Cinema Papers August-September 1978

Registered for posting as a Publication — Category B

CANNESREPORT NEWSFRONT -POLISH CINEMA-ISABELLE HUPPERT SCORING PATRICK- DAVID BAKER- INDEX AUGUST — SEPTEMBER 1978

ISSUE 17 $2.50*

* * AU S T K ^

O C T . 2-6 1978 LEGEND OF LOGO: SPIRIT BEING NAMED GULDANA Artist: MUNGURRAWUY YUNUPINGU (b. 1907) Gumadj clan. Yirritja moiety.

Carved wood decorated with earth ochres.

Human hair and Parakeet feather, string decorations.

The Guldana guide the spirits of the dead as they travel on their way to Badu, the land of the dead, which is thought to be somewhere in the Torres Strait Islands.

There, in a land of running spring waters, coconut palms, tropical fruit and of light-skinned people, the Yirritja Spirit finds repose. As the spirits leave the bodies of the dead, they are guided on their journey by large grass fires which are lit by Guldana.

Songs about Guldana and his wife tell of his skill at hunting sting-ray in the shallow waters of the Mangrove Swamps whilst his wife gathers wood and the eggs of jungle fowl.

Collection of Primitive Art: Art Gallery of New South Wales.

®A GALA OPENING, SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE; ENTERTAINMENT: BUFFET - DINNER, DANCING, PRESENTATION OF ASIAN STARS • CONTINUOUS SCREENINGS OF UP TO 50 SUB-TITLED ASIAN FEATURE FILMS IN TW O CITY CINEMAS • HARBOUR CRUISE WITH BUFFET MEAL • GOLF, HORSE RACING • BEACH BARBECUE • HAWKESBURY RIVER BOAT EXCURSION • CLOSING CEREMONY, STATE THEATRE, WITH ENTERTAINMENT AND AWARDS TO BEST FILMS For further information regarding subscriptions contact: The Executive Secretary 24th Asian Film Festival PO Box 1493 NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA Telephone (02) 922 6855 Telex 25157

SUBSCRIBE NOW ______ AND SAVE!______ Special limited offer to Subscribers 6 ISSUES SUBSCRIPTION $14-25 SAVE 5% 12 ISSUES SUBSCRIPTION $27 00 SAVE % 18 ISSUES SUBSCRIPTION $36 00 SAVE 20% I will take 6 □

12 □

18 □

issues at the special rates listed above.

I would like my subscription to commence with: Issue 1 7 □ issue

18 C

August-Sept.

Oct-Nov.

Name..............................................................................................

Address...........................................................

Find cheque enclosed for $________

Postcode

The above listed offer is post free and applies to Australia only. .....................................................................................................................

For overseas rates see overleaf.

Please allow up to four weeks for processing.

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd.. 644 Victoria Street. North Melbourne. Victoria. Australia 305I The above offer expires on 30/9/7S

%

CINEMAPAPERS „a gill from (Ik hear!...

Please send Address ....................................................... Postcode as a gift 6/1 2/18 issues of Cinema Papers.

We will enclose a card fro m ...............................................

Message................................................................................

Cheque enclosed for________ See the subscription form for current rates. For overseas rates, see overleaf.

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3051

H ow w e made a hit w ith two Misses.

We’d like you to meet Janelle Commissiong and Kim Tomes. They’re the current Miss Universe and Miss USA and we’ve just had the pleasure of flying Janelle here from Tokyo and Kim from San Francisco. Those are two long flights by any stretch of the imagination. And with the press - the world’s most demanding welcoming committee - waiting to greet them, we had to get them here looking and feeling on top of the world.

Fortunately Qantas has fast, daily, one-stop flights from San Francisco and

the fastest non-stop flights from Tokyo. So after a movie, a sumptuous meal or three and a nice long beauty sleep, they arrived with no delays and feeling fine.

They flew in on Qantas 747s, the Jumbos we had specially designed with the long haul in mind. With seats specially designed for comfort. And with all the room in the sky.

And finally, we got them here on time. The press waits for no m a n ... sorry, person.. .but our on-time performance record is pretty impressive. Better in fact

than most of our competitors.

So all in all it’s not hard to see why they - like most other people who have to fly to work - are so pleased with us. Just take a swift, non-business-like look at the photo above. It was taken after they arrived.

When your business is going places QFO173

MOTION PICTURE SUPPLIES PTY. LTD. SOUND: 16mm double system production: ECLAIR, NPR 16mm hand held: ECLAIR, ACL. 16mm single system: ECLAIR, ACL, SS. 35mm double system tecniscope and r academy: ECLAIR, CAMEFLEX. 35mm hand held: MOVIECAM.

STELLAVOX SP8.2: dual track sync recorder, AMI-48: 5-channel mixer.

MAGNASYNC: transfer recorders, insert, dubbers, reproducers, displacement, recorders and reproducers. .

■ MICRON: radio mike transmitters

UCHVNG:

STUDIO:

Flicker free HMI fresnel and open face focussing heads: LTM 200,575, 1200, 2500 and 4000. KOBOLD fill lighting 575 and 1200. Portable lighting systems LOWEL TOTA and LQD “yellow heads” , LOWEL SOFT lights and OMNI lights. Battery driven KOBOLD HMI sungun.

Colour control and diffusion by ROSCO cinegel.

Grid and hanger systems by RDS and LTM. Studio lighting fixtures by RDS, LTM. Colour effects by ROSCO SUPERGEL. TVP studio dollys and booms.

Paint by ROSCOPAINT. Cladding by ROSCOTALIX Drapes and costume effects by ROSCOGLAME. Mosaics by ROSCOLENE. Breakaways by ROSCOBREAKAW AYS.

ffiiC T S :

ID D : NEILSON HORDELL & OXBÉRRY for effects and step printers, liquid gates by OXBERRY.Test equipm ent by HOLLYWOOD FILM CORPORATION.Standardisation by SMPTE test films.

LOWEL: link location systems; MATHEWS and RDS: fo rg o b o ’s, stands, flags, cutters, pole cats, scrims, nets, sun screens, clamps and grips. MILLER and QUICKSET: tripods.

TVP: dollys. LOWEL and TVP:sound booms.

PREVOST 16/35 combination editing tables, M OVIOLA flat bed and upright editors, ACMADE pic syncs, EASTON syncronisersand winders, HFC and CIR splicers, Mylar and acetate splicing tape, horses, benches, trimbins and scissors. > < * '

OXBERRY animation stands from super 8 to com puter controlled master series with aerial image. NEILSON HORDEL super trick front projection systems and animation stands with aerial image. FAX 16mm low cost animation stands.

■;¡v

l

T A U N T : A.R. “Andy” GIBSON. HUGH KINGSLEY ROSS OGILVY IAN McAULEY ■ _ _

Sydney melbourne brisbane perth

26 1981 62 1133 52 8816 325 2910

H.O. ^

tO C O T /O N : 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

--o *■

DOUBLE

HEAD PREVIEWS 16mm POST PRODUCTION EDITING ROOMS

A New Service for Film Producers

6 Plate Steenbecks

Upright Moviola Motorised Picsync

DOUBLE SYSTEM THEATRE SOUND TRANSFERS AND RECORDING Magra — Mono — Stereo C assette

SM

4 Track VT5

Complete service for field recording 13 Myrtle Street Grows liest MSW 2065 (02) 922 5650

FOR SALE OR LEAS T e ch n isc o p e and o p tical e ffe c ts printers and equipment including 1 6 / 3 5 mm sound Projectors.

Excellent condition.

OPTICOLOR PTY. LIMITED (Receiver and Manager Appointed) C/- Widin & Co., Chartered Accountants, 14 O’Connell Street, SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000 Telephone 231 2100

■BBHBBIIWILDLI FE PHOTOGRAPHER A Melbourne production company is seeking an experienced wildlife photographer for a film series in remote Australian environments. The position requires a self-reliant and creative person prepared to spend long periods in the bush.

Salary or contract fee negotiable.

Written applications, including applicant’s background and credits, to: Wildlife Producer, c/o 644 Victoria St., North Melbourne Vic. 3051

The Longford Cinema, Melbourne now offers a comprehensive double-head preview service 35 mm - 3 TRACK 17.5 mm SINGLE 16 mm TRACK

CONTINUOUS PROJECTION FOR BOTH 16 MM & 35 MM IN ANY SCREEN FORMAT

The Longford Cinema is a modern, comfortable, air-conditioned cinema with 296 seats.

Refreshment facilities are available.

This new service offers an excellent opportunity to preview new films on a large screen under cinema conditions to sample audiences.

The hire rates are reasonable FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR BOOKINGS, PHONE (03) 267 2600 OR WRITE TO THE MANAGER, LONGFORD CINEMA, 59 TOORAK ROAD, SOUTH YARRA 3141.

This service is provided by the Australian Film Institute with assistance from the Victorian Film Corporation.

Announcing GOSSEN

*

PR0FISIX

THE SYSTEMS ‘SYSTEM’

Tasmanian A Film C orporation • FILM PRODUCTION •STILL PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK • SKILLED PERSONNEL • 16/35 AND AUDIOVISUAL FACILITIES • EQUIPMENT H IR EINCLUDING DYNALENS #

CONTACT THE CO RPO RA TIO N FOR F IL M IN G IN OR OUT OF TASM A N IA 6 4 Brisbane St r e e t, H o b a r t 7 0 0 0 Tasmania.

P h o n e 3 0 8 0 3 3 Telegrams Tasf il m H o b a r t

GUN RENTALS COLLSHOOT SALES Dealers in A ntique— Military & Collectable Firearms — Related Items O ffers 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.)

• Military Items (Uniforms etc.)

ANYTHING relating to the above fields.

FREE Advice concerning the correct type of firearm(s) etc. to correspond with the period of the film.

G0SSENS PR0FISIX — A highly sensitive exposure meter that converts with the aid of optional accessories to a PROFI-lux for measuring illumination of luminance PROFI-flash for flash exposure measurements PROFI-flex for measurements on the groundglass, on small objects, at otherwise inaccessible areas PROFI-micro for exposure measurements in photomicrography PROFI-spot for reduction of the measuring angle to 15°, 7.5° or 10 PROFI-color for measuring color temperature and determining conversion filters PROFI-lab for measurements in the darkroom PROFI-repro for exposure determination in copy work

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON G0SSENS WRITE TO:

R. GUNZ (PHOTOGRAPHIC) PTY. LTD., P.0. BOX 690 DARLINGHURST 2010.

MEDIAVISION Super 8 to Tape A HIGH QUALITY SUPER 8 TO VIDEOTAPE TRANSFER FACILITY FOR THE LOW BUDGET SUPER 8 FILMMAKER IN KEEPING WITH COST EFFECTIVE SUPER 8 FILM PRODUCTION FOR DETAILS CONTACT:

MEDIAVISION AUSTRALIA Shop Address: 3 Elizabeth St., Coburg, Melb. Vic. 3058 Phone:(03) 354-6876

Unit 2, 33-45 The Centreway, Mt Waverley, Vic. 3149

Phone (03) 233 5375

„ -'1

it » I

oí i»!

Vo«“ **'

^ S ï s -^ •a ü fr"

NEGATIVE CUTTING Fast,efficient,professional services are available film m akers........ a new name to remember

snnc GRAHAffl nun services (my old name was adina film services)

the same fast efficient neg matching at reasonable rates contact me personally at

nnriE gran nm

nun services

28 shellcove road neutral bay nsw 20 8 9 telephone (02) 908.3011 (2 lines)

NEG FILM CUTTER 16mm 35mm enquiries welcome ring Pam Toose 449 1344 176 Burns Rd., T u rra m u rra •

Facilities are fully equipped for all 16mm and 35mm productions providing matching for features, specials shorts and documentaries.

THE B=f MATCHING MECHANICS (FREELANCE NEGATIVE CUTTERS]

Same day service on television commercials with selection o f negative and A /B make up fo r transfer to video tape.

16 mm

3 5 mm

13 üUTÎL'J ü 35mm & 16mm Négative Cutting

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS 139 Penshurst Street,

C O U R IE R S E R V IC E A V A IL A B L E PHONE

\Willoughby, N.SW 2068

<411 2255

Decide for yourself!

We all have our own premises No red tape.

....

Deal with each of us personally —

and know who cuts your film (with the white gloved treatment)

Téléphoné (02) 411 2255^

Articles and Interviews Bill Bain: Interview

Scott Murray

10

Female Buddies

Katharine L. Clancy

15

The Ellicott Papers Isabelle Huppert: Interview

18

Gail Heathwood

20

In Search of The Goodbye Girl

David Baker

24 28 30

Polish Cinema: A Review Film Polski Brian May: Interview

Ivan Hutchinson

32

Taxation Legislation

Peter Martin

Cannes Festival Report: I

40

Newsfront Production Report: 45

Features The Quarter Berlin Film Festival 1 9 7 8

8

Mari Kutna 34 Film Censorship Listings 37 Guide for the Australian Film Producer: Part 10 Antony I. Ginnane, Leon Gorr, Ian Baillieu 38 International Production Round-Up 42 Box-Office Grosses 43 Production Report: Newsfront 45 Production Survey 51 Picture Previews: The Night The Prowler 65 Long Weekend 73 Book Reviews Geoff Mayer, Brian McFarlane, John H. Reid 66 Rim Study Resources Guide Basil Gilbert 71 New Zealand Report David Lascelles 71

Australian Cinema Surveyed: 24

Solo Reviewed: 63

Film Reviews Newsfront

Keith Connolly

57

The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith

Brian McFarlane

58

Summer City

Stephen Marston

59

Weekend of Shadows

Jack Clancy

61

Solo

John Langer

63

Special Cannes Supplement Cannes Film Festival 1 97 8

Jan Dawson, Antony I. Ginnane

I

Pierre Rissient: Interview

Upstairs, Downstairs Bill Bain Interviewed: 10

Peter Beilby, Philippe Mora

VI

Isabelle Huppert Interviewed: 20

Managing 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 Consultant: 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.

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: 644 Victoria St., North Melbourne 3051 .Telephone (03) 329 5983. Sydney Office: 365A Pitt St., Sydney. Telephone (02) 26 1625.

Advertising: Sue Adler, Sydney (02) 26 1625; Peggy Nicholls, Melbourne (03) 830 1097 or (03) 329 5983.

Printing: Progress Press Pty. Ltd., 2 Keys Rd., Moorabbin 3189. Telephone (03) 95 9600. Typesetting: Affairs Computer Typesetting, 74 Eastern Road, South Melbourne 3205. Telephone (03) 690 5311. 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.

®Copyright Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., Number 17, August-September 1978.

Front cover: Sir Robert Helpmann as Dr Roget in Richard Franklin’s Patrick.

Photograph by David Parker.

’Recommended price only.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 7

% U.S. DEAL At a time when sales of Australian films to U.S.-based distributors are more dreamed about than realized, the recent sale ofThe Last Wave and Picnic at Hanging Rock is an important event. Though not the first Australian films to be sold to the U.S. (Oz and Mad Dog, among others, preceed them), it is another breakthrough into a market Australian producers must mine if they are to continue making films at the present level of budgetting.

James McElroy, co-producer of both The Last Wave and Picnic, signed a deal with Al Schwartz of World Northal Inc., the company which handled Cousin Cousine, the most successful foreign film ever released in the U.S. The base minimum guarantee has been reported at $250,000.

AT LAST, DISCUSSION Following the successful National Film Theatre season of Australian films in London in May, and the vigorous discussions at “Australian Film: A Weekend Seminar" in June, several seminars have been held in Australia.

The Australian Film Conference, con­ ducted by the School of Drama of the University of NSW, was held from June 23­ 25. To a gathering of some 200 people, a variety of papers were delivered. Julie James Bailey (of The Australian Film and Television School) spoke on “The Size and Structure of the Australian Film and Television Industry” , placing the number of full-time engineering and technical personnel as 8500, and the total number number of people employed in all areas as 14,5000. The paper also con­ tained breakdowns of various corporations and government authorities, production houses, television stations and the free­ lance “pool” .

Other papers delivered included Lesley Stern’s “ Independent Feminist Filmmaking in Australia"; “Audience and Marketing Research” ; Andrew Pike's review of “ Harry Watt’s Australian Films” ; and critiques of Sunday Too Far Away and FJ Holden.

On July 7, the Film and Television Produc­ tion Association of Australia held a seminar entitled, “Who Can Get the Government Monies? What Film is Worth Funding?”

Those who spoke included Tom Stacey, who outlined a plan for a “Success Incentive Scheme” ; Storrey Walton of the AFTVS; J o h n D a n ie ll, w h o c o v e re d AFC assessments; Joan Long, the importance of writers; and James M cBroy, “fairer assess­ ment procedures” .

These, and the recent seminar at the University of Sydney, are the start of what promises to be a long-continuing and welcome trend.

D

CANNES CRITIQUES This year, at the 1978 Cannes Film Festival, a group of Australian films made a considerable impact oh world film critics.

Whereas in 1975 and 1976 it was the French critics who had “discovered” the Australian cinema, this year it was primarily the British and American.

Printed below are extracts of several reviews.

Richard Corliss, New Times: “Some of the national film industries (the French, Swedes, Canadians, Australians) rent theatres to showcase their product; and by selective shopping, you can get an informed feeling of the country’s mentality as well as its movies. For the past few years, the Australian film industry has been throw­ ing coming-of-age parties for itself: its films are well-made in the international mode, but very, very Australian. At least one Australian film had more than passing aethetic and sociological interest: Phillip Noyce’s Newsfront, a panorama of the country’s history from 1942 to 1956 as viewed through the camera eyes of two rival movie-newsreel companies. The blending of newsreel and fiction footage is amazingly deft... and Noyce’s fidelity to the moral and cinematic conventions of the period is equally remarkale. The film ’s final line — “ He’s just old-fashioned” , spoken about the

8 — Cinema Papers, August/September

lead character — could apply to the film itself. Old-fashioned in the best sense: taking people on their terms, understanding that everyone has his reasons, not squinting at them through the sun-glasses of ’70s cynisicm."

Nigel Andrews: “In Search of Anna seemed to me the most purposefully original film in Cannes. The story is plain, but the treatment is dazzling.

W riter-director Esben Storm has taken to heart Godard’s famous dictum: ‘A film must have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order.’ He cross-cuts between different time levels, so as first to disorient the viewer, then to stimulate him into seeing meanings and connections that a more linear approach would have blurred.

“Schepisi’s The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith is a bigger, glossier film made with pictorial bravura and vivid performances. But Schepisi gives his period tale... a straight­ forward narrative treatment that demotes it to the level of a stylish pot-boiler. “ Much more impressive was Phillip Noyce’s Newsfront. This is an energetic and fascinatingly detailed account of the work of the newsreel companies in post-war Australia: of the cameramen’s courage and ruthlessness in pursuing scoop material, and of the gradual erosion of their personal lives by the rise of television.”

David Robinson, The Times: "... the large Australian contingent could see (their representation at the festival) as the culmination of their film miracle, which has all happened in the last five years — mainly through imaginative official intervention, a growth of artistic confidence, and a convic­ tion that Australian history, culture, society and sensibilities are in themselves worth making films about, without deferent com­ promises to Hollywood patterns.

“The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith easily held its own against the rest of the Competition... it is a film of uncompromising ferocity.

Schepisi masters the considerable problem of sustaining sympathy for a hero who is maddened into committing a series of murders of sickening brutality. His success in this is due in no small part to the casting of Tommy Lewis... as Jimmie, and the dominance of the brooding landscape of the aborigines’ home callously snatched away by the whites. “ Bruce Beresford’s The Getting of Wisdom... is a sharply characterized autobiographical reminiscence of the experiences of a bright, gifted but poor child in a snobby g irl’s school... (Beresford) reveals a quite un-

THOMS REPLIES Sir, In your item headed “Hodsdon Double Update” (Cinema Papers, no. 16) I am criticised for not citing the source of “previously acknowledged” distribution and exhibition figures for the Experimental Film and Television Fund. Your heading certainly clarifies that matter, for the previous sources of inform ation w ere the two reports commissioned from Barrett Hodsdon. Since my summary was intended for the Australian Film Commissioners and those filmmakers who had assisted in the survey, I did not feel it necessary to name the previous sources, but your point is taken.

I regret the survey was not conducted on ' a professional basis, but such resources were not available to me at the time. One reason for conducting the survey in an informal manner was to speedily obtain some information to support a case for greater attention to the marketing of films funded by the Commission, other than features and those from Film Australia. Since the Marketing Branch of the Commission was offering no assistance in this area, I sought information that might draw support for marketing these neglected films.

To some extent the exercise proved successful, since there are now extra funds available through the Creative Development Branch of the Commission to assist in the marketing of films funded by that branch.

So far the results have been promising.: Klaus Jarritz’s Sun has been enlarged to 35mm, becoming the first Australian short selected for the International Competition in Berlin. Sonia Hofmann’s Letter to a Friend was enlarged to 35mm and became the first A u s t r a lia n s h o r t s e le c t e d fo r th e

predicted sensitivity to period and Miss Richardson's characters. “ Phillip Noyce’s Newsfront.. is one of the best films I have seen this year. It brilliantly intermingles fiction and documentary... A description of the content alone gives little idea of Noyce’s acheivement in setting the private affairs of its heros within an epic view of near-contemporary history.”

Diane Jacob, The Soho Weekly.

“The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith had been much touted before it arrived and was quite a disappointment. Set in Australia at the beginning of the century, it is a very broad and stylized investigation of prejudice, with all the characters — black, white, and Jim m ie (h a lf-ca ste ) — em erging as stereotypes. “ Onthe other hand, Newsfront, an Australian film screened out of Competition, is one of the best films I’ve seen so far. It’s a simple and very exciting movie, and the plot sounds mundane, but isn’t... The texture is very much that of a '40s newsreel or a situation comedy. There’s little camera movement (a real novelty in this festival), and most of the shots are cramped like the early television shots. It’s an unpretentious film that manages to say as much about religion, sex, families, careers and loyalty as any of the more opulent movies in Competition.”

Phillip Bergson, The Sunday Times: “ Outside the Competition, the most con­ sistently good work has come from Australia which is fielding a host of new features, impressively cast, handsomely photograph­ ed and intelligently written. In the Director’ s Fortnight, Bruce Beresford’s Getting of Wisdom is a very funny account of a young g irl’s sentimental education in a rather more exclusive turn-of-the-centrury boarding house, and Phillip Noyce’s Newsfront is a totally convincing look at newsreel teams in the 1940s and 1950s.”

Tom Milne, The Sunday Observer. “ Lastly, with the renaissance of the Australian cinema much in evidence here, there is Newsfront, a brilliant first feature by Phillip Noyce. About a newsreel cameraman, nostalgically set in the late 1940s and early ’50s just when the onslaught of television was about to make this a dying (or at least radically changing) profession, it re-creates the period and Australian social cir­ cumstances with loving fidelity. Most strik­ ing of all is the hallucinating skill with which genuine newsreel material has been dovetailed with reconstructions so that one can hardly tell the difference. Certainly one of the most original films at Cannes, it is also International Competition in Cannes as well as for the Zagreb, Cork and Edinburgh festivals.

Mick Glasheen’s Uluru was kinescoped onto 16mm and was selected for the Infor­ mation Section of the Berlin Festival as well as the L’homme Regarde L’Homme festival in Paris. Margot Oliver’s Charlene Does Med at Uni was selected for the Oberhausen Festival, along with Paul Winkler's Sydney

Harbour Bridge.

.

The Sydney Filmmakers Coop’s package of “Films of Black Australia” was selected for the Information Section in Berlin and has now been sent on a world tour, with screenings in Munich, Paris, and London, as well as at MIP-TV, Cannes and the La Rochelle festivals, with the U.S. to follow.

Stephen Wallace's Love Letters From Teralba Road was selected for the Inter­ national Forum of Young Cinema in Berlin.

Steve Jodrall’s Buck’s Party has been leased to the Greater Union Organisation for Australian theatrical distribution, and United Artists are negotiating for funded shorts for theatrical support programs.

All these activities are a direct result of the AFC’s decision to support marketing init­ iatives from filmmakers and film m akers’ o r g a n iz a tio n s th ro u g h th e C re a tiv e Development Branch.

Much more can be done. If such films received commensurate support to that received by feature films, then filmmakers would have some chance of a livelihood from, or at least a return on, their investment of time and ability in their films.

I hope Cinema Papers can support this process by giving the films the attention they deserve.

Yours sincerely, Albie Thoms

one of the best.”

Molly Haskell, New York: The film that, for me, justified the festival, its eclectic format, and all the trial-and-error slogging through each counter of wares was an Australian film called Newsfront, a modest and enchantingly authentic re­ creation of the '40s and '50s through the vicissitudes of a newsreel organization called Cinetone. With the first scene, in which Chico Marx plays “Waltzing Matilda” to the troops to a montage of Australian newsreel images, director Phillip Noyce establishes a tone of ironic affection for homeland, its richness, its provincialism, its many voices. Internal and international politics, the loves and ambitions of the period 1948-56; are reflected in the group gathered around Cinetone — Bill Hunter as Len, the gentle, round-faced, old-fashioned man who is chief cameraman; Gerard Kennedy as his more opportunistic brother; beautiful Wendy Hughes as the love of first one, then the other, brother and a sharp professional in her own right. With other figures who swirl in and out of their lives, they look, act, and are dazzlingly of the period, yet are never mere artifacts. Noyce has paid homage to the ’40s and to cinema by making a film that is true both to the reality of the period as those who lived through it remember it and to the voluptuous blackand-white fables of cinema’s most sensual period.

But Noyce’s approach to narrative is also freshly, elliptically modern, proving that it is possible to bridge the gap, to make a '70s film without rejecting the mythical and storytell­ ing properties that hooked us on movies in the first place. Newsfront, the “fin d ” of the festival, proves that in movies, above all, the richest art comes out of a negotiated truce with the past.

R. O. T.

AWGIE AWARDS The Australian Writers Guild announced their annual awards at the Menzies Hotel, Sydney, on July 14.:

Screenplay adaptation: Fred Schepisi, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith Best original screenplay: Joy Cavill, Dawn!

Best work for stage: David Williamson, The Club The major award: The Club Best comedy (any medium): Charles Stamp, ABC’s Tickled Pink. Episode of Palace of Dreams Best original work for television: Cliff Green, End of Summer. ABC Best documentary: Anne Brooks-Bank and Chris McGill (Film Australia), March the Fourth Best television series: Vince Moran for Hotel Story. Episode of The

Reunion Best original work for children (any medium): Vince Moran for Crawford Productions’ Mr

Fredericks’ Great, Great Grandson Best television serial episode: Peter Schreck, The Sullivans; episode 2 3 7 /

AUSTRALIAN FILM OFFICE On May 10, 1978, the Australian Films office was opened in Los Angeles by the Premier of NSW, Neville Wran. The office is an affiliated company of the NSW Film Corporation and will be used as a service to Australian film producers in selling their films in the North American market-place.

All producers, irrespective of how their projects are financed, will have access to this service, subject to the agreement of the investors. The office will develop promotional campaigns, experiment with release pattens and attempt to place films with distributors and television networks.

Samuel W. Gelfman has been appointed president and chief operating officer. Mr Gelfman was recently vice-president in c h arg e of prod uction for the A rtists Entertainment Complex when it produced the successful Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon. He co-produced The Incredible Melting Man and Cannonball for Roger Coman, and has served as assistant to the president of United Artists. b g

THE QUARTER

Melbourne Filmmakers Co-operative. It was guaranteed against loss by the Creative Development Branch, but proved financially very successful.

The AIF plans to present a similar season later this year.

ADELAIDE FESTIVAL The 19th Adelaide International Film Festival will be held from September 22 to October 1. It will utilize two inner city cinemas and is under the patronage of the Lord Mayor of Adelaide.

Claudine Thoridnet has been appointed artistic co-ordinator. Ms Thoridnet has been involved in the film industry in a variety of ways, besides acting as translator and sales agent for several Australian features at the 1976 Cannes Film Festival.

So far, only a few entries have been announced: of these Colline Serreau’sPourquoi Pas! is a highlight.

Her previous work has been as script­ writer and lead actress in Jean-Louis Bertuccelli’s On s’est trompe d’histoire d’amour (One Would Be Wrong to call it a Love Story).

Other films listed are Carlo di Carlos’ Per questa notte (For This Night), Ridha Behi’s Les soleil des hyenes (Sun of the Hyenas) and the television films of Claude Santelli.

Several films from the 1978 Director’s Fortnight have also been promised.

A. P.

CENSORSHIP NEWS

S. K.

UA INTO SHORTS U nited A rtis ts has ann ou n ce d the purchase of five Australian short films which it will distribute in cinemas as supports to the main features. In negotiating the purchase, United Artists was assisted by the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission.

As the shorts were made on 16mm, United Artists has blown-up the films to 35mm, thus ensuring a wider distribution than through those few cinemas with 16mm projection facilities.

The films chosen are Cold Action Cleans and Whitens (Paul Clydesdale), Waiting for Lucas (Ian Barry), The Importance of Keeping Perfectly Still (Michael Pattinson), Rate of Exchange (Ted Ogden) and Soft Soap (Ivan Gaal).

These five film s are only a small proportion of the annual output in short film m aking, so it is hoped the other distribu to rs, as well as United Artists, continue this initative and provide the A u s tr a lia n c in e m a g o e r w ith f ilm s representative of much of the energy and talent in the industry.

B. G.

IN SEARCH OF COMEDY The closing date for the Contemporary Comedy Screenplay Award offered by the New South Wales Film Corporation has been extended to October 1. This extension is to enable writers to write or complete their scripts.

Applications may be addressed to the chairman of the NSWFC. B. G.

FRENCH CRISIS? There has been a continuing debate during the past 12 months on how bad a state the French film industry is in. Yet, of the 50 most successful films released in France during 1977, 26 were French, and L’animal (4), Nous irons tous au paradis (5), Un tax mauve (6), Le juge Fayard (7), La vie devant soi (10), Madame Claude (13), La menace (14) and La dentelliere (15) took nine of the 15 top positions. The m ajority of the remaining 24 films are American — French and American films accounting for 80 per cent of the market.

While this looks healthy, it actually refle cts a growing polorization in the industry. Each year box-office records are smashed by individual films, but overall attendances are dropping (four per cent during 1 977).

The most successful film was The Spy Who Loved Me with nearly a million ticket sales in a 12-week period.

One major reason for the continuing decline in audiences is television. Last year, 517 features were shown on television, and to an audience of more than four million. As director Francois Truffaut says: "The crisis arises from the fact that audiences prefer to wait to see these films on their television sets.”

Producers have reacted to this situation by reducing budgets, a process that has been accelerated by an increasing number of successful low-budget films. One recent

Stephane Grappelli (centre), with composer-mandolinist, David Grisman, and actor, on the set of Frank Pierson’s King of the Gypsies.

example is L’amour en herbe, which without much publicity, averaged 20,000 admissions a week over a six-week period. Le passe simple and La dentelliere are two other examples.

The emerging pattern is one of increasing number of films made for under $1m, even though budgets of $4m still are frequent — such as for the last two films of Claude Zidi.

Some recent budgets are printed below: A: $US3-4m.

The Animal (Claude Zidi) The Spat (Claude Zidi) Moliere (Ariane Mnouchkine) B: $US2-3m A Man in a Hurry (Paul Morand) Death of a Corrupt Man (Georges Lautner) Song of Roland (Frank Cassenti) Roads of the South (Joseph Losey) C: $US1-2m.

That Obscure Object of Desire (Luis Buñuel) Madame Rosa (Moshe Mizrahi) Beach Hotel (Michel Lang) D: $US400,000 - 1,000,000 Diablo menthe (Diane Kurys) Pourqoi pas! (Coline Serreau) The Green Room (Francois Truffaut) On average, a French film earns 70 per cent of its income in the home market; 22 per cent abroad; and 8 per cent from television.

The average television sale is $30,000, but it can reach $100,000.

Two o fte n - v o ic e d c o m p la in ts of p ro d u ce rs are an o ve r-a b u nd a n ce of cinem as (4300), w hich often fo rce s exhibitors to pull off a film because of low attendance levels, and slow allocation of grosses. As well, there is a feeling of resentment over how little French television invests in features. A new Minister of Culture, Jean-Philippe Lecat, has been appointed, and some hopes for an improvement are held.

One suggestion to the problem is an "advance against receipts” system. Francois Truffaut: “ The ‘advance against receipts' system is excellent. Nevertheless, I think the awarding committee should contain less directors.

They could be replaced by film editors and scriptgirls. The latter know the job, and they could help newcomers by drawing their attention to cutting problems.

"I sometimes wonder if the total cost of scenes shot, but not included in the finished product, for the whole of French film production for a year reaches more than 1000 francs. “ But it is wrong to run down French cinema, so when it is filmmakers and actors who do the disparaging, then we are verging on a suicide wish. “ For 15 years French cinema has been extraordinarily varied, rich and courageous.

It is as difficult to do a light family film as an avant-garde film, and I find that Claude Zidi, Yves Robert, Gerard Oury and Georges Lautner, for example, have more talent that directors doing the same kind of films 20 years ago. “ My favorite directors are Eric Rohmer, Robert Bresson, Jacques Rivette and Alain Resnais. They are directors who make films that no one would take on in Hollywood. I also like the work of Gerard Blain, Bernard Dubois, Barbet Schroeder, Louis Malle, Agnes Varda, C laude M iller, P hilipp e Nahoun, Claudine Guilmain, Costa Gavras and Claude Lelouch. “ In the history of French cinema there have never been so many good films to see every year. So, it would be wrong to say that 1977 hasn’t been a good year — after all, Pierre Schoendoerffer, Robert Bresson, Claude Berri, Agnes Varda and Alain Resnais made their best films in 1977.”

S. M.

AIF SEASON

The most important decisions made by the Commonwealth Censor during the February-April period relate to The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith and Pretty Baby.

Jimmie Blacksmith was classified “ R” by the censor, presumably because of the language and violence. An appeal was lodged and heard on May 3, resulting in the “ R” classification being overturned and an “ M” rating applied.

Despite the rarity of the Review Board changing a classification in a filmmaker’s favor, the Australian press concentrated its remarks on the “ M” rating, claiming the film in fact deserved an “ R” . As it happened, another film Tintorea had its “ R” rating lessened to an “ M” at the same time, but the conservative press remained silent about that.

One can expect more outbursts in the press over the August release of Louis Malle’s Pretty Baby. Despite the film being banned in some U.S. states, several provinces in Canada and debated in British Parliament, the film has been classified “ M” for Australian audiences.

The film is very delicately handled, even though it concerns a scandalous affaire between a photographer (Keith Carradine) and a child prostitute (Brooke Shields). This variance between content and handling would explain the Commonwealth Censor’s seeming liberalism.

Other films to appeal their classifications were Semi-Tough, Fingers and Captain Lust — all were unsuccessful. Michael Ritchie’s Semi-Tough is the most interesting case as it is the clearest example of misclassification. The film has no sex or violence, and only the occasional strong word; the censor’s sole dilemma should have been over whether to give the film an "NRC” or an “ M” .

Fingers stars Harvey Keilot and Tisa Farrow, and is directed by James Toback.

Noted New York critic Stephen Farber in reviewing it said: “ More starkly erotic than anything in Last Tango in Paris; as horrific as Taxi Driver.”

Another case of mis-classification was the “ R” for Saturday Night Fever.

Six films were refused registration during the period, while eight submitted to cuts to gain a classification. These cuts averaged 57.2 m or 2 min. 7 sec. The most cut film was John Lamond’s The ABC of Love and Sex — Australia Style, which lost 3 min. 36 sec.

S. M.

PERSONNEL Hugh McGowan, former manager of marketing and merchandizing at Hoyts Theatres, is starting his own promotions firm.

Peter Rose, presently acquisition and production manager at Hoyts, will replace Mr McGowan.

A. P.

AFC CHANGES Patricia Lovell and David Block have been appointed part-time commissioners to the Australian Film Commission on threeyear terms.

Ms Lovell was the producer of Picnic At Hanging Rock (in association with Hal and James M cElroy), Break of Day and Summerfield. She also has had extensive experience in the television industry.

Mr Block, a merchant banker, is a director of CSR. Alan W ardrope, AFC’s d ire c to r of marketing, has been appointed acquisition and production manager at Hoyts Theatres, succeeding Peter Rose. Also leaving the AFC is Tom Manefield.

A. P.

The Association of Independent Film­ makers, formed in November 1977, recently presented a season of seven new films by its members at the Back Theatre of the Pram Factory in Carlton, Melbourne.

The films, which ran for six days from July 4 to July 9, represented the work of five Melbourne filmmakers over the past two years. They were varied in their style and form, and presented an alternative to the shorts normally presented to the public.

The program opened on the anniversary of the A u stra lia n Film C o m m issio n ’ s withdrawal of funds from the now defunct

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA Michael Rowan, studio manager of the South Australian Film Corporation, has indicated there is an inaccuracy in the interview with Ross Major, production designer on Dawn! (Cinema Papers, No.16, p. 344).

Instead of the 14 full-time men quoted by Major, Rown points out the crew consisted of three, together with incidental laborers.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 9

If i-*, , , „ ; v-*. v ' ' f i

sm i

WÊ&

lili

B

I

L

Among the first programs you worked on in Britain was “ The Avengers’’. Was this the first series?

No, it was the second, but it still had Honor Blackman and Patrick M acnee. At that tim e, The Avengers was very much in vogue. H onor was well into leather and boots, and Patrick was very deft with his bowler hat. I think the series was at its best then.

We had a marvellous producer, John Bryce, who is no longer working in television. He had a marvellous grasp of how to make what he called a comic-strip for adults. It was witty, dry and very glossy, and it had the wind right up me because I thought I couldn’t handle it.

Those qualities no longer apply to “The New Avengers’’. What do you think has caused the change?

It is the writing and the notion behind it. The main writer, Brian C lem ens, has an im m ensely fertile mind and he can sit down and write you 13 of anything, anytime you like. However, they are nearly always shallow as he is not the kind of writer who goes into things deeply.

His style on The Avengers was always fantasy and science fiction, and my job as a director was to pull him back to earth. He admired this and even wanted me to come back to do the series when it went to film with Diana Rigg­ Part of the fun of working on The Avengers was the invention you could bring during rehearsal.

There were never terribly good scripts, and you had to make the best out of them. After a few days of rehearsing with an actor, you would tend to say, “ Don’t you think we ought to give you a wooden leg, an eye-patch or shave your head; I don’t see how you can just sit there looking like you do and say these ridiculous lines.”

As a result, a Gothic quality gradually entered the series.

When it went to film it began to suffer, because by the time you had come to that understanding,

L

B

A

For m any, “ U pstairs, D o w n sta irs” and “ The D u ch ess of D uke S treet” typify excellence in B ritish televisio n drama. The leading director for both series w as B ill B ain, an A ustralian.

Trained as a school teacher, B ain soon turned to acting and then direction at the A ustralian Broad­ casting C om m ission where he handled children’s program s, sheep dog trials and the occasional light drama. In 1962, he moved to B ritain where he was invited by R oyston M orley to direct an episode of “ Harpers W l” for ATV. T his w as followed by episodes of “ The A vengers” , “ C a lla n ” , “ Public E ye” , “ The R ivals of Sherlock H o lm es” and, recently, “ Enem y at the D oor” .

H e has also directed the feature “ W hat Becam e of Jack and J ill” and several television plays, including “ The Im portance of Being E arn est” , “ Pretty P o lly ” , “ The L isten er” and “ Father’s H elp ” .

B ain is presently in A ustralia, and is at the A ustralian Film and T elevision School for three m onths as head of the television w orkshop. H e spoke w ith Scott M urray about h is career.

I

you had already shot two days’ material and it was too late to go back. I think the show became much more commonplace.

How long did you have on “ U pstairs, D ow n stairs’’ for rehearsing?

Ten days; then two days shooting in the studio. We would block out each scene, then go back to the beginning and start to rehearse. We could then refine or expand, and I could decide how best to shoot each sequence at a time when I could still change my mind — which a filmmaker can’t.

That way I was able to gauge the development and shape of the whole, finding the right pace.

It is very d iffic u lt for a filmmaker to sit down in the quiet with his script and know with certainty how something should be done. You can guess at it, but the grasp of the overall shape is something not every filmmaker has the time to resolve. And you also get producers coming in and telling you how they want to reorganize your structure and put this scene before that. Now if something goes wrong at that stage, you can’t get a unified sense of the film.

Film does, however, have many luxuries television doesn’t have.

You can get each shot right, for example, and you don’t have to compromise with multi-cameras.

But maybe there is something to be said for old tape shows.

Has a film version of “ Upstairs, Downstairs” ever been planned?

At one stage there was a lot of talk and the idea might have worked, but very few of the films that have come out of television series have been worthwhile in their own right. Any success they have had has been the memory of how they were enjoyed as a television series.

The producer and writer of U pstairs, Downstairs, John Hawksworth, surrounded on the bottom row by Meg Wynn Owen (left), Jacqueline Tong, Jean Marsh and Lesley-Anne Down. Standing are Simon Williams, David Langton and Gordon Jackson.

Films about groups of people often fail because of the difficulty of conveying enough information about each person. But this is not a criticism that can be levelled at “ Upstairs, Downstairs” . Why do you think this is so?

Cinema Papers, August/September — 11

BILL BAIN

On th e w hole th ey w ere extremely well written; at their w orst they te n d e d to w ard s caricature. This was when writers traded on the fact that Mrs Bridges would do what Mrs Bridges always did.

The episodes I liked least were the most predictable ones; also the ones that tended towards sentimentality.

There was also a danger that you just watched the spheres revolve in their orbits without gaining any new information. The best writing used that as the basis and then went fu rth er. You l e a r n e d m o r e a b o u t th e characters, the household, or what it was like to live in that kind of hierarchy; you were somehow taken deeper into it.

There is a density in “ Upstairs, Downstairs’’ that is lacking in most television drama . . .

Compared with most series, it has more incident, characters and richness of structure. But we didn’t get any more time in either rehearsal or shooting than on a Z Cars or something with a much simpler level of execution. You had to pick up your skirts and run.

pulled it off —just as he did when faced with the death of Lady M a rjo rie in Upstairs, Downstairs. “ Upstairs, Downstairs” was also extended beyond John H aw k s w orth ’s original conception . . .

Yes, but it was telling more th a n o n e p e r s o n ’ s s to r y ; therefore, there were more ways to expand it. When you are telling the story of one person called Louisa Trotter, there are only a certain number of things that can happen while still maintaining credibility.

My other reservation about “ The Duchess of Duke Street” was that the less pleasant traits of Louisa Trotter were, by the end, beginning to take their toll . . .

This is probably because John knew Rosa Lewis, on whom the character was based, and this is what happened to her. The final episode, about the American

woman coming to write her story, was based on the time she made an American writer sit for three months in the front hall before she saw her. Then, when she did see her, she made an appointment for a future date and left London the day before.

She was a very tough nut and maybe we were wrong to keep that strain going in the fictional character. But 1 think the more troubling aspect was Charlie dying too early.

There was between Charlie and Louisa, as between James and G e o r g i n a in ‘ ‘ U p s t a i r s , D o w n s t a i r s ’ ’ , a k i n d of magic . . .

It is said that George Bernard Shaw based Eliza Doolittle and Professor Higgins on Rosa Lewis and her real-life lover, Lord R id d l e s d a l e . He f o u n d a magnetism between those two inspiring enough to create a fairly unforgettable couple. But remove one from the other and something

You were again involved with producer John Hawksworth, this time on “The Duchess of Duke Street’’ . . .

Yes, The Duchess was John’s c re a tio n ; he had th e id ea, developed it, wrote some of the episodes and acted as producer on all of them. He is quite an extraordinary man.

Though a fine series, I found it petered out towards the end, almost as if it had been over­ stretched . . .

Well, it had been. John was determined to do no more than two series of 13 because he knew that the subject would not extend beyond that. But the BBC wanted it to go on forever, and they asked him if he would make the first series of 13 into 15; he agreed.

I think the first series worked quite well as 15. It ended with Charlie’s marriage to Margaret, and it was a good conclusion.

T hen, when we had been working on the second series for a while, they approached John again and asked him if he would make the next 13 into 16. That was w here th e d ilu tio n s ta rte d .

Charlie’s death was planned for episode 10, and instead of taking three episodes to wind down, it took six.

My feeling was that it spun itself out a little too much for its own good, but it was John’s way of doing something for them without involving him self in another series, which I think would have been disastrous. But then he is a very inventive man and may have

The middle-class Hazel (Meg Wynn Owen) and Mrs Bridges (Angela Baddeley).

Upstairs, Downstairs.

goes.

Rosa Lewis died in the 1950s, holed up in this crumbling hotel [The Cavendish], still determined not to cash any of the cheques given to her by soldiers of, by then, both wars.

You mentioned earlier the death of Lady Marjorie. What was the story behind this?

The actress, Rachel Gurney, decided that she would not continue after the end of the second series. I am not sure what her reason was, but she couldn’t be ta lk ed out of it. Jo h n Hawksworth was deeply distressed because the household revolved around the iron-w ill of the mother, and he couldn’t see how the series could possibly continue without her. But, being the good writer he is, he looked up his dates and found that the Titanic went down in the year that the third series was to begin.

Then, having decided that Lady Marjorie would be sent bubbling to the bottom, he chose to intro­ duce Hazel, the middle-class girl, into the series. This, of course, he would not have been allowed to do if Lady Marjorie were still alive. The entry of the middleclass girl was the beginning of the end. Hudson felt the old order had changed irrevocably, and the h o u s e h o ld d e s c e n d e d in to disarray until the threat of war pulled them all m om entarily together.

In a strange way, I think the series was better for it. When I was in the U.S. last year for the showing of the last episode of Upstairs, Downstairs, a reporter from the New York Times said to me: “ You know, you and I would not be sitting here except for the death of Lady Marjorie.”

I asked what her death meant to him and he replied that it meant genuine grief, and that the series went forward into an area of reality and emotion that it would not have gone otherwise.

Also, to the American eye, it was a luxury to despatch such a key-character. It was as if the hero had died, and he can’t do that because he has to go on to the end — it says so in the credits.

There is a very fine line between sentiment and genuine emotion, yet you as a director have a capacity to find it . . .

Rachel Gurney as the matriarchal Lady Marjorie (left), with David Langton as Richard Bellamy and Margaretta Scott. Upstairs, Downstairs.

I think one’s concern is always to find the reality of a script, to sniff out what the dangers are likely to be. One must ride very carefully over emotional passages if you don’t want your characters to go soggy on you.

In a long-running series like Upstairs, Downstairs, the actors tend to become too comfortable in their parts, which is something you have to watch. There is an art in just flicking the whip enough so Cinema Papers, August/September — 13

BILL BAIN

that they come back to reality without being antagonized.

Where I found that series hard work was in trying to make it better, in not allowing ourselves to slip back into feeling that we were on a winner. I have seen so many things die by sliding into a not-as-good-as-it-once-was syn­ drome. I find this very sad; it is like watching the decay of a loved one. You have to keep battling.

My intention was to keep it on the lines of the reality within the situation and not let it slip into those comfortable, easy areas where you can be self-co n ­ gratulatory. If you do, you exclude the audience because you are so pleased with yourself that you don’t need them to tell you they also are pleased.

Since “ The Duchess of Duke Street” you have done “ The Enemy at the Door” . . .

Yes. In a way, that series goes back to an earlier form of television: the emphasis is very much on personal relationships and not on big events.

The series is about the German o cc u p a tio n of th e C h an n el Islands, but it is really about being in prison. The islands themselves were little prisons, adrift in the channel. The Germans came and occupied them without opposition or fo rce, and b ecau se th e population of the islands was small, the number of Germans needed to keep control was also small. So the chance of personal confrontation was great.

The stories are based on this if you felt a script was slipping approach and the best of them into those areas, what recourse have been terribly effective. would you have?

Did you try to make comments One had free access to the about war in general? producer and story-editor who were always eager to hear what No. People have tried to make a one had to say, which is not always series out of those events before the case. So, it was possible at an and nobody had come up with a early stage to rectify areas in the way of doing it. Part of the reason script that you felt needed fixing. was that they wanted to treat war with a capital “ W” .

You were not the only director on This series hasn’t attempted “ U pstairs, D ow n stairs” and that. It has been much more “The Duchess of Duke Street” . concerned with the daily minutae Did problems ever exist between of living; what it was like for a girl you and the other directors over on the island to fall in love with a the interpretation of characters? G erm an soldier, and so on.

Nothing sensational at all.

If you are working with a It is effective in a way similar to producer who knows what he is Public Eye. None of those events about, then that is his concern. 1 was ever earth shattering: it was rarely involved myself in what about a woman in a council house other directors were doing — I who couldn’t pay the rent when didn’t think it my business. her husband left her. The story You risk the danger of imitating was never as important as the way one another if you watch each people related to each other.

Another reason this new series other’s work. You tend to think, “ Oh, he’s done that, I’d better do has been successful is that it has it also.” If you were doing re-introduced an element of story­ something totally wrong, you tell ing. Things have become faster, more furious and violent, were soon told by the producer.

A scene from the “ Miss Forrest” episode of Upstairs, Downstairs (directed by Bill Bain) in which Lady Marjorie is sent “ bubbling to the bottom” . Ruby (Jenny Tomasin) Hudson (Gordon Jackson), Mrs Bridges (Angela Baddeley) and Rose (Jean Marsh).

so when a director stops telling a story with a capital “ S” and starts describing and delineating people, audiences sit up.

However, there is the question of audience expectation. In “ I, Claudius” , for example, every time the family went to the games all one had were close-ups of faces and off-camera screams.

It w as n ot p a r t i c u l a r l y satisfying . . .

That was not a situation which arose. We are not pretending that there weren’t any battles, there just weren’t any. The biggest act of resistance would have been the painting of a “ V” sign over a poster on a wall. There was no resistance because there was nowhere to hide — the islands were too small.

The series took a little while to capture the imagination of the public because the first episode must have seemed like an awful disappointment. When 1 read the script, 1 questioned the producer very closely as it seemed to me to be about nothing: he replied it was about waiting, about not knowing.

I felt he had missed out on some of the high drama of the situation, of people scrambling to get evacuated and so on. But he said that was the wrong way to begin the series because it would have given the audience an expectation we were not going to fulfil. They would have loved the first episode and loathed the rest.

It was quite a bold stand to take, and the management resisted it at first.

As the series went on, it gained an appreciable audience. I think a lot of people were relieved that they were not watching another Holocaust or Auschwitz.

How do you regard the present health of the British television industry?

The industry in Britain is shrinking and the BBC is in vast trouble. Rising costs have made the production of television drama very expensive and, being a bureaucracy, the BBC will cut back on its programs rather than its administration.

Most companies are wondering what they can do in terms of drama. I hope to hell drama doesn’t cost itself out of business because it has made a great contribution. It would also be sad to see it venture into that mid­ Atlantic area adopted by the film industry.

The shows that have done best overseas are those the British made for themselves. It is their very Englishness that has been so appealing. Once you get into that grey area of trying to please everyone at once, you lose sight of what you are really telling.

British television is described as the least bad in the world, and I think that is a good thought to keep in mind. It is not paradise, it’s just the least bad.

Do you think cut-backs will result in less rehearsal and s h o o t i n g t i m e , or l e s s production?

Mary (Victoria Plucknett) and Ivy (Susan Brown) in “ A Present Sovereign” , an episode of The Duchess of Duke Street directed by Bill Bain.

14 — Cinema Papers, August/September

Gemma Jones as Louisa Trotter in The Duchess of Duke Street.

Concluded on P.79

FEMALE

K atharine L. Clancy After being subjected to nearly a decade of films on male friendships, Hollywood has suddenly discovered women. There is now a flood of films which deal with either a female protagonist or a friendship between two women; and the importance of men in their lives is often secondary.

Also, unlike the melodramatic, persecuted figures of the late 1940s, these modern heroines are no longer prostitutes, victimized housewives or gangsters’ molls; they are often independent women with important profes­ sions. * But in discovering this new contemporary subject, American filmmakers have generally failed to tackle it in an innovative or honest way. Most of the characterizations are unsatis­ factory — even insulting — and the values reflected are not significantly different from those in older films.

Three of the most popular examples of this genre are Academy Award-winners, The Turning Point, Julia and Looking for Mr Goodbar.

phobia over a childhood polio scar, a disappointing first love) are unconvincing.

Part of the problem results from Richard Brooks’ use of Theresa as a symbol of America’s corrupt, alienated society. This is d ep icted by th e im p erso n al crow ded atmosphere of the bars and her refusal to communicate with anyone, except physically.

Brooks creates a world of self-centred, violent and alienated individuals. This is most obvious in the males Theresa sleeps with, most of whom are annoying stereotypes: the massively built, evil, black cocaine pusher; Tony, the hyper-active, pistol-mad mafioso; the concerned, sexually-inhibited white social Looking for Mr Goodbar is the most worker; and, finally, Professor Engle, her uncomplimentary of the three. It is based on impotent and married English instructor.

I believe these stereotypes are intentional, an actual murder described in Judith Rossner’s best-selling novel. But Richard Brooks, in the and that Brooks is suggesting that all men are dual role of director and screenwriter, has participants in the physical violation and shifted the emphasis from the main character murder of this young teacher. It is indicative of to a more general sociological analysis of the our meaningless society, but it all sounds too New York singles scene. As a result, Theresa familiar.

This theme is reaffirmed in the final murder Dunn (Diane Keaton) becomes a sketchy and which is committed by yet another stereotype confusing stereotype.

Theresa is young and single and in search of — Gary Cooper White, the country hick, sex. She picks up a series of lovers in New repressed homosexual and woman hater.

York bars, yet she refuses to relate to anyone During the murder, the Italian’s knife, the — her boyfriends, family or colleagues. The social worker’s and the murderer’s initial only exceptions are the deaf children she impotence, and White’s hatred of Theresa, warmly and perceptively instructs in two of the after having made love, are aspects of her only sensitive and convincing scenes in the former lovers implying again that she is being destroyed by these men. In fact, mankind film.

Too often Theresa is seen screaming melo­ must destroy this woman for her amorality; dramatically at her parents or screwing she has been the aggressive partner seeking u n d is tin g u is h e d lo v e rs. T h ere is no sex indiscriminately and such behavior must explanation for her behavior: she is no cons­ not be allowed to exist — it is too threatening ciously-liberated female, and the simplistic to the male ego.

It is also immoral for a woman to act this and obvious answers (Catholic parents, her

way. But by murdering this irreverent female, Looking for Mr Goodbar becomes a simple morality tale. Theresa Dunn’s death is a warning for other women who seek out men and indulge in casual affaires.

Brooks is exploiting a successful novel and popular subject, just as his characters exploit each other. He purports to offer a character­ ization of one individual in some depth, but his portrayal is insulting. She is played as an inhibited Catholic nymphomaniac, and this confusion is further complicated by Keaton’s acting.

Keaton’s vivacious personality conflicts with Theresa’s lack of confidence and self-hatred: she is simply too adjusted and too beautiful to be convincing. Or, perhaps, no actress could come to terms with Brooks’ intentions or the embarrassingly melodramatic scenes: for example, her argument with her father, or the dream sequence when she imagines herself imprisoned, neither of which are in the book.

Essentially, Brooks has turned a moving, complex story into a very poor film.

In The Turning Point, director Herbert Ross is also confused about his intentions as it is never clear whether he is making a docu­ mentary about the American Ballet Company, or a film about two middle-aged women.

As documentary, the film succeeds beauti­ fully: the dancing is delightful and features two excellent young leads, Mikhail Baryshnikov and L eslie B row ne, and a series of distinguished performers from the ABC. The magical atmosphere of the ballet is also well captured on film by Ross’ direction and Robert Surtees’ effective camera work. Fortunately, dancing occupies more than 50 per cent of the film, because the soap-opera plot of script­ writer Arthur Laurents is far less impressive.

Deedee (Shirley MacLaine) is an ex­ ballerina who has given up the possibility of stardom for a loving husband (Tom Skeritt) and three teenage children. The film is about her relationships with the ageing Emma (Anne Bancroft), the dancer who chooses stardom but is forced to give up her leading roles to younger, potentially more capable ballerinas.

As a sub-plot, we have the affaire of Yuri (Baryshnikov) and Deedee’s daughter, Emelia Cinema Papers, August/September — 15

A violent confrontation between Deedee and Emma, two life-long friends.

The Turning Point.

Theresa (Diane Keaton) and one o f her many “ undistinguished” lovers. Looking for Mr Goodbar.

(Leslie Browne), who is on the threshold of fame. Presumably Emelia symbolizes an optimistic future for the career-conscious woman as, unlike her mother, she works d e te r m in e d ly w ith o u t b e c o m in g to o emotionally involved with her lover.

The narrative’s main concern, however, is Deedee and Emma; it is this “ couple” which classifies The Turning Point as another example of the new women’s films. But, as with Looking for Mr Goodbar, a male director, scriptwriter and crew have produced a film with values which are old-fashioned and offensive.

Emma and Deedee claim to be lifelong friends. Visually th eir relationship is established in their opening encounter.

D eedee is backstage with her form er colleagues who greet her effusively. When she sees Emma, the lighting dims and she leaves the crowded room to approach her friend hesitantly, and finally more intensely than with any of the others. Their embrace is sincere compared with the previous super­ ficial, theatrical encounters.

Throughout the film, Deedee and Emma are portrayed together in isolation (the bar room argument, the subway, and the final scene where they reflect on Emelia’s future) sugges­ ting the strength and loyalty possible between women. Yet the real drama concerns Deedee’s nurtured hatred of her friend’s success which might have been hers. She has always won­ dered whether, if she had not been pregnant 20 years before, she would have been selected over Emma for a lead role. She also questions the extent of her friend’s influence in her decision not to have an abortion.

This antipathy is exaggerated when Emma befriends Emelia who is suffering from a rejected lover and even more hurt by her mother’s impulsive, unexplained infidelity.

Deedee has lost the possibility of fame, and Emelia, to her supposed friend. In a climactic confrontation with Emma, Deedee appears as a self-centred, bitter woman, and Emma as an enigmatic and manipulative old maid. Neither is especially complimentary.

I find this scene one of the most unpleasant episodes in cinema. All the events of The Turning Point lead up to this quarrel and its 16 — Cinema Papers, August/September

Top: Deedee’s daughter Emelia (Leslie Browne) and Emma (Anne Bancroft). Above: Emelia with her mother, Deedee (Shirley MacLaine). The Turning Point.

importance is affirmed by the length of the scene. They begin by containing their fury, but very soon they become two bitchy females, screaming horrid insults at each other. Deedee accuses Emma of selfishly ruining her career and calls her a “ killer” . Their actions stereotype the worst type of behavior as they shout, throw wine glasses and hit each other with handbags.

The fight is meant to be the most intense moment of their relationship, but it is almost comical. Suddenly, and inexplicably, the physical contact turns their fury to an intense intimacy and a greater understanding than they had found before.

There is nothing unbelievable about phys­ ical anger moving from fury to love, but the viciousness of Deedee’s accusations, and, to a lesser extent, Emma’s replies, make any sort of rapprochem ent unbelievable. No true friendship could convincingly survive such fury.

A final ironic complication occurs when

Deedee tells her husband that she became pregnant to prove that he was not a homo­ sexual; he admits he knew this and that he was also proving something to himself.

Another irritating attitude of the film is that neither of these women is happy. Emma has everything: she is a principal ballerina adored by fans, her dances personally choreographed.

But we see her as all these favors are being withdrawn.

Teaching is viewed repeatedly as the final degrading choice for a “ has-been” , and when Emma offers to tutor Emelia we know she too has accepted her bleak fate. Interestingly, the men are able to move from lead positions to choreographers, but this lack of choice for women is not even considered.

Emma’s personal life is also in shambles. In a surprisingly subtle scene between Emma and her lover, she implies she is not ready to consider his long-standing offer of marriage.

Sensitively but firmly he makes it clear it is too late to leave his wife and children. So, not only has Emma been refused fame, but also a stable relationship. The moral is clear: a career is only a temporary satisfaction and Emma would have been better off as a wife and mother.

Deedee, in this accepted role, is frustrated and bitter about her choice; but having re­ established her relationship with her friend, daughter, and husband, there is no doubt which woman made the best decision. In fact, some of the best scenes in the film are between Deedee and her son, and the opening scene of this ideal American family — three confident, beautiful, and loving children — could be from Father Knows Best.

Tackling the career dilemmas of both women could have resulted in a realistic and sensitive storyline, but The Turning Point is merely moralistic and its heroines stereotypes.

And while examining the difficult problem of coming to terms with choosing marriage over a career (he assumes the two are incompatible), Laurents makes his own preferences all too clear.

Julia is a far more attractive film. Visually it is quite impressive, recapturing in leisurely fashion the rich European countryside, the isolated eastern U.S. coastline, and Paris and Germany before and during World War 2.

The film spans 20 years from the 1920s, and we are constantly brought forward and back in time through the memory of Lillian, the narra­ tive person. The passage of time is successfully expressed through Anthea Sylber’s striking

FEMALE BUDDIES

Lillian (Jane Fonda) and Julia (Vanessa Redgrave) reflecting on their childhood intimacy. Julia.

costumes, which perfectly suit the two friends the war.

Unlike The Turning Point and Looking for Lillian and Julia, as well as creating a sense of Mr Goodbar, this film is about two unusally deja vu.

The film is based on an incident from Lillian impressive women who are not frustrated or Heilman’s autobiography, Pentimento, in uncertain about their role. Also, while Lilly which Heilman recollects her childhood receives support and understanding from intimacy with the exceedingly wealthy Julia Dash, neither of them is dependent on men.

(V anessa R edgrave), who later studied Julia has a child but makes it clear the father’s medicine, worked with Freud in Vienna and role is non-existent, and her daughter’s was murdered by the Nazis while working in welfare is her main concern. the Resistance. The narrator, Lillian Heilman From this perspective, Julia is unusual and (Jane Fonda), is developing as a playwright the characters are portrayed unselfconsciously and living with writer Dashiell Hammett by director Fred Zinnemann. Yet the film is (Jason Robards). The principal dramatic also intended as an analysis of Lilly and Julia’s sequence is the train ride in which Lilly friendship, and here, unfortunately, it fails.

Zinnemann seems uncomfortable creating a endangers her life for her friend by smuggling $50,000 of Julia’s money into Germany during strong, not necessarily sexual, love between the two women. This is emphasized by his successful depiction of the relationship between Dash and Lilly. With this hetero­ sexual love, Zinnemann shows two individuals comfortable and used to each other. It is a relationship of mutual respect, warmth and depth.

Credit is partially due to Jason Robard’s subtle acting, but the contrast between Lillian’s relationships with Dash and Julia is striking.

One reason the women’s friendship is unsuccessfully portrayed is that Julia is too mystical and enigmatic. She is an idealized figure, convincing as a great woman, but as she is repeatedly seen from Lillian’s point of view, we never fully understand what motivates her or what constitutes her real feelings for her friend. The long close-ups of Redgrave’s expressive features, intended presumably to suggest her enormous strength, fail to create any depth of understanding.

The scenes of the two women as adolescents are even more frustrating. Lilly, the younger one, idealizes her friend, copying her as they play artificial word games and run across the countryside. At Oxford, Julia talks enthusi­ astically of F reu d and ex citin g new developments in Vienna. She epitomizes the young, committed intellectual, but again Lillian remains the outsider, failing to comprehend her friend’s involvement and Diane Keaton as Theresa Dunn in Looking for Mr interests.

Goodbar.

The only scene in which they communicate as equals is the final restaurant meeting. But again we must question (as Dash cynically suggests) whether Lilly’s loyalty has simply been exploited to help Julia’s cause.

The difficulty lies in the film’s title. This is really not a film about Julia, but about Lillian and her perspective of Julia. From this angle, the story is more meaningful. We see Lillian’s progress as a writer, her courage and fear when she involves herself with the Resistance, and finally her idolization of her friend. But as a story about Heilman, it is only partially successful because Lillian’s perspective of Julia is finally irritating, even trite, though I doubt that Zinnemann had any such intention.

Lilly is amazingly naive as a spy on the train; also when searching for Julia’s daughter.

During her one act of heroism, she is carefully protected by others, and the importance made of the incident, especially when compared with Julia’s work, is rather fatuous. The train episode is long and, while suspenseful and involving, does little to illuminate Lillian’s relationship with Julia.

A difficulty may lie in Jane Fonda’s performance which is too melodramatic. Julia advises her not to let people talk her out of her anger, but we are subjected to Lilly’s outbursts to the point where they become monotonous.

Most obvious are Zinnemann’s depictions of the difficulty of writing, where we never see Lillian at the typewriter without her angrily crumpling up sheets of paper and throwing things about the room.

However, a film like Julia is a welcome change from Hollywood, despite its flaws, especially when compared with the didacticism of Looking for Mr Goodbar and The Turning Point. One senses that Zinnemann believes in his characters, and his failure to portray a meaningful relationship between two women results from his own uncertainty — or lack of understanding — not from a lack of sympathy.

Richard Brooks and Arthur Laurents, on the other hand, are using the women’s theme to affirm their own outdated, chauvinistic values.

Brooks is quoted as saying that some of his male friends half-facetiously, half-seriously called him a “ traitor to our cause’’.1If one sees the job of portraying women in an under­ standing manner as divisive and anti-male, it is no wonder the result is the Theresa Dunn stereotype.

These three films lead to the conclusion that while films about women are a promising trend after years of Robert Redford and Paul Newman examples of mateship, the possi­ bilities of any truly feminist cinema are limited while the only women involved are actresses.

Until women are allowed behind the scenes as part of the production crew, and hopefully as directors and scriptwriters, we are unlikely to see anything really worthwhile. But Hollywood has never been noted for taking the initiative.

The interest in this female genre simply reflects audiences’ boredom with the buddy films, society’s growing interest in women, and the existence of a large female audience.

With the increasing number of women in the in d u s try in v o lv e d w ith th e se issu e s, Hollywood may be forced to step on the bandwagon again and begin making films about women that are by women. If so, let’s hope they are superior to the ones made so far.

1.

“ Hollywood Rediscovers The American Woman” .

Mellon, Joan. The New York Times, “ Art and Leisure” , April 23, 1978. pp. 1, 15. ★ Cinema Papers, August/September — 17

THE VETOING OF THE UNKNOWN PRISONER 7. I would like to see this project develop further as mentioned above. It could be developed along the lines of Cuckoo’s Nest requiring considerably] more humor to be injected into the script. To this end I suggest that someone like David Williamson be asked to develop the script further.

8. I do believe that perhaps one of only three directors could handle this project sufficiently well: Tim Burstall, Fred Schepisi or Bruce Beresford. In addition, I would see a package being developed not only with one of the abovenamed mentioned directors, but also with Regan (to be played by John Waters) giving the character of Regan far more female audience appeal, and perhaps Maureen being played by Helen Morse. This would add considerably to the marketability of the project.

On April 24, 1978, Mr R J Ellicott, Minister for Home Affairs, exercised his powers under the Australian Film Commission Act of 1975 and vetoed any AFC investment in The Unknown Prisoner. Written by Alan Seymour and taken from the novel by David Ireland, the script is an allegorical statement about several contemporary Australian issues and, in particular, the forces operating on workers at an oil refinery. The film was to be produced by Richard Mason for Film Australia.

Understandably, there has much been said, and written about Mr Ellicotfs decision and the politics, if any, behind it. Yet, until the relevant papers were tabled in parliament recently, few commentators had access to the full debate.

In the interest of this debate, the tabled letters and telephone memos are printed below; the order is chronological.

The correspondence has been sub-edited, and, with few exceptions, silent corrections made to any spelling and gram m atical mistakes. Where an additional word has been required to clarify the meaning of a sentence, it has been placed in square brackets.

In all cases where such an addition or correction could affect the meaning in any way, an explanation of the change is in a footnote.

Other than this, and a standardization of film titles, the original documents are as written.

ASSESSMENT BY PETER ROSE Peter Rose, former head of publicity of the South Australian Film Corporation, is film acquisitions manager at Hoyts Theatres. Asked as an assessor to comment on The Unknown Prisoner, Rose wrote the following letter to Tim Read, head of production at Film Australia.

18 — Cinema Papers, August/September

Dear Tim,

Footnotes:

I read the script three times and can assure you I have thought carefully and clearly.

As my ramblings on the attached page suggest, in its present format I believe the film would have limited audience appeal and will be difficult to market.

However, [with] some further work and a more com­ mercial title and some careful commercial casting, I believe the project could become more viable.

If you wish to discuss any further developments on this project with me, do not hesitate to ring me.

Perhaps in the near future we could get together for a quiet drink.

Regards, Peter N.C.H. Rose COMMENTS 1. I believe the script is well written.

2. I do believe that the script needs further work since, if developed, [it] could be in the genre of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. At present, the script gave me the impression of an “ art-house” movie, appealing particularly to middle class socialises], re­ enforcing their view that work is depicted in the script as a dehumanizing process.

3. The audience at present for such a film is limited, and given its present structure, [it] would be a hard film to market. The title The Unknown Prisoner gives one the impression of a war movie.1 4. Each of the characters in the film assumes a “ nickname” which to some extent represents his attributes. This would have to be explicit in the film since a lot of the characters are not identified visually by their “ nicknames” .

5. The major weakness in the film to my mind is “ Home Beautiful” .2 This is far too allegorical for the general public. This is why I suggest further work be done on the script. In addition, I felt the character of Maureen was de mentalis, particularly the motivation of her having the affair with Regan. It seems she developed a new lease of life during the affair and one needs some visual mechanism to explain this change. Perhaps a change of clothes or more care about her appearance would be the clues that led to her husband’s suspicion. I also believethe affair bet­ ween Maureen and David Regan happens too quickly.

6. Regarding “ Doolittle” , the union leader, I feel here that it is necessary to have a scene whereby the union leader is seen having drinks with the management or at least in a boardroom meeting establishing that his affections are not with the workers but with management.

1. The film has subsequently been retitled The Unknown Industrial Prisoner.

2. “ Home Beautiful” is a camp of a few huts where liquor and prostitutes are provided for the men.

ASSESSMENT BY PHILLIP ADAMS As pointed out by Phillip Adams in The Age on May 5, 1978, the comments printed below are not from anything Adams had written, but are jottings from a conversation between Adams and a Film Australia officer. Being only “jottings” , they have on occasions been misinterpreted. Where a comment is felt to need qualification (as per Adams’ remarks in The Age), a footnote has been added.

COMMENTS 1. Astonishingly interesting script, confronting the system. Amazing political audacity. All strength to Film Australia. You will be backed up by everyone.

2. Australian scripts are generally founded on naturalism — this is not naturalistic — Themroc.

3. Do you know any Australian who could direct it?

Not one.1 4. Suggested cast is too small and naturalistic Aussie in style. Ewart will make it ordinary Oz. Should not give fundamental Oz performances. Casting should be freakier, less conventional. Thompson OK. Maybe Graham Kennedy who has strange face.

Meillon not grandiose enough. Surrealfism] needed.

Build the madness (Aborigines in Last Wave).

5. Not commercial; but don’t let that stop you. Likely very good first 4-5 weeks then fade. Thereafter cult movie.2 6. Most justifiable at $550,000. Festivals and great honor overseas.

7. Has great energy — not placid and detumescent like typical Oz scripts. However, slow first quarter — good when momentum starts. Tentative and not so interesting at beginning. Should be condensed or accelerated. Needs velocity or power.

8. Set is the biggest character. Dress it up, extra switches, lights, etc.

9. Best cameraman needed if house director.

Cameraman’s picture very much.

