Cinema Papers October-November 1980

Registered for posting as a Publication — Category B

incorporating television

Film Awards

Jack Thompson

The Club

J H ard K nocks

stola«

iiipf

“ Film suits the big event because film itself.... is a big event!

C

J

“Shooting on film somehow shapes your thinking about the event.

Fm as influenced as any member of the audience by the scope of • •film . And, somehow, deserve it or not, film has acquired the reputation that it is larger _____ T than life. It’s not considered as 35 mm, its how it ends up-fifty feet wide on a theatre screen.

If you re shooting a commercial for T. V. you still have to think in that same big dimension because so many scripts call for that grand appearance on a T.V. screen.

When you’re really serious about a production you shoot on film, because there are some things you just cannot shoot electronically. Tradition has a lot to do with it, although I think it is more to do with the mental limitation of the director-not the mediums.

As for Eastman color film that has to be the big event of films. ”

P e te r C e llie r F re e la n c e C o m m e rc ia l D ire c to r.

Kodak Motion Picture Film KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD. K7AN24/KSB

“T he funny part about it”says Roger Cbwland “the good opticals are the ones you dont see.

Where did you start, Roger, and how do you come to be supervising the feature opticals department at Colorfilm?

It goes back 20 years to George Humphries, London. I started there in the neg cutting department, and doing all sorts of jobs, learning all the laboratory procedures. Then I went to Canada, Toronto, at Film House in charge of quality control. After a year in Canada, I came to Australia to work on the Tony Hancock series that was being made out here.

Unfortunately, he died on the first week of the series. So because there wasn’t a lot of cutting work about then, I alternated between cutting and opticals, gradually moving into opticals full time. Then I came to Colorfilm.

T h e year in Canada must have been interesting. They have a very high standard there.

They have, extremely high.

We did mostly commercials, they weren’t doing a lot of features then. We used to do a lot of release prints of features for the States, it was cheaper for them.

Let’s talk about opticals work. Could you briefly explain the process?

There are two areas in Colorfilms opticals department, makeup and printing. Makeup is the actual translation of the effects required onto a print. To do that, the makeup operator must be able to visualise the effects the editor has in mind.

W hen we get the cut work print, the edge numbers are recorded and sent to the neg department, and the negative is extracted from the original camera rolls. It’s graded, and sent back to us. Each scene is matched to the cut work print, and cued according to the required optical. This is all laid out on a makeup timing sheet, which sets out in frames the desired effect and how long it should run for. That cue sheet

then goes down to the printer.

This is a slow process - you’re printing a frame at a time, and when you’ve got multiple exposures, you’ve got to keep going back over the same piece of film. If you’re a frame out, it’s history, and the job’s no good.

So all the opticals are printed in the optical department. D o you have special printers?

As a matter of fact, we’ve just installed another new one, an Oxberry. It’s an aerial image machine with two projector heads, one mounted behind the other so you can run negatives in one and your hi-con mattes or titles in the other. This makes it a lot easier for re-positioning, zooming of the other image, re-positioning a title, or just enlarging an image. It’s got automatic zoom, skip framing, fades, dissolves, things like that.

If I bring a film into Colorfilm, what can I expect optically?

Given the right material to start with, there’s nothing we can’t do. If it’s properly prepared. That’s terribly important, preparation. One of the things I try to get clients to do is come in and talk the opticals over before they get into expensive shooting, and find out when they’ve shot it the effect they want isn’t going to work.

There were a few opticals they wanted and they weren’t quite sure if they’d work. So I saw the whole fine cut down there, which is a good thing, I got a feel for the film. Which is important for matching the opticals to the mood. Anyway, there’s some places in Harlequin where they looked at the edited work print, and decided some scenes needed sunsets which didn’t have sunsets. We had to superimpose them, and it worked very well. We added a streaky sunset sky, and storm clouds over the house.

I didn’t notice it.

.

No. The good opticals are the ones you don’t see. There are about 70 in Harlequin, and quite a lot in Newsfront, which most people wouldn’t notice.

Then there was the client who wanted a special optical for a commercial. They wanted two guys - one on each side of the frame - facing each other, swing in together and shatter. They talked about if before they shot it, we discussed how they should shoot it. They brought it in, great, the effect worked. If you can get people to shoot things with the opticals in mind, it works better. You know, if they have an effect, like a double exposure in mind, they work better if they’re shot correctly, like a night shot superimposed over a day shot just won’t work.

H ow else can an editor help get the opticals he wants?

You’d rather people came in and talked about opticals at script stage?

Yes. In few cases people have come in and talked about things, and of course they work, because we know what they want, and they know how to help us get it for them.

Can you give us an example?

Well, Harlequin was one, although it didn’t go from pre-production stages, they asked me to go down to Melbourne when they were cutting to discuss the opticals.

By clearly marking work prints. One very common mistake made is that they don’t check their trims. They want a dissolve, and we find there’s not enough material to cover it. I think a lot of editors leave things out on the cut work print that they should put down. For example fades and dissolves, they just mark them up and assume you’ll understand what it is. For titles, choosing a good legible lettering style. This is very important because depending on backgrounds they can break up and be lost. I can 'only say pick a bold style.

Avoid serifs?

Yes! Night shots tend to be the worst for titles to be over.

Can you see any radical changes in the business of opticals in the future?

Well, a lot of things have gone over to videotape, especially commercials, mainly because of the speed. But I think the advent of the CRI has made a difference - with opticals being turned around quicker. I still think you can’t beat film for quality.

D o you like films?

Do I like films? You can say that again. I’ve always liked films, that’s why I’m working here. That’s another important thing. I feel if it’s possible for anyone to work at something they really love doing, that’s great. I think that’s when you put your best into it.

D o you have a favourite film?

“2001.” I’m a science fiction freak.

A n optical man’s dream or nightmare?

Dream. I’d love to do something like that.

W hat makes Colorfilm a special lab?

The people. They place a lot of importance on skilled technicians. And they look after their staff. It makes for a lot happier working area, people are more interested in and care more about what they’re doing. I think it’s terribly important for a producer to feel that he’s in safe hands, that his film is going to be looked after as an individual thing, and he can be assured of the result.

35 Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia.

Telephone (02) 5161066 Telex AA24545

Leo Burnett 4.2477L

•

'-

WxSwm m m sim

Leo Burnett 4.2477R

Come to the

Tasmanian film Corporation Film and Video Producers 16/35 Production facilities Broadcast quality video Still Photographers and audio visuals □ Studio and equipment hire

Philippines

□ □ □ □

1-3 BOWEN ROAD, MOONAH, TASM A N IA 7009, PHONE: 30 8033 TELEGRAMS: TASFILM , HOBART

Contact us for information, bookings and accommodation

Philippine Travel Agency 440 Elizabeth St Melbourne Tel: (03) 347 5 166

A n international sta rs Australian debut KEM the sophisticated German editing system has proved itself as a vital tool in Hollywood film pro­ duction.

KEM now introduces versatility and economy to the Australian film industry.

FILMWEST, the sole import agents in Australia and Asia can supply a full range of KEM tables, and provide interchangeable modules for S8, 16mm S16 and 35mm picture and sound editing as you need them.

The KEM RS8-16 8-plate twin pic editing table is available to pro­ ducers for a free demonstration and trial.

KEM & FILMWEST, the state of the art.

For information and appointments contact: FILMWEST Equipment Pty Ltd 7 Bowman Street South Perth Western Australia 6151 Phone 367 7677.

Cable ‘Filmw^est’ Perth Telex AA 94150 FILMWA

FILMWEST Pte Ltd Suite 185, Raffles Hotel 1-3 Beach Road Singapore 0718 Phone 336 1509, 332 8041 Cable ‘Raflotei’ Telex RS 21586 Raffles.

'FREEDOM FARES'TO THE USAGIVE YOU 5 PACIFIC STOPOVERS.

HAWAII TAHITI RAROTONGA NEW ZEALAND FIJI

#

airnew

These days it seems most airlines are concerned with everyone but the discerning traveller.

At Air New Zealand we still care about people who travel frequently and that’s why we have ‘Freedom Fares’ to the USA. ‘Freedom Fares’ are our normal First Class and full Economy fares but they give you what no other airline

can match. A choice of five Pacific stopovers coming and going to the USA. They also give you the freedom to go when you want, come home when you’re ready and we won’t ask you to pay months in advance.

For details about our “Freedom Fares” for discerning travellers see your travel agent or Air New Zealand. JheFbdficS

NumberOne Dailey/AP 879

Introducing Joseph Skrzynski.

General Manager, Australian Film Commission.

A rticles and Interview s

Bob Ellis Interviewed: 314

Bob Ellis: Interview Richard Brennan Australian Film Awards Brian Sheedy Cruising Tom Ryan, Adrian Martin Equity Introduction Uri Windt: Interview Scott Murray F&TPAA Statement Errol Sullivan Edward Woodward: Interview Tom Ryan Philippine Cinema: Hollywood of the Pacific Lino Brocka: Interview Manuel de Leon: Interview Vilma Santos: Interview Ian Stocks Stephen Wallace: Interview Barbara Alysen

314 320 322 325 326

331 332 334 338

339 340

341

The Last Outlaw The Making: 352

Features The Quarter 1980 Sydney Film Festival Susan Dermody, John Fox, Nick Herd International Production Round-up Terry Bourke Box-office Grosses Production Survey Film Censorship Listings

312 344 358 361 363 385

Television News Ron Casey: Interview Scott Murray The Last Outlaw Ian Jones Production Survey

Cruising Examined: 322

349 350 352 355

New Zealand News Tony Williams: Interview Peter Beilby Production Survey

369

Uri Windt Interviewed: 326

370 374

Film Reviews The Club Keith Connolly Hard Knocks Almos Maksay Manganinnie Virginia Duigan The Tempest Brian McFarlane Slippery Slide and Do Not Pass Go Keith Connolly

377 378 380 381 381

Book Reviews Sydney Film Festival - Reviewed: 344

The Korda Brothers Brian McFarlane Recent Releases Mervyn R. Binns

Managing Editor: Scott Murray. Editorial Board: Peter Beilby, Scott Murray. Contributing Editors: Antony I. Ginnane, Tom Ryan, Ian Balllieu, Brian McFarlane. Editorial Assistance: Maurice Perera.

Design and Layout: Keith Robertson, Andrew Pecze. Business Consultant: Robert LeTet. Office Administration: Nimity James. Secretary: Lisa Matthews. Los Angeles Correspondent: David Teitelbaum.

Advertising: Sue Adler, Sydney (02)31 1221; Peggy Nicholls, Melbourne (03) 820 1097 or (03)329 5983. Printing: Progress Press Pty Ltd, 2 Keys Rd, Moorabbin, 3189. Telephone: (03)95 9600. Typesetting: Affairs Computer Typesetting, 7-17 Geddes St, Mulgrave, 3170.

Telephone: (03) 561 2111. Distributors: NSW, Vic., Qld, WA, SA — Consolidated Press Pty Ltd, 168 Castlereagh St, Sydney, 2000. Telephone: (02) 2 0666. ACT, Tas. — Cinema Papers Pty Ltd. ‘ Recommended price only.

382 383

The Club Reviewed: 377

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 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, No. 29, October-November, 1980.

Front cover: Jack Thompson in Bruce Beresford’s The Club.

Cinema Papers, October-November — 311

EQUITY 1. Ginnane The latest development in the Equity dispute over the use of foreign actors in Australian films has been producer Antony I. Ginnane’s decision to move his filmmaking activies to New Zealand.

Principally, this means relocating his $6-$10 million production, Race to the Yankee Zephyr.

In a press statement Ginnane said: “ Equity’s current policy means the death of any possibility of an inter­ national film industry in Australia.

After making nine films in Australia, it is a tragedy that our biggest production must shoot overseas. But my company’s position, like the South Australian Film Corporation’s, is that we will not film another pro d u ctio n in the country until Equity's restrictive ruling has been repealed.”

Ginnane, Australia’s most prolific producer, has been encountering dif­ ficulties with Equity for some time. On The Survivor, Ginnane tried to import four overseas actors, but was blocked

by Equity. On Yankee Zephyr, Ginnane also planned to import four actors, but Equity’s new policy made this imposs­ ible. Ginnane felt his only choice was to move to New Zealand where there is no actors’ union.

One result of this decision by Gin­ nane is that his crews, previously Australians, will now be made up of New Zealanders, with one or two ex­ ceptions. Ginnane has provided con­ siderable work for a large number of Melbourne technicians over several years, and his departure is sure to be felt in this time of almost no production.

Not surprisingly, the technicians union (the ATAEA) is presently challenging Equity’s policy.

2. SAFC in a surprise announcement, John Fitzpatrick, business and legal affairs head of the South Australian Film Cor­ poration, said the SAFC was switching from features to television production and was unlikely to make any more features. As this came only two days after the SAFC’s Breaker Morant won 10 prizes at the 1980 Australian Film Awards, Fitzpatrick’s remarks were met with great disappointment.

One of the reasons for the decision was the problems caused by Equity’s new policy. Since overseas actors were no longer allowed (except in “excep­ tional circumstances” ), the SAFC felt restricted when going about raising money overseas, as this money was usually dependent on foreign stars being in the package.

Paradoxically, the need for foreign investment has become even more im­ portant following the announcements by the Treasurer, Mr Floward, that several avoidance schemes used by producers would be closed. The private investors on Breaker Morant, for example, recently had their claims dis­ allowed by the Government. As Fitz­ patrick said, “Where are we going to get any more private finance?”

PRODUCTION BLUES With only Peter Weir’s Gallipoli in production at the time of the 1980 A u s tra lia n Film A w a rd s , m any observers are wondering what films will be eligible next year. One possibility is Fortress, the second venture of Mur­ doch and Stigwood’s R & R Films, backers of Gallipoli.

Based on a novel by Australian authoress Gabrielle Lord, the film is a “ contemporary psychological thriller c o n c e rn in g the k id n a p p in g of a schoolteacher and her pupils from a small country school” . The executive producer is Hilary Fleath, while the writer and director are expected to be named soon.

A n o th e r p ro je c t th a t re c e n tly finalized its finance is Hoodwink.

Producers Errol Sullivan and Pom

312 — Cinema Papers, October-November

Oliver recently announced that British director Claude Watham will be in Australia to film the Ken Quinnell screenplay. The film, about a prisoner who pretends to be blind to escape prison, is due to start shooting in November.

Also slated for upcoming production is Tony Patterson’s Centrespread, the story of “ an innocent girl’s rise to fame in the world of nude modelling” .

On September 22, the Australian Film Commission published its invest­ ments and loans for August-July. The biggest was the $413,708 for Puberty Blues. Adapted from the novel by Kathy Lette and Gabrielle Carey by producer Joan Long, the film is to be directed by Bruce Beresford.

CENSORSHIP On September 19 the Attorney­ General of South Australia, K. T. Griffin, banned a film already passed by the Commonwealth Censor, Lady Duckmanton. The film, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Son, had been banned 10 years ago but when re-submitted recently was classified “ R” .

This overruling of a commonwealth decision not only raises the possibility of a break-down in the state-federal agreement on censorship (Queens­ land having already opted out some tim e ago), but places the film ’s importer, the Adelaide Film Festival, in a highly awkward position. As George Anderson, president of the Festival, said, “ It is clearly a return to censor­ ship in its worst form.”

Griffin acted after seeing the opening scenes of the film where the 12 year old hero makes love to a prostitute in a brothel. Griffin felt the scenes contra­ vened the Prohibition of Child Porno­ graphy Act, 1978, and claimed his decision was designed to “ protect children first and keep issues of artistic merit second” .

Griffin is, of course, merely making political capital as the Adelaide Festival is only open to those over 18, and the f ilm ’ s “ R” c e r tific a te m akes it im p o ssib le fo r ch ild re n to see it anyway. There is, therefore, no need for anyone to step in and “ p ro te c t children” . If Griffin is upset over use of the boy in the film, his concern is 10 years too late.

O th e r c e n s o rs h ip news is the banning of Die biebesbrief einer Portu­ giesischen nonne by soft-core director E. Dietrich, and the American porno film (presumably in its ‘soft’ version), Taxi Girls.

Only one film (Island) ventured the vagaries of the Films Board of Review, and came away with its “ R” rating unchanged.

D is trib u to rs w ere again busy chopping up films for classification.

This time the cuts averaged 32.75m or 86 secs.

GUT REACTION IS NOT ENOUGH Part of the 1980 Sydney Film Festival was an audien ce -a n d -p a n e l d is ­ cussion on film criticism. John Fox reports: The Sydney Film Festival forum on film criticism turned out to be six critics in search of identity and criteria. The panel on stage com prised David Robinson (The Times), Kevin Thomas (The Los Angeles Times), Chris Pettit (ex-Time Out), Bob Ellis (ex-Nation Review), John Flinde (ABC) and John Labsley (The Sun-Herald). When asked to explain the difference between film criticism and film reviewing, they were unwilling to make a distinction be­ cause they claimed the two were not easily separated.

Under pressure, they suggested that film criticism is an academic and con­ tinuing body of work with a historical bias (the language of which is some­ tim es pre te n tio u s and needlessly

dense), whereas film reviewing is an entertaining and important consumer guide in which the reviewer tries to get people-to see the films he likes. Most of them considered themselves to be re­ viewers, yet wearing the same hat as Kenneth Tynan, Andrew Sarris and Gavin Lambert, whom they admired as critics.

What are your criteria? asked voices from the auditorium. They were re­ luctant to answer because they felt that criteria change, and Easy Rider was cited as a film that, “ looked terrific at the time but bloody awful when you see it again later” .

Rules, furthermore, are dangerous because a revlewer/critic tends to be hired because of the person he is, not because of his criteria for film criticism.

But what are your criteria? de­ manded the voices. The panel side­ stepped into critical method: we re­ spond to the film and then analyse and justify our response; we meet the film on its own terms; we develop a re­ flexive sense of genre. Eventually they were pinned down, perhaps unfairly, to specifics: instinct, involvement and gut reaction. This was dismissed as in­ adequate and “ shoddy” , as a journal­ istic spilling of guts which has neither an aesthetic nor a social function.

The forum ended with an unsatis­ fied audience and an uneasy panel.

The general feeling was that pro­ fessional and committed critics should be able to assess their role and state their criteria in a more coherent and convincing way, or else convey more persuasively that the questions are over-simple.

FILM INDUSTRY UNIONISM 1. Australian Film Awards The 1980 Australian Film Awards presentation was held on September 17 at the Regent Theatre, Sydney, and televised nationally by the ABC. This was the first telecast in a four-year deal, arranged by John Foster, AFI executive director, and Alan Bateman, director of entertainment at the ABC. Compered by Graham Kennedy, and using a number of local film industry identities as presenters, along with American actor Kirk Douglas, the broadcast was a return to the small screen after the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Associa­ tion had effectively black-banned the telecast in 1979.

The ATAEA claimed its protest was against Channel 9’s use of non-union technicians on outside broadcasts, but it has never been explained why the Awards telecast was halted, while numerous other outside broadcasts were not interrupted.

The AFI had planned to try again with the Nine Network this year, but Damien Stapleton, federal secretary of the ATAEA, indicated to the AFI that his union would block the telecast unless Channel 9 employed only paid-up union members. Channel 9 countered that unionism was not yet compulsory in Australia, and that it had no inten­ tion of telling its employees to toe the union line.

Caught in a stalemate, the AFI con­ tem plated sh iftin g to Channel 10 (Channel 7 has the Sammys), but there was no guarantee that the ATAEA would not take a similar stand. The result was a deal with the ABC, which had telecast the Awards in 1977, (The rating was a surprisingly solid 23.) As ABC technicians come under a dif­ ferent union, there seemed little chance of union action. And in announcing the ABC deal, Foster said: “ For the firs t tim e the Awards presentation has security of tenure in relation to television coverage, which can only enhance public identity and awareness of the events.”

Flowever, subsequent events turned this optimism into concern.

On Sunday, September 14, crews went to the Regent Theatre in George St, Sydney, to begin construction of the

Subscribe

and beat the price rise (single issues now $2.85)

1 year (6 issues) $15.70 2 years (12 issues) $30.00 3 years (18 issues) $42.30 Please enter a subscription for 6 issues D Please start D

renew D

Save 20c per copy 30c per copy 50c per copy 12 i

18 issues

my subscription with the next issue. Delivered to your door post free

Subscriber's nam e...............

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

Gift Subscriptions If you wish to make a subscription to Cinema Papers a gift, cross the box below and we will send a card on your behalf with the first issue.

LJ

Gift subscription, from (name of sender) .................................

Enclosed is a cheque/money order for $ ...................................... made out to Cinem a Papers Pty Ltd, 6 4 4 V ictoria St, North Melbourne, Victoria, 3051, Australia.

The above offer app lie s to A ustra lia only. For overseas rates, see below.

This offer expires on D ecem ber 1, 1980.

BOUND VOLUMES

ORDER FORM

ORDER VOLUME 6 NOW

BOUND VOLUMES $30.00 (including post) per volume.

(numbers 21-24)

Volumes 3 (9-12), 4 (13-16) and 5 (17-20) are still available.

Please send me □ copies of Volume 3 D copiesofVolum e4 D copies of Volume 5 □ copies of Volume 6

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.

• Box-office reports and guides to film producers and investors.

EZIBINDERS Please send me □ copies of Cinema Papers' Ezibinder at $15 per binder.

Total amount enclosed SAust.

N A M E........................................

ADDRESS...............................

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that an Ezibinder is now available in black with gold embossed lettering to accommodate your unbound copies. Individual numbers can be added to the binder independently, or detached if desired. This new binder will accommodate 12 copies.

STRICTLY LIMITED EDITIONS PLEASE N O TE :

Volume l (numbers l-4) and Volume 2

Postcode For overseas rates, see below.

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3051 ___ Please a llo w up to fo u r w e e k s fo r p rocessing.

Overseas Rates

(All remittances in Australian dollars only) Subscriptions

6 Issues

12 Issues

18 Issues

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 2 .5 0 (Air)

$ 6 5 .0 0 (Air)

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

Bound Volumes

Ezibinder*

Back Issues

(each)

(to the p rice o f each copy, add the follow ing)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 ,8 0 (Surface)

$ 9 2 .7 0 (Air)

$ 3 6 .5 0 (Air)

$ 1 9 .9 0 (Air)

$ 2 .8 0 (Air)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 8 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0 (Surface)

$ 3 6 .7 0 (Air)

$ 7 2 .0 0 (Air)

§ 1 0 5 .3 0 (Air)

$ 3 7 .1 0 (Air)

$ 2 0 .9 5 (Air)

$ 3 .5 0 (Air)

India

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0 (Surface)

China

$ 4 0 .9 0 (Air)

$ 8 0 .4 0 (Air)

$ 1 1 7 .9 0 (Air)

$ 4 0 .0 0 (Air)

$ 2 2 .0 0 (Air)

$ 4 .2 0 (Air)

M iddle East

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0 (Surface)

$ 4 5 .1 0 (Air)

$ 8 8 .8 0 (Air)

$ 1 3 0 .5 0 (Air)

$ 4 3 .2 0 (Air)

$ 2 3 .9 5 (Air)

$ 4 .9 0 (Air)

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 3 3 .3 0 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

$ 0 .8 0 (Surface)

$ 4 7 .2 0 (Air)

$ 9 3 .0 0 (Air)

$ 1 3 6 .8 0 (Air)

$ 4 5 .0 0 (Air)

$ 2 5 .0 0 (Air)

$ 5 .2 5 (Air)

Zone 1. New Zealand Nluglni

2. Malaysia Singapore Fiji

Europe

(each)

NOTE: A "S u rfa ce A ir L ift” (air speeded) service is available to Britain, G ermany, Greece, Italy and North America. Subscriptions: 6 issues — $28.20; 12 issues — $54.96; 18 issues Volum es (each) - $35.20. Ezlblnders (each) - $20.75. Back Issues - add $1.10 per copy.

$79.74. Bound

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce the publication of

J j

¡■I

l USTtUlM

208 pps, 28cm x 20.5cm (11" x 8")

In this first major work on the Australian film industry’s dramatic rebirth, 12 leading film writers combine to provide a lively and entertaining critique.

Illustrated with 265 stills, including 55 in full color, this book is an invaluable record for all those interested in the New Australian Cinema.

O rder F orm

The chapters: The Past (Andrew Pike), Social Realism (Keith Connolly), C omedy (Geoff Mayer), Horror and Suspense (Brian McFarlane), Action and A dv enture (Susan D erm ody), Fantasy (Adrian M artin), Historical Films (Tom Ryan), Personal Relationships and Sexuality (Meaghan Morris), Loneliness and Alienation (Rod Bishop and Fiona Mackie), C hildren’s Films (Virginia D uigan), Avant­ garde (Sam Rohdie).

Postage rates (per copy) for orders placed outside Australia ($Aust.)

I wish to order □ copies of The New Australian Cinema at $Aust.14.95 a copy. Post free within Australia.

Elsewhere, add postage charges listed.

Name .

Zone 1 (New Zealand, Niugini) S urface $2.0 0 A ir $5.30

Zone 4 (Nth. Am erica, M iddle East) S urface $2.00 A ir $11.10

Zone 2 (M alaysia, S ingapore, Fiji, Indonesia, etc.)

S urface $2.00 A ir $6.50

Zone 5 (Britain, South A m erica) S urface A ir

Zone 3 (Hong Kong, India, Japan.

P hilippines, China, etc.)

S urfa ce $2.00 A ir $7.70

S urfa ce a irlift to the U.K., German Federal R epublic, Greece, Italy & U.S. - $5.5 0

Address .................................................. P o s tc o d e .............................

Enclosed: $

Please make your cheque or m oney ord er payable to: Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, 6 4 4 V ictoria S t North Melbourne. 3 051, A ustralia

Europe, Africa, $2.00 $11.30

THE QUARTER

set for the television presentation. A picket, organized by the ATAEA, blocked anyone from entering the building. ’ The demand placed by the ATAEA was that all union members employed for the Awards presentation, whether by the Regent, ABC or AFI, should receive a 100 per cent loading over and above the standard rates. This was for "work covering the set-up, rehearsal and presentation of the Awards. This meant an ATAEA member working on that Sunday (and there was only one) would get four times the average daily rate (i.e., double double time).

The rationale behind the demand, as outlined by Stapleton, was that since the 1980 Awards was a live presenta­ tion as well as a televised program, ATAEA members should be paid for two jobs. What Stapleton didn’t explain was why all the set-up and rehearsal time should be seen as two jobs as well.

The AFI, represented by assistant ex­ ecutive director Sue Murray and board member Davi^Roe, put this proposi­ tion and Stapleton finally agreed to a loading only on the presentation. An agreement was then signed.

Had the above agreement not been reached, and the picket continued throughout Sunday, the Awards would again have been cancelled. Interest­ ingly, the AFA are the only film awards where rank and file union members are eligible to vote. Unfortunately, the irony of that situation seems to have been missed.

2. ATAEA On September 1, the Melbourne Freelancers' Committee of the ATAEA held a meeting over Equity's new policy. Angered that this could mean a reduction in work for local film tech­ nicians, the committee wrote to Uri Windt at Equity in the hope of resolving the issue.

When Bob Alexander of Equity replied, calling for union solidarity, the ATAEA decided to take the matter to the Disputes Committee of the ACTU. There the matter rests.

The main concern among Mel­ bourne technicians is producer Tony Glnnane's decision to move Race to the Yankee Zephyr to New Zealand. Glnnane has been Melbourne’s largest freelance employer of technicians on features and his opting out of the local industry has hit M elbourne crew members very hard.

3. Musicians Union As well as the Americarf Screen A ctors' Guild strike there is the American Musicians’ Union strike. In an attempt to circumvent the problems this has caused in the U.S., several A m erican p ro d u c e rs have c o n ­ te m p la te d re c o rd in g sc o re s in Australia. Dick Berres, musical director at Columbia, for example, has already visited Australia to see if he could record the scores for three films at Armstrongs in Melbourne. (The scores have been composed by Marvin Hamlisch, Lalo Schifrin and Tom Scott.) Berres said he was highly pleased with the recording here of Basil Poledouris' score for The Blue Lagoon.

Many local musicians were very keen to take the opportunity and further their overseas experience, as was Brian May who was approached by Berres to act as musical co-ordinator. Unfortunately, the Musicians’ Union of Australia felt differently and said such work would be regarded as strike-breaking, as the A m e ric a n u n io n had asked its Australian counterpart to put a ban on recording American film and television scores till further notice. This decision was apparently made without consulta­ tion with union members. (The Federal secretary of the Australian Musicians' Union was overseas at time of press and therefore unavailable for com­ ment.) „ Some musicians are upset over their union’s decision and feel the American actors’ strike is not related to local issues. As Brian May said, “What has the American union ever done for us?”

SORRENTO “The Encounter with the Australian Cinema” — to be held in Sorrento, Italy, on October 11-18 — will be the biggest festival of Australian films staged overseas. A total of 30 films will be shown over seven days. These are mainly features, but short films and documentaries are included.

The earliest film to be shown is Raymond Longford's The Sentimental Bloke, made in 1919. The most recent are Stephen Wallace’s Stir and Bruce Beresford’s Breaker Morant.

The Encounter forms part of an ongoing series of annual festivals entitled the Incontri internazionali del c in e m a . Each ye a r th e Ita lia n organizers honor the cinema of a nation or group of nations with an Incontro (Encounter) in Sorrento. The 1980 Encounter is entirely devoted to Australian films.

Selection of the films is made in consultation between the Italian organizers and a special national committee. The only restriction on films to be shown is that they have not had major commercial release in Italy in recent years. It is for this reason that some important 1970s Australian films, such as My Brilliant Career, Picnic at Hanging Rock 'and The Last Wave, have been excluded.

The Australian participation in the 1980 Encounter has been organized by the New South Wales Film Corpora­ tion. The Italian organizers, headed by Incontri director, Dr Gian Luigi Rondi, approached the NSWFC more than two years ago. Paul H. Riomfalvy, chairman of the NSWFC, is honorary president of the Encounter and David Roe, the NSWFC’s production and marketing consultant, is the president of the Australian organizing committee.

The Italian organizers expect more than 170 journalists and critics to attend the Encounter; most will be Italians, but others will come from the rest of Europe. On the final night, the Italian organizers will present the Vittoria de Sica Awards to Australian' film m a k e rs and a c to rs . R ondi announced in May that the major award will go to director Peter Weir for his important contribution to Australian cinema.

A total of 29 Australian directors, writers, actors and producers have so far accepted invitations to attend the Encounter.

NFT WORKSHOPS The National Film Theatre will be hosting a series of workshops and dis­ cussions featuring a number of inter­ national speakers. German filmmaker Rolf Busch, who recently did a stint at the Film and Television School, is ac­ com panying a season of Klaus Wildenhahn’s documentaries to most Australian states. Hans Blumenberg, film critic of Die zeit, will introduce a selection of new films dealing with youth in Germany, as well as his docu­ mentary on Howard Hawks, A Hell of a Good Life.

Ed Buscombe and Paul Willemen of the British Film Institute, and Tony Kirkhope of The Other Cinema will also be visiting Australia. Kirkhope is to meet local filmmakers and discuss the problems associated with alternative film distribution and exhibition in England. Ed Buscombe is to lead a workshop on television, and Paul Willemen will speak on the history of in­ dependent cinema in the 1970s.

FILM CONFERENCE The 2nd Australian Film Conference will be held from November 24 to 28 at the Nedlands College of Advanced Education, Perth. Overseas speakers at the Conference include Professors Stuart Hall, Brian Henderson and Marc Gervaise, Dr Stephen Heath, Manuel

Alvarado, Ed Buscombe and Mark Nash.

People interested in attending the Conference can contact the Secretary, D e p a rtm e n t of C o m m u n ic a tio n Studies, Nedlands C.A.E.

OBITUARY Ian McPherson Ian McPherson, administrator of the Sydney Film Festival, died of cancer on August 22. McPherson was a prime force in organizing the first Sydney Festival in 1954. He later became treasurer and was president from 1968

to ’71. _

In 1977, McPherson became director of the Travelling Film Festival which he helped establish as an annual touring event.

His contribution not only to the Festivals, but to the art of appreciating cinema, will be greatly missed.

Jan Dawson As the last issue was at press, I learnt the sad news that Jan Dawson had died in London.

I first met Jan during the 1975 International Perth Film Festival. She had been on the selection committee since 1974 and this year, as one of the assistant directors, had come out to visit the Festival. One of her selection coups was Louis Malle’s Black Moon, which was to receive its world premiere there.

For years I had read, and admired, Jan’s writings in Sight and Sound and Monthly Film Bulletin (on which she had been editor), sharing many of her passions (Francois Truffaut, for one), as well as having several areas of disagreement. Meeting her in person enabled both of us to engage in lengthy, sometimes vocal, debates, often to the amazement of a largely staid Perth audience.

Jan became a contributor to Cinema Papers that year, with her article on Shuji Terayama. I was surprised then, as I am now, that Jan would write for what seemed to be at the time a fairly obscure journal, and for an appallingly low sum of money. Many journals had been trying for years to get more articles from Jan, and I considered Cinema Papers to be very fortunate.

Over the years, Jan contributed many reviews, interviews (Nagisa Oshima, Truffaut, Alain Tanner, etc.) and a number of festival reports on Edinburgh, London and Rotterdam. In 1977, Jan also became our chief critic at the Cannes Film Festival. (Her 1980 report was printed in the last issue, as well as a characteristically insightful piece on Nicolas Roeg’s Bad Timing.)

Jan’s reputation as a film writer is acknowledged everywhere, and she wrote extensively for British, American (Film Comment) and Canadian (Take One) magazines. As well, given her knowledge and interest in German cinema (she was working on a book at the time of her death), Jan became an authority on directors such as Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Peter Handke, Alexander Kluge and Werner Herzog.

In her role as a press officer for the Berlin Film Festival, a position she held for several years, Jan prepared exten­ sive program notes on new German cinema.

Jan also visited Australia in 1976 to write a report for the Australian Film Institute on its information resources, publications, and exhibition and dis­ tribution services. During her stay, she became interested in Australian cinema and was one of the few over­ seas critics who chose to look through the euphoria of our renaissance to the films themselves.

Jan’s contribution to the state of world film criticism can never be ignored. For many, myself included, she represented a peak in incisive, witty writing. Not once have I read an

article by her and not come away re­ warded. Her friendship will be missed.

Scott Murray

INCOME TAX Melbourne solicitor Ian Baillieu reports on mooted tax changes: Two recent announcements by the Federal Treasurer, Mr Howard, aimed at curbing what the G overnm ent considers to be tax avoidance, have made it more difficult for producers to raise finance for Australian films.

The first announcement affected the state film corporations, and may deter them from using their tax-exempt status to resolve possible tax problems involved in financing a production out of distributors’ advances. The second announcement affected all investors who have obtained ‘geared up’ tax deductions by borrowing on a ‘non­ recourse’ basis to invest in films.

On June 24, the Treasurer fore­ shadowed amendments to the Income Tax Assessm ent A ct 1936-79 to counter avoidance through the exploi­ tation of the privileged income tax status of tax-exempt bodies. He said, “ Some tax-exempt bodies are being used extensively as vehicles for diverting taxable income from individuals and companies. The exempt body gets little benefit from the income because it is required under the tax avoidance arrange­ ment to give to the individual or company (or an associate), but in a tax-free form, consideration that is more or less equal to the amount of the income, less a fee for its ‘services'.”

One example Howard gave was a scheme whereby a person assigned rights to income to an exempt body and received in return a capital sum. He said that in any such scheme entered into after June 24 the income derived by such a body from participation in the scheme would be taxed in its hands at the maximum rate of personal tax (currently 50 per cent).

The various state film corporations are tax-exempt bodies. The announce­ ment therefore appears to make it impracticable for a state film cor­ poration to accept appointment as a head distributor of a film, with the right to receive as its commission the advance payable by the commerical d istrib u to r, in return for making available an equivalent amount of fin a n c e fo r in v e s tm e n t in th e production. (For the producer, this s tru c tu re had the advantage of ensuring that the distributor’s advance was not treated as taxable.)

On August 4, the Treasurer fore­ shadowed further anti-avoidance amendments to the Income Tax Act, which are to apply retrospectively to arrangem ents entered into after September 24, 1978. It appears that la rg e n u m b e rs of in v e s to rs in Australian films will lose their expected tax deductions as a result. The Treasurer said, “The Government has decided that the income tax law should be am ended to deal with fu rth e r schemes of tax avoidance in which taxpayers do not really bear the expenditure for which they seek a deduction, this time in relation to paper losses generated in respect of the production or marketing of films . . . “ Some of the latest tax avoidance schemes of the ‘expenditure recoup­ ment’ type aim to secure deductions under either the general deduction provisions of the income tax law, section 51, or under the special provisions relating to investments in A u stra lia n film s , fo r am ounts form ally expended in the p ro ­ duction or marketing of a film or in the acquisition of a copyright, licence or interest in a film . . .

Concluded on P.397 Cinema Papers, October-November — 313

Bob Ellis has written the screenplays of Newsfront, Fatty Finn, Maybe This Time (with wife Anne Brooksbank), and some 20 others. He is also one of Australia’s most o u tsp o k e n co m m e n ta to rs on th e film industry, as he proves in this discussion with producer Richard Brennan.

Which scriptwriters do you admire and perhaps try to emulate?

Fred Raphael, who wrote Two For the Road and The Glittering Prizes, and Dennis Potter, who wrote Pennies From Heaven, which is the best thing I’ve seen on an y b o d y ev er. A lso , Tom Stoppard, Francois Truffaut, Neil Simon, Paddy Chayevsky, Woody Allen and Paul Mazursky, whose works are known. Then there are David Mercer, who wrote Morgan and a number of television plays, and William Goldman, who wrote Butch Cassidy and The Great Waldo Pepper.

Most of all there is Ingmar Bergman, who has had the Shakes­ pearian courage to do it all: comedy, tragedy, allegory, explora­ tions of inner states, analyses of Marxism and bedroom farces. The best single screenplay in existence, in my humble view, is Smiles of a Summer Night.

I think Bergman knows the way in which the screen is limited, and unlimited. And when I see Wild Strawberries for the 20th time it fills me up and makes my day, the way Yanks or Shakespeare’s best play, Henry IV Part One, does.

Here I think is a man’s whole life or em otions, his whole way of behaving — or, the true, calm reflection of a whole historical era, the way Newsfront should have been and wasn’t; the way Yanks and Amarcord were.

The film was big enough to be as abundant as this, and we have a duty to serve this abundance, even in the one house on the water, with 10 people and an atmosphere. You can’t afford to do less. Women rob­ 314 — Cinema Papers, October-November

bing banks in form-fitting leather is no longer enough. We must do more than this, as did Cabaret, Midnight Express, Annie Hall, Breaker Morant and Apocalypse Now. Not only is it good art to do more, it is good commerce.

The great unheeded law of the recent Australian cinema is that good films make money — like Newsfront, My Brilliant Career, Mad Max and Breaker Morant did.

And the less-good films, that in theory should have made money, like Tim, The Odd Angry Shot, Eliza Fraser and Ned Kelly, all lost money because it isn’t commercial theory that gets you into profit, and it’s not budgetary limits, but quality.

The only apparent exception to this is Cathy’s Child, but that could have done well had its publicity campaign not been bloody awful, and had it been put back on after it deservedly won its big awards.

Quality tells now more than ever.

Jack Nicholson and M arlon Brando together in a bad film will lose money, whereas My Brilliant Career, with unknowns, will make it.

What is the script development arrangement you have with the New South Wales Film Corporation?

I have to do 10 feature scripts over two years. In theory, and usually, in practice, I have to deliver first and second drafts on given dates. I get $7000 for each script, and if the NSWFC wants to buy one, they must pay an addi­ tional $12,000 within 28 days of receipt of the second draft. After that, they can do what they like.

BOB ELLIS

I gave them 33 ideas and said, “ You pick five and we’ll pick five” , which they did. The five they chose were picked because they could all be made for $400,000 each. I am pretty sure that’s not the way they should go ahead.

How many of the scripts have you finished?

Two, and three more will, be finished in two months. I wrote one with Donny Lawrence, one with John Hepworth and two with my wife, Annie. She is also writing one on her own.

How do you feel about collabora­ tion?

looking the harbor. It’s a nervous scene: the old boyfriend wants to divorce his wife and marry Fran. In the original script, he says, “ Luna Park down there.” And she says, “ I know, I’ve lived here for some time.” He then says, “Settling in all right are you?” , and so on.

What happened was Luna Park had been burnt down and they didn’t want to include a cut-away of it, which they didn’t have to, anyway. So they changed the line on the day to “ Sydney Harbour.”

And she said, “ I know, I’ve been in Sydney for some time.” That made us, as scriptwriters, look like fools.

Then again, as Chris Haywood rowed into the flood-ridden Mait­ land hall in “Newsfront”, he adlibbed that beautiful line: “You don’t see too many indoor swim­ ming pools these days.” . . .

It used to be the only way I could work, because only the guilt induced by somebody else would make me finish a script. I have now improved to the point where I can I don’t mind what actors do, write on my own. But collabora­ because they are fantastic beings. ‘ Unfortunately , most o f the good on-line directors tion is very much like a love affaire: They are much more intelligent, you get an intense, emotional have a wider experience, greater here have obsessions o f their own, and they often intimacy with the person you are courage, stoicism, idealism and working with, and, when you are no waste two years trying to get something o ff the capacity for self-criticism than any longer working, you are very stiff of us civilians. It’s the producers with them. ground. I don’t believe anything is worth that and directors to whom I object.

Against any mathematical logic, They have very limited lives, collaboration produces more than am ount o f time. ” dangerous tendencies and rigid twice as many ideas — perhaps four minds. ~ times. It has advantages because biorhythms differ, and when you Have you ever been in a position are having a bad day, your partner Yes. I think it’s good to have Whitlam had to be cut out of the where a part has been written for a might be having a good one. locations and actors in mind, first third of the film.

Apparently, particular actor, but the actor There seems to be a limit as to whom I can collaborate with, because you can generally write this was so that the NSWFC could wasn’t available? however. I used to think there was better. I don’t think “limbo” films pose as though it hadn’t been appointed by a Labor government, Yes, on Maybe This Time where no limit, but I think it would be — like Harlequin — work. and was not approving of Whitlam, we replaced the coquettish Jack very hard to collaborate again with, What areas will you involve yourself who, as we approach 1984, is Thompson with Mike Preston. It say, Frank Brittain. becoming a non-person: Michael almost worked, but it was speci­ in as executive producer?

Parkinson said he has never heard fically Jack’s part — as was the Given you have written some 20 I would like to impose my will on of him. part played by Gerard Kennedy in feature scripts, it must be a problem the casting, and watch-dog the Losing Whitlam wasn’t all that Newsfront. I think Jack and Bill finding enough directors and script. I also wouldn’t mind inter­ serious, but losing the references to would have made pretty good producers to make them . . . fering in the publicity, which in him destroyed the structure of all brothers, but you scarcely knew A ustralia is usually dreadful: the scenes in which those references they were, the way the film was It is a fundamental difficulty, “Their sin was against nature. occurred — and that may have been ultimately cast. and I think Annie and I are going Nature found them guilty” — five or six. As a result, the first 10 I think correct casting is a hidden to have to begin to pose as what more can I say? minutes of the film was wrecked, factor in the success of a lot of executive producers. I don’t know I think the problem is that you and the film will lose money. films: Satyajit Ray says it is 93 per with what credibility, but we must can work with a director or a I don’t see how these changes cent. Just try and imagine Lex try. Unfortunately, most of the producer, but you can’t work with were worthwhile. My words aren’t Marinos and Elizabeth Alexander good on-line directors here have two of them. You have three wills sacrosanct — I prove that every in Kramer Vs Kramer — it wouldn’t obsessions of their own, and they pulling in three different direc­ day of the week by collaborating — work. It has to be the two who often waste two years trying to get tions, and you always wind up with but I do know more about what I played it. something off the ground. I don’t less. So, a writer has to take either am doing, in terms of dialogue and believe anything is worth that of those two roles to have any structure, than somebody who is How do you see the future of the amount of time. artistic satisfaction in the film not skilled in the field. local industry?

In my experience, it is possible to business. And when they do — as in There was another case on turn out five first drafts a year. It the case of Woody Allen, Billy Maybe This Time which illustrates The thing I fear most is this then takes another six months to do Wilder or Sylvester Stallone — it the present plight of the writer. multi-national obsession, which I second drafts, which gets them to a usually works out pretty well.

There was a scene where Fran and call McDonaldization: fast films, stage where they are worth doing. If In this country, producers don’t Stephen are in a restaurant over­ to go. I fear it because it is inefthe first draft is terrible, I don’t realize that in a good script every believe there is much you can do. full stop and comma contributes to Development is just an excuse for the total effect. You can’t rip out junketing. There are, of course, 100 pages of David Copperfield and “I t ’s the producers and directors to whom I object. tangible exceptions like Stir, which believe people aren’t going to had to cope with the inexperience of notice.

They have very lim ited lives, dangerous tendencies the writer, but there is a lot of good There is also a point (like six money thrown after bad — to the weeks before shooting) when a and rigid minds. ” script should no't be interfered with. lucky.

On Maybe This Time, we were Yet your scripts appear to have instructed, three days before benefited from you having had the shooting the g reat W hitlam opportunity to visit locations . . . sequence, that all references to 316 — Cinema Papers, October-November

BOB ELLIS

ficient and will only lead to infla­ tion and the destruction of the industry, as it did in Britain and Canada. All films that succeed are ¿provincial and culturally very specific, as is Kramer Vs Kramer, as is the cycle of Southern films starring Burt Reynolds, as is Jaws, Dog Day Afternoon and Gone With the Wind.

I know it would have been econo­ mically sound for Jules and Jim to have been played by Tab Hunter and Troy Donohue, and Tom Jones to have been played by Paul Newman, but I profoundly believe that success would not have lain in the way of those directors, or in the history of those countries’ films, had such international casting decisions been made.

It isn’t simple chauvinism that I recommend. If you look carefully at the cast of Breaker Morant you will notice, to your alarm, that half of them are British-born: Chris Haywood, Rod Mullinar and John W aters, as well as Edw ard Woodward. So it is not where the actors come from, but how well they can be seen to be Australian.

I have no quarrel with Robert Mitchum playing an Australian; I have very little quarrel with Richard Chamberlain playing an Australian; and I’d have no worry about, say, Lisa Eichorn, who is an American and played, beautifully, a girl from Yorkshire in Yanks, play­ ing an Australian, because she can obviously do it. It is only a matter of whether it rings true.

People mistake the shadow for the substance. They think that Hitchcock succeeds because of the major events in his films; he suc­ ceeds because the minor events in his films are so believable. The reactions of service station attend­ ants and hotel clerks, or taxi drivers and railway porters, are culturally explicit and perfectly observed.

You cannot create a country that does not exist and make money un­ less you are doing it in the context of science fiction. All mid-Atlantic films disappear, and all mid-Pacific films will disappear, too, because

cT d have no worry about, say, Lisa Eichorn, who played, beautifully, a girl from Yorkshire in Yanks, playing an A ustralian ”

It is very depressing in Australia because our history is not well documented and it is not that ex­ citing. And our personalities are very few in number, partly because the publishing industry has always been very weak and biographies are not published often, and those histories that are published are not written by inspired men. But it’s all we have, and I only hope that I can deal with it. One should not im­ agine that one can somehow get away with perverting what we have into an imitation of what we don’t.

Now, of course, since My Brilliant Career and Breaker Morant have done well, critically and commercially, people believe they should spend a lot of money on projects that use lots of landscapes and things like that, rather than quietly shooting in rooms. I don’t think they are right. We should be making films like Manhattan, as well as films like The Electric Horseman.

There was a superstition, for a while, that budgets had to be under $400,000. Now I think there is a superstition that starts at $1 million.

Most people don’t want the lower­ budget, indigenous films to audiences can tell what’s phoney. disappear. But do you see that You get uneasy experiments, like happening?

Ingmar Bergman’s The Touch, made in English with Elliot Gould.

If the script is good enough I It was a very intelligent thing to do in terms of book-keeping, but believe it will be made. If it isn’t filmicly disastrous. You also get good enough, then it is most likely atrocities like La luna, or sad mis­ to get through if, like Chain Reac­ calculations like Blow Up and Zab- tion, it is saleable to American tele­ riskie Point, in which the directors vision: i.e., it parallels American and the writers leave behind what genres.

People are now fearful that only they know and attempt to incor­ bad film s will be m ade or porate into their vision things they attempted, but I think the good don’t know.

We are, for better or worse, in­ scripts will get through. I think volved in the nation in which we there is enough shame left. grew up. You can’t hope to fool the world by merely putting quotation One possible mechanism for marks under the chief works-of preserving low-budget filmmaking is other nations. You have to try to Equity’s restriction on the use of define what inherently and dram­ overseas actors in films which atically lies in your own nation, and receive government funding. What work within it. do you think of that scheme?

C(People are now fearful that only bad film s w ill be attempted, but I think the good scripts w ill get through. I think there is enough shame left ”

I am in favor of it, and the reason is this: if, say, Saddlesore and Blue had been made, and, as was in the budget, James Coburn had been paid $750,000 and G raham Kennedy $20,000, and, as would have been then likely, Kennedy got better reviews than Coburn for his performance, then Kennedy’s price would have risen to $200,000 a feature. Other actors’ and tech­ nicians’ prices would have risen accordingly, and pretty soon Aus­ tralia’s average budget would have been $4 million. Then American money, no longer finding Australia cheap, would move out and go to New Zealand.

Tony Buckley recently asked me to write some dialogue for Julie Christie. He offered me $3000 and a free trip around, the world, together with a week in a cottage in Wales with Christie. My immed­ iate response was, “Good God, she is getting $247,000 more than me.”

So I thought I’d jack my price up to $15,000, at which point I was fired.

I think that’s a lesson for us all.

Now, had her price not been that, I would have been delighted with a free ticket, and the sense of high life. But, I probably would have shown up in the snow, and she would have said, “ Look, Warren has just popped in for a week, could you come back in August?”

Some people see the move towards internationalization as a reaction to a widespread feeling that govern­ ment funding could disappear . . .

I think that is a bit like blaming the Arabs for the fact that we are putting up the price of our own petrol. It is a snow job by greedy men who would rather fly a plane around the world and have a drink in Los Angeles with Lee Marvin, than work here.

I don’t think there is much danger of government money drying up. Films have been our best ambassadors and they don’t cost much — certainly less per year than it costs to mow Canberra’s lawns.

Also, film stars are powerful enemies for politicians to make. If Jack Thompson and Judy Davis go up on screen and say, “They’re killing us; vote them out” , people may well vote them out. I can’t see politicians risking that.

There is one other reason, too, which is that the film industry has no natural enemies: there is no Santamaria saying it must be stamped out, no Ralph Nader saying, “ It’s unsafe at any speed” .

It does, of course, have an organizational flaw; films tend to be funded to only 50 per cent by government bodies. So, it is nice to see that the NSWFC has bitten the bullet and gone to more or less 100 per cent funding on some projects. I hope that example will be fol­ lowed, because it is one answer.

I think a number of multi­ national kinds of films will be made, though the overseas stars will be of Cinema Papers, October-November — 317

BOB ELLIS

second rank. The films will fail, and the experiment will die as heartily “Then, the long attrition o f cuts began, I finally as did the false nostalgia which preceded the true nostalgia films. w ouldn't make arty more, and they brought in the People get bees in their bonnets, and internationalization is one of auteur o f Skippy behind my back I became them. It’s a really silly one, too, because it hasn’t worked in the irritable and threatened to go to court, and all past. There have been about 20 such films and they have all lost that, ” money except Picnic at Hanging Rock, and that didn’t make money on the international charisma of that stage was going to direct it, but at the Cannes Film Festival by Rachel Roberts.

The situation is terribly fluid at he was dislodged from this respon­ overseas critics, and I assumed I any time, and by some stroke of sibility by the genius of Phil Noyce was either going mad or it was a luck the U.S. Cavalry arrives each who determined he should direct it, cosmic conspiracy. year. Last year it was My Brilliant and worked on Elfick to this end.

Then, we did another draft, the Andrew Sarris complained recently Career and this year it’s Breaker Morant. You feel good to be Aus­ third, with Noyce. It was the best, that it hadn’t been nominated for the tralian for a while, and the crisis and was used by Elfick to either get Academy Award . .. the money, or raise the smell of it. passes and the pain goes.

You can’t underrate the effect of Then, the long attrition of cuts Well, I complained too. But I am things like the AFI screenings, began. I finally wouldn’t make any where people do d etest the more, and they brought in the not sure what that proves except Ginnane-type films, and do quite auteur of Skippy to write behind that arbitrary budget figures are like the Australian films. And I my back. I became irritable and stupid. Think of all the trouble that think shame can be played upon threatened to go to court, and all derived from Elfick’s arbitrary budget of $507,000, or whatever it them; rhetoric can be marshalled. that.

In the meantime, I got most of was. The film could have been Sure the danger is there, and it is most potentially there when the the actors I had written parts for, made for $650,000 or $670,000 in successful — like the McElroys — though only by the accident of their its original form, and I don’t think subscribe to it. But I think it will doing the best auditions. I anybody alive prefers the film to remember narrowly nudging out of the big fat script. go; it’s a South-Sea bubble.

The unbelievably great, powerful John Ewart’s role one Reg Liver­ more, and so on. It was an energetic and cuddly David Puttnam believes and chaotic experience, out of that you should decide on the film New sfront you are going to make and then which I learned a hell of a lot.

I was stunned when Newsfront make it, whatever it costs. I think was repeatedly voted the best film that’s fair. The old rule of “half a

loaf is better than no bread” no longer applies.

I think the arrival in town of the twin Mephistopheles, Murdoch and Stigwood, has been wonderfully useful in this regard, because every­ body’s habitual way of making a film looks a little silly in the light of their prudence and reason. They too would like to make a film under $1 million, but the idea of setting a budgetary limit of, say, $350,000 seems insane to them, and they are right. You certainly can write a film for a budget, but you can’t write it and then say the budget is going to be no more than this.

How do you feel about “News­ front” four years after?

I think it is a very good film. It should be as good as Yanks — i.e., the moral history of a nation for 10 years — and it’s not. Newsfront has excellent glimpses from that history, but it’s not the thing itself.

I think the flood scene is terrific, and the acting is very good. There is also something about the shooting style which was very Australian; something about the honorable vul­ garity of the time was beautifully encompassed in the visual style. I don’t think it was accidental, and I can’t explain what it was, but it was what moved people the most. These were our fathers, and they weren’t such bad blokes. They were truly seen and weren’t romanticized in

How did “Newsfront” originate?

It was originally envisaged by Mike Molloy and David Elfick as a documentary on 1950s rock groups.

They got together some old news­ reels and then talked to Philippe Mora, who had made Brother Can You Spare a Dime?. He suggested they insert into the footage enacted sequences about the lives of the cameramen. This was an excellent idea.

Now, it was quite obvious to Elfick that only one person could write it, and that was Richard Neville. So Elfick took Neville’s name to the AFC, who said that Neville didn’t have credits in film, and that Elfick should come back with a film writer. Eventually, it devolved on me.

We then had an afternoon’s con­ versation and decided we would have a great Australian wedding, a great Australian funeral, a great Australian fuck, a great Aus­ tralian bushfire, a great Australian flood and so on. This led to the first draft, which more or less became the final film, though it took 10 more drafts to get back to the original.

Elfick became nervous and said, “ We want more details.” So, I went away to the library for a day and looked up old advertisements, and wrote in things like the soundtrack on the radio. I also worked closely with Howard Rubie, who had been a young cameraman at the time of the Maitland floods. Howard at 318 — Cinema Papers, October-November

“I was stunned when N ew sfront was repeatedly voted the best film a t the Cannes Film Festival by overseas critics, and I assumed I was either going mad or it was a cosmic conspiracy. ”

BOB ELLIS

any way. Only a really good director can get that double edge.

Peckinpah in Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid gets the squalor and .the heroism of the story, as in The Wild Bunch. Noyce gets the ordinariness and the specialness of the people in a similar way in Newsfront.

How do you feel about the decision to film “Newsfront” partly in color and partly in black and white?

That was my idea. I knew we wouldn’t, as unknown filmmakers, be able to make a black and white film, which was the ideal. So I worked out points where it could change. Noyce ignored all these and made different ones.

I think black and white is one of the many ranges of cinema, and it should be used. And anytime somebody does intercut it with color — however unjustifiably, like Lindsay Anderson in If, and whoever he was in A Man and a Woman — it works sensationally well. The classic use of this tech­ nique was in The Wizard of Oz, where the world is dull, and Oz is colorful.

Black and white is wonderful for tragedy, suspense and serious content. Color trivializes and distracts, and is never used well, except when it is closest to black and white.

The magic of the screen — the silver screen which people came out to in the ’30s — was due to the fact that it was different from life in a way people couldn’t define. It was like life, but it was distant enough from it for people to look up to as a God-like dimension. Color doesn’t do that, and you have to be a real genius to use it in that way." Occa­ sionally, somebody like Federico Fellini does, or Bob Fosse, but it’s very rare.

Maybe This Tim e Did you have much trouble getting “Maybe This Time” off the ground?

It took five years. We offered it to everybody you can name, and they all said no. There was Gill Armstrong, Steve Wallace, Tony Buckley, Donald Crombie and Ken Hannam. Ken said yes, but we got him into trouble with his chosen producer, Tom Haydon, and it didn’t happen. I also showed it to David Stevens and Brian Bell, and they hated it.

Eventually, Annie and I re-read the script and found it was no good at all. I then re-wrote it with a punch line, and bullied the NSWFC, which was a bit uncertain about its commercial potential, into doing it. They then imposed a producer and a director, who weren’t our first choices, but with whom we Finally agreed.

obvious children’s film one could make in Australia?” One day, after 30 seconds of thought, he came back with the obvious answer, which was Ginger Meggs. And being too clever by half, I thought, “ Oh no, let’s make it Fatty Finn, because there already exists a silent Film on that subject — a classic called Kid Stakes by Tal Ordell — which we can show to Film investors and say ‘Our Film is going to be like that.’ ” Then McGill went away and after a close study of the phone book came up with something called The C h ild re n ’s Film Corporation. This turned out to be Yoram Gross and John Sexton.

C o n v ersatio n s su b se q u en tly became confused.

I wrote the script and it was funded on the First draft because it was so good. But Yoram didn’t understand it, owing to his insecure grasp of English. We had conversa­ “Black and w hite is wonderful for tragedy, suspense tions along the lines of, “ Who is Don Bradman?” “ Well, he’s a and serious content. Colour trivializes and distracts, this famous sportsman, Yoram. In fact, he’s so famous that in a classic and is never used well, except when it is closest to children’s novel on King Arthur, A Once and Future King, the quality black and white. ” of the chivalry and competence of Sir Lancelot’s sword fighting is described by comparing him to Don Bradman.” “ Who is this King Roadshow also imposed a lead it should be handsome and well- Arthur?” he asked. actress. They wanted Judy Morris, dressed, as it is. There is no correct There was another time when we Helen Morse or Wendy Hughes, way to do those things, and fashion were having an argument about and Judy was the only one with in women’s, films alters radically plot. Yoram said, “ All children’s buck teeth and, therefore, the only every year. Sunday Bloody Sunday films should be like Red Riding one with any hope of not looking was a handsome film, whereas Hood, with a clear simple plot.” I resolutely beautiful all the time. I Sterile Cuckoo was grotty, with said, “ How about Alice in Wonder­ still think she looks too beautiful to some pretty ordinary-looking lands?” and he replied, “ I haven’t have these problems, and the people. I think you go back-and- seen the film.” This nonsense went correct choice would have been forth between those two things, and on for a long time. somebody like Anna Volska or you can pick it wrong. I think we Anyway, once the script had been Michelle Fawdon. But Judy is did. funded, Sexton demanded 118 terribly good in it, and it is by far major changes. I had put an her best performance, which is a arbitration clause in my contract, considerable achievement. She will Fatty Finn but I was then confronted by the get the Best Actress Award, I am AFC’s new lawyer who said my sure. A couple of times, when contract meant I had to make the watching her do things, I felt like changes. So I took a deep breath crying. and made them, word for word for How did “Fatty Finn” originate?

It was a hard Film to do, because what they asked. The result was so in a way it should be ill-lit, poorly1 used to have conversations with ludicrous that they didn’t call me dressed, and populated by ordinary Chris McGill where I would ask for six months and I presumed the and ugly people. But in another way questions like, “ What is the most Concluded on P. 386

“I don’t think there is much danger o f government money drying up. Films have been our best ambassadors and they don’t cost much — certainly less per year than it costs to mow Canberra’s lawns. ”

Cinema Papery. October-November — 319

On September 17 at the Regent Theatre, Sydney, the 1980 Australian Film Awards were announced. The presenta­ tion, produced by Ric Birch, directed by Jacqui Culliton and hosted by Graham Kennedy, was televised nationally by the ABC. The first in a four-year deal with the ABC, the 1980 Film Awards seemed at last to have reached the standard long sought by the organizers, the Aus­ tralian Film Institute.

The winners of the 1980 Awards were:

Parer, Bird of the Thunder Woman. Bronze Medal: Tom Cowan, Peter Butt, No Such Place Special Awards: “ For its Original Concept” : Blood Money, Chris Fitchett “ For Courageous Filmmaking” : Give Trees a Chance, Jeni Kendell

AFI DIRECTORS’ AWARD Raymond Longford Award: Tim Burstall

INDUSTRY AWARDS

To report on the 1980 judging processes and give an overview of the year’s film Best Film: Breaker Morant, producer Matt output, Cinema Papers sent Brian Sheedy to the Awards screenings. Here Carroll Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading is his report: Role: Jack Thompson, Breaker Morant Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Tracy Mann, Hard Knocks Best Achievement in Directing: Bruce Beresford, Breaker Morant Best Screenplay: Jonathon Hardy, David Stevens, Bruce Beresford, Breaker Morant Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role: Bryan Brown, Stir.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role: Jill Perryman, Maybe This Time Best Original Music Score: Peter Sculthorpe, Manganinnie Best Achievement in Art Direction: David Cop­ ping, Breaker Morant Best Achievement in Cinematography: Don McAipine, Breaker Morant.

Best Achievement in Film Editing: William Anderson, Breaker Morant Best Achievement in Costume Design: Anna Senior, Breaker Morant Best Sound: Gary Wilkins, William Anderson.

Jeanne Chiavlo, Phill Judd, Breaker Morant

JURY AWARDS Jury Prize: Don McLennan, Hard Knocks Best Short Fiction Film: Gary’s Story, directed

by Richard Michalak Best Documentary Film: Frontline, directed by David Bradbury Best Animated Film: Pussy Pumps Up, An­ toinette Starkiewicz Best Experimental Film: Self-Portrait — Blood Red, directed by Ivan Durrant Cinematography Awards: Silver Medal: David 320 — Cinema Papers, October-November

The Australian Film Awards have been run by the Australian Film Institute since 1958. The presentation night, usually in September, is preceded by months of work, part of which is the screening of entered feature Films to AFI members in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth.

To be eligible for entry in the feature category a film must be narrative in form, and more than 65 minutes in length. It must have a capital city commercial release of a minimum one week at least one month before the presentation date.

AFI members who, like myself, are not direct­ ly engaged in production can vote only for the Best Film Award. Only industry professionals are entitled to vote in specific categories: for ex­ ample, only editors are eligible to vote for the editing award.

The competition is run according to strict at­ tendance rules: a member must see every Film to be eligible to vote and admission is refused to subsequent screenings if he misses any film.

Most of us “lay folk” go along because it is a good way to test the new vintage in one burst, to compare tone, mood, style — “quality” general­ ly — with previous years. This year no one seems very optimistic: the climate is politically frosty and financially dry. And where have all the big names gone? Bruce Beresford is there, but an alphabetical roll call through Tim Bur­ stall, Tom Cowan, John Duigan, Fred Schepisi.

Michael Thornhill and Peter Weir brings only silence — gone to the U.S. everyone?

And how will the films compare with the hal­ cyon years of the middle and late ’70s?

1976 Caddie, The Devil’s Playground, Picnic at Hanging Rock 1977 Don’s Party, Mad Dog Morgan, The FJ Holden, Storm Boy 1978 Newsfront, The Last Wave, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, Mouth to Mouth, The Get­ ting of Wisdom 1979 My Brilliant Career, Mad Max, In Search of Anna, Tim, The Last of the Knucklemen Except for Breaker Morant, no one seems to know anything about the films that lead us into the 1980s. Directors’ names such as John

Honey, Peter Maxwell and Chris McGill send us on a fruitless search of Cinema Papers indexes: is the honeymoon really over?

Last year there were 17 films, 16 in 1978, 18 in 1977, 12 in 1976 and 15 in 1975. This year there are only 11.

The stalwarts who stick out the entire program have a certain stoic fraternity about them. The front-line people, the actors, are easy to recognize; so too are the addicts who seem never to miss a screening of anything, anywhere.

There are also the “back-room” people, the backbone of the industry, who seemingly exist only in the credits. Over the sandwiches and cof­ fee, courtesy of the AFI, one might meet a freelance editor, an art director from a commer­ cial house, or a designer from the ABC — or a teacher or critic. In this atmosphere of camaraderie everyone tries to be generous about the film just screened, praising its successes, ex­ cusing its failings. This year, the excuses seemed just a little strained.

My season got off to an uninspiring start with Gene W. Scott’s Mystery Island, a children’s story of the conventional, deserted-islandadventure type, complete with a suspicious, but Finally friendly, beachcomber-recluse and bad­ dies smuggling mysterious packages.

All this is embellished by some pleasing but mostly irrelevant underwater photography. It is never possible to take the danger to the children seriously, and they are burdened by such leaden and banal dialogue that the happy ending seems more than they deserve.

Tracy Mann in Hard Knocks.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role.

Don McLennan’s Hard Knocks is no seaside or sylvan idyll. Sam (Tracy Mann) is a hard­ core punk kid who gets a stretch at a correc­ tional institution. As her hair grows and her manner softens, she is groomed by a do-gooder social worker for a straight life as a model. All the odds are against her: blatant double stan­ dards, vengeful cops, old mates from Winlaton and the birds of prey of the fashion and model­ ling worlds.

The film in part picks up a thread from Mouth to Mouth, and teases it out, but lacks warmth and simplicity, and is over-endowed with un­ necessary scenes and superfluous dialogue.

Some characters are drawn larger than life in their introduction, then disappear, never to be seen again and the construction seems unneces­ sarily complicated.

It could have been a small, simple and endear­ ing film, but it isn’t; only Tracy Mann’s perfor­ mance is remarkable.

murdered people and her collapsed culture. She Ian Barry’s Chain Reaction adopts the 50is the keeper not only of the firestick of her tribe, minute television drama formula — a puzzling, but also of the fire mythology, its rituals and high-speed beginning, a chase-race-smash ceremony. ending and a soft centre — and stretches it to 92 This, and much else, she imparts to a white minutes. child, a girl of five or six years, who goes volun­ Malign authority is out to silence the dying tarily with her on her journey to the coast in man who can tell the world of danger from a search of her race. She finds only death and con­ nuclear waste treatment plant damaged in an Peter Maxwell’s Touch and Go is about victs and sealers, and her power — fire — is un­ earth tremor. What else but divine providence women at the opposite end of the social scale wittingly usurped by the child who steals a flint lands him in Paradise Valley, to be cared for by from Sam who pull robberies on a scale never from a white man. an unsuspecting couple on a weekend away from approached by the street kids. An unlikely trio She goes back to the inland, returns the child it all. Luckily, she is a trained nurse and he can of glamorous women — Fiona (Chantal Con­ and dies. The child’s father pledges her a decent drive like hell and doesn’t mind bending his touri), the socialite wife; Eva (Wendy Hughes), a (European) burial, but the child ensures her flashy, customized unit — the world is saved. failed actress who does kookaburra calls on a proper conduct to the spirit world by putting the children’s radio program; Millie (Carmen Dun­ torch to the shed in which the body lies.

Ross Dimsey’s Final Cut is a silly film about a can), a self-employed locksmith — pull It is a slow, but moving film, a filmmaker’s young journalist and her television newsmeticulously-planned and coolly-executed answer to the illustrated lecture that was The cameraman boyfriend who seize the chance to heists.

Last Tasmanian. Manganinnie, in essence, tells make a film about a sinister impresario of pop­ Most of the money goes to a struggling the same story, but in a way which will survive in ular culture who may have graduated from porn progressive school, the balance to “expenses” . the memory long after the high-minded moraliz­ home movies to real death (“snuff’) films. The Their lack of interest in education and children ing of its predecessor is forgotten. pair gets involved in this freaky scene, first on leaves one in no doubt that their real motive is his luxury yacht and later at his apartment. the thrills.

The best part of the film is the closing caption Except for a few moments near the end, the Bryan Brown in Stir. which assures the audience that any resemblance pace never lets up and there isn’t a spare shot or to any person living, etc., is purely coincidental Best Performance a loose word in the entire 92 minutes of the film.

— the film’s only laugh. by an Actor In i It’s exciting and very funny — the gang escapes a Supporting Role 1 from their big job along a jetty, with half the in Breaker MonwK f looted guests, bemused and in night attire, following them.

Fiona seems to do minor damage to her car every time she takes it out, but it’s only there on the soundtrack — she ignores it and so does the camera.

Chris McGill’s Maybe This Time is a serious and sensitive film that will strike many respon­ sive emotional and political chords. In the wider context of Supply bills being blocked, a snap election and the consequent change in govern­ ment, Fran (Judy Morris) finds herself at one of life’s crossroads. Thirty years old, a teacherturned-research assistant, her search for fulfil­ ment through her relationships brings her to the end of a “wasted” four years with the arrogant, married, high-level public servant, Stephen (Bill Hunter).

The possible avenues open to her include returning to the boy-next-door, Alan (Ken Shorter), becoming sexually involved with her boss the academic, Paddy (Mike Preston), adopting an independent lifestyle by buying her own house, or going overseas to join a woman friend. To the detriment of herself, and the film, she takes them all, turning a crossroad into a peak-hour intersection with no traffic signals.

The film becomes episodic, able to portray Fran’s anguish but too crowded to explore the reasons for failures except through the failings of the men with whom she is involved. Her ap­ parent powerlessness in relationships, however, is in keeping with the personal and political im­ potence which haunts the film.

Director Stephen Wallace and actor Bryan Brown teamed previously in Love Letters from Teralba Road, the film which introduced both to most filmgoers. While Brown’s face has become well-known, Wallace has made only one more film, Stir, again using Bryan Brown. It is longer and more ambitious than the first, but less suc­ cessful; the claustrophobic atmosphere of the gaol where the action takes place stifles the film.

Back in prison after three years out, “China” (Bryan Brown) has bitter memories of earlier bashings at Garunga Gaol which followed the non-violent protest he had instigated. He is determined to keep his nose clean, but fails; he thus inspires the only action which he believes will work.

The rising tensions in the gaol are not mirrored in the film which, although it succeeds John Honey’s Manganinnie is the first feature in maintaining a degree of tension, fails to build film to be backed by the Tasmanian Film Cor­ it to the necessary climax. The failure of the riot, poration and is an auspicious beginning. as political action and as cinema, is followed by Manganinnie too is about a woman’s search — the inevitable bashings, but we have seen it all that of a black Tasmanian woman for her before.

Three other films were screened: Bruce Beresford’s Breaker Morant, Rod Hardy’s Thirst and Simon Wincer’s Harlequin. All have been released commercially and reviewed in Cinema Papers and elsewhere.

And now for my vote for the Best Film. For polish and performance: Breaker Morant.

Beresford and the South Australian Film Cor­ poration apparently haven’t been told that the honeymoon is over and went ahead and made an excellent film from difficult material.

For sheer entertainment of the thrills-andlaughter variety: Touch and Go. I hope it fills cinemas for months, helping us to forget for 92 minutes that life wasn’t meant to be easy.

And for poignancy, honesty and grace: Manganinnie, the one we’d all like to forget.★ Cinema Papers, October-November — 321

A l Pacino (left) and William Friedkin.

sinnt “The major reasons to make a film are to move people emotionally, to move them to laughter, tears or to fear . . . I’m not interested in an interesting movie. I am interested in gut level reaction . . . The American cinema is a kind of lean, hard, story-oriented cinema, just as American literature is. Scott Fitzgerald, who’s probably one of the greatest writers that the country ever produced, had a piece of paper on his wall that said, ‘Action is Character.’ And that’s what I think is best about the American cinema . . . There’s a kind of muscular, visceral, story-telling sense to [it] that I feel is best embodied in the work of Raoul Walsh, D. W. Griffith, Ford, Hawks, Wellman . . .

It’s what the American people and people all over the world expect from the American cinema . . .’’

(William Friedkin)1 Few films in recent years have been accom­ panied by the level of anger that has attached itself to Cruising. Even before the completion of its location shoot in New York, the protest against the film in the American gay press was intense, admirably organized and effectively used to focus attention on the repression of homosexuality which seems embedded within our culture. Similarly in Australia, in the weeks preceding the film’s release, the campaign against Cruising was underway, citing the ac­ tivity abroad as sufficient indication that “this film could be a health hazard” .2 The view of the film as “calculatedly vile and threatening in all of its ‘messages’ ”3 has been taken up by the film reviewers in the press, creating an unprecedented harmony with the gay commentaries. Words like “garbage” , “con­ temptible” and “depraved” have abounded in accusation against the film. Yet little close con­ sideration has been attempted to substantiate 1. “ Dialogue On Film” , American Film Institute, 1974, pp.

27-29. ' 2. Campaign, No. 54, p. 5.

3. Joe Savago, “Cruisin’ For A Bruisin’ ” , Seven Days, April, 1980, p. 37.

322 — Cinema Papers, October-November

M uch has been said in the cause of sensationalism about Cruising, but little serious commentary is available on the film. To in part rectify this situation, Cinema Papers publishes the following critiques by Tom Ryan and Adrian Martin.

The articles were written to complement each other, the authors sharing a respect for Cruising, though pursuing their individual concerns.

these exclamations and it is very difficult to locate precisely what it is about Cruising that has aroused such fury. Most attempts to talk about the film, even in the most basic descriptive terms, are characterized by a lack of attention to detail, passionate assertion taking the place of the terms of rational argument. One of many examples is Campaign's approving use of Vito Russo’s comments from Gay News: “ All the gays in the film live in filthy rat-trap hotel rooms. When Pacino makes love to his girlfriend, the background music is a Bach cantata. When gays have sex, the music is violent, discorded [sic] hard rock.”4 Disappointingly, only the few reviews that have endeavored to defend the film have offered any detailed examination of it5, and, interestingly, all of these seem to have come from the gay press. As yet no serious analysis has appeared elsewhere, and even the journals devoted solely to film have yet to produce their discussion of Cruising.

As far as I can gather, the terms of the hostility to Cruising are several. That its representation of homosexual life is inaccurate, or else that it is limited to the activities of a fringe group (the latter point is endorsed by a disclaimer at the beginning of the film). That it is a badly-made film which is clumsily shot and put together, its narrative confusions serving as ample evidence of the filmmakers’ incom­ petence. That its ‘messages’ are likely to produce a general ahimosity towards gays and to the ad­ vancement of gay rights, perhaps even provok­ ing a wave of violence against homosexuals.

