Cinema Papers May-June 1979 by UOW Library

T h eb est docum entaries are made in the w orst conditions. “High Country was commissioned by The Victorian Film Corporation and produced for The Department of State Development, Decentralization and Tourism. It follows a 25 day — 500 km. horse ride through the Victorian Alps. The film crew, equipment and film stock were transported by four wheel drive and horseback into some of Victoria’s roughest country. For the film stock the norms of refrigeration and 'handle with care’ were forgotten. Yet Kodak’s 5247 still delivered its high standard of quality. Capturing all the subtleties of the midday alpine bush. The splendour of mountain sunsets. And the delicacy of an open campfire. For me, Kodak Eastman color neg. 5247 made the inaccessible — accessible!’ Keith Wagstaff. Director of Photography.

Motion Picture & Audiovisual Markets Division. KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD.

Film crew and equipment climbing Mt. Bogong.

Keith Wagstaff on location. (Photography by Colin Beard.)

K7/9894

CINEM A PAPERS B eat Inflation and Subscribe Subscribersreceivethemfirst...homedelivered 1 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION $15 00 2 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION $30-00 3 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION $40-50 SAVE 10% I will take a 1 â&#x2013;¡

year subscription

Please start my subscription with Issue 20 D March-April Issue 21 D May-June Issue 22 D July-August 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.

Name............................................................................... Address........................................................................... ........................................................................Postcode

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

Offer Expires 30/6/1979

CINEMA PAPERS . . . a g it t u iM t k y ily m v i iu ie u tu m Please send................................................................... Address......................................................................... .................................................. Postcode..................... a gift of 6/12/18 issues of Cinema Papers We will enclose a card from.......................................... Message........................................................................ Cheque enclosed for------------See the subscription form for current rates. For overseas rates, see overleaf.

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

For th e b e s t view In C an n es v is it

room

AUSTRALIA ATMIP-TV

■ ■ H

The Australian Film Institute developing a film culture in Australia

The Australian Film Institute is a non-profit organisation which has as its principal aim the fostering of a film culture in Australia. Supported financially by the Australian Film Commission, the Institute has a nationally based membership which is open to the public and from which its policy-making body, the Board of Directors, is elected. It hopes to promote its overall aims and objectives by providing services of benefit to the multifarious organisations, interests and individuals throughout Australia concerned with the film industry and trade, film scholarship and research, and film culture. Some of the services include:

Publishing Under the general editorship of Sylvia Lawson, a lecturer in film theory at Griffith University, the Institute has a publishing programme which commenced recently with the publication of AUSTRALIAN FILM POSTERS 19061960. This colourful compilation of early Australian film posters is available in bookshops, and the Institute, for $7.50 per copy. Work has commenced on a series of monographs, and a companion to film in Australia, AUSTRALIAN FILM 19061977, written by Andrew Pike and Ross Cooper, is scheduled for publication next year. This major work will contain entries on every feature film made in Australia up to and including 1977.

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

Exhibiting The AFI operates the Longford Cinema in Melbourne, the State Cinema in Hobart and selected seasons at the 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.

Distributing Through the Vincent Library the Institute distributes a wide variety of films to individuals, schools, groups, festivals, film societies and other bodies throughout Australia. Established in 1969, the Vincent Library's film collection comprises most 16mm short films made in Australia with government assistance since that time. With the agreement of the filmmakers the library is active in promoting and distributing these films, and in pursuing non-theatrical print sales. Film hire received is returned 75% to the filmmakers, and 90% goes to filmmakers in the case of print sales.

Information Resources At the beginning of 1978, an Information Resource Centre was established to provide research facilities for the public, with a substantial core collection of film documentation material. Recently, an agreement was reached between the Victorian Federation of Film Societies and the AFI to amalgamate the George Lugg Library and the AFI Information Resource Centre. This amalgamation has been effected through the physical move of the George Lu£g Library to the AFI premises, and the Institute will be responsible for the administration of the combined library, which is now called the GEORGE LUGG LIBRARY. The combined stock contains over 5,000 books, 150 periodical titles pertaining mainly to film, and vital indices to international film periodicals. This material is supported by a growing collection of production stills, scripts, pamphlet and film promotional material, international newspaper clippings, as well as

memorabilia in the form of posters, original programmes, pressbooks and musical scores. The Library aims at the continuous collection, preservation and dissemination of information about every aspect of film and television, both nationally and internationally. In co-operation with other specialist collections, the Library hopes to act as a centralized body in curbing unnecessary duplication through the rationalization of film resources, so as to allow the gradual fruition of a national film resource. This has already begun with the compilation, by the AFI, of a national union list of film periodicals in Australian libraries, to be published at the end of the year. The Library provides information to other AFI activities, Victorian film societies, the Melbourne Film Festival, and is central to the Institute's function in assisting the development of a film culture in Australia. The collection is of value to a wide range of groups engaged in all areas of the film and television industry. Enquiries concerning the George Lugg Library should be directed to Helen Zilko or Barbara Gliddon

Membership Associate Membership of the Institute is open to the public for $5.00 annual subscription. Associate Members are kept informed of the activities and services of the Institute, and are entitled to: (a) Concessions to the Institute's Longford Cinema in Melbourne, State Cinema in Hobart, and our exhibition seasons in other cities including those in Sydney at the Opera House; (b) Participate in the Australian Film Awards, which involves free admittance to judging screenings of all feature films entered and voting rights for Best Film; (c) Publications and subscription concessions; (d) Receipt of the Institute's regular newsletter.

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

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

DO UBLE H EA D PR EVIEW S A New Service for Film Producers The Longford Cinema, Melbourne now offers a comprehensive double-head preview service. .

35mm - 3 TR A C K 1 7.5mm

SINGLE

16mm

I TR A C K

C O N TIN U O U S PRO JECTIO N FOR BO TH 16 M M & 35 MM IN A N Y SCREEN FO RM AT.

The Longford Cinema is a modern, comfortable, air-conditioned cinema with 296 seats. Refreshment facilities are available. This new service offers an excellent opportunity to preview new films on a large screen under cinema conditions to sample audiences. This service is provided by the Australian Film Institute with assistance from the Victorian Film Corporation.

The hire rates are reasonable. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR BOOKINGS, PHONE (03) 267 2700 OR WRITE TO THE MANAGER, LONGFORD CINEMA, 59 TOORAK ROAD, SOUTH YARRA 3141

f —

I Australian 4 Film and Television ♦School

Î ♦ ♦ Open

4 5 >

Tasmanian A Film Corporation

OPEN PROGRAM - AWARD WINNER Program's "Lessons in Visual Language" series take the 1978

♦

Penguin Award for Best CCTV Educational Program. Other Open Program potential award winners:

♦

* CHROMA KEY TECHNIQUES ^TELEVISION STUDIO LIGHTING * DOUBLE SYSTEM EDITING * IN TER VIEW TECHNIQ UES * AU STR ALIAN FILMMAKERS INTERVIEWS * OVERSEAS FILMMAKERS INTERVIEWS * LESSONS IN VISUAL LANGUAGE - Series 2

♦

•

For inform ation on these productions and our other Media Education

CONTACT THE CORPORATION FOR F IL M IN G IN OR OUT OF TA S M A N IA

resources — film , videotape and print — contact:

♦

David Furley Resources Coordinator Open Program Australian Film and Television School Box 126 PO, North Ryde 2113 Tel: (02) 887 1666 Cables: Filmschool Sydney Telex: 27575

1-3 Bowen Road, Moonah 7009 Tasmania Phone: 30 8033 Telegrams: Tasfilm Hobart ♦

UW H P What do you know about Cable T .V ., What is the difference between hardware and software? • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

video art education and video satellite communications fibre optics video applications to film m aking internal communications information sharing home video videodisc software libraries production techniques media politics media gossip technical reports

• events

• FILM PRODUCTION •S T ILL PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK • SKILLED PERSONNEL • 16/35 AND AUDIOVISUAL FACILITIES •EQUIPMENT HIRE — INCLUDING DYNALENS

Interactive T .V ., C.C.T.V.?

--------------------------------------------------------i , |

I I

. "

I . '

...

B B 3 B ® ï3 H E s i@ 5 ïË 9 ^ 3 S ïB B S |

SUBSCRIBE NOW: Send to MAVAM, 13-43 Victoria Street, Fitzroy, Vic. 3065 (03) 419 5111 for 4 issues of ACCESS VIDEO at $6.00 Individuals, $10.00 Institutions, $15.00 Overseas (postage included)

In the last 12 m onths one cinema in Australia has hired, advertised and publicly screened o ver 100 A ustralian-produced 16mm film s in c lu d in g :The Machine Gun, Niugini-Culture Shock, Woolloomooloo,Melanie&Me, Reflections, Betty BlokkBusterFollies, Love Letters From Teralba Road,Temperament Unsuited, Yaketty Yak, Maidens, Prisoners, Drifting, Uluru, Marx,27A.

The cinem a w a s n 't in th a t hub o f hubs, Sydney, nor in one o f the more fashionable M elb ou rn e suburbs. No, not in Brisbane, A delaide or Tennant Creek. It's in Perth. Perth?? Perth. Cinema 16 at the Perth Institute o f Film & Television, 92 Adelaide Street, Fremantle, W.A., 6160. 3351055. (Presented as a public service announcem ent fo r everyone in the East w h o think th a tth e w o rld ends at A delaide . . . Adelaide?)

Do you finish great meal v second rate Then d o n â&#x20AC;&#x2122;t risk a great production by using anything but the best processing... us. GIVING QUALITY SERVICE TO THE MOTION PICTURE I

XITLK&

A tlab Film & V id eo L a b o ra to ry S e rv ic e . T e le v isio n C e n tre , E p p in g . N.S.W. 2121, T e le p h o n e : (0 2 )8 5 8 7 5 0 0 . Telex. A A 2 0 2 5 0 .

--------------------------- /

PENECO Cinternational) FILM PRODUCTIONS Peneco International Film Productions wish to announce the opening of their Melbourne office. Already established in London and Los Angeles for some time, we are now extending our operations to Australia. As producers of Features, Documentaries, Commercials, Industrial, and Short films, we offer a complete film production service which includes all facets of post-production as well as film crews for both 16mm and 35mm. Why not give us a call on (03) 598 5104 anytime and let us talk film with you.

P EN EC O IN T E R N A T IO N A L FILM P R O D U C TIO N S 202 Church Street, Brighton 3186

London - Los Angeles - Melbourne

Communication without visuals is like putting on a play with all the actors behind the curtains... ... and for your visuals by far the best and most flexible medium is film. Film is the medium capable of capturing a unique moment in time in all its richness and colour In full action. In pulsating reality. Because whatever the eye can see, film can record. But that’s not all. It can capture moments that exist only in the imagination. Science fiction, mystery, fantasy, horror. Film has become one

For millions of people it is an indispensable part of their daily lives. Whether at the cinema. On television Or in their home projectors. Agfa-Gevaert is a film pioneer. We grew up with it and we know its possibilities. We also know that while it may have matured

it has not aged. Film will be as vibrant tomorrow as it is today. All this, because communication without film just isn’t on.

AGFA-GEVAERT LIMITED Melbourne 878 8000. Sydney 8881444 Brisbane 391 6833. Adelaide 42 5703 Perth 361 5399

SYSTEMS FOR PHOTOGRAPHY • MOTION PICTURES* GRAPHIC ARTS • RADIOGRAPHY • VISUAL ARTS • REPROGRAPHY • MAGNETIC RECORDING

AUSTRALIA IS ON THE GO THROUGH GUO FILM DISTRIBUTORS FOR EARLY RELEASE

Max G illies • Bruce Spence • Kerry Dwyer

— Richard Moir • Judy M orris • Bill H unter

Piper Laurie • Mel Gibson • A lw yn Kurts

— Judy Davis • Sam Neill • W endy Hughes

— David H em m ings • H enry Silva • Chantal Contouri

GUO FILM DISTRIBUTORS PTY. LIMITED PROUDLY DISTRIBUTING THE FINEST AUSTRALIAN AND OVERSEAS MOTION PICTURES ON THE SCREEN TODAY.

WATCH NEWSPAPERS FOR OPENING DATES IN A CINEMA NEAR YOU.

Articles and Interviews

Vietnam on Film Surveyed: 334

Vietnam on Film Keith Connolly Grendel, Grendel, Grendel Alex Stitt reports French Cinema: Part 2 Eric Donnachie Michael Pate: Interview Scott Murray and Peter Beilby David Hemmings: Interview Ross Lansell The Structure and Size of the Australian Film Industry Julie James Bailey Arthur and Corinne Cantrill: Interview Sam Rohdie

334 339 342 346 352 356 359

Michael Pate Interviewed: 346

Features The Quarter 7th International Film Festival of India Jimi Hafizji Guide for the Australian Film Producer: Part 14 Antony I. Ginnane, Ian Baillieu, Leon Gorr Box-Office Grosses Production Survey International Production Round-Up Terry Bourke Film Censorship Listings Film Study Resources Guide Basil Gilbert

332 350 362 373 375 380 393 395

Production Report Mad Max Production Report: 365

Mad Max: Byron Kennedy George Miller

365 369

Film Reviews Mad Max Geoff Mayer Dimboola Susan Adler In Search of Anna Barbara Boyd Snapshot Brian McFarlane Dawn! Meaghan M orris The Odd Angry Shot Susan Dermody

Dimboola Reviewed: 384

383 384 385 385 386 387

Book Reviews Grendel, Grendel, Grendel Alex Stitt Reports: 339

Hitch and Hitchcock Richard Franklin Recent Releases Mervyn R. Binns

Managing Editor: Peter Beilby. Editorial Board: Peter Beilby, Scott Murray. Contributing Editors: Antony I. Ginnane, Tom Ryan, Basil Gilbert, Andrew Pecze. Design and Layout: Keith Robertson, Andrew Pecze. Business Consultant: Robert Le Tet. Office Manager: Maureen Harvey. Secretary: Lisa Matthews. London Correspondent: Jan Dawson. 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., Moorabbln, 3189. Telephone: (03)959600. Typesetting: Affairs Computer Typesetting, 7-17 Geddes St., Mulgrave, 3170. Telephone: (03) 561 2111. Distributors: NSW, Vic., Qld., WA., SA., Consolidated Press Pty. Ltd., 168 Castlereagh St., Sydney 2000. Telephone: (02) 2 0666. ACT., Tas. — Book People, 590 Little Bourke St., Melbourne, 3000. Britain — MPB, National Film theatre, South Bank, London, SE1, 8XT. •Recommended price Only.

389 389

Arthur and Corinne Cantrill Interviewed: 359

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 with manuscripts and materials supplied for this magazine, neither the Editors 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. Head Office, 644 Victoria St North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3051. Telephone (03) 329 5983. © Copyright Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., Number 21, May-JuneT 1979.

Front cover: Joanne Samuel in George Miller’s Mad Max (see Production Report p. 365).

Cinema Papers, May-June — 331

S TR IC K L A N D Q U IT S

H O YTS B ACKS N SW FC

Janet Strickland, the consumer’s advocate on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, has resigned in protest over the refusal by the Tribunal’s chairman, Bruce Gyngell, to allow full public participation In the hearings Into the renewal of commercial television station licences. Shortly before her resignation, Gyngall ordered Commonwealth police to remove witnesses from the Sydney hearings. The witnesses were critics of the commercial television stations. Strickland (who was previously DeputyChief Censor on the Australian Film Cen sorship Board) was the most outspoken member of the Tribunal, and has had runn ing battles with Gyngell and the other two Tribunal members, James Oswin and Keith Moremon, throughout the licence renewal hearings. Strickland said, after her resignation, that Gyngell’s action had “ undermined the credibility of the tribunal and irreparably damaged its standing in the community. “I joined the tribunal with the high hopes that it would be a body that represented all sections of the community and would par ticularly encourage public input into broad casting policy. "The first sign of disruption and stress came with the chairman’s sudden reversal of his stance on the Australian television con tent requirements. He left it an open issue. “The next difficult patch was during the Adelaide hearings in October, 1978, when I was placed in the position of dissenting on some of the issues raised during the inquiry. “ My opinion has consistently been that the public is entitled to the information that it re quests, and thinks is necessary in order to assess a licensee’s performance. “ If public hearings are to be meaningful then the public have the right to be informed of the issues. “In Adelaide this centred on the money that was being spent or not spent in the area of children’s programs. “The chairman believed this information was confidential, even though one of the sta tions voluntarily provided the tribunal and the public with that information. “ In the Sydney television hearings there were a number of problems, the first one be ing the legal representation. There have been highly-priced QCs representing the licensees — pitting their wits against the public and a tribunal with no legal training. “ Under the existing legislation the tribunal is not bound by formal rules of evidence, or legal proceedings. But as a result of legal arguments I believe that the public has been ‘hit for six’. “The tribunal succumbed to a large extent to the legal pressure aimed at excluding the public witnesses. And that is totally against everything I personally have stood for and deeply believe.” PB

The Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, and the managing director of Hoyts Theatres, Terry Jackman, have announced that Hoyts and the NSW Film Corporation will invest $2 million in Australian film productions. Hoyts will contribute $1 million which will be matched by the NSW Film Corporation. The funding will take the form of invest ment and/or advance guarantees by Hoyts on Australian distribution. The deal was set up last year in Los Angeles by Mr Wran, Terry Jackman, Paul Riomfalvy (the chairman of the NSW Film Corporation) and Dennis S ta n fill, the chairman of Twentieth Century-Fox. Hoyts is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fox. Producers seeking investment under the scheme will approach the NSW Film Cor poration and Hoyts separately. However, projects to receive finance will be mutually agreed upon by both. At a time when private-sector investment in the Australian film industry is at an all-time low, the Hoyts initiative is a welcome sign. Hopefully, the combination of Hoyts’ knowledge of the film industry and the exper tise of the NSW Film Corporation will assist local producers to realize commercially viable productions. PB Richard Chamberlain in The Last Wave: a breakthrough in the USA. Wave, Atlantic Releasing Corporation opened Picnic at Hanging Rock in New York. After four weeks the film had grossed US$108,395 ($97,555) and was No. 41 on the Variety chart. Meanwhile in London, The Chant of Jim mie Blacksmith, distributed by Twentieth Century-Fox, opened in two cinemas, the Rialto and the Classic 3. In its fourth week, the film grossed £4,633 ($8802) in the Rialto and £1,860 ($3,515) in the Classic 3, bringing the total box-office to £35,385 ($66,877). The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith’s performance in the Rialto has established it as one of the top-grossing films in London, ranking it above Just A Gigolo, The 39 Steps, Sgt Pep pers Lonely Hearts Club Band, Damien — Omen II and others. American and British distributors who have been following the releases of The Last Wave, Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith will no doubt view future Australian productions in a new light, and with 16 features about to be previewed at the Cannes Film Festival, local producers can expect keen interest from the American and British majors. MJ

RARE CARTOON FOUND The National Library of Australia has tracked down, and is putting together, the pieces of one of Australia's earliest silent film cartoons. The film, which is not listed in any catalogue, but is thought to have been made about 1921, deals with a Test match between England and Australia. It caricatures two of the all-time greats of the sport — the famous Middlesex batsman, “Patsy” Hendren, and Australia’s Arthur Mailey. The cartoon was found in two pieces in Tasmania: one owned by a private film collector in Hobart, the other by a collector in Launceston. Though the collectors are known to each other, neither knew that the other had part of the film. The discovery was made by the director of the Library’s film section, Mr Ray Ed mondson, in a continuing search for old nitrate films. Both collectors have offered their pieces of the cartoon to the Library to be copied on to safety-base film for the National Film Archive. The title of the cartoon has not been found. The film begins with sub-titles which state: “Cartoons by Hiscocks (Australia), edited and titled by G. B. Savi, animated by Publicity Pictures, H. Luscombe Toms and Co. Ltd” .

O VERSEAS RELEASES Three Australian films are in release overseas: in the USA, two films by Peter Weir, The Last Wave, and Picnic at Hanging Rock; and in Britain, Fred Scheplsi’s The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. The Last Wave, distributed by World Northal, opened in New York in December after the New South Wales Film Corporation staged the Australian Film Festival there. World Northal picked up The Last Wave after United Artists turned it down for distribution. (UA had originally paid a $300,000 distribu tion advance to the producers of The Last Wave for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Britain, Germany, Australia, and Switzerland, and had the first option of pick ing it up for the USA.) in the first 13 weeks of its release The Last Wave had grossed US$866,250 ($779,625), and occupied the 31st position on Variety s list of the 50 top grossing films for the week ending March 28. The Last Wave reached its top slot on the chart during the week ending February 28, when it moved from 36 to 17 after World Northal increased the number of cinemas it was showing in from nine to 36 (in three cities). Following the surprise success of The Last

332 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Famous cricketer “ Patsy” Hendren depicted in the early Australian cartoon discovered by Ray Edmondson of the Films Division, National Film Library.

The cartoon runs for little more than four minutes . Mr Edmondson described it as “a signifi cant piece of Australian film animation”. He said Australian cartoon footage from the silent era was rare, and little was known about why or how such films were made 50 years ago. AP

1 9 8 0 IN Q U IR Y In 1972, the Department of Trade’s Tariff Board Inquiry made recommendations for sweeping changes in the Australian film in dustry. One of the most significant of these was the abolition of the Australian Film Development Corporation and the establish ment of the Australian Film Commission in its place. The Board also recommended the divestiture of cinemas from the major chains, and the divorcement of exhibition from dis tribution. However, legislation was never in troduced by either Liberal or Labor govern ments to enact these. A lesser-known recommendation by the Board was to conduct another inquiry five years hence, to assess the viability of the in dustry and the impact of its recommenda tions. However, 1977 came and went without any suggestion of another inquiry being held. Of late, however, a number of independent producers, dissatisfied with the present structure of the industry and the means be ing employed to subsidize and support Australian film productions, have been preparing to make representation to the Federal government to request another inquiry to be held in 1980. A spokesman for this group told Cinema Papers that a review of the film industry, in light of its current plight, was vital. He citecf dissatisfaction with the present policies and composition of the AFC; the poor box-office performance of feature films in recent years; and the level of government subsidy available for the film industry compared with other industries, as some of the issues which needed urgent review. As 1980 marks the end of the first five years of operation of the AFC, and the expiry of tenure for its full-time appointees (Ken Watts, John McQuaid and Peter Martin), next year would appear to be the appropriate time for such a review. GS

O Z IN LA Australian presence in the USA has been highlighted by the release of Peter Weir’s The Last Wave and Picnic at Hanging Rock, and a number of Australian directors are planning production in Los Angeles. Following the success of Patrick at the Avoriaz Film Festival earlier this year, Richard Franklin has been invited by Roger Corman (who was one of the judges) to direct his latest production Battle Beyond Stare — which will be New World Pictures’ biggest budget film to date. Franklin has also been signed by Columbia Pictures to co-produce Blue Lagoon, with Randall Kleiser (who directed Grease). Blue Lagoon is a remake of the 1940s film of the same title, and will be shot by leading cameraman Nestor Almen dros. Following the success of The Last Wave, Peter Weir has secured a non-exclusive con tract with Warner Brothers to develop several projects. Fred Schepisi (The Devil's Playground, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith) has been signed by Avco Embassy to write and direct a romance-drama entitled Bitter Sweet. Philippe Mora (Swastika, Brother Can You Spare a Dime?, Mad Dog) is completing his third compilation documentary entitled The Times They Are a’Changlng for producer David Puttnam and the Casablanca Filmworks (producers of Midnight Express). Brian Trenchard Smith (Man From Hong Kong, Deathcheatera) is following his first LA-produced film, Stunt Rock, with Time Warp for Walt Disney Productions. For further details see the International Production Round-up on p. 380. — PB

THE QUARTER

YANKEE ZEPHYR

laws. (New South Wales is one such state.) In the case of Schoolgirls’ Report and Schoolgirls’ Report — Why Parents Lose Their Sleep, however, Prowse was not re quired to invoke these laws because the film had been re-imported and therefore re quired re-classification.

Antony I. Ginnane, the producer of Patrick, Snapshot, and Thirst, has an nounced the production of a $3.5 million feature film venture to be made In associa tion with British actor/director/ producer David Hemmings. Hemmings was in Australia recently to costar in Rod Hardy’s Thirst and to begin work on the multi-million dollar production. Hem mings told Cinema Papers that he would be responsible for raising the above-the-line costs (about $2.5 million) through his inter national contacts, and that Ginnane would raise the below-the-line costs in Australia. He described The Race for the Yankee Zephyr as an action-adventure-race film about the search for a plane which crashed during World War 2 carrying the payroll for the American fleet. The screenplay for Yankee Zephyr is by Everett de Roche, and the film will be directed by Richard Franklin (The True Story of Eskimo Nell and Patrick). Hemmings emphasized that Yankee Zephyr would not be a co-productlon, but an Australian film made with international finance. He said the producers aim to have it certified as an “Australian Film” by the Minister for Home Affairs to take advantage of the two-year tax write-off provisions of the amended Income Tax Assessment Act. Hemmings elaborates on the proposed production in an interview, conducted by Ross Lansell, which appears on p. 352 of this issue. LR

Coupled with the Censorship Board’s changing attitudes to censorship has been a noticable decline in communication between the Board and film distributors, particularly those handling sex films. At present, a dis tributor cuts any controversial film according to what he believes are the standards of the time. This “ reconstructed” version is then sent to the Censorship Board, which may or may not pass it. If the film is rejected, it is then sent back to the distributor for further cuts. As a rule, however, the Board does not give any indication of what further cuts are required, and the distributor is left in the dark. As a result, reconstruction becomes an expensive game of chance. In the December-January period, the two other films to be rejected were Brotherhood (excessive violence) and Sex Wish (indecen cy). Four films were also cut to gain registration: Bad Penny, Oi nonoi tie nihtas, Lo, monace, tre bastard! e sette peccatrica and My Darling Gals. The cuts averaged 38.3m (83 seconds) a film. The other important decisions of the period were those made by the Films Board of Review regarding the appeals lodged by the distributors of The Deer Hunter and An Unmarried Woman. In the first case, the “ R” rating was unsuccessfully challenged; in the second, the distributors of the Paul Mazursky film had the “ R” rating changed to an “ M”. This was the sole ray of light in a very bleak period of Australian film censorship. SM

T A S M A N IA Tasmania is the latest state to enter the field of feature film production, following an announcement by the Tasmanian Film Cor poration that it is preparing screenplays for three films to be shot by the end of 1980. The director of the Tasmanian Film Cor poration, Malcolm Smith, said the Cor poration’s production schedule called for a total investment of $1.5 million. The Corporation plans to start production on two projects this year. The first is Christine’s island, a modern-day adventure story set on Maria Island, a former prison settlement in Tasmania. Richard Brennan has been signed as supervising producer and the screenplay is being developed by Bob Ellis and Ann Brooksbank (who collaborated on the script for Newsfront). Shooting is set to begin later this year on the second of the TFC’s productions, Manganinnie, which is being written by Ken Kelso, and produced by Joseph Honey. The story is about the relationship that develops between an ageing Aboriginal woman and a white child in Tasmania during the 1830s. The third of the TFC’s new productions is to be based on the humorous Australian novel, Gland Time, about a 40 year-old slaughterhouse worker who becomes involved in a series of ribald romps, and is being adapted for the screen by its author, Don Townshend, in collaboration with Newsfront director Phil Noyce. Richard Brennan will supervise the production, which is set to roll early next year. The TFC is a statutory body established by the state government. It makes short films for government organizations and private enterprise, and also produces commercials. Late last year, the Corporation set up a marketing division with headquarters in Sydney under the supervision of John Bannon. The division is also handling the dis tribution of short films from the Australian Film Commission, New South Wales Film Corporation, the Victorian Film Corporation and various independent producers. MJ

C E N S O R S H IP During the past few months, several in dustry observers have commented on the in creasing repressiveness of Australia’s film censorship laws. Some w rite rs have suggested that the level of film censorship has equalled the severity of the pre-“ R” cer tificate days, while others have pointed out parallels between the changes in film cen sorship and the new, draconian literary cen sorship laws in Victoria, where the sale of magazines such as Playboy is occasionally restricted. Despite the many ominous signs, how ever, the film industry, the national press and the public have remained apathetic, no doubt believing things to be better than they are painted. Fortunately, the January 1979 censorship list has provided concrete proof of the ac curacy of these reports: among the four films listed under “ Films Refused Registration” are Schoolgirls’ Report and Schoolgirls’ Report — Why Parents Lose Their Sleep, two films which have been in release for five years. Despite the fact that these two “ R”-rated films have raised neither public outrage nor

C R IT IC S JU N K E T

AFC A T C AN NES The Australian Film Commission has devised many novel ways to sell Australian films in the four years it has sent representatives to the world’s largest film market-place, the Cannes Film Festival. In 1976 the slogan was “Australia, A Beautiful Surprise” , which was accompanied by a photo graph of a lyre-bird (the AFC’s official symbol) astride a pile of multi-colored eggs (apparently containing the beautiful surprises). Reactions to this slogan from producers at the festival ranged from astonishment to bewildered amusement. Foreign film buyers were confused. In 1977, in the face of criticism levelled at its 1976 slogan, the AFC went back to the drawing board and devise a less obscure, more direct, all-Australian approach, “Down Under Delivers”; which was illustrated with a kangaroo wearing a traditional army slouch hat. Australian pro ducers were incredulous. Foreign film buyers just didn’t understand. In 1978, however, the AFC decided to couch their slogan in terms that film buyers of all nationalities and persuasions could grasp, “Our Product’s Got Great Legs” , which was accom panied by a photograph of a woman from the waist down, wearing bikini pants and high heel shoes. But, again, producers cringed — although this time a few of them noted that at least the latest ‘sell’ caught the attention of some film buyers. Back home, however, the AFC’s Cannes advertising was criticized for its crudeness, and condemned as sexist. Now to 1979. A new advertising agency and a new approach. This year the AFC’s plans for Cannes are bigger than ever, involving a joint promotion with the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Meat Board, and the Wine Board. The thrust of the promotion will centre on “Australian Lifestyle” and the excellence of Australian product. And so to the AFC’s slogan for 1979: “A Vintage Year for Australian Films” . The new campaign is certainly an improvement on previous years, and reflects a fresh approach to the AFC’s promotion at the Cannes Film Festival, now under the guidance of Rea Francis (the AFC’s director of publicity) and Berry Williams, the new advertising agency in charge of the campaign. The Festival, which starts on May 10, will be attended by the largest Australian contingent to date, representing 16 Australian feature films, 12 of which will be handled by the AFC, and four by the New South Wales Film Corporation. GS the level of immorality in the community, the Chief Censor, Mr Richard Prowse, has decided the time is now ripe to ban them. And to achieve this, he has called on the little-used section 13 (d) of the Censorship Act. This section allows for the rejection of any film which, in the opinion of the Censor, “depicts matter which is undesirable in the public interest” . In an article on film censorship In Australia (Cinema Papers, No. 11, pps 206-208), the then Deputy-Chief Censor, Janet Strickland, said that the censorship board used section 13 (d) to reject films concerning “drug abuse, hijacking, etc” . One example Is the banning of Hijacked, which the Censor felt too graphically demonstrated how a plane could be hijacked in mid-air. The two Schoolgirls’ Report films, however, are clearly of a different type. When contacted and asked why section 13 (d) was invoked in these cases, Prowse said that the films were felt to contravene the child porn

ography laws in several states. These laws prevent the use of children under the age of 16 in depictions of a sexually implicit or pornographic nature. (The banning of Pretty Baby in Queensland is a case in point.) What makes the application of these laws difficult is that in almost all cases the Censor is unaware of the real ages of the children used. For example, a film may claim to be about permissive 13 year-olds but actually use actors over 16 years of age. In the case of Schoolgirls’ Report and Schoolgirls’ Report — Why Parents Lose Their Sleep, the Cen sor considered the actors (or some of the ac tors) to be under-aged — no doubt without consulting the German makers of the film. Another issue raised by these rejections is the question whether the Commonwealth Censor can ban a film already in release. Ac cording to the Commonwealth Censorship Act it cannot, but a loophole does exist because several of the states allow for such a turn-about decision in their own censorship

Film critics Rex Reed (New York Evening News) and Alexander Walker (London Even ing Standard) were in Australia for 10 days in March to meet Australian producers, direc tors and critics, and to view the industry's latest productions. Their visit was jointly sponsored by the Australian Film Commis sion and the Australian Film and Television School. The reason for the visit, however, was un clear. The Film School-AFC press release announcing Reed’s and Walker’s impending arrival referred to the critics’ “enormous enthusiasm and interest in the development of the Australian Film” . While the cynics have suggested the trip was a pay-off for Reed’s and Walker’s unfailing enthusiasm — and the resulting international exposure for the Australian film industry — the organizers may have thought that local critics and filmmakers would benefit from the insights Walker and Reed could provide about Australian films, and referred to the “great excitement within the industry” the visit was creating. Unfortunately, little enthusiasm was evi dent during the two seminars arranged in Melbourne and Sydney. In fact, the response was barely lukewarm. Few Industry profes sionals turned up and there wasn’t much dis cussion on the set subject of the role of the critic in the film industry. Reed and Walker, however, received plenty of attention from the Australian media which sought their opinions on a wide range of subjects, including the quality of Australian films, the role of the Government in fostering the film industry, and censorship. AB

C O M ED Y W IN N E R The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, has announced the winner of the New South Walds Film Corporation’s $ 1 0 , 00 0 Contemporary Comedy Competition. The winning entry, The Best of Friends, was written by Donald McDonald, and sub mitted by producer Michael Robertson. Mc Donald will receive $7500, and Robertson $2500. In announcing the winner, Wran said that the response to the competition was overwhelming, and that more than 82 scripts were submitted. The judges assessing the entries were Michael Thornhill, a director of the NSW Film Corporation; Shan Benson, president of the Australian Writers’ Guild; and Pat Lovell, a producer. Paul Riomfalvy, the chairman of the NSW Film Corporation, has announced that the Corporation is interested in investing in The Best of Friends, and expects to receive an in vestment proposal from the producer in the near future. It is believed that Hoyts, the NSW Film Corporation’s new investment partner, is also interested in backing the production. PB

Cinema Papers,.May-June — 333

to drop the whole thing. Not that many of the few films so far produced on Vietnam — compare this halting mini-cycle with the If box-office shortfall hasn’t already propagandist rallying-around for Korea — foreclosed the long-heralded, but to date less deal squarely with the subject. All skirt the than billowing, wave of feature films about the central fact that the USA and its allies inter American war in Vietnam, recent events quite vened with massive physical force in an idealopossibly will. The C hinese punitive gically-motivated civil war and inflicted catas expedition, plus Vietnam’s backing of the trophic damage upon nation and people. Kampuchean rebels, add new chapters to the (Note, please, I am not contending that the lamentably continuing story of warfare in films should condemn this intervention; only Indo-China, which has known only a few that they should at least face up to the reality of months of peace in the past 33 years. what they purport to depict). These latest affrays will certainly adjust, American forces stopped fighting in once again, shifting Western perspectives on Vietnam in 1972 (Australians a year earlier) Vietnam. Many people in the USA, in and South Vietnam was finally overrun in particular, are pointing sanctimoniously to 1975. But not till Francis Ford Coppola began China as one more example of how great his still-unreleased Apocalypse Now in 1976 powers are plagued beyond endurance by was anyone in Hollywood prepared to put his those insufferable Vietnamese (and their (or others’) money where the national Soviet masters). conscience should have been. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hollywood, never Thus, only last year did the first commercial exactly eager to grasp the nettle of American features about Vietnam reach our screens. So involvement in Vietnam, is already prepared far, we have seen five — three from

Keith Connolly

334 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Hollywood, Ted Post’s Go Tell the Spartans, Hal Ashby’s Coming Home and Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter; one of cosmo politan origins, Sydney J. Furie’s The Boys in Company Ç; and, bless us, the Australian contribution, Tom Jeffrey’s The Odd Angry Shot. (This postwar tally disregards John Wayne’s tendentious, jejune The Green Berets, made in 1968, of which more later). What took them so long? In recent times, other major world events have triggered a rush to cinematic reportage, if not judgment. Distinguished historian and incidental film critic Arthur Schlesinger jun., reviewing Coming Home in The Saturday Review of April 29, 1978 says: “ So many of our national institutions, beginning with the executive and legislative branches of government, have agreed to drive the war out of our con sciousness that we must be grateful to Holly wood for its willingness to stir repressed memories of that awful American adventure. Indeed, the whole period of the sixties has acquired with extraordinary rapidity, the aura

of some remote, exotic, self-contained time” . I think he is being kind about Coming Home — and even more generous to Hollywood. Hard on the heels of Ashby’s anxious dissidents come Cimino’s mindless hard-hats to redress the balance for middle America. As far as these deer-hunters are concerned, the 1960s that Schlesinger talks about never happened. The “ awful adventure” was an altruistic, thankless task undertaken in the line of duty by America the Beautiful (which they actually sing, in all seriousness, at the film’s conclusion). The full-scale American shooting war, waged with the most awesome array of fire power yet employed by one nation against another, is a good deal less than the cynosure of the Hollywood films under discussion. Spartans happens in 1964, when the Americans were still supposed to be “ advisers” ; Deer Hunter contains only a brief combat segment; while Coming Home, though deeply concerned with the effects of the war, is confined to the home front.

Curiously, the two non-Hollywood films are at least set in the hottest time of the war — the late 1960s — and both trace the perilous progress of a small group of combat infantry. All five films, however, treat the American and allied intervention like some pre-ordained act of God, a natural calamity visited on all the participants by forces outside their control or ken. Of course, everything is seen through Western eyes. The Vietnamese are, in the main, passive victims or anonymous enemies. The general attitude toward the Vietnamese is at best incurious, at worst maledictory. Wellmeaning Yanks are thwarted and ripped off by venal South Vietnamese, betrayed by villagers, tortured by demonic Viet Cong captors. (The enemy also fights dirty in those parts of the jungle from which American defoliants and napalm have failed to flush them). The inference to be drawn from The Deer Hunter, Spartans, and Boys, i&that the South Vietnamese don’t deserve to be saved from the fate which, with the benefit of hindsight,

From left: Robert De Niro and Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter; Bryan Brown in The Odd Angry Shot; The Boys in Company C; Robert De Niro and John Savage in The Deer Hunter; The Boys in Company C; Bruce Dern in Coming Home.

we know is going to overtake them. These racist overtones are strengthened, too, by a sparsity of blacks on view among the American forces — the reality was quite the opposite. Tom Jeffrey at least avoids such ugly defects — thanks to White Australia and his film’s general indifference to the Vietnamese. In fact, the Special Air Service protagonists are so remote from the civilian population, they might be in Borneo (their outfit did in fact serve there a few years earlier) or some other trouble spot where counter-insurgency skills are useful to a ruling friendly power. Admittedly, the Hollywood filmmakers are grappling with a subject that was, until the 1970s, unimaginable to most Americans — a war the USA lost. One wonders what, for instance, John Wayne thinks of Coming Home Cinema Papers, May-June — 335

VIETNAM ON FILM

or Spartans. They are more than just a decade removed from his Green Berets; they have crossed that great divide which taught the USA that it couldn’t order the world in its own image. Wayne’s Green Berets was propaganda pure and simple (very simple), but so ham-handed that it was largely counter-productive in its attempt to justify the American presence. Wayne, scourge of commies and fellowtravellers in the piping days of McCarthy, at least stood up to be counted when the going became a lot tougher. His film’s screenplay, by James Lee Barrett from a novel by Robin Otho Lovering, is stiff with cliche, and the direction (Wayne shared the credit with Ray Kellogg) is better suited to a B-grade western. David Wilson summed it up nicely in the Monthly Film Bulletin of September 1968 as “ unwitt ingly and ironically as much an indictment of the American intervention as an apology for it” . Wayne’s approach in 1968, however, was entirely consistent with his stance in the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals — “ democracy” must be preserved, even if it has to be destroyed in the process. Now to 1978 . .. The first of the postVietnam films seen here was, appropriately enough, Go Tell the Spartans, which is a kind of curtain-raiser. In 1964, there are merely 12,000 American “ advisers” on hand, telling the South Vietnamese what to do and, in some cases, showing them how. Director Ted Post and screenwriter Wendell Mayers rather neatly presage the disaster that is to come in their story of a small American regular army unit. An American prisoner in the hands of brutal Viet Cong captors in The Deer Hunter.

The Americans lead a motley collection of Vietnamese to occupy a remote, abandoned hamlet of no strategic value beyond the postu lations of American eggheads-in-uniform figuring the war from a drawing board. Predictably, hamlet and defenders are overrun by the Viet Cong — as were the French before them. (The film’s title derives from an inscription on a French army graveyard which loosely quotes Simonides after Thermopylae: “ Go tell the Spartans, thou who passeth by, that here obedient to their laws we lie.” ). Post develops two complementary conflicts within the larger war — Vietnamese versus Americans and, among the Yanks themselves, professional pragmatists against amateur idealists. The American soldiers dismiss Vietnamese susceptibilities (“ It’s their war!” ), are hamstrung by venal ARVN commanders and are finally betrayed by civil ians they befriend. Within the American military, the worldlywise pros, represented by Burt Lancaster, know the cause is hopeless, but, like Spartans before them, fatalistically do their duty. The implication, as in The Deer Hunter, is that the Vietnamese were scarcely worth saving, but (like Boys) the war might have been won with an honest military effort. The Boys in Company C is, in essence, a justification of the American role, although overlaid with “ war is hell” protestations and anti-establishment rhetoric. The film’s origins are even more mixed than its theme: produced in Hong Kong by Golden Harvest-Good Times Films, shot in the Philippines with an American cast and directed by a Canadian, Sidney J. Furie. Furie’s filmography is a mixed bag, from British pop music (The Young Ones), to spy drama (The Ipcress File), and showbiz biopic (Lady Sings the Blues), but he

has obviously had a good look at Altman’s M*A*S*H The film’s dialogue overlaps and rhubarbs in Altmanesque confusion. There is even a version of that M*A*S*H football match (Company C’s soccer team refuses to throw a game to please the South Vietnamese and as a result are ordered back into combat as the Tet offensive begins). In some other respects, however, Boys apes the very war-film heroics satirized by Altman. The principals are recognizable stereotypes — a resentful Negro leader-in-spite-of-himself, the disillusioned volunteer; the conscientious objector forced to toe the line, and the anxious captain for whom happiness is a high bodycount. Furie and scriptwriter Rick Natkin seem to be saying that, with boys like these, Vietnam might have been “ held” — dis semblers and self-servers at the top lost it. Held for what, one may well ask. Does the latest outbreak of fighting, or the advent of the boat people justify the intervention . . . or make it seem all the more morally and tact ically reprehensible? The films under discussion aren’t much help in seeking answers. They may, on the other hand, confirm a few prejudices. The least inquiring of the five is Jeffrey’s effort, a creditable verismo portrait of the Australian task force (which lost 415 men in a six-year campaign). But The Odd Angry Shot is very likely to be the only Australian venture on Vietnam — and, therefore, one regrets its narrow subjectivity. I checked the reactions of a discerning colleague, a journalist who served as a combat infantry officer with the task force. He assures me that the film is, for the most part, faithful to the reality he knew. His criticisms were of hissed dialogues between members of the SAS

“ The Deer Hunter is not a political or a polemical film .” Philip French, The Observer (London) “ Permit me, Philip, to observe I cannot but admire your nerve. It’s not political, you say? What picture were you watching, pray? The images that filled the screen Would have made Dr Goebbels green: The goodies were Caucasian guys, The baddies all had slanted eyes. Do you forget who raped Vietnam, Or must I draw a diagram? Gunships, napalm, towns bombed flat — Perhaps you may have heard of that? Or do you think though millions died, There is a case for genocide? A snow job — oh, but I forgot: The wedding-scene was finely shot. To brutalise the human heart, Tell the Big Lie and call it Art. You’d fail, if you were in a camp, To see the purpose of the ramp, And, having such a simple mind, You’d call the ovens well-designed.” Roger Woddis New Statesman

336 — Cinema Papers, May-June

VIETNAM ON FILM

patrol within earshot of the enemy and the final fire-fight on a bridge. He praised the reconstruction of the Nui Dat base camp, regretted the comic exaggerations in scenes of camp life, and dismissed the Vung Tau leave scene as “ unlikely” . But his overall reaction was favorable. Significantly, what I dislike most did not bother him at all — that is, the film’s lack of comment or commitment on the war and the Australians’ part in it. I suspect our differences are much the same in 1979 as they would have been in 1969, when he did his duty as he saw it and I was among that section of Australians who fiercely resented what was being done to the Vietnamese people in our name. Jeffrey warned beforehand that The Odd Angry Shot wasn’t to be a war film, but one about men at war. And the film serves notice of its tone in the prologue, when a guest at a farewell party adjures a departing soldier: “ Get one for me, mate!” Just who is to be got, and why, is of little moment, then or later. For those unacquainted with the issues — and it should be remembered that lots of people now entitled to see “ R” films were in primary school when these events took place — the soldier might as well be on his way to fight in Star Wars. Comment is confined to the puerile level of a homily Graham Kennedy delivers about the poor man always fighting the rich man’s wars (one compares it — unfavorably — to Slim Summerville’s recipe for settling wars in All Quiet on the Western Front). This sort of cracker-barrel drivel is a poor substitute for any explanation of what the hell the Aust ralians were doing there. The excuse, “ It’s not in the book” (meaning William Nagle’s novel of the same title, on which Jeffrey closely bases his screenplay) doesn’t wash.

Whatever his reasons, the sorry fact is that Jeffrey recalls a watershed event in our history (never had a large body of Australian troops gone to war with less than overwhelming support from the nation), yet declines to make a statement about it. Worse, the characters let fall remarks about nobody back home caring. They are dead wrong there — or did I dream that day in 1970 when 100,000 people sat down in Bourke St? Nor is it any excuse for defenders of The Odd Angry Shot to cite shortcomings in the Hollywood films, which we will examine further. Unlike the other Hollywood products, Coming Home wears its heart on its sleeve — but it is bleeding for a wounded USA, not Vietnam. And the film suffers a crisis of confi dence, trailing off into mumbled implication, instead of the forthright assertion Ashby leads us to expect. He established ample ground for the hero (Jon Voight), a maimed veteran, to make a reasoned case against war — as people like him were in fact doing all over the USA at this very time. The Voight character has already made a personal, intuitive stand by chaining himself to a marine embarkation depot. But when he speaks to an audience of high school students, who have just been addressed by a recruiting sergeant, the script unrolls a bolt of old flannel in lieu of the forth right denunciation we expect. He gives a rambling discourse bland enough to mollify Barry Goldwater. The strongest thing he has to say about the war is that “ there just isn’t enough reason for it” . The script of Coming Home apparently suffered a number of modifications — and it shows. Tough on the surface, it is soft at the core. The original concept of writer Nancy Dowd and Jane Fonda may have adopted a more explicit anti-war stance, but subsequent

rewritings evidently diluted the impact. In the final credits, the screenplay is attributed to Waldo Salt and Robert C. Jones, with story by Nancy Dowd (Dowd and Ashby have said that little of the original script remains). It is also worth noting that veteran screenwriter Salt was one who suffered in an earlier American time of trial — he was blacklisted. And, perhaps significantly, a crucial development in the plot occurs as the result of FBI surveillance. Even though Coming Home baulks at explicit condemnation, there is no doubt about where it stands. The film’s chief concern, however, is less with the rights or wrongs of the American intervention as with the catas trophic effects this has on Americans — in Vietnam and at home. Had it not been conceived at virtually the same time, The Deer Hunter would seem to be a reply to Coming Home. The thematic origins of Cimino’s film, however, go back a good deal further. It is the spiritual descendant of The Green Berets, most directly in the few war scenes, but also in its unquestioning acceptance of the American involvement. Cimino’s heroes take an unconscionable time getting to Vietnam — after what must surely be the longest establishing sequence in the history of motion pictures—but when they finally do, the film’s moody atmospherics dissolve in a burst of good old-time commie hatefulness. A pith-helmeted North Viet namese impassively blows up a shelter crammed with women and children, and is napalmed by Robert de Niro, arising from hiding like an avenging Wayngel. Later, and Left: The Boys in Company C, the First major Film about the Vietnam war since the 1973 ceaseFire. Right: Sally Hyde (Jane Fonda) and her war veteran husband (Bruce Dern) in Coming Home, a Film concerned with the effects of war on the American participants.

Cinema Papers, May-June — 337

VIETNAM ON FILM

Maxwell Anderson play What Price Glory ? (It should be emphasised that these comparisonreferences are confined to fiction features. If Hollywood had tried to do in this field what Peter Davis achieved in his documentary Hearts and Minds, or Emile de Antonio in Year of the Pig, or even attempted the authenticity of William Wyler’s uncritical reportage during World War 2 in The Memphis Belle, the Vietnam picture would be a lot straighter). Is it reasonable, though, to ask such things of Hollywood, even the modern Hollywood of interlocking financial power blocs, myriad pro duction packagers and the conglomerateswallowed studios hungrily alert for viable ‘product’, whatever its content and origins? Two major films of recent times suggest that the cause is not absolutely hopeless. The first, Coppola’s Godfather II achieves South Vietnamese troops in action in Ted Post’s Go Tell John Hargreaves in Tom Jeffrey’s The Odd Angry Shot, in one brilliant 15-minute sequence a most the Spartans, a film which implies that the Vietnamese the least inquiring of the recent films about the war. telling exposition of American corruption of were scarcely worth saving. pre-Castro Cuba, and explains, in terms with a nonchalant ellipsis that jars after the pretations may be placed on selective sections accessible to every filmgoer, why the over opening prolixity, American prisoners are of its almost-three-hour trudge to nowhere. throw of the Batista regime was nigh on forced to play a form of Russian roulette by But Cimino isn’t taking a stand on war. He is inevitable. Yet the film, like its predecessor their brutal Viet Cong captors. on record that his film is simply about the sort was financed and released by Paramount, a However, signalling an awareness that times of men who volunteered for Vietnam in search subsidiary of the vast Gulf and Western have indeed a’changed, the film goes on to of adventure, the background from which they conglom erate, which has billion-dollar depict similar gladiatorial contests being staged emerged and to which the survivors returned. interests in the Caribbean. for the b en efit of big-b ettin g South What he is saying is a revamp of the line American writers Barbara Zheutlin and Vietnamese. (Incidentally, two of Australia’s American presidents, Richard Nixon and, David Talbot comment in their recent book best-known foreign correspondents, who before him, Lyndon Johnson, kept hamm Creative Differences (South End Press, between them spent decades in Vietnam, told ering — that, in its purest heartland, the USA Boston): “ Despite the fact that Godfather II me that, though many perverse things did was for participation in Vietnam. Not, of was bankrolled by a large conglomerate, it may occur in Saigon, they strongly doubted the course, because of any real conviction, but be interpreted, on one level, as a critique of authenticity of this one). Cimino’s message from the gut feeling expressed in a banner corporate power . . . In one memorable scene here, of course, is that the South Vietnamese hanging over that interminable wedding representatives of American multinationals are just as bad as the North Vietnamese and a reception: “ Serving God and Country and organized crime gather together to slice up pox on both your houses. Proudly” . If he has seen it, I’ll bet the stricken a cake in the shape of Cuba” . Why did Gulf The Deer Hunter does have something in Duke likes this one. Those crypto-commies and W estern board chairm an, Charles common with Coming Home, in that both are haven’t captured Hollywood after all. Bludhorn, who apparently takes a close primarily concerned with the effects the war With five down and, presumably, only interest in Paramount, agree to the backing of has upon the American participants. However, Coppola’s film to go in the current cycle, we such a film? The question is rhetorical — the where Coming Home also examines shifting are still looking for that elucidatory light at the answer, of course, is in the grosses for the perspectives among the civilian population and end of the tunnel (ah, nostalgia . . . remember original Godfather. obliquely reflects a gathering mood of dissent, that phrase beloved of speechmakers and Another case involving Gulf and Western the stolid citizenry of the Pennsylvania mill leader writers?). Perhaps, however, it’s pointed to by Zheutlin and Talbot is Bernardo town (all of whom seem to be of Russian expecting too much of any feature film pre Bertolucci’s Marxist epic, 1900. Paramount descent) remain profoundly, patriotically, dicated largely, if not wholly, on commercial insisted the film be cut to the four hours, eight unquestioning. Not ? peep of the opposition to concerns to deal honestly with the American minutes we saw in Australia, but most of its the war then sweeping the USA gets through chapter in Vietnam — particularly one from revolutionary content remained. The explan on the constantly-playing television and radio Hollywood. What Schlesinger memorably ation, the authors suggest, could be quite sets. Some intimations of the national furore describes as “ the most superfluous and simple: “ Perhaps Bludhorn felt that 1900 must have reached even this citadel of the shameful war in American history” , may have would make as much money as . . . Last Tango status quo (one wonders whether, in the bitten too deeply into the American psyche for in Paris” . closing sequence set in 1975, they have yet an account of it to be envisaged, let alone This is not to suggest that only ‘name’ heard of Watergate). become bankable reality, while it’s so fresh in directors can hope to make realistic films about The Deer Hunter is determinedly apolitical the memories of a majority of filmgoers. Vietnam. The subject is thicketed with other (which is another way of being reactionary). After all, while the Korean war aroused a questions, psychological, emotional, political Cimino’s good buddies — and their Viet spate of rah-rah quickies, it has yet to be and, most importantly, economic. But Haskell namese adversaries, for that matter — have as seriously examined by Hollywood in an Wexler, cinematographer of Coming Home, much ideological motivation as a crock of objective light (the black satire of M*A*S*H demonstrated 10 years ago, when he directed cream cheese. Not for Cimino the Dullesian scarcely qualifies). The same can be said about Medium Cool, that it is possible, though no verities of The Green Berets. His deer-hunters World War 2. William Wellman slipped one doubt extremely difficult, to finance films are red-blooded American boys, too, but like under the wire (The Story of GI Joe) while inimical to prevailing norms and ideas. the other post-Vietnam filmmakers, Cimino the war was still on, William Wyler dealt Medium Cool, which he wrote, directed and and screenwriter Deric Washborn have the honestly enough with the difficulties of shot (with Paramount backing) was set against advantage of hindsight. returnees in The Best Years of Our Lives, but the background of the infamous Democratic In 1968, Vietnam was another war the USA it wasn’t until 1963 (and in Britain) that black National Convention of 1968. It is a brilliant, was going to win, because defeat was list victim Carl Foreman presented a full-scale, incisive examination of violence and alien unthinkable. Ten years later, the whole damn realist picture of the way it was for the ation in American society (and, incidentally, schemozzle just isn’t worth thinking about. ' American dogface in The Victors. pictures mounting opposition to the Vietnam I have heard it argued, that, in essence, The The first Hollywood sound films to face the war). Deer Hunter is anti-war. Proponents of this realities of World War 1 depicted the soldiers No, the climate isn’t impossible for films notion point to the film’s depiction of the of other countries — Germans in Lewis about Vietnam that call a spade an Armalite horrors, terrors and brutalities of the conflict, Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front . . . just tinged with a certain degree of the devastation of (Vietnamese) civil popu (1930) and the French in Howard Hawks’s unfeasibility. However, in searching the lations, and the shattered lives of two of the Road to Glory (1936). When it came to por records for examples and comparisons, I get three young American steelworkers who go off traying the Yanks in the trenches, American the impression that old war films never die, to fight. And it must be said that the film is so films, as late as 1952, were still marching to a they just mutate. Stand by for Sons of the wearyingly abstruse that all sorts of inter- jocose beat, as in John Ford’s remake of the Green Berets. ★ 338 — Cinema Papers, May-June

M ¡w m >

f& p o g c ^

GRENDELGRENDELGRENDEL ^animatedfeatutefilmlyALBWDERSíTTTbasedonthencwelbyJOHNGAfiDNER MusicbyBRUCESMEAION PhoducedtyPHILUPADAMSand ALEXANDERSÍTTT

6 > ro m ^ h ° l < < „ Mons+er, s/# ín W ^

hero Bcomjf

Bruce (a 1tr.)

