like recriminations, so your energy b e c a m e m i s p l a c e d and dissipated.

Seeing rushes builds up your c o n f i d e n c e , and tha t confidence steers you; it shows you the direction you should be going in.

Does this apply to working in other African countries?

Peter Levy reloads the camera magazine in the home ol'Ll. and Mrs Smith, in Saba Saba.

Austrian Jew, who with his mandolin got out of a Nazi prison, escaped to China, and finally ended up in Australia.

He invented a symbol language which is used to teach retarded children.

The Africa Project was totally different from all of those, and the only way to make the film was to work on instinct.

How did you feel about not seeing rushes?

You are not sent away on a

Filming a Ghanaian worker at the Itichi Tichi dam on the Kafue river in Western Zambia.

job as expensive as this unless you are proficient. The problem is not a technical one, but a conceptual one; it has to do with working with your director and the need to be able to discuss critically where your material is going.

Take the situation we had in South Africa. Vince had taken a crew of Tony, Peter and Jeff to Rhodesia, Rowan had gone back to London, and that left Danny and myself working in Soweto. We were working very light, and getting very close to t he ma r v e l l o u s

Yes, I think it does. Every day was a new experience, and a lot of energy went into relating to people. I think we could have used the support and direction that looking at rushes could have given us. I don’t know how we could have done it — it would have certainly doubled Vi nce’s problems. Probably there would have been censorship problems as well.

How about the footage itself?

I think some of the footage is the most exciting 1 have ever shot; in particular the material in Soweto, and the bits I did with Vince in the markets in Durban.

Sound recordist Jeff Doring and some Masai children near Ngoro Goro.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 301

THE AFRICA PROJECT

Vincent O’Donnell -Production Manager Vincent O’Donnell is a former consultant to the Australian Film Commission’s Creative Development Branch. He has a background in production and direction in films and television, and has worked for several years as an editor. “ I know it is an over-simplification, but the traditional problems of a production manager are to keep the production on schedule, and on budget. The Africa Project presented no traditional problems, and my role was more of a charge d’affaires. “ The schedule was a very flexible one to allow for follow up on good material. The major costs were the wages, accommodation, allowances, equipment hire and travel. If you include in your calculations a daily allowance for stock, then the production cost, excluding post-production, is a multiple of the number of days spent in the field (to a first approximation). “ Allegations of bureaucratic inefficiency levelled against our public servants are insignificant when compared with the paper war we fought before we left London. “ Anyone who has mounted a production in an overseas country will know what I mean.

Multiply that by 12 and the dimensions of the problem loom very large. “ Suzanne Cronje, our researcher, had initiated contacts through the London embassies of all the countries we planned to visit. This was done by April. When I arrived in early May, there had been little positive response; in some cases, Suzanne and her assistant Nicki were still trying to get their first letters acknowledged. It was not always tardiness on the part of the embassies, but

simply that the bureaucratic machines grind very slowly, and perhaps nowhere more slowly than in Africa. “ We learnt that simultaneous approaches are necessary in some cases; in others, the approach is sequential. In all cases it was different from another. One’s correspondence may be dealt with by a clerk or a president, a minister or a consul, but it takes time, and time is, of course, money. “ The area which cannot be pre-arranged is customs clearance on equipment. Customs only becomes a problem when you arrive at the airport with your 300 kg. of gear. Carnets work in South Africa (and the examiner wanted to see if the cables fitted the equipment). Cash bonds were required in some countries, and sureties, of one form or another, elsewhere. As one senior Zambian official said to me (and he isn’t in customs): T cannot understand it. All customs think that at the first opportunity you will be selling your tools of trade to the first itinerant camel driver you meet. How could you make your film?’ “ Accommodation was less of a problem than expected. In some cases the Australian High Commission or Embassy recommended places and made bookings on our behalf. Other times we made them by phone, or when there was doubt, one of the production crew arrived ahead of the party, checking out the hotels. “ Air travel was the least of our problems. I had open tickets for the proposed itinerary issued in London on British Airways stationery. Then it was simply a matter of making a booking and getting the details entered on the appropriate voucher.

Anyone intending this self-planned travel

should get a current World ABC or airline timetables. “ All our gear travelled as excess baggage. At the rate of one per cent of the first class fare per kilo, this is by far the most expensive way.

But then it is about the only way you can be more than 50 per cent sure it will arrive with you. That is a universal observation. It applied just as well in Australia as in Africa. “ To pay for the excess baggage, I carried a wad of miscellaneous charge orders (MCOs), also on British Airways stationery. MCOs are negotiable only with IATA airlines, and you can get caught out on technicalities. Also, the official IATA exchange rate lags behind the market rate (in the airlines’ favor). So what you pick up in security and convenience, you lose in money terms. “ We each carried a quantity of travellers cheques, but the main sources of production cash were local banks on a letter of credit. This technique takes care of the currency control hassles in Africa. “ The letters of credit were set up through the Bank of NSW in London, either direct with agent banks in Africa, or through Barclay’s Bank International. Except for the blank smiles our letter evoked in Algeria, the system worked well. “ Ground transport was a real headache, except in Kenya and South Africa, and it would have helped if there had been a motor mechanic on the crew. Where cars for hire were scarce, we used taxis. It is not cheap, but you spend a lot less time getting lost. Land Rovers or Kombi waggons were also hard to find. “ Communication can be a problem, but there was always the telex for regular messages, and the telephone for arguments.

Most hotels had both, though the delays getting through were often intimidating. Every day was different and some times you didn’t feel confident about where you might be spending the night — bed, jail or wooden box. “ There is a fair amount of paranoia in that statement, but it is the mental tension more than any physical hardship that makes working in an u n k n o w n a nd u n p r e d i c t a b l e environment difficult. “ Many more things could really be said.

From the production viewpoint, it is vital to realize that you can’t run the production as you might in Australia. “ For each country there are different rules and regulations, and different manners. You have to understand the difference, tune in to the manner and pace of business, keep cool, and keep smiling. Everything went more smoothly when I learnt that.”

PRODUCTION CREW

Prod Company................ Publishing and Broadcasting (TCN Channel 9) D ire c to r......................................................................TonyWhe Executive Producer...................................Rowan Ayers Production Manager.......................... Vincent O’Donnell Director of Photography...........................Michael Edols Assistant Cameraman/Second Cameraman Peter Levy Sound Recordist................. Max Hensser (May, June), Jeff Doring (July, September), Danny Moeti (2nd unit, South Africa) Editor...................................................................... MichaelBalso Assistant Editor................................Harriet Clutterbuck Research (London)................................Suzanne Cronje Assistant (London)............ ........................ Nicki Palmer Rushes (London)....................................................... KateGren i Production Liaison (South A fric a )................ Stan Roup Length....................................... Six, one hour programs for television Color process................................Eastmancolor, 16mm Progress............ .....................................Post-production ZAPU leader, Joshua Nkomo

302 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Due for release September 1978.

AninterviewwithConradRothmann THE PLANNING At what stage did you become involved in the production of “ Patrick” ?

I came on to the production two or three weeks before shooting, with only one week of pre­ production in Melbourne. So it was a dead run through the entire film trying to get everything ready in time.

Originally, when considering it from the U.S., the film didn’t look very difficult, but when I got to Australia I had a great deal of difficulty in finding things. I must have spent at least 50 per cent of my time looking for things I would have at hand in the U.S., or building things I could have easily rented back home. _ We have a scene in Patrick where an actor flies out of a room.

Above: Special effects supervisor, Conrad Rothman, with actor Paul Young.

In Hollywood, 1 can go to Joe Lombardi’s Rental House and “ Patrick” is a psychic thriller about a young man g rent a flying rig, put the thing up trapped in a coma. Starring Susan Penhaligon, Sir 1 and fly the guy. Here I had to go Robert Helpmann, Rod M ullinar and Bruce Barry, 1 out, buy the steel and build the rig this $400,000 film is- directed by Richard Franklin. | from scratch.

A number of things were like One of the striking features of “ P a tric k ” is its that. Patrick also required an air complex special effects sequences, which vary from mortar, which is a large tank that exploding cabinets, a doctor being flung through is filled with compressed air. It has space and a couple being electrocuted in a bath. To a quick release valve with a large aperture that releases all the air create these effects, the producers, A ntony I. from the tank instantaneously, Ginnane and Richard Franklin, hired American producing a soft explosion. You special effects expert Conrad Rothmann. can load the muzzle with dust, Rothmann has a long experience of effects work on peat moss, cork — all kinds of stuff. You get the effect of an projects ranging from the feature, “ The Amazing explosion without high velocity Dobermans” , to “ Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman” projectiles. Again, this had to be on television. In the following interview, conducted built specially for the one shot.

by D ennis N icholson, Peter Beilby and Scott Murray, Rothmann talks about many of the effects required in “ Patrick” , how he achieved them, and the differences and expectations of effects work in Australia as compared with the U.S.

What is your procedure once you get a script to read?

I go through the script and look for everything that needs special effects. Once I have decided on Cinema Papers, April/June — 303

PATRICK - SPECIAL EFFECTS

The scene where Patrick murders his mother (Carole-Ann Aylett) and her lover (Paul Young) by hurling a radiator into their bath. The burning hair (bottom right) was achieved by igniting smokeless rifle powder in Aylett’s wig.

best approach to each effect, I try and calculate a maximum cost: what materials will be involved, and so on. I then have a figure for the whole film.

THE RADIATOR

What was your costing on “ Patrick” ?

How woul d you de s c r i be “ Patrick” in terms of the complexity of the special effects?

About $2500 for materials.

How would that compare with an average feature in the U.S.?

It’s really hard to say because effects vary so much. In some features it is just bullet hits or explosions, and the materials might only run to $500. On other films, there might be a lot of involved effects; that would mean stuff has to be built — and that is expensive.

It would have been less expensive to do Patrick if I had been able to rent the air mortar, for instance. I can rent it at home for $18, but building it here cost almost $400.

Did you bring certain materials with you for “ Patrick” ?

Not really, just a few basic tools and those things I didn’t think I could get here. I brought a few valves for the air mortar, for example, because I thought they would be too expensive here.

Actually, I was so sure I could get just about anything here, I didn’t bring a lot with me.

Did you find the costing in A u stralia higher than you expected?

Some effect s were very complex: for instance, an electric radiator had to be thrown into a bath where there were two actors.

It couldn’t be heavy, or metal, because they had to toss it around; so we used rubber. Because of the weight, we couldn’t put batteries in it to illuminate the coil, and the idea of electricity bothered the actors. So we accomplished the gag with an approach similar to the Star Wars light swords.

We used the “ Scotchlite” front-screen projection material to make the filtered coils on the radiator. Then we mounted a filtered light next to the lens on the camera and a 45-degree mirror in front of the camera lens — a 50 per cent reflective, 50 per cent transparent mirror. This angled the light down the lens axis to light the coils.

It is a technique borrowed from front screen projection. The reflective material returns 90 per cent of the light that falls on it within a two degree angle from the angle of incidence. It returns such a hot light that you don’t have to send much light down the lens’ axis to illuminate it. You can, therefore, wash out any spill light that falls on the rest of the set by adjusting the set lights.

It is a t er r i bl y c ompl e x approach, but it worked out very well.

It went both ways. We had a neon sign in the film and before I left the U.S. I costed it at $300 — I How difficult is it to light within two degrees? got it here for $100.

304 — Cinema Papers, April/June

We had to put a mirror in front of the lens, photograph through the mirror, shine the light on the mirror and bounce the light right down the axis of the lens. A special rig had to be built to support all this in front of the camera.

How do you keep the coil within two degrees when the radiator is thrown into the bath?

The radiator will appear lit anywhere within the field of the camera lens if the light from that fixture on the camera is falling on it. Once the radiator goes into the water, due to the index of refraction of water being different from that of air, the reflective quality of the Scotchlite is altered.

This produces the effect of the coils being quenched.

What other effects did the scene need?

As the radiator was supposed to be hot, when they touched it, their hands had to begin to smoke.

We used a material called A-B smoke. One component of this smoke is glacial acetic acid and the other is a 40 per cent monoethylamine solution in water. When the colorless fumes of these two materials meet in the air, they produce a white smoke.

We put the glacial acetic acid on the actor’s hands and blew the fumes of the ethylamine through a hose to the radiator that was painted to look like an electrical

Shooting the bath murder. Note the mirror angled at 45 degrees to the axis of the camera lens. The radiator coil, illuminated by light bounced off the mirror, is mad&pf a reflective “ Scotchlite” material. Rothman is standing centre, while director Richard Franklin watches from his chair.

PATRICK - SPECIAL EFFECTS

hose to fire the bulbs.

Do you regard that a complex affair?

Just mor e c o mp l e x t han average.

THE AIR MORTAR

loaded and fired it at myself from about two metres so she could see what it was all about. But I knew she wasn’t about to do it twice because, although it doesn’t do any lasting damage, some of those objects hitting do sting you — there’s quite a bit of velocity involved. So we went for it once and got it. We ran two cameras.

You had to get the glass made here . . .

What scene in the film required the air mortar?

Kathy (Susan Penhaligon) is attacked by Ed (Rod Mullinar). Patrick.

cord. In this way we produced acid, keeping a proper check on smoke on both actors’ hands and temperature. on one actor’s back. The actress On the day of the shooting, we in the scene also had to have the were still looking for a solution radiator laid against her back with wh e n I r e m e m b e r e d t h a t resulting burns and smoke. smokeless rifle powder burns that way, with a much cooler flame Apparently the actress’s hair than most other materials. You can run your hand through these also catches alight . . . flames while it’s burning. So we That was another materials foul- rigged an electrically-ignited up. I had planned to use flash portion of this powder to the paper, which is a magician’s tool. actress’s wig, and that worked out It burns with a kind of orange very well. flame and with the fine particles of ash that you get when hair burns. What effects were associated But I couldn’t get any here. I with the radiator landing in the finally found a formula for making water? some and it turned out to be relatively complex; it was a We had flash bulbs rigged inside nitrating process. You had to dip the radiator to flash. Fine wires tissue in sulphuric acid and nitric were run down inside the fume

Patrick becomes enraged in one scene and uses a cabinet full of medical supplies as a weapon.

The doors fly wide open and the supplies explode out of the cabinet and fly around the room.

To achieve this, the air mortar was placed about two metres behind the cabinet. We removed the back of the cabinet and all sharp, dangerous or heavy objects from inside. The cabinet doors we operated with monofilament fishing line.

The air mortar muzzle was then filled with five or six thousand pills of different types — plastic pill bottles, caps, towels, anything that wouldn’t be a danger to the actress, Susan Penhaligon. To avoid any injury, Susan turned her back to it during the firing, and Patrick covered his eyes.

The mortar had about a 10 cubic ft. (0.29 cubic m.) tank, pumped up to about 801b pressure. It emptied in less than a second and blew the stuff right through the cabinet into the room. The air blast travelling around the room, lifted the objects and kept them in flight. The plastic pill bottles were light, so they flew around the room.

The scene was shot in slow motion, which enhanced the other worldly quality and produced a very nice effect.

BREAKAWAY GLASS In a scene like that, would you do a run through before the actual take or just chance it?

Kathy (Susan Penhaligon) and Dr Wright (Bruce Barry). Patrick.

In the final scene with the cabinet, we also had a breakaway glass shot. In that case, the economies prevented a run through.

The entire front of the cabinet was re-built with balsa wood and a breakaway glass commonly called candy glass. It used to be made out of sugar, but now it’s plastic.

I would estimate that the glass, with labor and materials included, was worth about $500. I took one shot at it and that was it.

Besides, Susan wasn’t too crazy about the air mortar firing at her back from a distance of only about three metres. To set her at ease, I

Yes. The material used in the U.S. is PS2, a plasticiser fashioned in plastic. It was used in printing ink manufacture, but not any more. All the effects men in the U.S. who had any money and knew that it was being discon­ tinued bought great mounds of it; it’s no longer available off the shelf.

When I need glass, I have to buy finished articles — window panes, bottles, and so forth; I can’t buy the raw crystals to make it.

Over here, they have been using something called Santolite, a M onsanto plastic which is similar, but is much more fragile and harder to handle. You can’t cast as large a pane with it, and when you melt it to cast the article, it gives off formaldehyde fumes, which are awful.

They are very destructive to mucous membranes, and burn the eyes, nose and throat. It’s very hard to work with, but that’s what we had to use. We just kept the fans running all the time, blowing the fumes away from us.

Chris Murray, an effects man from Sydney, has been having success with a Mobil plastic called Alpha Methyl Styrene Resin 18. It doesn’ t

have

the

Santolite

problems, but has a lower melting point and that might be a problem with hot studio lights. He has given me a sample to try at home.

Did you make an arrangement wi t h a p l a s t i c s f i rm in Melbourne to do the casting?

No, I went to Monsanto and bought the plastic. I then built a casting table which was a 12mm thick aluminium plate slightly larger than the largest glass needed. The plate is heated up to about 325 degrees fahrenheit (163 d e g r e e s Cel si us ) a n d t h e cellophane stretched on a wooden frame. The melted plastic is then poured on the cellophane on top of the aluminium plate.

It has to be done this way because if you tried to pour on a cold surface, the plastic would just gob up and not spread out. I doubt a plastics firm would want to bother with it because it’s a small v o l u me j ob and a pr e t t y specialized technique.

Concluded on P.377 Cinema Papers, April/June — 305

rnm m m m m m ä,

li;

m P

ill ID

JORN DONNER After directing several features in Finland, Jorn Donner returned to Sweden to become joint administrator of the Swedish Film Institute production fund.

The following article was written by Donner for Films in Sweden, but is reprinted here for its insights into the Swedish film industry and the many points of relevance to the Australian situation.

Sweden often appears as an island, an isolated and flourishing province in which Swedish values dominate and where nothing is as good as being Swedish champion — and nothing of less moment than actually being in 15th place in Europe or 30th in the world. This is not only true of Swedish society, but of its films as well.

This has to do with what Sweden looks like, what its films look like, and above all, with the organization of Swedish filmmaking. All these reflect the values expressed by Swedish film directors, whose thinking I have had the opportunity of observing during a two-year period as executive producer at the Swedish Film Institute.

Among the purposes of the production fund, set up in 1975 and administered by the Institute, was that of activating the production of feature films. Inasmuch as I became one of the two administrators of the fund, I regarded it as a goal to create among available projects — as quickly as possible — volume or quantity.

It was like lining up horses for judgment: the five or six best horses would be selected, regardless of whether they were good or bad.

I am not ashamed of the results, but I would certainly like to add that the two or three films I thought then would turn out best, did so. The moral of this is that it is possible to read a film script and with reasonable certitude judge the final results — provided one has an idea of the director’s talents.

But my intent here is not to depict the results of a certain production process. Rather, I want to present some other lessons associated with the expectations of the director and other creative participants in a production system "That is essentially financed from public funds.

The fact that a change has taken place so quickly warrants reflection. Of today’s Swedish production, 90 per cent is financed, wholly or partly, from public funds. There is hardly any other country (including the socialist countries) in which independence from audience or commercial expectations is as total as in Sweden.

In the socialist countries, various methods have been tried (admittedly without much success) to make film production groups into self-supporting entities, while in Sweden many film artists regard it as axiomatic that a publicly-financed film production can afford to have zero-level expectations when it comes to audience acceptance.

This has two consequences: 1. At the planning stage, it is customarily assumed that it should be possible to make a Swedish film at a certain cost — 2.5 million Swedish kroner ($460,000). Higher costs than this are rather rare, but so are lower ones. That means, looking at the matter differently, that Swedish films cost about the same amount, regardless of the kind of script, its exclusivity, the degree of its simplicity or difficulty. The budget is not

judged in relation to an estimate of the chances of success, but rather wholly in view of what other films have cost. The financial expectations of all films are deemed to be identical.

2. Since the financing is public, it is also usually assumed that the executive producer, who represents the Swedish Film Institute, has no interest in keeping costs under control.

As a result, a certain irresponsibility develops towards budget follow-up, control and verification of individual cost line-items, and so on. It is conceivable that this irresponsibility spreads to the executive producer as well.

A third consequence, which lies outside the scope of the above, is that scripts are usually judged on the basis of some abstract literary quality, without the least regard for whether one script in comparison with another has audience possibilities. Many film directors, moreover, come from television, where it is never possible to measure viewer reactions exactly — only via audience-share-type figures and possibly the numbers of persons who get in touch with the television complaints department, also known as “ the wailing wall’’.

Since particularly cheap films are not made, not too many expensive ones are made either.

The fund system of selective guarantees imposes a ceiling on films that exceed a certain budget. Under those circumstances, it does not pay to present a budget that is pitched low.

A great many Swedish film directors belong to the same guild as other film workers. In such contexts, the collective character of film work is often emphasized.

In another context, when it comes to documenting and strengthening one’s own freedom, it is eagerly pointed out, not only that the director is the person ultimately responsible for the product, but also that the product must be made wholly and in every respect as the director wishes.

Other viewpoints, whether from film workers or the executive producer, are regarded as irrelevant. I cannot imagine these two lines of reasoning ever being reconciled.

Conceivable consequences of all this, as far as Swedish films are concerned, could be as follows: 1. Despite considerable freedom to depict what one wishes in Swedish films, the products are not born in a field of conflict between a u d i e n c e e x p e c t a t i o n s , b u d ge t ar y considerations, and directorial demands.

They are created in a vacuum and become formally provincial, slow, and marked by their creator’s lack of contact with any other narrative mode than their own.

2. Inasmuch as literature has long had a very strong position in Sweden, decision-makers try to reward that which is either based on accepted literature or whose script presentation is literary in character. I recall Hitchcock’s remark that it is easier to film

Clockwise from top right: Egg! Egg! A Hardboiled Story; Ann Zacharias and Goran Stangertz in Jan Halldoff s The Last Adventure; Ann Zacharias; Hans Alfredson’s Egg! Egg! A Hardboiled Story; Jorn Donner’s Anna with Harriet Andersson; Tommy Johnson in Lars Lennart Forsberg's Robert and Fanny.

Daphne du Maurier than Dostoevsky.

3.Since the sums that are available are constant, or increase at a rate not in keeping with that of the depreciation in the value of money, and since union and guild demands for increased pay have been abundantly satisfied, the number of films being produced is going to drop.

This may in turn result in the salubrious development of a harder struggle over projects and directors. But it is equally possible that the few established official film artists will regard the financing as existing for them (after all, they have to be allowed to go on making films, since they have made films before), and potential newcomers will be relegated to television and other media.

Fortunately, the consequences need not be these. In the first place, favorable changes, too, have taken place during the past years.

Many of the newer films show an utterly different way of telling a story, a greater openness to a more readily accessible dramaturgy.

In addition, it is conceivable that some of those who made their debuts in recent years have enough talent to fill some of the vacuum left in Swedish films when Ingmar Bergman left the country, and resulting from the incapability of many of the so-called mid­ generation of directors to live up to the promise they showed in the 1960s. They still have, as has been said of Brazil, a brilliant future. But they have had one a long time.

This turnabout could also derive from a new interest in creative Fiction in film narrative.

Since the latter half of the 1960s, when many Swedish filmmakers, following the examples of foreign filmmakers, oriented themselves against documentary reality, film dramaturgy has been remarkably neglected.

Actually, there are no professional screenwriters, and because of vastly improved financial circumstances for ordinary authors, the latter are not attracted by the money films offer. The result is that most Swedish film scripts are still being written by directors, and of course that can be explained by the fact that Bergman almost always did so, too. But is it certain that Swedish directors are, like Bergman, both authors and directors?

To me, at least, the combination seems increasingly dubious (as a principle). But Swedish directors have doubtless experienced the same thing I have: that competent scriptwriters are hard to find.

It is likely that films also reflect a deeper tradition than that merely evolved in local filmmaking. Swedish narrative is often psychologically convincing, but seldom dramatically exciting. This applies to literature as well as to the novel. There is an abundance of inner action and a dearth of outer, physical action.

Concluded on P. 381 Cinema Papers, April/June — 307

INGMAR BERGMAN DOESN'T UVE HERE ANY MORE Tom Ryan looks at recent Swedish Cinema and surveys the latest work of directors Vilgot Sjoman, Lars Lennart Forsberg, Jan Troell and Jan Halldoff. He also looks at the first feature of actress Gunnel Lindblom.

The international reputation of the Swedish film industry has inevitably been linked with the career of Ingmar Bergman. His prominence is readily understood, yet one does not need to be a film scholar to recognize the significance of Swedish names such as Victor Sjostrom, Nauritz Stiller, Alf Sjoberg, Alf Kjellin, Jan Troell, Bo Widerberg, Greta Garbo, Ingrid Bergman, Max von Sydow, Liv Ullmann, Bibi Andersson, Gunnel Lindblom, Mai Zetterling, Sven Nykvist — the list of familiar names is far from complete.

Certainly, not all have achieved a maturity of their craft in Sweden, but their importance to the historical status of Swedish film ought to be noted.

The Swedish Film Institute has made considerable efforts to promote the “ new Swedish cinema” over recent years. A season in January this year at the National Film Theatre in London, following an earlier one in April, 1975, won public response and gave exposure to a number of films which suggest, despite Jorn Donner’s pessimism, that a rich film tradition has been passed on.

Gunnel Lindblorrfs first film, Paradistorg (Paradise Place, 1977), calls attention to what appears to be a major theme in the new films — the examination of the private retreat, and its tenuous existence as a way of “ pulling the blinds” on the disturbing realities of contemporary society. In Paradistorg, those realities exist within a hidden machinery of repression which has set in conflict the values of the past and the movement for change.

They make no facile distinction between age, as representing the old way, and youth, the new. Nor do they simply identify the traditional way as the retreat from reality and the confrontation with that as positive. The world created by the film is far more complex.

Behind the credits, a series of pastel

drawings evoke a childlike perspective on the country house in the Swedish Archipelago, the location for the summer holiday rendezvous of four generations of a middle-class Swedish family. The film’s first sequence then opens out the tensions which pervade the film — a middle-aged doctor, Katha (Birgitta Valberg), asserts her right to the comforts of her “ paradise place” , complacently observing, in response to the criticism from her long­ standing friend Emma (Sif Ruud), that “ a leopard can’t change his spots” .

The two women share a generation, but are divided by their social positions and by the attitudes apparently attendant upon them.

Katha has a comfortable practice, while Emma’s life is committed to the care of juvenile delinquents. Katha’s view of the world is clearly linked to the innocence of the drawings, while Emma’s sees them as a facade.

During the course of the film, we come to share Emma’s perspective: the- family’s holiday is a performance of rituals whose familiarity serves to thrust divisions beneath the surface. The adherence to rule (the father’s daily hoisting of the Swedish flag, the communal baking, the family lunch around the long table in the garden, the afternoon walk) suggests the security of belonging to a traditional way, but also works against anything but the most superficial unity. The film’s function as parable for modern Sweden is unobtrusive but unmistakable.

Ironically, while it is the outsiders who disturb the precarious balance of the family relationships, they are linked by their desire to belong, to become a part of the warmth of the gathering, even as they recognize it as “ a hollow idyll” .

Emma comes to visit, weary and disillusioned, in search of a haven: “ I’m a hare with the hounds after me.” Privately she

confesses her despair to Katha — “ I surrender to the machinery” — at a time when Katha’s recognition that she cannot forever explain away the ailments of the world as “ the pangs of adolescence” , or put them at bay with a prescription, indicates a conscience awakened by the sounds of reality.

One of the most attractive qualities of this film is its attention to the details of character, especially in the immensely sympathetic portrait of the two women sharing and sustaining an affection in the face of their potentially divisive social attitudes. The survival of this relationship, though it is thrust into the background in the film’s second-tolast image, is vital within the pattern of relationships established by the structure of Ulla Isaksson and Gunnel Lindblom ’s screenplay.

In the absence of the desire for contact between couples and groups, though that contact is as likely to generate conflict as it is unity, the future will escape the control of those who should construct it. Those whose private anguish enforces a retreat from community and those whose commitment to the future is pursued alone are doomed: Tomas’s introspection is self-destructive, and King’s directives to the men from space to d e s t r o y “ par adi se p l a c e ’’ r e p r e s e n t revolutionary fantasy rather than a practical and fundamental reconstruction.

Though Lindblom closes the film on a freeze frame of the isolated King, it seems to me that the thrust of the film has been towards Katha’s awakening. The future is not to be found in the unfathomable delinquency of the boy (such pessimism is inexplicable in the context the film has established), but in the sort of discovery through others which marks Katha’s progress in the film.

Norwegian director, Anja Breien, was

Birgitta

Anja Breien’s gentle and vicious depiction of male indecisiveness. Games of Love and Loneliness. Stefan Ekman and Lil Tenselius.

Goran Stangertz in Jan Halldoffs The Last Adventure.

The most prolific and successful of the younger Swedish directors, Halldoff is the most critically ignored.

Valberg as

Katha in G unnel Paradistorg.

308 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Lindblom’s

SWEDISH CINEMA

glance to be a familiar figure of youthful audacity. But as his calm exterior changes to behavior scarred by irrationality and violence, what had seemed to be a healthy and charming disrespect for convention becomes, in retrospect, evidence of his irresponsibility, his way of constructing a rebellious self-image.

Lilga Kovanko as the nurse, Mania, in Marianne Ahrne’s Near and Far Away.

invited by the Swedish Film Institute to direct Den Allvarsamma Leken (Games of Love and Loneliness, 1977), based on Hjalmar Soderberg’s novel, The Serious Game.

Thematically it is like Paradistorg, in that it seems to have been constructed as a response to the question (articulated by one of the characters in the film’s opening sequence): “ Do you think we could create a world only for ourselves?” However, it is quite unlike Paradistorg; its style is far more distancing, its narrative elliptical, and its characterization little concerned with a rounded psychological verisimilitude.

Its formal ironies are most apparent as the film’s visual assertion of the importance of its central character, Arvid (Stefan Ekman), is set against the recurrent references to the significant moments in history (1894-1916) which occur around him. The sequences of images are constantly reducing wide shots to alternating close-ups or two-shots of Arvid and his women, while the narrative movement of the film places those intimate images in the broader context which dwarfs the significance we might want to impose on them.

The distancing effect of this ironic mode is further insinuated by the use of the narrator.

The voice-over plays with our responses — assuming omniscience, it moves from a simple description of Ar v i d ’s actions to an explanation of his psychological state, appearing to lay open the film’s subjective material, but, in fact, remaining subservient to it.

Lars Lennart Forsberg’s study of male alienation Robert and Fanny. With Tommy Johnson.

Thus the narrator can observe Arvid’s decision to “ let chance prevail” ; it can become his consciousness — “ I cannot love but I can perform the acts of love, its monkey games and pantomimes” ; but it cannot see that Arvid’s surrender to the fates and his frustration at his inability to feel is a failure to recognize his unimportance, his place in the world around him. (Breien’s use of the narrator here corresponds to Stanley Kubrick’s utilization of the device in Barry Lyndon).

The film is both gentle and vicious in its depiction of an all-too-familiar male indecisiveness. It is impossible not to care what happens to Arvid; and he is not solely responsible for the failure of his relationships.

But we are also forced to recognize his destructiveness in his reluctance to come to terms with his (sexual) restlessness, and his inadequate perception of himself.

Notably, at a time when a concern with the female consciousness is so prominent (especially in European cinema, but also in that American cinema which is prepared to look outwards), a number of these Swedish films could be described as studies of male consciousness.

Certainly, Anja Breien’s film makes Arvid its focus, and Jan Halldoff’s Det Sista Aventyret (The Last Adventure, 1975) transforms what, at first, appears to be the material of male romance/fantasy into a reflection on that. The central character, Jimmy (Goran Stangertz), appears at first

Jan Troell’s Bang!, a “ life symphony’

Lars Forsberg’s Mandagarna med Fanny (Robert and Fanny, 1977) can also be described as a film about male alienation.

Robert (Tommy Johnson), oppressed by the onset of middle-age and by his social identity, belongs to a life full of unconsummated hopes, of ambitions tentatively held and then shattered. His father, dying of a respiratory condition, reminds him of a childhood of repression: not that of being physically brutalized, but of being denied information (primarily sexual) about the world.

His visits to the hospital become journeys into his consciousness, expressions of his resentment at his upbringing. His outbursts there define less his personal hostility to his father than his frustration at the barriers to understanding himself, felt but scarcely understood. His affair with the nurse, Fanny (Maria Selbing), reveals to him the immediate inadequacy of his marriage, and, more, the fact that he is responsible for that.

He is forced to see that it is his introspection, his inability to communicate, which destroys both his relationships. His tragedy is that, while grasping all of this, he is unable to change, his anguish becoming that of a strata of Swedish society quite foreign to that of Bergman’s articulate bourgeoisie, who, if they can do little else to help themselves, can certainly give voice to that which troubles them.

His place of work is filled with the everyday pettiness of people dissatisfied with their lives, albeit uncomprehendingly, a place in which the sullen Robert sees he does not belong, but from which there is no realistic escape. Like the murderer in Bo Widerberg’s Mannen Pa Taket (The Man on the Roof, 1976), like Jimmy in Det Sista Aventyret and King in Paradistorg, like the son in Hans Alfredson’s stunning black comedy about capitalism, nature and revolution, Agget Ar Lost! (Egg! Egg? A Hardboiled Story, 1976), like “ the mutist” (Robert Farrant) in Marianne Ahrne’s Langt Borta Och Maera (Near And Far Away, 1976) when he believes that his trust has been betrayed by his nurse, Mania (Lilga Kovanko), R o b e r t ’s rep ressed emotional life explodes into violence. After Fanny leaves him, he returns to the cottage that had provided a home for their affaire, and, in a particularly disturbing scene, vents his fury upon it.

Concluded on P.381

Halvar Bjork in Vilgot Sjoman’s Tabu, an attempt at laying bare the anguishes of sexual minorities.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 309

GUNNEL LINDBLOM Respected for her striking performances in many Bergman films, including The Silence, The Seventh Seal and Winter Light, actress Gunnei Lindblom has turned to directing. In the following interview, conducted by Tom Ryan, Lindblom discusses her first feature.

Where did the idea for the project That must pose many problems come from? for filmmakers if their film doesn’t meet with the approval of I had directed several theatre the Swedish Film Institute . . . productions when I suddenly felt very curious about making a film.

Yes, and the Institute has rather I formed a group with some actors firm ideas about the kind of films and writers, one of whom was Ulla that should be made. One, Isaksson who had written Paradise therefore, has to try and fit in with Place, a well-known Swedish that limited approach. novel.

We decided on this story and Are there many filmmakers in started to work on the script. It Sweden who want to make films, wasn’t easy to raise the money but can’t find the funds? because many people felt no one would want to see a film about Yes. That any films are being middle-aged women. So you see, made in Sweden is in itself a even in Sweden the subject was miracle. Last year we made about thought unusual.

20 serious films; now they are F i n a l l y we got S w e d i s h saying we cannot afford more than television interested and were 12 or 13 films. The situation is able to make it. very difficult and you have to be strong to get through it.

How difficult is it for producers to raise money in Sweden?

Very difficult. In Sweden there are only nine million people, and it is almost impossible to make a film which can get its money back there. One can perhaps sell the film abroad, but even this brings in very little money. So in the end you have to count on a loss, and this effectively means you must have Swedish Film Institute involvement.

What assistance was Ingmar Bergman in getting your film made?

He said he liked the subject, and that is very important because people listen to him — it is more difficult to say “ no” if he says “ yes” .

Was he looking over your shoulder while the film was being made?

what I wanted, which astonished me. But a week before I started shooting Ingmar had a problem with his tax and he left Sweden for Germany. I had to keep in contact with him by telephone. I don’t know if that was good or bad, but fortunately I was helped by a very good crew.

Would you say that the way you respond to characters in your film has any similarity with the way Bergman approaches his characters?

No, I think we have very different approaches. He is much more interested in a kind of metaphysic; even though religion is in his past, he is very marked by it. We also come from very different social backgrounds, and I am probably more interested in social problems.

One of the things I found jarring

in your film was the girl’s dream about Vietnam and the boy watching the Beirut footage on television. They seemed to me an unnecessary movement outside the film’s framework . . .

The dream is only a very simple way of telling of people who try to protect their own worlds, their islands, or, if you like, their privileges. The young girl is the one who has contact with the outside world; whereas for the boy television is a kind of stigma.

He can’t live the family life he is supposed to live because he’s too hurt by influences from the outside world.

The film sets up two opposed points of view: Emma, who for a major part of the film is rejecting the machinery of repression, and Katha who is an embodiment of that machinery. Do you identify wi th ei t her of t hose two

PHRflDISTORG

No, not at all. I was free to do

Illliiif

m m & m

Gunnel Lindblom

310 — Cinema Papers, April/June

En film av Gunnei Lindblom efter en roman av Ulla Isaksson.

Birgitta Valberg • Sif Ruud • Margaretha Byström • Agneta Ekmanner Inga Landgre • Solveig Temström »Dagny Lind «Holger Löwenadler Per Myrberg *Göran Stangertz • Oscar Ljung PARC Prod.Cinematograph/Filminstitutet/SF 'Distr.

—-

SWEDISH CINEMA

characters?

I identify with both of them because I think I am perhaps too much like Katha and not enough like Emma. The discussion between the two women is, therefore, really a dialogue I have inside me.

I was disturbed by Emma’s surrender to the machinery at the end . . .

You shouldn’t see Emma as a heroine of any kind because she has a different kind of contact with reality than does Katha. Emma is fooled and hurt by Katha and is very desperate by the end. The work she has done and still wants to do has made its marks on her.

I felt that despair, but her surrender suggests the film is ultimately saying the noble things she said are hopeless and impractical . . .

No, it’s not hopeless, it’s only that she’s working all alone. You have to work with people if you want to do what she does. That’s the main point for me.

Yet Emma does have an effect on people, as for example when she spoils the dinner party . . .

A lot of what Emma said was truthful, but in her desperation she had gone too far. But then, nobody else is doing anything; the politicians have failed, the man who is ruling the world is a failure, as is the whole welfare society. We have still not managed to do what is most important.

So in many ways Emma is right, and we can’t hide; we must, instead, make a bigger effort to convince people we are going the wrong way. If society is not good enough, then we must change it — we can’t ignore it.

The film ends with the shot of the delinquent King, rather than one of Eva who, in many ways, is a-positive character . . .

It depends on how you look at it.

To me, King is a very important person; a sort of hope. He is very different from Eva because she is brought up in a milieu where people are aware and articulate about what is happening.

King is quite different: he has no words for his thoughts and he reacts violently and aggressively.

He doesn’t accept the way he is treated and rebels' and I think that is very important.

The shot at the end is the film’s only symbolic image. For me, the two women have surrendered, they are walking away, and therefore have no more rights to be there.

One can view the summer house as a kind of privilege. The women have misused it and, therefore, must leave. So there is only one person left, but he is there because it belongs to him.

Now we must wait and see what he seeks to do with it.

You see, those people on the island are a kind of elite and priv­ ileged people. They are educated and well off, and they know how to talk. That is why I always have them discussing things.

I think it is a false attitude to say, “ You shouldn’t have people talking in films; film is images not talk.” If a film has something to say, you can use any method you choose to make clear what you want to say.

Are you suggesting then that “ Paradise Place” is Sweden?

I don’t want to be rigid about it, but it is possible to read it that way. I have tried to tell the story very realistically so that one could look at it in a larger perspective as well.

In Katha’s discovery of Tomas’ body, and her chase after King, I see an irony, in that she becomes aware only after it is too late; that just as Emma has given up, so perhaps Katha has just begun to fight. . .

In that respect, the theatre has had a very big impact on me.

I think it is possible to see it that way. Actually, the ending of the book is different, in that there is a kind of reconciliation between Katha and King. However, I found that impossible and false — I don’t believe in that kind of optimism. So, in association with the author, I wrote a new ending.

Well, I think you can always use Brecht, and in one respect Paradise Place is a kind of Brechtian film. I don’t know if anybody agrees with me. I have even used Brecht in a Strindberg play I did in Copenhagen called The Father. I didn’t even change a word of Strindberg, but it worked very well. And it always will if you go directly to Brecht and don’t listen to his pupils.

I think Brecht is very much misunderstood because after having worked practically in the theatre he wrote his theories only because he felt obliged to. And as he was German it was difficult for him to write his ideas clearly. So, you have to read Brecht all the time with your heart and you will find he is not as cold as people think.

Did Isaksson argue about that?

No, not very much.

What about Kiss? He is almost the idealized male, somebody who is outgoing and sociable and who can relate to all generations equally well?

Yes, Kiss is very free and kind, but he has chosen a way of living that is okay only for himself — he doesn’t attempt to struggle, he just escapes.

In contrast, there is Anika’s husband, Kure, who is in some ways a weak character, yet he comes back. Is that because he wants to belong to “Paradise Place” like everybody else?

Yes. Kure is very critical about the place, but he cannot leave it. It is the longing for security, of course.

When you made the film did you have a particular visual style in mind?

No, I only knew that I wanted to tell the story as simply as possible.

It is not very experimental in that sense.

I notice that in the theatre you have directed plays by people like Shaw, Strindberg, Chekhov or Brecht. Can you measure how they have influenced your approach to film?

The retreat of “ Paradise Place” in Paradistorg.

First of all, what interests me very much about theatre is actors: I love them and 1 love to work with them. In fact, my only security on the film was that I knew I could work with the actors.

I wasn’t sure if my technical knowledge was sufficient, and I had to trust my crew.

I consider myself an actress and I work in the theatre much more than in films. And if you are used to working with Strindberg or Chekhov, writers who really have something to say, then you must be influenced.

I get very impatient with films that murmur; films that are too afraid to say what they are about.

Godard, for example, has taken Brecht into his own form. How do you respond to that sort of filmmaking?

The story that Kure tells about the women on the train reminds me very much of the “zipless fuck” chapter from Erica Jong’s ‘Fear of Flying’. Was that a deliberate reference?

Well that story is in the book, and Ulla isaksson was well before Erica Jong. No, it has nothing to do with Jong.

Apart from Isaksson, are there any women who have been major influences on you?

Well, it took a long time before I had the courage to admit that I was interested in directing. My education was as an actress and directors were always authori­ tarian and male.

I worked twice with Mai Zetterling and she was a great encouragement for me because of her courage. 1 played one of the parts, in her first film in Sweden, Loving Couples, which had a very difficult script, and I admired her very much for what she was doing.

Have you any other projects that you are working on?

I am planning a four-hour film for Swedish television which we are going to make next winter. It is for the Swedish Women’s Liberation Movement and should be very interesting.

Many European directors are turning to television . . .

Well, there are a lot of people watching and it is a fantastic opportunity to reach people who never go to the theatre or cinema.

I think they are entitled to have something of value to look at. ★ Cinema Papers, April/June — 311

Is “ Mouth to Mo u t h ” original screenplay?

an

John Duigan’s “ Mouth to Mouth” is the story of two girls who escape from a youth training centre and live in a disused warehouse with two boys. This striking film, made for $129,000 and on 16 mm, is notable for its technical proficiency, and, most importantly, the excellent performances from the mostly teenage cast. “ Mouth to Mouth” is Duigan’s third feature, and follows “ The Firm M an” and “ The Trespassers” . In the following interview, conducted by Scott Murray while Duigan was preparing for his next project, “ Dimboola” , Duigan begins by discussing the origins of his screenplay.

Yes. It began with the idea of four teenagers spending a night on the town, and just extended from that. I decided to try and make a film that would involve a fairly wide-ranging audience in the experiences of four sympathetic characters who are battling to get some kind of life going at the lower end of society. Characters whom the middle-class audience generally reads about as numbers in the unemployment figures, or kids in the juvenile courts. In all, I financial potential. I think the film did 14 drafts of the screenplay. was knocked back three times on those grounds.

Why was that?

The Victorian Film Corporation, on the other hand, Almost all the assessments I was very helpful; I had several received were very positive, but long and useful discussions with the assessors at the Australian people there.

Film Commission felt that while it The material I write probably was a good script, it had limited needs a lot of rewriting, and I 312 — Cinema Papers, April/June

suggest or impose some of its own concepts on the screenplay, a writer could be dislodged from his own personal vision and end up writing somet hi ng else. If comments are directed towards clarifying the writer’s vision, then it can be useful.

One criticism that has been voiced against “ Mouth to Mo ut h” is that it is too determinist . . .

I don’t accept that as a criticism.

One of the most im portant believe The Trespassers could qualities of the four characters is t h e i r t er r i f i c vi t al i t y and have done with another rewrite. imagination. Given their environment, there aren’t many Do you feel a corporation is options, and they certainly don’t within its rights in pressuring a ever perceive them selves as writer into reworking a script? having many. Yet, they do come out with some ingenious ways of Obviously there are many solving their problems — the way dangers. If a film body starts to they steal, for example. As well,

Director John Duigan and director of photography Tom Cowan.

the places that they go to on the spur of the moment, are quite exciting and unusual.

But one of the feelings I was after was a real sense of inexorability in the way the action unfolds — the environment creates it. From the moment they escape from the youth training centre, it is inevitable that the girls will be arrested again. That is the pattern in reality.

On the other hand, the two guys are on the dole. I worked on a radio program for six months in which young unemployed people talked about their experiences.

One of the "overwhelming impressions was the feeling of pessimism and of a basic lack of options. And the longer they were u n e m p l o y e d , the more entrenched these feelings were. It seemed important to get that kind of feeling with Serge and Tim — a growing sense of frustration.

Serge (Sergio Frazetto) and Jeannie (Sonia Peat) on the roof of the disused warehouse they make their home. Mouth to Mouth.

the characters, and while at the finish one of the four characters becomes separated from the other three, even she is not really beaten. But the world is making her very hard.

The other three we see still together in the last series of images, and it is clear that they have found a real solidarity among themselves. They care a lot about each other.

This theme reminds me of “The Tr e s pa s s e r s ” , where the strongest scenes are those about the relationship between the girls . . .

I agree. One of the things I wanted to do in that film was suggest the dichotomy in people who have very respectable and sophisticated political views, but whose personal lives are a mess.

Also, to explore the implications of rationality, or over-intellectualYet, one sees in the characters’ ization, on spontaneity and actions a partial transcending of emotional honesty. the limitations. The film is, The characters in “Mouth to therefore, very optimistic . . .

Mouth” have that honesty . . .

I certainly hope people will Yes, the four of them are very perceive the optimism which is crucial to the film. I wanted to direct, particularly the girls. It is a generate a lot of warmth between characteristic I like very much.

In “ Mouth to M outh” you h i g h l i g h t t he c h a r a c t e r s ’ progression by subtly detaching them from the violence and noise of the soundtrack . . .

mirrors the position of the individual in Carrie’s isolation against a huge kind of social animal. The force of the image comes from the incredible noise.

Also, there is the cut to Carrie T he s o u n d t r a c k is very coming into the warehouse before important, and I think Tony the above scene, which is done on Paterson, the editor, has done a a scream from Jeannie. When one superb job in helping create that of the boys hits a policeman, she cries out and this sound blurs into ugly sound environment.

The four live in a warehouse a train whistle. Again, this has near a shunting yard, and there is resonances linked with the use of constantly the jarring sounds of trains and machines throughout trains and carriages jolting into the film, a world inhabited by one another, or rushing past. generally anonymous people and Then there is the pub situation, machines. with the grinding music in the background, and layers of loud In one scene, Carrie is picked up off the railway tracks by an old pub ambiance.

The ways in which a soundtrack hobo. How do you see his role in can enrich an image are becoming the film? clearer to me. In general, Fred is a very important Australian films have not widely character. Earlier in the film, after explored the possibilities. the girls have escaped from the In Bresson’s book, ‘Notes on youth training centre, they are in a Cinematography’, there is the car with a group of guys. They much-quoted line: “If you can drive past a derelict old man and ever replace an image with a the guys scream out abuse; this anticipates later events. sound, do so.” . . .

Carrie, by far, is the most That is a good quote. An desperate of the four, and senses example of this is when Carrie, in Fred the way she is, heading. So the girl who becomes isolated she shuns him. One night he finds from the other three, walks into her in the railway yards, curled up the park. She sits on a bench, near and drunk. He helps her home, the Carlton football ground, and and subsequently she is much there is the sound of people warmer towards him. Later he is cheering, wafting over the park. It beaten up by Tony, with whom Cinema Papers, April/June — 313

mmm?

Carrie has had a very self­ destructive relationship.

The violence of this act finally makes her see the sort of person Tony is and she breaks away from this obsessive relationship.

Incidentally, Tony likewise is a kind of social derelict, and knows it. When the old man calls him a dero it’s the worst possible insult.

I have come to think that casting is as important as the screenplay. I was looking for actors for these roles for about a year and did s ome fairly exhaustive testing. I spotted Sonia Peat (Jeannie) in a Sydney pub.

She knew most of the people there and was buzzing around with this endless, speedy energy — she seemed just right for the part. On In dealing with feminist issues, closing time I found out she was and d i f f i c u l t o n e s l i k e living in a nurses’ home. Without prostitution, did you ever find using the line, “ Do you want to be yourself in the situation of being in a film?” , I contacted her the false to yourself in order to avoid next time I was in Sydney and we did a bit of testing. exposing a flank to criticism?

Not as far as I am aware. A friend of mine worked in a massage parlor for six months: I talked to her a lot about her experiences, and 1 suppose the events in the film have been colored by this.

In no way was I attempting to make value judgment points on prostitution — I wouldn’t want to.

The events that occur in the film, and the characters’ reactions in them, are generated by the momentum of the characters as I saw them.

The four: Carrie (Kim Krejus)-, Tim (Ian Gilmour, Serge (Sergio Frazzetto), and Jeannie (Sonia Peat).

worked very hard. We had a twoweek rehearsal period, and during the first week we went down the coast, to get to know one another.

We worked intensively in the quiet, and it was very useful. I believe all four performances are really terrific.

Y ou

wo r k e d

wi th

mor e

What did this entail?

Mainly reading scripts. I would listen to her and then make some suggestions.

For me, the most important thing in testing an actor is finding whether he or she can establish a rapport with others, and if he or she can get anything out of the suggestions that I make about delivery and character.

Sergio Frazzetto, who plays Serge, was working at the Royal M e l b o u r n e I n s t i t u t e of Technology as a van driver; he had never done any acting, but One of the striking features has great vitality, like the others, about “Mouth to Mouth” is the which was one of the prime things performance of the four lead I was looking for. I thought I actors. How did you go about would try and get that onto film.

The other two people came casting them?

314 — Cinema Papers, April/June

from agencies and they had some acting experience. Ian Gilmour (Tim) had done a television series nine months before and has done bits and pieces since. Kim Krejus, who plays Carrie, did a year at the National Institute of Dramatic Arts and is now doing some television work. They have impressive futures.

So, it was a combination of two totally inexperienced actors and two with some experience. They were great to work with and

The brutal attack on the hobo (Walter Pym) by Carrie’s long-standing boyfriend (Michael Carman). Mouth to Mouth.

JOHN DUIGAN

experienced actors on “ The film on 35 mm and not 16 mm.

Trespassers” . Did you have to Did the changeover affect the change your directing style on size of the crew or use of equip­ “ Mouth to Mouth” , such as ment? doing more takes?

I don’t think we would have used a bigger crew, apart from one To an ext ent one works more on camera. We would have differently with each actor. I value used a 35BL, so the size of the rehearsals very highly; I would camera would have been very prefer to over-rehearse people and much the same, and we would find ways of recapturing the have shot at a similar speed. freshness, than try to get what I I am very keen on working with want for the first time in front of crews of the size we had on the camera. So we didn’t need to Mouth to Mouth, which was a shoot many takes on either film — little smaller than that on The we couldn’t afford to anyway.

Trespassers.

As to shooting styles, the camera mo v e me n t s in The How many were on location?

Trespassers were often long, Eleven, as opposed to 13 on The fluid, tracking shots comple­ menting the long passages of Trespassers. dialogue. Mouth to Mouth was very economical with a lot more D id th e Vi c t o r i a n Fi l m jarring movement and close-up Corporation have any feelings about the size of the crew? work.

Also, a faster pattern , . .

cutting

Yes, it is a lot more manic — as is implied by the speedier lifestyle of the characters.

You had planned to make the

seem very much money, but it is a special division for low-budget lot when you are speaking of a films, haven’t expended much effort or money in that area . . . budget of $129,000.

That is the final budget. . .

Yes, but $44,000 of that is deferments. In terms of straight cash, the film took $85,000 to make — and that includes the blow-up.

It would have been nice to have had $150,000, and the film I want to do after Dimboola will probably have a b u d g e t of a r o u n d $185,000. The only reason it will cost an extra $35,000 is because it needs a French or German actress.

For a hell of a lot of film subjects $150,000 seems an appropriate budget; there is no need to have much more than that.

I think it is a very exciting i n n o v a t i o n by t h e N S W Corporation to set up their fund, because budgets of that kind seem to be much more in line with market expectations of Australia.

If the film is good and is made for $200,000 or under, then in many cases you can get your money back in Australia. Don’t you agree?

Pe r haps , though i s n ’t it sufficient justification that this type of filmmaking may produce films of an aesthetic calibre not achieved by more expensive features?

Pr o v i d e d t ha t a film is competently made, and its story doesn’t demand a lot of money, it doesn’t matter how much it cost.

No, other than suggesting that it Yes, I couldn’t find any more Audiences are not looking for would be more appropriate to money at that time, though I hairs in the gate, nor do they employ 16.

At this stage I haven’t seen the could probably find it now with notice that there are only six blow-up to 35 mm, so I don’t the contacts I have. But I had all extras in a pub scene instead of 50. know whether spending an extra the people lined up for the film A good subject will carry them $25,000 to do it on 35 mm would and, because of their availability, along. have been justified. It doesn’t it was essential to shoot when we Yo u r n e x t p r o j e c t is did.

“Dimboola” , which playwright Do you think your difficulty in Jack Hibberd has considerably raising money was influenced by rewritten for the film . . . the lack of commercial success of It would be impossible to “The Trespassers” ? recreate on film some of what the Yes, I am sure it was. If The play achieves as a live-event. The Trespassers had made a fortune, audience as guests at a wedding the people who had invested in reception are automatically that would have been delighted to implicated in the action; they can invest in Mouth to Mouth. So I get drunk and dance, shout and so hope Mouth to Mouth makes a on, and it’s all part of the show.

The screenplay covers three lot of money; it will certainly make it easier the next time days, leading up to and including the wedding and reception: the around. play was simply the reception. It is “Mouth to Mouth” is one of the a much more complex subject — few films made on a budget of an opportunity to celebrate a between $130,000 and $150,000, country town and its people. and the corporations, apart from the NSW Corporation with its Concluded on P.377

Serge and Sonia playing on the beach they escape to. Mouth to Mouth.

Was it for economic reasons that you shot on 16 mm?

Carrie (Kim Krejus) lying drunk and exhausted in the railway yard, prior to being helped by a hobo. Mouth to Mouth.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 315

Russell

Kiefel and Elizabeth Crosbie in Gillian Armstrong’s The Singer and the Dancer.

James Ricketson Filmmaking is an expensive business. A major problem facing all feature Filmmakers in Australia is how to recoup the money invested in one Film and make sufficient profit to produce the next. It would be foolish to assume that government funding will continue indefinitely, and there can be no doubt that the industry, as it is presently structured, would die if the funding ceased.

One safeguard against the possible demise of an over-inflated industry would be the development of a Poor Cinema, one in which filmmakers work to low budgets with small crews, small casts, low shooting ratios and short shooting schedules, concentrating on content rather than technical excellence.

I use the term Poor cautiously; like all labels it should be viewed with suspicion. It refers not only to films made on $50,000-$200,000 budgets, but also to an attitude or approach to filmmaking that is as concerned with the content of films as with the economics of film production and distribution.

It is my contention that the encouragement of a Poor Cinema would: (1) make the Aust­ ralian film industry more economically viable; (2) give rise to greater diversity in the films being made; (3) develop more discerning and sophisticated audiences; (4) develop the art (and not merely the industry) of film in Australia.

Working to low budgets has one distinct advantage for Filmmakers, in that it allows them freedom from artistic constraints that come with bigger budgets, enabling them to take risks without fear of making mistakes, or of failing at the box-office.

Every film faces the possibility of box-office failure, especially those in which new territory is being explored. Attempts can be made to avoid that possibility by treading safe and welltrodden paths, doing what has already been done, copying and adhering to formulas. And I believe most feature films being made in Aust­ ralia fall into this category. Hence the Hollywood-type product that is flooding the market.

It is not my intention to denigrate these films, but to point out that because of their expense, because the film industry is a big business, films have to make money at the box-office and hence become products geared to a known or predicted market. This film-as316 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Bryan Brown and Kris McQuade in Stephen Wallace’s Love Letters From Teralba Road.

Margaret Cameron, Bryan Brown and Linden Wilkinson in James Ricketson’s Volita.

a-marketable-commodity orientation is more based on stories taken from our history, but often than not an albatross around the film­ few that deal with the ’70s, that examine the maker’s neck; it limits the types of films pro­ structure and fabric of Australian society, that duced and the way in which they are made. explore unionism, unemployment, migrants, We cannot, of course, ignore the economic media monopolies, cultural isolation, latent realities of film production and distribution. (and not so latent) fascism — the list is endless But given the amount of money being poured — and the way in which these affect Australian into the industry by the Australian Film society and the individuals that make it up.

Commission and the state film corporations, it Audiences prefer to see films about the past: is distressing that so few adventurous, it is safe, it has happened — and it cannot be innovative or outrageous films are being changed. The present is dangerous because made. any film that deals with it must, if not by impli­ With the exception of the Experimental cation, raise questions about real issues of a Film Fund (upper limit $6000), we are not social and personal nature. The present is too using our resources to explore the medium’s close to home. We are fed illusions by films possibilities. This results from a lack of nerve and television, and that actually takes on the in filmmakers and over-cautiousness and appearance of illusion, and vice-versa. conservatism on the part of the various Yet, film is a social medium — one that has funding bodies — all of which could be the capacity not only to entertain, but to modified by a movement towards a Poor stimulate and generate social awareness.

Cinema.