The last objection cannot be countered, any more than it can be demonstrated. Crimes against homosexuals, such as those which provided a source for Cruising, are all too com­ monplace in our community and beyond, but those social and psychological factors which produce such crimes are notoriously difficult to pinpoint. Cruising is in no way an “innocent” 4. Campaign, No. 54, p. 5.

5. The best example I have come across is a review by Scottie Ferguson in The Advocate (U.S.), April 17, 1980.

CRUISING

film — it exists as a cultural artefact, a product of a complex ideology. But to say this is in no way to see it as a producer of, or even a catalyst for, particular patterns of criminal behaviour.

'The crazies in our community scarcely need Cruising to stimulate their aggressions, and the representations of homosexuals in the film would seem to be of the kind more likely to dis­ courage those acts of violence than induce them.

The other objections are best discussed through an analysis of Cruising in terms of its system of representations, its “realism” and its narrative construction. Without such a con­ sideration of Cruising’s formal strategies, any attempt to condemn or to defend the film is doomed to the realm of surface impressions, which reflect more upon the speaker than anything else. ☆ ☆ ☆ Cruising can initially be seen as belonging to that tradition of American cinema defined so succinctly above by its writer and director, William Friedkin. Its narrative adopts the struc­ ture of the investigation tale, as its central character, Steve Burns (A1 Pacino), seeks out a killer in the fringe world of S & M in New York. Its style is “hard-boiled” in that Burns cannot remain detached from what he is doing.

His investigations may be successful in bringing a killer to justice, but they also affect him in a way that challenges the security of his place in the world.

Cruising can also be identified as an inter­ section for several other generic modes: the ‘film noir’, the “gothic horror film” (Friedkin’s label) and the ‘psycho’-drama. A dominant visual element of the film is darkness: in the emphasis on a world of night-time activity and in the recurrent fades to black which are used as punctuation between sequences but also to elide that period of time during which sexual activity occurs. This is most notable in the first murder sequence, but also at those times when Burns has been picked up. The use of darkness and the fades to black seem to be Friedkin’s strategy for avoiding any literal representation of sex between males, with the effect that the specific details of homosexuality are rendered am­ biguous and linked with the general sense of threat. Darkness in the ‘filrps noirs’ insistently serves the function of suggesting hidden aspects of the human psyche, dangerous sides to the human personality that are a threat to order, to what the dramatic contexts of these films wish to assert as normality. Cruising’s use of darkness seems consistent with this: murder, sexuality, the S & M bars, and the police on patrol all being bound together in a cycle of behaviour that is linked with disturbance and danger.

Yet what is particularly interesting here is the way “normality” is set against this ‘film noir’ world and its production of a sense of horror.

There is no simple dichotomy between darkness and light, or black and white. Instead, the

The crippled Captain Edelson (Paul Sorvino). Cruising.

DiSimone (Joe Spinell) pulls up two gays dressed as women.

Cruising.

proprieties which characters like Burns and Cap­ tain Edelson (Paul Sorvino) might seem to represent, especially in their first scene together when Edelson describes the dangers attendant upon Burns going undercover, are gradually and powerfully subverted.

The police in the Film do not reflect any order against which to set the chaos of the S & M world — in fact, they are linked with repression, which is shown to produce corruption (the patrol cops who terrorize homosexuals), impotence (Edelson, whose limp conventionally signifies a castration, is powerless to act except in accord with the bureaucratic strictures of his depart­ ment) and brutality (again the patrol cops, but also the savage interrogation of the suspect who could have been exonerated by a simple print check).

The film insistently draws connections

The New York fringe world of S&M. Cruising.

between the police and the S & M underworld — both function and are related through a system of signs which includes handkerchiefs, uniforms and slang expressions like “night stick” (which neatly links penis and baton); both have centres of activity marked off as precincts; both form an uneasy alliance in the attempt to Find the killer — each becoming a distorting mirror of the other. This can be seen especially in the presence of the giant black, clad in jock strap, who assists the police with their interrogations. But a key motif of the Film, that of the predator, binds the two worlds inextricably together. The ritual of the pick-up Finds its distorted reflection in the police who cruise the S & M hangouts either as participants or as victimisers of the men there.

All of this provides the framework for the ‘psycho’-drama whose centre is the character of Steve Burns. Having accepted the assignment to “disappear”, he assumes an identity which allows him to mix with the crowd who inhabit the film’s netherworld, a process which mirrors that of the killer, Richards (Richard Cox), whose daylight “innocence” conceals his night­ time menace. The Film here produces, and sustains, a conventional pattern of much ‘investigation’ Fiction in which pursuer and pur­ sued become reflections of each other.

Throughout the film, the medium long-shot is used to create an uncertainty about whether we are looking at an image of Burns or of Richards (or of someone else altogether), and their similarities in dress and physique further accen­ tuate the point. The sequence where Richards first notices Burns’ presence outside the apart­ ment house where he lives employs the shotreverse shot to encourage a sense of their inter-connectedness, and the Final confrontation between the two men extends this. As their cigarettes lie smouldering side-by-side (a cutaway close-up), the two men move off to their ritual of battle, Burns now wearing Richards’ cap. Dressed similarly and armed with identical knives, they face each other.

The ambiguity which results from this is usually linked with their common plights — both are seen as outsiders, or both act according to a common code, but on opposite sides of the law. Cruising is no exception to this, but it shifts that ambiguity into the realm of sexuality. Burns and Richards Find their self-image threatened by homosexuality — each lives in the shadows of father Figures to whom they have something to prove, and in each case that something involves a rejection of their own sexual instincts.

Burns is initially depicted in the customary fashion of the' cop hero as a confirmed heterosexual. “There’s a lot about me you don’t know”, he responds to his girlfriend Nancy’s (Karen Allen) charge that he is being mysterious about his new assignment. Their initial love­ making is accompanied by lyrical music, producing a sharp contrast with the hard rock that dominates the rest of the soundtrack.

However, as Burns penetrates further into the

Steve Burns (AI Pacino) and Richards (Richard Cox) before their ritual of battle. Cruising.

Cinema Papers, October-November — 323

CRUISING

foreign world of the black leather and singletclad homosexuals, what becomes clear is that there is a lot about himself he doesn’t know. His behaviour becomes less assured, and when he returns to Nancy’s place in the evenings, the sex­ ual rapport the two had seemed to share is replaced by shots of his desperate lungings, and as she “comes down” on him the music is dis­ placed by more threatening tones. Only in the film's final sequence is it suggested that the lyrical music has been emanating from a record player in the living-room, pointing to the characters’ assertion of romantic love, a notion which the entire film calls into question.

Burns’ return to his undercover role each time finds him behaving in an increasingly disturbed fashion, and his violent reaction to his gay neighbour’s linking of him with “that trash” who frequent the S & M bars is clearly in excess of the provocation. The security of his sexual identity has vanished, and the film’s final sequence underlines the potential destructive­ ness of the resultant insecurity as it becomes a possibility that Burns himself is a new killer on the loose.

The shift from the initial reading of Burns, as an audience identification figure who is to lead us into the S & M world and who will thus provide us with a secure perspective from which to judge the action, produces a significant narrative disturbance in the film. Many of Alfred Hitchcock’s films provide similar manipulations of audience response (nowhere more effectively than in the shift of response to the Scottie Ferguson/James Stewart character in Vertigo), but few lines have disturbed the narrative position of the hero as traumatically as Cruising.

Within the structure of the proprieties of the film’s “ normal” world, in his role in the police force and in his relationship with Nancy, Burns is fixed as an individual. He has his place and his function, and he can act accordingly. This is the world which, like the ego, asserts order and represses anything which threatens that. In the film’s ‘other’ world, he ‘disappears’, merging with those around him in the night streets and bars, sharing a physical resemblance with so many of the S & M set that it often requires a close-up to recuperate his place (to save him) and to restore order to the progression of the narrative.6 This is the world of the Id, which asserts chaos, which is unrepressed, and thus dangerous. It is a world which produces insecurity in those bound by the rigid in­ dividualism of the ‘normal’ world.

Cruising makes no claims to any sort of documentary realism. Its particular style draws on the tradition of narrative realism, though it often seems that it is only doing so to break its rules. Its constant subversion of the view-er’s customary fixed and secure position in relation to the clarity and order of the narrative underlines the film's central concern with insecurity. It is in this aspect that it is most effectively a horror story, for it confronts the complacency that celebrates order, and replaces the fixed with the ambiguous.

Formally and thematically, Cruising is a film which disturbs, and its intelligence deserves much more than the naive controversy that has surrounded it to date. ★ 6. In many ways the narrative order is also strained in a fashion most uncommon in the commercial narrative cinema to which Friedkin expresses such a passionate commitment. For example, temporality is rendered asunder in the sequence where Richards meets his father in the park: dressed in the same garb as he had been wear­ ing in the previous sequence in his apartment, which is strictly located in a temporal logic, he goes to his father.

It is only later in the film that we learn that his father has been dead for 10 years. Another example, designed to produce disorder, is the ‘open’ epilogue to the film where Burns returns to Nancy’s apartment.

324 — Cinema Papers, October-November

As a film about homosexuality, or a certain kind of homosexuality, Cruising is notable firstly for bringing to the commercial cinema images never before seen there: the leather set, sado­ masochism. pick-ups. This is not to say these images are any ‘truer’ than those of the charm­ ing effeminates of La cage aux folles: truth is never the issue. There is not a homosexuality, an essential homosexuality, anymore than there is an essential femininity or masculinity.

Homosexuality only exists in its different con­ structions, identifications and cultural positions.

It can never be separated from the meanings and connotations it carries.1 And it is in this light that I propose discussing Cruising.

There is possibly a sophisticated argument against the film (certainly, it has yet to be made). It might claim that Cruising merely borrows and reinforces an existing signification of gay sexuality as something dark, monstrous, abnormal, even evil, given the gothic style Friedkin employs. And, being at least minimally a realist film, Represents this signification not as constructed but as natural, evident to the eye — “That’s what the gay world's really like.” People respond to familiar things in a familiar way, and thus Cruising becomes complicit with dominant ideology.

Although there is some validity to this posi­ tion. it rests upon a presumption that I find impossible to work with: that we can know' how ‘average’ audiences (whatever they are: middle class? heterosexual?) react to the film, what attitudes it evokes or bolsters in them. For the moment, the question of Cruising’s impact and its effects will be put to one side, and first we must understand the film itself.

Cruising is essentially about aggression. To claim, as Vito Russo did in Gay News, that the film “indicates that gay life makes one violent” is to ignore everything to do with who is being 1. Cf. Richard Dyer. “ Pasolini and Homosexuality” , Pier Paolo Pasolini, ed. Paul Willemen, BFI 1977. Dyer’s method of analysis provides a useful and needed correc­ tive to the simplistic assumptions of a polemic like Noel Purdon’s “ Gay Cinema” , Cinema Papers. No. 10. pp.115-119, 179.

violent and the possible reasons why. Cruising is not a right-wing sermon warning against gay killers; it explores why gays are killed and why society has a need to kill them.

A few minutes into the film, two cops are shown travelling the streets in their patrol car.

One of them, DiSimone (Joe Spinell), talks about his wife who has left him: “ She ain’t gonna make a fool out of me. I’ll get that bitch.” They see two gays dressed as women, pull them up and harass them, the scene cul­ minating in one of the cops ordering the most vocal gay to give him head. When this is about to happen, the shot racks focus to show the killer going into a bar to find a victim. What is going on here? DiSimone’s aggression towards his wife is re-directed towards the gays — because both homosexuals and ‘liberated’ women pose a threat to the social and sexual order. What the killer is about to do is only an extension of this first aggression; he is, paradoxically, on the side of the ‘law’.

Cruising examines a patriarchal, or ‘phallocratic',’society, in which the power invested in men by the law expresses itself through a valorization of male sexuality, the penis.2 The film consistently links power with virility: in the scene just mentioned, the gay is told to suck the cop’s ‘night stick’; the harassing cops are called ‘hard-ons’; the killer’s spermless ejaculation is referred to as ‘shooting blanks’.

However, it is not only the police who are im­ plicated in this association of virility with power.

Certainly the most provocative aspect of the film is the way in which it refuses to romanticize its gays on any level; they are not presented as the poor victims of patriarchal tyranny. In fact, they help to perpetuate its ideology.

The whole ‘leather set’ scene is based on a glorification of phallic power — witness the Nazi regalia, the wrestling magazines, and most particularly the police uniforms. This is Concluded on P. 392 2. Cf. Guy Hocquenghem, Homosexual Desire, Allison and Busby. 1978. It should be said that this book, which has contributed to my critical position on Cruising, is not accepted by a majority of the Gay Movement.

No issue has been more heatedly debated in the Australian film industry than that of using overseas actors in local films. On the one hand, there are those who see internationalization as essential if our films are to be more commercially-acceptable overseas. Using foreign stars is one way of achieving this.

On the other, there are those who believe in maintaining a small, nationalistic industry which caters primarily for Australians. Its success depends on its difference from the “ treadmill” of American-type product.

While these opposing views have been held for some time, it was primarily action by the Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia that made the issues public. Up until 1979, the producer of each film made in Australia negotiated separately with Equity. That changed in November 1979 with the incorporation of the Film Actors Award 1979, which resulted from negotiations between Equity and the Film and Television Production Association of Australia. One thing the Award did was establish penalties for the use of imported actors: e.g., if a foreign actor is used, each Australian actor in the film receives a 25 per cent loading.

At its incorporation, the Award was generally applauded, but enthusiasm waned quickly when producer Tony Ginnane ran into problems with The Survivor and then producer-director Richard Franklin with Roadgames. In G innane’s case, he wished to bring in four overseas stars.

Equity, which gives a ruling to the Immigration Department as to an actor’s standing, refused on the grounds that two of the four actors were not of “ international standing” .

Ginnane took Equity to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but Justice Robinson ruled that Equity had the right to determine “ international standing” and Ginnane lost.

The Roadgames case was different, with Franklin claiming that the M elbourne branch of Equity gave him permission to bring in Stacy Reach and Jamie Lee Curtis, but the Sydney branch, after an objection was lodged by a Sydney actress, changed the decision.

But the real bone of contention was yet to come: Equity’s “ Defence of Employment Policy” , also known as the “ new policy” . This bars the use of overseas actors in any Australian film with governm ent money, except in “ exceptional circumstances” . Several producers saw the move as the death knell for a faltering industry; others felt it would ensure the continuation of a film industry of which Australia could be proud.

It is still too early to see what lasting effects the new policy will have, but already Ginnane, Australia’s most prolific producer, has stopped working in Australia and the South Australian Film Corporation has threatened not to make any more films until the policy changes.

Given the importance of this and related issues, various people have been invited to contribute their views in this and future issues of Cinema Papers. Following are an interview with Uri Windt, assistant general secretary of Equity and its main spokesman; a statem ent by Errol Sullivan, chairman of the F&TPAA (features division); and an interview with Edward Woodward, acclaimed British actor. Their views form part of an ongoing debate which may well determ ine the future of the Australian film industry.

Cinema Papers. October-November — 325

Uri Windt, assistant general secretary of the Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia, is the spokesman on Equity’s policies in the feature film and television areas. Here he discusses with Scott Murray the philosophy behind Equity’s recent actions.

What are Equity’s principal aims?

Our concern is twofold: cultural and economic. Culturally, what we would like to see is something that genuinely reflects, and is in touch with, an Australian way of life — a “cultural exactness”, to use Bob Ellis’ phrase.’ Economically we are looking for an industry that, in one form or another, is financially viable; where there is no constant threat to its survival. We want a m echanism th a t ensures the industry’s stability, and a con­ tinuity of production.

What concerned us, and we saw this coming two years ago, was that the economic crisis lurching up ahead would lead to economic com­ promises and, therefore, cultural compromises. We had seen this happen in a number of other industries, like in Britain and Canada.

In Canada, for example, there was $160 million worth of film­ making — that is 55 films — being made in 1979. But only three of those scripts were written by Canadians, and only five or six of the leading roles were played by Canadian actors. In it is a trans­ planted American industry, and it is unstable because the decision of whether it goes ahead is not made within the Canadian industry, but in New York or Los Angeles. It is not economically viable because it is not based on anything indig­ enous: it is neither based on the Canadian economy, nor related to the Canadian cinemagoing public.

It is related to the American cinemagoing public.

But Canada neighbours the U.S. and historically Canadian film­ going tastes have been the same as American. Canadian films are not, at present, of interest to Canadian audiences. Surely it is economically sounder to make the sort of films that Canadian audiences want to see, rather than the sort some people think they should see . . .

1. Uttered during a speech, titled “ Is that an Australian film industry?” , during the 1980 Sydney Film Festival.

326 — Cinema Papers, October-November

There is a quote in Variety from the Canadian Minister of Interior Affairs screaming outrage at the fact that films are using Canadian locations where the street names have changed, and where New York yellow cabs have been im ported into T oronto. The Government itself is saying, “This is outrageous.”

This kind of economics of scale is all about the Canadian govern­ ment subsidizing American multi­ national and American production corporations. I suspect you see an element of this with a film like Patrick, which is supposed to be grossing millions of dollars in the U.S., yet it is alleged that the nett return to the Australian Film Com­ mission is in the mere tens of thousands of dollars. It has ended up losing a leg and an arm for somebody else to be grossing millions.

That could be said of many films, such as “Picnic at Hanging Rock”, which was sold outright to Italy for a small advance and grossed millions. Perhaps it just reflects in­ experience in the film industry . . .

But Picnic at Hanging Rock came at one point in the history of the industry, and Patrick a long way afterwards. If, at that stage, they didn’t know what a business deal looked like, there should have been some very serious heartburn going on in the AFC boardroom.

The second point you made — that we ought to give people what they want — is very much akin to the argument that takes place about television. Why is it that there isn’t more Australian content on tele­ vision? Are people basically happy with what they are getting?

The short answer for that, and the best analogy that I have heard in relation to television, is to com­ pare it to a smorgasbord, where you are invited to gorge yourself on a wide range of sandwiches. But while you have a choice of sand­ wiches, you don’t have a qualitative choice: you are choosing from vaguely similar things. To that extent, it is not a reasonable option

that people have before them.

Now, the argument that says since Canadians don’t know what’s good for them, let’s give them pap, I find pretty banal. It is a very weak rationale for sustaining an econ­ omic proposition which rips the country off.

shown. But as soon as that dearth of programming gave way to a flood, A ustralian films were shelved to one side.

That’s not what they are saying.

They are claiming that the jump from what Canadian audiences have traditionally wanted to films which others may feel intelligently comment on Canada is too big for audiences to take. It requires a pro­ gression . . .

Obviously the big American in­ dustry could dwarf the small Aust­ ralian in an open-market situation, if it wanted to. But is there not some way the two industries could link together? Take a film like “The Blue Lagoon”, which has so far grossed $30 million in the U.S. It has an Australian co-producer, and is the sort of film Australians could make with American money. Would that not be a good thing for us to do?

You will forgive me if I think that argument naive. It doesn’t take into account a vast economic in­ frastructure where you have the ex­ hibitors and distributors in a vert­ ically-integrated monopoly, able to call on immense resources and a global set-up. Industries like the Australian and Canadian are knocking from the outside trying to get in. Outlets are tied up and you are playing with loaded dice; you are always one step behind the 8 ball.

It is not as if the Australian and the American industries are com­ parable. You are dealing with two machines trying to compete for a particular kind of market. One machine has a global set-up with global publicity and enormous fin­ ancial and infrastructural re­ sources, while the other battles on its own. To that extent, the kind of industry we have, which churns out 10 to 20 films a year, is just not in the race to compete with the razza­ matazz. We are swamped in terms of product.

Now to really get an under­ standing and a feel for how the ex­ hibitors and distributors respond to Australian films, you have to look at different modes of history. It is not a uniform history. In 1976/77, for example, when there was a fair­ ly strong dearth of production in the U.S., Australian films were virtually responsible for the cash flow among the exhibitors in Aust­ ralia. They were desperate, and on that basis Australian films were

I think we are rapidly reaching a crunch situation, where the in­ dustry as a whole needs to make a decision about its direction. There are two options, it seems to me.

One is the concept of inter­ nationalizing the film industry.

Tony G innane and R ichard ^ Franklin represent that kind of stream par excellence. They are quoted as wanting non-specific location type films and so on. This means wanting to compete with the Americanized concept of film­ making on its own terms — and, if you are really clever enough, to do it with their money.

Such a proposition could work, and it would certainly provide turn­ over and liquidity. But it would be very much akin to the Canadian and British experiences — and there is a question mark about the ongoing-ness of that kind of in­ dustry.

The second clear option relates to making films that are genuinely authentic, with that “ cultural exact­ itude” I was talking about. They are authentic, in that they touch on people’s lives and experiences. My Brilliant Career does that, and American audiences obviously identify with it as much as Australian audiences — yet it doesn’t lose its roots.

This option therefore argues that it is only films which are distinct and identifiably different from the American treadmill that will give the Australian films a notch in the marketplace, that makes it worth-

Peter McLean

while for people to go across the there no matter how they finance ceptional circumstances”, where an street to see a different film. their film. But there is a double re­ overseas actor may be required.

Now, if the economics of sus­ sponsibility when they are using There are three areas that taining this second option exist, government funds, because it is tax­ concern us in regard to the use of there is a reasonable security. You payers’ money geared with a imported artists: producers want to can control your destiny, because certain intent in mind. use more and more imports in any In that sense, we have dif­ particular film; they want to use the sources of funds and the audiences you are cultivating — ferentiated between government- less and less consequential people; being Australian — are there. You and privately-funded films. As to and more and more films are doing get a return on the effort that has government-funded films, we have it. Out of 10 productions planned been spent within the Australian said that we are willing to look at a this year, seven intend to use situation which allows for “ex­ imports. Our response was that community.

Now, is there going to be a hybrid? I am not sure. What pro­ ducers are complaining about is that the private funds which sup­ plement the public funds are becoming progressively elusive. It Equity’s new policy, “Defence of Employment Policy is driving them to desperate means on Imported Artists”, states in part: to try and get the balance of money 5. Films to make up the budget. They would Equity will approve the importation of artists subject to the following: like us to believe that what they are 1. Where a film is wholly or partly funded by a Government Statutory doing is in good faith, which I don’t body, no imported artist shall be allowed except in exceptional doubt, and therefore doesn’t circumstances. involve any fundamental com­ 2. Where a film is privately funded, Equity will approve the importation of artists subject to the following: promise of themselves or the Aust­ (a) The Artist is of internationally recognized merit and ability. The ralian filmmaking industry. But criteria of judgment in particular, but not exclusively, shall be an this is where the crunch comes: “ Is artist’s track record as reflected in his appearances in at least a fundamental economic and five feature films in featured or leading roles, and good profes­ cultural compromise being forced sional standing and record of work over a period of at least five years (except in the case of juveniles); on those producers?” (b) An equal number of Australian artists will receive co-billing; When you look at some of the (c) Promotional material incorporates Australians in advertising and propositions that are put up to us, it promotional events; seems to me that there are funda­ (d) The imported artist does no work other than the film for which mental compromises. They are he/she is contracted; making a choice of which of these (e) The production company enters into an agreement with the two options should take place, and Union relating to the above conditions and terms of engagement they have done this without any (including rates of pay); and widespread discussion within the in­ (f) Where a film is produced under the terms of the award, an absolute limit of two imported artists be placed on any one film in dustry, and certainly with no pre­ all but the most exceptional circumstances. liminary discussion with the group 6.

Television Programs (other than under clause E1, E2 and E3) of people they are asking to make Equity will approve the importation of an artist where the following condi­ the most severe compromise, tions are met: namely the actors. In that com­ (a) Any production funded solely by the ABC will not be permitted promise for foreign money, lead imports except in exceptional circumstances; roles are being sacrificed to foreign (b) The Union is satisfied that there is a legitimate reason for the use of actors—some of them conspicuous an imported artist; by their inconsequentiality. (c) No more than one imported artist shall be permitted except under

Box 1: The New Policy

Producers could also argue that they have been forced into com­ promises by Equity’s new policy [see Box 1] . ..

That’s not true. What we have said is that there is a responsibility of filmmakers, operating within Australia, to the Australian com­ munity and to their fellow creative workers. That responsibility is

exceptional circumstances; (d) The artist is of international status; (e) An equal number of Australians receive at least the same billing as the imported artists; (f) The imported artist does no work other than in the television pro­ gram; and (g) The production company enters into an agreement with the Union relating to the above conditions and terms of engagement (including rates of pay).

These conditions are subject to the overriding proviso that Equity will not approve the importation of artists for Australian-made “ soap operas” .

there needs to be an accountability for these decisions. They can’t be allowed to happen de facto.

We were then faced with the dilemma of what sort of cir­ cumstances were acceptable as a base on which imports can come in.

We held two meetings of our members, one in Sydney and one in M elbourne, which were well attended. Two things stood out: one is the need for a certain amount of flexibility, and the other is that people resented being displaced by “crumb bums” .

So, in considering these feelings, we have looked at the prospect of saying that “ exceptional cir­ cumstances” means (a) somebody can’t play the role satisfactorily in Australia, or (b) somebody who is of genuine international distinction and merit. Now, to that extent, certain requests for certain actors have been met. I don’t know if it is quotable at this stage, but the whole industry knows about Julie Christie. We have said “All right” , and that sets the peg. We will have a look at each test as it comes.

Has Christie been approved under (a) or (b)?

Under the international dis­ tinction and merit qualification. It was quite clear that it was a role that could have been played by an Australian — in fact, it had been offered to an Australian before being given to Julie Christie.

Is it not conceivable, though, that a director or producer has a burning desire to use a particular overseas actor? Yet, under your new policy, it would be difficult for him to use that actor. Therefore, there is a com­ promise . ..

That is not what has been put to us. It is not a real proposition. The real proposition is that producers aspire to using the big inter­ national star who will put bums on seats. The problem is that they can’t afford them. So there is a new game involved called “ Catch a Rising Star” . Everybody says, “ If only I could have got Richard Gere Cinema Papers, October-November — 327

“There is a truism that imported actors put bums on seats. I keep saying, ‘Why? Prove it. Tell me about it. Tell me about Piper Laurie in Tim’.”

“The proposition of importing Jamie Lee Curtis for Roadgames has naught to do with the notion of a special creative surge . . . through the producer’s veins.” Stacy Reach and Curtis in Roadgames.

ior John Travolta before they hit the big time, it would be Christmas.”

Producers tell us that it is pos­ sible in some small markets to be offered a quarter of a million dollars if they use actors who are geared to the cable market in the U.S. They will be given two or three names, of whom the pro­ ducers and directors have not heard much, but for whom they only have to pay $50,000. So the temptation of having that surplus $200,000 for their budget is what it is all about.

And they are asking Australian actors to stand aside for a role w hich they co u ld p lay as adequately, if not better.

Now, when you are dealing with government money, which is there for developing the capacity of the industry as a whole — and by that I mean our actors will get the chance to be more than a taxi driver in a film — then that is a big respons­ ibility on the producer.

Your analysis would certainly hold in several cases, but what about a case where an impassioned film­ maker has a desire to use some little-known French or Italian actress because he feels she is the only person right for the role. Would that application be looked at under the term of “ exceptional cir­ cumstances”?

Yes it would. We would look at it. But I am saying to you that this is not what has been put to us. The proposition of importing Jamie Lee Curtis for Roadgames had naught to do with the notion of a special creative surge that was flying through the producer’s veins at the time.

So you have deliberately left the definition of “exceptional cir­ cumstances” flexible, to decide be­ tween a Jamie Lee Curtis and an impassioned filmmaker . . .

That’s right. The reason for using “exceptional circumstances” is that it enables us to have a look at each proposition when it is put to us in a concrete form, rather than as a hypothetical case. For example, if 328 — Cinema Papers. October-November

to date, and are you going to sacrifice an industry, and the potential for a Judy Davis to get a role in My Brilliant Career, for the possibility that maybe one or two might be able to star in a film some­ where else?

What concerns me is that there is, within the industry, an ap­ proach to problems of creating either straw-horses or mythical cliches, which get adopted as truisms. For example, there is the truism that imported actors put bums on seats. I keep saying, “Why? Prove it. Tell me about it.

Tell me about Piper Laurie in Tim. Tell me about Catherine Harrison in Blue Fire Lady. Tell me about Sara Kestleman in Break of Day. Where is it true? Where is the There was an item recently in ‘The evidence?” I mean, it’s not there.

Age’ which suggested that British Equity might retaliate against the You have spoken of the re­ new Australian Equity policy. How sponsibility of Filmmakers in Aust­ do you view such a development, ralia who use money. given you have no policy about local What exactly isgovernment that responsibility? actors leaving Australia? somebody were to do a film version of A Town Like Alice and required four Japanese actors, it would not be unreasonable for them to say, “We would like to import them.” If we had dropped the “exceptional circumstances” and said blankly there was a limit of one imported star per film, and had then been faced with that problem, we would have looked rather silly.

So, yes, there is room for dis­ cussion. But what we are hoping to do, by establishing such a policy, is that the more loony propositions get filtered out before people ap­ proach us. We negotiate, I think, in a fairly straightforward manner, and we want to be able to sit across the table with cards open.

I am sorry, but that whole argu­ ment is extraordinarily naive. Each nationality, to protect its own in­ dustry, needs to develop its own defences. What the British have done, by and large, is to defend their television to the death. They recently upped the minimum quota requirements of British content on British television from 86 to 88 per cent. They have also dropped the Commonwealth exemption, put­ ting Australians with the rest of the world.

But what retaliatory action are they going to take? What film in­ dustry do they have from which they are going to exclude Aust­ ralian actors? It seems to be a total furphy, in any event.

reasons, it has worked reasonably well. But certain problems have occurred. Some of them are pre­ dictable, and some lie at the feet of the AFC, in terms of historically wrong decisions made at its in­ ception. The crunch has come and what is being put up now, in philo­ sophical terms, is: “ If the industry is to survive, we can no longer sustain a shoulder-to-shoulder type situation; somebody is going to have to step aside.”

Now it just happens to be the fad at the moment that actors should step aside. At some other time it is going to be writers, then directors or cameramen. Fads move, fads change. Instead of being united, the industry has become very ego­ centric around the survival of the producer. The rest be damned.

This fundamental change in at­ titude was never discussed, or voiced — it just happened. And all * of a sudden Equity is saying, “ Look it is not inevitable, we believe that there is another way.”

Let me step back in history. The way in which the film industry’s latest renaissance developed in­ volved a philosophical commit­ ment that we all survive together, or we all die together. There was a sense of bolstering each other up, of marching shoulder to shoulder into the new nirvana.

Now for five years, for a range of

1 don’t see any point in ap­ portioning blame in a particular direction. The crisis is a fiscal one, and it has come on different organ­ izations in different ways. For example, the South Australian Film Corporation operates on loan

Britisher Catherine Harrison in Blue Fire Lady.

Australian Judy Davis in My Brilliant Career.

How much has the AFC been re­ sponsible for that?

But an actor could make a successful Film in Australia, in a highly-privil­ eged situation because of the new policy, and then go overseas to greater profits and success, without paying back that protection . . .

I just don’t know that there is an answer to that. I mean, they are imponderables. It hasn’t happened

British actress Sara Kestleman, and Australians John Bell and Andrew McFarlane in Break of Day.

funds and has to pay principal as well as interest. Obviously the pres­ sures on it are intense. But what we found the SAFC saying to us was that unless it could get an import in every production, it didn’t intend continuing with Films.

That’s not an open-minded ap­ proach. That’s not, “ We’ll examine each Film on its merits” and so on.

That is giving us an overall pro­ position that cuts across whatever project they are doing. Hence their ludicrous idea about converting The Club into a film about soccer, with Michael Caine.

1 mentioned earlier historical errors. One of these was the various funding bodies’ moving into only one aspect of the Film industry, leaving the other two key areas — exhibition and distribution — to different interests. This has meant a fairly unholy marriage with the people who have been historically responsible for the death of the in­ dustry once already. That people couldn’t see the inevitable crunch of that situation coming seems to me extraordinary.

Yet when there has been a shortage of product from overseas, as in 1976/77, Australian films have been shown and done well. Surely that suggests that, to a degree at least, the exhibition and distribution net­ work is interested in showing Aust­ ralian films, if they think they can compete on the marketplace?

It is a question of choice. If they have a choice they won’t. If they don’t have a choice, then they will support the Australian Film in­ dustry.

Again, you have to remember the historical context: 1976/77 was the aftermath of the Wnitlam era.

There was a great deal of national­ ism and it was politically right to move in that direction. Also, they had been up before the Trade Practices Commission and got a fairly savage thrashing. To win their white wings again, they had to be seen to be actively supporting the Film industry. Coupled with that was the dearth of material from the U.S. So why wouldn’t they be

involved in such a proposition?

Now that there is a choice, why wouldn’t they get out of supporting the Australian Film industry? Take these past two years. They released Five, or was it six, Films in the JulyAugust period last year, in Sydney anyway. That is five or six films at the deadest part of the year. Well, you could say that was an accident, but they have released four or five films this year in exactly the same way. Now if that is not guaranteed to kill the Australian film in the marketplace, I don’t know what is.

Could it not perhaps reflect on the quality of those Australian films?

It may. But it may also reflect pretty wilful economic manipu­ lation of the industry.

You mentioned government funding bodies moving into only one of three areas. How would you like to see them move into distribution and ex­ hibition?

blocks and community centres would be built. And in these regional centres would be theatres, cinemas, community facilities and so on. Had that idea gone ahead, it would have provided an exhibition chain for the various government funding bodies.

As new technology evolves, the government funding bodies and statutory bodies ought to be involved in gaining control and access to them. One would be pay television, which looks like coming in. It is not a question of handing pay television over to the exhibitors/distributors on one hand, or to the commercial television pro­ prietors on the other. We will be looking at the cable/pay set-up as a publicly-funded proposition, and one into which the film industry will have a direct conduit.

A lot of what you propose is dependent on a continuation of government involvement in the film industry. The policy of bringing in more and more overseas actors has been justified, by some people, as being a necessary step in preparing for the time when Australian govern­ ment money stops. What’s your re­ action to that argument?

That’s a good question. I can’t see the answers necessarily from where I sit. I don’t have all the data in front of me. I really don’t know how best you approach that situation.

The new industry cliche is that It would seem to me, however, that without pretty strong govern­ subsidization per se is somehow ment support, thereby providing bad, and doubly bad in the film in­ additional infrastructure, it may dustry. It seems important to pierce not be possible. I don’t know. But it that balloon as a false proposition, certainly seems to me that it’s and I’ll do that in two senses. One, reasonable to issue a call to have a film is a cultural form that each look at the government’s strategies country ought to sustain in the way in regard to this. Previous calls enormous amounts of money are have taken place. There was the used to sustain other cultural Tariff Board in 1973, which con­ forms, like ballet and opera. I dem ned the ex h ib itio n and understand that the Australian distribution monopoly. So did the ballet company has recently re­ Trade Practices Commission, with ceived a grant of $2.75 million.

On top of that, film is a mass the Venturini decision.

I am not optimistic with the cultural form in a way other present federal government, but if cultural forms are not. It is a you have a sympathetic federal justifiable part of a social package, government you have lots of con­ and has a very distinctive role. Con­ cepts you can play with. The Labor sequently, governments have a re­ Government, for example, had a sponsibility to ensure its ongoing concept of decentralizing their survival. So there is no reason to be bureaucracy. This involved spread­ apologetic. In fact, subsidization ing their various offices through­ ought to be seen as a right of the in­ out regional areas, where new office dustry.

The other thing to do, in this time of nervousness about government cut-backs, is look at what the in­ dustry costs the federal govern­ ment. We feel there should be an in­ crease in the levy that is imposed on the overseas remittances of ex­ hibitors and distributors. They are part of the industry, and they ought to make a contribution towards it.

Now, the last Figures I saw quoted involved a $46 million turnover, of which exhibitors and distributors were taxed 10 per cent. That’s roughly $5 million. That’s roughly the governm ent contribution towards the AFC. If, as I believe ought to happen, the money from that levy ought to be pooled and re-funnelled into the industry, instead of going straight into consolidated revenue, then the AFC would cost the Government nothing. So where is the heavy price that the Government is paying for what is its greatest international prestige-winning showpiece?

Succumbing to the psycho­ logical terror of people saying that the Government won’t subsidize forever, and that we must have economic viability, cuts your throat in two different ways. Firstly, you diminish the Government’s sense of responsibility towards the industry as a whole; you make them feel free of their commitment.

Secondly, by making the kind of cultural compromises that we are talking about — indistinguishable locales, millions of imported artists — you also lose that international prestige-winning aspect of the Australian film industry.

Given that you feel there is a need for the industry to come together more — shoulder to shoulder as you put it — how would you go about doing it?

Two things. One relates to the sensitivity people have to the re­ quirements of others. If nothing else, our policy has created a sensitivity about actors; for good or bad, people are at least saying that actors are involved in the film in­ dustry, As well, producers are Cinema Papers. October-November — 329

Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon, an American film co-produced by Richard Franklin and partly crewed by Australians.

asking themselves, “Am I going to be laughed out of court with this silly proposition if I go into Equity?” We are getting more meaningful negotiations as a result.

The second possibility is one of people getting together more, so that there is some sense of belong­ ing to the one industry. Con­

sequently, we are proposing, if we can get state government per­ mission, to create a celebration of the Australian-ness of the film industry at the next opening of an all-Australian film. We plan to close off George St and run the showbiz party of the year. At least it will provide people with an op­

portunity to celebrate what is good about the Australian film industry, rather than being at daggers with each other.

The Award

[see Box 2]

Where did the initiative for the Award come from?

The film producers served a log of claims on us. They wanted to jump up work conditions to 80 hours a week, and halve the pay. I suspect it was an ambered claim, much like when we ask for $3000 a week.

Continued on P. 389

The sections of the Actors Feature Film Award 1 97 9 relevant to this discussion are: 31. Rates of Pay The artist’s rate of pay shall be determined in the following manner: A. Process of categorization (a) The producer shall, prior to engaging members of the Union, supply a statutory declaration stating the following: Production credits: A list of persons and/or companies and their residential status who will be granted production credits such as, but not limited to, producer, executive producer, associate pro­ ducer, executive in charge of production, production super­ visor, production manager, production associate; ( 2 ) A list of persons and/or companies and their residential status who will be granted presentation credits, such as but not limited to: “ A ....................... production”,“ A. presentation” ................ presents a.. production” .presents a film by....

‘‘Production in association with. provided that this requirement does not apply to a Distribu­ tor’s normal distribution or release credits; (ii) Completion guarantee: the nature of persons or company and their residential status, providing (where applicable) the completion guarantee; and (iii) Overseas actors: the name and country of origin of all actors not residing in Australia and who receive billing other than rolling billing at the conclusion of the film. (b) The producer shall seek approval from the Union for the impor­ tation of overseas actors for work in a film. Such actors must be of international distinction and merit. (c) The producer and the Union may, by mutual consent, designate a specific category to the film, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 31 ( ).

Category Definitions Films shall be categorized as follows: Category A: means a film with total Australian creative control, cast, and (if applicable) Australian completion guarantee.

Category B means a film with total Australian creative control, overseas actor(s) and (if applicable) Australian com­ pletion guarantee.

Category C: means a film subject to Australian creative control with some overseas actor(s) and/or overseas produc­ tion personnel or company receiving production or presentation credits other than producer and having (if applicable) an Australian completion guarantee.

C. Minimum Rates The minimum rates of pay set out hereunder shall be paid by the producer to the artist: (a) Category A (i) Actor/Actress (1) Engaged by the week...............................$224.60 perweek ( 2) Engaged by the day...................................$63.00 (3) Engaged by the hour for a minimum of four hours and not required to speak more than two lines of dialogue........................................... $9.50 (ii) Double Engaged by the week......................... $143.20 Engaged by the day..........................................$35.90 (iii) Stand-in Engaged by the week.................................... $ 1 67.80 Engaged by the day..........................................$42.10 (iv) Stuntmen/Women Minimum terms of engagement as per sub-clause C of this clause. (v) Extra (i) Engaged by the hour...................................$6.85 (for a minimum of four hours) (ii) Engaged by the day..................................$45.50 Provided that when the producer is shooting a location sufficiently distant from the availability of Actors’ and Announcers Equity Association of Australia members then, subject to the Union’s agreement, the following shall be paid: “ Country” extras (engaged by the day)........................ $32.20 (b) Category B Excepting in relation to Extras and Stand-ins, 25 per cent addi­ tional to the rates set out in paragraph (a) above, plus 1 2V? per cent for each additional imported artist after the first. (c) Category C Excepting in relation to Extras and Stand-ins 40 per cent addi­ tional to the rates set out in paragraph (a) above plus 1 2'h per cent for each additional imported artist after the first. (d) Films not falling into the definitions listed in this clause are out­ side the scope of this Award in accordance with the provisions of clause 3.

-

'

330 — Cinema Papers, October-November 811..... Ü .... I i

;'

Errol Sullivan, chairman of the Film and Television Production Association of Australia (features division), looks at the Equity debate from the point of view of the producer.

In some respects, Equity’s policies on imported artists are not far removed from those of independent producers.

We are certainly committed to the con­ cept that films which have secured public investment (other than develop­ ment moneys) should restrict, but not exclude, the use of foreign creative talent, including writers and directors as well as cast. Restrictions could certainly protect Australian content and main­ tain Australian creative control.

In addition, if some formula for restricting the amount of foreign talent in productions could be agreed upon, then producers would be able to package and finance films with some public investment, in a planned and organized fashion, provided Equity could see its way clear to let directors and producers cast their films w ithout effecting creative control themselves by way of veto on who can work in' Australia.

However, Australian films which are totally privately financed (a handful over the past five years) should not suffer any more restrictions than Holly­ wood location films shot in Australia, even if that means taking the film outside the ambit of the arbitrated award for Australian films. Tony Ginnane should be able to make inter­ national films in Australia in the same way that The Earthling was made here and that Warner Brothers may make Thorn Birds here.

Production, distribution, exhibition and marketing costs have risen sharply.

Below-the-line costs have roughly doubled. Examples of our successes from the past, which are totally Austra­ lian, take on a different hue with today’s cost structure when combined with diminishing box-office returns to all but the mega films. Yesterday’s successes are now formulas for today’s flops.

Budgets have risen and films are, there­ fore, harder to finance from within Aus­ tralia. Overseas finance or pre-sales can only be generated by projects with marketable elements in the key creative positions.

We have, in Australia, only a small number of directors and cast that can be used to help finance a project in this way. Production will continue to fall if we don’t bolster our investm ent packages with a restricted use of overseas talent and, at the same time, recognize that this talent may be virtually unknown in this territory.

If producers are unable to use foreign talent, then only low budget features will be made so that they can be financed from within Australia. This will mean a different type of production.

If commerciality is to be a criterion for some production which involves public funds then Equity’s policy will restrict this production to low-budget, exploitation films which will star hunks of flesh and spectacular car crashes rather than a mix of Australian and foreign performers in films which could have significance for a wide audience.

With an increasing tendency in lower budget, commercial films to generic exploitation films, then notions inherent in Equity’s position, that if the film is all-Australian it will better represent Australian values and culture (whatever that means), seem untenable. Is The Last Wave with Richard Chamberlain less Australian than Mad Max? Were the scores of spaghetti Westerns (with all Italian content) representative of Italian culture?

If Equity’s policy is designed to redirect public money from commercial investment in Australian films to a cultural subsidy, then Equity should say so. Producers support a mix of public investment, which promotes commercial mass audience film production as well as continued and increased investment in low-budget films with narrower audi­ ence aspirations, which would also provide opportunities for new talent.

Such a mix of production will maintain jobs and keep the public money flowing.

Any contraction to the sole produc­ tion of subsidized art films will quickly produce an elitist production industry, serving an e litis t au d ien ce. As production continues to drop, Equity’s policies will move more and more from a defence of employment to an attack on employment, and not just for its mem­ bership. ★

Cinema Papers. October-November — 331

Most of the debate over the use of foreign actors in Australian films has centred in Australia. But how do overseas actors feel about the issue?

In this frank interview, by Tom Ryan, leading British actor Edward Woodward discusses working in Australia and his concept of the international actor.

How did Bruce Beresford come to choose you for the part of Harry Morant?

script has to be good in the first place.

In the courtroom scenes in “Breaker Morant” you say very little. In fact, it is Jack Thompson, Bud Tingwell and the others who do the talking.

Yet it is your reaction that seems to control our emotional response to what’s going on, Were the scenes directed around you consciously?

Bruce had seen a lot of my television work and the film Wicker Man. He felt I was the one to play Breaker, and put the idea to Matt Carroll who agreed. They then found that I had this extraordinary resemblance to the man, which spurred them on even more. I was then sent the script.

Did you accept at that point?

No. The script wasn’t finished and I think there is a great danger in accepting anything until you have seen the final form. Other­ wise, you can make terrible personal mistakes. Soon after­ wards, Bruce sent me a draft which was much closer to the final one. 1 thought it was great.

What sort of director is Beresford?

The keystone of his direction, as with all the good directors 1 think, is that he encourages you to contribute to the part, even to vary the way it is written. He is a very clever director and can achieve an almost unspoken rapport with his actors. He only has to move his finger before he says something, and you immediately know what he is talking about. His communica­ tion with actors is unbelievably perceptive.

You cannot answer a question intelligently if you don’t listen to the question. Therefore, you cannot possibly act unless you give all your Your style of acting is that of a reac­ attention to the person with whom tor, rather than of an initiator of you are acting. dramatic action. That is especially If you take the really top actors true of “ Breaker Morant” , where and watch their reactions, and one thinks of that image of you watch them listening, it is all a looking up at Jack Thompson as he question of not pretending to listen, speaks. Initially there is cynicism, but actually listening. but that changes to admiration and Obviously the techniques of an support in the course of the shot. . . actor are developed over the years and vary for different roles. One I am glad you got that, because it wouldn’t use that sort of tech­ nique, for instance, in a television was very important in my mind.

I was trained in the school of comedy series. There, you have to reacting and. in fact, acting is about bash it out all the time, with as reacting. That is the most impor­ near-perfect timing as you can get. tant thing actors should be taught.

The above interview was originally broad­ cast on 3RRR-FM.

332 — Cinema Papers. October-November

One thing that has struck me about Australian films is the absence of

ibis “ reactor actor” . When the per­ formers are the focus of attention they are mostly fine, but when they become part of the background they have nothing to offer, or else they are not directed to offer anything.

Was Beresford consciously directing you as a reactor, or was that some­ thing you contributed to the part?

Firstly, I’ll take you to task about that comment. 1 have seen a great number of Australian films, and 1 don’t think it’s generally true.

Nevertheless, worldwide there is a great number of actors who find it very difficult to react, as opposed to act. But you cannot do any kind of performance if the script is not there. The first and basic require­ ment of any form of entertain­ ment, and certainly film, is that the

Morant is the catSlyst: he is the reason the whole thing is going on in the first place. He is a very bitter man, so, of course, you show the bitterness through that man, through his reactions. Judicious reaction-shots provide the thread of tension throughout the scenes in the courtroom. This is the choice of the director.

There were, of course, other reaction shots, but they only came out of what an actor was doing. A v director watches a rehearsal, sees the way a particular actor is react­ ing to somebody else, and thinks, “ Oh great, that tells my bit of the story here, so I'll get that reaction shot.’’ This builds up into a jigsaw puzzle, which is the film. All I do as a film actor is listen.

1 spent 10 solid days of listening in that courtroom, but that was my job. You don't stop acting because the camera is not on you, espe­ cially in a scene, or a series of scenes, which is very tense and building inexorably to a final, great five-minute take, which is Jack’s appeal to the court.

The more you talk about acting and reacting, the more I know that what I was taught is true: that it is all a question of reacting or listen­ ing, focusing not just for yourself, but for all the other actors. What you do on set, or on a stage, is only a part of the whole. If you go out and say, “This is my show” , or “ I am the great I am” , you already have destroyed whatever is going to happen. You have totally des­ troyed the writer, the director, all the .other actors and yourself. That is not what I am about; that is not what actors are basically about.

Occasionally, you get the odd, twilty big-head, but it is very simple

Bruce Beresford (left) directs Edward Woodward for a scene in Breaker Morant.

to deal with people like that. You do nothing, and the more they do, the less you do. Finally, they dis­ appear up the vast anus of the world and you are left quietly on that stage, just being there. And that is basically what it’s all about — just being there and allowing everybody to be there.

W as there any discussion on “ Breaker M orant” about the dangers involved in opening out the play, in allowing the flashbacks to materialize out of the testimonies?

There was no discussion as such, because when Beresford came to the project he had already mapped out the overall plan. What do you do with a courtroom drama? You have to go outside the court. How do you go outside the court? Well you obviously do it in flashback or flashforward style.

In Breaker Morant, you have a situation whereby you go back­ wards and forwards in time. The director’s great problem there, of course, is to make sure that the audience is swept along by' the story, and that can only happen if the audience understands where it is at any given time. And that is where, I think, the genius of a man like Bruce Beresford comes into play.

I kept thinking throughout the films that maybe it shouldn’t have moved outdoors till the end. Perhaps the end sequence would have been more overpowering had the film been claustrophobic to that point . . .

Yes, but the vast number of people who watch entertainment do not go to the theatre. Therefore, you have to deal with the kind of expectations they are going to bring to your film. Today’s audiences are not trained to feel that kind of claustrophobia.

You are a man who goes to the theatre a lot, therefore you know the genre. You have the feeling for this. But the audiences which go to films are used to being taken outdoors. Today is the age of outdoors location filming.

The international Äctor You are probably aware that Actors Equity in Australia has a policy directed at excluding overseas actors, as far as possible, from Aus­ tralian productions. What is your attitude to this?

To start with, all Equity groups are only the sum total of us, the actors. And whatever Australian actors decide, will be done.

I speak as this strange breed of thing called an actor, rather than as an Englishman or an Australian, and i don’t give a damn if i offend anybody. I have been trying for years and years, along with a number of actors in Australia, the U.S., and Britain, to have the true internationality of actors recog­ nized.. documented and docketed, and put into our rule books. Grad­ ually, over the years, this has begun to happen. Occasionally, our Equity talks to American Equity, or American Equity will talk to Australian Equity. En passant you know. Don’t forget, there are few places in the world that English­ speaking actors can work. And gradually, it seems to me, we have been moving nearer to this inter­ nationality, nearer to a true exchange, if there is a hard-andfast ban, then there is not a doubt in my mind that it will produce a total catastrophe.

Theoretically it’s not a total ban. An overseas actor can be brought in on a film, with government finance, in “exceptional circumstances”. The onus is on filmmakers to show that nobody in Australia could play that part and that the overseas actor is really a star . . .

But there is no way you can prove these things. There is no way you can prove that an Australian can’t play a given part, or that any British or American actor could play a part. Actors are actors, and are therefore called upon to play all sorts of parts. We are not parti­ cularly good actors if we can’t play all sorts of parts.

Lts Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald), Handcock (Bryan Brown) and Morant (Woodward).

Breaker Morant

I hope from what you say that there is no outright, stone-wall ban because that will produce a retalia­ tion in Britain: no Australian actors will be allowed to work in Britain, and there are a great number of Australian actors working in Britain right now. Even more important, no Australian actors will be allowed to work in Films in the U.S. Over the past five or six years, there has arisen, at long last, a breed of Australian actors, second to none in the world. Now where do such actors extend their craft?

Obviously, top Australian actors will want to make films in the U.S. They will want new experience, new' types of scripts, new directors, etc.

Yet there is no way, if any Equity comes up with a hard-and-fast ban, without things being taken on the merit of a particular situation, that the Americans are going to say, “We don’t mind not being allowed in Australia. Of course we will welcome you Australians into the U.S.” So, we will find the situation where our countries are totally closed to the possibility of actors being able to move about. And actors are the most easily moved about.

A part of the history of film is the movement of actors from one country to another into films.

Sometimes it’s going to be Aus­ tralia’s turn to be the country that’s making films; sometimes, God willing, it will be Britain’s. It’s always America’s. All hard-andfast bans on actors are imposed because of fear, and are totally understandable.

Equity is there to protect each of us, in our separate countries. It has to protect a very delicate situation at a time when unemployment is rife. Of course it has an obligation to protect. But I don’t see how an outright ban can protect Aus­ tralian actors who want to spread their wings and learn more about their craft. It can’t possibly work for the good of Australian actors.

I think there is connected issue at stake. It is often declared by Aus­

tralian filmmakers that they need an overseas sta r, fir stly to get investment, and secondly because without a particular overseas star the film will not be marketable, or at least as marketable, in overseas countries . . .

Well I wouldn’t know very much about that side of the business, but my reaction to that is balderdash, piffle and poppy-cock. That is not my reason for challenging any sort of outright ban. I am talking purely and simply about actors.

I have travelled all over the w'orld and have worked and talked with many actors. Actors are my life; acting is my love. I know' perfectly well that 90 per cent of the actors I have talked to, over the 33 years I have been an actor, have been cry­ ing out for a situation whereby we can work in each other’s countries, without undercutting the in­ digenous actors concerned.

I am angry, in retrospect, for the Australian actor, because up to 10 years ago this country was, and still occasionally is, used by a few actors from Britain, and the odd one from the U.S., to make a killing.

They come here to make a packet and then get the hell out of the country. That has happened in our country too, in the days when American musicals came over to Britain, and British singers and dancers could not get work for year after year. I understand that syn­ drome only too well. But that does not exist now.

I come to Australia because I am asked to do a play or a concert tour, or, in this particular case, a film. I come to A ustralia because it extends me as an actor. I meet other actors and other people, and I see a marvellous and beautiful country.

It is great to be able to work in another place. I don’t come out here to make money, because I can make a hell of a lot more money in my own country. I am not asking you to weep about that; I am merely telling you why I, and a number of other British actors, come out, w'hen invited and when permitted.

A Cinema Papers, October-November —

333

.'■■.'•-y

11'1;'

■1

.

mmÈÊÊm

HOLLYWOOD OF THE PACIFIC Ian A. Stocks reports on the film industry in The Philippines, a country for long in the shadow of its one-time colonizer, the U.S., but now showing a fierce independence. This is reflected in much of its cinema, particularly the films by award-winning director Lino Brocka.

Manila lies about 6° north of the equator, so it is hot most of the year. But it was early spring when I arrived, the tourists were flooding through, and every night the Luneta, the large park in the centre of a rather level city, was packed with people enjoying the milder weather.

In his city office, Eddie Romero was putting the finishing touches to the promotion campaign for Aguila, his latest film. It is the most expen­ sive film made in The Philippines, with a budget of almost U.S.Sl million. It is also the first ef­ fort in recent times at a national epic, a film which spans four generations and looks at the experiences of an important family through many different periods in Filipino history.

Romero has been making films in The Philip­ pines for nearly 40 years — for local release and on contract for American producers — so the technical aspects of film don’t worry him too much. His main concern, as for any producer, is whether it will take at the box-office — and see­ ing he wrote, directed and produced the film, he has more at stake than most. But Romero is relatively unconcerned as he organizes the many previews which will precede' the launch of his film.

Aguila is just one of the 200-odd local films that roll out of the Filipino labs each year, and which compete for the three or four playdates a week for films in the local language, Tagalog.

Sometimes harsh, but beautiful, Tagalog is an amalgam of Malay root words and some Spanish, with a remarkable ability to incor­ porate English-American phrases and construc­ tion. v Filipinos are avid filmgoers. There are more than 7000 cinemas in the three main island groups, and the total admissions a day throughout the islands is slightly less than two million. Of these, about 60 per cent are to locally-produced films, and in certain areas 40 per cent never see a foreign film. So, it is a buoyant market, hardly dented by the impact of television and staunchly loyal to the local product.

The Government’s interest in the film industry is social as well as financial, since it reserves the right to be shown all scripts before production (and other cuts and changes), and also collects a hefty 30 per cent tax on box-office receipts.

Various incentives are fed back to producers, but the industry is very much self-supporting and exists without subsidy.

Recently, however, finance lines have become strained, and other sources of large-scale finance have had to be hunted out. Large finance com­ panies have joined the fray, and one big com­ pany has made a long-term commitment to investment in production and distribution.

Aguila is one of its major investments, but was seen as a loss leader, initially at least. These pes­ simistic approaches were already being proved wrong when I left Manila.

Other sources of finance are the stars themselves, usually by deferment of fees in Opposite: scene from Eddie Romero’s Aguila, the most expensive film made in The Philippines.

return for a big part of the box-office take, and investment by theatre owners, who usually turn out to be Chinese entrepreneurs making high action quickies for their own release.

Although every effort is made to secure overseas release, either to a general audience or to Filipino minority groups in other countries, these efforts have not been successful. Filipino films have not so far won world interest, although organized efforts are being made by Pierre Rissient, a French publicist-director, to get the films of Lino Brocka some European festival exposure. (See interview with Brocka on p. 338.) It was never said to me openly, but I had the feeling that this resistance to Filipino films was seen as a form of racism by the Western countries.

Having now seen a fair collection of quality Filipino films, I feel they can establish an audience overseas, aided by a certain European quality to the style of relationships and spatial settings. But the market needs to be proved and this will require some investment and a lot of patience and persistence. Aguila may be the film to spearhead a Filipino entry into European and international markets.

In many ways, The Philippines can be seen as an enclave of European consciousness in Asia, while sharing the exotic conditions and lifestyles of the South-East Asian area. Providing that world interest in films continues at about the same level, it seems that Filipinos have the talent and expertise to supply international films. Co­ operation with other Pacific nations would seem to be an obvious possibility.

So, if one were to define Filipino mass enter­ tainment, it could be referred to as a mono culture. There is no superimposition of imported culture and ‘elite’ cultural pursuits. Rather, the scene is of amalgam and adaptation, in which the total population shares. According to a re­ cent report from The Philippines Motion Picture Association, filmgoing is more or less constant across the entire social scale (it averages about 90 per cent attending films regularly), although the A and B groups (the rich) show more preference for foreign films than the C, D, E and F groups (the rest), who prefer local language product. So, in a country of diverse and divergent people, film probably does more than any other cultural medium to weld the country into a social unity.

In the main, though, there seems little evidence of a concept of art cinema, at least in terms of audience loyalties. Some directors profess an interest in it, but a Financial experi­ ment in the 1970s proved the futility of making films for which there was no substantial audience. And most of these directors have returned to commercial production, where they do quite well on a pay scale of 50,000 to 100,000 pesos a film (about $6000 to $12,000).

Sometimes, due to conflicting bookings of the major stars, production may stretch over many months, but to paraphrase Samuel Johnson’s

statement on marriage, commercial production may have many pains, but independence has few pleasures. ☆ ☆ ☆ A few days after I arrived in Manila, the price of motor fuel was hiked 50 per cent, to 4.50 pesos a litre. This is slightly more than 50 cents Australian, but in a society where wages are a fraction of ours it is a punishing blow. The foreshadowed film stock price increases had also arrived (50 per cent). So, it is no wonder that on most features the retake is a luxury, all rushes are in black and white Orwo film from East Ger­ many, and sound transfers are done on to re­ used stock, averaging about a splice a foot.

Import restrictions on equipment have always been stringent, and the basic shooting kit is an Arri 11B or IIC, sometimes in a heavy blimp, with a friction tripod and lights in home-made housings. Editing equipment is no less spartan, with old Movieolas predominating. Every editor lives in hope that a visiting American company will leave behind a flatbed for his company to buy. But the sound studios seem adequate and the mixing suites have the latest Magnatech equipment. Similarly, the LVN Studios process­ ing equipment, designed and installed by Film Lab of Sydney, seems to be operating satisfac­ torily.

Post-production is always done in a rush, mainly to meet a playdate negotiated a few days before. Some houses offer a complete post­ production package, with editors, editing rooms, sound transfers, mixing and everything but the splicing tape thrown in. This seems less of a bargain when you are told that the editor also does the neg-matching, in less than optimum conditions. The old Australian myth of the footprint on the negative is an accepted fact in Manila. Sparkles, scratches and cement splice marks flash past the screen on all productions, even something as big as Aguila. Editors, to make money in an insecure and underpaid role, often take on up to seven post-production con­ tracts, working all-night stints to get through.

However, these are expected problems in a high-volume, low-finance industry, and one should not sit back with a smug smile. Filipino films have helped to create and certainly service adequately a vast and loyal public. Most producers, to cover overheads, have to produce at least three films a year, so they do their best to utilize Finance. What this means is that the average Filipino producer probably makes five to six films on the Finance Australians would use to make one film of the scale of Cathy’s Child.

In addition, the Filipino producer probably sup­ ports a staff of four or five full-time, with ad­ ditional work for literally hundreds of actors, ex­ tras and technicians, not to speak of lab and theatre staff.

The image of the Australian producer getting one or two films every two years, then sitting in an office waiting for receipts, or a nod from the Cinema Papers, Oclober-November — 335

PHILIPPINE CINEMA

various corporations or commissions before he or she starts another project, is a sad one indeed.

Australians can learn a lot from the Filipinos, and Asians in general, about ■effective capital utilization. The cost-effective use of our very heavy investment in technical equipment would be one clear advantage. ☆ ☆ ☆ Rudolfo Velasco, executive secretary of the PMPPA, invited me to a shoot of a film starring one of The Philippines’ biggest “bold” stars, Nora Aunor. The location, he warned me, was a squatter village near the centre of town. It was a night shoot, so we set out at around 5 p.m., through the incredible melee of Manila’s rush hour, as every one of its 80,000 jeepneys (jeepbased passenger vehicles that ply for hire) seemed to be on the road, its dozen lights flashing, its stereo blasting out rock music, chrome glittering in the setting sun.

In about 30 minutes we were at the location.

A crowd of about 500 pressed against the fence around a small frame house, straining for a glirnpse of their favorite female star. They groaned with excitement as they saw her at a window, and surged towards the fences.

Shooting hadn’t started, the director was not there and the camera crew were setting up lights.

Velasco explained that shooting rarely starts in Manila before one o’clock in the afternoon.

The stars, who are essential for the success of most films, know their power and can refuse to get up in the morning. So shootings are tactfully scheduled to suit them, not the budget. And, as was the case of the film we were seeing, the star was also the producer, so little leverage could be exerted.

Nora Aunor gets a minimum of 300,000 pesos a film ($37,500), which is a small fortune by any standards, and since she may make three or more films simultaneously, with an average of four weeks shooting each, stars are very well rewarded for their work. These rewards are, of course, simple box-office insurance, pulling the film through the crucial first week when it must take money or be put off. The stars, in their mystical relationships with the public, and therefore the exhibitors, are the kings and queens of the Filipino industry.

Finally, with a full-fledged roar of excitement, Nora Aunor appeared, the director, Lino Brocka, materialized and shooting began.

Rudimentary by Australian standards, the equipment seemed adequate, with the possible exception that the camera was completely unblimped and no attempt was made to record usable sync. Lighting equipment was also sparse and, although a generator was in use, the light output was very low. It was further diminished by use of bounced light from poly sheets and a lack of basic lighting tools that Australians would find essential. Lighting fill and the general ambient lighting level was achieved more by careful placement than power. By about 10 p.m. a shot was in the can, and it looked like being a long night. ☆ ☆ ☆ At 6 p.m. the following Friday night, in a large hall which was really a canteen, two port­ able projectors had been set up for the first pre­ view of Aguila. About 5000 students from various colleges and universities watched as the three-and-a-half hour film unreeled. Despite help from Velasco, the Tagalog dialogue was mystifying to me, the seats hard and the projec­ tion image dim. However, the audience watched with rapt attention. This was something new for them, too. Later, Romero gave me a copy of the script, and I found it good, with witty dialogue, a nice pace and definite unwillingness to shirk any of the issues: American economic imperialism, 336 — Cinema Papers, October-November

the pre-martial law period, sex and even incest in large and powerful families.

The performances were good, ranging to excellent, and the photography (by award­ winning cameraman Mike de Leon) often superb. Only details like make-up and character continuity left some room for concern, and these faults are freely admitted in the industry. Large scenes were tackled with elan, and a mass battle between Huks (guerrilla fighters) and the Japanese was a tour de force. Similarly, the depiction of Muslim society, and a minority group of tribesmen, was handled with a great deal of sensitivity.

Where Filipino films win over many Anglo­ Saxon ones is in their sheer depth of personality, the recognition of personal motivation and character, in performances and script, so that the character is presented in his or her milieu, with full subtext and characterization. The performances in Aguila are no exception: the characters live and breathe, and there is little posturizing.

The majority of Filipino films, of course, do not possess such integrity. Many are straight exploitation films, on familiar themes of crime, prostitution and fantasy/escape.

A few nights later I attended a preview of Miss X, a creditable attempt to show the plight of Filipino women in Europe who are forced into prostitution. Shot entirely in Amsterdam on a low budget of 1,300,000 pesos (about $170,000), it starred the foremost “bold” star, Vilma Santos, noted for sexy dances and half-naked scenes. (See interview p. 340.) Vilma outdoes her boldest films here in dramatic rape scenes with a Dutch actor. But the production does neither her nor the basically accurate script justice: The lowbudget restrictions, the technical inexpertise (once again in the area of lighting) and poor coverage by director Gil Portes let down a basically viable concept. Yet no doubt the loyal fans of Miss Santos will gather in droves to see this latest offering, which at least has the merit of dealing with a social problem. ☆ ☆ ☆ Earlier, I had seen a shoot of another of Santos’ many yearly starring roles, in a sentimental drama called Mrs Jones, directed by veteran producer-director Cirio Santiago. In the

*

PHILIPPINE CINEMA

Above: Romero’s Aguila, which has set box-office records in The Philippines. Left: a typical showbusiness television show.

scene I saw, Santos (playing a dancer who has made it) visits the ailing woman who started her on the road to stardom. Once again the shoot started at 5 p.m. (Santos suffers from insomnia) and after a fairly quick lighting set up — a couple of angles including a short dolly in — the hospital room scene was over. The director was happy, and Santos stayed calm and responsive through it all.

Watching the execution of this type of product, it is hard to escape the conclusion that such films merely feed the maw of an insatiable audience, which is quite content to see their favorite stars (supported with all the fervor of football heroes) in some sort of vehicle.

Well, Hollywood films in the 1940s and 1950s were certainly like that, and insofar as building a star system to support their local industry, the Filipinos have learnt the lesson well. This initiative is further supported by an endless stream of celebrity shows on television (by rpy account there were at least three a day); overkill advertising by newspaper, banner and billboard; and diversification into radio and music business tie-ups. If ever there can be an entertainment Golden Age, then Manila is in its throes.

So it was not surprising to encounter the many and varied references to film culture, in

meetings, discussion and surveys, and the recognition of a need to develop a Filipino character through the medium of film. The artistic concerns, whatever their realization, are in the forefront of discussion. Filipino producers seem genuinely concerned in improving the cultural value of their product, and the many battles fought with the Board of Censors to extend the range of permitted expression seem in part aesthetically motivated.

Lino Brocka, a stage-oriented director, has fought a personal battle to make films about the great mass of Filipino life. If this means showing slum conditions, exploitation and inequality, then Brocka has the determination to push his views at the risk of censorship or outright bans.

Other directors also see the need to propound social messages in their work and express frustration at the unspoken pressure to stay on the light side.

However, there are encouraging signs, largely as a result of representation to the First Lady, Imelda Marcos, by the PMPPA. There are also moves to re-constitute the Board of Censors with fewer retired military men (at last count there were seven generals and colonels) and more decision makers with a film background. ☆ ☆ ☆ Other events in my week stay included another preview of Aguila as it gathered momentum for its playdate, and a visit to the

well-equipped studios of LVN, owned by the de Leon family.

LVN used to be the biggest of the local language production companies; it was started in 1947 by a woman known affectionately as Dona Sisiang. At its height, it employed 2000 people, produced a steady total of 28 films a year for more than 20 years, and applied strict standards of behaviour to its stars.

LVN evolved into a large family of performers, stars, technicians and investors, who saw many tangible results for their efforts.

In 1971 it ceased production, continuing in business by leasing facilities and offering full laboratory and post-production services. In 1975, it re-entered production when the grandson of Dona Sisiang produced his first film, Itim, which won the Asian Film Festival award for Best Film in 1978. Since then it has produced another film by Mike de Leon, and is about to go into his third.

Like studios everywhere in the world, LVN suffers a continuing battle against rising costs, the increasing value of real estate, which must be in demand for shopping complexes or housing, and the increasing predilection for location shooting. However, a large part of de Leon’s new film will be shot on a set to be built on the one sound stage, and a profitable commercials production agency, also run by the family, takes up the slack. ☆ ☆ ☆ Other interests took me south for a few days, so I missed the opening of Aguila. Eddie Romero was beaming modestly when I saw him next, and it seemed like the whole industry had heaved a sigh of relief. Aguila had started well, and was set to become the biggest-ever Filipino box-office success. Already it was outgrossing Moonraker, the season’s best film.

The proponents of quality films for the Filipino masses have scored one important point: people will go to see a long film of high quality even if they have to pay more for it (prices were up around one peso a ticket — this is like expecting Australians to pay a dollar more to see a special film). Romero was already into pre-production for his next film (“a little one” , he assured me) and a wealthy financier had turned up at the last preview. ☆ ☆ ☆ On my last night in Manila I was invited to a board meeting of the PMPPA. In the neo­ colonial luxury of the Club Filipino, a sort of 20th Century realization of Som erset Maugham’s wildest fantasies, I sipped a local beer while the board welcomed their new lady president, Madame Maceda. In a speedy and decisive meeting, the outgoing president, Joseph Estrada, handed out cash incentives from the President of The Philippines — a noble institution which the Producers and Directors Guild of Australia could well adopt — and the evening business began.

High on the list was the business of theatre bookings. Local producers were getting a bad deal. Once an exhibitor had booked a film, they often had as little as a week to prepare prints and publicity. Any delay in the release incurred a penalty, payable to the exhibitor. However, there was no reciprocal compensation if any exhibitor didn’t open a film on an agreed date.

To make things more equitable, it was suggested that the penalties to producers should be cut.

Also, it was decided to release films through the PMPPA Marketing Committee. That way, the producers could get the advantage of collective bargaining. All this was decided after 10 minutes’ discussion, a decision that will probably take the Australian industry 10 years to arrive at, collectively. ★ Cinema Papers. October-November — 337

PHILIPPINE CINEMA

Lino Brocka is a young Filipino director whose films have won a considerable following in Europe, with screenings at many international film festivals. This year, Jaguar, the story of a security guard who finds himself in trouble with his bosses, was shown in the Cannes Competition and his previous film, Manila — Claws of Darkness, at the Melbourne Film Festival.

Brocka’s latest film, Faith Healer, is the story of an addicted film fan who falls in love with a bit-part actor. Like several of his earlier films, it has run into trouble with the Board of Censors, which disapproves of his dealing with lower-class life and poverty.

In this interview with Ian Stocks, Brocka begins by talking about his views on drama, and in particular his training of actors.

An acting style, if it is to emerge, must be related to local culture and behaviour. Films in this country are being made in a realistic and naturalistic style, and to develop this style I manage a number of workshops in the theatre.

First, I get the actors to do a play as if for the stage, and then for the cinema. Finally, we videotape it. In this way, my actors learn to adjust or tone down their style for the benefit of Films.

Through my activities in theatre, I also hope to develop an audience for a truly national theatre. So far the efforts have been successful, with all our seasons of short plays on local themes getting capacity audiences. Often, there are queues around the block before a per­ formance.

Theatre is very exciting because it can study and attack contempor­ ary issues through historical staging and tradition. Films can’t do this because they are under much more intense scrutiny [from the Board of Censors].

the Cannes Film Festival . . .

Yes, I had trouble getting Jaguar to Cannes, so I went to the appeals committee and said, “ What you are seeing is the physical city, and it embarrasses you. You are not trying to see the humanity that is in my films; that’s what I am trying to show. You are missing the soul of the film.”

What I wanted to show is how this man, because of his back­ ground, has so many problems in trying to get to the top. Really, I was trying to make a positive state­ ment about life.

All your films are set in slums. Why is that?

I can’t make films about rich people in rich settings because the budgets won’t allow it. It is hard to Find extras who can look rich; Your recent film, “Jaguar” , appar­ professional models have to be ently had some difficulty reaching

The crew rests during a break in filming.

338 — Cinema Papers, October-November

hired at 500 pesos a day. Conse­ quently, you can’t afford many, and this means you can’t film a large party. Again, I am Filming in the slums.

Why did you form your own pro­ duction company with other pro­ ducers and directors?

We w anted to m ake com ­ mercially successful films, so we attached ourselves to some busi­ nessmen who provided half the capital. In the end, we let the busi-

Scene from Insiang, one of Brocka’s earlier films.

PHILIPPINE CINEMA

nessmen run the company and in two years we were in considerable debt. The company then folded, and I have since been making films one after the other to pay off the debts.

Producers now get in touch with me to write and direct films, so in one sense I am back where I started seven years ago. I am offered a project with a certain star com­ bination and, if I like it, I take it on.

I then get together with my writers, whom I have trained. In a week or so I have a sequence breakdown, and if that is okay we go ahead and finish the script in another two weeks.

These films are not blockbusters, and with rising costs we can’t afford any delay. We do everything to cut down the cost of production, and this means a lot of preparation and rehearsal. This particular film will cost 850,000 pesos, which is really low. We’ll finish shooting it in two to three weeks, followed by another two to three weeks for post­ production, dubbing and music.

back that capital, I’ll try to get the film into a foreign market. But no matter what, I’ll keep to the budget of 850,000 pesos.

What is very important is that we develop an audience for Filipino films, to help them to discriminate and accept better things in life. You can’t develop an audience by just giving them fantasies and escapist films. I want to make films that will somehow put up a mirror to them and help them make up their minds about their values.

Producers like to think that their audience is stupid. They say, “That is a stupid film and it made money.

Therefore, the audience is stupid.”

So, they give audiences humor based on deformity. They also say that my films disturb people — sure they do. I want to confront people with reality.

What is your opinion of Australian films?

Australia is a middle-class country, rather smug and a little bland. It projects no real ambience.

Do you see the survival of cinema in The technical polish of your films The Philippines based on high shows that there is a lot of money in volume low-budget films, or bigger- training and teaching people — budget films? certainly, we don’t have that here. I watched a class at the Australian You can make big films if they Film and Television School are pre-sold first. One idea is to studying the lighting of a living make films that are recommended room, and they had terrific for schools, and which students are equipment and everything was required to see. I did one four years perfect. But, I would check myself ago and it made 3 million pesos. against being too correct and proper.

So, I’d like to try it again.

I like to make small-budget films Here I make films like an that are strong on content and amateur cook. We are tasting all acting, but which never lose track the time to see if it is right, and the of the commercial side. People still films have a particular flavor that think that I make films to win I’d like to preserve. You can lose awards and not to make money. It that vitality when everything is too is stupid. I make a film because I precise and too schooled — as in know it will make enough to acting.

Right now we are looking for a recover the capital. ( On my present film, I told the national identity. We are lucky that producer I would do it for half my we have all these influences, and salary, and that I would only take out of it will come something that is the other half if the film recovers distinctively our own. We try to the money spent on it. And to get choose the best in all the world. ★

Brocka directs a scene from Faith Healer as the crowd watches from behind the wooden fence.

Manuel de Leon, father of the young director Mike de Leon, has been involved in film production for many years. Although his company stopped production 20 years ago, the de Leon family still owns laboratories, studio equipment and facilities, and one son runs Image Films, a commercials company.

