Cinema Papers March-April 1979

Registered (or posting as a Publication — Category B.

JimSharman French Cinema in Crisis

Filming

M A R C H — APRIL 1979

ISSUE 20 $2.50

35 Missenden Road, Camperdown, N.S.W. 2050 Telephone: (02)5161066

C IN E M A P A P E R S Beat Inflation and Subscribe Subscribersreceivethemfirst...homedelivered 1YEAR SUBSCRIPTION $15 00 2YEAR SUBSCRIPTION $30-00 3 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION $40-50 SAVE 10% 'imi lyifüii' pifiqraiiiiyiiaM

I will take a 1 □

2D

3D

year subscription

Please start my subscription with Issue 20 D M arch-April issue 21 D May-June Issue 22 D July-August

M o p^j /ü

Address.......................................................................................... .................................................................... Postcode..............

Find cheque enclosed for $_________ The above listed offer is post free and applies to Australia only.

For overseas rates see overleaf.

Please allow up to four weeks for processing.

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

Offer Expires 30/6/1979

CINEMA PAPERS ...agHtwmiky Hyrnfi

iuteutim

Please send.............................................................................

Address.................................................................................... ......................................................... Postcode........................ a gift of 6 /1 2 /1 8 issues of Cinema Papers We will enclose a card fro m .................................................

M essage...................................................................................

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

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

THE ADAIR INSURANCE BROKING GROUP mie Blacksmith The Chant of Jimmie Black oiling High Rolling High Rolling H igh Rolling High Rolling! cture Show Man The Picture Show Man The P ic tu re Show! den FJ H olden F J H olden FJ Holden F J H olden F J Holden!

R aw Deal Raw D eal Raw Deal Raw D eal Raw D eal Raw Del Fraser Eliza F ra se r Eliza Fraser Eliza F ra se r E liza Fraser! vil’s Playground The Devil’s Playground The D evil’s P la y g ro l Purple Alvin P u rp le Alvin Purple Alvin P u rp le Alvin Purple!

The P row ler The Night The Prowler The N ight The P ro w ler T | Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo Solo!

Brilliant C a re e r My Brilliant Career My B rilliant C a ree r My bool a Dimboola D im boola Dimboola D im boola D im boola Di ts Reef Taggarts R eef Taggarts Reef T ag g arts R eef Taggarts 96 Number 96 N um ber 96 Number 96 N um ber 96 N um ber 96 O dd Angry Shot The Odd Angry Shot The O dd A ngry Shot T Max M ad Max M ad Max Mad Max M ad Max M ad Max M ad Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz Oz sen Petersen P e te rs e n Petersen P e te rse n P e te rse n P e te rs Felicity Felicity Felicity Felicity Felicity Felicity Felicity vin Rides A gain Alvin Rides Again Alvin R ides Again Alv ay End P lay End P lay End Play End P lay End P lay End PI ild Cathy’s Child Cathy’s Child C ath y ’s C hild Cathy’s Ch rali^A fte^D ar^A ustralia^fterD arkA ustrali^^

N EED W E SAY M O R E !

FOR ALL YOUR FILM INSURANCE NEEDS CONTACT: 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

TH ER ES ALWAYS SOMETHING NEW A N D E X C IT IN G

AT SAMUELSONS

16 mm FEATURE 16 mm TELEMOVIE 16 mm DOCUMENTARY 16 mm COMMERCIAL

THE 16 MM SOUND CAMERA THAT DOES IT ALL

FOR RENTAL OR SALE SAMUELSON FILM SERVICE (AUST) P/L Head Office:

Interstate Office:

27 Sirius Road, Lane Cove, Sydney 2066 N.S.W. Australia Telephone: 428 5300 Telex: AA25188

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

X® X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X®X* X0 X®X®X®X®X* X®X®X®X®X* X®

SOUND STUDIO FOR HIRE Suitable for Film, Video and Stills at:

FILM SETS 88 Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, M E L B O U R N E 3166 Studio 7$’ x 46’ with 14 ’ to lighting grid.

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.

X* Sold and serviced nationally by X® STRAND

12 Barcoo St, East Roseville NSW 2069. Ph 406 5666 60 Rosebank Ave, Clayton South, Vic 3169. Ph 543 4122 299 Montague Rd, West End, Brisbane, Qld 4101. Ph 44 2851 101-105 Mooringe Ave, Camden Park, SA 5038. Ph 294 6555 430 Newcastle St, Perth, WA 6000. Ph 328 3933 120 Parry St, Newcastle NSW 2300. Ph 26 2466

'X® ELECTRIC X® X®i®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®

STU D IO BO O K IN G S, P H O N E : Alex Simpson,

(03) 568 0058, (03) 568 2948

A H (03) 25 3858

B ta c K C ß O R n

PR O D uenon

studio of 3 D a n i m a t e d fi lm s specialises

in

ANIMATION OF PUPPETS Oft 06IECTS; SPECIAL EFFECTS. FIAT ANO CELL ANIMATION ALSO AVAIARlE FOP SHOOTS, ADVERTISING, INSTRUCTIONAL ANO FEATURE FILMS TELEPHONE

7Q7 5667

40 Nicholson Street, Burwood NSW 2134.

WE VICTORIAN FILM CORPORATION

HAVE MOVED ! to 409 King Street Melbourne 3000 Ph. (03) 329 7033

P.0, ßox

él

Mail

exchange

M e lb o u rn e 3ooi

Music in Australia? llium ni...

Music in Australia is showing good form these days and Film Australia has some real winners for you to see and hear.

You don’t have to be mad to like opera A film for young people taking the grand out of grand opera and starring Isobel Buchanan and members of the Australian Opera on tour.

23min. Colour.

Incredible Floridas Richard Meale, Australian composer, talks about and performs a section of ‘ Incredible Floridas', a work inspired by the poetry 6f Rimbeau. This award winning film was directed

by Peter Weir o f' Picnic at Hanging Rock' fame. lOmin. Colour.

The Fifth Facade A stunning film from the producer and director o f‘Caddie', covering the construction of the Sydney Opera House. Artists appearing include Birgit Nilsson, Charles Mackerras, Edward Downes, the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and the Australian Opera. Music by Wagner and Prokofiev. 40min. Colour.

Chorus and Principals on stage please The staging of Delibes Lakme' from planning, costumes, set designs, rehearsals to opening night performance with Joan Sutherland and musical director Richard Bonynge. 61 min.

Colour.

Images for string quartet An insight into the lives and work of the members of a string quartet in Australia. The string quartet is led by Carl Pini and performs the music of Debussy. 20min. Colour.

A Balinese gong orchestra The Balinese Gamelan Orchestra comprises 30 musicians playing a rich and unique variety of exotic instruments. The sounds produced have inspired western composers such as Benjamin Britten. This film very simply takes you through the orchestra and lets you hear the instruments by themselves and in groups. lOmin. Colour.

Concerto for orchestra To a background of Bartok's music, this film takes an intimate look at the work of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra under its one-time Musical Director, the late Dean Dixon. 27min.

Black & white.

Something to think about from Film Australia.

Film Australia, P.O. Box 47 Lindfield, N.S.W., 2070. Australian Film Commission. Canberra House, 10-16 Maltravers St., Strand, London WC2R3EH. Ll.S.A. & Canada. M rjim Henry. City National Bank Building, 4229 Sunset Boulevarde, Los Angeles, California.

The Australian FilmInstitute developing afilm 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:

P u b lish in g 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 1906­ 1960. 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 1906- 1977, 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.

A u s tra lia n Film A w ard s 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.

E x h ib itin g The AFI operates the Longford Cinema in Melbourne, the State Cinema in Hobart and selected seasons at the Music 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.

D istrib u tin g 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 1 969, 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.

Inform ation R e so u rce s 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

M em bership 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 ail 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.

35mm — 3 TRACK 17.5mm I SINGLE 16mm J TRACK

C O N TIN U O U S PROJECTION FOR BOTH 16 MM & 35 MM IN A N Y SCREEN FORMAT.

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

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

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

The hire rates are reasonable.

F O R FURTHER I N F O R M A T I O N O R B O O K IN G S , P H O N E (03) 2 6 7 2 7 0 0 O R W R IT E T O THE M A N A G E R , L O N G F O R D C IN E M A , 59 T O O R A K R O A D , S O U T H YARRA 3141

w

Emeitiann 35/I6 PORTABLE

D UAL G,UGE DUAL GAUGE

T V IV I

E

I n a

ERNEMANN

West Germany

Specification: Xenon lamphouse up to 700 watts. Maltese Cross for both formats, excellent picture stability, maximum film protection, sturdily built for professional use, simple, easy and quick change of formats, optical sound for both formats, magnetic sound for 16mm.

Sydney Head Office: 51 6133

Melbourne: 568 3355

Brisbane: 44 7696

Adelaide: 272 1100

Perth: 321 8559

Telephoto & Wide angle attachments

ORIGINAL MUSIC FOR YOUR FILM

For Angenieux

Greg Sneddon is an experienced drama and documentary film music composer.

He has worked as Musical Co-ordinator for the ABC in Melbourne.

If you would like to see some of his work a video cassette is available on request.

15x10 10x12 2.8x16 Zoom lenses

angenieux AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. 33 Higginbotham Road, Gladesville, NSW 2111 Telephone: (02) 807 1444 Telex: AA25629.

Cables: ‘Meopta Gladesville’

Y

Phone: (03) 755 1535

Photographs " T Publicity or Composites

For B & W work done with minimum delay and hassle

Ring Peter Hosking

(03) 439 2229 Any Location Around Melbourne

Whatgood is agood idea if no one sees it?

Film-making starts with ideas, and the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission is there to make sure those ideas come across on film.

In 1978 the following productions were made under the Experimental Film and Television Fund: THIRD PERSON PLURAL - James Ricketson, TEMPERA­ MENT UNSUITED — Ken Cameron, BUCKS PARTY - Steve Jodrell, MAIDENS - Jeni Thornley, WOOLLOOMOOLOO — Pat Fiske/Denise White/ Peter Gayley, and LETTER TO A FRIEND - Sonia Hoffman.

A scene from TH IR D PERSO N PLU RAL.

It supports and encourages the creative and artistic development of film, television and video production.

The Creative Development Branch is involved in a wide range of activities including: the encouragement, appreciation and study of film, especially narrative, fiction and drama; experimental projects, seminars and workshops to encourage new

A scene from TE M P E R A M E N T UNSUITED.

For further information on any of the activities of the Creative Development Branch contact: Mr. Lachlan Shaw Director Creative Development Branch Australian Film Commission 8 West Street North Sydney. 2060. Australia Telephone: (02) 922 6855 im C o m m is s io n .'

A meeting o f Assessors at the Commission.

talent; funding of script writing and pro­ duction, particularly innovative projects including television pilots, dramas, creat­ ive documentaries and children’s films.

B/W 542

Articles and Interviews Ken Cameron: Interview Rod Bishop, Peter Beilby French Cinema: French Cinema in Crisis Claude Lelouch The Australian Film Festival in New York Jim Sharman: Interview Robyn Anderson, Sue Adler Filming the Green Bans 1. Woolloomooloo 2. Green City Barbara Alysen Film Insurance Trends Robert LeTet

Jim Sharman Interviewed: 268

254 260 264 *

266 268

276 280

Features

French Cinema Surveyed: 260

The Quarter Film Censorship Listings Edinburgh Film Festival Jan Dawson Guide for the Australian Film Producer: Part 13 Antony I. Ginnane, Ian Baillieu, Leon Gorr International Production Round-Up Box-Office Grosses Production Survey Film Study Resources Guide Basil Gilbert Picture Previews: Dawn!

Tim

252 272 273 281 284 285 295 311 313 316

Production Report Filming the Green Bans A Report: 276

My Brilliant Career: Margaret Fink Gillian Armstrong

238 291

My Brilliant Career Production Report: 287

Film Reviews The Night The Prowler Brian McFarlane Padre Padrone Tom Ryan Long Weekend Scott Murray Little Boy Lost Margaret McCiusky Fox and His Friends Sue Adler

301 302 303 305 307

Book Reviews Ken Cameron Interviewed: 254

Ealing Studios Brian McFarlane Genre: Working Papers in Screen Education Tom Ryan Books of the Quarter John H. Reid

308 309

Padre Padrone Reviewed: 302

309

■ Managing Editor: Scott Murray. Editorial Board: Peter Beilby, Philippe Mora, Scott Murray.

Contributing Editors: Antony I. Ginnane, Graham Shirley, Tom Ryan, John O’Hara, John Reid, Andrew Pecze. Design and Layout: Keith Robertson, Andrew Pecze. Business Consultant: Robert Le Tet. Office Manager: Mary Reichenvater. Subscription Manager: Gillian Hehir.

Secretarial Assistance: Gillian Goodhart. Correspondents: London — Jan Dawson, Los Angeles — David Brandes, Rome — Robert Schar.

Advertising: Sue Adler, Sydney (02) 26 1625; Peggy Nicholls, Melbourne (03) 830 1097 or (03) 329 5983. Printing: Progress Press Pty. Ltd., 2 Keys Rd., Moorabbin 3189. Telephone (03) 95 9600. Typesetting: Affairs Computer Typesetting, 7-17 Geddes St., Mulgrave 3170.

Telephone (03) 561 2111. Distributors: N.S.W., Vic., Old., W.A., S.A. Consolidated Press Pty. Ltd., 168 Castlereagh St., Sydney 2000. Telephone (02) 2 0666. ACT, Tas. — Book People, 590 Little Bourke St., Melbourne 3000.

Front cover: Bronwyn Mackay-Payne as Dawn Fraser in Ken Hannam’s Dawn! (see picture preview on p. 313).

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 20, March-April, 1979.

’ Recommended price only.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 251

THE NSWFG AND THE JOURNALIST

ALL-TIM E CHAMPS

The issue of whether members of government film bodies should be allowed to be involved with projects funded by their respective boards has again been raised.

This time it is the New South Wales Film Corporation that is under scrutiny, and follows their investment in The Journalist which was directed by Mr Michael Thornhill.

Thornhill was appointed to the Interim Film Commission in August 1976, and became one of the three directors of the NSWFC when it was formed in July 1977. Since his appointment he has made two films, The FJ Holden and Harvest of Hate, neither of which had any NSWFC involvement.

Vlftiile Thornhill’s position is similar to directors like Tim Burstall and Fred Schepisi who have received funds while serving on the board of the Victorian Film Commission, there is one significant difference. At the time of the NSWFC’s formation several members of the NSWFC stated that members of its board of directors could not in any way be associated with films that received NSWFC funds. Clearly, that situation has now changed. To find out the reasons behind the new policy, and its relation to the financing of The Journalist, Mr Paul Riomfalvy, chairman of the NSWFC, was invited by Cinema Papers to present his and the NSWFC’s views, and to outline any assessment procedures employed by the NSWFC. His reply was as follows:

An annual event of the American enter­ tainment newspaper Variety is the pub­ lication of the all-time most successful films.

This list, accurate to December 1978, is based on film rental accrued in the U.S, and Canada. The 10 leading films are: $164,765,000 1. Star Wars $121,254,000 2. Jaws 3. The Godfather $ 86,275,000 4. Grease $ 83,091,000 5. The Exorcist $ 82,200,000 6. The Sound of Music $ 79,000,000 7. The Sting $ 78,889,000 8. Close Encounters of the Third Kind $ 77,000,000 9. Gone with the Wind $ 76,700,000 0. Saturday Night Fever $ 71,463,000 Whereas this all-time Top 10 was for years dominated by such evergreens as Gone with the Wind and The Sound of Music, the list now changes dramatically each year. For while only one (Grease) of all the films released in 1978 made it to the current 10 best, Star Wars and Close Encounters gained their high positions with heavy earnings in that period.

I would like to stress the fact that we have no set assessment procedure at the New South Wales Film Corporation. We normally use readers not assessors. The readers do not know who the applicant or writer is, or what the casting or budget details are. Their only function is to report on their judgement of the screenplay. Jenny Woods (general manager — production) then refers the matter to the Board and all Directors read the screenplays together with Jenny’s report on budget and other details. Decisions are then made at meetings. Once again we have no rigid rules. We normally act as if we were directors of a commercial corporation; looking at the standard and the viability of the project.

With reference to our funding of Michael Thornhill’s project, I would like to point out that while we have no official policy on funding of projects where directors are involved, it was Michael who suggested that for the first twelve months of our operation, until we settled down and had constructed guidelines and policies, he would not apply for funding from the Corporation. As a matter of fact, the Interim Film Commission commenced operation in August 1976 and it was over two years before Michael decided to apply for investment.

I am fully aware of the fact that there is discussion within the industry about commissioners, corporation members and corporate directors applying for funding to their own corporation.

I feel la m in a position to express a neutral judgement In this instance because I have no intention of becoming involved in the film industry either as a producer, distributor or exhibitor but only, as I am lovingly called by some members of the industry, ’’a bureaucrat” . Governments have only two choices: (a) to appoint men and women from the business community, public service, or other branches of the arts or entertainment industry and completely disregard the creative film community as corporation members, or (b) to include outstanding producers, directors, screenwriters, actors, etc., with some kind of administrative skill and experience to the board of corporations. I believe that it is the wish of the film Industry that creative people should be involved in decision making, consequently you cannot avoid from time to time that funding should be given to members of these organizations.

During the tenure of the Interim Film Commission many industry bodies were consulted on the question of whether film industry experts who are actively involved in the film industry ought to be included on the Board of the New South Wales Film ' Corporation. There was a widespread belief in the affirmative.

252 — Cinema Papers, March-April

: v .: 20thC«t

823 French poster for The Other Side of Midnight, one of Fox’s films made in Europe.

The New South Wales Film Corporation Act has specific provisions to deal with this matter in a proper way. The responsible Minister (the Premier) has appointed an official registrar to keep records of such transactions.

Paul H. Riomfalvy Chairman.

PARAMOUNT IS PARAMOUNT Paramount, once the leading company in Hollywood, has regained its number one position. This is a dramatic improvement, especially since it was languishing at number six as recently as 1977.

Over the past 18 months Paramount has released 20 profitable films in succession, and one of these films, Grease, has already become the fifth most successful film in history.

In the first three-quarters of 1978 Para­ mount broke Twentieth Century-Fox’s record for the same period in 1977, and in the fiscal 1978 Paramount’s revenue increased by 66 per cent to $384 million.

The company’s success has also greatly contributed to its parent company, Gulf and Western, lifting its operating profit by 130 per cent.

Much of the credit for Paramount’s improvement has been given to chairman Barry Diller and president Michael Eisner.

Together, they have cleaned out the exec­ utive offices, quadrupled Paramount’s spending on scripts, and pioneered much

innovative marketing.

Foreign rentals also rose dramatically in the first eight months of 1978, increasing from $40 million to $55 million.

A company with even more successful foreign earnings, however, is Twentieth Century-Fox, which accrued $154 million in 1978. This is the highest figure on record and overshadows United Artists’ $123 million in 1977. The most important of all Fox’s overseas releases was Star Wars which brought in $65 million alone.

One result of Fox’s overseas success has been a continuing emphasis on international productions: e.g. Bernardo Bertolucci’s La iuna and Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu.

R.S.

©Z AT AVOR5AZ Australian films won three of the top awards at the 7th Fantastic Film Festival recently held at Avoriaz, France. The jury, headed by Roger Corman and including Richard Burton, Walerian Borowczyk, Jorge Semprun and Jacques Deray, gave the foll­ owing awards: Grand Prix: Patrick (Richard Franklin) Special Jury Prize: Phantasm (Don Coscarelli) • Special Mention: The Night The Prowler (Jim Sharman) C ritics Prize: H allow een (Richard Carpenter) Antenne 2 Prizes: (1) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Phillip Kaufman); (2) Long Weekend (Colin Eggleston)

In 1978, the 10 most successful films in the U.S. and Canada (again based on accrued rental) were: $83,091,000 1. Grease 2. Close Encounters of $54,000,000 the Third Kind 3. National Lampoon’s Animal House $52,368,000 $49,299,000 4. Jaws 2 5. Heaven Can Wait $42,517,000 6. The Goodbye Girl $41,000,000 7. Star Wars $38,375,000 8. Hooper $31,500,000 9. Foul Play $25,065,000 10. Revenge of the Pink Panther $21,271,000 The surprise result, apart from the much p u b lic iz e d G re a s e , w as N a tio n a l Lampoon’s Animal House, an American comedy set in a campus fraternity house.

Other interesting successes were Warren Beatty’s Heaven Can W ait which he co­ directed with Buck Henry, and the light comedy Foul Play. More predictable were the Burt Reynolds vehicle, Hooper (last year Reynolds scored with Smokey and the Bandit), and Revenge of the Pink Panther, the supposed last in a series of films that is rivalled only by the James Bond films in terms of box-office.

S.M.

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AC T The amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act, aimed at assisting invest­ ment in Australian films, became law on November 28, 1978. These were, despite criticism of their drafting from some quarters, unchanged from the form in which they were first presented to Parliament last June.

Capital invested in acquiring an interest in the copyright in a certified Australian film can now be written-off as a tax deduction over two years (beginning with the tax year in which the film is first marketed), instead of over 25 years as previously.

The film must be certified by the Minister for Home Affairs. He must be satisfied that it has been, or will be, made wholly or sub­ stantially In Australia or an Australian external territory, and that it has, or will have, significant Australian content. For that he must have regard to the film subject matter, to the sources of finance, to the nationalities and places of residence of the film owners, the production company owners and all who take part in making the film, including authors, scriptwriters, producers, directors, composers, cast and crew, and to anything else he considers relevant.

THE QUARTER

Films that were first marketed before November 22, 1977, are not eligible for certification. Otherwise the amendments are retrospective and apply to all types of films, including features, television series, specials, documentaries and sponsored films. ' ■ The amendments relate to copyright in films only. Consequently, the accelerated write-off will not be available for the cost of acquiring rights in a film script film music, film stills, or a book of the film. For tax purposes, producers will now need to separate such costs from the film costs in their accounts.

The film certification procedure was not prescribed with the amendments. It remains to be seen whether the Minister can devise a procedure that reconciles the requirements of the Act with two practical needs of film­ makers: namely, the need for early assur­ ance that a proposed film will be certified as Australian, so that investment finance on that basis can be obtained, and the need for reasonable freedom to make subsequent changes in such matters as cast, crew, script, without putting the certification at risk.

Forms of application for certification of existing or proposed films can be obtained from the Department of Home Affairs in Canberra (Phone: 062 46 7211).

I.A.K.B.

CUT, RECUT Not content with a film rental of $77 million in the U.S. and Canadian markets, the producers of Close Encounters of the Third Kind are planning a massive re-launching of their film. What makes this re-issue unique, however, is that the film will be a different Close Encounters from the one that rivalled Star Wars in popularity when it was first released.

Under the direction of Steven Speilberg, new material is being shot and incorporated into the film. This will entail, among other changes, a new ending. Instead of the scientists just talking to the aliens via hand language, they will be invited into the heart of their spaceship, where the closing scenes will occur.

To make way for the new material, several sections of the original version will be deleted. This will result in the Richard Dreyfuss character being greatly reduced in importance. The scene where he turns his living room into a playpen will probably be deleted.

Recutting of films is hardly a new practice; it has been employed for years in preparing television prints. This has generally taken the form of cutting out any “ offensive” nudity, sex and violence, or the shortening of the film to allow for commercial breaks. On rare occasions, such as Joseph Losey’s Secret Ceremony, new material has been shot and edited into the original version. In this case, the character played by Elizabeth Taylor was changed from a prostitute to a wig saleswoman. This was done by the use of voice-over over a shot of Taylor taking her wig off in her bedroom.

This “restructuring", for the want of a better word, continues today. A recent example is Larry Pearce’s Two Minute Warning. Universal Studios, at a cost of $65,000, are shooting an additional 65 min which will alter the story from one about a psychotic sniper who kills dozens of spectators at a Los Angeles football game, to a thriller about the theft of a multi-million dollar art collection from a Los Angeles museum.

-The reason for the restructuring is the growing demand for three-hour television films. Studios are only too willing to comply because networks are paying substantially more than their usual fee of $2.5 million to $5 m illion a feature. Other film s being re c o n s tru c te d are A ir p o r t 77 and Earthquake A parallel trend is the shooting of a version for theatrical release, and a longer version for television. Goldengirl is a recent case in point.

Recutting is popular in Australia too, with many producers preparing shorter versions of their films, generally after the film's commercial release. In several cases, special overseas prints are prepared. This can mean dubbing for foreign markets (e.g.

Patrick for U.S. release) or recutting to suit diffe re nt censorship codes (e.g. the shortening of the massacre in The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith).

Most new versions, however, are merely an attempt to quicken the pace, though it is regrettable that most producers should wait till audiences and critics have decried their films for being too long and too slow before doing the obvious and quickening the pace.

It will be interesting to see how many new producers can learn this lesson.

HANNA-BARBERA Mr Neil Balnaves, managing director of Hanna-Barbera Pty. Ltd., has said that his company will expand into the field of live­ action television production. New projects will range from television series and mini­ series to specials. This new material, like much of Hanna-Barbera’s previous anim­ ation work, will be sold in overseas markets.

In line with this expansion has been the signing of an agreement with McElroy and McElroy Ry. Ltd., whereby Mr Hal McElroy will be responsible for developing the live­ action material, and Mr James McElroy will be retained as a consultant. McElroy and McElroy are known for their productions of The Last Wave, The Cars That Ate Paris and Picnic at Hanging Rock, which they produced in association with Patricia Lovell.

Patrick, winner of the Grand Prix at Avoriaz.

HOYTS Mr Bill Gavin, general manager of films and marketing at Hoyts Theatres, has announced that Hoyts has formed a fully-owned sub­ sidiary, Hoyts Distribution, to distribute product acquired for Australia and New Zealand. Jim Shakespeare has been appointed the national sales manager.

The company’s initial product includes The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, The Stud, The Boys From Brazil, Dawnl and Long Weekend.

S.K.

CENSORSHIP The Commonwealth Film Censor was unusually zealous in the SeptemberOctober, 1978, period. In all, 15 films were banned: Bad Penny, Echanges des p a rte n a ire s , in s id e J e n n ife r W ells (reconstructed version), Les grandes jouisseuses, The Other Side of Juiie, Passion Seekers (rv), Shocking, Swinging Sorority (rv), 3 A.M., The Young Passions (rv), The Opening of Misty Beethoven (rv), China Girl, The Dirty Mind of Young Sally and Zombie — Dawn of the Dead. All the films were banned for obscenity, except Zombie which was felt to be excessively violent.

Of the above films, only one (Inside Jennifer Wells) was sent to the Film Board of Review for appeal; it was turned down.

The other film that tested the judgment of the Review Board was the Australian feature

Money Movers. The distributors appealed a g a in s t the “ R” ra tin g , but were unsuccessful. .

In the three-month period, five films were passed for registrations with deletions.

Battleship Galáctica lost 0.6 m (1 sec) to meet “ NRC” specifications, while Tanya lost I. 9 m (4 sec), The Man From SMUT 34.8 m (1 min 16 sec), and Dreams of Eroticism I I . 3m (25 sec) to gain “ R" certificates.

Emmanuelie and the Last Cannibals was also cut by the censor, losing 2.5 m (6 sec).

This new version, however, was already 66.30 m (2 min 26 sec) shorter than the one banned in June, 1978.

Several films were reconstructed by their distributors to gain classifications. Martin Ritt’s Casey’s Shadow was cut by 683 m (25 min 3 sec), while Les grandes jouisseuses lost 322.1 m (11 min 49 sec).

The Boys From Brazil was an interesting case; it actually gained in length. Given a new ending, the film ran an extra 77.87 m (2 min 51 sec).

S.M.

PERSONNEL AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION Mr Alan Wardrope, who resigned his position as director of marketing and dis­ tribution at the AFC in August, 1978, has been re-appointed to the position.

Mr Wardrope leaves Hoyts Theatres, where he has been acquisition and production manager for the past six months.

REG GRUNDY PRODUCTIONS Mr Ian Holmes, managing director of Reg Grundy productions, has announced that Mr Steye Kibler has been appointed features and international projects manager. Kibler, who has worked in the U.S. for the William Morris Agency and Aaron Spelling Produc­ tions, came to Australia in 1974 when he joined Seven Keys Television and, later, the Grundy Organization.

S.K.

AFC APPLICATIONS The Project Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission has announced the following closing dates for applications.

The date of the relevant commission meeting is indicated inside the parantheses March 16 (April 23) Production Script development April 20 (May 28) May 18 (June 25) Production Script development June 22 (July 30) A.P.

OBITUARY Australia’s most published film historian, Mr Eric Reade, died recently in Melbourne.

An author of three books on Australian cinema (Australian Silent Film, The Talkies Era and The Australian Screen), Reade was also a frequent contributor to various journals, including Cinema Papers Reade’s books sold well and to a wide audience, while their informational content made them invaluable to historians of the Australian film industry.

At the time of his death Reade was writing his fourth history of Australian cinema. It will be completed by his widow, Christina.

Julie Christie and Warren Beatty in the box-office success (fifth in 1978 in the U.S.), Heaven Can W ait

S.M.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 253

Warren Scott

254 — Cinema Papers, March-April

SAILING TO BROOKLYN and TEMPERAMENT UNSUITED Two of your films, “Sailing to Brooklyn’’ and “Temperament Unsuited’’, are concerned with secondary education and the teacher/student relationship. It seems something of a pre­ occupation on your part.. .

I was a teacher for three years, and film was a way of coming to terms with the problems I had been facing. I never wanted to teach, but I was married, with a baby daughter, and I had no choice. For the first year I was just lost.

Then I became interested in filmmaking; the first films I made were with students in a film teaching situation. I was really using film as a means of getting to know the kids better. f In both films, life in secondary schools is shown as being completely boring — for students and t e a c he rs . Is that an e x t e n s i o n of y o ur own experience?

Yes, the worst of it. I don’t know what the answer is, but I believe schooling is dead.

As a young teacher going into a school s itu a tio n , no longer believing in the three Rs, I couldn’t assume the usual role.

But I soon realized that I was inflicting incredibly boring things on the kids, often because I was bored. T couldn’t see any answer ' to that within the State school situation, though I know there must be answers.

Ken Cameron was first inspired to make films when he was a teacher for the New South Wales Education Department. As a writer-director, he made two films about that experience — “ Sailing to Brooklyn” (1974) and “ Temperament Unsuited” (1978). “ Temperament Unsuited” is about a young trainee teacher who finds his radical methods condemned by the teaching establishment. At the end of a trial period, he resorts to deliberate educational anarchy and is drummed from the profession.

In “ Sailing to Brooklyn” , a young teacher enters a relationship with a sexually-sophisticated student. As the affaire develops, the teacher remains tentative and fearful, being ultimately sustained by the girl’s emotional maturity.

In contrast, “ Out Of It” (1976) deals with three unem ployed, w ork in g-class youths who bungle a warehouse job and drive North to escape the police. Their car breaks down and is eventually stolen; they run out of money and enthusiasm; finally, they return to Sydney and their old ways.

In all three film s, Cameron pits boredom against repression, and frustration against authority. H is characters are trapped and manipulated by institutions and social forces. They are laconic, charming and brash; prone to fits of fatalism, but finding strength in everyday truths: “ If you never take a chance, you’ll never pull off much of a w in.”

Cameron has also written screenplays for “ Simmonds and Newcombe” , the story of A u stralia’s largest manhunt for two of Sydney’s notorious escapees; “ The Unknown Industrial Prisoner” , a project ensnared by p o litica l in terven tion ; and “ M onkey G rip” , an adaptation of Helen Garner’s novel of love, possession, and heroin.

In this interview, conducted by Rod Bishop and Peter Beilby, Ken Cameron talks about his film s, his scriptwriting and his new project, “ Monkey Grip” .

Do you regard teaching as a form of theatre?

I think a lot of young teachers feel they are unwilling performers and it is a terrible weight on them.

When you look around you realize that all the teachers who have an easy time are performers — like “ Seedy” Yates (Ken Goodlet).

He is p a r t p a t e r n a l i s t i c disciplinarian, and part stand-up comedian.

Older teachers are generally authoritarian, but they can often be quite funny and kids tend to understand them — or, at least, know where they stand with them.

I feel a lot of affection for those old guys, because they have found a way to cope. That’s why I wanted Mark to be abrasive: he hasn’t learned to cope and feels threat­ ened by the environment.

When Steve Spears first came to the school for rehearsal he was shocked to find out how right­ wing many of the kids were. A lot said they liked teachers who got on with the job and pushed them through the exams. They weren’t particularly interested in teachers who were trying to “ reach out” .

Yet a lot of radical teachers go overboard trying to relate to them.

Do you consider Mark’s creative drama l e s s o n s s uc c e s s f u l teaching experiments?

No, total failures, though not damaging failures. In the final lesson the kids at least have a good time, which is more than they usually get from school.

In “ Temperament Unsuited’’, Mark (Stephen Spears) reacts strongly against the school environment. Yet, apart from creative drama, he has very little idea of alternative teaching . . .

You must remember he is only a student teacher. If he stayed at the school for any length of time, he would have to develop a more coherent approach.

At the same time, you can’t stay in a school without compromising — that is what happened to the Anne (Robyn Nevin) character.

She partially shares his view of things, but she knows one can’t

behave that way; you put part of yourself to sleep in order to cope.

If you want to stay a teacher, you can’t be yourself; you have to learn to relate to people on a safer, approved level. That’s what she keeps telling him.

You are not presenting them as a kind of solution . . .

No. Did you think the film suggested that?

Well, while they are not successful, they do attempt to g r a ppl e wi t h the s c h o o l environment. . .

Teacher and student in Ken Cameron’s first film, Sailing to Brooklyn.

In th e s e n s e th a t th e y undermine and ridicule it. But they are not meant to be models for alternative teaching, though I Cinema Papers, March-April — 255

KEN CAMERON

can see the film might suggest that. I didn’t want to turn Mark into a crusader because each one of the characters — “ Seedy” Yates, Anne and Mark — is right in one sense or another, it is the school environment that makes things impossible.

Do you see the school as a model for d ifferent kinds of con­ formity?

I am always meeting people who claim that the moment you leave school you forget everything; but unfortunately it’s not true. The lessons you learn from school are always with you, and often they are terrible lessons — particularly the passivity and conformity.

Mark wasn’t trying to get the kids to like him as much as to react to him; to invite the kids to reject him as a representative of the system. But it’s the system th a t re a c ts , n o t th e k ids.

Conformity wins.

The aspects of sexuality you deal with in “ Sailing to Brooklyn” are much less apparent in “ Temperament Unsuited” . . .

If you read the script of T em peram ent U nsuited you would see it was much more interested in sexuality than the film turned out. It was much more sensual and erotic, but through choices made at the casting stage I was led away from that.

Teaching relationships can be very passionate, but in schools they are repressed and not allowed to be understood.

I regret that both these films only go part of the way towards an understanding; it is something I have to return to, but not at the moment.

In your films, there is a key moment that leaps off the screen.

In “ Sailing to Brooklyn” , it is when Steve taps the duster and the chalk falls to the floor in slow motion. In “ Out Of It” , it is when the boys leave the car and go for a swim. You see their reflection in the door as they walk away, and the camera tilts up to Arna-Maria Winchester’s face. It is a poignant moment and you know something is going to happen. In “ Temperament Uesuited” , it is the scene where the father is taking photos of Deborah Kennedy in the pool.

The awkward younger brother drops the Polaroid into the water and it floats about as Deborah swims through the shot, leaving it bouncing on the waves. Do you consider these moments as being particularly significant?

Yes, absolutely. One thing I love about cinema, which I have not given enough rein to, is the moment when a mood or action can be crystallized in a single, intense image, one that is often as 256 — Cinema Papers, March-April

The “ key” moment from Out Of It, where Arna-Maria Winchester watches the boys go swimming.

People always think they are kids, but they are not. They are meant to be what they look like — guys in their early twenties.

The film was based on a bunch of guys who smashed into my wife’s car. We developed a strange relationship with them while they were fixing the car — they had been panel b eaters. I was unemployed at the time and I felt very much like them. I was interested in their philosophical approach to life on the dole, their directionless lifestyle.

Out of It is a film that has been o v e r lo o k e d , p ro b a b ly fo r understandable reasons. I think people expected it to be an action/ road film. They weren’t prepared for a low-key number, without genre kicks.

It was the journey aspect that interested me most. I have always been interested in Australian journeys. Like the early explorers, these guys head off on a trip that just tapers off into nothing. By travelling, they discover their lack of real purpose. “ Out Of It” reminds one of Wim W e n d e r s ’ “ A l i c e in the Cities” . . .

Yes, I was greatly influenced by that film: the second-hand dreams of going North, of transcending the boredom of life — and failing to make the deeper connections that one yearns for. But it’s not rich material for cinema because it lacks punch and drive; it is probably more literary than cine­ matic. ' When I made Out Of It I was still making films for myself. I didn’t worry about who was going to see it, or what they might expect. That is a stage I have passed through, and now I am far more conscious of people’s expectations.

It was a blissful period, but I think the situation for many filmmakers has changed a lot since then. It has become harder On the road. Frame enlargement from Out Of It. to make a film, and you can’t indulge your minor interests to suggestively ambiguous as it is and h o p in g to o rg a n iz e a the same degree. You can either pow erful. F ilm m ak ers, like television sale. make a film that’s totally bizarre Robert Bresson, make entire films There is no reason why it can’t and experimental, or one that with this intensity of observation. be sold to television, even though imitates a mini-feature and shows I want to try and develop it. there has been a trend away from that you are “ serious” . I have With the shot of the duster I one-off television drama. Apart been guilty of the latter; like many was trying to find a physical act from their few series, the ABC is others, I have realized there is a that summed up the horrible doing little that is unusual or terrible price to pay if you make a feeling at the end of a lesson. It is interesting, and the commercial bizarre or incomprehensible film an image teachers will understand. stations certainly aren’t.

— it might be your last.

There was a time when a 50 min What is the marketing strategy film, like Homesdale, was a big You have made two mitiion “ Temperament Unsuited” ? event. Now you make a 50 min features. Is it a form you like to film and people say, “ So what?” work with?

The Co-op has done what it can th e atric ally in Sydney, and No, I believe there is something OUT OF IT initiated a preview for print sales. very wrong with that concept.

Paul Coulter1, who is handling The Creative D evelopm ent the film theatrically in Melb­ Fund has been quite fantastic in ourne, is also pursuing print sales “Out of It” seems an extension helping filmmakers, and anybody of “Temperament Unsuited” , in who has been supported by them that the kids appear to have come is very grateful for having been ¡.P a u l Coulter was, until recently, straight from school, and with a given the chance. But at the same distribution manager at the Australian Film Institute. legacy of that education . . . time, the Creative Development

KEN CAMERON

Branch has helped develop a film form th at is very hard to distribute. You are generally given $35,000 and you shoot the film in two or three weeks. Yet if you had another $20,000, and could keep going for another couple of weeks, you could have a feature. It is also difficult to write a satisfying 50 min film.

I think it would be much saner if people were encouraged to make low-budget features instead.

I have talked with Phil Noyce and other directors about this, and they tend to agree.

WRITING I don’t regard myself as a writer, but in this country it is easier to get started in films if you can also w rite th e m y o u rs e lf. The Experimental Film Fund, for example, has always been ready to encourage personal statements.

If you went to that fund with a short story and said, “ I want to adapt this” , it would be much tougher getting money. I suppose I was steered towards making personal films as a result.

You haven’t any particular bent towards writing your films . . .

No. I would love to find a writer to work with because each time I write a screenplay I find it a terrible ordeal. It takes me ages.

a ra n g e o f d o c u m e n ta r y and Newcombe manhunt. How techniques to tell the story of a did that project come about? couple who are trying to buy a Phil Noyce had just finished You are writing a screenplay for home over a six-year period. It Film Australia at present. . . examines their life in a caravan Backroads when I approached park; what it’s like trying to rent a him with the idea. He was Well, I am researching and place when you have no dough interested in it, and the McElroys asked him about making a feature preparing a short sponsored film and you are on the dole. of it. Phil asked me to write the on c o n te m p o ra ry h o u sin g script and I researched it in all the problems. I am working with Tom SIMMONDS AND obvious ways: listened to the tapes Maynefield, who is best known as NEWCOMBE Les Newcom be had m ade, a documentary producer. The film searched the ABC and newspaper will be a cross between Cathy files, and so on.

Come Home and Who Killed Finally, I sought out Les Jenny Langby? It is a dramatized film , made in a sim u lated You have also been working on a Newcombe — Simmonds, of documentary form, which will use script based on the Simmonds course, is dead — and we had a meeting in a hotel out the back of Auburn. Les had heard about the script and felt very threatened by it, but fortunately he liked what I had done and we decided to work on it together. We developed a few drafts, and then put it up to the Australian Film Commission.

Simmonds was a very charis­ matic guy — he even looked like Warren Beatty — and there is an obvious connection between Simmonds in Australian folklore and B onnie and C lyde in American. Simmonds’ favorite film was William Wyler’s The Desperate Hours; he also liked Humphrey Bogart, guns, country music and big American cars.

Phil and I found it very attractive that the story was set against the transition from the cornball 1950s to the brash early ’60s, with rock and roll, television Ken Cameron directing a scene from Temperament Unsuited. and all the changes which found

talents in the past, I think they deserve that kind of faith.

Yet your films demonstrate you have writing talent. . .

It is j u s t a m a t t e r o f observation, and that is a quality I find in many Australian films and Australian writing in general. I don’t regard what I do as any different from what many other people do.

I think there is too much emphasis on scripts in Australia.

Satyajit Ray, for example, works from a story-board with notes. He hasn’t ever written a script, because he considers it a waste of time. I feel the same, but at the moment it is something we are all forced to do.

The classic example of how script-orientated we have become is Fred Schepisi’s script for The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, which is beautiful to read and a very seductive work, but which, as it turned out, didn’t solve a lot of the dramatic and structural problems in the story.

T h e r e a re A u s t r a l i a n filmmakers I greatly admire who have had great difficulty getting m o ney from th e C re a tiv e Development Branch because they are knocked back at the script stage. This is quite unlike the G e r m a n s i t u a t i o n w h e re filmmakers receive money on the strength of work they have done.

If someone has shown their

Itfyguygi

Stephen Spears as Mark, the student teacher who confronts the school system in the hope that if the kids reject him, they will also reject the system. Temperament Unsuited.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 257

KEN CAMERON

people like Tony Buckley loathed everything it stood for, while others liked it, thinking it had p o te n tia l. In th e en d , the assessments cancelled each out and were useless. We realized then that we were in trouble.

Dick wanted me to come back and work on another draft, but I was exhausted. I had reached the point where I felt I had nothing more to offer. David was busy on another novel, and he didn’t want to go back either. Dick then su g g e s te d im p o rtin g A lan Seymour, and that seemed a smart move.

Alan came in and I collaborated with him for a while, but I had b e c o m e c a u g h t up w ith Temperament Unsuited and, as it was my first film in years, I wanted to spend all my time on it.

It was a crazy situation with me trying to edit my film with David Huggett over the telephone.

Finally I backet out.

As well as script-editing my draft, Alan reshaped the script, bringing it back more in line with the novel. The end result seemed to satisfy Film Australia but not the AFC. The rest of the story you know.

their way into Newsfront. Perhaps the time to make this film has passed.

At what stage is the project now?

All this was going on while Phil was busy doing Newsfront, and unfortunately the script became more or less shelved. Jimmie Blacksmith and Mad Dog have also shown that films of this type generally don’t succeed at the box-office. Phil has also been worried about the idea of doing another film in basically the same era as Newsfront.

There are three drafts and two of them have been up to the A ustralian Film Commission.

One of these was greatly liked and we were given a lot of money to develop it further. However, by the time we put it up again big budgets were out of favor and we w ere encouraged to e ith e r reconceive it as a low-budget, intimate psychological drama, or as a moderately budgeted showbiz comedy/adventure.

The manhunt took place in the year Breathless was made, and we had always been torn between making a film that looked like Breathless, and had the energy of Pure Shit, or making a big-budget f e a t u r e on th e J i m m i e Blacksmith scale. it is interesting that you should equate a manhunt story from the late ’50s and early ’60s with “ Mad Dog’’ and “ Jimmie Blacksmith” . . .

Both have cul-de-sac film structures; the end is foreseen.

One draft of our script is like that, though we have another more daring version which floats between the past and the present.

The manhunt frames the film but you keep cutting back to the past.

Apparently M & L Castings are to produce the film . . .

Yes. We parted company with the McElroys when they became involved with The Last Wave. As Les Newcombe had approached M & L to act as his agents, they came to us.

Now that Phil has announced plans to direct King Hit, his version of “ the biggest political event of the century” , I have given th o u g h t to directin g S i mmo n d s and Ne wcombe myself.

THE UNKNOWN INDUSTRIAL PRISONER Many people have D avid Ireland’s The Unknown Industrial Prisoner on their bookshelf, but very few have read it right through. It is a very original, imaginative and tough novel, but 258 — Cinema Papers, March-April

Are there moves to produce the film independently of Film Australia?

Mark (Stephen Spears) and Anne (Robyn Nevin), the teacher who, while originally sharing the views of Mark, is compromised by the school situation. Temperament Unsuited.

it doesn’t immediately suggest a film.

David Baker was the first to have the rights to the book, but he couldn’t get it off the ground. He wasn’t able to get a script he liked, or find an oil refinery that would allow him to film on location. Ire­ land had worked for Shell for sev­ eral years and the book had appar­ ently circulated through the exec­ utive suites of all the oil refineries.

There was no way they would let someone come in and make a film that was going to drop the bucket on them.

Despite the problems, Dick Mason of Film Australia has long cherished the project. He saw in The Unknown Industrial Prisoner the opportunity to make a film that was entertaining as well as having social and political impact.

Dick has tried several writers over the years, but things have always fallen through. I don’t know all the reasons and I never asked.

Arch Nicholson, who was to direct the film, and Dick read the s c r ip t on S i m m o n d s and Newcombe and they thought the style was something they could use. Dick called me up and asked me to read the book. I was unemployed at the time and, though it was the last thing I wanted to do in that I wasn’t sure I could come up with anything, I needed the money. So I said yes and set to work, consulting regularly with David Ireland.

T he n o v el d o e s n ’t h av e characters in the usual sense — it has types — so I had to create characters. I also had to carve a narrative out of the book.

At first I was reluctant to do that, thinking it would be nice to make a film as bizarre as the novel — I guess I was influenced by film s like Themroc. D ick, however, didn’t want it to go that way; he wanted to make a film that could play at Sunshine or Parramatta.

David had written the novel for these people, and was very upset when he found that they had never read it. Academics and intellectuals were almost the only people to read it.

The project was then vetoed . . . 2 Film Australia is in a terrible position, in that if a project is vetoed, it can’t do anything with the script. As a result, practically every writer in the country has a script somewhere in the Film Australia vaults.

Dick has been through this enough tim es and he was determined not to have it happen again. So, instead of putting it straight up to the AFC, he sent it to people like Bruce Beresford and Tony Buckley to get some idea of what we would be in for. Their responses ran the whole gamut: 2. See “ The Ellicott Papers” , Papers No. 17, pps 18-19, 81.

Cinema

Dick left Film Australia with the hope of producing it himself.

He spent most of his productive years at Film Australia working towards the possibility of making film s lik e T he U n k n o w n Industrial Prisoner. When that was knocked back, he saw the end of that development. A number of people have also left since, and Film Australia seems to have become less certain of its role.

This, of course, is only my view.

Quite a few people were pleased to see the project collapse. They saw it as a wrong direction.

When Dick left he tried to get hold of the rights, but the agent had sold them to the Brooks W h ite O rg a n iz a tio n . F ilm Australia never fully held the rights. All they had was a gentlem an’s agreem ent with David Ireland and his agent.

There seemed no reason to fear; after all, who would ever want to make a film of such a difficult, uncommercial book?

Phillip Adams had by then teamed up with Dick in an attempt to produce it — but they didn’t have the rights. The AFC tried to bring the two parties together, the idea being that Kevin Brooks and David White become executive producers. It sounded great, but the parties couldn’t agree about how the film should be treated.

People like Phillip Adams, Alan Seymour, Dick Mason and myself felt the film should be outrageous and crazy, and not attempt to be a pretentious statem ent about industrial relations. But the

KEN CAMERON

Brooks White Organization didn’t the book was finished; it read, see it that way. Kevin and David “ Helen Garner has whitewashed were planning a more serious her reality.” Some people felt the analytical film about industrial bits she had left out were more relations, using, I believe, some important than those she put union money. I am not putting in . . . their view down, but it was incompatible with ours.

But Monkey Grip is fiction — it I think Dick has given up hope doesn’t have the obligations of an of working on it, and Kevin and autobiography. It is the universal David have gone ahead with plans aspects that interest me, not the to purchase the script from Film supposedly autobiographical Australia. details. There is no way I could, or would, put those things back. I Do you know of any other scripts could attempt to find out about that have been dropped for them, but I am not interested in political reasons? making a documentary. Helen chose to write a work of fiction, The Unknown Industrial and that’s what I am working with.

Prisoner is the only overtly leftist The book is a post-feminist political film that I have heard of work in a way. It doesn’t concern at Film Australia. Other projects itself with the changes Helen went have certainly suffered from through, but picks up at the end of bureaucratic interference, but those changes. People who lived t h a t ’s in e v ita b le w ith in a with Helen through these changes g o v e r n m e n t f ilm m a k in g might feel she has suppressed a institution. vital side of herself, but in order to write you have to say to yourself, “ This is what I can reveal; if I MONKEY GRIP reveal any more I will obliterate myself, smash up friendships and destroy the foundations of my Your new project is to be an life.” adaptation of Helen Garner’s ‘Monkey Grip’ . . .