In a country with a population as small as Film audiences have diverse tastes. At one Australia’s, films such as these could only be end of the spectrum is a large audience that made on low budgets, with the filmmakers wants to be thrilled, held in suspense, made to recognizing the limited and diverse audiences laugh, cry, be entertained; to have their they would appeal to. Until the gap between attention diverted from their everyday lives. I experimental and extremely low budget films have no argument with these films, except that (funded by the Experimental and Advanced most of them have as their basis a very Production funds) and big budget Hollywood superficial conception of the range of possible films (funded by the AFC) is filled, it is human emotions and experiences; they rely on unlikely that a Poor Cinema will come into cliches and formulas that belie life’s existence. complexity. A steady diet of such films in It is important to develop a more discerning, cinemas and on television is probably as sophisticated and diverse audience that will damaging to psychic health as a steady diet of want to see the sort of innovative and relevant junk food is to bodily health. festivals or briefly at art cinemas. The fact that At the other end of the spectrum there are such films are rarely distributed here is not a films by Ingmar Bergman, Rainer Werner such films are rarely distributed here is not a Fassbinder, Werner Herzog, Peter Watkins, reflection on the quality of films, but on the Eric Rohmer and many others that explore size and degree of sophistication of Australian aspects of human experience on an emotional audiences. Were such films made here (and as well as intellectual level. These films appeal some are), they would likewise appeal to to minority audiences and are rarely huge box­ minority audiences and would be economically office successes. viable only if made to relatively low budgets.

As with other art forms, the primary reason The double bill of The Singer and The for their creation is only marginally related to Dancer and Love Letters From Teralba Road, their commercial value. They are made for among others, has demonstrated that there is audiences who believe the unexamined life is an audience for quality low budget ‘non­ not worth living, and should not — cannot — commercial’ films. Distribution of these films be evaluated in terms of box-office receipts (and others that will hopefully follow) remains alone. Films of this kind are not being made in a problem, but not an insoluble one. Four or Australia. I am not referring to ‘art’ or elitist five years ago it was almost impossible to films, but to those that deal with now — with distribute an Australian film in Australia; now what it means or feels like to be alive in it is relatively easy. The same could be true for Australia. the low budget films that make up the Poor Many films have been (and are being) made, Cinema.

POOR CINEMA

Linden Wilkenson (Danny) and Bryan Brown (Mark) in Ricketson’s Volita.

otifJtB making

ojiVofofa Volita deals with the way in which four characters respond to the milieu they find themselves in during the latter half of the 1970s: with the way they relate to each other, to their jobs, society and the world in general.

The film began with four characters, detailed and lengthy character notes, and only a germinal script — a framework within which the writer/director and actors could work.

It is quite acceptable and common for a theatrical piece to arise out of a workshop situation in which actors and director develop a presentation based on a writer’s, director’s or the group’s idea. The same principle could, 1 believe, be applied to film.

The choice of cast was determined by the actor’s ability to improvise scenes based on the character notes. I was more interested in the spontaneity, naturalness and overall feeling of performance than in an ability to work with set dialogue.

I did not want the film to be merely a reflection of my own ideas and intentions — 1 hoped that we would all learn about how to develop and make a film. And for my part, I found that 1 learnt more about writing dialogue in this way than from countless nights stooped over a typewriter.

The workshop took three weeks and proved to be invaluable from the point of view of performances, integration of scripted and improvised dialogue, and time saved on the set. Ideally, however, it should have been about three weeks longer.

Then came the filming and my decision to shoot the film hand-held. This arose out of my experience in making documentaries.

In a documentary, it is irrelevant whether or

not a shot is entirely steady; it is the content of the scene that is of primary importance, assuming, of course, that the content is sufficiently interesting. While many films hide a paucity of content behind technical excellence or lavish sets and costumes, our decision to relegate the technical aspects of filmmaking to a secondary role, forced us to concentrate on the content.

The time saved by using only minimal lighting and by shooting the film hand-held, enabled us to complete the film in 15 days. For this, cameraman Tom Cowan must take the credit.

In order to minimize the need for artificial lighting, Kodak Reversal 7250 (ASA 400) was used for all interiors. This is a newsreel stock not designed for having prints struck off it. As the film is, at the time of writing, in the process of being edited, it is too early to say whether the time and money saved by using this stock is justified by the quality of release prints.

For my part, the exercise in making this film has been rewarding on a number of levels. I have been able to take risks I would not have dared take (or been allowed to take) if I was working to a large budget. The film has also provided me with a bridge from short narrative films into feature filmmaking.

All too often filmmakers with my type of background and experience are forced to jump from a $20,000 to a $500,000 budget, with no option to test their skills on films made to budgets somewhere in between these two extremes. It is this gap that a Poor Cinema could fill. ★ Volita.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 317

Since you are scriptwriter and director of this film, you must have a certain attitude to the UFO phenom enon. Do you believe in close encounters?

I believe in the possibility, in the 30 years of evidence. I am not 100 per cent convinced, and I h a v e n ’ t h a d an y d i r e c t experiences; my attitude has always been “ Prove it” . But I am more convinced now than I was three years ago.

Was it your intention to make other people aware as yourself?

Yes; aware that this was one answer to the UFO mystery, that UFOs are extra-terrestrial entities and not just projections of the collective im agination of the world.

There appears to be a strong relationship between this and your other films, in that you take a horror that is always with us, and bring it out into the open, p r e se n tin g it in r e a lis tic terms . . .

Absolutely. In every Film I have made I have taken something which is very uncommon to our everyday lives, and therefore hard to believe, and tried to make it as believable as possible. I enjoy creating a reality from a kind of fantasy. In Duel, for example, there was the challenge of creating a character out of a truck and making it appear like the classic villain in the Western.

318 — Cinema Papers, Aprii/June

Steven Spielberg’s “ Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is at present outpacing “ Star Wars’’ at the box-office and may possibly become the biggest grossing film of all time. If so, Spielberg will have twice achieved that feat; the other time being with “ Jaw s’’.

Spielberg graduated from UCLA in 1970 and went straight to Universal where he directed episodes for several television series, including: “ Marcus Welby, M D ” , “ Columbo’’ and “ Name of the Game” . He also directed two television features — “ D uel” (1970) and “ Something Evil” (1972) — the former becom ing a cult film and being re-released theatrically in the U.S. Teaming with producers David Brown and Richard D. Zanuck, Spielberg then made “ Sugarland Express” in 1973 and “ Jaw s” in 1975. “ Close E ncounters” , for producers M ichael and Julia Phillips, is his third feature.

While in Denmark for the recent opening of “ Close Encounters” , Spielberg spoke to C in e m a P a p e r s ’ Scandinavia correspondent Gail Heathwood about the existence of extra-terrestial beings and the problems involved in mounting this $U.S. 19.2 million project.

Generally, I am much more interested in those things when they affect ordinary people, than I am in, say, Spiderm an or Superman.

How did you research “Close Encounters” ?

I went to the magazine and newspaper section of the public library and read old copies of Life.

from major airlines, air traffic c o n tro lle rs, U.S. Air Force officers, even four security people at the Pentagon who, during the early 1950s, had worked in the intelligence corps and were around when UFOs buzzed the capital; there was a great flap in Washington. It sounds like a wonderful science fiction film, but Washington took it very seriously.

The best people I talked to, however, were the average family types who never expect anything extraordinary to happen until it actually does. That was the best part of the research, because it supported my feelings about the first two-thirds of the film. The last part isjust my vision, my hope and philosophy. It never really happened.

The people who come out from the space ship are similar to drawings done by eyewitnesses.

Was this intentional?

Y e s. W h ile c o l l e c t i n g descriptions from all over the world I realized that everybody reported the same thing. You would think that somebody in the For 40 years Life was probably the U.S. would report something most popular magazine in the m o re c h r o m e - p la te d th a n U.S., and it was very interested in someone in maybe Switzerland UFOs. It followed them more who would report something like closely than any other publication a grandfather clock. But all the and printed large photos, as well reports are the same — the as stories from different scientists. vehicles, the spheres in the sky.

I traced these authors and And the extra-terrestrials looked discovered that many had written like they do in filmUrather than books. I read a number of them, fire-breathing dragons. and began to meet the authors.

Then I talked to four or five pilots Do you think that the film would Opposite: The child (Gary Guffey). “ I would describe what he was reacting to and he would make pictures from my words and react to those p ictu res".______

Ü É l:

11

:r

STEVEN SPIELBERG

have been stronger if you had not shown these extra-terrestrials?

Not for most people, because they would have been frustrated at not having seen the vision completed. A lot of people think I should not have shown the shark in Jaws, that I should have continued the mystery of the water, so that the water itself became the threat. But that’s my duality — the philosopher- Francois Truffaut as the French scientist, filmmaker and the commercial- Claude Lacombe, and Bob Balaban as his filmmaker-entertainer. I try to interpreter. Close Encounters of the Third Kind. make those two things work for each other. up of the film were you more in doubt than not?

Did you consider not showing the creatures?

Sure, when I met a lot of kooks whose stories weren’t consistent Yes, for a long time, and I the second and third time round. I p e r s o n a l l y f e l t a g r e a t felt very disappointed, suspecting disappointment in not knowing that maybe only the more what piloted those things. In 2001 intelligent people knew how to Stanley Kubrick considered the make up a good story. But same thing because he shot many fortunately it didn’t happen too aliens — but he never used them often. in the final film. That was fine for I really found my faith when I 2001, because from the beginning heard that the government was it had promised an esoteric payoff; opposed to the film. If NASA took you didn’t ever expect to see an the time to write me a 20-page extra-terrestrial. letter, then I knew there must be My film isn’t so technologically something happening. intellectual, and because of this it I had wanted co-operation from would be wrong not to show the them, but when they read the creatures. script they got very angry and felt that it was a film that would be Why did you choose Dr Allen dangerous. 1 think they mainly Hyneck as technical advisor on wrote the letter because Jaws the film? convinced so many people around the world that there were sharks in I knew of Hyneck when I first toilets and bathtubs, not just in began researching the film the oceans and rivers. They were because he was famous for saying afraid the same kind of epidemic how it was all a bunch of bunk. He would happen with UFOs. had been hired by'the Air Force to It was the same with the Air give easy e x p la n a tio n s to Force; they gave us no co­ complicated phenomena and he operation at all. So when I was was very good at it. shooting the scenes with the army Hyneck would say a phenomena and air force, I had to do it the oldwas a meteor or swamp gas or fashioned way and go into a Venus. Then he began coming costume store and buy the army across reports that were too suits and gear. extraordinary to be discounted easily. He found he could explain Apparently President Carter has away 80 per cent of reported seen the film . . . sightings, but there was still 20 per cent he couldn’t, and he became Yes, Carter likes it very much. fascinated by it. Finally, he went He has reported UFOs on two to the Air Force and said, “ Hey, I occasions, and I think he’s a think there’s something here; this believer. In fact, one of his isn’t just public psychosis.” campaign promises was that he The Air Force got very nervous would try and find out what UFOs and told Hyneck to mind his own were all about. But the minute he business and just do his job. He took office and was asked whether got very angry and quit. He then he was going to follow through the wrote a book attacking the promise, he side-stepped the department. issue. .

I met Hyneck because he was a Since then, the White House man who had suddenly learned to has been very quiet concerning believe, and that was a very UFOs. It seems that every uncommon thing to do. I felt he president, including Gerry Ford, was a very valuable man to have who is interested in UFOs, stops on my team because he could give being interested the minute they me the feeling that I wasn’t just get to the White House. making a film about chiffon; that There is something going on it wouldn’t be something that which many governments in the couldn’t stand up under a hot world feel that people should not light. be made aware of yet. France and Brazil are the only two countries At any point during the setting w h o se g o v e r n m e n ts h av e 320 — Cinema Papers, April/June

W ho’s directing who? The two ‘directors’ — Francois Truffaut and Steven Spielberg.

admitted that UFOs exist, and that they are interested.

Was it at any point a moral issue for you — that you might cause panic?

Not really. When Orson Welles did his famous “ War of the Worlds” broadcast in 1938, he was not so much writing a radio program about Martians invading New Jersey as about America’s fear of invasion from Europe. War was just a few months away, but Welles’ invasion was not the Stuka, it was the Martian; it preyed on the vulnerability of that time.

Today it’s just the opposite. I knew that if this film was to be popular it wouldn’t be because people were afraid of the phenomena, but because the UFOs are a seductive alternative for a lot of people who no longer have faith in anything.

Did you require your actors to have a similar degree of belief as yourself?

No. Melinda Dillon believes, but Terri Garr doesn’t. Neither does R ichard D reyfuss nor Truffaut. When Trauffaut was asked if he believed in UFOs, he said, “ I believe in the cinema” .

The mysterious light generated by a UFO. While a m other (Melinda Dillon) is terrified her son (Gary Guffey) is more trusting. Close Encounters of the Third Kind. ’

STEVEN SPIELBERG

twice, there is a 50-50 chance it will get done your way. If you say it three times, it might be there when you want it. But if you say it four times, it will be there. Now if I have to say it five times, the person I am saying it to goes home on the next plane.

Did you change anything as you went along?

A lot. The script is only a blueprint. I plot everything ahead of time and before the first piece of film is shot; you can see the entire film on cards. So, when I eventually hired Doug Trumbull, all Doug had to do was look at the ships I had painted, the colors and structures, and duplicate them technically. That’s why I took a credit on the screen for visual concepts.

What scenes did you change?

Driven by a nightmare he doesn’t com prehend, Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) recreates the Devil’s Tower, Wyoming.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Why did you cast Truffaut?

It occurred to me that of all the French people I knew, Truffaut was the most humane. There is a humanist view of Truffaut that I have always held — of his films and of him as an actor in his films.

He has the face of the young boy grown up.

Isn’t it difficult to direct a director?

No, because most of the time Truffaut knew what I was about to say before I said it. After a take that Truffaut and I didn’t like, I couldn’t even open my mouth

before Truffaut would say, “ I know, I know, too much over­ acting; I’ll bring it down.” It was easier directing Truffaut than the others.

Truffaut wrote a book during the shooting called ‘The Actor’.

Have you read it?

It’s not finished, but when it is, I’ll get the first copy. Truffaut often looked lost on my set because he was not used to 200 extras, 90 arc lights and all the noise and confusion. He is used to small, personal crews and casts; low budgets. When he came on the set it was the first time he had

The child (Gary Guffey) drawn on by a strange glow in the sky. Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

seen the old Hollywood being run by the new. I think if you had walked on the set of Close Encounters you would have thought of Busby Berkeley, because it was so technically confusing. Lots of technology, but very old-fashioned.

In the original there were many more family scenes which I shot but didn’t include. There were also more encounters in the first half, but that was changed because I felt I had to save — I couldn’t have a jolt every 10 minutes because it would have hurt the dram atic c o n stru ctio n . The elim ination was necessary to concentrate on the final arrival.

Speaking of dramatic structure, do you have a special formula for creating tension? It seems that you rely on under-informing the audience, lettin g them be unaware of certain things . . .

Is it difficult to always be in control?

Yes, I’d agree with that. I believe in not giving the audience what they want, because their It’s hard, but then that’s my job. collective imagination is much Close Encounters was the first greater than mine. That was why time I ever managed a production in Jaws I decided to leave the this large. Jaws was a very ‘Enemy of the People’ part of the intimate film —just three men, a story not that well told. boat and a shark. This film was I felt the same way about Close large from the very first day, and Encounters. The military coverthat’s what confused Truffaut. I up, for example, I didn’t want to am sure his book on the actor will beat to death because in the U.S. have an extra chapter in it. it’s passe. We have lived through Watergate, the CIA, and people already find them redundant.

Given a lot of the film’s special effects were done in laboratories, Yet the film is made for an were the actors often called upon international audience, one not to react to non-existent effects? necessarily versed in American lore. Did you find it hard to Yes. Richard Dreyfuss was very decide where the point of balance upset with several moments in his was? performance because he feels that had he seen the effects, he might I always consider the inter­ have reacted differently. national market when I make a film. It was obvious to me that I Did you ever feel insecure about would discuss the film more being in control of all these overseas than in the U.S. In the people and effects?

U.S. I merely discussed the flashiness and the sound, the I never feel secure doing excitement, the phenomena. Here anything, especially a film like in Europe I am discussing the this. The problem is when you story and the philosophy; the have a crew that large you have to symbolism. repeat yourself. If you say it once, it will never get done. If you say it Concluded on P.379 Cinema Papers, April/June — 321

EDINBURGH and LONDON FILÜ FESTIVALS 1978

Jan Dawson

sick and living in New York like eight million other people.”

The star of the film is a brilliant female im p e rs o n a to r, C raig R ussell, who eschews playback and uses his own voice to recreate a dozen artists ranging from Marlene Dietrich to Judy Garland.

Yet, although his seven-and-a-half minute stage show is probably the film’s high point, what makes Outrageous a lot more interesting than a drag show is the way it constantly uses sentimentality and melodrama and showbiz glamor to undercut one another to convey the impression that life is a mess but decidedly worth living.

Its portrait of Canadian provincialism (significantly, the hero has to move from Toronto to New York to make it as a performer) is less than flattering — a fact which the Canadian Film Development Corporation, who provided 60 per cent of the budget, seem to have overlooked.

Gregory Nava’s medieval love tale, The Confessions of Amans, with William Bryan (Amans) and Susannah MacMillan (Lady Anne).

This year’s Edinburgh Film Festival seemed freer of the factional in-fighting that had sometimes soured its atmos­ phere in the past. It was also closer to providing genuine sanctuary within w hich d iffe re n t ideologies of, and approaches to, “ independent cinema” might peacefully co-exist for their mutual stimulation. All this in spite of the sinister shadow which so many television personalities cast over the festival’s second week, as well as the worrying long-term im plica tio n of te le visio n choosing Britain’s oldest established film event as the site of its economic and political muscle-flexing.

That there were no major revelations, and that the various retrospectives (of films by Wim Wenders, Ula Stockl, Marcel Ophuls, Ziga Vertov) proved stronger than any groupings of new works, was a reflection on the current state of international production (cf, Cannes, with which Edinburgh did not compare unfavorably).

As in past years, the groupings which formed the Festival’s strongest suits were its se le ctio n s of low -budget independent productions (predominantly North American) and its round-up of American exploitation films.

Most noteworthy among the former was, perhaps, Gregory Nava’s The Confessions of Amans, a medieval love story shot in Spain on an American Film Institute grant and with a primarily British cast. Its story, of a young monk who becomes a wandering scholar in the East after fathering a child by the chatelaine he has been hired to tutor, unfolds with all the measured gracefulness of a

322 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Being of a squeamish disposition, I determ inedly missed the gorier of Edinburgh’s exploitation horror films (at any rate Rabid, David Cronenberg’s tale of a plastic-surgeon victim turned bloodsucker, and Jeff Lieberman’s Blue Sunshine, a look at the nasty long-term chromosomal effects of a particular strain of LSD), so it was a nasty shock to find them turning up again in London.

Other Edinburgh shockers included George Romero’s Martin (balancing its horror effects with a miscalculated ghoulish irony, and generally not a patch on Night of the Living Dead); Death Collector, a pale shadow of Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets, directed by Ralph de Vito and built around the calculated resemblance between its lead, Joseph Cortese, and the younger Robert de Niro; and, most vicious of all, A s s a u lt on P re c in c t 13, w h ich e s ta b lis h e s the to u g h n e s s of its

formal ballad and the delicate precision of a series of miniatures.

The c o n flic tin g a s p ira tio n s of passions and intelligence, revealed primarily through the movements of hands and eyes, locate the film’s real action as spiritual rather than historical.

At the sam e tim e , th ro u g h the hierarchical rituals glimpsed mainly as domestic details in the corners of the frame, Nava, like the Flemish painters, almost laconically portrays the ordered world against which his characters transgress. His actors’ delivery is quite aggressively modern, his social details historical, his characters’ inner conflict timeless.

Somewhere between an exploitation film and an independent production was the Canadian film Outrageous, written and directed by the Kentucky-born, off­ Broadway playwright Richard Benner. It is a film which speaks out against glib categorizations, and which admirably exemplifies its message.

Its improbable plot (based on a short story by Margaret Gibson, a real-life schizophrenic) concerns the growth of a relationship between a schizophrenic girl (newly escaped from an asylum) and a frustrated homosexual hairdresser with transvestite leanings. Encouraged by the girl, the hairdresser starts performing in drag clubs and eventually becomes an off-Broadway star.

The girl loses the baby she has been carrying but is nursed back to her own kind of unstable s ta b ility by the h a ir d r e s s e r w ho c o u n te r s h is metaphorical despair with the punch line: “ You’re not dead; you’re alive and

A violent scene from John Flynn’s Rolling Thunder. Written by Paul Schrader, the film has “worrying echoes of the National Socialist ideology.”

EDINBURGH AND LONDON FESTIVALS

credentials by having as the first victims of its motiveless psychopathic gang a small child, a Negro and a policeman, and by encouraging its audience to pin a ll hopes fo r ‘s a lv a tio n ’ on the resourcefulness of a convicted mass murderer.

Edinburgh has a long tradition of presenting B-feature films. This has rested largely on the festival’s well articulated assumption that it is in the variations of the fundamental genre rules, in the discrepancy between treatment and content, that embryonic a u t e u r s might first be discovered. And to the Festival’s credit, it pioneered the work of Roger Corman, Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma and Paul Bartel. This year’s London Festival backed up its Bfeature selection with no theoretical framework, merely on the specious grounds that “ action films are sometimes ignored by serious filmgoers.”

Swelling the Edinburgh collection was, at the one extreme, the Yugoslav film The Rat Saviour, by Krsto Papic — substantially more metaphysical than action-packed as it paints an oneiric portrait of a nameless bureaucracy whose model citizens are actually rats in human form; at the other extreme was Rolling Thunder. W ritte n by Paul Schrader who wrote the script of Taxi Driver, it expands some of Schrader’s m ore w o rry in g o b s e s s io n s : th e corruption and hypocrisy of modern city life (okay), the glorification of mass murder as a form of purification (less okay), the equation of women with flesh and fickleness, and of veteran Gl killers with purity and the true America.

As with Taxi Driver, the morality of the film’s ending is just ambiguous enough for it to be read as ironic. But such a reading takes no account of the extent to which director and camera wallow in the final bloodbath.

Once again it is a crazed Vietnam veteran cleansing the world by shooting it up in a brothel; once again, there’s the implicit assumption that whole classes of people, if not whole races, deserve to die, and that their instant death sentence re q u ire s no a d d itio n a l ju d g e or executioner than the Great American Conscience.

The ease with which Schrader’s heroes prefer their guns to their women, and the simplicity of slaughter to the complexity of life, has some worrying echoes of the National Socialist ideology.

The director’s name this time is John Flynn.

The London Festival has always been presented as a Festival of Festivals — a survey of the best of the year’s new productions. But in the eight years since Ken Wlaschin took over the Festival’s direction from Richard Roud, it has more than tripled in size to the point where it represents, not so much a survey of the best, as a cross-section of everything, good, bad and indifferent. (Including the ‘action films’, 19 of its films had already received th e ir B ritis h prem iere in Edinburgh.)

While it can be, and is, argued that Wlaschin’s programming is a justifiable avoidance of value judgments and marks a respect for the right of the London public to make up their minds on what “ best films” actually are, his festival is in danger of being amorphous, oversized and, most seriously, oversold.

Hand in hand with his eclectic programming is a hyperbolic prose style which hails equally as masterpieces the latest student film from the National Film School (technically unpolished and sty lis tic a lly enslaved to television), B e rn a rd o B e r t o lu c c i’ s 1 9 0 0 or Bockmayer’s Jane bleibt Jane.

In such a climate of enthusiastic but undiscriminating oversell, the few really major new films are apt to recede into the wallpaper: Satyajit Ray’s Shatranjke Khilari (The Chess Players - reviewed separately below), his first film in Hindi and historical costume, and a radically Brechtian departure from his usual comedies of desperate manners; Hans Jurgen Syberberg’s marathon Third

Reich carnival of Hitler, using kitsch and tin s e lly c h o c o la te -b o x im ages to describe an all-pervasive ideology that cannot be visually recorded; most splendid of all, Krzysztof Zanussi’s Camouflage, one of the few films ever to capture in both visual and verbal lan g ua g e all th e c o m p le x itie s of intellectual conflict and consciencecrisis, with all the subtlety of Henry James, and a nostalgic, pastoral setting.

These film events — to be mulled over, analyzed, slowly digested and appraised — can in the short term only be damaged by their propinquity to the hollow pretentiousness of Roiling Thunder or the latest student work-prints. The London Festival no longer appears to celebrate the survival of quality in the cinema so much as the fact that the cinema (often in horrendous forms) has succeeded in surviving at all.

THE CHESS PLAYERS An obvious first reaction to The Chess Players is that it marks a radical departure for its director, Satyajit Ray. Not only is it his first film in Hindi, but also (perhaps in part as a logical consequence of his w orking in a language which is alien to him) its caustic and fragmented approach to its historical subject, its deliberate recourse to such distancing devices as an ironic commentary (from a contemporary, not a period standpoint), its mixture of film styles and genres (from cartoon to lowkey naturalism to stylized tableaux), all create an impression of a film closer in style and spirit to the work of Berthold Brecht than to those of Ray’s previous mentors, the Italian neo-realists.

Yet these same surface differences that separate The Chess Players from Ray’s previous work prove, on closer inspection, to be the signs of a more profound continuity. In this film’s elegiac depiction of human suffering and of the relatively undramatic process of attrition whereby the dispossessed and the culturally disinherited are systematically stripped of their remaining sources of pride, hope or ambition, Ray’s reluctance

to depict villains (or, more precisely, to suggest that villains are individuals rather than the anonymous power of economic and political forces) has always led him to oblique forms of indictm ent: his humanism, no less elegant than it is profound, has invariably led him to depict the tragedy of wasted lives in the form of a comedy of manners.

The tension within his film s — corresponding to such objective factors as the incompatible pulls of indigenous culture and imposed British influence, of the all-embracing, gentle tolerance of Eastern religion, and the brutal, death­ dealing reality of Western economic systems — has found its subjective exp re ssio n in a d is tin c tiv e idiom miraculously poised between nostalgia and tough observation, between humor and tragedy, between a stark neo­ realism and a no less rigorous stylization.

Though their detailed, day-by-day study of thwarted hopes and wasted lives may owe much to Vittorio de Sica and his bicycle thieves, structurally Ray’s films owe still more to music than to any cinematographic antecedents. It is no arbitrary coincidence that Ray has always composed the music for his films.

Their narratives are conceived and approached in fundamentally musical terms: they develop as variations on a theme; and the theme itself is played out in a series of conflicting rhythms which echo and express conflicting social pressures: the paralyzing pulls of a Utopian past and an unthinkable future, between which lies only stasis, inertia — the quagmire in which individual lives and hopes must founder.

Ashani Sanket (Distant Thunder) already marked a turning point in Ray’s career, in that — as in his subsequent films — the tragi-comedy of domestic manners are linked to specific historic events: a view of history from, as it were, the unconventional end of the telescope.

Critics were not slow to announce that Ray had embarked on a new, political phase as a filmmaker, no less slow to castigate him for his former virtues, finding now in his persistent humanism a lack of partisan commitment.

In synopsis, The Chess Players would appear to mark the start of a further stage of politicization, to the extent that political/historical events

have this time moved into the foreground.

Yet a glance at the film (as distinct from its table of contents) shows the advance to be less cut-and-dried. Once again, a m usical analogy proves the m ost precise: politics exist, as always, in counterpoint to everyday dom estic reality, this time incarnated in the title characters. For well over half the film’s screen time, the camera focuses on the obsessive chess games of Mr Mir and Mr M irz a , e q u a lly o b liv io u s to th e disintegration of their marriage or their society. It is not so much the proportions (of history to ‘real life’) that have changed, as the tone in which the component parts are treated. Carrying his love of comedy to the verge of slapstick, Ray has — in Mir and Mirza — created a kind of philosopher’s Laurel and Hardy, as rich in symbolic value as they are in wealth. Dramatically, they function as the court jesters to a no less stylized figure, the King, of whose glorious higher vision their lives are but poor, pale shadows.

That the King, Wajid Ali Shah, is so frequently represented as part of a 'tableau v iv a n t’ — set against a background of singers, dancing girls or ornate decorations — is in large measure a consequence of Ray’s determination to avoid screen villains. Tracing India’s present-day tragedy back to its sources in Victorian imperialism, he maintains his customary tone of more sorrow than anger by presenting the showdown in Lucknow less as a clash of wills or a show of force than as a collision of styles: the lackadaisical, aesthetic philosophizing East meets the philistine pragmatism of the West.

Like Jalsaghar (The Music Room), The Chess Players is impregnated with a wistful nostalgia for a beauty that cannot survive the harsh material realities of the world. Unlike Ray’s previous films, it accords scant place to material suffering, but confines itself to tracing — in the form of a comic parable — the genesis of that suffering already so eloquently depicted in Ray’s earlier films. In the very tradition whose passing he here laments, Ray — ever the gentleman and philosopher — asserts his humanism by preserving, even in the face of despair, a sense of the finer ironies. ★ a Copyright Jan Dawson

The Chess Players, Satyajit Ray’s first Hindi film.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 323

'mm I

¡Ë lliliÉ i

I■

—

—

fS H M B R I $$MÈÊÊW^.

iÊBÊgmt

raBSStäÉ l l 11WÊÊÊ

w èBIÈÈÈIèm

■ il

How long have you been working on the project?

Five years. In March 1973, Sue Milliken picked up the book ( The Reckoning) in a second hand shop in Oxford St., Paddington. She read it, and thought it would make a good film. I also read it, and liked it very much. I thought the mood, and some of the social aspects of the story, would transpose very well on to film.

What was the major hold-up?

There were a couple. In 1973, I was employed by Air Programs In te rn a tio n a l and we were working on a number of projects. I suggested The Reckoning to Wal Hucker and he agreed. It took nine months to sort out the rights; we also had to get a writer.

Then in 1974, I worked on The Removalists, which was another nine months out of my life. API waited for me to come back from The Removalists and then they contacted a scriptwriter.

Who did write the screenplay?

Peter Yeldham, an Australian writer. He went to Britain in the late 1950s and achieved some success working for television — he wrote som ething like 13 screenplays.

In late 1974 I heard that Peter was coming back to Australia, so I tracked him down and discussed the project. He went back to Britain but called me from London and said he’d love to do the adaptation.

At that time, I found the projects were building up at Air Programs and taking longer than I had th o u g h t, dhe to th e ir particular marketing policy of “ pre-selling” . As a result, I was not really able to get on with the job of making films.

I decided to leave, and made an agreement with Wal Hucker to take over the rights to The Reckoning. Peter Yeldham wrote the script and delivered it to me around the middle of 1975.

What was your next step?

The first draft was submitted to the Australian Film Commission, but they regarded it as a television program. It then took another three rewrites before potential investors, like the AFC, realized that it did have cinema potential.

The South Australian Film Corporation were the first to come in, though the AFC were already

“ Weekend of Shadows” is director Tom Jeffrey’s sec­ ond feature, following his earlier adaptation of the David Williamson play ‘The Rem ovalists’. Set in a small Australian town in the 1930s, the film follows the hunt­ ing down of a suspected murderer by the male townsfolk.

The film was produced on a budget of $500,000, with investment by the South Australian Film Corporation and the Australian Film Commission.

The principal cast includes John Waters, M elissa Jaffer, Graeme Blundell, Wyn Roberts and Barbara West.

Tom Jeffrey, who also co-produced the film with John Morris of the SAFC, has had a long involvement in the Australian film and television industry. Apart from two years spent working in Britain in the 1960s, Jeffrey spent 14 years at the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

There he directed “ Pastures of the Blue Crane” , and episodes of “ Delta” and “ Dynasty” .

In 1972, Jeffrey left the ABC to direct “ The Removalists” . This was followed by the shooting of “ Harness Fever” which his company Samson Produc­ tions managed for Walt Disney Productions in Australia.

Jeffrey’s involvement in the industry has also included being a chairman of the once Film, Radio and Television Board, and president of the Producers and Directors Guild during 1972-73. He is now chairman of the Film and Television School.

Jeffrey was involved in the final stages of post­ production on “ Weekend of Shadow s” when film producer Richard Brennan interviewed him for C in e m a Papers.

that’s all we will spend.

How long did you take to shoot the film?

Five weeks and two days, plus an extra day because laboratory problems ruined a day’s shooting.

It was a heavy schedule because, though we were working close to Adelaide, virtually every day was a new location.

The story is one of men on a manhunt, and we couldn’t go back to a location if we hadn’t finished it that day, because the next day we just had to move on to a new location.

I generally approach a film with a fairly well worked out plan of how I want to shoot each scene.

This enables me to make quick decisions if something isn’t working as I originally visualized it. I can then keep the film moving on schedule, though I must say, 95 per cent of the time the whole crew worked like bloody slaves.

The script required a good deal of night shooting . . .

It took us about four nights, which we did at the beginning of the shoot; it was a really tough way to start out on a film. We had other night scenes which we split with some afternoon shoots, starting, say at 2 p.m., and working through until midnight.

involved because of their script­ At present, private investors are writing investment. John Morris hanging off because they want to (chairman of the SAFC) took first see how the amendment to the tax You used actors of very mixed bite of the cherry by coming in as act is written; whether it is going backgrounds; some theatrical, a co-producer, as well as putting to be a new section to the act or some television, some feature up one-third of the finance. This just an amendment to the clause film . . . happened late in 1976. Then in pertaining to the writing off of early 1977, the AFC followed with copyright. But I think this new What we were looking for was a an investment of $200,000. With legislation should encourage texture of people to tell the story. that sort of impetus, we were then greater private investment in the Each of the characters was quite able to approach a number of future. separate in the sense that they private investors. represented a type of person. We, One problem that has caused a therefore, looked for actors who Did you find the current tax lo t of n e r v o u s n e s s over could represent those types, and situation, where film investment investment in films, particularly who could play off one another in can be written off only over a on the Government side, is an ensemble situation. period of 25 years, a stumbling overages. How did you end up?

The male actors found that they block when approaching private were able to come to terms with investors?

We came in under budget, and their parts quite easily. The two those monies saved in production women, Melissa Jaffer (Vi) and We never approached them on will be applied to our marketing Barbara West (Helen), found it that basis. We did have a plan for e x p e n d itu re . Sue M illik en less easy. They had very difficult i n v e s t o r s w h ic h w as an (P ro d u c tio n M anager and roles to play, but they did a superb encouragement to them to invest, Associate Producer) is a terrific job. but this was structured under the organizer; she keeps a very tight In fact, on this film I found that present taxation act. rein on things, with everything I directed the actors less than I had well planned and co-ordinated in ever done before; I like working The Fe de r a l G o v e r n me n t advance. with actors and I believe I am recently promised to alter the We always try to spend money quite good with them. taxation act to allow private where it counts; if we feel that we One character I found very investors to write off their can cut corners in other areas, interesting was that of Bernie. I investment over two years. Will then we do — particularly as asked Graeme Blundell if he’d this assist producers to raise regards shooting. If a scene only like to play this part. He read the private finance? warrants two hours’ shooting, script and said ‘yes’. Even so, I Cinema Papers, April/June — 325

TOM JEFFREY

really had no firm idea of who the character Bernie was. I felt that Graeme had a good face, was a good shape, and that he would fit in with the rest of the men in terms of their shapes and sizes. I was looking for a picture of the person, rather than looking inside him and trying to work out what sort of person he was.

On the first night of shooting we were all in peals of laughter because Graeme was doing these antics with a bag stuck around his foot. I then went over to Graeme and asked him if he would like me to move a bag so that he could move more easily around the fire to get to the truck. “ Oh no” he said, “ I set that up for myself.” I then realized that Bernie was the comic within the group. That set his character for the rest of the film.

You have worked with a number of producers on other projects.

Did you enjoy the autonomy of working as a co-producer?

Very much. It has added a greater burden to me, but it is an enjoyable one and fortunately I have had a very good working relationship with the SAFC on corporation and individual levels.

Various corporations have objected to the idea of the producer and director roles being combined. Has this presented any problems with this, or any future, projects?

Our next film will be The Odd Angry Shot, which we hope to begin filming in July. With that project, I have listed myself as a co-producer with Sue Milliken. I shall direct it and because I had a strong idea about the way in which one could adapt this script, I attempted the screenplay adaption from Bill Nagle’s book.

I think there was some concern by the AFC, which had offered us a 50 per cent investment in The Odd Angry Shot, that, because I

was listed as co-producer, director and writer, I would not have an ability to retain an objective view of the project. However, since they have seen Weekend of Shadows, I think any doubts they had in regard to my ability as a director have faded.

I have already adapted the screenplay, so the only problem re m a in in g is th a t o f my involvement as a producer. But I see that only in terms of initiating the project, which will allow me to concentrate entirely on directing.

One of the exciting things I find about filmmaking is that it is such a social activity. A producer is dependent upon his or her director; a director is dependent upon the inputs of his crew, the actors, and the relationships between them all.

Another exciting thing about the Australian film industry at the moment, and certainly over the past five years, is the degree of enthusiasm and willingness that everybody has had — actors and crew, even the caterers — to put up with torrid conditions and still give 150 per cent effort. I rue the day when we start arguing about how much effort we put in and how much money we have to take out because then, to me, we will become like those problem-bound overseas industries such as in Britain or on the west coast of the U.S. I believe “The Odd Angry Shot” is part of a package . . .

The leadup time to a film that is going to cost about $600,000 is about two years. One of the good things that the AFC agreed to do a couple of years ago was introduce its policy of assisting with package developments for the producer.

There is a certain risk involved with this policy, in that certain ideas might never come to fruition. But Sue and I were fortunate in late 1976 to be given encouragement from the AFC by way of investment in a parcel of

G raem e Blundell as Bernie, the “ comic” character on the hunt for a murder. Weekend of Shadows.

ideas, one of which is The Odd Angry Shot.

Our next film after that is hopefully an original screenplay written by Ted Roberts called Quartet With Strings, which is a slightly unusual love story. We felt that period dramas (a) have had their day and (b) were getting too expensive. Having to go away and stay on location is also becoming very expensive.

Ted had this idea for a light, romantic comedy, set in the city.

It has an under-current theme of exploring some of the problems which people, men my age, face around the age of 40 when you tend to wonder where you are going. One gets a different perspective of life, and this affects one’s relationship with women.

Women go through a changing relationship as well — with themselves, the people around them, and with their men. The film will have a background of elegance in the form of classical music, and we hope to begin filming in 1979.

We are looking now to the latter part of 1979 and 1980 for further projects. The package has allowed us to do this, and that has been a great advantage to us.

Music in Australian Films is often regarded as underdeveloped or excessive. How did you and Charles Marawood approach the s c o r i n g of “ We e k e n d of Shadows” ?

We have used a lot of music in

11*111 ' , Kevin Miles (left) as the Police Superintendent, with Rob George (Constable Forrest) and Barbara West (Helen Caxton). W eekend of Shadows.

326 — Cinema Papers, April/June

On the way to a beer and a bet. Knock-ofT time at the brickworks. Weekend of Shadows.

TOM JEFFREY

person being pressured by his comrades, by his peers, to take a course of action that is regarded as common and usual by all of them, and which he resists. Is this a theme that particularly interests you?

Richard Wallace (director of photography) and Tom Jeffrey (co-producer and director) line up a close-shot on Weekend of Shadows.

the film — about nine different themes. One theme is used twice, while there are three themes which are used up to 15 times throughout. It is a means of tieing characters together and setting moods and so on.

I have known Charles Marawood for a number of years and I respect his work greatly.

More than a year ago I gave him the script and we discussed some musical ideas he had. Once we were under way, I brought Charles down to South Australia and we spent a couple of days visiting most of the locations. Later, I gave Charles a cassette copy of the fine cut and spent two or three weeks with him while he plotted the music score. Charles works very closely with arranger Alan

Dean, who, in his own right, is a very good composer and vocalist.

During the final mix, we retained a separation of the music on three stripe, 35mm sprocketed tape to allow us full flexibility in balancing the music to the dialogue and effects. I think this was a great asset.

I think the music adds a lot of tension and drama to the story, but whether the audience will want it, I am not sure. Something that worries me is having music coming in and out like strings.

That’s the difficulty, getting into and out of the music. However, I think we are close to solving it.

There is about 45 or 50 minutes of music and that is nearly 50 per cent of the film; it’s quite a lot.

Melissa Jaffer (Vi) tries to persuade John Waters (Rabbit) into joining the hunt.

Weekend of Shadows.

You’ve had a long association with the film industry . . .

Before getting into the feature film area, I suppose my major claim to fame would have been my work with the ABC Television Drama Department.

In 1969 I directed Pastures of the Blue Crane, which was an all film serial for television, with Jeannie Dryden, Harold Hopkins and Harry Lawrence. I then moved on to a series — a very expensive one — called Delta, which again was all film. I did about eight episodes out of the 23.

Then Dynasty came along, written by Tony Morphett. It s ta rre d K evin M iles, Ron Graham, Nick Tate and John Tate, Nick’s father, who came out from Britain to take the role of the father of the dynasty.

During 1971, we made one film which was a pilot for a proposed series called Devlin — it was one of my less happy experiences at the ABC. I was then offered a consultant’s job with the Interim C o u n cil of th e Film and Television School. So I took leave from the ABC and did that job for a year.

In 1972, 1 felt there were things happening outside the ABC which were, for me, more exciting and more toward what I was striving for in my work. So, at the end of 1972, I resigned from the ABC and took up the appointment with Air Programs International.

In “Delta” , “The Removalists” and in “Weekend of Shadows” , there is a common theme of a

It is difficult for me to analyze my work, but I attempt to do this from time to time. I sometimes wonder whether there is a thematic line that I am taking; I am not sure yet. But what I .have come to understand is that what I am trying to make in my work is a plea for the individual.

So often, as individuals, we are forced into a situation of having to toe the line. We are told so often that something is impossible to do that we say, “ All right, we will go with the mass, do what everybody else does, because that’s easy.”

As a consequence, we tend to lose our individuality, our ability to determine our fates, if you like.

C ertainly in Weekend of Shadows there is this plea, but there are other things as well.

Sergeant Caxton, for example, is a study of a person’s failure. He is a failed man and he fails absolutely.

Also, the relationship of the men to their wives and how they can trigger the men to do certain things. But 1 don’t think that was an obvious theme I was pursuing.

T h e r e w as a c e r t a i n “ aggression” theme in The Removalists which I was actually working against. The thing 1 liked about The Removalists as a stage play, which I thought should work as a film, was the way in which an in d iv id u a l, or a group of individuals, become a sort of a pack and try to assert their authority or their influence over an individual.

The intriguing thing in the d r a m a tic fo rm o f T he R e m o v a l i s t s , as D a v id Williamson wrote it, was that the balance, the centre of authority, kept shifting. It would be first with Kate and her sister Marilyn, as we called her in the film, against the Sergeant; then it would be the Sergeant and Kenny against the women; then it would be Kenny and the removalist against the Sergeant. Perhaps one of the reasons the film failed was because I didn’t quite come to grips with that. It is a film that I enjoyed making and I am sorry it didn’t do better — it should have.

Why do you think the film was basically unsuccessful?

There were lots of reasons. But I am glad the film is getting exposure now and a lot of people are enjoying it, though 1 would be worried if I was a producer and saw the exposure — but I wasn’t the producer. if Weekend of Shadows fails, I have only myself to blame, which is the way 1 like it. 1 don’t want to kick anybody else in the arse. ★ Cinema Papers, April/June — 327

Home, a study of the child welfare system.

Barbara Alysen There has been a much-vaunted upsurge in ‘’women’s films” , a term used commonly to describe the sudden abundance of serious roles for women actors — from Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda’s laundered politics in Julia, Anne Bancroft and Shirley McLaine’s thwarted ambition in The Turning Point, to Diane Keaton’s new-found sexual licence in Looking for Mr. Goodbar.

Certainly women want to see, and are seeing, more realistic and identifiable images of themselves reflected in feature films.

Independent films have, however, been dealing rather realistically and unglamorously with women’s lives for years. Recently, with grant funding more accessible and women in the full-time program and women’s course at the Australian Film and Television School, independent women’s films have become more numerous.

Late last year, many of these films were brought together under the general title “ Womenwaves” , and screened for one month at the Sydney Filmmakers Cinema. Currently, the package is showing in similar venues interstate.

Assembled by the Sydney Women’s Film Group, the films are grouped into four th em atic program s: “ S ex u ality /L o v e/ Relationships” ; “ Image/Space/Creativity” ; “ Social Action Issues” ; and “ Myths/Dreams/ Fantasies” .

The categories reflect convenience rather than precise definitions of content. Moreover, no value judgments were made, at least formally, when films were submitted for inclusion in the collection; this has led to an enormous divergence in style, content and technical proficiency.

In Sydney, there were a few cases of titles being shown at double-head stage or with opticals pencilled over the workprint. Yet* despite these flaws, the Co-operative cinema was consistently packed for the month-long season.

328 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Margot Oliver’s The Moonage Daydreams of Charlene Stardust, one of the films produced by the W om en’s Film W orkshop in 1974.

The enthusiasm with which the 40 films and video tapes were received suggests that films exploring women’s lives are in demand and that audiences are not overly discriminating about how they are made. Content, even if haphazardly expressed, is what matters.

The chronology of independent women’s production, in Sydney at least — and Sydney leads here, perhaps because of easier access to funding bodies — reinforces this leaning towards the supremacy of message over means.

The Australian founder of the film tradition to which the Womenwaves films are heir, is Women’s Day 20c. The film, made in 1972 by four women, is about the loneliness and desperation of a young housewife. It was shot without sound, as cheaply as possible, yet six years later remains a powerful statement.

During 1973, Sydney Women’s Film Group members completed Film for Discussion (questioning the narrow range of choices open to women in work and at home); Home (made as part of the campaign to change the child welfare system, especially in relation to its treatment of teenage girls); and imported the American Women’s Film because it was judged to fill an important gap in the local product.

While these early films suffer to varying extents from the technical deficiencies that accompany low budgets, they convey an urgency, a clear raison d’etre, not obvious in some more recent films. These films are clearly the work of people with something to say (rather than of those with artistic complexes to work off), and can’t be judged by whether they make money for investors.

Rather, they have to be judged by their utility and the demand that exists for them. In this respect, films such as those mentioned above have aged well.

The films produced by the 1974 Women’s Film Workshop reveal theychanging concerns of women filmmakers. Among the 10 or so films produced, there are titles with a marked feminist leaning — such as What’s the Matter

Sally?, (about housework), The Moonage Daydreams of Charlene Stardust (wishful adolescence) and Women’s House — as well as films about personal relationships, and experimental works. A year later, when the women in the first year of the full-time program at the Australian Film and Television School finished their first productions, this division was quite marked.

Of those first full-time program AFTVS films, only Martha Ansara’s Don’t Be Too Polite Girls (on working women) reveals a strongly political line. Other films are about individual women, or have female characters, but they appear more intent on entertaining than on preaching or informing.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with entertainment per se, but the market for independent films is still largely a non­ theatrical one, and people who are prepared to set up a projector in their home, school or hall, are still more likely to want to be instructed

Margot Oliver’s film on the problems faced by women seeking higher education, Charlene Does Med at Uni.

WOMENWAVES

It is like taking a shower with a raincoat on: Gilly C oote’s G etting It On.

than entertained.

So, it is largely “ message” films which have found an audience, and maintained it, and while “ Womenwaves” has so far been successful as a theatrical package, it will be interesting to see how individual titles fare in the rental market.

Some of the films explore the now familiar territory of the genre — consumerism, housework and self-image — while others reveal new preoccupations. Nearly half, for example, deal with relationships, sex, procreation (or its avoidance) and parenthood.

A few also go to show how there are few things more boring than the filmmakers’ best friends recorded on celluloid. Most films, however, are insightful, revealing or frighteningly direct.

In Liz R u st’s videotape Definitions/ Redefinitions, the tapemaker and her ex­ spouse reveal that their marriage has been a farce; in Barbara Levy’s Paralysis, Levy explains her infatuation with her former lover and her breakdown on his departure. Part of the film consists of animated stills of a woman in various states of anguish, accompanied by the sound of her sobbing. While the acme of personal cinema, Paralysis is also a very general film, describing the responses of a great many women to emotional loss.

Similarly, Debbie Kingsland’s All in the Same Boat is an individual rendition of a much-discussed dilemma. Covering similar ground to Woman’s Day 20c and Graham

We Aim to Please, an erotic, feminist pot-pourri. Robin Laurie and Margot Nash.

Shirley’s A Day Like Tomorrow, All in the Same Boat follows the daily routine of a western suburbs housewife, a mother of two small children who is trapped at home and frustrated with her role. Her husband regards her as a good wife, one who simply needs a bit of checking up on now and again. She regards him as a good husband, one who tries, but who can’t understand her predicament. At night he slumps in front of the television and they converse during commercials. Her need for something which dulls the senses and quietens the nerves is revealed gradually and confirmed as a chemist counts out the tablets and types up the label — V. A. L. 1. U. M. Produced at Film Australia for the Health Department’s drug education program, All in the Same Boat doesn’t offer solutions, and anything other than long-term proposals would be inexcusably facile. Instead, it provides a kind of camaraderie between women sharing a common predicament.

Hopefully it will be seen by many schoolgirls, forcing them to question the limited horizons of the career of “ homemaker” .

Gilly Coote made Getting It On specifically for screening to high school students, to dispel the popular notion that a condom is worn “ over two erect fingers” . A combination of animated and live footage, Getting It On takes an effervescent approach to one of life’s most depressing subjects, and is unique in suggesting that men, too, have contraceptive

Paralysis, Barbara Levy’s look at a woman’s emotional breakdown.

responsibilities.

For those who missed Getting It On and are approaching motherhood, Barbara Chobocky’s Gentle Birth (which like Gilly Coote’s film was produced at the AFTVS), shows the birth of a child under the Le Boyer method. This method is intended to minimize the trauma for the baby, and the film, depicting a relatively easy delivery with beaming mum and docile child, elicits varying responses from women viewers: some are grateful for proof that labor and childbirth need not be crushingly painful for the mother, while others are adamant that since it might be, Gentle Birth is misleading.

Other depictions of sexuality offered by “ Womenwaves” include Robyn Laurie and Margot Nash’s erotic feminist pot-pourri We Aim to Please, a collage of doubts and assertions; and, conveying the life of a girl who doesn’t make her own choices, Linda Blagg’s Just Me and My Little Girlie which deals with father-daughter incest — his dominance of the teenager and her acquiescence to this extreme form of parental authority.

The remaining films span such diverse topics as contemporary dance (Dialogue, Rosalind Gillespie), the depiction of women in rock music (Glenda Shaw’s They Call Us Chickens) art (Sue Wilson’s Boxes, Sarah Gibson’s Ailsa — A Woman Sculptor) and the problems faced by women seeking higher education (Margot Oliver’s Charlene Does Med at Uni, Sandra Alexander’s Women Returning to Study).

Finally, lest anyone still thinks that “ feminist” equals “ dour” , Jude Kuring and others parody the better known polemic in The Carolina Chisel Show, a loose amalgamation of cliches, political manoeuvres and music which has been curiously well received, considering that it has something to offend nearly every faction and tendency currently in vogue.

Inevitably, grouping 40 films together involves a degree of thematic repetition, but this, plus some in term itten t technical s l o p p i n e s s , especi al l y in t he s o u n d department, is the most notable fault in the collection and probably, given the purpose to which most of the Films are directed, is a superficial one.

The Sydney screenings were punctuated by two formal discussions which, while inconclusive, suggest that the audiences these Films attract tend to be forgiving of technical faults, if not ideological ones. ★ Cinema Papers, April/June — 329

HUI PERIODICALS A HISTORICAL SURVEY

....... ....

.............. — ... ...Basil Gilberta

PART 3: EUROPE For those with little knowledge of foreign languages, there are several English-language journals which provide useful extracts and translations of articles from foreign film periodicals. A specialized journal in this respect is C T V D : C in e m a - T V - D ig e s t, an American quarterly. First published in 1961, it has translations and sum maries from foreign film journals, reports from international corres­ pondents and news items.

More substantial extracts of foreign articles have appeared since 1970 in the F ilm S o c ie ty R e v i e w in an inter­ national column prepared by Lita Paniagua. These selections, with com m entary, are largely chosen from a sociological point of view, with an emphasis on cinema and politics.

Since 1972, the British film journal S c r e e n has translated a num ber of theoretical articles from French journals, such as C a h ie r s d u C in e m a and C in e th iq u e , and has printed docum ents'in translation from early Russian film journals such as L e f (1923-5) and N o v y L e f { 1927-8).

The American left-wing film magazine C in e a s t e is a rich source of translated material from European radical film journals, such as O m b r e R o s s e .

FRENCH With continental Europe being the first to recognize cinema as a valid art form, film journals began to appear in major European countries. In his manifesto, T h e F u tu r is t C in e m a 1 9 1 6 , F.T. M arinetti said: “ The cinema being essentially visual, must fulfil the evolution of painting.” This view o f cinema as art was soon echoed in many of the French film journals of the following decade.

In January 1920, Louis Delluc, a pioneer of the French film society m ovem ent, established L e J o u r n a l d u C in e ­ C lu b and then a film weekly, C in e a , in which he expounded his theories on the role of the ‘cinem atic’ in film art.

By 1926, the film journal A r t C in e m a to g r a p h iq u e had been founded in Paris (it was recently reprinted by the Arno Press in New Y ork), and in it filmmakers such as Marcel L ’Herbier ( R o s e F ra n c e , 1919; E ld o r a d o , 1922) discussed the nature of cinematography and space; and there were entire issues devoted to an analysis of various national cinemas. M ore im portant perhaps was the advent in Decem ber 1928 o f L a R e v u e d u C in e m a , a journal devoted to the international history of cinema; it was later re-nam ed C a h ie r s d u C in e m a .

The first series of L a R e v u e d u C in e m a , which with many other film journals ceased publication with the Depression years of the early ’30s, is rarely found in Australian libraries. But this is not the case with the second series which began in October 1946 and continued until the death of editor Jean-Georges Auriol in 1950.

These post-war num bers have much in comm on with the American journal H o lly w o o d Q u a r te r ly (first published in 1945) in term s of scholarship and range.

L a R e v u e d u C in e m a became C a h ie r s d u C in e m a in April 1951 and adopted an editorial policy favoring American cinema. The new editor-in-chief was A ndre Bazin, and, during the following years, Bazin developed a theory of film realism to counteract the prevailing critical emphasis on Russian theories o f montage. ^ The in terest in. theoriesj;elating toXtlBlicrjjtifis,tti, ga^gk

330 — Cinema Papers, April/June

C a h ie r s d u C in e m a a polemical stance, and with the influx of aggressive young reviewers in the mid-50s (Truffaut, Rivette, Domarchi, G odard, Scherer, Chabrol, etc.), the journal achieved an international standing. Bazin’s theory of realism gave way to T ruffaut’s “ p o litiq u e d e s a u te u r s ” , and the auteur theory provided an impulse to the beginnings of the French New Wave at the end o f the decade.

In the U.S., the concept of the auteur theory became well-known in the writings of Andrew Sards, film critic and teacher, who joined the editorial board of F ilm C u ltu r e in 1955. The work of Sarris led to a revaluation o f the nature of the Hollywood film, and the establishm ent of a hierarchy of film directors on the model of C a h ie r s d u C in e m a .

Sarris also became editor of the C a h ie r s d u C in e m a in series which was published in New York from 1966-67, and included reprints of many earlier articles. In Britain, the auteur theory became known through the contributors to M o v ie in the 1962-63 series.

During the ’60s, C a h ie r s d u C in e m a concerned itself increasingly with structuralism, and as a result of the political events in Paris in May 1968, when revolutionary theories abounded, it made a complete break with its previous philosophy of film criticism.

The new policy was announced in an editorial in the O ctober/N ovem ber num ber of 1969, entitled “ Cinem a/ Ideology/Criticism” . In this editorial (reprinted in trans­ lation in S c r e e n , vol. 12, no. 1, 1971), the writers Jean­ Paul Comolli and Paul Narboni declared: “ . . . every film is political . . . there can be no room in our critical p ra c tic e e it h e r fo r s p e c u la tio n ( c o m m e n ta r y , interpretation, de-coding even) or for spacious raving (of the film colum nist’s variety). It must be a rigidly factual analysis of what governs the production of a film (econom ic circu m stan ces, ideology, d em an d and response) and the meanings and forms appearing in it, which are equally tangible.”

The events of May 1968 also led to the founding of a new French theoretical film magazine, C in e th iq u e , which claimed that it, and not C a h ie r s d u C in e m a , had the only correct interpretation of Marxist theories as applied to cinema. Even the radical cinema of Godard was found to be lacking (“ W hen art uses as its subject m atter ideas that oppose the com inant ideology, their subversive content is destroyed, their power nullified” ). C in e th iq u e also decided to limit its reviews to non-capitalist films.

The argum ent with C a h ie r s d u C in e m a was largely resolved when C in e th iq u e took a Maoist turn in 1972 in support o f “ the great C hinese proletarian cultural revolution” . The appeal of these journals is now limited to the M arxist wing of the growing ranks o f semioticians.

E n g lis h

The French periodical P o s i t i f which began publication in May 1952, challenged the polemic o f C a h ie r s d u C in e m a and argued for social com m itm ent in films. It stood against censorship and was anti-clerical in tone.

During the early ’60s, P o s i t i f was regarded as being the m ost overtly far-left o f the French film journals, vehem ently anti - C a h ie r s and anti-Bazin. In recent years, its political stance has been, relatively speaking, quite m oderate. Its lengthy reviews and articles include discussions of directors and films from all periods and countries, and it maintains a high level of film scholarship.

French film societies have been well-served by two film periodicals: I m a g e e t S o n , first published in 1946, and C in e m a in 1953.

I m a g e e t S o n has a cultural and educational bias, concerning its§l£ „with “ education through., image .and

so u n d ” . Although it contains reports on m ethods of film education, its value lies in lengthy, scholarly studies of film directors (e.g. Robin W ood’s 113-page study of Howard Hawks) and national cinem as (“ History o f the Japanese C inem a” , February 1969), as well as regular interviews with French film directors.

There is also news of cinematographic events, dossiers on cinematic them es, studies in techniques, and new films of the m onth.

C in e m a 7 8 (each num ber has the year of publication included in the title) has experienced a chequered career.

During the mid-60s, the American journal F ilm Q u a r te r ly referred to it as “ a lively monthly with reviews, news, history, film diaries, notes on TV films, am ateur filmmaking, etc.” , but last year the I n te r n a tio n a l F ilm G u id e concluded that C in e m a 77 was “ going through a rather dull patch” .

One reason for this change was the appearance of E c r a n 7 2 , a m ore radical journal which came about through an exodus of most of the editors and writers of C in e m a to the new and m ore independent journal.

During 1970-71, C in e m a , which is the official magazine of the French Federation of Film Societies, had many interesting articles on political and militant cinema (Cuban, Argentinian, Cinema and Politics, Cinema and the Amerikkan Way of Life, etc.). But as an official journal, its political stance was forcibly muted.

One of the best definitions of E c r a n was given by Peter Cowie in I n te r n a tio n a l F ilm G u id e . He said: “ Taking a fine blend of information, docum entation, opinion, and historical sense as the criteria by which to judge a film magazine, one must regard E c r a n a s the best periodical of its kind in France. Not as strong as P o s i t i f on theory and deep analysis, but still bright and extraordinarily wideranging.”