Today, Manuel de Leon’s main interests are construction and real estate, which form the basis of his company’s income. He is also a founder member of the Asian Film Festival.

De Leon begins this interview, conducted by Ian Stocks, by discussing the change in judging patterns at the AFF in recent years.

Rivalry has always been very keen, even from the early days. But the original format was that two delegates from each country would be chosen to judge; they were sup­ posed to be men of stature and not partisan.

Recently, however, everything has soured due to the machinations of producers who want the prestige.

Australia has recently entered, and my friend, John McQuaid, is try­ ing to see it we can improve things.

I certainly hope so, because the Asian market is a big one for films.

I don’t know if this is true for Australian films, though, because the oriental filmgoer will not easily identify with your actors and actresses. You are also up against the Chinese producers who have theatres scattered through Asia.

They can afford to take chances.

Take Run Run Shaw: he was making films in Hong Kong at a time when the average budget was very low, but he decided to risk big money, like with Aguila here, and it clicked.

In The Philippines we have a big audience; per capita, Manila is one of the hottest places for show­ business. People go to films because it is the cheapest form of entertain­ ment.

How many of your stars come from showbusiness? The two worlds seem to be connected . . .

Some start off making records and they are invited into the films, but it’s not usually the case. We still have a lot of unprofessional people.

What is the concept of “bold” stars?

Usually, it is the personality of the actress: they are ready to “bare all” . Well not all, but they have the wet look, you know.

Censorship is very strict, and before you can make a film, you must have the script approved.

Then, before you can screen it here or overseas, you have to show it again.

Manuel de Leon, one of the influential figures in film production.

Cinema Papers, October-November — 339

PHILIPPINE CINEMA

VIIMA SANTOS

Lino Brocka apparently has had problems sending his films out of the country . . .

Yes, because the Film showed life in the slums — but that’s real. We are a poor country, yet they want us to show the world that we are very affluent.

The Italians were the first to make very realistic films, like Bicycle Thieves. That was the renaissance of the Italian film.

Do you have this problem in Australia?

Vilma Santos is one of the highest-paid female stars in The Philippines. She specializes in “ bold” roles, and at the time of interview one of her newest films, Miss X, was about to open in Manila. It is the story of a Filipino girl hired for domestic work overseas, who finds herself in the clutches of a pimp and drug dealer.

Santos’ latest production is Mrs Jones, by the veteran producer-director Cirio Santiago. The story is that of a girl who comes from an obscure background and makes the big time as a dancer. It was while on location for this film that Santos spoke to Ian Stocks.

How did you get involved in films?

Mainly in the area of funding, where projects are put up to various cor­ porations for government support.

Corporations are wary of political statements . . .

When I was in Australia, I noticed that entertainment was try­ ing to establish some sort of past.

The awards at the Asian Film Festival had an Aboriginal basis, for example.

I liked the speech of your Minister who said, “ Whether we like it or not, we are part of Asia.”

A pretty well-off part. Perhaps we have a clearer responsibility to relate to the other people in the Pacific . . .

Well, there is no denying the fact that Australia is white, and isolated in a sea of Asians. But I suppose most of the films you make are for export to Europe.

We still hope for a European or U.S. sale. We would have to make a careful study before we did some­ thing for the Asian market . . .

It is a tremendous potential, but I frankly don’t know whether you can be accepted here. You still haven’t been able to break into the American market. You have had some good reviews, but the films have only limited releases. ★

I was discovered by my uncle who was a cameraman at Sanpaquita Pictures. I was nine and started in a film called Royal and Ready. After that, I was offered roles as a child actress, and when I was 13 I made two films for the First Family (President Marcos and Imelda Marcos) which was a dramatization of their story. I played the role of Amy, the eldest daughter of the First Family.

When I was 16 the fad came for musical hits. Finally, when I was 20, I started being a dramatic actress.

So you didn’t start in the music business . . .

No, but I did make a record for the sake of the fans. I won’t do any more though, because I prefer dancing to singing.

Apart from starring in many films, you also produce. Does that give you added worries?

Like Greta Garbo, do you also have a special cameraman?

No, not a cameraman, but I have heard of that.

How many films do you do in a year?

Last year I made 10 — some of them simultaneously.

Apparently you don’t like to start working early in the morning . . .

No, I am an insomniac and usually sleep late. So I ask them to schedule me for after lunch.

Usually, we start at 1 or 2 p.m., and finish at 10 or 11 in the evening.

Sometimes, however, we work through the night. If we do that, we don’t have anything scheduled the next day.

Do you ever do research to help develop a role?

Of course. If you are working as Only if the role is very nice, or it an actress with people, as well as needs character. being the producer, people treat you as the producer and not as an Have you done this on “ M rs actress. That bothers me.

Jones”?

Not so much, because I play the role of a dancer. I have already Yes. First I read the script, then I made a film where I am a bur­

Do you have script approval?

Billboard for one of Vilma Santos’ many films.

340 — Cinema Papers, October-November

ask for the director and leading man. I approve them all.

lesque dancer [Burlesque Queen, which was a big success], so it is much the same.

Have you worked in other Asian countries?

When I was 11 years-old I did a film w ith D oug M c C lu re , K atharine Ross and Ricardo Montalban. The title was the Longest 100 Miles, and it was made for international release. I also made a Chinese film for inter­ national release.

You must have millions of fans . . .

Yes, of course. I can’t even go shopping in case I am recognized. I have to get all my dresses sent to the house and then I select them.

My shoes, too.

I love my profession very much.

The only thing is I don’t have any privacy. I am public property; if the fans want me to do something, then I have to do it. But you can’t please everybody, and it is really hard.

How about the future?

Right now, I am not producing any films, but I am making two. I have to finish this one and prob­ ably start another one immediately after that. Probably by the end of March I will leave to make another one in Los Angeles. So, I don’t have any plans for production at the moment. ★

Vilma Santos, the highest-paid “ bold” star in The Philippines.

Ken Quinnell [a consultant on special project developments' with the New South Wales Film Cor­ poration] rang me and said the NSWFC was interested in financ­ ing the work of directors who had made reasonably ’ successful short Films. They were instituting a lowbudget fund and had approached a number of people: John Duigan, Phil Noyce, Gill Armstrong, Ken Cameron and me. I was told that if I had a project in mind they would talk about investment.

I think the NSWFC had heard about the prison film and were interested in it, but that was on the assumption it was only going to cost $200,000. They thought it could be made as a low-budget, 16mm film, which turned out to be completely wrong. Had I put it in as a project under other conditions it would have been knocked back.

Before the release of “Stir”, Stephen Wallace was best known as the writer and director of “Love Letters from Teralba Road”, arguably the best one-hour drama made in Australia. The script was written at Film Australia, where Wallace had worked as a production assistant and then as a writer. Film Australia had intended to produce the film as part of a series, but ultimately shelved it. It was then independently produced by Richard Brennan, and starred Bryan Brown.

While “Love Letters” was being edited, Wallace attended the Australian Film and Television School as one of the first four participants in the one-year scriptwriting course. Since then, he has made another short film, “Conman Harry and the Others” (featuring Bryan Brown), and “Stir”, his first feature.

Written by Bob Jewson and produced by Richard Brennan, “Stir” examines the build-up of tension and ultimate con­ frontation between prisoners and warders in an Australian gaol.

In this interview, conducted by Barbara Alysen, Wallace begins by discussing how he became involved with the project.

The film began as a Prisoners Action Group project. How did you become involved?

have a good look at me, and my films, to see if I was the right person to direct the Film.

We then had a meeting at which we talked about the concept of the film, and whether it should be a documentary or told as a story. We agreed that it should be dramatic

The PAG came to me. I was told that Tony Green [producer of the PAG’s first two films: Prisoners and Maximum Security] wanted to

address and sent me over, telling me 1 had to look at his writing to see if he could write.

Did the PAG want to make the Film collectively?

Some did. Certainly, it was going to be a group effort, but after another meeting it seemed imposs­ ible to make it that way. I didn’t feel it was going to work. Finally, the NSWFC refused to deal with anyone other than myself and Bob. But the PAG was involved with the film in the end?

Lee Whitmore was the produc­ tion designer and there are a lot of PAG members in the film. There were advisers on set all the time.

Where does the PAG stand now in relation to the film?

and follow one character through the riots.

When I asked who was going to write it, Tony said, “ We have this guy who is a bit like you; he is a bit of a writer.” I don’t think Tony really knew how good Bob Jewson was as a writer. He gave me Bob’s

It has a percentage and, al­ though it hasn’t any legal owner­ ship, it has very strong links with the Film.

The spirit of Stir is Tony Green.

Bob wrote the script and I directed it, but Tony was the driving force Cinema Papers. October-November — 341

STEVEN WALLACE

Yes. Actually, I was the first to use him in a film. He was ap­ pearing in a play, Here Comes the Nigger, at the Black Theatre.

[Written by Gerry Bostock, and now trying to be turned into a film

by Brown and Bostock.]

Sandy Richardson [director of several short films] took me to see the play while we were casting for the main role in Love Letters. I hadn’t been able to find anybody suitable, and we were about to compromise with someone who wasn’t quite right. Sandy was really keen for Bryan to get the part, but I felt he wasn’t right.

After the performance Sandy introduced us, and I asked him to read the script and then do a test.

He did and Richard Brennan, my producer, thought he was great.

Apparently you had problems find­ ing enough extras in South Aus­ tralia, despite the unemployment problem?

We had a lot of trouble because we were shooting in a town well away from anywhere else, and most of the extras had to come from Port Pirie. We couldn’t find enough locally and we couldn’t afford to fly Apparently you resented Brown them from Adelaide. going into other films?

I was told later that some potential extras wouldn’t have their I did, and I tried to stop him. I hair cut, so we had to lose them. felt a lot of directors were just using him and exploiting his obviously Haven’t a lot of the extras been in magnetic face without really prison? making his role a character. But I suppose that’s being a bit critical.

Yes. There is one sequence where five guys front before the governor, I wonder how many films an actor and three of them have each done can appear in in Australia without more than 11 years in prison; one of people becoming awfully tired of them was an actor. him?

Well, if people are sick of Bryan, the public doesn’t know. I was a bit worried about casting him in Stir, but who else is there? We started work on the film two years before shooting it, and in those two years Bryan appeared in many films.

You made the main actors take part in a clown workshop, which most of them disliked. What was behind that?

“Stir” is your first film in 35mm.

Did you find many problems in making the transition from 16mm?

The difference between the gauges is that the 35mm camera is not as fluid as 16mm. We also had to be more careful with stock.

I remember Phil Noyce saying he worried about taking responsi­ bility for all that money, but the cost never occurred to me. I hadn’t originally wanted to make such a big-budget film and I felt at first that I had been pushed into it. But then I realized we couldn’t possibly have made it for less. And w'hen it came to the crunch, I was too in­ volved in making the film to worry about the money.

The ambitions I had for the clown workshop didn’t come out. I was hoping for a really relaxed style and great spontaneity.

Many of the actors resisted the purpose of the workshop and I realize now that you can’t thrust actors into a workshop of that kind. Did you overshoot?

They are professionals and have their own standards and training. It I think the ratio was about 11 to would have needed a year’s train­ 1. and it was supposed to be 10 to 1. ing program to put them through So we only overshot a little. that kind of workshop and expect anything to come out of it.

The camerawork in “Love Letters” It was my mistake and I almost makes a lot of use of the zoom lens. alienated some of them. I think the Was “Stir” a big change of style? idea was right, but the way I went about it was wrong.

Yes. Geoff Burton [cinemato­ grapher] and I thought it would be What about the rest of the work­ more suitable to shoot Stir with shop? fixed lenses, as a zoom lens gives a documentary feel; it’s a bit loose.

The clown workshop ran for four Looking at it now, though, it might days and the rest of the workshop have been a bit formal. for three weeks. Looking back, I think the whole workshop was too Did shooting an entire film within a long. It ended up being mainly confined space, and with only a 342 — Cinema Papers. October-November

small variation in color, worry you?

It did, although the prison had very beautiful brickwork. You are always inside the prison and it is claustrophobic, so I wonder if that will interest people enough to hold their attention. I was also a bit worried that there were no women in it. [There is one, a television reporter.]

The other problem I faced was trying to make a film about an area of which I had no direct ex­ perience. I was reliant on advisers and I kept making mistakes, like leaving the locks off the doors.

There was one scene where I originally had the warder (Max Phipps) having a cup of tea while he was talking to one of the prisoners.

Bob went off his head and said, “ Prison officers don’t have tea while they are working. They are as bored as the prisoners and they are not allowed to do that sort of thing.” I was quite shocked. I thought just having a cup of tea would give him something to do.

Not knowing what a prison is really like was always a problem.

How do warders walk down cor­ ridors? How do they salute their superiors? How do they open doors? What do they say to each other?

One of the actors who played a warder told me that he knew much more about how to behave once he put on his uniform . . .

, 4bs&-

Did you always have Bryan Brown in mind for the lead?

rehearsals and not every actor got a lot out of it.

It was important, however, in that PAG members Tony Green, Kevin Storey and Bob came along and talked to the actors, and took them through the experience of being in prison: what it was like to be in a boys’ home, how they were ordered about, the humiliation, the searches, how prisoners react to each other. They looked at films, talked to Les Newcombe [a former prisoner, who appears in Stir, and who is author of Inside Out] and read books.

9

— despite anything he may say.

STEVEN WALLACE

are not being bashed every day — but if a prisoner dares stand up to the system he gets bashed and thrown into the really bad places which Raymond Denning [NSW prison escapee] has spoken about.

We didn’t show the observation section at Grafton or Katingal at Long Bay. But we have prisoners being taken off all the time — shanghaied in the middle of the night — and you don’t see where they go, but it is obviously to muchworse places.

Were any of your prisoners black?

Only one. We wanted to have lots of black prisoners, but the film isn’t about Aboriginal prisoners. At Bathurst — the gaol that Bob was in — the people who rioted were mostly white. Apparently the Aboriginals didn’t want any part of the riot. They said it was a white man’s riot and, according to Bob, went off to another part of the gaol.

We should have had more black prisoners, because there are lots of black people in gaol. We tried to get Aboriginals on the set, but there were no blacks in the district. We did get one guy for a day, but he didn’t want anything to do with it and left. So the film isn’t repre­ sentative in that sense.

Are you suggesting an alternative to prison?

No, but it did worry the sound re­ cordist. After about the third week he said, “ Look Steve, I am just an ordinary middle-class guy and I can’t see this film ever being re­ leased. And even if it is released, I Yes. I. remember he used to go don’t think anybody is going to out and polish his boots, and when come and see it.” He told me he he’d done that he’d start ordering wouldn’t see it because of the swear people about. I used to have a great words. respect for him.

It’s obvious the language is going I treated the warders exactly like to be a bone of contention, but their characters because they that’s a decision we made. walked in with their uniforms, polished boots and caps. It’s an Was the NSWFC worried about the intimidating process. language?

Above: the prisoners are held in pens await­ ing transportation to a new prison. Below left: China (Bryan Brown), Redford (Dennis Miller) Stir.

Did you consider having any women in the film, as girlfriends for example?

Yes. At first there was a woman social worker and another woman character in the film, but they weren’t good characters and were dropped. Even up until the second last draft there was a sequence where China Jackson (Bryan Brown) has a visit from his girl­ friend. But I was always worried about her as a character.

When we had to cut the budget I cut her scene out as to have kept it would have meant building some visiting boxes and bringing an actress from Adelaide. We re­ placed it with a scene where the prisoners receive letters.

Yes. They thought it wouldn’t sell to television, here or overseas.

In fact, that was their biggest worry about the film. But, once we made the decision, the NSWFC backed us all the way.

Prisoners use a certain kind of language because they are bored: it’s just bravado. The point of the film isn’t the language — it’s much more political than that — and if you appreciate what the film is about, you forget the language. But even the ex-prisoners objected to it when they read the script. They felt we were showing prisoners in a bad light. In the end, it was up to Bob to decide whether to leave it in, and he is the authentic ex-prisoner.

One other worry would be that Did the strong language in the script people might object to the use of four-letter words, and then query the bother you?

wisdom of government investment

Well if people start to compare Stir with the riot at Bathurst gaol

— which occurred under a Liberal state government — it might be construed that we were given government funds to attack the Liberal party.

With films that have a social message, like “Stir”, there is a level at which people say, “Oh no, it’s not really as bad as that”. Have you guarded against that possibility?

We tried to show authentically what it was like to be in gaol. It isn’t like a Nazi concentration camp; it’s not that bad. They have beds, they walk around and it looks quite casual, but the underlying violence is obvious.

Prison is an extremely lonely and isolated place. Men are constantly moved and shoved around, and they are locked up in cells for 14 or 18 hours. It’s the sheer boredom, the frustration, that’s destructive. It’s like a really bad boarding school, but you can’t get out.

You are not allowed contact with women. You have only brief contact with other prisoners. You have your meals in your cell.

Warders are constantly niggling you.

You can look at Stir and think everything looks all right — the prisoners are walking around; they

No, the film doesn’t suggest one and I don’t know of any. But there are certainly alternatives to that sort of prison w'hich just makes people worse.

Someone remarked to me that Stir wasn’t presenting anything new. At first I was quite offended and thought, “Of course it’s new.”

Then I realized it wasn’t new be­ cause it has all happened before, in every gaol. But in a way that’s the point of it: if the content of Stir was new, people would say it was a unique prison, but it’s not.

Basically, it is a lack of under­ standing that causes riots and the film is meant to increase under­ standing. Bob says that unless something is done, people are going to be killed. Eventually there will be bigger riots, with hostages taken and the moment hostages are taken there will be bloodshed and warders will be killed.

The reasons for making Stir were social. It wasn’t a personal film for me. It was like a contract job in a way, although I identify thoroughly with everything the prisoners wanted.

It’s not a heavily-political film because you don’t see what hap­ pens to the prisoners later. You only see what happens at the gaol and have to draw your own con­ clusions.

On the other hand, we hope it’s entertaining enough for people to see just as a film. That’s why the NSWFC backed it; I don’t think they were particularly interested in the prison issue, ic Cinema Papers, October-November — 343

1 9 8 0 S Y D N E Y FILM p ittim i

Susan Dermody, John Fox and Nick Herd

This may well have been the last of the Sydney Film Festivals to presume that a single kind of audience sits watching in the stalls, mezzanine and dress circle. To keep the audience in the State to which it has become accustomed will mean either cutting its size to the reduced number of seats that planned renova­ tions will make available, repeating all films, or ceasing to think of it as a single audience at all, and developing a series of different programs, having some degree of overlap, but with different sub­ sets of the audience in mind.

If the last possibility is developed, then the cut in seating could well provide the long overdue moment for a review of the notion of a single, homogeneous film festival audience, and of the c o r­ responding assumption that it is possible to program a single series of films that will stimulate and satisfy most of its members.

It seems to me that the Festival has remained a little too long with a notion of audience formed in the days of the much smaller Rose Bay Wintergarden, and that programming still tends to court that loyal, but no longer majority, audience.

This year, possibly because of a notice­ able paucity in the quality of available ‘middle-ground’ films from which the Festival mainly draws, more people seemed to be articulating their irritation more loudly than ever before. Why buy a whole sample bag when you know you’ll want to throw out half the candy?

There are some good films, to be sure, within the ‘Festival-safe’ area that has emerged — the European film of senti­ ment and sensibility, with Home Beautiful settings and ‘operatic’ resolutions. In fact, it is the (art) film equivalent of opera in the music or theatre world, with many of the same attendant assumptions about class, education and taste. But there are many objections to setting up a Festival program around a concentration on such films.

For a start, they are not necessarily representative of the most interesting films of 1979-80, the films that most test, enrich or expand assumptions about film. If they can be said to be marginal films, they are the most thoroughly institutionalized of marginal films. They can easily be argued to constitute a genre, sharing many of the conventions, motifs, plot situations and thematic con­ cerns of soap opera, though with a rather different intended audience.

Secondly, by all reports of Cannes in the past two years, it is a peculiarly banal and enervated area of filmmaking at pre­ sent, and getting worse. Perhaps the French, who specialize in it, are too pre­ occupied with the phase of striking expansionism and neo-colonialism in other sectors of their economy (such as armaments, and nuclear technology).

The strongest feeling getting through in films like Ma cherie, Death Watch, Le voyage en douce (Sentimental Journey), and even L’amour en fuite (Love on the Run) is one that is very dissociated from present realities, a kind of faint anxiety that the neuroses of greed and con­ sumerism may have an adverse effect upon personal style — in a purely aesthetic sense.

344 — Cinema Papers, October-November

Thirdly, the nausea that they begin to produce is an effect that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is easy to exag­ gerate about how far the Festival is numerically dominated by these films (in fact, they are the largest sub-category of films on the program, rather than the out­ right majority). But it is difficult not to feel that the Festival sets them up as a staple and yardstick of taste.

Fourthly, the more films that are in­ cluded (from any area), the less out­ standing the sample will tend to be, and the less representative or exploratory the Festival will be in terms of world film.

Third World cinema is pitifully under­ represented, and so is ‘experimental’, or ‘ a v a n t- g a rd e ’ or ‘ o th e r ’ c in e m a ; documentary has been minimally pre­ sent in the past, and although the special documentary feature of this Festival began to redress the neglect, it didn’t risk very much, sticking mainly to films with documentary forms fam iliarized by television — with the exception of Jean­ Pierre Gorin's Poto and Cabengo.

Could it not be possible for the Festival

to remain responsive to its past and still­ loyal patronage, as well as keeping faith with its implicit dictum (as The Sydney Film Festival) to celebrate the diversity of good and interesting tolerance-testing and margin-finding films of a given year?

This could be done with, say, three ticket series, each permitting subscription to a part, rather than the whole, of the series, as the present Red/Blue/Gold system does, so that it would be possible to sub­ scribe to part or all of the main series.

Evening sessions could concentrate on what I have described as the ‘Festival­ safe’ area of films, while intermediate sessions could be opened up to every kind of risk and specialized interest.

Weekday matinee or afternoon sessions could be used to repeat the bestreceived films from the other two series, at a greatly reduced price, for students, unemployed people, pensioners and house- (that is, child-) bound parents.

And yet, I have to admit that when you start to give each of the films individual attention, more than just a few arouse in­ terest. Deutschland bleiche mutter (Ger­

The geisha house accountant prepares for bed with a young geisha. Shohei imamura’s Vengeance is Mine.

many, Pale Mother), Bez znieczulenia (Rough Treatment), Amator (Camera Buff), Fukushu suru-wa ware ni ari (Vengeance is Mine), Radio On, Zerkalo (The Mirror), Heartland . . . well that’s a little more than ‘just a few’ that worked at the time and have worked on since.

Shohei Im am ura’s Vengeance is Mine is a strangely schizophrenic ex­ perience: it simultaneously scares the audience in a pretty visceral way with its brutality and dissociated (yet logical) violence, and invites one into a fairly analytical frame of mind through the pleasures of its handling of chronicity, gradually d iso rd e rin g itself out of documentation of the real Enokizu (Ken Ogato), murderer in cold blood, and into another kind of whole, a kind of modern ghost story in which almost all given con­ cepts about Japan are the ghosts, the ashes that cannot fall to earth but freezeframe above the city.

It is, in some ways, a companion-piece (10 years later) to Nagisa Oshima’s Boy, which used a chronicle of a real boy’s ex­ ploitation by his parents (in which he was placed to be knocked by cars to exact compensatory settlement), to talk about Japan’s exhaustion of its traditional meanings (they literally travel to ‘the end of Japan’) with the expiry of their traditional contexts.

The Boy’s father is close kin to Ima­ mura’s Enokizu, the grotesque logical end of an absolute patriarchy whose original (feudal) context has been shorn of almost all its traditional meaning, in the world of private submission to cor­ porate profit. Only, Imamura’s chron­ icle is disarranged into a series of kaleidoscopic patterns of relationships between past and present, eroticism and violence, feeling and appalling dis­ sociation from feelings. The schizo­ phrenia of the experience is finally the film ’s most pervasive subject-matter.

The most interesting thing about Helma Sander’s Germany, Pale Mother was its extraordinary ease of movement between a kind of ‘autobiography’ of her mother, in the decade of war and after­ math in Germany, and allegory — allegory not of the heavily-announced Die blectrommel (Tin Drum) variety, but of the inescapable meanings kind, finding the marks of a human life that correspond with frightening exactitude to the historical stigmata on the German nation.

The film looks at women, mothers and daughters, during the war, and sets up in its very title, a rasping contradic­ tion between ‘fatherland’ and ‘mother’, national mythos and bodily stress.

Helma’s mother, Helene (Eva Mattes), grows strong and separate in the sheer adversity of giving birth and surviving blitz, famine, rural winters and ‘liberation’ forces. What she can’t survive is the psy­ chic stress of a return to married life in the suffocation of the post-war period.

At the heart of the film is the Grimm fairytale she recounts to her daughter (Helma) as they walk through a forest lit­ tered with relics of war. It is the story of the maiden betrothed to a stranger who complains that she never visits him.

1980 SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL

ordinarily powerful presence on screen, the scenes of rage that she excites seem distressingly gratuitous. Are we meant to see her mute suffering as symbolic of the plight of women (a very easy symbolic step to make in a Moslem country) or the nomadic people in an industrializing Turkey? The sub-plot remains essentially detachable and, given that it is wearing to move endlessly through the monologue of male hatred and contempt for silent, suffering women, it is worth detaching.

Francesco Rosi’s Christ Stopped at Eboli, ultimately a little soft-centred and nostalgic.

When at last she does, carefully marking her trail through the bewildering forest, she finds the house empty, except for an old woman who warns her that she is in a den of murderers whose victims are young girls.

Before she can leave, they return. She is hidden by the old woman, and witnes­ ses the truth of her warning. When the murderers cannot remove a ring from one of the victims’ fingers, they chop it off and it lands in the lap of the betrothed maiden. The old woman quickly distracts them with wine and, when they collapse, the girl escapes. Her husband-to-be visits again, and everyone at the table is asked to tell a story. When iLcomes to her turn, she tells a ‘dream’ — the story of her unknown visit — and then produces the chopped-off finger with its (wedding?) ring.

The telling of the story was neither ex­ cerpted or hurried. Its gradual elabora­ tion as they travelled back towards Berlin and the return to ‘peacetime’ marriage marked it out as a set-piece of even deeper allegory than the rest of the film, so that the effect of (male) war was to the body of German women as the symbolic order of patriarchy is to the body and life of women, generally, in this darkest of fairytales. So when Helene returns to Hans, whom the film never 'blames’ for the war or its devastations on their life, it is a return to stress, suffocation and paralysis, that becomes literal in the facial nerves of one side of Helene's face.

In an excruciating further violation, all of her teeth are pulled (to ‘correct’ the problem) but the paralysis remains, hid­ den under a black veil that covers one side of Helene’s face — making her dis­ play the ‘stigmata’ of the partition of Ger­ many.

In the final, almost unendurable move of the film, Helene enters the bathroom to gas herself, as Helma whines hope­ lessly at the locked door. After an aeon of time, long after the melodramatic moment has passed, Helene does walk out to touch Helma, but as the voice of the filmmaker explains, her mother never really came back from her locked room, again.

Much as I adm ire the technical mastery and visual riches of Volker Schlondorff’s far more abstract Tin Drum, I would argue that Germany, Pale Mother cuts more deeply into the heart of the matter of Germany and especially the unlivable aftermath of the war. (The only other film I have seen that reaches the same subject-matter, of the unlivability of the specific contradictions of postwar Germany, is Jean Marie Straub's Not Reconciled.)

Tin Drum concentrates far more on its own cleverness in creating cathartic im­ agery of the pre-war and wartime period, and its obscene contradictions. It is brilliant, but somehow unnecessarily in­ ventive, at least when set against the ground of Sander’s film. It is inventive in its allegorical grotesqueries to the point of detachment; unlike Brecht's analysis of history through grotesque epic, Tin Drum does not finally resound in any of the crucial interstices of history, ex­ cept tinnily in one of its own, energetic creation.

I remain amazed at the vitality of the film, but I grew increasingly bemused with its allegorical trajectory away from history and into the separate space of its brilliant solutions to pro-filmic problems. ' The two films from the approximate and exact Middle East, Suru (The Herd, Turkey) and Salehale bolande bad (Tall Shadows of the Wind, Iran) deserve dis­ cussion together, not just because they both emanate from that queerly overlit region of present consciousness, but because they have different ways of deal­ ing with partly similar kinds of historic contradictions.

Tall Shadows scrutinizes and appeals to mystery and fear of mystery, while The Herd takes a consciously Marxist model of analysis of some of the same kinds of mystery — especially the ‘two countries' notion that Francesco Rosi’s Cristo si e fermato a Eboli (Christ Stopped at Eboli) also explores, that the peasantry (or nomadic tribes) constitute a different ’nation’, with a different history and time­ scale to that of metropolitan Italy, Turkey,

or Iran. The points of contact and colli­ sion between these two worlds are catastrophic for the rural one, and barely acknowledged by the metropolis.

So, in Zeki Okten’s The Herd, the nomadic family bringing their sheep to Ankara are engulfed and dispersed, their tenuous economy is destroyed by the dif­ ference between subsistence and profit economies. Even before they reach Ankara, their epic train journey is a gradual catastrophe, the first point of contact with the predatory city economy: the sheep are poisoned by travelling in freight cars polluted by DDT, stolen by brigands who throw them from the mov­ ing train and arrive in less-than-marketable condition.

The melodramatic sub-plot of the mute woman, Berivan (Melike Demirag), hated by her father-in-law who blames her for every ill and dying of kidney dis­ ease, is sometimes at odds with the rest of the film. While she is an extra­

Tall Shadows seems to be about re­ cent Iranian history by carefully making no reference to it. Its shots of holes in the ground full of voices and senseless giggl­ ing, and its final inscription — “ The sea is jealous of the well from which you drink” — heap enigma on an already porten­ tously unexplained story, in a remote walled town, the town’s bus driver (and link with the cities) draws some of his own facial characteristics onto the blank face of a scarecrow when his bus was stalled: the scarecrow inexplicably begins to exert a potent influence over the townspeople. It even stomps through the town, and finally kills its non­ believing creator.

The finest thing in the film is the sense it creates of remoteness, estrangement and vacant space open to seizure by any widely-shared belief, in the landscape and lives of these people. Even time, in the film, is filled with a sense of vacancy and indeterminacy, such that anything may fill it or be permitted, by unspoken collective agreement, to have happened.

I wonder if Iranian audiences would be so impressed by the sense that such spaces and time intervals are habitable, and that the price of inhabiting them seems to be the sacrifice of reason, and submission to what is said to be the case.

Is this the real political allegory of the film, rather than trying to turn the scarecrow into the Shah or Khomeini, seeing the frightening tractability of the people’s consciousness and its over­ rapid c u ltiv a tio n of m onsters of suggestion?

Rosi’s Christ Stopped at Eboli was finally a bit soft, and its true centre was its nostalgic end: the tearful, rainy, soft­ focus farewell of the peasants to the good doctor. The romantic impres­ sionism of um brellas haloing the peasants’ faces and rain on the car win­ dows blur the issues that the film had inspected in its course.

Finally, It seems that the film has been always directed towards the pathos of Its end, rather than to the ironies of Levi’s opening reminiscence, in which he acknowledges that he has “ let down” the

Zeki Okten’s The Herd, a Marxist analysis of the two worlds of peasant and metropolitan Turkey.

Cinema Papers, October-November — 345

1980 SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL

peasants of Lucania. Is this by his depar­ ture, or by his romanticization of his sense of them over time, from the clear delineation of their political plight in his conversation with the Fascist mayor of the town, to the sentimental impression of his departure?

Levi (Gian Maria Volonte) is a leftist doctor/painter who is sentenced to political exile in Lucania in the remote south (beyond even the reach of Christ’s long shadow in Italy, he imagines, which stopped short at Eboli). In Lucania, his eyes open as if to an alien world, the ‘other country’, of the peasantry, in which women are a feared species, pigs are treated annually by faith surgeons, the priest is perennially drunk since his entire cathedra! slipped away in a mud­ slide, and the young boys go off at ran­ dom, as if taken by a rare exotic disease, to fight in Abyssinia or to live on the other side of the world in the U.S. Rosi asserted that Levi, in Lucania, “will feel more strongly the weight of ageold injustices and will go all the way back to the heart of these injustices’’, but while the film may see to some of these roots, it seems that Levi finally withdraws to a safer, more contemplative distance, filtering everything through beautifully rounded journal entries, or Picassoesque (blue period) paintings of the haunting faces of the peasantry. In the end, it’s a middle-class trip, motoring out and leaving the peasants under glass, spotted with rain, retreating regrettably into the distant past.

Tony Luraschi’s The Outsider was another film with political subject matter that swerved or retreated away from its own consequences — particularly in the wholly gratuitous American grandfather sequences, overplayed by Sterling Hayden. It attempts to deal with IRA resistance in Northern Ireland, and the murderous logic with which it pursues its understandably fierce repudiation of British presence in Ireland.

Richardo Aronivich’s extraordinary photography of Belfast transforms gut­ ted streets and wired-off districts into almost dangerously-stylish icons of the politics of Belfast.

Bernardo Bertolucci’s La luna and Chris Pettit’s Radio On may well be dis­ cussed together because of the in­ teresting polarities they establish in terms of what i have described as the ‘Festival-safe’ film. La luna is like an adult-cartoon version of the ‘operatic’ saga of sentiment in overblown color and outrageously affluent settings.

The operatic element is made literal, in that Jill Clayburgh plays a trans-Atlantic prima donna, and the oedipai concerns

that usually lie buried in this kind of film (perhaps the master-work for the art film and the soap opera is Hamlet) are pushed to the foreground. Its resolution by means of a chord (or concordance)^of feelings (against opera rehearsals under a full moon) really works, just as opera does, despite the fact that the plot has gross exaggerations, unnatural coin­ cidences, and larger colors than life.

Radio On, by contrast, was a welcome excursion away from Festival staples; it actively sets out to deny color, event, emotion, meaning and even story, it is the negative impress of the form which La luna pushes to its logical and con­ scious extreme. Electronic music (of Kraftwerk, Lene Lovich, Wreckless Eric and others) substitutes for emotion — and even then is unsatisfyingly cut short by change of shot. It is one of the most in­ teresting uses of music in film for some time: electronic media, like radio, televi­ sion, cassettes and juke boxes, sub­ stitute for lived experience — and

episodic road-film substitutes for story.

Robert (David Beams) drives from London to Bristol to see about his brother’s death; he meets three or four people on the way, but finds out nothing.

His journey reaches an end when the car’s intermittent refusal to start recurs, on the edge of a quarry; he leaves it with Kraftwerk’s "Ohm Sweet Ohm” playing in the cassette deck, and catches a train back to London. It is the winter of 1978, the coldest in Britain for decades.

Pettit’s film is very much in the genre of industrialized road films established

by Wim Wenders, particularly in Im lauf der zeit (Kings of the Road), in much the same way that Claude Chabrol works in the genre of ‘Hitchcock’; but like Chabrol, Pettit uses a previously established for­ mal language, not to pay homage, but to slightly alter its resonance, for his own purposes.

The biggest single disappointment with Radio On is that it remains at the le ve l of a (v is u a lly and a u ra lly fascinating) tinkering with the aesthetics of the form . Where W enders’ film provides com plex conceptual and emotional work for its audience, as well as the p e rverse black and w hite pleasures of the cities and their road connections, Pettit’s first film seems peculiarly passive and frozen, toying with disengaged states like boredom and fascination, and noting their close relatedness.

Yet it must be noted that the overlay of Wenders’ Germany on Pettit’s Britain (through the photography of Martin Schafer, Wenders' assistant camera­ man on many films) is extraordinarily rich and defamiliarizing, in terms of British city and landscape. I don't mean to imply that Pettit copied the look of Wenders’ films (the compositions he achieved are far more decentred, and dangerously close to the edge of the frame), it is more that the overlay of theoutside ‘genre’ onto the British winter of '78 releases much unexpected visual energy.

I planned also to write about Joi baba felunath (Elephant God) and Junoon (A

346

_ Cinema Papers. October-November

Flight of Pigeons), The Mirror, Kung shan ling yu (Raining in the Mountain) and Mourir a tue-tete (Scream from Silence), but find that most have been adequately discussed in the review of the M e lb o u rn e Film F estival (Cinema Papers, No. 28, pp. 232-36, 286-89, 302).

This leaves The Fog, which opened the Festival.

I was disappointed at the thinness of the material in this ghost thriller about the revenge raid of a crew of sailors, massacred 100 years ago, upon the in­ habitants of the town established with their booty. I can’t deny the effectiveness of John Carpenter’s seemingly intuitive knowledge of cutting and soundtrack, and the enjoyable terrors of the glowing fog full of steel axes and undeterrable ghosts, but The Fog begins to seem fairly quickly like the same fright, over and over, a prolonged exercise for keeping Carpenter’s superb skills flexible.

Susan Dermody The frontiers of film were not signifi­ cantly nudged forward by the features at this year’s Sydney Film Festival, except

by Chris Pettit’s remarkable son et lumiere experience, Radio On. However, there was a high level of accomplish­ ment in some films and much to admire in others.

Angi Vera opened with a panning shot of astonishing assurance, a sign of the mastery of movement to come. Unlike Mikios Jancso, another Hungarian with a restless camera, who moves imperson­ ally through figures in landscapes, Pal Gabor stays inside, moving from face to face to find expressions of personal feeling. W hether gossiping in the dormitory, socializing in canteen and dance hall or conferring in classrooms and lecture theatres, his people are established as individual human beings.

Thus, when the film ’s central process is complete — the transformation of a human being into an inhuman political stereotype — it is all the more appalling.

1980 SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL

victim, yes, but not merely of a con­ spiracy, or a fault in the stars. He is a flawed hero and the centre cannot hold.

A deeply felt and disturbing film which shows Wajda in magnificent form.

The younger generation of Polish film ­ makers includes Krzysztof Kieslowski.

His Camera Buff is concerned with the act of filmmaking. His central character is a happily married factory worker who buys an 8 mm camera to record his new baby. Enthusiasm grows and he shoots everything in sight, becoming increas­ ingly fascinated by image-making and intrigued by techniques of cheating or shaping reality. Encouraged by winning a prize at an amateur film competition, he lets filmmaking make greater demands upon his time and energy. His wife becomes a camera widow and leaves him. He falls foul of authorities who cannot a p p re c ia te his d is tin c tio n between creativity and conformity: a film image isn’t necessarily an approved public image, and his factory film is censored and a superior fired.

Briefly disillusioned, he is about to throw away his new 16 mm camera, but he can’t bring himself to do it: he’s hooked. E nthusiasm has becom e obsession and it will devour him as it sustains him, an irony anticipated in the deceptively simple and telling image which opens the film: a bird of prey tearing at a chicken. This hint of Tantalus is serious, but the tone of the film is light.

The playing is relaxed and goodhum ored, the d ire c tio n d e ft and unforced. It is a film with something to say about life and art and says it with wit and wonder, clarity and precision.

Set in Hungary in 1948, the brilliant career of Vera, a young nurse, begins wherl she criticises publicly the way the hospital is run. Considered to be promising material for “training” , she is enrolled in a three-month Stalinist in­ service course at the end of which, during a general session of self-criticism “ w ithout bourgeois s e lf-p ity ” , she denounces herself and her lover. He loses his job as a tutor, but she is rewarded with a high-ranking position as a Party official. “ I am a communist” , she says, “ because I feel humanity,” The irony is fierce: Vera has rejected conscience, doubt, need, friendship, trust and love. She has power, without pity, communism without compassion. Is she a naive innocent, easily indoctrin­ ated, or, as some see her, a calculating opportunist? Either way, it’s a subtle and compelling performance by Veronica Papp. (If this Festival established nothing else, it was clear that the days of poor roles for actresses are over.) Her Vera, in human terms, is a spiritually deformed creature.

This warping of the human spirit is at the heart of an o th e r im p re ssive Hungarian film, Bizalom (Confidence), better translated, probably, as “Trust” .

Istvan Szabo, a guest at the Festival which showed four of his features in a retrospective season, introduced it: “ My films are about people torn apart by historical events, but this one shows his­ torical events forcing people together.”

The events are the round-ups of suspects by the fascists during the last few days of the war in Budapest. The people are a man and a woman, both fugitives, who are obliged to pose as husband and wife. Lonely, frightened and confused, each reaches out for the security and comfort the other could provide. Their relationship develops into love, but the worm In the bud is in­ eradicable suspicion: even at the height of passion the man wonders if the woman is really a Gestapo agent. He knows this is a sickness and he might not be able to control it.

Lack of trust in personal relationships

and in society is a matter of deep concern to Szabo. At that time, he said, the Left underground had to capitalize on this lack of trust in order to exist. Should they get into power, what would happen then? The answer to his question is in Angi Vera, and he is clearly pointing to the undercutting of security in the Stalinist era. But more than that, he is making a universal statement about the dangers of a moral disease, and he dis­ agreed with a member of the audience who suggested that only a Hungarian could properly appreciate the film. He wanted to make his message strong because “the world is more and more made up of people who didn’t have to queue for water.”

All this is a heavy load for the film to bear, and it shows in the second half where the infinite riches in a little room are withheld from the fearful, haunted lovers. It is rather too schematized to allow a fully credible, growing relation­ ship, or the subtlety or irony of his latest film, Der grune vogel (The Green Bird). It is thin in characterization (although the beautifully judged and sensitive perfor­ mance by lldiko Bansagi makes the ’wife’ totally convincing) and there is a dis­ proportionate amount of time spent in and on the bed. The first half of the film is more sure-footed as it establishes its climate of fear: an informer in every queue for bread or water; the fascist sympathies of the ostensibly harmless old couple at the house; the clanger in a stray word, a photograph, a letter.

Andrzej Wajda’s Bez znieczulenia (Rough Treatment) is a triumphant tour de force about the fall of a contem­ porary Icarus. A scene in a dentist’s surgery, which seems at first like a comic interlude, is crucial to an appreciation of Wajda’s intentions. The dentist ashes her cigarette, adjusts her spectacles and throws her instruments about with a casual indifference to her patient in the chair. He can do nothing but sit there and submit while she hovers above him and extracts a rotten tooth, without anaes­ thetic and with unconcern.

The patient is a celebrated television

journalist whose star quality and a chance remark in an interview offend Authority: there is something rotten in the State and he is extracted. He finds that he no longer has professional status, a university job, friends or a marriage. He never knows how or why it happened. It is a process of bewildering pain.

Reversing the method of his equally powerful Czlowick-marmuru (Man of Marble), w here a m an’s life was assembled, Wajda takes a man’s life apart, piece by piece, using a series of scenes designed to show more than one time tense simultaneously. The man whose self-confident and successful image appears on the television screen in a kind of “This Is Your Life” show (and is thus permanent on videotape) is not the same man who watches his recorded image: he is already changed; the image of ‘now’ is already ‘then’. There’s no mirror image, rather a dual reality or shifting screens of past and present.

Similarly, where is the life of the man whose biography he has written and is defending against his ambitious and politically opposed younger rival? That life is fixed on paper, but it is being re­ interpreted at the very moment when it is being presented.

In a scene of marvellous fragility and strength, he talks to his estranged wife at the kitchen table; the marriage is here, now, alive in their remembered “ mutual compromises, growing old together and shedding of physical shame” and in their nervous desire to keep it going, but at the same time they know it is gone; they are present only in a past tense. Nothing is stable, or certain — not even truth.

In a superbly conceived divorce court hearing (almost entirely reaction shots and foreground close-ups of the hands of witnesses), lies are effortless and casual: “ How are you going to prove what isn’t tru e ? ” . . . “ Proof is never a problem.” In a world which has no certitude, peace or help for pain, he can fight no longer, say no more — only shrug. The fall ends with a charred body in a burnt-out room, and men, as in Breughel’s painting on this subject, go about their business with indifference. A

The Poles were apart from the French, who apparently prefer to look at life and cinema as little more than incon­ sequential games. L’amour en fuite (Love on the Run) is Antoine Doinel and pretty maids all in a row — all, for some reason inexplicable to me, attracted to that tiresome young man. Francois Truffaut might be playing games with his audience or with himself: much depends upon whether you are in the mood to play or to watch.

Picking the flashback is, no doubt, interesting to those who have followed Doinel through the earlier films and who wish to pl.ace the extracts from them. For my part, the pleasure of revisiting The 400 Blows was tempered by disappoint­ ment that Truffaut’s autobiographical connections with his alter-ego are not as strong now as they were then.

One critic finds it “the rare sort of film which is perhaps analagous to literature, which takes pause, which turns pages back, which knows its debt to what has gone before” . Maybe — at least, it draws attention to the printed word: the hero has written a novel and long passages are read to us (it sounds as shallow as its author); he is a proof reader for a publisher; he reads aloud from a news­ paper in bed; a book cover is made from newspaper; someone runs a bookshop; there are references to Balzac, Proust and Dumas fils. Truffaut’s respect for literature and fascination with language have become word play.

Charlotte Dubreuil’s Ma cherie (My Darling) begins with the birth of a baby and then jumps forward 16 years to the mother, and now adolescent daughter, discussing the pros and cons of pills and coils. The following 90 minutes (a very long hour and a half indeed) is about these two women living alone together and supposedly coming to terms with their similarities and differences. A good subject and a good opportunity for feminine, not feminist, illumination, but the potential is not realized. Very little happens to distress or vex these two:

Continued on P. 394 Cinema Papers, October-November — 347

*

WHEN ITCOMESTO AUSTRALIAN DRAMA CHANNELSEVEN ISN’TAFRAID TO ACT. A t Channel Seven, w ere pleased to have played a supporting role In some o f Australia's greatest television dramas.

‘Homicide', ‘Cop Shop', 'Skyways’, Tandara’, ‘Cash and Co.', ‘A gainst the W in d ’, A Town Like Alice’ and the brilliant new series, T h e Last O utlaw ’ w ere all produced w ith our backing and encouragement.

W e are proud to have given Australian talent opportunities they might not have found elsewhere.

W e’re also proud to have given Australian audiences exactly the same thing.

New Markets

hour is taken up with news. Finance is also limited.

Stuart hopes to sell the Chinese Australian-made programs, but says he’ll have to wait until transmission times increase. With a population of 1000 million, China promises to be one of the w o rld ’s biggest television markets as it develops in line with the communist country’s westernization program.

Number 96 Returns John Stanton, star of Bellamy.

New Series for Grundy Production is under way on the first 13 episodes of the Grundy Organiza­ tion’s new prison drama series Punish­ ment. The series is expected to go to air on the 10 Network later this year.

No doubt inspired by the success of Prisoner, locally as well as in the U.S., the new series is set in an all-male prison called Longridge. The U.S. in particular are interested in a male­ version of the Prisoner series.

Included in the cast are entertainer Barry Crocker, Brian Wenzel and Anne Haddy, along with Mike Preston, Penne Hackforth-Jones, Julie McGregor and Michael Smith.

Crocker plays the prison superinten­ dent, with Preston and Smith as in­ mates. Punishment will also feature one of the rare television appearances

by Mad Max star Mel Gibson, who is in the first two episodes.

Production designer Darrell Lass has based the prison set on a cell block at P a rra m a tta Gaol, the m axim um security prison on the outskirts of Sydney. The executive producer of the series is Bruce Best.

With established international con­ nections, Grundys will certainly be of­ fering Punishment for sale overseas.

The international sales of Prisoner placed the Grundy Organization in the unique position where it could afford to continue producing the series even without local financial support.

Production has also started on Grun­ dy’s second major project — 13 onehour episodes of the new police drama series Bellamy, starring John Stanton in the title role — a tough cynical police sergeant investigating major crimes.

Written by- Ron McLean, the series is being produced by Don Battye.

It is expected to air, on the 10 Network, early next year. .

, Sydney television producer Bill Harmon, of Cash-Harmon Productions, is working on a new version of Number 96 for U.S. television.

Number 96, which ran for five years from 1971 and won several television awards, was one of the first series to tackle down-to-earth and intimate is­ sues in a frank and, if at times, sen­ sational manner.

After 12 months of negotiations, Harmon has sold the series idea to the NBC Network in the U.S. Production has a lre a d y sta rte d on a p ilo t, scheduled for screening in the U.S. later this year.

The A m ericans,- a c c o rd in g to Harmon, are taking the basic format and c h a n g in g th e c h a r a c te r s .

Meanwhile, Harmon is working on a science-fiction love story film, to be titled Tomorrow Today.

New Prank Show The Nine Network has commis­ sioned a 60-minute pilot of a new com­ edy show from Sydney’s Lyle McCabe Productions. Titled Catch Us if You Can, the show is loosely based on Candid Camera.

A team of regulars will play practical jokes and pull stunts on celebrities and the public.

There will be prizes to participants — probably as compensation for public embarrassment!

Appearing as pranksters in the pilot are actor Robin Stewart '(Timeless Land and Punishm ent), actress Deborah Gray and Channel 9 musical director Geoff Harvey. The host of the show is Geoff Stone, of Nine’s inventors program WhatHI They Think of Next.

Video Slow to Go The. home video boom so widely predicted for Australia could be a long time coming.

Growth in the market has been so slow that several major U.S. companies involved in the marketing of pre­ recorded programs, such as top box­ office films, have deferred involvement in the local market for at least 12 months.

Home video units have been avail­ able in Australia for almost three years.

In 1978, 14,000 units were sold; in 1979, sales increased by 85 per cent to 26,000, but in 1980, projected sales figures allow for only a 42 per cent sales increase to 35,000. This means about 0.5 per cent of Australians own a VTR unit — of these, 25 per cent are of the Philips or U-Matic 3/4 inch format, widely used in commerce. .

So, in terms of other world markets, Australia is not the most attractive sales prospect for home video manufac­ turers. And this is one of the reasons for slow growth.

Supply of machines is lim ited because production is geared for the major markets — the U.S., Britain, Europe and Japan. Rapid technological change also means that just as the latest models are reaching Australia, new and improved models are rolling off the production lines overseas.

According to Melbourne publisher Gerry Gold who, next month, launches a national video magazine called Video Action: “A lot of people have jumped on the video bandwagon only to find it has no wheels” .

The fa ct is, hom e video is a technological advance that Australia hasn't quite worked out what to do with.

The cost of the equipment makes home video strictly a luxury item for most households, and the available software — pre-recorded tapes — is not any dif­ ferent to that already readily available In cinemas or on television.

Coup for Gyngell

China Buying “ The Chinese want specials and series with an element of crisis,” says f o r m e r g e n e r a l m a n a g e r of Melbourne’s Channel 10, Max Stuart, who has been made an official buyer of television programs for China.

According to Stuart, the most pop­ ular television show in Peking is the American fantasy series Man from Atlantis. They also like documentaries, and recently bought a Sherlock Holmes series.

Stuart was invited to China earlier this year and hoped to sell programs to the Chinese. But on arrival he was handed a list of television and film programs that the Government wanted to buy.

At th is stage, C h in a ’s buying program is limited because in Peking, for example, the city’s two channels are on air only three hours a day — and one

Brisbane’s Channel 9 is making in­ roads into the South-East Asian market w ith sales o f lo c a lly -p ro d u c e d programs to Malaysia and Hong Kong.

It has sold 45 e p iso de s of a children’s program, titled It’s Now, to= Malaysia, and several 60-m inute s p e c ia ls have fo u n d b u y e rs in Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand. A major factor in the sales is the low cost of the programs.

Naturally, the more markets that become available to locally-produced programs, the cheaper they can be sold, which then opens up even more markets.

Geoff Raymond.

ABC News Deal The ABC has signed a deal with an American public broadcasting network for the exchange of news and current a ffa irs m a te ria l. The deal was negotiated by Ed Baum eister of WGBH-TV in Boston, which produces the nationally-telecast News at Ten for subscriber television.

(Unlike cable television, subscriber television is telecast by satellite via a scrambled signal which is unscrambled by a device fitted to television sets.)

The deal was motivated by the Americans’ desire for better coverage of the South-East Asian region.

Former Broadcasting Tribunal chair­ man Bruce Gyngell has engineered a television sports coup that has left commercial stations and the ABC red­ faced and flat-footed.

Gyngell has secured rights to a number of major world soccer events for the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Service, of which he is chairman designate. The telecast will begin in October on Australia’s fifth sta­ tion Channel 0, which opens in Sydney and Melbourne on United Nations day, October 24.

Included in the deal is coverage of the European Cup series, the national Philips Soccer League matches, the British F.A. Cup Final, European, South American and American league games and possible joint coverage with the ABC of the World Cup in Spain, in 1982.

This extensive coverage of soccer is expected to gain the IMBC a large audience, and not only among ethnic groups.

Concluded on P. 391 Cinema Papers, October-November — 349

RON

CASE Y

TELEVISING THE OLYM PICS

Ron Casey, general manager of HSV-7 M elbourne, talks to Scott M urray about the Seven N etw ork’s coverage of the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

When did the Seven Network get the telecast rights to the 1980 Olympic Games?

We signed the contract in the last w eek of A p ril, 1977, b u t negotiations had been going on for about two months. Originally it was going to be a pool arrangement, w ith a c o m b in a tio n of the commercial stations and the ABC. This was the way the Olympics had been covered in the past, even at Munich when there were only two stations in the pool (the ABC and the Seven Network).

There was, in fact, a meeting where the networks agreed that, with the 'ABC, there would be a pool coverage of Moscow. Shortly afterwards, I learned there was a network already negotiating in Moscow. So, we approached the Russians and asked them to discuss any negotiations with us — which they did.

• Was it a bid situation, or was there a price to be met?

We made them a proposition, v which they considered for some time. I don’t know whether it was a bid situation, or what the other net­ works did. The Russians never referred any of those negotiations to us.

Did Seven’s affiliated stations throughout Australia automatically become part of the deal?

Yes. When you have a major program, like the Olympics, it is usual to offer it to them.

Also on the same telecast were the five members of the Arab Broad­ casting Union . . .

T hat was because of con­ venience in using the Indian Ocean satellite, which they can pick up from their ground stations. They took all the Australian material from us, and also a little football material of their own. They used our commentary in most situations, and their own in others.

Before the Olympics, what was Seven’s position regarding the political opposition to Australia’s participation?

In a word, difficult.

RON CASEY

Were you confident that the fairness in the judging by Soviet offi­ situation would be resolved in the cials. That is not a comment that athletes’ favor? would be made at all Olympic Games . . .

■ No, because you never know how these sorts of things will go. It I can’t recall saying that speci­ would be impossible to estimate the fically towards the Soviet judges, amount of pressure on the members but there have always been of the Olympic Federation. As it problems with judging in the turned out, there was only a one- Olympics. This is particularly true vote difference. with sports like diving, gymnastics and boxing where you have Was there also pressure on the international panels. station?

One can go back to 1960 and Rocky Gatellari, the Australian There was some persuasion, yes. boxer, who got a terrible decision in the quarter final. And the guy who How did the affiliated stations react got the decision went on to win the to the situation? gold medal.

Each station made an individual decision. There was no contractual How do you rate Moscow in terms situation with any of them. of controversial decisions?

If anything, there were probably less than at Montreal. Still, some of the decisions, especially in the boxing, were unbelievable. There Probably, but not with the same was also the dust-up at the finish of scope. What was overlooked in the gymnastics and the diving, and most of the stuff said about us was there were the situations where that we had a contract, not only there were only Soviet referees, like with the organizing committee in on the triple jump. But there is Moscow, but with the In ter­ nothing special or unusual about national Olympic Committee. And that; it happens at every Olympics.

So, if I said something along quite apart from the financial stipulations of that contract, there those lines during the opening was a requirement for us to televise night, it probably reflected the the Games. As it was, we televised tenseness in the period leading up to for considerably fewer hours than the Games. It would have only we had originally planned because taken some serious malfunction, or a serious error by a judging panel, of a lack of commercial support. to set the whole thing in a very, very Had there been no problems, how bad atmosphere. As it turned out, it many hours would have been didn’t happen. telecast?

Were you surprised by the amount About twice as many. We would of coverage given to the dubious have extended the evening telecast, decisions in the Australian Press? and probably doubled the early morning ones. < .

Yes. < Was there a minimum commit­ What is your personal feeling about ment, in terms of hours, in the intermingling politics with sport? contract?

Had the athletes not been allowed to go, would the telecast haye gone ahead?

No. So, I don’t know how much we would have shown if Australia had not gone. Fortunately, we didn’t have to make that decision.

It is in te re s tin g th a t the Japanese, who had no athletes at Moscow, actually televised five more hours than we did. We took 47 people and they took 72.

Given the division of feeling within the Australian community, was there also dissension among your crew?

No. Most of them were broad­ casters who were just interested in broadcasting the event. From a policy point of view, all we wanted was to present the Olympics as the O lym pics, with no overtone comment. By letting the public see them as they were, people could make up their minds.

The only exception to that would be the opening night’s commentary, when you expressed some hopes for

I think it is a tragedy that political influences have become involved in sport. But it would be foolish to say that it is possible to keep them apart — you just can’t.

Some countries stayed away from the Melbourne Olympics in 1956 because of the Suez C anal problems and others because of the Soviet presence in Hungary. It happened in Montreal because New Zealand had played football with South Africa — all the African nations stayed away. There is even a possibility that the Africans may stay away from the Common­ wealth Games in Brisbane, which would be a tragedy. But if countries want to take that attitude, you can’t stop them.

I think Lord Killanin’s attitude was the right one. He led the Olympic movement through its most serious crisis, on a very simple philosophy: the Olympic Games are awarded to a city and athletes are invited to be there. There is no com­ pulsion on anyone to attend.

The signing of the agreement in Moscow. Ron Casey, general manager of HSV-7 Melbourne (front left), and Ted Thomas, general manager of ATN-7 Sydney (front right).

How do you think the public’s com­ prehension of politics and sport has changed since the Games?

gested that Channel Seven’s buying program would be cut back because of the cost. Is that true?

I don’t know. I have only been back a short time, and haven’t had an opportunity to gauge public reaction. But by reading the thousands of letters we have received, I think the public accept the fact that it might have been a lot of political talking for no real purpose. People were half expecting to see a huge propaganda exercise and were pleasantly surprised to see there wasn’t.

Such a propaganda exercise, inci­ dentally, would have been very difficult to achieve because the charter of the Olympic movement is very strict. You can’t, for instance, do much with a 100 metres race. You are inside a stadium, you have a running track, a crowd and eight finalists. It’s a bit hard to make a political exercise out of that.

No, there is no evidence to support that.

How successful was Seven’s cov­ erage of the Games?

In terms of public acceptance and the pleasure it gave a lot of people, I think we can feel more than satisfied.

Given the disappointing amount of revenue, how expensive an exercise was it for Seven?

Expensive.

Does Channel Seven view making a loss as ultimately worthwhile in promoting the image of a sportsorientated station?

With hindsight yes, because people did watch, accept and enjoy the Games. But we weren’t too certain of that when we went into it.

We were stepping into an unknown area, where the results, and the public reception, were completely unknown.

What is the position regarding broadcast rights for the next Olympic Games?

We haven’t thought about that yet. It’s four years away. We will wait and see.

Turning to more technical aspects, what were you given in the way of facilities at Moscow?

We had a three-camera studio and a control room to operate that studio. Then there was a technical area, with videotape machines and three offices adjacent to our production area. We took our own EG equipment: two crews and two units.

One writer in ‘TV Week’ sug­

Cinema Papers, October-November — 351

LAST OUTLAW A sketch of the making of the Pegasus-Seven Network mini-series, by Ian Jones, who, with Bronwyn Binns, was co-writer and joint executive producer.

•H

In the vocabulary of film, epic is a danger­ ous and often misused word. But, filming the life of Ned Kelly, you confront a story which has, literally, epic qualities.

The huge, logistical problems posed by an accurate reconstruction of the 1870s become a secondary consideration. You are dealing with a subject that has gripped the Australian imagination in a unique way for exactly a century. The challenge is to bring Ned Kelly to life as a normally complex human being without losing all objectivity; to achieve an intimate portrait without trivializing the conflicts which shaped the fate of this remarkable man.

Apart from the manifold traps in portray­ ing Kelly’s character, the pure scale of the story has always presented a problem.

Dramatic treatments have tended to fall between the stools of incident and character* simply because 90-odd minutes isn’t enough time to cover the essential events, and adequately handle the huge gallery of people who played significant roles. It’s hardly co­ incidental that the Kelly story prompted the world’s first full-length feature film.

In the past, the solutions have been to combine characters, places, even incidents, to reduce the complexities of character and plot, or to concentrate on only a part of the story.

Left: John Jarratt as Ned Kelly.

THE LAST OUTLAW

Bronwyn Binns and Ian Jones adjust Jarratt’s armour costume.

Douglas Stewart made a good fist of it in his verse play Ned Kelly — covering only the Jerilderie Robbery, the death of Aaron Sherritt, and the Glenrowan finale.

Twenty-odd years ago, Tim Burstall’s projected Man in Iron feature was based solely on the events of Glenrowan.

Bronwyn Binns and I, had worked on Tony Richardson’s Ned Kelly (without ever getting to meet each other) and were acutely aware of the scale problem — one of the rocks on which Tony’s project scraped its bottom. ' To us, the television mini-series offered the perfect medium for the Kelly saga, effect­ ively breaking the initial time barrier and providing the chance to tell the story without compromise on historical and dramatic levels.

We had just completed Against the Wind and used this budgeting and logistical yardstick to estimate that a Kelly series would cost roughly twice as much an hour. .

This estimate was based on a much bigger cast, substantially more set and location construction, many more horses and other livestock, and a wide range of locations. And, of course, inflation.

Without doing any detailed sums, we fastened on an eight-hour format — a realistic length in terms of dramatic content and possible budget.

That was February, 1979. As we cleared the decks after Against the Wind and began our run-up for The Last Outlaw, Pegasus Productions comprised two people Bronwyn and myself. Ideally, the series would be on air in 1980 — the Kelly centenary year.

Allowing 10 days shooting an hour, plus realistic post-production turnaround, this meant that production would have to start no later than February, 1980, with some pre­ production in September or October only seven months away.

Obviously, scripts wouldn’t be finished by this date, so we had to face the discipline of detailed pre-planning, making precise scene breakdowns of every episode, which would include all sets, characters, extras, livestock and major props.

Early in the year we recruited our producer, Roger le M esurier (then completing production of a spectacular New

Lewis Fitz-Gerald as Tom Lloyd: at the bush forge, making . the Kelly Gang’s armour.

Zealand series, Children of Fire Mountain and associate producer, Tom Binns, who had been production manager on Against the Wind. Tom and Roger worked from our breakdowns while we progressed the scripts.

Art director Leslie Binns and wardrobe designer Jane Hyland joined us in SeptemberOctober, starting on an exhaustive research and discussion program based on our break-

Director George Miller holds a pistol for cameraman Ernest Clark for a point-of-view shot, assisted by focus puller Harry Glynatsis (centre) and grip David Cassar (right).

Cinema Papers, October-November — 353

THE LAST OUTLAW

downs and scripts as they came to hand.

As budgeting advanced, we took time off writing and conferences to survey locations close to Melbourne. At this stage, our production concept was basically that of Against the Wind — an initial shoot of perhaps a week on distant locations, then into a home base studio where interior sets would be erected, with most exteriors being shot in episode sequence on locations within 50 km of Melbourne.

The concept entailed some compromises in terms of authenticity and creative integ­ rity. But, economically, there seemed no alternative.

The location surveys were discouraging.

We all knew the look we wanted. And we weren’t finding it. After an unsuccessful trip around the M aced on-W oodend area, Bronwyn, Les Binns and I decided that we’d have to push out further — to the BroadfordSeymour district 100 km from Melbourne — and cope with the travel problem as best we could.

That same week, Tom Binns began talks with the Seymour Shire Council and reported that he felt they would be enthusiastic supporters of a television series being filmed in their area. And the ball was rolling . . .

In an almost bewildering series of develop­ ments, we visited Seymour, met Shire officers and also gained the enthusiasm and support of the Australian Army’s District Support Group based at nearby Puckapunyal.

Between them, the Shire and the Army could help solve many of our problems and suddenly, the all-but-fantastic idea of shooting the series on a location 100 km from Melbourne, was becoming a possibility.

It would mean accommodating and feeding a cast and crew of nearly 60 for the fourmonth schedule, and setting up complete post-production facilities on location. But apart from free access to superb exterior locations, it would give us the chance to shoot virtually all our interiors in the actual buildings — a huge creative bonus.

We leased a two-storey barracks complex from the Commonwealth for accommod­ ation and catering, rented a factory for office space, wet-weather-cover studio, wardrobe, and post-production, leased a huge Army warehouse as a props store, and found perfect key locations' on the handsome, 800 ha property of local grazier, Bernie O’Sullivan,

354

_ Cinema Papers, October-November

only six kilometres from our barracks base.

Here, we planned to build our town complex (a dazzling composite of the seven towns we needed as backgrounds for our series), the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Kelly homesteads, the Byrne and Sherritt huts, and the Glenrowan Inn. The valley of the Goulburn, the Tallarook Ranges, and the Mount Disappointment State Forest would provide our other major locations.

While all these plans were being laid, we were advancing crewing with Tom and casting with Roger. And, of course, writing.

Our two directors, George Miller and Kevin Dobson, were joining the fold. George had been a very early appointment, initially to direct all eight hours. But, as he realized the scale of the project, he suggested that a second director should take two hours off his plate. The choice of Kevin Dobson was unanimous.

Eventually, in the course of production, Kevin directed another two hours, so that he and Miller ended up sharing the load equally.

The contract for the series was negotiated with the Seven Network in the positive and enthusiastic atmosphere that had character­ ized our dealings on Against the Wind. When we had to set a sale price of more than $1 million, they didn’t quibble. We realized we were on the limit that an Australian network could afford, yet we also knew we could bring in our new concept series at this price only with incredibly tight control and a degree of luck.

A- production office was rented from Channel Seven while pre-production was advanced, beginning with the renovation and re-instatement of the barracks building and amenities, then moving on to the cutting of bark and bush timber needed for our set construction.

Horsemaster John Baird started buying mounts for the Kelly Gang and gathering saddlery. Props, firearms, and set dressings were hunted down and bought, borrowed, or hired.

By January 1980, props were starting to fill our Seymour warehouse, wardrobe was packing up along racks in a temporary home at the Viaduct Theatre, construction had begun on the old Kelly homestead, and the cross streets of our town were laid out and graded. As bricklayers were starting on the

Kelly (John Jarratt) about the get his revenge on Wild Wright (David Bradshaw).

nucleus of the town, the last script was completed.

At the beginning of February, we flew the • Kelly Gang and a crew to Forbes in central New South Wales, for two days’ shooting at thevLachlan Vintage Village. This gave us the plains terrain we needed for our Jerilderie scenes — to be integrated with the main street of 1879 Jerilderie, which was being built at Seymour.

The following week, the Gang worked with dialogue coach Frank Gallacher and got to know their horses. Then, on February 8, we packed up in Melbourne and moved to Seymour.

On February 11, we started filming and began an intensely exhilarating, although at times depressing, four months. It seemed to drag on for years, yet passed too quickly.

A few people were totally dedicated to the project, most worked well, the apparently inevitable handful of ego-trippers and mal­ contents played their usual roles.

A hot, almost cloudless, and rainless summer gave way to a long and magnificent autumn which dissolved into an increasingly misty and moody winter — an almost madeto-order range of weather conditions for the phases of our story, superbly handled by lighting cameraman Ernest Clark.

We finished shooting 10 days over schedule and substantially over selling price. We then settled down for a month’s post-production at Seymour as editor Phil Reid finished the film.

At this stage we wrapped up in Seymour and moved back to Melbourne for sound editors Terry Rodman and Glenn M artin to complete their work.

As I write this, we are waiting for the last answer print from Atlab; the last sound mix has just been completed by David Harrison, working at the Crawford mixing suite. Brian May has composed, arranged, and conducted a stunning score, recorded by Roger Savage at AAV. The Kelly town has been demolished, the Army has moved into the barracks, the factory has been sold, the props are scattered, the wardrobe is literally in mothballs.

Pegasus Productions is back to square one — two people.

It’s been one hell of a 20 months. But if we have told the Kelly story as it deserves to be told, then it’s been worth it. ★

2 nd u n it p h o to g ra p h y ..............H a ro ld H o ch C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ......... G u n n a rs J u rg e n s G a f f e r ........................................... S te w a rt S o rb y M a k e -u p ......................

J u rg e n Z ie lin s k i E le c tr ic ia n ...................................... C ra ig B ry a n t H a ir d r e s s e r ..................................................J u rg e n Z ie lin s k i B o o m o p e ra to r ......................B ru c e L a m s h e d W a rd ro b e ......................................... B e tty J a c k s A sst a rt d ire c to r ........................P e te r K e n d a ll P r o p s ...................................................................C a rl M ille r, C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r .................... J a n e H yia n d N e il W ils o n M a k e -u p ..................................... K irs te n V e yse y M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y G e o rg e D re y fu s a nd H a ir d r e s s e r .................................................... F io n a C a m p b e ll th e W e s t A u s t. S y m p h o n y W a rd , a s s is t a n t ................................................ P at M u rp h y O rc h e s tra S ta n d b y p r o p s ...........................................R o b e rt S te e Ml ix e r ............................................ J o h n n y P a rk e r S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ..............................................G e o ff M u rp N ah yr r a t o r ................................. J o h n H ig g in s o n C o n s tru c tio n s u p e rv is o r .................. Ian D o ig S till p h o t o g r a p h y ............... R ic h a rd D u rh a m , A s s t e d ito r ......................................K en S a llo w s M u rra y C a se GREEN HILL Neg. m a t c h i n g .............................................. A tla b C a rt: R o w e n a W a lla c e (D ia n a V o n F lu g el), P ro d , c o m p a n y ................................ B a la n tra e S o u n d e d ito r .............................T e rry R o d m a n T o n y B o n n e r (R u s s e li L o c k w o o d ), L a rry E d itin g a s s is ta n t ....................... R o b e rt G ra n t P r o d u c e r s ............................................ S u e P rio r, H e ld (W o lfie V o n F lu g e l), S ig rid T h o rn to n M ix e r ............................................D a vid H a rris o n T e d P rio r ( A n t h e a L a n g t o n ) , S u s a n n a h F o w le D ia lo g u e c o a c h ........................................... F ra n k G a lla r ia L a n g to n ) , J a c k ie W o o d b u r n e (Ccyhneth S c r ip t w r it e r s ........................................S u e P rio r, M a s te r o f h o r s e ............................................ J o h n B a ird .

T e d P rio r f jo s ie V o n F lu g e l), V a l L e h m a n (M rs M o n P u b lic ity ................................................C h a n n e l 7 S tu d io d ir e c t o r .............................A lis te r S m a rt ta u b y n ) , L e w is F itz G e r a ld (C a p t. J o h n P ro d , a s s is ta n t.................................................S u e P rioCr a t e r in g ....................................C a te rin g C a p e rs W y c k h a m ), F ra n k T h rin g ( A rth u r L a n g to n ), L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b A n im a tio n ..............................................T e d P rio r Ilo n a R o d g e rs (M is s M a rc ia R o c k in g h a m ).

S e t d e s ig n .......................................................... T e d P rioLre n g th ................................................4 x 90 m in s Synopsis: A lig h t- h e a rte d lo o k a t M e l­ G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S e t c o n s tru c tio n ................................ Ted P rio r b o u rn e s o c ie ty in th e y e a r le a d in g u p to S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r M u s i c ....................................... A la n M cF a d d e n W o rld W a r I. P ro g re s s ................................. A w a itin g re le a s e S tu d io s ....................................N B N C h a n n e l 3, N e w ca stle S c h e d u le d re le a s e ......................... L a te 1980 PUNISHMENT L e n g th ...........................................13 x 25 m in s C a rt: J o h n 'J a rra tt (N e d K elly), E la in C u s ic k P ro g re s s .............................................In re le a se (M rs K elly), S te ve B is le y (Jo e B y rn e ), J o h n P ro d , c o m p a n y .T h e G ru n d y O rg a n iz a tio n C a st: J o h n H a m b lin , J u lie M c G re g o r , Ley (D an K elly), L e w is F itz G e ra ld (T o m D ist. c o m p a n y ..............C h a n n e l 10, S y d n e y L lo yd ), P e te r H e h ir (A a ro n S h e rritt), R ic J o n a th a n B ig g in s , S te p h e n C la rk , S te p h e n P r o d u c e r ........................................................ B ru c e B est H e rb e r t (S te v e H a rt), D e b ra L a w r a n c e A b b o tt, Su C ru ik s h a n k , J a m e s B e n n e t.

D ir e c t o r .........................................J u lia n P rin g le (M a g g ie K elly), S ig rid T h o rn to n (K a te K elly), Synopaia: A c h ild re n 's se rie s, c o n s is tin g 6f B ase d on th e o rig in a l T im E lio tt (S tee le ). c o m e d y sk e tc h e s , a n im a tio n a nd m u s ic , all id e a b y ............................................................P eg W a tso n S y n o p s is : T h e s to ry o f Ned K elly. o c c u rrin g on th e h a lf-re a l, h a lf-fa n ta s y S o u n d re c o rd is t .....................L lo y d C o le m a n “ G re e n H ill” .

E d i t o r ..................................................F ra y n e D yke P ro d , d e s ig n e r ................................ D a rre ll Lass OUTBREAK OF LOVE P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ......................... M ic h a e l L a ke THE LAST OUTLAW P ro d , c o m p a n y ........... A B C D ra m a 1 U n it, P ro d, c o -o rd in a to r ..................C a ro l W illia m s M e lb o u rn e P ro d , m a n a g e r ............................ T e d J o b b in s P ro d , c o m p a n y . P e g a su s P ro d u c tio n s fo r P r o d u c e r / d lr e c t o r ................O sca r W h itb re a d P ro d , s e c r e t a r y ............................................ C a ro l W illia m s th e S eve n N e tw o rk S c r ip t w r it e r ...........................

H o w a rd G riffith s 1st a sst d ir e c to r ................E d d ie P ry la n s k y P r o d u c e r ........................... R o g e r Le M e s u rie r B ase d on th e n o ve l .