Atocif 60,000 pWvt 4\o</rs Si^ooo

/Vi ^ 6

A M r ^ g o O jC Q O ( fo t V f r ,

foem of %i same- ñame, im s

M ore (W ü á ^ M n fk e Jfh cunk/fy f o n fictvady)

-n,*

7 / ^ C C h M rj

(j*o\*A f is -fte tórZ/fef epib n/orfe í>\ ihl£n%tt'd> la H fyc ftt-.

if\t i/s. hlo'íellst J i h * 0{arthejc ffo h ic e d q ((4rtow\ ( j 1h t íe o m lfsb c y /n h}hic¿\ h r rw efse} th¿ ñle¿ ¿ f ñ tc k le f ffo fo fo n tfá and ÉjíenM (fiCAme, A i c¿h{ra(; sympcnutibchareéar.

M o n fo r..

BEOW ULF. Hwaet! w§ Gár-Dena in Oo'éar-dagfiim O ]>éod-cyninga ]uym gefrünon, hü 3á «Relingas el] en fremedon. Oft Scyld Scéfing sccapena ]>réat.um3 monegimi maégjmm, meodo-setla ofteah. Egsode eorl, sySSan ¿érest wearS féa-sceaft funden; he )?ses frofre gebad, •tf'fe.

t i l 6 o( W

v¿e

pW! A\ M rk d rirlh ¿{ fot’ /PHIL-.TW t-lft & /Ñ iTSTc*F I$ Al-L VB-Ai \N€LUt B|/T

OiSKT Tb

AL-',ntt0ü¿ftf

DOJoveTÍÍ/Zv/é»

fJoPM was /¿:/ey s £ X jo j$ „ . h ín fix

/l§OiTT 6«¿*D£L7"p/<jU: "óf&Jtfl WtfoV ha?2*¡ fo 6c 'famoas/ -hro,

^ i6

M hm 6 .Q & j$ -finished. (CS rtsbviAS ijCo'j

if yw calí i M f-toW ftiE -film Kbf / j r r f t ^ Q f )oa cali M

wiófóf)

ISTJXgApT W sheekftke yñy

¡i

yA oetarpAti «vw i

'TO®' WHlTg vJGI-f■ Ft-mt *>irn w í

‘Ce»Ae««S*nA<Atn(i tU *- Mg" { fa t f t » » # . A 7S*J¡-4<‘&/ WIK. «Mi ■

H« |C»rf<

fSUY»

OÍ A

£g»MfUt**<A,

J~j

/M» "»OM

^ 'K fáftT

T k Same 40

S M H f w ¡^ am etfiw etifc/im j

üéoi/f- Jo mee. *

ftK<efc4ASV»BOGtaaqniGMarMM“** SAjSVBCt. v » *íM i

i TÜ>

í r W M &5

___ __ jeuee^^-^Y ________ at3> &*Ar.} /Hí- *íw <w*»jr tj ! A * * t « € A fí& rm .

Tt A £.vpjf

H t

JC fSiy.

<Í4^I P P -—

. .

j Í X ÍM M A /* ^

^c more

-¿>f fffbirrilst Sfoce -b’m t)

/ j b w

M g w w ft. i

w í ; AN*> : R f t» l« í. 'k!*6M 1 / t w w»nre ítm fi V

FuesY/tJbee»! fer

»*(

IHB SWHBbWIw i

-f m y m n T?|tí )í ot\i f f mi/ / 2 C O f Q W 0 f lt i t prüfocbirn S tm b a id ñ liotMment iU \ bm tkM m ei M íe ftn fo fo c fh í c w fG t^

s«m

c¡ov<

Q ilute}

# n t m i- o r í i \ ( , ( .

B Cinema Papers, May-June — 339

GRENDEL, GRENDEL, GRENDEL

17ig w g g0 \ o tb rt f a w

fa n « fa k foppet*}; Ike f A '

f a n e ? *xt> a

-The mie«-hbn ka} a f ^ f t (een b p r f in

0 (of of ftt(/tic/ kJluck Sifsfat hJ('k ari( . amfated ftfn jbatZSfZci^Hy #. defended Juni f f f[fo ; o«& &we f^eo M ^ ¿#0 faotak frw\ fast*#. The, fo rth bf^cin t*J)% a ofamcWt* Csouüner's Cook

c*ifrt TAeJkaj^r, Hz

* nek/A*',

fte(({f for fa ortQtwl tecfotovforxffftjk f f fäoy/ojf^ ßnl f a p/of dt fated

(¿WtylfSx. ■ IHi foWCkjor& fcC/ flnimtlM,

f a f k t fa d i h r e a c r tfe J } Mt>rk a 'r fa lm f' ij- U t / f ScesheH *

¡ ( A lm e f j iK>

ffe

fo r fh ts e s s iw w e m i t u v * *

sHtryfoar?,

csfiu f t

„

tn ^ f a t o f lw j> r ncSipM cA ^n^ci-ers h.*/€s

a Sfaf} P°-

Ol (r\ort conVivdbnal Ajfzi

ru/m lers. /tf+er/A&h/2/n^ th o s e ,

fn isM uf u f f s-t\ie*n

■jUe Voice. m'/vns iM/ii s/woUi, täpik, ty iM fwiltntf. Q bsserfointi)&by Brüht¿w^k) bctfoneCvpf&xH^and ofam ware morUd xofa\cr in Meföwrne^f Pttef Ustinov maj only W t M t in Z/faty, and KeiiUAlickeK in AWide. W* ÄAi fo record 6ik <f\ ¡tik(ofri& all ovir fa place uni sHteh il kyetUr loiter. It all tytfad fOffaMy. 77v6 vocals wert recorded te düerett piano socles oJhiiM viere later fepfaud hi firn orchistya! backing.

¿¡/tfopte script,

fyierdstinoil lent ¡1 corfiW Mt W ftito flb p r ^ e e f m Me

Voice of Orf endt]’

At one point in fa ^ Script' tire n W ( ^ h0 IS

/¿V

in his tort -famis)

reflects', 'w w / h/kswh, TmSAiOfhl^TA S/6m et iajhcn / hps Tore oe fire, imh <poo / Has e>(6foe W SOB ear m tovfo&M'

taat, TKdrmve op. ' After cefdiho ^ Mr Ustinov

obsmeA} % t m irw . k ls Mr (j^ino'fi cfter

Urbanity, ftib, ft*™—jo (jfenkij ¡0

fhett h& is * cM rafter ( f Substance frm ite first timb nie. %e ca sfo frf such 4 Con¿Urntft presence, fa-

v o w W*ed o«t^

frotfew; fteortoff, The £>rajr<rv\ arid The %o*f>ec— GjyMnM'c f^ r s in the f(//n— notv needed \foices * f ejo^vif ch^rknna, Keith Michel( agreed te do The fraper, hifuch (eck Brace Stmeahm -b compose three devilishly 6(f} tvu%(i Scnnf> f a him. /kffar ¡p/foaM performed i& tM tf t/iWh-t chUlm^ OtorgL iaAikrs-hh tin? A ft also <Q4</e US ft oilf a f f d) ly&fcn Uko ma^iajes

(\ bravura duet ^itu (jfmM. 340 — Cinema Papers, May-June

GRENDEL, GRENDEL, GRENDEL

(ffi> ir$ ,T o r m '.

p4coäin% m s k f f ö y comfletö 6*1 ü lr isp H ty lA ff J tr i Ihic f M f

hreenftuf,

Mt comuMncei)aniinatmt ■fytiedtileJjü n l ( o n t a f q 'r a t e

MtnyfiiM {¡irfctPT: PtfArJfC HtUMD

Of a M

r\orti{ ¿>yjawl6AQDN&— OihertinirtdTJYU OüSMctAß&t

w t t , a M g fc .

■Bl u

allokrnJm hcü k k f t n a m . S h ttfc

■i

% rm s

m x: ( p .j ‘ *&•>■■

■ •> ,

I mmI m

RAUM m /gM ^W iPATtf/fSbri i^ m o c /e m c ^ r s M m i öfiier ß4^/o vh& M O

d m r A a /p . „ , ' , fc£a>rtingj<m w tf- Atfß& w ,

mmmm

*■} Ä W i -fe«s

rt_ M sk& hAq W K m

_ > *.

■

(•*tont faiskb frrttifr/m 's

■ r *

6ßAHfl/y\ ohW S-A & M MeJtovne AM'ifawU recorfirf'' Pi& täS ¿sbw

P & m A JM e. Anim^hovi cA/nm ■JOM Pou/RP ffabucedfy ?mujpApMS¿ M xsn rr

7he #nc((

(M r ttf& r pM teishw f Ä r M 'tty w an) % . . . . Vota

& i A MickeII "JukMctfLHnH CohMcfolciA

Cconti M t) lr \ $ i *

Y&7ßA*iwfa°* A J S ttä jk ftiS )

C&mi

w/tcn©

¿HOOK

f&FS AASClTlZEMS

@7975/'LETVU.r/i_

ö rso )

Cinema Papers, May-June — 341

French TV, a revolution

Rmmnbz? BASTI IATI fM ¥ J«iy 141b 1978 ©a PUS « fftifc p e , ini f i . . W A wt tre at it *gàie Aécf cultural value to audience si*e, Ask fm m r «at*l*>«ue.

w w

sm à a un

ppem M éèl ,

## « r iti

tr e s b e n n e

, e

¡Sena piccou

«,|04.cUSB<'WCCB1! ,

a*»«.'*?1.

FRENCH CINHHA IN CRISIS •PART2 In this second part of a two-part article on the crisis in French Cinema, E, M. Donnachie, a lecturer in The School of Modern Languages at Macquarie University, examines French television, thè quality and quantity of recent production, the role of the critics, the value of the film festivals, and, finally, evaluates the various remedies which have been put forward to cure the ailing industry.

The reason for this state of affairs is that, despite the increase in prices by 250 per cent TELEVISION since 1975, the television stations, the exhibitors extra-ordinaires, are still paying far too little for the films.4 A good, old classic Television, perhaps because it was a fairly costs them between FF 50,000 and FF 80,000 late arrival in France, has posed immense ($10,425 and $16,750). a five year-old film problems for cinema since it took hold in the perhaps FF 300,000 ($62,500), while the 1960s. Today, 85 per cent of all households average is FF 225,000 ($46,875).5 This is have a set, 76 per cent of the population claim about the price television charges for one that sitting in front of it is their favorite minute of advertising. pastime, and 97 per cent indulge daily.1 There Compare that with a top variety show at is little doubt that the French like watching FF 500,000 ($104,250), or a well-known play films, but they prefer to do so in the comfort of between FF 1.5 and FF 2 million ($312,000 their homes. and $416,000) — or, even more telling, a The three television channels, taking special television film where it would cost a advantage of this growing demand, provide television station eight times more to produce what the public wants. In 1977, these channels an original work of the same duration. Even showed 517 films, a figure that has risen the simplest television documentary costs steadily over the past 20 years; 1957 — 100; twice as much to make as a full-length feature 1972 - 378; 1974 - 444; 1975 - 469; 1976 film does to buy. — 502. In 1968, films represented 45 per cent While the cinema exhibitor is forced to pay of television time; this is now 60 per cent, and the first 13.5 per cent of his takings into the the indications are that it will reach 80 per cent support fund, the contribution of the tele by 1980.2 vision stations, with their average audience of Films are programmed at least every second 8 million, is a few centimes per spectator per night and capture more than 70 per cent of the film. Despite incessant demands having viewers. The total audience watching last improved matters — the amount paid by tele year’s films was in the region of four billion — vision to the support fund increased from 24 times greater than the number of people FF 11 million ($2.5 million) in 1975 to FF 20 attending cinemas.3 The result is a great profit million ($4.25 million) in 1977 — its total for television and a disaster for cinema: for contribution, in terms of buying rights, example, it cashes in on this draw-card of 10 support fund payments and finance for tele films a week, or 1000 hours annually, by vision-cinema co-productions, is now more charging three times more for advertisements than FF 100 million ($20.75 million). This is accompanying a film originally made for double the 1974 figure, but only 18 per cent of cinema. A very large proportion of a film’s the nation’s outlay on films. audience sees it on television, yet contributes Emmanuel Schlumberger, head of the only 2 per cent of cinema’s overall revenue, exhibitors, commenting about the crisis said: while the small numbers still watching it on “ I keep coming back to the basic problem: the large screen constitute up to 89 per cent. while television continues to pay so little for our films, the cinema will continue to suffer. 1. Television has also had occasional, crises. When its own popularity fell dramatically as a result of the splitup of the O.R.T.F. in January 1975, the Government intervened and declared that, as from July 1976, there would be a minimum production quota for each channel. The two main ones, TF1 and A2, were to increase their number of original television serials and dramas up to 300 hours a year (previously 177 hours), while the responsibility of the third channel, FR3, was fixed at 60 hours a year. This brief crisis was, to some extent, beneficial to the cinema, in that the television industry was forced to produce more of its own works, thus drawing less from the cinema. No long term advantages were discernible, however, as we note throughout this section. More interestingly, according to the Centre d ’Etudes de l’Opinion, responsible for conducting official polls for the television stations, 1977 saw the slump of about a million dissatisfied viewers, TF1 and A2 losing 3 per cent — a figure doubled in the case of FR3. What repercussions this disaffection will have, remains to be seen. 2. Anyone making comparisons with Australia should remember that French television is on the air for a much shorter time than here: excluding schools’ broadcasts, TF1 for 12 hours, A2 for nine hours and FR3 for five hours in the evening.

3. Comparisons with Italy, another country with a justified reputation in this art-form, are very enlight ening. Prior to 1976, when all possible television reception was in black and white, and only 100 films were allowed to be shown annually, with none permitted on weekends or public holidays, a cinema crisis was unimaginable. In 1975, 550 million entrytickets were sold, but the following year saw transmission of foreign television, in color, and attendances dropped by 30 per cent. While it is true that the Italians still go to the cinema much more frequently than people in other European Economic Community countries, the position is considerably less stable than a few years ago. 4. The way in which the price is fixed is mentioned later on p 344. 5. In the USA, the cinema remains prosperous, its attendances up 70 per cent since 1970, despite the rivalry of 24-your television and a large percentage of films on the small screen. Total cinema revenue is in a much more balanced state than in France — one-third comes from export and one-third from television, which has to pay considerably higher prices for the films (perhaps it is not a typical case, but the television rights for The Godfather parts I and II, amounted to FF 72 million ($15 million).

Our receipts are only up 5 per cent, which is a lot less than the inflation rate.” 6 The comment is accurate, but prices are far from being the only worry. The recent reduction of the commercial exclusivity period (cinema’s desperate attempt at immediate rentability, but shades of the goose with the golden eggs) and the difficulty of imposing the agreed quotas are problems which need an urgent solution. With regard to the first of these, it would appear that some box-office successes are being shown too soon on television:7 for instance, Robert Enrico’s Le vieux fusil was shown on television only two years after its commercial release and while it was still doing well in cinemas. More alarming, however, is the rate at which the three television stations have been buying successful films: more than 2000 since 1975. Perhaps Channel A2 has given us a taste of things to come. On New Year’s Day, 1976, it had an audience of more than 20 million when it transmitted Gerard Oury’s La grande vadrouille, the great comic success with Louis deFunes and Bourvil about which the French used to say, “ It’ll be a long time before we see that film on the box.” The channel had been well rewarded for its foresight and courage in buying 65 French films from the producer, Robert Dorfmann, for FF 30 million ($6.25 million). Under the arrangement, the films (all commercial successes and including Jean-Pierre Melville’s Un flic and Constantin C osta-G avras’ L’Aveu) will be screened, and paid for, over a 10-year period. The channel’s arch-rival, TF1, reacted instantly and three days later showed a film almost as popular as Oury’s: Benjamin by Michel Deville. This commercial warfare, allied with the concept of FR3 as a major film screening channel, threatens to exhaust the cinema market of its good films by 1980. Then, an endless series of repeats? As far as quotas are concerned, the three stations have the legal right to show 540 films annually, TF1 and A2 being limited to 150 features each and FR3 to 240. TF1 recently lost a court action for having exceeded this number in 1977, by no means a unique 6. Quoted in “Ne (irez pas sur le projectionniste", Les Nouvelles Littéraires, (November 3-9, 1977, p. 14 author’s translation). 7. For a long time, the law prohibited the television stations from programming a film within five years of its public release. (Admittedly, it was occasionally bro k en , when the product was particularly “ commercial” , for example, Costa-Gavras’ Etat de siege, shown well within two years. This was followed by a period of considerable relaxation, the period mentioned here. It does appear, however, judging by the promises made by d’Ornano in March 1978 (discussed later on p. 395) that a tightening-up pro cess is under way. Cinema Papers, May-June — 343

FRENCH CINEMA

occurrence. Nor is it particularly unusual for the rule regarding a minimum of 50 per cent French content to be broken; in 1975, local films formed only 23 per cent of A2’s repertoire, but the station was only too happy to pay the FF 10,000 ($2125) fine. While there can be little doubt that the number of films permitted on television has considerable bearing on box-office receipts, the value of the French content quota, in the present circumstances where television stations are already rapidly depleting stocks, is surely questionable. Another aspect of the quota system can be seen in a less obvious, but equally pernicious, effect of television — its role as the shopwindow (a badly arranged and neglected shopwindow) for French cinema. As such, the manner in which the films it chooses to show helps to propagate the opinon of overall med iocrity8 which the French population currently has of its national cinema. Remembering that the amount paid by the television stations is generally calculated on the basis of the film’s commercial value — i.e. on the number of people who saw it during its initial exhibition period — it is inevitable that the financiallyfeasible films all lie within a fairly narrow range of quality, running from the tolerable to the plainly stupid. Philippe Brion, head of films at FR3, admits that he buys a certain number of French films every year simply to fulfil the quota; even then his choice is limited. “ As a general rule” , he says, “ we try never to go below a certain level of mediocrity.” 9 Praiseworthy, perhaps, but an aim which, unfortunately, admits the existence on television of two kinds of cinematic mediocrity: one which is passable and tolerable, at least in the light of the quota, and one which is unacceptable at any level. If one adds to all the films economically out of reach those whose incredible inanity immediately excludes them , and those impossible to program because of excessive sex or violence, it is easy to see how the quota system turns television into a privileged place for a whole series of unattractive and boring products. This aspect of rivalry, conducted at cinema’s least flattering level, works purely and simply as constant counter-publicity. In December 1976, copies of the Malecot report, prepared under the auspices of the Centre National de Cinematographies, which revealed how television was slowly killing the cinema, were handed to Taymond Barre, then Minister of Finance, and Francoise Giroud, then Secretary of State for Culture. Little was achieved. In April, the following year, top government representatives met with the annual congress of film directors to discuss the crisis; in particular, the television-cinema relationship. Again there were no concrete results. Inevitably, the bubble of discontent finally burst, and, on January 12, 1978, a full-page open letter to President Giscard d’Estaing appeared in the Paris press, revealing the ruinous effects of television and presenting various statistics we have given elsewhere in this article. At long last something positive was achieved, and, as 1978 advanced, the tentative armistice between television and cinema became apparent. Channel FR3 agreed not to program films, except television films, on Friday and Saturday nights; that on one 8. The quality of French films will be considered later. 9. Quoted in C. Combaz, “Le cinema francais malade?” Le Figaro, (August 12-13, 1978, p. 12 author’s translation). 344 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Wednesday a month (Wednesday being a very popular cinema-going day in France) films would be replaced by an original tele vision production; and on Sunday the late movie would not start before 10.30 p.m. Television-cinema co-productions, already more noticeable during 1977, were actively encouraged. Full-length television films (for example, Maurice Ronet’s Bartleby which was financed by Channel A2) were given commercial release only a matter of months after their initial transmission. And in what could prove to be a decisive experiment, Jacques Ertaud’s Ne pleure pas10, a “ dramatic telefilm” financed equally by the two industries, had virtually simultaneous premieres on the large and small screens. After its projection by TF1 on March 15, it was commercially released two days later in six Paris cinemas by Gaumont, in the hope that the free television publicity would work to its advantage. Later in the year, the two official French entries selected for the Cannes Festival would prove to be co-produced by a television channel: Ariane Mnouchkine’s Moliere by A2, and Claude Chabrol’s Violette Noziere by FR3. With these color links, a change was also discernible in the attitudes of actors, directors and technicians — no longer was it frowned upon to make a television film. A most signi ficant example of this was the very popular series Madame le juge, in which Simone Signoret (and, from time to time, other cinema stars like Nathalie Delon) made weekly appearances on the small screen. Each episode was produced by a different cinema crew and directo r (including N adine Trintignant, Edouard Molinaro and Claude Chabrol). Naturally, this new-found co-operation works to the advantage of both parties: provided with extra opportunities, the cinema people are willing to work for reduced fees if the finished product is liable to be seen by a huge audience; while television also benefits by employing prestige names and talented directors, actors and crew. Projects can also be realized which would otherwise be impossible: Nina Companeez’s Un ours pas comme les autres, lasting six hours and featuring the talents of Anny Duperey and Andre Dussolier, cost FF 4,800,000 ($1 million), a figure that in the cinema world would have been barely sufficient for a full-length film. No doubt such co-productions11 still have their problems (the general principles involved and the distribution of labor costs are often unclear to the film unions), but these initial steps will hopefully lead to a further cementing of relations.12 As Gilles Jacob, Cannes’ new festival director, said: “ We have to rethink the relationship between the two forms of expression. From now on, we are getting to a new generation of young spectators who have forgotten books and have been brought up, cultivated and opened to the world by the image.” 13 10. It may not be coincidence that Ertaud was chosen for this particular experiment, as his previous television film Mort d’un guide, which had attracted 135,000 viewers in January 1975, was reasonably successful at the box-office when released nine months later. 11. One may be excused for suggesting, perhaps cynically, that the television industry has suddenly become awakened to the dangers: if it continues to buy and screen more films each year than are being made, the supply will soon dry up. The joint television-cinema ventures will at least ensure product for the future. 12. See, for example, d ’O rnano’s pronouncem ent mentioned on p. 395. 13. Quoted in “Cannes: ce n ’etait que Moliere", ¡’Express, (June 5, 1978, p. 33 author’s translation).

Claude Zidi’s L’aile ou la cuisse, a satirical comedy about France’s passion for gastronomy, which attracted 1.3 million people in one week.

QUANTITY and QUALITY Television is certainly the most obvious reason for cinema’s crisis, but the quantity and quality of the films being produced may, in their own way, be important factors. The annual increase in the number of French films would appear, at first glance, to be a healthy sign: 1966 - 95; 1970 - 110; 1973 - 153; 1976 — 214; 1977 — 222 (compare Italy: 1973 - 233; 1977 — 156). On closer inspection, however, one sees in 1977’s total more than 100 bearing the “ X” classification, and another 20 co-productions with foreign societies. Of the remaining 100, 30 were entirely Financed by a loan (between FF 500 and FF 800,000 ($104,250 and $166,750) from the “ advances against receipts” commission. Despite their low production costs, some of these films were clearly non-viable propositions, others were not even distributed and very rarely did those that were have a commercial future sufficient to repay, the loan. Generally, these films represented a negative quantity in economic terms, and by discounting them the total is reduced to some 70 — a considerable drop on the number of genuine French features produced in 1976, and a natural contributor to the decline in attendances. French cinema may well be caught in a quantitative vicious circle: the fewer French films there are, the fewer filmgoers there will be for French cinema; the fewer patrons there are, the fewer French films there will be. Are the artistic perspectives, however, any more comforting than The economic ones? Is there also a crisis in quality? In answering such

FRENCH CINEMA

Top: Nous irons tous au paradis, a sequel to the highly successful Un elephant ca trompe énormément. Bottom left: Rene Feret’s La communion solonnelle the first of two films to receive the Philip Morris Foundation prize. Bottom right: Moshe Mizrahi’s La vie devant soi (Madame Rosa) which won an Oscar in 1978 for the best foreign-language film.

questions, one should nqt merely make com parisons with past years but, m ore importantly, take into account the needs of today. (We have omitted any consideration of the X-rated pornographic or violent film, in its own way perhaps a crisis of morality, but lying outside the scope of the present study.)14 Now that the New Wave has passed into history — its films catering only to minority groups, and very few of its directors still commanding a wide appeal — it is difficult to pinpoint today’s public “ pulse” and to create its image. Several different tendencies have been perceptible since 1968: rural settings, often viewed through urban eyes; dreams of “ elsewhere” , sometimes a mythical else where, moulded in a different or marginal life style or in a new, emerging society; a fresh series of assaults on the family and on the couple; socio-political research on great hist orical crises or current conflicts; an increasing number of women directors and, therefore, of feminist films. The breadth and diversity are there, but the 14. Despite governm ent legislation, sanctions and tax atio n aim ed at econom ically destroying pornography (effective since January 1, 1976), the percentage of X-rated films has continued to rise — from 33 per cent in 1976 to 45 per cent in 1977. Compared with a normal film budget of around FF 3 million ($625,000) or to a personal contract with Jean-Paul Belmondo or Louis de Funes worth at least FF 3.75 million ($800,000), pornographic films, made in 48 hours with poorly-paid “ performers” , FF 300-500 ($60-$100) a day, rarely cost more than FF 200,000 ($41,750) and are thus financially viable with a minimum audience. 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) of the recent boom in pornography.

young cinema is generally questioning estab lished values. The real crux is whether it precedes or follows the psychological and social phenomena it reveals on the screen, and to what extent cinema and reality influences each other. Were it possible to decide those issues with certainty, it would no doubt be easier to solve current problems and prevent future ones. It is incorrect and unjustified to state glibly that France has no talent, or that the diff iculties are entirely due to a lack of quality: To a degree, French cinema is prosperous, courageous and diverse. There are some stim ulating films and some excellent directors (many of whom have produced their best work in the past two years), particularly those like Bertrand Tavernier, Claude Miller and Pierre Schoendoerffer who are returning to the classical forms of the “great tradition” . While critical awards and prizes do not necessarily coincide with public favor and com m ercial success (A lain R esn ais’ Providence won seven Cesars, the French Oscar, but was not well received by the average filmgoer), it cannot be overlooked that of 1977’s top 16 box-office hits only three failed to receive a nomination for the 1978 Cesars. Abroad15, Moshe Mizrahi’s La vie devant soi (Madame Rosa) won a 1978 Oscar for the best foreign-language film. This fresh blood is not restricted to directors, for in a short space of time a modern generation of stars, enter15. Though several French films will invariably be found on critical “ Top Tens” for any one year, there have been disappointingly few modern films to enjoy long term commercial success abroad — the most obvious exceptions being Cousin, cousine and Un elephant, ca trompe enormement, mysteriously translated in the anglophone world as Pardon, (mon affaire). Moreover, it must have come as a nasty shock to find that, in Variety’s “ all-time greats” , calculated on the basis of receipts, the highest-ranking French film is Z — at number 341!

prising and diversified, has appeared, with a truly international impact: Miou-Miou, Brigitte Fossey, Isabelle Adjani, Isabelle Huppert, Gerard Depardieu, Patrick Dewaere, inter alia. It would appear then that links between quality, talent and success are possible to establish and maintain. Nonetheless, given the fact that of the five most popular films in 1977 four were American, it would be equally incorrect and unjustified to believe that the complaints made about the quality of certain sections of French cinema are exaggerated or unwarranted, and that, in time, everything will somehow sort itself out. Apart from the impatience often felt with directors unlikely ever to reveal any new inspiration (Claude Chabrol, Francois Truffaut), with French directors turning, generally unsuccessfully, to the English lan guage (Louise Malle, Alain Resnais, Claude Lelouch) and with French capital being used by foreigners (Liliana Cavani, Joseph Losey), the attacks- are directed, for the most part, against two types of film: the inane and* the obscure. Firstly, the purists complain that it is impossible to construct any real art-form, any real cinematographic aesthetic, around the mass-produced, stereotyped, “ ready-made” film whose form and content are totally lacking in ambition, inspiration and originality, and whose aims are unashamedly commercial. Comedies comprise a very large percentage of such films and, while we would not wish to deny that the occasional quality comedy is produced in France,16 the genuine creativity level is often low and sometimes idiotically non-existent. Secondly, the public complain of the confused, complicated and incomprehensible n atu re of the “ cinem a of re se a rc h ” bequeathed by the New Wave. No longer is the filmgoer entertained, no longer is he able to dream or be captivated by fictional occurrences; his role has been rendered vir tually useless by directors who ignore his tastes and blindly pursue their own ideas. The poor, bewildered filmgoer is lost or bored by a maze of psychological self-absorption, soulsearching and intellectual masturbation, or by heavy, militant gauchisme. Add to this disjointed reflections on the nature, function and future of the cinematographic means of expression, and the cinema clearly becomes a place for rigorous and exacting research; a place filled by “ works of reflection” , “ original experim ents” and individual creations designed solely to see if their “ approach” is “ valid” , without any concern for the finished product. So, the “ approach” becomes the beall and end-all. The creators claim immunity from normal criteria: their works, untouchable, are not to be labelled “ good” or “ bad” , but “ quite separate” , “ interesting” , “ different” . This tvpe of non-commercial cinema still prospers (Jean-Marie Straub, Jean Eustache), but on a restricted scale, outside the normal circuits and in a world from which the public is auto matically barred. Continued on P. 396 16. Those comedies that show artistic merit are inevitably popular with the public; the works of Philippe de Broca, Claude Berri, Bertrand Blier, films such as Un grand blond avec une chaussure noire (Yves Robert), L’aile ou la cuisse (Claude Zidi), a satirical comedy about France’s passion for gastronomy, which attracted 1,300,000 people in one week, Les petites Anglaises (Midrel Lang), that amazing, mysterious success which, made on a budget of FF 2 million ($416,000), brought in 10 times the amount in its first six months and which has been seen by more than 3.5 million people. Cinema Papers, May-June — 345

Shortly after I picked up The Mango Tree in 1975, I was given a copy of Tim. I quite enjoyed the story; it has a delicate little premise. It’s the type you have to analyse to see what’s in it. I wasn’t sure whether it would be the sort of film that could be made here, but I thought it had great value as a story. It dealt with the only thing I am interested in in films, and that is human values. I am not interested in other types of films. Initially I tried to contact Colleen McCullough through the orthodox channels, but simply didn’t get any response. Nobody seemed to know anything about her. I then heard she was at the Yale School of Medicine so I wrote to her. She wrote back immediately saying that her mother was a great fan of mine, and that she would be delighted for me to have the rights to the book, adding that it would be nice to see the film made in Australia. At the time there were a number of other people who had discovered the property and w anted it. They had good connections in the USA, but Colleen gently took care of the thing, and soon I was negotiating with Harper & Row for the rights. Subsequently, Colleen told us that she was in the midst of writing another book, which was giving her a lot of problems; it was called The Thorn Birds. Later she told us that it had been accepted in the USA and would be published in hardback. It went to auction and was sold for US$1.9 million. What stage had you reached with the script at the time? I gave the book to one of the distributors here, and he thought it was marvellous. He said it would make a very fine film. I was still working on The Mango Tree then, so I didn’t start any writing on Tim until the end of 1976. Did you ever think of getting Clockwise from top left: Michael Pate in scenes from Curse of the Undead, Death Valley Days, Bonaventure, The Court Jester, Power Without Glory; directing The Mango Tree; on location during Tim; in an episode of Matlock Police; and in scenes from The Strange Door, and Return of the Gunfighter. Centre: Michael Pate during the post-production of Tim.

Michael Pate’s film career began in Australia in 1939 which I felt were unnecessary, and with an appearance in Charles Chauvel’s “ 40,000 deleting certain anachronisms in story because of the period in Horsemen” . During the ’40s, his roles in Chauvel’s the which it had been written. I have “ Sons of M atthew” and Ralph Smart’s “ Bitter Springs” never quite pinned Colleen down established him as a promising new acting talent. to the exact year she wrote the Then, in 1950 Pate moved to the USA where, during the .book, but I would say it was next 18 years, he was a supporting actor in more than 50 written in the late ’60s. For it seemed extraordinary feature film s and 300 television series. While in H olly example, that a lady would decide to marry wood, Pate also wrote scripts for MGM, RKO and CBS- somebody, send him home to the TV, taught acting, and published a book titled The Film house, then go into hospital and A c to r. have a hysterectomy so that she In 1968, he returned to Australia as associate producer was not likely to have a retarded I felt in today’s climate that for Columbia Pictures’ “ Age of Consent” , and on its com child. was outdated. pletion became involved in Australian television — as a The whole core of the story, as producer, director, scriptwriter and actor. He appeared in far as Colleen was concerned, was the long-running series “ Matlock Police” , and played the relationships between Mary Archbishop Malone in the ABC’s successful “ Power and Tim, between Tim and his family, and the involvement of Without Glory” . Mary in Tim’s family relationship. In 1975, Pate wrote and produced his first feature film, So, it was a constantly circulating “ The Mango Tree” , which was directed by Kevin involvement for both characters. The script is essentially a twoDobson, and starred Geraldine Fitzgerald, Robert hander for Tim and Mary — which Helpmann and Christopher Pate. has to be the most difficult type to “ Tim” marks Pate’s debut as a feature film director; write, act, or direct. It’s all right in he also wrote the script and produced it. Based on the situations where two people are novel by Colleen McCullough, it features American intensely involved, with sex, all actress Piper Laurie and the talented new local actor, Mel over the place, and everything working for you including World Gibson, in the title role. 2. But a simple story has its During the final editing stages of “ Tim” , Pate was War p ro b le m s: to be real and interviewed at his Sydney home by Peter Beilby and Scott identifiable. Murray. He begins by discussing how he obtained the I found it extremely tricky to pull the essence out of the bulk, rights to “ Tim” . and the book is quite a bulky piece of writing.

som eone else to write the screenplay for “Tim” ?

don’t get if off the ground within two years. It takes a long time to set up a film out here. Originally with The Mango So, I went to the Australian Tree I tried a couple of writers, Film Commission and said I but I found it was impossible to couldn’t find another writer; they enter into a contract with them. suggested I write it myself. You can have a discussion with a With Tim, I felt, hell, I can writer and agree to a certain write it as well as anybody, and am ount of money, but you just started. inevitably get one of those Americanized types of contracts What changes did you make to that does everything but take your the story? underpants off. They try to write in buy-backs and all that kind of When I read Colleen’s book a stuff. second time, I realized that much I am very old-fashioned in that of it was very repetitive, and there p articu lar regard. If I buy was a series of almost similar somebody’s work, that’s it. Total situations going through the book. outright. Don’t give that son-of-a- But once I had determined there bitch a thing in his contract he can was an essence and a structure in give you one hassle for. If he it, I could sit down and make my wants a percentage, or if he wants notes, and go from there. a restriction on other rights, that’s The whole process I applied to fine. But don’t give him the right Colleen’s book was to simplify the to buy back the property if you story line, rejecting certain details,

Did you find that the dialogue in the book, particularly Tim’s, was changed dramatically in your screenplay, and then again once you shot the various scenes? The dialogue I wrote for Tim was worked over and simplified, so that he never had to use a word that was more than a couple of syllables, except when he was learning to read. During the shooting there were a number of areas where I allowed the cast to improvise. In some scenes we discussed what they might be saying and they came up with their own dialogue. There were also instances where I just gave them a broad idea of what the con versation should be. What I tried to give the cast was a deal of freedom; I never insisted they had to be precise. It was quite exciting the way it came off, because it had that sense of a nice Cinema Papers, May-June — 347

MICHAEL PATE

loose structure to it. m ore-disadvantaged children, Piper Laurie is used to that type while inside the school they are of im provisation, so is Mel talking about him, and about Gibson. There are, however, various methods df teaching. We c e rta in sc e n e s w here th e feel sorry for Tim, but realize that improvisation didn’t always work, with love and care he can live a but it’s now only a matter of relatively normal life. editing and taking the best of what we have. When did you decide on Piper Laurie to play the female lead? Were you concerned that the audience would find Tim’s Initially I must have talked to handicap, and the situations he half a dozen international people, found himself in, a source of including Deborah Kerr, Jean amusement? Simmons, and Glenda Jackson. Glenda was very interested, but I think people tend to get wasn’t available until August of em b arrassed and giggle at 1982. So the budget went up and someone who is retarded, and I down, and finally we decided to th in k it would have been use an all-Australian cast. som ething th at could have I suggested three who could occurred if I had followed have been suitable. But again my Colleen’s book more closely. In investors sat tight on the whole simplifying the story, a lot of these thing. They couldn’t decide on s it u a t i o n s w ere re m o v e d . how much money we should Although Tim still does funny spend. Eventually, we decided to things: he grins, stares at people go with an international name and and waves, and hops a lot. But I chose Julie Harris; but again that have tried to treat it in such a way fell through. So after a lot of that the audience won’t find it thought^ we settled on Piper amusing. It is important that the Laurie. marriage between Tim and Mary is credible. I didn’t want those So you changed from wanting to titters running through the house use a foreign star, to an alland people whispering, ‘.‘Hell! Australian cast, but then settled She’s marrying a lunatic!” for a foreign star. Was this It is unfortunate that people brought about by the investors? have these attitudes towards the handicapped, because an impair I think there is a tendency ment is not a person’s fault; it is am ong p riv a te and p u b lic an accident, it’s fate. And often a investors to set their eyes on the handicapped person is struggling overseas market, and it is my to get out of that body and express belief that if you have a foreign himself — to walk, talk and star playing a suitable part in an participate. Australian film, you have more possibility of acceptance and Is this stressed in the film? re c o g n itio n from o v e rse a s sources. For example Richard In Tim’s case his impairment is Chamberlain, who starred in The only slight. His disadvantage is Last Wave, has an enormous more social and, therefore, there rating in the USA — perhaps not is the prospect of change. This is in the cinema, but certainly on brought out very pointedly in one television — and his name up scene where Tim is playing’with front inevitably helped to sell the

The Melvilles at Dawnie’s wedding, in a scene from Tim. From left: Tim (Mel Gibson), and his parents Ron (Alwyn Kurts) and Em (Pat Evison).

348 — Cinema Papers, May-June

film. Geraldine Fitzgerald did the same with The Mango Tree. I think this fact can be helpful to us. At the same time I think we should develop local stars who will gradually get more recognition overseas, as say, Helen Morse has done. She has been in two good films out here and has sub sequently worked overseas. G e n e r a l l y , p e o p le a re ambivalent about this issue, and I don’t think it’s going to be settled until we have two kinds of successes: one with a foreign star playing in an Australian film that is accepted and makes good money in the bigger markets around the world, and another with a purely Australian cast playing in a film that is acceptably good. Once we have those two types of successes we will get rid of all the incipient colonialism which we still suffer under. I lived in the USA for many years, and many times people said, “ Michael, it’s amazing how well you have learned to speak English, conning from Austria” ! Our recognition, particularly in the USA, has been minuscule. I think it’s increasing now, and if it does, we may be able to sell local film product anywhere in the world. Is the recognition an actress such as Piper Laurie brings primarily intended to attract the attention of distributors? I think it can help attract distributors to look at a film. But also from a marketing point of view, when you put a name like Richard Chamberlain on the marquee, people say, “ Oh, R ic h a r d C h a m b e r l a in ! I remember him in that television series” , or “ I remember him in The Music Lovers” . It’s an added value. W hen A m ericans see an

Australian film they think, “ Will American audiences understand the language, and will they identify with it?” So we are at a natural selling disadvantage. We are in the uncomfortable position of trying to sell product that is not n e c e s sa rily n eed ed by an American market. It will be the rare American distributor or exhibitor who will pick up Australian product unless it has some hook. Someone like Piper Laurie definitely helps because she is known to Americans.' Was th at so m eth in g you confirm ed w ith A m erican distributors or exhibitors? No. When I first thought about it, she had just had the nomin ation for Carrie. Is it tempting for a producer, such as yourself, to go a step further and pay about $1.5

Mary Horton (Piper Laurie) watches Tim during an outing to the beach in Tim.

Mary Horton (Piper Laurie) is an attractive woman in her mid-40s, unmarried, and at ease with her career and her comfortable, if undemanding, home life. She meets Tim (Mel Gibson) when, as a builder’s laborer working next door, he is asked to hose dust from her garden. Tim is a fine-looking young man, handsome and strongly built. He is 25 years old and good at his work. He is also mentally retarded, a condition that might have been remedied if his parents, Ron and Em Melville (Alwyn Kurts1 , Pat Evison), were educated and had the money to know how best to help. Instead, they and his sister, Dawnie, (Deborah Kennedy) have given him love and understanding; in return Tim loves them and moves through life with a child’s gentleness and content. Because her usual gardener has injured his back, Mary arranges for Tim to garden for her regularly. Gradually, a friendship develops. On Tim’s part it is all admiration for someone who treats him naturally and kindly. For Mary, it is at first an interest in helping him to read, to paint, and to understand a little more of things he never had the chance to learn. When Dawnie marries the wealthy Mick Harrington (David Foster), Tim is heart-broken. Mary tries to explain marriage, and Tim asks her to promise never to marry and go away. When his mother has a heart attack and dies, Tim is lost and bewildered. He had never understood death until Mary explained it to him. Ron, without Em and Dawnie, is lonely, and Mary offers friendship. Tim is jealous, though he doesn’t understand why. Mary sees a television program in which John Martinson (Michael Caulfield), an expert in the care of mildly retarded children, discusses what can be done to help these youngsters learn. She visits Martinson to ask for guidance with Tim. Without Mary realizing it, Tim is also helping her, teaching her, by example, to enjoy simple pleasures, bringing warmth into her life. Mary’s employer, Tom Ainsley (Peter Gwynne), warns her that she is becoming emotionally involved. But it is Martinson who tells her, “ Marry him . . . you love him . . . you need each other.” For Mary, the decision seems at first a problem. But most problems can be solved. Mary and Tim, together, work out their solution.

MICHAEL PATE

were left to shoot a number of pick-up scenes, and even direct a couple of sequences. At this time, I was also directing in the theatre and on radio. Then I went to the USA, and was a performer across there for many years. Later, I wrote some screenplays, and just before I came down here I re-directed and re-dubbed a film for MGM. I certainly would have liked to have been in direction before that. Once here, I worked with the networks, with Channels 7, 9 and 10. I directed an incredible amount of stuff on film during this period. I would have liked to have directed The Mango Tree, but chose someone else. With Tim I felt I would like to direct, and I thought I was capable of putting it together, because I knew enough about the people, the actors and the techniques to do it.

A number of people here have voiced the opinion that directors should not produce their own I would like to see that happen. films. Did you encounter any What we are really talking about 1 have a couple of stories that T here were a num ber of resistance to producing, directing would be suitable, but I couldn’t is packaging a film. On the pre even attem pt them at the made package, I think we could reasons. I think there are a lot of and writing “Tim” ? moment. I would be looking at attract a lot of capital out here, and separate, often lonely people in I simply said that Tim wouldn’t actors’ fees in the vicinity of $5 could be sure of giving it back. In the world — sometimes without other words, we would have a being aware of it — who in their be done unless I wrote, produced million. turnover among 284 million fantasizing would desire to meet and directed it. I did, however, someone and live securely with agree with the Australian Film Do you think private investors people, instead of 14. Commission that it would be them. I think one of our problems would be more inclined to invest There is also another important helpful to me to have someone as in films starring ‘bankable’ here is that we are not designing the right type of film. We are not theme: the possibility of a an associate producer/production actors? designing the type that would not relationship between an older supervisor, and I was very happy I could believe that you are only give us the cut of the cake woman and a younger man. This to have Geoff Gardner aboard, right, but we are on the wrong end that we should get out of is seen in certain relationships in because he worked with me for a of the horse and cart. If I had a Australian distribution, but also the USA, and I experienced it short while on The Mango Tree. But as far as I am concerned, if a story I felt was commercially the type of production that is here through people I know who viable all around the world, and attractive to the distributor- have had very satisfactory — also person is equipped for the someone like Lee Marvin was exhibitor in the USA. This, unsatisfactory — relationships of business world, there is no reason why he cannot be a producer, a lined up, and we found that our however, raises the question: this nature. writer and a director. If a producer Another compelling aspect was should we go as far as designing investors had the money, I would certainly want to do one thing our packages to satisfy the the mother-son or mother-child does the preparation for the film relationship which is very strong properly he can easily cope with more: I would want to be damned American market? in everybody. The film proceeds the additional role of directing the sure that I had an American distri When you first read “Tim” , on a non-sexual basis for quite film. Naturally, in the course of bution deal on it. some time, and actually one of the running the unit — in prepowers in the story is that this production and in production — woman has formed a relationship an associate producer is very with this boy almost accidentally; important. He has to handle the not looking for it, and never business matters. As a director dreaming that she would become you don’t want to be bothered involved with him. All of a sudden with what’s going on back in the she finds herself sexually attracted office. It’s only during the editing stage to him and she wants to have him. It’s an intellectual, cerebal that you start feeling schizo emotional type of film. If anyone phrenic. It’s then that the director goes through two packets of looks to the producer to act as a Kleenex, I will be happy to give bounce-board. You have to let your functions overlap, and let them a third. them work normally. You also “Tim” marks your debut as a have to work without vanity, be feature film director. Is it a able to accept an opinion and desire you have harbored for a consider it, and see whether it’s long time — to direct, as well as right. The only time you are in danger write and produce feature films? is when you don’t know. But if I suppose so. Although I was at you know what the style of your it here in Australia many, many film is going to be, and how you years ago. I remember at one stage plan to direct it, then you know while I was working on Charles your subject matter better than Chauvel’s Sons of Matthew, we anyone in the whole concern. Mel Gibson and Piper Laurie in Tim, a film about the relationship between an older had to come back to the studio in woman and a young man. Concluded on P. 401 Sydney, and Carl Kaiser and I million to attract a star name?

Perhaps with the right name you could . . .

what were the ingredients that led you to believe it had international appeal?

Cinema Papers, May-June — 349

7th INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF IN D IA , DELH11979 Although India hosted its first Inter national Film Festival in 1952, it is only recently that this event, held every alternate year in Delhi, has assumed a measure of regularity. With the future of the Tehran festival now uncertain, it is Asia’s only recognized competitive film festival. On paper, the Delhi festival shares the same status as Cannes and Berlin, but it lacks the stature or importance of its European counterparts. India does not offer a favorable market for any foreign films, except those of Hollywood. This is the reason filmmakers from many countries are lukewarm towards the Delhi festival. They prefer to compete for more prestigious festival awards in Europe. The Indian festival ends up with rejects from other festivals and sub-standard entries. At the recent 7th International Film Festival of India, Jury chairman, Ousmane Sembene acknowledged that the quality of entries was “ Not of a very high level”. It has often been suggested that the Indian festival should drop its com petitive status to attract better films from all over the world. Alternatively, instead of being a ‘me-too’ festival, it should become a showcase for Third World films. The recent festival had set out with this objective,, but the only Third World countries that competed were Kuwait, Sri Lanka and India. For the Delhi festival to become a major international event, it is necessary to break away from the bureaucratic control which the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting exercises over the festival directorate. The frequent change in festival directors has prevented any one incumbent from developing the festival in the right direction. India has perhaps had more festival directors than film festivals. The information section offered a rich selection, Australia participated with a package of seven films including Peter W eir’s Last Wave and Picnic at Hanging Rock, and Ken Hannam’s Summerfield. The reactions from Indian audiences were favorable, and it is a pity A ustralia did not feature in the competition. Of the 24 features and 10 shorts from 21 countries, the festival’s top award, the G olden P eacock, w ent to The Hungarians, director Zoltán Fabri’s

moving human document on the trials and tribulations of immigrant farm laborers during World War 2, and their search for a national identity. This is the second time Hungary has won the award, the first being in 1975, for Dreaming Youth. Billy Wilder was named the Best Director for the West German entry Fedora, a sardonic appraisal of the Hollywood star system in the tradition of Sunset Boulevard. The award for the Best Short was shared by India (An Encounter With Faces) and Poland (Olympic Games). American actress Savannah Smith (in George Peppard’s Five Days From Home) and Indian actor Shankar Nag (in Girish Karnad’s Once Upon A Time) won the acting awards. The Special Jury Award was won by India’s Gaman, for a “ promising first film” by director Muzaffar AN. Gaman deals with the rootlessness of dispossessed villagers who seek employment in the city. Ghulam is one of them; he wants a job as a taxi driver. He leaves his young wife and aged mother, and goes to Bombay. The film captures his struggle for sur vival in the city. His best friend is murdered by the unscrupulous relatives of the girl he loves but could not marry for lack of cheap accommodation in the overcrowded city. Ghulam’s mother is involved, in a serious accident, but he cannot afford to return home. For an airline executive, Muzaffar AN displays surprising emotional identi fication with the plight of the displaced working class in Indian cities. Their predicament is indicative of a deeper social malaise which the film hints at when Ghulam’s reveries are interrupted by a political demonstration. Gaman succeeds in conveying the scene of urban loneliness and the pain of separ ation, but it fails to come to grips with the forces that perpetuate the exploitation of the toiling masses. Mrinal Sen’s Parashuram deals with a similar problem. Set in Calcutta, the pavement dwellers he portrays in the film are peasants driven to the city to eke out a living. Their sub-human existence is pathetic; they beg, take up jobs and live in makeshift shanties on the sidewalks, which are periodically demolished by the police. Among them is Parashuram, who

Mrinal Sen’s Parashuram, w ich depicts the struggle of Calcutta’s pavement dwellers to eke out an existence. 350 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Ghulam (Farooque Shaikh) the villager who travels to Bombay to become a taxi driver, in Gaman, directed by Mazaffer AN, the winner of the Special Jury Award. carries a broken axe with which he once killed a tiger in the jungle. He finds a bricklayer’s job and lives, symbolically, in a derelict cemetery which he shares with a rat, an old beggar and a homeless girl. Parashuram’s death, too, is symbolic; he falls off the scaffolding of a high-rise building. Death is the only refuge for the vagrants who build homes for others. Unfortunately Sen’s point is made with inept abruptness. It is not clear who Parashuram is supposed to represent. Earlier in the film he is likened to the legendary sage, Parashuram, who cut down 23 of his oppressors with an axe. But Parashuram, the pavement dweller, does not quite fulfil this function in the film. Nor does he make an effort to stand up to the injustices of society. It is only in his dream that he sees himself fighting the forces of oppression. The most telling moment is when the pavement dwellers are told that the morgue will not release Parashuram’s body to anyone but his relatives. Says one: “When we are alive they consider us parasites, but when we die they treat us like kings.” Mrinal Sen is known for his leftist leanings. Yet Parashuram is mild by his own standards. Politically-engaged cinema is rare in India and it is to the credit of M.S. Sathyu, director of Garm hava (Hot Winds), that he attempted a political satire in Chitegu chinte (The Restless Corpse). Sathyu lampoons the hypocrisy in Indian politics and its role in filmmaking, particularly in South India where some of the local stars are also active politicians. In Chitegu chinte, Sathyu’s protag onist is an actor who joins the National Leisure Party, wins the elections with his thundering rhetoric and becomes the allpowerful ruler of the Elephant Isles. He rebels against his political mentor who arranges to have him eliminated. Enter the karate expert and secret agent. Here Sathyu sends up the popular con ventions of the kung fu film and the James Bond thrillers, the CIA and the oil sheikhs. At times the film degenerates into a farce and suffers from an inability to sus tain the satirical thrust against political chicanery. Humor is deliberately used to characterize the loud, style in Indian politics and filmmaking.

The most pertinent point made by the film — and here even the electorate is not spared — is that undeserving demagogues rise to power by playing on the feelings of the masses; they deserve the rulers they get. Predictably, the film was withdrawn in the director’s home state of Karnataka after two weeks due to pressure from the authorities. Another filmmaker who has made a significant impact is Shyam Benegai. His latest film Junoon (Obsession), which was screened on the opening night of the festival, is a departure from his earlier works like Ankur, Nishant and Manthan, in that it is not concerned with problems of social relevance, but with personal relationships during a turbulent period of colonial antagonism in Indian history. When a British civil servant is killed by Indian mutineers, his family is held captive by a local nobleman, a Pathan who desires the dead man’s daughter. He wants to marry her, much to the resentment of his barren wife and the girl’s mother. The rest of the film deals with the Pathan’s resolve to win over the girl, and the mother’s attempts to stall him till the British forces regain control of the town. The British troops finally arrive and the Pathan has to flee, but then the girl begins to care for him. Junoon is not a historical spectacle in the popular tradition, but Benegai builds a credible historical background to establish the conflict of characters as influenced by the temper of the times. The film begins with frenzied communal singing led by a possessed fakir as a choric figure predicting the train of events. The central drama is skilfully built into the narration of historical events. Junoon also recreates effect ively the ethos of the 19th Century Muslim nobility. The film is notable for a splendid per formance of the mother, played by Jennifer Kendal, wife of actor Shashi Kapoor, who produced Junoon and heads the cast. This is the first time Benegai has worked with a commercial set-up, along with established stars, a big budget and a large canvas. The film may prove popular in the commercial circuit, and bring Benegai a much larger following than the minority audience which idolizes him as a w orthy successor to Satyajit Ray._ ★

Directing You made your directorial debut with “Running Scared” in 1972 Yes. I liked it, the critics liked it, but the public didn’t go and see it. Some critics at the time — Sight and Sound for example — com plained that it was a combination of Michelangelo Antonioni and Joseph Losey. I don’t think that’s too bad, do you? It is a very esoteric, rather ethered film; which is full of a first director’s pretentiousness. I did draw very heavily from Antoni oni, because I like his style of directing behind the camera. I like utilizing the camera to tell the story, rather than utilizing the people to tell the story.

David Hemmings began his acting career in 1957 with a small part in Joe M endoza’s “The Treasure o f Woburn Abbey” . But it wasn’t until his role in M ichelangelo Antonioni’s “ Blow-Up” , in 1966, that he achieved wide interna tional recognition. Since then he has appeared in more than 30 features, including “ Camelot” , “The Charge of the Light Brigade” , “ Barbarelia” , “ Alfred the Great” , “Juggernaut” and “ Blood Relatives” . Hemmings is also a successful producer and director. In 1970, he produced “ Unman, Wittering and Zigo” , and two years later made his directorial debut with “Running Scared” . His credits also include “The Disappearance” and “ Coup d’etat” , as producer, and “The Fourteen” and “Just a Gigolo” , as director. Hemmings was in Australia recently to co-star in Rod Hardy’s “Thirst” , and also began work on “ Race for the Yankee Zephyr” , a $3.5 million action-adventure film which he plans to co-produce with Antony I. Ginnane (the producer of “Thirst” ). ' In this interview by Ross Lansell, Hemmings talks about his career as a director and producer, and his plans for “ Race for the Yankee Zephyr” .