What are the changes you have made?

Yes. Almost everything I have been working on for the past few The book is structured like a years has been about male diary and told in the first person. relationships, and that is a side of C on seq u en tly , som e of the life I am no longer as interested in characterizations are very sketchy, portraying. I am much more so I have had to do some in te r e s te d in m a le -fe m a le expanding. But at the moment I relationships and sexual politics. am still finding the dramatic Australian males have difficulty shape. Helen and I are working by being open with their feelings, correspondence (she lives in especially when dealing with their Paris). sexuality. That could be why there We certainly won’t be making are so few interesting male Pure Shit Part 2; Bert Deling characters in Australian Films, or already has that territory well at least why they lack the depth staked out. The film will be about you find in European films. love, possession and obsession, Perhaps, too, I feel much more and more about the rock and roll comfortable working with women, scene than the junkie one. particularly when it comes to You can grow up with rock and writing and discussing a script.

Monkey Grip is clearly about an experience quite different to mine. I am married with two kids, and live a very different life from Helen. I felt a certain trepidation "about this at first, but it had also attracted me strongly.

I went to Melbourne and met H elen, before spending four months brooding over ways of doing it. The novel isn’t obviously cinematic. After The Unknown Industrial Prisoner I was wary of adapting another novel, but Helen and I agreed about an approach. I was to develop a structure which we would then discuss before co m m itting o u rselv es to a screenplay. The changes we have made are important ones, and the film will end up shifting the emphasis to include some of the things Helen chose not to write about.

There was a piece of graffiti which appeared in Carlton after

roll in Melbourne. It is much more intelligent and connected to a lifestyle than Sydney rock and roll. That element attracted me e n o rm o u s ly and has b een expanded.

You said you were interested in the “universal” aspects of the book, but are you taking any account of the experiences which people went through during that period?

The film is being set in the present and we are cutting loose any things that anchor it to the early 1970s. For example, the making of Pure Shit, which figures in the novel, won’t be recreated.

Obviously, the relationships that inspired the book aren’t directly accessible to me, but I think that’s good. We have a hang-up in Australia about first­ hand experiences; you always have to justify your work by saying, “ Yes, I have lived that life.”

It is illo g ic a l to a tta c k secondhand experience because that, after all, is what a film, or any work of art, is. This attitude is basically a denial of the value of distilled experience.

Some parts of the book refer to a Carlton scene that is quite different to any in Sydney .. .

Yes, I understand that from conversations with Helen and other people who have lived in that scene. Sydney is full of refugees from that world and I know a few of them quite well.

T hey d e s c rib e it, o v e r ­ romantically, as a hot house environment, where a number of relationships overlap, where people change partners quite frequently and have been forced to work out saner ground rules.

But young people everywhere are

Ken Goodlet, as the paternalistic “ Seedy” Yates, admonishes two rebellious schoolboys.

Temperament Unsuited.

entering a similar style of life, to some degree.

Marriage is beginning to look less and less tenable as a life-long experience to more and more people. Nobody wants to deny themself the experience of other relationships, so they have to find ways to deal with that — and the guilt.

‘Monkey Grip’ was published at the end of a very intense period.

There are less participants in that set now, and there seems to be a greater concentration on monogamous relationships . . .

What did Bert Deling call it — “ serial monogamy” ? But as I said, we aren’t trying to make a documentary about a particular group of people. It isn’t important that, in reality, things have changed somewhat. If you had lived through it, I am sure it would be so painful that you wouldn’t ever want to approach it.

That’s probably why no one in Melbourne seems to have made a film about that lifestyle.

Who will produce the film?

Pat L o v e ll. She is very interested in it because she has, in many ways, been through these experiences. Carlton is very similar to Balmain, though in a less intense way. The difference is that in Carlton there has been ways of defining this sort of relationship: the Pram Factory, the newspapers, the literary scene.

There is no cafe society in Sydney, no feeling that you can run into people you know.

It is going to be an inexpensive film — $200,000 or so. It will be made in the way John Duigan has been making films: very low budget, small crew, no big stars.

We hope to make it this year. ★

Helen Gamer, author of Monkey Grip.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 259

EN COMPÉTITION

i

l ’A m our

JEAN-PIERRE LEAUD * MARIE-FRANCE PISIER CLAUDE JADE ; DANI .DOROTHEE

KLAUS ALAIN. DOMINIQUE PIERRE JEAN-PIERRE MONIQUE NIEES KÎNSKI CUNY : SANOA :ÇLÉWENTi Ml RCJRb ARESTRUP

Jean-Paul Belmondo

uo fiimde

DANYSAVAl

unfilmdeFRANK CASSENI

RAYMOND GEfiOME CHARLES GÉRARD ,...jUUi'NC-U'OMAi? MAWO DAVID-HENRI GENES A C

FRENCHCBHMINCRISIS>PART1 For many, French Cinema is the epitome of cinematic art. A strongly nationalistic industry, it has received wide critical acclaim, even though its name directors, such as Francois Truffaut, Robert Bresson, Claude Chabrol and Alain Resnais, produce only a small part of its output. High critical regard and a healthy box-office, of course, are not always compatible, and in France this dichotomy has developed into a crisis, with budgets continuing to rise while audiences steadily drop off.

In this first part of a two-part article, E. M. Donnachie of the School of Modern Languages, Macquarie University, takes a probing look at this crisis, analysing the causes of it and the many measures suggested to alleviate it.

A year ago this article would have discussed whether French Cinema was in a state of crisis or not, and whether the issues involved were moral, qualitative or economic. It is now too late for such deliberation; the crisis is with us (as evidenced by the 450 “ happenings” organized around cinema last year in all parts of the country). Our present objective is to examine the various reasons for it, the areas in which it is felt, and the possible solutions to it.

In the process, some descriptions of cinema’s organization in France will be necessary so that one may fully understand the tragic situation that is threatening to destroy an art and industry of great national and international prestige.

The steady decline in attendances is testimony that all is not well. The causes are multiple and complex: television rivalry, problems within the industry, fewer sales abroad, misdirected government Finance, the mediocre quality of the average film. All these frequently-enunciated complaints, and many more1, will form the main body of the investigation.

In conclusion, we will consider the most 1. Interestingly enough, inflation, a curse of the modern world, does not feature among our reasons for the crisis. Even though the costs of making a film have spiralled in the last decade, it is difficult to lay much blame for the current problems on increased salaries, or on the.recent tightening up of work-schedules by the unions. The country’s three most expensive stars — Alain Delon, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Louis de Funes — ask about FF 3.75 million ($800,000) a film and a certain percentage o f the profits (when they also act as producers, extra income is forthcoming from this source). A reasonable average for most actors would be around FF 1.25 million ($260,000) and it is by no means uncommon for some well-known performers, though not celebrities, to work for FF 1750 ($365) a day or less if they particularly like the script. Of the directors, Gerard Oury claims the top salary (as long ago as 1973, for his film Les aventures de Rabbi Jacob, he demanded FF 1 million ($208,000) plus 34 per cent o f the profits), while names like Claude Chabrol and Francois Truffaut receive perhaps FF 720,000 ($150,000), with the majority o f filmmakers earning much less.

Robert Bresson shooting Le Diable, probablement.

recent developments and reflect upon the urgently-needed remedies.

ATTENDANCES In the vicious circle of the present crisis, the most patent cause and effect is, without doubt, the declining attendances. The following table, in which attendance figures are linked approximately to important sociological and cinematographic factors, reveals that since 1960 French cinema has lost more than 50 per cent of its patrons with financial losses of about FF 20 million ($4 million) a year.

YEAR

A tten d a n ce Figure

Factor

1942-3 1945-6 1947 1950 1952

304 million 400 million 424 million 450 million 360 million

Occupation Liberation Return to normal life Cinema crisis Cinema crisis

New techniques (larger screens, mod­ ernized theatres, etc!) and additional government assistance led to: 1957 1960 1969

421 million 373 million 184 million

1970-2 1975 1976 1977

184 181 176 168

million million million million

New Wave Arrival of television Television in most homes Television saturation Cinema complexes Rise of art-houses New pornography laws

In 1977 there was a severe economic crisis, for the figure of 168 million patrons (a drop of 4.2 per cent on 1976) is the lowest in modern times. Only 14 per cent of the French population now consider cinema as their favorite outing (primarily in the 15-34 age bracket); the average number of annual visits per capita has dropped from 9.5 in 1954 to 3.3; and, most startling of all, more than 50 per cent of French people did not go to see a film during 1977.

Figures for 1978 are not yet available, but there seems little cause for comfort from the

Francois Truffaut and Nathalie Bye in Truffaut’s La

chambre verte.

first six-month period; while total attendances were up 8.8 per cent this is entirely due to there being one more week in this semester than in 1977.

Even more distressing in this land of cinematic pride, the greatest sufferers have been the French full-length feature films, which saw attendances drop 13 per cent in 1977, compared with the previous year. Due to the phenomenal success of Star Wars and The Spy who Loved Me, American films increased in popularity by 5 per cent. This trend was, if anything, accelerated in 1978 by the country’s two greatest box-office hits, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Saturday Night Fever.

Italian films also increased in popularity (by 47.5 per cent) producing the grave situation in which 30 per cent of French patrons saw an American product, and another 8.5 per cent went to an Italian film. In just six years, the French share of the market has fallen almost 9 per cent, and soon less than half the patrons in French cinemas will have been drawn there by a French film.

The whole situation is likely to have adverse effects on the distribution and exhibition systems, for there exists in France a notable sociological phenomenon which reveals that a drop in attendance at French films quickly produces a decline in the popularity of foreign products.

Already, the loss of audience interest has brought about a decrease in the number of seats available. In 1964, France had 5600 cinemas; this has now been reduced to about 4300. Large halls have been demolished to make way for m ulti-room complexes; nowadays only five cinemas in the country (two in Paris, one in the suburbs and two in Lille) have more than 2000 seats and only 174 (4 per cent of the total) more than 1000.

Simultaneous with the closure of cinemas caused by the disaffection of the grand public there has been an attendant growth in the number of art-houses: 60 in 1964, 495 in 1973, about 800 today (18.5 per cent of the total).

Claude Chabrol lines up a shot for Violette Noziere.

Chabrol earns, on average, $150,000 per film.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 261

FRENCH CINEMA

Economic woes have struck this type of cinema to a much lesser extent. However, since at the best of times art-houses cater for only 18 per cent of the French audience (with an average occupancy of 22 per cent), they don’t represent a serious counterbalance to the rows of empty seats elsewhere (average occupancy of 18 per cent).

The 5 per cent increase in receipts during 1977 is of little solace, for, besides being lower than the overall increase in the cost of living, it stems from the fact that ticket-costs, following an agreement between the cinema profession and the Minister of Finance, went up 6.5 per cent. Certainly, no solution to the present crisis would be found by putting up prices to compensate for declining patronage.

It is not particularly comforting to learn that the world in general is suffering from an identical malady — namely, that in the past 15 years the cinemas of the European Economic Community have lost 75 per cent of their patrons2.

Attendance figures reveal that cinema in France is no longer the popular art form that it was 30 years ago. The situation of cinema has changed radically and there are now very few films seen by a large number of people; many more, made uniquely for the art-houses, are seen by a small minority. The latter may be very interesting, but it is every bit a minority interest.

CRISES The present economic crisis is not, however, the first that French cinema has undergone. In the past, energetic campaigns, led by various bodies involved in the industry, have always come to the rescue. In the immediate post-war period France found herself flooded by American films and her nationalistic fervor was in danger of becoming seriously diluted.

As attendances at French productions began to plummet, the Government stepped in, and, in September 1948, a-new law imposed a 25 per cent tax on the receipts from foreign films, plus surch arg es on e n try -tic k e ts and premieres. These taxes represented the first example of government assistance (loi d’a ide), and continued until 1953, when the famous fo n d s de soutien (su p p o rt fund) was introduced.

The steep fall in attendances around 1952, due simply to the outdated content and methodology of well-known directors now bereft of originality and inspiration, was 2. The notable exception is the U.S. where horror and catastrophe films, science-fiction super-productions and modern musical comedies have attendance figures at their highest level since the end of World War 2.

Marguerite Duras, author and director of Le camion.

262 — Cinema Papers, March-April

P o u r q u ’il soit attentif à cette place-ci™ Les enfants ne sont pas aus­ si compliqués qu’on ie croit. Ils ont simplement besoin d'un but plus immédiat et plus concret qu'un diplôme d e fin d'études.

Les adultes sont-ds d’ail­ leurs tellement différents?

Alors, si pour les enfants

II suffit de lui promettre celle-là.

une bonne place au classement de l'école n'est pas une motiva­ tion asses importante, paxiezletir d’une place au ciném a Vous verres instantané­ ment le plus turbulent se trans­ former en agneau te plus rêveur, ouvrir grand ses oreilles

reversed by technical advances such as Cinemascope and Technicolor. Allied with the New Wave’s modernization of theme and form, this technical revolution brought the people back to the cinema. They stayed there until the corrosive influence of television from 1958 onwards.

The crisis of the 1960s (58 per cent attendance drop between 1958 and 1970) was accentuated by the French being more affluent than before: witness the expansion of the automobile industry and of country residences (the “ weekend away from home” syndrome) and, more pertinently perhaps, the installation of television sets in most households. Once again the Government intervened, with the Cabinet appointing a director-general of cinema to work under the Minister for Culture in all the branches of the industry.

Three important steps were taken. A promotion of “ youth and family” films was adopted, and cinemas showing them benefited from lower taxes (this relief lasted until 1970 when Value Added Tax was unfortunately applied to the cinema, thus ending a very

Claude Sautet, whose most successful films include Cesar et Rosalie and Les choses de la vie.

Il faut bien reconnaître qu’un écran de cinéma a des moyens d e captiver qu’un ta­ bleau noir n'a pas toujours.

Quand on aime la vie, on va au cinéma.

“ When you love life, you go to the cinema” ; an advertisement from the promotional campaign designed to boost a declining box-office.

successful experiment). Taxes were also reduced for art-houses, a prime reason for their rapid expansion. Thirdly, the laws governing the private and very popular cineclubs were tightened up, restricting showings to genuine financial members, allowing them to project only “ cultural” films and forcing them to wait four years before being able to show economically-successful films.

Such remedial measures, effective only to a limited extent, could not avert the grave situation that faced the cinema industry as the new decade dawned. Half the existing studios were closed, and those remaining open operated at half-pace; 50 per cent of the cinema-going public preferred to watch a foreign film ; m oney was scarce and unemployment widespread. The industry was desperate and, not unnaturally, it was left to one vital sector of the industry — the exhibitors, rather than the Government — to find the panacea.

At their 1971 National Congress, the exhibitors voiced their main grievances: not enough freedom in fixing ticket-costs (frozen since 1967, while prices and inflation had been rising all round), excessive taxation, and a lack of state assistance for the struggling independent exhibitor. Not content to remain passive, the exhibitors counter-attacked the falling attendances by going out in search of a new public, particularly in the Paris suburbs.

They became industrial businessmen.

Market research led to a new concept of halls: instead of 800 seats and one screen, cinemas were to comprise four smaller halls, offering the spectator a choice. The “ red card” was launched, providing a 5 per cent reduction to pensioners. A heavy publicity campaign, costing FF 5 million ($1 million), was mounted as the slogan “ Quand on aime la vie,

FRENCH CINEMA

To understand the pernicious effects such unreasonable and divisive subjectivity can have, it is necessary to examine briefly the production, distribution and exhibition sectors of the industry. on va au cinema ” (“ When you love life, you As the income from Films starts in the hands go to the cinema” ) appeared everywhere — of the exhibitor, he is the one, according to indeed, this catch-phrase was so successful present laws, who reaps the greatest immediate rewards (though he would no *that it is still in use.

Their efforts were not in vain — attendances doubt dispute this claim). The producer, once rose 2.7 per cent in 1972, though the success he has paid the V.A.T., the programmer and was shortlived. The problems of the early the distributor (and any moneys relating to 1970s are still very real today, exacerbated no government loans), retains only 17 per cent of doubt by the internal disputes occurring the box-office receipts. between the industry’s various segments, all In this unfavorable and unpredictable armed with their own partisan, political economic climate where of the FF 600 million arguments. As the actor Bernard Blier said ($125 million) invested in 1976 only FF 120 million ($25 million) was recovered, the recently: “ The disease which is currently affecting producer’s personality changes. Feeling it is French cinema stems from the fact that with too risky to make a medium-budget film — say us all those who are involved in the FF 5 million ($1 million) — which has neither profession hate each other, whereas in Italy star nor famous director, he adopts one of two everybody feels jointly responsible and so courses. Conforming to the ethics of you get a certain solidarity.” 3 Hollywood, denying his cultural nationality and aiming for the large world circuits, he may over-spend on a formidable cast and celebrated 3. Quoted in “ Blier inventre la Feydeautherapie” , Paris director, and thereby increase his trauma if the Match, May 5, 1978, p.56 (author’s translation).

Alain Delon and Ornela Muti in Georges Latner’s Mort d’un pourri. Delon earns about $800,000 per film.

expected flocks do not materialize.

One case is the enfant terrible of big-budget production in France, Christian Fechner, who must have very indulgent backers and bankers.

On Calmos Fechner suffered a disastrous loss of FF 6 million ($1.25 million) but this was quickly recoupled with the successful L’aile ou la cuisse (Louis de Funes).

However, his latest film, L’animal (Jean-Paul Belmondo and Raquel Welch), to which he had committed a large amount of personal finance, equally quickly plunged him back into huge debt.

Many producers, however, are realizing the errors of such ways and have begun to operate on reduced budgets of FF 4 m illion ($830,000) maximum. In 1976, for example, there were only four or five worthwhile big budget films. This, in part, is because expensive French products have never succeeded internationally.

If famous actors and top technical teams are no insurance against flops, it is equally true that low-budget films can enjoy considerable success. In the past two years, France’s weekly “ Top Ten” has included numerous films made for less than FF 3 million ($625,000).

Hopefully, such developments will stim­ ulate international interest, for recently sales abroad have slumped to an alarming low. The success of Cousin, cousine (comparable to that of Et Dieu créa la femme, Z and Un homme et une femme, France’s real post-war hits) was shortlived, as last year only about a dozen films prospered abroad.

Most disturbingly, international contracts, already on the wane in 1976, were down a further 8 per cent. Receipts fell accordingly (by 28 per cent) and now only 10 per cent of the country’s total cinema revenue comes from sales abroad.

Faced with the demands of producers pre­ occupied by “ rentability” , demands which often encroach upon their artistic ideals, about '200 directors have formed limited companies to produce their own projects. This will, no doubt, facilitate the making of the film, but the directors may find themselves faced with more distribution problems.

For their part, some actors (including Alain Delon, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Philippe Noiret) have become, to a larger or smaller extent, producers. Michel Piccoli has already co-produced three films, generally putting up 75 per cent of the finance and leaving the rest to some giant company like Gaumont. His success with L’etat sauvage and Des enfants gates will encourage others to follow.

More radically, the latest idea to cut costs is that everybody concerned with the film, from star to grip, should be a co-producer, receiving the same salary and percentage of the profits.

The outcome of such ventures, in direct com­ petition as they are with the well-established production companies (five or six and a dozen smaller ones), remains uncertain.

Since the early 1970s, when the market research conducted by the exhibitors revealed that after six months many films were no longer viable, the three largest production companies have entered and virtually mono­ polized distribution and exhibition. UGCFrance was born in 1971 with the union of 120 small exhibitors, mainly from the provinces.

They bought the nationalized Union Generale C in é m a to g r a p h iq u e back fro m th e Government, thus acquiring about 20 per cent of the market. Since then business has been tripled, with 60 screens at 14 different sites, and a record turnover of FF 90 million ($18.75 million) in 1977.

Continued on P. 314 Cinema Papers, March-April — 263

ipr i f ü \ im i In in 1 1 c um IDEILEU1HGI1 Claude Lelouch became internationally known as a director with his enormously successful Un homme et une femme (A Man and a W om an). Since then, Lelouch has faded from critical attention, many critics considering his films trivially obsessed with romanticism in a time when politics is next to godliness.

This attitude unfortunately belies the significance of Lelouch's finer films (Toute une vie in particular), and ignores Lelouch’s many studies of the law, and the role of gangsters in confronting it. Taking this issue as a starting point, Claude Lelouch talks to Steve McMillin and Narcissa Vanderlip about his attitude to life and filmmaking.

You have depicted various kinds of gangsters in your films, usually sympathetically. How does this relate to your feelings towards the law?

They attempt things which the average man would never dare do in the street.

I am not saying that killing a person or robbing a bank is a beautiful or nice thing, but at least it is an act of courage. This courage is what we miss most today. We are living in a frightened world where we are afraid of the policemen, the income tax auditor, our wives and children, of the political regime — even speed on the highway.

Society is being completely traumatized, because there is an increasing number of us, and more and more rules are created. “ Be Careful!” is written every­ where. I think in about 100 years, everything will be forbidden. We will not even be able to make love when we feel like it; we will have to do it at certain times and in certain places.

The gangster, even though he is no friend of mine, does offer an alternative to this cowardice.

I don’t like rules and reg­ u la tio n s. I know they are necessary — we might tear each other apart without them — but I am not going to like them just because they are necessary.

I believe life is made up only of particular cases, and it isn’t honest to assimilate everyone to the same regime. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any better solution.

Very often I have deep desires to do forbidden, crazy things. For instance, I made a short film about a car racing through Paris at dawn which lost me my driver’s licence for two months. With the alibi of making a film, I gave myself a delicious moment of doing something forbidden.

I think this feeling is as old as the world. Children all over the world dream about it. That is why I like children.

To explain what is forbidden, anyone making films is forced to go through gangsters. They are th e group w hich has best expressed a reaction to the forbidden.^ Since everything is forbidden to the gangster, he needs twice as much imagination as the honest man to survive. That imagination is what fascinates me.

What interested you in the story of “ Cat and Mouse” , your detective thriller? | I | ^

It is what I say in one of my films: prison can be the best school, and the worst. To be deprived of freedom is the worst thing that can happen to a person.

Until you have been in jail, you have no idea of the meaning of “ freedom” , a word which is made dirty by everyone from politicians up.

When I was very young I went to jail for a week. That week enriched me enormously and gave me the taste for freedom because those who have been to jail cannot be th e sa m e a f te r w a r d s .

Everything they then do in life they feel is a gift.

In “The Good and the Bad” you dealt with acts of violence, 264 — Cinema Papers, March-April

Violence is necessary — it is an outlet, just like bad moods. I am not a violent man, and I don’t like to film violence. In The Good and the Bad, the violence is not something out of my imagination; it is something that actually took place. It was, in fact, more drastic than what I represented. I was more the witness — a kind of a documentary reporter. “ Another Man, Another Chance” is a Western, which is a traditionally violent genre. How were you able to deal with violence?

What is interesting is that it is not a Western although it has all the elements of one — the horses,

the setting, the old towns, the props, the story unfolding in a certain way. In all, it is a story that could have taken place in the West. But I tried to evoke it without recourse to violence, telling myself that there must have been people in the West who were not violent.

Violence has been played up in Westerns to the degree where we feel that the day a person arrives in the West, he or she becomes violent. A cinematic mythology has distorted the facts. I wanted to show the other side.

“The Good and the Bad” is a very strong film about World War 2. . .

Do you feel that your ideas on gangsters have evolved?

I don’t like bad guys on a private basis. It is just that they are the only characters I have found in 20th Century mythology who have a certain kind of courage.

Elliott Marks

Several of your films show a perhaps for the first time. What protagonist in jail. What are were your feelings about that your feelings about jail? during shooting?

Cat and Mouse is a film I made solely for the pleasure of filming.

Throughout most of it the camera represents the point of view of one of the characters. I wanted to see how it would turn out to film a classic police thriller subjectively.

In other words, I took a standard story and treated it in an original way.

As far as that goes, I think I learned a few things about that style of filming.

Veterinarian David Williams (James Caan), who prefers to play pool from horse-back. Another Man, Another

Chance. 'T~

FRENCH CINEMA

Elliott Marks

In Europe, everyone suffered enormously from the war; all those who were born before or during the war will never forget those years. I know that I will make other films about the war, though I hope the intervals between the films will be such that I don’t bore people.

There is a whole generation now that has not lived through these horrors. It might be lucky, but then again it might not. For, if it had been alive then, it might be more tolerant, more under­ standing.

Regardless of what govern­ ments we live under now, or what politics we are familiar with, I like the times I am living in, because they are times without war — at least not world war. I don’t give a damn that there are inequalities between men, or that there are privileges.

The only thing I ask of the statesmen who govern us is to avoid war by all means. I think all those who lived through the last war will want to avoid another, and I am afraid of all the younger people who come to power without having seen that war, like we saw it in Europe, with all its horror, genocide and random violence.

That prices are going up, natural resources are becoming limited and gasoline is being rationed is not serious. War is the worst calamity that can occur in a nation, because it brings sep­ aration, death, the destruction of homes and families, and of people who love each other. It brings on the destruction of the most important values, whereas an economic crisis only shakes people up. Inflation forces them to find new ideas, but in war there are no remedies.

When I made A Man and a Woman I promised myself that, if it were a success, I would remake it 10 years later. I am now making the same promise with Another Man, Another Chance.

Since in every decade there is a new generation of men and women who have not seen the previous version, I can work to please them. Anyway, I am con­ vinced that most people will not remember they saw a similar story - in A Man and a Woman. ‘ ‘A n o t h e r M a n , A n o t h e r I think this film is better made Chance” could in certain ways be than A Man and a Woman, so I called “A Man and a Woman: feel I have progressed. Hopefully, Part II” . Why do a remake the spectator will get more instead of something completely pleasure out of the new version; new and original? maybe he will get less. Perhaps I have become less accessible — Firstly, I thought it would be that is always possible. fun to do my own remake. That has never been done before in the David Goldmann says in ‘‘And h isto ry of cinem a; an o th er now my Love” that the sons of director has always got the job of the American pioneers no longer remaking a film. Secondly, doing have the pioneering spirit of Another Man, Another Chance their fathers. Do you still believe allowed me to measure my own this after working in the U.S. for several months? progress.

James Caan and Genevieve Bujold as the couple-to-be in Claude Lelouch’s Another

Man, Another Chance.

French actor Francis Huster as the First and ill-fated husband of Jeanne Leroy.

Another Man, Another Chance.

Yes. The pioneering spirit means being forced to take risks, but American society is now based in such a way as to permanently reduce the risks of all its citizens, be it behind the steering wheel of his car or at the bank where he takes out a loan.

By the games of lawyers, con­ sultants and market analysts, American risks are becoming smaller and smaller. You don’t even risk drinking a .quart of milk that comes right from a cow; if it is not h o m o g e n iz e d and pasteurized, you won’t drink it.

You eliminate to the maximum.

And this is the nation that took the g reatest and the most beautiful of all risks by founding and building an entire country in just 200 years.

I think Americans today are riding on their ancestors’ rep­ utation, in much the same way that a rich man’s son rides on his father’s reputation. And if the U.S. continues not to take risks, I am afraid she is going to lose some of her stamina.

For example, we have just made a film here; all you have to do is compare the thickness of our A m erican co n tracts to the thinness of French contracts to understand that Americans want matters as safe and predictable as possible.

I am also fascinated by how much more you are afraid of policemen than we are in France.

We get mad at cops. We drag them through the mud, challenge them, and refuse to show them our

Frontier photographer Jeanne Leroy (Genevieve Bujold) as she is about to immortalize the participants of a Mexican wake. Another Man, Another Chance.

papers. It is not like that here.

But I am not here to criticize you, since I love your country more and more, and I feel more at ease here than in France. “ A Man and a Wo m a n ” demonstrates your enthusiasm for the theme of two people meeting each other. “Marriage” primarily deals with what happens afterwards. Do you believe marriage always stifles romance and personal growth?

Yes, but as with most other things I believe there are only particular cases. It is not so much marriage that destroys things as living together, which, at a certain point, reaches saturation level.

Why does a person ever choose someone in the first place? I think it is because someone laughs and cries at the same things, and possibly even wants those things.

That is the flirtation part. Then they decide to live together, and what happens is that they use up these com m on things very quickly. So they start to repeat themselves; he or she always defends the same ideas, or maybe always dresses the same way; always wants to do the same things on Saturdays, on Sundays, on Monday. All at once, he or she tries to make acquired ideas last.

Concluded on P. 321 Cinema Papers, March-April — 265

On November 27, 1978, the Australian Films Office, Inc. (the United States affiliate of the New South Wales Film Corporation) opened the first ever Australian Film Festival in New York City at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. Prompted by the increasing attention paid to Australian films at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, as well as by the interest generated by Newsfront being the first ever Australian film selected for the New York Film Festival last September, it is Expected that the AFO Inc. and the New South Wales Film Corporation will follow it up with another festival in Los Angeles sometime this year.

The president of the AFO Inc., Samuel Gelfman, spelled out the rationale behind the staging of the Festival, saying that its primary function was to demonstrate to the American film community — the marketing and con­ sumer organizations — that there existed a highly skilled, productive industry in Australia. These films, Gelfman continued, could compete, and do compete, on the world market.

The Festival was also staged to sell films, and announcements are expected within a few weeks on the placement with U. S. distributors of Newsfront and The Night The Prowler, both of which were represented in the U. S. by Gelfman’s office.

The selection of films in the Festival com­ prised Sunday Too Far Away, Storm Boy, The Devil’s Playground, In Search of Anna, The Night The Prowler, The Singer and The Dancer, Backroads, The FJ Holden, Forty Thousand Horsemen, The Sentimental Bloke, The Getting of Wisdom, Caddie and Newsfront. As Patrick, Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Last Wave and The Picture Show Man have U. S. deals — and in two cases were close to their release date — they were not included. The selection otherwise represented a cross-section of the Australian films pro­ duced over the past eight years (with the obvious exception of the classics) — the period generally referred to as a revival, if not a renaissance.

Organized by Gelfman and David Roe of the New South Wales Film Corporation, the Festival was able to generate considerable pub­ licity. Reaction to the films was almost wholly favorable, and Cinema Papers reprints below extracts from a number of the reviews that appeared in the New York printed media.

(There was also much undocumented televi­ sion and radio publicity.)

266 — Cinema Papers, March-April

Dan Yakir and Seth Cagin, The Soho Weekly News, November 23, 1978. “ The ’70s have witnessed a resurgence of several national cinemas — in Germany, in Quebec, and in various African nations, among others. The first glimpse of a flour­ ishing Australian cinema is offered by the provocative assortment of feature films which comprise the Australian Film Festival. After more than a 30-year slumber, the Australian film industry is emerging as a major cinematic movement that, apart from being uniquely Australian in its thematic preoccupations, also m anifests a refreshingly non-derivative stylistic exuberance. American audiences may well find in Australian films the cultural treat they have come to associate with the best European films, without having to deal with the barrier of a foreign language. “ The festival entries, without exception, display a rebelliousness against a deeplyrooted bourgeois value system and its oppression of the individual. Jim Sharman’s The Night The Prowler is a devastating yet compassionate depiction of a young woman’s desperate struggle for sexual autonomy denied her by a numbing suburban milieu. Like the heroine of Claude Chabrol’s Yiolette, Felicity (Kerry Walker) is oppressed by an over­ anxious, domineering mother and a com­ placent father who wish to sculpt their daughter into a model of middle-class respect­ ability, a rigid pose which requires sexual pass­ ivity. Felicity’s rebellion is deliciously unconventional, for she boldly assumes an active role within the secret world that she both discovers and invents. In the dark places of an urban wasteland she finds refuge; here too, however, she must struggle to be accepted on her own terms.”

Norma McLain Stoop, After Dark.

“The Night The Prowler is a strange, eerie incursion into the mind of Felicity, the pudgy, rather plain daughter of bourgeois parents who, though they live in Sydney, Australia, would feel equally at home in Claude Chabrol’s France. Actually, the film is more a searing indictment of the worldwide middleclass morality and mentality than the story of a desperate, strong misfit of a girl pushed from childhood into the confines of a fluted cookie­ mold of gentleness and submission that can­ not contain her nature. It is a brutally direct film that flinches at nothing, and in it Patrick

White, who wrote the screenplay from his own short story, displays the genius that won him the Nobel Prize. Gutsy, funny, horrifying and tragic, it is brought to frighteningly vivid life through the controlled acting of Ruth Cracknell and John Frawley as the father and mother, and the unbridled passion of Kerry W alker’s perform ance as the daughter.

Director Jim Sharman is in the driver’s seat all the way, and David Sanderson’s unobtrusive photography is exemplary. This film should certainly be distributed in the U.S., because its concept is universal and its execution is excellent.”

Robe, Variety, November 15,1978. “ Australian film director Jim Sharman has had a measure of success with midnight filmgoers with his Rocky Horror Picture Show.

His latest effort The Night The Prowler is even more confusing. Sharman evidently thinks of himself as the Down Under Alejandro Jodorowsky and, certainly, his films have that touch of the unreal that mark El Topo. “ A hodge-podge of flash-forwards, flash­ backs and even some flash-sideways, it tells the story, as one pundit put it, of a female slob’s search for self-identification.”

Tom Sullivan Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, Pa.), November 30, 1978.

S3 “ That Australia has a small but dynamic movie industry comes as a surprise to many, but next week area film buffs will have a chance to sample two vintage classics and 10 recent productions from Down Under. “ Perhaps the most outstanding film in the series is The Devil’s Playground. The ‘playground’ referred to is a preseminary school for adolescent boys, staffed by Christian Brothers, not priests, more a male equivalent of the more familiar teaching nuns.

In smooth fashion Schepisi treats the severe problems of the boys as they emerge from childhood, and his sharp pen and all-seeing camera eye find time to look in on the not dis­ similar problems of the brothers, too.

FILM FESTIVAL IN NEW YORK

“ Newsfront is wise, insightful and a highlight.”

“ Director Michael Thornhill must surely have embarked upon FJ Holden after seeing American Graffiti, and decided it reflected many aspects of life in Sydney’s middle class suburbs. A very entertaining film, if also a very earthy one, with lots of foul language.

“The Getting of Wisdom is also worthy of commercial release here .. . Bruce Beresford directed with a fine touch and Susannah Fowle as the multi-faceted heroine Laura is superb.

“Caddie . .. effectively recreates the look and feel of the depression era when the heroine, a middle-aged mother of two (Helen Morse), leaves her philandering husband and goes off to support herself and the kids. To do so, she becomes a barmaid, and her story is one that will leave no one untouched.

“Newsfront is the final film of the series . . .

At the New York Festival, Noyce bitterly told reporters that he felt Australia had been sub­ jugated by American influences and said he incorporated anti-American themes in the m ovie, and won considerable acknow­ ledgement from audiences Down Under.”

Norma McLain Stoop, After Dark.

“I found Sunday Too Far Away completely engrossing, but I’m not sure it has the ingred­ ients for successful feature distribution in the U.S. Its glory and its danger is that it is totally Australian. “ Ken Hannam’s direction is leisurely.

Nothing much really happens, yet by tho end of the film we know the country, understand the nature of the extremely macho men who spend such long weeks cooped up together till the job is done, and we are not only familiar with the work they do but why they choose to do it. Jack Thompson’s performance as Foley, a pugnacious, loyal, prideful champion sheepshearer, is a stand-out, but I must admit that, in this film, it’s often hard to understand the Australian accent. I should think that Sunday Too Far Away’s quasi-documentary style would find its most enthusiastic audience as a PBS1special.” , 1. Public Broadcast Systems television.

“ The D evil’s Playground, a moody if far from original story.”

“ The Getting of Wisdom is the best school film I have seen.”

Charles Sweeting, Daily News November 10, 1978.

Charles Ryweck, The Hollywood Reporter, November 29, 1978.

“The Getting of Wisdom is the best school film I have ever seen. The compassionate screenplay was adapted from the novel of Henry Handel Richardson, pen name of Ethel Richardson (1870-1946), who was the daughter of an Australian Irish immigrant doctor; it reflects her unhappy childhood and life With incredibly spiteful schoolgirls at a Melbourne Ladies’ College . . . It has an absolutely first rate cast.”

“The Getting of Wisdom is an absorbing film with outstanding production values, and is one more indication that the Australians have come of age as filmmakers.”

Archer Winsten, New York Post, November 26, 1978.

“ The Australians are trying to generate international excitem ent for their film industry, and to establish a world market.

Judging from a generous sample of the Aust­ ralian Film Festival .. . they just may succeed. “ Sunday Too Far Away is very solid work, strong on realism, deeply rooted in actual people, devoid of artistic pretension and tricks of the cinematic art group. At times one could wish for English subtitles . . . but the gist of what’s happening is always clear.

“The Getting of Wisdom is a beautifully conceived and acted portrait of the artist as a young girl. Susannah Fowle in the lead role is unforgettable, and director Bruce Beresford deserves the praise he has already won. “ In The Night The Prowler, with its extra­ ordinarily split personality — one moment an over-aged girl is sobbing rape to her outraged parents, the next arrayed in leather garments and prowling the night — our heroine makes an impression so rich and rare in character that one is alerted to Australian innovation. “ What [the films shown] amounts to is an extraordinarily broad, detailed look at life in Australia, remarkably devoid of slick, movie distortions of the commercial theatre. This is not to suggest that the Australians have stolen a march on Hollywood and the rest of the movie-making world. What it does mean is that they are able to put their best artistic foot forward by selection in accordance with the simple criteria of realism and the real world, and let’s not make it pretty.”

Diane Jacobs, Voice, November 27, 1978.

“ Before Phillip Noyce’s wry, celebratory, and altogether extraordinary Newsfront arrived as the first Australian film ever selected for the New York Film Festival this October, the 1976 Mad Dog was the only Australian-made film in memory to travel here — and its welcome did not encourage anyone in search of a new national cinema. “ The quality ranges, as might be expected, from superb to mediocre. Gillian Armstrong’s The Singer and the Dancer, for instance, is a tricky and essentially indulgent film about sexual rapport between a self-pitying older and a self-absorbed younger woman, while Newsfront — also a story of generations — is wise, insightful, and a highlight not only of this, but of the New York and Cannes Festivals as well. “ Few of the festival’s other films are as buoyant or provocative, but while certain general preoccupations are discernible — a fascination with genres, concern with racial tensions between whites and aboriginals — they are happily not of a piece and are on the whole well worth seeing. “ Two of the more intriguing selections are a graceful film about natural beauty and misfit people called Storm Boy, and The Night The Prowler, a bizarre tale of purported rape and revenge. Set in contemporary Sydney, The Night The Prowler has a Loseyish look, and the early scenes — describing a finicky mother and her plump, inwardly seething daughter — are filled with black humor and social satire.

Compared to Sydney, Robert Altman’s Middle America seems a bacchanal, and Sharman and White poke wonderful fun at the closure of Australian bourgeois society. “ The second half of the film — with Felicity now a predator in black, hunting down prowlers, ripping up neighboring homes, and continuing to sulk about her fate — does not quite come off, but it’s an admirable attempt.

Concluded on P. 323

Cinema Papers, March-April — 267

:Z::

Best known as an innovative theatrical producer, here and abroad, Jim Sharman has directed productions of ‘Hair’, ‘King Lear’, ‘As You Like It’, ‘The Rocky Horror Show’, and two Patrick White plays, ‘A Season at Sarsaparilla’ and ‘Big Toys’.

Moving to filmmaking, Sharman’s first feature was the experim en tal “ S h irley Thom pson versus the Aliens” , which was followed by “ The Rocky Horror Picture Show” , and “ Summer of Secrets” . His latest film, “ The Night The Prowler” , is from an original screenplay by Patrick W hite.

Sharman had just returned from the New York Film Week, where “ The Night The Prowler” had screened, when he spoke with Robyn Anderson and Sue Adler.

Sharman begins by discussing his first film, “ Arcade” .

EAR LY DAYS My first film was made with Gary Shead, the painter; it was a five-minute opus called Arcade and charted the demise of a junkie in a glossy Sydney shopping arcade. The first feature was Shirley Thompson versus the Allens, made for $20,000 around the time of Tim Burstall’s Stork and Brian Kavanagh’s A City’s Child. It was made quite impul­ sively, and not without passion.

Looking back it is hard to imagine how it was made, but I remember being very impressed by a remark Joseph von Sternberg made when he passed through Australia to attend a film festival.

Most people, as soon as they step off a plane, are asked, “ Well, what do you think of Australia?”

In Von Sternberg’s case he was asked, “ Why doesn’t Australia have a film industry?” His reply was, “ I don’t know; you have cameras, haven’t you?” There is still a lot in that remark.

Shirley Thompson was made as an underground film and it developed a sort of cult reputation on a small scale. Curiously, one of the original criticisms of that film was over its setting in the 1950s. It was one of the first films to see that period as a watershed for a post-war generation. Since then, o f c o u r s e , n o s ta lg ia has accelerated to a point where you are expected to be nostalgic about yesterday.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show followed in Britain in 1976.

Based on the stage musical I had directed in London, it delved into the area of the Frankenstein and Dracula myths. People have always made films in this area, and I think there are four Dracula | films being made at present. The 0 only one I will have any interest 5 in, however, is Werner Herzog’s 1 remake of Nosferatu. I saw

Friedrich Murnau’s Nosferatu years ago, and it was quite influential.

Anyway, Summer of Secrets concluded my interest in that area.

It was a film that was written as a Gothic melodrama, though I was also interested in the theme of memory, which is very strong in the film. It turned out to be a serious film; had I made it simply as a Gothic melodrama, it might have been more popular. “ The Rocky H orror Picture Show” has built up a cult following, particularly in the U.S. What is your reaction to that?

It is quite extraordinary. The film did very little business in its first release, but became quite a success on its second. I was very surprised, because you tend to think that if a film hasn’t succeeded on its first release, then that is the end. The last thing you would expect is for it to be playing 120 cinemas across the U.S. four years later.

A p p a r e n t l y p e o p l e are responding to the film as if it were theatre . . .

I think they are responding to it more as if it were a kind of living wallpaper — people are actually talking back to the film. I think most Ame r i c an a u d i e n c e s , generally very young, are treating the film as motivation for a party.

I attended one of the New York s c r e e n i n g s a n d it was extraordinary to see queues around the block, the whole ritual of audience members dressing up, and the hierarchy of who sat where, depending on how many screenings they had attended. It was naive enough not to be frightening in the way cults and fan clubs can be, and the really witty dialogue they swapped with Cinema Papers, March-April — 269

JIMSHARMAN

the screen made for a pretty amazing night.

I went with Phil Noyce; he would be better to discuss it with, because I was preoccupied with seeing a film that was made as a homage to the late-night movie becoming the ultimate in latenight movies.

Is fi l mmaki ng your major interest, or do you merely regard it as another medium in which you can work?

I am pursuing filmmaking, but not at the expense of everything else. There is a puritan ethic that implies, “ Jack of all trades and master of none” , and occasionally I have been accused of making theatrical films and producing cinematic stage productions. But I enjoy working in different mediums.

My predominant interest is visual interpretation. The success of many of my early stage productions was based on the visual impact, and this was often fed by the cinema. Obviously they are two different disciplines, but they do inform each other. For instance, if you have worked in theatre you bring to film an ease of working with actors.

Do you think people resent you going from one medium to another?

It can be a problem in that if you are successful in one medium people expect you will instantly achieve the same success in another. They tend to forget that you probably had many attempts in the first medium before you reached any degree of success.

So, while in some ways you come with advantages, you also come with l i a b i l i t i e s — particularly those related to people’s expectations.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a case in point, as it was filmed straight after the stage production. Musicals are usually left for several years before they are filmed; this probably explains why my film took off in 1978, and not in 1974.

THE NIGHT THE PROWLER How did you come to choose “The Night The Prowler” ?

As a writer, Patrick White has worked in several mediums: he is primarily a novelist, but he is also a p l a y w r i g h t , a n d now a screenwriter. I remember seeing his plays in the early 1960s and being greatly influenced by them.

It was the first time I had seen situations that I could relate to in terms of being an Australian.

270 — Cinema Papers, March-April

You have produced several plays of Patrick White . . .

particular literary work to the cinema?

Yes. The Season at Sarsaparilla was my first association with Patrick; after that I did Big Toys.

Actually, it was out of our conversations on Season at Sarsaparilla t hat t he idea developed to film The Night The Prowler. He thought the story would made a good film, so I asked him whether he was i n t e r e s t e d in w r i t i n g t h e screenplay.

Although there had been other film projects associated with Patrick White’s works, no one had ever i n v o l v e d him in the screenplay. But since his writing was so visual — I think we share a frustration for painting — I was sure it would be an interesting experiment.

The film then crystallized over the period from The Season at Sarsaparilla to Big Toys.

They were lesser than if I had adapted a novel. Usually it is the style of writing in a novel that makes it unique. So if you decide into the park. to film it, you have to be confident you can generate a visual style that In White’s story, the prowler will equal the prose style. scene is vital to know what is Secondly, of course, you have to going on in Felicity’s mind. How allow for the natural impulse of did you translate that scene to people to say, “ It’s not as good as the screen? the book.”

With short stories, however, One of the big differences you don’t have that problem, between the written word and because people don’t feel so cinema is that you can articulate a protective about them. They are state of mind very clearly with the slighter works in scale and it is not written word; you can be inside so much a holy writ situation. the characters and be subjective to When I read the screenplay of their thinking. The main device The Night The Prowler I thought for that in the cinema is the closeit was a remarkable piece of up, though there are other writing for the screen. I never had devices, such as music. With any doubts about it.

Did you collaborate with White on the screenplay?

There were two drafts: Patrick did the first and I had the normal director collaboration — namely, reading it over, discussing certain areas, with Patrick modifying it according to our discussions. This became the second draft.

The normal processes of filming and editing followed, and there were the usual further alterations.

What were the problems associated with adapting this

The Doctor (Arthur Dignam) and Kym (Nell Campbell) on the deserted beach in Summer of Secrets. Though a commercial failure in Australia, the film has gained considerable critical acclaim overseas.

Did you make many changes to the story?

There are, of course, things in the film that aren’t in the story.

With a novel you have to decide what details you should dismiss; with a short story the situation is reversed — you have to expand things.

In The Night The Prowler there is a cocktail party scene which is not in the story. That , came out of conversation with Patrick; we agreed that it would be good for Felicity, the central character, to have a cathartic experience before her last journey

Jane Harders as Shirley Thompson (left) in Jim Sharman’s first feature, Shirley Thompson versus the Aliens.

JIMSHARMAN

Throughout the film I tried to prepare the audience for what was to come. The tone at the beginning is of domestic comedy, but as the other theme emerges, the film becomes serious and mythic. The film then becomes something of an odyssey as Felicity assumes a larger-than-life character in her quest.

Felicity goes t hrough all different layers of society and confronts different situations, until she finally achieves, in the most unlikely of situations, some comprehension of compassion.

Till then, her life has been devoid of passion. This is largely because of her environment. It is only when Felicity discovers humility that she finds compassion. That is why, contrary to a lot of opinion, I consider the film to be optimistic.

By coming to terms with herself, Felicity emerges strengthened.

Her journey has been a fruitful one.

Unfortunately, it is a journey that not many people of this society are interested in taking.

Most people accept something less for themselves, and tend to reject anything implying that their way of life isn’t necessarily the best. e

Jim Sharman and Ruth Cracknell on the set of The Night The Prowler.

music you can generate emotional empathy with a character or situation.

In many ways, the prowler se­ q u e n c e in yo ur f i l m is ambiguous. Was that deliberate?

It is an interesting scene, in that it is really the first scene, even though it comes two-thirds of the way through. Up to that point, there is a certain suspense and you believe that the attack has taken place. That scene reveals it hasn’t, and further compounds our sense of Felicity’s frustration.

The confrontation also gives Felicity the chance to break with her background and break off her

engagement. It is the motivating instance in the film.

H o w ev er, the central confrontation in the film is not that with the prowler, but with the old man at the end.

But the confrontation with the prowler does explain why the film takes place . . .

Yes, and obviously such an attack, as it is described at the beginning of the film, would be traumatic in the extreme; the reality is pathetic. In that sense, th e c o n f r o n t a t i o n m e r e l y increases her already profound disorientation.

The point you make about the credibility of the awakening seems to occur too swiftly .. .

Brad and Janet are confronted by Frank (Tim Currie) and helpers (Nell Campbell, Patricia Quinn and Richard O’Brien). The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Perhaps Felicity is exceptional, in that most people are never placed under such intolerable circumstances. They are not, therefore, forced to rebel against them . . .

Perhaps, but people are the product of their environments. In Felicity’s case, it has reached an extremity, and the means by which she seeks to escape are extreme.

There are, however, certain aspects of the film that are basic to many adolescents. For example, the scene of Felicity rampaging t h r o u g h t h e h o u s e is psychologically related to a latent d e s i r e to d e s t r o y h e r e n v i r o n m e n t . Now t hat is something which is very strong in many people’s minds, even though they never act it out.

Indeed, if you were to explore the psychology of the Baader Meinhof gang and Patty Hearst,

Jim Sharman at a New York screening o f The Rocky Horror Picture Show where the film has built a cult reputation.

you would find that they come from the same middle-class b a c k g r o u n d s t ha t Felicity Bannister comes from.

There is an element of irony in the film . . .

I think the humor in the film is heavily laced with irony, yet that irony is not detached from compassion.

Ruth Cracknell, for example, g i v e s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y performance as Doris Bannister, and it is a role in which many actresses would have gone overboard. While Ruth doesn’t miss the comic opportunities, she doesn’t betray the essence of her character to that comedy.

You apparently had difficulty selecting an actress for the role of Felicity. Was this because you had a concept about the character that was difficult to meet?