C o n tin u ity .......................................A n th e a Dean D ire c to rs ...................................... G e o rg e M ille r, b y .................................................. M a rtin B oyd K ey g r i p ................................................B o b S h o rt K evin D o b s o n S o u n d re c o rd is ts .....................Ian B a tte rs b y , G a f f e r ................................................ D e re k J o n e s S c r ip t w r it e r s ..............................B ro n w y n B in n s N e v ille K elly, B o o m o p e ra to r ......................... A n d y D u n ca n Ian J o n e s D a vid R e d c liffe M a k e -u p ..........................................L lo y d J a m e s P h o to g r a p h y ................................................ E rn e st C la rk V id e o ta p e e d i t o r ......... M a ria n n e P ro d m o re W a rd ro b e ......................................... R u th M u n ro S o u n d re c o rd is t ........................ L lo yd C a rric k P ro d, d e s ig n e r s ........................P aul C le v e la n d , P r o p s ..................................................... D o ug K e lly E d i t o r ............................................................... P h ilip Read G u n n a rs J u rja n s , P ro p s b u y e r ................................ M a rtin O 'N e ill P ro d , d e s ig n e r ............................................... Les B in n s R o b W a lte rs P u b lic ity ............................F e lic ity G o s c o m b e C o m p o s e r ............................ Ivan H u tc h in s o n T e ch, p ro d u c e r ............................N o el Q u irk C a t e r in g ..................................................V ic k i R oss E xec, p ro d u c e rs ............................. Ian Jo n e s, L ig h tin g s u p e r v is o r ......... P e te r S lm o n d s o n S tu d io s ........................................................ C h a n n e l 10 B ro n w y n B in n s P ro d , m a n a g e r ...................... F ra n k B ro w n L e n g th ........................................... 26 x 60 m in s A sso c, p ro d u c e r ............................. T o m B in n s P ro d , s e c r e t a r y ......................B a rb a ra H e w itt G a u g e .................................................V id e o T a p e U n it m a n a g e r ....................................P. J. J o n e s P ro d , a s s is ta n t..............J o A n n e M c L e n n a n P ro g re s s ..................................... P re -p ro d u c tio n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............................. T ris h Fo le y 1st asst d ire c to r ..................J a m e s O a s tle r, S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. J a n u a ry , 1981 P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .........................P h ilip C o rr G le n d a B yrn e Cast: B a rry C ro c k e r, M ik e P re s to n , A n n e A c c o u n ts a s s is ta n t . . . L e s le ig h S im m o n d s 2 nd asst d ir e c t o r ........... J a m e s L lp s c o m b e , H a d d e y, M ic h a e l S m ith , K ris M c Q u a d e , 1st a sst d ire c to rs ......................... M a rk P ip e r, P e te r T ro fim o u s R o b in S te w a rt.

M u rra y N e w e y C o n tin u ity .........................J o A n n e M c L ennan Synopsis: A s tu d y o f th e live s o f in m a te s 2 n d a sst d ir e c t o r ..............P h ilip H e a rn s h a w S c rip t a s s is ta n t ........... J o A n n e M c L e n n a n a n d w a rd e rs a t a la rg e c o u n try p ris o n .

3 rd a sst d ire c to r .................L o u is e J o h n s o n C a s tin g ..................................

T o n i W a d d ln g to n C o n t in u it y ........................................................J u lie B ate s S e n io r c a m e r a m e n .......... R o g e r M c A lp in e , C a stin g c o n s u lta n ts . . . M itc h C o n s u lta n c y J o h n T u ttle SECRET VALLEY Fo cus p u l l e r ........................... H a rry G ly n a ts ls K ey g r i p .........................................S te ve Z o ric ic C la p p e r/lo a d e r ......................... W a rw ic k Field G a f f e r ...............................................J o e M iszta l K ey g r i p ........................................................... D a vid C a s s a r oo m o p e ra to rs .................. H a rry H a rris o n , P ro d , c o m p a n y ........ G ru n d y O rg a n iz a tio n A sst g r i p ........................................................J a m ie L e cB k ie E rn ie E v e re tt D ist. c o m p a n y .......... G ru n d y O rg a n iz a tio n

CORAL ISLAND

FEATU R ES

A SHOE FROM YOUR HOMELAND

(Greek Language) P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................A A V -A u s tra lia P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y ............S p e c ia l B ro a d c a s tin g S e rv ic e P r o d u c e r ................................................J ill R o b b D i r e c t o r ......................................P e te r B e n a rd o s B a se d o n th e p la y b y .............................................. N. T s ifo ro s and P. V a s s illia d is P h o t o g r a p h y .................................. B a rry C ro ss, P h illip B o w le r, Jo e B a tta g lia S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................... Rod K o e ts v e ld E d i t o r .......................................................J o h n C a d d P ro d , d e s ig n e r .......................Ian M a c P h e rs o n E xec, p ro d u c e r ........................... E ric F u llilo v e P ro d , m a n a g e r ......................... R ay H e n n e ssy P ro d , s e c re ta ry ................................C h ris H e rd P ro d , a s s is t a n t .........................S a lly S e m m e n s 1 st a s s t d ir e c to r .......................R ay H e n n e ssy C o n tin u ity ........................................A n n e D u tto n P ro d u c e r 's a s s is ta n t........................ C h ris H e rd K e y g r i p ........................................... G re g N e lso n B o o m o p e ra to rs .....................B ru c e F in d la y, D a vid H a rris o n A rt d ir e c t o r ...............................Ian M a c P h e rs o n M a k e -u p ..........................M a rily n C u n n in g to n , Jo a n P etch W a rd ro b e .......................................C la re G riffin S e t d ir e c to r ........................... Ian M a c P h e rs o n S e t c o n s tru c tio n ...................... K a rl S lo tb o o m M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y ----- G e o rg e Z a b e ta s S o u n d e d ito r .............................Rod K o e ts v e ld S till p h o t o g r a p h y .......................D a vid P a rk e r C a t e r in g ..................................................... T ro tte r's S tu d io s ................ A A V -A u s tra lia (S tu d io D) M ix e d a t ....................................... A A V -A u s tra lia L e n g th ........................................................ 70 m in s S h o t .....................................................................VTR P ro g re s s .................... A w a itin g tra n s m is s io n Cast: J o h n C h ris o u lis (T o n y), A m a lia V a s­ s illia d is (T o u la ), D e n n is D ra g o n a s (J o h n n y ), H a rry P ro to p s a ltis (G iu s s e p p e ), M a ry H o rti.

(B ia n c a ), L ilik a M o ra itis (R en e), Eva Y ia n n i (A rg y ro ), P au l L o u p is (P o ly c ra te s ), Liah T s ilfid is (H e le n ), D im itris K a ts o u lis (B a m ­ b is), M o u rik is E va g e lo s (L a kls).

Synopsis: A c o n te m p o ra ry c o m e d y a b o u t a G re e k fa m ily in A u s tra lia . To be te le v iz e d in th e G re e k la n g u a g e .

SER IES

THE AUSTRALIANS P ro d , c o m p a n ie s . P e te r L u c k P ro d u c tio n s a n d H a n n a -B a rb e ra D ist. c o m p a n y .......................S eve n N e tw o rk P r o d u c e r .........................................D a vid S a lte r D ire c to rs .........................................C u rtis Levy, D a vid R o b e rts, K e rry O B ria n , B ill B e n n e tt S o u n d re c o rd is ts .................... B o b C la yto n , R o b S ta ld e r, G e o rg e W eis, R o la n d M c M a n is E d i t o r ...........................................Ian M a c A rth u r S up . e d i t o r ................................M ic k C h irg w in E xec, p ro d u c e r ............................. P e te r L u c k A ss o c , p r o d u c e r ..................... D o u g P a te rs o n P ro d , m a n a g e r .......................C a th y F la n n e ry P ro d , s e c re ta ry .........................L in d e ll A rn o tt P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ................G e o rg e S p itz e r C a m e ra o p e ra to rs ............... T o n y W ilso n , P au l T a it, R ich a rd M ic h a la k , C h ris H ill C a m e ra a s s is ta n ts ...................P e te r M o rto n , T o n y G ailey, S te ve D o b so n , P au l G ia s s e tti S o u n d e d ito r ..................................L es F id d e ss E d itin g a s s is ta n ts ................... C la ire O ’B rie n , C h ris M cC a u l L a b o ra to ry .....................................................A tla b L e n g th .................. 30 a nd 60 m in s e p is o d e s G a u g e ............................................................1 6m m S h o o tin g s t o c k s ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r, F u ji c o lo r P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e ............E arly, 1981

BELLAMY

P ro d , c o m p a n y ........ G ru n d y O rg a n iz a tio n D ist. c o m p a n y .......... C h a n n e l 10, S y d n e y P ro d u c e r .......................................... D on B a ttye D ire c to r .........................................G a ry C o n w a y S c rip tw rite r .................................. Ron M c L e a n B ase d o n th e o rig in a l id e a b y .................................................. Ron M c L e a n D ir. o f p h o to g ra p h y .................... K evin L in d S o u n d re c o rd is t ............................R o ss L in to n E d ito r .......................................... T im W e llb u rn P ro d , d e s ig n e r .................... O w e n P a tte rs o n P ro d , s u p e rv is o r ...................... M ic h a e l Lake THE THREE SEA-WOLVES P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ..............................Ja n Lee P ro d , m a n a g e r ..................................D a vid Lee U n it m a n a g e r .............................. D a le A rth u r P ro d , c o m p a n y ....................... A A V -A u s tra lia P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ...................... R o y L e e m a n P ro d u c tio n s 1st a sst d ire c to r .................. Ross H a m ilto n D ist. c o m p a n y ..........S p e c ia l B ro a d c a s tin g 2 nd a s s t d ire c to r ..............G ra h a m e M u rra y S e rv ic e 3 rd a s s t d ire c to r .................... S te p h e n O tto n P r o d u c e r ................................................J ill R o b b C o n tin u ity ............................................L in d a Ray D i r e c t o r .................................... P e te r B e n a rd o s L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n .................. K evin L ind B a se d o n th e p la y F o cu s p u lle r ........................... J e re m y R o b in s b y .......................................... B. S p y ro p o u lo s , C la p p e r/lo a d e r ............................T ra c y K u b le r G. A s im a k o p o u lo s t K ey g rip ....................................P au l T h o m p s o n P. P a p a d o u k a s G a ffe r ................................................ P au l M o ye s P h o t o g r a p h y ..............................P h illip B o w le r, E le c tric ia n .................................... P e te r M o ye s B o b M a rsh , B o o m o p e ra to r ............................D ean G aw en J o e B a tta g lia A rt d ire c to r ........................... O w en P a tte rs o n S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................Rod K o e ts v e ld A sst E d i t o r ...............................................................P h illip C o llin s a rt d ire c to r ........................ P eta L aw so n M a k e -u p ..................................... M ic h e lle Low e P ro d , d e s ig n e r ........................ Ian M a c P h e rs o n W a rd ro b e ...................................... E die K u rz e r C o m p o s e r .................. S a vva s C h rls to d o u lo u W a rd , a s s is ta n t ....................... R o salea H o od E xec, p ro d u c e r ........................ E ric F u llilo v e P ro p s ......................................... N ick M c C a llu m P ro d , m a n a g e r ......................... Ray H e n n e ssy S o u n d e d ito r ................................ D ean G aw en P ro d , s e c re ta ry ................................C h ris H e rd M ix e r ............................................ Les M c K e n z ie P ro d , a s s is t a n t .................................. C h ris H e rd S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ....................M a x A s p in 1st a s s t d ire c to r .......................R ay H e n n e ssy On p tic a ls ..............................C o lo rfilm /V id e o la b C o n t in u it y , ....................................................... A n n e D u tto P u b lic ity .............................. F e lic ity G o s c o m b e K e y g r i p s ................................P au l A m m itz b o l, C a te rin g ..............................................Ray F o w le r H u g h M a c la re n M ix e d at .................................................V id e o la b B o o m o p e ra to rs .......................... P e te r Evans, L a b o ra to rie s .................. ..........C o lo rfilm a nd D a vid H a rris o n V id e o la b A rt d i r e c t o r ............................... Ian M a c P h e rs o n Lab. lia is o n ................................. P e te r B o w la y M a k e -u p ..........................M a rily n C u n n in g to n , G a u g e ......................................1 6 m m /v id e o ta p e Jo a n P etch S h o o tin g s to c k .......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r W a rd ro b e ........................................ C la re G riffin C allst: J o h n S ta n to n (B e lla m y ), T im E lston P r o p s ................................................................... C liff K e lsa (M itc h e ll) . S a lly C o n a b e r e ( ja n e ) , T e x S e t c o n s tru c tio n .............

K a rl S lo tb o o m M o rto n (D a le y), J o h n K ru m m e l (G e o rg e ), S o u n d e d ito r .............................R od K o e ts v e ld S till p h o t o g r a p h y ......................................... G e o ff B u sJo b yh n H a m b lin (J o h n s o n ), A d a m G a rn e tt (G in g e r), B ria n Y o u n g (C le m ).

T e c h , d ire c to rs .............. R ic h a rd B e rrim a n , S y n o p s is : A p o lic e a c tio n s e rie s c e n tre d R on S p o rn a ro u n d th e a c tiv itie s o f D e te c tiv e S te ve R unner ................................N ick H a rris o n B e lla m y , film e d p rim a rily in th e in n e r c ity C a t e r in g ......................................................T ro tte r's a re a s o f S yd n e y.

S t u d io s ......................... S tu d io A A V -A u s tra lia M ix e d a t ....................................... A A V -A u s tra lia L e n g th ........................................................ 80 m in s S h o t ..................................................................... VTR BILLABONG P ro g re s s .....................A w a itin g tra n s m is s io n Cast: C h a n ta l C o n to u rl (L a u ra F io re ), A le x P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................M ic h a e l E d g le y T a ife r (N ic h o la s ), C o n B a b a n io tis (M a n o lis ), In te rn a tio n a l L iah T s ilfid is (L isa ), G e o rg e M a n is (S p iro s ), P r o d u c e r ......................................S im o n W in c e r R e n ie P a p p a s (E v a n th ia ), L ilik a M o ra itis S c r ip t w r it e r .......................E le a n o r W itc o m b e ( J u lia ) , N ic k S k ia d o p o u lo s ( C a p t a in B a se d o n th e n o ve l P a n a g is ) , H a r r y S h i a m a r i s ( C a p t a in b y ..................................... M a ry G ra n t B ru c e M e m a s ), O s v a ld o M a io n e (G iu s e p p e ), S a k is E xec, p ro d u c e r .......................M ic h a e l E d g le y F id o g la n n ia (M ic h a e l), R o sa lie L e o n a rd o s L e n g th ................................................8 x 60 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m (V a n g e lio ).

Synopsis: A c o n t e m p o r a r y c o m e d y in S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n G re e k .

S c h e d u le d re le a s e ...................................... 1982 Synopaia: A fa m ily -o rie n ta te d d ra m a se rie s b a se d on th e B illa b o n g b o o k s b y M a ry G ra n t B ru c e .

(Greek language)

P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . A B C -T V A u s t.-T h a m e s T V (L o n d o n ) P r o d u c e r ........................................ G e o ff D a niel S c r ip t w r it e r .................... J a m e s A n d re w -H a ll L e n g th ...........................................10 x 30 m in s P ro g re s s .....................................P re -p ro d u c tio n (s h o o tin g M a y, 1981) Synopaia: B ase d on R. M . B a lla n ty n e ’s n o ve l o f th e s a m e n am e.

Cinema Papers, October-November — 355

THE TIMELESS LAND P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................................... A B C D ist. c o m p a n y ..............................................A B C P r o d u c e r ........................................... Ray A le h in D ire c to rs .......................................R o b S te w a rd , M ic h a e l C a rs o n S c rip tw rite r .............................P e te r Y e ld h a m B a se d o n th e n o v e ls ............ T h e T im e le s s L a n d , S to r m o f T im e , N o B a r r ie r

b y E le a n o r D a rk P h o t o g r a p h y ................................P e te r H e n d ry , J u lia n P e n n e y S o u n d re c o rd is t ................W yn B u tte rw o rth E d i t o r s .......................R ic h a rd F ra n c is -B ru c e , N e il T h u m p s to n H e le n a H a rris P ro d , d e s ig n e r ......................... G e o rg e L id d ie C o m p o s e r ................................ B ru c e S m e a to n P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ........... J e n n ife r 'C o u s to n P ro d , m a n a g e rs .......................D e n n is K ie ly, M ic h a e l B a y n h a m U n it m a n a g e r ..................................................... V al W ln d o n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ........................ D e b b ie D a vie s 1st a sst d ir e c to r ..............................R ay B ro w n 2 n d a s s t d ir e c t o r s ...........................................T im H ig g in s , D a ve T u n n e ll C o n tin u ity .................................. C a ro ly n G o u ld , The Timeless Land J u lie N e lso n C a s t in g .......................................... J e n n ife r A lle n C a m e ra o p e ra to r ..........................M ik e E w e rs F o cu s p u l l e r ..................................................R o g e r L a n s e r B o o m o p e ra to r .................... A n d re w D u n ca n WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE C la p p e r/lo a d e r ......................... R u sse ll B a co n A s s t a rt d ire c to rs .................... C la rk M u n ro , K ey g r i p ............................................................ A n d y G la vin P ro d , c o m p a n y ......... S h o tto n P ro d u c tio n s S a lly C a m p b e ll A Town Like Alice A s s t g rip ........................................ A la n T re v e n a P r o d u c e r ........................................................... J o h n M c R a e C o s tu m e d e s ig n .......................R o n W illia m s 2 n d u n it p h o to g ra p h y . . . .J o h n S h in e ro c k D ir e c t o r ............................................................... Ig o r A u z in s M a k e -u p .................................... R o c h e lle F o rd G a f f e r ........................................... J a c k K e n d ric k S c r ip t w r it e r s .............................................. E le a n o r W itc o m b e , H a ir d r e s s e r ............................. C h e ry l W illia m s E le c tr ic ia n .................................. M a rtin P e rro tt P ro d u c e r ......................................R o g e r M ira m s H a ir d r e s s e r .................................... P am W rig h t M ic h a e l J e n k in s S ta n d b y p r o p s .................................. BarTy H a ll B o o m o p e ra to r ................................ N ic k W o o d D ire c to r ..................................... H o w a rd R u b ie P r o p s ..............................................B ria n P e a rc e B a se d o n th e n o ve l C a rp e n te r ................................... A la n F le m in g A s s t a rt d ire c to rs .........................C o l R u d d e r, S c r ip t w r it e r ..................................................... T e rry B o uSrktaen d b y p r o p s ......................... D a vid H o lm e s , b y ...................................S u m n e r L o c k e E llio t C o n s tru c tio n m a n a g e r ......... B ria n H o c k in g F re ya H a d le y P h o to g ra p h y ......................

P au l O n o ra to B o b S te e l P h o t o g r a p h y ......................................................D a n B u rs ta ll A s s t e d ito r ................................. V ic k i A m b ro s e C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ...............J u d y A th e rd o n S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................

P hil J u d d A r m o u r e r ................................ R o b in S a u n d e rs S o u n d re c o rd is t .............................P hil S tirlin g N eg. m a t c h i n g ........................... R o b y n Y o u n g M a k e -u p ...............................................V al S m ith , E d ito rs ............

A la n L a ke , S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ............................................. R o b in P a rce E d i t o r .....................E d w a rd M c Q u e e n M a s o n C o lo r g r a d in g .................................. T in a H u tch N o rm a n B la n c h a rd , R o n W illia m s R o b in S a u n d e rs E xec, p ro d u c e r ..................A n d re w W ilts h ire S o u n d e d ito rs ........................... D e an G a w e n , C h ris tin a E h le rt A r t d ir e c to r .............................. D a vid C o p p in g S e t d e c o r a t o r .......................H a rv e y M a w so n A s s o c , p r o d u c e r ............... J e n n y C a m p b e ll P e te r B u rg e s s W a rd ro b e .......................................E lsie R u sto n , P ro d , s u p e rv is o r ....................... M ic h a e l L a ke A s s t se t d e c o ra to r ........... S te w a rt C ro m b ie P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .......................C la re G riffin E d itin g a s s is ta n t .................. S h irle y K e n n a rd B a rry L u m b y P ro d , m a n a g e r .................... M ic h a e l M id la m E ffe c ts a n d t r a n s f e r ..............F ra n k L ip s o n , P ro d , s e c re ta ry ................... E ve lyn M a u rire re M ix e rs ................................J u lia n E llin g w o rth , P ro p s b u y e r .....................P a d d y M a c D o n a ld , P ro d , s e c re ta ry ..................... C a th y F la n n e ry B ria n G ilm o re P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .............................P a tti S c o tt P h il H e y w o o d A d ria n C a n n o n P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .......................R o y L e e m a n F ilm e d ito r ......................................... J a n E ld re d 1st a s s t d ir e c to r ......................... T o m B u rs ta ll S till p h o t o g r a p h y .......................D a vid P a rk e r, S ta n d b y p r o p s .................................. Don P age, 1st u n it d ire c to rs ...........................M a rk P ip e r, A s s t film e d ito r .......................J e n n y L a w th e r 2nd a s s t d ir e c t o r .................... S tu a rt B e a tty S te v e B ra c k Ig o r L a z a re ff, K ate W e s tb u ry N eg. m a t c h i n g ......................... S h a ry n M a rtin 3 rd a s s t d i r e c t o r .................... A n d re w M o rs e T u to r ....................................................... A z h a r N ik L a u rie F ish e r 2 n d u n it d ire c to rs ..........

P au l Jo n e s , M u s ic e d i t o r .........................W a yn e R o b in s o n C o n tin u ity ....................................S h irle y B a lla rd L o c a tio n S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .............................................. P e te r L e g g e tt T e rry B o u rk e B est b o y .............................................J o h n Irv in g F o cu s p u l l e r .........................P e te r V a n S a n te n n u r s e s ......... O d e lia A n th o n y (M a la y s ia ), A s s o c ia te d e s ig n e r ...........

K en M u g g le s to n 1st u n it c o n tin u ity ............ B a rb a ra B u rle ig h L e n g th ..............................2 x 6 0 m in s w e e k ly C la p p e r/lo a d e r ................................. C h ris C a in L iz R iley (A u s tra lia ) S e t d e c o r a t o r .................. R o b e rt H u tc h in s o n 2 n d u n it c o n tin u ity ....................A n th e a D ean G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m K ey g r i p .............................................................. P au l A m m itz b o ll M a la y s ia n lia is o n ........... A li A b d u l R a h m a n C a rp e n te r .......................................A u s tin N o la n C a s tin g .........................................K e rry S p e n c e P ro g re s s ................................................In re le a s e A s s t g rip .....................................P e te r K e rs h a w T itle d e s ig n e r ..............O p tic a l a n d G ra p h ic s S e t c o n s tru c tio n ......................... L a u rie D o rn F o c u s p u lle r ..............................S te v e D o b s o n C a s t: P au l C ro n in (D ave S u lliv a n ), S te ve n G a f f e r ........................

B ria n A d a m s M a la y s ia n d ia lo g u e c o a c h ......... A z h a r N ik A s s t e d ito rs .................................. M a rk D a rcy, 2 n d u n it p h o to g ra p h y . . . F r a n k H a m m o n d T a n d y (T o m S u lliv a n ), R ic h a rd M o rg a n B o o m o p e ra to r .............................. R ay P h illip s M a la y s ia n re p re s e n ta tio n ........... P ro d u c e rs P e te r T o w n e n d , G a ffe r . ........................................... D e re k J o n e s (T e rry S u lliv a n ), S u sa n H a n n a fo rd (K itty A rt d ir e c t o r .............................

L o g a n B re w e r F ilm S e rv ic e s (K u a la L u m p u r) A d rie n n e O v e ra ll B o o m o p e ra to r ............................ R ick C re a s e r S u lliv a n ), J a m ie H ig g in s (G e o ff S u lliv a n ), A s s t a rt d ir e c to r ............................. R o e B ru e n B est b o y .........................................P au l G a n tn e r Neg. m a t c h i n g .................... R o s e m a ry D o d d M a k e -u p .................................. P at H u tc h e n c e M ic h a e l C a to n (H a rry S u lliv a n ), V iv e a n G ra y C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ........... B ru c e 'F in la y s o n R u n n e r s ...........................................P eta L a w so n , M u s ic p e rfo rm e d b y M e lb o u rn e S y m p h o n y W a rd ro b e ......................................... C a ro l B e rry ( M r s J e s s u p ) , M e g a n W illia m s ( A lic e M a k e -u p .................................. B o b M c C a rro n , A ils o n P ic k u p O rc h e s tra P ro p s ...........................................A n n ie B ro w in g W a tk in s ), N o rm a n Y e m m (N o rm B a ke r), S a lly G o rd o n U n it p u b lic is t ................................... W e n d y D ay S o u n d e d ito rs .....................T o n y K a v a n a g h , P ro p s b u y e r .............................. A n n ie B ro w in g V ik k i H a m m o n d (M a g g ie B a k e r).

H a ir d r e s s e r ................................A n n e P o s p ls c h il.

C a t e r in g ....................................... K e ith H e y g a te J o h n H o lla n d s S ta n d b y p ro p s ................................K en J a m e s S y n o p s is : T h e c o n t in u in g s to r y o f an W a rd , a s s is ta n t ...................... J u lie C o n s ta b le P ro d u c tio n fa c ilitie s .............................F ilm s id e E d itin g a s s is ta n t ....................

S a n d y H u g g in s R u n n e r ......................................... K e vin S c a n lo n A u s tra lia n fa m ily d u r in g W o rld W a r 2.

P ro p s b u y e r . . N ic h o la a s V a n R o o s e n d a e l P o s t-p ro d u c tio n M ix e r ............................................. P e te r B a rb e r C a te rin g .............................................. Ray F o w le r A sst p ro p s b u y e r ................ P a d d y R e a rd o n f a c i lit ie s .............................................. S p e c tru m A s s t m i x e r .......................................P h illip T ip e n e M ix e d at .......................................U n ite d S o u n d S ta n d b y p r o p s ....................... S u e A rm s tro n g L a b o ra to ry ......................................................A tla b SKYWAYS S till p h o t o g r a p h y .................... M a rtin ,W e b b y L a b o r a to ry ..................................................... A tla b C h o re o g ra p h y .................................. T o n y B a rt Lab. lia is o n ................................... G re g D o g e rty W r a n g le r .................................... G ra h a m W a re G a u g e .........................................................16 m m P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . C ra w fo rd P ro d u c tio n s S c e n ic a r t i s t .................................................. K a re n T ro tt B u d g e t ...................................................$ 1 ,2 5 0 ,0 0 0 M e c h a n ic ......................................... J o h n C la rk e S h o o tin g s to c k ................................................ Fuji D ist. c o m p a n y ..............T h e S eve n N e tw o rk A s s t s c e n ic a rtis t ..........................A n n B a rlo w L e n g th ................................................ 6 x 50 m in s P u b lic ity .....................................V irg in ia S a rg e n t P ro g re s s .................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n P r o d u c e r .................................. G ra h a m e M o o r S e t c o n s tru c tio n ......................... R o w a n F lu d e G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m C a t e r in g ....................... A le x a n d ra R e c e p tio n s C a s t: M ic h a e l M c G lin c h e y (M ik e ), M ile s S o u n d re c o rd is t ..............J u lia n M c S w in n e y A s s t e d ito r .................................M a rk M c A u liffe S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r S t u d io s ........................... F o re s t S tu d io s (A B C ) B u c h a n a n ( M ile s ) , S im o n e B u c h a n a n A rt d ir e c t o r ................................R o b b ie P e rk in s P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S till p h o t o g r a p h y ..............................R ay H a nd M ix e d at .................. F re n c h s F o re s t S tu d io s (S im o n e ), S a m a n th a A s h b y (S a m a n th a ), E xec, p ro d u c e r s .......................Ian C ra w fo rd , S c h e d u le d re le a s e .......................................1981 L a b o ra to ry ................................................C in e v e x L a b o ra to ry ............................................. C o lo rfilm T o b y C h u r c h ill-B ro w n (T o b y ), H e le n H a ska s J o c k B la ir L e n g th ...........

9 x 47 m in s C a s t: H e le n M o rs e (Je a n P ag e t), B rya n L ab . lia is o n ...........................................

B ill G o o le y (H e le n a ), M a rk S p a in (B e a v e r), M a ria n n e A s s o c , p ro d u c e r .................... T im S w a llo w G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m B ro w n (J o e - H a rm a n ), G o rd o n J a c k s o n L e n g th ..............................................8 x 6 0 m in s H o w a rd (M a ria n n e ), K e lly D in g w a ll (S p id e r), P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r s ......... J u d y W h ite h e a d , S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................. E a s tm a n c o lo r (N oe l S tra c h a n ), Y u k i S h im o d a (S e rg e a n t S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r W a rw ic k P o u ls e n (W o m b a t).

J o a n n e P a rk e r M ifu n e ), D o ro th y A lis o n (M rs F rith ), A n n a P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e F irst r e le a s e d ........... S e p te m b e r 4, 1980 S y n o p s is : A g ro u p o f c o u n try c h ild re n P ro d , m a n a g e r ................................ M ic k M ills V o ls k a (S a lly), P at E viso n (M rs C o lla rd ), C a s t : R o b y n N e v in ( S h a s t a ) , D a v id C a st: M ic h a e l C ra ig , N ic o la P a g e tt, A n g e la d e c id e to h e lp sa ve an o ld m a n fro m b e in g U n it m a n a g e r .......................D on S a m u e ln o k C a m e ro n (N e il), J u d y D a vis (C a rrie ), J a c k i R ic h a rd N a rita (C a p ta in S u g a n o ), H a ts u o P u n ch M c G re g o r, Ray B a rre tt, G e n e v ie v e e v ic te d fro m h is g o ld -fo s s ic k in g p ro p e rty , P ro d , s e c re ta ry ......................In g rid D e w h u rs t W e a v e r (M a g g ie ), C h ris M iln e (B e n ), R od U d a (C a p ta in Y o n ia ta ), C e c ily P o is o n P ico t, C h ris H a y w o o d , P a tric k D ic k s o n , a n d tu rn a g h o s t to w n in to a w e e k e n d h o li­ 1st a sst d ir e c to r .................... C h ris L a n g m a n M u llin a r (D o n ), L in d e n W ilk in s o n (lla ), J a n (E ile e n H o lla n d ).

P e te r C o u s e n s , P e te r C o llin g w o o d , B ria n d a y c a m p fo r c ity c h ild re n .

C o n tin u ity ..............................G a ir A m in a -C o n e H a m ilto n ( G e r a ld in e ) , R o w e n a W a lla c e S y n o p s is : A W o rld W a r 2 ro m a n c e .

H in s e lw o o d .

S c rip t a s s is ta n ts ........... K a rin d a P a rk in s o n , (H o n o r), J o h n H o w a rd (A rc h ie ).

S y n o p s is : T h e s e rie s s p a n s N e w S o u th M a rk J o ffe , S y n o p s is : T h e s to ry o f a g ro u p o f p e o p le W a le s fro m 1 7 8 8 -1 8 1 1 , d e p ic tin g th e live s THE SULLIVANS Ja n M a rn e ll w h o s e live s, th r o u g h tim e a n d c ir c u m ­ o f a g ro u p o f c o n v ic ts a nd s e ttle rs , a g a in s t C a s t in g ......................................... H e le n R o lla n d sta n c e , a re e n tw in e d in s e v e ra l w a y s — P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . C ra w fo rd P ro d u c tio n s the b a c k g ro u n d o f G o v e rn o r P h illip 's a t­ L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n .................. J o h n G ilb y fro m lo v e to m u rd e r . ★ D ist. c o m p a n y ............................N in e N e tw o rk te m p ts to u n d e rs ta n d th e A b o rig in a ls a nd K ey g r i p ..................................................B ill B a x te r P r o d u c e r ..............................J o h n B a rn in g h a m the c o n flic ts w ith th e m ilita ry .

G a f f e r .................................................................. L ex M a rtin D ire c to rs ....................................... P in o A m e n ta , B o o m o p e ra to r .............................. Ray P h illip s G re g S h e a rs , M a k e -u p s u p e r v is o r .......................Nan D u n n A TOWN LIKE ALICE L ex V an O s, H a ir d r e s s e r .................................................. G ilb e r t B ro a d w a y J o h n D o m m e tt P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................A lic e P ro d u c tio n s W a rd ro b e ......................................... A n n a J a k o b S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... J o h n R o w le y D ist. c o m p a n y ......................... S e ve n N e tw o rk W a rd , a s s is ta n ts ....................A n n ie J o h n s o n , E d i t o r s ............................................B ria n W rig h t, P r o d u c e r .................................. H e n ry C ra w fo rd J u lie C o n s ta b le W endy Jackson, D ire P r o p s ................................................................. R u b y P a tte rs ocnto, r .........................................D a vid S te v e n s B a rb a ra M a se l, S c r ip t w r it e r s ............R o s e m a ry A n n e S iso n , A n d re w F re id m a n P e te r G a w ie r .

T o m H e g a rty S e t - d e c o r a t o r s .......................... J a m ie L e g g e , A rt d i r e c t o r ....................................... T ra c y W a tt B ase d on th e n o ve l D a vid S m ith E xec, p ro d u c e r s .............. H e c to r C ra w fo rd , b y ....................................................................N e vll S h u te S e t c o n s tru c tio n . . . C ra w fo rd P ro d u c tio n s J o c k B la ir P h o t o g r a p h y ...................................R u sse ll B oyd M ix e r .......................................... D a vid H a rris o n A s s o c , p ro d u c e r s ........... D a vid H in ric h s e n , S o u n d re c o rd is t ..................

L lo y d C o le m a n B est b o y .................................. J o h n W ilk in s o n A la n H a rd y E d i t o r ..............................................T im W e llb u rn S t u d io s ................................ C a m b rid g e S tu d io s U n it m a n a g e r .............................................. . . J o h n S e e b o ld A rt d i r e c t o r ..............................L a rry E a s tw o od L e n g th ....................................................... 46 m in s P ro g ra m s e c r e t a r y ......................................... Fay S m o rg o n C o m p o s e r ................................ B ru c e S m e a to n S h o o tin g s t o c k ...................................V id e o ta p e R e s e a r c h .................................................... B a rb a ra G a n g e , P ro d , m a n a g e r ...............................

L yn n G a le y P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e A lis o n N is s e lle U n it t ra n s p o rt m a n a g e r ..............J o h n C h a se F irs t r e le a s e d ..................................... J u ly , 1979 1st a s s t d ire c to rs ......................... T o n y W a d e , P ro d , s e c re ta ry .............................F io n a G o sse C a st: T o n y B o n n e r (P a u l M c F a rla n e ), T in a D a vid C la rk e B u s in e s s m a n a g e r .................. P e n e lo p e C a rl B u rs ill (L o u is e C a rte r), B ill S ta lk e r (P e te r P ro d u c e r 's a s s is t a n t .........K e n d a l F la n a g a n P ro d , a s s is t a n t .............................................J e n n y M ile s F a n e lli). D e b o ra h C o u lis (J a c k i S o o n g ), K en C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................. D a v id C o n n e ll 1st a sst d ir e c to r ....................... M a rk T u rn b a ll J a m e s ( S im o n Y o u n g ) , B r ia n J a m e s C la p p e r /lo a d e r ........................ J a m ie D o o la n 2 nd a s s t d ir e c t o r . , ......... C h ris M a u d s o n (G e o rg e T ip p e tt). J o a n n e S a m u e l (K e lly C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........................... Ian J o n e s 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ............................ K im A n n in g M o rg a n ). B ru c e B a rry (C a p t. D o u g S te w a rt), K e y g r i p ..................................... S te v e H a g g e rty C o n tin u ity ................................... J o a n n a W e e k s B a rt J o h n (N ic k G ra in g e r), K ris M c Q u a d e G a f f e r .......................................... J o h n B re n n a n E x tra s c a s tin g .................. M itc h C o n s u lta n c y (Faye P e te rs o n ).

B o o m o p e ra to r .....................

P hil A d a m s C a s tin g c o n s u lta n ts ..............M & L C a s tin g S y n o p s is : A s e rie s se t in an A u s tra lia n in te r­ C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ......................... R o b in H all F o cu s p u l l e r ................................ N ix o n B in n e y n a tio n a l a ir p o r t a n d th e m a n y c ris e s fa c e d C o s tu m e s ta n d b y s ........... K a re n D o n n e lly , C la p p e r/lo a d e r ..............................K im A n n in g b y th e p e o p le w h o y r o r k In It. C h e y n e P h illip s K ey g r i p ............................................................... R ay B ro w n Water Under the Bridge M a k e -u p ........................................... K a th y Foley, A s s t g rip ...................................... S te w a rt G re e n R o ss D e n b y G a f f e r ....................................... B ria n B a n s g ro v e

356 — Cinema Papers, October-November

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

Phone: (0 3 ) 5 2 8 1 9 0 4

Super-8 for Audio Visual Cassettes Level 5 (Balcony Level) The Place Toorak Vic. 3142 Tel: (03) 240 0506

Personal consultations and make-up by appointment.

Direct from 16mm Eastmancolor to Super-8 prestriped Eastmancolor on polyester base.

• 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

Gabrielle and Lina have introduced into Australia two new brands of film, stage and theatrical make-up:

Bob Kelly — New York Ben Nye — Hollywood Both are well-known make-up artists who have developed their own unique, complete range including special effects.

Also Fantasia Make-up — a large selection of brilliant and exciting colors in lipsticks, nail polishes and eyeshadows. Plus a range of skin care products.

Cine Service _compact video _ • FILM TO VIDEO TRANSFERS from Standard 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm or 35mm to 3A U-Matic, VHS, Betamax, Philips VCR • SLIDES TO VIDEO • VIDEO TO VIDEO TRANSFERS • VIDEO DUPLICATING • KINE RECORDING • QUALITY FILM DUPLICATING AND REDUCTION PRINTING, ALL GAUGES • THEATRETTE FOR HIRE with full video, 16mm, 35mm or 8mm projection available.

—

Yona Skin Life — natural products containing vitamins A, D, E. A complete body treatment available in this range.

235 moray st. sth. melbourrve 3205 p.o. box 328 phone (0 3 ) 699 6999

~

a d iv is io n o f R A N K E L E C T R O N I C S P T Y L I M I T E D

for the HIRE or SALE of LIGHTING for ENTERTAINMENT R A IM K P T Y L IM IT E D 12 Barcoo Street, East Roseville Sydney 2069. Telephone: 406 6176 60 Rosebank Avenue, 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. Telephone: 328 3933 120 Parry Street, Newcastle 2300. Telephone: 26 2466

Compiled by Terry Bourke

United States The prolonged strike by the American Screen Actors Guild, designed to force finalization of long-requested agree­ ments for payment of cable television and cassette residuals by producers and studios, has seriously disrupted the film industry worldwide.

Many sister unions internationally — especially the musicians (including Australia) — have joined the strike in seven countries.

This longest-ever shutdown by actors means several planned Christmas and New Year releases won’t meet deadlines and m a jo r d is trib u to rs say th e ir worldwide exhibition plans have been thrown into chaos.

The 10-week strike has also closed down the production of television series, and the networks are frantically trying to prop their programming with repeats and a diminishing backlog of library material.

Almost every feature film and televi­ sion show has stopped shooting because of the strike but, there are some excep­ tions — overseas production involving American stars has been exempt. This included Richard Franklin’s Roadgames (Australia), with Stacy Keach and Jamie Lee Curtis, and Milos Forman’s Ragtime (England), with James Cagney making a comeback at 81.

Exemption has also been given to films in post-production (where revoicing is required), but pick-up shots have not been allowed.

About seven features were allowed to continue shooting in the U.S. when producers agreed to comply with any gains acquired by the ASAG during the shut-down and subsequent negotiations with producers.

New York is as hard-hit as Hollywood by the strike. Besides current production estimated at around $60 million, planned features worth $40 million are under review because of the union strangle­ hold.

Among New York shutdowns are Peter Yates’ Eye Witness (formerly The Janitor Doesn’t Dance); Peter Bogdanovich’s They All Laughed; Steve Gordon’s Arthur; David Sheinberg's Paternity; Max Ahlberg's Hoodlums; Robert Mulligan’s Rich and Famous; Jeremy Paul Kagan’s The Chosen; and Amy Heckerling’s My Kind of Guy. Films elsewhere in the U.S. halted through the strike include Backroads, being directed by Martin Ritt, and The Border, Tony Richardson’s latest ven­ ture. Other directors affected by the strike are George Romero, Knightriders; Frank Roach, Chill Killers; Ernst Pintoff, Lunch Wagon; Albert Brooks, Modern Romance; Lawrence Folds, Malcolm High; James 8. Harris, Fast Walking; Brooks Wachtel, Starfox; Rovier Beleta, Tarek; Jeremy Kronsberge, Love, Max; and Allan Arkush, Heartbeeps.

Hal Ashby had already started Look­ ing to Get Out; Buddy van Horn, Anyway Which You Can (with Clint Eastwood); John Binder, Uforia (previously Escape); Bryon Quisenberry, Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker; Lewis Teague, Alligator; and John Barron, The Girls Aren’t Here.

358

_ Cinema Papers, October-November

Australian filmmaker Fred Schepisi (The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith) is among directors affected by the strike.

Schepisi will now have to wait to start Barbarosa (with Willie Nelson, Gary Busey), a futuristic western for Lord Lew Grade, in Hollywood and Texas.

Shooting has been held back on Franco Z e ffe re lli's Endless Love; Anthony Page’s Ruby Red; Jack Fisk’s Ragg.edy Man (Sissy Spacek); Ron Howard’s Skyward; Brian de. Palma’s The Gold Mine; Ivan Reitman's Animal House II; Edmond Stevens’ The Fools in Town Are On Our Side; and Richard Jeffire’s Red Tide.

Independent productions hit by the strike include Worth Keeter’s Dare to be Great; Eric Weston’s Evilspeak; Hernan Cardenas’ Island Claws; Robert Collins’ Savage Harvest: Mike Levanios’ Uncle Scam; Mark Rydell’s On Golden Pond; John Carpenter’s Escape from New York; Gus Trikonis’ Take This Job and Shove It; and Caleb Deschanel’s The Escape Artist, with Francis Coppola as executive producer.

Director and films which finished ahead of the strike (some with only days to spare) were Ed Bianchi, The Fan (for Robert Stigwood); Gene Wilder, Sunday Lovers; Hal Needham, Cannonball Run; Carroll Ballard, Never Cry Wolf; Steven Sterns, The Devil and Max; Michael Schultz, Carbon Copy; Paul Williams Miss Right; William Fraker, The Legend of the Lone Ranger; Dan Petrie, Port Apache, The Bronx; Blake Edwards, S.O.B.; Michael Mann, Thief; Kevin Con­ ner, Motel Hell; Jay Sandrich, Seems Like Old Times; Robert Collins, Savage

Harvest; and Charles B. Griffith, Dr Heckle and Mr Hype.

Already into post-production were John H uston’s Escape to Victory (Sylvester Stallone, Michael Caine), shot in Hungary; Armand Weston’s Dawn of the Mummy (Egypt); and Carl Gottlieb’s Cavemen (Ringo Starr, Barbara Bach) shot in Mexico.

Among ‘overseas’ films exempted were Roger Vadim’s Act of Deceit (Wayne Rogers) in Canada; Richard Marquand’s Eye of the Needle (Donald Sutherland) in Scotland; Karel Reisz’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman (Meryl

Streep) in London; John Quested’s Loophole (Albert Finney, Martin Sheen) in London; and Charles Jarrott’s Condorman (Barbara Carrera) in Monte Carlo, Paris and London.

The anim ated feature The Last Unicorn continues voicing (Alan Arkin, Jeff Bridges, Christopher Lee) in New York, with Arthur Rankin jun. and Jules Bass directing.

One director who shot through the strike was Australian Brian Trenchard Smith, called in as a replacement direc­ tor on the $3 million action-thriller Circle of Assassins in Mexico. Producer Ike

INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION ROUND-UP

Pantajovic (Partizan, with Rod Taylor, in 1976) signed Trenchard Smith on the strength of his action and stunt work in the Australian features The Man From Hong Kong and Deathcheaters. Circle of Assassins (it will probably be released as Day of the Assassin) stars Glenn Ford, Chuck Connors, Jill St John and Richard Rountree.

Trenchard Smith left Sydney two years ago and has already developed a screenplay for Time Warp, a science­ fiction epic which Disney Studios intends to shoot next year. He is based in Hollywood but makes regular trips home to make p ro m o tio n reels fo r the Australian Film Commission and trailers for producers Matt Carroll, Jim McElroy and Tony Ginnane.

U pcom ing assig n m e n ts in clu d e Sydney Pollack’s Madonna Madness; Irvin Kershner’s I, Robot; Alberto Lattuada’s The Other Libertine; Dan O’Banion’s Bloody Noses; and Jeffrey Lewis’ Here’s To You All. Roger Corman has approached Ingmar Bergman to direct The Last World War; John Frankenheimer is suing Polygram Pictures over his dismissal from Pursuit; Claudia Weill’s new film is finally called It’s My Turn (shot as The Perfect Circle); producer-director Barry Brown (Sky Dancer) has signed Sally Fields for The Sleepwalker; and MGM has acquired worldwide rights to Armand M astroianni’s susp e n se -th rille r He Knows You’re Alone.

Britain

American-financed productions con­ tinue to keep the British film industry at work, but there are signs of major union problems even as local companies ex­ press doubts over the future of domestic production.

British Actors Equity is threatening strike action against British productions which employ American talent in roles suitable for British players.

Three films in particular have been responsible for this latest salvo from British Equity: George Lucas’ production of Raiders of the Lost Ark (directed by Steven Spielberg); the Lord Lew Grade production of A Tale of Two Cities (directed by Jim Goddard); and Outland, directed by Peter Hyams and 'starring Sean Connery.

Chris Sarandon (Lipstick) stars in A Tale of Two Cities (television for the U.S.; theatrical for the rest of the world); Karen Allen co-stars in Lost Ark; and Frances Sternhagen co-stars in Outland.

British Equity says the three Americans are not particularly well-known to British audiences, and special mention is made of Sarandon, who has the lead role of Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities.

The British unionists have demanded that James Prior, the Secretary of State for Employment, intervene to stop any further work permits for American actors performing roles in Britain for which local actors or actresses could be considered.

Usually British Equity has not made of­ ficial demands for fear of reprisals in the U.S. However, most British stars in the U.S. are members of the American Screen Actors Guild, and would not be affected by American reprisals.

W ith space and s c ie n c e -fic tio n product all the rage, Terry Gilliam and John Cleese have given up work on Monty Python temporarily, and Gilliam is directing Cleese, Sean Connery and David Warner in Time Bandits. Guy Hamilton is into post-production on The Mirror Crack’d, and John Quested is d irecting Loophole (A lbert Finney, Martin Sheen).

John Boorman is close to wrapping Knights in Ireland, with a major cast which includes Nicol Williamson, Corin Redgrave and Helen Mirren..

TH E CANNON G RO U P IN C PRESENTS

A GOLAN - GLOBUS PRODUCTION OF A JUST JAECKIN FILM

Stjlria krislH Lady ( liatlorleij s L oror ‘‘‘kIS-ië

Heaven; Michael Anderson Bells (starr­ ing R ic h a rd C h a m b e rla in , John Houseman and Barry Morse); and J. C. Lord The Fright.

J. Lee Thompson (Guns of Navarone) is directing Glenn Ford and Melissa Sue Anderson in Happy Birthday to Me; and John Trent Misdeal.

Susan Anspach, Sterling Hayden and Donald Sutherland star in Gas, shooting in Montreal, with Les Rose directing. Rex Bromfield is into post-production on Melanie (Glynis O’Co'nnor and Paul Sorvino).

France

BASED ON THE D. H. LAWRENCE CLASSIC

Produced by Mcnahem Golan* 'Vbrain Globus and Andre DjaouJ Directed by Jusr Jaeckin Screenplay by Steve Michaels

Norm an J . W arren is d ire c tin g Inseminoid for Run Run Shaw at Lee International Studios (London). The Hong Kong film mogul says he plans two international features a year, and is said to be negotiating a U.S.-Australian co­ production for 1981.

Ernest Day, top second unit director in Britain for many years, has replaced Anthony Simmons as director on the bigbudgeted Green Ice due to “ creative dif­ ferences” with producer Jack Weiner in Mexico. First assistant director on this action-drama, starring Ryan O’Neal and Omar Sharif, is Patrick Clayton, who spent five years in Australia as a produc­ tion supervisor and assistant director (Inn of the Damned, Piugg, Blue Fin, The Money Movers and pre-production on Breaker Morant). Clayton is now based in London.

Warren Beatty says there are still “a few more scenes” to be shot for Reds (he stars and directs), which has been before the cameras in London and Europe for 32 weeks. Beatty says he may retitle the film The John Reed and Louise Bryant Story.

Matthew Robbins is directing the Paramount-Disney high adventure yarn Dragonslayer in Scotland and Wales. Sir Ralph R ich a rd so n stars. Lindsay Shonteff (Spy Story) is directing Combat Zone.

Unaffected by the ASAG strike while shooting in Britain are Milos Forman’s Ragtime; Karel Reisz’ The-French Lieutenant’s Woman; Richard Marquand’s Eye of the Needle; and Charles Jarrott’s Condorman.

Only seven films were before the cameras and two in post-production at the beginning of October, with four features set to start before Christmas.

This is slightly down on last year’s figures and, although better than 1978, there is some concern over the likely slowdown in production next year.

Claude Berri is directing Gerard Depardieu in Je vous aime; Jose Givanni, Bathrobe (starring Annie Giradot); Pierre Deferre, L’e to Ile du Nord (Simone Signoret); Claude Goretta, Bonheur toi-meme (Bruno Ganz); Denis Amar, Asphalte (Carol Laure); and Luc B ernard, La débandade (P a trick Dewaere).

M ichel B lanch stars in C laude Chabrol’s new film, Le cheval d’orgueill, and Jacques Deray is into p o s t­ production on Trois hommes a abbatoir (Three Men to Kill).

Post-production is keeping Gerard Oury busy on Le coup de paraphu; Yves Boisset (Yellow Taxi) is preparing Barracuda; and Andrew Zulawski is location hunting for Wake, Spy. French producers are at a loss to understand why the Government has not signed the Australia-France co­ production treaty. First mooted by Tom Stacey in the days of the Australian Film Development Corporation, and strongly promoted by AFC chairman Ken Watts, the treaty was ratified by Australia late last year.

A survey of exhibition outlets in France by the French Producers Guild has revealed that American films now con­ stitute 65 per cent of the overall market, as against 35 per cent in 1974.

French film industry observers claim the Government is now studying the feasibility of a law to protect local films in France, and cut back on the number of import licences issued for American films.

Canada

Italy

j

WORLD PREMIERE: CANNES 1981

»'«rìii5»)cs. CALVKONfrVTEKNVnC-'LAl OQSK>K£RGK' Stswsöftoälostti - SaïttciïW • Hoäjroerä CalìfaraisVOGiiì ■(Ii5)4k0:-Sl3 l ■Telex XS-127G

While Italian producers worry about Canadian production has slumped in their decline in fortune and ponder about the third quarter. Although only nine the future — production for 1980 will be features are before the cameras and one down 30 per cent on 1979, and an even in post-production, it is a slack situation slower 1981 is forecast — all eyes turn to compared to the 17 features filmed at Eduard M olinaro as he com pleted this time last year (13 in 1978). soundtrack work on La cage aux folles II The drop in production is obviously (sequel to the box-office success Turn linked to the cutback in American co­ the Other Cheek, which is having a long productions after union pressure earlier run in Australian capital cities). The this year for less Americans and more sequel again stars Ugo Tognazzi, Michel Canadians in the casting of films. (Lee Gerrault and Michel Galabru.

Remick’s long-fought battle to co-star Peter Zinner is directing Anthony with Glenn Ford in Tribute started it all.)

Quinn, Franco Nero and Claudia Car­ Accordingly, Canadian Actors Equity dinale in The Salamander, based on is taking a more realistic look at at­ Australian novelist Morris West’s major tracting producers back. Most interest is novel. Robert Katz wrote the screenplay. centred on Roger Vadim’s A Stroke of Twelve weeks of the 14-week shoot are in Luck (formerly Act of Deceit), starring Italy, with special interiors scheduled for Wayne Rogers, Marie France, Samantha the final two weeks in London.

Eggar and Lloyd Bochner. After location and studio filming in Canada, the film Yugoslavia went to New York and became another casualty in the actors’ strike.

Just Jaeckin (Emmanuelle) is direc­ tor of The Paradise Club; Donald Shebib , Hollywood-based producer Dan Tana Heartaches; Ralph Thomas Ticket to is about to shoot the $15 m illion

Collaborator, which will be Yugoslavia’s biggest-budgeted, indigenous produc­ tion.

Tana had critical success at Cannes this year with Special Treatment, directed by Goran Paskaljevich, who will again be his director on Collaborator.

Japan Producer Mark Omodaka and director Nagisa Oshima (L’empire des sens) have decided to sign an English-speaking film editor, as well as their usual Japanese editor, for the upcoming $8-m ill ion World War 2 prison camp film Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence.

The film will be Oshima’s first in English. He won the Best Director award with L’empire des sens at Cannes in 1978.

Taiwan The Taiwan Government has banned all films produced by the Bang Bang Organization in Hong Kong as a result of Bang Bang d is trib u tin g m ainland Chinese features in the colony.

Australian cinematographer Tony H ope is Bang B a n g ’ s m ain film cameraman; he shot their first inter­ national feature Foxbat (Henry Silva) In 1977.

The Chinese version of the Academy Awards (Golden Horse Awards of 1980) will be held in Taipei from October 27 to November 2. It is expected one of the main screenings will feature The Z Men, the first Australian-Sino co-production, co-produced by John McCallum and Lee Robinson, and directed by Tim Burstall.

Thailand Am erican p ro d u ce r-d ire cto r Hall Bartlett (Jonathon Livingstone, Seagull) has been in Thailand checking on several provincial areas for locations for a December start on Come Back. The film is based on the true-life adventure of Australian journalist John Everingham, who swam the Mekong River to rescue his Laotian girlfriend from a communistheld village in Laos.

India Massive changes in all areas of film production, exhibition and distribution are likely in the wake of the 1979 National Film Policy investigation and recommen­ dations to the Indian Government. Full details of the policy findings are yet to be revealed publicly, but it is known film­ makers and exhibitors will benefit im­ mensely from the proposed plans.

The Government’s Motion Picture Committee has already announced plans fo r a new 16-35m m p ro c e s s in g laboratory to be set up in Delhi by the nationally-funded Films Division.

Some relief from import charges is ex­ pected for rawstock film, and a lowering of cinema taxes is also expected to be implemented in early 1981.

Satyajit Ray is in post-production with Hirak rajer desh, and is planning six short features for Calcutta television, all based on Bengali short stories.

Producer Ravi Banswani is preparing Love Marriage (Munhinjee shadi), the first Sindhi film in color, and the first Sindhi-language film in eight years.

The Government of Bhutan and Unicef have sponsored A Tale of Bhutan, a Bhutanese-English bilingual film by American Robert Taylor. The 37-minute film is said to have cost $170,000. ★

Cinema Papers. October-November — 359

--------- FOR S A L E ----------E C L A IR N.P.R. with Eclair and C mount turret, Perfectone 25 f.p.s. motor and sync pulse generator, 2 mags, battery and battery belt, charger, sync cables, changing bag, camera case and battery. § 3 , 600 .

----------------------------------------------------^

--------------------------------------------------

The Australian Film and Television School has

A N G E N IE U X 12-120 ZOOM LE N S (Eclair mount), recendy serviced by Century Optics, filter holder, 85 filter, nos. 1 and 2 diopters, lens hood. § 1 , 35 0 .

SOMETHING FOR YOU!

B E A L A C R Y S T A L M OTOR §2 , 600 .

M ILL E R STAN D AR D TRIPOD with L.P. head and rubber feet. § 200 .

M IL L E R B A B Y LE G S § 10 0 .

Or to be sold in one package at S6,8oo.

Enquiries to John Lord, 777 Rathdowne St, North Carlton Vic. 3054.

Tel: (03) 347 1270.

The Open Program of the School operates throughout Australia.

Courses are conducted for all those working in the many areas of film, television and radio.

Current short courses range from the basics of 8mm, 16mm and video production, through to scriptwriting, production manage­ ment. computer editing and chroma key techniques.

We are preparing our schedule for 1981. and need some feedback from YOU regarding the type of course YOU require, it would greatly assist us if you would complete the form below and send it off to us. We look forward to seeing you.

To:

Training Coordinator.

Open Program.

Australian Film and Television School Box 126, NORTH RYDE. NSW 2113

NAME:

......................................................................................

ADDRES S:

.............................................................................. ............... ...........................................Postcode

I would be interested in a course courses in ....................

Please send me a copy of your 1980 Course Guide EU (tick if required)

Film Australians com e from all over the industry

An average year for us at Film Australia sees the production of around 100 films and audio­ visuals.

As you can imagine, we couldn't handle that volume of work or maintain our high standards without drawing upon the wide range of film-making talent available in the Australian industry today.

Directors, cameramen, grips, writers, composers and artists in fact everybody who gets into the act. both in front of the camera and behind.

With the help of freelance Film Australians, we've completed important films such as, Let the

Balloon Go, Who’s Handicapped?, WarWithout Weapons and award winners Hospitals Don’t Burn Down and Leisure.

When you next view a Film Australia production, remember that it's also the production of Australians who work in film.

Right across the industry

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

FILM AUSTRALIA

BOX-OFFICE CROSSES Distributor

TITLE

Breaker Morant

RS

The Earthling

RS

MLB.

(8 V 3 )

(8 *)

Manganinnie

GUO

Harlequin

GUO

PTH

27,379

(2 *)

BRI.

(2 /3 )

527,622

1

MLB.

PTH

ADL.

BRI.

$

41,545

2

37,175

3

15,893

4

1520

5

144,366

Rank

144,366

2

275,120

1

93,453

3

(2 )

3705 (1 )

2299

(8 )

83,021

(1 1 *)

83,791

(3 /6 )

39,014

(7 )

37,526

(5 /1 )

31,760

(2 *)

5971 (1 )

247,834

87,541

3705

623,755

Foreign Total0

2,727,638 2,392,520 1,214,603

641,911

794,381

Grand Total

3,008,494 2,640,354 1,218,422

729,452

798,086

☆ F ig u re s e x c lu d e N /A fig u re s . a R n * n f f ir « n r n f in d iv id u a l film s h a v e b e e n s u o D lie d to C in e m a P a o e r s b v th e A u s tra lia n Film C o m m is s io n o T h l^ ? in , ? m ^ e ^ e s e n t s ?he t o t i^ b o x^ o ffic e T a ro s s 'o fUa ll fo re ia n f i/ n ^ ^ io w n ^ ju r in d tt^e h ? th e a r e a s d < £ !fted o T h is fig u re re p re s e n ts th e to ta l b o x -o ffic e g ro s s o f a ll fo re ig n turns s h o w n d u rin g th e p e rio d in th e a re a s p e c ifie d .

•C o n tin u in g in to n e x t p e rio d N B : F ig u re s in p a re n th e s is a b o v e th e g ro s s e s re p re s e n t w e e k s in re le ase . If m o re th a n o n e fig u re a p p e a rs , th e film h as b e e n re le a s e d in m o re th a n o n e c in e m a d u rin g th e p e rio d .

(1 )

4820

87,841

(1 )

3994

87,785

O )

65,194

(3 )

19,445

201,337

49,414

530,585

7,771,053

3,913,199 3,252,460 1,695,445 1,071,394

874,860

10,807,358

8,394,808

4,001,040 3,340,245 1,799,653 1,272,731

924,274

11,337,943

104,208

„ _ <1 > A u s tra lia n th e a tric a l d is trib u to r o n ly. RS - R o a d sh o w ; G U O - G re a te r U n io n O rg a n iz a tio n Film D is trib u to rs ; H T S - H o y ts T h e a tre s ; FO X - 2 0 th C e n tu ry Fox; U A - U n ite d A rtis ts ; C IC - C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp o ra tio n ; FW - F ilm w a y s A u s tra la s ia n D is trib u to rs ; 7 K - 7 K e y s FHm D is trib u to rs ; C O L - C o lu m b ia P ic tu re s ; REG - R e g e n t Film D is trib u to rs ; C C G - C in e m a C e n tre G ro u p ; A FC - A u s tra lia n Film C o m m is s io n ; S A F C — S o u th A u s tra lia n F ilm C o rp o ra tio n ; M C A — M u s ic C o rp o ra tio n o f A m e ric a ; S — S h a rm ill F ilm s ; O T H — O th e r. (2) F ig u re s a re d ra w n fro m c a p ita l c ity a nd In n e r s u b u rb a n firs t re le a s e h a rd to p s o n iy . (3) S p lit fig u re s In d ic a te a m u ltip le c in e m a re le a se ,

BOX-OFFICE GROSSES

Cinema Papers, October-November

3819

Australian Total

SYD.

(7 *)

1520

280,856

Rank

$

(8 *)

10,461 34,876

9922

ADL

87,541

243,555 196,526

(6 )

GUO

Total

Total S Y D .2

(1 /4 /1 * )

My Brilliant Career

PERIOD 20.4.80 to 5.7.80

PERIO D 6.7.80 to 3<3.8.80

At last, a 16mm double head

projector at a reasonable price

How? Because you buy direct from the factory.

Yes, the all new HOKUSHIN SC10 DB series is modified and tested in Australia and exported to 20 countries.

3 models to choose from, Plenty of stock.

No more service problems. No more parts problems.

To buy or rent or have your SC10 converted phone Barry Brown on (02) 4382086 now.

HOKUSHIN

Decibel International. 50 Atchison Street, St. Leonards NSW 2065.

2 ) 0 0 0

Satellite Super 8 A PROFESSIONAL SUPER-8 PRODUCTION AND POST-PRODUCTION STUDIO

Peter Jago

baipeleoo

Exclusive Design Period Costume and Millinery 2/11 St. Leonards Ave. St. Kilda 3152 Phone 534 6178

Sound transfers from almost any format in sync (digital, pilotone or crystal) to S8 mag. film Sound transfers in sync from S8 mag. film to S8 edge stripe and vice-versa.

Sound transfers in sync from S8 mag. film to 16mm mag. film and vice-versa.

S8 motorized Pic Sync for tracklaying/syncing weeklies/A & B rolling (1 pic and 3 sound tracks).

Interlock sync screenings in S8.

S8 camera (DS8 or cartridge) and sound (Uher or Tandberg crystal fullcoat and Sennheiser mikes) equipment hire service to qualified personnel.

A & B roll make up.

Agency for professional personnel working in S8.

Mixing 3 (or more by overdubbing) sync tracks to picture in S8.

Teac/Tascam or S8SR/Tascam systems used. S8 4-track “rock ’n’ roll” sync mixing console under development.

PGP 6-plate S8 Flatbed editing console.

DS208 Minisync fully motorized vertical editing machine (1 pic and 1 sound track) for micro budgets.

S8 Cinemascope system nowavailable.

S8 to video transfers (ail tape sizes and formats).

Liaison on S8 filmstocks and lab services (duping, blowing up S8 to 16mm, S8 to 35mm).

S8 post-syncing to picture now available.

Noiseless S8 studio camera ready soon.

Contact: Andrew Vial or Glyn Morris Suite 4,13-15 Myrtle Street Crows Nest NSW 2065 Telephone: (02) 922 3297

Postal address: Satellite Super-8 P.O. Box 300 Crows Nest NSW 2065 Australia

S a t e llit e S u p e r - 8 is a C in e m a M o n t a g e / A n d r e w V ia l F ilm P r o d u c t io n s P ty L t d ¡ o i n t e n t e r p r is e .

saîSBâmsam m w t PRODUCERS, DIRECTO RS AND PRO D U CTIO N COMPANIES To ensure the accuracy o f yo ur entry, please co nta ct the e d ito r of this colum n and ask fo r copies o f our Pro­ d u ctio n Survey blank, on w hich the details o f yo ur p ro du ction can be entered. All details must be typed in

upper and lower case The cast entry should be no more than the 10 main actors/actresses — the ir names and character names. The le ngth o f the synopsis should not exceed 50 words.

Entries made separately should be typed, in upper and lower case, fo llo w in g the style used in C in e m a

S y n o p s is : A film b a s e d on th e tr u e - life a d v e n tu re s a n d e x p lo its o f a fa m o u s S y d n e y b a n k ro b b e r.

A rt d ir e c t o r ................................D a vid C o p p in g M a k e -u p ............................................ J u d y L o ve ll W a rd ro b e ......................... R u th e d e la L a n d e o p s b u y e r ............................................. J ill E den S ta n d b y p r o p s ................................................. K en J a m e s S et d e c o r a t o r ........................................... J ill E den A sst e d ito r ..............................J e a n in e C h ia lv o S o u n d e d ito r .................... W illia m A n d e rs o n E dg e n u m b e r e r ................................................. Ian F o w le r M ix e r ....................................................... P hil J u d d S till p h o t o g r a p h y .......................... J im T o w n le y T e ch , a d v is e r ....................................T o m H a fey B est b o y .................................... P e te r M a lo n e y R u n n e r .........................................J o h n W h a rto n U n it p u b lic is t ......................... B a rb a ra H a rp e r P ro m o tio n s C a t e r in g ........................................................... F ra n k M a n ly S tu d io s ................C o llin g w o o d F o o tb a ll C lu b M ix e d at ..........................................................A tla b L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b Lab. lia is o n .................................. G re g D o h e rty L e n g th .......................................................9 0 m in s G a u g e .........................................................35 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r F irst r e le a s e d ..............S e p te m b e r 18, 1980 B ry s o n C in e m a (M e lb o u rn e ) C a st: G ra h a m K e n n e d y (Te d P a rk e r), A la n C a sse ll (G e rry C o o p e r), J a c k T h o m p s o n (L a u rie H o ld e n ), F ra n k W ils o n (J o c k R iley), H a r o ld H o p k in s ( D a n n y R o w e ), J o h n H o w a rd (G e o ff H a y w a rd ), M a g g ie D o yle (S usy).

S y n o p s is : A p ro b e in to th e c o n fro n ta tio n s a nd p o w e r s tru g g le s o f A u s tra lia n R ules b a c k ro o m b o y s . A t a u t f ilm about o rg a n iz a tio n a l p o w e r p o litic s , la c e d w ith D a vid W illia m s o n 's in c is iv e d ia lo g u e a nd h u m o r.

MURDER MOST FOULED UP P r o d u c e r s .................................... J e ri M c E lro y , C h ris tin e K o zle l D ire c to rs .......................................J e ri M c E lro y , C h ris tin e K o zie l L e n g th .................................................... 110 m in s S y n o p s is : A za n y, h ig h -s p e n d in g h o u s e w ife d e c id e s to m u rd e r h e r h u s b a n d fo r h is In ­ s u ra n c e m o n e y . S h e re c ru its h e r b e s t frie n d to h e lp her. T o g e th e r th e y s u c c e e d , b u t it ta k e s th e m 13 a tte m p ts to d o so. B ase d on a tru e in c id e n t.

PUBERTY BLUES P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . L im e lig h t P ro d u c tio n s P r o d u c e r s .........................................J o a n L o n g , M a rg a re t K e lly D ir e c t o r .......................................................... B ru c e B e re s fo rd S c r ip t w r it e r ................................M a rg a re t K e lly B ase d on th e n ove l b y .......... K a th y L ette, G a b rie lle C a re y

RELATIVES

Papers.

C om pleted forms should be sent to:

Production Survey, Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Vic., 3051 Telephone: (03) 329 5983

FEA TU R ES P R E -P R O D U C T IO N

BILLABONG HOUSE

P ro d , c o m p a n y ...........................A rc h e r F ilm s P r o d u c e r ........................................ H e n ri S a fra n D ire c to r ................................. A n th o n y B o w m a n S c r ip t w r it e r ...........................A n th o n y B o w m a n E xec, p ro d u c e r s .................. R o b e rt S o m o s l, R o s e m a ry F re e m a n L e n g th ........................................................ 90 m in s G a u g e .......................................................... 35 m m S y n o p s is : It's a c o m e d y , it’s a d ra m a , it's a fa m ily re u n io n .

UNTITLED P r o d u c e r ......................................... J o h n H e yer D ir e c t o r ............................................T im B u rs ta ll B a se d on th e n ove l C a p r ic o r n ia by ................ X a v ie r H e rb e rt

THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY

P r o d u c e r .................... M c E lro y a n d M c E lro y P ro d , c o m p a n y .............................In d e p e n d e n t D ir e c t o r .................................................P e te r W e ir P ro d u c tio n s B ase d on th e n o ve l by .................... C. K och P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r .................. G en e W . S c o tt S c r ip t w r it e r .................................... A la n S h a rp e S c r ip t w r it e r .....................................................G e o ft B ea k B a se d o n th e o rig in a l id e a F o r c o m p le te d e ta ils of th e fo llo w in g fe a tu re b y ......................................................G e o ff B e a k see Issue 28: P h o t o g r a p h y ...................................................... P hil P ike T h e B a c k s tre e t G e n e ra l S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................... R u sse ll H u rle y A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ...................... R u sse ll H u rle y 1st a sst d ire c to r ........... M a tth e w F la n a g a n L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n .........................P hil P ike C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........................ K e ith B ry a n t P R O D U C T IO N A rt d i r e c t o r ................................K la u s V an D ie t L e n g th ........................................................ 85 m in s G a u g e .............................................................1 6m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r GALLIPOLI F ilm in g c o m m e n c e s ..............................3 /1 1 /8 0 Synopsis: A n a d v e n tu re s to ry fo r c h ild re n .

P ro d u c e r .................................... P a tric ia L ove ll

A BURNING MAN P r o d u c e r .....................M c E lro y a nd M c E lro y B a se d on th e o rig in a l Idea by .......................................................K. D e n to n S c r ip t w r it e r ..............................D a vid A m b ro s e

D ire c to r ............................................. P e te r W e ir S c rip tw rite r .........................D avid W illia m s o n C a s t: M e l G ib s o n (F r a n k ), M a rk L ee (A rc h y ).

S y n o p s is : A film w h ic h fo llo w s th e e x ­ p e rie n c e s o f tw o y o u th s w h o a re in flic te d w ith th e s p irit o f G a llip o li.

CENTRESPREAD P ro d , c o m p a n y .................... A u s tra lia n Film P ro d u c tio n s P r o d u c e r ...................................... W a yn e G ro o m D ire c to r .................................... T o n y P a tte rs o n S c r ip t w r it e r s ............................. R o b e rt F o g d e n , M ic h a e l R a lp h P h o t o g r a p h y .......................G e o ffre y S im p s o n S o u n d re c o rd is t ............................. J im C u rrie E d i t o r ......................................... T o n y P a tte rs o n G a u g e ........................................................... 3 5 m m Synopsis: T h e s to ry o f an In n o c e n t g ir l’s rise to fa m e in th e w o rld of n u d e m o d e llin g .

POST-PRODUCTION

The Survivor B o o m o p e ra to r ..............R a y m o n d P h illip s A rt d ire c to r ................................J o n D o w d in g M a k e -u p ..................................L o is H o h e n fe ls W a rd ro b e ........................ A p h ro d ite K o n d o s P ro p s ............................................... H a rry Z e tte l S ta n d b y p ro p s ....................N ick H e p w o rth S p e c ia l e ffe c ts .................. R e ece R o b in s o n S ta n d in .........................................H e ath H a rris C a rp e n te r ............................. K en H a z e lw o o d S et c o n s tru c tio n ...................... J o h n M o rg a n S o u n d s u p e rv is o r ...............A n d re w L o n d o n T ru c k d riv e r ................................H e ath H a rris S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ..................G ra n t P ag e N u rse ................................S is te r Ja n n e D u nn S till p h o to g ra p h y ........................ S u zle W o o d .

J im T o w n le y Dog h a n d le r ................................. H e ath H a rris M e c h a n ic s ...................................... S te ve W e lls, R o b e rt R ig o n B est b o ys ................................C o lin W illia m s , D a ryl B in n in g s R u n n e rs ..................................D a vid R e ta llic k , J im R ic h a rd s P u b lic ity .................................... G le n C ra w fo rd C a te rin g .........................................H e le n W rig h t C a te rin g r u n n e r s ...................... K im D o o h a n , D u n ca n C a m p b e ll S tu d io s ...................................... S ta rc h F a c to ry L a b o ra to ry ........................................... C o lo rfilm Lab. lia is o n ....................................... B ill G o o le y B u d g e t ...............................................S1.7 m illio n L e n g th ..................................................110 m in s G auge .......................................................... 3 5 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r C a s t: S ta c y K e a ch (Q u id ), J a m ie -L e e C u rtis (H itch ), M a rio n E d w a rd (F rita ), G ra n t P age ( S m i t h / J o n e s ) , B ill S t a c e y ( C a p t a in C a r e f u l) , T h a d d e u s S m it h ( A b b o t t ) .

S te p h e n M illic h a m p ( C o s t e llo ) , C o lin V a n ca o (F re d F ru g a l), J o h n M u rp h y (B e n n y B alls). R o b e rt T h o m p s o n (S n e e zy R id e r).

S y n o p s is : Pat Q u id , on a lin e -h a u l fro m M e lb o u rn e to P e rth , fin d s o u t th a t o n e of his fe llo w tra v e lle rs is a m a ss m u rd e re r.

THE SURVIVOR ROADGAMES

P ro d , c o m p a n y ...........................Q u e s t F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y ..................................G U O and A v c o E m b a ssy (U .S . a nd W o rld ) P ro d u c e r /d ir e c to r ........... R ic h a rd F ra n k lin C o -p ro d u c e r ....................... . . . B a rb i T a y lo r DRAGLINE S c rip tw rite r ....................... E ve re tt de R o ch e B a se d on the s h o rt s to ry S c r ip t w r it e r .......................................G e ra rd Lee by ........................................R ic h a rd F ra n k lin , B ase d on th e s h o rt sto ry E v e re tt d e R o ch e b y .................................................... G e ra rd Lee P h o to g ra p h y ...........................V in c e n t M o n to n C o m p o s e r ................................. B ria n B e a m is h S o u n d re c o rd is t .............................P au l C la rk L e n g th .......................................................6 0 m in s E d ito r .................. E d w a rd M c Q u e e n M a so n Synopsis: T w o m e n a t a u ra n iu m m in e fin d P ro d, d e s ig n e r ............................J o n D o w d in g th e m s e lv e s fa c e d w ith a s itu a tio n of p o litic a l C o m p o s e r .........................................B ria n M ay a n d s e x u a l re p re s s io n .