The original aims of E c r a n were extrem ely idealistic: the editorial policy included “ fully independent and responsible self-expression, ideological and aesthetic pluralism, coverage of all aspects of cinem a” . There was to be a “ denunciation of the ‘dream factory’ and the pushers of filmic drugs . . . an affirmation of the cinema as an art, an entertainm ent, and a source of specific pleasure” .

In the second issue (February 1972) each editor stated his principles. One found the average film critic to be “ an intellectual parasite . . . a go-between for lazy consum ers of culture” . A nother felt it was necessary to prom ote a kind of art within and outside the system to serve the working classes” . The dominance of Hollywood-type cinema was denounced, as was the American monopoly of world distribution.

Today, the idealism of E c r a n has been partially replaced by an impressive range and coverage. The journal is cram med with short extracts from the dialogue of films, interviews, reports of film events in France and overseas, directorial studies with filmographies, historical studies, reviews of new films with mini-interviews, lists of current releases and their critical reception, bibliographies, book reviews, reports from film festivals, notes of coming events, and even a necrology of film personalities. The 80 pages (26cm x 18cm) contain many illustrations.

The French monthly, i ’A v a n t- s c e n e d u C in e m a , is a useful guide to the film scholar. It is not a critical journal in the usual sense, but a collection of definitive director and editor’s versions of screenplays. I ’A v a n t- s c e n e (there is also a Theatre and Opera edition of this journal) publishes the complete scripts of new and classic films from all countries, with an emphasis on French scripts.

The scripts are generally accompanied by them e-related articles, and excellent illustrations. The journal also publishes a series, A n th o lo g ie d u C in e m a , with each num ber devoted to a film personality.

C in e m a F r a n c a is , published by Unifrance Film, is glossy and expensive, and appears every m onth. The interviews and articles deal with current French productions and are well illustrated.

Apart from director interviews and reports on new actors, there are com m ents by French producers and film im porters. The notes on the economics of film are brief.

C in e m a d e F ra n c e , on the other hand, is packed with industry statistics and production news. The economic strategies are well docum ented, and distribution in the various regions of France is carefully analyzed. Theatre designs (“ la politique des com plexes” ) is also a concern of this distribution-orientated journal.

ITALIAN During the ’30s, in the era of Italian fascism, film journals in Italy came of age. The official film journal was C in e m a , a monthly which began publication in July 1936 under the editorship of Luciano de Feo. In 1937, the D uce’s son, Vittorio Mussolini, was appointed co-editor, but the journal did not become reactionary. Instead, it surprisingly acquired an anti-fascist orientation, for political ferm ent went hand-in-hand with an aesthetic revolution.

• Im portant am ong the young, contributors to „ C in e m a

FILM PERIODICALS

w ere G uiseppe de Santis, L uchino V isconti and Michelangelo Antonioni, who were later associated with the Italian school o f N eo-Realism . C i n e m a ceased publication in 1966.

The Italian film school, the Centro Sperimentale de Cinematografía, was set up in Rome in 1935 as an independent body (it was previously attached to the Rome Academy of Music), and two years later it started to publish B ia n c o a N e r o under the editorship of Luigi Chiarini, the critic and film theorist who was responsible for the foundation of the Centro. Chiarini remained with B ia n c o a N e r o until 1951, and in the following year founded the R iv is ta d e l c in e m a ita lia n o .

B ia n c o a N e r o has a serious tone which makes it som ething of a counterpart to F ilm Q u a r te r ly and S ig h t a n d S o u n d , and it carries lengthy, well-documented articles.

The style of writing has been described as “ undigestible (sic), baroque lasagne” (Letizia Miller), but this tendency to a florid, prolix style is characteristically Italian, and is equally present in journals of philosophy and art criticism.

The journal has been traditionally conservative, but in a recent special issue (July/August 1973) it published reports and papers on Italian political cinema which had been presented at a confrontation o f Italian film periodicals held in Bologna in December 1972.

Early num bers of this journal (1937-43) became available in an A n to lo g ía d i B ia n c o a n e r o which was published in four volum es in 1964.

F ilm c ritic s , first published in 1950, is a slim, film journal with short film reviews and analyses of current films, reports on Italian festivals, short interviews, extracts from scripts, and notes on film publications.

It is frequently quoted by C T V D : C in e m a - T V - D ig e s t , of which this extract from a F ilm c ritic a review of Bene’s Salom e is fairly typical: “ The corrosion of ritual takes on poetic form due to the awareness of the parallel and complementary dissolution of myth, exemplarily stated from the first sequence of the film . . . the anxiety for authenticity, negatively translated into the impossibility of egress from the mythological universe, brings man to the deepest desperation when his consciousness becomes lucid.”

Many of the left-wing Italian film journals are less poetical. C in e m a n u o v o , which began publication in 1952, is a respected leftist journal which also concerns itself with aesthetics and abstract philosophy, and is aimed at an intellectual audience.

C in e fó r u m , the journal of the Italian cineclubs, is published by the Federazione Italiana Cinefórum, a non­ ecclesiastical Catholic organization with m em bership in n o rth ern Italy. It frequently publishes round-table discussions by film critics on topics such as “ The New and the Old in Hollywood Films” (February 1971). C in e m a S e s s a n t a ( C in e m a 6 0 ) is a bi-monthly with sociological

interests (“ Cinema in the School and University” , “ New Legislation and the Cinem a” ) that include industry reports and statistics, plus reviews of non-Italian films.

O m b r e R o s s e ( R e d S h a d o w s ) is a quarterly review which discusses films from a Marxist-Leninist point of view. It has featured articles on Argentine director Fernando Solanas (“ Cinema as a G u n ” — translated and reprinted in C in e a s te , Autumn 1969), and on the Brazilian C in e m a N ova.

C in e m a a c in e m a ,

which appeared in 1974, is a good mixture of film studies and interviews; the special num ber on the Italian cinema (September 1976) had material on Pier Paolo P asolini, M arco Bellocchio, B ernardo Bertolucci, Marco Ferreri, Elio Petri, Francesco Rosi, Dino Risi, Luigi Comencini, and others. Also included are studies on Russian intellectual productions of the ’20s, D.W. Griffith, Robert Altman, Sydney Pollack, Martin Scorsese, and John Schlesinger.

GERMAN G erm an film periodicals are rare in Australian specialist libraries, but several are available at the state libraries of the G oethe Institute.

F ilm k r itik first appeared in 1957 when the G erm an film industry was recovering from the Allied Occupation; it soon allied itself with the G erman counterpart of the French New Wave. It is a polemical magazine, and covers more than one aspect of the visual arts.

K in o was founded in Berlin by Andi Engel in the mid’60s and includes well-written, informative articles and interviews in G erm an, French (Truffaut) and English (Buster Keaton).

F ilm w is s e n s c h a f tlic h e B e i tr a e g e S c ie n c e o f F ilm ) and I n f o r m a tio n

L’AVANT-SCENE DU CINEMA

Film Lit. Ind. BIANCO ENERO

Edizioni dell’Ateneo, Via Ruggero Bonghi 11 B, 00184, Rome, Italy.

Bi-monthly. L.15,000 p.a.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. CAHIERS DU CINEMA

9, Passage de la Boule-Blanche, C59 rue du Faubourg-Saint-Antoine, 7501 2, Paris, France.

10 issues p.a. 92F. Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. CHAPLIN

Svenska Film Institutet, P.O. Box 27 126, S-102 52, Stockholm, Sweden.

Bi-monthly. Kr. 40 p.a.

Circulation: 10,000.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. CINEFORUM

Federazione Italiana dei Cinefórum, Casella Postale 414, 30100, Venice, Italy.

10 issues p.a. L.8,000.

Circulation: 5,000.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. CINEMA 7 8 . . . 79

Federation Française des Cineclubs, 6, rue Ordener, 75081, Paris, France.

Monthly. 110F. p.a.

Circulation: 30,000

to

th e

OTHER Since the National Library in Canberra became a m em ber o f the International Federation of Film Archives, it has attempted to acquire foreign-language film journals. It subscribes to current film periodicals in Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Swedish, Turkish and

CURRENT PERIODICALS CONSULTED:

Editions de I’Avant-Scene, 27, rue Saint-André des Arts, 75006, Paris, France.

20 issues p.a. 135F. Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per.,

( C o n tr ib u to r s

are from the G erman Democratic Republic, but they do not appear to be available in Australian libraries.

The oldest Austrian German-language film review is F ilm k u n st, first published in Vienna in 1949. Switzerland has recently brought out C i n e m a , a Zurich-based periodical printed in' French and Germ an. Issue 69, for example, was entirely devoted to the work of W erner Herzog.

FILMCRITICA

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. CINEMA DE FRANCE

3, rue d’Artois, 75008, Paris,.France.

Monthly. 100F. p.a.

CINEMA FRANÇAIS

Unifrance Film, 77, Champs-Elysees, 75008, Paris, France, 11 issues p.a. 80F. CINEMA NUOVO

Casa Editrice G.C. Sansoni S.p.A., Via Santa Giulia 67, 10124, Turin, Italy.

Bi-monthly. L. 6,500 p.a.

Circulation: 10,000 Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. CTVD: CINEMA-TV-DIGEST

Hampton Books, Route 1, Box 76, Newberry, SC 29108, U.S.A Quarterly. $3 p.a.

Circulation: 500-600 CINETHIQUE

Rue Theophraste Renaudot, 75015, Paris, France.

Quarterly. 50F. p.a.

Circulation: 6,000.

Microfilm available.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. ECRAN

Editions de I’Atalante, 60, Avenue Simon Bolivar, 75019, Paris, France.

Monthly. 120 F. p.a.

Circulation: 18,000.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind.

Piazza del Grillo 5, Rome, Italy.

10 issues p.a. L. 10,000.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per. FILMKRITIK

Filmkritiker-Kooperative, Ainmillerstr. 7, Munich, West Germany.

Monthly. $10 p.a.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. IMAGE ET SON

3, rue Recamier, 75007, Paris, France.

Monthly. 67F. p.a.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per.,

Yugoslav. Many of these countries also have Englishlanguage journals.

Of the Scandinavian film periodicals dealing with film history and criticism, the Swedish Film Institute’s C h a p lin is most impressive. It is a bi-monthly and includes reviews, interviews and program details of the Swedish Film Institute’s film society.

The magazine of the Swedish Federation of Film Societies, F ilm r u ta n , has a variety of articles on world cinema. The Danish film journal of note is K o s m o r a m a , a publication of the Danish Film Museum in Copenhagen.

This quarterly has been in print since 1955, and apart from reporting on the events arranged by the Museum, and reviewing films, has conducted surveys on the changing nature of Danish film criticism and its sources.

In Holland, the two critical film journals are S k o o p , which is published in The Hague, and S k r ie n , published in Amsterdam. S k o o p is a well-illustrated magazine with news, reviews, and interviews, and S k r ie n is distinguished by its concern with film history. The journal of the Norwegian Film Institute is F a n t , a polemical journal with a small circulation.

F ilm a d o b a ( F ilm a n d th e E p o c h ) is a Czech film journal with sum maries in English, French and Russian. It fe a tu re s v aried sh o rt a rticles and rev iew s, and concentrates on films from the Soviet sphere. F ilm k u ltu ra , the journal of the Hungarian Institute of Film Sciences which has sum maries in English, Hungarian and Russian, contains in-depth articles.

E k r a n is a Yugoslav journal; it has articles, reviews, reports and statistics. Y o u n g /J e u n e /C in e m a c£ T h e a tr e is a quarterly published by the International Union of Students in Prague in French and English.

Poland’s film monthly is K i n o , published in Warsaw; F ilm P o l s k i another publication appears in English and French. F ilm , which is only in Polish, covers the world scene, and, for example, featured a lengthy review of P ic n ic a t H a n g in g R o c k .

The leading journal in the Soviet Union, I s k u s s tv o K in o ( T h e A r t o f th e C in e m a ) is the official organ of the Ministry of Culture and the Film Industry W orkers’ Union; it has a circulation of 40,000.

There is also the S o v e ts k y S k r a n ( S o v ie t S c r e e n ) , a pictorial fortnightly, which has a circulation of 250,000. It is a large-format (25cm x 20cm) publication with articles and new, unfilmed scenarios. Films are discussed in term s of their them es, and film workers and directors are allowed to write about their current productions.

The journal is also a vehicle for official policy, which was sum m ed up by critic V. Razumny in 1959 with the words, (film criticism) “ is not the passive recording of facts, but effective interference in the practice of film art” .

There has been a full and useful discussion of I s k u s s tv o K in o in a 10-page article by Steven P. Hill, “ Soviet Film Criticism” , in F ilm Q u a r te rly , Volume 14, No. 1, Fall 1960 . ' ‘

ISKUSSTVO KINO

Soyuz Rabotnikov Kinematografii SSSR, Ulitsa Usiyevicha 9, 125319, Moscow, USSR. Monthly. $18 p.a.

Circulation: 40,000.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind. POSITIF

Editions Opta, 39, rue d’Amsterdam, 75008, Paris, France.

Monthly. 135 F. p.a.

Indexed: Int. Ind. Film Per., Film Lit. Ind.

Film Lit. Ind.

CINEMA E CINEMA Fondamenta Santa Chiara, Santa Croce 518 — A, 30125, Venice,

Italy.

CINEMA SESSANTA S.G.R.A. Via dei Frentani 4, 00185, Rome, Italy.

EKRAN Dalmatinova 44/11, Soba 9, 61000, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia.

FANT Norsk Filminstitutt, Aslakveien 14 b, Postboks 5 Roa, Oslo 7, Norway.

FILM A DOBA Orbis, Vinohradska 46, Prague 2, Czechoslovakia.

FILMKULTURA Magyar Filmtudomanyi Intezet, Nepstadion Ut 97, Budapest 14, Hungary.

FILMWISSENSCHAFTLICHE BEITRAEGE Hochschule fuer Film und Fernsehen, 108

Berlin, German Democratic Republic.

INFORMATION Hochschule fuer Film und Fernsehen, 108 Berlin, German Democratic Republic.

KINO Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Fmlmove Krakowskie, Przedmiescie 21/23, Warsaw, Poland.

KOSMORAMA Danske Filmmuseum, Store Sondervoldestraede 1419, Copenhagen K, Denmark.

OMBRE ROSSE La nuova sinistra, Edizioni Samona e Savelli, via Cicerone 44, 00193, Rome.

SKOOP Boekencentrum NV, Scheveningseweg 72, The Hague, Netherlands.

SKRIEN Postbus 318, Amsterdam 1000, Netherlands.

YOUNG/JEUNE CINEMA & THEATRE International Union of Students, 17 November Street, 11001, Prague 01, P.O.B. 58 Czechoslovakia.

Abbreviations used:

Int. Ind. Film Per.: International Index to Film Periodicals Film Lit. Ind.: Film Literature Index

Cinema Papers, April/Jurte — 331

Still Lifes is a rem arkable film. Through slowm otion and step-printing photography, it captures the beautiful m ovem ents of young dancers, at a ballet class and in open fields. M ade on 16 m m and utilizing material previously shot on Standard 8 m m by its director Lisa Roberts, it succeeds in experim enting with m ovem ent and time in a m ore innovative way than, say, David Hamilton does in his short ballet film.

At times, images resem ble Marcel Ducham p and others, but it is the m om entum of the cutting that impresses. Images click on, repeat, then disappear. The tone ranges from faint tinting to full color, and the superimpositions flicker in and out.

Lisa Roberts: “I ’m a painter more than a filmmaker, and it was that interest that led me to film — and partly explains why the film hasn’t a finished look. I simply wanted to see a series o f images stretched out in time; yet the kinds o f aesthetic and conceptual decisions made felt the same as in painting. Also, the subject matter (movement) had to be done on film. ”

332 — Cinema Papers, April/June

illiiii

Cinema Papers, April/June â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 333

GUIDE FOR THE AUSTRALIAN FILM PRODUCER; PART 9 MISCELLANEOUS AGREEMENTS In this ninth part of a 19-part series, C inem a contributing editor Antony I. Ginnane, and Melbourne solicitors Leon Gorr and Ian Baillieu discuss a miscellany of agreements which the producer will encounter during the course of production.

television cameramen, onto the set or location for promotional purposes.

It is important that any reporter who attends, and who uses film not supplied by the publicist, sign a photo-release which vests copyright in any photographic material featuring the film ’s personnel in the production company. This is particularly A. Location Release important if any of the film’s actors are Australian films tend to include more potentially merchandizeable by way of posters, location shooting than those made by most T-shirts and the like, as certain less reputable other industries in the world. This is partly due publications have been known to produce to the lack of studio facilities within the unlicensed posters, etc., which will put the country. In filming on location, the co­ producer in breach of any merchandizing operation of owners or occupiers of premises agreement of the producer or the star. hired or otherwise provided is vital. To The release form gives to the publication for forestall later problems, the producer should which the journalist works a limited licence to ensure his agreement gives him the following use the photographic material in its pages, but rights: not for any commercial gain. (i) to represent the premises by its own name or a fictional name; (ii) to move in and out equipment and C. Equipment Hire personnel and to build sets; There are a number of specialist film (iii) to present the filmed material in the equipment hire companies in Melbourne and completed film and to precede it and Sydney. The larger of these organizations follow it with other filmed material; and generally have fairly standard hire conditions (iv) ownership of any still photographs taken which they will not deviate from. during the filming; Generally, the producer will be given the (v) the right to bring (and if appropriate option of accepting an insurance cover on the charge a fee for) spectators onto the equipment provided by the hirer, or providing premises to view the filming. evidence of his own insurance cover.

The owner of the premises, or his legal Frequently, the producer will be able to better representative, will warrant that he has full the rate offered by the equipment hire legal rights to contract with the producer to company under his total film insurance buy. indemnify him against any proceedings for The equipment hire company’s terms are liability or loss due to personal injury, (and/or generally fairly onerous and heavily weighted death) omission or default of the producer. in favor of the renter. For example, the hirer is In some instances, the owner may require not entitled, without consent of the renter, to the producer to provide evidence of his public use camera equipment in a privately hired liability insurance, or even to have the owner/ plane. The hirer will frequently claim that any occupier included on the policy as a named equipment hired is in good condition when it insured. Alternatively, the owner may require leaves the renter’s premises. some security bond to be provided as a If the equipment is transported to the hirer’s guarantee that the premises will be cleaned up location by air, the onus is on the renter to or repaired after the filming. establish that any malfunction or damage to the hired equipment took place during transportation.

B. Film Stills The hirer’s only power is his market place Some problems arise in this area. Firstly, it strength, and as most local film producers might be wise for the producer to endeavor to work on a one-off basis, this is not very strong. obtain releases from any non-contracted persons who appear in publicity stills taken by the unit photographer in the event the D. Studio Rentals producer’s publicist proposes to have them In the U.S., the major distributionpublished. production entities have their own studios in Secondly, the unit publicist will frequently Hollywood and if they are involved in the invite journalists and photographers, as well as financing of the production via a productionP a p ers

334 — Cinema Papers, April/June

distribution agreement — or via other methods previously described — they will want any interior work on the production to be put through their facility. This enables them to provide work for their facility and in some instances to charge a “production overhead” .

This is a variable percentage, often around 10 per cent, which is added to every bill the studio complex renders and is budgeted into the production. It is charged on top of the actual cost of studio facilities. Depending on their strength in the market place, the major studios increase or decrease their overhead from time to time, and in some instances remove it altogether.

In Australian studios and most non-U.S. facilities, the producer can structure a deal with an independent facility to meet his particular requirements. Generally, he can make use of some, or all, of the equipment or facilities the studio has to offer, or he can bring in his own gear and personnel.

The studio hire rate will generally vary between time actually spent filming and time spent constructing and striking (ie. breaking down and removing) the necessary sets.

Frequently, the construction and striking rate will be around 50 per cent of the filming rate.

Generally, Australian studios do not have a set hiring agreement, and rely on an exchange of letters. It is important for the producer to provide: (i) that he can have access to the studio for a guaranteed period over and above his contracted period, if he gives notice by a certain time. (This protects him against scheduling delays); (ii) that he can have access to it 24 hours a day with provisions for parking, etc.; (iii) the question of power bills, phone access and biling, etc. need to be settled; (iv) in a large multi-stage complex the producer will need to be protected from noise and interference from other productions; (v) the extent of insurance cover (if any) the studio requires; C on clu ded on P. 3 8 3

All the topics covered in this part are covered in more detail in the “ Australian Film Producer and Investors Guide” and that as from this issue, no precedents or forms will be printed in Cinema Papers as part of the “ Guide for the Australian Film Producer” . See notice at right.

GUIDE TO THE PRODUCER

The Australian Film Producers & Investors Guide Subscription Service Written by Antony I. Ginnane L.L.B., (Melb.)

Ian Bailiieu M.A. Juris (Oxon) Leon Gorr B. Juris., LL.B., (Mon.) M. Admin.

Edited by Peter Beilby

The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide is now in production and mailings have commenced.

An updated and improved version of the continuing series of Cinema Papers articles entitled “ Guide for The Australian Film Producer” , the new Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide is available as a loose leaf, hardcover, regularly expanding and updating subscription service.

The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide will be an invaluable aid to all those involved in film business, including the producer trying to set up his first film; the investor contemplating financial participation in a production; the writer about to sell his first script; the lawyer, accountant or distribution executive who finds himself confronted with new problems as the local production industry grows. A chapter dealing with the foreign producer in Australia will also be included.

Prospective subscribers should note that in most instances subscriptions to the Guide are tax deductible.

The authors of the Service, all practitioners with experience in this field, will also draw on a number of specialist consultants. The combined information will provide, for the first time, a comprehensive reference work on the subject of film financing, production, distribution and exhibition in Australia.

Set out below is an abbreviated table of the proposed contents of the Service that subscribers will eventually have at their disposal. This material will be progressively made available to subscribers by mailings at regular intervals. It is envisaged that all chapters will be substantially completed by June 1981, after which the contents will be updated when necessary.

THE EXHIBITOR

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT Need for preliminary analysis of project aims and project feasibility. Estimating the costs, technical problems and risks of the production. Estimating the monetary returns from a proposed film. Safeguarding concept from piracy during the preliminary assessment stage. Laws hindering production or exploitation of the proposed film: defamation, passing-off, censorship, etc. Rights and permissions needing acquisition: confidential ideas, copyright, location permissions, etc. Assessment of chances of project progressing to the production stage.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PRODUCER Considerations governing choice whether to use company, trust, business name, partnership, etc. Costs and formal requirements of each form of organization.

SECURING NECESSARY RIGHTS

Producer’s acquisition of necessary rights to complete screenplay and to make film. Price and other terms. Quit­ claims and disclaimers from persons with possible title.

Various stages at which it is appropriate to secure various rights. Establishing exclusive rights to the project: title registration, trademark registration, goodwill, etc.

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT

Different forms of screenplay for different types of film.

Stages in the creation of a screenplay. Choice of screenplay writer. Agreement commissioning the writing of a screenplay.

DEALING WITH A COMPLETED SCRIPT Nature and protection of rights in a completed screenplay.

Assessment and valuation of a completed screenplay.

Agreement for acquisition of a completed screenplay.

PREPRODUCTION Different meanings of “ preproduction". Additional work which producer may have to do besides acquiring rights and developing screenplay, in order to bring project to point where production can start.

BUDGETING

Budgeting for script development, for preproduction, and for production. Usual item classifications. Rules of thumb for estimating certain items. Special items and allowances.

Budget presentation. Expenditure timetable and cash-flow statement. Treatment of deferments. Examples of Australian film production costs.

Registration of cinemas. Regulations affecting cinema operation. Economics of cinema operations.

TAXES AND DUTIES Australian income tax law and practice as it affects the Australian film industry. Comparison with overseas tax systems. Overseas taxes payable on earnings of Australian films. Payroll tax. Sales Tax. Stamp duties on documents.

Gift and death duties as they may affect investors in a film.

REPORTING, ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING

Various accounting and audit requirements imposed by statutes, by production management, and by investors.

Record-retention obligations. Inspection of accounts. Distri­ bution of film proceeds. Retention of moneys to provide for future expenses. Reports. Special audits.

MISCELLANEOUS

FINANCING A FILM. INVESTING IN A FILM Explanation of terminology. Similarities and differences in financing of preproduction and financing of production.

Methods of cost reduction: economies of scale; trade discounts; contra deals; deferments, including service partnership formed by investors. Forms in which finance may be provided: producer’s own money; direct payment by investors; various kinds of loan; various kinds of presale; various kinds of equity-sharing. The terms of an equity investment agreement. Financing coverages. Sources of finance: government, trade and private; policies and statistics of government film corporations. Solicitation of finance: government film corporation application procedures; relevant legislative provisions; prospectus requirements; use of an agent. Check-list for intending investors. Special issues arising for an Australian proposing to invest in a foreign production.

PRODUCTION Different production methods and stages for different kinds of film. Production insurances. Engagement of production executives, crew and cast. Special issues arising with engagement of foreigners and other special classes of personnel. Distinction between employees and inde­ pendent contractors, and its consequences. Problems of producing in a foreign country, e.g. New Guinea, Indonesia, New Zealand. Location permission. Dealing with spectators.

Catering. Film stills. Use of pre-existing film footage. Film music: technical procedures and necessary agreements.

Use of laboratory. Editing, crediting, dubbing and subtitling.

Archive and library copy requirements. Production reports and accounts. Retention and custody of preprint materials.

Production reports and accounts. Production of trailer.

Various kinds of package productions. Coproductions of various kinds. Extent of financiers’ rights to control or interfere with the manner of production.

ACQUIRING A COMPLETED FILM

Investigation of vendor’s title and credit-billing obligations.

Special issues arising if film is foreign-made. Agreement to acquire Australian distribution rights. Import formalities.

EXPLOITING THE FILM

Nature and protection of'rights in a completed film; practical and legal remedies for prevention of piracy. Relative importance of Australian and foreign film markets.

Australian film markets: theatrical, television, 16mm and other. Directory of Australian cinemas. Alternative methods of releasing film in Australia. Decision by producer whether to undertake own distribution or to engage a distributor.

Planning and implementing film P. R. Film registration and censorship in Australia. Choice of exhibitor and various types of exhibition contract. Choice of an Australian distributor. Terms of an Australian distribution contract.

Examples of gross and net returns achieved by films in Australia. Film markets overseas: theatrical, television, 16mm and other. Relative importance of various foreign territories. Methods of promotion to foreign distributors.

Export assistance grants. Assistance from Department of Trade, government film corporations, foreign publicists, and sales agents. Choice of a foreign distributor. Terms of a foreign distribution agreement. Examples of foreign earnings of Australian films. Extent of financiers’ rights to control or interfere with producer’s exploitation of the film.

Directory of Australian and foreign film festivals and film awards.

Glossary of terms. Frequently encountered clauses in contracts.

Exchange control applications to Reserve Bank. Effect of Trade Practices legislation on the industry. List of useful books and periodicals. Film archives. Other miscellaneous useful information and topics not easily classifiable under other chapters.

THE FOREIGN PRODUCER IN AUSTRALIA Information of particular use to a foreign producer planning to mount a production or co-production in Australia.

INDUSTRY SURVEY AND WHO’S WHO General observations on current issues of importance to the future of the industry. Cumulative catalogue of films produced in Australia; giving production details. Directory of government film corporations, and their board members and executives. Directory of Australian film schools.

Alphabetical Who’s Who of the Australian film industry.

LEGISLATION

Copyright Act, Acts incorporating the various government film corporations, and extracts from other legislation of particular use or relevance.

Regular readers of Cinema Papers should note that in the future no further precedents, forms, tables or schedules will be provided in the quarterly Cinema Papers articles. The Film Producers and Investors Guide will provide these and other precedents, together with a more detailed and expanded text on the problems and circumstances discussed in the magazine articles, which have inevitably been restricted by limitations of space.

Subscription Rates For subscribers joining during 1978 the subscription rate up to June 30,1979, is $A150, which comprises an installation fee of $A75 and the current annual subscription rate of $A75.

Subscribers who are prepared to prepay their subscription to June 1 981 may obtain concessional rates, and are invited to contact the publisher for further information.

To subscribe, please fill out the order form below and mail it with a cheque for $150 to The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide, 143 Therry Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia. Please note that the print run of the Service is limited.

ORDER FORM Please record my order to The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide. My cheque for $150 payable to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd is enclosed.

Name

EXPLOITING ANCILLARY RIGHTS Nature of ancillary rights, compared with rights in the film.

Exploitation of the production as a spectator attraction.

Documentary about the production. Book about the production. Publication of the screenplay. Book of the film.

Music sales. Merchandizing. Stage presentation. Sequels.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 335

Cinema Papers, April/June

Box-Office Grosses* MLB.

PTH.

ADL.

238,602

183,608

45,388

103,535

71,516

98,149

183,289

21,002

BRI.

LAST QUARTER 2.7.77 to 2 9 .1 0 .7 7 Total

$

Rank

571,133

1

10

-

-

99,191

473,147

2

17

278,528

388,941

-

SYD.

MLB.

PTH. -

ADL. -

Storm Boy

SAFC /RS

The Mango Tree

GUO

116,861

127,713

16,137

22,074

71,692

354,477

3

10

The Getting of Wisdom

RS

107,580

135,740

105,584

12,797

9,874

371,575

4

17

150,687

210,314

-

Summerfield

GUO

103,299

66,297

20,104

32,593

40,519

262,812

5

17

46,074

21,843

-

-

N/A

70,600

44,051

11,441

187,688

6

9

-

-

-

N/A

84,171

N/A

-

84,171

7

7

-

-

16,378

-

-

66,179

8

11

45,886

41,171

9

4

Abba

—

the Movie

FW

61,596

RS

-

Don’s Party

GUO

-

Journey Among Women

GUO

Blue Fire Lady

49,801

6,035

17,225

13,735

Picnic at Hanging Rock

RS

33,169

The Picture Show Man

IND

6,578

-

Summer City

IND

N/A

Inside Looking Out

IND

Australian Total Foreign0 Total Grand Total • ° ‘

!

-

-

18,208

70,289

-

77,953

$ 571,133

1,308,784

Rank -

1

-

17

354,477

-

-

777,794

2

10

-

330,729

8

4

-

-

210,102

-

-

-

-

-

84,171

-

-

157,606

32,025

-

45,582

344,278

3

17

77,024

30,226

22,650

-

-

191,325

7

10

-

-

-

-

32,674

-

40,238

4,078

7,444

-

58,426

10

7

43,942

42,583

18,200

25,406

31,880

220,437

6

7

8,398 I

-

-

14,976

11

2

53,711

30,184

39,584

30,599

25,039

194,093

5

11

_

-

-

-

N/A

12

8

-

-

-

-

-

N/A

-

-

N/A

-

-

-

-

N/A

13

3

-

-

-

-

-

N/A

-

-

745,236

692,268

554,127

243,496

250,925

2,486,052

776,718

951,351

258,680

179,750

255,966

5,000,562

3,930,126

2,111,821

1,274,601

1,293,61 1

13,610,721

2,828,408

2,812,031

782,570

787,856

1,434,952

5,745,798

4,622,394

2,665,948

1,518,097

1,544,536

16,096,773

3,605,126

3,763,382

1,041,250

967,606

1,690,918

Box-office grosses of individual films have been supplied to Cinema Papers by the Australian Film Commission.

This figure represents the total box-office gross of all foreign films shown during the period in the area specified.

T Not Available, ^Continuing into next period.

19,926

BRI.

Weeks in release

UA

The Last Wave

Total

(2)

SYD.

Weeks in release

Distributor

TITLE

THIS QUARTER 3 0 .1 0 .7 7 to 2 5 .2 .7 8

•

(1) Australian theatrical distributor only. RS— Roadshow; GUO— Greater Union Organization Film Distributors; FOX — 20th Century Fox; Artists; CIC —-Cinema International Corporation;, FW— Filmways Australasian Distributors; 7 K — 7 Keys Film Distributors; C O L— Columbia Pictures; REG— Regent Film Distributors; CCG— Cinema Centre Group; AFC— Australian Film Commission; SAFC — South Australian Film Corporation; MCA — Music Corporation of America; S — Sharmill Films. (2) Figures are drawn from capital city and inner suburban first release hardtops only. '

BOX O FFICE GROSSES

Co ON

G eoff Burton talks about photographing l “Storm Boy.”

W

••From the beginning I knew what Iwant« x v To capture the calm before the storm.

The wild, untamed...and the gentle. .

The warmth...and the cold, harsh reality.*# Geoff Burton. Winner 1977 Penguin Award for Best Cinematography.

"Storm Boy" . . . shot on EA5TAAAN Color N egative film 5 2 4 7 Photograph by courtesy of David Kynoch.

JM

Geoff Burton. Director of photography "Storm Boy.” "Storm Boy” . . . first there was the book, with magnificent illustrations

by Robert Ingpen. I loved his ink line drawings with their pastel colour washes. They were oil so evocative of the owesome and majestic wilderness area — yet incredibly romantic, in keeping with the story of o boy and his pelican companion.

So when the opportunity come for m e to shoot the feature, I knew I wanted my pictures to look like his pictures. And I was absolutely delighted — though not surprised when Art Director, David Copping was just os impressed with Ingpen's work.

These drawings become the basis for our thinking.

Photographically, we felt we needed to wash out the strong colours, reduce the overall contrast generally and carefully control the density to achieve the tim e/weather progress throughout the film, building up to the final storm sequence. But I wonted more than that. I wonted the interiors to be warm and comfortable to contrast with the cold, threatening weather raging outside.

What I was doing most of the tim e was "down grading” the photographic im age with the use of heavy filters, minimal light and extremes of colour temperature.

To do that I hod to start with three essential elements. And those three elements hod to be of a quality and reliability I knew I could count on under extreme filming conditions.

The work the lob. did speaks for itself, os does the excellent quality of the high-speed Zeiss Lens I used.

What's not so obvious, is the third of these elements — the Kodak 5247 stock. But then film stock isn't meant to be noticed, it's just there doing its jo b letting you push it around os much as you dare.

I like to "use" the negative a lot.

Work it to its extremes to produce a particular look or effect. It's the reliability and consistency of Kodak 5247 that mokes it so attractive for this style of shooting. In fact I just con'f imagine how I could have photographed "Storm Boy” on anything other than Kodak 5247."

EASTMAN Color Negative film 5 2 4 7 . A rem arkable, sensitive film.

KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD. Morion Picture 6 Audiovisual Markets Division K 7 / 9 3 6 0 D erry Currie

“ Dawn!” is the personal life story of Dawn Fraser, the world’s greatest ever woman swimmer.

Produced by Joy Cavill and directed by Ken Hannam, the film has been shot in a wide range of locations from Tokyo, Japan, to a Balmain pub; from the Melbourne Olympic Pool to the palm groves of Townsville.

Budgeted at $764,000, the film is now in post-production.

PRODUCTION REPORT

Bronwyn Mackay-Payne in the lead role of Dawn.

Cinema Papers. April/June — 337

JO Y CAVILL PRODUCER/ WRITER THE SCRIPT To tell Dawn’s complete story would have taken six hours, so one of the hardest decisions was to nominate the most interesting period of her life. I selected the years 1955 to 1970. I believe this period tells in the most colorful and dramatic way the story of the individual. Perhaps bigger things happened to her before and after, but during this period she went through important changes as a person.

What balance did you strike between her life and sport?

I didn’t want to make a sporting film, I wanted to make the story of the individual; that she was a champi on swi mmer was of secondary importance.

As a producer, I could see the production value of the Olympic Games as the background, yet I was really only interested in that person as a character. This was one of the hardest things I had to overcome in raising finance, because every time I mentioned the name Dawn Fraser, people said sporting films were death at the box-office; that is one of the reasons why it took nearly three years to get the film off the ground.

Since Rocky, things have changed and everybody now wants to make the personal life story of a sporting champion. So, I think the timing has been good.

“Rocky” , however, does strike a balance between sports footage and personal drama. Can you afford to make a film about a sporting personality without a reasonable amount of sport in it?

My marketing sense said there had to be some sporting events, so I chose the ones I thought most interesting. Obviously her first gold medal at the 1956 Olympics was one, because it changed her whole life and opened up the world to her. I also included the Tokyo Games because that was where her swimming ended and her life changed again; suddenly, after years at being met at airports by reporters, it all cut out.

In between these two Olympics, I selected a few sporting events that had nothing really to do with her triumphs but with her person­ ality, her behavior before and 338 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Joy Cavill has been involved in the film and television industry, in Australia and overseas, for 25 years. She produced two feature films before “ Dawn!” — “ The Nickel Queen” and “ The Intruders” — and worked on several television series, including “ Skippy” . CaviH’s writing experience is equally extensive.

With “ Dawn!” , Cavill is handling a subject of great personal interest, and one she filmed before in a documentary made in 1964. This was at the time of Dawn Fraser’s car accident which badly damaged her neck. The press was sceptical that she would ever race again — but she did. And in that dramatic 100 m freestyle final at the T o k y o O ly m p ic s , D a w n F r a se r a c h ie v e d th e “ impossible” — her third gold medal.

In the following interview, conducted by Peter Beilby and Scott Murray, Cavill discusses working with director Ken Hannam, the story behind the film ’s production, financing and marketing; she begins with the screenplay.

finance: at that stage, $250,000.

On the basis of this SAFC money, I applied to the Australian Film C o m m issio n which subsequently put in $250,000.

ATN, the C h a n n e l Seven Network, came in with most of the balance.

Did you have a director and key creative personnel when you talked with John Morris?

No, only the script.

And the AFC? I had not finalized anything with Ken Hannam, but I did say he would probably be directing it. I had to be very honest with the AFC and told them they wouldn’t have any star names because it was becoming obvious we weren’t going to be able to find an established actress to play the role.

I think one of the main reasons the AFC committed themselves to the film in the early stages was my past record in the business. I have been making films for 25 years, here and overseas, and I believe I have a reputation for integrity, and for bringing projects in on budget. I feel they trusted me, despite having a loose package. I appreciated their confidence.

Did the SAFC request a production role in “Dawn!” , or were they merely investors?

after races.

So there is sport in Dawn!, and it is important. But it takes second place to the story of Dawn Fraser, the individual.

The high point of Dawn’s career was 1964. Since this occurs twothirds the way through the film, don’t you run the risk of ending on an anti-climax?

No, I don’t agree. Up till 1964, D a w n ’s w h o l e wo r l d was swimming: suddenly, that world comes to a stop. She left school at 13 with very little education and her only qualifications are that she is the greatest swimmer in the world. That is what makes the last part of the film so interesting.

Then, it i s n’t a down-beat ending . . .

No, anything but that.

THE FINANCE When did you begin approaching potential backers?

I had just finished the first draft when I went to Adelaide to temporarily replace John Morris — he was sick — as head of p r o d u c t i o n at t h e S o u t h Australian Film Corporation. I was there four months. When John came back he asked me if I would like to stay on and work for the corporation. I turned down the offer and said I had a script I wanted to produce. John read it and was very excited. He then offered to put up part of the

They are basically straight investors, but have a credit as co­ producers. The contractual billing is “ Aquataurus Productions in association with the South Aust­ ralian Film Corporation.” The SAFC put up the first money and handled the initial financing. Jill Robb was then at the SAFC and she was responsible for getting the ATN investment.

Other than that, they have not interfered. I think they feel, as I do, that it is a very personal film, and therefore better if I handled it individually. The SAFC and the AFC granted me complete and final creative control on the film.

The SAFC’s next major role, which will be a very important one, is in the promotion and marketing because that is the area in which I don’t profess any expertise. They, however, have chalked up some excellent results with their productions.

Was your deal with the AFC the

PRODUCTION REPORT - DAWN!

standard 70/30 split with the production company?

That is the sort of figure.

Is that also the deal you have with the SAFC and the Seven Network?

As far as the investors are concerned, their equity in the film is in relation to how much they put in. But there are the investors and the producers, and the producers are Aquataurus and the SAFC. So the SAFC is getting a bit both ways . . .

They are, but then they are entitled to it. I appreciate there has been some criticism of this, but investors and producers are Coach Harry Gallagher (Tom Richards) looks on as Dawn (Bronwyn Mackay-Payne) argues a speeding charge with two policemen. two different things and I think if someone is prepared to put up different locations . . .

I didn’t find any problems, but money as an investor, they are maybe that is because I have entitled to get their equity as an Yes. In one scene, for instance, known Ken Hannam for a long investor. Similarly, if they come in Dawn meets her future husband time and worked with him before. as a producer, they are entitled to in Townsville. There was some I know this producer/writer role their equity as one. criticism of my shooting there, can be very restricting on a but I maintain that Dawn meeting director and I discussed this with Is the Channel Seven deal an Gary in Townsville created a Ken before he took on the film. I advance against a network sale, d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t han told him I would be on the set or an investment? meet ing him in Sydney. A every day because, as a producer, number of people said it was I like to involve myself in the Both; they have a large ridiculous and that I should twist p r o d u c t i o n . Anyway, Ken i nve st ment plus they have the story a bit and have them meet accepted that, and we worked purchased the television rights. in Sydney. After all, people over­ together well. seas, and here for that matter, Ken’s biggest problem was What is the hold-over period? aren’t going to know where they whether Dawn was going to be on met. the set every day. I knew that I Three years.

But I can assure you that Dawn couldn’t stop her, and this worried meeting John Diedrich in the Ken terribly. I could appreciate Did the SAFC request you shoot tropical setting of Townsville, how he felt, because not only did in South Australia or employ a with this Hawaiian shirt and 1964 he have the producer and script­ number of South Australian pi nk Cadi l l ac, c r e at e s an writer breathing down his neck, personnel? atmosphere that could not have but also the person whose life been captured in Sydney. It is not story he was filming.

They did ask us to do some a very long sequence, but it was What happened on the first shooting in South Australia. One worth every penny in the final day’s filming, however, was a of the main locations in the script analysis. complete about-face; Ken soon was a pub in Balmain, NSW. These are the sorts of decisions recognized that Dawn was a You can’t easily shoot in city you have to make, despite the tremendous advantage. The crew pubs because of the lost trade, criticisms, because some people also seemed to work a lot better noise, and so on. So we decided to are inclined only to add up the when Dawn was there, as did make the pub a set, and this was dollars and don’t see the value on Bronwyn who admired her greatly. built in South Australia at the the screen.

Norwood Studios. Ross Major Doesn’t a producer/writer run designed it.

Australian films that have been the risk of inhibiting the Apart from the pub, we also did logistically complex, like “ Mad director? a number of location sequences in Dog Morgan” and “ Jimmie Adelaide, and were there for 10 B l a c k s m i t h ” , have gone I never tried to inhibit Ken drastically over-budget in the when he was directing. In the days.

As for crew, I was asked to use travel and transport area. How U.S., for example, producers are as many people from South did you cope? gaining more control because they Australia as I could. That wasn’t a are no longer Wall Street money problem; South Australian I am delighted we came in men but creative people who have under-budget in that area. I the final responsibility for the technicians are very good. budgeted very carefully and was overall film. A producer is also the Shooting in a studio in Adelaide guided by the fact that a number only person who is really aware of must have been more expensive of people in the past had under­ all the problems and facets of a budgeted. particular film. than in Sydney. . .

I think directors need producers It was, but I felt I had a as a sounding board because — WORKING WITH A commitment to do some shooting and I should be the last to say this in S o u t h A u s t r a l i a . At — they can tend to get too close to DIRECTOR the same time, the construction a project. No one could be closer people did a magnificent job, and to a film than I am on Dawn!. But the set was faithfully reproduced. I There has been some criticism I am also aware that when you made of producers being writers. employ a number of people for can’t say I regret the decision.

How do you react to that their creative talents, you have to You have also shot in many attitude? let them have their freedom. I

gave Ken complete rein, in that he could direct the script the way he wanted to; that was where he put his creative talent.

I let him edit the film to that direction, in collaboration with the editor, Max Lemon. It was only then that I looked at the film.

I had been away for several weeks, so I think I returned with a fresh approach.

A film can only be cut according to the way it was shot. If you don’t influence the shooting, how can you influence the editing?

That is not strictly true. A film can be edited in a number of ways, irrespective of how it was shot. A director who shoots a film which can be cut one way is dictating to the editor and thereby depriving him of his contribution. As a producer, I am strongly opposed to this limiting of talent.

As far as the shooting is concerned, I looked at the rushes and daily discussed them with the director. If I felt that a particular artist needed a little more care, I would say so. .

At one stage, I felt Ken was unconsciously slipping into a tele­ vision style of shooting, and I pointed it out to him. He acknow­ ledged it, thanked me and corrected it. I also sent him back to re-shoot some sequences because I wasn’t happy with them — he was only too anxious to carry them out, being a very conscientious director.

So, I don’t mean that once we started shooting I just stepped back and had no interest — I followed it very closely.

Did you ever feel the need more objective, where involvement as a writer flicted with your role as ducer?

to be your con­ pro­

I was always aware of it, but I think I coped. At the moment, the film is too long and some sequences have to be cut. So I have the struggle within myself of knowing that to keep the pace I will have to cut one of my favorite scenes. That is very hard, but deep down I am a producer first and a writer second.

Did you ever consider directing the film yourself?

It was strongly suggested by the AFC, the SAFC and several other people that I direct the film; I was very tempted, because if there was any film I could have directed, this would have been the one.

Every shot was in my mind and I had lived with it for so long.

But that is the very reason you need somebody else to come in and bring their talents. I felt that between the writer and producer I needed a director, and I still believe that was the right decision.

Concluded on P. 34 7 Cinema Papers, Apr'il/June — 339

KEN HANNAM DIRECTOR “ Dawn!” is director Ken H annam ’s fourth feature.

Did you contribute much to the screenplay?

After a successful career in television where he directed No, by the time I became involved, the script was pretty well finalized. There were a few things I felt needed attention, and Joy and I worked on them. We made a lot of minor changes.

Was the film already financed?

Yes. I was still working on Summerfield, and in fact Dawn! should have gone earlier had not Joy kindly waited for me. As it was, we were lucky and got only a very mild winter; otherwise, we might have been in a lot of trouble with the weather.

One criticism you have made of Australian producers is that they often go ahead with scripts that aren’t quite ready . . . *

episodes for several series, including “ Z Cars” , Hannam returned to Australia to make “ Sunday Too Far Away” in 1975. Critically acclaimed worldwide, “ Sunday” was the first Australian film to be shown in the Director’s Fortnight at the Cannes Film Festival.

In 1976 Hannam directed “ Break of Day” , a period love story written by Cliff Green. This was followed in 1977 by “ Summerfield” , also for producer Patricia Lovell. Scripted by Green, “ Summerfield” has been the centre of a controversy in the film industry over the relationship between writers and directors, and the quality of Australian writing.

In the following interview, conducted by Scott Murray and Peter Beilby, Hannam discusses his attitudes to scripts and screenwriters, the problems of shooting a logistically complex film like “ Dawn!” , the role of the producer/writer in the Australian situation, and, finally, his previous three features.

A film cannot be a time and motion exercise, but in Australia they have become that. Instead, writers should be encouraged to keep working on a script until it is perfect.

If we are going to make important films — films that say important things — then we will have to work hard, often doing things we won’t be paid for. And that’s how it should be.

Whose responsibility is it to decide whether a script is ready?

A director shouldn’t work with a script until he is sure it is right.

H o w e v e r , t h e r e are many pressures put on a producer in this area. For instance, money is made available by government bodies and distributors for a limited period, and if the film doesn’t get into at least pre-production in that Director Ken Hannam instructing camera operator John Seale. time, it will be taken back. The producer is, therefore, often in, keep backing new projects. The this si t uation seems to be obliged to go ahead with a film solution, therefore, is in making changing. the producer’s return such that he that is not ready. or she is not forced to rush into a Ideally, who should assess This situation is possibly new film. The same goes for scripts for the funding bodies? connected with producers raising writers: if they were paid more, money on first drafts . . . one could expect them to spend I don’t know, but it is a shame more time on a script. if it falls into the hands of failed or bitter people, whether they are I agree, and that situation should change. Hopefully, a How does one go about assessing writers or not. I have similar producer will also involve a a screenplay? feelings about directors assessing director in finalizing the script the work of other directors for the before proceeding.

It is very difficult. However, Australian Film Institute awards.

I think the problem could be there is a tendency to assess It is very difficult to get a neutral due to misplaced benevolence by scripts on the way they are panel, one that is informed and th e funding bodies, which, written, and not on what they say; has a feel for commercial and knowing that producers don’t get if a script reads as beautiful prose, dramatic potential. a fair return on the work they put it has a greater chance of getting money. There has been too much You i mpl i ed earl i er that emphasis on presentation, though Australian films fail to make * T h e A g e , January 21, 1978.

340 — Cinema Papers, April/June

strong statements. Why is this so?

It doesn’t matter whether you are making a skin-flick or an epic, the films that really mean some­ thing are those that show a passion in their making. It’s not a question of social or political statements; if you have a burning desire to make a statement, it will come across.

Take The Devil’s Playground: this was Fred Schepisi’s story and it had to be told. What comes over on the screen is the compassion and passion with which he tells it.

Take also Peter Weir’s rapid development between Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Last Wave; this was because he became his own man, and made his own statements.

In Australia, we are at the stage of making films as if playing with new toys. Sure you have to go through that process, but we have reached the stage where we should have a pretty good reason for doing a film — otherwise, we shouldn’t do it.

Did you consider “Dawn!” a worthwhile script?

Yes. Dawn is a living person: she is not someone we can escape; she is not a piece of history. The script makes no effort to white­ wash her; it tells the other side of her story. People may not be shocked, but they will be surprised. “ Dawn!” is a different type of film for you, in that it involves a lot of sport and action. Did you have any reservations about this?

No. I like action films and I have done a considerable amount of action material on television.

Certainly there is action in Dawn!, but I think you will be surprised by how little swimming there is.

What generally interests me about films is the relationships between people. I am not a director on a vast landscape; such things interest me in other people’s work, but not in my own.

I think the main reason I was attracted to Break of Day, for example, was that I had been in television for a while and felt I had lost my cinema eye. Television is all close-up, and visually different to cinema.

Break of Day called on me to do two things: to work very

PRODUCTION REPORT - DAWN!

intimately with the actors, and to make a beautifully lyrical film. So when I took it on, though I didn’t know if I could get my eye back, I knew I had to try.

There is considerable debate in the industry over the producer/ writer, and director/writer. What are your feelings?

I think the producer/writer is the most dangerous combination.

On Dawn!, however, it has been a very happy relationship because Joy has been involved in many facets of the industry and is extremely objective.

Yet I can’t help feeling that a lot of producer/writers only become producers to protect their scripts.

You can’t do that. It’s like having a son or a daughter and having to face up to the fact that one night they are not going to come home.

It’s the same with a script: it is flesh and bone, and people have worked a lot on it. But at some stage it’s got to get up on its own, and the writer just has to let go.

As for director/writer, this has worked very well in Europe. The argument against it is a possible lack of objectivity, and if I were a writer/director, I would want a script editor with me who I respect and who would talk to me directly.

But there are certain writers who are able to control the machinery and the money, and this is the best way to express themselves. Fred Schepisi is a good example.

Coach Harry Gallagher (Tom Richards) prepares Dawn (Bronwyn Mackay-Payne) for a race after a bout of illness.

THE SHOOTING

How did you handl e the swimming sequences?

PRE-PRODUCTION

Logistically, “ Dawn!” must have been a nightmare with all its locations . . .

I was greatly helped by our production department; I felt they were too tough when I was filming, but they had every right to be.

During the last four weeks we were doing four minutes a day and still not up to schedule. It was an underscheduled film, and we were very lucky that the weather was as good as it was.

How closely were you involved in planning the schedule?

Well, you fight as much as you can. I have always worked with Mark Egerton as my first, except on Sunday Too Far Away, and he is remarkably good. He organized the schedule with the production manager, though we all talked about it and visited locations. I gave him my feelings, how long I felt a scene would take to shoot, then left him to it.

You tend to live in a fool’s paradise: you know damned well that it’s not going to be easy, but

That is part of the problem with the documentaries made here. A good documentary must have a degree of bias. If I don’t like you, and I am making a film about you, then I am entitled to let my feelings seep through. Somebody else can then make a film attacking me, if they like.

In Australia, there is a habit of following a bad remark with something nice, and all you end up with is a grey mass in which you h a v e m a d e a lot of statements, and said nothing.

Actually, I believe one of the reasons Joy wanted me to do this film was because she wanted strong statements — but nothing maudlin or over-emphasized. At the same time, the last thing she wanted was a documentary.

The film is about Dawn, and at no time during her life does she stop and look back; she always plunges forward. That is part of her magic, part of why she survived so long as a champion.

The approach I therefore employed was to try and get inside her character.

Director of Photography Russell Boyd lines up the special rig designed by John Seale and Ross Erikson for shooting under water.

you con yourself into thinking you can do it. Sometimes it falls apart, but generally it keeps together.

When do you prepare your shooting script?

As soon as I can. I also like to go to a location as early as possible and just wander around, getting to know the feel of the landscape.

director don’t have something to say to each other. So the first thing we have to do is to get to know one another better; once that is done we can be more honest and direct.

A person shouldn’t be afraid to say, “ Excuse me, but I think you are misdirecting this scene.” I may chuck away what he suggests, but he ought to say it.

Did you have this time on “Summerfield” , which had an island location?

How far can such a collaborative approach go?

I had about a fortnight there, and the art department was based on the island. Mike Molloy came out from Britain to shoot the film three weeks before we started, and that was a luxury on an Aust­ ralian film.

But it’s no use bringing out a director of photography six weeks before the shooting if he and the

It’s difficult to judge. One doesn’t always have the time to make films as a communal effort, and I don’t think there is all that much to be gained, anyway.

Somebody has to make the statement, and it should be the director on behalf of the writer and producer. Otherwise, there is a danger of the s t at eme nt becoming grey.

There are three swimming events. The first, the 1956 games, was easy because the Melbourne Olympic pool was still there. We opened this scene out in a big way, and managed to make some hundreds of people look like t housands by moving them around. It is very expansive and exciting.

We don’t cover Dawn’s swim at the Rome Olympics, but there is a sequence at the Fina carnival in Naples where she was forced to participate in an exhibition race.

The third event is the Tokyo race. We filmed this as a swimmer would feel, see and hear it. To do this, John Seale (the operator) and Ross Erikson (the grip) spent several days developing a periscopic device for the camera, which enabled us to film under water without having to submerge the camera.

The scene starts with the girls above water, follows them as they dive in and then tracks along under water behind them.

It is so good, in fact, that it is a bit of an anti-climax; you sit and think, “ Oh yes, now we are under water.”

In leaving out important events, such as the Rome swim, are you running the risk of disappointing audience expectation?

No, I think Joy has been pretty cunning. Joy feels that if anything is going to attract people, it is a personal story about Dawn; the Cinema Papers, Apr-il/June — 341

The only specialist negative matching company in Australia now celebrates its fifth year of service to the Film and Television Industry.

An exclusive range of specially imported equipment for 16mm invisible splicing, 16mm single frame splicing and a 35mm Panavision Feature Splicer enables our company to offer a unique service.

Our facility is fully equipped for all 16mm and 35mm productions and providing simultaneous reel matching for features, series, telemovies, specials, shorts and documentaries.

We offer same day service on television commercial work including negative selection and print make-up for transfer to video tape.

Take advantage of our negative examination plan. Ask your laboratory to progressively supply the negative to us each day. your original will be catalogued and safely stored, ready for matching.

We have moved to new spacious air-conditioned and ionic air-cleaned premises on level three at 200 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, CROWS NEST. 2065.

TELEPHO NE MARILYN AND RON DELANEY ON (02) 922 3607 OR CALL PERSONALLY TO SEE ' OUR NEW FACILITIES

PRODUCTION REPORT - DAWN!

swimming is something people already know about. So, although we don’t cover the Rome swim, we cover other aspects of her trip there.

What about characters?

the

I am always glad when audiences enjoy Summerfield. I t hi nk the a ct or s, i nd e ed everybody connected with the film, put in a tremendous amount of devotion and love.

other

The character I am most fond of is Gary, Dawn’s husband. It was very bold of him to allow us to tell his story; and though he starts as a sort of villain, in the scene where he leaves Dawn, he shows a real honesty. It is something all of us have at some stage wanted to do, but not had enough strength.

Len, the man who comes into her life later on, emerges as a somebody who is attracted to her but suddenly frightened by the intensity of her feelings. We never know whether he is seizing an opportunity to get out of the relationship, or whether what he says is true.

“ Summerfield” is probably the most consistently acted of the recent Australian features. John W a t e r s ’ p e r f o r ma n c e , in particular, is excellent. . .

The re-creation of the 100 metres freestyle final at the 1956 Olympic Games in the M elbourne Olympic Pool.

“Summerfield” is a film that sharply divides audiences; “Break of Day” doesn’t . . .

MARKETING

How do you feel about the way your previous films have been marketed?

Marketing is the area that has still to come of age. It is strange that many distributors are willing to invest in films, but are hard put to know what to do with them once they are finished.

If people suspect a film is going to be hard to sell, they should nut it out and avoid the situation where films have been thrown into the market place with a helpless shrug of the shoulders.

No wonder they often disappear without trace.

Dawn! is a very commercial film and should appeal to a wide age range. What Joy and Hoyts have in mind is to run separate campaigns geared towards various facets of an audience. It is going to be very interesting to see if they pull it off — I am sure they will.

SUMMERFIELD and BREAK OF DAY

“ Summerfield” and “Break of Day” don’t always indicate the passion you talked of earlier.

Was that because the films needed to be low key?

I think Cliff was brave with Break of Day; what he did was very interesting, but perhaps he underwrote it. It is a funny thing about Cliff’s writing, but his heroes and heroines don’t have anything to say, while his subsidiary characters never stop talking.

What I admire enormously in Break of Day — which, inci­ dentally, I think is my best film —

And Nick Tate, who had a thankless part. Simon is a very ordinary person, not particularly good at anything, who blunders into a situation and makes a great cock-up of it.

John’s part was easier, and very nicely tailored for him — and he did it extremely well. Nick and Elizabeth Alexander, however, had very difficult roles and they worked like demons to achieve what they did.

Dawn and her friend Kate at Kate’s apartment. Dawn!

John Diedrich as Dawn’s husband, Gary, in his Hawaiin shirt and pink Cadillac.

Dawn!

is Sarah K e s t l e m a n ’s performance. Her role was a very difficult one because she had no more than 60 or 70 lines, and most of those were “ Thank you” , “ Goodbye” and “ Pleased to meet you” .

Yet her character is supposed to be terribly liberated, have a marvellous sense of humor and be very sophisticated. She says nothing to indicate any of these things and nor does anyone else till her friends arrive — and even they don’t say much.