10. A huge tonic to me. Actually means something.

11. The tension between allegorical and naturalistic

ELLICOTT PAPERS

is interesting. Images should be contradictory. Shoot with style.

(At this point, I asked if the script needed more humor. Phillip didn’t think so — “ some of the lines are Williamson funny” ).3 He said: “ If it was any funnier, it would not terrify.”

12. If made with conviction it would suspend disbelief.

13. Perhaps needs a new way of shooting: i.e.

Huston on Moby Dick and Lautrec [Moulin Rouge] got labs to alter color quality.4Should look different.

14. Music very important. Smeaton. A composer’s film too. Remember Devil’s Playground. The music over the first shot left you in no doubt something was wrong. ' 15. Audience. Will not get to the prisoners. You must face that. Well meaning films don’t. Bazza [The Adventures of Barry McKenzie] was meant to debunk the Aussie, instead it became his apotheosis.

16 Inadequate in Wandering Jew. Boardroom blokes should be interesting too — should be more politically interesting in the boardroom.

17 Strengthen momentum in first 10 minutes.

18 Dutchman is awful — over written — but could come off.

19. “ All would back you (F.A.) to the cult [hilt] in doing this.”

Footnotes:

1. Adams was referring to the “ availability of directors, not their competence. Thanks to the work of previous and more positive Ministers in governments of various political colors, both State and Federal, our established directors are fully committed. “ However, 1 was delighted to learn from Film Australia that a young director, unknown to me, was being con­ sidered for the project. . . ” (The Age, 5/5/78.)

2. Mr Ellicott claimed Adams was “ dubious about its box­ office future. But once again, he’s misreading those shorthand notes. Had he been taking an interest in the local film industry, he’d know that we producers have been stressing the lack of commercial viability of virtually any film in the domestic market . . . “ My misrepresented comments went on to stress that the Unknown Industrial Prisoner had significant interna­ tional potential; that it would attract wide attention at overseas festivals.” (ibid) 3. Comment by the Film Australia officer.

4. The correct title is Moulin Rouge. With Moby Dick, Moulin Rouge and Reflections in a Golden Eye, Huston experimented with altering the color in the laboratory.

Reflections was the most innovative experiment as the entire film was to have been printed with color casts which corresponded to the “ emotional coloring of the charac­ ters” . (Sight and Sound, Spring, 1969). Only a few prints were struck and the film was released everywhere but in New York with standard color.

E LLIC O TFS LETTER TO THE AFC

Dear Mr Watts, RE: “THE UNKNOWN PRISONER” I refer to the Commission’s request for my approval, pursuant to section 5 (1 ) (b) of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, to the production of a film entitled The Unknown Prisoner and to the discussions which took place with you and other officers of the Commission recently on the matter.

Since you first sought my approval you have sup­ plied me with a synopsis and copies of comments of various experts.

The proposal is that the Commission, through Film Australia, produce the film as a full length fictional film for public cinemas. The estimated cost is $550,000.1 understand that, if produced, it would be the first time Film Australia had produced a film of this nature and cost.1 In these circumstances, it might be thought desirable that there be a reasonable expectation that the film will be commercially viable.

I notice, however, that several of those who have commented on the film do not seem to think it is a commercial proposition (e.g. Phillip Adams, C.P. Branley and Peter Rose).

Before I finally make a decision on this matter, I would be grateful if the Commission would consider further the commercial viability of this particular proposal. I appreciate that it is often difficult to assess this in relation to a film. However, as I have suggested, I think that at least there should exist a reasonable expectation amongst persons skilled in the field that the film will be [commercial]. I think this is particularly so when it is a novel project for Film Australia.

I understand the Commission will be meeting shortly and I would be glad to receive its additional

comments on this matter. On receipt of them I will give you my final decision.

Yours sincerely, R.J. Ellicott Minister for Home Affairs Footnote: l. Film Australia has produced one previous feature, Let The Balloon Go. The costing of such a film is difficult to

make, in that many of its below the line costs (salaries, facilities, etc.) are part of Film Australia’s annual operation. When contacted by phone, Mr Denys Brown of Film Australia placed the budget at $404,000. This is the figure estimated by an outside producer who was requested to budget the film by usual commercial practices.

W A TTS REPLY TO ELLICOTT

20 April 1978 The Hon. R.J. Ellicott, QC Minister for Home Affairs Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 My Dear Minister, Thank you for your letter of 13 April concerning the submission requesting approval for Film Australia to produce The Unknown Prisoner.

I tabled your letter at the meeting of the Commission, and there was a lengthy discussion on the matter.

The Commission again reviewed the material, and the factors which led to its original recommendation.

Commissioner McQuaid, as Acting Chairman in my absence, had, prior to my return, asked that additional assessment material should be supplied, and that some of the previous assessors should be asked to pay special attention to the matter of commercial viability.

The Commission applied itself to this point, particularly bearing in mind the role of Film Australia in its National Program. There was considerable discussion on Film Australia’s special role in the industry, and the weight of commercial viability in making decisions in the National Program. It was generally agreed that Film Australia should not make films which no one will see, and in this regard box­ office is a measurement of the number of people who see a film. Where films or ideas exist, which by a large area of opinion seem significant and well worth making, but which by their nature would be difficult to finance in the private sector, their commercial viability of course remains a factor, but not the only factor.

The Commission had before it additional statements from Mr Fred Schepisi, the Producer/Director of The Devil’s Playground and The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith; Mr James McElroy, one of the producers of Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Last Wave; Mr Peter Rose and Mr Branley provided an additional comment; these comments are attached.

The Commission was also assured that the suggestions of the assessors for certain script alterations had also been willingly accepted by the writer, and that most of these had already been included.

The Commission felt that with the impressive nature of the idea and the quality of the script it remained satisfied that the usual requirements which it has in mind in looking at the National Program were met.

The matter of earning capacity was then discussed.

With the exception of Mr Burke, with whose opinions I will deal later, the Commission saw that the film was different from any film so far made by Australians, and that the marketing aspects were difficult to assess. However, with the script lightened at key points, with the casting proposals audience attractive, and with the audience being still attracted to the Australian product, it was well worth continuing.

Mr Burke provided the only completely damaging assessment, which he presented to the meeting, and asked that it be recorded.

If new ground is to be broken in the industry, then it was felt that with the proper material, and while the private sector was being attracted to the easy ones, Film Australia’s National Program had a real purpose within the industry. It has a long record of high quality material which has been recognised by the highest awards at home and overseas.

I will not paraphrase Mr Burke’s dissenting view, but give it to you as he dictated it.

"To me a lecture. The message is labored and one that perhaps had more relevance in 1925. In my view it will play to the comfortably] converted,

and after the first week when the Gucci socialists and pipe-smoking educators have been, I think word of mouth will be bad due to the preaching, and in no small part to the “home beautiful” device which suspends reality and will lessen the ordinary man’s ability to relate to the characters.

A message film in the hands of a great screen writer is not a message film. Messages, in the words of Samuel Goldman, are for Western Union.

The project has been compared to Cuckoo’s Nest, but in my view this is not valid as Cuckoo’s Nest, like Rocky, was an "upper". Both these films were about the triumph of human spirit and winning while this project is a "downer'A To me it is a hazardous project as it will be most difficult to execute artistically and either way (win or lose) is likely to lose commercially. It reminded me of Lindsay Anderson's O Lucky Man which some thought brilliant, but died ‘for the reasons this film will die.'

I think we are crazy to proceed with a project on which the original outside assessments are clearly quite bad. (i) Phillip Adams says that not one Australian can direct it and that it will not be commercial.2 (ii) Peter Rose says that the script needs further work and is an art house movie appealing to middle-class socialists reinforcing their views.

(Hi) Alan Wardrope says it needs more work. (iv) Cyril Branley says there is a danger it will not entertain.

When additional assessments were sought to answer the Minister's enquiries, Peter Rose dis­ played an elasticity in adapting his views to those seeking them.3 I cannot help but read the McElroy assessment as well-meaning, but again one pre­ sented as part of the team to get support in the movie to be made.

As to Denys Brown's furore4, I think the film is more likely to cause yawns.

To me it is a concept crucial to the future of the industry. We5 put up all the money and on a film going in that we say is not commercial, and even those praising it say more work is needed on the script 6 Let The Balloon Go, o u r 7 first film, was artistically and commercially a success.8 To put all our prestige and so many dollars on the line for this project without as a minimum more thought, is in my view irresponsible. / feel that the two hours we devoted■ to quite spirited debate in the full Commission meeting was [were] valuable and having given my best contribution and honest reaction, I qualify it by saying that "experts", of which I am supposedly one, in the commercial area are often wrong. My odds are good or I would not be in a job, but at the same time I can p oint to many blunders.

Additionally, I have not read the new script which Timothy Read says is a substantial improvement and less “preachy” and I do look forward to receiving same, as well as the fact that I was impressed by Film Australia’s acceptance of my criticism in a positive light, and their determination as a result to take into account my views and try to make a better picture.

Concluded on P.8] Footnotes: 1. As pointed out by Phillip Adams in The Age, May 5, 1978, Mr Burke is an executive director of Roadshow Distributors, a company which turned down Cuckoo’s Nest, allegedly on the grounds that it was uncommercial.

It was subsequently handled by Greater Union and ran for more than a year, proving a major commercial success, more than a year, proving a major commercial success.

2. As detailed above, Adams said no Australian director was available to direct the film; he never intended his remark to be taken as a comment on competence.

3. This criticism of Mr Rose appears to refer, in part, to a disparity between Mr Rose’s original comments and the paraphrased ones at the conclusion of this letter. The important changes are “ well written” to “ excellently writ­ ten” , and the additional remark that the film “ could fall into the category of a sleeper; should be reasonably suc­ cessful at the box-office.” This opinion is not listed in the letter to Tim Read.

4. Denys Brown is producer in chief at Film Australia.

5. Here the “ We” refers to the AFC. In the next sentence the “ our” refers to Film Australia.

6. Unlike films made in the private sector, those produced

by Film Australia don’t need private finance to qualify for AFC investment.

7. See 5.

8. Let The Balloon Go was by no tallying of contemporary critical reaction “ a success” . It was, rather, poorly received. As to its financial accountability, the figures released by the AFC and printed in Cinema Papers and Mr Tim Burstall’s article in The Bulletin show the film to be a commercial failure.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 19

Did you always intend becoming an actress?

Perhaps som e people have always known that they wanted to act, but for me it was not like this.

I didn’t know what I wanted to do, th o u g h u n c o n s c io u s ly my motivation must have been very strong.

I went to the Conservatoire in Paris, but I don’t feel I learned much there. I have learned far more from acting in films and the theatre.

How old were you when you did your first part in television?

A fter a debut in N in a C om paneez’s “ F au stin e et le bel ete” , Isabelle H uppert’s stature as an actress has risen dram atically. H er perform ances in “ Cesar et R o sa lie ” , “ Les v a lse u se s” , “ Docteur Françoise G aillard” and “ Le Juge et l ’a s sa s sin ” have been rem arkable, but none more so than her role as Pom m e in Claude G oretta’s “ La dentelliere” .

Huppert has since made “ V iolette N oziere” for Claude Chabrol, starred in De M u sse t’s play, ‘On ne bodine pas avec l ’am our’, on the stage in P aris and is aw aiting a start on Jacques D em n y’s new m u sical rom ance, “ Edith de N a n te s” .

W hile in Copenhagen prom oting “ La d en telliere” , H up pert sp ok e w ith Cinema Papers' S c a n d in a v ia n correspondent, G ail Heathwood.

I was about 18 — 1 am 23 now.

You have done a lot of work in these years. Did you ever feel that things were moving too fast?

No. While from the outside you may think things are going fast, when you live them they never do. For every one thing that succeeds, there are generally two set-backs. But this is good because you never feel that things are just coming from the sky.

You made “Violette Noziere” wi t h C laude C habrol last year. . .

It’s a very interesting subject, based on a tru e story that happened in France in 1933. It’s about a girl who poisoned her father and mother (though the mother lived — she didn’t really want to kill her). The film covers two years of her life, before the crime and up until her famous trial.

N oziere was taken by the Surrealist movement as a symbol.

In fact, for everybody in France she was either a symbol of revolt or of something monstrous.

She was condemned to death, but the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and she was finally released in 1945. And in Cinema Papers, August/September — 21

1963 she was rehabilitated by De Gaulle. She married the son of the prison governor and had five children, and died 10 years ago.

Her story is totally unusual, and the film is typically Chabrol, with all his complexes about crime and guilt. It’s a very interesting psy­ chological study of the character.

Is it very different from the parts you have played before?

Yes, in one sense it’s totally opposite to La dentelliere, and therefore was good for me to play.

In another sense, there is a continuity. La dentelliere is about being in jail inside; the Chabrol film about revolt turned outside.

Do you look for a continuity in the parts you play?

More or less, though perhaps unconsciously. I always try to find things that correspond between myself and the role. Generally, it will have something to do with my personal evolution.

It’s very difficult to know whether reality comes before fiction, or fiction before reality, but the parts I have played usually revealed som ething that was about to happen in my life.

You have worked with directors

like Alain Tavernier, Claude Goretta and Chabrol. Which director has given you the most help?

Let’s speak about Goretta and Chabrol because in Tavernier’s film the part was smaller and the relationship I had with the director was, therefore, different.

Goretta and Chabrol let me do what I wanted; they gave me the chance to create the part as I saw it. The more films I do, the more I think that the direction of actors does not depend on what is said on the set. Once you have chosen an actress, you have 90 per cent created the character; you can’t change that.

To direct an actor is to create something around him, to create a relationship with the crew so that it will be easy for him to express what he wants. It also has a lot to do with the way you shoot a film, because where you put your c a m e ra , e s p e c ia lly in psychological-type film, has a lot to do with the psychological evolution of the character. Putting the camera close up is not the same thing as putting it far away.

I m u st say C h ab ro l was wonderful, because every time the camera was close I was aware of it and felt the need to express something very deeply. So there

was a perfect osmosis between what he felt and the character.

With Goretta, it was also very pleasing, although he didn’t quite have that same feeling. But he has other qualities. He is very precise, and cares for every little detail.

W hat he taught me about creating a character was in the relationship the lacemaker has with objects — a piece of salad, a cup of tea, a peach. This is very important and it has to do with the Vermeer painting; it suggests a world of silence, and a very deep relationship with what she is d o in g . My g e s t u r e s w e re unconscious, but he underlined the importance of them , and taught me how to use them — that was, if I was feeling them then I had to use them.

Sometimes the role of the director is not only to indicate but to reveal what the actor feels.

Maybe I would have done these things naturally, but by talking to me about it, Goretta had a strong influence on the way the part came out.

I think that in the end he felt he’d done his job too well, and he was maybe a little jealous of my power in the film. This made him a bit difficult, as during the scene with the apple; he did 20 takes and then went back and used the first one.

Do you depend much on your director?

No, not at all. I am extremely independent as an actress and I can’t bear somebody standing right behind me. Deep down, I am c o n v in ced it is b est to be independent. I don’t feel the need for advice, and I don’t believe in those directors who push too much. I don’t ask anything from them, except to like me.

Most of the time, I think actors and actresses are very irrespon­ sible, but I am not making the film my hospital or taking the director fo r my f a th e r or d o c to r.

Everybody is responsible, every-

B i Wm

WÊïm,

;

'

ISABELLE HUPPERT

body has something to do.

What happens is that actors read too much from the director. They have to realize that often the director is a very childish person, and even if he isn’t, he has many responsibilities. The actors are not the only things on a set.

important.

When do you start on these films?

I will do the Bronte sisters in July and the next one in October. I won’t do anything before that; I want to rest and think.

Do you think your attitude could be symptomatic of a new breed of actresses?

Yes. It is difficult for me not to agree. The French press, for instance, is talking about a breed of actresses with a new way of expressing th em selv es. I am friendly with most of the young actresses in France, and we are very concerned. I don’t want to sound contemptuous, but people have a tendency to say, “ My God, h ow c l e v e r th e y a re fo r actresses!” It proves that they have a certain image of actresses in their minds.

Yesterday a journalist said to me, “ It’s incredible how mature you are.” I was very surprised and pleased that he thought so, but it was interesting because it meant that he didn’t think an actress could be m a tu re . But why shouldn’t I be mature at 23. At 23, I am not five years old.

Do you do much work in the theatre?

Isabelle Huppert as the schoolgirl Jenny in Patricia Moraz’s The Indians are Still Far Away.

Is there any one type of part you would like to play?

Who are the other French actresses you would identify with this “ new breed” ?

Comedy. I wouldn’t have said so a few years ago, but now I don’t want this image of a neurotic, existentialist character sticking to me. I also want to be happy and express myself with my body, instead of only with my mind.

Christine Pascale, Miou Miou, Isabelle Adjani. But we have to be very careful about this idea of a generation.

Last week, three of us were on the cover of L ’Express and there was an article inside. It was not so bad, but we weren’t very happy about it because, while we might have some points in common, we are still very individual. The article seemed to give the same image of all of us. They wanted to put us in a category with a label, and it’s just not that way.

Do you find that your personal self absorbs the characters you play?

Yes, but at the same time as they alter me, they allow me to become conscious of a certain number of things. And once these things come to the conscious, you have the possibility of fighting them.

At the same time, it can be an exorcism. La dentelliere, for exam ple, with all its id e n ti­ fication, took a lot out of me and I had a big readjustm ent after finishing it.

From an intellectual point of v i e w, wha t wi l l be your next step?

To try and live better. Psycholo­ gically that’s not so easy because one is always under the burden of contradictions of culture and education. Intellectually, I give the impression of being very sure of myself, because I have the power and chance to express myself that way. But that doesn’t m ean one has resolved this psychologically in one’s life.

In my professional life, I am independent; but in my personal life — my God, it’s not so simple!

I am very dependent emotionally and I have not resolved my problems of relationships with people, with men. I try to, but it’s difficult.

Last year I was in a classical play directed by my sister. I would like to do theatre work regularly, but not at the moment.

When I stop work, I generally feel very anxious and try to start something else at once. But my last film was so moving that I just had to sleep and do nothing.

I am very tired psychologically and I have the feeling that for the past four or five years I have been continually fighting. It’s difficult for women because we have learnt to feel the passage of time. We have to work, travel and we have to discover.

I will probably feel guilty about doing nothing, but I am going to try not to.

Pomme (Isabelle Huppert), the quiet beauty salon assistant in Claude Goretta’s study of a prison inside. La Dentelliere.

Is there any director you would particularly like to work with?

were all in love with each other and also in love with their brother.

Ingmar Bergman, and many A m erican directors such as Robert Altman. I think Bergman and Altman speak very well about women. Also Jerry Schatzberg.

No, but I have two projects coming up and I feel there is enough in them with which I can indentify. The next film is on the Bronte sisters and I am playing the youngest one. It’s a beautiful part and I am sure I will find many things of myself to add. Isabelle Adjani and Marie-France Pisier are also starring, and it’s a prestige project. It will be directed by A ndre Techine; he is very talented and lyrical.

The film will be romantic and im p a ssio n e d , and also very Do you have a strategy for your n eu ro tic, because T echine is himself neurotic. The three sisters professional career?

Opposite top and bottom: Isabelle Huppert as Pomme, and Yves Beneton as her lover and future husband, Francois. Claude Goretta’s sensitive La Dentelliere.

What is the other film?

One I will make with Jacques Dutronc, who is very popular in France. More than the Bronte film, this will mean a step forward — it will be the first time I have played a married woman with a child.

What characterized the last three films I made was that they were about adolescent girls who had not taken the step from adolescence to adulthood. This is

What about French directors?

Eric Rohmer, Alain Resnais and many young directors who aren’t known internationally. Luis B uñuel, of course, but h e ’s Spanish. I would also like to do another film with Chabrol — if he is in a good mood. Chabrol is very up and down.

You see, I have a long list. ★ Cinema Papers, August/September — 23

Above: Paula joyfully flourishing Elliot’s guitar. The Goodbye Girl.

Right: A meeting frought with tension: Paula (Marsha Mason) and the new leasee Elliott (Richard Dreyfuss).

D avid Baker In the following article, David Baker, director of The Great M acArthy and numerous television series, comments on the qualities he admires about Annie Hall and The Goodbye Girl but finds lacking in recent Australian features.

The opening credits of The Goodbye Girl are against a moving Manhattan bus from which we hear two female voices; they belong to Paula and her 12 year-old daughter, Lucy.

Their conversation is direct and familiar, and their responses toward each other uninhibited and candid. They are returning from a shopping expedition in preparation for a trip to California.

Paula lives with an actor, Tony de Forest, who has landed a job in a Hollywood film and they are moving out there as a family. Tony is not Lucy’s father, and the little girl has an amusingly urbane attitude towards him and a sophisticated impatience with her schoolwork that Paula is at pains to modify.

They reach their stop and get off. As Paula addresses her daughter without condescen­ sion, naturally and as an adult, so does Lucy respond to her mother. They seem very strongly connected as mother and daughter in a warm, witty and human way, and it is obvious they delight in each other’s company.

Having reached their slightly run-down apartment block, they run up the stairs full of excitement with their purchases (all bought on special) and burst into their flat. Paula assumes Tony is in the flat, but not finding him she calls out. Her whole bearing declares how proud and happy she is to be loved by a man she adores. There is no reply.

Paula accepts this momentary check to her high spirits, assuming he has stepped out for a minute; then she finds his letter for her on the mantelpiece. It is bad news, and Paula cannot grasp its significance at first. Paula gives Lucy the letter and she reads it aloud: “ Dear Paula, this is the hardest letter I have ever had to write . . .’’ Lucy breaks off: “ It doesn’t start off too well” ; Mum numbly agrees. Tony has left 24 — Cinema Papers, August/September

them. The move to California is off. He has had an offer for a prestige Italian film and decided to leave them. Anyway, he feels a big goodbye scene wouldn’t have done either of them any good.

Lucy asks a couple of irrelevant questions about Bertolucci as she reads on, but even in her extremity Paula is not angry with her. Lucy continues: T heir relationship was only temporary anyway, so no tears or regrets.

Paula can always go back to dancing. “ Dancing!” exclaims Paula, “ My God, I’m 33! I can hardly walk.” Mother and daughter attempt to comfort each other.

As far as narrative can ever adequately convey the compact density of such highly charged dramatic interaction, this is a pale account of the first three muscular minutes of The Goodbye Girl.

Why is this disciplined, rich material so different to Blue Hills and Certain Women?

Does Neil Simon have two heads? Is he a raving genius effortlessly expressing a sensibility quite beyond us? Would we believe in Paula if she lived in King’s Cross, Tony came to Melbourne and the film was made in Australia? Or would we find it excruciatingly embarrassing? And if so, why?

Every scene in The Goodbye Girl follows its preceding scene as a direct result. Paula’s betrayal initiates the action in the style of a taut detective film and gives the film a high energy drive.

Returning home from a dancing class where Paula has been trying to get into physical trim so she can get a job, the caretaker of her apartment block asks her when she is going to vacate the flat. Tony apparently has conveyed the three months lease on which she was relying, and that evening Elliot, the new lessee, arrives. Paula resists his entry,fbut it is clear he believes his ten an t’s rights are unencumbered. Elliot is a charitable man but he stands up for himself; otherwise he would be placed in a difficult position. The two confront each other, directly and vigorously.

Paula sees sense at last, a notable achieve­ ment in view of the injustice done her, and is aided by Elliot who views her difficulties with some compassion. They make a deal, though they treat each other warily.

The theme of the film is thus stated. Paula declares she will never bestow her love again, however much she is forced to come to terms with her circumstances; while Elliot, the direct substitute of her departed lover, replies that he is not an unfeeling brute: We are companions in misfortune. Let us see how propinquity will erode this uncongenial mood I feel sure is unnatural in you.

The sexual battle lines have been drawn up in the most elegant and effective way, and we are still only 10 minutes into a film that surges forward, consistently developing as we play out a brilliant comedy of manners to an exuberant, life-affirming resolution.

Annie Hall bears a curious relationship to The Goodbye Girl, in that 80 per cent of its scenes are between two people. Both films are evaluations of contemporary standards and values, and both deal with sexual experience and romantic movements of feeling. But the Woody Allen film is stru ctu red quite differently. Its narrative spine is far less strong than the Neil Simon screenplay.

The story is slender: Woody tells us of his meeting with Annie, their ups and downs and eventual separation. He does this in the form of an essay, or autobiography, in which he frequently refers to a wider range of experience than his relationship with Annie.

Som etim es he addresses us directly, sometimes he uses flashbacks and flash­ forwards, and sometimes he steps outside the events he relates to illustrate a fantasy or attitude. Yet we are prepared to tolerate these stylistic transitions in a way in which we were not in The Great MacArthy.

The burden of Woody’s film is a sense of Woody tells us, at the beginning of the film, that he and A nnie have split up, a loss, and we absorb its cumulative, emotional disappointment he accepts mainly because it is impact as a sad song about the pain and consistent with the general frustration and transience of an insane world. Woody and confusion he experiences in the world. His Annie tried to fall in love but never made it. tone is wry and tinged with regret, but there is They did n ’t have love to give. Their not much to be done about it, the world being expectations of each other and themselves were minimal, and for all their talk about what it is.

His expectations of Annie were never commitment, neither could achieve it. Their particularly high, nor hers of him. He has had wit and style conceal their em otional two wives and numerous girlfriends, and all impoverishment. Although they like each these affaires have fizzled out, the relation­ other, they seem quite diffident. They seem ships unable to survive the high background uncomfortable and insecure, and spurious level of personal stress he endures at the hands catch-cries about getting in touch with their of a mad, criminal and grotesque world. feelings can’t conceal the fact they are Woody survives and fights back by cracking maimed.

They are the sophisticated heirs to the gags with a rusty, jagged, cutting edge.

In fantasy, he visits his old primary school as massive explosion of the last 25 years in an adult and sits among his classmates as they knowledge about ourselves, and they emerge were then. He asks them how they have got on as moral pygmies, obscurely dissatisfied but in the world. All their replies express defeat. unable to achieve stature. They are the MeSpike, a ginger-haired, 10 year-old with generation. Their gregarious instincts are freckles and specs, hops up and declares he warped, the world in which they move is became a heroin addict, then a methadone grossly m aterialistic, the participatory democracy of which they were once so proud addict.

After a quarrel with Annie later in the film, degenerated on every hand. People are alone Woody prowls the street wondering what went and lonely, prostrated by narcissism and wrong. Why can’t he achieve a “ stable joyless self-regard.

You might think we would find these relationship” with the girl he loves, or thinks exem plary experiences inaccessible and he loves?

He approaches a young couple strolling arm difficult to understand, but this is also our own in arm and asks them how they have achieved experience and outer suburban audiences in happiness. “ Well,” says the girl, “ I’m very the Antipodes identify strongly with what is shallow and dumb and (indicating her being said.

Annie Hall appeals primarily to the intellect boyfriend), he’s very shallow and dumb.”

Woody is very keen on books about death. th ro u g h its rich su rface te x tu re of The human landscape through which he entertainment. Its sole emotional component moves has a surreal, extravagant quality from is A nnie’s song which expresses and which he seems strangely detached. Arriving internalizes feeling intensified to the point of at a Hollywood party full of beautiful people, pathos. “ Seems like old times having you to he passes a couple of urbane, stylishly-dressed walk with.” She is a suppliant for love, moving young phonies glibly chatting away about a and vulnerable. “ It’s still a thrill just to have film deal. Says one: “ I’ll take a beating with my arms about you.”

What cannot be achieved through the real you if you’ll take a beating with Freddy.” We are in a land of Hogarthian grotesques straight world comes through beautifully in this song as a longing for experience she can scarcely out of Disneyland.

Top left: Woody returns to his schoolroom to talk to Spike. Annie Hall.

Above: Woody and Annie trying to achieve a “ stable relationship” . Woody Allen’s Annie Hall.

define. It is a million miles away from Paula’s joyous cry as she leans out of the window in the rain flourishing Elliot’s guitar.

Annie Hall closes with a wistful, nostalgic, life-goes-on ending we recognize as true of the world we live in. Life is composed of the horrible and the unbearable, but we must endure it as best we can. Our protective armor of savage wit is puny as we confront the world, but it’s all we have. Or is it? Not on your life, says Elliot; I am a dumpee too, but I resent and reject defeat. I acknowledge suffering, but my nature is to struggle and I intend to.

Here in Oz we approach our own and others’ work with a hyper-sensitive and apprehensive anticipation akin to pain. Some films we reject with vicious derision, while admiring others with feverish extravagance. Overall, we feel tense and unnatural, as though the demands they make on our judgement affect us like a toothache.

We are a provincial community and our lives and values are defined for us by more energetic and self-assured cultures whose styles and values some of us may resent but cannot resist, since they are constantly imported into the country. We are a timid, lawab id ing, prosaic people who swallow uncritically the garbage the rest of the world imposes on us; yet, in a sense, we impose it on ourselves. We don’t have much get-up-andgo. We didn’t get the film industry we have because the nation clamored for it.

Our films, resisted every step of the way, still represent a minuscule percentage of the total we see. The tensions implicit in such a situation continue to resonate unnaturally among us. We still require the ratification of overseas film reviewers to reassure us about Cinema Papers, August/September — 25

Bazza (Barry Crocker), “ darling of etiolated radicals” , with Caroline Thighs (Maria O’Brien). The Adventures of Barry McKenzie.

Graeme Blundell (Alvin) and Kris McQuade in Tim Burstall’s Alvin Purple, a film of “ audacious innocence” .

our critical responses. And it is no accident the first retrospective screenings of Australian films produced in the past seven years have been held in London.

Meanwhile, festival audiences in Sydney and Melbourne endure boatloads of turgid European footage assumed to advance film as an art in a way to which we cannot aspire. Nor ought we.

When in doubt about directions we should take, we shove up a building or two, or buy some equipment. Film bureaucracies sprout like mushrooms, and grotty, sullen young women and affected semi-literates lecture on films till they are hoarse. Well may they s u s ta in th e m s e lv e s in th e ir s u p in e consumerism because a deep chasm separates the crude original, achieved through a massive act of will and the discarding of derived models, from the copy, however sophisticated and well-connected it is to the mainstream of 20th Century life, with which it invites invidious comparison.

But what has all this got to do with The Goodbye Girl and Annie Hall? Aren’t they models too? They are finished, complete and apparent, and they are models of energy. Both films connect with their audience, explore contemporary manners and values, offer insights into our lives, celebrate personality and exploit energy in a way which either seems beyond us, or to which we are indifferent.

Neither is a work of raving genius to which we have no access. But the contrast between what they represent and our own cosy, anecdotal work is painful — it infers a lack of conviction about ourselves. Are we convinced of our own experience? Do we exist in the way people from stronger cultures exist and cele­ brate their lives, awful or otherwise? Do we have the ability to look upon our world and the m en and women in it with wit and compassion?

I believe the films we were making four years ago had an electricity not notable in the films recently judged at the Australian Film Institute Award screenings. Assume for a moment Menzies is watching The Adventures of Barry McKenzie or Alvin Purple. The poor bastard is hopelessly at sea. The material must seem a grotesque affront to him as it did to 26 — Cinema Papers, August/September

many of our fellow citizens.

Yet the films don’t seem to care; they survive this rejection with exuberant self­ assurance, blasting away layer upon layer of rigid, constricting views about ourselves. My Aunt Marjorie rolled in the aisles, so did disc jockeys with phony American accents. But Menzies did not; he had a seizure but you’d have to write that off against progress. The fact that an avant-garde character like Bazza started life as the darling of etiolated London radicals and ended up selling breakfast food to Footscray panel beaters was a palpable triumph. The critics hated the film.

Alvin was another film everyone loved for its delightful, audacious innocence. The critics hated that, too. It was not sufficiently turgid, respectably boring or high-minded for them.

Alvin was too vivid, too definite. Critical opinion resented it and still does.

On the other hand, I like Mike Thornhill’s Between Wars, and I do not think it should be held against a film that cranky critics perversely loved it. I liked Stork and Petersen.

Petersen is one of five screenplays we have developed that I would have liked to have filmed myself.

In short, the films we made then, which were a longer time gestating, seem to have had much more sizzle than the middle-aged numbers we are producing now.

I believe we are returning to old aunty country, to town councillor culture and a landscape of failure and diminished ambitions.

Being town councillors and enthusiastic sem inar atten d ers, we find this more congenial. We are a small nation on the fringes of the modern world. Our industry is presently controlled by commercial and state bureau­ cracies in the consum er business, and bureaucrats are not inspired visionaries or zestful buccaneers.

Films are capital-intensive and high risk.

Filmmaking is subject to every pressure and distracted by every confusing drive of a highly unstable world operating on us and our audience. It is hardly possible to evaluate or anticipate taste. People are anxious and gullible and the ceaseless search for novelty acts as a continuing brake on work* securely rooted in conviction and experience, and packing punch. It is an all-or-nothing business and our cultural guidelines have almost disappeared.

I am opposed to filmmakers’ reticence in

Melissa Jaffer (Vi) realizes she is pregnant and shows her father (Hedley Cullen) a list of possible fathers. A lottery results and “ Rabbit” wins. Weekend of Shadows.

discussing their own and other’s work, and detest our tradition of denigrating each other to provide a shameful relief for our own frustrations. I am wedded to the cinema of ideas and convinced it is only through this that our cinema will survive. I think filmmakers should explore ideas together, much more than we do.

We are threatened by a worldwide shift in social behavior. T raditional cinem a is contracting in favor of television. British box­ office admissions are 15 per cent of their figures for the mid-1950s; in France it is 10 per cent. Our own box-office has sustained a 40 per cent drop over the past three years. We are in a non-growth industry, and in what form we will survive no one can be sure. But I believe we will only survive through the forceful presentation of ideas, feelings and fantasies which connect at a very deep level with the audience.

We have to thrust aside our emotional inhibitions and semi-documentary, anecdotal evasions to work much more with personality and muscular human feeling in films like The Goodbye Girl and Annie Hall.

It is always difficult to generalize from the particular, but the film I liked least at the award screenings was The Irishman; in many ways it represents the characteristics I am criticizing.

The story is set in outback Queensland in the 1920s and focuses on Paddy Doolan, an honest, simple, conservative Irish teamster as he copes with the threat of petrol-engined transport to his livelihood.

There is a genuine situation of conflict and confrontation but the issues, and Paddy’s personal crisis, are too scrappily worked out to involve us deeply. Everyone is worthy and predictable: people moralize limply as they survive their boring ups and downs, and chuckle-headed characters meander across the screen, idealized to the point of cliche in tedious anecdotes, neurotic Mount Waverley housewives and demented Sydney business­ men can’t get very interested in, as they survive as much cultural shock in a day as Paddy does in a lifetime.

There are no real issues. Paddy ducks his problems, wanders off, mopes around, finally kicks the bucket and we are asked to feel: poor

“ Did that particular Jimmie, a very likeable Jimmie, wield that savage axe?” Tommy Lewis as Jimmie in The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith.

:

1

old feller. It is almost as though the very existence of strong issues is something these people reject.

In a way, I have no doubt this is true of us.

We are not a people who readily admit the mutual exclusivity of strong issues, personal or social.

Producer Anthony Buckley spent a lot of money on The Irishman, and the result is a cream puff. Others may see it differently and I hope he gets out of it okay, for it is uncharitable to mock the hurt sustained by any filmmaker in the face of a failure to which he is inevitably committed. Feeling awful inside and smiling desperately, he kicks what he knows is a dog — his once-loved, special dog — over the few remaining jumps the moth-eaten animal can get over.

It is a tough racket, an all-or-nothing gamble and the high stimulus, competitive distrac­ tions to which the modern world is subject ruthlessly elbow out of the way any offerings which don’t hit the nerve.

But I don’t know that The Irishman is a failure. People bring to and take away from a film what they can, and it may answer an emotional need for thousands at the box-office in a way I can’t imagine. But this wouldn’t disturb my view, and all our judgements are the only faculties we have to try and understand what we feel, and how.

I didn’t like Caddie, but that film did very well for Anthony Buckley. Box-office success cannot ratify or replace our own response and cannot be used to explain or justify it, or vice versa. Brilliant films fail and contemptible films succeed. Paths of Glory ran for a week and The Case of the Smiling Stiffs is still going. And the reverse is true.

Weekend of Shadows is almost a class film, but it is flawed in some important respect. It is a distinctive film, and Tom Jeffrey flatters the first half — he’s better than his material. The mounting of the scenes is most stylish; as eerie and surreal tensions are set up, we anticipate what will soon develop and explode with satisfying savagery. Then there is a jarring note immediately after John Waters and Melissa Jaffer have just played out a delightfully handled scene where Vi, the town bike, makes love to the sexually-inexperienced, much-putupon Rabbit.

In yet another flashback interrupting the momentum of the story, we learn how Rabbit and Vi came to be married. Vi is pregnant, and as any one of a dozen local louts could have

been the father, they draw straws to decide on a husband; Rabbit, longing to be accepted by them, is patty to this. He scores the bride.

Whether this lottery is rigged against him isn’t clear, but the scene has a light, comedy feel and it seems out of place. It disconcerts our sense of viciousness in a story powerfully developed so far.

Thereafter, the film meanders where it should put on pace and remains discursive where we need strong focus. And the climax is a massive psychological error. Nobody believes Rabbit is capable of shooting the fugitive and we feel robbed and dissatisfied, disinclined to reward a film for what I feel are some most attractive virtues.

The only film I saw which goes like a train is Mouth to Mouth. It has energy, heart and momentum. But I do not like its grotty, social­ realist look since I feel it flows out of a misunderstanding of what film does best. Film is a highly artificial form and any thrust toward naturalism (of which social-realism is a part) almost always has to be self-defeating. But it’s a small point, and audiences quickly accommodate themselves to the look of the screen if they are riding with the story.

John Duigan’s film has the urgency and travel of Bert Deling’s Pure Shit, but it’s about compassion where Bert’s is full of despair. I feel the authority of the story slackens toward the end when we focus on one couple although we have been equally involved in all four characters to that point.

Additionally, we feel a strong emotional need for Tim to do something — anything — when Jeannie is forced to work as a call-girl.

The story is about four young, unemployed, working-class people struggling to survive in a hostile world. Its sensibility is middle-class and it will be most interesting to see whether the middle-class, cinema-going public reject it because of an idiom they generally distrust and dislike.

Fred Schepisi’s The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith is an impressive, distinguished work which delivers — but it should have delivered more. It has cost more than $lm., and Fred has promoted it with such zeal that critical sanctions will inevitably be taken against it; but we must cast these pressures aside. On the contrary we ought not to reward John Duigan’s film simply because it cost so little.

Jimmie Blacksmith retains a novel-like form and its scenes are descriptive where I would have liked them to be interactive. It exploits our current preoccupation with d o cu m en tary u n d e rs ta te m e n t, a style established three years ago with Sunday Too Far Away, which shows up to best advantage

Kim Krejus as Carrie after being forced into working as a call-girl. John Duigan’s Mouth to Mouth.

in several powerful scenes. But you always have Jimmie well up to the camera, the menace of that well publicized axe is never far away, and the narrative line is simple and direct. Question: did that particular Jimmie, a very likeable Jimmie, wield that savage axe?

Only time will tell how audiences answer that.

I could also have done with less of the teacher giving me a short burst on first-year sociology, but I defy anyone to imagine a Berliner or someone wandering off the street into a cinema where Jimmie Blacksmith is playing, blessedly ignorant of Australia and the manic tensions of our film production, who will not find it rewarding and worthwhile. Yet I still say it doesn’t deliver enough.

Any serious examination of a film should go into detail and I advance these abbreviated opinions with diffidence, however concisely they represent my view. And to close, I will examine one of the best scenes in the style I am attacking. It occurs about one-third the way through Weekend of Shadows. It is night, and Sergeant Caxton is preparing for bed. He gets into his old-fashioned striped pyjamas and walks down a narrow, dimly-lit hallway to the marital bedroom. His wife is already in bed.

She urges him to go after the fugitive and act on his own initiative: if he’s successful it would mean they might have a chance at a metropolitan posting and leave the country town they have been exiled to. Caxton mutters wearily: “ You never leave off, do you” .

The two speeches suggest years of marital recrimination on this subject. His wife then holds out her hand to him in a gesture of reconciliation and tenderness, of marital strength and support. He slowly takes her hand in his and gets into bed.

The scene is attractively realized, but there is not enough of it. Strong movements of feeling are implied but not richly worked through. Of its kind, it is excellent, and were such scenes of dramatic understatement used more sparingly throughout this and other films, we would find them more effective.

At the same time, we tend to regard such a light density of emotional interaction as adequate to carry the burden of a film, and it is this approach I oppose. At worst it’s limp; at best it conveys a pallid distinction. But it’s a million miles away from the vivid sizzle I admire in Goodbye Girl and Annie Hall. ★ Cinema Papers, August/September — 27

I)

Lr

n ew

inn

r a

UUUDU

nun FILMS

During May 1978, a season of Polish films was shown in Melbourne; several of the films were also screened during the Sydney Film Festival. In the following article, Scott Murray reviews this season.

Z an u ssi’s Cam ouflage is a satire on c o n f o r m is m , an a r g u m e n t b e tw e e n pragmatism and idealism.

During a university linguistics camp, tension develops between two colleagues: Janoslaw (Piotr Garicki), a liberal-minded and youthful lecturer, and Jakub (Zbigniew Zapasiewicz), an older associate professor.

Jakub takes the line of least resistance, judging decisions only by how they will affect his position. Janoslaw is the reverse, often charging into situations with a disregard for the consequences. He tries to involve the students on his own level, and even bends the rules to help a difficult student.

Much of the film is verbal sparring between the two men, and despite a tendency to frame discussions in the language of a philosophy tutorial, Camouflage is always accessible.

Perhaps it is the enthusiasm with which the games are played; more likely, it is the ease by which one can see oneself in both men, and recognize that each of us has made, and will continue to make, similar compromises along the way.

Zanussi plays on this identification and in his usual, slightly impish way, leads one down several moral cul-de-sacs before upending many of our preconceptions.

At the start, one sides quickly with the idealistic Janoslaw, but his liberalism is soon revealed to be tinctured by self-satisfaction and arrogance, an intellectual refusal to dirty o n e ’s hands. H ence, the final muddy confrontation on the river bank.

Conversely, while Jakub’s refusal to involve himself is seen as a camouflage to his moral barrenness, he still has an almost child-like ‘human-ness’ that Janoslaw doesn’t. That is not to say that Zanussi excuses Jakub — clearly he doesn’t — but it shows a willingness on Zanussi’s part to play fair in his debate.

The final scene brings the film to a strong conclusion. Drawn by Jakub to watch a favored student making love, Janoslaw erupts in anger and attacks Jakub. They fight on the river flats till exhausted and conciliatory. Jakub smugly argues, “ At least I got the beast in you to come out” . And Janoslaw replies, “ If you had, I would have killed you.”

Jakub’s subsequent realization that his supposed “ educating” of his companion has fooled no one but himself, is verbalized when he whispers, “ I might just as well be dead.”

An eerie music track washes across the images and Zanussi cuts back to leave his two figures in a landscape.

However, Jakub and Janoslaw are not the only characters to be satirized, Zanussi’s most savage wit being saved for the deputy rector (Mariusz Dmochowski). Grotesquely obese, the rector is all smiles and charm, but once Clockwise from top right: the final, muddy confrontation of Camouflage; Stefania in Leper; a pastoral scene from Nights and Days; Jakub (right) farewells the Rector in Camouflage; Dagny with Edvard Munch in Dagny; and Zdzislaw Mrozewski; as Narutowicz, the first president of Poland, Death of a President

annoyed, his equation of politics with survival, not progress, becomes all too clear.

There are two particularly nice touches: the filling of the swimming pool solely for the rector’s annual dip, and the surreptitious loading of fish and vegetables into his car boot.

The political significance is not hard to determine.

Zanussi has made many excellent films — particularly Structure of Crystals and Family Life — but Camouflage is probably the finest.

Almost as good is Jerzy Kawalerowicz’s Death of a President. Recounting a littleknown moment of Polish history, the film is a compelling drama of political intrigue, dis­ passionately told.

Taking the form of near-documentary, it tells of the appointment of Narutowicz as the first president of Poland. Though Polish by birth, Narutowicz lived for many years in Switzerland, returning only shortly before the election. His appointment, desired by few and resulting only from a series of political compromises, gave rise to great controversy and, ultimately, political turmoil.

Kawalerowicz concentrates much of his drama in the back rooms of parliament where the various political factions horse-trade candidates in an effort to ensure the one they like least is defeated. It is a fascinating portrayal of political m o tiv atio n , and e v id e n c e s g re a t s k ill on b e h a lf o f Kawalerowicz that he can generate such interest, and universal resonance, from so nationalistic an issue.

As Narutowicz, Zdzislaw Mrozewski is superb. His overall bearing, and the sensitive way in which he creates a character unsuited to leadership but with many fine qualities, is masterly.

In fact, the whole casting is good. There are many important subsidiary characters, and Kawalerowicz manages to highlight each in such a way that they emerge as identifiable characters.

The production values are ex cellent, particularly the use of sets and costumes. The shot of a charge of cavalry riding through a snow-covered forest in their brown uniforms is one striking example. As well, Witold S o b o c in s k i’s cam eraw o rk is clev erly controlled, and allows the drama to stand in relief against a muted and bleak background.

The only weakness is the intercutting between the trial of Narutowicz’s assassin (which is in the present) and the linear narrative of his rise and subsequent death (which is in flashback). Both time planes converge uneasily at the time of the funeral, distancing (perhaps deliberately) the audience from any emotional empathy for the president.

Jerzy Hoffman’s Tredowata (Leper) is based on the popular Polish novel (of the same name) by Helena Mniszkowna-. It concerns the love affaire of a wealthy nobleman, Waldemar

Michorowski (Leszek Teleszynski), and a governess, Stefania Rudecka (E lzbieta Starostecka).

Their love is thwarted by their differing social positions, and when, in a bold show of defiance Waldemar proposes to Stefania, the aristocratic society of which he is a part closes ranks. After having taken Stefania to a ball, Waldemar is deliberately detained so that the guests can swirl about Stefania screaming, “ Leper, leper.” She flees into the night and meets with tragedy.

The story is heavily melodramatic. Hoffman tries, at times, to suggest a finer level of emotion than that expressed by most Victorian heroines, but he is unable to make it convincing. Romantic fiction is a difficult genre to master, and doubly so if a director, like Hoffman, wishes to experiment with an element of melodrama.

Part of the problem with the film lies with the casting. Both leads are fine, even though Starostecka overdoes the “ pert” expression, but the rest of the cast is not. The faces are invariably wrong, and though Polish actresses have been brilliantly used by Luchino Visconti in several of his films, Hoffman has chosen badly. Perhaps it is another reflection of his inappropriateness to the subject.

Another weakness of the film is Hoffman’s inability to reconcile a piece of essentially romantic trivia with the modern Poland. For instance, while Hoffman determinedly stresses the cruelty, grossness and mindful self­ preservation of the upper classes, he is at the same time overly fascinated by them: the acrobatic camerawork, soft lighting, everchanging costumes and so on.

And, more importantly, by killing off Stefania, Hoffman merely strengthens the prejudice that people of different classes cannot mix — an attitude he has strongly attacked during the preceding 90 minutes.

Also shown at the Polish season were Haakon Sandoy’s Dagny and Jerzy Anczak’s Nights and Days (reviewed in Cinema Papers, issue no. 12, p. 328).

Dagny tackles much the same story as Peter Watkins’ Edvard Munch, though Sandoy’s film concentrates on the life of Dagny, M unch’s one-time mistress. And while Watkins is strongly antagonistic towards her, particularly during the closing narration where he sounds almost pleased that she has been shot by a lover, Sandoy is far m ore sympathetic.

As the wonderfully-insane Polish writer Stanislaw Przbyszewski, Daniel Olbrychski gives a brilliant performance and together with Per Oscarsson’s brief appearance as a very calvanistic August Strindberg, almost lifts the film out of the muggy gloom it so concertedly paints itself into. ★ ^

Cinema Papers, August/September — 29

FILM POLSKI Film Polski is the export/import division of the Polish National Board of Cinematography and is responsible for the promotion and sale of Polish films overseas, as well as the importing of foreign films, The general director of Film Polski, Mr Edward Burba, was in Australia recently and he talked to Scott Murray about film production in Poland and Film Polski’s role in bringing Polish films to foreign screens.

Could we begin with the set-up of film units in Poland?

has to co-ordinate our actions.

That’s the first thing.

The second is that we buy foreign films for distribution in Poland, which the other division handles, and are therefore guided by their opinions. We pay for people to go abroad and choose films, and in every way co-operate with them closely.

The main producer of feature films in Poland is the corporation of Film Units. This organization governs six units, which in turn govern the directors, cameramen and production people that make them up. Every unit has its own plan and identity, and makes three, five or ten films a year, depending on the activity of the head of the unit, and the people in it.

Does this d istrib u tio n organization have any influence on the f i l ms Fi lm Po l s k i exports?

What sort of person is chosen to head a unit?

Mainly outstanding directors, but also people who have a lot to do with film production, like film journalists.

Andrzej Wajda, the well-known director of Ashes and Diamonds, for example, is head of the X Unit.

This unit makes five to six films a year, and the directors who belong to it depend on the plan devised by the unit at the beginning of the year. The unit prepares the ideas and scripts, th en seeks the approval of the National Board. If approval is granted, money is given to make the films.

Units also earn money from the box-office grosses of their films.

So the success of a film like “ Potop” (“ The Deluge”) would reflect back on the unit which made it — in this case, the Tor Unit . . .

A film unit receives money from box-office grosses and, when a film is finished, from the distribution firm that buys it.

What’s more, if a film generates a very large income at the cinemas, the distributor will give extra money to the unit. This, in turn, can be put into the production of its next films.

Does this induce units to make com m ercial, as opposed to artistic, films?

No, the trend of our units is to make artistic films, though if a film is a hit in the commercial sense, then all the better for the unit.

Of course, there are some directors who specialize in light 30 — Cinema Papers, August/September

No.

Mr Edward Burba, general director of Film Polski.

entertainment films — comedies and so on — but they try to make them as artistically as possible. As a result, many such films are of a very high standard.

I understand a director receives a salary irrespective of whether he is making a film . . .

Yes, every director gets a monthly wage regardless of the agreement price he receives on completing a film. Then, if his film is successful, he receives awards; these are 100 to 300 per cent of the agreed price. It is therefore in his interests to make a good film, so that he can get more money.

There are two types of awards for d irectors — artistic and economic. As well, if the plan has foreseen that a film will cost five million zloties*, but costs only four million, then the director will get a percentage of the sum that is saved. .

H ow do y o u n g d i r e c t o r s graduating from the film school at Lodz fit into the unit system?

Do they have to wait for the retirement of an older director?

The situation in Polish film production is quite different to what you imagine. There is always a lack of young people and new ideas, and because of this all the students who qualify for a diploma * $ 212,000

f D o e s Film P olsk i make its f decision independently of what ^ h a p p e n s c o m m e r c i a l l y in Poland?

at our higher film school get a job at once. Some of them start on documentary film production, some with feature films — not as d irecto rs, of course, but as assistants to directors. Then, after two or three years of practice, they have their chance as directors.

There is no unemployment in our film production because we have to make films for television as well as cinemas, and television is a good field for young people to start. They may do one or two shorts, or a couple of half-hour programs, then switch to features.

Yes, though if a film is a success in Poland, it helps us to sell it in foreign countries.

Haakon Sandoy’s “ Dagny” was a co-production with Norway, and W ajda’s “ The Shadow L in e’’ a co-production with Britain. Is this a- trend the National Board is encouraging?

We sold Man of Marble a few days ago to F rance, and to F in la n d . We are p re s e n tly negotiating with West Germany, and we may also be able to sell it to a big chain of cinemas in the U. S. We also hope that Contal will buy the film for Australia.

We are always trying to find production companies that are interested in co-operating with us; it is the best way for us to enter foreign markets.

DISTRIBUTION There are two distribution arms in Poland — one for the internal distribution of films, and Film Polski. Is there much liaison between the two?

We are both dependent on the N atio n al B oard of C in e m a ­ tography, and this organization

D oes Fi l m Po l s k i have a selection policy, or is every Polish film available for export?

W hen th e re is in terest by foreign distributors, there is no reason to hide our films in safes.

What about Wajda’s “Man of Marble” , which was completed two years ago. I don’t think that has been seen outside Poland . . .

What role do international film festivals play in the sale of Polish films?

We try to be present at all film festivals and such events for two reasons. Firstly, it is an expansion of Polish film culture throughout th e w orld. S eco n d ly , it is co m m ercially a d v a n ta g e o u s , because if a Polish film gets a good reaction during a festival, there are greater possibilities for selling it.

You don’t think a film like Wajda’s “ Land of Promise” is

POLISH CINEMA

commercially disadvantaged by its numerous appearances in international festivals?

What guides your selection of foreign films for release in Poland?

Picnic at Hanging Rock, Caddie and Storm Boy.

THE FUTURE

Will these films be released sub­ T h e q u e s t i o n is q u i t e What plans does the Board have The first criteria is that the film titled or be dubbed into Polish? complicated because every film has to be of an artistic level. Next, for Polish cinema? should be treated individually. it must have a strong story so that Of the 120-odd foreign films we It is our aim to enlarge film There are some films which, it will be successful in our import each yeac only 40 to 45 of regardless of being shown at a cinemas. It doesn’t matter if the them are dubbed. These are films production in the 1980s by more festival, are in demand by foreign film was made by a big or small that have a lot of dialogue. In the than 25 per cent so that by 1985 we will be producing 45 features distributors, often because of the company, or if it was made in other cases, we use sub-titles. as against 35 this year. We also director’s reputation. But there black and white; these are not plan to enlarge our television are also situations where a film’s criteria we take into account. potential is wasted by it being in a Depending on the type of film, Have any of the Australian films production by 100 per cent from 150 half-hour programs to 300. festival. it can have a large release across been released in Poland?

In Warsaw, we are going to The opinion of the people who the country, or, if it is a highly No. This is the first time we build the biggest studios in attend film festivals is a very artistic film that couldn’t be im p o rta n t fa c to r, and th is understood by cinemagoers of a have bought Australian films, P o lan d . U nlike m ost o th e r influences one’s decision about a lower intellectual level, it will be though it probably won’t be the c o u n trie s , our stu d io s are last. I hope we import more generally outside the capital cities. particular film. shown to special audiences.

The best examples are those Australian films, such as The Last At the moment, we have to go to What are the major markets for that concern Australia. We bought Wave, and that this will be Lodz or Wroclaw, and that can be Polish films? four films last year for distribution considered the next step in our a complication.

There is a very large artistic on Polish cinemas, including contact with Australia. community in Warsaw, which is O ur b e s t b u y e r is W est another reason for building a Germany, which would constitute studio there. approximately 25 per cent of our export income. Then, there are How do you regard present-day several European countries, such Polish cinema? as France, Britain and Italy, and, in the past few years, Spain and I would like to introduce my Portugal. private opinion here because I am There is also an agreement not a critic; not a person who can between the countries of our bloc judge the situation. Polish film about distributing each other’s production changes from time to films. This amounts to about 90 time; there are better years and films a year and agreements exist worse, as in all film industries. between the Soviet Union and For us, the 1950s were the Poland, the Soviet Union and outstanding years, with Ashes Bulgaria, and so on. We buy these and Diamonds and Kanal by films according to the plan Andrzej Wajda, and Mother Joan approved by the National Board of o f th e A n g e l s by J e r z y Cinematography.

Kawalerowicz. The 1960s were of We also buy films from Western a lower standard, even though countries — about 120 a year. But p e o p l e li k e W a jd a a n d this has nothing to do with Kawalerowicz continued to make sending Polish films overseas. We films. can sell five films to Italy, but we The situation today is rather need not buy five films from more optimistic. Wajda’s latest them. film , Man of Marbl e, and Kawalerowicz’s The Death of the Is there much potential for President are excellent films, and selling Polish films in the U.S.? examples of the high standing of We show many Polish films in A perfect combination of costume and location: the cavalry charge from Death of a these pioneers of Polish cinema.

President.

O f th e n e x t g e n e r a tio n , the U.S., but mainly to those Krzystof Zanussi makes many companies that are connected good films, like Camouflage and with Poles, or Americans of his latest film, The Spiral, which Polish origin. As you know, there is to be shown at Cannes in the are about six million Americans of Competition.

Polish origin in the U.S., so there is a big interest in Polish films in Are there any new directors of this community. note?

Occasionally we sell our films to American companies, but mostly There are several who started to those of medium size. d ire c tin g a few years ago: G rzeg o rz K rolikiew icz w ith Can you generalize about the Dance of the Hawk; Krzystof types of films that sell overseas?

Kieslowski with A Scar; Andrzej Trzos-R astaw iecki; K rzysztof It depends on the country and Wojceichowski; and the young the purposes for which a film is woman director, Holland. These bought. Namely, some countries are the people who guarantee that prefer our comedies, while others our cinema has a lot to say, not go only for artistic films. It also just for today, but for the future as depends on the d istrib u tio n well. company we are in touch with.

Over the past few days I have Sometimes, we sell artistic films seen 12 new Polish films, and 90 very cheaply to discussion clubs per cent of them were made by and societies in countries like n ew co m ers. T h a t’s a n o th e r Britain. But the artistic films of The lovers of Zanussi’s wonderfully satiric Mr Izydorczyk, reason we can be optimistic about our well-known directors are sold Camouflage director of sales at Film Polski. the future. ★ all over the world.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 31

Have you always been aware of A delaide-born arranger/com poser Brian M ay is one of music as an adjunct to film?

A u stralia ’s m ost su ccessfu l m u sicia n s. B est know n for Yes, particularly of its effect in h is work w ith the ABC M elbourne Show Band, he has films and the techniques used to provided backing for a variety of telev isio n show s. W ith point out various sequences. But the band, M ay has also recorded several b est-sellin g L Ps this interest was only abstract, and and performed in concerts across A ustralia. not in relation to myself. Simply, I In 1974, M ay moved into the area of film m ak in g w hen suppose, because I had never had he scored and composed the m u sic for Richard F ra n k lin ’s the opportunity to score a film “ The True Story of E sk im o N e ll’’. T his w as followed by until the offer came to do Eskimo Nell for Richard Franklin. more work for telev isio n , including a package of tele­ features. H is la test score is the one he wrote, arranged Were you familiar with compo­ and performed, w ith h is band, for the psychic thriller, sitional techniques for films, or did you consider the work merely “ P atrick ” . T his project was of special interest as it is the as an extension of your musical first tim e a m u sic score has been recorded in sync, w ith a arranging activities? video im a g e .

In the follow ing interview , conductor and film critic In this country, th ere is, Ivan H utch inson ta lk s w ith M ay about h is work, in unfortunately, no way a composer particular h is score of “ P atrick ” . can study film scoring as in the U.S., where you learn by listening to what other people do.

My early arranging years with Four weeks to write the score, I w as h e lp e d by s o m e the Adelaide singers and the and one week for recording and e x p e rie n c e d A m erican film directors and producers who came symphony orchestra gave me a lot mixing. The music was recorded here for the productions done of experience in work that was not to click-track which was a bit with the ABC. Also, the American “ pop” orientated. I knew Bernard traumatic at first, though sticking editor on Eskimo Nell gave me Hermann’s music of course, and to the budget was even harder.

With no overtime possible, we tremendous assistance in some of was eager to try to emulate him.

Eskim o N ell was a good finished recording the last section the techniques necessary for film experience, and one of my most of the music literally as the minute scoring. e n j o y a b l e m o m e n t s w as hand reached the hour. presenting the music for the first Richard Franklin requested a time to my orchestra. They were Was the co-production package “ Hermann-esque” score on your flabbergasted, and I was pleased to b e t w e e n T r a n s - A t l a n t i c first film, yet you would be be able to show them a different Enterprises and the ABC your associated in the public mind aspect of my own musical abilities. next venture? with middle-of-the-road music, constantly using a rhythm Yes. On the strength of my section, etc. Was this a rather How long did you have to work work on Nell, producer Gene on the score of “ Eskimo Nell” ? Levitt offered me the first two frightening challenge to you?

The mixing room at Armstrong Studios, Melbourne, during the recording of the score for Patrick. Brian May on rostrum and a scene from film on television at right.

32 — Cinema Papers, August/September

films. Levitt is a very experienced director-producer-writer in the U.S., and the opportunity to work with him was very exciting.

The first film, with Richard Benjamin and Paula Prentiss, was No Room to Run, a contemporary thriller.

Did the producers specify the kind of music they required?

Indeed they did. They wanted a big, pounding score to propel the action along, and they wanted 50 to 60 minutes of it. In a 90-minute film, that is a lot of music.

Do you think Americans over­ use music in their television programs?

It has been argued that they do, but I think they use music very well, and generally to maximum effect. Americans have a definite commitment to music, and when they want it to be there, they mix it in such a way that the music is right up front.

We tend, I feel, to follow the British tradition and the score is sometimes unable to make its effect. If Star Wars had been m ixed h e re , I d o u b t Jo h n Williams’ music would have had th e sam e tre m e n d o u s effectiveness. All the other technical aspects of contemporary film m aking in A ustralia are extremely high, and I would like to see the audio side, music especially, come up to that level.

Listening to the playback: Brian May (centre) and Richard Franklin.

BRIAN MAY

Your next score was “ Barnaby” , a comedy about a tal ki ng koala . . .

Yes. At present, the film is being released in the U.S. I found writing this score a challenge because it is very hard to hit the mark when writing music for comedy.

When it comes to recording the music, do you record to a projected image?

We are not set up to record to projection in this country — or if we are, I am not aware of it. So, in addition to click-track, we have a video-cassette of the film cued, and record the music onto multi­ track tape, running the video-tape copy at the same time. The clicking gives us the correct timing, the video-cassette the actual feel of the film.

You always conduct your own scores. Would you like to have anyone else do that?

I w o u ld n ’t m ind. I have conducted the scores of other composers and enjoyed it. But I am not sure whether they enjoyed it as much as I did.

Would it satisfy you to short­ score your work and have other arrangers score it more fully?

Thi s is something I may have to think about later this year if c u r r e n t p la n s d e v e lo p as promised. Time may force this on me, but if one could find the right arranger, I think I would find it acceptable.

Was “ Patrick” your next score?

No, Catspaw came next, a seven-part ABC thriller with an air-force setting. This was a com bination-type score, part sym phonic, part Kojak, and

to t a ll y ' e n jo y a b le . P a t r i c k followed this. “ Patrick” is a supernatural thriller . . .

Yes, and again directed by Richard Franklin. For this, I used quite a small orchestra and an atonal type of score. There are about 60 music cues in this film, and I had written about eight of them, using what I planned to be my main theme. When playing these to Richard, his ear was taken by a passing theme which I was m e r e ly p l a n n i n g to u s e i n c i d e n t a l l y . H e w as so enthusiastic about it, that I changed my whole idea and re­ wrote the cues.

He was right — the theme was much more flexible and effective.

The writing period was again four to five weeks and the score was recorded at A rm strongs, in Melbourne, with Roger Savage; the results are very exciting.

Do you compose at the piano?

The piano is a bit like a typewriter to me — it helps to get the music down on paper — but I find it inhibiting, since many things one writes are not pianistic.

I generally stumble through the score for the producer, half­ playing, half-groaning. It requires a bit of faith on his part.

What projects are planned for the future?

Two films: one Mad Max, which requires a symphonic-type score; the other Snap-Shot, with a jazz-rock score.

I also have an ABC series coming up called The Twenty Good Years, the story of two families commencing in 1956.

This will require over 21 hours of dramatic music.

I think I have been lucky having such a wide variety of film to work on. I hope it continues. ★

Richard Franklin

Brian May and members of his orchestra.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 33

Mari Kutna

In a smart restaurant, an exclusive angling club is about to have its annual prize-giving lunch. A rioting crowd breaks through the police cordon and invades the restaurant; by the time they are cleared out, the kitchen staff is on strike, and the guests, impatient and hungry, are imperfectly entertained by three women playing classical music.

When the staff is finally persuaded to cook and serve the trout, the highlight of the occasion, the fish stink. The guests, whether eating the tainted fish out of greed or forcing it down out of politeness, soon develop the itch and nausea of food poisoning. Many of them collapse and die, but the rest pretend that nothing is happening.

The allegorical points of the satire are clear enough, but lacking a final explosive climax, the film, like the luncheon party, slowly dies.

The second, Las p ala b ra s de M ax by Emilio Martinez Lazaro, was produced by Elias Querejeta, who may well be the chief reason for the revival of the Spanish film. Since 1963, Querejeta has produced some 26 features, including most of Saura’s films, Erice’s El espiritu d e la colem en a (The S p irit o f the Beehive), and the two by Jaime Chavarri

Madeleine Christie (as the aged and pregnant virgin) and Angela Molina in Jaime de Arminan's Never Too Late.

The Berlin Festival was moved this year from July to March in an attempt to pre-empt the best films from Cannes. But by cutting the period between festivals to only eight months, the move, inevitably, was only partly successful. And, as before, there were more interesting films in the supplementary sections, such as the Forum of Young Films and New German Films, than in the competition which spanned a critical wide range.

In Berlin, as elsewhere in recent years, it was exciting to witness the response to Australian films. Some commentators were sceptical about how much longer the success can last; one distributor from a small country with an ambitious film industry said wryly: “ Just now Australian films are the petted darlings of the international festivals.”

As Britain was represented only by two television features (Jack Gold's The

N aked Civil S ervan t and The M em ory o f J ustice by Marcel Ophuls) and an “ underground” experiment (B lac k ird Descending by Malcolm Le Grice), the

im p ro m p tu p re s s c o n fe re n c e on Australia, with David Stratton, Michael Edols, Stephen Wallace, Sandra Hall and Marsha Bennett.

British can be more dispassionate; and David Robinson wrote in The Times: “ Aside from Germany, it was clear that the cinemas now in ascendant are those of Australia and Spain."

The Last W ave was in the main program, though its Tehran prize excluded it from the com petition; Michael Edols’ Lalai D ream tim e had rave notices and not even standing room at repeated screenings; the technical and creative maturity of Love L etters from T era lb a Road was all the more impressive as it had no advance publicity.

An undefinable, heightened buzz which signals success prompted the festival organizers to schedule an

The revitalization of the Spanish cinema was recognized by a Golden Bear awarded for the total contribution of the renewed Spanish film industry. No single film was as impressive as last year’s C am ada negra (B lack Litter) but there were two Spanish features in competition.

The first, Las truchas (Trouts), was directed by Luis Garcia Sanchez, written

by Gutierrez Aragon (who directed C am ad a negra) and photographed by the same cameraman, Magi Torruella.

Nonetheless, it is totally different: a stylized black comedy.

The Words of Max, Emilio Martinez Lazaro’s study of a selfish and lonely writer.

34 — Cinema Papers, August/September

which, though shown out of competition in Berlin, contributed to the success of the Spanish presence. Las p alab ras de Max is the director’s first feature film, and it was shot free-style, with much improvization.

Max is a writer, about 50 years old, who is too introspective and self-centred for relationships. The loneliness of the selfish is a relevant subject, and the film is sincere and well acted, but Lazaro fails to cope with the basic difficulty of imparting interest to a negative state, a lack of love. Nothing can happen to such a man except more loneliness and boredom, and longer solitary musings in the sunset.

J a im e C h a v a r r i’ s A un d io s d esco nid o (To An Unknown God) also has a middle-aged hero; he is a h o m o s e x u a l m a g ic ia n , o n ly too su sce p tib le to the resonances of personal relationships.

Flashbacks show that as a child he was fascinated by the brother and sister of the rich family which employs his father as gardener. Then, on the night in 1 936 when the master of the house is killed, he is seduced by the son. He changes class and personality, and even sheds his emotional dependences.

An unnamed but dead poet further deepens the film’s resemblances, in atmosphere and erotic interrelations, to Durrell’s Alexandria. Instead of Cafavy, the poet here is Lorca, but the main characters display the same collusive sense of having known a great spiritual

The itch and nausea of food poisoning: Luis Garcia Sanchez’s Trouts.

BERLIN FILM FESTIVAL

queen in the Canadian small-budget film O utrageous, was judged Best Actor. The film, by Richard Brenner, retains the format, while mocking the content, of the Hollywood backstage-musical.

Liza (Hollis McLaren), a young girl who escapes from a Toronto lunatic asylum, holes up with an old schoolfriend and gay h a ird re s s e r (R u s s e ll). She encourages him to go on with his nightclub act and try his luck in New York. She has a stillborn baby from a casual affaire and turns catatonic with despair, until he comes back to fetch her and takes her to New York.

Every convention of the boy-girl romance is parodied by their relationship (“ Robin and I”, Liza tells her psychiatrist, “ sleep in different worlds” ), but they parade their inadequacies in a hilarious, flip musical comedy.

exemplar under whose influence the brother, too, had died. They cannot live up to it, perhaps because times have changed; but their co n scio usn e ss creates a tension with their younger friends or lovers who cannot join this conspiracy of love for dead heroes.

A genteel, lace-trimmed spinster of 73, whose calm politeness hides wild sexual obsessions, is the subject of Jaime de Armlnan’s Nunca es ta rd e (Never Too Late).

As in most Spanish films, there is an echo of Bunuel’s grotesque humor, but Arminan has a highly individual style, with pictures of translucent clarity and colors glowing like precious stones. His earlier film, Mi querida seño rita (My D e a re s t S eñorita) was also about an aging spinster, who realized that all her iife she had been a man.

Ideas like these offer a sharper challenge to Spain’s old-fashioned sexist society that any direct women’s lib appeal. The conventional visual beauty used for presenting bizarre notions was also the basis of surrealism, as invented by a Spanish painter, Salvador Dali.

The sophistication and complexity of ideas, as well as close ties with painting, literature and politics, give Spanish films a c h a lle n g in g in te lle c tu a l edge; reflecting, perhaps, the fact that after the suppression of the Franco years, the new directors are now making their first films not during, but after, growing up.

O d d ly e n o u g h , th e H u n g a ria n competition entry, Apam nehany boldog e ve (My F ath er’s Happy Years) by Sandor Simo seems closely related to the refined, ambivalent vision of The S p irit of T he Beehive or Las largas v acacio nes del 3 6 (The Long Holidays

o f 536), Simo was awarded the critics’ prize, probably for this quality of emotional and political sophistication.

His hero is a chemist who sets up a pharmaceutical factory in 1945 only to have It confiscated and himself interned after the Stalinist coup of 1948-9. The restrained, intelligent acting and Tamas Andor's camerawork help to capture those forgotten years with authentic images of hope, courage and pity.

It is tempting to group Satyajit Ray with Spaniards and Hungarians, as S h a tra n jk e khilari (The Chess Players)

is also about a criticai moment in history; 1856, when the East India Company decided to take over the Muslim state of Oudh. In this situation, only the educated aristocracy could have any freedom of action; unlike th e ir king, who is checkmated at every turn by the British, or the poor, who barely know how to survive. But the descendants of warriors

Sandor Simo’s

A conventionally ill-assorted couple, straining at the leash, is portrayed in Lina Werimuller’s T he End o f th e W orld in

Zohra Lampert and Gena Rowlands (who won the Best Actress award) in John Cassavetes’

Opening Night

ignore the crisis, whether it is the subjection of their country, or a wife’s infidelity; they go on playing chess.

The rainbow colors of interiors and costumes, and touches of archness in the narration, give the film a deceptive lightness, perhaps to make it enjoyable on the simplest level while being subtly thought-provoking.

