Cinema Papers January-February 1979

Registered fo r posting

as a Publication — Category B

■ ■ vI }

ISSUE 19 $:

*

GUN RENTALS COLLSHOOT SALES

Tasmanian A Film Corporation

Dealers in Antique— Military & Collectable Firearms — Related Items Offers a Specialised Service to

The Film Making Industry via rentals o f ...

•F IL M PRODUCTION •S T IL L PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK • SKILLED PERSONNEL • 16/35 AND AUDIOVISUAL FACILITIES •EQUIPMENT H IR E INCLUDING OYNALENS •

• Most Every Type of Antique Firearms • Most Every Type of Modern Firearms • Edged Weapons (Swords,

Knives, etc.)

• Military Kerns (Uniforms etc.)

ANYTHING relating to the above fields.

FREE

CONTACT THE CORPORATION FOR FILMING IN OR OUT OF TASMANIA 1-3 Bowen Road, Moonah 7009 Tasmania Phone: 30 8033 Telegrams: Tasfilm Hobart

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

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

A Certificate Course for

CAMERA ASSISTANTS The Australian Film and Television School has run three successful part time courses for camera assistants and is planning a

FULLTIME COURSE in Sydney Stage I.......FILM............3 weeks ... (124 hours) Stage I I . . . . VIDEO....... 1 w e e k ___ ( 40 hours) As well as providing practical training in all aspects of cinematography the course will include all video tape formats as used both on location and in the studio.

The course is accredited by the Australian Cinematographers Society, and Stage I will be directed by NSW ACS President Bill Constable.

It is anticipated that Stage I will commence in April 1979 and Stage II in either June or July 1979.

Fees for the course are — Stage I $175.00, Stage II $65, Stages and II $225.00.

If you wish to apply for the course please write or telephone Jackie Ireland, AFTS Open Program, Box 126, PO, North Ryde, 2 1 1 3 . (02) 8 8 7 16 6 6 .

The Australian Film Institute .. .developing a film culture in Australia The Australian Film Institute is a non-profit organisation which has as its principal aim the fostering of a film culture in Australia. Supported financially by the Australian Film Commission, the Institute has a nationally based membership which is open to the public and from which its policy-making body, the Board of Directors, is elected.

It hopes to promote its overall aims and objectives by providing services of benefit to the multifarious organisations, interests and individuals throughout Australia concerned with the film industry and trade, film scholarship and research, and film culture.

Some of the services include:

Publishing Under the general editorship of Sylvia Lawson, a lecturer in film theory at Griffith University, the Institute has a publishing programme which commenced recently with the publication of AUSTRALIAN FILM POSTERS 19067960. This colourful compilation of early Australian film posters is available in bookshops, and the Institute, for $7.50 per copy.

Work has commenced on a series of monographs, and a companion to film in Australia, AUSTRALIAN FILM 19061977, written by Andrew Pike and Ross Cooper, is scheduled for publication next year. This major work will contain entries on every feature film made in Australia up to and including 1977.

Australian Film Awards The most important annual event for Australian filmmakers, the presentation of the Awards is televised nationally to draw public attention to the latest achievements of the nation’s film industry.

Exhibiting The AFI operates the Longford Cinema in Melbourne, the State Cinema in Hobart and selected seasons at the M usic Room Cinema, Sydney Opera House. Through its

cinemas, the AFI introduces to the public Australian and overseas films which are otherwise unlikely to secure a release. The cinemas are attractive, comfortable alternative outlets servicing the needs of filmmakers, independent distributors and a large section of the community. Details of current and forthcoming seasons appear in the daily papers.

Distributing Through the Vincent Library the Institute distributes a wide variety of films to individuals, schools, groups, festivals, film societies and other bodies throughout Australia.

Established in 1969, the Vincent Library's film collection comprises most 16mm short films made in Australia with government assistance since that time. With the agreement of the filmmakers the library is active in promoting and distributing these films, and in pursuing non-theatrical print sales. Film hire received is returned 75% to the filmmakers, and 90% goes to filmmakers in the case of print sales.

Information Resources At the beginning of 1978, an Information Resource Centre was established to provide research facilities for the public, with a substantial core collection of film documentation material.

Recently, an agreement was reached between the Victorian Federation of Film Societies and the AFI to amalgamate the George Lugg Library and the AFI Information Resource Centre. This amalgamation has been effected through the physical move of the George Lugg Library to the AFI premises, and the Institute will be responsible for the administration of the combined library, which is now called the GEORGE LUGG LIBRARY. The combined stock contains over 5,000 books, 150 periodical titles pertaining mainly to film, and vital indices to international film periodicals.

This material is supported by a growing collection of production stills, scripts, pamphlet and film promotional material, international newspaper clippings, as well as

memorabilia in the form of posters, original programmes, pressbooks and musical scores.

The Library aims at the continuous collection, preservation and dissemination of information about every aspect of film and television, both nationally and internationally.

In co-operation with other specialist collections, the Library hopes to act as a centralized body in curbing unnecessary duplication through the rationalization of film resources, so as to allow the gradual fruition of a national film resource. This has already begun with the compilation, by the AFI, of a national union list of film periodicals in Australian libraries, to be published at the end of the year.

The Library provides information to other AFI activities, Victorian film societies, the Melbourne Film Festival, and is central to the Institute's function in assisting the development of a film culture in Australia. The collection is of value to a wide range of groups engaged in all areas of the film and television industry.

Enquiries concerning the George Lugg Library should be directed to Helen Zilko or Barbara Gliddon

Membership Associate Membership of the Institute is open to the public for $5.00 annual subscription.

Associate Members are kept informed of the activities and services of the Institute, and are entitled to: (a) Concessions to the Institute's Longford Cinema in Melbourne, State Cinema in Hobart, and our exhibition seasons in other cities including those in Sydney at the Opera House; (b) Participate in the Australian Film Awards, which involves free admittance to judging screenings of all feature films entered and voting rights for Best Film; (c) Publications and subscription concessions; (d) Receipt of the Institute's regular newsletter.

Australian Film Institute 81 Cardigan Street Carlton Vic 3053 Ph: 347 6888

Sydney Representative: Ms Barbara Grummels Sydney Opera House Ph. 20588 ext. 342

DOUBLE HEAD PREVIEWS A New Service for Film Producers The Longford Cinema, Melbourne now offers a comprehensive double-head preview service.

35m m -

3 TRAC K

1 7 .5 m m

I SINGLE

16m m

' TRAC K

C O N T IN U O U S PROJECTION FOR B O T H 1 6 M M & 35 M M IN A N Y SCREEN F O R M A T .

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.

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

The hire rates are reasonable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR BOOKINGS, PHONE (03) 267 2700 OR WRITE TO THEMANAGER, LONGFORD CINEMA, 59 TOORAK ROAD, SOUTH YARRA 3141

y

-

Chris Lôfvén Productions 16 Kipling Street. North Melbourne. 3051 Australia. Phone: (03)329 5849

FILM LAWYER SEEKS POSITION

RANK AUSTRALIA

0

. 12 Barcoo Street, East Roseville, Sydney 2069. Phone 406 5666 68 Queensbridge Street, South Melbourne 3206. Phone 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, Fyshwick, ACT 2600. Phone 95 2144

0 0000000000000000000000000000

Solicitor admitted in Queensland and England, recently returned to Australia from London, having experience in Queensland in own general practice and in London in entertainment practice including all types of documents required for feature film production and in company and commercial work, seeks position.

Reply:

“Advertiser” 7/98 Oxlade Drive, New Farm, Brisbane 4005 Phone: (07) 358 3639

TH ERES ALWAYS SOMETHING NEW A N D E X C IT IN G ATSAMUELS0NS

16 16 16 16

mm FEATURE mm TELEMOVIE mm DOCUMENTARY mm COMMERCIAL

aäton

THE 16 MM SOUND CAMERA THAT DOES IT ALL FOR RENTAL OR SALE

SAMUELSON FILM SERVICE (AUST) P/L Head Office: 27 Sirius Road, Lane Cove, Sydney 2066 N.S.W. Australia Telephone: 428 5300 Telex: AA25188

Interstate Office: 25 Lothian Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051 Australia Telephone: 329 5155 Telex: AA35861

THE ADAIR INSURANCE BROKING GROUP The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith V I I it : OÌ lìm i l i ici h H • High Rolling High Polling High Rolling H uuw man The Picture Show Man The Picture Show 1 « ci i itjiiiccfi i"ci Holden FJ Holden II F J i 1®ea.l ti;»v 'Val Raw D eal E liza: Fraser F ra se ' Eliza Fraser vifs Playground The Devil’s Playground The Devil’s Playgro Purple Alvin Purple Alvin Purple Alvin Purple Alvin Purple 1he P rouder The Night The Prowler The Night The Prow ler Solo Solo Solo Solo O U I U C“ " Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo lia n t Career My Brilliant Career My Brilliant Career My 96 Number 96 Number 96 Number 96 Number 96 Number 96 Ni d Angry Shot The Odd Angry Shot The Odd Angry Shot The O en Petersen Petersen Petersen Petersen Petersen Petersen 1 Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz O a lim a n tan K alim antan Kalimantan K alim antan K alim antai ay End Play End Play End Play End Play End Play End Play l'i Rides Again Alvin Rides Again Alvin Rides Again Alvin Ride axt laxi taxi taxi Taxi taxi laxt iaxi laxi taxa taxi la y’s Child Cathy’s Child Taggarts Reef

FOR ALL YOUR FILM INSURANCE NEEDS CO N TACT SYDNEY David Solomon Adair Insurances Pty Ltd GPO Box 3884 Sydney 2001 Phone 27 8741

BRISBANE Bob Cook Adair Insurances (Qld) Pty Ltd GPO Box 1371 Brisbane 4001 Phone 221 9036

MELBOURNE Wayne Lewis Adair Insurances (Vic) Pty Ltd GPO Box 74B Melbourne 3001 Phone 61 2485

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.UT.V36

A rticles and In te rv ie w s Antony I. Ginnane: Interview

Peter Beiiby, Scott Murray

174

Stanley Hawes: Interview

Graham Barry

182 186

Sponsored Documentaries

Eddie Moses Jeremy Thomas: Interview

Peter Beiiby

192

Film Periodicals: Part 5

Basil Gilbert

196

Andrew Sarris: Interview

Tom Ryan

Sponsored Documentaries A Brief History: 186

198

Features The Quarter Asian Film Festival

172

Verina Glaessner

180

Coming Home Reviewed: 222

Adelaide Film Festival

Peter Page and Noel Purdon 189 Film Censorship Listings 200 Guide for the Australian Film Producer: Part 1 2 Antony I. Ginnane, Ian Baillieu, Leon Gorr 201 International Production Round-Up 2 04 Box-Office Grosses 205 Production Survey 2 15 Film Study Resources Guide Basil Gilbert 231

Production Report Blue Fin: Carl Schultz Michael Carlos

Antony I. Ginnane Interviewed: 174

208 210

Blue Fin Production Report: 207

Film R eview s Blue Fin

Brian MacFarlane

221

Coming Home

Meaghan Morris

222

Third Person Plural

Robin Anderson

2 23

Word is Out

Barbara Boyd

2 25

Iphigenia

Margaret McClusky

226

Book R eview s Authorship and Narrative in the Cinema

Adrian Martin

2 28

Great Balls of Fire

Asian Film Festival Article: 180

Merryn Gates

2 28

Books of the Quarter

John H. Reid

Managing Editor: Scott Murray. Editorial Board: Peter Beiiby, 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, Liz Mackie. Business Consultant: Robert Le Tet. O ffice Manager: Mary Reichenvater. Subscription Manager: Gillian Hehir. Correspondents: London — Jan Dawson, Los Angeles — David Brandes, Paris — Meaghan Morris, Rome — Robert Schar, Denmark — Gail Heathwood.^ Advertising: Sue Adler, Sydney (02) 26 1625; Peggy Nicholls, Melbourne (03) 830 10 9 7 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. D istributors: 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.

Cover: Greg Rowe as “ Snook” Pascoe in the South Australian Film Corporation’s Blue Fin. Photograph by David Kynoch.

2 29

Jeremy Thomas Interviewed: 192

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 every two months by Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd. Main Office: 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne 3051. Telephone (03) 329 5983. Sydney Office (advertising only): 365A Pitt St, Sydney. Telephone (02) 26 1625. ®Copyright Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., Number 19, January-February, 1979.

•Recommended price only.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 171

AUSTRALIAN FILM WEEK The Australian Film Week, presented by the Australian Films Office (Los Angeles), was held at the Lincoln Centre, New York, from November 27 to December 2, 1978.

Organized by Sam Gelfman (AFO) and David Roe (New South Wales Film Corporation), the week screened Storm Boy, The FJ Holden, The Night the Prowler, The Devil’s Playground, In Search o f Anna, Backroads, The Singer and the Dancer and Sunday Too Far Away, which opened the event.

The primary function of the AFO (which is affiliated with the NSWFC) is to bring Australian films to American audiences. The • film week, which cost $75,000, was seen as part of this aim. Mike Thornhill of the NSWFC said: “ It is imperative that we sell all Australian film s in the U.S., p articularly, and throughout Britain and Europe, if we are to see some profits from films and for investors, and if the industry is to continue to develop at a rapid rate. This film week in New York is the most important breakthrough in this area to date” .

Equally enthusiastic was Gelfman who said: “ Just as Hollywood is a small enclave that exports films to the rest of the U.S. and the world, so Australia will produce films that will play everywhere.” That, of course waits to be seen, especially since few Australian films have even played their home market with much success.

S.M.

Graham Shirley and Judy Adamson. The new episode will take up where The Passionate In d u s try ended, moving from the first Australian talkies to the first year of World War 2. Hopefully, the film will include extracts from features by Ken G. Hall, Frank Thring sen., Pat Hanna, Beaumont Smith and Noel Monkman. Actuality film will also be covered through newsreels and other items — from sponsored films to home movies.

Graham Shirley and Judy Adamson have instigated a search for rare footage of the period. Although the survival rate for features is high (with only seven lost from the decade’s total of 56), actuality films have not fared as well.

Many newsreels of the 1929-35 period are missing, and coverage of the Depression seems virtually non-existent. The missing features are: S h o w g irl’s Lu ck (1930, Norman Dawn), F e lle rs (1930, Arthur Higgins and Austen Faye), Two Minutes’ Silence (1934, McDonagh Sisters), The B u rg o m e iste r (1935, Harry Southwell), Pearl Lust (1936, A.R. Harwood), Show Business (1938, A.R. Harwood), and Below The Surface (1938, Rupert Kathner).

The researchers have also appealed for stills and other Australian film publicity of the period. They hope to contact exhibitors for reminiscences on the theatres they ran and their audiences.

Any readers who know of privately-held Australian film or exhibition material of the '30s are invited to write to Graham Shirley or Judy Adamson at Film Australia, P.O. Box 46, L ln d fie ld NSW 2070, or phone (02) 467 0111.

S.K.

THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FILM COUNCIL The Western Australian Film Council, w hich was formed on January 22 to “ encourage the development of the Western Australian film industry” , has issued these conditions to producers applying for invest­ ment. They are: 1. The WAFC considers that the project is commercially viable: 2. The WAFC’s investment will be limited to 25 per cent of the project budget, or $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 , w h ic h e ve r is the le sse r amount.

3. Any submission will include a synopsis of the story, a complete screenplay, a prod­ uction budget and an assessment fee of $15 (cheques made payable to the WAFC).

4. The projects locations will be sub­ stantially Western Australian.

5. Submissions will be assessed in the first instance by the WAFC, followed by the Australian Film Commission, if their investment is being sought.

6. Submissions for the next assessment will be received until 4 p.m. on January 31, 1979.

A.P.

FILM HISTORY SERIES Film Australia has embarked on the third of its Australian film history documentaries.

The earlier documentaries, The Pictures That Moved and The Passionate Industry, covered Australian cinema to 1930. The new episode is being produced by Anthony Buckley.

Buckley’s own involvement in collecting Australian film history dates back to the early 1 9 5 0 s when he in te rvie w e d veteran directors Raymond Longford and Charles Chauvel (both of whom died in 1959). He also initiated the preservation of film prod­ uction records and publicity material.

In 1967, B u c k le y made F o rg o tte n Cinema, the first historical documentary on the industry; five years later he produced and directed Snow, Sand and Savages, a biography of actuality cameraman Frank Hurley.

Keith Gow will direct the third in the series, which will be researched by historians

172 — Cinema Papers, January/February

DISTRIBUTION UPDATE In response to issues raised at the meeting in Sydney on September 6, between representatives of the Australian Film Institute, the Sydney Co-operative and the Association of Independent Filmmakers, a meeting was held with representatives of the

Australian Film Commission at the AFC o ffic e s on O cto b e r 26. D elegates in attendance were John Foster, Barbara Grummels and Ian McCrae (AFI); Nick Herd (Sydney Co-op); Scott Murray (AIF); and Lachie Shaw, Bill Childs and Chris Tillam (AFC).

The first topic of discussion was that of the responsibility of informing interested bodies of the completion of films funded by the Creative Development Branch of the AFC. In the past, such information has been generally unavailable and largely dependent on a filmmaker’s drive in publicizing his film.

It was agreed that the AFC compile this data and print it in their bulletins which list grants passed. These are usually published bi-monthly.

The role of the AFC in the overseas distribution and promotion of short films was also discussed. Diplomatic bags, once an avenue of free passage for Australian films to overseas festivals, have, on instruction from the Foreign Affairs Department, become closed to filmmakers. This will mean that the cost of freight will have to be met by the filmmaker, or by the AFC if the CDB considers the film to be of considerable merit.

Lachie Shaw (director of the CDB) said that Ray Atkinson (AFC London Office) and Jim Henry (Los Angeles office) had gained considerable expertise in marketing short films overseas. The selling of Temperament Unsuited by Atkinson at Mifed was one example quoted by Shaw.

The discussion then centred on the new procedures laid down by the CDB in its press release of October 13 (see Quarter item: “ Creative Development Branch Changes” ).

Linder the new system, funding is divided in to th re e s e c tio n s : p re -p ro d u c tio n , production (to release print) and distribution.

While the first two areas will still be e va lu a te d by a panel of assessors, d istribu tio n funding is to be handled internally by the AFC. When asked why a panel of assessors could not cover all three areas, Shaw pointed out th a t those assessors chosen to evaluate a filmmaker’s application would not necessarily be qualified in marketing.

Shaw also felt marketing and promotion was an area the AFC was qualified in, since it had to deal with such matters in its feature division every day.

As to how applications will be assessed, Shaw said that it would depend on how well an applicant could convince the AFC that the m arke tin g cam paign s p e c ifie d in the application would properly promote the film and, therefore, bring in a return. The AFC does not consider every film has the automatic right to be granted marketing money, and loans would only be given to those that have a high chance of proving commercial.

The last area of discussion was that of the number of prints provided by AFC grants. At present, a filmmaker is permitted an answer print and two release prints, one of which is lodged at the AFC. The second release print is then generally lodged with the Sydney Co­ op or the AFI’s Vincent Library, depending on the filmmaker's place of residence. Ms Grummels (of the AFI) suggested that a third print should be provided, fallowing the Sydney Co-op and AFI to distribute the film.

This would also greatly aid in reducing the present “ localization” in distribution and would make films available to a wider market. At present, a filmmaker has to balance in his mind the cost of ordering a new print and the possible film rental the film may earn.

When asked whether the AFC print could be released for distribution purposes, Shaw said the commissioners of the AFC were keen to keep a copy of most films on hand, in case a request to view them was made at short notice. In the past, people had visited the AFC wanting to see a film, but the filmmaker was uncontactable and no print could be traced.

Shaw said he would investigate the possibility of funding three prints and would inform the relevant organizations as soon as a decision had been reached.

The meeting then closed. A further meeting between the AFI, the Sydney Co-op and the AIF is planned for early next year, to follow through the initiatives discussed here and at the earlier meeting.

S.M.

FIAF CONGRESS A symposium on “ The Independent and Avant-garde Cinema at the End of the Silent Period” will be held at the annual congress of the International Federation of Film Archives in Lausanne, Switzerland, from June 1 to June 4. The congress, hosted by Cinematheque Suisse, will also celebrate the 5 0th a n n iv e rs a ry of the In te rn a tio n a l Congress of Independent Cinema* which originated in 1929.

T he s y m p o s iu m p la n s to in c lu d e addresses by filmmakers, historians, and researchers to establish a historical per­ spective on a period which,has been “ widely misunderstood because of the few wellknown works which cloud the total picture” .

In many countries, films made during the silent period did not fit the norms of industrial production. These can be grouped into four main categories: (1) Experimental and abstract avantgarde (e.g. Oskar Fischinger); (2) Surrealism (e.g. Un chien andalou, Fleurs meurtries, Man Ray, etc); (3) Precursors of neo-realism (e.g.

Nogent Eldorado du dimanche, Les hommes le dimanche), the heirs to cinography (Germaine Dulac, Walter Ruttmann), the research of Dziga Vertov; and (4) The purely proletarian cinema.

In this area, there are many well-known names (Luis Buñuel, Antonin Artaud, Henri Storck, Jean Painleve, Hans Richter, Joris Ivens, etc), but the members of the film archives will undertake specific research on this subject in their respective countries. The addresses will be illustrated by many classic films, as well as previously ignored works.

C ritics and the p u b lic are invited to participate.

THEQUARTER

AWARDS, AWARDS At the International Festival of Fantasy and S uspense a t Stiges, Spain, two Australian films won awards.

Long Weekend won the Grand Prix, and its lead actor, John Hargreaves, was adjudged Best Actor; and P a trick won Best Director (Richard Franklin), and the Critics Prize.

At the Paris Film Festival, Phillip Noyce’s Newsfront won the award for Best First Film.

A.P.

CHILDREN’S FILM CARNIVAL The Australian Council for Children’s Films and Television is to present a Children’s International Film Carnival from March to August, 1979. The carnival, of films chosen from around the world, will tour all capital cities and major country towns.

In a press release of October 20 the council said: “ The film carnival is a unique event in which large numbers of children, and many adults, will have the opportunity to see films which demonstrate in an e n tertaining and visu a lly-stim u la tin g form the lifestyles, aspirations and joys of being a child.”

A.P.

CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH CHANGES T he A u s tra lia n Film C o m m is s io n announced, in a press relase on October 13, 1 978, that a Creative Development Fund had been set up to “ encourage new talent in the film industry".

The new fund incorporates the previous Experimental Film and Television Fund, the Film Production Fund and the Script Development Fund. The system whereby a panel of filmmakers and writers assesses the applications will continue.

Funding will usually be in the form of grants, but the AFC reserves the right to im pose fin a n c ia l c o n d itio n s , such as commercial investment arrangements, if it is considered necessary.

The procedures are as follows: 1. The AFC will allocate money each year for the Creative Development Fund, which will be administered by the Creative Development Branch.

2. The fund will provide grants for scriptwriting and filmmaking to encourage new talent and develop creative ideas for the benefit of the film industry.

3. Support will be offered in three ways: (a) Pre-production (including research and scriptwritingj (b) Production (to release print stage) (c) Distribution (for specific distribution campaigns) 4. In order to assist scriptwriting, grants will be provided to help meet the living costs of writers, so that they can gain some time off from regular employment for the purpose of writing.

5. Script grants will also be available to producers and directors, to enable them to employ a writer on a given project, or for writers to employ a script editor to assist with the project.

6. Support for filmmaking is intended for the making of low-budget films which give film m akers the opportunity to demonstrate and develop their talents.

7. It is expected that the assessors will look for creative and innovative ideas which would contribute to raising the quality and aesthetic value of the Aust­ ralian industry, while resting on the prin­ ciple that films are made to be seen by an audience.

8. While narrative drama is expected to be a major part of the fund, support is offered for all kinds of filmmaking: i.e. documentaries, avant-garde, animation, etc.

9. A panel of three assessors will be appointed from time to time to consider applications for assistance.

10. Where necessary, the panel will co-opt other assessors to advise on specialist areas: e.g. animation.

11. Distribution proposals will be consid­ ered separately by the commissioners.

12. For film projects, the AFC will make grants available to meet the cost of an approved budget or such portion of the budget, as may be necessary, if the filmmaker has obtained funds from other sources.

13. No variations in the budget can be made without the approval of the AFC. 14. Except in special circumstances, which

will be considered by the assessors for recom m endation, the AFC w ill not provide supplementary funding.

15. The budget will cover all stages of prod­ uction to release print stage, and will include the cost of two prints and an answer print.

16. The AFC retains full discretion to with­ draw support from the project at any time. The AFC also reserves the right to make on-location visits, or to investigate the books of the project at any time.

17. Once a budget is approved, arrange­ ments will be made for payments in agreed allotm ents, usually spaced according to pre-shooting, shooting and post-production.

18. The filmmaker must provide an audited account of expenditure.

19. The film must carry the credit “ With the assistance of the Creative Development Fund of the Australian Film Comm­ ission.”

20. The AFC reserves the right to impose other financial conditions on projects recommended by the assessors — e.g. commercial investment arrangements — if it so desires.

21. The AFC will ask assessors to view projects at double-head stage and to advise it on further action in regard to projects.

22. The AFC will not withhold support u n re a so n a b ly, b u t w ill seek the assessors’ view on whether projects have been realized according to the original undertakings. in concluding, Mr Ken Watts, chairman of the AFC, said: “ The assessors will continue to look for creative and innovative ideas which help raise the quality of film prod­ uction. At the same time, we are looking for the film and the filmmakers who appeal to a wide audience of Australian filmgoers.”

ASIAN FILM FESTIVAL AWARDS

Clan of Amazons.

S.M.

Award for Costume: Dream- o f the Red Chamber Award for Art Direction: Dream o f the Red Chamber

CENSORSHIP NEWS The July-August period was somewhat predictable from a censorship point of view.

The usual number of films were denied registration — Inside Jennifer Wells, The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue, My Secret Life, The Young Passions and Self Service Girls — and all were of little critical interest.

Four of the films were banned on the grounds of indecency, Manchester Morgue was found to be excessively violent and My S e c re t L ife was refused re g istra tio n because of indecent language.

This last decision is remarkable given the Chief Censor’s recorded remarks that language is no longer a concern of the censorship office. One can recall, for example, how Portnoy’s Complaint, a film of dramatic verbal explicitness, was passed without a cut.

The Appeals Board maintained its “ echo” function when it rejected the appeal against the “ R” rating for The Kentucky Fried Movie.

S.M.

PERSONNEL AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION Murray Brown has been appointed admin­ istrator of the Australian Film Commission’s Melbourne office. As well as handling applic­ ations for grants from the Creative Develop­ ment Fund, Brown will represent all activities of the AFC in the southern and western states of Australia.

AUSTRALIAN FILM INSTITUTE Mr Mathew Percival has been appointed distribution manager of the Australian Film Institute, following the resignation of Paul Coulter.

Sarah Strong has also joined the AFI as administrative secretary.

Award for Sound Quality: Little Adventures Award for Supporting Actress: Tarika Tidatit in More Than Love Award for Supporting Actor: Chris Hayward in In Search of Anna Award for Editing: Bells of Death Award for Special Effects: Patrick Award for Music: Goddess of Mercy Award for Photography: In Search of Anna Award for Technical Achievement: Jakarta, Jakarta Bar 21.

The following awards were given at the closing ceremony of the 24th Asian Film Festival in Sydney on October 6:

Award for Script: Kama The following awards were given to short subjects: The Land My Mother, Chitrakathi and The Buffalo Revolution.

The Major Film Award: Rites of May, produced by Manuel De Leon The Retrospective Award: The Life of Oharu, produced by Hideo Koi. Award for “ Convincing Performance of Human Emotion” : The Eternal Love Fine Performance Award by an Actress: Charo Santo in Rites of May and Kim Ja Ok in Miss O’s Apartment Award fo r O ve ra ll A c c o m p lis h m e n t: producer Tan Sri Runme Shaw, P.M.N. for Bells of Death Award for “ Conviction in Presenting Con­ temporary Theme” : Jakarta and director Ami Priyono for Jakarta, Jakarta Fine Performance Award by an Actor: Ken Takakura in The Yellow Handkerchief Award for Excellence in Directing: Masahira Shinoda for Melody in Grey

GRUNDY PRODUCTIONS Meritorious Achievement Award: Patrick Mr Robert Bruning has left the Grundy Organization, after nearly two years with them, to work as a freelance producer. With his company Gemini Productions (which was absorbed by the Grundy Organization in January 1977), Bruning pioneered the field of the tele-feature.

Bruning’s next project is the theatrical feature Breaker Morant, which he is co­ producing with the South Australian Film Corporation.

S.K.

Award for Innovative Techniques: Winter Woman Award for Children’s Film: Little Adventures Organization Catholique Internationale Du Cinema (OCIC/Asia Trophy): Butterfly Girl

Melody in Grey.

Award for Action Sequences: 36th Chamber of Shaolin

A full report on the festival appears on p.180 of this issue.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 173

174 — Cinema Papers, January/February

FANTASM At the time of the original interview you were involved in distribution. Why did you move from distribution to production?

I had always wanted to apply the s k ills I had a c q u ir e d in distribution and exhibition to film production. And at that stage (1 9 7 3 /7 4 ), the m arket for independent imported films had begun to contract.

I tried, in the latter half of 1974 and early 1975, to get a number of projects together. These were packaged on the assumption that I would produce and direct. One was a Cormanesque Nurses-style film. It had a budget of around $250,000 — a comparatively high figure for the time. . Some monies were raised, but not enough to get the project started. I then wrote a crime drama set against the massage parlor business; it had the delightful title of Sexy Little Me. That was budgeted at about $150,000, but I couldn’t get it off the ground.

In the process, however, I raised $50,000, so I tried to find a project that could be made for that amount. But by then I had to accept the fact that someone else would have to direct it.

I was involved with Richard F ra n k lin on th e o v e rse a s marketing of The True Story of

Antony I. Ginnane was first interviewed by Cinema Papers five years ago (no. 1, December 1973, p. 38-43).

At that time, Ginnane was an independent distributor of foreign film s, a film critic, and a vocal opponent of the established distribution-exhibition structures in the Australian film industry.

Since then, Ginnane has risen rapidly in the Aust­ ralian film industry and is today one of Australia’s most prolific film producers. His credits include the highly s u c c e s s fu l sex -co m ed y “ F a n ta sm ” , the se q u el, “ Fantasm Comes Again” , the family feature, “ Blue Fire Lady” , the psychic thriller, “ Patrick” , and the recentlycompleted “ Snapshot” .

In 1976, in association with the Dendy-Filmways group, Ginnane established the film financing entity, Australian International Film Corporation. AIFC has produced Ginnane’s past three films and aims to continue to produce two or three productions a year.

In this interview, conducted by Peter Beilby and Scott Murray, Ginnane discusses how he became involved in film production, and explains the financing, production and marketing of his films. Ginnane also discusses the problems facing the Australian film industry, concluding with a re-appraisal of the major issues arising out of the 1973 Tariff Board Enquiry.

Eskimo Nell, and was impressed with his commercial attitude, so I asked him to direct. He agreed; we then had to decide what sort of film to make. I wanted to make a genre picture, so the options were a bikie, horror or sex film. The “ R” certificate was new at that tim e, and a number of not particularly good sex films had takep a lot of money. As well,

Richard was interested in doing a sex comedy. I was happy to accede to that.

Ross Dimsey, who was then involved with Hexagon, wrote a screenplay for us called Fantale. It was a send-up of the sex education films, such as Language of Love, which had been very successful.

We planned to shoot the film in Australia, so we hired Vince

Monton as cameraman. But we had problems casting the film, as agencies were not interested in letting their ladies take off their clothes for a $50,000 film. If it had been a $400,000 film, it might have been different.

As Richard had done a cinema course at UCLA in Los Angeles, he suggested we make the film in the U.S. We were a bit daunted about going over there, not knowing about union regulations, and such. But fortunately we met a guy in Los Angeles who served as our production manager. He got the crew together, and at rates better than we would have had to pay in Australia.

Richard, Vince and I went over.

We shot the film in 10 days, and on a ratio of six to one. It was very tight.

We came back to Australia and shot a day’s linking material, with John Bluthal as the professor. The film was edited in Australia, but neg matched and printed in the U.S. I shot the film without having a distributor committed, and I could have been in trouble. But when Filmways saw a video cassette th ey im m e d ia te ly saw its com m ercial p otential. Mark Josem felt it would run 10 months in Melbourne, and it did.

The film cost more than $50,000, and so far it has taken approxim ately $650,000 in Australia.

Were there any substantial deferments?

Cinema Papers, January/February — 175

ANTONY I. GINNANE

No, the $50,000 includes all the film for critics; I don’t make films deferments. I think the negative for critics.

Fantasm is not the greatest sex cost of the film, excluding the film ever made, but it’s certainly blow-up, was $41,000.

Richard, Vince, Ross and I took not the worst. Richard showed a some deferment. There are still good sense of humor, as well as cheques going out, so if anybody demonstrating how he was able to says deferments don’t pay, they work under extremely tight ought to talk to the people who commercial conditions. This ultimately led to us working took them on Fantasm. together on Patrick.

What deal did you do with It probably would have been difficult for Richard to get another Filmways? film together after Eskimo Nell, At the time I approached which was a total disaster.

Filmways I didn’t have the money Although in the short term some to blow up the film . The disfavor may have landed on Australian Film Development those who made Fantasm, in the Corporation wouldn’t give me the medium to long term everybody money, and there was no more associated with it came out all private investment. So to some right. extent, and I don’t say this ungenerously, Filmways held the You said that you wanted to aces. Consequently, the deal they make a genre film, which is quite gave me was the standard one at a change from “Sympathy in the time: 75/25 with distribution Summer” , which is basically an art film . . . costs off the top.

We then took the film to It’s fair to say that my attitude Cannes in 1976, where we picked to film has changed from the time up more than half the budget in I made Sympathy in Summer. I private sales. saw, earlier than some — and it is very easy to talk with hindsight — Were these outright sales or that the film industry was minimum guarantees? developing in such a way, with writer/directors being forced to The smaller territories, such as become entrepreneurs, leaving a Belgium, Holland, Switzerland big gap in the field of producing. I and G reece, were o u trig h t. felt I might be able to move into Canada was a percentage; we will that gap, provided I was prepared see overages there. Britain was a to take a back seat for some years. percentage; we ought to see A radio interviewer once told overages. me that I was an opportunist. I The film was then released in suppose I was, but every one is — Australia after a running battle it’s just a question of whether you with the censorship board — an are successful or not. appalling institution — which took out several minutes. Of those few Did you abandon distribution critics who saw the film, most of and exhibition activities when them panned it. But it wasn’t a you moved into production?

Producer Antony I. Ginnane (left), a production assistant, John Holmes and Maria Welton at a Los Angeles location for the shooting of Fantasm.

176 — Cinema Papers, January/February

A coming

An erotic tableaux from Richard Franklin’s Fantasm.

No, the company still exists, though I have pulled out of active involvement.

Over the past few years I have bought three or four films, but mostly as a divertissement. The Valhalla and the Academies notwithstanding, there is no way you can make money out of importing Fassbinder or Herzog films today. I just rely on them to keep me in cigars.

producers for dollars invested, Fantasm would be one of the three or four most successful films made in Australia. The only significant difference on Fantasm Comes A gain , as re g a rd s financing, was that Filmways came in as an investor as well — they wanted an extra piece of the pie.

What was the budget?

Around $85,000. We felt that if we made the film slightly more expensive and classy, we would get a bigger audience. Only one of the 10 stories in Fantasm was lipDid you make “Fantasm Comes sync; the rest were voice-over. In Again” because of the success of Fantasm Comes Again we “Fantasm” ? decided to go with full lip-sync dialogue.

Yes. In terms of return to In retrospect, that was probably a mistake. One of the beauties of Fantasm was that there wasn’t much distraction from what was happening on screen. In Fantasm Comes Again the actors looked good, but they are not Laurence Oliviers and their performances detracted from what was going on.

We shot the film in 12 days in Los Angeles, using many of the cast we employed in Fantasm.

The film was ready around May, and we took it to Cannes, where it sold almost dollar for dollar for Fantasm. Canada, for example, was a U.S.$10,000 up-front minimum guarantee on both films.

Unfortunately, when we got back from Cannes, there was a glut of sex films on the Australian market. And in the period January to June, censorship had tightened dramatically.

However, I still believe that had we gone out the same time as we had with Fantasm — June 19 — we would have done comparable business. But it wasn’t until December that we finally got the green light from the censors. This was a hiatus of six months and it together of gym teacher and student in Colin Eggleston’s Fantasm Comes Again. was enough to screw us up.

FANTASM COMES AGAIN

ANTONY I. GINNANE

production to demonstrate we were in business. As we also felt there had been too much reliance on government investment in the film industry, so we decided, if possible, to privately finance the film. Of course, Fantasm and Fantasm Comes Again were privately financed, so that was no big deal to me. But it was a big deal for a major feature film in the commercial mainstream.

Various people within the company suggested that we ought to do a family film — one that would' attract children and the over 35s who had been turned off cinema by the plethora of sexy and violent films.

BLUE FIRE LADY On location for Blue Fire Lady: associate producer Bill Fayman (left), Cathryn Harrison and Antony I. Ginnane.

I think it is fairly common knowledge that Fantasm Comes Again has not been as successful as Fantasm. The Film will break even, probably around the end of -1979, and may end up making bank interest on its money.

Robert Ward, Mark Josem and their families. The new directors were solicitors Graeme Emanuel and Leon Velik, and Bill Fayman, who had been through law and b e e n in v o lv e d in m u s ic

Bob Maumill came to us with a screenplay about a girl and a horse, and it looked good. We decided to go with Ross Dimsey as director. Ross had been closely associated on the two Fantasm films, and had a lot of experience

On “Fantasm Comes Again’’ you again worked with a new director — Colin Eggleston. Do you have a policy regarding directors?

Yes. I think you get a much stronger commitment from a first time director who is out to prove himself. I don’t believe a director will bust his guts as much on his third or fourth film.

New directors are also cheaper, and with the films we are making — and they are not Jimmie Blacksmiths — we need to keep costs down.

The industry is also becoming very incestuous. People always c o m m e n t on how y o u n g everybody is; the only problem is that in 30 years people will still be saying the same thing. And the bright young people will still be Peter Weir, Phil Noyce, David Elfick and so on. Consequently, I am very concerned about bringing in new people.

As a director, I think Colin is as competent as Richard in terms of experience, though his sense of humor is quite different — and perhaps it didn’t suit the material as well. But I am glad that Colin’s gone on to make Long Weekend, which I think is a good film.

AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL FILM CORPORATION At the time we made Fantasm Comes Again, three new people bought into Filmways, which had originally been wholly owned by

directing children in television commercials.1 Someone then suggested using Mark Holden and, after some negotiating, we signed him. We thought of bringing in an overseas star, since that would give us some clout in the foreign market, and somehow it got around to Cathryn Harrison.

We shot the film in August 1977 and released it that Christ­ mas. It has now been in release nine months, and should break even in another three months.

That is pretty fast; the average Australian feature takes 18 months or more.

The only flaw in the package was that somebody forgot that two-thirds of our audience would be paying only half price. So, though we gained as many admissions as, say,, Patrick, it won’t return the same rental.

How much did it cost?

I don’t give budgets anymore. If it has already been published, I won’t comment on its accuracy. I think it’s dangerous printing budgets because it goes against potential foreign sales.

Overseas people have set ways of buying films, and that is largely based on the negative cost of a film. If you tell them it cost x dollars, they say you can’t make a film for x dollars and think there is something wrong with the film.

Who were the private investors?

Filmways, which put in a su b stan tial slice, the N ine network, TVW-7 in Perth and some private people.

Was the Nine Network deal an advance against a television sale?

Director Ross Dimsey Blue Fire Lady, AIFC’s first feature.

promotion. One of the decisions of the new board was to commit Filmways to ongoing feature film production. This resulted in Australian International Film Corporation being set up, which is effectively a subsidiary of Filmways. I have a shareholding in that structure.

Filmways and AIFC came into the film business comparatively late, if you exclude the Fantasm films, which to some extent are peripheral. This enabled us to look back and see what Hexagon and others had done, and avoid any screw-ups they may have made.

I run the company on a day-today basis, operating in tandem with Bill Fayman on the financial and administrative level. We report to the Board on matters of policy.

Once AIFC was set up, we decided to go straight into

1. Refer interview with Ross Dim: Cinema Papers no. 14, p. 164-5.

Shooting Blue Fire Lady: leads Cathryn Harrison, Mark Holden and director of photography Vince Monton (far right).

Cinema Papers, January/February — 177

ANTONY I. GINNANE

else in Adelaide said the film was a good thriller, but it had too many PATRICK laughs, while a guy in New South Wales said one of the best things about it was that it was a thriller You followed “Blue Fire Lady” which had,some laughs. with “Patrick” . . .

These guys don’t know A from Z, and 90 per cent of their Yes. Everett de Roche’s script criticism is subjective bullshit of Patrick had been around for a anyway. number of years and had gone through numerous re-writes to Do you think the daily press accommodate the feelings of affects a film’s chances at the different directors. When Richard box-office? brought the project to us the script was at third draft stage. Richard It differs. If you have an art had raised some Australian Film film, something of the calibre of Commission and Victorian Film That Obscure Object of Desire or Corporation money, which was Celine et Julie, it pays for certain, about half the budget, but he reviewers, like the Bennetts, couldn’t raise the rest. I read the M cGuinesses, Connollys and Producer Antony I. Ginnane (left), Filmways executives Robert Ward and Mark Josem, script, and thought it one of the Cinema Papers, to like your film. and general manager Len Lochran. best ever written in this country, But if you have something like No, it was an investment, You don’t think there are so I decided to commit AIFC to Superman or Grease, which can’t though they had an option on instances of unions making the project. lose, it doesn’t matter a damn. I matching the best price for a unreasonable demands?

It will probably be to my don’t think there has been one television sale. In the end, they detriment to say this, since I am good review of Grease, but what did buy the television rights.

It’s not for me to say whether sure Everett will increase his the hell does it matter — Alan they are reasonable or not. There price, but I consider Everett one Carr is laughing all the way to the Did you have any union problems are arbitration structures in . this of the best writers in this country. bank. using a foreign lead? country which provide those sorts I don’t acknowledge that the It’s all irrelevant, though I of decisions. If I was a union “ accepted” writers in this country don’t begrudge these bums their Equity have a view on the representative, I would be trying are any good. Many people who jobs — everybody has to earn a matter — i.e. that it is their job to to get the best deal for my men. have written scripts, and who now living. create work for their members. If As a producer, I am trying to pay hold various positions of power, an Australian actor can do the job the least. either official or de facto, would Would you work in a co­ as adequately as an import, then be lucky if they could write out a producing role again? the Australian should have the lunch order. job.2 My job as a producer was to Did Cathryn Harrison help the Of course. I am an extremely convince them that in specific overseas sales on “Blue Fire U n til th en , R ichard was malleable person. In fact, since presumably going to produce the Blue Fire Lady I have been situations, such as Cathryn Lady” ? film, as well as direct it. . .

Harrison in Blue Fire Lady and working in a sort of co-producer Not as much as we would have Susan Penhaligon in Patrick, role with Bill Fayman, who has expected, though it probably there were reasons pertinent to There were discussions with been associate or executive the production going ahead that helped the British sale. With other producers, but in the end we producer on each production.

Patrick, Susan Penhaligon has made it necessary to use an I don’t know how Deeley and been far more effective. She is settled on a joint producing credit, import. which I was perfectly happy to Spikings do it, but it has been well known in the U.S. and certain I don’t have problems with give him. We had a good relation­ reported that they don’t make a unions. I know some people say parts of Europe. ship, and though we argued and film unless they both agree to do they are a pain in the arse. Maybe clashed a lot, it was all for the so. From there, it is just a question they are, but it’s a pain in the arse Where has “Blue Fire Lady” good of the film. of give and take. sold? having to pay the telephone bill, Patrick is the best film we have I feel Bill and I are somewhat or running out of cigars during an completed so far and probably one like that, and we get on very well interview.

Britain, Germany, Austria, of the top four Australian films together.

It’s easy for producers to co­ S w itz e rla n d , S c a n d in av ia, made since the renaissance. exist with the unions without Trinidad, Tobago, Latin America, It is interesting how the film has Who had final cut on “Patrick” ? taking views on whether their Brazil, Belgium and France. We torn the critics down the middle. position is right or wrong. will eventually sell it in the U.S. as Some schmuck actually said he Like most key areas, the final 2. Refer Uri Windt’s article in Cinema part of a television package. That’s enjoyed the film, therefore it cut was governed by a three-man when we will make our money.

Papers no. 15, p. 201. couldn’t be any good. Someone voting set-up — namely, Richard,

During rehearsals on Patrick: Robert Helpmann as Dr Roget, and Susan Penhaligon as nurse Kathy Jacquard.

178 — Cinema Papers, January/February

Director Richard Franklin with Julia Blake (Matron Cassidy) during the filming of Patrick.

ANTONY I. GINNANE

Bill and myself. That showed a degree of faith on Richard’s part, since it was obvious that in most situations Bill and I would vote together. . There were some protections though for Richard, such as preview screening arrangements which we had to comply with.

Are preview screenings some­ thing you would like to adopt on future productions?

Yes. There is no doubt Patrick benefited from its intensive, pre­ release previewing.

How was “ Patrick” handled overseas?

We were fortunate in that our investment contract with the AFC allowed us. to have the full say in handling foreign sales. This meant we had the right to nominate the agent.

The AFC expressed some interest in putting the film through their marketing division, and by this time Larry had become closely aligned with Cinema Shares. Because of the messy Mad Dog situation and some unre­ solved business concerning the sale of Inn of the Damned, this meant the AFC was somewhat reluctant to let us use him. They put us under some pressure, but they soon found that AIFC had the casting vote. I have said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t believe films can be sold by nationality alone.

It had always been our intention to have Patrick ready for Cannes.

I believe deals can be done at Cannes, provided of course the film has appeal to worldwide distributors.

It is now part of AIFC’s philosophy to have a film ready each year for Cannes and Mifed, and we have tied our production schedules to suit this. This way we don’t hold up cash flow longer than necessary.

In February this year, Bill and I went overseas to sell Blue Fire Lady, and we did a bit of preparatory work for Patrick as well. As I had worked with Larry Fredericks of Lawrence Fred­ ericks Enterprises before on Fantasm and Fantasm Comes Again, we decided to go with him on Blue Fire Lady.

At that time, I had a sneaking suspicion that Larry might not have worked hard enough on the two Fantasm films, and that I could have done better deals if I had used someone else. In retrospect, that was naivety on my CANNES part. A sales agent is only as good as his belief in a project making him a good commission. And it was fairly clear that there was a How important is Cannes as a ceiling in terms of sales on those market place? Most major films films, no matter how hard one are already pre-sold and it is only worked. smaller features and exploitation On Blue Fire Lady it was a films which can take advantage slightly different ball game, and of this gathering of distributors we were beginning to get an from the smaller territories . . . appreciation of what a film was Sure, but anybody who thinks worth in the foreign market place.

Despite this, Blue Fire Lady so Australia is going to be making far has done little more than what anything other than international many Australian films of late have art or exploitation films is naive.

If you have a Mouth to Mouth, done. That is, a BBC combination theatrical/television deal, a Janus a Between Wars or a Jimmie pick-up for Germany, Austria and Blacksmith, which are art films of Scandinavia, and sales to a few one form or another, then Cannes minor territories. I suppose we is a good way to find people who will end up netting close to will pay art film prices. If you have an exploitation film, like Patrick, $100,000 out of foreign sales.

Chantal Contouri (Madelaine) and Sigrid Thornton (Angela) in Simon Wincer’s Snapshot.

Man from Hong Kong or Snap­ shot, Cannes is also a good place to make a buck.

You don’t see Cannes as the way to the U.S. majors. ..

There is no way to the majors, given the sort of product we can turn out. I don’t envisage Aust­ ralian films ever being handled by U.S. majors — nor is there any reason why the majors should.

Considering the amount of money required to release a film in the U.S., it is naive to assume they will take a punt on unknown films from unknown countries. If they take a risk, it will be on their own films. It is all very well for Warners to pick up Girlfriends, but picking up a Newsfront is quite different.

If Australians still think they can sell films to the U.S. majors, then they should see them one by one in Los Angeles, or try and have their films showcased in Filmex, like we are doing with Patrick.

Actually, I did not expect Patrick would be as successful as it was. It caught us and Cinema Shares by surprise. Box Office Magazine called it the sleeper of Cannes, and it was. In all major territories, we had one or more distributors bidding big money; this meant I could play the bid-up game for the first time. In one territory, for example, the price doubled in two days. And in every territory, except for one or two smaller territories where you tend to sell outright, we got substantial minimum guarantees.

There are only three major territories where Patrick hasn’t sold. Japan is one, and we have rejected a substantial television offer because we feel the film has good theatrical potential there. In a couple of years, we will go round a second time and pick up television sales.

Our major breakthrough at Cannes was being cornered by four American distributors, all offering six-figure sums. We have now done a U.S. deal with

V anguard R eleasing, which recently handled The Hills Have Eyes. We have taken a calculated risk in choosing them, as they offered the smallest up front, but their split was the best. They are young people, with a similar outlook to Bill and myself, and we feel we can develop a good relationship. Hopefully, that will lead to Snapshot getting into the U.S. market as well.

It is one of our intentions at Mifed to secure investment from a number of territories, including the U.S., for the first two of our productions for 1979.

What was your budget at Cannes?

In total, at Cannes and there­ after, we spent about $25,000.

Add on an extra $15,000 if you count the cost of supplying the CRI and optical negatives, titles,, dialogue lists and so on.

I think our total publicity bill was U.S.$3000, and that includes using Fred Hift as our publicist.

If you take say U.S.$500,000 out of foreign sales, by the time you take off your a g en t’s commission, which is probably between 10 and 15 per cent, you are left with $425,000. You then spend another $50,000 selling it, and when you convert that back to Australia currency you are left with only $325,000.

Foreign sales are a bit like distribution: you need to take substantially more than what you end up with.

You mentioned a figure of U .S .$500,000. Is that what “Patrick” took at Cannes?

In terms of minimum guaran­ tees, we have a little bit less than that.

W hat is you r w o r k in g relationship with Cinema Shares over selling the film?

We have no working relation­ ship with Cinema Shares; we have Continued on p. 234

Angela (Sigrid Thornton) fights for her life against Daryl (Vincent Gil). Snapshot.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 179

Verina Glaessner

The kinds of issues that allow themselves to be cheerfully elided over in the presentation of the conventional festival report loom large in the consideration of an event like the Asian Film Festival, an event both in the tradition of mainstream festivals and distinctly marginal to the established festival circuit. For instance, how can one legitimately ‘deal with’, or mediate, a film inscribed within a highly specific industrial and cultural location without actively rewriting it in terms of one’s own location? Can one take as read notions of national cinema and/or Asian identity?

N on e th e le ss, the event, held somewhat bizarrely and incongruously in Sydney, raised some key problems concerning the relationship of a high technology inustry like Australia’s to the relatively “ under-developed” (and I use quotes advisedly) ones of the majority of Asian countries.

THE FESTIVAL Ten Asian countries are represented on the board of directors of the Festival’s

governing body, the Federation of Motion Picture Producers of Asia. The Festival was established 25 years ago with the avowed aim of promoting the exchange of cultural and practical ideas between member countries in the general realm of commercial filmmaking. The attending delegates are selected through the F ed era tion , w hich also s e le c ts participating entries, primarily with an eye to distribution and promotion within the Asian arena.

The Festival is now regarded as much a moment of self-congratulation and celebration as its opposite number in the U.S. — the Oscar or Academy Awards.

Recent festivals have also boasted elaborate programs of social events carefully contrived to showcase top stars and media personalities and guaranteed to render the daily screenings virtually hors du combat As one might expect from a highly produced event, the presentation of awards in itself has a generally confirmatory function, with all participating films receiving a token for participation in some years.

The Festival’s latest venue was generally considered something of a coup for Australia, the Federation’s youngest member, and points to the expansionist impulses of the local industry — a case of “you have the audiences, the locations, the stars, we

Masahira Shinoda’s Melody in Grey.

180 — Cinema Papers, January/February

have the technology” — in an attempt to woo post-production work away from the traditional sources in Hong Kong and Japan. Whether this move is financially feasible, or whether such involvement would inflate budgets beyond what is locally recoupable (forcing Asian p ro d u c e rs in to the p u rs u it of ‘international’ markets), remains to be seen.

Another possibility, based on the same reading of the situation, is that of Australian-Asian co-productions. During the Festival a firm deal with an Indonesian company was announced.

This year, the Festival received the financial backing of the Australian Film Commission, and for the first time introduced a registration fee for delegates. During directors’ meetings moves to make the Festival a market place for international features and films produced by member countries were discussed. There were large delegations from most member countries, notably Indonesia and Thailand, while India’s presence (one film and no delegate) was peripheral.

The responsibility for the organization of each Festival rests entirely with the host country, One has yet to attend a Festival in which promised “splashes” aren’t rendered finally as rather damp squibs, and to be sure Sydney had its fair

share. The event did not set the city alight, and traces of notorious cultural chauvinism were not ail that far to seek.

However, rather more to the point were the complaints from certain quarters of difficulty in meeting local producers and directors, and the lack of sufficient opportunities, outside purely social gatherings, for the exchange of ideas.

NOTES ON SOME ASIAN INDUSTRIES The situation in Japan is generally well documented. Suffice it to note here that economic conditions have generally been improving. If there has been little in the way of emerging new names, and if veteran directors have also tended to maintain a low profile, recent years have seen the drift towards new sources of finance in publishing as well as other retailing industries.

The situation in Hong Kong is complex and unstable, worthy in fact of fuller consideration than can be afforded here.

Hong Kong’s major producers, however, have assumed the tactic of international involvem ent. Shaw B rothers has invested in Meteor, a film co-funded by American International Pictures and the Japanese Nippon Herald company.

Golden Harvest is also playing down its Chinese output in favor of international productions — for example, Roger

A samizen player in Shinoda’s Melody In Grey.

ASIAN FILM FESTIVAL

r9 8

Shaque, the sole Indian entry at the Festival.

Vadim’s new feature, and GH’s recent Boys in Company C, a film which, rumor has it, was withdrawn from the Festival on their Australian distributor’s advice, for fear of lessening its market potential by being labelled with “ an Asian identity”.

Local politics, in fact, mitigated against anything like a representative selection of films from Hong Kong being shown. Hence, nothing from top-grossing Chinese director Michael Hui, or from King Hu — even in the largely Chinesical “ Retrospective” section. Or, in fact, from other producers outside the dominant Shaw Brothers company.

Locally, the Asian Festival tends to be seen as something of a means whereby the hegemony of dominant producers and dominant industries is underscored.