Having grown up in Sydney’s eastern suburbs and knowing many people in that situation, I had a good idea of the character, but had no actress in mind. All I knew was that I needed somebody who could sustain the entire film with her performance. It needed someone with a hidden passion who would be able to convey certain emotions without resort­ ing to words.

Most of the a c t r e s s e s I auditioned didn’t have this well of passion, or the capacity to communicate it to the camera.

Do you have strong views on how to work with the actors, especially with your background in the theatre?

It was important to establish the Bannisters as a family, so we had a period before filming during which Ruth, Kerry and John (the Bannister family) worked on the script. This was done on the loc­ ation we used for all interior and exterior scenes. This enabled the actors to get to know the house, and each other, before we started filming.

Concluded on P. 318

Kerry Walker as Felicity Bannister in The Night The Prowler. The film was shot on 16mm and then enlarged to 35mm for release.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 271

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS Reprinted from Australian Government Gazette SEPTEMBER 1978

Published by the Australian Government Publishing Service

OCTOBER 24 - NOVEMBER 28 -

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

JANUARY 16

For General Exhibition (G) The Cat from Outer Space (a): Disney/R. Miller, U.SA. (2632.84 m) Chori Chori: L.B. Lachman, India (4169.00 m) Guiseppi Verdi: M. Malenoti, Italy (2605.85 m) Hot Lead and Cold Feet: Dlsney/R. Miller, U.SA (2386 m) I Due R gli Dei Trinità: Prod. Intern'l Films, Italy (2468.00 m) Jesus o f Nazareth (Italian version) (b): V. Labeila, U.K. (5138.41 m) Salty: K. Jaeger, U.S.A. (2468.70 m) True Love: C.W. Hslung, Hong Kong (2605.85 m) (a) Reduced by producer’s cuts from 2770 metres (Film Censorship Bulletin No. 7/78.) (b) English version of 7706 metres previously listed In Film Censorship Bulletin No. 2/78

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) A p p ro n ti Salaud (16 mm): Elefllm-SFP, France (1150.00 m) Birds are Singing Everywhere: T.W. Kuang, Hong Kong (2523.56 m) B lo c k a d e (Blokada): Lenfilm Studios, U.S.S.R. (4663.00 m) Born Again: F. Capra Jr., U.SA. (2935.00 m) Boudu Saved From Drowning (16 mm): M. Slmon/J. Gehret, France (1200.00 m) Casey’s Shadow (a): R. Stark, U.S.A. (2508.00 m) Esaea, Min. Horevis (Esaea, Do Not Dance): C. Karatsopoulos, Greece (2523.00 m) Fedora: B. Wilder, U.K. (3099.58 m) Gray Eagle: C.B. Pierce, U.S.A. (2935.01 m) Hakaza El Ayaam (16 mm): Not known, Egypt (1184.00 m) Hazel’s People (1 6 mm): B. Martin, U.S.A. (1107.97 m) International Velvet: B. Forbes, U.K. (3127.00 m) Milady (16 mm): Hamster Films, France (1000.00 m) The Norseman: C.B. Pierce, U.S.A. (2496.1 5 m) Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band: R. Stigwood, U.S.A. (2989.87 m) (a) Reduced by producer’s cuts from 3191.25 metres (Film Censorship Bulletin No. 1/78).

For Mature Audiences (M) Aloise (16 mm): Lnite Trois, France (1 250.58 m) Chinatown Kid: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (3072.00 m) The Dragon Missile: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2468.70 m) Foul Play: T.L. Miller, U.S.A. (31 27.00 m) The Garden o f The Dead: H.A. Milton, U.S.A. (1590.94 m) L’Innocente: J. Lletienne, Italy (3703.00 m) Mag Wheels: C. Meeker, U.S.A. (2249.26 m) Padre Padrone: G. De Negri, Italy (3072.16 m) Secrets: J. Hanson, France (2605.85 m) The Sentimental Swordsman: R.R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2880.00 m) A Wedding: R. Altman, U.S.A. (3785.00 m) The Wild Geese: E. Lloyd, U.K. (3593.33 m) La Femme Aux Bootes Rouges (The Woman with Red Boots) (16 mm): Proclnex, France (1020.00 m)

For Restricted Exhibition (R) The B utterfly: Audubon Films, U.S.A. (2166.00 m) Country Hooker: R. Roberts, U.S.A. (1920.00 m) D iscip le s o f S haolin: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (2798.00 m) Game o f Death: R. Chow, Hong Kong (2743.00 m) II Sasso in Bocca: Not shown, Italy (2742.00 m) Island o f a Thousand Delights: Lisa Films, W. Germany (2523.00 m) Let’s Get Laid: B. Smedley-Aston, U.K. (2688.14 m) The Losers: J. Solomons, U.S.A. (2633.28 m) Love Boccaccio Style (16 mm): R.J. Phillips, U.S.A. (822.00 m) The Shaolin Avengers (English dubbed version) (16 mm) (a): Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (1102.00 m) The Silent Partner: J. Michaels/S. Young, Canada/ U.S.A. (2797.00 m) Teenage Bride: G. Troy, U.S.A. (2139.54 m) Top o f the Heap: C. St John, U.S.A. (2249.00 m) The Younger the Better: A Brummer, W. Germany (2359.00 m) (a) English sub-titled version previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 1/78.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (For showing not more than twice at the Sydney and/or Melbourne/Adelaide/ Brisbane/Perth Film Festival then re-exported).

Aiam brista (The Illegal): I. Young/M. Hausman, U.S.A. (3048.00 m) A u to u r du T o u r (16 mm): SFP/TF 1, France (1030.00 m) Bangi: B. Forslund, Sweden (2880.00 m) Boys: Steen Herdel, Denmark (2452.00 m) The D e b u t: M. Van H eyn ln ge n , N e th e rla n d s (2633.00 m) The Fifth Seal: Hungarofilm, Hungary (3179.00 m) H onoré Daumier (16 mm): R.S. Nathan, France (672.00 m) In the Name o f the Fuehrer: F. Buyens, Belgium (2450.00 m) I Take the Floor: Lenfilm Studio, U.S.S.R. (3974.00 m) The New Klan . . . Heritage o f Hate (16 mm): L Shatz/E. Bingham, U.S.A. (680.61 m) Per Questa Notte (For This Night): L. Perugia, Italy (2643.00 m) Pere Amable (16 mm): Antenne 2, France (1100.00 m) P in k D re a m s : S lo v a k F ilm , C z e c h o s lo v a k ia (2392.00 m) Running Time (16 mm): National Film Board, Canada (878.00 m) S m o k e o f P o ta to H a u lm : B a rra n d o v F ilm : Cezechoslovakla (2650.00 m) Sun o f the Hyenas: W. Thijssen, Netherlands (2743.20 m)

272 — Cinema Papers, March-April

The Boys From Brazil: M. Rlchards/S. O’Toole, U.S.A. (3319.03 m) Carry On Emmanuelle: P. Rogers, U.K. (2358.98 m) C la n s o f A m a z o n s : Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (2523.56 m) The 1 B Bronzemen: J. Kuo, Hong Kong (2743.00 m) Girl Friends: C. Weill, U.S.A. (2386.41) Good Guys Wear Black: A. Bodoh, U.SA (2550.99 m) I Dolci Peccati Di Venere: Not shown, German/ltaly (2386.41 m) II Monaco (Italian version; (a): Henry Lange, Italy (2592.00 m) Jennifer: S. Krantz, U.SA (2386.41 m) Leonor (16 mm): Arcadia/Films 66/Uranus/GOYA, France (1100.00 m) Madame Rosa (English Dubbed) (b): A. Hoss/Lira Films, France (2850.00 m) Mia Ñipóte La Vergine: W. Hartwlg, Italy (2206.00 m) My Boys Are Good Boys: Meeker/Buckalew, U.SA (2386.41 m) National Lampoon’s Animal House: M. Simmons/I. Reltman, U.S.A. (2989.87 m) One Arm C hivalry Fight Against One Arm Chivalry: W. Feng/P. Tsen-Fu, Hong Kong (2468.70 m) Opening Night: A. Ruban, U.S.A. (3813.00 m) Pay Day: M. Fink/D. Carpenter, U.S.A. (2770.43 m) Power Play: C. Dalton, Canada (2743.00 m) Rockinghorse (16 mm): Y. Yosha, Israel (878.00 m) The Shaolin Kids: Ambassador Film Co./J. Kuo, Hong Kong (2715.57 m) (a) Previously listed in an English dubbed version in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 3/73. (b) Previously listed in an English Sub-titled version in Film Censorship Bulletin 7/78.

For Restricted Exhibition (R)

Scene from Money Movers which was classified “ Ft” because of its violence. An appeal against the “ Ft” was rejected.

A Sunday in Hell: Steen Herdel, Denmark (3065.00 m) Tom and Julie (1 6 mm): Fr 3, France (1260.00 m) A 20 Days Respite from War: Lenfilm, U.S.S.R. (2806.00 m) Violania: Condor Film, Switzerland (2747.00 m) Volcano: An Inquiry into the Life and Death of M alco lm L o w ry (16 mm): D. B rittain, Canada (1097.00 m) SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (For showing not more than twice at the 24th Asian Film Festival then re-exported).

Clan of Amazons: Not shown, Hong Kong (2578.61 m) Home S w ee t Home: Not shown, Hong Kong (2935.22 m) L ittle Adventures: Y. Yuuki/T. Nishiguchi, Japan (2563.00 m) Melody in Grey: Not shown, Japan (3307.00 m) Shoguns Samurai: T. Tsushima, Japan (3865.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R) Emmanuelle and the Last Cannibals (Reconstructed version) (a): C. Couyoumojian, Italy (2468.70 m) Eliminations: 2.5 m (6 secs) Reason: Excessive violence The Man fro m S.M .U.T.: M.H. Lincoln, U.S.A. (2304.00 m) Eliminations: 34.8m (1 min. 1 6 secs) Reason: Indecency (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 6 / 78.

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Bad Penny: H. & V. Film Prods, U.S.A. (2170.00 m) Reason: Indecency E ch a n g e s De P a rte n a ire s : F. Leroi, France (2037.40 m) Reason: Indecency Inside Jennifer Welles (Reconstructed version) (a): H. Howard, U.S.A. (2043.00 m) Reason: Indecency Les Grandes Jouisseuses: F.F.C.M./Shangrila, France (251 6.50 m) Reason: Indecency The Other Side of Julie: C. Gifford, U.S.A. (2122.40 m) Reason: Indecency Passion Seekers (Reconstructed version) (b): R.C. Chinn, U.SA (1527.00 m) Reason: Indecency Shocking: F. Leroi, France (1945.70 m) Reason: Indecency Swinging S orority (Reconstructed version) (c) R. Marsden, U.S.A. (1973.00 m) Reason: Indecency 3 A.M.: R. McCallum, U.S.A. (1891.30 m) Reason: Indecency The Young Passions (Reconstructed Version) (d): Alpha-Omega, U.S.A. (1873.90 m) Reason: Indecency (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 7/78. (b) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 6/78. (c) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 5/78. (d) Previously listed In Film Censorship Bulletin No. 7/78.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW Nil.

OCTOBER 1978

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS For General Exhibition (G) Ara Nazllnka Ne ram (16mm): Manjilas, Malaysia (1908.00 m) The Great Brain: R. Bickerton, U.S.A. (2304.1 2 m) H i-jack (16 mm): M. Forlong, U.K. (663.00 m) I Promessl Sposl: Sampaolo Film, Italy (2861.00 m) Leila Majnu: Not shown, India (4401.00 m) Paganini Strikes Again (16 mm): C. Randall, U.K. (658.00 m) The Sang S is te rs (16 mm): W. Long, C hina (1076.00 m) Third 8 ls te r-U u : Not shown, Hong Kong (3181.88 m) The Zoo Robbery (16 mm): M. McCarthy/J. Black, U.K. (702.00 m) B lin ke rs Spy S p o tte r (16 mm): H. Orton, U.K. (665.00 m)

Not Recommended for Children (NRC)

Back Seat Cabbie: B. Mansy, U.S.A. (1536.08 m) Blood Brothers: S. Friedman, U.S.A. (3264.17 m) Exit The Dragon, Enter The Tiger: J. Shaw/R. Shah, Hong Kong (2139.54 m) .

F a n ta is ie s P o u r C o u p le s : G. Fleury, France (2989.87 m) The Green Jade Statuette: W. Feung, Hong Kong (2551.00 m) H o lly w o o d H igh: Peter Perry P ictures, U.S.A. (2166.97 m) In Praise o f Older Women: R. Lantos/C. Heroux, Canada (3017.30 m) La Punltion (Italian version): Lira Fllms/Sonocam, France (2304.20 m) Les Grandes Jouisseuses (Reconstructed version) (a): F.F.C.M./Shangrila, France (2194.40 m) Midnite Plowboy: B. Buckalew, U.SA (1810.38 m) Money Movers (b): M. Carroll, Australia (2551.82 m) Snow Job: A. Shlffen, U.S.A. (1 755.52 m) To Akrogiali Tou Erota (The Beach o f Perverted Girls): Not shown, Greece (2029.82 m) To Filidino Kormi Tis: G. Statiras, Greece (2029.00 m) Tropical Ecstasy: A. Bo, Argentina (1974.00 m) Welcome Home Johnny! (Reconstructed version) (c): H. Corcoran, U.S.A. (1 782.95 m) The Young Bride: Coinfllm/C. Pescino/S. Barganzelli, ' Italy (241 4.00 m) Young C ycle G irls: Peter Perry Pictures, U.S.A. (2194.40 m) (a) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 9/78. (b) See also under ’Films Board of Review’. (c) Previously listed in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 7/78.

Special Condition: To be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia as part of Its 1978 Jean Renoir Season.

La Chlenne (16 mm): Braunberger-Richebe, France (1097.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS Not Recommended for Children (NRC) B attlestar Galáctica: J. Dvkstra, U.S.A. (3346.46 m) Eliminations: 0.6 m (1 sec.)

Reason: Indecent language

For Restricted Exhibition (R)

Aab Y a-Lolo Aab (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (1311.00 m) Amar A kbar Anthony: M. Desai, India (4765.00 m) The Amazing Doberman Gang: D. Chudnow, U.S.A. (2413.84 m) The Battle o f Chile Parts I and II (16 mm): Cuban Film Institute, Cuba (2095.00 m) Geet Caya Patharone: Not shown, India (4673.00 m) Harry Hooton (16 mm): A. & C. Cantrill, Australia (900.00 m) Here Come the Tigers: S. Cunningham/S. Miner, U.S.A. (2468.70 m) Hot Tears (16 mm): Not shown, Egypt (683.90 m) II Caldo Amore Di Evelyn: Gaumont Int/A. Poire, France (2440.00 m) La Chasse Royale (The Royal Hunt) (16 mm): Como Films/Ceskoslovensky Film, France (1010.00 m) La M a trig n a : M agic Eye o f H ollyw o o d , Ita ly (2523.00 m) Legend o f Boggy Creek: C. Pierce, U.S.A. (2359.00 m) M arinetti (16 mm): A. Thoms, Australia (858.00 m) M oonfleet (16 mm): (a): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, U.S.A. (983.00 m) The Naked Spur (16 mm) (b): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, U.S.A. (1004.00 m) Peking Duck Soup: Films Des llles/E. Elga, France (3127.02 m) Space War: T. Eiga/T. Eiza, Japan (2386.41 m) Stardust (16 mm): H. Kung, China (1086.00 m) Three W arriors: P. Zantz/S. Gomberg, U .SA (2852.72) Un Type Comme Moi De Devrait Pas M ourir (A Guy Like Me Ought Never to Die): (16mm) Film & Co., France (1100.00 m) (a) Previously registered ‘A’ with cut in 1955. (b) Previously registered ‘G’ in 1953.

Money Movers: M. Carroll, Australia (2551.82 m) Decision reviewed: Appeal against ‘R’ Registration by the Film Censorship Board.

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

Note: Title of film notified as Who’ll Stop the Rain? in Film Censorship Bulletin No. 6/78 has been altered to Dog Soldiers.

For Mature Audiences (M)

For General Exhibition (G)

Avalanche: R. Corman, U.S.A. (2468.70 m) Blood Relatives: Filmel-Cinevideo-Classic, France/ Canada (2523.56 m) Born Invincible: Joseph Kuo, Hong Kong (2249.26 m)

Blue Fin: H. McElroy, Australia (2413.00 m)

Tanya P. Fingersnarl, U.S.A. (1920.10) Eliminations: 1.9 m (4 secs) Reason: Indecency

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION The Opening o f M isty Beethoven (Reconstructed version) (a): L. Sultana, U.S.A. (1751.20) Reason: Indecency (a) Previously listed In Film Censorship Bulletins Nos 1/77 and 3/77.

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW

NOVEMBER 1978

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

Concluded on P. 3 1 7

EDINBURG H FILM F E S T IV A L 1 9 7 8 v

Over the past decade, the Edinburgh Film Festival has emerged as the cinema’s equivalent of some inter­ national Civil Liberties Council: a vigorous champion of, and forum for, a range of minority groups disparate enough to encompass clandestine activists in Third World dictatorships, and directors of low-budget Hollywood ‘exploitation’ films. It has provided a showcase and, to use one of its favorite terms, a ‘context’ for works by feminists, formalists, homosexuals and (arguably the most oppressed minority of all) British independent filmmakers, as well as a platform for the more inscrutably polysyllabic schools of European criticism.

Even at its most infuriating, the Festival has never been less than stimulating. And this year, after so many of the major European festivals had unintentionally demonstrated that the ‘serious art film’ was slumping into a state of creative bankruptcy, every bit as discouraging as that of the formulary, high-varnished action film, Edinburgh’s eclectic and eccentric program proved a triumphant justification of the Festival’s most contested policies. That the semiological extremists were less abrasively in evidence than in past years might be read as an encouraging symptom.

With fewer theoretical events than in recent years, the 1978 Festival marked a healthy convergence of theory and practice, with the challenge to received ideas located, not in the seminar room, but on the screen. That the minorities should be assertively expressing them­ selves, rather than doing their best to camouflage their proclivities, was consistent with the spirit of the majority of their films. Liberation movements, both sexual and political, appeared to be adopting a more confident, less defen­ sive posture. Indeed, if the closet doors continue to swing open at this rate, we shall soon be obliged to investigate just how many of that famous silent majority actually remain to be counted.

Even more encouraging than the Festival’s inclusion of work by more than 30 women directors was that the ‘fem­ inist aesthetic’ (the subject of prolific theoretical debate) proved in practice to be at least as eclectic and unconfining as the unaligned heterosexual one to which we have all supposedly been conditioned. There is arguably no greater tribute to the present strength of women as filmmakers than that it has become increasingly difficult to generalize about their work. While it is, in general, true that their films reveal a more earnestlydeveloped concern with defining and analyzing their social/sexual/professional roles than do those of their male counterparts, the definitions are still a long way from the complacent comforts of consensus opinion.

Before going on to underline the differences, it is, however, worth making one further generalization. Whether because there are more women making films in West Germany, or because the women's movement there is intellectually further advanced, the films by West German women had a decisive edge on those made by their sister directors from other countries. They contain not just evidence of the need for women’s liberation, but also an element (implied or articulated) of self-criticism, a critique of women’s movement theory-and-practice as it has evolved so far (and an awareness that the two — theory and practice — may often be in conflict with one another), a willingness to recognize and analyze the extent to which women frequently collaborate’ in their own oppression, or may be oppressed by one another as much as by men.

Jan Dawson

This tough acknowledgment of com­ plexities gave the German women’s films a political character that was generally lacking in the undialectical offerings from, for example, the U.S., which tended either to isolate single aspects of the female condition in a spurious social vacuum, or confine themselves to a tub­ thumping monotone of anti-male invective.

Another comparison which works to Germany’s advantage is that between Helke Sander’s Redupers and Claudia Weill’s Girlfriends (U.S.), first seen in the Quinzaine des Réalisateurs (Directors' Fortnight) at Cannes. Both films are built around a freelance photographer, who is trying to build the separate facets of her life Into a single, coherent identity.

An extreme (and highly acclaimed) example of the unilateral approach was the 26-minute film by American Jan Oxenberg. Her C o m e d y in Six Unnatural Acts purports to be “a satire on stereotyped images of lesbians, exposing their falsity.” The film attempts to fight stereotypes with cliches, using the cliches of old movie genres to parody what it presumably regards as the cliches in heterosexual heads. It offers us only what it regards as false, sim­ plified images (the leather-outfitted motorbike-rider, the knowing seductress, etc.) but never presents us with what it considers a true or complex image.

Thus, although a critic from the American periodical, L e s b ia n Tide, saw the film as deriving from “a place of loving identification”, and although the film’s self-acceptance/self-satisfaction is smugly on display, it never progresses from the denunciatory to either the illuminating or the self-critical. It lacks either the analytic subtlety or the visual inventiveness of Madame X, a two-anda-half-hour, all-female, color epic by West German director Ulrike Ottinger.

Ottinger suggests that being a lesbian feminist may be as imprisoning a role as any other. Her stylized characters, representing an international range of unsatisfactory female roles (from Betty Brillo, Oberlin housewife, to Omega Zentauri, Australian bush pilot) respond to an invitation to find love, money and adventure by abandoning their routines to join the pirate band of Madame X, ruthless and uncrowned ruler of the China Seas, under whose charismatic tyranny they relapse into unquestioning servile roles. With her cast decked out in carnival clothing created by her lead actress, Tabea Blumenschein, Ottinger translates ideas into images, gradually abandoning the verbal wit of her opening scenes in favor of surrealist spectacle.

unmarried mother and photographer, living in West Berlin and cut off from the ‘all-round socialist personalities’ of the East by a wall which is, like her own situation as a woman, an artificial construction and subject to ideological interpretations. Sander, a founder of the German women’s movement, follows a similar method to Kluge. She sets an energetic female protagonist amid the contradictions that make up her life (the conflicting pulls of child, money, work, self-expression, sexual and intellectual needs), and builds from them an acidly witty mosaic of the society which dooms them to remain largely unresolved.

But where Sander’s film is uncom­ promisingly analytic, linking the contra­ dictions of its heroine’s life to the ideological ones of the society around her, and connecting her work as a photographer to the vexed question of how images (and, by extension, films) represent reality, Weill settles unquest­ ioningly for conventional narrative tech­ niques, no distancing effects and an ultimately rosy prognosis of the fate of curious females^(On the strength of this virtuoso combination of talent and happy ending, she has already received a three-feature contract from Warner Bros.)

Despite its conventional limitations, Weill’s film is warm and funny, only occasionally succumbing to its strong undertow of sentimentality. The film’s great virtue is its lead actress, Melanie Mayron, who neither looks nor behaves like a Hollywood star, and who is more than convincing as a socially clumsy ugly-duckling (New York Jewish variety) grappling with the problems of work, accommodation, loneliness, male and female friendships. The character’s gift for saying (and wearing) the wrong thing at the wrong time makes her something of a prototype for the commercially

Redupers, The All-Round Reduced Personality stars its director as an

acceptable anti-heroine; but it remains so much the film’s focus of interest that the film remains a study of personality problems rather than political ones. If her former room-mate, who has married young and had a baby, eventually finds her life more restricted and full of insoluble problems than that of the questing heroine, the implied social criticism still remains mute: the working heroine also seems headed for a life of monogamous domesticity.

Another favorable comparison was Ula Stockl’s new film, A Woman and her Responsibilities, whose heroine also gets pregnant and married before she’s explored an identity of her own. Like all of Stockl’s films, this one examines the way oppression creeps into even the most well-meaning relationships.

Scripted by Jutta Bruckner, it seems at first sight closer to the conventional ‘problem film', though it develops to reveal a rare wit and gift for indongruous observation (what destroys most problem films is precisely their lack of anything gratuitous to the problem). It charts the descent of a conscientious teenager into another social statistic — her evolution from surrogate mother, to foreign au pair, to shotgun wife and mother, to neurotic wreck, obsessed with scouring hidden dirt.

Actress Christina Scholz achieves extraordinary conviction in ageing those five crucial years in the character’s life.

But what distinguishes the film is the way Stockl constantly balances com­ passion with a finely-honed sense, of humor, maintaining an awareness of the absurd in even the most dire situations.

The heroine’s evacuation of family life into a small, sterilized area of the bathroom echoes Ionesco without sacrificing any human sympathies. For there are no individual villains — or villainesses — in this tale of a wrecked life: everyone acts from the best of intentions, and from their received ideas of what constitutes ‘responsible’ be­ havior. By concentrating on one par­ ticular victim, the film becomes a challenge to the whole complex of received moralities, raising more questions than it can answer, and holding out no promises of instant panaceas.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 273

■;/ ' '

■SS®

n ü

EDINBURGH FILM FESTIVAL

Only one film by a woman director seemed exclusively concerned with formal problems: Camera Je, by Babette Mangolte (the director of photography on, among other films, Chantal Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman . . .). It is conceived as an exploration of the relationship between photographer and subject (and, by implication, of the spectator to both). Formally, it divides into two halves: the first, an exploration of portrait photography (still), the second, of a mobile camera in space. We, as spectators, are permitted to see only what the photographer sees; or rather — and it may be a crucial distinction — only what her camera selects. For, despite Mangolte’s voice-over comments and questions (a mixture of French and English), we have no access to the material she has chosen to omit.

Although the portrait photo sessions are irritatingly punctuated by a black flash (a substitute for the click of the still-camera shutter), which becomes a tiresome device, the sessions are fascinating, revealing just how much patience and confident interpretation are necessary for the photographer to arrive at what she regards as the true portrait.

But where Mangolte rushes with her hand-held camera through the Man­ hattan streets, the results (instructive of what the cameraman actually sees while he or she is working) are so dizzying as to be almost unwatchable. The person behind the camera has the advantage over the spectator of being anchored to solid ground.

This second section is intended to explore “the photographer as part­ icipant”: the problem is that it leaves the spectator no room within which to participate.

Two of the Festival’s most highly publicized films were concerned with the theme of homosexuality, though both of them suffered, to my mind at least, from a lack of dialectical analysis. Word is Out, made by the San Francisco-based Mariposa Group (a collective of seven male and female gay filmmakers) is a montage constructed from interviews with 26 male and female gays, of assorted ages, sexes and colors, though from predominantly middle-class back­ grounds. The interviews reveal some appalling horror stories (one married man submitted to a long series of electro-shock treatments intended to ‘cure’ his homosexual proclivities; a wife denounced by the . husband who had abandoned her as an ‘unfit mother’ after she set up house with another woman).

To anyone who remembers the sadistic suppression/oppression of homosexuals during the McCarthy era, the mere fact that homosexuals now feel free enough to declare themselves on film, let alone that such a film can receive a television transmission, is evidence of a society moving towards sexual tolerance. But if standing up to be counted is a political step, it is not by

itself a political solution.

While Word is Out is also valuable as an empirical demonstration of the falseness of most stereotypes, the message which emerges from its montage of interviews — namely, that self-recognition is only one confident step away from monogamous true love — seems unnecessarily simplistic: a modern variation on the well-worn narrative convention of the happy ending.

The quest for monogamous romance also dominates the life of the central character in Nighthawks, an inde­ pendent feature completed with money from German television. Its protagonist is a schoolteacher, experiencing as a mounting strain the need to pass for ‘normal’ by day and to pursue possible partners only in the night-time world of all-male discos and bars. The film (directed by Ron Peck) captures all the desperation and loneliness of living as a sexual fugitive, and paints such a uniformly bleak picture of London’s homosexual night-life that the term “gay” seems unusually misplaced.

The contrast between the awkward, strained and timid encounters between men, and the uninhibited behavior of the children in the classroom is dramatically effective, with the film building to an electrifying scene in which the teacher is goaded into confessing his proclivities to his young charges. But if dramatically effective, the-'contrast also seems to be dramatically loaded. The hero’s con­ versations with his one-night-stands all seem confined to the elementary interrogative (questions of the “Do you come here often?” variety); and with no real evidence of a non-sexual intimacy between males, with bedroom trysts accompanied only by stiffly courteous exchanges, the film’s makers leave us wondering whether the hero’s problems aren’t in fact as much the result of a personality problem (the fact that he is boring company) as of his social situation (being gay in a straight world).

Peck and his co-author Paul Hallam have explained that they wanted, in this first film, to accentuate the negative aspects of the situation of homosexuals in Britain and to get audiences used to the idea that life is made unnecessarily difficult for them, before going to show, in a later film, that they are as capable of happiness and companionship as they are of loneliness and misery. That sort of separation seems to me a dangerous strategy.

Edinburgh did at least reveal one unqualified triumph for independent British cinema. My Way Home, the third and final part of Bill Douglas’ account of his deprived Scottish childhood, shows young Jamie, the director’s a lte r ego, making his first faltering steps towards self-expression during his national service in Egypt. With the relentlessly bleak Scottish scenes (dominated by

Ulrike Ottinger’s visually inventive and all-female Madame X.

O pposite: scene from Girlfriends.

black-clad figures moving through dark rooms and grimy landscapes) giving way to the sun-bleached spaces of the North African desert, Douglas’ film is, literally and spiritually, the record of a journey from darkness to light, a hymn to friendship, and a formal exploration of the way in which the staples of naturalism, stripped to their essentials and relocated in uncluttered com­ positions, can still convey an intense, almost expressionistic vision. Living proof that style and humanism, form and feeling, are not incompatible.

While naturalism, humanism and a thick blanket of social oppression dominated the independent films produced in Britain, those from the U.S. used their independence to encompass a more idiosyncratic range of forms and feelings. Particularly worthy of mention were Family Portrait Sittings (by Alfred Guzzetti) and The Foreigner (by Amos Poe).

The first, shot over four years, used a mixture of interviews and old photographs to trace the history of an Italian-American family through four generations, following their migration from Abruzzo (to which the filmmakers return for a brief visit) to the cities, and then the suburbs of Pennsylvania.

Guzzetti embarked on the project in part because he was fascinated by the essentially radical analysis which his great-uncle (since his grandfather’s death, the head of the family dynasty) could make of the war in Vietnam, and was anxious to trace the source of the old man’s perceptions of society as a vast economic struggle. What he — or rather they — reveal is the way in which the major ‘personal’ decisions of their lives have been prompted by forces beyond their control (the Depression, the War); and through his beautifully structured film, Guzzetti creates a film which is both a major statement about the relationship between history and individuals, and about time (past and remembered shaping the present), which remains unpretentious and lovingly personal.

Amos Poe’s film is, on the other hand, at times extremely pretentious, especially when it attempts a knowing reference to other films and filmmakers.

The story of a German punk-hero, Max Menace, trying to make an unspecified kind of underworld connection in New York City, is at its strongest in generating an atmosphere of meaningless violence, a world of threatening surfaces from which cause-and-effect have been abolished. It is as if the title character from The American Soldier had strayed into an early Wenders’ short: a nightmare-world of generalized terror in which each specific act of aggression is, unfortunately, an anti-climax: not because the characters are dehuman­ ized, but precisely because they behave as if they have watched too many Warhol superstars.

The up-market end of the U.S. independents brought Driver, a totally unmotivated game of cross-and-doublecross between Ryan O’Neal (behind the wheel) and Bruce Dern as the detective.

Despite its pretensions to existential statement, the film (directed by Walter Hill) is one elaborate chase sequence; and the most existential thing about it is its assumption that motion is more interesting than motivation.

Also, there was Citizen’s Band, Jonathan Demme’s hilarious adventure (part chase film, part just-folks Americana) set among the radio freaks of the American hinterland; an anarchic adventure comedy built from the observation that sophisticated technology is commonly in the hands of very primitive people.

Two other films in the Festival, one from Japan and the other from Hungary, were of particular formal interest.

Although made as a commercial film for Toei, Terayama’s The Boxer (premiered at last year’s Paris festival) skilfully manages to combine the conventional grammar of the action melodrama (Rocky-style) with enough subversive devices to question the entire genre.

The film stars Japanese pop-singer Kentaro Shimizu as the aspiring prize­ fighter, being taught to hate by ¿n alcoholic ex-champ who salvages some of his self-respect in the process. But the back-streets of the Tokyo they inhabit are peopled by highly-stylized dwarfs, pimps, prostitutes (members of Tera­ yama’s Tenjosajiki theatre company), who all behave as if they were resolved to out-parody every Fellini circus act.

The clash of idioms works: the audience, endlessly alternating identification and distanciation, is caught up in the story yet constantly forced to question the way in which it (and many others before it) is told.

A more extreme formal experiment was American Torso, based on a Civil War story by Ambrose Bierce and made as a student film by the young Hungarian, Gabor Body. One of its central characters is a rationalist, in charge of reconnaissance and per­ ennially viewing the world through an assortment of telescopes and periscopes, whose viewfinders leave their marks on the film we watch, dividing the frame, and reminding us of the selective nature of images and emphasis. This process, combined with Body’s constant experiments with light, to suggest ‘found’ historical footage, and to question some of our most deepseated assumptions about images and the conventions of historical narration, though at first irritating, eventually imposes its own historical layer on the film: it emerges as a complex demonstration of a 1976 filmmaker recreating the effects of 1910 cinematography to narrate a story set in the 1860s. ★

Babette Mangolte’s Camera Je, an exploration of the relationship between photographer and subject.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 275

l.lRboUoom ooloo “ W o o llo o m o o lo o ” is a so c ia l and h is to r ic a l documentary detailing the redevelopment of one of the old maritime areas beside Sydney harbor. Directed by Pat Fiske, Denise White and Peter Gailey, it received a Special Award “ for its deeply committed presentation of an important social document” at the 1978 Australian Film Awards.

The film begins with the publication, in 1969, of a Sydney City Council-approved scheme for redevelopment of the area. It then progresses chronologically through to late 1977 when the first part of the Housing Com­ m ission’s building program, a renovation project, was completed.

In 1970, the New South Wales Department of Main Roads began resuming land in Woolloomooloo to make way for the Eastern Freeway. Then, in 1972, Gateway Developments announced plans to demolish 11 acres of the area for high rise development.

This was opposed by local residents who formed a Residents’ Action Group and called on the NSW branch of the Builders Laborers’ Federation and the Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association for support.

In November 1972, the BLF and the FEDFA placed Wool­ loomooloo under a green ban. This halted further “Woolloomooloo” is the result of your involvement in the green ban m ovem ent. Could you describe your backgrounds?

Denise: I became involved in resident action when I was living in Randwick and fighting the Randwick Council over proposed developments. At the time, many of my friends were squatting in

Victoria St. There was a lot of u n co n tro lle d red ev elo p m en t going on in Sydney: there were so many cavities, the city was like a mouth with all its teeth knocked out.

Like many others I had taken part in the Vietnam War mor­ atoriums, and mucked around with the left wing. I followed the activities of the Builders Laborers’

A house, and a protest, on Victoria St. Woolloomooloo.

276 — Cinema Papers, March-April

demolition or construction by withdrawing union labor.

The green bans were a landmark in Australian union history — one of the rare times a union stepped outside traditional demands for wages and conditions, and took an active role in more general community issues. For the first time, also, communities, including residents’ groups from the middle and upper classes, sought the assistance of trade unions.

In the following interview, Barbara Alysen talks with two of the filmmakers, Pat Fiske and Denise White, about their film. * Pat Fiske is an American who came to Australia in the early 1970s. She worked as a speech therapist, secretary, trainee-teacher and builders laborer. In 1973 she made her first film, “ Burstforth” , which was followed by “ Hearts and Spades” , “ Push On” and “ Ladies Room” .

Denise White was involved in some of the community action that occurred in Sydney during the early 1970s. In 1974 she worked on the Anti-Expressway Groups’ Community Access Program for ABC Television (along with John Fisher, Alan Rees and Peter Murphy). Her film s include the 28 min videotape “ The Social Res­ ponsibility of Industrial Unions” and “ Woolloomooloo” .

Federation; the unionists were like heroes to us.

The green bans gave weak people power, and for a long time I felt the unionists were so wonderful that someone ought to make a Film about them.

Pat: I was involved in anti-war activities in the U.S. and came to Australia in 1972. In Sydney I became involved in the Women’s

Movement, took up still photo­ graphy and joined in the campaign to save Victoria St. during the last months of the squatting there.

The green bans were unique — something I had never heard of before. Unions in the U.S. are very weak and don’t have much impact.

Concluded on P. 279

A mural painted during the green ban period. Woolloomooloo.

2. Green City ‘‘Green City” traces the history of the green bans, from Kelly’s Bush to Victoria St, and the destruction of the New South Wales branch of the Builders Laborers’ Federation.

In June 1971, an area of bushland in Sydney’s affluent Hunters H ill district was re-zoned for development. The residents of the area formed an action group to fight the zoning and sought the help of two trade unions — the Fed­ erated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association and the NSW branch of the BLF — in imposing a black ban on development.

The NSW branch of the BLF was then under the leader­ ship of Jack Mundey (secretary) and Joe Owens, members of the Communist Party of Australia, and Bob Pringle (president). Both unions agreed to assist the residents. In doing so they affirmed the right of a trade union to involve itself in wider political issues than the fight for wages and conditions.

The struggle for Kelly’s Bush led to the term “ green ban” — a black ban imposed to conserve communities and the environment.

During the next three years, green bans were imposed on several other areas of Sydney. The bans halted proposed high-rise and commercial building in the res­ idential areas of Woolloomooloo and Victoria St, and also prevented the building of a sports complex across Moore Park, a green belt in Sydney’s eastern suburbs.

In June 1974, the Master Builders’ Association successfully applied to the courts to de-register the BLF over the activities of the NSW branch. In order to regain registration, the federal branch of the union began pressuring the NSW branch to absorb its functions. In June 1975, the action was successful. The NSW branch was absorbed by the federal body and many green bans ended.

In this interview, Barbara Alysen talks with the director of “ Green City” , Richard Cole.

Cole is a news cameraman with TCN 9 In Sydney. He has worked as a still photographer and as a trainee director in a commercial production house. “ Green City” , made with Doug Craig and finished in 1978, is Cole’s first film.

months I ”saw an important social trend emerging. It seemed logical to try and capture this in a doc­ umentary.

processing and related costs. The film could not have been made on such a low budget without the assistance of Frank Heimans, at Cinetel, and Doug^'Craig.

Doug had left TCN and was freelancing, using Cinetel as a base, but he honored his commit­ ment to the project and con­ tributed very largely to the end result. Frank gave us use of his editing rooms, when available. Of course, that was often only at night, and on many occasions we

Have you any background of political involvement?

No, I am not affiliated with any political party, though I guess I could be described as “ leftish” .

How did you become involved in f i l m i n g t h e g r e e n ban movement?

Photograph courtesy of

The Sydney Morning Herald.

I had filmed a lot of demon­ strations for television between 1972 and ’74, and over those

loan. We submitted a rough out­ line but the assessors felt it was not adequate and asked us to put something on film. So we dragged out all the stock footage we thought was relevant and put it to What was your next step? the song Big Yellow Taxi. It was Doug Craig, who cut the film, pretty horrible, but the Creative and I were working at TCN, and Development Branch bought it we were going to work on it with a and gave us $6000. This was in journalist. It did not work out that August, 1975.

A proviso of the grant was that way, and it was a journalist and myself who applied to the Aust­ the money could not be used for ralian Film Commission for a newsreel footage, only for stock,

A green ban demonstration in Sydney. Joe Owens is holding the banner at left.

Jack Mundey under escort during a demonstration in Sydney.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 277 v

“The most significant feature of the green ban era was that ordinary residents and a union with a social conscience linked up in a unique coming-together; also, that a trade union expressed concerns for issues beyond the hip-pocket nerve with its members examining the consequences of their labor.

“The filmmakers who made “Woolloomooloo”, having been closer to the participants, capture the intimacies of the struggle, but for someone not initiated into the events, “Green City” provides a sound introduction,” — Jack Mundey worked till dawn, aided by the odd flagon of white, before staggering off to our respective paying jobs.

Given you were recording an on­ going event, when did you expect to complete the film?

We had to give a definite com­ pletion date to the AFC, so we allowed two weeks for shooting and two for editing. We all knew it was going to take longer and 1 suppose we felt we would stop when we had a complete picture of the period.

Even if the green bans had con­ tinued today, I think we would still have ended it where we did.

Where did the demonstration footage come from?

By the time we got the money, most of the big demonstrations — Playfair St and Fig St — had already happened. We had an assurance from TCN that we could have their footage, but it was in black-and white. This worried us, since TCN had already gone to color and they must have had color footage. But after months of persecuting their lib­ rarian it became clear that we were getting nowhere.

We knew no one at the ABC, so we did not even try them. In the end we decided to go with what we had. That meant trying to inte­ grate the black and white into the color footage.

Pat Fiske and Denise White also approached you for newsreel footage for their film, “Woolloomooloo” . Did you mind?

Actually, they approached Doug Craig and I did not know until after the event. Had I known, I might have thought twice.

Is there any common footage?

Some of the material on Vic­ toria St is used in both films, but it doesn’t matter as they are quite dissimilar films.

What sort of material did you film independently of your job at TCN? 278 — Cinema Papers, Màrch-April

Mainly interviews, the pub scene with Mick Fowler, and the overlay and linking shots in the various locations. Nearly all the color footage is original.

We s h o t 17 in te r v ie w s altogether, though most did not survive.

What about the unionists you interviewed — did they make stipulations?

No, there was no attempt at censorship or vetting the film by anyone involved, including the developers. That surprised me.

One of the developers you inter­ viewed in the film looked ill at ease and evasive. . .

going on there was bound to be opposition from affected residents and so on. These things had to clash sooner or later.

What about the personalities: do you think Mundey, Owens and Pringle had their roles blown out of proportion?

These people appear very little in the film and I have often been asked why we did not show more of Jack Mundey, since many people associate the green ban phenomenon with him. Maybe it would not have happened without people like Mundey, but what appealed to me was the story of a conflict of interests — a conflict between people. Too many people see it as a personal conflict between Mundey and the dev­ elopers, rather than a social phenomenon.

That is an interpretation. After all, he didn’t have to do the inter­ view; he only did it because, as far as he was concerned, it was a lowbudget film that would never be Do you think it was right for a shown anywhere. He asked to see union to involve itself in act­ me before shooting, to check me ivities not directly concerned out. When he saw I was not . with its members’ pay and con­ wearing a green beret and a flak ditions? jacket, I guess he was quite happy Yes, and I think time has vin­ to talk about his side of the story. dicated that. If you look back at it The film is quite a dispassionate now and realize that if it had not progression through very tur­ been for union activity, places like Kelly’s Bush would not exist, I bulent events. . . think that speaks for itself.

Jack Mundey is not regarded as There are two schools of thought on this. I was told by a radical now, he is almost a some people that a good doc­ conformist. umentary should have a point of view and should be strongly I wonder what kind of leap was biased to avoid the Four Corners involved for the residents of style of reporting. But I do not H unters Hi l l , surrounding necessarily believe that people Kelly’s Bush, having to approach switch off if they think there is a a communist-led union? strong bias.

When it came to the crunch I do I think the film does lean in one direction, but I wanted to make it not think they even thought about as subtle as possible. I genuinely it. They had tried all the legal wanted to give everyone a point of .channels, all the genteel and view and show all sides of the proper channels, and they were obviously being screwed. They story. only had one outlet and they went What was your own view of the there. I am sure the incongruity of these middle-class, conservative green bans? people fraternizing with militant I think they were inevitable. unionists never occurred to them.

There was gigantic financial pressure on the city in a time of Were you ever threatened per­ economic boom and, with full sonally while filming demon­ employment, the unions were strations? flexing their muscles. With the The only incident occurred tremendous amount of building

while we were filming a truck-load of builders laborers occupying a site in Playfair St. They had been drinking a few tinnies and one of the laborers fell off. The sound­ man and I were threatened by a couple of guys who said we del­ iberately shot this guy falling off the truck to give the impression that they were all drunk. Tempers became a bit flared and people were hurt.

People have also criticised the film for being very anti-police, which was never intended. The footage that was available was of people being dragged around and thrown into paddy wagons, and so forth, and I used it.

But you were also responsible for shooting some of it as part of your job. . .

I did not shoot all the footage that was used, only a small proportion of it. When you are out as a news cameraman you film what happens and, let’s face it, commercial news is part of show­ business — unless a story has some visual impact it is not con­ sidered good news. So obviously you film the action stuff.

Does TCN put an onus on you not to risk equipment or, on the other hand, to take risks to get good footage?

Well, television news is not non-stop violence — these punchups might only happen once a year. The rest of the time it is boring news conferences and interviews.

When these situations arise you just play it by ear. Cameras do get broken, but they are insured, and you just try and get the best footage you can. The “ best” in these situations means the stuff with the most action or violence in it.

Often the stations compete against one another to get the most action, which is pretty silly and does not have much to do with the issues. But in a 60 or 90 second spot you don’t have much time for information; you just try to entertain.

What do you intend doing with the film?

At the moment I have two prints overseas: one was shown at the Chicago Film Festival, and the other has been accepted for the Leipzig Festival.

I have always thought of the market for the film as being foreign rather than local, even though the type of union activity it depicts seems to be unique to Australia. For instance, there is a lot of reaction against nuclear power plants in Germany at present, but it does not seem to have been initiated by unions — it is a community action. ★

FILMING THE GREEN BANS

Continuedfrom P. 216 How did you come to work as a builders laborer?

Pat: I came out as a speech therapist but couldn’t get work. I hated working as a secretary, so Janne Reed, with whom I was sharing a house and was working as a laborer, suggested I try that. I asked around and someone told me to show up at a site at 6.30 a.m. one day. I did, and was taken on.

You were a laborer, not a “ nipper”1?

Pat: Yes. When I first walked onto the site the foreman just gasped. But it was a great exper­ ience, and I learned a lot.

I was a laborer for 10 months, on four different job sites. We walked off a few times because green bans stopped development in different places. I then lost three jobs in two weeks over the collapse of the Mainline company.

I ended going to work in the union office.

In 1973 and 1974 there had been a lot of green bans, but after that pressure was put on the unions. The federal branch moved in and took over the Broadway site (the Institute of Technology building). We occupied the site and some people went up in the crane and stayed there as part of the protest.

During the second week of the occupation I went up in the crane for a few days. I took a'camera with me and filmed what I could.

Denise and I met at the Blinky Bill Film Workshop in 1973. In 1975 we got back together to make a film about the BLF and the green bans. We drafted a budget and an outline, and put it to the Australian Film Com­ mission. They gave us $5300.

How long did you think the film would take to complete?

Pat: One year.

Denise: Oh less. We thought it would take a few months.

What was the commercial news coverage of the disputes like?

impulsively.

Pat: We did'not start collecting footage until late 1974. Con­ sequently, a lot of what we worked with came from news teams.

We tried everywhere to get newsreel footage — all the legal ways. The ABC charged $13 per foot, and although they had shot thousands of feet of demon­ strations, etc., there was very little in their library. Only at one tele­ vision station was there a librarian who thought the footage impor­ tant enough to put away. She let us look at it and then we went to the news director who said, “ You can have it for $200, just as long as we don’t know anything about it.”

Denise: We explained that it was a non-commercial film, which would not make much money and so on. He was very nervous about it.

Later, we got some other footage from Richard Cole and Doug Craig.

Was there much private footage around?

Denise: Peter Murphy2 who had been shooting in Victoria St, had about 800ft.

Pat: Also, some people at Film Australia wanted to make a film on Victoria St, and they arranged to make a training film. They wanted to work as a collective, but the heads at Film Australia wanted the project to have a producer and d ire c to r, and somehow they never agreed.

The film was shelved and we approached the film library to use the footage they had already shot, but Film Australia was very reluctant. They were worried about the political angle, although by then much of the heat had gone out of the issues.

Finally, we gave them a written undertaking that we would not use any of the footage to place people in a bad light.

How many interviews did you do?

Denise: Eighteen on film, plus two on video.

Was it hard getting to talk to the politicians and developers Denise: It dramatized every­ involved? thing and did not discuss the issues well. Even when the issues 2. Peter Murphy is perhaps better received wide coverage — and known as a still photographer. there was a lot of footage on tele­ vision — the resident activists were treated as being a bit silly, as th o u g h th e y w e re a c tin g 1. The New South Wales branch of the BLF advocated equal opportunities for women and, as part of that policy, some 50-60 women joined the union between 1972 and 1974. Most of these women worked as “ nippers” , doing such work as cleaning, collecting lunches for the laborers and, in some cases, First-aid duty.

Only some 10-15 women actually became laborers, among them Janne Reed and Pat Fiske.

Denise: In one case I had to go through several preliminary inter­ views before I got to speak to a developer. I then spent a lunch hour talking to him. The man was paranoid, and very indignant about the news coverage of the squatting, but he felt I was innocuous — I just acted dumb.

He kept insisting the evictions were legal and that his plans for r e d e v e lo p m e n t had b e e n misrepresented.

On the other hand, there was another developer who really wanted to talk.

All those people you interviewed seemed at ease on camera. Do you think being a woman helped?

Denise: I think it helped a lot. I was aware that I came across as a non-threatening person.

Pat: One of the people we interviewed started by giving us a beer, then became more and more talkative. Finally he pulled out a small pistol and said, “ I’ve been threatened a few times; I have to carry this around.”

When did the film change from being about the Bui l ders Laborers’ Federation to being about Woolloomooloo?

half of intense work. We never had enough money and every­ thing had to be done on the cheap.

The ratio of money to energy was disastrous.

Towards the end of the editing, we asked different people to come and look at it. We would screen the first cut, which was two hours long, every weekend and then discuss it — what people liked, what they found boring. That helped us cut it\ down to 75 minutes.

Was the $5300 all the funding you received?