Subtlety infuses many pleasures into films, but the absence of subtlety can also result in a valid and effective cinema style, as in the Mexican entry, Fiores de p ap el (P a p e r F lo w ers), directed by Gabriel Retes from two stage plays by the Chilean writer, Egon Wolff.

An elegant divorcee allows a tramp to hide in her flat while the rich villa of an industrialist is invaded and destroyed by a mob of beggars and thieves, like those in V ir id ia n a ; th e c r o s s c u ttin g accentuates the mounting orgy of vandalism and terror.

S uch b ro a d e ffe c ts of o v e rsimplication and exaggeration seem to form the basis of Latin-American film style , though the Cuban film in c o m p e titio n , Ei b r i g a d i s t a (T h e Teacher), directed by Octavio Cortazar and about a clean-cut young communist and w icke d c o u n te r-re v o lu tio n a ry traitors, carries its message too far. Such straightforward propaganda pieces are counter-productive in an international festival, while another Cuban film shown in the Forum, La ultim a cena (The Last S u p p e r) by Tomas Guiterrez Aiea, proved that with more drama, and no pep-talks, the style can work.

My Father’s Happy Years, which was awarded the Critics’ Prize.

La ultim a cena is a historic anecdote about an 18th Century Cuban landowner who enacts Maundy Thursday with 12 of his Negro slaves, washing their feet and seating them at a picturesquely arranged feast. They get drunk, and the slaves wheedle privileges which are rescinded in the morning by the villainous overseer.

This is the last straw for the restive slaves: they rebel, killing the overseer and burning the sugar mill.

With a posse of his friends, the landowner hunts down the rebels. The 1 2 who ate with him are deemed the ringleaders; they are killed, and their heads impaled in a macabre parody of their “ last supper” .

It probably falsifies the vista of the world’s film production to play down North America as much as the Berlin Festival (and this review) does. However, John Cassavetes’ O pening Night was predestined by its title to start off the festival.

Like most of Cassavetes’ films, it is built around the cracking up and re­ forging of a personality which sheds a socially pressurized role and rejects, or accepts, another identity.

Such films siand or fall by the extent to which the audience becomes involved in the catharsis; that is, by the actor or actress in the main role. Opening Night is about an aging theatrical star, and the film stands triumphant by virtue of Gena R o w la n d s ’ p e rfo rm a n c e , w h ic h deservedly received the Best Actress award.

Craig Russell, playing a talented drag

Our Usual Bed in a Night Full o f Rain (predictably shortened to A Nightful of R ain), billed as a U.S./Italian co­

production. Boy meets air! in flashback when, in a smail Calabrian village, an American tourist (Candice Bergen) tries to stop a peasant beating his fiancee; an Italian reporter (Giancarlo Giannini) rescues her from the ensuing brawl.

They flee to a deserted abbey, and he tries to make love to her. Whether it is seduction or rape, his crudity angers her and their encounter ends in a fight.

Meeting again in California, they fall in love and marry.

By the time of the night of the title, they have been married 10 years, with a nine year-old daughter, and live above their means in a luxurious flat owned by his aunt, surrounded by an international set of malicious friends. Their violent all­ night quarrel seems just one of many, but the end of the world is the realization that she ought to leave him, and that perhaps she will.

Some verbiage is expanded on her feminism and his communism. Also, one keeps waiting for some universally relevant or profound truth about love and m arriage, but there is none. The audience is transfixed not by any interest in him or her, but mesmerized by the elaborate yet perfect pas de deux of the players and camera, the triumph of professionalism or the platitudinous. It would be interesting to know whether it was the director or her cameraman, Giuisippe Rotunno, who worked out the choreography for their superlative use of movement and zoom.

After describing the top end of the competition’s range, a wise critic would avoid mentioning the rest: unknown films

“A conventionally ill-assorted couple straining at the leash”. Giancarlo Giannini and Candice Bergen in Lind Wertmuller’s Night Full of Rain.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 35

BERLIN FILM FESTIVAL

should not be knocked. But there must be occasional exceptions; it is easy to ignore ineptitude, but not a rtis tic im m oralities like plagiarism, as in Eskim o limon (Lemon Popsicle) by Boaz Davidson, a leading Israeli director.

Eskim o limon is his 10th feature, but it seems like an anthology of adolescent love, culled from T he Last Picture Show,

R e d u c e d P e rs o n a lity ) by Helke Sander, who also plays the heroine, a freelance photographer. She wanders around the divided and, to her, alienated c ity of Berlin much as Wenders’ hero photographs the U.S. in A llro u n d

A lic e in den stad ten (A lice in the C itie s ); she registers very sim ilar

reactions.

Her pictures are poignant, as is the derivation of the film’s title, a joke version of The All-Round Socialist Personality as plugged ceaselessly by East Berlin radio. She struggles for professional recognition, to make ends meet, to bring up her daughter and not lose her placid young lover, but her life seems enviable in some respects.

A m erican G raffiti, Les m istons, S o u ffle au coeur and whatever else may fit a

soundtrack of '50s pop.

An even deeper revulsion is prompted by another teenager’s story, M oritz, lie b e r M o ritz (M oritz, Dear M oritz) by Mark Bohm. Bohm was a four- r member of the Filmverlag der Auto n, the rejuvenative force of West German cinem a; but such a re s p e c ta b le background makes this film all the more appalling.

Perhaps it followed too closely on Ingmar Bergman's Das schla n g e n e i (The S e rp e n t’s Egg), produced and filmed in Munich for Dino de Laurenhis and shown in the season of new Gem in films. Bergman’s vision of Berlin in' ie 1920s is somewhat second-hand, familiar from the period’s films and from recreations like C a b a re t; moreover, casting David Carradine as a Jew makes it look like a charade. However, Bergman’s tenet still comes through with great power: namely, that the horrors of Nazism were already complete, like an eggful of snakes, in the years of the Weimar Republic.

During M oritz, lieber M oritz, when­ ever the blue-eyed, blonde angel child has a particularly vicious and nauseating daydream of some unspeakable torture inflicted on anyone he disliked, the predom inantly young, predom inantly German audience laughed, cheered and clapped. Not all the sober self-analysis of the other new German films could undo the impression that the serpenteggs of German history are ready to hatch again in every generation.

But then, all three German films in competition are misleading if one tries to assess the present state and current concerns of the German cinema.

Besides M oritz, there was Rheingold, an a ttra c tiv e ly p h o to g ra p h e d G o th ic melodrama by S w iss-born Niklaus Schilling, whose 1977 festival entry, Die V ertriebu ng aus dem Paradies, had promised better things: there, over­ romantic ideas were sent up neatly by the mundane details of petty crime. In R h ein go ld, a scenic rail journey is e n liv e n e d o n ly by a d u lte ry , nymphomania, jealousy and murder, Eleven German directors, including K lu g e , R e itz, F a s s b in d e r and Schlondorff, collaborated on the third festival entry, a seven-part compilation e n title d D e u t s c h l a n d im h e r b s t

It would certainly be so to the girls in the H ungarian quasi-docum entary, F ilm regeny — Harom nover (Film novel — Three Sisters) by Istvan Darday and

Mark Bohm’s Moritz, lieber Moritz, the story of a teenager.

(G erm any in Autumn), each offering his or her own analysis by interviews, documentary or allegorical treatment of Germany's condition in the autumn of 1977, after events like S chleyer’s murder and the Mogadishu rescue.

Once again, one can only compare the total effect with past works of the contributing directors; in retrospect, it seem s th a t film s lik e G e l e g e n h eits a rb eitt einer sklavin (O ccasional W ork of a F em ale Slave), Angst essen s e e le auf (Fear Eats the Soul) and Die verlo rene ehre d er Katharina Blum (The Lost Honour o f Katherina Blum)

gave a clearer and emotionally more cogent picture of problems hidden b e h in d G e rm a n y ’ s e c o n o m ic achievements.

The borderline between the self-pity of the alienated in te lle c tu a l and the insoluble problems of the victims in a materialist, alienated society is indistinct but important. It may well be the test of a director’s talent to find and define this

Deutschland im herbst, a view of Germany in Autumn 1977 by 11 German directors.

36 — Cinema Papers, August/September

borderline, which stands clear in Margarethe von Trotta’s Das zw e ite erw achen der C h rista Klages (Second Aw akening).

There are some sim ilarities with Katherina Blum, written by von Trotta

and co-directed with her husband, but her film has an entirely different rhythm.

The big scenes are played down, imposing a mundane factualness on the m e lo d ra m a tic s to ry of C h rista, a sympathetic “ urban guerrilla” who robs a bank. One of her accom plices is immediately caught; with the other, she seeks asylum with a country priest who is gently subverted by his liking, and perhaps love, for Christa. The key witness, a young bank-clerk, carries out her private investigation into the holdup, and discovers that Christa’s motives were pure: the money was needed to run a play school.

An even more explicitly women’s lib statem ent comes in Die allseitig reduzierte Persönlichkeit (The

Gyorgyi Szalai, in which women’s lib seems just another aspect of people’s lib. The sisters first appear in close-up, talking of their dreams, ambitions and ideas of the good life.

The film, originally eight hours long, but cut to four and a half for Berlin, shows how, over the years, they have become cramped, stunted, defeated by the ordinary circumstances and every­ day tribulations that only exceptional people can manage to surmount.

The youngest nearly makes it when a chance-met boyfriend helps her to a journalistic job, but he soon tires of coaching her. They quarrel; on the rebound she marries someone else, and continues to live in her parents’ flat, restricted even further by those valued status symbols, husband and baby.

The middle daughter, a student, has a brave s p irit; still, when she gets pregnant, her freedom of thought cannot be matched by action and she is dissuaded from keeping the child. The eldest, a textile designer, longs for privacy, a room of her own where she could work and love, but the housing shortage is too severe; a single woman has no hope of help. Frustrated and lonely in the crowded flat, she tries to kill herself and fails.

The film ends with her sisters standing by her hospital bed, asking themselves: why are things like this?

No one watching the film could doubt its veracity or validity, but no Hungarian director would hazard an answer. At least 11 West Germans have tried, in Deutschland in herbst. For once, it is to be hoped that they might start a fashion; that established directors could try to better the attempt of their West German colleagues in formulating the problems of their countries. Of course, it could only happen where the cinema is currently important; as, for instance, in A u s tra lia *

Helke Sander as the photographer in her

The Allround Reduced Personality.

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS Reprinted from FEB R U A R Y 1 9 7 8

Australian Government Gazette Published by the Australian Government Publishing Service

F IL M S R EG IS TE R ED W IT H O U T E L IM IN A T IO N S

J

APRIL 25 — MAY 2 — JMY 30

For General Exhibition (G) Born to Run: J. Courtland, Australia (2387.00 m) Dreams Hotel: E. Haddad, Lebanon (2928.90 m) II Sergente Rompiglioni: Flora Film. Italy (2839.00 m) Jesus of Nazareth: V. Labella, Italy (7706.00 m) Kochaj Albo Rzuc (Big Deal): lluzjon, Poland (3472.00 m) The Millionairess: E. Haddad, Lebanon (2824.20 m) Nguoi Chong Bat Dac Di (The Occasional Husband): Not shown, U. S. A. /Vietnam (1920.00 m)

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Damnation Alley: Zeitm an/M aslansky, U, S. A. (2470.00 m) Ek Nazar: A. Chitra, India (31 40.00 m) Gray Lady Down: W. Mirisch, U. S. A. (3044.00 m) High Anxiety: M. Brooks, U. S. A. (2578.00 m) II Medico Della Mutud (English version) (a) B. Turchetta, Italy (2718.00 m) The Mysterious Heroes: A Gouw, Hong Kong (2550.00 m) ' (a) Italian version previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 11/77.

For Mature Audiences (M) And Jimmy Went to the Rainbow’s Foot: L. Waldleitner, W. Germany (3723.00 m) Another Man, Another Chance: A Mnouchkine/G. Dancigers, U. S. A. (3483.61 m) Barocco: Boetie-Sara Films, France (2880.15 m) The Beauty Heroine: C. Shu-ming, Hong Kong (2660.71 m) . . .

Cerca Di Capirmi: G.H. Lucan, Italy (2463.40 m) C re s c ete E M o ltip lic ate v i: G. P etroni, Italy (2756.00 m) Em peror Chien Lung: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (3115.97 m) Empire of the Ants: B. Gordon, U. S. A. (2479.00 m) Hot Blood: A Gouw, Hong Kong (2743.00 m) Jade Tiger: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2797.86 m) Jog’s Trot (16 mm): H. Shore, Australia (658.00 m) Killer from Above: L. Ming, Hong Kong (2601.00 m) Le 7 Cinesi D’Oro: S. Siciliano, Italy (1981.20 m) Mantis Fists and Tiger Claws of Shaolin: A. Gouw, Hong Kong (2880.00 m) Prom ise of Love: B o u cha kian Bros, Tu rke y (2797.00 m) Raja Kaka: T. Bihari, India (3840.00 m) The Sad Night Bird (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (910.00 m) The Serpent’s Egg: D. De Laurentiis, W. Germany (3292.00 m) Thieves: G. Barrie, U. S. A. (2551.00 m) Time for Wine and Roses: A Gouw, Hong Kong (2567.80 m) Tintorera (a): G. Green, U. K. /Mexico (2386.00 m) Ultimo Tango A Zagarol: M. Miromari, Italy (2523.00 m) Wages of Fear: W. Friedkin, U. S. A. (2521.00 m) Warlord: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (2660.00 m) Weekend of Shadows: Samson Film Services, Australia (2605.85 m) (a) Previously classified ‘R’ in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 1 2/77.

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Baciamo Le Mani (a): M arciano/D inardo, Italy (3181.80 m) Chiu Chow Kung Fu (16 mm): L Sang, Hong Kong (935.43 m) Crazy Crazy Love (Amore All’ Arrabbiata): David Film, Italy (2469.00 m) Hardcore: B. Smedley-Aston, U. K. (2256.10 m) Hitch-hike: Explorer/Medusa, Italy (2839.50 m) Joy of Flying: Lisa/Divina, W. Germany (2672.00 m) Madame Claude: C. Duval, France (2935.00 m) The Manitou: W. Girdler. U. S. A. (2880.00 m) S aturday Night Fever: R. S tigw ood, U. S. A. (3319.03 m) Semi-tough: D. Merrick, U. S. A. (2944.39 m) An Unmarried Woman: Mazursky/Ray, U. S. A. (3408.00 m) (a) Shorter version previously listed as 'I Kiss the Hand' in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 4/74.

SPECIAL CONDITION: That the film will be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia in its 1978 ‘New Films from France’ season Ben Et Benedict (16 mm): NEF-Diffusion-SFPHamster, France (1010.00 m) L’Affiche Rouge: INA, France (2468.70 m) Leonor (16 mm): Arcadie-Films 66-Uranus, France (1097.00 m) L’Ombre De$ Chateaux (16 mm): Not shown, France (987.00 m) Milady (16 mm): Hamster-TFI-SPF, France (900.00 m) Moi Pierre Riviere, Ayant Egorge Ma Mere, Ma Soeur Et Mon Frere: Les Films De L'Arquebuse, France (3840.00 m) Un Type Comme Moi Ne Devrait Jamais Mourir: Film Et Co./B. Lenteric, France (2743.00 m)

F IL M S R EG IS TE R ED W ITH E L IM IN A T IO N S For Restricted Exhibition (R) i Love You, I Love You Not: G. Kline, U. S. A. (2414.00 m). Eliminations: 39.00 m (1 min. 25 secs).

Reason: Indecency.

Mafia Junction: Not shown, Italy/U. K. (2633.00 m) Eliminations: 23.1 m (51 secs). Reason: Excessive violence.

Passion Seekers: R.C. Chinn, U. S. A. (1947,53 m).

Eliminations: 82.2 m (3 mins). Reason: Indecency.

Seduction in Paris: P. Unia, France (2795.00 m).

E lim inations: 30.5 m (1 min. 7 secs). Reason: Indecency.

When Women Lost Their Tails: S. Clementelli, Italy (2794.00 m) Whiplash: R. Chou, Hong Kong (2468.00 m) (a) English sub-titled version measuring 3401.32 metres previously listed under the title Otalia De Bahia in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 11/76.

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Blood Ceremony: J. Grau, Spain (2414.00 m) Broken Oath: R. Chou, Hong Kong (2935.01 m) Desperate Living: J. Waters, U.S.A. (2464.70 m) A Dirty Western (a): M. Darrin, U.S.A. (1537.00 m) Eruption (Reconstructed version) (b): S. Kurlan, U.S.A. (1686.18 m) First Love: L. Turman/D. Foster, U.S.A. (2551.00 m) Flying Guillotine Part 2: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2721.87 m) The French Governess (Reconstructed versions) (c): O. Cocci, Italy (2259.00 m) The French Way: Eurocine, France (2249.00 m) Frightmare: P. Walker, U.K. (2359.00 m) House of Whipcord: P. Walker, U.K. (2794.00 m) Jubilee: H. Malin/J. Whaley, U.K. (2907.00 m) Moods of Love: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2962.44 m) Naughty Co-Eds: W.C. Hartwig. W. Germany (2393.60 m) New Shaolin Boxers: Shaw Bros., Hong Kong (2797.00 m) The Private Eye: Family (HK) Film, Hong Kong (2413.00 m) Rabid: J. Dunning, Canada (2413.84 m) The Shaolin Plot: R. Chou, Hong Kong (2989.00 m) The Tattooed Dragon: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong (2834.20 m) Thou Shalt Not Kill — But Once: W.C. Hon. Hong Kong (2524.00 m) 2069 A Sex Odyssey: Kopf, W. Germany (2245.00 m) The Unique Lama: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong (2441.00 m) (a) Reduced by pre-censor cuts totalling 420 metres. (b) Previously listed In Film Censorship Bulletin No. 1/ 78 (c) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 1/ 78.

F IL M S REG IS TE R ED W ITH E L IM IN A T IO N S For Restricted Exhibition (R)

Sylvia Kristel (Emmanuelle) and Jean-Pierre Bouvier (Gregory) in Francois Leterrier’s Goodbye Emmanuelle. The film was passed “R” uncut.

F IL M S REFUSED R E G IS TR A TIO N Captain Lust (Reconstructed version) (a): Buchanan, U. S. A. (1886.30 m). Reason: Indecency.

Female Chauvinists: J. Jackson, U. S. A. (2413.84 m).

Reason: Indecency.

The Model Hunters: M. J. Productions, U. S. A. (1481.22 m). Reason: Indecency. (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 11/77.

F IL M S BO ARD O F REVIEW F IL M S APP R O VE D FOR R E G IS TR A T IO N AFTER REVIEW Fingers: (a): G. Barrie, U. S. A. (2448.00 m) Decision reviewed: Appeal against 'R' registration by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board.

Tintorera (b): G. Green, U. K. /Mexico (2386.00 m) Decision reviewed: Appeal against 'R' registration by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Register 'M'.

F IL M S N O T A PPRO VED FOR R E G IS TR A T IO N AFTER REVIEW Nil. (a) (b)

Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 12/77.

Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 1 2/77.

M ARCH 1 9 7 8

An Unfinished Piece for a Player Piano: Sovexport Films, U.S.S.R. (2825.00 m) Legend of Loch Ness (16 mm): R. Martin, U.S.A. (998.27 m) (a) Reduced by Importer's cuts from 3648.00 metres.

(Film Censorship Bulletin No. 12/77).

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Capricorn One: P.N. Lazarus III U.K. (3346.46 m) Con R ispetto Parlando: T. C o la n tu on l, Italy (2628.00 m) The Crazy Bumpkins: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2550.99 m) Daerah El Intekaam (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1710.80 m) Fish Without Bone (Samak Bala Hasak) (16 mm): M. Sabbah, Lebanon (1042.00 m) The Heroes of the Eastern Skies (1 6 mm): M. C. Ling Taiwan (1009.00 m) Hob Fi Tarik Massdood (16 mm) Not shown, Egypt (11 29.00 m) Love Needs No Sorrow: C.J. Dao, Hong Kong (2715.00 m) Love Rings a Bell (16 mm): C.R. Ling, Taiwan (1097.00 m) Roseland: I. Merchant, U.S.A. (2800.00 m) The Runaway Train: D.L. Rich U.S.A. (2340.00 m) Saul E David: M. Baldi, Italy (3044.00 m) Solo: D. Hannay/T. Williams, Australia (2688.00 m) That’s Carry On: P. Rogers, U.K. (271 6.00 m) Udhar Ka Sindur: Prasad Prods. India, (4077.00 m) Une Cause Celebre (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1645.00 m) Virgin But? (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1338.00 m) Winner Takes All: Advance Films, Hong Kong (2622.56 m) The Yellow Panther: J. Ubout/R. Ng, Hong Kong (2304.00 m)

For Mature Audiences (M)

F IL M S REG IS TE R ED W IT H O U T E L IM IN A T IO N S For General Exhibition (G) Anurodh: G. Samanta, India (4673.00 m) Beautiful Duckling (16 mm): H. Kung, Taiwan (1097.00 m) Condamnes A Reussir (Sentenced to Success) (16 mm): Cine Inform. Documents, France (669.00 m) Green Garden: P.S. Luk, Hong Kong (2708.00 m) Guardia, Guardia Scelta, Brigadiere & Maresciallo: M. Bolognini, Italy (2398.00 m) The High Cost of a Free Ride (16 mm): D. Barrymore, U.S.A. (91 4.40 m) Hilwa Ya Donia El Hob (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1 283.00 m) I Due Maggiolini Piu Matti Del Mondo: G. Orlandini, Italy (2180.00 m) Joey and the Dolphin: E. Brown, U.S.A. (2605.00 m) The Last Tempest: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (3236.00 m) Pete’s Dragon (Reduced version) (a): Miller/Courtland, U.S.A. (2906.00 m) Rock ’N Roll Wolf: Ralux Films, France (2347.00 m) Rod Stewart and the Faces (16 mm): M. Mansfield, U K. (658.00 m) A Taste of Juice (16 mm): C. Mastalka, U.S.A. (822.96 m)

Adoption: Mafilm Studios, Hungary (2414.00 m) Bahia (English Dubbed version) (a): C. Duval, France/ Brazil (2550.00 m) The Betsy: R.R. Weston, U.S.A. (3373.89 m) Challenge of the Masters: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2660.00 m) Death Duel: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2523.00 m) Falling Snowflakes (16 mm): M.C. Ling, Taiwan (1075.00 m) Giovannona Cosclalunga Disonorata Con Onore: L. Martino, Italy (2525.00 m) Khmer! Khmer! Cambodia in Conflict (16 mm): J. Gerrand. Australia (698.00 m) Kung Fu’s Hero: M.J. Sheng, Hong Kong (2539.02 m) Land of the Minotaur: F. Constantine, U.S.A. (2386.00 m) Lolita Italian Style: A. Spinola, Italy (2331.00 m) The Night the Earth Shook: E. Montagne/H. Tatelman, U.S.A. (2633.28 m) The One and Only: S. Gordon/D. Picker, USA. (2770.43 m) Piedino II Questurino: Mount Street Film, Italy (2416.00 m) Rabbit Test: E. Rosenberg, U. S. A. (2348.00 m) Rene La Canne (Emmanuelle in Trouble): F. Girod, France/ltaly (2824.00 m) Speedtrap: H. Pine/Mintz, U.S.A. (2715.57 m).

Straight Time: Beck/Zinnemann, U.S.A. (3099.59 m) Two Con Men: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2758.75 m)

The A.B.C. of Love and Sex — Australia Style: J. Lamond Australia (2387.20 m). Eliminations: 98.7 m (3 mins. 36 secs.). Reason: Indecency.

Sex in Denmark: K. Balm, W. Germany (2466.00 m).

Eliminations: 41.8 m (1 min 31 secs). Reason: Indecency.

F IL M S REFUSED R E G IS TR A T IO N The Joy of Letting Go: S. Brown, U.S.A. (2104.70 m).

Reason: Indecency.

F IL M S BO ARD OF REVIEW F IL M S A PP R O VE D FOR R E G IS TR A T IO N AFTER REVIEW Semi-Tough (a): D. Merrick, U.S.A. (2944.39m).

Decision Reviewed: Appeal against (R) registration by the Film Censorship Board. Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board.

F IL M S N O T APP R O VE D FOR R E G IS TR A T IO N AFTER REVIEW Captain Lust (R econstruction version) (b): B. Buchanan, U.S.A. (1886.30 m). Decision Reviewed: Appeal against 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 Bulletin No. 2/ 78. (b) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 2/ 78.

A PR IL 1 9 7 8 F IL M S R EG ISTERED W IT H O U T E L IM IN A T IO N S For General Exhibition (G) Candleshoe: R. Miller, U. S. A. (2715.57 m) Die Alte Neue Welt (16 mm): Veb/Defa, E. Germany (1151.00 m) G ulliver’s Travels: R. Leblanc/D. Horne, U. K. (2197.00 m) Kal Aaj Aur Kal: Not shown, India (4620.00 m) Nosey Dobson: Children’s Film Foundation, U. K. (1618.00 m) Mountain High (16 mm): D. Barrymore Prod., U.S.A. (914.00 m) The Palestinian (16 mm): V. Redgrave Prod., U.K. (1765.00 m) Return from Witch Mountain: R. Miller/J. Courtland, U.S.A. (2523.56m) The Sea Gypsies: J. Rafill, U. S. A. (2770.00 m) Treasure of Matecumbe: Disney, U. S. A. (2853.00 m) Wombling Free: I. Shand, U. K. (2633.00 m)

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) American Hot Wax: A. Linson, U. S, A. (2551.00 m) Beyond and Back: Sunn Classic Prod., U. S. A. (2578.00 m) Dharam Karam: R. Kapoor, India (4620.00 m) The Shooting: J. Nicholson/M. Heilman, U. S. A (2194.00 m)

For Mature Audiences (M) Allonsanfa’n: Missori & Tavani, Italy (2990.00 m) C hjvalious Inn: Golden H arvest, Hong Kong (2468.70 m) Coma: M. Erllchman, U. S. A. (31 27.00 m) Country Man and Scavenger: Lee Film Co., Hong Kong (2743.00 m)

Concluded on P.77

Cinema Papers, August/September — 37

GUIDE FOR THE AUSTRALIAN FILM PRODUCER: PART 1 0 THE SOUNDTRACK AGREEMENT In this 10th part of a 19-part series, Cinema Papers contributing editor Antony I. Ginnane, and Melbourne solicitors Ian Baillieu and Leon Gorr discuss the various methods in which music may be incorporated by agreement into the soundtrack of a feature film.

A. Introduction The musical works that are the subject of a producer’s agreement with his composer or with a music publishing house or copyright agency are copyright under the heading of “ literary, dram atic or m usical w orks” pursuant to Section 31 (i) (a) of the Copyright Act 1968. Copyright in a musical work is defined as the exclusive right to do all or any of the acts of (i) reproducing the work in a material form; (ii) publishing the work; (iii) p e rfo rm in g th e w ork in p u b lic; (iv) broadcasting the work; (v) causing the work to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service; (vi) making an adaptation of the work; and (vii) doing, in relation to an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in (i) to (v).

It is these rights that the producer sets out to obtain when he enters into a music agreement.

In choosing the sort of music the producer wishes to incorporate in his film he will be selecting from either (a) commissioning a composer to write and/or record music specifically for the film; (b) choosing music already in existence owned by a music publisher or copyright agency and obtaining permission to adapt or re-record this music; (c) obtaining a synchronization licence from a music publisher or copyright agency to reproduce unchanged certain library or “ canned” music which is available on a non­ exclusive basis on disc; or (d) a combination of any of these.

B. Original music for a feature film This is by far the most common method of obtaining m usic for a film. A ustralian com posers average betw een $5000 and $10,000 for a 40-minute score, and frequently producers sub-contract with the composer, so that he looks after the copying and recording of the composition and is reimbursed.

In the U.S., an Academy Award-winning composer may receive up to US$45,000 for a score exclusive of any copying, conducting or arranging work done, for which extra fees determined by union agreement are paid.

Unlike Australian composers, most U.S. composers have agents to negotiate on their behalf. Most Australian composers negotiate directly with producers.

The standard agreement for original music (a precedent of which will be provided in the subscription service) is a long-form document which is set out rather like a production38 — Cinema Papers, August/September

distribution agreement or (in parts) like a long-form talent contract. ' The agreement sets out the services the composer will provide, including his role, if any, in conducting the orchestra, supervising the music editing, dubbing and mixing, etc.

The elements he will deliver ultimately to the producer are set out, and these include cue s h e e ts , a copy of th e sco re and all arrangements.

The term of employment may begin before the completion of principal photography, but the music cannot be synced to image until the fine cut has been frozen. The composer is. frequently provided with a video cassette of the fine cut. A schedule provides for completion of writing and, if appropriate, completion of recording within a certain time.

This can be crucial if the producer is tied in to a mix date or, even worse, a-release date set out in his financing arrangement.

The grant of rights clauses set out the extent to which the producer obtains ownership of the various rights under the copyright discussed in section A of this article.

M ost A ustralian contracts include a paragraph in the grant of rights clauses which states: “ Notwithstanding anything set out herein, the composer’s grant of rights to the producer shall be subject to any prior right to th e A u s tr a la s ia n P e r f o r m in g R ig h ts Association Limited (APRA).”

APRA was founded in 1926 as an association of authors, composers and music publishers. Members of APRA assign to it the right to perform their works in public, to broadcast their works, and to cause their works to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service. This assignment includes works owned by the composer at the time of joining APRA and, by virtue of S. 197 of the C opyright Act, any works he creates thereafter. The practical effects of such membership are that the three rights referred to above are not included in any grant of rights.

APRA has arrangements with Australian cinemas, television stations, radio stations, etc. for collection of royalties pursuant to these rights. It is affiliated with similar organizations world wide, including the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers in the U.S. and the Performing Right Society Ltd in Britain.

APRA is in effect a monopoly, and its operations have been criticized in submissions m ade to th e C o p y rig h t Law R eview Committee 1959 (the Spicer Committee).

These submissions were noted but not acted upon by the Committee, except to the extent that a Copyright Tribunal was set up by the 1968 Copyright Act to hear disputes related to the grant of copyright licences.

In the grant of rights clauses the composer makes the usual warranties as to originality. A billing clause is provided with the usual

exclusions. Detailed breach provisions are set out dealing with non-performance.

The consideration payable to the composer frequently provides for a bonus residual payment if the film is licensed for a U. S. tele­ vision network run.

C. Synchronization Licences In the event the producer decides to either (i) make use of music already in existence and then adapt or re-record it or (ii) make use of “ canned” library music he will need to obtain a synchronization licence from the publisher of the music work or the copyright agency licensed by the publishers. This agency is frequently the ANZ M usical Copyright Agency (formerly the Copyright Owners’ Reproduction Society Ltd).

A scale of licence fees provides, via a standard form of agreement, for theatrical, non-theatrical and television usage world wide. Some difficulty may sometimes be encountered in tracing musical ownership if the work does not appear in ANZ’s register and searches may have to be made overseas.

D. The Soundtrack Album Agreement The right to produce a soundtrack album or record of the film soundtrack, called “ m echanical reproduction rig h ts” , can, subject to any pre-existing arrangement the composer may have with a musical publisher, be granted to the producer in the main composer’s agreement.

Traditionally the main purpose of sound­ track albums was as a promotional tool to tie in with the general exploitation of the film, as, with the exception of film musical scores, they were not best sellers. Recently, however, certain soundtrack albums — eg: Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind — have been m arketed aggressively and successfully in their own right.

The producer will enter into a soundtrack agreement with a record company, which will provide for the record company to advance the co sts of th e alb u m , and th e n , a fte r recoupment, to provide a small royalty to the producer. Sometimes, on major productions, cash advances will also be paid. The sleeve of the album will feature the film’s key artwork and notes on the production. A minimum number of albums to be pressed will be included in the contract.

Recently, on a major new “ disco” -musical, multi-disc LP album, the producers, who are also music publishers, advertised the sound­ track album to cinema audiences via the film’s trailer. ★

GUIDE TO THE PRODUCER

The Australian Film Producers & Investors Guide SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE Written by

Edited by

Antony I. Ginnane LL. B ., (Melb.) ian Baiilieu M. A. Juris (Oxon) Leon Gorr B. Juris., LL. B ., (Mon.) M. Admin.

Peter Beilby

THE EXHIBITOR

T h e A u stralian Film Producers and Investors G uid e is now in production and mailings have

Registration of cinemas. Regulations affecting cinema operation. Economics of cinema operations.

commenced.

An updated and improved version of the continuing series of Cinema Papers articles entitled “ Guide for The Australian Film Producer” , the new A ustralian Film P rod ucers and Investors G uid e is available as a loose leaf, hardcover, regularly expanding and updating subscription service.

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

T he A u stralian Film P roducers and Investors G uid e 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.

P R E L IM IN A R Y A S S E S S M E N T O F T H E P R O JE C T 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.

O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F TH E P R O D U C ER Considerations governing choice whether to use company, trust, business name, partnership, etc. Costs and formal requirements of each form of organization.

S E C U R IN G N E C E S S A R Y R IG H TS 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.

S C R IP T D E V E L O P M E N T 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.

D EA LIN G W IT H A C O M P L E T E D S C R IP T Nature and protection of rights in a completed screenplay.

Assessment and valuation of a completed screenplay.

Agreement for acquisition of a completed screenplay.

P R E P R O D U C T IO N 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.

B U D G E TIN G 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.

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.

F IN A N C IN G A FILM . IN V E S T IN G 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.

P R O D U C T IO N 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.

A C Q U IR IN G A C O M P L E TE D 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.

E X P L O IT IN G TH E 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, 1 6mm 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.

E X P L O IT IN G A N C IL L A R Y R IG H TS 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.

—

M IS C E L L A N E O U S 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 FO R EIG N PRO D U C ER IN A U S TR A L IA Information of particular use to a foreign producer planning to mount a production or co-production in Australia.

IN D U S T R Y S U R VEY A ND W H O ’S W HO 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 governmentfilm corporations, and their board members and executives. Directory of Australian film schools.

Alphabetical Who’s Who of the Australian film industry.

L E G IS L A T IO N Copyright Act, Acts incorporating the various government film corporations, and extracts from other legislation of particular use or relevance.

Regular read ers o f C inem a Papers should note th a t in the future no furth er p reced en ts, form s, ta b le s or schedules w ill be provided in the q u a rte rly Cinem a Papers a rtic les . T he Film Producers and Investors G uide w ill p ro vid e these and o th er precedents, to g e th e r w ith a m ore d e ta ile d and expan ded te x t on the p roblem s and c ircu m stan ces d iscussed in the m ag azine a rtic les , which have inevitably been re s tric te d by lim itatio n s o f space.

S u bscription 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 1981 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, 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne 3051, Australia. Please note that the print run of the Service is limited.

ORDER FORM Please record my subscription to T he A ustralian Film Producers and Investors Guide. My cheque for $150 payable to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd is enclosed.

Name__________________________ _ _________ Address.

Postcode To: The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide.

644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne Vic. 3051, Australia

...............................

Cinema Papers, August/September — 39

TAX AND THE

FILM IN D U ST R Y The second article in a series of occasional features on Income Tax Law and its application to the Australian Film Industry.

Peter Martin PARTI

In tro d u c tio n

The Commonwealth Government has introduced legislation to amend, among other things, the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, which refer to capital investment in the creation of copyright in a film (as well as investment in patents, designs and other forms of copyright, etc.). The amendments relate to Division 10B of the Act. They are not the only provisions that may apply to film industry investment, but they are the relevant ones for investors who do not have a previous history of investment in the film industry.

The general purpose of the amendments is to make clear that an investor in a film can claim a tax deduction for his capital outlay in much the same way as a manufacturer can claim a depreciation allowance deduction for plant and equipment he buys and uses to produce goods. Despite some reports to the contrary, it should be understood that this is not a tax deduction geared simply to the loss of capital. The deduction applies whether losses are incurred or not.

The main complications under the legislation involve the questions as to what will happen to royalty income generated by the film and to the level of deductions if an investor sells his share in a film to someone else and gets a financial return from the sale. There is some doubt about the former situation, although it is intended that royalty income should be taxable income. The complications which are dealt with in the amending legislation, and which are perhaps the most difficult to follow, are those which relate to the sale of shares of investment in a film.

The general p rin c ip le is that a “ balancing adjustment” is to be made in the tax deduction applicable to an investor if he sells all or a part of his investment before the “effective life” of the film has expired. For general purposes, the “effective life” of an Australian film will be taken to be two years compared with 25 years previously*. This means that if there is no disposal of the “ unit of industrial property” (i.e., the investor’s share in the film) before the expiry of the first two years, then the investor will be able to claim a tax deduction of 50 per cent of his original investment in the first year and 50 per cent again in the second year.

The first year of income in which a claim can be made is not the year when the film is made, but the year in which the film is first used “ for the purpose of producing assessable income” . This presumably means the first year in which the film is given a bona fide release. Some problems may be associated with the timing of this qualification.

A further provision is one which has obviously arisen from recent uncertainties in the industry about the timing of the legislation. This is that films used to produce income for the first time after November 22, 1977, may all qualify for the two-year deduction — provided they meet one of the central conditions of the legislation — ie, a “ certification” by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) that they are “ Australian films” .

If a film is to qualify for the two-year depreciation deduction (as opposed to other deductions which are still possible), the Minister must be able to certify, in terms similar to the provisions in the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, that the film is “ an Australian film” . ‘ Despite this, it is clear that prior arrangements can be made to claim deductions for investment relating to an “ effective life” of any specified period, from one year to 25 years.

Peter M artin is a com m issioner of the Australian Film Commission.

40 — Cinema Papers, August/September

The process for certification has yet to be established, but a reasonable assessment is that the producer concerned should write to the Minister (after passage of the legislation — expected in August/ September), outlining foreign content contained in his production or proposed production and requesting certification for the purposes of Division 10B. It would be reasonable to assume that formal procedures will be established for this process shortly, and with this in mind inquiries should be directed to the Department of Home Affairs or the Australian Film Commission once the legislation is passed.

The definition of a “ film” in the legislation is very broad and appears sufficiently comprehensive to include television programs, cinema features, documentaries, dramas, etc.

The AFC is still conducting a detailed examination of the implications of the legislation. It is not able to give detailed answers to detailed questions, but is prepared to answer general queries. Those who wish to apply for certification should await an announcement of the procedures to be followed for certification before writing to the Minister.

PART 2

A Laym an’s Guide to Film D epreciation A llow ances.

The first point that should be understood is that Division 10B generally deals with “ units of industrial property” . These are not films but shares in films — ie, investors’ shares by way of equitable rights or beneficial interests. Each separate initial investment creates a “ unit” and each unit is treated separately for tax purposes. “ Units” can be sold, or disposed of, individually, although most units in a film will presumably have had much the same history, because, in the past, the film has usually been marketed as a whole. Because of the im p lica tio n s of recent amendments, this is a situation which may change.

There appears to be an increased likelihood that shareholders in a film may be trading with their “ units” of investment by selling them off to other owners, etc, more than has been the case in the past.

A “ unit” qualifies for special tax treatment in Division 10B if: (a) the film is certified by the Minister as an “ Australian film” ; and (b) the unit is first used “ for the purposes of producing assessable income” .

It should be noted in particular that the words “ for the purposes . . .” suggest not that money has to have been made by the film for it to qualify, but that an attempt has to have been made to make money — or, more importantly, that the Taxation Commissioner is convinced that an attempt has been made, etc.

The extent to which a film benefits from new concessions by qualification under this process is related to the “effective life” of the copyright as established in Division 10B, for tax purposes.

Previously, the film was deemed to have a tax “ life” of 25 years. Now, it may have a tax “ life” of two years and, in special circumstances, it should be possible for a “ unit” of the film to have a life of any number of years — from one to 25 inclusive.

It is possible to reduce the important provisions of Division 10B to a series of mathematical equations.

(These are provided in an attachment at the end of this section.) To understand how the scheme works, however, it is probably best to begin with some simple examples and then develop some more complicated examples.

Example 1 Assume we have a film investment where the “ unit of industrial property” (ie, an investors' share) has “ qualified” because the film has been certified by the Minister as “ Australian” and an attempt has been made to make money for the film and the investors. Assume also, that the investor has not sold any of his share, either in the income year when the film was first “ used” or in the income year following that. If the unit originally cost $100,000 — ie, this amount was invested by a company or a person — the tax situation is as follows: At the end of year 1, a tax claim can be made, and the tax deduction applicable can be calculated by taking what is known as “the residual value” of the investment at the end of year 1, and dividing it by the number of years remaining in its “effective life” at the beginning of year 1 (in this case, the full two years of “ life” ).

Under the provisions of Division 10B, the “ residual value” is calculated from the starting point of the original cost — ie, $100,000 — and that amount is reduced to the extent that tax deductions in previous years have been claimed on it and/or money has been received for the sale of some — or all — of the “ unit” (eg: by selling to someone a part of a share in the film).

The “ residual value” here is the amount left over from the $100,000 after you take receipts and earlier tax deductions into account — as “ value reductions” .

In this first example, no earlier deductions have been possible and no sales have been made, so the unit’s residual value is still $100,000. If that is divided by the number of years remaining in the effective life at the beginning of the income year, (ie, two years), the deduction allowable is $50,000 for year 1. _ At the end of year 2, the residual value is reduced by the deductions allowed in year 1 — ie, by $50,000.

As there has still been no disposal of the unit for cash, the residual value must be $50,000 and as there was only one year remaining in the effective life of the unit at the beginning of tax year 2, the deduction allowed is $50,000.

More complicated calculations are involved if an investor has either completely sold his interest in the film to another investor or has sold off part of his interest and has received cash for it.

Example 2 Assume a unit costing $100,000 has been sold off in part in year 1 for $40,000 and the part remaining is held through year 2.

Cost of unit = $100,000 Part sale in year 1 = $40,000 No sale in year 2 Two years “effective” life Year 1

Residual value at year’s end

Cost, less the sum of earlier deductions and “ consideration” received. $100,000 - (0 + $40,000) $60,000 Residual value divided by remaining “ life” $60,000 - 2 $30,000

ie Deduction

Y ear 2

Residual value

=

Deduction

= = =

$100,000 — ($30,000 + $40,000) $30,000 $30,000 1 $30,000

Example 3 Assume same unit is partly disposed of each year: in year 1 for $40,000; in year 2 for $30,000.

TAX LEGISLATION

Year 1

Residual value Deduction

_

$1 00,000 - (0 + $40,000) $60,000 $30,000

= =

Year 2

Residual value

=

Deduction

= = =

$1 00,000 - ($30,000 + ($40,000 + $30,000)) $100,000 - $100,000 0 0

Example 4 Cost of unit “ Effective life” Receipt for sale of unit

_ =

$100,000 2 years

=

$70,000 in Year 2

-

$1 00,000 - (0 + 0) $1 00,000 $50,000

Receipts from “ disposal”

:

$70,000 in year 1 $50,000 in year 2

Residual value at year’s end

=

Deduction

=

$100,000 - (0 + $70,000) $30,000 $15,000

Y ear 1

PART 3

Year 2

Residual value at time of sale

=

Assessable income presumably would be =

$100,000 - ($15,000 + $70,000) $15,000

$50,000 - $1 5,000 $35,000

Year 1

Residual value Deduction

=

Then, in ye a r 2:

Residual value

=

$100,000 - ($50,000 + $70,000) - $20,000

=

In such a case, some different provisions start to apply. The residual value as at the time of sale of the unit (not at the year’s end) is relevant — in this case $50,000 ($100,000 less previous deductions less previous receipts). When the sale exceeds this residual value at the time of sale, no deductions are allowable at the year’s end, and, in fact, the difference between total receipts ($70,000) and residual value at the time of the sale during the year ($50,000) has to be included in assessable income, and may be taxed; ie, $20,000 is treated as coming into the investors' hands after residual value has disappeared.

Thus: Year 2

But assessable income may not exceed the sum of all deductions allowed for the unit, less sums previously included in assessable income.

In this case, assessable income may not exceed $15,000 + 0 = $15,000. So tax is payable on $15,000 of year 2 receipts, and the remainder of the $35,000 — ie, $20,000 — is tax exempt. In other words, if the cost of the unit originally was $100,000, and total receipts exceed $100,000, all excess above $100,000 becomes tax exempt.

This applies also after the effective life of the unit has run out, if receipts are still coming in from disposals.

Example 7 Cost of unit Effective life Receipts from disposal

: :

$100,000 two years

:

$70,000 in year 1 $50,000 in year 2 $40,000 in year 3

Year 1

Residual value at time of sale Total receipts Deduction

= =

and assessable income

_

=

$50,000 $70,000 0 (no residual value at year’s end) $70,000 - $50,000 $20,000

=

Example 5

deduction (as above) = Y ear 2 deduction = Assessable income =

$15,000 0 $15,000

Year 3

Usually, assessable income = = =

receipts — residual value $40,000 - 0 $40,000

But, assessable income may not exceed the sum of all deductions less sums previously assessable — ie, $15,000 - $15,000 = 0; ie, no assessable income in year 3. $40,000 is received tax free.

$100,000 two years

Cost of unit Effective life Receipts for sale of unit

$70,000 in year 1 $20,000 in year 2

The maths of (simpler) deduction allowances

Y ear 1

Residual value at year’s end

= -

Deduction

= =

Cost less the sum of previous deductions and receipts $100,000 - (0 + $70,000) $100,000 - $70,000 $30,000 $15,000

Year 2

Residual value at time of sale

$100,000 - ($15,000 + $70,000) = $15,000 New sale receipts exceed this.

Therefore, Total year’s sale receipts assessable income = less residual value at time of sale. = $20,000 - $1 5,000 = $5,000 =

The final complication necessary for a basic understanding of the system involves the situation where receipts for disposal of a unit amount to what might be termed a “ profit” over and above the initial cost of the unit — eg: where sales of the unit which cost $100,000 originally are greater than $100,000. In these cases, while some income may have to be included in assessable income, the “ profit” , as such, does not have to be included and, like capital gains, is treated as tax exempt income.

Example 6 Cost of unit Effective life

______ : :

$100,000 two years

and A is the sum of all amounts included in asses­ sable income in previous years.

I. The deduction allowed in any given year is calculated thus: d = RvE Ef where d is the deduction allowed in a year of income RvE is the “ residual value” at the end of the income year, and Ef is the number of years of “ effective life” remaining at the beginning of the year of income.

II. “ Residual value” can be calculated from the equation: Rv = C - (D + P), where Rv is the residual value, C is the original cost or investment outlay, D is the total of all deductions in previous years of income (if any), and P is the total of all payments (if any) received for disposal of the “ unit” in part (eg, selling-off Victorian cinema rights etc.)

III. Where money received from disposal of a unit exceeds its residual value, the excess receipts have to be included in assessable income.

Thus: a = p — Rv where a is the amount to be included in assessable income. p is the payment received for disposal (when this amount exceeds the residual value at that time); and Rv is the residual value at the time p is received.

But, IV. a > D - A where a is the amount to be included in assessable income in any given year D is the sum of all deductions in previous years

Provided below is the te x t of an e x tra c t from th e o n ly-recen tly-issu ed Explanatory M em orandum issued by th e T reas u rer on th e new legislation.

This is m ore a re fe re n c e docum ent than light reading.

Clauses 1 3 -2 7 : Division 10B of Part III of the Principal Act Introductory note These clauses, which are concerned mainly with the proposal to allow a two year write-off of the cost of Australian film rights, will effect amendments to the provisions in Division 10B of Part III of the Principal Act which govern the allowance of income tax deductions for certain capital expenditure incurred by a taxpayer, either as an owner or a licensee, in acquiring rights in respect of a patent granted in Australia, a design registered in Australia, or a copyright subsisting in Australia. The Division does not apply to expenditure for which deductions are allowable under any other provisions of the income tax law (e.g., expenditure that is fully deductible as a business expense in the year in which it is incurred or expenditure on plant subject to depreciation allowances).

The broad plan of Division 10B is to allow the owner or licensee of rights in respect of an Australian patent, design or copyright (referred to as a “ unit of industrial property”) to deduct the cost of the unit over the period (referred to as the “effective life” of the unit) during which the owner or licensee may exercise rights in respect of the unit. The first deduction year is the income year in which the unit is first used by the owner or licensee for the purpose of producing assessable income. Provision is made in Division 1OB for balancing adjustments to apply where the unit is wholly or partially disposed of by the owner; or ceases to exist.

Where a taxpayer incurs capital expenditure (not otherwise deductible) in acquiring rights under a copyright in a film, the expenditure is presently deductible under Division 1OB by way of equal annual deductions over 25 years or, in a case where the taxpayer’s rights in respect of the film are exercisable over a specified period of less than 25 years, by way of equal annual deductions over the specified period. The main purpose of the amendments to Division 10B proposed by this Bill is to reduce to 2 income years the period over which deductions under Division 10B may be allowed for the capital cost of rights relating to a film that is classified as an “ Australian film” .

The key provisions to implement that purpose are to be incorporated into the law by clause 22, which ordinarily will have the effect of attributing to a unit of industrial property that relates to the copyright in an Australian film an effective life of 2 years commencing at the beginning of the year of income during which the owner first used the unit, or the film to which it relates, for the purpose of producing assessable income. If the unit was acquired for a specified period ending within that same year of income, an effective life of one year will be attributed to the unit.

In accordance with existing provisions that imple­ ment the broad plan of Division 10B, as already outlined, this will mean that taxpayers who incur capital expenditure (not otherwise deductible) to acquire units of industrial property comprising Australian film rights will ordinarily be entitled to have one-half of the cost deducted in the assessment for the year of income during which the unit is first used for the purpose of producing assessable income, and the other half deducted in the assessment for the following year of income. A taxpayer who acquires such a unit for a specified period ending within the first-mentioned year of income will be entitled to have the total cost deducted in the assessment that year.

As with units of industrial property in general, the deductions allowable on the quick write-off basis in respect of Australian film rights will be subject to adjustment if the owner disposes of those rights in whole or in part.

A film will be classified as an “ Australian film” if it is certified by the Minister for Home Affairs to be a film that meets tests specified in a definition of that expression and a supporting provision to be incorporated in the law by paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 13. The tests are explained in notes on those paragraphs.

Continued on P.74 Cinema Papers, August/September — 41

INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION ROUND-UP Joseph Losey is following Roads to th e South with M o z a rt’s Don Giovanni.

United States M elvin Simon P ro d u c tio n s h a s announced two features to be directed

by Stanley Kramer. Both from stage plays, they are The Runner Stumbles, with Dick van Dyke and Kathleen Quinlan (from The Betsy), and The Last o f the Marx Bros Writers.

Czech director Jan Kadar is still residing in the US. and is to direct Muhammad Ali in Freedom Road. The publicity states: “The most famous man in the world in the most widely published novel of the 20th Century.”

C om poser M ic h e l L e g ra n d (Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Summer of ’42) is to direct and score Blind Love from the novel by Patrick Cauvin.

Jason Miller, who played the priest in the Exorcist and starred in Robert Mulligan’s The Nickel Ride, is to write and direct Don’t call u s ...W e ’ll call you.

Lamont Johnson is to direct Jeff Bridges and Farrah Fawcett-Majors in Somebody Killed Her Husband; Alvin Rakoff to produce and direct King S o lo m o n ’s T re a s u re , w ith David McCallum and Patrick Macnee; Para­ mount has announced a new production of C am ille, this time with French actress Isabelle Adjani; and Mark L. Lester, director of Tru ck S top W omen, is to direct H ig h -S ch o o l 2 0 0 0 .

Larry Peerce (The Sporting Club) is directing T h e Bell Jar, from Sylvia Plath’s novel. It stars Marilyn Hassett and Julie Harris.

Michel Winner is shooting Firepo w er with Sophia Loren; actor James Caan directing Hide in Plain Sight; Franco Zefferelli T he Cham p; Martin Ritt Norm a Rae; William Friedkin Brink’s; and Peter Fonda W anda Nevada, with Brooke Shields.

Britain Stanley Kubrick’s T he Shining, from the novel of the same name, is still in production at Elstree Studios. The director of photography is John Alcott (Barry Lyndon), and the cast includes Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall and Danny Lloyd.

Also shooting is John Schlesinger’s Yanks, which is from a script by Colin Welland and Walter Bernstein. Starring are Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Gere, William Devane and Rachel Roberts.

Following on from Paul Morrisey’s The Hound of the Baskervilles comes Bob Clarke’s Sherlock Holmes: Murder by Decree. It has a screenplay by John Hopkins, and stars Christopher Plumer,

The lead singers are Ruggero Raimundi, John Macurdy, Edda Moser and Kenneth Riegal. The orchestra will be from the Paris Opera. Production designer is Alexandre Trauner, cameraman Gerry Fisher and editor Reginald Beck.

Soon to be released are Pierre Granier Deferre’s Adieu poulet, with Lino Ventura, Victor Lanoux and Patrick Deware; Michel D rach’s Le p a s s e sim p le with Marie Jose Nat and Victor Lanoux; Jean P ierre M o c k y ’ s II te s tim o n e , with Alberto Sordi and Philippe Noiret; Christian de Chalonge’s O ther P e o p le ’s Money, with Jean-Louis T rintignant, Claude B rasseur and Catherine Deneuve.

Eric Rohmer’s Perceval le G allois ’ has completed shooting and is to be released in October.

Robert Enrico is to do G iants on the Road; Nicolas Gessner Louisiana Love; and Francis Giacobetti, director of Em m anuelle 2, Stars.

Truffaut, having completed T he G reen Room, is directing L’am our en fu ite (Love on the Run) the closing episode of

Scene from Walerian Borowczyk’s Interno di un convento.

James Mason, Donald S utherland, Genevieve Bujold, John Gielgud and David Hemmings.

After the critical success of The D u ellists (it won the Jury Prize at Cannes in 1977), director Ridley Scott is making Alien with Veronica Cartwright, Ton Skerritt and Sigourney Weaver.

Anthony Harvey, director of T hey M ight Be Giants, is in Britain where he is directing Players with Ali MacGraw, Dean Paul Martin and Pancho Gonzales.

Set in the world of international tennis, It has many brief appearances by top players, and several scenes were shot during the last week of Wimbledon.

British films shooting outside Britain include: Glenn Jordan’s Les M iserables (in France), with R ichard Jordan, Anthony Perkins and John Gielgud; Zulu Dawn (in South Africa) directed by Douglas Hickox and starring Burt Lancaster, Simon Ward and Peter O’Toole. The screenplay is by Zulu director, Cy Endfieid.

Andrew V. McLaglen is following up his successful The Wild Geese with Boarding Party. Both films star Richard Burton, Roger Moore, Richard Harris and Hardy Kruger. McLaglen will then direct Game fo r Vultures.

France Polish director Roman Polanski is to direct Tess, from Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles. Shooting will be entirely in France and is from a screenplay by Gerard Brach, Polanski’s long-time collaborator, John Brownjohn and Polanski. Nasstasia KinSki will star as Tess, alongside Leigh Lawson and Peter Firth.

the Antoine Doinel story. Jean-Pierre Leaud and Claude Jade star.

Andre Techine (S o u v e n ie rs d ’en France and Barocco) is directing The Bronte Sisters, with Isabelle Adjani, M a rie -F ra n ce P isie r and Isa b e lle Huppert.

Jacques Demy is no longer to direct Annouchka, and will be replaced by Michel Legrand. Demy is preparing Lady O scar instead.

Germany F ilm v e rla g d e r A u to re n have announced several new projects. These include the recently-completed Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s T he M arria g e of M aria Braun (about the formation of the new Germany from 1944 to 1954); Reinhard Hauff’s K nife in the Head, with Bruno Ganz and Angela Winkler; and Edgar Reitz's T he T ailo r of Ulm, which boasts “top production values and a whole regiment of hang glider pilots” .

Filmverlag has also picked up Wim Wender’s little-seen, 1972 feature, The S c a rle t Letter. Based on the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, it stars Senta Berger and Lou Castel.

CCC Studios Berlin has announced several new features: Tin Drum, from the novel by Gunter Grass and starring Charles Aznavour and Virna Lisa. It is to be directed by Volker Schlondorff.

Hungarian Koroly Makk is to make R adetzkym arsh with Dirk Bogarde and Virna Lisa; and American Andrew V. McLagen to do the sequel to Sam Peckinpah’s Iron Cross — Iron C ross II.

Elsewhere New Ita lia n fe a tu re s re c e n tly announced are Mario Monicelli’s The Fancy Dress Party, from the novel La Mascherata by Alberto Moravia; T he R e ic h s ta g F ire to be directed by Giuliano Montaldo; and Fellini’s T he C ity o f W omen, for producer Bob Guccione (Caligula).

Vanessa Redgrave and John Schlesinger on the set of Yanks.

42 — Cinema Papers, August/September

Nasstasia Kinski who will play Teas in Polanski’s adaptation of the Hardy novel.

K n u t H a m su n ’ s c la s s ic novel, Mysteries, is to be filmed by Paul de Lussanet. It stars Sylvia Kristel, Rutger Hauer (from T h e S e n s u a lis t), Rita Tushingham and Andrea Ferreol.

Jonas Correll has finished shooting B luff Stop, Jan Halldoff C h ez Nous, and Marianne Ahrne Roots o f G rief. *

correspondent's under-motivated, pill­ popping wife (Tuesday Weld), there are no innocents in W h o ’ll S to p the Rain — and its danse macabre of wolf-eat-wolf is a far cry from the Lambeth boys or the gentle humanism of the Free Cinema movement.

Jan Dawson

Also concerned with drugs and violence, and reflecting the moral vacuum on which it aspired to comment, was Alan Parker’s M idnight Express, heralded, somewhat prematurely, as signifying the renaissance of the British film industry.

The film is based on the drug-trial of a young American, William Hayes, in Turkey. Hayes was sentenced to 30 years in jail after he was caught leaving the country with two kilos of hashish.

From the moment of his arrest, the film shares his somewhat callow indignation at the general beastliness of abroad, and the unfairness of a host country enforcing laws which are less than universal, though Hayes’ preliminary sentence of four years for possession seems moderate even by the starspangled standard he waves.

Granted that incidents of rape, torture and even one c a s tra tio n w h ich punctuated his years in an Istanbul jail bespeak an urgent need for the reform of Turkish prison conditions, it is still unfortunate that neither Hayes (a best­ s e llin g e sca p e e who put in an appearance at the press conference), nor the film’s scriptwriter Oliver Stone, betray any curiosity about the extent to which these same conditions may reflect Turkey’s wider social problems or its exploitation by, for example, aspiring young capitalist pushers. The closest the film comes to a moral focus is the courtroom speech in which Hayes declares (to his Turkish judges) that all Turks-are pigs.

The film’s rabid xenophobia, its dewyeyed affection for American hygiene, Hilton hotels and never having to say you’re sorry, manages to offset any indignation provoked by its scenes of daily outrage. The meaning of life, which Hayes claims to have discovered in prison, remains obstinately absent from the sound and fury on the screen.

Lafayette (Gerard Depardieu) and Angelica (Gail Lawrence) as the feminist who shares his rat-infested flat. Marco Ferreri’s Bye Bye Monkey.

Although there is evidence on and off the screen that money for films is tighter than in either Hollywood’s golden era or the more tarnished heyday of the tax shelter, the Cannes Film Festival has lost none of its market-place atmosphere.

While the range of product on display in 1978 suggested, alternately, the e xclu sive couture house and the shoddier end of an Oriental bazaar, the market mood (or, at any rate, the claustrophobic impression of shopping around in a no-exit bargain basement) was maintained at a steady, high-pitched constant. .

Set by the daily trade papers (no less than four rival bulletins, all promoting th e ir a d v e r t is e r s ’ p ro d u c ts in e u p h o rica lly o p tim is tic prose), the upbeat tone was orchestrated in the ream s of paper issu e d d a ily by producers and distributors, all promising special and unrepeatable offers.

The overwhelming first impression of Cannes ’78 was that everything, and virtually everyone, was for sale.

As in previous years, however, it takes only a few days to become aware of the festival’s fundamental schizophrenia, more discernible than in the past.

This year Cannes (like Berlin) has a new d ir e c to r , G ille s J a c o b . A distinguished former film critic, Jacob is known for his skilful championing of p re d o m in a n tly fo r m a lis t film s — id io syn cra tic, usually experim ental auteur works, dense in sensual imagery and low on narrative content or obvious box-office appeal. Unless it was merely a case- of art imitating life (or, more precisely, of film forms following critical trends), Jacob succeeded — more than m o st d ir e c to r s of in te r n a tio n a l c o m p e titio n s — in im p o sin g his

d istinctive and none-too-commercial taste on his program.

Very few films in the Competition connected in any obvious way with the cut-throat marketing war raging outside the cinema doors; unfortunately, those few which did seemed rather like a parody of what was going on out there: crass commercial calculations, with slim pretensions to either art or merit.

The Competition seemed polarized between violent and meretricious action films on the one hand, and (the majority) films of provocative inaction on the other.

The majority of the films selected appeared designed to illustrate the death of narrative cinema, while the vociferous minority amplified its death agonies.

judgment. Yet the sole justification for the principals’ unsavory behavior is offered in a cryptic line of dialogue by the d is illu s io n e d w a r c o rre s p o n d e n t (Michael Moriarty) as he persuades his best friend (Nick Nolte) to take a consignment of heroin back to California for him: “ In a world where flying men bomb elephants, people are going to want to get high.”

U n le s s one c o u n ts the

THE COMPETITION Although the relative quiet can provide a welcome relief from a hard day’s sex (on the decline) and violence (on the up), stagnant images of beauty can prove as unsatisfying as hysterical scenes of destruction. The Competition opened with an indulgently “ visual” , self-

O UTSIDE CO M PETITION

Probably the loudest of the Festival’s action films was W h o ’ll S top the Rain, an American entry directed by Karel Reisz. It’s a brutal saga of cross and double-cross in the drugs trade, and shows a trio of relatively innocent newcomers to the business hounded and brutalized by “the organization”, which is itself controlled by corrupt Federal agents.

The film begins with scenes of apocalyptic destruction in Vietnam, and works its way through some set-piece variation on the familiar theme of the plucky individual versus the system.

It depends, therefore, on a degree of audience identification — or, at least, on our ability to abstain from censorious

Emil Lotianou’s A Hunting A cciden t an adaptation of a short story by Tchekov.

Cannes Film Festival Supplement — I

CANNES FILM FESTIVAL

consciously “ atmospheric” entry from the Soviet Union, which was in many ways to provide the prototype for the new sub-genre revealed by the Festival: the cinema of visually ornate inaction.

A Hunting Accident by Emil Lotianou derives from a story by Tchekov, and remains reverently conscious of its literary antecedents. Its characters are romanticized icons of a bygone era, and their strolls through a symbolically decaying aristocratic country house are paced, like their dialogue, for the slow reader: cuts from close-up to close-up; between figures carefully posed in illustrative landscapes; from pastoral slow-motion to thundering hooves of gypsy horses.

A Hunting A cciden t sinks lifelessly into the mire of its own ersatz nostalgia and, like its own hero, inflates its minorkey em otions to a level of epic pretension.

Also in the “ films of visually ornate inaction” category was Egy erko lcso s e js z a k a (A V e ry M o ral Night), the Hungarian entry directed by Karoly Makk. Set in a sentimentalized, happyfamily brothel at the turn of the century, its slender plot concerns the goodnatured imposture which is practised when a handsome male student (who is the ladies’ only male boarder) receives a visit from his mother.

Here again, the minimal action is an unconscionable time a-coming, and is all but lost in the predominant atmosphere of red plush and gilded mirrors. With less pretensions to high art than the Lotianou film, Makk’s shares with it the dubious ability to use an incessantly moving camera to create an illusion of virtual stasis. His Moral Night becomes the property, and the creation, of its set decorator.

A m ore s e rio u s o rd e r of disappointment was Nagisa Oshima’s L’empire de la passion (The Empire of Passion), promoted in Cannes as forming a diptych with his earlier L’empire des sens (Empire of the Senses).

Like the earlier film, it is concerned with a socially outlawed “ amour fou” leading ineluctably to violent death, with which it also begins. The couple this time affirm s its possessive passion by murdering the lady’s husband at the start of the affaire, and they spend the rest of the film endeavoring without success to keep the murder, and their passion, a secret from the rest of the world. But where the earlier film was concerned with the physical expression and limits of a sexual obsession, this one attempts to choreograph the movements of moral and social conscience.

The Em pire of Passion is allegedly

based, like the earlier film, on a real case from the end of the 19th Century, but what undermines its credibility for a contemporary Western audience is that it is also a ghost story, in which the c o u p le ’s g u ilt is only established because the husband’s ghost appears equally to the unhappy lovers and the local villagers.

The film swerves uncertainly between a murder mystery and a metaphysical statement. And, despite its dense physical beauty, most evident in the forest scenes around the well in which the husband's body moulders and to which the lovers, against their judgment, are m a g n e tic a lly draw n, the film achieves the dimension of myth without striking those echoes of real experience which reverberate throughout the best mythology.

Two films with minimal content would, however, more than justify the entire festival. The first of these was Olmi’s L’albero degli zoccoii (The Tree of C lo g s ), an u n c o m p ro m is in g reconstruction of peasant life in late 1 9th Century Lombardy. For well over twothirds of its three-hour duration, the changing of the seasons is the closest thing to a dramatic event we experience; while the gently muted and misted color photography suggests a beautiful landscape covered in a thin patina of mud.

Returning from his m icroscopic studies of the upper bourgeoisie in crisis to his origins in neo-realism (and the non-professional actors that implies), Olmi allows his subject to determine his pacing and his method. The repetition, the drudgery, the cautious moments of felicity that punctuate the thralldom in which these dirt farmers are held c o lle c tiv e ly by a largely in visib le la n d ow n e r are re co rd e d w ith an u n h u rrie d a tte n tio n to d e ta il, choreographed as an ensemble work that admits no star performers or leading roles. (The theft of a tree trunk to make clogs for his child is the ‘event’ which will cause one family to be expelled from this dubious Eden to face a still less certain future beyond it.)

On this level, at least, his film seems to be conceived as a refutation of 1900 and Padre Padrone, showing peasant suffering neither as a triumphant Calvary nor as an action-packed historical drama in which someone as glamorous as Dominique Sanda can be relied on to liven things up from time to time by slumming at the local pub.

Despite its meticulous honesty, its uncompromising handling of subject and audience, Olmi’s film is flawed by the rare moments in which he articulates his amply demonstrated Marxist message.

The film ’s most violent and vivid

Another case of socially-outlawed “amour fou” — Nagisa Oshima’s

II — Cannes Film Festival Supplement

L’empire de la passion.

sequence — the butchering of a milk pig — stands out as an extreme example: not only are the terrified animal’s cries (reminiscent of the goats in P a d re Padrone) amplified and continued long beyond their real duration, after the animal has been eagerly disembowelled, but the village priest passes by just long enough to remark that the pig has had a more comfortable life than the peasants (wño must, ergo, expect to be treated no less brutally).

This kind of over-kill is doubly unnecessary: Olmi needs no recourse to explicit statement to get his message home, and this brief directorial intrusion d e s tr o y s th e a c c u m u la tio n of miraculously suspended disbelief — the illusion of a perfectly hermetic universe.

The only comparable lapse in the festival’s great revelation is of a less serious order: a poster of Ozu on a kitchen wall which seems to belong more properly to the director than to his characters.

The film is Die linkshandige frau (The L e ft-H a n d e d W oman), the first feature

by Austrian-born writer Peter Handke; and despite its somewhat contemptuous reception by a German press obsessed with sociological content, Handke has, in my view, come close to creating a perfect film and a new film language. His “ story” is of a happily married woman (Edith Clever, last seen as Rohmer’s M arquise von O .. .) who abruptly asks her

husband to leave her and spends a couple of virtually wordless months alone with her chatty child and suddenly unfamiliar, familiar surroundings.

In a work of daunting originality, which appears effortlessly to have assimilated the freely acknowledged influences of Ozu and Wenders (the film’s producer), Handke, if analogies must be found, ta k e s several stages fu rth e r the achievement of Marguerite Duras in Le Camion. Like her, he is concerned with a woman’s moment of choice, and with the waiting and immobility which connote great inner activity.

W h a t he r e fin e s — w ith an unaccountable and almost unbearable suspense — is the use of landscape to describe a psychological state. Between the verdant outdoors of the Paris s u b u rb s and the c u r io u s ly underfurnished rooms, where low-angle photography magnifies the intensity of e v e ry g e s tu re and s u g g e s ts claustrophobia and infinite solitude, he charts with a loving precision his h e ro in e ’s d iffic u lt p ro g re ss from darkness to light, from silence to a hesitant, new-found voice.

One of the festival’s American entries o ffe re d an a lte r n a tiv e v e rs io n , c o m m e rc ia lly and fa s h io n a b ly acceptable, of the Handke theme.

Despite its flirtation with the notions of independence and tough-mindedness, it emerged closer to the tra d itio n a l

Edith Clever and Angela Winkler in Peter Handke’s The Left-Handed Woman, “a perfect film and a new film language”.

Ermanno Olmi’s The Tree of Clogs, an uncompromising recreation of 19th Century peasant life in Italy.

CANNES FILM FESTIVAL

Hollywood fairytale than to the condition of “ real life’’ which it apparently aspired to embrace.

Following in the tradition of A lice D o es n ’t Live H ere Any M ore (which accorded its heroine a millionaire, Kris Kristofferson, as a prize for her efforts at building an independent career), Paul Mazursky’s An U nm arried W om an has its title character (Jill Clayburgh) being wooed and worshipped by an indecently rich and fashionable pop artist (Alan Bates) before the ink of the divorce decree has so much as dried.

To demonstrate her qualifications as a serious modern woman, she is shown from time to time at her place of work, a gallery, where she apparently spends all her tim e being p ro p o s itio n e d by exhibiting artists. She also has a group of women frie n d s who g lo rify th e ir exchanges of sexual confidences with the tag “ consciousness-raising” , and, lest we should miss the point — i.e. that it is hard readjusting to the status of an “ abandoned w ife ” — there is the numbing moment in which she reveals to her therapist that she has been deprived of sexual intercourse for a full seven weeks.

W hat An U n m a rr ie d W o m a n endeavors to do for the bruised ego of the deserted wife, Hal Ashby’s Com ing H om e attempts to do for the disabled Vietnam veteran. The veteran in the case, paralysed from the waist down, is played with a gentle and uncomprehending rage

by Jon Voight, with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow played by Jane Fonda, one of the project’s prime movers.

There can be no doubting the integrity of the makers’ intention of demonstrating to the mass American public that V ietnam 's surviving ca su a ltie s are human too, with problems and emotions going beyond the rehabilitation units which keep them tidily out of sight. But the conventions on which the appeal to a mass audience is premised steer the characters, with or without wheelchairs, into the ruts already worn by less-thancredible rom antic stereotypes. The precise observation and cynicism with which Ashby, in such earlier films as The Landlord and T he Last Detail, showed the futility of trying to escape from socially prescribed roles, here seem somewhat unconvincingly submerged in the rushing torrents of Ms Fonda’s crusading optimism.

One other American entry, Pretty Baby, by French director Louis Malle, shies determinedly away from the topical im plications of its theme of child prostitution. Set for most of its action in a New Orleans brothel in 1917, it keeps the uglier aspects of its story clouded over in a mist of period charm. Its

narrative focus is the hard-to-classify love and brief marriage between a 13 year-old, second generation whore (the ubiquitous Brooke Shields) and the wistful, voyeuristic photographer (an unusually fey Keith Carradine) who specializes in bordello portraits.