Above: Kim Novak looks on as David Hemmings rehearses a dance sequence with David Bowie during the making of Hemmings’ Just A Gigolo.

Afterwards, you said about “Running Scared” : “I wanted to make a film set in Britain and yet not a parochially British film. I wanted to attempt at least to break out of a standard pattern of films that have come from British filmmakers. I wanted it to have a continental European flavor, because I thought it was about time we proved it was possible to make films here which didn’t fall into the mould that everyone considers our films fall into” . Yes, and I still agree with that. I would say it again today, truth be told, about British films. Films and Filming named you as the most promising new director of 1972 . . . That’s right. And Cahiers du Cinema Papers, May-June — 351

DAVID HEMMINGS

Cinema said it was the best film to come out of Britain in 10 years. The majority of the critics loved it and were very su p p o rtiv e; Alexander Walker in particular was very strongly in favor of the film.

was asked if I would direct. At that time there was virtually nobody involved, except me. We then selected Sydne Rome, Maria Schell and Curt Jurgens, and finally David Bowie and Kim Novak. It was a film fraught with diff But it died at the box-office. iculties, and there was far too little pre-production. Yet, at the end of T h at’s right. But Running the day we got a film that I felt was Scared just wasn’t promoted by worthwhile; I really loved it. anybody. However, in the editing process it was constantly changed. It was But it had a major distributor . . . continually reviewed and hacked in an attempt to appease every It had a major distributor in distributor who came along to see Paramount, but the manage it. In the end, I threw up my hands ment changed during the making in despair at the changes and said, of the film, and Frank Yablans “ Look, you have the right as took over. I am sure he would producer to recut this film, and agree with me that he hated the you are evidently going to do what film. He didn’t think Paramount you want with it, and not going to should be investing in British give me time to settle down and as the student who allows his best friend (Andrew Bradford) to commit suicide films at all. The actual campaign, I get my director’s cut finished, — I Robert Powell in David Hemmings’ first feature as director, Running Scared (1972). think, allowed for 20 posters; think the answer is — forget it.” there was no real promotion done. So I quit the film. rushed in the final stages of prod and, I think, pretty much by uction. If a producer is chasing committee. It was a desperate sit You t h e n di r e c t e d “ The You abandoned the project cash and trying to sell during the uation. Fourteen” which went into because it was trying to be all post-production period, then you p r o d u c t i o n a year af t er things to all men, or rather, all end up rushing the editing to get You said when you first got to “Running Scared” . things to all kinds of distributors the film into the distributors’ Australia that the producer’s cut hands. was “ anti-German, pro-Nazi” As a director, I was in a difficult It’s very difficult for the dir What happened on Just a ector who is trying to cut a film position after making Running Scared. It went out, the critics Gigolo is something that often when he is told that a distributor Yes, that’s what I considered it liked it, but it did one-and- happens with independently- doesn’t like a scene, and the prod to be. I thought it had lost its ninepence at the box-office. So I produced films — that is, there ucer suggests he cut it out. And humor , and its continuity. couldn’t immediately set up a new wasn’t enough money left at the each distributor doesn’t like Fortunately it was then taken up film of my own. I did The end of the day to be able to finish different scenes. So the film goes by Tedderwick in Britain, and they Fourteen and I was pleased to be the film properly, or to sell it th ro u g h all those c o n stan t asked to direct it. It was properly. changes, and nobody ever really David Hemmings’ Just A Gigolo. Standing I believe that independent gives it a chance to live on its own. from left: Rainer Hunold, Friedhel Leh universally loathed by the critics, Maria Schell, Erika Pluhar, David but made a lot of money. producers need money to be able When I quit Just a Gigolo, it mann, Hemmings, Rudolf Schundler, Hilde WeissAt that time I was faced with the to sell a film properly and not be was recut by the German producer ner. Sitting: Sydne Rorfie and David Bowie. choice of making films which I believed in, but were uncomm ercial, or making films for other people which made money but which I knew I wouldn’t be 100 per cent happy with. It’s the e te rn a l d ic h o to m y of th is business. I once read a remark made by Claude Lelouch, that every 10 years he was going to make a film like A Man and A Woman. Too damn right! It’s the only sort of film that really makes money. Your most recent film, “Just a Gigolo” , was made in West Germany last year .. . It’s a very light film — frothy and jokey. It’s about a young boy struggling to find his feet. David Bowie plays a Prussian officer who b e lie v e s , b e c a u s e of h is upbringing, that heroism is his destiny. But he is an anachronism; there is no place for German soldiers in Berlin after the war. Were you originally set as the director? No, there were lots of people mooted to direct it. I was orig inally asked to act in it. Then I did some work on the screenplay with Joshua Sinclair, and eventually I 352 — Cinema Papers, May-June

DAVID HEMMINGS

David Hemmings with one of the child actors in his second feature, The Fourteen (1973), about a group of orphans fighting to stay together.

asked me what I thought of it. I said, “ I think it’s terrible, and I am not going to lend it a trem endous am ount of su p p o rt, because I don’t think it’s right.” But they were ab solutely smashing. They got right behind the film, spent $25,000 to allow me to recut it, and mounted a terrific campaign. If I had had six months more — or even six weeks more — we could have got an even better result.

David Hemmings directs Kim Novak, Maria Schell and David Bowie in Just A Gigolo.

excuses, but it was my respon In Britain, a lot of talented sibility to see the film through in people seem to be working in the best conceivable circum television . . . stances. It could have been better, but it would have taken a lot more Because television is moving in pre-production and preparation a completely new and different and a lot more scriptwriting before direction, British television is the production. It was my foolish offering a vast range of oppor ness which allowed it to go ahead tunities. We have, for the first with what was effectively, for me, tim e, companies like Euston only five days’ preparation. Films and others doing major tele vision dramas on film. I gather this was the biggest If you have a good story to tell, budget for a West German film it doesn’t really matter whether Does your recut version of the since World War 2 . . , you show it in the cinema or on film work? television. There may be a little In current-day terms, yes, it was bit too much nostalgia about the It’s not that I don’t think it the largest film to be financed cinema which prevents a lot of works, it’s just that I don’t think I wholly by German capital. filmmakers working in television. have ever cracked it in terms of cutting it effectively. I think it may Was it financed with German tax What about the Italian film have been a mistake, in retro shelter money? industry? spect, to walk out on the film because I did not feel I could make Yes, and a substantial con Italy is in such a poor shape any further contribution under the tribution from the Berliner Senat, economically that there has been a ,, circumstances. plus some individual finance as tremendous slump in production well. recently. No film gets financed A lot of criticism has been level without some kind of co-prod led at David Bowie’s perform The international film uction or influx of cash from ance . . . outside. Consequently there are a industry lot of Italian-German co-producI think David Bowie, in spite of tions and English-Italian co-prodwhat anybody may say about his u c tio n s w h ic h a re ra re ly performance, did the job that was Could you comment on the state successful. asked of him by me, and if the of the film industries in some of So, on the one hand the Italian fault lies anywhere, it lies with the countries you have been film industry has to go in for co me. I think Marlene Dietrich also working in recently, starting production, because it’s the only came through for me in a way that with Britain? way it can survive, but on the exceeded my wildest dreams, and other hand, they don’t seem to be that’s a very awe-inspiring exper I think the British film industry able to make co-productions ience for a young director. Every has talked itself to death. The w h ic h a re c o m m e r c i a lly body on the film did their utmost, problem is that everybody kept on successful. This is also true of the and gave me their absolute, saying for so long that the British films made under the Angloundying support all the way film industry was dying that, in Canadian treaty; only one or two through. the end, everybody believed it. have really made it. If I am disappointed with Just a The hardest thing in Britain.is to Gigolo, it is because the reaction find decent screenplays. I don’t Is it the same situation with to the film has not singled me out know why that should be, because France? as being responsible, but has been we do have very good people who levelled at other aspects, such as are capable of writing fine scripts. No, because in Francè they can the acting, and the screenplay. I But for some reason the projects make films for France alone, and think ultimately the director has just don’t come up very often. survive. A film that is made in to be faced with the fact that what And when they do, the more France can actually earn its money appears on the screen is his strength they have in their writing back there. This can’t be done in responsibility. the less chance there seems to be countries like Canada and Aust It’s all very well for me to make of them being made. ralia which need returns from

other markets. The USA seems to be the one everyone in Australia is trying to crack . . . Everybody wants to crack the USA. But in the case of Australia, I don’t think you are going about it the right way. The Australian Film Commission’s drive in the USA seems to be saying: “ This is Australia — here it is” , you know, “ Life. Be in It. Look what we are doing down here for ourselves” . I think that’s misguided.' Their approach is wrong; it’s the film makers who should be at the fore front of the thrust, not the AFC. The film industry isn’t — and shouldn’t become — a Qantas. And if it does become a Qantas it will degenerate and become very insular and parochial. B ecause it is governm entcontrolled? Yes. There are different ways for a government to support a film industry, and my belief is that the Government should support the export side of filmmaking by offering all sorts of incentives. The same thing applies to Britain and Canada. And it’s the similarities between these indust ries which leads me to suggest that independent sources of finance, such as tax leverage and co-production funding, must be explored and exploited as much as possible, provided that there is caution and the ability to learn from the mistakes of other countries. Germany appears to be a country where co-production and tax leverage financing is widespread The German film industry is very healthy at the moment because there is a great deal of money there to invest in films, and most of it does come from tax shelters. Cinema Papers, May-June — 353

DAVID HEMMINGS

The Race For The Yankee Zephyr The details, so far announced, of your proposed $3.5 million joint venture with Antony I. Ginnane — “ The Race for the Yankee Zephyr” — are that it is to be written by Everett de Roche and directed by Richard Franklin, with three leading overseas stars

amental decisions about whether it should be an off-road or an underwater salvage film, and there are many differing views on this which have yet to be ironed out. It’s very much a mass market piece along the lines of Passage, Gold, and Shout at the Devil. When Michael Flint, the South Australian Film Corporation’s London-based adviser was here late last year, he recommended that our objective should not be to sell Australian films per se, but to put together specifically international films. Is this what you are attempting to do?

That is the plan. There are a lot of things to be sorted out with each of the partners involved before we can go ahead; but the plot is that all those people will I certainly subscribe to that come together. view. I believe that the only way to I will take a back seat role in the make the market work for a long venture. I will be concerned, on term, economically self-sufficient behalf of my potential investors, industry is to construct inter with the quality and the inter national films. And that means national marketability of the final c o n s tru c tin g in te rn a tio n a l screenplay, and also, which major packages. in te rn a tio n a l stars will be Package is a word I hate, involved. because it suggests that you are My function in the partnership just putting a lot of elements is to take an Australian project together to make it happen, rather overseas, raise the above-the-line than allowing the film itself to costs, and at the same time sell the happen. But the economics of the project. It will then be brought to film business are such that you Australia, and be made in Aust can’t exist on the basis of the film ralia. itself; it has to be, particularly on I hope to exercise my views this kind of budget, a film with about the kind of film that I and international marketability. my investors would like to make. If the Australian film industry is So, I will also be involved on the to succeed and, to be frank, if my artistic side from the early stages. involvement in the Australian film industry is to succeed in What is “ Yankee Zephyr” terms of a projected partnership about? between myself and Australian filmmakers, then it has to be on It’s about a plane — a true story the basis of bringing what — that crashed with the American expertise I can to a partnership of fleet’s Christmas pay-roll and the that nature. chase by various people in search Obviously it’s no good me of the wreck. coming down here and trying to tell the Australian filmmakers An action-adventure film . . . how to make Australian films. They do it extremely well. The It’s an action-adventure-race only way that I could involve film. We are making some fund myself is to try and make them

From left: David Hemmings, Alan Dobie and Tony Beckley in The Long Day’s Dying, directed by Peter Collinson. 354 — Cinema Papers, May-June

David Hemmings as Mordred, the evil influence who eventually destroys the company of knights set up by King Arthur, in Joshua Logan’s Camelot (1967).

international by bringing in inter national finance and perhaps international stars. Michael Flint’s other advice was to lower standards and quadruple budgets . . . I d o n ’t agree with lower standards. The benefits of the standards one can achieve with large budgets can be reaped fairly well. The problem is that the budgets increase in direct proportion to the stars that one uses. You can still make a $400,000 film or a $600,000 film, but it can end up costing $4 million if the right stars are there. Bigger budget, bigger comp romise? I don’t think the larger the b u d g e t , th e la r g e r th e compromise. I think the belowthe-line costs are what really matter as far as the production costs on the screen count. So, if you have a budget which is too heavy at the top end — say, $2 million above-the-line and $1 million below — it’s the way in which you spend the $1 million which counts. You have pre

sumably paid $1 million each for two leading stars, but you know that as a result you will recoup that cash on their names alone. That’s the theory, it doesn’t always work in practice. Is the figure of $3.5 million for “Yankee Zephyr” correct? It’s arbitrary without breaking down the final screenplay, but it takes into account most of the factors we think are likely to occur in the event we get the kind of people we need for the film. $1 million of that will come from the usual private and govern ment sources here . . . That is the proportion in which we hope the investment will come. Have you already approached the various governm ent com m issions and corporations here? Not as far as I know, but that’s not my job. I am here to try and match the financial resources that I have with those from govern ment commissions.

David Hemmings as Alfred, King of Wessex, in Clive Donner’s Alfred the Great (1969).

DAVID HEMMINGS

Will the $2.5 million that you are raising come from German tax shelters? No, I don’t think the German tax shelter situation will be com patible with Australian certifica tion requirements. There are many form ulae, but until I exam ine the situation more carefully I won’t know.

ance, it was unquestionably the ‘good housekeeping seal of guar antee’ to have the Government as a participant. Will you be looking for a major or minor distributor?

Probably minor. I won’t say that is a firm policy. What we would hope to do is to make pre-sales of some kind. Whether they will be The inference of what you were directed to a major distribution saying before about German tax company in the USA, I don’t money is that you are aiming to know. We are much more likely to get a certificate from the go the television route first — Minister for Home Affairs to cable television or its allied fields. classify “Yankee Zephyr” as ah Australian film, to take advant Michael Flint also said that it age of the two-year tax write-off now costs a great deal more to provisions in the new amend market, advertise and promote ments to the Income Tax Assess an international film than to ment Act . . . make one, and that Australians need to put a much higher per That’s right. The whole point of centage of the budget into the exercise is to make Australian marketing. Do you have a films, but ones that are inter budgetary provision for market national. They have to be certified ing and exploitation? as Australian — and so they should be — to reap the benefit of We have a $500,000 provision on Yankee Zephyr for what we the financial advantages. call below the below-the-line. Was your experience with this That was at my insistence, and kind of co-production in Canada with Tony Ginnane’s immediate similar? agreement. Don’t forget that under these Are you aiming specifically at circumstances we are not actually any one overseas market? looking at a co-production; we are looking at a joint-financing vent In the case of Thirst, the aim is ure, which is slightly different. Cannes; in the case of Yankee In Canada it was extremely diff Zephyr, we would have attempted icult to put together a govern- a number of pre-sales before any ment-to-government production. kind of Cannes rubbish. It’s very It was the first time it had ever difficult to sell films effectively at been done. Cannes. So you were involved with government finance there, not with private enterprise . . .

Do you think the AFC is mis guided in concentrating on Cannes?

We were involved with private No. Cannes has exceptionally enterprise and government. But in good promotional value; the AFC jthe case of the Canadian tax has proved that as a result of their shelter situation, as it stood when efforts there. As a m arketI co-produced The Disappear- place itself, the producers who

David Hemmings talks to Rod Mullinar during a break in the shooting of Rod Hardy’s Thirst.

have not been able to make a complete pre-sale deal with major distributors are actually at Cannes to try and pick up the deals they have missed. A film that is really ‘hot’ doesn’t need to be slapped about Cannes too much. That’s my view. I believe a person-to-person approach is infinitely more beneficial to the film than a mass blow-out at Cannes. But Cannes is a very good place to go for a film that doesn’t have much chance of American sales. Are you aiming for an American sale first?

in which a film is sold to the public. The commercial viability of a project must be considered before it’s made, and that includes the way in which the film will be presented. I’d love to go out and make a L’avventura or a La notte, or a Fists in the Pocket, but that sort of film just isn’t commercially viable. There is no way I could raise the finance for a film like that today. The opportunity to make that sort of film seems to be over, for the time being, anyway . ..

The popularity of television and the way it is now being used absolutely precludes the oppor tunity to make that sort of film today. But I suppose there will always be an Easy Rider which, You obviously place great when it appears, will send every emphasis on promotion . . . body looking for the ‘little film’. At the moment, however, big is It would seem absolutely ridi the word. culous to make a packet of cigar Films today have to drag people ettes, for example, and to spend away from the television set, so the amount of time on research it they have to offer something that must take to get the taste and the television can’t. And at the packaging right, then leave the moment that is big screen, big marketing to individual tobaccon- action. So, everybody wants to is ts a ro u n d th e c o u n tr y . make that $2 million starter that Marketing is part of making films; actually goes out and grosses $200 it’s part of the industry. million. That’s why the film I think it’s totally irresponsible industry is so attractive to so many of filmmakers to disregard the way people — it’s the ultimate gamble. The international market is the USA. I t’s what every single English-speaking country that makes films really wants to crack.

FILMOGRAPHY 1941 Born Guildford, Surrey. 1949 S tarted out in en tertain m en t industry; child actor in minor roles in numerous features and shorts. 1954 World premiere, Benjamin Britten’s opera, The Turn of the Screw (boy soprano). 1957 Five Clues to Fortune (alternative title, The Treasure of Woburn Abbey; director, Joe Mendoza). 1957 George Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan (director, Otto Preminger). 1957 The Heart Within (director, David Eady). 1958 Men of Tomorrow (director, David Eady). 1958 In the Wake of a Stranger (director, J. Lee-Thompson). 1959 No Trees in the Street (director, J. Lee-Thompson). 1960 The Wind of Change (director, Lance Comfort). 1960 Sing and Swing. 1962 Some People (d irecto r, Clive Donner). 1963 Live It Up (director, Lance Comfort). 1963 Two Left Feet (director, Roy Baker). 1964 The System (American title, The Girl Getters; Director Michael Winner). 1965 D ate-Line Diamonds West 11 (director, Michael Winner). 1965 Be My Guest (director, Lance Comfort). 1966 Eye of the Devil (director, J. LeeThompson). 1966 Blow-Up (director, Michelangelo Antonioni). 1967 Camelot (director, Joshua Logan). 1968 The Charge of the Light Brigade (director, Tony Richardson). 1968 A Long Day’s Dying (director, Peter Collinson). 1968 Only When I Larf (director, Basil Dearden). 1968 Barbarella (director, Roger Vadim). 1968 The Best House in London (director, Philip Saville). 1969 Alfred the Great (director, Clive ' Donner).

1969 The Walking-Stick (director, - Eric Till). 1970 Fragment of Fear (director, Richard C. Sarafian). 1970 The Magic Christian (director, Joe McGrath). 1971 Unman, Wittering, & Zigo (director and producer, John MacKenzie). 1971 The Love Machine (director, Jack Haley, jun.). 1972 Running Scared (director only — directorial debut). 1973 The Fourteen (director only). 1973 Voices (director, Kevin Billington). 1973 Don’t Worry Momma, (alternative title, It’s Only a Game; director, Jose Maria Forquet). 1974 Juggernaut (director, Richard Lester). 1974 Mr Quilp (d ire c to r, M ichael Tuchner). 1974 Profundo Rosso (English title, Deep Red; director, Dario Argento). 1975 Islands in the Stream (director, Franklin J. Schaffner). 1975 Private Affair (Television; director, Philip Saville). 1976 The Squeeze (director, Michael Apted). 1977 The Prince and the Pauper (American title, Crossed Swords; director, Richard Fleischer). 1977 The Disappearance (also coproducer; director, Stewart Cooper). 1978 Coup d’ etat (alternative title, Power Play. Also co-producer; director, Martyn Burke). 1978 The Heroin Busters, (director, Bruno Corbucci). 1978 Blood Relatives (director, Claude Chabrol). 1978 Sherlock Holmes, Murder by Decree. 1978 Clouds of Glory (Television director, Ken Russell). 1978 Just a Gigolo (also director). 1979 Thirst (director, Rod Hardy).

Cinema Papers, May-June — 355

J u lie -J a m e s B a ile y 1 In March 1976, the Research and Survey Unit of the Australian Film and Television School tried to establish the structure of the film and television industry and how many people were employed in its various sectors. The only published employment figures available were: 1. Those of the Bureau of Census and Statistics, which came from the 1971 Census: Number of Classification employees Film and television production 1510 Distribution film hiring (film and television) 807 Exhibition (films) 4751 Television 5295

Code 9111 9112 9113 9115

These codes are broken down into classified occupations under employer, self-employed, and employee. The relevant groupings are: 068

Actors, directors, editors, showgirls, and. lion tamers. Scriptwriters and journalists. Cinema projectionists, sound recordists and Sound-recording operators.

066 668

2. Those contained in the 1976 annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which states the employment figures as: Commercial television........ ......................... 3840 Programming............................ 1624 Advertisements......................... 1165 Engineering .............................. 1051 Australian Broadcasting Commission (radio and television)................................... 6820

view which research and the gathering of statistics and facts needs. Because of these problems there is a great deal of opinion, but very few facts, about the structure and size of the industry. The facts were collected through telephone surveys and interviews with each sector of the industry, in each capital city, between November 1976 and November 1977. Even then, the information collected can only be used as a guide. Hopefully, however, it provides a basis on which others can build.

STRUCTURE After some preliminary research, it was decided to break down the industry into five sectors: the ABC; commercial television; pro duction houses (sub-divided into “ major” , employing seven or more full-time staff; and “ minor” , self-employed or employing one to

six full-time staff); freelance pool; and govern ment-funded organizations. The way the different sectors of the industry relate to one another, in terms of what they produce, is best shown diagramatically . (See Chart A.) The most notable feature of this chart is how the flow of work within the industry falls into two distinct areas. The freelance pool, govern ment-funded organizations, and production houses are inter-related — each servicing the other and commercial television — while the ABC, with the exception of an occasional free lance stringer, is quite separate.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission The ABC produces and distributes its own film and videotape programs. It seldom sub contracts the production of Australian material

Chart A S tru ctu re of th e m ajor Film and T elevision Production Industry

ABC Television

Freelance Pool

Commercial Television

(2 )

Programs including Public affairs ............................ 2714 News ........................................ 479 Orchestral Concerts ................. 481 Engineering .............................. 1795 Management groups and management services............... 1171 Radio Australia .......................... 180 Independent production companies............ 1174 11,834

None of these were sufficiently detailed to give a satisfactory picture of the number of people employed in the production and oper ational side of film and television. But coll ecting employment figures is not easy for these reasons: i The industry has grown and changed considerably over the past five to seven years, and is continuing to change. ii There is a freelance sector, which means that the number of people employed fluctuates at any one time. iii There are a large number of small employers (production houses who employ less than seven full-time people) who often double up as free lance crew for other employers. iv The small production house sector is not very stable, because employers often set up a company for one or two productions, then dissolve it. v The film and television industry is npt research oriented. Many employers are geared to short term deadlines, and are not used to taking the long 1, Adapted from a paper given to the Australian Film Conference at the University of New South Wales, June 23, 1978. 2. Breakdown from ABC annual report 1975/76. 356 — Cinema Papers, May-June

1 ABC Television

Feature Film

Sponsored Documentary

Commercial Television

KEY Employment

Programmes

Production Making Jobs

from other sections of the industry, although it does buy some feature films and docu mentaries. In 1977, this amounted to 49 hours, which only represented 1.9 per cent of Australian programs shown on the ABC. The ABC’s main production studios are in Sydney and Melbourne, but each state produces its own news and current affairs programs, and some local programs. Figures available from the 1976-77 ABC annual report reveal that the number of programs of Aust ralian origin totalled 2681 hours, of which 2632 were produced by the ABC. This averages at 51.1 hours a week. (The repeat component in this figure is not available). Em ploym ent

The number of people employed in ABC television in 1977 was 2163 which was made up as follows: ABC full-time television staff State

Programmaking

New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Total

832 473 137 131 133 124 1830

There are 50 commercial television stations throughout the country, with three in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide, two in Perth and one in each of 34 centres. Pro duction is organized on a network basis over three networks, with most production taking place in Sydney and Melbourne. The individual commercial stations are responsible for their own programs. They also buy and sub-contract the production of programs from independent production houses. The most recent figures available are from the 1976-77 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Annual Report which states that the amount of Australian-originated programs shown by the metropolitan stations was 1986.7 hours. This averages at 38.2 hours a week for metropolitan stations. (The repeat component in this figure is not available.) Em ploym ent

Engineering 104 72 38 51 43 25 333

Revenue

The total revenue for the ABC in 1977 was $148.2 million, of which $74.3 million was allocated to television. This was an increase over the previous year, but represented a smaller proportion of the overall budget by 2 per cent than in the previous year.

Chart B

Commercial Television

The number of people employed in the capital city stations during the course of the survey appeared to be: Commercial television full-time staff o) City

Staff

Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth Hobart and Launceston All capital cities

1091 894 394 339 390 135 3243

Programming Engineering 817 522 290 240 231 87 2187

Note: It appears that there is no uniform definition of programming and engineering grades, so that figures for jobs included in these categories may not be comparable for each city.

Revenue

The total revenue earned by commercial television in 1976 (the latest available figures) was $211.8 million, which represented an increase of 39.8 per cent on the previous year.

Production Houses Production houses produce advertising commercials, industrial docum entaries, training and educational films, feature films and series. They vary in size from one-person operations to large organizations employing between 100 and 200 full-time staff. Most pro duction houses rely on a pool of freelance technicians. Identifying the production house sector is a difficult task. The Broadcasting and Television Year Book, a telephone survey of companies listed in the yellow pages of the telephone directory in each state, together with listings kept by the Australian Film Commission and other industry organizations, were used to identify this sector. A total of 43 major production houses (those employing seven or more full-time staff) and 182 minor production houses (oneperson operations or employing up to six full time staff) were identified. Unfortunately several firms would not co-operate in the survey, and some could not be contacted. These figures should, therefore, be used as a guide only. The survey indicates that at least 1700 people are employed full-time in the production house sector, although it is possible that some may also have been included in the freelance sector. (The 3. These figures were provided by individual city stations between November 1976 and November 1977.

Production Houses Graphic Sum m ary of W ork Types — National P attern

Key

Work Type

100% Advertisements 50-99% Advertisements

— 38.7%

£ o °o °

5.8%

100% Documentaries 50-99% Documentaries > 65% Feature Film plus documentary production

11.7% 100% Experimental Documentary >60% AV: Selling Aids; Training; Educational Films

5555

> 60% Packaged TV Programs

11. 0 %

Cinema Papers, May-June — 357

FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

the AFC by the Commonwealth government, of which $3.5 million was provided for Film Australia to make and contract work to independent production houses. Funds allocated to the General Activities Branch of the AFC are invested in feature films, tele vision productions, and provide general assis tance to the industry.

Production house full-time staff City Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth Hobart Total

Major

Employees

Minor

Employees

26 14 3

753 617 29

82 60 13* 15* 10* 2 182

181 87 31 50 47 2 398

1399

Industry structure A summary of the above statistics for the industry is shown in the table below.

* The major and minor production houses are combined.

production house sector depends largely on freelance personnel to crew productions on a daily basis.)

Statistical analysis. Organization

Program s

The 147 major and minor production houses interviewed were asked to indicate the type of work they produced. The breakdown shows that for more than 50 per cent of their work, 45.3 per cent were dependent on making commercials, and 27.5 per cent on documen taries. (See Chart B, previous page.)

FUTURETRENDS Persons in Production/ full-time Technical employment areas

Australian Film Commission NSW Film Corporation Victorian Film Corporation Queensland Film Corporation South Australian Film Corporation Tasmanian Film Corporation West Australian Film Council Perth Institute of Film and Television Total

Revenue

Revenue for the production house sector comes from several sources, including com mercial television, government funds, the film industry, and advertising agencies. The only figures available are from the advertising sector which contracted $10.8 million worth of work in 1977.

1671 102 10

—

284

__5

5 136

106

284

1 Includes Film Australia. 2 Employs three part-time directors and one part-time consultant 3 An executive officer employed by the Co-ordinator General’s Department administers the Queensland Film Corporation. There are also 10 honorary members of the QFC. 4 Also employs six freelance personnel on a short-term full time basis. 5 Employs an executive officer on a part-time basis. There are seven honorary members of the WA Film Council. 6. The Perth Institute of Film and Television receives financial assistance from the AFC and the West Australian govern ment to undertake production and training activities. It also employs two full-time freelance production staff, and eight part-time staff in areas related to production and exhibition.

F reelan c e s ec to r

The number of freelance personnel working in the industry is difficult to establish; it was estimated through agencies and production houses. However, in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart there is a fluid inter relationship between the small companies, so that in effect they employ each other on a contract basis. ‘Moonlighting’ from the ABC and commercial television stations also boosts the availability of freelance labor.

In 1977-78, $9.7 million was appropriated to

As closely as can be established, the following table represents the size of the freelance pool.

New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania

Agency books

Estimated non-agency

200 80

50 6 20

12 2 90

—

310

Government-funded organizations The Commonwealth and State governments directly fund organizations to make programs, and generally subsidize film and television production. Some employ administrative staff and production personnel with film and/or video production experience. As of March 21, 1978, government-funded organizations employed about 284 full-time staff, of which 136 were either in program making areas, or where the experience of someone who had made programs was needed. 358 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Education and community

Revenue

Estimated freelance pool

State

Traditionally the freelance and production house sector has centred on film production, supplying filmed commercials and programs to commercial television. However this balance is changing. There are ^ now a number of videotape production houses, and the commercial television stations are making commercials on videotape, thereby reducing the number of commercials made on film by production houses. At the moment this does not appear to be creating a significant depression in employment among the free lance and production house sectors, because Film Australia is employing fewer full-time staff and more freelance staff, and the feature film industry is using freelance personnel and production houses. However, if there is a continued growth in commercials made on videotape, particularly by the stations’ full-time employees, it could mean that the traditional way in which film technicians have learned and developed their craft will not be so readily available. This could have serious effects on the future develop ment of the film sector of the industry.

Total 250 86 20 30 12 2 400

There is also a sub-industry which services educational institutions and community groups. It includes State and Federal education departments providing production facilities for the making of programs and films specifically for educational needs: video access centres; community education centres; and the many and varied local, State and Commonwealth government units established to conduct courses and make training and/or publicity films and videotape material. Actual employ ment statistics are impossible to identify, although the demand for the services of film and video units is increasing rapidly. The relationship between the sectors is indicated on Chart C. „ , , , D ... Concluded on P. 402

industry Structure

Sector ABC Commercial TV Production houses Freelance pool Government

Programmaking

Engineering

Revenue ($ million)

Australian programs (hours a week)

1830 1624

333 105

74.3 211.8

51.1 38.2<1>

1700 + ® 400 136

— T"

N/A 1 5.1 <3>

N/A N/A

(1) Average for each metropolitan station. (2) Estimated from sample interviews with administrative staff. (3) $9.7 million appropriated to the Australian Film Commission, plus $5.4 million appropriated from state governments to state film corporations.

You once said of your film “ H arry H o o to n ’ ’ th at it “emerges as an expression of hope in a^time of turmoil’’. After watching the film, I am not sure there is a relation between the film and the ‘message’ you ascribe i t . . . A rthur: It was som ething written at the time of making the film, and relates to the way we felt about being back in Australia. Corinne: One-churns out words, heavens above. I think both of us are very oppressed by the society we live in. I think the end of Harry Hooton is hopeful. So, in a world of depression you bring forward a message of hope as a positive contribution . . . Corinne: I see the film itself as something that gives humanity a

Arthur and Corinne Cantrill are Melbourne-based avant-garde film m akers who have been producing experimental film s since the early 1960s. In the 16 years since their first explorations into alternative film forms, they have made more than 70 films (three of them feature length). Their film s have a strong representational content, with considerable ‘meaning’ and ‘message’: concerns which involve expressions of hope, social despair, loneliness and purity. At the same time, the filmic processes which they investigate, particularly their work with color, hand-printing, and editing is innovative. In addition to their filmmaking activities, the Cantrills have also been involved in film teaching and television documentary film production, and, since 1971, have published Cantrills F ilm notes, a magazine devoted to alternative filmmaking and video production. This interview was conducted by Sam Rohdie, a lecturer in cinema studies at La Trobe University, Melbourne, and is concerned with the conjuncture in their film s of process and representation, particularly as it is manifested in their landscape work.

hope. I think anything that is fantastic and wonderful is hopeful. Arthur: But that is not to say it was the reason for making the film. In a sense, it is almost an afterthought; som ething that occurred to us having made the film and looked at it and thought, “ Well my gosh, that is an expression of hope.” You also described “Bouddi” as “ liberated rapid anim ation evoking the life energies at work in a serene landscape. The accompanying Aboriginal music has sim ilar cea seless life rhythms.” The film, regarded in t h e s e t e r ms , b e c o me s a metaphor, a sign of something else. In fact, “At Eltham” is subtitled ‘metaphor of death’. You seem to think of your films as expressing very definite meanings: hope, death, energy, despair. . . Cinema Papers, May-June — 359

Arthur: It’s the extent to which we have links with romanticism, and we don’t try to block that in our work. We find it possible to deal with themes that are not considered by other avant-garde l. filmmakers, and at the same time use techniques that have very much to do with the processes of film: the act of photography; the act of editing; the action of light upon the film. The common denominator of a metaphor for life or energy is light. We see no difficulty in using this as a common metaphor for what might be regarded as somewhat romantic ideals, and combining these with physical m aterial approaches to the filmmaking question. 2 You speak of your films in these metaphoric terms; you also describe processes in some detail. For example, with regard to “Earth Message” you have said: “Filmscapes are created from s u p e r i m p o s e d l a y e r s of landscape, skyscape and bush; harmony of movements between layers of superimpositions. The film is structured in the camera with a minimum of editing. There is a concern for film moods created by image, texture, color, movement and sound.” Are these the terms in which you wish your films to be discussed 3 and understood?

properly described, can be known and appreciated by an audience?

Corinne: Why can’t they know and appreciate it by seeing and listening to the film? Arthur: I -prefer to think of a num ber of p o ssib ilities of approaching a given film. The most we could hope for with our written introductions would be to suggest some kind of jumping-off point from which viewers may take some clues, and also develop Arthur: I am very conscious of their own response, but hopefully, th e d if f ic u lty o f w ritin g not feel that they are limited. prescriptions for the guidance of an audience. At times I am quite Do you think an audience worried about it, and I think it can experiences difficulties watching short-circuit a viewer’s responses your films? and contribution to the work. Sometimes I wish we hadn’t Arthur: We are aware of this written them. difficulty. We have been to screenings where there have been When you write about your films screaming, raging demonstrations you function as critics or against what has happened on the theorists. There are critical screen. notions involved in the kind of We do have th is alm ost ¡4. statements you make about your perverse inclination to show our films . . . work as widely as possible, and so m e tim e s we ch o o se th e Arthur: We may be writing audiences so we won’t have such material that doesn’t do the films difficulties. We may choose to justice at all, and is just poor show the work at colleges, or in criticism. certain environments where we know we can handle the situation. What is interesting about your C orinne: We always feel criticism is that it is primarily embittered that our work doesn’t descriptive. You say: “Here is get a wider public showing. But this film. It goes through these then when I go to a cinema which processes. You can see the is trying to show a better type of processes in the film” . . . film — such as The Longford in Melbourne — and I see the people Corinne: When the film is there in the audience, and hear 5 shown to people for the first time I their talk, I just know that the ‘ don’t think anyone can possibly problem isn’t with our films, but expect to get from it what we got w ith so c ie ty . T h e re is an from seeing it dozens of times. e n o rm o u s b a rrie r b etw een ourselves and most people. Do you think there is something to get from it; a definite thing How do you confront that kind of which the film is, and which, if problem? Left from top: 1 and 2 Katatjuta, 3 and 4 At Uluru, 5 Coober Pedy, 6 Ocean at Point Lookout.

Corinne: I don’t know.

Harry Hooton, the anarchist poet and subject of the Cantrills’ Harry Hooton (1970), a film which embodies his idea of art being the communication of emotion to matter.

Is it an historical or even political problem? Corinne: All I can say is, I am not going to become like thepi, in my lifestyle or in anything. What does “like them” mean? Corinne: I am not going to become brutalized like they are. I see most people as brutalized. I am not going to become like that, and see our work cast down to that level. A lot of audiences are unprepared for certain films, but there are also a lot of films that don’t allow the audience to exercise an unde rs t andi ng. Often the audience is accused of being i n s e n s i t i v e if they d o n ’t understand . . . Arthur: That’s a rather arrogant position we have tried to avoid. Why is landscape so central a concern in a large number of your films? Corinne: One of the things we are concerned about is to try and work towards an Australian consciousness. The Australian landscape is basic to an Australian consciousness. But the Australian culture is urban . . . Corinne: That’s what we are told. What else produces this image of the landscape but an urban culture? Nature is just nature. Australians mostly^ live in cities. . .

Will Spoor in Moving Statics (1969), which uses multiple superimposition to create a graph of movement. '

and cities.

filters on to color stock, they r e le a s e th e in f o r m a tio n . Combinations of these three prim ary colors becom e the complex mix of color we see in everyday life. Having given this very precise technical description I should also point out that a lot goes on between those three exposures that doesn’t occur when a strip of normal color film records color in that way. Corinne: In the three-color separation landscapes, the shots are all static. They are all set-up situations, usually running for about a minute. What’s very interesting is that within that totally static landscape shot there is so m u ch a c tiv ity and movement, often of an extremely subtle nature; things we weren’t aware of when we filmed, like the movement of very faint cloud shadows. So that within each of those static set-ups you become aware that — in what is apparently m o n o to n o u s — t h e r e is tremendous activity.

You want the audience to think about the landscape, but you also A greater awareness of external Corinne: I don’t think nature is want them to think about the reality, or a greater awareness of an urban pre-occupation. film. What relationship do you the reality of the film? see between the film processes It c a n ’t be a rural pre and the landscape? Corinne: Both, I suppose. occupation . . . Certainly, in terms of talking Corinne: We have been trying about the movement of cloud A rth u r: No, it is a p re to create a relationship between a shadows, there are things you may occupation from the viewpoint of cinematic process, or maybe two, not notice when filming which are one living in the city. depending on the film, and a pointed up by the three-color particular landscape. separation process. The process It is a concern of experimental Arthur: And we have chosen also highlights the subtle realities filmmakers to limit the extrinsic certain techniques, or processes of the film, because there are connotations of the things they which very often seem to be always subtle fracturings of film. Objects are made banal, left related to that landscape. Not so re g is tra tio n — w hich are as residues, or serve as back much to depict the landscape as it interesting, too. grounds for other kinds of work exists out there, but to reflect our to do with film processes. response to it at a given time. It’s How are the color changes pro Landscape is a subject which is not as if we are attempting to duced on the still-life subject in full, of connotations such as record the landscape to make “White, Orange, Green” ? r o m a n c e , l o n e l i n e s s and people feel good about the fact freedom. Do you regard this as a that landscape exists. Arthur: We inserted a little problem? Our other landscape material is piece of cinemoid filter into the th e th re e -c o lo r s e p a ra tio n filter slot of the camera. There are Arthur: We seem to have two material, which is very process- basically two colors, apart from streams of work going. .There’s orientated, and to that extent gets the clear white expanses — orange the Harry Hooton, Skin of Your right back to what are almost still and green. We chose the colors Eye, Baldwin Spencer refilmed photographic images of certain and the materials we were filming black and white material, all very aspects of the landscape. because of the relationship of the much to do with process .... materials to the monochrome Corinne: All the landscape work Could you explain the color effect of the orange, green and is to do with process, too! At separation process? white. In other words, there are Eltham, for example, isn’t that to components of orange and green do with a cinematic process? Arthur: It’s simply the process and white in the objects filmed. Ocean at Point Lookout is also that occurs on normal color film We were intending this to be a very much to do with cinematic on the one layer of emulsion. play of color on these objects, as process, Color from a given scene is filmed objects with the illusion of In landscape, there is this broken up by means of filters into three-dimensionality which the question of what sort of images its three components — red, film brings. We were interested in you want to have in your head. green and blue. These are the how this three-dimensionality was And one of the images we want to three primary colors in light influenced by the over-layering of get into more and more people’s transmission. the monochrome, which related heads is landscape, so that they We film the scene with a red to some of the colors in the field. can perhaps be more aware of it, filter on a strip of black and white So, there are a number of con or think about it. negative film, and then, without siderations, and the rhythms that moving the camera (it’s on a finally occur in the last print were What do you want them to think tripod), we film the same scene arrived at through shooting and through a green filter, and next editing. about the landscape? Continued on P. 400 through a blue filter. So, we have Corinne: I don’t know. I would all the red, green, and blue in the Right from top: 1 Island Fuse, 2 Bouddi, 3 lik e th em to th in k a b o u t scene, and when these three strips At Eltham; 4 Earth Message, 5 Harry something other than/motor cars are printed together through Hooton, 6 Eikon.

GUIDE FOR THE

AUSTRALIAN FILM PRODUCER: PART 14 CENSORSHIP IN AUSTRALIA In this 14th part of an 18-part series, Cinema Papers’ contributing editor Antony I. G innane, and M elbourne solicitors Ian Baillieu and Leon Gorr discuss Australian censorship rules and requirements.

Introduction The censorship of films, and of advert isements for films, in Australia is regulated partly by the states and territories; but, with exceptions which are discussed below, it is centrally administered. A federal body, the Film Censorship Board, administers the film censorship requirements of the Commonwealth, and also most of those of the states and territories pursuant to auth ority granted in various ways. There are certain appeal procedures. The approach of the states and territories is to prohibit theatrical exhibition of any film which is not exempt from censorship or duly approved by a censoring authority. Although the legislation contains many similar pro visions, it is not uniform. There are local var iations, for example, in the definitions of “ theatre” , “ exhibit” and “ film” . Theatrical exhibition, within the meaning of the legislation, is not confined to screenings in cinemas, but generally does not cover private screenings for which no admission charge is made. In some state acts it is unclear whether “ film” includes videotape. The states and territories have adopted a uniform classification for censored films. The relevant Commonwealth enactments are the Customs {Cinematograph Films) Regulations in force under the Customs Act, and Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1978. The Customs {Cinematograph Films) Regu lations relate to imported films and film adver tising matter (the control of imports being within the Federal legal jurisdiction under section 51 (i) of the Constitution). The Broadcasting and Television Act provides for the licensing of television stations in Australia (this being within the Federal legal jurisdiction under section 51(v) of the Constitution as interpreted by the High Court). For the purpose of such licensing, television program standards have been estab lished pursuant to the Act. Certain kinds of film are required to be censored and classified according to those standards, before being televised by a licensee. The censorship classi fications of films for television differ from those adopted by the states and territories. The Act does not regulate the use of tele vision sets or video equipment as such; nor does it provide directly for the establishment of cable television systems, although any com munity television antenna has to be licensed. Another Federal act, however,- the Tele communications Act 1975-1976, makes it an offence to install television cables across property boundaries without proper author362 — Cinema Papers, May-June

ization. A closed-circuit television system within the boundaries of a single property (e.g. in a guest house), and not involving a community antenna, would not require Federal author ization. An Australian-made film shown on such a system would not have to be censored pursuant to any Commonwealth legislation. But such a showing might fall within the rele vant state act or territory ordinance. While the legislative framework of film censorship in Australia is intricate, in practice the system operates without emphasis on fine legalities. There are, for instance, a few anomalies in the procedures adopted by the Film Censorship Board when censoring on behalf of the states. They have gone uncorr ected, no doubt because of bureaucratic inertia, and because applicants for censorship are more interested in the practical results than in the forms used to achieve them. There are some prohibitions in the legis lation, e.g. against publicizing a forthcoming film before it is censored, which are impractical to enforce strictly, and which are, therefore, frequently breached without prose cution. Some differences in the censorship classifications given to similar films, and in the readiness of the authorities to police the legis lation, are difficult to explain. It seems film censorship is one legal area in which politics and personalities may play at least as important a part as the letter of the law.

The Board is prepared to discuss informally with intending producers the likely classi fication of a proposed film (if made in accor dance with a submitted script), but no formal decision can be made until the film is viewed. Anyone aggrieved by the Board’s decision on a non-television matter can appeal to the Films Board of Review, a five-member body, which meets when an appeal is lodged. The only higher appeal is direct to the Federal Attorney-General. Anyone aggrieved by the Board’s decision on a film for television may appeal to the A ustralian Broadcasting Tribunal. The workings of the Board were explained in an article in the January 1977 issue of Cinema Papers by the then Deputy Chief Censor, Janet Strickland. According to Ms Strickland, the Board does not see itself primarily as having a suppressive or repressive function; nor does its functions include the enforcement of its decisions. Enforcement is a matter for federal, state, and territory policing auth orities. Information about the Board’s classi fications of films for cinema release, rejections (giving the basic reason), and cuts made in films submitted for classification, is published in the Commonwealth Government Gazette, and is reprinted by permission in Cinema Papers.

Rejection of Films by the Film Censorship Board

The Film Censorship Board As a resu lt of th e provisions and arrangements referred to above, the main censorship authority for films in Australia is a Federal one, the Film Censorship Board, set up under the Customs {Cinematograph Films ) Regulations. The nine-member Board has its offices in Sydney, and its functions include: (a) view ing, and e ith e r rejecting or registering, all films and videotapes imported into Australia; (b) viewing, and either rejecting or classi fying, all films (other than exempted films) intended for cinema exhibition, or for such other kinds of exhibition in Aust ralia as are controlled by state and territory legislation. (c) viewing and classifying all films for Aust ralian television other than: (i) films produced in Australia by an Aust ralian television station, or by an inde pendent producer under contract to an Australian television station; and (ii) television commercials; (d) examining, passing or rejecting all imported posters, photographs, and other advertising matter intended for use in connection with the exhibition of a film, and such locally-produced advertising matter for films as the censor requires to be submitted.

Regulation 13 of the Customs {Cinema tograph Films) Regulations requires the Board to reject any imported film which, in the opinion of the Censor is: (a) indecent, obscene or blasphemous; (b) injurious to morality, or encourages or incites to crimes; . (c) offensive to a friendly nation or to the people of a part of the Queen’s dominions; or which (d) depicts any matter which is undesirable in the public interest. The five states, whose film censorship is administered by the Board, specify similar grounds for rejection, but with some omissions. There are also slight differences in the grounds for rejection between the states. Thus, all refer to films depicting matter which, in the Censor’s opinion, is of an indecent or obscene nature; but Victoria and Tasmania also refer to matter of a disgusting nature. No state mentions blasphemous matter, or matter offensive to a friendly nation. All states, however, refer to matter which, in the Censor’s opinion, is likely to encourage or incite crime. Western Australia and Queens land also refer to matter likely to encourage “ public disorder” . Matter which is “ injurious to morality” and “ undesirable in the public interest” is mentioned in the New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland acts, but not in Victorian or Tasmanian acts.

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

New South Wales, Western Australia and acceptable supporting purpose or theme, Queensland specify that the Censor’s opinion nor redeeming features of social, literary, or on these matters is to be formed after having artistic merit’. regard to the manner in which the film would “ When we talk about obscene violence be classified if it is not rejected. This allows for we think of such violence as being totally the possibility of a restricted classification. gratuitous, relished, dwelt upon, and por All five states direct that, notwithstanding trayed for its own sake — for example these grounds for rejection, the Censor shall where the audiences are invited to ‘groove’ not reject, and must classify, a film which (“ in on bloody, nauseating close-ups, and the Censor’s opinion” in Western Australia sadistic meaningless actions. and Queensland): “ The Film Censorship Board does, in a “ in good faith and with artistic merit: way, exert a degree of quantitative and (a) reproduces or adapts any work of qualitative control over films. Quantitative recognized literary merit; or control in the sense that three per cent of (b) represents any scriptural, historical, trad films were rejected and 21 per cent were itional, mythical or legendary story” . restricted (1975); qualitative control in as There is no such provision in the Customs much as the overwhelming majority of (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. those rejected were totally without In practice, the differences in the grounds redeeming social purpose or merit.” for rejection and between the states, and between their requirements and those of the Censorship Classification Federal regulations, are of little consequence. The Film Censorship Board apparently takes of Films for Nonan overall view of the criteria for registering or Television Release rejecting a film. In her article in Cinema Papers, Janet Strick land had this to say about the Board’s rejection The basic idea behind the system of classi of films: fying films (which have not been rejected) is to “ Most films currently rejected — and that inform the public of the nature of a film. All was about three per cent in 1975 — are the states and territories have adopted four those found under 13(a) as being ‘indecent classifications: Classification

Symbol

General Exhibition

Not Recommended for Children

fNRCl

Mature Audiences

Restricted

1. Made by Janet Strickland in her article in

C inem a Papers

or obscene’. This may be applied to either sex or violence. Films have occasionally been rejected under 13(d) as being ‘not in the public interest’ — such as those inciting to drug abuse, hijacking etc. The difficulties in defining what is indecent or obscene is revealed in the court cases in the USA and Britain. In Australia, we fall back on the ‘current community standards’ test, and say that something is indecent if it is grossly offensive to most sections of the com munity. We believe that hard-core porno graphy would be equated with indecency in most people’s minds. “ The films most commonly rejected are those which, in the opinion of the Board, are pornographic or feature obscene violence. “ Our working definition of pornography is: ‘Verbal or pictorial material devoted overwhelmingly to the explicit depiction of sexual activities in gross detail, with neither

Comments1 For ail ages; family entertainment. These are not necessarily children’s films, but films that do not contain material that might distress children or upset their parents. Means not recommended for children under 12. For films which do not qualify for “G” because of something in the plot, theme or treatment. There may be some violence, less than pure language, “ light” sex scenes (i.e. head and shoulder shots), mostly in a fairly moral context. For 15 years and over. For films that deal essentially with adult concepts but treat them more discreetly than “ R” certificate films. The film may explore sexual relationships (homosexual and heterosexual), may contain crude language, and may depict violence — but the treatment differs from “ R” films In the degree of explicitness and overtness. Suitable only for people of 18 years and over. For films that treat adult themes in an overt and explicit way. The treatment shows a greater exploitation of sex and violence; considered to be harmful to children and offensive to some sections of the community.

, January 1977.

The classification for a film is required to be indicated in all advertising material. The “ R” classification is the only one that places legally enforceable restrictions on the exhibition of a film (excluding children over the age of two years or under the age of 18 years); the other classifications are merely advisory. According to Ms Strickland, merit and con text are taken into account by the Film Censorship Board when deciding a classi fication. Film trailers are treated as films in their own right, and must be submitted for classification (for non-television exhibition) as the film they advertise. In 1975, 16 per cent of films examined by the Board for non-television release received a “ G ” , 21 per cent an “ NRC” , 25 per cent an “ M” , 21 per cent an “ R” , and three per cent were rejected. The remainder were admitted subject to some special condition — e.g. only allowed for screening at a festival.

The Meaning of “Film” In the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations, film means “ a cinematograph film or a videotape and includes a positive or a negative or a cinematograph film” . The definition of film is different in each state and territory, and the question arises whether the censorship requirements of the states and territories apply not only to film that consists of a series of photographs for projection onto the screen, but also to videotape and other forms of information storage from which moving pictures can be generated electronically. In Tasmania, film means only “ film for use in a cinematograph” (which is not specially defined), so videotape is clearly not covered. (The Oxford dictionary describes a cinema tograph as an apparatus producing pictures of motion by the rapid projection on a screen of a great number of photographs taken suc cessively on a long film.) In the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, film means, “ a roll or tape containing successive images produced by photographic means and capable of being exhibited by means of a cinematograph” . As cinematograph is not given any special meaning, it seems videotape is not covered in the territories, despite their mention of tape. On the other hand, the Victorian and New South Wales provisions appear to cover video tape. Victoria regulates the exhibition of a “ picture” , defined as “ a visual image exhibited or capable of being exhibited from a film” , and provides that film “ includes any record, however made, of a sequence of visual images, which is a record capable of being used as a means of showing that sequence as a moving picture” . New South Wales amended its legislation in 1971 to mention videotape. It now defines film as film or videotape used, or proposed to be used, for the purpose of exhibiting a picture or other optical effect by means of a cinematograph or any other similar apparatus for the exhibition of moving pictures. The position is less clear in South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. In South Australia, film is defined as “ film for use in a cinematograph or any other apparatus for the exhibition of moving pictures” . It could be argued that this is wide enough to cover video equipment. In the Western Australian and Queens land legislation, film is defined as “ a film exhibited or proposed to be exhibited in a pic ture theatre by the use of a cinematograph and any other similar apparatus and reproducing equipment to produce a moving picture or other optical effect” . In the Queensland Films Review Act 1974, the definition of film is the same, except that each “ and” is changed to “ or” . The question arises whether the words “ any other similar apparatus and reproducing equip ment” are wide enough to cover video equip ment without expressly mentioning it. It may be argued that video equipment is not similar to a cinematograph, and that the electronic generation of moving pictures on a video screen is not “ reproducing” them, since the pictures do not exist until produced on the screen. Some hotels in Queensland are believed to have relied on such arguments to show, on hotel video screens, “ R” films ban ned under the Films Review Act 1974. The videotape question will become crucial if there is a move by Australian exhibitors to set up videoscreen theatres, as attempted overseas. Continued on P.398 Cinema Papers, May-June — 363

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

Cinema Papers, May-June â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 36!4

PRODUCTION REPORT

“ M a d M a x ” is a G o th ic h o rro r sto r y s e t in t h e n e a r fu tu r e . U r b a n s o c ie t y i s i n te r m in a l d e c a y , a n d th e in t e r c ity h ig h w a y s h a v e b e c o m e w h it e - lin e d n ig h t m a r e s , fo r m in g a n a r e n a fo r a s tr a n g e a p o c a ly p tic d e a th g a m e b e tw e e n n o m a d m o to r -c y c le g a n g s a n d jan e lit e g ro u p o f y o u n g p o lic e o ffic e r s d r iv in g s o u p e d -u p p u r s u it v e h ic le s . “ M a d M a x ” w a s p ro d u ced by B y r o n K e n n e d y a n d d ir e c te d b y G eo rg e M ille r . It w a s s h o t d u r in g 1 9 7 8 a n d is n o w in r e le a s e in M e lb o u r n e . 1 "

■Hiiig

BYRON K EN N ED Y PRODUCER As a young producer, not having made a feature film before, what difficulties did you face in setting up “Mad Max’’?

In 1969, Byron Kennedy produced and directed his first major film, “ Hobson’s Bay” , a documentary which won him considerable acclaim, and led to a commission to produce a series of industrial documentaries.