Cliff also left the bohemian group for us to develop. What I imagined was that she had had an affair with John Bell, but left the commune when she found the group so influencing her work that she was no longer sure of its value.

Her move to the town was a transitory experience, and she was selfish enough to imagine that he would feel the same — but he was not used to meeting people like her. So, when she found the key to her painting, with his help, she was happy to move on. I don’t think she saw her action as selfish.

What people miss about Break of Day, and perhaps this is because we didn’t do it well enough, is that it is about non­ confrontation. It doesn’t matter whether the audience wants the two women to confront one

another; they can’t — because of the period, the place and the circumstances in which they live.

So it’s got to be bloody low key, doesn’t it?

Yet, an audience may ask if this l a c k of c o n f r o n t a t i o n is deliberate or whether there should be something happening that isn’t . . .

Yes; we were all aiming at something that didn’t quite come off. I don’t know where we went wrong, but it did need a bigger energy flow, and a flow that was generated by action and dialogue.

Did that experience modify your approach to “Summerfield” ?

Summerfield is a film that interest ed me greatly. The problem was that the script wasn^t quite ready — it should have had six months more work on it.

Ho we v e r , Pat Lovell (t he producer) was in a position where she had to go; the people funding the film thought the script was very good and wanted her to start.

Again, probably because of my ego, I thought I might be able to strengthen the things I felt were weak. I don’t think I was able to, but it was a good learning experience — for me at least.

That’s true. The most disap­ pointing thing about Break of Day is that it can be said to have made no impact at all.

When talking about Summerfield, I must point out I am not attacking anyone but myself. If I felt the script needed more work, I should have said so.

Then it would have been up to the producer and writer to agree with me, or choose someone else.

Many critics have found the ending of “ S u m m e r f i e l d ” unrealistic. The Abbotts are obviously very wealthy and could have moved i nt e r s t a t e or overseas to protect their name . . .

I suppose the ending is a device.

In fact, it was not the way Cliff had written it, although I heard Cliff agreed with what I did.

In the original, after Nick had returned to the island and seen them through the window, John rushed out, shooting madly into the night. Now, I don’t think a man who was so gentle and meek as he could suddenly become a mad killer.

If the ending was going to work, I felt we had to convince the audience his act was purely momentary. If he stopped and thought about if for another 10 minutes, things may have been different.

Finally, given your feelings about scripts, do you have plans to find a subject and develop it yourself?

I have two projects I want to work on, and if I am strong enough, that’s what I’ll do. If I do another film, it will be because I really want to do it. ★ Cinema Papers, Aprit/June — 343

R O S S M AJOR PRODUCTION DESIGNER After doing an architecture course at university, Ross How would you define your role Major joined the ABC as an assistant designer. He then on the film?

A production designer should co-ordinate the look of a film. But on many Australian films, one is the art director as well. This means you are designing and supervising.

Ideally, you should have a separate art director whom you brief, just as you do the wardrobe or make-up people.

The designer also has the responsibility of viewing the film from beginning to end and you can assist the look and flow of a film greatly by keeping your backgrounds fairly even.

On Dawn!, I tried to simplify a lot of these backgrounds into plain areas of color, and on locations I tried to paint everything 1 could.

This way I could keep the background moving at an even pace instead of jumping.

We see Dawn’s house, for example, over a period of 15 years; so by grading the colors, I subtly altered the background without it ever being obtrusive.

When you cut back to a house, people have to recognize it at once, otherwise they get lost.

I guess you could call this a simplifying process.

went to Britain where he was assistant designer for the BBC on the series, “ Lorna Doone” . He also worked at Bristol television and on several plays at the Edinburgh Festival which were televised on London television.

Returning to Australia, Major freelanced, doing occasional work for the then Commonwealth Film Unit, and sets for the Community Theatre. Since then, he has worked in television and commercials. “ Dawn!” is Major’s first feature.

In the following interview, conducted by Peter Beilby and Scott Murray, Major talks about the overall design, construction of sets and the liaison between an art director and the key creative personnel.

Did you also control moving colors, such as costumes or cars?

Not as much. A lot of the clothes were, of necessity, certain colors — uniforms and so on. the bar of his set o f the Riverview Pub, What I tried to do was put them Production designer, Ross Major, breasting Balmain. against a background that didn’t example, in a crowded games Then, with about eight weeks to clash.

The wardrobe created the stadium? go, I started on the p r e ­ period more than my backgrounds production.

Lighting is a help in those sorts because I used very few true In retrospect, I don’t think this 1950s interiors. Dawn’s parents, of situations. But Dawn was the was long enough because I didn’t for instance, had lived in their biggest help, because in Rome she have time for the kind of house for many years, so it looks insisted on wearing a white track supervision I would have liked. more 1920s or 1930s. There was suit, which was contrary to For example, Judith Dorsman the odd 1950s furnishings, like regulations. She is an attention­ had more or less started on the new curtains, but the period getting lady — I don’t mean that wardrobe when I came along, and c o me s fr om t he hair and unkindly — and she often placed though we worked very happily herself in such situations. Apart together, I might have taken a wardrobe.

In terms of color, I found the from that, we did watch colors in slightly different view of it had I 1950s a particularly u n c o ­ track suits and so on, and made had more time. ordinated time and, anyway, I sure hers stood out.

If most of the key personnel don’t like too strong a design for a could start a little earlier, you background. It becomes a little would save time and money. You twee if you start matching scarves could also, for example, find new PRE-PRODUCTION to wall colors, and that kind of solutions to location problems — thing. So as long as something like filming more on shooting didn’t clash violently, I didn’t stages. change it.

When did Joy Cavill approach you about becoming production Did Cavill define a look for the Did you use foreground color as a designer? film? way of isolating something within the frame: Dawn, for Twelve weeks before filming.

In a way, but it was more, a 344 — Cinema Papers, April/June

question of me letting Joy know the kinds of things I wanted to do.

Two pertinent questions I asked at the outset were: (a) Was she making a documentary? (to which she replied no); and (b) Was she looking at an inter­ national market or just the Australian one? Both affected the way I approached things.

What was your involvement with cameraman Russell Boyd?

Russell only started a fortnight before shooting; by then most of o u r l o c a t i o n s ha d b e e n established. What I tried to do was talk to Russell on a day-before basis. We still had a great deal to be done as we were shooting, because Dawn! wasn’t the kind of film you could line up completely beforehand.

Did you participate in the selection of locations?

Yes, though a lot of swimming pools had been teed up with councils beforehand. I then went to these pools, photographed them and selected those I thought the most suitable. Later, I went around again with Ken. THE PUB SET

What sets did you design for the film?

The Balmain pub is the only set in the film; the rest are more supplements to a location, like the addition of a wall. The set is also seen over a period of 10 years and because it was based on an actual pub, it had to look realistic. That was quite a problem, so as soon as I started on the film I measured it up and sent the drawings down to Adelaide for costing.

The set wasn’t constructed in Sydney?

No, it was entirely built by Herb Pinter in Adelaide. The building period was four weeks: fourteen men full time, plus the odd tiler and glazier.

Did you use the same materials as in the pub?

To a degree. Old-fashioned tiles, for instance, aren’t readily available, but you can duplicate

PRODUCTION REPORT - DAWN!

the look. The Balmain tiles are light cream, yet they appear much older and darker from years of smoke and grime. On film, however, they would have been too light, so I had to use darker ones to get the same murkiness and tone. They also helped Russell in lighting the set.

Not really. In fact, I wouldn’t even mind working on a lowbudget film provided everybody involved was aware of the inherent limitations.

What budget should a film like “ Dawn!” have for sets and props?

To what extent did you design the set to suit Russell Boyd?

The pub is sited on a corner, facing north, so the sun comes in all day. This gives it a lovely feeling and it was obvious we would light the set the same way. I just made sure during the building that there was enough space behind it to place the main light source.

From all accounts, the set is a perfect replica. What techniques did you use to achieve this?

In Major’s pub set, drinkers celebrate the birth of Dawn’s daughter. Dawn!

You have to treat a set as if you were building it from scratch.

Then you duplicate the little bits and pieces that add to the overall effect; light conduits on walls, window fittings, plugs and so on.

You also use real materials because you can’t get away with fake tiles or windows on 35mm.

The more real things you use, the greater the chance of getting the reality of the set across, which was important in this instance as the pub was the only set in a film of real locations.

STAGING THE OLYMPICS You restaged the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne. How did you do that?

What about pub fixtures or glasses?

We got some old counter units and bar fittings from the breweries in Adelaide. As for glasses, I always wonder about the necessity of having every detail exact in a period film. As long as they are obviously not wrong for the period, 1 don’t tend to bother.

Ideally, $30,000. We started at $23,000 and ended up spending $29,000, which does not include salaries or location hire. Location hire alone was an additional $7000.

Basically, I think a producer should speak to a designer when he or she is doing a budget, just to talk things out. A lot of art directors are given an amount of money and have no say in the figure.

However, things are improving all the time and art direction is an area in Australian filmmaking that is now being taken seriously.

Mr and Mrs Fraser (Ron Haddrick and Bunney Brooke) in their Balmain home. The period is 1950s. Dawn!

I subtracted quite a bit on Dawn! because of the plain wall areas 1 wanted, which is in direct contrast to films like Picnic at Hanging Rock and Caddie where there was detail everywhere.

If, for instance, we had a shot where the operator wanted to move a picture to get a better composition, I would prefer to take it out. I try to keep things as minimal as possible.

your departmental budget. Do you find that extra responsibility demanding?

First, I looked at all the available footage and that made me realize there was no way we could copy it. The people, the flags and all the paraphernalia were too much. Fortunately, the original pool in Melbourne was available.

As for the Rome and Tokyo seq u en ces, Ken decided to concentrate on the swim, and the Tokyo swim was actually done in the Melbourne pool. Of course, the building was not like the one in Tokyo, but I wasn’t trying to recreate it. Sometimes you have to fo rg et th e o v e ra ll and concentrate on the details,.and if you make the small elements very accurate, the audience tends to forget that on a wider scene it may not be quite right.

It is a demanding but necessary responsibility. You should always Did you use old building know how much you have spent, materials or new ones which you otherwise you don’t know how had to age? much is left.

By keeping a running cost of the I didn’t do any ageing in the staging, it became apparent very film. It doesn’t matter if the early on that the budget was too Design by implication . . . materials aren’t the same, as long low; but this wasn’t a problem as you get the right effect. The Were you on the set all the time b e ca u se I k ep t e v ery b o d y Yes, though sound is a great heavy architraves were stained or did your responsibilities as informed. Then as costings came help; you can shoot a scene with and varnished to get a worn look designer mean you had to be in, we would change things to suit. 10 people clapping, but when you without ageing, and I aged the elsewhere?

For example, I reduced the mix in 2000, it has an entirely interior of Dawn’s house more by estimate on the pub by taking different feeling. the choice of furnishings. I chose I went to Adelaide a number of three metres out of the middle. old and shabby pieces, but ones times to see the set being built, Do you get a master shot of the that had a well-loved appearance. I but I was m ostly at o th er Were you involved in deciding stadium? avoided breaking down walls and locations. This is not an ideal the budget, or was it given to you architraves, or dirtying around situation and I would certainly as a fait accompli?

You do, but on the day before light switches; 1 didn’t think it was prefer to spend all my time next to the race. Then you cut to the necessary.

The budget had been set, but event. the camera.

In Rocky, for example, a lot of Dawn goes through the film in a from the outset I think even Joy the ageing of the sets was very bad felt it was a bit low; she probably lot of wide shots, but as her life is — you could pick it up instantly — needed someone to come and talk swimming, I think it is quite valid because it tended to make things to go in close. with her about it.

BUDGETING look dirty, rather than old and Exteriors for scenes such as shabby.

Did you find yourself restricted w hen Dawn w alks to th e by the lim ita tio n s of your swimming pool in Rome, or Does a set designer subtract leaves in a bus for the Tokyo On “ Dawn!” , you controlled budget? rather than add?

Cinema Papers, April/June — 345

c o lo r f i Im

A U S T R A L IA is proud to be associated with these fine films at Cannes

M

O

U

T

H

T O

M

O

U

T

H

S U M M E R F IE L D LO N C W

E E K E N D

IfW S FR O N T THE MANGO TREE

C o lo rfilm A SPECIAL KIND OF LABORATORY SERVICE FOR AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH EAST ASIA. COLORFILM PTY. LIMITED, 35 MISSENDEN ROAD, CAMPERDOWN, N.S.W. 2050.

Telephone: 516 1066. Telex: AA24545.

PRODUCTION REPORT - DAWN!

Olympic Village, were really hard to find. I had to look for buildings in Sydney that architecturally could be Japanese, or whatever.

For the 1960 Rome Olympics, I looked for very modern buildings, because one always feels Italian a rc h ite c tu re is much m ore advanced than ours.

What were the problems involved in shooting in Japan?

Working through interpreters — it took ages to have an instruction translated. We had a scene in a police station which was an existing set. I re-dressed it slightly, and fiddled as much as I could. I wanted to put a lot of pens and pads and pencils on the desks — the kind of paraphernalia one would expect — but the Japanese just didn’t understand. They don’t personalize objects like we do; for them it is a completely different approach to set dressing. But once they understood, they were very helpful and amicable.

In advertising, storyboards are often used. Would you like to see storyboarding introduced into features?

Yes, but you are talking about more pre-production time and Australian films are not into that.

To do it properly, it might take six months. From a designer’s point of view, it would be really fantastic to design a film with the director and cameraman, scene by scene, frame and frame. I won’t say it’s an indulgence, but it’s certainly a luxury in Australian production.

Actually, I tried to storyboard the film as we went along. I had all the photographs of the pools on my wall, and after a while I got quite potty about swimming pools.

The Sydney Olympic pool, for example, is an amazing piece of

work with its art deco relief work.

All pools have in d iv id u a l characters, but there is something about each that is the same. And this sameness provided the visual link.

Do you find that production designers and art directors in Australia are limited by the availability of resources?

Joy Cavill

Continuedfrom P. 339 DISTRIBUTING AND MARKETING

Do you have a new project to work on?

I will go from here to an advertising agency to hustle for some work. It is very hard once a Special effects in Australia is a film ends, because suddenly you very weak area, although I think are unemployed. I would like to those in The Last Wave were very see productions involve their good. One thing lacking here is designers for a longer period which, as I said earlier, could save glass painting.

The painting done for films like the producer money. Also pay Earthquake is impeccable, and them more, so that they don’t this is a technique that could be a have that awful feeling of having great help to period films. In to go out and get work straight­ Caddie, for example, you could away — you ought to be able to have changed the whole Sydney coast for a few months at least. I think the industry owes that to its people. ★

DAWN! ...........

How was your relationship with Ken? Very good. We talked about the film at length before we started filming, then he left me alone.

Having spent a lot of time in advertising where I am so used to people being critical, of people asking you to constantly justify your decisions, I couldn’t believe my ears when nobody said anything negative or otherwise about the sets, it was a nice surprise, because compared with advertising, film people are much more positive; you are hired for what you can do, then left to do it without people coming in and having their five cents worth.

skyline by p u ttin g tops on buildings, while leaving bottoms as they were. This would save money and give far greater value on the screen.

Japanese police interrogate Dawn after she has been caught stealing the Olympic flag from the Emperor’s Palace grounds. Dawn!

major distributors in the same way Fred Schepisi has done with “Jimmie Blacksmith’’?

Yes, but I don’t think we are approaching it the same way as Fred. The film is not going to the Who will be distributing the Cannes Film Festival; it could have been ready in time if we had film? shortened the post-production Hoyts. It will be one of their few period, but I decided that was crazy. I would rather have a good times out as a distributor. film and hold it back, than spoil it Have you been liaising with with haste.

At the moment, the plan is to go them over a campaign, or are they holding back until they see with a London opening. I think this will be just as successful as a print? premiering in Cannes.

Paul Davies of the SAFC and I have already had sessions with How valuable, then, do you their agency about how the film is consider the Cannes Festival as a to be promoted, but we are market place for Australian films? holding back at the moment.

Basically, it is a summer film It depends on the film; some and we don’t want to release it in films do very well there, while for the middle of winter. others it is a waste of time. With With a budget of $764,000, the this film, I am not worried that it film must break the overseas is not going to be there. market to recoup its cost. Are advance notices going out to What do you see as the major

markets?

I am not an expert on this, but I think Canada will be a good market, and, in a funny way, the U.S. I know every producer says he will crack the U.S.., but I am hopeful with Dawn!.

Japan is obviously a very big market, and that was proved by the interest when we were there shooting. They all remember Dawn from 1964 and are anxious to see the film.

Germany is also becoming a good market for Australian films.

And, strangely enough, when I was in Moscow 18 months ago I spent a lot of time at the Mosfilm studios, and one of the leading d irecto rs I met th ere was fascinated by the story; he had never heard of Dawn Fraser, but that didn’t matter, he loved the character.

Last week, I heard that the AFC had received an inquiry from Moscow. They had asked if the film was finished, because they were interested in seeing it. This could be quite a breakthrough. ★

CAST:

Bronwyn Mackay-Payne....................Dawn Tom R ic hards...................................... Harry John Diedrich........................................ Gary Bunney B r o o k e .................................... Mum Ron Haddrick.......................................... Pop Gabrielle H a rtl e y .................................. Kate Ivar K a n ts................................................ Len David C am eron........................................Joe Kevin Wilson........................................ Bippy Lyndall B a r b o u r .................................... Edie John Clayton............................................ Syd Go Mikami . . . . Japanese Police Inspector Judith F i s h e r .................Chaperone Reg G i l l a m .............. First Board Member Bill C harlton......................................Johnno John A rm s tro n g ..................................Dusty Judi F a rr.............................. New President Wayne A n t h o n v .......... Garage Customer Richard H i l l ............................................ Ken John Jam ieson................................ Reporter Robert Davis . . . . Second Board Member Piere Von A rnim ....................................Carl Kevin M anser.................................... Official Audine Leith.................................... Barmaid

CREW : Director..................................................... KenHannam P ro d u cer....................................................JoyCavill Screenplay..................................................JoyCavill Story E ditor.......................................... Moya Wood Executive P r o d u c e r .................................JillRobb Associate Producer. . . . Sandra McKenzie Production Associate.......... Gloria Payten Director of Photography. . . . Russell Boyd E d i t o r .....................................Max Lemon Production Manager............Ross Mathews Art Director............................................ RossMajor Production Secretary........Jenny Tosolini Costume Designer.......... Judith Dorsman Location Manager........Beverly Davidson Sound R ecordist.............. Ken Hammond Sound E d i t o r .......................................... BobCogger Prop Masters......................Martin McAdoo Neil Angwin Assistant Directors............................... MarkEgerton, Penny Chapman, Scott Hicks Camera Operator..................... John Seale Focus Pullers.............. David Williamson, Jan Kenny G r i p ......................................................... Ross Erikson Boom O perator.........................Joe Spinelli Gaffer..........................................Tony Tegg Set D resser.......................... Annie Bleakley Set C o n stru c tio n ................... Herb Pinter Stills........................................................DavidKynoch Technical A d v iso r................. Dawn Fraser Research.........................................Sue Wild Hairdresser............................. Jenny Brown Make-up................................... Peggy Carter Production A c c o u n ta n t........ Jean Findlay Caterers................ John and Lisa Faithful!

Cinema Papers, April/June — 347

film m a ke rs........ a new name to remember

4

¡>

Anns gramaai Piim service! (my old name was adina film services)

Tasmanian A Film Corporation • • • •

FILM PRODUCTION STILL PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK SKILLED PERSONNEL 16/35 AND AUDIOVISUAL FACILITIES •EQUIPMENT H IR E INCLUDING DYNALENS

the same fast efficient neg matching at reasonable rates contact me personally at

nnnEGRAHnmpitmservices 28 shellcove road neutral bay nsw 20 8 9 telephone (02) 908.3011 (2 lines)

A consultancy service for film and theatre.

m

From complete production co-ordination to researching a single idea.

Comprehensive files on locations, casting, properties and wardrobe.

CONTACT THE C O R P O R A T IO N FOR F I L M I N G IN OR O UT OF T A S M A N IA

CAN YOU AFFORD TO BE WITHOUT SUCH A COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE?

64 B risbane S tre e t,H o b a rt 7 0 0 0 Tasmania.

P h o n e 3 0 8 0 3 3 Telegrams T a sfilm H ob art

DAVID SEARL. . . MISE-EN-SCENE Suite 2, 2b Tusculum Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011. Phone: (02) 358 2371

J H MIf you I WshootWhandheld, you GROUP

0

MOTION PICTURE EQUIPMENT SALES • RENTAL • SERVICE

need

The Academy Award Winning*

S teadicam Because with STEADICAM, Cinema Products’ revolution­ ary film/video camera stabilizing system, the h a n d h e ld m oving cam era finally comes into its own — recording dolly-smooth, jitter-free, handheld moving shots with a steadiness of image never before achieved on the screen. ‘ Class 1 Academy Award for Technical Achievement for the 1 9 7 8 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

(The first to be awarded for ten years).

105 Reserve Road, Artarmon Sydney, N.S.W . 2064 Telephone: 439-6955 Telex: 24482 All correspondence: P.O. Box 199 Artarmon, N.S.W . 2064 Australia

PRODUCTION SURVEY « GALLIPOLI

35mm PRE-PRODUCTION

THE BLOODY HALF MILE

THE UNKNOWN INDUSTRIAL

PRISONER Prod Company................... South Australian Film Corporation 35mm POST-PRODUCTION Prod Company..........................................FilmAustralia Director........................................ Peter Weir Director............................... Arch Nicholson Screenplay.......................David Williamson, Screenplay............................ Alan Seymour, Peter Weir Ken Cameron, Producers.............................................. MattCarroll, Based on the novel by David Ireland DAWN! John Morris Producer............................... RichardMason Progress................................. Pre-Production Budget.......................................... $500,000 See Production Report pages 337-347 Synopsis: The epic story of the Anzac Length.............................................. 120 min landing at Gallipoli.

Progress................................. Pre-Production

Runner.......................................... Rosie Lee Budget.......................................... $400,000 Length................................................. 90 min Color Process......................... Eastmancolor Progress............................... Post-Production Cast: Ruth Cracknell, John Frawley, Kerry Walker, John Derum, Maggie Kirkpatrick, Terry Camilleri.

Synopsis: Exploiting the furore surrounding her attem pted rape, a young woman emerges from the claustrophobia of a wealthy conservative family and turns from victim to criminal, stalking the streets of Sydney by night in a relentless pursuit of her own liberation.

Prod Company.................. Austral American Funding Co. Inc. P/L Director.....................................Eric Fullilove Screenplay.............................. Tony Morphett Original Story............ James Norwood Pratt Exec Producers.............................. C.P. Fterr NEWSFRONT THE HOUSE UPSTAIRS ZODIAC FAIRGROUND A.J. Flelgeson Prod Company................ Clare Beach Films Technical Advisors.............................. MarianDryer, Prod Company........................ Avalon Films Prod Company__ Palm Beach Pictures P/L Dist Company..................

Village Roadshow Ivan Chapman Screenplay.............................................. TedRoberts Dist Company.............................. Intertropic Director.......................................... Phil Noyce Budget.......................................... $750,000 Producer................................. PatriciaLovell Screenplay......................................... Phillip Avalon, Length................................................. Feature Music................................... Bruce Smeaton Austin Levy Screenplay..................................... Bob Ellis MAD MAX Producer..'................................... David Elfick Progress............................................Scripting Progress................................. Pre-Production Producer............................................. Phillip Avalon Assoc Producer................ Richard Brennan Prod Company................... Mad Max Pty Ltd and Pre-Production Synopsis: A young lawyer decides to save a Photography......................................... BrianProbyn Dist Company..............................

Roadshow Photography.......................

Vincent Monton row of terrace houses from a developer of an Synopsis: The confrontation, in the streets Editor............................................... Rod Hay Editor......................................

JohnScottDirector................................... George Miller o f S y d n e y , b e tw e e n A m e ric a n and office block complex. To his dismay he Titles................................................... YoramGross Prod Manager....................

Richard Brennan Screenplay.................

James McCausland, discovers illegal activities in two of the Australian troops during World War II. Length............................................... 96 min George Miller houses.

Progress................................. Pre-Production Art Director............................................. LarryEastwood Producer.............................. Byron Kennedy Release Date.......................... January, 1979 Prod Designer............................LlssaCoote Assoc Producer............................... Bill Miller BLUE FIN Prod Secretary.......................... Lynn Galley MAGGIE Cast: To be announced.

Photography............................... David Eggby Costume/Wardrobe............ Norma Moriceau Prod Company.......... South Aust Film Corp Synopsis: A futuristic drama set in a Prod Company....... Australian International Editor..................................... Tony Paterson Asst Wardrobe..................... Susan Bowden Director.................................................. CarlSchultz fairground.

Film Corp P/L Product Asst.............................................TomBroadbridge Sound Recordist.................................... TimLloyd Screenplay................................. Sonia Borg Dist Company............ Filmways Australasian Art Director............................................. JonDowding Prod Accountant.......................... PennyCarl Adapted from the novel by Colin Thiele Distributors P/L Prod Co-ordinator.........................Jenny Day Sound Editor................................. Greg Bell Producer...................................................MattCarroll Director.....................................Ross Dimsey Costume/Wardrobe................ Clare Griffin Asst D irectors...................................... Erroll Sullivan, Music.................................................. MichaelCarlos Screenplay.......................... Robert Maumill 35mm IN PRODUCTION Sound Recordist.......................Garry Wilkins Chris Maudson, Photography................ Geoff Burton A. C. S Producer.......................... Antony I. Ginnane Asst Directors........................................... IanGoddard, Steve Andrews, Editor......................................Rod Adamson Exec Producer................... William Fayman Steve Connard Danny Torsh Prod Manager.......................Ross Matthews Prod Manager......................................... BarbiTaylor Des Sheridan Camera Operator.................................

Louis Irving Art Director.......................... David Copping Prod Secretary...................................... JennyBarty Focus Puller..........................

David Brostoff Camera Asst........................

Harry Glynatsis Prod Secretary........................ Barbara Ring Length............................................ 100 min Boom Operator........................................Jack Friedman Boom Operator.......................MarkWasiutak LITTLE BOY LOST Costume/Wardrobe.............. Anne Bleakley Color Process................................... Eastman Clapper/Loader......................

Steve Dobson Clapper/Loader..............................Tim Smart Sound Recordist....................................... DonConnolly Prod Company.......................................JohnPowell Progress................................Pre-Production Gaffer..................................... Lindsay Foote Asst Director............................................ PatClayton Productions Gaffer...................................Brian Bansgrove (shooting June 1978) Continuity...............................

Adrienne Read Continuity............................................

Shirley Ballard Camera Operator......................... John Seale D irector................................... John Powell Synopsis: An examination of the values and Construction Manager............................ BillHowe Casting Consultants__ Mitch Consultancy Focus Puller................................. David Burr Producer.................................................. AlanSpires social attitudes of an insular rural town in Carpenter..............................

Danny Burnett Asst Art Director.................

Steve Amezdroz Gaffer............................................ Tony Tegg Progress................................. In Production Australia in 1978.

Grips................................... Noel McDonald, Continuity............................................. MoyaIceton Cast: Lorna Leslie, John Hargreaves, John Second Unit Photography......... Peter Moss, Frank Hammond, David Cassar Casting Consultants.............. M & L Casting Jarrat, Gulpilil.

Oscar Scherl Stunt Co-ordinator..................... Grant Page MY BRILLIANT CAREER Asst Art Dept.............................. Harry Zettel Synopsis: Based on the real-life story of Asst Art Director........................................Lee Whitmore Traffic Supervisors...............

Andrew Jones, Set Decorator............................... Ken James a four-year old boy lost in the bush.

Prod Company.......Margaret Fink Films P/L Set Decorator....................................... SallyCampbell Stuart Beatty Grip..................................... Graham Mardell Dist Company......... Greater-Union Film Dist No further details available.

Chef Grip................................................

Ray Brown Unit Manager...........................................John Hipwell Standby Props........................................ClarkMunro Director.................................................... GillArmstrong Grip.......................................... Stuart Green Mechanics............................ SpannerArgon, Props Buyer.............................................. NeilAngwin Screenplay........................................EleanorWitcombe Stunt Co-ordinator................................

Max Aspen Scallop Orchard Set Construction..................... HerbertPinter Producer...................................Margaret Fink Asst Editor.......................Frans Vandenberg Still Photography..................................... Chic Stringer Length................................................. 90 min THE MONEY MOVERS Music........................................ NathanWaks Hairdresser................................. Ben Taylor Color Process................................. Eastman Photography........................................RussellBoydProd Company.. South Australian Film Corp Stand-by Props................. Peter Glencross Hairdresser............................................. IreneWallsBest Boy.............................................. GarryPlunkett Progress............ Shooting Starts May 1978 Editor..................................... Nick Beauman Director.............................. Bruce Beresford Best Boy................................... Paul Gantner Special Effects....................................... Chris Murray Synopsis: “ Snook” Pascoe is a young Port Art Director.......................... Luciana Arrighi Screenplay.......................................... BruceBeresford Makeup.....................................Sally Gordon Length........................................... 100 min Lincoln schoolboy whose father runs a Gaffer................................. Brian Bansgrove Adapted from the novel by Devon Minchin Catering............................... ,. Richard Ford Color Process...................Todd AO, Eastman tuna boat — Blue Fin. Clumsy, gaunt and Casting Consultants...........M and L Casting Script Editor.......................... Harold Lander Still Photographer................. Mike Giddens Progress............................... Post-Production something of a misfit at school and in the Length............................................... Feature Producer.................................................. MattCarroll Unit Manager................................... Bob Hill Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Vince community, he has his finest hour when Progress................................Pre-Production Photography............................Don McAlpine Electrician...............................................Peter Moyes Gill, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Roger Ward, Steve "Blue Fin" far out at sea is wrecked by a Synopsis: From Miles Franklin's first novel Editor...................................... Bill Anderson Runners.....................................Sandy Beach Bisley, Katie Morgan, Tim Burns, Lulu waterspout and the remainder of the crew about a gifted, original and witty girl in the Prod Manager.......................................... PatClayton Budget.......................................... $505,000 Pinkus, Nick Lathouris, John Ley, Steve lie injured or dead. Excitement, adventure, bush who doesn't see why romance must Art Director..............................David Copping Length..................... ........................ 110 min Millichamp, Sheila Florance, Max Fairchild, courage and endurance. Gives a highly lead to conventional marriage ties and Prod Secretary........................ Barbara King Color Process........................

Eastmancolor Steven Clark, George Novak, Reg Evans, readable insight into the tuna fishing preclude an adventurous, creative life of Costume/Wardrobe...............................AnnaSenior Progress.............................. Post Production Hunter Gibb, John Farndale, David Bracks, industry and the lives of the fishermen. freedom.

Sound Recordist.......................................DonConnolly Release Date......................................... May,1978Paul Johnstone, Geoff Parry, Nic Gazzana, Sound Editor..............................Bill Anderson Cast: Bill Hunter, Wendy Hughes, Gerard Howard Eynon, Bertrand Cadard, David Asst Directors....................................... MarkEgerton, Cameron, Jonathon Hardy.

BRAINWAVE THE ODD ANGRY SHOT Mark Turnbull Kennedy, Chris Haywood, John Ewart, Angela Punch, Bryan Brown, John Clayton, Synopsis: The gladiatorial road culture. A Prod Company.. Brainwave Productions P/L Scott Hicks Prod Company.... Samson Productions P/L few years from now . . .

Director...................................Alex Morphett Camera Operator.......................... John Seale Don Crosby, John Dease, Drew Forsythe, Director.....................................................TomJeffrey Tony Barney, Bill Lyle, Paul Jones, Mark Screenplay............................ Tony Morphett Focus Puller................................. David Burr Screenplay...............................................TomJeffrey Producer................................................. DougMichels Clapper/Loader................... David Foreman Holden, Rob Steele, Bruce Spence, Les From the novel by William Nagle Foxcroft, Brian Blain,'Lana Lesley, Sue B u d g e t.......................................... $1 million Gaffer...................................................... RobYoung OCEANS Producers...................................SueMilliken, Length.............................................. 100 min Continuity.................................. MoyaIceton Walker, Johnnie Q uicksilver, Bunney .

(Working Title) Tom Jeffrey Brooke, Gerry Duggan, Denise Otto, Anne Gauge.............................. 35mm Panavision Casting Consultants............ Allison Barrett, Budget.......................................... $600,000 Prod Company..................... Yarra Films P/L Progress............................... Pre-Production S.A. Casting' Haddy, Marshall Crosby, Alex Archdale, Length................................................. Feature for the Victorian Film Corporation Release Date.......................... January 1980 Art Dept Buyer............................ NeilAngwin Ken Bernard, Jane W inchester, Alan Progress.................................Pre-Production Director........................................ EricLomas Penney, Peter Pilcher, Jude Kuring, Berys Standby Props............................Clark Munro Synopsis: The story is about an SAS Music........................................... Mike Brady Marsh, Slim de Grey, Kay Eklund, Kit Taylor, Asst Art Dept.............................. Harry Zettel commando patrol on a year’s tour of duty in Photography..............................................EricLomas Don Philps, Peter Carroll, Graeme Smith, DIMBOOLA Set Decorator............................................KenJames Vietnam.

Editor............................................ Tim Lewis Grip............................................. David Petley Robin Moase, Franco Valentino, Brian Prod Sompany.......................... Pram Factory Prod Manager.......................... Chris Batson Anderson, Ray Marshall, Tessa Mallos, Ray Stunt Co-ordinator.......................... Alf Joint Productions Pty. Ltd. Sound Recordist........................ GeoffWhite Meagher, Chad Morgan, John Flaus, SIMMONDS AND NEWCOMBE Director.................................................. John Duigan Asst Editor........................................JeannineChialvo Camera Asst..........................Jack Endacott Stephan Bisley, George Till.

Construction Manager.......... Herbert Pinter Screenplay.............................. Jack Hibberd Prod Company.................... VeriteFilm Prod, Asst Editor............................... Chris Batson Still Photography................................. DavidKynoch Producer................................... John Weiley M. & L. Pty Ltd Length................................................. 15 min Technical Advisor................. DevonMinchin Assoc Producers.........................John Timlin, Director...................................................... PhilNoyce Color Process................................. Eastman Best Boy................................. PeterMaloney Screenplay............................

Ken Cameron, Max Gillies T H E N IG H T T H E P R O W L E R Progress.............................. Post-Production Makeup.......................................... Jose Perez in association with Les Newcombe Music..................................... George Dreyfus Synopsis: The coastline of Victoria is an Prod Company............ Chariot Films Pty Ltd Special Effects.........................Ian Jamieson Producers............................................ HilaryLinstead, Photography.......................................... TomCowan area of spectacular contrasts. The film aims Director....................................

Jim Sharman Titles................................. Optical & Graphic Phil Noyce Editor..................................................... TonyPaterson to capture this unique beauty and to create Screenplay.............................. Patrick White Budget.......................................... $500,000 Assoc Producer......................................

Ross Matthews Prod Manager..........................................VickiMolloy an awareness of what it has to offer.

Producer............................ Anthony Buckley Length................................................. 95 min Prod Secretary................... LaurelCrampton Photography............................ Russell Boyd Music.................................... Cameron Allan Color Process................................ Eastman Costume/Wardrobe................. Rose Chong Editor........................................ David Huggett Photography.....................

David Sanderson Progress.......................Shooting April, 1978 Margot Lindsay Casting Consultants.............. M. & L. Pty Ltd Cast: Ed Devereaux, Terry Donovan, Tony Editor........................................Sara Bennett Budget.......................................... $762,000 Sound Recordist.................................... LloydCarrick Prod Manager................................Pom Oliver Bonner, Frank Wilson, Charles Tingwell.

Camera Asst........................ WolfgangKress Length................................... Approx 110 min Synopsis: Dick Martin, an ex-policeman Prod Designer.................................... LucianaArrighi Progress................................. Pre-Production Boom Operator....................................... PhilStirling dismissed for taking a bribe, is robbed while Unit Manager........................................ BrianRosen Gaffer................................... Brian Bansgrove working as a security guard for Sacs Prod Secretary....................... Su Armstrong Continuity....................................................JillTaylor Anna Senior 24 FRAMES A SECOND OR IN LIKE Security Services. He then joins D’arcy's Costume/Wardrobe.................

Stand by Props........................ John Koning Security Services, who believe they are Sound Recordist.....................Don Connolly Grip...................................... PaulAmmitzboll FLYNN Mixer........................................ Peter Fenton going to be robbed, too.

They suspect an Still Photograph.................................. PonchHawkes Prod Company................. Scimitar Pictures inoffensive-seeming recruit though the Sound Editor............................Paul Maxwell Budget.......................................... $350,000 Australia P/L robbery is actually being planned by an old Asst Directors................... Elisabeth Knight, Length................................................. 95 min Director.................................... Allen Bickford Keith Heygate, employee. The elaborate robbery Is planned Color Process......................... Eastmancolor Screenplay............................ Allen Bickford Brian Rosen to take place when most of the staff are at a Progress................................. Pre-Production Producer............................... Allen Bickford Camera Operator........................

Kevin Lind Union meeting and only starts to go wrong Cast: Max Gillies, Bruce Spence, Nathalie Exec Producer......... Simon Smith-Peterson Focus Puller................................. David Burr when Martin notices a flaw in the replica Bate, Jack Perry, Irene Hewitt, Tim Assoc Producer........................Yvette Rees Boom Operator..................

Chris Goldsmith armoured car which is the key to the Robertson, Kerry Dwyer, Bill Garner, Evelyn Progress................................. Pre-Production Clapper/Loader..................... MikeGambrill attempted theft.

Include your current and future Krape, Chad Morgan, Claire Binney, Captain (shooting March 1978) Gaffer......................................................PeterWood Matchbox. projects in our production Release Date................................ Late 1978 Continuity..................... ... Caroline Stanton S ynopsis: A comedy that traces the Cast: Steve Renyon, Sean Myers, Roberto survey listings. Forward details Casting Consultants.............. M & L Casting unusual social history of a small country O c c h ip ln ti, Lisa D om brovsky, Emma Props Buyer............................ Bruce Barber and stills to: town over the three days that lead up to the Binassi, Ralph Kurl, Alan Hale Jnr., Ken Asst Props Buyer.......................Jenny Green marriage of Maureen Delaney to Morrie Hunter, John Feathers.

Stand-by Props...................................... HarryZettel McAdam.

Production Survey, Synopsis: Based on extensive research Grip...................................... Paul Ammitzbol carried out in Australia, the film is an actionProd Accountant................. Geoff Cameron Cinema Papers, adventure-comedy. It traces Errol Flynn’s Asst Editor.................................................TedOften 143 Therry St., early life in Australia, to his final exit from Still Photography..................................... BrettHilder Melbourne 3000.

Hairdresser............................. Trish Cunliffe Cinema Papers cannot and does not accept this country. Several of Flynn’s close friends are featured in the cast.

Best Boy..................................................

Pat Hagen any responsibility for inaccuracies resulting Telephone: (03) 329 5983 Makeup....................................................... JillPorter from w ro n g ly co m ple te d or untyped Electrician.............................. Roy Majewski production survey details.

PRODUCERS, DIRECTORS and PRODUCTION COMPANIES

Cinema Papers, Aprif/June — 349

PRODUCTION SURVEY THE ABC OF LOVE AND SEX Length..................... ............. Approx 90 min Art Director............................... Leslie Binns Narrator......................................... Peter O’Nell Color Process...................... Eastman 7247 Prod Secretary...................... Jenny Barty Titles.......................................... Peter McLean - AUSTRALIA STYLE Progress..............................Post-Production Costume/Wardrobe...............................KevinRegan Budget.................................................. $10 ,000 Release date................................. May 1978 Prod Company............ John Lamond Motion Standby Wardrobe.......... Aphrodite Jansen Length......................................................55 min Picture Enterprises Cast: Patients and staff of Gladesviile Sound Recordist......................

PaulClarke Color process............. Eastman 7 2 5 2 ,7 2 4 0 .

Dist Company.............................. Roadshow Hospital, Sydney; Maggie Fitzgibbon; Serge Asst Directors...........................................TomBurstall, Release D ate.............................March 1 9 7 8 Director................................... John Lamond Martich-Osterman; Bridget; stars of Michael James Parker Cast: Reg Gorman, Gillan Gillbert, John THE CHANT OF JIMMIE Screenplay............................ John Lamond, Edgley Circus International.

Camera Operator................................... DanBurstall Miller, Wendy Miller, Robin Layset, Grant BLACKSMITH Alan Finney Synopsis: Patients in a mental hospital go Camera Asst........................ Andrew Lesnie Layset, Laurie Deenham, Greegre Martin, through workshop situations in which they Producer................................................. John Lamond Focus Puller.......................... Jack Endacott Mike Martin, Narelle Martin, Sonia Martin.

Assoc Producer..................... Russell Hurley confront themselves, aiming to gain self­ Boom Operator....................................... PhilStirling Prod Company— Film House Australia P/L Synopsis: A film on the cycle and all its Photography.......... Gary Whapshott (Aust), expression and individual freedom. Using Clapper/Loader.....................Robert Murray Dist Company................... Hoyts (domestic) uses in today’s life style, ranging from Lasse Bjork (Sweden) parallel situations from life outside the Gaffer.....................................

Stewart Sorby Director..................................... Fred Schepisi children's bikes to the businessman, racing Editor.................................... Russell Hurley hospital walls, this film seeks to relate these Continuity.............................. Fran Haarsma Screenplay............................... Fred Schepisi and tour cycles. Part of the film-is on the Prod M anager....................... Russell Hurley aims to the society in which we live. Reality Casting Consultant.................................BarbiTaylor Producer...................................Fred Schepisi restoration of a BSA winged wheel cycle Art Director........................... StephenWalsh v e rsus dream th ro u g h o u t th is rich, Set Decorator......................................... PeterKendall Assoc Producer....................... Ray Stevens which is the only one left in Australia.

Prod Key Grip................................................ NoelMoodie Secretary..................... Jackie Horvath contrasting, sad, happy — sometimes even Music................................... Bruce Smeaton hilarious — picture of basic human dilemma.

Mixer........................................Bob Gardiner Grip...................................Geoff Richardson Photography................................. Ian Baker GOLDEN NATURE Sound Editor........................ Russell Hurley Asst Editor........ Mark Norfolk Editor...................................Brian Kavanagh (Working Title) Camera Asst.......................... Jack Endacott Standby Props..................... John Powditch Prod Designer..................... Wendy Dickson Prod Company.....................

The Film Factory THE CAR STRIPPERS Prod Accountant................ Michael Roseby Gaffer........................................................ RayThomas Prod Co-ordinator.....................Andrea Way Director...................................................... HansStammel Prod Company..................... The Film Factory Second Unit Photography.......Brian Gracey Catering........................................ D&R Prod Prod Secretary....................... Pam Stockley Producer..................................................

HansStammel Director..................................................... HansStammel Props....................................................... MikeHudson Still Photography. David Parker Producer's Secretary.........Sylvia van Wyck Photography................................................Hans Stammel Grip..................................................... GeorgeTurner Screenplay................................................ AndyPearcey, Best Boy............. Ian Dewhurst Music................. Recorded at Anvil Denham Prod Asst...................................................

Heidei Sommer Choreography........................Marilyn Rogers Hans Stammel Makeup........................................ Jose Perez

by National Philharmonic Orchestra Budget.................................................... $60 0 0 Still Photography.. Charles Druss (Sweden) Producer................................................... HansStammel Special Effects................Conrad Rothmann Costiune/Wardrobe.......... Bruce Finlayson Length......................................................25 min Russell Hurley (Aust) Music......................................................... Mucky Duck Prod Accountant............................. MichaelRoseby Standby Wardrobe.................................DarioGunzberg Color Process.......................................Eastman Makeup.......................... Margaret Archman Photography............................................... HansStammel Runner................................................... PaulHallam Sound Recordist............................ Bob Allen Progress................................................Shooting Editor......................................................... HansStammel Narrators...................................Sandy Gore, Budget.......................................... $400,000 Mixer................................. Gerry Humphries Release Date.................................... June 1978 Prod Manager.....................

Glenda Hembley Michael Cole Length.............................................

120 min Sound Editors....................... Peter Burgess, Synopsis: Musical documentary of the Prod Assts................................................... HeidiSommer.

Anim ation.............................................ModelMation Color Process........................................ Agfa William Anderson return to nature of a gold mining districL Electrician.................................................RayThomas Uma Pillay Progress............................................AwaitingRelease Dean Gawen Nature left to itself will remove or cover up Titles........................................... Ray Strory Sound Recordist........................................ DonMolosch Asst Directors........................................... KenAmbrose, Release Date............................... June 1978 most signs of man’s intrusion or destruction Sound Asst..-.......................................... Owen Wyatt Length.................................................85 min Cast: Susan Penhaligon, Robert Helpmann, Greg Allen, of the districL Color Process.................................Eastman Asst Director............................................ AndyPearcley Rod Mullinar, Bruce Barry, Julia Blake, David Tayles Progress...................................... In Release Camera Operator................... Ken Woollams Focus Puller............................John Swaffield Helen Hemingway, Walter Pym, Maria HAWAIIAN SAFARI Cast: Katie Morgan, Leon Cosack, Robyn Grips............................................................. NeilWatkins, Camera Asst.............................. Ellery Ryan Mercedes, Frank Wilson, Peter Culpan, Prod Company..........Rodney Sumpter Films Bartley, Ian Broadbent, Ian Crow, Brigid Ilona Andruschkiw Boom Operators................ Chris Goldsmith, Marilyn Rodgers, Peggy Nichols, Carole-Ann Dist Company............... David Sumpter Films Still Photography..................... Mark Peasley O’Donoughue.

Malcolm Hocking Aylett.

Director...........................................................RodSumpter S ynopsis: A soft, sexy, sensual light­ Titles............................................................ RodGillies Clapper/Loader............................ Alan Cole Synopsis: What was Patrick's secret? What Screenplay........................... Mike Whitmarsh Length.....................................................

15 min hearted look at all manners pertaining to Continuity...................................... Jan Tyrell was the strange influence he possessed? A Producer..................................................... RodSumpter love and sex in alphabetical order.

Color Process.................................... Eastman Casting Director..................Rhonda Schepisi hospital, a relationship, a sense of the usual Exec Producer............................................ RodSumpter Progress.................................. In Production Asst Prod Design................................... IgorLazareff are turned upside down in a thrilling emotion Assoc Producer............................. Ron Fisher C ast: Colin Borgonon, Cliff Sanderson, Set Dressers/Prop Buyers.. Mark Rochford charged experience.

Photography................................................ RodSumpter Colin Armstrong, Mucky Duck.

Jill Eden Editor..................................................Ron Fisher Synopsis: The stripping of a late model car Standby Props..................... Nick Hepworth Prod Secretary....................... Valerie Sumpter Key Grips............................ Joel Witherden, 16mm PRODUCTION SURVEY on a dusty, remote Australian highway.

Music Director................................

John Povey . Tony Sprague Sound Recordists........................... Ron Fisher, Asst Grip..........................Steve Greenaway THE CONFESSIONS OF RONALD 35mm IN RELEASE Mike Whitmarsh Chief Wrangler.............................. Ken Grant BIGGS Mixers................................................Ron Fisher, Wrangler.............................................. MarkWilliams Prod Company... The Grundy Organisation Mike Whitmarsh Neg Matching................. . Margaret Carden AFTER THE BREAK Dist Company......................... O/Ten Network Special Photo Effects.................................. RodSumpter Asst Editors............................................ KenSallows, Director........................................ Barry Sloane Asst Director......................... David O’Donnell Prod Company..............Bill Gill Productions Jill Stevenson WEEKEND OF SHADOWS Camera Asst............................................ DavidSumpter Director............................................. Bill Gill Producer...................................... Barry Sloane Mark Norfolk Prod Company...........Samson Film Services Continuity.................................................Valerie Sumpter Producer........................................... Bill Gill Photography................................Tony Wilson Asst Dubbing Editors............ Steve Lambeth, ' Pty Ltd, S.A.F.C. Editor............................................

John Oakley Asst Editor..................................................... RodSumpter Photography.......................... Hans Stammel Susy Pointon Director.................................................... TomJeffrey Technical Advisor......................... Rod Fisher Sound Recording..................... Owen Wyatt Prod Co-ordinator..................... Terri Vincent Still Photography..................... John Pollard Screenplay............................ Peter Yeldham Sound R ecordist.......................John Oakley Script A s s t.............................Valerie Sumpter Actors’ Tutor.......................Michael Caulfield From novel The Reckoning Foreign Language versions: Length......................................................90 min Narrator............................. Mike Whitmarsh Aboriginal Casting Director................................. Hans Stammel Gauge.................................................... 16mm Producers.............................................. TomJeffrey, Length.................................................... $10,000 Co-ordinator........................ Bob Maza Matt Carroll Producer............................... Hans Stammel Release Date............................... March 1978 Color Process........................ Eastman 7247 Aboriginal Advisors.......... Howard Creamer, Assoc Producer........................ SueMilliken Translations.......................... Hans Stammel Cast: Ronald Biggs, Charmian Brent Colin Release Date.........................

December 1977 Ray Kelly (German), Mackenzie, Ian McColl, Mikezimho Biggs Music............................. Charles Marawood Cast: Rory Russell, Jerry Lopez, Bertleman, Hairdresser.......................................... CherylWilliams Nae Osawa (son), Det. Chief Sup. Jack Slipper (Scotland Photography............ Richard Wallace A.C.S. Mark Liddell, Peter Drouyn, Peter Neisen, Best Boy...................................................PaulGanter (Japanese), Yard), and various other cameos, Christine Editor.......................................Rod Adamson Ian Goodrell, the Kapo Brothers.

Makeup.............................. Deryck de Niese Victor Seah Dupont Prod Manager............................SueMilliken Synopsis: Surfing in Hawaii and Europe Pre-Prod Manager.............. Richard Brennan (Chinese) Synopsis: A documentary shot in Brazil, Art Director............... Christopher Webster featuring contem porary H aw aiian and Construction Manager.............. Ray Pattison, Narrators.................................... UriThemal France, England and Australia on the re­ Unit Manager.........................................RalphStorey Australian surfers.

Ray Brown (German), telling of the Ronald Biggs story by Biggs Prod Accountant......................

Treisha Ghent Asst Const Manager.........Geoff Richardson Nae Osawa himself. It traces the story from the Great Prod Secretary....................... Cathy Flannery JACKA V. C. Prod Accountant.........................Lynn Barker (Japanese), Train Robbery to his life in Brazil.

Music Director......................................... AlanDean Prod Company................. Sunrise Picture Co Asst Prod Acc.........Carolynne Cunningham Victor Seah Costume/Wardrobe................................AnnaSenior Directors.................................................... RossCooper, Mechanic............................................... BarryHogarth (Chinese) Sound Recordist.................... Ken Hammond Nigel Buesst Length.................................................25 min FIRST THINGS FIRST Chief Electrician.......................Brian Adams Mixer.................................................... PeterFenton Producers.................................................. RossCooper, Electrician/Gen Operator— TedNordsvan Release Date........................ February 1978 Dist Company................ Vincent Library Sound Editor...................................Greg Bell Nigel Buesst Catering............................................... FrankManley, Synopsis: German, Japanese and Chinese Director...................................................... PaulJansen Asst. Sound Editor......... , . . . Hejen Brown Screenplay.................................... Nigel Buesst Michael Davis versions of the documentary After the Screenplay................................................. PaulJansen Asst Directors.......................... Michael Lake, Break.

Research................................................... RossCooper Publicist............................ Dennis Davidson Producer.............................

Aphrodite Jansen Toivo.Lember, Photography............................... Nigel Buesst Unit Publicist..........................................GeoffFreeman Music.................................... Andrew Mclntire Geoff Tanner Editor............................................ Nigel Buesst Transport Manager.................................JohnChase Photography................................................. IvanHexter Camera Operator....................................

John Seale Sound Recordist...................................... Ross Cooper Asst Transport Manager.......... Colin Chase ALBRECHT FOR YOU Editor.........................................Louis F. Anivitti Focus Puller...................... David Williamson Narrator......................................Harold Baigent Titles................................... ............... AI&AI Art Director................................................

John Morgan Prod Company.......

Hobson’s Bay Movie Co. Clapper/Loaders.......................................Jan Kenny, B u d g et.................................................. $30 0 0 Budget......................................................$1.2million Steve Dobson, Director......................................... Lou Brown Costume/Wardrobe................................... JaneHowat Length....................................................... 46 min Gauge..............................35 mm Panavision Screenplay................................. Lou Brown, Sound R ecordist......................................LloydCarrick Boom Operator........................................JackFriedman Color Process.................................Ektachrome Color Process...................... Eastman 5247 Doug Jaquier Sound Editor...........................Louis F. Anivitti Gaffer.......................................... TonyTegg Release Date.............................January 1978 Progress........................... Awaiting Release Continuity............................... LynMcEncroe Producer....................................... Lou Brown Camera Operator...................................... IvanHexter Synopsis: The life and times of Australia’s Release Date....................... May/June 1978 Focus Puller............................................. RobertPowell Location Casting.................... Hilary Linstead Assoc Producer..................................... BobKewley first Victoria Cross winner.

Cast: Tommy Lewis, Freddy Reynolds, Ray Casting Consultants.............. M & L Casting Music................................... Magic Pudding Camera A s s t........................................ RobertPowell Barrett, Jack Thompson, Julie Dawson, Photography................................ John Lord Boom Operator............................... Paul Elliot Script Consultant...................................MoyaWood IMMODEST WIFE Peter Carroll, Robyn Nevin, Don Crosby, Editor.............................................Lou Brown Gaffer......................................................... TonyHoltham 2nd Unit Prod Company....................... Alpha Centauri Ruth Cracknell, Elizabeth Alexander, Peter Art Director............................. Mike Hudson Continuity....................................................Anne McLeod Director/Cameraman .. , Bill Grimmond Co-Productions (Rome) Sumner, Tim Robertson, Jane Harders, Ray Grip................................................................ NoelMudie Music Director....................................... AlanPearce Prop Buyer......... ...................... Harry Zettell Dist Company......................... Alpha Centauri Meagher, Brian Anderson, Marshall Crosby, Costume/Wardrobe............................ Sadie Still Photography...................................Andrew Jones Property Master..................................

Harry Zettel Co-Productions Matthew Crosby, Rosie Lilley, Katie Lilley, Sound Recordist.......................Danny Dyson Titles................................................Owen Bros Construction Manager.......... Herbert Pinter Director.......................................... Jubilee Rose Angela Punch, Rob Steele, Bill Charlton, Camera Asst........................ Mike Pattinson Budget................................................. $70 1 0 Standby Props........................

Bruce Barber Screenplay...............................

Lesley Tucker John Jarrett, Barbara Wyndon, Kevin Myles, Budget...............................................$10,000 Length......................................................24 min Key Grip................................Graham Mardell Producer........................................Jubilee Rose Ken G rant Richard Ussher, Alan Hardy, Length.................................................30 min Color Process.....................................Eastman Asst.

Grip.................................Dennis Smith Exec Producer.................

Dr Vittorio Bianchi John Bowman, Michael Carmen.

Color Process...................................Eastman Progress........................... Awaiting Release Asst. Editor........................ Andrew Prowse Assoc Producers..............KoAn Productions Synopsis: The story of a young half-blood Still Cast: Carmen Duncan, Tony Bonner.

Progress............................. Post Production Photography..................... David Kynoch Music.............................................................Nino Rota aboriginal, who is made conscious of his C ast: Rhonda Stroud, Bob Hicks, Ed Synopsis: A study in infatuation, Dog Trainer............................... RayWinslade Photography.............................................. TomCowan white blood by a missionary. He leaves his Rosser, Margret McClusky, Sue Burke, Hairdresser......................................... JennyBrown Sound Recordist...............

Lawrie Fitzgerald FULL CYCLE tribe to find a place in the white man’s world Chris Keystone, Keith Foote.

C aterers........................... Movie Munchies Camera Asst.............................................. PaulReid where he seeks acceptance because he Synopsis: A man wins a seat in Parliament Prod Company..........Pete Tabe Productions 2nd Unit Asst. Director....... Steve Connard Casting Consultants....................................Sue Ford lives by white standards. He fails through no Directors..................................

Peter McLean, and finds a few surprises in store for him.

Best Boy........... ’............. George Harrington Length......................................................Feature fault of his own and explodes in a fateful Barry Gilbert Make-up................................................Peggy Carter B&W Stock................................................KodakPlus-X "declaration of war” — the white man’s way, Screenplay..................................................PeterMclean, BALANCE Electrician........................ Roland McManus Progress..................................

Post-Production he has learnt, of acquiring a licence for Reg Gorman (Working Title) Title Design............................. Kevin Brooks Cast: Jubilee Rose, Stewart Green, Chris revenge and violence.

Producers....................................................PeterMclean, Maudson, and co-starring Lesley Tucker. .

Runner.................................................. MarkPatterson Prod Company.....................Viewfinder Films Tabe Valentyne Budget............................................ $500,000 Director..................................................Micha Nussinov S y n o p s is : P a s s io n a te love sto ry of Photography............................................ PeterMclean, PATRICK Length................................................ 95 min Co-Authors.......................Jennifer Nussinov, im m od est em o tio n s fo rcin g d ra m a tic Barry Gilbert Prod Company...............Patrick Productions Color Process........................ Eastmancolor changes in an idyllic relationship, which Micha Nussinov Editor............................................ PeterMclean for Australian International Progress....................................... In Release Producer............................................... Micha Nussinov afte r much heartbreak, reach es new Prod Manager....................... Tabe Valentyne Film Corporation Pty Ltd heights.

Cast: John Waters, Melissa Jaffer, Graeme Assoc Producer.............. Jennifer Nussinov Costumes/Wardrobe................. Gillan Gilbert Dist Company................................. Filmways Blundell, Wyn Roberts, Barbara West, Music....................................................RobertHughes Sound Recordist........................ LloydCarrick THE KING OF THE TWO DAY Director............................... Richard Franklin Graham Rouse, Audine Leith. Keith Lee, Bill Photography....................................... MichaNussinov Mixer.......................................................... BarryGilbert Screenplay........................Everett de Roche Hunter, Les Foxcroft, Kit Taylor, Kevin Miles, Editor.................................................. DusanWerner WONDER Sound Editor............................................ BarryGilbert Producers........................Antony I. Ginnane, Don Barker, David Hursthouse, Ken Weaver, Prod Manager................. Jennifer Nussinov Camera Operator....................... Peter Mclean Director........................................................KevinAnderson Richard Franklin Rob George, Leslie Dayman, Bryan Brown, Sound Recordist.......... Nicholas Alexander Camera Asst................................. Peter O ’Nell Screenplay................................................. KevinAnderson Tofly Barry, Stuart Campbell, Hedley Cullen, Additional Sound..................... Robert Wells Clapper/Loader.......................................... JohnMcLean Exec Producer............................ Bill Fayman Producers................................................. KevinAnderson, Music............................................ Brian May Faith Kleinig, Tony Allison.