E xec, p ro d u c e r ..............B e rn a rd S c h w a rtz P ro d , m a n a g e r .................... G re g R ic k e ts o n L o c a tio n m a n a g e r .................... H e le n L isto n HEATWAVE T ra n s p o rt m a n a g e r ........... T im M c M a h o n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ......................... H elen W a tts P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............M & L E n te rp ris e s P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .......................Lea C o llin s P ro d u c e r .................................. H ila ry L in s te a d D ir e c to r’s a s s is ta n t .................... S u e P a rk e r D ire c to r ............................................. P hil N o yce 1st a sst d ire c to r ........................T o m B u rs ta ll S c rip tw rite rs ................................... M a rk S tile s, 2nd asst d ire c to r ..................... J a m e s P a rk e r P hil N o yce 3 rd a sst d ire c to rs ................. W a rw ic k Ross, B a se d o n th e o rig in a l id ea B illy B a x te r by ........................................... T im G o o d in g , C o n tin u ity ..................................A n n ie M c L e o d M a rk S tile s V isu a l c o -o rd in a to r .................... B ill H a n sa rd P h o to g ra p h y ...............................V in c e M o n to n C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........................ L o u is Irvin g E d ito r .................................................. J o h n S c o tt F o cu s p u lle r ..............................D a vid B ro s to ff C la p p e r/lo a d e r ................................Phil C ro ss HOODWINK K ey g rip ................................. G ra h a m M a rd e ll A sst g rip s ...................................G re g W a lla ce , P r o d u c e r s ........................................ P om O liv e r, K a re l A k k e rm a n • E rro l S u lliv G aa nffe r ............................................T o n y H o lth a m S c r ip t w r it e r ........................................................ K en Q u in n e ll

.................... T u e s d a y F ilm P ro d u c tio n s a nd R ia ci In v e s tm e n ts fo r F.G. F ilm P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r ...........................A n to n y I. G in n a n e D ire c to r ............................. D a vid H e m m in g s S c rip tw rite r ..............................D a vid A m b ro s e B ase d on th e n o ve l by . . . J a m e s H e rb e rt P h o to g ra p h y .................................... J o h n S e a le S o u n d re c o rd is t ..............................T im L lo y d E d ito r .........................................T o n y P a te rs o n P ro d , d e s ig n e r .......................B e rn a rd H id e s C o m p o s e r ......................................... B ria n M a y E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................W illia m F a ym a n A s s o c p ro d u c e r ............................ J a n e S c o tt P ro d , m a n a g e r .............................. J a n e S c o tt U n it m a n a g e r ............................. T im S a n d e rs P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............................J e n n y B a rty P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .................. C a th y B a rb e r 1st a sst d ire c to r .................... M a rk E g e rto n 2nd a sst d ire c to r ................... S te ve A n d re w s 3 rd a sst d ire c to r ..............M a rs h a ll C ro s b y C o n tin u ity ............................. C a ro lin e S ta n to n P ro d u c e r’s a s s is ta n t ......... S y lv ia V an W yk C a stin g ....................................... M ic h a e l L yn ch , S o u th A u s tra lia n C a s tin g C a m e ra o p e ra to r .........................P e te r M o ss F o cu s p u lle r ..................................... Ja n K e n n y C la p p e r/lo a d e r .....................D a ro G u n z b e rg K ey g rip .......................................R o ss E ric k s o n A s s t g rip s ................................. R o b in M o rg a n , R o b e rt V e rk e rk 2 nd u n it p h o to g ra p h y ................ K e vin L in d G a ffe r ................................................ M ic k M o rris E le c tric ia n s .......................... G ra e m e S h e lto n , S am B ie n s to c k G e n e o p e ra to r .......................... S im o n P u rto n

B o o m o p e ra to r .................... J a c k F rie d m a n A rt d ire c to r ............................. B e rn a rd H id e s A s s t a rt d ire c to r ........... V irg in ia B ie n e m a n C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r .................... T e rry Ryan M a k e -u p .............................................. J ill P o rte r H a ird re s s e r .................................... S ash L a m e y W a rd , a s s is ta n t ............. H e a th e r M c L a re n P ro p s b u y e r ............................O w en P a te rs o n S ta n d b y p ro p s ............................. J o h n C a rro ll S p e c ia l e ffe c ts ......................... C h ris M u rra y , M o n ty F ie g u th , V ic W ils o n S e t d e c o ra to r ......................... O w e n P a te rs o n S c e n ic a rtis t ................................B illy M a lc o lm S e t c o n s tru c tio n .....................H e rb e rt P in te r A s s t e d ito r ............................... C a rm e n G alan S o u n d e d ito r ........................ B ru c e L a m s h e d M ix e r .............................................. P e te r F e n to n S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r .................. D e n n is H u n t S till p h o to g ra p h y .................... M ik e G id d e n s , D a vid S im m o n d s B est b o y ........................................ Reg G a rs id e R u n n e r .........................................J a n e n e K n ig h t P u b lic ity ................T h o r b u rn S te e r P u b lic ity U n it p u b lic is t ..................... L y n e tte T h o rb u rn C a te rin g ............................ H o lly w o o d C a n te e n S tu d io s .................................... S o u th A u s tra lia n Film C o rp o ra tio n M ix e d at ......................................U n ite d S o u n d L a b o ra to ry ........................................... C o lo rfilm Lab. lia is o n ....................................... B ill G o o le y L e n g th .................................................... 100 m in s G auge .......................................................... 3 5 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r S c h e d u le d re le a s e ................ J a n u a ry , 1981 C a st: R o b e rt P o w e ll (K e lle r), J e n n y A g u tte r (H o b b s ), P e te r S u m n e r (T e w so n ), R a lp h C o tte riil (S la te r), A n g e la P u n c h -M c G re g o r (B e th R o g a n ), D e nzll H o w so n (R o g a n ), A d ria n W r ig h t (G o o d w in ), J o s e p h C o tto n (Th e p rie s t), L o rn a L e sle y (S u sa n G o o d w in ), K irk A le x a n d e r (D r M a rtin d a le ).

S y n o p s is : A p ilo t, th e o n ly s u rv iv o r o f a p la n e c ra s h , to r tu re d w ith g u ilt a nd u n a b le to e x p la in th e re a so n fo r th e d is a s te r, s e ts u p o n a c o u rs e o f d is c o v e ry , d e s p e ra te ly s e e k in g to o v e rc o m e his lo ss of m e m o ry .

P ro d, c o m p a n ie s

SN RELEASE EKSBaæaggjgjgjgj

THE C L U B

SHORTS THE ACTRESS AND THE FEMINIST P ro d u c e r ................................................. K a y S e lf S c rip tw rite r .............................................K a y S e lf B ase d on th e o rig in a l id e a b y .......................................................... K a y S elf B u d g e t ....................................................... $ 1 3 ,4 4 0 L e n g th .................................................... 20 m in s G auge ...........................................................1 6m m P ro g re s s ............................................ P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e ............... J a n u a ry , 1981 S y n o p s is : A c o m p ila t io n f ilm w h ic h e x p lo re s th e im p a c t o f fe m in is m o n the a c tr e s s a n d film m a k e r . T h e film a ls o e x p lo re s th e c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e a c tre s s e s ’ p e rfo rm a n c e s a n d th e ir In n e r va lu e s.

AGACTION P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................................A g r ifilm D ist. c o m p a n y ..........................D e p a rtm e n t of A g ric u ltu re , V ic.

P r o d u c e r ............................................Reg B o u lte r D ire c to rs .........................................Reg B o u lte r.

Don E w art, Don C a ld e r S c r ip t w r it e r .............................. R o b e rt R o th o ls P h o t o g r a p h y ....................................Reg B o u lte r, Don E w a rt D on C a ld e r S o u n d re c o rd is t .............................D on C a ld e r E d i t o r .................................................. Reg B o u lte r E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... R o b e rt R o th o ls A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ...........................M a tt R o la n d P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ....................... B ru c e G u n d ry Neg. m a t c h i n g ................................................. VFL M ix e r .................................................. Reg B o u lte r N a r r a t o r ...............................................................Don E w a rt O p tic a ls ............................................................... VFL T itle d e s ig n e r ..................................................... B ill O w e n s M ix e d a t .................................................... A g rifilm L a b o ra to ry ........................................................V FL L e n g th ........................................................ 25 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................................In re le a s e F irs t r e le a s e d ......... R oyal M e lb o u rn e S h o w Synopsis: A s h o rt film illu s tra tin g a ro u n d ­ u p o f n ew te c h n o lo g y in a g ric u ltu re .

P ro d , c o m p a n y .................. S o u th A u s tra lia n .

F ilm C o rp o ra tio n BLACKING OUT A BLONDE D ist. c o m p a n y . . . . R o a d s h o w D is trib u to rs P r o d u c e r ...................................................M a tth e w C a rro ll P ro d , c o m p a n y ....................... D o o D ah Doo D ir e c t o r .................................. B ru c e B e re s fo rd P ro d u c tio n s S c r ip t w r it e r ...........................D a vid W 'illia m so n P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ........................ M ic h a e l Hill B ase d on th e p la y b y . . D a vid W illia m s o n S c r ip t w r it e r ......................................M ic h a e l Hill P h o t o g r a p h y ......................................................Don M c A lp in e P h o to g r a p h y ............................................... M u rra y B a k e r S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... G a ry W ilk in s S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................... S te p h e n W a rd E d i t o r ...................................... W illia m A n d e rs o n E d i t o r .......................................M ic h a e l M u s ta rd C o m p o s e r ........................................................ M ik e B ra d y P ro d , d e s ig n e r .........................L o u is e G ra b e r A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ......................... M o ya Ice to n 1st a sst d ire c to r .................... Ja n e C a m p io n P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .................... B a rb a ra Ring M a k e -u p .......................................A n n e tte Y o re P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ................. H a rle y M a n n e rs A n im a tio n .................................... L o u is e G ra b e r 1st a sst d ire c to r ............................ S c o tt H ic k s L a b o ra to ry .............................. K. G. C o lo rfilm 2 nd a sst d ir e c t o r . . . . C h ris to p h e r W illia m s B u d g e t .............................................................S1650 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r s ............................................ B ill B a xLteer, n g th .......................................................12 m in s G e o ff W rig h t G a u g e ........... S u p e r 8 (b lo w -u p to 16 m m ) C o n tin u ity ............................... T h e re s e O 'L e a ry S h o o tin g s t o c k ................................ E k ta c h ro m e L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ........... D on M c A lp in e Cast: L in d a R o b in s o n . P a m e la W o o d s , C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................. r M c A lp in e R ic h a rd B la c k , J e n n y W illia m s , A n n e tte F o cu s p u l l e r .............................. u a v id B u rr Y ore. T im o th y C o o p e r, J a n e C a m p io n , C la p p e r/lo a d e r ......................... P a u la N ic h o la M a r c L a w , C h r i s t o p h e r L e w is , P a m K ey g r i p ............................................................ JoelM c D o n a ld D e b e n h a m , J o n a t h a n S c e a ts . J u d it h A s s t g rip ..............................G o ff R ic h a rd s o n H e w itso n .

G a f f e r ................................................................... R o b Y o u n g Synopsis: A s h o rt film w ith n in e e p is o d e s B o o m o p e ra to r ...................... M a rk W a s iu ta k w h ic h s h o w th a t b lo n d e s d o h ave m o re fu n .

Cinema Papers, October-November — 363

BLUE WATER CHALLENGE

THE COMING

HANDLING BALED HAY (Part 2)

MAKING IT

Lab. lia is o n s ................................J im P a rs o n s , A n d re w M a s o n , P ro d , c o m p a n y .................................. A c a d e m y P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... V a lh a lla F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y .......................D e p a rtm e n t o f P ro d , c o m p a n y .. G e o ff B e a k P ro d u c tio n s A n d re w D o g h e rty F ilm P ro d u c tio n s P r o d u c e r ............................................... J e n n y Day A g ric u ltu re , V ic. in a s s o c ia tio n w ith th e B u d g e t ......................................................... 5 1 1 ,5 7 8 D ist. c o m p a n y .....................................A c a d e m y D ire c to r ............................................. C ra ig L a h lff D ire c to r ..................................R e g in a ld B o u lte r M a c a u L ig h t C o m p a n y L e n g th .......................................................26 m in s F ilm P ro d u c tio n s S c r ip t w r it e r s ................................................... J o h n E m eTry, e c h n ic a l p ro d u c e r ..............B ru c e G u n d ry P r o d u c e r .............................................G e o ff B ea k G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m P r o d u c e r ...................................... R o n a ld M a so n L a u ra Jo n e s, S o u n d re c o rd is t .................. D o n a ld C a ld e r D ir e c t o r ..................................................J a n e O e h r S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r D i r e c t o r ................................................................. R ik D o vey C ra ig L a h iff E d ito r ...................................... R e g in a ld B o u lte r S c r ip t w r it e r ........................................ G e o ff B ea k P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n P h o t o g r a p h y ..............................J o h n B o w rin g , S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... Rod P a sco e E xec, p ro d u c e r ......................R o b e rt R o th o ls A rt d ir e c t o r ..............M a c a u L ig h t C o m p a n y Cast: J a c k K irw a n , C h a rle s M c C a llu m , Ray D a vid E gg b y, E d i t o r ..................................................C ra ig L a h iff P ro d , c o n s u lta n t . . H e d le y S im p fe n d o rfe r A s s o c , p r o d u c e r .................... M ic h a e l J a c o b M e a g h e r, P a tti C ro c k e r, N ic h o la s L id s to n e , Len H e itm a n , E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... T e rry J e n n in g s C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........... R e g in a ld B o u lte r L e n g th ........................................................ 52 m in s D a vid M e lv ille , T im o th y G ro g a n .

F ra n k Few, P ro d , m a n a g e r .......................M a rd i K e n n e d y L a b o ra to ry ...................................................... V FL G a u g e .........................................................16 m m Synopsis: A s h o rt film a b o u t th e lo n e lin e s s K e vin M a n n in g , P ro d , a s s is t a n t ........................................T o m P ett L e n g th .................................................... 25 m in s P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n o f o ld a ge . T w o m a le o ld - a g e p e n s io n e rs J a c k F ro st, 1st a s s t d ire c to r .................... S im o n B e n n e ts G auge ...........................................................1 6m m S c h e d u le d r e le a s e .................................... 1981 liv e in a s e m i-r u r a l to w n . T h e d a u g h te r o f D a vid O ln e y C o n tin u ity ........................... R u th d e la L a n d e S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r C a s t: M a ca u L ig h t C o m p a n y a n d A s s o c ­ o n e is e x p e c te d h o m e f o r C h ris tm a s fro m S o u n d re c o rd is t ...............................Ian W ils o n L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ................P e te r S m ith P ro g re s s ................................A w a itin g re le a se ia tes. o v e rs e a s . T h e p e n s io n e r is u n a b le to g e t E d i t o r ................................................................ D a vid P u lb o ke ra o p e ra to r .................. D a vid F o re m a n Cro am Synopsis: T h e s e c o n d p a rt in a s e rie s o f c re d it to b u y a g o o s e f o r C h ris tm a s d in n e r.

E xec, p ro d u c e r .........................R o n a ld M a so n C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..............G ra e m e S h e lto n te c h n iq u e s in h a n d lin g b a le d hay. T h e film He p la n s to ste a l o n e a n d in d o in g so im ­ P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ...................... R o n a ld M a so n K e y g r i p ........................................... R o b M o rg a n illu s tra te s th e e q u ip m e n t a n d its uses. p lic a te s h is frie n d .

P ro d , c o - o r d in a to r ..................R o n a ld M a so n A rt d ir e c t o r ................................ C h ris W e b s te r P ro d , m a n a g e r .........................R o n a ld M a so n M a k e -u p ........................................S a s h a L a m e y P ro d , c o m p a n y .........

A A A A A u s tra l F ilm ic U n it m a n a g e r ............................................. R o n a ld M a so Wn a rd ro b e ........................... R u th d e la L a n d e E n te rp ris e s E le c tr ic ia n ..........................................................P au l D ic kMeix n se or n .................................................. R o d P a sco e P r o d u c e r s ..................................... P au l L e a d o n , M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y ..............F. M o n k m a n , L a b o ra to ry ............................................. C o lo rfilm D ist. c o m p a n y .......................D e p a rtm e n t o f D a vid P o lto ra k J. W illia m s L e n g th .......................................................40 m in s A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

D ire c to rs .......................................P au l L e a d o n , D ist. c o m p a n y ....................... D e p a rtm e n t o f S o u n d e d ito r ........................... D a vid P u lb ro o k G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m D ire c to r ..................................R e g in a ld B o u lte r D a vid P o lto ra k E d itin g a s s is ta n t ...................... A n n B e re s fo rd A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r T e ch , p ro d u c e r ........................B ru c e G u n d ry S c r ip t w r it e r s .................................P au l L e a d o n , D i r e c t o r .................................... R o b e rt R o th o ls M ix e r ........................................... D a vid H a rris o n P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S o u n d re c o rd is t .................. D o n a ld C a ld e r D a vid P o lto ra k T e ch , p ro d u c e r .................... B ru c e G u n d ry N a r r a t o r ............................................................ B ria n L e hCmaasnt:n R o d M u lli n a r , K e r r y M a g u ir e , E d ito r ...................................... R e g in a ld B o u lte r P h o t o g r a p h y ...........................M a rtin C o o m b e s S o u n d re c o rd is t .................... D o n a ld E w a rt S till p h o t o g r a p h y ............................................. Len H e itm an E liz a ,b e th A le x a n d e r, T e d H o d g e m a n , E xec, p ro d u c e r ..................... R o b e rt R o th o ls S o u n d re c o rd is t ................. L a u rie F itz g e ra ld E d ito r ......................................... D o n a ld C a ld e r D a vid E g g b y, D e n n is O lse n , H e n ry S a lte r, B a rb a ra W e st, C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........... R e g in a ld B o u lte r E d i t o r ..................................................K im R e n d a ll E xec, p ro d u c e r .....................R o b e rt R o th o ls R o n a ld M a so n , J o h n S a u n d e rs , P au l S o n k ilia , R ic h a rd C o n s u lta n ts ............................. P a tric k F ra n c is , P ro d u c e r’s a s s is ta n t..............A le x M c G re g o r C a m e ra o p e ra to r ................ D o n a ld C a ld e r F ra n k Few M o o rc ro ft.

G le n o rm is to n C o lle g e C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..............L a u rie K irk w o o d T itle d e s ig n e r .......................... H e a th e r T o w n s C o n s u lta n t ..............................: . . .P e te r S m ith S y n o p s is : A s te c h n o lo g ic a l s o c ie ty is b re a k ­ L a b o ra to ry ...................................................... VFL K ey g r i p .......................................... M a rk M o rg a n L e n g th .....................................................20 m in s P u b lic it y ........... A c a d e m y F ilm P ro d u c tio n s in g d o w n , a m a n s tru g g le s w ith h is fe a rs L e n g th .................................................... 25 m in s A s s t g rip .......................................M ic h a e l M u ir G auge ......................................................... 1 6 m m M ix e d at ................................C ra w fo rd S tu d io s a n d a n x ie tie s .

G auge ...........................................................1 6m m C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r . . . . P h ilo m e n a M u rp h y L a b o ra to ry ........................................................ V FL S h o o tin g s to c k ..........................E a s tm a n c o lo r S h o o tin g s to c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r S o u n d e d ito r ................................. D a gg R a ttle r B u d g e t ....................................................... 5 7 7 ,0 0 0 F irs t re le a s e d ..................................A p r il, 1980 P ro g re s s ................................A w a itin g re le a se S tu n ts ......................... T h e F lyin g L o m b a rd o s L e n g th ....................................................... 47 m in s Synopsis: A s h o r t film fe a tu rin g fiv e o f th e Synopsis: A s h o rt film a b o u t h o w to h a n d le D ia lo g u e c o a c h .............................Ron C a se y a w a rd -w in n in g d a irie s in th e 1 9 7 9 -8 0 F a rm G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m a n d c a re fo r b re e d h o rse s.

B est b o y .......................................... G e o ff K elso W o rld D a iry D e s ig n C o n te s t, in c lu d in g a S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r D ist. c o m p a n y .......................D e p a rtm e n t o f C a t e r in g .......................................................... J e n n y D e Ldisle is c u s s io n w ith e a c h o f th e d a iry m e n c o n ­ P ro g re s s ................................ A w a itin g re le a s e A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

S tu d io s ............................ 5 /2 0 0 K u rra b a R oad c e rn e d .

S y n o p s is : A s h o rt film , c o v e rin g th e fle e t of D ire c to r ..................................R e g in a ld B o u lte r L a b o ra to ry ...........................................

C o lo rfilm KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES A u s tra lia ’s le a d in g o c e a n ra c in g y a c h ts E xec, p ro d u c e r ......................R o b e rt R o th o ls B u d g e t ........................................................... S9700 w h ic h s e t s a il o n J a n u a ry 13, 1980, on a C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........... R e g in a ld B o u lte r P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . R ob B ro w P ro d u c tio n s L e n g th ...................................................... 28 m in s c o u rs e th a t w a s to ta k e th e m o v e r 800 m ile s C o n s u lta n t .................... D r P au l H e m s w o rth D ist. c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia P ro g re s s ..................................A w a itin g re le a s e o f s o m e o f th e m o s t c h a lle n g in g s tre tc h e s of L a b o ra to ry ...................................................... V FL P r o d u c e r ......................................................... P ete r J o hC na so n L a n c e C u rtis , T im G o o d in g , C o lle n st: w a te r in th e w o rld — a c lo c k w is e c ir c u m ­ D ist. c o m p a n y .......................D e p a rtm e n t o f L e n g th .................................................... 10 m in s D ir e c t o r ..................................................Rob B ro w L e s lie , J o h n O ’ C o n n e ll, M a r k S tile s , n a v ig a tio n o f A u s t r a lia ’s s o u th e r n m o s t A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

E liza b e th K night..

S c r ip t w r it e r .......................................... N o el Field G auge ...........................................................1 6 m m is la n d , T a s m a n ia .

D ire c to r .......................................D o n a ld E w a rt P h o t o g r a p h y ..................................P e te r S yke s S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r S y n o p s is : A 'p a ra p s y c h o m ic a l' lo o k at the S c rip tw rite r ........................... D o n a ld V ic k e rs P ro g re s s ................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... G e o ff W ils o n p ro d u c tio n o f A u s tra lia 's n e w e st p re s tig e E xec, p ro d u c e r ......................R o b e rt R o th o ls fe a tu re , W e e k e n d o f S u m m e r L a s t, a film Synopsis: A s h o rt film o n a n e w a p p ro a c h in E d i t o r ...........................................D a vid H ip k in s C o n s u lta n t ...................................... K en S a rg e n t C o m p o s e r ................................................ C o b b e rs ra is in g p ig s. w h ic h d e a ls re a lis tic a lly w ith th e p o w e r o f L e n g th .....................................................13 m in s U n it m a n a g e r ..............................W a rw ic k Fie ld th e in d ig e n o u s s u p e rn a tu ra l.

G auge ......................................................... 1 6m m P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............................................. N o la D ist. c o m p a n y .......................D e p a rtm e n t of S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..................R o b e rt M u rra y A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

Synopsis: A p a ra d e o f s o m e o f A u s tra lia 's DIRTY HARRY K ey g r i p ............................................................ C o lin C h a se D ire c to r .......................................D o n a ld E w a rt fin e s t J e rs e y , Friesran , A n g u s , P oll H e re fo rd G a f f e r ..............................................L in d s a y F o ote P ro d , c o m p a n y .................... A u s tra lia n Film S c rip tw rite rs ....................... C h ris K im b e rle y , a n d M u rra y G re y b u lls , w ith v ita l s ta tis tic s D ist. c o m p a n y .......................D e p a rtm e n t of N eg. m a t c h in g ...................V ic to ria n N e g a tive C o m m is s io n R o b e rt R o th o ls in c lu d in g c la s s ific a tio n s a n d u p - to -d a te A g r ic u ltu re , Vic. M a tc h in g P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ........................C ra ig W o o d S o u n d re c o rd is t .................. D o n a ld C a ld e r fig u re s of th e o u tp u t o f m ilk , fa t a n d p ro te in .

D ire c to r ......................... R e g in a ld B o u lte r M u s ic p e rfo rm e d by ..........................C o b b e rs S c r ip t w r it e r ..................................... C ra ig W o o d E d ito r ........................................... D o n a ld E w a rt T e c h n ic a l p ro d u c e r ................ B ru c e G u n d ry N a r r a t o r ....................................... H a m lsh H u g h e s B a se d on th e s h o rt s to ry E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... R o b e rt R o th o ls L o c a tio n s o u n d .................... D o n a ld C a ld e r L a b o ra to ry ........................................................V FL b y ...................................................................C ra ig C o o p e r C o n s u lta n t ............................ C h ris K im b e rle y E d ito r ...................................... R e g in a ld B o u lte r L e n g th ........................................................ 25 m in s P h o t o g r a p h y ...............................................R u ssell B a co n Q.V.B. G auge ......................................................... 1 6 m m E xec, p ro d u c e r ......................R o b e rt R o th o ls G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S o u n d re c o rd is ts .......................C h ris V ib a rt, S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r C a m e ra o p e ra to r ............R e g in a ld B o u lte r S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro d , c o m p a n y ......... U n iv e rs ity o f S y d n e y S c o tt H a rtfo rd -D a v is P ro g re s s ...........................................P ro d u c tio n C o n s u lta n t ............................J o h n S u th e rla n d P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n T e le v is io n S e rv ic e E d i t o r .................................................C ra ig W o o d S c h e d u le d re le a s e ......................Late. 1980 L a b o ra to ry ...................................................... VFL S y n o p s is : A lo o k at th e life o f N a n cy a nd ist.

A rt d ir e c t o r s .................................................. C ra ig C o oD pe r, c o m p a n y ........... U n iv e rs ity o f S y d n e y Synopsis: A c a ta lo g u e o f th e n u m e ro u s L e n g th .................................................... 15 m in s J o n a h J o n e s — 20th C e n tu ry p io n e e rs . She. T e le v is io n S e rv ic e L e w is M o rle y b re e d s o f h o rs e s in p o p u la r d e m a n d in th e G auge ...........................................................1 6m m a fo r m e r a c tre s s , te le v is io n c o m p e re a nd Pm r osd u c e r ................................................J im D a le C o m p o s e r ........................................................ T o n y W illia re c re a tio n a l a n d s h o w in g fie ld .

P ro g re s s ................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n n o w a d ra m a te a c h e r, a nd he, a le a d in g p ig D ire c to r ........................................... C o lin H a w ke P ro d u c e r’s a s s is ta n t................... M o y a W o o d b re e d e r, fo r m e r c h a irm a n of A rts C o u n c il Synopsis: A s h o rt film w h ic h s h o w s ‘D irty S cr r ip t w r it e r s .................................. D a vid E arle.

F o cu s p u l l e r ..............................................A n d re w C o llie M a lle e re g io n , b o th w o rk in g to a d v a n c e H a rry ’ at w o rk o n his v e g e ta b le fa rm , w ith C o lin H a w ke C la p p e r/lo a d e r ..............................J o h n S c o tt c o m m u n ic a tio n and th e a rts in a c u ltu ra lly s p e c ia l e m p h a s is on th e rig h t a n d w ro n g P h o t o g r a p h y ..............................M ic h a e l J a c o b O p t ic a ls ............................................................ A tla b A BUSINESS LIKE INVESTMENT w a y to a p p ly p e s tic id e s . d e p riv e d a re a — th e M a lle e in N o rth -W e s t S o u n d re c o rd is t .....................S tu a rt P o in to n L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b V ic to ria .

E d i t o r .................................... L o u is e H a w th o rn e B u d g e t .............................................................5 17 00 P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................ M o tio n P ic tu re P ro d , m a n a g e r .....................F o yle M c C a ffe ry L e n g th ...................................................... 35 m in s A s s o c ia te s L ig h tin g ........................................... C h ris W illin g G a u g e .........................................................16 m m P r o d u c e r .......................................... J o h n L e a ke FRONTLINE LED ASTRAY N a r r a t o r ..............................................D a vid E arle S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r D ir e c t o r ...........................................D a vid B a rro w D ist. c o m p a n y ..............S y d n e y F ilm m a k e r’s S till p h o t o g r a p h y ............................P e te r E llio tt P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................ M o tio n P ic tu re P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................D a vid B a rro w C o -o p e ra tiv e L e n g th ......................................................50 m in s C a st: S te p h e n B u llo c h .

A s s o c ia te s S o u n d R e c o rd is t . . . B e rry va n B ro n k h u rs t P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ................D a vid B ra d b u ry S h o o tin g s t o c k .................. 1 in c h c o lo r v id e o P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ........................ J o h n L e a ke S y n o p s is : K a n to r, a m in e r on a d is ta n t E d i t o r .............................................. P e te r F le tc h e r S c r ip t w r it e r s ......................... D a vid B ra d b u ry , P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n plS het. fin d s a s m a ll a lie n c u b e a m o n g th e S c r ip t w r it e r .................................. D a vid B a rro w C a s t in g ............................................ A lis o n B a rre tt B o b C o n n o lly Synopsis: A c c o r d in g to a re c e n t N a tio n a l E d i t o r ........................................... P e te r F le tc h e r w re c k a g e o f a c ra s h e d s p a c e c ra ft. H is m in d L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ..................J o h n L e a ke B ase d on th e o rig in a l id ea T ru s t s u rv e y , th e Q u e e n V ic to r ia B u ild in g is P ro d , a s s is t a n t ...........................

M a rd i P a lm e r is c o rru p te d b y th e evil w ith in th e c u b e and C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .................... S te v e n M a so n b y ........................................... D a vid B ra d b u ry th e m o s t p o p u la r h is to r ic b u ild in g in N ew L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ................. J o h n L e a ke he is le d to d e s tro y h is o n ly frie n d , a c o m ­ G a f f e r ......................................... W a rre n M e a rn s P h o t o g r a p h y ...................................

D a vid P e rry S o u th W a le s. T h is V ic to ria n m a s te rp ie c e is C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..................S te ve n M a so n p u te r w h ic h m o n ito rs th e m in in g o p e ra tio n s M a k e -u p ................................M o n ic a D a w k in s S o u n d re c o rd is t .....................C liff M a n n in g s lo w ly fa llin g in to d is re p a ir. T h is s h o rt film G a f f e r ............................................ W a rre n M e a rn s on th e p la n e t.

N eg. m a t c h i n g .......................................C o lo rfilm E d i t o r ............................................S te w a rt Y o u n g e x a m in e s th e fa te o f th is h is to ric b u ild in g .

L a b o ra to ry .............................................

C o lo rfilm M ix e r ..............................................Ron G u b b in s C o m p o s e r ....................................... M id n ig h t Oil L e n g th ...................................................... 12 m in s N a r r a t o r ........................................... A lis te r S m a rt A sso c, p ro d u c e r .......................B o b C o n n o lly P I E C E O F C A K E G a u g e .........................................................16 m m O p t ic a ls .................................................... C o lo rfilm P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .................... L lo y d C o llin s S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r M ix e d at .................................................. V id e o la b ( p r e v io u s ly A n d M o l l i e M a k e s T h r e e ) P ro d u c e r's a s s is ta n ts .............. R o b in J u d g e , P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n L a b o ra to ry ..............................................C o lo rfilm P r o d u c e r ...........................P a m e la H. V a n n e c k R uth P rin g le S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. O c to b e r 1980 L e n g th ......................................................... 15 m in s D ir e c t o r ............................................................M itc h M a th w s c o m p a n y ......................... D e p a rtm e n t o f N eg. m a t c h i n g ....................................... N e g a tiv e C u ttin Deist.

S ygn o p s is : A film fo r th e K u -rin g -g a i C o u n c il G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m S c r ip t w r it e r .................................................. M itc h M a th e w s S e rv ic e s on th e p ro b le m o f d o g s in o u r u rb a n A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r B ase d on th e o rig in a l id e a M u s ic p e r fo rm e d by ................M id n ig h t O il, so cie ty.

D ire c to r .......................................D o n a ld C a ld e r P ro g re s s ..................................A w a itin g re le a s e b y ................................................................

M itc h M a th e w s L in d s a y Lee, E d ito r ...........................................

D o n a ld C a ld e r S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. O c to b e r 1980, P h o t o g r a p h y ..............................................R ic h a rd W a lla e , p ro d u c e r .................... B ru c e G u n d ry D e n ise W y k e s T ecch P h o to k in a LILYDALE : A CHRONICLE OF S o u n d re c o rd is t .........................H a rry H a w e s M ix e r .............................................G e th in C re a g h E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................

R o b e rt R o th o ls C a s t: A lis te r S m a rt, N o el T re v a rth o n .

CHANGE E d i t o r .................................. N ic h o la s B e a u m a n N a r r a t o r ........................... R ic h a rd O x e n b u rg h C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................. D o n a ld C a ld e r A rt d i r e c t o r ....................... C a m illa R o w n tre e O p t ic a ls ........................................................... A c m e O p tic a ls G auge ......................................................... 1 6 m m P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................A V R B F ilm U n it CELEBRATIONS C o m p o s e r .................................... N ic o la s L yon L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r D ist. c o m p a n y ........................A V R B F ilm U n it P ro d , m a n a g e r ........... P a m e la H. V a n n e c k Lab. lia is o n ......................... N eil L u th e r b o rro w P ro g re s s ..................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n P ro d u c e r / P ro d , c o m p a n y ....................... T h e F ilm U n it, 1st asst d ire c to r .......... P a m e la H. V a n n e c k B u d g e t ....................................................... 5 6 0 ,0 0 0 S c h e d u le d re le a s e .........................L a te , 1980 d i r e c t o r ..............B a rb a ra B o y d A n d e rs o n E d u c a tio n D e p a rtm e n t, V ic to ria 2 n d a s s t d ir e c t o r .................................... A n d re w W illia ms L e n g th .......................................................54 m in s Synopsis: A s h o r t film p ro d u c e d in c o n ­ S c rip tw rite rs . . . . B a rb a ra B oyd A n d e rs o n , D ist. c o m p a n y ...............................A u d io -V is u a l C a s t in g ..............................................................M itc h C o njus un lta n cny w it h t h e M i n is t r y o f W a t e r G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m c t io M a re e T e y c h e n n e R e s o u rc e s B ra n c h F o cu s p u l l e r s .................................................H u g h J o h n s S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r R eto s onu, rc e s . T h e film s h o w s th e re s e a rc h S o u n d re c o rd is t .................... D a vid H u g h e s P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ................................Ivan G aa l P e te r M e n z ie s J u n .

P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e b e h in d th e u se o f re c la im e d s e w a g e w a te r E xec, p ro d u c e r .......................R o ss C a m p b e ll S c r ip t w r it e r s .....................................C a ro l W e b b , C la p p e r/lo a d e r ........................... S tu a rt Q u in n F irs t r e le a s e d ................................M a rc h 1980, in an e x p e rim e n ta l a g r ic u ltu ra l p ro je c t.

Ivan G aal L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ......... K e vin A n d e rs o n 2 n d c a m e ra o p e r a t o r ................ B o b H u g h e s U n io n T h e a tre L e n g th ...................................................... 25 m in s E xec, p ro d u c e r ................R oss R. C a m p b e ll G a f f e r ................................................ M ic k M o rris S y n o p s is : A c a m e ra m a n ’s v ie w o f th e V ie t­ L a b o r a to ry ........................................................ V F L G a u g e .........................................................16 m m A s s t a rt d ire c to r ......................... R o d D e la n e y n a m w a r g iv in g a u n iq u e in s ig h t o f th e w a r L e n g th .........................................................22 m in s S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r C a rp e n te r .................................... G a ry H a n se n fro m th e A s ia n s o ld ie r’s p o in t o f vie w . T h is G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n A s s t e d ito r ......................................... R ick L is le film b e g in s w h e re H o lly w o o d e n d s.

S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r S y n o p s is : A s h o rt film w h ic h c h a rts th e M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y ..............N ic o la s L yo n P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n b irth , g ro w th a nd d e v e lo p m e n t o f a ty p ic a l S o u n d e d ito r .................... S tu a rt A rm s tro n g c o u n try to w n , L ily d a le , fro m its lu s ty b e g in ­ S y n o p s is : A c o m p a ra tiv e a n d e n te rta in in g M ix e r .................................... J u lia n E llin g w o rth n in g s to its c o n te m p o ra ry s ta tu s as p a rt of s tu d y o f d iffe re n t c e le b ra tio n s in o u r m u lti­ O p t ic a ls ............................................................ A tla b th e u rb a n s p ra w l. c u ltu r a l s o c ie ty .

T itle d e s ig n e r .................................. F ra n B u rk e R u n n e r .................................... M a rg a re t M o rg a n M ix e d a t .......................................................... A tla b L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b

MAKING WEEKEND OF SUMMER LAST

HORSE BREAKING

PLEASANT MILKING

CUDDLY PIGS

PROGRESSIVE BREEDING

BREEDS OF HORSES

THE MIND BLOCK

RECLAIMED WATER

364 — Cinema Papers, October-November

SIMPSON’S HERD D ist. c o m p a n y

....................... D e p a rtm e n t o f A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

D ir e c to r ......................................... D o n a ld E w a rt S o u n d re c o rd is t .................... D o n a ld C a td e r E d ito r ..............................................D o n a ld E w a rt E xec, p ro d u c e r .....................R o b e rt R o th o ls C o n s u lta n t ........................................ J a c k G re e n L e n g th .....................................................16 m in s G auge ......................................................... 1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k . . . : ................ E a s tm a n c o lo r S ynopsis: A d a ir y -fa r m e r d is c u s s io n g ro u p in s p e c ts a p riz e w in n in g h e rd a n d a fte r­ w a rd s ta lk ‘s h o p ’ w ith th e o w n e r. A n In s ig h t in to th e b u s in e s s s id e o f ru n n in g a s u c ­ c e s s fu l d a iry fa rm .

TOMMY’S WORLD P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ..............M a rg o t L e th le a n P h o t o g r a p h y ...........................W o lfg a n g K re s s A s s is ta n t ................................ M ic h a e l W illia m s E d i t o r s .....................................M a rg o t L e th le a n , N u b a r G h a z a ria n C o m p o s e r ................................J u lia A n d e rs o n L a b o r a to ry ................................................C in e v e x B u d g e t .............................................................$ 5 0 0 0 L e n g th .......................................................10 m in s .

G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n Synopsis: A film o n th e e x h ib itio n “ T o m m y ’s W o rld ” — a c o lle c tio n o f p a in tin g s by' in t e lle c t u a lly - h a n d ic a p p e d p e o p le . T h e fo c u s is o n th e a rt, n o t th e h a n d ic a p , a nd a t­ te m p ts to s h o w th a t a la c k o f v e rb a l c o m ­ m u n ic a tio n n e e d n o t m e a n la c k o f e ffe c tiv e c o m m u n ic a tio n .

C o m p o s e r ................................B ru c e D e vo n ish A s s o c , p r o d u c e r .......................B o b C o n n o lly P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .......................E ric S a n k e y P ro d , a s s is ta n t..............................D ia n e S h a w 2 n d u n it p h o t o g r a p h y ................ P e te r L e tte n m a ie r, P e te r S tra in Neg. m a t c h i n g ................................Liz R a pse y S o u n d e d ito r ............................. L iz G o ld fin c h M ix e r ........................................................K im L o rd A n im a tio n ........................... G e o rg e B o ro w s k y L a b o ra to ry ............................................C in e -F ilm B u d g e t .........................................................$ 3 5 ,0 0 0 L e n g th ........................................................ 46 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ................................ E k ta c h ro m e P ro g re s s ................................A w a itin g re le a se S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. O c to b e r, 1980 (P e rth ) Synopsis: T h e film c o v e rs th e h is to ric a l e ve n ts th a t led to th e c o n fro n ta tio n b e tw e e n th e p u b lic , e n v iro n m e n ta lis ts , th e G o v e rn ­ m e n t, a nd A lc o a o f A u s tra lia , o v e r th e e x ­ p a n s io n o f b a u x ite m in in g In th e D a rlin g R a ng e s, a n d th e b u ild in g o f a n e w a lu m in a re fin e ry a t W a g e ru p in W e s te rn A u s tra lia .

Fo r c o m p le te d e ta ils o f th e fo llo w in g film s se e Issue 28: A nyw ay . . . W h a t is an A ustralian?

A rriv a d e rc i R om a Th e Big P icture D esire Freya G e n tle m a n ’s H a lt H ow ling at th e M oon T h e Job In te rvie w O rke ndi Q u ara n tin e

Red

S ho B iz K idz T o C a tc h a Living T o H o o k Fish in Fiji P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............................In m a F ilm s Trifles D ist. c o m p a n y ................................In m a F ilm s T w o S tories by A b o rig in a l S tory te lle r P r o d u c e r s .......................................................... N e d L a n d eM r, a u re en W atson G ra h a m Isaa c A W h a le of a T a le (A lb a n y W haling) D ire c to r ........................................... N e d L a n d e r S c r ip t w r it e r s ......................................................N ed L a n d e r, G ra h a m Isaac, in c o lla b o ra tio n w ith U s M o b , N o F ixe d A d d re s s a n d frie n d s P h o t o g r a p h y ................................ T o m C o w a n S o u n d re c o rd is t ....................... L lo y d C a rric k E d i t o r .....................................................J o h n S c o tt C o m p o s e r s .............................................. U s M o b , No F ixe d A d d re s s P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ...................................... M a rth a A n s a ra FEATURES P ro d , m a n a g e r .................................... Ian P ag e P ro d , s e c re ta ry ........................ G a yle R a n k in e P ro d , a s s is t a n t s ..............................................A le c M o rg a n , E ssie C o ffe y, C a th y E ld e rto n BOOTS AND ALL B o o m o p e ra to r ............................. P hil R o b e rts M u s ic a l d ire c to rs ....................G ra h a m Isaac, B o w e r B ird F ilm s P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . .

P hil R o b e rts ................. P at Fiske P ro d u c e r /d ir e c to r ..

M u s ic p e r fo rm e d by ......................... Us M o b , S c r ip t w r it e r ................ ................. P at Fiske No F ixe d A d d re s s , P h o to g r a p h y .............. . . .M a rth a A n s a ra E d itin g a s s is ta n ts ..............................S u e S c o tt S o u n d re c o rd is t . . . .L a w rie F itz g e ra ld S till p h o t o g r a p h y ..........................................C a ro l R u ffE d i t o r ........................... ......... Jim S te ve n s B u d g e t .......................................................$ 7 6 ,2 8 0 P ro d u c tio n re s e a rc h L e n g th ........................................................ 50 m in s a s s is ta n t ................ . . S am B le n s to c k G a u g e ........................................................... 16 m m i C a m e ra a s s is ta n t . . . . S a m B ie n s to c k P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n . . . J a c k ie G e llin g N eg. m a t c h in g .........

S c h e d u le d re le a s e ..........................E a rly 1981 . . . Lee W h itm o re G ra p h ic s ....................

C a s t: C a rro ll K a rp a n y , P e te r B u tle r, Ron ___ KG C o lo rfilm L a b o ra to ry ................

A n s e ll, W a lly M c A rth u r, Les G ra h a m , R icky ..................$ 30 ,51 9 B u d g e t .........................

H a rris o n , B a rt W illo u g h b y , J o h n M ille r, ..................60 m ins L e n g th .........................

V e ro n ic a R a n k in e . .................... 16 m m G a u g e .........................

S y n o p s is : A s h o rt fe a tu re on A b o rig in a l S h o o tin g s t o c k ......... . . . K o d a k P lu s-X , b a n d s . Us M o b a n d No F ixe d A d d re s s , on F ri-X th e ro a d .

P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d r e le a s e .................... M a rc h , 1981 Synopsis: A n h is to ric a l d o c u m e n ta ry a b o u t the N e w S o u th W a le s B u ild e rs L a b o re rs ' THE USE OF RAM HARNESSES F e d e ra tio n , fro m th e la te 1950s th ro u g h to 1975.

D ist. c o m p a n y .......................D e p a rtm e n t of A g r ic u ltu re , V ic.

MINA JEBEL ALI D ire c to r .......................................D o n a ld C a id e r S o u n d re c o rd is t .....................D o n a ld E w a rt P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ........................ J o h n H e ye r E d ito r ......................................... D o n a ld C a id e r N a r r a t o r .................................... W ilfre d T h o m a s E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... R o b e rt R o th o ls P ro g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................. D o n a ld C a id e r Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry fe a tu re a b o u t th e C o n s u lta n t ....................................... J o h n C la rk e n e w h a r b o r at D u b a i.

G auge ......................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................ P o s t-p ro d u c tio n STATE OF CHANGE S c h e d u le d re le a s e .......................L ate , 1980 P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ........................ J o h n H e ye r Synopsis: A s h o rt film d e m o n s tra tin g th e N a r r a t o r .................................... W ilfre d T h o m a s use o f ra m m a tin g h a rn e s s e s a nd c ra y o n s L e n g th ...................................................... 60 m in s as an a id to m o re e ffic ie n t s h e e p re p ro d u c ­ P ro g re s s ................................A w a itin g re le a s e tio n .

Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry fe a tu re on D u b a i.

UNTITLED

D O C U M E N TA R IES

liiiiWgiiswiwaeMiesfigMIMWgiyAfatWtfHMËBi

WAGERUP WEEKEND

TAKEOVER

P ro d , c o m p a n y .....................I.F. P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y ............. S y d n e y F ilm m a k e r’s C o -o p e ra tiv e P r o d u c e r s ..............................B rya n M c L e lla n , D a vid N o a ke s D ire c to rs ................................B rya n M c L e lla n , D a vid N o a k e s S c r ip t w r it e r s ............................B o b C o n n o lly , B rya n M c L e lla n , D a vid N o a k e s P h o t o g r a p h y ............................... D a vid N o a k e s S o u n d re c o rd is ts .................. T e rry C o rd o n , B rya n M c L e lla n , • D ia n e S h a w E d i t o r ......................................... B rya n M c L e lla n

P ro d , c o m p a n y ............. A u s tra lia n In s titu te o f A b o rig in a l S tu d ie s Dist. c o m p a n y ................A u s tra lia n In s titu te o f A b o rig in a l S tu d ie s P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ......... D a vid M a c D o u g a ll P h o to g r a p h y .................... D a vid M a c D o u g a ll S o u n d re c o rd is t ..........J u d ith M a c D o u g a ll E d i t o r .................................. D a vid M a c D o u g a ll P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .....................M ic h e le Day N eg. m a tc h in g . . N e g a tiv e C u ttin g S e rv ic e N a r r a t o r ........................... F ra n c is Y u n k a p o rta M ix e d a t .................... U n ite d S o u n d S tu d io s L a b o ra to ry ........................................... C o lo rfilm L e n g th .......................................................90 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m

P ro g re s s ............................................. In re le a s e F irst r e le a s e d ......... J u n e 11, 1980 (C a irn s ) Synopsis: In M a rch 1978 the Q ueensland G o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to ta k e o v e r th e A u ru k u n A b o rig in a l R e se rve fro m th e m is ­ sio n o rg a n iz a tio n th a t h ad a d m in is te re d it s in c e e a rly in th e c e n tu ry . T h e c h u rc h a nd th e A b o rig in a ls c o m p la in e d b itte rly a nd so o n re c e iv e d s u p p o r t fro m th e F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t tu rn in g th e d is p u te in to a m a jo r n a tio n a l c o n fro n ta tio n . T h is film is an a c c o u n t o f th e p o litic a l e ve n ts th a t o c c u rre d d u rin g th e p e rio d .

F o r c o m p le te d e ta ils o f th e f o llo w in g d o c u m e n ta rie s se e Issu e 28: P eter B ro o k e and C IT C in A ustralia.

SHORTS

FAMILIAR PLACES P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............A u s tra lia n In s titu te o f A b o rig in a l S tu d ie s D ist. c o m p a n y ................ A u s tra lia n In s titu te o f A b o rig in a l S tu d ie s P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ......... D a vid M a c D o u g a ll S c r ip t w r it e r s ................................P e te r S u tto n , D a vid M a c D o u g a ll P h o to g r a p h y ...................... D a vid M a c D o u g a ll S o u n d re c o rd is t ........... J u d ith M a c D o u g a ll E d i t o r ................................... D a vid M a c D o u g a ll P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .................... M ic h e le Day Neg. m a tc h in g . . N e g a tiv e C u ttin g S e rv ic e M ix e r ............................................. P e te r F e nto n N a r r a t o r .......................................... P e te r S u tto n M ix e d at .................... U n ite d S o u n d S tu d io s L a b o ra to ry .............................................C o lo rfilm B u d g e t ........................................................ $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 L e n g th ...................................................... 53 m in s G a u g e ........................................................ 16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ......................................... In re le a se F irst re le a s e d . . . . O c to b e r 1980, M a rg a re t M e a d F ilm F e stival (N ew Y o rk ) Synopsis: A s h o rt d o c u m e n ta ry w h ic h m a p s o u t tra d itio n a l A b o rig in a l cla n c o u n try s o u th of A u ru k u n on C a p e Y o rk P e n in su la .

FROM HIROSHIMA TO HANOI D ist. c o m p a n y ..............S y d n e y F ilm m a k e rs C o -o p e ra tiv e P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ................D a vid B ra d b u ry S c r ip t w r it e r s .........................D a vid B ra d b u ry , B o b C o n n o lly B ase d on th e a u to b io g ra p h y P a s s p o r t by W ilfre d B u rc h e tt P h o to g r a p h y ........................................P e te r Levy, N ie ls van t ’H o ff, R ic h a rd D re c h s le r, S h a la g h M c C a rth y S o u n d re c o rd is ts ...................J im G e rra n d , M a a rte n van K e lle r E d i t o r ...........................................S te w a rt Y o u n g A sso c, p ro d u c e r ...................... B o b C o n n o lly P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .................... L lo y d C o llin s Neg. m a tc h in g N e g a tiv e C u ttin g s S e rv ic e s M ix e r ...........................................G e th in C re a g h L a b o ra to ry .....................................................A tla b Lab. lia is o n .............................J a m e s P a rso n s B u d g e t ....................................................$ 11 5 ,6 4 4 L e n g th ........................................................48 m in s G a u g e ........................................................ 16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................ E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................A w a itin g re le a se S c h e d u le d re le a s e ..................O c to b e r, 1980 Synopsis: W ilfre d B u rc h e tt is A u s tra lia 's m o s t c o n tro v e rs ia l and v ilifie d jo u rn a lis t.

H is re p o rtin g c a re e r sp a n s the la s t 40 ye ars.

It w as B u rc h e tt's re p o rt fro m th e le v e lle d ru in s o f H iro s h im a th a t firs t a w a k e n e d th e w o rld to th e re a litie s of th e a to m ic age. T h is film c o v e rs B u rc h e tt’s d a y s on th e ro a d as a y o u th fu l sw a g g y d u rin g the D e p re s s io n up u n til th e p re s e n t, a m b u s h e d in K a m p u c h e a and a n k le -d e e p in s k u lls of th e m a ss g ra v e s of th e K h m e r R o ug e .

THE HOUSE OPENING

Synopsis: A s h o rt film o n a h o u s e -o p e n in g c e re m o n y at A u r u k u n , w h ic h is d e riv e d fro m tra d itio n a l m o rtu a ry rite s .

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BRANCH P ro je c ts a p p ro v e d at th e A F C m e e tin g on A u g u s t 29, 1980.

Script and Production Development Investment

WOMEN BREAK OUT

P ro d , c o m p a n y ........... W o m e n ’s L ib e ra tio n T h e M o v in g P ic tu re C o m p a n y (Iva n H e x te r), H a lfw a y -H o u s e C o lle c tiv e s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r a 1st d ra ft o f S po o k s D ist. c o m p a n y ............................. R eel W o m e n — $1500 P ro d u c e rs . . . W o m e n ’s L ib e ra tio n H a lfw a y S ir W illia m K eys, J o n H u tc h is o n , s c rip t H o u se C o lle c tiv e , d e v e lo p m e n t fo r a 2 n d d ra ft o f T h e Janus E rik a A d d is C o n s p irac y — $ 4 0 0 0 D ire c to r .............................................. E rik a A d d is E ig h tie s T e le v is io n P ro d u c tio n s (E ve A sh ), S c r ip t w r it e r ......................................J u d ith D w ye r P r o d u c t io n d e v e lo p m e n t f o r a d d it io n a l B a se d o n th e o rig in a l fu n d in g to w a rd s n e tw o rk p re s e n ta tio n o f id e a by .. .W o m e n 's L ib e ra tio n H a lfw a y C o p in g w ith th e ’80s — $ 15 50 H o u se C o lle c tiv e J u d e K u rln g , s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r a 2 n d P h o t o g r a p h y ................................... G illia n L ea h y d ra ft (re - ln s ta te m e n t o f p re v io u s a p p ro v a l) S o u n d re c o rd is t ........................... J a c q u l Fine o f N elly K elly and the PassionfruK S aloon E d i t o r s .......................................N a ta lie G re e n e , — $ 13 00 E rik a A d d is J a m e s R ic k e ts o n , s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t f o r a C o m p o s e r .................... N a ta sh a K o o d ra v s e v P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ...................................M a d e lo n W ilk1st in s d ra ft a n d o u tlin e s o f Bea — $ 3 5 0 0 P isce s P ro d u c tio n s (M ic h a e l P ate ), s c rip t P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ..............................J o B o ltin P ro d , a s s is ta n t......................................... V irg in ia G e dddeevse lo p m e n t f o r a tre a tm e n t o f an u n title d p ro d u c tio n — $ 1 0 ,7 5 0 ’ 1st a sst d ire c to r .........................J u d ith D w ye r M il P e rrin , s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r a 1st d ra ft C a s t in g ........... W o m e n 's L ib e ra tio n H a lfw a y o f T h e H ill — $ 50 00 H o u se C o lle c tiv e H e n ri S a fra n , s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r a 1st C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .................... A lis o n T ils o n G a f f e r ................................................................T a n ia M illednra ft o f N o rm a n — $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 J o h n L a m o n d M o tio n P ic tu re E n te rp ris e s , B o o m o p e ra to r ......................... Ja n C h a p m a n P r o p s ...........................................................B a rb a ra A n thsoc nrip y t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r a 1 st d ra ft o f T h e Body B usiness — $60 00 A n im a tio n ................................ L e o n ie G re g o ry , J o h n F a irfa x P ro d u c tio n s , s c rip t d e v e lo p ­ M iria m G re g o ry , m e n t fo r a 1st d ra ft of S ta llio n of th e S e a — L isa P a rris h $ 50 00 C a t e r in g ................................................................ P at D ra p e r M il P e rrin , s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t f o r s c rip t C h ild care c o -o rd in a to rs . . .W o n n e M aertens, a nd c o n c e p t d e v e lo p m e n t o f T h e H a n d y ­ K a re n B ird m en — $ 49 56 L a b o ra to ry ........................................................V FL L e n g th ...................................................... 30 m in s Production Investments G a u g e .........................................................16 m m U n iv e r s a l E n t e r t a in m e n t C o r p o r a t io n S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r (M a u ric e M u rp h y ), .p r o d u c tio n in v e s tm e n t P ro g re s s ................................A w a itin g re le a se fo r c o n d itio n a l a p p ro v a l o f T h e In c re d ib ly S c h e d u le d re le a se ........... N o v e m b e r 1980, Y oung D oc tors — $ 10 0 .0 0 0 M e lb o u rn e W ise S tre e t P ro d u c tio n s (B e n C a rd illo ), C a st: M o n ik a M a e rte n s , C a rl P lg n a ta ro , Pat L in d s a y H e w so n , S u sa n W ild ), p ro d u c tio n D ra p e r, V irg in ia G e d d e s , S a rin a L lc c ia rd i, in v e s tm e n t fo r It W asn't M e a n t to be Easy A n n R id e g, M a rg a re t D ent.

S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta ry a b o u t a w o m e n ’s h a lfw a y h o u se.

F o r c o m p le te d e ta ils o f th e d o c u m e n ta rie s see Issue 28: B ehind C losed Doors C e le s tia l/B e s tia l C oal is C oal T h e E arth ’s S cientists First Im pressions W a te rlo o

f o llo w in g

AU STR ALIAN FILM CO M M ISSIO N CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH P ro je c ts a p p ro v e d at th e A FC m e e tin g in M a rc h , 1980.

Production and Post-production W o m e n 's L ib e r a t io n H a lf w a y H o u s e C o lle c tiv e (E rik a A d d is ), W o m e n B re a k O u t — $ 1 4 ,17 4.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BRANCH P ro je c ts a p p ro v e d at the A FC m e e tin g on J u ly 28. 1980.

Script and Production Development Investment J o h n L a m o n d M o tio n P ic tu re E n te rp ris e s Pty L td . s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r 1st a nd 2nd d ra fts o f M id d le E a s te rn F o rm u la — S28.000.

A n n e J o lliffe . J o llic a tio n P ty L td . s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r c o n c e p t of an a n im a te d te le v is io n p ilo t, B u n y ip — $1500.

PIFT. s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fo r a 3 rd d ra ft of B u sh C h ris tm a s — S4900.

M a ry -J o W ils o n , a d d itio n a l fu n d in g o f S te e l C ity — $ 3000.

B ria n W rig h t, M a ry W rig h t, fo r a n e tw o rk p re s e n ta tio n , te le v is io n se rie s o u tlin e of T h e G re a t S o u th L a n d — S5000.

P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............A u s tra lia n In s titu te of A b o rig in a l S tu d ie s Dist. c o m p a n y ................A u s tra lia n In s titu te Project Branch Package o f A b o rig in a l S tu d ie s Development Investments P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ......... J u d ith M a c D o u g a ll ocal S c r ip t w r it e r s .................................................J u d ith M a cFD o u g aFll,ilm s (M ik e E do ls, J e ff D o rin g ), a d d itio n a l p a c k a g e in v e s tm e n t fo r E ye to G e ra ld in e K a w a n g k a yeo u— P h o t o g r a p h y ............................................... D a vid M a cED ga$ ll 7700.

B e r t D e lin g . J o h n W e ile y , a d d it io n a l S o u n d re c o rd is t ........... J u d ith M a c D o u g a ll p a c k a g e in v e s tm e n t fo r K in g s C ro s s S to ry E d i t o r ............ J u d ith M a c D o u g a ll — $ 1 8 .70 0.

P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .....................M ic h e le Day N eg. m a tc h in g . . N e g a tiv e C u ttin g S e rv ic e Project Branch Production M ix e r ............................................. P e te r F e nto n Investments N a r r a t o r .................................................. G e ra ld in e K a w a n g k a L im e lig h t P r o d u c t io n s ( J o a n L o n g ) , M ix e d at .................... U n ite d S o u n d S tu d io s in v e s tm e n t fo r a 1st s ta g e a p p ro v a l of L a b o ra to ry ............................................. C in e film P u b e rty B lu e s — $ 4 1 3 ,7 0 8 .

L e n g th ...................................................... 43 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ............................................. In re le a s e F irs t r e le a s e d .................... S e p te m b e r, 1980

—

$

10,000

Project Branch Loans Y o ra m G ro s s F ilm S tu d io , d is trib u tio n a nd m a rk e tin g lo a n fo r S ara h — $ 9 0 .0 0 0 U n iv e r s a l E n t e r t a in m e n t C o r p o r a t io n , b ra n c h lo an f o r lim ite d o v e ra g e fa c ilitie s fo r The In c re d ib ly Y oung D octors — $ 3 2 ,3 4 9 W ise S tre e t P ro d u c tio n s , b ra n c h lo a n fo r lim ite d o v e ra g e fa c ilitie s fo r It W a s n ’t M e a n t to be Easy — $ 67 87

FILM A U STR A LIA

THE AUSTRALIAN EYE, Nos 13-17 P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... F ilm A u s tra lia D ist. c o m p a n y .................................................A FC P r o d u c e r .....................................M a lc o lm O tto n D ir e c t o r ................................................. D a vid M u ir S c r ip t w r it e r ...........................................D a vid M u ir P h o to g r a p h y ........................................ D a vid M u ir S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... G e o rg e H a rt E d i t o r s ........................................... B o b B la s d e ll, S usa n H o rs le y A s s o c , p ro d u c e r .......................Ron H a n n a m C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ......................... G a ry W a d e N a r r a t o r s .................................... C e c ily P o iso n , P au l R ic k e tts L e n g th ................................................5 x 1 0 m in s G a u g e .......................................35 m m , 16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................A w a itin g re le a s e S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. O c to b e r, 1980 S y n o p s is : T he fiv e film s in th is c o n tin u in g se rie s e x a m in e th e fo llo w in g p a in tin g s fro m th e Q u e e n s la n d a nd W e s te rn A u s tra lia n A rt G a lle rie s : R u sse ll D ry s d a le 's "M a n F e e d in g his D o g s ” . G e o rg e L a m b e rt's “ T h e M o th e r” , la n F a ir w e a th e r ’s “ E p ip h a n y " , S y d n e y L o n g 's “ T h e S p irit of th e P la in s " a nd E ugen V on G u e ra rd 's “ M o u n t W illia m fro m M o u n t D rv d e n ” .

THE CAPITAL P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................F ilm A u s tra lia D ist. c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia P r o d u c e r ...................................... P e te r J o h n s o n D ir e c t o r .................................... M ic h a e l F a llo o n S c r ip t w r it e r .......................................J im G ilb e rt S o u n d re c o rd is t ............................... A la n L a ke A ss o c , p ro d u c e r .................... R o s e m a ry G o w L e n g th .........................................................20 m in s G a u g e .........................................................35 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ..................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........... N o v e m b e r. 1980 S y n o p s is : A s h o rt film o n C a n b e rra — a lo o k at its v e ry re a l p ic to ria l a ttrib u te s a nd its e n v iro n s .

Cinema Papers, October-November — 365

MEDIA SPECIALISTS FILM & TELEVISION FREELANCE BOOKING AND ANSWERING SERVICE

COMPREHENSIVE

TYPING SERVICE AND BINDING

PHOTOCOPYING

(03)6999677

24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A W EEK

16mm SPECIALISTS The first and only lab in Australia to install the latest advance in printing technology — the fully submerged wetgate printer, which has for the last 18 months been producing clean, scratch-free prints of the highest quality.

SERVICE • QUALITY • PRICE For enquiries contact one o f our experienced directors:

Jack Gardiner — Quality Control/Saies.

George Foster — Administration.

John West — Laboratory FT echnical.

Cal Gardiner — Production/Customer Liaison.

COUNTER TALK P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................... F ilm A u s tra lia D ist, c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia P r o d u c e r ...................................... P e te r J o h n s o n D ire c to r ................................................ S ta n D a lb y S c r ip t w r it e r ......................................... S ta n D a lb y P h o t o g r a p h y .................................. K e rry B ro w n S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................R o d S im m o n s E d i t o r .......................................... B a rrie P a ttis o n A s s o c , p r o d u c e r .................. R o s e m a ry G o w U n it m a n a g e r ................................ G ra n t H a rris L e n g th .........................................................30 m in s G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................. E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................................ In re le a s e F irs t r e le a s e d ....................... S e p te m b e r, 1980 S y n o p s is : A s e rie s o f v ig n e tte s to h e lp tra in m e m b e rs o f th e s ta ff o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth E m p lo y m e n t S e rv ic e .

DISASTER PLANNING P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................... F ilm A u s tra lia D ist. c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia P r o d u c e r ...................................... P e te r J o h n s o n D i r e c t o r ........................................ P e te r J o h n s o n S c r ip t w r it e r ........................................T o n y H o rle r P h o t o g r a p h y ..............F re d e ric k R ic h a rd s o n L e n g th .........................................................20 m in s G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e .............. N o v e m b e r 1980 S y n o p s is : A s h o r t film w a rn in g p e o p le o f n a tu ra l d is a s te r p ro b le m s , a n d a d v is in g th e m o f th e a g e n c ie s se t u p w ith in th e c o m ­ m u n ity o n h o w to d e a l w ith s u ch p ro b le m s .

MALE GENERAL ENLISTMENT

S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r th e ro le s a nd a c tiv itie s o f th e S ta te P o llu tio n P ro g re s s .................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n C o n tro l C o m m is s io n . S p o n s o re d b y th e P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................F ilm A u s tra lia S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........... D e c e m b e r, 1980 S ta te P o llu tio n C o n tro l C o m m is s io n .

D ist. c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia Synopsis: A s h o rt film fo r A b o rig in a ls in th e P r o d u c e r ......................................................... P e te r J o h N n soorth n e rn T e rrito ry illu s tra tin g th e w o rk a nd D ire c to r ............................................. B o b W a lk e r life s ty le o f A b o rig in a ls in o th e r p a rts o f th e S c r ip t w r it e r .................................................... D a vid S tive Tn e rrito ry .

S c r ip t w r it e r .................................. R ic B la k e n e y P h o t o g r a p h y ................................................... R o ss K in g E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... R ic h a rd D avis S o u n d re c o rd is t ............................ B ru c e N ih ill L e n g th .......................................................15 m in s E d i t o r .............................................................. M a rk W a lk e r G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m A s s o c , p r o d u c e r .................... R o s e m a ry G o w S ynopsis: A s h o rt film s e e k in g to e s ta b lis h U n it m a n a g e r ................................. G ra n t H a rris c o m m u n ity a w a re n e s s a nd u n d e rs ta n d in g C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ....................... J a m e s W a rd o f h o w th e m in in g in d u s try c o n trib u te s to L e n g th ........................................................ 20 m in s th e m a te ria l a nd fin a n c ia l p ro s p e rity of N ew G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S o u th W a le s . S p o n s o re d b y th e D e p a rt­ S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r m e n t o f M in e ra l R e s o u rc e s a n d D e v e lo p ­ P ro g re s s .................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n m e n t.

S c h e d u le d r e le a s e ........... D e c e m b e r, 1980 BREAKING THE SILENCE Synopsis: A s h o rt film d e s ig n e d to e n ­ c o u ra g e y o u n g m e n to c o n s id e r a c a re e r in P ro d , c o m p a n y .................................. Iris F ilm s th e A rm e d F o rce s.

P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ............... E liza b e th M cR a e S c r ip t w r it e r .............................E liz a b e th M cR a e P h o to g r a p h y ............................................... M a rth a A n sEaxec, ra p ro d u c e r ....................... R ic h a rd D avis L e n g th .......................................................15 m in s S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................Jo H o rs b u rg h G a u g e .........................................................16 m m E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... R ic h a rd D a vis P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . K in g c ro ft P ro d u c tio n s Synopsis: A s h o rt film illu s tra tin g h o w e s ­ A sso c, p r o d u c e r .......... B a rb a ra C h o b o c k y D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... F ilm A u s tra lia s e n tia l a m o d e rn se w e ra g e s e rv ic e is to m a ­ P ro d , m a n a g e rs ......... B a rb a ra C h o b o c k y , P r o d u c e r ...................................... P e te r J o h n s o n jo r c itie s . S p o n s o re d b y th e M e tro p o lita n C a ro l K o s ta n ic h D ire c to rs ..........................................H a rry B o o th , W a te r, S e w e ra g e a nd D ra in a g e B o a rd .

T e rry O h ls s o n C a m e ra a s s is ta n ts ......................C h ris E ade,

NSW MINING INDUSTRY

NEW SOUTH WALES FILM CORPORATION

SEWERAGE — THE HEALTH PROTECTOR

THE NEVER NEVER LAND

S u sa n L a m b e rt, S c r ip t w r it e r .................................................... H a rry B o o th W e n d y B ra d y S o u n d r e c o r d is t ............................................... J o n M a rsh E d i t o r ..................................................................... B ill S ta ce y e d at ........................................ P alm S tu d io s M ix L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b A s s o c , p ro d u c e r .................... R o s e m a ry G o w L te n g th ...................................................... 28 m in s U n it m a n a g e r ............................................P a tric ia B lu n L e n g th ........................................................ 25 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r G a u g e ...................................... 16 m m , 35 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r S c h e d u le d r e le a s e ......... S e p te m b e r, 1980 P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S y n o p s is : A s h o r t film th a t a im s to ch a n g e s o c ie ty 's u n s y m p a th e tic a n d h o s tile a t­ S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........... N o v e m b e r, 1980 titu d e s to w a rd s v ic tim s of se xu a l a s s a u lt Synopsis: A m o n ta g e o f A u s tra lia a nd its and ra p e , a n d to m o d ify th e s h a m e a nd g u ilt life s ty le , u s in g th e w o rd s o f H e n ry L aw so n w h ic h th e y s u ffe r. S p o n s o re d by th e to d e s c rib e th is u n iq u e c o n tin e n t.

P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................... F ilm A u s tra lia W o m e n ’s C o -o rd in a tio n U n it a n d th e N ew D ist. c o m p a n y ................................................ A FC S o u th W a le s P re m ie r’s D e p a rtm e n t.

P r o d u c e r ...................................M a lc o lm O tto n D i r e c t o r .......................................................A n to n io C o la c in o S c r ip t w r it e r ........................ D r 'G r a e m e R u ssell P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... F ilm A u s tra lia DRINK DRIVING EDUCATION P h o t o g r a p h y .................................... K e rry B ro w n D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... F ilm A u s tra lia PROJECT S o u n d re c o rd is t ..............R o d n e y S im m o n s P r o d u c e r ...................................... P e te r J o h n s o n E d i t o r ........................................................Ian A d k in s D ir e c t o r ......................................... N ick T o rre n s P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . L a u g h in g K o o k a b u rra U n it m a n a g e r ..............................C o lle e n C la rk e S c r ip t w r it e r .................................. D a vid R o b e rts P ro d u c tio n s N a r r a t o r .................................................A n n H a d d y P h o t o g r a p h y ...................................................A n d y F ra se P rro d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ........................... Ja n S h a rp L e n g th .......................................................16 m in s S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... H o w a rd S p ry D ir e c t o r ............................................. P hil N o yce G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m E d i t o r .................................................................. N ick T o rre S cnrsip t w r it e r ...................................... P hil N o yce S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r A sso c, p r o d u c e r .....................R o s e m a ry G ow Exec, p ro d u c e r ....................... R ic h a rd D avis P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e U n it m a n a g e r .................... M ic h a e l A tk in s o n B u d g e t .........................................................$ 3 8 ,0 0 0 F irs t r e le a s e d .....................S e p te m b e r, 1980 C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........................Ja m e s W a rd L e n g th .................................................. 3 x 5 m in s S y n o p s is : A s tu d y o f th e c h a n g in g ro le o f L e n g th ........................................................ 20 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m th e fa th e r in c o n te m p o ra ry so c ie ty . T h e firs t G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r in a s e rie s a b o u t p a re n ts a nd p a re n tin g .

S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n P ro g re s s ............................................. In re le a se S y n o p s is : A s h o r t s e rie s fo r h igh s c h o o l s tu ­ F irst r e le a s e d ....................... S e p te m b e r, 1980 d e n ts , to be u sed as d is c u s s io n s ta rte rs , S yno p sis : A s h o r t film p r o m o tin g th e e a ch e x a m in in g d iffe re n t a s p e c ts o f a d o le s ­ N o rth e rn T e rrito ry to A u s tra lia n as w e ll as P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................... F ilm A u s tra lia c e n t d rin k in g a nd d riv in g . S p o n s o re d by the o v e rs e a s a u d ie n c e s .

D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... F ilm A u s tra lia D e p a rtm e n t o f M o to r T ra n s p o rt.

P r o d u c e r ..........................................................P e te r J o h n s o n P h o t o g r a p h y ................................................ P e te r V is k o v ic h , H.Q. PACIFIC — THE SYDNEY K e rry B ro w n OPTION A n d y F ra se r, P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................ M o tio n P ic tu re S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................Rod S im m o n s ‘ A s s o c ia te s S c r ip t w r it e r ......................... A n th o n y M o rp h e tt E d i t o r .............................................. L o u is A n iv itti D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... F ilm A u s tra lia E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... R ic h a rd D avis A s s o c , p r o d u c e r ......................... R o y B isse ll P r o d u c e r ...................................... P e te r J o h n s o n B u d g e t .........................................................$ 7 5 ,0 0 0 C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .......................J a m e s W a rd D ir e c t o r ........................................................... D a vid B a rro L ewn g th ........................................................ 25 m in s L e n g th ........................................................ 40 m in s S c r ip t w r it e r s ........................... P e te r J o h n s o n .

G a u g e ........................................................ 16 m m G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m D a vid B a rro w , S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r M ic h a e l R o b e rts o n S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. J a n u a ry , 1981 P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n P h o to g r a p h y .................................... J o h n L e a ke S y n o p s is : A s h o rt film fo r s e n io r e x e c u tiv e s S c h e d u le d r e le a s e ..............D e c e m b e r, 1980 E d i t o r ........................................... P e te r F le tc h e r o f m a jo r m u lti-n a tio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s a nd S y n o p s is : A s h o rt film fo r th e A rm y o n s o m e A sso c, p r o d u c e r ................................R o s e m a ry G owo th e r o v e rs e a s o r in te rs ta te in v e s to rs . The U n it m a n a g e r ................................................ P e te r F le tc h e r s h o w s h o w a fic tio n a l m u lti-n a tio n a l o f th e w e a p o n s in u se b y th e A u s tra lia n film C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .......................S te v e M a so n A rm e d S e rv ic e s in th e 1980s. c o m p a n y , b a se d on th e U.S. E ast C o ast, L e n g th ........................................................ 25 m in s fin d s its tra d in g e x p a n d in g in th e P a c ific G a u g e .........................................................16 m m B a sin . S p o n s o re d b y th e D e p a rtm e n t of S h o o tin g s t o c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r M in e ra l R e s o u rc e s a nd D e v e lo p m e n t.

P ro g re s s ..................................A w a itin g re le a s e P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................................C in e te l S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. O c to b e r, 1980 D ist. c o m p a n ie s ..............F ilm A u s tra lia a nd MACARTHUR PROMOTIONAL Synopsis: A s h o r t film on ru g b y u n io n in S he ll FILM tra lia .

P r o d u c e r ..........................................................P e te r J o h A n suos n D ire c to r .......................................F ra n k H e im a n s P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............M ic h a e l R o b e rts o n S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................D a vid B a rro w Film P ro d u c tio n s P h o t o g r a p h y ...................................R u ssell B oyd P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ......... M ic h a e l R o b e rts o n S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................... K evin K e a rn e y P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ......................K in g c ro ft a nd S c r ip t w r it e r .................................... Ian F re e m a n E d i t o r ............................................F ra n k H e im a n s F ilm A u s tra lia P h o t o g r a p h y ........................... F ra n k H a m m o n d A s s o c , p ro d u c e r .....................R o s e m a ry G ow D ist. c o m p a n y .................................................F ilm A u sE trad lia i t o r ........................................................A la n L a ke L e n g th .........................................................20 m in s P r o d u c e r ..........................................................P e te r J o h n s o n E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... R ic h a rd D avis G a u g e ..........................................................16 m m D ir e c t o r s .............................................................. B ill S ta ce L ay, b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................. E a s tm a n c o lo r T e rry O h ls s o n B u d g e t .........................................................$ 4 8 ,0 0 0 P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a se S c r ip t w r it e r .........................................G e o ff P ike L e n g th .........................................................15 m in s F irs t r e le a s e d .....................S e p te m b e r, 1980 E d i t o r .................................................... B ill S ta c e y G a u g e .........................................................35 m m S y n o p s is : A s h o r t film to p ro m o te th e s p o rt A ss o c , p ro d u c e r .................. R o s e m a ry G ow S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r M ix e r .................................................... J o n M a rsh o f g y m n a s tic s .

P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n N a r r a t o r ..........................................P au l R ic k e tts S y n o p s is : A s h o rt film d e s ig n e d to be an e f­ L e n g th .................................................

20 m in s fe c tiv e m a rk e tin g to o l fo r th e M a c a rth u r G a u g e .......................................16 m m , 35 m m G ro w th C e n tre , e m p h a s iz in g th e in d u s tria l S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro d , c o m p a n y ............T h e M o v in g P ic tu re a n d c o m m e rc ia l a s p e c ts o f th e a re a , and P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n C om pany p r o v id i n g g e n e r a l in f o r m a t i o n and S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........... N o v e m b e r, 1980 D ist c o m p a n ie s ..............F ilm A u s tra lia a nd b a c k g ro u n d on th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th re e Synopsis: A s h o r t film illu s tra tin g w h y S h e ll n e w p la n n e d citie s .

A u s tra lia n e e d s a Navy.

P r o d u c e r .....................................P e te r J o h n s o n D i r e c t o r ..........................................Ivan H e x te r NO SIMPLE SOLUTIONS S c r ip t w r it e r ................................... O liv e r H o w e s P h o t o g r a p h y .................................. D an B u rs ta ll P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................................F ilm e a s t E d i t o r .....................................................T im L ew is P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................F ilm A u s tra lia D ir e c t o r .................................... B e rn a rd V a n ce D ist. c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ...............R o s e m a ry G o w S c r ip t w r it e r ............................... Lyn T u n b rid g e P r o d u c e r ....................................P e te r J o h n s o n L e n g th .....................-.................................20 m in s E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... R ic h a rd D a vis D ir e c t o r .................................... G ra h a m C h a se G a u g e .........................................................16 m m B u d g e t .........................................................$ 1 8 ,0 0 0 S c r ip t w r it e r ..............................G ra h a m C h a se S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................E a s tm a n c o lo r L e n g th .........................................................10 m in s P h o t o g r a p h y .......................M ic h a e l A tk in s o n P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... \ B o b H a yes F irs t r e le a s e d .....................S e p te m b e r, 1980 S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r E d i t o r ......................................... G ra h a m C h a se S y n o p s is : A s h o r t film p ro m o tin g h o c k e y P ro g re s s .............................................. P ro d u c tio n A ss o c , p r o d u c e r .................. R o s e m a ry G ow a m o n g y o u n s te rs a n d y o u th c lu b s .