Denise: No, after we got it to double-head we received an addit­ ional $5000. M ore' recently, we were given a grant of $2500 to pay off our debts.

How much did the film cost to make?

Pat: About $16,000. There were grants totalling $13,000, and we added the remaining $3000.

We paid almost no one: apart from the sound mix, the sound editing and the neg cutting, it was produced by voluntary labor.

What was the shooting ratio?

Denise: It is hard to tell because Pat: We started editing at the we split the material into two beginning of 1977 and as we had a films. Perhaps 15 or 20 to 1. By lot of footage on Woolloomooloo, the time we did the interviews we we thought we would start there. were very worried about money, Also, the original concept had so the interviews were highly become too complicated; we structured with a very low ratio. realized that we were trying to do too much in one film.

Are you now working on the Denise: Peter Gailey joined us second film? at this stage. He had shot some footage of Victoria St for Film Pat: At the moment we are-both Australia, and came in to help us too weary to finish it, although I edit — neither of us had done may work on it later. much editing before. The decision We made Woolloomooloo prim­ to divide the material into two arily for Australians, and it has films was a direct result of our been received well here. But I involvement in the issues. We know people overseas have heard wanted to explain the progression about green bans and are inter­ of events and needed to go into ested. Since the Australian exper­ some detail to do that. ience, there have been green bans We also wanted a chronological in Britain and New Zealand. film where people could follow the I am taking Woolloomooloo to story, but where those involved the U.S. to screen it on the told it. That meant using as little university circuit and wherever narration as possible. We felt it else I can. I am curious to see would be stronger that way. whether people in the U.S. can understand the accent. It has been When did you complete the film? shown by the B ritish Film Institute in London and at the Pat: In 1978, after a year and a Chicago Film Festival. ★

FILM INSURANCE TRENDS

Robert Le Tet The Adair Insurance Broking Group recently arranged a visit by a British film insurance specialist, Mr Keith Aylwin, managing director of Oakeley Vaughan Entertainment Services Ltd, London. The purpose of the visit was to meet with some of the Australian film prin­ cipals, get a working knowledge of the local industry, explain film insurance trends in the U.S. and Britain, and generally answer any queries peculiar to the Australian situation.

Mr Aylwin said that outside the major U.S. and British production companies there was little knowledge about the range and scope of film insurances available. He also said that to get the best cover for the most com­ petitive price an insurance broker should be associated with the production as early as practicable. By working from the shooting script, crosspiot, schedule and budget he can advise the producer on the insurances he needs, and by assessing the risks accurately the premiums need not allow for unknown contingencies.

Insurance premiums are already a significant budget item (about 3 per cent, excluding workers compen­ sation, for a typical $500,000 Australian production), but if the Australian Film Commission does not continue to provide the completion guarantee for films it invests in, and “Errors and Omissions” insurance becomes mandatory for overseas distribution, then producers can look towards total insurance premiums reaching as high as 12 per cent of a $500,000 production. This per­ centage figure can vary substantially, either up or down, depending on budget size, subject matter, locations, special effects, cast, etc. However, it is reasonable to assume that the provision for insurance is going to increase significantly.

Insurance costs cannot be avoided by producers adopting a “go it alone” attitude because investors are looking more and more closely at the security of their investment. Also,, the sudden increase in lawsuits involving libel, invasions of privacy and theft of ideas in the U.S. and Britain that have involved distributors and exhibitors will result in a mandatory errors and omissions cover for overseas and even possibly local distribution.

The problem is how can a fledgling industry maintain its competitive edge when faced with rising costs that do not add to production values. Part of the solution rests with claim minimization by an even more profess­ ional approach by the producer, by careful selection of a professional film insurance broker and perhaps by 280 — Cinema Papers, March-April

composite insurance purchasing by an organization representing all or a group of Australian productions.

With film insurance premiums currently totalling about $250,000 a year, composite insurance purchasing, by either the AFC or one of the state corporations, could do a lot towards dampening the escalating costs in this area.

The main insurances available are: 1. PRE-PRODUCTION AND FILM PRODUCER’S INDEMNITY INSURANCE which covers the loss

incurred by the producer if certain named people, usually the director and several principal artistes, are unable to work on the production as scheduled because of accident or illness.

In the event one of those insured is involved, in an accident or suffers an illness which either delays prin­ cipal photography or causes the film to be abandoned, the policy pays: (i) In the event of filming being delayed, any additional expenses incurred by the producer while waiting for the insured person to recover. (ii) In the event of the film being abandoned, all abortive costs incurred to date are covered, together with all unavoidable additional costs.

The premium is charged as a rate on the estimated costs incurred up to completion of principal photo­ graphy. The rate depends on the number of people to be insured and the length of time taken to complete filming.

The producer is normally required to pay for the first part of any loss: either, (i) the first U.S. $10,000 of costs incurred, or (ii) no loss will be paid unless an insured person is incapacitated for more than 48 hours.

It is necessary for all those to be insured under the policy to be medically examined by a doctor.

2. ALL RISKS NEGATIVE INSURANCE which pays the loss incurred by the production if the negative is lost, stolen or damaged in any way.

The policy is divided into two sections: (i) Negative: this covers the raw stock and exposed negative against loss or damage. In the event of a loss the policy pays for the replacement of the stock and for the cost of reshooting any footage lost or damaged. (ii) Faulty stock, faulty camera and processing: this pays the additional costs to the production should the production be delayed because:

(a) the raw stock is faulty; (b) the camera has a fault which leads to the negative being wrongly exposed or damaged; (c) an error occurs during processing.

The producer is sometimes required to carry the first U.S. $5000 of any loss falling under Section (ii).

The policy excludes losses arising from mechanical or electrical breakdown of the camera unless the neg­ ative is actually damaged.

The premium is charged as a rate on the cost of the production to the completion of an answer print or C.R.I. 3. ALL RISKS INSURANCE which covers the actual value of the equipment, props sets and wardrobe being used on a production.

The producer is normally required to pay the first part of any loss, say U.S. $5000. The premium is cal­ culated as a rate on the total value of the items to be insured. , 4. EXTRA EXPENSE INSURANCE which covers the producer against additional costs incurred if the production is delayed because props, sets or equip­ ment are damaged or destroyed.

The policy normally requires the producer to pay the first part of any loss' say about U.S. $2500.

The premium is charged as a rate on the cost of production, and varies according to the type, size and complexity of sets being built.

5. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE which covers the producer against costs and compensation that may become payable if the content of the production is found to be slanderous or libellous. The policy also covers invasiorr of copyright, invasion of privacy and theft of ideas.

Most major distribution companies now have a clause in their contracts which state that the production company must carry this insurance.

Policies are normally arranged for a period of two years for minimum limits of U.S. $250,000 for any one claim, and U.S.$500,000 for all claims.

The policy, naturally, is subject to the producer’s attorneys taking necessary steps to ascertain that the subject is available for use as a feature film.

The producer normally has to bear the first U.S. $5000 of any claim under the policy, including legal expenses. *

GUIDE FOR THE AUSTRALIAN FILM PRODUCER:

PART 13

NON-THEATRICAL AND OTHER EXPLOITATION OF THE FILM In this 13th part of an 18-part series, Cinema Papers contributing editor Antony I Ginnane, and Melbourne solicitors Ian Baillieu and Leon Gorr, discuss the rapidly-expanding avenues of non-theatrical exploitation of a finished film.

A. Introduction The term “ non-theatrical” has been strictly used by the film trade to refer to the distribution of 16 mm films in situations where no formal admission charge is made for patrons: i.e. the opposite of theatrical distribution where an admission fee is charged.

The term has also been used in a looser sense to include television distribution in all its fo rm s, so-called “ over the c o u n te r” distribution, in-flight distribution, the distribution of video cassettes and video discs, etc.

In this article all these “ non-theatrical” rights will be discussed, but the term “ non­ theatrical” will be used in its traditional sense.

B. Non-Theatrical Distribution (i) Australia Non-theatrical distribution in Australia encompasses some club screenings, film societies, cruise ships and other specialized hirings.

There are many small specialist libraries that import 16 mm prints of films that have not been brought into Australia on 35 mm; libraries such as the Vincent Library, Sharmill Films, the Sydney Filmmakers Co-op and Quality Films. Some of these libraries also import 35 mm material. The Australian Council of Film Societies has published a comprehensive list of these non-theatrical hirers.

There are also two major non-theatrical libraries which handle the 16 mm distribution of films already imported into Australia on 35 mm or 70 mm by the major American distributors, and the major Australian in d ep en d en t d istrib u to rs. These are Australasian Film Hire, which maintains offices in most states and handles, inter alia, Roadshow, Filmways, Warners, C.I.C., GUO and Disney product; .and Fox-Columbia 16 mm, which handles UA, Fox and Columbia product. Fox-Columbia 16 mm operates out of the Fox-Columbia exchanges in each capital.

A 16 mm print order can range from one print for a specialized ‘art’ film to 25 or 30 prints for a blockbuster. Non-theatrical gross revenue in Australia can go as high as $40,000, but is generally between $10,000 and $20,000 for a reasonably popular title.

There are a number of different non­ theatrical deals possible, but Australasian Film Hire, whose deals are typical, usually works on one of two arrangements: (1) Australasian Film Hire advances all costs of prints (but not the cost of making a 16

mm negative), recoups its costs and charges 35 per cent distribution fee, or (2) the producer provides prints free of charge and Australasian Film Hire distributes for 25 per cent.

Either deal may prove the more lucrative, depending on the potential of the film.

An Australian producer, in negotiating his distribution deal, will often find that the distributor needs non-theatrical as well as theatrical distribution rights to be included in the licence. The producer should endeavor to have the non-theatrical revenue fed directly to him, otherwise the theatrical distributor will charge his distribution fee, and the producer will, in effect, be paying double commission.

Whether the producer is able to convince the theatrical distributor to meet the sub­ distributor’s fee out of his share of the proceeds will, of course, depend on his market place leverage. (ii) Foreign It would be extremely rare for a foreign theatrical distribution deal not to include non­ theatrical rights, although one can always try to negotiate. The rights are of some tangible value in Britain and Canada, and potentially very valuable in the U.S. if the film is of the sort that can crack the lucrative campus circuits. If the theatrical and non-theatrical rights are granted the producer should also be wary of double distribution fees.

Britain, Canada and the U.S. have many specialist 16 mm distributors, and it may be that certain Australian films would be better Cinema Papers, March-April — 281

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

off going directly into n o n -th e a tric al distribution, rather than spending large sums on a major theatrical launch.

C. Television (i) Australia To anyone who has had much experience of the jungle of international film selling in theatrical and non-theatrical markets, a television deal is like a breath of fresh air. It is clean money with no deductions, and no need for checking, audits and the like. Most television contracts are relatively easily discountable and funds are made available quickly.

Australian television stations have been heavily involved in the renaissance of the local film industry by pre-purchasing films for television, as well as direct investment — and, sometimes, a combination of both. It has been said, however, that a number of successful Australian films have not received as much for television sales as they might if they had not been pre-sold. This is undoubtedly true, but te le v isio n purchase prices have been continually increasing in Australia, and the pressure on the networks for local content has made it, in some ways, almost a seller’s market.

On the whole it is comparatively easy for the producer, in doing his theatrical distribution deal, to retain television rights for himself, provided he gives a protection period (usually three to five years) to the theatrical distributor before the film airs on television. Generally, too, the Australian distributor does not even need television cross-collateralization for any advance he may pay for theatrical rights.

There is some doubt whether a major distributor could get a higher price for the producer’s feature by including it in a package of imported films, but, of course, the premium obtained would need to be in excess of the distribution fee to make it worthwhile.

There are dangers too if the producer’s contract does not have controls over the price of their “ failures” to the detriment of the independent producer. One m ethod of controlling this is to stipulate a minimum price below which the distributor cannot sell.

Television contracts are generally for four screenings over five, seven or 10 years.

Sometimes more screenings are included, but the producer must ensure that he does not then have to pay out residual fees to talent employed.

Contracts can be for the capital city network stations only, or for all Australia. If the producer only sells capital cities, he can then onsell to the various country stations and nonaligned capital city stations. Of course, the price he gets will be less if he only sells capitals.

The price range for Australian feature television sales is, at present, between $50,000 and $110,000. The success at the theatrical box-office, coupled with suitability for television, will affect this price. Much higher fees, of course, have been obtained by overseas blockbusters.

Certain television networks are currently offering premium prices for the early airing of Australian features. This can mean an additional 25 per cent or more on the purchase price. Normally, the station will want the film to go to air 12 to 24 months after theatrical release, as opposed to three to five years. The producer must carefully weigh the advantages of this extra fee against the negative effects of 282 — Cinema Papers, March-April

exhibitor resistance, theatrical and non­ theatrical, if word gets out (as it always does) that the film has been sold. Except in special circumstances, it is probably only worthwhile if the film has either been a failure at the box­ office, or has had very fast theatrical play-off.

Normally, it is the responsibility of the producer to supply, at his cost, a new 16 mm television-acceptable print of the film to the network as part of the deal. The print must be satisfactorily “ panned and scanned” if the film is scope.

Some stations, however, are now prepared to accept a dub of a 2” master video tape. (ii) Foreign Many Australian films have had limited foreign theatrical potential and have been sold direct to television. Frequently, as in the case of the BBC in London and Janus Films in Germany, theatrical and non-theatrical rights have also been acquired as a sort of inverted protection. In Britain, a union-enforced fiveyear ban on television airing of feature films already released theatrically has meant that films of limited box-office potential have been better off going directly to television.

Where films are licensed theatrically abroad, it is generally possible to keep the television rights free, again giving an appropriate protection period. Then, five or seven years later, the television rights can be licensed.

Sometimes, of course, the distributor will at least need, if his advance minimum guarantee is a large one, that the proceeds or part of the proceeds of any television sale be made available to him as a protection in the event he does not recoup his advance, and sometimes his launch costs.

Again, a theatrical distributor may agree to handle later television sales for a percentage (not cross-collateralized). This may be a good idea as he probably knows his own market place best. Of course, appropriate “ allocation” protection clauses or base prices will need to be in the contract.

The U.S. is a special case. American distributors generally want all rights, and want those rights to be cross-collateralized. They argue that high advances and launch costs make this necessary. Normally (and these days frequently by way of pre-sale) the film will be sold to an American network: either CBS, NBC or ABC. Millions of dollars can be involved and to date none of the new Australian films have attained a network sale.

The networks very rarely buy for their premium-based “ prime time” anything other than U. S. theatrical, “ made for television” or so-called “ international” films (e.g. Zulu Dawn, Wild Geese, Superman). A “ late night” network, which specializes in action, suspense and horror, frequently buys European dubbed material and independent American films for prices around U.S. $250,000-$400,000.

A “ Saturday morning” network often screens G and PG rated material for prices around U.S. $100,000. Network advance contracts frequently need a minimum of theatrical play-dates.

Network screenings usually take place two years down the line. If a network deal is done, and sometimes if not, Home Box Office1, or its equivalent, will screen the film to its subscribers 12 months or so after first theatrical release.

1. Home Box Office is a subscription television service which is a separate deal and can be worth around U.S. $100,000 for a fair or average quality release. Television owners buy a subscription to a special cable channel.

After network screenings, or immediately after theatrical release, if no network sale is forthcoming, the film can be placed in a syndication package. This means it is sold by an agent to various television stations — independent as well as network affiliates. (The network affiliates take it for inclusion in their non-network programming.)

There are three major syndicators based in New York: World Vision, ViaCom and TimeLife (which owns Home Box Office), and many smaller outfits. The syndicator takes a fee (around 20 per cent), deducts his syndication costs (brochures, product reel), etc., and then remits. A fair or average quality film could pick up another $100,000 to $200,000 via syndication. Syndicators sell in packages, and again allocation protection is needed.

Public Broadcasting Service is a loosely-knit ‘fourth network’ which shows Australian ABC type material and purchases, either city by city or on a whole country basis, specialist features.

Many Australian features would seem suitable for PBS sale. A sale price may be as high as U.S. $50,000 for the U.S. It is important to note that the producer should only sell as many television transmissions as he has in his Equity agreement unless he wants to pay extra residuals.

Producers should also note that the New York syndicators and others (e.g. Paramount Television) also sell features to television on a worldwide basis, sometimes paying advances of up to U.S. $150,000 or more. Generally this is a good way to go only if it has been established there is little theatrical potential in the film anywhere.

D. Supplemental Markets (i) Australia The area of “ supplemental markets” (as Equity terms them) is still unresolved within Australia. There has been very limited hotel and inflight distribution; some “ over the counter” sales of 16 mm and 8 mm prints, and shortened versions; and some small operators are involved in various video cassette systems.

So far, Australian Equity has not granted supplemental market performance rights in its feature film agreements and is presently discussing these areas with film industry representatives. .

The whole area of video seems to be a grow th m ark et, and som e A u stralian distributors are now putting video protection clauses in their contracts. (ii) Foreign Video cassette sales^are in full swing in the U.S. and major film distributors are licensing selections from their libraries to video wholesalers. Video discs too are beginning to enter the market. Almost all U.S. distributors and many foreign distributors need video rights in their distribution contracts. Again, Australian Equity has not licensed these rights, but has set out basic loadings for the exploitation.

It is hoped an industry-wide agreement will soon be reached on these matters. It does appear, however, that some A ustralian producers have already licensed video rights in certain markets, despite Equity’s position.

It is too early to estimate the size and potential of these markets for Australian producers, but it is hoped to be able to provide such information in the Subscription Service as it comes to hand. ★

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

Th e Australian Film Producers & Investors Guide SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE

Written by

Antony I. Ginnane LL B ., (Melb.)

Ian Baillieu M. A. Juris (Oxon)

Leon Gorr

Edited by

B. Juris., LL. B ., (Mon.)

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 tabie 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.

Peter Beiiby

REPORTING, ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING

PREPRODUCTION

Accounting and audit requirements. Record-retention obligations. Inspection of accounts. Distribution of film proceeds. Reports. Special audits.

Work which a producer may have to do besides acquiring rights and developing screenplay, in order to bring project to production.

MISCELLANEOUS

BUDGETING

Glossary of terms. Exchange control. Trade Practices legislation. Books and periodicals. Film archives.

Budgeting for script development, for preproduction, and for production. Classifications. Rules of thumb for estimating.

Presentation. Timetable and cash-flow. Deferments.

THE FOREIGN PRODUCER IN AUSTRALIA

FINANCING A FILM. INVESTING IN A FILM

Information of use to a foreign producer planning production in Australia.

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.

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.

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, dubbing and subtitling. Archive copy requirements.

Retention of preprint materials. Production of trailer.

Package productions. Co-productions. Financiers’ rights to interfere.

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.

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 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.

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.

I

ORDER FORM

Please record my subscription to The Australian l Film Producers and Investors Guide. My cheque • for $150 payable to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd is ■ enclosed.

THE EXHIBITOR

■ Name_______________________________ _

Registration of cinemas. Regulations affecting cinema operation. Economics of cinema operations.

! Address___________________________________

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.

■ ________________________

: ■

Postcode_______

To: The Australian Film Producers and Investors Guide.

644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne Vic. 3051, Australia Telephone: (03) 329 5983

Cinema Papers, March-April — 283

INTERNATIONAL P R O D U C T IO N R O U N D -U P UNITED STATES John Huston is to direct Wise Blood, starring Brad Dourif and Ned Beatty. It will be Huston’s first film since The Man Who Would Be King in 1975.

Marshall Brickman, co-writer on most of Woody Allen’s recent films, is turning to direction with Simon. Set in New York, the film is a comedy.

Orion Pictures, which was formed by the break-away group from United Artists, has bought the rights of several novels, including Robin Cook’s Sphinx (for which they paid U.S. $500,000); Final Paym ents (the film of which will be directed by John Schlesinger, and will star Diane Keaton); Prince o f the City (to star John Travolta and be directed by Brian de Palma); Sharkey’s Machine-, and W olfen (to be directed by Michael Wadleigh).

Robert Aldrich’s new film, which he is presently shooting, is No Knife. It stars Gene Wilder and Harrison Ford.

Alan J. Pakula is filming Starting Over for Paramount. Sven Nykvist is the dir­ ector of photography, and the cast includes Burt Reynolds, Jill Clayburgh and Candice Bergen.

Blake Edward’s new outing is 10, with Dudley Moore and Julie Andrews, while Steven Speilberg’s is 1941, a comedy with Dan Aykroyd, Ned Beatty and John Belushi.

James Goldstone is to make The Day the World Ended, from a screenplay by Carl Foreman and Stirling Silliphant. Paul Newman, William Holden and Jacqueline Bisset will lead the cast.

The sequel to Star Wars — The Empire Strikes Back - begins filming under Irwin Kenshner’s direction in March. Peter Suschitzky is lighting cameraman.

Director Philippe Mora is to do his third compilation documentary, Times Are a’ Changing. Produced by David Putnam for Casablanca Filmworks, the film will cover the 1960s in the U.S. It is rumored to contain some new and apparently controversial footage of President Kennedy.

Clint Eastwood and Patrick McGoohan are starring in Escape from Alcatraz, which is currently being directed by Don Seigel.

The new Jennings Lang blockbuster is Airport ’79 Concorde, with Alain Delon, Susan Blakely, Robert Wagner and Sylvia Kristel. David Lowell Rich is directing.

Gilbert Cate’s new comedy is The Last Married Couple in America. It stars George Segal and Natalie Wood.

James William Guercio, ex producer for Chicago, is making his second feature, Horn, from a screenplay by Thomas McGuane. Steve McQueen is playing the lead role.

FRANCE Claude Lelouch’s former assistant, Elie Chouraqui, is to direct Anouk Aimee in Mon premier amour. About a doomed young woman and her son, the film is an adaptation of a novel by Jacques-Alain Leger.

Andrzej Wajda is directing (in Poland) The Girls of Wilko for Moliere Prod­ uctions.

Catherine Deneuve and Jean Roche­ fort will star in Yves Robert’s Courage Let’s Run.

Jean-Luc Godard has cast Vittorib Gassman and Charlotte Rampling for his forthcoming Bugsy Siegel.

284 — Cinema Papers, March-April

Yves Robert (right) directs Nous irons tous au paradis, his film prior to Courage Let’s Run.

BRITAIN

Costa-Gavros has just completed Clair de femme with Romy Schneider and Yves Montand.

Claude Miller’s third feature is to be Java, about some can-can dancers who attend a gala at a hotel in 1900 and change the lives of many of the guests.

Mike Hodges is believed to have been chosen to replace Nicolas Roeg as dir­ ector on Flash Gordon.

Stanley Donnen is producing Saturn 3 for ITC. The film, which is being directed by former production designer John Barry (the Bond films, etc.), stars Farrah Fawcett-Majors, Kirk Douglas and Harvey Keitel.

MGM and producer Charles H. Schneer are jointly producing Clash of the Titons on a budget of U.S. $16 million. Desmohd Davis is directing the film, while Ray Harryhausen is handling the special visual effects.

Richard Lester has completed filming Cuba. The story of a British mercenary who is hired to train Batista’s soldiers in counter-insurgency, the film stars Sean Connery and Brooke Adams. The screenplay is by Charles Wood.

John Schlesinger, who seemingly announces a new project every month, is to do Honky Tonk Freeway. A con­ temporary comedy, it will be scripted by Ed Chillon.

ITALY Mario Monicelli is making Hurricane Rosy for Alberto Grimaldi’s company, PEA. It will star Gerard Depardieu.

Gian Maria Volonte and Angela Molena will star in Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Tunnel, which is to be filmed in Spain.

Ermanno Olmi, who won the Grand Prix at the Cannes Festival for his Tree of Clogs, is to make a film on the life of Tolstoi. He plans to spend several months in the Soviet Union before filming.

Alberto Bevilacqua has just completed II grande respiro with Franco Nero.

Vittorio Gassman is to make his third film as director, Armonia. The screen­ play is by Gassman and Bernardino Zapponi.

Michelangelo Antonioni is set to direct Suffer or Die. Giancarlo Giannini has so far been cast.

Other new Italian films include Alberto Sordi’s La g io rn a lis ta , Alberto Lattuadda’s La circala, and Pasquale Festa Companile’s Gege bellavista.

OTHER

Nastassja Kinski and Marcello Mastroianni in , Alberto Lattuada's Coal comme sei.

Roger Vadim has completed Night Games in Hong Kong. An erotic enter­ tainment, the film is an attempt by the successful Hong Kong company Golden Harvest to reach wider world markets.

SM

Howto shoot 1948in 1978without 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 heen 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.

*‘Newsfront’ was shot on Eastman Color Negative Film 5247 and Eastman Plus-X Negative Film 52:

-iS'i ,j

>231. The above photographs were reproduced from production stills.

“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 ECN EEcolor 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.”

A Little Technical Inform ation from Kodak.

EASTMAN Color Negative II Film 5247 (35 mm) and 7247 (16 mm) is a camera film intended for general motion picture production The wide exposure latitude of this high-speed film makes it especially suitable for both indoor and outdoor photography under a wide variety of conditions.

GENERAL PROPERTIES: Color Negative II Film is balanced for use in tungsten light, and in daylight w ith appropriate filters. The emulsion contains a colored-coupler m ask to achieve good color reproduction in release prints. This film is characterised by a high degree of sharpness, fine grain and excellent color rendition.

LIGHTING CONTRAST: The ratio of keylight-plus-fill-light to fill light should be 2:1 or 3:1 and should seldom exceed 4:1, except when a special effect is desired.

COLOR BALANCE: This film is balanced for exposure under tungsten illumination at 3200 K. It can also be used with tungsten lamps at slightly higher or lower color tem peratures ( Âą 150 K) w ithout correction filters, since final color balancing can be done in printing.

When other light sources are used, correction filters are required-often for both camera and lights.

EASTMAN PLUS-X Negative Film 5231 (35 mm) speed and grain characteristics make it well suited for general motion picture production-both outdoors and in the studio.

These film characteristics provide an excellent balance between the m aximum desirable speed for general production work and the finest grain negative we offer at th at speed.

GENERAL PROPERTIES: The medium speed of this panchromatic film permits the use of small apertures (thus allowing good depth of field), and the film is widely used for making composite projection background scenes.

EXPOSURE INDEXES: When used for development to a gamma of 0.65 to 0.70, use at D aylight-80 and T ungsten-64.

For further information on Kodak Motion Picture Film contact your nearest Kodak branch office.

Melbourne: 252 Collins Street.

Phone: 6544633.

Sydney: 62 Booth Street, Annandale.

Phone: 6606666.

Brisbane: 252 St. Paul’s Terrace, Fortitude Valley. Phone: 521911.

Adelaide: 34 N orth Terrace.

Phone: 2122411.

Perth: 10 Chilvers Street, Kewdale.

Phone: 4589966.

Hobart: 45 Elizabeth Street.

Phone: 342099.

Canberra: 1 Woolley Street, Dickson.

Phone: 487838.

Townsville: 291 Flinders Street.

Phone: 723366.

Motion Picture and Audiovisual M arket Division KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD.

B

O

X

-

D istrib u to r

S Y D .2

Newsfront

RS

145,130 (5/2)

(5/3)

Blue Fin

RS

39,179

41,344

(2)

(4)

Patrick

FW

20,092

21,176

T IT L E

(12/5)

Th e Chant of Jim m ie Blacksmith

M LB.

(10/6/2/2) 173,520

FOX

-

(1) U/A

Th e Irishman

GUO

-

18,604

Summer City

O TH

-

-

O

F

F

I

C

E

G

R

O

S

S

E

S

'

P E R IO D

P E R IO D

1 5 .1 0 .7 8 to 6 .1 .7 9

1 3 .8 .7 8 to 1 4 .1 0 .7 8

P TH

AD L

B R I.

(6/2)

(9)

(2/2)

46,190

78,085

16,848

To ta l $

Rank

SYD. (9)*

(7)*

459,773

1

160,438

145,554

119,265

2

M LB.

P TH

A D L

N/A

—

B R I.

To ta l $

Rank

(6)

59,070

365,062

1

(7)* -

38,742

—

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

_

24,665

4

265,972

2

(2)*

(12) N/A

’ (2) N/A

41,268

3

24,665 (7)

(9)*

(7)

—

-

25,374

4

76,174

84,204

62,572

-

-

18,604

5

—

-

-

-

-

—

-

—

12,022

6

_

_

—

—

—

_

—

-

9061

7

—

—

—

97,774

(1)

25,374

-

-

(8) N/A

(6)*

43,022

(5) -

—

(1)

12,022

Mouth to Mouth

RS

(1) 1871

7190

-

Weekend of Shadows

RS

-

-

7671

-

-

7671

8

-

—

—

—

—

—

—

GUO

(1) 3098

—

—

_

—

3098

9

_

_

—

—

_

_

_

RS

(1) 3004

-

-

-

-

3004

10

-

—

—

—

-

The Mango Tree The Getting of Wisdom

(7)*

(9)*

39,220

58,554

3

(1)

(7)

7778

212,374

261,834

91,237

116,827

16,848

699,120

308,275

288,312

62,572

Foreign Total

3,674,340

2,857,958

1,704,672

882,621

1,011,263

10,130,854

2,866,078

2,079,948

1,352,619

Grand Total

3,886,714

3,119,792

1,795,909

999,448

1,028,111

10,829,974

3,174,353

2,368,260

1,415,191

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. If more than one figure appears, the film has been released in more than one cinema during the period.

7778

102,092

761,251

824,975

896,893

8,020,513

824,975

998,985

8,781,764

5

(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, March-April — 285

Australian Total

(2)

Do you finish a great meal with a second rate port?

T hen d o n ’t risk a great p ro duction by using anything but the b est p ro c e s s in g ... us.

A

mi mm

a

-

GIVING QUALITY SERVICE H, TO THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY. A tla b F ilm & V id e o L a b o ra to ry S e rvice .

T e le v is io n C e n tre . L p p in g . N.S.W. 2121, A u s tra lia T e le p h o n e : (0 2 )8 5 8 7 5 0 0 . T elex: A A 2 0 2 5 0 . C a b le s: T e ll

PROJECTOR LAMPS? W e se ll’em a ll!”

— says the Cofis Lamp Manager.

We are the projector lamp specialists.

And because we do only this one thing, we do it rather well. Our range is huge — from the older, rarer varieties of lamp to the very newest, ultra-modern types, and a Xenon light system so new, you probably don’t even know about it yet.

But not only do we stock projector lamps — we now also have lamps for studio and stage.

What can we do for you? To find out, telephone me — on (02) 212 3700.

• Melbourne’s largest fully independent negative cutting facility.

• 16mm/35 Neg & Pos, Film & Video Make-up ® Fast efficient and reliable service.

• Convenient location near all of Melbourne’s production and post production facilities.

• Overnight service available.

P.S, Ask me about the very low prices we’ve got on a once-only consignment of Colortran and Gilkon brand light stands.

[OFISPhotolamps GPO Box 3773, Sydney 2001 139 Broadway, NSW 2007 Telex COFIS AA25596

.

- RING Warwick Driscoll Beverley Armstrong

31 FERRARS PLACE - STH MELB. VIC. 3205 PHONE (03) 690 4273

“ My Brilliant Career” is adapted from the novel by Miles Franklin. It tells the story of Sybylla Melvyn (Judy Davis), a sensitive and passionate teenager who cannot bear the dull life on her parents’ farm.

Sybylla leaves for her grandmother’s home where she begins to yearn for an artistic life. There she meets, and is drawn to, the landowner Harry Beecham (Sam Neill). The film ends with Sybylla being faced with a decision between her lessthan-perfect love for Harry, and h ef desire to pursue an independent life.

Produced by Margaret Fink and directed by Gillian Armstrong, the $800,000 film was shot in eight weeks from October to early December, 1978. It will be released in mid-1979.

SIS

mmmm Cinema Papers, March-April — 287

M A R G A R E T F IN K PRODUCER I had been thinking of making films since I was 18, and when I read Miles Franklin’s book, it just clicked. Obviously, Miles is a proto-typical feminist, and I think I have always been one; that’s probably why I responded to the book.

Anyway, I bought the rights, and after getting a couple of treat­ ments done I made my first sub­ mission to the Australian Film Development Corporation. But the AFDC knocked the project back, saying they felt it would be a great film, but that it needed a good writer. So I hired a good writer (Eleanor Witcombe), but they knocked it back again.

In all they rejected it three times. But then they knocked back Picnic at Hanging Rock three times.

Margaret Fink, after writing and directing three short film s, entered the world of feature filmmaking when she produced “ The Rem ovalists” in 1974. “ My Brilliant Career” is Fink’s second feature, and easily the most ambitious. In the following interview, conducted by Peter Beilby and Scott Murray, Fink describes the development, financing and marketing of the film. She begins by discussing how she became involved with filming the novel by M iles Franklin. some disagreement at the time over whether their money was invested or loaned for the film.

What was your next step?

Who did you approach for investment after GUO? The most important thing was to get some money for Eleanor. A lot of initial work, like the location surveys, had been done on my own, but when it came to Eleanor, I had to raise some money. So I approached the Victorian Film Commission and it provided the first investment on the strength of her treatment.

excellent and was more than interested in investing in it. He then gave me a letter of commit­ ment.

I respect GUO for coming in with th at first in v e stm en t, because a lot of people promised money and did not come across.

These were not just vague promises, but certain promises. It If the VFC had come in as a is very dispiriting to have people principal investor, would you change their mind on you, but I have had to shoot the film in don’t let it worry me; I am going Victoria? to attack the problem positively by going back to them.

I would have done anything My next step was to take the necessary to get the film off the book to Ita Buttrose at Women’s ground, including shooting in

Sue Adler

One of the biggest mistakes I made on The Removalists was not to have a distributor involved from the beginning, so I went and saw David Williams at Greater Union. I gave him the book and Why did the AFDC reject the he said he would ring back in a project three times? week. Well, I had seen enough big wigs in my life to realize he It probably had something to do probably never would; but he did. with The Removalists. There was He th o u g h t the book was

Weekly. It was important for me to get her opinion, as she is a baro­ meter for her readers’ tastes. Two weeks later she rang and said she loved it. I realized then that her readers were ready for the book.

288 — Cinema Papers, March-April

PRODUCTION REPORT

Victoria. That we finally got the money from the New South Wales Film Corporation was marvellous, because I had always wanted to shoot in the Monaro district, which is the region Miles Franklin wrote about.

What proportion of the budget was invested by the NSWFC? They put up half the budget; the re s t c o n s is ts of th e GUO investment and money from other private sources.

What are your views on the state of private finance?

I think it is getting healthier, and I in ten d w orm ing and grovelling my way into it.

You have to follow up all your initial approaches and leads assiduously. But th e re are surprises: the last $50,000, for example, came far more easily than I had expected.

In the early days of financing in Australia there were a lot of individual speculative investors who were prepared to take a punt. A lot of those investors seem to have dropped out . . .

They are replaceable.

Do you t h i n k t h e ne w Assessment Tax Act will help?

It has to. Film is still a risk area, but there is the mystique about being associated with the most glamorous business in the world.

That will always get people in.

There were also several people I didn’t approach in the right way. I assumed they knew more than they did. Next time, I will have to do my tap dance a little better.

Sybylla with her Uncle Julius after dinner at Caddagat.

that there are, at present, reasonable grounds for being hesitant about making period films in Australia?

I th in k it is a b so lu te ly irrelevant. The question is not whether a film is a period film or not, but whether it is a good film. I believe ours is. Its theme is Did the box-office failure of contemporary and of importance “The Removalists” create diff­ to young women today. iculties for you when raising I wanted to make the film private finance? because of these ideas, not because of the setting or the era in No, none at all. which Miles Franklin wrote about them.

So you don’t think it is a matter As for the public, I think the of track record, but of investors only consideration is whether a viewing each project separately film is satisfying and enjoyable.

Exactly. In any case, The Removalists isn’t a disgrace. It ran for seven weeks at the Century in Sydney, and it is still playing repertory cinema in New South Wales.

I am not ashamed of it as a first film, for all its faults. Apart from not having any distributor link, my main problem was not having a publicist. Consequently, I didn’t sell it properly. Cannes, for example, was a nightmare. I had it there on my own, and when an American offered me $50,000, I knocked him back; I just didn’t know.

How do you react to the argument

Selecting Gillian Armstrong as director was a bold decision. Why did you choose her?

Sybylla in a shot from the opening sequence of My Brilliant Career.

choice to all the investors?

Yes, though most didn’t even ask who the director was, which I was extremely impressed with was really weird. Some people are A Hundred A Day. I also think far more impressed by how you Gretel has a lot to it as a film, but sell them an idea than by any tech­ A Hundred A Day has the punch I nical credits. Many investors are too busy in their own fields to wanted. know much about filmmaking.

Did you particularly want a woman director?

You have been described as a creative producer. Do you accept No. I chose Gil because I that description? believed she was the best person available for the film. I had faith in Well, it is an exact one, because her creativity, and that faith has I don’t believe in merely handing been vindicated. over a film to a director. Gil chose Nick Beauman, and I think it is Was Armstrong an acceptable the d irecto r’s prerogative to

choose the editor. I decided on E leanor W itcom be, Luciana Arrighi [production designer] and Nathan Waks [musical director].

I also insisted on having a say on th e c a stin g and s c rip t development.

Did you make comments during production on the basis of rushes?

No, it is a bit late then. I believe in massive involvement in the pre-production field, because if you don’t have it right by the time you shoot, you are fucked.

I was on location a lot, but all I would ever say to Gil was, “ Now we are really getting into it,” or Cinema Papers, March-April — 289

PRODUCTION REPORT

As for overseas, no Australian name is significant.

From a production point of view, the film is logistically quite com­ plicated. Did you face major problems, like bad weather or going over schedule?

No, and those things that seemed to be disadvantages turned out to be advantages. For example, the NSWFC suggesting we do a 35 mm test after we had chosen an actress as Sybylla.

When we saw the test, we realized she was wrong.

We could have gone along with her, and it still would have been a good film, but it would have been like The Getting of Wisdom — no luminosity. I have to thank Mike Thornhill for that.

Another problem was when Russell Boyd said he was quitting.

I nearly fainted, because for years I had been talking to him about shooting the film. But, as it turned out, Don McAlpine did a brilliant job.

There was also the set, which I felt looked a bit artificial in the rushes. But heavy rain came down and weathered it overnight.

something like that. She didn’t need to be told.

Sybylla and Harry at a piano at Five Bob Downs,

Was there any need to press for alterations in the final script?

Could you describe the way in which the film was organized.

Was each department given fin­ ancial independence or did you personally co-ordinate everything?

Eleanor did an excellent job of converting the novel into a screenplay, but Gil, Jane Scott and I sensed there were still things that needed to be done with Eleanor’s script. So, we brought in Ted Ogden as a script editor.

Everything was co-ordinated through the production office.

Jane Scott [associate producerproduction manager] ran the production office with Treisha Grant, who is an excellent film accountant, with the support of Helen Everingham [production secretary]. They were all first class.

What changes did Ted Ogden make?

But did you approve each expen­ diture and check balance sheets?

Ted tightened it a lot and strengthened the structure. But probably the most im portant change he made was to put an extra emphasis on the character of Harry (Sam Neill). In the novel, Harry is not sexual enough. Ted h e lp e d m ake him a m ore believable, sexual person.

I looked at things with Treisha, but the production office was so efficient, I just left them to it.

Everything was checked by Jenny Woods of the NSWFC anyway, and she is very good in that area.

What is happe ni ng marketing of the film?

Do you think a script editor should be used on all Australian features?

I have appointed David White and Kevin Brooks of the Brooks White Organization as publicists; we are presently liaising with the NSWFC and GUO.

I don’t know; I haven’t had enough experience. Probably it is a good policy.

What have you planned for the campaign?

You used two unknown actors in the lead roles. Do you think this will create problems in selling the film overseas?

There are no real stars here; most people would not have even heard of Wendy Hughes or John Waters.

290

— Cinema Papers, March-April

with

Wendy Hughes as Aunt Helen, who lives at Caddagat after being abandoned by her husband.

I am leaving most of that to David and Kevin. One thing I believe, however, is that you can overdo promotion. No one could have had more promotion than I had on The Removalists, and a lot of it I didn’t want.

Concluded on P. 319

G IL L IA N A R M S T R O N G DIRECTOR When did you first become involved on “ My Brilliant Career” ?

I met Margaret Fink four or five years ago during the filming of The Removalists. I was the assistant designer on the film, and during the shooting Margaret and I became good friends.

Margaret had wanted to film the book since 1965, but the first I knew of the story was when she gave me the book to read. At that time, I was ready to work on it in any capacity; I never thought I would be asked to direct it. * Margaret first spoke to me about directing the film just before I finished The Singer and the Dancer in 1976. Both of us felt My Brilliant Career was a film that a woman should direct, especially since Miles Franklin was such a strong feminist. Miles believed in women doing things on their own, and I always felt she would prefer a woman to make her story.

Gillian Armstrong first attracted critical attention with her remarkable short film, “ A Hundred A Day” . This was followed by “ Satdee N ite” , “ Gretel” and “ The Singer and the Dancer” , which won the 1976 Greater Union Award for best short fiction.

Armstrong also worked on several features as an art director, before returning to directing with “ Smokes and Lollies” , a documentary on three 14 year-old girls. “ My Brilliant Career” is Armstrong’s first feature, and she talks of that experience with Peter Beilby and Scott Murray.

using Eleanor because of her involvement on The Getting of Wisdom. Many people had said they felt the films would be too similar and I felt any connection between the two would work against us. However, once I met Eleanor I felt it would work — she had so many good ideas.

Eleanor then worked on the script for 18 months, though there were several breaks during that period.

million reasons for that: horses being turned around, having to wait for hours on end as a coach is put into the right position, and so on. It drove me crazy.

Did you collaborate closely on the script?

At first I felt the film was too big for me and that I would be better off if I did a few low-budget features first. But as time passed I became very involved with the screenplay and was determined to follow it through to a finished product.

Did you have any reservations about doing a period film?

No, but if you ask what my next film is I will tell you it is not going to be a period film. There are a

How did the script develop?

Margaret approached a few writers, before finally choosing Eleanor Witcombe. She then applied to the Victorian'Film C om m ission for m oney to develop the screenplay.

I was in two minds at first about

Yes. We thrashed out a lot of ideas and then Eleanor did a rough treatm ent on the shape she thought it should take. After more discussion, I left Eleanor to do the first draft by herself.

Once we had that first draft, we started working together. We ended up doing eight or more new drafts, though that was partly to keep up with the number of applications Margaret was sub-

Cinema Papers, March-April — 291

PRODUCTION REPORT

mitting to films boards for money.

We were not satisfied with all of them, but we had no choice.

What was the biggest problem you found adapting the novel?

The len g th . We realized im m e d ia te ly we c o u l d n ’ t condense the entire book, so one of the first decisions we made was to cut out the whole section, at the beginning, on her terrible child­ hood. The film now starts when Sybylla is 17.

Eleanor was very good at pin­ pointing those aspects of the novel which could weaken the film’s dramatic structure. For example, there is a long central part in the book w here noth in g really happens, other than Sybylla having a good time. At Caddagat, everything is so wonderful that she forgets all her ambitions. Half the book then describes her horseriding through the lovely countryside, picking strawberries, and lying p e a c e fu lly in a hammock. We realized that that would be pretty dull on the screen and decided to condense it.

A nother problem was the ending. I felt it didn’t really go anywhere, and I had always wanted a strong ending. As one of the things I most liked about the book was knowing that Miles actually wrote it, we decided to try and make that clear in the film.

At the beginning of the novel Sybylla is young and idealistic, and wants to do everything. Part of our writing process was to narrow that down, so that by the end of the film she has channelled all her energies into achieving one aim — publishing her book. That gave me the more positive ending I wanted.

At the same time, I was worried people would think that we had merely put modern ideas into a girl dressed in period clothes. I have done my best to avoid that.

women. Both men and women should relate to the story — that is why it doesn’t matter being a period film. What the film is saying is contemporary.

Has the story been adapted in such a way that Sybylla’s s t ruggl e for i ndepende nc e mirrors the struggle of con­ temporary women?

Have you made the film political in any respect?

Yes, but 1 d o n ’t feel her struggle necessarily only applies to

.._... L

.

Yes, it is political in that we believe it has something to say.

But I was very conscious of trying not to be didactic, even though the book is. At times Sybylla is a

' .... t ..I ..........

little bore, and she is always going around spewing out stuff about marriage and men.

Do you think women will want to see the film for its contemporary relevance?

Yes, I think they will, though I also hope they want to see it because it is a moving drama.

There is a strong story, and, I hope, passion and romance. Most women who read the book can’t put it down because they want to know whether Sybylla ends up with Harry. I have been aware of that from the beginning.

It is interesting that you should choose two unknowns for the roles of Sybylla and Harry . . .

Harry (Sam Neill) and Sybylla boating on a dam on Harry’s property, Five Bob Downs.

Everyone wanted us to use name people, but the only name actor who was at all suitable for the role of Harry didn’t want to do it. And there were no name actresses of the right age for * Sybylla.

In Australia, there are only a few leading men who are capable of being a sex symbol on screen.

We were getting desperate with the Harry situation because we had tested almost everyone, and there was nobody who was good enough and who looked physically right. I even started to think that I would have to change Harry’s character and use another type of actor. So it was a great relief when

Yes. A fter all the early knockbacks it looked as if the film would never go. Everyone was against period films, and we seriously thought about updating it. But I had always felt that was a strength of the book. It was written in the 1890s by a girl who lived in the bush, and who couldn’t have known much about what was going on in the world — after all, suffragette literature hardly made it to Goulburn. Miles was an exceptional woman who was ahead of her time, and that attracted me.

Another reason for staying with the period was that many of the restrictions at the time — the Vic­ torian morals, the pressure of being married, etc. — just don’t exist today. Women had no careers then, and that is what Sybylla was fighting against.

I also felt that it would be terrible to update the book because Miles loved that period and its lifestyle. In fact, she wrote about it for the rest of her life.

292 — Cinema Papers, March-April

David Kynoch

Were you tempted to adapt the story to contemporary times?

PRODUCTION REPORT

I saw Sam Neill in Sleeping Dogs.

I met him when he came to Melb­ ourne to publicize the film, and whipped him up to Sydney to do some tests. He was terrific.

We also had trouble finding Sybylla. I didn’t go out to schools like they did on The Getting of Wisdom, because I felt it was too demanding a role for an inexper­ ienced actress. We were very lucky we finally located Judy. I think her performance has been very good.

No, Margaret never pushed for purely commercial reasons. This isn’t to say we never thought of the commercial aspects, as natur­ ally we both want the film to be a commercial success. But our general philosophy and approach was worked out and agreed upon during the early stages. That was, we wanted the film to be, above all, never boring, and always m oving. M argaret then left Eleanor and I very much alone, and trusted our judgment.

There seem to be more women working on this film than most Australian features. Is that deliberate?

In all cases we have chosen the people we most wanted to work with; nobody was chosen because of his or her sex. We chose Eleanor because we liked her work on The Getting of Wisdom; Jane Scott [production manager] because of what she had done before; and so on.

Actually, I think The Night The Prowler had more women on their crew than we did.

Do you think the opportunities for women in the Australian film industry have improved in the last few years?

They have improved. There are now women working in most areas, but camera and sound are still very difficult to break into.

The major problem is getting that first break. Fortunately, the Australian Film and Television School has done a lot to help women move into the industry.

Were you conscious of any tensions on the set caused by you being a woman?

David Kynoch

Producers are extending an increasing influence on the final script. Were there times, for example, when Fink felt things had to be changed for commercial reasons?

Gillian Armstrong with Harry Cooter, a country musician discovered by musical director Nathan Waks, during the shooting of the woolshed dance.

Don MacAlpine just slaved for me.'

Actually, any tension that might have existed has been off the set.

You have probably heard the sort of gossip that has been going around — e.g. that it is a lesbian film, or that someone was not chosen as clapper/loader because I felt he was a chauvinist. No doubt people are now saying it is up to the editor to put all my mess together.

Did you choose Don McAlpine as director of photography because of his work on “The Getting of Wisdom” ?

Yes, I thought that Don had done a beautiful job lighting The Getting of Wisdom, and it was certainly a decision that has paid off. We are delighted with his work.

Apparently you had some problem with Actors Equity over bringing in a British actor?

One of the characters in the s c rip t is a young B ritish gentleman, and we cast a British actor because we couldn’t find anyone here who would be suff­ iciently convincing in the role.

Then, at the last minute, Equity said they wouldn’t give the actor a work permit.

On a day-to-day basis the crew Who did you finally cast in the , was fantastic. Perhaps va few role? people found it a bit hard to cope, We contacted NIDA and said but that is pretty good for any group of people. Deep down they we were absolutely desperate and may have been resentful about could we see their final-year boys. being bossed around by a young > We did, and there was this guy girl, but there was no problem who was just wonderful. His name with the others. And people like is Robert Grubb, and he has

added a whole extra level to the film.

Fink has described herself as a creative producer. What does that mean to you?

Margaret has been involved in the project at a creative level from the beginning: it is, after all, her project. This does not mean, however, that I don’t have full and final control.

We do have similar tastes in many areas, so we could work closely together. It has all worked out very well,^and the feedback I have received from her has helped me greatly.

How did you find working on 35mm for the first time?

No problem, except I am now spoilt and seduced by the 35mm screen and will find it hard going back to 16mm again.

My g reatest problem was working with fixed lenses for the first time. I am extremely part­ icular about framing, and on 16 mm you can just zoom in and out to get the framing you want. With fixed lenses, however, you have to be much more specific. So, in the beginning, there were a lot of lens changes, and carting of tripods backwards and forwards to get the shot I wanted. But I soon learnt.