Virtually all of Malle's French—films have breathed convincing life and charm into their chronicling of a socially unacceptable passion — suspending taboos as much as disbelief. But his collaborator and story writer this time is Polly Platt (the former Mrs Bogdanovich, best known for her nostalgic set designs), and their unlikely collaboration is less than convincing.

Malle falls in with the Hollywood conventions: despite some significant, sad-eyed close-ups, his whorehouse is the seat of more fun and frolic than Little Women, while the remorselessly softedged cuteness of his odd couple leaves P retty Baby a victim of the mid-Atlantic identity crisis — looking like Paper M oon with the occasional hard-on.

Nevertheless, as a slightly flaccid entertainment, Malle’s film retained the advantage over the Competition’s major and only thoroughbred French entry.

Ariane Mnouchkine's Moliere, despite the spirit of collective socialism in which it was produced, betrayed its epic ambitions in its more than four-hours length. Yet it proves so ill served by its equally egalitarian approach to its characters — including the eponymous playwright whose life provides the thread on which are strung the teeming images* of street and court life in 17th Century France — that it created the effect of a De Mille film minus the stars or the storyboard. It remains hundreds of milling extras in search of a narrative focus; or, alternatively, moving pictures taken literally — a vibrant backdrop still (and despite some surface attempts at B rechtianism ) aw aiting an a rtis tic interpreter.

Cannes did, however, mark a welcome return to form for one French director still working in French. Like D espair and Em pire of Passion, Chabrol’s new film is a murder story in which the crime takes second place to the state of mind which led to and succeeded it.

Based on the notorious case of the 18 year-old girl who poisoned her parents in 1 9 3 3 , V i o l e t t e N o z ie r e p ro vid e s Chabrol with another opportunity for castigating a hypocritical bourgeois morality. While the immediate focus for his indignation lies this time at the lower end of the social scale (in the cramped apartment where the engine-driver Noziere attempts to raise his daughter like a little lady), Chabrol is no less concerned with the fascist student milieu

Brooke Shields and Don K. Lutenbacher in Louis Malle's over-cute Pretty Baby.

Isabelle Huppert as Violette Noziere during her trial for murder. Violett© Noziere, another of Claude Chabrol’s attacks on bourgeois hypocrisy.

in which Violette acts out her fantasies of being a capricious heiress, prostituting herself and squandering money on her indifferent gigolo.

The child's double life emerges as a logical consequence of the prevailing climate of moral schizophrenia. She is caught between the contradictions of society’s rhetorical aspirations for her — trapped between the roles of virtuous pauper and liberated femme fatale.

In depicting Violette and her family as victim s of social injustice, Chabrol merely takes his tone from L’Humanite, which reported the event (unlike Le

Figaro, which demanded a Mosaic vengeance) as the martyrdom of a worker’s daughter victimized by the young fa s c is ts who bedded her.

Chabrol’s own analysis emerges as less dogmatically Marxist, though he makes no secret of the fact that he’s fallen in love with his subject.

His sad-eyed Violette, incarnated by Isabelle Huppert in a performance that deservedly won her an award, enables him to explore in greater depth than before his own obsession with the transference of identities and guilt. She borrows her incompatible identities from

Art in exile: Jerzy Skolimowski’s The Shout Starring John Hurt (left), Alan Bates and Susannah York, it is based on a story by Robert Graves.

Cannes Film Festival Supplement — III

CANNES FILM FESTIVAL

D assin’s observations about the a rtis tic vam pirization, e xploitation, recreation and intensification of real life are somehow eclipsed by the giant monument he has constructed to the actress as super-ego.

Jan Nowicki and Maja Komorowski in Krzysztof Zanussi’s Spiral, another of his metaphysical speculations.

the stereotypes of cheap fiction; her guilt exists only in the eyes of the self­ righteous beholder.

And Chabrol, despite his sensational subject matter, maintains a scrupulously unsensational approach. With its dark rooms and the color black dominating Violette’s wardrobe, his film achieves a curiously muted, elegiac quality laced with a distinctively acid humor.

roles, the difficulty of relating to other people as distinct from animals or inanimate objects. But the power of its more Dali-like surrealist images is sadly vitiated by the quaint colorfulness of some of its fringe eccentrics. Like so many of the moving pictures in Cannes, its visual strength is sapped by its more conventionally idiomatic words.

Chabrol 'was, in fact, one of the minority of Competition directors to be working in his home territory. Marco F erreri’s C iao M aschio (Bye Bye Monkey) is set in a futurist New York patrolled by protectively-clad (and Martian-looking) rodent exterminators, occupied by a symbolic collection of misfit exiles (Marcello Mastroianni as a moist-eyed, tomato-growing dirty old man, Gerard Depardieu as an artistic factotum commuting between a women's theatre group and a wax museum run by a demented James Coco) and dominated by the recumbent corpse of Dino de Laurentiis’ King Kong, from whose loins emerges the live baby monkey with whom the Depardieu character (preten­ tiously or portentously named Lafayette) will know some fleeting moments of maternal tenderness.

Depardieu has the role of mother monkey, impotent with the girl he sort of loves and raped, while unconscious, by the group of would-be actresses with no first-hand experience around which to improvise. Therefore, the movie is presumably intended as a kind of allegory about 20th Century man: the iack of tenderness, the confusion of

Also working in exile (albeit in the land that has become his home), Jules D a s s in ’ s A D re a m o f P a s s io n (previously titled The Two Medeas) delves into classical and contemporary fashions to provide an embarrassing showcase for his wife, Melina Mercouri.

She is here cast as an actress playing Medea (in Greek), making an interview film for the BBC (in heavily-accented English) and vampirically seeking inspir­ a tio n by e x h o rtin g a r e a l- lif e infanticide (Ellen Burstyn in some unattractive prison-grey frocks) to recollect in flashback what it felt like to murder her own children. Although the B u rs ty n c h a ra c te r e m e rg e s as schizophrenic, her two personalities are overshadowed by the larger-than-life Mercouri (whose hyperbolic acting style is further enlarged by the excessive use of close-ups).

The film’s most tasteless moment is conceived as a homage to Marlon Brando in Last Tango. Improbably challenged by the BBC crew to come up with an equally revealing monologue, the Mercouri'character offers a “ Dear Abbie” chronicle of her teenage love affaire and abortion whose e ffe ct is at once (mis)calculated and craftily controlled.

Volker Spengler (left), Andrea Ferreol and Dirk Bogarde during the filming of Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s Despair.

IV — Cannes Film Festival Supplement

A happier case of art in exile is Jerzy Skolimowski's The Shout, made in English and in Britain, and developing the stark lines of Robert Graves’ short story so unfussily as to make plausible the transition from domestic normalcy to supernatural terror.

Most of the story is told in flashback — supposedly the autobiographical experience of one of the scorers at a model village’s locals vs. mental asylum patients cricket match. The narrator (Alan Bates again), who is also one of the inmates, claims to have learned from the Aboriginals among whom he lived the secret of gaining possession of another person’s will, and the secret of a fulllunged shout that strikes dead all who hear it. His intrusion into the life of a conventional middle-class couple (John Hurt and Susannah York) is mercifully underscripted — the Pinter tradition with slight supernatural overtones.

The English landscape is used to greater effect than it has been by almost any native director; and though words play a subsidiary role (a framework for experience not to be confused with the experience itself), the husband’s work — as an electronic musician — combines on the Dolby Sound System with the lifedestroying cry to make The Shout one of the year's few sound films to accord equal place to sounds and images.

Unlike Skolimowski (rumored to be returning to his native Poland), Zanussi is an East European director who continues to work descriptively in his own lands.

But after the Jamesian subtlety of Camouflage (which made plastic and palpable the process of intellectual compromise), Zanussi's new film, Spiral, is something of a disappointment. its hero (Jan Nowicki) is another disappointed intellectual, who after insulting the other visitors and party officials, wanders away from a mountain chalet and attempts to die of exposure in the snowy mountains. He is rescued and hospitalized by a group of doctors who callously insist that all they can do for him is to make his dying easier. This insistence is also incomprehensible because of Zanussi's decision to cut from the final film an early scene in which it’s revealed that the hero is suffering from leukaemia.

The reasons for the cut are reportedly an official anxiety that the film might appear to be advocating suicide (if not euthanasia) for term inal sufferers.

Without it, however, the hero’s boorish behavior, the hospital’s attitudes and the patient’s second, successful suicide a tte m p t do not e lic it very much sympathy.

The film’s treatment of what should be some urgent moral questions becomes, without the necessary exposition, a rather tedious exercise in metaphysical speculation.

Although Rajko Grlic, the young Yugoslavian director of Bravo Maestro, lacks the subtlety of Zanussi at his finest, his theme — the temptations and torments of selling out — seems close to the Polish filmmaker’s heart.

His protagonist, an ambitious young musician who graduates as a composer, is quickly discouraged and embittered by his fa ilu re to achieve instant recognition, and sets about — through an opportunistic marriage and the unctuous cultivation of the cultural bureaucrats — establishing a musical reputation without ever writing a note. When, after years of skilful self-promotion and temperamental self-indulgence, he finally launches his national epic, it proves to be a collage of skilful plagiarisms. The Establishment prefers the myth to the awkward disclosure, but the man himself realizes that — and who — he betrays.

Grlic’s film is less about music (a difficult art, as Ken Russell has shown, to explore on film) than about cultural politics and their relation to creative talent. While the system under scrutiny is d is tin c tiv e ly Y u g o s la v ia n , the questions the film raises strike some universal echoes — particularly at Cannes, where the fluctuating relations b e tw een art, m oney, pow er and recognition are very much what the festival is about.

But, at its best, Cannes is also about a constant process of discovery and self­ discovery. In this respect it was, once again, West Germany whose national cinema proved strongest. New works by Hans Noever, Reinhard Hauff and Werner Schroeter in the festival's non­ competitive sections proved stimulating major discoveries.

Meanwhile, back in the Competition, working for the first time with a large budget and in English, Fassbinder presented a rem arkabiy unselfish achievement, taking fourth place to his star (Dirk Bogarde), his cameraman (Michael Ballhaus) and his source in this e xq u isite ly mannered rendering of Nabokov’s Despair. Reflecting and encircling the refractory surfaces of the A rt Deco sets, B allhaus’ dizzying baroque camerawork provides a visual equivalent for the playful excesses and d e to u rs of N a b o kov’s rich, s e lfparodying prose, from which Bogarde’s mocking performance also takes its tone.

Like the world he inhabits, and the dyed-blonde coquetterie of his ageing child-wife, Bogarde's Herman Hermann is a creation of pure artifice. His bid to escape from his chocolate-box prison to the illusory promise of a fresh start is palpably charted in Bogarde’s tightly c o n tro lle d perform ance, w ith the character shedding his manners and his coolly patronizing irony as he descends into a hollow, hysterical madness.

Although D espair is by no means the first Fassbinder film to show up the soft foundations on w hich an elegant bourgeois life is constructed, it is the first to borrow so totally from a pre-existing source. Tom Stoppard’s screenplay, faithful to Nabokov, provides a surfeit of riches in so visually ornate a work, and also markedly lacks the sparse intensity of Fassbinder’s original screenplays.

So D espair emerges as a masterly paradox: a surprisingly humble exercise in interpretative direction, unmistakeably the work of its auteur, yet lacking the personal intensity of Fassbinder’s other creations. (The latest of which, The M arria g e o f Eva M aria Braun, is already finished — and fantastic.) ★

Rajko Grlic’s Bravo Maestro. ® Copyright Jan Dawson, 1978.

INDEX VOLUME FOUR CONTRIBUTORS INDEX ABEYSEKERA, SUNILA Dharmasena Pathiraja (d) 233-234 (i, st)

ALYSEN, BARBARA Womenwaves 328-329 (a)

ANDERSON. NADYA Tom Cowan (d) 202-205 (i, st, f)

The Creation of Dino de Laurentiis' King Kong 87 (br) The Girl in The Hairy Paw: King Kong as Myth, Movie and Monster 87-88 (br) Film Periodicals — A Historical Survey, Part 1: The United States 142-143,187 (a) High Rolling 178 (r) Film Periodicals — A Historical Survey, Part 2: Britain 238-239,279,283 (a) Film Periodicals — A Historical Survey, Part 3: Europe 330-331 (a) Listen to the Lion (363) (r) Film Study Resources Guide 373 (a)

BAILLIEU, IAN Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (1) 26-27, 92 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (2) 128-130,192 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (3) 230-231 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Miscellaneous Agreements 334, 383 (a)

GINNANE, ANTONY I. Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (1) 26-27,92 (a) Jeannine Seawell (sa) 28-29 (i, st) Cannes 1977 — Introduction 30 Cannes 1977 — Selected Hors D'Oeuvres 32 (r) Cannes 1977 — The Australians At Cannes 33 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (2) 128-1 30,192 (a) Terry Jackman 131 -133,189 (i, st) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (3) 230-231 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Miscellaneous Agreements 334, 383 (a)

BEILBY, PETER Patrick — Special Effects: An Interview With Conrad Rothman 303-305,377 (i, st) Joy Cavill (p, sc) 338-339, 347 (i, st) Ken Hannam (d) 340-341,343 (i, st) Ross Major 344-345, 347 (i, st)

GLAESSNER, VERINA Chinese Cinema 106-110 (a) International Production Round-Up 144 (a) The Brothers Taviani 226-228, 281 (i, st, f) International Production Round-Up 240 (a)

BRANDES, DAVID Louis Malle (d) 10-14, 90 (i, st, f)

BRENNAN, RICHARD Tom Jeffrey (d) 3 2 4 -3 2 7 (i, st)

BURTON, GEOFF Sri Lankan Cinema 232 (a) Dharmasena Pathiraja (d) 233-234 (i, st)

CLANCY, JACK The Last Wave 259 (r) Mouth to Mouth 356 (r)

CONNOLLY, KEITH Hollywood on Trial 80-81 (r) Menace 81 (r) Love Letters From Teralba Road and Backroads 261-263 (r) Julia 357-358 (r)

DAWSON, JAN Cannes 1977: The Competition 30-32 (r) Rotterdam Film Festival '77 45-47 (r) Truffaut — L’homme qui aimait les femmes: A Thematic Reading 206-208 (a, i) Edinburgh'and London Film Festivals 1978 322­ 323 (r)

GLENN, GORDON John Power (d) 22-25, 91 (i, st) Esben Storm (p, d) 52-53, 55 (i, st) Cathryn Harrison (ac) 166-167 (i, st) Vince Monton (c) 168 (i, st)

GORR, LEON Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (1) 26-27,92 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (2) 128-130,1 92 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Service Agreements (3) 230-231 (a) Guide For The Australian Film Producer: Miscellaneous Agreements 334, 383 (a)

GRIGGS, IAN C. Rare Antique Film Projectors Used in The Picture Show Man 20-21 (a, st)

HEATHWOOD, GAIL Delphine Seyrig (ac) 21 4-216, 287 (I, st) Steven Spielberg (d) 31 8-321,379 (i. st.f)

The F.J. Holden 77-78 (r) Journey Among Women 173-1 74 (r) The Irishman 355 (r)

David Hannay (p) 63, 66 (i, st) Tony Williams (d) 64 (i, st) Lisa Peers (ac) 65 (i, st) Vincent Gil (ac) 65,66 (i, st) Phil Noyce (d) 111 -113,191 (i, st, f)

Une Sale Histoire 361-362 (r)

MURRAY, JOHN C. Directors and Writers: American Television Drama Series Checklist 69, 71 Directors and Writers: American Television Comedy Series — Introduction and Checklist 170-1 71

MURRAY, SCOTT John Power (d) 22-25, 91 (i. st) Esben Storm (p, d) 52-53,55 (i, st) Just a Woman (Docteur Francois Gailiand) 78­ 79 (r) Melbourne and Sydney Film Festivals 1977 134­ 137 (r) Hal and James McElroy (ps) 148-1 50,183 (i, st) The Last Wave Special Effects 151 -153 (i, st) Ross Dimsey (d) 164-165 (i, st) Cathryn Harrison (ac) 166-167 (i, st) Summerfield 176-1 77 (r) Tehran 1977 224-225 (r) Fred Schepisl (p, d, sc) 244-246, 269 (i, st) Ian Baker (c) 247-249 (i, st) Bllitis 265 (r) Patrick — Special Effects: An Interview with Conrad Rothman 303-305,377 (i, st) John Duigan (d) 31 2-31 5,377 (i, st) Joy Cavill (p, sc) 338-339, 347 (i, st) Ken Hannam (d) 340-341,343 (i, st) Ross Major 344-345, 347 (i. st) Blue Rre Lady 361 (r)

Growing Up in Hollywood 88 (br)

Making Silence Speak: Interview with Paul Cox 16­ 19, 94 (a, i, st, f) The Nixon Tapes and Roots (TV) 68 (a) Directors and Writers: American Television Drama Series Checklist 69 (a), 69, 71 (checklist) Robert Mitchum 88 (br) Luke’s Kingdom and the Continuous Dramas 120­ 123,189 (a) L’Empire des Sens/ln the Realm of the Senses/Empire of the Senses 137 (r) Checklist of American Television Comedy Series 171 A Survey of Audio Visual Facilities in Universities In the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom and Australia 180 (br) Sex Type Socialization and Television Family Comedy Programs 180 (br) The Cinematic Synthesis 180-181 (br) The New Wave 181-1 82 (br) Tim Cowan (d) 202-205 (i, st, f) Swedish Cinema: Ingmar Bergman Doesn't Live Here Any More 308,381 (a) Gunnel Lindblom (d) 31 0-311 (i, st)

SHEEDY, BRIAN Families Without Television 180 (br)

SHIRLEY, GRAHAM John Faulkner: Introduction and Interview with Trader Faulkner 209-21 3, 273, 277 (a, i, f)

TAYLOR, PHIL A Bridge Too Far 177-1 78 (r)

TORSH, DANNY Love Letters and Stephen Wallace 221 -223 (i, st, f)

NICHOLSON, DENNIS WAY Special Effects in Star Wars 119,192 (a) Patrick — Special Effects: An Interview with Conrad Rothman 303-305, 377 (i, st)

O ’DONNELL, VINCENT The Africa Project 298-302 (a, i, st, cr) Rowan Ayers (p) 299 (i) Tony Wheeler (d) 300 (I) Michael Edols (c) 301 (i) Vincent O’Donnell 302 (i)

TUCKER, BARRY Report on The Irishman 21 7-220 (a)

WILLIS, HOWARD New Zealand Report 182 (a)

WINDT, URI

Unionism Within the Film Industry and the Actor’s Agreement 201 (a)

O ’GRADY, DESMOND

O’HARA, JOHN Television and Uranium 169,1 85 (a) Annie Hall 260 (r) Children and Television 267, 269 (a)

Autocracy in the Airwaves 180(br) Two Reflections on Australian Broadcasting 181 (br)

PHILLIPS, ANDREW HUTCHINSON, IVAN

Swedish Cinema 307, 381 (a)

National Association of Theatre Owners' Miami Convention 229 (a) Alan Wardrope on Miami 229, 273 (i, st)

PIKE, ANDREW KENNETT, STEPHEN

Australian Film Studies: Efftee Productions 181 (br)

Mr. Klein 174 (r)

EDMONDSON, RAY PRUKS, INGE

Soldiers of the Cross 15, 94 (a)

KING, BARRY Westralian News 38-39 (a)

EGGER, URS

Eric Rohmer (d) 1 24-1 27 (i, st. f) Cria Cuervos 175-176 (r) The Beast 260-261 (r) The Lacemaker 359,361 (r)

KUTTNA, MARJ Berlin 1977 1 14-1 15 (r)

REID, J.H.

FAULKNER, TRADER

Books of the Quarter 88, 182, 272-273,367,369 (br)

LASCELLES, DAVID New Zealand Report 91 (a), 373 (a)

RICKETSON, JAMES

GILBERT, BASIL Peter Sykes (d) 34-36,95 (i, st, f) The Picture Show Man 79-80 (r) The Making of Kubrick's 2001 87 (br) The Jaws Log 87 (br) On Location on Martha's Vineyard: The Making of the Movie'Jaws' 87 (br) American Cinematographer — special issue on 'King Kong’ 87 (br)

RYAN, TOM

Bernardo Bertolucci (d) 40-43, (i, st. f)

George Dreyfus 85 (a) Film Soundtracks on Record 271 (r)

John Faulkner (ac) 209-213, 273, 277 (a, f)

Structural Film Anthology 272 (br) British Film Institute Television Monographs 367 (br) Other Cinema 375 (a)

MOODY, MARY

DONNER, JORN

John Huston 138-141,185 (i, st, f)

ROHDIE, SAM

HOLMES, CECIL

HUGHES, JOHN DERMODY, SUSAN

The Evolvement of a Television Series Drama 73 (a)

MORRIS, MEAGHAN

ARNOLD, JUDITH The Singer and the Dancer 83 (r)

MILLER, MONTE

MATHEWS, FREYA

Poor Cinema 316 (a) Notes on the Making of Volita 31 7 (a)

Star Wars 263, 265 (r)

ROE, DAVID McFARLANE, BRIAN The Getting of Wisdom 175, 265 (r) The Mango Tree 358-359 (r)

Before and After Storm Boy: Matt Carroll 116-118, 191 (i, st) Fred Schepisi (p, d, sc) 224-246, 269 (i, st)

IN D E X K E Y 1. Film titles appear in bold type.

Magazine, play and book titles appear in italics, 2. The following appear after index items (where applicable) d — director p — producer c — cinematographer e — editor t — technician ac — actor/actress sc — scriptwriter sa — sales agent 3. The following appear after page numbers (where applicable) a — articles i — interviews f — filmography st — stills cr — production credits r — reviews br — book/magazine/monograph reviews

Cinema Papers Index Volume Four — 1

GENERAL INDEX Abakanowicz 186 ABC of Love and Sex — Australia Style 350 (cr), 365 (st) Abeysena, Indira (ac) 234 (st) Across the River and into the Trees 185 Act of the Film Corporation (S.A.), The 11 7, 191 Action 187 Activities of Amdel 255 (cr) Actors and Acting 12, 24, 25,64,65,65-66, 91,94,113, 115, 139, 149, 150, 164, 165,166-167,191,201,204, 209-213, 223, 228, 233, 245, 273, 277, 311,321, 325-326,328,377 Actors' and Announcers' Equity Association of Australia 93 Actors’ Equity 201 Adams, Phillip 11 7 Addison, John 271 Adolf und Marlene 137 Adoree, Renee (ac) 211 (st) Adult Library Promotion 353 (cr) Advertising 165,180,181,267, 347 Aesthetics 18,42-43,94,1 73-1 74,180­ 181,272 Affliche Rouge, L’ 46 (r) Africa Project, The (TV) 298-302 (a, i, cr) African Queen, The 140 Aftenlandet (Evening Land) 11 5 After the Break 252 (cr), 350 (cr) Afterimage 279 Against the Wind (TV) 353 (cr) Agel, Jerome 87 Ahas Gawwa 232, 234 Air Programs International 325 Albrecht For You 350 (cr) Aldrich, Robert (p,d) 90 Alexander, Elizabeth (ac) 1 76 (st) Alfredson, Hans (d) 306 Alice, ou la Derniere Fugue 4 5 (r) All in the Same Boat 329 Allen, Bob (t) 65 Allen, Woody (d, ac) 260 Allio, Rene (d) 45,46 Allonsanfan 228, 281 Allport Library 382 (cr) Aloha Bobby and Rose 29 Along the Way 232, 234 (st) Altman, Robert (d) 166 Amagula, Nandjlwarra (ac) 259 (st) Amants, Les 12 (st) Ameiio, Gianni (d) 225 American Cinematographer 87,142 American Film 187 American Society of Cinematographers, The 142 Amin, Idi 299 Anacoreta, El 11 5 Anatomie d’un Rapport 47 (r) Anchorite, The 11 5 Andersson, Harriet (ac) 306 (st) Angwin, Neil (t) 152 (st) Animation 255 Anna 306 (st) Annexure 'A' 9 Annie Hall 260 (r) Anoux, Victoria (ac) 1 22 (st) Antonutti, Omero (ac) 228 (st) Apes in film, literature and mythology 88 Apostasy 157 (cr), 275 (cr, st) Apples 11 5 Apprentice Sorcerors, The 46 tr), 47 (st) Aragon, Manuel Gutierrez (d) 114 Archives 81,91,93,186, 200, 278 Argent du Poche, L’ 206 (st) Armstrong, Gillian (p, d) 83,1 86, 31 6 Armstrong, Mark 181 Armstrong, Perry iac) 64,65 (st) Army College 161 (cr) Art Cinématographique 330 Ascenseur Pour L’Echafaud 11 Ascent 11 4 (r) Asche, Oscar 211 ,277n Ashani Sanket323 Asian Film Festival 1978 297 » Askey, Arthur (ac) 79 Assault On Precinct 1 3 322-323 Association for a National Film and Television Archive 93,186, 278 Association of Independent Filmmakers, The 200 Association of Teachers of Film and Video, The 93 Attenborough, Richard (d) 177,178 Auckland Amusements 91 Audiences, Report on Australian Film 236­ 237 Australia Game, The 161 (cr) Australia’s Own Beef Breed 157 (cr) Australian, The 221 Australian Broadcasting Commission 23, 34,73,85,105,191,200,327 Australian Broadcasting Control Board 180,181 Australian Cinematographers' Society 296 Australian Film: A Weekend Seminar 296 ‘Australian Film', The idea of an 55, 91,94, 95,113,191,229, 237 Australian Film and Television School 186, 200 Australian Film Awards 104 Australian Film Commission 29, 33, 53,61, 73,1 04,118,1 48, 149, 150,1 79, 183, 189 191,200, 201,203, 223, 229, 236, 237, 246, 257,278, 296, 297, 31 2, 31 6, 325,326,338,382 Australian Film Directors' Checklist 44 Australian Film Institute 104, 200, 278, 296­ 297

Australian Film 1906-76 297 Australian Film Posters 1906-60 297 Australian Film Studies; Efftee Productions 181 (br) Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies 297 Australian Performing Group 81 Australian War Memorial 60 (cr), 161 (cr) Australian Wheat Board — Marketing 1 79 (cr) Australian Wheat Board — Pest Control 179 (cr) Australian Wheat Board — Quality 179 (cr) Australian Wheat Board — Schools 1 79 (cr) Auteur Theory 14, 26,91,307, 323,330 Autocracy in the Airwaves 180 (br) Auzins, Igor (d) 178 Avant-scene du Cinema, L' 330 AVEC Applied Media Studies 93,1 86, 278 AVEC Film Unit 59-60,161,353 Awards 8,104,114, 164,186, 221,229, 232, 296 Ayers, Rowan (p) 299 (i) Aylett, Carole-Ann (ac) 304 (st), 377

B Baby Talk 353 (cr) Backroads 1 12, 261 -262 (r) Bacskai, Juliet (ac) 18 (st), 19 (st), 275 (st) Bahrenburg, Bruce 87 Bailey’s Bird (TV) 353 (cr) Baisers Voles 207, 215 (st) Baker, Ian (c) 247-249 (i, st) Baker, Snowy 213 Balaban, Bob (ac) 320 (st) Balance 59 (cr), 157 (cr), 350 (cr) Ballet Dancer 252 (cr) Bambach, John (ac) 277 (st) Bambaru Avith 232, 233, 234 Bang! 309 (st), 381 (r) Bardot, Brigitte (ac) 10 (st), 13 (st) Barney 33,164 Barney Miller (TV) 170,171 Barrett, Ray (ac) 132 (st), 245 (st) Barry, Bruce (ac) 305 (st),377 (st) Barry Lyndon 247, 309 Barrymore, Ethel (ac) 21 2 Barrymore, John (ac) 21 2 Basic Skills 252 (cr) Battle of Broken Hill, The 155 (cr), 251 (cr) Battlers, The (TV) 73 Bazin, Andre 330 Beast, The 201,235 (st), 260-261 (r) Beat Goes On, The 57 (cr) Beat the Devil 141 Because He’s My Friend (TV) 255 (cr) Bedment, Annie 21 2 Behets, Briony (ac) 17 (st) Belmondo, Jean-Paul (ac) 1 2 (st) Belton, John 88 Benchley, Peter 87 Beneditti, Pierre (ac) 261 (st) Benner, Richard (d) 322 Beresford, Bruce (d) 175,191,265 Bergman, Ingmar (d) 14,140, 307, 308, 310 Berlin Film Festival 114-115 (r) Bernice Bobs Her Hair 137 (r), 225 Bernstein, Elmer 271 Berto, Juliet (ac) 1 74 (st) Bertolucci, Bernardo (d) 8, 40-43 (i, st, f), 225 Bertolucci Shoots 1900 225 (r) Bertrand, Ina 181 Bertuccelli, Jean-Louis (d) 78 Best Each Way 57 (cr), 156 (cr) Bete, La 201,235 (st), 260-261 (r) Betti, Laura (ac) 42 (st) Bianco a Nero 331 Bible, The 139,140 (st) Big Red One, The 144 Bilitis 201 (st), 265 (r) Billy and Percy (TV) 24 (st) Birth of New Zealand, The 21 2, 273, 297 Bishop’s Bedroom, The 30 (r) Bjork, Halvar (ac) 309 (st), 381 Black and White in Color 229 Black Litter 11 4 (r) Black Moon 13-14,166-167 Blagg, Linda (d) 329 Blaise, Pierre (ac) 11 (st), 1 2 Blake, Edith 87 Blood Brothers 109 Blood Relatives 144 (st) Bloody Half Mile, The 349 (cr) Blue Fin 118,1 55 (cr), 251 (cr), 349 (cr) Blue Fire Lady 57 (cr), 163-168 (i, st, cr), 361 (r) Blue Mountains Mystery, The 209, 213, 273 Blueprint For Survival 157 (cr), 252 (cr)Blundell, Graeme (ac), 326 Bobby Deerfield 224-225 (r) Body Count 57 (cr) Body of Still Water, A 296 Bogart, Humphrey (ac) 140 (st), 141 Books Reviews 87-88,180-182, 272-273, 367,369 Boorman, John (d) 105 Borg, Sonia (sc) 118 Borowczyk, Walerian (d) 45, 201,235, 2 6 0 -2 6 1 Bory, Jean-Marc (ac) 1 2 (st) Bottoms, Joseph (ac) 74 (st), 178 Boyd, Russell (c) 11 2 (st), 151,344 Box in the Corner, The 267, 269 Box-Office 64,113,11 8,133,149,191, 21 3, 229, 236, 237, 273, 31 6; 379

2 — Cinema Papers Index Volume Four

Box-Office Grosses 49,145, 241,336 Brainwave 349 (cr) Brakhage, Stan and Jane (d's) 278, 375 Break of Day 33, 85, 340, 343 Break Up 223 Breaking of the Drought, The 209, 213, 273 Breaking Through, Selling Out, Dropping Dead and Other Notes on Filmmaking 87 Brealey, Gil (p) 11 6,11 7 (st) Brecht, Bertolt 311 Breien, Anja (d) 308, 381 Brennan, Richard (p) 223 Bresson, Robert (d) 114, 224 Bride Wore Black, The 207 (st) Bridge Too Far, A 177-1 78 (r), 183, 271 Brily, Jean-Claude (ac) 127 (st) British Broadcasting Corporation 34, 64, 299 British Federation of Film Societies 279 British Film Institute 238, 239 Brook, Peter 34 Brooke, Bunney (ac) 345 (st) Brown, Bryan (ac) 222 (st), 223, 262,316 (st), 31 7 (st) Brown, Greg (t) 152 (st) Bryan, William (ac) 322 (st) BTV-6 (Ballarat) 73 Buckley, Anthony (p) 218, 219, 220 Bull, Donald (sc) 123 Buñuel, Luis (p, d) 90, 214-215, 287 (st) Burke, Simon (ac) 218 Burn, Carol (ac) 84 (st) Burn Ever Bright, My Star 137 Burstall, Tim (p, d) 85, 178 Burton, Geoff (c) 80 Bushfires161 (cr) Business of Co-operation 252 (cr) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 1 78

c

Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The 279 Cacoyannis, Michael (d) 31 Caddie 29, 79,191,220,355 Cahiers du Cinema 330 Cahiers du Cinema in English330 Caine, Michael (ac) 140 (st) Camada Negra 11 4 (r) Cameron, Ian 279 Cameron, Ken (d, sc) 191 Cameron, Margaret (ac) 316 Camion, La 32 (r) Camouflage 225 (r), 323 Campbell, Ian (ac) 58 (st), 204 (st) Campinale, Pasqual Festa (d) 105 Camping and Bushcraft 255 (cr) Canefield, Michael 245 Cannes Film Festival 8, 29,30-33,107,11 5, 118, 244,269, 347 Cannes Television Film Fair 91 Canoe 60 (cr) Cantata de Chile 135 (r) Cantrill, Arthur and Corinne (d’s) 278,375 Canungra 161 (cr) Caraco, Albert (sa) 28 Cargill, Patrick (ac) 80 Caring for Jeanine 257 (cr) Carle, Gilles (d) 136 Carmen, Michael (ac) 314 (st) Carmichael, Stokely 35 Carolina Chisel Show, The 329 Carosse D’Or, Le 1 26 Carroll, Matt (p) 116-118,191 (i, st), 297 Car Strippers, The 350 (cr) Cars That Ate Paris, The 28, 29, 259 Carter, President Jimmy 320 Cassell, Jean-Plerre (ac) 78 (st) Cassenti, Frank (d) 46 Caudillo, 115 Caulfield, Michael 245 Cavlll, Joy (p) 191 Cayatte, Andre (d) 208 Censorship 8,36,37,91,92,105,107,133, 185, 201,234, 235, 285, 297,365,375 Centre for the Study of Educational Communication and Media (La Trobe University) 180 Centro Sperimentale de Cinematografla 331 Chabrol, Claude (d) 45,144 (st), 182 Chamberlain, Richard (ac) 29,147 (st), 149, 150 (st), 259 Chang Cheh (d) 107-109 Channel Seven Network 338,339 Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, The 104, 105,132,133,1 55 (cr), 243-249, 269 0, st, cr), 350 (cr) Chaplin 33 1 Chaplin, Sir Charles (ac, d) 212 Chaplin, Geraldine (ac) 30 (st), 175 (st) Charlene Does Med At Uni 328 (st) Charlie’s Angels (TV) 267 Chayefsky, Paddy 73 Cheaters, The 277 Chess Players, The 323 (cr) Child Molesting 60 (cr) Children, Effect of Television on 180, 267, 269 (a), 371 Children’s Film and Television, Seminar on 200,371 Chinese Cinema 106-110 (a) Chinese Roulette 11 5,137 Chinesisches Roulette 115,137 Chobocky, Barbara (d) 329 Chopper Squad (TV) 169 (cr), 353 (cr) Chorus Line, A 183 Cine a 330 C ineaste135, 187 C inefantastiquel 87 Cineforum 331 Cinema (Beverley Hills) 143 Cinema (France) 330

Cinema (Italy) 330 Cinema (Switzerland) 331 Cinema a Cinema 331 Cinema de France330 Cinema Francais330 Cinema International Corporation 91 Cinema Journal 143 Cinema News and Property Gazette, The 238 Cinema 1950 239 Cinema Sessanta 331 Cinematic Synthesis, The 180-181 (br) Cinematograph Films Act of 1927 239 Cinematography 14, 29, 55,63, 77, 78,80, 119,142, 151,168, 178, 192, 203, 218, 231,234, 247-249, 265, 296,300,301, 304,317,341,379 Cinesound Review 38, 278 Cinethique330 Cipriani, Stelvio 271 Ciscon Films 91 Claim, The 60 (cr) Claire’s Knee 1 27 Clayton, John (ac) 74 (st) ClementI, Pierre (ac) 46 (st) Clever, Edith (ac) 1 26 (st) Clift, Montgomery (ac) 141 (st) Close Encounters of the Third Kind 318 Close Up 238 , Cocteau, Jean (d) 224 Cohen, Barney (sc) 32 Colorfilm 168,219 Colpi, Henry (t) 265 Colombo (TV) 69 (st) Come Drink With Me 168 Comedy, Television 170-171,180 Coming of Age 134 (r), 232, 234 (st) Committee, The 35 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories 60 (cr) 161 (cr) Communion Solonnelle, La 31 (r) Community Aides 255 (cr) Community Libraries 161 (cr) Compilation Film 80, 81,177,278 Conabere, Sally (ac) 80 Conditioning for Sport 353 (cr) Condon, James (ac) 120 (st) Conducting 60 (cr), 179 (cr) Confessions of Amans, The 322 (r) Confessions of Ronald Biggs, The 350 (cr) Conformist, The 42 Connery, Sean (ac) 140 (st) Conquest of the Citadelle, The 114-115 Continental Film Review279 Cooke, Alistair 68Cooper, Ross 15, 279 Coote, Gilly (d) 329 Coral Labyrinth, The (TV) 59 (cr) Coral Reef 353 (cr) Cordeio, Margarida Martins (d) 46 Corman, Roger 28 Cort, Bud (ac) 225 Costumes 344 Cosy Cool 57 (cr) Cottage Near A Wood 136 (r), 137 (st) Country Town 257 (cr) Coup de Grace 134 (r) Cousin Cousine 131,229 Couzens, Paul (ac) 77 (st) Cowan, Tom (d) 58 (st), 173,174,202-205 (i, st, f), 312 (st), 377 Cox, Paul (d) 16-1 9,94 (i, st, f) Cozarinsky, Edgardo (d), 46 Cracknell, Ruth (ac) 83 (st) Craig, Michael (ac) 219 (st), 220,355 (st) Crazy-Horse 48 (st) Creation of Dino Laurentiis' King Kong, The 87 (br) Cria Cuervos 1 75-176 (r) Crisis Care Service 255 (cr) Crocodile 57 (cr), 155 (cr) Crombie, Donald (d) 218, 220,355 Cronenberg, David (d) 32 Cronje, Suzanne 299,302 Crooke, Ray 180 Crosby, Elizabeth (ac) 83 (st), 120 (st), 123 (st), 316 (st) Cultural Convergance 60 (cr) Cummins, Peter (ac) 165 (st) Cunnlngton, Lloyd (ac) 361 (st)

D Daguerreotypes 136 (r) Daily Renter, The 238 Danish Film Museum 200, 278,331 D’Arbanville, Patti (ac) 201 (st), 265 Darwin Cinemas Pty Ltd 8-9 Dateline Third World (TV) 299 David, Hugh (d) 120 David Francis Collection, The 200 Davis, Gareth (d) 120,189 Davis, Judy (ac) 74 (st) Dawn! 57 (cr), 191, 133,155 (cr), 251 (cr), 337-341,343-345,347 (i, st, cr) Dawson, Jan 114,137 Dawson, Julie (ac) 249 (st) Days I’ll Remember — in South Australia 382 (cr) Day For Night 207 Deamer, Philip (ac) 205 (st) Deathcheaters 32,33 Definitions/Redefinitions (TV) 329 De Grunwald, Dmitri (p) 28 Deling, Bert (d) 203, 205 Delluc, Lon is 330 Delon, Alain (ac) 174 Delta (TV) 327 De Mille, Cecil B. (p., d) 88 Demolition 252 (cr) Demons of the Mind 34, 35 (st), 36 Demongeot, Catherine (ac) 13 (st) Demy, Jacques (d) 166 Denner, Charles (ac) 207 (st), 208 Dental Health 60 (cr), 257 (cr) Dentelliere, La 31-32 (cr), 359,361 (r) Depardieu, Gerard (ac) 225 Department of Film Production Tasmania (see also Tasmanian Film Corporation) 60-61 Derniere Anee Dans Marienbad, La 216 (st) Derniere Femme, La 134-135 (r) Despair 144 (st) d'Estaing, Valery Giscard 174

Devil, Probably, The 114 (r, st), 224 Devil’s Playground, The 269, 247, 248,340 Devlin (TV) 327 Diable Probablement, Le 114 (r, st), 224 (r) Dialogue on Film 187 Diary of a Lover 225 (r) Dickinson, Eva (ac) 77 (st) Diedrich, John (ac) 339,343 Dillon, Melinda (ac) 320 (st) Dimboola 251 (cr), 315, 377,349 (cr) Dimsey, Ross (d) 164-165 (i, st), 167,361 Dingwell, John (sc) 116 Directors and Directing 11-14,90, 23, 25, 26-27, 92,42-43,44, 52-53,55,64,85, 11 2-11 3,1 26,138-141,185,164-165, 166,167,1 70-1 71,203-205, 208, 213, 214, 223, 233-234, 244-246, 269,307, 310-311,31 2-315,318, 321,325, 339, 340-341,343,377,379 Directors Guild of America 31 7 Directors of Television Drama Series (American) — checklist 69, 71 Dirty Story, A 361 -36 2 (cr) Disadvantaged Schools 60 (cr) Discovery 3 (TV) 353 (cr) Distant Thunder 323 Distribution 28, 29,33,55,91,105,111, 113, 11 7,118,191,1 33,189,164, 229, 236, 237, 296,377,31 6,347,343 Dites Lui Que Le L’Aime 225 (r) Dmytryk, Edward (d) 80 Docteur Françoise Gailland 78-79 (cr) Doctor Wanted 155 (cr) Documentary 23,80, 81,90,91,104,111, 191,136,185,273,225, 226, 298-302, 367 Donaldson, Roger (d) 306,307,381 (st, n.)

Donner, Dr. Wolf 114 Don’s Party 33,191,114 Doring, Jeff (t) 301 Dorsman, John (sc) 189 Dorsman, Judith 344 Dot and the Kangaroo 33,186, 255 (cr,st) Dreams 157 (cr) Dream Doors 157 (cr) Dreyfus, George 85 (st, a) Dreyfus, Richard, (ac) 321 (st) Driver Education 60 (cr) Drop Of Rough Ted, A 157 (cr), 252 (cr) Drug Abuse 60 (cr) Duel 31 8 Duellists, The 30 (st) Duigan, John (d) 203,31 2-31 5,377 (i, st), 356 Dunkley Smith, John (d) 375 Dunn, Gwen 267, 269 Durgs, Margeurite (d) 32, 215 Dusinberre, Deke 272 Dutronc, Jacques (ac) 135 (st) Duval, Shelley (ac) 137 (st) Dykstra, John (t) 119 “ Dykstrafles" camera 119 Dynasty (TV) 327

E Earth Patrol 157 (cr) Eastern Outlet 257 (cr) Ecology 1 and 3 353 (cr) Ecran 330 Eddie and the Breakthrough 95 Edgar, Patricia 180 Edinburgh Film Festival 322-323 (r) Editors and Editing 1 2,13, 25, 64,105,113, 116, 237, 245, 296, 339 Edols, Michael (c) 52 (st), 55 (st), 301 (i) Efftee Productions 181 Egerton, Mark 341 Egg! Egg! A Hardboiled Story 306 (st) Egger, Samantha (ac) 225 Eggleston, Colin (d) 58 Ekman, Stefan (ac) 308 (st), 309 Ekran 331 Elderly Persons Homes 60 (cr) Elfick, David 113,191 Elisa, My Love 30 (st) Ellis, Bob 113 Elsaesser, Thomas 283 Eltham Films 85 Emery, John (sc) 11 2, 262 Emmanuel, Takis (ac) 205 (st) Empire of the Senses 105,137 (r), 201 Empress Wu 109 (st) End of the Schools, The 252 (cr) Enemy Within, The 21 2 (st) Entertainment Industries Council 186 Eroberung Der Zitadelle, Die 114-115 Errata 257, 297 Essex, Tony 120 Eternal Love 110 Eustache, Jean (d) 361,362 (st) Evening Land 115 Every Care But No Responsibility 157 (cr), 252 (cr) Ewart, John (ac) 79 (st) Exhibitors and Exhibition 8-9,15,91,104, 105,113,11 7,131 -133,189, 200, 229, 236, 237, 277, 296 Exorcist II: The Heretic 105 Experimental Cinema 142 Experimental Film and Television Fund Dlstribution/Exhibition Survey 296 Expulsion From Paradise, The 115 Eya Den Loku Lamayek 232

F Fahrenheit 451 207 (st) Falcon Island (TV) 353 (cr) Falk, Peter (ac) 69 (st) Families Without Television 1 80 (br) Family Day Care 161 (cr) Fangschuss, Der 134 (r) Fant 331 Fantasm Comes Again 33, 58 (cr, st), 1 56 (cr) Far Paradise, The 277 Far West 257 (cr) Fassbinder, Rainer Werner (d) 115,137, 144 (st) Faster Than Your Shadow 91 Fat City 141 (st)

man to his environment down to the smallest micro-items.

I wanted to use ? a totally natural approach to filming, to develop relationships betw een interiors and exteriors.

Always using natural light sources like / s lamps, windows and J fire for interiors, and natural / , variations in light fe

*

J\

fog, mist, lowlight, shadow, for the exteriors

-*'• -Y

P » f e

M

*

jtei'i- r # 2 ite-

k

:

ï -V:S m t . -^ v,. *'^**1R HP-.

Eastm an Color

twice as much without Eastm an Color Negative that one stop.

So in this instance, Film 5247 and it responded fantastically in all situations. force processing saved us hours in production The night shots for instance—which set-up time. M make un about 10% been force processed one stop.

I wouldn’t have done this if I didn’t think the stock could take it, but I was the results, j.

I don’t usually like to force process, but we already had a mammoth amount of lights and generator power, and would have needed

Still photography courtesy of John P. Pollard.

A Little Technical Information from Kodak.

EASTMAN Color Negative 11 Film 5247 (35mm) and 7247 (16mm) is a camera film intended for general motion picture production. The wide exposure latitude of this high-speed film makes it especially suitable for both indoor and outdoor photography under a wide variety of conditions.

GENERAL PROPERTIES: Color Negative 11 Film is balanced for use in tungsten light, and in daylight with appropriate filters. .

The emulsion contains a colored-coupler mask to achieve good color reproduction in release prints. This film is characterized by a high degree of sharpness, fine grain, and excellent color rendition.

LIGHTING CONTRAST: The ratio of key-light-plus-fill-light to fill light should be 2:1 or 3:1 and should seldom exceed 4:1, except when a special effect is desired.

COLOR BALANCE: This film is balanced for exposure under tungsten illumination at 3200 K. It can also be used with tungsten lamps at slightly higher or lower color temperatures (± 150K) without correction filters, since final color balancing can be done in printing.

When other light sources are used, correction filters are required — often for both camera and lights.

For further information on Kodak Motion Picture Film, contact your nearest Kodak branch office.

Melbourne: 252 Collins Street. Phone: 654 4633 Sydney: 379-381 George Street. Phone: 2 0235 Brisbane: 252 St. Paul’s Terrace, Fortitude Valley.

Phone: 52 1911 Adelaide: 34 North Terrace. Phone: 212 2411 Perth: 10 Chilver Street, Kewdale. Phone: 458 9966 Hobart: 45 Elizabeth Street. Phone: 34 2099 Canberra: 1 Woolley Street, Dickson. Phone: 49 1445 Townsville: 291 Flinders Street. Phone: 72 3366

Kodak

Motion Picture & Audiovisual Markets Division KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD. K7/9364

INDEX VOLUME 4

Father Boss 31 (r) Faulkner, John (ac) 209-213, 273,277 (a, st, f) Fellini, Federico (p, d) 90 Ferreri, Marco (d) 134-135 Feret, Rene (d) 31 Ferreux, Benoit (ac) 1 2 (st), 13 (st) Festivals 8,30-33,45-47,105,11 4-11 5, 134-1 37, 224-225, 278, 296, 322-323 F.I.A.F. 93,200,278 Fieguth, Monty (t) 1 51-153 Fields, Maurie (ac) 55 (st) Fifth Birthday Admissions 255 (cr) Fill, Ditmar (c) 296 Film 297 Film A Doba 331 Film and Television Producers of Australia Association 150 Film Australia 20, 60,111,161,223, 255, 296,329,353 Film Censorship Listings Reprinted from The Australian Government Gazette 37, 9 2,235,285,365,375 Film Common f1 43 Film Critic 187 Film Critics 11 2,11 7,139,178,331 Film Culture 1 43 Film Dope 283 Film Facts 143 Film For Discussion 328 Film Form 283 Film Heritage 187 Films illustrated 233 Film kritik331 Filmkultura331 Filmkunst331 Film Music 15, 52-53,85,11 4, 281,233, 271,326-327 Film News 93 Filmographies: Peter Sykes 95; Bernardo Bertolucci 43; Paul Cox 94; Louis Malle 90; Phil Noyce 191; Eric Rohmer 1 27; John Huston 185; Tim Cowan 205; Francois Truffaut 208; John Faulkner 277; Stephen Wallace 223; The Taviani Brothers 281; Stephen Speilberg 379.

Film Periodicals, An Historical Survey of 142-143,187,238-239, 2 79,283,330­ 331 Film Periodicals in the National Library of Australia 142 Film (Poland) 331 Film Polski 331 Film, preservation of 278 Film projectors 20-21 Filmrutan331 Films and Filming 279, 269 Films Board of Review 8 Film Services and Facilities Guide 67 Films in Review 142-143 Film Soundtrack Australia 95 Film Study Catalogue278 Film Study Resources Guide 373 Film Title Index 1908-1974142 Filmways Australiasia 297 Film wissenschaftliche Beitraege331 Fireman’s Ball 77 First Communion 31 (r) First Things First 157 (cr), 350 (cr) Fisher, Andrew 113 Fitzgerald, Geraldine (ac) 84 (st), 358 (st) £ 5 0 0 Reward 2 1 1 (st) F.J. Holden 33, 77-78(r), 112 Fleischer, Richard (d) 68 Fleming, Claude 211 (st), 21 2, 213 Flynn, John (d) 322,323 Focus on Film 283 Foley, Gary (ac) 11 2 Fonda, Jane (ac) 357 (st) Food From The Reluctant Earth 179 (cr) Football on Television 367 (br) Ford, John (p., d) 88,107,1 23,300 Forests 255 (cr) Forsberg, Lars Lennart (d) 307,309,381.

Forte, Fabrizio (ac) 226 (st) Fortini/Cani 45 (r) Fossey, Brigitte (ac) 206 (st) Fourth Wish, The 11 7 (st), 11 8 Fowle, Sussanah (ac) 174 (st) Franklin, Richard (d) 303,304 (st), 377 Framework 283 Frampton, Hollis (d) 375 Fraser, Dawn 338 Frazetto, Sergio (ac) 313 (st), 314 (st), 31 5 (st), 356 Free, Colin (sc) 1 20 Fricsay, Andras (ac) 115 (st)

Friends and Lovers (TV) 171 From Birth To Walking — The Developing Child 161 (cr) Frontiers Downunder 161 (cr) Frost, David 68 Full Cycle 350 (cr) Futurist Cinema, 1916, The 330

G Gable, Clark (ac) 141 (st) Gabriel, John 23 Gailly, Peter 58 (st) Gallipoli 155 (cr), 349 (cr) Games of Love and Loneliness 308 (st), 309 (r) Gam Peraliya 232 Ganz, Bruno (ac) 1 26 (st) Garnham, Nicholas 3 6 / G’day Sport! 161 (cr) Geduld, Harry 87-88 Geissendorfer, Hans W. (d) 135 Genou de Claire, Le 1 27 Gentle Birth 329 George, Rob (ac) 326 (st) George Lugg Information Service 200 George Lugg Library 200 Gerima, Haile (d) 135-136 Germany Year Zero 115 Getting It On 329 Getting of Wisdom, The 58 (cr), 1 74 (st), 1 75 (r), 175,186, 265, 265 (r) Gidal, Peter 272 Gil, Vincent (ac) 65-66 (i, st) Gilmour, Ian (ac) 314 (st), 356 Ginnane, Anthony i. (p) 58 (st), 164 Giornata Particolare, Una 30 (r) Girardot, Annie (ac) 78 (st)

Giraud, Francoise 216 Girl In The Hairy Pa w: King Kong as Myth, Movie and Monster, The 87-88 (br) Gizmo 32 (r) Glenn, Gordon (p) 73 Glenview High (TV) 161 (cr) Godamanna, Thilak (p) 233 (st) Godard, Jean-Luc (d) 181,182,375 God Knows Why But It Works 11 2 (st) God’s Prodigal 21 2 ,277n Golden Coach, The 126 Golden Grove 60 (cr), 179 (cr) Golden Lotus, The 1 06 (st), 110 Golden Nature 350 (cr) Golden Swallow, The 108,109 (st) Goldman, Marvin, 229 Gold On Blue 255 (cr) Goldschmidt, Ernst G. 8,1 48 Gomez, Fernando Fernan (ac) 11 5 (st) Goodall, Leith (c) 38,39 Good Thing Going, A 161 (cr) Goretta Claude (d) 31-32,359,361 Gori, Gori, Moja Zvezda 137 Gottesman, Ronald 87-88 Gottlieb, Carl (sc) 87 Gravedigger and the Girl, The 252 (cr) Greene, Lome (ac) 68 (st) Green Machine, The 58 (cr) Greg 111 Griffiths, David 180 Grimaldi, Alberto (p) 8, 41 Growing Up In Hollywood88 (br) Guerilleres, Les 203 Guffey, Gary (ac) 31 9 (st) Guide for the Australian Film Producer 26­ 2 7 ,92,1 28-130,192, 201,230-231, 334, 383 Guinness, Sir Alec (ac) 263 (st) Gulf Prawning 353 (cr) Gulpilil, David (ac) 11 2,148 (st), 150 (st), 259,353 Guney, Yilmaz (d) 11 5 Gunzberg, Daro (t) 1 53 (st)

H Habich, Matthias (ac) 134 (st) Haddrick, Ron (ac) 354 (st) Hall, Keng (d) 112 ,118,186, 269 Halldoff, Jan (d) 306 (st), 308,309,38ln Hamilton, David (d) 201,265 Hamlet 11 5 Hamment, Olivia (ac) 150 Hammond, Peter (d) 1 20,1 23,189 Handling Meat In The Home 179 (cr) Hannam, Ken (d) 1 20,121,1 23 (st), 1 76, 177,338,339,340-341,343 (i, st) Hannay, David (p) 63,66 (i, st) Hansford-The Competitor 252 (cr) Happy Day 46 (r) Happy Days (TV) 170 (st), 267 Harbour 353 (cr) Hardy, Jonathan (ac) 84 (st) Harries-Jones, Roy (ac) 122 (st) Harrison, Cathryn (ac) 163 (st), 1 64-165, 166-167 (i, st), 361 Harvest of Hate 157 (cr), 252 (cr, st) Harvest: 3 00 0 Years 135-136 (r) Hawaiian Safari 350 (cr) Head of Normande St. Onge, The 136 (r) Herbert, Claude (ac) 46 (st) Hector’s Roadshow 60 (cr) Heilman, Lillian 8 1 ,357 Helpern, David W. (d) 80,81 Helpmann, Robert (ac) 84 (st) Helwig, Klaus 148 Hemdale 28, 29 Herald Newsreel 38 Heritage Train 353 (cr) Herkulesfurdoi Emtek 114 (r), 115 (st) Hermit, The 60 (cr) Herscheils Films 39 Herzog, Werner (d) 45, 48 Hewett, Dorothy (sc) 203 Heydays 157 (cr) Heylen, Syd (ac) 363 (st) Heysen On Heysen 60 (cr) Hibberd, Jack (sc) 31 5 ,377 Higgins, Arthur (c) 273,277 High Rolling 57-58 (cr), 74 (st, cr), 1 78 (r) Hilditch, Rob (t) 151-153 Hill, Bob (sc) 363 Hill, Gladys (sc) 139,140,185 Historic Stanley 60-61 (cr) History of Visual Communication, A 353 Hitchcock, Alfred (d) 127 Hitler (TV) 115 ,323 Hodsdon Report 200, 296 Holden, Mark (ac) 163 (st), 165 Holiday 382 (cr) Holiday At Sea 157 (cr) Hollywood On Trial 80-81 (r) Hollywood Quarterly 1 42,330 Holmes, Cecil 53 Home 328 Homme Qui Amait Les Femmes, L’ 206­ 207, 208 Hong Kong, Cinema in 107,108,110 Hopkins, Harold (ac) 24 (st) Hopper, Dennis (ac, d) 45 Hotel Pacific 137 Hot to Trot 58 (cr) House 297 (st) House In Nightmare Park, The 36 House On American Activities Committee 80,81 House Upstairs, The 349 Housing 382 (cr) How Much Wood Would A Woodchuck Chuck 45 (r) How To Gromble A Flub 1 79 (cr) Howard, Frankie (ac) 36 Hoyts Theatres 131,132,1 33, 269, 347 Hra O Jabiko 11 5 Hsi Shih: Beauty of Beauties 110 Hue, Michael (ac) 110, 240 Hughes, John (p, d) 81 Humanity and Harmony 255 (cr), 382 (cr) Human Too Human 1 2-13 Humphries, Barry (ac) 175 Hunter, Bill (ac) 11 2 (st), 262 (si) Huppert, Isabelle (ac) 32 (st), 359 Huston, John (d) 138-1 41,185 (i, st, f) Huston, Walter (ac) 139,140 (st) Hyneck, Dr. Allen 320

I I Am An Anti-Star 11 5 Ichikawa, Kon (d) 225 Illuminations 18.1 9 Image et Son 330 Image of Death 157 (cr) images 166 Immodest Wife 350 (cr) Importance of Keeping Perfectly Still, The 157 (cr, st), 252 (cr) In Search of Anna 28 (st), 51 (st), 52-53, 55 (cr), 104,156 (cr) In the Realm of the Senses 137 (r) Independent Feature Film Producers, The 150, 200 Independent Production 16-1 7, 28,38-39, 94, 104,111 -113,133,143,150,191, 200, 221,223, 233-234, 272,316 (a), 322,328,373 India Song 21 5, 21 6 (st) Industrial Light and Magic 119 Infant Education 257 (cr) Inner Area Development 60 (cr) Inside Looking Out 16-1 7,1 8,1 9,58 (cr), 156 (cr) International Federation of Film Archives, 93, 200 International Index to Film Periodicals 142 Interview 60 (cr) Inugamis, The 225 (r) Iphigenie 31 (r) Irishman, The 57 (cr), 156 Iskusstvo Kino 331 Italy is Not A Poor Country 226 Ivens, Joris (d) 226

J Jacka V. C. 350 (cr) Jackman, Terry 131-133,1 89 (i, st) Jade, Claude (ac) 207 (st) Jaffer, Melissa (ac) 327 (st) James, Peter (c) 219 (st) Janus Films 148 Jarman, Michelle (ac) 75 (st) Jaws 87,320,321,379 Jaws Log, The87 (br) Jayasiri, Wijay (t) 233 (st) Jedda 93 Jeffrey, Tom (d) 324-327 (i, st) Jissoji, Akio 48 Johnson, Nicholas 181 Johnson, Tommy (ac) 306 (st), 309 Jonas Qui Aura 2 5 Ans En L’An 2 00 0 135 (r) Jonas Who Will Be 25 In The Year 2000 135 (r) Jones, Barry 104 Jones, Paul (ac) 35 (st) Journal of Popular Film 187 Journey, The 18, 94 Journey Among Women 33, 58 (cr, st), 173-174 (r), 203,204, 205 Journey Into Paradise 253 (cr) Jubilee And Beyond, The 59 (cr) Julia 357-358 (r) Julie 179 (cr) Jump Cut 187 Just A Woman 78-79 (r) Just Me And My Little Girlie 329 Juvenile Aid Panels 60 (cr)

Karunaratne, Donald (c) 233 (st) Kata, Elizabeth (sc) 120 Keatch, Stacey (ac) 141 (st) Keaton, Diane (ac) 260 Keller, Marthe (ac) 225 Keneally, Thomas, 244 Kennedy, Gerard (ac) 84 (st) Kestleman, Sarah (ac) 343 Kiefel, Russell (ac) 316 (st) Kinematograph and Lantern Weekly, The 238 King, Barrie 93 Kingdom And The Beauty, The 109 (st), 110

Kingdom Of Twilight, The 277 King, Hu (d) 108,110 King Kong (1976) 87 King Of The Two Day Wonder, The 350­ 351 (cr) Kingsbury, Bob (d) 301 Kingsland, Debbie (d) 329 Kino (Poland) 331 Kino (West Germany) (33) Kirby’s Company (TV) 255 (cr) Kjaer, Diana (ac) 381 (st) Know Your Beef 157 (cr) Kosmorama 331 Kovacs, Laslo (ac) 46 (st) Kovanko, Lilga (ac) 309 (st) Krejus, Kim (ac) 31 4 (st), 31 5 (st), 356 Kristel, Sylvia (ac) 45 Kubrick, Stanley (d) 87 Kumaranathunga, Vijaya (ac) 233 (st), 234 (st) Kumel, Harry (d) 240 Kuring, Jude (d) 329

Lacemaker, The 31 -32 (r), 359,361 (r) Lacombe Lucien 11,12 Last Adventure, The 306 (st), 308 (st) Last Bullet, The 252 (st), 253 (cr) Last Harvest, The 191 Last Movie, The 45 (st) Last Of The Leviathans, The 253 (cr) Last Run of The Kameruka, The 155 (cr) Last Tasmanian, The 59 (cr), 157-159 (cr) 252 (cr), 351 (cr) Last T empest, The 110

Last Wave, The 29, 57 (cr), 147-153,183 (i, st, cr), 225, 259 (cr), 269, 296, 297 Last Women, The 134-135 (r) Last Year At Marienbad 216 (st), 234 Late Show, The 11 5 La Trobe University Media Centre 180,181 Laure, Carole (ac) 136 (st) Laurie, Robyn (d) 329 La Varre, Marie (ac) 21 3 (st) Leach, Penny (ac) 148 (st) League of Sky, A 232, 234 Leaud, Jean-Pierre (ac) 207 (st), 215 (st) Le Clezio, Sylvie 8 Lee, Bruce (ac) 107,109 Lee, Christopher (ac) 35 (st) Lefebvre, Jean-Pierre (d) 32 Leftist Filmmaking 135,330 Legend of Yowie, The 159 (cr) Legrand, Michel, 271 Leisurelines 60 (cr) Lesage, Julia 83 Lester, Mark L. (d) 32 (r) Letter From Paris 45 (r) Let The Balloon Go 33,1 64 Levy, Barbara (d) 328 Lewis, Tommy (ac) 132 (st), 155 (st), 244 (st), 245 Leyda, Jan 107,110 Lhomme, Pierre (c) 225 Lieberson, Sandy (p) 132-133 Life 318 Life Be In It 255 (cr), 382 (cr) Life Class 351 (cr) Life Of Chikuzan, The 225 (r) Life Officers 179 (cr) Light Entertainment367 Li Han-Hsiang (d) 109-110,144 Lilley, Rose (ac) 58 (st) Limited Off To Purchase Trial 257 (cr) Lindblom, Gunnel (d) 308 ,3 8 ln '3 1 0-311 (i, st) Linstead, Hilary 113 Lintas Advertising Agency 267 • Lintas Report, The 267 Listening 1 79 (cr) Listen To The Lion 363 (r) Little Boy Lost 349 (cr) Little Trippers 63 Llewellyn-Jones, Tony (ac) 16 (st), 1 9 (st) Local Colour 47 (r) Lommel, Ulli (d) 137 London Film Festival 323 (r) Long, Joan (p) 20, 25 Longford, Raymond (d) 213, 273, 277 Long Weekend 57 (cr), 156 (cr) Lonsdale, Michel (ac) 362 (st) Lorraine, Marie (ac) 277 (st) Lorre, Peter (ac) 141 Lorry, The 32 (r) Losey, Joseph (d) 174 Loss Of Innocence (TV) 353 (cr) Lost In The Bush 382 (cr) Lost In The Wild 33 Love 159 (cr) Love In The Afternoon 127 (st) Love Letters from Teralba Road, The 221 223,262-263 (r) Lovell, Pat (p) 29, 343 Lucas, George (d) 11 9 (st), 192, 263, 265 Luke’s Kingdom (TV) 1 20-1 23,189 (a) Lure Of The Bush, The 21 2-213 Lyle, Reg (ac) 116 (st)

McAlpine, Don (c) 175 McAnnally, Major R. 15 McDonagh, Paulette (d) 277, 297 McCarthy, Senator Joseph 80,81 MacDonald, Alexander (d) 277, 297 McDonald, Garry (ac) 79 McElroy, Hal (p) 148-15 0 ,183 (i, st), 259 McElroy, James (p) 28,148-150,183 (i, st) 259 McIntosh, Hugh D. 213, 277 MacKinnon, Robert 21 3 (st) MacMillan, Susannah (ac) 323 (st) MacNamara, Barbara 21 8 (st) McNicol, Rod (ac) 275 (st) MacPherson, Kenneth 238 McQuade, Kris (ac) 222 (st), 223, 262-263, 316 (st) McSweeney, Julian (t) 220 (st) Mad Max 349 (cr) Mado 135 (r) MacKay-Payne, Bronwyn (ac) 337 (st), 341 (st) 347 (st) Mackintosh Man, The 141 (st) Magee, Patrick (ac) 35 (st) Maggie 349 (cr) Magic Arts 255 (cr) Maguire, Gerard (ac) 120 (st) Maidens 59 (cr, st) Major, Ross 344-345,347 (i, st) Making Of Anna, The 59 (cr), 353 (cr) Making of Kubrick's 2001, The 87 (br) Malet, Laurents (ac) 144 (st) Malle, Louis (d) 10-1 4, 90 (i, st, f), 166,167 Man And His Forest, A 61 (cr) Man For Burning, A 228 Man From Hong Kong, The 63 Man From Snowy River, The 21 3 Man Who Loved Women, The 206, 207 (st) 208 Man Who Would Be King, The 140 (st) Mandagarna Med Fanny 309 (r) Mandingo 68 Mango Tree, The 57 (cr), 84 (st, cr), 156 (cr), 358,359 (r) Mankiewicz, Joseph (d) 88 Manton Plan, The 257 (cr) Marawood, Charles 220, 326-327 March The Fourth 60 (cr), 1 61 (cr) Marconi, Saverio (ac) 227 (st) Margaret Barr — Judith Wright 161 (cr) Marinetti F.T, 330 Marquise of O . . . , The 1 25,1 26 (st), 1 27 Martin 32 (r) Martin, Zac (ac) 11 2 (st) Mary And Joe 104 Mary Tyler Moore Show, The (TV) 170-1 71 Master Index of Current International Film Periodical Holdings in Australian Specialist Libraries 142

Mastroianni, Marcello (ac) 228 Matuszewski, Boleslaw (c) 278 Mauve Taxi 30 Mawson Continental Pictures 63 Max Havelaar 136 (r) M.B.H.A. Activities 1 79 (cr) Meillon, John (ac) 24, 25, 79 (st), 80 Mekas, Jonas 143 Melbourne Film Festival 134-137 (r), 272 Melbourne Filmmakers Co-operative 104.

272 Menace 81 (r) Men From The Monastery 106 (st) Menzel, Jiri (d) 136 Menzies, Robert Gordon 81 Metro 93 Michelangeli, Marcella (ac) 21 (st) Mick 111 M.I.F.E.D. 104 Miles, Kevin (ac) 326 (st) Mill of Hooks, A 253 (cr) Milland, Ray (ac) 95 Miller, Arthur (sc) 1 41 (st) Miller, Monte (sc) 73 Milliken, Sue 325,326 Mills, Ian 180,181 Mind 59 (cr) Miou Miou (ac) 225 Mirt Sost Shi Amit 135-136 (r) Misfits, The 141 (st) Mitchum, Robert (ac) 88 Moase, Robyn (ac) 58 (st) Modiano, Patrick 13 Moi, Pierre Riviere, Eyant Egorge Ma Mere, Ma Soeur Et Mon Frere 44-45 (r) Moir, Richard (ac) 51 (st), 52, 53 Mollet, Luc (d) 47 Molloy, Lily (ac) 21 2 (st) Molloy, Mike (c) 177,341 Monaco, James 181,1 82 Monaghan, Laurence de (ac) 127 (st) ■ Monday Mourning 351 (cr) Money Movers, The 1 55 (cr), 251 (cr), 349 (c r)

Monogram 283 Monroe, Marilyn (ac) 141 (st), 297 Monthly Film Bulletin 239 Monton, Vince (c) 168 (i, si) Moonage Daydreams Of Charlene Stardust, The 328 (st) Mora, Phillipe (d) 113 Moral Tales 1 25,1 26, 127 Moreau, Jeanne (ac) 1 2 (st), 13 (st), 207 (st) Moreno, Frank 28 Morphett, Tony (sc) 1 20,148 Morricone, Ennio 271 Morris, John (p) 325,338 Morris, Judy (ac) 28 (st), 51 (st), 53 Morrow, Vic (ac) 68 (st) Morse, Helen (ac) 1 21 (st), 1 22 (st) Mortimer 159 (cr) Moss, Joel 38 Mostel, Zero (ac) 81 Motherwell, Phil (ac) 275 (st) Motion Picture Exhibitors Convention 104 Mouth to Mouth 59 (cr), 156 (cr), 203, 31 2­ 315,356 (r), 377 (i, st) Movie 279,330 Moviegoer 187 Movietone News 38, 278 Mr. Klein 174 (r) Mr. Symbolman 301 Mullinar, Rod (ac) 305 (st) Mune, Ian (c) 182 (st) Murder On The Nile 240 (st) Muriel 215 (st) Murnau, Friedrich,W. (d) 127 Murray, Chris (t) 305 Murray Grey Breed, The 159 (cr) Musica, La 215, 216 (st) Muti, Ornella (ac) 135 (st) My Brilliant Career 349 (cr)

Narizzano, Silvio (d) 225 Na Samote U Lesa 136 (r) Nash, Margot (d) 329 National Association of Theatre Owners (U.S.A.) 229,273 National Film Archive 186, 209, 278 National Film Information Service 95 National Film Theatre of Australia 104 National Library of Australia 93,186, 278, 331,375 National Nine Network 299 National Park Rangers 382 (cr) Natural History (TV) 161 (cr) Nava, Gregory (d) 322 Neave, Roger 73 Ned Kelly 85 Needs of Young Australians, The 255 (cr) Neill, Sam (ac) 182 (st) Nene 225 (r) Network 185 New Dick Van Dyke Show, The (TV) 1 7 1 Newman, Paul (ac) 141 (st) Newman Shame, The 159 (st), 351 (cr) New One-Armed Horseman, The 109 (st) New Rail Pin 179 (cr) News, Television 73,1 69 Newsfront 57 (cr),93,113 ,155 (cr), 251 (cr), 349 (cr) New South Wales Film Corporation 113, 118, 179,1 83,189, 191,229,315, 382 Newsreels 38-39,81,93,113, 11 5, 278 New Wave, The 181-182 (br) New Zealand 62,63, 64, 89, 91,182, 373 New Zealand Cinematograph Films Act 91 New Zealand, Checklist of feature films made in, 89 New Zealand Film Archives Committee 91 Night Nurse, The 59 (cr), 159 (cr) Night Prowlers (TV) 59 (cr) Night The Prowler, The 251 (cr), 349 (cr) 190 0 8,40-41 (st), 43, 225,271,297 Nixon, Richard M. 68, 80 (st), 191 Nixon Tapes, The (TV) 68 Nkomo, Joshua 302 (st) Noble, Dr. Grant 267 Noise Pollution 257 (cr) No Fear — l Quote 351 (cr) Nolan At Sixty (TV) 255 (cr) Notes From The First Year21 5 Not Just The Object 351 (cr)

Cinema Papers Index Volume Four — 3

INDEX VOLUME 4

Not Only Pipes 253 (er) Novecento 8. 40-41 (st), 43, 225, 271.297 No Way Back 179 (er) No Where Else 61 (er) Noyce, Phil (d) 111 -11 3,1 91 (i, st, f), 261 263 Nykvist, Sven (c) 14

© Oates, Warren (ac) 91,182 Oceans 349 (cr) O'Dea, Sir Patrick 91 O'Donnell, Vincent 299, 302 Odd Angry Shot, The 326,349 (cr) Odd Couple, The (TV) 171 Odds On 277 Office Picnic, The 203, 205 (st) Ohbayashi, Nobuhiko (d) 297 Ombre Rosse 331 On Location on Martha's Vineyard: The Making of the Movie "J a w s "87 (br) On The Trail Of The Kangaroo 273, 277n One-Armed Swordsman, The 108 100,000 Lights 351 (cr) One Night Stand 112, 136 (r) Ordell. Tal (ac) 211,277 Oshima, Nagisa (d) 137 Other Cinema 375 Other Side of Innocence, The (TV) 23 Our Living Past 159 (cr) Outrageous 322 (r) Outsiders, The (TV) 23 Overseas Lamb Marketing 351 (cr) Owens, Don (d) 136 (r) Oz 33, 229. 237

Pacino, Al (ac) 225 Packer, Kerry 229 Padre Padrone 31 (r), 115, 226, 227 (st), 228, 281 Paisa 226 Palmer Street 155 (cr) Paramount 8 Papamoskou, Tatiana (ac) 31 (st) Papas, Irene (ac) 31 (st) Para Dige 232, 234 (st) Paradise Place 308 (r), 310-1 1 Paradistorg 308 (r). 310-31 1 Paralysis 329 Parasite Murders. The 32 Parrish, Robert (d) 88 Particular Day, A 30-31 (r) Partners 136 (r) Pasolini, Pier Paolo 8, 42 Pastures Of The Blue Crane (TV) 327 Pate. Christopher (ac) 84 (st) Pateman, Trevor 367 Pathiraja, Dharmasena (d) 232, 233-234 (i, st) Patrick 155 (cr), 251 (cr), 303-305,377.