Max Henser Asst Editor............................. Tabe Valentyne Walter Dobrowolski Photography..................... Donald McAlpine Synopsis: An action drama involving a hunt Camera Asst...................................Mike Roll Still Photography..................................... BarryGilbert Music.....................................Gregory Sneddon Editor................... Edward McQueen-Mason for a murder suspect by a group of men in a Titles.......................................... Ron Waugh Script Assistant............................................ RegGorman Photography............................Kevin Anderson Prod Manager............................ Barbi Taylor small country town.

Budget............................................. $25,000 Hairdresser................................................ GillanGilbert Editor.............................v. . . . Kevin Anderson

35mm AWAITING RELEASE

350 — Cinema Papers, April/June

PRODUCTION SURVEY Music Director.................................. GeorgeGittoes Producer....................................................KenCameron WELCOME ABOARD THE NEWMAN SHAME Sound Recordists................................... PhilStirling, Costume/Wardrobe........... Gabrielle Dalton Assoc Producer...................................... RossMatthews John Phillips Prod Company.............. Bill Gill Productions Prod Company... The Grundy Organisation Sound Editor................................... Carl Vine Asst Producer................. Christine Dunstan Nick Alexander Producer............................................

Bill Gill Dist Company.......................... STW-9 Perth Camera Assts...................................... ClaudeGittoes, Photography............................ Russell Boyd Lloyd Carrick Photography...........................Hans Stammel Director................................................ JulianPringle David Martins Editor.......................................David Huggett Sound Editor....................... Kevin Anderson Editor.....................................

Hans Stammel Screenplay.......................................... BruceWishart Bob Burton Prod Manager................. Christine Dunstan Grip..................................... Paul Ammitzboll Narrator.............................................. Bill Gill Producer.............................. Robert Bruning Asst Art Director................... Gabrielle Dalton Sound Recordist.............. Lawrie Fitzgerald Asst Editor............................................. TonyStevens Length................................................. 1 5 min Assoc Producer....................... Michael Lake Set Decorator.................................... GeorgeGittoes Asst Director........................................... RossMatthews Neg Matching................................. Warwick Driscoll Color Process............................ Ektachrome Photography....................................... RichardWallace Stunt Co-ordinator........................... GeorgeGittoes Progress............................ Post Production Special Effects............................ John Pugh, Sponsor.......................................... US Navy Editor......................................................... RonWilliams Choreography................... Graham Murphy, Cast: Steve Spears, Robyn Nevin, John Darryl Gladwin Synopsis: Public relations documentary, on Art Director......................................... RichardHarrison Ronaldo Gaden, Max Phipps.

Titles............................................. Bill Owen the operations of the naval communications Prod Co-ordinator................................ IreneKorol and George Gittoes Length................................................. 70 min base, Harold E. Holt, at Exmouth, Western Prod Secretary..................Kaye Livingstone Still Photography................................ GeorgeGittoes Australia.

Color Process.............................. Ektachrome Unit Manager..................... Michael Padgett Technical Advisor.............. John Masterson, THE THIN EDGE Progress............................................ AwaitingRelease Costume/Wardrobe.......... Carol Margieson Neil Lutherborough Cast: Walter Dobrowolski, Sigrid Thornton, Prod Company.......................... Mark & Roger Standby.............................. Carol Margieson (ATLAB) Director.................................... RogerBayley WET CLAY Dianne Giulieri, Allen Bickford, Jame.s Sound Recordist.................................... LloydCarrick Budget............................................... $5000 Robertson, Maureen O 'Loughlin, John Screenplay............................... Roger Bayley Asst Director........................................ ToivoLember Director..................................Don McLennan (to double head stage) Matyear, Ron Macris, Ian Blake, Andrew Producer..................................................MarkRuseScreenplay.......................... Don McLennan Focus Puller............................................PeterWynne Length................................... Approx 35 min Assoc Producer.................................... Jutta Goetze Robertson, Ron W atkins and with the Boom Operator..................................... TrevorGaines Producer..................................... Mike Jacob Color Process...................... Eastman 7247 participation of Peter Sumner.

Music..............................John Clifford White Clapper/Loader................ Simon Ackerman Photography................... Zbigniew Friedrich Release Date.......................December 1978 Synopsis: A writer of "pulp” detective Photography................... Michael Pattinson Gaffer..................................... Robbie Young Art Director.............................. Mike Hudson Cast: Bob Burton, members of the N.S.W. novels encounters difficulties when he tries Editor.........................................................CrisBatson Continuity..................................... Linda Ray Sound Recordist..................... Lloyd Carrick Dance Company, Ronaldo and various to re-write his latest book.

Prod Manager..........................................MarkRuseBudget..............................................$30,000 Casting Consulting............................. KerrySpence others.

Art Director..............................................Jutta Goetze Grip............................................David Petley Length.................................................

40 min Synopsis: Point Omega is a film poem Assistant Editor........................ Karen Crisp Progress................................Pre-Production u s in g a b s tr a c t im ag e s to lin k the Costume/Wardrobe................................Jutta Goetze THE LAST TASMANIAN Sound Recordist..........................

Bill Baxter Props Buyer/Set Dresser.......David Crosby Synopsis: Story of a girl who is released transformation of human beings through Prod Com pany... . ARTIS Film Productions Standby Props........................................ PeterWhite from an institution after doing an armed thousands of years. Each transformation Asst Director....................... Michael Rogers Pty Ltd in association with Tasmanian Camera Asst...........................................DavidCollyer 3rd Asst Director...................... Lawrence Hill hold-up and her subsequent rehabilitation. becomes less like a 2 0 th century man until Department of Film Production and Société Boom Operator.........................................PaulElliot Best Boy................................. Michael Ewan a completely alien ‘human’ image appears.

Française de Production Gaffer..................................... Beamish Elliot Makeup.............................. Josy Knowland Holography is seen as the most important Dist C om pany... . ARTIS Film Productions WOMAN SEEN Continuity.......................... Andrew de Groot Length................................................. 93 min development in science to cause the first Pty Ltd Grip......................................................... DavidGornell Gauge................................................. 16mm Prod Company.........Dramafilm Productions transformation and the Bela Julesz studies Director........................................Tom Haydon Still Photography.....................................

Paul Elliot Color Process................................... Eastman Director..............................................Madelon Wilkens in Foundations of Cyclopean Perception Screenplay................................Tom Haydon, Progress............................... Post-Production Screenplay........................ MadelonWilkens are seen to cause the second. There are Runners...................................Peter Watson Rhys Jones Titles..........................................Shane Cargill Cast: George Lazenby, Joan Bruce, Dianne Producer............................

Madelon Wilkens seven transformations in all.

Producer................................... Tom Haydon Budget.............................................. $4500 Craig, Alwyn Kurts.

Photography.............................. John Laurie Assoc Producers...................... Ray Barnes, Length................................................. 20 min Sound Recordist......................... Kai Dineen Synopsis: A respectable bank manager Roger Fauriat Color Process................................. Eastman Camera Asst.............................. Clare Jager commits suicide after being framed by a Photography............................... Geoff Burton Progress..................................................... InRelease Continuity........................................... CarolynHoward vice syndicate. Ex-Hong Kong police PORT OF FREMANTLE Editor........................................ CharlesRe.es inspector, John Brandy, is called in to assist Cast: David Mitchell, Juliet Basckai, Janet Length................................................. 1 5 min WESTERN AUSTRALIA Prod Co-ordinator.................Roz Berrystone Lord, Mark Timson, Trevor Hunter. by the bank manager's widow.

Progress..................................................... InProduction (Working Title) Musical Director.................... William Davies Synopsis: A family disintegrates on a run­ C ast: Susan Weis, Lyn Hovey, Peter Prod Company..............Bill Gill Productions TASMANIA down dairy farm.

Brownrigg.

Script.......................................... John Aitken Location Manager............Graham McKinney Synopsis: An exploration of the similar and NO FEAR - I QUOTE Prod Asst...................................Gillian Leahy Director................................. Hans Stammel different effects that class has on two THUMPALONG Producer............................................ Bill Gill Prod Secretaries................. Adrienne Elliott, Prod Company............................ Drama Film women, both of whom have a child.

Prod Company.................

Nicholson Cartoon Rosanne Andres-Baxter Productions Photography..................................... Bill Gill, Productions Sound Recordist...................... Robert Wells E d ito r................................... Hans Stammel Director...................................... Claire Jager Screenplay............................ Peter Nicholson Camera Operators...................Geoff Burton, Screenplay............................... Claire Jager Prod Asst................................. Janet Prance Producer................................

Peter Nicholson VANDALISM Gert Kirchner Producer.......................... Madelon Wilkens Length..........................................................26minAnimation.......................... Peter Nicholson, Prod Company..............Bill Gill Productions Camera Assts.................Russell Galloway, Camera Operator.......................John Laurie Color Process................................. Eastman Paul Williams Producer............................................ Bill Gill _ Gillian Leahy Camera Assts..................... Madelon Wilkens Release Date.......................December 1978 Director.............................................. Bill Gill Progress.............. ................... In Production Music................................... Joan Lawrence Continuity..............................Roz Berrystone Sound Recordist..................................... KaiDineen Length................................................. 15 min Screenplay................................................. BillQuin Second Unit Photography........Gert Kirchner Continuity.......................................... CarolineHoward Sponsor................ Fremantle Port Authority Progress..............................Awaiting Release Photography............................Hans Stammel Length................................................. 20 min Still Photography......................... Ray Davie, S y n o p s i s : T r a c in g th e h is t o r ic a l Synopsis: An animated children's musical, Editor...................................... HansStammel Synopsis: Mutual strength in the face of the development and the operations of the Port about a person with three mouths.

Jacquie Gardner Prod Asst................................. Janet Prance alienating industrial complex which could of Fremantle.

Grip....................................... Gary Clements Script Research..................... HansStammel and nearly does destroy the two people Electrician................................ Lembit Laats UNDER THE STEAM Length..........................................................15min involved.

FRANCE TH ESW AG M AN Prod Manager........................................ PierreRobin Release Date................................. June 1978 Prod Company.........Dramafilm Productions Photography..............................................GuyMacou Sponsor................................ Education Dept Producer.........., ...................... Anton Dekker Director....................................................JohnLaurie NOT JUST THE OBJECT Sound Recordist.................................. MarioVinck of W.A. Photography.......................... Anton Dekker Screenplay.............................................. JohnLaurie S y n o p s i s: D ocu m e n ta ry to c o u n te r Camera Asst....................................... AdrienFortis Director..................................... Meg Stewart Animation................................. AntonDekker Producer.................................................. JohnLaurie vandalism In educational institutions.

Continuity..............................Roz Berrystone Producer................................... Meg Stewart Puppets and Sets.................... Anton Dekker P hotography...,...................... JamesGrant Still Photography.......................... Jean More Photography........................................ DavidSanderson Assisted by.............................. Eric, Lynnette Editor....................................................... JohnLaurie Electrician................................ Jean Mouton Editor................................. Ronda Macgregor and Russell Dekker Sound Recordist.................................... LloydCarrick BRITAIN Sound Recordist............................... LawrieFitzgerald Music...................................... Santo Spurio, Asst Director..................... Madelon Wilkins Photography................................... Mike Fox Camera Asst........................................ PeterLipscombe Hormah de Niese, Continuity............................Carolyn Howard For details of the following 16mm films Sound Recordist..........................Edward Tise Still Photography................... John Delacour Patric de Niese, Gaffer/Grip........................ John Blenkheim consult the previous issue: Camera Asst........................... Steve Haskett Length................................................. 34 min Ron Loos, Ivan de Neise Length................................................. 23 min After the Break Still Photography................. Eileen Tweedie Release Date............................ March 1978 Length............................................... 18 min C ast: Philip Motherwell. Susan Weis, The Ballet Dancer Graphics Designer............... Bernard Lodge Synopsis: The study of two craftsmen and Color Process..............................Ektachrome Richard Murphet, John Ley. Basic Skills — M athem atics Synopsis: Two lonely inebriates have a Rostrum Camera Operators....... Ken Morse, their relationship to their work: Heather Synopsis: A stop-motion animated puppet Blueprint for Survival Dorrough working in fibre and Ray Norman, film about an old swagman who has a run of chance meeting under a statue of General David Bookman The Business of C o-operation Sound Editor.............................. MickAudley Gordon. They steal a car and travel the road jeweller. Produced for the Crafts Council of bad luck but comes good in the end.

Demolition Asst Editors............................ John Allinson, of no return.

Australia.

A Drop of Rough Ted Ben Morris The End of Schools Kate Grenville THE S C A LP M ER CH AN T ULTRA SOUND Every Care But No Responsibility Narrator..................................... Les McKern 1 00,000 LIGHTS Prod Company... The Grundy Organisation (Working Title) Far W est Budget......................................... $122,608 Dist Company............................ TVW-7 Perth Prod Company................... The Film Factory The G ravedigger and the Girl Prod Company..............Bill Gill Productions Length.............................................. 105 min Director................................. Clif Sanderson Director.................................... Howard Rubie Hansford — the Competitor Producer/Director............................... Bill Gill Color Process........................ Eastman 7247 Producer................................ Hans Stammel Screenplay............................................... IanCoughlan Harvest of Hate Photography. .....................

Hans Stammel Progress.............................. Post Production Music...................................................... NanaMousKouri Producer.............................

RogerMiramsEditor..................................... Hans Stammel The Importance of Keeping Perfectly Still C a s t: A n th ro p o lo g is t Dr Rhys Jones Photography..........................Hans Stammel Photography........................................... PeterHopwood Journey into Paradise Narrator............................................... BillGill supported by past and present natives of Editor.................................... Hans Stammel Editor......................................................... TimWelburn The Last Bullet Tasmania, with some French and English Prod Manager............................ Keith Spice Prod Asst................................................ JanetPrance Budget............................................... $2500 The Last of the Leviathans appearances.

Progress............................................Shooting Art Director............................ Monty Fieguth Asst Editor............................ GaleJohnsten Length.........................................................

12 min A Mill of Hooks Synopsis: The extermination of the Tas­ Release Date.............................. May 1978 Prod Secretary........................................DixieBrown Not Only Pipes Color Process................................... Eastman manian Aboriginals is the only case in Synopsis: The memory of a relationship just Costume/Wardrobe....... Cornelia Volleman Reg-Perry Remembers Progress...........................................

Shooting recent times of a genocide so swift and total. past, in the lights of a big city. Shot entirely Sound Recordist................................. BobbyHayes Ritual Release Date.......................... February 1978 A search to rediscover these unique people. at night under e xisting lighting, with Sound Editor..............................................JimStevens The Touch of Love Sponsor.......... Metro Industries/Ultrasound highspeed color material.

Asst Directors.......................................JamesParker, Teaching Reading Synopsis: The documentation of rail flaw John Easton detection by means of computer technology A Young Girl Dreams of the Last Cowboy LIFE CLASS Camera Operator..................................... IanMcLean from a moving vehicle.

OVERSEAS LAMB MARKETING Prod Company.........Dramafilm Productions Camera Asst............................... Jeff McKell Director.......................................John Laurie Prod Company..............Bill Gill Productions Boom Operator..........................................TimThunder VOLITA Screenplay................................. John Laurie Director............................................... BillGill Gaffer................................. Chick McDonald From a story by Vance Palmer Screenplay........................................ Bill Quin Continuity.............................................. FranHaarsma Prod Company.......... Abraxas Films Pty Ltd TELEVISION SERIES Producer.................................................. JohnLaurie Producer............................................. BillGill Casting Consultants............................ KerrySpence Dist Company.... Abraxas Films Pty Limited Budget..............................................$15,000 Photography.......................... Hans Stammel Second Unit Photo....................................BobDiggens Director............................... James Ricketson Length................................................. 25 min Editor..................................... Hans Stammel Set Decorator............................................ JeffThomas Screenplay....................... James Ricketson Progress................................. Pre-Production Prod Asst................................. Janet Prance Grip.........................................................DavidPetley Producer............................................... JohnWeiley Length.......................................................... 1 5 minStunt Co-ordinator..................... Peter West Assoc Producers.................................. GregRicketson Cast: Susan Weis, Chris Saunders, Maria RAINBOW Simonetta.

Color Process................................... Eastman Script Asst......................... Glenda Hambley Gill Eatherley Synopsis: A life-class teacher attends a Progress................................. In Production Makeup.............................. Leslie Nicholson Music......................................Greg McLean Prod Company..................... Aust Children’s party with her students.

Sponsor....... Lamb Marketing Board of W.A. Special Effects........................ Monty Fieguth Photography.......................................... TomCowan Media Workshop Synopsis: Documentary on the export of Electrician............................... PerrySandow Editor........................... Crisropher Cordeaux Dist Company............ Australian Children's Western Australian lamb products, from the Runner.................................................. PeterLeidimier Sound Recordist................... Kevin Kearney Media Workshop MONDAY MOURNING producer on the land to the consumer in the Length................................................. 90 min Mixer.......................................Les McKenzie Director......................................Barry Cross Prod Company.............. Montage Film Trust Middle East.

Gauge................................................. 16mm Sound Editor............... Crisropher Cordeaux Scriptwriter..................... Michael Laurence Director.......................................................JimKemp Color Process................................... Eastman Camera Asst...................................... Phil Bull Exec Producer..................... Godfrey Philipp Screenplay................................................ PhilWitts Progress............................... Post-Production Casting Consultants.............. M & LC asting Assoc Producer................... Fay Rousseaux POINT OMEGA Producer.................................................. GlynMorris .Cast: John Waters, Elizabeth Alexander, Still Photography.................................. GregWeight Music............................................. John Gray Photography.......................................... GaryMoore Margaret Nelson, Ron Haddrick, Ric Hutton. Hairdresser............ Hair Head Quarters P/L Prod Company................. Bundeena Studio Ron Carpenter Editor......................................................... IanSmith Director...................................George Gittoes Special appearance: Cameron Mitchell Budget............................................... $35,600 Photography.............................. Ian Woolley Sound Recordist..................... Michael Locke Screenpoem......................... George Gittoes Synopsis: A private investigator is hired by Length.................................................90 min Editor........................................................ AlanLake Sound Editor.......................................... GlynMorris Producer.............................. George Gittoes an insurance company to recover a strong­ Gauge................................................. 16mm Prod Manager..................... Godfrey Philipp Lighting.....................................................TomSturm Assisted by the Experimental Film and box hidden by a prison escapee in a remote Color Process............. Ektachrome Reversal Art Director................................... Vic Yeates Continuity.............................. Roslyn Pitman Television Fund timber town.

Progress...............................................Editing Music Director..............................John Gray Cast: Alex Sanderman, Toni Sanderman.

M usic............................................. Carl Vine Release Date................................ May 1978 Costume/Wardrobe..................Sylvia Bryen Synopsis: Model/classical musician meets T E M P E R A M E N T U N S U IT E D Photography......................... George Gittoes C ast: Bryan Brown, Lynden Wilkinson, Shirley Gray an a ccid e n t-p ron e , h ed o n istic window Editor...................................... George Gittoes Director.................................... Ken Cameron George Shevtsov, Margaret Cameron, David Sound R eco rd ist........................ Ric Caster cleaner.

Art Director.......................... George Gittoes Screenplay.............................. Ken Cameron Cameron, Elaine Hudson, Alex Kovacs.

Asst Director........................................... JeffWard

Cinema Papers, April/June — 351

U leta got oli shapes and sizes at...

PRODUCTION HOOSE fin e

)~)

Co

Room s

t t im o

b Purra /4 m m

St e b m 8 e c k

M o t o r i se o

P ic

SyMcs

C AMBRA RHP £00iVP C,oM.PL£T€. /¿MM OuTFlT

ptCiJs

W it h

4 oo‘

(Ak&S

C.ÄYSTAL SyN C Npi&Rß

F>r$t Floor — 4-75 Pcudj^c.

ER5TRERR TRUCK R ED M Whenever you need it! Wherever you want it! For any length of time at negotiable rates - that's Eastbern Truck Rentals.

The full range of Landcruisers, 2-3 tonne moving vans (easily adapatable to portable dressing room or make-up vans) 1 tonne Hi-Ace vans for that extra equipment, buses from 1 2 - 2 2 seaters and air-conditioned cars and station wagons; all available when you need it, wherever you need it. For all your location shooting, anywhere in Australia, Eastbern's got the right vehicles at the right prices.

Short or long term rentals or even leasing arrangements (to take advantage of that 40% Tax Investment Allowance) are all only a phone call away. On your next budget, don't ieave out Eastbern Rentals, when just a phone call will get you exact costs for all your rental requirements.

Ring Darryl Floward right now on (03) 877 5022 for immediate and obligation free quotes for your particular requirements.

(03)8773133 (03)8775022

Ctoujs Kestj MOW. 3 o 6 5 Opposite- Ù&ndy ¿Svinaia . leJejihpnz (cO.J

/4 o

BiiflCKCBORfl PRODUCTIOIl studio of 3D animated films TPECIALITBT

IN

ANIMATION OF PUPPETS OP O Q I l f T S ; SPECIAL EFFECTS, FIAT ANO CELI ANIMATION ALTO AVAIA8LE FOP SHOPTS. AOPEPTISINC. INSTRUCTIONAL ANO FEATURE F l t M f TELEPHONE (07)

7 *7 -5 6 67

OP «5-1722

40 Nicholson Street, Burwood NSW 2134.

J€FF N€ILD t— t r u c k r e n t a l - 7

STILLS PHOTOGRAPHER

279 Whitehorse Rd. Nunawading, Vic. 3131 a.h. (03) 720 1161 Please Supply me with literature regarding the rental of your fleet of Landcruisers, commercial vehicles and air-conditioned cars and station wagons.

Sidecar Racers • Ride a Wild Pony Caddie • Harness Fever • Barney Land of the Morning Calm (Korea)

Name.

Company.

Complete range of equipment, any format.

Can offer processing facilities.

Available in B /W and color.

Position..., Address. ................................... post code.

168 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, NORTH SYDNEY 2060. PO BOX 885. PHONE: (02) 929 4848

... th e frien d ly a lte rn a tiv e .

GA482

PRODUCTION SURVEY Camera Asst................................John Lewis anywhere. His son, Nick, born in South East Producer............................ Judith Prindiville Color Process................................. Eastman ECOLOGY 1 AN D 3 Boom Operator..................... Martin Frohiich Asia follows suit and runs away from school Exec Producer.......................... Paul Barron Prod Company.........................Film Australia Progress................................. In Production in Australia to join his father. Days pass with Clapper/Loader................... Craig Campbell Length............................................ 10x8 min Dist Company......................... Film Australia Release Date................ December 1978 Continuity............................... JennyQuigley Bailey threatening to send the boy back and Gauge................................................. 16mm Director................................... David Barrow Cast: The people of the Solomon Islands.

Grip.....................................Craig Thompson Nick inventing every possible excuse to Color Process................................... Eastman Producer................................ Malcolm Otton Synopsis: The people of the Solomon remain with the South East Asian friends he Still Photography....................... Lee Pearce.

Progress................................. In Production Photography................... Andy Fraser A.C.S. Islands become an independent nation on 7 Geoff Henderson grew up with and in the environment he Synopsis: Stopwatch is a series of Editor.......................................................... IanWeddell July 1978. Film Australia will cover this knows and loves. Bailey’s adventures with Script Asst............................................CherieWilson d o c u m e n ta ry and dram a p ro g ra m s Prod Manager..............................Roy Bisselh historic event and show the lives of the his trusty Mallard Seaplane and those of his Makeup........................................ Nan Dunn produced specially to fill the demand for Camera Asst....................... Peter Viscovitch people of this shattered country. We will son with his Asian friends make the exciting, Scenic Artist........................................... NedMcCann Australian shorts for the 12-14 age group. Length.......................................... 2 x 1 8 min study the cultures, crafts and the changing sometimes funny and sometimes near Animator................................... TonyGooley The series will be released as supports for Gauge................................................. 16mm way of the life of the people. The film will disastrous adventures of Bailey’s Bird.

Budget..............................................$35.000 have a “ unifying" effect on this new nation. children's cinema screenings and for Color Process................................... Eastman Length............................................ 5x30 min television programs.

Progress............................................Shooting Gauge................................v.. . 2 " videotape Release Date...............................

July 1978 THREE DANCES BY GULPILIL CHOPPER SQUAD Cast: Marian Henderson, Dallas Lewis and S y n o p s is : Fundam ental p rin c ip a ls of Prod Company.......................................... FilmAustralia eighty children.

Prod Company.,. The Grundy Organisation population ecology.

Dist Company................... Film Australia Synopsis: Five television pilots aimed at the Dist Company.......................O/Ten Network For details of the following TV series and Director..............................David Roberts 5-12 year age group, each program is films see the previous issue: Directors.............................. Graeme Arthur, Producer................................Tom Manefield designed to encourage children in the Rod Hardy G U L F P R A W N IN G Because He’s My Friend Photography.............. Andrew Fraser A.C.S. following ways — Rainbowman — to open Julian Pringle Prod Company..........................................FilmAustralia Kirby Company Editor........................................ Colin Waddy their eyes and discover the world around Producer................................................. DonBattye Dist Company........................................ FilmAustralia Nolan At Sixty Prod Manager..............................Gerry Letts Music...................................... MikePerjanik them. The Rainbow Tribe — to go out into Director...................

David Haythornthwaite Run From the Morning Length................................................... 6 min the environm ent and enjoy practica l Photography................. Paul Onorato A.S.C. Producer................................................... DonMurray Twenty Good Years Gauge................................................. 35mm activities. Rainbow Road — to enjoy music Editors................................ Richard Hindley, Photography...........................................KerryBrown Color Process....................................Eastman and to be creative. It’s A Rainbow World — Tim Welburn Prod Manager..............................Gerry Letts Progress............................................... Editing Prod Manager.................................. MichaelMidlam a children’s media world — run by the Sound Recordist..................... Howard Spry AVEC FILM UNIT Release Date............................ March 1978 children themselves Make Your Own Prod Asst.......................................Dale Price Camera Asst.......................Peter Viscovitch Synopsis: A film shot in Bamyili where Rainbow — a children's access programme.

Music Supervisor................................ GarryHardman Length.................................................20 min Gulpilil lives in the Northern Territory. It Costume/Wardrobe.......... Beverley Powers Gauge................................................. 35mm observes three dances, “The Emu" "The Asst Costume/Wardrobe.......... Kathy James A G A IN S T T H E W IN D Progress................................. In Production THE MAKING OF ANNA Kangaroo” and “ The Fish". The first two are Release Date.......................September 1978 Prod Company........... Pegasus Productions Sound Recordist..................................... JohnMcPhall solo performances by Gulpilil. The third is a Sound Editor........................................ LloydColman Prod Company..................... AVEC Film Unit S y n o p s is : P raw ning in the G ulf of for The Seven Network group dance with some of the children from Distribution.......................... Education Dept Carpentaria.

Directors................................ Simon Wincer, Asst Directors...................................... DavidBowden, Bamyili.

Tony Bowman of Victoria George Miller Garry Keane Director.................................. Robert Francis Created by............................. Bronwyn Binns HARBOUR Camera Asst.................................

Rod Hinds Producer................................

Robert Francis WALYA NGAMARDIKI, THE LAND Producer..............................Henry Crawford Boom Operator........................ Mark Bergin Exec Producer..................... Ross Campbell Prod Company..........................................FilmAustralia MY MOTHER Exec Producers.......................................... IanJones, Music..................................................... AlanStlvell Dist Company........................................ FilmAustralia Bronwyn Binns Clapper/Loader..............Richard Merryman Prod Company.........................Film Australia Continuity........................

Barbara Burleigh, Photography...........................................

Peter Dodds Director....................................

Dean Semler Photography..............................David Eggby Dist Company........................ Film Australia Prod Manager.......................Rob McCubbin Annie McLeod Producer......................................... SuzanneBakerDirector.................................. David Roberts Editor..........................................................PhilReid Casting Consultants............................ KerrySpence Prod Secretary........................................RossLukeis Photography................. Dean Semler A.C.S. Prod Manager......................................... TomBinns Producer...............................

Tom Manefield Sound Recordists.................. Lloyd Carrick, Editor........................................ Vincent Kent Art Director................................. Tracy Watt Set Decorator..................... Michael Beckett Music..................................... John Sangster Asst Editors.......................................... BrianKelly, David Hughes Prod Manager..............................Gerry Letts Prod Co-ordinator................................... JanStott Photography................

Andy Fraser A. C. S. Michael Norton Length................................................. 25 min Vicki Ambrose Prod Secretary.......................................... JanStott Editor........................................ Colin Waddy Standby Props............................ Laurie Floyd Sound Editors....................... David Hughes, Gauge................................................. 16mm Costume/Wardrobe Prod Manager..............................Gerry Letts Robert Francis Color Process................................... Eastman Supervision.............................. Clare Griffen Stunts......................................... GrantPage, Sound Recordist..................... Max Hensser Max Aspin Asst Editors............................ Adrian Bruch, Release Date............................... April 1978 Sound Recordist.......................Gary Wilkins Max Hensser.................................................

Ruth Vary Synopsis: Seasonal aspects of Sydney Dale Aspin Mixer..................................... David Harrison Mixer............................................George Hart Lighting Director.........................Derek Jones Length................................................. 48 min Harbour.

Sound Editor.......................... Terry Rodman Length.......................: ........................20 min Assist...............................

Peter Ledgeway Gauge.................................................

16 min Asst Directors.........................Ross Hamilton, Gauge................................................. 35mm Runner............................Rodney McMorran Color Process.................................

Eastman Stewart Wright H E R IT A G E T R A IN Color Process................................... Eastman Length................................................. 45 min Progress.. .....................Post-Production Camera Operator..................... David Eggby Progress................................... Final Editing Release Date............................... May 1978 Prod Company..........................Film Australia Focus Puller.......................... Harry Glynatsis Gauge................................................. 16mm Release Date................... March/April 1978 Synopsis: A documentary for students of Dist Company........................ Film Australia Camera Asst..........................Harry Glynatsis Progress........................ Second series now S y n o p s is : The re la tio n s h ip betw een media which follows the progress of Esben Director............................... Michael Pearce in production Boom Operator..................... MarkWasiutak Aboriginal people and theirland in both Storm's In Search of Anna. The work of Screenplay.......................... Michael Pearce Gaffer..................................... Stewart Sorby Release Date............................. March 1978 historical and contemporary contexts.

C ast: Dennis Grosvenor, Eric Oldfield, crew members and the development by the Producer............................... Peter Johnson Continuity.................................................... JoWeeks Photography................................. Ross King director are observed in detail over the Robert Coleby, Kerri Eichorn, John Clayton, Asst Art Director.......................... Clive Jones Prod Manager........................................

Jillian Nicholas WHAT IS INNOVATION, WHY 1 0 0 0 km covered during shooting.

Set Decorator............ Nick van Roosendael Tony Hughes.

Sound Recordist....................... Rod Pascoe Synopsis: Action packed air/sea helicopter INNOVATE, HOW TO INNOVATE Grip.......................................... Ian Benallack Mixer..........................................George Hart rescue series.

A HISTOR Y OF V IS U A L Gaffer........................................Ian Plummer Prod Company.......................... Film Australia Asst Editor................................. Ken Sallows Dist Company........................ Film Australia COMMUNICATION Hairdresser........................... Cheryl Williams Length.................................................25 min Director...................................... Janet Isaac Best Boy.................................... Ian Dewhurst (Working Title) Gauge................................................. 16mm DISCOVERY 3 Scriptwriter........ ........................ Janet Isaac Makeup...................................... Terry Worth Prod Company.....................

AVEC Film Unit Color Process................................... Eastman Prod Company...................

Perth Institute of Producer..................................... Bruce Moir C ast: Mary Larkin, Jon English, Kerry Film and Television Distribution.......................... Education Dept Progress.................................................... InProduction Photography................. Dean Semler A.C.S. McGuire. Frank Gallacher, Fred Parslow, of Victoria Release Date............................... July 1978 Producers..............................................

Owen Paterson, Editor......................................

Martin Cohen Lyn Rainbow, Warwick Simms, Gerard Director...................................... Peter Green Synopsis: A documentary on the Royal Cynthia Baker Script.......................................... Peter Green Prod Manager.............................. Ian Adkins Kennedy.

Silver Jubilee Train, showing the life on Exec Producer......................................

Judith Prlndivllle Sound Recordist.....................

Howard Spry Synopsis: Thirteen one hour a ll-film Producer................................... Peter Green board this mobile museum, as well as Length........................................... 13x7 min Electrician............................... Bruce Gailey episodes. A historical series set in 1 7 9 7 ­ Exec Producer..................... Ross Campbell describing some of the priceless relics on Gauge.................................................

16mm Length............................................. 3 x 8 min 1809, tracing the life of Mary Mulvene Animator.................................... Peter Green show to the Australian public.

Color Process............................Ektachrome Gauge................................................. 16mm who is transported from Ireland.

Progress................................. In Production Asst Animator............................Des Bunyon Color Process................................. Eastman Music Director...................... Lorraine Milne S y n o p s is : A series of 13 ch ild ren 's Length.................................................30 min Release Date............................ March 1978 P R O D U C T IV IT Y IS P E O P LE B A IL E Y ’S B IR D television programs, Discovery 3 illustrates Gauge................................................. 16rnm Synopsis: Trigger films on innovation in the Prod Company.... John McCallum Prod P/L unusual subjects to young viewers. It also Color Process................................... Eastman Prod Company..........................................FilmAustralia N.S.W. Education Department.

Dist Company........................................ FilmAustralia Directors.......Peter Maxwell, Howard Rubie, provides young and/or inexperienced crews Progress................................ In Production Simon Wincer, Igor Auzins, with an opportunity to improve their skills Synopsis: An animated film for secondary Director.......................... Michael Robertson WILDLIFE PATROL Scriptwriter.....................Michael Robertson Michael Jenkins and try novel approaches. and te c h n ic a l s tu d e n ts of g ra p h ic Producer.............................. Suzanne Baker Prod Company..........................................FilmAustralia Screenplay.... Peter Yeldham, Ted Roberts, c o m m u n ic a tio n w h ic h e x p lo re s the Editor...................................................... DavidHuggett Dist Company......................................... FilmAustralia Michael Cove, Ross Napier profound influence of visual communication Synopsis: In a case study followed over a Director................... David Haythornthwaite Producers.............................. Lee Robinson, FALCON ISLAND at every stage in the development of period of several months at a Sydney Producer.................................... Don Murray Tony Firth (Working Title) Western civilization.

Photography..............................Kerry Brown factory, we see a specific example of Exec Producer....................John McCallum Prod Company................... Perth Institute of Prod Manager..............................Gerry Letts prod u ctivity improvement. Initiated by Music..............................................Eric Jupp Film and Television Sound Recordist..................... Howard Spry management, the productivity improvement Photography.......................... Paul Oronarto, Producer......................... Judith Prlndiville Length............................................... 20 min project is taken on by factory personnel in a Dan Burstall FILM A USTRALIA Exec Producer.......................... Paul Barron Gauge. .............................................. 35mm creative process of problem finding and Editors............................... Richard Hindley, solving.

Color Process................................... Eastman David Stiven, Length................................ 5x30 min Progress................................. In Production Lindsay Frazer Gauge................................................. 16mm Release Date.......................September 1978 Production Manager.............. Betty Barnard Color Process......................Eastman BABY TALK Progress.................................Pre-Production Synopsis: A trip with a wildlife patrol officer Prod Designer....................... Bernard Hides PROJECT“ A” Synopsis: A half-hour children's television Prod Company..........................................Film Australia in the Northern Territory. We study in some Post-Prod Co-ordinator......... Don Saunders drama series about three children and their Dist Company........................ Film Australia Prod Company..........................................FilmAustralia detail the wildlife of the area.

Prod Secretary...Rosanne Andrews Baxter Dist Company........................................ FilmAustralia community on Falcon Island, which is Director.....................................................

Karl McPhee Costumes/Wardrobe......... Joan Grimmond Director....................................................GregReading threatened by sand-mining and is the Screenplay................................................KarlMcPhee Sound Recordist..................... Don Connolly Producer................................. PeterJohnson Producer............................... Tom Manefield SOUTH A U S TRALIAN FILM Sound Editor........................ Lindsay Frazer reported site of an old Dutch shipwreck.

Photography................ John Hosking A.C.S. Photography......................Ross King A.C.S. Special Photo Effects..............Anton Jambu CO RPO RATIO N Prod Manager.......................................... IanAdkins Editor...................

Post Production Services Asst Directors.......................... Ian Goddard, LOSS OF INNOCENCE Sound Recordist..............Rodney Simmons Sound Recordist.............. Rodney Simmons Michael McKeag Prod Company................................... ABC-TV Camera Asst........................ Andre Fleuren Camera Asst..............................James Ward Grant Harris Director.........................................EricTayler Electrician................................. Ian Plummer Length.................................................15 min ADULT LIBRARY PROMOTION Camera Operators................ Paul Oronarto, Writer..................................John May Length.................................................16 min Gauge.............................................. 16mm Dan Burstall Screenplay................................................ KenMethold Gauge................................................. 16mm Producer.......................................EricTayler Color Process.................................

Eastman Exec Producer................. Lesley Hammond Focus Pullers__ Steve Mason/Tony Gailey Length................................ 4x60 min Progress................................. In Production Color Process................................... Eastman Length................................................. 15 min Camera Assistant..............

Anton Jambu Progress...................................... In Release Release Date....................... April/May 1978 Progress........................................... Shooting Gauge................................................. 16mm Boom Operator.......................................DavidCooper, Cast: John Fitzgerald, Ronald Falk, Monica Synopsis: Children talking in entertaining Synopsis: An informational film on drinking Sponsor................................................ StateLibrary Julian McSwiney Maughan, Carol Burns, Alwyn Kurts, Carol situations — designed to encourage parents and driving. of South Australia Clapper/Loader...................... Anton Jamber Raye, Jacqueline Kott, Louise Howitt, Paul to enjoy their children and interact with Synopsis: The film aims to show the Gaffers..................................... Derek Jones, Bertram, Enid Lorimer, Michele Fawdon, them through language.

SOLOMON ISLANDS general public the advantages of libraries, Edward Hendel David Franklin, Jacqui Dalton, David Waters, particularly to those who do not use INDEPENDENCE Continuity........................................... ShirleyBallard Edward Howell, Julieanne Newbould. libraries. It also aims to recruit people to the CORAL REEF Grip....................................... Edward Hendel Prod Company...................... Film Australia Synopsis: A four part drama series tracing library profession.

Hairdresser............................. Michelle Lowe Director................................. Graham Chase the life of Peter Robinson from boyhood in Prod Company..........................................FilmAustralia Makeup................................. Michelle Lowe Dist Company........................................

Film Australia Producer....................................................Don Murray the depression to manhood in the 1970s.

CONDITIONING FOR SPORT Length.......................................... 26x30 min Director...................................... Dietmar Fill Asst Producer......................... Ron Hannam Producer..................................... Don Murray Photography................. Dean Semler A.C.S. Gauge................................................. 16mm Screenplay.......................... Terry Jennings STOPWATCH Photography.....................Dietmar Fill A.C.S. Editors................................. Graham Chase, Exec Producer........................................ PeterDimond Colour Process................................. Eastman Prod Company................... Perth Institute of Length.................................................15 min Length................................................. 30 min Progress............................... Post-Production Susan Horsley Film and Television Gauge................................................. 16mm Prod Manager........................ Alfred Aihunu Cast: Hu Pryce, Mark Lee, Holger Hagan.

Gauge............................................. Videotape Sound Recordist........................ Bob Hayes Directors...................................... Pat Maher, Color Process................................. Eastman Synopsis: Bailey, an ex-Australian war pilot S ynopsis: To demonstrate the various Steve Jodrell, Brian Beaton, Progress................................. In Production Mixer..........................................George Hart methods of conditioning for sport, e.g. opts out of life in the Western world and Al Kemp, Ivor Bowen, Release Date....................... September 1978 Asst Director.......................... Martin Cohen oxygen transport, speed and running, remains in South East Asia, operating a onewarming up and mobility exercises.

John Beaton, Glenda Hambly, Synopsis: A microscopic look at the Great Length................................................. 90 min man, one ’plane air charter service — Keith Saggers, Owen Paterson Barrier Reef.

Gauge................................................. 16mm ca rryin g anything from anyw here to

Concluded on P.382

Cinema Papers, April/June — 353

RELEASED NATIONALLY THROUGH GUO FILM DISTRIBUTORS

PRESENTS mÊÊmM

DIR: PETER COX

MUS: RALPH TYRRELL

TOMORROW BELONGS TO THOSE WHO CAN SEE IT COMING

PHOTO: DON McALPINE

PADDINGTON TOWN HALL CENTRE (02) 31 9025

THE IRISHMAN Susan Dermody The Irishman is a film that lovingly recognizes, frames, and puts on record certain Australian ways of life, and their accompanying bric-a-brac, that are all but locked in the recent past. It carries out its refurbishing and cataloguing work with exquisite care, and if you share the film's fascination with early 2 0 th century technology, transport and streetscapes, richly set in resonance with northern Aust­ ralian countryscapes, then you will feast, frame by frame.

The Venus Battery, the corrugated houses on stilts, the outlook through wood-slatted verandahs, the shade-wells of shop awning and town interiors — they are not just set in but set off by the ragged shapes of Australian trees, odd hillocks and boulders, sleekly-curved sandbanks, banks and streaks of cloud in the bluest possible sky.

If you were to see The Irishm an in another country in the middle of winter,

you would want to come home

immediately; but there is so much hunger of the heart in it. because it is a world you cannot come home to. It is a past that can hardly ever be pried open again for the eyes or the imagination. And, conse­ quently, there is a kind of quiet exotica made available through the film, an exotica that has to do with pastoral and artisanal elements of Australian life lost in our transition to the centralized, consumerized, Fraserized present.

T h e n a rr a tiv e of The Irish m a n , however, tends to slip too frequently back to the status of pretext for the powerful picturesque essay of the film. And this is unfortunate because the film is structured to w a rd s n a rr a tiv e . It p ro m ise s the expected set of gratifications and then too often fails, falters, or tries too hard, leaving the audience g rum bling and vaguely deprived, even willing to get nasty about the way the rich pictorial and historical values have been approached. (“ What a cheat — they just used the one camera angle down into the street in the town, again and again . . . Nothing really happened!’’)

In fact, much has happened — whole cycles of people’s lives went by — but plainly, too plainly, the audience could see the over-careful cogs of script within those cycles, could sense the occasional jolts and resistance of the parts, and became embarrassed and unforgiving. Obviously, you can't just apply narrative to rich, almost literary material like this.

The story has to be urgently present, exploding outwards so that it doesn’t merely display the riches of this particular conjunction of time and place, and human bric-a-brac, but is impelled to go further, striking almost symbolic resonances and relationships between objects, landscape and story.

The most obvious comparison is The Picture Show Man, and the most obvious contrast, Caddie. In each case one is placed at one or more nostalgic removes from the present. But while The Irishman seems to me more densely peopled and detailed than The Picture Show M an, and while the superseded life that is its subject «has more body, it is missing the simple failproof ‘drive-mechanism’ plot of Caddie.

Paddy Doolan (Michael C'raig) leading his team of'Clydesdales. Don Crombie's The Irishman.

Caddie has a central figure, a lone woman battling and surviving the odds, with true-life and human-interest fascin­ ation for its audience. The Irishman would appear to share some of these plot characteristics; instead, it is about a slow fading of a life (and way of life) into the landscape.

Furthermore, this process is decentra­ lized by focussing on the two sons (and to some extent the wife) of Paddy Doolan, the Irishman, the last teamster in the gulf country. In particular, it follows Michael, the younger son, as he necessarily shifts ab ou t for possible symbolic fathers because his own eludes him, until he swings decisively in the direction of Dalgleish (replacing untrustworthy Irish with dye-straight Scots). Will, the elder son, reflects his father’s pig-headedness back at him in a way that Paddy cannot tolerate, driving him to a near murderous attack on his son. This, in turn, becomes the wedge that drives Paddy away — or, so we are asked to believe.

This is the most dislocating and unmoti­ vated development in the plot; one that severely undermines the sense of understated-because-understood family bonds the opening phase of the story has meticulously built up — particularly in the finely handled opening sequence which takes us through the return of Paddy with him teams and up to nightfall of that day.

Suddenly, the plot asserts that Paddy is at heart the kind of Australian father whose allegiance is not to family but to something else — in this case, something incompatible like 14 Clydesdales and the life of the roving teamster. But the characterization of Paddy has left us unprepared for this development — possibly because it has been relocated into the point of view of Michael (and the characters of both sons) — but not quite consistently or with enough certainty.

What is certain is that this crucial plot development appears to be unacceptably lacking in psychological motivation in a film that has set out to be a kind of psy­ chological study. How can Jenny, or Michael, or the audience, abruptly accept that there is for Paddy, nothing to come

back to ’’?

The device of Michael (and the perfor­ mance of Simon Burke) saves the film from becoming completely unhinged by this shift. But it is only if you notice that the film is not about the colorful, obstinate, time-locked Paddy, but about his non-heroic son Michael, who looks, listens, and takes to heart in a way that is slightly gauche and immensely graceful.

The death of his father turns out to be the platform from which his maturity can spring, and Michael rides off towards the job with Dalgleish, but on one of the Irishman’s Clydesdale horses.

All four leading performances are excellent, though Robyn Nevin and Michael Craig suffer from the film’s inability to decide between its grounding in the pictorial, and its pull towards story.

The part of Jenny, and of the Irishman himself, tend to belong to the first, but dragged along by the second. They are well cast, but Craig — and Robyn Nevin in particular — seem to have too much energy and potential to be confirmed as they are.

I am not sure that this split between the narrative and the visual is sufficient to account for the failings of the film as a story — especially since there seems to be so many good constituents of the story and quite richly worked scenes within it. Or the o p e n in g se q u e n c e - I h a v e a lr e a d y mentioned, that so well articulates many of the film’s themes. Or the use of the two grandparents to introduce a peculiarly apt m ix ture of black comedy and real mortality. Even the minor notes, such as grandmother Mary, are complexly worked in.

Perhaps there is danger in channelling the film through Michael’s adolescent viewpoint, in that it seems to eliminate too many important facts, or possibilities of plot, as if a G-rated world view had been created, safe for all ages. But again, this sense of being somewhat confined to a cramped and unexpansive view of the world within the film may result from the priority it gives to the pictorial record, rather than the narrative possibilities, of its material.

Either way, the pictorial values of the film emerge as its greater strength, and if this has unbalanced the film, then it is still a pleasurable way to lose one’s balance.

The use of golden-toned Agfa-Gevacolor seals the film into the past like a patina of age on the images. Composition within the frame is at once highly formal in its arrangement of tones, and meticulously casual in its framing of objects — like the paintings of the Heidelberg School to which it so often alludes (even down to the Tom Roberts-style tents in so many back­ grounds).

The cin em atography is particularly sensitive towards the way that light falls within the cavernous corrugated-iron interiors of the film, picking out tea-towels strung up to dry, and walls and objects slightly out of plumb, as if everything is settling slowly with the earth.

It seems to me to be reasonable and defensible that a film should occasionally spotlight this role — of lovingly putting on record some aspect of the visual store of the immediate past — even at risk of slightening its narrative force. We are a society that is too light on memory, and quick to discount what we have as being of little value.

Films like The Irishman, with a sense of historical seriousness towards the visual store they’re prising open, may help locate Australians in their own country. 'It is culturally boring to live in a society that remains vague and mistrustful about its past, and cynical about any version of the future, as if Australia is just a temporary measure for maximum short-term profit.

To quote the Irishman, “ that’s about as much good to anybody as tits on a bull.”

The Irishman: Directed by Don Crombie.

Producer; Anthony Buckley. Screenplay; Don Crombie, from the novel by Elizabeth O’Conner. Director of Photography: Peter James. Editor: Tim Wellburn. Music: Charles Marawood. Art Director: Graham Walker.

Sound Recordist: Gary Willkins. Cast: Michael Craig, Robyn Nevin, Simon Burke, Lou Brown, Gerard Kennedy, Tony Barry, Vincent Ball, Bryan Brown. Production Company: Forest Home Films. Distributor: GUO Film Distri­ butors. 35mm. 110 min. Australia. 1978.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 355

MOUTH TO MOUTH

Carrie (Kim Krejus) and Tim (Ian (iilmour) in the abandoned power station (hey make their home. Mouth to Mouth.

Jcannie (Sonia Peat) and Carrie (Kim Krejus) rush down an alley titter stealing food from a supermarket. Mouth to Mouth.

MOUTH TO MOUTH Jack Clancy “ You

s a y y o u ’ve s e e n it in th e m o v ie s ; T h is m o v i e ’s j u s t b e g u n . ”

The lyrics that accompany the ending of John Duigan’s new film are true enough, in one sense; we have seen stories of “ young love ’ 1 before. But in another very important sense, we have not seen anything like this in Australian films.

356 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Before Mouth to Mouth one had to search very hard to find an Australian film with this combination of compassionate observation, social concern and behavioral truth. One thinks immediately of Pure Shit, then perhaps 27A, Office Picnic and touches of The Removalists or Don’s Party. But it is impossible to find an Australian film which so boldly tackles a subject of urgent social concern, and so triumphantly brings it off.

The subject is the young unemployed and, more especially, those who get into trouble with “ authority” .

Carrie (Kim Krejus) and Jeannie (Sonia Peat) escape from a girl’s reformatory and meet Serge (Sergio Frazzetto) and Tim (Ian Gilmour), two young country boys down in the city to find work. The four are carefully delineated — Carrie tougher and more aggressive than Jeannie; Tim with a kind of cow-chucks country boy’s self­ consciousness, as against Serge’s knowing openness. And their mating rituals are painfully, comically and truthfully caught as they agree, warily, to set up a kind of domesticity together in what looks like an abandoned power station.

At first the bonds are closer between the two girls — and the two boys — than between boy and girl. The initiatives lie always (in a way that recalls Duigan’s earlier The Trespassers) with the worldly wise and temporarily employed girls, and their mixture of defiant bravado and giggling intimacy is too much for Tim, at least, to handle. Gradually, Jeannie and Serge’s relationship grows, while Tim and Carrie’s remains problematic, with Carrie still harking back to a previous lover.

The differences are underlined, perhaps to o h e a v i l y , by D u ig a n a n d his cinematographer Tom Cowan, in purely spatial terms. In fact, one of the more impressive things about this film (and here The Trespassers forms a contrasting reference point) is the way the script is spare and functional, while the burden of the narrative and the shifting emotional patterns is carried visually.

This is not, it should be emphasized, a merely technical or aesthetic point: it has to do with the way the film communicates a sense of its characters’ lives; forces us to

see them, and understand, before we condemn or sympathize.

O b v io u sly th e p erform ances, particularly of the four principals, are directly relevant here, and in his four youngsters Duigan has discovered, and m a d e use of, what are potentially considerable talents.

The performances seemed to me, not surprisingly I suppose, to achieve degrees of excellence in proportion to the demands the roles made on them. Kim Krejus as Carrie is extraordinarily good, with Sonia Peat, Sergio Frazzeto and Ian Gilmour almost equally so — as are the others in the cast, particularly Michael Carman as Tony, the former boyfriend, and Walter Pym as Fred, the old “ derro” who shares the place with them.

Having established the four teenagers in this precarious, vulnerable dom estic arrangement, the film moves forward with a sense, if not of d o om , then of inevitability. The girl’s temporary jobs finish and the boys are still unable to get work; the girls steal food and clothes from stores, the boys copy them; the girls, again with attitudes of bravado, begin doing escort work; the boys resent it but cannot stop it. Jeannie can’t bring herself to continue, Carrie does so, defiantly.

With the old m an’s death, and the arrival of the credibly unsympathetic police, the delicate structure of mutual survival (this, as well as the sexual overtones, is suggested in the f l m ’s title) is broken apart.

One can foresee possible objections to this film. The frmly realist mode can seem too like a television style; yet the reply is surely that we could do with more television, or flm , drama with the feeling and acute observation to be found here.

The film is bound to encounter charges th a t it e n c o u r a g e s to o g r e a t an identification with its characters; the son of criticism made of Pure Shit, and an equally misconceived one. There will probably be an opposite claim that the film is not sympathetic enough — another charge emerging from a failure to perceive the delicate balance of detachment and sympathy.

One’s hope is that middle-Australia, with its dole-bludger mentality, at least gets a chance to make up its mind on this question.

There are minor criticisms to be made of aspects of Duigan’s treatment of his script. Besides the heavily pointed spatial arrangements of particular scenes, the sequence on the beach evokes one of the heaviest of romantic and anti-romantic cliches. And I wasn’t too happy with the end-title song; its reiterated “ the more you love, the harder you fall” seems intended ironically, but its foregrounding takes it well beyond the level of the transistor “ju n k ” that has been recurring throughout as an index of the characters’ view of reality.

Honesty and concern are not guarantees of a film, though they are necessary prerequisites. When combined as they are h e re with p e rc e p tiv e n e s s, satisfying dramatic structure, and a visual quality that would be admirable in a film with four times this one’s extraordinarily modest budget, they are a cause for rejoicing.

MOUTH TO MOUTH: Directed by John Duigan. Producers John Duigan, Jon Sainken.

S c r e e n p la y Jo h n D u ig a n . D i r e c t o r of Photogra phy Tom Cowan. Editor Tony Paterson. Art Director Tracy Watt. Sound Recordist Lloyd Carrick. Cast: Kim Krejus, Sonia Peat, lan Gilmour, Sergio Frazzetto, Walter Pym, Michael Carman, Janis Hayes.

Production Company Vega Prods. Distributor Roadshow. 35 mm (blown up from 16 mm). 90 min. Australia. 1978.

JULIA

JULIA Keith Connolly This is a nostalgic film, in style, subject and sensibility. It employs the technical skills of today to evoke the recent past, exuding that air of knowing rectitude characteristic of the early Fred Zinnemann in The Seventh Cross, The Search, and Act of Violence.

With Alvin Sargent’s dutiful screenplay under his arm, the 70 year-old director gallantly escorts fellow septuagenarian Lillian Heilman, as impersonated by Jane Fonda, back into a rose-colored afterglow of recollection.

Not altogether surprisingly, Julia is a very nice-looking exercise in d e ja vu , a wedge of romantic melodrama of didactic mien. It is based on an episode in P e n t im e n to , the second volume of Lillian H eilm an’s autobiographical trilogy in which she recalls a heroic friend, identified only by that first name.

Julia (Vanessa Redgrave) was a very rich American who studied at Oxford and then with Freud in Vienna, became “ a premature anti-fascist” and was killed by Nazis shortly before World War 2. She is seen to be as knowingly certain of her path as Lillian is confusedly h esitant — although the writer responds when the whips of conscience crack.

If this indicates a certain ambivalence of attitude, it is a characteristic reflected in Zinnemann and Sargent’s approach to their source material, evident from the opening sequence of the film. Over a shot of Fonda’s silhouette hunched in a fishing dinghy (presumably in the present day), she is heard quoting the first paragraph of P en tim en to -. “ Old paint on canvas, as it ages, sometimes becomes transparent and it is possible to see the original lines . . . the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again.” A few scenes later, however, in another voice-over extract from the book, she says: “ I have always known about my memory. I know when it is to be trusted . . . and I trust it absolutely about Julia.”

This contradiction gives rise to a suspicion that Zinnemann is trying to have it both ways — a charge also flung at Ms Heilman in the flurry stirred by S c o u n d r e l T im e , the third volume of her memoirs.

She is bitter abo ut the way many Americans behaved during the McCarthy terror and says so, frequently, in pungent prose and speech. (Her critics, in reply, accuse her of blindness to far greater sins on the Left.)

• Lillian Heilman, however, remains a perpetual reproach to many who either rem ain ed silent or bayed with the McCarthyite hounds. She castigates them: “ I had believed . . . that the educated, the intellectual, lived by what they claimed to believe in: Freedom of thought and speech, the right of each man to his own convictions.” Such a spirit of indignant recrimination, however justified, arouses certain misgivings about the way Julia is depicted, in both book and film.

One begins to suspect that, assurances notwithstanding, Julia is painted in the glowingly steadfast colors Ms Heilman re v i le s U. S. in t e l l e c t u a l s for n o t displaying a decade later. Fonda’s Lillian begins by recalling girlhood memories of school friend Julia, who lives with ossified, filthy-rich grandparents (much married mother is into the British aristocracy).

Julia goes on to Oxford and Vienna, while Lillian works away at her first play, with wry encouragement from her lover, w rite r D ash iell H a m m e tt (Jaso n Robards). The only time the two friends see each other is when Lillian dashes to

Vienna after Julia is critically wounded in an Austrian government attack on the workers’ district.

The storyline turns on the risky deed Lillian performs for her friend in 1937.

Zinnemann here is at his facile best, tightening the tension imperceptibly, then channelling the narrative into a sequence of wistful pathos.

Lillian smuggles $50,000 of Julia’s own money to her friend in Berlin, on behalf of the anti-Nazi underground. When they meet, a wan, severe Julia (she lost a leg in the Vienna siege) explains that the money will buy freedom for more than 500 people — Jews, Catholics, communists and others.

Julia reveals she has a daughter, named Lilly, who lives with a baker’s family in Alsace. Later, after Julia’s death, Lillian

vainly seeks the child (in her memoirs, Ms Heilman reveals that William Wyler, a n a t i v e o f A ls a c e , h e l p e d in th e unsuccessful search).

Even for a Hollywood still savoring a honeymoon with radical chic, the casting of Fonda and Redgrave in parts so close to their personal political proclivities is a fairly bold stroke. It works quite well.

Fonda convincingly suggests the gritty, vulnerable intelligence of Heilman, while Redgrave, in the lesser role, is a brisk, bright zealot. What doesn’t come through, and this is a serious flaw, is the nature of the deep bond between the two women.

(The film retains a scene described by Ms Heilman in which she reacts angrily to a sneering suggestion that their attachment is sexual.)

Manifestly, Julia represents Good —

selfless, self-denying, unequivocal — pitted against Evil. Her dedication and untroubled rejection of riches and comfort are contrasted to Heilman’s own musings about whether she should spend her royalties on a sable coat or “ give it to Roosevelt.” (Most of Lillian Heilman’s plays concern struggles between good and evil in the human personality.)