When we first conceived the project we took it to Roadshow, and Graham Burke, the managing director, liked it and wanted to invest in it. We thought, at the time, we wouldn’t be able to get any government money because Australian producers were making art films, and the corporations and commissions seemed to endorse them whole-heartedly. The only way to get going was to raise private money. At that stage I didn’t know much about the business community; I didn’t know who would invest in films and who wouldn’t. We started by examining the more conventional areas of fin ancing, and found that those people didn’t have any money, particularly to put into films. They didn’t have any risk money, or funny money as they call it. We needed a syndicate, but we couldn’t get four or five people to put in the money, particularly because we didn’t have a track record. So, we decided to spread the risk among a lot of different people. We designed a 40-page presentation, and it was cir culated, discreetly, among various people. When we made a breakthrough with one of them — and that nor mally came after reading the presentation, meeting us, talking about track record and what we had done in the past — we found that he would then circulate it among his friends, and if one was in, they would all be in. That was basically the way it was done. As far as track records were concerned, they were not too worried that we hadn’t done a feature film before. They were impressed with the presentation, and they said: “ Okay, if people are capable of presenting something like this, then we might as well go into what they are doing, because they obviously seem to be in control.” They were not interested in reading the script; nor did they want to see more than a one-page synopsis. At that stage the outline readjust like another ordinary caraction film. You couldn’t extol the film’s virtues on one piece of paper. I found that the people who put money into films were not so con cerned about what their money is going into, in terms of what the film is about. They are more con

He then worked as a freelance cameraman and production manager, on a number of film s, including Nigel Buesst’s “ Come Out Fighting” . In 1971, Kennedy met George M iller at a film seminar and they decided to make films together. Their first production was “ Violence in the Cinema Part 1” , which won an Australian Film Institute award and was taken up for commercial distribution in Australia and Britain. In 1973, Kennedy travelled to Europe, Asia and the U .S. on a Film and Television School Grant in Aid to study distribution and production. On his return he teamed with M iller and John Lamond to make “ Devil in Evening Dress” , a one-hour television special, which was sold locally and to East Germany. Kennedy started work on “ Mad M ax” in 1975, and on its completion acted as associate producer for Tim Burstall’s “ Last of the Knucklemen” . This interview was conducted by Peter Beilby and Scott Murray, during the mixing of “ Mad M ax” .

366 — Cinema Papers, May-June

finance tied up in this film than in any other in the history of the Australian film industry. There wasn’t any governm ent preproduction funding at all. George and I funded it by doing three months of very intensive emer gency radio locum work; I drove the car, while he did the doc toring. We got a lot of anecdotes and stories for the film by visiting road accident victims who had come through traumatic exper iences. In that short period we were able to earn a fair bit of money, too, to enable us to finance the writing, the presen tation and the developm ent, which took about 14 months of intensive work. Are you in a position to talk about the deal you were able to achieve with private investors compared with government finance? In the case of the AFC, the production company’s equity seldom exceeds 30 per cent. Were you able to do better with private investors? Yes. We had a substantially better deal with private investors than we could have got with government bodies. I believe it is equitable, and so do they. If I approached one of those investors and said, “ I’ll build you a Kentucky Fried Chicken store and I’ll run it for the next five years and make it a viable venture if you put up the money” , they would go along with a 50/50 split or if not, 75/25 in the promoter’s favor. “Mad Max” appears to be a very violent film. Was the use of explicit violence one of the ingredients that would make it commercially viable?

cerned about financial security, and that their money will actually get to a film production at some stage or another. Our presentation was m uch stro n g e r on the financial side than on the story and aesthetics.

Was the development of the project made possible by moneys from the Australian Film Com mission? Mad Max is privately financed. There is probably more private

No, because at that stage violence was pretty dead; this was just after Clockwork Orange and The Hunting' Party. A lot of explicitly violent films had come out and died. But Mad Max isn’t really an explicitly violent film. There is only one shot where you actually see heavy violence inflicted on someone. However, it has a violent feel, a violent mise en scene. This is created by its mechanical content: there is a lot of noise, lots of cars smashing and banging, and motor bikes crashing. That tends to give, the impression that the film is violent. People may come out thinking, “ Gee, it’s a violent film” , but really, it isn’t. It’s not really off-putting violence at all; it’s more a sort of^titillating

PRODUCTION REPORT

cast and crew? We wanted enthusiasm. We wanted everyone who worked on the film to be behind it, and found' that by using people who didn’t have much film experience, particularly feature experience, that it was the case. There were disadvantages and inefficiencies, but they were made up for by people with dedication and enthusiasm. I think, to put a figure on it, about 60 per cent of the crew had never worked on a feature film before, and about 20 per cent had never worked in the film industry. However we found that those people delivered to us enormously. In casting, we didn’t want any one to be recognizable. We tried to steer away from television faces as much as possible. If an actor’s face was known, we tried to change their appearance as much as possible. You shot “Mad Max” using an anamorphic system. Was this a commercial or aesthetic choice?

The homicidal bike gang, led by the Toecutter, reduces a captured car to scrap metal.

performed poorly to date at the box-office. Does this trend worry you?

No, because Mad Max is very complex. There is so much meat to it as an entertainment that it If the violence is titillating, then could be promoted on five or six you are obviously using it to different levels. It is original and provide part of the entertainment different. You will never see any thing like it on television. It isn’t aping anything that has been done Yes. When you see the sort of before. We are not trying to make films that have used the same an American film in Australia: it’s kind of techniques before, and a genuine Australian film with an look at the business they have international theme. done internationally, there is no I really can’t predict what sort of way you can deny that violence business it will do, but I am con isn ’t a perennial commercial fident that it delivers much more commodity. than any of the other films you have mentioned. Do you see “Mad Max” then as a genre film, in the style of VMad Max” is a very textured certain Corman and American film involving a lot of action. International Pictures’ action- Was it difficult to shoot? thrillers? We were very unlucky during No, it’s much more up-market the shooting. Originally we had a than Corman or AIP films. But it highly-planned production, with a really isn’t one individual genre; it shooting schedule of 10 weeks — crosses into so many areas. You six weeks on first unit, and four could say that it’s a road movie, weeks on the stunt and chase but you could also say that it’s a sequences. But on the fourth day horror film in the tradition of of shooting the girl who was to be Carrie. It’s also a car action film, a the original leading lady broke her bikie film, and a cop film — it leg in a motor accident. We works in all those areas. Mad Max couldn’t find a replacement for is a highly sophisticated B-grade two weeks, which meant that the film. whole of the early part of the film had to be rescheduled. Violent films seem to have This had repercussions all the waned in popularity recently. For way through the production. If a example, “ The Fury” , “ The film has a short shoot you can Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith” usually absorb something like and “The Money Movers” have that, but when it’s 10 weeks, you violence, if you like.

It was primarily a commercial consideration. But we also wanted to sh o o t th e film in th e anamorphic format, because of its visual style. We knew we wanted that look of roads stretching to virtually have to start your pre- infinity, with telegraph poles in production again. forced perspective — very much a Consequently we had enormous Nevada-type look — and this organizational problems, and effect is best achieved anamorwent two weeks over schedule. So phically. Cars and motor-cycles in fact the shooting took 12 weeks. also exist in a horizontal format, We then reco n v en ed th ree and they look much better riding months later and spent another in packs on an anamorphic screen two weeks doing second unit than they do conventionally. shots, and re-staging a stunt As for the system we used, we involving a rocket-propelled car. decided to go with Todd A O, which was the first time anyone “Mad Max” was a first for you had used it in Australia on a as a producer and for George as a feature film. We talked to a director. It’s also a first for a lot cameraman in Sydney who had of other people. Why did you used it on airline commercials, choose a relatively inexperienced and said it was excellent. There

Shooting Mad Max. Cameras were mounted on a specially built truck capable of travelling at speeds up to 200kph. George Miller (foreground) supervises cameraman David Eggby and assistant. Cinema Papers, May-June — 367

PRODUCTION REPORT

were a few problems with the different matte boxes and filters for each lens, but for resolution it is stunning. The projectionists who have seen the film so far have commented on how sharp and clean it looks.

had viewed it, with all the tracks running simultaneously. That has proved to be the case, and this system enables us to put down additional sound instantaneously. How do you hope to promote “ Mad Max” in Australia and overseas?

Why did you choose Todd A O in preference to Panavision? Panavision would have been too expensive. We also had a lot of camera set-ups and many lens changes, so we decided to use standard Arriflex cameras with Todd A O lenses. My feeling is that Panavision is probably an excellent system, but I don’t believe the Australian film industry can afford to use it. In our case, and on Last of the Knucklemen, we examined the possibility of shooting anamorphic Panavision, but agreed it was too expensive. You decided not to edit “Mad Max” in 35mm, but to work with a 16mm reduction work-print. What was behind that decision? I knew that with all the tracking shots and multiple camera set-ups we would be shooting thousands of feet of 35mm original footage, and that the post-production period would be very, very long. As we already had the 16mm editing equipment — coupled with the inability to obtain 35mm equipment in Melbourne for the time we would need it — we decided to work-print in 16mm and do all post-production in the 16 format. What sort of saving did you make by doing this? It was an enormous saving, as far as the cost of work-print was concerned. However, you do lose time waiting for rushes because of the second run through the printer to get edge numbers on the 16mm work-print. This also puts the negative at risk, and complicates the neg-matching job. If it wasn’t for Margaret Cardin, who neg-matched this film, I don’t know where we would be. She was given the job of matching 1700 scenes in anamorphic, from 35mm down to a 16mm reduction. So, she was v irtually eye matching. But I wouldn’t do it again, if we had the money and the choice.

Stuntman Grant Page spent the first two weeks of the production recovering from a car accident. He supervised the stunts for Mad Max, and when he was well enough joined in the fray again, engineering and executing most of the spectacular crashes in the film.

three months. Then George and I did the final fine-cut before we started laying sound. “Mad Max” has been a long time in post-production. Since shooting finished, it’s taken about 10 months to get to an answer print . . .

It finished in January 1978, but the second unit plus an extra stunt sequence were done in May. It did take a long time, and that’s because it’s probably three times more complex than the average Australian film. It has three times the number of scenes, and three times the amount of footage to choose from. But it’s not a long time when you look at it in relation to how Tony Patterson did all the long th e y sp en d in p o s t original cutting, but George production on American films. Miller finished it. Why was We didn’t want a film to go out that? that looked as if it needed more work in the cutting, or as if it Tony Patterson and George should have had 10 minutes out started work after production here and 20 minutes out there, finished. Tony cut for about four which I think is a great failing in a months, but had to leave because lot of Australian films. We wanted he was c o n tr a c te d to do to polish and hone it as best we Dimboola. George and another * could. Melbourne freelance editor, Cliff We also spent a lot of time on Hayes, worked on it for another the soundtrack — about five 368 — Cinema Papers, May-June

months full-time — because the film is highly visual and very fastmoving, with lots of scene changes. It needed lots of sound to complement that imagery on the screen. You decided not to mix “Mad Max” in a conventional way, but to use Armstrong Studios, which are primarily involved with record and advertising sound . . . We knew that if we went through a conventional mix in a conventional mixing studio we would be there for weeks and weeks. We knew it was going to be extremely complex because we wanted to synthesize a lot of sound — to harmonize tracks by putting them through digital time d elay s and M arsh a ll T im e Modulators. We also wanted to experiment and give the soundtrack much more body — more oomph! To do that we needed the facilities at Armstrong Studios, because they were not available elsewhere. We didn’t want to go to Sydney to mix the film; we wanted to mix it in Melbourne. We also knew we would need to add lots of ingredients after we

What we have to do when we promote the film — and this also seems to be the opinion of the distributors who are handling it — is to go for the core audience, and let the film build from there. We believe Mad Max is good enough to generate word-of-mouth. The audience sh o u ld , th e re fo re , increase after the film has run a short period and the word filters through the different stratas of cinema-going public. Mad Max’s audience is defin itely young and action-orientated. I believe we should direct the campaigns specifically at them, rather than try and sell it to every one and find that by so doing we alienate the core market. At this stage, we are not ready to move into the international market in a big way — but only because we still have to get a lot of the material together that is nec essary to sell it overseas. Fortun ately Roadshow are very high on the film and this is helping us overseas. It’s a film that probably has more potential in the USA than a lot of other Australian films, so we are waiting to see what sort of a reaction we get from there. If we do get a favorable reaction I think we will take a fairly slow, cautious approach in selling it in te r nationally. But if the film is not well-received by the American market, then we will just do a con ventional sell; we will travel with it to the various festivals, and try and sell it quickly. Will you use an agent or do it yourself? We will use an agent in Europe; that’s about as much as I can say at this stage. But in the major markets — Japan and the USA — I won’t use an agent in the conventional sense. Are you working on another project? We recen tly got package development finance from the AFC to develop six screenplays to final draft. One is already about 80 per cent written. On each of these films, will you be acting as producer and George as director, or are you branching out and setting up a production house? No. George will be directing and I will be producing those that get off the ground.

G E O R G E M IL L E R DIRECTOR Where did the idea for “Mad Max” come from?

George M iller was at medical school at the University of NSW when he directed his first film s, and won a I grew up in a country town in university filmmaking competition with an untitled oneQueensland where I saw a lot of minute short. car accidents. There was a definite After graduating, he met Kennedy, and in 1971 they sub-culture surrounding cars and made “ Violence in the Cinema Part I” . M iller then violence, and I lost at least three friends in accidents, when we began writing scripts for low-budget productions to be were teenagers. Then, when I made with Kennedy, and also worked as an editor, became a doctor, I worked in the cameraman and sound recordist on shorts, documentaries casualty department at a major and television commercials. hospital where I saw road accident In 1974, M iller teamed with Kennedy and John victims every day. These were the Lamond to make “ Devil in Evening D ress” , and soon s o rts of in flu e n c e s th a t after started work on “ Mad M ax” . germinated, and finally presented This interview was conducted by Scott Murray and themselves one day, as the raw material for the film. Peter Beilby during the final post-production stage of Every year, in an entirely “ Mad M ax” .

predictable fashion, about a thousand people die on Victorian roads. In spite of our efforts we are not able to modify those numbers significantly. The statistics are so consistent, it is as though we are operating under some immutable law of nature. We make funny noises, but none of us really understands what’s happening. The USA has its gun culture, we have our car culture.

it’s important to realize that there is a big difference between cinema and television. I am s tro n g ly a g a in s t te le v is io n violence. This might sound a bit hypocritical, since I am making a violent film, but I think television violence is much more dangerous. If a kid reaches adolescence in our country he has used up more time watching television than he has on any other activity, bar sleep. The time he has spent in cinemas is almost nil. Why do you think television violence is dangerous? Basically because of its allconsuming presence and the need of kids to mimic. Kids see The Three Stooges banging each other and knocking a few teeth out with chisels, so they do it to their little brothers. We have all done it. Cinema is an entirely different process, particularly now; people don’t go to the cinema nearly as much as they used to. It is like the theatre now — a special event. We are not continually exposed to it, as with television.

Do you see “ Mad Max” as a way to get people to examine violence on A u s t r a l i a n r oads by s t i mul at i ng debate on the subject? Mad Max is a genre film which, basically, is mixing two genres — the car action film and the horror film. And as Stephen King, who wrote Carrie and The Shining, says, horror films are dress re h e a rsa ls for te rm in a tio n . Watching a horror film is like lying in the coffin, getting the feel of it then jumping out as spry as you please afterwards. So, what we are doing in Mad Max is putting something on the screen for people to see and experience, which has the impact of being in a car accident. There is a commentary in Mad Max, and it would be nice to establish some sort of dialogue on the subject, but I don’t think any film can do so. Films operate on emotions, not on rational thought. We don’t understand anything that’s very primitive and atavistic in our society; we don’t under stand sex and violence, because they are not functions of our intellect — they are functions of -our biology. But we do know that the level of socially acceptable violent death in our society seems to be constant. The violence you see in Mad Max is always there in our society. The most a film like this

cinema is extremely realistic. And because it’s so realistic, many people argue that it has a direct action on some people’s behavior, particularly young people . . .

Although the cinematic exper ience is more powerful than tele vision, and therefore more likely to be mimicked . . .

can do is to put us in touch with our darker emotions and help us to acknowledge their inevitability. Do you think the audience will be repulsed by the explicit violence in the film? The violence is not explicit. And I believe people don’t want to see explicit violence; they don’t want to see blood on the screen. In Mad Max, there are only about 50 frames of explicit violence, the rest is implied. So, audiences won’t go to the film to see fullfrontal violence. Hopefully they will go to jump into the coffin for 90 minutes and jump out again. That’s what a good horror film

should be. Why do you want people to jump into the coffin for that 90 minutes? Simply to confront, and maybe demystify, our darkest fears. There will always be these sorts of entertainment, and I think they p e rfo rm a very im p o rta n t function. Some people describe it as a cathartic function. I don’t think we have to defend it, or apologise. The whole history of the cinema has made these sorts of e x p erien c e s available to audiences, and they always will. Modern-day violence in the

Some people who go to a film like Mad Max and see a guy run over by a truck, or do some hairy stunt in a car, are going to leave the cinema and repeat it because it impressed them. I understand this is happening in the USA, with The Warriors. Already two or three people have copped it in the cinema or outside. And a couple of little kids have jumped off buildings after seeing Superman. We have been hearing about these incidents for a long time, probably since cinem a first started. When I was a little kid, I jumped off a roof and hurt myself because I saw a film about parachuting. Kids are always mimicking. I guess it’s part of growing up; it’s a mechanism for learning. But I believe those people who see a film like The Warriors and become violent would select themselves out at some stage as being violent, and probably the same will apply to some who see Cinema Papers, May-June — 369

PRODUCTION REPORT

Mad Max. The one who really has to worry about it is the innocent victim of that violence. He is the victim of random selection. The overall amount of violence sits at a constant level, no matter what the precipitating factors. Could you elaborate on the cathartic function which violent films perform? It’s basically a de-mystification process. In our society we hide from violence and death. The first thing we do in a car accident is cover the bodies. We deny the process of dying, and perhaps it’s important that we do — it’s terribly morbid to go round thinking about it all the time. But the question addresses us every day. At the concluding stages of “ Mad Max” , the hero goes berserk and wreaks revenge, killing a number of people in horrible ways. The way the film is constructed the audience’s sympathies are with Max. So the cathartic experience in this instance revolves around a man who violently murders a number of people without getting his own come-uppance. The end of the film, therefore, in terms of people mimicking what they see on the screen, could be seen by some as justi fyi ng violent personal revenge . . . I can understand what you are saying, and it’s a difficult thing to defend. And again, I don’t know if I should try to. Basically, what that last part of the film says is that we must recognize the violent nature in us, not only as individuals, but as animals that have survived by virtue of our aggression. If we were non-aggressive, and passive biological organisms, we would not exist today. We must be tremendously aggressive to have evolved to this stage. In “Mad Max” , the police are actively involved in propagating violence. Max leaves the force, but later returns to extract his revenge in the guise of a policeman. Is this a comment on the role the police play in preserving law and order? Not really. Mad Max is a western. It has the same story, but instead of riding horses they are riding motor-cycles and cars. People say the western’s dead, but it’s not; it’s become the car-action film. In Mad Max, the police and the bikies are just two groups of people on different sides of a game, wearing different colors. There is no real comment. In the real world, today, the police function very differently. Max is involved in very violent episodes as part of his normal 370 — Cinema Papers, May-June

working day. But it doesn’t really affect him until his best friend, a motor-cycle cop, is badly burned and dies. This experience brings into question everything about his lifestyle. He decides it’s too ugly for him, and gets away from it all. But eventually he is drawn back into it, and realizes that the only way he can express himself is violently. Which, in a way, is metaphorical. What we are really saying is that we are all like that — this is all part of us and it’s something we have no control over. And we can’t rationalize it. It’s something that is mystical; it’s a pre-conscious or unconscious process that’s going on, and we are only now starting to understand it. We have to try and understand the nature of aggression and man, and we won’t do it by sitting down and being outraged at all the terrible things we do to each other. They are happening and they will happen alw ays. We m u st try and understand what the process is, and how we can reorganize o u r s e lv e s to a v o id b e in g devastated. In spite of some g ro tesq u e a b e rra tio n s, like warfare, the human race is doing an excellent job of channelling aggression creatively. The style of “Mad Max” is unlike most Australian films: there is minimal dialogue, an emphasis on fast action, a lot of camera movement, and a lot of cuts . . .

There are two basic types of films; the mise en scene film, which is the camera recording performance or incidents, but making little editorial comment, and the montage film, which is all done with the camera. Mad Max is a montage film. In a crazy sort of way, you always have more control over a montage film, particularly if you are dealing with inexperienced actors. If we had a tradition of powerful, strong, performanceoriented cinema, you would go more for a mise en scene film, where you just record wonderful p e rfo rm a n c e s and m agical moments that happen in acting. But, for a first feature, you go more for cutting. People have said that some of the stunts are very good. They were executed very well by Grant Page and other stuntmen, who were quite obsessed with getting good results. But most of it happened in the cutting; it’s a cutting film. The stunts seem to be a very important part of the film. Were they difficult to shoot? Stunts are good stuff. When you are a fledgling filmmaker, it’s great putting shots together to make them work as a whole, because it’s something you must always pre-plan. If you take a stunt like the head-on collision at the end, it’s made up of about seven or eight different ingredients to give the illusion of a stunt

A member of Toecutter’s gang entertains the grizzly band with some machismo antics.

happening. You don’t make good stunts by putting a camera down to record a spectacular stunt, because you never really capture the emotion of it; you merely record an event. Did you story-board the stunt sequences? Yes, I think you must. Did you story-board other parts of the film? No, but it depends on the type of filmmaking. It would be nice to story-board a whole film; it saves a hell of a lot of time because you can see how it’s going to cut together. Vou don’t get into the editing room and try to salvage a stunt out of a lot of footage you have shot. Most of the actors are relatively i n e x p e r i e n c e d . Di d you deliberately avoid ‘name’ actors? If you are casting a name actor — let’s say you have someone whose persona is known to most of your audience — land he is in the film most of the time, then he has time to get into his character, to establish himself. He stops being Robert Redford, or Dustin Hoffman, and starts being his film character. But if you have a face that’s known — and often it can be someone in Australia who is

PRODUCTION REPORT

k n o w n fro m a t e le v is io n commercial or a television series — and he pops up very briefly in a film, people are only going to see him as that face. A classic example of this was in Picnic at Hanging Rock, with Gary McDonald. He was cast before Norman Gunston became known, but by the time the film cam e out he was N orm an Gunston. I will never forget sitting in Picnic with a big aud ience. Everyone was into the film, but the moment he came on, they jumped up and down and shouted “ N orm an!” , which took the whole audience out of the film for those few moments. McDonald wasn’t on the screen long enough to establish himself as anyone other than Norman Gunston. In Mad Max, we were dealing with a futuristic film. So, as a conscious principle, if it was a choice between an unknown and one who was known from a television series or a television commercial, the part would go to the unknown. D id you e x p e r i e n c e any d i f f i c u l t i e s worki ng with inexperienced actors? Nothing major, although I have learnt that you can’t over rehearse actors before a pro duction begins. It’s one thing we will always try to do in the future. It helps you to know your film, too, no matter how carefully you have written it. The crew you selected to work on “ Mad Max’’ were also relatively inexperienced. Byron hinted that the reason for this was because he wanted people who were enthusi ast i c. Is that your feeling, too? Yes, although again we were constrained by the budget. We couldn’t be importing people from all over the continent. I did learn, however, that you don’t pick a football team by selecting the best players from every club, put them together and expect them to play extremely well as a team. Particularly when you have people who have worked on major international pro ductions, those who are straight out of college, and those who have worked in television. There is also an enormous diff erence between someone who has worked on a crew for Crawford’s television and someone who has worked for Grundy’s. To bring all these people together, to work as a cohesive unit, is a problem. It’s not insurmountable, but I think it’s something to which I’d give a lot more thought in the future. What I am talking about is setting down very clearly the protocol and the system of shooting. Essentially, that comes from the director. I think it’s one of the major jobs of a director,

unless he gets to the stage where he has a very tight crew that has developed together over a period of productive years.

you are on a set and directing a* film, your responsibility, finally, is to the audience. And when you are with a distributor selling a film, you are interested only in the Can this problem be overcome by audience. Some people say of this longer pre-production? attitude: “ T h at’s commercial cynical filmmaking’’. But it’s not. I am sure there is no such thing It’s making films to function in a as having too long a pre- society like every other sort of production. We pre-produced this entertainment. film for three months and we thought we had it down. But we If the starting point is the lost it after six days because of an audience, how do you develop an accident. It became very ad hoc. appreciation of that audience and Most nights I was up until 1 a.m. what it wants? trying to work out what we could shoot the next day. First, you don’t sit down and put a lot of formulas together, Did the disruptions leave any that’s cynical filmmaking and it scars on the film? never works. What you have to do is to process your observations Yes. When I look at Mad Max through your intuition — which is now I only see the bad things: the what a good actor does. A good good things stopped impressing actor watches the world; he is a me long ago. I am sure that applies voyeur, someone who perves on to any filmmaker. I remember the world, observes and processes being very encouraged when I those experiences through his read that George Lucas thought own personality. Star Wars had realized only 25 It’s the same with a filmmaker. per cent of his original vision. I The way you learn about films is was in London at the time they to look at box-office results, at the were shooting it, and the flak from technical problems of making a the production was terrible. film, read high psychology, and Everything was ballsed-up. So, listen to street talk. You have to who knows. get all that inform ation and I believe that good films are process it through your natural only made by a lot of planning and instinct — the creative instinct. care. And if you are meticulous, And you must watch film queues; maybe one day you will finally get you can learn a lot by watching to m ake a film in w hich them. everything satisfies your vision. A film is a comprehensive Are you going to confirm your process. There are three basic pre-conceived ideas about the elements to it. The first is the audience by testing “ Mad Max” concept of filming, in which I before it’s released? include screenplay. The second is the execution of the film, which Yes. includes financing, shooting, and post-production. The third is the Are you prepared to modify it if sell of the film. All these things you find that there is an adverse are highly integrated. You can’t response? divorce them, and if you are talking about cinema that’s related We did pre-test the film in a to audiences, then all these things rough cut, and I believe very relate back to them. s t r o n g l y in t h e p r o c e s s , When you sit and think of a particularly if you have something film, it’s the audience that like a comedy, where you can determines what you make. When accurately measure audience

A police pursuit car negotiates an obstacle in Mad Max.

reaction. A lot of people argue against it, but I believe it helps you cut your film. The soundtrack for “ Mad Max” is very powerful. The music and the effects are highly integrated. Did you have definite ideas on the soundtrack from an early stage? We tried to avoid too much dialogue in Mad Max. A film is sound and pictures, not talking and pictures. And on Mad Max we n e e d e d a very s t r o n g soundtrack involving motor cycles, cars and explosions. Most scenes were written for the sound; I think most good scriptwriters write for sound. When you write a script you know where you want the music, and the type you need. We had a lot of pressure to use rock music, but we always thought in terms of a gothic, symphonic Bernard Hermann type score. I didn’t believe that was available in Australia until I heard the score of Patrick at Richard Franklin’s place one night. I said to Richard, “ That’s one Bernard H e r m a n n score I c a n ’t recognize.” As it turned out it was the score for Patrick, which was recorded in Melbourne by Brian May. Brian wrote a big symphonic score for Mad Max — a score that was very difficult and challenging to the musicians. I understand he used some excellent musicians and he really stretched them to their technical limits — which gives the music a crazy sort of tension. It is a technique which was used by a lot of symphonic composers. It gives the music a strong edginess; it’s a superb score. Brian is a remarkable man. I have always associated him in the past with the ABC Showband, middle-of-the-road type music. But not many people in the world could produce that sort of stuff within the budget we had, and within that time. Also, he was suffering from pneumonia at the time, running high fevers at night. Brian is the kind of person who is going to make this industry. He is obsessed with his work. Working in a vacuum, hungry for i nformat ion, de t er mi ne d to produce the best he possibly can. Of the 200 or so people who had some input in Mad Max, maybe half a dozen or so have this quality — refusing to compromise. Some of them are not even credited on the film. Roger Cowland and Arthur Cambridge, from the Colorfilm optical department, are two of them. They refused to let things go that even Kennedy and I accepted. They are obsessed with their work. Talk to them for five minutes and you soon find out why. They absolutely love going to the cinema. ★ Cinema Papers, May-June — 371

W ANTED ARRIFLEX 35mm. CAMERA I f you have an Arri 3 3 M odel II C camera with motor, magazines, lenses, etc. in first class condition, we may be interested in buying it. I f you want to sell, please supply fu ll details o f all accessories together with the asking price to Val Musgrave, C S IR O Film and Video Centre, 314 Albert Street, East Melbourne, 3002. ’Phone (03)

419 1333•

JO HM IW W GROUP • AUSTRALIA

Distributing: Tiffen Filters Optical & Textile Accessories Alan Gordon (Swintek) CIR Splicers Stronghold Carrying Cases Permacel Tapes CP16 Sound Cameras Universal Tripods All Types of Lamps laniro Lighting Easton Rewinders Goldberg Split Reels Lee Lighting Filters Frezzolini Power Packs 3M Magnetic Tapes and Films Zoomar Kilfitt Lenses Tuscan Reels AKG Microphone Kenyon Dulling Spray Mignon 35mm Projectors HKS Viewers Manfrotto Stands Alfred Chrosiel Accessories Moy Numbering Machines Bauer 16mm Projectors A.C.S. Manuals and Subscriptions Angenieux Lenses Spectra Meters Cinemonta Editing Machines Lemo Connectors Acmade Pic Syncs P.A.G. Sound Film Recorders Trident Audio Mixing Consoles Triad Audio Mixers Fleximix Audio Mixing System Turner Microphones & Accessories M.T.M. Sound Film Recorders N.E.C. Cameras G.E.* Atlas‘ Sylvania* Philips Lamps, etc,

FILM & TELEVISION EQUIPMENT 105 RESERVE ROAD ARTARMON, NSW 2064 SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

ALL CORRESPONDENCE: PO BOX 199 ARTARMON, NSW 2064 AUSTRALIA

TELEPHONE: ( 0 2 ) 4 3 9 6 9 5 5 TELEX: 2 4 4 8 2

Managing Director;

John Barry. Rental;

Tom Clayton. Sales;

Bob Detheridge, Horst Warta, Roger Dornan, Don Balfour. Export;

Horst Warta. Electronic Components Division;

Peter Robinson.

SALES • RENTAL • SERVICE

ÌL'

Distributor

TITLE

BOX-OFFICE GROSSES V- ’

•

^ _

• .

PERIOD

15.10.78 to 6.1.79

7.1.79 to 17.3.79 SYD.2

MLB.

Total

Total PTH

ADL.

BRI.

Rank

SYD.

MLB.

PTH

ADL.

BRI.

Rank

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

(6/2) 46,190

(9)

78,085

(2/2) 16,848

4 5 9,773

30,482

152,286

(1 2/5) 145,130

58,298

(2) 32,898

32,898

(1*) 13,132

(1*) 8,725

21,857

(5) 18,295

18,295

(5/3) 41,344

38,742

119,265

GUO

9,335

(5) 18,604

18,604

M outh to M outh

824

(1) 1871

(2) 7190

9061

T h e G e ttin g o f W isdom

3 004

P a tric k

N e w s fro n t

(10*) 69,272

(4/6) 52,532

M o n e y M o vers

(3/6*) 56,126

(1) 2,172

T h e O dd A n g ry S h o t

HTS

Daw n!

B lu e Fin

T h e Irishm an

9,335

.......

(9)

N /A

18,295

31,306

(1) 824

(1*) N /A

N /A

(1) 3 004

(4) 21,176

(2)

N /A

(2) 20,092

(12)

N /A

293,793

212,374

261,834

105,662

Foreign Total0

3,842,938

3,069,615

1,723,681

1,000,498

1,004,172

10,640,904

Grand Total

3,981,468

3,175,277

1,723,681

1,018,793

1,035,478

10,934,697

• 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.

41,268

91,237

116,827

16,848

699,120

3,674,340

2,857,958 v 1,704,672

882,621

1,011,263

10,130,854

3,886,714

3,119,792

999,448

1,028,111

10,829,974

1,795,909

(1) Australian theatrical distributor only. RS — Roadshow; GUO — Greater Union Organization Film Distributors; HTS — Hoyts Theatres; 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 Australian Film Corporation; MCA — Music Corporation of America; S — Sharmill Films. (2) Figures are drawn ,rom C0Pital Cl*y and Inner suburban first release hardtops only.

BOX-OFFICE GROSSES

Cinema Papers, May-June — 373

138,530

Australian Total

(7)*

(5) -

(5/2) 39,179

■

CRYSTAL SYNC UNIT Convert your: NAGRA TANBERG

or UHER

TO CRYSTAL SYNC A com pact, lightw eight and accurate pilot-tone source.

PRICE: $270 Contact:

DUBBS & CO 66 CLARK ROAD, NORTH SYDNEY F o r fu r th e r in fo rm a tio n

(02) 92 0251

(02) 92 0252

Cambridge Film Productions

P T Y LTD

288 Coventry Street, South Melbourne 320$

Producers of TV commercials and documentaries. Telephone: (03) 699 6588, 690 2500

C O M F N N Y P R O M O T IO N S .

'8 M D IÆ R T IS IN G

T E L E V SIO N D G O J M E N M R I E S ..

Master~

- 8cD M M N

18-19 Horne Street Elsternwick Vic 3158 P.0, Box 238

Phone:

Color

(03) 528 1904

Special Introductory Offer 1 3 M YR1LE S I C R O R 1 /S N E S T 2 0 6 5 , Tel, 9 2 2 5 3 9 6 o r 8 8 7 - 1 1 5 5 f F b r o )

for Eastm ancolor w orkprints — in Process ECP2: $ 1 2 /1 0 0 ft (with 10% discount for 30 days) • Black and White Processing • Ektachrome Processing • ‘A’ and ‘B’ Roll Printing, Answer Prints and Release Prints

• Super 8 Duplicating — Super 8 Blow Ups to 16mm • 6 Plate Flat Bed Editing Table available For Hire

Camera operator....................................PeterMoss Wardrobe master..........................Bob Lloyd Cast: Takls Emmanuel, Wendy Hughes Negative matching............ Margaret Cardin Focus puller..................................David Burr Props master............................ RobertJones John Waters, Kris McQuade, Chris Hay Musical director....................... NathanWaks Clapper/loader.......................... Simon Smith Standby props................... Michelle Mahrer wood, Tony Llewellyn-Jones. Art director................................................ NellAngwin FEATURES Key grip.................................. Ross Erickson Stunt co-ordinator............. Peter Armstrong Synopsis: Set in Melbourne today, Kostas Costume designer..................... Anna Senior Asst grip................................. Robin Morgan Stunts..................................Peter Armstrong, concerns the love affaire between Kostas, a Make-up......................................... Jill Porter FOR THEATRICAL Gaffer...................................................... RobYoung Glen Davis, Greek, and Carole a middle-class Australian Hairdresser......................... Cheryl Williams Asst editor...........................JeannineChialvo Bob Hicks, divorcee. Divided by barriers of culture and Wardrobe master....................................Terry Ryan RELEASE Editing asst..................... Catherine Murphy Alan Doggett language they come together in what is a Wardrobe a s s is ta n t.............Melody Cooper Musical director................... Michael Carlos Scenic artists....................... Ivan Sofilkanic, sensitive love story and a story of the new Standby wardrobe....................... Robyn Hall Make-up..................................... Judy Lovell Billy Malcon multi-racial Australia. Props buyer........................................... DavidWhan Wardrobe asst.....................Ruth de la Lande Carpenter.............................. Danny Burnett Note: Unless otherwise stated, the films Asst props buyer................. Sally Campbell Props buyer.......................... Chris Webster Set construction..................... John Denton mentioned below are 35mm. Standby props........................................ Clark Munro Standby props............................ Clark Munro Title opticals.......................O.B. Productions THIRST Animal standby props..................Harry Zettel Special effects..................... Monty Felguth, Publicity............................ O.B. Productions Prod company........................................... F.G.FilmChoreography......................................... KeithBain, Chris Murray Unit publicist............................. MaryMoody Pre-Production Michael O'Reilly Productions Stunt co-ordinator............................ Alf Joint Studios..................... Fontana and Supreme Dist company................................ GUO Film Set dresser.......................... Sue Armstrong Set decorator.......................................... KenJames Mixed at...................................................AtlabSound Scenic artist............................. Bill Malcolm Distributors Carpenters...........................Peter Templeton, Laboratory............................................ Atlab Producer.............................Antony I. Ginnane Construction manager........................... KimHllder Glen Finch Laboratory liaison................James Parsons Director................................................... RodHardy Construction....................... Ken Hazelwood, THE MINISTER’S MAGICIAN Jo Robertshaw Length................................................. 95 min Scriptwriter..............................John Pinkney Paul Martin, Prod company........................................... F.G.FilmSet construction..................... Herbert Pinter Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Photography....................... Vincent Monton Danny Daems Title opticals..................... Optical & Graphic Progress............................ Awaiting release Sound recordist............................ Paul Clark Productions Standby construction............................. PhilWorth Unit publicists...................................... DavidSabine, Release date.......................... Cannes, 1979 Chirbury Investments Editor..........................................................PhilReidPainter..................................... Ned McCann Peter Welch Producer...........................Antony I. Glnnane Cast: Joanne Samuel, Lou Brown, Bunney Art directors............................ Jon Dowding, Unit publicist.......................................... DavidWhite Catering............................. Movie Munchies Brooke, John Bluthal, Vincent Ball, Brian Director.................................................. SimonWincer Catering.........................John & Lisa Faithful Jill Eden Laboratory............................................ Atlab Blain, Adam Bowen, lan Coughlan, Ralph Composer..................................... Brian May Scriptwriter....................... Everett de Roche Laboratory.......................... 1...........Colorfilm Laboratory liaison......................................JimParsons Cotterlll, Robin Gibbes, Belinda Giblin, Photography....................... Vincent Monton Exec producer..................... William Fayman Laboratory lia is o n ..................... Bill Gooley, Editor.......................................................... PhilReidLength................................................. 90 min Bernard Lewis, M argie McGrae, Eric Assoc producer.......................... BarbiTaylor Dick Bagnell Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Composer..................................... Brian May Oldfield, Stephen O'Rourke, Sonia Peat, Lisa Prod manager.............................. Jenny Barty Budget........................................... $830,000 Progress........................................................Inproduction Peers, Ross Piers, Martin Vaughan, Brian Exec producer.......................William Fayman Prod asst................................ Vicki Rowland Length............................................ 100 min Release date.......................... February, 1980 Wenzel, Julie Wilson, Marion Johns Assoc producer......................... Barbi Taylor Producer’s secretary............................. Ann Pierce Shooting stock................Eastmancolor 5247 Cast: Edward Woodward, Jack Thompson, Synopsis: A young girl Is puzzled by a 1st asst director....................... Tom Burstall Prod co-ordinator..................... Jenny Barty Progress............................ Awaiting release C harles Tingw ell, Bryan Brown, Rod sequence of strange events which occur 2nd asst, director.....................JohnHipwell Prod accountant................... Michael Roseby Release date.......................................... May,1979 Mulliner, Terry Donovan, Chris Haywood, during the days leading up to her 19th 3rd asst, director..................... Stuart Beatty Laboratory.........................................Colorfilm C ast: Judy Davis, Sam Neill, Patricia Alan Cassell. birthday, Slowly, and with growing horror, Continuity............................................ JoannaWeeks Length....... .................................... 100min Kennedy, Wendy Hughes, Robert Grubb, Synopsis: Based on the famous Boer War Shooting stock........................ Eastmancolor; she becomes aware of the celebrations Boom operator...........................................PhilStirling Max Cullen, Aileen Britton, Peter Whltford. Incident In which three Australian soldiers which her “ relatives" have planned for her. Panavision Prod accountant................... Michael Roseby Synopsis: A love story, based on the novel were court-martialled by the British army as Progress..................................Pre-production Still photography.........................Suzy Wood written by Miles Franklin in the 1890s, about p o litic a l sca p e g o a ts and w ere la te r Release date............................ January 1980 Catering................................. Keith Heygate a girl divided between the stirrings of executed. Synopsis: A political thriller of suspense THE JOURNALIST Best boy................................. Colin Williams passion and her need for self-fulfilment and intrigue. Prod company.......................Edgecliff Films Runners................................................ CraigEmanuel, Dist company...........Roadsnow Distributors Tony Shift GRENDEL GRENDEL GRENDEL Producer....................................... Pom Oliver Camera operator.................... LouisIrving THE LAST OF THE KNUCKLEMEN -Producers.........................Phillip Adams and SOMEONE LEFT THE CAKE OUT IN Director............................................... Michael Thornhill Focus puller......................................... DavidBrostoff Alexander Stitt Prod company.......... Hexagon Productions THE RAIN Scriptwriters................... Michael Thornhill, Clapper/loader............................ lan Jones Director, scriptwriter............ Alexander Stitt Dist company.......... Roadshow Distributors Edna Wilson Key grip....................................... NoelMudle Prod company......... Vega Film Productions Based on the novel by John Gardner Producer, director Asst, grip.............................................. Terry Jacklin Photography........................................... DonMcAlpine Producer................................... JohnWeiley Designer................................ Alexander Stitt and scriptwriter..................... Tim Burstall Sound recordist............................ Tim Lloyd Gaffer..................................... TonyHoltham Director and scriptwriter........... John Dulgan Composer............................. Bruce Smeatan Based on the play by John Powers Editor....................................... TimWellburn Electrician................................................. lanDewhurst Photography........................................... TomCowan Animation director.................. Frank Hellard Photography..............................................Dan Burstall Art director................................. Jenny Green Asst, editor.............................................. KenSallows Progress........................ Pre-production Principal animators............ David Atkinson, Sound recordist.................................... JohnPhillips Prod manager................................ Pom Oliver Sound editor............................ Terry Rodman Synopsis: A contemporary drama depicting Gus McLaren, Editor................... Edward McQueen-Mason Prod secretary............................................ SuArmstrong Negative matching............ Margaret Cardin the fleeting relationship between a onceRalph Peverill Art director................................ Leslie Binns Location manager.......................Brian Rosen Mixer..................................................... PeterFenton radical survivor of the 1960s and a French Recording studio............ A & M Studios P/L Composer....... -................... Bruce Smeaton 1 st asst director..........................Brian Rosen Costume designer........... Aphrodite Jansen political activist, set against the background Recording supervisor.................... Alf Bean Assoc producer................... Byron Kennedy 2nd asst director................................. Steve Andrew Make-up.....................................Jose L. Perez of the uranium issue. Laboratory.................................................VFL Prod co-ordinator................... Christine Suli Hairdresser........................................ UrsulaWertheim 3rd asst director.................................. Chris Maudson B u d g e t......................................... $550,000 Prod secretary.............................. Jenny Day Make-up asst............................................ LeoReyes Length......................................................... 90 min Continuity......................................Lyn Gailey Unit manager........................................ JamesParker Props buyer..................... Georgina Greenhill Boom operator..........................................JoeSpinelli Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor 1st asst director..................................... TomBurstall Special effects.................................... ConradRothman, Casting................................................... HilaryLinstead Progress...'........................ In production Continuity................................... JoWeekes, In Production Prod accou ntant......................... Pen ny Carl Chris Murray, Release date.......................Christmas 1980 Jill Taylor Still photography................... MikeGiddens Geoff Richardson Voices: Peter Ustinov, Keith Michell, Arthur Boom operator........................................ PhilSterling Stunt co-ordinator....................... Grant Page Runner................................................Rosslyn Hawke Dignam, Ed Rosser, Bobby Bright, Ric Stone, Prod a c cou n ta n t.................................. PattiScott Set construction............................. lan Dolg Focus puller.................................. David Burr Julie McKenna. Still photography................... Des Sheridan, Clapper/loader.............. Richard Merryman Unit publicist......................... LynThornburn Robin Copping THE BATTLE OF BROKEN HILL Studios..................... Cambridge, Melbourne Key grip.............................................. GrahamLietchfield Best boy................................. lan Dewhurstt Prod company.............Sagittarius Film and Gaffer..................................... Robbie Young Mixed at.................................................UnitedSound Runner.....................................Des Sheridan Television Productions Asst editor........................................Jo Lyons Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm Focus puller...................... Peter van Santen Producer, director Dubbing editor..................................... DeanGawen Laboratory liaison.................................... BillGooley Awaiting Release Clapper/loader.......................................... TimSmart and s c rip tw rite r....................................RobinLevinson Asst dubbing editor..............Shirley Kennard Length................................................. 98 min Key grip................................................ DavidCassar Photography.............................. Ray Bartram Shooting and Second editor............................................RonWilliams Asst grip....................................................PaulHolford Sound......................... Soundtrack Australia Costume designer...................... Anna Senior printing stock___Eastmancolor, Panavision Gaffer...................................... Stewart Sorby Prod manager.................................Max Slee Make-up and hairdresser.. Deryk de Nlesse Progress.......................................... Awaiting release Asst editor......................... KenSallows 1st asst director................................... Gerry Elder Wardrobe buyer....................... Marina Gray Release date........... Foreign: Cannes 1979, Dubbing editor... Edward McQueen-Mason ALISON’S BIRTHDAY Continuity.................................................. EilaHarris Domestic: August 1979 Standby wardrobe....... Robyn Schuurmans Asst dubbing editor...............Peter Burgess Script consultant..................Yvonne Graves Cast: Chantal Contouri, David Hammings, Catering................................................ KeithHeygate Prod company.........................David Hannay Assembly editor................ : . . Peter Burgess Costumes and props..................... John and Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm Henry Silva, Max Phipps, Shirley Cameron, Productions Mixer..................................................... PeterFenton Jacque Griffiths Rod M u llin a r, W a lte r Pym , R o b e rt Producer................................................. DavidHannay Transfers................................................. PalmStudios Wardrobe................................................ KevinRegan, Make-up................................... Ian J. Southby Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Thom pson, R osie S tu rg e ss, Am anda Director................................... Ian Coughlan Norma Pollard Special effects.........................................JohnBrock Muggleton, Lulu Pinkus. Progress............................ Awaiting release Scriptwriter.............................. Ian Coughlan Make-up................................Lois Hohenfels Stunt co-ordinator.................... DennisHunt Director of lighting............ Brian Bansgrove Cast: Jack Thompson, Elizabeth Alexander, Synopsis: A suspense thriller involving a Asst make-up................................Joan Petch Length..........................................................90 minSound recordist.........................................PhilJuddSam Neill, Carol Raye, Jane Harders, group of cultists. Wardrobe asst............................................ Jill Eden Gauge............ .......................................16 mm Editor...................................... Timothy Street M ichelle Jarman, Bud Tingwell, Penne Standby props....................... John Powdltch Progress........................................................ Inproduction Art director................................ Lu Kanturek Hackforth-Jones, Frank Wilson, Martyn Art director's asst..................... PeterKendall C ast: Margaret Atkinson, Harold Berrett, Prod designer.................................... RobertHilditch S an de rso n, Fiona S u lliv a n , M ic h e lle Special effects..................Geoff Richardson MY BRILLIANT CAREER Janet Brow, Anne Cole, Robert E. Cusenza, Composers................................. Brian King, Rupeena, Ron Mee Lee, Brian Anderson, Fight co-ordinator............ Graham Mathrick Gail Denton, Reg Dobay, Jeanette Drake, Alan Oloman, Fiona Coleman, Jodi Hanson, Wally Sullivan, Prod company.............. Margaret Fink Films Fight asst....................................... Matt Burns David Dudman, Fiona Guthrie, Awdrey Ian Coughlan Stuart Wagstaff, Jude Kuring, Ken Goodlet, Dist company............ GUO Film Distributors Karate stuntman.................. Richard Norton Hewlett, Julia Hill-Whittle, Maurice Howie, Exec producer............................ Ric Kabriel, Slim de Grey, Dennis Miller, Ray Marshall, Producer..................................Margaret Fink Set construction................................lanDoig, Trevor Johnson, Stuart Leggett, Robert Lind, John Sturzaker Ray Meagher, Frankie J. Holden, Ray Director............................ Gillian Armstrong Keith Handscombe Russell Manyon, Erik Michielsen, David Assoc producer............................... MichaelFalloon Bennett, John Foster, Margo Lee, Laurel Based on the Novel by Miles Franklin Studios...........................................Cambridge Norris, Mike Oleinikoff, Betty Percy, John Prod executive............................... JohnWall McGowan, Bill Redmond, Pamela Gibbons, Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Mixed at.................................................United Sound Rand, Jenny Randall, David Robertson, Lyn Prod manager................... Pamela Vanneck Beryl Cheers, Victoria Nicholls. Sound recordist....................... Don Connolly Laboratory............................................ Atlab Semmler. Prod secretary................................ SusanneNewell Synopsis: A wry comedy about a likeable Editor..................................... NIckBeauman Progress............................ Awaiting release Synopsis: A dramatized re-enactment of journalist. 1st asst director............................... MichaelFalloon Prod designer.......................Luclana Arrighi Cast: Gerard Kennedy, Michael Preston, the true events which occurred at Broken 2nd asst director.......................... PennieHill Prod supervisor.......................... Jane Scott Peter Hehir, Michael Duffield, Dennis Miller, Hill on New Year’s Day, 1915, when a 3rd asst director.___ ___Andrew Williams Prod secretary............... Helen Everingham Stephen Bisley, Michael Caton, Stewart Turkish patriot and an Indian butcher KOSTAS Unit manager and Continuity...................................... LindaRay Faichney, Steve Rackman, Sean Myers, declared war on Australia. Boom operator...................................... Jack Friedman Prod company..............................Kostas Film location manager................... ToivoLember Gerry Duggan, Ross Skiffington, Les James, Prod accountant.......................Venda-Sollars Productions 1st asst director..................... Mark Egerton Tim Robertson, Saviour Sammut, Margaret Still photography....................................KevinBroadribb, Producer................................... Bernard Eddy 2nd asst director.................. Mark Turnbull Buza, James Parker, Denise Drysdale, Helen BREAKER MORANT Jan Reid Director..................................................... PaulCox3rd asst director....................Steve Andrews Watts. Catering................................................... JohnFaithfull Continuity................................. Moya Iceton Prod company................... South Australian Scriptwriter.............................................LindaAronson Synopsis: Set in the outback of South Script asst....................................... Linda Ray Boom operator........................... Joe Spinelli Film Corporation Based on an original idea by Paul Cox. Australia, The Last of the Knucklemen is Best boy................................................. PaulMoyes Producer....................................... Matt Carroll Photography......................... Vittorio Bernini C asting............ M & L Casting Consultants the story of a gang of wild-cat miners. The Runner............................................... WayneNichols Children's dialogue Director.............................. Bruce Beresford Sound recordist......................................LloydCarrick boss of the gang is Tarzan who rules his Cameraman................................ KevanLInd Scriptwriters.......................Jonathon Hardy, coach................................................ MichaelCaulfield Editor....................................................... John Scott undisciplined, violent men by force. He is the Prod accountant................... Treisha Ghent David Stevens Focus puller.........................................RussellDority Art director........................ Alan Stubenrach last of the ’knucklemen'. Bookkeeper........................................... PamO’Neill Based on a play by Kenneth Ross Camera trainee.......................... Mark Owen Assoc producer....... Tony Llewellyn-Jones Key grip....................................... Ray Brown Photography......................... Don McAlpine Prod supervisor.......................Russell Hurley Still photography.................... David Kynoch Asst grip.................................................. RonCroft Sound recordist....................... Gary Wilkins Asst producer....................... Russell Hurley Animal/vehicle wrangler............ John Baird Gaffer..... ..............................Brian Bansgrove Editor...................................... Bill Anderson Prod a s s t........................... Judy Whitehead Saddle horse wrangler.......Harold Greensill Electrician.................................... Simon Lee Continuity..................................................AnnMcLeod Art director............................ David Copping Best boy....................................PaulGantner Composer...............................Michael C arlos, 2nd unit photography............ John Simpson Boom operator............................Ray Phillips Runner...,............................... Cathy Barber Special effects Assoc producer...........................Moya Iceton Prod accou n ta n t.........................SonyNaidu Camera operators............................... Louis Irving, photography........................................ JohnSimpson Prod manager.......................... Pat Clayton Peter Moss Still photography.................................. Julie Mlllowick O pticals.................................................. KenHoffman Prod secretary......................... Barbara Ring Focus puller.................................David Burr Runner................................................... Adele Sztar Asst editor..... ......................... Karl Kabriel 1st asst director.................... Mark Egerton Clapper/loader.............. Richard Merryman Clapper/loader................................... SandraIrvine Sound editor............................Timothy Street 3rd asst director........................ Kevin McKle Key grip................................. Ross Erickson Camera a s s t...........................................NinoMartinetti Editing asst........................................... PeterSeigl Continuity.................................. Moya Iceton Key grip..................................... JohnTwegg Grip.....................................................Graham Litchfield Negative matching................... Gordon Poole Boom operator................................Jim Currie Gaffer...................................................... BrianBansgrove Gaffer.........................................................RayThomas Musical director........................... Brian King Casting....................................Alison Barrett, Asst editor............................ Jackie Horvath Third electrix........................................ PaulMoyes Cinema Papers cannot and does not acc M ixer..........................................................PhilJudd S.A. Casting Make-up and wardrobe........... Carol Devine Generator operator....... . Sam Bienstock any responsibility for inaccuracies result Asst mixer.................................................. PhilHeywood Prod acco u n ta n t................Harley Manners Asst art director................................. PaddyRiondan Asst editor....................... Frans Vandenburg from w ro n g ly c o m ple te d or untyp Costume designer.................................... Bob Lloyd Wrangler..................................... Heath Harris Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Dubbing editor...................... ........ Greg Bell production survey details. Make-up................................................. LeslieFisher Runner........... ......................... Jenny Miles Progress.............................. Awaiting release Asst dubbing editor.............................. HelenBrown