350 (cr) Peat, Sonia (ac) 31 3 (st), 31 4 (st), 31 5 (st), 356 Pedder-Gordon Power Scheme 257 (cr) Peers, Lisa (ac) 62 (st), 64 (st), 65 (i, st), 66 Pegge, Edmund (ac) 122 (st) Penguin Film Review 239 Penhaligon, Susan (ac) 305 (st). 377 (st) People Mover, The 257 (cr) Percival 125, 127 Percival, Lacey (c) 211 (st) Percy Aldridge Grainger 60 (cr) Perfumed Nightmare, The 1 15 (r) Peries, Lester James (d) 232, 233 Pepetua 15, 94 Perrier, Francois (ac) 78 Perry, Major Joseph 15 Personality and General Subject Index 1 9 3 5 -7 4 142 Perth Film Festival 8,105 Pesticide Control 382 (cr) Peter Vernon's Silence 273 Petit, Jean-Claude (ac) 205 (st) Phantom India 90 (st) Phyllis (TV) 170 Physique of Lo ve 260 Piccolo, Ottavia (ac) 135 Picnic 33 Picnic At Hanging Rock 29,11 7 (st), 149, 166,229, 237,259,273,340 Picture Previews: High Rolling 74: Summerfield 75: The Mango Tree 84; Apostasy 275 * Picture Show Man, The 20-21,24, 25.33 79-80 (r) 296 Pied Piper, The 166 Pig In A Poke (TV) 61 (cr) Pike, Andrew 297 Pisier, Marie France 208 Pizzorno, Antoinetta (d) 47 Playground Safety 179 (cr) Plunge Into Darkness 59 (cr), 159 (cr) Plug-In Drug. The 267, 269 Point Omega 351 (cr) Police/Aboriginal Relations 60 (cr) Pollack. Sydney (d) 224-225 Poor Cinema 316, 31 7 Popescu, Petru (sc) 148 Pornography 361,362 Port 179 Port Of Freemantle — Western Australia 253 (cr), 351 (cr) Positif330 Power. Derek 148 Power, John (d) 22-25, 91 (i, st), 80, 191 Pram Factory Productions 337 Praunhein, Rosa von (d) 115 Predators On The Move (TV) 59 (cr) Preventative Medicine 1 79 (cr) Probably The Devil 11 4 (r, st) Producers and Producing 25, 91,26-27, 92, 28, 33, 53,63, 66, 65.85,104, 105, 116-118, 191, 128-130, 192,133, 148­ 50, 183, 201,229,230-231,234, 246.

296,302, 307, 315. 379, 326, 334, 387, 338,340.341 Production Design 344-345, 347 Production Reports: In Search Of Anna 51 53, 55; Solo 62-66: The Last Wave

147-153,183; Blue Fire Lady 163­ 168; The Irishman 217-220; The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith 243-249, 269; Dawn! 337-341,343-345,347 Production Surveys: Australia — 57-61, 155-1 57,159,161,1 79, 251 -253, 255, 257,349-351.353, 382. New Zealand — 91, International — 48,144, 240 Production Services and Facilities Guide 67 Productivity Is People 353 (cr) Project “A” 353 (cr) Promised Woman 203, 205 (st) Providence 125, 271 Prowse, Richard 105 Psycho 45 Pure Shit 33, 203, 205, 356 Pym, Walter (ac) 314 (st)

Q Quartet 159 (cr) Quartet With Strings 326 Queensland Films Board of Review 133 Queensland Film Corporation 191,189, 183, 200-201 Queensland Film Industry Development Act 1977 200-201

R.A.A.F. Training 255 (cr) Rabid 32 (r) Rademaker, Fons (d) 136 Radiguet, Raymond 78 Ragalyi, Elemer (c) 11 4 Rainbow (TV) 351,353 (cr) Raine, Keith (sc) 1 21 Rappaport, Mark (d) 47 Raw Deal 33 Ray, Satyajit (d) 323 Reagan, Ronald (ac) 81 Red Badge Of Courage, The 140.(st) Red Dog 159 (cr) Redford, Robert (ac) 178 Redgrave, Roy )ac) 21 2 Reef, The 59 (cr) Reg Perry Remembers 253 (cr) Regency Park 255 (cr) Regie de Jeu, La 207 Reifezeit 134 (r) Reininghaus, Antonia (ac) 11 5 (st) Reis, Antonio (d) 46 Reitz, Edgar (d) 11 5 Rekawa 232, 233 Removalists, The 327 Report on Minority Exhibition and Distribution in Australia 200 Resnais, Alain (d) 125, 21 4 Resources For Learning 60 (cr) Restless Years, The 159 (cr) Reve Plus Long Que La Nuit, Un 47 (r) Revue du Cinema, La 330 Rey, Fernando (ac) 30 (st), 287 (st), 297 Reynolds, Freddy (ac) 245 Richards, Keith 1 5 Richards, Tom (ac)341 (st) Richardson, Henry Handel 175 Rich Man, Poor Man (TV) 121 Ricketson, James (d) 31 6,31 7 Ride A Wild Pony 164 Rise And Rise of Michael Rimmer, The 64 Risi, Dino (d) 30 Rissient, Pierre (d) 11 2,1 36 Ritual 253 (cr) Robards, Jason (ac) 357 (st) Robb, Jill (p) 117,338 Robbe-Grillet, Alain (d) 375 Robert And Fanny 306 (st), 309 (r) Robert Mitchum 88 (br) Roberts, Lisa (d) 332 Roberts. Tom 248, 249, 355 Roberts, Wyn (ac) 363 (st) Robertson, Keith (p) 73 Rocky 131.185,338,345 Rodeo 59 (cr, st) Roe, David 8, 297 Rohmer, Eric (d) 1 24-1 27 (i, st. f) Rolling Thunder 322 (st), 323 (r) Romero. George (d) 32 Room Film 1973 272 Roots (TV) 68,141 Rose, Peter 33, 133 Roses Bloom Twice 59 (cr) Rossellini, Roberto (d) 226 Ross Bridge 61 (cr) Rota, Nino 271 Rothman, Conrad (t) 303-305,377 (i, st) Rotterdam Film Festival 45-47 (r) Rozsa, Miklos 271 Rules of the Game, The 207 Run From the Morning (TV) 255 (cr) Rush (TV) 120 Rustichelli, Carlo 271 Rusty Bugles 57 (cr), 155 (cr) Ryan, Billy (Ac) 21 2

c Safe Driving — A Question of Attitude 179 (cr) Safe Loads 60 (cr), 179 (cr) Safety in Construction 257 (cr) Safety in Small Boats 382 (cr) Safran, Henri (d) 363 Sailor Who Fell From Grace with the Sea 91 Saint Michael Had A Rooster 281 Sale Histoire, Une 361 -362 (r) Saless, Sohrab Shahid (d) 134, 225 Salo 8 Salvation Army 15, 94 Samperi, Salvatore (d) 225 Sanda, Dominique (ac) 42 (st) Sanders, Bob 169 Sanders Helmer (d) 136 Sandor, Pal (d) 11 4 Sargent, Alvin (sc) 357

4 — Cinema Papers Index Volume Four

Sarris, Andrew 330 Sartre, Jean-Paul 139 Saunders, Richard (d) 223 Saura, Carlos (d) 30,1 75,1 76 Sautet, Claude (d) 135 Scalp Merchant, The 159 (cr), 351 (cr) Scandal 110 Schaeffner ‘N’ Slade (TV) 161 (cr) Schepisi, Fred (d) 91,104, 132, 244-246, 269 (i, st) 341 Schepitko, Larissa (d) 11 4 Schilling, Nicklaus (d) 115 Schlondorff, Volker (d) 134 Schrader, Paul (Sc) 323 Schramm, Dr. Wilbur 267 Scola, Etore (d) 30-31 Scott, George C. (c) 140 (st) Scott, Jane (p) 191 Scott, Ridley (d) 30 Screen 279 Sculptor 255 (cr) Seale, John (I) 340 (st) 341 Seawell, Jeannine (sa) 28-29 (i, st), 148, 269 Secret History of the Ch’ing Court, The

110

Sequence 239, 279 Seresin, Michael (c) 182 Set Design 36, 47,152.344-345 Seventh Art, The 187 Sex Machine, The 105 Sex Type Socialization and Television Family Comedy Programs 180 (br) Seyrig, Delphine (ac) 214-21 6, 287 (i, st) Shadow Sister 59 (cr) Shaughnessy, Alfred (sc) 121 Shaw Brothers 108,110 Shinto. Kaneto (d) 225 Shirins Hochzeit 136 (r) Shirin’s Wedding 136 (r) Shout at the Devil 91 Sight and Sound238-239 Silks and Saddles 93, 209, 21 3 Silver, Joan Micklin (d) 137 Simmonds and Newcombe Story, The 57 (cr), 155 (cr), 251 (cr), 191,349 Simpson, Alan W 297 Sims, Tricia 180 Singer and the Dancer, The 33,83 (r), 316 (st) Siriwardene, Reggie (sc) 232 Sisson, Rosemary Anne 186 Sista Aventyret, Det 309 (r) Sjoman, Vilgot (d) 309, 381 Ski Australia 252 (cr) Skoop331 Skrien 331 Sleeping Dogs 91,182,373 Small Body of Still Water, A 179 (cr) Smith, Howard (d) 32 Smith, Ken 15 Smith, Malcolm (t) 11 7 (st) Sm ith’s Dream 182 Snow, Michael (d) 375 Solas, Humberto (d) 135 Soldier, The (TV) 23 Solo 62-66 (i, st, cr) 156 (cr) Solomon Islands independence 353 (cr) Sound 17, 52,65,67,95 Sound of Love 159 (cr) also see Touch of Love, The Sounds like Niugini 59 (cr) South Australian Film Corporation 29,33, 60, 104, 11 6. 1 17, 1 18, 133, 148, 179, 183,189,191,255, 296, 325, 338,339, 353,382 Southern Cross Newsreels Ltd. 38, 39 Southward 61 (cr) Sovetsky Skran 331 Space and a Time, A 186 Special Effects 87,11 9,1 51 -1 53,1 92, 245.

303-305,347.377 Spectrum Report on Australian Film Audiences, The 236-237 Spielberg, Steven (ac) 87.31 8-321,379 (i, st, f) Sri Lanka, Cinema in 232 (a) Stacey's Gym (TV) 11 6 (st), 117 Stangertz, Goran (ac) 306 (st), 309 (st) Stanza del Vescovo, La 30 (r) Starsky and Hutch (TV) 69 (st) Star Wars 1 19. 192, 200, 263, 265 (r), 271 Stavely, Roland (a) 21 2 Steele, Gay (c) 205 (st) Steel Mains 257 (cr) Step toe and Son Ride Again 95 Stever, Max 35 Stevens. George (d) 88 Stevens. Roy (p) 246 Stewart, Rob (d) 1 20 Still Lifes 332-333 (st) Stivell, Alan 52-53 .

Stolen Kisses 207 (st) Stopwatch (TV) 353 (cr) Storm, Esben (p. d) 52-53, 55 (i, st) Storm Boy 33, 1 16, 1 17, 1 18 (st) Story of a Tree 179 (cr) Story of O, The 133 St. Phalle. Niki de (d) 47 Strange Role, A 1 14 (r), 1 15 (st) Stratton, David J. 8. 28 (st) Straub, Jean-Marie (d) 45, 375 Strauss, Peter (ac) 1 21 Stringer, Michael 36 String Summer School 61 (cr) Stroszek 48 (st) Structural Film Anthology272 Stunde Null 11 5 (r) Sturges, Preston (d) 139 Summer City 58 (st), 156-1 57 (cr) Summerfield 29,58 (cr), 75 (st, cr), 104, 176, 177 (cr). 229, 296. 341.343 Summer of Secrets 33. 296 SummerSchool on Film Preservation, The 278 Sunday Too Far Away 29, 65, 116, 11 7, 118 Survey of Audio Visual Facilities in Universities in the U.S.. Canada.

United Kingdom and Australia 180 Suspiria 133 Sutherland, Donald (ac) 41 (st), 42 (st), 144 (st) Sven Klang’s Combo 115 Swagman, The 351 (cr) Sweden, Cinema in 307,381 (a), 308, 381 (a), 310-311 Swedish Film Institute 308,310

Syberberg, Hans Jurgen (d) 11 5,134 Sydney Film Festival 105,1 34-137, 209 Sydney Filmmakers' Co-operative 93,104, 200, 223 Sydney Women's Film Group 328-329 Sydney Teachers' College 267 Sykes, Peter (d) 34-36, 95 (i, st, f)

T Tabu 309 (st), 381 (r) Tagebuch Eines Liebended 225 (r) Tahimik, Kidlat (d) 11 5 Taiwan 110 Take It or Leave It 159 (cr) Take One 187 Take the Cue — Train! 60 (cr) Talking Shop — Demands on Language 1 79 (cr) Tanami 277 Tanner, Alain (d) 135 Tasman Bridge 257 (cr) Tasmanian Architecture 257 (cr) Tasmanian Film Corporation 104,118,183, 200, 257,382 Tasmanian Painters 61 (cr) Tate. Nick (ac) 75 (st), 176 (st), 269,343 Taviani, Paolo (d) 31,115, 226-228, 281 (i.st.f) Taviani, Vittorio (d) 31,115, 226-228, 281 (i.st.f) Taxation and Film Production 104, 296, 325 Taylor, Frank 141 (st) Taylor Grigor (ac) 74 (st) Taylor, Nan (ac) 213,277 Taylor, Rod (ac) 24, 25 (st), 80 Teaching Reading 253 (cr) Technology at Work 60 (cr) Teh ran Film Festival 224-225 (r), 296 Television 59.64, 68-69, 71,73,95,104, 105,113,11 5.11 8,119,1 20-123,131, 161,169,1 70,180, 181.183,185, 189, 200, 21 4, 281,237, 255, 267, 269,296, 298-302,311,340.351,353,367,379 Television Advertising 23-24 Television Comedy Series — Checklist 171 Television Documentary Usage367 (br) Television Drama Series — Checklist 69, 71 Television News 73,367 (br) Television Production Costs 105 Tell Her I Love Her 225 (cr) Tell Me Lies 34, 35 Temperament Unsuited 351 (cr) Tenderness — Pieces from a Marriage 381 (st) Tenselius, Lit (ac) 308 (st), 309 Tete de Normande St Onge, La 136 (r) Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The 36 They Don't Clap Losers (TV) 23 They’re A Weird Mob 237 Thin Edge, The 159 (cr), 253 (cr), 351 (cr) This Little Pig Went to Market 179 (cr) This Rugged Coast (TV) 161 (cr) Thomas, J. Parnell 80 (st) Thompson, Jack (ac) 11 6 (st). 1 17, 246 (st) Thompson, Keith (sc) 73 Thomas. Albie (d) 296,375 Thornhill, Michael (p.d) 77-78, 191,229 Thornley, Jeni (ac) 58 (st) Three Dancep by Gulpilil 353 (cr) Three Lovers 459 (cr) 3 Women 131 Thring Snr, Frank (p.d) 181 Thumpalong 351 (cr) Tiger Boy 108 Tinguely, Jean 47 Tingwell. Charles (AC) 75 (st) Tim 155 (cr) Tim — The Inhibited Man 1 79 (cr), 382 (cr) Time of Maturity, see Reifezeit Ti Ying: The Girl who Saved her Father

110

Tobias, Oliver (ac) 120 (st), 122 (st) Tomlin, Lili (ac) 115 Tony Randall Show, The (TV) 1 71 Torrent, Ana (ac) 1 75 (st) To the Devil. . . A Daughter 35 (st), 95 Touch of Love, The 253 (cr, st) Tracks 59 (cr) Trade Practices Commission 8-9 Tragedy Reef (TV) 59 (cr) Training Exercise 382 (cr) Training of Workers 382 (cr) Tras-Os-Montesi 46-47 (r) Transport and Energy 179 (cr) Transport Services 257 (cr) Travelling Film Festival (1 977) 105 Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The 139, 140 (st) Tree, The 156 (cr) Trespassers, The 31 2,31 3,31 5 Trilogy of Swordsmen 106 (st) Troell, Jan (d) 309,381 Trotta. Margarethe von (ac) 134 (st) Trout Fishing in Tasmania 61 (cr) Truckies 161 (cr) Truffaut, Francoise (d) 90,1 27, 182, 206­ 208 (a.i) 320,321,330.379 Trumbo, Dalton 80 Tullamarine Airport 60 (cr) Tunstall, Jeremy 267 Turner, Geraldine (ac) 75 (st) Tuta 179 (cr) 24 Frames a Second or In Like Flynn 251, 349 (cr) Twenty Good Years (TV) 255 (cr) Two Reflections on Australian Broadcasting 181 (br) 2001: A Space Odyssey 87,192,320 Tyrrell, Jan 66 (st)

u

Ultra Sound 253 (cr), 351 (cr) Under the Steam 351 (cr) Unidentified Flying Objects 31 8, 320,379 United Artists 8, 133,148,1 49, 297 United States, television in 68,69, 71 Unknown Industrial Prisoner, The 349 (cr) (Update) Westlakes — A Place to Live Work and Play 255 (cr) Upstairs, Downstairs (TV) 121 Uranium on Trial 185

Uranium Producers' Forum 168,185 Urban Mixtures 60 (cr) Urban Transport 255 (cr) Utamaro’s World 48 (st)

V Valberg, Birgitta (ac) 308 (st) Value of Art 60 (cr) Value of Mapping 382 (cr) Vandalism (Bill Gill, d) 351 (cr) Vandalism (Ron Saunders, d) 382 (cr) Varda, Agnes (d) 136 Variety 143,297 Vaughan, Dai 367 Vaughan, Martin (ac) 24 (st) Velvet Light Trap, The 187 Vempinski, Tom )ac) 35 (st) Venom 34 (st),35,36 Venturing Dr. Venturino 8 Verley. Bernard (ac) 1 27 (st) Vernon, Brownie (ac) 213 (st) Vertreibung Aus Dem Paradies, Die 115 Victorian Royal Commission into the Communist Party (1949) 81 Victorian State Film Corporation 53,61,104, 105,118,183,189, 257,31 2,31 5,382 Vie Privée 10 (st) Vieux Pays ou Rimbaud est Mort 32 (cr) Violin Making 1 79 (cr) Vision 143 Viva Maria 13 Voleur, Le 1 2 (st), 1 4 Volita 316. 351 (cr) Volonte, Gian Maria (ac) 228 Voulgaris, Pandelis (d) 46

W Waddell, Gary (ac) 77 (st), 165 (st) Wahloo, Per 381 Wake in Fright 237 Walberg, Richard 105 Walkabout to Cornwall (TV) 34,35 Wallace, Richard (c) 327 (st) Wallace, Stephen (d) 221-223 (i, st, f), 261 263 Wallach, Eli (ac) 141 (st) Walya Ngamardiki, The Land My Mother 353 (cr) Wang Yu (ac) 108 Wardrope, Alan 29, 229, 273 (i) Warlord, The 11 0 (st) Warner Brothers 105,118,1 39 Warren, Kenneth J„ (ac) 35 (st) Wasps Are Here, The 232, 234 Waterbirds of South Australia 179 (cr) Waters, John (ac) 75 (st). 176 (st), 327 (st), 343 Watkins. Peter (d) 115,300 Ways of Seeing 159 (cr) We Aim To Please 329 Weekend of Shadows 191,155-1 56 (cr), 250-251 (cr, st) 326-327,350 (cr) Welcome Back Kotter (TV) 171 Weir, Peter (d) 1 20, 122 (st), 1 23,148,150 (st), 259 Weiley, John (p) 203 Welcome Aboard 351 (cr) Welles. Orson (d) 93 Werner, Oskar (ac) 207 (st) West. Barbara (ac) 326 (st) Western Australian Film Council 297 Westralian News 39 Wet Clay 351 (cr) Wexler, Haskell (c) 301 What is Innovation, Why Innovate, How to Innovate 353 (cr) Wheeler, Tony (d) 299, 300 (i) When It Comes to the Crunch 255 (cr) White Death 219 White Man’s Peace is Worse Than His War, The 91 Whittigue, Monique 203 Why Can't They Be Like Were? 111 Why Shoot the Teacher? 225 (r) Why Tasmania 61 (cr) Whytock, Sheila 273 Wicki, Bernhard (d) 115 Wild Duck, The 135 (r) Wildlife Patrol 353 (cr) Wilkenson, Linden (ac) 316 (st). 31 7 (st) Williams, David 93 ' Williams, John 271 Williams, Tony (d) 64 (i, st), 65,66 Windt, Uri (ac) 201 Winkler, Henry (ac) 267 (st) Winn, Marie 267, 269 Witches of Pendle (TV) 167 Witcombe, Eleanor (sc) 1 75 Winter, The 11 0 Wlaschin. Ken 323 Women and Film 187

Y Yang Kwei Fei; The Magnificent Concubine 110 Yeldham, Peter (sc) 325 Young Doctors, The (TV) 16T (cr), 165 Young Girl Dreams of the Last Cowboy, A 253 (cr, st) Young/Jeune/Cinema & Theatre 331 Young, Paul (ac) 303 (st), 304 (st) Young Ramsay (TV) 59 (cr), 161 (cr)

z

Zacharias. Ann (ac), 306 (st), Zaklete Rewiry 137 Zanussi, Krzysztof (d), 225 Zazie Dans Le Metro 13 Zero Hour 115 (r) Zetterling, Mai (d) 3 1 1 Zigon, Yelena (ac) 205 (st) Zinnemann, Fred (d),357-358 Zodiac Fairground 3 49 (cr) Zouzou (ac) 127 (st)

CANNES FILM FESTIVAL

route which comprises a quick sale to Janus Films, a German-based outfit (with production affiliates) for Germany, Austria, Switzerland and sometimes Scandinavia, and a BBC-combo, in which Antony I. Ginnane the BBC pick up theatrical as well as television rights for Britain, though generally only exploiting the television rights*.

Wednesday, May 10,1978 pmrfr Wednesday, May 10.1978 This year Blue Fire Lady, In Search The men who taunted him._ of Anna, The Irishman, Mouth to Mouth, The woman who came to love him.

Create a climax that will haunt you!

The Getting of Wisdom, Solo and N ewsfront did this route. Although The Irishman managed the highest sale price ever for a Janus deal, the bottom line for Australian films, if this is all we can do, is bleak. Jimmie Blacksm ith missed out on a festival award but ended up selling Belgium and Holland for better than average minimum guarantees. It is early days yet for the class of ’78, but most have a long road to hoe.

It is hard to c ritic iz e the Alan W ardrope-Jim Henry-Ray A tkinsonJeannine Seawell axis when none of them have had anything really saleable.

(For a break-down of those responsible for the sale of each Australian film, see Diagram A). Outside saies agent Larry Friedricks, and newcomers Sidney and Laurence Safir and Sam Gelfman, face similar problems.

Two films with internationally-styled scripts by American expatriate Everett de Roche made spectacular inroads into meaningful, foreign sales numbers. Colin Eggleston’s Long Weekend chalked up a substantia! Spanish language deal com prising Latin Am erica, S p a in / Portugal and a couple of European territories. Figures made up of minimum guarantees and outright sales of around $US1 50,000 are reliably reported.

Richard Franklin’s Patrick, another Everett de Roche thriller, came close to $US200,000, with major theatrical sales in Latin America, Canada, most of Europe and certain island territories.

The net Cannes 1978 experience is not new. Until Australia begins to make Diagram A: the corporate advertising of the AFC at Cannes. p ro d u c tio n s w h ic h have re a l international appeal — not to critics but to distributors, particularly U.S.-based more consultation with the industry over My first sales trip to Cannes was in into offices. Later, they also opened a d is trib u to rs — it can n o t exceed the style of this advertising.

1974, though ! was there the previous stand at the festival focal point: the $400,000 negative costs: this is the Certain general criticism s of the year as a buyer. Hal and James McElroy Carlton Hotel. Detailed supervision of mean, bottom-line, net producer’s return AFC’s activities at Cannes this year have were there with The Cars That Ate producers’ activities at the festival, out of A ustralian th e a trica l, non­ been made by individual producers, as Paris, David Eifick with Crystal Voyager including foreign sales and the choice of theatrical and television sales. well as by some members of the and Richard Franklin and myself with films included in the Australian group, Present experience suggests that Australian press present (eg: The led to criticism by producers in 1 976 and The True Story of Eskimo Nell. massive spending on the one hand, or Australian, TV Week, Truth): some have I have been to Cannes every year 1977. unconsidered above-line imports on the su b sta n c e , o th e rs do not. There This year, the AFC adopted a basically since, and the number of Australian films others, will not create internationallyappeared to be some dismay at the and filmmakers represented there has “ h a n d s -o ff” p o licy, a llo w in g and saleable productions. All big budget largely laissez faire attitude of the AFC grown. Screenings of Australian films in encouraging producers to appoint their investors will learn to their cost is that to all films present other than The Chant own a d v e rtis in g and p ro m o tio n a l the Film M arket began in 1974; they have lost more money than had they of Jimmie Blacksmith. incursions were made into the Director’s budgets, etc. The AFC maintained its biinvested in a film with the budget of As in 1976 and 1977 most producers Fortnight with Sunday Too Far Away in linguaily-staffed office in the Carlton, as Mouth to Mouth, Solo or in Search of urged the AFC to hand over the control of 1975 and The Devil’s Playground in well as its stand; provided screening Anna. their films at Cannes, it seems carping in facilities at a hjred cinema — well 1976.

The choice of subject matter seems to 1978 to criticize the Commission for the This year, the largest collection of appointed and well situated; and be the real problem, perhaps because logical result. It is true that those “ first Australians ever was at the festival — engaged in a few tourist-style lunches at many of our directors fell into feature time” producers who may have looked to between 80 and 120, depending on which one met many other Australians production in the halycon first years of the AFC for back-up, other than mere whose count one believed. There was a and some second-rung, international the renaissance with little experience of screening provisions and message­ wide range of features, shorts and distributors. the real world of cinema audiences and a taking, wouid have been disappointed by The AFC, as an investor in almost all documentaries, including a selection of background of Experimental Film Fund the two-hour lunches taken by AFC the films on display, had a fair cash aboriginal films. T he G etting o f W isdom activity. office staff and the frequent non­ was selected for the Director's Fortnight, outlay in addition, as it largely advanced We also had no skilled producers and manning of the Carlton stand. The the cost of the various producers’ and T he C h an t o f Jim m ie B lacksm ith our films were at first parochial, then seasoned veterans, however, got on with was in the Official Competition. So, how specific Cannes activities. This was by European in style, as we moved into the the job. far have we gone, and what have we way of marketing loans repayable out of post-Picnic At Hanging Rock period. I As for Jim m ie B lacksm ith, the AFC first returns, or from the Export Market achieved? think a general attitude towards somade strong use of it in their press Development Grants Board scheme Certainly, large amounts of public called "personal” films exists with the releases and a lot of hype was ventilated money have been spent in promoting a rebate sponsored by the Department of majority of our director-producers, and it before its screening. selection of quality Australian films on Overseas Trade. may well be the end of us.

It was a pity that more Australian In addition to these services and the festival and art-house circuit, Certainly much of the fault must be journalists were not present at Cannes; com plete with assistance from the facilities, the AFC engaged in corporate borne by the federal and state funding the AFC should look to some form of Department of Foreign Affairs and the advertising, the basic concept of which bodies who in effect set the local assistance in this area next year.

Marketing Division of the Australian Film was criticized by some Australian in d u stry tone. The slow down in Geraldine Pascall from The Australian, C om m ission. T his Q a n ta s /“ T o u ris t filmmakers and foreign journalists. But it production, with resultant prospects of a J o h n -M ic h a e l H ow son and Tony Bureau” -style approach has meant that provided effective informational content reduced number of films at Cannes Johnston from the Murdoch press and there is a general awareness of a on all Australian films present, including 1979, is no solution.

Peter Beilby from Cinema Papers were the name and location of each film’s re su rg e nt A ustralia n film in d u stry C a n n e s 1 9 7 9 w ill see fe w e r the only representatives, although a worldwide (cf. articles in The Sunday foreign sales representative. One can Australian films that make meaningful couple of other London and Paris Times and Vogue, the season of argue over the value of a corporate foreign sales, and Cannes 1980 may see stringers were in attendance (eg: Roland advertising style which houses all films Australian films at the NFT, etc.). almost none, unless there is a change of Pullen). A larger press contingent would under one nationalistic umbrella.

From 1973 to 1978, the Australian policy at funding and entrepreneurial have probed beneath the general hype As in almost all instances substantial Film Development Corporation, and then levels. ★ individual advertising was undertaken by and seen that N e w s fro n t got fairer the AFC, have been represented at Cannes, providing differing degrees of each producer as well, the effect of the treatment.

On sales, Australian films seem to be AFC’s advertisements was probably only promotional and administrative back-up. * Screen International of July 8, 1978, points out that falling into a fairly predictable pattern, Beginning with a low-key approach in an extension of the above-mentioned Jeannine Seawell has sold Don’s Party to Nue n e ttin g betw een $ U S 3 0 ,0 0 0 and Constantin and The Last Wave to Filmverlag for approach.

Some producers, however, felt 1973, with a representative of the then theatrical release in Germany. $US50,000. This is basically a television AFDC present, the Australians moved that the AFC should have engaged in

AUSTRALIANS AT CANNES

Cannes Film Festival Supplement — V

Films fall into two categories: big f i l m s and f i l m s t hat do moderately well, in a sense, the market has become polarized. Is this a result of major studios putting everything behind a certain number of films?

.

The role of a publicist at a major film festival is of primary im portance in ensuring a film becom es not only w ell know n, but w ell received. One of the m ost fam ous pu blicists is Pierre R issie n t who created a sen sation w ith h is handling of “ The Touch of Z en ” at C annes in 1974.

R issie n t has since turned from publicity to direction, and has made the controversial feature, “ One N ight Stan d ” . W hile v isitin g A ustralia for the release of

Unfortunately it has become that way. The situation was much better in the 1930s and 1940s when films could be artistic and ' commercial. Today, a film is P h - f Pire M *h e SenS6S” ’ He SP° k e With PetCr BeUby and either a big commercial film or a P h ilip p e M ora. ________ ____________________________ _ ■ --------------minor audience one.

In a few cases small films grow big, but not one like Rocky which recent years, also lasted well in Do you help decide how many wasn’t small — it was a big one to France. advertisements are to be placed start with. Even if it looks 1 was deeply committed to in ‘ V a r i e t y ’ or ‘ S c r e e n sm all, a film like Rocky is Downfall Child and had to fight International’ for the Cannes conceived in the same way as to get it released in France. It Festival?

Earthquake; it is not a matter of opened in small theatres, but did I don’t deny the importance of budget, it is a matter of concept. quite well. In Hong Kong, where there are no small theatres, the advertisements, but let me talk How often is it possible to take film was shown on three Saturday about a film called The Touch of an “ uncommercial” film and get mornings to students. Each time Zen. I discovered this film in it before a mass audience? there was more than 1500 people. Hong Kong and, though my You wouldn’t think that a film Chinese friends laughed at me, I Some films no one believed in like Downfall Child could do that reconstituted it to its original have done extremely well — well, but I got a lot of co-operation length and bought the rights for Jeremiah Johnson, for example. through newspapers — the film Europe.

When King Hu [the director] Sydney Pollack was unsure about was very well promoted. and I came to Cannes we had no it and most people thought it would be a bomb. But the film got Do you direct your publicity money, unlike the big American into Cannes, despite many people through print, or through c o m p a n ie s and A u s tr a lia n producers. There were no posters not wanting to send it there, and, television and radio? in Cannes and no advertisements like The Beguiled, it did better in It is a combination, but mainly in the trade papers. There was just France than anywhere else. I think through print. As far as I know, a press book which we carefully, that had to do with promotion.

The Long Goodbye also went television is mostly gossipy. The but cheaply, prepared. Yet before much better in France, as did radio has some programs of the film had been screened, the Puzzle of a Downfall Child by interest, but most of them are late word of mouth was incredibly Jerry Shatzberg. Leo the Last, at night. Certainly this is true in large, even though it was a film by an unknown director, with an one of the most important films in France.

VI — Cannes Film Festival Supplement

unknown actress, three hours long and a flop in its own country. in fact, the film was sold to Europe for $150,000 before being screened, solely because of its J^feii't'iroimh ortunate y’ 1 e What this | tory means is that ads, posters and gadgets mean nothing in C annes; you can promote a film without them.

Is it usual for a publicist to work with a director in promoting a film?

No, I don’t think so. I was probably the one who tantalized directors with involvement in the early 1960s.

Assuming you want to get a film i n t o t he C o m p e t i t i o n or Director’s Fortnight and you are successful, how do you then create the most favorable climate for the film?

Ninety per cent of the work has to be done in advance. An example is Scarecrow, which I first saw in the U.S. in December 1972. I could not imagine I would ever see a better film, and I thought it deserved the first prize.

I then returned to Paris where I met Maurice Bessy [then director of the Cannes Festival] and talked to him about it.

People in the film companies often resent me because they suspect I will do everything myself, and that means less work for them. So there were difficul-

PIERRE RISSIENT

Far Left: Marie Daems as the Countess.

Left: Paul (Richard Jordan) and the Countess. One Night Stand.

Critics influence certain kinds of buyers — drive-in exhibitors, for example — and they certainly in f lu e n c e sm a ll a r t- h o u s e distributors.

Is Cannes always the starting p o in t for a film von are handling?

Generally it would be Cannes or Paris. Also Los Angeles, because many people in the industry have strong connections there.

R ecently, I opened Nagisa Oshima’s Empire of the Senses in Los Angeles with the producer, Anatole Dauman. We used the distributors as agents and did all the contracts, found the theatres, controlled the publicity and advertising. That was the first time it had been done.

ties in using me, but the producer, their articles. One gets much Robert Sherman, decided to put better articles that way. me in charge of the film with one The critics were committed to of their people. In the end, the film and the French press is everyone was very happy, because the most important in Cannes though they thought Scarecrow because it is the one to which would get nothing, it won the people have the fastest access.

Grand Prix.

They were also important because For the festival I carefully the film had been released in the compiled a press-book. It wasn’t U.S. without the same kind of fu ll o f th e u s u a l b u lls h it careful preparation and it was not biographies of Gene Hackman well'received. As it was, some of and A1 Pacino, and I didn't even the American critics resented the include a plot synopsis: they mean French critics proving them nothing. wrong and they fought back; but I had an introduction of 10 lines 90 per cent of the European critics and after that a declaration of liked the film very much. The intention by the director and pressure on the Festival Jury was writer. I included those because very strong. people at Cannes don’t have much time to read, and what they do has What effect did the Grand Prix to be clear, crisp and to the point. have on sales?

Then, before Cannes, I held 12 to 15 private screenings in Paris I think it meant a lot, because for the important French critics so Scarecrow did extremely well in that they could see the film away France. The man at Warners in from the pressures of the festival. France thought the film would This also gave them time to write record between 50,000 and 75,000

King Hu’s Touch of Zen which Rissient publicized at Cannes.

admissions — it ended up with about 230,000 to 250,000. And that was for Paris only.

The film did extremely well in Spain; also in Hong Kong where it would not have opened had it not won the prize at Cannes.

A film like “ Empire of the S enses” would be extrem ely d iffic u lt to prom ote because many people would autom at­ ically be prejudiced against it. if so, how do you counteract this?

That is an interesting question.

Firstly, Empire of the Senses is regarded as a difficult film by people who have a total miscon­ Are territories sold at Cannes at cep tio n of w hat c o n s titu te s the same time publicity is being cinema, and whether cinema, or done? a rt, sh o u ld be p le asa n t or important.

Sometimes. American films Dauman felt that the film could have the advantage of being be a success all over the world released through studios with because it was the first artistic film agencies all over the world, and which dealt with eroticism. But he the impact of the Cannes festival felt the establishment in the U.S. is, therefore, fast and strong. w ould take a c o n s e rv a tiv e Now, if an Australian film was attitude, so he asked me if I would at Cannes, it would not have been handle it. sold in most territories. So, by the At the time, One Night Stand time the film is sold, and after that had not opened in Paris and I was released, much of the impact of in a limbo situation, so I went to Cannes would be lost.

Los A ngeles. I held a few screenings with different people How much of your publicity is and out of these I knew I would directed at buyers, and how much find where the film stood. If they at critics? liked it, I knew they would

Pierre Rissient (right) during the shooting of One Night Stand.

Cannes Film Festival Supplement — VII

PIERRE RISSIENT

support it, and if they didn’t — which of course might happen — well . . .

Jo h n B orm an and M artin Scorcese liked it very much, but people like Rouben Mamoulian, King Vidor and Josh Cooper didn’t. It became obvious that e ld erly people w ould have difficulty accepting a film which went beyond their habits of thinking and prejudices.

From then on, what we were concerned about was not to have it open in cheap porno-houses but in first-rate, selected cinemas. This involved problems One exhibitor in Los Angeles liked the film very much, but he would not open it because he was afraid of the reaction of his wife; while the best exhibitor in Seattle was prepared to open the film in Portland where he had a theatre, but not in Seattle where he was not willing to hurt his mother.

In Los Angeles, X-rated films are not allowed to be promoted in the advertising pages with the other films, so I had to speak with people from the Los Angeles Times, and the other newspapers, and tel! them we were not promoting the film as a porno flic but as a class film.

Out of all this we managed to create a question in the mind of the audience: is this film artistic, as some people say, or is it porno?

T his helped th e p ro m o tio n because many people had to go and find out for themselves.

Have you represented any of the directors who were part of the group at ‘Cahiers du Cinema’?

Are you often involved in discussions about where a film opens?

It depends on the film. In the case of Empire of the Senses, I was very involved with the U.S. campaign.

I think publicity should be as straight forward as possible. There should always be some key elem ents, but not too many, because then there would be no focus and audiences have little retention power. But if you work on the same things, trying to enlarge them little by little, the critics will begin to take notice and

It depends. I used to work with directors and distributors who were pioneering the market and who lived in Paris. They, like me, loved films and I was able to discuss things on a friendly level.

Then, I became more involved with important producers and major companies, and things changed.

I took care of the re-issue of 400 Blows in Paris, and some other films, but I don’t remember offhand.

You have also represented Samuel Fuller . . .

Yes, I handled all his films in France, except the last one, Dead Pigeon on Beethoven Street, because I was no longer in the business. Anyway, I would not have taken it because I didn’t like it.

You have handled uncommercial films as well as big films like “ Scarecrow” . . .

When I am shown a film I am not concerned whether it will be a co m m ercial su ccess or no t.

Rather, it is a question of whether I like it. Once I decide, I make sure the film is a critical success, because a good critical reaction can help its commercial potential.

In some instances, films have th e p o t e n t i a l to b e c o m e com m ercially successful and promotion can help them. In other cases, even if a film is well prom oted, it w on’t become successful.

How involved are you in evolving a publicity campaign?

Sonya at Hong Kong Harbor prior to committing suicide. One Night Stand.

VIII — Cannes Film Festival Supplement

speak about them.

Have you ever represented an exploitation product such as a James Bond film?

I don’t represent exploitation film s , u n le s s you in c lu d e Westerns, which I have often handled — Howard Hawks’ Rio Lobo with John W ayne, for example.

But I don’t promote them on that level. Instead of saying here is the new W estern with John Wayne, I would point out that as an actor John Wayne had worked with Howard Hawks before — also with John Ford — and so on. That was the kind of image I was trying to promote.

The role of publicity is often described as getting people to see a film; after that the word of mouth will take over. Do you agree?

Sometimes a film receives a trem en d o u s critical atten tion through the promotion and it does reasonably well. So it is possible to pre-condition an audience into wanting to see your film; also to pre-condition them on how to look at it properly.

The better a film is received by the critics, the better it will go commercially, and a better chance the director will have of working in fu tu re . In th is re sp e c t, p ro m o tio n is an im p o rta n t responsibility.

There is another aspect, and that concerns films that convey new values and ideas; films that in the next 50 years will have meant som ething to the history of humanity. These films may reach only three people today, but they may be the future, and out of that

ideas can grow. So, promoting a film is much more important than a mere showbusiness exercise.

How did “One Night Stand” come about?

I had been doing some tests on Rio Lobo for Howard Hawks and he asked me, “ Why don’t you make a film?” I started working on a script, but as I remained working in public relations, I didn’t get very far. Then I visited a Chinese friend in Hong Kong, and she suggested I make a film there because it wouldn’t be expensive.

She was wrong: it is much more expensive for a foreigner, even if he is helped by Chinese friends, than it is for a Chinese.

I also thought it would be good to be away from the spotlight as I am a well-known person in the industry.

Elliott Kas t ner , a British producer, had often suggested that I come to him, and as it was better to have a British producer than a French one — the film had to be in English — I approached him. He read the outline and said he would do it.

After that, I set about writing the dialogue. I had the entire film structured — the characters, their relationships and so on — but I needed som eone to fix the dialogue.

Finally, I went to Kenneth White. I had a very good relation­ ship with him, but he could only spend a few weeks in Hong Kong before going back to Paris. The material he later sent to me was very poor and I had to postpone the film for a year. On a small budget, you have to shoot at a specific time of year because of the weather.

-

Concluded on P.83

Office Grosses Distributor

SYD.

T h e Irishm an

GUO

9 8 ,9 1 9

T h e M ango T re e

GUO

4 4 ,2 2 5

S u m m er C i t y '

O TH

1 0 2 ,0 6 7

T h e Last W ave

UA

(3)

(7)

(1)

(3)

Blue F ire L a d y ''

FW

2 5 ,6 2 1

2 9 ,3 2 1

5 ,3 8 5

OTH

-

-

T IT L E

Total

MLB.

PTH. (13)

(9).

(10)

-

5 4 ,8 9 6

5 1 ,1 0 9

9 8 ,1 4 5

(10)*

(7)

W eekend of S h ad o w s

G e ttin g of W isdom

ADL.

BRI.

SYD.

$

3 0 3 ,0 6 9

1

-

-

1 2 7 ,7 1 3

OD

(4)

5 8 ,7 8 8

1 8 ,4 4 2

2 5 ,2 9 4

8 7 ,6 7 0

2 3 4 ,4 1 9

2

1 1 6 ,8 6 1

-

-

7 ,1 3 8

-

1 0 9 ,2 0 5

3

7 2 ,3 4 4

(4)

MLB.

Rank

PTH.

-

ADL.

-

BRI.

-

Total $

-

Rank

-

(9)

-

1 6 ,1 3 7

-

2 2 ,0 7 4

7 1 ,6 9 2

3 5 4 ,4 7 7

3

-

-

7 2 ,3 4 4

-

(3)

(3)

(5)

(1)

(5)

2 5 ,4 0 3

2 0 ,8 7 3

1 8 ,5 7 3

3 ,6 0 1

4 0 ,0 6 5

1 0 8 ,5 1 5

4

2 3 8 ,6 0 2

1 8 3 ,6 0 8

4 5 ,3 8 8

1 0 3 ,5 3 5

-

5 7 1 ,1 3 3

1

2 ,1 7 1

-

6 2 ,4 9 8

5

-

N/A

8 4 ,1 7 1

N/A

-

8 4 ,1 7 1

7

N/A

-

N /A

6

-

(1)

RS

LAST QUARTER 3 0 .1 0 .7 7 to 2 5.2 .78

THIS QUARTER 2 6 .2 .7 8 to 2 7.5 .78

3 ,5 4 9

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(1)

(1)

2 ,8 5 7

4 ,5 5 9

-

-

1 0 ,9 6 5

7

1 0 7 ,5 8 0

-

-

1 0 ,3 3 9

8

6 1 ,5 9 6

N /A

-

5 ,7 6 8

9

6 ,0 3 5

1 7 ,2 2 5

1 3 5 ,7 4 0

1 0 5 ,5 8 4

1 2 ,7 9 7

9 ,8 7 4

3 7 1 ,5 7 5

4

7 0 ,6 0 0

44,051

11,441

1 8 7 ,6 8 8

6

1 8 ,2 0 8

4 1 ,4 6 8

9

5 8 ,4 2 6

10

A b ba — the M ovie

FOX

-

-

Jou rn ey Am ong W om en

GUO

-

-

P icn ic a t Hanging Rock

GUO

-

Boy

RS

-

3 ,2 8 1

907

-

.

5 ,7 6 8

-

-

-

-

-

3 ,2 8 1

10

3 3 ,1 6 9

1 3 ,7 3 5

4 ,0 7 8

7 ,4 4 4

-

-

-

907

11

7 1 ,5 1 6

9 8 ,1 4 9

1 8 3 ,2 8 9

2 1 ,0 0 2

-

9 9 ,1 9 1

4 7 3 ,1 4 7

300.691

116,822

110,492

95,031

2 25,880

8 48,966

7 07,703

5 76,170

509,247

2 10,903

2 1 0 ,40 6

2,21 4,42 9

Foreign0 Total

4,207,953

3,621,573

1,076,551

1,068,479

2,196,151

12,170,707

5,00 0,56 2

3 ,930,126

2,111,821

1,274,601

1,293,611

13,610,721

Grand Total

4,50 8,64 4

3 ,738,395

1,187,043

1,163,560

2,422,031

13,019,673

5 ,708.265

4 ,506,296

2 ,621,068

1,485,504

1,504,017

15,825,150

Australian Total

i Figures supplied by Intertropic Film Distributors. ii Figures supplied by Blue Fire Productions.

• Box-office grosses of individual films have been supplied to Cinema Papers by the Australian Film Commission, o This figure represents the total box-office gross of all foreign films shown during the period in the area specified. * Continuing into next period NB: Figures in parenthesis above the grosses represent weeks in release.

2

(1) Australian theatrical distributor only. RS - Roadshow; GUO - Greater Union Organization Film Distributors; FOX - 20th Century Fox; UA - United Artists; CIC - Cinema international Corporation; FW — Filmways Australasian Distributors; 7K - 7 Keys Film Distributors; COL — Columbia Pictures; REG - Regent Film Distributors; CCG - Cinema Centre Group; AFC - Australian Film Commission; SAFC - South Aust­ ralian 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 OFFICE GROSSES

Cinema Papers, August/September — 43

S to rm

(1)

1 0 ,3 3 9

R.G. FILM SERVICES (Processing 16mm color and black and white.) and

JOHN PHILLIPS SOUND (16/35mm sound recording, 8 track Rock and Roll mixing and transfers.)

are both at 482c Glenhuntly Rd., Elsternwick.

For top quality at the right price phone, (03) 528 2011 CINE SERVICE PTY. LTD. 235 MORAY STREET, (PO BOX 328), SOUTH MELBOURNE 3205.

TELEPHONE (03) 699 6999 it it it it it it it

d ocum entary film pro du ction s sound recording, dubbing e d ito ria l service, titling th e a tre tte video se rv ic e & te le c in e fa c ilitie s k in e s c o p e recordings

it it it

it

1 6m m colo r & b /w p ro cessing and dup licating super 8m m & standard 8m m dup licating super 8m m b /w processing 16m m to super 8m m red uction printing, sound or silent m ag netic striping all gauges

Victorian agents fo r tuscan reels and cans * suppliers o f U M A T IC % ” KAREX video tape *

W

J

Æ Æ M ÆÆÆJFÆ

TH ERES ALWAYS SOMETHING NEW AND EXCITING AT SAMUELSONS

16 16 16 16

mm mm mm mm

FEATURE TELEMOVIE DOCUMENTARY COMMERCIAL

af n n d d LU 11 a

THE1 6 MM S0UND cam era th a t For rental or sale

sam uelso n

does it all

FILM SERVICE (AUST) p / l

Head Office: 27 Sirius Road, Lane Cove, Sydney 2066 N.S.W. Australia Telephone: 248 5300 Telex: AA25188

Interstate Office: 25 Lothian Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051 Australia * Telephone: 329 5155 Telex: AA35861

PRODUCTION REPORT

SI11S ■ i

À'A''V WÈm

Director Phillip Noyce stands in the middle of the set of a Maitland chemist.- Chris Haywood is in the background.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 45

PRODUCTION REPORT - NEWSFRONT

The set of the Maitland street that was constructed in Narrabeen Lakes. A jet pump creates turbulence to simulate swirling flood waters

The town hall set after the smaller, chemist set has been dismantled from inside it.

Producer David Elfick and I knew we were taking a risk attempting to recreate the Maitland floods, especially on a relatively small budget. It wasn’t until after I spent some time talking with Ken G. Hall about the ingenious ways he had handled special effects in such films as Tall Timbers and Lovers and Luggers that I believed we could do it.

One simple trick Ken suggested to cut down expense while trying to create the impression of a raging flood was to keep the camera as much as possible above the action, thereby restricting the information within frame to include only that area over which it was possible to create a strong flow.

We worked our way through all the possibilities — rear-p ro jectio n , m atting, models, tanks, even waiting for a real flood — before deciding to recreate a section of down­ town Maitland in Narrabeen Lakes, about 25 km north of Sydney. That was 10 weeks before shooting, and it was another nine weeks before a contact at Evinrude Outboards offered a solution to the problem of moving a large body of water in a relatively remote location.

David and special-effects man, Kim Hilder, conducted tests with outboard motors and high-pressure water pumps before finally settling on the enormous thrust from a jetpropelled speed-boat.

The flooded in terio rs were another seem ingly insoluble problem . The art departm ent constructed facsimiles of the Maitland Town Hall and a 1950s chemist shop after we finally unearthed a disused swimming pool at Campelltown. The two-sided chemist shop was built in the middle of the four-sided town hall set. The downstairs chemist scene was shot first up, then the set dismantled over lunch to reveal the larger canvas-roofed, town hall interior.

The Maitland exteriors had to match existing archival footage, so production designer Lissa Coote and art director Larry Eastwood made a careful study of the Maitland buildings, both erected before the 1950s. As with all scenes involving an integration of library and re-enacted sequences, frame blow­ ups of the relevant archival material were produced for wardrobe, art, lighting and camera departments! Camera angles for flood scenes involving sets were decided several weeks before shooting, and an artist hired to story-board as much of the likely detail as possible.

More than in any other section of the film, the unflamboyant, deep focus, visual style of these recreated scenes needed to merge with the newsreel shots.

Facades of a period Maitland street were constructed in the one metre deep lake over two weeks. The flood water depth was to be mid-door level which meant that the facades

tu rb u le n c e and, by a s s o c ia tio n , the verisimilitude of the recreated shots that follow.

It was further complicated by the fact that we were down to the last roll of 35 mm black and white raw stock available in Australia at that tim e, which necessitated a tw o-to-one shooting ratio.

The sequence where Len and Charlie (John Ewart) search for Chris in a small motor-boat involved the most complicated integration of new and archival footage, although most of the really hard work came at the editing and color­ grading stages. Of necessity, the Cinesound and Movietone cameramen had recorded their most graphic shots of the Maitland floods from the top of army ducks on rescue operations.

A search of the combined company archives housed at 20th Century-Fox in Sydney, and the National Library in Canberra, revealed many such tracking shots. Some of the best footage turned up in cans of Cinesound rushes somehow preserved over the years and available in uncut form at the National Library.

For the search sequence, the objective shots of the actors in the boat were filmed close to the set at Narrabeen Lake. Editor John Scott then had to painfully match contrast, screen direction, boat-speed and location to complete th e illu sio n th a t th e n ew sreel sh o ts represented the actors’ points-of-view.

The origins of the archival footage varied.

Some had been shot on nitrate original and transferred to acetate stock quite recently; some came directly from acetate; some was still on nitrate. The printing generations varied from camera original to master positives to dupe negatives.

Colorfilm color-grader Arthur Cambridge had to even out the distracting tint changes that were inevitable when black and white originals of differing generations, densities and contrast are printed on color-based stock, as was necessary in Newsfront. The minor variations between Kodak print stocks are sufficient themselves to alter the color balance even after perfect results have been achieved on another stock batch.

We finally overcame these problems by producing our duplicating negative for multiple prints through the old interpositiveduplicate-negative system, rather than the new c o lo r-re v e rs a l-in te r n e g a tiv e p ro cess.

Additional control was achieved through the a d d e d m a n i p u l a t i o n p o s s i b l e at t h e interpositive stage, and the final release prints that will be screened in most cinemas throughout Australia have a beautifully consistent black and white texture — a result we were doubtful of achieving when we first saw the first ‘Technicolor-nightmare’ answer­ print.

46 — Cinema Papers, August/September

The principal interior set which was built in an outdoor swimming pool. The wall at left belongs to the chemist, the wall on right to the town hall.

could be detailed from just a few centimetres below the la k e’s natural water level.

Unfortunately, a particularly low tide on the day of shooting exposed some of the undetailed work. In addition, stormy winds twice bent the construction scaffolding and almost blew the set into the lake before the shooting had started.

The exterior set comprised four shop-fronts running at a right angle to a second group of three shops. The second, shorter row was built directly opposite a moveable, one-sided frame mock-up of the entrance to the chemist shop.

When Chris Hewitt rows out of the shop, the placement of the facades visually suggests a much longer street, in all directions, than was actually constructed. The height of the facades and their placement relative to the chemist shop door were dictated by a predetermined lens size and camera position. Once the scaffolding had been erected, the shop-fronts could not be moved.

At this stage in the narrative the flood has not reached its height, so Kim Hilder had only to produce a mild water flow in the street. The jet boat was anchored at the far end of the main street — about 50 m from the camera — and smaller, conventional water pumps operated from the immediate left of frame, producing a cross-current from the side street.

Lighting, sound and production crews helped the special-effects team in releasing flotsam and jetsam to flow through the frame on cue. The camera angle which revealed the whole of the submerged exterior set was used only twice, for a total screen time of about 15 seconds. Engine noise from various pumping sources prevented any location sound recording of exterior flood sequences, and sound-editor Greg Bell created the complete track for archival and recreated material.

The sequence where one of the cameramen is drowned called for a much stronger water flow. The camera was mounted on a raised, moveable platform and the jet boat was operated at a distance of between six and 15 m.

The platform kept crew and equipment out of the heavy current while (as Ken Hall suggested) allowing us to shoot slightly down on the action, thereby restricting our frame to the relatively narrow turbulence produced by working that close to the jet engine.

The scene begins with a series of archival shots that establish the growing flood

PRODUCTION REPORT - NEWSFRONT

THE MAITLAND FLOODS A STORYBOARD FROM NEWSFRONT

The swollen Hunter River has flooded the township o f Maitland, NSW . The year is 1954.

After driving to the town from Sydney to fdm the disaster newsreel cameraman Len Maguire (Bill Hunter), and his assistant Chris Hewitt (Chris Haywood), spend the night on a chemist floor.

N ext morning the telephone rings. Chris answers it and finds it is the Mayor o f Maitland who requests Chris brings penicillin and bandages to the Town Hall.

Chris successfully completes his mission, then rows back outside into the turbulent flood waters. . .

Some time later, Len wakes and finds his assistant gone. He alerts fellow cameraman Charlie (John Ewart), and together they row o ff in search o f Chris . . .

Cinema Papers, August/September â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 47

Cinema Papers, August/September

Cinema Papers, August/September â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 49

CAMBRIDGE PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. X* X* X* X* X* as

X* RANK AUSTRALIA

S? X*

12 Barcoo Street, East Roseville, Sydney 2069. Phone 406 5666 68 Queensbridge Street, South Melbourne 3206. Phene 62 0031 50-52 Vulture Street, West End, Brisbane 4101. Phone 44 2851 234 Currie Street, Adelaide 5000. Phone 212 2555 430 Newcastle Street Perth 6000. Phone 328 3933 120 Parry Street Newcastle 2300. Phone 26 2466 25 Molonglo Mall, Fyshwlck, ACT 2600. Phone 95 2144

X* X* X* X0 x* X* X* Xs X* X0 X® X* X* X® Xe Xs X® X* X4 X0

3 Armstrong Street, M iddle Park, Vic. 3206

Producers of T.V. commercials and documentaries.

Phone

699 6588

W yner O pticals 14 Whiting Street Artarm on, NSW 2064 ( 02)

438 2993

16mm & 35mm Optical Effects 16mm Blow-Ups — 35mm Reductions

Wet Gate Facilities

F IL M L A B O R A T O R IE S P T Y . L T D .

1 5 - 1 7 GORDON STREET, E LS TE R N W IC K VIC. 3 1 8 5 N ow we are offering overnight rushes on all footage shot on 7247 and 5247 .

â tâ C O Æ S ra y i

N M N ftllC T N M IS

• a complete film editing and post-production service in Melbourne for the professional film maker, incorporating fully equipped editing rooms in a convenient location • specialising in documentary, public relations, industrial, educational and short films, including music clips • separate 16mm editing room with six-plate Steenbeck available for hire

In addition to this we have installed a 16 / 35mm Color Analyser along with the most efficient make of Ultrasonic Cleaner in the world.

Other laboratory services as follows: 16mm Ektachrome Processing and Printing i6/35mm Optical Effects Printing 1 6mm Wet Gate Printing 1 6mm Optical Sound Negative Matching

Contact Robert Martin at:

it

£

20 Thomson Street South Melbourne. Vic. 3205

Telephone (

03) 699 6185

Phone (03) 528 6188

PRODUCTION SURVEY 3 5 m m P R E -P R O D U C T IO N

MY BRILLIANT CAREER

Prod Accountant................... Treisha Ghent Runner............ ........................ Geoff Tanner Budget.......................................... $600,000 Length.................................................90 min Color Process........................

Eastman Progress.................................Pre-Production Cast: Graham Kennedy, John Hargreaves, John JarratL Graeme Blundell, Bryan Brown.

Synopsis: The film deals with a Special Air Service patrol on a year's tour of duty in Vietnam.

3 5 m m IN P R O D U C T IO N

C A THY’S CHILD

3 5 m m P O S T P R O D U C T IO N

BLUE FIN

Film School Attachments... Judy Anderson, Kathy Fenton, Kim Cardow, Sue Jones Length............................................. 100 min Progress................................. in Production Release Date.......................December 1978

Prod Company................ C.B. Films Pty. Ltd. Prod Company................... South Australian Cast: John Hargreaves, Nathan Dawes, Prod Company........................ MargaretFink Dist Company.............................. Roadshow Film Corporation Tony Barry, Lorna Leslie, Julie Dawson, Films Pty Ltd Director............................... Donald Crombie Director....................................

Carl Schultz James Elliott, John Jarratt, Bernadette Dist Company................ Greater Union Film Screenplay.......................... Ken Quinnell Screenplay................................. Sonia Borg Hughson, Les Foxcroft, Steve Dodd, Distributors Producers.............................................. PomOliver, Producer...................................

Hal McElroy Redmond Phillips, Ross Bailey, Robert SIM M O NDS AND NEWCOMBE Screenplay..................... Eleanor Witcombe Errol Sullivan Exec Producer.......................... Matt Carroll Quitter, Peter Armstrong, Revelly Jones, Producer...................................Margaret Fink Prod Company — Verite Film Productions, Photography........................................... GaryHansen Music.....................................Michael Carlos Bruce Jarratt.

Assoc Producer.................................... JaneScott M. & L. Pty Ltd Editor...................................... TimWellburn Photography....................... Geoffrey Burton Synopsis: Based on the real-life story of a Music...................................... Nathan Waks Director........................................ Phil Noyce Prod Manager................................Pom Oliver Editor.................................... Rod Adamson four-year old boy lost in the bush.

Photography..................................... RussellBoyd Screenplay............................ Ken Cameron, Art Director................................. Ross Major Prod Manager......................Ross Matthews Editor.........: .......................... Nick Beauman in association with Les Newcombe Prod Designer............................ Ross Major Art Director............................David Copping Prod Manager....................................... JaneScott Producers............................................ HilaryLinstead, Prod Accountant................. Geoff Cameron M A D M AX Unit Manager........................ Barbara Gibbs Prod Designer.......................Luciana Arrighi Phil Noyce Prod Secretary...................................... SusiParker Prod Secretary............................ Jenny Day Prod Company................... Mad Max Pty Ltd Sound Recordist................... Don Connolly Assoc Producer..................... Ross Matthews Costume/Wardrobe............ Sally Campbell Costume/Wardrobe............

Annie Bleakley Dist Company.............................

Roadshow Gaffer................................. Brian Bansgrove Photography............................Russell Boyd Mixer.................................................... PeterFenton Sound Recordist...................................... DonConnolly D ire c to r................................. George Miller Continuity............................................ MoyaIceton Editor.......................................David Huggett Sound Editor............................Tim Wellburn Special Photographic Screenplay................. James McCausland, Casting Consultants.............. M &LCasting Casting Consultants..............M. & L. Pty Ltd Asst Directors........................ Mark Egerton, Effects............................Optical & Graphics George Miller Wrangler.............................................. HeathHarris Budget.......................................... $762,000 Mark Turnbull Asst Directors............................................ PatClayton, Producer............................. Byron Kennedy Titles.....................................................AletAI Length............................

Approx 11 0 min Focus Puller.............................................PaulMurphy Scott Hicks, Assoc Producer.........................................

BillMiller Length................................................. Feature Progress............................... Pre-Production Camera Asst............................Andre Fleuren Chris Williams Photography............................. David Eggby Gauge............................ 35mm W Jescreen Boom Operator.....................Jack Friedman Camera Operator....................................John Seale Editor....................................

Tony Paterson Color Process................................... Eastman Gaffer......................................................BrianBansgrove Focus Puller................................. David Burr Product Asst.....................Tom Broadbridge Progress................................. Pre-Production SNAP-SHOT Continuity............................... Adrienne Read Boom Operator....................................... JoeSpinelli Art Director.: ......................... Jon Dowding Release Date...................................... Easter1979 Casting Consultants..............

M & L Casting Clapper/Loader................... David Foreman Prod Co-ordinator........................ Jenny Day Prod Company....................................... F.G.Film Cast: Jan Hamilton as Sybylla.

Props Buyer/Standby.......................... JohnCarroll Gaffer........................................... Tony Tegg Productions Pty. Ltd. Costume/Wardrobe............... Clare Griffin Synopsis: Based on the novel by Miles Construction.......................... Danny Deams Continuity............................................ MoyaIceton Director...................................Simon Wincer Sound Recordist....................................GarryWilkins Franklin which she wrote in 1897 when she Grip.......................................... Ross Erikscn Casting Consultants..............

M & L Casting Screenplay......................

Everett de Roche Asst Directors............................................ IanGoddard, was 16 and which brought her fame in the Asst Editor............................. Vicki Ambrose Second Unit Producer.......................... Antony I. Ginnane Steve Connard cities, but notoriety in the district in which Still Photography................................... DavidWilliamson Photography..........................

BillGrimmond Exec Producer.................................

William Fayman Des Sheridan she had to live.

Hairdresser.:............................................. LizMichie Set Decorator...................................... HarryZettel Music........................................... Brian May Camera Asst........................ Harry Glynatsis Best Boys............................... Paul Gantner, Grip.................................... Graeme Mardell Photography.................................... VincentMonton Boom Operator..................... Mark Wasiutak Paul Moyes Asst Grip.......................... Malcolm Ludgate Editor............................................. Philip Reid Clapper/Loader........................................ TimSmart CO STAS Make-up..................................................... LizMichie Props Master............................................ NeilAngwin Prod Manager............................. Barbi Taylor Gaffer......................

Lindsay Foote Electrician........................ GrahamLitchfield Prod Company..................Illumination Films Standby Props............................Clark Munro Continuity............................... Shirley Ballard Art Director............................ John Dowding Runner.................................... Sandy Beach Dist Company................................. As above Asst Editors........................................ AndrewProwse, Prod Secretary............................ Jenny Barty Casting Consultants.... Mitch Consultancy Director............................................Paul Cox Progress................................. In Production Posie Jacobs Asst Art Director................. Steve Amezdroz Costume/Wardrobe.........Aphrodite Jansen Release Date........................ February 1979 Screenplay.............................................LindaAronson Still Photography................................. DavidKynoch Sound Recordist......................................PaulClark Grips................................... Noel McDonald, Cast: Michele Fawdon, Alan Cassell, Bryan From an original idea by Paul Cox Mixing.................................... United Sound Best Boy................................... Craig Bryant David Cassar Brown.

Exec Producer....................... Bernard Eddy Sound Editor..........................................DavidPulbrook Make-up.................................................. JosePerez Stunt Co-ordinator..................... Grant Page Assoc Producer....... Tony Llewellyn-Jones Asst Directors......................... Tom Burstall, S y n o p s is : In 1 9 7 3 a G re e k -b o rn Special Effects.......................... Chris Murray Traffic Supervisors............... AndrewJones, naturalised Australian, John Baikas, left Photography................... Malcolm Richards Boat Master.............................................. KenJames John Hipwell Stuart Beatty Sydney with his three year old daughter, Editors.................................................. PeterTammer, Construction Manager.......... Herbert Pinter Camera Operator....................... Louis Irving Unit Manager.......................................... JohnHipwell Maris, bound for Athens. Baikas left the Paul Cox Gaffer.................................... TonyHoltham Carpenters........................ Peter Templeton, Mechanics.......................... Spanner Argon, country with a forged passport for Maris, Art Director...................... Alan Stlibenrauch Glenn Finch, Continuity........................................Jan Tyrell Scallop Orchard thus removing her from the protection of an Sound Recordist..................... John Phillips Joe Robertshaw Still Photography..................................... ChicStringer Casting Consultant..................Barbi Taylor Australian court. It was an action that was to Asst Director.......................... Bernard Eddy Asst Art Director.........................................JillEden Electrician.......................... Graeme Shelton Hairdresser................................. Ben Taylor launch an international manhunt and create Camera Operator............ Malcolm Richards Runner.............................................. ManuelMatsos Key Grip................................................... NoelMudie Best Boy............................... Garry Plunkett world headlines. Cathy Baikas knew nothing Camera Asst.......................... Bryan Gracey Grip...................................Geoff Richardson Catering............................. Movie Munchies Special Effects.......................................ChrisMurray of legal loopholes and extradition treaties — Boom Operator................. Bruce Lamshed Unit Publicist........................Ross Cameron Asst Editor............................................. DavidPulbrook Length............................................. 100 min she only wanted her child. This film is the Clapper/Loader...................................SandraIrvine Prod Accountant................ Harley Manners Color Process................. Todd AO, Eastman Hairdresser............................................. JosePerez story of Cathy’s (successful) attempt to be Gaffer.................................................. PaddyReardon Budget.......................................... $695,000 Progress..............................Post-Production Make-up.................................................. JosePerez reunited with her daughter.

Continuity..................................................AnnMcLeod Length................................................ 95 min Budget.......................................... $310,000 Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Vince Grip.............................................. JohnTweg Gauge......... 35mm Anamorphic Panavision Gauge............................35mm Wide Screen Gill. Hugh Keays-Byrne, Roger Ward, Steve Still Photography............................Wim Cox Color Process...................................Eastman Bisley. Katie Morgan, Tim Burns, Lulu Progress.................................Pre-Production Titles................................................... JulianEddy Progress..............................Post Production Release Date__ February 1979 (domestic) DIMBOOLA Pinkus, Nick Lathouris, John Ley, Steve Budget.......................................... $250,000 Release Date.......................November 1978 Mifed, Milan (foreign) Millichamp, Sheila Florance, Max Fairchild, Prod Company......... Pram Factory Pictures Length.............................................. 100 min Cast: To be announced.

Cast: Hardy Kruger, Greg Rowe, John Steven Clark, George Novak, Reg Evans, (Management) P/L Color Process................................... Eastman Synopsis: A young girl, a madman, her Jarratt, Liddy Clark, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Hunter Gibb, John Farndale, David Bracks, Dist Company.......... GUO Film Distributors Progress................................. Pre-Production dreams, her fantasies.

Elspeth Ballantyne, Ralph Cotterill, Alfred Paul Johnstone, Geoff Parry, Nic Gazzana, Director.................................... John Duigan Release Date..................................April 1979 Bell, George Spartels.

Howard Eynon, Bertrand Cadard, David Screenplay............................. Jack Hibberd Cast: Takis Emmanuel, other cast members Synopsis: “ Snook” Pascoe is a young Cameron, Jonathon Hardy.

Producer................................... John Weiley to be finalized.

ZODIAC FAIRGROUND Streaky Bay schoolboy whose father runs Synopsis: The gladiatorial road culture. A Assoc Producers.................................... JohnTimlin, Synopsis: A love story — between a Greek the tuna boat Blue Fin. Clumsy, gaunt and few years from now . . .

Prod. Company......................... Avalon Films Max Gillies man and an Australian woman — concerned something of a misfit at school and in the Dist. Company........................ Intertropic Film Music.....................................George Dreyfus community, he has his finest hour when with the barriers of class and culture in Distributors Photography............................. Tom Cowan Australian society.

Blue Fin is wrecked far out at sea by a Screenplay............................................PhillipAvalon Editor.................................................... TonyPaterson waterspout and the remainder of the crew THE M ONEY MOVERS Producer............................................. PhillipAvalon Prod Manager......................................... VickiMolloy lie dead or injured. The film portrays excite­ Prod Company.................... South Australian Assoc. Producer................................... AustinLevyArt Director.............................................LarryEastwood ment, adventure, courage and endurance, THE HOUSE UPSTAIRS Photography........................................... RayHenman Film Corporation Prod Asst................................................ GregRicketson and gives a dramatic insight into the tuna Dist Company.................... SouthAustralian Unit Manager....................................... MarkPiper Prod Secretary................................... LaurelCrampton Prod Company................ Clare Beach Films fishing industry and the lives of the fisher­ Art Director.................................Jai Hayland Film Corporation/ Costume/Wardrobe...................Rose Chong, Screenplay.............................. Ted Roberts men.