What Zinnemann and Sargent might have developed further is the teacherp u p il n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , particularly in its adolescent phase. They do, how ever, suggest how Lillian’s o u tlook is affected by the m o n e y ­ smuggling mission and Julia’s martyrdom.

Although the film is less than briskly paced, some things are skipped over that might have been elucidated — the Right­ wing attack in which Julia was maimed and

Julia, “ a thoroughly well-intentioned evocation of liberal humanism in the face of a totalitarian

extremism.” Lillian (Jane Fonda) and Dash (Jason Robards).

Cinema Papers, April/June — 357

THE MANGO TREE

JULIA

the Nazi persecution of university Jews were not exactly the same movement; Lillian bawls at Hammett: “ It’s OK for you Dash, you’re famous!” — but not everyone has read and remembered all the credits of T h e M a lte s e F a lco n .

The only significant departure from Heilman’s own narrative backdates Julia’s death so that it immediately follows the smuggling episode, giving a false (but dramatically-sharpened) impression of cause and effect.

Inevitably, the film says a lot more about Lillian than Julia (she remains a largely e n ig m a ti c fig u re , as d o es Hammett). Referring to them in an epilogue which returns to the opening shot, Lillian says of the two people who did so much to shape her life: ” 1 am stubborn. I have not forgotten either of them .” Their importance to Lillian is emphasized constantly. Hammett subtly goads her into writing “ the best play anyone’s written in a long time” , Julia advises: “ Don't let people talk you out of your anger” .

Like Heilman’s plays, the film’s basic thematic concern is with the moral implications of human conduct. When Hammett tells Lillian, distressed by the c o ld -b lo o d e d in d ifferen ce of J u l i a ’s grandparents: “ They were only interested in her money!” , he might be describing the venal characters of T h e L ittle Foxes and A n o th e r P a r t o f th e F o r e s t , who subordinate everything else to wealth and power.

Z in n em an n establishes a nostalgic patina of modishly-moody recollection, in that peculiar vein of Hollywood-verite which pays due regard to the salient features of the period without quite achieving verisimilitude. (I had much the same reaction to Hal Ashby’s Bound for Glory .) The scenes in hotels, trains, ships, stations, cafes and the hospital — all photographed with florid richness by D ou glas S lo co m be — are apposite e n o u g h , a lth o u g h so m e of A n th ea Sylbert’s striking costume designs have a foot in two epochs. (Here one can’t but be reminded of Heilman’s immortal rebuff to the McCarthyites: “ 1 cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions” — although of course she wasn’t talking about apparel.)

D e s p i t e p a s s i n g o b e i s a n c e s to commercial imperatives, the film is a thoroughly well-intentioned evocation of liberal humanism in the face of totalitarian extremism. In the twilight of his career, Zinnemann, the European filmmaker who fled the spreading Nazi shadow for a career in Hollywood, achieves a certain pentimento of his own.

central preoccupation of its director (here, Kevin Dobson).

This is certainly true of the Ronald McKie novel on which the film is based; but the film never decides whether Jamie Carr (C hristopher Pate) is to be a spectator or a participant in the film’s action. It is never clear how he is meant to be changed by his observation of, or his involvement in, the incidents which make up the film’s straggling plot.

Neither Michael Pate’s screenplay nor Christopher Pate’s performance help in this respect. The screenplay wanders disconcertingly from one episode to the next, from one point of view to the other.

One is usually more interested in what is happening to someone else than to Jamie.

When Mrs Plover (Carol Burns) is taken off to the “ loony bin” , for example, it is the woman’s blank disorientation and her daughter’s angry held-in grief that interest — and move — us, not what the observing Jamie makes of it.

But if Pate p e r e cannot adjust his focus to give the film a logical coherence, neither can Pate J lls persuade us that anything much is going on behind his conscientiously furrowed brow. Things happen to him and around him, but nothing seems to happen inside him. Only in the obligatory scene of sexual initiation (with Diane Craig’s touchingly willing French teacher) does he suggest an a u th e n tic a lly a d o le s c e n t c lu m sy gentleness; and the scene is done with tact and restraint.

As he leaves Bundaberg at the end of the film, 1 thought (and probably unfairly) of Paul Morel at the end of S o n s a n d L o v e r s . It is unfair to compare a modest film with one of the great English novels of growing up, but the comparison does point out the film’s weakness.

For all the novel’s faults, Lawrence makes us feel that Paul’s sensibility is its centre — however much we may resist the overwrought introspectiveness of some of the writing — and people and incidents take on a special importance insofar as they work on that sensibility.

Christopher Pate looks too old for 18 (“ the devil’s year” , not that anything very devilish happens to him) and doesn’t make us care what becomes of Jamie at what are presumably the crucial moments of his adolescence. He is too limited an actor to fill in the gaps in the screenplay, let alone pull its episodic narrative habits into line by creating a sense of a developing consciousness.

All the drama about the crazed preacher (extravagantly overplayed by G erard Kennedy) is dispensable. At first his hellfire proclamation that “ the devil works in all things” promises an interesting moral tension between its brutal life-denial and the evidence of luxuriant life that Brian Probyn’s camera so lovingly details.

After that, and until his violent death in the mill, the sub-plot involving him, his niece and her boyfriend, is peripheral to the film’s — and our — main concerns, and is indeed gratuitously melodramatic, providing the wrong kind of excitement for an essentially gentle film. It is never made to seem part of the texture of Jamie’s life, or of the life surrounding him.

But let’s turn to the credit side of the film. Visually, it is ravishing; Bundaberg in 1917 looks an idyllic place to grow up in.

Pro by n gives us beautifully m u ted interiors (with stained tongue-and-groove walls, a dinner table gracefully set beneath a kerosene lamp), sandy streets with lonely-looking verandah posts and ads for Mary Pickford and Your Country Needs YOU, paths through lush green canefields.

.1I'L l A: Directed by Fred Zinnemann. Producer Richard Roth. Executive Producer Julian Derode. Screenplay Alvin Sargent. Director of Photography Douglas Slocombe. Editor Waller Murch. Music Georges Delcruc. Production Designers Gene Callahan, Willy Holt, Carmen Dillon. Sound Bill Rowe, Derek Ball. Cast: Jane Fonda, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Robards, Maximilian Schell, Hal Holbrook. Rosemary­ Murphy, Meryl Streep, Dora Doll. Elisabeth Mortensen. Production Company 20th CenturyFox. Distributor 20th Ccnturv-Fox. 35 mm. 116 min. U. S. 1977.

THE MANGO TREE Brian McFarlane So much of The Mango Tree is very attractive that it seems churlish to begin on a sour note. The trouble is that what goes wrong is at the heart of the film — or, rather, where the heart of the film seems meant to be.

As in several recent Australian films (The Getting of Wisdom, The Devil’s Playground), an adolescent’s response to the pains of growing up appears to be the

358 — Cinema Papers, April/June

Geraldine Fitzgerald as Grandma Carr in the performance that is The Mango Tree’s strength — and weakness.

weatherboard houses that make one grateful for their unpretentious beauty, a churchyard with its privy at a respectable distance, a misty morning riverscape, and much more.

It is perhaps the best-looking Australian film so far, scene after scene unerringly composed and lit, and yet resisting the temptation to linger over the astonishing beauty it finds in the Q u e e n sla n d countryside and its recreated township.

What really gives The Mango Tree its distinction, though, and makes us forget its deficiencies, is the performance of Geraldine Fitzgerald as Grandma Carr.

In 1945, James Agee in reviewing Siodmak’s Uncle Harry wrote that he was excited by “ the beauty, intelligence, and ability of Geraldine Fitzgerald, and by seeing her after years of criminal neglect in a role which, though not by a long way good enough for her, does give her room to move around in and things to do, and ought to guarantee her roles as good or better, from now on.”

Fitzgerald has played such roles on stage (Mary Tyrone in L o n g D a y ’s J o u r n e y I n to N ig h t , for instance) but rarely in films, though she was invariably fine when she did turn up in subsidiary roles in Ten North Frederick, as a viciously ambitious wife or, more recently, in Harry and Tonto, where she had a heart-breaking moment or two as Art Carney’s old flame.

But not until The Mango Tree has she had a part “ good enough for her” .

She makes Grandma Carr a great lady and a shrewd, loving woman, and she creates her w h o lly. She can make sub­ aphoristic lines sound as if she has just thought of them, and even her patriotic speech at the town’s war-time rally sounds as if it belongs to the character.

Fitzgerald has style and w arm th, sharpness and gentleness; she has made “ a memorable woman” (as one character sums up Mrs Carr). But the controlled intelligence of her playing persistently refuses the script’s invitations to cliches of m atriarch ical w isdom or p ioneerin g hardihood.

She never plays for easy sympathy: nor is t h e r e a n y t h i n g s t a g e y in t h e performance. Instead, every effect — whether she is chuckling over a good story in the Bible or, in her final scene, reliving with dream-like clarity her encounter 50 years ago with a handsome bushranger — appears to be the result of knowing quietly and exactly what the woman she is playing is like inside.

It is important to stress that Geraldine Fitzgerald’s performance is the film’s strength; but it is also its weakness.

Grandma Carr is an “ achieved” woman; it is her grandson whose development should provide the film’s dynamic end, but it does not.

There is nothing ungenerous in Miss Fitzgerald’s performance, but no one else in the film can match it. Certainly not R obert H elpmann as a stereotyped remittance man with a “ dear lady” turn of speech, though in fairness it should be said that he merely goes where the script leads him.

In minor roles, Maggie Millar, as a fallen lady helped by Mrs Carr, is briefly touching; and a subdued Gloria Dawn is a solidly co nvincing presen ce as the housekeeper.

The Mango Tree is an honorable addition to the nostalgia school of Australian filmmaking. Kevin Dobson clearly feels for the milieu he has created, and he is admirably assisted by Pat Forster’s costumes and Marc Wilkinson’s music.

Next time, though, I hope he will be m o r e rig o ro u s a b o u t his s tru c tu r a l principles. There is a lot to be grateful for in the incidental pleasures of recent

THE LACEMAKER

THE MANGO TREE

Australian films, but the industry urgently needs som ething to u g h er and m ore coherent.

THE MANGO TREE: Directed by Kevin Dobson. Producer Michael Pate. Associate Producer Michael Lake. Screenplay Michael Pale. Director of Photography Brian Probyn.

Editor John Scott. Music Marc Wilkinson. Art Director Les Binns. Sound Recordist Barry Brown. Cast: Geraldine Fitzgerald, Christopher Pate. Robert Helpmann, Gerard Kennedy, Gloria Dawn, Diane C'raig. Barry Pierce.

Production Company Pisces Productions.

Distributor GUO. 35 mm. 110 min. Australia.

1977.

THE LACEMAKER Inge Pruks Claude Goretta, born in Geneva in 1929, began making documentaries for Swiss television in the 1950s. He also made numerous literary adaptions and short fiction films for television, before undertaking his four feature films; Le fou (The Madman — 1970), L’lnvitation (The Invitation — 1973), Pas si mechant que ca (That Wonderful Crook — 1975), and now La dentelliere (The Lacemaker - 1977).

Goretta is interested in the modest and the unexceptional in life, and it is not surprising to find that some of his favorite writers are Maupassant, Gogol, Chekhov, Malamud, Pavese, Ring Lardner and Scott F it z g e r a l d . A m o n g f i l m m a k e r s he admires, he has named Vigo, Renoir and Becker.

In his films he concentrates on what the French call the “ quotidien” , the details of every day reality and the tensions which often lurk behind the curtain of all that is mundane. The tone of his films is one of understatement, and it is created by a certain refusal to engage fully in either the comic or the tragic, to caricature or to over dramatize. He is a documentarist at heart.

The Lacemaker is about a crack-up, to quote one of Goretta’s favorite Fitzgerald s t o r ie s . T h e p ro c e s s is slow and undramatic (“ Of course all life is a process of breaking down,” says Fitzgerald), but it is nonetheless painful and devastating for both characters in the film.

Beatrice (Isabelle Huppert) is an apprentice hairdresser, and we first see her contrasted with Marylene (Florence Giorgetti), an older and more experienced girl who works at the same salon. Beatrice, also nicknamed Pomme, is gentle and withdrawn, while Marylene is business­ like, bright and talkative. Even in these early scenes with Marylene, Goretta is preparing us for the force of the final image of the lacemaker, contained in the last close-up as well as in the closing words of Pascal Laine’s novel: “ And so he passed by her, just next to her, without seeing her. Because she was one of those souls who make no sigh, but who need to be patiently questioned, whom you have to know how to look at. An artist in another age would have made her the subject of a genre painting. She would have been a seamstress, a water carrier . . . or a lacemaker” .

In other words, Pomme is cast as a “ s e c o n d a r y ” c h a ra c te r, lacking the individuality of a Mona Lisa or a Madame Recamier, or even the girl in G reuze’s “ Broken P itch er” , but possessing a gentleness, a willingness to serve which links her to all the youthful maidens who posed in anonymity for painters who needed a model for their minor works.

Pom m e’s servile role is emphasized again and again: it is part of her job to sweep up the hair on the salon floor.

G o r e tt a c o n tr a s ts this lightly with Marylene who collects the tip from the client at the d o o r. At M a r y le n e ’s

Isabelle Huppert as Beatrice in Claude Gorctta's study of a crack-up. The Lacemaker.

apartment, Pomme is asked to fetch the sh o w er cap. She also answ ers the telephone, and even holds it for Marylene (who is luxuriating in the bath).

In another scene she asks Marylene, who has thrown her huge teddy bear out of the window in a tearful crisis, whether she wants her to get the bear. Leaving this scene in the air, Goretta quickly cuts to another where the same idea is carried over: Pomme is bringing a handful of melting icecreams for her workmates.

There is nothing ignoble about this servility, and Pomme enjoys the role. She willingly peels a peach for Francois (Yves Beneyton) during their first meal together.

However, there is something unpleas­ antly condescending in the word used by Francois’s mother to describe Pomme: “ honnête” . It is a word you might apply to a prospective servant, and worse than non-committal. This is the first indication that Pom m e’s servility will soon become a handicap for her.

The little lacemaker figure, whom Goretta pushes into the dramatic centre of the film, is set apart from the rest of society by her dress and her bearing. In contrast to Marylene, who is having her share of troubles with men, Pomme is distinctly non-sexual in her self-concept and brushes away any contacts with men.

She wears schoolgirlish tunics, flat shoes, roundnecked shapeless blouses and sloppy cardigans. She eats apples, and chocolate ice-cream, and licks the remains of the chocolate mousse in a bowl her mother hands her. She is homely and wholesome, and it is not hard to see why the pinched, lean and earnest Francois is at first attracted to her.

At their first meeting, Pomme herself does not look up at the stranger who has come into the cafe, but Francois notices her at once, and the beginning of the end is set in motion.

It is interesting that Francois is obviously ill at ease with the very sexual Marylene, and it is probably Pomm e’s lack of self-awareness that appeals to Francois,

makes her less threatening to him — but finally also more frustrating.

The Lacemaker is a love story, but its settings are far from romantic and no one utters an “ I love you” in the whole course of the film. Goretta is more discreet than even Truffaut, and allows us to only see, not hear, the lovers whisper on the beach.

There is a curious awkwardness in the relationship: Francois is polite and tensely serious (witness his sententious reading of the Maupassant). He reads L e M o n d e , studies linguistics, argues over dialectical materialism (what does “ dialectical” mean? asks Pomme): he is an articulate, middle-of-the-road intellectual, earnest and lacking in imagination and intuition.

Pomme, on the other hand, is almost a mute character, and in this respect is not unlike the central character of The Invitation, the man who invites his office colleagues to his beautiful chateau. Often c o n v e rs a tio n with P o m m e b eco m e s irritating for audience and Francois alike — she offers nothing but a “ yes” or a “ no ” , and rarely initiates a dialogue.

Goretta sometimes sympathizes with her though, as is evident in his slight caricaturing of Francois’ friends and their pseudo-intellectual jargon. And yet it is through nervousness, lack of social graces, or even intellectual jargon that Pomme remains silent — she was just as quiet with Marylene. She just does not seem to feel the need to talk, and it is finally this character trait, rather than class or education, which sets her apart from Francois.

Her inarticulate being-ness is more than Francois can bear: Is she happy? Is she unhappy? What does she hope to get from life? Isn’t she interested in anything?

These are questions which she never answers for Francois, and the break comes quietly, without drama. In fact, Goretta avoids the confrontation by cutting Fran­ cois’ speech in the room with scenes of Pomme wandering through a fruit market.

At one stage Francois even addresses him­ self in a mirror; Pomme is always absent.

Rarely has a love story been set in such desolate surroundings, and this adds to the feeling of doom and em ptiness — especially when accompanied by long periods of silence on the soundtrack. The hotel room with its embarrassingly thin walls, the run-down cafe, the empty beaches, the American cemetery, the windy precipice, the grey and cheerless Parisian outskirts, the rain and mud of the season’s end. Does it all reflect the inner landscape of these two ill-assorted lovers?

It is hard to tell, because Beatrice-Pomme never opens up to Francois, and only momentarily perhaps to the audience.

Ironically enough, Pomme is at her most lucid in the hospital, when Francois visits her. Amid the sadness and yet serenity of the fallen leaves and empty park benches, Francois asks banal and irrelevant questions about Pom m e’s life after she leaves him. She answers him mechanically, tells him what he wants to hear, fabricating details about a holiday in the Greek islands. For once it is she who initiates conversation, recalling their first night together, recalling too the one moment of attention bestowed upon her: that night in the restaurant, when Francois had gone to get her shawl for her. It is the only moment in the film when Pomme asked for something for herself.

The Lacemaker is also the portrait of a child-woman, but it is, of course, limited by the nature of the subject matter.

Goretta happily avoids too much emphasis on the girl’s home life with her mother which could easily have sentimentalized the little-girl side of Pomme. I found the short inserts (mother with daughter at F ir s t C o m m u n i o n , m o t h e r kissing daughter in bed) somewhat superfluous; but these are minor blemishes on an otherwise beautifully executed work.

The last shot, especially, has a painterly quality of its own, without any obvious striving for such an effect as in, say, R ohm er’s Marquise von O . . .. Here the angle of the face, the absence of back­ ground detail, the lighting, and the

Cinema Papers, April/June — 359

“T H O S E WITH A DISCRIM INATING S E N S E OF HUM OR WILL PR O BA B LY GET SICK ALL OVER T H EM SELV ES FROM L A U G H TE R .”

— OUI MAGAZINE

“W A TE R S’ W EIRD, FLAGRANTLY O FFE N SIV E FAIRY TALES HAVE TO BE S E E N TO BE BELIEVED -P LA Y B O Y MAGAZINE

JOHN WATERS’

The Urban Council, Hong Kong presents

/ DARE ANYONE NOT TO

T A K E J O H N W A TE R S S E R IO U S L Y A F T E R D E S P E R A T E L IV IN G . n Tom Allen/VILLAGE VOICE

from NEW LINE CINEMA

J o h n W a te r s ’ e a rlie r e ffo r ts in b a d ta s te . . .

FEMALE TROUBLE plus PINK FLAMINGOS (DIVINE in the sickest double ever screened!)

John Waters’ first feature, indispensable to a Waters’ retrospective . . “MONDO TRASHO” See DIVINE raped by a lobster in “MULTIPLE MANIACS” — ‘A hiply sleazy monster movie’ — Village Voice.

Ken Hughes' biography on O scar W ilde starring Peter Finch

2 nd International Film Festival of H ong Kong 26 • 6 • 78 - 9 • 7

• 78

International Film Exhibition (feature films) Hong Kong Cinema '78 • Hong Kong Cinema Retrospective Tribute to James Wong Howe ® Seminars, forums & discussions

THE MAN WITH THE GREEN CARNATION Ideal for Repertory. University, late night screenings etc.

FOB DETAILS OF THESE & OTHER MONEY-MAKERS, CONTACT: WINDSOR THEATRES, 21a GILBERT PLACE, ADELAIDE. PHONE: (08) 212 4621

For fu rth e r inform ation, please contact: Paul Yeung, Festival Coordinator, 2nd International Film Festival o f Hong K ong,C ity Hall, Edinburgh Place, Hong Kong

TO PREMIERE AT THE MELBOURNE AND SYDNEY FILM FESTIVALS

Ï HATE TO LOSE — 1 hr. — The political process in Quebec is featured in this brisk suspenseful film.

THE WALLS COME TUMBLING DOWN - 25 mins. The fight by some residents of a large city to save their historical buildings. Others want progress!

Plus a host of others.

T H E W O R L D ’ S HEW F IL M S 45 Australian premieres

G A L A O P E N IN G N IG H T June 2 - A major new Australian feature

Information on these and other recent productions available at National Film Board of Canada 5 0 Bridge Street (9th floor), Sydney 2 0 0 0

E V E N IN G OF N EW F R E N C H F IL M S June 7

E V E N IN G OF NEW S P A N IS H F IL M S June 14

G R E A T E R U N IO N A W A R D S For Australian Short Films

FIL M F O R U M 7 8 Filmmaker discussions

Telephone: (0 2 ) 231 1 3 6 6

BOX 4934, G.P.O., SYDNEY 2001 TELEPHONE: 660 3909 CABLES: SYDFEST

BLUE FIRE LADY

UNE SALE HISTOIRE

relationship between Jenny and Gus (John Wood), and, to a lesser degree, between Jenny and Barry.

J o h n W o o d g iv e s an e x c e l l e n t performance as the affectionate Gus, which strongly contrasts with the stereo­ typed evil of the stable foreman, Charlie (Gary Waddell). But G us’ humanness comes essentially from the performance, and not the stagey context in which he plays a “ goodie” . As a result, the bond that develops with Jenny is convincing.

As for Jenny and Barry’s relationship, its virtue is the restraint with which it is handled. Instead of becoming “ gooey­ eyed” , as Mrs G. (Marion Edward) continually insists, they remain firm, though independent, friends.

In their best scene together, Barry offers to drive Jenny to the horse sale. “ N o” , she replies. “ I shall take a tram.”

In many films that would be a cold dismissal; here it shows a new strength, and one which is understood by the partner.

There are manv other good things about Blue Fire Lad) — Marion Edward’s performance as Mrs G., Vince M onton’s clean photography, Dimsey’s occasional use of the striking low-angle — and several flaws — a few awkward performances, a too deliberate opening, an over-quiet so u n d tra c k and the odd stru c tu r a l mystery. Where, for example, is Jenny leaving when Barry helps her move? If she were still at a motel, why would she have boxes of books with her?

However, these criticisms take little away from a film which so cleverly, but uncynicaliy, plays to its young audience.

The scene of reconciliation between Jenny (Cathryn Harrison) and her lather (Lloyd Cunnington) in Ross Dimsey’s Blue Fire Lady.

serenity of Isabelle Huppert's face com­ bine to give a new. more knowing dim en­ sion to this young and solitary character.

But it is the camera which, finally, shows us how to look at the lacemaker, and not pass her by.

LA D E N T E L L IE R E (The Lacem aker): Directed b\ Claude Gorctta. Screenplav Pascal Laine. Claude (ioretia. Dircctor of Photograph) Joëlle van Hlïentcrc. Music Pierre Jansen. Cast: Isabelle Huppert. Yves Bencyton, Florence (jiorgetti. Anne-Marie Düringer. Michel de Re. Production Company Janus Films. Distributor Filmways. 35. mm. 110 min. F'rance. 1977.

BLUE FIRE LADY Scott Murray Ross Dimsey’s first feature as director, Blue Fire Lady, is a pleasant surprise, and while not the children’s film Storm Boy is, compares favorably with recent Australian releases.

The story is simple: Jenny Grey (Cathryn Harrison) is forced to leave her home because of her unsympathetic father and tries to make a living as a stable hand.

In a world where money overrules all humanist considerations, Jenny’s love of animals is severely questioned. But in the horse Blue Fire Lady, she finds a symbol of the need to value something, and to be herself valued.

One of the film’s sub-plots is the abandoning of innocence, and this is generally well handled. When asked by the t r a in e r M cIn ty re (P e te r C u m m in s ) whether she has any experience with race­ horses, Jenny replies,“ No, but they all look so well cared for’’.

Her apprenticeship soon shows up the naivete of that remark; but, more impor­ tantly, instead of Jenny merely blaming an

o b v i o u s v illa in in M c I n t y r e , sh e recognizes her own involvement.

Another reference to a gained maturity is during the over-pretty scene where Jenny and Barry (Mark Holden) are out riding. Here she talks of the deliberate stifling of individualism in the turning out o f racing ch am p io n s — i.e. racing machines. She also begins to understand how winning can be a backward step.

Not that any of this is subtle, but it is done with commendable restraint, and in one scene with McIntyre, Dimsey injects a nice touch of humor. In exasperation over Jenny's pleading for the stable dog, which is about to be destroyed, McIntyre exclaims, “ Animal lovers will be the end of m e’’. A difficult line to carry off, but Cummins does it well.

Unfortunately, there are too few other memorable lines, the dialogue being very sparse and functional. One exception is the argument between Barry and Mr Grey (Lloyd Cunnington) near the end where Barry remarks, “ She’s trying to save something she loves — I guess you understand that Mr Grey’’.

Given the deliberately shadowy way Mr Grey’s perpetuation of his dead wife’s memory is drawn, and how this has hampered his handling of Jenny, the dialogue is not as simplistic as it may read.

It is an effective scene, and the emotive level of Barry’s remark prepares one just sufficiently for the father/daughter recon­ ciliation in the next scene.

It is fairly difficult to evaluate a children’s film because they are generally aimed at an aesthetically uncritical market.

A review, therefore, becomes more a consumer report.than a critique.

From this viewpoint, Blue Fire Lady fares very well. The scriptwriter, Bob Maumill, and Ross Dimsey know their market well, and have cleverly tailored

their film to suit. There is the effective, though somewhat cute, humor (the scenes with the deaf dog are particularly good); the understated but touching scene of reconciliation; and, of course, plenty of visual material on horses.

Part of Dimsey’s style is to use montages, and the best of them give potted histories of the background of horse training, the preparations involved in a big race day meeting, and the jungle­ like rule of thumb of big time racing.

These montages are well complemented

by Mike Brady’s music, two good examples being the military type intro­ duction to the boarding school sequence, and the music track over the early morning training which aurally links with the snorting of the horses.

At times, how ever, this montage technique is over-used and in the early scenes is rather clumsily employed to ev o k e tim e passing. After J e n n y ’s argument with her father about visiting the neighbors, and the threat of being bundled off to boarding school, for example, Dimsey cuts into a quick farmyard montage, and then back to another visit next door by Jenny.

This compression is too severe, and the inevitable “ Pack your bags young lady” , is resultantly limp. And in this case it is dramatically damaging because Dimsey, during previous scenes, has been building towards an audience identification with Jenny.

After first threatening Jenny with school, Mr Grey orders her back to work.

Jenny’s defiant reply, “ Yes dad” , is directed at the audience and is clearly there to invite sympathy. This identif­ ication is then compounded with the military music over the school.

The best scenes in Blue Fire Lady, th o ug h, are those dealing with the

BLUE FIRE LADY: Directed by Ross Dimsey.

Producer Antony 1. Ginnane. Associate Producer Bill Fayman. Screenplay Bob Maumill.

Director of Photography Vince Monton. Editor Tony Patterson. Music Mike Brady. Art Director John Powditch. Sound Recordist Gary Wilkins.

Cast: Cathryn Harrison, Mark Holden, Peter Cummins. Marion Edward, Lloyd Cunnington, Anne Sutherland, Gary Waddell, John Wood, John Ewart. Production Company A1FC. Distributor Filmwavs. 35mm. 96 min. Australia.

1978.

UNE SALE HISTOIRE Meaghan Morris Pornography can be a ponderous topic of conversation in Paris. Several cultural passions converge: for discussing theories of representation and discourse, for discussing sexuality, for psycho-analysis, for various politics of desire directed against the latter. In an environment w here m o re a d v e n t u r o u s form s of feminism have had some trouble making themselves heard above the language of the class struggle, this means one can be treated to some delicious moments.

At a film semiotics conference I heard a wonderfully earnest paper on the politics of pornography, in which it was laid forth that porn is fundamentally subversive because in showing anonymous parts of bodies, it acts to d e c o n s tru c t the phenomenological subject. Even better, in filling the screen with giant female genitals, porn pushes representation to its limits, because what could be more unrepresentable than. . . ?

The climactic moment was an analysis of Deep Throat — most subversive of all, because it deconstructs the representation of The Mouth as site of emission of the Logos. At this point I let loose and laughed, but since no one snickered with me, I subsided, wondering as to when the f e m a l e mouth had been endowed with such an august function in the cinema.

Jean Eustache’s new film, Une sale histoire (A Dirty Story), comes out of the

Cinema Papers, April/June — 361

UNE SALE HISTOIRE

same seriousness with similar interests; but this time they combine to produce an extraordinary piece of work. This is by'no means a unanimous opinion — feminists were enraged, censorship aroused, and many people just left grumbling at having spent 10 francs on 50 minutes of trash.

Of all these reactions, that the film was at one stage threatened with seizure seems to me the most interesting; because in a city where live and filmed porn thrive tranquilly, Une sale histoire could be described as 'just' a film about people talking. Literally and exclusively talking.

The story is certainly in dubious taste, as they say, but we only "see' the telling and listening of the story, and this 'representation' aroused more official interest than any real porn palace has for some time. In this sense, the film's social reception bears out rather curiously a number of assertions made within the film about the story itself.

At this stage I should say what Une sale histoire is about, or at least what the story is; but the film defies linear description.

An innocent viewer who has read nothing about the film in advance might start walking out half-way through, because Une sale histoire is made up of two 'films', each complete with titles and credits, presenting the same situation, the same story, told in almost the same words, and yet not the same.

In the first film, a man (Michel Lonsdale) recites a story to help a film­ maker friend, who provides the room and the audience. The tale is of a time some years earlier when the character played by Lonsdale frequented a cafe near where he lived, and where he had to make a lot of phone calls.

Comments made by the barman, and advice from a professional pervert friend, lead him to discover that there is a hole — or a kind of hole — at ground level in the door of the women's toilets (the latter being almost always of the hole-in-theground type in Paris cafes). The clientele of the cafe wait in the hope that the women who pass will drink lots of tea or beer, then they follow them down to the toilets and watch.

The rest of the recitation is about the life of a voyeur: from the stage of idle curiosity to that of passionate addiction, until breaking the habit which was starting to consume his whole life. The story is punctuated with much analysis of what it all means about sex and sexuality, and with many assertions that this is a talc which men understand immediately, but which women always refuse to hear or

accept. The story over, the ‘audience’ g athered by the film maker (mostly women) react to it in ways which are rejected by the storyteller.

The first 'film’ over, the second begins.

It is identical, except that there is no filmmaker but a host (Jean Eustache) and different people (including Douchka, who acted in The Mother and The Whore).

The decor is different, the ambience different, this film is in 16 mm, the narrator is Jean-Noel Picq (as himself), but the story is the same — almost word for word — from beginning to end.

This is dizzying enough, but the film comes replete with a history of the making of the "story” . It was widely advertised — i.e. including interviews and articles pasted up at the cinemas screening it — that the film had been made in the following way: the second part was made first. Eustache invited friends around, saying that he had some cheap film he wanted to test. JeanNoel Picq, who had been telling this story of his for years — no one knowing if it were true — was invited to tell it again, in front of female friends, some of whom had heard it before.

The proceedings were written up and given to Lonsdale and professional actors as a script which they then realized, thinking that theirs was the real and only film. The two films were then juxtaposed.

Whether this story of the making of Une sale histoire is true, one has as little way of knowing as with the tale itself. In other 'words’, Eustache manages to make a small masterpiece out of the most banal p a r a d o x e s of c o n t e m p o r a r y n o n ­ commercial cinema: fiction and reality, acting and acting oneself, and the paradox that the paradox doesn’t matter.

I emphasize “ words” deliberately, because it seems to me that one of the triumphs of the film is the way it imposes the difference — as a Him which one might tend to describe, and just how loosely the film itself locates, as a film “ made-up” of words — between the emptiness of descriptive discourse about cinema and the fullness of the specifically cinematic.

Writing “ fiction and re a lity ’’, I irresistibly want to add “ blah, blah . . . ” ; seeing Une sale histoire I simply want to see it again. This is not a way of paying sentimental tribute to the film, but of identifying, what seems to me, an essential element in its construction. The juxta­ position of the two films also juxtaposes what constitutes identity in writing — i.e. the script — and difference in cinema.

Apart from 'the words’, everything is d iffe re n t; lighting, decor, m ake-up ,

Michel Lonsdale with director Jean Eustache during the shooting of Une Sale Histoire.

362 — Cinema Papers, April/June

gestures, intonation and thus emphasis, the physical substance of the film itself.

One is remorselessly brought to see, quite literally, how everything in it which traditional film writing would describe in terms borrowed from literary criticism — psychology, atmosphere, connotation — is produced by precisely those elements in film which share nothing with literature.

For while one could spend hours detailing all the differences, the one which is most immediately obvious on a first viewing is the way the interpretation of the script produces a characterization-effect.

Lonsdale/Picq (cultivated, sophist­ icated) is not the same “ character” as Picq/Picq (would-be mondam, humorous) and so his identical story is not the same.

He emphasizes different aspects of the story, his gestures are different and filmed in a different way — and there is immediately, in the polish of the first part, a kind of Lonsdale-effect which carries over from the roles that an actor plays in such classic avant-garde films as Duras’ India S o n g and M arcel H a n o u n ’s L’Hiver, and which signifies from the beginning that what is about to follow will lay claim to a certain profundity. The contrived am ateur film effect of the second part places the story — and its teller — in a different and more idiosyn­ cratic light.

Another obvious difference is in the reactions of the women. The “ women being filmed” of the second half are animated, aggressive, talk all at once; the “ actresses” of the first part interpret their lines gently, politely, seriously, try to make contact. Their position, as defined by the story, is very interesting — they are repeatedly named by the teller as the desired receivers of the story, and just as repeatedly described as incapable of receiving it properly, and of course in the event all the women’s remarks are found wanting — with suavity by Lonsdale, with irritation by Picq.

The story is to be the expression of an exclusively masculine desire, which the teller craves that women accept while forbidding them to do so.

In this sense, the com m unication relations in the film rigorously parallel the relation between the sexes posited by the story, and on several levels. Male desire is presented as expressed in gazing (which we hear in the story) and in discourse (which we see in the film) — no touching allowed.

The agent — and object — of male desire is what is constantly referred to as The Hole. At one stage the teller suggests that The Hole (in the door) assumed such importance that it was for him as though the hole existed first, and the cafe was built around it afterwards; this dislocation o f a rch itectu ral hierarch y finds its equivalent when he announces that the traditional hierarchy of female beauty is misconceived — eyes, legs are “ not very serious” and the woman’s sex should be the first criterion. This because he kept finding that beautiful women had horrible genitals and vice-versa.

In the communication situation, the h i e r a r c h y o f th e f e m a le bo d y is appropriately re-ordered and the women are reduced to another kind of 'hole’ — they are ears. The male is the teller and the women are the told-to, just as in the toilets the male is the gazer and the women are the gazed-at.

Further, the decreed impossibility for women to accept or participate on the verbal level is built into the sexual level when the teller says that he was not interested in looking at “ domestic” (i.e. consenting) genitals, but only at “ wild” ones (i.e. non-consenting). Then when one of the women proposes that she do the

same and become a voyeur in her turn, the teller brusquely replies that she must stick to exhibitionism ; “ th e r e ’s no reciprocity between the sexes . . . ” This is also an example of another prerogative of male desire in the film — judgment. The voyeur and the teller see and hear women in a mode which is primarily one of assessment and, when necessary, deflation of female pretensions.

As in the film the teller puts down the women who ‘pretend’ to have responded to his story/desire, so in the story is there a particularly unpleasant incident in which he humiliates a beautiful woman (“ a luxury object” ) who annoyed him by refusing to look at him. He finds, as he hoped, that her sex is “ horrible” , and lets her know he looked.

These lordly cuffs aside, the dominant characteristic of male desire in Une sale histoire is its closure — the only relation to its (very literal) object is one of imposition and intrusion. That is the only source of pleasure, and any response from the object spoils the effect.

But the object absolutely has to be there; stuck there, caught in the film, where the need to tell the story seems to have replaced the act. The women are to listen right to the end; to be told, afterwards, that they can have no part in a sto ry to w hich th e i r p r e s e n c e is indispensable.

In an interview in C o llie r s ciu C in e m a (No. 284 January, 18) Eustache gives the distinct impression that his desire to make the film was of the same order as that of the teller to tell the tale: “ I felt the need to make the film in order to tell that story right to the very end and make sure that it was heard.” The film itself would then be conceived of as a form of imposition, and thus the censors — and feminists — who reacted with hostility, were very much caught in the game.

But, of course, in a game with such closed rules there is no way of not being caught; remarking, for example, that it’s a banal story about a garden voyeur would amount to the denial that the teller predicts. So does just not going to see it . . . and I rather wonder about too much enthusiasm from a female reviewer.

This closure seems to me the power of Une sale histoire, and I use the word power advisedly; it is a model of the kind of power exercised by the form of male desire it represents, which works by exclusion of the other in defining “ it” as precisely that.

Paradoxically, Eustache seems to me one of the few male filmmakers who are genuinely interesting to look at from a narrowly feminist point of view. He constructs what is supposed to be an exclusively masculine mode of perception in his films, and in incorporating women does not suppose to do otherwise. Yet, p re d ic ta b ly e n o u g h , I find m y s e lf constrained to play the game, deny the story, and say that for me the most i n t e r e s t i n g asp e c t o f id e n t it y and difference in Une sale histoire is not the sexual but the cinematic.

The film creates its own voyeurs; once caught, you go back obsessively again and again to see if the words are the same. But the language of the two films is so different that you are never quite sure enough to be satisfied.

UNE SALE H I S T O I R E : Directed and produced bv Jean Eustache. Screenplay: JeanNoel Picq. Director of Photography: Dominique le Rigoleur (35mm); Pierre Lhomme (16mm).

Editor: Chantale Colomer. Cast: Michel Lonsdale, Jean Douchet, Jacques Burloux, Douchka (1st story). Production Company: Films de Losange. Distributor: none as yet. 35 and 16mm. 50 min. France. 1977.

LISTEN TO THE LION

Hunter the

L io n

(Wyn Roberts) and fellow derelict (Syd 1Icylen) in Henri Sal'ran's Lion.

LISTEN TO THE LION Basil Gilbert From a market research point of view, Listen to the Lion is something of a paradox, for it seems intent on breaking every rule of commercial success.

For a start, the film is a 53-minute short. This means that, like many of the Australian films made with the assistance o f th e E x p e r i m e n t a l or C r e a t i v e Development funds, it must compete on the open market with petrol company d o c u m e n ta rie s and g o v e rn m e n t travelogues which can be hired for a nominal fee or obtained gratis.

Secondly, the Eastmancolor print is in the 16mm 'substandard’ gauge which restricts its commercial distribution to art

L is te n to th e

houses and filmmakers’ co-operatives.

Finally, the film deals with a subject most people would like to forget: the sufferings of aged male derelicts in a hostile urban environment.

Yet, for all these in-built disadvantages.

Listen to the Lion, as written by Bob Hill and directed by Henri Safran, manages to achieve a surprisingly existential quality verging on the surreal. It also shows technical polish and rare acting skills.

The story is simple. Early in the film we meet Hunter the Lion (Wyn Roberts), an e ld e r ly d e r e l ic t with h a llu c in a t o r y premonitions about his fate at the hands of Clockwork Orange-type larrikins, and we follow him in a 24-hour terminal odyssey through the streets of Sydney. On the j o u r n e y , we m e e t a n u m b e r o f complementary and colorful characters: a street preacher (John Derum) who hates

communists, sex and politicians (“ a legion of cancerous minds . . . are ruling our cities” ); a One-Legged Man (Barry Lovett) with a blistered face (brilliantly made-up by Rina Hofmanis); and a jovial derelict (Syd Heylen) who befriends Hunter. Heyien’s performance is excellent and gives some comic relief to the more emotional and harrowing scenes.

To give the film authenticity. Hill studied many Australian sources including John de Hogg’s S k i d R o w D o s s ie r (Sun Books, Melbourne), as well as employing sociologist Liz Fell to research the subject.

Much of the dialogue in the film derives from direct conversations in flop houses with derelicts and Salvation Army officers — and on an average night in Sydney there are around 6500 homeless men on the streets.

Surprisingly, Hill regards the world of derelicts as romantic subject matter, and sees the old men as picturesque moving shapes set against a contrasting urban barrenness. He has also tried to create a kind of visual beauty from the ugly and commonplace by wetting down the back alleys of his Sydney locations to give them a more romantic “ Melbourne look” .

Certainly, the night scenes, well lit by Malcolm Richards, with their glistening surfaces and harsh, sharp-edged contrasts, help in giving the film a surreal dimension, and set the tone for the more bizarre moments in the film.

Listen to the Lion is a hard film to categorize, for it oscillates between a realistic documentary style based on a careful o b se r v a tio n of the derelict community, and a personal, subjective point of view based on the fantastic world of the imagination. Unfortunately, these two polar opposites are not always comfortably integrated into the episodic structure of the narrative.

The highlight of the film, however, and a minor masterpiece of mechanics and special effects, is when Hunter the Lion, just before his death, imagines himself able to fly like a bird and escape from his refuge shelter prison. Here the direction and camerawork is impeccable. One interesting point is that this scene was shot

by Safran when he returned from shooting Storm Boy, and in it there are suggestions of a new control and maturity.

The music for Listen to the Lion was written and played by Canadian Michael Carlos, who also composed the music for Storm Boy. The mood of the film and its title had originally derived from a track from S t.

D o m i n i c ’s P r e v i e w by A merican-Irish composer, Van Morrison, but copyright problems, and the insistence by the American Musicians Union on the use of American musicians to perform the music, prevented it being used. Little seems to have been lost, for Carlos’ abstract themes and use of the electronic synthesizer give the film a soundtrack which is particularly effective in the more dramatic moments.

There has been a demand by film critics lately for Australian films which show the Australian environment and ethos without being overtly provincial. Listen to the Lion, with its blend of the local scene with the more universal qualities of suffering and compassion, comes somewhere near to fulfilling this ideal combination.

LISTEN TO THE LION: Directed by Henri Safran. Producer Robert Hill. Screenplay Robert Hill. Director of Photography Malcolm Richards.

Editor Mervyn G. Lloyd. Music Michael Carlos.

Art Director Robert Hill. Sound Recordist Robert Hayes. Cast: Wyn Roberts, Barry Lovett, John Derum, Syd Heylen, Malva Drummond, Les Foxcroft. Production Company Stockton Ferri Films. Distributors Sydney Co-op/Vincent Library. 16mm. 53 min. Australia 1977.

27TH MELBOURNE FILM FESTIVAL ONCE A YEAR CHANCE JU N E 2 -1 7

Exclusive screenings of great current film s from the four corners of the earth. 160 film s for $35.

Booking now open and filling fast — seats a llo­ cated strictly in order of receipt.

Apply now for application form.

P.O. Box 3 5 7 , Carlton South, 3 0 5 3 .

Phone 3 4 7 9 5 3 8 , 3 4 7 4 8 2 8 .

Cinema Papers, April/June — 363

M u s i c W o r r ie s ?

AUSTRALIAN SCREEN MUSIC PTY LTD Specialising in Music Tracks — Canned or Original — For any type of v Production.

For inform ation on this long overdue service give Garry Hardman a call and discuss your requirements — even at script stage.

Think music — Think ASM P.O. Box 176 Crows Nest NSW 2065 (02) 922 6833

S O U N D S T U D IO FO R H IR E

,

Suitable for Film Video and Stills at:

FILM SETS Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, MELBOURNE 3 1 6 6 88

THE DESIGNERS ASSOCIATION IN THE PERFORMING ARTS AND TH E SYD NEY OPERA HOUSE TR U ST Presents

DESIGNING MINDS An exhibition of film, theatre and television design from 30 Australian designers.

8th April — 21 st May Exhibition Hall, Sydney Opera House

Studio 75' x 46' with 14' to lighting grid.

Large three sided paintable fixed cyce.

Good access to studio for cars and trucks.

Design and set construction service available.

Dressing rooms, wardrobe, and make-up facilities.

STUDIO BOOKINGS, PHONE: Alex Simpson, (03) 568 0058, (03) 568 2948 AH (03) 25 3858

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS Reprinted from NOVEMBER 1977

Australian Government Gazette Published by the Australian Government Publishing Service

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

JANUARY 17 - JANUARY 31 - MARCH 7

For General Exhibition (G) Anarkali: Filmistan, India (4701.84 m) The Bible as History: Neue Tele Contaret, W. Germany (2523.00 ml The Claim (16mm): Film Australia, Australia (913.49 m) Come Fly With Me: Yung Sheng Film Co., Hong Kong (2484.00 m) ...........

Ivan the Terrible-a ballet: Sovexport Film, U.S.S.R. (2496.00 m) The People That Time Forgot:- John Dark, U.S.A. (2496.00 m) The Picture Show Man (sub-titled Italian version) (a): Limelight Prod., Australia (2701.00 m) Spiderman: E.J. Montagne, U.S.A. (2605.00 m) Steamboat Bill (16 mm) (1928): P. Killiam, U.S.A. (770.00 m) Story of Love (Hykaat Hoob) (16 mm): Sout El Faan, Egypt (1620.00 m) (a) English version previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 5/77.

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS For Mature Audiences (M) Celine Et Julie Vont En Bateau (Phantom Ladies Over Paris): B. Schroeder, France (5549.00 m) The D isap p e a ra n c e : D. H em m ings, Canada (2907.58 m) The Gamecock: P. Campanile, Italy (2523.00 m) The Golden Mask: Great China Film Co., Hong Kong (2629.26 m) Joyride (16 mm): B. Curtis, U.S.A. (1000.00 m) La C om m union S o le n n e lle : Les F ilm s De L’Arquebuse, France (2826.00 m) Le Cinque Giornate (The Five Days): S. Argento, Italy (3557.00 m) Listen To My Story: J. Goslav, W. Germany (2598.00 m) The Mars Villa: Shing/Chung, Hong Kong (2646.04 m) 7 Pistole Per Un Massacro: Not shown, Italy (2700.00

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Bruce Lee—True Story: The Eternal Film Co., Hong Kong (2688.14 m) Fantasies Behind the Pearly Curtain: Wong Cheuk Hon, Hong Kong (271 7.00 m) Funeral for an Assassin: W. Brough/I. Hall, South Africa (2453.94 m) II Medico Della Mutua: B. Turchetto, Italy (2717.00 m) Julia: R. Roth, U.S.A. (3377.18 m) Kafani Ya Aalb (16mm): Not shown, Egypt (1493.00 m) The Last Wave: H. & J. McElroy, Australia (2907.58 m) Madunnella: Sud Film, Italy (2222.00 m) Paisan (16mm): O. I. F. and R. Geyger, Italy (1239.61 m) Rebellion: Toho-Mifune, Japan (3514.00 m) Skateboard: H. Blum and R. Wolf, U.S.A. (2698.30 m) Teesri Manzil: Nasir Husain, India (4388.00 m) Telefon: J.B. Harris, U.S.A. (2852.72 m) Wages of Fear (16mm): Vera Film, France (1415.13 m) You Light Up My Life: J. Brooks, U.S.A. (2490.00 m) You Light Up My Life: J. Brooks, U.S.A (2490.00 m) Zanna Bianca Alla Riscossa: E. Amati, Italy (2745.00 m) Oh God (Revised version) (a): J. Weintraub, U.S.A. (2633.00 m) (a) Altered by producer. Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 8/77.

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS For Mature Audiences (M) Bruce Lee, We Miss You: L. Hsaio Ling, Hong Kong (2359.00 m) .

The Chicken C hronicles: W. Shenson, U.S.A. (2585.78 m) Clans of Intrigue: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2876.82 m) Deadly Silver Spear: Fortuna Films, Hong Kong (2441.00 m) Flash and the Firecat: F. & B. Sebastian, U.S.A. (2331.00 m) Full Circle: Fetterman & Pariser, U K. (2605.00 m) Gator Bait: F. & B. Sebastian, U S A. (2386.41 m) The Glory of the Sunset: Chiang Gih Shen, Hong Kong (2591.46 m) The Goodbye Girl: R. Stark, U.S.A. (2990.90 m) The Governess: Bi.Di.A. Film, Italy (3132.00 m) He’s a Legend —He’s a Hero: C.H. Wong, Hong Kong (2413.00 m) The Killers of the Castle of Blood: Prodimex & Hispamer, Italy/Spain (2660.71 m) Love in the Shadow: C.T. Shen, Hong Kong (2634.00

m)

Other Peoples Letters: Sovexport Film, U.S.S.R. (2550.99 m) A Piece of the Action: M. Tucker, U.S.A. (3620.76 m) Rituals: L Dane, Canada (2688.00 m) S le e p in g Dogs: R. D onaldson, New Zealand (2743.00 m) So Young, So Lovely, So Vicious: Dominizia Cinematografica, Italy (2468.00 m) Surrender: E. Piedra, Italy/Spa'n (2907.00 m) Un Dotlaro Di Fuoco (a): Not shown, Italy (2139.00 m) (a) Previously rejected in April 1970.

m)

Stunts: P. Davis/R. Shaye, U.S.A. (2411.00 m) Summer City (16mm): P. Avalon, Australia (880.00 m) Twist: Salkind/Spengler, France (2852.72 m) My Michael: S. Cohen, Israel (2194.00 m)

For Restricted Exhibition (R)

Scene from John Lamond’s ABC of Love and Sex — Australia Style, another of Australia’s sex films to meet with censorship problems.

Oshima P rods/A natole Dauman, Japan/France (2821.50 m) ^ Dormitory Girls: A. Brummer, W. Germany/Denmark (2880.00 m) The Four Days Affair (Reconstructed version) (d): Sam Films, France (1542.10 m) Free Love (Amore Libero): Cineriz, Italy (2318.00 m) Intimate Games (Soft version) (e): G. Goen, U.K. (2386.41 m) Joe (Full version) (f): D. Gil, U.S.A. (2853.00 m) Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man: Marras/Salviani, Italy (2550.00 m) Revenge of the Cheerleaders: R Lerner/N. Dorsky, U.S.A. (2413.84 m) The Traitorous: Yen Wu Tung, Hong Kong (2550.00 m) Weekend Girls (Reconstructed version) (g): R. Bretwick/P. Balachoff, U.S.A. (2057.25 m) Northville Cemetery Massacre: W. Dear/T. Dyke, U.S.A. (2258.80 m) (a) Previously rejected in Film Censorship Bulletin Nos 7/77 and 8/77. (b) Hard ve rsio n p re v io u s ly re je c te d in Film Censorship Bulletin Nos 9/76 and 10/76. (c) Previously rejected in Film Censorship Bulletin Nos 8/77 and 9/77. (d) Previously rejected in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 4/77 (e) Hard ve rsio n p re v io u s ly re je c te d in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 7/77. (f) Previously rejected in Film Censorship Bulletin Nos 4/71 and 5/71. Reconstructed version classified 'For Restricted Exhibitions' in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 12/71. (g) Previously rejected in Film Censorship Bulletin Nos 7/77 and 8/77.

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R)

Achtung the Desert Tigers: International Cine Holiday, Italy (2308.10 m) Alimony Lovers: W. Dancer, U.S.A. (2002.39 m) Angels Who Burn Their Wings: Brynych/Zbynek, Germany (2441.27 m) Bete Noir (16mm): K. Saggers, Australia-(76.79 m) Bilitis: S. Tabet, France (2633.28 m) The Bite (Reconstructed version) (a): 808 Pictures, U.S.A. (1618.20 m) Caged Women (Soft version) (b): EC. Dietrich, W. Germany/Switzerland (2022.30 m) The Cheerleaders: P. G lickler/R. Lerner, U.S.A.

The Erotic Diary of a Lumberjack: J.M. Pallardy, France (2523.00 m). Eliminations: 105.7 m (3 mins 51 secs). Reason: Indecency.

Jack the Ripper: E.C. Dietrich/M. Dora, Switzerland (2507.10 m). Eliminations: 56.20 m (2 min 3 secs).

Reason: Excessive violence.

L’Amour a La Bouche (Mannequin): La Persane, France (2523.40 m). Eliminations: 138.0 m (5 mins 2 secs). Reason: Indecency and excessive violence.

Poor Cecily (Reconstructed version) (a): Phoenix International Films, U.S.A. (2955.00 m). Eliminations: 101 . 8 m (3 mins 43 secs). Reason: Excessive violence.

Satan’s Slave: L. Young/R. Crafter, U.K. (2386.00 m).

Eliminations: 121.5 m (4 mins 26 secs). Reason: Excessive violence. (a) Previously rejected in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 8/77.

Note: Length of film ‘All About Sex of all Nations' (R econstructed version) notified in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 10/77 should read 1837.80 m in lieu of 1947.00 m.

Come Play With Me: G. Harrison Marks, U.K. (2556.10 m) , Communion: R.K. Rosenberg, U.S.A. (2880.00 m) Dans L’Empire Des Sens (in the Realm of the Senses) (Reconstructed version) (c): Argos Film/

The Big Snatch: Argon Productions, U.S.A (2194.50 m). Reason: Indecency and Indecent violence.

Captain Lust: B. Buchanan, U.S.A. (2212.80 m).

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R)

(2221.00 m)

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind: J. & M. Phillips, U.S.A. (3680.00 m) Death Riders: Adams & Tucker, U.S.A. (2358.00 m) The Irishman: A. Buckley, Australia (2907.58 m) L’Albero Dalle Foglie Rosa: C. Argento, Italy (2641.00 m) Leopard In The Snow: J. Quested/C. Harrop, U.K./ Canada (2446.00 m) The Mango Tree: M. Pate/Pisces Prod., Australia (2826.00 m) The Mighty Peking Man: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2413.00 m) Na Cha The Great: Shaw Bros., Hong Kong (2745.00 m) The Turning Point: H Ross/A. Laurents, U.S.A. (3269.00 m) Una Questione D'Onore: Not shown, Italy (2956.00 m) Why Shoot The Teacher?: L. Hertzog, Canada (2804.00 m)

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION

Reason: Indecency and excessive violence.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW FILMS APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW The Spy Who Loved Me (a): A.R. Broccoli, U.K. (3483.61 m). Decision reviewed: Appeal against the decision of the Film Censorship Board to register the film (M). Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board.

Northville Cemetery Massacre (b): W. Dear/T. Dyke, U.S.A. (2258.80 m) Decision reviewed: Appeal against the decision of the Film Censorship Board to refuse to register the film. Decision of the Board: To register the film (R).

FILMS NOT APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW Deep Love (Reconstructed version) (c): S. Bostan, U.S.A. (1945.00 m). Decision reviewed: Appeal against the decision of the Film Censorship Board to refuse to register the film. Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board. (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulleton No. 7/77. (b) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 9/ 77. (c) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin Nos 8/77 and 9/77.

DECEMBER 1977 FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS For General Exhibiton (G) ‘Abba’ The Movie: Popular Music Int’l., Australia (2632.00 m) Blue Fire Lady: A. Ginnane, Australia (2440.00 m) Farewell To A Warrior: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2861.63 m) Free Ride (16 mm): B. Delaney, U.S.A. (921.48 m) Hershele: D. Shaplra/l. Kol, Israel (2414.00 m) Land Of Silence And Darkness (16 mm): W. Herzog, W. Germany (921.00 m) Luca Bambino Mio: Devon Films/Romaizaro Films, Italy (2370.00 m) Man In The Iron Mask: N. Rosemount, U.K./France (2825.00 m) P ete’s Dragon: R. M ille r/J. C ourtland, U .S .A .

(3648.00 m) Poco: D. Brooks, U.S.A, (2386.00 m) Point of Order (16 mm): E. Pratt, U.S.A. (1009.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Carambola: F. Baldi, Italy (2774.00 m)

The Amorous Adventures of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza: R. Nussbaum, U.S.A. (2832.00 m) Cinderella: C. Band, U.S.A. (2523.00 m) Cinderella 2000: A. Adamson, U.S.A. (2562.30 m) Confessions from a Holiday Camp: G. Smith, U.K. (2469.00 m) Distorted Women: G. Lambrakis, Greece (2400.00 m) Equus: E. Kastner/L. Persky, U.K./Canada (3767.94 m) Executioners From Shaolin: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2963.00 m) Fingers: G. Barrie, U.S.A. (2448.00 rp) Frankenstein 80: G. Bonos, Italy (2400.00 m) Frustration The Trip to Perversion’: J. Benazerof, France (2413.84 m) The Gauntlet: R. Daley, U.S.A. (3044.73 m) The Greatest Plot: K & K Film (H.K.) Co., Hong Kong (2551.00 m) The Green Dragon Inn: Yau Lee Film Co., Hong Kong (2605.85 m) ' The Hookers and The Hustlers: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2923.00 m) The Killer Inside Me: M. Leighton, U.S.A (2700.00 m) Looking For Mr Goodbar: F. Fields, U.S.A. (3786.00 m) Martin: R. Rubinstein, U.S.A. (2660.71 m) Mondo Candido: C. Jacopetti/F. Prosperi, Italy (3016.40 m) Motel Confidential: A. Stephen, U.S.A. (2359.00 m) My Nights With Susan, Sandra, Olga and Julie: Scorpio Films, Holland (2331.00 mj Nightmare: W. Baumes, U S A (2743.00 m) Occhio Per Occhio, Dente Per Dente (An Eye For An Eye, A Tooth For A Tooth) (Pre-Censor Cut Version) (a): Cineproduzione/Balcazar, Italy (2750.00 m) Office Love In: A. Stephens, U.S.A. (2227.00 m) Ransom: J. Hart, U.S.A. (2605.85 m) Tintorera: G. Green, U.K./Mexico (2386.00 m) (a) Longer version rejected in 1970.

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R) Emannuelle In America (Reconstructed version) (a): New Film Production, Italy (2560.80 m). Eliminations: 21.7 m (47 secs). Reason: Indecency and indecent violence.

Fantasm Comes Again (Reconstructed version) (b): A. Ginnane, U.S.A./Australia (2614.00 m). Eliminations: 79.7 m (2 mins 54 secs). Reason: Indecency. (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 10/77. (b) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 8 / 77.

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION The Hills Have Eyes: P. Locke, U.S.A. (2464.60 m).

Reason: Indecent violence.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW FILMS APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW Nil.

FILMS NOT APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW Sex And The Office Girl (Reconstructed version) (a): R. Clark, U.S.A. (1 742.60 m) Decision Reviewed: Appeal against rejection by the Film Censorship Board. Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board. (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletins Nos 4/74 and 10/77.