S y n o p s is : A s h o r t film a im e d at p rim a ry and C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..................... J a m e s W a rd h ig h s c h o o l s tu d e n ts a n d th e p u b lic . It is L e n g th ........................................................ 30 m in s d e s ig n e d to e d u c a te th e c o m m u n ity a b o u t G a u g e .........................................................16 m m

FATHERS

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

FIRE POWER

RUGBY

GYMNASTICS

SEAWATCH

HOCKEY

TERRITORY NEWSREEL

TA SM A N IA N FILM CO RPORATIO N BET YOUR LIFE ON IT

HARRY BUTLER’S TASMANIA P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................... T a s m a n ia n F ilm C o rp o r a tio n D ist. c o m p a n y ........................T a s m a n ia n F ilm C o rp o r a tio n P r o d u c e r .................................... D a m ie n P a re r D ire c to r .......................................D on A n d e rs o n S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... P au l C la rk e E d i t o r ................................................ K e rry R e gan C o m p o s e r ..............................................Ian C ly n e U n it m a n a g e r ......................... D a p h n e C ro o k s P ro d , a s s is t a n t ................................................... Ian B e rw ic k C a m e ra o p e ra to r ............. R u ssell G a llo w a y C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........... J o h n J a s iu k o w ic z A sst e d ito r .................................. D e b b ie R e ga n M ix e r .......................................P e te r M c K in le y L e n g th ........................................................ 48 m in s G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e S y n o p s is : H a rry B u tle r ta k e s a jo u r n e y th ro u g h T a s m a n ia ’s u n iq u e p a rk s a n d o p e n a re a s h ig h lig h tin g th e e a se o f g e ttin g a w ay fro m it a ll. P ro d u c e d fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t o f T o u ris m .

LETTING GO D ist. c o m p a n y ....................... T a s m a n ia n F ilm C o rp o ra tio n P r o d u c e r ................................A n n e W h ite h e a d S c r ip t w r it e r ..............................J o h n P a tte rs o n L e n g th ....................................................... 25 m in s P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n S y n o p s is : A d ra m a tiz e d d o c u m e n ta ry e x ­ p lo r in g a s it u a t io n o f c o m m u n ic a tio n b re a k d o w n b e tw e e n p a re n ts a nd a d o le s ­ ce n ts.

TASMANIAN WILDLIFE

P ro d , c o m p a n y .................... T a s m a n ia n F ilm P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................... T a s m a n ia n Film C o rp o ra tio n C o rp o ra tio n D ist. c o m p a n y .......................T a s m a n ia n Film D ist. c o m p a n y ....................... T a s m a n ia n Film C o rp o ra tio n C o rp o ra tio n P r o d u c e r ......................................................... B a rry P ie rc e P r o d u c e r .........................................B a rry P ie rc e D ire c to r ........................................ D on A n d e rs o n S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................

M a ria H o n e y S c r ip t w r it e r ........................................................D on A n d e rs o n L eicnkg th ...................................................... 30 m in s P ro d , a s s is ta n t...................................................Ian B e rw G a u g e ...........................................................16 mm C a m e ra o p e ra to r ..............R ussell G a llo w a y P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ............J o h n J a s iu k o w ic z S y n o p s is : A n u m b e r o f a n im a ls a n d b ird s K ey g r i p .............................................................G a ry C le m e n ts fa ce e x tin c tio n th ro u g h m a n 's in te rv e n tio n S o u n d e d ito r .....................J o h n S c h ie fe lb e in in th e ir h a b ita t — e ith e r as th e d e v e lo p e r o r L e n g th ...................................................... 15 m j ns the h u n te r. T h is film e x a m in e s h o w e n ­ G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m d a n g e re d s p e c ie s ca n be sa ved .

P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n Synopsis: A ‘p ic k th e m is ta k e ’ q u iz . H o w m a n y u n s a fe p ra c tic e s ca n c o n s tru c tio n w o rk e rs p ic k in th e film ?

VIC T O R IA N FILM CO RPORATIO N

CRANE SAFETY

P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................... T a s m a n ia n F ilm C o rp o ra tio n D ist. c o m p a n y ........................T a s m a n ia n Film C o rp o ra tio n P r o d u c e r ..........................................................B a rry P ie rc e P ro d , c o m p a n y .................................... A l Et A l D ir e c t o r .......................................J a c k Z a lk a ln s S c r ip t w r it e r ........................................... A le x S titt S c r ip t w r it e r ................................ D a m ia n B ro w n P h o t o g r a p h y .........................................A le x S titt L e n g th .........................................................15 m in s C o m p o s e r ...................................................... B ru c e S m e a to n G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m E xec, p ro d u c e r ...................... K e n t C h a d w ic k P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n L e n g th .........................................................8 m in s Synopsis: A s h o rt film illu s tra tin g s a fe p ra c ­ G a u g e .........................................................35 m m tic e s fo r c ra n e d riv e rs in th e c o n s tru c tio n in ­ S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................. E a s tm a n c o lo r d u s try .

P ro g re s s ................................................ in re le a s e F irs t r e le a s e d .................... S e p te m b e r, 1980 Synopsis: A n a n im a te d p ro m o tio n a l film p ro d u c e d fo r th e S ta te F ilm C e n tre .

D ist. c o m p a n y ....................... T a s m a n ia n Film C o rp o ra tio n P r o d u c e r ................................A n n e W h ite h e a d D ir e c t o r ......................................Don A n d e rs o n P ro d , c o m p a n y .................... The F ilm H o u se S c r ip t w r it e r ...............................D on A n d e rs o n D ire c to r .........................................G o rd o n G le n n L e n g th .........................................................15 m in s S c r ip t w r it e r ................................................. R u sse ll P o rte r P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n P h o t o g r a p h y ...................................... E lle ry Ryan Synopsis: A film to e m p h a s iz e th e s a fe r S o u n d re c o rd is t ...............................Ian W ils o n a s p e c ts o f w e ld in g a nd c u ttin g o p e ra tio n s .

E d ito r .•...................................... G ra e m e P re s to n E xec, p ro d u c e r ...................... K e n t C h a d w ic k L e n g th .......................................................20 m in s G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................... T a s m a n ia n Film S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r C o rp o ra tio n P ro g re s s .............................................. P ro d u c tio n D ist. c o m p a n y ........................T a s m a n ia n F ilm S ynopsis: A s h o rt film on th e n a tiv e fis h in g C o rp o ra tio n re s o u rc e s o f V ic to ria 's riv e rs a nd th e nee d P r o d u c e r ..................................................... D a m ie n P a re r to c o n s e rv e th e m . P ro d u c e d fo r th e M in is try D ire c to r ............................................P in o A m e n ta fo r C o n s e rv a tio n (F is h e rie s a nd W ild life S c r ip t w r it e r s .................... C h ris tin e S c h o fie ld , D ivisio n ).

A n d re w B u tle r S o u n d re c o rd is t ..............J o h n S c h ie fe lb e in E d i t o r ................................................K e rry R egan C o m p o s e r ..............................................Ian C lyn e E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... K e n t C h a d w ic k U n it m a n a g e r ......................... D a p h n e C ro o k s L e n g th .......................................................17 m in s C a m e ra o p e ra to r ............. R u ssell G a llo w a y G a u g e .........................................................16 m m C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ............J o h n J a s iu k o w ic z S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r K ey g r i p .......................................G a ry C le m e n ts P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n L e n g th ........................................................ 25 m in s S c h e d u le d re le a s e ....................J a n u a ry 1981 G a u g e .........................................................16 m m Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry a b o u t th e ra p y P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n c a re fo r h a n d ic a p p e d c h ild re n , se t in K ew Synopsis: A s h o rt film fo r te le v is io n , w h ic h C o tta g e s C h ild re n ’s C e n tre , M e lb o u rn e . lo o k s a t th e e c o n o m ic , p o litic a l, s o c ia l a nd M a d e f o r th e H e a lth C o m m is s io n . c u ltu ra l c o n trib u tio n b y m ig ra n ts , to th e

THE CHICKEN FILM

CUTTING IT FINE

FORGOTTEN WATERS

ETHNIC CONTRIBUTION

KEW COTTAGES

d e v e lo p m e n t a nd e n r ic h m e n t of T a s m a n ia .

LAYING IT ON THE LINE P ro d , c o m p a n y . . R & R F ilm P ro d u c tio n s D ire c to r ................................................Ron B ro w n P h o t o g r a p h y ......................................... J o h n L o rd S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... G e o ff W ils o n E d i t o r ....................................................................Ron B ro w n E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... K e n t C h a d w ic k L e n g th .........................................................27 m in s

Concluded on P.391

Cinema Papers, October-November — 367

1 W Film lighting problems in New Zealand?

New Zealand's major award winning TV commercial production company (associated with The Film House Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia).

Offering a total production service.

Gels Film Lighting Ltd Owner/Operator Pav Govind (Licensed electrician)

TW P productions include:

Operator experience includes: Features, documentaries, and commercials in Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands.

Cannes Clio Clio

Fully equipped truck includes

Clio Awards

BASF Gold Lion Award Best Director Best Category

CRUNCHIE WESTERN 90 secs

* 2 x 2.5 H .M .I. * 4 x 6 lights

Best Confectionery Best Design Best Editing (Nomination) Best Music (Nomination)

* 4 redheads * 4 blondes

TAUBMANS

* 2 x 2 . $ softlights

Clio Awards

* 2 inkies

-

* and all accessories.

Best Category Best Humour (Nomination)

TIP TOP Clio Awards Best Campaign (Nomination)

For 24 hour service

LOVE HERTZ

Phone: 726-639 Wellington, New Zealand Private: 873-395

Clio Awards

Best Travel (Nomination)

TWP Ltd PO Box 2016 WELLINGTON Telephone 842-350 Telex NZ3353 In Australia: c/o Robert Le Tet, The Lilm House, 159 Eastern Rd, South Melbourne 3205.

Tel: (03)699 9722

M H JP

mum

Festival, is also being given a special screening in Tokyo at a New Zealand evening sponsored by Asahi Shimbun, a major Japanese dally newspaper.

Since Cannes, Murphy has been re­ editing some scenes and strengthening the soundtrack. The film opens in New Zealand next February.

NZFC Annual Report

New Crime Film

The New Zealand Film Commission's report for the year ended March 31, 1980, has been released.

Seventy-seven app lica tio n s for funding were received by the Commis­ sion during the year, of which 24 were from projects initiated in the previous year. Of the 53 new applications, 24 received financial assistance. Nine of these were feature films, two of which were released theatrically during the year.

The report also gives details of the Commission’s marketing and distribu­ tion activities.

Copies of the report are available from the Government Printer.

New Zealander Andrew Brown, fresh from collecting an Emmy for his ac­ claimed B ritish television series Edward and Mrs Simpson, will be back in his homeland to produce his first feature, The Shooting. The film is about a police siege on the west coast of the South Island in the 1940s. It will be backed by the re c e n tly -fo rm e d Southern Pictures of London. A British director and an Australian star are ex­ pected to be named soon — most of the other cast and crew will be New Zealanders.

New Zealand’s delegation at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival. From left to right: Michael Havas, the New Zealand Film Commission's representative in Eastern Europe; Paul Maunder, director of Sons for the Return Home, which won the Best Actor award; and New Zealand’s Ambassador to Czechoslo­ vakia, Mr Small.

Protests at Tax New Zealand filmmakers have been inundating the Government with letters of protest since a 40 per cent sales tax on filmstock was introduced. The move is part of a government policy to switch to indirect taxation. So far the only relief In sight for the film Industry is the fact that when a film is exported — either during the production process or after completion — all the sales tax is refunded.

One of the strongest criticisms of the new sales tax came from David Fowler, re ce n tly re tire d m anager of the National Film Unit. He said higher production costs resulting from the tax would make It more difficult to raise in­ vestm ent finance, and increased laboratory charges would force more producers to send the processing work to Sydney, at a tim e when New Zealand's two laboratories (one of them at the Film Unit) were improving the quality of their work.

Best Actor Award

Parliamentary inquiry

Director Paul Maunder had a suc­ cessful visit to the Karlovy Vary Film Festival in Czechoslovakia, where his feature Sons for the Return Home was awarded the Best Actor prize for the performance of Samoan star Uelese Petala.

Petaia is now living In Melbourne, where he hopes to continue his acting career. Among widespread praise for the film, was this comment from Eric Shorter of the London Daily Telegraph, who was at the Festival: “ It was a relief to come across such a gentle, humane and serious-minded film.”

Sons for the Return Home earned its Best Actor award in tandem with Norman Jewison’s And Justice For All, where the prize-winning performance was given by Al Pacino. The judges felt that the contrast between an es­ tablished star and a new star would be an effective one.

A select committee of members of parliament was appointed to Inquire into the National Government’s plans to de-llcense film distribution and ex­ hibition. Several submissions were received for the parliamentarians to consider. Distributors were largely silent, but many cinema-owners came out against the plans to de-license their Industry — fearing the loss of a system which has protected them against com­ petition for many years.

One immediate result of de-licensing should be the opening of several new Independent cinemas in Auckland and Wellington, offering a wider choice to local filmgoers.

First Feature Auckland director Sam Pillsbury will be shooting his first feature soon.

W o rk in g w ith la w y e r-p ro d u c e r Rob W hitehouse, he has chosen Scarecrow, a novel by a Taranaki writer about an adolescent boy and his sister growing up in a small town, where a crazed killer arrives in the guise of a travelling magician. The killer selects the girl as his next victim, and her brother is the only person who can save her. The screenplay has been written

by Michael Heath.

Pillsbury is now looking for two teenagers to play the key roles. He is also considering several international stars for the role of the killer.

Festival Choice

Uelese Petaia, winner of the Best Actor award.

Geoff Murphy's new comedy adven­ ture Goodbye Pork Pie will be New Zealand’s entry in the London Film Festival this year. The feature, which was well received at the Cannes Film

Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt Released John Barnett’s production of Beyond Reasonable Doubt, directed by John Lalng from the best-seller by David Yallop, has opened an eight-cinema release in New Zealand’s main cities.

Among the large audience at the world premiere In Auckland’s Civic Theatre were members of the family of Arthur Allan Thomas, the man whose story is told in the film.

Gaoled in 1971 for a double-murder which he denied committing, he was given a government pardon at the end of 1979 after an unprecedented series of legal moves aimed at establishing his Innocence. His part in the film Is played by Australian actor John Hargreaves. Starring with him is David Hemmlngs, as the police inspector in charge of the case.

The film began Its New Zealand release just as a Royal Commission into the whole affair, under the chair­ manship of Mr Justice Taylor from Sydney, wound up its hearings.

Antony I. Ginnane, producer of Race to the Yankee Zephyr

Action-Adventure Under Way The first co-production shot in New Zealand since Tony Williams’ Solo four years ago is under way at locations around Queenstown In the South Island. Race to the Yankee Zephyr is a co-productlon between Antony I. Gin­ nane of Melbourne, and John Barnett of Wellington. The director is David Hemmings, the star of Barnett's Beyond Reasonable Doubt, and the director of Ginnane’s The Survivor.

Stars of the costly action-adventure In­ clude Katharine Ross and Trevor Howard.

John Barnett told the New Zealand press that the decision to move the film out of Australia was made after Hemm­ ings and scriptwriter Everett de Roche saw the possibilities offered by the spectacular locations in and around Queenstown, which is a major inter­ national tourist centre set on a lake backed by mountains.

Concluded on P.391 Cinema Papers, October-November — 36«

Co-production In an interview in “Cinema Papers” in 1978, you said that the only hope for the survival of the New Zealand industry was co-production. Do you still feel the same way?

I said that at a time when there wasn't a New Zealand Film Commission. But I still think that whether it is co-production, or some other sort of financial involvement from outside New Zealand, it’s still true.

Co-production gives the New Zealand industry access to a bigger market and helps inject a little bit more professionalism into areas where we need it. We are too small an industry to cut ourselves off from experts.

Do you see Australia as a natural co-production partner for New Zealand?

Yes, because there is a history of Australians and New Zealanders working together. So we can co­ produce without the feeling that there is a certain amount of cultural imperialism going on.

In my business, 1 have been 370 — Cinema Papers, October-November

Tony Williams is one of New Zealand’s best-known filmmakers. He started his career at Pacific Films as an assistant cameraman at the age of 16, and then travelled to the U.S. to study at the University of Southern Cali­ fornia’s film department.

Returning to New Zealand, he acted as director of photography on John O’Shea's two features, “Runaway” and “Don't Let It Get You”. Williams then went to London, where he worked as a freelance editor before making his debut as a director on two documentaries for the BBC’s “Release” program.

Back in New Zealand, he spent five years making independent television documentaries, three of which won The Feltex “Best Television Program of the Year” award in consecutive years.

In 1978, Williams co-wrote and directed his first feature film, “Solo”, an Australian-New Zealand co-production starring Vincent Gil and Lisa Peers. Last year, he was invited to direct “A Special Kenny Rogers”, a 50-minute CBS television special shot in Texas.

Williams has his own film production company in Wellington, and is New Zealand’s — and one of the world’s — top commercials directors.

At this year’s Clios, he won the awards for best overall direction, and best commercial.

Williams was in Australia recently, working for The Film House, where he talked to Peter Beilby about the New Zealand film industry.

w o rk in g s u c c e s s f u lly with Australians since 1955. And of course the Australian film industry is full of New Zealanders anyway.

I think there is an advantage in having an indigenous film industry but. on a commercial basis, New Zealand needs to be able to have involvement with other countries, to provide more money, more tech­ nicians and more actors.

The recent wrangle between Australian producers and Actors Equity over the use of foreign actors threatens to restrict a free exchange of talent between Australia and New Zealand. What are your feelings about this?

1 would like to see the reverse happen. I would rather the doors opened further, and see free trade flourish. I would like to see the two countries getting closer together all the time.

Do you think the NZFC should be playing a more upfront role in trying to bring overseas producers and overseas government agencies together with New Zealand film­ makers? Or do you think this is an initiative which should be taken by producers?

TONY WILLIAMS

I think the NZFC has a very tricky role, because whatever they do they are going to be criticized, and they have my sympathy for that.

But independent filmmakers are characterized by the people who, once upon a time, wore caps on the backs of their heads, put a handcranked camera in the back of a truck with a few actors, and went off and made comedies in Holly­ wood. Then they took the reel under their arm and went around the cinemas and tried to flog it.

And that, essentially, is the spirit of independent Filmmakers in New Zealand — .even though there has been a lack of opportunity in the past.

I believe the NZFC is there to work for these filmmakers and to help support them, rather than to take the initiative and lead. The danger is that the NZFC will become yet another state authority — a bureaucratic body which takes the initiative instead of the industry.

There are times when the industry is naive. There are also times when the industry is in­ experienced, but, so is the NZFC. Do you think the Commission should become involved in areas other than finance — distribution for example?

made on a lower-budget, on 16mm, as an experimental film, or even as a television film, rather than on a bigger budget, on 35mm, just so it can be released theatrically. In other words, we need to have different scales of production.

How many feature films should the NZFC be backing?

Three films a year would be a good number at this point. But I think those three films need to be backed by more activity below the feature film level, so that actors, technicians, writers and directors are breaking their teeth on some­ thing a little less ambitious, and learning their craft.

unfairly. I think it is important that we do keep them in check, even when they are trying to do a good job. What we have to keep reminding them of, all the time, is that they are there to serve us, not the other way around. We don’t want to be treated like candidates for an Arts Council grant, and we are not sitting exams, we are film­ makers.

But on the whole, despite the fact that they get a lot of complaints from independent Filmmakers, I think they are doing a good job. I think they are willing to listen to the industry and, fortunately, they haven’t become over-bureaucratic.

Do you think the NZFC should adopt strictly commercial criteria in selecting the feature films they support, or do you think they should function as more than a merchant bank and encourage productions

Practically none. And it never will, under its present charter. Our television system is top-heavy. It has no vision, no concept even of what it is.

I used to work in British tele­ vision, at BBC2, and I know that state-owned television can be marvellous. But we don't have that.

We have two state-controlled commercial channels that, at best, churn out light entertainment. I am fighting for independent television as an alternative.

Why doesn’t New Zealand tele­ vision commission more indepen­ dently-produced drama?

Because of the sort of person working for state television. They tend to be empire builders. They are not in it for any commercial gain; they are not really interested.

I was once told by the head of programs of Television New Zealand that they are not in it to

Yes. I think there is expertise it can offer, as long as it doesn’t supplant the producer. I think New Zealand is weighed down with state bureaucracy, w'hich has been Do you think the level of Finance responsible for the dearth of film­ allocated to the NZFC allows it to making in the country. What the fund a sufficient number of Films?

NZFC should be offering is advice T h a t le a d s in to a n o th e r and support. argument

The NZFC As someone who was very closely involved with the establishment of the NZFC, what are your comments on its development?

When I was involved, trying to get the N Z F C set up, and doing a lot of lobbying, I thought it was important that we learnt from the mistakes of others, and that we tried to avoid the bureaucracy we had had to face as New Zealand filmmakers for years. It was my hope that the N ZF C would form along this line, offering assistance to, and backing New Zealand

producers. But I think there have been times when they have wanted to go off on a tangent and become New Zealand’s official producers.

I can see this tendency within personalities, and within the Commission as a whole. I suppose, in a way, it’s inevitable. They sit there all day and hear about the problems in the industry, and want to take an initiative or make a move.

But, by and large. I think we have tried to slap them down heavily each time . . . sometimes

and another

problem:

how many films the industry should be making and whether we could sustain a film industry with just one feature a year, or, maybe at times, two? Which brings us to the next problem: the huge gap between features and commercials which should be filled by television drama — which is non-existent in New Zealand because we have the most ridiculous two-channel television system in the world.

But, returning to your question, i think the financial constraints on the N ZFC are most apparent in their lack of support for young, developing filmmakers. I think the most urgent thing we need is an experimental Film fund. That is what worries me most — where the next generation of filmmakers will come from. And I think one of the mistakes that the N ZF C has made is to encourage the making of

35mm big-screen productions in preference to a wider range of films.

But given their budget, once the NZFC has committed Finance to Five or six features, their funds are used up ... • What I am suggesting is that one of those films may better have been

which may be worthwhile for artistic or other reasons?

I think that discussion can go on forever. The N ZF C has to dance lightly on that one, because the Mad Maxs and. hopefully, Sticky Ends, and other strong commercial Films are the ones that will get the industry on its feet. You can’t really afford to go completely into art films, or completely into the commercial market. I think you have to create an equal balance.

Television

subsidize New Zealand feature films. When I argued that a feature film was only 90 minutes of New Zealand d ra m a originating on celluloid, he couldn't understand what I was talking about.

He also went on to say that if a film has been shown in the cinema, he felt television was getting it second rate. Whereas, in any other country in the world, they pay more for a film if it has been released in a cinema.

So, they are very naive, and they don’t really understand what we are talking about. We need to sweep the floors and start again; it is the only way.

Australian television is really the Is there any move in that direction? backbone of the feature fil?* industry, because it provides actors, Yes, there is a body of people technicians and key creative who haven’t disclosed themselves personnel with a continuous source yet, who are going to attack in a of employment. How much work very big way, with a lot of money does New Zealand television behind them. I think that is the only generate for the local industry? hope of changing the system.

Cinema Papers, October-November — 371

TONY WILLIAMS

G overnm ent A ttitudes

Therefore, even on the basis of cost-effectiveness, there has to be value in what we are doing. But the politicians don’t understand that yet. Obviously from talking to them they have no idea at all of what the NZFC should be doing.

It seems strange that the New Zealand Government is trying to foster a local industry by sub­ sidizing production through the NZFC, while its own television instrumentality won’t commission or buy New Zealand programs — except at unrealistically low rates

There doesn’t seem to be an active producers’ organization in New Zealand. Do you think producers are, therefore, responsible for the ignorance and the misguided actions of the politicians?

I recently had dinner with the Minister for Broadcasting, the Minister of the Arts, and the Caucus Committee on Broad­ casting. They had no hope for the future.

On the one hand they have invested $500,000 in the New Zealand film industry, but on the other, they have imposed a 40 per cent tax on filmstock, which is going to pull about $1 million back

Up to a point. I certainly think a more organized body may help the situation. But what you also have to understand is there are not that many p ro d u c e rs . The most qualified ones are w-orking flat out trying to get a project together. I have spent years battering away at the bureaucracies that run our lives — the television system and the Government — and I have got to a point now where I feel I have done my bit and I am going to get about

T h e N e w Z e a l a n d F i l m U n i t w h i c h W i l l i a m s f eels “ c o u l d b e o n e o f t h e f in e s t in t h e world".

into their pockets.

Television will still only pay about 510,000 for a feature film, which doesn’t even pay off the tax that the Government has imposed!

So, they really have no policy at all on the film industry. They set up the NZFC, perhaps to win a few votes and keep a few people quiet, but obviously not as part of a policy to foster local filmmaking. I think there is still the feeling that what they are doing is a kind of assistance to the arts, not a part of a policy to establish a viable film industry.

But i think you could argue that the $500,000 they have put into the industry in the first year of the NZFC has churned out more drama than the multi-million dollar television establishment. And it is drama that has reached millions more people overseas than any of the television or Film Unit programs have.

372 — Cinema Papers, October-November

my career before it is too late.

You waste so much energy and time lobbying, talking and blasting away, when you could put the same amount of effort into writing, producing or directing a film. in which case, do you think this is an area where the NZFC is being less active than it should be?

They have had their problems getting established but I think now they do need to start fighting for an industry, which as yet isn’t there. It appears to be there, but it isn’t.

There are still too many oppor­ tunities overseas tempting people to leave the country. Certainly, on questions like the purchase prices paid by television for feature films, the NZFC should start moving very strongly. They should be represent­ ing film producers in this instance, because film producers aren’t getting anywhere at all.

The Film Unit

there with it set up the way it is.

Do you think the ownership and Another organization under govern­ control of the Unit should be moved ment control is the New Zealand into private hands, or is it just a Film Unit. There has been quite a matter of shaking it up a bit? bit of criticism of its role and its activities. It appears that the I don’t think that just shaking it Government has made a major up is going to work. What I am investment in a world standard ta lk in g ab o u t is a c u ltu ra l production and post-production revolution! There was a suggestion facility which is largely unused. once that the Commission could be What role do you think the Unit involved in the running of the should perform? laboratory, but it finally comes back to the people that are there.

Again, it has to be re-structured. And while the people who work As a facility, the Film Unit could there have to be civil servants, the be one of the finest in the world — Unit will never be able to pay if not the finest — in terms of post­ enough money to attract the kind of production. They have dubbing world-class technicians you need in theatres, post-sync theatres, foot­ such a facility. steps theatres, mixing theatres, When it comes to building any­ sound theatres, the likes of which thing with bricks and mortar, then don’t exist anywhere near Australia the New Zealand Government will — even Hollywood doesn’t have pour millions of dollars into any some of the facilities! facility you want, but the moment it But the Unit can’t afford to comes to staffing them, they refuse market these facilities, and they to pay realistic, com petitive don’t have the right people in there. salaries.

Williams

and

Gus

Mercurio

during

production commercial.

They have a laboratory which is better than any in Australia, in terms of equipment, but we are all terrified to put our rushes through it because they might get destroyed.

I think a smart, commerciallyminded operator, who could move in and take over the Film Unit, could attract productions from other parts of the world. And then ,if the Government offered tax in­ centives — rather like the Irish Studios do — you could have all sorts of feature films from all over the world there. I think David Lean was, and still is, interested in coming over and putting a produc­ tion through.

And we could be mixing and post-producing a lot of Australian films there. Maybe that's an area where the two countries could meaningfully get together. We could actually offer a facility that A ustralia doesn’t have. But certainly no one is going to come in

of W illiams’ award-winning

BASF

C@mifiercîiais In Australia, the commercials sector of the industry is also a major source of employment for technicians, creative personnel and actors. Is that the case in New' Zealand?

Yes. Without commercials I think the NZFC would close down, because it is in that part of the industry that we are training the technicians who service feature films.

Is it a big industry?

It is quite big. And the interest­ ing thing is, because there is so little activity in other areas, a lot of enthusiasm goes into making tele­ vision commercials. In fact, our commercials are among the best in the world. We are picking up more

TONY WILLIAMS

awards than anyone else at the moment.

It seems extraordinary that such a small industry is producing some of the best work in that field . . .

I don’t know why, but we do have a lot of intelligent, talented creative people here. And in the world of advertising, they are given free reign. They are given their head to do whatever they like to do. And maybe if the film industry and the television industry operated in the same way, you would see much more creative work coming out of the country.

But I also think that another reason the commercials sector in New Zealand is so strong, is in fact the lack of a feature film industry.

In Australia, the flow of talent — particularly directors — from the commercials sector into the feature film area has definitely affected the standard of the commercials.

Commercials directors have been making quite an impact in the feature film area recently. Alan Parker and Ridley Scott are two examples that come to mind. Why do you think commercials directors move so easily, and effectively, into feature films?

I think it is the intensity of the commercials work. Every day you a re w o r k i n g to f e a t u r e film s t a n d a r d s , and when you are shooting three days of the week, every week of the year, you are in fact, over a period of years, doing more actual filming of a very high quality than you would be even doing one feature a year.

I also think that some of the tricks of the trade, and some of the things that you are called upon to do, give you a very good technical background.

As I understand it, local advertising agencies are free to import foreign commercials. Do you object to that?

I have never been in favor of protectionism of any kind. I guess

you could say that because most countries have protection that New Zealand should too, but I am not prepared to fight for it. I don’t want to see any halt in the free exchange of personnel, services and facilities.

Interestingly enough, most New Zealand agencies want to make New Zealand commercials. Most of the commercials that appear on our screen are made here, and when the odd American one pops up, people generally don’t like it.

Distribution and Exhibition Another area of the industry which has come in for some criticism recently is the distribution and exhibition sector. In fact several producers have undertaken the distribution of their own films rather than let them go through the chains Yet another monopoly raises its head. This time controlled from outside New Zealand. There is a big move at the moment to de­ license exhibitors, and I think there is a good chance it will come about.

What effect will that have?

There will be more alternative o u t l e t s an d , t h e r e f o r e , m o re competition. And that’s what the New Zealand industry needs — some good old competitive free enterprise and a reduction in the number of monopolies — Govern­ ment and private.

W riters A number of recent New Zealand feature films have been written and directed — and in several instances produced — by the one person. In Australia, attempts — particularly by government funding bodies — have been made to separate these functions and encourage greater contributions from writers. Do you

think the doubling up of functions is they become a writer first, and a dangerous in a young industry? filmmaker second?

Yes. I think the auteur theory is a big problem in our part of the world. Too often films are made under the guise of being an auteur film, when in fact they shouldn’t.

It’s not necessarily the writers problem either, it is an industry problem. Our writers, particularly novelists — and we have some tremendously good novelists in New Zealand — have no experience in films. In fact there is a lot of confusion about film writers: some think they are writers of radio plays; others think they write theatre drama, and some even believe they are novelists. They are a combination of all those things.

Most importantly, a film writer is really part director.

The w onderful thing a b o u t reading an American script is that as you read it the film unfolds, and every little detail in the frame is described. I once talked to Alan Parker about Midnight Express, and he told me the wonderful thing about hiring an American script­ w r ite r to w o rk on Midnight Express was that when he read the first draft, he read his film.

He said the first 10 pages didn’t have a line of dialogue. It was a visual description, because the writer understood the medium co m p letely . He u n d e rsto o d directing, photography, lighting, editing — everything. And all the director had to do was go out and improve on what had been written and give it a bit of pacing.

I believe, very strongly, in the writer’s role, but I think one of the problems is that a scriptwriter is someone who is so often asked to just put words to a novel and have people talk. I find that the first job I do when working with a writer is to go through and cross out all the dialogue, and put it back into pictures and narrative.

So often writers want to describe what is happening with dialogue, instead of in filmic terms. And it is not the inexperienced writers’ fault, but where do they learn? How do

In that respect, the production of drama for television would provide New Zealand writers with the opportunity to gain this sort of experience . . .

Possibly, but I am not sure, because television writing doesn’t always solve the problem either.

Television writers often get very bad habits, because television is a dialogue medium.

I tend to look to novelists for to m o r r o w ’s film w riters — provided they are prepared to put the time into learning the art. I think there is more connection between a novel and a film, than between a play and a film. In fact I think there is more connection between an opera and a film than a play, or a television series, and a film.

One initiative the Australian Film Commission has taken to help local writers gain experience is to bring established scriptwriters and producers to Australia. Do you think this is the sort of thing the NZFC should be doing, or do you believe in a natural evolution?

1 think you have to put a stick of d y n a m ite under evolution occasionally. I don’t think there is any harm in that.

One of our problems in New Z e a l a n d is t h a t w r i t e r s and producers are grossly underpaid.

The sort of money that is being offered for a feature film script is not really enough to attract a person to spend at least a year on it, which is what a film really needs.

Is that why it has taken so long to get your next film project off the ground?

It p ro b a b ly is. Solo was a desperate undertaking, in the sense that I had to do something and get it on the screen. I wrote the script with Martin Sanderson in four weeks. And the problems of the film are reflected by that.

Trying to originate a script since then. 1 have been less willing to take a punt on writing myself, or going with someone who can help me. I have abandoned a lot of projects.

What I am now looking for is projects that are originated by someone else. And in that sense. I am not in such a desperate rush. I turned down an American film, and I have turned down an Australian film, both of which were ready to go. The Australian film, starts shooting in two months on a budget of more than SI million, but l didn’t like the script.

Are you in a position to talk about your latest project at this stage?

“ I t h in k y o u h a v e to pu t a stick o f d y n a m i t e u n d e r e v o l u t i o n o c ca s io n a ll y " : S o n s F o r th e R e t u r n H o m e , a n d G o o d b y e P o r k Pie.

Beyond R easonable Doubt

Only to say that it is a horror film called Sticky Ends and will go into production some time next year. ★ Cinema Papers. October-November — 373

K e y g rip s

FEATURES P R E -P R O D U C T IO N

THE LAST LOST HORSE P ro d u c e rs

...............................................P a t C o x, K e v in J. W ils o n ........................ K e v in J. W ils o n , F ra n k E d w a rd s Synopsis: A n o u td o o r a d v e n tu re in v o lv in g w ild h o rs e s , h u n te rs w h o a im to c a tc h th e m a n d o n e g ir l w h o d a r e s to sa ve th e m .

S c rip tw rite rs

SCARECROW P ro d u c e r ...............................R o b W h ite h o u s e D ir e c to r .......................................S a m P ills b u ry S c rip tw rite rs ......................... M ic h a e l H e a th , S a m P ills b u ry G a u g e .........................................................35 m m Synopsis: A c ra z e d m u rd e r e r a rriv e s in a s m a ll to w n w h e re a y o u n g a d o le s c e n t b o y a n d h is te e n a g e s is t e r a re fa c in g th e c h a lle n g e s o f g ro w in g u p . T h e m u rd e r e r c h o o s e s th e g ir l as h is n e x t v ic tim — o n ly h e r b ro th e r ca n s a v e h er.

THE SHOOTING P ro d , c o m p a n y

............ S o u th e rn P ic tu re s , London P ro d u c e r .................................... A n d re w B ro w n S c rip tw rite r .............................. A n d re w B ro w n E xec, p ro d u c e r ........................... M a rk S h iv a s G a u g e ......................................................... 35 m m S y n o p s is : In a fa r m in g c o m m u n ity in th e 1940s, th re e p o lic e m e n a re s h o t d e a d a nd tw o m e n a re le ft g ra v e ly in ju re d . A p a rty of 2 00 a rm e d m e n s e t o u t to tra c k d o w n th e m a n w h o fire d th e fir s t s h o ts , b u t b y th e tim e th e c a rn a g e e n d s , a n o th e r th r e e m e n d ie , in o n e o f th e m o s t s e n s a tio n a l c h a p te rs in th e h is to ry o f N e w Z e a la n d c rim e .

SMASH PALACE P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r .......... R o g e r D o n a ld s o n S c rip tw rite r ...................... R o g e r D o n a ld s o n Synopsis: A m a n , s e p a ra te d fro m h is e s ­ tra n g e d w ife , k id n a p s th e ir so n a n d h as to fa c e u p to th e c o n s e q u e n c e s .

F o r c o m p le te d e ta ils o f th e f o llo w in g fe a tu re se e is s u e 28: T h e L o s t T rib e

IN P R O D U C T IO N

RACE FOR THE YANKEE ZEPHYR C o -p ro d u c e rs

. . . A n to n y G in n a n e (A u st.), J o h n B a rn e tt (N Z) D ire c to r ................................ D a v id H e m m in g s S c rip tw rite r .......................E v e re tt d e R o ch e E xec, p ro d u c e r .............. W illia m F a ym a n P ro d , c o - o r d in a to r .....................J e n n y B a rty P ro d u c e r s ’ s e c re ta ry ........ S y lv ia V a n W yk L e n g th ................................................... 100 m in s G a u g e ......................................................... 35 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................ E a s tm a n c o lo r S c h e d u le d re le a s e ................ C a n n e s, 1981 Synopsis: C o m p e tin g g ro u p s o f a d v e n ­ tu r e r s ra c e to a c ra s h e d D C 3 a irlin e r, th e Y a n k e e Z e p h y r, a n d its $ 5 0 m illio n c a rg o .

P O S T -P R O D U C T IO N

PICTURES P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... P a c ific F ilm s P ro d u c e r ....................................... J o h n O ’S h e a D ir e c to r ....................................... M ic h a e l B la c k S c rip tw rite rs ..................................R o b e rt L o rd , J o h n O ’S h e a , M ic h a e l B la c k P h o to g ra p h y ................................ R o ry O 'S h e a S o u n d r e c o r d is t .......................G ra e m e M o rris E d ito r .................................................... J o h n K ile y A s s o c , p ro d u c e r .................... C ra ig W a lte rs P ro d , m a n a g e r ............D o rth e S c h e ffm a n n S tu d io m a n a g e r .................... E ric A n d e rs o n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ........... B a rb a ra J o rg e n s e n 1 st a sst d ir e c to r .S te v e L o c k e r-L a m p s o n 2 n d a s s t d ir e c to r ......... J o n o th a n C u llin a n e C o n tin u ity ................................J a c q u i S u lliv a n C a m e ra o p e ra to r . . . . M ic h a e l H a rd c a s tle F o c u s p u lle r ..............................R ic h a rd B lu c k C ia p p e r /lo a d e r ....................... J o h n S p u rd ie

....................................... T ro u B a yliss, B o b C u rtic e , C h ris S h o rt G a ffe r ................................................ P av G o v in d B o o m o p e ra to r ..............................E ric B rig g s A rt d ir e c to r ............................... R u s s e ll C o llin s M a k e -u p ......................... L e s le y V a n d e rw a lt, J e a n P a lm e r H a ird re s s e r ................................ J o h n R ills to n e W a rd ro b e ......................................G w e n K a is e r W a rd , a s s is ta n ts ....................... J o a n M c G ilp , A nn C oom bes, L o u is e B la c k b u rn , K a th y J o rg e n s e n , B e rn a rd K a is e r P ro p s ................................... T re v o r H a y su m , R o h e s ia H a m iito n -M e tc a lfe T ra n s p o rt .....................................R o ss R e a d e r S e t c o n s tru c tio n ......................D a ve A rm o u r, Ia n M ile s A s s t e d ito r ......................... A d r ie n n e R o g e rs S till p h o to g ra p h y ........................T re v o r U ly a tt T e c h , a d v is o rs ............................ M a rk C rib b , .

H a rd w ic k e K n ig h t B e s t b o y .............................................. Ian M ile s L a b o r a to ry .......................N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L a b . lia is o n ..............................C h ris tin e T yso n G auge ........................................................... 3 5 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r C a s t: K e vin W ils o n (A lfre d B u rto n ). P e te r V e re -J o n e s (W a lte r B u rto n ), H e le n M o u ld e r (L y ia B u rto n ). E liz a b e th C o u lte r (H e le n B u rto n ), T e re n c e B a y le r (J o h n R o c h e fo rt), M a tiu M a r e ik u r a ( N g a t a i) , R o n L y n n ( P r e s id e n t) , J o h n C a lle n (C a s e y ). K e n B la c k b u rn (O ffic ia l), S u z a n n e F u rn e r (C h a r­ lo tte ).

S y n o p s is : T w o b ro th e rs A lfre d a n d W a lte r B u rto n , th e ir w iv e s a n d th e ir M a o ri a nd E u ro p e a n frie n d s c o m e to te rm s , in th e ir d iffe re n t w a ys, w ith c o lo n ia l N e w Z e a la n d S o c ie ty a n d its p re ju d ic e s .

A W A IT IN G R E L E A S E

GOODBYE PORK PIE

IN R E L E A S E

SHORTS

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

BLACK HEARTED BARNEY BLACKFOOT

P ro d , c o m p a n y ................ B R D P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y . . . E n d e a v o u r P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r ....................................... J o h n B a rn e tt D ire c to r ........................................... J o h n L a in g S c rip tw rite r ....................................D a v id Y a llo p B a se d o n th e b o o k ,

P ro d , c o m p a n y ............................G ib s o n F ilm _ P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y .............................. G ib s o n F ilm P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r ........................................D a ve G ib s o n B e y o n d R e a s o n a b le D o u b t ? .

D ire c to r ....................................Y v o n n e M a c k a y b y ................................................. D a v id Y a llo p S c rip tw rite r ................................J a c k L a z e n b y P h o to g ra p h y ........................... A lu n B o llin g e r A d a p ta tio n .......................................... Ian M u n e S o u n d re c o rd is t .....................D o n R e y n o ld s P h o to g ra p h y ..................................P e te r J a m e s E d ito r ......................................... M ic h a e l H o rto n M u s ic re c o rd in g ............................... J o h n N e il E xec, p ro d u c e r ..........................J o h n B a rn e tt E d ito r ..............................................S im o n R e e ce P ro d ^ s u p e rv is o r ............G ra h a m e M c L e a n P ro d , d e s ig n e r s ................ J a n e t W illia m s o n , P ro d , s e c re ta rie s ............M id g e M e id ro p s , D e an C a to J a n e G ilb e r t C o m p o s e r .......................................... J a c k B o d y P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ............................D e an H ill P ro d , m a n a g e r .................. A lis o n L a n g d e n P ro d , a s s is ta n t ....................... T ris h a D o w n ie P ro d , a s s is ta n ts .................. R ic h a rd L a n d e r, 1s t a s s t d ir e c to r .................. M u rr a y N e w e y A la s ta ir M u rra y 2 nd a s s t d ire c to r ......... J o n o th a n C u llin a n e C o n tin u ity : ........................... F io n a B u c h a n a n C o n tin u ity .................................J a c q u i S u lliv a n C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .........................P e te r R ead C a m e ra o p e ra to r ......................... P a u l L e a ch K e y g r ip ......................................... B ria n K a s s le r F o cu s p u lle r .......................................J o h n Day E le c tric ia n s .................................... K e vin B ea le , C ia p p e r/lo a d e r ................................Ian T u rtill T e rry B rya n K ey g rip s .................................... J e ff J a m ie s o n , M a k e -u p .................................. P a tric ia C o h e n , V ic Y a rk e r, L o u is e G ra y T ro u B a y lis s W a rd ro b e ..............................J o a n G rim m o n d G a ffe r ................................................ D o n J o w s e y P ro p s .......................................

G a ye B e rg q u is t, E le c tric ia n ......................................S im o n W y a tt R o b e rt F ow les, B o o m o p e ra to r .......................L ee T a m a h o ri S im o n S in c la ir, A rt d ir e c t o r .......................................................... K ai H a w k in s R ex P e rk in M a k e -u p ............................ L e s le y V a n d e rw a lt P u p p e t m a k e r ................

H illa ry B e rtin s h a w M a k e -u p a s s t ....................... S a ra h A n d e rs o n M o d e l m a k e r ........................... B o b M a y s m o r W a rd ro b e ..................................... J u lie d ’ L a ce y S p e c ia l e ffe c ts ........................... T o n y R a b b it, W a rd , a s s is ta n t ..............................S ia n J o n e s J o h n n y M o rr is P ro p s .............................................C h ris P a u lg e r M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y ...................J a c k B o d y S ta n d b y p ro p s .......................T re v o r H a yso m M ix e r .........................

J o h n V an d e r R e yde n S e t d e c o ra to rs .....................S te ve S o re n s e n .

M ix e d a t ........................ A s s o c ia te d S o u n d s J o h n F is h e r L a b o ra to rie s ..................

N a tio n a l F ilm U n it, S et c o n s tru c tio n ..........................T o n y A u s tin C o lo rfilm A s s t e d ito r ..................... C h ris tin e L a n c a s te r L e n g th ................................................

12 m in s M ix e r ............................................ D o n R e y n o ld s G auge .........................................................1 6 m m S till p h o to g ra p h y ....................P h ilip P e a c o c k S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r C a te rin g ..........................................L o u is e D o yle P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e C a te rin g a s s t .............'........... R o b in M u rp h y F irs t re le a s e d ..............M IP -T V , A p r il, 1980 L a b o ra to ry ........................ N a tio n a l F ilm U n it C a s t: Ia n W a tk in , A n n ie W h ittle . L u c y (P ro c e s s in g ) M c G ra th , A lla n W ra y.

L e n g th .................................................. 120 m in s S y n o p s is : B la c k -h e a rte d B a rn e y B la c k fo o t G auge ......................................................... 3 5 m m m a rrie s B illy 's a n d L u c y ’s m o th e r u n d e r S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r fa ls e p re te n c e s . A fte r th e m a rria g e , h is e vil C a st: D a vid H e m m in g s (B ru c e H u tto n ), n a tu re is re v e a le d , a n d to g e th e r w ith h is J o h n H a rg re a v e s (A rth u r A lla n T h o m a s ), frie n d th e w a rd ro b e , w h o w a lk s a ro u n d th e D ia n a R o w a n (V iv ie n T h o m a s ). Ian W a tk in s m a ll c o tta g e e a tin g c ro c k e ry , h e b re a k s u p {K e v in R yan), T o n y B a rry (J o h n H u g h e s), the h a p p y h o m e . B u t a ll e n d s h a p p ily .

G ra n t T illy (D a vid M o rris ). M a rty n S a n d e r­

P ro d , c o m p a n y ........ P o rk P ie P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y .......... P o rk P ie P ro d u c tio n s P r o d u c e r s .............................N ig e l H u tc h in s o n , G e o ff M u rp h y D ir e c t o r ........................................ G e o ff M u rp h y S c rip tw rite rs .............................G e o ff M u rp h y , Ian M u n e B a se d o n th e o rig in a l id e a b y ................................................ G e o ff M urphyP h o to g ra p h y ...............................A lu n B o ilin g e r S o u n d r e c o r d is t ........................D o n R e y n o ld s E d ito r .........................................M ic h a e l H o rto n C o m p o s e r .......................................J o h n C h a rle s s o n (L e n D e rn ie r), T e re n c e C o o p e r (P a ul P ro d , m a n a g e r ............................ P a t M u rp h y T e m m j.

P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............ V e ro n ic a L a w re n c e S y n o p s is : A s e a rc h fo r tw o b o d ie s a n d a A s s is ta n t p ro d . m u rd e re r, s u b s e q u e n t tria ls , a c o n v ic tio n P ro d , c o m p a n y ___ L in c o ln H ig h S c h o o l, s e c re ta ry .................................. S h irle y D u nn and an e v e n tu a l p a rd o n . A c o n te m p o ra ry C h ris tc h u r c h P ro d , a s s is t a n t s ........................K e r ry R o b in s , s to ry o f a fig h t a g a in s t a ju d ic ia l sys te m .

P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r ..............T o n y B ritte n d e n J e ff W illia m s S c rip tw rite r ............................T o n y B ritte n d e n 1st a s s t d ir e c t o r ...................... S a m P ills b u ry P h o to g ra p h y ........................... R o b B ritte n d e n C o n t in u it y .......................... D o rth e S h e ffm a n n SQUEEZE E d ito r .......................................T o n y B ritte n d e n C a m e ra o p e ra to r ................. G ra e m e C o w le y C o m p o s e r ......................... D o ro th y B u c h a n a n F o cu s p u lle r .........................................J o h n D ay P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... T rilo g ic Film T e ch p ro d u c e r .....................R o b B ritte n d e n C ia p p e r / lo a d e r .......................................... M u rr a y M iln e P ro d u c tio n s P ro d , s e c re ta ry ........................... J a n e t M ile s C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .............. M ik e H a rd c a s tle D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... T rilo g ic Film P ro d , a s s is ta n t ................. R o s e m a ry B a rn e tt K e y g r i p .......................................................... A lis te r B a rry P ro d u c tio n s C la p p e r/io a d e r . . . . F lu ff th e W o n d e r C a t 2 n d u n it p h o t o g r a p h y ...................P e te r R eid P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r ................ R ic h a rd T u rn e r K ey g rip .................................... D a vid F o u lk e s G a f f e r .......................................... S tu a rt D ry b u rg h S c rip tw rite r ..............................R ic h a rd T u rn e r C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r . . . . R o s e m a ry B a rn e tt A d d itio n a l lig h tin g ....................... S im o n W iat, S c rip t c o n s u lta n ts ................D a vid S te ve n s, P ro p s .................................... B rid g e t B lu n d e n Don Jow sey D a v id H e rk t S p e c ia l e ffe c ts ..........................D a vid F o u lk e s B o o m o p e r a t o r ..........................L e e T a m a h o ri S o u n d re c o rd is t .................. C ra ig M c L e o d S e t c o n s tru c tio n .......................K e lv in S m ith A rt d ire c to rs .................................. K a i H a w k in s , E d ito r ........................................... J a m ie S e lk irk M u s ic a l d ir e c to r ......... D o ro th y B u c h a n a n R o b in O u tte rs id e C o m p o s e rs ................................. A n d y H a ge n , S o u n d e n g in e e r/ M a k e -u p ..................................... C h ris R e y n o ld s M o rto n Y o u n g .

R e c o rd in g s u p e rv is o r . .R o b B ritte n d e n W a rd ro b e .....................................R o b in M u rp h y T o y Love.

N a rra to r ............................................S te v e n T ra il A s s t e d i t o r .................................. C in d y B o w le s T h e M a rc h in g G irls , S till p h o to g ra p h y ......................... D a vid S c o tt M u s ic a l d ir e c t o r .........................J o h n C h a rle s T h e F e a tu re s , T itle d e s ig n e r ................... EO S P ro d u c tio n s S o u n d e d i t o r ..............................J a y B e rry m a n M a rk H o rn ib ro o k e C a te rin g .............................. N a ta lie B ritte n d e n M i x e r .............................................. D o n R e y n o ld s A s s t d ir e c t o r s ............................................. R o g e rt M oM n kix. e d at . . . . 1 ..............A s s o c ia te d S o u n d s -S tunt d r i v e r ................................ P e te r Z iv k iv o c B e rn a rd M c B rid e L e n g th .....................................................48 m in s S t u n t s ...............................................T im o th y L ee C o n tin u ity ................................ D a v id F ra n k lin G auge ......................................................... 1 6 m m B e st b o y ....................................................M a tth e w M u rp h yh tin g c a m e ra m a n L ig ....................ia n P au l P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e C a t e r in g ............................... B a r b a ra P ills b u ry , C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ......................... P e te r Day F irs t re le a s e d ..............M a y 1980, A c a d e m y R o b in M c G h ie K ey g rip ...........................................T ro u B a y lis s C h ris tc h u r c h M ix e d a t ............................ A s s o c ia te d S o u n d s G a ffe r .................................. D a v id M u lh o lla n d C a st: S h a n e S im m s (S a m s o n P e a b o d y L a b o r a to ry .............................................. C o lo rfilm B o o m o p e ra to r ................M a lc o lm C ro m ie J o n e s ).

C o rn e lia S c h a a p (b a rg irl). s tu d e n ts L a b . lia is o n .........................................B ill G o o le y M a k e -u p ......................................... E sm e S m a rt a n d s ta ff o f L in c o ln H ig h S c h o o l.

C o lo u r g r a d in g ................ A r th u r C a m b rid g e M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y .................... T o y Love, S y n o p s is : A s a tiric a l w e s te rn in w h ic h th e L e n g th ................................................... 109 m in s .

T h e M a rc h in g G irls , h e ro fin d s an o ld m a p a n d g o e s in s e a rc h of G a u g e ........................................................... 35 m m T h e F e a tu re s, tre a s u re .

H e is c o n fro n te d b y s o m e v illa in s , P ro g re s s .................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n M a rk H o rn ib ro o k e a n d it ta k e s a m in e r’s g h o s t p lu s th e e n tire C a s t : K e lly J o h n s o n ( G e r r y ) , C la ir e R u n n e r .................................. G re g o r N ic h o la s m o u n te d c a v a lry to h e lp h im o u t o f his O b e rm a n (S h irt), T o n y B a r ry (J o h n ), S h irle y L a b o r a to ry ................................ V id c o m , A tla b p re d ic a m e n t.

G ru a r (S u e ), M a g g ie M a x w e ll (S u e ’s s is te r), L e n g th .......................................................80 m in s B ru n o L a w re n c e (M u lv a n e y ), Ia n W a tk ln G auge ......................................................... 1 6m m (fa th e r in c a r), M a rs h a ll N a p ie r (p a tr o l c a r S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r d riv e r), B ill J u llif f (w re c k e r y a rd m a n ), J o h n F irs t re le a s e d ..............M a y 1980, A u c k la n d P ro d , c o m p a n y . . .E n d e a v o u r P ro d u c tio n s B a c h (S n o u t).

C a s t: R o b e rt S h a n n o n (G ra n t), P a u l E a d y D ist. c o m p a n y . . . . E n d e a v o u r P ro d u c tio n s S y n o p s is : A c o m e d y c h a s e film in w h ic h (P a u l), P e te r H e p e ri (R ik i), D a v id H e rk t P r o d u c e r .........................................J o h n B a rn e tt G e rry , J o h n a n d S h irl a tte m p t to d riv e fro m (J o h n ), D o n n a A k e rs te n (J o y ), F a ye F le g g.

D ir e c t o r ...............................R o g e r D o n a ld s o n o n e e n d o f N e w Z e a la n d to th e o th e r in a D o n F a r r , M a r t y n S a n d e r s o n . D in a h S c rip tw rite rs .......................... K e ith A b e rd e in , fra u d u le n tly re n te d M in i, p u rs u e d at e v e ry R u sse ll. B ru c e W e sto n . ia n M u n e tu r n b y th e (aw.

S y n o p s is : T o rn b e tw e e n h is fe m a le fia n c e e B a s e d o n th e o rig in a l id e a a n d h is y o u n g m a le lo v e r . G ra n t, an b y .............................................K e ith A b e rd e in , A u c k la n d b u s in e s s m a n , r e a c h e s th e Ian M u n e m o m e n t o f d e c is io n . H is s to ry is to ld a g a in s t S o u n d r e c o r d is t .................... G ra e m e M o rr is a b a c k g ro u n d o f m id c ity A u c k la n d n ig h t­ E d ito r .........................................M ic h a e l H o rto n life .

P ro d , m a n a g e r ....................... W a rr e n S e lle rs P ro d , s e c re ta ry ...............P ris c illa E d b ro o k e P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ...............................D e an H ill 1 st a s s t d ir e c t o r .........................M ic h a e l F irth C o n t in u it y ................................. J a c k ie S u lliv a n

374 — Cinema Papers, October-November

LINCOLN COUNTY INCIDENT

NUTCASE

L ig h tin g c a m e r a m a n .......... G ra e m e C o w le y C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................................Ia n P a u l C la p p e r / io a d e r ............................................... G a ry H e lm C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .....................J o h n M a h a ffie K e y g r i p ..................................... S tu a rt D ry b u rg h G a f f e r ............................................. A lu n B o llin g e r B o o m o p e r a t o r ................................................. E ric B ig g s A rt d ir e c to r ..................................... K a i H a w k in s M a k e - u p .............................L e s le y V a n d e rw a lt W a r d r o b e ................................................... M e tv in e C la rk P ro p s ................................................ L o u is e D o yte S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .............................................. G e o ff M u rp h y A s s t e d i t o r .............. ; ....................R o g e r H y to n S till p h o t o g r a p h y ........................................ A lb e r t M c C a b e R u n n e r ...................................... R o s s ly n D a w s o n C a t e r in g .......................................M e la n ie B is ie y L e n g th ..........................................

5 0 m in s .

P r o g r e s s ..................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d r e le a s e ........................................M a y , 1 9 8 0 C a s t: A a ro n D o n a ld s o n (C ru n c h ), M e lis s a D o n a ld s o n (N ik k i), P e te r S h a n d (J a m ie ), N e van R o w e (E v il E va), Ian W a tk in (G o d ­ z illa ), J o h n G a d s b y (C o b b le s to n e ), M ic h a e l W ils o n (M c L o o n e y ).

S y n o p s is : N e w Z e a la n d 's b ig g e s t c it y is th r e a te n e d b y a g a n g o f in t e r n a t io n a l v illa in s , w h o h o ld th e in h a b ita n ts to ra n s o m fro m a h id e o u t o n a s u b m a rin e , a n d fr o m a s e c re t la b o ra to r y . T h e v illa in s m a n a g e to k e e p o n e s te p a h e a d o f th e p o lic e , b u t th re e c h ild re n r id e to th e re s c u e , w ith th e h e lp o f s o m e a m a z in g e le c t r o n ic g a d g e ts a n d s e v e ra l h u n d r e d h e lp e rs .

THE OTHER NEW ZEALAND P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ............................J a c k M ills S c rip tw rite r ...............................D a v id T o s s m a n P h o t o g r a p h y ................................................... J o h n E a rn s h a w S o u n d r e c o r d is t ............................................. M ik e W e s tg a te E d ito r ...........................................D a v id T o s s m a n C o m p o s e r ............................................ R o g e r Fox C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ............ A n d re w M c A lp in e K ey g r i p .............................................D o n J o w s e y M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y ......................R o g e r F o x N a r r a t o r ...............................................................P au l R o b in s o n L a b o r a t o r y ...................................V ic -C o m /N F U L e n g th ......................................................... 6 m in s G a u g e ........................................................... 16 m m P r o g r e s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n In tro d u c e d b y: B ria n T a lb o y s S y n o p s is : A p o r tr a it o f N e w Z e a la n d a s an in d u s tria l a s w e ll a s a g r ic u ltu ra l n a tio n , p r o d u c in g e ffic ie n tly f o r w o rld m a rk e ts .

S p o n s o re d b y th e E x p o rt In s titu te a n d in ­ d iv id u a l c o m p a n ie s .

RIBONO P ro d , c o m p a n y .............................J a m e s S ie rs P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y ............................. N e w Z e a la n d R im C o m m is s io n P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ..................................... J a m e s S ie rs S c rip tw rite r .....................................J a m e s S ie rs P h o to g ra p h y ................................... P ie rre L o d s , L y n to n D lg g le S o u n d r e c o r d is t .................... S te p h e n U p s to n E d ito r ................................................... C h ris K in g E xec, p ro d u c e r ........................ T im o th y W h ite L a b o r a t o r y ...........................N a tio n a l R im U n it B u d g e t .........................................................$ 6 6 ,0 0 0 L e n g th ....................................................... 5 0 m in s .

G a u g e ...........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. P ro d u c tio n S y n o p s is : A n a d v e n tu re s to ry a b o u t a y o u n g N e w Z e a la n d b o y w h o s p e n d s a s u m ­ m e r v a c a tio n o n th e tin y a to ll o f R ib o n o in th e R e p u b lic o f K irib a ti.

THE SEA CHILD P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............A n s o n A s s o c ia te s D ist. c o m p a n y ..................A n s o n A s s o c ia te s P ro d u c e rs ................................... A n n ie W h ittle , B ru c e M o rr is o n D ire c to r .................................... B ru c e M o rr is o n S c rip tw rite r ..............................B ru c e M o rr is o n P h o to g ra p h y ............................ K e v in H a y w a rd S o u n d re c o rd is t ....................M ik e W e s tg a te E d ito r .......................................M ic h a e l H a c k in g C o m p o s e r . ^ .............................. A n n ie W h ittle C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .................. B a rry H a rb e r t M u s ic a l d ir e c to r .......................K e ith H u n te r L a b o ra to ry ........................................... C o lo rfilm L e n g th .....................................................2 5 m in s G auge ........................................................... 1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. In re le a s e F irst re le a s e d ..............M IP -T V , A p r il, 1980 C a s t: R o s a n n a T a h a n a .

S y n o p s is : A s h o r t film a b o u t a n in e -y e a r-o ld g irl a n d h e r m y s tic a ttra c tio n fo r th e sea.

F ilm e d in a re m o te c o a s ta l c o m m u n ity in th e fa r n o rth o f N e w Z e a la n d .

YIORGOS P ro d , c o m p a n y . . C lo n e z o n e P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y . . . C lo n e z o n e P ro d u c tio n s N e w Z e a la n d F ilm S e rv ic e s P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r ................. B a rry T h o m a s S c rip tw rite r .................................. J u lie G re n fe ll P h o to g ra p h y ...................................C h ris G h e n t S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... K e n S p a rk s E d ito r ................................................. R o b R itc h ie C o m p o s e r ...................................B a r ry T h o m a s M u s ic a l d ir e c to r .................... B a r ry T h o m a s L a b o r a to ry ....................... N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L e n g th .....................................................22 m in s G auge ......................................................... 1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. In re le a s e

F irs t re le a s e d

.......................25 M a rc h , 1980 A u c k la n d , B e rk e le y C a s t: A n to n io u s K a r a n t z e , M e r io l B u c k in g h a m , J o y N g, Ian F o rs y th e , N eil S u th e rla n d , Synopsis: A G re e k b o y b e g in s h is fir s t d a y a t s c h o o l. U n a b le to s p e a k E n g lis h o r c o m m u n ic a te w ith h is c la s s m a te s , he h as a d is t u r b in g t im e u n t il t h e b a r r ie r s o f la n g u a g e a n d c u ltu r e a re b ro k e n d o w n .

E d ito r ................................................P h ilip H o w e C o m p o s e r ................................S c h tu n g M u s ic E xec, p ro d u c e r ...................N a m b a s s a T ru s t A s s o c , p ro d u c e r .............................D a le F ilm s P ro d , m a n a g e r ................... D e b b ie H a th e rly L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n . . . . J o h n E a rn s h a w C a m e ra o p e ra to rs ..................... A la n L o cke , A n d v R o e la n ts S p e c ia l fx p h o to g ra p h y ........... P h ilip H o w e G a ffe r ............................................... T ro u B a yliss C h o re o g ra p h y ................ M a ry J a n e O 'R e illy N eg. m a tc h in g

.................... N e g a tiv e C u ttin g S e rv ic e s M ix e r .......................................... B ria n S h e n n a n O p tic a ls ................................C o lo rfilm , S y d n e y T itle d e s ig n e r ............................N e il W e rn h a m C a te rin g .......................................M rs E a rn s h a w M ix e d a t ............................N a tio n a l F ilm U n it, W e llin g to n P ro d , c o m p a n y ................ P a in t P o t S tu d io s L a b o ra to ry .........................C o lo rfilm , S y d n e y D ist. c o m p a n y .................. P a in t P o t S tu d io s Lab. lia is o n ..............................D a vid S c h u b e rt P r o d u c e r / d ir e c t o r ....................................... D a vid W a B teursd g e t ....................................................... $ 5 5 ,0 0 0 S c r ip t w r it e r ...................................................... J o h n G u nL de ry n g th .....................................................100 m in s P h o t o g r a p h y ................................ D a vid W a te rs, G a u g e ........................................................... 1 6m m J a n e y D u nn , S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r • L in d s a y W h ip p P ro g re s s .............................................. In re le a s e E d i t o r ................................................................ D a v id W a F teirs rs t re le a s e d . . . . A u c k la n d F ilm F e stiva l, C o m p o s e r s ................................A n d re w H a g e n , „ J u ly , 1980 M o rto n W ils o n C a s t : S p l i t E n z , S c h t u n g , L im b s , C h a ra c te r d e s ig n ....................... M ik e T re b e r t C o c k ro a c h , S a m F o rd s V ra n d a h B a n d , L a y o u t .............................................. M ik e T re b e rt S te v e T u llo c h , S w a m i S a tc h id a n a n d a , T im in g ............................................... S a m H a rve y A c o rn s P u p p e ts .

A n i m a t o r s ...........................................................J o e W ylie S y,n o p s is : A film re c o rd o f th e N a m b a s s a W a rw ic k G ilb e r t F e stiva l, w h ic h is h e ld to c e le b ra te th e In -b e tw e e n in g ................................J a n e y D u n n m u sic.

P a i n t in g .....................................S h ire e R e ih a n a , L ia n n e H u g h e s, S h a ro n J o h n s o n .

M a rie H u g h e s B a c k g ro u n d s ................................ M ik e T re b e rt SHORTS M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y ......... A n d re w H a g e n , M o rto n W ils o n L a b o r a to ry ..............................................V id -C o m L e n g th ............................................... 1 3 x 6 m in s.

G a u g e ............................................................ 3 5 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. P ro d u c tio n P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................... G ib s o n F ilm S y n o p s is : A n e n t e r t a in in g e d u c a tio n a l P ro d u c tio n s s e rie s f o r c h ild re n .

D ist. c o m p a n y ..............................G ib s o n F ilm

ANIMATION COTTON ON

CHILDREN OF SAMOA

DOCUMENTARIES FEATURES

THE BRIDGE P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r ............ G e rd P o h lm a n n S c rip tw rite rs .................... G e rd P o h lm a n n , M e ra ta M ita P h o to g ra p h y ............................. L e o n N a rb e y G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ...................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ...................................... P ro d u c tio n S y n o p s is : W h e n c a rp e n te rs a n d la b o u re rs s t o p p e d w o r k o n th e M a n g e re B rid g e c o n s tru c tio n p ro je c t in A u c k la n d in M a y 1978, th e y w e re n o t to k n o w t h a t th e y w o u ld b e c o m e e n m e s h e d in th e lo n g e s t ru n n in g in d u s tria l d is p u te in N e w Z e a la n d h is to ry . A s tu d y in th e e ffe c t o f a c ris is s itu a tio n on w o rk e rs ' live s,

KESKIDEE-AROHA P ro d , c o m p a n y .................. S c ra tc h P ic tu re s D ist. c o m p a n y .....................S c ra tc h P ic tu re s P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r . . . . M a rty n S a n d e rs o n S c rip tw rite rs ................................ M e ra ta M ita , M a rty n S a n d e rs o n R e s e a rc h .......................................M e ra ta M ita P h o to g ra p h y .............................K e v in H a y w a rd S o u n d re c o rd is t ....................M ik e W e s tg a te E d ito rs .......................................... A n n ie C o llin s , S im o n R e e ce A s s o c p ro d u c e r .......................M e ra ta M ita P ro d , c o - o r d in a to r .................. M e ra ta M ita P ro d , m a n a g e r ......................... N e va n R o w e L a b o r a to ry ...............................................V id c o m G auge ........................................................... 1 6m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................ A w a itin g re le a s e C a s t: K e s k id e e T h e a tre , lo c a l g ro u p s .

S y n o p s is : A v is itin g L o n d o n -b a s e d b la c k th e a tre tro u p e , K e s k id e e , p e r fo rm s p la y s w ith a th e m e o f b la c k c o n s c io u s n e s s a nd p rid e a t ru ra l M a o ri s e ttle m e n ts , g a n g h e a d g u a r te r s , u r b a n y o u th c lu b s a n d c o m m u n ity c e n tre s , a n d p ris o n s th r o u g h ­ o u t N e w Z e a la n d . T h e y a re w e lc o m e d w ith tra d itio n a l M a o ri c e re m o n y a n d d a n c e s , ja zz a n d p o e try , a n d th e ir v is it p ro v o k e s d is c u s s io n o f u rg e n t s o c ia l issu e s.

NAMBASSA FESTIVAL P ro d , c o m p a n y .....................N a m b a s s a T ru s t a n d D a le F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y .......................N a m b a s s a T ru s t P ro d u c e r ......................................... P e te r T e rry D ire c to r ............................................P h ilip H o w e P h o to g ra p h y ......................... K e v in H a y w a rd , J o h n E a rn s h a w , C h ris S tre w e S o u n d re c o rd is ts ..............M ik e W e s tg a te , G ra h a m M o rr is

P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r ........................................Dave G ib s o n D ire c to r .................................. J o h n A n d e rs o n P h o to g ra p h y .................................... P e te r R ead S o u n d re c o rd is t ..............M a lc o lm C ro m ie E d ito r ........................................... S im o n R e ece P ro d , m a n a g e r ..............G ra h a m e M c L e a n C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .................... J e ff W illia m s M ix e r ........................................... D o n R e y n o ld s S till p h o to g ra p h y .................... B a rry D u rra n t L a b o ra to ry .......................N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L e n g th .......................................................12 m in s G auge .........................................................1 6m m S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. in re le a s e F irs t re le a s e d ..............M IP -T V , A p ril, 1980 Synopsis: lla s a a n d M o s e liv e in th e s m a ll v illa g e o f M a ta u tu in th e P a c ific is la n d s of W e s te rn S a m o a . T h e film s h o w s th e ir life ­ s ty le a n d th a t o f th e ir fa m ily , in s e q u e n c e s d e p ic tin g s c h o o l, g a m e s , fis h in g , c o c o n u t g a th e rin g a n d m a n y o th e r a c tiv itie s .

D ist. c o m p a n y ........ ................ P a c ific F ilm s P ro d u c e r .................................... J o h n O ’S h e a D ire c to r ............................................. J o h n R e id S c rip tw rite r .................................... J o h n R e id P h o to g ra p h y ................ M ic h a e l H a rd c a s tle S o u n d re c o rd is t .................. G ra h a m M o rris E d ito r .................................................. D ell K in g M ix e r ............................................ S te ve U p s to n M ix e d at .................................... P a c ific F ilm s L a b o ra to ry ...................... N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L e n g th .................................................. 43 m in s .

G a u g e ....................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ...................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ............................ A w a itin g re le a s e S y n o p s is . A d o c u m e n t a r y a b o u t th e re s to ra tio n o f tw o h is to r ic M a o ri m e e tin g h o u s e s , re v e a lin g o u ts ta n d in g d e c o ra tio n o f th e 1870s, a n d d e p ic tin g th e im p o rta n c e o f m e e tin g h o u s e s in c o n te m p o ra ry M a o ri c u ltu re .

THE GREATEST RUN ON EARTH P ro d , c o m p a n y

............S a m P ills b u ry F ilm P ro d u c tio n s , in a s s o c ia tio n w ith T V N Z D ist. c o m p a n y .............. S a m P ills b u ry F ilm P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r /d ir e c to r ................... S a m P ills b u ry P h o to g ra p h y ........................... J o h n P h illp o tts S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................B e rn ie W rig h t E d ito r ............................................ J a m ie S e lk irk C o m p o s e rs ............................. A n d re w H a ge n , M o rto n W ils o n , M u rra y G rin d le y E xec, p ro d u c e r ................R o b W h ite h o u s e A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ....................... D o c W illia m s P ro d , a s s is ta h t ................................K a y D a rb y R e se a rch ....................................G illia n C h a p lin A d d itio n a l re s e a rc h ...................B e th B u tle r, B a rb a ra P ills b u ry A d d itio n a l p h o to g ra p h y . . . L y n to n D ig g le , W a rric k A tte w e ll, B ria n L a th a m , M ik e O 'C o n n o r, D ave C a ld w e ll.

M a lc o lm F e rg u s o n , J im B a rtle , L e o n N a rb e y , A n d y M a c A lp in e , tan P au l, P e te r T h o m p s o n B o o m o p e ra to r .................. D o n M a th e w s o n A d d itio n a l so u n d re c o rd in g ......................... G ra e m e M o rris , M ik e W e s tg a te , D ia n n e T w iss, Ja n S im m , L e ig h to n C la p h a m , R a y m o n d M o o re M ix e d a t ................................T V N Z A u c k la n d L a b o ra to ry ................................................... A tla b B u d g e t .......................................................$ 8 0 ,0 0 0 L e n g th ...................................................... 50 m in s G auge ...........................................................1 6m m S h o o tin g s to c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n Synopsis: O n c e a y e a r 5 0 ,0 0 0 c o n v e rts in th e c ity o f A u c k la n d jo in in a c e le b ra tio n o f ru n n in g . T h e film lo o k s at ru n n in g , w h a t it m e a n s to p e o p le a n d h o w it c h a n g e s th e ir lives.

DAY 507 A M ita N a rb e y P o h lm a n n p ro d u c tio n .

L e n g th .................................................... 26 m in s G auge ...........................................................1 6 m m P ro g re s s .............................................. In re le a s e F irs t re le a s e d ......... J u n e . 1980, A u c k la n d S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta ry a c c o u n t o f th e a c tio n b y p o lic e a n d tro o p s a g a in s t M a o ri a c t iv is t s o c c u p y in g B a s t io n P o in t , in A u c k la n d , w h ic h h a d b e c o m e a s y m b o l o f M a o ri re s is ta n c e to lo s s o f th e ir la n d . A c o m p lia tio n in c o r p o r a t in g in d e p e n d e n t film , te le v is io n fo o ta g e , p h o to g ra p h s , a n d ra d io ta p e s.

FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................ R e el Im a g e s D ist. c o m p a n y .......................... R e el Im a g e s P ro d u c e r .............................................. J o h n K e ir D ire c to r ........................................ J o h n M c K a y S c rip tw rite r ........................................ J o h n K e ir P h o to g ra p h y ...................... D o n a ld D u n c a n S o u n d re c o rd is ts .................... K e n S a v ilie , T o n y K e e s in g E d ito r ...........................................J o h n M c K a y N a rra to r .................................................J o h n K e ir O p tic a ls ............................ C o lo rfilm , S y d n e y T itle d e s ig n e r .................. G a y le n e P re s to n M ix e d a t ........................... N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L a b o ra to ry ....................... N a tio n a l F ilm U n it B u d g e t ....................................................... $ 1 6 ,0 0 0 L e n g th .................................................... 50 m in s .

G a u g e ...........................................'............. 16 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ....................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S y n o p s is : T h e m o d e r n p r o h ib it io n m o v e m e n t in N e w Z e a la n d s ta g e d a te m p e ra n c e re v iv a l d u r in g 1979. T h e film d o c u m e n ts th e ir p r o g r e s s a s th e y r e ­ in tro d u c e te m p e ra n c e ra llie s , “ T h e P le d g e ” , a n d c a m p a ig n f o r to p g h e r liq u o r la w s.

FROM WHERE THE SPIRIT CALLS (TE OHAK1 O TE PO) P ro d , c o m p a n y

......................

P a c ific R im s

HUNCHIN’ DOWN THE TRACK P ro d , c o m p a n y

........................... G ib s o n F ilm P ro d u c tio n s ..............................G ib s o n F ilm P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r ......................................D a ve G ib s o n D ire c to r ............................................G e o ff D ix o n P h o to g ra p h y ............................... B o b H u g h e s , G a ry H a n se n , A lla n G u ild fo rd S o u n d re c o rd is ts ..............D o n R e y n o ld s .