Prod. Secretary..................... Carol Williams Roadshow Margot Lindsay Producer................................ Patricia Lovell Costumes/Wardrobe..................... Robin Hall Director............................... BruceBeresford Sound Recordist.....................Lloyd Carrick Music................................... Bruce Smeaton Sound Recordist.......................................Phil Judd Screenplay.........................

Bruce Beresford Asst Director.................

Waiter Dobrowolski Progress................................Pre-Production LITTLE BOY LOST Script Editor.......................... Harold Lander Synopsis: A young lawyer decides to save a Mixer......................................................... PhilJuddFocus Puller.............................................. JanKenny Boom Operator...................

Andrew Duncan Prod.

Company..........................John Powell Adapted from a book by Devon Minchin Boom Operator....................................... PhilStirling row of terrace houses from a developer of an Productions P/L Producer.................................................. MattCarroll Clapper/Loader................. Kevin Anderson office block complex. To his dismay he Clapper/Loader................ Sharia McCarthy Continuity............................

Carolyn Stanton Director......................................Terry Bourke Photography................?........

Don MpAlpine Gaffer........................................ Mick Morris discovers illegal activities in two of the Casting Consultants..............................Mitch Mathews Screenplay...................................... S. Turner, Editor...................................... Bill Anderson Continuity................................................... JillTaylor houses.

Consultancy J. Powell Prod Manager......................................... PatClayton Set Decorator...................................... AnnieBrowning Second Unit Photography.........Jerry Marek Producer.................................... Phil Avalon Art Director............................David Copping Standby Props........................... John Koning Stunt Co-ordinator............ Peter Armstrong Exec.

Producers.......................

John Powell, Props Buyer.............................................. NeilAngwin Grip.................................... Paul Ammitzboll THE ODD ANGRY SHOT Asst. Editor............................................ DerekCatterall Alan Spires Prod Secretary.......................... Barbara Ring Still Photography................................ PonchHawkes Prod Company.. Samson Film Services P/L Script Assistant......................................TerryFogarty Photography.........................

Ray Henman Costume/Wardrobe............................. AnnaSenior Best Boy.................................................. SamBienstock Dist Company.............................. Roadshow Hairdresser............................ Vanessa Flipse Editor.................................................... DorisHaller Make-up.............................................. AnniePospischil Director.....................................................TomJeffrey Prod. Manager... Rosann.e Andrews-Baxter Scenic Artist....................... Adrian Lockhart Driver........................................Jim Edwards Screenplay...............................................TomJeffrey Art Director............................................ BruceBarber, Stunts.................................Peter Armstrong Caterer............................ Richard Ford & Co Producers................................. Sue Milllken, Runners.................................................... KenMeek, Jai Hyland Prod Accountant.....................Peter Keenan Tom Jeffrey Prod. Co-ordinator....................... Evan Ham Ron Swanson Budget.......................................... $350,000 Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Titles............................ Yoram Gross Studio Unit Manager............................. Mark Piper Length................................................ 94 min Editor...................................Brian Kavanagh Prod. Secretary..................... Carol Williams Budget............................. $300,000 Color Process................................... Eastman Prod Manager...........................................SueMilliken Length.................................................90 min Prod. Asst..................................... Liz Foster Progress................................. In Production Prod Designer........................ BernardHides Colour process................................. Eastman Wardrobe.................................... Robin Hall Release Date...................... December 1978 Location Manager.................... Ralph Storey Progress....................... Pre-Production Asst. Wardrobe............ Robyn Schuurmans Cast: Bruce Spence, Natalie Bate, Max Prod Secretary....................... Su Armstrong Release Date............................ Easter 1979 Sound Recordist.......................................PhilJudd Gillies, Dick May, Tim Robertson, Jack Costume/Wardrobe.................. Anna Senior Cast: Terrance Cooper, Stuart Wagstaff, Asst. Directors.....................Steve Andrews, Perry, Irene Hewitt, Alan Rowe, Esme Sound Recordist..................... Don Connolly James Elliott, Tony Barry, Judith Woodroffe, Chris Mordson Melville, Terry McDermott, Bill Garner, Kerry Sound Editor............................. Dean Gawen Steve Dodd, Lisa Peers.

Camera Operator........................ Kevin Lind Dwyer, Helen Sky, Paul Hampton, Evelyn Asst Directors........................ Mark Egerton, Synopsis:A futuristic drama Focus Puller..............................................

JanKenny set in a Krape, Val Jellay, Sue Ingleton, Laurel Frank, Anthony Bowman, fairground.

Boom Operator...................................AndrewDuncan Claire Dobbin, John Murphy, Fay Mokotow, Steve Andrews Clapper/Loader...............

Sharia McCarthy Clare Binney, Max Fairchild, Phil Motherwell, Camera Operator.........................John Seale Gaffer....................................................SimonPurton Barry Barkla, Matt Burns, Frankie Raymond, Focus Puller................................. David Burr Continuity............................Caroline Stanton Max Cullen, Chad Morgan, Sandra Evans, Include your current and future Boom Operator....................................... JoeSpinelli For details of the following 35mm films in Standby Props............................. Tony Hunt The Captain Matchbox Band. projects in our p ro d u c tio n G affer................................... Robbie Young pre-production consult the previous issue: Asst. Props............................... Roger Sparke Synopsis: . A comedy that traces the Continuity.......................... Caroline Stanton Key Grip.................................................. RayBrown survey listings. Forward details unusual social history of a small country and stills to: Casting Consultants............ M and L Casting The Bloody Half Mile Grip.......................................... Stuart Green town over the three days that lead up to the Brainwave Asst Art Director.................... CarolineDuffy Wrangler.....................................Heath Harris marriage of Maureen Delaney to Morrie Gallipoli Prop Master........................................ BruceBarber Asst. Wrangler........................... DavidTickle McAdam.

Production Survey, Maggie Grip.................................................. GrahamMardell Asst. Editor.................................................RicAdams 24 Frames a Second or In Like Flynn Asst Grip............................................ GrahamLitchfield Still Photography......................................BobHardie Cinema Papers, Standby Wardrobe............................ GrahamPurcell The Unknown Industrial Prisoner Hairdresser.......................... Vanessa Flipps 644 Victoria St., Cinema Papers cannot and does not accept Standby Props.........................Clark Munro Best Boy............................................... CraigBryant any responsibility for inaccuracies resulting North Melbourne 3051.

Asst Editor........................ John Mandelburg Make-up............................ Deryck de Niese from w ron g ly com pleted or untyped Still Photography........

David Williamson Prod. Accountant........................ Peter Ham Telephone: (03) 329 5983 production survey details.

Best Boy...................

Peter Maloney Runner..........................................Ann Platts Make-up................................. Deryk de Niese Caterers................... John and Lisa Faithfull

PRODUCERS, DIRECTORS and

PRODUCTION COMPANIES

Cinema Papers, August/September — 51

PRODUCTION SURVEY Sound Recordist.................... Don Connolly Costume Designer................................JudithDorsman Art Director............................... Leslie Binns Producer's Secretary........ Sylvia van Wyck Construction Manager... ............ Bill Howe Asst Directors......................... Mark Egerton, Location Manager..............Beverly Davidson Prod Secretary............................Jenny Barty Music................. Recorded at Anvil Denham Carpenter........................ ... Danny Burnett Mark Turnbull, Sound Recordist................... Ken Hammond Costume/Wardrobe...............................KevinRegan

by National Philharmonic Orchestra Second Unit Photography ......... Peter Moss, Scott Hicks Sound Editor............................. Bob Cogger Standby Wardrobe.......... Aphrodite Jansen Costume/Wardrobe.......... Bruce Finlayson Frank Hammond, Camera Operator....................................JohnSeale Prop Masters...................................... MartinMcAdoo, Sound Recordist......................................PaulClarke Standby Wardrobe.................................DarioGunzberg Oscar Scherl Focus Puller.................................David Burr Neil Angwin Asst Directors........................ Tom Burstall, Sound Recordist.......................... Bob Allen .. , . Lee Whitmore Asst Art Director...

Boom Operator............................ Jo Spinelli Asst Directors........................ Mark Egerton, .. Sally Campbell Set Decorator.......

James Parker Mixer................................. Gerry Humphries Clapper/Loader................. David Foreman Penny Chapman, Camera Operator...................... DanBurstall Sound Editors...................... Peter Burgess, Chef Grip.............. ........ Ray Brown Gaffer..................................................... RobYoung Scott Hicks William Anderson Camera Asst........................ Andrew Lesnie Grip...................... __ Stuart Green Continuity................................. Moya Iceton Camera Operator......................... John Seale Focus Puller.......................... Jack Endacott Dean Gawen Stunt Co-ordinator. ........ Max Aspen Casting Consultants............ Allison Barrett, Focus Pullers...................David Williamson, Boom Operator....................................... PhilStirling Asst Directors........................................... KenAmbrose, Asst Editor............

Frans Vandenberg S.A. Casting Jan Kenny Greg Allen, Clapper/Loader................... Robert Murray Stand-by Props....

Peter Glencross 2nd Unit Photography.......... Don McAlpine Boom Operator.......................... Joe Spinelli Gaffer.................................... Stewart Sorby David Tayles Hairdresser.......... ........ Irene Walls Asst Art D irector...................... Harry Zettel Clapper/Loaders...................................... JanKenny, Continuity............................. Fran Haarsma Focus Puller............................................ JohnSwaffield Best Boy............... .......Paul Gantner Set Decorator......................................... KenJames Andre Fleuren Casting Consultant................................ BarbiTaylor Make-up................ .......Sally Gordon Camera Asst............................... Ellery Ryan Grip............................................. David Petley Gaffer......................................................TonyTeggSet Decorator............................Peter Kendall Boom Operators................ Chris Goldsmith, .. . . Richard Ford Catering.................

2nd Unit Director................. Bruce Beresford Continuity............................. Lyn McEncroe Key Grip................................................ NoelMoodie Malcolm Hocking Still Photographer. ... Mike Giddens Stunt Co-ordinator................................... AlfJoint Set Dresser.......................... Annie Bleakley G rip. ............................Geoff Richardson Clapper/Loader........................... Alan Cole Unit Manager......... .............. Bob Hill Asst Editor........................ Jeannine Chialvo Set Construction................... Herbert Pinter Asst Editor................................ Mark Norfolk Continuity...................................... Jan Tyrell Electrician............ .......Peter Moyes Set Construction................... Herbert Pinter Chief Grip............................... RossErikson Standby Props........................................ JohnPowditch Casting Director................. Rhonda Schepisi Runner................... __ Sandy Beach Still Photography................... David Kynoch Asst Grip................................. Dennis Smith Prod Accountant................. MichaelRoseby Asst Prod Design................................... IgorLazareff Budget................... .......... $505,000 Technical Advisor............... Devon Minchin Asst Editor............................. Zsolt Kallanyi Catering........................................ D&R Prod Set Dressers/Prop Buyers.. Mark Rochford .............. 110 min Length...................

Hairdresser................................. Jose Perez Asst Sound Editor............................. ShirleyKennard Still Photography.»:..... David Parker Jill Eden Color Process....... ... Eastmancolor Best Boy............................... Peter Maloney Edge Numberer........................................GuyHodson Best Boy.................................. Ian Dewhurst Standby Props...................................... NickHepworth Progress................ .......... In Release M a ke-up.................................................JosePerez Still Photography................................ DavidKynoch M ake-up................................................ JosePerez Key Grips........................... Joel Witherden, Cast: Bill Hunter, Wendy Hughes, Gerard Special Effects...........................................IanJamieson Technical Advisor................... Dawn Fraser Special Effects............... Conrad Rothmann Tony Sprague Kennedy, Chris Haywood, John Ewart, Standby Props............................Clark Munro Research........................................Sue Wild Prod Accountant................. MichaelRoseby Asst Grip.......................... Steve Greenaway Angela Punch, Bryan Brown, John Clayton, Electrician............................... Kevin McKie Hairdresser............................... Jenny Brown Runner................................................... PaulHallam Chief Wrangler..............................Ken Grant Don Crosby, John Dease, Drew Forsythe, Runners...................................... Jerry Elder Best Boy............................................... CraigBryant Budget......................................... $400,000 Wrangler.............................................. MarkWilliams Tony Barney, Bill Lyle, Paul Jones, Mark Titles.................................. Optical & Graphic M a ke-u p ..............................................PeggyCarter Length............................................. 120 min Neg Matching.................... MargaretCarden Holden, Rob Steele, Bruce Spence, Les Budget.......................................... $536,861 Standby Wardrobe.............................. FionaNicholls Color Process........................................ Agfa Asst Editors............................. Ken Sallows, Foxcroft, Brian Blain, Lana Lesley, Sue Length.................................................90 min Asst Wardrobe..........................Joyce Stokes Progress..................................................... InRelease Jill Stevenson Walker. Johnnie Q uicksilver, Bunney Gauge................................................ 35 mm Standby Props........................................ KenJames Cast: Susan Penhaligon, Robert Helpmann, Mark Norfolk Brooke, Gerry Duggan, Denise Otto, Anne Color Process................................... Eastman Asst Props............................. Ann Browning Rod Mullinar, Bruce Barry, Julia Blake, Asst Dubbing Editors............ Steve Lambeth, Haddy, Marshall Crosby, Alex Archdale, Progress............................... Post-Production Prod Accountant.....................Jean Findlay Helen Hemingway, Walter Pym, Maria Susy Pointon Ken Bernard, Jane W inchester, Alan Release Date— September. October 1978 Electrician............................... Ralph Storey Mercedes, Frank Wilson, Peter Culpan, Still Photography..................... John Pollard Penney, Peter Pilcher, Jude Kuring, Berys Cast: Terence Donovan, Ed Devereaux, Runner........................................ Mark Piper Marilyn Rodgers, Peggy Nichols, Carole-Ann Actors'Tutor.......................Michael Caulfield Marsh, Slim de Grey, Kay Eklund, Kit Taylor, Tony Bonner, Charles (Bud) Tingwell, Candy Caterers................... John and Lisa Faithfull Aylett.

Aboriginal Casting Don Philps, Peter Carroll, Graeme Smith, Raymond, Frank Wilson.

Budget.......................................... $762,391 Co-ordinator........................ Bob Maza Synopsis: What was Patrick's secret? What Robin Moase, Franco Valentino, Brian Synopsis: Dick Martin is an ex-policeman Length............................................. 115 min was the strange influence he possessed? A Aboriginal Advisors.......... Howard Creamer, Anderson, Ray Marshall, Tessa Mallos, Ray dismissed for taking a bribe. He joins Darcys Color Process...................................Eastman Ray Kelly hospital, a relationship, a sense of the usual Meagher, Chad Morgan, John Flaus, Security Services who believe they are Progress........................................... AwaitingRelease are turned upside down in a thrilling emotion Hairdresser.......................................... CherylWilliams Stephen Bisley, George Till. going to be robbed. They suspect an C ast: Bronw yn M ackay-P ayne, Tom Best Boy...................................................PaulGanter charged experience. inoffensive-seeming recruit though the Richards, Bunney Brooke, Ron Haddrick, Make-up............................. Deryck de Niese robbery is actually being planned by an old Gabrielle Hartley, John Diedrich, Ivar KantS, Pre-Prod Manager............Richard Brennan employee. The elaborate robbery is planned David Cameron, John Clayton, Bill Charlton, Construction Manager............................. RayPattison, SHE’LL BE SWEET to take place when most of the staff are at a Lyndall Barbour, Kevin Wilson, Reg Gillam, Ray Brown Union meeting and only starts to go wrong Stuart Finch, Diana Davidson, Judy Farr, Prod Companies................. ABC-TV Drama, Asst Const Manager........ Geoff Richardson when Martin notices a flaw in the replica John Armstrong.

For details of the following 35mm films con­ Trans-Atlantic Prod Accountant.....................................LynnBarker armoured car which is the key to the Synopsis: Drama based on the personal life sult the previous issue: Enterprises (USA) Asst Prod Acc.........Carolynne Cunningham attempted theft. story of Australian swimming champion Dist Companies.......................................... Asabove Mechanic............................... Barry Hogarth Dawn Fraser.

Director...................................... Gene Levitt Chief Electrician.................................... BrianAdams The ABC of Love and Sex — Australia Style Scriptwriter.................................... Colin Free Electrician/Gen Operator.... Ted Nordsvan Producer............................Geoffrey Daniels Oceans SKIN DEEP Catering................................. Frank Manley, Exec Producers............

Robert Kline (TAE), Weekend of Shadows Michael Davis THE NIGHT THE PROWLER Prod. Company........................ Phase Three Preston Fischer (TAE), Publicist............................ Dennis Davidson Film Productions P/L Prod Company............Chariot Films Pty Ltd James Davern (ABC) Unit Publicist......................................... GeoffFreeman Director...................................... Geoff Steven Director.................................... Jim Sharman Assoc Producer................... Robert Stewart Transport Manager.................................JohnChase Screenplay.................................Piers Davies, Screenplay............................. Patrick White Music.................................... Kevin Johnson Asst Transport Manager.......... Colin Chase Roger Horrocks Producer............................. Anthony Buckley Photography...........................................PeterHendry 16m m PROD SUR VEY Titles.................................................. AI&AI From an original idea by Geoff Steven Music.................................... Cameron Allan Editor...................................................... NeilThumpston Budget..................................................... $1.2million Producer................................ John Maynard Photography..................... David Sanderson Prod Manager........................... DennisKiely Gauge............................. 35 mm Panavision Photography......................................... LeonNarbey Editor........................................Sara Bennett Art Director............................. GeorgeLiddle Color Process...................... Eastman 5247 Prod. Manager.................................Sue May Prod Manager............................... Pom Oliver Unit Manager.................... RhondaSallaway Progress.................................................... InRelease Art Director............................................... RonHighfield Prod Designer....................................LucianaArrighi Location Manager..................................... ValWindon Prod. Asst............................. Karen Jackson Unit Manager....................................... BrianRosen Cast: Tommy Lewis, Freddy Reynolds, Ray A N D /O R =O N E Prod Secretary................... WendyBorchers Barrett, Jack Thompson, Julie Dawson, Wardrobe........................ Lesley Vanderwalt Prod Secretary...................... Su Armstrong Prod Company............... Ompyx Communi­ Wardrobe.............................

Carolyn Marsh Peter Carroll, Robyn Nevin, Don Crosby, Sound Recordist................. Graham Morris Costume/Wardrobe............................. AnnaSenior cations P/L Sound Recordist...................................... BobPeck Asst. Director......................... Susan Pointon Sound Recordist.....................Don Connolly Ruth Cracknell, Elizabeth Alexander, Peter Director...............................................Briann Asst Directors........................................ RayBrown, Camera Operator.................................. PaulLeech Sumner, Tim Robertson, Jane Harders, Ray Mixer........................................ Peter Fenton Screenplay........................................ Briann David LeMaistre Camera Asst........................................ SeanLeslie Meagher, Brian Anderson, Marshall Crosby, Sound Editor............................Paul Maxwell Producer............................. Martin Simpson Boom Operator....................... LeeTamahori Asst Directors................... Elisabeth Knight, Camera Operator............. DannyBatterham Matthew Crosby, Rosie Lilley, Katie Lilley, Music............................... Stephen Dunstan, Focus Puller........................................... JeffMalouf Clapper/Loader...................................... JohnSpurdle Angela Punch, Rob Steele, Bill Charlton, Keith Heygate, Boom Operator..................................... MikeBreen Nic Lyons, Gaffer.................................... Alun Bollinger John Jarrett, Barbara Wyndon, Kevin Myles, Brian Rosen Gaffer.................................... Jack Kendrick Peter Spillsbury Asst. Gaffer............................................. DonJowsey Ken Grant, Richard Ussher, Alan Hardy, Camera Operator........................ Kevin Lind Designer/Dresser.................................. KenMuggleston Photography............................Nixon Binney Continuity............................ Jackie Sullivan Focus Puller................................. David Burr John Bowman, Michael Carmen.

Art Director.................................Kim Hilder Key Grip.................................................. BrettMcDowell Props..................................... Russell Collins Synopsis: The story of a young half-blood Boom Operator...................Chris Goldsmith Wardrobe...................................Beryl Larkin Standby Props.......................Richard Walsh Key Grip.................................................. DaveReeves Clapper/Loader..................... Mike Gambrill Make-up............................... Bozena Zurek, aboriginal, who is made conscious of bis Sally Cierney, Grip........................................ Bryan Kassler Gaffer..........................................Peter Wood white blood by a missionary. He leaves his Wardrobe Design........................ Chris Oliver Christine Ehlert tribe to find a place In the white man’s world Still Photography................. Robin Morrison Continuity............................Caroline Stanton Special Effects........................................JackArmytage, Sound Recordist................... Kevin Kearney Runners...................................................GregPiper, where he seeks acceptance because he Casting Consultants.............. M & L Casting Lighting............................. Brian Bansgrove Peter Leggett lives by white standards. He fails through no Karl Mutch Props Buyer............................ Bruce Barber Post Production..................................... RayAlehin Camera Asst........................................... JanKenny Catering Manager................................... MikeBajko Asst Props Buyer.......................Jenny Green Length................................... 94 min (Aust.), fault of his own and explodes in a fateful Asst Art Director.......Jenny Kingsley-Smith Budget........................................ $NZ180,000 Stand-by Props.......................... Harry Zettel “ declaration of war" — the white man's way, Props...................................... Paul Fusedale 97 min (USA) he has learnt, of acquiring a licence for Color Process.......................................... Agfa Grip......................................Paul Ammitzbol Grip.................................... Greg Molineaux Color Process...................... Eastman 5247 Progress..............................Post-Production Prod Accountant................. Geoff Cameron Progress............................. Awaiting Release revenge and violence.

Make-up and Hair Design............ Irene Walls Release D a te .....................February, 1979, Asst Editor...............................

Ted Otten Cast: Tony Lo Bianco, Sally Kellerman, Caterers........................ Drury and Kennedy „ (New Zealand) Still Photography.....................................BrettHilder Length................................................ 45 min Anne Semler, Rod Mullinar, Kevin Leslie, Cast: Deryn Cooper, Ken Blackburn, Grant Hairdresser............................. Trish Cunliffe Color Process.................................Eastman Jacqueline Kott, Ken Fraser, Vincent Gill, Tilly, Alan Jervis, Glenis Levestam, Heather Best Boy.................................................. PatHagen Progress............................. Post-Production Kenneth Laird, Peter Collingwood, Gareth Lindsay, Bill Johnston, Arthur Wright, Kevin Make-up.................................................... JillPorter Cast: Kris McQuade, Anna West, Bridget Wilding-Forbes, Peter Snook, Revelly Jones, J. Wilson.

NEWSFRONT Electrician............................. Roy Majewski Aileen Britton, David Bracks, Ray Yates.

Murphy, Vincent Gill, David Bracks, Miles Synopsis: Skin Deep deals explicitly with Runner.......................................... Rosie Lee Synopsis: Captain Magee, a sailor whose Brown, Ian Strutt.

Prod Company.... Palm Beach Pictures P/L latent violence, petty aggression and sexual Budget......................................... $400,000 boat is brought from under him by a Dist Company................. Village Roadshow Synopsis: A love story concerning three repression in a small town, which seems to Length................................................ 90 min women.

Director........................................Phil Noyce be a picture of conformity and normality. ’ Color Process........................ Eastmancolor millionaire industrialist, goes looking for the Screenplay.................................... Bob Ellis tycoon and in the search meets up with the Progress............................Awaiting Release Producer.................................... David Elfick man's daughter.

Cast: Ruth Cracknell, John Frawley,'Kerry Assoc Producer............... Richard Brennan ANTI-SM O K IN G FILM Walker, John Derum, Maggie Kirkpatrick, Photography...................... Vincent Monton (Working Title) Terry Camilleri.

Editor.......................................................JohnScottProd. Company............... Sydney University Synopsis: Exploiting the furore surrounding Prod Manager................... Richard Brennan 3 5 m m A W A IT IN G R E L E A S E her Filmmakers Society attempted rape, a young woman Art Director........................ Larry Eastwood Producer................................... Albert Hadid emerges from the claustrophobia of a Prod Designer............................Lissa Coote Budget............................................ $6752 wealthy conservative family and turns from Prod Secretary.......................... Lynn Gailey Progress..........................................Scripting 3 5 m m IN R E L E A S E victim to criminal, stalking the streets of Costume/Wardrobe........... Norma Moriceau Sponsor........................ The Cancer Council Sydney by night in a relentless pursuit of Asst Wardrobe..................... Susan Bowden DAWN! of Australia her own liberation.

Sound Recordist.................................... TimLloydSynopsis: A trigger film for anti-smoking Prod Accountant......................... PennyCarl discussion amongst school students.

Prod Company................... Aquataurus Film Sound Editor................................. Greg Bell Productions Pty Ltd, TH E C H A N T OF JIMMIE Asst D irectors......................Erroll Sullivan, South Australian Film Corporation PATRICK BLACKSMITH Chris Maudson, Director...................................Ken Hannam Prod Company...............Patrick Productions Steve Andrews, BANANA BENDER Screenplay................................................JoyCavili for Australian International Prod Company.... Film House Australia P/L Danny Torsh Story Editor............................... Moya Wood Prod. Company.......... ABC-TV Drama Dept.

Film Corporation Pty Ltd Dist Company................... Hoyts (domestic) Camera Operator...................... Louis Irving Producer................................................... JoyCavili Director................................................. JohnWalker Focus Puller........................................ DavidBrostoff Dist Company.................................Filmways Director..................................... Fred Schepisi Exec Producer......................................... JillRobb Screenplay.................................... John May Boom Operator...................... Jack Friedman Assoc Producer.............. Sandra McKenzie Director............................... Richard Franklin Screenplay............................... Fred Schepisi Producer...................................... Ftay Alehin Clapper/Loader.................................. SteveDobson Producer................................... Fred Schepisi Prod Associate....................... Gloria Payten Screenplay........................ Everett de Roche Photography...........................................PeterHendry Gaffer................................. Brian Bansgrove Producers........................Antony I. Ginnane, Photography............ ............... Russell Boyd Assoc Producer...................... Ray Stevens Editor....................... Richard Francis-Bruce Continuity.............................. Adrienne Read Richard Franklin Editor........................................ Max Lemon M u s ic ................................ Bruce Smeaton Prod. Manager.......................... Dennis Kiely Exec Producer............................Bill Fayman Photography.............................. Ian Baker Prod Manager.......................Ross Matthews Unit-Loc. Manager................. . Val Windon Art Director................................. Ross Major Music........................................... Brian May Editor...................................Brian Kavanagh Art Director............................. GeorgeLiddle Photography..................... Donald McAlpine Prod Designer..................... Wendy Dickson Prod Secretary....................... Jenny Tosolini Prod. Secretary................... Anne Ferguson Prod Co-ordinator.................... Andrea Way Prod Assts..................... Graham McKinney, Editor................... Edward McQueen-Mason Wardrobe............................ Bridget Graham Jack Zalkans Prod Manager............................Barbi Taylor Prod Secretary....................... Pam Stockley Sound Recordist............................Bob Peck

52 — Cinema Papers, August/September

PRODUCTION SURVEY Asst Directors............................ Ray Brown, Peter Wilson Camera Operator............ Danny Batterham Focus Puller................................ JeftMalouf Boom Operator.......................... Mike Breen Clapper/Loader........................ David Evans Gaffer.....................................Jack Kendrick Continuity.............................. Carolyn Gould Co-ordinator..............................JoyTrinder Key Grip............................... Brett McDowell Props Buyer...........................Adrian Cannon Standby Props..................Russell Whiteoak Make-up................................... SuzieClemo Post-Production............................ Harry Hall Length................................................. 55 min Progress............................ Post Production Cast: John Hargreaves, Lyndell Rowe, Toby Archer, Maurie Fields, Tony Barry, Martin Phelan, Geoff Parry, Rev Jones.

Synopsis: A drama concerning the joys and problems in the life of a banana grower and his family.

featuring sequences on Mark Richards, the Pepsi Pro Surfing contest, the 1978 World Cup of Surfing in Hawaii. The film is a new version of Highway One released in 1977 and incorporates many new sequences.

Progress...................................... In Release.

Cast: Ernie Ward, Sue Thompson, Liz Burke, Mike Walsh, Carole Gladstone, Joe Ford.

Synopsis: A class parable.

NATURAL THING TO DO

THEY USED TO CALL IT SANDY

Prod. Company................Sydney University BLIGHT Filmmakers Society Prod Company........................ Nomad Films Concept................................. Ray Coleman, International Peter Kelso, Producer............................ Douglas Stanley Kate Moore, Photography.............................................AlexMcPhee HOOK IT DOWN THE RIVER THE LAST TASMANIAN Graeme Smith Editor................................. Guye Henderson Prod, Company.......................... Di Net Films Producer................................... Albert Hadid Prod Company.......... Artis Film Productions Sound Recordists................. Danny Dyson, Dist. Company............................... As above Pty Ltd in association Photography.............................. TimSeguiin Laurie Robinson, Director.................................................. DianeNettlefold with Tasmanian Film Music...................................... GordonHeber Ian Wilson Scriptwriter........................ Diane Nettlefold Corporation, Société Editor...................................................... PeterKeelso Sound Mixing.......................

David Harrison Producer................................................ DianeNettlefold Française de Production Sound Recordist.................. GraemeSmith Length.................................................45 min Music............................................... Don Kay Dist Company.......... Artis Film Productions Budget............................................... $3212 Color Process....................... Eastman 7247 Photography......................................... DianeNettlefold Length.................................................14 min Pty Ltd Progress..................................................... InRelease Editor......................................................DianeNettlefold Director.....................................Tom Haydon Color Process................................... Eastman Synopsis: A documentary which shows the Art Director............................................ DianeNettlefold Screenplay.............................. Tom Haydon, Progress..................................... In Release aims and work of the National Trachoma Mixer............................................Spectangle Rhys Jones Sponsor........................ The Cancer Council and Eye Health Program. In two years eye Asst. Director............................ Ann Stubbs Producer.....................................Tom Haydon of Australia doctors examined the eyes and health of Continuity.............................................. GwenNettlefold Assoc Producers...................................... RayBarnes, Synopsis: A trigger film for anti-smoking over 70,000 people throughout Australia.

Stunts...................................... Craig French Roger Fauriat discussion amongst nurses.

Titles............................................... Willi Rea Music.................................... William Davies Budget............................................... $4000 Photography.......................... Geoff Burton Length............................................. 27’/2min Editor....................................... Charles Rees OVER THE BRIDGE TW O MAN JOB THE D ISTANT LENS Color Process....................... Eastman 7247 Prod Co-ordinator............... Roz Berrystone (Working Title) Directors.............................................. DavidRapsey, Prod Company................... Perth Institute of Progress..........................................Fine Edit Music Director....................... William Davies Prod. Company................Sydney University Don Meloche Film and Television Release Date..........................August 1978 TASMANIA Filmmakers Society Screenplay.............................. Don Meloche Director............................... Glenda Hambly Cast: Sam and Stuart Nettlefold; Dominic, Location Manager.......... Graham McKinney Director.....................................Tom Bassett Music........................................ Greg Schultz Producers.............................................. PaulBarron, Benjamin and Joshua Rea; Willie and Prod Asst.............................. Gillian Leahy Producer............................... Peter Leonard Lighting............................ Peter Lattenmaier Robbie Rea; Craig French; lain Burbury; Owen Paterson Prod Secretaries................. Adrienne Elliott, Photography.......................... Michael Jacob Camera............................. Phillip Monaghan Exec Producer...................................... PaulBarron Gwen Nettlefold.

Rosanne Andrews-Baxter Editors................................... Cathy Coulter, Editor........................ Kerstine Hill-Harrison Gauge............................... 16mm and 35mm Synopsis: Their parents are travelling Photography..............................Geoff Burton, Elizabeth Bassett Prod. Manager..................... Glenda Hambly Length.................................................23 min again, so Sam and Stuart have to spend the Gert Kirchner Prod. Manager............................ Peter Cribb Prod.

Asst..................................Tessa Boyer Progress.............................. In Production holidays with relatives. There is interplay Sound Recordist.................................. RobertWells Art Directors........................................... MarkLamprell, Sound Recordist................. Ian McLoughlin Synopsis: A black and white documentary and antagonism between the different age Camera Assts................. Russel Galloway, Bronwyn Bassett Camera Asst.............................. Robert Bull on filmmakers and the events they captured groups. The older boys built a boat but Gillian Leahy Prod. Asst..................................Julia Harvey Wrangler.......................... Elizabeth Rapsey in Western Australia between the years abandon it because they are too heavy for it. Continuity............................ Roz Berrystone Sound Recordist.............Greg McFarlane, Grips.....................................................Daniell Nichols, 1 9 0 2 -1 9 5 2 .

The smaller boys re-launch the boat which Second Unit Photo.................Gert Kirchner Gary O’Donnell Richard Allen, is swept down the river on the outgoing tide. Still Photography................................... RayDavie, Camera Operator................... Robert Bondy Allen Syme, The smallest boy who has been excluded Jacquie Gardner Camera Asst..................... ElizabethBassett Kim Sexton DREAMS from most of the fun, runs for help and they Grip....................................... Gary Clements Gaffers...................................... David Guest Neg. Cutter....................... Elizabeth Rapsey Electrician................................ LembitLaats Prod. Company...................................AndrewVialare saved.

Peter Guest Make-up.....................................

Sue Griffith FRANCE Film Productions P/L Continuity............................... Cathy Coulter Length.................................................1 2 min Prod Manager............................ PierreRobin Technical Advisor..................... TimSeguiin Director...............................................AndrewVial Progress................................. In Production ICE IS NICE Cameraman............................................. GuyMacou Producer.............................................AndrewVial Budget............................................... $2500 Cast: Joey Leonard, J.J. Rapsey, Julie Prod. Company..............Panorama Pictures Sound Recordist................................. MarioVinck Length............................................... 8’4min Length.................................................12 min Smith, Natalie Squires, Graeme Merton.

Producer............................... Robert Rankin Camera Asst............................. Adrien Fortis Color Process................................... Eastman Progress...................................... In Release Synopsis: Reginald J, dean of the Photography..........................Robert Rankin Continuity............................ Roz Berrystone Progress................................. in Production Release Date................................June 1978 University of W.A., teaches his two-year-old Cast: Jack Nicholson, Marisa Berenson, Length.................................................12 min Still Photography.................................. JeanMore Sponsor................................. Uni. of Sydney offsider, J.J., how to do a one man job. When Color Process................................. Eastman Electrician............................................ JeanMouton Delphine Seyrig, Paul Morrisey, Nikita Student’s Union the dean’s mate from Sydney, junk dealer Progress..............................Post Production UNITED KINGDOM Michankov, Dustin Hoffman, Claude Synopsis: Dramatic presentation of the "Hagglin’’ Howard, arrives to set up shop at Synopsis: Winter ice climbing and ski Cameraman.......................................... MikeFoxSydney University Student Union’s facilities Chabrol, Diane Keaton, Bernadette Lafont, the University, J.J. takes on a two man job — touring in the Snowy Mountains.

Sound Recordist........................ Edward Tise and operations.

Faye Dunaway and others. because he’s mastered the one man job. It Camera Asst.......................... Steve Haskett Synopsis: Dreams was shot in Lost Angeles takes two to haggle.

Still Photography................. Eileen Tweedy during the International Film Exposition IMAGINE SEEING THE CARS Dubbing Mixer............................. PeterRann (FILMEX 77) with the permission and THE PLUMBER Graphic Designer................. Bernard Lodge GOING PAST support of the festival management. Its TO WALK THE VERTICAL Prod Company................... South Australian theme is the magic of Hollywood and it Prod. Company.................. Filmwest-Musca Rostrum Camera Op.s................Ken Morse,.

David Bookman Film Corporation shows the stars of today against a backdrop Prod. Company..............Panorama Pictures Script.....................................................BarriePattison Asst E d i t o r s . .................................JohnAllinson, Dist Company........................ Nine Network of the stars of yesteryear along with images Producer............................... Robert Rankin Producers..................................................JonNoble, Ben Morris, Director................................................. PeterWeirPhotography.......................... Robert Rankin of Hollywood itself the ever-changing, Carmelo Musca Kate Grenville Screenplay............................................. PeterWeirLength.................................................25 min dream factory, film capital.

Music................................................... PeterLevy, Narrator..................................................

LeoMcKern Producer.................................... Matt Carroll Color Process.................................Eastman Bruce Varley Budget.......................................... $122,608 Photography..................... David Sanderson Progress...................................... In Release Photography..............................................JonNoble, FOR THE LOVE OF A CHILD Length....................................................

105 min Art Directors..........................Herbert Pinter, Synopsis: An ascent of the difficult east Carmelo Musca Prod Company...................... . Nomad Films Ken James face of Crookneck in the Glasshouse Editor.......................................Barrie Pattison Color Process................................ Eastman Progress..................................................... InRelease Prod Designer....... '............................. WendyWeirMountains. . .

International Sound Recordists............................... FrankZuppar, Producer............................ Douglas Stanley Howard Worth, C ast: A nthropologist Dr Rhys Jones Prod Secretary.......................... Barbara Ring Photography.............................David Olney, Ross Hutchens supported by past and present natives of Costume/Wardrobe................. Wendy Weir Tasmania, with some French and English Casting Consultant............... Allison Barrett WET CLAY John Bowring, Sound Re-recording.......Malcolm Devenish appearances.

Special Effects.......................Monte Fieguth Vince Monton Additional Photography.........Edwin Scragg, Director.................................Don McLennan Editor................................. Guye Henderson Screenplay.......................... Don McLennan, Gus Howard, S y n o p s is : The exterm ination of the Titles................................. Optical & Graphic Sound Recordists.............. Laurie Robinson, John Wiggens, Tasmanian Aborigines is the only case in Budget.......................................... $150,000 Zbigniew Friedrich Ian Wilson David Jukes recent times of a genocide so swift and total. Length................................................ 75 min Producers............................Don McLennan, Length................................................. 50 min Additional Editing................ Maureen Keast A search to rediscover these unique people. Color Process................................... Eastman Zbigniew Friedrich Progress.................................Pre-Production Color Process__ Eastman 7247 Chemtone Narrator............................................... GeoffGibbs Prod. Manager........................ John Morgan Progress.............................. In Production (Shooting August 1978) Production..................................... Alan Bull, Sound Recordist.....................Lloyd Carrick MONDAY MOURNING Synopsis: A film sponsored by the V. F. C. Carolien Vandergaag, Prod Company.............. Montage Film Trust Synopsis: A psychopathic thriller.

Cameraman................... Zbigniew Friedrich and the C. E. A. which explores the Length.................................................45 min Jeremy Robins, Director..........................................Jim Kemp emotional and psychological reasons of why Albert Musca, Screenplay.....................................Phil Witts Progress.................................Pre-Production people have children. The film shows how Synopsis: Story of a girl who is released Geoff Parry Producer..................................................GlynMorris TEMPERAMENT UNSUITED the birth of a baby by the natural method Length.................................................56 min from an institution after doing an armed Prod. Company.......... Bayside Productions Photography......................................... GaryMoore can be a beautifu l e xp e rien ce in hold-up and her subsequent rehabilitation.

Progress...................................... In Release Editor....................................................... IanSmith Director.....................................................KenCameron communication and togetherness for the Synopsis: Documentary of the 1977 Sound Recordist.....................Michael Locke Screenplay............................................... KenCameron whole family.

London-Sydney Marathon Car Rally.

Producers........................... Ross Matthews, Sound Editor......................................... GlynMorris Christine Dunstan Lighting................................................... TomSturm Continuity.......................... Rosalind Pitman Music...................................... Robert Murphy HIGHWAY ONE TAKE TW O THE ISLAND OF NEVAWUZ Photography............................. Russell Boyd For details of the following 16mms films Narrator............................... Steven Costain Editor...................................... David Huggett consult the previous issue: Prod. Company.......... Highway Productions Length................................................ 15 min Prod Company.........Fable Film Productions Dist. Company................................ As above Color Process............................. Ektachrome Prod. Manager................. Christine Dunstan Screenplay..............................Paul Williams Prod. Asst..............................................SusanWilde After the Break Director........................................ Steve Otton Producer................................. Paul Williams Progress................................... In Release Albrecht for You Wardrobe............................ Dorothy Duncan Screenplay................................ Steve Otton, Cast: Alex Sanderman, Toni Sanderman.

Animation............................... Gus McLaren, Balance plus cast members Paul Williams S ynopsis: A model/classica! musician Sound Recordist.............. Lawrie Fitzgerald Mixer............................... Julian Ellingworth The Car Strippers Producer...................................... Steve Otton meets an accident-prone, hedonistic Asst Animation................. Margaret Geddes Asst. Directors.................... Ross Matthews, The Confessions of Ronald Biggs Exec. Producer............................ David Eifick Camera..................................... Terry Russell window cleaner.

First Things First Andrew Jacob, Photography................................Steve Otton, Sound Recording..................... John Phillips Full Cycle David Wasson Steve Mason, MUD, SWEAT AND GEARS Budget............................................. $35,500 Camera Assts............................................Jan Kenny, Golden Nature Mike Molloy, Length.................................................46 min Prod Company........................ Nomad Films Andrew Jacomis Hawaiian Safari Alby Falzon Color Process.................................Eastman International Jacka V.C. Water Photography.......... Martin Tullamins, Progress................................. In Production Dist Company.......... D. L. Taffner Australia Gaffer.................................Brian Bansgrove Continuity.......................... Therese O’Leary Immodest Wife Bill Eichholz, Voices: Brian Hannan, Carole-Ann Aylett, Script................................... Robert Higson Asst.

Editor..........................Jeanine Chialvo The King of the Two Day Wonder Mike Simmons, Ross Williams, Hardy Stowe.

Producer............................ Douglas Stanley Still Photography................Kerry Beresford, Peter Crawford Life Class Synopsis: An animated children’s film. Photography............................Alex McPhee, Sandi Boyd Editors........................................ Bruce Ezard, The Newman Shame Corporation boss J.B. Trumphorn discovers David Olney Make-up..............................Dorothy Duncan No Fear — I Quote Raymond Lea Animation oil on the lost medieval island of Nevawuz. Editor................................ Guye Henderson Titles........................................................ FranBurke Not Just the Object Prod. Assistance.................................... GeoffSmale, His introduction of the benefits of progress Sound Recordists...................................... IanRyan, Budget............................................. $35,000 100,000 Lights Albegee Films lead to confrontation with the local Ian Wilson Length.................................................58 min Overseas Lamb Marketing Soundtrack Music.............. Richard Clapton residents.

Sound Mixing...................... David Harrison Color Process.................................Eastman Point Omega Sound Recordist........................ Hugh Cann Video Post Production.......Armstrong Audio Progress...................................... In Release Mixer...................................................... JohnMarsh Port of Fremantle — Western Australia Video Release Date............................... May 1978 IT ISN ’T EASY Special Effects.......... Larry Wyner Opticals The Swagman Length.................................................25 min Cast: Steve J. Spears, Robyn Nevin, Ken The Scalp Merchant Animated Cartoon by..............................TonyGooley Prod. Company............................RMT Films Color Process............................. Ektachrome The Thin Edge Titles..................... Raymond Lea Animation Director................................... RodWayman Release Date.................................June 1978 Goodlet, Deborah Kennedy, Peter Carroll, Thumpalong Budget........................................ $83,545.73 Screenplay.............................. RodWayman Synopsis: A profile of the new world Max Phipps, Don Reid, Jude Kuring, Paul Mason, Jenny McNae, Phil Ross, Jacqueline Under the Stream (including first version) Producer..........................................Joe Ford motorbike stunt champion, 17 year old Ultra Sound Color Process........................ Eastman7247 Assoc. Producer..................... Rod Wayman Australian Dale Buggins. The film shows his Kott, Tony Sheldon, Victoria Nicholls, Kay Self, Basia Bonkowski.

Progress........................ Double head stage Volita (released as Third Person Plural) Photography............................ RodWayman thrills and spills and includes the longest Synopsis: The story of a radical student Editor......................................

RodWayman motorbike jump in history over 25 cars.

Welcome Aboard Release Date.......................... January 1979 teacher's abrasive encounters with the Woman Seen Cast: Peter Hock, Phillip Motteroz Surfing Prod. Assts......................... Lucy Middleton, dismal realities of a NSW secondary school.

Vandalism Rob King, Cast: Tom Carrol, Nick Carrol, Larry Blair, Marie Lock Shane Horan, Steve Butterworth, Wayne Williams, Rodney Dalberg, Shaun Tompson, Sound Recordist....................... John D'Arcy Sound Re-recording................ John Phillips many local surfers.

Length.................................................32 min Synopsis: A surfing-road documentary

Cinema Papers, August/September — 53

STATE OF THE AR T CMS MICROPHONES FROM A KG AKG CMS-microphones are designed to meet the highest standards set by music and sound film studios, broadcasting and T.V. stations, in short, by all institutions demanding high quality sound reproduction.

This type of studio microphone is characterized by a flat, wide range frequency response, highly frequency independent directional characteristics and " high sensitivity.

The excellent acoustical properties, high temperature stability, and ageing resistance of CMS-microphones have to be attributed to a high degree of mechanical precision. The ever increasing demand for top quality sound reproduction has ideally been complied with by a unique modular system.

Any desired combination of a variety of individual components and accessories will permit the proper choice of directional pattern as well as individual adaptation to any recording situation. Universal power supply technique adds to the simple operation of this versatile modular system.

Western Australia

Tasmania

71 0888

34 5266

PRODUCTION SURVEY Asst Directors............................Russ Webb, Peter Dunn A U S T R A L IA N F IL M Senior Cameraman..................... Dick Bond F IL M A U S T R A L IA Casting................................... Jennifer Allen C O M M IS S IO N Prop Buyer........................ John Messenger Make-up................................. Josef Pavelka Special Effects.....................Jack Armytage, D IS C O V E R Y 3 Brian Olesen Prod Company................... Perth Institute of THE AUSTRALIAN EYE SERIES PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Construction................... Stan Woolveridge Film and Television Staging Assts........................Jim Channell, 1. Fire’s On by Arthur Streeton BRANCH Producers............................. Owen Paterson.

Tim Higgins, 2. On the W allaby Track by Fred Projects approved from the March 1978 Cynthia Baker Alex Griffiths McCubbin AFC meeting: Exec Producer.............., . . Judith Prindiville Length.......................................... 6 x 3 0 min 3. The Ferry by Emanuel Phillips Fox Length........................................... 13x7 min SCRIPT DEVELOPM ENT/PRERelease Date............................... Early 1979 4. Rhythmic Composition in Yellow Green Gauge................................................. 16mm Cast: Rodney Bell, Peter Gwynne, Melissa Minor by Roy De Maistre PRODUCTION APPROVALS Color Process.................Ektachrome Jaffer, Marianne Howard, Noel Brophy, 5. Portrait of Dame Mary Gilmore by T e le m a rk P ro d u ctio n s, Z e r o k $ 4 0 0 0 Progress.................................................... InProduction Roberta Grant, Noel Trevarthan, Mary (further a'proval) William Dobell Synopsis: A series of 13 children's Mackay, Ray Marshall, Ian Dyson, Greg Prod Companies..................... Film Australia, PRODUCTION APPROVALS television programs for inclusion in Radford. .........

Art Gallery of NSW Legend Films, Dreamtime ( 1 0 x 1 0 min children’s magazine style programs.

Synopsis: A family series based on the Dist Company........................... Film Australia television series) $20,929 Discovery 3 illustrates unusual subjects to book of the same name by Patricia Director............................................David Muir Projects approved from the AFC meeting on young viewers and provides young and/or Wrightson.

Scripts..............................................David Muir 18 April 1978: comparitively inexperienced crews with an Producer.................................. Malcolm Otton opportunity to improve their skills and try SCRIPT DEVELOPM ENT/PREPhotography.................................. David Muir STOPW ATCH out novel approaches to their chosen Editor................................................Ian Walker PRODUCTION APPROVALS Prod Company................... Perth Institute of subjects.

Prod Manager.............................Ron Hannam Graham Clifford, One Two Three Up Film and Television Music Director......................................... JamesMcCarthy (formerly “The Airline Nobody Wanted”) Directors.................................................... PatMaher, Sound RecordisL........... Douglas McMurdo $30 0 0 (additional funds) F A L C O N IS L A N D Steve Jodrell, Brian Beaton, Mixer................................................George Hart J u d e K u rin g , N elly K e lly and the Al Kemp, Ivor Bowen, Asst Director.................................................

Roy Bissell Passlonfruit Saloon $1500 Writers.....................................................JoanAmbrose, John Beaton, Glenda Hambly, Asst Editor................................................. LynneWilliams Dinah Van Dugteren, The Min Min $50 0 0 Ron Bunney Keith Saggers, Owen Paterson Narrator..............................

Stephen O’Rourke, Kowan Films, The Coca Cola Kid $10,400 Script Editor........................................... MoyaWood Producer............................ Judith Prindiville Children’s Film Corporation, Fatty Fin Cecily Poulson Budget (to date)................... $8350 (STW9), Exec Producer........................... PaulBarron Length..............................................

5 x 1 0 m in $21,500 $1950(PIFT) Len9th........................................... 10x8 min Gauge...................................................... 16mm Veronica Sweeney, Shannonbrook 3 $7 5 0 Prod Company................... Perth Institute of Gauge................................................. 16mm Color Process...................................... Eastman Film and Television PRODUCTION APPROVALS Color Process................................... Eastman Release Date.........................September 1978 Producer............................ Judith Prindiville P is c e s P ro d u c tio n s , T im $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 Progress..................................................... InRelease Synopsis: Each film makes an intensive (investment) Exec Producer............................ PaulBarron S yn o p sis: A series of 13 c h ild re n ’s study of one important painting, examining Length........................................... 5x30 min Barry Williams Pty. Ltd., Anyone for Tennis te le v is io n program s fo r in c lu s io n in its style, technique and place in Australian $11,700 (investment) Gauge................................................. 16mm c h ild re n ’s m agazine s ty le program s. art history, and looking at the studies, Color Process................................... Eastman Discovery 3 illustrates unusual subjects to sketches and documents relating to its MARKETING APPROVALS Progress............................... Pre-Production young viewers and provides young and/or creation.

Australian International Film Corporation, Synopsis: A half-hour children's television comparitively inexperienced crews with an Patrick $21,368 (Cannes loan) drama series about three children and their opportunity to improve their skills and try H a n n ay/W illiam s Productions, $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 community on Falcon Island, which is M ULTI-CULTURAL SOCIETY out novel approaches to their chosen distribution loan. threatened by sand-mining and is the subjects.

Prod Company..............................................FilmAustralia C la r e b e a c h F ilm s , S u m m e r f ie ld — reported site of an old Dutch shipwreck.

Dist Company............................................ FilmAustralia distribution advances $3270.75 (interest

T E L E V IS IO N S E R IE S

Directors.........................................................

Viotory’* '' film

Vf Film

is our harv'e.

L.Blagg, free); $10,484.19 (at 8 ’/2% interest)

D. Kingsland, Hannay/W illiam s Productions, Solo — G O LDEN SOAK P. Noyce, marketing loan $61 15 (at 8 '/2% interest) Prod. Companies................ ABC-TV Drama, M. Rubetzski, For details of the following TV series and Storm Productions, In Search of Anna — Portman Prod. Ltd (London) films consult the previous issue: D. Roberts marketing loan $ 11,000 (at 8 '/2% interest) Dist. Companies............................ As above Producer...................................................... JanSharp John McCallum Productions, Bailey’s Bird Director...................................... HenriSafran Exec Producer.............................T. Manefield Against the Wind — loans $15,000 (at 8 '/2% interest); $50,000 Scriptwriter.......................... Peter Yeldham Asst Producer...................................... R. Gow Bailey’s Bird (at 1 2 % interest) Producers.........................Ray Alehin (ABC), Photography..................................................... T.Wilson Chopper Squad Steve Jodrell, T h e B u c k ’s P a rty — James Gatward (PPL) Editors............................................... C.Waddy, Loss of Innocence distribution advance $120 0 Exec. Producers... Geoffrey Daniels (ABC), I. Barrie, Rainbow Smart St Films, 27A — advance for a new James Gatward (PPL) T, Ellis, print $31 00 Assoc. Producer................... Dickie Bamber R. McGregor, Artis Film Productions, The Last Tasmanian Music...........................................Peter Jones J. Scott — marketing loan, maximum of $ 20,000 (at Photography...........................................PeterHendry Sound Recordist......................... M. Hensser 8 '/ 2 % interest) Editors.....................Richard Francis-Bruce, A V E C F IL M U N IT Mixer........................................................G. Hart Projects approved from the AFC meeting of NeilThumpston Length............................................20 x 1 0 min 12 June 1978: Prod. Manager................. Michael Baynham Gauge................................................... 16mm Unit-Location Manager............................. ValWindon SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT/PREColor Process.................................... Eastman Art Director.......................... Laurie Johnson PRODUCTION APPROVALS Progress........................................... First ten of BUILD AND DESTROY - THE Prod. Secretaries................ Anne Ferguson, Margit Schneider, Some Fell Among the 20 mixed Wendy Borchers POWER OF WAVES Thoms $25 00 Synopsis: Twenty short films of 8 -1 0 Wardrobe................................... Elsie Evans Prod Company..................... AVEC Film Unit Darrel Lass, Chooks $50 00 minutes in length, designed as discussion Sound Recordist...................................... BobPeck Perkins Film Productions P/L, Burke $60 00 Dist Company.......................... Audio Visual starters for television and community use to Asst. Directors........................................ RayBrown, Patricia Payne, For the Term of His Natural Education Centre stimulate social awareness that Australia is Peter Wilson Screenplay............

Life (television) $7454 G.MareeTeychenne and should be a multi-cultural society.

Camera Operator............ Danny Batterham Exec Producer.................Ross R. Campbell PRODUCTION APPROVALS Focus Puller................................ JeffMalouf Curriculum and SAFC, Blue Fin $120,000 (loan) Boom Operator.......................... Mike Breen Research Advisor.................... Barrie Jones PATCH OF GREEN FG Film Productions,Snap-Shot $ 1 3 4 , 0 0 0 Clapper/Loader.................................... BarrieHeggie Length.................................................20 min Prod Company............................

Film Australia (investment) Gaffer.....................................Jack Kendrick Color Process...................................Eastman Director.............................................................SuDoring PIFT, Falcon Island (5 episode television Continuity.............................. Carolyn Gould Progress...........................................Scripting Screenplay................................................... SuDoring series) $40,000 (investment) Co-ordinator............................................. JoyTrinder Synopsis: This documentary deals with Producer..........................................Don Murray Reg Grundy Productions, The Captives Set Dresser.......................................... RobertHutchinson erosional and depositional landforms Assoc Producer.......................... RonHannam $14 1,85 2 (investment) Key Grip............................... Brett McDowell resulting from wave action — how waves Photography.........................Ross King A.C.S. Henry Roberts Films, Band on the Run Props Buyers........................................PaddyMacDonald, chisel a rocky coastline into stacks, arches, Editor.............................................Nick Torrens $35 ,000 (investment) Bill Booth caves and high, vertical cliffs, and how they Sound RecordisL.........................

Chris Scott Standby Props............................... DonPage build sand dunes, spits and bars.

Camera Assts.............................. Paul Murphy, Asst Designer........................................... ConRudder CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT Tony Gailey Make-up..............................Christine Ehlert, BRANCH Length..................................................... 20 min TOTAL COMMITMENT BozenaZurek Projects approved by the AFC meeting on Gauge................................................... 35mm MARGARET BARR Special Effects...................... Jack Armytage 18 April 1978: Construction Manager... Stan Woolveridge Prod Company................. A.V.E.C. Film Unit Color Process.................................... Eastman EXPERIMENTAL FILM FUND Post Production............................. HarryHall Dist Company.......................... AudioVisual Release Date.......................September 1978 Alex Morgan (NSW), Robin Campbell — Length........................................... 6 x 5 3 min Education Centre S y n o p sis: The film takes a look at Centennial Park — its history, its wildlife and Old Fella Now $ 50 40 Color Process................................. Eastman Director............................................ Ross R.Campbell the importance of the parklands to it, and the Jeune Pritchard/Luce Pellissier (NSW), Progress............................. Post Production Producer........................................... Ross R.Campbell Queensland Dossier $ 5 2 6 0 C ast: Ray Barrett, Christiane Kruger, Music............................................. Carl Orff, people who visit the park for recreation and Victoria Roberts (NSW), Cycles $ 92 0 E liz a b e th A le x a n d e r, H e in z Richard Zatorski leisure. Centennial Park is truly a PATCH OF GREEN in the middle of the suburban areas Jan Chapman (NSW), Showtime $6 5 0 (for Schimmelpfennig, Ruth Cracknell, Gunther Photography...................................Ivan Gaal of Sydney. additional editing) Editor................................................... PeterDodds Ungeheuer.

Sandy Richardson (NSW), Mill of Hooks Synopsis: Adaptation of the Hammond Prod Manager.........................RobMcCubbin $ 82 0 (for additional editing) Innes novel. A mining man, Alec Hamilton, Prod Co-ordinator..................................RossLukeis RAILWAYS OF AUSTRALIA Lesley Tucker (NSW), to complete Movie comes to Australia to escape fraud charges Prod Secretary..............Gabriella Batchelor Prod Companies..................... Film Australia/ Queen $1772 arising from his work in Cornwall and starts Sound Recordist................. David Hughes Dept of Transport Chris Fitchett (Vic), Softly Fell the Rain a new life in the mining world of Western Mixer................................... David Harrison Director.........................................................GregReading $6500 Sound Editor.......................... David Hughes Australia.

Screenplay..................................................Greg Reading John Laurie (Vic), Life Class $6229 Camera A sst................. Tom Psomotragos Producer........................................................ DonMurray Elizabeth O’Neill (Vic), Bake off ’78 $2506 Continuity........................ Rosalind Gillespie TH E NARGUN A ND TH E STARS Don Meloche (WA), The Secret Research Still Photography.................... AbramoConti Assoc Producer......................................... RonHannam Survey Result $1630 Prod Company................................. ABC-TV Artistic Advisor.................................Lois Ellis Photography..................... Ross King A. C. S. Editor................................................................ IanWalker Director.....................................John Walker Peter Gough (Vic), A Suburban Reserve Narrator.................................................. PeterCarroll Unit Manager..............................................

Roy Bissell $12 00 Producer............................................... LynnBayonas Length.........................................................40 min Exec Technical Producer............ Alan King Color Process...................................Eastman Sound Recordist............... Rodney Simmons Andrew Jones (Vic), to recut The Last Camera Asst...................................Tony Gailey Technical Producer Bullet $450 Progress........................................Completed — Studio................................. Ted Reynolds Cast: Members of the Margaret Barr Dance Length..................................................... 25 min Craig Lahiff (SA), to complete Labyrinth Gauge..................................................

35mm $29 9 6 Technical Producer Drama Group.

— OB.............................. Michael Fitzpatrick Synopsis: Margaret Barr teaches drama Color Process.................................... Eastman Paul Reynolds (Vic), to complete Saturday Play $1554 Lighting — Studio/OB.......... Samuel Chung and movement in Sydney. She works Release Date......................... September 1978 Videotape Editor.................. John Cameron without subsidy or interference, developing Synopsis: The railways of Australia have SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT FUND Prod Manager...................................... CathieGarland a major work each season. The training of changed over the years. The film takes a Gwenda McDevitt (Vic), Other People’s Designer............................ Geoffrey Wedlock her company is observed in detail. Excerpts look at the modern railway systems and Rainbows $2000 methods around Australia — from the Design Asst.............................................JudyAtherton from her dance-drama "Judith Wright — Max Richards (NSW), Jesus Australia $60 0 Normanton to Croydon train in North Producer’s Asst......................... Liz Steptoe Australian Poet” are incorporated. ' Queensland, to the ore trains in Western Music and Effects................Terry Saunders Australia.

Wardrobe........................ Maggie Gategood Vision Mixer............................ Bruce Wilson Concluded on P.81

Cinema Papers, August/September — 55

THIRD PERSON PLURAL BRYAN BROWN / MARGARET CAMERON / GEORGE SHEVTSOV / LINDEN WILKINSON IN A FILM BY JAMES RICKETSON OZONE CINEMA

CINEMATOGRAPHY - TOM COWAN

PADDINGTON TOWN HALL CENTRE SYDNEY

(02) 31 -9025

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 adaptable to portable dressing room or make-up vans) 1 tonne Hi-Ace vans for that extra equipment, or 12 seater buses, air-conditioned cars and station wagons for all your personel transport problems; 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 are all only a phone call away. On your next budget, don't leave out Eastbern Rentals, when just a phone call will get you exact costs for all your rental requirements.

Ring Darryl Howard right now on (03) 877 5022 for immediate and obligation free quotes for your parti­ cular requirements.

(03)877303 (03)8775022

TRUCK RENTAL' 279 Whitehorse Road, Nunawading. Vic. 3131. a.h. (03) 720 1161. ! Please supply me w ith literature regarding the rental of yo u r fle et of t /

Landcruisers, commercial vehicles and air-conditioned cars and Station Wagons.

Nam e.

Com pany.

Address.

Post Code

NEWSFRONT Keith Connolly Phillip N oyce’s Newsfront, which covers the years 1948-56, is the most overtly political Australian feature so far.

It judiciously parades an identifiable v iew p o in t on id eolog ica l m atters, something which has been taboo for the com m ercial cinem a (on ly M ichael Thornhill’s Between Wars previously venturing into such mined terrain).

Newsfront is by no means all politics and its subject matter is less than apoca­ lyptic. But that it has been tackled at all — and the felicity with which this has been achieved — is cause for rejoicing.

Though set in the past, the overall tone is a far cry from nostalgia. Audiences certainly will relish the memorabilia, and Greater Union and 20th Century-Fox, owners of the merged and now defunct Cinesound-M ovietone, have provided most of the basic footage for the story of two competing newsreels (called Cinetone and Newsco).

Clips o f sport, stage and radio personalities abound, along with shots of the Redex Trial, bushfires and floods, the rabbit menace and assorted trivia. More significant events covered — and less resolute filmmakers might have been tempted to sidestep them — include the 1949 coal strike, the defeat of the Chifley Labor Government and the election of the Liberal-CP coalition, followed by the foiling of M enzies’ bid to ban the Communist Party (his Dissolution Bill was overturned by the High Court and rejected in a subsequent referendum).

Noyce and co-scriptwriter Bob Ellis relate the personal, emotional problems of the principal characters to the ideological and social conflicts of the time. In depicting the developing McCarthyite climate surrounding the Dissolution Bill and referendum campaigns, the film passes from newsreel footage to dramatic confrontations involving the newsreel people themselves.

A significant clash occurs at Cinetone between director Geoff (Bryan Brown), who describes himself as “ an ageing radical” , and narrator Ken (John Dease).

Ken objects to anti-government inferences in a report of the campaign against the Bill, although he admits to sharing some o f the sentiments of its opponents. But, he confesses, a man of 62 with a weak heart is in no position to incur official displeasure.

Geoff, after arguing that the phrase at issue is “ fair comment” , gives in with the wry remark: “ Gutless wonders of the world unite.” The episode is a deft, nutshell evocation of the intimidation that pervaded Australia’s own “ scoundrel time” .

There follows another, more deeply personal crisis brought to a head by the referendum. In a scene central to the film ’s stan ce, the major character, Cinetone chief cameraman Len Maguire (Bill Hunter), balks at being lined up by his parish priest to canvass for a “ Yes” vote and is fatuously labelled a “ fellow traveller” .

The defeat of the referendum serves to fuse Len’s problems — the connection between his increasing estrangement from his wife Fay (Angela Punch) and the

Newsreel cameraman, Len Maguire (Bill Hunter), and his assistant, Chris Hewitt (Chris Haywood). Newsfront. church, conveyed in a poignant scene in the couple’s suburban kitchen. Her comment on the referendum — “ I hope y o u ’re s a t is f ie d ! ” — is te llin g ly ambiguous.

On quite another plane, Newsfront puts the Menzies legend in perspective. A lot of younger Australians who only knew Menzies as the Great White Godfather of recent funeral panegyric may be taken aback by the film’s reminder that he was once held in considerably less than awe.

Noyce and Ellis wittily convey the widespread feeling of resentment and reserve surrounding Menzies, even after his return to the Treasury benches.

Following the Liberal-CP victory, a Cinetone executive fulminates somewhat anachronistical^ (he sounds a bit like Malcolm Fraser) on Labor’s “ traitorously inept” Government.

Apart from the ongoing politics, the factor that most clearly lifts the film beyond nostalgia is its theme of persistent change, and the concomitant plus ca change, plus c ’est la meme chose. This is inferred throughout, but enunciated firmly in the last reel. Len, repository of the sturdy Australian verities, spurns the Yankee dollar and, symbolically clutching a can of film, marches sturdily toward an uncertain future. His erstwhile girlfriend

Amy (Wendy Hughes) remarks: “ He’s just old-fashioned.” This denoument is preceded by a brief chronicle of the collapse o f the theatrical newsreel brought about by the advent of television.

The film makes the wry dialectical point that, in an era of burgeoning postwar prosperity, with many people achieving, expanding and enriching them selves, others are declining, withdrawing, going broke. Noyce balances this with thoughtful use of the period newsreel footage. And, despite their undoubted representative significance, the principal characters are convincing dramatically, in large part due to som e sensitive underplaying and thoughtfully-adventurous casting.

Bill Hunter’s Len is a fairly typical Australian of Irish-Catholic, working-class origin: mid-thirties, war-weathered, Labor voting (he reveres the memory of Curtin), laconically loyal to the company that gave him a niche in life. He is distressed by the defection o f brother Frank (Gerard Kennedy) to American-owned Newsco and sceptical o f his later m ove to Hollywood.

When Frank returns with a phony accent and tempting (and shady) propo­ sitions, Len’s ultimate answer is a gruffly euphemistic: “ Bite your bum.” Not the year’s most sparkling line of dialogue, but

it has a nice verismo ring.

Other figures serving didactic as well as dramatic purposes are Amy, the career girl battling a sexist tide; Fay, using religion to reject her husband; the Cinetone chief A.G. Marwood (Don Crosby — the part is modelled on Ken Hall), who ruefully recalls that he once made four features a year, but doubts that such times will ever return.

Questions applicable to all Australian media, ranging from professional ethics to collective responsibility, also receive an airing. It begins on a simple note, with Len blasting Charlie for blocking his line of vision. “ Well, you’re the enem y,” says Charlie. Later, straitened circumstances make colleagues of these enemies. Moral accountability comes under scrutiny as Len sets up his camera at a tricky, potholed bend during the Redex Trial and is chided by a driver who comes to grief (Bruce Spence) for not warning him of the danger. A shamefaced Len apologizes.

On a higher, and more contentious level, are some ferocious examples of loaded, pro-Establishment reports of strikes, politics and the Cold War. One is strongly reminded of those dissembling 1930s newsreels pilloried by the British d o c u m e n ta r y B e fo r e H in d s ig h t .

Newsfront points out that the slanted

Cinema Papers, August/September — 57

NEWSFRONT

commentaries seldom represent the views of the people producing them.

While integration of newsreel footage and new material achieves wonders of verisimilitude, it also must have presented teasin g problem s. The c h ie f o n e, ob viou sly, was w hether the purely dramatized sections should be in black and white, to match the newsreels, or in the color that commercial audiences now expect as a matter of course.

The filmmakers have both — shooting the continuous sequences in monochrome and reverting to color at the end of the episode. Even so, the first transition is as startling as the moment when Dorothy steps from her tornado-tossed home into the wonderful world of Oz. However, Vincent Monton’s measured photographic style accommodates this readily enough and editor John Scott wraps it up as unobtrusively as possible.

From the story’s beginning, when Len and his Newsco opposite number Charlie (John Ewart) film the arrival of a packed migrant ship, the film’s technical felicity is evident — and it is maintained and extended. The combination of archival footage and new film to depict the 1954 N ew South W ales floods is quite staggering. The scenes in which ill-fated camera assistant Chris Hewitt (Chris Haywood) rows through the flooded streets of Maitland surpasses anything I have seen in an Australian film, and that includes the storm and underwater marvels of The Last Wave.

It is such a pleasure to find an Australian feature coolly handling hot issues that one hesitates to appear churlish about any of it. But I must churl a little because Newsfront taps, rather than plumbs, key issues (such as McCarthyism) and ignores others altogether (Korea). Of course, that’s precisely what the newsreels did all the time (and today’s television n e w s, w ith im m ea su ra b ly grea ter resources,,is just as selective).

Fears about o ff-p u ttin g p olitical sermonizing were no doubt there from the moment this project was broached and probably account for a lack of depth at points where it is most needed. But Noyce w ou ld n ’t have had to im itate the Angelopolous of The Travelling Players to elucidate the Dissolution Bill and referendum campaigns, which had a lot more to do with freedom than with communism.

In this connection, too, Len’s attitudes are presented a mite ingenuously. He represents a large group of Australians who were deeply shaken by these issues and events. Their doubts and divisions led directly to the ALP split of 1955 — perhaps the most influential event in our history since World War 2. (That, I realize, is subject matter for a whole new film, if we are ever game to make it.)

One last reservation: for such a blandly linear, episodic narrative, the story devices are occasionally clumsy. For instance, while the sequence leading to Chris’ death is a visual tour de force, the plot motive behind it is far less acceptable (he rows off into the flood, without consulting anyone, on a mercy mission prompted by a chance phone call).

If this seems like nit-picking, put it down to an honest attempt to get back on one’s feet after an initial reaction of sheer exu ltation . N ew sfron t is a m ighty achievement. On its puny budget of $505,000, it does more to establish the Australian ethos on film than any number o f braying caricatures or plodding pastorales.

NEWSFRONT: Directed by: Phillip Noyce.

Producer: David Elfick. Associate Producer: Richard Brennan. Screenplay: Phillip Noyce,

58 — Cinema Papers, August/September

THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH

IHmrmìmmmhì WÊÈÊÈÊÊKKÊÊ.

WSÊÊSHÊÊÊKÊ «SPÜ É ****

Ray Barrett as Capt. Farrell and Tommy Lewis as Jimmie Blacksmith. Fred Schepisi’s The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. based on a concept of David Elfick. Additional scenes and dialogue: Bob Ellis. Director of Photography: Vincent Monton. Editor: John Scott. Music: William Motzing. Art Director: Larry Eastwood. Sound Recordist: Tim Lloyd.

Cast: Bill Hunter, Gerard Kennedy, Angela Punch, Wendy Hughes, Chris Haywood, John Ewart, Don Crosby, John Dease, John Clayton, Bryan Brown. Production Company: Palm Beach Pictures Pty. Ltd. Distributor: Roadshow.

35mm. 110 min. Australia. 1978.

THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH Brian McFarlane In a film of powerful, suggestive images, those that haunt the mind most tenaciously offer solitary figures dwarfed by a harsh and indifferent landscape. Their effect is not primarily picturesque but thematic, because The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith is essentially the story of a man adrift from both societies the film presents.

There is a muted clutter in most of the interior scenes o f white settlem ent, whether of the missionary’s abstemious d ining-room , the shearing-shed or Farrell’s grubby police station; and there is a crowded human warmth, along with the fear and squalor, in the blacks’ camp.

Against these unalluring images, none of them offering anything firm for Jimmie (Tommy Lewis) to hang on to, is set the vast empty land.