The Festival included former London School of Film Technique student Jins Shamsuddin’s Malaysian box-office hit No Tomorrow. The Malaysian industry suffers various difficulties with exhibition in the hands of Shaw Brothers and Cathay, and the Government delayed legislation which would bring the muchneeded National Film Development Corporation into being. Production is also hampered by a lack of private investment, although foreign companies are increasingly finding the country a useful location.

The biggest surprise of the Festival was the confidence and sheer technical proficiency of the Philippine films. To an extent, however, the impression given by the selection is misleading. The bulk of the 150-odd films produced annually is made up of low-budget exploitation work,

and the situation is put in perspective by the fact that four times as many foreign films are released annually.

Currently, too, the local industry labors under high tariffs, as well as a rigorous censorship system imposed at outline, script and finished film stages.

There are, however, about 900 cinemas in the Philippines, and there are moves to increase the quota of local product required of exhibitors.

Overall, economic conditions are forcing local Asian industries into positions of greater self-consciousness.

Hitherto dominant producers like Japan and Hong Kong are being faced with in cre a sin g ly strin g e n t pro tective le g isla tio n e stablished to fo s te r' production at home.

THE FILMS During the week’s screenings, audiences were able to see about 35 feature films from seven Asian countries, w hich in c lu d e d a program of “ underexposed cinema” from such countries as Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. One would be hard put to establish from these viewings even the sketchiest parameters of something that might be called ‘Asian cinema’, even if that was desirable.

Everywhere one tended to sense the ‘absent presence’ of Western cinema, in relation to which the various types of Asian cinema are forced, regardless, to define themselves.

The Festival’s most impressive entries broke no new ground and simply confirmed the’ artistic strengths and

Swordplay in Kinju Fukasaku’s confused Shogun’s Samurai.

Orin, the blind girl initiated into the world of the “ goze” . Melody in Grey.

distinctiveness of the cinema of Japan and Hong Kong.

Masahira Shindoda’s Melody in Grey evinced an unflinching and impressive singleness of purpose. About the initiation of a young blind girl, Orin, into the celibate company of blind women samizen players known as goze, Shinoda traces the story of her expulsion for sexual transgression and the downward curve of her life in a way that cannot help but be reminiscent of Mizoguchi. The film, in fact, reveals Shinoda’s strengths — his impressively potent visual organization, the statuesque quality he brings to his thematic organization — and his weaknesses — notably a certain narrative laxity.

The early sections are particularly impressive, where the sightless women are seen feeling their way about their

household tasks, physically condemned to a twilight existence. Or the strange contradictions established in the scenes in which the celibate women are shown at work — hired to sing what one gathers are fairly libidinous songs to increasingly riotous all-male after-dinner gatherings.

Kinju Fukasaku’s Shogun’s Szamurai was a rather confused and far more generic piece inhabiting an area that overlaps much recent Hong Kong cinema. Following a complex web of intrigue resulting from the death of a Shogun general and set in 17th Century Japan, Fukasaku daringly (desperately?) grasps at whatever stylistic straw is at hand. Often the effect is striking, if not especially coherent.

Concluded on p.233

Shogun’s Samurai, which is set in 17th Century Japan.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 181

182 — Cinema Papers, January/February

STANLEY HAWES

How did you get started in filmmaking?

Until his retirement in 1970, Stanley Hawes had served as producer-in-chief at Film Australia for 24 years.

As a young man I was deeply Founded in 1946, Film Australia has functioned as the interested in the theatre. I did a good deal of acting, mostly primary production house for government documentaries amateur, and occasionally as an in Australia.

Hawes’ training in documentary began with his extra in professional theatre.

Then, a few years after leaving involvement with John Grierson in Britain in the 1930s, school, I became interested in and developed further when he joined the National Film films.

In 1931 I started the Birming­ Board of Canada in 1940. It was after a six-year stay there ham Film Society, one of the that he was invited to become chief producer of the Film earliest film societies, with a Division of the Department of Information (which group of people, including my became the Commonwealth Film U nit, then Film wife to be. We invited Paul Rotha Australia). to address the first meeting.

Since his retirement, Hawes has served as president of I wanted to get into the the National Film Theatre of Australia; and he is documentary film movement, which was the bright spot in films presently chairman of the film censorship Board of at that time, but jobs were scarce. Review.

I managed to get into a small In the following interview, conducted by Graham studio in London, but it didn’t last Barry, Hawes discusses the varied aspects of his career. long.

John Grierson was sympathetic, but had no job for me, and it was Rotha who gave me one in 1935.1 became his assistant at GaumontBritish Instructional Films, which had a studio in Cleveland St. At that time, the firm was directed by Bruce Woolfe and Mary Field.

Their British Instructional Films, famous for the Secrets of Nature series, had since been absorbed by Gaumont-British.

Rotha is remembered chiefly for his book, ‘The Film Till Now’.

How significant was his role?

The Film Till Now, originally published in 1930, was the first intelligent, comprehensive book on film in English. Rotha was about 22 when he wrote it, but has brought it up to date once or twice since, notably in collaboration with Dick Griffith of the Museum of Modern Art Film Library in New York.

Those were days of great awareness of the potentiality of cinema; Rotha became a kind of prophet of that awareness and a historian of the sensitive cinema.

It was the time of the German school of cinem a, and the Russians were starting to make their impact. There was also a lot of good film criticism being written by people like Robert Herring and C.A. Lejeune.

When I went to work with Rotha, he was writing the first version of Documentary Film.

Later, in 1936,1 collaborated with him on Movie Parade. Since then he has written several books, the latest being Documentary Diary.

Rotha also made a number of notable films, particularly during the ’30s, like The Face of Britain Counterclockwise from top left: Stanley Hawes in 1945 while working at the NFBC; Stanley Hawes (right), with Reg Pearse behind the camera, directs W.S. Kent-Hughes (left), Robert Menzies and Lewis Luxton in a film on the preparation for the 1956 Olympic Games; Sir Norman Rydge, the Hon. Doug Anthony and Stanley Hawes at the 1977 Sydney Film Festival.

and Shipyard. But some might say he was a better historian than filmmaker.

Rotha was also very humane; he helped me at a time when I badly needed help. He also helped Karl Mayer, the great German scriptwriter [one of the team on Caligari] who had fled from the Nazis and was in difficult straits.

You were then appointed to the Canadian Film Board. How did that come about?

Well, before that I went with Rotha to the Strand Film Company, a newly-formed off­ shoot of the Empire Marketing Board and General Post Office Film Units1, and one of the firms in the documentary group. I had a few marvellous years at the height of the documentary period and managed to make a name for myself as a documentary director.

Monkey into Man, which I made in collaboration with Julian Huxley, then secretary of the Royal Zoological Society, was probably the most successful British short film of 1937.

There weren’t many people in the documentary group in those pioneer days in London-, but those in it were skilful and dedicated. As a group they revolved around Grierson, who had formed it, and who continued to guide it from his position at the GPO2.

A few words of praise from Grieson about one’s latest film were something to be cherished.

After work, people from all the units in the group would meet at one of the pubs in Soho for a good discussion. On Friday nights there was usually a gathering at GPO to see a new film or listen to some notable film m aker or actor Grierson had brought along.

1. The GPO Unit absorbed the EMB Unit, then in 1940 became the Crown Film Unit.

2. John Grierson and Walter Creighton were the original joint officers of the Unit.

(some say “ goaded” ) them into giving their very best. He wasn’t always easy to work with — he and I often reached the stage of pounding the desk — but he did make it possible for me to do the kind of film, and the kind of job, I wanted to. And, above all, he understood the potential of the film as a means of information, as a tool of the educator.

He was also a man of acute perception. I remember letters from him in the years after the war when I was in Australia and he was with Unesco.5 He gave remarkable accounts of the prospects of filmmaking in a number of countries, and his forecasts were extraordinarily accurate.

You then came to Australia to a job that was somewhat insecure.

What was the nature of your Then the war came. Grierson recruitment, and the internal went to Canada for the Imperial politicking that went on?

Relations Trust3, and all docu­ Inspired by the success of the mentary work stopped. I was out of work again, in a reserved NFBC, a group of people persuad­ occupation and not even allowed ed the Chifley government to form the Australian National Film to join the army.

Alberto Cavalcanti approached Board in 1945. Ralph Foster, the me about joining the GPO Unit, N FB C ’s re p re s e n ta tiv e in which he and Harry Watt were Australia, was appointed the first running in Grierson’s absence. Film Commissioner, though he But before anything could come of didn’t have the powers of one, to that, Stuart Legg, on behalf of hold office until the end of 1946.

Grierson, asked me to join the He was not a production man at newly-formed National Film the time, so he wanted someone to be in charge of production, and Board of Canada.4 I went there early in 1940 — weld the small and relatively Grierson was then in Australia — inexperienced production team as the NFBC needed people into an efficient whole. experienced in documentary Towards the end of 1945 I was technique. Stuart Legg was temp­ offered the job of producer-in­ orarily doing a stint with The chief. It seem ed to be an March of Time. Raym ond opportunity to continue the work I Spottiswoode came from MGM in had been doing in Canada, so I Hollywood, and a few of us had accepted the position and arrived the job of helping to set up the in Sydney in May, 1946.

NFBC in the days when it had to You m entioned insecurity. fight for acceptance.

Well, for 24 years, until my We had to train a number of retirement in 1970, I was only a juniors: among them were Jim temporary employee. The terms Beveridge (now Professor of Film weren’t very attractive — a twoat York University, Toronto), year contract — so I held off for David Bairstow, Tom Daly, and some time before accepting.

Michael Spencer who came to us At the end of the two years, the with great enthusiasm but little ANFB wanted to keep me in experience.

Australia, but the Department of Information (to which I was How do you regard Grierson’s attached) was anxious to get rid of me. I dug my toes in, and finally importance? they agreed to the terms, with me He was a man of great breadth in the job. But it didn’t take the of vision — of statesmanship, if Department of Information long you like. He also had great to get round them. political skill, which was shown in I was a simple filmmaker — his ability to set up the EMB Film naive if you like — and used to Unit in London and the NFBC in working for a fair boss. I was a Ottawa. His political nous seemed babe-in-the-woods when confron­ only to meet its match when ted by Australian bureaucrats. Of confronted with the indifference course, I have since learned to survive. of Robert Menzies.

The great mistake was that the Grierson chose his colleagues very carefully and then enthused ANFB was not originally made a statutory body — as was the 3. Grierson had resigned in 1937.

4. The NFBC was established in May 1939 as a result of a report by Grierson, who became its first chairman.

5. In 1947 Grierson became Director of Mass Communications and Public Confirmation for Unesco in Paris.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 183

STANLEY HAWES

I don’t think there is much point in going deeply into this. By the time I arrived in Australia there was considerable bad feeling between Bonney and Ralph Foster.

Bonney, as a journalist, seemed to resent the Film Division — me in particular — and he seemed to do all he could to make my job difficult. He recalled units from the field without my knowledge, ruined a good distribution deal we had with MGM by making unreasonable demands, and even sent belligerent memoranda, one of which said there must be no further attempt to build a strong film division. But these things all happened many years ago, and I try to forget them.

In that first period you produced an Oscar nomination. . .

Famed British documentary filmmaker John Grierson, with whom Hawes worked.

NFBC — but was attached to the Department of Information for administrative purposes. For a while, there was a struggle between the D epartm ent of Information and the Department of Post-W ar R econstruction, headed by Dr Coombs, over which department should have the ANFB. Unfortunately, the D ep artm en t of Inform ation succeeded and proceeded to emasculate it. I was left out on a limb.

I believe the new government in 1949 suspected the Common­ wealth Film Unit of being Arthur Calwell’s mouthpiece. . .

Not just the CFU, but the whole Department of Information. The CFU was never a mouthpiece for Calwell (for whom I had a high regard) or any other Minister, of whatever party, then or since.

But the Australian Diary Unit, which turned out the monthly magazine-type film Australia D iary, in association with Movietone News, was not under my control at the time. As part of the efforts of the head of the Department of Information to weaken my position, the producer in charge of the Diary dealt directly with the head office in Canberra, not with me, and there may have been ju s tifia b le suspicion of some of the films.

The Film Division suffered for the rest of the Department of Information in the demotion of the News and Inform ation Bureau, and my own position was downgraded. Only in the years follow ing the death of the D irecto r of the News and Information Bureau, and the subsequent removal of Film Australia from the control of the bureau, has the present producerin-chief been given adequate status.

184 — Cinema Papers, January/February

You often seemed to be identified with politics, perhaps inevitably, because you have worked for government bodies. Even in Canada, you took time off during the war to make three films in Britain about labor-management co-operation. Yet you seem apolitical, at least in the sense that you have tried not to mix p o litic s w ith p r o fe ssio n a l life. . .

I am surprised you think of me as being identified with politics, because I have always maintained that a national film unit must be apolitical. That doesn’t mean an individual can’t have his own political views — after all, I was honorary treasurer of the ACT, the British Film Trade Union, in the days when George Elvin was its new secretary and Anthony Asquith its president. [The late 1930s.]

But a national film unit must serve the nation, not any political party, even one of which you may personally approve.

Yes. The C om m onw ealth Office of Education wanted a film on the Correspondence School of the New South Wales Education Department for the first Unesco conference in Paris. The con­ ference was little more than a month away, but I had plenty of experience in doing things in a hurry. Besides, no one else suitable seemed to be free so I had to take it on.

A unit was formed, with Bill Trerise as cameraman and Jules Feldman as researcher. We did about 10 days’ shooting in NSW at a speed possibly unknown in the division.

Ralph Foster was excellent: He told the units in the field, including Lee Robinson in the Northern Territory, to send in material. Catherine Duncan, poetess, dramatist and actress, assisted me with the editing and wrote the commentary. John Antill was commissioned to write a music score in three days, which he did. We then edited and recorded the film in English and French.

The film was finished in time for the Unesco Conference and was entered by the Department of Information’s New York office for an Oscar. It was in the final three, but missed out to First Steps Your most successful film on the ’50s was probably “The Queen in Australia” . Even allowing for the period and Australia’s love of royalty, it caused quite a splash. . .

I have always felt that it didn’t get the attention it deserved. It was the first Australian 35mm color film of feature length to be completed; it was just ahead of Jedda. The script broke new ground and overcame the usual problems of shooting similar events in six States and the ACT. It was about the people of Australia, and you saw as much, or more, of them than you did of the Queen.

The film was a sensation in.

Britain. It received rave reviews fro m n e a rly e v e ry m a jo r newspaper and periodical. Its reception in Australia was just as warm; but it didn’t do me much good.

To save time, since the color stock could only be processed in London or Italy, we did the editing and recording in London.

Australian technicians working there were used; actors like Peter Finch and Wilfrid Thomas were among the voices; and Charlie M a c k e rra s, th e n re la tiv e ly unknown, helped with the music.

There were, naturally, a few problems. The first speech of welcome to the Queen was delivered by Pat Hills, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, and we had excellent footage of that. The Prime Minister’s speech was to come a few days later at a royal banquet in Parliament House, Canberra. This was obviously an important moment, but security at Parliam ent House was strict.

What is the difference, for a filmmaker, in working for a Labor or a Liberal government?

Surprisingly, I found no great difference. Neither government was much help, though the 1972 Labor government may have been different. It is much more a question of the personality of a Minister or a department head.

N eith er Ben Chifley nor Menzies would admit to any interest in films. Chifley would co-operate, but Menzies used to put on an infuriating act in front of the camera and frustrate any of our men filming him.

Your relationship with the Director-General of Information, E.G. Bonney, sounded somewhat precarious. . .

Joseph Post (left) discusses the scoring of The Queen in Australia with producer Stanley Hawes.

STANLEY HAWES

Eventually we were permitted to place a cameraman and sound recordist on the roof, shooting down through a kind of skylight.

The proceedings had barely started when the camera jammed and there was no second camera standing by. As a result, when the material reached us in London we found we had no footage of the Prime Minister’s speech, though we had the sound. We discussed this problem, and the general view was that it would spoil the film if we tried to fake some scene using Menzies’ voice without his image.

When I returned from London, K ent-H ughes, the M inister responsible for the film unit, asked me why the PrimexMinister had not been allowed to say a word of welcome to the Queen in the film. I told him that I had no im age. “ But you had th e soundtrack,” he replied.

He went on to say that, so there would be no mistake, he had written to Menzies to apologize.

He had also assured him that I would be ticked off.

What was your policy in developing the CFU over the period?

Filming the London Symphony Orchestra for Festival in Adelaide (1962). Loch Townsend (left), Chris McCullough, Frank Bagnall, Stanley Hawes, Sir Malcolm Sargent and Marilyn Williams.

I believe you were outsmarted to a certain extent by the wording of the new charter of the News and Information Bureau. . .

This sounds innocuous, but it left out the vital word “ all” in front of “ films” since it might have offended those departments which didn’t like the professionals to interfere.

A good exam ple of this occurred when the Air Force wanted the CFU to make a film on its activities in Malaya, including the dropping of bombs on supposed terrorists in the jungle.

In the very sensitive atmosphere of the times I considered that such a film would be disastrous, and declined to make it. But that didn’t stop the Air Force from getting a commercial unit to do it.

enjoyable films of considerable variety, including some of serious social themes.

One of these was Nullarbor Hideout, a fictional story for children set on the Nullarbor Plains. For this we engaged Tim Burstall as director. He was then unknown, but had done a few jobs for the unit.

The film was no masterpiece, for various reasons, but it was a start in a new field of dramatized fictional film — a field which directors like Don Crombie, Bob Kingsbury, Peter Weir, Brian Hannant and Oliver Howes ably exploited.

Another film was Under Stress

by Rhonda Small. It was about new methods of treating mental patients in hospitals and it opened the way to more films on social subjects.

Paddington Lace was very successful. It dealt in sensitive and hum orous fashion with an unm arried couple, using a fictional form. The script was by Joan Long, who later scripted Caddie, and produced The Picture Show Mian.

Then there was the film From the Tropics to the Snow. It was to be a tourist film about Australia, an impossible subject we were constantly asked to cover. We decided to make it light-hearted, set in the fram ew ork of a discussion betw een a film producer, a directo r and a scriptwriter confronted with the job.

Jack Lee and Dick Mason were the directors. They used all sorts of cinematic devices and tricks — inspired as far as I was concerned

by Rene Clair’s silent masterpiece Les deux timides — and in quite an exciting way it overrode the limitations of normal film editing.

It was a great relief from so much modern filmmaking which makes little use of the possibilities

I take it you are referring to the charter — if that is the right word — drawn up in 1960. I had been My aim was to build a national doing a job for Unesco in Morocco film unit, based on the original for more than a year, and when I documentary philosophy, which returned to Australia early in 1960 was able to change and adapt with the Director of the News and the needs of the times, in terms of Information Bureau (of which the subject and style. I believed it had film unit was unfortunately a part) to be comparable to the NFBC, suggested I take things easily for a with the same sense of social while. By the time I realized that conscience and service to the the new “ charter” had been community, and the same high, drawn up, it was too late to do standards of imaginative and anything. technical skills.

It had only one paragraph, out I believe a good film inform­ of nine or 10, about the film unit, ation service is an incalculable which read (I quote from asset to the nátion, and that a memory) : national film u nit has the “ To be responsible for the responsibility to advise the administration of the National Government on what films it Film Board and for th e should make, not just to make production of films for Com­ those it is told to. monwealth Departments.”

I like to think of the ’60s as the period of breakthrough, when we started to get away from the conventional approach which had b een e x p e c te d of us and u n d e rto o k in te re s tin g and

During the Filming of the Australian section of the NFBC documentary on John Grierson. Tony Buckley (left), Stanley Hawes and director Joan Long.

Stanley Hawes (left), Lord Ted Willis, Mrs Barry Ovender and Andrea at the 1968 Unesco seminar on -the Professional Training of Producers, Directors and Scriptwriters.

What were the CFU’s biggest successes of the 1960s?

Concluded on p.243

Cinema Papers, January/February — 185

SPONSORED DOCUMENTARIES A brief history

Eddie Moses A “ sponsored” documentary is a film pro­ duced for a client body which performs a certain function — either specific (e.g. to promote a product, a point of view or body of information) or general (e.g. to create goodwill by having the sponsor’s name associated with a “ worthwhile” film project).

Defined in this way, it is possible to regard films as varied as Glass (Bert Haanstra, Holland, 1958), Triumph of the Will (Leni Riefenstahl, Germany, 1935), and Back of.

Beyond (John Heyer, Australia, 1954) as being part of the same genre.

Film and television journals largely concern themselves with feature films, television dramas and alternative film/video. The role and importance of the sponsored documentary has been widely ignored, especially in Aust­ ralia where such films only seem to achieve recognition after being entered in foreign film festivals.

One reason for this is that the sponsored documentary is regarded simply as a functional tool which effectively fulfils a sponsor’s need without providing the “ artistic vision” a “ true” documentary can sometimes achieve.

However, a sponsored documentary has intrinsic value. Firstly, in this field, clear and effective communication is valued and certain films are models of this (e.g. Explosives: Two Metre Lifeline, South Australian Film Corporation, 1975). Such films can accurately reflect Australian culture, while others go beyond the limits of communication and provide a lucid vision of life as it is (e.g.

Thirst, Film Australia, 1977).

Scene from Nanook of the North.

186 — Cinema Papers, January/February

Secondly, the sponsored film industry has a long history of providing continuous work for filmmakers in a wider film industry that is notoriously unstable (about 200 such films a year are made in Australia today); this field has been an excellent training ground for new filmmaking talent. Note, for example, the preponderance of Australian feature directors who have either come out of, or worked considerably in, sponsored documentaries — Peter Weir, Donald Crombie, Phil Noyce, Fred Schepisi.

In terms of turnover generated and work provided, it is not feature or television films, but sponsored films (including documentaries and commercials) that could be considered the mainstay of the Australian film industry.

In looking at the evolution of a sponsored documentary in the West, the work of John Grierson, Pare Lorentz and Robert Flaherty is especially interesting.

Nanook of the North (1922), the first documentary masterwork, was made by Robert Flaherty for the fur merchants, Revillon Freres. Flaherty used a man and his family to explore a way of life that was doomed by the encroachment of technological society.

In a subsequent film, Flaherty maintained his concern for individuals living in societies made obsolete by newer, more advanced techno­ logies (e.g. Moana, Man of Aran).

In Louisiana Story (1948), his final docu­ mentary made for Standard Oil of America, F la h e r ty s e e m e d to s u g g e s t th a t conservationist technology could maintain a delicate, though changing, balance of nature.

Flaherty, it seems, was able to satisfy his sponsor — and himself.

Pare Lorentz moved away from the indiv­

idual, and looked instead at societies. Lorentz made his first documentary, The Plow That Broke the P la in s, in 1936 for the Resettlement Administration, a body insti­ tuted by Franklin D. Roosevelt which concerned itself with dust-storms and their human toll. The documentary dramatically presented this problem, but also succeeded in incurring the wrath of private industry (Hollywood saw it as “ socialism” , because it was government-financed), and Roosevelt’s political opposition (they saw it as New Deal propaganda, an attempt to justify Roosevelt’s farm policies).

Plow, and Lorentz’ next film, The River (1937), were great successes, but they could not withstand the harbored suspicions of an America obsessed with the “ menace” of world communism.

The film service was scuttled, its funds removed, the vagaries of state funding clearly demonstrated. Sadly, Lorentz’ filmmaking genius was. not the same as his political skills; but John Grierson’s was.

G rierson is another great master of sponsored documentary, and tñe one to whom Australians are most indebted. He believed that film was a highly effective communication tool that could be used to educate people on the benefits of progress and modern industry.

He succeeded in expounding this view to governm ent and industry sponsors and established the framework for a flourishing sponsored documentary industry in Britain, and later in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Grierson had studied social sciences at the University of Chicago, and while in the U.S. he met Flaherty. His regard for Flaherty was

The postman loads up with school work for outback children at the Blackfriars Correspondence School.

LessonS Come in the Mailbag.

Charles Bliss in Film Australia’s Mr. Symbol Man.

SPONSORED DOCUMENTARIES

ambivalent: he acknowledged him as a master documentarist, but decried his love of the remote and primitive. He felt that Flaherty was a romantic in an era that called for pragmatism.

For effective communication techniques, Grierson looked instead to Soviet films, particularly The Battleship Potemkin (1925).

As a tool for propaganda, Grierson thought Potemkin, with its dynamic editing and clear message, far superior to the sprawling structure and calculated ambiguity of Nanook.

In 1927, Grierson returned to Britain and sold the idea of a documentary on the herring industry to the Empire Marketing Board — a body designed to promote trade and a sense of unity in the then British Empire. Previously, the Board had used only stills, pamphlets and posters.

Drifters (1929) was a resounding success.

Its vivid imagery of fishermen and their way of life recalled the poetry of Flaherty; its imaginatively-paced editing influenced by Russian filmmaking; but its message was distinctively Grierson. Though the men still lived in quaint old villages, fishing had become “ an epic of steam and steel” , its products a “ market for the world” .

Drifters was successfully released in theatres throughout the country, but later Grierson-produced films were also shown (and often) on the non-theatrical 16 mm circuit that Grierson fostered, in schools, church halls, offices, and factories, at the time an unex­ ploited market.

Grierson did not direct any more films; instead, he set up the Empire Marketing Board Film Unit and became its head. He then formed an efficient production team, with tal­ ented recruits like Edgar Anstey, Harry Watt, Stuart Legg, Paul Rotha, and Basil Wright.

Documentaries like Housing Problems (1935) and Coal Face (1936) gave dignity to the working man and sounded a note of protest — even reform. And, at the same time, they were able to satisfy their sponsors. Grierson, it seemed, was doing the impossible; with his political skills, creative energies and social vision, he was able to fashion socially and artistically meaningful films that also fulfilled a clear and definite function. Art was the hammer, not the mirror, and the message was not ignored.

Documentarists as diverse as Pare Lorentz and Willard Van Dyke (U.S.), Leni Riefenstahl (Germany), and Jorvis Ivens (Holland) were probably influenced by Grierson’s demonstrations of film as a functional art and a propaganda tool.

In 1939, with war threatening, Grierson went to Canada and set up a film unit that later became the National Film Board of Canada.

He went on similar missions to New Zealand

Julie Dawson as the disillusioned, desperate Jenny in Don Crombie’s Who Killed Jenny Langby?

A scene from the award-winning documentary, Drama Lesson.

Dancers in motion. Drama Lesson.

and Australia. As a result of his visit to Australia, Stanley Hawes, an Englishman who had formerly worked with Grierson in Britain, and was then working at the National Film Board of Canada, was selected to head production of the newly-formed national film unit.

Documentary filmmaking in Australia had in the past been of limited output and interest, confined to newsreels and short travel and information films. Occasionally these films were of excellent quality, as with the Antarctic and New Guinea documentaries of Frank Hurley and the World War 2 newsreel filming of Damien Parer. Also, documentaries of daily life and celebrations had been made by Walter Baldwin Spencer and Ernest Turnbull. But there was nothing comparable to the documentary film movements of Britain or the U.S. In Australia, documentary filmmaking had not achieved the same status and did not attract the finest talents — a situation that was to change dramatically by the ’60s.

In 1946, Stanley Hawes came to Australia to become Chief Producer of the Film Division of the Department of Information (later abbreviated to the Commonwealth Film Unit and still later, Film Australia).

First, he picked a team largely from the former Department of Commerce Film Unit,

World War 2 cameramen, and some new talent. Then, like Grierson, he set about gaining commissions from sponsoring depart­ m ents, and producing films that had functional, and perhaps even social and artistic, value.

Having worked with Grierson in Britain in the ’30s, the golden years of documentary, Hawes was influenced by the older man’s blend of pragmatism-idealism and his political skill in winning support for government and industrial filmmaking programs. Hawes found the latter still particularly necessary. He faced considerable departmental interference in his work, because the Australian film unit did not have the same amount of freedom as its Canadian counterpart. This had been originally established by an Act of Parliament as an independent commission and, therefore, did not have to answer to the bureaucratic obstruction that plagued Hawes throughout.

Yet, in the period under Hawes’ leadership and since, the unit made many films which compared favorably with those of a similar nature produced elsewhere in the world. The ’40s gave us Hawes’ School in the Mailbox and John Heyer’s Men and Mobs, Journey of a Nation and The Valley Is Ours; the ’50s, Invisible Link and Capacity Smith; the ’60s, Drama Lesson, Workout, From the Tropics

A scene of the past from Bullocky.

Seals at Seal Bay, Kangaroo Island, in the SAFC documentary, Kangaroo Island.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 187

SPONSORED DOCUMENTARIES

to the Snow, Concert for Orchestra, Desert depending on the degree of enthusiasm for questioned as to their viability. On the credit People, The Pictures that Moved and films, the nature of the departm ents side are the advantages: greater rationalization Bullocky; the ’70s, Three to Go, The Gallery, (departments of education were conspicuous of production and management decisions The Line, Desert Landforms, Harvest at users of film), and the monies made available under one state-wide body, leading to better Long Nub, The Passionate Industry, Mr from state allocations for the “ luxury” efficiency, greater utilization of resources due Symbol Man, Rui (part of the Why Can’t products that films were deemed to be. All this to the more streamlined competitive nature of They Be Like We Were? series), God Knows changed in 1972 when the South Australian corporation organization; more work available to filmmakers and the industry due to the Why But It Works and All in the Same Boat. Film Corporation was formed.

The SAFC was created by an Act of greater volume of films produced; a better Of course, many mediocre films were made as well. But by the mid-60s, in the best Parliam ent. A lthough an in d ep en d en t quality product as the industry grows; a Grierson tradition of function before art, and corporation, free to solicit all kinds of “ film” clearer, more positive state identity and image pragmatism before philosophy, a viable, (the term includes video, too) work, when, that would also serve to attract new invest­ centralized government film unit had been set where and from whom it chose, the SAFC was ment.

On the debit side one would consider greater up, one that had miraculously survived the also guaranteed all state department film parochialism by the states and perhaps more vagaries of politics, recessions, the coming of production.

This gave it an effective monopoly and an national divisiveness; too much competition television, and many other problems that assured working revenue. At the same time, it for too few resources of capital and labor emerged in the making of documentaries.

In the late ’40s and ’50s, production outside rationalized government production under available; a possible threat to independent the federal film unit was also taking place. one arm run along private enterprise lines and, producers with previously established links to Production houses such as Cinesound turned therefore, presumably free of the excesses of client government departments.

Also, in this era of changing media tech­ out a regular output of newsreels and shorts; bureaucratic red tape. Unburdened by a Public the Waterside Workers’ Federation formed its Service mentality — and involved extensively nologies, the very idea of “ film” corporations own unit to make in-service and public with the film industry, but having its own has been questioned. However, in the various relations films; and private firms occasionally contract staff — the SAFC had unprecedented acts that set them up, the term “ film” generally denotes film and video too; and, if flexibility. commissioned industrial documentaries.

Today, the SAFC’s output of short current practice is anything to go by, the The largest of these, Shell Australia, formed its film unit in the early ’50s. This was part of a sponsored documentaries is prolific — about corporations are very eager to utilize worldwide trend started by Shell in Britain 45 a year. Although it has made its name whichever format is more suitable for the job following a memorandum written by Grierson through the success of its feature films (Picnic in hand, be it film or video, super 8 mm or 16 in 1933. Shell sought to dissociate its at Hanging Rock and Storm Boy being only mm, half inch, three-quarter inch, one inch or. documentaries from traditional advertising — two), it is the documentary program that plods two inch.

The real question is, can a nation of 14 a credit at the start, and the Shell symbol at the steadily along.

It generates a quick turnover (unlike the million people afford six independent film end, were deemed sufficient. Many subjects, however, were related to Shell interests, or features which have a notoriously long bodies? I believe the answer is yes, provided had long-range promotional value. Aviation income-retrieval time) and makes films of the corporations get together and co-ordinate and cars, for example, fitted the former, generally good quality and social value that their operations to ’frrinimize or eliminate very often go unrecognized, like Explosives: wasteful com petition and unnecessary science and travel the latter.

Some documentaries went beyond fulfilling The Two Metre Lifeline, Who Killed Jenny duplication of effort. This would be better for their functions, such as John Heyer’s Back of Langby?, The Making of Sunday, I Taught the film people, the films themselves, the Beyond, made by the Shell Australia Film Unit Them But They Didn’t Learn, Kangaroo states and the nation. Moves to do this are already underway. We can only hope that petty in 1954. Heyer, an experienced and talented Island and Five Finger Discount.

Following SAFC’s success, other states state and personal rivalries are cast aside for filmmaker had made several documentaries for the Film Division before coming to Shell. responded and now have state-supported the benefit of the country as a whole.

What some people find worrying is that the Back of Beyond was Heyer’s masterpiece — bodies, set up along similar lines.

The Tasmanian Film Corporation is an Australian film industry, including the spon­ a feature-length documentary centred on the activities of the man who delivered the mail interesting case in point. Government film- sored documentary section, is to a large extent along the 480 km-long Birdsville Track, making in Tasmania began after World War 2 supported by government money. This is its through the desert lands of Central Australia. with the formation of a departmental film unit strength and its weakness. The stability that It was a film of great lyrical beauty — one that that produced a varied output of short films state funding provides can also act as a caught the grit and dust of life on the isolated largely for use by other government deterrent to the free expression of views that settlements along the route, and at the same departments. In 1977, the unit was disbanded may be critical of the country and its time captured something of Australia that few and the new Tasmanian Film Corporation institutions, including the government; state funding can create a state of artificial well­ formed along the lines of the SAFC. films have done before or since.

About the same time, similar bodies were being unconnected to harsher existing In 1961, the Australian Institute of Abor­ iginal Studies began a long and active formed in the other Australian states. The realities; and such funding can discourage the involvement in ethnographic film production. pattern was clear: cut down the bureaucracy, exercise of private initiative in finding inde­ Documentaries were also made by govern­ centralize government filmmaking activities, pendent backing from the private sector.

These are well-worn arguments, and it ment departments who either produced them attempt penetration of the private funds in-house (some states had their own film units market, and make cheaper and, hopefully, would be naive to think that we have avoided such as Tasmania and Victoria) or contracted better films and other media products that are or overcome them.

Furthermore, in Australia and elsewhere, them out to production companies from aggressively marketed in the non-theatrical, the problem of finding an audience for the private industry. The quantity of docu­ television and theatrical areas.

However, these corporations have been documentary is probably greater than ever m en taries produced varied, generally before. In Australia, we have simply not devoted sufficient resources or energy to this vital task, certainly not in comparison with our Canadian counterparts, who learned well from Grierson and others the importance of making good films and of seeking and finding a wide and often scattered audjence.

However, it is clear that in this country the sponsored documentary has grown steadily from its humble beginnings, so much so that today it is not only alive and well, but also one of the vital life sources of an industry that has continuously battled for survival. ★ .

Malcolm Arkaringa, a native of the Birdsville Track area, in a scene from John Heyer’s The Back of Beyond.

188 — Cinema Papers, January/February -

Scene from Ian .Dunlop’s Desert People.

N-

. :.J

'X

i

The author would like to thank the following for their help in the preparation of this article: Stanley Hawes, Judy Adamson, Alan Anderson, Timothy Read, Malcolm Smith, Nina Syme and Richard Davis.

ADELAIDE FILM FESTIVAL 1978 ______ ___________ —

—

^

Adelaide is a special city, and just as every city gets the kind of film festival it deserves, Adelaide is at last getting something which is worthy of the other arts which flourish in the state.

Its best known cultural event, the Adelaide Festival of Arts, has always been so overwhelmed by theatre and music that film has tended to occupy last place. The result has been a succession of highly culled screenings of the bestof-Kurosawa-Bergman-Fellini-type, all given the name of Festival of Somethingor-other. This has suited the indolent, parochial, city-state lifestyle of the place.

Despite the pressure of the South Australian Film Corporation, with many good films to its credit, cinematic consciousness in Adelaide often de­ generates to the level of gossip and reminiscence. Adelaide needs festivals almost as much as it needs water. If the public gets to see 1900 or the National Film Theatre of Australia a Kobayashi trilogy, both see the films later than Sydney or Melbourne, and response and criticism is often forestalled by the east coast reaction.

But for a fortnight Adelaide has been delighted by a program of films, half of them screened for the first time anywhere in Australia, and many that would have been hailed in Cannes, Edinburgh, Rotterdam or any major festival. This has been due to the energetic travels of the festival organizers and the taste of co-ordinator Claudine Thoridnet.

While a festival can achieve co­

—

—

—

—

Robert Powell as Paul Ree and Erhland Josephson as Nietzsche in Liliana Cavani’s Beyond Good and Evil.

herence without designating itself as a “ Child’s” / “ Animation” / “ Third World” event, Adelaide has proved that a series of films loosely geared to the living topics of the city’s existence can create a great unity of response among audiences.

Sexuality is such a topic, particularly as it applies to the position of women and homosexuals in society. If the films displayed any one particular focus of attention, this was it. With four major works from women directors about sexuality (including the Swedish Paradise Place by Gunnel Lindblom), and several others by men about women and gays, this aspect of the programming was particularly successful.

The Australian premiere of Paul Mazursky’s An Unmarried Woman took prime time slot and venue on the opening day of the festival, which in view of the theme, “The Peoples Festival” , should have gone to John Duigan’s excellent Mouth to Mouth, despite its commercial release on the east coast. Still, Mazursky’s film gave an appropriately pretty dose of sexual politics to Adelaide’s upper social echelons while they waited for the real business of the evening — the champagne and chicken supper which followed the screening.

In all fairness, An Unmarried Woman is objectionable only to the extent that It is designed to titillate just that social sector which it treats — the upper-

middle class. After all, feminism in its blander forms is so fashionable now, isn’t it?

Briefly, 37 year-old Erica (convinc­ ingly played by Jill Clayburgh) loses her husband of 16 happy years to a younger woman. Shattered by his deceit and her loss, she undergoes a period of intense man-hating from which she is coaxed by a female analyst. After initiating one o,r two strictly sexual one-night stands, Erica enters a mutual love relationship with an a rtist (Alan Bates) who surprisingly displays those masculine characteristics we would expect her now to loathe: possessiveness, aggress­ iveness towards rivals, assumed a u th o rity over her c a re er, etc.

Fortunately she has learnt to resist these traits and, at the film’s end, refuses to give up her work to be with him, or promise fidelity for more than the present day.

Along the way Mazursky intelligently treats Erica’s relationship to her female friends and daughter, the unthinking chauvinism of supposedly liberated men, and the difficulty and necessity of reconciling love with other needs.

Careful to avoid stereotyping, An Unmarried Woman is a good deal better politically than many other films about relationships aimed at a sim ilar audience. With slick and glossy photography, a host of well-acted and directed characters, and a potpourri of

Noel Purdon and Peter Page

— —

—

—

—

1

insights into behavior, it makes pleasant viewing. But since it confines itself to Erica’s point of view, it never comes to terms with the factors at the root of sexism — a considerable defect.

Netherland’s The Debut and West Germany’s The Consequence made an interesting contrast, since both dealt with sexual relationships with minors — the former involving that between an older man and a 14 year-old girl, the latter between a man and an adolescent boy.

Debut writer/director Nouchka van Brakel has her nefarious lovers getting it off under the noses of their respective families, suffering only the indignity of dirty looks from hotel clerks and the drudgery of having to pull single mattresses together on the floor. Rather like a horny version of Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon, the precocious Caroline seduces the eager Hugo, gets jealous when his wife Rita becomes pregnant, and unwittingly reveals her secret to a clever mum through an immodest kiss while farewelling them.

Light and sweet as a ball of fairy floss, the film’s most appealing feature is the camerawork of Theo van de Sande (Sun of the Hyenas), whose work is recog­ nizable for its clarity and perspective, especially in external shots, with its Dutch love of flat seascapes and high, white skies.

The opposite in every way, Wolfgang Petersen’s The Consequence caused Cinema Papers, January/February — 189

ADELAIDE FILM FESTIVAL

quite a stir in Germany last year when Bavarian Television refused to screen the film as part of a national telecast, using the paradoxical justification that it showed a minority group (homosexuals) in a poor light.

Jurgen Prochnow, in his fourth film with Petersen, plays the part of Martin, a 30 year-old gay serving a two-year prison term for seduction of a minor. Into his life (and literally into his cell) comes Thomas, son of a guard and lead actor in a play Martin directs in the prison.

Thomas professes a love and it is returned during the night they spend together.

Thereafter, their road is all downhill in a sickening spiral of poofter bashing from all quarters. Having lived briefly with Martin after his release, Thomas is consigned to a reformatory by his father, where his brutalization begins; he ends up a broken, unloving youth, remote, bitter and mad.

The great rom antic figures of literature and history have always been innocent and genuine (heterosexual) lovers forced apart by a world of vicious circumstance. As ‘straights’ are forced to recognize the tyranny within their relationships concurrently with the continued erosion of barriers to monog­ amous coupling, gays emerge as the great romantic heroes towards the close of this century. Herein lies cause for concern. While unprecedented in its honest depiction of the barbarous treatment of homosexuals, in and out of prison, and therefore to be applauded, The Consequence's glib rhetoric of monogamous romance, which is as oppressive of gays as anyone else, devalues the work considerably.

Though the film is uninspired in camerawork and editing, most gays will, quite understandably, be delighted by it, and ‘straights’ with any conscience may at last be jogged out of their sexist complacency.

The variation of traditional gender/ labor roles was the theme of two French fe a tu re s. W rite r/d ire c to r Charles Belmont’s Pour Clemence has a 40 year-old engineer quitting his job, staying at home and doing the chores, and slowly losing his grip on reality as he moves into an inert and alienated state, well evoked by unconventional editing and a fascination with interior surfaces.

After he turns down a job offer, the enigmatic and headlong conclusion of rapid cutting and purple-tinted exteriors has the engineer shot in his car by police — or does it?

Though highly atmospheric and intriguing by virtue of textures, coloration and editing (cinematographer Phillipe

Rousselot does an excellent job), the film loses control of its material towards the end with a less than satisfactory result.

French actress Coline Serreau’s second feature as director, the highly accomplished Pourquoi pas? (Why Not?), was an undoubted highlight and one of those films which should be snapped up by Australian distributors.

Pourquois pas? shows us the contemporary world of a woman and two men (Alexa, Fernand and Louis) who live in a suburban house. While their relationship is not trouble-free (thereby saved from the incredibility of many c o n v e n tio n a l ro m a n tic screen relationships), it is eminently practical.

Each receives from the others the support, affection, sex, tolerance and labor required to make the domestic unit, which they comprise, a rewarding, secure and generally happy one. No rostered dishwashing, employment or paired sleeping here, but an arrangement which caters to the present wishes and needs of all three.

Fernand goes away for a while and returns with Sylvie, a younger woman who though unprepared for the usual division of labor she encounters, sets about trying to adjust — that is until she finds Fernand in bed with Louis and Alexa. During the tearful garden farewell the following morning, Sylvie (feet surrounded by discarded tissues) is entreated unsuccessfully by the others to stay. Suddenly alone, she moves to the gates, pauses, then walks back into the house with her suitcases — the frame freezes and the unspoken question of the title asserts itself.

Serreau fails to give any answers to the question “why not?” , and many people regard this as a major flaw in the film. Analysts of sexual politics will assert correctly that capitalist culture and the state work in many effective w ays to d is c o u ra g e such an arrangement, and bemoan Serreau’s incredible portrait of friendly French police (a characteristically French cinematic penchant) and sympathetic landowners. Others less politically minded will argue incorrectly that ‘human nature’, with its supposedly perennial jealousy and intolerance, precludes people living in this way.

If, however, the film fails to say “why not?”, this is more than compensated for the credibility, incisiveness and lucidity of answers to the companion question “why?” (i.e. “why should people want to live like this?” ). As one example among many, a brief encounter between Alexa and her estranged husband (equal to the most memorable scenes between dominating husband and unco-operative

The lovers Thomas and Martin in Wolfgang Petersen’s The Consequence.

190 — Cinema Papers, January/February

wife committed to celluloid) depicts the classic, quick progression by the male from making demands to pleading to bribery and violence, all truly obscene and unsuccessful, thanks to the security Alexa enjoys with Fernand and Louis.

Homosexuals in particular have come to expect (but not excuse) insult and misrepresentation from directors of film.

It is especially delightful in this regard that Serreau has avoided condescension and slander in her treatment of the men, and painted the relationship between the three in a credible, sensitive and affirmative manner. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the sequence in which Fernand, after suffering the pooftertaunting of his wife’s new paterfamilias mate, tenderly presents a bunch of flowers to his male lover.

Of course, none of the preceding remarks point out the humor and warmth of the film, or touch on its assured direction, excellent photography and inspired use of sound. The fact that all this was achieved without camp or puritan didacticism made it an immediate success in more or less progressive Adelaide, and it was judiciously awarded first prize in the feature section.

Liliana Cavani’s Beyond Good and Evil, subsequently released- here, does not need extensive comment, except to say that for all its worthwhile features it does not manage to transcend Cavani’s characteristic equation of masculine/ feminine with active/passive, with sadistic/masochistic. For example, the gang-banged and murdered Paul Ree returns from the dead to deliver his blunt summation of this suspect view: “ I am happy now. I have realized that I want to be a woman and be fucked.”

Serreau’s rejection of this stereo­ typical mentality puts her film streets ahead of Cavani’s in terms of the sexual politics it advances. Yet, the easy-going feminism of Lou-Andreas Salome throws into relief the typical gender roles of her lovers, Ree and Nietzsche, and the neurotic final expressions of their repressed homosexuality.

Les enfants du placard (Benoit J a cq u o t) made fu ll use of the characteristic opacity of Lou Castel and Jean Sorel to produce an atmosphere of stunned autism, matched by its camera style of long, static takes. Taking as its theme the quiet, cold and almost Racinian passion of a brother and sister, it has already caused its director to be compared with Bresson.

Despite the audience’s groans at the last catatonic shot when Castel turns his back on us and does nothing for some minutes, it is a controlled, moving film

The sister Juliette in a flash-back to her childhood. Benoit Jacquot’s Les enfants du placard.

and the comparison is not unworthy of either director.

Desert of the Tartars has lots of production details going for it: weird Iranian locations, intelligent cast (Max von Sydow, Giuliani Gemma, Jean Louis Trintignant), a spooky soundtrack by Morricone and magisterial panning camerawork by Luciano Tovoli. Like the mysterious Tartars who never quite appear over the frontier, the film hovers on the brink of consciousness about its real subject: that is, the repressed, aristocratic relationships of its all-male society. Its ‘tight-arsed’ metaphysics, however, finally disappear like the Indian rope trick.

Peter Handke’s Left Handed Woman was praised recently by Jan Dawson, ( Cinema Papers, no. 17, Cannes Supplement p. II ); the film is a masterpiece of ensemble acting and elliptic montage.

Other welcome Australian premieres included the Soviet Twenty Days Without War and the Cannes best first fe a tu re w inn er, R obert Y o u n g ’ s Alambrista. Of the soppy, adolescent Pink Dreams (Czechoslovakia), the execrable Roberte (France) and the truly odious Per questa notte (Italy) it is better not to comment further.

THE MARKET Unlike many others, the Adelaide festival is not prim arily or even significantly geared to a market function, and one must regard this with mixed feelings.

On the con side, many works deserving of widespread commercial release were shown at the festival but with little exposure to potential Australian buyers. This is an alarming waste. Though the organizers made attempts to encourage sales, Adelaide’s remoteness from east coast buyers and foreign producers, the demand for prints at other festivals, and the budgetdemanded low priority to promotion combined to preclude important sales. At the time of writing, no sales have been confirmed, though several films are under consideration.

On the pro side, however, the market mentality has not forced valuable, though unsaleable, work out of the program.

STUDENT FILMS The exhibition of early and varied works by student filmmakers is a necessary component in any festival claiming to foster understanding of the medium in general, and local activity in particular. It was, therefore, pleasing to find a free student film program within the official program, but an audience of only about 12 attended it.

The prevailing notion that film consists entirely of dramatic features and documentaries, and that important works are saleable, needs more than the token challenge offered by the Adelaide Festival; it needs concerted attack.

Future festivals must significantly increase promotion of student films, or do away with them altogether, and face the criticism which such a move would rightly invoke.

Those in attendance found the programs of films from Swinburne College in Melbourne and the Australian Film and Television School in Sydney to be of a predictably varied quality.

However, nearly ail of the seven animated films from Swinburne were of a high standard, the most satisfying being David Atkinson’s brief but amusing To Be Or Not To Be, and Paul Williams’ That’s Progress. Also from Swinburne w as Josco P e tc o v ic ’ s b e a u tifu l examination of camera point-of-view via gymnastic performance, SubjectiveObjective, and the pointless, humorless, overlong parody of something by Michael Pattinson, The Importance of Keeping Perfectly Still.

The AFTVS works ranged in interest

ADELAIDE FILM FESTIVAL

Scene from Parvis Kimiavi’s Garden o f Stones.

from the technically accomplished but interminable 11V2 minute Costumes From the Films of Visconti (Mario Andreacchie) to the effective and informative The Settlement (Gillian Leahy). Also worthy of mention is Martha Ansara’s adventurous but murky and overblown Secret Storm.

Of course, the quality of a finished work indicates little about a film’s worth as exercise for the makers, though the critic has no yardstick by which to measure this.

DOCUMENTARIES A strength of the festival was the d o cu m e n ta ry s e c tio n , w ith the Canadians marking their excellence here as they did with features, such as Don’t Shoot the Teacher (Bud Cort displaying his progressive comic génius), or animation, such as No Apple for Johnny.

becomes so irritating that it sinks finally to the level of absurdity, with Rhys screaming ashore in motor boats or intrepidly researching Cro-Magnon man in France. It is in the latter sequence that the worst banality occurs.

The good doctor, about to be shown some Napoleonic prints of Aboriginals in a catalogue room, can hardly find words to rise to the occasion. But he manages. “ What lovely drawers” , he intones, leaving us and the elderly librarian to wonder at his intentions.

Aboriginals have objected to the film, and one can see why.

THE THIRD WORLD The Third World was represented by the premieres of several recent Chinese films, as well as Cuban, Tunisian and Iranian work.

The great surprise of the festival, whisked in and out of the Union Hall

almost before anyone’s tantalized eyes had a chance to deal with it, was the surreal and sufic Garden of Stones (Iran). Genuine visionary cinema with a hard documentary edge, it presented the hallucinatory obsession of an old peasant (Darvouche Khan, as real as Nanook) with building a stone garden in the desert. It begins with an image of Death as Light, which overtakes the man out of the sky, and which, it is hard to imagine, does not depend in some way on the archetype in Maya Deren’s Meshes of the Afternoon (the blackrobed figure with a mirror for a face).

Indeed, light almost forms the film’s subject matter, as well as being its medium. In this, Parvis Kimiavi, the director, goes back beyond Islamic reflections to Zoroastrian devotions to sun glare and rocks. But his cinematic consciousness is clearly modern. Like various other non-European directors, he shows a fascination with the physical processes of labor and creation, as in the. arduous sequence in which the first stone is hung. He also has a shrewd eye for the combination of mysticism and ceremonies, which has been a feature of Third World consciousness.

But most amazing is his visual style — his obsessive relationship of the camera to circular space, and of the figures within the frame to arcs perpetually moving about that space.

Deserts, because of their unmeasured space, seem to impose on directors a cinematographic and uniform response of strict geometry. It is almost as if the filmmaker is forced to draw his own lines, his own circles, as the last desperate act of interpretation. Pier Paolo Pasolini’s tangents, Werner Herzog’s wheeling diameters have this metaphysical power.

Besides 360° pans, fish-eye bulges, airy spirals and circular trackings, many dazzling sequences in the film quite literally involve the characters being set on a mystical sandy roundabout, on which they revolve as they converse.

Kimiavi visually invokes the whirling dervishes as well as the dizzy political situation of Iran today.

Garden of Stones was that major justification of a film . festival: the unheralded, undocumented surprise, unlikely to have been seen under any

o th e r c irc u m s ta n c e s , the little masterpiece which achieved its effects with great simplicity and the impact of a sunstroke.

Sun of the Hyenas, the first work of Tunisian director Ridha Behi, was helped by the presence of its congenial and articulate producer, Willum Thijssen, in the only really successful fprum discussion.

Having watched an account of the despoliation of a Third World town, the audience showed themselves intell­ igently concerned with the impact of the film on the locations and characters it made use of. Thijssen’s replies were honest, as well as politically felt, and the discussion was as valuable and nec­ essary a part of the festival as the screening.

Originally set for shooting in Tunisia, Hyenas ran into problems with the government. It was ingeniously relocated in Southern Morocco, with costumes and dialect preserving the Tunisian focus.

Only the more fastidious travellers noticed that the coastal surf was Atlantic, not Mediterranean, the props money Moroccan, not Tunisian, and the frequently featured bottles of Chaudsoleil entirely typical of their last holiday in Agadir.

The film’s style ranges from quiet elemental observation, through sly market-place naturalism, to sour parody of tourist films (focus pulls between highballs framing burnoused and baretitted models slinking up from the sea).

The presence of a festival which screens films like these, not otherwise visible either in this city or the rest of Australia, is an occasion for celebration.

With proper funding from the private sector as well as the state, with an appreciation of the market value of small festivals, the organizers can improve the present faults: publicity, scheduling, and forum discussions. Adelaide has no need to imitate big festivals like Sydney and Melbourne, which are themselves under revision.

This year, after the disaster of 1977, the Adelaide International Film Festival has established itself with a basic force that can only be built on further. ★

Volcano (Ronald Brittain) is a model of biographical documentary. From stills, interviews, location shootings and the well chosen voice-over of Richard Burton, it reconstructs the word-andalcohol-sodden life of Malcolm Lowry. It is a prime example of the way in which film may reveal and vivify information not otherwise available (e.g. on Lowry’s homosexual adventures and guilts), topics left undiscussed by his widow and the two written biographies.

Making no bones about the rebellious, destructive nature of its subject, the film extends a similar attention to its living commentators, catching by skilful closeup and cutting the lies, love, nervous­ ness, boasting and plain academic fatuity of their fix on Lowry.

Also from Canada was Jeanette Lerman’s excellent Enemy Alien which detailed, again by way of archive material and location shots, the ruthless repression of Japanese Canadians living in Canada during World War 2, the seizure of their homes and industry, their confinement to labor camps in the interior, and their deportation. The film is a horrifying portrait of the human consequences of action taken against scapegoats, those groups continually used to appease the paranoia of a nation in times of social or economic stress.

Both these documentaries were tighter in construction than the final prize­ winner of this section, Tom Haydon’s The Last Tasmanian, a warning that a good subject doesn’t necessarily make a good film. Despite its research and chilling story, the film suffers mainly from the constant interpolation between the subject and the audience of the selfdramatized Rhys Jones. This device

Scene from Tunisian director Ridha Behi's first film, Sun o f the Hyenas.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 191

Michael Austin, a writer and documentary filmmaker, read the story which Robert Graves had written in 1928. He decided to write a script based on it and then brought it to me. I thought it would make an excellent film and acquired the rights from him.