Cinema Papers, May-June — 375

Composer................................................... BillMotzing SNAPSHOT Editor..............................John Clifford White FELICITY Based on the Prod manager..............................Pom Oliver Art director....................... Angus Cummings Prod company.........Australian International short story See previous issue. Exec producer.........................................GregTepper Film Corporation, Prod secretary..........................................SusiParker Happy Story by............................ Peter Carey 1st asst director....................... JuttaGoetze F.G. Film Productions 1st asst director..................... Mark Egerton Photography..........................Glenn Thomas MAD MAX Continuity................................................Jutta Goetze Dist company................................... Filmways 2nd asst director.................. Mark Turnbull Sound recordist................... Ken Hammond Continuity..............................Adrienne Read Boom operator................................ AnthonyCook Producer.......................... Antony I. Ginnane Prod company................................ Mad Max Editor.......................................Richard Clark Prod accountant.................................. JulietDarling Director.....................................Simon Wincer Boom operator.....................Jack Friedman Dist company............................... Roadshow Art director..................... Victoria Alexander Casting consultants.........M & L Casting P/L Scriptwriters.................................. Chris and Producer.............................. Byron Kennedy Still photography................Elizabeth O’Neil, Composer..................................... Peter Best Anthony Cook Director................................... George Miller Everett de Roche Prod accou n ta n t................ Geoff Cameron Prod manager........... .........Jllllan Nicholas Still photography................................. DavidWilliamson Camera operator................ Elizabeth O’Neil Photography....................... Vincent Monton Scriptwriters................James McCausland, Continuity............................ Jillian Nicholas Sound recordist..............................Paul Clark Catering...................................................John Faithfull George Miller Camera asst......................................... JulietDarling Boom operator................... Chris Goldsmith Editor.......................................... Phillip Reid Best boy..................................... PaulGantner Based on an original idea by George Miller Key grip........................................... AnthonyCook Casting................................ Robyn Gardiner Runner................................................. SandyBeach Production designer.................. Jon Dowdlng and Byron Kennedy 2nd unit photography.............. Anthony Cook Camera operator................... Glenn Thomas Focus puller..... ..........................Paul Murphy Opticals and Composer..................................... Brian May Photography...........................................DavidEggby Camera asst.......................... John Swaffleld negative matching___John Clifford White Prod manager.............................. Barbi Taylor Camera asst........................................ AndreFleuren Sound recordist.......................Gary Wilkens Key grip.......................................... Neil Head Mixer.............................. John Clifford White Prod secretary......................... Jenny Barter Key grip.................................... RossErikson Editors..................................................... TonyPaterson, Sound editor...................................Greg Bell 1st asst director........................ TomBurstall Gaffer...................................................... BrianBansgrove Cliff Hayes Unit publicist............................ Neil Overton Mixer........................................ Peter Fenton Electrician........................ GrahamLitchfield Mixed at...........................Swinburne College 2nd asst director.................................. JohnHlpwell Art director................................Jon Dowding Asst m ixer........................ Julian Ellingworth Asst editor............................ Vicky Ambrose of Technology. Composer............................................. BrianMay Continuity.................................................. JanTyrell Hairdresser.........................Penny Saunders Sound editor............................ Tim Wellburn Laboratory............................... Master-Color Assoc producer..........................................BillMiller Boom operator...........................................PhilStirling Title designer..............................PaulSoady Mixer........................................ Peter Fenton Prod co-ordinator..........................Jenny Day Laboratory liaison............ Andrew Johnson Casting co nsu lta n t.................. Barb! Taylor Mixed at................................... United Sound Make-up......................................................LizMichie Budget............................................... $2000 Unit manager............................ John Hipwell Still photography.....................................SuzyWood Laboratory.......................................Colorfilm Props buyer and Length................................................. 28 min Prod asst....................... Tom Broadbridge Prod a sst....................................... Ruth Rosh Budget....... ...................................... $30,000 standby props...................................... JohnCarroll 1st asst director........................ IanGoddard Shooting stock.................... Tri-x Reversal Best boy................................... Colin Williams Length................................................. 30 min Construction..........................................DanieDaems 2nd asst director................. Steve Connard Progress............................ Awaiting release Runners....................................Stuart Beatty, Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Publicity................................................SherryStrum Release date................................June, 1979 3rd asst director..................................... DesSheridan Vicki Rowlands Progress............................ Awaiting release GREECE: Cast: Jack King, Des Zanka, Peter Mills, Continuity......... ..................Shirley Ballard Camera operator.................................... LouisIrving Cast: Henri Szeps, Kate Ferguson, Martin Sound recordist............ Thanassis Arvantis Boom operator..................... Mark Wasiutak June Mills, Tim Kennon, Bob Grant Angus Focus puller.......................... David Brostoff Vaughan, Robert Hughes, Abe Worthington. Prod manager....................... Aspa Lambrou Cummings, Tony Cook, Pat Boone. Casting................................. Mitch Mathews 2nd unit focus puller.___ Peter van Stanten S y n o p s is : A c o u p le 's f a i lu r e to Location manager.........MiChalis Lambrinos Synopsis: A quasi-documentary on the' communicate, ending with a supposed Still photography.................... Chic Stringer Clapper/loader.............................. Ian Jones Asst director___ Yoannis Diamantopoulous Script supervisor.................. Shirley Ballard Jehovah's Witnesses movement. Interviews suicide. Key grip....................................... NoelMudie Boom operator........................ NikosAhladis Traffic supervisors................ Andrew Jones, with leading Witnesses on evolution and G affer............... Tony Holtham Best boy................................ Kostas Danalls Stuart Beatty sexual morality, illustrated in' short, visual Lighting Asst....................... Stephen Arnold Asst accountant..............Leda Androulikaki PORTRAIT OF A DIARIST stories, reveal the illogical fanaticism which Mechanics............................. Murray Smith, Asst editor............................ David Pulbrook Asst cameraman..................Nikos Paizanos Clive Rowell, their children are being conditioned to. Prod company......................... Portrait Films Sound editor.......................... David Pulbrook Props................................... Henry Kaloutas Robert Orchard Producer.............................. Ross Matthews Mixing..................................... United Sound Rushes synching...........George Trianafillou Best boy................................. Garry Plunkett Director and Art director................................Jon Dowding IN THEIR CROOKED MACHINES Driver..............................Thanassis Lagaros Clapper/loader.......................................... TimSmart scriptwriter....................................... LindaBlagg Costume/wardrobe......... Aphrodite Jansen Progress....................................... In release Prod and Camera asst........................ Harry Glynatsis Photography.............................. Russell Boyd Make-up...................................................Jose Perez Release date............................... April, 1979 Key grip............................... Noel McDonald dist company..............................Di Net Films Sound recordist............ . Kevin Kearney Hairdresser..............................................Jose Perez Producer, director, scriptwriter Asst grip................... ............ David Cassar Editor...................................... David Huggett Asst art director....................................... JillEdenCast: Michele Fawdon, Alan Cassell, Bryan and photography..............Diana Nettlefold Brown, Harry Michael, Anna Hruby, Bob Gaffer..................................... Lindsay Foote Prod designer................ ..... Grace Walker Special effects.......................... Chris Murray Sound recordist.......................... JohnErtler 2nd unit photography............................... TimSmart Prod manager....................... Barbara Gibbs Stunts..................................................... GrantPageHughes, Sophia Haskas, Sarah McKenzie, Opticals............................... Roger Cowland Editor................................... Diana Nettlefold 1st asst director......................................MarkTurnbull Length......................................................... 90 min Judy Stevenson, Bobbie Ward, Gerry 1st asst, director........................ Joh n Ertler Gallagher, Annibale Migllucci, Vic Rooney, Sound editor............................ Ned Dawson 2nd asst director....................Chris Maudson Gauge................... Anamorphic-Panavision Runner and grip............................... AndrewWinkler Frankie J. Holden, Jim Karangis, Kay Yates, Negative matching............ Margaret Cardin Continuity.......................... Therese O’Leary Progress............................. Awaiting release Kurt Jansen, Mathew Scerfield, Liz Marshall, Mixer....................................... Roger Savage Music and mixer.......................... John Ertler Boom operator................................. Andrew Duncan Release date...................................May 1979 Asst, mixer................................... Ann Stubs Lex Marinos, Mike Harris, Roy Corbett, Costume designer.....................Clare Griffin Casting consultants.........M & L Casting P/L Cast: Chantal Contouri, Sigrid Thornton, Laboratory............................................ V.F.L. Gareth W ilding-Forbes, Nicole B arrett, Make-up................. .................. Viv Mephan Best boy................................................. PaulMoyes Robert Bruning, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Denise Petros Printizis, Randy Costa, Bernadette Length'............................................... 27V2min Hairdresser.............. \ ................ Ben Taylor Runner............................ Stephanie Richards Drysdale, Vincent Gil, Jacqui Gordon, Peter Scarcella, Flavia Arena, Linda Newton, Wardrobe.............. Merran Kingsford-Smith Shooting stock....Eastmancolor 7247 Camera operator....................................NixonBlnney Stratford, Lulu Pinkus, Stewart Faichney, Arthur Dignam, Grant Dodwell, Steven Progress......................................... Awaiting release Props master.......................Richard Francis Clapper/loader................... Kim Batterham Julia Blake, Jon Sidney, Chris Milne, Bob Thomas, Tim Burns, Don Bridges, Willie Nettlefold; Jane, Asst art director.................. Steve Amezdroz Cast: Sam and Stuart Gaffer................................. Brian Bansgrove Brown, Peter Felmingham, Christine Amor. Fennell, George Velentzas, Rista Ninou, Special effects........................ Chris Murray Fiona, Michelle, Helen and Bruce Cutts; Asst editor..............................Kathy Sheehan Synopsis: A young girl, a madman, her Stella Yeromitsou, Maroula Rota, Yannis Stunt co-ordinator......................Grant Page John Ertler; Andrew Winkler. Sound editor.......................... David Huggett dreams, her fantasies. Finos. Synopsis: The parents of Sam and Stuart Stunts...................... Grant Page, Phil Bruck, Make-up............................................ Sally Gordon S y n o p s is : In 1 9 7 3 a G re e k -b o rn Gerry Gaustaa, George Novak, depart on a plane, leaving them to be Special effects In m ake-up.. Bob McCarron naturalized Australian, John Baikas, Je ft David Bracks, Chris Anderson, collected by a family who live on a farm. The Props and ward robe........................... Grace Walker TIM Sydney with his three year-old daughter, Dale Bensch, Terry Gibson, children become interested in the huge pea Asst art director......................... EdieKurzer Prod company............^ • Pisces Productions Maris, bound for Athens. He left the country Michael Daniels harvesting machines, and find one of the Catering............................... Jem’s Catering Dist company............ GUO Film Distributors with a forged passport for Maris, thus drivers drinking on the job. He is sacked Title designer................................. Bill Owen Laboratory........................................ Colorfilm Producer, director and removing her from the protection of an Title opticals................................ RayStrong and, in revenge, comes back to sabotage the Budget............................................... $42,000 scrip tw rite r............................... Michael Pate Australian court. This action launched an machines, but Is foiled by the children. Mixed at............................... A.A.V. Australia Length................................................. 55 min international manhunt and created world Based on the novel by Colleen McCullough Laboratory...................................... Colorfilm Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Photography............................ Paul Onorato headlines. Cathy Baikas knew nothing of Laboratory liaison........................ BillGooley Progress............................... Post-production INSIDE LOOKING IN Sound recordist.........................................LesMcKenzie legal loopholes and extradition treaties — Length................. ............................... 94 min Release date.................................June, 1979 Prod company.................. Hade Enterprises she only wanted her child. The film Is the Editor.......................................... DavidStiven Gauge................................. 35mmTodd-AO C ast: Lorna Lesley, Sam Neill, Martin in conjunction with story of Cathy’s (successful) attempt to be Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Art director................................. JohnCarroll Vaughan, Ian Gllmour, Judl Farr, Lou Brown, Swinburne Institute re-united with her child. Composer...................................... EricJupp Progress....................................................... Inrelease Jackie Dalton, Lisa Kidney. of Technology Assoc producer............. Geoffrey Gardiner Release date.......................... April 12,1979 Synopsis: A contemporary drama depicting Producer, director Prod manager....................................... BettyBarnard First released— East End One, Melbourne DIMBOOLA a young woman’s conflicts with her parents; and scriptwriter................. HannahDunne Prod secretary... Rosanne Andrews-Baxter Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh a love affaire at school; her marriage to her Prod company......................... Pram Factory Photography................................... Ivan Gaal Producer's asst..................Christopher Pate former teacher; their separation; and her Pictures (Management) Keays-Byrne, Steve Bisley, Tim Burns, Sound recordist..............Malcolm Patterson Unit manager................................Mark Piper Roger Ward, Vince Gill, Geoff Parry, David subsequent attempted suicide. Dist company............ GUO Film Distributors Editor.................................................. HannahDunne 1st asst director................... MichaelMidlam Producer................................... JohnWeiley Bracks, Paul Johnstone, Nick Lathouris, Continuity.......................... Margot Lethlean 2nd asst director................................. KeithHaygate Lulu Pinkus, Steve Millichamp, John Ley, Director................................................. John Duigan Boom operator..................... Jane Stapleton 3rd asst director....................... BenCardillo Johathon Hardy, Reg Evans, Max Fairchild, SOFTLY FELL THE RAIN Scriptwriter..............................................Jack Hibberd Consultant.............................................. PeterTammer Continuity..................................... Linda Ray Prod company................. LunarProductions Photography.............................. Tom Cowan Sheila Florence, Gil Tucker, Andrew Camera asst...................... NubarGhazarian Boom operator................... Andrew Duncan Gilmore, David Cameron, Howard Eynon, Producers.................................................Tom Broadbridge, Sound recordist........................ Lloyd Carrick Mixed by................... Sound Track Australia Casting................................................ FelippaPate Christopher Oliver* Editor..................................... Tony Paterson John Farndale, Nic Gazzana, Hunter Gibb, Titles...................................... Hannah Dunne Prod accountant..................................... LynBarker Brendon Heath, Peter Felmingham, Phil Director...........................Christopher Fitchett Art director.......................... Larry Eastwood Laboratory.........Victorian Film Laboratories Still photography............ Robert Moorehead Motherwell. Scriptwriters..................Christopher Fitchett, Composer............................ George Dreyfus Length................................................. 25 min Catering............................................... Jem’sCatering Synopsis: A preview of gladiatorial road Ellery Ryan, Assoc producers.......................John Timlin, Cast: Julie Gardiner, Peter Ford, Esster Best boy.................................................. TedWilliams culture a few years from now. John Ruane Max Gillies Naylor, Ron North rope, Peter Zeegers, Puchi Producer's secretary.............................. LynnHyem Photography...........................................ElleryRyan Prod manager............................ Vicki Molloy Dunne, Julian Dunne. Camera operator................................... FrankHammond THEODD ANGRYSHOT Sound re cord ist.................................... LloydCarrick Prod secretary.....................Laurel Crampton S y n o p s is : A young m arried wom an’s Focus puller......................................... DavidBrostoff Editor..................................... EmmilePriebe 1st asst director........... Walter Dobrowolski sudden vulnerability when frightened by a Clapper/loader.............. Richard Merryman See previous issue. Prod manager..........................................TomBroadbridge Continuity....................................................Jill Taylor prowler leads her to question male-female Key grip................................... RossErikson 1st asst director.......................... ChristopherOliver Boom operator...........................................PhilStirling relationships w ithin the context of her Asst grip................................................. PaulThompson 2nd asst director..............Andrew Freedman Prod accou n ta n t...................................Peter Keenan PALM BEACH middle-class outlook. Gaffer..................................................... DerekJones Continuity............................................ SadieLoosli Still photography.................. PonchHawkes Asst editor........................................ JoannaLynes See previous issue. Boom operator...................................... SimonBoyle Prod asst................................................. GregRicketson Sound editor..............................................TimWellburn THE ISLAND OF NEVAWUZ Still photography......................... John Ruane Catering..................... Richard Ford and Co. Costume/wardrobe..................... Pat Forster Prod company.............................. Fable Film Camera asst.............................................. PhilCross Driver....................................... Jim Edwards Make-up and hairdresser___Michelle Lowe For details of the following films see Productions Key grip.................................................RobertGrant Best boy................................................... SamBienstock Props buyer.......................... Barbara Gibbs previous issue: Producer and Special effects..................................... BrianPearce Focus puller............................ JanKenny Standby props..................................... PhilipWorth scriptwriter...........................Paul Williams Stunt co-ordinator.............................. GeorgeNovak Clapper/loader.................... Kevin Anderson The Captives Budget.......................................... $650,000 Animation......... ................... Gus McLaren, Stunts................................... George Novak, Key grip.................................................. PaulAmmitzbol Dawn I Length.............................................. 100 min Paul Williams Chris Anderson Gaffer........................................ Mick Morris Little Boy Lost Progress............................ Awaiting release Sound recordist.................................... JohnPhillips Length................................................. 50 min Costume/wardrobe.............................. RoseChong, Money Movers Release date................................ June, 1979 Music recording.......................... Wally Shaw Shooting stock............. Eastmancolor 7247 Margot Lindsay The Night The Prowler Cast: PiperLaurie, Mel Gibson, Alwyn Composer.. . . . '......................................AdeleSztar Progress......... ..................Post-production Make-up............................ Annie Pospischil Kurts, Pat Evison, Deborah Kennedy. Rostrum camera...................... Terry Russell Release date............................ June, 1979 Standby props............................ JohnKoning Synopsis: A love story of an older woman Sound editor............................ Paul Williams Cast: John Flaus, Bryan Brown, Chrlssle Set decorator.........................................Annie Browning and younger man. Negative matching..................... UrsulaJung James, Michael Carman, Peter Stratford, Budget......................................... $350,000 Music performed by.............. Priscilla Taylor SHORTS John Proper, Peter Curtin, Sue Jones, Length........................................ ........ 94 min Mixer..................................... Steve Edwards Carolyn Cassidy, Garry Metcalfe, Peter Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Track reading................................ Julie Bird Tammer, Jay Mannering, Sophie Murphy. Progress........................................................ Inrelease. Asst, animation................................. Maggie Geddes Release date................................. April, 1979 In Release Budget.............................................$40,000 Cast: Bruce Spence, Natalie Bate, Max Note: Unless otherwise stated, the films Length......................................................... 46 min TWO STEPS BEHIND Gillies, Dick May, .Tim Robertson, Jack mentioned below.are 16mm. Shooting stock— ................ Eastmancolor Perry, Irene Hewitt, Alan Rowe, Esme Producer................................... Wayne Levy Progress............................ Awaiting release Melville, Terry McDermott, Bill Garner, Kerry Director, scriptwriter CATHY’S CHILD Voices: Carole-Ann Aylett, Brian Hannan, Dwyer, Helen Sky, Paul Hampton, Evelyn and photography............................ NevilleStanley THE BOOK AND THE BRIEFCASE Hardy Stow, Ross Williams. Prod company............................... C.B. Films Krape, Val Jellay, Sue Ingleton, Laurel Frank, Sound recordists................................... JohnScales, Synopsis: A children’s, animated action Dist company...........Roadshow Distributors Prod company.......................... Coffee Films Claire Dobbin, John Murphy, Fay Mokotow, Neville Stanley Producers.........................Errol Sullivan and Dist company........................ Australian Film adventure film with an environmental theme. Clare Blnney, Max Fairchild, Phil Motherwell, Continuity............................ Narelle Dobson Dick Wordley Barry Barkla, Matt Burns, Frankie Raymond, Commission Gaffer and lighting.............. David Brockwell Director....................................Don Crombie Producer.............................................. JulietDarling Max Cullen, Chad Morgan, Sandra Evans, Title designer....................................... NevilleStanley LOW FLYING Scriptwriter.............................. Ken Quinnell Director and The Captain Matchbox Band. Length................................................. 10 min Based on the novel by Dick Wordley scriptwriter................ John Clifford White Prod company Window Productions Pty Ltd S ynopsis: A comedy that traces the Shooting stock............ Ektachrome reversal Photography............................ Gary Hansen Based on an original idea by John Clifford Producer............................... Glenn Thomas unusual social history of a small country Progress.......................................... |n release Sound recordist.......................... Tim Lloyd White Director................................ Ray Lawrence town over the three days that lead up to the Cast: Ros Chataway, Rush Rehm. Editor....................................... Tim Wellburn Photography....................... Elizabeth O’Neil Scriptwriters..............................Peter Carey, marriage of Maureen Delaney to Morrle Synopsis: The film traces the breakdown of Prod designer.............................. Ross Major Sound recordist.................................AnthonyCook McAdam. Ray Lawrence a relationship.

376 — Cinema Papers, May-June

•

1 •

Sound recordist............. Roland McManis THE WRONG HANDS Photography............................Alex McPhee Gauge.................................................. 16 mm FROM THE OCEAN TO THE SKY Editor......... .............................. Bill McCrow Prod company........... Armageddon Pictures Sound recordist................. Laurie Robinson Shooting stock................Eastmancolor 7247 Prod company....................... Michael Dillon Composers........................... Robert Lagettie, Producer................................ Elizabeth O’Neil Editor..................................Guye Henderson Progress........................................................ Inproduction Film Enterprises, Norman Wilkinson Director.................................................... PaulElliott Prod manager.........................Kate Faulkner Synopsis: A half-hour children’s television Hillary Films Lyrics......................................................... RodAnsell Scriptwriter............................................. PaulElliott Budget.............................................. $45,000 drama series about three children and their Dist company.......................... Michael Dillon Prod secretary.......................................PeggyLimb Director of Length..................................................60 min community on Falcon Island. The action Film Enterprises Additional photography..................Paul Tait, photography..............................................PaulElliott Shooting stock.......................... Kodak 7247 features several underwater adventures as Producers................................ Michael Dillon, Jan Kenny Progress................................. Pre-production Sound..................................Jacqueline Fine, the children try to find the site of an old Mike Gill Camera asst.......................... MichaelHarley Release d a te ................................July, 1979 John Elliott Dutch wreck threatened by a proposed Director and Asst editor............................... Chris Benaud Editor— ............................................ RobertMartin sand-mining venture that is also the subject scrjptwriter......................... Michael Dillon Mixer......... ............................ PhilHeywood Art director.................................................AdeBruch of an important local community debate. Photography.......................... Michael Dillon, WHO OWNS SCHOOLS? Re-recording......................... Dubbs and Co. Composers..................... William McDonald, Mike Gill, (And What are they doing about it? P u b licity................... Berry Williams Pty Ltd Richard Zatorski Warrick Attewell, PATROL BOAT Recording studios................................ Atlab Prod company........................ Media Centre, Prod manager........................... JuttaGoetze Prem Valdya, Prod company........................ ABC TV Drama Laboratory.........................................Colorfilm 1st asst director....................... Graham Irwin Canberra C.A.E B. G. Devare Length...............................................93 min Producer.......................................Ray Alehin Producer.......................................... Ian Hart 2nd asst director..................Gus Cummings Sound recordist..................Warrick Attewell Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Directors.................................. Frank Arnold, Director........... ................................Ian Hart Continuity....................... Danny Ozscrienski Editors......................................Denis Delany, Gauge..................16mm (blow-up to 35mm) Rob Stewart, Scriptwriters............................................DeanAshenden, Still photography......... Christine Woodcock Roger Whittaker Progress...............................Post-production Russ Webb Best boy................................ Peter Armstrong Ian Hart, Scriptwriters.............. -.......... James Davern, Release date.......................................... July,1979Composer............................................... DavidCalder Runner....................................... Rigmor Berg David Swain Mixer............................ Alasdair Macfarlane Cast: (as themselves) Rod Ansell, Luke Tony Morphett, Photography................... John Houldsworth Camera operator...................................... PaulElliott Narrator.................................. Ian Johnstone Peter Schreck Sound recordist..........................Alan Walsh Focus puller........................... Andy de Groot McCall, Rupert Wodidj, Raphael Thardim, Titles..................... Optical and Graphic P/L Photography............................ Peter Hendry Joanne Van Os. Editor..................................................|an Hart Clapper/loader....................... Lucy Maclaren Length................................................. 50 min Sound recordist.................. Sid Butterworth Synopsis: In 1977, Rod Ansell had an acci Art director................................................ RonJubb Gaffer...................................................... SlugJones Shooting stock......................... Eastmancolor7247 Editors..................... Richard Francis-Bruce, dent while fishing in the remote Queen’s Composer................................................ GregClift Electrician......... ................ Michele Bolton Release date......................................... March1979 Neil Thumpston, Channel off the coast of northern Australia. Special effects Prod manager....................................... LibbyHughes Synopsis: Sir Edmund Hillary and a team of 1st asst director................... Leisa Simmons John Hollands He paddled up the Fitzmaurice River until he photography.............................................. DeeWoods adventurers travel by jetboat and foot along Continuity.......................... HeleneJamieson Art director..........................Laurie Johnston Sound editor............ ................. PeterHarper found fresh water; he was rescued two the entire length of India’s sacred River Prod designers................................... NeaveCatchpool, months later. Basically, a story of survival. Still photography............... HeleneJamieson Negative matching.................... Ursula Jung Ganges. The ascent of a magnificent 19,000 Focus puller...........................Peter Shannon Graeme Gould The events are recreated by the people Music performed by........William McDonald, ft peak culminates their trip — from the Composer............................ Bruce Smeaton involved in the lo ca tio n s w here they Key grip..................................... BillRedpath Richard Zatorski ocean to the sky. Prod managers................................... MichaelBaynham, occurred. Electrician............................................... LesWhaley Mixer.......................................Steve Edwards Dennis Kiely Asst editor.......................... HeleneJamieson Costume designers....................... John and Prod co-ordinator.................................... JoyTrinder Negative matching..................... Don James Paul Elliott IN SEARCH OF A LANDSCAPE Unit manager............................................. ValWindon Musical direction....................................... Glo Audio Special effects...................................... DaveStaley Producer, director Music performed by................................Bmce 1st asst directors................................... RayBrown, Stunt co-ordinator.................................... SlugJones and scriptwriter............ .. Hannah Dunne Peter Wilson Mixer................................ Julian Ellingworth Stunts.................................................... DaveJones Photography............................................. Ivan Gaal DOCUMENTARIES 2nd asst directors................... Dave Tunnell, Make-up................................................ MainMcGregor Carpenter............................ ' Vincas Lukaitis Sound recordists........... Malcolm Patterson, Jim Freeman Animation.............................................. Main McGregor Title design................................ Graphix Inc. Margot Lethlean Continuity.............................. Carolyn Gould, Title designer............................................ RonJubb Catering....................................... Jacqueline Hanrahan Editors.................................. Hannah Dunne, Julie Nelsen Studios..................... IMC Studios, Canberra Laboratory.............................. Victorian Film Boom operator.......................Michael Breen Jane Stapleton, Mixed at................................... United Sound Laboratories C asting....................................Jennifer Allen Leigh Tilson Labratory................................ Colorfilm/Color THE AUSTRALIAN NUMERICAL Budget................................................ $8500 Continuity.............................. Jane Stapleton Still photography................... Martin Webby Transcriptions Length..................................................20 min METEOROLOGY RESEARCH Titles..................................... Hannah Dunne Technical adviser.................................... AlunEvans Length.................................................40 min Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 CENTRE Length................................................... 7 min Catering..................................... Alexandra’s Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Progress.................................... In production Prod and CSIRO Film and Cast: The Modern Dance Ensemble. Camera operator............... Danny Batterham Progress............................ Awaiting release Release date............................ August 1979 dist gompany............................ Video Centre S yn o psis: A docum entary on modern Focus puller................................ JeffMalouf Release date................................ April 1979 C a s t : B r id g e t A r c h ib a ld , R o h a n Producer............................ Nick Alexander dance. Clapper/loader............................ DaveEvans Cast: John Beynham, John Walker, David Chipperfield, Gin Ramone. Director.................................................... Alice Bugge Key grip..................................... AndyGlavin Swain, Liz Ferguson, Judi Buyers. Synopsis: A grim cautionary tale, set in the Phqftography..................... Roger Seccombe Gaffer..................................... Jack Kendrick Synopsis: Where education is concerned, bleak urban sprawls of an industrialized Sound recordist.......................Lloyd Carrick ORANGES AND LEMONS 2nd unit photography..................Kevin Lind, everyone is an expert, everyone has an future. A lonely, alienated young girl finds a Editor........................................................Alice Bugge ' JohnWinbolt Prod companies................. Algonquin Films, opinion about what should be done, and cylinder of deadly chemical waste gas and Technical advisor................. Dr Bill Downey Asst editors.......................Adrianne Overall, Swinburne College they expect other people to do it: teachers, brings it back to her housing block as a Narrator..................................Olivia Hamnett Peter Townend, Director............................... Margot Lethlean politicians, parents, children, the community. plaything, with terrifying consequences. Length................................................. 11 min Jenny Couston Photography.......................................... Nigel A film to get people arguing about respons Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Sound editors...................................... HelenaHarris, Sound recordist................ Nubar Ghazarian ibility in education. Progress................................. Inrelease Lindsay Frazer Editors................................ Margot Lethlean,. Release date............................... March 1979 Sound assts........................Tony Kavanagh, . Peter Tammer For details of the following films see the Synopsis: By the use of mathematical Mark Darcy Graphics..................... Swinburne Graphics previous issue: m o d e llin g , th e A u s tra lia n N u m e ric a l Negative matching..................... Rosie Dodd Department For details of the following films see the previous issue: Meteorology Research Centre investigates Music performed by................... Melbourne Length................................................. 16 min the p hysica l m echanism s underlying Symphony Orchestra Shooting stock Ektachrome 7240 and 7250 After the Wind weather and climate changes, and plays a Mixer....................................... GethinCreagh Release date..................... December, 1978 A Boy on the Wing major role in improving the accuracy and Energy and Agriculture Make-up.................................................... BobWasson, Synopsis: A documentary on the early Cigarettes and Matches Fight that Fire time-scale of weather forecasting. Liz Michie education of Aboriginal children. It suggests Every Girl’s Dream Rebirth of Steam Wardrobe masters............Caroline Suffield, that in the face of insensitive attitudes and No Fear Sharking Bridget Graham white value judgments, conventional edu Saint Therese THE COUNTRY EDITOR Propsbuyers............................ ErnieJones, cation will further undermine Aboriginal Prod company................................Rob Brow Bill Booth culture. • Standby props....................George Zammitt, Productions for Jack Dyer Film Australia TELEVISION SOLAR ENERGY Set construction.............. Stan Woolveridge Dist company..................•...;. Film Australia SERIES Studios...........................ABC Forest Studios Producer................................ Peter Johnson Prod company................... Filmwest Pty Ltd DOCUMENTARY FEATURES Length........................................ 1 3 x 5 0 min Director.......................................... Rob Brow Dist company..................... Filmwest Pty Ltd Gauge................................................. 16mm Scriptwriters.......................... Noel Field and Director.......................................... Jon Noble Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Geoff Taylor S criptw riter.......................... Keith Flanagan FALCON ISLAND Release date....................... Ju ne 4,1979 at Based on an original idea by Noel Field Photography................................. Jon Noble 8.30pm on ABC TV Photography.............................. Peter Sykes Prod company.............. Excalibur Nominees Sound recordist................................... WayneHarley STALLION OF THE SEA Cast: Andrew McFariane, Robert Coleby, Sound recordist..................... Ian Jenkinson Pty. Ltd. Editor................................................. MaureenKeast Danny Adcock, Tim Burns, Rob Baxter, Judy Editor........................................ David Hipkins Dist company— Australian Children’s Film Producer, director Composer............................ Peter Levy Morris, Tony Wager, Margo Lee, Martin Foundation (Perth Composers....................................... Cobbers Exec producer...................................... PeterClark and scriptwriter....... ..... John C. Fairfax Harris, Angela Punch, Pauline Callega, Chris Prod manager....................... Robert Kewley Institute of Film Inspired by.................... Paulette McDonagh Assoc producer....................... Wayne Reed Bell, Maria Mercedes, Grant Dodwell, Chris Prod secretary....................................... Nola and Television) Photography..... ............ John C. Fairfax Prod manager..............................John Gerelli Haywood, Sonny Blake, Lulu Pinkus, Camera asst........................... Robert Powell Sound recordist.............................. Cliff Curl Prod secretary...................... Julieanne Mills Producer...................................... Judith West G ra h a m R o u s e , T o n y B a rry , N o n i Director.................................. Peter Maxwell Key grip ................................. Tony Sprague Editor....................................... TimWellburn Camera asst...................................... WayneHarley Hazelhurst, Max Cullen, Phillip Parnell, Nick Gaffer— >:............................... Brian Adams Key grip.................................. Darryl Binning Scriptwriters...........................Joan Ambrose Musical director................. Michael Lawler Magasic, Dennis Linehan. Electrician................................ Brian Adams & Ron Bunney Stills photography...............Warwick Gibson Gaffer..................................... Darryl Binning Based on the Synopsis: The episodes reflect the action 2nd unit photography........... Barry Malseed Prod facilities......................... George Pallos Asst, editor................Carolien van der Gaag and drama of young naval men involved in Editing asst................................ Felicity Cox original idea by.......................Joan Ambrose Aerial effects...........................Peter Walker Editing asst...............Carolien van der Gaag the vital work of surveillance, search and Music performed by......................... Cobbers Negative matching............... MaureenKeast Script editor................................. Moya Wood Special effects.................. Edwin Jay Gould rescue in Australian waters, as well as the Title designer.............................. Ray Strong Special assts............................................ IndyShriner, Musical director.......................... Peter Levy Photography............................................ JohnSeale personal dramas of the crew and those Laboratory............................................ V.F.L. David Kopsen Music performed by.................... Champagne Sound recordist....................... Don Connolly associated with them. The series was made Length................... ......................... 25 min Editor.......................................David Rapsey Underwater assts..................... John Lindsay, Animation............................ Chris Lancaster in co-operation with the Royal Australian Gauge................................16mm and-35mm Art director.......................... Owen Paterson v Dale Chapman Laboratory........................................... FilmlabSeven Navy. Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Additional photography......... Simon Cotton, Budget................................................$20,000 Exec producer....................................... PaulBarron Progress..'............................ Post-production Prod manager___Rosanne Andrews-Baxter Walter A. Starck Length................................................. 15 min Prod secretary.............................. Dixie Betts Synopsis: A week in the hectic life of the Shooting stock..................................... 7247 Special advisers................... Blake Paul, PRISONER editor of a country newspaper, TheBoortand Printing stock......................... Eastmancolor 1st asst director.................................... JohnBeaton Charlie Chambers Prod company............................ The Grundy 2nd asst director................................. GlendaHambly Quambatook Standard Times, and the Lab liaison...................... Nell Lutherborrow Progress.........................................In release Organization in flu e n ce the paper and the e d ito r’s Release date.......................... February 1979 Continuity............................ Caroline Stanton Laboratory......................... Atlab Producer..................................... Ian Bradley remarkable personality has on the life of the Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Synopsis: The film is a self-sell docu Boom operator..................... Ian McLoughlin Directors.............................. Graeme Arthur, town. Length..................................................93 min mentary for Solahart waterheaters. It is Casting........................................ Judith West Gary Conway, Budget............................................ $88,000 heavy on the energy crisis and ecology and Prod accountant..................Joan Greenwall Rod Hardy, Progress............................ Post-production shows the wastage of the main source of the Dialogue coach........................................JoanFarrell DEATH OF A SHIPYARD Brian McDuffie, world’s energy — the sun. It was shot in a Runner.................................................. CraigBrent-White Synopsis: A story of a black marlin gameProducer.................................... Peter Green Godfrey Philipp Focus puller.........................................Jeremy Robins variety of locations — Marble Bar in the fish with a character of will, determination Photography.............................. Mike Rogers, Scriptwriters............................ Reg Watson, north-west of Australia (the hottest recorded Clapper/loader........................................ JohnOgden and stamina similar to that of a wild stallion. Peter Green, Ian Bradley, Key grip....................................... MikeEwen place in the country), Singapore and Perth The film is told and seen from the marlin’s John McKeough Michael Brindley, (W.A.). It traces the history of the use of solar Asst grip........................................Dan Martin point of view, related througn the dramatized Sound recordist..................Mike Sutherland Denise Morgan, power from Archimedes 274 B.C. to the Gaffer.......................................... Mike Ewen voice of a ‘spirit’ that returns to tell the story Editors....................................... Peter Green, Marcus Cole, Underwater cameraman.......Hugh Edwards ultimate use as a domestic power source. of a fight with a gamefisherman. Peter Lawrance Ian Coughlan Asst editor.................................... Kirstine Hill Research............................. Frank Campbell Based on the Sound editor........................................ DavidRapsey Budget............................................... $5000 original idea by...........................Reg Watson asst................................. Robert Bull SOME OF OUR AIRMEN . . . ARE NO Editing Length..................................................35 min Prod designer— Ian Costello, Mai Nicholls Make-up................................................. LindaSanderson TO FIGHT THE WIND LONGER MISSING Shooting stock................ Ektachrome 7240 Composer.............................. Allan Caswell Wardrobe mistress........... Linda Sanderson Prod company............... Richard Oxenburgh Progress..................................Pre-production Exec producer..................... Godfrey Philipp Prod company......................... Nomad Films Wardrobe asst............... SuzanneMoustaka Productions Pty Ltd C ast: B ill P arfitt, John Spence, Ray Prod manager........................Valerie Unwin International Pty Ltd, Standby props..........................................DickBristow Dist company..................................Artis Film Sowerby. , Prod co-ordinator................ Natalie Barfield Andromeda Productions Pty Ltd Special effects........... Suicide Incorporated Productions Pty Ltd Synopsis: A documentary study of Whyalla Prod secretary........................... Pam Pearce Producer and Stunt co-ordinator........................Peter West Producers......................Richard Oxenburgh, in 1978. The closure of the shipyard and its Continuity and director................................Douglas Stanley Catering.................................................. AnnRatazzi Rachel Percy effects on the lives of three men are Directors’ assts............................ Pam Inglis, Based on the Laboratory.......................................Colorfilm Scriptwriter.............................. Rachel Percy examined in the light of the indifference of original idea by..................... John Clive, Julie Bates, Budget.......................................... $175,000 Photography............................. Keith Loone the Government and BHP. Douglas Stanley Length.......................................... 5 x 3 0 min Juliana Focht

Cinema Papers, May-June — 377

ROZELLE STUDIO

FOR HIRE i------------------------------------------ -----i

4,000 square feet. Cyke dimensions: 40’ high x 20’ long x 19’ high

16mm Cameras, CP16 Reflex, Arriflex 16BL, All are available with Single System M ag Stripe Modules, 25 or 24 fps. Crystal Controlled, Tripods, Lenses, Lghting & Radio Microphones.

For Bookings Phone Irene on: (03)4896011 A fter Flours: (0 3 ) 26 7275

Lemoc Films (australia) Ply. Lid 6 Craigmore Street, East Malvern,

Facilities include:

Home economist’s kitchen Dark room Board room Make-up room Large access to studio

FROM FEATURED PLAYER THROUGH TO ‘SPECIAL’ EXTRAS

For bookings phone: (02) 82 4003

(and all stops in between!)

John Morton, John Gocking

SUITE 2 609 ST KILDA ROAD, MELBOURNE (03)529 1595

18 Moore Street, Rozelle, NSW 2039

P R O D U C T IO N S * 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

COMPUTERISED E S -8 PROCESSING OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL SUPER 8 EKTACHROME 7244, 50 AND 200 FOOT CARTRIDGES 24

HOUR SERVICE

1 st Floor, 2 0 Thomson St., Sth Melbourne 3 2 0 5

ROD PASCOE is y o u r MIXER/SOUND RECORDIST IN

ADELAIDE A LL TOP E Q U IP M E N T INCLUDING M A G N A TEC H . Q U A D EIGHT. 16 -17-5-3 5m m . T R A N S FER . PO ST S YN C . M IX IN G T ELEP H O N E (08)798288 OR (08)3324966 8 W AR R EG 0 CRESCENT, LINDEN PARK SA.5065

MediaVision Australia 9 LEICESTER AVENUE, GLEN WAVERLEY, VIC., 3150 PHONE: (03) 233 5375

Our latest generation M agna-Tech

high speed rock &roll re-recording system is now installed and operative.

Casting................................................Suzette Jauhari, PRODUCTION INVESTMENTS ni'u . , . Kerry Spence Ross Dimsey, Needles, $236,614. Still photography........................... Ray Hand Catering. .........................Anne Dechaineux Michael Edols, When the Snake Bites the Sound editors..................... Garry Hardman, Sun. $200,000. Tony Kolodziejczyk Shotton Productions, Water Under the Music performed by.............. Lynn Hamilton Bridge, $200,000. Wardrobe master.............. Jennifer Carmen Props buyer............................ j an Foggarty Perth Institute of Film and Television Standby props.......................... David Smith additional investment for Falcon Island. Set construction..................................... PeterBarbuto $4000. Publicity.......................... Felicity Goscomb, PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS George Wilson Gauge.......................................... Video-tape Kennedy Miller Entertainment Pty Ltd, Progress........................................................inrelease Release date................... 27 February, 1979 Cast: Kerry Armstrong, Elspeth Ballantyne, Robert Bruning Productions, $80,920. Carol Burns, Patsy King, Val Lehman, Margaret Laurence, Richard Moir, Colette Richard Brennan, $37,365. Mann, Barry Quin, Sheila Florance, Peita Toppano, Mary Ward, Fiona Spence. Synopsis: A serial based around life in a women's prison.

$102,100.

Victorian Film Corporation For details of the following television series see the previous issue: Stax

GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS Australian Film Commission PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BRANCH Projects approved at the Australian Film Commission meeting in November, 1978:

Multi-Track Mixing in 35mm, 17.5mm & 16mm.

Synchronisation may be altered on any track while running.

SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT/RRE-PROOUCTION INVESTMENTS Graham Gifford, an additional $4400 for The Airline that Nobody Wanted. John Meagher, funding for a first draft script of Centaur, $2600. Patti Crocker, for an extended treatment of Shoemaker’s Children, $3500. Tasmanian Film Corporation, funding for a first draft script of Manganinnier, $2700. PROJECT BRANCH LOANS Melbourne Access Video and Media Co operative Ltd., industry assistance, $130,000. Projects approved at the Australia Rim Commission meeting in January, 1979: SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT/PRE-PRODUCTION INVESTMENTS Peter Yeldham and Betty Barnard, for a first draft script of Stella, $5000. Gary Jackson, for a second draft script of Sulphide Street $4000. Maurice Wiltshire, for a first draft script of Disaster Man, $5000. Roy Stevens and Alan Seymour, for a first draft script of O Love O Loneliness, $5000. PRODUCTION INVESTMENTS Children’s Film Corporation Pty Ltd, Fatty Finn, $140,000. Stan May and Geoff Pike, Golightly, $250,000. Antony I. Ginnane, Thirst $200,000. Crawford Productions Pty Ltd, The John Sullivan Story, $67,500. Aranda Productions Pty Ltd, The Bush Bunch, $33,723. PROJECT BRANCH LOANS Open Channel Productions, bridging loan for the children's television series Stax, $148,000. MARKETING LOAN Rim House Productions Pty Ltd, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, $50,338. Projects approved at the Australian Rim Commission meeting in February, 1979: SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT/PRE-PRODUCTION INVESTMENTS Pisces Productions Pty Ltd, for a final draft of A Waltz Through the Hills, $4000.

VICTORIAN FILM LABORATORIES (03)8180461

Darrell Lass, for a second draft script of Chooks, $4500. Charles Stamp, for a first draft script of Tarquin, $4800. Bunney Brooke, for a first draft script of Trumbo, $4000. James Ricketson, for a second draft script of Special Friends, $3500. Michael Jenkins and Carl Schultz, for a first draft script of Ninety Eight $6800.

CHILDREN AND THE LAW Exec producer..................... Kent Chadwick Length................................................. 20 min Progress.......................................... Scripting Release d a te ................................July, 1979 Synopsis: A docum entary set in the children's courts about the problems faced by children when confronting various legal situations. Produced for the Department of Social Welfare.

CHILDREN AND SAFETY Exec producer..................... Kent Chadwick Len9fh.............................................. 4 x 5 m in Progress.......................................... Scripting Release date................................ July, 1979 Synopsis: A series of four films on children and safety in the home. Produced for the National Safety Council, Victorian Division.

FRESHWATER FISHING IN VICTORIA Exec producer..................... Kent Chadwick Length................................................. 20 min Gauge................................................. 35mm Progress........................................... Scripting Release date..................... December, 1979 Synopsis: A documentary about the fishing resources of Victoria’s rivers and the need to conserve them. Produced for the Department of Conservation (Fisheries and Wildlife Division).

GIPPSLAND LAKES Prod company.......Australian Broadcasting Commission Progress..............................Post-production Release date..................... September, 1979 Synopsis: A documentary, for television release, on the Gippsland Lakes region. P ro d u c e d fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t o f Conservation.

TAPESTRY WORKSHOP

LITTER

Prod company..................... Perfect Pictures Dist company.. Tasmanian Film Corporation Director..................................... paul Jansen Producer..................................Damien Parer Scriptwriter....................... Judith Colquhoun Director and Photography..............................................IvanHexterscriptwriter......................... j aCk Zalkalns Editor....................................................... TimLewis Photography............................Chris Morgan Length. ............................................ 10 min Sound recordist..................... Peter McKinley Gauge................................................. 35mm Prod designer......................... Jock Chalmers Release date................................. April, 1979 Prod manager........................ Sherry James S y n o p s is : A docum entary about the Continuity............................ Adrienne Elliott Victorian Tapestry Workshop and the art of Camera asst..................... John Jasiukowicz tapestry making. Produced for the Ministry Mixer.......................................Peter McKinley for the Arts. Grip........................................ GaryClements Set construction.......................... Don Evans Length................................................. 15 min WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE Progress........................................................Inproduction Exec producer..................... Kent Chadwick Synopsis: A satirical anti-litter film in which Length................................................. 20 min Australians compete in a national contest to Progress................................. Pre-production be crowned Australian king or queen of Release date.................................June, 1979 “ Litter” . Produced for the Department of the Synopsis: A documentary about careers for Environment (Tas.). women in a changing workforce. Produced for the Premier's Department (Women’s Affairs Division). MARINE RESOURCES Dist company.. Tasmanian Film Corporation Producer,.................. ...........Damien Parer The VFC has invested in the following Director................................... Roger Lupton projects: Scriptwriter........................ Charles Woolley Photography..................... Russell Galloway FEATURE FILMS Sound recordist.............. John Schieffelbein David Baker and Ross Dimsey, Needles, Editor................................Mike Woolveridge $150,000 Asst editor................................Posie Jacobs Camera asst..................... John Jasiukowicz TELEVISION Grip..................................... Gary Clements Shotton Productions, Water Under the Length................................................. 20 min Bridge, $200,000 Progress.............................................. Editing Synopsis: A review of the harvesting and Armstrong Audio Visual, three Television potential of Tasmania’s marine resources. plays, $60,000. Produced for the Tasmanian Fisheries Crawfords, Young Ramsey, $162,500. Development Authority. SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT Franco Cavarro and Alan Hopgood, Clement, $3400. Mary Wilton, Needs Must, $4000. John Duigan, Teaming Up, $3000. William Pitt and John Martin, Shenandoah, $ 1000 . Yenan Productions, The Man from Snowy River, $10,500. Chris Lofven, Krabs and the Karboys, $6500. Bud Tingwell, 5,4,3,2,1, $1500.

Tasmanian Film Corporation

MOTOR CYCLE SAFETY Dist company.. Tasmanian Film Corporation Producer...................................... John Honey Director................................... Sherry James Scriptwriter..............................Steven Collins Photography............................ Gert Kirchner Sound recordist........................ Paul Clarke Editor........................................ Kerry Regan Asst editor.............................................. PosieJacobs Prod manager..................... Louise Sanders Camera asst..................... Russell Galloway Mixer....................................................... PeterMcKinley Grip........................................................ GaryClements Length................................................. 20 min Release date................................April, 1979 Presenter............................................ StewartFaichney Synopsis: A system of basic techniques of motor-cycle control and defensive riding. P ro du ce d fo r the Tasm a nia n P o lice Department.

NORTH WEST COAST CONVENTION TASMANIA

Prod company................................... Al Et Al Producer........................................ Alex Stitt Length................................................... 8 min Gauge................................................. 35mm Progress................................Pre-production Release date................................ July, 1979 Synopsis: An anim ated film fo r the Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation ‘Life. Be In It’ program.

Dist company.......................Tasmanian Film Corporation Producer................................. Damien Parer Director and scriptwriter................................ John Bale Photography................... . Russell Galloway Sound recordist.............. John Schieffelbein Prod manager..................... Louise Sanders Mixer.....................................Peter McKinley Length................................................. 15 min Progress................................... In production Presenter............................ Kate Fitzpatrick Synopsis: A docum entary, prom oting Tasmania as a venue for Convention delegates. Produced for the Department of Tourism.

Dist company.. Tasmanian Film Corporation Producer..................................... John Honey Director................................... Jack Zalkalns Scriptwriter.............................. Roger Lupton Photography............................ Chris Morgan Sound re c o rd is t....................... Paul Clarke Asst editor................................Posie Jacobs Prod manager..................... Louise Sanders Camera asst..................... Russell Galloway Grip..................................... Gary Clements Boom operator..................John Jasiukowicz Length................................................. 15 min Progress................................... In production Presenter................................ Peter Cundull Synopsis: A documentary promoting the North West coast of Tasmania. Produced for the Department of Tourism.

LIFE GAMES

GLIMPSES

SAFETY IN THE FOREST

LIFE. BE IN IT

Dist company.......................Tasmanian Film Dist company.. Tasmanian Film Corporation Prod company.........Ian McRae Productions Corporation Producer.................................... John Honey Producer................................... AndreaWay Producers.............................. Damien Parer, Director................................... Jack Zalkalns Director.......................................................IanMcRae John Honey Scriptwriter.......................... John Patterson Scriptwriter.......................... Kent Chadwick Directors.................................. A. Matterson, Photography........................................... Chris Morgan Photography........................ Keith Wagstaff B. Pierce, Sound recordists......................................PaulClarke, Sound recordist.......................... GeoffWhite J. Bale, Russell Galloway Editor.................................. Brett Southwick D. Nettlefold Editor......................................... Kerry Regan Exec producer..................... Kent Chadwick Photography........................................RussellGalloway, Asst editor................................. Posie Jacobs Length................................................. 15 min Gert Kirchner Prod manager..................... Louise Sanders Release date.............................. April, 1979 Sound recordists................................. PeterMcKinley, Continuity............................ Louise Sanders Synopsis: A documentary about enjoying Paul Clarke Camera a s s t................... John Jasiukowicz yourself. Produced for the Department of Camera asst..................... John Jasiukowicz Grip....................................... Gary Clements Youth, Sport and Recreation ’Life. Be In It’ Grip....................................................... GaryClements Length................................................. 20 min program. Length.......................... ............ 20 x 5 min Progress................................Post-production Progress.................................. In production Cast: Tony Clark and other forestry industry MEMO MELBOURNE Presenters.............................. Judith Storey, workers in the south-east cape area of Prod company.............. Bilcop and Copping Suzannah Fuchs Tasmania. Director............................ David Bilcock jun. Synopsis: Magazine items on aspects of ; Synopsis: A documentary outlining the Photography...........................Peter Bilcock Tasmania. Produced for the Department of basic techniques and attitudes to forest Sound recordist..................... Russell Hurley Tourism. safety. Produced for the Department of Editor.......................................... Peter Lamb Labour and Industry (Tas.). Length................................................. 12 min LAND USE Release date............................ March, 1979 Dist company....................... Tasmanian Film S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta r y a b o u t Continued on P.392 Corporation M elbourne’s industrial and commercial Producer............................. .. Damien Parer resources. Produced for the Department of Director.......................................... John Bale State Development Decentralisation and Scriptwriter.......................... John Patterson Tourism. Photography............................Chris Morgan Sound re c o rd is t............ John Schieffelbein THE PORT PHILLIP PILOT SERVICE Prod manager..................... Louise Sanders Camera asst..................... John Jasiukowicz Exec producer.................... Kent Chadwick Mixer.......................................Peter McKinley Length................................................. 20 min Length................................................. 15 min Progress............................................Scripting Progress................................... In production Release date................................ July, 1979 Presenter............................Stewart Faichney Synopsis: A documentary about the Port Synopsis: A documentary on the conflicts Phillip Pilot Service, its history and its role in . and lack of planning in land usage. Pro the operation of one of Australia's major d u c e d fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t o f th e ports. Produced for The Marine Board. Environment (Tas.).

Cinema Papers, May-June — 379

In principal photograph?

Compiled by Terry Bourke

BRITAIN

USA During the first quarter of this year, 22 features from major studios and more than 32 independent films were shooting or in post-production in the USA. This is an increase of four and five respectively for the same period last year. Late 1978 starters included director David Lowell Rich’s Airport—Concorde ’79 (Alain Delon), and Gary Nelson’s $18 million Black Hole (Maximilian Schell) for Walt Disney Studios, the company’s biggest budget film' to date. Nelson di rected the successful Paramount mini series Washington Behind Closed Doors. Steve McQueen finally started his long-cherished western saga Tom Horn, but after 10 days shooting, William Wiard took over directing from James Guerico (Electra Glide in Blue). Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Close Encounters) is wrapping his comedydrama 1941 (starring Ned Beatty, Toshiro Mifune, and Christopher Lee); John Huston (The Man Who Would Be King, Winter Kills) has started the feature Wise Blood; Robert Wise is supervising titles on Star Trek, The Movie; Hal Ashby (Bound for Glory, Coming Home) is shooting Being There (starring Peter Sellers). Ted Kotcheff (Wake in Fright, Duddy Kravitz, Who’s Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?) has finished North Dallas Forty, and has joined Warner Bros on a multiple-film deal; Lindsay Anderson (If, O Lucky Man) is in Hollywood to prepare “ a sweeping romance in India” for Orion Pictures-Warner Bros; Arthur Hiller (Love Story, Silver Streak) to make Southern Comfort, a comedy for United Artists, with Robert Wise as executive producer. Graeme Clifford, ex-Sydney editor (The Man Who Fell to Earth, Con voy), to direct EMI’s $3.4 million Tiger Man Nine in India mid-year; Francis Ford Coppola has confirmed that the longawaited Apocalypse Now will have its world premiere on August 15. Recent assignments: Bob Fosse (Cabaret), All That Jazz (New York); Robert Aldrich (The Choirboys), No Knife (starring Gene Wilder); Norman Jewison (F.I.S.T.), And Justice for All; Stuart Rosenberg (Cool Hand Luke), The Amityville Horror (starring James Brolin); J. Lee Thompson (Guns of Navarone), Cabo Blancho (starring Charles Bronson); Paul Morrisey is directing a $5 million science-fiction version of Attack of the 50-foot Woman. Writers: John Milius (The Wind and the Lion), Extreme Prejudice for Peter Guber (producer of The Deep, Midnight Express); Abby Mann (Judgement at Nuremberg, Ship of Fools), Act of Vengeance for Warner Bros and director William Friedkin (The Exorcist, Wages of Fear); Colin Higgins (Harold and Maude, Silver Streak, Foul Play — made his debut as director on Foul Play), The Man Who Lost Tuesday for Para m ount; B rian T re n c h a rd Sm ith (Deathcheaters, Stunt Rock), Time Warp for Walt Disney Productions; Bo Goldman, Melvin and Howard (about Howard Hughes’ fake will) for Universal and director Jonathon Demme. Clint Eastwood will get a $3 million up-front salary and 10 per cent of the world gross on his next film Escape from Alcatraz, with Don Siegel directing (Dirty Harry, Charley Varrick); Michael 380 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Cimino (The Deer Hunter) had a lateApril start planned for United Artists’ The Johnson County War, starring Christ opher Walken and John Hurt, shooting in Hollywood. Andrew McLaglen is directing Roger Moore in Esther, Ruth and Jennifer for MCA-Universal, an oil rig hijack drama, with Elliot Kastner producing, and Tony Imi as cameraman. Tony Bill, actorproducer (Steelyard Blues, The Sting) directs My Bodyguard with Don Devlin (The Exorcist) producing; Ted Post (Hang ’Em High, Go Tell the Spartans) directs Memoirs of Hecate County, penned by Wendell Mayes (Spartans, In Harm’s Way). James Guerico, the original director on Steve McQueen’s Tom Horn, is back as producer of Hamster of Happiness, a family comedy with Hal Ashby. (Bound for Glory, Coming Home) directing Robert Blake and Barbara Harris. Alan J. Pakula (Klute) is supervising post-prod uction on Paramount’s Starting Over (starring Burt Reynolds, Jill Clayburgh and Candice Bergen). Sydney Lumet (Pawnbroker, The Hill, Wiz) is producing and directing Just Tell Me What You Want (starring AN MacGraw and Alan King). Paul Mazursky will direct Willie and Phil; Franklin Schaffner, Sphinx; Gordon Wiilis, Corky; Hy Averback, Glak; Milos Forman, Hadrian VII; Hal Needham, Ten-Four; Peter Hyams, The Hunter; Liliana Cavani, Loving Offend ers; Henry Jaglom, Sitting Ducks; Jan Kadar, Freedom Road; John Landis, The Blue Brothers; Michael Preece, The Prize Fighter; Harry Hurwitz, Remake; Melvin Frank, Lost and Found; Jeannot Swarc, Bid Time Return; David Cronen berg, The Brood; Dorn De Luise, Villain; Joan Micklin Silver, Chilly Scenes of Winter; Paul Schrader, American Gigolo; Sydney Pollack, Electric Horse man; Joel Oliansky, Macho Man; Tommy Wright, Hurry Tomorrow; Daniel Petrie, Resurrection; Robert Ellis Miller, Balt imore Bullet; Cash Baxter, Last Resort; Robert Moore, Columbia’s Chapter 11 (written by Neil Simon); Martin Davidson, MGM’s Captain Avenger; Menahem Golan, International Independents’ The James Family; Blake Edwards, 10; Gilbert Cates, The Last Married Couple in America; James Goldstone, The Day the World Ended; Marshall Brickman, Simon; Joseph Ruben, Gorp; Ken Russell, Altered States; and Peter Yates, Breaking Away. Bob Rafelson (Five Easy Pieces) is d irectin g Brubaker for Twentieth Century-Fox in Ohio, with Robert

Redford starring in the title role as an Ohio State Prison inmate. European cinematographer Bruno Nuytten (Bronte Sisters) makes his American camera debut. Jerry Lewis is back, again directing himself, Susan Oliver and Harold J. Stone in Florida with Hardly Working. Lewis' last film was One More Time (1971). Michael Apted, who directed Dustin Hoffman, Vanessa Redgrave and Helen Morse in Agatha, is directing Coal Miner’s Daughter in Kentucky, Tenne ssee, with Sissy Spacek and Tommy Lee Jones in the leading roles. Alan Parker (Midnight Express) will delay his three-film deal with Twentieth Century-Fox to direct Hot Lunch for MGM in New York mid-June. The story is set in a New York school for performing arts, and is the work of young American writer Chris Gere. Australian presence in the USA has been highlighted by the initial box-office returns on two Peter Weir films, Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Last Wave, which have secured Weir a development contract with Warner Bros to direct a" film; Fred Schepisi (The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith) has been signed for an Avco Embassy romance-drama Bitter Sweet; Brian Trenchard Smith (as reported elsewhere in this column) is writing a script at Disney Studios; and A d e la id e ’s Robert Stigw ood has announced a four-film $17 million program for the next two years. Australian writer-director Philippe Mora (Mad Dog Morgan) has aban doned plans for his “ black hole” film, now that Disney Studios are spending $18 million on their space epic, and has also shelved plans for his re-make of the classic For the Term of His Natural Life, now being tackled by ABC-TV in Sydney as a mini-series. Mora, however, is making his third compilation docu mentary The Times are a’Changing, to be p ro d u ce d by David Puttnam (Casablanca Filmworks — The Deep, Midnight Express, Agatha), covering the 1960s in the USA. Mora’s first two docu mentaries Swastika and Brother Can You Spare Me A Dime were worldwide cinema successes. Richard Lang (television’s Kung Fu) is directing Charlton Heston and Brian Keith for Martin Ransohoff’s Wind Run, described as a “fast-paced western”. Ransohoff, one-time head of Filmways, when that company had many major film successes, plans two more films this year, and says he has lined up startdates and finance for three major films next year.