G ra e m e M o rris E d ito r ......................................... M ic h a e l H o rto n P ro d , m a n a g e r ......... R o im a ta M a c g re g o r P ro d , a s s is ta n ts ..........................E le a n o r T o ft, C h ris S h o rt.

M itc h M a tth e w s P ro d u c e r's a s s is ta n t . . G ra h a m e M c L e a n A d d itio n a l p h o to g ra p h y ......... G e o ff D ix o n , G ra e m e C o w le y.

J o h n D ay C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .......................M ik e F u lle r K e y g rip .........................................B ria n K a s s le r G a ffe r ................................................. P av G o v in d A s s t e d ito r ................................. R o g e r H u y to n M u s ic p e r fo rm e d b y .............................. M o jo .

G ro o v e M e y e rs , D a ve F ra s e r, D a le W rig h ts o n S o u n d e d ito rs ..............................K it R o llin g s T ra c k la y in g a s s is ta n ts .................K e rry C o e, M ik e S te p h e n s o n M ix e r .........................................B ria n S h e n n a n S till p h o to g ra p h y ......................B a rry D u rra n t O p tic a ls .................................................. C o lo rfilm L a b o ra to ry .......................N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L e n g th ...................................................... 48 m in s G auge ...........................................................1 6m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. In re le a s e F irs t re le a s e d ..............M IP -T V , A p r il. 1 980 C ow boys. H a rle y M a y, T. J. W a lte rs , M el C o le m a n . L a r ry R o b in s o n . B o b A rm ita g e , N ig e l W e s tla k e , S te ve H o d g e , G re g M o rris .

Synopsis: T w o A u s tra lia n c o w b o y s jo in tw o N e w Z e a la n d e r s o n th e r o d e o c ir c u it , d riv in g fro m o n e e v e n t to th e n e x t in an o ld D ist. c o m p a n y

D o d g e . B y th e tim e th e y re a c h th e fin a l th e y h a ve b e e n jo in e d b y fo u r le a d in g A m e ric a n a n d C a n a d ia n rid e rs .

WOMAN OVERBOARD P ro d , c o m p a n y ................B eth P ro d u c tio n s D ist. c o m p a n y .................. B eth P ro d u c tio n s P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r ..............S te p h a n ie B eth P h o to g ra p h y ................................. L e o n N a rb e y S o u n d re c o rd is t ........... M ic h a e l W e s tg a te E d ito r .................................................... D e ll K in g C o m p o s e r .................................... Ja n P re s to n P ro d , m a n a g e r ......................... N e van R ow e P ro d , a s s is ta n t .................. J o h a n n a K e n k e ll C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ......................... L y n d a Dye G a ffe r ....................................S tu a rt D ry b u rg h B o o m o p e ra to r ......................... D ia n n e T w iss S till p h o to g ra p h y ....................................Z u s te rs C a te rin g ..................................... P e n n y H o lm e s , S a n d i H a ll L a b o ra to ry ............................................V id -C o m B u d g e t ....................................................... $ 3 3 ,0 0 0 L e n g th .................................................... 5 0 m in s G auge ...........................................................1 6m m S h o o tin g s to c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n t a r y o n th e p e rs o n a lity a n d w o rk o f a y o u n g w o m a n , w h o s h a re s h e r la u g h te r a n d jo y w ith p a r tic ip a n ts o f h e r c la s s e s in im p ro v is a tio n a nd fa n ta s y . H e r life is a rt a n d h e r h e a rt is o p e n to all w h o re s p o n d to th is ris k .

IN SPRING ONE PLANTS ALONE P ro d , c o m p a n y

.................... V in c e n t W a rd P ro d u c tio n s ...................... V in c e n t W a rd P ro d u c tio n s a n d N e w Z e a la n d F ilm S e rv ic e s P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r ................ V in c e n t W a rd S c rip tw rite r ............................. V in c e n t W a rd P h o to g ra p h y ........................ A lu n B o llin g e r, L e o n N a rb e y S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................... S te v e U p s to n E d ito r ............................ C h ris tin e L a n c a s te r C o m p o s e r ...........................................J a c k B o d y M ix e rs ...................................... D o n R e y n o ld s , B ria n S h e n n a n S till p h o to g ra p h y .................. M ile s H a rg e s t M ix e d at ...................... A s s o c ia te d S o u n d s , N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L a b o ra to rie s ................ N a tio n a l F ilm U n it, C o lo rfilm L e n g th .................................................. 42 m in s.

G a u g e ....................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ...................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .......................................... In re le a s e F irs t re le a s e d .................... 21 M a rc h , 1980, A u c k la n d , B e rk e le y S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta ry p o rtra y a l, film e d o v e r 18 m o n th s , o f th e d e lic a te a n d o fte n s tra in e d re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n an 8 2 -y e a ro ld M a o ri w o m a n a n d h e r h a n d ic a p p e d 4 0 y e a r-o ld s o n , liv in g in a re m o te ru ra l d is tric t.

D ist. c o m p a n y

JANE: THE PLACE AND PAINTINGS OF JANE EVANS P ro d, c o m p a n y P h o e n ix C o m m u n ic a tio n s a n d th e B ro a d c a s tin g C o rp o r a tio n o f N e w Z e a la n d D ist. c o m p a n y . P h o e n ix C o m m u n ic a tio n s P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r ........................... J o h n R e id S c rip tw rite r .........................................J o h n R e id P h o to g ra p h y ................M ic h a e l H a rd c a s tle , A lu n B o llin g e r S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................Lee T a m a h o ri E d ito r ..............................- . . . . M ic h a e l H o rto n C o m p o s e r ......................... S te p h e n M c C u rd y E xec, p ro d u c e r ................R ic h a rd T h o m a s P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ..............L y n n e N e w p o rt A sst e d ito r .........................................Ina C u tte n M ix e r ............................................ D o n R e y n o ld s N a rra to r .............................................J a n e E van s L a b o ra to ry ........................................... C o lo rfilm L e n g th .......................................................28 m in s G auge ...........................................................1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. In re le a s e F irs t re le a s e d ..............M IP -T V , A p r il. 1980 T V N Z . J u n e , 1980 Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry p o r tr a it o f th e re a l a n d im a g in a ry w o rld s o f J a n e E van s, a b o id y e x p re s s iv e a rtis t w h o , s in c e th e a g e o f 19. h a s b e e n s t r ic k e n b y rh e u m a to id a rth ritis .

PSYCHOTHERAPY P ro d c o m p a n y ......................... V o rte x F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... V o rte x F ilm s P ro d u c e r .......................................C h ris G h e n t D ire c to rs .......................................C h ris G h e n t, A lis te r B a rry , M a rg ie B a r r-B ro w n S c rip t c o n s u lta n t ......... M a rg ie B a r r-B ro w n P h o to g ra p h y ................................C h ris G h e n t S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................A lis te r B a rry L a b o ra to ry .......................N a tio n a l F ilm U n it G auge ...........................................................1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n In tro d u c e d by: K en M e llo r.

Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry o n th e s u b je c t o f p a re n tin g a n d re -p a r e n tin g , a n d th e u se of t h is t r e a t m e n t f o r s c h iz o p h r e n ia a n d p a tie n ts w ith o th e r s e r io u s p e r s o n a lit y p ro b le m s .

SADDLEBACK P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................... S p r o c k e t F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y ........................S p r o c k e t F ilm s P ro d u c e rs ....................... . .B ru c e M o rr is o n .

K e ith H u n te r D ire c to rs ................................B ru c e M o rris o n , K e ith H u n te r S c rip tw rite rs ......................... B ru c e M o rris o n , K e ith H u n te r P h o to g ra p h y ............................R o b e rt B ro w n S o u n d re c o rd is t ................ G e o ff S h e p h e rd E d ito r ............................................... P h ilip H o w e C o m p o s e r ..............................K e ith B a lla n ty n e A s s t e d ito r .............................. C o lle e n H o d g e M ix e r .......................................J o h n C a rp e n te r N a rra to r .................................. T e re n c e C o o p e r M ix e d at ....................................T e le v is io n O ne L a b o ra to ry ....................... N a tio n a l F ilm U n it L e n g th .......................................................4 0 m in s G auge ......................................................... 1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e F irst re le a s e d ..............M IP -T V , A p ril. 1980 S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta ry a c c o u n t o f an e x p e d it io n to t h e r e m o t e M u t t o n b i r d is la n d s , to in v e s tig a te th e s u c c e s s o f a re s c u e o p e ra tio n a im e d at s a v in g o n e o f th e w o rld 's m o s t ra re a n d a n c ie n t b ird s .

SEAMEN P ro d , c o m p a n y .................. V a n g u a rd F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y .................... V a n g u a rd F ilm s P ro d u c e rs .................................... R o d P ro s s e r, A lis te r B a rry , R u s s e ll C a m p b e ll D ire c to rs ...................................... R o d P ro s s e r, A lis te r B a rry , R u sse ll C a m p b e ll S c rip tw rite rs .............................. R o d P ro s s e r, A lis te r B a rry , R u sse ll C a m p b e ll P h o to g ra p h y .............................. A lis te r B a rry S o u n d re c o rd is t ............ R u sse ll C a m p b e ll E d ito r ............................................... R o d P ro s s e r P ro d , m a n a g e r .............................R o d P ro s s e r L a b o ra to ry ...................... N a tio n a l F ilm U n it B u d g e t .....................................................$ 1 5 ,5 0 0 G a u g e ....................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ....................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................. P o s t-p ro d u c tio n S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n ta ry d e p ic tin g th e w o rk o f s e a m e n a n d th e h is to ry o f th e N e w Z e a la n d S e a m e n 's U n io n .

THAILAND P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... N im ro d F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... N im ro d F ilm s P ro d u c e rs ............................................. Ian J o h n .

C ra ig M c L e o d D ire c to r ...................................................Ia n J o h n S c rip tw rite r ........................... C h ris A n d e rs o n P h o to g ra p h y ................................. K e ith H a w k e S o u n d re c o rd is t ................... C ra ig M c L e o d E d ito r .......................................................D e li K in g P ro d , m a n a g e r ....................... C ra ig M c L e o d C a m e ra a s s is ta n t . . . M ic h a e l H a rd c a s tle A s s t e d ito r .........................................P ru B u rc h M ix e r ........................................... C ra ig M c L e o d N a rra to r ...........................P e te r V e re -J o n e s M ix e d at ............................ C in e m a tic S o u n d s L a b o r a to ry ....................................................A tla b L e n g th .......................................................48 m in s G auge ........................................................... 1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .............................................. In re le a s e F irst re le a s e d ..............M IP -T V , A p ril, 1980 N Z T V , J u ly , 1980 S y n o p s is A d o c u m e n ta ry s tu d y o f c o n ­ te m p o ra ry T h a ila n d th r o u g h th e liv e s o f fo u r fa m ilie s — an o ld fis h e rm a n a n d s w a llo w n e s te r. w h o h as to g iv e u p h is d a n g e ro u s w o rk ; a y o u n g w o m a n , w h o re n o u n c e s h e r ro le as a n u n a n d trie s to fin d a n e w life in v illa g e s o c ie ty ; a y o u n g m a n p r e p a rin g fo r a v illa g e b o x in g m a tc h ; a n d a te m p le re s to re r.

THE VALLEY OF THE SACRED FIRE P ro d , c o m p a n y

........................... N im ro d F ilm P ro d u c tio n s ..............................N im ro d F ilm P ro d u c tio n s P r o d u c e r /d ir e c to r .............................. Ian J o h n P h o to g ra p h y ................................K e ith H a w k e E d ito r ..................................................... Ian J o h n C o m p o s e r .......................................D a ve C a ld e r C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........... W a rric k A tte w e ll M ix e r ......................................C ra ig M c L e o d N a rra to r ..............................P e te r V e re -J o n e s M ix e d at ........................... C in e m a tic S o u n d s L a b o ra to ry .................................................... A tla b L e n g th ....................................................... 25 m in s G auge ........................................................... 1 6 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ............................................ In re le a s e F irs t re le a s e d ............................. M IP -T V . 1979 S y n o p s is A d o c u m e n t a r y o n t e m p le r e s t o r a t io n in th e K a tm a n d u V a lle y o f N e p a l, a c o u n try th a t h a s m o re s h rin e s th a n te m p le s . ★ D ist. c o m p a n y

Cinema Papers. Octoher-November — 375

FOR SALE PROFESSIO NAL FILM SOUND EQ U IPM ENT.

P.A.G. MINI-RACK FILM SOUND TRANSFER AND MIXING RECORDER. PAG 16mm dubbing system. 3 to 1 (or 6 to 1 with twin track 16mm). Rock and roll with mechanical interlock 16mm picture from Bell and Howell projector. Insert record capability.

4 inch projected display footage counter in 16 or 35mm ft.

24 or 25 frames per second operation. 240 volts single phase with crystal lock to mains. Twin track playback amps on all playback heads. All circuit diagrams, manual and test film.

MIXING DESK. Audio Communications Ltd, 10 in 2 out desk, incorporating remote controls for mini-rack and remote control focus for projector. Each input module includes input gain, echo send, foldback, bass, mid range (five way switchcable) and treble EQ. mute switch, EQ in/out switch, prefade listen and P & G fader.

2 mike inputs. Power supply. 2 x 50 watts power amp. 10 watt foldback amp. Spring reverb unit. All cables and connectors including 48 way patch panel, lx JBL 4311 studio monitor.

The combination of the above forms a high quality and extremely versatile professional broadcast quality film sound mixing suite.

This equipment is for sale in Auckland, NZ, and can be seen in operation. Interested buyers please call collect: McLeod.

Ph 794 779, Auckland, New Zealand, or write 105 Federal St, Auckland, New Zealand.

Sound Producers for New Zealand's best known independent documentaries, feature films, and commercials.

Complete facilities available include: 16m m /35m m mixing, transfers and double head screenings.

Location recordists and location equipment available for hire.

Credits include: "Beyond Reasonable D oubt" - "Goodbye Pork Pie" - "Sons For The Return Home" - "Rodeo" - "Middle Age Spread" - "Skin Deep" and BASF Commercial.

Contact Don Reynolds for complete price list.

REMEMBER it p ay s t o m ix w ith th e rig h t p e o p l e v is s o

c

S

d

S

o

u

m

is L

jim

P.O.BOX 27371, UPPER WILLIS ST..

WELLINGTON STUDIO: WORLD TRADE CENTER, GViUZNEE STREET TELEPHONE 848-984 Pvte 720-112

FILM PRODUCERS

MOTION PICTURES LTD..

P.0. Box 6698, Wellington, New Zealand.

Telephone: 850 766. Telex: INTC0M NZ31255 A TT. FILFAX

The Club Keith Connolly Bruce the

B e r e s f o r d ’s s c r e e n

D avid

pointing. chief

W illiam son W hat

asset,

m ight

the

version

play have

dram atic

double-ed g ed

plot

struggles

a

is

of

disap­

been

thrust

abo u t

its

of

a

pow er

h a r d e n e d o r g a n i z a t i o n m e n a r e n ’t g i v e n

secular

H oly

t o c o n d u c t i n g v e r b a l b r a w l s in t h e c l u b

people,

were

foyer,

French

(m on

bar,

gam esroom ,

locker-room ,

W eek to

for

be

a

good

Dieu, C az a ly !)

turer

of

kitchenw are.

This

is

street.

striking

exculpation

of

the

these

alfresco

alter­

cations are co n d u cted at the to p o f the

suggestion

lungs,

increasingly

the very A u stra lia n

participants

b e llo w in g like L i n a W e r t m u l l e r c h a r a c ­ ters,

is

a

further

econom ic

eroding

a

a

most f i l m ’s

factors

even

the

are most

hallow ed trad itio n s o f th e leag u e clubs.

T h i s is m o s t e x p l i c i t i n t h e m a c h i n a ­

m inus gesticulations.

There

that

by

m anufac­

s h o w e r s , t h e t r a i n i n g field o r o u t in t h e M oreover,

many

sponsored

contradiction,

tions

of

the

M achiavellian

club

m a n a g e r , G e rry C o o p e r (A la n Cassell).

L e a g u e c l u b , is d i s s i p a t e d a m i d s t c o l o r ­

m o st n o tic e ab le to th o se (and th e re are m i l l i o n s in t h e s o u t h e r n s t a t e s ) f a m i l i a r

ful.

with V ic to ria n league football. T h e set­

re a lity ” o f his m o r e d u b i o u s p r o p o s a l s , from dum ping devoted team coach

w ithin

bustling

V ictorian

backgrounds

m inutia

of V ictoria

august

C ollingw ood

scenes, tatty

a

Football

p l a y e r ’s

Park

—

the

(h o m e of the an

the

screen,

but

Laurie

previously

p a in stak in g verisim ilitude.

so

money

it p r e s e n t s

O f course, rem ained

D on’s Party,

denied

or

restructuring

sequences.

from

several

M orant.

the

other sources

in

Club,

The

in

Breaker

Beresford

at­

had

one,

the

most

of

narrative,

night replay w onders just

the original

repetitive

T h i s i s, o f c o u r s e , t h e f i l m m a k e r ’s s u p re m e privilege an d g reatest danger:

home

in q u e s t i o n

or

been

would

its

a

have

real-life

w o u l d n ’t

fic­ been

m atch

have

been

far too m a n y intersperse

te m p ts to c a p t u re visually practically e v e r y t h i n g t h a t i s m e r e l y d e s c r i b e d in play.

film

That

su ch a loss — the

the club

unidentified,

a literal t r a n s c r i p t i o n like by

the

bending

titious

scouted

recognizable,

clo se to p a r o d y — a n d t h a t d e v a l u e s th e

p r o b l e m s t h a t e i t h e r w e r e n ’t p r e s e n t i n were

w holly

o f f i c i a l ’s

business prem ises. to

be

like

slabs

sequences

crow d

of

Saturday

in slow -m otion.

One what audience these sees

are

aim ed

better

on

at;

the

the

box

H olden

big The

crafty

man,

talks

Beresford officials

who

im port

heathen

businessm an

in

m ore

linear

retaining the d ra m a tic high spreading them through season,

instead

of

form,

points but a w hole

th eatrically -

c o m p r e s s e d m i d - w i n t e r ’s n i g h t o f l o n g k n ives. T h e a n o n y m o u s c lu b o f his p la y becom es C ollingw ood (w hich the

All

t h i s is q u i t e s o m e d i s t a n c e f r o m

W i l l i a m s o n ’s o r i g i n a l , , w h i c h , f o r a l l i t s localized broader bourne

references, than

the

has

a

relevance

m ad-hattery

of M el­

fo o tb all. T h e p o w e r s tr u g g le at

the core o f the plot could apply to m a n y

old

of the to

ness” . W h en

down

business, by

in

this

...

forty

subm erged

B u t a u t h e n t i c b a c k g r o u n d s d o n ’t n e c e s ­

authenticating

sarily shot

ensure against

that will

the be

scenes any

t h e y ’re

m ore

con­

vincing.

O n e o f t h e t r o u b l e s w i t h B e r e s f o r d ’s is t h a t t o o many o f its d r a m a t i c c o n f r o n t a t i o n s o c c u r in p l a c e s

The Club that

are

sim ply

too

public.

Such

H ow ever,

one

im portant

of

elem ent

W i l l i a m s o n ’s o r i g i n a l is p r e s e r v e d , e v e n enhanced. opened in Football

The very day M elbourne, the

The

Club

a

pile

busi­

of unsold

Beresford,

who

(though

Getting of Wisdom that club

he

can

be

dozen

pop-up

that burned the ou t like m o r t a r

gross

that

d i d n ’t n e e d

statem ents of

recent

o f “ big

a hundred

a d m i r a b l y a s t h e f i l m ’s c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n .

in-jokes.

to

toasters f i r e d it

you

plethora

reflected

uses the p h ra s e “ as a

Taiw anese bread and

i v e r s a l i t y , i f it e x i s t s a t a l l i n t h e f i l m , is and

the

realm s

pointing

a n d its w e l l - a p p o i n t e d c l u b r o o m s s e r v e

a

in

goods: “ I w as one o f the m u g s w ho invested

clocks

m aterial

W illiam ­

m y s e l f i ’, L a u r i e c u t s h i m

. . .

beneath

“ good

J o c k , s e a t e d in h is t i n p o t

alarm

as,

Riley

the

illum inates

the

shells

it

Jock

about

bask

organizations, political, business, r e l i g i o u s , a s well as s p o r t i n g . S u c h u n ­

identified

from

s p o r t ’s r e l a t i v e l y

anyway)

cognoscenti

survivor

nicely

g o o d s l i c e o f t h e f i l m ’s f i n a n c e i s f r o m W ales?

m ilked

to

roles

s o n ’s w e l l - p l a c e d b a r b a t t h o s e f o o t b a l l

sw am ping

South

be

club

h a l t t h e c l u b ’s m e m b e r s h i p d e c l i n e . H e m a k e s t h i s r e m a r k in a s c e n e w h e r e

m u s t r e s i s t t h e t e m p t a t i o n t o o v e r d o it,

New

can

airily

ascension

th e p io t in th e a c tio n .

Thom pson)

ironclad

e c o n o m ic s ” o f a p la y e r-b u y in g sp ree to

a t b e s t , m y s t i f i e d , a t w o r s t , b o r e d . O r is the intention apostolic, even th o u g h a

W i l l i a m s o n ’s s c r e e n p l a y r e s h a p e s h i s

(Jack

“ econom ic

(F ra n k W ilson), form er player, coach and now a long-serving com m ittee­

glories

w h i l e d o i n g t h e i m a g i n a t i o n ’s w o r k , h e

the

affluent supporters.

e v e r y w e e k e n d , t h e w i d e r w o r l d will b e,

com edv-dram a

stresses

p e o p l e e v e n i d e n t i f i a b l e , b u t t h e t o n e is

T h i s i s n ’t t h e f i r s t p l a y B e r e s f o r d h a s adapted

may

constantly

street

team ),

home,

ting

He

of

ticked

Russian so

loudly

the a la rm !” prefers he and

i n The Breaker M orant

discreet),

pow er-struggle

hard-edged

showed

in

presents

the

g o o d i e s ’n ’

Victorian

baddies term s. T h e black-hats are Jock

L eague m a d e a quite startling

a n d G e rry , the nice guys L a u rie a n d the team captain Danny R ow e (H arold

announcem ent:

henceforth,

the

VFL

final series, w h ic h h a v e t h e s ta t u s o f a

H opkins),

a great

player just

topping

C o ac h Laurie H o ld en (Jack T h o m p s o n ) , team captain D a n n y R o w e (H arold H o p k ins), club m a n a g e r G e rry C o o p e r (A lan Cassell) a n d p r e s i d e n t T e d P a r k e r ( G r a h a m K e n n e d y ) . B r u c e B e r e s f o r d ’s T h e Club.

Cinema Papers, Oclober-November — 377

THE CLUB

the hill. In between is the club president Ted Parker (Graham Kennedy), a lifelong, non-playing supporter, swept into office on a “reform” ticket.

Made to appear one of the villains in the opening reels, he is accorded fulsome sympathy when he is ousted.

His dignified departure is presented so affectingly, a touch of pathos tingeing the bluster of a little man who has tasted glory, that one can only wish the whole film had been couched in such human terms.

Beresford does indeed arouse expec­ tation of a sensitive approach with his opening sequence, which follows the players on a pre-season training run through Collingwood streets and across the Yarra. One shot of silhouetted figures — all, with the exception of Thompson and Hopkins, real-life Collingwood players — on a freeway pedestrian crossing as the traffic streams past below is evocatively con­ trasted later by shots of supporters streaming down railway-station ramps to the opening match of the season.

The early restraint evaporates, however. As the players puff their way back to the ground, we see the club’s divided ruling triumvirate, Ted, Jock and Gerry, ushering star recruit Geoff Hayward (John Howard) and officials of his Tasmanian club into the board­ room. Within seconds, the business of completing G eoffs transfer has degenerated into the film’s first shouting-match, the officials bawling at each other like cronies of Barry McKenzie. The fury, aroused by Geoffs demand for an extra $10,000, abates as Ted quixotically writes a per­ sonal cheque, one, it turns out, that he can’t afford (the gesture contributes to his pie-manufacturing business going bankrupt).

Shout-in No 2 soon follows when Laurie upbraids Ted and Jock for not consulting him about the exorbitant sum spent on the Tasmanian player.

This confrontation occurs in the social club bar, the first of a number of dubiously-located barneys and exposi­ tory dialogues.

Another improbability occurs when the coach expresses his displeasure by pitting this expensive acquisition in a gladiatorial contest against the heaviest, toughest player in the league (played by the heaviest, toughest player in the league, Rene Kink).

Geoff plays poorly in his first game and Laurie precipitately takes him off, provoking a clash with Ted. Here, Beresford makes excellent use of the Victoria Park location, as the president strides angrily from the official box, through the crowd and up to the eyrie where the coach is directing his team. It is a good deal more convincing than a subsequent scene in which Laurie and Geoff come to blows in the dressing room.

These incidents lead to Laurie telling the press that Ted is “sticking his nose in where he shouldn’t” , which produces a highly unlikely front-page splash in The A g e . (Another example of the eye failing to deceive the mind — the paper we see certainly looks like Melbourne’s august morning daily, but everyone who reads it knows that such a report wouldn’t be treated like the second coming.)

Carpeted by the club leadership, Laurie argues with Ted in the official carpark, across the foyer and up the stairs, one more fortissimo fracas that would provide the gossip columnists with a week’s pickings. It is joined by Danny, bearing the threat of a players’ strike if Laurie is sacked.

378 — Cinema Papers, October-November

Beresford blunts the storyline, not so much by dispersing it over a longer time-frame as interspersing it with a superfluity of what is, after all, largely establishing footage. The action scenes, television replays and slow-motion bump-and-grunt are a good deal less than fascinating, while the behind-thescenes glimpses are, at best, mildly interesting for all but footy fanatics.

The play’s still the thing — regardless of the medium for which it is conceived.

The Club: Directed by: Bruce Beresford. Producer: M at t Carroll. Associate producer: Moya Iceton.

Screenplay: David Williamson. Director of photo­ g r a p h y : D on M c A l p i n e . E d i t o r : W i l l i a m Anderson. Music: Mike Brady. Art director: David Copping. Sound recordist: Gary Wilkins.

Cast: G ra ham Kennedy (Ted), Jack Thompson (Laurie), Alan Cassell (Gerry), Frank Wilson (Jock), Harold Hopkins (Danny), John Howard (Geoff), Maggie Doyle (Susy). Production c om­ pany: S outh A ustra li a n Film C o rp o ra ti o n .

Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 90 min. Australia.

1980.

Star recruit Geoff Hayward (John Howard) tests his skill against the Kink) as Laurie watches. The Club.

Hard Knocks Almos Maksay

This is actually the starting point of the stage play and, once the arguing gaggle reaches the boardroom, the sequence drops into a more viable frame. It is set by Jock’s hypocritical lecture-tour of the picture gallery of past greats and shows the ad­ ministration’s readiness to use tradition or discard it according to need.

Jock’s homily is nicely poised between laugh-raising punch lines, a smoothly-edited sequence that has the ring of directorial confidence in the comic potential of his material.

(Beresford seems less assured about what is actually the script’s humorous highlight, namely the scene where Geoff first tricks Jock into smoking a joint, then tells him a cock-and-bull story about screwing both his legless sister and his mother, thus causing the suicide of his father. To make sure the audience realizes that Jock is being conned, Beresford intercuts jokey flash­ backs that underline the obvious.)

Greater restraint is shown with a key dramatic event, the dinner-dance at which Ted sets himself up for dismissal when he assaults the stripper (the actual assault, described later in versions of escalating seriousness, isn’t depicted).

This leads to Gerry confiding to Laurie that moves are afoot to oust Ted — he doesn’t of course tell him that he too is earmarked for dismissal, in favor of the league’s most successful, and ruthless, coach. But Jock has let it slip to Geoff, who begins to mend his fences with Laurie.

If this sounds like a narrative merrygo-round, it is in keeping with the way Beresford depicts a crucial conversation between coach and reluctant player. It looks as though he is attempting to out­ do Brian de Palma’s memorable scene in Obsession, when the camera whirls vertiginously around Cliff Robertson and Genevieve Bujold.

A wordy showdown between Laurie and Geoff set, again incongruously, in a suburban street, is high-octane hyper­ bole. So is the following scene when the players storm into the boardroom and remove the pictures of former great players that Jock appeals to in public — and drunkenly berates in private.

This energetic action scene should flow into its logical outcome — the team’s later appearance in the Grand Final.

Beresford chooses to interrupt it with

the gag that ends the play (the revela­ At the 1980 Australian Film Awards, tion to Jock that he’s been fooled by Geoff is important, but in the wrong it may have been easy to overlook the two prizes presented to Don McLen­ place).

This film nas enough good things nan’s Hard Knocks. Amidst the almost going for it to make one wish that they continuous playing of “Soldiers of the hung together better. I least liked the Queen” and Graham Kennedy’s football replays which topped the most repeated pleas for a tight close-up, their strident off-field dialogues for over­ significance could have been ignored. emphasis (slow-motion clashes are ac­ The Special Jury Prize needs to be companied by enough biffs, bangs and recognized as a very high recommenda­ gasps for a chop-socky film). Far better tion, while the award for Best Actress, — particularly so since Beresford re­ which went to Tracy Mann for her role quires them to play at such a high pitch as Sam(antha) in this film, should give — are the performances of the prin­ some indication of her performance, since the competition for this award cipals.

Frank Wilson, in repeating the part was wide open and the result hardly a he created on stage, achieves a nice foregone conclusion.

Tracy Mann sustains her role in the blend of caricature and conviction, Alan Cassell’s two-faced manager is film with an assurance that guarantees odious without becoming oily, and the authenticity of her mannerisms and Graham Kennedy gets the right note of intonations. Her acting performance is blustery insecurity needed for Ted. Jack not gratuitous: her gaucheries do not Thompson is less persuasive as the indicate a facile, unconvincing concep­ coach, though Beresford could have tion of the character. Rather, she done more to establish the character’s manages to communicate the sense of gawkish naivete saturated with defiance stature.

There are indications that The Club and obstinacy that naturally belongs to was finished hurriedly, in time for a the character she is portraying.

Melbourne release that coincided with Sam develops through a series of the VFL finals. I have seen the film confrontations, and although it could twice: firstly at a screening of an answer be argued that the paradox she has to print in the Roadshow theatrette and face in the end results from a realiza­ then on the second day of its season at tion that no significant change has the Bryson, Melbourne. On the latter come about, it can also.be asserted that occasion, the cinema management went real development has taken place to some trouble to assure me that because now at least she is able to several reels of the print I had just seen choose. would be replaced. Thus the only com­ At the beginning of the film, Sam is ment I can make about several color festering in the raw open wound of the inconsistencies, glaring even to my punk generation. She never entirely inexpert eye, is to presume that they loses the qualities which belong to this have since been remedied. world: the acrid smell of its spit, the In reviewing films derived from tenseness of its defiance. Rough though another medium (to use a delightfully these qualities may be, they do act as a pretentious Americanism), I find it touchstone. The more she becomes in­ impossible not to relate subject and volved in the world of fashion model­ source, especially where the latter is as ling, the more she comes to realize that significant as a successful David there is a great moral ambiguity Williamson play. But one is ever con­ beneath the attractive facade. She is scious of the fine line the filmmaker caught at a moment of transition treads: too much Fidelity to the original between her two worlds, moving produces a “stagey” look, too much through a shadowy no-man’s-land “ opening out” can lead to dilution or where the police practise their loss of the play’s thrust (and if that’s bloodhound instincts by hunting those not important, what’s the point of turn­ who are already marked by society as ing it into a film?). victims.

The Club works best where its closest I don’t think the film says anything to the spirit of Williamson’s comedy- essentially new about this situation. drama as it wryly emerged on stage. However, it is legitimate to ask whether

HARD KNOCKS

one

could

dism iss

reason alone. than

it

sim ply

for

this

If th e film d o e s no m o r e

p r e s e n t a t r u e p ic tu r e o f t h e lives

a n d social eth o s o f this g r o u p o f people, so easily identified because they advertise

their

appearance,

existence

through

their

it n e v e r t h e l e s s r e m i n d s

o f t h e t r a p t h e y a r e c a u g h t in —

us

a trap

t h a t is n o t a l w a y s o f t h e i r o w n m a k i n g , but one that society fashions for them .

As Sam

s a y s in t h e f i l m : “ W e m i x w i t h

t h e w r o n g k i d s b e c a u s e n o b o d y e l s e will a s s o c i a t e w i t h u s , a n d n o b o d y e l s e will asso ciate with the w ro n g

us b e c a u s e w e m ix w ith

kids.”

T h e f i l m , h o w e v e r , is m o r e t h a n j u s t the

developm ental

progression

of

single c h a r a c te r. D o n M c L e n n a n su cc e ed e d with the casting, a n d m anaged f r o m all w ould

to his

a

has has

get good perform ances a c t o rs . I n d e e d , th e film

h a v e been difficult to sustain on

a single p e rfo r m a n c e alone.

To film

a large

extent,

m anages

to

the

fact

sustain

that the

interest

must

a lso b e a t t r i b u t e d to th e skill w ith w h ic h the

narrative

structure

is h a n d l e d .

To

e v a l u a t e th is a s p e c t o f th e film w o u l d lead to ra th e r c o m p le x discussion. T h e o v e r a l l d i e g e s i s o f t h e f i l m is b r o k e n u p ; th e s e q u e n c e s th e m s e lv e s are frag m e n te d , and the c o m p o n e n t scenes a r e s c a t t e r e d as if at r a n d o m t h r o u g h the

film.

There

a re also a c o u p le o f skilfully-

handled

exam ples

o f the

autonom ous

s h o t. T h e film s o m e t i m e s a p p e a r s to be a mini casebook of M e t z ’ ‘g r a n d e s y n t a g m a t i q u e d u c i n e m a ’.

T h e scram bling of the narrative

T h e id e o lo g ic al i m p lic a tio n s o f this t e c h n i q u e w o u ld b e fa s c in a tin g to in­ vestigate, given the subject m a tte r of th e film. Q u e s t i o n s o f p o in t- o f - v ie w

w h e re the stru c tu re re m a in s essentially

( s i g n i f i c a n t l y , it i s i n h i s c o m p a n y t h a t

linear. O n e can , for instance, tra c e a se­

Sam

q u e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t in S a m

sidered opinions).

F in a lly , an d

c h a r a c t e r s , b u t a t f i r s t it t a k e s s o m e e f ­

w ould also be interesting to consider.

A p a r t fro m the clever filmic tricks th a t

ing w h ic h h e r p r o t e s t m o v e s to th e f la r­ i n g i r i d e s c e n c e o f t h e c o l o r r i n s e in h e r

fort

can

hair, a n d finally to the softer look o f the

at

first p r o d u c e s s o m e su rp ris e s. T h e f il m ­ m a k e r s p la y w ith this t e c h n i q u e to trick us

a

number

of

times.

The

audience

quickly c o m e s to locate a c o re g r o u p of to

result

(we

need

only

rem em ber

changes

of

A lain

qualitative changes

in

t h a t t h e r e is a l s o a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e

girl w h o h a s a c h o ic e b e t w e e n a n u m b e r o f d if f e r e n t lifestyles, th o u g h p e r h a p s

a

invo lv ed : c o m p a r e a film w ith a s tr a ig h t

u n a b le to

linear and progressive developm ent.

T h i s is a n a t t r a c t i v e q u a l i t y i n t h e

n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e in w h i c h t h e a c t r e s s is f i n a l l y l e d d o w n t h e s a m e b l i n d a l l e y

There

because

cum ulative

and

relationships

from

a phase d u r­

to

appearance

them

through

the

scene

scene,

recognize

short-hair stage,

from

are

not

presented

in

from

R esnais’

w hich

Providence),

she

it

em erged,

seems

and

the

make is

relationship

up her m ind.

also with

a

progression men:

from

in

her

M unch

expresses

some

of her

most con­

p e r h a p s

m o s t

s i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h e r e is a r e a l p r o g r e s s i o n in t h e e v e n t s w h i c h l e a d S a m , s t e p b y step, to th e d i l e m m a s h e h a s to f a c e a t the end.

The

structuration

o f the

film

w o r k s in a c o m p l e x w a y a n d d e p e n d s o n m o re than the sim ple recognition by the view er

that

the

fragm ented

scenes

b e lo n g to a lin e a r n a r r a tiv e , w h ic h c a n

c o v e r y a n d r e c o g n itio n to be b uilt in to the structure. T a k e n together, these

te c h n i q u e o f c u ttin g a film so t h a t p a s t a n d p r e s e n t a r e a p p a r e n t l y m a d e to

( J o h n A r n o l d ) , w h o is l i t t l e m o r e t h a n a n u n c o m p r e h e n d i n g c i p h e r c a u g h t in a vicious power situation, m oving to

be reconstructed agile ingenuity.

d e v i c e s all w o r k

l o o k a t e a c h o t h e r f a c e t o f a c e , a s in t h i s

Frank

b e a f u n c t i o n o f t h e w a y t h e n a r r a t i v e is

film.

o p e r a t o r t h o u g h still o n t h e w r o n g s id e

handled.

o f society, a n d finally to the s a x o p h o n e

strung

con­

player

m ore

S o m e t i m e s o n e is g i v e n c l a s s i c a l c u e s t o

level

com plex

w orld

flashback a n d then a b a n d o n e d to return

film

from

b e c a u s e it a l l o w s m o m e n t s o f d i s ­

the

audience

to d i s t a n c e th e v ie w er

characters is

and

constantly

action. forced

The to

The

surface

reconstruct the diegetic sequence o f the

narrative

film

s i d e r a t i o n : p e r h a p s t h e r e is a

a s it g o e s a l o n g .

suggests

scram bling an

of

interesting

deep

the

(H ilton

who

B onner),

represents response

a to

a

much the

sm art

by

resorting

to

an

T h e e d i t i n g o f t h e f i l m will o b v i o u s l y The

fragm ents,

together

w ith

in

fact,

great

are

skill.

S a m a n d M u n c h ( J o h n A r n o l d ) a r e a p p r e h e n d e d b y t h e p o l i c e ( M a x C u l l e n a n d Bill H u n t e r ) . H a r d K n o c k s .

Cinema Papers, October-November — 379

HARD KNOCKS

MANGANINNIE

as best one can. Sometimes, in a series of skilled cuts around a character, one suddenly realizes that a great leap in time has taken place; vet the shots have not displayed any filmic discontinuity.

Generally, the cutting of the film is adept insofar that it preserves a balance between perception of change of shot and requirements of continuity in the visual and auditory quality of the scene.

I particularly liked the scene with a fat man and piano.

Successful cutting depends on the camera angles and general shot con­ figurations that the cameraman gives the editor, In this film, there Is a positive gain in having the same person, Zbigniew Friedrich, controlling the camera as well as the editing. Visuals are well conceived, lighting well con­ trolled. I also liked Friedrich’s use of a fast stock (rather than excessive lighting) in the night scenes.

If I have any reservation about this film, it is mainly regarding the constant use of music in the background. Yet, I liked the music, and some of Australia's best bands appear in the credits: there may even be a justifica­ tion for using music in this manner — Sam's type of people usually walk around with a transistor stuck to their ears.

Generally, I thought the film showed great form. Perhaps the makers have not fully extended themselves yet.

Perhaps something even better is still to come.

Hard Knocks: Directed by: Don McLennan.

Producers: Hilton Bonner, Don M cL en nan.

Screenplay: Don McLennan. Hilton Bonner.

Director of ph o to g ra p h ): Zbigniew (Peter) Friedrich. Editor: Zbigniew Friedrich. Sound recordist: Lloyd Carrick. Cast: Tracy Mann (Sam). John Arnold (Munch). Bill Hunter (Brady), Max Cullen (Newman). Ton) Barr) (Barry).

Hilton Bonner (Frank). Jack Allen (Father).

Penelope Stewart (Raelene). Kristy Grant (Deb­ bie). P r o d u c ti o n c o m p a n y : U k iv o Films.

Distributor: Greg Lynch Film Distributors. 35mm (shot on 16mm). 85 min. Australia. 1980.

M anganinnie Virginia Duigan Manganinnie. John Honey’s first feature and the Tasmanian Film Cor­ poration's debut, almost wilfully takes all kinds of risks. There is little plot in the conventional sense. One of the two main characters is a full-blood Aboriginal who doesn't speak a word of English throughout; the other is a little girl who hardly talks at all. Neither has ever acted before. The budget was a bargain-basement S480.000 and for Gilda Baracchi it was her first feature as producer.

On the second last night of M anganinnie’s four-week school holi­ day run in Sydney, there were 40 people in the cinema. One could blame minimal publicity, but not bad notices: the reviews were consistently good. One might also conclude that people don't particularly want to see ‘G'-rated films with an Aboriginal name and unknown actors. In the adjoining theatre the ‘M’rated Urban Cowboy, starring John Travolta, was packing them in.

Not that M anganinnie is aimed specifically at children, but it is the kind of gentle film that influences attitudes and combats prejudice. It would be en­ couraging to see it made required view­ ing for schools throughout Australia.

The year is 1830 and the place is Tasmania in the throes of genocide.

The extinction of the Tasmanian

380 — Cinema Papers. October-November

Aboriginal has been tellingly recorded in Tom Hayden's documentary The Last Tasmanian: in Manganinnie, John Honey chooses a deliberately low-key. reticent approach which is so un­ fashionable as to appear almost evasive. There is nothing of the hounding to death of the other members of Manganinnie’s tribe. The horsemen gallop into the native camp, but there are no shots, no screams, no blood. And, apart from the man one as­ sumes was Manganinnie's husband, no bodies..

The film opens with intercut shots of the Aboriginal settlement and the white colony. Uninhibited dancing and chanting on the one hand, studied for­ mality on the other, the implication be­ ing warmth and spontaneity versus repressed emotions and rigidity.

Because neither impression is more than fleeting and superficial, it takes a while before the film starts to grip. One watches Manganinnie's bewilderment and distress with a certain detachment — rather as the European settlers might have reacted. The grief of the family of the little girl, Joanna, who becomes the second lead character, is similarly remote.

The Europeans are swathed in the symbolic garments of their era: hats, britches, waistcoats, voluminous skirts, and Joanna in bonnet and frilly leggings under her dress. The discarding of these garments and eventual adoption of Aboriginal dress parallels Joanna’s identification with the alien culture.

Anna Ralph, who plays Joanna, is a child who already has unusual strength of character in her face, plus gravity, in­ telligence and attractiveness of the most in tere stin g k in d .

M aw uyul Yanthalawuv from northern Australia is equally remarkable as Manganinnie. with a rare capacity to generate emotional response. She speaks her

own language in a way that makes Joanna's instinctive comprehension en­ tirely credible.

Both actresses, with styles that are complementary, display dignity, poise and complete naturalness. Unfor­ tunately. they act the others off the film. It seems likely that John Honey gave all his attention to their perfor­ mances. which are the body of the ac­ tion. and had little left for the periphery. The supporting actors are often disappointingly wooden.

Manganinnie is based on a novel by Beth Roberts — not a true story, in­ cidentally. which probably explains the central suspension of disbelief the film requires.

Joanna, on an outing with her family, lags behind her father and follows the exotic Manganinnie. as if hypnotized by her strangeness. It is a capricious ac­ tion and the early scenes of the little girl at home haven't laid the groundwork for it. A suggestion of independence, curiosity, daring or even plain boredom might have made her behaviour more credible.

On the other hand, it is pedantic to demand complete psychological plausibility from a film like M anganin­ nie. It conveys some of the quality of a fairytale, and is entitled to the same poetic non sequiturs and dramatic licence. One can say that Joanna just goes off. and that's that.

There are other occasions where credibility is strained. The little girl shows no inclination to return home, doesn't betray her whereabouts to searchers early on, and shows minimal childish fears. It is a measure of the film’s originality and the spell it manages to cast that these objections cease to matter a great deal. One ac­ cepts that here is a unique child in a uni­ que situation.

There is an affinity between the two

outlaws, who are opposites in so manyvisible ways, which springs from a more fundamental kinship. They are spiritually in tune, non-conformists — Joanna by nature and Manganinnie by force of circumstance. Yet the implica­ tion is that by reason of Manganinnie's special knowledge they are outsiders who are also privileged members of an inner, charmed circle.

It is Joanna’s initiation into the world of the dreamland that is the real business of the film, and its imaginative accomplishment. This might suggest that it is a very esoteric piece of work; in fact, it is sturdily practical, making its points in plain and accessible language, with only occasional forays into sym bolism and visionary hallucinations.

The relationship of Joanna and Manganinnie unfolds during their wanderings through the bush in search of Manganinnie’s lost tribe, their ef­ forts to communicate with different words and tools, the unfamiliar food, the Aboriginal’s symbiotic relationship with the land.

The exchange of knowledge is not all one-sided. Joanna is able to teach Manganinnie a bit of white man’s lore when she makes fire by rubbing flints together.

There is the occasional brush with danger, an encounter with escaped con­ victs when Manganinnie is wounded, the loss of the fire stick that wards off evil spirits. Tension is built by the realization, subconscious at first, of the inevitability of Joanna’s return home.

When it does happen, and Joanna sees her family again, she is like a wild child and seems not to recognize them.

Manganinnie has died, and Joanna’s last action is to light her funeral pyre in the night and sing her spirit away.

Scenes like this very difficult one work because they are handled with

THE TEMPEST

delicacy and tact, and because Honey has established an atmosphere in which they are believable. The long sequences of Joanna and Manganinnie in the bush could have been dramatically flat; in­ stead, they are quietly absorbing.

It is a very quiet film and also an un­ obtrusively confident one, prepared to take the risks mentioned earlier but very sure in its intent and allusiveness.

Peter Sculthorpe’s music will be a point of considerable controversy. It is often intrusively loud, the cello prescriptively mournful, and might have worked bet­ ter with a little more restraint.

Restraint, overall, is one of the film’s most admirable qualities, in the spare script by Ken Kelson, in John Honey’s direction and the freshness of his characters and story. For a small budget film that was made and released without any razzmatazz, it has a memorable quality and a life of its own that one doesn’t often see in more spec­ tacular epics.

Manganinnie: Directed by: John Honey. Producer: Gilda Baracchi. Executive producers: Gil Brealey, Malcolm Smith. Screenplay: Ken Kelso. Director of photography: Gary Hansen. Editor: Mike Woolveridge. Music: Peter Sculthorpe. Production designer: Neil Angwin. Sound recordist: John S c h ie fe lb e in . C a s t: M a w u y u l Y a n t h a l a w u y (Manganinnie), Anna Ralph (Joanna), Phillip Hinton (Edward), Elaine Mangan (Margaret), Buruminy Dhamarrandji (Meenopeekameena).

Production company: Tasmanian Film C orp ora ­ tion. Distributor: G U O . 35mm. 90 min. Australia.

1980.

THE TEMPEST Brian McFarlane The plain statement of white credits on a dark blue background is almost the last plain thing in Derek Jarman’s version of Shakespeare’s final play.

Ariel in a white boiler-suit, Prospero’s cell a bizarrely-appointed manorial ruin, a bald-headed Caliban munching raw eggs and being suckled by his nude mother: these are the sorts of adorn­ ment Jarman imposes on the Shake­ spearian text.

Yet, despite the eye-catching trap­ pings and his ruthless truncation of the text, Jarman’s screenplay remains surprisingly faithful in spirit to the original. The inventive elements of the film are less of the essence than of the surface. Once adjusting to the super­ ficial novelties, one finds a curiously sober reading of the Shakespearian themes of treachery and loyalty, bitter­ ness and forgiveness, weariness and the vivifying power of love. The eye lights on images of decay — of rotting fruit and mouldy wallpaper — but the mind does not stay with these.

Purists will no doubt be outraged by some of the film’s campy excesses and modernities, and by the grotesque clowning of Caliban, Trinculo and Ste­ phano as they plot against Prospero, but Jarman’s The Tempest is no more a film for purists than was Orson Welles’ M acbeth of 30 years ago. But perhaps the cinema is no place for Shake­ spearian purists; they are probably better served by a Marlowe Society recording of the original text.

On many occasions I should agree with them, but there is a good deal to admire here in Jarman’s sharply intelli­ gent direction of his actors and of rela­ tionships, and in his respect for the verse. If it doesn’t all add up to a coherent view of the play as a whole — a charge that might equally be levelled at many a more conventional treat­

SLIPPERY SLIDE/DO NOT PASS GO

ment of the play — it nevertheless offers locally very rewarding insights, most of these focused in Heathcote Williams’ fine, unmannered Prospero.

The quality of his feeling for his daughter (a lovely Miranda from Toyah Willcox) and for the enslaved Ariel (Karl Johnson) works con­ vincingly against the harsh practice of his magic, and towards the subdued beauties of the closing passages in which he forgives his enemies and blesses the marriage of Ferdinand and Miranda. 1 have not seen any of the great stage Prósperos, but Jarman and Williams keep this one firmly at the centre of the text, a man movingly aware of conflicting impulses and, ultimately, that “the rarer action is/In virtue than in vengeance” .

The film ends on a close-up of this Prospero, an expressive comment on fulfilment and resignation. For all the film’s more or less extraneous decora­ tive touches, Jarman has not let them detract from this authentically-felt source of the play’s emotional and intellectual energy.

It is a pleasure, too, to record that the verse is so well spoken. Persis­ tently, one is aware of the conversa­ tional impulse working fruitfully against the metrical expectations of the lines. This is especially true in the cases of Prospero, Miranda and Ariel, and the effect is often one of moving clarity, avoiding equally the pitfalls of declamation and idiosyncrasy.

Toyah Willcox’s Miranda is a lively, sensual, unethereal creature who can be funny poking out her tongue at Caliban and touchingly firm in her declaration of love for Ferdinand; and there is a remarkably fine Ariel from Karl John­ son. who catches a note of real pain and weariness as he goes about his master’s business. Boiler-suit and vaguely punk hairstyle don’t, in the end, get in the way of illuminating the text.

If, however, they don’t get in the way, they can’t be said to add much, and this is true of most of the film’s embellishments. It is also true of Eliza­ beth Welch’s utterly charming — and utterly gratuitous — eruption into the film’s last quarter-hour. As the be­ trothal of Miranda and Ferdinand is celebrated in a rain of petals in a room garlanded with flowers, suddenly Miss

Welch, in gold from head to foot, sings “Stormy Weather” . This is the film’s most audacious conceit and it doesn’t work at all, except as a predictable show-stopper. This is not to sound ungrateful for the sight and sound of the imperishable Miss Welch, but to point at the way in which Jarman’s imagination outstrips his intellectual control.

The whole of this last sequence, drenched in light and flowers, is a ravishment of the eye if not the mind; it makes its dramatic point only by the sudden poignant contrast of the dark­ ened room when all but Prospero and Ariel have gone. This scene, stunningly lit like the rest of the film by camera­ man Peter Middleton, provides the per­ fect setting for Ariel’s unmelodious version of “Where the Bee Sucks” and Prospero’s closing words.

In spite of all the strange things and Figures the camera is asked to light on, the film’s visual style is remarkably unfussy. The seacoast scenes are bathed in a strange blue light; in the ruined house, the actors are characteristically picked out in -pools of light which accentuate their isolation; only in the scene of betrothal and reconciliation is the screen filled with bright light.

Camera movement is restrained, so that the odd sharp cut or sudden closeup (like that to Miranda’s sea-shell ring) make their points more tellingly.

The film, then, is a strange mixture of restraint and excess, decadence and strength. Caliban (Jack Birkett’s is the least successful of the main perform­ ances), Trinculo and Stephano are allowed too much rope, and there is wild indulgence in what amounts to the “finale” number with sailors’ hornpipe and Elizabeth Welch. .The repellent scene between Caliban and his grotesque nude mother also does nothing to illuminate the nature of Caliban’s monstrousness. On the other hand, Miranda’s moments of grace are always on the verge of being under­ mined by pratfall or grimace, and the film achieves a very pretty balance here. And out of the morass of decay and weariness, Miranda and Ferdi­ nand emerge with a wholesome commitment to a fresh sexuality and, indeed, life itself.

The director’s sensibility is capable

of some finely-realized effects. In the end, I suppose one might say that Derek Jarman never knows when to stop; most British directors, though, don’t seem to know how to start.

The Tempest: Directed by: Derek J a r m a n .

Producers: Guy Ford. Mordecai Schreiber. As­ sociate producer: Sarah Radclyffe. Screenplay: D e re k J a r m a n , f r o m a p la y by W i l l i a m Shakespeare. Director of photography: Peter Middleton. Editor: Leslie Walker. Music: Wavemaker. Production designer: Yolanda Sonnabad.

Cast: H e ath c ote Williams (P ro sp ero ), Karl Johnson (Ariel), Jack Birkett (Caliban), Toyah Willcox (Miranda), David Meyer (Ferdinand), P e t e r Bull ( A l o n s o ) , R i c h a r d W a r w i c k (Sebastian), Ken Campbell (Gonzaolo), Neill Cunningham (Antonio). Elizabeth Welch (G od ­ dess). Production company: Boyd’s Co. Distri­ butor: Valhalla. 35mm. 96 min. Britain. 1979.

Slippery Slide and Do Not Pass Go Keith Connolly The convenient conviction that, like the poor, the juvenile delinquent will always be with us, is examined in these short features, one intended for television, the other made as a social welfare training film (but also to be televised). Each obliquely implies that society itself is delinquent in its attitudes to young people, particularly those who, wittingly or otherwise, stray outside norms of behaviour and background.

Donald Crombie’s Slippery Slide, a 50-minute feature made for the Tasmanian Film Corporation, is more ambitious in scope, if not in purpose, than Phil de Montignie’s Do N ot Pass Go, produced by the Victorian Film C o r p o r a t i o n fo r th e S t a t e ’ s Department of Community Welfare Services.

In the Tasmanian film, writerdirector Crombie takes much the same episodic approach as in his 1976 onehour television drama, Do I Have to Kill M y Child?, but here the didactic intent is much less clearcut. There is also a touch of Caddie (but not only in the gloss of C h ris M o r g a n ’s photography) about this tracing of a teenage boy’s inexorable path from state ward to s ta te ’s prisoner.

Crombie’s narrative is unrelentingly determinist, in that each crisis in the boy’s life arises from the selfish and insensitive actions of others, while the motivations of such actions are left for us to ponder.

The relative modesty of the film’s intentions are revealed in production notes which declare, with rather disarming artlessness, that the aim is “to raise the consciousness of the whole community and in particular the professions and the children deeply involved in Welfare” .

S lip p e r y S lid e opens with an establishing prologue, set in 1968, which shows a young, deserted wife bursting into a court hearing where her small children are. in the incongruous terms of the Act, charged with being neglected. Crombie establishes a degree of sympathy for the woman before she hysterically assaults the female Welfare officer who has, somewhat improbably, taken the three children from their home while the mother is out shopping.

The mother reappears later as a less sympathetic, if grievously exploited, Figure.

She and her daughter are reminiscent

Concluded on P. 398 Cinema Papers. October-November — 381

A l e x K o r d a o n his r e t u r n to E u r o p e in 1930.

M e r l e O b e r o n . t h e first L a d y K o r d a .

(Zoltán Korda’s excellent version of the Hemingway novella, T he M a c o m b er A ffa ir, doesn’t even rate a passing men­ tion.)

Allen Lane, 1980 However, I don’t want to strike too Michael Korda captious a note. The book, though over­ long, is persistently well-written, show­ Brian McFarlane ing the benefits of education in a way that should make Christina Crawford consider night classes if she plans to Alexander Korda married Merle continue her writing career.

Oberon. Not content with this single Michael Korda is intelligent, dis­ achievement, he went on to establish criminating and sometimes witty, as the British film industry. Well, the mar­ when he tells us that Alexa, Alex’s third riage lasted only long enough for Merle wife, “ had learned — and put into prac­ to be briefly Lady Korda, and the tice — the immortal advice of the British film industry, it may be argued, Duchess of Windsor: ‘A woman can has never been securely established. never be too thin or too rich.’ ” While its virtual disappearance in the Further, he is so scrupulous about his 1970s as a subject for serious con­ information that a minor slip, like sideration can scarcely be laid at his referring to Sam Goldwyn’s wife (a door, Korda seems to have been woman of charm and taste despite her prophetically wrong-headed about idiosyncratic marriage) as Florence in­ British films as long ago as the 1930s, stead of Francis, jolts one.

Though the book is sub-titled “ A with his “ belief in the ‘international film’ — a big historical drama about Family Romance” and though the dustfamous personalities or events” . jacket speaks of the Korda brothers, Such films, in my view at least, have C h a rm ed L ives is essentially, perhaps been the death of the British cinema, inevitably, Alex’s story. Vincent, the give or take box-office successes like author’s father, pops up frequently but Lawrence of Arabia, pushing out the without our learning much more about smaller, truly indigenous products (like early Caro! Reed, or Ealing comedies) which gave the industry whatever reputation it once had.

Korda had no interest or faith in films of this kind, even in the face of successes like The W inslow Boy or The Fallen Idol, produced for London Films, his own company. His commit­ ment, no doubt deriving in part from temperament, in part from the early success of The Private Life o f Henry V III, was towards such internationaily-slanted clinkers as Bonnie Prince Charlie and Anna Karenina.

(Mind you, his projected War and Peace with Merle as Natasha might have been a different story, though some would no doubt add “different from Tolstoy’s” .)

His nephew, Michael Korda, has written nearly 500 pages about “the fabulous world of the Korda brothers” and. though the account is literate and generous in a way that few such works have been, many may feel that he tells them both more and less than they ever wanted to know about the Kordas. More, that is, about where A le x a n d Vivien Le ig h on Alex has his clothes made for instance; less, about the films themselves.

Charmed Lives

382 — Cinema Papers, October-November

him than that he was the most Bohe­ mian of the brothers and perhaps the most reliably good-natured. His career as a set designer for his brothers’ films is sketched but not dwelt upon, nor is his somewhat unlikely marriage to the author’s mother, the actress Gertrude Musgrove.

His relationship with his second wife, Leila, by whom he had several children in late middle age, is perhaps the most warmly realized in the book, and the author's affection for his father, not­ withstanding a lonely childhood and limiting hero worship for his uncle Alex, is recorded with touching under­ statement.

Zoltán, the middle brother, seems to have suffered from a sense of competi­ tion with Alex. Despite the closeness of the brothers, and it is a closeness that exceeds that of any other relationship in the book, Zoli cuts himself off more consciously from the Korda mystique than the others. In fact, the book skimps his career which deserves more than the fleeting references that Michael Korda makes to The T hief of Baghdad, Sahara, and Cry the Beloved Country. M acomber and A W om an’s Vengeance (based on Aldous Huxley’s G iaconda S m ile ) are certainly films of more than passing interest.

On a personal level, for a book which makes a good deal of marriage and mistresses, Zoltan’s wife Joan is the least substantial figure in the book, given not so much as a surname. His films — and his marriage — appear to have been more consistently successful than Alex’s and it is frustrating to be told so little about them. There was much less contact and rapport between Michael Korda and his uncle Zoli, and this perhaps accounts for the former’s comparative reticence.

It is Alex, undoubtedly, who was the chief formative influence in Michael’s life and one sees why. It’s not just a matter of revelling in the luxury of be­ ing Sir Alexander Korda’s nephew (and he is honest about this — and about the clout he gets from his connection with Auntie Merle). Alex had “presence to an extraordinary degree” , was “by far the most tolerant and civilized of the brothers” , and had an enduring “ pas­ sion for size” which was his strength and his undoing as a filmmaker.

Only when Michael, in 1956, drives across Europe bearing medical supplies

t he set o f

Anna Karenina.

BOOKS

Recent Releases Mervyn Binns This column lists books released in Aus­ tralia, between September and October 1980, which deal with the cinema or related topics. All titles are on sale in bookshops.

The publishers and the local distributors are listed below the author in each entry. If no distribution is indicated, the book is im­ ported (Imp.). The recommended prices listed are for paperbacks, unless otherwise indicated, and are subject to variations be­ tween bookshops and states.

The list was compiled by Mervyn R. Binns of the Space Age Bookstore, Melbourne.

Popular and General Interest

to beleaguered Hungary (there is a kind of symmetry here in his returning to the Kordas’ birthplace) does he begin to feel he may emerge from the shadow of Alex’s influence: “ Up till now, I had found it difficult to equal Alex in any way, perhaps be­ cause it was an impossible task. Nor did it seem likely that I would ever equal Alex’s phenomenal ability to make money or his easy, graceful charm. His successes and his aura — financial, sexual, professional — all seemed to crush and reduce me, and I felt suffocated, haunted by the pos­ sibility of being a failure all my life, of having to compete with Alex long after his death.”

The book is clearly an attempt to come to terms with this dominant influence in his life and it registers some of the pain as well as the fringe benefits of being Alexander Korda’s nephew.

It is perhaps Michael’s fascination with the whole life, and the importance of its influence on his own, that ac­ counts for the fact that the Korda films seem to receive such scant treatment. In a filmmaking career that embraced Hungary, Vienna, Berlin, London and Hollywood, it would have been instruc­ tive to trace his development as an artist/entrepreneur in more detail. As it is, his films have to jostle for place along with his wives, his political friendships (Churchill, Beaverbrook and co.), his yacht, his eating and drinking habits, his servants and his clothes. He is the centre of the Korda clan’s universe and his biographer feels impelled to give us as much of the man as possible.

Curiously, though, for all the claims about his dynamism, his charm, and his paternal sympathies and generosity to­ wards a wide range of people, the por­ trait that emerges is something less than charismatic. It is as though the predominant greys of his dress have obliterated some of the fire that one feels must have been there, and the book’s failure to give us more about the films and his working methods re­ inforces this strangely muted note.

The man who produced and/or directed Henry VIII, Things To Come, Lady H am ilton, The T hief of Baghdad, An Ideal Husband (Paulette Goddard,

that most American star, as a Mayfair schemer), or the quieter but more in­ teresting critical successes like The Sound Barrier and An Outcast o f the Islands is worth looking at more closely as an artist.

There are gross miscalculations, too (Bonnie Prince Charlie has become a by-word for cinematic ineptitude); but a man who wrestled with H. G. Wells, Oscar Wilde and Leo Tolstoy and who

worked closely and, one gathers, sympathetically with Graham Greene and David Lean, as well as actors like Laurence Olivier, Vivien Leigh and Charles Laughton, had more going for him professionally than this book reveals.

Michael Korda tells, writing about Lady Hamilton (That Hamilton Woman

in the U.S.), that: “ Now, quite suddenly, his real gifts as a director, his sympathy for actors and actresses, his understanding of human emotions, his sense of drama, returned to him . . .” (p. 153.)

Arguably, Lady Hamilton reveals these qualities best and, of the films he directed, stands up best today, showing as well the strongly patriotic qualities that characterized his emigre's, attitude to England. But it is not, in the end, as a director that he is chiefly remembered: it is as a producer (any claims to authorship derive from this role) and as financial juggler, responsible for keep­ ing London Films afloat for so long.

From this point of view, the book does justice to his achievement.

In his personal life, he seems always to have had so much responsibility to bear, for people or films or companies, for any real lightness to relieve for long the surprisingly sombre cast of mind that emerges in this biography. There is evidence of extravagance, of high liv­ ing, of friends in high places but there is little sense of his delight in any of this.

In his three marriages — to the tempestuous and litigious Hungarian actress, Maria, to the ravishing Merle, and to the opportunistic Alexa — he seems not to have found equality of relationship. Maria, seeking to prove that she was the one true Lady Korda and to maintain hefty alimony pay­ ments, kept up her harassment of him all his life, and indeed his death provided only a spur to her activities.

Merle, while always speaking of him with generosity, in the end found her career more absorbing than life as Lady Korda, while Alexa, vulgar, on-themake and 40 years his junior was no more than an old man’s folly. In all of these relationships, though, Alex’s role is persistently more paternal than pas­ sionate: that is, as perceived by the ladies themselves.

Whatever one’s critical judgment of the films for which Korda was re­ sponsible, in one role or another, there is no gainsaying his centrality in the development of British films over a crucial quarter-century. His nephew’s book is an honorable account of the life that produced that achievement — and of some of the other lives involved.

For a proper appraisal of the films themselves, we shall have to wait.

Broadway Musicals Martin Gottfried Abrams/MacMillian Co., $60 (HC) Fully indexed with 395 illustrations. The book explores the musical theatre in all its dimensions.

The Great Movie Stars David Shopman Angus and Ro b e r t s o n / An g u s and Robertson, $29.95 (HC) A tragi-comedy told through almost 200 careers — each of a star whose name was made before the beginning of World War 2.

The Making o f 1941 Glenn Erickson and Mary Allen Trainor Ballantine/Tudor Distributors, $10.95 Behind-the-camera look at special effects, a star-studded cast, and the filmmaking genius of Steven Spielberg. A comedy classic.

Nijinsky: The Film Roland Gelatt Ballantine/Tudor Distributors, $19.95 Offers a stunning visual tribute to the world’s greatest dancer, as well as a fascinating behind-the-scenes account of how this sumptuous film biography was created.

Biographies, Memoirs and Experiences in Filmmaking and Filmographies

Charles Bronson Superstar Steven Whitney Coronet/Hodder and Stoughton, $4.95 A general biography about this popular ac­ tor.

The complete Films o f W. S. Hart: A Pic­ torial Record D. K. Koszarski Dover/Tudor Distributors, $12.55 A lavishly-illustrated filmography with more than 200 stills.

Errol Flynn: The Untold Story Charles Higham Granada/Methuen Australia, $19.95 (HC) The swashbuckling image Flynn created on screen is uncannily reflected in a startling revelation about his off-screen, political ac­ tivities, as well as his better-known amorous proclivities. With 32 photographs.

Gregory Peck Michael Freedland W. H. Allen/Hutchinson, $19.50 (HC) Lavish, well-illustrated biography with a large selection of photographs, many from Peck’s private family album.

Stan Fred Lawrence Guiles Michael Joseph/Thomas Nelson, $22.50 (HC) . r The book traces in detail the rise and fall of slapstick comedy — also, the rise and slow decline of Stan Laurel, until exposure on television in the 1950s made Laurel and Hardy more popular than ever before.

Critical

American Film Now James Monaco New English Library/Methuen Australia, $9.95 " Definitive guide to the film industry.

Indian Film Erik Barnouw and S. Krishnaswamy Oxford/Oxford University Press, $8.95 2nd edition. An unparalleled account of the film industry in India which out-produces all other countries.

Showdown John H. Lenihan University of 111inois/Imp., $17.95 (HC) The book thoroughly documents how Westerns mirrored the self-image of post­ World War 2 American life and thought.

History

Crime Movies — An Illustrated History Carlos Clarens Norton/Imp., $11.20 Story of the gangster genre in film, from D. W. Griffith to The Godfather and beyond.

Reference

Halliwell’s Filmgoer’s Companion 6th Edi­ tion Granada/Gordon and Gotch, $9.95 The International Film Encyclopedia Ephram Katz Macmillan/Macmillan, $34.95, A comprehensive guide to the cinema.

Television and Media

TV Guide. The first 25 Years Jay S. Harris Plume/Methuen Australia, $13.50 A living history of the age of television from the pages of the magazine that put it all in focus.

Non-Cinema Associated Titles

The Robyn Archer Songbook McPhee Gribble/McPhee Gribble, $8.95 Biographical type account of the performer and her work.

Novels

All Quiet on the Western Front Erich Maria Remarque Granada/Gordon and Gotch, $4.95 Foxes Dewey Gram Futura/Tudor, $3.25 Tales o f the Unexpected Roald Dahl Penguin/Penguin Australia, $2.95 Urban Cowboy Aaron Latham Bantam/Gordon and Gotch, $3.50 Water Under the Bridge Sumner Locke Elliot Sun/Macmillan ★

Cinema Papers, October-November — 383

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY DIRECTORY SAVE A LOAD ON EXCESS FREIGHT CHARGES,

BY HIRING THE “ HEAVIES” IN THE WEST.

•LIGHTING TRUCK. Fully eq uippe d with lights for most location assignments. Includes basic grip gear, 2 way radio, loud hailer, cam era platform, etc.

•TRIPODS Hi-hats, mounts, etc.

• ARRIFLEX 35 mm & 16 mm BL and Nagra etc. available for SELECTIVE HIRE.

EASTMAN COLOR EKTACHROME BLACK & WHITE 35mm -16mm - SUPER 8 SOUND TRANSFERS

•BUMPED GENERATORS. 31 & 70 kVA & batter/ Packs.

•LIGHTING HIRE. Mini-brutes, H.M.I’s, Red Heads, Blondes, 5 K’s to Inkys, etc, etc.

•WJ k. DISTRIBUTOR “TUSCAN” .

Reels, cans, cores, etc.

• CREWS arranged.

for further inform ation c o n ta c t DARYL BINNING a.c.s.

15 DENNY WAY, ALFRED COVE W.A. 6154 Ph 09 330 5070.

WESTCOA6T FILMS Photography by C S

P.O. Box 199 Tuart Hill, WA 6060. Ph. (09) 0671055 Hugh Kitson, Perth’s top film editor has started Western Australia’s first post production com pany—FILMCUT. Film cut has a beautifully appointed and equipped 16mm cutting room and a 35/16m m negative cutting service.

U-matictape preview facilities are available for time-code editing too.

Originally trained and brought up in the British film industry, Hugh has now served ten years of his life sentence in the Australian industry.

He has more than sixty documentary and short film credits to his name plus three minor awards and one significant international award.

Next time you are in town call on:

7 BENNETT ST., PERTH. (09) 325 5233 UNITED AUSTRALASIAN FILMS WESTERN AUSTRALIA'S GRIP SPECIALISTS • Elem ack Dolly w ith Tracks • Jib Arm • Lim pet M ount • Tripods a n d Spreaders ■ Platform Dollies • Location Truck • Hand-Held C o m m u n ica tio n System • Grips a n d Runners Phone Karel Akkerm an (09) 342 2674 7 W interton Way, G irraw heen. 6064 Perth W.A.

^Perry Sandow Television Lighting Director Film Gaffer

\

Porilm o u 3 3 8 1 7813 drop in to 4 2 D en is S treet, S u b ia co .

P C f f l J Film ¿Television Lighting

(They m ig h t ju st be able to help you w ith th e p o st-p ro d u ctio n on your film).________

42 Denis Street Subiaco,6008 W A. Phone (09)3817065 A/Hrs.(09)4051340.

Wa ht roste your u"fe xlliv E | Gai~ send

MOVI E B U F F S . . . F I L M M A K E R S . . . S T U D E N T S . . .

COLLECTORS . . . ACTORS . . . DECORATORS . . .

D E S I G N E R S . . . NOSTAL GI A ADDICTS . . . BUDDING WOODY A L L E N S . . . SCI-FI F A N A T I C S . . . W R I T E R S . . . H O R R O R F R E A K S . . . OR J U S T P L A I N F O L K S WHO LOVE T H E C I N E M A .

$ 1 0 ¡ft U&E D BÜLs5MoNe y Ofi0eR

You must get the new illustrated Catalogue of Cinema Books, Film Magazines. Movie Posters and other related memorabilia material.

Contains over 1.000 entries of American, British, and Australian origin ranging over the past 50 years and includes many out-of-print and scarce items at reasonable prices.

To obtain your copy of Cinema Catalogue No 1 send $2 (this will be deducted from your first order) to: SOFT FOCUS

if y O “

0R C h f Q U e

T fi.

TAGG(Subs.)

1U .

P.O. Box 372, Prahran, 3181 Name:............................................................... .....................................

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

((to g g TODAYS TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT GUIDE

P.O. BOX 98.

7 Elizabeth Court, Ringwood cast, Vic. 3135

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS sigaBBB1" —

H'll mi I*..

»■»■hm— bct— b-ttm——i-t

Films examined in terms of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and States’ film censorship legislation are listed below.

An explanatory key to reasons for classifying non-“ G" films appears hereunder:

S V L 0

JUNE 1980 FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION “G” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN “NRC” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

FOR MATURE AUDIENCES “M” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS -

Purpose

Explicitness/lntensity

Frequency Infrequent

Frequent

Low

Medium

High

Justified

Gratuitous

i i i i

f f f f

I I I I

m m m m

h h h h

j i j i

g g g g

(Sex) ..................................

(Violence)...........................

(Language).........................

(Other) ..............................

Title

Producer

Country

Submitted Length (m) Applicant

C a rm e n C o m e s H o m e (1 6 mm ) D irt C h e a p (1 6 m m ) D o c u m e n ta ry (1 6 mm ) E arly S u m m e r (1 6 m m ) T h e G re a t M o n k e y Rip O ff M e a a d M a S o u so u (1 6 m m ) M e lo d y fro m H e a v e n S a n jo g S h o rt C uts S o n g o f L o v e (1 6m m ) T h e S p rin g L a k e A T h o u s a n d a n d O n e K is s e s (16 m m ) T o ra T h e lo T o ra T o u c h e d By L o v e (vid e o ta p e )

S h o c h ik u C .L a n d e r T e x tu re F ilm s S h o c h ik u L o n e S ta r P ic tu re s N ot sh o w n Ta C h u n g M o tio n P ic tu re Co. S. B alam A. G o u w N o t sh o w n C, J ih -s h e n S ol Film N, A vra m e a s R a s ta r/C o lu m b ia

Ja pa n A u s tra lia U.S. Japan U.S. Egypt T a iw a n Ind ia H o ng K ong E g yp t H o ng K ong E g yp t G re e c e C anada

9 4 3 .4 2 9 6 5 .4 0 1 4 2 6 .0 0 1 3 0 5 .0 0 2 5 0 9 .9 2 9 1 9 .0 0 2 6 4 9 .3 6 3 5 1 1 .0 4 2 4 5 4 .0 0 1 3 1 6 .0 0 2 6 4 9 .3 6 1 3 3 4 .0 0 2 3 8 0 .0 0 9 5 m in s

N a tio n a l L ib ra ry o f A u s tra lia H a rd Y a k k a P ro d s P /L F o cal C o m m u n ic a tio n s N a tio n a l L ib ra ry of A u s tra lia V id e o C la s s ic s F a re s R a d io & TV G o ld e n R eel F ilm s L yra F ilm s P /L JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l F ilm Co. O. B o u tro s /D . C a ra tza s JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l F ilm Co. P. N a c h e f L y ra F ilm s P /L R. P rie ssm a n

B a d a lte y R is h te y T h e Final C o u n td o w n T h e Funny C o u p le Le R a p a c e (The V u ltu re ) (1 6 m m ) Les G ran d e s G u eu le s (T h e W is e G uys) (1 6 m m ) L ib e ra , M y Love

V ija y a s h e e P ic tu re s B ryn a Y un g S h e n g P ro d u c tio n P.A.C. V a lo ria /D a m a

Ind ia U.S. T a iw a n F ra n ce

4 1 1 4 .5 0 2 8 5 2 .7 2 2 6 4 9 .3 6 9 8 6 .0 0

V S K D Film D is trib u to rs P /L L U n ite d A rtis ts (A 'a sia ) P /L JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co. O V F re n c h E m b a ssy

L es P ro d u c tio n s B e lle s R ive s R o b e rto L o yo la C in e m a to g ra fic a

F ra n ce Italy

1 1 5 1 .0 0 2 9 5 6 .1 3

V (i-l-j), L (i-l-j)

A N ig h tin g a le S a n g in B e rk e le y S q u a re P injra T h e S to ry o f th e L a s t C h ry s a n th e m u m s (1 6 m m ) S unghursh T e a rs W ith o u t S in s (1 6 m m ) T ro is M illia rd s S a n s A s c e n s e u r (T h re e B illion, No E le v ato r) (1 6 m m )

B. Fisz .

V. S ha n ta ra m

B rita in Ind ia

2 9 8 9 .9 0 3 5 6 5 .9 0

F re n c h E m b a s s y A u s tra lia n C o u n c il of Film S o c ie tie s R o a d s h o w D is trib u to rs P /L L yra F ilm s P /L

S h o c h ik u N ot sh o w n N o t sh ow n

Ja pa n Ind ia E g yp t

1 4 8 1 .0 0 5 7 3 2 .0 0 1 3 1 4 .0 0

N a tio n a l L ib ra ry o f A u s tra lia S K D Film D is trib u to rs P /L P. N a c h e f

O (e m o tio n a l stre s s ) V (i-l-j) O (a d u lt th e m e )

Film el

F ra n ce

F re n c h E m b a ssy

S (i-l-j), L (i-l-j)

T h e Big R a s c a l T h e Big Red O ne Blind F is t o f B ru c e T h e B ra v e s t O ne C r a z y C o u p le C ra z y P a rtn e r Fam e F e a r (vid e o ta p e )

H o ng U.S. H o ng H o ng H o ng H o ng U.S.