Michael then wrote another draft, and it was that version I took to Jerzy Skolimowski in Warsaw.

Was Skolimowski the first director you approached?

No, I had discussed the project with several other directors, thinking it would be better to have a British director. As it turned out, I am very happy that somebody with an outside viewpoint made the film.

Skolimowski had been in the background for some time when you approached him. Why did you think he would be suitable?

I suppose it was because I had just seen Deep End at the London Film Festival. It was the first Skolimowski film I had seen, and I was amazed at the feeling of tension he had created from so little action.

He hadn’t made a film for some time, but he had worked in English three times before; I felt here was the man.

Was Skolimowski living in Poland at the time?

The Special Jury Prize at the 1978 Cannes Film Festival was shared by Jerzy Skolimowski’s “ The Shout” and Alan Parker’s “ Midnight Express” . “ The Shout” , an independent British film, was produced by Jeremy Thomas.

Thomas began in the industry as an assistant film editor before becoming editor-in-chief on Philippe Mora’s compilation documentary, “ Brother Can You Spare A D im e?” . Out of that collaboration came the desire to produce a feature in Australia. The film, “ Mad Dog Morgan” , starred Dennis Hopper and was completed in 1976.

Thomas’ recent projects include Andre Techine’s “ The Bronte Sisters” and the untitled Sex Pistols feature, both of which he co-produced, and the documentary on The Who which Thomas post-produced. Thomas’ new projects include “ Crime and Punishment” , to be directed by Skolimowski, a feature with Michelangelo Antonioni from a screenplay by Mark Peploe (scriptwriter of “ The Passenger”) and a feature with Nicolas Roeg.

It was just after “ The Shout” had premiered at Cannes that Peter Beilby interviewed Thomas at his London office. Thomas begins by discussing how he set up “ The Shout” .

Everyone was happy with the way things were going.

J e rz y lik e s to w ork in collaboration with others. He is a very self-critical person and can take criticism easily. That is very rare.

Had you raised any development finance at that stage?

The National Film Finance Corporation, which is Britain’s equivalent of the Australian Film C om m ission, had expressed interest in the subject; I knew that if I had a director they were happy S k o l i m o w s k i h a s a c o ­ with — which they were with scriptwriting credit on the film. Skolimowski — then raising the What changes did he make to the rest of the finance would be fairly easy. original screenplay?

I then approached the Rank Skolimowski altered the time Organization; they liked the script scale, and made Antony a modern and put up the other half. musician of musique concrete instead of a piano player. That is Did you have any names quite an important change, given attached to the package, other than Skolimowski, when you the sound element of the film.

He also introduced the symbolic approached the NFFC? bones and created some new No, they came in on the script characters. alone.

Did Skolimowski have control of What was the final budget? the final shooting script?

Yes, but he came to the West quite regularly — as he says, to visit the madhouse from his peaceful, serene life in Poland.

We worked very closely and d is c u s s e d th in g s to g e th e r.

Som ething u nder 500,000 pounds.

Opposite: Jeremy Thomas (left) with Alan Bates on location for The Shout.

That is low given a cast which i ncl udes Al an Bat es and Susannah York . . .

Osprey, an independent sales organization, lined up quite a few pre-sales before we started shooting. They have a lot of experience in handling quality films, and they negotiated large amounts of money from several distributors in Europe.

When did Osprey become involved?

Before Cannes in 1977. Their involvement made the film more attractiv e to the in v e sto rs, because it demonstrated people had faith in the film.

In many respects, “The Shout” is an off-beat film. Did you have any difficulty convincing Rank t hat the f i l m woul d be commercial?

I think it was a hard decision for Rank to make. They knew it was going to be an arty film, and probably not very commercial. It was a very brave move, but the film really wasn’t that expensive, given the talent involved. It did h a v e n a m e a c t o r s and a charismatic director.

How far ahead of production was the financing completed?

Yes, but they joined in with the About 18 days before we spirit of the film. We all took a similar amount of money out of started shooting. The sequence of the film; with big stars that is events was this: I approached Skolimowski in April, and the deal generally difficult to achieve. was finalized at Cannes in 1977, which is quite poetic . So that What was the financial structure gave us five weeks to get the film of the film? together before shooting started June 26. The filming took 35 The film was financed on a on days over a six-week period. regular basis.

Did you decide on so short a preCould you describe what a production period to save money? “regular basis” is in Britain?

No, because of the schedules of The ideal situation is where an the actors. We also had to start investor puts up the money for a before the holiday season hit film, and then recoups all in the Devon, where we were filming. first instance. Thereafter, he gets a 50-50 split of the profits with the Does Rank hold all world territories? production company.

I am sure a more powerful No, Rank only has the film in group of producers would do those territories where they have a much better, and if you pre-sell distribution organization or are the film it is a different situation. affiliated to a local distributor.

There you are earning more of the film because you are selling Do you control the film in territories in advance to pay for remaining territories? the budget.

Osprey does, representing the Did you attempt to pre-sell the investors and myself. They work off a fixed percentage. film?

Cinema Papers, January/February — 193

JEREMY THOMAS

At what point did Rank become involved in marketing the film?

They didn’t start work on the promotion until they saw the final print. They were unhappy with the final campaign, and a longer preparation time would have been preferable.

I believe marketing should start the day you begin making the film, and that is a contribution producers could make to their film’s success.

Wh a t f or m s h o u l d t h a t contribution take?

Getting creative people who understand marketing involved.

They should then plan the media coverage in depth, and search and develop good visual ideas that have a chance of getting into the papers.

Were you at any stage hesitant about having Rank involved in the film?

No. It is a British film, and I believe British films should be made by British companies. There is a lack of indigenous films in Britain, much more than in Aust­ ralia. You don’t see any successes here contributing towards local film production.

You don’t think you could have found a better deal going through an independent?

There are no major rules. You just find the money where you can, and I was happy to have Rank involved.

How many weeks did you spend in post-production?

We finished shooting on August 6, and didn’t finish d u b b i n g unt i l t he end of November. Because we used Dolby stereo, the track-laying was quite complicated and would have taken an extra two weeks, with another week for dubbing.

Robert (Tim C urryf is introduced by Chief Medical Officer (Robert Stephens) to Crossley (Alan Bates) at the start of the cricket match.

The Shout.

I think the film is more powerful, and therefore more commercial, in Dolby sound. I can’t understand the resistance to Dolby, though obviously exhibitors are going to resist it because it costs money to install.

Mo s t s h o w c a s e h o u s e s , however, are already equipped. I think there are more than 500 cinemas in the U.S., and about 50 in Britain and in France. There are a couple in Australia as well.

But Dolby is a compatible system and can be shown in normal cinemas.

Why did you decide to go with Dolby sound?

In probably my first discussion with Skolimowski I asked him how he was going to do the shout.

He said he would make the s o u n d t r a c k go very qui et , highlighting various natural sounds, like birds or the winding of a watch. That way the audience’s ears would become attuned to listening for sounds.

Then he would hit them with it.

But he said, “ You have to give me the best sound system in the world.”

Dolby was clearly the most accessible, being a system that is an optical process, rather than magnetic, and therefore meant no additional cost in making prints.

194 _ Cinema Papers, January/February

Thomas telling people to see Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

Thomas hard at work cutting Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

JEREMY THOMAS

Did you do much business at To what extent did the final film Cannes or was it just a showcase mirror P h ilip p e’s original for the film? treatment?

Osprey was there selling the film and Rank publicized it heavily. Mostly, however, we regarded it as an international showcase.

Do you think that assisted foreign sales?

As a madman pushes the hut during the storm, Robert senses danger and escapes.

The Shout.

Yes, because it pinpointed the film in p e o p l e ’ s m in d s .

Unfortunately, winning an award also gives a film an arty tag — that is unless it is a major American film.

BACKGROUND

Pierre Rissient and Jeremy Thomas at Cannes (1978).

Is Dolby an expensive system?

It cost us an extra 15,000 pounds to dub The Shout in stereo Dolby.

Did you have to run more tracks?

Yes. I think we ran 22 tracks, as well as some triple magnetic. It is a different system of dubbing because the music and effects are on one track. So the component you end up with is full-track stereo, with dialogue on a separate track. These are then mixed together onto the optical Dolby system.

Apparently the film was ready before Cannes, but held back . . .

The film was completed in December ’77. We had planned to open in London in early February when the Cannes festival invited the film into the Competition.

How did you get into the film industry?

I left school at 17 and went to work at a film laboratory till I got my union card. I worked on the studio floor, behind the camera and so on before settling in the cutting room.

I was an assistant editor and sound editor on a number of features, including several films

by Ken Loach. I did Family Life, and the television series Rank and File.

I then w orked with Ray Harryhausen as special effects editor on Sinbad’s Golden Voyage, which was a great experience. Harryhausen is a giant of technical cinema; a master of effects.

After that I edited Brother Can You Spare a Dime, for Philippe Mora.

It was very close, which was remarkable given the number of different pieces of film that had to be juxtaposed.

You then produced “Mad Dog” in Australia. Was it a difficult film to finance?

It was certainly more difficult than The Shout. I think it took nine or 10 months.

‘ ‘ Mad D o g ’ ’ received considerable publicity at the 1976 Cannes Film Festival, and a deal was done with Cinema S h a r e s to d i s t r i b u t e it worldwide. . .

Who were the investors in “Mad Dog” ?

Yes, we went to Cannes in ’76 and they bought the film for many world territories, including the U.S.

There were some private investors in Melbourne and Sydney, and the AFC. Why did you cast Dennis Hopper as Morgan in the film?

Philippe and I felt we should use an American or British star for the main role. Our aim was to give the film an international appeal. In retrospect, I don’t know whether it was a great idea.

H ow ever, I think D ennis Hopper’s performance is great and unusual, and it did make the film that little bit more bizarre.

It’s strange actually, because Alan Bates is equally bizarre in The Shout.

In fact, “Mad Dog” and “The Shout” are similar, in that they are off-beat and innovative films. Was that intentional?

Obviously I am pulled towards those sorts of subjects. I take That film must have been cinem a very seriously, and enormously complex from an although it is easier to make an exploitation film, and easier to editing point of view. . . sell, I think it is more satisfying to It was a massive undertaking, make something which people can because there was so many take seriously and talk about. possible computations, so many Did you experience any major different films to select from.

Philippe had com piled a differences between producing a research index and developed a film in Australia as opposed to basic concept using James Cagney Britain? and Franklin D. Roosevelt. We I found it much more difficult in then went round looking at Australia than I did in London. footage in various libraries all over The technicians in Australia are the U.S., which took many months. We looked at millions of feet of film.

Once we chose a piece of film, and got the various negatives and sound elements together, we had the stuff shipped back to London for editing and dubbing.

Did you feel that winning a Why didn’t you do the post­ major award might enhance its production in the U.S.? commercial prospects?

It was cheaper in London. It I don’t know. Obviously it is also gave us a critical perspective very good for publicity, and the after that period of intensive film would have received 50 per research. cent more worldwide publicity The film was very well received from being in Cannes. There are in the U.S. But certain people 200 representatives of the world were a little offended that an press at Cannes. Even Cinema Australian had made a film about Papers was there, distributing on Americans which was financed by La Croisette. a British production company.

very good, but I have lived and worked in the industry here for more than 10 years. j I think the methods are similar.

People may work different hours and call technicians by different names, but filmmaking is the same the world over.

A large amount of money was apparently paid. . .

I can’t remember the figure, but money did pass between the two companies.

How did th e f i l m f ar e commercially in the U.S.?

It was not successful. It is very difficult for an outside film to break into the U.S. market.

Even with Dennis Hopper. . .

I think Dennis was good in the film, but I don’t think it benefited commercially by his presence.

Are you happy with the way that Cinema Shares handled the film in the U.S.?

I don’t know if filmmakers are ever satisfied with the way their films are sold, unless they have total control.

To what extent should producers be involved with a distributor?

I would like to be involved much more. I think it would be a good idea to include an amount in a budget to enable a producer to develop a campaign. In effect, the American majors bill that into their production budgets.

Concluded on p.233

At Cannes with Matl Dog in 1976. Director Philippe Mora, Maureen Phillips, Jeremy Thomas and associate producer Richard Brennan.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 195

Australian filmmaking that was soon to follow.

Another periodical to emerge in the late 1960s was the colorful Ubunews, produced by Ubu Films in Redfern.

By 1969 Ubunews had much in common with Alfred Jarry’s “ great prophetic, avenging play of modern times” , Ubu R oi, from which the filmmakers had chosen their name. The July-August issue was a blaze of psychedelic color and arabesque shapes, with counter-culture adv ertisers pushing “ astrological glyphs, magic octoscopes, ultra-violet tubes” and the like. It also reported that some of the 1600 people who had been lured to Ubu Films’ world premiere of M arinetti, in the mistaken belief that the film was to be banned, had left “ complaining of eyestrain and inability to hear the sound” .

Ubunews was the only journal in Australia: reporting on the local avant-garde and underground film scene at the time; it was also full of news and information on the Sydney Filmmakers Co-operative, which it had been instrumental in establishing.

With the formation of an officially-registered co­ operative, Ubunews was replaced by Sydney Filmmakers Newsletter. This was published by Aggy Read, the Co-op secretary, at his own expense. By 1975, the journal had become Filmnews, a flourishing tabloid, which will be discussed below.

HIM PERIODICALS A HISTORICAL SURVEY Basil Gilbert

PARTS:

AUSTRALIA

1970-1978

Parallel with the social and political unrest in Europe during the middle 1960s, which culminated in the Paris riots of May 1968, was a re-evaluation of the role of film criticism in several popular film publications. The longestablished Cahiers du Cinema in France, and the educationally-orientated Screen in Britain, for example, radically modified their traditional ideologies.

Signs of change also became apparent in Australia when in October 1967 there appeared a 25-page, foolscap, partially hand-written, roneoed film journal which carried the pretentious title: Cinema Papers: Le Journal du Cinema et des Arts, Australian Edition. Featured on the cover were two half-frames in negative from one of the most violent episodes of Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin.

Inside, was a short editorial which began with the words, “ Unfortunately, most people never approach art with love.. . ” , and underneath was a somewhat erotic graphic in the style of Hans Belmer, by joint editor Philippe Mora.

However, the “ Notes for the Manifesto” on p.2 of the fledgling journal were less aphrodisiac in tone. These notes, signed by Philippe Mora and Peter Beilby, included several headings, the first of which was entitled “ Local Production” . “ Uninspired. Barely existent. Pathetic. The Common­ wealth Film Unit does not rate. Nor do pseudo­ underground films. Local television production pampers the idiotic m ind. . . the maxim that one cannot get money is an excuse for mediocre and unintelligent efforts.”

Then, under the heading “ Local Criticism” , were some body-blows at the film journal establishment.

Despite the florid rhetoric and exaggeration, they were not far from the mark. “ Uninspired. Uninvolved. Pathetic. Film criticism (in The Australian, The Bulletin, the Nation and University 196 — Cinema Papers, January/February

Film Group publications) is mostly plagiaristic or psychophantic but always astonishingly devoid of sensitivity and intelligence. . . except perhaps Sydney Cinema Journal. . . ” The “ Manifesto” concluded on a note of optimism, despair and hope. “ . . . How ridiculous, how absurd, how puerile to be cast in the role of Angry Young Men. We would rather be cynical, unidealistic, we would rather hate and destroy . . . ” The remainder of the journal dealt largely with a critique of European cinema: Philippe Mora wrote on Roman Polanski’s Knife in the Water and Jean-Luc Godard’s Vivre sa vie; Peter Beilby on Claude Lelouch’s Un homme et une femme; Rod Bishop took “ a conservative look” at M ichelangelo A n to n io n i’s L’eclisse.

The journal, which had been subsidized by the LaTrobe University Film Society, ceased publication after this issue. But two years later, in October 1969, Cinema Papers emerged again as a fortnightly tabloid of 12 pages, published by Global Village Cinema Publications, and edited by Peter Beilby, Rod Bishop and Demos Krouskos.

The new journal lasted 11 issues, until publication was discontinued on April 27, 1970; but by then it had marked a new phase in Australian film journalism.

Today, it seems a mixture of radicalism, conservatism, and pictorial eroticism appropriate to pop culture, but it has much genuine, serious Australian material and rarely borrowed from overseas publications.

Peter Beilby was certainly playing the “ Angry Young Man” in his attack on Albie Thoms’ experimental feature Marinetti (“ an adolescent’s masturbation fantasy” ), and Philippe Mora was surprisingly modern in his article “ Mythology of Guts” which dissected American macho cinema. These polemical articles were balanced by lengthy theoretical studies: e.g. Ken Mogg on “ Film and Therapy” , Tom Ryan on “ Film and the Novel” and Scott Murray on “ The Films of Vilgot Sjoman” .

Perhaps the greatest value of the tabloid was an editorial policy which gave an emphasis to interviews with local filmmakers. These varied in quality but they heralded, in a tentative manner, the renaissance of

The Australian Film Guide, published in the latter part of the ’60s, was not, as its title suggested, a guide to films made in Australia. It was an alphabetical index of credits and critical snippets on some “ twelve thousand motion pictures” , mainly of American and British origin. At least, that was the intention of the magazine when it went out of circulation in 1968, while still cataloguing the “ A” s. The last entry was Against All Flags, starring Errol Flynn and Maureen O’Hara (1952); it was awarded an “ entertain­ ment appeal” rating of 90 per cent (“ really outstanding entertainment” ).

Australian Film Guide was succeeded in 1970 by Film Index, a semi-monthly publication also edited by John Howard Reid. Film Index began its list of titles with Aaron Slick from Punkin Crick (1951, 65 per cent, “ Begins very poorly, but improves once the musical numbers begin to show. . . ” ), and the latest issue, No. 50, ends on the title Big Town Girl, directed by Alfred Werker for Twentieth Century-Fox in 1937.

Film Index is a useful guide for students of popular American and British cinema; the credits are quite full, and occasionally there is additional information on the screenwriter, the actors and technicians, and a range of critical opinion culled from local and overseas sources.

Script, Screen and SAAC (which went on to become Script, Screen and Art, then Script, Screen and Stage) is an important late-’60s production, because in many ways it was the prototype to Lumiere, a major film journal which began publication in June 1970.

The journal had separate sections for script, screen, stage, arts, and crafts. Ewart Wade was script and screen editor and R. David Clark was SAAC editor. This multi­ arts journal was a bi-monthly publication catering for the “ Practising Artist, the Art Lover, the Art Teacher and Student alike” , but gradually the section dealing with film swamped the less dynamic arts.

Beginning as the official organ of the Australian Writers Guild and the Film Editors Guild of Australia it soon incorporated the Australian Cinematographer and added two further sponsors: the Australian Cinema­ tographers Society and the Victorian Institute of Motion Picture Technology.

Script, Screen and Art concentrated almost exclusively on Australian issues, and was written by and for members of the Australian film industry. For example, while Phillip Adams was posing the question “ Australians: Visual Illiterates?” , Don Saunders was reporting that Skippy was “ The Australian international success” , and Anthony Buckley talked about the problems of editing Age of Consent.

Ewart Wade resigned from the editorship of Script, Screen and Art in March 1970, and in June he established Lumiere in Melbourne.

That magazine was greeted with great enthusiasm.

Former industrial photographer and filmmaker Nigel Buesst wrote, “Lumiere 'is too good to be tru e .. . ” , and the comment was apt, for the first issues were a layout artist’s dream: post-Bauhaus typography, vertical captions, visuals dominating the printed word, infra-red still photography. This lavish production was to be distributed free to “ key personnel in the film, television, photo­ graphic and ad-agency fields” , but insufficient paid advertising did not permit this to eventuate.

FILM PERIODICALS

By September, 1971, Lumiere had absorbed Script, Screen and Stage, and was financially-supported by a grant from the Australia Council for the Arts. The former subtitle “ film, television, photography, design” was dropped as film comment began to predominate.

When it folded in March 1974, Lumiere was one of the two Australian film magazines to have been accepted for inclusion in the list of film periodicals indexed by the Federation Internationale des Archives du Film (the other was Cinema Papers which was revived again in December 1973).

This high regard was justified. When one scans the volumes of Lumiere, one finds a wealth of critical material on Australian films (e.g. Terry Bourke on his own Night of Fear; Rod Bishop on Dalmas); a wide coverage of the international film scene; local and overseas interviews with filmmakers, producers, writers, special-effects men; reports on the latest technical equipment; and so on.

Cantrill’s Film Notes, started by filmmakers Arthur and Corinne Cantrill in March 1971, is essential reading for students of Australian and international avant-garde in the area of experimental film.

The editors, in deciding to “ print anything on cinema which interests them” initially adopted an aggressive stand, and issued a challenging manifesto: “ Freud and Marx are dead. All we want now is the film experience, the optical and aural stimulation it can give . . . our films have no story, because all the stories have been told and re-told . . . dissected, analysed in the morgues of the universities. We want to make films which defy analysis. . . ” The early issues of Can trill’s Film Notes show a Dadaistic wit and originality: one issue even supplied a short strip of 16mm film attached to a page, with detailed instructions for converting it to an experimental fragment of film art by the application of emulsion bleaches or incising designs.

The magazine is now more serious in tone and content.

It aims “ to document contemporary film and video work in the printed word and in images from films, videotapes, and notebooks” . There is a book and magazine review section in each issue, and back numbers are available.

The years 1972-73 did not see any radical change in film journal production in Australia. But the situation changed at the end of 1973, when the Film and Television Board of the Australia Arts Council awarded grants for the revival of Cinema Papers, and to Metro, the journal of the Association of Teachers of Film and Video, discussed in the previous issue ( Cinema Papers, No. 18, p. 163).

The new Cinema Papers is edited by a triumvirate: Peter Beilby, Philippe Mora and Scott Murray. The design and layout is by Keith Robertson, who had been associated with the previous Cinema Papers tabloid.

The first issue had many good interviews: Dave Jones talking to David Williamson on the art of writing screenplays; London correspondent Jeremy Thomas interview ing Ray H arryhausen on papier-m ache dinosaurs;: nine pages of interviews with Richard Brennan, Jim and Hal McElroy, John McLean, Tony Tegg, and Ken Hammond, all because of a young filmmaker named Peter Weir; an interview with independent distributor Tony Ginnane; Scott Murray interviewing Gillian Armstrong at the Australian Film and Television School, Sydney; an interview with Peter Watson, chief of the Victorian Film Laboratories; an interview with Alvin Purple star, Graeme Blundell; an interview with 27A director Esben Storm; 14 pages of •interview with Australian film pioneer Ken G. Hall.

The only touches of heavy relief were a welldocumented article on Francis Birtles, “ Cyclist, Explorer, Kodaker” , by film historian Ina Bertrand, and a study of Jean Pierre Melville’s Le samourai, by John Flaus. These were balanced by light relief in the form of notes on comic strips “ Comics and Films” , and “ A View of the Tariff Board Report on Motion Picture Films” by Barrett Hodsdon.

Since that issue, Cinema Papers has explored a wider field. Interviews still dominate, but now there are reports on film festivals here and abroad; reviews of Australian and imported films; elaborate production reports; censorship listings; guides for film producers; discussions of alternative cinema; film study resources guides; book and film score reviews; historical surveys of oriental cinemas and international film periodicals.

The journal may not be glossy or free of advertising, but it is essential bi-monthly reading, and many of the covers of past issues are worth framing.

Cinema Papers’ closest rival is the Sydney publication, Filmnews, which replaced Sydney Filmmakers Newsletter.

Until recently, Filmnews took a strong polemical stance on almost all film issues in the country, motivated in part by a desire to ensure the survival of the struggling Sydney Filmmakers Co-operative. Some of the articles make lively reading, particularly the two-part history of the Sydney Co-op. by Albie Thoms (Filmnews, April and December 1976), which includes a fascinating and emotive account of the growth of various Australian government agencies and the roles they play in commercial film production, and, to a lesser extent, the encouragement of young talent.

Filmnews has devoted considerable space to Australia’s women filmmakers. Women’s films have always been strongly supported by the Sydney Filmmakers Co­ operative, and the journal’s editor, Tina Kaufman, maintains a balanced editorial policy.

One senses, however, that Filmnews has lost a little of its polemical stance since receiving a grant from the Australian Film Commission, and gives insufficient coverage to other centres of our national industry; but these are minor criticisms.

Filmaker, the journal of the Melbourne Filmmakers Co­ operative, was the final flowering of the co-operative’s roneoed newsletter. It began as a printed folded sheet in May 1975, with superb poster-like covers designed by Andy Trenouth. Apart from general co-op news, it ran the occasional critical article on Australian film industry politics (e.g. “ Film Body Selection Sparks Industry Uproar” ; “ 800 TV People in Protest March for More Local Shows” ).

Film reviews were rare, a notable exception being a ' review of Thierry Zeno’s Vase de noces under the title “ Z eno’s Banned Pig Film: Religious Fantasy or Pornography?” (Filmaker, November, 1975).

Unlike Filmnews, Filmaker did not receive government support, and ceased publication when the Melbourne Filmmaker Co-operative was closed down in July 1977.

The headline in its final issue read: “ No Funds For CoOp: Another Federal Cutback Victim” .

A more recent victim of the withdrawal of Federal support was The Australian Journal o f Screen Theory, which had its grant suspended after the first two issues in 1976 and 1977.

Luckily, The Australian Journal o f Screen Theory has been able to find friends in academia (vol. 3 was supported by a grant from the School of Humanities, Griffith University) and has received support from tertiary film conferences in Victoria and NSW. Although The Australian Journal o f Screen Theory has yet to concern itself with the theories and ideologies

behind Australian productions, it is useful in that it brings the more arcane mysteries of European semiotic theory to the attention of the non-French reader by means of translations. Editor John Tulloch has provided some penetrating analyses of his own, especially in the fields of genetic structuralism and ideology.

The latest issue of the journal has a broader appeal and included the papers presented at the 1977 Tertiary Screen Education Association of Victoria (TSEA-V) Conference, and important contributions by Casey Robinson, W.D. Routt, Sam Rohdie, Barbara Creed, Laurie Clancy, Lesley Stern, Tom Ryan, Geoff Mayer, and Albert Moran, on topics as varied as “ Semiotic Constraints in Now Voyager” ; “ Women in Hollywood Melodramas” ; and a review essay, “ Ealing and British Cinema” .

The Filmtronics Report, “ a privately circulated newsletter about the film and TV industries” edited by Ewart Wade, and Access Video, a journalistic collaboration between the Paddington Video Resource Centre in Sydney, and the Melbourne Access and Media Co­ operative in Fitzroy, are journals that serve a useful purpose in disseminating information.

Two magazines sold at cinema box-office counters, which have become increasingly important for students of Australian film in recent years, are Movie News (Hoyts Theatres Ltd) and Movie (Greater Union Organisation Ltd).

Movie News, a bi-monthly of some 60-70 pages, concentrates on detailed reports on current attractions in the Hoyts chain of cinemas, which are, of course, predominantly American in origin. Last year, a special 50th anniversary issue published the history of Hoyts in Australia, and more reports on Australian productions, with credits, cast lists, and excellent illustrations, many in color.

Movie appeared in 1973, and editor Brian Trenchard Smith described the new venture as a quarterly film magazine “ designed to amuse, inform, and entertain both enthusiasts and casual cinema-goers alike” .

Movie now serves a more important role than that of a mere fan magazine; it carefully documents the releases of all theatre chains, and recently these have included a significant number of Australian films. Issue No. 4 of Movie 76 was an Australian special with valuable data on Break of Day, Eliza Frazer, Oz, The Fourth Wish, The Trespassers, Let The Balloon Go, Harness Fever, The Devil’s Playground, Summer of Secrets, Mad Dog Morgan and Raw Deal. There were 37 pages of text and illustration. Movie 77 (No. 4) had a special Australian supplement — useful material for historians of modern Australian cinema.

CURRENT PERIODICALS CONSULTED: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF SCREEN THEORY School of Drama, University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington, NSW. 2033.

Bi-annual, $5.50 p.a.

CANTRILL’S FILM NOTES Arthur and Corinne Cantrill, Box 1295L, G.P.O. Melbourne, Vic. 3001.

Bi-annual double issues, $7 p.a.

Indexed: Film Lit Ind. CINEMA PAPERS Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria St., North Melbourne, Vic.3051 Bi-monthly, $15 p.a.

Indexed: APAIS, Film Lit Ind, Int Ind. Film Per. FEDERATION NEWS Federation of Victorian Film Societies, 4 Stanley Grove, Canterbury, Vic. 3035 Quarterly, $16 p.a.

FILM INDEX Anchor Books Pty. Ltd. 47 Osborne Rd., Manly, NSW. 2095 Fortnightly, $24 p.a.

FILMNEWS Sydney Filmmakers Co-operative Ltd., P.O. Box 217, Kings Cross, NSW, 2011.

Monthly, $8 p.a.

METRO Association of Teachers of Film & Video 234 Queensberry St., Carlton, Vic. 3053 Quarterly, $8 p.a. ($4 students).

Indexed: Film Lit Ind MOVIE NEWS Graphics United Ltd., Box 210, G.P.O. Sydney, NSW. 2001 Bi-monthly, $1 per issue MOVIE 78 Modern Magazines (Holdings) Ltd., Ryrie House, 15 Boundary St., Rushcutters Bay, Sydney, NSW. Quarterly, $1 per issue.

ABBREVIATIONS OF INDEXES: APAIS: Australian Public Affairs Information Services Bulletin Film Lit. Ind.: Film Literature Index In i Ind. Film Per.: International Index to Film Periodicals.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 197

AN INTERVIEW W ITH ANDREW SARRIS In this article of film theory and criticism, film lecturer Tom Ryan interviews American film critic Andrew Sarris, and begins with a brief look at Sarris’ writings.

Andrew Sarris represents the best of the American school of film journalism which includes writers such as Pauline Kael, Dwight MacDonald, Stanley Kauffman, Richard Scheckel and John Simon. Perhaps only James Agee has made such a significant contribution to a popular awareness of the way in which films can be taken seriously, in which elements of their form can dictate meanings which usually remain concealed beneath simple plot descriptions.

Sarris’ most influential book, The American Cinema (E.P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1968), expanded an approach originally published in Film Culture (No. 28, Spring, 1963) and offered a pathway into American cinema via the notion of the “ auteur” : “ The auteur critic is obsessed with the wholeness of art and the artist. He looks at film as a whole, a director as a whole. The parts, however entertaining individually, must cohere meaningfully.” (p.30) In his book, directors are categorized according to the ascribed qualities of their total oeuvre, “ on total rather than occasional achievement” . Despite this commitment to the director’s “ vision” , to the potential “ world view” that emerges through his films, Sarris asserts a refusal to surrender totally to the structure of his book, insisting that its essential impulse be qualified by the

recognition that “ the cinema could not be a completely personal art under even the best of conditions” , (p.32.)

The fruitful tension which might have resulted from this — a tension between the various elements which can be seen to contribute to the construction of meaning in the film — remains submerged in The American Cinema, beneath the structure and the evocative moments of analysis of directorial style. For example, on Max Ophuls he writes: “ This is the ultimate meaning of Ophulsian camera movement: time has no

You wrote ‘The American There were, however, a great Cinema’ 10 years ago. How do many imprécisions, and in a peculiar way it was lop-sided. The you regard it now? great periods of cinema were not properly organized, and if I were It was very important in its time to do it all over again, I would be and it served a purpose, but I much more comprehensive in always felt it was very tentative, some areas. I would also put a lot although it wasn’t couched in of other elements into it, but tentative terms. There was also a perhaps I would lose some of the lot of controversy about it. Some force in the process. people disapproved of the I believe it was the right book assumptions it made and the for the time, and not one for all attitudes which ran counter to time. what many respectable film people thought.

Did you see all the films you One of the interesting aspects mentioned? was that the things which were perhaps questionable about the No, I had a lot of catching-up to approach the book took, were do, but not as much as one would those that made it work. Cahiers think. The few gaps were mostly du Cinema had done something in the early 1930s, but I never very much like it in one of their passed myself off as an authority big issues, and Movie did on silent films, although I had something a bit later, but no one seen an enormous number — as had ever taken such a polemical many as most knowledgeable people had seen. stance.

As for the talkies, I have seen My intention was to stir the waters, to get people excited, almost everything important that angry or furious, to get things is around. I can’t think of any fermenting. I think I succeeded. major American sound film, of 198 — Cinema Papers, January/February

stop. Montage tends to suspend time in the limbo of abstract images, but the moving camera records inexorably the passage of time, moment by moment.” (p.72) The impulse of his writing, however it might have been called into question by his articulated recognition of a broader view, was, at this time, towards a celebration of the director, of the possibilities of “ personal style” and of the concept of “ the world view” .

Sarris believes his commitment to this position grew from his adopted critical persona — as advocate for the defence of the director: “ . . . directors were penalized more by critical indifference than by critical captiousness. Few people cared to read about directors; a volume of interviews of directors would have been inconceivable as late as 10 years ago. . . ” (Andrew Sarris, ed., Interviews With Film Directors, A von B ooks, New Y ork, 1967, p.13).

A little over 10 years after this was written, however, it has become clear that the question of personal creativity is less pressing than a broader concern with questions of form and its ideological ramifications. For Sarris (see Film Comment, Jan/Feb. 1978; and American Film, Feb. 1978; both published after this interview was recorded) the consequence of this has been a personal co n fu sio n , and the transformation of his concerns from writing about particular films and directors to seeking a rationale for that writing.

The following interview is an edited version of one that was broadcast earlier this year in “ Talking Pictures” on 3RMT-FM, now 3RRR.

which there is still a print available, that I haven’t seen.

There are a lot of minor American films that I haven’t seen, but I can’t think of any classic or cult film I have missed.

Even at the time I wrote the book, I had seen-about 80 per cent. Now it is close to about 94 per cent. I know the field.

Is there anything about the book that you now regret, or would like to retract?

I think the one mistake was the section on overrated people — “ Less than meets the eye” . That was unfortunate because it was purely polemical. Most of the directors in it were people I felt had been overrated; yet they were better than many of those to whom I was more indulgent.

Polemically, it was a. distortion, and this I regret.

I gave short shrift to people who d e se rv e d m ore th o u g h tfu l treatment, but on the whole they were people who I felt did not need it, because they were getting

it elsewhere.

One big change I am making is the decision to drop Robert Flaherty from the Pantheon. I think he is very important, but he really belongs in the documentary group. I don’t think he is representative of classical fictional filmmaking; he represents a principle which I think can be illustrated in a different section.

I also overrated some people out of sheer perversity, like Cecil B. de Mille; whereas Frank Capra and Leo McCarey were probably underrated.

If you were to rewrite ‘The American Cinema’, would you change your method?

I would be less polemical, because we have by now pretty well discovered the cinema. There is no point arguing with anyone who hasn’t discovered it.

Recently, you appear to have been more concerned with placing films within a context than with analysing the films

ANDREW SARRIS

themselves. In your Ford book1 you seemed to work away from the films, rather than towards them . . .

The Ford book was a special problem. I was aware of the McBride/Wilmington book2, and of the analyses they were doing, and I didn’t want to duplicate that.

I wanted to put Ford’s entire work into perspective, and more or less indicate the shape of his life and career.

If I had used the strategy of Robin Wood in his Hitchcock book3 — i.e. doing exhaustive analysis on the classics — I would have had a very different book. I would also have had to repudiate much of the rest of Ford’s career.

What I found interesting in Ford was the total pattern. Josef von Sternberg4, for example, had a very short creative burst — about eight years. Ford, however, was interesting for most of his career, which spanned nearly 30 years and a large number of Films.

He is part of American film history, and I wanted to register his place in it.

Once I had decided on my approach, I found that the contextual approach supplied a framework. I am very much into context and historical patterns — much more than I was — and perhaps this has got the better of me.

I am not entirely satisfied with the book. I should have taken another year and worked it through. But at the time I just wasn’t prepared to put that much time into it.

Movi* M y s te %

m

a r n S !™

Sarris

0irector$ and %*#** lS29«|ggg You have shown in your writing an ability to find the right phrase to s u g g e s t a s e r i e s of reverberations. The McBride/ Wilmington book, for example, uses many of your quotes and expands on them. Yet you have a reluctance to expand these ideas yourself . . .

That is a problem in writing — a problem with o n e ’s critical persona.

As a journalist, one tends to go in different directions, and this makes it very difficult for me to write deeply about things. I am very restless. I don’t think I could spend a life’s work, or even a year’s, on one person. I want to spread out.

Is that why you react so strongly against the “frame by frame h e r e t i c s and the s t i l t e d structuralists” ?

That was a bit unfair, I suppose.

In the book there is the hint of disillusionm ent with Ford’s What will turn everything around silent films, which you also is if a “ frame by frame” person covered in an article in ‘The breaks through and convinces everybody that he or she is the Village Voice’ . . . great critic; or a structuralist The strange thing about Ford’s breaks through and is hailed as a career was that there wasn’t new Lévi-Strauss or Barthes. It anything distinctive early on — depends on whether somebody there were no signs of what was to does it, but until that happens, come. I Find this interesting, and you can call the whole thing into that’s why I used the word question.

The difficulty is finding some “ mystery” in the title; I am not quite sure how Ford came to way of conveying the information frame-by-frame people discover, achieve what he did.

I don’t consider the two books I without subordinating literary have done on directors to be forms to cinematic forms. You definitive studies; they are more have to follow literary forms. You monographs which touch on a few are working under the same ideas. Perhaps that is my nature. obligation as a filmmaker. You Perhaps I am superficial. I can feel have no more right to write a dull things, but it is probably not for article about a fascinating film than you have to make a dull film me to spell them out. about a fascinating book.

1. The John Ford Movie Mystery, Seeker & As a specialist, I may read this W arburg, London, 1976. See my bad writing and enjoy it, but very review of the book in Cinema Papers, few people do, and that is a fact of Sept.-Oct., 1976, p. 175. life.

2. M cBride, Joseph & W ilm ington, Michael, John Ford, Seeker & Warburg, London, 1974.

3. Wood, Robin, Hitchcock’s Films, A.S. Barnes & Co. Inc., USA, 1969 (2nd edition) 4. Sarris’s monograph on von Sternberg is one of his earliest publications outside film journals. The Films o f Josef von Sternberg, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1966.

& > .s m S is S ta

One ad\antage of frame-byframe analysis, while one might not actually reproduce that when writing the article, is that it often enables one to recognize many things one would not have otherwise noticed . . .

Sure, you do find things, but while that is great, the problem is h e lp in g p eo p le sh are th a t discovery. There are many people with fine sensibilities and a good sense of observation who are not b li n d e d by a ll k in d s o f h ie ra rc h ic a l, c u ltu ra l and sociological assumptions, like those which used to obstruct watching a film. Now it is time for th e s e s e n s i b i l i t i e s to be communicated.

There is a trap in that once the mechanism of structuralism has been set out, the temptation is to let it run. After a while you feel not enough distinction is being made between the really explosive connections, the connections which ignite and illuminate vast areas, and those which are relatively mild. After all, a frameby-frame analysis could be used for anything, and I don’t think you should take things apart unless they have that impact.

If I can draw an analogy, aren’t we working from the expedition, which really doesn’t know what it is going to find, to the pilgrimage, which really knows what it is searching for before it starts?

The structuralists are more the pilgrims. They know where they are headed, and though they are not sure what they will find along the way, they know what they are going to find at the end. I don’t think auteurists are explorers.

They know more of what is to be found along the way than they know what is at the end. It is a different emphasis.

You have said in relation to Mizoguchi, for example, that there is a “ transcendental quality” about his work. In a sense, that predesigns the way you look at a Mizoguchi film.

The structuralist, however, while he might be aware of this, would also be looking for other things, like the structure of Mizoguchi narratives . . .

That is true, and I don’t mean to foreclose on this. There are

many other elements to study and a lot to be done by that sort of analysis. I can’t disagree with you because the way you have presented it sounds so reasonable.

However, a lot of structuralist w ritin g does n o t seem as exploratory as you indicate.

I am always looking for new ventures or initiatives, and the analysis of narrative structure is very important, as is the analysis of all kinds of forms and genres. I think you can learn a lot from genres, and I would like to do genre analysis myself. All these approaches are valid tasks.

What is your attitude to the avant-garde cinema?

It is almost impossible to review these people. For the most part, they are sensitive, paranoid, and justifiably forlorn. They are neglected and in su fficien tly rewarded. I do feel a pressure from time to time to get into that area more, but it is a question of time.

People who write about film have to look at so many things.

We have a harder time than people in other fields because they can pick and choose what they want to w rite about. Book reviewers don’t review all the books of the year, only the important ones. Film is an area w h e re t h e r e is g r e a t e r consumption. If you are going to keep up with your readers you have to look at a lot of stuff, and that takes time.

I don’t have enough time to go deeply into avant-garde cinema.

Nevertheless, I think Michael S n o w ’s Wavel engt h is an interesting film, and I can see people going to it. But Snow has become increasingly inaccessible.

There is a deep philosophy in Brakhage, but his emphasis on optics is not really what is at issue in cinema. It is, rather, in the mind’s eye, not the eye’s eye, which is a very literary idea.

Years ago I went to this area very systematically and I looked at all kinds of programs. But I felt it just wasn’t worth it. And I believe time has shown that it hasn’t lasted. The classics of the avantgarde — such as Man Ray, Entr’acte, Un chien andalou or Blood of a Poet — have established some kind of standing, but they are just as problematical today as they were 25 years ago.

With Hollywood it is like going into a slag heap and finding diamonds, but the American underground is too personal; expression is everything and communication nothing. But that wouldn’t matter — one could say the same thing of Picasso or Matisse in certain contexts. The difference is that Picasso and Matisse have been accepted and these people have not.

Concluded on p. 241 Cinema Papers, January/February — 199

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS Reprinted from JULY 1978

Australian Government Gazette

l

W jim

P u b lish ed b y th e A u s tra lia n G o v e rn m e n t P u b lish in g S e rvice

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

f

AUGUST 29 - OCTOBER 3

m

GENERAL

For General Exhibition (G) The Cat From Outer Space: Disney/R. Miller, U.S.A. (2770.00 m) Fern The Red Deer: A. Worker, U.K. (1605.00 m) The Four Feathers: N. Rosemont, U.K. (2825.29 m) Jesus o f Nazareth (Reduced version) (a): V. Labella, Italy (5185.90 m) The Jungle Book (b): Disney, U.S.A. (2139.00 m) The Man From Button Willow: D. Detlege, U.S.A. (2222.00 m)

Yehl Hal Zindagi: Vijaya Prods., India (4020.00 m) (a) Reduced by Importer’s Cuts from 7706.00 metres (Film Censorship Bulletin No. 2/78) (b) Previously registered in 1967.

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Achanak (Suddenly): R. Sippy, India (2606.00 m) Aunt Clara: R. Cohen, Israel (2550.00 m) The Cheap Detective: R. Stark, U.S.A. (2523.56 m) Elektreia (16 mm): Hunnia Film/Mafllm, Hungary (834.00 m) F.I.S.T. (Reduced version) (a): N. Jewison, U.S.A. (3511.00 m) Grease: R. Stigwood/A. Carr, U.S.A. (2962.00 m) Guzlan (Deers) (16 mm): Not shown, Lebanon (1164.00 m) Heaven Can Wait: W. Beatty, U.S.A. (2715.00 m) I Due Evasi Di Sing Sing: Mega Film/Turris Film, Italy (2578.00 m) M isty Drizzle: Union Film Co., Hong Kong (2908.00 m) Nishant (Night’s End): Blaze Film Enterprises, India (3977.00 m) Okey File (O.K. Friend): J. Paris, Greece (2500.00 m) S o lu n s k i A te n ta to ri: Z. M itro vic, Y u goslavia (2661.00 m) The Swarm: I. Allen, U.S.A. (31 27.00 m) Thanasis in The Land Where They Slap Your Face (O Thanasis Stin Hora Tis Sfaliaras): Finos Film, Greece (2580.00 m) Una Sera C’lncontrammo: Euro Int'l Films, Italy (2634.00 m) Wamaada Kitaar El Omr (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1184.00 m) Woman of Glass (16 mm): Not shown, Lebanon (1300.00 m) Yuppi Du: D. De Salvo, Italy (3333.00 m) (a) Reduced by Importer’s Cuts from 3895.00 metres (Film Censorship Bulletin No. 5/78).

For Mature Audiences (M) The American Friend: W. Wenders, W. Germany (3319.00 m) B a ir El Herman (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1097.00 m) Big Wednesday: B. Feitshans, U.S.A. (3236.00 m) Carry on Con Men: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2660.00 m) Convoy: R. Sherman, U.S.A. (3044.00 m) Corvette Summer: H. Barwood, U.S.A. (2825.00 m) Dami Ya Dimoui Ya Abtisamatt (16 mm): Not shown Turkey (1371.00 m) Dear Inspector (Tendre Poulet): Les Films Ariane/ Mondex Films, France (2825.00 m) Den Allvarsamma Leken (Games o f Love and Loneliness): B. Forslund, Sweden (2660.00 m) F.M.: R. Holston, U.S.A. (277.00 m) Fortress in The Sun: Jowell Film Prod., Philippines (2605.00 m) The Goat Horn (16 mm): Filmbulgaria Bulgaria (1189.00 m) The Greek Tycoon: A Klein/E. Landau, U.S.A./U.K. (2825.00 m) Harmonium: Neel Kamal Movies, India (3566.00 m) Hooper: H. Moonjean, U.S.A. (2688.00 m) Khatiah Malak (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1250.00 m) Long Weekend: R. Brennan, Australia (2578.00 m) Madame Rosa: A. Hoss/Lira Films, France (2850.00 m) Nine Months: Hungarofilm, Hungary (2561.00 m) O u tra g e o u s: Film Consortium of Canada Inc./ C a n a d ia n Film D e ve lo p m e n t C orp., C anada (21 75.00 m) Paradis torg (Paradise Place): I. Bergman, Sweden (2989.00 m)

A Proper Young Lady (Une Fille Consue De Fil Blanc): Y. Rousset Rouard, France (2797.86 m) R e tu rn o f T h e 18 B ro n z e m e n : Hong Hwa International, Hong Kong (2550.00 m) S e q u e s tro Di P e rs o n a : S. C le m e n te lli, Italy (2506.00 m) Sha-Yen Chin: Yau Lee Film Co., Hong Kong (2468.00 m) Thank God It’s Friday: R. Cohen, U.S.A. (2523.00 m) Third Person Plural (16 mm): J. Ricketson, Australia (1009.00 m) The Fierce Fist (16 mm): Mei Chang Ling, Taiwan (1 075.00 m)

Nil. (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 6/78.

Note: Title of film notified as The Sea Gypies in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 4/78 has been altered to Shipwreck!

For Restricted Exhibition (R)

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

The Criminals: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (2496.00 m) Kung Fu Means Fists, Strikes and Swords (1 6 mm): A Gouw, Hong Kong (943.00 m) The Magnificent: Asso/Asian Film Prods., Hong Kong (2468.70 m) M idnight Express: A. Marshall/D. Puttnam, U.K. (3264.00 m) Oh W ow!! It’s C indy: Star West Prods., U.S.A. (2221.00 m) Rosie Dixon —Night Nurse: Belling/Parsons, U.K. (2468.00 m) The Stud: R. Kass, U.K. (2578.00 m) The Teasers: V. Sims, Italy (2276.00 m) Special Conditions: That the film be shown not more than twice at Sydney and/or Melbourne/Adelaide/ Brisbane/Perth Film Festival and then exported.

Beethoven—Days o f a Life: Defa, East Germany (2935.00 m) The Summer With C owboy: Czechoslovak Film, Czechoslovakia (2743.00 m) S u p e rim p o s itio n : Film Units Pryzmat, Poland (2468.70 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R) Code Name Rawhide: K. Stewart/Lomax, U.S.A. (2139.00 m) Eliminations: 63.1 m (2mins. 18 secs) Reason: Indecency The Joy of Letting Go (Reconstructed version): (a): S. Brown, U.S.A. (1755.00 m) Eliminations: 12.5 m (23 secs.) Reason: Indecency (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 3 / 78.

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Inside Jennifer Welles: H. Howard, U.S.A. (221 2.30 m) Reason: Indecency.

The Living Dead at The Manchester Morgue: E. Amati, U.K. (2488.10 m) Reason: Excessive violence My Secret Life: J. Harris U.S.A. (2329.20 m) Reason: Indecent language Welcome Home Johnny: R. Lee, U.S.A. (2079.50 m) Reason: Indecency T h e Y o u n g P a s s io n s : A lp h a /O m e g a U.S.A. (2066.30 m) Reason: Indecency.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW FILMS APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW The Kentucky Fried Movie (a): R. Weiss, U.S.A. (2276.00 m) Decision Reviewed: Appeal against ‘R’ Registration by the Film Censorship Board.

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

FILMS NOT APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION AFTER REVIEW

A quiet moment from Colin Eggleston’s Long Weekend; it has an “ M” classification.

200 — Cinema Papers, January/February

AUGUST 1978

For General Exhibition (G) Amici Piu Di Prima: Not shown, Italy (2800.00 m) Before Hindsight (16 mm): E. Taylor-Mead, U.K (855.00 m) The Billion Dollar Hobo: L. Elliott, U.S.A. (2578.00 m) Buffalo Rider: D. Robinson, U.SA (2413.84 m) Circus in the Circus: Not shown, U.S.S.R. (2413.84 m) Jupiter’s Darling (16 mm) (a): G. Wells, U.S.A. (1042.00 m) Love Eteme: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (3620.00 m) The Magic of Lassie: J. Wrather, U.S.A. (2660.71 m) Matilda: A. Ruddy, U.SA. (2880.00 m) An Office Affair (Sluzhebni Roman): Mosfilm U.S.S.R. (4443.00 m) The Steppe: Mosfilm, U.S.S.R. (3565.00 m) When S eptem b er Comes: M osfilm , U.S.S.R. (2550.99 m) White Bim the Black Ear: Central Gorki Studio, U.S.S.R. (5239.00 m) Wonderful Trip (16 mm): S. El Fan, Egypt (1217.00 m) Ena, Ena, Tessera (One, One, Four): A. Lefakis, Greece (2276.00 m) The Fox in the Chicken Coop: I. Kol, Israel (2523.00 m) Giacobbe L’llomo Che Lotto Con Dio: T. Di Carlo, Italy (2188.00 m) My Way (16 mm): C.S. Po, Taiwan (899.00 m) Standing Room Only (16 mm): A. Main/H. Thomas, U.S.A. (877.00 m) (a) Previously registered (A) in 1955.

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Babu (16 mm): C. Bharath, India (1923.00 m) Be Kind to the Parents (16 mm): S. El Fan, Egypt (1 283.00 m) Death on the Nile: J. Braboume/R. Goodwin, U.K./ Egypt (3867.63 m) Down to Zero (Stunde Null): E Reitz, W. Germany (3154.00 m) El-Azaab Imraah (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1 283.00 m) E Teleftea Ptisis (The Last Fight): S. Vlossis/M. Lefakis, Greece (3099.00 m) Feeling Love: G. Rossi/K. Furukawa, Italy (2605.85 m) La Mano Del Destino: LM Films/Westside Int., Italy (2574.00 m) Mawlid Ya Donia (16 mm): S. El Fan, Egypt (1676.00 m) Nous Irons Tous Au Paradis: Gueville/Gaumont, France (3031.10 m) Revenge of die Pink Panther: B. Edwards, U.K. (2633.28 m) Shaolln Wooden Men: H. Li Hwa, Hong Kong (2907.58 m) Snake and Crane Arts of Shaolin: H. Li Hwa, Hong Kong (2856.00 m) Stardust (16 mm): H. Kung, Taiwan (1086.00 m) Stunt Rock: M. Fink, U.S.A. (2441.00 m) A Woman of Paris: C. Chaplin, U.SA. (2277.00 m)

For Mature Audiences (M) Angel City (16 mm): J. Jost, U.SA. (746.00 m)

Baker’s Bread: D. Schoenemann, W. Germany (3319.00 m) Bruce Lee’s Secret: Golden Sun Rim Co., Hong Kong (2304.00 m) Carl Genitorl (Italian version) (a): C. Ponti, Italy (2238.00 m) The Dumb (16 mm): S. El Fan, Egypt (1338.00 m) Elisa, Vida Mia: E. Querejeta, Spain (3593.00 m) Eyes of Laura Mars: J. Peters, U.SA (2770.00 m) H-Bomb: R. Chow, Hong Kong (2551.00 m) High Ballin’: J. Sian, U.S.A. (2743.00 m) Jaws 2: R. Zanuck/D. Brown, U.S.A. (3236.74 m) King Gambler: R. R. Shaw, Hong Kong (3538.00 m) La Ultima Cena (The Last Supper): S. Llapur/C. Vives, Cuba (3099.59 m) Mean Dog Blues: C. P ratt/G. Lefferts, U.S.A. (3072.00 m) Piranha: J. Davison, U.SA. (2496.00 m) Poor Pretty Eddie: R. Robinson, U.S.A. (2057.00 m) Saturday Night Fever (Soft version) (b): R. Stigwood, U.S.A. (3127.00 m) Second Chance: C. Lelouch, France (2688.14 m) Soldaat Van Oranje: R. Houwer, Holland (4306.00 m) Survival Run: R. Houwer, Holland (3373.00 m) The Web o f Death: R. R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2496.00 m) (a) Dubbed English version listed under title Dear Parents in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 3/74. (b) Hard version previously listed in Rim Censorship Bulletin No. 2/78.

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Black Emanuelle No. 2: Not shown, Italy (2496.00 m) Brutes and Savages: A Davis, U.K. (3127.00 m) Everything Goes: Not shown, France (3456.78) Fairy Tales: C. Band, U.SA. (211 2.00 m) The Healers (Reconstructed version) (a): E.Cemano/K. E. Schwartz, U.S.A. (1562.10 m) Hi-Rlders: M. MacFarland, U.SA. (2523.00 m) Ironside 426: R. Chow, Hong Kong (2825.00 m) The Kung Fu Kid: H. Li Hwa, Hong Kong (2880.00 m) Lemon Popsicle: M. G olan/Y. Globus, Israel (2688.00 m) Maiiziosamente: Not shown, Italy (2488.00 m) Pigs Have Wings: M. Orfini, Italy (2743.00 m) Rivals In Love: G. D. Films, Greece (2441.00 m) Sister Emanuelle: Meni Cinem atografica, Italy (2468.00 m) The Taxi Driver: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2688.14 m) To Kill With Intrigue: H. Li Hwa, Hong Kong (2962.00 m) The Young Tycoon: G. Dumitiopolous, Greece (2468.00 m) (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 5/ 78.

Special Condition: That the film will be exhibited only at the 24th Asian Film Festival and then exported.