Richard Donner’s Superman II, Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining and Herbert Ross’ Nijinsky were shooting in Britain as 1979 got into full swing. Only six other features were in the country’s main studios when the first quarter ended, although seven features (includ ing the latest Bond opus) were being made in far-flung locations. Pinewood Studios is busy with Super man II; Bear Island (Don Sharp); The World is Full of Married Men (Robert Young); and Nijinsky (Herbert Ross — who is signed to shoot Thorn Birds for Warner Bros in October, with Robert Redford starring, and locations likely in Australia). Kubrick’s The Shining (starring Jack Nicholson) is at EMI Elstree; Shepperton Studios has Saturn 3 (writer-director John Barry resigned after three weeks); and Titanic, (directed by William Hale), starring David Janssen, (and not to be confused with Sir Lew Grade’s version of the CJive Cussler best-seller Raise the Titanic). Twickenham Studios’ sole production is The Bitch (directed by Gerry O’Hara), starring Joan Collins, in a follow-up to her successful The Stud (with Oliver Tobias — Luke in the Nine Network TV series Luke’s Kingdom). Films being shot on location flying the British flag are Roman Polanski’s Tess (on which cameraman Geoffrey Unsworth died just before Christmas) in Normandy, Brittany and Paris; the James Bond epic Moonraker (Lewis Gilbert directing) in Brazil, France and Italy, with special effects at Pinewood; the comedy Porridge (Dick Clement), in Essex; Hussy (Matthew Chapman), starring Helen Mirren (Age of Consent; The Tempest (Derek Jarman), at Stoneleigh Abbey and Bamborough Castle; Radio On (Chris Petit), London and Bristol. Fred Hift, longtime London-based publicist, who has been associated with some Australian films at recent Cannes festivals, has moved to New York to become head of advertising and publicity for Columbia Pictures. Set to boost the production rate in April were Dino de Laurentiis’ space fantasy Flash Gordon, on which Mike Hodges replaced Nicholas Roeg as dir ector; and Yesterday’s Hero, a football drama directed by Neil Leifer for busy producer Elliott Kastner, starring Ian McShane and Lesley Ann Warren. Otto Preminger is in London preparing Human Factor for a July start

Director Herbert Ross with actress Leslie Browne during the shooting ofNijlnsky. Ross has been signed to shoot The Thorn Birds for Warner Bros.

INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION ROUND-UP

Later productions will include Ten Days That Shook the World, with a London base for writer-actor-director Warren Beatty; and Richard Quine dir ecting Fu Manchu, in which Peter Sellers plays the title role and also that of Fu Manchu’s longtime adversary Detective Nayland Smith. Producer Charles Schneer and dir ector Desmond Davis plan European locations for Clash of the Titans, in the vein of Schneer’s successful Sinbad and Atlantis films; Richard Lester is busy on post-production for Cuba; John Schiesinger is preparing Honky Tonk Free way (having completed Yanks); Stephen Frears, who was to have directed Hammer’s cancelled Vampirella, is d ire c tin g Black Lion Film s’ Red Saturday, starring Peter Clarke and Richard Thomas. Latest attempts to build England’s first three drive-ins have been temporarily halted in courts by community groups in Wolverhampton, Leicester and Notting ham, where Apollo Drive-ins have been seeking council building permits and exhibition licences. The community groups cited historical, cultural and traffic problems in their petitions, and said the weather aspects should have been enough to deter the Apollo group. Further court battles are imminent. Producers Michael Klinger (Shout at the Devil, Tomorrow Never Comes) and son Tony are setting up production offices in Los Angeles to widen their American horizons, but will still operate the major activities of their long-estab lished London office. N Nicholas Roeg (he was in Australia in 1961 to direct Walkabout) is to direct the $2.5 million suspense-thriller Illusions for producer Jeremy Thomas. Shooting starts late March for 10 weeks on locations in England, Austria, Morocco and New York, with Art Garfunkel and Theresa Russell (Last Tycoon) s ta rrin g . Thom as, who produced Mad Dog Morgan (director Philippe Mora) in Australia four years ago, had The Shout (starring Alan Bates) recently in release in Australia. Scum, directed by Alan Clarke, and starring Ray Winstone, was completing out-of-London locations at the end of March, and attempts were being made to have post-production speeded up so the film can be marketed at Cannes in earlyMay.

FRANCE Domestic production slackened in France last year, and was about 15 features down on the previous year. However there were more foreign pro ducers in France for location shooting and post-production in the main studios of Paris and Nice. With eight features shot in the first three months of this year, and 12 definite start-dates already announced, French production looks set to pick up considerably. Again, foreign producers are to the fore. Claude Lelouch (A Man and a Woman and the disappointing Another Man,

Another Chance) is wrapping Canadian locations on An Adventure for Two, (starring Catherine Deneuve), after shooting in Spain and France. Washing ton and New York sequences will com plete the French-Canadian production. Lelouch has not decided on a title for his next film in France, but says it is “a fast thriller” . Alain Delon is .likely to star. Francois Truffaut, Claude Chabrol and Louis Malle are developing three separate projects, but only Truffaut is likely to go before the cameras this year. Malle may accept producer Lou Hyland’s Hollywood offer to direct the romancedrama Sonny’s Sister. Walerian Borowczyk, the 54-year-old Polish director (Immoral Tales, The Beast) has premiered his French-fin anced Three Heroines in Paris, and plans a June start on Lulu in Berlin and Paris. Academy Award-winning director Jean-Jacques Annaud (Black and White in Color) has completed his second film Le bourrin, set amid today's inter national soccer world, starring Patrick Dewaere. Cannes ’78 Palme d’Or winning dir ector Ermanno Olmi (L’albero degli zoccoli) has been resident in Paris for several months researching material for his next film, based on the life of Leo Tolstoy. He expects to finalize a script by mid-July and shoot in October. Universal Pictures^producer Jennings Lang (Earthquake) utilized more than 70 French technicians for key Paris airport sequences in Airport ’79 — Concorde during a five-week shoot by director David Lowell Rich. After the French stint, the American crew resumed location shooting in W ashington and Los Angeles. Polish director Andrezej Wajda (The Wedding, Innocent Sorcerers) is expected to visit Paris mid-year to dis cuss plans for a French-financed version of the controversial love-drama Mother Morning for Gaumont Films. Wajda has abandoned plans for Eromis, because of “ budget and religious problems”. Philippe de Broca (That Man From Rio) says his latest film, Le cavaleur, is “ my most serious effort to date” . Jean Rochefort and Annie Giradot star in the drama centred on a womanizing pianist’s attempts to find a new lifestyle. Annie Giradot also stars in Andre Cayette’s tale of a love triangle, L’amour en question, with Bibi Andersson also in a leading role. Most of the film is shooting on southern provincial locations. Dien Bien Phu is the title of writer Herve La Marre’s $5.6 million war drama to be filmed in the Philippines, France, Corsica and Scotland in August. La Marre will direct and co-produce with Adolphe Viezzio (Planfilm, Paris), and plans to use a 40-man crew from France and Britain, supplemented by 30 Filipino technicians for the major battle sequences. Elie Chouraqui to direct, Mon premier amour; Andrezej Wajda, The Girls of Wilko (in Poland for Moliere-Paris Pro ductions); Jean-Luc Godard, Bugsy Siegel; Costa-Gavras’ Clair de femme; ^nd Claude Miller, Java.

‘

NOWIN PRINCIPAL PHOTOGRAPHY

ROD STEIGER ANGIE DICKINSON Í.ORNE GREENE BARRY MORSE JEFF EAST-,N» N< : ■! ¡ n o o v

*i«mmmcw mtu ru> rk.j»ikxH kin*;m avy k

ITALY CANADA Everything points to a busy year for filmmakers in Canada. Three features got under way in January, with five in February, and four in March. Of these, seven were English-language, and four involved foreign co-productions. After the worries of 1977, highlighted by indecision and executive in-fighting in the Canadian Film Development Cor poration, the industry feared the worst for 1978. However, by the end of the year, 28 features had been completed. Toronto is the mecca for Canadian filmmakers this year. At the start of the year three features were being shot simultaneously, including the CBC-TV production Another Love, starring George Peppard, Joseph Bologna and Lee Remick. Delbert Mann (Marty, Dark at the Top of the Stairs) is directing for producer Alan Lansburg. The film will be televised in the USA, but get a cinema release elsewhere in the world. The second of the Toronto-located films is Yesterday, with Claire Pimpare making her debut under the direction of Larry Kent for Dal Productions. The third is Double Negative, starring Michael Sarrazin, Susan Clark and Tony Perkins, directed by George Bloomfield for Quadrant Films. Two weeks of Caribbean locations are scheduled to complete the seven-week shoot. Tony Curtis stars as a boxing promoter in Title Shot, directed by Les Rose (Three Card Monte) in Montreal. Susan Hogan co-stars. The producer is Rob Iveson. British independent producer Harry Alan Towers (Rocket to the Moon, Marrakesh, and the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu films) has set up a $4 million production of Klondike Fever for shoot ing in Canada mid-year. He is preparing a script based on author-adventurer Jack London’s logbook on a journey to the Klondike for the great gold rush in 1898. Universal Studios (Hollywood) is joining with private Canadian investors to

ffW V&fMMBERt'TnfltL OSmTfKH','IKUVBOfftM SNGU; ti s»nreommskwrai wni tm t

| t

|ll

finance the $6 million drama Silence of. the North, starring Ellen Burstyn, with Toronto’s Allan King directing the film on North Manitoba locations. King previous ly helmed Who Has Seen the Wind? Director George Medeluk will take his thriller Stone Cold Dead to Cannes in May, following a rushed post-production schedule. Richard Crenna, Belinda Montgomery and Paul Williams star. The finale to The Changeling in Van couver became a fiery spectacle as a fire spread and razed the film ’s main $100,000 set. George C. Scott and wife Trish van Dere star in the $6.6 million occult-thriller being directed by Peter Medak. The destroyed set was a specially-constructed old mansion which in the script is damaged by a “special effects” fire.

MENBIENPHU

THELAST

Matthew Barry and Jill Clayburgh in Bernardo Bertolucci’s La luna, now shooting in Italy.

Italy is recovering from a year of legal battles in the film world. Copyright writs, production shut-downs on films affected by lack of funds and union harassment, court hearings on monies going out of Italy by stars and producers, and several court decisions banning at least five Italian films were some of the problems. While foreign producers use Italian laboratories, dubbing studios and editing facilities, there is likely to be a drop in the number of films shot on location in Italy during this year. Many producers are now wary of siting projects in Italy owing to the court rulings on money coming into or going out of the country. Local production has got off to a good start, especially for the brothers Paolo and Vittorio Taviani (the directors of the Cannes '1 7 success Padre Padrone). The Tavianis, who take turns to direct alternate shots in their films, are putting finishing touches to their new film II prato (The Lawn), starring Isabella Rossellini, Ingrid Bergman’s daughter. Mario Masini is again cinematographer for the Tavianis, and Ennio Morricone will score. Bernardo Bertolucci is directing Jill Clayburgh, Matthew Barry and Alida Valli in La luna (The Moon) for Twentieth Century-Fox on location in Italy. Bertolucci (The Conformist, Last Tango in Paris, 1900) is also producing the new film, which centres on an intense relationship between an opera singer and her 15 year-old son. Director Giuseppe Colizzi, the man who brought Terence Hill and Bud Spencer together for the first of their six films, has died at the age of 53 from a heart ailment. A nephew of the famous Luigi Zampi, Colizzi abandoned westerns in 1973 and spent three years in tele vision before returning to the big screen with a saga of a failing television station, Switch, which he admitted was inspired by Network. Producer-director Moustapha Akkad will use Rome studio sets for the interiors on his $8 million Omar Mukhtar —Lion of the Desert, after months of location shooting in North Africa. The majority of finance is from Italian sources. Anthony Quinn, Irene Papas, Oliver Reed and Raf Vallone star in the desert epic. The script is by H. A. L. Craig, who died earlier this year, a few weeks after completing the screenplay. Craig previously wrote Messenger of God for Akkad. Sergio Corbucci is directing Giallo Napoieano (Atrocious Tales of Love and Revenge) on Italian locations, with Marcello Mastroianni as a mandolin strummer eking out a living as he travels from town to town. The musician is involved in a series of mysterious murders, and becomes a prime suspect to police, but a danger to the real killer, and is pursued by both. Other features: Mario Monicelli to direct, Hurricane Rosy; Gillo Pontecorvo, The Tunnel; Alberto Bevilaqua, II grande respiro; Vittorio Gassman, Armonia; and Michelangelo Antonioni, Suffer or Die. ★ Cinema Papers, May-June — 381

Ask

26th

ALAN JAMES

SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL

about the

E.c.p.2

35 mm — 16 mm Print Processor To be installed in our new second storey building extension in April

The W orlds New Films jV

... ... . *"V'.

¿iI -f I I I

; ~

;

Gala Opening Night |

B»

•

,-c-

. • .VVV

JUNE 15

■■■■

■

' Hr

• •

Evening of New French Rims @

JUNE 20

-***.•

•

■

Evening of New Spanish Films JUNE 27

Af*w '*h

-h . />, P P |i |i & \ ■ \ •• ; •

E V

Greater Union Awards

X FILM LABORATORIES PTY. LTD.

(03) 528 6188

.#?'>-

J ill ‘ > \i*7***** f ■ ‘ / ' 1 ■ ■■/* ... J

FOR AUSTRALIAN SHORT FILMS /'[ '■ y / *■ j~f ■'

v j? •’

Film Forum ’79 FILMMAKER DISCUSSIONS •

-v .

'n f f s

y -

-*> -

;

■ y :

International Year of the Child I RETROSPECTIVE and FEATURE JUNE 18 •H

y ,

***?'c' r

' BOX 4934 GPO SYDNEY 2001 telephone 660 3909 CABLES SYDFEST

STATE THEATRE JUNE I5 3 0

MAD MAX Geoff Mayer In 1955 James Stewart went after the man responsible for the death of his kid brother in The Man From Laramie. But when he finally cornered Arthur Kennedy, Stewart relented and let the villain go. The following year, a similarly obsessed John Wayne worked through an entire film (The Searchers) tracking down Natalie Wood with the intention of killing her. But in a moving climax, he too relented, swept her into his arms and told her, “ Let’s go home, Debbie” . G radually, how ever, as the gap between the traditional values held by society (e.g., justice and morality) and the ability or even interest, of society to subscribe to these values is enlarged beyond the point where they could be reasonably reconciled, the hero began to follow through his obsessions. The audience was then treated to a series of bloody retributions. This cycle of films, however, peaked with Charles Bronson’s war on an entire city in Death Wish (1974). The George Miller/Byron Kennedy film Mad Max is essentially part of this formula, although the pattern takes a little time to develop. Instead of Monument Valley, Miller and Kennedy superbly exploit thé barren areas around the out skirts of Melbourne, where run-down Mad Max (Mel Gibson) and his partner Goose (Steve Bisley), members of the elite police force charged with maintaining order on the roads in

Mad Max.

buildings, vegetation devoid of trees and other forms of vigorous plant life, and a perpetually overcast w eather pattern combine to project a sterile, stagnant atmosphere; it approximates the film maker’s desire to depict an urban society (set in the near future) in a state of terminal decay. The film’s powerful opening sequences concentrate on the running battle between the police and a bikie group. Developing the editing skills they displayed in a 1973 short (Violence In the Cinema Part I), Kennedy and Miller orchestrate a series of spectacular car chase/car crash episodes which put the equivalent sequences in Hooper and Smokey and the Bandit to shame. Initially, the pattern is the same as in the American film: a series of obstacles are set up, then tension is developed by cross cutting between the chase and the obstacles. However, the criminal humor epitomized by such sequences in Smokey and the Bandit is effectively swept aside when a young child is introduced in Mad Max, and the lethal capability of a fast car is properly established. Later, the film jettisons (almost) this cross-cutting tech nique in favor of the obstacle that suddenly appears. The vengeance pattern begins to de velop when Max (Mel Gibson), sickened by his job and the callous attack on his police colleague, Goose, goes on a holiday with his wife, Jess, and young son. How ever, the bikies terrorize his wife, and when she resists with a knee to the groin and a fast getaway, accompanied by the forearm of a bikie (without the rest of the body) attached to her bumper, the battle lines are drawn. This develops into the strongest sequ ence in the film. Through choice of loc

ation (a wood of pine trees), an agitated dog, a nervous young woman, a red herring which has been planted prior to the sequence, and a series of short tracking shots behind the trees, which culminate in a fast track up to the back of the intended victim, Kennedy and Miller effectively demonstrate their control and mastery of this aspect of filmmaking. Similarly, the filmmakers have an acute awareness of violence — when it should be shown and when it is more effectively left unseen. For example, when Max visits Goose in hospital, he finds his friend in an oxygen tent. As he approaches, Brian May’s score, which is most effective throughout the film, combines with the noise of the oxygen machine on the soundtrack, and as Max moves in close, a hideous arm drops in front of him. How ever, the full horror of Goose’s con dition is registered only through the reac tion of Max when he pulls the tent back. Later, the camera tracks with Max as he approaches Jess and his son lying in the middle of the road after a bikie attack. Again, the filmmakers leave the full impact to the audience’s imagination as the camera stops short of the bodies and records Max’s inspection of the injuries. The film’s opening shot of the sign “ The Halls Of Justice” establishes the comic strip quality which is accentuated by names such as Sugartown. This is not intended to be used in a pejorative sense, for it adds a dimension to the film (e.g., A Small Town in Texas, Massacre At Central High etc.). The film weakens when it attempts to add complexity to the characterization, such as Max’s explan ation to his wife about his inability to communicate with his father. Otherwise, the characterization and narrative is streamlined and functional to the main

purpose of the film — the richly-textured visuals. In fact, it almost could be described as a tactile film with extreme close-ups of exhaust pipes, leather, cars, life-size dolls and other fetish items (including a shot of a young boy, surrounded by his toys, playing with the barrel of his father’s pistol). Mad Max is not an examination of a particular subculture. Therefore, sociallyminded critics who used this aspect to justify their interest in Roger Corman’s The Wild Angels will be disappointed. It is, however, an extremely effective film which goes beyond the formula it is based on, and stands up particularly well against the companies (e.g., New World, Arrierican International), and directors (e.g., Jack Starrett) which have specialized in this form of film- The film’s contribution is not so much in any theme or characteri zation (apart from confirming the generic convention that the traditional concept of heroics is no longer relevant — Max’s chief wants to restore the public image of the police as heroes, but any hero who handcuffs a villain’s ankles to a car which is about to explode, and then gives him a hacksaw and the choice of cutting through his ankles or dying, leaves some room for doubt), but in the visual treatment of the conventions. Mad Max: Directed by: George Miller. Producer: Byron Kennedy. Associate producer: Bill Miller. Screenplay: James McCausland, George Miller. Director of photography: David Eggby. Editors: Tony Paterson, Cliff Hayes. Music: Brian May. Art director: John Dowding. Sound recordist: Gary Wilkens. Cast: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Roger Ward, Vincent Gil, Hugh Keays-Byme. Production company: Mad Max P/L. Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 89 min. Australia. 1979.

Cinema Papers, May-June — 383

DIMBOOLA

Morrie (Bruce Spence) and Father O’Shea (Tim Robertson), two maudlin drunks in the unrelenting parade of lovingly-observed types in Dimboola.

DIMBOOLA Susan Adler From theatre in the round to cinema in Panavision is a tortuous route. Happy precedents of Films based on plays are rare. But in the face of this difficulty, Dimboola sustains the transformation with relative grace. Jack Hibberd has extensively refash ioned his original play; and although Dimboola is not entirely free of a certain histrionic flavor, it is distinctly removed from the experience of watching a filmed play. The tale of a legendary country wedding in a not-so-legendary country town expands comfortably onto the screen as a dense pageant of Australian social and amatory ritual ‘Little Desert’ style. If the slice of life offered by Dimboola is representative of the quotidian round in a small country town, one wonders how such towns remain small. For Dimboola is a good-natured, if at times rather prurient, celebration of what a young man’s fancy turns to in the springtime — and the awful trouble it can get you into. In the comedy of manners tradition, the narrative, with the aid of some very mannered comedy, traces and unravels the various connubial — pre, post and indifferent — duplicities. The film opens as the betrothed couple, Maureen (Natalie Bate) and Morrie (Bruce Spence), attempt to steal a few moments together for a quiet canoodle by the river, before setting off for the segre gated prenuptial festivities at which they are to be the respective guests of honor. At the tea, the girls giggle, drink punch, indulge in a little ribald humor, make the inevitable allusions to ‘size’, and open the presents. Meanwhile, in a shearing shed, the bucks drink themselves into a stupor. Determined that Morrie should enjoy life and liberty to the full before quitting bachelorhood, they goad him into a vale dictory performance which plumbs the very depths of squalor. They also set him up for big trouble with Maureen by photographing the event. The author of this idea is Dangles (Bill Garner) Morrie’s best friend and a paragon of ocker ‘ofifness’. The extent to which the phenomena of the kitchen tea and the bucks party have been stylized here is uncertain. One rather suspects a certain prosaic accuracy. Spurred on by his drunken pals, Morrie guzzles a bottle of advocaat, and then he is compelled to slip a flagrante delecto length 384 — Cinema Papers, May-June

to the stripper. Whether or not this is consummated judicious editing forbears to reveal. The next morning, however, Maureen finds very incriminating photographs in the mail. Humiliated, she rushes to confront Morrie. But he is dazed and hungover, and doesn’t remember the previous evening’s activities. She breaks off the engagement, and a large part of the film’s subsequent action is devoted to bringing them together again. Tangential to all this is the confession Morrie’s mother makes to his father: that he may not be Morrie’s father at all, and what’s worse, the other candidate to the paternity is Bayonet (Chad Morgan), Maureen’s uncle! The party scenes are presented in a burlesque mood of good fun, and not without their moments of social realism. But there is a sour note somewhere. Perhaps it is the rather too indulgent tone of it all being harmless fun which draws one to the conclusion that Dimboola largely does uphold the sexist views about

women — and men — that it explores. Possibly, for this reason, some of the brand of bucolic humor often produces the most urbane of responses. That is not to say the film is without its tickling moments. In every scene are planted ancillary sight gags and no opportunity to milk a laugh, snicker or snort is over looked. It is as if John Duigan is conscious of a responsibility to charge the screen with the same degree of energy and vitality one would experience at the theatre. Hit and miss though the humor may be, its relentlessness imbues the film with an abandoned brio, setting it apart from other recently-viewed Australian films where humor is essayed. If Dimboola does rqanage to sustain the energy level it sets for itself, it is more than partly due to the detailed attention paid to characterization (another rarity for an Australian film). This is offset by the gusto with which these characters are played. If the Dimboolians are not always likely, they are palpable. Duigan, whose Svengali-like work with inexperienced actors in his less frivolous Mouth to Mouth had prepared him for the challenge offered by comedy, has risen to the challenge with astonishing ease. Beyond the slapstick and ostensible chaos there lies an unwavering control. In a way, dimly rem iniscent of Federico Fellini, we are regaled with an unrelenting parade of lovingly-observed types. These range from Relaxatabbed-out hippies and sassy milkbar girls, to maudlin drunks and lovesick vicars. One amusing touch, perhaps inspired by Jacques Tati, is the use of the various modes of transport to further define character. For example, the nasty Dangles has a big, black old American convertible with exaggerated long aerials and giant tail fins, and looks like a large unpleasant insect. Maureen, a nice demure girl, has a practical little car, and the town’s maiden tippler a wobbly bicycle . . . and so on. In what must have been a mammoth casting exercise, recruitments were made from films, television, theatre, radio and music hall. Not to mention the Australian Performing G roup, whose collective screen debut is an exuberant tour de force barely confined by the perimeters o f the

new medium. In a world where the guests are likely to arrive in a combine harvester, verisim ilitude is clearly not a criterion which can be applied with any satisfaction, or for that matter with any relevance. This rather condensed view of reality belongs to V ivian W o rc e ste rsh ire -Jo n e s (M ax Gillies), itinerant reporter for The Times, Oxford lecturer and philanthropist. An outsider himself, he acts as a sort of bridging device between the audience and the town. It is through him they gain an entree into its lives and loves. His first day in the town is a busy round of gate crashing kitchen teas in drag, outpunching stroppy machismo types at bucks turns. That night, before retiring, he surveys the scene from his hotel window (across a discreetly blanketed coupling couple on the balcony). He then looks directly into the camera, as if attempting to solicit the audience’s response. Dimboola is intensely aware of its audience, and it is perhaps for this reason that the film smacks so little of selfindulgence. The wedding scenes (yes he didn’t, so she said “ I do” ), however, are dis appointing. The sense of occasion doesn’t quite come up to the expectations the film builds up. Much liquor is consumed, unleashing a little anarchy. The loose ends are tied up, Morrie’s father turns out to be his mother’s husband, and Dangles’ ego is left dangling after he is curtly rebuffed by the bridesmaid of his choice. He is obliged to leave with a girl known to be a sexual piranha. So, Dimboola goes the way of all farces, ending on a happy note, but in this case, a slightly fizzy after-taste, rather than a piquant memory. Dimboola: Directed by: John Duigan. Producer: John Weiley. Associate producers: John Timlin, Max Gillies. Screenplay: Jack Hibberd. Director of photography: Tom Cowan. Editor: Tony Paterson. Music: George Dreyfus. Art director: Larry Eastwood. Sound recordist: Lloyd Carrick. Cast: Bruce Spence, Natalie Bate, Max Gillies, Bill Garner, Evelyn Krape. Production company: Pram Factory Pictures. Distributor: GUO Film Distributors.35mm. 94min. Australia. 1979.

Tony (Richard Moir) smashes his fist through the window of an empty hut at the climactic moment in In Search of Annar

IN SEARCH OF ANNA

SNAPSHOT

IN SEARCH OF ANNA Barbara Boyd In Search of Anna is the story of the quest of one man in a contemporary Aust ralian setting — a quest for a set of values, for a meaningful existence, and for an id e n tity w hich will re c o n c ile th e experiences of his past with the flux of the present and an uncertain future. It is about the need of the individual to assert his unique complex of needs and desires within the framework of a viable and satisfying lifestyle. Written, produced and directed by Esben Storm, In Search of Anna is a modern romance that charts the progress of Tony (Richard Moir) as he attempts to leave behind the scars of a criminal past and go northwards to a new beginning and a fresh start. Storm shows the frag mentation of Tony’s experiences as he struggles to integrate the strands of a past charged with hate and destructive energy, with his dream for the future. The Film uses parallel and intercut narrative structures to focus Tony’s dilemma. W hen he h itc h -h ik e s n o rth to Queensland in search of a former girl friend, Anna, Tony carries his past with him (as the continual flashback sequences reveal). The tensions between past and present realities aré vividly portrayed and Tony’s failure and frustration culminate in a climactic scene involving him and his former mate, Jerry (Chris Hayward). In a vicious struggle, aimed at proving Jerry’s asce n d an cy in th e n e ig h b o rh o o d hierarchy, the pattern of delinquency is extended, and the cycle of brutality and violence is perpetuated. Jerry swiftly delineates the parameters of Tony’s past. His characterization is solid and convincing. Jerry is shown as a petty criminal, secure in the primitive and callous ethics of the urban jungle. His crude attempts at philosophizing locate the limitations of his world. He is trapped in a m ilieu dom inated by im pulse and aggression, where change is merely a reshuffle of the power bases and his past dictates his future. He is the embodiment of the negative energies and emotions that Tony seeks to reject. In muted contrast to the clash between Tony and Jerry, the relationship between Tony and Sam (Judy Morris) begins tentatively. The film sensitively follows the interaction between the glamorous and enigmatic model and her unexpected passenger. A bruptly throw n tog eth er by an incident at a road cafe, Tony and Sam are initially guarded and mistrustful in their appraisal of each o th er. The road sequences show the pair slowly estab lishing mutual respect and affection. -The cloying sentimentality of Tony’s letters to Anna is distanced and dissolved as the new relationship evolves. Sam is direct and provocative as she probes Tony’s shaky vision of his future with Anna. She is quietly incredulous at the naivete of Tony’s expectations, but allows him the freedom to indulge his idealism. The scenes are delicately but firmly handled in the film, which deftly evokes the awkward moments and the unsteady growth to intimacy between two young people. Both are vulnerable and aware of the risks of their situation, and Storm ably communicates the anxieties provoked by the initiation of a new and uncertain commitment. Tony’s character, and the cause of his hesitancy are clearly established, but Sam is less convincing. While she is believably aloof, but sympathetic, in the road scenes,

her behavior in the Sydney milieu is less credible. Her relationship with the photo grapher, Peter (Bill Hunter), is glibly dis missed. We are told she hates Sydney, and is bored and dissatisfied with her life there. She abandons Peter, simply telling Tony, “ When he wasn’t hung up on making money, he was really honest” . In the light of a former statement to Tony, that she tells lies, her account of the affair is unsatisfactory. In contrast to Tony’s active and urgent quest for a more meaningful and pro ductive existence, Sam’s decisions smack of dilettantism. Her dissatisfactions are too diffusely presented, and consequently the impact of her actions is lessened. Esben Storm attempts the difficult task of conveying Tony’s attempts to reconcile his inner life with objective reality. The metaphor of the road is used to show his geographical and spiritual progress, and as the film cuts back and forward between the calm beauty of beaches and country side and the crowded impersonality of the urban settings, the visual expansion and contraction of the settings corresponds to the emotional states experienced by Tony. The growing tension between past and present climaxes in a rapid montage sequence, which is the dramatic heart of the film. Tony is shown, physically and symbolically, at the crossroads, as past and present converge. The soundtrack sim ulates an accelerated heart-beat as he con fronts the discordant elements of his past to achieve a psychic breakthrough. In slow motion he smashes his fist through the window of an empty hut. The montage is a clever, if selfconscious, stylistic device used to manip ulate this crisis-point. Flashes of exper ience vie with each other as this intensely cerebral moment occurs.- Tony’s confusion and subsequent clarity seem detached from, rather than absorbed into, the predominantly realistic narrative. The sequence affirms Sam’s belief that “ this particular point of time. That’s all that matters.” But more importantly it isolates the problem inherent in the film’s attempt to explore the processes of psychic development. The psychology of personal and emot ional growth is a predominantly theoretical

and abstract area of study. Unlike the more familiar manifestations of behavior connected to displays of recognizable human emotions, the workings of the mind are only accessible to us through-lan guage and symbolism, which approximate the nature of this experience. So, when Storm uses realistic speech, gesture and action in the film, the human drama is em p ath etically estab lish ed for the audience. However, when the narrative climaxes with a highly symbolic and ab stract expression of a state of mind, the resolution of the plot is suggested stylistically, rather than felt and under stood. In Search of Anna is an ambitious and courageous film about contemporary Australia. It attempts to penetrate the more superficial levels of characterization and human motivation, and in so doing shows a compassion that is often missing in Australian feature films. Its theme of change and growth is a provocative one for audiences who are accustomed to a diet of nostalgia from the A ustralian film industry. In Search of Anna: Directed by: Esben Storm. Producer: Esben Storm. Associate producer: Natalie Miller. Screenplay: Esben Storm. Director of photography: Michael Edols. Editor: Dusan Werner. Music: John Martyn, Allan Stivell. Art director: Sally Campbell. Sound recordist: Laurie Fitzgerald. Cast: Richard Moir, Judy Morris, Chris Haywood, Bill Hunter, Gary Waddell. Production company: Storm Productions. Distributors: GUO Film Distributors. 35mm. 110 min. Australia. 1979.

SNAPSHOT Brian McFarlahe The most hopeful note struck in the credits for Snapshot is that the screenplay is by (Chris and) Everett de Roche. I don’t rneam to minimize the contribution of Chris de Roche, but merely to suggest that Everett de Roche’s screenplays have been substantially responsible for two of the most intelligent and exciting Australian films of the decade — Patrick and Long Weekend.

Elmer (Robert Bruning) entices Angela (Sigrid Thornton) to pose for him in a scene from Simon Wincer’s Snapshot.

Snapshot, it must be said, is not in the same class as these two films, but, like them it does move. It takes longer to establish just where it is heading, but it has, finally, a coherence about it which is ■characteristic of the two other de Rochescripted films. If it lacks the panache of Patrick, or the underlying seriousness of Long Weekend, it does know where it is taking its increasingly amoral but not dislikeable little heroine. Like Patrick and Long Weekend, Snapshot starts briskly. The glow of a powerful'torch appears at the bottom right of the darkened screen, and gradually fills it. This gives way to masses of flickering lights, a cacophony of noises, the arrival of fire-engines and a distraught girl. It then cuts back to two men with torches who seem to be underground. They come upon a fire, extinguish it, photograph the charred remains of what may or may not be a human body. The film then cuts to another photo grapher taking shots of the scene of an accident while the forensic science boys examine the body. It proves not to be underground at all, but in a room bizarrely papered with identical photographs of a bare-breasted model. All this is good baffling stuff. Director Simon Wincer (a television director whose credits include Against The Wind), editor (Phillip Reid) and director of photography (Vincent Monton), have kept the aud ience guessing about where they are, what’s happened, and to whom. Why, just after the credits, is that girl running through the busy city streets? The city buildings are full of eloquent menace as she runs, and it is a shrewd anti-climax that she is only late for work where Mr Pluckett (Jon Sidney), her hairdresser employer, subjects her to some waspish jibes. The scenes in the hairdressing salon are done with sharp, bitchy wit, although, unfortunately, the level descends to exchanges like, “ You pathetic faggot” — haughty Madeline (Chantal Contouri) to Cinema Papers, May-June — 385

SNAPSHOT

Pluckett — and, in reply, “ It takes one to know one.” Madeline has a yen for the running girl, Angela (Sigrid Thornton), woos her away from Pluckett, and from her wet boyfriend Daryl (Vincent Gil), who drives a Mr Whippy van, to do some modelling for her photographer friend Lindsay (Hugh Keays-Byrne). Daryl is one of Snapshot's happiest inventions. Wherever Angela goes in pursuit of her modelling career, warding off lecherous advances from assorted sexes, the cheerful Mr Whippy van is apt to appear at the end of a lane, or to be waiting behind a tree as she arrives home late at night. The screenplay is enjoyably enigmatic about what we are to make of Daryl and his van, but they remain a crucial image of the film’s equivocal values and the dens ex machina for its wild finale. The De Roches’ screenplay does have some yawning holes in it: how, for example, do first Daryl and then Madeline know where to find Angela when crazy Elmer (Robert Bruning) has her trapped in his studio? But such holes are apt to be obscured by the sheer speed at which the film moves, by its touches of verbal and visual wit, and by its central performance. Sigrid Thornton, gets under the skin of the role of Angela who only wants to flee a drab home and boring job, but eventually finds herself trapped by her own escape route. Or almost, because Snapshot has the most audaciously amoral climax in a film for some time. Angela’s role isn’t always as carefully written as it might be, and doesn’t adequately prepare the audience for some of her changes of stance, but Sigrid Thornton brings resources of her own to bear. She persuades the audience of the girl’s growing tenacity — one that carries her through prudery, caution, naivety and fear. One expects that no good will come to ambitious little girls who take up with a fast set that includes Lindsay, who is preparing a “ still death” exhibition of photographs and Madeline, the fur-coated lesbian who has come to realize that for years she has “ been banging the wrong gong” . For all Snapshot’s enjoyable echoes of Hollywood m elodram a, it doesn’t feel obliged to retrieve the heroine’s moral probity. She has seen enough to know that death is worse than fate. Unfortunately, the rest of the acting is mostly below par. Chantal Contouri, as a sort of perverse Gail Patrick, has a presence and a personality; but are they her own, and what can she do with them? Vincent Gil’s obtuse, threatening Daryl just hasn’t enough to work on, and Gil doesn’t have the presence or personality to give the role the sinister authority it needs. Of the others, only the excellent Julia Blake (so good as the ambiguous Matron in Patrick) deserves notice for her taut performance as Angela’s mum, torn between avarice and distaste. Unhappily, she has only one brief scene. One of the best things about Snapshot, a p a rt fro m th e c o h e re n c e S igrid Thornton’s performance gives it, is the use of Melbourne locations. The city and suburban streets are intelligently used to create a sense of threat and verisimilitude. The life Angela wants to escape from is epitomized in the dreary little houses, and (in a nice touch) in a scene where two school girls chuck their unlicked ice creams in the gutter and light up cigarettes. The city street scenes convey a sense of movement; of other life going on round the protagonists. Appropriately, for a film called Snap shot, there is plenty of incisive cutting, from champagne cork popping to knuckles 386 — Cinema Papers, May-June

DAWN!

banging on door, from the shriek of birds in Lindsay’s studio to the shriek of a demented-looking disco singer. This sort of display is flashy but fun, and there is pleasure too in a variety of accurately realized settings. Although there are some good shock effects (including one borrowed from The Godfather), the film as a whole is fast rather than taut, titillating rather than teasing, and in the end promising more than it delivers. Wincer needs a more forceful dramatic rhythm and a firmer nar rative control if he is to give us the really tough-minded urban thriller that some of us at least are longing for. Snapshot: D irected by: Simon W incer. Producer: Antony I. G innane. Executive producer: William Fayman. Associate producer: Barbi Taylor. Screenplay: Chris and Everett de Roche. D irector of photography: Vincent Monton. Editor: Phillip Reid. Music: Brian May. Art director: Jon Dowding. Sound recordist: Paul Clark. Cast: Chantal Contouri, Robert Bruning, Sigrid Thornton, Vincent Gil. Production com pany: AIFC. Distributor: Filmways. 35mm. 90 min. Australia. 1979.

DAWN! Meaghan Morris Ken Hannam’s Dawn! may turn out to be the ‘mystery’ film of the year: how or why would anybody make such a woefully feeble film? Reviewers commented on the way it suddenly sneaked into Sydney cinemas with little promotion or publicity in the immediate period before it flopped upon us. However, watching Dawn! one has the impression that w hatever energy or imagination might have gone into the f ilm ’s c o n c e p tio n was th o ro u g h ly exhausted long before completion of the final product. It is almost as though all the enthusiasm went into two problems — a look-alike actress and a special underwater camera. The rest was supposed to look after itself.

It doesn’t, and neither the underwater shots nor Bronwyn Mackay-Payne as Dawn Fraser can come anywhere near com pensating for the film ’s sloppy structure, its dreadful dialogue, and the mortal dullness of the direction. This is a great shame, since the idea of ■filming the story of an ideal Australian folk heroine like Dawn Fraser seems a promising one. All the elements for a fine piece of mythologizing are there; the figure of Australia’s greatest swimmer is a kind of inescapable public image composed (as an image — 1 mean no comment on the real person of Dawn Fraser) of all the impeccably-bred cliches with which Australians like to senti mentalize their culture and history. Dawn Fraser represents the rebellious individual, persecuted by petty officialdom and outraged au th o rity , but rising triumphant through a strength which might almost be called moral. She is the traditional working class of inner city life — a powerful reference point, because inner city working class culture is disappearing as a lived reality, and bears little resemblance to that of the trans ported working class of outer-city suburban sprawl. She is the mystique of sporting genius. And she is also the only female image unfailingly revered in Aust ralian tradition: the battling woman, the woman standing alone, the direct des cendant of the Drover’s Wife. Hollow as these cliches may be in reality, and sinister as their social function most certainly is in the hands of, for example,- a John Singleton, they can be elaborated — or disintegrated — very effectively on screen. Any number of interesting films could be made around the figure of a Dawn Fraser. The makers of Dawn! seem to have opted for something much more low-key, although the film is so badly put together that it is impossible to guess whether its flatness is accidental or part of a stylistic effort of demystification. However, a lowkey approach, too, could have worked;, and the interesting thing is that if it doesn’t in Dawn!, it seems to be because of a

Dawn’s mum (Bunney Brooke) chastises her daughter (Bronwyn Mackay-Payne) for coming home late, and still wet, from the local pool, in a scene from Dawn!

convergence, in this one film, of a variety of failings present in much more diluted and so much less lethal form in a lot of Australian films at the moment, and which belong to an approach one might call senti mental realism. Sentimental realism combines a crude version of realist ideology with a formal structure borrowed from soap opera. The realism comes from the position that the film is going to portray an aspect of Australian life the way it really is, and that the audience is going to get a shock of recognition. The soap opera feeds in the assumption that reality is something you laugh and cry over in the cinema. The realism under mines the power of the soap opera, by depriving it of its extravagance, stylishness and wit; and the soap opera negates the realism, most disastrously in the form of utterly implausible lines handed out to actors who are supposed to deliver them in the most normal way. Dawn! is almost the complete guide to this sort of filmmaking. At best, it does produce a recognition-effect, although the recognition — especially engineered through the sets and the static, square-ofreality camerawork — is not of any con ceivable reality, but rather of magazine images of years gone by. At worst, there is Bronwyn M ackay-Payne staring up memory lane down the pool and trying to carry off a line like, “ I’ve learned that life is not just a series of 100 metre sprints” ! The casting of Bronwyn Mackay-Payne is probably the most effective aspect of the film, because starting a film off with a search for a physique represents the realist urge at its most delirious and fantastic. Her presence on screen is remarkable, not because she looks like a swimmer, but because she has such an irreducibly nonconforming body, and a Jace that can move in a moment from a sort of sullen

DAWN!

suspicion to an utterly irresistible smile. T hro u g h o u t she seem s aw kw ard, slightly embarrassed and acutely camera conscious; and this curiously encourages us to accept that we are really seeing, if not Dawn Fraser, then a kind of second incarnation who is constantly signifying, “ I am not an actress” . Yet, given this, the film makes no attempt to develop a character for Dawn which we can obediently believe in; and since it doesn’t make her larger than life, and doesn’t attempt to analyse what she represents, there isn’t much else to keep up the interest, except the body of Bronwyn Mackay-Payne. Here, as with the Hal and forced quality of the acting in general, the fault seems to lie squarely with the script, which is bad even by Australian commercial standards. The story is a rough line-up of great moments in Dawn Fraser’s life, with no attempt at showing either change or continuity; too much is stuffed in, and w ith o u t en o u g h v a rie ty . A fter a reasonably-paced opening about her intro duction to professional swimming, the speed quickens, and the narrative and emotional threads are left hanging all over the place with an untidiness which cannot be entirely due to the demands of discretion about the actual experience of the real Dawn Fraser. The unspeakable dialogue doesn’t help. The function of dialogue in many films of recent years seems to be to explain to a mentally-defective audience what is going on from time to time, just in case they are not getting the point. So Dawn’s father (Ron Haddrick) just has to be made to glance around his Balmain interior, well into the Film after we have seen quite a bit of the young Dawn’s life, and explain “ We’re working class people . . . ” to Dawn’s would-be trainer. One is reminded of other immortal moments in scripting: A rthuf Dignam, as the tormented priest in The Devil’s Play ground, twisting his face diabolically with, “ 1 hate life!” ; or the teacher explaining in The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith that priest-reared Jimmie has too much of the Christian in him. There is nothing like a nice bit of sledgehammer to belt an audience into comprehension if you are not quite sure whether you have made yourself clear. There is one fine moment of direction in Dawn!, which, unfortunately, is only a couple of seconds long. The film has to negotiate the introduction of Dawn’s affair with another woman. This is done by passing from a scene in which Dawn asks Kate (Gabrielle Hartley) what she wants from her, to a shot of the waist area of a body in bed, a body briefly but absolutely sexually ambiguous; then to a man; Dawn hastily dressing, then back to Kate’s house. It’s the only imaginative sequence in the Film, and as a result sticks out like a sore thumb. There is something almost patronizing about Dawn!, something it shares with two o th e r re c e n t and very poor productions — The Money Movers and Blue Fin. Each of these films makes a determined effort to be popular, in both senses of the word. Each of them only succeeds in being insipid, as though aiming for popularity and imaginative force were som ehow , of necessity, mutually exclusive. They are all formula films, but they seem to be made without any love or respect for the formulas in question; they crank and grind their way mechanically through every step of a recipe for commercial success, without the slightest effort to really exploit (let alone develop) the richness of the conventions they are dealing with. Indeed, Money Movers and Blue Fin

THE ODD ANGRY SHOT

might almost be described as cinematically illiterate; it is as though someone, some where, made some important decisions who hadn’t watched a thriller or a children’s Film (Storm Boy included) with either enthusiasm or acumen for the past 10 years. Dawn! moves into the shiftier area of popular mythology, and the result is a dis turbing thing of contempt — not for Dawn Fraser, but for thé kind of Film about her that people are likely to appreciate. Affectionate contempt is certainly what the Film elicits from P. P. McGuinness {National Times, March 24). McGuinness Finds Dawn! likeable and quite enjoyable, though laughable and amateurish, and while neither “ good” nor “ remarkable” , yet in its “ doglike devotion” to its protag onist is “ a worthy Film, and should not be dismissed” . This is the language used in days gone by for discussing the characters of sub-human, but thankfully honest and reliable, servants. Perhaps McGuinness is right; perhaps Dawn!, in all its tedium, does have what it lakes for an immensely successful popular film. But 1 wouldn’t bet on that. Dawn!: Directed by: Ken Hannam. Producer: Joy Cavill. Executive producer: .Jill Robb. Associate producer: Sandra McKenzie. Screen play: Joy Cavill. Director of photography: Russell Boyd. Editor: Max Lemon. Music: Michael Carlos. Art director: Ross Major. Sound recordist: Ken Hammond. Cast: Bronwyn Mackay-Payne, Tom Richards, Bunny Brooke, Ron Haddrick, Gabrielle Hartley. Production com pany: A quataurus Film P roductions. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 115 min. Australia. 1979.

THE ODD ANGRY SHOT Susan Dermody The Odd Angry Shot combines a certain Film and television war Film genre with an uncertain and evasive treatment of the Australian experience in Vietnam. Its title suggests that, at least for its Australian veterans, the war was sporadic, ra n d o m in e ffe c t, iso la te d from meaningful context, and possibly angry (rather than, say, just) because of these factors. To the extent that these ideas are active in the Film, The Odd Angry Shot is intended to be excused for being, itself, sporadic, random in effect, and isolated from meaningful context.

Perhaps the Catch 22 and M*A*S*H genre that has so strongly influenced the Film is intended to produce such enter taining comedy for audiences that they won’t mind its carelessness about the complex and serious subject of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine any other excuses for the Film; nor any poorer ones than these. The era -of A u stralia’s V ietnam adventure is extremely worthy of analysis in Film. Arguably, it is the period that produced us as we were in the Whitlam years, and as we could only be in the Fraser years. Because the war remained a rumble that was kept distant in the hope of keeping it at a distance, it was a kind of structuring absence in the life of everyone coming of age in those years. That probably includes most of the people making Films in the ’70s. The history of that repression, and then shift in consciousness, seems crucial for an understanding of how this society has since been able to tolerate, in succession, first a com paratively idealistic and reformist government, then its reproving dismissal in a suddenly naked act of estab lishment authority, and now a regime that gains masochistic support for its policy of openly restoring the old distribution of wealth and privilege. Many of the psychic contortions necessary to enable the history of the ’70s seem to stem from the strange combin a tio n o f m a te r ia lis tic a p p e tite s , subjectivism, guilt, and political apathy, in the ’60s. And to get at the heart of the ’60s, the whole history of public and private responses to Vietnam and con scription is probably the can of worms that’s worth opening First. Yet The Odd Angry Shot is interested only in extracting from Vietnam the character stereotypes and gags of a genre that descends from The Good Soldier Sehweik, Catch 2 2 , and M*A*S*H (particularly the television spin-off). It tends to treat war as black comedy, at least for the members of the ‘liberating forces’, in such wars of indirect threat as Korea, and Vietnam. Where Hogan’s Heroes does heroize the Allied role in an adm issible war like World War 2, M*A*S*H does not overtly heroize American presence in Korea. Where the propaganda war film is stoic, epic, and heroic, this particular genre replaces epic and heroic with episodic and ironic, and leaves stoic looking rather absurd, as a result. The abrupt juxta-

positioning of physical and verbal jokes (based mainly on refined insult) with moments of horrible mutilation and death is a basic device of the films; it is a device that generates a fragmented narrative structure without risking the loss of any audience attention or fascination. The Odd Angry Shot seems situated at a weak and fairly uninventive end of this genre’s history. It rarely even raised the necessary energy for irony, let alone absurdist despair. Much easier to get laughs with toilet humor and sexual (read sexist) jokes. Every “ shit” or “ piss” raises a storm or mirth if it comes from Graham Kennedy, whose long television history is based on his ability, through innuendo, to constantly imply and test the limits of television decency, and so to fore ground the discrepancy between television propriety and real life. I’ll discuss the way that Kennedy’s tele vision persona operates in the film further on in this review. But first it’s worth looking at another tradition in recent Australian films to which The Odd Angry Shot seems to belong, before leaving the subject of crowning insults and verbal punchlines, and their effect on narrative structure. There is a realist, male-oriented group of Australian films — Sunday Too Far Away is the first and best example — in which the action almost self-righteously excludes women (but includes this trad itional exclusion as a factor contribution to the problems of the main group of mates), and invites the audience to warm them selves at the hearth of shared (male) attitude and idiom, even while vigorously admitting the shortcomings and grotesqueries of the Australian male. For example, when someone says, “ I still can’t find the hole” , and platoon leader Harry (Graham Kennedy) says, “ You would if it had hair around it” , I heard women as well as men laugh loudly enough to register their vote on the side of complicity with the sexism that puts them rudely in their place. I also heard, before that almost frantic laughter, a slight gasp in the audience that revealed prudery underlying this posture of contem pt and self-contem pt, in Australia. (That is, people were not laughing because they shared a common freedom from sexual anxiety, that the line reminded them of.) Concluded on P.391

The Odd Angry Shot. From left: Bill (John Jarratt); Bung (John Hargreaves); Rogers (Bryan Brown); and Harry (Graham Kennedy).

Cinema Papers, May-June — 387

WCD'A K SÄ

The National Film Theatre presents a focus on the

>MNTGARDE an occasional series of specially imported programmes designed to give some emphasis to recent and past explorations.

The Japanese avant-garde (presented in association with the Japan Foundation) Two programmes selected from films made in the seventies which reflect a growing interest in formalism and an awareness of similar trends in the West. Screening May-June in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane, Fremantle.

A Perspective on the English Avant-Garde (presented iq association with the British Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain). 39 films, to be screened in nine programmes over 4 separate sessions, organised to present a series of aesthetic ideas and issues in a coherent fashion. Screening May-June in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Fremantle.

Kenneth Anger’s

■

(by arrangement with the American Federation of Arts) Premiere screenings of the continuing series by one of the cinema’s true subversive iconoclasts. Screening June-July in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane, Fremantle.

1977 Cannes Gold Palm winner

Screening July-August in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane, Fremantle.

National Film Theatre of Australia

■

AUSTRALIAN PREMIERE LUIS BUNUEL’S

SIMON OF THE

Academy Valhalla Twin Cinema,

April 30-May 6

220 Collins St., 63 4900

VALHALLA CINEMA 2 1 6 Victoria St., Richmond. 4 2 6 8 7 4

Write for information: Box 1780 GPO, Sydney, 2001. Phone: (02) 310695.

O NE W EEK O N L Y

The Magick Lantern Cycle

Peter Wollen and Laura Mulvey’s avant-garde film with a feminist perspective.

■

“A hauntingly lovely and moving film. ” New York Times A film by Paolo and Vittorio Taviani

Riddles of the Sphinx

. .. my Father, my Master

Distributed by: SHARMILL FILMS, 27 Stonnington Place, Toorak 3142. Phone: (03) 20 5329

T National Film Board of Canada

O ffice National du Film du Canada

World leaders in the production and distribution of quality theatrical shorts. Available in 35mm and 16mm.