Are you going to use theme music throughout the film?

There are a few pieces of music that will become the main theme.

They have particular narrative relevance in the film.

Nathan Waks will be arranging

the music, and we have already discussed the instruments I want.

He will probably use a string quartet, or just a cello, violin or piano. There is not going to be a big orchestra.

THE SIN G ER AN D TH E DAN CER How did “The Singer and the Dancer” end up commercially?

I think Colufnbia made a mistake with the M elbourne release when they pushed it as a woman’s film. The first week was full of old ladies and housewives who were a bit shocked and con­ fused by it. (I learnt this from mv spies who sat in the audience.)

Even though the reviews were encouraging, they came out a week late because the preview screening had been stuffed up. So all th e‘people who wanted to see the film after reading the reviews only started coming in the second week. There was a real change­ over in the audience.

The Singer and the Dancer is not really a commercial film, though I had hoped women would like it. But generally they found it hard to cope with. People rang the box-office and said they didn’t like it as it upset them. It is one thing to go along to a matinee and have a little cry, but this film was too confronting for most. They didn’t find that entertaining and they didn’t want to know about it.

I learnt to my disappointment that you go to a mid-day matinee to escape.

Concluded on P. 319 Cinema Papers, March-April — 293

F IL M ED ITIN G .

FOR THE KINDEST CUT OF ALL ....

AIR CONDITIONED EDITING ROOMS with any or all of the following: 35mm 35mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm 16mm

six plate Intercine upright Moviola six plate Intercine or Steenbecks four plate Intercine four plate Moviola upright Moviola motorised Pic Syncs non-motorised Pic Sync

Plus sound transfers, comprehensive sound fx library, graphics design & production, cups of tea, and award­ winning editor MICHAEL BALSON. 13 MYRTLE STREET CROWS NEST NSW PH (02) 929 3432

CORI FIL M SERVICES LONDON 19 Albermarle Street, Mayfair, London, W.1.

Cable: Zerobone, London, W.1.

Associate offices: Los Angeles Tokyo

493 7920 telephone 499 6204 telephone 299968 Corman telex

INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION Documentaries Telemovies Musicspecials Series

MOVIE DISTRIBUTION Cinema and Television sales.

CO-PRODUCTION/PACKAGING Television and Motion Pictures Overseas funding arranged.

Overseas production planning.

CONTACT : Marie Hoy, Kevin Moore.

CORI FILM SERVICES MARKETING AUSTRALIAN PRODUCTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL SALES.

PRODUCTION SURVEY Focus puller............................................DavidBurr Composers................................. Brian King, Standby props.......................... Clark Munro THIRST Clapper/loader.............. Richard Merryman Alan Oloman, Set dresser................................ Ken James Prod company................................ F. G. Film Key grip................................. Ross Erickson and Ian Coughlan Construction manager..........

Herbert Pinter FEATURES Productions Pty. Ltd. Grip.................................... Graham Litchfield Exec producers.......................... Ric Kabrlel Laboratory............................................ Atlab Producer........................... Antony I. Glnnane Gaffer...................................................... BrianBansgrove and John Sturzaker Length.................................................

90 min FOR THEATRICAL Director................................................... RonHardy Assoc producer................. Michael Falloon Shooting sto ck.. Eastmancolor /Panavision Third electrix.......................................... PaulMoyes Scriptwriter..............................................JohnPinkney RELEASE Generator operator.............. Sam Bienstock Prod manager................... Pamela Vanneck Cast: Edward Woodward, John Hargreaves, Photography....................... Vincent Monton Asst editor.......................Frans Vandenburg Exec-in-charge p ro d ............................. JohnWallJack Thompson, Lewis Fitzgerald, ’Bud’ Sound recordist............................Paul Clark Prod secretary......................Anne Aquilna Tlngwell, Vincent Ball.

Editor......................................................... PhilReidDubbing editor................................Greg Bell Rose Cuknic Asst dubbing editor............................... HelenBrown Synopsis: Based on the scandalous court Art directors............................ Jon Dowding, Negative matching............ Margaret Cardin 1st asst, director................... Michael Falloon martial and subsequent execution, for Jill Eden political gain, of Harry “The Breaker” Morant Musical director...................... NathanWaks 2nd asst director.: ..................... Pennie Hill Note: Unless otherwise stated, the films Exec producer.................................... WilliamFayman Art director................................................ NeilAngwin during the Boer War. Continuity................................. Moya Iceton mentioned below are 35mm.

Assoc producer........................ Barbi Taylor Boom operator...................................... Jack Friedman Costume designer..................... Anna Senior Prod co-ordlnator...................... JennyBarty Make-up........................................ Jill Porter Prod, facilities........................ Fontana films Prod secretary........................................ AnnPierce Hairdresser...........................................Cheryl Williams Pre-Production Still photography..................... John Falloon GRENDEL GRENDEL GRENDEL Prod asst............................... Vicki Rowland Wardrobe master................................... TerryRyan Best boy....................................... Simon Lee 1st asst director....................... TomBurstall Producers........................ Phillip Adams and Runner.............................. Andrew Williams Wardrobe assistant..............

Melody Cooper 2nd asst director..................... John Hipwell Alexander Stitt Camera operator................... Russell Dorlty Standby wardrobe.......................Robyn Hall Director, scriptwriter............ Alexander Stitt 3rd asst director........................ Stuart Beatty Trainee cam era..........................Mark Owen Props buyer........................................... DavidWhan Continuity............................................Joanna Weeks Based on the novel by John Gardner THE CAPTIVES Key grip....................................... Ray Brown Asst props buyer................. Sally Campbell Prod accountant..................Michael Roseby Designer................................ Alexander Stitt Asst grip.................................................. RonCroft Standby props...................................... ClarkMunro Prod company.......................... The Grundy Still photography....................................

Suzy Wood Composer............................ Bruce Smeaton Gaffer................................. Brian Bansgrove Animal standby props................. Harry Zettel Organisation Best boy..................................................ColinWillianTs Animation director................. Frank Hellard Choreography.........................................Keith Bain, Asst editor.............................................. KarlKabriel Producer................................. Roger Mirans Runner....................................................

Craig Emanuel Principal animators............ David Atkinson, Michael O'Reilly Sound editor...................................... TimothyStreet Director................................... Howard Ruble Gus McLaren, Camera operator....................................Louis Irving Negative matching................. Gordon Peck Set dresser.......................... Sue Armstrong Scriptwriters......................... Bruce Wlshart, Focus puller........................................

David Brostoff Ralph Peverlll Musical director..........................

Brian King Scenic artist.............................................

BillMalcolm Ron McLean Clapper/loader............................. Ian Jones Recording studio............ A & M Studios P/L Mixers..................................................... PhilJudd Construction manager........................... KimHilder Gauge................................................. 16 mm Key grip...................................... Noel Mudie Recording supervisor.............................. AlfBean and Phil Heywood Construction...........................................

Ken Hazelwood, (Blow-up to 35 mm) 2nd grip............................. GeoffRichardson Laboratory............................................... VFL Paul Martin, Make-up................................... Leslie Fisher Progress................................. Pre-production Gaffer..................................... TonyHoltham Budget.......................................... $550,000 Wardrobe master......................................BobLloyd Danny Daems Synopsis: A journey turns Into a nightmare Asst editor.................................................KenSallows Length................................................. 90 min Props master.......................... Robert Jones Standby construction............................. PhilWorth when a light aircraft is forced down in Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Dubbing editor..................................... TerryRodman Asst art director................. Michelle Mahrer Painter.................................................... NedMcCann central Australia.

Make-up supervisor.............................

Jose Perez Progress....................................................... Inproduction Special effects............................................ LuKanturek Unit publicist.......................................... DavidWhite Hairdresser....................... Ursula Wertheim Release date.......................Christmas 1980 Stunt co-ordlnator..................................PeterArmstrong Catering........................ John & Lisa Faithful Voices: Peter Ustinov, Keith Michell, Arthur Wardrobe designer............Aphrodite Jansen Stunts......................................................PeterArmstrong Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm Dignam, Ed Rosser, Bobby Bright, Ric Stone, Make-up asst............................................ LeoReyes THE MINISTER’S MAGICIAN Laboratory lia is o n .................................... BillGooley, Scenic artist..............................................IvanSofilkanic Props buyer..................... Georgie Greenhlll Julie McKenna.

Prod company.........Australian International Titles...................................................... GaryJackson Dick Bagnell Special effects................. Conrad Rothman Film Corporation Pty. Ltd. Publicity...................................................MaryMoody Budget.......................................... $830,000 Stunts.....................................................GrantPage For F.G. Film Productions Pty. Ltd. Catering..................... John and Lisa Faithful Length..............................................

100 min THE JOURNALIST Set construction...................................... IanDoig Producer.......................... Antony I. Glnnane Shooting stock..............

Eastmancolor 5247 Mixed a t.................................................. Atlab Publicity.................................... Lyn Thorburn Producer...................................................PomOliver Director................................... Simon Wincer Laboratory............................................ Atlab Progress...............................

Post-production Catering.................................................... AnnDechalneux Director................................. Mike Thornhill Scriptwriter....................... Everett de Roche Laboratory liaison............................. GlendaBartlett Release date.................................

May 1979 Laboratory liaison.................................... BillGooley Photography........................................... DonMcAlpine Photography....................... Vincent Monton Length................................................. 92 min C ast: Judy Davis, Sam Neill, Patricia Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Sound recordist...................................... TimLloyd Composer..................................... Brian May Color consultant..................................JamesParsons Kennedy, Wendy Hughes, Robert Grubb, Progress.............................. Post production Editor...................................... TimWellburn Exec producer.................... William Fayman Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Max Cullen, Aileen Britton, Peter Whitford.

Cast: Chantal Contouri, David Hemmlngs, Art director............................................ JennyGreen Assoc producer.........................Barbi Taylor Progress.................................................... InProduction Synopsis: A love story, based on the novel Henry Silva, Max Phipps, Shirley Cameron, Prod manager................................

Pom Oliver Prod secretary.......................... Jenny Barty written by Miles Franklin in the 1890s, about Release date........................ April/May 1979 Rod M u llin a r, W a lte r Pym, R o b e rt Prod secretary............................................ SuArmstrong Casting.......................................Barbi Taylor Cast: Joanne Samuel, Bunny Brooke, John a girl divided between the stirrings of Thompson, Rosie Sturgess, Lulu Pinkus, Location manager.................................. BrianRosen Length................................................. Feature passion and her need for self-fulfilment.

Bluthal, Lou Brown, Adam Bowen, Bernie Amanda Muggleton.

1st asst director..................................... BrianRosen Gauge.............................. 35mm Panavlsion Lewis.

Synopsis: A suspense thriller involving a Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Synopsis: A young girl Is puzzled by a 2nd asst director................. Steve Andrew society of vampires.

Progress................................. Pre-Production sequence of events which occur during the 3rd asst director................... Chris Maudson Synopsis: Apolitical thriller of suspense days leading up to her 19th birthday. Slowly, Continuity.................................................. LynGailey Boom operator.......................................... JoeSpinelli and Intrigue. and with growing horror, she becomes Awaiting Release aware of the true nature of the celebrations Casting................................................ HilaryLinstead Prod accountant.......................... PennyCarl Post Production which her "relatives" have planned for her.

Still photography................... MikeGiddens Runner...............................................RosslynHawke MONKEYGRIP Focus puller........................................... DavidBurr Prod company...........Clare Beach Films P/L THE BATTLE OF BROKEN HILL Clapper/loader.............. Richard Merryman CATHY’S CHILD Producer................................ Patricia Lovell Prod company.............Sagittarius Film and Key grip.............................................. GrahamLietchfield Prod company.........................C.B. Films P/L Director................................... Ken Cameron THE LAST OF THE KNUCKLEMEN Television Productions Gaffer................................................

Robbie Young Dist company..........

Roadshow Distributors Scriptwriter............................ Ken Cameron Producer, director Asst editor................................................. JoeLyon Producers........................ Errol Sullivan and Based on the novel Monkeygripby Helen Prod company................................ Hexagon and scriptw rite r................... Robin Levinson Dubbing editor........................................DeanGawn Garner Dick Word ley Dist company.................................Roadshow Photography..............................Ray Bartram Asst dubbing editor............ Shirley Kennard Director.....................................Don Crombie Producer................................... TimBurstall Length............................................... Feature Sound......................... Soundtrack Australia Second editor......................................... RonWilliams Scriptwriter.............................. Ken Quinnell Progress................................Pre-production Director........................................Tim Burstall Prod manager................................. Max Slee Costume designer.................................. AnnaSenior Based on the novel by Dick Wordley S ynopsis: ‘Smack habit, love habit — Based on the play of the same name by 1st asst director.......................... GerryEider Make-up and hairdresser.. Deryk de Niesse Photography............................Gary Hansen what’s the difference? They both can kill John Powers Continuity................................................. EllaHarris Wardrobe buyer........................ MarinaGray Photography............................... Dan Burstall Sound recordist............................ Tim Lloyd you.’ Nora's addiction is romantic love; Script consultant................................Yvonne Graves Standby wardrobe....... Robyn Schuurmans Editor...................................... Tim Wellburn Sound recordist....................... John Phillips J a v o ’s is hard drugs. Nora, ‘a fa st Costumes and props..................... John and Catering................................. Keith Hey gate Prod designer............................. Ross Major C ast: Gerard Kennedy, Peter Hehir, fa ke r... neat, sharp and steady’, and Javo, Jacque Griffiths Laboratory........................................Colorfilm her violently blue-eyed lover, are trapped In Stephen Biscay, Gerry Duggan.

Composer...................................Bill Motzing Make-up...................................Ian J. Southby Transfers................................. Palm Studios a desperate relationship. The harder they Synopsis: Set in the outback of north Prod manager......................................... PomOliver Special effects........................................ JohnBrock Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor pull away, the tighter the monkey grip. western Australia, The L a s t o f The Prod secretary......................................... SusiParker Stunt co-ordinator..................... DennisHunt Progress...................................In production Knucklemen Is the story of a gang of wild­ 1st asst director..................... Mark Egerton Length......................................................... 90 minCast: Jack Thompson, Elizabeth Alexander, cat miners. The boss of the gang is Tarzan 2nd asst director................... Mark Turnbull Gauge..........................................................16 mmSam Neill, Carol Raye, Jane Harders, Bud who rules his undisciplined, violent men by Continuity..............................Adrienne Read SPARKS Progress....................................................... Inproduction Tingwell, Penne Hackforth-Jones, Frank Boom operator.....................Jack Friedman fo rc e alone. He is the la s t of the Cast: Margaret Atkinson, Harold Berrett, Prod company....................... Voyager Films Wilson, Stuart Wagstaff, Jude Kurlng, Ken 'knucklemen'.

Casting consultants.........M & L Casting P/L Janet Brow, Anne Cole, Robert E. Cusenza, Producer...................................... David Elfick Goodlet.

No further details available.

Prod accou n ta n t................ Geoff Cameron Gail Denton, Reg Dobay, Jeanette Drake, Synopsis: A wry comedy about a likeable Director.................................................... IanBarry Still photography.............. David Williamson David Dudman, Fiona Guthrie, Awdrey journalist.

Scriptwriter.............................................. IanBarry, Catering...................................................JohnFaithfull Hewlett, Julia Hill-Whittle, Maurice Howie, Bert Deling Best boy...................................PaulGantner Trevor Johnson, Stuart Leggett, Robert Lind, Budget.......................................... $750,000 MY BRILLIANT CAREER Runner.......................................Sandy Beach Russell Manyon, Erik Michielsen, David Length................................................. Feature Prod company. Margaret Fink Films Pty. Ltd. Focus puller................................Paul Murphy KOSTAS Norris, Mike Oleinikoff, Betty Percy, John Progress................................. Pre-production Producer...................................Margaret Fink Camera asst.......................... Andre Fleuren Rand, Jenny Randall, David Robertson, Lyn Synopsis: Sparks tells of an incredible Prod company............................ Kostas Film Director............................ Gillian Armstrong Key grip................................... Ross Erikson Semmler.

Productions Pty. Ltd. journey through the brain of a man who is a Based on the novel by Miles Franklin.

Gaffer................................Brian Bansgrove Synopsis: A dramatized re-enactment of Producer...................................Bernard Eddy film director. After he is blinded by a freak Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Electrician....................... Graham Litchfield the true events which occurred at Broken accident, he seeks to continue his career.

Director............................................Paul Cox Sound recordist........................................ DonConnolly Asst editor............................ Vicky Ambrose Hill on New Year's Day, 1915, when a Scriptwriter............................ Linda Aronson Editor.................................... NickBeauman Sound editor............................................. TimWellburn Turkish patriot and an Indian butcher Based on an original idea by Paul Cox. Prod designer.......................Luciana Arrighi Mixer..................................................... PeterFenton Photography........................ Vittorio Bernini SOMEONE LEFT THE CAKE OUT IN declared war on Australia.

Prod supervisor.................................... JaneScott Make-up......................................................LizMichle Sound recordist.....................................

Lloyd Carrlck Prod secretary................ Helen Everingham THE RAIN Props buyer and Editor....................................................... John Scott Unit manager/ standby props...................................... JohnCarroll Prod company......... Vega Film Productions BREAKER MORANT Art director........................ Alan Stubenrach location manager................... ToivoLember Construction..........................................DanieDaems Producer................................... JohnWeiley Assoc producer.......Tony Llewellyn-Jones Prod company..................... Robert Brunlng/ 1st asst director..................... Mark Egerton Publicity.....................................Sherry Strum Director and scriptwriter.......... John Duigan Prod supervisor..................... Russell Hurley South Australian 2nd asst director.................................. MarkTurnbull GREECE: Photography.............................. Tom Cowan Asst producer....................... Russell Hurley 3rd asst director.................................... SteveAndrews Film Corporation Sound recordist.............. Thanassis Arvantis Progress................................ Pre-production Prod asst............................ Judy Whitehead Producers....... Robert Brunlng/Matt Carroll Continuity............................................ MoyaIceton Prod manager....................... Aspa Lambrou Synopsis: A contemporary drama depicting Continuity................................. Ann McLeod D irector..............................Bruce Beresford Boom operator...........................................Joe Spinelli Location manager.........Michalis Lambrinos the fleeting relationship between a onceBoom operator.......................... Ray Phillips Scriptwriters........................ David Stevens, Casting............ M & L Casting Consultants Asst director___ Yoannis Diamantopoulous radical survivor of the 1960s and a French Prod a ccountant................. . Sony Naidu Jonathan Hardy Children’s dialogue Boom operator.................................... NikosAhladis political activist, set against the background Still photography...................

Julie Millowick Based on the play by Kenneth Ross and the coach............................... Michael Caulfield Best boy............................................. KostasDanalis of the uranium Issue.

Runner................................................... AdeleSztar book by Kit Denton.

Prod accountant................... Treisha Ghent Asst accou n ta n t.................................... LedaAndroullkaki Clapper/loader....................................Sandra Irvine Photography.......................... Don McAlpIne Bookkeeper........................................... PamO’Neill Asst cameraman....................Nikos Palzanos Camera asst.......................... Nino Martinetti Editor........................................................ BillAnderson Still photography................... David Kynoch Props................................... Henry Kaloutas Key grip................................... JohnTwegg Art director............................. David Copping Animal/vehicle wrangler...................... JohnBaird Rushes synching............ George Trianafillou Gaffer........................................................ RayThomas Prod manager........................................Terrie Vincent In Production Saddle horse wrangler.......Harold Greensill Driver............................... Thanassis Lagaros Asst editor............................ Jackie Horvath Prod secretary........................ Barbara Ring Best boy................................... PaulGantner Progress.........................................

Awaitingrelease Make-up and wardrobe.......... Carol Devine 1st asst director..................... Mark Egerton Runner..................................... Cathy Barber Release d a te ................................April 1979 Asst art director................... Paddy Riordan Casting................... Alison Barrett (Sydney), Camera operators................................ LouisIrving, Cast: Michele Fawdon, Alan Cassell, Bryan Shooting sto ck...................... Eastmancolor S.A. Casting (Adelaide) Peter Moss Brown, Harry Michael, Anna Hruby, Bob Progress................................... In production Prod a ccou n ta n t..............Harley Manners Hughes, Sophia Haskas, Sarah McKenzie, Cast: Takis Emmanuel, Wendy Hughes ALISON’S BIRTHDAY Camera operator........................ John Seale Judy Stevenson, Bobbie Ward, Gerry John Waters, Kris McQuade, Chris Hay­ Focus puller................................. David Burr Prod company........................................ DavidHannay Gallagher, Annibaie Migliuccl, Vic Rooney, wood, Tony Llewellyn-Jones.

Lighting.................................................. RobYoung Productions Frankie J. Holden, Jim Karangis, Kay Yates, Synopsis: Set in Melbourne today, Kostas Key grip.................................. RossErickson ERRATAand ADDENDUM Producer.................................................DavidHannay Kurt Jansen, Mathew Scerfield, Liz Marshall, concerns the love-affair between Kostas, a Asst editor........................ Jeannine Chialvo Director and scriptwriter.........Ian Coughlan Lex Marinos, Mike Harris, Roy Corbett, Greek, and Carol a middle-class Australian The Editor wishes to apologize to the Sound effects........................ MontyFieguth, Photography............................................JohnSimpson producers of My B rilliant Career, for any Gareth W ilding-Forbes, Nicole B arrett, divorcee. Divided by barriers of culture and Chris Murray Sound recordist.............................. Phil Judd Petros Printizis, Randy Costa, Bernadette language they come together in what is a embarrassment caused by typographical Make-up................................................ JudyLovell Editor..................................... Timothy Street Scarcella, Flavia Arena, Linda Newton, errors appearing In the previous Issue.

The sensitive love story and a story of the new Wardrobe master..................... Anna Senior Artdirector................................................ LuKanturek Arthur Dignam, Grant Dodwell, Steven correct listings appear above. multi-racial Australia.

Prod designer....................... RobertHilditch Buyer...................................... Chris Webster

Cinema Papers, March-April — 295

PRODUCTION SURVEY Thomas, Tim Burns, Don Bridges, Willie Fennell, George Velentzas, Rista Ninou, Stella Yeromltsou, Maroula Rota, Yannls Firios.

S y n o p s is : In 1 9 7 3 a G re e k -b o rn naturalized Australian, John Baikas, left Sydney with his three year-old daughter, Maris, bound for Athens. He left the country with a forged passport for Maris, thus removing her from the protection of an Australian court. This action launched an international manhunt and created world headlines. Cathy Baikas knew nothing of legal loopholes and extradition treaties — she only wanted her child. The film is the story of Cathy’s (successful) attempt to be re-united with her child.

Research.........................................Sue Wild Continuity...................................................JanTyrell Story editor................................ Moya Wood Boom operator...........................................PhilStirling Best boy................................... Craig Bryant Casting consultant............................... BarbiTaylor Still photography.......................... Suzy Wood . Runner.......................................... MarkPiper Camera operator.......................... John Seale Prod asst.................................................. RuthRosh Focus pullers................... David Williamson, Best boy................................. Colin Williams Jan Kenny Runners................................................. StuartBeatty, Clapper/loaders.........................................JanKenny, Vicki Rowlands Andre Fleuren Camera operator.................................... Louis Irving Key grip................................... Ross Erikson Focus puller.......................... David Brostoff Asst grip................................... Dennis Smith 2nd unit focus puller....... Peter van Stanten Gaffer....................................................... TonyTegg Clapper/loader......................................... IanJones Electrician................................ Ralph Storey Key grip.................................................. NoelMudle Asst editor.............................. Zsolt Kallanyl Gaffer..................................... TonyHoltham Sound editor.............................. Bob Cogger Lighting Asst....................... Stephen Arnold Asst sound editor.................................Shirley Kennard Asst editor............................ David Pulbrook Edge numberer......................... Guy Hodson Sound editor......................... David Pulbrook Costume designer............... Judith Dorsman Mixing..................................... United Sound DIMBOOLA M a ke-u p ..................................Peggy Carter Art director................................Jon Dowding Hairdresser..............................

Jenny Brown Costume/wardrobe......... Aphrodite Jansen Prod company......................... Pram Factory Standby wardrobe..................Fiona Nicholls Make-up...................................................JosePerez Pictures (Management) P/L Wardrobe assistant................ Joyce Stokes Hairdresser.............................................. JosePerez Dist company............ GUO Film Distributors Props masters..................................... MartinMcAdoo, Asst art director..........................

Jill Eden Producer................................... JohnWeiley Neil Angwin Special effects......................... Chris Murray Director.................................................. John Duigan Standby props............................. KenJames Stunts..................................................... GrantPage Scriptwriter.............................................. Jack Hibberd Asst props............................................... AnnBrowning Length................................................. 90 min Photography.......................................... TomCowan Set dresser.......................................... AnnieBleakley Gauge................... Anamorphic-Panavision Sound recordist......................................LloydCarrick Set construction..................... Herbert Pinter Progress............................. Awaitingrelease Editor..................................... Tony Paterson Catering.....................

John and Lisa Faithful Release date.............................................May1979 Art director.......................... Larry Eastwood Budget.......................................... $762,391 Cast: Chantal Contour!, Sigrid Thornton, Composer............................ George Dreyfus Length.............................................. 115 min Robert Bruning, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Denise Assoc producers......................... John Timlin, Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Drysdale, Vincent Gil, Jacqui Gordon, Peter Max Gillies Dimboola Progress........................................................Inrelease Stratford, Lulu Pinkus, Stewart Faichney, Prod manager.............................. Vicki Molloy C a s t: B ronw yn M a ckay-P a yn e , Tom Julia Blake, Jon Sidney, Chris Milne, Bob Prod secretary................... LaurelCrampton Richards, Bunney Brooke, Ron Haddrick, Brown, Peter Felmingham, Christine Amor.

1st asst director............ Walter Dobrowolski Helicopter photography....... Keith Lambert, Lathouris, John Ley, Steve Millichamp, Synopsis: A young girl, a madman, her Gabrielle Hartley, John Diedrich, Ivar Kants, Continuity.................................................... JillTaylor Terry Lee Sheila Florence, Max Fairchild, Steven David Cameron, John Clayton, Bill Charlton, dreams, her fantasies.

Boom operator........................................... PhilStirling Armourer..................................... Bryan Burns Clark, George Novak, Reg Evans, Hunter Lyndall Barbour, Kevin Wilson, Reg Gillam, Prod accountant.................... Peter Keenan Electrician.............................................. AlanWalker Gibb, John Farndale, David Bracks, Paul Stuart Finch, Diana Davidson, Judy Farr, Still photography.................. Ponch Hawkes Assistant editor................. Elizabeth Stroud Johnstone, Geoff Parry, Nic Gazzana, John Armstrong.

TIM Prod asst..................................................GregRicketson Negative matching................... Chris Rowell Howard Eynon, Bertrand Cadard, David Synopsis: Drama based on the personal life Catering..................... Richard Ford and Co. Prod company.........Pisces Productions P/L Music performed by................................DaveFennell, Cameron, Jonathon Hardy. story of Australian swimming champion, Driver....................................... Jim Edwards Dist company...........GUO Film Distributors Ace Follington, Denis Garcia, Synopsis: The gladiatorial road culture. A Dawn Fraser.

Best boy....................................................SamBienstock Producer, director and Terry Hannigan, Kink L'Orange, few years from now.

Focus puller................... Jan Kenny scrip tw rite r...............................

Michael Pate Geoff Oakes, John Young, Clapper/loader..................................... KevinAnderson Renee Geyer, Leo de Castro.

Based on the novel by Colleen McCullough Key grip.................................................. PaulAmmitzbol Mixer................................ Julian Ellingworth THE ODD ANGRY SHOT Photography............................ PaulOnorato LITTLE BOY LOST Gaffer......................................... Mick Morris Music recording..................................... PaulRadcliff Sound recordist....................................... LesMcKenzie Prod company.......................... Samson Film Costume/wardrobe.............................. RoseChong, Prod company................................... Summit Title designer.....................Flicks Animation Editor.......................................... DavidStiven Services P/L Margot Lindsay (International) Films Title opticals................ Optical and Graphic Art director................................. JohnCarroll Dist company................................ Roadshow Make-up............................ Annie Pospischil Dist company..................................Filmways Mixed at.................................................UnitedSound Composer.........................................EricJupp Producers.......................... Sue Milliken and Standby props............................ JohnKoning Producer..................................... Alan Spires Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm Assoc producer..............

Geoffrey Gardiner Tom Jeffrey Set decorator......................................... Annie Browning Director..................................... Terry Bourke Length..................................................88 min Prod manager........................ Betty Barnard Director........................................ Tom Jeffrey Budget.......................................... $350,000 Gauge................................................. 35 mm Prod secretary... Rosanne Andrews-Baxter Scriptwriter............................. Terry Bourke Scriptwriter............................................ TomJeffrey Length................................................. 94 min Storyline by John Powell and Susanne Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Producer’s asst................... Christopher Pate Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Turner Printing stock......................... Eastmancolor Unit manager...........................................MarkPiper Sound recordist....................... Don Connolly Progress............................ Awaiting release Photography............................ Ray Henman Progress............................ Awaiting release 1st asst director................... MichaelMidlam Editor...................................

Brian Kavanagh Release date................. April 1979 Sound recordists..........................

Phil Judd Cast: Nat Young/ Ken Brown, Amanda 2nd asst director.................................. KeithHaygate Production designer.............. Bernard Hides Cast: Bruce Spence,Natalie Bate, Max Ron Green Berry, Bryan Brown, Julie McGregor, John 3rd asst director....................... BenCardillo Prod manager............................ Sue Milliken Gillies, Dick May, TimRobertson, Jack Edit, supervisor.....................Ron Williams Flaus, Bronwyn Stevens-Jones, David Continuity............................................ LindaRay Prod secretary......................... Su Armstrong Perry, Irene Hewitt, Alan Rowe, Esme Editor.......................................... Doris Haller Lourie, Peter Wright, John Clayton, Lyn Location manager.................... Ralph Storey Boom operator................... Andrew Duncan Melville, Terry McDermott, Bill Garner, Kerry Art director.......................................... Bruce Barber Collingwood, Adrian Rawlings, P. J. Jones, Casting.................................................FelippaPate 1 st asst director.....................

Mark Egerton Dwyer, Helen Sky, Paul Hampton, Evelyn Composer................................... Bob Young David Elfick, Sandra Alexander, Bruce Prod a c cou n ta n t...................................

Lyn Barker 2nd asst director............................... AnthonyBowman Krape, Val Jellay, Sue Ingleton, Laurel Frank, Prod manager.............................. Mark Piper Goold, Ross Thompson, Mick Eyre, Jim Still photography..............Robert Moorehead 3rd asst director.....................Steve Andrews Claire Dobbin, John Murphy, Fay Mokotow, Prod co-ordinator.......................... Roseanne Roberts and Alex Slutzkin.

Catering...............................................

Jem's Catering Continuity............................ Caroline Stanton Clare Binney, Max Fairchild, Phil Motherwell, Andrews-Baxter Synopsis: Surf, drugs and rock and roll in Best boy.................................................. TedWilliams Boom operator...........................................JoeSpinelli Barry Barkla, Matt Burns, Frankie Raymond, Prod secretaries................................ LorraineWeir, Sydney's Northern Beaches area. Three Producer's secretary................. LynnHyem Casting consultants.............. M & L Casting Max Cullen, Chad Morgan, Sandra Evans, Carol Williams stories intertwine: Joe from Maroubra is Camera operator....................................FrankHammond Prod a c cou n ta n t..................

Treisha Ghent The Captain Matchbox Band.

1st asst directors................ Steve Andrews, looking for drugs; Leilani from Dee Why has Focus puller......................................... DavidBrostoff Still photography.............. David Williamson S ynopsis: A comedy that traces the Greg Allan run away from home; while Paul from Mona Clapper/loader..............

Richard Merryman Best boy................................. Peter Maloney unusual social history of a small country 2nd asst director.................. Chris Morsden Vale is unemployed and angry. Their lives Key grip................................................. RossErikson Runner.................................................. GeoffTanner town over the three days that lead up to the Continuity......................................

Linda Ray, are observed over a 48-hour period.

Asst grip.................................................

Paul Thompson Camera operator....................... JohnSearle marriage of Maureen Delaney to Morrie Caroline Stanton Gaffer..................................................... DerekJones Focus puller................................. David Burr McAdam.

Boom operator................... Andrew Duncan Asst editor.........................................

Joanna Lynes Clapper/loader............................ Rod Hinds Prod ac cou n ta n t..........................Peter Ham Key grip.............................. Graham Mardell Sound editor..............................................TimWellburn MAD MAX Still photography................... Robert Hardie, FELICITY Costume/wardrobe....................................PatForster Asst grip.......................... Graham Litchfield Prod company......................... Mad Max P/L David Miller Make-up and hairdresser___Michelle Lowe Prod company....... Krystal Film Productions Gaffer.................................................

Robbie Young Dist company.......... . Roadshow Distributors Catering................... John and Lisa Faithfull Props buyer.......................... Barbara Gibbs Dist company...........Roadshow Distributors Asst editor.........................John Mandelburg Producer.............................. Byron Kennedy Wranglers............................................ HeathHarris, Standby props..................................... PhilipWorth Producers.........................John Lamond and Sound editor.........................................

Dean Gawen Director................... ................ George Miller David Tickle ■ RussellHurley Make-up................................. Deryk de Niese Budget.......................................... $650,000 Scriptwriters........... ... James McCausland, Length..................................................... 100 minCamera operators............... Bob McDonald, Director.................................................. JohnLamond Wardrobe master................................. AnnaSenior George Miller Kevin Lind, Scriptwriter........................................ Felicity Robinson Standby wardrobe.............. Graham Purcell Progress................................Post-production Photography........... ..................David Eggby Louis Irving Release date................................. June 1979 Photography....................... Garry Wapshott Props master....................................... BruceBarber .................

Gary Wilkens Sound recordist— Focus pullers........................

David Brostoff, Cast: Piper Laurie, Mel Gibson, Alwyn Sound recordist.................................... John Phillips Standby props........................................ ClarkMunro Editors................................... Tony Paterson, Jan Kenny Kurts, Pat Evison, Deborah Kennedy.

Editor...................................... Russell Hurley Assistant art director............ Caroline Duffy Cliff Hayes Clapper/loaders..................... Ross Landers, Synopsis: A love story of an older woman Art director.........................Stephen Wallace Stunts.......................................... Grant Page Art director................................. Jon Dowding Shalagh McCarthy Exec producer................... William Marshall Construction manager.................. Bill Howe and younger man.

Composer..................................... Brian May Camera asst.............................. Roger Boyle Prod manager................... Tom Broadbridge Budget.......................................... $600,000 .......................Bill Miller Assoc producer___ Key grip..................................................

RayBrown 1st asst director................................ Miki Ko Length................................................. 90 min Prod co-ordinator........................ Jenny Day Asst grips.......................................... StewartGreen, Continuity................................... Diane Morris Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor In Release Unit manager........... ..................John Hipwell Ralph Gosper Boom operator............................ RayPhillips Progress............................ Awaiting release Prod asst................. .........Tom Broadbridge Gaffer.....................................................SimonPurton Camera asst......................................... DenisNikolic Cast: Graham Kennedy, John Jarratt, John 1st asst director... . ................. IanGoddard Electrician............................................... CraigBryant Key grip................................... George Turner Hargreaves, Graeme Blundell, Bryan Brown, 2nd asst director... ............ Steve Connard Post-production supervisor.........Alan Lake Gaffer.........................................................RayThomas Ian Gilmour, Richard Moir, John Allen, ................

Des Sheridan 3rd asst director___ Opticals..................................... Larry Wyner Electrician................................................. RayThomas Brandon Burke, Graham Rouse, Tony Barry.

Continuity....... ..... ............ Shirley Ballard Asst editors.................................. Evan Ham, Asst editor........................... Jackie Hokarth Synopsis: A tough, biting comedy, The Odd DAWN! Boom operator..................... MarkWasiutak Ashley Grenville Costume/Wardrobe................... Diane Morris Angry Shot follows a group of Australian Casting consultants........ Mitch Consultancy Sound editors............................ Max Lemon, Prod company...................

Aquataurus Film Make-up......................... Margaret Archmen regular soldiers — members of the elite Still photography— ................Chic Stringer Andrew Steuart Productions Pty. Ltd., Asst art director.......................... PeterWalsh Special Air Service — through a year's tour Traffic supervisors..................Andrew Jones, Editing assts. ................... Lee Smith, South Australian Budget.......................................... $200,000 of duty in Vietnam in the late 1960s. It Stuart Beatty Rick Adams Film Corporation Length................................................. 90 min shows how they cope with the closeness Mechanics.............. ................. Clive Rowell, Negative matching Ron and Marilyn Delaney Producer.................................................... JoyCavlll Progress.............. .............. Awaiting release and frustrations of camp life, punctuated by Robert Orchard, Music recorded by...........Maurie Wilmore at Director.....................................KenHannam Cast: Glory Amen, Chris Milne, jo n i Flynn, patrols into the jungle to fire "the odd angry Murray Smith Madrigal Studios (Sydney) Scriptwriter............................................. JoyCavlll Jody Hansen, Marilyn Rodgers, Gordon shot” .

Best boy.................. .............. Garry Plunkett Mixer and sound supervisor......... Phil Judd Photography............................ Russell Boyd Charles. .....................

Tim Smart Clapper/loader.......

Asst mixer.................................................. PhilHeywood Sound recordist...................................... KenHammond Synopsis: A young “ Emmanuellete" story SNAPSHOT Camera asst........... ............ Harry Glynatsis Make-up............................................... NikkiMcAdoo, Editor...................................................... MaxLemon tracing the adventures of Felicity Robinson Grips....................... ........... Noel McDonald, Prod company.........Australian International Michelle Lowe Art director............................................ RossMajor and her sexual awakening in the exotic and David Cassar Film Corporation P/L, Hairdresser............................ Vanessa Flipse Exec producer.............................................Jill Robb erotic Orient.

Gaffer..................... ............... Lindsay Foote F.G. Film Productions P/L Assoc producer................. Sandra McKenzie Wardrobe masters...................... RobynHall, Costu me/ward robe. ................. ClareGriffin, Dist company................................... Filmways Lesley McLennan Prod manager......................................... RossMatthews PALM BEACH Merran Kingsford-Smith Producer.......................... Antony I. Ginnane Wardrobe assL............ Robyn Schuurmans Prod associate........................ Gloria Payten Producer................................................ Albie Thoms Make-up.................. ..................VivMephan Director.....................................Simon Wincer Props master.........................................

TonyHunt Prod assistants.................................. GrahamMcKinney, Director.................................................. Albie Thoms Hairdresser............ .. Ben Taylor Workshop Scriptwriters................................. Chris and Standby props....................... Roger Sparkes Jack Zalkans Asst art d ire cto r__ ............ Steve Amezdroz Scriptwriter.............................. Albie Thomas Everett de Roche Asst art director.........................

Jai Hylands Prod secretary.........................Jenny Tosollnl Photography............................ Oscar Scherl Special effects....... .................. Chris Murray Photography....................... Vincent Monton Stunt Boy............................... Toshiro Bourke Location m anager............Beverly Davidson Sound recordist.....................Miachel Moore Stunt co-ordinator.. ................... Grant Page Sound recordist...........................Paul Clark Carpenters................................................Billy Malcolm, 1st asst director................................... MarkEgerton Editor..................................................... Albie Thoms Length..................... .......................... 89 min Editor.......................................... Phillip Reid Philip Worth 2nd asst director...................................PennyChapman Composer.............................. Terry Hannigan Shooting stock. — .............. Eastmancolor, Production designer................ Jon Dowding Narrator.............. Garry Ord (Courtesy ABC) 3rd asst director................................... ScottHicks Todd-AO Prod manager................................... Bob Hill Composer..................................... Brian May Continuity................................................ LynMcEncroe Title designer........................................ LarryWyner Progress............................ Awaiting release 1st Asst director........................................ JanChapman Prod manager..............................Barbi Taylor Boom operator...........................................JoeSpinelli Title opticals................ Opticals & Graphics Additional sound..................... Rick Creaser Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Vince Prod secretary.................................... JennyBarter Sydney Prod a ccou n ta n t.................................... JeanFindlay Prod assistants..................... Toby Shepherd, Gil, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Roger Ward, Steve 1st asst director..................................... TomBurstall Still photography................................. DavidKynoch Mixed at......................... Atlab Laboratory Peter Glencross Bisley, Tim Burns, Lulu Pinkus, Nick 2nd asst director.................................. JohnHipwell Technical adviser...................................DawnFraser Laboratory............................................ Atlab

296 — Cinema Papers, March-April

PRODUCTION SURVEY Laboratory liaison..................... Jim Parsons Budget.......................................... $368,000 Length. ........................................ 92 mins Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Progress........................................ In release Release date................ November 16,1978 First released....................... Capitol Cinema, Armidale (NSW) World Premiere Total Cinema, Melbourne Dec 21,1978 Cast: John Hargreaves, Tony Barry, Julie Dawson, James E llio tt, John Jarratt, Bernadette Hughson, Les Foxcroft, Brian Anderson, Don Crosby, Steve Dodd, Mark Hashfield, Ray Marshall, Ross Bailey, Robert Quilter, John Nash, Redmond Phillips and Nathan Dawes as Stephen Walls, Synopsis: Four-year-old Stephen Walls is lost during sheep-herding near Guyra in the New England Ranges. Across Australia the nation waits and prays. The country's biggest search covers four days and three nights. Based on a true event in 1960.

Theme song................................. Bob Frank Scriptwriter.......................... Anne Summers Catering................................. Hetty Rollings Prod assts............................ Robert Grenfell, Camera operators..................................DavidForeman, Based on the experiences of women Harry Patterson Geoff Tanner in NSW prisons Negative cutter............................ Liz Rapsey Focus puller............................Carmen Gallan Photography............................... Erika Addis Mixer.............................. J. Pierre Perpignani Key grip.............................................. KieranKennedy Sound recordist................... Richard Arnold Mixed at.............................. Perth Institute of Asst grips.....................................Kym Elson, Editor...................................... Denise Haslem Film and Television Paul Neale Art director..........................................Cynthia Connop Sponsor................................ Alcoa Australia 2nd unit photography............................ GeoffTanner Exec Producer..................................... PeterMaxwell Length................................................. 12 min Asst editors..............................................Livia Ruzic, Prod manager...................................... SabinaWynn Shooting stock..................... Eastmancolor David Foreman 1st asst director................................. DiDrew Progress..............................Post-production Music performed by___Paul Mattingley and Continuity................................................ LynnGailey Synopsis: A look at the activities of the Alex Svencis Boom operator..............................Mark Lewis Hotham Valley Steam Railway Society.

Wardrobe master....................................MarkMcKenna Still photography..................... Margot Nash Every Sunday from May to October, the Make-up................................. LynetteFisher Camera operator.......... Ray Argali society has excursions from Perth to Hairdresser................................. Sheila Elder Clapper/loader.............. Michelle McKenzie Pinjarra by diesel. Then from Pinjarra to Laboratory...................................... Colorfilm Key grip................................. Barry Kearney Dweilingup by double steam train through Length................................................. 20 min Asst grip.................................Stewart Green the picturesque Hotham Valley.

Shooting stock............... Eastmancolor 7247 Gaffer..............................Graham McLachlan Progress..............................Post-production Music performed by____Margret Roadknight Release date............................... March 1979 Mixer..................................... Richard Arnold SHARKING Cast: Timothy Edwards, David Dudman, Make-up.............................. Cathy Johnson, Prod company... Educational Media Centre, Philip Laylor, Glen Evans, Hetty Rollings, Kim Taylor Education Unit RMIT John Remiese, Louise Blackwell, Rada Title designer........................................ MikeDavies Producer................................. Rod Rees Claridge, Cathy Lynch, Michael Moody, Title opticals................ Jeff Bruer Director...................................

Rod Rees Norman Comfrey.

Studios.................................. Australian Film Scriptwriters........................................... TerryWalker, Synopsis: A glimpse into a young boy’s life and T elevislon School Rod Rees in the Australian bush in the late 1920s. Laboratory.......... ....................KG, Colorfilm THE NIGHT THE PROWLER For details of the following film see the Photography............................................ JohnGarrity Growing up as the son of German migrants, Length................................................. 12 min Prod company........... Chariot Films Pty. Ltd. previous issue: Sound recordists...................

David Blanch, he shares in the mischief and humor of a Shooting stock............. Ilford FP4 Producer............................. Anthony Buckley Martin Lawrence boy’s first attempt at smoking with his Progress.......................................... In release Blue Fin Director.....................................Jim Sharman Editor.......................................Rod Rees Australian companions. However, as Guy C ast: Lorna Lesley, Shirley Cameron, Scriptwriter..............................Patrick White Length................................................. 25 min Fawkes night draws near, his adventurous Jeannie Drynan, Tony Barry.

Photography..................... David Sanderson Shooting stock..................... Eastman 7247 s p i r i t le a d s h im to u n fo r e s e e n Synopsis: Terry is a street survivor.

She Sound recordist.......................Don Connolly Progress..............................Post-production circumstances. cruises around Kings Cross cracking it Editor........................................Sara Bennett Release date........................................ 1979 when she can. When she goes into the boob SHORTS Prod designer.................................... Luciana Arrighi Sponsor...................

Victorian Fisheries and to serve her warrants an old conflict with a Composer..............................Cameron Allen EVERY GIRL’S DREAM Wildlife Division screw is renewed.

Prod manager...........................................PomOliver Synopsis: Documentary tracing the history Prod company............................ Film House Prod secretary.........................Su Armstrong of Australia's unique shark fishing industry Productions, Perth Unit manager........................................ BrianRosen since shark first went to the Melbourne fish Carmelo Musca Note: Unless otherwise stated, the films 1st asst director...............................ElisabethKnight market in the '20s as ‘flake'. “ Sharking” also Dist company.....................................A.S.A.P. For details of the following films see the mentioned below are 16mm.

2nd asst director.................................. KeithHeygate looks at the mercury contamination problem Producers................................................ IanMcLean, previous issue: 3rd asst director....................... Brian Rosen and current Fisheries and Wildlife research Carmelo Musca Astral Projections Continuity............................ Caroline Stanton into management policy options with an eye Director...................................... Don Rignall The Bedspread Boom operator..................................... Chris Goldsmith to the ind u stry's long-term econom ic AFTER THE WIND Scriptwriter............................ Barry Pattison The Car Strippers Casting co nsu lta n ts..............M & L Casting survival.

Photography.............................................. IanMcLean Prod company.......... Armageddon Pictures The Forbidden Room Prod accountanL................. GeoffCameron Sound................................... CarmeloMusca Producer................................Michele Bolton Fragments Still photography..................................... BrettHilder Editor...................................................... BarryPattison Director, scriptwriter In a Little Crooked House Best boy........................................ Pat Hagen Prod manager......................

Carmelo Musca and photography.........................Paul Elliott Life-Class Runner.......................................... Rosie Lee Prod secretary............................ Sarah Bale For details of the following films see the Sound recordist..... .................... John Elliott The Punter Camera operator.......................... Kevin Lind Camera assistant....................... Brett Rixon previous issue: Editor...................................... Robert Martin She Found a Crooked Sixpence Focus puller................................. David Burr Graphics...................................... JillFrewer Art director...............................

Adrian Bruch Traces Clapper/loader....................... Mike Gambrill Agnew Nickel Length.................................................48 min Composer..........................William McDonald Key grip.................................................. PaulAmmitzbol Beachfront Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Prod manager.........................................LibbyO'Neil Gaffer......................................................PeterWood Cement for Building Australia Release date................................June 1979 Asst director..............................Graham Irwin Electrician............................................... RoyMajewski The Dangers of Road Safety Cast: Cheryl Rixon, Nigel Ballard, Paul Continuity................................................LucyMaclaren Getting It Together Asst editor..................................... TedOtten Rigby, Little River Band, Roberta Flack, Bob Catering............................................. Jackie Hanrahan Sound editor............................ Paul Maxwell I Want to Work Guccione.

DO C U M EN TARIES Child wrangler..................................... JulietDarling Mixer........................................ Peter Fenton Merino Synopsis: The film traces the rise of West Camera asst..................... ' ___David Collyer Costume designer.................................. AnnaSenior Operation Earthquake Australian girl Cheryl Rixon in the world Sound editor......................................... PeterHarper Make-up.................................................... Jill Porter Port of Fremantle — Western Australia entertainment scene.

Negative cutter...........................Ursula Jung Hairdresser..............................Trish Cunliffe The Race Mixer..................................... Steve Edwards Props buyer............................ Bruce Barber Sydney’s Aslan Film Festival Make-up............................... Kirsten Veysey ENERGY AND AGRICULTURE Asst props buyer..................... Jenny Green Seventy Two Hours LOW FLYING Models...................................... Rudi Mineur Prod company......................

CSIRO Vandalism Standby props............................ Harry Zettel Prod company Window Productions Pty. Ltd. Producer.............................. Nick Alexander Construction Walk With Safety Length................................................. 90 min Producer............................... Glenn Thomas Director......................................

Chris Oliver and transport....................................

Andrew Jones Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Director................................. Ray Lawrence Scriptwriter.......................... Graeme O’Neill Title design............................... Graphixlnc.

Progress........................................ In release Scriptwriters............................. Peter Carey, Photography.............................. John Ruane Budget............................................... $6000 Cast: Ruth Cracknell, John Frawley, Kerry Ray Lawrence Editor..........................................Chris Oliver Length.................................................

19 min Walker, John Derum, Maggie Kirkpatrick, Adapted from a short story by Peter Carey Prod assistants........................ Alice Bugge, Release date.......................... February 1979 Terry Camilleri.