Bar 21: Not shown, Thailand (4000.00 m) The Brave Ones: Not shown, Taiwan (2578.61 m) Dear Brother: Not shown, Taiwan (2606.04 m) The Dream of the Red Chamber: Not shown, Hong Kong (3146.74) The Eternal Love: Not shown, Hong Kong (2578.61) The Life of Oharu: Not shown, Japan (3846.00 m) More Than Love: Not shown, Thailand (3300.00 m) My Way: Not shown, Taiwan (2441.45 m) Rural Teacher: Not shown, Thailand (3652.00 m) The Smiling Face: Not shown, Taiwan (2633.47 m) The 36th Chamber of Shaolin: R. R. Shaw, Hong Kong (3168.70 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R) The Degradation of Emanuelle: Joe D'Amato, Italy (2 5 7 a 0 0 m)

Eliminations: 22.5 m (49 secs) Reason: Indecency and excessive violence

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Self Service Girt* (Soft version) (a): EC. Dietrich, Switzerland (1386.00 m) Reason: Indecency (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 3 / 76.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW Nil Note: Title of film previously registered as Communion, Film Censorship Bulletin No. 11 /77, has been altered to Alice Sweet Alice.

The girls’ washroom in John Lamond’s yet-to-be censored F e lic it y .

GUIDE FOR THE AUSTRALIAN FILM PRODUCER: PART 12 EXPLO ITING THE FILM

B. The Rights to a Com pleted Film

In this 12th part of a 19-part series, Cinema Papers contributing editor Antony I. Ginnane, and Melbourne solicitors Ian Baillieu and Leon The rights related to a completed film are Gorr, deal with general problems of film dist­ rights of copyright in the film itself and accom­ ribution. at home and abroad. panying script, music, manuscript, etc. The legal rights of copyright in these items are held by the production company — usually a trustee on behalf of the investors — and the investors share in the copyright as tenants in common in A. intro d u ctio n equal shares of the equitable interest.

When the film has recouped its negative cost the investors frequently assign a portion of Unless the producer is working solely as an interest, pro rata, to the producer: e.g. 25 employee of a production company — i.e. as a their per cent, 30 per cent or even 50 per cent. so-called “ line producer” — it is his respons­ ibility to administer and direct the completed film throughout its income-yielding life. His C. Unauthorized job is to supervise the exploitation of, and Exploitation of Film Rights maximize the revenue from, the film.

This generally means a near full-time in­ volvement for some months after the film’s Since the advent of the video cassette, cases completion and until first theatrical release in of film piracy have multiplied overseas and key Australian capital cities. Thereafter, within Australia. Although there are a number supervision will be required of monthly state­ of bootleg “ exhibitors” operating in Australia ments from the domestic distributors. who use 16mm prints of films of which no one At the same time, the producer’s job is to is entitled to the rights in this country, there work with his foreign sales agent (see p.239) in have been no instances yet reported or known attracting, firming and following up on foreign to the authors of unauthorized distribution of sales and foreign theatrical release. This may Australian films within Australia.

Certainly, within Australia, there have been mean a sales trip or two to major overseas film festivals, as well as promotional appearances in many instances of stolen 35mm prints of foreign productions, and the Motion Picture key foreign markets.

Distributors Association publishes such a list from time to time.

In the U.S., courts are taking a stricter view of film piracy, and the new U.S. Copyright Act provides a simpler machinery for acting against unauthorized users or holders of copyright material. In South Africa, too, long the home of many worldwide print pirates, amendments to the Copyright Act have provided for affi­ davit evidence of copyright ownership to be acceptable in South African courts.

New technology will soon provide machin­ ery to prevent video cassette owners taping copyright material off broadcast television or from legally hired video cassettes. Copyright, of course, does not subsist forever, and some U.S. silent and ’30s material, as well as Euro­ pean and silent Australian material, is now in public domain and freely available for exploit­ ation by anyone.

7 Arts Press regularly publish a list of U.S. films in the public domain; films like The Front Page (UA-1931), His Girl Friday (Col.-1939), Pygmalion (MGM-1938), fall into this category.

Philosophically, there may be a case for dis­ tinguishing between individuals who maintain private, albeit illegal, collections of copyright material for their own use, and those who exploit this material for gain. A national film archive, to which copyright owners are com­ pelled to deposit a print of their material, would eliminate the problem of availability of material for genuine researchers.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 201

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

D. The S ize of th e A ustralian M a rk et and Foreign M arket The traditional view of the American studios has been that the U.S. and Canada equal 50 per cent of world billings, while the rest of the world accounts for the other 50 per cent.

It is worth noting that the American industry has the ability to place its product without difficulty almost everywhere in the world. No other country has this facility.

Secondly, local films are generally at an ad­ vantage in their home territory, all other things being equal.

The maximum net to an Australian pro­ ducer out of foreign sales, so far, has been around $300,000, the mean average about $30,000 to $50,000. On the other hand, a moderately successful Australian film will earn domestic film rental, after costs, of between $300,000 and $400,000. There is a degree of imbalance, but it ought to be possible to increase foreign earnings to the same level as domestic earnings so that the U.S. formula would apply here in reverse.

It is worth noting that Australia is the only English-speaking country, and one of the few world territories, where box-office grosses are not published. Consequently, local figures are difficult to come by.

E. Exploitation in A ustralia 1. The S tru ctu re of th e M arket The Australian film industry, like film industries all over the world, operates at a three-tier level: production, distribution and exhibition. Traditionally the three branches of the industry tend to operate as verticallyintegrated units until courts or legislatures choose, for reasons which will be examined, to intervene.

Two overseas-ow ned com panies in effect dominate the distribution-exhibition scene in Australia. Hoyts Theatres Ltd., the smaller of the two in number of outlets, is owned and controlled by the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation of the U.S. It has exclusive first call on Fox films in this territory and, via Fox, it had access in the past to certain produce acquired from AvcoEmbassy Pictures. It also controls most of the libraries of the now defunct ABC Films and Cinerama Releasing Corporation.

Under the aggressive management of managing director Terry Jackman, Hoyts has also begun to acquire independent product directly for Australia. It has privileged exhibi­ tion arrangements for product from United Artists Film Corporation and Columbia Pictures. It controls more than 60 cinemas and drive-ins in Australia (which include the seven-cinema entertainment complex in Sydney), and books for more than a dozen.

The other company, the Greater Union Organisation, was originally an Australian cinema group called Union Theatres. It is now 50 per cent owned by the British multi­ national Rank Organisation, and is the largest exhibition-distribution group in Australia.

Through its associate company, GUO Film Distributors, it releases product from Walt Disney, Rank, EMI and independent pro­ ductions. It has privileged exhibition arrange­ 202 — Cinema Papers, January/February

ments for product from Cinema International which expanded dramatically in the early to Corporation (Paramount-Universal-MGM). It mid-’70s, but has recently reduced its scale of also has interests in, and is closely associated operations. It works closely with Hoyts with, the Victorian-based Village Theatres Theatres.

Group. This group controls the release of pro­ Filmways is a partnership of Victorian duct from the only other major production theatre proprietors Robert Ward and Mark sources, including Warner Bros., American Josem, and solicitors Bill Fayman, Leon Velik International, and certain Lorimar and Mel and Graeme Emanuel. It is still developing as a Simon productions, as well as purchasing releasing entity, following recent success with selected independent product.

ITC product. It works closely with Hoyts GUO appears to hold only 33 1/3 per cent in Theatres. the Village Group holding structure, but many Roadshow, initially started by the Village of Village’s .exhibition outlets are operated on group to provide them with direct access to a joint venture basis with GUO. Village main­ foreign product, has been spectacularly tains close top management liaison with GUO, successful.

Although the local industry does not dis­ but states that it regards the latter as day-toclose its figures, it is believed that overseas day competitors.

Village, too, have recently entered into a controlled distributors (including the inter­ joint venture arrangement for all but two of national division of Roadshow) account for the cinemas controlled by the Victorian in­ more than 80 per cent of box-office takings in Australia. dependent group, Dendy Theatres.

There are a number of other independent outlets in Australia outside Melbourne and A ustralian R elease P attern s Sydney, notably the City Theatres/Line Drive- 3. (i) M ajor Productions: Important local in circuit in Perth, Western Australia, con­ foreign productions have traditionally trolled by TVW Enterprises, and the Wallis and opened in one (or occasionally, as with Jaws Group in South Australia, a hard top/drive-in or The Godfather, in more than one) first class family group with some TVW holding. hard-top cinema in each capital city, and fre­ In Canberra, the Killen interests operate Canberra, Newcastle and Wollongong four hard-tops and a drive-in, and have two quently Sometimes this is because of a particu­ outlets in Sydney and Melbourne. In New­ as well. screening process — e.g. Dolby Sound, castle, the Goumas family controls three first lar 70mm, etc. — that few cinemas are equipped release cinemas. for. generally it is because the city has The ownership and release patterns within beenBut the hub of activity in each Australia are tightly controlled, and effectively state, and traditional from it publicity material and other only two real choices are available to the pro­ information permeates through the state. ducer for Australia-wide exhibition. Table 1 There is debate among Australian producers sets out the major distributor-exhibitor links: over the value, or lack, of a simultaneous release in each capital city; a national release pattern which is frequently followed for major U.S. productions. On the one hand, it provides Table 1 : D istributornational publicity coverage, the ability to Exhibitor Links choreograph publicity tours and a fast cash flow (if the film is successful). On the other hand, if, as has often happened for local pro­ M ajor D istributing Com panies Links/ ductions, the campaign has not been quite A rra n g e ­ right, then all available major grossing areas m ents have been used up. w ith Consensus appears to be to stagger one’s GUO/ 1. CIC (Paramount/Universal/ release city by city if there is any doubt about Village MGM) the film’s campaign or box-office strength.

Hoyts 2. Twentieth Century-Fox These films generally screen with a supporting Hoyts 3. Columbia Pictures program of shorts.

Village/ 4. Roadshow International After release in Melbourne and Sydney for GUO (Warners) some weeks, the film will move into the first of Village/ 5. Roadshow a series of “ wave” release patterns. It will play GUO simultaneously with the city in certain key GUO 6. GUO Film Distributors outer suburban and inner country cinemas.

Hoyts 7. United Artists There is a network of such cinemas operated in Hoyts 8. Filmways Melbourne by Village, and in Sydney by Hoyts Hoyts 9. Seven Keys and Village. The film’s city season may move over, about this time or shortly thereafter, to a cinema with a lower expense figure. Generally these cinemas play double bills.

2. Australian D istribution The next step is a suburban drive-in release Com panies on a double bill when the film has probably There are about 30 distribution companies finished its city run but may still be screening in Australia, but only nine of them provide a at a moveover house. Key country drive-ins significant flow of product to the commercial (double bills) come next, and then inde­ film industry. These distributors are listed in pendent suburban and country exhibitors Table 1. (double bills) as prints become available.

Of the nine companies, Filmways and Seven Keys are totally Australian operations. The (ii) Exploitation M aterial: “ Exploitation Roadshow organization comprises the Village material” is a term for drive-in orientated affiliate, Roadshow D istributors, which material — i.e. action, adventure, bikie, handles American International and other horror, etc. These films frequently by-pass city independent releases, and Roadshow Inter­ release, or, if they play city, play a small movenational, a Village joint venture with Warner over or sex/action house. Some exploitation Bros., which handles Warners’ releases and material of late — e.g. Sunn Classic material — accounts for about 75 per cent of Roadshow’s has been released over a two or three-week output. period across a state with a maximum of tele­ Seven Keys is a privately-owned venture vision advertising and a massive print buy.

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

Other exploitation material percolates through the country drive-ins and suburban and country independent hard-tops as demand requires. (iii) R e stricted M aterial: “ R” certificate

sexploitation material these days has its own mini cinema circuits in Melbourne and Sydney, and a couple of houses each in other capitals. Special state censorship in Queens­ land and restrictions on drive-in play off in W.A., S.A. and Queensland, further restrict exhibition of these films. There are, of course, very limited sub-run possibilities, and this material is usually double billed.

Art house material — i.e. sub-titled Euro­ pean product, specialist and serious material — plays a small network of first release city and suburban cinemas in Melbourne and Sydney, and to a limited degree in the other states.

Repertory cinemas, film societies and univer­ sities provide further bookings.

There is a small Italian and Greek circuit in Melbourne and Sydney which screens films of these nationalities in their own languages and without sub-titles. Other capitals have a cinema which programs this material — per­ haps one day a week.

N ò ie: (i) Although basic release patterns

within Australia are constant, exhibitors frequently experiment with new combinations and permutations of release patterns in an attempt to maximize revenue and cost effect­ iveness. (ii) The sub-run, pre drive-in, suburban and city moveover day and date is much more a Melbourne occurrence than a Sydney one, and was largely pioneered by Dendy and Village Theatres.

4 . Modes of R elease fo r A ustralian Film s (i) The “ Producer as D istributor: The notion of the producer acting as his own dist­ ributor is not a new one. In the U.S., almost since the beginning of the film industry, indiv­ idual producers striving for a better share of the box-office dollar have sidestepped the middleman and gone direct to theatre owners; indeed, many of the powerful U.S. mini majors — e.g. American International and New World — had their origins out of this style of releasing.

In Australia, the re-emergent film industry prior to the Tariff Board Enquiry in 1973, evi­ denced à marked reluctance by most dis­ tributors (and for that matter exhibitors) to handle Australian films. Tim Burstall’s Stork when declined distribution went into ex­ hibition at the Palais Theatre in Melbourne on a four-wall deal (see below). Similarly, Phillip Adams’ The Adventures of Barry McKenzie, in its first capital city releases, went to cinemas via direct dealings by the producer without the involvement of a distributor.

Since then, the South Australian Film Cor­ poration has, from time to time, made direct deals in South Australia and Western Australia before signing a distribution contract. Michael Thornhill’s first feature, Between Wars, was also directly exhibited.

Now that the film industry climate has changed, and every 35mm Australian film that has even remote box-office potential can obtain distribution and exhibition, the question is whether a producer ought to hand his film over to a distributor or handle it himself.

Written by

A ntony I. Ginnane LL. B ., (Melb.)

Ian Baillieu M. A. Juris (Oxon) Leon Gorr B. Juris., LL. B ., (Mon.)

The Australian Film Producers & Investors Guide

Edited by

Peter Beilby

Subscription Service dubbing and subtitling. Archive copy requirements.

Retention of preprint materials. Production of trailer.

Package productions. Co-productions. Financiers’ rights to interfere.

ACQUIRING A COMPLETED FILM Vendor’s title and credit-billing obligations. Issues arising if film is foreign. Agreement to acquire Australian distribution rights. Import formalities.

EXPLOITING THE FILM

The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide is now in production and mailings have commenced.

An updated and improved version of the continuing series of Cinema Papers articles entitled “ Guide for The Australian Film Producer,” the new Guide is available as a loose leaf, hardcover, regularly expanding and updating subscription service. The Guide will be an invaluable aid to all those involved in film business, including the producer trying.to set up his first film; the investor contemplating financial participation in a production; the writer about to sell his first script; the lawyer, accountant or distribution executive who finds himself confronted with new problems as the local production industry grows. A chapter dealing with the foreign producer in Australia will also be included.

In most instances subscriptions to the Guide are tax deductible.

The authors of the Service, all practitioners with experience in this field, will 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.

It is envisaged that instalments for most chapters will be mailed to subscribers by June 30,1979, after which the contents will be expanded and updated at regular intervals.

Set out below is an abbreviated table of the proposed contents of the Service that subscribers will eventually have at their disposal.

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT Estimating the costs, technical problems and risks of the production. Estimating the monetary returns. Safeguarding concept from piracy. Laws hindering production or exploitation of the proposed film. Rights and permissions needing acquisition.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PRODUCER Considerations governing choice whether to use company trust business name, partnership etc.

SECURING NECESSARY RIGHTS Acquisition of necessary rights. Price and other terms.

Establishing exclusive rights to the project.

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT Forms of screenplay. Stages in the creation of a screenplay.

Choice of writer. Agreement commissioning the writing.

DEALING WITH A COMPLETED SCRIPT Nature and protection of rights. Assessment and valuation.

Acquisition of a completed screenplay.

PREPRODUCTION Work which a producer may have to do besides acquiring rights and developing screenplay, in order to bring project to production.

BUDGETING Budgeting for script development, for preproduction, and for production. Classifications. Rules of thumb for estimating.

Presentation. Timetable and cash-flow. Deferments.

FINANCING A FILM. INVESTING IN A FILM Terminology. Financing of preproduction and production.

Methods of cost reduction. Forms in which finance may be provided. The terms of an equity investment agreement.

Financing overages. Sources of finance. Solicitation of finance. Use of an agent. Check-list for intending investors.

PRODUCTION Different production methods and stages for different kinds.

Insurances. Executives, crew and cast. Producing in a foreign country. Location permission. Dealing with spectators. Catering. Film stills. Use of pre-existing film footage. Film music. Use of laboratory. Editing, crediting,

Nature and protection of rights in film. Prevention of piracy. Australian film markets: theatrical, television, 16mm and other. Directory of Australian cinemas. Methods of releasing film in Australia. Film P.R. Registration and censorship. Choice of exhibitor and exhibition contract.

Choice of distributor. Distribution contract. Gross and net returns achieved by films in Australia. Markets overseas.

Export assistance. Assistance from Department of T rade, government film corporations, foreign publicists, and sales agents. Foreign distribution agreement. Foreign earnings of Australian films. Financiers' rights to interfere with exploitation. Film festivals and film awards.

EXPLOITING ANCILLARY RIGHTS The production as a spectator attraction. Documentary about production. Book about the production. Publication of screenplay. Book of the film. Music sales. Merchandizing.

Stage presentation. Sequels.

THE EXHIBITOR Registration of cinemas. Regulations affecting cinema operation. Economics of cinema operations.

TAXES AND DUTIES Australian income tax law and practice as it affects the film industry. Comparison with overseas tax systems.

Payroll tax. Sales Tax. Stamp, gift and death duties.

REPORTING, ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING Accounting and audit requirements. Record-retention obligations. Inspection of accounts. Distribution of film proceeds. Reports. Special audits.

MISCELLANEOUS Glossary of terms. Exchange control. T rade Practices legislation. Books and periodicals. Film archives.

THE FOREIGN PRODUCER IN AUSTRALIA Information of use to a foreign producer planning production in Australia.

INDUSTRY SURVEY AND WHO’S WHO General observations on current issues. Films produced in Australia. Film Corporations, and their board members and executives. Australian film schools. Who’s Who of the film industry.

LEGISLATION Copyright Act. Acts incorporating the various government film corporations, and other legislation.

Regular readers of Cinema Papers should note that in the future no further precedents, forms, tables or schedules will be provided in the Cinema Papers articles. The Film Producers and Investors Guide will provide these and other precedents, together with a more detailed and expanded text on the problems and circumstances discussed in the magazine articles, which have inevitably been restricted by limitations of space.

Subscription Rates For subscribers joining during 1978 the subscription rate up to June 30,1979, is $A150, which comprises an installation fee of $A75 and the current annual subscription rate of $A75.

ORDER FORM Please record my subscription to The Australian 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 Telephone: (03) 329 5983

Continued on P. 238 Cinema Papers, January/February — 203

INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION ROUND-UP FRANCE

NEW ZEALAND Roger Donaldson of Aardvark Films is following up his successful Sleeping Dogs with Curry Curry, a low-key story about a New Zealand wrestler. Unlike Sleeping Dogs, which had a budget of $500,000, this film has been budgeted at $ 200 ,000 .

Angel Mine (directed by David Blythe) satirizes the calm, Kiwi lifestyle, and, according to its director, is the coming of age of erotic cinema in New Zealand.

Lead roles are played by New Zealander Derek Ward and his Australian wife, Jennifer Redford.

The film, which is described as a psycho-drama, exploits many cultural myths, and draws on the influences of television, pop music and comic books.

Budget figures are not available.

Director Paul Maunder is developing a screenplay from Albert Wendt’s novel Sons for the Return Home for producer John O’Shea of Pacific Films. Although the film is still in the preparation stage, it is hoped it will be another success in the current new wave of New Zealand films.

Tony Williams’ Little Trippers is now to be called Starlight Express. The film is aimed at the world market and one reason for the title change is that in the U.S. the word “ tripper” has drug connotations.

National Film Unit director David Sims is filming James K. Baxter’s Jack Winter’s Dream. Shot in Central Otago, this prestige production tells of an old station rouseabout who falls asleep in the ruins of an old pub and dreams of the great gold rush days of the last century. The film will be ready for local and overseas television around March, 1979.

Air New Zealand and Columbia Warner Distributors have ensured that Pouihi, a 24-minute Panavision film, receives worldwide release. The film is about the migration of Polynesians to New Zealand, the European settlements and aspects of Maori mythology.

David Gibson has sold his film, Old Man’s Story, to 10 overseas buyers: Norway, Sweden, Iran, a New York television channel and six British Tele­ vision companies — Yorkshire, Thames, Granada, S co ttish , H arlech and Westward. Holland, Belgium and Iceland are also interested in the film.

Old Man’s Story tells of an ill-fated friendship between an elderly farm worker and a young orphan girl. It was based on a story by New Zealand writer Frank Sargeson and stars Australian actor Gerry Duggan, and Maree Mckeefay.

Top of the bill at the recent International Film Festival at Edmonton,

204 — Cinema Papers, January/February

Canada (run concurrently with the Commonweajth Games) was New Zealand’s Sleeping Dogs. The Edmonton Sun praised the Festival Committee for choosing such a controversial film to open its festival.

In Australia, the film has outgrossed Solo.

New Zealand actress Pat Evison is playing a major supporting role in the $600,000 Australian production Tim, based on Colleen McCullough’s first novel, and directed by Michael Pate. Pat Evison has already appeared in a number of Australian films — most recently Caddie.

David Lascelles

Alain Resnais has said he would like Peter Sellers to star in his forthcoming My Uncle from America, which is based on the work of French socio-biologist Henri Labroit.

Robert Bresson is again hopeful his production, Money, will go ahead. Until it does, however, Bresson is writing a book on films and painting.

Claude Chabrol’s new film, Old Monsters, will star Simone Signoret.

George Lautner is to direct top boxoffice star Jean-Paul Belmondo in Cop or Crook, a “serio-comic affair” .

Paul Michaud is to produce a film on the love affaire of Edgar Allan Poe and poet Sarah Whitman. Michaud wants Francois Truffaut to play Poe, and hopes Jean Gruault will write the screenplay.

After being banned for nearly two years, Jean Paul Davy’s Exhibition 2 has been released. Davy, meanwhile, has moved into the “straight” cinema.

Jean Louis Trintignant is to direct his second film, The Life Guard. It stars Jean-Claude Brialy.

BRITAIN Following the critical success of The Naked Civil Servant, Jack Gold’s new project (for ITC) is The Medusa Touch, with Richard Burton, Lino Ventura and Lee Remick.

Other ITC projects include Glenn Jordon’s remake of Les miserables, with Richard Jordon and Anthony Perkins;

Je rry Jameson’s Raise the Titanic; Trans-Siberian Express from the novel

by Warren Adler; Lina Wertmuller’s Vengeance with Sophia Loren, Marcello / Mastroianni and Giancarlo Giannini; Stanley Donen's Movie Movie; and Michael Winner’s Fire Power.

As well as a feature version of the stage play Dracula, there is to be a musical version — Dracula Rocks.

EMI Films listed for 1979/80 include The Jazz Singer with Neil Diamond, John Schlesinger's The Wife and another Agatha Christie mystery.

The rock group The Who is connected with two recent films. One is a documentary on them filmed over 15 years, entitled The Kids are Alright. The other is the film of “ Quadrophonia”, their best selling album.

Rank has announced it will produce in 1978/79 Stephen Week’s The Bengal Lancers, Paul Verhoeven’s Survival Run (Verhoeven made Turkish Delight) and Anthony Page’s The Lady Vanishes, which is now in production.

UNITED STATES Filming has begun on Walt Disney Production’s U.S.$17million The Black Hole. The film stars Maximilian Schell, Anthony Perkins, Robert Forster and Jennifer O’Neill, and is being directed by Gary Nelson. The shooting schedule is 122 days.

Director of The Greek Tycoon, Jack Lee Thompson, is making Caboblanco for the Carolco company. Starring Charles Bronson and Dominique Sanda, the film is from a Milton Gelman screenplay. Shooting is in Mexico.

Peter Medak’s new film is The Changeling with George C. Scott. John C o c q u illo n is the d ire c to r of photography.

Following the yet-to-be-released Caravans, James Fargo is directing Game for Vultures, with Richard Harris and Richard Roundtree.

Shooting is completed on Richard C. Sarafian’s Sunburn, the new vehicle for Farrah Fawcett-Majors.

Cult director Mark Lester (he has now dropped the “ L”) has completed Gold of the Amazon Women with Bo Svenson, Anita Ekberg and Donald Pleasence.

OTHER Paul Heller and Raymond Chow have jo in e d fo rc e s to p ro du ce the U.S.$12million High Road to China, from the novel by Jon Cleary.

Unhappy with the English dubbing on his remake of Nosferatu, director Werner Herzog is redoing it. He is using the German actors, even if their pro­ nunciation is less than perfect.

Principal photography has been com­ pleted on The Magician. Starring Alan Arkin, Louise Fletcher and Shelley Winters, the film is based on Isaac Bashevis Singer’s The Magician of Lublin The director is Menahem Golon.

After a string of disappointing films, Dino Risi is to direct Dear Dad, with Vittorio Gassman and Aurore Clement.

Mauro Bolognini is making one part of the compilation Where are You Going on Holiday? The other directors are Paolo Villaggio and Alberto Sordi.

Finally, the most outrageous project announced in the past few months has to be Gianni Amico’s “ samba version” of Les parapliues de Cherborg. It has the title , Faith, Understanding and Freedom.

S.M.

How to sh oot 1948in 1978w ithout

getting into deep water.

Vincent Monton.

Cinematographer, ‘Newsfront’.

“The feeling of time passing is very important to NEWSFRONT. We wanted the film to look as if it had been shot in the different periods depicted.

Often shooting in black and white.

And even intercut­ ting actual period newsreel footage with reconstructed material.

“The origins of the archival newsreel footage varied from excellent camera original to dupe negatives many generations removed.

“These enormous matching and stylistic problems placed great demands not only on the negative but on the print stocks and the entire laboratory chemistry.

N ew sfront’ w as sh o t on E a stm a n Color Negative Film 5242 an d E a stm a n Plus-X Negative Film 52

“We tested several color and black-and-white film stocks. But eventually we standardised on KODAK ECNII and PLUS-X* - the PLUS-X being pro­ cessed to different gammas to achieve the correct contrast.

The EONII color being under or overexposed and printed to achieve a look evocative of the style of the period.

“Only Kodak offered us the range of camera negative, print stocks and laboratory chemistry to achieve the look we wanted.

“As well, it was also reassuring to know that the desired look would be maintained any­ where in the world additional prints were made.”

Vincent Monton.

A Little Technical In fo rm a tio n from Kodak.

EASTMAN Color Negative II Film 5247 (35 mm) an d 7247 (16 mm) is a cam era film intended for general m otion picture production.

The wide exposure latitu d e of th is high-speed film m akes it especially suitable for b o th indoor an d outdoor p h o tography u n d e r a wide variety of conditions.

GENERAL PROPERTIES: Color Negative II Film is balanced for use in tu n g ste n light, and in daylight w ith app ro p riate filters. The em ulsion contains a colored-coupler m ask to achieve good color rep ro d u ctio n in release p rin ts. This film is ch aracterised by a h igh degree of sh a rp n e ss, fine g rain an d excellent color rendition.

LIGHTING CONTRAST: The ratio of keylight-plus-fill-light to fill light should be 2:1 or 3:1 an d should seldom exceed 4:1, except w h en a special effect is desired.

COLOR BALANCE: This film is balanced for exposure u n d e r tu n g ste n illu m in atio n a t 3200 K. I t can also be u sed w ith tu n g ste n lam ps at slightly hig h er or low er color tem p e ra tu re s ( Âą 150 K) w ith o u t correction filters, since final color balancing can be done in p rinting.

W hen o th er light sources are used, correction filters are re q u ire d -o fte n for bo th cam era an d lights.

EASTMAN PLUS-X Negative Film 5231 (35 mm) speed an d g rain characteristics m ake it well suited for general m otion p ictu re p ro d u c tio n -b o th outdoors an d in th e studio.

These film ch aracteristics provide a n excellent balance betw een th e m ax im u m desirable speed for general production w o rk an d the fin est g rain negative we offer a t th a t speed.

GENERAL PROPERTIES: The m edium speed of th is pan ch ro m atic film perm its the u se of sm all a p e rtu re s (th u s allowing good depth of field), and the film is widely used for m aking com posite projection b ack g ro u n d scenes.

EXPOSURE INDEXES: W hen u sed for developm ent to a gam m a of 0.65 to 0.70, use a t D a y lig h t-80 an d T u n g s te n -64.

F or fu rth e r in form ation on K odak M otion Picture Film contact y o u r n e a re st K odak b ra n c h office.

M elbourne: 252 Collins Street.

Phone: 6544633.

Sydney: 62 Booth Street, A nnandale.

Phone: 6606666.

B risbane: 252 St. P au l’s Terrace, F ortitu d e Valley. Phone: 521911.

Adelaide: 34 N o rth Terrace.

Phone: 2122411.

Perth: 10 Chilvers Street, Kewdale.

Phone: 4589966.

H obart: 45 E lizabeth Street.

Phone: 342099.

C anberra: 1 Woolley Street, Dickson.

Phone: 487838.

Townsville: 291 F lin d ers Street.

Phone: 723366.

M o tio n P ic tu r e a n d A u d io v is u a l M a r k e t D iv isio n KODAK (A u s tra la s ia ) PTY. LTD.

BOX-OFFICE GROSSES' Newsfront

Distributor

TITLE

PERIOD 28.5.78 to 12.8.78

PERIOD 13.8.78 to 14.10.78 SYD.

MLB.

PTH

ADL

RS

(9)** 160,438

(7)* 145,554

N/A

-

Total BRI.

(6)* 43,022

265,972

2

(7)* 137,958

97,774

3

-

25,736

-

4

-

-

-

7778

5

-

-

6

Mouth to Mouth

RS

(7)* 39,220

(9)* 58,554

-

-

-

Patrick

FW

24,665

-

-

-■

-

The Getting of Wisdom

RS

7778

-

-

-

-

Blue Fire Lady

FW

-

-

-

(1) N/A

-

102,092

(8)

PTH

40,182

84,204

N/A

MLB.

1

(7) 76,174

(7)

SYD.

365,062

FOX

62,572

Total Rank

(6)* 59,070

The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith

(9)*

$

ADL.

BRI.

$

Rank

(2)*

-

-

-

-

40,182

2

-

-

-

266,583

1

-

-

25,736

4

-

-

(7)* 128,625

(3)*

■

(2)*

-

24,665

(1) 2803

(3)

(3)

4015

2739

761,251

182,155

159,903

-

-

(1) 1343

-

4146

9

(1) 160

-

6914

6

1503

-

343,561

308,275

288,312

62,572

Foreign Total

2,866,078

2,079,948

1,352,619

824,975

896,893

8,020,513

2,647,932

2,421,944

1,403,863

915,812

764,736

8,154,287

Grand Total

3,174,353

2,368,260

1,415,191

824,975

998,985

8,781,764

2,830,087

2,581,847

1,403,863

917,315

764,736

8,497,848

Australian Total

(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, January/February — 205

i 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.

-

-

CAN HANNA BARBERA HELP YOU? FILM DISTRIBUTION ANIMATED FEATURES

CHARACTER MERCHANDISING

CORPORATE FILMS

( i

TITLES

ANIMATED SPECIALS

C o m m er c ial ?

Hanna Barbera offers not only an unlimited range of styles but the advantages of full in house production, live action facilities and a comprehensive character merchandising list. Get acquainted with our commercial director Di Rudder 02-439-3877 and discuss how your ideas can be put into pictures.

HANNA-BARBERA PTV. LTD. 3 4 - 3 5 Atchison S tr e e t, St. L e on ard s P.O. Box 2 6 6 , C row s N est, 2 0 6 5 Sydney, N. S.W., A u s tra lia Telephone: 4-30 3 6 7 7

EARL GREY PRODUCTIONS * s p e c ia lis t film a n d s o u n d e d itin g a n d fu ll film p o s t p ro d u c tio n fo r D o c u m e n ta ry , D ra m a E d u ca tio n a l, P op C lips, P.R. a n d In d u s tria l film p ro d u c tio n s . * fu lly e q u ip p e d e d itin g suites c o n v e n ie n tly lo c a te d in S o u th M e lb o u rn e . * p ro fe s s io n a l s o u n d e d itin g se rvice w ith fa c ilitie s fo r m o n ito rin g re co rd s, 1 6 m m a n d Va " re co rd in g s.

♦ C O N T A C T : PETER D O D D S

20 Thomson Street, South Melbourne 3205 Telephone: 699 3947

"

16mm POST PRODUCTION EDITING ROOMS 6 Plate Steenbecks Upright Moviola Mptorised Picsync

DOUBLE SYSTEM THEATRE SOUND TRANSFERS AND RECORDING

has one of the few 6 -plate Steenbecks for hire in Melbourne. Fully equipped editing room available. Rates as low as $ 3 0 a day for bookings of more than a week.

(03) 568 3741

Nagra — Mono — Stereo — SN Cassette 4 Track 1A”

Complete service for field recording 13 Myrtle Street Crows Nest NSW 2065 (02) 922 5650

PRODUCTION REPORT “ Blue Fin” is an action -ad ventu re set among th e people involved in th e hunt fo r th e fam ed southern Blue Fin tuna.

S et in the to w n of S tre ak y Bay, South A ustralia, th e film tells of a young boy’s relationship w ith his fa th e r w ho runs th e tuna boat, Blue Fin. Clum sy, and som ething of a m is fit at school, th e boy is given th e chance to prove him self w hen th e boat is w recked at sea and th e cre w lie dead or injured.

A dapted from th e novel by Colin Thiele, “ Blue Fin” w as produced fo r th e South A ustralian Film Corporation by Hal M cElroy and d irected by Carl S chultz. The film , m ade on a budget of $ 6 9 5 ,0 0 0 , stars Greg R ow e, Hardy K ruger, John J a rra tt, Liddy Clark, Hugh K eays-B yrne and Elspeth Ballantyne.

CARL SCHULTZ DIRECTOR Was it the theme that attracted you to “ Blue Fin” ?

No, the subject matter is only one factor in accepting the assignment; more important is the way you intend making the film.

The subject of a misunderstood child living in a fishing village interests me only inasmuch as it is a human story. Whether he is a youngster or an old man is not important.

In a recent interview*, Sonia Borg described “Blue Fin” as an action film and “Storm Boy” as a poetic story concerned with relationships. Do you think that’s an accurate description?

Yes, because there are so many more physical aspects in Blue Fin. I think Storm Boy is a closer story and the people are more isolated.

Blue Fin concerns the sea; the violence of it and the activity of men trying to extract a living through fishing. This provides a violent backdrop, in front of which is the human story. But Blue Fin is basically an actionadventure film.

“ Blue Fin” is director Carl Schultz’s first theatrical feature. Schultz emigrated to Australia from Hungary at the age of 16 and soon after joined the ABC, working in various capacities, including lighting cameraman and, for the past six years, drama director.

Schultz has an extensive television background. As a television director, his credits include several dramas (including “ The Love” , “ The Infant” , “ Out of Love” and “ The Tichborne Affair”), the Green Room prod­ uction of ‘The Misanthrope’ and the Nimrod Theatre production of ‘A Hard God’.

He also directed episodes of the series “ Over There” , “ Certain Women” , “ Ben H all” , “ The Outsiders” , “ A Touch of Reverence” , “ Behind the Legend” , “ Run from the Morning” and “ Tickled Pink” . After completing “ Blue Fin” , Schultz directed an episode of “ A Place in the Present” , again for the ABC. The following interview, conducted by Peter Beilby and Rod Bishop, covers Schultz’s involvement on “ Blue Fin” , and touches on his departure from the project before it was completed.

“Storm Boy” and “Blue Fin” are essentially children’s films, though “Storm Boy” does appeal to adult audiences. Did you attempt to address your film to a young market?

Given your predom inantly television background, were you surprised to be offered a feature?

The matter was raised, but never resolved, though I am sure many people thought it important.

Nobody ever said this should appeal to 11 year-olds, or this to adults.

I didn’t consider Blue Fin to be a children’s film; I approached it as I would any project — namely, to extract the maximum from the script, the locations and the actors.

No, though I was pleased that the offer came so shortly after I had s ta rte d fre e la n c in g — especially since it was such a major undertaking as Blue Fin. Is shooting for television much different from shooting for cinema?

I thought about this before I started the film, but when it came to the actual shooting I wasn’t aware of such questions. Basically, I don’t think the way you shoot a scene is any way different in either medium. It is more a question of editing: how long you can use a particular shot, and so on.

But you can sustain action in wide shots in cinema which can be difficult to do on television because of the smaller screen. . .

The choreography is different bufonly slightly.

Before you start filming you do try and visualize a scene on a large screen, and plan your shots accordingly. But you don’t keep saying to yourself, “ This shot is going on a big screen, I must shoot it wider.” The process by which you manipulate the actors and cameras is still the same. * Cinema Papers, no. 18, p.109.

208 — Cinema Papers, January/February

I am not sure if the SAFC adopts this attitude intentionally.

Certainly they considered Blue Fin to be a com m erciallyorientated film, and there was pressure to make it successful at the box-office. As a result, people tended to think in terms of ingredients and formulas.

I think it is wrong to consider a film that way. I am not saying that you shouldn’t consider box-office appeal — obviously you should.

But you can’t say, “ Give me a pound of that, and three ounces of that, and mix well” — it’s not a recipe.

I am fairly certain that the success of Storm Boy had a great deal to do with Blue Fin being made. Blue Fin is a similar type of film, and it should appeal to a similar audience. But where Storm Boy was made without a precedent, Blue Fin will have the pressure of Storm Boy’s success on it.

Carl Schultz (at right) directing a fishing sequence on board the Blue Fin.

Was it always your intention to two-way relationship that is move into features? important to a film’s success. In the case of Blue Fin, because of Yes. If you work in television, the number of people involved, you tend to regard cinema as a there was very little contact natural progression. The film between me and Sonia Borg. We b u s i n e s s g iv e s y o u th e had a script editor, Harold Lander, opportunity to work with the who did most of the foot-work elements in a way that television between us. This was not because doesn’t — especially in post­ Sonia and I didn’t see eye to eye, production. You are able to but because of the late stage we manipulate the elements with went into pre-production. Time greater accuracy and time. was pressing and there was little The processes leading up to chance of contact between us: post-production, however, are much the same.

Do you think that situation was a reflection of the South To what extent were you involved Australian Film Corporation’s in rewriting or restructuring the position as a production house? script? “ Blue F in ’’ was no doubt regarded as a formula film, and As soon as a director receives a the iiigredients would have been script he likes to meet the writer decided long before any outside and begin working together. It is a personnel were employed* . .

Did you discuss the project at any stage with Colin Thiele?

No. The only time I met Colin was during the last week of filming; he came to the studio to watch us do some sequences.

I believe Colin prefers not to be involved with the scripting or filming.

“Blue Fin” has been described as presenting a rather romanticized picture of life in a fishing village. . .

When Colin wrote the book about 20 years ago, he was living in Port Lincoln, and I think he rather romanticized the place.

Also, the book is not set in any given period. In fact, when we first discussed the project with art director David Copping, he felt that Blue Fin and Storm Boy had a timeless quality. I think that might

PRODUCTION REPORT

Carl Schultz (left), grip Graeme Mardell and producer Hal McElroy examining the special camera rig.

have contributed to this sense of unreality, or romanticism.

We trie d to give som e background to Blue Fin — the townspeople, the places where they live — but there is no close involvement with any of the minor characters. The film mainly concerns the boy and his family, and as .such there was little o p p o r tu n ity to m ak e th e background more relevant , in terms of today’s reality.

With “ Storm Boy” and “ Blue Fin” , the SAFC is consciously exploiting the educational market. Already in Melbourne and Sydney study guides have appear e d in maj or da i l y newspapers. Is this aspect s o m e t h i n g the producer emphasized during the shooting?

Not really, though the SAFC put a lot of effort into publicizing the film and selling it to schools.

Apart from'needing a good film, you must be able to sell it.

Sometimes films sell themselves, but in this case a great deal of effort has been expended.

While we were making the film there was quite a deal of publicity, and the ABC did a documentary on the making of Blue Fin for schools.

Father and son: Greg Rowe as Snook and Hardy Kruger as Bill Pascde.

On some occasions, it was physically impossible to film, so we had to come back to shallow waters, in the lee of some island.

Then, of course, we had problems of keeping the land out of sight.

The interior scenes on the boat, of course, were done in the studio.

Did you use a camera boat?

Yes, at all times. Johnny Seal, the camera operator, made up a special camera rig which made life a lot easier. It employed counter­ balanced pulleys which enabled us to keep the horizon fairly constant, and gave us some degree of camera mobility. After all, there was no way we could have laid camera tracks.

There are several spectacular special effects in “Blue Fin” , like the storm sequence. How did you shoot those sequences?

All the special effects scenes were done at Streaky Bay on the end of the jetty. We built huge dump tanks there.

What are dump tanks?

Large wooden containers filled with water. At the appropriate time, you pull a lever and 2500 litres of water come gushing down, nearly killing the actors.

The storm is at night, and this SHOO TING AT SEA helped us, in that the effect was fairly localized. Still, it was a major A lot of “Blue Fin” is set at sea. undertaking. The storm takes Did that create many problems about three minutes on screen, during the shooting? and it took four nights to film, which was good given the material I wanted to get a sense of the we finished up with. Everybody sea’s reality, so we decided to do was particularly happy With that most of the filming at sea; that sequence. often meant putting up with All the same, I think six weeks turbulent seas. Once we got is too short a schedule for a film beyond a certain point, the water like Blue Fin, with all its special was generally very rough and the effects. The fishing sequences, for small tuna boats pitched about —1 example, had to be shot out of most of us became queasy from season, and we were pushing all time to time. the time.

Snook contemplates the consequences of playing a practical joke at the Tuna Ball.

What about other effects?

There is a water spout, but you only see a glimpse of it. We did that at the Adelaide University where they have a large glass tank in which they create currents. We m anufactured the effect we wanted in the tank and then matted it into the film.

The actual effect of the water spout hitting the boat was done on the end of the jetty.

What is a water spout?

It o ccurs u n d e r c e rta in atmospheric conditions where the wind, in the eye of the storm, is so strong that it creates a suction, drawing the water up in a sort of column. I have seen films of them and they look very frightening.

However, I am not sure they occur in southern waters.

ACTORS

How did you find working with Greg Rowe? ; Greg is a talented young actor

who has certain charismatic qualities. He is a thoroughly professional actor, and comes onto a set knowing his lines. He can also do a scene over and over again. Sometimes, you even forget he is a child, because he behaves in such an adult way.

Personally, I like him very much.

What about Hardy Kruger?

Like most star actors, Kruger doesn’t create a character, he just superimposes his personality onto a role. He took the character of Pascoe, and Pascoe became Hardy Kruger.

But Kruger is a charming person who wants to be loved, while Pascoe is very harsh. The two characters were in conflict, so we had to make quite a deal of adjustment to accommodate that.

At the same time you can only go so far in recreating the character as written in a script; if you push too far you can destroy both. One must navigate a line between the two, and that is often very difficult.

Continued on p .242 Cinema Papers, January/February — 209

MICHAEL CARLOS COMPOSER When Matt Carroll first spoke to me about scoring Blue Fin I asked him whether it was going to be a follow up to Storm Boy, in w hich case I w ould have considered using the same theme music, or similar instrumentation.

He said that they did not intend promoting it as a sequel, but at that time Greg Rowe had not been firmly cast. I guess it was the decision to use Greg again that made it a sort of Storm Boy II. Once I saw a rough cut it was obvious that we were making a very different sort of film, but I still couldn’t see exactly how they intended treating the father/son situation — i.e. whether it would be milked for pathos — or whether they would just make an action-adventure out of it. The film e n d ed up an a c tio n adventure, but at that stage I didn’t know and couldn’t, there­ fore, decide how to approach the music.

If you start composing, or even seriously “ blocking out” , a film before you see an absolute fine cut, a difference of 2-3 seconds in the length of a key shot can easily disrupt your entire concept by a chain reaction of alterations to the music. Editors may also transpose two scenes at the last minute and completely alter the emphasis of the film. Consequently I don’t believe you should start at the beginning and write music scene by scene; you have to write it all in one big package, since a score is, in fact, one piece of music, not a collection of tunes.

Does that mean you keep a close eye on the editing?

No. I find it very distracting to view lots of rough cuts, and watching the filming is the most boring thing in the world. As a craft, the actual filming has no relation to music and, while inter­ esting, is certainly not inspiring to me. It can only be inspiring if the location is an important element in the film, as in Storm Boy. I found my entire inspiration for that film just standing in the C oorong, m iles away from anyone.

The environment in Blue Fin isn’t unique; it is the universal man/sea theme. For that, it wouldn’t matter if I was sailing around Streaky Bay or a mile off Pitt Water.

Having seen the first cut, what was your next step?

O n c e I saw s o m e t h in g approaching a fine cut on Blue Fin 210 — Cinema Papers, January/February

Composer Michael Carlos, whose musical score for mixing date was immovable. The “ Storm Boy” was a critical success, has again been com­ mix began on the morning of the ird day of the recording missioned by the South Australian Film Corporation, th sessions. That meant, by the this time to score “ Blue Fin” . end of the second night of Carlos came to Australia from Japan in 1967 and recording we had to have enough formed the rock group Tully, which figured in the Sydney music taped to cover the first production of “ Hair” . Carlos then became associate couple of reels — which we did. was easily the highest musical director and principal conductor on Harry M. This pressure job I have done. My M iller’s first production of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’. arranger, Frank Esler-Smith, and His film credits include the shorts, “ Leisure” , and I did six weeks work in three. “ Listen to the Lion” , the television series, “ Run from Has an editor or director ever the Morning” , and the features, “ Sunday Too Far requested certain sound accom­ Away” , “ Long Weekend” , and “ Dawn!” Carlos, who is paniments to be integrated into presently scoring Tom Jeffrey’s “ The Odd Angry Shot” your composition? works from home where he has a sophisticated recording Not on Blue Fin, but it has studio. happened in the past. I have found Carlos was interviewed by Peter Beilby and Cameron that editors and directors are Allan. He begins by discussing how he became involved increasingly looking to musicians with “ Blue Fin” . to provide them with on-the-spot

I realized that the music was going to be from Snook’s point of view; that was how I needed to write it.

I felt that the music had to be something that a young audience could relate to. So I imposed the restriction on myself of writing in what were essentially rock forms.

But I couldn’t relate the film to a rock band, with its electric guitars and drums, so I went back to thinking about the elements of the film — the earth and wind and sea.

Finally, I decided to use a rhythm section of four acoustic guitarists, with a fairly substantial orchestra laid over the top to provide the dynamics and color.

I then blocked out the music, deciding what sort of treatment I needed in each spot. After that the mathematics came into it, and-I am lucky enough to have a computer to help me with them (see diagram A).

The other thing to remember is that the film has nothing to do with people’s everyday lives: it is

pure fantasy. I have even been told they don’t fish like that any more; they just go out with huge nets and haul them in, a hundred tonne at a time. The poles on the back of the boat are a thing of the last decade.

Were you working to an image at this stage?

Yes, to a videotape of a rough cut. But that was getting finer, day by day, and I was getting closer to being able to respond to the film in its entirety. Ultimately, the approaching deadline forced me to start composing reel by reel, contrary to my usual system. Iu was o n ly b e c a u s e o f th e experience I had built doing other films that I was able to do this. I am coming to understand editing more even though rough cuts can be very misleading.

On Blue Fin, however, they had already started the promotion, and the release date was set, so the

inspiration.

I often say to a director, “ You know where you’d like the music to go, now let me look at it and decide what I think. After that we can compare.” That way you can easily find out if you are on the same wavelength.

To a certain extent that is what we did on Blue Fin. After I saw some rough cut reels, I blocked out what I thought would go and then got together with John M o rris and R od A d am so n [editor]. My views were pretty much in line with theirs, so I knew where I stood.

Collaboration with the editor and director is part of creating a score and often the interaction can be very exhilarating. On Long Weekend, for example, I reached the point where I was composing music with the director [Colin Eggleston] sitting beside me. Now I find even playing a theme for the first time to someone such a nerve-racking experience that the last thing I would ever have dreamed of wanting was someone sitting next to me watching me com pose. But C olin and I achieved a kind of friendship that I didn’t think was possible. His feedback was invaluable.

On Blue Fin I missed that response because John Morris, who was virtually my director after Carl left, was a thousand m iles away. It was a b it frightening.

You had worked with Carl Schultz before . ..

Yes, on Run From The Morning, which was a lot of fun and a good experience. I had looked forward to working with Carl again on Blue Fin, hut suddenly there was this about

PRODUCTION REPORT

face. I found it very strange at first, because it had taken me years to separate successfully the different functions and attitudes of a director and producer. Now, I had to reverse the roles.

But I had good communication with John, and after the mix he told me that I had done exactly what he had asked for, and more.

That is my greatest reward, because if the person I am artist­ ically responsible to likes the music, then to me the job is well done.

A screenwriter and an editor often have the chance to re-work what they have done. Would you like that chance?

Yes, though it is usually the mix I would like to do again.

Did that happen on “Blue Fin” ?

There were a few things I didn’t like, but they were minor. The mix actually got better as it went along, and by reel five the level was up to where I imagined it would be.

I had a horrifying experience when they first mixed some of the music. Rod Adamson rang me at the recording studio and said that the music for the race sequence

didn’t have enough drive. I couldn’t believe it, and said I sus­ pected that it was being mixed too low. The next day I saw the dubbing editor going out of his mind trying to re-lay 9 reels of boat engine effects because they weren’t getting through the music — a clear case of trying to hear too much at once. Rod rang me later and said that with the music louder it was working; needless to say I was relieved.

It is important that the relative dynamics of music, dialogue and sound effects be clearly defined early in a composer’s job, since what was intended to be loud music cannot be made soft simply by turning it down. A great deal of a piece of music’s emotional quality comes from the energy used by the musicians in their per­ formance. This is expressed in the very tone of the instruments, as well as in the phrasing and attack of the notes. For music to be able to contribute anything to a film these fundamental principles must not be tampered with.

Ideally, every dynamic nuance required by a film score should be written into the score itself, the faders being left static during the film mix. This is certainly not always achievable, but if the alteration of the musical dynamics

Bill Pascoe (Hardy Kruger), the seasoned captain of the Blue Fin.

required in the film mix is too extreme, the track should either be remixed or, if necessary, re­ recorded entirely.

What I’m trying to say is that because we are forced by the time and budget limitations of these productions to make music by clairvoyance of what the final thing is going to sound like, I often wish we had the chance to correct our mistakes by other than musically unnatural methods. One of the greatest tools of the composer is his dynamics and if he cannot depend on the fact that a mezzo-forte string chord in one scene will be heard at the same volume as a mezzo-forte string chord in another, then this entire aspect of the craft is lost.

Unnatural dynamics sound as obvious and contrived to a musician as the old “ Hollywood night shot” looks to a cameraman.

Modern films go to great lengths to ensure the realism of night shots (light dynamics) and yet music is still being faded up and down to suit the effects.

There seems to be an obsession in Australian films to post-sync, an effect for every single thing that moves — every wrinkle of clothes, a footstep in the sand.

To what extent do you underscore scenes with music?

At the height of the storm, one of the Blue Fin crew is washed overboard.

My biggest mistake on Storm Boy was writing onomatopoeic music for the storm; it sounded so like the storm it was lost in the ;effects. I then realized that music probably shouldn’t be trying to do :that in films, unless someone specifically requested it.

The same thing with the dune buggies. I wrote music that sounded like six dune buggies driving around in your head, but when the mixer dropped in the sound effect of real dune buggies, you couldn’t hear either one clearly — it was just a great roar.

I think I can avoid that trap

now, though it’s a natural one to fall into, especially when scoring a film to an image without sound effects.

How much communication was there between you and the effects editor on “Blue Fin” ?

We tried to keep in touch as much as •possible, but he was laying effects right through the mix, and I was elsew here recording. That difficulty of being continually informed seems a pretty normal state of affairs in this country.

One thing I made sure of on Blue Fin was to listen to different perspectives of the boat. That way I felt I could be sure I had the right image of the boat in mind.

In “Newsfront”, for example, music also performs a sound effects function, providing musical effects for bits of action, like a car going round a corner.

Do you ever employ that technique?

That was part of an overall technique I assume Bill Motzing used to create an old-fashioned sounding score. I tend to think of those devices as being oldfashioned; they remind me of an Elmer Bernstein score — not that Bernstein wrote bad scores, even if they tend to be a little MickeyMouse.

Were you required, on “Blue Fin” , to create strong theme music which could accompany a character, or could lend itself to being released on record as the film’s theme?

It was Bruce Beresford1 who First spoke of a theme. Sure, every 1. Bruce Beresford shot some linkage material on Blue Fin after Carl Schultz left the production.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 211

PRODUCTION REPORT

7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

0

0.5 0.903 5.705 11.563 15.835 22.98 31.018 44.729 50.271 4.188 22.438 38.771 53.771 58.021

LABEL

BEAT

START SAM 2ND SAM SNIFFS SAM SEES GAS FIRST SAM CHOKING NEXT EXT NEXT SAM CHOKING P: •'SAM " PASC0E ALONE ON DECK CU SNOOK JODY AT HELM AERIAL BLUEFIN H0S PASC0E JODY AT CUPBOARD

1 1 9

A

5 9 12

17 23 32 36 46 58 70 80 83

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 h 11 11 11 it :i 11 11 « 11 it 11 11 11 h 11

24 /0 LABEL

BEAT 11 11 11 11 11 11 n 11 » 11

ii h h

11 11

h h h

» 11 h » 11 11 » 11 11 11 11

h h

11 11 11 h 11 11 11 11 11 11 H 11 11 11 h 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

11 H il II il

h

= = = = = = =

START SAM 2ND SAM SNIFFS SAM SEES GAS FIRST SAM CHOKING NEXT EXT NEXT SAM CHOKING P: "SAM"' PASC0E ALONE ON DECK CU SNOOK JODY AT HELM AERIAL BLUEFIN H0S PASC0E JODY AT CUPBOARD

CLICK ERROR

+ 1/3 - 1/3 + 1/23 : +: : +; -1 /2 + 1/9 :* : - 1/3 + 1/3 - 1/3 + 1/7 + 1/10

PAGE 001 00 /OO

TEMPLE

. SA: 0

1ST SHOT OF

STONE DOG AT TEMPLE

/

BUNG IN GRASS

/

MS BUNG S HARRY HIGH MASS JOKE

/

BUNG ..SEX CRAZED THING

/

NEXT SHOT OF STONE DOG

______ / _ _ .

DIA: BEGINNING OF BUGGER ALL LINE

/

BILL SAVED AGAIN

CLICK ERROR

/

LAST SHOT OF DOG

/

HARRY IN JUNGLE

__/__

BILL ..PASSIQNA

:* : + 1/2 -1 /1 0 - 1/3 13 - 1/2 17 - 1/6 ï*; 24 :* ; 32 46 - 1/4 51 + 1/4 65 + 1/5 83 + 1/2 100 - 1/4 115 - 1/4 119 :* : ======= ====— ==_= 1 1 2 7

W hen asked about the m echanics of the com puter, Carlos pressed a button on it and out cam e the follow ing explanation. “ N e w f ilm : a c o n v e rs io n a n d f ile s y s te m f o r u s e in th e te d io u s c r a f t o f film s c o re c o m p o s itio n .