C o n c lu d e d on P .3 7 5

Cinema Papers, April/June — 365

BARGAIN OFFER Rare c o p i e s of film s o u v e n i r programs.

The Heroes of Telemark $ 2 .5 0 Oh! What a Loveiy War $ 2 .5 0 (Discount for multiple orders) Ben-Hur (1959) $ 7 .5 0 The Blue Max $ 5 Nicholas and Alexandra $ 1 0 Grand Prix $ 5

HALLIWELL'S FILMGOER'S COMPANION 6TH EDITION $37.50 Q u a d ru p le d in size since p u b li­ c a tio n 12 years ago, the new edition of Leslie H alliw ell's worldfam ous re fe re n ce book is a m ust for all film goers. Its m ain c oncern is w ith p e o p le who m ake films a n d • th ere a re c om prehensive en tries on all the directors, pro d u cers, actors, w riters a n d com posers of the p a st a n d presen t. For this new ed ition m ore th an 1,000 new e n tries an d 3 5 0 fresh illustrations have b e en a d d e d , resu ltin g in a witty, reliab le a n d irresistible com panion.

Most Pages in Full Color.

Ring first then write:

PJG Productions Moorabbin P.O. Moorabbin, Vic. 3189.

Phone: (0 3 ) 9 7 6 9 8 2

It is a d v is a b le to s e n d o rd e rs b y c e rtifie d m ail.

FILM REVIEW INFORMATION SERVICE

HALLIWELL'S FILM GUIDE $37.50

An e ssen tial com p an io n to the FILMGOER'S C O M PA N IO N as well as a fascin atin g film book in its own right. E ight th o u san d E nglish sp e a k in g films sp a n n in g 5 0 y ears a re covered. E ach e ntry c o n tain s a c o m p a ct m ass of inform ation such as running tim e, d a te of re le ase, colour or other process, p ro d u c tio n com pany, p ro d u c er, short synopsis a n d review , w riter, orig in al source, directo r, p h o to g rap h e r, d e sig n e r a n d cast. A ra tin g system is in clu d e d and, in m any cases, hum ourous e x c e rp ts from c ritica l reviews.

Looking for information on a film? The George Lugg Library welcomes enquiries on local and overseas films. On receipt of search fee (one dollar for two enquiries) and S.A.E., synopsis and reviews will be supplied for each title, additional material on request.

All enquiries to: The George Lugg Library P.O. Box 357 Carlton South Vic. 3053

W idesco pe P u b lishers/V isa Books are pleased to announce the forthcom ing publication of a new Australian book.

(

A vailable post free for $37.50 each . Send cheque or m oney order to: ASSOCIATED BOOK PUBLISHERS (AUST.) LTD. B & T Dept.

301 Kent Street Sydney NSW 2000

Resource Book of mm Educational Films 1 6

Educational Media Australia have published what is perhaps the first Australian produced Resource Book of 16 mm Films of its kind.

Over 2000 films are listed, with a summary of each film 's contents, the running time and recommended grade levels for study purposes.

The Resource Book contains a comprehensive Subject Index Listing, classifying each film under the appropriate Subject Heading or Headings.

Many of the titles are available for rental. Details of rental terms and conditions are set out in the Service Information section of the book.

To order a copy of the Resource Book, fill in the coupon below, and mail it together with payment of $5, plus the correct amount for postage and handling, to the Rental Librarian, 237 Clarendon Street, South Melbourne, 3205.

Postal & Handling Charges:

Victoria (Metropolitan) Victoria (Country Districts) IM.S.W., S.A., A.C.T., TAS. W.A., N.T., QLD.

80cents $1.20 $1.90 $2.50

Postage and handling charges app ly as at A p ril, 1978

ORDER To The Rental Librarian, Educational Media Australia, 237 Clarendon Street, South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205.

A novel by Esben Storm Soon to be a major film starring Richard Môir and Judy Morris with Bill Hunter and Chris Haywood. Music by John Martyn and Alan Stivell. A Storm Production.

PLEASE SUPPLY • • ■ copy/copies of the Resource Book of 16 mm Educational Films Enclosed is payment of $ ...................

Please remember: Plus postage of

$ ....................

PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY ORDER.

N A M E .............................................................................. D a te ................

AD D RESS......................................... ......................................................

Postcode

, EDUCATIONAL V1EDIA AUSTRALIA

BF! Television Monographs: Sam Rohdie 1. S tru c tu re s o f T e le v is io n by Nicholas Garnham, 1 973 2. L ig h t E n te rta in m e n t by Richard Dyer, 1973 3. T e le v is io n a n d th e F e b ru a ry 1 9 7 4 G e n e r a l E le c tio n by Trevor Pateman, 1974 4. F o o tb a ll on T e le v is io n by Edward Buscombe ed„ 1 975 5. T e le v is io n N e w s by Richard Collins, 1976 6. T e le v is io n D o c u m e n ta ry U s a g e by Dai Vaughan, 1976

Published by the British Film Institute, London.

44T h e o n ly e x p e r ie n c e t e le v is io n

is

th e

o ffere d

e x p e r ie n c e

of

by

m ost

w a tc h in g

te le v is io n ; th e s y s te m o p e r a te s to k e e p th in g s th a t w a y ."

44. . .

— Dai Vaughan.

r e a lis m h a s a lw a y s p r e s e n te d i t s e l f

a s a c e r ta in

w ay o f

copying

re a lity . A s i f

r e a lity w e r e o n o n e s id e a n d la n g u a g e o n th e o th e r ,

as

if

r e a lity

w ere

a n te c e d e n t

to

la n g u a g e a n d th e l a t t e r ’s t a s k w e r e s o m e h o w to p u r s u e th e f o r m e r u n til it h a d c a u g h t u p ."

—

Roland Barthes.*

Realism is a central aesthetic practice to television, particularly to networks like the ABC, BBC and CBC. News reportage, d o c u m e n t a r y , liv e c o v e r a g e , th e im mediacy of the real ev en t, give substance to a mythic broadcasting tradition of objectivity, a style of clarity and directness.

The ideal television language is one of transparency — a language without substance; a means solely for relaying the tru th o f the world, u n ad o rn ed and untampered with, anterior to any language which might seek to re-present it.

The television monographs produced by the Educational Advisory Service of the British Film Institute necessarily address this language/reality relation, either in aesthetic terms, or from a social/political/ ideological perspective.

All the pamphlets are concerned with the mediating role of language — that television does not simply copy, but signifies, orders and structures meanings — and merely presenting a version of reality.

It matters little whether that “ reality” is a football match, a general election or today’s news; what is always told is a certain story, a narrative of the ‘raw’ event. “ . . . although events may dictate aspects of television coverage, the coverage itself is made intelligible by television and not by some order inherent in the events.” (Andrew Tudor in F o o tb a ll o n T e le v isio n ) The story told by British television of the 1974 soccer World Cup, for example, was different to that told by German television which viewed the match from a great distance, seldom cutting-in close-ups * C r itic a l E s s a y s

by Roland Barthes.

of players or action. The British television coverage was more dramatic — more a matter of performances, of stars and individuals, not of structure or team play.

Yet, the story told by most British television is that it is not telling a story, rather it is telling the truth. The supposed impartiality of the BBC authenticates the messages which it broadcasts, while the veracity of the messages vindicate the impartiality of the broadcast.

The stress in the pamphlets on the signifying work of language — the coded, structural aspects of all communication — not only place doubt on BBC neutrality, but point to the myth of such objectivity as a prim ary ideological o p e ra tio n of television. “ . . . a consistent practice of British broadcasting to support and proselytise for the status quo (which indeed I believe to be its chief function), and an im portant strategy in naturalising, making invisible that p a r ti p r is is to describe it as an activity of impartial presentation of the truth.” (Richard Collins) “ . . . the audience’s belief that what is reported is true and r ig h t. . . is built up in the closest positive association with existing political institutions, the State and the parties. The possibility of pursuing, Finding and stating the truth is identified with the institutions of liberal democracy and the p ro c e d u r e s w h ereb y these institutions are s u s ta in e d .” (Trevor Pateman) For Nicholas Garnham, good taste and objectivity are class or Establishment values, aspects of the bourgeois state which function as ideological cover for a broadcasting institution whose structure is “ essentially authoritarian, hierarchic and undemocratic.”

Even light television entertainment “ does not seem to have evolved forms which link the expression of the utopia of entertainment to the present situation of the audience, in such a way that you can see how the present can be transformed toward utopia . . . the utopias are not rooted in the present, and so remain at best nice but ‘realisable’ ideas.” (Richard Dyer) What defines realism is not the origin of its model — whether the event is staged variety, a re-constructed documentary, the actuality of a football match, an election, a plane crash — but the exteriority of the event to the language which expresses it.

The language of television is one that maintains this fiction of exteriority; it is a language which seeks to efface itself before the reality it expresses; language which does not signify, but simply presents.

It is the falseness of that language of objectivity, of realism, from which the writers of these monographs take their distance and construct their critiques of the aesthetics and ideology of British broadcasting. The monograph by Dai Vaughan is the single exception to the series.

Vaughan is concerned that language — any language — is an impoverishment, a reduction of the reality it seeks to express; la n g u a g e n o t as a d d i t i o n , bu t as diminution, the construction of something less than the real. “ It may well be . . . that we are witnessing the emergence of a new

strategy on the party of television management . . . to encourage a mode of response in which the element of r e f e r e n c e (as o p p o s e d to p u re signification), with its presumption of anterior reality, will be effectively negated. Management may seek to snaffle the w o rld ’s unruliness by reducing it to the significance of a studio ■drama.” “ . . . television as an institution, by its im p o v erish m en t of a d o c u m e n ta ry ’s reference to the world proffers us in effect an impoverished world to which it invites us, by construing it as the world, to render assent.”

If a transparent language is a television myth, Dai Vaughan holds it as a television ideal. Television to Vaughan is congested with language, clogged with discourse which dominates and over-determ ines ‘reality’.

Vaughan stresses the fullness of the real — rather than as something neutral awaiting the signifiers of language to give it meaning — but that the real already signifies, even excessively. The ‘nature’ of reality is to signify, to generate meanings, meanings that would be lost in a thin line of significance bestowed upon it, in this case, by the language of television.

The other writers wish to make evident the processes of the televisual language, to mark its presence and stress its artificiality. “ I emphasise the visibility of processes and criteria of selection, because I think that the greater the invisibility, the less the Television Election appears as a cultural activity or product, involving fa llib le , p a rtis a n , id eo lo g ically structured choice at every point, and the more it appears as something which could not be other than it is, and, consequently, as something credible and authoritative — the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . . . ” (Trevor Pateman) Vaughan pursues the hope of the transparency of language in a v e r ite which, though constructed, does not so diminish the world as to turn it into ‘mere’ discourse; v e r ite which preserves the significance of the world. “ With the new technology of v e r ite , d o c u m e n t a r y c o u ld rise to th e r e v o lu tio n a ry p oten tial which its pioneers always sensed in it, offering us an unprecedented range of experience . . . to structure our consciousness and our values.”

1 think Vaughan’s position is naive, and for similar reasons to those set out in the other monographs. The purity, integrity and fullness of the real can never be rendered as faithfully and transparently as Vaughan would wish — analogy is itself coded.

But Vaughan’s assertion of meanings already in reality — that it is the nature of reality to signify — make somewhat empty the contrary insistence on language as the sole generator of meaning. For though there is a genuflexion in the other monographs towards ‘cultural’ and ‘social codes’, none are in fact discussed. The language of television, as posed in these monographs, is the arbiter of all structure and sense.

It may be that the radical role of language is neither to efface itself in a fictitious transparency, nor to assert an

easy artificiality. The football match, the political election, the natural disaster are not solely televisual events because they appear on television.

Television does not give these events their meaning, but only a particular meaning, a reduced meaning put forward as the meaning — it is this domination over the event by the television language and the diminution of the event by that language that Vaughan decries.

But if it is the ‘nature’ of reality to signify, as Vaughan correctly insists, it is perhaps the ‘culture’ of language to designify, to strip away meanings rather than provide them, to purge the world, as Roland Barthes suggests, of “ the undue meanings men ceaselessly deposit upon them.”

Language must be made to work not in a simple declaration of presence, but on itself, on the significations it produces, and on those it is in the nature of reality to generate.

The reality of things which Vaughan seeks may not be full but empty, and the function of languages may be to construct and re-construct that void by pointing to the codes and conventions, and the languages, which mask and overburden it.

Books of the quarter J.H. Reid Actors and Actresses S ta n le y B a k e r : P o r tr a it o f an A c to r by Anthony Storey. London, 1977. $10.95. Not so much a biography as an extended interview — and a dull one at that. Mr Storey is a pedantic and charmless writer and manages to make Baker seem a very ordinary and uncharismatic figure.

The photographs are likewise uninteresting and the credits for the filmography incomplete.

C a g n e y b y C a g n e y by James Cagney. New York, 1977. $2.95. It is good to see an unabridged paperback version of this most engaging autobiography. “ I'm a song-and-dance man,” Cagney says again and again. His favorite film is Yankee Doodle Dandy. You may not like the way he passes over his gangster roles and concentrates on his musicals, but in refusing to butter up his readers he displays a typical Cagney trait.

M o n tg o m e r y C lift by Robert LaGuardia. London, 1977. $16.95. This is one of those warts-and-all biographies in which the actor's private life is mercilessly probed. It has the barest of filmographies and the films receive only a small amount of attention. It is Clift, “ the walking cadaver” , that interests the author to the exclusion of almost everything else.

T h e F ilm s o f B in g C r o s b y by Robert Bookbinder.

New Jersey, 1977. $22.50. This excellent book could serve as a model for upcoming titles in Citadel’s series — a brief biography, many attractive stills, comprehensive credits and an informed yet critical analysis of every film.

A va G a r d n e r by Judith M. Kass. New York, 1977. $3.95. An honest, straightforward account of Ava Gardner’s career with a useful and not uncritical commentary on her films. Many fullpage illustrations.

J o h n G a r fie ld by George Morris. New York, 1977. $3.95. George Morris is a seasoned and perceptive film critic. This study of Garfield and his films is probably the most literate, convincing and thought-provoking of all the books in Pyramid’s long-running I llu s tr a te d H is to r y o f th e M o v ie s series.

C h a rlto n H e sto n by Michael Druxman. New York, 1977. $3.95. Factual, competently written, but superficial.

K in g s o f T ra g e d y by Jane Ellen Wayne. New York, 1976. $2.95. The tragedians discussed here are, with the exception of Spencer Tracy, the familiar figures one would expect — John

Cinema Papers, April/June — 367

CASTING YOUR NEXT MOVIE? MAD MAX

PATRICK

David C a m e r o n Reg Eva n s Jo a n Letc h Pa u l Y o u n g

MOUTH TO MOUTH

Rod M u llin a r Julia Blake H elen H e m in g w a y W alter Py m Fra nk W ilso n Paul Y o u n g

Ian G il m o u r Peter F in la y Jo a n Le t c h W alter Pym

THE MANGO TREE

DAWN!

M a t h e w W ilso n

G erard Ke n n e d y G ar y Day

G ab rielle Ha r tl e y

RAW DEAL

THE GETTING OF WISDOM

HIGH ROLLING

G erard Ke n n e d y Ro d M u llinar Be t h a n y Lee R eg Eva n s S ean M ye r s G a r y Day

Jan Friedl Ke r r y Ar m s t r o n g J ulia Blake M a r g o M c len n a n G erda N ic o l s o n N on i Ha z le h u r s t Do r o t h y Bradley T er e n c e Do n o v a n K im Dea c o n

T er r y No r r is S ean S c u l l y Allen Bic k fo r d T er r y G ill Pa u l Y o u n g Alex Po r t e o u s

THE LAST WAVE

THE IRISHMAN

THE YELLOW PYJAMA GIRL

Fr ed er ic k Pa r s lo w

G erard Ken n e d y

Ro d M ullina r

THE NEWMAN SHAME

ELIZA FRASER

SHE’LL BE SWEET

Al w y n Kurts

G erard Ke n n e d y Sean Sc u ll y Leo n Lissek

Ro d M ullina r

PICTURE SHOW MAN

BREAK OF DAY

SUMMERFIELD

S ally C o n a b er e Er n ie Bo u r n e

M au rie Fields S ean M yer s Bill N agle

Adr ia n W r ig h t Jo y W e s t m o r e

NEWSFRONT

THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH

HARNESS FEVER

LET THE BALLOON GO

G erard Ke n n e d y

M a r y W ard

Ian G ilm o u r Jillian Ar c h e r

IN SEARCH OF ANNA

DEATH CHEATERS

G erda N ic o l s o n M a u rie Fields M ar y W ard

R eg Eva n s

THE MONEY MOVERS

BLUE FIRE LADY

DIMBOOLA

T e r e n c e Do n o v a n G erda N ic o l s o n Fra nk W ilso n

M a r io n Ed w ard S yd Co n a b er e Ll o y d C u n n in g t o n David Jo h n Jo h n W o o d

V al Jellay C lare Bin n e y W alter Pym

DON’S PARTY C lare Bin n e y

-

M ELBO U R N E A R T IS T S M A N A G E M E N T 643 ST KILDA RD, MELBOURNE, 3004.

RING GARRY STEWART: (03) 51 5228

BOOK REVIEWS

The A ustralian Film Institute and Currency Press are pleased to announce the release o f

AUSTRALIAN FILM POSTERS 1906-1960

Barrymore, Fatty Arbuckle, Errol Flynn, Rudolph Valentino, Aly Khan, Clark Gable, John Garfield, John Gilbert. But Ms Wayne is a skilful journalist and her stories come across with considerable, if somewhat depressing, impact.

T h e M a r x B ro th e r s by William Wolf. New York, 1975. $3.95. There is a lot of material available on the Marx Brothers, but if you need a book that ties it all very neatly together and retains the zany flavor of the subjects with many photographs, quotes, background comments and choice excerpts from their dialogue, this is the one.

O rso n W e lle s by Joseph McBride. New York, 1977. $3.95. McBride has already written a book about Orson Welles (published in 1972), as well as articles for S ig h t a n d S o u n d a n d A m e ric a n Film.

This book, however, appears to be a new manuscript, prepared with the assistance of Welles and Jean Renoir. It cannot compare with Charles Higham’s meticulously researched book T h e F ilm s o f O rso n W e lle s (1970) — which for unaccountable reasons is completely ignored by McBride, even in his bibliography — but it does give a well-rounded picture of Welles as actor and director.

Directors T h e A r t o f A lf r e d H itc h c o c k : F ifty Y ea rs o f H is M o tio n P i c tu r e s b y Donald Spoto. London, 1977.

$21.00. Its 523 pages copiously illustrated, every film studied at length, this book is a treasure for Hitchcock fans. Spoto succeeds in drawing our attention to facets in Hitchcock’s films we might ordinarily have missed. A stimulating exercise in critical sensitivity.

L a u n d e r a n d G illia t by Geoff Brown. London, 1977. $2.95. Well researched, with the close collaboration of the subjects (who appear to have retentive memories), this study provides a rare and authentic glimpse of British production in the 30s, 40s and 50s.

B illy W ild e r in H o lly w o o d by Maurice Zolotow.

London, 1977. $19.95. A cynical prankster, hurling insult-barbed wisecracks at friend and foe alike, a screaming and hysterical tyrant, cascading with endlessly amusing ideas, stories, characters and situations (most of them, alas, never filmed), Billy Wilder is portrayed here as the most irascible and opinionated man in Hollywood. Wilder is a larger-than-life figure, and this is a compelling account of his career, drawn from a long association with Wilder and lengthy inte rview s with all his major collaborators.

History T h e L a d y a n d th e L a w : T h e R e m a r k a b le S to r y o f F a n n y H o t z m a n n b y Edward O. Berkman. Boston,

1976. $12.50. Ms Hotzmann was not only a wellknown attorney in Hollywood, she was also a behind-the-scenes wire-puller and intermediary.

Stars like Clifton Webb and Fred Astaire, producers like Darryl F. Zanuck and Louis B. Mayer, figure largely in her recollections.

Altogether, a fascinating glimpse of Hollywood power politics.

O n e G o o d F ilm D e s e r v e s A n o th e r : A P ic to r ia l S u r v e y o f F ilm S e q u e ls by Michael B. Druxman.

AN OUTSTANDING COMPILATION OF POSTERS, DAY BILLS AND PHOTOGRAPHS, COMPLETE WITH COMPREHENSIVE NOTES, COVERING 5 4 YEARS OF THE AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY. $ 7 .5 0 Available at all leading bookstores and select cinemas.

Australian Film Posters 1906-1960 is the first in a series of books and monographs to be published by the Australian Film Institute.

INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTRE AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE 8 1 Cardigan Street, Carlton, 3 0 5 3 .

contains the usual excellent features, and whether you like F ilm R e v ie w really depends on where you live. It is much more useful to Londoners than anyone else, though all will delight in the photographs; the critiques are much less superficial than in some previous volumes.

H a l l i w e l l ' s F i l m g o e r ’s C o m p a n io n by "Leslie Halliwell. London, 1977. $35.00. This sixth edition of what has deservedly become a standard reference work, has been substantially enlarged. As entertaining as it is thoroughly researched, it is a must for all film students and budding critics.

H a l l i w e l l ’s F ilm G u id e by Leslie Halliwell.

London, 1977. $39.95. A companion to his F i/ m g o e r ’s C o m p a n io n , this equally massive volume concentrates on films rather than people — 8000 of them. Each film is listed with running time, date of release, color, production company, producer, writer, original source, director, photographer, designer and cast, plus a short synopsis, excerpts from contemporary reviews, and the author’s own opinion. This is the ideal reference book.

I n te r n a tio n a l F ilm G u id e 1 9 7 8 edited by Peter Cowie. London, 1977. $8.95. The format and contents are the same as last year’s IF G . This is an invaluable source, of information about foreign films, festivals, non-theatrical films in the U.S. and such esoterica.

S c r e e n W o r ld 1 9 7 7 edited by John Willis.

London, 1977. $19.95. More than 1000 photographs with cast lists and major credits on every feature released in the U.S. in 1976. An all­ inclusive index gives this annual a considerable edge over Film R e v ie w .

A T itle G u id e to th e T a lk ie s 1 9 6 4 th ro u g h 1 9 7 4 by Andrew A. Aros. New Jersey, 1977. $19.95. The guide consists of credits compiled from S c r e e n W o rld , F ilm fa c ts , T h e N e w York T im e s , T h e M o n th ly F ilm B u lle tin , etc.

T h e V isu al E n c y c lo p e d ia o f S c ie n c e F ic tion : A D o c u m e n te d P ic to r ia l C h e c k lis t o f th e S F W o rld C o n c e p ts /T h e m e s /B o o k s /M a g s /C o m ic s /F ilm s /T e le v is io n /R a d io /A r t/F a n d o m /C u lts / P e r s o n a l C o m m e n ta r ie s b y th e G r e a te s t N a m e s in S F W ritin g

edited by Brian Ash. London, 1977. $12.95. The sub-title tells all.

T h e W o rld E n c y c lo p e d ia o f C o m ic s edited by Maurice Horn. New York, 1977. $15.95. A big undertaking, superbly illustrated in color and black-and-white. Comic-strip characters and their creators are listed, and there are sections on animation and comics in the films.

Theory T h e S h a d o w a n d Its S h a d o w : S u r r e a lis t W ritin g s on C i n e m a edited and introduced by Paul

Hammond, London, 1977. $2.95. A fascinating little anthology, packed with information and insights, including a spirited defence of the original King Kong by Jean Ferry and a wellargued recommendation by Ado Kyrou to “ learn to go and see the ‘worst’ films; they are sometimes sublime.”

Individual Films D o w n th e Y e llo w B rick R o a d : T h e M a k in g o f th e W iz a rd o f O z by Doug McClelland. New York,

1976. $8.95. A lovingly assembled account, New York, 1977. $19.95. A sequel to the culled from books and magazine articles and author’s M a k e It A g a in , S a m (1975) which dealt lavishly illustrated. in a rather superficial fashion with film remakes.

T h e M a g ic F a c to r y : H o w M G M M a d e A n Once again, the reader will find no information A m e ric a n in P a ris by Donald Knox. New York, in this book that is not readily available 1973. $9.95. Knox has taken full advantage of elsewhere. Even the stills look familiar. being able to interview almost everyone S h e rlo c k H o lm e s on th e S c re e n by Robert W. involved. Their candor enables us to appreciate Pohle, Jr. and Douglas C. Hart. New York, 1977. the intricate and often highly abrasive $25.95. Another three or four books on this topic , relationships that mould a film. This book is are coming out within the next few months, but essential reading for film students and film­ their authors will find this one hard to beat. The makers. impressive research, superb collection of stills T h e N u r e y e v V a le n tin o : P o r tr a it o f a F ilm by (though some have obviously been drawn from Alexander Bland. Sydney, 1977. $5.95. An newspaper files and others are not-so-well extended publicity hand-out, glossy yet reproduced) and reasonably complete credits, superficial. enhances its value.

Ephemera W e ste rn s: A s p e c ts o f a M o v ie G e n re by Philip French. London, 1977. $5.95. This is a revision B ill C o llin s B o o k o f M o v ie s . Sydney, 1977. $9.95. of an earlier study (1973), and it is pleasing to Bill Collins is not a film critic but a very informed note that Mr French has revised his earlier poor film buff with a card-index memory and a opinion of Italian Westerns. Mr French is a forceful enthusiasm. The high-quality of the knowledgeable historian; it was a pity to see a reproduction of old lobby cards (especially those fine critical judgment impaired by prejudice, (or in color) make this very pleasant reading. perhaps a false loyalty to the Hollywood M o u n ta in o f D r e a m s : T h e G o ld e n Y e a rs o j product).

P a r a m o u n t P ic tu r e s by Leslie Halliwell. New York, 1977. $19.95. Unfortunately, this is not an Reference organized history of Paramount, but a difficultA c a d e m y A w a r d s I llu s tr a te d by Robert Osborne. to-follow (which the complete absence of an La Habra, 1977. $25.00. This is the definitive index makes even more difficult) survey of that work, published under the auspices of the company’s press advertisements.

Academy, with full lists of awards and nominees, T h e M o v ie B u f f s B o o k 2 edited by Ted Sennett. background descriptions, historical notes, New York, 1977. $6.95. Puzzles, quizzes, some statistical information and numerous photos. light articles and lots of photographs — the same mixture as before.

C a lig a ri's C a b in e t a n d O th e r G r a n d Illu sion s: A S ta r - S p a n g le d K its c h : A n A s to u n d in g a n d H is to r y o f F ilm D e sig n by Leon Barsacq. Boston, T a s te le s s ly I llu s tr a te d E x p lo r a tio n o f th e B a w d y , 1976. $29.95. It is about time the art director G a u d y , S h o d d y M a s s - A r t C u ltu r e in This G r a n d received due recognition, this magnificent L a n d o f O u rs by Curtis F. Brown. New York, volume, superbly illustrated, goes a long way 1975. $15.95. Needless to say, Hollywood and its towards achieving a wider recognition. There is a so-called “ master-showmen" like Cecil B. useful appendix listing art directors and their DeMille and Walt Disney (“ Gee! This’ll m a k e credits and noting interesting relationships Beethoven!" he exclaimed over a cartoon between art directors and directors. sequence for Fantasia) figure prominently in F ilm R e v ie w 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 7 8 by F. Maurice Speed. these copiously-illustrated pages, -fa London, 1977. $17.95. This year’s volume

Cinema Papers, April/June — 369

is four times the place you think it is Trouble is the Perth Institute of Film and Television is working in so many areas of film and television that people who know our work in one category often aren't aware of many of our other projects. Film distributors don't know we're film producers. Film producers may not know of our extensive education programme.

And so on. To set the record straight, we are active in:

Education The Institute's education programme ranges from 8mm community-oriented courses to advanced 16mm workshops; from informal meetings with visiting film-makers to film law seminars. .

Recent visitors participating in such activities included Philip Jones, Tony Buckley, Bob Hill, Rosemary Anne Sisson and Stewart Fist.

NEWS FLASH

For All Motion Picture Producers CINEVEX FILM LABORATORIES PTY LTD. of 15 -17 Gordon ST Elsternwick. VIC. Announces 7247 & 5247 E.C.N. Processing

Production Under the auspices of the Australian Children's Film Foundation, PIFT is active in the area of children's film and television with sales to Channel 9 (Perth) and ABC National Television of short children's documentaries and dramas. Several children's T.V. serials and films are currently in pre-production.

Resource Centre Special Projects The Institute services the local film and television community through its extensive 16mm production and post-production facilities. Projects being planned include an exhibition of Video Art, and a festival of student film , video and photography.

Film Exhibition We run a commercial 143 seat cinema, a 60 seat 16mm cinema specialising in Australian films and a â&#x20AC;&#x153; Moving Pictures'' travelling film festival in country areas of Western Australia.

Stay tuned. There's more to come.

This Laboratory Phone 528 6188

PERTH INSTITUTE OF FILM AND TELEVISION, 92 Adelaide St., Fremantle phone 335 1055

Australian Children's Film and Television Seminar In the previous issue of C in e m a P a p e rs (p. 2 0 0 ), mention was made of the Seminar in Children’s Film and Television that took place in Canberra during October 1 2-16, 1977. Printed below are the Seminar’s recommendations:

1.1 It is recommended that the possibility of the commercial channels combining and forming a children’s network committee be seriously canvassed. This committee, recognizing that children’s programs have a lower profit potential, would receive additional and particular government and private sector financial and other assistance in the making of children’s fiction programs; and would endeavor to arrange screening of such productions at network level to preserve an essence of competition and retain the present multi-channel choice.

1.2 The seminar supports the following recom m endations of the A ustralian Broadcasting Tribunal:

10.167

A new classification ‘C’ — for children, b'e instituted.

Only material classified ‘C’ may be televised between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. These programs should be suitable for school-age children between the ages of six and twelve (inclusive).

The seminar also considers that a minimum of 50 per cent of the programs should be conceived and made in Australia.

Dissent by FACTS 1.3 The seminar would prefer to see the Broadcasting Information Office set up as a statutory body, separate from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. This would ensure the in d e p e n d e n c e of the p u b lic representation and avoid the conflict which might ensue if the Tribunal were to act in the twofold capacities of a judge and a plaintiff at licence hearings.

However, if this course is for any reason unacceptable, it is essential that the exact independence of the BIO from the Tribunal be defined — with particular reference to its research capacity, staff and financial resources.

The BIO must be seen as a strong, positive and independent entity, if it is to contribute to the formulation of future programming policies, and to protect the public interest.

Dissent by FACTS 1.4 The seminar endorses the aims and principles underlying the Tribunal’s recom­ mendation to establish a children’s program committee. In addition, we recommend that the committee be available to program makers for consultation and appraisal of programs, if requested, during all stages of production.

However, we object to any proposal that would confine the committee to viewing only completed Australian programs. We feel that this procedure would be inviting producers to invest in a product, only to have it rejected after completion. This in turn may encourage conformity and discourage innovation in program-making.

Dissent by FACTS 1.5 The seminar endorses the following recommendation of the Tribunal: Media Education in Schools 10.131 Numerous submissions to the inquiry based their arguments on the premise that television is the most powerful and influential medium in today’s world. While opinions varied as to the effects of this power and influence, it was a widely expressed view that visual and aural literacy, like verbal literacy, needs to be taught and learned.

This means that children should be taught understanding of the nature, techniques and purpose of the media so that they could develop critical attitudes on what they see and hear. Only through such education can we expect youth to be a p p re c ia tiv e , c r it ic a l and discriminating listeners and viewers.

10.132 Evidence to the inquiry showed that a considerable amount is already being done in this area. In state schools, for example, teachers in New South Wales are being encouraged to use television programs for homework assignments, and as a means of teaching appreciation of worthwhile material and greater discernment in the choice of p ro g ra m s, c h ild re n are be in g encouraged to write and produce programs; efforts are being made to promote Australian programs in the hope that children will be exposed to a plurality of Australian cultural values and to the richness of the Australian heritage; and some private schools have actually introduced mass media education

com prising state-federal film funding courses to their curricula. authorities, relevant unions and guilds, as However, these initiatives are being well as children’s programs lobby groups, be undertaken in isolation. We believe that established to assist and co-operate with the all children who are exposed to suggested ARTS Board. television in particular and the media in 1.9 It is recommended that Federal and general, would benefit enormously from State Film and Television Corporations and this kind of instruction.

Federal and State Councils for Children’s The Tribunal is aware that an earlier Films and Television, be encouraged to co­ initiative (the supply to 2200 state operate to collect and disseminate market secondary schools of radio kits and and consumer research information. media kits designed by the then Also, that they should provide an advisory Department of the Media as basic and consultancy service in the areas of resource material to assist an awareness marketing, financial control, proposal of the role of communications in society) presentation, investment and income was achieved by co-operation at statistics, investment possibilities and other Commonwealth/State Government level.

10.133 It is the strong recommendationrelevant areas, to the producers of Australian children's programs. of the Tribunal that the Commonwealth Department of Education convene a Also, that the appropriate ministers be m e e tin g of S ta tio n E d u c a tio n asked to direct the ABC, the Australian Film and Television School and Film Australia, to Departments in the hope of achieving further co-operation, with the aim of co-operate in these efforts wherever encouraging the inclusion of media possible.

1.10 Recognizing that economic research education as part of the curricula for state primary and secondary schools. on the financial viability of television We further recommend that specialist companies is vital to the debate on teachers of media education be trained and c h ild re n ’s programs, the amount of media education be introduced as a subject Australian content, and its quality; and that in its own and other appropriate agencies the information is difficult for independent (e.g. WEA, Department of Technical and researchers to collect, it is recommended Further Education; Migrant Education that this research be conducted by the Services; State Health Commissions) make Tribunal and made available to the public. provisions for media education courses to 1.11 The seminar strongly recommends reach parents. And that in any discussions that all producers and production houses be that may take place under recommendation made aware of the Script Development Fund 10.133, the broadcasters and program of the AFC, and that a listing of all such makers should be involved. scripts be made available to them on request, subject to the approval of the UNANIMOUS 1.6 It is recommended that the Australian grantee.

UNANIMOUS government provide extra funds to the Australian Film Commission to research and 1.12 The seminar recognizes that the develop alternative methods of 16mm film direction of child performers requires special and video distribution, particularly as they skills. We ask that the ARTS and any other relate to primary, secondary, tertiary and accredited institutions that provide such informal education systems, to expand the courses seriously consider mounting a course concerning direction of children. market for Australian children’s programs.

We also recommend that the ARTS, 1.7 As 1979 is designated International through its open program, provide a Children’s Year, it is recommended that the Australian government be approached to shortened version of such a course. make available, at least 12 months in 1.13 Recognizing that the use of child advance, funds to assist in the development performers in Australian films and television of production, distribution and exhibition of is a growing need, we ask the Senate children’s programs.

Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to inquire into the possibility of 1.8 The sem inar recom m ends and formulating uniform guidelines which would endorses the following philosophies and operate on an Australia-wide basis. findings of the Arts Study Group, sponsored by the Myer Foundation: This proposal seeks to safeguard child welfare, but equally to ensure that children’s W hile there appears to be a film and television producers may be able to willingness to help, there are clearly make the fullest use of child performers. problems inhibiting support which deserve attention. There is a major 1.14 It is believed the lower status, remuneration, facilities and resources communications gap to bridge if the private sector is to increase its non­ accorded the conceivers and makers of children’s fiction programs compared with market support. A rtists and arts the conceivers and makers of other organizations frequently exist outside the mainstream of community life and programs, reflects a serious devaluation of there is a need for greater mutual under­ the cognitive, social and emotional needs of standing of and tolerance for the children during their formative years. differing objectives and life-styles.

It is, therefore, recommended that Many businessmen say they do not conceivers and makers of childre n’s support the arts because they have program s be acco rde d p a rity with never been approached. Others, who conceivers and makers of other programs, in have been approached, say the proposal all areas of production and in financial reward. and approach were so badly handled 1.1 5 We recommend that such advertising that support did not seem warranted. as may be included in children’s program There appears to be wide agreement time conform to clearly stated guidelines as among the business community that some co-ordination in fund raising for the to content, and that it fill no more than 12 minutes in the hour. We also recommend that arts would be desirable, that someone it does not interrupt individual programs, and ■should help arts organizations to put is clearly differentiated from program to g e th e r b e tte r cases, and that material. businesses would appreciate advice on Dissent by FACTS how best to provide support.

1.1 6 That this seminar recognizes the large Some prospective donors in the private amount of research that has been done with sector do not assist because they fear respect, to children and advertising, and that their support will be wasted. This stresses the responsibility which falls on fear stems, in part, from lack of advertisers and television channels in the confidence in arts management — a fear concern for children’s welfare. reinforced by the w ell-publicized UNANIMOUS financial crises that seem to afflict some 1.17 The seminar recommends that there major arts organizations. be a national newsletter for broadcasters, Many donors argue that they are not program makers and researchers, giving keen to continue their support because comprehensive coverage of information they feel that it is not appreciated. They about existing and new research in the area receive little or no thanks and no of children’s television and related fields, subsequent information about the together with case histories about the projects they assist. Artists and arts application of research in specific program­ administrators must be prepared to offer making situation. something in return for the assistance There should be a coherent plan for the they receive, and this can often be done newsletter. It should be simple and for little, if any, cost. Donors need to be persuasive, as well as of suitable quality, so assured that their support was both that it is respected by specialists in research, welcome and usefully employed.1 production and programming. That the The sem inar also suggests tha t following organizations be among those substantial private investment is especially approached to take responsibility for such a essential to the necessary increase in the newsletter; and act as a clearing-house for quality and quantity of children’s programs. It information: is re co m m en ded th a t a s p e c ia l The Broadcasting Information Office, The organizational advisory committee, possibly Australian Film Commission, The Australian Film and Television School, La Trobe and Macquarie Universities and The Media 1 Building Private Sector Support for the Arts Information Research Exchange.

(Myer Foundation, 1977)

1.18 In order to help define quality, the seminar recommends that there should be research on: a) Children’s perception of quality (neither an assu m ptio n about what has succeeded nor the conclusion that because children have liked a particular program all they need is more of the same); the investigation to be an intelligent interpretation of the elements of programs. b) Parents’ perceptions of quality in their children's programs, the things that th e y believe are good; what they would like their children to see; what they think their children would like. c) Children’s television writers’/directors'/ producers’ assessment of quality: What they have hoped to achieve and what they have in fact achieved. d) Time: Is more tim e needed in preparation for quality? e) Funds: Are funds used well? Are more funds needed? f) Facilities: Are enough services available for producers/directors? g) Expectation: What is the status of the writers/directors/producers in children’s television production? h) Structuring: Is present advertising/program stru ctu rin g con sisten t with quality? so that broadcasters can define goals for th e ir programs (be they pro -socia l, educational, pure nonsense etc) in relation to their research.

1.19 The seminar recommends that there be research to determine: a)

Whether the quality/content/directing/ structuring and preparation of the program would be different or enhanced if there were no advertisements during the program. b) What, perceptually, happen to children receiving advertising content mixed up with program content. c) What are the possibilities of putting advertisements at the beginning or end of programs or in one spot only. d) Whether advertising could be vetted to be of a certain kind — informational/ educational.

1.20 In order to understand what motivates and in te rests childre n, the sem inar recommends that research should be initiated in such format areas as pace, sequencing, production techniques (e.g. clo s e -u p s , fla s h -b a c k s , fe a tu re s of characters, realism, comedy, fantasy, and music) in addition to the traditional studies of content.

In order to understand the relationship between these and the interests, attitudes, values and age of the viewer, research should be undertaken into the nature of visual perception; the relationship between visual and verbal learning; between mental imagery and problem-solving, and between reality and fantasy.

1.21 The seminar recommends that there be more defined market research into the age distribution of the viewing audience and it should be conducted on a much larger sample in each state, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne.

UNANIMOUS 1.22 The seminar recommends that there be research to determine the pro-social effects of television to find out in what way it does enhance the development of a child, and what further beneficial effects television could have.

UNANIMOUS 1.23 Given the Australian multi-cultural society, the seminar recommends that research could be conducted to ascertain: a) How accurately Australian children’s television and cinema programs reflect the range of cultural experience of the child audiences; b) In what ways the content of future children’s programs can perform an educative function with respect to the range of cultural experience, and whether there can be guidelines established for the consistent inclusion of multi-cultural elements.

UNANIMOUS 1.24 The research workshop has found this seminar, oriented around production, useful and recommends that there should be another seminar on children’s film and television, centred on research, relating to television, cinema and the child.

1.25 The seminar recommends that its resolutions be sent as soon as possible to the M in is te r fo r Post and Telecommunications, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts.

UNANIMOUS

Cinema Papers, April/June — 371

Sharmill Films Personalised distribution of connoisseur films . . .

Proudly Announces Outstanding Films For Hire

16mm POST PRODUCTION EDITING ROOMS

Hester Street (i6mm and 35mm) Bernice Bobs Her Hair (16mm; non-theatrical hire only) Antonia, Portrait of a Woman (16mm) I Can Jump Puddles (16mm and 35mm) Wives (35mm) 27A

(16mm)

Many Buñuel Classics

For full catalogue, write or phone:

6 Plate Steenbecks Upright Moviola Motorised Picsync

DOUBLE SYSTEM THEATRE SOUND TRANSFERS AND RECORDING Nagra — Mono — Stereo — SN Cassette 4 Track Vi”

Complete service for field recording 13 Myrtle Street Crows Nest NSW 2065 (02) 922 5650

Natalie Miller, 27 Stonnington Plaee, Toorak, Vic 314 2 , Australia.

Telephone: (03 ) 20 5329 . Cables: Sharftlms Melbourne.

ROS$ DIMSEY is an

INDEPENDENT Director, Writer, Producer of

FILM Commercial, Documentary, Feature

(0 3 )9 6 1109

Question :

When isa bear not a bear ?

Answer:

When it's a Koala Koala (w hich really is n 't a bear at all) is one o f the A u stra lia n W ild life F ilm Series made by F ilm A ustra lia.

E nquiries w elcom ed at F ilm A ustra lia P .0. Box 46 L in d fie ld 2070 Telephone 467 0111

Australian Film Commission

FILM STUDY RESOURCES GUIDE Basil Gilbert The increase in film study courses in A u s tr a lia n e d u c a tio n a l in s titu te s is s tim u la tin g d e m a n d for a c c u ra te i n f o r m a t i o n h e l d in p r i v a t e a n d government film libraries. Two recent publications are designed to satisfy this need: the National Library of Australia’s F ilm S t u d y C a t a l o g u e 1 9 7 7 , and the Australian Council of Film Societies’ third edition of its 1 6 m m F e a tu r e F ilm C a ta lo g u e .

T h e N atio n a l Library F ilm S t u d y C a t a l o g u e replaces the Film Study Collection W o r k in g T itle L i s t issued in October 1975. The new work is welldesigned, has 115 pages and is priced at $5.

There are new acquisitions listed and three valuable indexes: film personalities, including directors and some actors; country of origin; and films by decade. The final section, an alphabetical listing of titles, provides date of release, country of origin, running time in minutes at 24 frames/sec (this also applies to silent films) and a short synopsis of each film’s content.

The 1 6 m m F e a tu r e F ilm C a ta lo g u e is an indispensable resource for schools and film societies. The new edition has a number of improvements and a number of defects. Many of the erro rs widely scattered throughout the second edition have been corrected (In God’s Name is now correctly listed as an American film, not Australian, and its length has been corrected from 20 minutes to 57 minutes), and the sections of the catalogue — distributor, director, origin and title — are now distinguished by color. There are more than 1000 new titles listed.

On the negative side is the reduced size and 'illegibility of the poorly printed text with its computer-style typography, and a continuing number of inconsistencies in the presentation. Some directors are listed merely by surname, while others have Christian names or initials. This has led to mistakes in the director listings, such as The Cross and the Switchblade and Summer Shadows, both being credited to Murray. Yet the first was made by Don Murray and the other by Scott Murray.

As well, the e lim in a tio n o f the a p p r o x i m a t e r e n t a l c o s t s in t h e a l p h a b e tic a l list m e a n s th a t price discrimination between distributors is not possible. In the second edition, Le Chien Andalou by Luis Buñuel was listed at $5 and S25 for two different distributors.

Now there is no way to decide.

One h o pes th e G o v e r n m e n t will provide a sufficient subsidy for a complete re-editing and checking of the fourth edition. The third edition costs $25 (plus tax) and is available from the Australian Council of Film Societies, 20 Craithie Ave, Park Orchards, Vic, 3114.

T he pam phlet, F ilm : A G u i d e T o R e f e r e n c e B o o k s (compiled by Brian Reis, Griffith University, Queensland, $2.50), is an important addition to every film study library. The 23 pages of text are organized by subject categories — encyclopaedias, study guides, anthologies, surveys of film, etc. — and each entry has a succinct, critical synopsis.

The L ittle B lu e B o o k , as the A u s tr a lia n W r ite r s ’ G u ild M e m b e r s ’ D ir e c to r y 1 9 7 7 is affectionately sub-titled, is a handy reference guide to Australian scriptwriters.

Those listed are members of the Guild, and there is a list of award winners.

In the paid-advertising section, the

information includes addresses, writer preferences, number of years experience, an d r e c e n t c re d i ts . M e m b e r s n o t advertising are listed only by name. Copies are available from the Australian Writers’ Guild, 197 Blues Point Rd., North Sydney, NSW, 2060.

M e d ia I n f o r m a tio n A u s tr a lia , published

by MIA (representing non-commercial media organizations), is an established bibliographical source of considerable use.

Edited by Professor Henry Mayer, it has short articles on media subjects, a booksresearch-surveys section which includes entries on topics such as media books, tapes, audio visual resources, research in progress, media surveys, new research resources (Aboriginals, consumerism, film, law, television, women’s topics, etc.) and each item is coded for easy reference.

For information, write to MIA, P.O. Box 1106, North Sydney, NSW, 2060.

Media teachers looking for a general text to introduce students to the study of film will be disappointed with James Monaco’s H o w to R e a d a F ilm (Oxford University Press, $22.50 hardcover, $9.50 paperback). The book’s sub-title, T h e A rt,

NEW ZEALAND REPORT David Lascelles

Sleeping Dogs recently completed its first release dates in the main city centres. The figures are impressive: 12 weeks in Auckland, 10 in Wellington ($33,000), and eight in Christchurch.

W ith m ore th a n 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 p a id admissions so far, it has the rare distinction of being listed in the top 10 money-making films in New Zealand in 1977, ranking alongside The Deep, Rocky, Network and Carrie.

Sleeping Dogs may also be an entry at the 1978 Moscow Film Festival.

Festival judge and film director Stanislav Rostotsky revealed this during a recent visit to New Zealand. He also said that with “ certain cuts" the film would be very well received by Soviet audiences.

With the success of Sleeping Dogs, about 25 features are in preparation.

This is despite several industry sources who maintain New Zealand only has the money and technicians to produce four features a year.

Roger Donaldson is already following up Sleeping Dogs with a new project w hich is expected to cost around $300,000; this compares with $450,000 for Sleeping Dogs. Filming is projected to begin in mid-1978.

Ian Mune is expected to soon begin filming an adaption of Bruce Mason’s The E n d o f th e G o ld e n W eather. It will cost $250,000.

Tony Williams who co-produced Solo, a moving and sensitive story of people and isolation, is now planning his next project, a film about residents in a small town and the victimization of a teacher.

Called Little Trippers, it has a budget of about $400,000.

Violence in a small town is the theme of Geoff Stevens’ new film Skin Deep.

Filming in Raetihi is underway. Stevens’ previous feature was Test Pictures.

In a follow-up to its successful Dagg Day Afternoon, Endeavour Films is planning a $300,000 political satire.

Called Get In Behind, it will again star John Clarke.

Star P roductions’ The Shattered Dream is the story of a young man’s ruthless climb to the top and his eventual fall. Produced by Garry Owen, filming is expected to begin later this year. The budget is estimated at $460,000.

Paul Maunder (Landfall) is writing the script for a $100,000 dramatization of

Samoan writer Albert Wendt's S o n s fo r th e R e tu rn H o m e. It tells of a young Samoan living in New Zealand.

Other projects nearing shooting stage are an untitled film about the hunt for a murderer on the West Coast during World War 2, to be made by David Gibson; and The Confession, a film about a psychiatrist and his patient who are caught up in murder. Scripting will be

by Michael Noonan and Keith Aberdein.

The Dino de Laurentiis Corporation has given a New Zealand company the contract for the construction of two replicas of the Bounty required for the m ulti-m illion dollar films, The Law B re a k e rs and The Long Arm .

W h a n g a re i E n g in e e rin g and Construction, who have the $1,300,000 contract, must make delivery by January 1979.

The two films to be shot on location in Tahiti, will be produced by Phil Kellogg and directed by David Lean. The screenplays are by Robert Bolt.

Government help for New Zealand filmmakers has become a reality with the recent setting up of a New Zealand Film Commission. Its immediate task will be to ensure continuity of activity in the field of filmmaking and to provide financial assistance to producers whose budgets are under $500,000.

Long term, the Commission hopes to have specialized marketing staff which will help New Zealand sell its films overseas, as well as key staff to assist in production.

The new body may, in some respects, follow the same guidelines used by the Australian Film Commission; that is, providing a production accountant for films and closely examining each film proposal by subm itting scripts for assessment to several people.

It will also be following their lead in providing money at an early stage for script development where someone has a basic concept but needs money to go ahead with it, and at pre-production stage when money is necessary to get the project fully budgeted to the point where a decision can be made on its final financing.

T his long-aw aited move by the government has been welcomed by independent filmmakers.

T e c h n o lo g y , L a n g u a g e , H is to r y a n d T h e o r y a n d M e d ia suggests a wealth of film-historical richness, but the contents of the book are but a superficial glance at each of these areas. The style of writing also leaves much to be desired. It is either blankly uninformative (“ In movies the camera is involved in two variables that do not exist in still photography: it moves the film, and it itself moves” ) or turgidly d e n se (“ c o n te m p o ra r y p h oto grap hic hyper-realism continues to comment on the ramifications of the camera esthetic” ).

One looks forward to a complementary volume: H o w to R e a d “H o w to R e a d a o f F ilm

F ilm ”.

Less ambitious, but more useful to the undergraduate film student, is the second edition of U n d e r s ta n d in g M o v ie s (Prentice Hall, $14.75 hardcover, $10.75 paperback)

by Louis Giannetti of Case Western Reserve University. The book combines a tech n ical ap p ro ach (p h o to g ra p h y , movement, editing, sound, etc.) with critical analyses of the documentary, the dramatic film, writing for film, avant­ garde, structuralism and semiotics. The numerous illustrations are well-chosen and have lengthy interpretative captions which are most instructive. An excellent introduction to film criticism, theory and aesthetics. ★

Solo

Sleeping Dogs

Cinema Papers, April/June — 373

"L O W BUDGETS, HIGH QUALITY IN LOCAL

FILMMAKING"

National Times, July 25, 1977

Brian Brown and Linden Wilkenson in Volita directed by James Ricketson.

(Made with assistance from the Film Production Fund).

THE CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH o f th e

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION Provides assistance for filmmakers to : - INNOVATE - DEVELOP FILMMAKING SKILLS AND TECHNIQUES - MAKE THE FILM THEY REALLY W A N T TO MAKE All Filmmakers are eligible to apply â&#x20AC;&#x201D; w hether em ployed independents; w hether fully professional or less experienced.

in governm ent/com m ercial

production

or

If you have a film project that you want to get off the ground discuss your proposal with a Project Officer from the Creative Development Branch before submitting an application. To arrange an appointment contact Curtis Levy (Film Production Fund), Richard Keys (Script Development Fund), or Albie Thoms (Experimental Film and Television Fund) at Sydney (02) 922 6855. Melbourne applicants for all funds should contact Greg Tepper at the Australian Film Commission Office, 8th Floor, 140 Bourke Street, Melbourne (03) 663 4795.

Application forms and guidelines for the funds are available from: The Chairman Australian Film Commission GPO Box 3984 Sydney, NSW 2001 FILM P R O D U C T IO N FU N D p ro v id e s assistance to experienced filmmakers for innovative projects w hich have potential to further the applicant's developm ent as a filmmaker.

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT FUND assists experienced and prom ising w rite rs and directors who wish to devote their full time to develop a film or television script over a specific period of time.

EXPERIMENTAL FILM AND TELEVISION FUND provides assistance to filmmakers w ith lots of promise but limited experience.

The fund favours projects w h ich are innovative in form, content or technique a n d supports experimental and avant garde work.

O T H E R C I N E M A ....

MBWH—

BMWHWIII II'.....,l^llll■l■l■— Il I.......... .....IHiWMUMWMU »*1

was made uncertain by the plurality of narrational sources. Straub dismantled the smooth, homogeneous, illusory surface of NOT NON-NARRATIVE fictional film realism by a stress on MilHI WMIN ■■IIW IIB I l|l¿Be^Wt^f1PftMIWro*fyr^•^a m 3 multiple, differential, opposed levels of “ What would be the narrative of a reality — that “ reality” and the reality of its representation are never singular. journey in which it is said that one stays These films are not narrative and they somewhere without having arrived, that are not //o//-narrative. They position them­ one travels without having departed — in selves within the discursive modes of which it was never said that, having narrative cinema, but in a position of departed, one arrives or fails to arrive?”

Roland Barthes 1 critical struggle, with texts, the production of meanings, and the ideology of forms of This is the first of a regular feature in production — in particular, the ideology Cinema Papers devoted to a certain kind of involved in narrative practices. film for which there are innumerable A film tradition, primarily American, names but little understanding. The dating from the works of Maya Deren in purpose of this feature is to provide infor- . the early 1940s, and having its most direct mation and to offer some terms for an expression in the films of Stan Brakhage, understanding. We have no names except from 1953 to the present, counterposed those we wish (literally) to de-nominate.* itself to the commercial, narrative film, as In 1975, a submission was presented to an ‘alternative’, non-narrative cinema. the National Library in Canberra for the Brakhage wanted to start at a zero acquisition of a core collection of films sig n ification o u ts id e the figures of primarily for use in film study. (The meaning of cinema practice — “ Forget collection was not assembled, but the ideology . . . Abandon aesthetics . . . submission seems to have served as a kind Negate technique . . . Film, like America, of guide to piecemeal acquisitions.) Albie has not yet been discovered.

Thoms drafted the proposal for the avant­ “ Imagine an eye unruled by man-made garde film which he defined as having laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced “ always drawn its inspiration via its by compositional logic, an eye which does opposition to narrative-fiction films.” (my not respond to the name of everything but italics). which must know each object encountered Narrative is the great discursive mode in life t h r o u g h an a d v e n t u r e of of the cinema. Most films produced are perception .” 2 narrative, and the histories of the cinema The films were personal, interior, are those of the narrative cinema. But that subjective, and literally self-centred. state of affairs has not been uncontested. “ Myself as medium,” wrote Brakhage.

G o d a r d d i s r u p t e d th e a n t h r o p o ­ The films were hostile to language, names, morphism on which narrative depended; received structu res, the logical, the the im portance of unified, coherent g en eral, the c o n v e n tio n a l, and the characters, ‘persons’ with names, with a historical. Experience was posed against biography, a chronology, ‘real’ motiva­ thought, poetry against reason (a rather tions. He placed single characters in multi­ singular view of poetry), vision against ple fictional worlds and divided characters logic. within a single world.

Once again, largely in the U.S., a Robbe-Grillet brought forward the different kind of film began to appear in element of narration within the narrative the mid-1960s; one more objectively so that its levels in te rse c te d and structured, more concerned with the interrupted each other, became contra­ material substance of film than with dicto ry , m u tu ally dc-signified. The personal ‘sight’, and more interested in stability of objects, of events, of actions. structures of perception than with a visionary stare. These films had obvious implications lor narrative, and though * The avant-garde. Independent cinema. Alternative cinema.

Expanded cinema. Essential. Purist. Ontological. Epistem­ they developed codes quite unlike those ological. Experimental Jilin. Materialist film . Structural.

Dialectical. Visionary. Hynagogic.

! Roland Barthes, York 1974.

S /Z ,

Hill and Wang, New

Censorship Listings C o n tin u e d fro m P .3 3 2

JANUARY 1978 FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

2 Stan Brakhage, ‘Metaphors on Vision’.

C u ltu r e No. 30.

F ilm

Casey’s Shadow: R. Stark, U.S.A. (3191.25 m) Do Anjaane: Not shown, India (4004.00 m) Fantozzi: G. Bertolucci, Italy (2797.86 m) II Conquistatore di Atlantide: Film museum, Italy (2286.00 m) Magnificant Wanderers: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (2874.57 m) Pumping Iron: G. Butler/J. Gary, U.S.A. (2309.00 m) Ride in the Whirlwind (16 mm): M. Hellman/J. Nicholson, U.S.A. (930.00 m) The World’s greatest Lover: G. Wilder, U.S.A. (2453.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

For Generation Exhibition (G)

For Mature Audiences (M)

The Dream o f the Red Chamber: R. Shaw/M. Fong, Hong Kong (3099.00 m) Manchali: R. Nawathe, India (3265.00 m) Playgrounds in Paradise (16mm): A. Rich, U.S.A. (965.36 m) Secrets o f the Bermuda Triangle: A. Landsburg, U.S.A. (2523.00 m) Tredow ata-Leper: Film Polski, Poland (2550.99 m)

The Battle Wizard: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2221.0 m) Breaker! Breaker!: D. Hulette, U.S.A. (2276.69 m) The Day that Shook the World: Z. Mihalic, U.S.A./ Yugoslavia (2990.00 m) The Devil’s Advocate: H. Jedele, W. Germany (2971.60 m) Heroes: D. Foster/L. Turman, U.S.A. (3045.00 m) La Dentelliere (The Lacemaker): Y. Gasser, France (2989.87 m) L’Amour en Herbe: G. Rebillion/C. Winter, France (2736.00 m) M antis Com bat: Y. C hung Ho, Hong Kong (2523.56 m) Violette et Francois: J. Rouffio, France (2660.71 m) Wow (16 mm): R. Forget, Canada (1040.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Amanush: S. Samanta, India (3620.00 m) Assassin: C. Wen Yau, Hong Kong (2496.13 m) The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training: L. Goldberg, U.S.A. (2694.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

custom ary for the narrative of the Hollywood film, or even those of Godard or Straub, they were not, by that token, less narrative, or non-narrative.

The recent films of Hollis Frampton have been described as narrative. His early Zorns Lemma is a play with linearity and thematic reception based on a duration and sign pattern derived from an early Massachusetts school primer.

Michael Snow has described his film Wavelength as narrative; the 45-minute interrupted zoom across a studio loft in a narrative metaphor, “ a taking place” in space, a measure of events, and of the camera event which produces these events, which narrates and which is in turn narrated.