Ian B a k e r ’s c a m era r e sp o n d s m a g n ificen tly to the ch a llen g e o f integrating this grimly beautiful landscape into the film without letting it dwarf the central personal tragedy o f Jimmie Blacksmith as it does his fleeing figure. It is the first Australian film to catch that curiously sullen blue-grey look o f the Australian bush that offers concealment, but not comfort. The sudden arbitrariness

o f great rock heaps that fill the screen with • (Angela Punch) are married, there is the a sense of undefined terror as Jimmie and same sense of a narrow place to suggest Mort (Freddy Reynolds) edge around what adherence to white rules means to them, gives way to the two figures, still Jimmie, however much he aspires to menaced by the physical scene, running success on their terms. along an early-morning ridge lined with In these imagistic patterns the film finds dead trees. a visual equivalent for the spare, evocative Even in the m ore dom esticated prose of Thomas Keneally’s novel. It is landscape between the Newbys’ place and more than just translating from page to the nearest town, it is the desolateness that screen; it is a matter of Fred Schepisi and strikes us as Jimmie brings his pregnant Ian Baker having found a cinematic way of white bride on horseback through the responding to what has excited them in the sprawling wheatfield to the slab hut he has novel. built to receive her. This is followed by a And, mostly, on a visual level the film long shot of the hut, isolated from the rest works very well indeed. The recurring o f the h o m estea d and tou ch in gly images of cutting instruments build an vulnerable in its isolation. Inside, the hut impressive tension that explodes in the looks barely equal to the task of protecting almost balletically conceived violence of its inmates from the threatening emptiness the Newby massacre. There is an element outside. of stylization in the swinging axes which Tommy Lewis’ Jimmie never seems fell the Newby women, but this stylization quite at one with this unyielding landscape doesn’t distance the horror to the point (as Gulpilil does in Walkabout) and it is where we can contemplate it without being part of the film’s meaning that he should appalled. not. The mountain forests, recalling some Schepisi doesn’t offer us a gratuitous o f Judith Wright’s poetry (“ South of my blood-bath, and he doesn’t need to. The days’ circle” and “ Bullocky” ), may insistence on cutting edges — the sharp provide a visual metaphor for cathedral stone used in Jimmie’s tribal initiation, the architecture as the fugitives come upon axe used in cutting off the chicken’s head, what was once sacred ground, but still the deft movement of the shears in the Jimmie never seems organic to the scene.

Tom Roberts shearing scene, kitchen He is no more naturally at home here than knives and butcher’s knives hacking their in the confines of the Rev. Neville’s way through meat, the axe Jimmie has in dining-room. hand when he hears the birth of his child Significantly in this latter scene, when — prepares us for, and provides a context Jimmie has been received back by Rev. of casual brutality for, the film’s pivotal Neville (Jack Thompson) after his absence episode. for tribal initiations, the camera pulls back The scene represents the culmination of to observe Jim m ie framed by the J im m ie’s frustrated rage at w hite doorway, and, within that, flanked by the complacency and injustice, and this sense pastor and his wife (Julie Dawson), while of almost orgastic climax is created in the most of the screen on either side is filled visual style of the scene. Its images are not with a dull green confining wall. White d e c o r a tio n o f a th e m e or e v e n approval has-been bought at the cost of reinforcement of a theme: they are what this op p ressiven ess. A gain, in the the scene means. parsonage where Jimmie and Gilda Not everything in the film’s imagery

SUMMER CITY

THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH

works as satisfactorily as the patterns to which I have alluded. For instance, a tooobvious correspondence is set up between Knoller’s (Arthur Dignam) talk of hanged bodies and the sides of meat suspended in Hyberry’s (Brian A nderson) butcher shop, and the film misses the sharp subtle ironies o f the b ook ’s treatm ent o f Knoller’s morbid interest and Hyberry’s close-lipped respectability. But again and again the eye is caught by the rightness of things: by the vivid domesticity of bottled fruit glimpsed before the Healey murders, or the milk jugs with bobbled covers in the convent or the irresistibly soft whiteness of the convent bed; by the innocence of the children framed by the school verandah and bell; by the subdued glow of the wheat-bagging scene that precedes the Newby killings. These all mean something in the context in which they appear.

It is important to stress the visual achievement of the film (and this is the achievem ent of director as much as cameraman) because this is its major strength. The screenplay (by Schepisi himself) is necessarily picaresque, and it has a powerful and affecting story to tell.

But it does not quite trust its narrative.

The irony is built into its over-all structure: the white society in which half­ caste Jimmie Blacksmith so urgently wants acceptance is seen to be corrupt, ignorant, and brutal, and his vengeance grows from his awareness that, whatever he does, he is likely to be cheated and betrayed.

It is a true story and a terrible one, and it is one that needs telling with all the resources of art.

However, the screenplay lets it down at certain crucial points, particularly in the latter half where, with dull obviousness, it uses the screen as a platform. Of course black Australians have been grossly exploited by whites, but the film makes this point better in the visually alert scene in the black camp, corrupted by white liquor and lusts, than in having Jimmie intone to McCready (Peter Carroll): “ You took away a way of life.” It is the falsestsounding line in the film, partly because Tommy Lewis, good as he is as Jimmie, can’t suggest the mature assessment of experience that would make the line resonant, and partly because it is crudely explicit about what the film does better through its visual patterning. Again, Jimmie’s declaration of war, shouted into the vast ancient landscape, and picking up an echo from an earlier scene, is a rhetorical flourish at odds with our understanding of Jimmie.

The dialogue is often unsubtle: for example, in the self-conscious cutting from young Newby’s lamenting after the murder, “ All dad did for ’em ” , to Mrs N eville’s, “ Everything we did for them was just a waste o f tim e” , we are hammered with the idea of the white expectation of repayment for any show of decency to blacks.

This notion is extended by Jimmie saying later: “ They want you to do wrong.

They expect you to bugger up. They’re disappointed if you don’t.”

There is no doubt who the villains are in this story, and the point doesn’t need this kind of underlining. Nor does the film need the underlining of big moments which Bruce Smeaton’s musical scoring provides. At first, the music is promisingly harsh and dirge-like but it is melodram­ atically intrusive in driving home Jimmie’s horror at the debasement and death of Harry Edwards (Jack Charles), and as a background to the futile efforts to restore the tribal ground.

This is not really an actor’s film.

Schepisi has chosen, for the most part wisely, to direct in broad, swooping m ovem ents, to set up his meaning

through skilfully orchestrated contrasts of scene, rather than through the detail of performances.

There are, nevertheless, rewards in the acting, within the limited demands made on most of the actors. Jimmie is a role a little like that of Laura in The Getting of Wisdom: an actor who looks young enough to play it is apt not to have a full understanding of it. However, Tommy Lewis, except when let down by the script, keeps a firm hold on our sympathies, and Freddy Reynolds very touchingly catches the laughter — and the death of laughter — in Jimmie’s half-brother Mort.

Most of the rest of the long cast have brief sketches which they fill in with their own professionalism, but it is worth noting particularly the raw, trusting, foolish look o f Angela Punch’s Gilda and Ray Barrett’s venal Farrell, whose casual brutality Jimmie quickly picks up.

Perhaps The C hant of J im m ie Blacksm ith suffers from overstating its theme, but at least it has a major theme.

The film has taken a fine novel and not sacrificed its power and purpose in making a new thing of it in another medium. It is s o m e tim e s cru d e and s o m e tim e s simplistic, but it is also absorbing and passionate in a way that some of our more delicately conceived entertainments are not.

is directed in a scrappy, disjointed fashion and the camera bumps in and out of the action in a style better suited to gritty documentary or home movie.

Most of the dialogue is spoken off camera, or viewed from a distance. A particularly frustrating example is when Caroline, desperately searching for Boo, appeals to Sandy for help, but he can only offer text book morals. A potentially moving scene, it is thwarted by being viewed in a series of long shots amid windswept sand dunes. When the camera does move more closely, the actors seem hampered by the simple-minded script, and their lines rush out quickly to make way for the action.

None of the performances are weak, they are just rarely given a chance to be strong. We are only allowed a very limited understanding of Boo and Sandy; just Abigail (as a downtrodden pub wife) and Mel Gibson (Scollop) emerge as real people.

It would have been better if the characters o f the four guys were established at the beginning, instead of the murky montage of old Bandstand clips which only emphasised the lack of period setting throughout the rest o f the film.

Overall, the treatment o f this slice of typically Aussie life is crude, frantic, jumpy and full of missed opportunities. The surf

club dance sequence, for instance, is beautifully m ounted but lacks any direction — or even good stomping music.

There are, however, mom ents of clarity: the sequence in which Boo seduces Caroline in a water tank and her return home are very sensitively photographed and acted. It is one of the few passages with descriptive flow and continuity.

The film does rattle along very energet­ ically and, at least, it is never slow, boring, or pretentious — it can’t afford to be. It was produced on a budget of about $200,000 of private money, shot on 16 mm and blown up (quite successfully) to 35 mm.

Financial and production problems notwithstanding, it is a pity that all the energy apparent in Summer City could not have been a p p lie d m o re concentratedly to the script, production values and direction.

SUMMER CITY: Directed by. Christopher Fraser. Producer: Phil Avalon. Screenplay: Phil Avalon. Director of Photography: Jerry Marek.

Editor: David Stiven. Music: Phil Butkis. Art Director: Jann Harris. Sound Recordist: Bill Pitt.

Cast: John Jarrat, Phil Avalon, James Elliot, Steve Bisley, Mel Gibson, Debbie Forman, Vicky Hekimian, Peter McGovern, Abigail.

P ro d u c tio n C om pany: A valon F ilm s.

Distributor: Intertropic Film Distributors.

16 mm. 89 min. Australia. 1978.

THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH: Directed by: Fred Schepisi. Producer: Fred Schepisi. Associate Producer: Roy Stevens.

Screenplay: Fred Schepisi. Director of Photography: Ian Baker. Editor: Brian Kavanaugh. Music: Bruce Smeaton. Production Designer: Wendy Dickson. Sound Recordist: Bob Allen. Cast: Tommy Lewis, Freddy Reynolds, Ray Barrett, Jack Thompson, Julie Dawson, Peter Carroll, Robyn Nevin, Don Crosby, Ruth Cracknell, Elizabeth Alexander, Angela Punch. Production Company: Film House Australia Pty Ltd. Distributor: Hoyts.

35mm. 124 min. Australia. 1978.

SUMMER CITY Stephen Marston Summer City is reminiscent of the American “ B” features of the early 1960s in which spoilt young Californians crashed their hot rods, punched each other up, and spent wild weekends which ended in tragedy and moral re-assessment.

It is a low-budget Australian road film, billed as “ a one-way trip back into the ’60s.” But its theme of four young guys . heading up the coast for a good time weekend is still very much a reality in modern Australia. It is, therefore, an ideal subject for social and cultural comment, not to mention exploitation as film enter­ tainment.

The plot is simple: Robbie (Phil Avalon) and Scollop (Mel Gibson) are blond, blue-eyed, happy-go-lucky surfers, while Boo (Steve Bisley) is an aggressive ocker in constant conflict with Sandy (John Jarrat), a rather proper university graduate. They drive off in Robbie’s long, black Chevrolet to a small coastal town where they front up at the local surf club stomp. Boo seduces the landlord’s virgin daughter, Caroline (Debbie Forman); Robbie and Scollop go surfing. They get drunk, argue among themselves and crash the C hew y. They spend the night in the bush and an argument flares between Sandy and Boo. The next morning, with the landlord on Boo’s trail, the “ fun” weekend climaxes in a fatal shoot-out.

What holds this film together is its actio n -p a ck ed p lo t, th e story and characters being portrayed with great energy. Unfortunately, however, the film

A couple of “ bodgies” out on the make for trouble.

Christopher Fraser’s Summer City.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 59

fflfF HiSTZ

fZ\ i

Australian

WEEKEND OF SHADOWS

WEEKEND OF SHADOW S Jack Clancy Weekend of Shadows is a serious attempt to tackle serious themes of a particularly Australian kind. It does so on a $500,000 budget, with some of the cream of Australian filmmaking talent — in terms, at least, of cast and crew. It also has a script that holds, on the face of it, very promising possibilities.

That it not only falls short of these possibilities, but disappoints on almost every level, is unfortunate for the makers and for the total climate of Australian filmmaking.

Peter Yeldham's script, from Hugh Atkinson’s novel The Reckoning, takes off from the incident of a murder in a small NSW country town; the murder is significant less in itself than for its consequences in the lives o f people in the town.

The suspect is an outsider and a loner, a Pole who flees when he realizes that he has already been judged guilty. What follows is a chase by a posse of the townspeople led by the senior police officer, “ Bullets” Caxton (Wyn Roberts).

Equally involved are Caxton’s wife, Helen (Barbara West) and Vi (Melissa Jaffer), the wife of “ Rabbit” (John Waters), one of the posse members. For Mrs Caxton, the incident is a chance for her husband to pull off the coup that will reinstate him in the favor of his superiors, erase the stigma of an earlier incident when he shot two young offenders, and end his rural banishment. For Vi, the town “ bike” whom the simple Rabbit has “ won” in a contest to provide her with a father for her child, it is the chance for Rabbit to win respectability for the three of them. In other words, Vi wants to win her way into the town, Mrs Caxton to win her way out of it.

The two men are just as much opposites: Caxton is bitter, tough and obsessed, while Rabbit is that most dangerous of characters to bring off successfully — the “ holy innocent” , the fool who is wise in his simplicity. One, despite himself, precipitates tragedy, the other is the instrument by which the tragedy occurs.

Between them is a predictable collection of locals: Rabbit’s neighbor Ab (Graham Rouse), one of the boys looking for a bit of fun; the Bosun (Bill Hunter), tough, cynical and capable of being vicious; Bernie (Graeme Blundell), snide, mean and weak; and the local teacher (Keith Lee), doubling as reporter, the feeblevoice of liberal humanism.

T h e th e m a tic p o s s ib ilit ie s are immediately evident, though some of them scream cliche even before they have fully unfolded: the posse as a hunting party (familiar from before and after the The Ox-Bow Incident), the foreigner as outsider and therefore suspect, the simpleton with the gift of moral insight, the ambitious wife as manipulator, the teacher-reporter as the voice of reason drowned by the voice of the mob. In fact, most of these issues emerge, but the trouble with the film is that they come through like so many express trains.

It is not a matter of the audience seeing the film’s thematic concerns, but of being confronted with a tone o f relentless overstatement which has the curious effect of draining the life out of the drama.

It begins with the credits — even with the title which suggests something of the ominous nature of the weekend’s events, and also the melodrama. It is a heavy title and the film carries that heaviness doggedly. (The title is unfortunately

Vi (Melissa JaiTer) tries to convince Rabbit (John Waters) to join the hunt in an attempt to bring respectability to her family. Weekend of Shadows.

The “posse” search for the Polish worker who is suspected of having committed a murder. Tom Jeffrey’s Weekend of Shadows.

accurate in one respect: scenes set at mid­ day show shadows which suggest an early morning or late afternoon shooting time.)

And the title graphics, which provoked laughter at the Australian Film Institutes’ Award screenings, are reminiscent of a Saturday afternoon serial, circa 1948.

Minor points though these are, they are symptomatic. The film never lets the audience read its implications; it always spells them out. For instance, Ab says at least three times that “ we’re only having a bit of fun” when the implications of the hunting party are obvious to the audience.

We have to be told that the Pole “ never m ixed” , was “ never seen in here” (meaning the pub), and that Rabbit, while he’s “just bloody different” , “ never has a drink with the blokes.” Rabbit has to be told by his wife, “ You don’t want to look different” and that if he put his name down, “ you’d be the same as everyone else.” And, of course, there comes a point where Rabbit has to say, “ Everyone always wants me to do the same as them.”

The Pole has a picture of the Polish hero Pilsudski among his belongings, which prompts the junior constable to ask whether he is a communist. There is a flashback to a dance-hall scene where the Pole is beaten up for asking the wife of one of the locals for a dance, while her husband is outside the hall drinking with his mates. “ Keep your dirty hands off my wife, mate,” says the local hero, but Rabbit can see that “ he just wanted to be friendly with people” .

Even one of the film’s less unsubtle points is heavily made. The idea of the men being urged on and manipulated by their wives is heavily reinforced, as in separate scenes where the two husbands are invited to bed by their wives. “ Tomorrow you’ll show them all,” says Mrs Caxton; “ Were they pleased when you put your name in?” asks Vi. Sex is presented as a reward for service, for doing as one is told, and in case we missed the point, the scenes are intercut with each other. Again at the end, when

the effects of these manipulative efforts are disastrous, we are given a shot of Mrs Caxton alone in the house and Vi standing equally alone; the point is laboriously effective.

Perhaps the trouble is with the characters. John Waters tries hard to maintain a kind of saintly vacancy of expression, and it is impossible to count the number of times he is referred to as some kind of idiot. He is, among other epithets, a nong, a galoot, a silly cow, a dumb bastard and a stupid bugger. Yet we are asked to believe in his essential goodness, his understanding that the hunted Pole is not an animal but a man.

Perhaps a Prince Myshkin character does not fit easily into an Australian setting. And Wyn Roberts’ Caxton is so relentlessly surly that it is hard to have any sympathy for him.

Beyond that, and the film’s utter predictability (wouldn’t we know that the Pole is innocent?), there is a lack of any sense of rhythm or movement, a deadly heaviness and an almost total lack of tension, as though in their earnest desire to make thematic points the film’s makers have forgotten that story and drama precede didacticism.

George Bernard Shaw’s com m ent about sugaring the moral pill for his audiences (which, someone remarked, gave the audiences the chance to lick off the sugar and discard the pill), applies here in reverse; we have all moral pill and none of the sugar that should disguise it.

WEEKEND OF SHADOWS: Directed by: Tom Jeffrey. Producers: Tom Jeffrey and Matt Carroll. Associate Producer: Sue Milliken.

Screenplay: Peter Yeldham. Director of Photography: Richard Wallace. Editor: Rod Adamson. Music: Charles Marawood. Art Director: Christopher W ebster. Sound Recordist: Ken Hammond. Cast: John Waters, Melissa Jaffer, Wyn Roberts, Barbara West, Graham Rouse, Graeme Blundell, Bill Hunter, Keith Lee. Production Company: Samson.

Distributor: Roadshow. 35 mm. 94 min.

Australia. 1978.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 61

National Film Theatre presents

JAPAN: H is to ry th ro u g h C in e m a A panoramic view of Japanese history from its very beginnings to the present day.

Films by Japan's greatest directors, including Ichikawa, Mizoguchi, Shindo, Kurosawa, Naruse, Ozu, Oshima; and featuring Kobayashi's 9 1/2 hour epic

The Human Condition, never before seen in Australia.

- r

Exclusive Australian season: Jul-Dec 1978 For details and free programme brochure ring Sydney: 310695 Adelaide: 2231500 Fremantle: 3357597 Melbourne: 7101206 (a.h.)

Brisbane: 366958 (a.h.)

Canberra: 316010 (a.h.) or write to Box 1780 GPO Sydney.

* < :?

A

Diversity is its keynote - new productions in feature, documentary, short and anim ated categories, 5 significant films of the past, experimental and young people's cinema will all be shown Two exciting additions for 1978 are a focus on films from the developing countries and a television section

Mrs. C. Thoridnet â&#x20AC;&#x201D; A rtistic Co-ordinator, Adelaide International Film Festival, South Australia Postal Address: G.P.O. Box 354, Adelaide, S.A. 5001 Telephone: (08) 212 3671 Cables: Adfest

SOLO

SOLO John Langer Solo, the first Australian/New Zealand feature length co-prod u ction , is a deceptively straightforward film. It can be seen as a contemporary love story, which in this era of realistic relationships means no love story at all but a fleeting interlude, is ultimately unsuccessful in coming to terms with the demands connected with personal and emotional intimacy.

Solo contains an unconventional aerial courtship, the obligatory romantic idyll, exotic settings, declarations of love and doubt,, and the regrettable but necessary separation — elem ents which work towards the presentation of an appealing and even entertaining film of this type.

What is most noteworthy, however, is the way in which these elements weave through a series of interlocking motifs and metaphors which examine notions about the past and present, and about self­ isolation and mutual needs.

Paul Robinson (Vincent Gil), an aerial spotter pilot, spends most of his working life in the solitary confines of his cockpit flying over the vast pine forests of New Zealand’s north island. One day, he almost arrests Judy Ballantyne (Lisa Peers), a young hitch-hiker, for illegally lighting a fire. Then, when Judy is stranded on a highway outside a nearby town, Paul’s precocious adolescent son Billy, (Perry Armstrong) invites her to spend the night at their house. The next day, after some reluctance on Judy’s part, they set off with Paul on a trip in his restored Tiger Moth.

It is on this jou rn ey that the relationships begin to alter. An oil leak forces the plane down and they spend time with the Baillieus, an eccentricallycultured old couple struggling to run an organic farm.

Sensing an intimate bond developing between his father and Judy, Billy steals off in the plane and crash-lands, narrowly escaping injury. Judy returns home and begins to question her commitment and intentions in relation to Paul, and, after an em otionally ex p lo siv e confrontation verging on violence, she flees into the night.

Although the details of Paul’s past remain purposely obscure — except for a photograph hinting at a previous marriage — it emerges that he is a man whose expectations and code's of conduct have been shaped by the cultural sensibilities prevalent in the 1950s.

L ove for Paul is pow erful and demanding, a step towards vulnerability and out of self-imposed isolation. It works to fill in an emotional vacuum through a pattern of formal channels — the fateful meeting, the ritual o f courtship, the romantic gesture, the declaration of commitment — and most importantly it is in vested with a certain degree o f permanence.

In contrast, Judy is a young woman clearly linked to some of the major pre­ occupations of the flourishing counter­ culture of the late 1960s. Primarily involved in a search for identity and experience, love for her, if it appears at all, is an intense, spontaneous meeting to be explored and savored on the way to building up a sense of self; it is not to be confused with long-term needs. From this point of view, of course, their relationship is doomed from the start.

During their most intimate encounter on their final night at the Baillieu farmhouse, Judy asks Paul about growing up in the ’50s. This seemingly innocent inquiry very precisely suggests that no matter what emotional bond is created

between these two people, this form of contact will be threatened and inevitably undermined by separate and incongruous needs imposed by present and past generational orientations and values.

The placement of different and often opposing generational traditions side by side is punctuated in several ways throughout the film — Paul’s job requires him to pilot an electronically advanced Cessna plane, but his spare time is devoted to the restoration of an ancient biplane that can only be flown by intuition and guts; Catweasle, a fellow fire spotter and friend, works in a tower containing elaborate and sophisticated directional scanners and heat detectors but uses divining wires to gauge his bearings; the latest rock music pounding from a stereo and tin pan alley tunes wavering unsteadily from a hand-cranked gramophone set the mood for two important dance episodes.

In this sense, Solo is a film as much co n cern ed with d etailin g personal relationships as it is with situating those relationships in some kind of temporal process — the past confronting the: present with the resulting uncertainty and contradictions in behavior.

The gigantic pine forest serves as a telling metaphor. Governed by a logic of technique and consumption it exists as an o b s e s s iv e ly ordered m a n -m a d e environment that has ‘-‘very little to do with trees” or the natural world of the past.

As o fficial guardians, Paul and Catweasle are unwittingly implicated in its artificial dehumanizing presence. In order to distance themselves, two responses are available: to resist the present by reaching into the past for remnants of a more natural order of things; or, to create the conditions necessary for psychological and p e r so n a l s o lit u d e , d e lib e r a te ly c irc u m scrib ed and se lf-c o n ta in e d , whereby “ the whole world can disappear” — to go solo.

One of the major problems facing each character in the film concerns the delicate balance, consciously achieved, between this independent existence and the need for, and commitment to, others.

Some of the most engaging and sensitively drawn sequences are directly related to the effort necessary to manage the interplay between self-containment and a desire for personal contact: Billy’s gin-fortified dance routine as he naively attempts to seduce Judy during her first night’s stay; Paul’s display of tenderness as he persuades Judy to take a ride in his bi­ plane; and Catweasle’s timely explanation about the connection between isolation and personal needs.

What is most convincing about these incidents stem s from the carefully constructed roles scripted for each of the characters. No small part, however, is due to the intimacy the performers bring, as well as to the sensitive way in which relations are revealed by director Tony Williams. It would appear that the quality and depth of performance accomplished here could only be achieved through the close association of all concerned.

A lth o u g h r e m in is c e n t o f th e bespectacled, precocious son in Alice D oesn’t Live Here Anymore, Perry Armstrong’s interpretation of Billy is handled with engaging wit; and Vincent Gil as Paul displays just the right amount of intensity to be convincing as someone caught between the well-tried world of self-reliant isolation and the unfamiliar realm of self-disclosure and emotion.

The use of landscape and space also plays an important part in conveying the solitude that pervades the lives of these people. A delicately assembled biplane, precariously m aking its way over

forbidding expanses o f m ountainous terrain, is a sight from which we can derive a certain amount of visual pleasure and a spectacular evocation of the feeling of isolation.

It must, however, be added that there are sequences in the film which are not co m p letely su c c e ssfu l and detract appreciably from the overall atmosphere generated: the opening scene as Paul maniacally drives to put out Judy’s camp fire comes across like a car chase out of Homicide; the lengthy speech on the “ romantic period” , delivered by Mr B a illie u , b e c o m e s u n n e c e s s a r ily explanatory and reveals a rather naive view of the past; and the therapeutic screaming of Catweasle and Judy seems uncomfortably inappropriate and forced.

Perhaps the most satisfying aspect of Solo is the exploration of what C. Wright Mills has called the intersection of biography and history, the fact that individual circumstances and problems are linked inextricably with larger social ones,

and that the failure of love or commitment must be understood, not so much as a result o f personal inadequacies or idiosyncratic behavior, but as the outcome of structural conditions in which the individual is located.

Mills writes that people “ do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms of h isto rica l ch an ge or in s titu tio n a l contradiction” . In a small way, the film attempts to redress this situation.

SOLO: Directed by: Tony Williams. Producers: David Hannay, Tony Williams. Executive Producers: Bill Sheat, John Sturzaker. Associate Producer: Tony Troke. Screenplay: Tony Williams, Martyn Sanderson. Director of Photography: John Blick. Editor: Tony Williams.

Art Director: Paul Carvel. Location Sound Mixer: Robert Allen. Cast: Vincent Gil, Lisa Peers, Martyn Sanderson, Davina Whitehouse, Maxwell Fernie, Perry Armstrong. Production Company: David Hannay — Tony Williams Productions Pty Ltd. Distributor: Film Scholars Pty Ltd. 35 mm. 95 min. New Zealand. 1978.

Paul (Vincent Gil) teaches his son Billy (Perry Armstrong) to fly the biplane. Tony Williams’ Solo.

Paul Robinson (Vincent Gil) and Judy Ballantyne (Lisa Peers) in Solo, a love story in an era of realistic relationships.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 63

C A L V IN PURPLE * ALVIN RIDES A G A IN * AUSTRALIA AFTER DARK * * A.B.C. OF LOVE & S E X -A u s tra lia n Style * AVENGERS OF THE REEF * * BARRY McKENZIE HOLDS HIS O W N * THE BOX * CADDIE * * DEATH CHEATERS * DEVILâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S PLAYGROUND * ELIZA FRASER * * END PLAY * THE GETTING OF W ISD O M * HIGH ROLLING * * IN N OF THE D A M N E D * THE LOVE EPIDEMIC * * T H E M ONEY MOVERS * NEWSFRONT * PETERSON * * THE PICTURE SHOW M A N * S T O R K * STORM BOY * * SUNDAY TO O FAR AWAY * WEEKEND OF SHADOW S *

AND TO COM * BLUE F I N *

CATHY'S CHILD

*

* THE LAST O F THE KNUCKLEMEN * THE ODD ANGRY SHOT *

*

MAD MAX *

WELCOME STRANGER

Doing it forthe Australian industry

UK NIGHT Tiff PROWLER

â&#x20AC;&#x153; Exploiting the furore surrounding her attempted 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.â&#x20AC;?

D irector............................................................................... JimSharmanTop: Kerry Walker in The Night The Prowler.

Producer..................................................... Anthony Buckley Top Right: Terry Camilleri and Kerry Walker. The Night Screenplay...................................................................... PatrickWhite The Prowler.

Director of Photography.......................... David Sanderson Editor................................................................................... SaraBennett Right: Kerry Walker and Terry Camilleri. The Night The Sound R ecordist................................................................DonConnolly Prowler.

Music........................................................................... CameronAllan Below: Ruth Cracknell and Kerry Walker. The Night The Prowler.

Ruth Cracknell................................................................ DorisBannister Kerry W alker................................................................ FelicityBannister John Frawley.......................................................... HumphreyBannister

Conflict and Control in the Cinema: A Reader in Film and Society Edited by John Tulloch.

The Macmillan Company of Australia.

Geoff Mayer

In the area of film scholarship it is somewhat rare for an Australian text to mark out the contours of a discipline for others to follow. John Tulloch, with the publication of his essays, has brought together many seemingly discrete inquiries into a coherent approach to analysing the relationship between film and society.

Tulloch’s essays, ostensibly arranged as introductions to the various sections, are not just synopses of the readings that follow, but are, in fact, a complex analysis of a number of key aspects of this relationship.

In his opening remarks, Tulloch attacks film critics and theorists who treat film as an autonomous text, and who consider such matters as the context of film within society as irrelevant and insignificant compared to the aesthetic considerations.

He also notes that these same critics will often play “ the simple game of sociology” by offering a superficial explanation correlating an aspect in the film text with a subjectively observed facet of society (“ disaster films reflect a downturn in American confidence,” etc.).

The 59 readings (two of which are by Tulloch), together with the introductory essays, are divided into six sections. The first is concerned with the ‘reflection’ approach which is the most commonly used in relating film to its cultural context.

According to the reflection principle, film is viewed as a reflection o f some known reality. That is, the link between the film and society is considered direct and unmediated, an approach illustrated by the work of Siegfried Kracauer who draws a connection between German Expressionism and the psyche of the G erm an p eople. T h is, as T ulloch demonstrates, invariably brings in the problem of circular argument with terms like “ mass unconscious” — how do you define it except through the films themselves?

This first section, at this point in time, is probably the most valuable as it basically demonstrates the unreliability of the reflection approach. Particularly important is Tulloch’s shift of emphasis from content to structure (defined as the organizing perception of the film), which means a 66 — Cinema Papers, August/September

film is considered as a structured whole; therefore, the image is regarded as unintelligible unless the context is also u n d ersto o d . Thus the relation sh ip between the different elements are much more important than the frequency of any one element.

The remaining sections deal with a range of relevant issues: a questioning of the functionalist approach such as the c o n cep t o f an “ in fo rm ed m oral consensus” (implied in the work of British documentary maker John Grierson); a micro-analysis of the cinema as a social system , with particular reference to Hollywood; the cinema as a form of social control (what Tulloch encapsulates as the “ John Wayne syndrome” ); and the self­ conscious ‘political’ cinema based around the premise that society is composed of different and competing classes and social groups.

The final section is concerned with methodology, in particular the viability of a structuralist approach. This last section represents the best single introduction to a sociology of film. It provides the framework for a systematic study of the feature film in the context of the society that produced it.

Tulloch, in this last section, elaborates his genetic structuralist method which is implicitly involved in most of the other sections. This approach is based on the perspective that man’s behavior is con­ ditioned by his membership of a social group. It assumes that a creative work com m unicates meanings through its unique configuration of elements and, also, that it is necessary to go beyond the ‘su r fa c e ’ c o n ten t to u n cover the underlying structure which, in totality, may not be found in any one work.

Tulloch acknowledges the importance o f the late French theorist Lucien G oldm ann in establishing such an approach, and he claims that this form of structuralism provides the analytical tools necessary to develop an auteurist approach to film.

This method begins with an analysis of the structure of the work, relating it to the value system of the artist within his social group, and then to a specific historical context. In other words, the work, the social group and the wider socio-historical context are examined. The relationship between the various levels is considered to be one of homology.

In com plem enting this approach, Tulloch consistently develops a conflict viewpoint towards the media, in that while admitting that films may work inside a broad consensus, within that framework there are constant shifts o f interaction and competition for influence among those with the power to articulate.

At times his view borders almost on a conspiracy thesis with claims that “ the consistent presentation of the moments of

drama, shock, intimacy and conflict in people’s lives according to a ‘code’ of stereotypes may in fact prevent change and uphold the status quo by starving the intellect and channelling the senses.”

According to Tulloch, conflict and power are the main concepts, with power institutionalized as the beliefs and values of the dominant group and then spread by the media. In other words, there is a form of social control in which the dominant ideology secures its boundaries and places its opponents within a safely agreed upon perspective. In the case of film, the nature of the medium assists this process because of the ease in establishing credibility.

Tulloch points to the recurrent use of narrative stereotypes (heroes, villains, etc.) which, together with a Manichean outlook regarding the depiction of good and evil, ensure a conservative response.

Others, such as the popular American culture scholar, John Cawelti, suggest different reasons for the development of such cultural stereotypes and story archetypes (e.g. “ basic psychological interests and needs” , plus the part they play in understanding — see Cawelti’s book, Adventure, Mystery and Romance).

Tulloch, on the other hand, argues that this form is determined by the dominant social group. Social control is hereby established through a “ powerful, takenfor-granted consensual framework of expectations within which all future action is determined” . Thus, Hollywood as a system is view ed ultim ately as an important strand “ of the diffusion, self­ regulation, and systems maintenance of international capitalism” .

Two points emerge from this. Firstly, the importance of an understanding of g en eric c o n v e n tio n s and narrative structures when attempting to relate film to society. This is a major advance over any unmediated reflection approach.

Secondly, Tulloch’s conflict viewpoint leads him virtually to a sophisticated “ hypoderm ic” m odel o f the co m ­ munication process where, ultimately, the receiver is depicted as being manipulated by the communicator. It is sophisticated in the sense that Tulloch rejects a simple hypodermic model by allowing for the possibility of interaction between audience and communicator, although he claims this interaction is true only in a limited sense — commercial pressure groups, for instance, have much more real power T u llo c h ’ s e m p h a s is is on th e manipulating aspect of film and television at the expense of other influences on the receiver (such as socio-cultural factors outside of the media). He is, therefore, com m itted to reject Herbert G an’s “ negotiated synthesis” thesis. Gan claims that since film is generally the product of many creative contributors (e.g. director, producer, cameraman, editor, players, etc.) each will apply his “ audience image”

to the decision that has to be made. As each will represent part of the audience that will eventually see the film, the co m p le te d film is regard ed as a “ negotiated synthesis” of the individual audience images.

An instructive way of examining Tulloch’s approach is best illustrated by looking at his analysis of Will Wright’s Sixguns and Society (an excerpt of which is included in Conflict and Control and which Tulloch acknowledges as “ the best structuralist monograph on the cinema so far” ). W right’s study in volves the development of a theoretical model which traces the development of the top-grossing Westerns of the past 40 years. He concludes that changes in the genre’s structure correspond with the changing structure of American capitalism.

This is similar to Tulloch’s explanation for changing stereotypes (e.g. the change from the imperial archetypal hero, epitomized by actors such as Ronald Colman, to the more recent James Bond prototype is reduced by Tulloch to the assertion that “ the needs and modes of social control under monopoly capitalism are different from those of altruistic capitalism” ).

Wright views the Western as a form of mythic expression and it is at this point that Tulloch expresses disagreement, for his conflict viewpoint is at variance with any claim that Westerns can be seen as myths resolving the contradictions of an entire society. Instead, Tulloch refers to his model of social control; White Father

Black

Evil Good (individualized) (depersonalized, inhuman) Father figure Father figure

Children Naive, but good Naive, but good (individualized) (personalized/ depersonalized) Son figure Child figure The axis are white/black and mature age/immature youth (father/children).

Initially, Tulloch develops this model with reference to the cinema of the Empire, concluding with the message that the “ educated villain cannot be converted, the educated son must be — to the wisdom of the white father” .

Tulloch then refers to a similar pattern evident in dramas dealing with the professions (citing an analysis of Dr Kildare), propaganda films such as The Green Berets, and non-fictional accounts of ‘deviance’ presented by the press and t e l e v is i o n (su c h as th e “ m ed ia presentation of homosexual drug and hippy sub-culture” ).

Tulloch’s use of the model reveals a

BOOKS

polarization of American ideology into: (a) Power — competition via social darwinism (b) Ethics — intellectual liberalism.

The two poles are then synthesized into the character of the hero: “ virile maturity, honest militancy — the good face of capitalism” . This synthesis is brought about by the archetypal screen heroine.

Tulloch, however, pulls back from an all-encompassing application of this model which is just as well, for while it applies in broad outline to a number of films, especially ‘imperial’ ones, it is certainly not a universal model which can be applied to all Hollywood films (e.g. it is totally inappropriate for the American film noir of the ’40s and its legacy in the ’70s with films like Chinatown, The Parallax View, etc.). One only has to refer to a recent film, Mandingo, which concerns itself with the archetypes used in Tulloch’s model to reveal its limited suitability as a general model.

In the film, the white father (Warren Maxwell) is neither wise nor good, the hero (Hammond Maxwell) is neither powerful nor moral, and the heroine (Blanche) is unable to effect any change on Hammond. Also, the educated black (Mem) is neither depersonalized nor evil.

Tulloch also utilizes his model in his criticism of Wright’s functionalist view of the Western as a myth for the whole of s o c ie ty . T u llo ch a rg u es that the relationship between the villains and the townspeople (society) is structurally similar to the black father/children relationship in his model, and that they represent alien values compared to those of the hero.

T h u s, T u lloch argu es, W righ t’s distinction between the ‘classical’ Western and the 'transitional’ Western, which is based on a change in the relationship between the hero and society — in the former they come to accept the hero (eg: Shane) but in the latter type society consistently rejects the hero (Broken Arrow, High Noon, Johnny Guitar) — is less clear than Wright claims. However, Wright's crucial point regarding the structural change in the genre is that “ society, which was weak and vulnerable in the classical story, is now firmly established and, because of its size, stronger than the hero or the villains” . This is significant, for in analysing the relationship between the hero and society (which is the most crucial differentiating factor between each of Wright’s four Western categories), there is now no opportunity for the hero to perform the savior function which is so characteristic of the classical Western.

Aside from the manipulation analyses of the cinema’s social system (based on a conflict approach which in turn is traceable to his genetic-structuralist framework) one could carp about a number o f less important issues. For exam ple, his hostility toward the ‘old’ Hollywood — in particular, his reference to the “ petit­ bourgeois circus capitalists” who made life difficult for all the artists, such as Lang and Welles (of course!) which in turn, through a process of exile and artistic alienation, fostered the development of the “ traffic cops” (directors “ who had some technical knowledge of their craft, but with limited, if any, knowledge of drama, of acting, or of personal complexity” ).

This view, of course, ignores the beneficial aspects of working within the studio system (e.g. Raoul Walsh’s output at Warner Bros) and downgrades the contribution of those artists who thrived within such a system, from the obvious examples such as Ford, Capra, Hawks to people like Warner Bros’ top house director, Michael Curtiz, who made nearly 70 films for them in just over two decades,

including The Kennel Murder Case, Casablanca, Mildred Pierce, The Sea Wolf.

However, this is to divert attention aw ay from T u llo c h ’s sig n ific a n t contribution to the formation of a methodology for studying the complex relationship between film and society.

Conflict and Control brings together many important journal articles (such as Metz’s 1968 Methodological Propositions fo r the Analysis o f Film) plus relevant excerpts from books such as Jeffrey Richards’ Vision o f Yesterday and Isaksson and Furhammar’s pioneering text on Politics and Film. Nevertheless, it is Tulloch’s six introductory essays, his contributions on German Expressionism, and the structural contrasts in Chekhov and Bergman which makes Conflict and Control an invaluable text for anyone interested in the study of film.

Robin Wood, Personal Views: Exploration in Film

Gordon Fraser, London, 1976.

Brian McFarlane

Robin Wood makes the basis for his “ explorations in film” clear in “ Big Game” , the opening essay in this fine collection: “ I am a critic, not a theorist . . . The theorist erects systems, the critic explores works . . . The critic is much closer to the artist than the theorist is.”

Whereas “ to the theorist, personal response will be an irrelevance” , for the critic “ personal response is central to his activity” .

These are bold, simple statements, but they are not simplistic. They encapsulate a complex understanding of the functions of critic and theorist. They lead to an impressive attempt to define W ood’s critical position in the light of the general critical dilemma and of “ certain absolute human qualities” .

For Wood, the critic may move towards objectivity (must, in fact, do so), but he must never lose touch with his whole response to a work, and he warns against the apparent suppression of the personal element in criticism.

He b eliev es that valid criticism develops out of the tension between total subjectivity of response and “ scientific” objectivity of analysis, that it needs to be “ both passionate and disciplined” , and that, since a critic will be functioning as a whole human being, he will be unable to divorce himself from a respect for certain moral values.

The enunciation of these critical tenets is arrived at by several approaches: sometimes in refuting what he sees as inaccurate characterizations of his own work; sometimes in applauding others who embody these tenets (eg: Jim Kitses in H o rizo n s West)-, so m e tim e s in accounting for limitations in others (eg: Victor Perkins, whom in many ways he adm ires, or Manny Barber, w hose slipshod impressionism he deplores).

W hich ever o f th ese sk irm ish in g approaches he adopts, what emerges is a critical sensibility which draws on a lively receptiveness to the cinema’s variety, on a passionate and perceptive response to other art forms, and a pervasive humanity which is enriched, challenged, and sometimes disturbed by the art it admires most.

Already in this opening essay he is

attesting to his initial distinction between the critic and the theorist. He makes his points here in terms of particular works and not in abstractions. And the range of these works is already impressive. For example, in arguing against coherence as absolute criterion for a work of art as opposed to coherence as the direction in which serious art must tend, he adduces the “ Cathedral” scene in Lawrence’s The Rainbow and some of the comic business in Friedrich Murnau’s Sunrise.

Scenes from Ingmar Bergman’s Shame and Robert Altman’s The Long Goodbye are used to identify the limits of Perkins’ approach to the question of directorial presence; and he cites McCarey’s Make Way For Tomorrow and Ozu’s Tokyo Story to establish the importance he attaches to a personal style.

By the end of this essay, one has confidence in him as a critic whose response to individual works will not be subject to the Procrustean violence of an inflexible ideology or an austere aesthetic theory.

The rest of the book, as it ranges from Anna Karenin to I Walked with a Zombie, bears out the openness to experience promised by this introduction. It is not openness to the point of m indless eclecticism: Wood’s experiences of art are subject to a rigorous discrimination which works with the passion he brings to his subject to powerfully productive ends. At his best, he so skilfully recreates the quality of his experience of individual works as to enable his readers to see them with fresh — or re-directed-eyes.

So much in the book strikes me as being valuable that it is difficult to do it justice in a short review. “ Levin and the Jam” , an essay on Anna Karenin, will be of particular interest to anyone who believes that the film, the narrative film, has largely superseded the novel in the latter half of this century in terms of creative passion and of commitment to realism. And, further, that the film has grown out of the traditions of the 19th Century novel.

This essay offers a tightly-argued account of realism being rooted in narrative, in the “ tendency to become interested in characters as if they were real people” and, “ therefore, to care about the characters and what happens to them” .

Realism as expressed in narrative art enables “ an appeal from human beings, to human beings, about human beings” that is denied to abstract art. To Wood, the 19th Century novel represented the triumph of realism, and the narrative film has provided “ a remarkable synthesis of

the manifold strivings towards realism in the arts” .

Nevertheless, he argues, the realist novel still makes greater demands on our involvement than does a film in which the reality is created externally (i.e., visually), and the cinema has yet to produce a work comparable in richness and seriousness, in the profound inter-relatedness of its action, to Anna Karenin. He insists — and persuasively — that a realism as complete as Tolstoy’s “ total imaginative command of the life he creates” involves the interaction of the author’s conscious and unconscious impulses. And he ends by arguing that Anna would not have been a g r e a te r n o v e l if the su p p r e s se d revolutionary in Tolstoy had asserted itself at a conscious level over the reactionary Tolstoy at work in Levin’s salvation and Anna’s tragedy.

Realism demands the full play of the author’s thought and feeling, and draws on the tensions between both and within each. In offering him the liberation from a strictly-pursued ideology, it offers us the illusion of reality.

The completeness of this illusion is dependent on the “ invisibility” of the author. In this sense, Dickens’ novels, Hitchcock's films, and above all Anna Karenin, are triumphantly realist.

Joseph Von Sternberg said he would like to have his films projected upside down, so that spectators would not be distracted from “ the play of light and shade” . Wood, in the essay of that title, on The Scarlet Empress, suggests that Von S te r n b e r g “ w as sim p ly over­ compensating, insisting on his own presence as a determining force, on the phenomenon of visual style” . He was, in a word, protesting against the “ invisibility” of directors.

In delineating what he takes to be the true subjects of the Sternberg/Dietrich films, Wood does two things: he rescues the director from the calum ny of “ aesthete” , and he makes clear how a story “ becomes a subject from the manner of the telling” , thus placing style in its true relation to the total work.

His reading of the film is so intelligently evocative in its discussion of imagistic patternings and ju x ta p o sitio n s, in discerning in specific scenes the film’s complexity of motifs, that The Scarlet Empress, which I have never seen, seems more clearly before me than many films I have seen in the last year.

It may have been James Agee who rescued Val Lewton from what must have seemed the sure oblivion of the lower half Cinema Papers, August/September — 67

THE FIRST BOOK PREPARED BY PROFESSIONALS FOR EVERYONE USING SUPER 8 AS A SERIOUS COMMUNICATIONS TOOL

W E HAVE TH E LA RG EST STOCK OF RECORDS IN A U STR A LIA DEVOTED TO TH E BROADWAY M USICAL, FILM SO UNDTRACKS AND SHOW B U S IN E S S P ER SO N A LITIES. O ur speciality order service and w orld-w ide search service has enabled many collectors to obtain recordings they tho u gh t were otherwise unobtainable.

We issue a pam phlet free of charge giving details of special offers and arrival of our specialised imports. Write to G regory Young, Readings Records & Books, 132d Toorak Road, South Yarra Vic. 3141 and ask to be included on our m ailing list.

Call at our store and inspect our range of recordings and books. We are open seven days a week - and late on Fridays.

Our stock currently holds the com plete Charles Gerhardt series (now deleted in Australia), the Bernard Hermann series, the MiklosRosza series and the Elmer Bernstein series. O ur July pam phlet lists the Japanese re-issue of several rare soundtrack albums.

READIN G S RECORDS AN D BOOKS 132d Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA Vic. 3141 Telephone: 267 1885 We buy and sell quality second-hand records.

FILM REVIEW INFORMATION SERVICE 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.

........ based on the experience of a number of filmmakers now working in SUPER 8, it covers pre-production — film stocks, magnetic film, single system & double system cameras etc., and post production — lab sources, splicing, editing, synch sound transfers, mixing multiple sound tracks etc.

2 5 0 pages, heavily illustrated.

All enquiries to: The George Lugg Library P.O. Box 357 Carlton South Vic. 3053 ^^^Th^UbrapU^peratec^itl^ssistanc^fron^he^Austraha^^

THE FILM LIBRARY film book specialists

A V A IL A B L E FROM

•

Books about: Actors & A ctresses • D irectors, Producers & Writers • History • A esthetics • General • R eference • A nim ation • Technical • Annuals W e also specialize in hard-to-get titles.

N.S.W. Dick King. 3 3 Higginbotham Road, Gladesville 2111. Phone 8 0 7 4 6 0 6 or 80 7 1444.

VICTORIA. Geoffrey Hamilton. Unit 2, 3 3 -4 6 The Centreway, Mount Waverley 3149. Phone 2 3 3 5 3 7 5 or messages on 23 3 5929.

A.C.T. Peter Mars. 53 Wollongong Street, Fyshwick 2609. Phone 8 0 4009.

QUEENSLAND. David Pugh. 477 Waterworks Road, Ashgrove 4 0 6 0 Phone 38 4447.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA. Frank Evans. Shop 3, Broadway, 88 Broadway Nedlands 6099.

Phone: 86 8095.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA, and TASMANIA. Clients please contact Victorian Office (03) 23 3 5375.

Please write fo r a free book list.

P.O. Box 49, Harbord, N.S.W. 2096 M ail order service only.

Posted anywhere in Australia or overseas.

BOOKS

of a ’40s double-bill, but it is Wood, in his very acute essay on “ The Shadow Worlds of Jacques Tourneur” , who ensures his posterity. This is, 1 suppose, ironic since it is Tourneur’s contribution to the Lewton films that is his chief concern.

Wood acknowledges the difficulty of sorting out the relative importance of the contributors to that remarkable string of “ horror” films, but argues convincingly that the Tourneur/Lewton films have features that connect them, that these features distinguish them from the Robson/Lewton or Wise/Lewton works, and that the best of Tourneur’s post­ Lewton work (eg: Canyon Passage, that long-missed beauty, or Out of the Past, or Curse of the Demon) reveals its lineage clearly.

Wood’s claims for Tourneur seem right.

He doesn’t spoil his case by claiming too much for what is perhaps finally a minor, if very attractive, talent, very intelligent, sensitive and with a superb visual sense.

He acknowledges Tourneur’s defects — a debilitation of his virtues — and sees him as “ a born collaborator in search of someone to collaborate with” .

In Lewton, he found that collaborator — a sensibility that matched and in some ways com plem ented his own. The masterly account of two key sequences — one from each of Cat People and I Walked With a Zombie — is so alert to w hat is s ig n if ic a n t ly , if o fte n unobtrusively, there in the films that it seems to me to distil the essence of the h a u n tin g p o etic q u ality o f th e s e remarkable films.

Wood knows where to stop: he knows how far a work of art (which is what these two films are) is susceptible to questioning and explanation, and how far it is better to let the film stand as it is. Such an approach is peculiarly appropriate to films of which it is true to say, as Wood does of I Walked With a Zombie: "The shadows and half-lights o f the film ’s haunting atmospheric quality are in fact but the expression o f its moral and spiritual world, in which nothing is,fixed or certain, nothing is as it seems: a world subtly dominated by the unconscious, a world o f shadows in which we can do no more than cautiously and hesitantly grope. ” His respect for the “ poetic ambiguity” o f th e s e film s g ro w s fro m his understanding of the moral and spiritual tensions at their heart: tensions between .surface conventionality and the richer but disturbing impulses that lie beneath. In a book of so many rewarding insights, one of my sharpest pleasures is in seeing these small, delicate masterpieces given their full due — not merely asserted, but argued and accounted for in terms that makes it not incongruous to find them considered side by side with works more obviously and universally regarded as works of art.

The other essays in the book are almost equally fine and exhibit similar virtues: the insistence on a “ close reading” as the source o f a true appreciation; the recognition of a classical discipline brought to bear on a Romantic impulse and of the fruitful collusion between the two; the realization that to talk of a visual style is to talk not only of a way of saying something, but also of what is being said; the refusal to see emotional response as less crucial than intellectual analysis to a comprehensive account of a given work; and these all manifested in a lucid and eloquent prose.

These other essays focus on Letter from an Unknown Woman (“ Ophuls is ultimately . . . one of the cinema’s great Romantics” ); Touch of Evil, in which Wood sees Welles’ alignment as finally more with Webster than Shakespeare; “ Images of Childhood” in films as diverse as Bergman’s and Minnelli’s; “ Reflections on the Auteur Theory” in which Leisen’s

R e m e m b e r the N ig h t , N o rth by N o rth w est, M on k ey B u s in e s s , and Ophuls’ The R eckless Moment are examined as test cases from which “ to draw no very definite [conclusions]” but “ to suggest the complexities of authorship in the American Cinem a” ; Ugetsu Monogatari and Sansho Dayu (the work of “ the cinema’s supreme intelligence and s e n s i b i l i t y ” ); and “ H aw ks D eWollenized” , a well-earned riposte to Wollen’s distortions of Hawks.

A critic who is not afraid of superlatives (or of the effort needed to justify them), Wood describes W ollen’s Signs and M eanings in the Cinema (1969) as “ probably the most influential book on film in English of the last decade” . A mere reviewer may perhaps risk (too tentative I suspect) describing Personal Views as the most influential book on film in English of this decade.

Books of the quarter J.H.Reid Actors and Actresses The Films of Ronald Colman by Lawrence J. Quirk. Citadel Press, New Jersey, 1977. $22.50.

Falls a little short of the standard of some of the other recent books in this series. Several of the credits are not as comprehensive as they might be, but the stills are magnificent and Mr Quirk’s critical acumen and background knowledge cannot be faulted.

Doug and Mary, a biography of Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford by Gary Carey.

Dutton, New York, 1977. $12.95. This is a Reader’s Digest-type condensation of three, or four previously published books. A fair amount of the information has been retained, but most of the heart has been trimmed leaving more shadow than substance.

Ginger, Loretta and Irene Who? by George Eells. Putnam ’s, New York, 1976, $14.95.

Pocket Books, New York, 1978. $2.95. On January 1, 1934, Ginger Rogers, Miriam Hopkins, Ruth Etting, Kay Francis, Loretta Young and Irene Bentley were each starring in films that were playing to standing room only crowds in New York’s Times Square. This book is a carefully researched and compellingly written account of their subsequent careers.

Anything For a Quiet Life, the autobiography of Jdck Hawkins. Stein and Day, New York, 1974. $7.95. The end is sad, but basically this is a very funny book in which Hawkins makes some amusing swipes at “ perfectionist” directors and egocentric players. On a par with David Niven’s Bring On The Empty Horses.

Hollywood Kids, edited by Leonard Maltin.

Popular Library, New York, 1978. $2.95. Lively chapters on Jackie Cooper, Scotty Beckett, Jane Withers, Dickie Moore, Bonita Granville, Terry Kilbum, Margaret Kerry, Roddy McDowall, Gloria Jean, Darryl Hickman, Dean Stockwell, Russ Tamblyn, Brandon de Wilde and Mark Lester; mostly reprinted from Film Fan Monthly and updated for this anthology.

Moe Howard and The 3 Stooges, an autobiography by Moe Howard. Citadel Press, New Jersey, 1977. $22.50. Although presented in a uniform size, this is not one of the Films Of. . . series, but a fascinating account of the making of low slapstick two-reelers, packed with rare stills.

Deborah Kerr by Eric Braun. W.H. Allen, London, 1977. $15.95. While gossip columnists concentrate on the star’s private life, fan writers do the opposite. This book, written by a fan, is no exception. Each of Miss K err’s screen appearances is approvingly described, but there is not much more than a glimpse of her off­ screen life. However, the book has been wellresearched and the writing style avoids the usual gush.

The Leading Ladies by James Robert Parish and Don E. Stanke. Arlington House, New York, 1977. $37.50. Lately, instead of pioneering new selections, James Robert Parish has been content to pursue well-covered ground. He has an intriguing chapter on Joan Blondell, and it is nice to have complete credits for Rosalind Russell and Olivia de Havilland, but Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck have already been well explored.

Vivien Leigh by Anne Edwards. W.H. Allen, London, 1977. $15.95. This is a much more balanced book than the sensational chapters extracted in newspapers had led me to expect.

Although the emphasis is on Vivien Leigh’s private life, her acting career is by no means submerged and the author has the skill of m aking even m inor p ro d u ctio n d e ta ils interesting.

Harold Lloyd by Adam Reilly. Collier Books, New York, 1977. $11.95. This is like a very superior Films Of. . . book. Not only has Mr Reilly compiled a complete run-down on Lloyd’s films, with credits that even include unbilled players, detailed synopses, production notes and critiques, there are also copious extracts from contemporary reviews. There are also new assessments of Lloyd’s career by Andrew Sarris, Leonard Maltin, William K. Everson, John Belton, Len Borger and John Cocchi. The book has many beautifully-reproduced stills.

The Groucho Phile, an illustrated life of Groucho Marx. W.H. Allen, London, 1978. $24.95. Superbly illustrated in color and blackand-white (there are 692 photographs), this massive autobiography will delight every Grouchophile.

Max Miller: The Cheeky Chappie by John M. East. W.H. Allen, London, 1977. $14.95. Unlike his equally famous music hall contemporaries, George Formby and Will Hay, Max Miller’s film career was an unmitigated disaster. Mr East is a perceptive critic and has some convincing arguments to advance as to why Miller was a success on stage but not on screen. .

Who’s Afraid of Elizabeth Taylor? by Brenda Maddox. Evans, New York, 1977. $12.95.

Richard and Elizabeth by Lester David and Jhan Robbins. Arthur Barker, London, 1977. $14.95.

Two books aimed at what might be described “ the gossip market” . Brenda Maddox has some useful information, but David and Robbins are unable to tell us anything we haven’t read before.

Let the Chips Fal l . . . by Rudy Vallee.

Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 1975. $8.95.

Unfortunately, Rudy Vallee doesn’t let any chips fall about his Hollywood days at all. Instead, he concentrates on his fairly innocuous private life and on his radio and stage run-ins with such performers as Victor Borge and Milton Berle.

Animation Full Length Animated Feature Films by Bruno Edera has set himself the task of cataloguing every feature-length animated film ever made.

Although there are only about 200 such films, they are spread over such diverse countries as Argentina, Israel and Hungary, as well as the comparatively large output from Japan and the U.S. A solid text complemented with some excellent stills.

Directors The American Film Directors by Maureen Lambray. Collier Books, New York, 1977. $11.95. This book contains photographic portraits of 82 directors; they are all of the realist school. Directors include Steven Spielberg, Jerry Shatzberg (both playing unbilled roles in their films), Tay Garnett and H.C. Potter.

Early Women Directors: Their Role in the Development of the Silent Cinema by Anthony Slide. A.S. Barnes, New Jersey, 1977. $19.00.

There were more women directors at work in the U.S. film industry before 1920 than during any other period. Unfortunately, very few of their films have survived; this is why, with the exception of Dorothy Arzner who alone continued her career into the sound era, virtually nothing has been written about their work or influence. Mr Slide has remedied this with a strikingly illustrated and w ell-researched volume.

Walter Forde, edited Geoff Brown. British Film Institute London, 1977. $1.95. It is pleasing to note that along with monographs on all the fashionably “ in” directors like Carl Theodor Dreyer, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Jacques Rivette, the BFI is continuing to publish pieces on little-known or poorly-regarded British directors like Walter Forde. There is certainly no money or critical acclaim to be had, for British films are seen as of no consequence by librarians and academics in Britain itself. Brown’s book is, therefore, a very praiseworthy endeavor.

The Lubitsch Touch by Herman G. Weinberg.

Third Revised and Enlarged Edition. Dover, New York, 1977. $5.95. Those familiar with Mr W einberg’s passion for details and his philosophical style with its wide-ranging allusions and quotations, will delight in this book. It is the definitive work on Lubitsch and although the credits are not as complete as in Ian Klava’s excellent monograph published some years ago (a monograph which, extraordinarily, Mr Weinberg seems to be unaware of), it does have the advantage of 118 illustrations — all of them, oddly enough, crammed into the first 187 pages of a 366-page book.

Vincente Minnelli and The Film Musical by Joseph Andrew Casper. A.S. Barnes, New Jersey, 1977. $24.95. The author, an Assistant Professor of Cinema, is strong on terms like “ self-transcendence” and “ Nachlange” and very short on such basic information as the fact that Larry Blyden, Pamela Brown, Irene Handl and Ray Kinnear also have parts in On A Clear Day You Can See Forever. Mr Blyden has a very important role and is billed fourth — after Barbra Streisand, Yves Montand and Bob Newhart — and yet is o m itted from Mr C a sp e r’s “ filmography” . The stills are attractive.

My Life and My FilmsbyJean Renoir. Collins, London, 1974. $6.95. A timely re-issue of this excellent autobiography. Nearly one-third of the book is devoted to his Hollywood career, which he loved, and he recounts it here with great spirit. A warm and human book, with deftlydrawn character sketches of folk like Albert Lewin, Dudley Nichols and Sister Kenny.

Warner Brothers Directors by William R. Meyer. Arlington House, New York, 1978. $29.95. Films in Review-slyte articles (without credits) on Lloyd Bacon, Busby Berkeley, Curtis Bernhardt, Alan Crosland, Michael Curtiz, Delmer Daves, William Dieterle, Peter Godfrey, Edmund Goulding, Howard Hawks, John Huston, William Keighley, Mervyn LeRoy, Anatole Litvak, Jean Negulesco, Irving Rapper, Vincent Sherman, Raoul Walsh and William Wellman.

History Australian Film Posters 1906-1960 by Judith Adamson. Currency Press, Sydney, 1978. $7.50.

From an artistic point of view (particularly from about 1945-1965) Australian posters were the worst-executed in the world. But from an historic point of view, as Judith Adamson demonstrates in this handsomely-produced survey, they are of considerable interest.

CHJfhanger: A Pictorial History of the Motion Picture Serial by Alan G. Barbour. A & W, New York, 1977. $22.50. Stills from serials are usually the most difficult to obtain. Yet Mr Barbour has managed to collect 391 for this sumptuous volume. Every serial is discussed in terms of genres:— “jungles” , “ spies” , “ comic's” , etc., which is a novel and informative approach.

The Saga of Special Effects: The Complete History of Cinematic Illusion, From Edison’s Kinetoscope to Dynamation, Sensurround And Beyond by Ron Fry and Pamela Fourzon.

Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1977. $21.95. It appears this book was produced in a hurry to cash in on the success of John Brosnan’s far superior and much less self-laudatory Movie Magic. Still, special effects is a neglected field and even a middling effort like this has some value, particularly in its interviews with people like Roger Corman and Albert Whitlock.

Science-Fiction and Horror Movie Posters In Full Colour edited by Alan Adler. Dover, New York, 1977. $8.95. 44 posters, ranging from Barbarella to Tarantula, with brief notes on each film.

Souvenir Programs of Twelve Classic Movies 1927-1941 edited by Miles Kreuger. Dover, New Y o rk , 1 977. $ 8 .4 0 . B la c k -a n d -w h ite re p ro d u c tio n s of the lavish and often surprisingly informative souvenir books sold to patrons during the initial runs of The Jazz Singer The Broadway Melody, The Love Parade, All Quiet on the Western Front, Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, Captains Courageous, The Good Earth, Lost Horizon, Gone With the Wind, The Great Dictator and Citizen Kane.

Things To Come: an illustrated History of the Science Fiction Film by Douglas Menville and R. Reginald. Times Books, New York, 1977. $22.50. Brief reviews of about 300 films, with lots of stills.

Individual Films Scarlett Fever: The Ultimate Pictorial Treasury of Gone With The Wind by William Pratt. Collier, New York, 1977. $12.95. So much has- been written about Gone With The Wind, one would think there would be no room for yet another book. Yet this one explores seemingly obvious paths that few have ventured on before. There is a 30-page chapter on the costumes, for instance, illustrated with 145 wardrobe stills, none of which I have ever seen before. And for the first time, the contributions of the various directors are discussed with the aid of appropriate stills.

The Official Rocky Scrapbook by Sylvester Stallone. Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1977. $6.95. A condensation of his script, notes on the filming by Stallone himself, and many stills.

The Making of the Wizard of Oz, Movie Magic and Studio Power in the prime of MGM — and the Miracle of Production No. 1060 by Aljean Harmetz. Knopf, New York, 1977. $18.95. One of the best books ever written about Hollywood.

It is meticulously researched, with no-holdsbarred character studies of all the personnel involved, this is a fascinating, blow-by-blow account of the film’s inception from script to screen. Ninety-three illustrations, including 18 in color.

Reference Movies on TV 1978-79 Edition edited by Steven H. Scheuer. Bantam Books, New York, 1977. $4.95. Always a useful book, but the new edition is virtually indispensable. Although it concentrates on films of the ’60s and ’70s (including television), the reviews of each film — and there are more than 10,000 of them — have been expanded and now include such essential information as directors and original running times.

The Oscar Movies from A-Z by Roy Pickard.

Muller, London, 1977. $21.95. This time the films are arranged alphabetically, instead of by years. Mr Pickard has also provided brief notes on each film. ★

Cinema Papers, August/September — 69

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.

A

.

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

NEW ZEA LA N D REPO RT

FILM STUDY RESO URCES GUIDE

D avid L ascelles

B a sil Gilbert

A request by the New Zealand F ed eration o f Film S o c ie tie s that distributors deposit copies of selected films in their archives, rather than destroy them after the rights expire, has failed. The M o tio n P ic tu r e P r o d u c e r s and Distributors of America stated that this could only be complied with if the archive was government funded and controlled.

Film distributors are becoming con­ cerned at the number ofi 35 mm and 16 mm films turning up in the hands of private collectors. These films, listed as being withdrawn and destroyed, are finding a new home on collectors’ shelves.

It is understood film companies are exercising tighter controls over the disposal of their assets.

Three more film projects have been granted finance by the New Zealand Film Commission. Each has been given a grant of $4000, convertible into an investment if the film makes a profit.

Of the three, Angel Mine has already been filmed and the money will be used by director David Blythe to put the rushes into a coherent, 70-minute film. The other two films are The End of the Golden Weather, from a play by Bruce Mason and to be directed by Ian Mune, and the new Roger Donaldson film, Killer Curry, which is in the script development stage.

Shooting on this is expected to begin in October.

The director of Skin Deep, Geoff Stevens, has claimed that his film will break into profit ev en before the successful Sleeping Dogs is paid off. Phase Three Film Productions made the film with a budget of $180,000, some S220,000 less than Sleeping Dogs. This was achieved by careful planning and control which kept overheads low, and by shooting at only one location on a tight six-day a week schedule. S70,000 of the total budget came from the recentlyformed NZFC, who were impressed with the pre-production work submitted to them. The film is a serious and realistic attempt to highlight a contemporary social issue: in a close-knit community, the townspeople react with violence to the establishment of a massage parlor. The screenplay was written by New Zeal­ anders, Piers Davies and Roger Horrocks.

John Maynard was the producer.

New films in production or p re­ p r o d u c t i o n i n c l u d e T ri log ic Film Production’s Night Moves, a symbolic

story of homosexuals to be directed by Richard Turner. The film has received a government grant of $2000 out of the total budget of $50,000. Another $25,000 will be raised by public subscription.

Nimrod Films recently received a $10,000 grant from the NZFC for a documentary on Thailand and Burma; budget estimates are not available.

The NZFC believes that film producers should receive only 30 per cent of the returns. The other 70 per cent should go to investors, including the commission itself.

Outlining the NZFC’s policy, chairman Mr Bill Sheats said the cardinal principle of the NZFC would be the maximum use of available resources for producing films, rather than importing or hiring equipment or services from overseas. New Zealand personnel should be employed unless su ita b ly -q u a lified people were not available. However, a flexible approach w'ould be adopted to co-productions with other countries which would give the film entry to its market.

Despite government approval, the Film Licensing Board voted in a split decision against the issuing of licences for drive-ins in Auckland and Christchurch. The two major theatre chains have joined with Masters Independent Theatres in Christ­ church and Auckland Amusements for joint management and operation of the project. Talks are under way with all parties concerned, but at time of writing there has been no reversal of the Board’s decision.

The New Zealand Film Academy has been formed by filmmakers throughout the country. This organization wants adequate representation on committees and government bodies in job-related areas. The NZFA also wants to set up continuity of output, and a rationalization of the industry’s resources. Its present membership of about 180 is represented by a national committee of seven.

Some of the films banned in this country since the new film censorship law's came into operation are: Salon Kitty, 120 Days of Sodom, The Owl, Terminal island, Born Losers, The Baby, Cycle Savages, Emmanuelle, Em m anuelle’s Daughter, Deep Throat Part 2, Australia After Dark and — for the second time — Bloody Mama. ★

Helmut Berger and Teresa Anne Savoy in Tinto Brass’ Salon Kitty. The film is banned in New Zealand.

The Victorian Federation of Film Societies and the Australian Film Institute have decided to amalgamate the George Lugg Library and the AFI Resource Centre. As mentioned earlier (“ Film Study Resource Crisis” , Cinema Papers, no. 15, January 1978, p.200), these two collections of rare books, reference materials and journals are complementary, and their combination will provide the basis for a comprehensive and unique centre for film research and information in Australia. A full report on this develop­ ment may be found in Australian Film Institute Newsletter, no. 7, June 1978.

The National Library of Australia, Canberra, has issued a list of new acqui­ sitions for film study purposes. There are 16 full-length features from Warner Brothers, a number of short Australian documentaries, and a substantial group of international, avant-garde films.

The Hollywood features include the work of Raoul Walsh (Band of Angels, Battle Cry, A Distant Trumpet); Elia Kazan (East of Eden, Splendor in the Grass); Nicolas Ray (Rebel Without A Cause, Wind Across The Everglades); Arthur Penn (The Left-Handed Gun); Alfred Hitchcock (I Confess, The Wrong Man, Strangers On A Train); and earlier films by Von Sternberg, Dreyer, De Antonio and Wiseman.

L isted a m o n g th e A u s tra lia n documentaries are Paul Cox’s We Are All Alone My Dear, Mirka and All Set Backstage; Meg Stewart’s S h e’s My Sister; and Peter Whitehead’s Wholly Communion. The avant-garde additions include films by Arthur and Corinne Cantrill, Paul Winkler, Dirk de Bruyn, Hollis Frampton, Jonas Mekas, Gregory M a rk o p o u lo s, R o b erta F rie d m a n , Standish Lawder, Robert Breer and John Whitney.

Media Information Australia now has the financial support of several governmental bodies (ABC, AF&TS, A FC) and continues under the editorship of its founder, Professor Henry Mayer.

In M IA , no. 7, February 1978. there is a report on a new course of studies at Griffith University: “ Australian Media and Society 1918-1935” , presented by a four-person teaching team led by Sylvia Lawson. The course will explore major developments in popular media in Aust­ ralia ranging from vaudeville to radio and film. The research will provide the basis for a much-needed understanding of the present structure of the Australian media and its foundations.

Also in MIA, no. 7, are reports on film theses that are beginning to be produced in Australian universities. These include A.P. Soldatow’s “ Battleship Potemkin and other Soviet Films of the NineteenTwenties” for the History Department of Latrobe University, and Sabina Dunn’s “ A Critical Examination of the standard of Film Reviewing seen in seven Australian Publications” for the School of Drama, University of NSW. Under the rubric “ Media Briefs” , there is a reference to Tim Burstall’s lengthy article, “ Triumph and Disaster for Australian Films” (Bulletin, August 24, 1977) and to Andrew Pike’s study, “ Australian Cinema and Society: Some

Thoughts on the Films of Harry Watt” , in the Journal o f the A .C .T . Teachers' Association, June 1977.

M IA , no. 8, May 1978, although reduced in format and print size, offers a report on Film and Television Studies in Tasmanian independent schools by B.G. Donaghue (AFTVS, June 1977), and a valuable list of Australian films reviewed

by Variety during 1977 with the dates of publications (eg. Singer and the Dancer, April 27, 1977). Such reports are, of course, a small portion of M IA's vast compendium of media information.

The first Australian Film Conference held at the University of NSW in June, 1978, provided the participants with a n u m b er o f p apers ran g in g from “ Audience Research and the Marketing of Australian Films” by Arthur Meadows, to “ The Epistemology and Aesthetics of Realism” by Kathy Boehringer of the University of NSW. Many of these papers are likely to be published in the next number of the Australian Journal o f Screen Theory.

One of the more novel presentations at the conference was an illustrated slide lecture analysing the social implications of Walt Disney films (“ Walt Disney: Cultural Imperialist” ) by Ian Burn and Terry Smith, of the Media Action Group, Sydney, which may be bought or rented as an audio-visual kit ($60 purchase, $10 rental) by writing to Terry Smith, Department of Fine Arts, University of Sydney. .