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 Tel 44 3621 Box 373D Tel. 51 4337 Box 439 Tel. 328 7661

For information contact:

Tom Bindon Regional Director 9th Floor, A.M.P. Centre, 50 Bridge Street SYDNEY N.S.W. 2000 AUSTRALIA

If there is no centre to the labyrinth, and no cactus rose in the Hitchcock ware house, at least there is a shadow hovering over the whole, and a distinctive sil houette it is.

Hitch John Russell Taylor

Faber 1978 Recommended price $20 and

Recent Releases

Hitchcock (updated edition)

The following books were released in Australia between January and March 1979. Titles which appeared in the Books of the Quarter listing in the previous issue (No. 20, February - March 1979) have not been included. The publishers are listed below the author in each entry, and the local distributor is shown in brackets. If no distributor is indicated, it denotes that the book is imported. Prices listed are for paperbacks, unless otherwise indicated, and are subject to variation between bookshops and states. This list was compiled by Mervyn R. Binns of the Space Age Bookstore, Melbourne.

Francois Truffaut with Helen G. Scott

Seeker and Warburg 1979 Recommended price $17.65 Richard Franklin “The most frightening Labyrinth is one without a centre” — John Russell Taylor “Emptiness has a magnetic appealfor you; you see it as a challenge. ” — Francois Truffaut (to Hitchcock) 1 “It’s my trademark: RO T!” “What’s the O standfor?” “Nothing". — Roger Thornhill, Eve Kendall (North by Northwest)

Reference

Hitchcock and his daughter Pat. From an illustration in John Russell Taylor’s new book

under the provocative title Cactus' The “ official” biography, written by Rosebud, thereby implying that a KaneJohn Russell Taylor (with Hitchcock like truth can be divined from a single, working in the same sort of uncredited tiny symbol in a vast warehouse of such collaborative huddle as he has guided the props. What then of a man who claims he writers of his 53 films), has at last shed doesn’t use symbols, and that ‘content’ is light on the enigmatic master of (at least) of no concern to him? suspense. Of course, his work is full of symbols. Having watched Hitchcock at work on North by Northwest is fairly riddled, and two films, having been the engineer of his Hitchcock will own up (only) to the last first talk to students at the University of shot. How appropriate then that this one Southern California (an occasion of some symbol is a sexual one. trepidation for him, according to Taylor), Hitchcock’s films have their major and after my first foray into his domain,1 1 appeal in those special set pieces (or find that somehow the more you know “ production numbers” , as I have heard Hitchcock, the less you know him. As them called) such as the shower murder in Taylor puts it, “ Everybody knows Alfred Psycho, the crop-dusting sequence in Hitchcock and nobody knows him” . North by Northwest, the Albert Hall I had long assumed that the key to sequence in The Man Who Knew Too understanding Hitchcock and his work Much, or the carousel collapse in must lie somewhere in the until-now Strangers on a Train. His least appealing untapped recesses of his Cockney-Jesuit films (Jamaica Inn, Paradine Case, childhood. His father was a poulterer — he Under Capricorn, Topaz) lack these, and makes us hate eggs (Under Capricorn, To it is fascinating to read Taylor’s accounts Catch A Thief, Arthur, Frenzy); his of the making of each of them. mother was a mother — he makes us hate But it’s not that simple. If you remove mothers (Notorious, To Catch A Thief, th e “ s p la s h e s an d fire w o rk s , North by Northwest, Psycho). Despite exclamations, sighs, death rattles, cries, Taylor’s research with Hitchcock’s older blood-letting and arm-twisting” (Truffaut sister, who is still living (he had a brother again) in search of Hitchcock’s cactus too), and a fascinating short-story written rose, you are left with the same thing. by Hitchcock in 1919, one finds oneself Hitchcock’s best film, Vertigo, lacks these returning to ‘the legend’ (the story he: sequences, too. recounts to Francois Truffaut and others In North by Northwest, Cary Grant is of his night in gaol as a child, which he; mistaken for a spy who doesn’t exist. In apparently adopted after his Freudian’ Vertigo, James Stewart falls in love with a research for Spellbound, but which,; woman who doesn’t exist, which to according to his sister, really happened). ' digress for a moment is where Brian de I think it was Robin Wood (his book on Palm a m issed th e point w ith his Hitchcock is still the best2) who once Obsession. Cliff Robertson had every wrote of another legend, John Ford,?' reason to be obsessed, since it was his fault that his wife died, and the substitute was, 1. Patrick is a homage of sorts to Hitchcock, after all, his own daughter. Stewart’s with references from the conscious and, obsession is all the more powerful because doubtless, the unconscious. The technical it is so meaningless. challenge of having a central character, who Those who denigrate Hitchcock, for the doesn’t so much as blink, was an extension of the television show called Breakdown; the lack of so-called ‘content’ in his films, are matricide sequence was the one scene left out missing the point (if you like the broader of Psycho. After several arguments with my significance of the notion of McGuffin3). art director, I realized my insistence that Patrick lie with his head on the left of frame was an unconscious reference to Shadow of a Doubt. 2. Wood’s book was re-issued last year with a “ retrospective” chapter questioning some assumptions implicit in the earlier essays, which are reprinted without alteration.

3. For the uninitiated, a McGuffin is Hitch cock’s name for a plot point about which a plot revolves, but which has no real significance — e.g. the secret plans in a spy story, or perhaps the monolith in 2001.

H itch .

Hitchcock’s vision is so savage and powerful (a fact that consistently brings the least-educated viewer to the edge of his seat, but which is totally missed by many so-called educated filmviewers who can’t see the forest for the trees) precisely because there is no point — or as Taylor puts it, no centre to the labyrinth. There is no Madeleine, no George Kaplan, no reason why the birds attack, or why Marion is stabbed to death. This is the centre of the Hitchcock enigma — there is no centre. But to say that the central issues and — often, characters are McGuffins — that this fact is a statement of some existent ialists magnitude, is not enough. Of course, Hitchcock’s case is “ strange” (Durgnat) and “ enigmatic” (Taylor), for how can that innocent-looking little Englishman who wanders through Hitch cock’s films know these things? And if he does know them, how can he be so damned cheerful about it. Occasionally, the chinks in his armor do show through. Truffaut notes that after viewing a hundred Hitchcock clips out of context at a tribute in New York that, “ In the cinema of Hitchcock, making love and dying are one and the same thing” . Is it a coincidence that Taylor waits until he is discussing Vertigo to launch into an account of Hitchcock’s sexuality? And does the fact that he has been celibate for more than 40 years give credence to the theory that his vision is a Roman Catholic one? (Wouldn’t it be ironic if the solution to the enigma turned out to be as Freudian as his own gaol story?) Taylor’s book, providing incredible details like those about the very private, private life of Mr Hitchcock, ought to shed light on the matter. But it doesn’t. For if, as Taylor concludes, Hitchcock has spent more than 50 years trying to become one of his own films, then the McGuffin of that film would certainly be Alfred Hitchcock. If, as he also says, Hitchcock does not exist outside of his films, then in view of the recent wave of films, for which Hitch cock is a reference point, it seems we are destined to explore the Hitchcock laby rinth for many years to come.

Australian Films National Library of Australia Price NA. A catalogue of scientific, educational and cultural films. The Film B u ff s Catalogue William R. Meyer Arlington $22.75 (HC) A catalogue of books and other film memorabilia available in the USA. HalUweU’s Film Guide Leslie Halliwell Granada (Methuen) $31.95 (HC) New stock of this leading reference book giving brief criticism of hundreds of films. Contacts and Facilities Showcast Publications $12 Listings of services and facilities for the film and television industries. Performing Arts Yearbook o f Australia 1977 Showcast Publications $25 (HC) An illustrated listing of Australian actors, actresses, and agents. International Film Guide 1979

p ptp r P nw ip

Tantivy/Barnes (BPA) $9.95 The latest edition of the book covering the world film scene. The Oscar Movies From A to Z Roy Pickard Hamlyn (Kennard) $4.50 Who won what and when. A Pictorial History o f the Talkies Daniel Blum. Revised by John Kobal Spring Books (Golden Press) $17.95 (HC) A year by year fully-illustrated coverage of films and leading stars. A new and revised edition. Screenworld 1978. Volume 29 John Willis Crown $15.55 (HC) The complete illustrated volume, including main credits for every film, released in the USA during the year.

Directors Directors and Directions. Cinema for the ’70s John Russell Taylor Methuen (Methuen Aust.) $6.80 Trends in filmmaking in the 1970s. First published in 1975 — available again in paperback. The Films o f Michael Winner Bill Harding Muller (ANZ) $19.95 (HC) An excellent biography of a successful director. Great Film Directors. A Critical Anthology Leo Braudy and M. Dickstein Oxford (OUP) $11.50 A new paperback in the excellent Oxford series. Hitch. The Life and Work o f Alfred Hitchcock John Russeli Taylor Faber (OUP) $19.95 (HC) A comprehensive work on the life and career of one of the most competent and colorful directors. Hitchcock Francois Truffaut Paladin/Granada (G&G) $7.95 A tribute to the genius of one director by another.

Cinema Papers, May-June — 389

CflTHYS CHIKD

PALM

BEACH

. I N

________________.____________

Special Sale of Samcine Briefcases 17” x 11” x 4 ” w e re $ 1 2 5 . 18” x 1 3 ” x 6 ” w e re $ 1 3 0 .

No Reasonable Offer Refused. Available from Samcine Sales

27 Sirius Road, Lane cove, n s w 2066 Telephone 428 5300 25 Lothian Street, North Melbourne, Vic. 3051 Telephone 329 5155

THE ODD ANGRY SHOT

Hollywood Directors 1941-1976 Edited by Richard Koszarski Oxford (OUP) $7.50 A critical survey of leading directors. Now in paperback. John Huston. Maker o f Magic Stuart Kaminsky Angus and Robertson (G&G) $12.95 (HC) The life and career of one of the screen’s most successful filmmakers. Orson Welles. A Critical View Andre Bazin Elmtree Books (Nelson) $12.95 (HC) The career of one of the film industry’s most colorful personalities. Stanley Kramer Filmmaker Donald Spoto Putnam $15.55 (HC) The author of the Art o f Alfred Hitchcock writes on the career and achievements of another leading director. The World o f Luis Buñuel. Essays in Criticism Edited by Joan Mellen Oxford (OUP) $8.95 Critical essays on the films of one of Europe’s leading filmmakers.

Critical Big Bad Wolves. Masculinity in the American Film Joan Mellen Elm Tree Books (Nelson) $15.95 (HC) Joan Mellen shows how Hollywood has, from its beginning, sought to create a male image larger than life. Born to Lose. The Gangster Film in America Eugene Roscow Oxford (OUP) $30 (HC) A new addition to the excellent Oxford series. Faulkner and Film Bruce F. Kawin Unger (Kaiman & Polan) $4.95 The work of this leading American literary figure in the film world. Film Censorship in Australia Ina Bertrand University of Queensland (Prentice Hall) $9.95 A book of vital interest to all filmmakers and importers. Future Tense. The Cinema of Science Fiction John Brosnan. Foreword by Harry Harrison MacDonald and Jane (Novalit) $20.95 (HC) The most complete survey of the rapidly growing field of science fiction and fantasy films by the

T h e Odd A ngry Shot Continued fro m P.387

But apart from commonly producing a kind of double-bind for women in the au d ie n c e , th e c e n tra lity given to rejoinders, epithets, insults, etc., in these films also has effects on narrative. It produces an episodic structure in which each episode is geared towards a climactic and often punctuating ’line’, usually a strongly idiomatic crowning insult or punchline set up by a weaker line preceding it, so that a double-take is part of the audience pleasure. Whereas in Sunday Too Far Away the device was most frequently used to crown an episode of narrative that already had a pretty definite shape and motivation without it, in The Odd Angry Shot it has become the whole reason-for-being of many segments. It is prone to become an excuse of invention, and the frequency of recourse to this device in a film is possibly now a kind of giveaway tick on the face of the film, revealing just how much point there really was to the entire project. While The Odd Angry Shot, like very many war films, follows the fortunes of a platoon of supposedly representative national stereotypes, the platoon is almost displaced from its function of balancing and varying the range of war experienced, by the presence of its leader, Graham K ennedy. P articularly so since his characterization, at least in comedy of this kind, is saturated with his television persona, with the same upstaging effects on the characters around him as it is intended to have on the television show guests. Yet this distortion doesn’t seem accidental; rather, G raham Kennedy seems to have been used as Graham Kennedy, to pull the whole thing together,

Australian writer now living in Britain. Mastering the Film and Other Essays C.T. Samuels Tennessee University Press $12.60 (HC) A collection of articles on film by leading American experts. Mindscreen. Bergman, Godard and First Film Person Bruce Kawin Princeton U. P. (ANZ) $6.75 $20.95 (HC) A critical survey of the work of leading European directors. The New Wave, Truffaut, Rohmer, Godard, Rivette, Chabrol J. Monaco Oxford (OUP) $5.95 A critical survey on the period and the directors who revolutionized filmmaking. Nuclear War Films Edited by Jack G. Shoheen Sth. 111. University Press $6.20 The end of the world as seen by filmmakers in the atomic age. On the Verge o f Revolt. Women in American Films o f the '50s Brandon French Ungar $4.95 A survey of the role women played in the films of the 1950s. Polemics for a New Cinema Albie Thoms Wild & Woolley (Wild & Woolley) $6.95 Focusing on the 1960s and ’70s new cinema of Australia, Europe and the USA, this book provides a unique reference guide to a comparatively uncharted area, and is of particular interest to Australian producers.

Media and Education Broadcast Journalism Mark W. Hall Hastings House $9.95 (HC) An introduction to new writing Facts About a Feature Film. Featuring Hammer Films Introduction by Christopher Lee A. Deutsch (Hutchinson) $4.95 (HC) The Film Industries Michael F. Mayer Hastings House $13.80 (HC) Practical business/legal problems in production, distribution and exhibition.

and make it an attractive package. However the attempts by the film makers to camouflage this function and to integrate him plausibly into the plot (why would Graham Kennedy be up there in the middle of a loser’s war?) provide the more gauche moments of the film. The life history of the character, delivered suddenly by Harry in a meditative moment to the boys who drop their jaws in obedient am azem ent, does little to reassure as to the powers of invention behind this film. Similarly, the occasional segments (but not occasional enough) in which he delivers homilies and harangues the boys on the subject of what a bastard of a place Australia really is, and how Vietnam veterans will be without honor in their own country, are out of pace and out of place with the rest of the film. And yet they are almost the only space offered by the film to the complex social history of relations between Australia and its presence in Vietnam. The film never indicates whether the boys are conscripts or volunteers, never even admits the words, and thereby omits the whole connection between conscription by ballot and the gradual swell of repugnance for the war; instead, the people back home are accused of being sort of odd, difficult, hard to fathom, in their unease about the war and, therefore, their dislike of its veterans. The only real attempt to essay this deep uneasiness, and the destructive effects it had on participants in the war, is through the character of Bill (John Jarratt). We follow him from his combined birthday and bon voyage party at home in the suburbs (where he “ gets a chop at his bjrd” between the cutting of the cake and the farewell toasts), through his pleasure in the export lager he is given in a plastic wine cup on the Qantas flight to Vietnam (“ This is the way to go to war, eh

Getting into Film Mel London Ballantipe (Tudor/Doubleday) $9.50 A survey of the film industry detailing various job opportunities behind and in front of the cameras. Media Handbook Iola Mathews Australian Frontier Inc. $2 A manual for people involved in education on how to get publicity through the media. The Performer in Mass Media. In Media Profession and in the Community. William Hawes Hastings House $18.90 (HC) Script Models. A Handbook for the Media Writer Robert Lee and Robert Misiorowski Hastings House $11.20 (HC) A resource book for writers in television, radio and the film industry. Television Broadcasting. An Introduction Edited by Robert Hilliard Hastings House $18.90 (HC)

Popular and General Interest The All Americans J.R. Parish and D. Stanke Arlington House/Rainbow$ 15.55 The all-American hero in Hollywood films Cinema ’79 Edited David Castell B.C.W. (Remal) $11.95 The film annual published by the British film magazine, Films Illustrated. Close-Ups. The Mo vie Star Book Edited by Danny Peary Workman Publishing Co. $11.95 Profiles of more than 140 film people, photo graphs and filmographies included. 50 Golden Years o f Oscar. The Official History o f the A cademy of Motion Picture A rts and Sciences ESE$15.50 A complete illustrated history of the Academy Awards, including full coverage of the 50th Anniversary celebrations and award presenta tions. The Films o f Sherlock Holmes Chris Steinbrunner and N. Michaels Citadel (Davis) $22.50 (Hard Cover) A complete survey of the films featuring the famous detective. Glamorous Movie Stars of the ’30s Paper Dolls

Harry?” ), to the series of disillusions and unconnectable horrors that even the mateship can’t quite make up for. He grows into an increasingly vacant space, until in the final sequence, in Sydney, looking over the city from a bar, he simply echoes Harry’s conversation back to him, like a blank wall. The character of Bill doesn’t really help the audience understand the war, but it does serve a reminder on the evasive and repressive attitude of most people back home towards the war, and the deadly effect of that on the lives of the ones who went. You remember how Vietnam con scripts were either losers or fighters, shortback-and-sides boys quickly lost to the embarrassing mysteries of Kapooka and Ingelburn, or conscientious objectors who made incredible getaways from the police at university meetings. The quicker the

Tom Tierney Dover (Tudor) $3.50 Would you believe, paper dolls to cut out and dress! The Great British Films Jerry Vermilye / Citadel (Davis) $22.50 (HC) A survey of outstanding British films. The Great Movie Comedians Leonard Maltin Crown $15.55 (HC) The careers of all the leading funnymen in films. Ha Hiwell’s FHmgoer’s Book o f Quotes Leslie Halliwell Mayflower/Granada (G&G) $7.50 Some famous and not so famous, some quite biting, and some just plain hilarious. Hollywood Beauties James Robert Parish Arlington $30 (HC) Profiles of some of the most successful Hollywood actresses. The Jaws 2 Log R. Loynd Wyndham (Kennard) $2.75 The novel based on the sequel to Jaws. Jazz in the Mo vies. A Guide to Jazz Musicians 191777 David Meeker Arlington House $17.95 (HC) Well illustrated, and of great interest to jazz fans. The MGM Story. The Complete History o f Fifty Roaring Years John Douglas Eames Octopus (Rigby) $14.95 (HC) New edition. 1978. Reruns. 50 Memorable Films Bosley Crowther G.P. Putnam &Sons $10.95 The plots and brief reviews of some outstanding films. Scream Queens. Heroines of the Horrors Calvin Thomas Beck $10.95 Macmillan (Cassell/Collier Macmillan. Aust.) $22.95 (HC) The careers of women in horror films, including Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Elsa Lanchester. Showboat. The Story of a Classic American Musical Miles Kreuger Oxford (OUP) $38 (HC) The history of various productions on stage and screen. ★

poor bloody losers got lost, the better. Still, Bill is not so much the master stroke that makes The Odd Angry Shot; but one of the few strokes that touch the real canvas at all. Vietnam is still buried, perhaps still too uncomfortably close. When the barman at the end says to Harry, “ Just back from Vietnam?” and Harry says “ No” , I am inclined to agree with him. The Odd Angry Shot: Directed by: Tom Jeffrey. P ro d u c e rs: Sue M illik e n , Tom Je ffrey . S c re e n p la y : Tom Je ffre y . D ire c to r o f photography: Don McAlpine. Editor: Brian Kavanagh. Music: Michael Carlos. Art director: Bernard Hides. Sound recordist: Don Connolly. Cast: Graham Kennedy, John Jarratt, John Hargreaves, Graeme Blundell, Bryan Brown. Production company: Samson Film Services. D istrib u to r: Roadshow. 35mm. 90 m in. Australia. 1979.

APO LO G Y In the “ Film Biz” colum n written by me in the W e e k e n d of 19th August, 1978, it was stated that M r Syd Donovan of TVW Enterprises Ltd. of Perth, the organizer of the Australian Film Awards presentation held recently in Perth, was concerned that certain people coming to Perth fo r the Awards were booked into room s at the Sheraton Hotel with people they were not married to. Further, it was stated that M r Donovan had objected to a presenter of the Awards because she was a lesbian. On the basis of these assertions, I suggested that M r Donovan was not capable of handling the organization of the Australian Film Awards presentation. I now recognize that the assertions are untrue. I did not check them before publication and I realize that had I checked them, I would have found they were untrue. I apologize to M r Donovan fo r any distress and em barrass ment caused to him as a consequence of the article. A u s tr a lia n

Geraldine Pascall, Film W riter, S u n d a y A u s tr a lia n

Cinema Papers, May-June — 391

P R O D U C T IO N SU R V E Y

Short film reviews . . . Feature film reviews . . . Latest film library news . . . Film society and festival news . . . Films for the specialist . . .

BtflCKCBORO

PRODUCTIOn

studio of 3D animated films SPECIMISES IN

Federation News

PNIMPTION OF PUPPETS OP OQIECTS;

has all the answers

SPECIPL EFFECTS. FLPT UNO CELL PNIMPTION PL SO PVPIP8LE FOP SHOOTS. POI/EPTISIN6.

It is the quarterly journal of the Federation of Victorian Film Societies now published with the assistance of the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission. For over 20 years, Federation News has become recognised as an essential reference journal for the non-commercial use of 16mm film . . . film societies, schools, adult discussion groups, specialists who use film and plan programmes. Federation News is now published in March, June, September and December. 1979 SUBSCRIPTION: $16.00 inc. postage from: F.V.F.S., 4 Stanley Grove, Canterbury, Victoria, 3126. Production Survey Continued from P.379

Film Australia

ARCHITECTURE - A PERFORMING ART Prod company................Michael Robertson Productions Dist company......................... Film Australia Producer................................ Peter Johnson Director and scriptwriter..................Michael Robertson Photography............................David Gribble Sound recordist....................... John Warran Editor.............................................Alan Lake Length................................................. 25 min Shooting stock..................................... 7247 Progress.......................................... Shooting Release date................................ July, 1979 Synopsis: A documentary on Australian architect John Andrews, his work and lifestyle.

Prod asst.......................... Michael Rubetzki Length................................................. 10 min Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Progress..............................Post-production Release date.......................... August, 1979 Synopsis: With Chou Hua-Yim, a member of the Shensi Provincial Acrobatic Troupe, performing and explaining some of the details of his conjuring tricks, this is a language teaching and human interest film for early learners of Mandarin. It shows several fundamental points of grammar, uses mainly basic words and attunes the ear to Mandarin spoken by Chinese.

ONE HUNDRED ENTERTAINERS Prod company........................ Film Australia Dist company....................... Australian Film Commission Producer.............................. Suzanne Baker Director................................. Bob Kingsbury Scriptwriters.........................Bob Kingsbury, John Power Photography......................... Andrew Fraser Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Editor.......................................David Huggett Prod asst........................ Michael Rubetzki Length................................................. 30 min Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Progress..............................Post-production Release date............................... May, 1979 Narrator..........................................John Bell THE HUMAN FACE OF CHINA Synopsis: A remarkably intimate and SERIES entertaining view of the life of Chinese artists, the acrobats of the Shensi Provincial BAREFOOT DOCTORS Acrobatic Troupe, who travel throughout the Prod company...........................................FilmAustralia province. Dist company.. Australian Rim Commission Producer.............................. SuzanneBaker SHANGHAI FAMILY Director and (Working Title) scriptwriter......................... Bob Kingsbury Prod company........................Film Australia Photography......................... Andrew Fraser Dist company....................... Australian Film Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Commission Editor...................................................... DavidHuggett Producer.............................. Suzanne Baker Production asst............. Michael Rubetzki Director................................. Bob Kingsbury Length................................................. 30 min Scriptwriter.......................... Bob Kingsbury Shooting stock...............Eastmancolor 7247 Photography........................ Andrew Fraser Progress..............................Post-production Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Release date................................ May, 1979 Editor...................................... David Huggett Narrator.......................................... John Bell Prod asst....................... Michael Rubetzki Synopsis: The role played by two women Length................................................. 30 min doctors at Chienchou People’s Commune in Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Wuhsi county. They attend to most of the Progress..............................Post-production basic health care needs of the people, and Release date................................ May, 1979 through their work is seen the medical Narrator........................ .............. John Bell service provided for China’s rural people — Synopsis: The day-to-day life of the Sun an integration of C hinese tra d itio n a l family, typical of urbanized Chinese families medicine with Western medicine. today. This family, of two grandparents, their son, his wife and two granddaughters, live in THE CONJUROR an apartment in Pengpu, one of the new selfProd company........................ Film Australia contained villages built in Shanghai in the Dist company....................... Australian Film past 20 years. Commission Producer.............................. Suzanne Baker Director and SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE scriptwriter.........................Bob Kingsbury Prod company........................ Film Australia Photography........................ Andrew Fraser Dist company....................... Australian Film Sound recordist.............. ........ Howard Spry Commission

392 — Cinema Papers, May-June

INSTPUCTIONPL UNO FEPTUPE FILMS TELEPHONE 7Q 7 5667 40 Nicholson Street, Burwood NSW 2134.

TO ADVERTISE IN

Ring Peggy Nicholls: Melbourne 830 1097

Producer.............................. Suzanne Baker Director................................. Bob Kingsbury Scriptwriters........................ Bob Kingsbury, John Power Photography........................ Andrew Fraser Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Editor...................................... David Huggett Prod asst.......................... Michael Rubetzki Length................................................. 30 min Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 Release date............................... May, 1979 Narrator..........................................John Bell Synopsis: Taking the production team as the basic unit, the film explains how a commune works. Chiang Li-He, production team leader, and his family are at work in a commune which is in transition from laborin te n s iv e c u lt iv a t io n to f u ll fa rm mechanization.

or 3 2 9

5983

Sue Adler: Sydney 26 1625

Producer.............................. Suzanne Baker Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Director.....................................Dean Semier Editor........................................ Mark Waters Scriptwriter............................ Suzanne Baker Camera asst....................... Peter Viscovitch Photography............................ Dean Semier Length.......................................... 3 x 1 0 m in Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Editor........................................ Vincent Kent Release date....... ..................... April, 1979 Camera asst....................... Peter Viscovitch Synopsis: Keith and Pam are a young Length................................................. 27 min married couple who aspire to the Australian Shooting stock..............Eastmancolor 7247 dream — their own home. They are a Release date............................ March, 1979 working class couple with employment Narrator.............................................. MichaelBoddy difficulties. Synopsis: Sydney Harbor is the most beautiful in the world. Pre-dawn, a memory. of the harbor’s convict past, appears like a IT’S DIFFERENT TODAY dream. But as the sun rises and the prawn Prod company... Motion Picture Associates trawlers trek back with the cargo, the harbor Dist company............................................FilmAustralia comes to life in 1978. Producer................................. PeterJohnson Director and scriptwriter............................ David Barrow FROM PREGNANCY TO BIRTH Photography....................... John Leake Acs SON OF THE OCEAN Sound recordist.........Barry von Bronkhurst Prod company.........................Film Australia Prod company.......................................... FilmAustralia Editor....................................................... PeterFletcher Dist company....................... Australian Film Producer............................... Malcolm Otton Camera Asst.............................. James Ward Commission Director and Length................................................. 1 5 min scriptwriter..................... AntonioColacino Producer.......... '.................. Suzanne Baker Shooting stock..................................... 7247 Photography.............. Mick von Bornemann Director..................................................... BobKingsbury Release date................................April, 1979 Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Scriptwriters............................................. BobKingsbury, Synopsis: A documentary for the Royal John Power' Editor...................................Antonio Colacino Australian Navy aimed at senior secondary Photography.......................... Andrew Fraser Camera asst......................................... PeterViscovitch school students. Length................................................. 15 min Sound recordist....................... Howard Spry Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Editor...................................................... DavidHuggett Progress..............................Post-production Prod asst.......................................... MichaelRubetzki Length......................................................... 30 minRelease date............................... May, 1979 NEED FOR A NAVY Narrator..................................... Ron Roberts Shooting stock......................... Eastmancolor7247 Prod company...........Kingcraft Productions Synopsis: Three films, From Birth to Progress.............................. Post-production Dist company............................................FilmAustralia Release date............................... May, 1979 Walking, Child’s Play and Towards School Producer............................................... PeterJohnson Narrator................................................... John Bellhave already been completed in The Director................................... Terry Ohllson Synopsis: The first foreign film to be shot on Developing Child series — Film Australia’s Scriptwriter.............................................GeoffPike contribution to the International Year of the the Yangtze in 20 years. It tells of a journey Editor........................................................ BillStacy in a riverboat, which travels the Yangtze Child. From Pregnancy to Birth will form an Length............................... ................. 20 min through the Yangtze gorges from Chungking introduction to the series. Shooting stock..................... 7247 to Wuhan. Progress................................Post-production Release date.......................September, 1979 GALAXY IN THESEA Synopsis: A public relations documentary for the Royal Australian Navy. Prod company.........................Film Australia CENTENNIAL PARK Producer.....................................Don Murray Prod company........................ Film Australia Director, scriptwriter Producer.....................................Don Murray PSYCHOLOGIST PUBLIC and photography................... Dietman Fill Director and RELATIONS Editor..........................................Klaus Jaritz scriptwriter.............................. SueDoring Mixer........... ............................ George Hart Prod company.......................................... FilmAustralia Photography................................. Ross King Length................................................. 20 min Producer............................................... PeterJohnson Length................................................. 23 min Shooting stock........................Eastmancolor Director and Gauge.......................... 35mm Release date............................... April, 1979 scriptwriter.......................................... GregReading Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Synopsis: A study of the Great Barrier Reef Photography............................................ JohnHosking, Release date............................ March, 1979 and some of the creatures living on it. Ross Brown Narrator...................................... Tim Elliott Sound recordist...................................... RodSimmons Synopsis: A look at Centennial Park in Editor............................................. Tom Foley Sydney — its beauty and history, its Length................................................. 25 min HOUSING importance to wildlife and the use people Shooting stock..................................... 7247 (Working Title) make of it. Prod company— Rim Australia, for Dept of Progress................................Post-production Housing and Construction Synopsis: A documentary based on the role of a psychologist in the Commonwealth Dist company.......................... Film Australia Employment Service. FIVE BELLS Producer............................... Tom Manefieid Prod company.........................Film Australia Director and Dist company.. . , ................ Australian Film scriptwriter.......................... Ken Cameron Commission Photography............................ Dean Semier Concluded on P.399

F IL M C E N S O R S H IP L I S T I N G S Reprinted from Australian Government Gazette DECEMBER 1978

Published by the Australian Government Publishing Service

JANUARY 30 - MARCH 20

G ENERAL

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS For General Exhibition Aandhi: J. Prakash, India (3545.00 m) Continuavano A Chlamarli Er Piu’ E Er Mono: Ester Cinematografica, Italy (2249.00 m) A History of the Beatles (16 mm): Not shown, U .S A / U.K. (1503.00 m) Matilda (Reduced version) (a): A. Ruddy, U.S.A (2468.00 m) The Monkey’s Uncle (16 mm): W. Disney, U.S.A. (990.00 m) Oi 4 Assoi (The 4 Aces): C. Carajopoulos, Greece (2400.00 m) O Trellos Tahl 4 0 0 (The Madman is OK): C. Carajopoulos, Greece (2450.00 m) The Smiling Face: Yung Sheng Rims Co., Hong Kong (2551.00 m) Tarka the Otter: Tor Rlms/Rank, U.K. (254a00 m) Untitled (Sabah-Fairuz-Abdel Halim Hafez) (Video tape): Not shown, Eygpt (210 mins) (a) Reduced by producer’s cuts from 2880 metres (August 1978 List).

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Mature Audiences (M) The Bermuda Triangle: Conacine Prod., Mexico (3181.00 m) The Big Fix: C. Borack/R. Dreyfuss, U.SA. (2907.58 m) Brass Target: A. Lewls/B. Adams, U.S.A. (3072.00 m) California Suite: R. Stark, U.SA. (2770.00 m) Darinda: M. Gulati/Bunty Ent., India (3993.00 m) A Dream of Passion: J. Dassin/Brenfilm, Greece (2852.72 m) Kung Fu Heroes: L. Ming, Hong Kong (2551.00 m) La Calda Pelle: R. Fieytoux, Italy (2386.00 m) Let’s Get the English Girls: Les Films Galaxie, France (3066.76 m) Lo Staniero: D. De Laurentiis, Italy (3143.00 m) Melody in Grey (Hanaregoze Orin): Toho Prods., Japan (3209.31 m) Milano Trema: Danla Film, Italy (2688.00 m) Murder of Murders: D. Jien-C hin, Hong Kong (2743.00 m) Murder to the Tune of the Seven Black Notes: Cinecompany S.L., Italy (2605.85 m) The Odd Angry Shot: Samson Film Services, Australia (2468.70 m) The Odd Job: Forstater/Chapman, U.K. (2358.00 m) Providence: Gasser/Hellwig, France (2880.00 m) Same Time, Next Year: M irisch/G ottlieb, U.S.A. (3373.00 m) Starship Invasions: G lic k /H u n t/G o rd , Canada (2386.00 m)

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Battlestar Galactica (Reduced version) (a): J. Dykstra, U.S.A. (2791.46 m) ' Dakria Gia Ena Aliti (Tears for a Tramp): A. Sylias, Greece (2350.00 m) The Heatwave Lasted Four Days (16 mm): National Rim Board of Canada, Canada (779.00 m) II Bacio Di Una Morta: Infafilm, Italy (2388.00 m) Layali Yasmean (Videotape): Not shown, Egypt (120 mins) No Longer Alone: W orld W ide Pictures, U.K. (2660.71 m) Northwest Passage (16 mm) (b): Metro-GoldwynMayer, U.SA. (1398.00 m) 0 Megalos Enochos: Not shown, Greece (2400.00 m) Superman: Alexander & Ilya Salklnd Prod., U.K./U.SA. (3840.20 m) The Thirty-Nine Steps: G. Smith U.K. (2825.00 m) Untitled (The Lesson is Over) (Videotape): Not shown, Egypt (180 mins) Yeti: Stefano Rims, Italy (2743.00 m) (a) Reduced by Importer's cuts from 3346.46 metres (October 1978 List). (b) Previously registered ‘A’ with cuts in 1940.

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

For Mature Audiences (M) Acapulco Gold Connection: Marvista Prods./Bruce Cohn Prods., U.S.A. (2550.99 m) The Brave Archer: Ambassador Film Co., Hong Kong (3826.00 m) The Class of Miss MacMichael: Kettledrum-Brut Prod.,JJ.D. (2523.56 m) Cruise Missile: I. Panajotovic, Iran/U.SA. (2716.00 m) Snapshot: F.G. Film Prods./Aust Int’l Rim Corp., Australia (2523.00 m)

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Behind Locked Doors: S. Brasloff, U.S.A. (2221.83 m) Des Petites Saintes Y Touchent: Les Prod. Du Daunou/Les Realisation Michel Lemoine, France (2249.00 m) Girl of Passion (English dubbed version) (a): Filmtime, Greece (2946.13 m) The Holy Mountain: Abkco Films, U.S.A./Mexico (3072.00 m) Lady Chatterley In Tokyo: Nikkatsu Prod., Japan (2468.70 m) Love Exorcist: M. Lawrence, U.S.A. (2386.41 m) Massage Parlor Wife (Pre-censor cut version) (b): Global Pictures, U.S.A. (1810.38 m) Money Movers (Reduced version) (c); M. Carroll, Australia (2525.82 m) The Playbirds: Roldvale, U.K. (2496.00 m) Roseland (Reduced version) (d): Afif Prods., Inc., U.SA.

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Adventures of a Plumber’s Mate: Salon Prods., U.K. (2442.00 m) Felicity: K rysta l Film Prods., Hong K ong/Aust. (2550.99 m) The Hills Have Eyes (Modified version) (Videotape) (a): P. Locke, U.S.A. (83 mins) II Seme DI Caino: Not shown, Italy (2299.00 m) Inhibition (16 mm): Staff-Capitol Prods., Greece (900.00 m) A Second Spring: H. Pohland, Italy (2276.69 m) Summer Night Fever: Lisa/Rex-Hillenbrand, W. Germany (2743.00 m) Swinging Ski Girls (Reconstructed version) (b): Robert Marsden, U.S.A. (1913.30 m) (a) Previously shown on April 1978 List. (b) Previously shown on May 1978 List.

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R) Bad Penny (Reconstructed version) (a): H. & V. Film Prods., U.S.A. (1700.00 m) Eliminations: 20.3 m (44 secs) Reason: Indecency 01 Nonoi Tis Nihtas (The Godfathers of the Night): Not shown, Greece (2029.00 m) Eliminations: 120 m (4 mins 22 secs) Reason: Indecency. Lo, Monaca, Tre Bastardi E Sette Peccatrica: ItaloAllemande Euron Rlm/Trans Globe, Italy (2468.70 m) Eliminations: 4 m (9 secs) Reason: Excessive violence. (a) Previously shown on September 1978 List.

(2221.00 m)

Top: The Deer Hunter. The distributors appealed its R classification to the Films Board of Review, however the original classification was upheld. Above: Watership Down received an NRC classification and was registered without eliminations.

JANUARY 1979

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION

For General Exhibition (G)

Nil

A yto i Pou X e c h a s a n Ton O rko To us: C. Kiriakopoulos, Greece (2400.00 m) The Bermuda Triangle: Sunn Classic Piet., U.S.A (2523.00 m) T C a p o ra le Di G io rn a te: A g lia n i/M o rd ltll, Ita ly

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW The Deer Hunter (a): B. Spinkings/M . Cim ino/ Rosenberg/Deeley, U.S.A. (5074.55 m) Decision reviewed: Appeal against ‘R’ registration by the Film Censorship Board. Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Rim Censorship Board. An Unmarried Woman (b): Mazursky/Ray, U.SA (3408.00 m) Decision reviewed: Appeal against 'R' registration by the Film Censorship Board. Decision of the Board: Register ‘M’. (a) Previously shown on November 1978 List. (b) Previously shown on February 1978 List.

Harper Valley P.T.A.: April Fools Prod., U.S.A. (2715.57 m) H itler, A C areer: In te ra rt Films, W. Germ any (4361.00 m) Horses: L. Ming, Hong Kong (271 5.00 m) Ice Castles: J. Kemeny, U.S.A. (2935.00 m) II Braccio Vioiento Del Kung Fu: J. Pascual, Hong Kong/ltaly (2277.00 m) Le Pillole Delle Figlie Del Farmacista: F. Zenker Italy (2030,00 m) The Middle Man (16 mm): S. Guha, India (1404.00 m) Paradise Alley: J. Roach/R. Suppa, U.SA. (2935.01 m) Passing Through (1 6 mm): L. Clark, U.S.A. (11 84.76 m) Rain in the Maples: H. Hann, Hong Kong (2633.00 m) San Francisco (16 mm): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, U.S.A. (1261.00 m) See How She Runs: G. Englund, U.S.A. (2578.00 m) Sidewinder 1: Ibex Films, U.SA. (2633.28 m) Stow Dancing in the Big City: M. Levee/J. Avildsen, U.SA. (2962.00 m) Stevie: Bowden Prods., U.K. (2797.86 m) Una Come Quelle (One of Those): A. Bravna, Italy (2440.00 m) Watership Down: M. Rosen, U.K. (2468.70 m)

(2222.00 m)

Ein Lied Geht Un Die Welt (My Song Goes Round The World) (16 mm): R. Oswald, W. Germany (867.00 m) Ein Stern Fallt vom Himmel (A Star Fell from Heaven) (16 mm) Styria Films, Austria (943.00 m) I Due Gondolieri (Venezia, La Luna E Tu): Titanus/ S.C.G., Italy (2551.00 m) La Suora Degli Angeli (La Corsa Pazza Di Sorella Sprint): P. Maso/Filmayer Prod., Italy (2304.00 m) Love Without End: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (3373.00 m) The Morning Fog (16 mm): L. Chiang, Taiwan (1031.00 m)

Muhammad Ali vs Leon Spinks for the Heavyweight Championship of the World (16 mm): Universal 16, U.SA. (798.10 m) Roberta (16 mm): RKO Radio Piet., U.SA. (1152.00 m) Scaramouche (16 mm): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, U.S.A. (1 294.00 m) Three Lucky Men: Not shown, Hong Kong (2469.00 m) The Unforgettable Character: C. Dao, Hong Kong (2688.00 m) The Wiz: Motown Prods., U.S.A. (3593.33 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Ashiq Hoon Baharon Ka: S. Mandlr, India/Switz. (4114.00 m) Black Orpheus: S. Gordine, Brazil/France (2962.00 m) Bali: Roxy Film, Monaco (2633.00 m) The Brink’s Job: R. Serpe, U.SA. (2770.00 m) Caravans: Ibex Films, U.S.A./lran (3346.00 m) Dawn!: Aquataurus Film Prods., Australia (2989.00 m) Eagle’s Wing: P. Shaw/B. Arbeid, U.K./M exico (2962.00 m) Fast Charlie . . . The Moonbeam Rider: R. Corman/ S. Krugman, U.S.A. (2633.00 m) The First Great Train Robbery: D. De Laurentiis/ Starling. Prod., U.K. (3044.00 m) G o in ’ S o u th : H. G itte s /H . S c h n e id e r, U.S.A. (2908.00 m)

Tobacco Roody (Pre-censor cut version) (e): B. Buckalew, U.S.A. (2238.80 m) (a) Shorter English sub-titled version registered ‘M’ (March 1975, List). (b) Previously shown on October, 1976 List. (c) Reduced by producer’s cuts from 2551.82 metres (October, 1978 List). (d) Previously shown on November, 1973 List. (e) Previously shown on August, 1975 List. Special condition: To be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia as part of its 1979 Jean Renoir Season. La Nuit Du Carrefour (16 mm): J. Becker, France (975.00 m) Madame Bovary (16 mm): G. Gallimard, France (1465.00 m) Tire Au Flanc (16 mm): Neofilm, France (980.00 m)

FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS For Restricted Exhibition (R) My Darling Gals: C. Wai, Hong Kong (2386.00 m) Eliminations: 8.8m (19 secs.) Reason: Excessive violence

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION Brotherhood: R. Shaw, Hong Kong (2731.80 m) Reason: Excessive violence Schoolgirls’ Report (a): W. Hartwig, W. Germany (2431.90 m) Reason: Undesirable In the public interest Schoolgirls’ Report — Why Parents Lose Their Sleep (b): W. Hartwig, W. Germany (2410.50 m) Reason: Undesirable public interest Sex Wish (Reconstructed version): Santini Prods./ Taurus Prods., U.S.A. (1994.60 m) Reason: Indecency (a) Reconstructed version registered ‘R’ with cuts (June 1973, List) (b) Formerly ‘R’ (September 1973, List)

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW Nil

★

Cinema Papers, May-Jiine — 393

th re e a rts s e r v ic e s SUPPLIERS OF LEADING MAKES OF. . .

• STUDIO & PROJECTION LAMPS • LIGHTING COLOUR & CORRECTION FILTERS • STUDIO & THEATRE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT • CAMERA TAPE & GAFFER TAPE • TRACING PAPER RING KEN OR NORMA HANCOCK OR TONY CAREY

Phones 45 DAVIS STREET, KEW, VICTORIA, 3101

r ORIGINAL MUSIC ’ FOR YOUR FILM Greg Sneddon is an experienced drama and docum entary film m usic com poser. H e has worked as Musical Co-ordinator for the ABC in M elbourne. If you would like to see som e o f his work a video cassette is available on request.

Phone; (03) 755 1535

AlACCIÆSniüLl» PRODUCTIONS • a complete film editing and post-production facility for the 16mm filmmaker involved in features, documentaries, informational and short films • all facilities and equipment, including our 4 and 6 plate Steenbecks and theatrette, are available for individual hire • Filmschnitt und Synchronisation deutschsprachiger Filme zählen zu unseren Spezialitäten

14-16 Whiting Street, ARTARMON, N.S.W. 2064

(02) 4 3 8 2 9 9 3 A

AN INDEPENDENT OPTICAL HOUSE THAT CAN NOW OFFER YOU

THE COMPLETE OPTICAL SERVICE Ring

LARRY WYNER PAUL GLUCINA

C ontact R obert M a rtin at:

20 Thomson Street South M elbourne. V ic. 3205

ACME OPTICALS

Telephone (03) 699 6185

COMPETITIVE PRICES AND EXCELLENT SERVICE

Basil Gilbert q u a l it y

The first part in this series of articles on film libraries and distributors dealt with government-funded national film libraries and independent distribution by film makers co-operatives. In this second part, the remaining distributors of 16mm films for study purposes are briefly surveyed in alphabetical order. The Australian Council for Children’s Films and Television has for hire films produced for the Children’s Film Founda tion, London, some Walt Disney shorts, and a few Australian children’s films (e.g., Lost in the Bush from the Audio Visual Education Centre). The Children’s Film Foundation was established by the British Film Institute as a non-profit organization in 1951, and supplies entertainment films for children at primary school level. The ACCFTV brochure lists 36 hour-length titles and 11 programs of shorts. The Australian Film and Television School in Sydney has numerous student productions for sale or rental. The titles listed in the 1978 A FT VS Handbook include Phil Noyce’s Castor and Pollux (1973); Barbara Chobocky’s The First Step (1975), and G illian C o o te ’s important film on contraception, Getting It On (1976). A new handbook, with updated lists, is being prepared. Australasian Film Hire is the major Australian distributor of 16mm films of American and British features from Para m ount, Universial, Warners, Greater Union Organization Film Distributors, Roadshow, Filmways, Blake Films, and other companies. The new catalogue lists 1200 titles under 13 headings, ranging from adventure and Australiana, to erotica, horror, musicals, thrillers and westerns. The Australiana section includes many recent productions, such as Storm Boy and Picnic at Hanging Rock, and earlier commercial successes, such as Tim Burstall’s Alvin Purple, Bruce Beresford’s The Adventures of Barry McKenzie, and Philippe M ora’s Mad Dog Morgan. Students of Australian film censorship will find John Lamond’s Australia After Dark, and the Richard Bruce/Antony I. Ginnane feature Fatitasm, in the erotica section. Some titles from the other sections are King Kong, Jaws, Toute une vie, Day For Night, Nashville, A Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist, To the Devil A Daughter, Klute, Rosemary’s Baby, and The Wild Bunch. The Embassy of Brazil list does not include any Latin-American or Third World features, but it has a handful of informative documentaries, such as Rio: Portrait of a City. The Canadian High Commission has expanded its film library to include many new titles, especially short documentaries. Many are of regional interest (e.g., Eskimo, The Fight For Life) and there are several useful biographical studies (e.g., Grierson and Mr. Symbol Man). Cine Action has recently published a new catalogue listing 40 features and 12 shorts in 16mm, and several titles in 35mm. This collection is particularly rele vant for tertiary film study courses. Modern European cinema. Third World political films, and Spanish-language titles

FILMS

VOU>«E" * n

t 6 N « V t D IV IS IO N yrALoeuE

predominate. There is also the occasional print of a lesser-known American avantgarde filmmaker, such as Jerome Hill’s Film Portrait (1971). The Consulate-General of Israel now makes its films available through the National Film Library in Canberra, and a new catalogue is available now. Danish Embassy titles, mainly docu mentaries, are also available from the National Library. Educational Media Australia has an extensive film rental service aimed at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. A new 256-page catalogue is available with supplements. Titles are listed alpha betically and range from Aboriginal Legends .to Zoo Keeper. The main titles of value to film study are listed under the category “ Visual Literacy/Classics” , and this section includes British Film Institute co m p ila tio n s, Ealing fe a tu re s, and historical classics such as D. W. Griffith’s Orphans of the Storm (Parts 1 and 2), and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923). The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany is an important source for films on German Expressionism, and general films such as 100 years of Football (three episodes). This film library is an invaluable aid to the study of the German language. Some of the films from the silent era have sub-titles in German, but many films are available with English sub titles. A catalogue with short synopses is available. The Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a useful source of films dealing with the Soviet Union. Recently-acquired titles include Lenin in October, The Soviet Theatre Today, This is Siberia, and We Never Tire Speaking About Mothers. Filmart Distributors, as the name suggests, rent ‘art house’ films. Their list of some 30 titles now includes such impor tant European features as Robert Bres son’s Diary of A Country Priest (1951) and Roman Polanski’s Cul-de-sac (1966). Shorts are also available. The French E m bassy C ultu ral Services Division is a major source of important French language films, old and

new. Most of the films have English sub titles. The catalogue lists some 150 French directors ranging from J. F. Adam to C. Zuber, and includes such well-knowns as Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut. Some prints are lodged at the Vincent Lib rary for two to six-month periods. Garland Productions are a small dis tributor, but their list of more than 20 titles includes some rare Andy Warhol films such as Lonesome Cowboys and My Hustler. The Chancery Embassy of Ireland has a number of films which are handled by the National Film Library, Canberra. Jason Vintage Film Distributors rent a number of shorts and abridged versions of old classics including German Expression ist films, particularly the work of Fritz Lang, F. W. Murnau and Robert Weine. Important deletions to their catalogue are the Sergei Eisenstein films. Battleship Potemkin, Ten Days That Shook the World and Alexander Nevsky. These are, however, available to registered film study groups from the National Film Library. Jason also have many classic films available for outright purchase. The Netherlands Embassy has a small number of Dutch films which are now available from the National Film Library. Project One is a new Melbourne dis tributor run by Paul Coulter, former dis tribution manager of the Australian Film Institute. As the list of titles (all Aus tralian) is short, it can be quoted in full: John Balsaitis’ Space Time Structures (1976) and Process Process (1975); Ivan Durant’s Chopping Block (1974) and Red Dog (1977); Tom Haydon’s The Last Tas manian (1978); Ken Cameron’s Out of It (1976) and Temperament Unsuited (1977) . At the moment, these films are only available for outright purchase. Quality Films in Sydney are the major source in Australia for ‘masterpieces’ of European and Asian Cinema. The 1979, 16mm catalogue lists important works by Ingmar Bergman; masterpieces of French cinema; major films of Akira Kurosawa (Living, The Lower Depths, Rashomon, Dersu Usala, Dodes’ka-den); as well as American, Soviet, Italian, and Indian classics. A notable Australian film in the library is Charles Chauvel, Action Director (1972), which is part of the collection entitled “ Filmmaking and Media” . There are also films on politics and sport. Ronin Films in Canberra offer a small number of out-of-the-way features in 35mm, such as Kon Ichikawa’s The Wanderers and Jerzy Skolimowski’s King Queen Knave. The 16mm film holdings include Nagisa Oshima’s Yunbogi’s Diary and Akio Jissoji’s Nirvana. Sharmill Films of Melbourne have a small b ',f. important list of films for rental. The m noteworthy are the Luis Buñuel class:u->. The Exterminating Angel, Viridiana, Los Olividados, Land Without Bread, and some recent releases such as Heste» Street and Padre Padrone. Many titles are also held on 35mm. The Shell Company of Australia Ltd. has a library containing short films of importance to the student of the Aus tralian commercial documentary. An upto-date catalogue is available. The Swedish Embassy has a number of shorts ar < features which are held by the National library in Canberra. The titles do not include the well-known classics of Swedish mema, but they are of value for

the student of Swedish culture. The State Film Centres in Australia are major suppliers of films for secondary schools and, to a lesser degree, tertiary institutions. In the past they have been the agent of the National Film Library in Can berra, but with the introduction of com puterization, schools now order directly from the National Library. The holdings of the various state film centres are not listed in the new edition of the ACOFS catalogue (see below) but many have comprehensive catalogues with such information. The State Film Centre in Melbourne, for example, issues a 70page catalogue entitled Film History and Techniques , “ prepared for the use of film societies and film appreciation groups in schools interested in the study of film as an art form” . There are important fulllength features listed, for example G. W. Griffith’s Birth of A Nation (1915), and the Raymond Longford version of On Our Selection (1920). Of great value are the short study extracts from films such as Andrzej Wajda’s Ashes and Diamonds (1968), David Lean’s Brief Encounter (1945) and Sergei Eisenstein’s Ivan The Terrible (1941-44). Many state film centres hold films made by Film Australia (e.g., the Australian Eye art series, which is of interest to teachers and historians) and films from local education film units (e.g., AVEC in Victoria). South Australia’s Film and Television Centre has films and video cassettes for loan to schools, and the Centre has intro duced such innovations as a ‘Mobile Film Package’ consisting of six features and shorts (containing western, science fic tion and animation) which will be available in early May. T w en tieth C en tu ry-F ox (16m m division) distributes films produced by Columbia, MGM, Avco Embassy, and in certain states, United Artists (see below). The 143-page illustrated catalogue is now supplemented by roneoed lists of addi tional titles. The main catalogue lists film titles, stars, directors, dates, formats, running times, and also contains about 1000 titles under the headings, adventure, children, comedy, crime, drama, horror, suspense, thrillers, musicals, science fiction, and westerns. The catalogue is illustrated with stills from the films. Of great importance to the student of European and American cinema are the holdings of films made by major European directors (Vittorio de Sica, Ingmar Berg man, Luchino Visconti, Roman Polanski, Francois Truffaut, Michelangelo Anton io n i); A m erican d ire c to rs (R o b ert Altman, John Huston, Joseph Losey, John Frankenheimer, John Cassavetes, Peter Bogdanovich, Sam Peckinpah); and British directors such as Alfred Hitchcock and Ken Russell. Because the organization provides films for the public, film societies, football clubs and the like (at varying hiring fees depending on the customer) there are many titles of mini mal importance to the film study area. One important exception is the recent acquisi tion of a number of MGM vintage titles (e.g., The Red Badge of Courage (1951)). U n ited A r tis ts in S y d n e y , as mentioned, release many of their titles through the offices of Twentieth CenturyFox in all states except New South Wales. For titles not available through Fox, contact the United Artists Sydney office. Concluded on P.400 Cinema Papers, May-June — 395

FRENCH CINEMA

French Cinem a in Crisis C ontinued fr o m P. 345

There is no lack of talented directors in France, but they either remain despairingly wise, reasonable and prudent, to the point of losing all true creativity, or else they become believers in obscurantism, to be sought at all costs. A certain polarization has been estab lished between “ les Bidasses (G.I.’s) et la D uras ” , between the impulsive populism and outrageous extravagances o f boulevard comedy and the sterile academism, the hermetic, sophisticated pretentiousness of the avant-garde. This has left a large body of would-be filmgoers in a vacuum as far as French films are concerned.