“This system makes use of the Qasar Dual Processor Micro Computer and related software developed by Fairlight Instruments Pty Ltd of Rushcutters Bay, Sydney. The program is written in 8k Basic by Michael Carlos.

“A list of timings and associated labels, or descriptions, may be entered either as Time or Footage. Once entered, the list may be manipulated or analyzed in many different ways. A file is maintained on floppy disc for every scene entered in this way and may be printed as hard copy for use during recording or track laying.

“The need for the traditional “click track book” is eliminated completely since the computer handles all click related mathematics and gymnastics. For instance, a search may be made through either the entire range of click tempi, or a two frame window of tempi extending one frame either side of a selected tempo with a displayed record of how many

212 — Cinema Papers, January/February

Print-out is a list of timings for scene from “Blue Fin” showing beat number, and amount and direction of error ("*" means + /- 1V2 frames) for two different tempi.

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 h 11 11

D=== ==== AMMONIA cun MIN/SEC :::====== = 1 0 / 0 9 0 / 0.5 3 0 / 0.903 4 0 / 5.705 5 0 / 11.563 6 0 / 15.835 7 0 / 22.98 8 ' 0 / 31.018 9 0 / 44.729 0 / 50.271 10 11 1 / 4.188 12 1 / 22.438 13 1 / 38.771 14 1 / j >5. / / 1 15 1 / 58.021 :::=== = ====

!

H II ii ii II

3 4 5 6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

34

h 11 h h h h

1 9

h

zz

11 11 h 11 11 h 11 11 h II II II II II II II

11 II 11 II It II tl It II

======= AHMONIA cu n MIN/SEC

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 h 11 ii it 11 11 11 h 11 h 11

Diagram A.

/

CU VC'S FACE WHILE PISSING

/

MS HARRY BILL, BUNG, MOVE!

/

LAST SHOT IN REEL 5

/

END OF REEL

The above is a list of footages required from editors of The Odd Angry Shot.

cues are hit exactly ( + / - 1 Vfeframes) by each tempo. Such a search of the entire tempo range is very useful when dealing with complex action scenes with many sync points since it has been found personally that inspiration may sometimes come from a suitable tempo.

“One of the most useful functions is Offset, whereby the entire !ist of cue timings may be increased or decreased by a constant. Before the exact start point of a sequence is known, this allows you to experiment by offsetting the list of cues and recalculating the net results in terms of suitability of tempo; positioning of cues within bar structure; etc. Such experimenting literally takes hours of the composer’s limited time when aided by a pocket calculator. The computer can do it in seconds and you need never put pen to paper until you are satisfied with your mathematics.

“Thepotential development of this system is virtually unlimited and soon will extend into programmable rails, accells, etc. with the click itself recorded on time coded UMatic Cassette. Even in this prototype stage, however, the film composer is virtually free from all mathematic drudgery and brain overload usually associated with this very exacting art. More time spent composing instead of calculating can only mean a better score.”

PRODUCTION REPORT

film needs a strong theme, but those that are truly memorable are usually so because they can be sung, or because people re ­ member the feeling.

I think part of that psychology, and what I set out to do on Blue Fin, is to place the theme within the range of the human voice.

That way people are capable of humming the melody without having to jump octaves or switch keys.

Does the “Blue Fin” theme recur in different forms throughout the film?

Yes, many times. There is also a kind of sub theme, which is a fantasy on a guitar figure that appears in the main theme. I just developed that feel.

Once your music is fixed, what role do you play in the final quality of the optical track?

On Blue Fin they had already gone to optical by the time I saw the mix. I had no control.

What do you think of the standard of optical tracks in Australia?

My main feeling is that it is about time we went to stereo.

Film producers and directors can’t seem to realize what they are losing out on. Only the other day I spoke to Tom Jeffrey about time effect in stereo. Most people think of stereo as two amplifiers and throwing something up in one and down in the other — i.e., basic stereo panning. But panning only creates a stereo image that is accurate midway between the speakers. If you move to one side, the image appears to come solely from that side.

However, for a long time now in the audio recording industry, people have been using timevariable stereo to delay an effect on one side. With delays, you can fool your ears into thinking som ething is in a particular location much more accurately than you can by changing the

instruments a great deal. In fact, Blue Fin is my only film that has no electronics in it, except for an effect I generated for the water spout.

On Long Weekend, for example, I first put down the strings and timpani, then put down layers of electronic instru­ ments on top. I processed the strings in timpani (kettle drums) through synthesizers, so 90 per cent of what you hear is me.

However, I would never use a synthesizer to reproduce a real instrument; it doesn’t interest me.

If you want an oboe, it is much easier to get one and then find somebody to play it.

The synthesizer opens a fantasy The battered Blue Fin after being hit by the water spout. world where you can literally have relative volumes. Also, wherever dynamics of the music at a ratio of anything you want, so why you sit you get a stereo image, and two to one. In other words, it duplicate existing sounds? it almost takes on a three- halves the dynamics on record and dimensional perspective as you doubles them on replay. This Many Australian producers and move around. means you effectively double the c o mp o s e r s wa nt to work People keep talking about the signal to noise ratio of your tape overseas. Does it tempt you? perspective of sound, but almost recorders. all they ever deal with is reverb or I have been told Magna-tech Yes, but only financially, equalization. They only use two dubbers get at least 50 to 60 db because I just can’t see how I can basic tools, instead of making use signal to noise ratio. Now you are make a living in Australia unless of modern audio technology. talking about a 100 — 120 db the budgets start getting a lot signal to noise ratio with DBX. bigger. Since I started working in Why do you think Australia has When you have 16 or 18 films, the budgets haven’t gone been so slow in introducing dubbers all lined up and going up appreciably, yet my physical stereo tracks? together, there is a terrible costs have more than doubled. additive noise problem. Most On Blue Fin, I underestimated Probably, the cost. people in the film industry seem the copying fees by 300 per cent. to be immune to it, but it’s there The bill was more than $1000 — What do you think of the Dolby all the time — even though it’s that’s l/12th of my budget. system?

Also, every time you see a there less on the Dolby tracks we hear. musician sitting in a studio, it is Dolby is all very well, though I The Dolby and DBX systems costing you about $55 a call and am not sure what they mean when are non-linear in their frequency the studio is about $85 an hour. they write “ Dolby soundtrack” response, but the DBX can That adds up quickly. on an overseas film. Do they compress and alter the frequency mean ju st the optical and responses, correcting in the Have you been tempted to go to magnetic film part is Dolby replay. There is no way you can Los Angeles or London because processed, which is decoded in the put a signal on to an optical track the facilities in Australia are t h e a t r e , or do they mean that it is not capable of repro­ inadequate? everything, each step of the way, ducing. And with such a dramatic is Dolby processed? improvement in the signal to No. I tend to accept limitations As far as I am concerned the noise ratio, if you want wind as a function of the job, and not DBX process is more efficient chimes in a film, you will get wind worry about what could or might than Dolby for removing tape chimes, not broken bits of china. be. noise. It is also cheaper.

However, overseas films do Do you like to use synthetically- seem to be mixed with a greater What is the DBX process? generated sounds for your sensitivity to the emotional needs scores? of the film than they are here. I guess it’s just a matter of more It is what they call a compander, because it compresses all the I wo r k wi t h e l e c t r o n i c experience for all of us. ★

Elspeth Ballantyne and Hardy Kruger as Mrs and Mr Pascoe..

Snook consoles his sister Ruth (Liddy Clark) during the search for her fiance after a storm hits his tuna boat.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 213

‘Patrick.’ Another great Australian movie filmed oh 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.

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.

a high-speed, double-masked original negative film.

Discriminating European, and now Australian film-makers make it their choice.

BRISBANE.

ADELAIDE.

PERTH.

^Registered trademark of AGFA-GEVAERT Antwerp/Leverkusen.

TELEX FROM AGFA-GEVAERT MOTION PICTURE FILM DEPARTMENT, ANTWERP, TO AGFA-GEVAERT KOTiON PICTURE FILM Dj.PARTME^ MELBOURNE.

AJ«onFD UNANIMOUSLY TO

RE « DEN PALM) DU F E S T IV A L ’ AWARDED JNANl -'PALM E D OR (GOLDEN z0CC01_ , • * D IRECTED AND rn I TALI AN F I EM ALBERO q N GEVACOLOR NE^ 1 ^ V E H L M s 6

BY ERMANNO O LM I, SHOr GEVACOLOR NEGATIVE F I L M M ST O L ,‘ -

HED FROM IT A LY

PRODUCTION SURVEY Progress............................ Awaiting release Still photography.................. Ponch Hawkes Release date.........................February 1979 Prod asst..................................................GregRicketson Cast: Michele Fawdon, Alan Cassell, Bryan Catering..................... Richard Ford and Co. FEATU R ES Brown, Harry Michael, Anna Hruby, Bob Driver........................................ Jim Edwards Hughes, Sophia Haskas, Sarah McKenzie, Best boy....................................................SamBienstock FOR THEATRICAL Judy Stevenson, Bobble Ward, Gerry Focus puller............ .....................Jan Kenny Gallagher, Annibale Migllucci, Vic Rooney, Clapper/loader..... ............ Kevin Anderson RELEASE Frankie J. Holden, Jim Karangis, Kay Yates, Key grip.................................................. PaulAmmitzbol Kurt Jansen, Mathew Scerfield, Liz Marshall, Gaffer........................................ Mick Morris Lex Marinos, Mike Harris, Roy Corbett, Costume/wardrobe.............................. RoseChong, Gareth W ilding-Forbes, N icole Barrett, Margot Lindsay Note: Unless otherwise stated, the films Petros Printizis, Randy Costa, Bernadette Make-up............................ Annie Pospischil mentioned below are 35mm.

Scarcella, Flavla Arena, Linda Newton, Standby props.........................................JohnKoning Arthur Dignam, Grant Dodwell, Steven Set decorator.........................................AnnieBrowning Thomas, Tim Burns, Don Bridges, Willie Budget.......................................... $350,000 Pre-Production Fennell, George Velentzas, Rista Ninou, Length................................................. 94 min Stella Yeromitsou, Maroula Rota, Yannis Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Flrios.

Progress............................ Awaiting release S y n o p s is : In 1 9 7 3 a G re e k -b o rn Release date................ April 1979 THE CAPTIVES naturalized Australian, John Baikas, left Cast: Bruce Spence,Natalie Bate, Max Sydney with his three year-old daughter, Prod company............................ The Grundy Gillies, Dick May, TimRobertson, Jack Maris, bound for Athens.

He left the country Perry, Irene Hewitt, Alan Rowe, Esme Organisation TIM with a forged passport for Maris, thus Melville, Terry McDermott, Bill Garner, Kerry Producer................................. Roger Mirans removing her from the protection of an Prod company.........

Pisces Productions P/L Dwyer, Helen Sky, Paul Hampton, Evelyn Director................................... Howard Rubie Australian court. This action launched an Dist company.......... GUO Film Distributors Krape, Val Jellay, Sue Ingleton, Laurel Frank, Scriptwriters....................... Bruce Wishart, international manhunt and created world Claire Dobbin, John Murphy, Fay Mokotow, Ron McLean Producer, director and Clare Binney, Max Fairchild, Phil Motherwell, Gauge.......................................... '... 16 mm scrip tw rite r..............................Michael Pate headlines. Cathy Baikas knew nothing of legal loopholes and extradition treaties — Barry Barkla, Matt Burns, Frankie Raymond, (Blow-up to 35 mm) Based on the novel by Colleen McCullough Max Cullen, Chad Morgan, Sandra Evans, Progress................................Pre-production Photography............................ PaulOnorato she only wanted her child. The film is the The Captain Matchbox Band.

Synopsis: A journey turns into a nightmare Sound recordist..................... Les McKenzie story of Cathy’s (successful) attempt to be S ynopsis: A comedy that traces the when a light aircraft is forced down in Editor......................................... DavidStiven re-united with her child. unusual social history of a small country central Australia.

Art director................................. John Carroll town over the three days that lead up to the In Production Composer...................................... ErlcJupp marriage of Maureen Delaney to Morrie DAWN! KOSTAS Assoc producer.............. Geoffrey Gardiner Prod manager....................................... Betty Barnard Prod companies..........................AquataurusFilmMcAdam.

Prod company.................. Illumination Films Prod secretary... Rosanne Andrews-Baxter Producer.................................. RossDImsey Productions P/L, FELICITY Producer's asst..................Christopher Pate GRENDEL GRENDEL GRENDEL South Australian Director............. ............................ Paul Cox Unit manager............................... Mark Piper Prod company....... Krystal Film Productions Film Corporation Scriptwriter.— ......................................LindaAronson Producers.. r ................. Phillip Adams and 1st asst director............ ... Michael Mldlam Producer........................................ JoyCavill Dist company...........Roadshow Distributors From an original concept by Paul Cox Alexander Stitt 2nd asst director.................................. KeithHaygate Director.................................................... KenHannam Producers........................ John Lamond and Sound re co rd ist..................... John Phillips Director, scriptwriter............ Alexander Stitt 3rd asst director....................... Ben Cardillo Scriptwriter................................... JoyCavill Art director.......................Alan Stubenrauch Russell Hurley Based on the novel by John Gardner Continuity.....................................

Linda Ray Photography.............................. Russell Boyd Director....................................................JohnLamond Assoc producer.........Tony Llewellyn-Jones Designer............................... Alexander Stitt Boom operator...................

Andrew Duncan Sound re c o rd is t....................................

Ken Hammond Scriptwriter........................................

FelicityRobinson Prod manager...................... Pamela Van Eck Composer............................ Bruce Smeaton Casting........................................Felippa Pate Editor— ................................. Max Lemon Photography........................................ GarryWapshott 1st asst director..................... Bernard Eddy Animation director.................. Frank Hellard Prod accountant.....................................

Lyn Barker Art director............................................

Ross Major Sound recordist.....................

John Phillips Continuity....... ..........................Ann McLeod Principal animators............ David Atkinson, Still photography............ Robert Moorehead Exec producer........................................... JillRobb Editor..................................... Russell Hurley Prod accountant....................... Sonny Naidu Gus McLaren, Catering............................................... Jem'sCatering Art director........................ Stephen Wallace Assoc producer................. Sandra McKenzie Still photography.................................. Julie Mlllowick Ralph Peverill Best boy.................................................... TedWilliams Prod manager......................................... RossMatthews Exec producer................... William Marshall Clapper/loader........................Sandra irvine Recording studio............ A & M Studios P/L Producer's secretary..............................LynnHyem Prod manager................... Tom Broadbridge Prod associate...................................... Gloria Payten Camera a s s t......................... Bryan Gracey Recording supervisor.................... Alt Bean Camera operator................................... FrankHammond 1st asst director............................... Miki Ko Prod secretary...................................... JennyTosolini Key grip..................................... JohnTwegg Laboratory.................................................VFL Focus puller.........................................

David Brostoff Prod assts.....................

Graham McKinney, Continuity...............................................Diane Morris Asst grip................................................ PaddyReardon B u d g e t........................................ $550,000 Clapper/loader.............. Richard Merryman Boom operator....................................... RayPhillips Shooting stock............ .......... Eastmancolor JackZalkans Length................................................. 90 min Key grip.................................

Ross Erikson Location manager............

Beverly Davidson Camera asst........................................

Denis Nikolic Progress................................. Pre-production Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Asst grip................................................ PaulThompson Story editor............................... Moya Wood Key grip................................... George Turner C ast: Takis Emmanuel. Others to be Progress................................In production Gaffer.....................................................Derek Jones 1st asst director...................................

Mark Egerton Gaffer........................................................Ray Thomas finalized.

Release date.......................Christmas 1980 Asst editor......................................... JoannaLynes 2nd asst director.................................. PennyChapman Electrician...................................Ray Thomas Synopsis: Set in Melbourne today, Kostas Voices: Peter Ustinov, Keith Michell, Arthur Sound editor............................................. TimWellburn Asst editor............................................ Jackie Hokarth 3rd asst director........................ Scott Hicks concerns the love-affair between Kostas, a Dignam, Ed Rosser, Bobby Bright, Ric Stone, Costume/wardrobe....................................Pat Forster Continuity................................................

Lyn McEncroe Costume/Wardrobe..............................

DianeMorris Greek, and Carol a middle-class Australian Julie McKenna.

Make-up and hairdresser___Michelle Lowe Boom operator............................. Joe Spinelli Make-up........................ Margaret Archmen divorcee. Divided by barriers of culture and Props buyer.......................... Barbara Gibbs Prod accou n ta n t.......................Jean Findlay Asst art director.................................... PeterWalsh language they come together in what is a Standby props..................................... PhilipWorth Still photography................................. DavidKynoch B u d g e t........................................ $200,000 Post Production sensitive love story and a story of the new Budget.......................................... $650,000 Technical advisor.................................. DawnFraser Length................................................ 90 min multi-racial Australia.

Length............................................ 100 min Research.................................................. SueWildProgress............................ Awaiting release Progress..............................Post-production Catering................... John and Lisa Faithfull Release date............................ January 1979 THE MINISTER’S MAGICIAN Release date........................ February 1979 Best boy................................... Craig Bryant Cast: Glory Amen, Chris Milne, Jom Flynn, Prod company.........Australian International THE LAST OF THE KNUCKLEMEN Jody Hansen, Marilyn Rodgers, Gordon Cast: Piper Laurie, Mel Gibson, Alwyn Runner........................................ Mark Piper Film Corporation Pty. Ltd. Kurts, Pat Evison, Deborah Kennedy.

Charles.

Camera operator.........................John Seale For F.G. Film Productions Pty. Ltd. No details available.

Synopsis: A love story of an older woman Focus pullers................... David Williamson, Synopsis: A young "Emmanuellete" story Producer..........................Antony I. Ginnane and younger man. tracing the adventures of Felicity Robinson Jan Kenny Director.................................. Simon Wincer MY BRILLIANT CAREER and her sexual awakening in the exotic and Clapper/loaders........................................JanKenny, Scriptwriter................ .

Everett de Roche erotic Orient.

Prod company.........................Margaret Fink Andre Fleuren Photography....................... Vincent Monton Awaiting Release Films P/L Key grip................................... Ross Erikson Composer.................................... Brian May Dist company............ GUO Film Distributors Asst grip...................................Dennis Smith Exec producer.................... William Fayman MAD MAX Producer................................ Margaret Fink Gaffer...................................................... TonyTegg Assoc producer....... .............. Barbl Taylor Prod company......................... Mad Max P/L Director............................ Gillian Armstrong Electrician............................... Ralph Storey Prod secretary.......................... Jenny Barty Dist company...........Roadshow Distributors Scriptwriter..................... Eleanor Witcombe Asst editor...............................................ZsoltKallanyi Casting................................... . . Barbi Taylor CATHY’S CHILD Producer.............................. Byron Kennedy Based on the novel by Miles Franklin Sound editor.............................. Bob Cogger Length............................................... Feature Prod company..........................C.B. Films P/L Director...................................

George Miller Photography........................................... DonMcAlpine Asst sound editor................. Shirley Kennard Gauge.............................. 35mm Panavision Dist company.......... Roadshow Distributors Scriptwriters............. James McCausland, Sound recordist........... .........Don Connolly Edge numberer...................................... GuyHodson Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Producers........................ Errol Sullivan and George Miller Editor.....................................NickBeauman Costume designer............. Judith Dorsman Progress................................ Pre-Production Dick Wordley Photography.............................David Eggby Prod designer........................ Luciana Arrighi Director.................................... Don Crombie Make-up................................... Peggy Carter Synopsis: A political thriller of suspense Sound recordist.......................Gary Wllkens Assoc producer.......................... Jane Scott Scriptwriter.............................. Ken Quinnell Hairdresser..............................Jenny Brown and intrigue.

Editors..................................................... TonyPaterson, Prod supervisor.......................... Jane Scott Standby wardrobe................................. FionaNicholls Based on the novel by Dick Wordley Cliff Hayes Production secretary___Helen Everingham Asst ward robe........................ Joyce Stokes MONKEYGRIP Photography............................ Gary Hansen Art director................................................ JonDowdlng Unit manager, Prop masters........................ Martin McAdoo, Sound recordist............................ Tim Lloyd Prod company...........Clare Beach Films P/L Composer...................................... BrianMay location manager.................................. ToivoLember Neil Angwin Editor...................................... Tim Wellburn Producer................................ Patricia Lovell Assoc producer..........................................BillMiller 1st asst director...................... MarkEgerton Prod designer................. ............Ross Major Standby props........................................ KenJames Director.............. , .................. Ken Cameron Prod co-ordinator.......................... Jenny Day 2nd asst director................... Mark Turnbull Asst props.............................................. AnnBrowning Scriptwriter............................ Ken Cameron Composer...................................Bill Motzing Unit manager............................John Hipwell 3rd asst director....................Steve Andrews Set dresser.......................................... AnnieBleakley Based on the novel Monkeygripby Helen Prod asst......................... Tom Broadbridge Continuity................................. Moyalceton Prod manager............................. Pom Oliver Set construction..................... Herbert Pinter Garner Prod secretary........................................

'Susi Parker 1st asst director...................................... IanGoddard Boom Operator...................... Jack Friedman B u d g e t........................................ $762,391 Length................................................. Feature 1 st asst director....... ............. Mark Egerton 2nd asst director................................. SteveConnard Casting consultants.........M & L Casting P/L Length............................................. 115 min Progress.................

Pre-production 2nd asst director................. .

Mark Turnbull 3rd asst director..................................... DesSheridan Children's dialogue coach Michael Caulfield Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor S yn o psis: ‘Smack habit, love habit — Production accountant......... Treisha Ghent Continuity..............................Adrienne Read Progress............................. Awaitingrelease Boom Operator....... ...........Jack Friedman what’s the difference? They both can kill Book keeper.............................................PamO’Neill C a s t: B ronw yn M a ckay-P a yn e , Tom you.' Nora's addiction is romantic love; Still photography.................... DavidKynoch Casting consultants.........M & L Casting P/L Richards, Bunney Brooke, Ron Haddrick, Prod a ccountant................ Geoff Cameron J a v o 's Is hard drugs. Nora, ‘a fa s t Catering................... John and Lisa Faithfull Gabrielle Hartley, John Diedrlch, Ivar Kants, fa ke r... neat, sharp and steady’, and Javo, Saddle horse wrangler.. . Harold Greensill Still photography..............David Williamson David Cameron, John Clayton, Bill Charlton, her violently blue-eyed lover, are trapped in Animal/vehicle wrangler............ John Baird Catering...................................................John Faithfull Lyndall Barbour, Kevin Wilson, Reg Gillam, Best boy................................... PaulGantner a desperate relationship. The harder they Best boy...................................PaulGantner Stuart Finch, Diana Davidson, Judy Farr, Runner.......................................Sandy Beach pull away, the tighter the monkey grip.

Runner, producer’s asst......... Cathy Barber John Armstrong.

Synopsis: Drama based on the personal life Camera operator..........................Louis Irving Focus puller............................................. PaulMurphy SPARKS Camera asst........................................ AndreFleuren story of Australian swimming champion, Focus puller........................................... DavidBurr Prod company....................... Voyager Films Key grip................................................

Ross Erikson Dawn Fraser.

Clapper/loader.............. Richard Marryman Producer.................................................DavidElfick Key grip.................................... RossErikson Gaffer................................ Brian Bansgrove Director..................................................... IanBarry Electrician.......................

Graham Litchfield Grip................................... Graham Litchfield DIMBOOLA Scriptwriter.............................................. IanBarry, Asst editor............................ Vicky Ambrose Gaffer........... ................... Brian Bansgrove Prod company......................... Pram Factory Bert Deling Sound editor............................................. TimWellburn Third electrics.......................................... PaulMoyes Pictures (Management) P/L Budget.......................................... $750,000 Mixer........................................ Peter Fenton Generator operator.............. Sam Bienstock Dist company............ GUO Rim Distributors Length................................................. Feature Make-up........................................ Liz Michie Asst editor.......................Frans Vandenburg Producer...................................

JohnWeiley Progress................................. Pre-production Props buyer and Dubbing editor............................... Greg Bell Director................................................. JohnDuigan Include your current and future Synopsis: Sparks tells of an incredible standby props...................................... John Carroll Asst dubbing editor................... Helen Brown Scriptwriter..............................Jack Hibberd journey through the brain of a man who is a projects in our production Musical director....................... NathanWaks Construction.......................................... DanleDaems Photography.......................................... TomCowan survey listings. Forward details.

Publicity............................................... SherryStrum film director. After he is blinded by a freak Art director................................................ NeilAngwin Sound recordist........................

Lloyd Carrick accident, he seeks to continue his career.

GREECE: and stills to: Costume designer.................................. AnnaSenior Editor.................................................... TonyPaterson Sound recordist............ Thanassis Arvantis Make-up.................................................... JillPorter THIRST Art director.......................... Larry Eastwood Prod manager...................................... AspaLambrou Hairdresser.......................... Cheryl Williams Composer............................ George Dreyfus Location manager.........Michalis Lambrinos Prod company.........Australian International P roduction Survey, Wardrobe master................................... TerryRyan Film Corporation Pty. Ltd. Asst director___ Yoannis Diamantopoulous Assoc producers.....................................JohnTimlin, Cinema Papers, Max Gillies - For F.G. Film Boom operator....................... NikosAhladis Prod manager..........................................VickiMolloy Productions Pty. Ltd. Best boy..................... ....... Kostas Danalis 644 V ic to ria St., Prod secretary...................

Laurel Crampton Asst accountant......................................LedaAndroulikaki Producer.......................... Antony I. Ginnane N orth M elbourne 3051.

Cinema Papers cannot and does not accept Asst cameraman................... Nikos Paizanos 1st asst director............ Walter Dobrowolski Director........................................ Rod Hardy any responsibility for inaccuracies resulting T elephone: (03) 329 5983 Props................................... Henry Kaloutas Continuity...................................... Jill Taylor Scriptwriter..............................John Pinkney from w ro n g ly com ple te d or untyped Rushes synching............ George Trianafillou Boom operator.......................................... PhilStirling Photography....................... Vincent Monton production survey details.

Prod accountant............ — Peter Keenan Driver..............................................Thanassis Lagaros Composer..................................... Brian May Exec producer.................... William Fayman Assoc producer........................ Barbi Taylor Prod secretary.......................... Jenny Barty Casting........................................ Barbi Taylor Length................................................. Feature Gauge......... ............ .

35mmPanavision Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Progress................................. Pre-Production Cast: Chantal Contouri.

Synopsis: A suspense thriller set in the present Kate, a career girl with a steady boyfriend Derek, is tracked down by the members of the mysterious HYMA group.

They are in fact a society of vampires who believe they have recognised Kate as being descended from an illustrious, aristocratic, Austrian vampire family of the 18th century.

Kate is kidnapped by the group and they take her to their secret farm headquarters w here strin ge n t e ffo rts are made to convince her of her ancestry. Kate resists with all her might but after numerous attempts to escape and heavy psycho­ logical conditioning she submits. She is released by the group back into society and eventually attacks those closest to her — her secretary Martha and her boyfriend Derek. She is recalled to the farm but again attempts to escape — helped by Dr Fraser.

This last attempt ends in the film’s nail biting climax.

Props buyer...............................David Whan Standby props.......................... Clark Munro Asst props buyer................. Sally Campbell Animal standby props................. Harry Zettel Set dresser.......................... Sue Armstrong Scenic artist................... .......... Bill Malcolm Construction manager............... Kim Hilder Designer's Asst....... ............... Annie Aitkens Unit publicist............................... David White Length.............................................. 100 min Progress.............................. Post-production Release date.......................... .... Mid 1979 C ast: Judy Davis, Sam Neill, Wendy Hughes, Robert Grubb, Max Cullen, Pat Kennedy, Aileen Britton, Peter Whltford, Carole Skinner.

Synopsis: A love story, based on the novel written by Miles Franklin in the 1890s, about a girl divided between stirrings of passion and her need for self-fulfilment.

PRODUCERS, DIRECTORS

and

PRODUCTION COMPANIES

Cinema Papers, January/February — 215

PRODUCTION SURVEY Synopsis: Mick Giorgiou couldn’t ‘hack’ Make-up................................... Vicki Roland Continuity..............................Shirley Ballard 2nd asst director..............Anthony Bowman Boom operator.......................................... JoeSpinelli school, lost his first job and now can’t get 3rd asst director................... Steve Andrews Boom operator..................... MarkWasiutak Casting............................... Movie Munchies Asst art director................. Claire McGowan another, tfassled by his family, his girlfriend Continuity.......................... Caroline Stanton Casting consultants.. . . . Mitch Consultancy Casting consultants.............. M & L Casting Catering................. .............. Karen Green and the numbing frustration of life on the Boom operator............................Joe Spinelli Still photography................... Chic Stringer Prod accountant................... Harley Manners Length....... ......................................... 15 min dole, he steals a car with a couple of mates Casting consultants.............. M & L Casting Traffic supervisors................ Andrew Jones, Still Photography................... David Kynoch Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor and nearly gets caught He suspects he’s Prod accountant......... ....... Treisha Ghent Stuart Beatty Boat master.............................................. KenJames Progress:................................. In production been ‘dobbed” in and resolves to have his Still photography.............. David Williamson Mechanics.............................................. CliveRowell, Best boy............................................... CraigBryant Cast: Janet Robertson, Moira Claux, Kim revenge on the local youth club.

Best boy................................................. PeterMaloney Robert Orchard, Runner................................. Manuel Matsos Deacon.

Runner................................................. GeoffTanner Murray Smith Camera operator........................ John Seale Synopsis: A film about two housewives IN A LITTLE CROOKED HOUSE Camera operator.................................. JohnSearle Best boy.................................Garry Plunkett Focus puller................................. David Burr living in poverty during the Depression. Mrs Clapper/loader.............................Tim Smart Focus puller................................. David Burr Clapper/Loader.................................. DavidForeman Clancy owns a good bedspread which she Prod and Clapper/loader............................ Rod Hinds Camera a s s t.......................Harry Glynatsis Key grip............................................. GraemeMardell never uses. Her neighbor, Mrs Parsons, has dist company..............................Di Net Films G rips.................................. Noel McDonald, Key grip............................... GrahamMardell Asst grip............................Malcolm Ludgate the cheek to ask if she can borrow it. This Producer, director, Asst grip.......................... Graham Litchfield David Cassar Gaffer........................................... Tony Tegg small incident becomes the focal point of scriptwriter, photography, Gaffer. -................................... LindsayFoote Gaffer................................................ RobbieYoung Electrician............................ Graeme Shelton their day. editor............................Diana Nettlefold Costume/wardrobe............................. ClareGriffin, Asst editor.........................John Mandelburg 2nd unit photography............ Bill Grimmond Composer................................... JohnErtler Merran Kingsford-Smith Sound editor......................................... DeanGawen Special effects photography............ Optical Sound recordist, A BOY ON THE WING Make-up.................................. VivMephan Make-up.................................Deryk de Niese & Graphics mixer.......................................... JohnErtler Hairdresser...............Ben Taylor Workshop Wardrobe master................................. AnnaSenior Asst editors.......................... Andrew Prowse, Prod company................... Ankh Production B u d g e t........................................... $4000 Asst art d irector................. Steve Amezdroz Standby wardrobe.............. Graham Purcell Posie Jacobs Producer and Length............................................... 271/2min Special effects........................ Chris Murray Props master...................................... BruceBarber Make-up...................................... Jose Perez director................................................... AtKemp Shooting stock........................ Kodachrome Stunt co-ordinator..................... Grant Page Standby props........................................ClarkMunro Wardrobe master.................................. AnnieBleakley Photography.............................. David Budd Progress............................... Post-production Length.................................................89 min Assistant art director............ Caroline Duffy Props master............................. Neil Angwin Sound recordist.......................................JudiCann Release date........................ February 1979 Shooting stock.......................Eastmancolor, Stunts..........................................Grant Page Standby props..........................Clark Munro Editor..................

KamalPen Cast: Duncan Sinclair; Phillip Outtram; Todd-AO Construction manager................. Bill Howe Special effects..................................... Chris Murray Asst director.......................... Henry Bartnik Sam, Stuart and Gwen Nettlefold; Karla, Progress............................ Awaiting release Budget.......................................... $600,000 Set decorator........................... Harry Zettel Continuity.................................... Moira East Daniella and Vita Endelmanis; Bridget and Release date..............................March 1979 Length.................................................90 min Carpenters........................ Peter Templeton, Boom operator.......................... David Nolan Judy Scott; Pat and John Cameron; Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Vince Shooting stock..................... Eastmancolor Glenn Finch, Camera/lighting............................ Peter Bull Rebecca and Marjorie Hood.

Gil, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Roger Ward, Steve Progress............................. Awaitingrelease Joe Robertshaw Camera asst............................ Sally Bowles Synopsis: Four women leave their children Bisley, Tim Burns, Lulu Pinkus, Nick Set construction...................... Herbert Pinter Clapper/loader........................ Mike Nichols Release d ate ............................ March 1979 at a farm cottage to look after themselves Lathouris, John Ley, Steve Millichamp, Cast: Graham Kennedy, John Jarratt, John Unit publicist........................................ RossCameron Key grip...................................Don Melloche while they go to a seminar. The group of nine Sheila Florance, Max Fairchild, Steven Hargreaves, Graeme Blundell, Bryan Brown, Budget.......................................... $695,000 Length.................................................20 min wander and explore the farm. Drama Clark, George Novak, Reg Evans, Hunter Ian Gilmour, Richard Moir, John Allen, Length.................................................95 min Shooting stock............... Eastmancolor 7247 develops when old clothes, charts and Gibb, John Farndale, David Bracks, Paul Brandon Burke, Graham Rouse, Tony Barry.

Gauge..........................35 mm Wide Screen Progress................................. In-production rosary beads are found in a shed. Three Johnstone, Geoff Parry, Nic Gazzana, Synopsis: A tough, biting comedy, The Odd. Color.................................... ....... Eastman Cast: Dorothy Barber, Catherine Steel, Luke farm boys who have been spying on the Howard Eynon, Bertrand Cadard, David Angry Shot follows a group of Australian Progress........................................ In release Smith, Bridgette Cheffins, Caroline Poulton, visitors, decide to frighten them by dressing Cameron, Jonathon Hardy. regular soldiers — members of the elite Release d a te ................................ November1978 Debbie Chaloupka, Murray Van Luyn, Nigel as ghosts that night.

Synopsis: The gladiatorial road culture. A Special Air Service — through a year’s tour Cast: Hardy Kruger, Greg Rowe, John Goode, Gerald Burns, Kathie Hough, Jaqui few years from now.

Jarratt, Liddy Clark, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Levison, Tracy Cooper, Robyn Chambers, of duty in Vietnam in the late 1960s. It LIFE-CLASS Elspeth Ballantyne, Ralph Cotterill, Alfred Jacinta, Glen and Marc Mattison, Peter and shows how they cope with the closeness Prod company.........Dramafiim Productions Bell, George Spartels.

Richard Cheffins, and Brewster McLeod the MONEY MOVERS and frustrations of camp life, punctuated by Producers.................................. John Laurie, Synopsis: "Snook” Pascoe is a young seagull. patrols into the jungle to fire “the odd angry Prod company...................South Australian Madelon Wilkens Streaky Bay schoolboy whose father runs a Synopsis: A seagull is shot down by a shot”.

Director....................................... John Laurie Film Corporation tuna boat Blue Fin Clumsy, gaunt and catapult on the beach. A ten year old boy, Scriptwriter.........................

JohnLaurie Dist company............ South Australian Film something of a misfit at school and in the Luke, takes the gull home and nurses it SNAPSHOT Corporation/Roadshow Based on the short story by Vance Palmer community, he has his finest hour when Blue back to health. He suffers the emotion of Prod company.........Australian International Photography................... Malcolm Richards Producer...................................Matt Carroll Fin Is wrecked far out at sea by a letting the bird go.

Film Corporation P/L, Sound re cord ist....................................LloydCarrick Director.............................. Bruce Beresford waterspout and the remainder of the crew F.G. Film Productions P/L Editor........................................... John Laurie Scriptwriter........................ Bruce Beresford lie dead or Injured. The film portrays Dist company...................................Filmways Art director.............................................. JohnReeves Adapted from a book by Devon Minchin.

THE CAR STRIPPERS e xcite m e n t, adve n tu re , courage and Producer.......................-.. Antony I. Ginnane Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Prod Manager................................... MadelonWilkens endurance, and gives a dramatic insight into Prod company................... The Film Factory Director.................................... Simon Wincer Sound recordist.....................Don Connolly Asst director..................... Madelon Wilkens the tuna fishing industry and the lives of the Dist company................... The Film Factory, Scriptwriters................................. Chris and Editor...................................... Bill Andrerson Continuity............................................ AnnieMcCloud Fremantle international fishermen.

Everett de Roche Art director............................ David Copping Boom operators___ Kai Dineen/Mick Horan Producer............................... HansStammel Photography............

Vincent Monton Prod manager......................................... PatClayton Historical advisor........................ Lucy Kerley Director.................................

HansStammel Sound recordist...........................Paul Clark Production secretary.............. Barbara Ring Runners......................................

JohnSmith, For details of the following films see the Scriptwriter.............................. Andy Pearcy Editor.......................................... Phillip Reid Asst directors........................ Mark Egerton, Mick Horan, previous issue: Sound re cord ist................... Don Melosche Production designer................................. JonDowdlng Mark Turnbull, Pat Longmore Prod manager................... Glenda Hambley Composer.................................... Brian May Scott Hicks Clapper/loader...................................JustineRottman How Does Your Garden Grow?

Prod assts...............................................HeidiSommer, Prod manager........................... Barbi Taylor Continuity.................................. MoyaIceton Camera a s s t.................................

Sam Ziad Zodiac Fairground Uma Pillay Prod secretary........................ Jenny Barter Boom operator............................... JoSpinelli Key grip................................................ DavidCassar A Rare Device Still photography.....................Mark Peasley 1st asst director....................... TomBurstall 2nd unit director................ Bruce Beresford Wardrobe designer..............

Sue Armstrong Camera operator................... Ken Woollams Casting consultants..............Allison Barrett, 2nd asst director.................................. JohnHipwell Hairdresser.......................................... CherylWilliams Gaffer....... ................................. RodGillies S.A. Casting Continuity.......... .............................Jan Tyrell Standby wardrobe............ Charon Freebody Assistant sound.................................... OwenWyatt Boom operator..........................................PhilStirling Still Photography................................ DavidKynoch Props master...........................................JohnReeves Special Effects.................................... HansStammel Casting consultant................... Barbi Taylor Technical advisor................ Devon Minchin Standby props................. Geòrgie Greenhill SHORTS Titles....................................................... HansStammel Still photography..........................Suzy Wood Script editor......................... Harold Lander B u d g e t........................................... $15,000 Length.................................................12 min Prod asst................................................. RuthRosh Best boy................................. Peter Maloney Length.................................................45 min Budget................................................. $3,000 Best boy...................................Colin Williams Runners...................................... Jerry Elder Shooting stock...................... Eastman7247 Shooting stock........................

Eastman Neg. Runners................................................ StuartBeatty, Camera operator........................ John Seale Progress..............................Post-production Laboratory................... Color Transcriptions Vicki Rowlands Focus puller.................................David Burr Cast: Susan Weis, Chris Saunders, John Note: Unless otherwise stated, the films Progress............................. Post production Clapper/loader.................. David Foreman Camera operator..........................Louis Irving Gould, Peter Green, Richard Murphett, mentioned below are 16mm.

Cast: Colin Borgonon, Rod Hall, Helen Key grip.......................................David Petley Focus puller........................... DavidBrostoff Johnno, M ichael, John Smith, David Bareham, Andy Pearcy, Robert Wood, Kerry 2nd unit focus puller....... Peter van Stanten Gaffer......................................... Rob Young Shepherd, Barbara Bridgman, Steven Guba, Palmer, Bruce Beaton, Cliff Sanderson, ASTRAL PROJECTIONS Clapper/loader............................. Ian Jones Electrician................................. KevinMcKie C hris Whelan, Cathy Lynch, Carolyn Penny, Frank Norrell, Libby Carter, Rod 2nd unit photography.............Don McAlpine Key grip...................................... Noel Mudie Howard, Suzie Fraser, Amanda Ma, Susan Prod company............... Swinburne College Gillies, Denis Robertson.

Gaffer.................................... TonyHoltham Special effects photography.. Ian Jamieson Hayman, Marianne Grey, Peter Sommerfield, Producer...................................... Tony Cook S y n o p s is : O n e s h o t d r a m a tis e d Asst editor........................ Jeannine Chialvo Lighting Asst...................... Stephen Arnold Peter Finlay, Hannie Rayson, Lynn Howard, Director............................ Angus Cummings "documentary” on stripping a broken down Costume/wardrobe................... AnnaSenior Asst editor............................ David Pulbrook Titi, Mark Davis, Nicky LeCompte.

Scriptwriter...........................................AngusCummings car on an Australian, dusty outback Sound editor........................ David Pulbrook Make-up...................................... Jose Perez Sound recordists....................... John White, highway. Cast co-ordinated to appear on Synopsis: In the last days of World War II, a Mixing..................................... United Sound Hairdresser................................. Jose Perez Libby O'Neil screen in exactly timed intervals: camera is life-class teacher attends an end-of-term Art director................................................JonDowding Props buyer.............................................. NeilAngwin party with her students.

Editor............................... Angus Cummings only a set lens, locked off onlooker, masked Costume/wardrobe......... Aphrodite Jansen Standby props............................Clark Munro Art directors..... ...................... Tony Cook, wide frame projected image.

THE PUNTER Make-up.................................................. JosePerez Asst, art director........................ Harry Zettel Angus Cummings Hairdresser.......................

Jose Perez Stunt co-ordinator........................... Alf Joint Prod company................................ HorizontalRims Lighting............................... Kevin Anderson THE FORBIDDEN ROOM Asst art director....................................... Jill Eden Set decorator.............................. Ken James Producer, director, Continuity............................... JuttaGoetze, Set construction............ ........ Herbert Pinter Special effects..................................... Chris Murray scriptwriter................................. Ivan Gaal Jacki Fine, Producer, director scriptwriter, photography, Stunts........................................... Grant Page Titles.................................. Optical & Graphic Photography..............................Leigh Tilson John Elliott editor..............................James Bradley Length.................................................90 min B u d g e t........................................ $536,861 Sound recordist................... Jane Stapleton Boom operators.......................... Jacki Fine, Length.........................................................90 minGauge................... Anamorphic-Panavision Editor............................................. Ivan Gaal Libby O'Nell Prod assist.............................Joel Peterson Music.......................................... Eric Satie’s Gauge......................................................... 35 mm Progress......................................... Awaitingrelease Camera operator................ Mark McAuliffe Prod manager.................................... Neville Stanley "Gnossiennes” played by Release date.......................... February 1979 Color Process...................................Eastman Still Photography............................... NevilleStanley Camera assts..................... Andrew de Groot, Alexandra Pearce Cast: Chantal Contouri, Sigrid Thornton, Progress............................Awaiting Release Script consultant................. Brian Robinson Richard Lowenstein Robert Bruning, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Denise Release date............................. March 1979 Mixer........................................ Bob Gardner Negative matching......... Victorian Negative Mixer.......................................... John Leslie Budget............................................... $2500 Drysdale, Vincent Gil, Jacqui Gordon, Peter Cast: Terence Donovan, Ed Devereaux, Cutting Budget............................................... $1000 Length.................................................20 min Tony Bonner, Charles (Bud) Tingwell, Candy Stratford, Lulu Pinkus, Stewart Faichney, Length...................................................9 min Mixer.................................................... DavidHarrison Julia Blake, Jon Sidney, Chris Milne, Bob Raymond, Frank Wilson.

Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Title designer.......................... Neill Overton Assisted by the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission.

Brown, Peter Felmingham, Christine Amor.

Synopsis: Dick Martin is an ex-policeman Release date................. 14 December 1978 Mixed at.....................Crawford Productions Synopsis: A young girl, a madman, her dismissed for taking a bribe. He joins Laboratory............................. Victorian Film Cast: Alexandra Pearce, Anton Holzner.

Cast: John T. Burnett Carmel Burnett, Darcy’s Security Services who believe they dreams, her fantasies.

Neville Stanley, Bill Collins.

Laboratories Synopsis: A metaphorical story of a young are going to be robbed. They suspect an Synopsis: Jack, a factory worker, has been Budget............................................... $1500 g irl’s exploration of her id e n tity and sexuality in a repressive world. inoffensive-seeming recruit though the a keen punter for forty years. His main Length...............................................35 min robbery is actually being planned by an old interest has been to beat the “ system” . The In Release Shooting stock....................................... Tri-X Reversal employee. The elaborate robbery is planned film visually documents one of his typical FRAGMENTS Progress........................................In release to take place when most of the staff are at a working days plotted against a mid-week Cast: Neill Overton, Janet Brown, Graham Prod companies..............Stringybark Films, union meeting and only starts to go wrong race meeting.

Irwin, Nigel Buesst, Katy Bromley.

Geohegan Drama Group when Martin notices a flaw in the replica Synopsis: A wry look at the romantic Producers............................................ RobertAntoniades, armoured car which is the key to the aspirations of an extraordinary fool.

SHE FOUND A CROOKED BLUE FIN Paul Davies attempted theft SIXPENCE Directors...............................................RobertAntoniades, Prod company................... South Australian THE BEDSPREAD Paul Davies Film Corporation Prod and THE ODD ANGRY SHOT Scriptwriters...................................... RobertAntoniades, Producer................................... Hal McElroy Prod company.................................Berry St. dist company..............................Di Net Films Paul Davies Film Productions Prod company.......................... Samson Film Director.................................... Carl Schultz Producer, director, Services P/L Photography............................... Paul Cavell Producer............................. Elizabeth O’Neil Scriptwriter................................. Sonia Borg scriptwriter, photography, Sound recordist........... Lynton Macfadzean Dist company.................................Roadshow Director, scriptwriter........... Natalie Green Photography........................ GeoffreyBurton editor............................Diana Nettlefcld Producers.......................... Sue Milliken and Photography............................ Margot Nash Editor..........................................Paul Davies Sound recordist........................................DonConnolly Grip............................................. John Ertler Tom Jeffrey Comoser....................... Lynton Macfadzean Editor..............................Rebecca Grubelich Editor........................................................ RodAdamson Budget........................................... $4000 Director........................................Tom Jeffrey Art director.......................................... DavidCopping Sound recordist... .•................. Jacqui Fine Continuity................................... Sally Webb Length......................

271/2min Scriptwriter............................... Tom Jeffrey Composer...............................Michael Carlos Art director.............................. Claire Jaeger Grip...................................... Enrico Biagioni Shooting stock..... ............... Eastman 7247 Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Exec producer......................................... MattCarroll Prod asst............ .........

JuttaGoetze Artwork...................................... Paul Cavell Progress......... .................................. Editing Asst director..............................Kerry Dwyer Length.................................................40 min Sound recordist.......................Don Connolly Prod manager..................... Ross Matthews Release date..............................March 1979 Shooting stock................... Black and White Editor...................................................... BrianKavanagh Continuity..... , ....................Clare McGowan Prod secretary.............................Jenny Day Sponsored by...................... . Barbara and Production designer..........................BernardHides Runner.................................... Karen Green Progress............ .................Post-production Unit manager........................ Barbara Gibbs Geoff Winspear Cast: Phillip Catania, Marlene Griffiths, Camera asst........................ Justine Rotman Prod manager........................................... SueMilliken IstasS t director........................ Pat Clayton Cast: Sam and Stuart Nettiefold, Suzie and Gaffer.................................... Lyn Nicholson Theresa Elliott, Brian O’Rourke, Stephen Prod secretary............................................SuArmstrong 2nd asst director........................ Scott Hicks Helen W inspear, Barbara and Geoff Location manager.................. Ralph Storey 3rd asst director................................. Chris Williams Boom operator................. Diane Duncombe Wales, Tom Ayache, Francis Smith, Matt Winspear,: Daniella and Vita Endelmanis, Costume/wardrobe......... Aphrodite Jansen MacIntyre, Angela Gigliotti, Monica Byrnes.

1st asst director................................... MarkEgerton Continuity............................................ MoyaIceton David Williams.

216 — Cinema Papers, January/February

PRODUCTION SURVEY Mixer..............................................Alan Allen If It’s Easy, It’s Too Easy!

Photography............................................ JimGilbert Narrator............................................. Bill Gill Costume/Wardrobe......... Caroline Suffield, The Living Soil Sound recordists....................... Jan Murray, Titles..........................

HansStammel Bridget Graham Maximum Security Kath Fenton Length................................................. 27 min Make-up.........................Norman Blanchard, The Moving Picture Book Editor........................................ BobBlasdall Shooting stock........................ Eastman Neg Robert Wasson A Mill of Hooks Prod manager.......................Judy Anderson Release date.......................December 1978 Special effects..................... Jack Armytage The Pjumber Asst, director............ .........Garry Johnson Sponsor............... Fremantle Port Authority Length........................................

1 3 x 5 0 m in Rebirth of Steam Continuity..................................................SueJones Cast: The people of Fremantle, Bill Gill.

Gauge................................................. 16mm St Alban’s — an Ethnic Programme Technical advisor................ Graham Young Synopsis: Documentary on the Port of Shooting stock.....................

Eastman 7247 A Scheme of Madness Camera operator..................... Tracy Kubler Fremantle — its history, the port and the Progress..................■.............. In Production Solar Water Heating Asst, editor..........................

KimCardowtown, its operations.

Release date.......................... .............

1979 Welding Length......................................-........ 11 min THE RACE Cast: Andrew McFarlane, Robert Coleby, TRACES Who Owns Schools?

Shooting stock........................ Eastmancolor Danny Adcock, Tim Burns, Rob Baxter, plus Prod company... Graduate Film Production Sponsor............................ Dept, of Technical Director and guests for individual episodes. at Swinburne Institute of and Further Education photography.............................. Owen Munn Synopsis: The episodes reflect the action Technology Synopsis: To further an awareness and Sound recordist...........................David Smith T E L E V IS IO N and drama of young naval men involved in Editor........................................... Owen Munn understanding of the meaning and lifestyle Producer, director the vital work of surveillance and search of an apprentice.

Technical advisor.............................Warwick Dean scriptw rite r............ .•. Nubar Ghazarian S E R IE S and rescue in Australian waters, as well as Budget............................................... $1000 Photography.......................... Peter Tammer the personal dramas of the crew and those I WANT TO WORK Length.......................................... 10-15 min Sound recordists..................Hannah Dunne, who are part of their professional and Shooting stock.............................

Ekachrome Prod Company.................. ANK and W-A.I.T. Raffi Ghazarian personal lives. The series is made in co­ DISCOVERY 3 Progress............................... Post-production Editor................................. Nubar Ghazarian Productions operation with the Royal Australian Navy.

Prod Company................... Perth Institute of Release date................................ Early 1979 Producer.................................................DavidRapsey Music............................................ Pink Floyd Film and Television Director.................................

AlKemp Synopsis: A documentary showing the Continuity......................... Margot Lethleane PAPA HAYDN AND THE ELECTRIC Scriptwriter...................................................AlKemp thrills and dangers of motor cycle racing, Producers............................Owen Paterson, Gaffer................................. Jane Stapleton seen from the point of view of one of the Cynthia Baker Photography.................................. PeterBull THEATRE Title designer.......................Raffi Ghazarian riders. The film was mainly shot at Oran Exec Producer...........................Judith West Sound recordist....................... Wayne Harley Length................................................. 11 min Prod companies................. ABC-TV/Parvati Length........................................... 13x7 min Park Raceway in the latter half of 1 978.

Editor.........................................................DonMeloche Shooting stock................... Black and white Productions Gauge................................................. 16mm Prod assts.........................Donna Steffanoni, Cast: Joe Spanno, Judy Colman.

Producers..............William Fitzwater (ABC), Color Process............................. Ektachrome Al Kemp Synopsis: A man is lost in the traces of a life SYDNEY’S ASIAN FILM FESTIVAL William Pitt (Parvati) Continuity.......................... TheresaAshforth he has left behind.

Director..............................William Fitzwater Prod company.................................... AndrewVialProgress................................. In Production Technical advisors.............. Tony Paterson, Music recording.............. John Widdicombe Film Productions P/L S y n o p s is : A series of 13 ch ild ren 's te le v is io n p rogram s fo r in c lu s io n in David Rapsey Production designer..............Dennis Gentle Producer director.............................. AndrewVial Camera operator.......... . Guy Bessel-Brown Composer............................... Josef Haydn Length................................................. 10-12 minchildren's magazine style programs.

Discovery 3 illustrates unusual subjects to Camera asst...................... DonnaSteffanoni Assoc Producer....................................AdrianBernotti Gauge..........................................................16mm D O C U M E N T A R IE S young viewers and provides young and/or Mixer.................................................... DavidRapsey (Parvati) (blow-up from Super 8) comparitively inexperienced crews with an Sound asst............................................ JennyHartley Music conductor................ David Measham Progress............................... Post-production opportunity to improve their skills and try Neg cutter........................ Elizabeth Rapsey Music performed by........................ Sydney Synopsis: A documentary for television on out novel approaches to their chosen Post production........................ David Budd, Symphony Orchestra the 24th Asian Film Festival. The film subjects.

Henry Bartnick, Model makers..................Jack Montgomery, focuses on thè overseas delegates and their AGNEW NICKEL Peter Bull Richard Strezlecki stay in Sydney during this history making Prod and DOES IT FEEL LIKE A LONG TEN Length.................................................. 9 min Special effects........................................BrianOlesen, event. dist company............................. Filmwest P/L MINUTES? Shooting stock................ Ektachrome 7240 Jack Howard, Director.......................................... Jon Noble Progress................................................ Postproduction SEVENTY TWO HOURS Prod company.................................... AndrewVial Peter Gronow Scriptwriters.: ................... Maureen Keast, Cast: Kerry Bowcott, Kim Barker, Paul Film Productions P/L Wardrobe...................................... EdieYork Prod company..............