TELEVISION Val Musgrave Photography......................... Glenn Thomas Cast: Gary Roche, Ronald Little, Bridget Synopsis: Exploiting the furore surrounding Additional photography... Roger Seccombe Sound recordist................... Ken Hammond Archibald, Nadine Kempton, Jacqueline SERIES her attem pted rape, a young woman Editor.....................................Richard Clarke Animation............................... Paul Williams Fine, Jacqueline and Chris Elliott. emerges from the claustrophobia of a S y n o p s is : A grim p o st-A rm ag e d do n Art director..................... Victoria Alexander Graphic design...................................Al et Al wealthy conservative family and turns from Composer.................................... Peter Best Length.................................................30 min science fiction tale. The last desperate victim to criminal, stalking the streets of Prod manager.......................Jillian Nicholas Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor remnants of humanity battle for survival in Sydney by night in a relentless pursuit of the bleak and poisoned wastelands of the FALCON ISLAND Boom operator................... Chris Goldsmith Release date..............................March 1979 her own liberation.

Prod company................... Perth Institute of Casting............................... Robyn Gardiner Synopsis: The film explores energy In nuclear destroyed future.

Film and Television Technical adviser.............

JeffHokin agriculture, and examines the implications Eroducer •..............................Judith West Camera assistant................. John Swaffield for the farmer of the world’s oil supply MONEY MOVERS Scriptwriters.......................... Joan Ambrose Key grip..........................................Neil Head running out in the next 20 to 30 years. It A BOY ON THE WING and Ron Bunney Prod company................... South Australian Sound editor................................... Greg Bell outlines what energy research is being Prod company................. Ankh Productions Film Corporation Script editor................................Moya Wood M ixer. ................................... Peter Fenton undertaken In Australia and aims to create a Producer.......................................................AlKemp Exec producer.......................... Paul Barron Dist company............ South Australian Film Hairdresser...................... Penny Saunders receptive attitude towards the inevitable Director....................................................... AlKemp Corporation/Roadshow Gauge................................................. 1 6mm ' Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm changes ahead.

Photography......................................... DavidBudd Length.......................................... 5 x 3 0 min Producer...................................................MattCarroll B u d g e t............................................. $30,000 Sound recordist........................................JudiCann Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Director.............................. Bruce Beresford Length.................................................30 min Editor............................................. Kamal Pen FIGHT THAT FIRE Progress................................Pre-production Scriptwriter.........................Bruce Beresford Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Lighting................................................... PeterBullCast: Henri Szeps, Kate Ferguson, Martin Synopsis: Falcon Island is a children's Prod company...........................Impact Films Adapted from a book by Devon Minchin.

Assistant director................... Henry Bartnik television drama series about three children Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Producer, director and Vaughan, Robert Hughes, Abe Worthington.

Continuity...............................................Moira EastSynopsis: A couple struggle to commun­ scriptwriter.......................... John Fitzgerald and their community on Falcon Island. The Sound recordist.......................Don Connolly Boom operator..........................

David Nolan Photography................ Bob Hawkins, A.C.S. Editor....................................... Bill Andrerson icate their love for one another which ends Clapper/loader........................ Mike Nichols Sound recordist..................... JohnMcPhail Art director............................. DavidCopping in a "suicide” .

Camera assistant.....................Sally Bowles Editor................................... John Fitzgerald Prod manager.......................................... PatClayton Key grip................................... Don Meloche Negative matching................The Matching Production secretary............... BarbaraRing Mechanics Asst directors.......................... MarkEgerton, Length............................................ 20 mins NO FEAR Shooting stock............... Eastmancolor 7247 Mark Turnbull, Mixer................... Dubbs & Co (John Leslie) Prod company......... Dramafilm Productions Progress............................................. Editing Scott Hicks Narrator..................................................... PhilHaldeman Producer....................................

Claire Jager Cast: Dorothy Barber, Catherine Steel, Luke Title opticals...................... Optical & Graphic Continuity............................................. MoyaIceton Director.................................................. ClaireJager Smith, Bridgette Cheffins, Caroline Poulton, Mixed at..................................... Dubbs & Co Boom operator.............................................JoSpinelli Sound recordist....................................... KaiDineen Debbie Chaloupka, Murray van Luyn, Nigel Laboratory................... Colorfilm and Colour 2nd unit director................ Bruce Beresford Editors.............................. NubarGhazarian, Goode, Gerald Burns, Kathie Hough, Jacqui Transcriptions Pty Ltd Casting consultants............................. AllisonBarrett, Claire Jager Levison.

S.A. Casting Budget...........................$1 5,000 (approx.)

Continuity............................. Ursula Harrison Still photography....................David Kynoch Length.................................................

19 min Boom operator.........................................MickHoran Technical advisor................. DevonMinchin Camera operator........................ John Laurie Shooting stock................ Ektachrome 7240 CIGARETTES AND MATCHES Progress........................................

In release Script editor.......................... Harold Lander Camera asst......................... Justine Rotman Producer, director Best boy...................................Peter Maloney Key grip...................................... CathyFlaus Release date............................ January 1979 Runners....................................... Jerry Elder and scriptwriter:..................................... JerryElder C ast: Coal miners from Eastern Main Gaffer....................................Miranda Coates Based on the chapter “ Cigarettes and Camera operator.........................John Seale Colliery. NSW and Mines Rescue Stations.

Include your current and future Budget................... $2800 (to double-head) Matches" from Colin Thiele’s book, Sun on Focus puller................................. David Burr S y n o p s is : A film in te n d e d fo r a ll projects in our p ro d u c tio n Length...................................................9 min the Stubble Clapper/loader..................... David Foreman underground coal miners.

The types of fires Progress..............................Post-production survey listings. Forward details Key grip..................................... David Petley Photography...................... David Foreman encountered in coal mines and how best to Cast: Laila Fanebust, Peter Brownrigg. and stills to: Sound recordists............................... JennyMiles, Gaffer.......................................... Rob Young Synopsis: The emotional upheavals of two put them out before they endanger lives.

Livia Ruzic Electrician................................. KevinMcKie shift workers.

Editor....................................................... JerryElder 2nd unit photography............. Don McAlpine Production Survey, Art director................................. RexMenzel Special effects photography.. Ian Jamieson Prod manager........................... Rex Menzel Cinema Papers, Asst editor................... . Jeannine Chialvo REBIRTH OF STEAM Prod secretary.................................

Gemma Booth Costume/wardrobe................... AnnaSenior 644 Victoria St., SAINT THERESE Producer and director............ Graham Rolls 1st asst director................... Paul Blackwell Make-up.......................................Jose Perez Sydney Photography.......................... Graham Rolls, North Melbourne 3051.

Continuity............................ Marilyn Menzel Dist company...............................

Hairdresser................................. Jose Perez Graham Varney Filmmakers Co-op Boom operator............................. Colin Hills Telephone: (03) 329 5983 Props buyer............................................... NeilAngwin Producer...............................

JohnCruthers Sound recordist............................

Chris Bell Prod accountant..............

Gordon McMillan Standby props........................................ Clark Munro Director................................... DanielaTorsh Editor..................................... Graham Varney Still photography...........................Chris Bain Asst, art director............ .

Harry Zettel Stunt co-ordinator............................ Alf Joint Set decorator.............................. Ken James Set construction..................... Herbert Pinter Titles................................. Optical & Graphic Budget.......................................... $536,861 Length................................................. 90 min Gauge................................................. 35 mm Color Process................................. Eastman Progress........................................ in release Cast: Terence Donovan, Ed Devereaux, Tony Bonner, Charles (Bud) Tingwell, Candy Raymond, Frank Wilson.

Synopsis: Dick Martin Is an ex-policeman dismissed for taking a bribe. He joins Darcy’s Security Services who believe they are going to be robbed. They suspect an inoffensive-seeming recruit though the robbery is actually being planned by an old employee. The elaborate robbery is planned to take place when most of the staff are at a union meeting and only starts to go wrong when Martin notices a flaw in the replica armoured car which is the key to the attempted theft

PRODUCERS, DIRECTORS

and

PRODUCTION COMPANIES

Cinema Papers, March-April — 297

THE VINCENT LIBRARY

Providing Efficient, Friendly Service to Film Borrowers Throughout Australia.

Feature Film s Available For Rental ADOPTION BATTLE OF CHILE BETWEEN WARS THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT BONJOUR BALWYN CHAC CHILDREN OF THE MOON A CITY'S CHILD

THE CONFESSIONS OF WINIFRED WAGNER FOX AND HIS FRIENDS THE HARDER THEY COME HARLAN COUNTY USA HOLLYWOOD ON TRIAL HOW WILLINGLY YOU SING ILLUMINATIONS JAZZ ON A SUMMER'S DAY

NINE MONTHS OFF THE WALL OFFICE PICNIC PHANTOM INDIA POINT OF ORDER PURES TIDIKAWA AND FRIENDS WELCOME TO BRITAIN YAKKETY YAK

Short Feature Films Available For Rental BACKROADS THE CARTOGRAPHER AND THE WAITER DADDY COOL DEVICES AND DESIRES DRIFTING THE FOUNDATIONS BELONG TO THE INCAS HERE'S TO YOU MR ROBINSON INTRODUCTIONS

THE LAST HARVEST LETTERS FROM POLAND LISTEN TO THE LION LOVE LETTERS FROM TERALBA ROAD MELANIE AND ME M EXICO'75 MYSTICAL ROSE NIUGINI - CULTURE SHOCK PROCESSED PROCESS QUEENSLAND

RAINBOW FARM SCHOOL'S O U T SOFT SOAP SUMMER SHADOWS TOUCHING THE EARTH: AT ULURU TOUCHING THE EARTH: KATATJUTA TOUCHING THE EARTH: OCEAN AT PT LOOKOUT THE WAR GAME

Short Film s Available For Rental ACK ACK GIRL ANGEL ANTIONSO GAUDI TO A DANCING GOD APPLAUSE PLEASE AUSTRALIAN HISTORY BAD SOCIETY CALENDAR OF DREAMING CHOPPING BLOCK COAL TOW N COLD ACTION CLEANS AND WHITENS CONFIRMATION IN THE BEGINNING KATY DEATH OF A RAT

DREAMS FIGURE ONE FIRST STEPS FIRST THINGS FIRST THE IDYLL THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING PERFECTLY STILL

Enquiries concerning the Vincent Library should be directed to Sue Murray or Nadia Lettoof: 79-81 Cardigan St., Carlton Victoria 3053 Telephone: (03) 347 6888

NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE PAUSES PLEASE DON'T BURY ME PRISONERS RAINBOW WAY RED DEER IN QUEENSLAND RED DOG RIDE AGAINST URANIUM THE SHELL GAME SPACE TIME STRUCTURES SUN THIN EDGE WE AIM T O PLEASE LETTER TO A FRIEND MARGARET MUDBASH

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 a c tio n fe a tu re s se ve ra l u nd e rw a te r adventures as the children seek to find the site of an old Dutch wreck threatened by a proposed sand-mining venture that is also the subject of an important local community debate.

FATTY AND GEORGE

THE SYSTEM

Prod company...................... Tasmanian Film Prod company..................... Tasmanian Film Corporation Corporation Dist company................................TasmanianFilmDist company....................... Tasmanian Film Corporation Corporation Producer.....................................John Honey Producers..................................................DonAnderson, Director.................................................. RonSaunders John Honey PATROL BOAT Scriptwriter........................................... JohnPatterson Director................................... Sherry James Based on an Scriptwriter.........................

Stephen Collins Prod company....... Australian Broadcasting Film Australia idea by Photography............................ Gert Kirchner Commission — TV Drama , Eddie Moses Sound re c o rd is t......................................PaulClark Directors.............................................. FrankArnold, and Ron Saunders Continuity............................ Louise Sanders Rob Stewart, Photography.............................................GertKirchner Boom operator..................John Jasiukowicz Brian McDuffie Sound recordist................... Peter McKinley Still photography.................................... WilfElvey Script editors.......................... James Davern, ARCHITECTURE - A Editor...............................

Mike Woolveridge Camera a s s t................... Russell Galloway J.N.P. Productions PERFORMING ART Prod manager......................... JackZalkalns Key grip.................................................. GarryClements Photography........................................... PeterHendry Prod company................Michael Robertson 1 st asst, director.....................................

Jack Zalkalns Length.................................................

20 min Sound recordist............................ Bob Peck Productions Pty. Ltd. Boom operator..................John Jasiukowicz Gauge................................................. 16mm Editors.................... Richard Francis-Bruce, Dist company..........................Film Australia Still photography.......................................Ray Davy Shooting s to c k ............

7247 Eastmancolor Neil Thumpston Producer............................... Peter Johnson Mechanic...........................................LembertLaats Release d a te ............................. March 1979 Art director..........................Laurie Johnston Director and scriptwriter. Michael Robertson Camera asst..................... Russell Galloway Prod designers................................... NeaveCatchpool, Synopsis A documentary on the system of Photography............................ David Gribble Key grip.................................................. GarryClements motor-cycle control. Made for the Tas­ Graeme Gould Sound recordist........................ Ross Linton Opticals.....................................................VFL Exec producer............................ Ray Alehin manian Police Force.

Editor........................................................AlanLake Asst editor.............................................. PosieJacobs Prod managers................Michael Baynham, Length................................................. 25 min Mixer......................................Peter McKinley , DennisKealy Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Make-up............................................... AstraPalkovs Prod co-ordinator....................... JoyTrinder Progress................................. Pre-production Australian Film Props buyer........................ Louise Sanders 1st assist director....................... Ray Brown Release date.............................................July1979 Special effects....................................... BobWard Commission 2nd assist director................ Russell Webb Cast: John Andrews.

Set decorator.......................Louise Sanders 3rd assist, director................ Brian Giddens Synopsis: One of the series, “ Aspects of Laboratory.................................................VFL Continuity..............................Carolyn Gould, Australia” . This film tells of the life and work Length................................................. 30 min Julie Nelson of the famous Australian architect, John CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH Gauge................................................. 16mm Boom operator.......................Michael Breen Andrews.

Shooting s to c k ............ 7247 Eastmancolor Casting consultant................ Jennifer Allen Projects approved at the Australian Film Release date......................... February 1979 Still photography................... Martin Webby Commission meeting on December 18, Technical advisor.. Cmdr. Alun Evans R.A.N. THE BOORT AND QUAMBATOOK Cast: Noreen Le Mottee, William Francis, 1978: Richard Meredith, Scott Kinloch, Louise Camera operator................................ DanielBatterham STANDARD TIMES Douglas, Matthew Excell, Mark Kop, Michael Focus puller................................ JeffMalouf S C R IP T D E V E LO P M E N T FU N D Prod company..........

Rob Brow Productions Aitken, Adrian Brosnehan.

Clapper/Loader..................................... DavidEvans Pty. Ltd. Synopsis: Two children develop a crystal Mario Andreacchio (NSW), to develop a Key Grip.................................................. AndyGlavin Dist company.........................

Film Australia which can control time. Pilot for a children's treatment for Juvo, $600.

Gaffer....... _ _ .........................Jack Kendrick Producer............................... Peter Johnson television series.

M i x e r . ..............................Alan Allen Michael Jenkins (NSW), to develop a Director..........................................Rob Brow Costume/Wardrobe......... Caroline Suffield, treatment for Tin Cat Alley, $800.

Scriptwriters............................ Geoff Taylor, Bridget Graham Noel Field Phillip Witts (NSW), to develop The More I Make-up.......................... Norman Blanchard, Length......................................................... 25 min See You, $1100.

Robert Wasson Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor HAPPILY EVER AFTER Special effects..................... Jack Armytage Grae James (Vic.), to develop a screenplay Progress............................... Pre-production Prod company.....................Tasmanian Film Length........................................ 1 3 x 5 0 min for Dark Ground, $1000.

Release date................................. July 1979 Gauge................................................. 16mm Corporation Synopsis: A film in the series "Aspects of Dist company....................... Tasmanian Film John Ruane/Ellery Ryan (Vic.), to develop a Shooting stock..................... Eastman 7247 Australia". This one tells of the story behind Corporation screenplay for Overdrive, $1200.

Progress..................................................... InProduction the production of a newspaper in the Producer.....................................John Honey Release date........................................ 1979 Victorian wheat belt.

Michael Pattinson/Keith Thompson (Vic), to Director.......................................John Honey Cast: Andrew McFarlane, Robert Coleby, develop a screenplay for A King o f Sheds Scriptwriter................... Christine Schofield Danny Adcock, Tim Burns, Rob Baxter, plus and Patches, $1300.

Photography...........................................ChrisMorgan guests for individual episodes.

GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

WATER SAFETY

Sound re c o rd is t.................................... PeterMcKinley Daro Gunsburg (Vic), to develop Stumbling, Prod company.............. R.G.A. Films Pty. Ltd. Editor.......................................... Peter Davis $500.

Dist company............................Film Australia Prod manager........................ JackZalkalns John Emery (SA), to develop a treatment for Producer............................... Peter Johnson Continuity................................... Tracy Gadd Pine Gap, from a storyline, $500.

Director and scriptwriter...........Rob McAuley Boom operator................. John Jasiukowicz Photography........................ Peter Hopwood Still photography............................Ray Davy Sound recordist................................. Harold Hawes FILM P RO DU CTION FU N D Camera a s s t.................................... RussellGalloway Editor.................................................... AdrianHobbs Key grip.................................................. GarryClements Linda Blagg (NSW), to make Portrait o f a Narrator.................................................. KenWarby Asst editor.............................................. PosieJacobs D ia rist $41,882.

Length..................................................... 6 x 5 minSound editor......................................... PeterMcKinley Gauge................................................16 mm Albie Thoms (NSW), to complete Palm THE PRISONER Mixer....................................................... PeterMcKinley Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Make-up............................................... AstraPalkovs Beach, $37,956.

Prod company— The Grundy Organisation Progress....................................................... Inrelease Title designer............................ GudrunHey Dist company........................ O/Ten Network Release date........................ February 1979 Length................................................. 20 min Producer................................................... IanBradley E X P E R IM E N T A L FILM FU N D Synopsis: A series of six short films, Gauge................................................. 16mm Exec producer........................................ RegWatson covering various aspects of safety on the Shooting stock.............. 7247 Eastmancolor Tim Burns (NSW), to make Against the Prod manager.......................... Valerie Unwin water, aimed at Australia’s boating public.

Grain, $15,752.

Progress........................................ In release Length.......................................... 16x60 min Release date........................ December 1978 Gauge..............................................Videotape Anthony Gooley (NSW), to make an untitled Cast: Shane Bourne, Reg Evans, Billie Progress....................................................... Inproduction YOU’D HAVE TO BE MAD TO LIKE animation film, $2330.

Hammerberg, Helen Hemingway, Fred Cast: Elspeth Ballantyne, Richard Moir, OPERA Michael Hill (NSW), to make Sweet Tooth Frampton, Nora Potter, Susannah Fuchs, Pietta Toppano.

Prod company.......................................... FilmAustralia Scharotti, $2494.

Tony Tapp, Jerry Burns.

Synopsis: A drama series set in a women’s Dist company...........................................

Film Australia Synopsis: A drama which examines the prison.

Michael Lee (NSW), to make Rock H eart Producer.................................................. GilBrealey social roots of domestic violence. Produced Promised Land, $7229 Director and scriptwriter......... Karl McPhee for the Department of Social Welfare.

Photography........................ Andrew Fraser STAX Oliver Robb (NSW), to make Want to Sound recordist................................. RodneySimmons Work?, $3051.

Producer....................................... Bob Weis Editor.......................................................... IanWalker Directors..................................................... IanMacrae, Bruno Annetta (Vic), to make The Life o f a MARINE RESOURCES Prod manager...........................................

Roy Bissell Chris Lofven, Red Blood Ceil, $2754.

Sound editor.......................... Sarah Bennet Prod company.....................Tasmanian Film John Tegg, Corporation Mixer...........................................

George Hart Dirk de Bruyn (Vic), to make Experiments, Ron Brown Length......................................................... 20MinDist company...................... Tasmanian Film $3918.

Photography Corporation Gauge................................................. 16mm (tape and film)...............................Alan Cole, Jonas Balsatls (Vic), to make Restram Producer.................................

Damien Parer Shooting stock.......... ............

7247E/C neg Malcolm Richards Roloc, $11,242.

Progress...............................................Editing Director.................................... Marcus Cole Sound..................................... Lloyd Carrick, Scriptwriter........................ Charles Woolley Release date............................... Early 1979 John Dunkley-Smith (Vic), to make City John Rowley Cast: Isobel Buchanan, Grant Dickson, Photography..................... Russell Galloway Scape, $4759.

Assoc producer......................... Judi Stack Sound R ecordist................ George Goerss Robin Donald, Gregory Yurisich.

Prod manager................. Vincent O’Donnell Mikolaj Luhowskij (Vic), to make Jive to Synopsis: A film to attract young people to Progress.................................... Introduction Prod secretary................. Margot McDonald Stay Alive, $1000.

Synopsis: A documentary on i asmania’s opera.

Research.............................. Annie McLeod, m arine re sou rce s. P roduced fo r the Garry Patterson (Vic), to make A History o f Barbara Hall, T a s m a n ia n F is h e rie s D e v e lo p m e n t Australia. $4670.

Madelon Wilkins Authority.

Drama coaches................... Sue Broadway, Emmil Priebe (Vic), to make The Luck o f the Tasmanian Film Sylvie Leber, Draw, $5438 Bronwyn Nicholls, Corporation Phillip Bull (NSW), to complete Guess SAFETY IN THE FOREST Nano Nagel, Who’d Be the Cannon Fodder?, $1138.

Richard Murphett INDUSTRIES Post-production Prod company...................... Tasmanian Film John Davis (NSW), to complete The (film).......................................... The Joinery, Deepest Cave in the World, $3863.

Corporation CONVENTION TASMANIA Pudovkin Editing Dist company........................Tasmanian Film Gayle Lake (NSW), to complete Say it With Post-production (tape)...........John Leonard, Prod company.....................Tasmanian Film Corporation Dynamite, $31 73.

Ken Otton Corporation Producer.....................................John Honey Cast: David Thompson, Paula Bell, Jaki Dist company.......................Tasmanian Film Director...............................

JackZalkalns Sue Lambert and Sarah Gibson (NSW), It’s Fisher, Jackie Legge, Natasha Guantai, Tom Corporation Scriptwriter........................................... JohnPatterson Women Who Get Pregnant $5026.

Dugdale, Paul Levine, Mathew Zurbo, Steven Producer................................. Damien Parer Photography.......................................... Chris Morgan Wayne Moore (Qld), to complete The Look, Gonis, Craig Levine, Fiona Morley, Peter Scriptwriter.............................. Maria-Honey Sound recordist....................................... PaulClark $2983.

Bloem, S haron G rouios, A nne-M aree Progress...................................In production Continuity............................. LouiseSanders Neasey.

S ynopsis: A documentary to promote Still photography.................................... WilfElvey Paul Davies (Vic), to complete Fragments, Synopsis: Half-hour, weekly series for tele­ Tasmania as a convention venue and Camera asst................... John Jasiukowicz $400. vision. extend pre and post convention touring. Key grip................................. Garry Clements Produced for the Tourist Department Laboratory................................................ VFL Paul Elliott (Vic), to complete A fter the End, $1583.

Length.................................................20 min Gauge................................................. 16mm John Hedberg (Vic), to complete The G uest For details of the following television series Shooting stock.............. 7247 Eastmancolor $1155. and films see the previous issue Progress....................................................... Inproduction Laurie (Vic), to complete Life Class, Discovery 3 Cinema Papers cannot and does not accept Release date........................ February 1979 John $400.

Does It Feel Like a Long Ten Minutes any responsibility for inaccuracies resulting Synopsis: A documentary on safe practices in the timber industry. Made for the Depart­ from w ro n g ly com ple te d or untyped Papa Haydn and the Electric Theatre Ettore Siracusa (Vic), to complete S till Life, ment of Labor and Industry. $1026. production survey details.

Patrol Boat Synopsis: The episodes reflect the action and drama of young naval men involved in the vital work of surveillance and search and rescue in Australian waters, as well as the personal dramas of the crew and those who are part of their professional and personal lives. The series is made in co­ operation with the Royal Australian Navy.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 299

Ask

ALAN JAMES about the

E.c.p.2 35 mm — 16 mm Print Processor To be installed in our new second storey building extension in April

FILM LABORATORIES PTY. LTD.

(03) 528 6188

Felicity Bannister (Kerry Walker) and her “ attacker” (Terry Camilleri). Jim Sharman’s The Night The Prowler.

THE NIGHT THE PROWLER Brian McFarlane Jim Sharman’s film of The Night The Prowler opens on a quietly affluent Sydney suburban house, with children’s voices and laughter in the background. But the author o f the screenplay is Patrick White, so we are prepared for these suggestive normalities to give way to darker insights.

There has been no more assiduous chronicler than White of the smugness and vulgarity, the cruelty and claustrophobic nastiness of Australian suburban life. His satire of this scene is sometimes funny (though Barry Humphries is funnier on the same territory), and always vindictive.

From The Tree o f Man through Riders in the Chariot to The Eye o f the Storm, we have seen middle and upper middle-class suburbia held up to the distorting mirror

of White’s remorseless — and mono­ tonous — vision of this particular kind of living. And, of course, he has been seized on as a prophet by large numbers of those immersed in the very life he satirizes.

By now the satire seem s to be relentlessly predictable and the philos­ ophizing about the lost sensitive souls caught up in the maelstrom of sordid everyday life increasingly jejune. When one hears actors actually speaking the mannered dialogue, one’s suspicions that verbal pyrotechnics disguise a meagre philosophic-cum-moral concern are inten­ sified. So too are suspicions of White’s essential misanthropy; his outcast and/or alienated characters often seem no more than a stick to beat the rest of us with.

In The N ight The Prowler, the protagonist is Felicity Bannister (Kerry Walker), the lumpish daughter of wealthy parents, who has been raped by a prowler during the night. Or has she been? She refuses to answer her parents’ questions

directly, describes her assailant with almost-wistful sensuality as “ what you’d call well-built . . . a very muscular man.

S o m e p e o p le m ig h t th in k him handsome” , and refuses to let the family doctor examine her.

As the police push their way in, the neighbors observe with interest; Mrs Bannister (Ruth Cracknell) wails about what she has been through and “ What have I done to deserve such a perverse daughter” , and the police set about drinking Mr Bannister’s (John Frawley) best brandy, as indeed the prowler is also said to have done.

So far so good. At the centre of this is the girl’s enigmatic behavior, a mixture of reticence and barely credible revelation, and Kerry Walker’s acting has an alert stillness that is arresting. Further, the family situation offers promising drama: the mother’s concern for her daughter is secondary to that for herself (“ You don’t know what I’ve been through” , she tells

her old friend Madge on the phone), and the father, having tried to buy police silence on the matter, takes to pruning his roses and hosing the lawn.

Too quickly, though, the resonances set up in the opening scene are muted, then deadened, through the heavy-handedness of the script. In his determination to flay the parents, White over-stresses the mother’s possessiveness, her prurience (“ Cover yourself up dear” to Felicity’s half-exposed breasts, as the girl peels her breakfast apple), her obsessive tidiness, her social prattle to Madge (“ . . . one of the detectives was such a charming little fellow . . . grows staghorns” ), and her vicarious fantasizing of Felicity’s exper­ ience. The father is presented, with only slightly less cruelty, as obtuse, con­ ventional, deficient in understanding.

This is not to suggest that parents may not ever be all those things, but rather that White’s vision is never humane or comprehensive enough to see that their Cinema Papers, March-April — 301

THE NIGHT THE PROWLER

lim itation demands pity, too. Ruth Cracknell and John Frawley are excellent actors; if they are not always convincing here it is because they are too often given crudely misjudged things to say, and Sharman’s direction connives at such unsubtleties. For instance, his use of the mirror and telephone, as crucial keys to Mrs Bannister’s shallow, prattling self­ absorption, makes its point the first time.

But the image is repeated so often that it looks like a way out of trying to under­ stand her any further.

Structurally the film has a certain interest and fluidity. It moves smoothly enough between the chaotic present and the past of Felicity’s childhood and adol­ escence. There is a long central section which offers a capsule view of her growth, from war-time baby, ill-at-ease with returning Daddy who, in subsequent years, doesn’t know what to do with her feeling for him, to a fat and lonely school­ girl, stuffing herself with food, to a gauche 16 year-old, stabbing a cake in the strained non-gaiety of an unwanted birthday party, to a manoeuvred fiancee o f a rising young diplomat.

All this, despite some unnecessary nudging to stress her parched inner life, serves its purpose in helping us to under­ stand how the ‘rape’ has stirred her in a way that nothing else in her life has. There are some sharply effective moments like that in which she tries to explain to her fiance what the assault has meant to her. A trifle obviously, perhaps, in a nearby park a dog is kept at its owner’s heel in an obed­ ience trial. And there is a striking image in which Felicity imagines herself, blank­ faced and soignee, arriving in a Rolls­ Royce at Parliament House. The image is dramatic in the way it enacts her intuition of what her future life may be and her sense of it being the product of an obed­ ient past.

Elsewhere, though, the film’s images work unsubtly to create White’s (and, I take it, Sharman’s) anim us against suburban society. Felicity, liberated by her assault and zipped into black leather from, head to foot, takes to stalking the night streets of Sydney, armed with the shark knife she has taken from her attacker.

On one such night prowl, she enters a plushy, ugly suburban mansion. The film’s — White’s, Sharman’s — revulsion is felt as the camera lovingly records one hideous object after another, including over-stuffed chairs, a sex aid, a row of wigs on stands, and the portrait of a wom an sm iling com placently. A fter slashing at the furniture, she takes to the portrait, first smearing it with Fortnum and Mason’s Strawberry Conserve (a callowly careful jibe) and then gouging its eyes with her shark knife.

Harvey and Dari, owners of the mansion, return home to survey the damage, and the camera has an ecstatic time with Dari’s fat, wobbling distress. It provides a perfect visual analogue for much of White’s description of “ society ladies” — which is to say that the subject may be vulgar, but that the camera’s treat­ ment of it is, like White’s prose on such occasions, vicious.

It is during this scene, following the disfigurement o f the face and body in the portrait, that Felicity, revelling volupt­ uously in the destruction she has caused, recalls the actual events of her attack. This flashback is perhaps the best-handled scene in the film, quietly and perceptively played by Kerry Walker and Terry Camilleri, as the assailant, whose runty incompetence unleashes a suppressed bullying instinct in Felicity.

The trouble is that the film asks us to accept this brief scene as an adequate explanation o f Felicity’s subsequent emer­ gence from the cocoon of her middle-class 302 — Cinema Papers, March-April

PADRE PADRONE

life and into the byways of Sydney’s night life. The very q u ietn ess, which is impressive at the time, means that the scene’s catalytic effect seems insufficiently accounted for and casts doubt on the dramatic truth o f much that has gone before.

Structurally, the scene looks arbitrarily placed about three-quarters of the way through the film. There is no particular distinction between what precedes and what follows: there are more images of disgust at suburban society (including gu est bits from D oris Fitton and Alexander Archdale), stuffing itself with canapes and talking flatulent nonsense at the Bannisters’ party into which the shoeless Felicity wanders, no doubt as a symbol of an honesty which criticizes their affectations; and there are more night­ time encounters, with a wino (Dorothy Hewett, victim of the nuns of Our Lady of Mercy), a flasher, an alderman-type at play, with a naked nymph, and a group of y o u n g s in g in g G r e e k s w h o a r e , unsurprisingly, embarrassed by Felicity’s interest in them. No one will ever lightly contem plate a midnight walk across Centennial Park again.

There is no horror, no suspense in any of this, because each encounter seems set up, not for dramatic interest, but as a statement in a thesis about the Rottenness of Society.

The final sequence, in a derelict house, is stiff with verbal and visual symbolism.

An old, wrinkled, naked man lies on a filthy mattress, with rats his only com­ panions, until Felicity comes along. He has — in contrast to upholstered suburbia — reduced life to its bare essentials and, in the complete nihilism of his vision, he has found that he believes in nothing, and that “ nothing is a noble faith.”

A glimmer of light comes through the slats nailed to the window and (the Penguin screenplay tells us) “ May even be advancing to meet her” — as you would expect of one who has been told, “ I just lay here thinking of the days when I could still enjoy a piss . . . and stools came easy.

You find out that’s the two most important things in life.”

Felicity is moved to tears by this distill­ ation of wisdom and by other claptrap about giving up clothes because there’s “ less trouble without.” Her last words, to the police investigating the old man’s death next morning, are, “ I knew him . . . as I know . . . myself.” And the film closes with her in a state o f mystic illumination.

White has notched up another rider for the chariot; there is certainly plenty o f room for one more.

The message of this last sequence, like the film ’s philosophizing at large, is pretentious and empty, and the Film’s visual style is flashy but banal, except in its quieter moments. Mostly, it cannot resist over-stating its case in every possible way, and its sympathetic central performance only just succeeds in negotiating the obstacles script and direction place in its way.

T H E N IG H T T H E P R O W LER : Directed by: Jim Sharman. Producer: Anthony Buckley.

Screenplay: P atrick W hite. D ire cto r of photography: David Sanderson. Editor: Sara Bennett. Music: Cameron Allen. Production designer: Luciana Arrighi. Sound recordist: Don Connolly. Cast: Ruth Cracknel!, John Frawley, Kerry Walker, John Derum, Maggie Kirkpatrick, Terry Camilleri. Production company: Chariot Films. Distributor: GUO. 35mm. 90 min Australia. 1978.

PADRE PADRONE Tom Ryan The design of Padre Padrone has a double function: to record a narrative con­ cerning the transformation of Gavino Ledda (Fabrizio Forte) — from the subservient shepherd boy to the young man (Saverio Marconi) who has dis­ covered the means to escape the imprison­ ment of his social role — and to construct a thesis about language and its status as a political tool.

These dimensions of the work con­ stantly reflect upon each other, the fluct­

uating stylistic modes forcing the viewer out of any easy reading of it as a self-con­ tained story, and demanding that he/she reflect upon the language that has been used to build it. So, whereas the classic narrative denies us this opportunity, enclosing us within its unbroken narrative movement towards a resolution and its system of rhymes and repetitions, Padre Padrone calls this mode of operation into question.

For example, the presence of the “ real” Gavino imposes itself throughout, giving a context to the narrative he has initiated: on camera at the beginning of the film, his role underlines the artifice of what follows, as he passes a wooden staff to the actor, Omero Antonutti, who plays his father (“ He always carried this” ), then leaves the frame as the story begins.

Subsequently, his voice-over narration merges with those of the characters, until the closing sequence, when he is returned to the screen to reflect upon the relationship between his life, his auto­ biography, which has provided a source for the film, and the film in which he is now playing a part.

This urging of a reflection on the status of the film as story is not to deny its validity, its formal qualities, or its emot­ ional power. Rather, it is to insist that we recognize it for what it is; to see its reality as that of the particular language it employs; and to appreciate its particular coherences and contradictions as those of the language, its history, and of the process of selection and elimination which marks its use within this specific context.

This reflexive quality in the Taviani brothers’ film does not represent a reluctance to commit themselves to the narrative of Gavino’s life, though they are clearly concerned to locate that individ­ ualized aspect of the film within a broader context.

A recurrent motif in Padre Padrone is the movement from the particular to the general: for example, Gavino’s fears as his father removes him from school, to fulfil his designated task as a shepherd, are

Gavino (Saverio Marconi) and his father (Omero Antonutti) in Paolo and Vittorio Taviani’s Padre Padrone.

PADREPADRONE

LONG WEEKEND

The young Gavino (Fabrizio Forte) is beaten by his father-after trying to run away from his shepherd’s life. Padre Padrone. mirrored by those of his classmates. After G avino’s departure, and his father’s “ Today it’s Gavino’s turn, tomorrow it’s yours” , a series of close-ups of individual children, each accompanied by a voice­ over of their apprehension at what lies ahead, becomes a wide-shot of the class­ room and a soundtrack of now indeciph­ erable voices creating a chorus of pain.

This communal voicing of a condition is repeated throughout the film, focusing a shared sexual and social distress, and sub­ stantiating the Tavianis’ articulation else­ where of the film’s politique: “ For us the story of an individual only has meaning when it reveals the impossibility of a story concerning only one individual. Solitude, isolation, separation, are the work of an authoritarian power that must be shattered to save one from self-negation. The more alone a man is, the more the need to recognize himself in his own class, in the group, becomes urgent.”

Such an awareness is denied all those who remain unquestioningly in Gavino’s isolated Sardinian birth place, as well as those who, in frustration, leave the place, fruitlessly expressing their hostility to it.

The countryside, brutal and beautiful, remains constant, unm oved by the hum anity which occupies it; these inhabitants, however, are subject to a set of shifting social relations, from traditional internal family structures to primitive local vendettas, to the intrusion of capitalist economics, all to do with power, with the exploiter and the exploited. Only in the recognition of the way in which these relations are structured, in capturing the language in which they are enclosed, can blindness and its attendant frustration be tempered.

Gavino’s quest for power,- different from his father’s, in that it has to do with his own awareness, rather than with his control over others, is presented in his desire to make himself conscious of his language, its limitations, and the form that it has given his life. His return to Sardinia finds him in possession of a new weapon with which to confront his father’s staff — the emblem of the basic, cruel life he had earlier inhabited; his power lies in his ability to understand and to communicate that understanding.

But he is now considered a traitor, his desire to learn through an increase in the power of his language is shunned by his father for its evasion of the laboy- o f the land and for its confrontation with the doctrine o f “ padre padrone” : “ A man who doesn’t like work is a th ief. . . You’ve got to sweat in your crotch like m e.”

Gavino is thus separated from his father, whose growing awareness o f his

loss of power is intensified by what he sees as his son’s defiance, as he is from the rest o f his family who, albeit sympathetically, identify the conflict in personal terms. His rebellion, then, is initiated as a private one, his attempt to historicize his life pro­ viding a documentation of the route to change and growth for his people.

Here the Tavianis’ portrait seems in tune with Gavino’s own reflections about his work: “ I’d say that the protagonist is Sardinia: its men, the old shepherds, who struggle to communicate their myths and traditions . . . the monsters they carry inside themselves. They’re the victims of their outdated, cruel values, that they can overcome by conquering the use of words.

My task now is to speak. But all o f you too must kill your monsters just as I have killed my own.”

Yet, though the film’s perspective thor­ oughly endorses Gavino’s self-assigned task, it also embraces the sense of loss that it entails. The early depiction of Gavino’s education into the life of a shepherd, into the life of the sounds that will surround him during the years of enforced isolation, sounds that are beautiful (the rustling of the trees, “ the torrent behind the wood” , the sounds of labor — “ Let your lungs help you” ) and sounds that threaten (the hooves of the intruder’s horse, the snake under the rock, the sile n c e that emphasizes the loneliness), celebrates the code of the shepherd at the same time as it calls it to account. And the character­ ization of Gavino’s father allows him dignity and tenderness while locating those values firmly within the culture of poverty.

Gavino’s separation from his past is by no means a sim ple liberation from suffering. The master who has imprisoned him is also the father who has loved him and cared for him; and as he fearfully hovers on the brink of self-discovery, it is towards Sardinia that his thoughts of refuge are turned: “ Father, come and take me hom e.” ..

The closing shot of the film frames the real Gavino, the actor who plays himself in the scenes that frame the central narrative, with his back to the camera, his body ., rocking back and forth, echoing similar images of a child alone on the Sardinian hillsides and o f an adolescent alone in a tower faced with the decision of what course his life is to take. Chronologically and intellectually, the past has been left behind him, but it remains the focus of his life.

Padre Padrone is sad, yet inspirational.

It is a work of intelligence' in its self­ consciousness, in its understanding of itself as film, and in its challenge to the

Peter (John Hargreaves), bruised and battered from his confrontation with nature. Long Weekend. neo-realist tradition so central to Italian film history. It is a work of formal beauty; and more, it is a work o f passion.

P A D R E P A D R O N E : Directed by: Paolo and

Vittorio Taviani. Producer: Giuliani G. de Negri.

Screenplay: Paolo and Vittorio Taviani. Director of photography: Mario Masini. Editor: Roberto Perpignani. Music: Egisto Macchi. Sets: Giovanni Sbarra. Cast: Omero A ntonutti, Saverio M arconi, M arcella M ichelangeli, Fabrizio Forte, Marino Cenna, Stanko Molnar, Nanni Moretti. Production company: RAI. Distributor: Sharmill Films. 35mm. 101 min.

Italy. 1977.

LONG WEEKEND Scott Murray At the centre o f Colin Eggleston’s Long Weekend is a clever and original idea.

Executing that idea was a bold gamble, and if it only falteringly comes off, it is, at times, an arresting attempt.

Based on an original screenplay by Everett de Roche (who also wrote Patrick and Snapshot), the film concerns two middle-class Australians who try to get back to nature over a long weekend. But what is intended as a peaceful camping trip to a hideaway beach becomes a horrifying confrontation between man and nature.

Peter (John Hargreaves) is an exec­ utive in his early thirties with a basically childish outlook on life. He sees actions as part o f a g a m e, and plays them accordingly. To him, braving the wild is taking along $2000 worth of camping equipm ent, all newly bought. One wonders, in fact, whether he would have

ever used it again — had he, of course, survived. “ Use” is the operative word because Peter exploits things for the immediate enjoyment they give him. And if anyone, be it his wife or a parkingofficer, gets in his way, he petulantly shrugs them off.

Marcia (Briony Behets) is a tangle of neurotic housewife and deprived wife (one scene even has her masturbating while reading Harold Robbins’ The Inheritors).

S he e x is ts prim arily for P e te r ’s convenience, though her perpetually grumpy personality would hardly make it a gratifying one. Occasionally she makes an attempt at self-assertion, but these end futilely. Marcia is capable of sporadic anger, but she lacks the inner strength to see things through.

Together, Peter and Marcia are ugly caricatures of known Australian types — trendy, inconsiderate and cruel, and unhindered by any sense of value or purpose in life. They are totally unlikeable; nasty people who gain a sense of achieve­ ment through the destruction of others.

This characteristic, incidentally, is the one Hargreaves and Behets convey most convincingly. Though on the whole miscast, they do generate in their more vocal moments a highly unpleasant but unavoidable reality.

In their best scene together, they tear each other to shreds while driving along the beach. The dialogue is particularly forceful (“ You self-indulgent maggot” , etc.), and though the scene ultimately fizzles out, hampered by some heavy references to Marcia’s abortion, it is wellacted and nicely paced.

The issue of Marcia’s abortion does, in Cinema Papers, March-April — 303

Australian Film and Television School

<S>

SCRIPT

TWO FILMS BY KEN CAMERON

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.”

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 Videotape, Production Management, S cript Writing, Documentary, Editing, Computer Editing, Lighting, Sound, Post Production, Continuity, 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.O Box 1 26 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113

OUT OF IT The unusual story of three working class teenagers who move from small-time car stripping to stealing from warehouses.

SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL 1977

TEMPERAMENT UNSUITED An entertaining drama about a young university graduate and his first experiences in secondary school teaching.

G O L D A W ARD, 1 9 7 8 Australian Film A w ards

AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE ON 16MM OR VIDEO-CASSETTE

Contact: Paul Coulter PROJECT ONE FILM SALES & DISTRIBUTION Postal Address: Box 5072, GPO, Melbourne 3001 (Also available for television and theatrical rentals)

W ATCH FO R F U R T H E R D E T A IL S O F O U R O U TSTAN DIN G NEW R E L E A S E S Padre Padrone (Father Master) —Awarded The Golden Palm for Best Picture, Cannes 1977.

Lemon Popsicle —An hilarious sex-comedy, acclaimed at the Berlin Festival.

Rockinghorse Critical success at the Directors Fortnight, Cannes 1978.

Allegro Non Troppo —Bozzetto’s marvellous animated feature length movie.

Write for a free catalogue o f our 35mm and 16mm films for hire. Titles include I Can Jump Puddles, Wives, Hester Street and Buñuel classics.

SHARMILL FILMS

27 Stonnington Place Toorak, Victoria 3142 Australia, Telephone: 20 5329 Cables: “Sharfilms” Melbourne

Write or qall your nearest Branch today for catalogues and information.

A unique selection of world famous feature films for screening in your home.

SYDNEY: MELBOURNE: BRISBANE: ADELAIDE: PERTH:

GPO GPO GPO GPO GPO

Box 3956 Tel. 211 4955 Box 137 Tel. 419 4500 Box 160 Tei 44 3621 Box 373D Tel. 51 4337 Box 439 Tel. 328 7661

o A-

Tivoli Arcade 247 Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia Tel: 03)63 2469

PENETRATION RECORDS

LONG WEEKEND

fact, turn out to be one of the film’s most insistent themes. It is also one Eggleston largely over-states with explicit imagery (an eagle’s egg smashing against a tree to reveal a blood-colored yolk), and crude verbalization (“ Is reality screwing the neighbors and murdering the unborn?’’).

It is hard to understand this insistence on Marcia’s abortion. In a curious way it even takes on a perveresly moralistic tone.

For instance, Marcia only becom es pregnant by sleeping around (contra­ ception presumably only being used in the family bedroom). She has an abortion, without her husband’s knowledge, and is instantly traumatized. She is reduced to a mental state as if in punishment for her wrongdoing.

This impression is further strengthened by a conversation between Peter and Marcia, w here Marcia ju stifies her abortion by saying, “ N oth in g was d estroyed.’’ Peter caustically replies, “ You said it cried.’’ Obviously aborted foetuses don ’t cry, but a sense of unspeakable horror is created. This image is then re-enforced by the many references to the distant and forlorn cry of some unseen animal. (It is later said to be the lost pup of the dugong killed by Peter.)

It is perhaps worth mentioning here that in the one scene where Eggleston does come near creating a sympathy for Peter and Marcia, he plays down any emotional response. It occurs when Peter saves Marcia from drowning (suicide?).

As he reaches her in the water, he pulls her back. A splash of foam darts past the lens; the music reaches a climax. But Eggleston (or editor Brian Kavanagh) undermines our response by cutting to a long shot as Peter lifts Marcia in his arms, out of the water. We are left stranded, uncertain of how to react.

The second major theme of tne film, and one obviously linked with the first, is that of nature fighting back when con­ fronted by man. In this case, the “ confrontation’’ is Peter and Marcia camping in the bush. They are certainly careless and inconsiderate, dropping bottle-tops about, irrationally attempting to chop down a tree, randomly firing a rifle into the scrub, etc. They do not, however, attack the animals, other than to spray some ants and shoot the dugong, but that is long after the animals have attacked.

This lack of any major injustices being visited on the bush leaves the strong sense of menace evoked at the start basically unexplained. (I ignore the possibility that the animals are reacting to being invaded, albeit temporarily. That would place them on a human level of territorial poss­ essiveness — hardly what such defenders of the animal world as De Roche and Eggleston would want.)

Perhaps Eggleston is suggesting that

LITTLE BOY LOST

nature is reacting to the disturbing and aggressive state of Peter and Marcia’s relationship. If read this way, however, the film becomes a far more traditional, and less interesting, psychological thriller.

Whatever the motivating causes, con­ frontation does exist and the animals make the humans aware of this (e.g. the dropping of Marcia’s shoe on Peter’s lap, the attack on the Nissan, etc,). There are also hints of complicity in the animal community, but that is sadly never spelled out.

At this point the film loses focus.

Because the animals are shown to be menacing before they have been menaced, they are basically unsympathetic. In fact, the only sympathy they ultimately elicit com es indirectly from the view er’s unerring dislike of Peter and Marcia — killing the humans becomes a way of avoiding any more of their interminable marital brawls.

Eggleston also discourages identi­ fication with the animals by playing about with their natures. An inoffensive goanna is photographed to look like a crocodile, while a wombat is asked to lake on demonic portentions. It just doesn’t work, and Eggleston would have drawn a far more effective contrast by portraying the animals as they really are.

T his co n fu sio n over w here our sympathies lie also mitigates against Eggleston’s attempts to generate tension.

One doesn’t care who wins, only how long the contest will last.

Perhaps the music is most at fault here.

While a clever and highly professional score (one no doubt easily accessible to overseas audiences), it seems evocative of the wrong things. It spells menace when there really isn’t any (cf the opening shot of a crab on a rock), and it underlines tensions that would have been better off understated. But when properly attuned to an image (as in the last shot), Carlos’ score is highly effective.

One sequence where Eggleston does evoke a fair sense of mystery is when Peter finds the deserted camp-site down the beach. As he approaches their camp, we (but not him) observe the roof of a blue van breaking under the waves in the background. It is quietly effective and eerie, as is Peter’s subsequent search under water, to find a child sitting listlessly on the back seat.

Most successful, however, are the scenes of Peter running madly through the bush. The use of long camera movements, crisp cutting and a well-devised soundtrack creates a sense of thrashing terror. (This is in nice contrast to the more muted terror o f the first drive into the bush at night.)

Eggleston, in line with most directors of thrillers, also asks his characters to do many silly things to further the narrative.

Marcia (Briony Behets) and Peter (John Hargreaves) after Peter has escaped a dugong attack. Long Weekend.

Thus a trapped Marcia abandons her only hope of refuge (the Nissan she is driving) and runs off into the bush only to be shot by a dazed and unaware Peter. It is also stretching credibility to expect Marcia to approach the camp fire, after her terrifying flight, without calling out in advance.

Ultimately, Peter finds his way out onto the highway. But the animals do not let him go, a cockatoo swooping down to distract a semi-trailer driver whose vehicle (filled with cattle) crashes Peter to the ground. He lies dead on the roadway, just like the kangaroo he ran over on his drive out of the city. The camera retreats to the body of Marcia, now no longer visible, as the forest ferns close over her. The music increases the sense of menace.