An interesting Australian publishing venture is The Projected Muse (Rigby, Adelaide, $4.95). Compiled by Peter McFarlane, the book includes extracts from six Australian film scripts: Picnic at Hanging Rock, Caddie, Storm Boy, The D evil’s Playground, The Fourth Wish and The Cars That Ate Paris, plus a reprint of critical reviews of Caddie and The D e v il’s Playground previously published in Cinema Papers.

The book is described as “ suitable for m ost secondary students . . . obvious value to Film Study . . . considerably enriches English and Humanities” . Such extracts are also useful as models for young screenwriters, and one hopes that other publishers will publish Australian film scenarios in full (with introductory commentaries) and in a similar style to the famous Lorimer series. ★ Cinema Papers, August/September — 71

Patricia Lovell and David Block have just been appointed to the Australian Film Commission for 2 and 3 year terms respectively.

Pat Lovell, producer; David Block, financial adviser; both with important individual contributions to make in the industry.

Pat Lovell: “ The next two years are crucial for Australian film makers.

We need good product and a concentrated effort from everyone involved in the industry for survival.55 “ With my appointment, the government has confirmed industry involvement at Commission level.

Pm a working producer and will stay a working producer, that’s an important part of whatever contribution I make.55 “ Tony Buckley has done so much for other film makers through his work on the Commission—I hope to follow in his footsteps.55 David Block is a Director of C.S.R. and various other companies, and is the founder of David Block and Associates, Investment Bankers. “ It’s an interesting appointment for me. Investment and financial management are my primary interests, and of course these areas are of crucial importance to the further development of an Australian industry. I have long been an enthusiastic supporter of Australian films.55 “ When parliament passes the proposed tax provisions in regard to film investment then we could very well see a new boom—the Film Boom. A very interesting three years ahead.55

yiustrdim fifm Cmmissiotv

LONG WEEKEND “ In an attempt to resurrect their failing marriage, Peter and Marcia set out to spend a holiday weekend on a deserted stretch of the Australian coastline; deserted, that is, except for the birds, the animals and the vegetation that jealously guard their isolation and right to survival. “ This survival is threatened as Peter and Marcia unthinkingly impose their ‘civilized’ life-style on their new surroundings. Things begin to go wrong; trivial things; the car won’t start, a frozen chicken goes bad, their dog goes missing, they feel they are being watched. Are they being threatened? Will they be allowed to leave? “ They are trespassers. Will they survive their long weekend?”

Director...............................Colin Eggleston P ro d u cer...........................Richard Brennan Screenplay...................... Everett de Roche Director of Photography . Vincent Monton

Top: The animal world fights back: Long Weekend. _. ~ ,T ,,, . .

Right. The final scene of Long Weekend.

Art D ire c to r.......................... Julie Monton M u s i c ...................................Michael Carlos Sound R eco rdist.................... John Phillips John H a rg ra e v e s ..............................Peter Brioney Behets...................................Marcia

Below: A terrified John Hargreaves in Colin Eggleston s Long Weekend.

TAX LEGISLATION

Taxation Legislation

Continued from P.41

The owner of rights in an Australian film who so wishes may, instead of having deductions allowed on the new basis that has just been explained, elect to have those costs deducted on the basis provided for by the existing provisions of Division 10B. The quick write-off basis will not be available for the capital costs of Australian film rights where the rights, or the films to which they relate, were used by the taxpayer concerned or anyone else for the purpose of producing income, whether assessable or not, before 22 November 1977.

Another important purpose of the amendments to be effected by clauses \ '¡thin the 13-27 range is to close off avenues that other, /ise might be used by owners of units of industrial property, with the co-operation of complaint [compliant?] parties, to secure benefits in excess of those that the provisions in Division 10B are intended to provide. These safeguarding measures, which are to apply in relation to transactions between parties not dealing with each other at arm’s length entered into after the date on which they were fore­ shadowed, 27 April 1978, are to be incorporated into the law by clauses 18, 19, 20 and 24. The notes on those clauses explain the nature and effects of the amendments. clauses are of a drafting nature consequential upon the introduction of the 2 year write-off concession for Australian film rights, or necessary to clarify the operation of the existing provisions in certain respects.

The following notes explain the clauses in more precise terms.

Clause 13: Interpretation Paragraph (a) of clause 1 3 will insert in sub-section 1 24K (1) of the Principal Act a definition of the key expression “ Australian film” and also a definition of the ancillary expression “film” . The definitions are relevant to the new section 1 24UA — the provision which will provide entitlements for quick write-off of the capital costs of Australian film rights — proposed to be inserted in the Principal Act by clause 22. “ Australian film” is to be defined as meaning a film that is certified by the Minister for Home Affairs to be either — a film that has been, or is to be, made wholly or substantially in Australia or in an external Territory and that has, or will have, a “ significant Australian content” having regard to matters covered by paragraph (b) of this clause; or ~ a film that has been, or is to be, made in pursuance of an agreement or arrangement entered into between the Australian Government or an authority of the Australian Government and the Government of another country or its authority. “ Film” is to be defined as meaning an aggregate of images, or of images and sounds, embodied in any material.

Paragraph (b) of clause 1 3 proposes the insertion in section 124K of a new sub-section — sub-section (1 A) — to set out the matters to which the Minister for Home Affairs is to have regard in determining whether a film has a significant Australian content. Such matters include the subject-matter of the film, where the film is made, the nationalities and places of residence of the actors, scriptwriters, producers, directors and other people involved in the making of the film, the persons who beneficially own the shares in the capital of any company concerned in the making of the film, the persons who beneficially own the copyright in the film, the source of the moneys used to finance the production of the film, and any other relevant matters.

Paragraph (c) of clause 13 will insert two new sub­ sections,— sub-sections (3) and (4) — in section 1 24K of the Principal Act. These new provisions are technical measures, not concerned exclusively with rights related to Australian films, designed to make it clear that a unit of industrial property that is transmitted from the owner to another person by operation of law is to be treated for purposes of Division 10B as having been disposed of by the owner to the other person.

New sub-section (3) will formally provide for the provisions of Division 10B to have effect, in a case where a unit of industrial property is transmitted to a person by operation of law, as if the unit had been disposed of to that person by the last preceding owner at the time of the transmission.

New sub-section (4) will make it clear that a reference in Division 10B to “the transmission of a unit of industrial property by operation of law” extends to cases where a unit is transmitted by operation of law to a trustee on the death of the deceased owner or to a beneficiary of the estate of the deceased owner.

74 — Cinema Papers, August/September

Clause 14: Application This clause proposes a number ot amendments to sub-section 1 24L(1) of the Principal Act which formally states the classes of “owners” of industrial property rights to whom Division 10B applies.

The amendments proposed by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of clause 13 are of a minor drafting or technical nature.

Paragraph (e) of the clause proposes the insertion in sub-section 1 24L (1) of the Principal Act of a new provision — paragraph (d) — specifically referring to cases where a person acquires a unit of industrial property by operation of law (e.g., as the trustee or a beneficiary of the estate of a deceased owner). Such owners are intended to be eligible for benefits under Division 10B and new paragraph (d) of sub-section 1 24L (1) is designed to remove any doubts about their position.

Clause 15: Annual deductions Section 1 24M of the Principal Act authorises the allow ance of annual d eductions for amounts determined by dividing the “ residual value” (the meaning of this expression is explained in notes on clause 1 9) of a unit of industrial property as at the end of each relevant year of income by the number of whole years in the effective life of the unit as at the beginning of that year.

This clause proposes to omit existing sub-section (3) of section 124M and insert new sub-sections (3) to (6) inclusive.

The new sub-section 1 24M (3) is directed to circumstances specifically referred to in sub-section 1 24S (2) of the Principal Act, which is designed, in conjunction with other technical provisions of Division 1 OB, to authorise deductions for capital expenditure incurred by an owner of a unit of industrial property in obtaining the surrender to him of a licence previously granted by him in respect of the unit.

The new sub-section (3) of section 124M will authorise the allowance of a deduction for the amount of such capital expenditure where it is incurred to obtain the surrender of the licence after the effective life of the unit in relation to the owner has expired. The present provisions are, technically, only capable of providing for a deduction where the surrender of the licence is obtained by the owner during the effective life of the unit.

The need for new sub-section (3) arises principally because of the move, as explained in the notes on clause 22 of this Bill, to deem a unit of industrial property that relates to a copyright in an Australian film to have an “ effective life” of 2 years over which the cost of the unit is to be written off under Division 10B. The sub-section will permit an owner of such a unit who, after this 2 year period has expired, incurs capital expenditure in obtaining the surrender to him of a licence previously granted by him in respect of the unit to claim a deduction for the full amount of that expenditure in respect of the year of income in which it is incurred. If such expenditure is incurred by the owner during the effective life of the unit, that expenditure will form part of the cost of the unit and be available for deduction on the new 2 year write-off basis that is being introduced.

The new sub-section 124M (4) is a drafting measure having the same basic purpose as existing sub-section 1 24M (3). By formally providing, in relation to a year of income, for a deduction not to be allowable under section 124M in respect of a unit of industrial property — except in circumstances referred to in the notes below on new sub-section 124M (5) — where the owner ceases to be the owner of the unit during the year of income, sub-section (4) clears the way for the appropriate balancing adjustment to be made under section 124N or 124P of the Principal Act on the disposal or lapse of the unit.

The new sub-section 124M (5) makes it clear that the annual deduction otherwise allowable under section 1 24M in respect of a year of income to the owner of a unit of industrial property is not precluded, in terms of sub-section 1 24M (4), where — the owner ceases to be the owner of the unit by virtue of the transmission of the unit to another person by operation of law (paragraph (5) (a)); or the unit was purchased or otherwise acquired by the owner for a specified period and he ceases to be the owner by reason that the sp e cifie d period term inates (paragraph (5) (b)).

In transm ission cases of the kind to which paragraph (a) of sub-section (5) is directed, the principal effect of the sub-section will be that, in a case where the owner of the unit dies during the year of income, the full amount of the annual deduction authorised by section 1 24M will be allowable in the date-of-death assessment of the deceased owner, with the residual value of the unit then being deductible in accordance with the provisions of Division 10B in the assessments of the trustee or the beneficiary of the deceased owner’s estate to whom the unit is transmitted by operation of law in consequence of the

owner’s death.

By virtue of paragraph (a), this will also be the position under Division 10B in any other cases where a unit of industrial property is transmitted from the owner to another person by operation of law.

In the circumstances referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-section (5), capital expenditure incurred by the owner in acquiring the unit for a specified period is, broadly, to be deductible by way of equal annual deductions in respect of each of the income years falling within the specified period, including the income year in which the specified period terminates.

Paragraph (b) is a technical measure directed to that < end.

The new sub-section 124M (6) is a technical measure directed to cases where the owner of a unit of industrial property ceases to be the owner of the unit by virtue of the transmission of the unit by operation of law to another person, for example, to a trustee or beneficiary in consequence of the death of the owner of the unit.

By providing in these cases for a reference, in sub­ section (1) or (3) of section 124M of the Principal Act, to the residual value of a unit of industrial property as at the end of a year of income to be read as a reference to the residual value of the unit in relation to the taxpayer immediately before the time of the transmission of the unit, sub-section (6) will permit the annual deduction calculated under section 1 24M to be allowed in the relevant assessment of the taxpayer who owned the unit immediately before its transmission to the other person.

Deductions under Division 10B in the assessments of the new “ owner” of the unit will continue, as at present, to be based on the residual value of the unit at the time of the transmission, after taking into account the deductions allowed or allowable in respect of the unit to the last preceding owner.

Clause 16: Deductions on the disposal or lapse of a unit of industrial property This clause will effect amendments of a drafting or technical nature to sub-section (2) of section 1 24N of the Principal Act which provides that, where a unit of industrial property lapses by reason of the patent or copyright or the registration of the design to which the unit relates ceasing to be in force, or where a licence under a patent, copyright or design is surrendered by the licensee otherwise than in consideration of the payment of a lump sum, the residual value of the unit in relation to the owner at that time is an allowable deduction.

As presently expressed, sub-section 1 24N (2) does not cater for circum stances (of probably rare occurrence) where an owner of a unit of industrial property has incurred capital expenditure (of the kind intended to be deductible under Division 10B) in respect of the unit after its effective life has expired.

The drafting amendment proposed by paragraph (a) of clause 16 will permit a deduction for the residual value of the unit to be available under sub-section 1 24N (2) in these circumstances.

The drafting amendment proposed by paragraph (b) of clause 16 is to make it clear that paragraph (b) of sub-section 124N (2) applies where no amount of “ consideration receivable” (as defined in section 124T) is received by the licensee on surrendering his licence.

Paragraph (c) of clause 16 effects a drafting amendment to sub-section 1 24N (2) in consequence of the amendments to the sub-section proposed by paragraph (a) of the clause.

Clause 17: Amount to be included in assessable income on disposal of a unit of industrial property Sub-section (1) of section 1 24P of the Principal Act applies in the case of an owner who disposes of a unit of industrial property, either wholly or in part, before its effective life has expired and who does so for an amount of consideration in excess of the residual value of the unit at the time of disposal. In this situation the sub-section provides for the inclusion of the amount of the excess in the owner’s assessable income of the year of income in which the disposal occurs. Sub­ section 1 24P (2) requires — in a case of a disposal of a unit after the expiration of its effective life — for the full amount of the consideration received by the owner to be treated as assessable income of the relevant year of income. In each case, the amount to be included as assessable income of the owner is, by reason of sub­ section 124P (3), not to exceed the sum of the deductions allowed under Division 10B in prior assessments of the owner in respect of the unit as reduced by any amounts previously included in assessable income under section 1 24P. Paragraph (a) of clause 17 proposes to omit sub­ sections (1) and (2) of section 124P and insert a new combined provision — sub-section (1). The main purpose of this amendment is to effect drafting changes that will permit the adjustment provided for in existing sub-section 124P (1) to apply in appropriate

TAX LEGISLATION

circumstances where the disposal of the unit occurs after the expiration of its effective life.

Paragraph (b) of clause 17 will make a drafting change to sub-section (3) of section 124P of the Principal Act consequential on the amendment to the section proposed by paragraph (a) of the clause.

Clause 18: Cost of a unit of industrial property This clause proposes to replace section 124R of the Principal Act with a new section 1 24R (comprising sub­ sections (1) to (5) inclusive). The broad purpose of the new section is essentially the same as its predecessor — to define the amount that is to be taken as the cost of a unit of industrial property for purposes of calculating the deductions allowable to the owner under Division 1 OB. The new sub-section (1) of section 124R is specifically directed — by way of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) — to the four broad sets of circumstances in which a taxpayer can become the owner of a unit of industrial property. The operation of the sub-section is subject to the operation of the new sub-section 124S(2), which provides for the cost of a unit of in d u s tria l p ro p e rty to be in c re a s e d in the circumstances referred to in that sub-section (see notes on paragraph (b) of clause 19 of the Bill).

Paragraph (a) of sub-section 1 24R(1) applies where the taxpayer is the original owner of the patent, copyright or design to which the unit of industrial property relates. In these circumstances, the cost of the unit wili, consistently with the present law in the general run of cases, be the amount of expenditure of a capital nature that has been directly incurred by the taxpayer in devising the invention or producing the design or work to which the copyright relates. An exception to this general rule will arise if that expenditure has been inflated by arrangements designed to enable the taxpayer to secure excessive benefits under Division 10B in respect of the unit (see notes below on new sub­ section 1 24R(2)).

Paragraph (b) of the new sub-section 124R(1) applies where the taxpayer acquires a unit of industrial property by purchase. In a purchase between parties dealing at arm’s length, the cost of the unit for Division 10B purposes will continue to be the amount paid by the taxpayer to acquire the unit. As explained in the notes relating to the new sub-section 1 24R(3), the cost of a unit that is transferred between parties not dealing with each other at arm’s length will, in certain circumstances, not be taken as the price they have set on the unit for the purpose of the transfer, but rather the original cost of the unit to the vendor, or the value of the unit at the time of its transfer to the new owner, whichever is the less.

Paragraph (c) of the new sub-section '.124R(1) applies where a taxpayer acquires a unit of industrial property as a gift from another person. The cost of the unit to the taxpayer (i.e., the donee) will in these cases be taken, consistently with the practical situation at present, as the residual value of the unit in relation to the donor immediately before the time of the disposal.

Paragraph (d) of the new sub-section 124R(1) applies where a taxpayer acquires a unit of industrial property by reason of the ownership of the unit being transmitted by operation of law. In these circumstances, the cost of the unit will be the residual value of the unit in relation to the preceding owner immediately before the time of the transmission. The most common example of cases to which the new paragraph (d) will apply is where a unit of industrial property is transmitted by operation of law to a trustee or beneficiary in consequence of the death of the owner.

Any deductions allowed or allowable under Division 10B in respect of the unit in an assessment of the deceased owner in respect of income derived up to the time of death are, in terms of paragraph (d), to be taken into account in calculating the residual value of the unit immediately before the time of the transmission.

The new sub-section 124R(2) is designed to protect the deduction provisions of Division 10B against arrangements to inflate the “ cost” of a unit of industrial property that could otherwise allow the owner of a patent, design or copyright to which the unit relates to secure excessive deductions under the Division. The safeguard applies where the owner and a supplier of goods or services act to attribute to goods or services involved in devising the invention, or in the production of the design or the work or subject-matter to which the unit relates, a “ cost” in excess of the commercially realistic worth of those goods or services. In these circumstances, the Commissioner will have the power to base deductions under Division 10B on an amount that would have been the cost if the parties had dealt with each other at arm’s length.

A taxpayer whose assessment is affected by the Commissioner applying this safeguard will have the usual rights of objection and reference to a Taxation Board of Review. In the event of the matter being referred to a Taxation Board of Review, it would be open for the Board to substitute its own opinion as to a realistic cost level for the opinion formed by the

Commissioner.

By reason of sub-clause (3) of clause 31 of the Bill, sub-section (2) will apply only in relation to transactions entered into after 27 April 1978.

The new sub-section 1 24R(3) provides a safeguard where a unit of industrial property is purchased from the owner by an associated person or company. The safeguard is to apply where the transfer of the unit is effected for a purchase price that exceeds the cost of the unit to the transferor or the value of the unit at the time of the transfer, in which event that cost or that value, whichever is the less, is to be treated as the cost of the unit for purposes of calculating the deductions allowable under Division 10B to the new owner (i.e., the transferee).

Pursuant to sub-clause (3) of clause 31 of the Bill, sub-section (3) will apply only in relation to transactions entered into after 27 April 1978.

The new sub-section 124R(4) has the effect of extending the operation of the safeguard proposed by the new sub-section 124R(3) to cases in which the owner transfers a part of a unit of industrial property to an associated person or company.

The new sub-section 124R(5) refers to a case where the taxpayer purchases a unit of industrial property together with other property under an agreement which does not specify a separate price for the unit. In such a case, the capital expenditure incurred by the owner in acquiring the unit is, in effect, to be such part of the total price as the Commissioner determines is attributable to the unit.

Clause 19: Residual value Paragraph (a) of clause 19 proposes to insert a new provision — sub-section (1 A) — in section 124S of the Principal Act to correct a flaw in paragraph (a) of sub­ section (1) of that section.

The function of sub-section 1 24S (1) is to set out the basis for determining the residual value of a unit of industrial property for purposes of applying the provisions of Division 10B. The residual value of a unit is the basis for calculating annual deductions under section 1 24M and also for calculating the balancing adjustment that applies under section 1 24N or 1 24P on the disposal of a unit.

Broadly, the residual value of a unit of industrial property at any particular time, is the cost of the unit to the owner less the sum of any deductions allowed or allowable in respect of the unit in assessments of the owner for prior income years, and any amounts of consideration received by the owner in respect of any part disposal by him of the unit prior to that time.

In a case where an invention, design or work to which a unit relates is used by the owner for the purpose of producing assessable income in Australia and also income in another country, the residual value of the unit as at the end of the relevant year of income needs to be determined, in order that the calculation to be made under section 1 24M will produce the appropriate level of annual deduction, by taking account of the annual deductions that would have been allowed to the owner in respect of the unit in prior years if the unit had been used wholly for the purpose of producing assesable income.

However, paragraph 1 24S (1) (a) of the present law allows for the taking into account of only such parts of the annual section 124M deductions as have actually been allowed after section 124Z has been applied.

Section 124Z provides, in effect, for deductions that would otherwise be allowable In respect of a unit under Division 10B to be reduced by an amount that is appropriate having regard to the extent to which the use of the unit in another country generates income exempt from tax in Australia. The new sub-section (1A) of section 1 24S will enable the residual value, and thus the annual deductions under section 1 24M and balancing adjustments, to be determined in the appropriate manner in relation to cases involving the application of section 124Z. By reason of sub-clause (2) of clause 31 of the Bill, sub-section (1 A) will apply in assessments for 1978-79 and subsequent years of income.

Paragraph (b) of clause 19 will insert in section 1 24S of the Principal Act a new sub-section (2) in substitution for the existing one, which requires that the residual value of a unit of industrial property be increased by an amount equal to any expenditure of a capital nature incurred by the owner of the unit in obtaining the surrender of a licence previously granted by him in respect of the unit. Where the expenditure so incurred is excessive, having regard to the value of the licence at the time of the surrender, the Commissioner is presently empowered to increase the residual value of the unit, for the purposes of applying tha-provisions of Division 10B, by only such amount as he determines.

The amount so determined would ordinarily equate with the value of the licence at the time of its surrender.

The new sub-section (2) will have the same basic operation as the present provision, but will provide a more effective safeguard than is presently available where the owner of the unit and the licensee are not dealing with each other at arm’s length in relation to the

surrender of the licence. In these non-arm’s length cases, the new sub-section (2) will mean, in effect, that where the consideration for the surrender was greater than the value of the licence at the time of the surrender or the amount incurred by the licensee in originally obtaining the licence from the owner, the residual value of the unit in relation to the owner will be increased, for the purposes of applying the provisions of Division 10B in the owner’s assessment for the relevant year, by the lesser of that value or that amount.

The new sub-section (2) will, pursuant to sub-clause (3) of clause 31 of the Bill, apply only in relation to transactions entered into after 27 April 1978.

Clause 20: Consideration receivable on disposal This clause proposes to repeal section 1 24T of the Principal Act and insert a new section 1 24T in its stead.

The new section 1 24T has the same basic purpose as the existing section - namely, to define the amounts that are to be treated as “ consideration receivable” in calculating the balancing adjustment that is to be made under section 1 24N or 1 24P on the disposal, by the owner of a unit of industrial property, of the unit or a part of the unit. In addition, the new section 124T incorporates a safeguard against arrangements between associated parties that could have the effect of avoiding or cutting down that balancing adjustment.

The new sub-section 124T(1) comprises three paragraphs — paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) — which broadly correspond with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of e x is tin g s e c tio n 1 24T and s im ila rly d e fin e “ consideration receivable” in respect of the disposal in whole or in part of a unit of industrial property to mean, in effect — where the unit is sold in whole or in part for a specified price — the net sale price (paragraph (a)); where the unit is sold in whole or in part together with other property and a specified price is not allocated to the unit or part unit — such part of the net sale price as is attributable to the sale of the u n ito r part unit (paragraph (b)); and where the unit is transmitted in whole or in part by operation of law — an amount equal to the residual value of the unit or part unit immediately before the time of the transmission (paragraph (c)).

The new sub-section (2), a safeguarding measure, applies where a unit of industrial property is disposed of in whole or in part by the owner either for no consideration, or for a price less than the value of the unit or part unit at the time of its disposal and the Commissioner is satisfied that the parties were not dealing with each other at arm’s length. In these circum­ stances, the sub-section provides for the value of the unit or part of the unit to be taken as the “ consideration receivable” in respect of the disposal and, accordingly, used as the basis for calculating the balancing charge required to be made under section 124N or 1 24P in the assessment of the owner for the year of income in which the disposal is effected.

The new sub-section (2) will, pursuant to sub-clause (3) of clause 31 of the Bill, apply only in relation to transactions entered into after 27 April 1978.

The new sub-section (3) of section 124T is a drafting measure to make it clear that the term “ consid­ eration receivable”, as defined by sub-section (1), does not include an amount receivable by the owner on the disposal of a unit or part of a unit that is to be treated as assessable income under the general provisions of the Principal Act outside of Division 10B. It would not be appropriate for such assessable income to be taken into account also as consideration receivable in calculating the balancing adjustment to be made under section 124N or 1 24P on the disposal of the unit or part unit.

Clause 21: Effective life This clause will effect drafting changes to sub­ section 124U(1) of the Principal Act that are consequential upon the insertion in Division 10B of a new section 124UA as proposed by the next clause of the Bill.

Clause 22: Effective life of certain units of industrial property This clause proposes to insert a new section — section 1 24UA — in Division 10B of Part III of the Principal Act. The new section will have the general effect of permitting capital expenditure incurred in acquiring rights in or under the copyright relating to a film to be deductible over a basic 2 year write-off period if the film is an “ Australian film” in the terms of the definition to be incorporated in the law by clause 13.

The effects of the proposed amendments relating to Australian film rights have been outlined in the Intro­ ductory Note on clauses 13 to 27.

C oncluded on P.77 Cinema Papers, August/September — 75

For reservations: Sydney: 33 Bligh Street, Telephone: 233 3277. Melbourne: 440 Collins Street, Telephone: 67 7432.

Brisbane: 331 Queen Street, Telephone: 221 5655. Adelaide: 17 City Cross, Telephone: 2124466. Perth: 22 Terrace Arcade,Telephone:3219639. .

SSB.UTA/36

CENSORSHIP

TAX LEGISLATION

Taxation Legislation

Continued from P.75 In line with the basic drafting concept followed in Division 10B, the 2 year write-off concession is to be implemented, under new sub-section 124UA(1), by deeming the effective life of a unit of industrial property that relates to a copyright subsisting in an Australian film to commence at the beginning of the year of income in which the owner first used the unit for the purpose of producing assessable income and to end — where the unit was purchased or otherwise acquired for a specified period — at the end of the year of income next succeeding the year of income during which the unit was first so used or, if occurring earlier, at the end of the year of income during which the specified period will terminate (paragraph (a) of the new sub-section 124UA(1)) or in any other case — at the end of the year of income next succeeding the year of income during which the unit was first so used (paragraph (b) of that sub-section).

Accordingly, the effective life of a unit that relates to an Australian film will, for purposes of calculating the amount of the annual deduction allowable to the owner on the basis set out in section 1 24M of the Principal Act, generally be 2 income years, with provision being made for the effective life of such a unit to be taken as 1 income year where the rights are held for a specified period that expires within the year of income during which they are first used for the purpose of producing assessable income.

By sub-section (2) of section 124UA, an owner of a unit of industrial property that relates to an Australian film will be able, if he so wishes, to elect to have the effective life of the unit determined under section 124U, in which event the deductions allowable in respect of the cost to the owner of acquiring the unit will be deter­ mined on the basis presently provided for in Division 10B — that is, broadly, by way of annual deductions over 25 years or any shorter effective life given to the unit by existing section 124U. Formal requirements concerning the making and lodgment of this election are set out in new sub-section 1 24UA(3).

Sub-section (4) of section 1 24UA will restrict the availability of the 2 year basic write-off period to cases where the rights, and the Australian films to which they relate, were first used for the purpose of producing income on or after 22 November 1977.

Clause 23: Interest by licence in patent etc.

It is proposed by this clause that the reference to “ a lump sum” in paragraph (a) of existing sub-section 1 24V(2) of the Principal Act, which is concerned with certain consequences of a surrender of a licence, be replaced with a reference to simply “ an amount” . This is a drafting refinement that will not affect the general operation of the provision.

Clause 24: Disposal of unit of industrial property on change of partnership etc.

This clause will repeal existing section 1 24W of the Principal Act and substitute a new provision — section 124W, comprising sub-sections (1) to (5) inclusive.

The basic purpose of the new section 1 24W is, as is that of the existing provision, to set out the basis on which the relevant provisions of Division 10B are to apply in relation to arrangements that result in a change in the interests of persons in a unit of industrial property. Also consistently with the existing law, the new section 1 24W will apply only where one of the

Censorship Listings

Continued from P.37 Love and Anarchy: H. Steinmann/B. Baxter, Italy (3154.00 m) The Manchu Boxer: Golden Harvest/R. Chow, Hong Kong (2304.00 m) ~ Pretty Baby: L. Malle, U. S. A. (2996.00 m) Shaolin Death Squads: C. Wong/First Films, Hong Kong (2306.00 m) The Tournament: R. Chow, Hong Kong (2660.00 m) You Are Wonderful: Lee's Film Co., Hong Kong (2500.00 m)

For Restricted Exhibition (R) The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith (a): F. Schepisi, Australia (3284.00 m) Devil’s Garden: R. Miller, U. S»A. (2139.00 m) Eugenie . . . The Story of Her Journey Into Perversion: P. Welbeck, Liechtenstein (2413.00 m) Final Chapter: Walking Tall: C. Pratt, U. S. A. (3127.00 m) The Fury: F. Yablans, U. S. A. (3181.00 m) Goodbye Emmanuelle: Y. Rousset-Rouaid, France (2633.00 m) , The Great Man: Tam Film Co., Hong Kong (2688.00 m) Love Fantasies: M. Pecas, France (2036.30 m) Love Train for SS: Eurocine/Plata Films, France/Spain (3044.00 m) The Maids: J. Jaackson, U. S. A. (2413.84 m) M ultiple Maniacs (16 mm): J. Waters, U. S. A. (1009 m)

parties who owned the unit before the change retains part ownership of the unit after the change.

As an additional feature, the new section 1 24W will provide safeguarding provisions effective in relation to transactions entered into after 27 April 1978 — see notes below on the new sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) — that are complementary to the measures to counter tax avoidance arrangements proposed for insertion in Division 10B by clauses 18, 19(b) and 20 of the Bill.

Taken together, and consistently with the existing section 1 24W, the new sub-sections 124W (1) and (2) will have the effect of deeming changes in interests in units of industrial property to be disposals by the persons who owned the property prior to that change to the persons owning the property after the change, if one of the parties who owned the property before the change is one of the parties owning the property after the change.

These circumstances are generally associated with the formation, variation or dissolution of a partnership.

Where there is a complete change in ownership or interests in a business or property — as, for example, where the partnership of A and B sells its business or property to the partnership of C and D — a disposal of the relevant assets clearly takes place. If, however, A had sold his share in the partnership to E, the resultant change of interests in the partnership property would not, but for sub-sections (1) and (2), represent a disposal by A and B to B and E. Rather, it would be a case of A disposing of his interest to E. The approach proposed by these sub-sections is followed in the same circumstances in relation to transfers of interests in items of plant and other property that are the subject of depreciation allowances (cf., section 59AA of the Principal Act) and, in the context of Division 10B, will permit — (a) balancing adjustments to be made in the assess­ ments of the transferors in consequence of the deemed disposal of the unit in accordance with section 1 24N or 1 24P, based on the amount that is to be regarded as the consideration receivable by the transferrors in respect of the transfer of the unit — see notes below on new sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) for the meaning given to “ consideration receivable” in these cases; and * (b) deductions to be allowed in the assessments of the transferees in consequence of their acquisition of the unit in accordance with section 1 24M, based on the amount that is to be regarded as the cost to them of acquiring the unit — see notes below on new sub­ sections (3), (4) and (5) for the meaning given to “ cost” in these cases.

The new sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 1 24W specify the amounts that, in the various circum­ stances that can arise in respect of transfers of interests in a unit of industrial property to which the section applies, are to be taken for the purposes of applying the provisions of Division 10B as, on one hand, the amount of the "consideration receivable” by the transferors on the disposal of the unit and, on the other, as the capital expenditure (i.e., the “ cost” ) incurred by the transferees in acquiring the unit.

As already indicated, the safeguarding provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) are complementary to other measures directed against tax-avoidance arrangements that are proposed for general application in relation to transfers of industrial property between associated persons and are similarly to take effect only in relation to transactions entered into after 27 April 1978.

The new sub-section (3) refers to three situations, namely — where the agreement in consequence of which the

Rolling Thunder: N. Herman, U. S. A. (2633.00 m) Sex Slaves: E. Dietrich, Switz/France (2249.26 m) Strip for Action: E. Dietrich, Switzerland (1990.00 m) Switchblade Sisters: J. Prizer, U. S. A. (2358.00 m) Too Hot To Handle: R. Desidierio, U. S. A. (2331.00 m) (a) Now classified 'M' following Films Board of Review meeting on 3rd May, 1978.

Special Conditions: (For showing not more than twice at Sydney and/or Melboume/Adelaide/Brisbane/Perth Film Festival and then re-exported ).

The Apprentice Sorcerers: E. Cozarinsky, France (2441.27 m) The Baker’s Bread (Das Brot Des Backers): E. Keusch, W. Germany (3346.00 m) Black Brood (Camada Negra): J. Borau, Spain (2194.40 m) The Chicago Maternity Center Story (16 mm): Kartemquin Films, U. S. A. (660.00 m) The Cycle (Dayereh Mina): D. Mehrjui, Iran (3000.00 m) Dummy Partner (Blind Makker): H. Christensen, Denmark (2633.28 m) Foul Play: M. Piwowski, Poland (2464.00 m) Games of Love and Loneliness: B. Forslund, Sweden/ Norway (2715.57 m) The Garden Beyond (16 mm): Breck Film Prods., U. K. (633.00 m) Gogodala — A Cultural Revival? (16 mm): C. Owen, Papua New Guinea (1060.00 mm) I Hate to Lose (16 mm): National Film Board of Canada, Canada (641.00 m) John Heartfield Fotomonteur: H. Herbst. W. Germany (1 780.00 m)

change in interests in a unit occurs specifies an amount as the value of the unit for the purposes of the agreement and that amount is equal to the value of the unit at the time of the change; where there is no such agreement. where there is such an agreement but no amount is specified as the value of the unit for the purposes of that agreement.

For the purposes of applying the relevant provisions of Division 10B in any of these situations, the trans­ ferors are to be deemed to have disposed of the unit for a consideration equal to the value of the unit at the time when the change occurred; and the transferees are to be deemed to have incurred expenditure of a capital nature on the purchase of the unit of an amount equal to that value or the cost of the unit to the transferors (after allowing for any increase to the cost of the unit authorised by sub-section 1 24S(2)), whichever is the less.

The new sub-section (4) refers to a situation where the agreement in consequence of which the change in the interests in a unit occurred specifies an amount as the value of the unit for the purposes of the agreement and that amount exceeds the value of the unit at the time of the change.

For the purposes of applying the relevant provisions of Division 10B to this case, the transferors are to be deemed to have disposed of the unit for a consideration equal to the amount specified in the agreement; and the transferees are to be deemed to have incurred expen­ diture of a capital nature on the purchase of the unit of an amount equal to the value of the unit at the time of the change or the cost of the unit to the transferors (as increased by any amount authorised by sub-section 1 24S(2)), whichever is the less.

The new sub-section (5) refers to cases where the agreement in consequence of which the change in the interests in a unit occurred specifies an amount as the value of the unit for the purposes of that agreement and that amount is less than the value of the unit at the time of the change.

For the purposes of applying the relevant provisions of Division 1 OB in these circumstances, the transferors are to be deemed to have disposed of the unit for a consideration equal to the value of the unit at the time of the change; and the transferees are to be deemed to have incurred capital expenditure on the purchase of the unit of an amount equal to the amount specified in the agreement or the cost of the unit to the transferors (as increased by any amount authorised by sub-section 124S(2), whichever is the less.

Clause 25: Use of patent by Commonwealth or State Clause 26: Damages for infringement These clauses of the Bill are designed to effect amendments to sections 124X and 124Y of the Principal Act that, like the corresponding amendments proposed by clause 23, are of a minor nature. The amendments will not alter the present operation of those sections in any significant way.

Clause 27: Benefit from overseas rights This clause will effect a drafting refinement to section 1 24Z of the Principal Act. * The consolidated version of the Tax Assessment Act will be available to subscribers to the Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide. Photocopies are also available on application to Cinema Papers.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Summer! (16 mm): Direction Generale Du Cinema, Canada (754.00 m) Outrageous: W. Marshall, Canada (2633.28 m) Paradise Place: I. Bergman, Sweden (3072.00 m) Peking Duck Soup (Chinois, Encore Un Effort Poure Etre R évolutionnaires . .. ) R. Vienet, France (3300.00 m) Race, The Spirit of Franco: G. Herralde, Spain (2350.00 m) The Red Bowmen (16 mm): C. Owen, Papua New Guinea (1 454.00 m) Spider Football (Pokfoci): J. Rozsa, Hungary (2408.00 m) Stunde Null (Zero Hour): E. Reitz, W. Germany (2962.00 m) Dites-Lui Que Je L’Aime (Tell Him I Love Him/Sweet Sickness): H. Niogret, France (2907.58 m) Treasure (16 mm): National Geographic Society, U. S. A. (649.00 m) ' Tree of Desires: T. Abuladse, U. S. S. R. (2893.00 m) Unfinished Piece for a Mechanical Piano: N. Mihaikov, U. S. S. R. (2818.00 m). Special Condition: To be shown once only in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra as part of the Goethe Institute’s 1978 ‘Helma Sanders’ season.

Beneath The Pavement Lies The Beach: H. Sanders, W. Germany (2907.58 m) Heinrich (16 mm): H. Sanders, W. Germany (1390.00 m) S h irin ’s W edding: H. Sanders, W. Germany (3294.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Meet Sweet Myra (a): The Naughty Nudie Movie Co., U.S.A. (1645.92 m). Eliminations: 97.3 m (3 mins 33 secs). Reason: Indecency.

While The C at’s Away: A. Shackleton/Vincent Productions, U. S. A. (2084.68 m). Eliminations: 45.2 m (1 min 38 secs). Reason: Indecency. (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 9/ 75.

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION The Hills Have Eyes (Reconstructed Version) (a) P. Locke, U. S. A. (2413.80 m).

Reason: Indecent violence.

The Model Hunters (Reconstructed Version. (b) M.J. Productions, U.S.A. (1226.00m) Reason: Indecency Naughty V ictorians: J Butterworth, U. S. A. (2268.80 m) Reason: Indecency.

Sex Wish: Taurus/Santini/R. Ell, U. S. A. (2107.90 m).

Reason: Indecency. (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 12/77. (b) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 2/ 78.

Note: Title of film notified as Another Man, Another Chance in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 2/78 has been altered to Another Man, Another Woman.

Title of film notified as Uncle Tom’s Cabin in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 7/77 has been altered to Cry Sweet Revenge. if

Cinema Papers, August/September — 77

« ■ M I

i

m ■ I

i l

m u ra

:

i

1

BILL BAIN

mahogany room with the light streaming through a window was suddenly an inspiration.

I love shooting wide, though now I think a director needs a judicious mixture.

Bill Bain

Continued from P.14 I think there will be less done, and less experimentation. If a com pany is going to spend increasing amounts of money, it will go with “’safe” subjects. Up to now, a series did not need to be an instant hit. It is not like in the U.S. where if you drop a point in the ratings you are axed.

Our system has made for a very rich landscape, because there has been a choice. I think it will be this area that will be limited.

T h e rec e n t B B C se r ie s “ T h e P a llis e r s ” w as sh ot out of se q u e n c e to m a x im iz e th e u s e o f e a c h lo c a tio n . I s t h is m eth o d lik e ly to b eco m e m ore co m m o n ?

I hope not. On T h e P a llis e r s , scenes from up to 10 episodes were shot at once; and I thought it showed. It had no shape because the actors were totally at sea; there was no way they could build their performances.

Performances are the secret of a lot of what you enjoy: it is seeing something come to a satisfactory shape, a conclusion within a performance. Once you lose that, things get that flat, cardboard look which never draws you in or touches you. Do you feel that?

Y e s , th o u g h I ten d to p r a ise th e w r ite r , r a th er th a n th e actor. For e x a m p le , is th e su p erb d ia lo g u e in “ B a rlo w at L a r g e ” due to th e w riter or S tra tfo rd J o h n s ?

W h a t is you r ro le h ere at th e A u s tr a lia n F ilm and T e le v is io n S c h o o l?

Edward Woodward as Callan (left) and Alfred Burke in Public Eye. Bill Bain directed episodes from both series.

Desperate Ones or The Savage Ones — one of those totally forgettable titles. They re-titled it R o m eo and J u lie t 1 9 7 2 , which was another very bad title, but possibly the worst of all was the one they finally chose.

I adored making the film though, and I had a good crew and a fairly good cast. Unfortunately, I was taken to hospital with an about-to-burst appendix on the last day of shooting and the good fairy of the two producers had gone back to New York.

I was then left in a hospital bed with the bad fairy able to exercise his wicked will. He came to see me and said he was going to change the story. I asked how he planned to do that and he replied, “ Oh, I can shuffle the cards. I want a different sort of story to the one you made.” ^ Anyway, when I went back to the studios, there was his version and mine, both from the same material. His version I thought was awful — it just didn’t mean anything. Both copies then went over to the American backers and, though they liked mine, they felt he had done some things they wanted incorporated into mine.

This was done.

At the last minute, they decided to go for a “ U” certificate instead of an “ X” , and they reduced all the violent scenes. It was finally shown on th e sam e bill as

In that case, it is a combination; it is the coming together of actor, writer, director — everybody.

Television is a team effort and it is very hard to separate the strands, although if you have a bad script you may as well give up. Likewise, a good script badly done does nobody any good.

It is also a caring on the part of the people who are working on a program. If you do something indifferently it will come out as an indifferent-looking piece. But if you can get a caringness going — a love for the thing itself — then you will transmit some of that C o n q u e st o f th e P la n e t o f th e feeling.

A p e s. Now, if they had originally B e t w e e n “ U p s t a i r s , D o w n ­ asked me to make something to s t a ir s ” a n d “ D u c h e s s o f D u k e share the bill with C o n q u e st o f th e S t r e e t ” , you m a d e a fe a tu r e f ilm , P la n e t o f th e A p e s, I would have “ W h a t B e c a m e o f J a c k a n d done something quite different.

It is a shame to see a film you J ill? ” . . . have approached with integrity I made it at Shepperton for a casually butchered, and in the end company called Amicus, which it b o re no re se m b la n c e to makes features like T h e C o n q u e st anything I had set out to do. It was o f th e I n s id e o f th e E a r th and neither one thing nor another, V a lle y o f th e D in o s a u r s . Just and it deserved to sink without a occasionally, one of the two trace. producers there would come up with a different film, like the one Y e t t h e c r i t i c s , p r o b a b ly n o t they made of Margaret Drabble’s k n o w in g th e sto ry b e h in d th is f ilm , w ere fa ir ly c r itic a l. D id The Millstone with Sandy Denis.

The film I was to do was also th a t b o th er yo u ? apart from their usual image and No, by that stage it had gone so was based on a book called The

far out of my hands I didn’t feel it was happening to me.

T h a t w a s in 1 9 7 2 a n d y o u h a v e n ’t m a d e a fe a tu r e s in c e . D o you in te n d to in th e fu tu re?

Yes, I have been approached by the Rank Organisation to do a comedy remake of T h e L a d y V a n is h e s , but I don’t like the sound of what is going on there.

They seem to be having a bit of trouble and, if so, I don’t really want to be part of it. I won’t wi l l i ngl y go t h r o u g h t h a t experience again of approaching a film with high hopes only to be the victim of any philistine who happens to be crossing my path at the time.

D o you f i n d s h o o t i n g for te le v is io n is m u ch d iffe r e n t to sh o o tin g for c in e m a ?

The size of screen is the most determining factor: television is a three-by-four ratio and it is always viewed on a small screen. The problem any television-trained director faces when he shoots a film is the new screen ratio, particularly of those long, thin screens. You can’t go into closeup nearly as often as you do in television.

I find some screen ratios very difficult to compose for and I admire people with a compositional eye for what are really quite strange shapes.

D o e s th e te le v is io n ratio re str ic t th e n u m b er o f w id e an d m ed iu m s h o ts you w is h to u se ?

As far as c o mp o s i t i o n is concerned, the biggest motivating factor has been the change to color. Up till the changeover, television shooting had become tighter and tighter. Then, when color came, the cameras began to withdraw. A wide-shot in color was so much more effective than it ever had been in black and white; it could convey a lot more information. For example, the sight of a red-haired woman in a black and white dress standing in a

It is a specific brief to take the 12 third-year students through their television projects. I guess I am a big daddy, a father figure, and I act as an executive producer.

Their projects had been decided on before I arrived, so I had virtually no influence on what they were to do. The only influence I can exert now is on the way they go about doing things.

It’s fun.

One of the nice things about the school is that all the people I know in the industry would have liked to come here. We all had a baptism by fire and are still pretending we know more about the technical side than we do. So I think that the more of us who can make a contribution to this place the better.

Maybe I am idealistic, but I came out gladly to do this job and I turned down several projects to do so.

I believe in the potential talent this country has, though what it needs is focusing and discipline — also a place like this where people can make mistakes on the quiet and not have them thrown up on the television or film screen for all of us to think, “ Jesus, isn’t that awful.”

By the time the students come out of here, if they have met enough professionals along the way, they will have some very deep notion of what it is all about.

F IL M O G R A P H Y

T E L E V IS IO N P L A Y S

The Importance of Being Earnest (90 min) The Kindness of Mrs Radcliffe (90 min) Pretty Polly (90 min) Armchair Theatre (60 min) A Magnum for Schneider (90 min — forerunner of Callan) The Listener (90 min) I am Osango (90 min) Father’s Help (90 min) Gong Game (90 min) S E R IE S

Harpers W1 Callan Public Eye The Avengers The Gold Robbers Manhunt The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes Upstairs, Downstairs (leading director on four series) / The Duchess of Duke Street (leading director on two series) Enemy at the Door leading director on one series)/ F E A T U R E F IL M

What Became of Jack and Jill (1972 — 90 min) ★

Cinema Papers, August/September — 79

SOUND STUDIO FOR H IR E Suitable for Filmy Video and Stills at: F IL M S E T S 88 Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, M E LB O U R N E 3166 Studio 7$' 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

is an

A? X®X®X®X®X* X®X®X®X®Xs X®X®A* X®X* X®A4 X* X* X* X®Xs X®X®X®X* X®X*

INDEPENDENT Director, Writer, Producer /

of

FILM Commercial, Documentary, Feature

( 0 3 )5 9 6 1106 B tflC K C B O R n

P R O D U C T IO R

studio of 3D animated films in

s p e c i a l i s e s

4 Whiting Street, Artarmon 2064. Telephone 439 1962 19 Trent Street, Burwood 2134. Telephone 29 3724 50-52 Vulture Street, West End, Brisbane 4101. Telephone 44 2851 101-105 Mooringe Avenue, Camden Park, SA 5038. Telephone 294 6555 430 Newcastle Street, Perth 6000. Telephone 328 3933 120 Parry Street, Newcastle 2309. Telephone 26 2466 25 Molonglo Mall, Fyshwick 2600. Telephone 95 2144

X* i * A®X* X®Xs X5, X6 A®X* X®X®A®X* X®X®t? X®X4, X4 X* X4 X4 X* X4 X4 X®X* X®

ANIM ATION

SPECIAL

ALSO

OF

EFFECTS,

AVAIAR LE

FLAT

FOR

IN S T R U C TIO N A L

t e l e p h o n e

PUPPETS

UNO

OR

CEIL

SHOR TS. U NO

0 R IEC TS ;

A N IM A TIO N

A O V E R T IS IN 6 ,

FEA TU R E

FILM S

7 0 7 5667 OR 9 8 2 6 2 0 0

40 Nicholson Street, Burwood NSW 2134.

PRODUCTION SURVEY

ELLICOTT PAPERS

PRODUCTION SURVEY Production Survey Continued from P.55 S O U T H A U S T R A L IA N F IL M C O R P O R A T IO N

BEHAVIOURAL DIFFICULTIES IN CHILDREN Screenplay......................... Malcolm Purcell Exec Producer........................ Peter Dimond Length....................................... 50 min (TV) Sponsor..................... Dept, of Mental Health S ynopsis: To show how anti-social behavioural problems In children who are not mentally or physically impaired or retarded are the result of emotional d eprivation induced by the home environment.

CHILDREN’S LIBRARY PROMOTION Screenplay................ Christobel Mattingley Exec Producer................. Lesley Hammond Length...................................................15 min Gauge................................................. 16mm Sponsor........................ State Library of S.A. Synopsis: A film to encourage children and parents to use the children’s library and facilities.

CONDITIONING FOR SPORT PRINCIPLES

DESIGN FOR LIVING Screenplay.................. Christopher Bishop Exec Producer.............. Lesley Hammond Length.............................................15 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Sponsor........... Education Department, S.A. Synopsis: To increase students' awareness of good design in everyday living and to show that it is possible to make objects which are both functional and aesthetically pleasing!

Screenplay................... Magda de la Pesca Exec Producer................ Lesley Hammond Length.............................................20 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Sponsor........... Education Department, S.A. Synopsis: A film to make students (1 2-14 year olds) aware of the short and long term effects of drug-taking. The emphasis is on socially acceptable drugs — smoking, alcohol and analgesics.

EDUCATION THROUGH MUSIC IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Screenplay......................... Brian Hannant Exec Producer................ Lesley Hammond Length.............................................20 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Sponsor........... Education Department, S.A. Synopsis: To show that music can play a unique and effective role In the emotional and intellectual development in sub-normal people.

the changing impacts of nature on a National Park and to give an appreciation of the dynamic nature of the natural wild.

Prod Company.......... Slater Sound Studios Director........................

BrianHannantHOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF . . . ?

Screenplay......................... TerryJennings Prod Company........ Slater Studios Pty. Ltd. Producer........................................... NickCockram Director.............................. Brian Hannant Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Screenplay................................ John Dick Photography..................................... DavidForeman Exec Producer................ Lesley Hammond Editor................................. AndrewProwse Length.............................................20 min Length.............................................20 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Gauge............................................. 16mm Sponsor........... Education Department, S.A. Synopsis: To show how running and Synopsis: A film to encourage the audience mobility exercises are a part of conditioning (11-13 year-olds) to think and talk about the programs. society they live in and some of its problems.

CONDITIONING FOR SPORT WEIGHT & CIRCUIT TRAINING

Screenplay................................ John Dick Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length.............................................. 10 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Sponsor................................... Dept for the Environment Synopsis: To show the impact of recreational vehicles on the natural environment and how they conflict with It

SAFETY IN ELECTRIC BLASTING Screenplay......................... Brian Hannant Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length.............................................15 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Sponsor.............................. Department of Mines & Energy S ynopsis: To illustrate the correct procedures and the dangers associated with electric blasting.

SAFETY IN NATIONAL PARKS

DRUGS

Prod Company.......... Slater Sound Studios Director................................................. BrianHannant FLINDERS RANGES NATIONAL Screenplay........................................... TerryJennings PARK Producer............................................... NickCockram Screenplay......................... Harry Bardwell Exec Producer........................ Peter Dimond Exec Producer......................

Peter Dimond Photography........................................ DavidForeman Editor.................................... AndrewProwse Length............................................. 15 min Length.................................................. 20 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Gauge................................................. 16mm Sponsor.................................. Dept, for the Environment Synopsis: The film shows the principles of Synopsis: To educate the general public in conditioning for various sports.

CONDITIONING FOR SPORT RUNNINGS MOBILITY

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES IN NATIONALPARKS

PERFORMANCE - LITTLE RIVER BAND Prod Company............. Pepper Audiovisual Director.......................................John Dick Screenplay................................ John Dick Exec Producer................ Lesley Hammond Length.............................................15 min Gauge............................................ 35mm Sponsor.............................. Department of Further Education, S.A. Synopsis: To show audiences that to be an entertalner/artist requires, apart from talent, a lot of hard work, dedication and personal sacrifice but that it can also be very rewarding. It will also point out that training is beneficial.

Screenplay.............................Brian Bergln Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length.............................................10 min Sponsor........................Department for the Envlronment/National Parks & Wildlife S ynop si s: To increase the public awareness of the safe use of National Park reserves.

SUPERANNUATION Screenplay.............................Brian Bergln Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length.............................................15 min Sponsor................... State Superannuation Office Synopsis: Outlines the benefits gained from contributing to a superannuation fund.

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES Screenplay......................... Brian Hannant Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length.............................................50 min Sponsor................... Dept of Mental Health Synopsis: To correct the misconceptions that people have on psychiatric hospitals.

T.A.F.E. & SCHOOL LEAVERS Screenplay......................... Brian Hannant Exec Producer................ Lesley Hammond Length.............................................20 min Gauge............................................ 16mm

Sponsor.............................. Department of Further Education, S.A. Synopsis: To present Technical and Further Education as a desirable alternative form of post-secondary education to school leavers, stressing the wide range of options available.

TWENTY FOUR HOUR CLOCK Prod Company............ Pepper Audiovisual Screenplay..............................Pat Hudson Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length...................... ........................5 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Sponsor............................. Department for Community Welfare Synopsis: An information film on the work of the Crisis Care Unit for staff.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE CRUNCH Prod Company................... Newfilm Pty. Ltd. Screenplay......................................... RobGeorge, John Dick Exec Producer.................................... PeterDimond Length.............................................15 min Sponsor........................ Colgate-Palmolive Gauge............................................. 16mm Synopsis: General preventative dentistry.

VEGETATION CLEARANCE Screenplay......................... Harry Bardwell Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length............................................ 10 min Sponsor............................. Department for the Environment Synopsis: Shows the reasons for the retention of native vegetation.

FOR A D VER TISIN G IN

NORTH TO THE ALICE

Screenplay......................... Brian Hannant Prod Company......... Slater Sound Studios Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Length.............................................15 min Director............................................. BrianHannant Screenplay......................... TerryJennings Gauge............................................. 35mm Sponsor...................... Australian National Producer........................................... NickCockram Railway Exec Producer...................... Peter Dimond Photography........................ DavidForeman Synopsis: A film on the construction of the Editor................................. AndrewProwse Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway, one of the world’s largest desert railway constructions.

Length.............................................20 min Gauge............................................. 16mm Synopsis: A film demonstrating weight and circuit training.

The Ellicott Papers

Continued from P.19 I confirm that I wish these views to be lodged with the other assessments and I would hope that it is not too late to at least give them some further thought time.”

The Commission, with Mr Burke voting against the proposal, decided to confirm its decision to seek your approval for the project.

The reason for an urgent decision I see was conveyed to you by Commissioner McQuaid. I have looked into this matter further, and Film Australia advises me that it can hold until Friday night this week, or at the latest Monday morning.9 Its under­ standing with key people will have to be revoked, and the film, if approval is forthcoming, will then need to be delayed until August.

I am grateful for your concern in this matter. The Commission after all has spent time at three meetings discussing in detail all the points which have been raised, as it realised the problems involved. With the exception of Mr Burke, the Commission feels that it is an important film with a reasonable chance in the short-term, and of continuing interest in the long-term.

Yours sincerely K. F. WATTS Chairman 9. Presumably, “ hold” its decision about starting the project.

Ring Sue Adler: Sydney 26 1625 Peggy Nicholls: Melbourne 830 1097 or 329 5983

APPENDIX.10 PETER ROSE, National Manager, Film Acquisitions, Hoyts.

1. Believe script excellently written and well structured.

2. Believe content should be more humorous 3. Title of film non-commercial 4. Casting crucial to make package promotionable to general audience: e.g. John W aters, G arry McDonald, Graham Kennedy, etc.

In short, film would need careful managing and promotion, but could fall into the category of a sleeper; should be reasonably successful at the box­ office.

FRED SCHEPISI, Film House, M elbourne — (telephoned).

Fred would like it made clear to the Commission that he supports the making of the film, thinks it is essential it is made, and that it would surprise people when it is released commercially because it has got an enormous amount of event and action and, with the changes to be made, this film will go down pretty well. " CYRIL BRANLEY, Australian Film Commission Further to my assessment of Film Australia’s proposed feature, The Unknown Industrial Prisoner, I have discussed the project with the producer 10. A dditional comments sought by Com missioner McQuaid.

concerned. He thanked me for the assessment, and agreed that the reservations I expressed were valid and would be implemented in refinements now being written into the screenplay.

Having received the verbal assurance of the producer that changes will be made, I am confident that the production is marketable internationally.

A copy of my original assessment is attached.11 11. Not reprinted here.

ELLICOTT’S REPLY TO WATTS 24 April 1978 Dear Mr Watts, I refer to recent correspondence requesting my approval, pursuant to S.5 (1) (b) of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, to the production of a feature film to be known as The Unknown Prisoner.

I confirm my conversation with you of today’s date in which I indicated that on the material at present before me, I am not prepared to give my approval to the production of this film.

Yours sincerely R.J. Ellicott Minister for Home Affairs

★

Cinema Papers, August/September — 81

The Australian Film Institute ...developing a film culture in Australia The Australian Film Institute is an independent, non-profit, cultural organisation. It was established in 1958 w ith the principal aim being to encourage the developm ent of the art of film. In 1976, the AFI adopted a new constitution and it now has a nationally-based membership w hich is open to the public.

Exhibiting

Resource Facilities

The AFI operates the Longford Cinema in Melbourne and the State Cinema in Flobart.

Through it's cinemas, the AFI introduces the public to Australian and overseas films that are otherwise unlikely to be released. The cinemas are attractive, comfortable alternative outlets serving the needs of filmmakers, independent distributors and a large section of the community.

The AFI is actively involved in developing a film culture in Australia through the following activities:

D istrib u tin g

An information and resource centre has been established to provide extensive research facilities.

The centre comprises a substantial book library, an extensive collection of magazines, and some vital indices. These include the FIAF index to International film periodicals published since 1972, the British Film Institute's Film Title Index 1908-1974 (containing on microfilm details on over 200,000 films produced throughout the w orld) and the BFI's personality and general subject index 1935-74. As well as the complete run of a number of significant magazines (including Film Quarterlyand the Monthly Film Bulletin), the centre w ill soon make available on microfilm every copy of Variety ever published.

Through the Vincent Library, the AFI distributes a w ide variety of 16mm and 35mm shorts, short features and features to individuals, schools, groups, festivals, film societies and other bodies all over Australia. The Library has been operating since 1970 and was named after the late Senator Vincent. It distributes independent Australian and overseas productions, films produced w ith the assistance of the Experimental Film and Television Fund, maintains collections for embassies as well as a collection of classic features and shorts. The Library has just released a new catalogue w hich is available for $3.60 (includes postage). The catalogue is an invaluable aid to any person or group interested in film. The Library is situated at 81 Cardigan Street, Carlton, 3053, but films are available for use anywhere in Australia.

The information centre has recently made available a Master Index Of Current Film Periodical Holdings In Australian Specialist Libraries (Members 50c, others $1.00) and jan Dawson's comprehensive Report On Information Resources, Publications And Distribution & Exhibition Services (Individuals $5.00, institutions $7.50).

Museum

AUSTRALIAN FILM POSTERS 1906-60

ON SALE NOW

The Australian Film Awards The most important annual event for Australian filmmakers. The Awards will be televised live on Saturday 19 August to draw public attention to the industry's latest achievements.

John Hindle, Nation Review

Other Activities The AFI, in conjunction w ith the Australian Council of Film Societies, organises film viewing weekends to allow film societies to preview new 16mm acquisitions by distributors. It is hoped that finance w ill be available soon to extend this service nationally.

The AFI operates a festivals bureau and has arranged screenings of Australian films in a number of overseas film festivals.

Australian Film Institute 81 Cardigan Street, Carlton, 3053 Postal Address: P.O. Box 165, Carlton South, 3053 Telephone: (03) 347 6888 Cables: "Filminstitute, Melbourne" Telex: 32968

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Publishing

$ 7 .5 0

"The Longford is, in my opinion, the best place to see films in Melbourne."

(Pictured: A mahogany and brass single lens lantern by W. C. Hughes, late 19th century)

The AFI has under its curatorship a newly acquired collection of cinematographic memorabilia covering the history of cinema up to the coming of sound. Many of the exhibits are exceptionally rare.

It is envisaged that this substantial collection w ill be opened to the public in the near future. .

Q FI ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

If you're interested in the AFI w hy not become an Associate Member? It's the easiest way to keep informed of the activities and services of the AFI. Benefits include: Concessions to AFI cinemas, publications and subscription concessions, a regular newsletter, and voting rights for the Award for Best Film of the Year in the Australian Film Awards.

To join, fill in the details below and send them to the: Executive Director, Australian Film Institute, P.O. Box 165, Carlton South, Vic. 3053 .

I hereby apply for Associate Membership of the Australian Film Institute and enclose $5.00 (cheque/money order) being Membership fee for the period to 30 June 1979.

N a m e ....................... ............................................ : .......................

Signature.

PIERRE RISSIENT

Pierre Rissient

Continued from P. VIII Then, when I was ready, Elliott had gone over-budget with 92 in th e S h a d e and R u s s ia n R o u le tte .

So, I went to Andre Genoves.

I s th e c e n tr a l ch a r a c te r in “ O n e N ig h t S t a n d ’’ A m e r ic a n b e c a u se o f m a r k e t c o n s id e r a tio n s ?

No. The original outline was qui t e di f f e r e nt in t hat t he character was a Frenchman. Now if I had stayed with that, I would have had to use a French actor and, therefore, someone with a French accent. Many people find a French accent charming, but I find it ridiculous. I didn’t want to laugh at my own film, so I decided to use a British or American actor.

Genoves then asked me to use an American because he preferred the American accent. Anyway, by that stage I had decided on Richard Jordan and it didn’t really matter.

I then rewrote the script and made the character a translator of poetry. This way he could be exposed to French culture.

the crew, the material, the weather, and some of the actors.

In many instances I just couldn’t do the film the way I wanted to.

In terms of concept, there is utterly no compromise; but there was during the shooting — I had no choice. There is one scene which people like very much and that is in the art gallery. I dislike it because I couldn’t shoot it the way it should have been.

At the same time, I believe the film represents me. And I don’t t hi nk peopl e woul d like it anymore if it was better by usual standards. I think people liked the approach and what it is about.

As to the people who don’t like it, maybe they would have disliked it even more.

T h e C o u n te s s se q u e n c e in “ O n e N ig h t S t a n d ” h a s b e e n th e so u rce o f m u ch co n tr o v e r sy .

W ere you su rp rised by th is ?

No, I was aware that there were scenes that would shock or puzzle people. At a screening at the San Francisco Festival, about 25 per cent of the people left the theatre during this scene, screaming that they couldn’t imagine people could do what they saw. This W as s h o o t i n g in E n g l i s h surprised me — after all, it was a d iffic u lt? festival audience and they are supposed to be more aware than No, but the film was difficult in most people. other ways. I had problems with There was also strong applause,

JOHMDAIW

and after the screening several people came up to me and said they were ashamed of the people who had created an incident.

Many felt it was t he only imaginative film in the festival.

Interesting films are often the m ost difficult for audiences, because if you go out on the limb with something, out of the habits of cinema, the audience becomes puzzled.

Instead of asking themselves why they are puzzled — maybe it is the fault of the film or of the audience — pseudo-intellectual audiences just assume that they know without even bothering to think about it.

S w a s t ik a is another example. It was new, not only in the way it showed the reality of the time, but in terms of technique. Yet for many people it was a puzzling film b e c a u s e t h e r e wa s no commentary. .

I b e lie v e th e p rin t you sh o w e d at t h e S y d n e y F e s t iv a l h a d th e C o u n te ss sc e n e cu t o u t . . .

Yes, I decided to cut it after the San Francisco experience. I had become very worried and I spoke with some people who had seen the film a second time. And though the scene was now cut, they understood and liked the film more. I am now ashamed I chickened out.

W ou ld you le a v e th e sc e n e o u t for c o m m e r c ia l r e le a se ?

No, because 1 could prepare the audience in advance.

D o you t h in k P a u l’s b e h a v io r d u rin g th is sc e n e is n o r m a l for th a t k in d o f p erso n ?

Yes, sexual aggression is a defence akin to sexual oppression.

He has suffered from that since he was young, though of course he has now overcome it — but at a very high price.

In th a t c a se , is th e C o u n te ss a s y m b o lic f ig u r e in th a t h er m id d le -a g e le a v e s her s e x u a lly in v io la b le ?

No, I don’t see the scene that way at all. I see Paul as subcons­ ciously taking revenge for his frustrations. He has compulsion to hurt, a compulsion that dictates the actions of m ost rational people. People are insane, and certainly this character is, but he is also more normal than most.

So when people don’t like the film, they are subconsciously defending themselves against the shadow which is in them and which is projected through this character. ★

MOTION PICTURE EQUIPM ENT SALES • RENTAL • SERVICE

GROUP

INTRODUCES TO AUSTRALIA THE

TODD-AO 35 ANAMORPHIC LENS SYSTEM The *T0DD-A0 35 system was recently ac­ quired by Cinema Products Corporation of Los Angeles, and the John Barry Group, who are their sole representatives in Australia, have purchased a range of lenses together with the Exclusive Rental Franchise for Australia, New Zealand and South East Asia.

These high quality anamorphic 35mm lenses were designed by Dr Richard Vetter (of the TODD-AO Corporation), who received an *U.S. and foreign patents pending.

Academy Award in 1973 for their improved anamorphic focusing system — a system which results in the lowest distortion yet achieved by any anamorphic lenses.

TODD-AO 35 anamorphic (scope) lenses are computor designed to the highest standards of the motion picture industry. In addition to unex­ celled quality, their optics have the added ad­ vantage of maintaining a constant squeeze ratio (2:1) of the image at all focus distances without distortion.

LENSES IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR RENTAL EX STOCK SYDNEY 35mm WIDE ANGLE. 50mm NORMAL ANGLE. 75mm NORMAL ANGLE. 100mm TELEPHOTO. 200mm MACRO-TELEPHOTO. 50-500mm ZOOM.

MOUNTS AVAILABLE

MITCHELL - BNC MARK II, ARRIFLEX.

All TODD-AO 35 lenses were designed with the objective of incorporating maximum flexibili­ ty without sacrificing picture quality. All lenses may be used interchangeably on standard BNCR, BNC, Mark II and Arriflex cameras. Other features aimed at reducing production costs in­ clude a 200mm macro-telephoto lens capable of focusing from a few inches to infinity, and a zoom lens (10 to 1) with focal lengths ranging from 50mm to 500mm.

105 Reserve Road, Artarmon Sydney, N.S.W. 2064 Telephone: 439 6955 Telex: 24482 Cable: BIRNSAW-SYDNEY All correspondence: P.O. Box 199 Artarmon, N.S.W. 2064 Australia.

Cinema Papers, August/September — 83

J€FF N9LD STILLS PHOTOGRAPHER Sidecar Racers • Ride a Wild Pony Caddie • Harness Fever • Barney Land of the Morning Calm (Korea)

Complete range of equipment, any format.

Can offer processing facilities.

Available in B/W and color.

168 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, NORTH SYDNEY 2060.

PO BOX 885. PHONE: (02) 929 4848

CINEMA '*

>

{^ \ ) V yC J '

9

'

10 Issues

tD

Please note Cinema Papers’ new address: $10.00

C A M P A IG N P U B L IS H IN G PTY. LT D .

6 2 0 H A R R I S ST ., U L T I M O .

S Y D N E Y . 2007

644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne Vic. 3051 Phone: 329 5983

WE FAIL rather dismally to reach the drive-in viewing market

e d i t e d b y P e t e r N o b le

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

Most TMT readers take their film seriously and prefer hardtop city or local cinema

A HUGE CONCENTRATED MARKET CLOSE TO TOWN To reach the discerning film goer be seen in ~

^AOURNETIMES

A v a i l a b l e w e e k ly

207 Lygon Street, Carlton 347 4977 Send for free specimen copy to: Christine Fairbairn, Screen international, Film House, 142 Wardour Street, London W.1.

50,000 copies delivered w eekly in M elbourne and inner suburbs

1

BACK ISSUES □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copv(ies) Copy(ics) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copv(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies)

of Number o fN u m b cr o fN u m b cr of Number o fN u m b cr o f Number o f Number o fN um bcr of Number of Number of Number of Number

1 at S3.00* 2 at S3.00" 3 at S3.00* 5 at S3.00* 9 at S3.00* 10 at S3.00* 11 ¿it S3.00* I 2 at S3.00* 13 at S3.00* 14 at S3.00* 15 at S3.00* 16 at S3.00*

U N A V A IL A B L E : numbers 4, 6, 7 and 8 * Australia only. For overseas rates see overleaf.

NAME. . .

ADDRESS Postcode . . . .

Total amount enclosed S__________ Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd.. 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne, Victoria. Australia 30?.

'Australia only. For overseas rates see below

Volume 4 available now /*

BOUND VOLUMES ORDER VOLUME 4 NOW!

BOUND VOLUMES

(numbers 13-16) 1977-1978

VOLUME 3 STILL AVAILABLE

Please send me □ copies of'Volum e 3 (numbers 9-12) at $27.00 per volume.

Please send me □ copies o f Volume 4 (numbers 13-16) at S27.00 per volume.

Handsomely bound in black with gold embossed lettering.

Each Volume contains 400 lavishly illustrated pages ot • Exclusive interviews with producers, directors, actors and technicians.

• Valuable historical material on Australian film production • Film and bcxik reviews.

• Production surveys and reports from the sets of local and international production.

• Box Office reports and guides to film producers and investors.

STRICTLY LIMITED EDITION ORDER NOW! TO PLACE AN ORDER FILL IN THE FORM

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)

NAME. . .

ADDRESS Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that a loose binder

Postcode

is now available in black with gold embossed lettering.

Individual numbers can be added to the binder independently — or detached if desired. This new hinder w ill accommodate 12 copies (3 years).

Total amount enclosed S_______ NOTE: Remittances in Australian dollars only.

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3051 _____ Please allow up to lour weeks lor processing.

PLEASE NOTE BOLND VOLUMES OF numbers I -4 (Volume 1) and numbers 5-8 (Volume 2)

ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE

ORDER FORM

TO PLACE AN ORDER FILL IN THE FORM

OVERSEAS RATES (including postage)

$A1 9.80; air — SA44 40. Zone 5 (Britain, Europe, Africa, South America): Surface — SA19.80; air — SA46.50

(A) Subscriptions and gift subscriptions (per 6 issues).

(B) Bound Volumes (per volume). Zone 1 Surface —

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,

SA30.20; air — SA33 00. Zone 2: Surface — SA30.00; 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

(2) Surface Air Lifted available to U.K., German Federal Republic, Greece, Italy and U S,: (a) Subscriptions (per 6 issues) — $27 60; (b) per bound volume — $A32.80; (c) Back issues — add S2.60 per copy.

Zone 1 (New Zealand, Niugini): Surface — S19.80: 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 —

NB

(1) All remittances in Australian dollars only.

/<

‘Patrick.’ Another great Australian movie filmed on Gevacolor Type 680.

________________ __

“ Patrick” was considered to be “ one of the most interesting contemporary films” at the Cannes Film Festival, and has already been sold to many AGFA-GEVAERT LIMITED.

a high-speed, double-masked original negative film.

Discriminating European, and now Australian film-makers make it their choice.

overseas countries.

The makers of “ Patrick” found Gevacolor Type 680 gave just the freedom and flexibility they were after. Gevacolor Type 680 is MELBOURNE.

SYDNEY.

BRISBANE.

ADELAIDE.

PERTH.

'Registered trademark of AGFA-GEVAERT Antwerp/Leverkusen.

TELEX FROM AGFA-GEVAERT MOTION PICTURE FILM DEPARTMENT, ANTWERP, TO AGFA-GEVAERT MELBOURNE.

s r ¡°? by

ermanno

o l m i

.

,» .u ishot

U"

gevacolor

negative

film

.

U300

,U

-

. _ lias tavourire premium CARLTON

W

M

.1 m i *Mf> H i

ANOTHER CARLTON PRODUCT