Bill Gill Productions Keith Flannigan, Shannon, Frank Norrel, Arthur Applin, Donna Dist company..................................... JasonFilmAdditional dialogue................... William Pitt, Dist company..........................................VISA Richard Oxenburgh Steffanoni, David Rapsey, Jaqui, Rachell, Distributors William Fitzwater Director.................................................... BillGill Photography.............................................. JonNoble Julie, Hellen, Karen, Kerstien, Gary, Grant, Puppets performed by....... Parvati Puppets Scriptwriter............................................. BillQuinProducers................................... Andrew Vial, Sound recordists.................................WayneHarley, Diana, Kamal, Pen. Lis Rust Progress............................... Post-production Photography........................

HansStammel, Mark Thorn Synopsis: A dramatized documentary on Directors................................... Andrew Vial, Cast: Tim Elliott, Richard Meikle. Singers: Bill Gill Editor...................................... Maureen Keast the serious su bje ct of unem ploym ent Lis Rust John Main, Pearl Berridge, Robert Gard, Sound recordist.....................Hans Stammel Composers........................................... PeterLevy, problems facing school leavers. Adults care, Scriptwriter......................................

Lis Rust Nance Grant Voices: William Pitt Marcus Editor..................................... HansStammel Bruce Varley but are they willing to help?

Photography.............................. Andrew Vial Hale, Claire Crowther, Adrian Bernotti, Nigel Prod secretary........................

Janet Prance Exec producer......................................... JonNoble Sound recordist............................. Pat Fiske Spence, Mary Lou Stewart, Judy Davis, Mix supervision..................... Jack Gardiner Assoc producer................... Barrie Pattison Editors...................................... Andrew Vial, Chris Craig, Neville Wilson, Robert Doyle.

MERINO Narrator....................................................

Bill Gill Prod secretary...................... JulieanneMills Lis Rust Synopsis: A unique television program Prod company.............. Bill Gill Productions Titles........................................... Rod Gillies 2nd unit photography.................................IanMcLean, Dist company...........VISA/Merino Breeders Length......................................................... 18 minLength......................................................... 15minbased on Josef Haydn’s 200 year-old Carmelo Musca Gauge.....................................3 A” color video puppet opera Philemon and Baucis.

Producer........................................... Bill Gill Shooting stock....................... Eastman Neg. Asst editor................ Carolien van der Gaag cassette Director............................................. Bill Gill Laboratory..................... Color T ranscription Synopsis: The story of the discovery of Progress........................................

In release Scriptwriter................................... Geoff Gare THE PRISONER Release date.......................... October 1978 nickel at Leinster in Western Australia to the First released.......................... New Zealand Photography...................................... Bill Gill Sponsor.........Lamb Marketing Board of WA Prod company___The Grundy Organisation export of the first ore shipping and the July 1978 Sound recordists...............

HansStammel, Synopsis: Documentary on chilled lamb Dist company.......................

O/Ten Network official opening of a new community.

Synopsis: For many years abortion has Geoff Gare export from the green pastures of WA to the Producer.................................................. IanBradley been a subject clouded by emotion. People Editor..................................... HansStammel market places in the Middle East, including Exec producer........................................

RegWatson BEACHFRONT Assoc producer.......................... Geoff Gare historical market and consumer traditions in talked about it a lot, but had little real Prod manager......................... Valerie Unwin knowledge of it. The film attempts to change Prod company....................... VoyagerFilms Prod secretary........................ Janet Prance the Arabic countries.

Length..........................................16x60 min this by showing an abortion with both the Producer................................................ DavidElfick Special photo effects....... . Hans Stammel Gauge............................................. Videotape doctor and the counsellor explaining the VANDALISM Scriptwriter............................................. PhilJarrett Mix supervisor....................... Jack Gardiner Progress................................. Pre-production procedure to the patient as it happens.

Assoc producer......................................BrianWalsh Titles....................................................... RodGillies Prod company.............. Bill Gill Productions Cast: Elspeth Ballantyne, Richard Moir, Budget..............................................$80,000 Length................................................. 27 min Dist company___ Education Dept. WA/VISA Pietta Toppano.

Progress............................... Pre-production FALCON ISLAND Shooting stock........................ EastmanNeg. Directors................. Hans Stammel/Bill Gill Synopsis: A drama series set in a women’s S ynopsis: Beachfront is a film about Progress............................... Post-Production Scriptwriter............................................. BillQuin Prod company................... Perth Institute of prison.

Australia’s favorite playground — the beach.

Release date............................... March 1979 Photography...........................................HansStammel Film and Television It makes use of archive footage and Sponsors..................... Wesfarmers, Elders, Editor...................................... HansStammel Producer.....................................Judith West For details of the following TV series and Western Livestock recounts the obsession the nation has had, Prod secretary.........................Janet Prance Scriptwriters...................... Joan Ambrose films see the following issue: and still does have, with the beach, the Synopsis: Documentary on the history of andRonBunney 2nd unit photography................................ BillGill ocean and the people who have played in it, Merino breeding in Australia with the Special effects........................HansStammel Script editor.............................. Moya Wood Against the Wind particularly during the past two decades. emphasis on Western Australia. From the Narration............................................ Bill Gill Exec producer......................... Paul Barron Cop Shop origin of the breed in Spain to the Royal Mix supervision.......................................Jack Gardiner Gauge............ ................................... 16mm Stopwatch flock in England to the first flock in NSW to Length................................

14 min Length.......................................... 5 x 3 0 min CEMENT FOR BUILDING The Sullivans the present breeding in WA — the use of the Shooting stock.......................

Eastman Neg. Shooting stock.......................

Eastmancolor AUSTRALIA The Truckies primary products today.

Laboratory................... Color T ranscriptions Progress................................. Pre-production Prod company....................... Austral Pacific Release date...................... September1978 Synopsis: Falcon Island is a children's Productions P/L Sponsor.....................Education Dept of WA television drama series about three children OPERATION EARTHQUAKE Producer................................. A.J. Helgeson Cast: Children from various schools In WA. and their community on Falcon Island. The Prod company.............. Film Crew Facilities Director.....................................Eric Fullilove GO VERN M ENT Bill Gill, Ed Baxter, Sue Cohen, Richard a c tio n fe a tu re s several u nd e rw ater Director...................................... Eddie Moses Photography......................... HansHeidrich, Longley, Joan Campbell. adventures as the children seek to find the C O R P O R A T IO N S Scriptwriter.............................. Eddie Moses Philip Williams, Synopsis: Educational discussion starter site of an old Dutch wreck threatened by a Photography......................... David Etherton Phil Dority for use in schools, youth groups etc., proposed sand-mining venture that is also Sound recordist...................................... BillHicks Editor....................................... Paul Maxwell designed to stimulate a more positive the subject of an important local community Editor........................................ MikeBalson Narrator........................................ Tim Elliott approach away from vandalism. debate.

Prod manager........................ Bernard Vance Length................................................. 23 min Film Australia Unit manager.......................................... WillDavies Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor WALK WITH SAFETY PATROL BOAT Asst director..............................................WillDavies Release date............................ August 1978 Prod company................

Panorama Pictures Prod company.......Australian Broadcasting Camera asst............................ Rick St. John Synopsis: The story of the manufacture of Producer............................................ RobertRankin Commission — TV Drama Electrician............................................... TexFoote Blue Circle cement in Western Australia, Co-producer.......................................... AlanHobson THEGHAN Directors.............................................. FrankArnold, Asst editor................................................. ColWardrop Victoria and NSW. Director.............................................. RobertRankin Rob Stewart, Negative matching................................... RobHendriks Prod and dist company...........Film Australia Scriptwriter.....................Robert Rankin and Brian McDuffie Mixer..........................................................PhilMorley Producer............................... Peter Johnson THE DANGERS OF ROAD SAFETY Alan Hobson Script editors.......................... James Davern, Title designer..........................................TonyReinits Director arid Photography............................Richard Pratt J.N.P. Productions Prod company................... ANK and Hagglin Mixed at.....................................M & F Sound scriptwriter..............................Curtis Levy Howard Productions Sound recordist....................... Jan Murray Photography...........................................PeterHendry Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm Photography................................. PeterLevy Directors........................................ Al Kemp, Sound recordist............................ Bob Peck Length......................................................... 15 minEditor...................................................... BobBlasdall Sound recordist........................ Rod Pascoe Don Meloche Camera asst................................... Joy Pratt Editors.......................Richard Francis-Bruce, Shooting stock....... .......Eastmancolor 7247 Editor....................................................... IanBarry Mixer.........................................Don Savage Neil Thumpston Photography................................. Peter Bull Progress..............................Post-production Camera asst.............................. TonyGailey Catering...................................Ernie Hobson Mixers................................... Tony Paterson, Art director.......................... Laurie Johnston Release date....................... December 1978 Length.................................................. 25 min Ian McLoughlin Mixed at..........................Murray Film Sound Prod designers................ Neave Catchpool, Cast: R.A.A.F. personnel.

Gauge................................................. 16mm Length.................................................24 min Technical advisor................... David Rapsey Graeme Gould Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Exec producer............................ Ray Alehin Length................................................. 11 min Release date.......................December 1978 PORT OF FREMANTLE-WESTERN Progress............................Awaiting Release Prod managers................. Michael Baynham, Shooting stock................Ektachrome 7252, Synopsis: A story of two young rodeo riders AUSTRALIA Tri-X Release date........................ December 1978 Dennis Kealy and their trip from Marree in South Australia Sponsor.................................... Wales Bank Prod co-ordinator....................... JoyTrinder Progress....................................... In Release Prod company.............. Bill Gill Productions to Alice Springs aboard "The Ghan” — the Synopsis: Highlights the safety aspects of 1st assist director....................... Ray Brown Cast: Debbie Robertson and the people of Dist company............................... FPA/VISA train that runs through the desert from Perth; voices of Debbie Robertson, Kerstine Producer.................................................. BillGill walking in the Australian bush and National 2nd assist director................. Russell Webb Adelaide to the centre of Australia.

3rd assist, director................ Brian Giddens Parks.

Hill-Harrison, Tony Paterson, Wayne Harley, Director................................. HansStammel Continuity..............................Carolyn Gould, Steve Jodrell, David Rapsey, Frank Shaft Scriptwriter............................... John Aitken, H.M.A.S. “ CERBERUS” Julie Nelson Hans Stammel Synopsis: A look at the establishment For details of the following films see the Boom operator........................Michael Breen through the eyes of the people of Western Photography.......................... Hans Stammel Prod company........................ Motion Picture Casting consultant................. Jennifer Allen previous issue: Australia and how to improve safety on our Sound recordists..................... Owen Wyatt, Associates Pty Ltd Still photography.................... Martin Webby Andy Pearcy, Dist company............................................FilmAustralia roads.

And/Or = One Technical advisor.. Cmdr. Alun Evans RAN. Hans Stammel Producer................................ PeterJohnson GETTING IT TOGETHER Bake-Off 78 Camera operator................................ DanielBatterham Director and Editor..................................... HansStammel Bingo Focus puller............................... JeffMalouf scriptwriter.......................... David Barrow Assoc producer...................... Murray Rann Prod company.........................College of Art, Crimeshow Clapper/Loader.......................... David Evans Photography....................... John Leake ACS Brisbane Prod secretary........................ Janet Prance The Diffraction Grating Key Grip.............................

AndyGlavin Sound recordist......... Berry von Bronkhurst Special photo effects.............Hans Stammel Producer.......................... Nicholas Oughton The Distant Lens Gaffer......................................Jack Kendrick Editor.......................................................PeterFletcher Mix supervisor....................... Jack Gardiner Director............................ Nicholas Oughton

Synopsis: Sam and Stuart spend the holidays with distant relatives on a farm.

Suzie finds a crooked sixpence which shines and creates hallucinations, but she loses it. They are nasty to a poor migrant boy who has head-lice, so they are not allowed to play with him. He secretly finds the sixpence. However, when he eats poisonous toadstools they Help him recover. He gives back the sixpence.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 217

AVACIlWIBLn ITOINICTIONS )^X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®A®X®X®X®A®X®X®X®A®A®X®X®X®X®A®X®X®A®X®X?

•

a c o m p le te film e d itin g a n d p o s t- p ro d u c tio n se rvice in M e lb o u rn e fo r th e p ro fe s s io n a l film m aker, in c o rp o ra tin g fu lly e q u ip p e d e d itin g ro o m s in a c o n v e n ie n t lo c a tio n

•

sp e cia lisin g in d o c u m e n ta ry , p u b lic re la tio n s , in d u s tria l, e d u c a tio n a l a n d s h o rt film s, in c lu d in g m u sic clips

Î., -V

-M W

• se p a ra te 1 6 m m e d itin g ro o m w it h s ix -p la te S te e n b e c k a v a ila b le fo r h ire

Contact Robert Martin at: 2 0 T h o m s o n S tre e t

T e le p h o n e

S o u th M e lb o u rn e . V ic. 3 2 0 5

( 03 ) 699 6185

B k f lC K C B O R n

P R O D U C T IO n

studio of 3D animated films s p e c ip lis e s

Sold and serviced nationally by

STRAIN! D ELECTRIC

4 W hiting Street, A rtarm on 2064. T elephone 439 1962 19 Trent Street, B urw ood 2134. Telephone 29 3724 50-52 V ulture Street, West End, B risbane 4101. Telephone 44 2851 101-105 M ooringe Avenue, Camden Park, SA 5038. Telephone 294 6555 430 New castle Street, Perth 6000. Telephone 328 3933 120 Parry Street, New castle 2309. T elephone 26 2466 25 M o lo ng lo Mall, Fyshw ick 2600. Telephone 95 2144

X® X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®

ANIMATION SPECIAL also

OF

PUPPETS OP 0 P IEC TS;

EFFECTS . FUIT avm neiE

fo p

IN STPUCTIONAl

in

UNO

CEll

s h o p t s

UNO

TELEPHONE

ANIM ATION

. ao v eptis in g ,

FEATUPE

7 H 7

FILM S

5667

40 Nicholson Street, Burwood NSW 2134.

SOUND STUDIO FOR HIRE Suitable for Film, Video and Stills at: F IL M SETS 88 Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, M ELBOURNE 3166 Studio 75’ x 46’ with 14 ’ to lighting grid.

URSULA JUNG Negative Cutting Service 16mm and 35mm Prompt, reliable service including pick-up and delivery.

29 Rosebud Parade, Rosanna East, Vic. 3084 Phone 4596192

Large three sided paintable fixed eye.

Good access to studio for cars and trucks.

Design and set construction service available.

Dressing rooms, wardrobe, and make-up facilities.

STUDIO BO O KIN GS, PH O N E : Alex Simpson,

(03) 568 0058, (03) 568 2948

AH (03) 25 3858

Ask WALLY SHAW about our

MAGNA-

TECH high speed rock & roll dubbing suite.

To be installed in November.

Multi-Track Mixing in 35mm, 17.5mm & 16mm.

VICTORIAN FILM LABORATORIES ( 0 3 )8 1 8 0 4 6 1

PRODUCTION SURVEY 2nd unit director................... Peter Johnson Camera asst............................. James Ward Technical advisor.. Lt Cmdr A. Bennett RAN Electrician.......................... Warren Mearnes Length..................... ........................ 15 min Gauge................................................. 16mm Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Progress............................... Post-production Release date. ................... February 1979 Synopsis: A recruiting film for the Royal Australian Navy.

PSYCHOLOGISTS P.R. Prod and dist company......... Film Australia Producer............................... Peter Johnson Director and scriptwriter.......................... Greg Reading Length.......................................... 15-20 min Gauge................................................. 16mm Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Progress...................................In production Release date..........................January 1979 Synopsis: A film to create an understanding of the role of the psychologist within the s t r u c t u r e of t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h Employment Service.

SAFETY IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE

Editor.................................. Andrew Prowse Director................................................ BrianHannant Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir Scriptwriter.......................................... TerryJennings Length.................................................15 min Photography........................................ DavidForeman Gauge................................................. 16mm Editor.....................................Andrew Prowse Sponsor........................ Health Commission Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir Synopsis: A film showing the safe use of Length.................................................10 min pesticides.

Gauge.................................................16 mm Sponsor................................. Dept. Tourism RED CROSS Recreation and Sport Synopsis: The film shows the principles of Scriptwriter............................Brian Hannant conditioning for sport.

Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir Length.................................................20 min Gauge................................................. 35mm CONDITIONING FOR SPORT Sponsor.....................

Australian Red Cross RUNNING & MOBILITY Synopsis: To make the public aware of the Producer............................... NickCockram variety of activities in which the Red Cross Director................................................ BrianHannant is involved.

Scriptwriter.......................... Terry Jennings Editor.................................... AndrewProwse Exec producer........................... Bruce Moir SAFETY IN ELECTRIC BLASTING Length.................................................. 10 min Scriptwriter............ ............. Terry Jennings Gauge................................................. 16mm Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir Sponsor.........................

Dept.

Tourism, Length................................................

15 min Recreation & Sport Gauge................................................ 16mm S ynopsis: To show how running and Sponsor................. Dept, of Mines & Energy mobility exercises are a part of conditioning Synopsis: To illustrate the correct proc­ programs. edures and the dangers associated with electric blasting.

CONDITIONING FOR SPORT WEIGHT & CIRCUIT TRAINING

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SERIES

Prod company___ Camfilm Productions P/L Scriptwriter............... Christobel Mattingley Dist company......................

FilmAustralia Producer............................... NickCockram Director............................................... BrianHannant Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond Producer.............................................. PeterJohnson Scriptwriter..........................

Terry Jennings Gauge................................................ 16mm Director................................... John Bowen Editor.................................... AndrewProwse Sponsor............ Education Department, S.A. Scriptwriter............................Jonathan King Exec producer............................

Bruce Moir Synopsis: A series of 1 2 films (5-7 minutes Photography........................ DavidWakeley Length..................................................

10 min each) for 5-7 year olds: What Is A Girl?, Editor........................................ JohnHosking Gauge................................................. 16mm W hat Is A Boy?, S e lf A cce p ta nce , Prod manager............ Rosemary Denmeade Sponsor................................................

Dept.

Tourism, Families, Rules, Sexism & Jobs, Sharing, Length................................................ 20 min Recreation & Sport Feeling, Tolerance o f Differences (racism, Gauge................................................. 16mm Synopsis: A film demonstrating weight and handicapped people etc), Friends, Playing Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor circuit training. and Violence.

Release date........................ November 1978 Synopsis: A film on meat inspectors to point EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY A TIME FOR LIVING out the hazards found in their working Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond Prod company.............. Pepper Audiovisual e n v iro n m e n t a nd how a m o m e n t’s Gauge................................................ 16mm Producer, director..................... Max Pepper carelessness could affect their normal way Sponsor............ Education Department, S.A. Scriptwriter............................... Brian Bergin of life.

Synopsis: A film on educational technology Photography............................ Paul Dallwitz SKIING SAFETY and its appropriate uses for teachers.

Editor......................................... Max Pepper Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir Prod company...................... Motion Picture Length................................................ 25 min Associates P/L ENVIRONMENT/POLLUTION Dist company........................................... FilmAustralia Gauge................................................ 16mm SERIES P ro d u c e r.......................................... PeterJohnson Sponsor......... State Superannuation Office Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond Director and Synopsis: The film is designed to create an Gauge................................................ 16mm awareness among contributors to a super­ Scriptwriter............................Edwin Moses Sponsor............

Education Department, S.A. annuation fund who are approaching Photography......................................... JohnLeake Synopsis: A series of films, for upper retirement, that they are about to face a con­ Sound recordist......... Berry von Bronkhurst primary school audiences, dealing with the Editor...................................... Peter Fletcher siderable change in lifestyle. physical environment and how it works, the Camera asst.........................................JamesWard body as an environment and how not to Narrator..................................................BarryEaton YOU CAN’T ALWAYS TELL pollute it, the mind as an environment, noise Length.......................................... 15-20 min Scriptwriter............................Ron Saunders pollution, visual pollution (advertising signs, Gauge................................................. 16mm Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond bunting, etc.) and how advertising (in Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Length......................................... 10-15 min particular T.V.) works and encourages Progress.......... .................... Post-production Gauge................................................

16mm people to buy things they don’t really need Release date.......................... January 1979 Sponsor................... Police Department, S.A. or can afford etc.

Synopsis: A film to warn people about Synopsis: A film to warn 8-11 year olds problems that might occur when visiting FLINDERS RANGES NATIONAL about child molesters. This is the second in snow country for the first time. a series on child molesting.

PARK Scriptwriter.......................... Harry Bardwell SMALL BOAT SAFETY Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir Prod company..................... R.G.A. Films P/L Australian Film Length.................................................15 min Dist company........................................... FilmAustralia Gauge................................................ 35mm Commission Producer............................... Peter Johnson Sponsor.................................... Dept, for the Director and Environment scriptwriter........................................... RobMcAuley Synopsis: To educate the general public in Photography........................Peter Hopwood the changing impacts of nature on a C R E A T IV E D E V E L O P M E N T B R A N C H Length........................................... 6 x 5 min National Park and to give an appreciation of Gauge................................................. 16mm the dynamic nature of the natural wild.

Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Projects approved by the AFC meeting on Progress.................................Pre-production 30 October 1978: HISTORY OF MUSIC Cast: Ken Warby.

EXPERIMENTAL FILM FUND Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond S yn o p sis: Six film s covering various Gauge................................................ 16mm aspects of small boat safety to create a Mathew Butler (NSW), to make Saturday, Sponsor............ Education Department, S.A. greater awareness of the dangers of the sea Sydney and Synthesizer, $3935.

Synopsis: A series of films, for upper to small boat owners.

Glen Lewis (NSW), to make Some of My primary/early secondary school students, Best Friends are Men, $2146. being designed for use in geography, history South Australian Michael Nicholson (NSW), to make Lyrical and social studies classes in addition to art Colour Video — Primary Structures, Film Corporation classes. $3494.

Paul Somers (NSW), to make One Friday HORSE CARE Night - II, $2750.

Scriptwriter. ............................... John Dick Stephen Wallace (NSW), to make Con Man BIG DEAL Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond Harry (and the others), $1 2,332.

Gauge................................................ 16mm John Hunter (Qld), to make The Archon Scriptwriter....................Magda de la Pesca Sponsor................................. Department of Factor, $383.

Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond Further Education, S.A. Length.................................................15 min Michael Cutts (Vic), to make Anne Through Synopsis: A series of short instructional the Looking Glass, $70.

Gauge.............................. ................ 16mm films on horse care.

Sponsor.......... Education Department, S. A. Paul Davies (Vic), to make Fragments, $400.

Synopsis: A film aimed at 11 to 13 yearRobert Randall (Vic), to make Figures in a NORTH TO THE ALICE olds — about the dangers of socially Landscape, $3108 acceptable drugs, i.e. smoking, alcohol, Prod company______ Slater Sound Studios Peter Schmidt (Tas), to make Thunderballs, analgesics and marihjuana.

Scriptwriter............................Brian Hannant $ 2000 .

Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir Peter Campbell (NSW), to complete Play CHILD MOLESTING NO. 3 Length................................................ 15 min Faces, $350.

Gauge................................................ 35mm Scriptwriter..................... Magda le la Pesca Fabio Cavadini (NSW), to complete The Sponsor........................ Australian National Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond Other Side o f the Coin, $2538.

Railways Length.......................................... 10-15 min Lee Chittick (NSW), to complete Young Synopsis: A film on the construction of the Gauge................................................. 16mm Kids of Liverpool, $700.

Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway, one of the Sponsor................... Police Department, S.A. Shawn Gray (NSW), to complete Symbolist world’s largest desert railway constructions.

Synopsis: The third film In a series of films Daydream, $5729. on child molesting — aimed at 12-14 years Alexandra Hynes (NSW), to complete Focus PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES age group. on Fantasy, $1974.

Scriptwriter............................... Brian Bergin David Lourie (NSW), to complete Enigma, Exec producer............................ Bruce Moir CLUSTER HOUSING $4215.

Length................................................. 50 min Exec producer................. Lesley Hammond Mitchell Fairclough (Vic), to complete Terra Gauge................................................ 16mm Gauge................................................. 16mm Lostralis, $3864.

Sponsor..................... Dept, of Mental Health Sponsor................. Department of Housing, Michael Karaglanidis (Vic), to complete The Synopsis: To correct the misconceptions Urban & Regional Affairs Face of Greekness, $1185. that people have on psychiatric hospitals.

Synopsis: A film to show the general public Phil Pinder (Vic), to complete Buckeye and the concept of cluster housing and its Pinto, $2021. advantages.

PESTICIDE CONTROL Madelon Wilkins (Vic), to complete Woman Prod company................... S-M Productions Seen, $2974.

CONDITIONING FOR SPORT Producer, director................. Ron Saunders Gerard Elder (Vic), to complete Sun on the PRINCIPLES Scriptwriter........................ Malcolm Purcell Stubble, $2936.

Photography........................ Edwin Scragg Producer............................... Nick Cockram Livia Ruzic (Vic), to complete Going

Nowhere, $1513.

Bruce Tolley (Vic), to complete The Intruder, $740.

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT FUND Glen Baker (NSW), to develop a treatment for a feature based on the life of a rock singer, $800.

Vaughan Davies (NSW), to develop G ilt $2000.

Terry Larsen/Laurence Duggan (NSW), to develop The Victory Girls, $2000.

Christine Stanten (NSW), to develop These Sweet Triumphant Smiles, $1000.

John Crampton (Vic), to develop Slade,

$1000.

FILM PRODUCTION FUND Mark Styles (NSW), to make Child Welfare, $13,761.72.

Bob Hill/Jane Oehr (NSW), to develop First Love/Last Rites, $1000.

Mark Turnbull (NSW), to develop Now and Then, $2000.

David Stevens (Vic), to make The Two of Me, $80,000.

Marcus Cole (Vic), to develop Dave Tells it Like This, $1000.

John Hughes/Peter Kennedy (Vic), to develop November Eleven, $800.

P R O JEC T D EV ELO P M EN T BRANCH Details of projects approved by the AFC meeting on 25 September 1978: SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT Jude Kuring, Nelly Kelly ahd the Passionfruit Saloon, $4750 (further script development) Stanley May/Connaghan & May P/L, Golightly, $2500 (for final draft script development).

PRODUCTION APPROVALS Bruning, Bell and Partners P/L, Breaker Morant, $200,000 (first stage production investment).

Gay Laurance, The Contract, $1977 (television concept investment).

Ted Prior, Grug, $991 9 (television concept" production investment).

MISCELLANEOUS Greenboe Corporation Pty. Ltd., Sparks, $1 2,190 (final pre-production investment to be drawn against previous approval of $250,000).

Details of projects approved by the AFC meeting on 3 0 October 1 978: SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT Terry Larson, Tarflowers, $4900 (first draft script development).

Associated Talent and Mary Joe Wilson, Steel City, $9000 (script development and script in concept development for television series package).

PRODUCTION APPROVALS David Moore — Film Centre-Perth, B andicoot $13,000 (documentary investment).

Yoram Gross Productions, Toby, the Little C onvict (previous conditional commitment of $150,000 investment now ratified).

Reg Grundy — P.T. International Aries Angksasa Films, Valley of Dreams, $250,000 (conditional investment in co­ financed featu re subject to approval of final script, budget and matters relating to the AFC act definition of “ Australian film").

Legend Films, The Dreamtime, $5765 (further investment in an extra three 10 minute television episodes).

Olola Productions. The Kinsmen and Their Kinsfolk, $43,824 (investment in a half hour television special).

Reg Grundy Productions, Every Move that You Make; The Women in Death Row; Breath of Vengeance; Switch to Evil; Slaughter on One Tree Plains, each film $150,000 (for each film — conditional production investment towards cinema feature films subject to approval of final draft shooting script, budget and investment structure, casting, Australian distribution contract and overseas marketing details).

MISCELLANEOUS Richard Oxenburgh Productions, Learn Quick or Die Young, $23,000 (additional loan to previous investment for the production of one hour documentary).

David Hannay, Alison’s Birthday, $1 2,000 (additional investment over and above previous commitment towards the production of a feature).

John Powell Productions, Little Boy L o s t $26,566 (overage loan to enable the project to be completed and launched in the Armidale district, subject to special conditions).

Patricia Payne and Wilton Schiller, For the Term of His Natural Life, $6500 (investment in pre-production and packaging costs for mini television series; AFC previously invested in script development).

Colin Eggleston Productions, “Three Rim Package”, $60,000 (script development of six original feature film concepts; the three most viable to be taken through thelinal draft).

Cinema Papers, January/February — 219

i

c o lo r f i Im 35 Missenden Road, Camperdown,N.S.W. 2050 Telephone: (02) 5161066

BLUE FIN Brian McFarlane During the summer holidays, there is at least one film parents can escort their children to without having to brace them selves for an assault on their sensibilities. More, they can go to Blue Fin and expect to enjoy themselves, as well as admire a highly competent piece of filmmaking.

My pleasure in the film has nothing to do with the expectations roused by Storm Boy. “ Every year has its special film,” we were told in 1977, “ and this year it’s Storm Boy.” At the risk of seeming an insensitive brute, I found most of it a bore, suffering froni a severe attack of Creeping Beauty, that disease endemic in many recent Australian films. I was surprised to find it ran six minutes less than Blue Fin; it seemed half an hour longer, lingering over every quivering reed and every exquisite sunset, wearing its poetic intentions on its graceful sleeve.

Blue Fin is made of sterner (and coarser) stuff. Not having read either of the Colin Thiele novels in question I can’t say how far the difference in the impacts of the two films reflect his intentions, but the film of Blue Fin has a sturdy craftsmanlike approach in telling a story and is less concerned with offering us a Beautiful Experience.

Sonia Borg’s screenplay is certainly episodic, but it is held together by its simple, firmly pursued interest in a young boy’s need to find acceptance from his father.

The story is simple enough for an alert eight year-old to follow, but it is also interesting enough to be worth his effort and to repay anyone’s attention.

C hildren do want their paren ts’ approval and, for a variety of reasons, this is not always easily come by. Snook (Greg Rowe) desperately wants to be a tuna fisherman like his father (Hardy Kruger), who is having a spell of bad luck, and who vents his anxieties and frustrations on his son. When his boat, the Blue Fin, is all but wrecked in a cyclone, the rest of the crew lost and the father injured, the boy contrives to bring it back to port by being more resourceful than his father would have believed him.

This, in essence, is what happens, but the bare story-line is convincingly fleshed o u t w ith a b e lie v a b le s e n se o f relationships, with a wholesome respect for individual lives complemented by a feeling for the larger life of the community in which the story takes place.

That the community emerges so firmly is partly the result of the fine location photography of Geoff Burton, who also shot Storm Boy. If Australian films have ..done nothing else, they have made us aware of the unclamorous beauty of A ustralian country towns. B urton’s camera is as discreetly effective in suggesting the early morning quiet of Streaky Bay’s main street as in its response to the more obvious occasions for display offered by the scenes at sea.

Two scenes in particular offer wellobserved and contrasting sketches of the life of the small fishing community. The first is the brief funeral service for the crew

Snook (Greg Rowe) watches anxiously with his sister Ruth (Liddy Clark) as a storm batters the tuna boats off Streaky Bay. Blue Fin.

of a boat lost at sea, with the townspeople gathered on the pier. Without letting this become sentimental, director Carl Schultz makes this very touching (mainly by focusing on the feeling between Snook and his sister (Liddy Clark), whose fiance (John Jarratt) has been drowned) and, by muting it to ensure its proper place in the film’s drama, he also places it accurately in the life of a town that depends on a dangerous trade.

The second is the “ Miss Tuna” Ball, which ends in slapstick involving Snook and a large tuna. Earlier, though, there had been some quite sharp social fun with the dancers, the supper tables loaded with regularly-spaced sponge cakes and jugs of beer, the contenders for the tuna queen award, and mayoral pomposities. This sort of scene, rare enough in Australian films to be welcome, is done with just the right blend of malice and affection.

Both director and cameraman resist the temptations to easy lyricism, so that the film’s surface reflects a quiet integration of the elements of a scene rather than drawing attention to consciously-achieved effects. In a characteristic sequence as the Blue Fin sets out to look for a missing boat, interleaved shots of gulls, waves, the boat’s prow carving the water, and the human activity on board create an unobtrusive and lovely wholeness.

I particularly liked a very early scene where the exuberance of a large catch is played against the edginess in the relationship between father and son.

There is a skilfully-achieved effect of

movement, of the demanding physical acts of hauling and hurling, of the bloodied fish flopping on the deck; but the visual excitement of this doesn’t distract from the episode’s importance in the father-son drama.

The screenplay is apt to signal its thematic points too obviously (“ He’s useless,” Snook’s father says after the boy has messed up the bait-throwing; “ Snook will never make a fisherman” , etc.) but this won’t worry children who will identify strongly with Snook. Wisely, the film doesn’t ask too much of young Greg Rowe (of Storm Boy) and he is equal to the acting task it sets him.

Much of the film’s appeal depends on the satisfaction we get from watching hum an resourcefulness overcom e a reputation for incompetence, and Greg Rowe goes through the motions very likeably.

Not many Australian films have provided major acting opportunities, and this is clearly not one of them. It’s hard to imagine why Hardy Kruger found the father’s role worth coming so far to play, though he does it well enough, even if sometimes striking an oddly exotic note.

Liddy Clark, especially, and John Jarratt play their small parts with a truthful feeling for ordinary lives that is quite affecting.

Only Elspeth Ballantyne, as Snook’s mother, looks and sounds wrong; there is something rather stiffly theatrical about her delivery that is a false touch in the film’s on-shore drama.

The film’s climax — the fish suddenly

ceasing to bite, the waterspout, the smashing of the Blue Fin, bodies swept overboard, the father’s broken leg, and the boy’s efforts to get the boat moving — builds a very persuasive tension, that is a matter of skilful cutting and of having made us care sufficiently about Snook.

The waterspout itself looks phony, and I wonder if the film doesn’t take the deaths of the rest of the Blue Fin’s crew too blandly. But this isn’t a film to be captious about; it means to tell an exciting story about a boy, a man and a boat, and it takes an unaffected pleasure in doing so.

It is essentially a children’s film and is being energetically sold as such. It doesn’t risk bogging the kids down with complex psychologizing or longueurs induced by a self-indulgent cameraman. Blue Fin just gets on with its main business, and the result is a modest, yet solid achievement.

BLUE FIN: Directed by: Carl Schultz.

P roducer: Hal M cElroy. E xecutive producer: Matt Carroll. Screenplay: Sonia Borg (from a novel by Colin Thiele).

Director of photography: Geoffrey Burton.

Editor: Rod Adamson. Music: Michael Carlos. Art director: David Copping.

Sound recordist: Don Connolly. Cast: Hardy Kruger, Greg Rowe, John Jarratt, Liddy Clark, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Elspeth Ballantyne, Ralph Cotterill, Alfred Bell, George Spartels. Production company: South Australian Film Corporation.

Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 95 min.

Australia. 1978.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 221

COMING HOME

what the men have been through, and its difference from the patriotic propaganda she has been raised on. Vi’s brother then commits suicide at the hospital, and when Luke Martin chains himself, in his wheelchair, to the gates of the recruiting depot in protest, she begins to understand — something which would have been inconceivable a short time before, when the world was made up of heroes and cowards.

Nevertheless, Sally is unprepared for the irritable stranger her husband has become when she goes to meet him on R and R in Hong Kong. Her affaire with Martin crystallizes after this experience, but their idyll — complete with bicyclewheelchair tandems, sensual bodyrubs by the fire and other mildly hippyish pursuits — is brutally cut short by the final return of the husband, sent back for an ingloriously-acquired leg wound.

Bob Hyde comes home, like Luke and all the others before him, brutalized by his experiences, crazy with his memories, and tortured by a foggy recognition that the forcibly-acquired savagery encouraged by Vietnam is definitely out of tune in that strange place, his former home.

H yde’s difficulties, how ever, are compounded by some friendly internal security agents who give him an illustrated rundown of his wife’s affaire with a crippled traitor almost as soon as he gets off the plane.

In the confrontation that follows, Hyde staggers from insane violence to broken vulnerability; Luke Martin stays heroically nice and brotherly; and Sally loyally keeps Vi (Penelope Milford) and Sally (Jane Fonda) become strong friends in the age of the Vietnam returnee. Coming Ifome . her wifely end up, despite a threatening bayonet. Ashby has the sensitivity to avoid narrative. So, Hal Ashby’s use of the whom she meets in a veterans’ hospital the temptation of rounding off a story-line COMING HOME stock war-time version of the eternal where she is doing voluntary work. like this with a definite happy ending. triangle tale in Coming Home, combined At the hospital, and.in the process of Hyde does not survive, but Sally and Luke Meaghan Morris with Haskell Wexler’s carefully bland winning over Martin, who is paralyzed in a are given no guarantee for the future. actuality cinematography, raises some state of bitter dehumanization at the time Coming Home does a number of The era of the Vietnam returnee is interesting questions — especially since of their first meeting, Sally swiftly loses remarkable things, not least of which is to beginning in the American cinema, with Coming Home is a liberal realist film some illusions. She is shocked by the expose the war hero myth through a more than half a dozen films using the war which treats the social effects of Vietnam sardonic comments made by the men sympathetic study of the men who bought in the U.S. with an overdue vengeance. as their theme being scheduled for release about what her husband has let himself in it and tried to live it — and what they got As a director, Ashby seems to need a for, and disturbed by the deranged state of in the coming year or so. This situation for their trouble. The cruel and mindless could be awaited with some trepidation — solid “ good theme” in a very traditional h er frie n d V i’s b ro th e r (R o b e rt abuse dished out on all sides to people especially if the cliched Human Condition sense to fill out an otherwise empty Carradine), who has spent only a fortnight placed in a situation few of us could even approach taken by Ted Post in Go Tell The professionalism; one has only to compare in Vietnam. begin to imagine, all brought up in one of the glossy dullness of Shampoo and Bound Spartans is anything to go by.

She finds the hospital poorly staffed and , the most cultivatedly ignorant, conven­ One of the less obvious, but most For Glory with the resounding success of equipped, and the “ war heroes” largely iently childish and blindingly effective disquieting, things about the war was the Harold and Maud to see the difference. In neglected now they are out of action for nationalist ideologies in modern history, way the horror of it always seemed to Coining Home, he gets stuck into the good. And, to her naive surprise, none of has passed at times, like the war itself, evade appropriate expression adequate to sizeable problem of the Vietnam veteran’s her fellow army wives on the base beyond belief. its reality — particularly by the left, and in return, and, by a finely controlled playing newspaper have the slightest interest in It is indicative of something nasty, no up of melodrama and playing down of relation to established art forms. doubt, that where 10 years ago sincere and publicizing this state of affairs.

While it is true that the opposition cinema, pull's off a searingly effective self-righteous demonstrators used to greet Gradually, she begins to get an idea of movement developed a range of ways of “ statement” kind of film on the subject speaking about and around the war — which was beginning to look impossible graffiti, street arts, clothing symbolism — for anyone to say anything about.

To achieve this, Coming Home works at the same time, a kind of rhetorical failure seemed to surface in efforts to meet hard at retaining credibility. A sense of the war head-on in film and literature. For unbearable enormity comes, paradox­ a long while, as one bitter joke has it, the ically, from a film which stays as close as only moving poem to come out of the war possible to conventional images of the experience was one by pro-war bomber everyday in American life; a film which pilot James Dickey, of Deliverance fame, plays the camera for classic commercial which extolled the beauty of burning reality-effect and which makes only the mildest of allusions to the atrocities of the villages seen from the air.

It may be futile to speculate too much war itself.

By remaining within those limits, and about the reasons for that failure; but one factor does seem to have been the by exploiting cinematic methods which remorseless realism of much radical art, never violate the expectations created by the sad belief that all you have to do is tell commercial narrative films, Ashby pitches and show it “ as it is” for something new to the pain level of the film just a fraction happen. Hence the frantic, hopeless below what is intolerable for that majority listings and countings of atrocities which audience who watched, but never went to eventually tended to splutter out under the war. He also leaves very few loopholes the dismal weight of their ineffectiveness; for angry rejection of the film.

If the images are ordinary and and hence the truth-telling documentaries which never seemed to know how much conventional, so is the story in a slightly they shared with the political fictions of different sense. It is almost pure soap opera; Sally Hyde (Jane Fonda) sees her television news coverage.

These days, tirades against the politics eaget beaver marine captain husband of the realist aesthetic are more generally (Bruce Dern) off to the war, and then Vi (Penelope Milford) and her brother Bill (Robert Carradine). Hal Ashby’s Coining Home. acceptable than they used to be, as are turns around and falls in love with attacks on the politics of conventional paraplegic Luke Martin (Jon Voight), 222 — Cinema Papers, January/February

DOMING HOME

draftees with cries o f “ killer” and “ assassin” , today the crazed Vietnam veteran, incurably addicted to massacre, has become a standard baddie in straight cinema and television updating its social decor. We are called upon to accept that yesterday’s heroes have become today’s psychotics, fit only to be hunted down by those flowers of peacetime goodness, cops and spies; a swift turnabout sanctified by the likes of Charles Bronson blasting Mafia-employed veterans by the dozen in The Stone Killer.

Bruce Dern gives a fine performance in the role of Bob Hyde, the boy scout, war hero-crim inal. Hyde is, realistically enough, never particularly loveable, but neither is he unusually awful as ordinary all-American males go. Hyde’s tragedy is brought out through his situation,, rather than through any special pleading dependent on his personality. That is rudely kicked home to us by the savage opening sequence, which has Hyde jogging brightly — short hair, red blood and all — along the beach to the music of the Rolling Stones singing “ Y esterd ay’s G irl” ; “ You’re obsolete my baby, my poor oldfashioned baby . . .”

The soundtrack of Coming Home draws heavily and well on late-’60s rock, which serves to heighten the melodrama and build in some sardonic comment, as well as rubbing salt in the wound by jogging the audience’s personal memories as only old pop music can do.

The treatment of the evolution of the women in Coming Home is interesting also, if a little over-discreet in some ways.

Left alone for the first time in her middleclass life, Sally develops a tendency towards strength and independence. The more violent upheavals of late-’60s America have little overt effect on her, though we feel their presence in muted form through her more flamboyant friend Vi (Penelope Milford). A strong friend­ ship with another woman, a job, the necessity to make decisions — all these factors, the film actually manages to suggest, influence Sally’s transformation almost as much as her relationship with a man different from her husband.

While the film undoubtedly gains its polemical power from its fidelity to commercial aesthetic form, and the consequent impression it creates of fidelity to middle-class American reality, Coming Home does, nevertheless, have a few doubtful features.

One is the blasted prettiness of it all; though for once it isn’t the beauty of the women that is exploited for the added rosy glow. Peculiarly enough, it’s the veterans who are foolishly cute; or, to be precise, the crippled ones. Though this is under­ standable in terms of the film’s admirable determination to present them as human beings with a full life to lead, it is a bit cheap to use them as sedentary sex objects.

More importantly, Coming Home has that oddly am biguous op en n ess to trivializing and reductive readings which seems to mark those films of liberal co n cern w hich stay c lo s e to the conventions of soapy stereotype, at least for their minor characters and secondary scenes.

This involves the dangerous topic of audience laughter, and how one can ever interpret what it means. Worthless as such an observation probably is, I could almost swear that the audience I saw Coming Home with for a second time was under the impression, almost until it was too la te, that the film had a strong resemblance to M*A*S*H* — and the telev isio n series at that. Only by imagining a code in which cripples, nurses and wheelchair circuits are intrinsically funny in combination could the otherwise

THIRD PERSON PLURAL

inscrutable and constant cackling seem possible; likewise, the curiously abrupt, unspontaneous and canned quality of the laughter itself. Maybe television is changing the resonance of our hilarity.

S om etim es when this disturbing experience of not seeing the same film as the person next to you happens, it probably can be put down to different cultural codes; especially with sub-titled foreign films. If you base your reading of, say, Love and Anarchy on Nino Culotta and Italian jokes, then it would seem a “ wog” comedy with a stupid ending where a man gets mashed for no apparent reason.

The situation with a film like Coming Home is slightly different. Though one m o st c e rta in ly c a n n o t a ssu m e a homogenous audience with a unified culture, there is a certain potential binding of film and audience through television programs and other commercial American films. Consequently films like Coming Home, which exploit widely diffused narrative and commercial conventions, do tend to be a bit subserviently adaptable to a thickly ideological, protective and comic reduction., One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is

very similar to Coming Home in this respect — the film actually changes with its audiences. When it plays in a context where a predominant number of people find maddies funny, it is a nasty and m y so g y n ist film h igh ligh tin g Jack Nicholson’s raunchy individualism via cheap laughs. When the audience doesn’t laugh at the maddies, it’s quite a good liberal film about mental hospitals, which is also nastily mysogynist.

None of which would really matter, except that Coming Home is supposed to be about the devastating effect that being brought up to see war in terms of childish and reductive images can, in the approp­ riate circumstances, have on people’s lives. It is a pity that the film does lend itself to a similar interpretation of its own images.

COMING HOME: Directed by: Hal Ashby. Producer: Jerom e Heilm an.

Screenplay: Waldo Salt, Robert C. Jones.

Director of photography: Haskell Wexler.

Editor: Don Zimmerman. Production designer: Mike Heller. Sound: Buzz Knudson. Cast: Jane Fonda, Jon Voigt, Bruce Dern, Robert Ginty, Penelope

Milford, Robert Carradine. Production cofnpany: United Artists. Distributor: United Artists. 35mm. 126 min. U.S. 1978.

THIRD PERSON PLURAL Robin Anderson A weekend on a boat with four boring people can be an unpleasant experience; watching a film of the same comes a close second.

In Third Person Plural four young people “ get to know each other” through ceaseless conversation during weekends away on a yacht. The characters, who take themselves fairly seriously most of the tim e — excep t w hen they drink champagne, laugh a lot and seem to forget their lines — consist of Beth (Margaret Cameron) — naive, not-too-bright, whose greatest dream is to have a farm with goats and make patchwork quilts; Danny (Linden Wilkinson) — the do-gooder and documentary videotape maker, who is working on a tape about old people; Mark (Bryan Brown) — serious, self-absorbed, very concerned about “ the meaning of it all” ; and Terry (George Shevtsov) — the carefree, good-natured boat owner.

After some time in the boat, Beth realizes she is in love with Terry, which causes some problems as she also loves her husband (David Cameron), who stays at home on weekends, presumably to finish off work for Monday and look after the baby. She arranges to leave home so she can be with Terry, but finds he isn’t that serious — all of which is not particularly traumatic, because everyone is very gentle and understanding, or perhaps too bland, for any other reaction.

M eanw hile things are developing between Danny and Mark. But there is som e conflict when Mark questions Danny’s motives in her documentary filmmaking. He regards the work as insensitive and questions the surety of her opinions that people can be made happier if they only work to bring about changes: “ But what is happiness? How do you

On board the boat. Top: Margaret Cameron (left), George Shevtsov, Linden Wilkinsonand:Bryan Brown. Bottom: Margaret Cameron, Bryan Brown and Linden Wilkinson. James Rieketson’s Third Person Plural. -

Cinema Papers, January/February — 223

Do You Have O ur N ew Catalogue?

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

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

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

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

(Metropolitan area 75c, country areas $1.10) SYDNEY: (02) 233 5211 BRISBANE: (07) 221 0 0 3 3

ADELAIDE: (08) 223 2 29 4 PERTH: (09) 322 6986

MELBOURNE: (03) 328 4 8 0 5

GUO FILM DISTRIBUTORS A R E PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH THESE FORTHCOMING AUSTRALIAN FILMS:

“DIMBOOLA”

Produced by John Weiley/Directed by John Duigan •

“IN SEARCH OF ANNA” Written Produced and Directed by Esben Storm

“MY BRILLIANT CAREER” Produced by Margaret Fink Directed by Gillian Armstrong

“TIM”

Produced and Directed by Michael Pate

THIRD PERSON PLURAL

define it?” he asks earnestly.

Mark and Danny talk at great length, but their conversation seems pointless, and they never appear to reach any understanding or agreement.

T h e film b a s ic a lly f o llo w s a conventional linear time progression, in that we watch the characters from their first encounter on the boat through a period of them learning about each other.

There is much cutting from one situation in v o lv in g the fou r acto rs (or a combination of the four) to another situation, place and presumably time. This has the advantage of providing the film with some pace and rhythm, as well as adding interest through a sense o f timelessness. We sense time is passing, but we never really know how much.

The film also uses flashes of the actors in different situations in order to emphasize a point being developed in the present. For exam ple, when Terry explains to Beth that he only needs odd jobs because he has no responsibilities, she looks wistful. We then see her husband home at the drawing board, with a baby crying in the background. Many of these cuts are unsubtle and unnecessary.

In a statement about the film, director James Ricketson has said that economics and the desire to provide the film with a “ documentary feel” made him decide to use no artificial lighting and only a hand­ held camera. One can appreciate the limit­ ations caused by economics, but making a decision to not use certain available tech­ niques (tripods and lights) seems a strange way to achieve a documentary feel.

Merely using the tools of documentary filmmaking in a feature film production will not necessarily give the final product a documentary feel; a particular type of directing and acting style is required to imply the camera is capturing action as it is happening (c.f. N ashville). Neglecting lights and tripods only ensures a wobbly frame and maybe poor lighting.

In the same statement, Ricketson explains that by making this decision, technical aspects of filmmaking were rele­ gated to a secondary role, thus forcing concentration on the “content” , as the film could not rely on “ beautiful” photo­ graphy, lighting, etc. to carry it. Unfort­ unately, merely relegating technical aspects to a secondary role doesn’t nec­ essarily ensure a superior film content, just as high tech n ical quality d o e s n ’t necessarily imply poor content. In fact, the “ technical aspects” are admirable given the film ’s $35,000 budget, but the “ content” leaves much to be desired.

The script was devised by Ricketson and the actors in a workshop situation, and some of the dialogue appears to have been improvised at the time of filming. The conversation (and there certainly isn’t much else occurring) tends to centre on the inconsequential (“ Who brought the w aterm elon?” “ Have you seen my glass?” “ Shall I tie the knot here?” ) or attempts to shed light on the grand issues (“ But why are we h e r e V “ What’s the reason for it all?” “ I can’t help asking why.” ) with little else in between.

The dialogue is frequently clumsy, boring and/or irritating. Mark’s anxious expression and constant harping on “ what does it all mean?” eventually becomes quite absurd. Surely people concerned with such matters just don’t talk about them in this way. And Danny’s question to Mark — in all seriousness — “ What would you do if you found the Miraculous?”

(Mark is reading In Search o f the Miraculous during one o f the boat excursions) can only make one squirm with embarrassment. There is not much subtlety, a lot of repetition, and the little that happens to the characters' is pred­ ictable and unilluminating. What we learn

WORD IS OUT

about them is from their conversation only — there are few situations o r incidents which allow their reactions to be revealed.

Several times throughout the film an elderly woman appears, speaking to the camera about her views on life and other matters. Danny and Beth are present once or twice when she makes her small speeches (presumably she is part of Danny’s videotape project), but otherwise there is no interaction between her and the four actors. One wonders about the rele­ vance of her appearance; her statements neither shed light on the four major char­ acters nor have much value on their own.

By the end of the film, the characters seem to have made almost no progress (except Beth, who seems determined to get that dreamtime farm and is studying agricultural science in preparation). One wonders what was the purpose of the whole exercise.

The fact that the actors seem to be playing themselves is a compliment to their performances. But because of the empty dialogue, watching them is like spending the evening with uninvited guests who have nothing of interest to say.

And that’s what’s basically wrong with this film — it has nothing to say.

THIRD PERSON PLURAL: Directed by: James Ricketson. Producer: John W eiley. A ssociate producers: Greg Ricketson, Gill Eatherley. Screenplay: J a m es R ic k e ts o n .

D ir e c to r of photography: Tom C owan. Editor: Christopher Cordeaux. Music: Greg McLean. Sound recordist: Kevin Kearney.

Cast: Bryan Brown, Linden Wilkinson, George Shevtsov, Margaret Cameron, David Cameron, Elaine Hudson, Alex Kovacs. Production company: Abraxas Films. Distribution: Abraxas Films.

16mm. 90 min. Australia. 1978.

WORD IS OUT Barbara Boyd Word is Out is a compelling doc­ umentary on gay liberation in the U.S. A five-year project, the film was initiated by the Mariposa Film Group in San Francisco when gay liberation was in its infancy. The group worked collectively to compile 200 videotaped interviews with gay men and women in the Bay area and in other parts of the country, from New Mexico to New York. From these interviews 26 men and women were selected for the 16mm color film.

The film makes possible a dialogue between the gay community and the straight society of which it is a part, and in the U.S. it has passed beyond the ranks of the converted and achieved a commercial release. Despite obvious technical crude­ ness, the documentary is direct and prov-. ocative. Its approach is blunt and unadorned, but the sincerity and openness of the gay men and women in the film endows it with a simple but affecting rhetoric.

Word is Out is a public and political statement dealing with a dilemma that has often been characterized in the past (and possibly still in the present) as a personal and private matter — the alienation o f the gay individual from the heterosexual community. The film is a serious attempt to assert homosexuality and bisexuality as a natural part of the sexual continuum. It is also a call to rethink — producer Peter Adair says he hopes the film will “ change people’s minds about a lot o f things” .

The film demystifies homosexuality and translates the derogatory intangibles often attached to words such as lesbian,

gay, camp, etc. into the sympathetic and moving realities of personal histories. It confronts the ignorant or the hostile with a broad cross-section of men and women who clearly resist the reductive tag of queer or weird. As the Boston actor says about his decision to publicly state his position, “ I feel a responsibility to other weird people to be a representative, intelligent, weird person.”

The film stresses the waste society incurs in its dism issal o f the gay community. The men and women being interviewed display a range of insights and of talents valuable to any society. They are unique as individuals, with differing back­ grounds, temperaments and characters.

Their needs and desires are recognizably basic and human. Their sexual preferences alone differentiate them from the dominant heterosexual society.

In the context of personal and political statements, the camera is an almost invisible participator in the documentary.

Fixed and static for the major parts of the film, it alternates between medium and close-up shots of the men and women interviewed. Confined essentially to intercut and continuous conversations, the film is compressed and concentrated as individuals slowly, and sometimes pain­ fully, reveal their experiences, their per­ spectives and their personalities.

There are tantalizing glimpses of the more expansive world of gay liberation at meetings, marches and concerts, but the documentary emphasizes the private and enclosed existences of many gay people.

The call of the film is as much for solid­ arity within the ranks of the gay m ove­ ment, to “come out” , as it is a call for acceptance from the society of which it is a part. The interview format stresses the isolation that has characterized the exist­ ence of the gay individual, and points to a scattered and diverse group of people who realize it is time to unite in a common purpose.

Despite the documentary’s serious intent, it draws authenticity and effective impact from moments of humor. The film, and individuals in it, move easily and unselfconsciously into flashes of self­ parody and ironic awareness. A middleaged former WAC lesbian tells of witch­ hunts in war-time Tokyo, and of street violence in ’40s America. But her sombre recollections are spiced with lively per­

ceptions of the past and witty anecdotes that sim ultaneously romanticize and render it absurd.