CRITICS

In its struggle to find the middle path of a simple but living cinema, inventive but true, French production ought to be able to call on the assistance of the critics, but, unfor tunately, too many of them fail in what should be a vital duty. Television, seeking pardon for having stolen so many filmgoers, has increased the number of its programs apparently promoting films — we say “ apparently” because, for the most part, these programs and their comperes are totally devoid of objectives and criteria, and the fact that they are extremely popular merely adds to the overall chaos and lack of accurate information and well-reasoned judgment. The situation is even worse with the fourth estate. There, the critics, incapable of the slightest discernment, give equal weight to promising debuts, abortive attempts and pretentious self-indulgence. Many films, acclaimed by the “ experts” , turn out to be box-office flops (again, the example of Providence, awarded the 1977 Critics’ Prize for the Best French Film). Badly and incon sistently advised by press and television, the public has no idea how to finalize its choice and ends up too often abstaining. In the 1955-65 period it was easy to say who were the great French directors, and everybody agreed on a dozen names. But today a genius is proclaimed every month, or every week, yet within no time his name has been forgotten. The critics have lost their cred ibility, and with it their influence; rare are those who exist to enlighten the mind, to inform the potential filmgoer, to establish values and to put things in their true per spective. In addition, critics seem to be dangerously imbued with an intellectual and political conformism which makes it suicidal for a director to treat certain taboo subjects: for instance, Lelouch was so cruelly violated by the press for having demythified certain aspects of the Resistance in Le bon et les mechants that it was difficult for the public to view the film objectively. To what extent the failure of the critics to play a helpful role has contributed to the cinema crisis, and just how much they are now in a position to solve, remains nebulous. However, one can state with a certain amount of confidence that no remedy can be brought to the situation when the critics proffer such inane defences of French cinema as an article in L e Figaro (May 27, 1978), which argued that if French films are judged to be of poor 396 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Yves Boisset’s Un taxi mauve, both a prize-winner and a public success.

quality these days, this is only a reflection of the modern era, with its lack of courage, virtue, honor and greatness. But how can one ignore the fact that some of France’s bleakest moments have produced some of her finest films? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to blame the misdirection of ideas, talent and money than the present climate?

have risen from an average FF 3.5 (about 70c) in 1966 to FF 16 ($3.30) for films on first release and FF 17 ($3.50) for the art-houses18 many people feel they are getting a bad deal for their money. Add to the price of a ticket the cost of transport and fringe expenses, and cinemagoing becomes an expensive outing that pensioners, low-income families and the former W ednesday-evening and Saturdayafternoon addicts can no longer afford more than once or twice a year. The rest of the time they join the televiewers. A n o t h e r s t r a n g e a n d d a m a g in g phenomenon is occurring, presumably due to a lack of market research. Namely, it has been established on many occasions that more than 50 per cent of regular filmgoers are under 24 years of age, yet the number of films restricted to 18 years and over (not counting those Xrated) is growing annually.

FESTIVALS

More and more people are questioning the value of festivals and asking whether they are any more than expensive publicity stunts, for which the films are subjectively and quite improperly selected. For example, is not MISCELLANEA Cannes, the most famous of them all, just an B unjustifiable waste of time and money, searching solely for sensationalism and The reasons I have outlined above for the succeeding merely in turning more and more shrinking cinema attendance seem clear prospective customers away from the cinema? enough: squabbles within the industry, a The original idea, after all, was that Filmgoers misplaced belief in the concept of multi should be guided by the choice at Cannes, but cinema complexes, government mismanage this is now a far cry from reality; in 1977, only ment and bias, television rivalry, the poor Boisset’s Un taxi mauve managed to be a quality of the average French film and’ prize-winner and a public success. competition with foreign products. Unfort unately, damaging though all this may be, it does not represent the whole story. REMEDIES A variety of subsidiary causes can be discerned; for example, the lack of studios is one the industry often complains about. After the New Wave insistence on location shooting, The situation, perhaps bleaker than ever there is now a tendency to return to the studio, before, needs urgent attention. Non-govern but the few permanent ones still open are ment and extra-industry assistance is unlikely. completely booked. Indeed, the role which the Philip Morris Another cause often voiced is the excessive Foundation (the largest support of this nature) number of cinemas (4300)17, which results in has been playing for four years, particularly in the slow recoupment of capital and the the fields of public relations, promotion and premature termination of promising runs. distribution (of French and foreign films), Meanwhile, the public maintains it is willing seems to be beset with problems of bias similar to attend cinemas more regularly if the to those found within the Government’s own physical conditions and public relations are schemes. For example, the film selected in improved. Constant complaints are: 1978 to receive the Foundation’s prize (worth (a) Uncomfortable, smelly and badly vent- FF 150,000 or $31,250), and then publicity ilated/heated cinemas, tiny screens and and distribution assistance, was obviously sub-titles which can only be read when inferior to the runner-up, even though the you stand up; latter was a production of the rich Gaumont (b) The poor quality of projection, out-dated empire.19 technical equipment, mechanical failures, Solutions clearly lie in the co-operation breaks in the film, cracklings and streaks, between government and industry, a fact that inaudible or deafening soundtracks, fuzzy both sides may have realized last year. As images; previously mentioned, there have recently (c) Slow ticket-selling and lack of outside been som e w elcom e d iscu ssio n s, som e shelter, culminating often in a cold wait in positive actions, and suggestions that the path wind, rain or snow; to salvation, however long and difficult, is (d) Failure to adhere to the publicized negotiable. starting-time or to advertise changes to 1978 began with the open letter in the programs; (e) Excessively long intervals and annoying 18. The paying public would have little sympathy with the mini-meals being munched and crunched professionals’ argument that, because it costs about FF 65 ($13.50) to go to the theatre and up to FF 400 during the screening. ($83) for the opera, the Government freeze on When it is remembered that ticket prices cinema prices should be ended. 17. Some potential clients, however, are disgruntled at the lack of a local cinema, particularly in the Paris and surrounding area: of 40 fairly large towns, 17 are without a cinema and another 17 have only one.

19. Rene Feret’s La communion solennelle and Roger Coggio’s On peut le dire sans se facher, the first two films to receive the Foundation’s prize-of FF 150,000 ($31,250), plus publicity and distribution assistance, were of exceptional and unquestionable quality.

FR E N C H C IN E M A

newspapers, which, as already noted, produced closer bonds between television and cinema. In conjunction with this letter, a campaign was launched on cinema’s home territory, with famous directors being recruited to make short films illustrating the plight of the industry and the lack of assistance from the Government. Within a few weeks, these shorts were shown in 3000 cinemas throughout France. Following this “ political engagem ent” , discussions were held between the head of G aum ont, Francois Sallard, and Michel d’Ornano, then Minister for Culture and Environment, during which earlier pleas were renewed and the need to take firm and immediate measures was reiterated: the V.A.T. on entry-tickets must be reduced to 7 per cent; government assistance in relation to exports must be increased; the number of film s perm itted on te le v isio n m ust be substantially reduced and the television stations must be forced to pay more for film rights. In early March, d’Ornano announced his plans to help the cinema industry, plans which were to be spread over a two-year period: V.A.T. will be lowered on technical material and equipment (no mention of entry-tickets); the support fund will provide more money for film production; the television/cinema rivalry will be lessened by the creation of a new liaison body between the two industries; and there will be an increased commercial exclusivity period of 30 months between a film’s first release and its television screening. However, in typically French fashion, d’Ornano was then removed from the Culture portfolio, an event which may ultimately prove to be a blessing in disguise, for his successor, Jean-Philippe Lecat, has already endeared him self to cinema professionals by two measures in particular. At long last, the reduction of V.A.T. to 7 per cent (the Govern ment will have to bear a consequent loss of FF 160 million or $33 million) and the estab lishment of a new category of financial aid to au d io-visu al creation (the 1979 budget contains the initial modest sum of FF 5 million or $1 million). Even if the new Minister for Culture and Com m unication were to validate all his predecessor’s recommendations (he might query, for instance, whether the provision of additional funds is likely to solve anything), and were he to implement them, it is doubtful whether they alone would suffice. To prevent French cinema from going the way of its counterparts in Germany (total economic decadence) and Britain (in most cases only American product in disguise), other remedies will be needed in the next few years. Some have already been suggested in the course of this article, and consist in the correction o f existin g defects: a total rethinking and reorganization of the pro duction, distribution and exhibition sectors; a redirection of the Government’s economic assistance, and a more equitable and rational distrib u tion o f the “ advances against However, the 1978 winner, the Canadian film Outrageous, by director Richard Benner, was in most respects inferior to the French runner-up, Jean-Marie Perier’s Sale reveur (prize of FF 5000 or $1000), but the latter was produced and distributed by the rich Gaumont empire. Author’s note: Since the completion of this article, Edeline’s health has succumbed to the enormous pressures of his position and, hospitalized since last October, he has now been relieved of his duties at the S.F.P. Moreover, there is considerable doubt whether this giant company can continue in its present form, or whether, as seems likely, it will have to re-examine its whole role in relation to film and tele-film production.

receipts” ; an increase in the number of lowb u d get film s b ein g m ad e, w ith o u t a consequent decline in their national and inter national appeal. Other remedies lie in the ever-changing domain of technical progress:20 for example, immediate investigations must be conducted into means by which television can be directly challenged on its own ground. Jean-Charles Edeline21, head of the Federation Nationale des Cinemas Français and president of Société Française de Production (S.F.P.), has some thought-provoking suggestions to make.22 If cinema’s whole concept were changed to some form of electronic transmission, enabling films to be simultaneously screened in numerous places throughout the country (as happened, for example, with the videotape programs which the S.F.P. successfully transmitted to Auvergne in April-May 1977), it would be able to draw the huge audience which is already watching its films on television back to the cinema’s larger screen. For conventional fiction-film s, such a process would im prove the quality of projection (eliminating crackles, breaks, etc.), would allow nationwide first releases and would, in the long run, be cheaper than trad itional systems. Its greatest benefit, however, is elsewhere: the unique possibility of two-way verbal interchange, thus providing programs o f a fic tio n -c u m -d o c u m e n ta r y n atu re. Programs which should be able to comply with the demands of a modern public revealed by recent market research to be increasingly desirous of general knowledge and whose quest for information, only partly satisfied by press, radio and television, could be turned to the advantage of the cinema. No doubt such expensive and revolutionary innovations would be for the future. More pressing steps — and steps that, in my opinion, hold the real key to the problem — need to be taken in the field of creativity. Firstly, there is now a grave lack of script writers, with perhaps only 10 of real talent. To account for this, one has to go back 20 years to the New Wave, during which the director functioned as an all-powerful demigod, allowing his inspiration to replace toil, and improvizations to take the place of technique and professionalism. With the best directors, the result was an exceptional freshness and vigor. Naturally, however, severe disadvantages were also felt, perhaps the most unfortunate being that, in this period when the image won over the text, the mise en scene over the plot, the authors/scriptwriters suddenly found themselves without work. In the subsequent vacuum, it was hardly surprising to find French films struggling along, weighed down by feeble plots, mediocre constructions, unlikely situations, hackneyed dialogue, empty characters and general atonality — none o f which can be replaced by virtuoso 20. As we have already suggested (p. 217), that technical developments have helped solve past crises — the advent of sound, speech, color, Cinemascope, propelled the cinema continually forward. 21. Edeline, formerly the head of U.G.C. and president of the S.F.P. since its establishment by the Government in January 1975 as part of the break-up of the monolithic O.R.T.F., has personal acquaintance with a second crisis; under fire because of his company’s anticipated loss in 1978 of FF 12 million ($2.5 million) on the production of television and cinema films, he will soon have to come up with some dramatic solutions to satisfy the Minister for Culture and Communication and the President of the Republic. 22. Edeline talks at some length about this “ new cinema” in an interview published in Cinema d ’aujourd’hui'\ (nos. 12-13 — Spring 1977), pp. 180-191, under the title "Nous sommes ait debut de quetque chose, non a line a Jin ”,

camerawork. This disastrous state of neglect has been duly noted and remedies are under way: the Government has reinstated its financial aid to writers turning scenarists (Marguerite Duras thus follows in the wake of Louis Pagnol and Jean Cocteau) and the Centre National des Lettres has combined with the S.F.P. and the O.C.C. in separate com petitive schem es awarding prizes of FF 25,000 ($5200) to each of the winners (six of the 80 projects so far submitted have been successful). In proposing a solution to the second vital creative problem, we shall accept the view that F rance d o e s have ta le n te d d ir e c to r s, cameramen, technicians and actors, and, at the risk of appearing repetitive, we shall return instead to questions posed earlier in relation to the quality of contemporary films being thrown onto the market, an area that has not received the serious treatment it deserves. French cinema is suffering from a moral and intellectual crisis, inevitable from the moment it denies its mission; when it no longer accepts itself as a spectacle; when it scorns success (and profit); when it makes films for itself, for critics, festivals, awards, friends and fellowdirectors — i.e. for everyone except viewers to whom it should rightfully be addressed; when, instead of satisfying the filmgoers, it threatens them with contempt, ignores their wishes, and plots against them; and when it replaces pleasure, entertainment, escapism by the desire to dedramatize, demystify, denounce, demask, or decipher. This derisive attitude is not, unfortunately, restricted to the sm all proportion of revolutionary and avant-garde films, for largescale production is equally guilty. To French directors, popular has become an epithet of abuse; popular means commercial and alien ating — i.e. the opposite of artistic and effective. Such sophisms are strangling French cinema. Actor Lino Ventura, appearing on Channel TF1 in May 1978, was forthright in his condemnation: the cinema is dying of intellectualism and snobbery. To be successful is to be com m ercial, and to be com m ercial is apparently shameful. By dint of exalting the cinema d ’a u te u r , the auteurs have been killed. The critics, who lose interest in a film as soon as it is a success, merely help to enlarge this artificial gap between commercialism (d e sp ic a b le ) and art (c o m m e n d a b le ), choosing to ignore the fact that it is denied by the whole history of cinema. The majority of great films have been the result of a meeting between creator, critic ‘and the public. The Italian cinema continues to make acidulous judgments on Italian society, but it does so with the support, understanding, laughter and enjoyment of the audience. The sam e attitude prevails am ong the best American directors. France must be the only country in the world where artistic and public success are considered contradictory. The chief sufferers of this absurd “ conspiracy” — attacked in no uncertain terms by the Malecot report — are the filmgoers. Indeed, it is little exaggeration to suggest that, if the supply of paying customers is not to dry up completely, all parties concerned with cinema, as an art and as an industry, will have to work together to establish the ingredients for a long-term, popular and quality cinema, a cinema which will satisfy the dictates of aesthetics and commercialism. ★ The author wishes to express his gratitude to Agnes Bilbe for her assistance in the collection of material for this article. Cinema Papers, May-June — 397

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

Guide For th e Film Producer C ontinued fr o m P.363

No doubt the states and territories will am end their censorship leg isla tio n , if necessary, to ensure that that kind of exhibition is covered.

The Meaning of Theatrical Exhibition

unenclosed in which a film is exhibited whether admission thereto is open to members of the public or restricted to persons who are members of a club or who possess any other qualification or characteristic and whether admission is or is not procured by the payment of money or on any other condition” .

Exempted Films

The Queensland and Western Australian The type of exhibition of a film that is Acts exempt (from the restrictions on exhi regulated under the film censorship legislation bition of uncensored films) certain newsreels, differs slightly in the different states and namely, “ any film portraying solely pictures of a topical event which has happened in Aust territories. The question arises whether an uncensored ralia while being exhibited in a picture theatre (non-exempt) film may lawfully be shown to at any time not later than (in Queensland audiences outside public cinemas — e.g. in a “ three” : in Western Australia “ 14” ) days private club, or by 16mm hire, or by video after the happening of such event” . These states also exempt “ any film, other equipment installed within one building. We will not attempt to answer this question, but than a trailer film, used solely for advertising draw attention to the relevant wording in the purposes, unless the Censor has directed that such film be submitted to him for approval” . legislation. Apart from these statutory exemptions, all In the territories, what is regulated is “ the exhibition of a film to persons on payment of a the state acts provide for particular films, or charge or on presentation of a ticket or other classes of films, to be exempted from the token” . In Victoria and Tasmania, what is censorship requirements by some specified regulated is exhibiting a-film in a theatre which administrative action or regulation — e.g. pro is defined as “ any house room building garden clamation by the state governor, or direction or place where any film is exhibited to which by the Censor. These exemption powers have been used admission is or may be procured by payment of money or by ticket or by any other means, mainly to allow uncensored films to be shown at film festivals. token or consideration” . In Western Australia and Queensland, what is regulated is exhibition in any “ picture theatre” , which is defined in the same way as “ theatre” in Victoria and Tasmania except that: (a) The definition states only what picture theatre “ includes” , i.e. it does not purport In May 1974, Queensland set up a statutory to state its complete meaning. Films Board of Review, with power to prohibit (b) In Queensland, in 1973, “ vessel” was the distribution in Queensland of a film added to the list of places that might regarded as objectionable, notwithstanding its constitute a picture theatre. acceptance and classification by the Federal (c) The expression “ other means, token or Film Censorship Board. consideration” is qualified by the addition The Board consists of five members “ as the price, hire, or rent of admission” . appointed by the State Governor in Council, (d) The defin ition conclu des with the and its functions include the examination and additional words: “ or where there is a review of films generally, and any particular subscription, collection, or donation film referred to it by the Minister, with the received” . object of prohibiting the distribution in the The New South Wales wording is different. state of “ objectionable” films. There is What is regulated there is exhibition in “ a provision for appeal by an aggrieved person to theatre or public hall” . ; the State Supreme Court. Theatre means “ theatre constructed or used In deciding whether a film is objectionable, for the representation therein of any enter the Board is required by section 10 of the Films tainment of the stage and includes any Review Act to have regard to: building and premises used in connection “ (a) the nature of the film generally and in therewith” . particular whether it: Public hall means “ room or building of a (i) unduly emphasizes matters of sex, permanent character where public enter horror, terror, crime, cruelty or vio tainments or public meetings are held, and lence; includes any building and premises used in (ii) is blasphemous, indecent, obscene or connection therewith” . likely to be injurious to morality; (iii) is likely to encourage depravity, public Public entertainment means “ entertain ment to which admissions may ordinarily be disorder or the commission of any indictable offence; or procured by members of the public, upon pay ment of money or other consideration, or by a (iv) generally outrages public opinion. ticket, program or other device purchased for (b) the persons, classes of persons and age money or other consideration” . groups to or amongst whom the film is The New South Wales legislation also intended or is likely to be exhibited; appears to be much narrower in its application (c) the tendency of the film to deprave or to buildings than the legislation in Victoria, corrupt the persons, classes of persons or Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia. age groups or any of them referred to in On the other hand, it is not confined to exhi subparagraph (b), notwithstanding that bition for which some payment is made. other persons or classes of persons or persons in other age groups may not be The widest wording is in the South similarly affected thereby; Australian Act, which regulated exhibition in a theatre, and defines theatre as “ any place (d) the circumstances in which the film is w hether en clo sed , partly en clo sed , or exhibited or is intended to be exhibited in

The Films Board of Review in Queensland

398 — Cinema Papers, May-June

the state; (e) the scien tific or artistic m erit or importance of the film, to the intent that a film shall not be determined an object ionable film unless, having regard to the matters specified in this section and all other revelant considerations, the Board is of the opinion that the exhibition of the film in the state would have an immoral or mischievous tendency or effect.” Subject to section 10, section 9 provides that the Board may determine a film to be object ionable if, in the Board’s opinion, it consists substantially of pictures: “ (a) that are of an indecent nature or suggest indecency; (b) that portray, describe or suggest acts or situations of a violent, horrifying, crim inal or immoral nature.” The Act introduces criteria much wider than in any previous film censorship legislation in Australia — e.g. the notions of “ generally outraging public o p in io n ” ; “ having an immoral or mischievous tendency or effect” ; and merely “ suggesting acts of an immoral nature” . Up to December 1978, the Board’s activities resulted in more than 100 films, which the Federal authority had passed as “ R” , and one classified “ M” (Pretty Baby), being banned from cinemas in Queensland.

Other State Powers to Prohibit or Classify Films In Queensland, the Censorship of Films Act has always provided for an appeal to the Minister (the State Minister of Culture, Parks and Recreation) by anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Censor. This procedure, which is in addition to the normal avenues of appeal from the Film Censorship Board, could be used to reclassify a film for Queensland. The passing of the Films Review Act has, however, provided a simpler way for the Queensland authorities to override the federal board’s classification of a film in a case where they regard the film as objectionable. The South Australian legislation empowers the Minister (the State Premier) to classify a film for the State, and — by declaration pub lished in the State Gazette — to substitute the Minister’s classification for any classification o f the film under a corresponding law recognized under the legislation. The Act requires the Minister, in exercising these powers, to “ have regard to standards of morality, decency and propriety that are generally accepted by reasonable adult persons in this State” . This happened in 1977 with Michael Thornhill’s F.J. Holden, which although on appeal classified “ M” by the Federal authority was still classified “ R” by the Minister in South Australia. As a result of complaints about the showing of “ R” certificate films in drive-ins with screens visible from outside, South Australia amended its legislation in 1973 to give ministerial power to prohibit screenings in such circumstances. In 1976, Western Australia amended its legislation to give the Minister (the Chief Secretary) power to invalidate a classification given to a film by the Film Censorship Board, and either to substitute his own classification or to leave the film unclassified (in which case it is to be regarded as having been rejected by the Censor). Up to December 19787this power has not been exercised.

PROPUCTION SURVEY

Censorship of Film Advertising Matter Import into Australia of advertising matter for a film (defined as “ posters, photographs, sketches, programs and other matter intended for use in connection with the exhibition of a film ” ) is prohibited under the C u sto m s ( C inem atograph F ilm s ) R e g u la tio n s , unless such advertising matter is approved by the Film Censorship Board. Locally-produced advertisements for films are regulated by the censorship legislation of the states and territories, and are required to be submitted to the Film Censorship Board for approval only if the Chief Censor directs in a particular case. Any such direction normally applies to all advertisements for a film, including newspaper ads by an exhibitor. The Regulation 13 requirements concerning indecency, etc, apply also to advertising matter. Advertising matter is not classified by the Board, but is either approved or rejected. There is an appeal procedure the same as for theatrical films. Once the Chief Censor directs that adver tising matter be submitted to the Board for approval, the legislation (in the various juris dictions) prohibits its publication or dis semination if it has not yet been submitted, or if it has been submitted and either rejected or not yet approved, -or if it has been altered in any way from the form in which it was approved. The manner in which the Board’s powers over film advertising have been exercised has been the subject of criticism by som e

GUIDE FOR THE FILM PRODUCER

Australian filmmakers, notably those whose productions are usually classified “ R” . They complain of unreasonable delay and disregard for the pressures that arise from the film maker’s commercial commitments. One cause of the frequent delays is the Board’s practice of refusing to consider the advertising material for a film before the film itself is classified, even though the material is ready long before the film. There is also no time limit attached to the Censor’s power to call for the submission of all advertising material for a film. The Censor can call for its submission at any time — e.g. when the film has been or is just about to be launched. And as there is no limit either on the time that the Board may take to examine the material, in theory the producer could face an indefinite moratorium on advertising at the most critical stage of marketing his film. We are not aware of any case of this happening, but there has been at least one case where the Board, informed of the producer’s scheduled release date months in advance, delayed approving the proposed advertising material until the evening before the film’s premiere, effectively preventing any pre release advertising. In practice, the Censor’s discretion to call for the su b m ission o f locally-produced advertising material is generally exercised in relation to “ R” certificate and sometimes “ M” certificate films. At the time when a proposed production is being planned, such possibilities may seem fairly remote. But if the proposed film is likely to be classified “ R” , in assessing the likely returns in Australia, it would be prudent to make ample allowance for marketing delays caused by the censorship requirements. ★

00000000000000000

0 0 0 0 0

Producer................................ Peter Johnson SKIING’S DIFFERENT Director and Prod company... Motion Picture Associates scriptwriter..........................Rob McAuley Dist company............................................FilmAustraliaPhotography........................ Peter Hopwood Continued from P.392 Producer.................................Peter Johnson Editor.......................................... Max Lemon Director and Length............................................. 6 x 5 min scriptwriter.......................... Edwin Moses Shooting stock..................................... 7247 Photography............................. John Leake PREVENTIVE DENTISTRY Release date............................... April, 1979 Sound recordist......... Barry von Bronkhurst Synopsis: A series of six documentaries — Prod company.........................Film Australia Editor...................................................... PeterFletcher Seamanship, Search and Rescue, Means Producer.................................... Don Murray Camera asst..............................James Ward of Being Rescued, Alcohol, The Shore Director.....................................................StanDalby Length,................................... ............20 min Waters and Water Skiing — aimed at Editor........................................................ StanDalby Shooting stock....................... ........... 7247 Australia’s boating people. Sound mixer............................... GeorgeHart Progress..............................Post-production Length................................................. 10 min Release date................................ May, 1979 Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Synopsis: A documentary on skiing safety WAR WITHOUT WEAPONS Release date..................................April, 1979 aimed at people heading for the snow fields Synopsis: An animated film dealing with Prod company.......Curtis Levy Productions for the first time. dental health. The film, for the Department of Dist company......................... Film Australia Health, is being produced from existing Producer............................... Peter Johnson material. Director and scriptwriter........................................ Curtis Levy SHIFTING Editor............................................. Ian Barry Prod company........................ Film Australia Length................................................. 25 min Producer............................... Malcolm Otton Shooting stock.............. Eastmancolor 7247 THE RUSSIANS Director.............................. Philip Robertson Progress............................... Post-production PEOPLE OF THE CITIES Photography... Mick Von Bornemann A.C.S Release date................................ July, 1979 Sound recordist......................... Bruce Nihill Prod company.........................Film Australia Synopsis: A documentary on the build-up Editor.......................................... Ian Weddell Dist company..... .....................Film Australia of a VFL team before the start of a season. Length................................. 65 min (approx.) Producer................................Tom Manefield Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Director................................ Arch Nicholson Progress..............................................Editing Scriptwriter................................ John Abbott WILDLIFE PATROL Release date...............................June, 1979 Photography............................ Dean Semler Prod company.......................... Film Australia Narrator.............................. Philip Robertson Sound recordist..'................... Howard Spry Producer.................................... Don Murray Synopsis: Shifting is a successor of Editors.......................................... Tom Foley, Director and Belonging in Film Australia's current series Wayne le Clos scriptwriter.......... David Day-Thornwaite of e th n og ra ph ic stu d ie s of A ustralian Length................................................. 87 min Photography..............................Kerry Brown contemporary life. It examines the conflicts Shooting stock..................................... 7247 Sound recordist..................................... RodSimmons of interests between the residents of Spring Progress............................... Post-production Editor............ ..........................Wayne de Clos Hill (an inner suburb of Brisbane), the City Narrator........................................... Nick Tate Length,.......................... .................... 23 min Council and.the developers. Synopsis: Th is part is »about Lydia Gauge................................................. 35mm Altynnikova, a Moscow trolley bus driver for Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor 22 years; the family and workmates of Release date............................... April, 1979 Nicolai Timun, brigadier of a gang of Synopsis: Shot in the Northern Territory, dockers in the Ukrainian port of Odessa; SOLOMON ISLANDS the film is about two patrol officers, and the a nd th e fa m ily o f y o u n g V o lo d y a INDEPENDENCE beautiful country and wildlife. Samarkeshev, whose father is a doctor in Prod company........................ Film Australia the beautiful Black Sea resort city of Sochi. Producer....................................Don Murray Director...................................Graham Chase YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SAY Photography.............................Dean Semler Sound recordist...................................... BobHayes Prod company........................ Film Australia SAFETY IN THE SLAUGHTER Editor.................................................. GrahamChase Producer................................. MalcolmOtton HOUSE Asst director............ ............ Martin Cohen Director and Length................................................. 90 min scriptwriter......................................... DavidMuir Prod company............ Camfilm Productions Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Photography.......................... Andrew Fraser Dist company........................ FilmAustralia Progress......... ..................Post-production Sound recordist................................... DavidGlasser Producer................................ Peter Johnson Release date;.............................. May, 1979 Editor............................ HenryDangar Director...................................... John Bower Synopsis: A documentary about the people Length................................................. 10 min Scriptwriter............................ Jonathon King of this new nation, their culture, way of life Shooting stock....................... Eastmancolor Photography......................... David Wakeley Progress.............................. Post-production Editor...................................................... JohnHoskins and the events that took place on July 7, 1978 — the nation’s independence day. Release date.......................................... May,1979 Length........................... ....................15 min Narrator.................................... Jimmy Little Shooting stock................................... . 7247 Synopsis: A documentary in which officials Release date................................April, 1979 of the Australian Electoral Office explain to Synopsis: A documentary on the problems Aboriginal audiences the elector^) system, WATER SAFETY caused by accidents within an abbatoir and the importance of voting and of being on the how it affects the lives of government meat Prod company.............. R.G.A. Films Pty. Ltd. electoral rolls. inspectors. Dist company.......................... Film Australia

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

P roduction S urvey

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

STRAND E L E C T R IC A DIVISION OF

R A IM K A U S T R A L IA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CROUP

12 Barcoo Street, East Roseville, Sydney 2069. Phone 406 6176 60 Rosebank Ave, Clayton South, Vic 3169 Telephone 541 8502 299 Montague Road, West End, Brisbane 4101. Telephone 44 2851 101-105 Mooringe Avenue, Camden Park, SA 5038. Telephone 294 6555 430 Newcastle Street, Perth 6000. Phone 328 3933 120 Parry StreeL Newcastle 2300. Phone 26 2466

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 g

MAS4842

$ 3

Cinema Papers, May-June — 399

FILM STUDY RESOURCES GUIDE

ARTHUR AND CORINNE CANTRILL

R esources Guide

Continued from P.395

Main addresses of distributors Australian Council For Children’s Films and Television Mrs Elizabeth McDowall, C/- State Film Centre 1 Macarthur St., East Melbourne, Vic., 3002 Australian Film and Television School P.O. Box 160, North Ryde, NSW, 2113 Australasian Film Hire 49 Market St., Sydney, NSW, 2000 Also, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia. Embassy of Brazil 40 Marcus Clarke St., Canberra, ACT, 2601 Canadian High Commission Commonwealth Ave., Yarralumla, ACT, 2600 Cine Action Pty. Ltd., 263 Adderley St., West Melbourne, Vic., 3003 Consulate-General of Israel 17 Trelawney St., Woollahra, NSW, 2025 Danish Embassy 24 Beagle St., Red Hill, ACT, 2603 Educational Media Australia 237 Clarendon St., South Melbourne, Vic., 3205 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

Empire Circuit, Yarralumla, ACT, 2600 Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 78 Canberra Ave., Griffith, ACT, 2603 Filmart Distributors 17 Labrina Ave., Prospect, S.A., 5082 ( French Embassy 6 Darwin Ave., Yarralumla, ACT, 2600 Garland Productions Pty. Ltd. 8 Peaker Lane Woollahra, NSW, 2025 The Chancery Embassy of Ireland Films available from: National Film Library, Canberra Jason Vintage Film Distributors 617 Elizabeth St., Redfern, NSW, 2016 Netherlands Embassy Films available from: National Film Library, Canberra Project One 207 Lygon St., Carlton, Vic., 3053 Quality Films 405 Sussex St., Sydney, NSW, 2000 Ronin Films 136 Blarney Cres., Campbell, ACT, 2601 Sharmill Films 27 Stonnington Place, Toorak, Vic., 3142 Shell Company of Australia Ltd 140 Phillip St., Sydney, NSW, 2000 Also Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia

directly onto the film, and this seemed important for us to work' C ontinued fr o m P. 361 through at the time. Corinne: One thing should be sa id a b o u t H a r r y H o o t o n “ Harry Hooton” has a very clear immediately: it is a tour de force documentary impulse, but at the of editing. By the time we came to same time is very concerned with the end of that period we moved right away from editing. Having its own filmic processes . . . done so much there was almost Arthur: We were emotionally nothing more to say. In Harry Hooton, most of the and intellectually involved with t h e p r o c e s s o f th e f il m . film has tiny sections of pure Documentary aspects which occur color; two or three frames which early on re-appear later in the mediate the images that follow. film , in a totally reworked It’s such an incredible effort to manner. The film is very much a mediate the color o f images by hands-on film, and has a hands- these subliminal two and three on-material feel about it. We frame images of pure color. One of the things we were very dispensed with a laboratory printer, and even a camera interested in at the time we made towards the end, and hand-printed B o u d d i w as s i n g l e fr a m e lengths of film onto filmstock in animation. A lot of our work, liko 4000 Frames, was made about the darkroom . .. Corinne: Thereby obtaining a this time. We were very interested purity of color we would never in the single-frame animation of have achieved just by filming. the real world, not just art-work. When you use pure light directly In Bouddi, there is a constant onto the filmstock, you get a juxtaposition of animation with quality and a purity of color you live filming. Normally a burst of d o n ’t get when light passes animation will seem like a shock through the camera. And that’s in a live filming context, but in one of the very interesting things this film the whole thing is turned about the hand-printing in Harry around, and the small pieces of live filming are like shocks in a Hooton. Arthur: We thought of pure stream of animated images. Arthur: Static images. This is color in terms of light vibrations, or wavelengths uninterfered-with the aspect that most amazed us. by optical system s as far as After a stream of scintillating possible. The light was striking images, a static image of only half

A rth u r and Corinne C antrill

400 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Swedish Embassy Turrana St., Yarralumla, ACT, 2600 State Film Centres Consult ACOFS catalogue for addresses. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation Head Office, Hoyts Cinema Centre George St., Sydney, NSW, 2000 Also Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland. United Artists 456 Kent St, Sydney, NSW, 2000

A useful catalogue A revised and updated catalogue for 16mm films available in Australia has now

been published. This is the 4th edition of the Australian Council of Film Societies (ACOFS) 16mm Feature Film Catalogue. The new catalogue lists more than 7000 titles and has the categories of distributor, director, country of origin and title. There are more than 1000 deletions from the previous edition and a similar number of additions. Researchers have checked running tim e, language spoken and director of each film, resulting in almost 500 changes to the previous edition. The new ACOFS catalogue is available from its editor John Turner, 20 Craithie Ave., Park Orchards, Vic., 3114. The price is $28.75, which includes postage and sales tax. Two supplements to the catalogue will appear in late-1979 and mid-1980. I would like to thank Mr and Mrs Turner for their invaluable assistance in preparing this resource guide. ★

/MELBOURNE FILM/MAKERS RESOURCE BOOK

COMPILED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT FILMMAKERS YOUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO MELBOURNE EQUIPMENT, HIRE, CASTING, LABS., SUPER 8 ETC. ONLY S3AVAILABLE READINGS (LYGON ST.) JOHN BARRY, MASTERCOLOUR, VFL.

a second duration was a great surprise — a kind of optical shock. The opposite is generally the case: a few frames of action are usually inserted in a static sequence to create this kind of effect. The contrast between Earth Message and Bouddi is that there isn’t any benchtop editing in Earth Message at all. We started to edit it after we shot it, and found we were ruining it. So we replaced the shots in the order in which they had been taken.

is one superimposition which is slow and flowing, and forms a kind of background line; while th e r e is a n o th e r w h ic h is providing the rhythm in the foreground. Then we added music to the track which brought in a third element. In retrospect, I see the film as a kind of musical composition for music and images. How do you relate your work to avant-garde film m aking overseas and in Australia?

It is a highly structured film . . . Arthur: It was structured in the camera. Corinne: In Earth Message the superimposition was planned. We w ou ld know what we w ere superimposing on what, whether it was light or dark, the color of shots, or movement. You might have a very dark ground that was hardly noticeable in the super imposition, but it was there. All these things were thought about very carefully — the combination of movements and the color of them — so that it wasn’t random. We have done other super-' imposed work that was random. There is a lot of random super imposition in Harry Hooton. Arthur: I think we were inspired by the stru ctu re in m u sic. S o m e tim e s th e two su p e r impositions are like a duet. There

Corinne: I want to say very clearly, that I don’t want to be looking over my shoulder at what’s going on in New York and saying, “ Do we fit? Are we in the main stream?” We want to do what we want to do, and I think art dies when everyone is worried about whether they are out in front. But like it or not, whatever you do fits in some place . . . Corinne: I am not worried about that. Nevertheless^ there is that place, and you fit into i t . . . Arthur: And people will come to the films with that context in mind. -J. Concluded on P. 403

MICHAEL PATE

M ichael P a te C ontinued fr o m P. 349

P e r h a p s a wr i t e r - pr o duc e r director can at times become a little too close to the film — very attached to certain things in the film , because he/sh e has not only written them , but also directed them . Who is your bounce-board in a situation like this? As far as I am concerned, on this film there were three key people working: a writer, a producer and a director. Oddly enough they had the same name. I looked at the script I was going to direct either as a director or as a producer — whichever category it fell into. I can work on multiple levels like that because I don’t have any vanity about the script. If I get into a situation, as a director, where someone tells me it won’t work, I say, “ Talk to me, show me. Let me think about that. You are right. Let’s do it that way.” That was evidenced all through the production of Tim. As a producer, I am not dogmatic. When I came to cutting the film, David Stiven, the editor, fu n c tio n e d as an alter ego producer. I didn’t sit there and tell him, as a producer, what to do. It was a creative team. But as producer the final decisions had to be made by me. W h a t are y o u r p l a n s for marketing “ Tim” overseas? We will be taking it to Cannes; we have been asked to send a print to France to be considered for the Director’s Fortnight. As well, a number of people in the USA, involved in the theatrical and tele v is io n areas, are a n x io u sly awaiting it and I have had offers from several European sources. It’s already been pre-sold in Germany to Janus Films. I have also had an offer from Norway for Scandinavia. Are you marketing it yourself, or in conjunction with the NSW Film Corporation? No, not with the NSW Film Corporation. I am marketing it in certain non-exclusive areas in c o n j u n c tio n w ith J e a n n in e Seawell. In fact only yesterday we had an offer to discuss it for Britain. Will you release simultaneously in Sydney and Melbourne, or treat them separately? The original idea for Tim was to bring it out in Sydney and Melb ourne first and other states later. We put The Mango Tree into Sydney and Melbourne sim ul taneously, and then into Brisbane. But that was only at my insistence

Tim (Mel Gibson) discusses his relationship with Mary Horton with his sister Dawnie (Deborah Kennedy) in a scene from Tim.

to get it out before Christmas. I am in two minds about it now though. If you are only going to put out eight prints in all, why not take advantage of all the media p ossib ilities. If, say, C olleen McCullough was out here to help promote the film, she would pick up press all around Australia. So, if the film is showing in all the capital cities and several other centres you can capitalize on the publicity. But if you release city by city you run the danger of the film being forgotten between releases. Australia is such a small country that you should be able to take advantage of wire services and co related publicity. One objection which is often raised by distributors is that you can’t be at two premieres at the same time. This is true, but it is possible to stagger the releases and open in all cities within a week.

TH E MANGO TREE

put off. Then when it comes around a second time they see it. They may do so because it is an Australian film, or they want to see G eraldine Fitzgerald or Robert Helpmann in it, or because my name is associated with it. In one suburban cinema in Melbourne, The Mango Tree was doubled with Raw Deal, and did fantastic business. I think it was because two Australian films were on, both of them reasonable to look at, and with recognizable people in them, including Gerard Kennedy, Gus Mercurio and Christopher (Pate). People were probably saying, “ Gee, I didn’t see either of those; I’ll go along and see them” . For the price of $3.50 they saw two features. I think we should think of re issuing a lot of our Australian films. The success of “ The Mango Tree” and “ Raw Deal” in this instance may also prove that people aren’t mobile in some suburbs, as is often thought . . .

Has “ The Mango Tree” been a I agree, because if you live in financial success? Parramatta and there is a film showing in town, by the time you Not to date. As of May last year come in, pay for your two tickets, — having opened in December, park, maybe have a couple of 1977 — it had grossed $555,730. drinks, you are down $20 at That didn’t count any of the least. But if it’s showing in your country areas it had been to local cinema without all that progressively through the year. advertising garbage that goes on Although there is now great with it, but is billed with another reluctance to show box-office film that you haven’t seen, you grosses on returns, I would can go there at 7pm and be out by estimate that The Mango Tree 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. has done well over $900,000 as far as I can calculate. How has “ The Mango Tree” We have paid off our expenses, fared overseas? overages, and various other costs, and are now returning money to To date, overseas sales have our investors. been minuscule. We have made a deal with Cinevog in Belgium and Although “ The Mango Tree” been offered a deal for South met with only limited success Africa, which we are investigating. during its city release, it seems to We have also been offered a deal have grown legs in subsequent for France and French Canada. releases? Initially, we had an enormous response from a number of You are right. We have always people, including Avco-Embassy felt that it. had legs. You know, and Warner Cable in the USA, but people can get drenched by the nothing came of it. publicity for an Australian film. I felt that although The Mango They read a few crits and often get Tree had considerable merit, our

primary consideration had been to make a film for the Australian market. I signed a contract which said I would give it to an Australian distributor at 105 minutes. They are looking for that length of program. I know only too well, however, that I can’t sell a film for television in the USA that goes over 96 minutes. I decided we needed to re-cut The Mango Tree for the USA, because there were certain failings in the film from my point of view, as a producer and as a writer, and probably from Kevin Dobson’s point of view as director. We didn’t get the ultimate out of the film at the time we were cutting it together. It was flawed. It didn’t have the m om entum or the delineation it should have had. In the USA, I showed it to Geraldine Fitzgerald and others, and asked them to note which part of the film they thought wouldn’t hold the attention of American a u d ie n c e s . B ased on th e ir comments, a videotape of the film was then edited by the best New York tape editor. Back in Australia my dubbing editor, Bob Cogger, Christopher (Pate) and I started a re-cut of the film. The new version will be around 95 minutes, and is a 100 per cent improvement on the original. We have already set the dates for the re-mix, and I should have a print ready for Cannes this year. I would like to make two versions of Tim. I don’t have the time at the moment, but I am going to strike the first version and if anyone likes it, then I will do a revised version, cutting it down to 96 minutes. What changes have you made in the American version of “ The Mango Tree” ? It’s a much closer, tighter, and a more intimate story about the grandmother and the boy. We had a problem with that story to start with. It’s episodic and I found that at the end our tem p o was g e ttin g slig h tly staccato. So we put back a number of tiny little things that gave warmth to the scenes. Is it tempting for Australian producers, such as yourself, to go directly to television in the USA to get a large outright sale, rather than take chances on a theatrical release? There are two sides to that. I believe feature films are made primarily to go into the cinema. If you want to release on television, your film should be tailored for that medium. A te le v is io n sale is very tempting, with the prices that are being offered by network tele vision in the USA. But I think we need to design product specifically for that market. ★ Cinema Papers, May-June — 401

FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Film and Television Industry C ontinued fr o m P. 358

Chart C

Eductional production facilities

Film &video service units

This sector of the sub-industry provides facilities which service educational needs in each state. Information gained by telephoning various organizations in early 1978 gives a guide to trends in employment in educational organizations. Organization

Educational Service Units

Media Courses

Total Production employment staff

New South Wales

Teaching Resource Centre

120

70 4

—

42 455

25 179

Victoria

Victorian Audio Visual Education Centre

Students in Educational Institutions

Queensland

Queensland Film Centre South Australia

Department of Further Education Education Technology Centre Film and Television Centre Kilkenny Multi-Media Centre

Video Access Centres

Western Australia

Western Australia Audio Visual Education Centre

Community Education Centres

Australian Capital Territory

Curriculum Development Centre, Canberra TOTAL

2. Media education

There is no complete list of media courses in tertiary institutions and their associated staff. The only available statistics are: (a) A list of 126 institutions providing in excess of 500 media course units. This does not include institutions with film and television units which only service the teaching staff (i.e., do not conduct courses). (b) The Directory of Media Education Courses and Facilities in Australian Colleges of Advanced Education, com piled by the Department of Education Practices and E xten sion , Darling D o w n s I n s t it u t e o f A d v a n c e d Education. This has been compiled from returned questionnaires only, and th e re w ill, th e r e fo r e , be so m e om issions. This Directory lists 54 institutions, providing 414 course units. There are three types of employment in ter tiary educational institutions which could be appropriate for people with film and television production and operational expertise: (i)

Teaching positions. These usually require tertiary qualifications. (ii) Production and technical positions. It depends on the policy of the institution whether teaching quali fications are required for positions concerned with actual production of films, videotapes and learning kits for social and educational purposes. Many educational institutions will accept production and/or technical exper ience in lieu of teaching qualifications. (iii) Support staff. Includes people with production support skills, such as 402 — Cinema Papers, May-June

Community Groups KEY

EZ~Z

Estimated jobs

photography, graphic art and audio visual experience. It has been calculated that there are about 350 positions connected with media courses in Australia which would require practical film and tele vision experience. 3. Video access and community education

This sector has two clearly definable networks: V ideo A ccess Centres; and Community Education Centres. Employment tends to fluctuate dramatically in each of these networks because it is on a production/project basis. It is, therefore, not State

p ossib le to give em ploym ent figures. However, the number of video access centres outlined in the table below was established by a telephone survey.

SUMMARY From these very tentative figures it would seem that there are about 7000 people employed in program-making and engineering jobs in the mainstream film and television industry, and about 600 employed in jobs relating to film and television production in educational and community organizations. ★

Video Access centres 1974

New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Northern Territory TOTAL

5 3 1 2 1 —

— 12

Direction of service

Community Education centres

1977 14 9 9

3 5 1 1 42

1977

5 7

11 3 4

2 32

~~~

ARTHUR AND CORINNE CANTRILL

A rth u r and C orinne C an trill C ontinued fr o m P. 400

Your work represents important a r tistic problem s about f i l m m a k i n g . Q u e s t i o n s of representation, realism, filmic processes, and meanings have been at the centre of debates in the past 15 years, in print and on film . Like it or not, you have a position within that . . . Corinne: I am very wary of any work that springs self-consciously from that sort of a position.

Arthur: I don’t think we have thought out where we fit in relation to what is being done elsewhere. Maybe instinctively we do not want to get terribly involved in thrashing out the similarities, or dissimilarities, for fear of unconsciously adopting some of their approaches or styles. We have a common affinity in terms of getting our work shown and recognized, and we publish a magazine which is about these people’s films. Apart from liking and respecting their work, we really haven’t thrashed out our relationship to them. ★

1960/61

The Odyssey, 10 x 13 minute episodes. 1963 Kip and David, 13 x 12 minute episodes. 1963 Mud, 4 minutes, BW. 3 short films, BW, approx. 4 1963 minutes each Nebulae, Galaxy, Kinegraffiti. A group of 4 short films, BW, 6 1964 minutes each Native Trees of Stradbroke Island. Along the Beach, 6 minutes, 1964 BW. 1964/65 Robert K lippel Sculpture Studies, 5 short films, BW, each approx. 5 minutes. Zoo, BW, 32 minutes. 1965 1965 Robert Klippel — Drawings, 1947-1963, color, 25 minutes. 1966 The Incised Image, color, 23 minutes 1966 Dream, 4 minutes, BW. 1966 A d v en tu re P la y g ro u n d London, 6 minutes, BW. 1967/68 Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, 30 minutes, BW. 1968 Red Stone Dancer, 6 minutes, BW. 1968 Gaudier-Brzeska — Drawings, 17 minutes, BW.

FILMOGRAPHY

What are you wary of? Corinne: That it won’t have any true value. I feel we just pursue the things that interest us at a given time.

1960

11 x 10 minute documentaries filmed, directed, edited for the Children’s Library and Crafts Movement, on children’s cre ative activities.

1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1970 1970 1970 1970 1969/70 1970 1970 1971 1971

1971 1971 1971 1970/71

1971

NEGATIVE CUTTING Fast,efficient,professional services are available

1971 1971 1971 1971/73 1973/74 1974 1974

film m akers........ a new name to remember

Annegraham nun icrvkcj

1975

(my old name was adina film services)

1976 the same fast efficient neg matching at reasonable rates contact me personally at

1976

nnnegrahaih piuh services

1976

28 shellcove road neutral bay nsw 2089 telephone (02) 908.3011 (2 lines)

1977

NEG FILM . C U TT E R 16mmJ35mm

enquiries welcome ring Pam Toose • -449.1344 176 Burns Rd.. Turramurra

THE MATCHINGMECHANICS = (F R E E L A N C E N E G A T IV E C U T T E R S ) i

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

1977

Facilities are fully equipped for all 16 mm and 3 5 mm productions providing matching for features, specials shorts and documentaries.

16 mm

1977 1977

y u t il i y 35mm& 16mm Negative Cutting

3 5 mm

D C

CHRISROWELLPRODUCTIONS 139 Ftenshitfst Street.

COURIER SERVICE AVAILABLE ph o n e

Iib

<411 2 2 5 5

1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978

Decide for yourself!

1978

We all have our own premises

1979

No red tape......... Deal with each of us personally —

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

Moving Statics, 28 minutes, BW. Imprints, 4 minutes, BW. R e h e a r sa l at th e A rts Laboratory, 4 minutes, BW. Fud 69, 6 minutes, BW. Home Movie — A Day in the Bush, 4 minutes, BW. Eikon, 3.5 minutes, color. W h ite -O r a n g e -G r e e n , 4 minutes, color Bouddi, 8 minutes, color. 4000 Frames — An Eye Opener Film, 3 minutes, BW. Boiling Electric Jug Film, 6 minutes, BW. Earth Message, 23 minutes, color. Harry Hooton, 83 minutes, color. New M ovem ents Generate New Thoughts, 11 minutes, BW. Exercises for a Grid Screen, 11 minutes, BW. Blast, 6 minutes, BW. Meditations — a group of short films; Red Disc Films, Side Disc Film, Blue-Green Horizontals film. Each approx. 3 minutes, color. Nine Image Film, 3 minutes, color. Milky Way Special, 3 minutes, color. Filed Film, 6 minutes, color. A group of 3-screen films: Gold Fugue, 5 minutes, color. Pink Metronome, 3 minutes, BW. Room, 5 minutes, color. The C ity , 8 m in u te s , c o lo r. Fragments, 13 minutes, color. Video Self-Portrait, 6 minutes, color Island Fuse, 11 minutes, color. Looking for the Desert, 11 minutes, color. Zap, 2 minutes, BW. Skin of your Eye, 117 minutes, color. At Eltham, A Metaphor on Death, 24 minutes, color. Reflections on 3 Images by Baldwin Spencer, 17 minutes, BW. Nega/Positive on Images by Baldwin Spencer. S tu d ie s in Im age (de) Generation, 3 x 10 minutes, BW. T h ree-C o lo r S ep a ra tio n Studies — S till Lifes, 13 minutes, color. T h ree-C o lo r S ep a ra tio n Studies — Landscapes, 13. minutes, color. Simple Observations of a Solar Eclipse, 16 minutes, color. At Uluru (Touching the Earth Series), 80 minutes, color. O cean at P t. L ook ou t (Touching the Earth Series), 46 minutes, color. Katatjuta (Touching the Earth Series), 24 minutes, color. Near Coober Pedy (Touching the Earth Series), 15 minutes, color. Moving Picture Postcards, 16 minutes, color. Heat Shimmer, 13 minutes, color. Near Wilmington, 6 minutes, color. H illsid e at C hauritchi, 6 minutes, color. Printer Light Play, 6 minutes, color. 2 -s c re e n w o rk : I n t e r io r / Exterior, 3 minutes, color. 3-screen work: Meteor Crater, Gosse Bluff, 6 minutes, color. 3-screen work: Ocean, 15 minutes, color. Angophora & Sandstone, 15 minutes, color.

M u lti-screen and film p erfo rm an ce w o rks:

1970/71 Expanded Cinema. 1974 Skin of your Eye (Seen) 1977 Edges of Meaning. 1978 ' Fields of Vision. Cinema Papers, May-June — 403

• Melbourne’s largest fully independent negative cutting facility. • 16m m /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. e d ite d b y P ete r N ob le

ESSENTIAL READING FOR ALL FILM ENTHUSIASTS Europe’s leading film industry paper keeping you informed with

Reviews Reports from Film Festivals News of Films in Production Technical Developments A v a ila b le w e e k ly

Send for free specimen copy to: Christine Fairbairn, Screen International, Film House, 142 Wardour Street, London W.1.

UQ UUO

MEDIA & EDUCATION

Metro is a non commercial publishing venture. Your subscription offers Free and concession movie passes Screen studies courses M etro magazine quarterly Video & film buying advice Film N ew s free Practical ideas for teachers All States Media Studies news Popular culture in the classroom

R IN G -

Warwick Driscoll Beverly Armstrong Sally Keystone

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

SOUND STUDIO FOR HIRE Suitable for Film, Video and Stills at: FILM SETS 88 Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, M E LB O U R N E 3166 Studio 75’ 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. STUDIO BOOKINGS, PH ONE:

SUBSCRIPTION: $15 schools, $12 individuals (tax deductible), $4 students and unemployed. SEND TO: Metro, 234 Queensberry Street, Carlton Vic. 3053.

Alex Simpson,

(03)568 0058, (03) 568 2948

AH (03) 25 3858

BACK ISSUES □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

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

NAME......................................................................... ADDRESS................................................................... ................................................................ Postcode Total amount enclosed $_________ Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne. Victoria, Australia 3051 'Australia only. For ov erseas rates see below. P lease a llo w up to fo u r w ee ks fo r p ro c e s s in g .

Order a Bound Volume or Easy Binder now! BOUND VOLUMES

ORDER FORM

ORDER VOLUME 4 NOW.

BOUND VOLUMES

(numbers 13-16) 1977-1978

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 $ ____

VOLUME 3 STILL AVAILABLE Handsomely bound in black with gold embossed lettering. Each Volume contains 400 lavishly illustrated pages of • Exclusive interviews with producers, directors, actors and technicians. • Valuable historical material on Australian film production. • Film and book reviews. • Production surveys and reports from the sets of 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 NOTE BOUND VOLUMES OF numbers 1-4 (Volume I )and numbers 5-8 (Volume 2|

ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE

OVERSEAS RATES (including postage) (A) Subscriptions and g ift subscriptions (per 6 issues). Zone 1 (New Zealand, Niuginl): Surface — $19.80; air — $31.80. Zone 2 (Malaysia, Singapore. Fiji, Indonesia etc): Surface — A$19.80; 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 will 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, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3051 ________Please allow up to tour w e e k s lor processing.

$A19.80; air — $A44.40. Zone 5 (Britain, Europe, Africa, South America): Surface — $A19.80; air — $A46.50 (B) Bound Volumes (per volume). Zone 1: Surface — $A30.20; air — $A33.00 Zone 2: Surface — $A30.00; air — $A35.00. Zone 3: Surface — $A30.40; air — $A36.80. Zone 4: Surface — SA30.80; air — $A40.30. Zone 5: Surface — $A30.80; air - $A42.20. (C) Back Issues. To the price of each copy add the following;

Surface (all zones):- $A0.80. Air:- Zone 1 - $A2.80; Zone 2 - $A3.50; Zone 3 - $A4.20; Zone 4 - $A4.90; Zone 5 $A5.25. NB (1) All remittances in Australian dollars only. (2) Surface Air Lifted available to U.K., German Federal Republic, Greece, Italy and U.S.: (a) Subscriptions (per 6 issues) — $27.60; (b) per bound volume — $A32.80; (c) Back issues — add $2.60 per copy.

BBSi

111

bm™

Queensland offers a magnificent diversity of locations. Tropic islands, deserts, jungles, mountain ranges, endless white beaches. T he. Queensland sun just shines on regardless, / fi The mud crabs, mangoes and other if * Queensland foods are superb. In short, I f Queensland’s got it all. And the Queens- | I land Film Corporation can assist you with

production finance, logistic help, concessional transport allowance and many other tangible .form s of film production assistance. So if Queensland sounds exciting,. ^\ ’phone Tony Krimmer on (07) 224 701 \ and find out more about putting pictures I I) together in one of the most diverse film locations in the world.

mm,

ANOTHER CARLTON PRODUCT

Â»