The “ poetic justice” o f this neat ending is unsettling. Man kills man and the animals keep clean hands — but not our respect. And that is what is most dis­ appointing about this interesting film — the filmmakers’ attitude to the animals.

Occasionally Eggleston and De Roche come across as well-qualified speakers on their behalf; other times the animals are merely misused pawns in a larger, and not always well-elucidated, game.

LO N G W E E K E N D : Produced and directed by: Colin Eggleston. Executive producer: Richard Brennan. Screenplay: Everett de Roche. Director of photography: Vincent Monton. Editor: Brian Kavanagh. Music: Michael Carlos. Art director: Larry Eastwood. Sound recordist: John Phillips.

Cast: John H argreaves, Briony Behets.

P r o d u c tio n c o m p a n y : D u g o n g F ilm s .

D istrib u to r: R oadshow . 35mm 90 m in.

Australia. 1978.

LITTLE BOY LOST Margaret McClusky Many Australians will recall the popular song which begins: “ From the wild New England Ranges came the word one fateful day, “ To every town and village that a boy had lost his way.”

Based on an incident in 1960, the song tells of Steven Walls, a four year-old boy who was lost in wild bush for four days and three nights. And by recounting the story of his “ heroic” rescue, the song helps propagate the myth of Australia’s honest and courageous bushmen.

Nearly 20 years later, director Terry Bourke has made a film of the search, though his version contains many surprising revelations. Unfortunately, Bourke does not develop them fully.

The film begins with Jack Walls (John Hargreaves) alerting the police of Steven’s (Nathan Dawes) disappearance. The first searchers are a rather desiccated bunch of drinkers from the pub, who have to be bullied into looking for the boy. It is assumed that he will be found by nightfall, and the publican offers free drinks that evening for the reluctant searchers.

The drinkers stagger into the bush, cooeeing and tramping around as if on a spree.

Steven, brought up in the bush, is “ hardy and game” (as the song tells), but he is not used to drunken hoons. He hears them and flees.

John Hargreaves as Jack Walls (right), with Nathan Dawes as Stephen. On location for Terry Bourke s Little Boy Lost.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 305

PRODUCTION

MOTION PICTURE SUPPLIES PTY. LTD. SOUND:

CAAKRA: 16mm double system

production: ECLAIR, NPR. 16mm hand held: ECLAIR, ACL. 16mm single system: ECLAIR, ACL, SS. 35mm double system tecniscope and academy: ECLAIR, CAMEFLEX. 35mm production; MOVIECAM

LIGHTING:

Flicker free HMI fresnel and open face focussing heads: LTM 200,575, 1200, 2500 and 4000. KOBOLD Portable HMI reporter lighting systems LOWEL TO TA and LQD “yellow heads ’. LOWEL SO FT lights and OMNI lights. Battery driven KOBOLD HMI sungun.

Colour control and diffusion by ROSCO cinegel.

LAB:

OXBERRY and NH: for effects and step printers, liquid gates by OXBERRY.Test equipment by HOLLYWOOD FILM CORPORATION.Standardisation by SMPTE test films.

talent* m

l

GRIP;

CONTINENTAL CAMERA SYSTEMS: universal ohelicopter mount, body brace, astrovision, pitching lens.

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

EGRIPMENT: camera clamp and camera crane. CINE 60: MAGNASYNC: transfer recorders, battery belts and power paks. MATHEWS and RDS: gobo's insert, dubbers, reproducers, dis­ placement, recorders and reproducers. clamps grips. MILLER and QUICKSET: tripods. TVP: dollys.

MICRON: radio mike transmitters LOWEL-TVP: sound booms. LOWEL: link location systems.

STUDIO:

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

SITS:

Paint by ROSCO PAINT. Cladding by ROSCOTAUX Drapes and costume effects by ROSCOGLAME. Mosaics by ROSCOLENE. Breakaways by ROSCOBREAKAWAYS.

POSTPRODUCTION:

TFFCCTS:

PREVOST 16/35 combination editing tables, MOVIOLA flat bed and upright editors, ACMADE pic syncs, EASTON syncronisers and winders, HFC and CIR splicers, Mylar and acetate splicing tape, horses, benches, trimbins and scissors.

PREMIER: splicers and accessories.

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

r * A.R. “Andy” GIBSON. HUGH KINGSLEY ROSS OGILVY IAN McAULEY PETER MARS

Sydney 26 1981 melbourne 62 1133 brisbane 52 8816 perth 325 2910 Canberra 80 4009

H.O.

s

LOCATION:

8 dungate lane Sydney 2000. telex.

AA 26664 77 city rd, sth melbourne 3205.

AA 30912 28 baxter st, fortitude valley 4006.

AA 42054 121 hill st, east perth 6000 AA 93582 Pro Foto P/L 25/63 Wollongong St., Fyshwick 2609

^

HAVE YOU SEEN THE LIGHT? New rugged lens door equipped with cool handling positive lock for fast and easy relamping.

Berkey Colortran’s new Posiloc,w Clutch System insures fast, positive, slip free operation.

It will notfree2e, slip, or ratchet and features a thermally insulated handle for burn free focusing.

* Film editing and full 16mm Post Production facility for Documentary, Drama, Educational, Industrial, PR, Music Clip and Short Film Productions.

* Contact PETER DODDS - (03) 699 3947 1st Floor, 20 Thomson St., Sth Melbourne 3205

New thermally insulated fast track focus mechanism

New high temperature---fiberglass insulated leads insure long life, shock proof handling and conformance to all electrical safety codes.

NEW FROM Berkey C olorirán THE 6" FRESNEL FILLER - SPOTLIGHT Flexible Use — High Performance $115.00 (plus sales tax) Full range of accessories available

DISTRIBUTED IN AUSTRALIA

BY FILMTRONICS N.S.W. VICTORIA. A.C.T. QUEENSLAND. WESTERN AUSTRALIA. SOUTH AUSTRALIA and

Dick King, 33 Higginbotham Road, Gladesville 2111. Phone 807 4606 or 807 1444.

Geoffrey Hamilton, 9 Leicester Avenue, Glen Waverley 3150. Phone 233 8444 Peter Mars, 53 Wollongong Street, Fyshwick 2609. Phone 80 4009 David Pugh, 21 Bishop Street, Kelvin Grove 4059. Phone 356 7623 Murray Wright, 30 Kembla Way, Willetton 6155. Phone 457 6223 TASMANIA. Clients please contact Victorian Office (03) 233 8444

LITTLE BOY LOST

FOX AND HIS FRIENDS

By the following morning, the search extends to include most o f the people for miles around, and the police even stop cars on the Sydney highway to ask for volunteers. Time and again Steven hears the searchers and runs away.

A lot of criticism is levelled at the police chief: he is accused o f deliberately hampering the search by not organizing it properly. The press has a Field day with the conflict between the bushmen and the police; they develop their own insinuations that Walls has murdered his son.

The Canon (Redman Phillips), a part­ icularly unpleasant man, then visits the mother, Dorrie Walls (Lorna Lesley).

After a few perfunctory condolences, he tells her that it is God's will, and that she might have to face the fact that her boy might now be with God. As the song says: “ And a mother weeps in silence as she kneels before the cross, “ And prays to God in Heaven for her little boy lost.”

Although the Walls are believers in the conventional way, the Canon gives them little faith in prayer.

A blacktracker (Steve Dodds) is called in, and we are given a glimpse of D om e's prejudice, no doubt shared by many others involved in the search. We are treated to a few Last Wave-type images of the eyes of the blacktracker, and the soundtrack becomes haunted by what we are meant to recognize as mystical Aboriginal twangings (c.f. again The Last Wave.) The black­ tracker is aware of Steven’s feelings and reports back that the boy is avoiding

rescue.

Finally, the bushmen take over the search and the.army is called in. Steven is sighted, chased by a couple of locals, caught and returned to his parents.

It was clearly not Bourke’s intention to make this film as an epic, which is an agreeable surprise. The opening scenes are attractively naturalistic, and the first sequence with Steven and his father is charming and homely. Also, apart from some visual harping on a hovering eagle, the images are allowed to take care of themselves.

However, it is at this stage that Bourke seems to panic, betraying his low-key beginning. Some of the reasons for that are obvious.

Perhaps if the search had been varied to sustain the film, Bourke could have con­ centrated more on the narrative. But there is little to work on once the terrain has been covered. Nor can there be much tension or suspense in the search. While the police and locals bicker, Steven, pink­ cheeked and chubby, scampers away from them. .

Recognizing the limits of the narrative, Bourke raises another issue, albeit timidly.

Those of us who have not been involved in any similar drama are at the mercy of the press, which woos us with accounts of the self-sacrifice and heroism of those who are. If such reports are to be believed, people will always rise above pettiness and perform deeds o f outstanding bravery and kindness.

Yet the search for Steven is riddled

with, and hampered by, small-minded­ ness, petty feuds and sheer stupidity.

There is little unity and a lot of bloodymindedness. In fact, the only person who emerges from the fracas with any integrity is Jack W a lls, and p o ssib ly the blacktracker.

These are some of the issues that Bourke seems to take up, then drops.

Inexplicably, he allows the film to degen­ erate into sentiment, for which a lot of the responsibility must rest on the extra­ ordinary soundtrack. Rather in the fashion o f those 1930s films, where the orchestra strikes up from thin air to counterpoint whatever the young lovers are doing, it switches back and forth from the natural to the gratuitous and is obviously designed to milk the last tear.

Like the song, the film ends being trite, sentimental and mock-epic. By the late '70s we should be able to face the fact that cynicism and self-interest infect even the most heroic deeds. This film, with its nice period feel of 1960, takes us back there and further. The search for Steven Walls becomes a spurious monument to what we were meant to be before World War 2 — a race o f nature’s gentlem en, honest innocents from the bush.

LITTLE BOY LOST: Directed by: Terry Bourke. Producer: Alan Spires. Screenplay: Terry Bourke. Director of photography: Ray Henman. Editor: Doris Haller. Music: Bob Young. Art director: Bruce Barber. Sound recordists: Phil Judd, Ron Green. Cast: John Hargreaves, Tony Barry, Julie Dawson, James

Elliott, John Jarratt, Bernadette Hughson, Les Foxcroft, Brian A nderson, Don Crosby.

Production company: Summit (International) Films. Distributor: Filmways. 35mm. 92 min.

Australia. 1978.

FOX AND HIS FRIENDS (Faustrecht der freiheít) Sue Adler As its alternative title, Survival of the Fittest, implies, Rainer Werner Fass­ binder’s Fox and His Friends provides an uncompromising view of how the strong devour the weak, with particular reference to class struggle.

The film is set in modern West Germany, where the society offers a clearly defined social framework upon which to hang such a moral tale. We are presented with the parable of the not-sowily Fox, played in a precise and unm annered fashion by Fassbinder himself. A sideshow performer billed as “ Fox, The Speaking Head” , he is unmir­ aculously re-incorporated when the show is closed by the police, and his lover, the carnival’s barker, is carted off to jail.

Tossed to the hands of fate, he has alarm­ ingly few resources to draw on; only a dogged proletarian resilience and a gutter bred cockiness.

C o n clu d ed on P. 3 2 2

Karl-Heinz Bohm as “ Uncle” Max, the gay antique dealer in Fassbinder’s Fox and H is Friends.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 307

Ealing Studios

by Charles Barr Cameron and Taylor, London 1977

Brian McFarlane There have been books about M-G-M, Columbia and Warner Bros., and no doubt som eone is currently working on an in­ depth treatment of the entire output of Monogram Studios in the 1930s and 1940s.

But most such works have only offered sk etch y h isto r ie s (m ittel-E u ro p ea n emigres’ rise to mogulhood, the rise and fall of major stars, a glance at the studio’s chief genres, etc.) and even sketchier credits for the company’s films.

Not many of these books have been able to give much sense of the studio’s working habits, and less of the informing vision and creative procedures of those talents that gave the studio product its dis­ tinguishing qualities. Walter Pidgeon’s recollection (in The M -G -M Stock Company) of dropping in for late after­ noon drinks in Clark Gable’s or Fred Ast­ aire’s dressing-room to chew over the day’s work may point to the madness at M-G-M, but it doesn’t give us much insight into the films.

Charles Barr’s book about Ealing is important for a number of reasons. While offering an essentially critical account of key films in the Ealing output, it also gives us a fuller sense of how these films came to be made (and to be made as they are) than any other attempt I know to anatomize a studio. Secondly, he argues a case for the achievement and limitation of the Ealing films, and does so with a rigorous intelligence. Thirdly, he is writing about a British studio, and such an enter­ prise is long overdue. If accounts of Gains­ borough, Two Cities Films, London Films and British Lion are to follow, I hope they will be written by Barr, or at least by someone who has read and profited by his Ealing Studios.

The notion that Ealing’s films “ reflect and project some kind of universal truth about the England of the time” is probably a common, and almost certainly a fond, delusion. Barr’s opening chapter percep­ tively places the Ealing phenomenon, which belongs primarily to the decade immediately after World War 2, in the larger context of the nation at war and then adjusting — socially and politically — to post-war stresses and changes: “ At Ealing, the instinct of [Michael] Balcon and his colleagues for gauging the feelings of an audience — or, it may be, the coincidence of their feelings with those o f that audience — was reliable enough to keep the studio buoyant into the fifties; indeed, to be regarded by this time as something of a national institution.” (p.8) That last phrase — “ something o f a national institution” — perhaps pinpoints the limits o f the Ealing achievement. It 308 — Cinema Papers, March-April

suggests something cherished, like Vera Lynn, to the point where certain kinds of more demanding development seem not merely precluded, but undesirable as well.

It may account for the fact that Ealing’s most astringent director, Alexander Mackendrick, had to go elsewhere to give vent to his darkest insights and, as well perhaps, for his failure ever to get into his stride anywhere else. (The Sweet Smell of Success was, in the event, a brilliant beacon illuminating nothing.)

Ealing’s “ creative elite” , according to Balcon, was “ a group of liberal-minded, like-minded people . . . [who] voted Labour for the first time after the war.”

T hey had their place am ong the Herbivores, or gentle ruminants, identi­ fied by Michael Frayn as “ the do-gooders, the readers of the News Chronicle, The Guardian and The Observer; the signers of petitions; the back-bone of the BBC.” For these, the Festival of Britain “ was the last and virtually the posthumous work” .

Their mild and attractive virtues will be gradually pushed aside by “ the brasher values of the Carnivores” , including The Daily Express and the incoming Conser­ vative Government.

I have over-simplified Barr’s placing of Ealing in the post-war scene, but in doing so I want to stress some of the important points he makes. Firstly, that “ Ealing . . . is the voice of a certain consensus: one voice among many.” The Ealing voice can still be heard because it expressed its gentle values in dramatic terms. Secondly, it was of the essence of these values — wry, humorous, modestly democratic, in the end unadventurous, too closely linked to a community in danger of cosiness — that they should not be able to withstand bolder, coarser onslaughts..

It is significant that the Ealing heyday should seem equally far removed from the internationally financed blockbuster like

The Bridge Over the River Kwai and the home-grown naturalism o f Room at the Top. The glamor attached to the former, and the crude thrusting life of the latter, are light years from the Ealing spirit, characterized as it was by “ the relation between the stories told on the screen and the experience o f the studio itse lf’.

Barr’s astute account of a minor Ealing film, Cage of Gold (directed by Basil Dearden), sums up the crucial conflicts explored by the studio’s films: “ The film dramatizes questions of ambition and security, austerity and glamour, co-operation and com p­ etition, which were vividly present both in British society and as a whole at this time, five years after the war, and in the small society of Ealing.”

Jean Simmons’ final choice of a serious young doctor, James Donald, over a dashing ex-RAF officer, David Farrar, is very much an Ealing answer to the conflict o f values. It is a pointer to the studio’s affectionately remembered successes and the tendency to inbreeding which will finally help to do for the studio.

Barr traces Ealing’s history from its cheerfully inconsequent pre-war comedies (dominated by Formby); through its entry into the war and the gradual emergence of the Ealing touch, epitomized in the m ove­ ment from the still officer-dominated Convoy of 1940 to San Demetrio London (late 1943), “ the consum m ation of Ealing’s war effort” , a quiet celebration of unostentatious heroism and team-effort; through the “ mild revolu tion ” that produced the remarkable string of post­ war films that account for most people’s view of “ typically Ealing” ; to the decline and collapse of the middle ’50s. Films like Barnacle Bill and Davy (1957), and Dunkirk (1958), exhibit the characteristic Ealing virtues in attenuation and stagnant non-response to a changed scene.

The book is not, however, essentially a historical account. Most of it is taken up with detailed and searching accounts of films which are centrally important to the Ealing achievement: Robert Hamer’s It Always Rains on Sunday and Kind Hearts and Coronets; Mackendrick’s W hisky Galore, The Man in the White Suit and The L adykillers; Charles C rich ton ’s H ue and Cry and The Lavender Hill Mob; Basil Dearden’s The B lu e Lamp; and Henry C o rn eliu s’ Passport to Pimlico.

There are other directors and other films that have their place in the story, but it is perhaps the films I have named which, above all, established the distinctive Ealing touch. This is not to say that they are all alike, but that they share certain definable characteristics. Though Hamer may be seen as the most elegant stylist, or Mackendrick as the most sharply aware of the tensions in the Ealing “ climate” , or Crichton and Dearden as the most affectionately and reliably Ealing in their responses, it is, ironically, Cornelius’ sole directorial effort at Ealing which offers the quintessential expression o f the studio’s values and their inherent limitations. As Barr writes in defining the “ liberating nature of the basic device” (i.e. that Pimlico is found to be part of the Duchy of Burgundy): “ Given the ‘fantasy’ premise, the story proceeds in a naturalistic style, in real or at least realistic settings. It creates a blend of fantasy and realism, and of wartime and postwar feeling .

Within this framework, Ealing can play out at leisure the daydream of a benev­ olent community and can partly evade, partly confront in a more manageable form, those awkward “ postwar’ issues, social and personal, with which it has hitherto been somewhat glumly trying to deal.” ' That sense of “ liberation” is obviously integral to the narrative and philosophical procedures in Ealing’s major comedies, as well as in minor works like “ The Halfway House (1944), Another Shore (1948), A Run for Your Money (1949), and The Love Lottery (1954). In the most serious film s, including som e o f the best comedies, the urge towards liberation is held partly in check by a restraining urge to containment within the existing social framework. In Pimlico, the insulated community savors briefly the freedom of “ dam n[ing] b races” , but ends by succumbing to the “ deep-rooted nostalgia for consensus” . There is, as Barr notes, something sad in this ultimate shying away “ from the conflicts that come up in an ‘open’ society rather than (following) them through clear-sightedly” .

The sort of “ cosy retreat” offered by Pimlico, the failure not merely to resolve the conflicts it is aware of, but in the end even to acknowledge that such conflicts are organic and possibly fruitful, if con­ fronted with sustained energy and intelli­ g en ce and m utual u n d erstan d in g, characterizes all but the very acutest of Ealing films. By these I mean the Mackendrick films, where the thinking is tougher, the issues pushed further and realized with more telling visual precision.

Even in Mackendrick’s films the ideal

BOOKS

of the community, strengthened by aware­ ness of its contrarities loses some of its vitality as we move from W hisky Galore through The Man in the White Suit to The Ladykillers. Barr’s account of the latter finishes aptly enough by pointing to the way, in the end, we see “ the inertia triumphant in a quaint little England where all alike, deep down, are innocents, a colourful neighbourhood community, with Jack Warner in charge, though hardly needed. And Mackendrick leaves for New York, to make Sweet Smell of Success.”

This is a frustrating book to review in a small compass because, though the main sweep of its argument is clear, it is not so bound by a thesis that it fails to do justice to particular films. Consequently, its accounts of several of these deserve detailed notice. It is as alert to the quirky and individual in the Ealing films as it is to their underlying similarities and con­ tinuities. It differentiates perceptively between the films that essentially reflect and romanticize certain aspects of the national character (e.g. love of the quaint and the old, as typified in T.E.B. Clarke’s scripts) and those which subject these traits to a more critical scrutiny.

Sometimes. Barr’s analyses of the films make them sound less like fun than one had remembered them to be, but, in general, they testify to his claim for Pimlico: “ I don’t think . . . that this is a case where one risks destroying a gossamer web of wit by ponderous analysis.”

Barr writes elegantly and argues cogently. He is perhaps more consistently alive to the intellectual structures of the films than to the visual renderings of their ideas, but he discriminates with admirable firmness and subtlety among the levels of achievement, separating the inspired from the journeyman, the toughminded from the self-indulgent. He also practises this discrimination as usefully within, as between, films.

If Ealing “ petered out” , the book does not. It is still sharp when writing of Dunkirk, one of the studio’s last films, in which Barr finds “ a recognition that Ealing cannot recreate that spirit and that united community any longer. The impetus has run out . .

The impetus, that is, that united Britain in war and Ealing in a remarkable series of films of which this book is a fitting record. It is a book for film scholars and for anyone who is interested in what made some of the best British films British.

Genre: Working Papers in Screen Education Edited by Doug White and Brian Shoesmith Department of Communications S t u d i e s , We s t A u s t r a l i a n Secondary Teachers’ College, Nedlands, Western Australia, 1978.

Tom Ryan Drawing heavily upon modes of literary analysis and methods of categorization in the other arts, genre studies have proved a useful way of structuring various narrative and iconographic patterns in particular types of films. By isolating, for example, the western, which seems to have been the most popular (cf. the book length studies

by Jim Kites, John G. Cawelti, Jenni Caulder, Will Wright and Philip French), it becomes a task of intelligence and organizational skills to delineate the elements which given westerns have in common.

operations of the studios, but so far lack of information in this area of research forces me to be general.”

It remains unclear why, .without the desired information at hand, it is believed that this approach would lead to such precise findings, though analyses of studio structures (hierarchies, methods of prod­ uction, economic standings in the world of capital, etc.) should prove to be of some assistance in understanding the ideology of the studios (the ideology of the films being quite a different issue).

Furthermore, like Peter Jeffrey’s desire to locate “ the t&ue state of film” in the introductory essay, Boyes seems bent on finding “ the ultimate determinants of the films’ ideology” , asserting a philosophy that ought to be treated with extreme suspicion.

Anyone seeking an expansion of their film consciousness in relation to genre studies would be advised to turn to the more serious film journals (see, for example, Douglas Pye’s lengthy essay, “ Genre and Movies” in Movie, No. 20; T hom as S ch a tz’s “ The Structural Influence: New Directions in Film Genre Study” in The Quarterly Review of Film Studies, August, 1977; or Robin Wood’s “ Ideology, G enre, A uteur” in Film Comment, Jan-Feb., 1977) for assistance.

The paucity of intellectual content and the haphazard editorial policy which permeate Genre serve as further reminders of the problems facing film education in this country.

BOOKS OF THE QUARTER J.H.Reid Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart in a still from Alexander Walker’s Superstars.

The usefulness of such an assignment has been to bring to popular culture a critical seriousness previously reserved for those works which have found their home in “ the great tradition” . This seriousness may, in its illumination of the ways in which meanings have been constructed th ro u g h ‘d is r e p u ta b le ’ fo r m s, be concerned to elevate individual works to a status akin to this “great tradition” : Robin Wood, in his. numerous articles for Film Comment, Movie and in his most recent book, Personal Views, has shown himself to be the most thorough and consistent exponent of this critical position.

However, much recent writing about film genre has been less concerned with notions of Art than with the place of those genres in the culture from which they have emerged. In this writing, the project of evaluation, either implicitly or explicitly, is called into question, and attention is foc­ used upon the structural patterns, the systems of signification, and the ideology which informs them, in and across the various genres.

Given this context, the four papers which make up Genre come as something of a surprise. The desire, expressed in the preface, “ to expand film consciousness among those involved in film education” , seems, contradicted by the subsequent refusal of the papers to do more than regurgitate outdated viewpoints more con­ sidered and better argued elsewhere. The papers, originally delivered at a seminar at the West Australian Secondary Teachers’ College in 1977, seem almost wilful in the way they disregard a major portion of the recent theoretical work in the realm o f film narrative and semiology, and thus a series of key issues to do with the study of film genre.

Questions to do with minor problems

inherent in the methodology (e.g. the neglect of differences in the search for family resem blances within specific genres, the doubt over whether comedy offered sufficient constants to be seen as a genre) are combined with unproblematic discussions of the generic sub-groups of science-fiction films of the 1950s and rock m usicals. Only occasionally do the contributors exhibit any awareness of the grounds upon which their commentaries might come under challenge, that it is possible for one to come to grips with film genres within a perspective that does not see them as self-contained units of meanings, but is concerned to locate their machinery with broader patterns, more fully probed with the tools of narrative a n a ly s is, s e m io lo g y , or, p erh ap s, psychoanalysis.

However, it is not only in its treatment of genre that the booklet is lacking. The more general considerations — the comments by way o f introduction, eluc­ idation, or simply as asides — reveal a naivety of thought which is all the more disturbing when it comes from academics, whose profession one might expect to flourish in the realm of ideas, if nowhere else.

For exam ple, while Peter B oyes’ “ Notes Towards a Description o f ’50s Science Fiction Films in terms of Genre” does exhibit an awareness that “ film involves the reproduction of ideology” , it is curiously misguided in its notion of how th at id e o lo g y m ig h t c o m e to be understood. Ignoring questions of image analysis, film language or narrative structure, Boyes casts the problem aside: “ I would like to be more precise and particular about the process of film­ making, to try to spell out exactly how the ideological meanings come to be present in the films by a study of the

The most popular book released in the last months is undoubtedly Lauren Bacall by Myself, a well-written account that will have obvious appeal for a wide spectrum of readers. Published

by Dent (London), it retails in Australia for $14.95.

Bacall and Bogart also figure on the cover of Superstars by Alexander Walker (Phaidon, London, $9.95), an unusually large format paperback with 67 full-page illustrations (30 in color) of such stars as Glint Eastwood, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Joan Crawford, Sophia Loren and Brigitte Bardot.

Barnes has a new title in their rival “ Films O f. . .” series, The films of Shirley MacLaine by Patrick Erens ($24.95). Attractively illustrated, but printed on medium-quality paper, it contains only basic credits.

There is also a new book by the film historian William K. Everson, American Silent Film (Oxford University Press, New York, $24.95).

Everson is no th eo rist but a practical communicator and enthusiastic champion of the lost obscure by-laws of film lore. Everson does not believe (like some of his former students: e.g. Richard Koszarski) that film history is shrouded in mystery and that the pre-eminence of directors like D.W. Griffith and Charlie Chaplin in the scholarly consciousness is due more to accident than inherent merit.

Everson loves exploring films for their own sake. He has seen every film he discusses in this book, Everson’s primary aim in life being to see films, not to write about them. When he does write, however, one feels one is tapping into a major source of information.

After conducting a survey last month, I have noted that the number of film books currently being published is much less than it was two or three years ago. Currently, there are about 300 film books in print; two years ago there were more than 600. These figures do not include paperback novelizations of popular films, nor pamphlets and monographs put out by semi­ government or university presses. But they do include film scripts (down from 100 to no more than 10), technical books (down to around 50 from 150), and books on film theory (the one area where there has been little change, 80 to 75).

The biggest drop, of course, has been in the area of film encyclopedias and lavish coffee-table books.

Film star biographies are still popular, but in future publishers are likely to concentrate on major stars, instead of some of the obscure almost-unknowns (Victoria Varconi, Teddy Stauffer) who have made it into print.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 309

q uarterly

edited by Peter Noble ESSENTIAL READING FOR ALL FILM ENTHUSIASTS

Literature/Film Quarterly Vol. 6, No. 1 — Forthcoming Special Interview Issue

Europe’s leading film industry paper keeping you informed with

Vol. 5, No. 4 Shakespeare-on-Film

Reviews Reports from Film Festivals News of Films in Production Technical Developments

lease send a sample copy. I enclose $1.50

Available weekly

_____ Please enter m y su bscription, to begin w ith the current issue. Enclosed is a check fo r S6.00 Name

Send for free specimen copy to: Christine Fairbairn, Screen International, Film House, 142 Wardour Street, London W.1.

Address C ity ___

State

Send to : Christa Fehrer L ite ra tu re /F ilm Q uarterly Salisbury State College Salisbury, M aryland 21801

apjpupipBaBPWI What do you know about Cable T.V What is the difference between hardware and software? ■ r-x • 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 ¿r media gossip ; technical reports events '

Interactive T.V.. C.C.T.V.?

\ Y \ V \_ j

IN THIS ISSUE SATELLITES: C osts a n d Benefits W O M EN IN THE A BC .MEDIK DREK N\ PKDDINGTON'S PNPER PKLKCE T

SUBSCRIBE NOW: ' . ' < ■ " Send to MAVAM, 13-43 Victoria Street, Fitzroy, Vic. 3065 (03) 419 5111 for 4 issues of ACCESS VID EO at $6.00 Individuals, $10.00 Institutions, $15.00 Overseas (postage included)

HLM GUIDE Last year we sold more copies than ever before of the w orld's most unusual, most informative, and most respected film annual. The 1979 edition is even better - w ith more national reports, a new section on Video Cassettes, and updated guides to Festivals, Film Schools, Film Collecting, Animation, Educational Films etc. Plus perceptive, detailed profiles of Five Directors of the Year: Ben égal, Herzog, Mészâros, Rademakers, and Scorsese.

ALL THIS - AND MORE - IN THE 528 PAGE 1979 EDITION. PAPERBACK. £3.75/$6.95 From good bookshops internationally or, in case of difficulty, direct from the publishers (please add 4 0 p / 60c for postage).

U.K. and EUROPE: The Tantivy Press, 136-148 Tooley Street, London SE1 2TT. U.S.A.: A.S. Barnes & Co. Inc., Cranbury, New Jersey 08512.

AUSTRALIA: Book People of Australia, 590 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000.

N.B. Some back issues are available. Details on request.

FILM STUDY RESOURCES GUIDE Basil Gilbert ^

—

— —

There are, according to a microfiche listing at the Australian Film and Tele­ vision School, 94 tertiary institutions in Australia which run courses involving the study of film or video. As this list does not include secondary schools, Councils of Adult Education and film societies, there is clearly a need for easily accessible and inexpensive film study material — i.e. films and videotapes. How this need is being met by governmental, commercial and co-operative film libraries is the subject of this two-part survey.

NATIONAL FILM LIBRARY

— —

im i

I

u n iiijmynmtiWTjim-'rTiTTi tvriTT7~r-~irr ,i mini in 11 * ni,iiiifiiii nllllll■lllllllll^niimm

listed docum entaries by decade and nationality, and was compiled by Professor Jerzy Toeplitz, director of the Film and Television School: while the final core list o f avant-garde films was submitted by filmmaker Albie Thoms, then director of the Sydney Filmmakers Co-operative.

The holdings in the present collection show that the compilers of the core lists were rather optimistic about obtaining 16 mm prints from such American dist­ ributors as Columbia, MGM, Paramount, Twentieth Century-Fox, United Artists and Universal, which have commercial 16 mm outlets.

computer booking service (‘Medianet’) will be introduced. A computer program is being designed to allow access to films in a wide range of genre classifications, and an elaborate cross-reference system will enable film researchers to have quick access to full credits for the films held.

They will, for example, be able to obtain readouts of all the films held which have been scored by an individual musical composer.

NATIONAL FILM ARCHIVE

However, the lists were of great value in suggesting acquisitions of pre-1940 classics, important British and American documentaries, and international avant­ garde films.

A part-time Film Study Officer was appointed in 1975 to manage the new acquisitions, and the library was then able to provide advice to media teachers on the planning of their courses. In 1977 a Film Study Catalogue was issued, with the films indexed by personality, country, decade and title (reviewed in Cinema Papers , No. 16, p.373).

T he c a ta lo g u e , and its r e cen t supplements, show that the film study collection has a breadth and depth far exceeding the recommendations of the core lists. The holdings of silent classics (Russian, German, French and Amer­ ican) have been expanded, and last year the library acquired 16 Warner Brothers features previously reported in this column (Cinema Papers, No. 17, p.71).

These were supplemented late in 1978 with the acquisition o f 12 RKO features, mostly in the film noir genre of the ’40s.

Included are the Jacques Tourneur/Val Lewton classics: Cat People, I Walked With a Zombie, and The Leopard Man; Nicholas Ray’s On Dangerous Ground and They Live by Night; Otto Preminger’s Angel Face; and Robert Wise’s The Set Up. Other films include the Fred Astaire musical Swing Time (George Stevens, 1936), Kitty Foyle with Ginger Rogers (Sam Wood, 1940), and an early John Ford Western, Wagon Master (1950).

This year the National Film Collection w ill be c a ta lo g u e d by c o m p u te r (Australian MARC Specification) and a

Jansco’s The Confrontation, and Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant.

There are 24 Australian features in this section, most having been made with the assistance of the Experimental Film and Television Fund, ranging from Nigel Buesst’s Bonjour Balwyn to David Jones’ Yaketty Yak. The 47 films listed as “ short features” and the 261 shorts are pre­ dominantly Australian experimental films made with federal assistance in the early to mid-1970 s.

FILMMAKERS CO­ OPERATIVES

Among the 14,000-odd titles held at the National Library’s Film Archive is the m ost c o m p r e h e n siv e c o lle c tio n of Australian productions in existence: 200 feature films; 3000 issues of Cinesound Review, Australian Movietone News and other newsreels; hundreds of documen­ taries, television series, and commercials.

Most of this rare material is not loaned, but may be viewed at the library. There is also a footage extract service available to film and television producers under special circumstances.

The National Library Film Lending Collection, Canberra, is one o f the world’s largest film information libraries. Unlike the state film libraries, which cater for the ed u ca tio n a l n eed s o f primary and secondary schools, the national collection is specialized with two distinct divisions.

There is the general collection which is arranged under more than 100 subject headings, and includes many o f the Open University films and seriesJn the areas of computer mathematics, theatre and dance.

The second division is the film study collection. The 16 mm films and video cassettes in it are chosen for their relevance to study areas such as the history of cinema, the film industry, and genre and director studies.

The film study collection began to take a definitive form in the early 1970s, when the Film and Television Board of the Australian Council for the Arts originated a series of seminars to make recommen­ dations for the establishment of a core collection of film study materials in the National Library. The seminars included participants from government bodies (e.g.

A FTVS, Film Australia, AFTVB), the Australian Film Institute, the Sydney and Melbourne Filmmakers Co-operatives, and commercial film distributors. A working committee was set up to make recommendations for the content o f the core collection.

T h r e e c o m p r e h e n s iv e lis t s o f recommendations were produced. The first, a 50-page document compiled by Barrett Hodsdon and others, covered Narrative Fiction, with an emphasis on American Sound Cinema 1930-1965 and an appendix on Animation; the second

ir i n i mim i i én imum

VINCENT LIBRARY

The first filmmakers co-operative library in Australia began as a pile of film cans in a room in the home of filmmaker Phil Noyce, in the Sydney suburb of Wahroonga, in early 1970. Noyce was the new manager of the Sydney Filmmakers C o-operative, which that year had achieved registration as a legal entity.

Today, the Filmmakers Co-operative Catalogue of Independent Film lists around 700 titles of films made by low-budget Australian filmmakers. The subject index gives an indication of the pre-occupations of independent filmmakers since the late ’60s: Adolescence, Animation, Anthro­ pology, Art, Children’s Films, Com­ munity Issues, Dramatic Films, Edu­ cation, E nvironm ent, E xperim ental, Fantasy, History, Humor, Justice, Life­ styles and so on.

The catalogue also shows the important contribution women filmmakers are now making in Australian film production, helped in part by the W omen’s Film Fund of the Office of Women’s Affairs and the Australian Film Commission.

Another important listing is of films made independently in the ’60s, prior to governm ent funding, such as Chris Lofven’s Forgotten Loneliness, an 8minute short which won the 10th Muse Prize in Milan in 1965, and the lesserknown early works of filmmakers such as Peter Weir and Tom Cowan. ★

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THESE LIBRARIES

The Vincent Library is the film distribution division of the Australian Film Institute. Unlike the National Film Library, the holdings of the Vincent Library are not available to teachers free of charge, but are supplied for a fee, varying from $2 for a short, such as Brian Robinson’s AC/DC (1969, min), to S80 for Arthur and Corinne Cantrill’s experim ental feature Harry Hooton (1970, 83 min).

The Vincent Library catalogue, edited

by Sue Murray, has accompanying notes

by Rod Bishop, Laurie Clancy, Ken Mogg and John O’Hara, and includes alpha­ betical and subject indexes. The catalogue lists 77 fe a tu r e s, m o stly m od ern European, and includes such masterpieces as Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, The Wrath of God, Hans Jurgen Syberberg’s The Confessions of Winifred Wagner, Miklos

National Film Library Jennifer Sabine Film Study Officer National Film Lending Collection, National Library of Australia Parkes Place, Canberra, ACT 2600 National Film Archive Kate McLoughlin Film Archive Reference Officer National Film Archive National Library of Australia Parkes Place, Canberra, ACT 2600 Vincent Library John Foster General Manager Australian Film Institute P.O: Box 165, Carlton South, Vic. 3053 Sydney Filmmakers Co-operative Distribution Manager Sydney Filmmakers Co-operative Ltd. P.O. Box 217, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 NEXT ISSUE: State film libraries, embassies, commercial distributors.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 311

Australia

m H raH

QF0242

-

Bronywn Mackay-Payne, who plays Dawn, relaxes on the beach at Townsville between takes.

Dawn! is a dramatization of the personal story of Australia’s greatest woman swimmer, Dawn Fraser.

Director...................................Ken Hannam Producer....................................... Joy Cavill Screenplay..................................... Joy Cavill Editor.........................................Max Lemon Photography...........................Russell Boyd Art director.............................Ross Major Costume designer............ Judith Dorsman Sound recordist............... Ken Hammond

D a w n .................. Bronwyn Mackay-Payne H arry.......................................................TomRichards G ary.........................................................JohnDiedrich M u m .................................................. BunneyBrooke P o p ............................................................RonHaddrick Kate...................................Gabrielle Hartley L e n ...............................................Ivar Kants J o e.......................................David Cameron Bippy...................................... Kevin Wilson

Dawn (Bronwyn Mackay-Payne) and her new-found friend Kate (Gabrielle Hartley) stroll through a park.

Sports journalists discuss one of Dawn’s successes. John Jamieson (left), John Clayton and David Cameron.

-

Dawn and Kate in Kate’s apartment, a set designed by art director Ross Major.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 313

FRENCH CINEMA

So much so that, in December 1976, the Secretary of State for Culture, attacked and blamed on all sides, carried out a program of research and interviews with cinema profess­ ionals in an attempt to diagnose the illness and suggest a cure. After four weeks of feverish activity only one doctor was named — the French Government. It was up to the Govern­ ment to rescue its cinema.

To judge whether such a demand was reasonable, whether the state (the obvious scapegoat in times of distress) could play the role of saviour, let us look at its present organ­ isation vis-a-vis cinema.

French Cinema in Crisis C o n tin u e d fr o m P. 2 6 3

Parafrance, linked for distribution purposes with Paramount, controls a smaller, but still significant sector: about 50 halls, and 5 per cent of the market. In the case of GaumontPathe (recently formed into a Groupement d’lnteret Economique), with its 100 screens in 35 buildings and its control by distribution over the programming of 2 0 0 more, this figure is nearer 30 per cent. The huge Gaumont empire, monopolist p a r e x c e lle n c e , revered by some and hated by others, is the only rich, successful and safe fixture of the French cinema industry.

The situation on the other side of the fence is grave. Independent exhibitors, who still own more than 50 per cent of France’s cinemas, struggle to survive; their only salvation is in second releases, festivals and revivals of classics. Independent distributors, seldom able to obtain the financially-successful film reserved by the “ big three” for their own cir­ cuits, are rapidly disappearing. Naturally, the effects are felt elsewhere, particularly on the ' production side, where a film must now be made with thè approval of a large company, or be condemned to come out only in a few independent cinemas and will never be viable.

Art-houses are also suffering. While some, by virtue of their links with a powerful dist­ ributor, are guaranteed the best films, those that remain independent fall victims to a vicious circle. Each time they show an exper­ imental or difficult film — and their access to films is generally limited to those considered financially risky — they lose money and the confidence of their distributors.

If, however, they program too many com­ mercial films, their preferential status and tax reliefs are withdrawn — between 50 and 80 are so deprived each year. It is unlikely that the ideal situation, with all films being freely avail­ able to all distributors and exhibitors, will ever prevail in France.

In conclusion, remarks are warranted about two other recent phenomena. Firstly, the phil­ osophy of exhibition was changed, at least in the cities, by the mushrooming of large cinema-complexes’, technological marvels with autom atic control and synchronization throughout.

In November 1977, Paris had 89 such complexes, many of which, were able to run from four to seven simultaneous screenings.

However, research during 1978 showed a considerable swing back to the concept of one large hall..

For various reasons — ranging from dif­ ficulty of turning an old building designed for something else into a comfortable area with good vision and acoustics, from the embar­ rassment felt by the sole operator in charge of four or five different cinemas when an emer­ gency arises to the dilution of an already dec­ lining patronage and the concurrent inability to persuade people already on the spot to buy a ticket to another film — complexes have proven an unsuccessful and uneconomic attempt to entice the masses back to the cinema. Even though they may have allowed provincial filmgoers access to many more films.

Secondly, several problems have been raised by the simultaneous release, in different cinemas, of films with a dubious economic future. As well as making it impossible to judge the success or failure of such films, the dispersal of attention tends to drown the more important products.

Claude Zidi’s L’animal is an outstanding 314 — Cinema Papers, March-April

GOVERNMENT Gerard Depardieu (left), Carole Laure and Patrick Dewaere in Bertrand Blier’s Préparez vos mouchoirs.

example of such confusion, for it could have been considered a brilliant success from many angles: a record audience of 23,000 on the opening night (October 1977), ticket sales of 196,000 in the first week and a run of six weeks in the “ Top Ten” . However, these figures were only obtained by opening the film simultaneously in 27 .Paris cinemas, and another 100 in the provinces.

Very quickly the film lost its appeal, its financial success was extremely short-lived, and it suffered the most astonishing fall-off ever recorded: 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 in the second week, then 77,000, 56,000 and only 30,000 in the fifth week, by which time its reputation had become well and truly established and it was obvious that the film would never be able to recoup its budget of FF 28 million ($5.75 m illion), which included FF 2 million ($416,000) for publicity. More seriously, how­ ever, what would happen to the first 300,000 disappointed filmgoers? When would they next be seen queuing outside a French film?

With such a set-up, the industry is obviously incapable of remedying the most immediate crisis, that of the 1976-9 period, in which the professionals continue to blame the public for not filling the halls, not supporting French films and preferring to sit at home watching films on television. The public, meanwhile, groans at high prices and blames poor, com­ plicated films for its preference for a comfort­ able armchair and the small screen.

No doubt this is a prolongation of the troubles that have plagued the cinema over the last decade. But at least they were partially blanketed by the phenomenal success of porn­ ography, which first hit the scene about 1973.

Audiences flocked to see eroticism, sales abroad were greatly boosted and it seemed, for a while, that the romps of, Emmanuelle had persuaded the public to go to the cinema more often.

When, however, the Government decided to enforce severe economic constraints on pornography4, all the malaise surfaced again.

4. Despite government legislation, sanctions and taxation aimed at econom ically destroying pornography (effective since January 1, 1976), the percentage of Xrated films has continued to rise from 33 per cent in 1976 to 45 per cent in 1977. Compared to a normal film budget o f about FF 3 million ($625,000), or to a " personal contract with Belmondo or De Funes worth at least FF 3.75 million ($800,000), pornographic films, made in 48 hours with poorly paid “ performers” — average FF 300-500 ($60-100) a day — rarely cost more than FF 200,000 ($41,750) and are thus financially viable with a minimum of filmgoers. Since the fréquentation of “ specialized” halls has stabilized at about 5.8 per cent of the total cinema attendances, and since their “ specialized” clientele brings in about 5.75 per cent of the total revenue, considerable profits still accrue in the field of pornography.

The author is at present writing a separate article dealing with the moral and artistic disadvantages, and economic advantages (a source of riches for the support fund) o f the recent boom in pornography.

In addition to commissions working on purely scientific and technical levels — and it should be noted that France’s reputation as a leader in this field is well deserved — the Government now provides economic^administrative and executive support to the industry on .a scale never before experienced. Two departments in particular, both within the Ministry of Culture, assume these functions.

Firstly, the Cehtre National de Cinema­ tographic (CNC), created by an Act of Parl­ iament in 1946, gives initial approval for the making of films, co-ordinates the different branches of the industry; controls the doc­ umentary and non-commercial sector; is res­ ponsible for film preservation and the film archives; releases important statistics and attendance figures; provides details of prod­ uction activity, contracts and transactions; verifies gross receipts as declared by exhibitors and then supervises the distribution of the money among the various beneficiaries on the agreed percentage basis.

Through its non-profitmaking association, Unifrance Film, the CNC promotes and pub­ licizes French cinema abroad, negotiates with organizers of national international festivals and generally acts as an information agency. It is also in charge of censorship, through its “ co m m issio n de controle ” — a very busy group of people who, in 1976 alone, viewed 742 films and had to append an X-rating (pornography or violence) to 324 of them.

By far the most important duty of the CNC, however, is the allocation of the fo n d s de s o u tie n (support fund). A lthough the Government provides the largest part of this financial aid — the fund being, a;.special account of the State Treasury — moneys are also forthcoming from other sources. These are professional subscriptions; television rights (now about FF 20 million [$4.25 million]); ticket sales and special taxes levied on foreign film s (up to FF 300,000 [$62,500]), “film s s a u v a g e s ” (those made without initial approval) and X-rated films (the “ specialized cinemas” , taxed to the hilt, yielded nearly FF 25 million [$5.25 million] in 1977); and taxes on companies that produce and distribute these three types of film.

The first call on the fund is naturally for the wages and operational expenditure incurred by all government departments dealing with cinema. It is then up to the Minister for Culture to decide who gets what. In 1976, FF 223 million ($46.5 million) was disbursed from the fund, FF 29 million ($ 6 million) in the form of various subsidies and grants.

These went to producers of short films; IDHEC (the official State film school); tech­ nical firms or commissions for research or improvement of equipment and premises; studios; laboratories; processing plants; and as security to banks willing to lend money to

FRENCH CINEMA

Scene from Ariane Mnouchkine’s Moliere. Costing FF20 million ($5 million), the film is one of the most expensive ever made in France.

producers and exhibitors.

During 1977, substantial amounts were given to exhibitors for the modernization of projection equipment (particularly useful for the small operator), for the construction of automated cinema-complexes and, for the first time ever, to distributors who have previously been the poor relations. Annually, a large per­ centage of the fund is allocated to a va n ces sur recettes (advances against receipts), a loan system which is administered by the second of the government agencies, the Office de la Creation Cinématographique (OCC).

The OCC was set up in 1975 to encourage original creation from a financial point of view.

It consists of six departments, each with specific responsibilities: (i) Short films. Once a script has been approved, up to FF 60,000 ($12,500) may be allocated. In 1976, FF 2 million ($416,000) was spent on 42 original projects (documentary, fiction, cartoon and exper­ im ental) and FF 46,000 ($9500) on enlarging 16mm films to 35 mm. Now that this has become a very important area, the department may soon have to change to accommodate the growing demands. (ii) Distribution. As assistance for films considered “ difficult” (French or foreign) and liable to encounter special problems in France and abroad, a sum of up to FF 100,000 ($20,750) — but never-more than 50 per cent of the total cost involved — may be given to help finance publicity and the making of copies. In 1976, FF 3.5 million ($750,000) was allocated. (iii) Scenarios. A m axim um of FF 15,000 ($3125) may be lent to an author/writer to facilitate the composition, completion or reworking of a full-length scenario. The money is repayable on a per­ centage basis. (iv) Tests. This one-man department has, as its brief, the finding of new talent.

Each year, in helping 8-10 beginners make part of a film, it can easily test their ability.

If they are successful, the newcomers can later seek help to make a full-length film. (v) Research. This department is prim­ arily involved in socio-economic research on images and soundtracks.

(vi) Advances against receipts. The most vital work of the OCC is the allocation of funds received from the CNC for assist­ ance in the production of feature films.

Every two years a commission of 14 is appointed, among whom there must be at least one producer, director, scriptwriter, actor and critic. From the 450-odd scenarios and projects presented to it annually (excluding those which it immediately rates X and which thereby become ineligible), it chooses those films of “ quality” considered most worthwhile. It then recommends to the Minister for Culture that a loan be granted.

Theoretically, priority is given to the most ambitious and more complex works — the type that would have greatest difficulty in raising finance privately. The average loan is about FF 700,000 ($145,750) and is valid for one year, with a possible extension of six months. If the producer has not found finance by that time he loses the loan.

Since the “ advance against receipts” system is meant to be self-financing, all loans advanced to films eventually com­ pleted are repayable, the first 13 per cent of gross receipts being returned to the fund until the debt has been paid off. The budget for 1978 was approximately FF 25 million ($5.25 million), allowing the financing of at least 35 projects.

Obviously, the various forms of assistance provided by these two bodies are ample proof that the Government is making a substantial contribution to French cinema. But many complaints have recently been voiced within the ranks of professionals, critics and the public.

Many claim ^that there have been incorrect channelling and inequitable distribution of funds, crippling and iniquitous taxes, biased selection of films granted financial aid and other political prejudices. Such grievances need to be seriously examined before one can state with any confidence that the Govern­ ment is in fact doing all it can to pull the ailing industry out of the doldrums.