A couple of older gay men reminisce about the rigidities of the ’30s. Relaxed and happy, they are proof of the value of a more flexible, a more satisfying reality than that promoted by the wooden stereo­ types eulogized by their generation. One of them refers to the “ untalking, unmoving Gary Cooper” . Hand in hand in a country field, they are by past, or possibly present, definition a curious couple, as much at odds with contemporary images of male sexuality as they would have been nearly 50 years ago.

A San Francisco drag queen walks through a city park with his lover. The inevitable reaction of passers-by is noted by the film and treated as the cliche it is.

The sharp realization in this sequence and others in the film is that for lack of other m odels, the hom osexual can, and som etim es does, draw upon already existent stereotypes of the heterosexual m ilieu. The m iddle-aged, ex-A rm y woman acknowledges this when she points out how it was easier when all the lesbians knew their roles — whether they were butch or “ fern” . Then they knew what to do, and what was expected of them.

The documentary acknowledges the limitations inherent in role playing, whether in a gay or heterosexual society.

The film argues the right to define the parameters of one’s identity, and demon­ strates the integrity that accompanies selfknowledge. Elsa Gidlow, a 77 year-old poet expresses her sense of the difficulty of being a lesbian. She says “ . . . it was the loneliness — the fact that I didn’t know anybody like me.” But she admits she is temperamentally disposed to being a loner and is surprised when asked how long she has been a lesbian. “ I’ve always been this way,” she says.

Word is Out is a moving document of the heightened sensitivity and awareness of a group of individuals tutored in gauging and evaluating their social presence and its effect on others. It is the heightened sensitivity of individuals who have had no options except secrecy, deceit or repression. “ Out of the closet” , the milieu of the “ straight” world is unpred­ ictable and potentially dangerous for the gay man or woman. And the film records the element of fear provoked by the

Harry Hay and John Bürnside in the compelling Word is Out.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 225

WORD IS OUT

IPHIGENIA

prospect of confrontation. But it shows confrontation as a practical and necessary movement forward for the gay individual.

Word Is Out is a persuasive argument for gay liberation, and for the basic rights of a human being. With its low-key, personalized approach to the question of social justice for the gay community, the film challenges the nature of social sanctions as absolutes, and questions the ethics, the appropriateness and even the utility of sexual mores.

It skilfully directs our sympathies towards the 26 gay men and women who have faced the camera to represent an oppressed minority. For them, the film is a proclamation of change, moving from the callous intolerance of the early years, through the present to the prospect of a more generous and more enlightened future. For us, it is an authentic and moving document of individuals who have lived too long with guilt and fear, through the inequities of a rigid social system.

WORD IS OUT: Directed by: Peter Adair, Nancy Adair, Veronica Selver, Andrew Brown, Robert Epstein, Lucy Massie Phenix. Producer: Peter Adair.

D irecto rs o f ph otography, S ou n d , Interviews, Editing: Lucy Massie Phenix, Robert Epstein, Andrew Brown, Veronica Selver, Nancy Adair, Peter Adair. Music: Trish Nugent (Women’s); Buena Vista (Men’s). Production company: Mariposa Film Group. Distributor: Johnny Allan.

16mm. 135 min. U.S. 1978.

IPHIGENIA Margaret McClusky In Euripides’ play — and indeed most Greek tragedy — the inevitability of fate and the implacability of the gods is upperm ost. The drama is powerful because of man’s hopeless attempt to defy them. Cacoyannis’ Iphigenia asserts an alternative: that superstition and stupidity, callousness and greed, bring about Iphigenia’s death. Fate and the gods have nothing to do with it.

The film opens with Greece about to go to war, ostensibly over the ubiquitous Helen, but there is no wind to take the waiting ships. The army lolls about in its thousands on a beach — a magnificent impression of an archaic Surfers Paradise.

Becalmed, the Grecian king Agamemnon is given the word by the Oracle: the winds will rise and he will conquer Troy, but he must make a sacrifice. He readily agrees even though the sacrifice is his first born, Iphigenia.

In a sardonically played-down moment, he throws a few things around, tears his hair and rolls his eyes, but callously sends off a messenger to inform Iphigenia that Achilles, leader of the allied Athenian army, will not go to war without marrying.

She must come at once.

As Iphigenia and her mother prepare for the journey, Agamemnon repents and sends a messenger to send them back.

Brother Menelaus, impatient to go to war and retrieve his truant wife, overhears and foils the counter move.

The brothers argue — and in this argument, more than anything else, Cacoyannis humanizes the otherwise rather remote characters of Euripides — showing themselves very ordinary men: venal, selfish, pragmatic. Menelaus backs down, and agrees that Helen is not worth Iphigenia’s sacrifice. Agamemnon turns tail, aware of his precariousness in the eyes o f his army, and the unspoken fact that a lot more is at stake in this war than bringing “ the whore” home. Iphigenia arrives.

226 — Cinema Papers, January/February

Clytem nestra, Iphigenia’s m other, learns of the King’s plan and falls on the mercy of Achilles who knows nothing about the spurious betrothal and sacrifice.

He agrees to try to avert the tragedy and, in a scene almost comic in its hopeless­ ness, attempts to convince his army that they should not go to war.

In the faces of the soldiers — bored, determined mindlessly for war — one sees man’s eternal stupidity and lack of honor.

No noble savage emerges; it is the face of primitivism, of self-interest, of the magnamacho cult to fight and be a man. Achilles’ appeal fails and he is driven away with stones.

Iphigenia learns of her impending death and flees, but is recaptured and taken back to the King’s compound. In an overlong scene she pleads for her life. Then, with the sweet unreason of a child, agrees that the lives of her father and her family are at stake, and so she can accept death. Tatiana P ap am osk ou , a fla w less Iphigenia, assumes her bridal robes and goes to meet death.

She climbs to the top of the hill where the blackrobed Oracle waits. There is a disturbing flutter through the robes of her attendants, perhaps the vital wind, which may save her. Iphigenia looks back once, then is beckoned over the crest of the hill.

The wind blows, strong and mighty. The soldiers cheer and head for the beach.

Agamemnon, realizing that no sacrifice is now necessary, follows Iphigenia up the hill in an attempt to pluck her back. But the wind blinds him with the smoke of the sacrificial incense and myrrh. He is too late.

While not flawless — many scenes are too long to no purpose and there are some rather disturbing cuts, changes of light and an overly insistent juxtaposition o f T h eod orak is’ m usic — C acoyannis’ achievement is impressive. The bleachedout landscapes with rocks, trees and grass deprived o f natural color by the harshness of the sun, Iphigenia’s handmaidens, sm ooth, cool, impassive and m ono­ chromatic, and Iphigenia’s own beauty: her small, rather pinched face, colorless

Top and above: two scenes from Michael Cacoyannis’ Iphigenia, from the play by Euripides.

and fearless, and multi-dimensional in spite o f the flattering light, are contrasted with the extravaganza o f dawn and dusk.

The bluer-than-believable sky, the sun setting through a silhouette of sails, and the chase after the sacred deer, through green, arcadian woods, through which Iphigenia too flees, and the deer’s blood trickling over bleached stone, are images as moving and poetic as the play itself.

In startling contrast is Cacoyannis’ cinematic insistence on the ordinariness of the players and their emotions. The King, h is b r o th e r , e v e n th e h istr io n ic Clytemnestra, are all too evidently human.

Only Iphigenia and Achilles seem to have shucked off their mortal coils.

Iphigenia has the sort o f beauty one cannot believe will live beyond virginity and adolescence: pure, childlike and timeless. Achilles, no Greek god, has a compassion and honor none of the other men possess.

The crime of war, of all the issues

suggested in the play, is clearly perceived in the film. It is no noble thing. Greed and fear are its motivations, not the often espoused notions of honor and freedom.

As much a document for the ’70s, Cacoyannis’ Iphigenia resonates eerily with our more recent concerns in our Asian north.

IP H IG E N IA : D irected by: M ichael C a co y a n n is. P roducer: Y a n n o u lla Wakefield. Executive Producer: Yannoulla W a k e fie ld . S c r e e n p la y : M ich a el Cacoyannis. Director o f Photography: G eorgios Arvanitis. Editor: Michael Cacoyannis & Takis Yannopoulos. Music: Mikis Theodorakis. Art Director: Dionyfis Photopoulos. Sound Recordist: Mimis Kasamatis. Cast: Ireni Papas, Costa Z a z a k is, C osta C a rra s, T a tia n a P a p a n o sk o u , C h r is to s T sa n g a s.

Production Company: Greek Film Centre.

Distributor: United Artists. 129 min.

Greece. 1976.

T H E MOVIE KING SELLS FULLY IMPORTED SUPER 8 SOUND FEATURES BY MAIL ORDER AT HALF THE PRICE YOU WOULD EXPECT TO PAY IF THEY WERE SOLD AT NORMAL RETAIL PRICES BY PHOTOGRAPHIC STORES. SAVE!!!

C IN E C E N T A FILM S CANBERRA

THE PRICES WILL VARY BETWEEN A$200.00 TO A$3Q0.00 FOR EACH FILM DEPENDING UPON THE ORIGINAL RUNNING TIME OF EACH FEATURE FILM.

presents

T H E FO LLO W IN G F IL M S W ILL B EC O M E A V A IL A B L E FROM O EC EM B ER , 19 78 :

FOR THOSE WHO APPRECIATE QUALITY

S U P ER 8 C O LO U R S O U N D F EA T U R E F IL M S : CABARET (1972) 120 mins.

THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY (1969) 120 mins TOO LATE THEHERO (1970) 130 mins.

LOVERS AND OTHER STRANGERS (1970) 100 mins.

THE MARK OF ZORRO (1974) 70 mins.

SONG OF NORWAY (1969) 120 mins.

TOM SAWYER (1973) 100 mins.

DUEL IN THE SUN (1946) 140 mins.

CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967) 140 mins.

FOR THE LOVE OF IVY (1968) 100 mins.

CHARLY (1968) 100 mins.

THE KILLING OF SISTER GEORGE (1968) 120 mins.

NOT A VAILABLE IN STORES. A V AILAB LE B Y M AIL ORDER ONLY. PRICE INCLUDES COST OF AIR­ FREIGHT FROM USA AND REGISTERED M AIL. RUNNING TIMES ARE APPROXIMA TE PRICES AND TITLES A V A ILA B LE ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. PRICES CORRECT A T TIME OF PLACE­ M ENT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT. COPYRIGHT © JUNE 1978.

JUNIOR BONNER (1972) 100 mins.

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN (1969) 80 mins.

Alain Resnais PROVIDENCE

S U P ER 8 B&W S OU ND FEA T U R E F IL M S :

Francois Truffaut

INTERMEZZO (1939) 80 mins.

REBECCA (1940) 110 mins.

SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (1044) 160 mins.

SPELLBOUND (1945) 110 mins NOTORIUS (1946) 100 mins.

THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE (1946) 80 mins PORTRAIT OF JENNY (1949) 80 mins. *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

LACHAMBREVERTE Hans W Geissendorfer DIEGLASERNEZELLE

“THE MOVIE KING" (DEPT 1978], Box M244, SYDNEY MAIL EXCHANGE, NSW

Z

2012 REGISTERED OFFICE:- 268 CLEVELAND STREET, SYDNEY, N.S.W.

Z

J * * *

Z Z *

and in association w ith Sharm ill Film s

*

* *

Boaz Davidson LEMON POPSICLE Paolo & Vittorio Taviani PADRE PADRONE

PLEASE SEND M E WITHOUT OBLIGATION, FURTHER DETAILS AND PRICES. (IF APPLICABLE) I A M INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE FOLLOWING F IL M S :- ............................................................

*

.....................................

* * *

PRINT NAM E ........

PRINT ADDRESS:.

*

.....................................

Yaky Yosha

ROCKINGHORSE

.............................. ......

Whenever you need it! Wherever you want it! For any length of tim e at negotiable rates - that's EASTBERN TRUCK RENTALS. The fu ll range of Landcruisers, 2-3 tonne moving vans (easily adaptable to N. portable dressing room or make-up vans) 1 tonne Hi-Ace vans fo r that extra equipment, or 12 seater buses, air-conditioned cars and station wagons fo r all your personnel transport problems; available when \ you need it wherever you need it. For all your location \ shooting, anywhere in Australia, Eastbern's got the right f \ vehicles at the right prices. ®

®

\ \

^

1J

F IF

Short or long term rentals or even leasing arrangements are all only a phone call away. On your next budget, d on 't \ leave out Eastbern Rentals, when just a phone call w ill \ get you exact costs fo r all your rental requirements. \ Ring Darryl Howard right now on (03) 877 5022 fo r immediate and obligation free quotes fo r your particu'ar requirements.

(0 3 } 1 7 7 3 1 3 3

1 0 3 )8 7 7 8 0 2 2

W I— TRUCK RENTAL—' W pF

279 Whitehorse Road, Nunawading. Vic. 3131. a.h. (03) 720 1161. '

t m f Please supply me w ith literature regarding the rental o f y o u r fle e t o f f t Landcruisers, com m ercial vehicles and a ir-conditioned cars and

/

S tation Wagons.

Name, if

Company

Position Address.

the frie n d ly a lte rn a tivi

Authorship and Narrative in the Cinema: Issues in Contem porary Aesthetics and Criticism.

William Luhr and Peter Lehman Capricorn Books, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1977.

Adrian Martin.

In the past 10 years, film criticism has undergone major changes. Each new approach has ushered in another, bringing with it considerable theoretical material from oth er d iscip lin es: se m io tic s, psychoanalysis, linguistics, etc. The result, particularly evident in Screen, is that every approach ideally needs to be integrated with the ones related to it. Thus Stephen Heath, for instance, calls for a grand synthesis of all the radical criticism so far developed, a notion he titles “ the c in e m a tic m a c h in é ” . T he su p e r ­ intellectual effort required for such a task is daunting — if indeed such a synthesis is desirable, or even possible.

It is, therefore, hardly surprising that som e critics have felt the need to specialize. William Luhr and Peter Lehman provide such a specialization.

Indeed, they see their aesthetic analysis as the necessary prerequisite to any other critical work: “ Only when the nature of the object itself has been precisely established can it be fruitfully related to larger constructs . . . other constructs — social, political, psychological, and so on — are worthwhile, but beyond the specifically aesthetic concern o f this work.”

Luhr and Lehm an work in the traditional area of mise-en-scene analysis, a minute discussion of how the various e le m e n t s o f c in e m a tic s ty le — composition, lighting, decor, movement of the camera and the actors, etc. — cohere into a unified expression of the film’s fictional world.

The long chapters on The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Searchers painstakingly trace the recurring motifs in John F ord’s direction: the use of doorways, association of characters with certain times of day, changing positions of the characters in the frame to indicate spatially the change in their relationships, etc. For those who have any regard for th e se film s, the a n alyses p rovid e fascinating insights into their seemingly inexhaustible complexities. Similarly, the ‘auteurist’ account of Ford’s developing concerns as revealed in the body of this work will be o f interest to Ford admirers, though Luhr and Lehman insist — rightly I believe — that deciphering patterns of coherence between different works by the same author is only a secondary aesthetic concern.

However, anyone coming to the book without a prior regard for Ford is likely to find it som ewhat puzzling. In their introduction, the authors explain that they picked these films for analysis simply because they provide exam ples of

228 — Cinema Papers, January/February

“ e ffe c tiv e ” film s in the narrative tradition. The analysis seems to imply a great deal more — that the films are in fact masterpieces.

Presumably, within the area of trad­ itional criticism, that evaluation would be worth stating and then put under scrutiny by the analysis — as Robin Wood does, brilliantly, in his piece on Letter from an Unkown Woman in Personal Views. This is eloquent of a central confusion in the book’s method. Luhr and Lehman appear to find it enough merely to outline the precise symmetry of motifs and assoc­ iations in the films — “ how the work functions as an artistic unit” .

But a doorway is just a doorway, no matter how many times it appears, or whichever director decided to put it in the shot. The point is precisely what that motif expresses, and how well or badly it achieves this end.

This is Robin Wood’s great strength as a critic; the way he constantly strives to evaluate the worth o f a film’s realization, the way it works itself out. Luhr and Lehman’s chapter on The Searchers is better than the one on Liberty Valance in this respect, because their description of the film’s pattern of ellipses directly entails a discussion of how we can — or cannot — read the psychology of Ethan’s character.

The authors are shy when it comes to identifying theme. Yet if one is committed to working in a traditional mode of criticism, that is always the foremost question: What is this film about? This leads to — How does it say it? How well is it said?

In the classical narrative cinema, formal operations always stand for something else — they represent an idea; the world of the fiction embodies something and is charged with meaning.

An a ltern a tiv e critical approach radically counterposes this idea with the one that form — the material construction of the film — is important in itself, leading to a new revaluation of the output of independent filmmakers that focuses on the film work. This is a direct challenge to — often a dismantling of — traditional narrative cinema. Luhr and Lehman try to sit astride both worlds: “ The non­ narrative challenge should ultimately lead to a more precise evaluation of the narrative cinema. Both, ultimately, share the same formal attributes (mise-en-scene, editing, sound, and so on) and skill in both lies in the configuration o f these attributes, for whatever purpose. Such an evaluation cannot help but highlight the gen iu s o f men like Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, and their peers.”

The phrase “ for whatever purpose” ignores the fact that the purposes are opposed to one another: in narrative cinema, form (ideally) disappears under the illusion mounted by the fictional world; in alternative forms, however we wish to label them, form moves to the foreground and works against the production of a fixed, coherent, readable meaning (or ‘them e’ in the traditional sense).

Even if we choose, as critics, to work in the familiar world o f evaluative criticism, this book brings up problems that cannot

be easily ignored. The analysis in this book restructures the films, in Barthes’ phrase, into “ blocks of meaning” . That is, patterns of coherence are carefully described as they are seen to be at work in the film. The result of this and all mise-enscene criticism is that it picks out the “ striking images” from a film, makes a case around them, and then conveniently forgets' the dross. For, as Raymond Bellour has observed, the most profound tendency in the classical narrative film is towards repetition.

Mise-en-scene critics have a field day with low-high angles or elaborate crane shots, but what can they say about the most common figure of film language, the dreary old reverse shot that cuts from actor A speaking in mid-shot to actor B speaking in mid-shot? Which is not to say the reverse shot structure is never complex or expressive, but in the majority of cases it is the moment when cinematic style shrinks to zero.

Why is this technique so prominent in the narrative films? A theory needs to be evolved that reaches beyond traditional criticism. If this is not tHe task Luhr and Lehman set themselves, then they might reasonably be expected to recognize and refer to the problem.

The second half of the book, on narrative, is naive and disappointing. The authors appear dismayed over the “ much needless controversy” around the subject.

Their solution, in line with the book’s first half, is to argue that the story is simply one formal element that the director may use to communicate his “ vision” — although, as noted, they are reluctant to speak of an auteur’s thematic viewpoint and discuss instead the “ elaborate formal patterns . . . (that have) much more to do with the film’s aesthetic than the ostensible narrative” . Hitchcock, for instance, is seen to “ provide a film that works expertly as narrative and thus ensure his ability to finance films, while at the same time produce cinematic masterworks whose impact far exceeds that of the narrative elements within them” .

Luhr and Lehman, in order to make such statements, have managed to ignore most of the interesting and important work done on narrative. The writing of Barthes, Propp, Metz, Greimas, Bellour and others goes unnoticed. This is not to say that a critic has to refer to everyone who has discussed the same topic. But in this case it means that the key questions are not explored: What are the “ rules” of narrative? How does a narrative situate the viewer in a certain position of knowledge?

The long com parison o f various versions of the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde story on film with the original novel serves to point out that significant changes can be wrought upon a similar story line — “ extensive and essential differences” . The aim is finally to eulogize “ the creative process” — the ways in which different artistes, whatever their worth, will necessarily produce individual variations on the pre-existing plot line.

The study of narrative carried out by others has aimed precisely to see what structures and effects exist in the act of

narration, irrespective of the particular narrator, be it John Ford or Tex Avery.

What makes this part of the book so shallow is that the authors see narrative as som eth in g utterly unproblem atic — merely the events of a story — and ignore the real theoretical issues. Any book that sub-titles itself, “ issues in contemporary criticism” needs to involve itself with those issues.

Great Balls of Fire Harry Harrison Penguin

Merryn Gates Harry Harrison’s Great Balls o f Fire has added yet another history in praise of science fiction to our library. Unlike books such as Brian Aldiss’ Science Fiction A rt12 and Lester del Rey’s Fantastic Science Fiction A rt1, Harrison provides more than the straight facts. Abundantly illustrated, the text discusses how the pulp magazine industry Started, and outlines the growth of science fiction as one of its categories.

Having been an illustrator, writer, editor and publisher, Harrison tells inside stories that other anthologies don’t.

Hailed by Brian Aldiss as “ one of the greatest humorists to write science fiction” , Harrison has written a text that suggests his humor is little different from that of the “ libidinous young man who gets his jollies from his favorite form of fiction” . The text is conversational in tone and easily read, but the humor is, in the end, inescapably offensive.

With the help of Freud and Baron von Krafft-Ebing he attempts to plumb the depths of the sexual symbolism which abounds in science fiction illustration — a form which enjoyed slightly more freedom, he says, than the other pulp categories (W esterns, rom ances, war stories, etc.) ’ because like the naked African women in the National Geographic, the science fiction world was sufficiently distant from American reality and the ruling social mores. Yet much of his analysis, which is fairly accurate (how can one dispute the phallic implications of rockets and guns?), is presented with a very definite nudge in the ribs, and the occasional mutter of “ Great stuff!” This tone of a shared voyeuristic experience with the reader is little more than smut in academic clothing.

The book is called “ a history of sex in science fiction” — but for “ sex” read “ women” . Harrison explains and never questions the withdrawal of the male into the visual background in science fiction art: “ Boys read science fiction, not girls, and they want to look at the female forrrt.”

Consequently, this book follows in loving detail the progressive disrobing of the female form as it travels through the world of science fiction.

Harrison introduces us to' three sub­ categories in science fiction illustration — 1. Aldiss, Brian, ed. Science Fiction Art, New English Library. London 1975.

2. Del Rey, .Lester, ed. Fantastic Science Fiction Art, Ballantine Books. N.Y. 1975.

BOOKS

Earth, When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth and Barbarella. It is a sufficiently characteristic genre to translate from medium to medium with relatively little adjustment.

That the archetypes and traditions were established within a society w hose attitudes to women were oppressive and exploitative is all the more reason for this particular type of fiction to require more research. It is just not enough to identify the various psychoanalytical inter­ pretations of these images if such a method only serves to reinforce that position o f exploitation.

Harry Harrison’s Great Balls o f Fire lives up to his observation of science fiction: “ Early science fiction illustrations always promised more than the text d e liv e r e d .” D e sp ite th e a m u sin g anecdotes that make his history of this genre readable, his text is eventually something of a put down.

Books of the quarter J.H. Reid Actors and Actresses

“ Girls being threatened” , “ Girls being carried away” , “ Girls to be looked at” . He o b se r v e s that th e se su b -ca teg o ries correlate to Baron von Krafft-Ebing’s listings o f sadism , m asochism and fetishism. Pretty straight forward: the girls are tied up or they tie others up, attired in fantasy costumes. I don’t quite understand Harrison’s perplexity on why the aliens and robots want our girls; but he eventually decides they are simply figures for the reader to identify with: “ Our robot persona can carry the girl off so our hero persona can have a good go at her. What’s wrong with that?”

As rich as these areas are for sexual innuendo, so too is the science fiction world, providing many objects such as rockets, guns, tentacles, etc., which cry out for Freudian analysis. It is extensively illustrated and discussed in detail.

However, at a time when Gloria Steinem’s interpretative essay on Wonder Woman3 not only analyses the content of this comic heroine, but offers a coherent account of her position in a sexist, maleorientated industry, Harrison’s history of how women gradually showed more flesh, as inhibitions are conquered over four decades, becomes a form of a glossy peep show, and his call for a greater freedom and higher standard of science fiction illustration becomes, in the end, a desire to see more breast, more flesh. He does not want women’s position in the science fiction world to be changed — she is to be more revealed and liberated only to the extent that she can more explicitly fulfil male fantasies.

The images of powerful women — in Wonder Woman and Barbarella, for instance — are still essentially objects of visual titillation to the viewer; he is still clad in the traditions of science fiction, the fetishist delights of kinky boots, breast plates and rubber garments. The very title of the book, Great Balls o f Fire, is illustrative of Harrison’s attitude to science fiction; it is very much a masculine response to the contents, and Harrison shows no awareness o f what that implies.

Harrison is, in fact, antagonistic towards those who analyse the pulp magazine and comic genre too closely: “ I find myself unmoved by the appreciators 3. Steinem, Gloria, Wonder Woman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, N.Y. 1972.

who publish books lauding the intellectual freedom and true merit of the comic medium. I was there; they can’t con me.”

His refutation of the analysis of Wonder Woman in Psychiatric Quarterly as “ . . . a series . . . which portrays extremely sadistic hatred of all males in a framework which is plainly lesbian” is part of a particularly weak chapter concerning homosexuality between comic strip heroes and heroines (com monly known as heterosexual hom osexuality). Cutely titled “ Is Conan dating Clark Kent?” , his argument is. often in the form of “ I was there, and the guy certainly didn’t mean it like that.” The assertion that “ Wonder Woman was created to the publisher’s orders for a female super hero with whom your girl readers could identify” is scarcely an appropriate reaction to psychoanalytic procedures.

Harrison assures us that much of the overt sexual symbolism was unconscious — drawn under the stress of one-day deadlines and/or publishers’ direct instructions. I don’t think this reduces the potency of the images. He seems defensive about the role of the artiste in the midst of this analysis — and to plead, “ Symbolism?

No, instruction” , doesn’t seem necessary or adequate.

What is needed is an overall perspective of why woman was continually limited to being an object, because the science fiction heritage is still with us today in the form of telev isio n show s such as Batman, Superman, The Jetsons and Wonder Woman. These shows reveal that the basic format, established in the magazine category o f science fiction, still prevails.

The social roles are stereotyped and r e str ic tiv e , esp ecially for w om en.

Admittedly, the female image of Clark Kent’s sweetheart Lois Lane gains more clothes from the repercussions of the ‘Comics Code Cleanup’; she is still there to be rescued as are her breast-plated sisters.

Science fiction film posters during the ’40 and ’50s4 reveal their close similarity to magazine art o f the same time. The women are constantly threatened and carried away: in classics such as King

Kong, Invaders From Mars, Not of this 4. For example, ,oee Alan Adler, ed., Science Fiction and Horror Movie Posters, Dover Publications, New York, 1977.

Funny Way to be a Hero by John Fisher.

Paladin, London, 1976. $4.65. This book is a skilful and incisive account of the stage and film careers of British comedians, like George Formby, Will Hay, Max M iller, Tommy Handley, Frankie Howerd, Tony Hancock, Morecambe and Wise. The only important entertainer who receives short shrift is Arthur Askey, whose stage performances are neatly abstracted in a mere one and a half pages; his extensive film career is not even mentioned.

Fisher has a forceful way of communicating the personality of each comedian he discusses — both on and off the stage — and his description of their respective audience appeal makes fascinating reading.

The Films o f Sidney Poitier by Alvin H. Marill.

Citadel Press, Secaucus, 1978. $22.50. A welld ocu m ented account o f P o itier’s career, concentrating on his films (with an appendix of his stage and television appearances) with full cast lists, basic credits, story synopses and resumes of contemporary reviews.

The Films o f Shirley Temple by Robert Windeler. Citadel Press, Secaucus, 1978. $22.50.

The title of this book is something o f a misnomer. It is the longest introduction of any book I have seen — no less than 107 pages. It is actually a biography, re-worked (without acknowledgment) from Windeler’s previous book on Shirley Temple, published in London last year by W.H. Allen. The films are given poor treatment, with scanty credits and only brief reviews. The book, however, contains nearly 400 excellent photographs from Ms Black’s private collection.

Directors Memoirs o f the Devil by Roger Vadim, translated by Peter Beglan. Arrow, London, 1978. $3.20. A spirited defence of his personal life and films, both of which he claims have been misrepresented by the press: “ Magazines live off scandal at the expense of its victims and for a certain element of the press the truth is only of interest insofar as it serves as a prop for an exaggerated, distorted story.”

History Ail Time Movie Favourites by Joel W. Finler.

Kosmos, London, 1978. $6.95. At first glance, this seems like just another lavishly-produced, colorful, coffee-table book. It turns out to be a perceptive, cleverly-arranged examination of 200 English-language films ranging from The Great Train Robbery (1903) to The Last Detail (1974).

The Classic American Novel & The Movies edited by Gerald Peary & Roger Shatzkin.

Ungar, New York, 1977. $18.75. A collection of 30 essays (most of them written for this book) on novel-into-film adaptations of classic novels from James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans (1826) to William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury (1929).

The quality o f the contributions varies considerably, and there are several fatuous essays, like E. Ann Kaplan’s on The House of the Seven Gables, in which she makes ridiculous assertions such as that “ despite his expressionist background, May [the film’s director] chose to stress the social and political levels” of the book.

In fact, May had never read any Hawthorne.

What is more, when the film was made he knew on ly six words o f E nglish — “ h u llo ” , “ goodbye” , “action” , “cut” and “ how much?”

Yet, Miss Kaplan blissfully prattles on about May’s “ move to the social instead o f the supernatural” and how he “ effected many changes in the novel to make manifest the political content he wishes to emphasize.” There were such changes, but they were entirely the work o f Lester Cole, the screenwriter who was later jailed and blacklisted by the House o f UnAmerican Activities Commission. Fortunately, other essayists in this anthology are not too blatantly accommodating to auteurist theories.

Conflict and Control in the Cinema: A Reader in Film and Society edited by John Tulloch, Macmillan, Melbourne, 1978. $17.95. A massive book (818 pages) in which Dr Tulloch has brought togeth er som e stim u latin g and instructive articles on such subjects as male chauvinism in the Hollywood musical and John Wayne as an anti-intellectual.

The Grabbers: An Inside Look at the Ruthless World o f Celebrities by Tony James. Leisure Books, New York, 1977. $1.95. Another “ inside” look at Hollywood. This one, written under cover of a pseudonym, is more factual than most. It depends heavily on Variety and similar sources, and is written in a more restrained and much less self-indulgent style than other recent books in this genre, like Bruce Bacon’s Hollywood is a Four Letter Town.

The Greatest American Films edited by James E. G reen. The American Film Institute, Washington, 1978. $5.00. A listing of the 50 films selected by members of the American Film Institute as being “ the greatest American films of all time” . T h e two biggest surprises are the inclusions of two films directed by David Lean — Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia — which are undoubtedly British, rather than American. The top 10 films (in alphabetical order) are: The African Queen, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Singin’ in the Rain, Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Wizard of Oz. Passport to . Hollywood: Film Immigrants: Anthology by Don Whittemore and Philip Alan Cecchettini. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976. $19.95. An examination of the works of Charlie Chaplin, Erich von Stroheim, Ernst Lubitsch, Michael Curtiz, Victor Seastrom, James Whale, Alfred Hitchcock, F.W. Mumau, Paul Fejos, Slavko Vorkapich, Fritz Lang, Otto Preminger and Milos Forman, with biographies, critical a s s e s s m e n t s and lo n g e x t r a c t s from contemporary reviews.

Shakespeare on Film by Jack J. Jorgens.

Indiana University .Press, Bloomington, 1977. $19.95. This is a subject which, Professor Jorgens admits, has already been well covered.

However, there have been few detailed analyses of the major Shakespeare films and this neglect has been remedied here with lengthy chapters on such undertakings as Max Reinhardt and William Dieterle’s A Midsummer N ight’s Dream and Franco Zeffirelli’s (but not George Cukor’s or Renato Castellani’s) Romeo and Juliet.

Karl Struss: Man With a Camera/The ArtistPhotographer in New York and Hollywood/From Platinum Prints to the Silver Screen/Member o f the Photo-Secession/First Academ y Aw ard fo r Cinematography by Susan and John Harvith.

C ran b rook A ca d em y o f A r t/M u s e u m , Bloomfield Hills, 1976, $10.00. Few cameraman e v e r w en t to H o lly w o o d w ith h ig h er qualifications than the distinguished still photographer Karl Struss. He worked with Cecil B. De Mille and D.W. Griffith, won an Academy Award for Sunrise, and continued into the 1930s with such films as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (how the transformations were achieved is revealed here for the first time), The Sign of the Cross and Belle of the Nineties.

By the end of 1939, however, (for reasons not explained in this book) he was working primarily on “ B” films. Although he made an occasional “ A ” film, like The Great Dictator and Wonder Man, his work was usually uncredited. Despite a brief resurgence of artistic activity in Italy in ‘ 1953-54, where he developed such 3-D films as Walter Mattoli’s II turco Napoletano and Carmine Gallone’s Cavalleria rusticana, his Hollywood assignments continued to decline.

By the end of his career, he was working for such- poverty row outfits as Regal Scope Productions and director Kurt Neum ann.

Unfortunately, none of these aspects are written about in this book. The commentary stops with The Story of Temple Drake (1933).

Voices o f Film Experience: 1894 to the Present/ A c to r s. . . W riters. . . C om posers . . . D e ­ signers . . . Producers . . . Directors. . . Talk About Films edited by Jay Leyda. Macmillan, New York, 1977. $24.95. An anthology of brief extracts from interviews culled from books and magazines, arranged in alphabetical order.

You Must Remember This: Oral Reminiscences o f the Real Hollywood by Walter Wagner.

P u tm an ’s, New York, 1975. $8.95. An interesting array of people (John Ford, Richard Arlen, Lew Ayres, Edith Head, Stanley Kramer, Jack Lemmon and others) offer some very candid information about their careers. Producer Martin Rackin certainly pulls no punches in his interview, and his earthy comments on such people as Humphrey Bogart and Don Siegel unintentionally expose the mentality of the typical Hollywood producer, i f

Cinema Papers, January/February — 229

THE NIGHT THE PROWLER Patrick White

$ 2 .9 5 *

To com plem ent Jim S harm an's film of T h e N ight th e Prow ler, a com bination of Patrick W h ite 's stu nn ing short story, his adapted screenplay, and stills from the film .

'For alm ost the first tim e in our history we have an Australian film w ith levels of m eaning, w it, irony, plot, com p le xity of characterization, and som ething to say.' —Bob Ellis, Nation Review.

THE SHOUT AND OTHER STORIES Robert Graves

$ 2 .5 0 *

This in trig u in g collection of short stories by the a uthor of I, Claudius features T h e Shout, a m ysterious tale of sudden death at a lunatic asylum cricket m atch.

Now a Cannes aw ard-w inning film by Jerry Skolinow ski, starring Alan Bates, Susannah York and John Hurt.

Both films soon for Australian release. * Both prices are recommended retail prices only.

Published by Penguin Books Australia Lim ited.

FILM REVIEW INFORMATION SERVICE Looking for information on a film? The George Lugg Library is equipped to handle enquiries on any subject related to film at the levels of both general interest and of research. Revised charges for this service are $6/hour (plus copying fee). We will attempt to answer any enquiry, to any level of detail requested, on a pro-rata basis (minimum charge is $1.50).

(Members and associate members of the AFI receive a 25% discount on all charges).

M A IL O R PHONE ENQUIRIES TO: Helen Zilko or Barbara Gliddon GEORGE LUGG LIBRARY PO BOX 165 CARLTON SOUTH, VICTORIA 3053 TELEPHONE: 347 6888 (The Library is operated w ith assistance from the Australian Film Commission).

There’s No Business Like The

SHOW BUSINESS BOOKSHOP where you’ll find a wide range of carefully selected scripts from Samuel French, Dramatists Play Service, Evans Bros., English Theatre Guild, Dramatic Publishing Co., Currency-Methuen plus many others Connections throughout the world enabling us to obtain that hard-to-find script or technical book.

Magazines include Plays & Players, Dance & Dancers, Films & Filming, After Dark, Dance Magazine, T.D.R., and Cinema Papers Melbourne’s largest range of Stage Make-up including ultra high quality Stein Theatrical Make-Up from USA an efficient and prompt mail order service You ’ll always find something interesting at THE SHOW BUSINESS BOOKSHOP York House Basement Arcade, 294 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000

^

m

m

63 7508

MAGNA TECHTR0NICS (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED

“ THE N A M E ’ ’ IN F IL M AND RECORDING STUDIO SOUND IN AUSTRALASIA We Provide Complete Systems Featuring: a) The latest generation MAGNA-TECH ELECTRONIC CO. INC. Sprocketed Film Recorders/R eproducers to operate all digitally controlled, high speeds in interlock, advance/retard of any machine whilst running in interlock, 24/25 f.p.s. or 16/35mm button selectable, etc. Also video lock to T. V. tape recorders. b) New MAGNA-TECH high speed 16 or 35 and combination 16/3 5mm PROJECTORS running to 6 times speed FORWARDS and REVERSE in INTERLOCK. c) NEVE SOUND CONSOLES for film, recording and computerised mixdown. d) DOLBY NOISE REDUCTION SYSTEMS. e) PYRAL ACETATE AND POLYESTER SPROCKETED MAGNETIC FILM.

MAGNA-TECHTRONICS also supply a wide range of Television and Broadcast Studio equipment which include its own COMPUTERISED TELEVISION AND B R O A D C A ST STA TIO N T R A F F IC AND SCHEDULING SYSTEM. 1. CMX VTR EDITING SYSTEMS 2. TELEMATION T. V. GRAPHICS SYSTEMS 3. CVS DIGITAL TIME BASE CORRECTORS 4. CONRAC PICTURE MONITORS

We also have our own overseas trained engineer to cater for any technical or installation problems that may arise.

For further information, please contact:

MAGNA-TECHTRONICS (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED 14 Whiting Street, ARTARM0N, N.S.W. 2064

Telephone: (02) 438 3377

Basil Gilbert

The study of film is a demanding and exciting adventure, for it is a most complex art form ,'involving literature, drama, history, aesthetics, politics, kinetic art, ballet and music. It is, therefore, gratifying that a film study information explosion has been taking place at an ever increasing rate. And many organizations — film c o r p o r a tio n s , e d u c a tio n departments, film producers, distributors and exhibitors — are working in unusual co-operation to produce a vast range of film study materials.

It is hard to place a precise date on the beginning o f this development; perhaps with the prom otion o f the South Australian Film Corporation’s Storm Boy, which was released in January 1977. The original novel was available in paperback; then there was the Storm Boy Picture Book with captioned photographs, followed by a SAFC Pic-a-Pak study guide. A 20-minute documentary, The Crew, was produced in collaboration with the Australian Film and Television School, and Metro brought out an Ocean Studies Guide with drawings of sea birds and shells, for the primary student.

The experiment was well received by teachers; more than 10,000 copies of thè

is more directly concerned with the appreciation of film as film. But it is also sensibly designed to attract school children into daytime cinemas, and then provide them with intellectual material so that their cinem atic experience can be intelligently assessed.

The scheme is a joint project of the Victorian Education Department and Village Theatres Ltd. The films are arranged in groups of five, dealing with a particular theme, suitable for secondary students studying English, Humanities or Media Studies. They are accompanied by detailed background notes prepared by the Applied Media Resources section of the Education Department.

A pilot series, “ Science Fiction” and “ The World in a Frame” , was run during the last term o f 1978; these will be repeated during the second term of 1979. “ The World in a F ram e” is a particularly fascinating package. The films deal with contemporary social problems and include Frank Pierson’s A Star is Born, Philippe Mora’s Mad Dog Morgan, study guide to Storm Boy- were sold by John Avildsen’s Rocky, Sydney Pollack’s October 1977. This year, the SAFC has They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? and expanded its successful formula in the Fred Schepisi’s The Devil’s Playground. promotion of Carl Schultz’s Blue Fin. Barbara Boyd’s study notes are inform­ Project Blue Fin, as the resource package ative, lively and intelligent, and the is called, has something for everyone. For accompanying questions give the teacher a example, Pic-a-Pak no. 485 is designed for wide range o f suggested approaches to the teachers of English. They can set Colin films.

Thiele’s novel as prescribed reading, use The first term package for 1979 will the reviews of the book for discussion, include “ Australian Cinema” (The Last play the interview tape, compare the novel Wave, Sunday Too Far Away, Mouth to M o u th , T he G ettin g of W isdom , with extracts from the film script, and lead N ew sfron t) and “ The Media Seen the class in a sing-a-long with the sea shanties supplied. The Maths master will Through The Film” (All The President’s find the Blue Fin game useful for a vector Men, The Candidate, The Phantom of The Paradise, N ashville, The Front analysis of a tuna fishing expedition; the G eography instructor has overhead Page). Other themes being considered are projector transparencies of coastal form­ “ A d o le s c e n c e in th e F ilm ” and ations and location maps. There are also “ Discrimination and Conflict: Movies and Pic-a-Paks for history, social studies, Metaphors” . The films are being shown at biology and film studies. metropolitan and regional centres in This experiment in cross-curriculum Victoria, but other states are already showing an interest in the project. film study may have several benefits: daytime box-office figures should rise, Another commercial film study kit and, more importantly, Australian school a v a ila b le is th e V ic to r ia n F ilm children may gain a taste for a wellCorporation’s guide for The Chant of produced local film product that will Jimmie Blacksmith, prepared by Ken remain with them when they are $4-a-seat Berryman, John Benson, Imre Hollosy paying adult cinema customers. and Barbara Boyd. Included in the colorful Film in Focus is à Victorian venture that-- folder are notes on producer/director/

screenwriter Fred Schepisi, and author Thomas Keneally; a list o f credits; and reproductions of the covers of Keneally’s novel (Fontana, $2.50) and Brodie’s Notes (Pan Revision Aids $1.75).

The Newsfront guide, released by Roadshow, is a 16-panel folding sheet with a production report by Phil Noyce and stills from the Maitland floods sequence on one side (originally published by Cinema Papers, no. 17, August-September 1978, p.45-49), and two major articles on the film by Barbara Boyd. One of these articles, “ A C on sid eration o f the Characters, the Themes and the Ideas in Newsfront” is suitable for tertiary level; it is follow ed by searching analytical questions (there is a short reading guide to provide some help), while the other

Concluded on p.240

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THESE RESOURCES Project Blue Fin South Australian Film Corporation 64 Fullarton Rd, Norwood South Australia, 5067 Film in Focus Mrs Nerida Samson Cinema Education Village Theatres Ltd 500 Collins St, Melbourne Victoria, 3000 The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith kit Victorian Film Corporation 8th Floor, The Cinema Centre 140 Bourke St, Melbourne Victoria, 3000

The Making of Anna.

Newsfront kit Roadshow Distributors Pty Ltd 500 Collins St, Melbourne Victoria, 3000

Australian Film and Television School Open Program resources Head of Resources Open (External) Program Australian Film and Television School PO Box 126, North Ryde NSW, 2113 Mouth to Mouth kit Department of Film and Television Melbourne State College 757 Swanston St, Carlton Victoria, 3053 The Making of Anna AVEC Film Unit Education Department o f Victoria 450 Burke Rd, Camberwell Victoria, 3124

Cinema Papers, January/February — 231

Australian Film and Television School SCRIPT

P A L M S T U D IO S 1 1 - i 5 YOUNG S T R E E T , PADDINGTON N.S.W . (02) 31 0531 i6mm M ixing * Transfers — 16mm, 17.5mm, 35mm * Double Head Theatre — 35mm, 16mm * Voice Overs * Post Sync Recording — 16mm * Music Recording — 8 Track or 3 Track to Image * Feature Rushes Service * H a lf the Average Rates *

TALENT A: “ Heard about the School’s Applied Film and Video courses yet?”

TALENT B: “ Yes, everything.”

TALENT A: “ These short fulltime courses include:B & W Video Production, Colour Video Production, Colour Video Studio Production, Super 8 Film Production, 16mm Film Production, Advanced 16mm Film Production, Animation, The Controls of Image Quality, Scripting and Narration.”

P E T E R B U TT (Manager) .^ A L A S D A I^ ^ A ^ A C F A R L A N l^ iM ixin ^ E n gin eer^ ^ ^

TALENT B: “ Bet you couldn’t do the next bit without the idiot board.”

TALENT A: “ Their industry training courses, which are evening or part-time include:Production Course in Film and TV, Application of Film/Video Techniques, Camera Assistants’ Certificate Course, Introduction to V id e o ta p e , P ro d u c tio n M an ag em en t, S c rip t W ritin g , Documentary, Editing, Computer Editing, Lighting, Sound, Post Production, C ontinuity, Chroma Key, Special Effects, The Producer, Productions Design, Laboratory Techniques, Make­ up.”

TALENT B: “ You should go into vaudeville, because you missed out the ‘run in all states’ bit!”

P.0 Box 1 26 NORTH RYDE NSW 2 1 1 3

FILM LABORATORIES PTY. LTD.

15-17 GORDON STREET, ELSTERN W ICK VIC. 3185 We are now offering negative processing on all footage shot on 7247 and 5247.

In addition to this we have installed a 16/3 5mm Color Analyser along with the most efficient make of Ultrasonic Cleaner in the world.

Other laboratory services as follows: 1 6mm Ektachrome Processing

and Printing 16/3 5mm Optical Effects Printing 1 6mm Wet Gate Printing 1 6mm Optical Sound

Negative Matching

Phone (03) 528 6188

I FILM DUPLICATION I SPECIALISTS * 16mm * Super 8mm & Standard 8mm * 16mm to Super 8mm Quality duplicating, plus many other Motion Picture Laboratory Services.

C in e S e r v ic e 235 Moray Street, (PO Box 328) South Melbourne 3205.

Phone: 699 6999 for price list.

ACME OPTICALS 14-16 Whiting Street, ARTARMON, N.S.W. 2064

(02) 438 2993 AN INDEPENDENT OPTICAL HOUSE THAT CAN NOW OFFER YOU Aerial image optical effects printing with wet gates (35mm and 16mm) and additive lamp house.

Complete duplicating facilities for A and B roll printing or straight duplicating — 35mm to 16mm, 16mm to 35mm, one to one — with wet gates, additive lamp house and analizer grading.

Ring

LARRY WYNER PAUL GLUCINA COMPETITIVE PRICES AND EXCELLENT SERVICE

ASIAN FILM FESTIVAL

Asian Film Festival

Continuedfrom p. 181

JEREMY THOMAS

Taiwanese counterparts. And that despite, in the case of Perez’ film, a climactic final escalation into total hyperbole through the intercutting of an attem pted su icid e in a bath, a spontaneous miscarriage in a shower and an ineptly-rendered motorcycle crash.

De Leon’s Moments in a Stolen Dream was more interesting. His second feature*, it establishes a pleasant sense of distance from its subject and also from the genre, which allows for an incidental and casual charm. In fact, in the light of recent work on melodrama, the form in its Asian incarnation looks like a rewarding area for further work.

It is a fair bet that of the industries represented at the Festival, the Philippine industry is ripest for the kind of c u ltu ra l g ra ftin g afforded by international co-production.

Eddie Romero’s essay in the historical epic, As We Were, was ambitious in quite other ways, but remained, in. common with other essays in social nostalgia, problematic. Despite its d ire ctly nationalist overtones, its problems are as much those of a film like Jaime Camino’s Days of ’36 as those of nationalist polemic.

Of the other films screened, Thailand offered the socially-conscious Rural Teacher (directed by Surasri Phatham).

A simple narrative about a college graduate who forsakes the city for a job in a remote village school, the film is notable for the way in which it quite calculatedly sidesteps the many occas­ ions for unfocused melodrama littered about the script and instead attempts to let something of Thai life emerge on the screen.

Bar 21 (directed by Yuthana Mukdasanit) rather did itself in with its interpolation of some rather subBrechtian, sub-West Side Story song and dance numbers, but managed to suggest that the genre might well have more to offer than suggested by its generic exploitation. It depicts the life of a bar girl, whose hopes of marriage to the young student she has been supporting through college on her earnings are c ru d e ly sh a tte re d , w ith c h illin g directness. The film’s social criticism (it implicates the rich and powerful with involvement in corruption) threatened for a time to lead to its withdrawal from the Festival.

The Girl was likewise of some marginal interest, though how much was the result of its sheer ingenuousness is a moot point. It is about a wealthy and neglected schoolgirl who takes the opportunity of her parents many absences from home to raise a little hell.

Also worthy of note, though again less then totally engrossing, was Ami Priyono’s Jakarta, Jakarta. A far more ambitious film than the other Indonesian entries, it attempts to work a degree of political awareness into a story dealing with cross-class romance and business double-dealing against a student background. ★

The film has a kind of Japanese Caligula figure, and opens with a startling tomb-robbing sequence in which the stomach is snatched from the interned corpse which is to be delivered to the rival faction’s headquarters for an autopsv.

Swordplay drama also surfaced in two of the Hong Kong entries (all three of which were from Shaw Brothers).

Chu Yuan’s Clan of Amazons never seriously attempted to come within reach of the magisterial philosophic fantasy of his other adaptation of the works of popular novelist Ku Lung. Instead, recognizing the strength of its key emblem — the ‘magic’ appearance of the red-clothed thief — he allows the intricacies and deliberate puzzles, that are usually built into his narratives, to lapse in favor of its infinite restatement.

The inevitable ‘king fu’ offering proved equally uninteresting, trading the ambiguities and mythic qualities of the best of the genre for the pedantic explicitness of a muscle documentary shot in cribbed Bond style. Again, this was nowhere near representative of the work that director Liu Chia-liang is capable of.

The most stylish film was Mandarin d ire cto r Li H an-hsiang’s delicate incarnation of a foredoomed world of hyper-refinement in his adaptation of the opera based on the classic novel, The Dream of the Red Chamber (alternatively known as the The Story of the Stone). The story of a thwarted love within a great Chinese household, Li’s film may be light, but it is never insubstantial, and Li charts a course that takes a comedic, langorous sensuousness, as well as high, idealized tragedy. Li, in fact, is luxuriously confident in his acknowledgement, within the context of a subject of total Chineseness, of the existence of Hollywood in a way that renders the film spontaneous and accessible.

As suggested earlier, from the selection on show, the films from the Philippines proved unexpected, in the sense that they veered away from prevalent low-life or action genres on show elsewhere, and in respect to their technical competence. Not that the surprise was entirely a rewarding one, unless one is looking for local renditions of The Restless Years or the like from Hollywood in its beach party or Debbie Reynolds phase.

Two films I saw, Elwood Perez’ My Brother, My Wife and Mike de Leon’s Moments in a Stolen Dream, touched familiar generic bases, Both had wealthy settings, the latter framing its romance between a college kid and an older woman with the luxurious ambience of a popular holiday retreat. Both are melodramas, but despite the cross-class tensions that emerge, in part through the mechanism of adoption, they are melodramas entirely without the intense *Hi$ first, the less commercial Rites of May, won a claustrophobia of their Korean or major prize.

Jerem y Thomas

Continuedfrom p.195 In fact, one of the policies of the Association of Independent Producers, of which you are on the Council of 40, is the New Deal which suggests that a certain amount of money be allocated within the production budget for m a r k e t i n g expenses. . .

Yes. One advantage is that it gives a film a good standing with independent distributors. If a lowbudget film has this allocation, distributors will be more inclined to take it on because they can develop a campaign without risking anything themselves.

Ideally, it will also give the producer a greater say in the marketing of his film. If he can control the Eady1 money as well, then he will be in a greatly advantaged position.

I am going to do a film with Skolimowski which is inspired by Crime and Punishment. It is set in L o n d o n in 1979 and the characters will be contemporary, though with similar personalities to the main characters in the book. Skolimowski is working on the script at the moment.

Have you made any overtures regarding finance?

No. I will wait until the screenplay is completed. I think it’s better to wait till you have something concrete, then you can develop a particular sell.

What about money to develop the project?

In a good year it can add 50 per cent to your box-office.

. The costs so far aren’t enor­ mous. That’s what is good about working on a collaborative basis with people — you can get to this stage. Everybody gets their fair dues in the end, but you can spread the risk around at the early stages, instead of landing it all on one poor guy.

Does Eady money go to the distributor or the producer?

Do you work on a number of projects simultaneously?

It goes at various times to various people.

Yes, I am probably working on too many projects at present.

Ideally, I’d like to follow two through the development stages then choose one and leave the other aside. It depends on how busy you want to be, and I’d like to be less busy.

How much can be gained from the Eady fund?

Is it a different scale for each film?

No, the Eady fund runs at different percentages and depends on the amount of money that foreign films are making in Britain at the time. For example, the fund will be running at a high rate if Star Wars or Close Encounters are playing.

Surasri Phatham's Rural Teacher from Thailand.

Are you developing any projects at present?

1. The Eady system is based on a tax on cinema tickets. The monies levied go into a fund, from which payments are made to producers and distributors in relation to the respective success of their Films.

Have you ever thought of trying to finance a package of films?

No. Perhaps it would be nice to have the security of not having to worry about where the money is coming from for your next project, but then you certainly can’t be as free.

The Shout was a totally independent film; Mad Dog also. I prefer it that way.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 233

ANTONY I. GINNANE

Antony I. Ginnane

Continuedfrom p. 179 a relationship with Cinema Shares I n te r n a tio n a l D is trib u tio n Company, which is an element of the Cinema Shares structure.

Cinema Shares is an extremely hierarchical and unit-structured organization, and each division is highly competitive.

For example, Cinema Shares Domestic was one of the bidders for the U.S. rights of Patrick.

They offered a su b stan tial minimum guarantee, but Larry Fredericks, David Hilton and David Blake [of Cinema Shares International] all endorsed us going with Vanguard. That didn’t make the president of Cinema Shares Domestic very happy. It also shows how Larry Fredericks looks after his client, rather than the company. In this case, that meant taking a lower commission at first instance.

The problem with many Aust­ ralian film s has been that producers have just given their films over to an agent and expected miracles to be per­ formed. You can’t; you have to follow up.

There is a catch, however, because if all you have is a Plugg or a Weekend of Shadows, you can’t afford the necessary follow up. But the more money you make, the more you can follow up. It is a vicious circle.

What plans do you have for releasing “Patrick” in the U.S.?

Didn’t you shoot the film with American pronunciation?

Yes, but our distributors didn’t think it satisfactory. Fortunately, only Susan Penhaligon has a dubbing clause in her contract, and we are quite happy to have her go over and dub her material.

In terms of general advice for the U.S. market, the television syndication route which Sam Gelfman of the Australian Film Office3 is trying to set up at the moment is probably a good idea.

He is aiming at a price range of between $25,000 and $200,000, minus expenses, for the syndi­ cation fee, and could be in good shape.

I still wouldn’t detract though from the value of trying to get some form of theatrical release, even if it is only in Los Angeles, Boston or New York on the one hand, or the south and mid-west on the other. You may not make any money out of it, but at least you get some exposure and reviews.