His films, including La region céntrale, are concerned with the centre of narration, the narrative source, from which the one film pulsates back and forth, and around which the other quite literally revolves.

In Australia, the color separation studies of Arthur and Corinne Cantrill examine the effect of light and duration on the perception of event and object. Their films on images of Baldwin Spencer, who recorded and made films of aspects of Aboriginal culture in Central Australia at the turn of the century, work to narrate alre a d y n a r r a ti v iz e d im ages of an Aboriginal past. The films retrace a double trace of history, and of the production of that history, in the cinematic images of Baldwin Spencer.

John Dunklev-Smith, who works in Melbourne, has made precisely ordered films which work in an area of narrative expectation through patterned repetitions o f im ag es and o f th e ir d u r a t i o n .

Expectation is produced by a structure; events in the film are the play and activity of that structure. His work echoes many of the structuralist concerns of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative. “ Non-narrative” is not an adequate category for these films; nor is any other which limits the activity of film to a name or model. This feature will emphasize practice rather than nomenclature. It will try to see films in their work of signifying, of constructing sense, of experimenting with problems; problems such as narrative modes, the relation of material film substances to discursive forms, the relation of the film text to its source and centre.

It is these problems which are of general theoretical importance in the study of film.

W h e n A lb ie T h o m s m a d e his submission in 1975 to the National Library, it was almost impossible to study or view avant-garde film in Australia. The situation is now different. If open, public screenings of these films are uncommon, the National Library now has an extensive and expanding collection of films available for tertiary institutes. Most of the collection is listed in the Film Study Collection catalogue (1977); but there have been acquisitions since the catalogue was published and it may be necessary to make inquiries direct to the Library.

The Library has films of New American Cinema by Bruce Baillie. Jordan Belson, Stan Brakhage (extensive and represen­ tative), Robert Breer, James Broughton, Bruce C on ner, Maya D eren, Hollis F r a m p t o n , G r e g o r y M a r k o u p o Io u s , Robert Nelson, Pat O’Neill, Harry Smith, Michael Snow and Joyce Wieland.

It has films of the London filmmakers, Steve Dwoskin and Malcolm LeGrice.

There are also films made by Australians: Bill A nd erson, A rthur and C orinne Cantrill, James Clavden, Dirk DeBruyn, John Dunkley-Smith, Peter Kingston, Michael Lee, Lynsey Martin, Tom Psornotrasos, Brian Robinson, Gary Shed, Peter Tanner, Jim Wilson and Paul Winkler.

The Cantrills have been publishing their film quarterly Cantrills Filmnotes since 1972 which is devoted to information and co m m ent on current film work in Australia and abroad. It is available from t h e C a n t r i l l s , Box 1 2 9 5 L , G P O Melbourne, Victoria 3001.

The journal Film Culture published by the Anthology Film Archives in New York (GPO 1499, New York, New York 10001) is one of the most comprehensive journals co n c e rn e d with ‘i n d e p e n d e n t ’ film, though its appearance is often erratic.

A useful introduction to ‘independent’ film, though almost exclusively concerned with American films, is P. Adams Sitney’s Visionary Film and the anthology he has edited. Essential Cinema , which has a comprehensive and useful bibliography.

The recent British Film Institute pamphlet Structural Film Anthology , edited by Peter Gidal (review in Cinema Papers No. 15) is interesting, in that it puts forward a definite and determined aesthetic strategy of filmmaking. ★

For Restricted Exhibition (R)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS

Bel Ami: Filminvest, Sweden (2328.10 m) Beyond Good and Evil: R.G. Edwards, Italy (3485.00 m) Blue Sunshine: G. Manasse, U.S.A. (2633.00 m) The Child: R. Dadashian, U.S.A. (2274.20 m) The C hoirboys: M. A d e ls o n /L . Rich, U.S.A., (3373.89 m) Demon: L. Cohen, U.S.A., (2386.00 m) Devil Times Five: D. Jones/M . Blowitz, U.S.A. (2401.00 m) Golden Lotus: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (3054.00 m) Hong Kong Superman: W. Cheuk Hon, Hong Kong (2304.00 m) 1900: A. Grimaldi, Italy (6791.86 m) The Shaolin Avengers: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (2745.95 m) Slavers: J. Goslar, W. Germany (2633.00 m) Super Ball (a): C. Edward, U.S.A. (2172.00 m) (a) Reduced by pre-censor cuts totalling 132.93 m

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Legend of th e Wolf Woman: M. Zide, Italy (2112.00 m) Eliminations: 14.3 m (30 secs) Reason: Excessive violence (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 11/7 5. (b) Reduced by pre-censor cuts totalling 484.23 m.

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Eruption:S. Kurtan, U.S.A. (1 838.70 m) Reason: Indecency The French Governess: O. Cocci, Italy (2736.80 m) Reason: Indecency Hard Parties: Now shown, France (2404.20 m) Reason: Indecency Hostess of Sex: M. Barney, France (1777.10 m) Reason: Indecency

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R)

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

Alithini Idoni (Real Pleasure): Skaraveos Films, Greece (2500.00 m) Eliminations: 20.8 m (45 secs) Reason: Indecency A History of the Blue Movie (recon. vers.) (a): A. de Renzy, U.S.A. (1 91 4.20 m) Eliminations: 50.3 m (1 min. 50 secs Reason: Indecency La Fessee (Don’t Spank . . . . Spass) (b): Shangrilla Eliminations: 15.0 m (33 secs) Reason: Indecency

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW

FILMS APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW Nil

FILMS NOT APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW Nil

★

Cinema Papers, Aprll/June — 375

X® X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X* X* X®X®X®X®X®X* X®X®X®X®X* X®X* X®X* X* X®X®X®

Sold and serviced nationally by

X® X® X®

STRAND ELECTRIC

X®

4 Whiting Street, Artarmon 2064. Telephone 439 1962 19 Trent Street, Burwood 2134. Telephone 29 3724 5 0-52 Vulture Street, West End, Brisbane 4101. Telephone 44 2851 101-105 Mooringe Avenue, Cam den Parts, SA 5038. Telephone 294 6555 430 Newcastle Street, Perth 6000. Telephone 328 3933 120 Pany Street, Newcastle 2309. Telephone 26 2466 25 Molonglo Mall, Fyshwick 2600. Telephone 95 2144

x®x*x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®x®

DAVID COGGIN

GUN RENTALS

C a te re r to th e F ilm In d u s tr y a n d th e L ig h t C a r C lu b o f A u s tr a lia

COLLSHOOT SALES

Blue Fire Lady Long Weekend Patrick TV Commercials ABC Series

Dealers in A n tiq u e — M ilitary & C ollectable Firearms — Related Items

First class food • Quotes given • Willing to travel • Fully mobile kitchen available

Offers a Specialised Service to The Film Making Industry via rentals o f ... @ Most Every Type of Antique Firearms © Most Every Type of Modern Firearms © Edged Weapons (Swords, Knives, etc.)

9 Military Items (Uniforms etc.)

46 Queens Road Melbourne 3004 Phone: (03) 51 5284

ANYTHING relating to the above fields.

235 MORAY STREET, (PO BOX 328), SOUTH MELBOURNE 3205.

TELEPHONE (03) 699 6999

FREE Advice concerning the correct type of firearm(s) etc. to correspond with the period of the film.

Shop Address: 3 Elizabeth St., Coburg, Melb. Vic. 3058 •

Phone:(03) 354-6876

16mm color & b/w processing and duplicating it super 8mm & standard 8mm duplicating * super 8mm b /w processing it 16mm to super 8mm reduction printing, sound or silent it magnetic striping all gauges it

documentary film productions it sound recording, dubbing * editorial service, titling * theatrette * video service & telecine facilities it kinescope recordings it

it Victorian agents for tuscan

reels and cans it suppliers of UMATIC %”

KAREX video tape

JOHN DUIGAN

PATRICK - SPECIAL EFFECTS

“Patrick” — Special Effects

Continued from P.305 TH E FLYING RIG

One effect you touched on before was a rig for the scene where Patrick thrusts a doctor out of a room and into a doorway by psycho-kinetic power. Could you describe how you executed that?

A ctually i t ’s an overhead trolley, a monorail, supported from above with four bearings riding on a single pipe, and a pulley arrangement to lift the actor.

The actor wears a harness belt which goes around his waist, with straps that run down under the groin and others up over the shoulders. On the sides of the harness are metal reinforcers where you attach piano wire with ferrules — little copper sleeves that are clamped onto the wire.

The wire is then run up to a spreader bar which hangs from the trolley arrangement.

The spreader is 24 inches wide and keeps the wires apart; so they come down at the proper angles, and don’t get in the way of the actor’s arms and control any spinning. The piano wire is painted, or left the way it is, depending on the kind of lighting and wall coloring in the set.

And how is the device triggered?

The whole thing is counter­ weighted. There are pulleys up above, a pulley at each end of the monorail and a rope that is attached at one end, runs to the John Duigan

Continued from P. 315 “Dimboola” has been a projected film for a long time. When did you become involved?

I was brought in to direct the film at the end of last year. Max Gillies and John Timlin were appointed administrators of Pram Factory Productions, which is the filmmaking arm of the Pram Factory. It has been their role to get the film off the ground and they are now functioning as associate-producers. John Weiley will produce.

As for the script, Jack wrote the first new drafts, and subsequently, it has passed through a number of further drafts after discussions Jack has had with Max Gillies, myself and John Weiley.

What market is the film aiming at? Presumably, the theatre­ going audience wouldn’t be sufficient in itself. . .

In terms of the number of p e o p le who have see n it,

Kathy (Susan Penhaligon) and Dr Wright (Bruce Barry). Patrick.

other end, over the pulley and then had four people pull on it. back, and over two pulleys on the Originally I had tried to build a trolley itself. By pulling on this jerk ratchet — another item rope, we shorten the length of the readily available in the U.S. This whole system and that lifts the device is a long, reinforced board actor. Therefore, in any position with 20 to 30 strands of heavy on the monorail the actor will bungee or shock cord attached to eye-hooks at one end and a winch maintain the same height. x If only one pulley had been used at the other.

You just wind it up like a giant on the trolley when it was run back and forth, the arc of slingshot, attach the harness movement would shorten the cable, then fire it. system at each extreme of travel It’s generally used for shotgun and the actor would move up and effects, for someone being blown down. You can adjust the height against a wall; but in the available simply by pulling on the rope. time I was unable to locate Then you counter-weight the anything but 6mm bungee — and rope so that the actor has very the machine would not operate little weight — he is just about properly. ready to fly off the floor. So with one arm you can pull the actor up and down.

We pulled the actor out of the room by attaching a wire to the back of the harness, and running Do you often find that actors that to a big piece of timber. We aren’t prepared to do the stunts?

Dimboola is probably the most successful theatrical event in Australia’s history. I understand it has been seen by more than 350,000 people. Because it’s been so universally well-liked, I think a large number of the people who have seen the play will want to see the film. This is a good start.

Obviously we want everyone else to see it too.

Isn’t there a danger that they will be expecting a film version of the play?

They probably will, and in publicizing the film we will have to indicate that it is going to be very different to the play. Basically it is comedy, and if it works it should have very wide appeal.

However, I would also like to capture some of the feeling of films, like for example Amacord and The Fireman’s Ball, and the play Under Milk Wood — although a bit more roistering than these. I see the film as having much broader possibilities than simply a Bazza-style okker comedy which som e p e o p le seem to be

Not really. On Patrick, they were all very co-operative. If there were any reservations, I would perform the stunt and show them just how dangerous or safe it was.

The actress in the hair burning scene, Carole-Ann Aylett, was very nervous about the fire. A short time before the take I walked up to her and set the thing off in my own hair. She thought it was great and wanted me to show it to the director. We had Richard Franklin come onto the set and I made up another batch, then stuck it on her hair. She was expecting me to put it on my hair but, after making a fuss about what a great trick it was, it was hard for her to refuse to try it. We let it burn and she was amazed to find that she didn’t feel any heat and that it was quite safe.

Does a special effects man often have to overcome the fear of actors?

Yes, though I have found that, other than by demonstrations or detailed instructions, an off-hand or humorous approach usually does the job. A lot of times I’ll ask things like “ Is the ambulance ready outside?” or “ Has the emergency room been notified?”

That kind of approach seems to set actors at ease.. ★ D u e to limitations o f space, the above interview is an edited version.

In the deleted sections R o th m a n n talks about effects not related to Patrick — bullet hits, explosions, the use o f slow m o tio n , etc. T h o se interested can get these extra sections from C in e m a P apers in photostat form for a nominal fee.

expecting.

In the city, people associate generally in groups of their own kind. In a country town, the population is too small for this and there is generally a greater mixing.

I would like to try and capture this d iv ersity of types — in a heightened reality certainly, but one that doesn’t lose touch with its naturalistic roots. 1 hope we can create a good deal of warmth and energy — as we tried to in Mouth to Mouth.

of money. It is very difficult to pare it below that, simply because of the size of the cast and the a s s o c ia te d e x p e n s e s of accommodating, transporting and feeding that number of people.

There are more than 30 large speaking parts, and a lot of extras.

Are you shooting on location?

Will the crew be of a similar size to that on “Mouth to Mouth” ?

Yes, it will be filmed entirely in Dimboola. We have been up there looking around the place and the town is excited at the idea.

Dimboola, the play, was taken there a couple of years ago and played three sold-out nights.

Everyone liked it, and looks forward to the film putting Dimboola on the globe.

Have you raised all of the money?

Most of it; there is still some private money to chase.

A b it la rg e r in th e A rt D epartm ent/C ostum es/Props area, but a number of the same people: Tom Cowan will be shooting it, Lloyd Carrick will do the sound, Vicki Molloy will be production manager.

Probably seven or eight people from Mouth to Mouth will be working on it — the crew on Have you finalized a budget for Mouth was very good. I was the film? delighted to work with Tom again — we had worked together once Yes, $350,000 — which is a lot on Bonjour Balwyn in 1970. ★ Cinema Papers, April/June — 377

Short film reviews . . .

Feature film reviews . . .

Latest film library news . . .

Film society and festival news . . .

Films for the specialist . . .

FILMNEWS FILMNEWS, a monthly newspaper of Australian independent cinema, is published by the Sydney Filmmakers Co-operative Ltd. FILMNEWS contains news and reviews, interviews , technical and production notes, gossip and opinion.

Essential reading for anyone interested in the development of Australian film.

Subscriptions â&#x20AC;&#x201D; $8/year (Aust) or $10/year (foreign).

Send to FILMNEWS, P.O. Box 217, Kings Cross, NSW 2011, Australia.

Federation News has all the answers It is the quarterly journal of the Federation of Victorian Film Societies now published with the assistance of the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission.

For over 20 years, Federation News has become recognised as an essential reference journal for the non-commercial use of 16mm film . . . film societies, schools, adult discussion groups, specialists who use film and plan programmes.

CAMERA MISSING 1948 Arriflex Model A â&#x20AC;˘

(Serial No.: 1066)

Complete with: 28mm lens (Serial No.: 11183328), 50mm lens (Serial No.: 82999169), and 6 inch lens (Serial No.: 2141129) Plus tw o 400ft magazines

Federation News is now published in March, June, September and December. , 1978 SUBSCRIPTION: $16.00 inc. postage from: F.V.F.S., 4 Stanley Grove, Canterbury, Victoria, 3126.

$100 reward for return of above Please phone: Palm Beach Pictures (02 ) 919 4622 B

STEVEN SPIELBERG

Steven Spielberg

to anybody, a scenario about Lacombe’s life leading up to the sandstorm in the desert. Then he understood.

Continued from P.321

But I had to make this film p re tty m u c h fro m my understanding. There comes a point where you have to forget the au d ience and try to please yourself.

I get a lot of letters from people who have seen the film five or six times in the U.S., and who tell me about things they missed the first or second time and got the fourth or fifth time.

Do you t h i n k t he U . S . government today would really be so open-minded in their reception of a visitation?

That’s very good for the film . . .

Yes, it is. It’s a miracle if you can encourage people to see any film more than once.

The control centre where the first of a series of UFO sightings is recorded. Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

How much money has the film about today’s children, not when I made? was a kid, because today’s children are much more advanced Seventy million dollars.* than when I was 11 years-old.

They are reaching puberty, and What percentage of that is discovering women and their own yours? self-importance much earlier.

W asn’t it difficult for the cinematographers to adjust to the style of the previous man?

All cinematographers in the U.S., like all directors, are great friends. William Fraker and Laszlo Kovacs, John Alonzo and About 15 per cent, but not 15 When do you start it?

Vilmos Zsigmond are very close. per cent of the $70 million. It is We often have dinner or go to only after distribution costs, after In May, and it will be out at parties together. So they know the studio has taken its share, the Christmas. I can do a very small each other’s styles very well — exhibitors theirs and so on. It’s a film because my appetite for the that’s all they discuss. And before racket. Everybody gets their big ones has been . . . I am full! 1 each additional cinematographer money first and when it’s time for feel like I’ve had fish with Jaws came to work with me, they the filmmakers to get their piece, and meat with Close Encounters looked at the film that had already it’s hardly a mouthful. That’s how — now I want a light dessert. been photographed and matched it has always been. that style.

W hen a film m aker starts In “ Close Encounters’’ you distributing his own films, that’s wo r k e d wi t h f i v e gr e at How did you get the child to react when he can make a profit, and cinematographers.** How did so well? that’s what I will start doing in the that work out? future. But then I am not really By adopting him; we were concerned with how much money They never actually worked inseparable for three months. I I can make from the film — I together. I should explain that I knew what he liked and didn’t, never have been. make films in an unorthodox way. and how to get him to smile. I I shoot the bare, essential script would describe what he was Don’t you want to be your own first, then I stop and look at it. I reacting to and he would make producer? then see if it needs, say, a new pictures from my words and react opening or more explanation in a to those pictures. He was an Yes, very much; but the reason scene. Sometimes I go out months extraordinary kid, and for a three I wasn’t my own producer on this later and shoot two more days. year-old, very bright. film was because I knew it would And then a month beyond that I As much as I adopted the little be a gargantuan project, and I shoot another two days. boy, T ru ffau t adopted the knew I needed somebody who When I was shooting some of creature. You’d find him standing could handle the studio and the the additions, John Alonzo was there talking to this inanimate paperwork. I didn’t want to spend available, but Vilmos Zsigmond object in French. He is a my time at home doing that when was making another film and wonderful man, but I don’t I should have been planning my couldn’t wait for me to be understand all of him. I spent a next day’s shooting. I’ll be my whimsical about adding extra year with Truffaut, but I really own producer on a very small scenes. Later on I got another idea don’t know him. Very nice, but film, like my next one. It has a and Laszlo Kovacs shot a few days very mysterious. budget of only $1.5 million, with a for me. That’s how it works. I don’t believe that a film should Was it difficult for Truffaut to five-week schedule. stop when the schedule says “ last understand the film and his So you are still capable of day” . role?

My problem is I should be working on a small film as handcuffed to the wall. On this opposed to a monolith . . .

Yes. Truffaut wanted to know film, I was still cutting only days more about Lacombe because in Sure, I am going back to my before it was released; I took the film I suggest that the story roots with this next film. It’s seven minutes out a week before has been going on years before the about what happens when you are it opened. And if I had it to do all film begins. I wanted to give the eight to 14 years-old, and what you over again, I’d take another seven impression that this meeting had do between leaving school at 3 minutes o u t.'—' been in preparation for a long o’clock and having dinner at 6. It’s time. But Truffaut wanted to know what had happened over the **Vilmos Zsigm ond, Laszlo Kovacs, past 30 years. So I designed for William A. Fraker, John Alonzo and Truffaut, and I’ve never shown it Douglas Slocombe. * As of early February, 1978.

Yes. I think if scientists had received proof 20 years ago, they would have had maybe 15 years to condition themselves to it. That’s why the people on the base of operations were so scientific, so blase at the time, because they ‘spent all those years preparing for this one meeting.

The time and the date was a surprise, but the eventuality was not. I think if it were announced today that contact had been made, scientists all round the world would remain sceptical until every one of them had been brought into a room and introduced.

Scientists down through the ages have been the most sceptical of people.

Have you any more ideas like “Jaws” or “Close Encounters” that you want to put before the public eye?

Not at the moment. Close Encounters was premeditated, Jaws was not. Jaws was a book I stumbled across in an office. I read it and almost capriciously said I’d like to make it — 1 didn’t know what I was letting myself in for.

Jaws was an accident, but this film wasn’t.

Right now I would like to make a musical; an old-fashioned musical where the story stops for a song. Lots of heavy tap-dancing, smoke coming out of the shoes.

The problem is that films were as influential in the 30s and 40s as television is today. Because of Fred Astaire, parents forced their children to learn tap dancing. But tap dancing has not been in vogue for two decades, so when you make a musical you can’t find any tap dancers. It’ll be hard casting.

SPIELBERG FILMOGRAPHY TELEVISION FEATURES 1970 Night Gallery (ABC Movie o f the Week) 1970 The Psychiatrist (ABC Movie o f the Week) 1970 God Bless the Children (ABC Movie of the Week) 1971 Duel (released theatrically outside the U.S.)

1972 Something Evil TELEVISION EPISODES 1970 Name of the Game 1970 Marcus Welby, MD 1970 Columbo FEATURES 1973 Sugarland Express 1975 Jaws

Cinema Papers, Aprii/June — 379

16m m double system production: ECLAIR, NPR 16m m hand held: ECLAIR, ACL. 16m m single system : ECLAIR, ACL, SS. 35m m double system teen ¡scope and academ y: EC LA IR , C A M EFLEX. 35m m hand held: M O VIECA M .

LIGHTING:

■ :

s tu d io :

Flicker free HM I fresnel and open face focussing heads: LTM 200,575, 1200, 2500 and 4000. K O B O LD fill lighting 575 and 1200. Portable lighting systems LO W EL TO TA and LQD “yellow heads” . LO W EL S O F T lights and O M N I lights. Battery driven KOBOLD HMI sungun.

C o lo u r control and diffusion by ROSCO cinegel. *

Grid and hanger system s by RDS and LTM. S tu d io lighting fixtures by R DS, LTM . Co lour effects by R O S C O SU PER G EL. TV P studio dollys and booms.

sets:

Paint by R O SC O PA IN T. , ■ Cladding by ROSCOTALIX D rapes and costum e effects by R O S G O G LA M E . M osaics by R O S C O L E N E . Breakaw ays by ROSCOBREAKAW AYS. ,

meets:

M B:

POSTPRODUCTION:

NEILSON HORDELL & OXBERRY fo r effects and step printers, liquid gates by O XB ER R Y .Test eq u ip m en t by H O LLY W O O D FILM C O R P O R A T IO N .S tand ardisation by S M P TE test films.

P R E V O S T 1 6 /3 5 com bination editing tables, M O V IO L A flat bed and upright editors, ACM A D E pic syncs, EA S TO N syncronisers and winders, HFC and C IR splicers, M ylar and acetate splicing tape, horses, benches, trim bins and scissors.

O X B E R R Y anim ation stands from super 8 to co m p u te r controlled m aster series with aerial im age. N EILSO N H O R D E L s tip e rtric k front projectio n systems and anim ation stands w ith aerial im age. FA X 16mm low cost anim atio n stands.

LOCATION:

TAUNT: A.R. “A ndy” GIBSO N. /HU G HIK IN G S LE Y R O S S fÖ G ILV Y I^N M cA U LE Y

LO W E L: link location systems. M A TH EW S and RDS: fo r g o b o ’s, stands, flags, cutters, pole cats, scrims, nets, sun screens, clam ps and grips. M ILLER and Q U IC K S E T: tripods.

T V P : dollys. LO W EL and TVPisound booms.

S T E L L A V O X SP8.2: dual track sync recorder, A M I-48: 5-channel mixer.

M A G N A S Y N C : transfer recorders, insert clubbers, reproducers, displacem ent, recorders and reproducers.

M IC R O N : radio m ike transm itters

Sydney melbourne brisbane perth

26 1981 62 1133 52 8816 325 2910

H.O.

8 dungate lane Sydney 2000. telex.

77 city rd, sth melbourne 3205.

28 baxter st, fortitude valley 4006.

121 hill st, east perth 3205. .

AA AA AA AA

26664 30912 42054 93582

SWEDISH CINEMA

Jorn Donner

Continued from P.307 American films, at their best, function on both the physical-action and the psychologicalexcitement levels. But there are filmgoers who are not interested in psychological chains of events. For these people, American films can still work, because the physical action can be followed without an understanding of action on other levels.

It may be a sign of change that three books by the late Per Wahloo, whose works are action-filled and socially critical, were filmed within one year. First, Mannen pa taket (The Man on the Roof), directed by Bo Widerberg; then Uppdraget (The Assignment), directed

by Mats Arehn; and, most recently, Lastbilen (The Truck), directed by Arne Mattsson.* This may show that Swedish film is not an isolated island after all; that bridges can be built to the rest of the world, that Swedish films other than Bergman’s can reach out to other eyes. From that viewpoint, it feels exciting to produce films in Sweden.

Moreover, I have not gone into comparisons with other countries. Public financing in other forms exists in many other places. The number of gifted people in any given country seems to vary enormously. There are countries in which it would be theoretically possible to produce much more, much better. But nothing is happening.

In Sweden, some 20 to 25 films a year are being made. At present, resources do not permit more. The point is that it is not financial resources that are lacking — it is artistic talent for more films.

My hope is that the films that are made will be able to compete with all the other films in the world in a worthy manner — and that they will want to compete. ★ Ingmar Bergman doesn’t live here any more.

Continued from P.309 Jan Troell’s Bang! (1977), perceptively described by producer Bengt Forslund as “ a life symphony” , orchestrates a number of .variations on reality and fantasy, its movements both comic and serious. A stylistically elaborate film, its central concern is the artist — here an aspiring composer attempting to transcend his mortality.

Working as a music teacher, Magnus (Hakan Serner) lives in fear of his death — “ When you no longer expect a fairyland over the hill, then you’re done for” — while, at the same time, understanding the prison that such a fear creates — “ It’s like a sack being drawn tight.”

A Snoopy poster on his wall serves as an ever­ present reminder of the process of ageing: — “ Once every day was a happy day . . . Now, bang, I’m in my declining years.”

Unlike Den Allvarsamma Leken, which also concerns itself with a quest for a “ fairyland” , the male fantasies here are treated with considerable sympathy. There is what would appear to be a degree of identification by Troell with his artist-hero: once a schoolteacher himself, his artistic aspirations and eventual success parallel Magnus’ abandonment of teaching as his “ sounds” symphony is about to receive its first public performance.

Troell balances Magnus’ construction of this *See also The Laughing Policeman (Stuart Rosenberg, U.S.) --■ " - f

Diana Kjaer and Jorn Donner in Donner’s Tenderness — Pieces From a Marriage.

symphony, drawn from recorded sounds of the everyday world, against the composer’s reluctance to face the human side of those sounds. Magnus’ life is a constant retreat into the privacy of his creation: to connect himself with life is to concede its transience, though it is also to discover its possibilities for natural rebirth; to reconstruct that life in his own image is to keep its transience at bay, though it is also to retreat from it and its possibilities.

In marked contrast to Troell’s metaphysics, in which the process of self-questioning becomes an end in itself, Vilgot Sjoman’s Tabu (Taboo, 1977) aspires to lay bare the reality of the anguish of sexual minorities.

Drawing 90 per cent of his material from “ research on reality” , Sjoman construct his drama as “ a film about a girl who gets fooled by a false revolutionary . . . a reformer projecting his own neuroses on to the world” .

The girl, Sara (Licka Sjoman), provides the link between the ‘normal’ world (that of the audience, of course) and Sjoman’s “ catalogue of all the various perversities” . Hers is far from a choric wisdom, however, as she moves from infatuation with “ the reformer” , a lawyer, Kristoffer (Kjell Bergqvist), to a recognition of his hypocrisy and an empathy with those he has been exploiting. We certainly recognize his inadequacies long before she does, and thus our perspective on the events in the film is outside those she presents, either in the voice-over commentary or in her role in the drama.

While the sincerity of Sjoman’s declared commitment to the cause of sexual freedom is beyond question, the film and his comments about it place his position in doubt. The growth of Sara’s insight into the film’s sexual underworld is asserted by the closing scenes, but scarcely felt. Having initially used her, at least partially, as a lever to manoeuvre our responses — the visual structure of the film, repeatedly returning to her confused reactions to what is happening around her — the nature of her emergent understanding remains a mystery.

With the exception of the transvestite, Lennart/Margaretha (Halvar Bjork), the characters with whom Sara comes into contact remain foreign in their bickering and their anguish. The unkind charge levelled at Sjoman, that his creations are more like “ animals in a zoo” than human beings, is encouraged by his inability to lend them any sort of depth and by his description of their sexual lives as “ bizarre” and “ perversities” .

Probably the major illustration of this is in his characterization of Kristoffer. The lawyer’s id en tity crisis, inseparable from his exploitation of those whose cause he represents, is viewed severely. His rebuff to the exhibitionist who decides not to appeal against his sentence (thus denying Kristoffer the further opportunity to make public his reformist zeal) is brutal. But the psychological state that induced such an attitude is ignored — a personal brand of exhibitionism which his supporters see as “ charisma” — viewed only on the surface, in the way it affects others. Yet surely he is as much a victim of the sexual repressiveness of his society as those around

him.

All Sjoman does is impose upon him a cruel irony, heavy-handed in its directness.

Kristoffer’s self-image is underlined by the name Sjoman gives him, and his lack of self­ awareness in the scene in which he challenges a maturing Sara, now disillusioned by him, with the charge that she is suffering from “ a severe identity crisis” . .

A less didactic, more generous commitment to the object of his hostility — “ I hate seducers . . . preachers . . . revolutionaries who want to save Mankind, but who, in reality, are more concerned with acting out their own chaos than helping people . . . ” — might have transformed Tabu into what Sjoman wanted it to be. It remains the most ambitious of the Swedish films I have discussed, but one of the least successful. ★ BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Anja Breien: Born in Norway in 1940, she studied at the French Film school, ID H EC, from 1962­ 1964, then worked for television and as an assistant director — including (Suit Hunger — 1966) — before directing Rape (1971) and Hustruer (Wives — 1975). She was invited to Sweden to m ake Games of Love and Loneliness when director Per Blom fell ill during rehearsals.

Jorn Donner: Born in Finland in 1933, he worked there as a film critic, a career he pursued when he went to Sweden in the early 1960s. He had m ade a n u m b e r o f films in Sweden and Finland including Att Alska (To Love — 1964), Har Borjar Aventyret (Adventure Starts Here — 1965), Tvarbalk (Rooftree — 1967), Musta Valkoiselia (Black and White — 1967), Sixtynine (1969), Naisenkuvia (Portraits of Women — 1970), Anna (1970), and Perkle! Kuvia Suomesta (Fuck Off! Images From Finland — 1971). He is now an administrator of the production fund of the Swedish Film Institute, and has worked as producer on n u m e ro u s recent Swedish films. His m ost recent feature is Man Rape.

Lasse Forsberg: Has w orked primarily for Swedish television making over 50 films in 10 years. He has two features (to my knowledge) to his credit: Misshandlingen (The Assault — 1970), and Mandagarna Med Fanny (Robert and Fanny — 1977).

Jan Halldoff: has made about 10 features in Sweden and is best known for Korridoren (The Corridor — 1968), En drom om frihet (A Dream of Freedom — 1969), Rotmanad (Dog Days — though known in Australia as What Are You Doing After the Orgy? — 1970) and Firmafesten (The Office Party — 1972).

Gunnel Lindblom: A well-known Swedish actress who is best known for her work with Ingm ar Bergman which included Det sjunde mseglet (The Seventh Seal — 1957), Smultron-stallet (W ild Straw berries — 1 9 5 7 ) , N attvardsgasterna (Winter Light — 1963), Tystnaden (The Silence — 1963) an d Scener ur ett aktenskap (Scenes From a Marriage). Lindblom has, since 1968, been a director on the staff of Stockholm ’s Royal Dramatic Theatre.

Vilgot Sjoman: Perhaps the m ost controversial of the m ainstream Swedish directors. His first film, Alskarinnan (The M istress), was m ade in 1962.

He was assistant director on Winter Light (1963) and since then his work has been concerned with s e x u a l m o r e s a n d i n s t r u m e n t s o f soc ial repression: 491 (1964), Klannigen (The Dress — 1964), Syskonbadd 1782 (My Sister, My Love — 1966), Jag ar nyfiken — gul (I am Curious — Yellow — 1964), Jag ar nyfiken — bla (I Am Curious — Blue — 1968), Ni ljuger (You’re Lying — 1969), Lyckliga skitar (Blushing Charlie - 1970), Troll (1971), En handfull karlet (A Handful Of Love — 1974), Garaget (The Garage — 1975), and Tabu (Taboo).

Jan Troell: A c am eram an on Bo W iderberg’s first film, Barnvagnen (The Pram — 1963), he has m ade six features since: Har Har Du Ditt Liv (Here Is Your Life — 1966), Ole Dole Doff (Who Saw Him Die? — 1968), Utvandrarna (The Emigrants — 1970), Nybyggarna (The New Land — 1972), Zandy’s Bride (1975, U.S.) and B ang!. H e is c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g o n The Hurricane, which was originally assigned to R o m an Polanski by producer Dino de Laurentiis.

Cinema Papers, April/June — 381

PRODUCTION SURVEY Continued from P. 353 DAYS I’LL REMEMBER - IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA Director...................................Howard Rubie Screenplay..................... Michael Ingamells Exec Producer........................ Peter Dimond Photography............................Russell Boyd Length.................................................18 min Gauge................................................. 35mm Synopsis: Julie Anthony features in a prestige tourist film on South Australia.

HOUSING

is fo r

Very \je r y

Very

very

A,y> q u a lity .

lo v in g

C a rt.

V ic to r ia n film la b o r n fo fttS

Screenplay................................... John Dick Exec Producer................. Lesley Hammond Length.................................................20 min Gauge................................................. 16mm Sponsor...................Department of Housing and Urban Affairs Synopsis: The film is aimed at middle and upper years of high schools, technical co lle g es, a du lt, fu rth e r and w orke rs education organizations and universities. It explains in simple visual terms the main issues relating to “ housing” , in order to increase the awareness, understanding and knowledge of young people about their p re s e n t and fu tu re p h y s ic a l hom e environment.

The follow ing productions have been LOST IN THE BUSH invested in: Prod Company.................... TasmanianFilm Matt Carroll (for the South Australian Film Corporation Corporation), The Money Movers $1 25,000 Dist Company...................... Tasmanian Film Sue Milllken and Tom Jeffrey, The Odd Corporation Angry Shot $100,000 HUMANITY AND HARMONY Director.................................... Eddie Moses Exec Producer........................ Peter Dimond Screenplay........................... JohnPatterson Gauge................................................. 35mm Producer................................................ DonAnderson Sponsor............................Mobil Oil Aust P/L Camera Operator................................ ChrisMorgan AUSTRALIAN FILM Synopsis: To improve man's understanding Camera Asst...........................Gary Clements COMMISSION of man and promote tolerance and racial Progress.

InProduction harmony — perhaps where harmony did not Sponsor:............................ Tasmania Police exist before.

Synopsis: A film aimed at preventing tragedies occuring in the Australian bush.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LIFE. BEIN IT The film shows how to survive in most BRANCH conditions that may be encountered.

Prod Company.............. Pepper Audiovisual Director..................................................... MaxPepper Production approvals from the 12 December Screenplay...................................... RichardYeeles NATIONAL PARK RANGERS 1977 AFC meeting.

Exec Producer........................................PeterDimond Prod Company................... Tasmanian Film Lighting/Camera................................... PaulDallwitz SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT/PRECorporation Editor........................................................ MaxPepper PRODUCTION APPROVALS Dist Company..................... Tasmanian Film Location Sound..........................Peter Barker Corporation Patricia Lovell, The House Upstairs $2000 Length. . •........................................... 15 min Director...................................... Eddie Moses Michael Thornhill, The Death in the Desert Gauge................................................. 16mm Screenplay,............................ Eddie Moses $8750 Sponsor.................................Premier’s Dept Producer..................................................JohnHoney Telemark P/L, The Hammer and the Spike Synopsis: A film to interest community Camera Operator................... Gert Kirchner $4500 groups, local government bodies and private Gauge................................................. 35mm Ray Berrett, MacKormack $2950 enterprise in the sponsorship of the fitness Color Process................................... Eastman Lionel Hudson, In Search of the Marsupial campaign.

Progress........................................... Shooting Mole $5500 Sponsor..........................National Parks and Alan Hopgood/Christine Suli, Collingwood PESTICIDE CONTROL Wildlife Service $4720 Synopsis: A film depicting the activities of a Screenplay........................ Malcolm Purcell national park ranger based on Flinders Exec Producer........................................PeterDimond PRODUCTION APPROVALS Island and his efforts to create a balance Length.................................................20 min Mutiny Pictures, Friday the Thirteenth between man and nature.

Gauge................................................. 16mm $225,000 Sponsor........................ Health Commission Pom O liver/E rrol Sullivan, The Cathy S y n o p s is : D e m o n s tr a tio n o f th e SAFETY IN SMALL BOATS Baikas Affair $1 75,000 precautions necessary in the handling of Prod Company................... Tasmanian Film South Australian Film Corporation, Blue pesticides.

Corporation Fin $1 20,000 Dist Company..................... Tasmanian Film TIM - THE INHIBITED MAN Corporation Production approvals from the 7 February Director..........................................John Dick .1978 AFC meeting: Director...................................Sherry James Screenplay............................ Russell Porter Screenplay.......................... John Patterson SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT/PREProducer................................................ MaxPepper Producer............................... Don Anderson Exec Producer..........................Peter Dimond Camera Operator................... Gert Kirchner PRODUCTION APPROVALS Lighting/Camera..................... Paul Dallwitz Progress............................... In Production Pisces Productions P/L, Tim $4675 Sound Recordist.....................Peter Barker Sponsor............................. Tasmania Police Edgecliff Films P/L, Eden Rock $7815 Length.................................................10 min Synopsis: A film to promote a greater Michael Chojeki/Henri Safran, Queen of Gauge................................................. 16mm awareness of safe boating practices.

Hearts $5000 Sponsor.......................Dept of Public Health Bill Warnock/John Beaton, Catalpa Escape Synopsis: A film to assist school children $4000 TRAINING EXERCISE and parents in the prevention and cure of Prod Company.................... Tasmanian Film Gus Meyer, The Derrickman $500 scabies.

Corporation Bob Ellis/Chris McGill. Lindsay $6000 Dist Company...................... Tasmanian Film John McCallum Productions, Six Feature TRAINING OF WORKERS Corporation Package $150,000 Screenplay................... Christopher Bishop Director................................................ SherryJames Exec Producer............... Lesley Hammond PRODUCTION APPROVALS Screenplay.......................... Stephen Collins Length.................................................20 min Producer.............................. Don Anderson Greenboe Corporation, Sparks $6000 Gauge................................................. 16mm Progress..........................................Scripting Artis Films P/L, The Last Tasmanian $5471 Sponsor.....................Department of Labour Synopsis: A training film on the planning G em ini P ro d u c tio n s P /L, T elem ovie & Industry and conduct of a disaster exercise.

Package $94,500 Synopsis: The film is aimed at workers, Samson Productions P/L, The Odd Angry unionists and their representatives to create VANDALISM Shot $10,000 greater awareness of the importance of Prod Company................... Tasmanian Film Ray Beihler/Don Scheldup, Mary Loves effective job training. It also encourages Corporation Peter Loves Paul $21 8,075 w orkers and th e ir representatives to communicate to management their views Dist Company..................... Tasmanian Film Oxenburgh Productions, Learn Quick Die Young $18,568 Corporation about what kind of training is required, and to encourage workers to make effective use Director................................. Ron Saunders David H annay P ro du ctio n s, A lis o n ’s Birthday $100,000 Screenplay............................

Roger Lupton, of training opportunities available to them.

Ron Saunders MARKETING APPROVALS Producer............................... Don Anderson VALUE OF MAPPING Editor...................................... Rod Adamson David Hannay, distribution funding for Solo Screenplay............................Harry Bardwell Camera Operator................... Chris Morgan $50,000 Exec Producer................. Lesley Hammond Camera Asst................... John Jasiukowicz Yoram G ross Film S tudio, in d u s try Length.................................................20 min Progress............................................. Editing assistance $60,000 Gauge...................................’. ........... 35mm Release Date............................... May 1978 The Film House, industry assistance Sponsor.......................Department of Lands Sponsor............................Community Crime $50,000 Synopsis: The film aims to show secondary Prevention Advisory school students at senior levels, tertiary Council' CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT level students of earth sciences and the Synopsis: To show that vandalism is an general public the value of the basic map BRANCH anti-social activity. relative to the development and protection of State resources and to be aware of the Projects recommended for funding from the applications of maps in State development.

February AFC meeting:

VICTORIAN FILM CORPORATION

TASMANIAN FILM CORPORATION

*

Film i*s our m iiè lt h a rw e .

— Cinem a Papers, April/June

P a tr ic k E d g e w o r th /R u s s e ll H agg, Editor......................................................HelenBrown Muckraker $5000 Sound Editor...........................................PeterMcKinley Stoney Creek Films, Woman in Love $5000 Dist Company.............. Tasmanian Film Corp Director.................................... Norman Laird M ariner Films, Rusty Bugles $4700 (additional pre-production money) Camera Asst....................................... RussellGalloway Progress............................................. Editing FEATURE FILMS Release Date............................ March 1978 Pram Factory Productions, Dimboola Sponsor................................................ StateLibrary $100,000 of Tasmania Synopsis: Film of historic paintings and GENERAL manuscripts housed in the Tasmanian Writers Study Grants, $3000 Allport Museum.

Stage Development Loan, $30,000 National Film Theatre of Australia, $750 (for HOLIDAY the Moomba 78 Retrospective Season of Prod Company................... Tasmanian Film Australian Film) Corporation 8mm Movie Club, $1000 (for the “Ten Best Dist Company............ Tasmanian Film Corp of Eight” Awards) Director.................................................. RonSaunders Screenplay.......................... John Patterson Producer................................................ SonAnderson N.S.W. FILM Progress..........................................Scripting Sponsor............ Tasmanian Tourist Bureau CORPORATION Synopsis: A promotional film on Tasmania based on the Fly/Drive holiday package.

The V.F.C. have invested in the following projects:

ALLPORT LIBRARY

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT

Prod Company................... Tasmanian Film Corporation

Hexagon P/L, The Last of the Knucklemen $7000

EXPERIMENTAL FILM AND TELEVISION FUND Klaus Jaritz (NSW), Sun $2500 Fabio Cavadini (NSW), The Lane $5776 Susan Lambert (NSW), Size 10 $2650 Peter de Lorenzo (NSW), Lichtenspiele $2172 Alex Proyas (NSW), Ditto $350 Tony Quill (NSW), 120 Further Adventures

of Zimbo Tuff $900 Kim Rendait (NSW), Grandma Rose, Elsie Mae and Lottie $2500 A ntionette S ta rkiew icz (NSW), Pussy Pumps Up $9927 Paul Shinagl (NSW), Love Story $800 Richard Bradley (NSW), The Golden Sec­ tion $500 Brendon Stretch (NSW), TX666 $1493 Gavin Wilson (NSW), Exlie In Eden $6045 Roger Bayley (Vic), The Thin Edge $2294 Kevin Anderson (Vic), The King of the Two Day Wonder $7232 Paul Jansen (Vic), First Things First $2158 John Laurie (Vic), Undertow $1445 Chris Oliver (Vic), Rodeo $3263 David Shepherd (Vic), Mike’s Blood $1872 Daro Gunzberg (Vic), Profile of a Clown and a Mindreader $3839 Gary Patterson (Vic), Community Documen­ tary Cassettes $2000 Paul Reynolds (Vic), Saturday Play $1988 Renee Romeril (Vic), untitled $2000 Frank Bendinelli (Vic), Still Life $2013 Stephen Bennett (Vic), The Social Worker $804 Ian Pringle (Vic), Marco Polo $8840 George Viscas (Vic), The Brace $1618 Jane Allison (SA), Debbie $934

FILM PRODUCTION FUND C hris C ordeaux (Q ld), U ndertakers $33,882 Peter Bull/Jas Shennan (Qld), A Precious Gift $4000 Ray Lawrence/Glenn Thomas (NSW) Sw eet Dreams and Flying M achines $30,000 Paul Williams (Vic), The Island o f Nevawus $35,542 Don McLennan (Vic), King Island $2010 Peter Dodds (Vic), Percy Aldridge Grainger $10 00

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT FUND George Goldberg (NSW), No Exit $1100 Philippa Porter (NSW), Hand Me Down $10 00

Jeffrey Peck (Vic), Burke and Wills Are Dead $330 Projects recommended for funding from the March AFC meeting:

EXPERIMENTAL FILM AND TELEVISION FUND Mitchell Faircloth (Vic), Terra Lostralis $2618 Claire Jager (Vic), No Fear I Quote $2981 Paul Widdicombe (Vic), Meditation — Individual and Group $1214 Victoria Roberts (NSW), Cycles $5824 Lis Rust (NSW), Margaret’s Story $400 Jeni Thornley (NSW), Maidens $2539 Robert Wyatt (Qld), Suburban Windows $3814

PROMOTION ADVANCES Sonia Hofmann (NSW), $2000 for 35 mm blow-up of animated short, Letter to a Friend.

Michael Glasheen (NSW), $2000 for 16 mm Kinescope of Uluru.

FILM PRODUCTION FUND David Hay (NSW), Hard Yakka $35,000

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT FUND Sandra Alexander (NSW), script for a Australian films $2214.

G ill E a th e rly (NSW ), s c r ip t fo r a documentary on reminiscences about life in the bush $1300.

Bob Hill (NSW), treatment for a screenplay about a man obsessed with Japanese concepts of inner peace $1000.

Michel Pearce (NSW), treatment for a feature on a teenage boy who gets into trouble $1250.

Bruce Petty (NSW), for a screenplay and artwork for an animation film about Energy $3000.

James Ricketson (NSW), a screenplay for a feature about old people in a retirement home $2000.

Rivka Hartman (NSW), a screenplay for a feature about an eccentric lady $2000.

Alan Ingram (NSW), a screenplay for a lowbudget film with a medieval setting $1500.

Mark Stow Smith (NSW), a screenplay for a low-budget feature on the problems of a deaf child $1050.

Roger C la rk e (Vic), a s c rip t fo r a documentary about Australian soldiers in France in World War I $2300.

John H ughes (Vic), a s c rip t fo r a documentary on the Waterside Workers’ Federation $1500.

Peter Kennedy (Vic), a s c rip t for a documentary on politics in Australia $2240.

Ivan Gaal/Mary Keane (Vic), a script for a documentary on attitudes to the sudden wealth of big lottery wins $2000.

GENERAL Paddington Town Hall Centre, an interest free loan of $34,000 to cover the cost of installing video and cinema facilities.

GUIDE TO THE PRODUCER

NEW AUSTRALIAN FILM PRODUCTION BUDGET FORM NOW AVAILABLE This production budget has been specifically tailored to meet the needs of film production in Australia by The Australian Film Commission after consultation with industry experts. All applications to the Project Branch for production funding must be accompanied by this budget form.

The recommended industry selling price is $2.25 and copies can be purchased from the following outlets: A F C Offices Sydney & Melbourne — John Barry Group — Samuelson Film Service Aust. Pty. Ltd. — Cinema Papers and most State Film Corporations.

AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISIO N SCH O O L

STUDENT ENROLMENT 1979 35mm & ¡6mm Negative Cutting CHRIS ROWELL Chris Rowell Productions 139 Penshurst Street, W illoughby, NSW 2068 Producers Guide

Phone: (02)411 2255

The Australian Film and Television School will shortly be calling for applications for their 1979 student intake.

Details will be announced nationally in daily papers on 27 and 31 May, when brochures and application forms will be available.

20 places offered annually for 3-year fulltime course in film and television production, and 4 places offered annually for 1-year screenwriting course.

Enquiries: Recruitment Officer Australian Film and Television School POBox 126 NORTH RYDE, NSW 2113 (02)887-1666.

The carnet eliminates the problem of establishing non-liability for import duty. The (vi) a normal release form for material shot producer will need to lodge a bond or bank guarantee, or otherwise satisfy the Chamber of within the studio should be signed; (vii) what equipment, flats, lighting, etc. the Commerce of his ability to pay the maximum amount of duty payable on the equipment in studio is to supply should be scheduled. question in the event it is not returned to Australia.

E . Problem s of Film ing Overseas A producer proposing to take Australian- F. Laboratory Form s owned film equipment outside Australia to film on location will need to approach the The producer will need to establish with the relevant Chamber of Commerce in his city to laboratory that is processing and ultimately get an internationally accepted “ carnet” — a handling the release printing of his production document setting out and identifying by serial who has the right to order release prints, and number the equipment to be exported. A those with the right to remove negative or separate sheet is provided for each country the other pre-print materials. This will be production will pass through; the producer important when the film is completed and presents this to the relevant customs authority foreign sales agents are handling print orders.

In the event that part of the film’s financing at the point of entry for stamping.

C o n tin u ed fr o m P. 334.

comes from the Australian Film Commission, or some state corporations, it may be necessary to provide that only certain named people can remove material from the lab. This is usually provided by way of what is termed an “ access letter” which is lodged with the laboratory and remains in force until cancelled.

G . Other Form s

There are a number of other miscellaneous production and post-production forms which the producer will need to make use of from time to time and which are more fully discussed in the subscription service.

These include arrangements with labs engaged in dubbing or sub-titling, and the production and arrangements for the use in the producer’s film of pre-existing film material, or other “ stock” footage. ★ Cinema Papers, April/June — 383

THE PAPER OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

U L A JU U MEDIA & EDUCATION

edited by Peter Noble

ESSENTIAL READING FOR ALL FILM ENTHUSIASTS Europe’s leading film industry paper keeping you informed with

Reviews Reports from Film Festivals News of Films in Production Technical Developments

Subscribe: Available weekly

Four issues, teaching guides, media courses, free and c o n c e s s io n cin e m a passes. $ 1 0 .0 0 (schools), $ 8 .00 (individuals) (both tax deductable), $4.00 (students and unem ployed). Forward cheques and orders to: ATFAV (Metro), 243 Q ueensbury St., Carlton, 3053.

Send for free specimen copy to: Christine Fairbairn, Screen International, Film House, 142 Wardour Street, London W.1.

FRAMEWORK ISSUE ONE ISSUE TWO ISSUE THREE ISSUE FOUR -

ISSUE FIVE ISSUE SIX -

ISSUE SEVEN -

Interviews with Alain Resnais, R. Wood.

Articles on Shakespearean films, theory, Bettetini, Truffaut, Poland, Peckinpah.

Articles by Pasolini, Bettetini, Ferreri. Articles on Bertolucci, Cavani, Wertmuller.

Interview with Bertolucci, Bellocchio, Zanussi and Saless. Pasolini on Semiotics. Article on Godard.

HOLLYWOOD Part one. Articles on psychoanalysis. Heath on Jaws and ideology.

Max Ophuls: Editorial Reading of The Reckless Moment.

HOLLYWOOD Part two. River of No Return, To Be or Not to Be, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Sirk, Wilder, Ritchie.

IDEOLOGY Part one. Sexuality and Power.

The Syberberg Statement. Comolli’s La Cecilia; lei et Ailleurs, Dossier on Japanese Independents, Yoshida, Matsumoto.

IDEOLOGY Part two. African cinema — articles on and by Hondo, Haile, Gerima, Ousmane Sembene. Fellini’s Casanova, Eisenstein and ideology. Out in mid-March 78.

Festival reports, book and periodical reviews in every issue.

Feature contributors include: Britton, Christie, Crofts, Heath, Neale, Ranvaud, Whitaker, Willemen.

Framework’s third Festival of Film will be held in June 1978. Ideology & Propaganda — screenings of films of the ’30’s. Details and forms available April 1978.

Single back issues 60p + 35p postage.

Subscriptions for 3 issues (UK £2.00 - O/seas £2.50) 6 issues (UK £4.00 - O/seas £5.00) 9 issues (UK £5.50 - O/seas £7.00)

FRAMEWORK University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL. United Kingdom

Hi 1Hi

iggigi ...

' :

i

fourenever tooyoung tostart subscribing l %'Ht

— i

:

m

11 18»

mmm

BRll

in i

mm <«* ««

enjoyitinthecomfortof yourownhome...

SPECIAL OFFER

20% OFF SUBSCRIBE N O W !

Four Issues $8.00*

p o st free

N am e..

Address ........................................................................ Postcode

To commence with Issue 16 ( Issue 17 ( Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd. !43Therry Street. Melbourne. Victoria. Australia 3000

) April-June )July-Sept

P le a s e a llo w up to fo u r w e e k s fo r p ro c e s s in g .

‘ Australia only. For overseas rates see overleaf.

CINEMA PAPERS

BACK ISSUES □ □

□ □ □ □ □ □

...the gift that keeps coining

□

□ □

C opy(ies) Copy(ies) C opy(ies) C opy(ies) C opy(ies) C opy(ies) Copy(ies) C opy(ies) Copy (ies) C opy(ies) Copy (ies)

of Num ber of N u m ber of Num ber of Num ber of N um ber of N um ber of N um ber of N um ber of N um ber ofN um ber of Num ber

1 at $3.00* 2 a t $3.00* 3 at S3.00* 5 a t $3,00* 9 at S3.00* 10 at S3.00* 11 at S3.00* 12 at S3.00* 13 at S3.00* 14 at S3.00* 15 at $3.00*

UNAVAILABLE: numbers 4,6, 7 and 8

W e 'll en clo se the card. You en clo se S8.00 '

‘ Australia only. For overseas rates sec overleaf.

Please send.

A ddress

N A M E ................................................................

Postcode

A D D R E S S .........................................................

as a gift, four issues-of Cinema Papers.

............................................................ Postcode . .

f r o m ...............................................................

M essage ......................................................................................................... ’ Australia only. For overseas rates see below.

Total amount enclosed $_________ Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd. 143 Therry Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3 0 0 0 ’ Australia only. For overseas rates see below.

C inertia Papers Ply. Ltd 143 Therry Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000

P lease allo w up to four w eeks for processing.

Volume 4 available now BOUND V O L U M E S

E A S Y B IN D E R

ORDER VOLUME 4 NOW!

BOUND VOLUMES

(numbers 13-16) 1977-1978

VOLUME 3 STILL AVAILABLE

Please send me □ copies o f Volume 3 (numbers 9-12) at S27.00 per volume.

Please send me □ copies o f Volume 4 (numbers 13-16) at S27.00 per volume.

Handsomely bound in black uith gold embossed lettering.

Each Volume contains 400 lavishly illustrated pages of • Exclusive interviews with producers, directors, actors and technicians. « Valuable historical material on Australian film prod uction. ® Film and book reviews.

• Production surveys and reports from the sets of local and international production • Box Office reports and guides to film producers and inve stors.

STRICTLY LIMITED EDITION ORDER NOW! TO P L A C E AN O R D E R FILL IN TH E FO RM

Enclosed cheque/postal order for S ____

EASY BINDER Please send me □ copies o f Cinema Papers’ easy binder at S12.50 per binder.

Enclosed cheque/postal order for S ____ (available Australia only) N A M E .........................................................................

ADDRESS...............................................................

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that a loose binder is now available in black with gold embossed lettering.

Individual numbers can be added to the binder independently — or detached if desired. This new binder will accommodate 12 copies (3 years).

Total amount enclosed $________ NOTE: Remittances in Australian dollars only.

TO P L A C E A N O R D E R F IL L IN T H E FO RM

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd. 143 Therry St., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000.

PLEASE NOTE BOUND VO LU M ES OF

numbers l -4 (Volume 1(and numbers 5-8 (Volume 2) AR E NOW U N A V A IL A B L E

OVERSEAS RATES (including postage) (A) Subscriptions and gift subscriptions (per 6 issues).

Zonei 1 (New Zealand, Niugini): Surface — $19.80; air — $31.80. Zone 2 (Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Indonesia etc): Surface — AS1 9,80; air — SA36.00. Zone 3 (Hong Kong, India, Japan, Philippines, China etc): Surface — SA19.80; air — SA40.20 Zone 4 (North America, Middle East): Surface —

ORDER FORM

................................................ Postcode................

Please allow up to four weeks for processing.

SA1 9.80; air — SA44.40. Zone 5 (Britain, Europe, Africa, South America): Surface — SA19.80; air — SA46.50.

(B) Bound Volumes (per volume). Zone 1: Surface — SA30.20; air — SA33.00. Zone 2: Surface — SA30.06; air — SA35.00. Zone 3: Surface — SA30.40; air — SA36.80. Zone 4: Surface — SA30.80; air — SA40.30. Zone 5: Surface — SA30.80; air - SA42.20.

(C) Back Issues. To the price of each copy add the following:

Surface (all zones):- SA0.80. Air:- Zone 1 — SA2.80; Zone 2 — SA3.50; Zone 3 — SA4.20; Zone 4 — SA4.90; Zone 5 — SA5.25.

NB (1) All remittances in Australian dollars only.

(2) Surface Air Lifted available lo U.K., German Federal Republic, Greece, Italy and U.S.: (a) Subscriptions (per 6 Issues) — S27.60; (b) per bound volume — SA32.80; (c) Back Issues — add $2.60 per copy.

T h e b ig shot A dynam ic “ S H O T G U N ” m icrophone with lobar directional pattern. N arro w angle pick-up even at g re a t distan ce from the sound source and elim ination of unw anted reverb eratio n and handling noise. Built in two position bass-cut switch ( - 7 - 20 dB at 50 HZ).

R eco m m en d ed for use in TV and film studios or on location.

R evoxadds som ething special to a reel of tape Experience and reliability — THE well known reliability of the A77 tape deck is a result of a rT7o f*THTmTn I»

mV] ilW i

I

iuJIv

combines the advantages of a solidly constructed tape transport mechanism with an advanced electronic circuit design.

■ Stability under heavy use ■ Mechanical precision ■ Off tape monitoring C ■ Track to track recording ■ Echo and multiplay effects ■ Vertical or horizontal operation ■ Editing and remote control facilities Revox fulfils your professional requirements.

ox

re

Vo

x

For further information on the REVOX or AKG Systems Contact:

Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited New South Wales Phone: 797 5757

Victoria Phone: 560 4533.

Canberra A.C.T. Phone:95 3431-

South Australia Phone: 272 2366

Queensland Phone:441631-

Western Australia Phone: 71 0888.

Tasmania Phone: 34 5266,34 5412.

Photsyn 206

ra ia's favourite premium beer.