There is little doubt that the support fund, though still serving a very useful purpose, needs a drastic overhaul, at least insofar as its

apportionment of moneys is concerned. The exhibitors have for too long been favored recipients; it is not unusual for them to receive 70-90 per cent of their outlay on modern­ ization or construction.

The OCC department, which is responsible for distribution, has been accused of inaccurate assessments; among the films refused financial aid was Akira Kurosawa’s Derzou Ouzala, a film whose success proved, if such proof was needed, that aesthetic qualities do not necessarily run counter to the dictates of commercial viability, a matter which all sectors of the French cinema might well ponder.

Taxation has long been a bone of c o n te n tio n . In itially , co m plaints were expressed about abuses of the 20 per cent tax relief afforded to art-houses, and against those which were not promoting or screening the required number of quality films; as we have seen earlier, the Government was quick to withdraw these concessions when necessary.

Since 1970, however, a new argument has been raging on the 17.6 per cent V.A.T. levied on entry-tickets. The industry, maintaining that the Government is making an excessive profit from cinema — FF 1560 million ($325 million) in 1976 — and that all goods and equipment are being taxed at the luxury rate (33 per cent), wants the V.A.T. lowered to 7 per cent to bring it into line with books, and theatre and cabaret tickets s.

The main butt of the attacks, however, is the “ advances against receipts” commission, which has recently fallen from the high standards set by its predecessors. Some of its judgments have been, at best, unsound and debatable; at worst, culture and art seem to have been used to serve political and private ends, outside the realm of aesthetics. As this commission plays such a vital role, one should look in some detail at its failings.

In relation to the film granted a loan, the commission has clearly revealed not only a certain scorn for the economic situation of the country’s cinema, but also an ideological orientation which separates it from the tastes of the French filmgoers — even the most enlightened. If the applicant is actively left­ wing, or known in this political circle, he has a distinct advantage; indeed, it is almost a necessity for him to take a political stance in his film. As the RPR deputy, Robert-Andre Vivien, put it when addressing the National Assembly: “ The commission is the point of departure, with an intellectual alibi, for political ends.

If you propose a film on the atrocities committed by the power-that-be in Algeria, on the tortures in Indochina, an anti­ American film, a film against the majority, you’ll very likely get an advance.” 6 Vivien found that, following these guide­ lines, advances had been made to quite a number of extreme leftist films, although they were aesthetic nullities. Some of them were later incapable of finding a producer or dist­ ributor, because their mediocre quality was impossible to camouflage; others — La barricade du point du jour, Angela Davis, La commune de Palente, La question (despite the few supporters it found at the San Sebastian, Los Angeles and Montreal fest­ ivals) — played to audiences so small that only a small part of the loan could ever be repaid.

5. The latest developments will be outlined in Part 2 of this article, to be published in Issue 21.

6. See his article “ Le Cinema du copinage” , Paris Match, November 25, 1977, p. 142 (author’s translation).

C o n clu d ed on P. 3 1 7 Cinema Papers, March-April — 315

Mary Horton (Piper Laurie) is increasingly drawn towards Tim (Mel Gibson), who is intellectually handicapped.

“ A

love story of an older woman and a younger, intellectually-handicapped man.’’

Director............

Producer ..........

Screenplay........

Editor................

Photography . . .

Art director . . .

Composer........

Sound recordist

The Melvilles (Alwyn Kurts and Pat Evison) at Dawn’s wedding.

316 — Cinema Papers, March-April

. Michael Pate . Michael Pate . Michael Pate . David Stiven Paul Ontorato . . John Carroll ........ Eric Jupp Les McKenzie

Mary H orton......................................... PiperLaurie Tim M elville.............................................MelGibson Ron M elville............................Alwyn Kurts Emily M elville............ . ............Pat Evison Tom Ainsley........................ Peter Gwynne Dawn M elville............ Deborah Kennedy Mick Harrington.................. David Foster Mrs Harrington...........................Margo Lee Curly Campbell....................................KevinLeslie

A friendship begins: Tim and Mary.

Curly Cambell (Kevin Leslie) teases Tim in front of his father, about Mary’s feelings for him.

FRENCH CINEMA

CENSORSHIP

French Cinema in Crisis C o n tin u e d fr o m P. 3 1 5

Such a prejudiced selection procedure, solely encouraging films which will finish as dust-collectors in the producer’s cupboard, can only be seen as doing a grave disservice to French cinema.

An equally abhorrent form of bias is practised when it comes to “ old hands” and friends. A certain priority seems to be given to those who have previously received an advance, irrespective of the quality of the film produced by the advance. After his very unsuccessful L’affiche rouge (dubbed “ painful” by many critics), Pierre Cassenti returned, cap in hand, to the commission and was awarded a record FF 1 million ($208,000) to assist in the making of La chanson de Roland, with a total budget about FF 10 million ($ 2 million).

When the film eventually appeared, it was shown to the committee selecting France’s official entries for Cannes and unanimously rejected.

Things being as they are, however, it is unlikely that neither Cassenti nor the commission will be unduly concerned by this waste of money. Well-known directors will continue to get the loans, and first-timers will have to struggle. (This is perhaps the reason the private production companies recently formed by directors may involve people striving desperately for the all-important breakthrough.)

Inevitably, the “ who you know” syndrome also raises its ugly head, the members of the commission indulging in a rather conspicuous form of “ buddy-buddyness” and the directors (thus judges and loan-seekers at once) not hesitating to help themselves and their friends first. Vivien’s accusations were again to the point: “ I’ll give you the advance when I’m on the commission and you can give it back to me when you take my place.” 7 There are numerous examples to justify this cynicism: Jean Francois Adam and Robert Benayoun did not have to wait for the expiry of their terms before receiving FF 900;000 ($187,500) and FF 700,000 ($145,750) respectively, while Benoit Jacquot was given FF 200,000 ($41,750) to complete Les enfants du placard the moment he joined the commission. All this, of course, at the expense of the taxpayer and the cinema.

The situation is equally sordid on the other side of the coin, with films of real potential being refused financial assistance. This, to no small extent, has occurred because of a lack of 7. ibid

~~

”

'

Censorship Listings Continued from P. 272

‘

Despite the financial and commercial failure of L’affiche rouge (above), director Frank Cassenti still managed to be awarded a record $208,000 for his next film from the

occ.

political commitment, or a lack of established slightly more than 10 today. With less than 10 reputations. While the rather mediocre and per cent of France’s 1595 directors regularly truly demagogic Diabolo menthe8 met the active, it is perhaps disadvantageous to spread commission’s “ criteria” , Claudine Guilmain’s the available funds so thinly, in what may turn brilliant Véronique ou Fete de mes 13 ans, out to be a self-destructive attempt to find 35 Gerard Blain’s Un second souffle, which only new talents every year. By continuing to needed a small advance to complete the sponsor the writing, making and distribution shooting, and Robert Bresson’s Le Diable, of films, irrespective of rentability, the system probablement, a film in the best French lit­ may simply be institutionalizing the widening erary and philosophical tradition, were all gap between art and commercial films, instead rejected. (Happily for the survival of the art­ of drawing the two together. form, the commission can only act in an These and other problems are undoubtedly advisory capacity and, in the case of the there, and, so far, the suggested solutions Bresson film, its decision was overruled by the appear futile in the extreme. The idea that the then Minister for Culture, who gave it sub­ fund should be divided into 5 per cent for art stantial aid).. films and the rest for films with wide and inter­ The most scandalous incident of all, national appeal would result not only in the however, concerned Pierre Schoendoerffer’s disappearance of quality cinema, but in the Le crabe-tambour, which, refusing to yield to demise of the very system itself. The more leftish currents, was twice refused an advance recent suggestions 9 that the selection and was only completed with funds from the procedure can only be improved by splitting navy. It went on to win the Grand Prix du the commission into two bodies — one to Cinema Français for the Best French Film of judge the quality of the scenario (aesthetics), 1977. the other to judge its financial viability No wonder dissatisfied directors claim that (commerce) — would exacerbate a lot and talent, dynamism and creative thinking are no solve nothing. longer the criteria to obtain a loan. No wonder If people are serious in their avowed desire only three or four of the hundred or more to eliminate malpractice and its attendant films helped by the system in the past four problems, and to re-establish the system’s years have been outstanding in terms of obvious capacity for stimulating original aesthetics, cultural content and financial creation, the answer is surely simpler — the success. No wonder so many of the others commission must be reconstituted, and only members who are able to set aside their have already faded from memory.

Other related problems exist with the loans political ideology, keep an open mind and system. The percentage of fully repaid remain receptive to all kinds of cinema should advances has dropped from 70 in 1960 to be enlisted, ★ 8. The advance approved by the commission was far from being the only sad aspect of this case-history. Diane Kurys’ film, given a tremendous publicity campaign by Gaumont, managed to mystify even the critics and was awarded the Louis Delluc prize, one of the most prest­ igious in the country. In the author’s eyes, this is the unfortunate apogee of intellectual gaucherie and financial speculation.

U n fo rg e tta b le D rea m : H. Hann, Hong Kong (2413.04 m) Who Is Killing the Great Chefs o f Europe? W. Aldrich, U.K./Various (3045.00 m)

For Mature Audiences (M) Dream o f the Red Chamber (a): Ambassador Film Co., Hong Kong (3234.50 m) L ittle Boy Lost: A. Spires, Australia (2468.70 m) The New Adventures o f Heidi: C. Fitzsimons, U.SA (2743.00 m) Skin o f Your Eye (16 mm): A. Cantrill, Australia

(1200.00 m)

Song o f the Souih (b): W. Disney, U.SA. (2579.00 m) To Plthari The Jar: Not shown, Greece (2400.00 m) (a) Not identical with The Dream of the Red Chamber' shown on January, 1978 List (b) Previously registered in 1946.

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Aashlrwaad: N. Sippy/H. Mukherjee, India (4000.00 m) The Adventures o f Emperor Chien Lung: R. Shaw/M. Fong, Hong Kong (2856.00 m) A s h ik El Rooh (16 mm): M. Ramsess, Egypt

(1188.00 m)

Comes a Horseman: G. Kirkwood/D. Paulson, U.SA. (3181.88 m) E Mahi tls K ritis (The Battle o f Crete): J. Paris, Greece (4000.00 m) Kasam Khoon Ki: Not shown, India (4500.00 m) The Life o f O Haru: Shin-Toho, Japan (3703.00 m) The Mad Monk: R. Shaw/M. Fong, Hong Kong (2989.00 m) Splderman Strikes Back: R. Satiof/R. Janes, U.SA. (2496.13 m)

Robert Bresson’s Le Diable, probablement, “ a film in the best French literary and philosophical tradition.”

The Ammunition Hunters (16 mm): H. Kung, Hong Kong (1089.20 m) The Boys from Brazil (with new ending) (a) M. Richards/S. O'Toole, U.SA. (3396.90 m) The Dragon Missile (English sub-titled Version): R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2468,70 m) The Dragon M issile (16 mm) (English Dubbed Version): R. Shaw, Hong Kong (985.50 m) Every W hich Way But Loose: R. Daley, U.S.A. (3099.59 m) Evil in the Deep: V. Stone/J. McCombie, U.SA (2112.00 m) Force 1 0 from Navarone: O. Unger, Yugoslavia/U.K. (3181.88 m) Interiors: C. Joffe, U.SA. (2524.00 m) Invasion o f the Bcdy Snatchers: R. Solo, U.SA. (3181.88 m) , Ju st a Gigolo: R. Thiele, W. Germany (2633.00 m) Laserblast: C. Band, U.S.A. (2221.83 m) Magic: J. and R. Levine, U.SA. (2935.01 m) The Private Flies of J. Edgar Hoover: L. Cohen, U.SA (2962.44 m) The Silent Flute: D. Maslansky/S. Howard, U.S.A./U.K. (2605.85 m) The 3 6th Chamber o f Shaolin: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2907.00 m) Tig er and Crane Fists: C. Wong, Hong Kong (2468.70 m) Zero to Sixty: K. Browne, U.SA. (2716.00 m)

Part 2 of this article, to be published in the next issue, covers French television and the many suggested solutions to the film industry crises.

9. See, for example, “ Cinema: la selection par l’argent,” L\Express, February 27, 1978, p.29.

(a) Previously shown on October, 1978 List

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Baby Rosemary: B. Steele, U.SA. (1673.00 m) Bruce and Shaolin Kung Fu: R. Jeffery, Hong Kong (2496.13 m) Club Priv®. . . Per Copple Raffinate (Italian Version) (a): M. Pecas, France (2371.00 m) Cry for Cindy: H. Locke, U.S.A. (1564.00 m) Decamerone 4: C. Nunnerini, Italy (2474.00 m) The Deer Hunter: B. Spinkings/M. Cimino/Rosenberg/ Deeley, U.SA. (5074.55 m) Eyeball: J. Brenner, Italy (2386.41 m) A Fistful o f 4 4 ’s (Reconstructed Version) (b): J. Jaacovi, U.S.A. (2002.39 m) The Invincible Super Guy: First Film Org., Hong Kong

(2222.00 m)

La Flgliastra (The Stepdaughter): Austerity Film, Italy (2468.70 m) La Gabble: S. Zaizen, Japan (2286.00 m) La Seduzione: Cineproduzione-Daunia 70, Italy (2674.00 m) Maddalena: Not shown, Italy (3015.00 m) The Ming Patriots: W. Hon, Hong Kong (2605.85 m) Peccato Camale: Not shown, Italy (2321.00 m) Up In Smoke: L. Adler/L. Lombardo, U.SA. (2331.55 m) Yellow Emanuelle: Cinescorpion Produzione Cinema­ tografica, Italy (3099.59 m) (a) English Dubbed Version shown on January, 1975 List. (b) Previously shown on May, 1978 List SPECIAL CONDITION: (That the film will be shown only as part of the Western Australian Council for Children's Rims and Television’s 1978 International Films for Children Season).

The Little Sea Nymph (Male Morska Vila): Ceskoslovensky Rlmexport, Czechoslovakia (2850.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R) Dreams o f Eroticism: C. Lam/Shaw Bros, Hong Kong (2496.13 m) Eliminations: 11.3 m (25 secs.)

Reason: Indecency and Excessive Violence

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION China Girl: S. Brown, U.S.A. (231 7.60 m) Reason: Indecency The Dirty Mind o f Young Sally (a): Buckalew, U.SA (2303.00 m) Reason: Indecency Zom bie—Dawn o f the Dead: D. Argento/A Cuemo, Italy (3252.00 m) Reason: Excessive violence (a) 16mm version previously shown on May, 1976 List

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW Inside Jennifer Welles (Reconstructed Version) (a): H. Howard, U.SA. (2043.00 m) Decision Reviewed: Appeal against Refusal to Register by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Rim Censorship Board. (a) Previously shown on September, 1978 List.

Note: Title of film notified as The Evolution o f Snuff on July, 1977 List has been altered to Confession« of a Blue Movie Star . . . The Evolution o f Snuff. ^

Cinema Papers, March-April — 317

JIMSHARMAN

shouldn’t call a child an adult, and demand of him what you would of an adult. The important thing is to continue growing, and that can be in two ways.

Obviously films that will be commercially successful must be produced. But if we are to take ourselves seriously, we must also produce works that, while not initially quite so appetising to an audience, are prepared to view society in a critical light.

So much of Australian art has been of the charm school type.

That was one of the battles Patrick fought as a writer when his wr i t i n g s were a t t a c k e d as pretentious verbal sludge at the beginning of his career. He had the same problem when his plays were initially produced.

Jim Sharman C o n tin u e d fr o m P. 271

We didn’t rehearse in the way you do in the theatre. In theatre you rehearse people so that they can produce, each night, certain emotions, feelings and ideas. In films, however, you only want them to achieve these emotions, ideas and feelings for the single moment when the camera is turning.

Consequently, I didn’t try to find th ese m om ents during rehearsals. We merely mapped out a general background which gave everyone some idea of the shape of the film.

I think it is important that each person has in his or her mind an emotional graph of the character.

T h a t way th e y d o n ’t fin d them selves em otionally over­ playing or under-playing a scene.

There is usually only one climax for a character, and each person should know where that point is, and control their performance to suit.

Ruth Cracknell as Doris Bannister in Jim Sharman’s The Night The Prowler, from a screenplay by Patrick White.

In many ways this was a reaction to many Australian films which luxuriate in their own technical excellence.

Many Australian films are con­ Do you have any particular cerned with form over content, theories on the use of the and I felt this was the case with camera?

Summer of Secrets. I was very happy with it technically, but Summer of Secrets was shot in during the filming my concerns very long takes and only on a were with decor, composition, lighting and camera movement, 2 0 mm lens; that was a great technical discipline. The Night and I didn’t have the time to T he P ro w ler was shot on spend on the vital areas of script conventional high-speed lenses, and performance. and with a highly mobile camera. I By the time I came to The was striving for a visual style, Night The Prowler I was not whereby the camera movement concerned with technique. I felt w o u ld c o m b in e w ith th e sufficiently confident to pay less c h a ra c te rs to a d v an c e th e attention to it and could con­ centrate on the relationship narrative. between actor and camera — how Did you find it very difficult to I would tell the story and how I raise the finance? could achieve the performance level it required.

Somebody once said that we Quite, difficult, even though it was a comparatively low-budget used to make films about people film ($410,000). It was due and now we make them about real mostly to the enthusiasm of the estate. I would like to think that New South Wales Film Corp­ the major landscape in The Night oration that Tony Buckley (the The Prowler is the faces of the producer) managed to get the film three central characters. made.

The film recently achieved some The film was shot in 16mm, success at the Toronto Film which is unusual for a film of Festival. Does this mean there is th at budget. What were the lik e ly to be an in te re s te d overseas distributor? advantages of doing this?

There are two advantages, and the first was budgetary. Obviously 16mm stock is less expensive than 35mm, even though that’s not the major saving, which is time and mobility. On 16mm you work with much lighter equipment, and you can work faster, especially on location. On a six-week shoot, this frees you for more important concerns, like what the film is about.

The other advantage was the look of the film. I had long talks with David Sanderson (director of photography) and we decided to go for a very harsh lighting style.

318 — Cinema Papers, March-April

Stuart Shapiro has bought the film for the U.S. and it will open in New York early in 1979. I believe it has also been sold to France, though an opening date has not been set. Certainly there was major interest in the film in New York, particularly from the Village Voice and Soho critics.

T here was a C habrol film , Violette, with a similar theme, and this gave them some point of comparison, which helps as it is a difficult film to describe; it does not fit into any category.

In this respect originality is not always an advantage in the market

place. Chabrol, I gather, has seen the film and is quite a fan, as was Lindsay Anderson, who saw it when he was recently in Sydney.

However, one review, which I think was in T h e H o lly w o o d R eporter\ did point to the film being about Felicity’s discovery of compassion. I thought that was a perceptive observation, p art­ icularly as it was one of the things people who didn’t enjoy the film felt was lacking. But I think compassion is something people get confused with such things as love and sentimentality.

You said the film was about compassion and that some critics have claimed you didn’t treat the characters compassionately. The two, however, are not mutually exclusive. . .

Sure. To have felt something so strongly and painfully that one’s response is to view it in a detached way, inevitably implies com­ passion.

One person said he was amused by the antics and pretensions of the parents. At the same time he felt deeply for them, because, given their environment and cir­ cumstances, they could only act as they did, which is with a certain blindness. This led him to think about his parents and their situation.

When a film can produce such a response, I find it rewarding.

What is it like being a director with international experience working in Australia?

T here are d ifferen ces. In Britain, there is a great deal of expertise and not much enthus­ iasm . The A u stralian film industry, however, is renowned for its enthusiasm, and obviously expertise will grow with the industry.

It is important not to over-rate the industry at an early stage. One

F U TU R E PLANS What are your future plans?

I hope to c o n t i n u e my association with Patrick White and do another film. It will be a sophisticated comedy; the subject is fame, and it will be his first original screenplay. It is based on a remarkable and witty idea, and should make a refreshing and different film.

Have there been any major influences that have shaped your work?

I have been influenced in my f i l m a n d s t a g e w o r k by expressi oni sm, particularly German Expressionism, with the films by F.W. Murnau, Fritz Lang and so on. I am very interested in the resurgence of the German cinema and the way in which it has been encouraged to view its own society without illusions.

In Australia, we have been encouraged to view our society romantically, nostalgically and s e n t i m e n t a l l y , a n d t h a t ’s interesting. As far as other influences go, directors such as Luis Buñuel, Luchino Visconti, and G e o r g e s Fr a n j u have impressed me.

These directors are known for making films that deal with the unusual. . .

They are films that have a certain poetic strength; not those that depend on documentary narrative.

When films were born, two schools developed: impressionism and expressionism . Im press­ ionism strove to record what was happening, and expressionism chose to interpret. Nothing much seems to have changed since Melies and Lumiere, and films still fall into two categories.

Certainly it’s the poetic and expressionist school I find more interesting. ★

PRODUCTION REPORT

Margaret Fink C o n tin u e d fr o m P .2 9 0

Are you planning to employ an overseas publicist?

Yes, we. are talking to the NSWFC about this at the moment.

What is the plan for Cannes?

On New Year’s day I stopped drinking, and I won’t be having another drink until Easter. That way I can devote the next three months to really hard work. I am very serious about making this film a success overseas.

Do you see the Cannes Film Festival as the way to the American distributors?

Cannes is one way, but not necessarily the way.

Do you intend spending much on promotion at Cannes?

I don’t know. I will have to discuss that with the NSWFC. Are you planning to use the Australian Films office in Los Angeles?

Absolutely. Irrespective of whether Sam Gelfman is the right man for the job, his appointment is a very sensible one. It is so easy to spend $77,000 on script d e v e l o p m e n t and achie ve nothing, that you might as well spend it on an office in the U.S. Af t e r all, no i n d e p e n d e n t

David Kynoch

I think you should plan the promotional campaign like a war, and David and Kevin are doing that. Each film needslo be treated in its own special way. We sought and got a fair amount of publicity during production to create an initial awareness of the film. But we have also devoted a lot of effort to later magazine coverage.

T h e W o m e n ’s W e e k l y , for example, has decided to serialize large extracts from the novel, and An g u s and R o b e r t s o n are reprinting the book with the film’s logo on the cover.

We believe that Judy Davis and Sam Neill will be major pro­ motional assets, despite the fact that they were unknowns at the start of filming. Both give excellent performances. Sam has also been snapped up by other producers since he worked with us, and by mid-year is going to be generating a growing amount of interest.

I am also going to make Gil do a lot on this one because she is good material — she looks young and is a good sort.

Kevin and David have also begun talking about release pub­ licity with GUO and there are a number of ideas being developed.

Sybylla working on her parents’ farm at Possum Gully.

producer in Australia could afford it.

Gillian A rm stro n g C o n tin u e d fr o m P .2 9 3

Will the NSWFC play a major role in selling the film overseas?

I expect so. But the selling will also need my energies and person­ ality, for what they are worth.

It is disturbing in that the girl walks out the door at the end, only to go inside again . . .

Have you thought about Filmex, or is that too soon?

Yes, and obviously I did that on purpose — I wanted to disturb people.

I really don’t know. I am leaving a lot'of these decisions to Mike Thornhill and the NSWFC — they have so much more experience than I. Who controls the final cut?

I do, but the most thrilling thing about this project has been the harmonious way Gil and I have worked together. I can trust her and, after all, isn’t that what it is all about?

So far I have not been worried about this being a good film. But, as we all know, that still doesn’t mean it is going to be successful at the box-office.

Do you have any future projects you are working on?

Bill Hardy is writing a script for me at the moment. It is an urban comedy shot slightly futuristically so it will look contemporary when released. I want Robert Grubb and Germaine Greer to be in it. ★

However, you did debate the ending for a long time . . .

Yes. Originally she kept walking, but I thought that was too easy. I think the new ending is truer.

Was it shown with “ The Hireling” in Melbourne?

Yes, and a lot of people didn’t want to see The Hireling again. It had a two-week run before they took it off.

B e c a u s e of M e l b o u r n e , Columbia didn’t want to release it in Sydney in case they lost more money.

The film was also theatrically released in Sydney at the Union Cinema . . .

Yes. With the help of the AFC, I put it on a double bill with Love Letters From Teralba Road. I went overseas and it opened the

night I left. We did smash business, with queues down the road. It was a really good double and people felt they had their money’s worth.

The Dendy then took it up as a double bill for the Dendy Crows Nest.

It has been alleged that although the program took a lot of money at the Union, the return to the filmmakers was almost nil . . .

Yes. We stupidly didn’t read our contracts and were both ripped off. We followed the pattern of the other double bill programs and didn’t check the fine print.

I can’t remember how much it made, but the deal we were offered with the Union was either $800 for the theatre for the week, or 40 per cent of the gross. That would have meant paying a couple of thousand in theatre hire.

Did the advertising costs come out of that?

Yes, and $3000 on publicity.

The AFC got their money back and the Union made huge profits, but we made nothing. It was tragic. * Full cast and crew details are printed on p.295 in the Production Survey.

Cinema Papers, March-April — 319

is

two vtilnié about communities, unions and urban development:

¿UjICCLESFieUI I’lMNNICTIONS •

a com p le te film ed itin g and po st-p ro d u ctio n fa c ility fo r the 16m m film m aker in volve d in features, docum entaries, info rm atio nal and short films

•

all facilities and equipm ent, including our 4 and 6 plate Steenbecks and theatrette, are available fo r individual hire

•

Film schnitt und Synchronisation deutschsprachiger Filme zählen zu unseren Spezialitäten

Contact Robert M artin at:

II are among the 800 or so 16mm films arid videotapes distributed by the Sydney Filmmakers' Co-op In addition we: • hire 16mm and super 8 projectors plus a video m onitor and playback system; • hire a 100-seat cinema (including Bauer X900 projector and projectionist); • screen programmes of independent films every Fri, Sat & Sun and • publish Filmnews, a monthly newspaper covering all aspects of film in Australia, (subs $8/year, $10 foreign). '

Sydney Filmmakers’ Co-op Ltd.,

,

T e le p h o n e

(03) 699 6185

„

//GUN RENTALS

Woolloomooloo & Green City

For any of our services contact:

2 0 T h o m s o n S tre e t S o u th M e lb o u rn e . V ie . 3 2 0 5

COLLS HOOT SALES offers a Specialised Service to The Film Making Industry via rentals o f. . .

• Most Every Type of Antique Firearms • Most Every Type of Modern Firearms ® Edged Weapons (Swords, Knives, etc.)

• Military Items (Uniforms etc.)

ANYTHING relating to the above fields.

r

P.O. Box 217, Kings Cross, N.S.W. 2011 Australia. Ph: (02) 31 0721

3 Elizabeth St., Coburg Melbourne, Vic. 3058 Phone: (03) 354 6876

ACME OPTICALS 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.

(0

3

)

5 * 8

3 7 4 1

PALM STUDIOS 11-15 YOUNG STREET, PADDINGTON N.S.W. (02) 31 0531 1 6mm M ixing * Transfers — 16mm, 17.5mm, 35mm * Double Head Theatre — 35mm, 16mm * Voice Overs * Post Sync Recording — 16mm * M usic Recording — 8 Track or 3 Track to Image ~ * Feature Rushes Service * H a lf the Average Rates *

PETER BUTT (Manager) ALASDAIR MACFARLANE (Mixing Engineer)

14-16 Whiting Street, ARTARMON, N.S.W. 2064

(02) 438 2993 AN INDEPENDENT OPTICAL HOUSE THAT CAN NOW OFFER YOU

THE

COMPLETE OPTICAL SERVICE Ring

LARRY WYNER

PAUL GLUCINA

COMPETITIVE PRICES AND EXCELLENT SERVICE

FRENCH CINEMA

Love Story was also more suc­ cessful here. I could give you plenty of examples.

I think the dose of romance and violence in the U.S. is stronger than in France. There are more romantics here, and there are more violent people. You are the country of extremes. When I am here, I have the feeling I am meeting people who are fan­ tastically good or who are really pretty bad. In my native country, mediocrity is more the rule.

Americans remind me a little of the Jewish people, where you see the best and the worst side by side.

Claude Lelouch C o n tin u e d fr o m P. 2 6 5

But, just as everything is wearing out, one of the two renews himself or herself 4 little faster than the other. There is always one person in a couple who is a better hunter than the other, and can go out sooner to find new ideas. So the one who develops the most moves away from the other. It is a terrible rule.

What is wonderful is when two people enrich each other con­ tinuously and do not repeat them­ selves. For example, he comes back home every day to a wife who tells him new things — or vice-versa for her.

What breaks up most couples is that, as one lives with another person, one loses one’s mystery.

Little demystifications begin to occur. Perhaps if one had the courage never to do certain things in front of the other person, private or personal things like brushing one’s teeth or walking around naked in the apartment, this would not happen.

A woman shaving or plucking her eyebrows in front of a guy has no idea of the harm she is doing herself. If she would only think to close the door, she would increase her mystery all the more.

In a couple, the thing that is mostly lacking is imagination. It is like putting flowers in an apartment — this does not serve any purpose, but it triggers the imagination, it is pretty. One must know how to do things that are only pretty.

What do you think of fairy tales?

Claude Lelouch, with actresses Anouk Aimee and Catherine Deneuve, on location for Si c’etait a refaire.

meet a couple that is healthy, and has been together a long time. I notice that these couples tend to go in the direction I have been pointing out, with daily work by the couple for the couple; each person needs to understand the other, and the reasons why the other says whatever he or she does. Above all, they act gen­ erously toward each other.

In “ Happy New Year” you say marriage is a contract for people who are afraid of loneliness and freedom. Do you still hold to that?

I am like all authors, in that I Does living together necessarily occasionally betray myself for the prevent two people from growing sake of a good line. But that line is still more or less true. as individuals?

I think it is rather humiliating to Not at all, but it depends on be forced to go through a marriage particular cases. If one of the two contract with the attitude, “ Well, individuals is deeply jealous, he at least I am protected in that can ruin the other person’s life. area.” How can one think of Jealousy is a very natural thing; protection when there is the word when someone tells me he is not “ love” ? A person is protected jealous, I just laugh. The trick is only if love really exists. not to show one’s jealousy. It is for oneself to keep as a personal You also say that a man is punishment. We all have that someone who goes all the way to punishment to varying degrees; the end of things. Is a woman we should not bother others with someone who doesn’t go to the end? it.

The greatest problem couples It is just that a woman is more face is an inability of each partner to understand that someone else subject to influences than a man. could please the other. A man and She changes direction more easily. a woman living together both But the ability to change one’s believe they have a monopoly on mind faster is a form of intell­ the other’s happiness. All too igence: as a woman hears an often a woman begins to act argument or idea which sounds jealously as soon as her man better, she accepts it and adopts it, shows affection to his mother, whereas men are more stubborn sister, or woman friend. Whereas, and can go further. That is what I in fact, deep love is to want the meant. In fact, it is a tribute I other to be happy, by whatever make to women. I think women means. We have not succeeded at are more epidermic, more sen­ that yet. One needs a generous s i t i v e a nd p e r h a p s m o r e soul for that, and I personally intelligent than men.

But women do not have the have not met a woman with such a same means to bring about their soul.

What reassures me is when I dreams. They lack physical

means, they lack strength. They are lesser than us physically.

On the level of reflection or thought, women have been somewhat held back. That is why there have been more men than women writers, and more male than female filmmakers. Until now, men have managed to protect this advantage by for­ bidding a certain number of things to women. The proof is that as women are being liberated, they are showing themselves to be intellectually our equals, and sometimes our superiors.

Do you think people in France approach love experiences differently from people in the U.S.?

It is hard to say. The French­ man has been told so often that he makes love well that he has ended up believing it; in any case, he is living on that reputation. The American, however, has heard so often that he makes love badly that he has started believing it.

But lovemaking is purely a matter of individual cases, and it is possible to be very good with one person and very bad with another.

None of us is constantly a great lover. So I think it is just French and American public relations that have set up that difference.

Is there anything particularly French about romance?

Fairy tales are bad for little girls.

As little girls grow up, They risk running from one disillusionment to the next, never finding the Prince Charming they heard so much about during their child­ hood. They let life go by every time they reject someone who does not correspond to their image of a perfect lover. They are constantly disappointed, that is why I am against fairy tales based on sexuality.

However, I am all for fairy tales that make us believe that little rabbits can talk, that blackbirds can sing, or that fish are terribly funny when they tell a story about goldfish. But I think I will avoid telling my daughter fairy tales about Cinderella or Prince Charming, so that all the men she eventually meets will have a bit of a chance. ★ FILMOGRAPHY 1960 1961

1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

Well yes! We have behind us centuries and centuries of liter­ ature written by people who have told us in detail what we should do to seduce a woman. Our romantic library is more complete than the American, for example.

A Man and a Woman, for example, did better in the U.S. than it did in France. It is a romantic film, and yet it moved a supposedly less romantic people more than it moved the French.

1974 1975 1976 1976 1977 1977 1979

Le propre de l ’homme.

La vie de chateau. Filming was stopped after one week. Lelouch was later replaced by Jean-Paul Rappeneau.

L’amour avec des si.

La fem m e sp ectacle (Secret Paris). Film was stopped by censors.

Une fille et des fusils.

Les grands moments. Film was never distributed.

Un homme et une femme (A Man and a Woman.

Vivre pour vivre (Live for Life).

13 jours en France (13 Days in France). Documentary of the Grenoble Winter Olympics.

La vie, l'amour, la mort (Live, Love, Death).

Un homme qui me plait.

Le voyou (The Crook).

Smic, Smac, Smoc^ L ’a v e n tu r e c ’e st l ’a v e n tu r e (Adventure is Adventure).

La bonne annee (Happy Anniver­ sary).

Toute une vie (And Now My Love).

Marriage.

Le chat et la souris (The Cat and the Mouse).

Le bon et les méchants (The Good and the Bad).

Si c’était a refaire (If I Had To Do It Again).

Un autre homme, une autre chance (Another Man, Another Chance).

Robert et Robert.

Avant toi, avec toi, apres toi (Before You, With You, After You).

Cinema Papers, March-April — 321

FOX AND HIS FRIENDS

Film Reviews C o n tin u e d fr o m P. 3 0 7 Fox is taken up by “ Uncle Max” , (Karl-Heinz Bohm) doyen o f a tight clique of sophisticated homosexuals. The lottery ticket in which he had invested his last pfennig wins, bringing him half a million marks. It is this, rather than the pull of his “ low-life” charisma, which gains him the patronising affections o f the sly but pretty Eugen (Peter Chatel). The latter’s parents, incidentally, are in dire Financial straits.

Initially Fox seems happy in his new love, but the seed o f impending doom sprouts as he becomes enmeshed in bour­ geois culture, and so is cut adrift from his social anchorage.

The difference between Fox and his new friends is harshly and constantly stated. His personal hygiene, uncultured musical tastes and lack of table craft are all arraigned. Eugen flaunts his superiority, his bourgeoisie oblige with the ease and cultivated flair with which he and his family systematically fleece the passive Fox under the pretext of educating him.

Ultimately the cash runs out, and Fox, sucked dry, finds himself cheated not just o f his money, but also of access into their class, when he is thrown over by Eugen.

Emasculated and unable to cope, his humiliation drives him to suicide. It is seemly that he should choose that wellknown soma o f the middle classes, Valium.

In the coldly ghoulish Final sequence, played out on the deserted concourse of a vast shopping complex, we see two young boys rifle the dead F ox’s body with metic­ ulous determination. They even take his battered denim jacket, a throwback to his carnival days, which has his name studded across the back. His last vestige of identity

Fox (Rainer Werner Fassbinder), his name studded across the back o f his jacket, and his sister, Hedwig (Christiane Maybach). Fox and H is Friends. is mercilessly stripped off.

Fassbinder’s eye for detail and social iconography is sharp, and his use of it dextrous. When Fox is initially picked up at a public toilet by Max, although laden glances are exchanged, the latter is sitting in his expensive car, partly obscured behind the reflection of the windscreen.

Fox performs a shuffling dance of amatory indecision around the car. The headlights blink on and off in “ come hither” fashion, and it is at this that Fox capitulates. The impression given is that it is the car, not the man, which has seduced him.

Although the action of Fox takes place among homosexuals, the film does not feel impelled to deal with homosexuality

as an issue; it is almost incidental. This is very refreshing.

Fox is admitted to the clique by virtue o f his sexual preference only. His interest in their elegantly material pursuits (antiques, fashion, etc.) is politely luke­ warm. He is the outsider. Fassbinder uses the group’s corruption and subsequent disposal of Fox as a metaphor for the larger menace o f capitalism.

There is a certain naivety inasmuch as Fassbinder predicates the film on the moral superiority of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, when, in fact, the only difference is that one has money and the other has none. Fox displays the same self­ interest and lack of scruple in his attitude

towards money as the bourgeoisie. Even the money which bought the winning lottery ticket was not his own; it had been jlimmen flammened out of someone. After his win, although he brings his sister a bottle of expensive plonk, he never thinks to offer her any money, yet he knows she has none.

Because o f this ‘black and white’ morality the narrative style is a little too m e lo d r a m a tic . T he sto r y u n r o lls smoothly, but with too much happy coinci­ dence and pointed characterization. If it is the coded behavior which mars the naturalism of the characters, it is the meticulous way they are drawn and observed, along with the clear-sighted exploration of relationships, which saves it. It is here that the film finds its strength.

Fassbinder offers us a compelling array o f character studies, from Fox’s slatternly sister and Eugen’s politely calculating parents, to sad-happy-sad bar queens and fastidiously trendy initiates of the clique.

For the most part, these people, although engaging, are unpleasant, and this in a way rather sums up Fox and H is Friends. It may be unpleasant, but its forcefulness and insight do make it a strong and absorbing film.

F A U S T R E C H T DER F R E IH E IT (F O X A N D H IS F R IE N D S ): Directed by: Rainer Werner

F a s s b in d e r. P ro d u c e r: R a in e r W e rn e r F a ssb in d e r. S creenplay: R ain er W erner Fassbinder, C hristian Hohoff. Director of photography: Michael Ballhaus. Editor: Thea Eymesz. Music: Peer Raben. Art director: Kurt Raab. Cast: Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Peter Chatel, Karl-Heinz Bohm, Harry Bar, Adrian Hoven, Ulla Jacobsen, Christiane Maybach, Peter Kern. Production company: Tango-Film.

Distributor: Studio Films. 35mm 123 min. West Germany. 1975.

URSULA JUNG Negative Cutting Service 16mm and 35mm

0

Prompt, reliable service including pick-up and delivery.

29 Rosebud Parade, Rosanna East, Vic. 3084 Phone 4596192

TO ADVERTISE IN Ring Peggy Nicholls: Melbourne 830 1097 or 329 5983 Sue Adler: Sydney 26 1625 322 — Cinema Papers, March-April

0

0

0

Sold and serviced nationally by

RANK AUSTRALIA

12 Barcoo $t, East Roseville NSW 2069. Ph 406 5666 60 Rosebank Ave, Clayton South, Vic 3169. Ph 543 4122 299 Montague Rd, West End, Brisbane, Qld 4101. Ph 44 2851 101-105 Moorlnge Ave, Camden Park, SA 5038. Ph 294 6555 430 Newcastle St, Perth, WA 6000. Ph 328 3933 120 Parry St, Newcastle NSW 2300. Ph 26 2466

FILM FESTIVAL IN NEW YORK

History; Fred Schepisi’s The Devil’s Play­ ground, a moody if far from original story of a young seminary boy coming to terms with his “ Henri Safran’s 1977 Storm Boy is the more spiritual and sexual needs; and Esben Storm’s traditional film, set on a windy stretch of Aust­ In Search of Anna.” ralian coast, where pelicans abound, people are scarce, and the weather is temperamental. The plot is told through shots of beach and sea, Rex Reed, D a ily N e w s , November 29, meaningful glances, and in words only when 1978 absolutely necessary. The pacing is exact, and very slowly and insidiously the film begins to move us . . . Unfortunately, Safran feels “ When people used to think of Australia, compel led to insinuate melodramatic they thought of kangaroos. Now, when people sequences that break the quiet spell. And think of Australia, they think of T h e T h o m while an early visual description of the boy B ir d s . Neither image, it turns out, is compre­ losing his pelican skirts sentimentality, a final hensive. Australia is as vast and divergent a shot — where the aboriginal informs Storm landscape as any continent on the industrial, Boy that a new pelican has been born to replace social and economic rise, and we’re just now his dead friend — is uncharacteristically trite. finding out how progressive that country really ' “ Other films worth noting are Bruce Petty’s is through its growing film industry. very clever short animation Australian “ The tiny stuffed koala bear on my desk,

Film Festival in New York

Continued from

267

P.

NEGATIVE CUTTING

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

Anne GRAHAffi m m service* (m y old name was adina film services)

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

ABAC GRAHAffi Pllffi SERVICES 28 shellcove road neutral bay nsw 2 0 89 telephone (02) 908.3011 (2 lines)

NEG FILM CUTTER I6 m m 3 5 m m

j .

enquiries welcome ring Pam Toose 449 1344 176 Burns Rd..

T urram u rra

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

H --

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

th e

tf

M ATCHING M ECHANICS (FREELANCE NEGATIVE CUTTERS! y j 1Bmm V 35 mm C/t COURIER SERVICE AVAILABLE phone <411 2 2 5 5

35mm&16mm Negative Cutting

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS 139 Rsnsburst Street,

Decide for yourself!

We all have our own premises N o r e d ta p e .........

Deal with each of us personally —

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

sent over by the Australian Film Com­ mission2, reminds me it is time to mention the Australian Film Festival . . . “ Oddly, the two most acclaimed Australian films — Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Last Wave, both by Peter Weir — are not included in the event. (Hopefully, they will open soon in commercial cinemas in the New York market). Nor is The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, this year’s official Australian entry in the main competition at Cannes, and one of the films I would have thought most representative of the country’s national platform, dealing as it does with a disturbing page from history about a decent, hard­ working aborigine raised by missionaries who tries in vain to assimilate into white pioneer society at the turn of the century . Maybe the Aussies thought it too shocking to bring to New York audiences. “ What we get instead are some of Aust­ ralia’s weaker efforts. I haven’t seen all of the films on the week’s schedule, but from what I have seen, I’d say none of these films have any chance at popular success outside the cinemas of downtown Melbourne. The opener was Sunday Too Far Away, a 1974 feature about sheep shearers that attempts to show Aust­ ralian machos as rugged as the terrain they survive in.

“The Devil’s Playground was better made (by one of Australia’s most gifted young directors, Fred Schepisi) but its theme — religious obsession distorting the lives of young men in a rigid Catholic seminary — was claustrophobic and unsettling.

“In Search of Anna is one of the most boring and artsily pretentious films ever turned out by any country, proving there are cinematic frauds wasting money everywhere “ The Night The Prowler is as bewildering as its title. A stream of consciousness style wrecks the story of a rape victim’s social progress, but I suppose we should keep in mind the fact that these are works from a country still finding its way in the movie world. “ Some strengths do emerge in The Getting of Wisdom, the sumptuously photographed but ultimately tedious study of a sensitive girl from a poor background struggling through the social injustices of an exclusive finishing school in 1910. Based on a popular novel in Australia, this pulp-paperback kind of movie fiction has more impact at home than it has in the U.S., where we’ve seen these ‘how tough it is to grow up’ movies time and again. “ The best of the lot is Caddie, a beautifully modulated and often stirring biographical saga about a wealthy young wife who leaves her husband at the height of the Depression, sets out to make a new life for her two children, and ends up working as a barmaid in a male­ dominated saloon society. A sensation in Australia, this Women’s Lib concerto will strike chords in the hearts of people everywhere, for its sweetness, honesty and illumination of the human heart is universal.

Few films anywhere have so accurately captured the Depression Era flavor, and in Helen Morse, Australia has produced an actress of major ability.

“Newsfront chronicles the rise and decline of Australia’s newsreel industry as it parallels the rivalry of two competitive film companies . . . Many critics have praised it highly, but I found Newsfront a test of stupefying endurance. Despite so many reservations, I still take pleasure in welcoming new voices to the movies, and Australia’s are coming through loud and clear.” ★ 2. Actually, the Australian Films Office Inc. * Cinema Papers, March-April — 323

WE FAIL rather dismally to reach the drive-in viewing market

CANNES FILM FESTIV A L 1979 M IP- TV 1979 M ake your arrangements for the Cannes Film Festival now through:

19 7 9

Most T M T readers take their film seriously and prefer hardtop city or local cinema A HUGE CONCENTRATED MARKET CLOSE TO TOWN

To reach the discerning film goer be seen in "

MELBOURNE TIMES 207 Lygon Street, Carlton 347 4977 50,000 copies delivered weekly in Melbourne and inner suburbs

M ONIQUE MALARD Consultant * Public Relations * Organization • 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.

A p p ly in w r i t i n g fo r fu r th e r in fo r m a tio n to -

Monique Malard, Les Myrtes B 10, rue Auguste Pardon 06400 CANNES Telephone 68 3836

FRAMEWORK

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 HOLL W O O D Part one. Articles on psychoanalysis. Heath on Jaws and ideology.

Max Ophuls: Editorial Reading of The Reckless Moment.

HOLLYWOOD Part two. River of No Return, ISSUE FIVE To Be or Not to Be, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Sirk, Wilder, Ritchie.

IDEOLOGY Part one. Sexuality and Power.

ISSUE SIX The Svberberg Statement. Comolli’s La Cecilia; lei et Ailleurs, Dossier on Japanese Independents, Yoshida, Matsumoto.

IDEOLOGY Part two. African cinema — ISSUE SEVEN 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 4- 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)

Tasmanian A Film Corporation 9

• FILM PRODUCTION •STILL PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK • SKILLED PERSONNEL » 16/35 AND AUDIOVISUAL FACILITIES •EQUIPMENT H IR E INCLUDING DYNALENS

•

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

1

2

\

BACK ISSUES □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

mmmM

Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies) Copy(ies)

of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number

1 at 2 at 3 at 5 at 9 at 10 at 11 at 12 at 13 at 14 at 15 at 16 at 17 at 18 at 19 at

$4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00* $4.00*

UNAVAILABLE: numbers 4 , 6 , 7 and 8 NAM E............................................................................

ADDRESS......................................................................

.......................................................... Postcode . . . .

Total amount enclosed S

_______

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3051 ‘ Australia only. For overseas rates see below.

P lease a llo w up to fo u r w e e k s fo r p ro c e s s in g .

19

Order a Bound Volume or Easy Binder now!

BOUND VOLUMES

ORDER FORM

ORDER VOLUM E 4 NOW.

BOUND VOLUMES

(numbers 13-16) 1 9 7 7-1 978

Please send me □ copies of Volume 3 (numbers 9-12) at $30.00 per volume.

Please send me □ copies of Volume 4 (numbers 13-16) at $30.00 per volume.

Enclosed cheque/postal order for $ ____

VOLUM E 3 S TILL A V A IL A B L E Handsomely bound in black with gold embossed lettering.

Each Volume contains 400 lavishly illustrate d pages of • Exclusive interviews with producers, directors, actors and technicians.

• Valuable historical material on Australian film production.

• Film and btxrk reviews.

• Production surveys and reports from the sets o f local and international production.

EASY BINDER Please send me □ copies of Cinema Papers’ easy binder at $12.50 per binder.

Enclosed cheque/postal order for $ ____ (available Australia only)

NAM E.................................................................

• Box-office reports and guides to film producers and investors.

STRICTLY LIMITED EDITION TO PLACE AN ORDER FILL IN THE FORM PLEASE N O TE BO U N D V O LU M E S OF numbers I -4 (Volum e l )and numbers 5-8 (Volume 2) A R E N O W U N A V A IL A B L E

r mmu

V

..........

■■

OVERSEAS RATES (including postage)

(A) S u b s c rip tio n s and g ift s u b s c rip tio n s (per 6 issues).

Zone 1 (New Zealand, Niugini): Surface — $19.80; air — $31.80 Zone 2 (Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Indonesia etc): Surface — A$1 9.80; air — SA36.00. Zone 3 (Hong Kong, India, Japan, Philippines, China etc): Surface — SA19.80; air — SA40.20. Zone 4 (North America, Middle East): Surface —

ADDRESS...........................................................

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that a loose binder is available in black with gold embossed lettering.'

Individual numbers can be added to the binder independently — or detached if desired. This new binder w ill accommodate 10 copies.

TO PLACE AN ORDER FILL IN THE FORM

Postcode Total amount enclosed $_ NOTE: Remittances in Australian dollars only.

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street, N orth Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3051 Please allow up to four weeks for processing.

$A1 9.80; air — SA44.40. Zone 5 (Britain, Europe, Africa, South America): Surface — SA19 80; air — SA46.50.

(B) Bound V olum es (per volum e). Zone 1 Surface — SA30.20; air - $A33.00. Zone 2: Surface - $A30.00; air — $A35.00. Zone 3: Surface - $A 30.40; air - SA36.80. Zone 4: Surface — SA30.80; air — SA40.30. Zone 5: Surface — SA30.80; air - SA42.20, (C) Back Issues. To the price of each copy add the following:

S u rface (ail zones):- SA0.80 Air - Zone 1 - SA2.80; Zone 2 — SA3.50, Zone 3 — SA4.20; Zone 4 — $A4.90; Zone 5 — SA5.25.

NB (1) All re m itta n ce s in A u s tra lia n d o lla rs only.

(2) Surface Air Lifted available to U.K., German Federal Republic, Greece, Italy and U.S.: (a) S ubscriptions (per 6 issues) — $27.60; (b) per bound volume — $A32.80; (c) Back issues — add $2.60 per copy.

For reservations: Sydney: 33 Bligh Street, Telephone: 2333277. 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:321 9639.

SSB. LTA/36

ANOTHER CARLTON PRODUCT

ritf * i