SNAPSHOT You then followed “ Patrick” with “Snapshot” . . .

Yes. Snapshot was a bit of a problem, in that we decided to make the film for $100,000 less than Patrick. One of the things we therefore had to do was make it look more expensive. That is why we decided to shoot it anamorphic.

Snapshot was a funny film — it arose out of the cancellation of another project after we returned from Cannes.

It is too early to say, since we have just finalized the deal. But the more I see of Vanguard, the more I am convinced they are the sort of people who will help our films. They take on only two or three features a year and road­ show them th ro u g h o u t the What was that project? country, doing their own cam­ We had optioned a property paigns. They open each film city by city. But firstly the film has to 3. Refer to Quarter item “ Australian Film O ffice” in Cinema Papers no. 17, p. 8. be re-dubbed.

Angela (Sigrid Thornton) prepares to pose for the photograph that launches her as a star.

Snapshot.

234 — Cinema Papers, January/February

called Centrefold by C hris Fitchett, but as a result of some feedback from overseas, we scrapped it. I then commissioned Everett to write a new screenplay.

Again we tried our policy of using a new director. It was a very easy film to make and probably my most pleasant experience to date. Simon Wincer is a very affable and receptive director.

I am very pleased with the performances of Sigrid Thornton and Chantal Contouri; they should go on to become big stars in the local industry. Sigrid gives a marvellous performance for a girl who has only had a few minor parts, like FJ Holden, The Getting of Wisdom and some television. With some dialogue coaching, she could go a long way.

Chantal takes a lot of care about being a star and acts like one. We are convinced of her worth, and we are casting her as the female lead in Thirst, which will be done in January. We will probably put her under some form of contract. I would do the same with Sigrid if we had a role for her.

One of the things we have to move into is developing talent.

You only have stars when you can afford to keep people on the payroll for a long time. Then you know that the money you will have to spend making them stars isn’t going to some schmuck the next time round.

I think Roadshow and Hexagon made that mistake with Jack Thompson. After pushing him on Sunday Too Far Away and Petersen they let him go. They should have had him iron-clad and made certain he couldn’t walk, eat, shoot or talk without their permission.

We are taking Snapshot to Mifed. Larry will be handling the film and Fred the publicity. We are doing basically the same thing we did on Patrick, only this time round we know exactly who will want to buy the film in virtually

every major territory.

I think the film is more commercial domestically than Patrick. Sherbet has written a great title song, and the start age group will be about 8 or 9, as against 12 or 13 on Patrick.

At what stage did you begin financing “Snapshot” ?

We are very fortunate in that we can afford to develop projects, even if we finally just throw them away.

We have a very good relation­ ship with the AFC, and they like to see private money taking the initiative. On Snapshot, for example, we provided a private completion guarantee, which was the first time that had been done.

We tried to put the Snapshot deal together so we could achieve a form of leverage if and when the new amendments to the Taxation Act came through. At the time, the AFC hadn’t fully considered the ethics of that particular structure. In effect they said: “ If you want the money by so and so date, you had better go the investment route rather than the route you are considering, unless you want to wait.” Well we had spent about $70,000 by then, so we agreed.

It is interesting that the AFC has now considered the subject and they feel leverage is okay. In fact, it is likely that Thirst and the Wincer/de Roche project, which we will be doing after Thirst, will be leveraged by the AFC and a state corporation, hopefully the VFC. We have done several funny deals in financing, which someone can only do if associated with a distribution company. We have played games with the distribution percentage and the distributor’s fee in return for pieces of the equity. We have taken advances and turned them into discounting distribution fees. We have tied

Angela (Sigrid Thornton) looks on in terror at her unknown oppressor. Snapshot.

ANTONY I. GINNANE

completion guarantees into in­ vestment and Vice versa.

The companies we have been dealing with have in some way been inter-related, which is a very handy situation; it is the closest thing to a studio system I can think of.

In many ways we are headed on the same route as the South A ustralian Film Corporation.

They probably have the edge at the moment, since there is a mystique about a governmentbased structure. That will be reversed in a couple of years, since the average punter or capitalist prefers to go with his mates rather than the government — particularly a Labor govern­ ment, no matter how interesting that government may be.

c o m m e n s u r a t e with the proportion of its equity in the film.

the Yanks would pulFout. What we would do is continue making our 20 or so features, and maybe another 15 or 20 more. But THE PAST REVISITED because we would be starting to use third or fourth rate crews, we would be producing junk, and the In 1973, you made a submission image of Australian films as being to the Tariff Board Enquiry on good quality would go out of the behalf of various organizations. door.

Many of the points you raised are The three major theatre chains of relevance today. Could you — Village, Hoyts and Greater briefly comment on them?

Union — now show Australian films, and on terms Yes, though I would like to commensurate with films of equal preface my remarks by reminding grossing potential from overseas. you that the Tariff Board Enquiry This wasn’t the case in 1973. was set up at a time when there Why I say all this is because was no film industry in this some of the proposals we made at country. Today, we have that film the time were as much bluff as industry. We also have distributor anything else. We wanted to make investment, which we didn’t then, it perfectly clear that the situation and Roadshow and G reater had to change.

You didn’t mention private Union, in particular, have put in I don’t want to give the investment. One of the heralded substantial sums of money. impression that my attitude has features of the new Tax Roadshow set up Hexagon, a far­ changed for reasons other than Assessment Act is that it should sighted and daring move at the that the situation has changed. It bring private investors out of the time. They risked a lot of money, is certainly not because I am most of which they lost, and gave “ inside” now, whereas then I was woodwork. . . certain people every opportunity “ outside” .

AIFC has enough private to make successful films. Greater investment available for it to build Union did the same, throwing One suggestion you raised in a small ship; we are not chasing it. money into project after project. your subm ission was that The reason we need government One or two worked and they took revenue from film importation money, however, is so we can do the gas pipe on the rest. taxes should go to the AFDC or Of course the majors still aren’t its successor. . . deals with it to the advantage of our already-committed private investing, though United Artists and Hoyts have had little flutters. investors.

Of course, there is no longer I think it is probably dangerous Maybe they never will invest. And customs duty on imported films. to say a great deal more than that if you try to exert trade pressure, There is an argument that a because, given the mood Howard embargoes or other back-handed customs levy should be reintro­ [the Federal Treasurer] is in, the tariffs against American films — duced and that the revenue of that amendments could be changed as the British tried to in the early should go to the AFC, not into before they get through. I caution ’50s — you will find to your peril it general revenue as in the past.

Personally I would favor another anybody who is looking for can’t be done.

It is impossible to beat the proposal, one more acceptable to investment facilities under the new Act to tread very softly. It is a weight of the Motion Picture the majors.

Association of America, simply We all complain that Australian very delicate situation. because cinema audiences have lab prices are too high, and the The VFC has its own marketing be e n c o n d i t i o n e d to want reason they are high is our branch. Will they have a American films for 50 years and negligible output. Australia must marketing role or right of consul­ they will not go without them for be one of the few countries where any period of time. tation? distributors import prints, rather As well, the local industry could than CRIs or dupe negs off which If the VFC is an investor in opr not make the 120-odd features a local labs can run prints. p r o j e c t s , it h a s a v o t e year needed to replace the product As a producer, I prefer some legislative co n sid eratio n , or behind-the-scenes pressure, be given to making it mandatory for any film which utilizes, say, more than five prints to have its prints done locally. I say five because it would be difficult and unfair for a small distributor, like a Natalie Miller or an AFI which bring in only one or two prints of a film, to be inflicted with such a restriction.

Such a system would give our labs the necessary through-put and would enable them to lower their prices to more competitive levels. That would help us, the producers.

You also raised the issue of amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act, which have now been proposed. Do you think they have gone far enough?

Director Simon Wincer during the shooting of Snapshot, with actresses Sigrid Thornton and Denise Drysdale.

No way. But given the present political climate, where Howard is looking at all taxation structures

Angela (Sigrid Thornton) approaches her unknown intruder. Simon" W incer’s Snapshot.

that smack of avoidance, I don’t see how they can go much further.

I believe we should be aiming for a three or four to one write-off over 12 months. At the moment we have been promised a two-year write-off, which properly struc­ tured can be reduced to a one year.

You also urged the inquiry to consider making use of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. . .

As you may be aware, the R estrictiv e Trade Practices legislation, largely as a result of initiative by the Whitlam govern­ ment, was substantially amended.

So, for a period during the Whitlam regime, it might have been possible for the sort of initiatives I proposed in two articles in Cinema Papers4 to have taken place. The Trade Practices Department, in fact, conducted a fairly detailed examination of the film industry, with a view to taking certain action.

It is now history that since the Fraser government took office, the Trade Practices Act has been hamstrung and its power whittled down to the extent where it is now scarcely stronger than it was in the early ’60s. It is now totally imprac­ tical to contemplate any action under the Trade Practices Act against the establishment film exhibition/distribution industry.

The departure of Commissioner Venturini was symbolic of thë removal of any real teeth from the legislation.5 It is perhaps unfortunate that the lobbyists and agitators who were vocal during the Tariff Board 4. Cinema Papers no. 5, p. 35-38, 82 and 83; and Cinema Papers no. 6, p. 116119. Refer also Cinema Papers no. 9, p. 200 and Cinema Papers no. 13, p. 8-9.

5. Cinema Papers no. 13, p. 8. Refer also “ Restrictive Trade Practices Legislation and the Australian Film Industry” by Ransom Stodard, Cinema Papers no. 10, p. 156-7.

Cinema Papers, January/February — 235

e d ite d b y Peter N oble

L ite ra tu re /F ilm Q u arterly Vol. 6, No. 1 — Forthcoming Special Interview Issue Vol. 5, No. 4 Shakespeare-on-Film --------Please send a sample copy. I enclose $1.50 _____ Please enter my subscription, to begin w ith the cu rren t issue. Enclosed is a check fo r $6.00 Name__ Áddress.

C ity ------

Send to : Christa Fehrer L ite ra tu re /F ilm Q uarterly Salisbury State College Salisbury, Maryland 21801

FRAM EW ORK

University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL. United Kingdom ISSUE ONE Interviews with Alain Resnais, R. Wood.

Articles on Shakespearean films, theory, Bettetini, Truffaut, Poland, Peckinpah.

ISSUE TWO Articles by Pasolini, Bettetini, Ferreri. Articles on Bertolucci, Cavani, Wertmuller.

ISSUE THREE Interview with Bertolucci, Bellocchio, Zanussi and Saless. Pasolini on Semiotics. Article on Godard.

ISSUE FOUR HOLLYWOOD Part one. Articles on psychoanalysis. Heath on Jaws and ideology.

Max Ophuls: Editorial Reading of The Reckless Moment.

ISSUE FIVE HOLLYWOOD Part two. River of No Return, To Be or Not to Be, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Sirk, Wilder, Ritchie.

ISSUE SIX IDEOLOGY Part one. Sexuality and Power.

The Syberberg Statement. Comolli’s La Cecilia; lei et Ailleurs, Dossier on Japanese Independents, Yoshida, Matsumoto.

ISSUE SEVEN IDEOLOGY Part two. African cinema — articles on and by Hondo, Haile, Gerima, Ousmane Sembene. Fellini’s Casanova, Eisenstein and ideology.

Festival reports, book and periodical reviews in every issue.

Feature contributors include: Britton, Christie, Crofts, Heath, Neale, Ranvaud, Whitaker, Willemen.

Single back issues 60p + 35p postage.

Subscriptions for 3 issues (UK £2.00 - O/seas £2.50) 6 issues (UK £4.00 - O/seas £5.00) 9 issues (UK £5.50 - O/seas £7.00)

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

Available weekly Send for free specimen copy to: Christine Fairbairn, Screen International, Film House, 142 Wardour Street, London W.1.

mm

What do you know about Cable T.V., What is the difference between hardware and software? video art education and video satellite communications fibre optics video applications to film making internal communications information sharing' home video video disc software libraries production techniques media politics media gossip technical reports events

Interactive T.V., C.C.T.V.?

IN THIS ISSUE SATELLITES: Costs a n d Benefits W OM EN IN THE A BC MEDIA DREAN\ PADDINGTON'S PAPER PALACE .

SUBSCRIBE NOW: Send to M A VA M ; 13-43 Victoria Street, Fitzroy, Vic. 3065 (03) 4 1 95111 for 4 issues of ACCESS VIDEO at $6.00 Individuals, $10.00 Institutions, $15.00 Overseas (postage included)

ANTONY I. GINNANE

Enquiry didn’t push further when they had the chance under Whitlam. But they didn’t, and the opportunity has been lost.

Do you know if the standard form of contract employed by the Motion Picture Distributors Association, which was refused clearance by the Trade Practices Commission, has been replaced by a new form6?

•

ir ■ "

■ . ,A

I haven’t seen a new form, but I would be surprised if the MPDA, well advised and law abiding as they are, had not complied with th e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t he Commission.

As an independent distributor, you were a vocal critic of vertically-integrated production/ distribution/exhibition organ­ izations of the type found in Australia. You considered them a major deterrent to independent production, distribution and exhibition in Australia. Given that such organizations still exist and that one of the smaller independents, Dendy/Filmways, is now also vertically integrated, an organization with which you are closely involved, why have you changed your position?

Simply because many of the problems, concerns and symp­ toms of vertical integration are no l o n g e r wi t h us. V e r t i c a l integration meant, so it seemed, that distributors didn’t invest in A u s t r a l i a n films. Vert i cal integration meant, so we said, A u s t r a l i a n s c o u l d n ’t get preference over foreign films, couldn’t even get onto screens.

That situation changed when distributors like Roadshow, Greater Union and Filmways started investing. After all, if Roadshow invested in a film, it would have been silly of them not to screen it in their theatres.

Maybe what we were saying when we attacked vertical integration was “ Gee, vertical integration works really well; what a pity we don’t have access to the financial benefits it brings.”

My attitude to vertical inte­ gration has definitely changed. I now believe it is the most cost efficient and effective way of running a film industry. There is no doubt that a feature made by a studio, and released by a distribution subsidiary in its own t h e a t r e s , can pr oduc e the maximum revenue all along the line.

It also inevitably leads to such practices as full line forcing, time bars and distance bars.

That’s all very well if you are part of a vertically-integrated structure — like yourself — but not if yoii are an i n d e ­ pendent. . . . " 6. See footnote 5.;

'

•

That’s the only argument left.

The AFC won’t invest in a film unless it has distributor commit­ ment, and that in reality means Greater Union or Roadshow. And if they invest you will go out through Greater Union or Village t h e a t r e s . T h a t ’s v e r t i c a l integration.

Also, if you have a dog of a film, it’s damn nice to know that an exhibitor can only get Superman if he plays your film as well.

There is no argument that there ought to be another inquiry, and its main purpose should be considering the way in which public money is dispersed to film producers.

There is a view which says that AFC subsidy policy is not the most efficient or cost effective.

Their overheads are high and a lot of money is spent on diverse a c t i v i t i e s . One suggested alternative is that a flat subsidy What about independents? be given to each Australian film Aren’t they still hurt by vertical that can raise a certain integration? proportion of its budget. . .

Let’s talk about independent I would be in favor of the exhibitors; let’s get a spotlight and application of the Eady system in see if we can find any. Can you see Australia. Perhaps it shouldn’t be any? a tax on seats, because exhibitors wouldn’t like that, and seats are Maybe they have all been killed expensive enough. off. . .

The appropriation that is available to the AFC ought to be Perhaps they have, but there is put into a fund from which monies no turning back the clock. You could be paid out in proportion to either survive or you die. the number of admissions at each film. That would mean Picnic at I suppose it depends on your Hanging Rock would get a large attitude. I was speaking more sum of money and Weekend of about a spectrum of film Shadows almost nothing. production activity which caters to a range of aspirations of “Mouth to Mouth” would also various people. For example, for get nothing. Do you see any value a viable art house circuit to in an industry producing films of exist. . . the type of “Mouth to Mouth” ?

Don’t give me that. There is a more viable art house circuit in this country now than there ever was. In Melbourne, there is the Academy Valhalla Twin and the Savoy in the city, the Valhalla in Richmond, the Rivoli, and the Longford. In Sydney, David Stratton is programming a Double Bay theatre, Valhalla has a twin, and there is the Music Room at the Opera Flouse. In Adelaide, there is the Glenelg 3, and in Perth the Windsor and the Savoy.

There are very few films today that don’t get some sort of airing in Australia.

We now have a situation where Mouth to Mouth can play the East End 2 in Melbourne. Don’t tell me there’s discrimination — there isn’t.

Maybe, there is a genuine case for the independent exhibitor — the guy in the country, the Queensland guys — but they are only being screwed because they are not making much money.

Now why aren’t they making much money?

I don’t know what type of film Mouth to Mouth is. If you mean, is there any value in making non­ commercial films, the answer is no.

I mean artistically-regarded, low-budget features. . .

I don’t know what an artistic film is. [Long pause.] I could perhaps be persuaded, out of sheer nostalgia for views that I might once have held, that a certain amount of money ought to be put aside for such films. I could certainly justify that when I consider the amount of money being spent on opera, which, relative to the amount spent on film, is outrageous.

I wasn’t implying that you should be continually upset. I was merely suggesting that if one is going to argue for on-going assistance for the Australian film industry, one should have some idea of relativity. For example, should the AFC get more money or less, and on what basis?

Look, the Eady scheme is a simple system. The more success­ ful you are, the more money you get.

One argument against the Eady system is that it doesn’t pay your way while a film is being set up . . .

Okay, it’s hard to make the first one.

You are part of a verticallyintegrated organization which cross-collateralizes its endeav­ ors, You, therefore, have an ongoing overhead which can help get things started . . .

Only in the first instance, because we have to repay it. It’s not a bottomless pit.

If you were being entirely consistent, your 10 favorite films of all time would be the 10 most successful films. But I know that your top 10 has a lot of dogs. . .

True, but my personal views are different to those as a represen­ tative of the company.

We are asking for your personal views; we are not interviewing AIFC. . .

No, you are interviewing a representative of AIFC. When can one interview Tony Ginnane the person?

He doesn’t grant interviews.

How would you sum up the present climate of film financing in Australia?

Don’t you think your views on artistic films are unduly harsh?

There are better, easier and safer things to put money into. I take a reasonably pessimistic view No, it’s my money they are about the future of the Australian wasting. film industry. I think there is going to be a weeding out process, But it is also your money that’s and fewer people will be making being spent on subsidizing the the same number of films in five motor car industry and the over­ years.

There are still too many people B e c a u s e t hey are s m a l l subsidized textile industry. No one squeals about that. . . who have not learnt that this is a exhibitors. . . business. Producers get a lot of If I was a grazier, I would money — generally not their own Yes, perhaps some form of probably be upset about certain — and an opportunity to spend it government subsidy should be actions that the Wool Board takes, without a great deal of restraint or directed to them. and if I was running Chrysler, I overview. They have a responsib­ could well be upset about the ility to bring that money back, but Thé Tariff Board Enquiry also treatment that G.M.H. and Ford not many shoulder that respon­ recommended that within “three get. There are a jot of upset people sibility well. to eight years another Tariff in this world and that’s because I think the writing is on the Board Enquiry should be held. governments find it particularly wall, arid it says the halcyon days difficult to please everybody.

Do you agree? are over. ★ Cinema Papers, January/February — 237

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

COSTUMES AND PROPS

W E

F A IL

rather dismally to reach the drive-in viewing market Most TMT readers take their film seriously and prefer hardtop city or local cinema

FOR HIRE J.C. W illiamson Theatres Ltd has a wide range of period and fancy costumes available for hire; also theatrical props and furniture.

ENQUIRIES Costum es

Mrs Gwen Rutledge JCW Hire D ept Cohen Place (rear Her Majesty's Theatre) M elbourne Phone 663 2406

Props

M r Stan Davies Her M ajesty's Theatre M elbourne Phone 663 3211

A HUGE CONCENTRATED MARKET CLOSE TO TOWN

ROSS DIMSEY

To reach the discerning film g oer be seen in w

INDEPENDENT

MELBOURNE TIMES

is an -■

Director, Writer, Producer of -' ' \ "• ¥

207 Lygon Street, Carlton 347 4977

V

U

M

i 'l l l l

Commercial, Documentary, Feature

50,000 copies delivered weekly in Melbourne and inner suburbs

Guide to th e Australian Producer

Continuedfrom p.203 It would seem that for a film that has basic­ ally Melbourne-Sydney appeal for a largely art house audience, a direct arrangement by the producer can maximize the small revenues available to this sort of film. On the other hand, for films that have wide residual playoff potential after initial city release, it is better to go with a distributor from the first so that the distribution organization can maximize on­ going revenue.

Note here that the producer’s relationship with an exhibitor may be of two kinds. On the one hand, he may simply hire the cinema for a period. This is called “ four walling” . The cinema owner is paid a rental which covers his expenses and some element of profit.

Whatever the cinema grosses is for the pro­ ducer to take and apply to paying off his investors and costs. The producer receives a fully-staffed cinema, but he has to pay all advertising costs and supply a print. Unless he has confidence in the film, and generous financial backing, he can be in difficulty: if the film is a hit the profits are great; if not, he is in strife.

The second and more frequent style is for the producer to act genuinely as a distributor and enter into one of the many exhibition contracts discussed below (e.g. 80/20). Here the producer has to supply a print, and perhaps make an advertising contribution, but the exhibitor has to share the risk. If no one comes, the exhibitor, not the producer, has to pay the wages bill, rent, etc.

There seems to be a move away from direct producer-exhibitor relationships. This is partly due to the continuing involvement of 238 — Cinema Papers, January/February

to a distributor other than the three companies, Roadshow, GUO and Filmways, that have each handled at least six local films.

Other distributors, particularly the American majors, are not geared to start campaigns from scratch, and generally their head offices (in the U.S.) provide them with ad campaigns. On the few occasions they have handled local pro­ ductions they have not been very successful.

There is little real competition in terms between local distribution, so in choosing one of the three distributors a producer ought to perhaps consider inter alia his personal relationship with upper echelon management of the company; the degree they believe in and are enthusiastic about the film; whether they are willing to pay a royalty advance, or whether they will merely finance cost of prints, and advertising. A distributor-producer relation­ ship lasts a long time, perhaps five or seven years. It will have its rough spots and its smooth ones, and the producer who chooses in haste may later regret his decision.

Most Australian distribution deals to date have been “ net rental deals” . This deal may or may not include an advance minimum guaran­ tee. Only recently in Australia have Roadshow (ii) Producer Appointing A ustralian D istrib u to r: A producer should choose his begun to pay minimum guarantees for local distributor carefully if he has the luxury of productions, although it is virtually the norm making a choice. Most producers need a dist­ for net deals done by local distributors for ribution commitment well in advance of foreign product. The implications of the “ net shooting to tie up necessary government rental deal” are discussed below under section funding. A few are able to make their films F: Exploitation Overseas. without a distribution contract and then can shop around.

There are no easy answers as to which is the 5. D istrib u tor-E xh ib itor best distribution company in Australia, and as C ontracts staff frequently change, the standard of service When the producer, acting as distributor or and exploitation often vacillates. A novice producer, however, ought to be wary of going the producer’s distributor, contracts with

distributors as film investors since, as part of their investment, they acquire theatrical dist­ ribution rights. It is also in part due to a real­ ization by producers that their job is basically filmmaking, and it is better to seek specialized advice in distribution and exhibition.

The SAFC now goes nationally with a dist­ ributor; only Phillip Adams still maintains the efficacy of key city direct dealing, while admitting he lost money on The Adventures of Barry McKenzie by so doing.

Despite the advice to, in the main, go with a distributor, it is important, especially when dealing with a distributor (other than GUO, Roadshow and Filmways) which has had little experience with Australian product, for the producer to be totally involved with the dist­ ributor in campaign planning, choice of theatre, television ad placement, etc. The producer’s job is an ongoing one and does not stop with his delivery of a release print. He should turn his attention from the first con­ ception of the film to the promotion and ultimate marketing of the film; this is dis­ cussed below.

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

cinemas for the release of his production, one of the following fairly common deals is likely to be struck. (i) F o u r-w all Deal: This is where you hire the theatre lock, stock and barrel, pay for all ads, and receive all receipts. All the risk is yours. This is generally unwise as it is better to share a little with the exhibitor in return for his contributing to ads and guaranteeing you a minimum percentage. However, if you have real practical experience, while no one else does, this is the best way to prove your point.

commission, the producer ought to ensure, if possible, that the distributor meets this commission out of his share of rentals, or else a double commission will be deducted.

7. Television Sale

The Australian television market is a very important one for producers as it frequently can mean the difference between break even or loss for local productions.

Although many Australian films are pre­ sold to television to finance their production, it is obviously better if the film can be financed without giving up this valuable right. If the (ii) The 8 0 /2 0 deal or Schedule 1 or film is a big hit, the television network will o n e -q u a rte r film hire as p ro fit deal: This is the most common deal. The exhibitor have made a good (for them), cheap deal. For receives his expenses and contributions to ads four television transmissions, Australian with the receipts; thereafter a split, with 80 per networks pay between U.S.$30,000 and cent to the distributor and 20 per cent to the U.S.$125,000 a title.

Frequently, local distributors try to acquire exhibitor. the right to sell to television as part of their The deal is based on the premise that a fair arrangement is to allow the exhibitor his contract. They argue that a better television expenses and then one-quarter of the film sale price can be obtained if the film is placed rental as profit. (A quarter of 80 being 20 — in a package of films and then presented to the network. hence 80/20.)

This may be the only way some disastrous productions can be sold — i.e. block sold with (iii) The 7 5 /2 5 deal or Schedule 2 or high grossing product — but if the producer’s o n e-th ird film hire as p ro fit d ea h lt is film is a success, the distributor will need to the same as 80/20, except the deal is based on get price for the film that is higher than that the premise that an exhibitor is entitled to his the aproducer can get plus his commission expenses and ads, and one-third of the film (which may be 25 per cent). hire as profit as a greater incentive since the The Nine and Seven networks have been film involves more risk for loss. Average films most prominent in buying, investing in and get this deal. pre-buying Australian productions.

(iv) The 9 0 / 1 0 deal — fo r super blockbusters: This is where the exhibitor

gets expenses and advertising costs. The receipts are then split — 90 per cent to the distributor and 10 per cent to the exhibitor.

This type of deal is fairly rare as exhibitors argue they carry theatres all year, through good and bad times, playing many failures, and are therefore entitled to a greater share of profit. The deal would only apply in the case of films such as Star Wars, Capricorn One, and Superman.

A compromise on the 90/10 deal is when the exhibitor receives 10 per cent of total gross and his expenses, the balance being rental. This works out about half way between 80/20 and the 90/10, and is often used for blockbusters. (v) The fla t ren tal deal: Best for country and small independent exhibitors who are difficult to audit.

6 . N o n -th eatrical Most Australian distributors have working relationships with 16mm distribution outlets and, therefore, generally acquire 16mm non­ theatrical rights, as well as theatrical rights, when they take on films for release.

Non-theatrical release means a release on 16mm or 35mm where no direct admission charge is made at the door. It generally encompasses home screenings, certain clubs, film societies, schools, etc.

Australian distributors sub-contract non­ theatrical rights to either Australasian Film Hire, a Roadshow affiliate which handles GUO, Roadshow, Warner Bros., Filmways and Disney product, or Fox 16mm which handles Fox, Columbia and CIC product.

Typical hire charges for a single hiring are around $35. Between one and 12 prints may be used, and the gross non-theatrical revenue may go as high as $20,000, for a very successful film.

As AFH and Fox 16 charge the distributor a

F. Exploitation O v e rse a s 1. W hy overseas sales

licence royalty in advance as a minimum guarantee and advances cost of prints, advertising, etc. He recoups these advances, including the minimum guarantee (if any), and splits the gross film rental with the producer — e.g. 75 per cent to producer, 25 per cent to distributor; or 70/30, 65/35, etc.

This is probably a reasonable deal in Australia where the producer can closely monitor the release of the film. It is less effective, overseas unless the producer (i) has certain controls on expenditure built in and (ii) either has had previous experience with the distributor or has a pr o d u c e r ’s representative in the territory helping him. (iii) Gross deal (with or without minimum guarantee): In a gross deal the distributor advances all or some of the costs as well as (sometimes) a minimum guarantee. The producer shares from the first dollar of revenue, but the split is frequently in the order of 75 per cent distributor, 25 per cent producer. This can be a good deal if the producer believes his film has only moderate prospects in the territory, but is no good if the film takes off.

A variation of this deal, called a multiple or adjusted gross deal, provides as above for the distributor to pay all costs and a minimum guarantee, but there is no split until a gross rental figure has been reached, which is a multiple of the theoretical costs and notional profit of the distributor.

For example, a recent Australian film received an advance of $25,000 minimum guarantee from a German theatrical release, and the producer’s split was 50/50, after a gross film rental of U.S.$200,000. The distributor pays all the costs out of its share.

3. The producer’s role in foreign sales

It is generally agreed that the likely average gross film hire on a moderately successful Australian film domestically, speaking only of theatrical revenue, hovers around $250,000 — $300,000. It is a rare film, in today’s budget context, that is made for less than $350,000, and indeed many cost more than double that amount. The net effect of today’s budgets, therefore, is that we are in a deficit situation which can only be adjusted by a meld of foreign revenue and domestic television sales.

In other words, we need foreign sales to survive.

Secondly, the prestige of the Australian industry will only rise overseas in the eyes of distribution-exhibition networks of other countries when we make meaningful theatrical releases in key markets.

Many of the other reasons for supporting a film industry in the first place — e.g. dissemination of Australian culture, tourism, nationalistic fervor, etc. — all make more sense in an export-orientated industry.

Two extremes of thought seem current in the industry. One, the view of some government-funding bodies is that the producer ought to hand over the marketing of his production to specialists. There is some debate on who these specialists are, but they run the gamut from the Australian Film Commission marketing division, to Sam Gelfman (of the Australian Film Office, Los Angeles), to a private sales agent like Jeannine Seawell, etc.

The other view is that more experienced producers believe that the role of the producer is not just to make a film, but also to sell it. In the early stages of the industry renaissance, when producers were learning about production, mistakes were made. Similarly (so the argument goes), as producers begin to make foreign sales contacts, they ought, even if they sometimes make mistakes, to engage in that learning process.

2. Language of the foreign sale

4. The ag ent’s role

(i) O utright sale: The producer sells to a

There is no substitute in foreign sales tactics for an efficient, honest, respected foreign sales agent who ought to be independent of all the investors, including government bodies, and who reports directly to the producer (unless he be a “ first timer” ).

territory or territories, for a period of years, certain rights of exploitation in the film for a flat once-and-for-all fee. The distributor pays all release costs. This is a good deal for small territories — e.g. Iceland, West Indies — or territories where a variety of circumstances make participation deals cumbersome — e.g.

Italy — or suspect — e.g. South Africa. (ii) N et rental deal: (with or without an advance minimum guarantee); This is the deal most Australian distributors offer and is equally frequent overseas. The distributor pays (unusually in Australia, usually overseas) a

Note: The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide deals with many other matters relevant to foreign distributors: e.g. Cannes; Export Market Development Grants; Reserve Bank Approvals; lists of agents; publicists; etc.

The Guide, which is a subscription service, may be purchased via the form on p.203 of this issue. -■* Cinema Papers, January/February — 239

RESOURCES GUIDE

Resources Guide Continuedfrom p. 231 article, “ An Analysis of the Images, the Sound and Structure of Newsfront” provides a challenge to the upper-form secondary teacher who is familiar with modern discussions of film narrative techniques. A R eader’s Digest type condensation of parts of this material may be found in M etro, no. 44, Winter 1978.

The Australian Film and Television School in Sydney has also been active in the production of film study materials. The output is part of the Open Program resources project, and is in the form of audiovisual material, normally supplied on %” videotape cassette.

Under the rubric “ Aspects of the Craft” one can obtain programs providing lessons in visual language, — “ Teaching and Filmmaking” (100 min) being a typical example. Here, Australian film and television director Bill Fitzwater discusses the creative role of the filmmaker and his relationship with the teacher. Overseas visitors to the Australian Film and T e le v isio n School also frequently participate in seminars with the staff and students, and some of the notables who have been videorecorded are Basil Wright, Peter Watkins and Burt Lancaster.

The unedited, videotaped interviews with Australian film m akers are o f particular interest. These are available for individual study, and those made so far include interviews with Ken Hannam, John Power, Bert Deling, Phil Noyce, Michael Thornhill and Cecil Holmes.

These interviews took place in 1978 and run for about 40 minutes each. All the School’s Open Program resources are available in every Australian state.

Tn 1977, Brian Sheedy and Richard Morton of the Melbourne State College F ilm and T e le v is io n D ep a rtm en t conducted a survey of 200 Victorian teachers of film and video to identify the special problems of teaching Australian film at primary and secondary level. The report states that more film study material is urgently sought by the schools, especially as an educational support for commercially-released films, which are extensively used by teachers.

Primary teachers showed a positive response to film study kits of the Storm Boy type, and welcomed background notes to the film. Among secondary teachers there was a greater emphasis on

the need for study extracts (clips from the film s), and com p reh en sive printed material, especially biographical and critical writings. Interview tapes and films of “ The Making O f . . .” type were also in demand.

MOUTH TO MOUTH

A Resource Folder for the Senior Secondary Level

Robert Francis (left) directing The Making of Anna.

Brian Sheedy and his film and media students at the Melbourne State College have produced a wide-ranging package of study material for John Duigan’s Mouth to Mouth. The co-operation o f Vega Films (film clips, script extracts), The Age (article reprints, graphics) and Cinema Papers (critical review of the film) was freely obtained.

The Mouth to Mouth kit includes a resource folder for senior secondary level students, containing 27 loose-leaf pages of study notes, related social-relevance material, film reviews, script extracts, and four, black-and-white photographs. The study notes vary in quality, but they are primarily designed to meet the needs of the teacher who is studying the film as a social document.

The resource folder is accompanied by a 90-minute audio cassette which has 14 minutes of the soundtrack of the film relating to the script extracts on the printed sheets (unfortunately there are more sound effects than dialogue on the tape); a 20-minute interview with director John Duigan; separate interviews with Sonia Peat (Jeannie) and Sergio Frazzetto (Serge); and 3’40” of Sydney composer

Roy Ritchie’s original theme song, “ The More You Love, The Harder You Fall” .

The second part of the package consists of a 26-minute color videotape available in any format. Freeze-frames and live-action clips from the film h igh ligh t the development of the four main characters, their relationship with each other and their en v iro n m en t. A printed v id eotap e analysis is included in the resource folder and is useful in interpreting the freezeframe sequences. The most impressive portions of the videotape are those that integrate stills and action sequences in a jump-cut manner, but which are coherent and amenable to analysis.

The Victorian teachers’ request for more films of “ The Making O f . . . ” variety has recently been furthered by the production of The Making of Anna by producer/director Robert Francis of the AVEC Film Unit, with financial assistance from the Victorian Film Corporation.

T his film has many in n ovatory educational features which are not found in such imported products as The Making

of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (U.S., 1970) which was designed for television entertainment, nor to a lesser degree with Australian productions in this genre, such as the SAFC’s The Making of Sunday (1975), which stressed the more fascinating action sequences from Ken Hannam’s Sunday Too Far Away (e.g. the Holden overturning, and the fight scene in the local bar).

The Making of Anna is not a simple

account of the mechanics of filmmaking; it engages the audience in every detail of the making of a low-budget, Australian road film. It covers, stage-by-stage, important production episodes in a 2000 km odyssey, from Melbourne’s Pentridge gaol to Queensland’s sunny coast, of two young people in a mobile “ set” : a 1938 Buick.

During the journey, director Esben Storm gives a running commentary on the film’s progress from the wheel of the Buick; make-up girl (Anne Pospischil) tells of the problems of matching the colors of make-up to the spectral response of Eastmancolor negative to produce the illusion of reality; art director Sally Campbell discusses the problems of costuming and set design, while she herself is outfitted in a pop-art dress; Mike Edols is seen struggling under the weight of a 35mm Arri, weaving through dimly-lit corridors; we even gain a glimpse of diminutive sound assistant Lloyd Carrick, temporarily borrowed from the AVEC team.

The Making of Anna, is a model of vocational guidance; it gives an insight into pure Australiana, and a cinematic work of art made not just with lenses and film, but with sweat and tears, and rewarded by incomes that are often Dickensian in their generosity. Our film people, raised in thè tradition of Poor Cinema, can work wonders, and mostly without the need of Chapman cranes, travelling blue-matte‘processing, or SuperPanavision cameras.

■£$'-

TO ADVERTISE IN

C IN E M A R ing Peggy Nicholls: Melbourne 830 1097 or 329 5983 Sue Adler: Sydney 26 1625 The Making of Anna.

240 — Cinema Papers, January/February

ANDREW SARRIS

Continuedfrom p.199 Maybe it is because people have shown us how to look at Picasso and Matisse, but not at the avant-garde cinema . ..

That is possible. When the Witney Museum ran several optical films, Vincent Canby of the Times asked Milton Kramer, “ Why don’t you guys in the art department cover this?” Kramer replied, “ Well, our rule is that if it moves, it isn’t ours.”

I don’t know why the art critics don’t go into this abstract area and show us how to look at these things. They have shown us how to look at Picasso and Matisse, so why not show us how to look at the avant-garde. The reason is they don’t seem to be interested.

It’s a funny thing though. These people who get Foundation Grants are never “ commercial”

filmmakers, they are always people doing esoteric things.

People say, “ Isn’t it wonderful” , but nobody, except from a small coterie, writes about it.

I hate to think the art field is just a racket for the rich; that art critics, curators and custodians have established tastes in art, that certain works have certain value so that people can invest in them.

You can’t do the same with film. I would hate to suggest that may be a factor, b u t . . .

Elsewhere, you have spoken very highly of Godard, yet he is very mujch c o n c e r n e d with confronting those things we have valued in the past . . .

I haven’t seen recent Godard. I haven’t seen Numero deux, or the video things he has done 5, so I have lost track.

I turned off Godard a little at the time of Le gai savoir. Godard is someone very important in my life — important to my sensibility.

He doesn’t have to do anything more for me to acknowledge him as one of the important modern film artists.

For many of us, he has changed our ways of thinking about cinema — in his writing and films. Many of his films are still very exciting — especially his early films. They are very beautiful and lyrical, and have a modern, anguished quality.

But after Pierrot le fou, Godard had gone about as far as he could go with his feelings. That film was a kind of Wagnerian consum­ mation and it perhaps took a great deal out of him. He had reached the end of his social despair and, from then on, he has been trying to find a new language.

I think it is too early to evaluate

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

raas grahrir nun isrvksi (my old name was adina film services)

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

Anns GRAHAm nun isrvicci 28 shellcove road neutral bay nsw 2 0 8 9 telephone (02) 908.3011 (2 lines)

NEG FILM CUTTER 16mm 35mm enquiries welcome ring Pam Toose 449 1344 176 Burns Rd..

Turramurra

fc | ■

THE MATCHING MECHANICS

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

H

(FREELANCE NEGATIVE CUTTERS) k IS mm

35mm& 16mm Negative Cutting

J

V

3 5 mm

cO l

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS 139 Penshurst Street,

COURIER SERVICE AVAILABLE pho ne

411 2 2 5 5

Decide for yourself!

We all have our own premises No red tape.........

Deal with each of us personally —

and k n o w w ho cuts y o u r film (with the white gloved treatment)

There is this feeling that you have to shatter everything, that you can’t paper over society with cute little reforms. You have to b l o w t h i n g s up — v e r y fundamental things like language and image.

In the 1930s people wanted to exploit language and image and use it in a certain way to augment themselves, but now Godard wants to turn your ear and shatter your mind and get inside your skull. It seems like a very self­ consuming process.

He makes demands on you to abandon cinema — to go out in the desert. To follow Godard you have to give up almost everything.

Truffaut told me many years ago — this was at the time of Le petit soldat — that Godard’s great ambition was to make films that would alienate everybody, so that everybody would gradually leave the theatre till there was no one left, except himself watching the film.

There has always been that kind of “ You think this is irritating, wait till I show you r/7/s” quality, and I think politically it is the same. His has become very much a cinema of renunciation, and at the moment I just don’t feel like renouncing.

Politically, how do you rate yourself, and the people who write in the same mould as you?

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

late Godard. What he is doing may turn out to be important, but it is hard to tell. Godard will always be one step ahead, and I guess he decided he wasn’t going to become an old master.

He has gone his own way. You just never think of him ageing, whereas, with others, you feel they are very tired or they are trying to get their second wind.

He is certainly a focal point for contemporary political cinema in his attempt to work through d e s p a i r to a mo me n t of rebirth . . .

My politics have always been very strange. I have no faith in political institutions and I think history is farcical. I have no feeling for the Left and I would say I am “ centrist” if I knew what that means.

I am concerned with the margins of existence where I can operate. I don’t want to take over the world, and I don’t want to have to write for 10 million people. If you did, you would become something else; you would become political. It would broaden everything until it ceases to have any meaning. Then you would find yourself full of ego problems. I like what I am. ★ 5. Suret Sous La Communication, a 600minute video work commissioned by French television and shot by Jean-Luc Godard and Anne-Marie Mieville Cinema Papers, January/February — 241

PRODUCTION REPORT

¿

à

CANNES FILM FESTIVAL 1979 MIP- TV 1979

«

Make your arrangements for the 7979 Cannes Film Festival now through:

MONIQUE MALARD C onsultant * P ublic R elations * Organization

***% & ^

W--

10 Issues $10.00 CAMPAIGN PUBLISHING PTY. LTD. 620 HARRIS ST., ULTIMO. SYDNEY. 2007

Carl S chultz

Continuedfrom p.209 You mentioned that additional material was written during the shoot. Was that largely to accommodate Kruger?

Some adjustment had to be made because Kruger played Pascoe, but that was only minor.

Most of the additional writing was linkage material to help cover a scene that came before or explained the one following. It fixed problems that had not been perceived until after the shooting was finished. Some new shooting had to be done, and a number of these scenes were done by Bruce Beresford.

readers. Let me just say that I was not able to complete it in the way I would have liked.

What is relevant to our readers’ interest is your experience working for the SAFC, which in many ways is moving towards a Hollywood studio style of production. . .

I think there is a danger when an organization, like the SAFC, b e c o me s no mor e t ha n a p r o d u c t i o n h o u s e . If an organization which employs various talents takes over and begins to dictate, not allowing people the freedom they need in which to operate, you can have a dangerous situation. Creative When did you leave the project? people need to be nurtured in a number of ways, and large Five weeks after the end of organizations have to be very shooting, and before the editor’s careful not to be destructive of their talent. cut.

I don’t think you can make You apparently left to work on a films by committee. If you hire project at the ABC and Beresford somebody, say Michael Carlos, to stepped in to do the few pick-up write the music, you do so shots. He also supervised the because you know he is good at his job. He should, therefore, be fine-cut. . . given all the freedom he needs to Yes. I h a d a p r e v i o u s express himself. commitment and Bruce was asked I am not saying that black is to do the linkage material. I was black and white is white. Of quite happy about him doing that. course, there are areas of However, I think we are getting compromise — after all, film­ into what happened behind the making is a big business. But too scenes, and I think that is often people forget we are dealing irrelevant to the interests of your with human beings, and that you 242 — Cinema Papers, January/February

• Hotel Accommodation/Apartments • Accreditation • Freight Clearance • Advertising • Publicity • Office Accommodation & Supplies • Translations.

Arrangements also made for • Luncheon and Dinner Parties • Press Conferences • Business Machine Rentals • Secretarial Assistance • Telex Facilities.

Apply in writing for further information to Monique Malard, Les Myrtes B io, rue Auguste Pardon 06400 CA N N ES Telephone 68 3836 can kill creativity by constricting it.

Did you find you had more creative freedom working at the ABC? The ABC has its problems, but it really depends on the people you are associated with.

If a producer, director and writer can get together and develop some sort of trust in each other, then an easy and happy relationship results. If there is any mistrust, it becomes clandestine: there is not one producer, there are six; there is not one scriptwriter, there are three or four; there is not one director, but two.

You have worked with the composer Michael Carlos before.

How did you work together on “Blue Fin” ?

I like Michael’s work; he is a very talented musician.

In terms of music, I am a babein-the-woods. So when I work with somebody like Michael, it’s over to him, though we initially discuss things together. Michael knows the sort of areas I am interested in — like the way I use those sounds that are already part of the soundtrack. I then get Michael to try and build on them so that the two virtually overlap.

The soundtrack of a film

shouldn’t be music, effects and dialogue — the three elements should become one.

Do you have any other projects?

I am about to do a four-part series, which is an adaptation of Kylie Tennant’s Ride on Stranger.

It is set in the 1930s, and is about a young girl who comes to the city.

The atmosphere at that period will dominate the film.

Peter Yeldham has written the screenplay and I think it is wonderful. I am looking forward to doing it and believe it is the sort of thing television should be involved in more.

Do you have any features planned?

Yes, though they are all in the early stages. I am going to take each project as close to the final script stage as possible before doing anything with them. I have plans with Peter Yeldham to do a feature film, and also one with Colin Free, which I hope to shoot in the middle of next year.

I am working with a number of people, in a co-operative sense.

Some of our functions might be interchangeable from project to project, though not within the same project.

So I have plans, but I am quite happy to work on them thor­ oughly and not rush into things.^

STANLEY HAWES

S tan ley H aw es

which had close links with AFI. and in November 1969 appointed The AFI then made conditions for an Interim Council. the merger, but the NFTA didn’t The council issued a couple of accept them, and the whole thing reports, but in September 1971 o f th e m e d i u m in it s lapsed. the Government announced that determination to be naturalistic at So many projects have collapsed because of continuing economic all costs. It was an irreverent film, in the past umpteen years because stringencies and the substantial it laughed at the establishment people with similar needs and cost of the school, a decision on and it laughed at Australians in interests seemed to prefer fighting the council’s proposals would be general. Although we made it with each other to collaborating. I am deferred. Many people thought some trepidation, it was an sure it will happen some time or that was the end of the school, and enormous success. other, but I can only hope it will press and television reacted in Also part of this breaking of be on a sensible basis, without one the the usual hysterical fashion. n ew g r o u n d w e r e t h e taking over the other.

Peter Howson, Minister for ethnographic films, particularly Arts at the time — in my opinion a those associated with Ian Dunlop, somewhat maligned Minister — You were also a prime mover in which have been remarkably successful. Dunlop began a series the setting up of the Film School wanted further information and of purely ethnographic sections in and were on its Interim asked the council for a third report. The secretary of the our films, whenever possible and Committee. . .

Interim Council was on leave, so appropriate.

People think that the idea of a the chairman, Peter Coleman, Later in the ’60s a number of enterprising and successful films National Film and Television asked me to prepare it, which I were produced, often dramatized. School started in 1968 with the did. In it I was able to show There was also the nine-screen, U n e s c o s e m i n a r on t h e support — at times hard won — nine-track, 360 degree film which Professional Training of Film and from film producers in Sydney I produced for the Australian T e l e v i s i o n S c r i p t w r i t e r s , and Melbourne, and even from Producers and Directors. That the Federation of Commercial Pavilion at Expo 70 in Osaka. seminar, attended by Lord Ted Television stations.

The McMahon government Willis, attracted a lot of public How did your involvement with attention to the idea of the school, finally agreed to set up the School, the National Film Theatre of but work on it had started long but went out of office. The Wh i t l a m g o v e r n m e n t t he n Australia’s national committee before. come about?

It goes back to another Unesco introduced the actual legislation seminar in Adelaide, in 1964, on — and got most of the credit. “ Music for Film” . A by-product I was one of the original of that seminar was the setting up You are presently part of the members of the NFTA. Soon after of a working party to meet the Film Censorship Board of it was formed a conference was growing feeling that professional Review. How do you regard this held in Canberra. I was not training, in film and television, body’s role? present, but I gathered that the was needed in Australia if we were usual bickerings went on. There to develop. The working party was apparently considerable reported to the Unesco Mass Film censorship came in for difference of opinion about who Communications Committee and strong criticism in the 1960s. The should be national chairman.

Unesco National Committee. I Commonwealth Film Censor Anyway, Rob Gowland asked was a member of both committees could do no right, and the failings me if I would take it on, since I and did all I could to push the idea of censorship were constantly was apart from the disagreeing along. featured in the newspapers. factions. I agreed and remained I was quite a critic myself, not In 1967, as a result of their there — on and off — until last request, the Director-General of. so much of the people doing the July, when I resigned. I felt then it Unesco in Paris made available censoring, but of the principle was time for a younger person to about $3000 to allow an overseas itself. Once I became involved be president, one who could take a consultant to attend a seminar on with censorship, however, I found more active part. professional training. Various it was not the simple matter of names were suggested, and the right and wrong that I first working party decided on Lord thought it to be.

During your term as a governor For a long time there had been a of the Australian Film Institute, Willis. I was on leave in Paris at right of appeal against the decision the time, so I called at Unesco and there was a move for a merger of the Film Censorship Board, but arranged that he should be with the NFTA. In the end, the there was only one Appeals invited. merger fell through. Why did it Censor; it must have been an Subsequently, at a rather heated fail? meeting of the Australian Unesco appalling responsibility for him.

In 1970, Don Chipp, then N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e , t he At the time both organizations recommendations of the 1968 Minister for Customs (the had related aims and activities; seminar for the establishment of a D epartm ent of Customs was both were also constantly faced school were discussed. There were responsible for film censorship with financial problems. (This was reservations from the ABC and presumably because almost every before there were any government the Federation of Commercial film shown in Australia was from grants of consequence to either Television stations, and there abroad), decided, very wisely I body.) So it seemed sensible that w e r e d o u b t s f r o m s o m e think, to appoint a Board of the two bodies should merge and educationalists, but a resolution Review in place of a single appeals form a major organization which was passed supporting the censor.

I was asked to accept the job as could do a better job than either of school’s establishment.

The problem was where the chairman. I knew some people them separately, and which could justify and command government money was to come from. Then, would criticize me, but I believed the Council for the Arts, now the that in accepting the job there was support.

I-suggested it to the AFI as well Australia Council, was formed. I an opportunity to do something as the NFTA, and negotiations was a member of its original Film about censorship, rather than Committee and put forward the merely beef about it. started.

The original members of the The situation then changed with idea of the school as one of the the formation of the Film and com m ittee’s projects. In due board were a remarkable group: Television Board of the Council course, the Gorton government Marie Neal, Professor of Special for the Arts, several members of adopted the project in principle Education at Monash, was the Continuedfrom p. 185

deputy chairman; Professor David Maddison, a psychiatrist; Caroline Jones (the only remaining member of that first group); and Ron Clarke, the athlete. There was considerable harmony among members, but they differed and divided quite often — though not always in the same way.

I think the board has main­ tained its standard over the years and has done much to liberalize film censorship. In a sense, the Film Censorship Board, the Customs, and later the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, helped to bring film censorship into the 20th Century. When you realize that at our first meeting we had to consider whether the word “ bullshit” could be permitted, you get an idea of how far film censorship has come in a fairly short time. Not all that can be attributed to the Board of Review, but the Board has had a lot to do with it.

H ow do you f e e l a bo u t Australia’s sudden renaissance, or is it perhaps an emergence, in the feature film area?

Naturally, I am delighted, especially because, in 1969, I practically bulldozed the plan for the Australian Film Development Corporation through the Film Committee of the Council for the Arts. Aft er t he first few unmentionable films supported by the AFDC, a number of good films came along: Sunday Too Far Away, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Caddie, The Devil’s Playground and so on. They gave hope of a really impressive national school of film.

The good films are still coming along, but they can’t seem to get away from the nostalgic, often embarrassing, chauvinism that Australians wallow in. At the risk of being howled down, I’ll say that although money at the box-office is important — essential if you like — there is no point in making films unless you can be proud of them as films.

Then there is the proliferation o f fi l m c o m m i s s i o n s and corporations, which seems to me suicide. We have the Australian Fi l m C o m m i s s i o n , wh i c h succeeded the AFDC, — surely that is enough for a country with our population.

It’s the same old story which has blighted cinema in this country as long as I have known it.

The commissions and corporations compete against each other for a share of the market, half of them don’t speak to the others, and they are much more interested in taking a rise out of each other than in getting together, forgetting parochial ideas and collaborating on a real plan for a unified national output. ★

Cinema Papers, January/February — 243

■V~. .. -,

i ' , vi -

; r ;.u.;

CMS MICROPHONES FROM AKG . 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: A m algam ated W ireless (Australasia) Limited New South Wales 797 5757

Victoria 560 4533

Canberra A.C.T. 95 3431

South Australia 272 2366

Queensland 44 1631

Western Australia 71 0888

Tasmania 34 5266

f* I I

I I I

s I I I

J O H M IW W

GROUP

MOTION PICTURE EQUIPMENT SALES • RENTAL • SERVICE

If you shoot handheld, you need T h e A ca d e m y A w a rd W inning

B I I I I I

Because with STEADICAM, Cinema Products’ revolution­ ary film/video camera stabilizing system, the handheld moving camera finally comes into its own — recording dolly-smooth, jitter-free, handheld moving shots with a steadiness of image never before achieved on the screen.

Glass 1 Academy Award for Technical Achievement for the 1978 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

(The first to be awarded for ten years).

105 Reserve Road, Artarm on Sydney, N.S.W . 2064 Telephone: 439-6955 Telex: 24482 Al I correspondence: P.O. Box 199 Artarmon, N.S.W . 2064 Australia

.......

HOW TO GET A GOOD RETURN BYTHROWING A BOOMERANG

W hen they think of Australia, most Americans and Europeans think of boomerangs, kangaroos and koalas.

PassĂŠ to many Australians, but nevertheless effective at the recent NATO Film Festival in New York and at MIF-ED in Milan, the Australian Film Commission's marketing campaign featured kangaroos and boomerangs.

The concept was developed from a Patrick Cook cartoon showing an aggressive looking kangaroo throwing a boomerang. The selling slogan was "Buy Australian Films And You'll Keep Coming Back For M ore".

W e put the slogan and the Cook cartoon on a brochure which also doubled as a four colour poster, plus in a series of advertisements, in Variety, in Screen International, in the official festival programmes, on tags attached to giveaway boomerangs, and lastly on beer coasters which were scattered around the venues and nearby bars of both Festivals.

The boomerangs around which the campaign centred were handmade by Australian Aborigines from Central Australia and Western Australia. This activity attracted a large number of potential buyers to view the 22 Australian feature films that we took to the two festivals.

As well as MIF-ED and NATO, the Commission plays an active role in marketing Australian film and television at such major festivals as MIP-TV and Cannes.

For further inform ation on the work of the C om m ission, contact: Rea Francis D irector Publicity Australian Film C om m ission 8 W est Street North Sydney. 2060. Australia Phone: 922 6855

Telex:

2 5 15 7

A u s tra lia n fu m C m m issioru —

'r r m v r r i *

ANOTHER CARLTON PRODUCT