2 5 9 3 .5 8 3 1 2 7 .0 0 2 5 0 9 .9 2 2 3 9 8 .3 7 2 5 2 3 .0 0 2 3 7 9 .4 1 3 6 2 5 .5 0

W. Yau R o a d s h o w D is trib u to rs P /L C o m fo rt Film E n te rp ris e s G o ld e n Reel F ilm s P /L G o ld e n Reel F ilm s P /L W. Y au C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L

V V V V V V L

(f-m -g ) (f-m -j) (f-m -g ) (f-m -g ) (f-m -g ) (f-l-g ) (f-m -j)

Final C u t H a rd K n o c k s K ings o f th e Hill (1 6 m m ) La C irc o n s ta n z a (The C irc u m s ta n c e )

C h a m p io n L o rim a r K am Bo M o tio n P ic tu re Co. T ie n Po Co. F ilm w a y W a rrio r Film Co. MGM R o ss H a g e n /L e e M a d d e n A s s o c ia te s M. W illia m s A n d ro m e d a L on e S ta r RAI

T h a ila n d A u s tra lia A u s tra lia U.S. Italy

8 3 m in s 2 2 3 1 .0 4 230 4.1 2 1 0 6 4 .0 9 2 5 9 3 .5 8

V S L V

(i-m -g ) (i-m -j), V (i-m -j) (f-m -j) (f-m )

M a d M o n k e y Kung Fu T h e M o u n ta in M en R adio On

S h a w B ro th e rs C o lu m b ia B F I/R o a d M o vie s

H o n g K ong U.S. B rita in

3 2 6 2 .9 0 2 7 3 3 .0 0 2 8 7 2 .4 6

R olin D is trib u to rs G U O Film D is trib u to rs P /L A n d ro m e d a P ro d u c tio n s V id e o C la s s ic s A u s tra lia n C o u n c il of Film S o c ie tie s JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co. Fox C o lu m b ia Film D ist. P /L S y d n e y Film F e stiva l

V V V L

T h e S e c r e t S h a o lin Kung Fu S e e Bar T h e S h a d o w o f C h ik a ra (vide ota pe ) S in ai C o m m a n d o s (vid e o ta p e ) S o m eth in g I Am A fra id O f (1 6 m m ) T h e S y s te m V o y a g e D a n s Le C o e u r D ’une Fe m m e (16 m m ) W o rld ly F o u rs o m e

O ce a n Film Co. D avid & D a vid In v e s tm e n t Co. F a irw in d s R. N u ssb a u m N ot sh o w n T rin ity A sia L td

H o ng K ong H o ng K ong U.S. Isra e l E g yp t H o ng K on g

2 5 2 3 .0 0 2 4 9 6 .1 3 8 5 m in s 8 8 m ins 1 5 4 9 .0 0 2 3 9 8 .3 7

W. Y au G o ld e n Reel F ilm s P /L K & G V id eo K & G V id eo P. N a c h e f G o ld e n R eel F ilm s P /L

V V V V O V

(i-m -j) (f-m -j) (f-m -j) (f-m -j), O (a d u lt c o n c e p ts ) (i-m -g ) (f-m -j) (i-m -g ) (i-m -j) (a d u lt c o n c e p ts ) (i-m -j)

Ja la Film M. L uk

Egypt B rita in

1 0 0 5 .8 4 2 7 0 0 .2 0

F a re s R a d io S TV C o m fo rt Film E n te rp ris e s

O (s e x u a l in n u e n d o ) S (i-l-j), V (i-m -j)

R. N u s s b a u m N ot sh ow n K irt P ro d u c tio n s K irt P ro d u c tio n s K irt P ro d u c tio n s B. M a n sy K irt P ro d u c tio n s B. M a n sy A. G o u w B. M a n sy M. L o b e ll P h o e n ix In te rn a tio n a l Film s

U.S. H o ng K on g U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. H o ng K on g U.S. U.S. U.S.

101 m in s 2 3 7 9 .4 4 1 5 3 6 .0 8 1 6 0 4 .1 0 1 6 7 3 .2 3 1 7 5 6 .9 4 1 5 0 8 .6 5 1 563.51 2 3 8 6.4 1 1 5 8 9 .0 0 2 4 9 6 .0 0 1 8 7 1 .4 5

K & G V id eo S (f-m -g ) C o m fo rt Film E n te rp ris e s V (f-m -g ) 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L S (f-m -g ) 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L S (i-m -g ) 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L S (f-m -g ) 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L S (f-m -g ) 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L S (f-m -g ) 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L S (f-m -g ) JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co. S (i-m -j), V (f-m -j) 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L S (f-m -g ) U n ite d A rtis ts (A 'a sia ) P /L V (i-h -j) M u tu a l Film D is trib u to rs S (f-m -g ), V (i-m -g )

T h e A m o ro u s A d v e n tu re s of S u p e rk n ig h t (vid e o ta p e ) (a) B ruce an d th e Iron Fin g e r G irls ’ Prison I W is h I W e re In D ix ie J o y s o f G e o rg e tte S c h o o l o f H a rd K n o c k s S e c r e ta r y S p re a d T u rn e d On G irl T w o In B la c k B e lt U s e th e B a ck D o o r W in d o w s Z e r o In an d S c re a m

K ong K ong K ong K ong K ong

9 8 7 .0 0

Reason for Decision

(i-l-j) (i-l-j), V (i-l-j) (a d u lt th e m e ) (f-l-j)

V (i-l-j), L (i-l-j) L (i-l-j) V (i-l-j)

(a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n a s T h e A m o ro u s A d v e n tu re s o f Don Q u ix o te and S a n c h o P a n za (D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 7 L ist) a n d a s S u p e rk n ig h t (M ay 1 9 7 8 List).

S p e c ia l c o n d itio n : T h at th e film w ill be e x h ib ite d o n ly a t the 1 9 8 0 S y d n e y /M e lb o u rn e /B ris b a n e /P e rth a n d /o r A d e la id e Film F e s tiv a ls a n d th e n e xp o rte d .

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW

B a s tie n B a s tie n n e C in e m a C o n fid e n c e T h e G re a t R o c k ’n ’ Roll S w in d le In th e N a m e o f th e F u e h rer L o v e Film L ove on th e Run T h e M an W ho Lov ed W om en

R. S te p h a n e S o v e x p o rtfilm F lu n g a ro film /M a film D. B o y d /J . T h o m a s L yd ia Film s H u n g a ro film /M a film L es Film s Du C a rro s s e L es Film s Du C a rro s s e

F ra n c e USSR H u n g a ry B rita in B e lg iu m H u n g a ry F ra n ce F ra n ce

R e fe rra l S e rv ic e (1 6 mm ) D e le tio n s : 1 8 m e tre s (1 m in. 3 8 se cs) R e a so n fo r d e le tio n s : S (i-h -g )

B. R o gue

U.S.

E. D ie trich

W. G e rm a n y

D ie L ie b e s b rie fe E iner P o rtu g ie s is c h e n N o n n e

2 9 0 7 .0 0 2 4 7 5 .0 0 3 6 3 0 .0 0 2 8 2 6 .0 0 2 9 0 0 .0 0 3 9 3 5 .0 0 2 9 7 0 .0 0 3 6 3 0 .0 0 5 0 4 .6 2

2 4 3 0 .5 0

S y d n e y Film F e stiva l M e lb o u rn e Film F e s tiv a l M e lb o u rn e Film F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e s tiv a l M e lb o u rn e Film F e stiva l M e lb o u rn e Film F e s tiv a l M e lb o u rn e Film F e stiva l M e lb o u rn e Film F e s tiv a l 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L

S (f-m -g )

B la k e F ilm s P /L

O (S e xu a l v io le n c e in v o lv in g a m in o r)

NIL N o te: T itle o f film sh o w n a s D e fia n c e (S e p te m b e r 1 9 7 9 a n d M a rc h 1 9 8 0 L is ts ) h a s b ee n a lte re d to B ru te Force.

Continued on P.387

Cinema Papers, October-November — 385

BOB ELLIS

RON CASEY

Bob Ellis C o n t in u e d f r o m P. 3 1 9

project had been cancelled.

Eventually, they filmed the first draft after David Puttnam had praised it in Sexton's hearing, and it had slowly dawned on Sexton that a script which he had laughed at, and which had got instant funding, might be worth making after all.

I think the film business is illstructured, with the emphasis on peo p le who d o n ’t need qualifications being in charge. It is always interesting what happens to former AFC commissioners, and people like that, who disappear monumentally because they don’t have proven abilities in any field. It is silly to throw power towards such people.

You see the problem on something like Fatty Finn, whose script was hailed by the producer as a great work of world art, yet whose realization on screen doesn’t come half way up to Disney, and is arguably garish, unfunny, and miscalculated.

It is not fair that I should be saddled with bad results merely because the wrong kinds of minds are drawn inexorably by their in­ competence throughout childhood, youth and young manhood into the film business.

So, you don’t like the Finished Film I think it will make a lot of money. It has a lot of energy — it is a sort of pre-pubescent Grease — and its visual style is nothing less than amazing. It’s not a world I have inhabited or seen from afar, but it has its own kind of con­ sistency.

All the p erfo rm a n ces are dreadful, the conspicuous excep­ tion being Bert Newton’s. It’s also over-emphatic, but what can I say?

Terry Jackman’s kid loves it.

Future Plans What scripts are you working on now?

I recently completed a screen­ play for Bert Newton and Graham Kennedy called The Road to Gundagai, in which they are on latrine duty when Darwin is bombed. They then take a message, hidden in a yo-yo, back to the Prime Minister of Australia. They hitch-hike south in disguise, towards their home-town of Gundagai.

Kennedy and Newton read the script and found it filthy, and out of keeping with their present, holy suburban image. So that is not happening.

I have finished a script about radio actors in the 1940s, which is like Newsfront, but funny, and not 386 — Cinema Papers, October-November

“It is not fair that I should he saddled with had results merely because the wrong kinds of minds are drawn inexorably by their incompetence throughout childhood, youth and young manhood into the film business. 93 as serious and intense. Then there is a mystery set in Surfers Paradise, which is a kind of Australian version of Raymond Chandler.

There is a film about a boy and the horse Archer, which won the first Melbourne Cup after being walked by a strapper all the way from Nowra, and then all the way back.

Then there is a film in the package about homosexuals in King’s Cross, and one set in the law courts of Phillip Street, about a character vaguely like Clive Evatt defending a character vaguely like Arthur Calwell.

I have talked to the Stigwood apparatchiks about a road film, about two song-and-dance girls, played by Olivia Newton-John and Michelle Fawdon, going north to an audition for a cabaret version of B r ig a d o o n in Surfers Paradise.

There is a film in the manner of Casablanca which I have been trying to do for about 18 months, without much success. Like most film projects, it is set around the events of November 11, 1975, though it is nothing more than a love story set in Canberra, with these events raging behind. It was to be called These Remembrances and with an inscription up front which goes, “These remembrances My Lord I had of you which I have longed to re-deliver. Shakespeare.

To Sir John Kerr.” I was warned that no funding body would want it, which is a pity.

I am also doing a mini-series with James Ricketson about Bea Miles. It will have six one-and-ahalf hour episodes and will involve an investigator, with flashbacks and witnesses. We have acquired the rights to his diaries, which are some of the best writing of the 20th Century. It is as good as Gogol.

I am writing a play for a season at the Stables Theatre at the end of the year. It is called A V e r y G o o d Y e a r and is about those bad weeks last Christmas when Tito was

dying, Afghanistan was being invaded, war was imminent and bushfires were heading towards Sydney. It is set at Palm Beach, and involves a character like- Les Murray and other recognizable people. Peter Weir lives next door.

The play is sub-titled A H a n d fu l o f M a r te llo M a r s u p ia ls B a b y and is an attempt at proving that plays like M a r t e l l o T o w e r s and a H a n d fu l o f P e n n ie s can be intel­ lectually respectable.

I am also bringing about a book on my collective narcissism, called E lli s ’ R ig h t a n d W r o n g , and I am going to do a novel about Aus­ tralian showbusiness.

What is the project you are doing with David Puttnam?

His working title is Bob Ellis’s Tale of Woe; mine is The Nostra­ damus Kid. It’s fairly much in the style of Woody Allen and is about my life — about growing up in a nut religion, with emphasis on the end of the world.

Who do you have in mind to play yourself?

Well, I am available, but I think he should be a skinny young actor who looks like the young Peter Finch, called Robert Menzies, or a boy called John Howard who was in Britannicus and Gary’s Story. He is like a young Tony LlewellynJones, and plays nervous young schnooks better than, anybody I have seen.

How do you manage to do so many screenplays?

By writing every day, living out of town and being abstemious as to eating, drinking and socializing, but gluttonous as to sex. This has led to many painful situations, that, in turn, have given me a working substitute for worldly wisdom.

Also, I find that if you start with a good idea it doesn’t take long to write a good screenplay; if you start with a bad idea it could take weeks.

Most Australian writers and producers start with really bad ideas — like the McElroys’ BushFire; really overheated, ideological ones like Chain Reaction and The Juanita Factor; and historical inci­ dents like The Battle of Broken Hill and Cathy’s Child, of which the audience already knows the ending.

It is better, in my experience, to start, like a journalist, with a general area of life that you can research in detail: local politics, drunken journalists, the race track, or whatever. And, out of the best true stories that people tell you, weave a story line.

Also, the problem is not maintaining the energy to write them, but acquiring the energy to do the next thing, which is to flog them around — and the patience to smile long enough with the people you have to deal with. I live in hope. *

Ron Casey C o n t in u e d f r o m P. 351

How many images did the Russians generate simultaneously?

For the main stadium they had three separate productions: one on the running track, one on one of the throwing events and one on jumping events. They had three productions down at gymnastics, where there were three apparatuses in use at the one time. So there were six in two venues alone.

Probably, they had up to 25 different areas to which you could have access-^ Did all these images automatically come through your set-up, or did you have to book in advance?

We gave indications of what we might want before we left, but the specific bookings we did 24 hours in advance. It was possible, however, to get pictures at very short notice.

To get a commentary position took a little more time.

One interesting aspect was your use of different anchormen in the studio.

Why was that?

There were certain days when guys were not specifically required for the events they were best suited for, so we used them in the studio.

When we made the decision to go to Moscow, we had to revise our budget. This meant we didn’t have as many commentators as we wanted, and the guys had to double up on various activities.

What was your feeling about the standard of commentary?

I think everybody did very well.

We had very few complaints from the public about the standard of commentary. We had one or two from opposition media, however.

You seemed to be at your happiest when you were at the boxing ring Oh, I wouldn’t say that. I was at my h ap p iest at the closing ceremony, for obvious reasons.

Apart from selecting an event, did you have control over the way it was covered?

No, but that is standard practice at the Olympic Games. The host nation is required to create, by the IOC, what is called an “inter­ national picture” . At the start of the 100 metres, for example, it is required to put the camera for a certain number of seconds on each competitor.

The reason there are now three simultaneous productions out of the main stadium, instead of one, is the criticism in the past. The director would go to the high jump just as the shot putter from another

CENSORSHIP LISTINGS

RON CASEY

country was due to perform. One country’s television viewers would be very upset.

What they did this time was to give everybody a total coverage of what was happening and then leave it to the various producers to choose. That was the theory and, while it didn’t work 100 per cent on some occasions, it was a lot better than with the previous Olympics.

In the second week of broadcast, there were a couple of comments about not having control over the images, particularly by Bill Collins.

Was there a frustration over some of the coverage?

Yes. We were disappointed, in that they didn’t cover the sports events as we would have. They used a lot of cut-aways to crowds, and things like that, which we found pretty frustrating.

The only political influence on the technique side was the fact that they didn’t show the Olympic flags during the opening ceremony or at the victory ceremonies. Otherwise, the coverage was very straight­ forward.

Occasionally, the replays looked edited. One example was in the heats of the women’s 800 metres, when there was a bit of jostling before the turn. When it was replayed that incident wasn’t shown and Ron Clarke commented on its absence . . .

I am not sure whether it was edited, or whether they simply started it from the point after­ wards. But they were very consis­ tent, and if the pattern said the replay would start from the 175metre mark, it wouldn’t matter what happened at the 180-metre mark because the replay would start as planned.

There was one relay, for instance, when a member of the Cuban team dropped the baton at the last change-over. The best picture at that point was of the Cuban lying on the track, slam­ ming his hand and throwing the baton away. But the pattern at the finish was that they would go to a close-up of the winning runner.

Now, if they had cut away from the winner and gone back to the guy at the track, which to us is a far better news story, there would have been an immediate complaint from the people taking the coverage who wanted to see the winner. So, a rigid pattern is a safeguard in itself.

We complained about a couple of things, however, like the swim­ ming, where they used a lot of cut­ aways of the crowd. But they used them less often after that, and did seem to take notice of other broad­ casters. There were other things which upset us, but it was probably due to the inexperience of some of their technicians. The Olympics is so vast an operation that I think they finished up running out of top people. ★

Film Censorship Listings Continued from P.385 JULY 1980 FOR GENERAL EXHIBITION “G” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS Submitted Length (m) Applicant

Title

Producer

Country

D irt C h e a p (1 6 mm ) F a tty Finn A G irl W ith o u t S o rro w H e lp T h is F a m ily (1 6 m m ) H e rb ie G o e s B a n a n a s It W a s R a in y L a s t N ig h t

H a rd Y a k k a P ro d u c tio n s P /L C h ild re n 's F ilm C o rp .

Not show n N o t sh o w n D is n e y S h in H o (H K)

9 6 5 .4 0 2 5 0 9 .9 2 2 4 9 5 .0 0 1 3 1 6 .4 0 2 5 0 9 .9 2

H a rd Y a k k a P ro d u c tio n s P /L H o y ts D is trib u tio n P /L M .L o u e y P. N a c h e f G U O Film D is trib u to rs P /L

T h e L a s t R ig h t o f N o a h ’s A rk P o o r C h a s e rs R o m a n c e o n th e Bus T h e S ig n is V T o r a s a n ’s S h a tte re d R o m a n c e (1 6 m m ) W in te r F e v e r (1 6 m m )

D is n e y Not show n Not show n Toho Toho W a rre n M ille r P ro d u c tio n s

A u s tra lia A u s tra lia H ong K ong E g yp t U.S. T a iw a n / H o n g K on g U.S. H o ng K o n g H o n g K on g Ja p a n Ja p a n U.S.

2 6 2 0 .0 3 2 6 7 7 .2 5 2 5 4 6 .0 0 2 5 3 7 .8 1 2 1 4 5 .0 0 9 7 6 .3 3 9 8 7 .0 0

T h e W ild G o o s e o n th e W in g (1 6 m m ) Xanadu Y our A tte n tio n , G e n tle m e n (1 6 m m )

C h in -S u U n iv e rs a l Not show n

H o ng K on g U.S. E gypt

1 1 8 5 .0 0 2 5 3 7 .8 1 1 1 9 9 .0 0

G o ld e n R e el F ilm s P /L G U O F ilm D is tr ib u to r s P /L M. L o u e y S LE C C M. Y au J a p a n In fo rm a tio n S e rv ic e F ilm w a y s A a s ia n D is trib u to rs P /L C h in e s e C u ltu ra l C e n tre C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L P. N a c h e f

Reason for Decision

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN “NRC” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS T h e A d v e n tu re s o f N e llie B ly (1 6 m m ) A h a ris ti (T h e U n g ra te fu l) A l S h a r id a t (T h e W a n d e re r) (1 6 m m ) T h e B lu e La g o o n T h e C h a m p io n s (1 6 mm) T h e C h in e s e A m a zo n s T h e E arth lin g

La M a fia M i Fa Un B a ffo (T h e M a fia D o e s N o t C a re ) L ’A m o u r En F u ite L ove On A F o g g y R iver M o n a . . . Z u ta D ik a M ou T h e M o rn in g D a te T h e N u d e B om b

O P a la v o s T o u T h a n a s i P an n y z W ilk a (1 6 m m ) P re m ie r V o y a g e R ising Sun R ough C u t S a ty a m S h iv a m S u n d a ra m S lip p e ry S lid e (1 6 mm ) T h e S to ry o f D ru n k e n M a s te r

S c h ic k S u n n C la s s ic P ro d u c tio n S tu d io F ilm s N o t sh o w n Not show n C o lu m b ia N a tio n a l F ilm B o a rd o f C a n a d a C h in a M o tio n P ic tu re S tu d io P rod. Co. E a rth lin g P rod. Co. S c h ic k S u n n C la s s ic P ro d u c tio n

U.S. G re e c e H o n g K on g Lebanon U.S. Canada H o n g K on g

1 1 0 7 .9 7 2 4 0 0 .0 0 2 8 4 4 .5 8 1 0 6 6 .8 0 2 7 2 6 .9 7 1 2 7 8 .3 3 2 6 4 6 .7 6

V id e o C la s s ic s L y ra F ilm s P /L S LE C C N. A v ra m id e s F o x C o lu m b ia Film D is t P /L N a tio n a l Film B o a rd o f C a n a d a JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co.

V 0 V 0 S L V

(i-l-j) (m a rita l p ro b le m s ) (f-l-j) (a d u lt c o n c e p ts ) (i-l-j) (i-l-j) (f-l-j)

A u s tra lia U.S.

2 6 6 0 .7 1 2 4 3 0 .0 0

0 (e m o tio n a l s tre s s )

A. M e s s e ri

Ita ly

2 2 8 0 .0 0

R o a d s h o w D is trib u to rs P /L S u n C la s s ic P ro d u c tio n s (A u s tra lia ) P /L W o rld Film D is trib u to rs P /L

C ie ffe C in e m a to g ra fic a L e s F ilm s Du C a rro s s e W o o Fu F ilm Co. C. K y ria k o p o u lo s T. Y. C h u a n U n iv e rs a l M o s film

Ita ly F ra n c e T a iw a n G re e c e H o ng K on g U.S. S o v ie t U n io n

2 5 7 9 .0 0 2 5 9 3 .5 8 2 4 0 6 .1 5 2 4 0 0 .0 0 2 6 4 9 .3 6 2 4 5 9 .0 0 3 7 9 6 .3 7

V 0 0 0 V V

N. K a te o y p ia h e Z e s p o l F ilm o w e /P ie rs o n P ro d u c tio n /L e s F ilm s M o lie re O lia n e P ro d u c tio n /F ild e b ro c Ed K on g F ilm s V iv a n t P ro d u c tio n s D. M e rric k R.K. F ilm s L o rim a r D. P a re r G o ld e n T rip o d F ilm Co. M o s film

G re e c e

2 4 0 0 .0 0

W o rld F ilm D is trib u to rs P /L E u ro p e a n Film D is trib u to rs P /L G o ld e n R e el F ilm s P /L L y ra F ilm s P /L G o ld e n R eel F ilm s P /L C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C orp. P /L C o m m e rc ia l C o u n s e llo r o f the USSR L y ra F ilm s P /L

P olan d F ra n c e H o n g K on g U.S. B rita in In d ia B rita in A u s tra lia H o ng K ong S o v ie t U n io n

1 2 9 4 .4 5 2 4 7 0 .0 0 2 5 1 3 .0 9 2 8 7 2 .4 6 3 0 3 9 .7 9 4 6 0 0 .0 0 3 3 1 5 .1 4 6 3 6 .2 6 2 5 6 5 .7 0 2 3 5 2 .6 8

P o lis h C o n s u la te G e n e ra l A llia n c e F ra n ç a is e E u p o Film Co. U n ite d A rtis ts (A 'a sia ) P /L C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L S K D Film D is trib u to rs H o y ts D is trib u tio n P /L T a s m a n ia n F ilm C orp.

JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co. C o m m e rc ia l C o u n s e llo r of the U SSR

0 V 0 0 0 0 V O V

0 (d is a s te r fo o tag e ) V (i-l-j).

O (e m o tio n a l s tre s s ) (f-l-j) (se xu a l c o n c e p ts ) (e m o tio n a l tra u m a ) (se xu a l in n u e n d o ) (i-l-j) (i-l-j)

0 (a d u lt th e m e ) V (i-l-j) (a d u lt th e m e ) (i-l-j) (w ar fo o ta g e ) (se x & d ru g th e m e s) (s e x u a l in n u e n d o ) (a d u lt the m e ) (i-m -j) (b e h a v io u ra l p ro b le m s ) (f-l-j)

V (i-m -j)

FOR MATURE AUDIENCES “M” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS V (f-m -j) V (i-m -j)

A s s a s s in (1 6 m m ) T h e A w a k e n in g B lood & G u ts

C h a n g W e n Y au S olo Film M. S im o n /P . O ’B ria n

H o ng K on g B rita in Canada

1 0 2 0 .0 0 2 5 7 3 .7 0 2 5 3 9 ,8 0

T h e B lues B ro th e rs T h e B ro th ers B ru b a k e r

U n iv e rs a l R. S h a w /M . Fong 2 0 th C e n tu ry -F o x

U.S. H o ng K on g U.S.

3 5 5 7 .9 1 2 6 0 5 .8 5 3 5 2 9 .0 2

C hoi L e e F a t Kung Fu C hu Lien C irc le o f M is tru s t (1 6 mm) T h e D e a d ly B re a k in g S w o rd T h e D ra g o n o n Fire

Po F u ng Film Co. T e n fo ld Film Co. Not show n S h a w B ro th e rs A s s o A sia Film Ltd. C a n n o n F ilm s

Hong Hong Egypt Hong H o ng U.S.

2 6 4 9 .3 6 2 6 4 9 .3 6 1 6 1 3 .0 0 291 4.1 1 2 4 5 4 .1 4 2 3 4 2 .5 9

C h in e s e C u ltu ra l C e n tre G U O Film D is trib u to rs P /L F ilm w a y s A ’a s la n D is trib u to rs P /L C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co. Fox C o lu m b ia Film D is trib u to rs P /L C o m fo rt Film E n te rp ris e s G o ld e n R eel F ilm s P /L 0 . B o u tro s /O . C a ra tz a s JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co. C o m fo rt Film E n te rp ris e s S e ve n K e y s F ilm s P /L

G o in g S te a d y G o n e W ith H o n o r (1 6 mm ) Kill or Be K illed La M o r t En D ir e c t (D e a th W a tc h )

G o la n G lo b u s P ro d u c tio n M in g C h i F ilm V e n tu re s In te rn a tio n a l S e lta F ilm /L ittle B e a r P ro d u c tio n N e w E m p ire F e a tu re s H e le n e F ilm s /P a ra d is e F ilm s

Isra e l T a iw a n S o u th A fric a

2 3 9 8 .4 0 1 0 2 1 .0 0 2 5 9 3 .5 8

S eve n K e y s F ilm s P /L C h in e s e C u ltu ra l C e n tre R o a d s h o w D is trib u to rs P /L

F ra n c e U.S. B e lg iu m

3 5 6 5 .9 0 2 3 1 4 .7 0 3 5 7 0 .6 6

C o n s o lid a te d E x h ib ito rs S eve n K e ys F ilm s P /L N a tio n a l Film T h e a tre of A u s tra lia

0 (a d u lt c o n c e p ts ) V (i-m -j)

F ra n c e U.S. U.S. U.S. H o ng K on g H o ng K ong T a iw a n H o n g K on g B rita in /U .S .

H o ng K on g Ja p a n U.S.

3 2 6 2 .9 0 2 5 9 3 .6 0 2 7 2 2 .7 6 3 0 7 4 .5 2 2 4 5 9 .6 2 2 4 2 6 .2 6 2 7 5 3 .7 0 2 9 8 4 .0 2 3 8 7 6 .5 7 2 5 1 3 .0 9 1 3 6 0 .2 8 3 6 8 1 .1 0

E u ro p e a n Film D is trib u to rs C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L U n ite d A rtis ts (A 'a sia ) P /L S e ve n K e y s F ilm s P /L C o m fo rt F ilm s JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film Co. JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l F ilm Co. JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l F ilm Co. W a rn e r B ro th e rs (A u s t) P /L M a n d a rin C in e m a P /L J a p a n In fo rm a tio n S e rv ic e C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L

S 0 V S V V V V V V 0 S

L a s t R ite s L es R e n d e z -V o u s D ’A nna L ’H o m m e Q ui A im a it Les F e m m es L ittle D a rlin g s T h e Long R id e rs T h e M a g ic ia n o f Lublin O ld S o ld ie rs N e v e r D ie P o iso n R o s e a n d T h e B o d y g u a rd S e r g e a n t H siung S h a o iin R e s c u e rs T h e S h in in g T h e S u p e r Kung Fu F ig h te r T h e T a le o f G en ji (1 6 m m ) U rb a n C o w b o y

L e s F ilm s Du C a rro s s e / L es A rtis te s A s s o c ie s P a ra m o u n t U n ite d A rtis ts G e ria III P ro d u c tio n s P. Y o u n g H in g Fat F ilm Co. C h in a M o tio n P ic tu re S tu d io S h a w B ro th e rs W a rn e r B ro th e rs IF D /J. Lai D a ie i M o tio n P ic tu re Co. P a ra m o u n t

K ong K on g K on g K on g

V (i-m -j) V (f-m -g ), L (i-m -g ) V (f-m -j), S (i-m -j) V V V V V V V 0 S V V

(i-m -j), L (f-m -j) (f-m -g ) (i-m -j) (f-m -j) (f-m -j) (f-m -g ) (i-m -j). (o c c u lt the m e ) (i-m -j), L (i-m -j) (f-m -j) (f-m -g )

O (a d u lt re la tio n s h ip s ) (f-l-j) (se xu a l c o n c e p ts ) (f-m -j) (i-m -j) (i-m -g ) (f-m -j) (f-m -j) (f-m -g ) (i-m -j). O (s u s p e n s e ) (f-m -g ) (a d u lt c o n c e p ts ) (i-l-j). V (i-m -j)

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” FILMS REGISTERED WITHOUT ELIMINATIONS B a rm a id T h e B ed S p re a d T h e D e s p e ra d o e s E d g e o f Fury

B. M a n sy T riu m p h F ilm s T in P in g Film Co. F irs t F ilm s

U.S. U.S. H o n g K on g H o ng K on g

1 5 5 0 .6 3 1 6 1 7 .5 0 2 5 6 5 .7 0 2 4 5 9 .6 2

F a n ta s y in B lu e (a) T h e G a m b le r T h e Is la n d (b) K is s M y A n a ly s t (1 6 m m ) L a d y C h a tte r le y V s. F a n n y Hill (c) M o n s te r (H u m an o id s fro m th e D e ep ) M o th e r K n o w s B e s t M y S w e d is h C o u s in s T h e S c a n d a lo u s W a rlo rd

F. Fox S h in S h in Film E n t C o rp .

P e te r B e n c h le y P ro d u c tio n s Don E n te rp ris e s B o rd e r F ilm P ro d u c tio n s N e w W o rld K irt F ilm s In te rn a tio n a l K irt F ilm s In te rn a tio n a l S h a w B ro th e rs

U.S. H o ng K on g U.S. U.S. B rita in U.S. U.S U.S. H o ng K on g

2 0 0 7 .9 4 2 6 2 0 .0 3 3 0 4 7 .8 0 5 3 7 .5 3 2 5 3 7 .0 0 2 2 0 3 .1 5 1 4 7 8 .0 6 1 6 4 5 .8 0 2 5 3 9 .8 2

(a) V e rs io n m e a s u rin g 2 2 2 2 .0 0 m e tre s p re v io u s ly re je c te d (F e b ru a ry 1 9 7 6 L ist). (b) S e e a ls o u n d e r "F ilm s B o a rd o f R e v ie w ".

1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L C o m fo rt Film E n te rp ris e s In te rn a tio n a l C in e m a O rg a n iz a tio n 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L m fo rt Film E n te rp ris e s ¡ema In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L M u tu a l Film D is trib u to rs V id e o C la s s ic s U n ite d A rtis ts (A ’a sia ) P /L 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L 1 4 th M a n d o lin P /L JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l Film C o .

S (f-m -g ) S (f-m -g ) V (f-m -g ) S S S V S

(i-m -g ), V (f-m -g ) (f-m -g ) (i-m -g ), V (f-m -g ) (f-m -g ) (f-m -g )

V (f-m -g ), 0 (h o rro r) S (f-m -g ) S (f-m -g ) S (f-m -j)

Concluded

O n

P.390

Cinema Papers, October-November — 387

cinematic services . . . THE PROFESSIONALS

ARE YOU AWARE

A u s tr a lia n F ilm a n d T e le v is io n S c h o o l a e

O p e n P ro g ra m

that Cinematics offer a greater range of film services and facilities than any other film equipment house in Australia?

New and used equipment, equipment repairs, custom made equipment, production offices and facilities, 16mm and 35mm double head theatre, PLUS:

FILM AND TELEV ISIO N PR O D U C T IO N C O U R SE A highly intensive course scheduled over 4 weeks in February 1981 for a maximum of 25 participants.

TECHNICAL & PRODUCTION CONSULTANCY Cinematic Services is owned and managed by two professional cinematographers, OSCAR SCHERL and KEITH LAMBERT. Their combined experience spans forty years and ranges through Feature films, Documentaries, Educational films, Commercials — you name it. This experience, and the contacts it has provided, is available to you through Cinematics’ Consultancy Service. If you have a problem in any phase of production from inception to viewing of rushes, call us and talk it over.

COMPUTERISED INFORMATION RETRIEVAL Over 1 80 libraries in North America and Europe now index articles, books, and reports in computer readable form. When you need comprehensive research on almost any subject from Aardvarks to Zymotics, Cinematics can get it for you FAST via satellite link, at surprisingly low cost.

Contact the professionals at:

3 WEEKS FULL TIME.

The course includes; 16mm camera familiarity and controls, cutting in the camera, film lighting, documentary direction, script writing, continuity, sound, interview techniques, shooting practical 16mm exercises both mute and sync sound, editing, production design, production management, marketing, television studio familiarity, television exercises including directing light entertainment and chroma key exercises, actor/director workshop, drama direction, discussions with directors, writers, producers, actors.

Entry to the course is by written application form and by selection committee. Write to Project Officer, Film & Television Production Course, Australian Film & Television School, Open Program, PO Box 126, North Ryde, N.S.W. 2113.

cinematic services pty limited 8 CLARENDON STREET, ARTARMON 2064 (02) 439 6144 Telex AA201 49 att. ST 102 Equipment Sales

—

1 WEEK PART TIME.

CLOSING DATE 14TH NOVEMBER 1980 No applications will be a c c e p te d after this date

Rentals — Services — Facilities

STIUS F0F MOVIES r

F/oWtfp* Q n l M i/l-fip le p r h fo fo r~ fra n 1 'o fsfio t/sc

Al So A V sl'0 ts t u p w , ór&ni/Hs, fifa overlays

press fcfh foom yct/r h e t i f o , ctrfrJork ifc j

orfown oi/r phofa^fapfo. jû h m

(W flA W te /k AM oa/pra !

2-3 cA/zoa/ S t . StnfTH A iecéO cJM Z 3 2 * f r t o t J Z ( o s ) 6 9 0 ib ? &

URI WINDT

you that not only did he have a hard job convincing us that he had total creative control, he also found some extraordinary difficulty con­ vincing the judge. I mean, that has to be bullshit. Otherwise, he would be arguing that the director has no creative control. Well, I would like to hear the director’s viewpoint about that one.

Uri Windt Continued from P. 330 To understand the Award and what it means, you have to under­ stand the way things used to operate before, which was on the basis of each individual’s film hav­ ing a separate industrial agreement with the union. There were two components: work conditions — when meal breaks should happen, rates of pay, etc. — and the rights associated with the film. Each pro­ ducer, before starting production, would tell us his problems and we would tailor an agreement around a specific situation.

To some extent, producers were a bit resentful about that — not that we took advantage of them, but they felt vulnerable in terms of being lqap-frogged over. Producers also felt vulnerable in that they couldn’t plan 12 or 18 months in advance. They wanted to know what our requirements would be at that time, so that they wouldn’t be caught short-footed. Not unreason­ able propositions, either of them.

We then started discussions and' reached substantial agreement. But the producers wanted to hurry things along, and whacked in a log o f c l a i m s . We h a d mo r e negotiations — most of these took place around the questions of rights, as distinct from conditions — and finally the Award was in­ corporated in November 1979.

I am sure you would have heard accusations of bad faith — that we won’t play by the rules, and that within six months of the Award being passed we were already playing silly buggers with it. I don’t think that’s quite true. The Award really resolved the conflicts and dilemmas of the past; by the time of its incorporation, the rules had changed. We are accused of bad faith because we had to respond to what we saw as a crisis. All I can say is, that for a crisis to have arisen within the first six months of the Award, the preparatory plan­ ning must have been made well be­ fore the Award was completed.

And it was never raised with us.

It has been suggested that during the formulation of the Award, some pro­ ducers felt they were being a carte blanche to import whomever they liked, provided they paid the pen­ alties. Was that possibility ever discussed?

One point to come out of “The Survivor” case was the question of completion guarantees. If it is be­ coming increasingly difficult to get completion guarantees within Australia, what effect will this have on the Award?

British director David Hemmings on location in Australia for The Survivor. The producer is Antony Ginnane.

work. What happens is that one side serves a log of claims, and you negotiate a conclusion. What you are saying to each other is, “ Let’s have a truce for a certain period of time” . The normal time is 12 months, but we agreed to make it 18 months. At the end of those 18 months, the truce is over, and if one side wants to change something, that’s well and good. But if both parties are happy, you can let it go.

It has been alleged that your new policy contravenes the Award . . .

I don’t think so. I can’t see where it does. We are merely looking to­ wards a realistic interpretation of the provision in the Award, which says that artists have to be of inter­ national distinction and merit. We are looking for the genuine article.

The Award is between Equity and the Film and Television Production Association of Australia. What hap­ pens if a producer is not a member of the FTPAA? He either becomes a member or gives us an undertaking that he will be bound by the Award. If there are some peculiarities on a particular film, a separate industrial agree­ ment can be negotiated. I can’t think of any, but one possibility is an animated film which involves only voice-over people.

What is the position of overseas pro­ ducers wishing to make a film in Australia?

They would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. If you are look­ ing at an American production coming into Australia, we are Yes, but not in an overt way. It bound by the statutes of the Inter­ was discussed as the question of an national Federation of Actors. easing of that criterion. But what Whatever the terms are between the was made very clear throughout the two countries involved, the higher discussion was that the question of terms should operate. Certainly, if international distinction and merit an American producer should come to this country and want to pro­ was never a negotiable item. duce something, we would ask that The Award came in November 1979 Screen Actors Guild rates and for 18 months. Will it then be re­ residuals apply.

As for the rest of it, we would negotiated? have to know what kind of pro­ No, that is not the way awards duction we were looking at. There

is not much experience of that in this country, and the nearest thing is a couple of television-type pro­ ductions, like the McCloud episode shot here. We are not vastly ex­ perienced in dealing with American producers.

If an overseas producer arranges a co-production, with only minimal Australian government involve­ ment, would he come under the new policy?

If the producer is not Australian, there would be the question of whether he is the holder of the copyright and so on. But we wouldn’t think the Australian fund­ ing bodies would go into partner­ ship with overseas corporations in terms of film production. Their role is to develop an Australian film industry, using the resources of Australians in that situation. So, I don’t know what kind of examples you are thinking of.

It is conceivable that a film such as “The Blue Lagoon” could be made here, with some government involve­ ment . . .

Is it?

Isn’t it?

Well, let’s look at The Survivor, which is an example par excellence of muddled thinking on behalf of a government corporation. Here you have SAFC money in a film that has a foreign writer, a foreign director and foreign actors. You have substantial foreign creative control in that film.

But the producer, an Australian, legally retains all the creative con­ trol, in Australia . . .

Words fail me when talking about that producer. I know the contracts you are talking about.

That was one of the first bones of contention.

The first dispute that arose over the Award was over The Survivor, with Tony Ginnane wanting to import four overseas actors. In fact, he took us to court. Let me tell

The Award provides for the cate­ gorization of the film: A, which is all-Australian; B, which is totally Australian bar the actors; and C, which has some personnel who are overseas people. We felt one could best judge the classification on where the money came from. The producers disagreed and proposed an alternative, which was screen credits. If the strings are real, they argued, these will show up on the screen credits.

One of the propositions was the question of completion guarantees.

At the time, there were no overseas companies involved in providing completion guarantees. An over­ whelming number of them came from government funding bodies.

The producers suggested that if there is an Australian completion guarantor, one can be pretty certain it is an Australian proposition. If it is an o v e r s e a s c o mp l e t i o n guarantor, it may signal the exist­ ence of silent, foreign partners.

We finally agreed to this pro­ position, but within a couple of months of the Award being final­ ized, Film Financiers Ltd. (U.K.) came on the scene. Two British guys came out and we had a yarn.

Our interest was whether they exerted any creative control over a film, because if they did, bang!

They said they wanted to try out the Australian film industry on a filmby-film basis before they got in too deep. We wanted to treat them on a one-off basis, as well.

At the same time, we were getting a lot of pressure from the government funding bodies, which were dying to get out of that overage guarantee situation, so that they would have more money to in­ vest in films. So, Film Financiers seemed to us an attractive proposi­ tion.

We are not unmindful, however, that there is a counter-argument: that is, by using Film Financiers, or a similar type of company, there may be a tendency to inflate the budgets to minimize their risk.

Now, that has to be thought about.

If it turns out to be a problem, then I think the industry as a whole needs to ask whether it should be encouraged, or should it go back to the scheme where the government corporations look after that end of things.

Concluded on P. 390 Cinema Papers, October-November — 389

URI WINDT

Uri Windt Continued from P.389

CENSORSHIP LISTINGS

Film Censorship Listings Continued from P.387 (c) P re v io u s ly re g is te re d a s G a m e s T h a t Lo v ers P la y (F e b ru a ry 1 9 7 3 List).

At the time of “Roadgames”, each state office of Equity could give decisions as to classification or importation of an overseas actor.

Apparently this situation has changed . . .

No. What used to happen was that negotiations were local, then there would be consultation and a decision conferred back. What hap­ pened on Roadgames was that the consultation between Richard Franklin and the Melbourne office was assumed to be a final answer.

Franklin went away and con­ tracted himself, and then tried to face us with a problem, saying, “ I am $800,000 in debt, and if you don’t give me what I want, you are going to send me bankrupt” . That put us in an invidious position.

So, in looking at that kind of problem, we decided it would be better to issue some clear guide­ lines on what we are doing. Then, if somebody tries that again, they do so at their own risk.

So Melbourne could not have given Franklin the go-ahead . . .

Well, the consultations had not been completed internally within our organization. I think Franklin went off on his own and then faced us with a problem — the same as Tony Ginnane did on The Survivor.

That’s an awesome power for the union to have, and we are very re­ luctant to use it.

S p e c ia l C o n d itio n : T h a t th e film w ill be e x h ib ite d o n ly at th e 1 9 8 0 S y d n e y /M e lb o u r n e /B r is b a n e /P e r th a n d /o r A d e la id e Film F e s tiv a ls a n d th e n e x p o rte d .

3 0 4 5 .0 0 2 6 0 6 .0 0 2 4 9 6 .0 0 2 6 0 6 .0 0 2 6 1 5 .0 0 3 5 5 0 .0 0 2 4 4 2 .0 0 2 5 5 1 .0 0 3 0 0 0 .0 0 2 6 0 0 .0 0 3 9 6 0 .0 0 3 7 0 0 .0 0 2 3 3 1 .0 0

S y d n e y Film F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e s tiv a l In d ia n O c e a n F ilm F e s tiv a l M e lb o u rn e Film F e stiva l S y d n e y F ilm F e stiva l S y d n e y F ilm F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e stiva l M e lb o u rn e Film F e stiva l S y d n e y F ilm F e s tiv a l M e lb o u rn e F ilm F e stiva l M e lb o u rn e F ilm F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e stiva l

M. L e h m u s k a llio F ilm B u lg a ria B. F o rs y th H u n g a ro film

B u lg a ria F ra n ce N o rw a y Iran H u n g a ry W . G e rm a n y W. G e rm a n y U.S. S w eden S p a in P h ilip p in e s S o v ie t U n io n W. G e rm a n y F ra n c e / B e lg iu m F in la n d B u lg a ria B rita in H u n g a ry

2 4 6 9 .0 0 2 1 8 9 .0 0 2 4 9 6 .0 0 2 4 6 9 .0 0 2 6 6 8 .0 0

S y d n e y Film F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e s tiv a l S y d n e y Film F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e s tiv a l M e lb o u rn e Film F e s tiv a l

S re d e ts G ro u p /F ilm B u lg a ria C a ta ly s t F ilm s S tra y C a t P ro d u c tio n s

B u lg a ria U.S. U.S.

2 3 8 7 .0 0 2 7 1 6 .0 0 7 0 5 .0 0

S y d n e y Film F e stiva l S y d n e y Film F e s tiv a l S y d n e y Film F e stiva l

B o o m e ran g C o ld C u ts C ro w n P rin c e T h e C y c le F a th e r G e rm a n y P a le M o th e r T h e G re e n Bird H e a rtla n d Linus M a m a T urns 1 0 0 M a n ila : In T h e C la w s o f D a rk n e s s M irro r M o n a rc h M y D a rlin g

B u lg a ro film S a ra F ilm s EM I P ro d u k s jo n A /S D. M e h rju i M a film /H u n g a ro film U. L u d w ig M. D u rn io k S m ith /F e rris /H a u s m a n S w e d is h Film In s titu te E. Q u e re je ta P. R is s ie n t S o v e x p o rtfilm M u lle r/B e ttin g T. M o lie re

R a v e n ’s D a n c e Swap T h a t S in k in g F e eling 2 5 F ire m a n ’s S tr e e t T h e U n k n o w n S o ld ie r’s P a te n t L e a th e r S h o e s T h e W a r At H om e T h e W iz a rd o f W a u k e s h a (1 6 m m )

S p e c ia l C o n d itio n : T h a t th e film b e s h o w n o n ly to its m e m b e rs b y th e N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia in its 1 9 8 0 "C o n d itio n s o f P ro d u c tio n ” S ea so n.

From th e C lo u d to T h e R e s is ta n c e

N ot s h o w n

F ra n c e /lta ly

2 8 2 5 .2 9

N a tio n a l Film T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia

S p e c ia l C o n d itio n : T h a t th e film be s h o w n o n ly to its m e m b e rs b y th e N a tio n a l Film T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia in its 1 9 8 0 "C h a n ta l A k e rm a n : F e m in is t C in e m a H o te l M o n te re y (1 6 m m )

P a ra d is e F ilm s /C . A k e rm a n

B e lg iu m

9 8 7 .0 0

S e a so n.

N a tio n a l Film T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia

FOR MATURE AUDIENCES “M” FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS Title

Producer

Country

Submitted Length (m) Applicant

S n a k e In th e M o n k e y ’s S h a d o w D e le tio n s : 9 1 .1 0 m e tre s (3 m in s 1 9 s e cs) R e a so n fo r d e le tio n s : 0 (a n im a l c ru e lty )

Not show n

H ong K on g

2 3 8 6 .0 0

JS & W C In te rn a tio n a l F ilm Co.

Reason for Decision V (f-m -g )

FOR RESTRICTED EXHIBITION “R” FILMS REGISTERED WITH ELIMINATIONS D y n a s ty Film D is trib u to rs

S (f-m -g ), V (f-m -g )

5 9 m in s

E le c tric B lu e (A ust.) P /L

S (f-m -g )

2 5 6 5 .7 0

W. Y au

V (f-m -g )

D ia m o n d s on H e r N a k e d Fles h (a) D e le tio n s : 5 .5 0 m e tre s (1 2 s e cs) R e aso n fo r d e le tio n s : S (i-h -g )

G.D. F ilm s

G re e c e

3 0 8 0 .0 0

E le c tric B lu e 0 0 2 (re vise d v e rs io n ) R e aso n fo r d e le tio n s : S (i-h -g )

E le c tric P u b lic a tio n s

B rita in

T h e T h u n d e rin g M a n tis D e le tio n s : 1 6 .4 0 m e tre s (3 6 s e cs) R e a s o n fo r d e le tio n s : V (i-h -g )

E a st A s ia (H.K.) Film Co.

H o ng K on g

(a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n a s " M ” (F e b ru a ry 1 9 7 5 L ist) in an E n g lish s u b title d v e rs io n m e a s u rin g 2 8 0 0 m e tre s.

, T a x i G irls

FILMS REFUSED REGISTRATION S u p e rfilm

U.S.

1 9 5 1 .9 0

M u tu a l Film D is trib u to rs

S (f-h -g ), V ( i-h -g )

FILMS BOARD OF REVIEW T h e Isla n d

P e te r B e n c h le y P ro d u c tio n s

U.S.

3 0 4 7 .8 0

C in e m a In te rn a tio n a l C o rp . P /L

D e c is io n R e v ie w e d . “ R ” re g is tra tio n b y th e Film C e n s o rs h ip B oard.

D e c is io n o f th e B oard: U p h o ld th e d e c is io n o f th e Film C e n s o rs h ip B oard.

What is the procedure now? date. There has been a great deal of invective thrown around, and it has tended to focus on the imports question, for very real reasons. We need now to get a broader view of where we are going in the industry.

We would like to play a part in that, and there are a number of other points that need to be stated.

1. If private funds are so dif­ ficult to come by, as the producers keep saying, then we have to look at government bodies providing 100 per cent finance, both individually and collectively. So, rather than, by definition, forcing an economic crisis on producers — that is, by saying one can’t exceed 60 per cent government finance — they can provide a solution.

2. It seems to me that govern­ ment bodies should clearly establish their priorities, and that their first priority should be to fund all­ Australian films.

3. The relationship of the ex­ hibitors and distributors to the in­ The Future dustry must be examined. A limit should be set to the number of How do you view the future of the imported prints and beyond a certain number, say five, those industry? prints should be struck in Australia.

It seems to me that the time has The consequent benefits to the labs come for a more intelligent debate would flow back into the pro­ than the one that has taken place to duction of the Australian films.

Much as before, in that initial consultations can take place at any one of our offices throughout Australia. We have also instigated a mechanism for internal dis­ cussion, so that each proposal can be looked at and discussed in a national, consultative way. But the initial input and final output goes through our federal office, so that there is only one place which can give an answer.

This does not mean we have set up some bureaucratic or dictat­ orial machinery, whereby, for argu­ ment’s sake, I sit and sign death warrants for productions. It is simply a machinery where I am the post-office box through which the mail comes.

It is quite clear that it would be totally unsatisfactory if producers thought they could play one office against another. No organization can work like that.

390 — Cinema Papers. October-November

4. Similarly the levy that is Would you have a prices commis­ struck on overseas remittances sion examine it, or set up some sort should be increased and directly of formula? funnelled into the industry. This would end the false notion of sub­ I am not talking about a quasi­ sidization. judicial sort of organization, but 5. As new technology is pro­ rather an internal industry-based duced, the ownership and control of mechanism that sets a certain fee as segments of it should go to the pub­ a mi ni mum for any sale to lic segment. The film industry Australian television. The figure should be incorporated in that part, can then be reviewed periodically. so that the various government 7. Given the substantial funds funding bodies get their own cable bodies like the AFC and the New television outlets, and so on.

South Wales Film Corporation put 6. It seems to me that there into shorts and experimental films, ought to be a reasonable look at the they ought to have the courage of relationship between the film in­ their convictions and see it through. dustry and television stations, and They should provide for the that producers ought not be forced packaging of short films with to sell stupendously high-rating Australian features for exhibition programs for peanuts. Some in the theatres. private mechanism should be de­ 8. The last point I’ll make, which vised to work out what an accept­ will create a wonderful talking point, is that all foreign films, able figure is.

American included, ought to be How would you arrange such a dubbed by Australians. That involves a whole lot of concepts, mechanism? i ncl udi ng our own cul t ur al It would be a question of dis­ autonomy. Let them chew that cussion and assessment of the value idea! of the film. You could do a cost analysis in terms of ratings of How seriously are you suggesting Australian films, and what they that? mean in terms of audiences and revenue for television stations.

We are suggesting it. ★

PRODUCTION SURVEY/NEW ZEALAND NEWS

Production Survey Continued from P.367 G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ..............................................In re le a s e F irs t r e le a s e d .....................S e p te m b e r, 1980 Synopsis: A n In s tru c tio n a l film o n a s p e c ts o t d ra in a g e . P ro d u c e d fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n (T .A .F .E . D ivisio n ).

MELBOURNE — CITY OF THE SOUTH E xec, p ro d u c e r L e n g th ................

G a u g e ................

S h o o tin g s to c k P ro g re s s .........

K e n t C h a d w ic k ..............20 m in s ................35 m m .. E a s tm a n c o lo r P re -p ro d u c tio n

TELEVISION NEWS

S c h e d u le d re le a s e .......................................1981 S yn o p sis : A p r o m o t io n a l d o c u m e n ta r y a b o u t M e lb o u rn e in all its a s p e c ts f o r in te r­ n a tio n a l re le a s e . M a d e fo r th e M e lb o u rn e T o u ris t A u th o r ity a nd th e V ic to ria n G o v e rn ­ m e n t T o u r is t A u th o rity .

Y o u th , S p o rt a nd R e c re a tio n a n d th e A n ti­ C a n c e r C o u n c il o f V ic to ria .

THROUGH THE EYES OF A CHILD

S c r ip t w r it e r .............................T e rry M c M a h o n E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................K e n t C h a d w ic k L e n g th .......................................................24 m in s SMOKING AND THE TEENAGE G a u g e .........................................................16 m m CONSUMER S h o o tin g s t o c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n P ro d , c o m p a n y .....................D e n n is T u p ic o ff S c h e d u le d re le a s e ................J a n u a ry , 1981 A n im a tio n A lo o k at th e w o rld o f la n g u a g e s A n i m a t o r .......................................................D e n n is T u pSynopsis: ic o ff a nd th e ir s ig n ific a n c e in n ew m ig ra n t c o m ­ S o u n d e d ito r .................................... M ik e R eid m u n itie s as se en th r o u g h th e e ye s o f E xec, p ro d u c e r ....................... K e n t C h a d w ic k c h ild re n . M a d e f o r th e D e p a rtm e n t o f Im ­ L e n g th ......................................................... 6 m in s m ig ra tio n a n d E th n ic A ffa irs .

G a u g e ......................................................... 16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ............................................. In re le a s e THE UNSUSPECTING CONSUMER F irs t r e le a s e d .................... S e p te m b e r, 1980 S yn o p sis : A n a n im a te d film , f o r e a r ly D ire c to r ............. . . . P e te r G re en te e n a g e rs , a b o u t th e im m e d ia te s h o r t- te rm K e n t C h a d w ic k E xec, p ro d u c e r e ffe c ts o f s m o k in g as a d e te rre n t to e a rly L e n g th ................ ..............10 m in s a d d ic tio n . P ro d u c e d fo r the D e p a rtm e n t of G a u g e .............. ................16 m m

New Zealand News Continued from P.369 Ginnane, however, attributed the shift to the stand recently adopted by Actors Equity over the use of foreign actors. In a recent press statement, Ginnane said: “Yankee Zephyr’s large budget has significant U.S. and British invest­ ment, and my intention was to import three or four ‘international’ stars for the leading roles to enable us to cover the budget by presales. The recent decision by Actors Equity to limit to two the allowable number of imported performers in a totally privateiy-financed production has made this impossible. “ Accordingly, scriptwriter Everett de Roche relocated the action ad­ venture epic in New Zealand where import restrictions do not apply.”

Ginnane’s decision means that some 20 Australian actors and 35 Australian

Television News Continued from P. 349 When Gyngell’s term as head of the Broadcasting Tribunal ended, Kerry Packer is believed to have tried to lure him to work for the Nine Network, but Gyngell opted for the IMBC appoint­ ment. Packer, if not already, could soon be wishing he had tried harder.

Bruce Gyngell.

Inquiry into Cable The A u s tra lia n B ro a d c a s tin g Tribunal will hold an inquiry into cable and subscription television, and related matters. Submissions to the Tribunal can be lodged until December 14, after which dates and venues will be set for hearings.

Aspects of cable television to be covered by the inquiry include types of services, econom ic and technical aspects, legal and regulatory require­ ments and programming and services.

Shortly before resigning his post as

technicians who would have been employed in the production will be replaced by New Zealanders.

New Unit Manager The New Zealand National Film Unit has a new general manager. He is Doug Eckhoff, a journalist, who for some years was Head of News for Television One. He takes over from David Fowler, who resigned because of ill-health.

Archive Plans Five trustees have been named to set up New Zealand’s first National Film Archive. The long-overdue move in­ volves setting up a trust which will be responsible for running the archive.

The first trustee to be named is David Fowler, who recently retired from his position of general manager of the National Film Unit. He will be trustee for the New Zealand Film Commission.

Minister for Post and Telecommunica­ tions, Mr Tony Staley issued a policy statement on cable television. He recognized it as a medium which placed Australia on the threshold of a revolution in broadcasting technology.

Mr Staley has avoided involvement in the revolution.

Although still a few years away, cable television promises to be a boon to local producers, actors and video film producers. For exam ple, in Los Angeles there are at least 75 separate cable television channels, offering everything from ethnic programs, cap­ tioned programs for those hard of hearing, a classified ads channel, en­ vironmental reports, computer televi­ sion games, and network-affiliated c h a n n e ls o ffe rin g a v a rie ty of programs.

This offers many new outlets for producers, and a source of finance for new projects.

The Australian Government sees cable te le v is io n as a m eans of providing a wider range of program choice, so that television satisfies more people.

While of obvious benefit to viewers, cable television poses a real threat to commercial television. By fragmenting the audience, it will certainly draw viewers away from major channels. It will be interesting to see the television industry’s reaction to cable television at the forthcoming inquiry hearings.

For the record, cable television reaches one-fifth of homes in the U.S. with television sets. That’s an audience of 16 million from a potential 78 million.

By the late 1980s, it is expected that half of the U.S. households with televi­ sion will be hooked up to cable.

A recent ratings survey, conducted by the Nielsen organization, showed cable television had a 10 per cent market share — only three per cent b ehind two of the th re e m a jo r networks, CBC and NBC.

McNair Anderson Sell Out A small black box attached to the back of television sets could soon

S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........... D e c e m b e r, 1980 Synopsis: A n a n im a te d film on th e p itfa lls of th e m a rk e tp la c e . M a d e fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t o f C o n s u m e r A ffa irs .

WESTERNPORT CATCHMENT AREA P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ......................V ic to ria n F ilm C o rp o r a tio n a nd A u s tra lia n B ro a d c a s tin g C o m m is s io n D ire c to r ...........................................H a rris S m a rt S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................H a rris S m a rt.

E xec, p ro d u c e r .....................K e n t C h a d w ic k L e n g th ..............................................3 x 30 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........... N o v e m b e r, 1980 Synopsis: A s e rie s o f th re e d o c u m e n ta rie s on th e e ffe c ts o f in d u s tria liz a tio n on a n ew c o m m u n ity . C o -p ro d u c e d b y th e V ic to ria n

Radio Station Calls for Private Ownership of Television Leading private radio operator and fo rm e r p ira te s ta tio n , H a u ra k i Enterprises, has called for one of New Zealand’s two channels to be handed to private enterprise. Hauraki, which operates Radio Hauraki, holds 30 per cent of Wellington’s Radio Windy, and 25 per cent of Auckland’s Radio 1.

Earlier this year Hauraki made a bid to lease television time and provide joint ATN Channel 7-Hauraki coverage of the Moscow Olympics. Although this bid was turned down, Hauraki has continued to advance its plans and recently appointed Mike Wall as ex­ e cu tive d ire c to r re s p o n s ib le fo r development of television. Wall was a founder of Colenso, New Zealand’s largest advertising agency.

Hauraki’s chairman Peter Dew says: “ The latest restructuring efforts in decide the fate of most programs. The McNair Anderson research company, which for years has compiled program ratings — has sold a majority interest in the company to AGB Research, a British-based corporation.

McNair Anderson use a diary system to determine the ratings for television stations and advertisers. But the British firm has been using ‘black boxes’ — wired directly to a central computer through telephone lines — for several years in England and Europe, giving almost instant information on the number of sets tuned to any program at any time.

The Roy Morgan Research Centre set up a similar system in Melbourne about two years ago, using more than 400 of the black boxes around the metropolitan area. However, most sta­ tions still rely on the McNair Anderson figures.

F ilm C o rp o r a tio n a n d th e A u s tra lia n B ro a d ­ c a s tin g C o m m is s io n fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t o f th e P re m ie r.

WINNING P ro d , c o m p a n y ............................K e s tre l F ilm s D i r e c t o r .......................................D a v id M o rg a n P h o to g r a p h y ...............................A le x M c P h e e S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... J o h n R o w le y E d i t o r ..............................................D a v id M o rg a n E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k L e n g th ........................................................ 24 m in s G a u g e .........................................................16 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ................................................In re le a s e F irs t r e le a s e d ....................... S e p te m b e r, 1980 Synopsis: S e t a g a in s t a b a c k g ro u n d o f n ew c a re a v a ila b le f o r th e m e n ta lly h a n d ic a p p e d . th e d o c u m e n ta ry tra c e s a w e e k In th e live s of tw o y o u n g in te lle c tu a lly h a n d ic a p p e d p e o p le — th e ir h is to ry a nd a s p ira tio n s . P ro d u c e d fo r th e H e a lth C o m ­ m is s io n . ' k

respect of television services in New Zealand has, in our view, proved even less likely to succeed than the many others that have preceded it.

Clearly it is the staffing and ad­ ministration structure which remains the basic reason for the inability of the existing service to operate with efficiency.

The quality of programming has suffered dem onstrably and the B ro a d ca stin g C o rp o ra tio n can neither generate the resources, nor recruit and hold the talent necessary to provide to the New Zealand public the television services it is entitled to, and for the present expected to pay for.

We believe the solution lies in the ownership of one of the two existing channels by private enterprise. No subsidy in the form of licence fees would be needed to support private ownership which would succeed with p ro g ra m m in g im a g in a tio n and operation efficiencies.” ★ director of This Fabulous Century, the series budget is in excess of $1 million.

Judy Green, Vincent Smith, Tony Barber and Simonette Gardiner. Sale of the Century.

Top Ratings for Quiz Show New Series for Luck Peter Luck has teamed with the local arm of the American Hanna-Barbera company to produce a new series of 20 documentaries titled The Australians, a follow -up to his successful This Fabulous Century programs.

The s e rie s of c o n te m p o ra ry documentaries on Australian themes will be screened by the Seven Network starting early next year. The network has agreed to take the 20 programs in half-hour and hour episodes.

Luck explained: “We wanted to re­ tain the ability to cover almost any topic, and not every subject has enough ‘legs’ for a full hour. So, the network has taken the plunge and agreed to buy program s of both durations.”

Each episode of The Australians is being produced on a 14-week turn­ around, with four producer-directors overlapping their research and shoot periods to keep two film crews in the field. Filmed in 16mm, and edited on film, the series will be post-produced on videotape.

Produced and directed by David Salter, who was also producer and

Since 1957, when Bob Dyer greeted viewers with a “ Howdy, customers” on television’s first quiz show, Pick-a-Box, game shows have been a part of Australian television tradition.

The Nine Network’s Sale of the Cen­ tury, hosted by Tony Barber, is carrying on that tradition in a manner that has baffled critics. The combination of “gol­ ly gee whiz” compere Barber, a bevy of buxom bikini-clad beauties and an array of dazzling prizes such as overseas trips, lounge suites and luxury cars, has cut a swathe through the ratings, topping all in its path.

Mike Willesee recently celebrated his fourth year at Channel Seven in the 7 p.m. timeslot with a rating figure — probably his worst in 1000 shows — which he admitted would mean the axe for any other show.

To date, none of the other commer­ cial stations has mounted a challenge to Sale of the Century, perhaps hoping that it will have a fall from favor as meteoric as its rise. But while Willesee’s tired format remains, along with the repeats of M*A*S*H on Channel 10, Sale of the Century seems in little danger. ★

Cinema Papers. October-November — 391

CRUISING

Cruising Continued from P. 324 Cruising’s greatest insight and its finest irony.

These gays, logically, should perceive that they are a challenge to the social/sexual norm and become accordingly radicalized. Instead, they shut themselves up in a ghetto to which society is happy to relegate them and mimic the brutal and brutalizing values of that society. This seems to me a provocation that the gay community should seriously debate rather than merely deride.3 The web of associations and links which draw police and homosexuals together around the theme of power are condensed in the scene where the police, during their investigation of a suspected killer, arrange for a huge Negro strongman to suddenly burst into the room and slap the suspect (and Burns) around.

Friedkin presents the scene with no narrative explanation before or after, with the result that some have claimed it to be a particularly absurd and sensationalist part of the film. But I would argue that its symbolic connotations are very rich.

The Negro, on the one hand, embodies the energies repressed by white society, shut away in ghettos like the gays. This points to a more general social repression, not just a sexual one.

Equally, the Negro stands for the super-phallus, the hyper-virile male. And finally, wearing a cowboy hat, he signifies homosexuality itself, or the kind of homosexuality which identifies with the icons of phallocratic power.

But all this energy is used by the police for their own ends, transformed into a tool of social control which evokes fear and prompts submis­ siveness. To dismantle this system of domination would mean dismantling all the cultural mean­ ings and transformations upon which it depends.

Within the patriarchal structures depicted in the film, law proceeds from the Father, and the film is full of actual or symbolic fathers: Burns has Edelson as well as his own father to live up to; Richards’ psychosis stems from his relationship with his father. When the fabric of the social order begins to crumble, the Father’s command is to eliminate whatever threatens it: Richards imagines (remembers?) his father tell­ ing him, “ You know what you have to do . . .”

In fact, the Film makes it clear that Richards is literally ‘not himself when he kills — he speaks with his father’s voice and is devoured by the father’s aggressive drive.4 Within this context the role of Edelson is par3. See, for example, the dismissive comments made on the film and its possible interpretations in recent issues of the gay newspaper Campaign.

4. This offers a fascinating parallel to Psycho. At the end of Hitchcock's film, Norman Bates, ‘consumed' by his mother, can deny all the murders he has committed: Richards, having become his father, can make the same denial.

The dark, film noir world of Cruising.

392 — Cinema Papers, October-November

problem only when he knifes the killer with almost as much vehemence as the killer’s own victims are disposed of.

But all resolutions are thrown into doubt by the final scenes of the film. Richards is arrested, but another homosexual is found dead, and it is Ted, Burns’ neighbor in the apartment block. If Gregory is the killer, a reason suggested for the murder — “ a lovers’ quarrel” — refers not to any inherent quality of gay relationships, but far more a defining characteristic of the dominant heterosexual pattern: mutual possessiveness between two people, with all its attendant Richards and Burns in Central Park. Cruising. jealousies and tensions.

If Burns, in a further unseen act of aggression against his own gay impulse, is the killer, then ticularly complex. One might imagine him to be this throws into question everything we have the principal virile father of the film, sending out assumed about the relationship between him and his ‘son’ to clean up the sordid gay world. This is Ted. Earlier in the film, Ted is presented as a hardly the case. Not only can one sense a certain sympathy or even empathy on his part towards ‘good’, normal homosexual, someone who can gays (evident, for example, in the way one of the be tolerated by society, and who in turn respects harassed characters from the opening scene it. Visually, he is never connected with the comes to him for appeal); more importantly, leather nightlife, and his physical contact with Edelson possesses none of the attributes of Burns extends no further than a good-buddy jab phallic power. Quite the contrary: he limps on the shoulder. But, reading back from this (classic Hollywood sign of a castrated male), scene, Ted’s remarks that he is “seething” , and and while Burns and Richards play strenuous, understands why people get into the leather-set, ‘masculine’ sports (body-building, football), he or Gregory’s allusion to a time when Ted as­ can only play chess and pool, and plays them sociated with ‘trash’, take on a new significance, casting doubts over the apparent innocence or on his own.

Edelson is indeed another victim of the system asexuality of his involvement with Burns — and — the State system and the patriarchal system. thus over Burns’ reaction to his own desires.

He himself is subject to a ‘father’, his superior, DiSimone is present as the police search the who orders that the investigation be speeded up murder scene, again suggesting that aggression and the case closed for the sake of political gain. can come not from individual ‘madmen’ but This demand prompts the brutal treatment of from the social order itself. Edelson also ap­ the suspect, which is essentially an attempt to pears, again impotent in the face of the events elicit a confession of guilt, even if it is not true. and their significance, which he fully realizes.

Friedkin dissolves from Edelson looking at Throughout the film, Edelson is the one who knows about the victimization of gays by the corpse to a shot of a man, seen from the policemen, but can do nothing — how could a back, entering a gay bar, an almost exact police chief be seen to support what is deemed duplication of the first shot of the killer men­ socially abnormal? Symbolically, Edelson has tioned above. This character is not meant to be become castrated because he is a prisoner in a identified. He stands for any or all of the film’s system which drains him of any genuine possible killers.

The final scene between Burns and Nancy is humanity or sexuality. He is merely a position, a function; he tells Burns, “ It’s only a job” , and remarkably ambiguous, inviting two equally detective work is referred to as a “body count” . contradictory readings. Burns turns his gaze to Aggression does not only run from ‘normal’ the camera as, off-screen, his girlfriend ap­ society to homosexuals. The film suggests a proaches wearing the killer’s gear. What is second reason for its causes: killing homo­ Burns’ silent address to the camera meant to tell sexuals is a way of killing the homosexual part us: that he is about to kill her (i.e., a further of oneself. aggression against both gays and women, as at The true threat in the film is bisexuality, and the film’s start)? Is the boat in the final shot all the dissolution of fixed identities that entails. about to find her body in the river? Or is it that The police are fascinated by homosexuality as at last fixed sexual identities have been stripped much as they actively hate it. Edelson knows away, and that the scene celebrates the everything about the gay scene as if he were an emergence of a playful, bisexual desire?

This ambiguity is not a problem. In fact, insider; the patrol cop gets sucked; and DiSimone is seen frequently in the bars — Cruising’s greatest strength is that it can only be whether pretending to be gay or actually so is read if one is ready to question one’s own as­ not made clear. But a homosexual impulse in­ sumptions — as a film viewer, and as a subject adequately repressed leads to murder. Richards’ within this society. ★ words to each of his victims as he knifes them — “ You made me do that” — seem to mean: you must die for arousing and satisfying the desire I must repress.

Burns is also, and especially, implicated in this knot of repression and aggression. A scene abruptly begins with him vigorously thrusting into Nancy, in an attempt to affirm his masculinity (his phallus) as well as his heterosex­ uality. But even as he does this, he wears the studded leather wristband which is part of his gay outfit; his repression is incomplete. Later he is followed out of a gay bar and propositioned — “That bulge in your pants ain’t a knife” — a proof of his desire that clearly troubles him.

The backlash of aggression occurs later when he bashes in a door to get to Ted’s flatmate Edelson and a police pathologist examine the X-ray of a murdered man. Cruising.

Gregory, an act whose violence far exceeds im­ mediate provocation. Burns resolves his identity

A n indispensable reference book for anyone working in, or dealing with, the Australian film industry M O TIO N PIC T U R E YEARBO O K

1980

Edited by Peter Beilby For the first time, a comprehensive guide to every major aspect of the Australian film industry.

Contents include ★ National listings of Producers, Directors, Production Companies, Organizations, Distributors and Exhibitors, Media, Festivals and Awards ★ Details on Film Investment, Tax, Trade Incentives, Copyright and Censorship ★ Profiles on two outstanding new directors — Gillian Armstrong and George Miller ★ A detailed round-up of recent developments in the Australian film industry.

320 pages, illustrated throughout, 250mm x 176mm.

Solidly bound with a laminated cover in full color.

Published by Cinema Papers Pty Ltd in association with The New South Wales Film Corporation

$ 2 5

(post free within Australia)

International Postage Rates (per copy).

A dd the relevant charges to your order.

Zone 1

Zone 4

New Zealand, Papua New Guinea.

Surface: Aust.S3.30 Surface Air Lift: N/A Airmail: Aust.S5.70

U.S.A., Israel.

Surface: Ausi. $3.30 Surface Air Lift: Aust.S5.50 Airmail: Aust.Si 1.10

Zone 2

Zone 5

Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Indonesia, etc.

Surface: Aust.S3.30 Surface Air Lift: N/A Airmail: Aust.S7.10

Britain, Europe.

Surface: Aust.S3.30 Surface Air Lift: Aust.$5.50 Airmail: Aust.S12.50

Zone 3 India, Japan.

Surface: Aust. S3.30 Surface Air Lift: N/A Airmail: Aust.SB.50

Allow up to three weeks for processing.

BACK ISSUES SALE Take advantage of our special offer and catch up on your missing issues. Multiple copies less than half-price j

Number 1 January 1974

Number 2 April 1974

Number 3 July 1974

Number 5 March-Aprll 1975

Number 9 June-July 1976

D avid W illia m s o n . Ray Harryhausen. P eter W eir.

G illian A rm stro n g . Ken G. Hall. T a riff B oard Report.

A nto ny I. G lnnane. The C a rt That Ate Parle.

V iolence in the Cinema.

Alvin Purple. Frank M o o rhouse. S an d y H a rb u tt.

F ilm U n d e r A lle n d e .

N icholas Roeg. Between W art.

John P a p a d o p o lo u s W illis O 'B rien. The M cDonagh S isters. R ichard B re n n a n . L u is B u ñ u e l.

The True Story of Eskimo Nell

J e n n in g s L a n g . B y ro n Haskin. S urf Films. Brian P robyn. Sunday Too Far Away. C harles Chauvel.

Index: Volum e 1

M ilo s F o rm a n . M ik lo s Jancso. L uchino V isconti.

Robyn S pry. Oz. Mad Dog Morgan. Joan Long.

Index: Volum e 2

Number 12 April 1977

Number 13 July 1977

Number 14 October 1977

Number 15 January 1978

Number 16 Aprll-June 1978

Kenneth Loach. Tom Haydon. Bert Deling. Piero T o si. Jo h n S c o tt. Jo hn D ankw orth. The Getting of W la d o m . J o u r n e y Among Women

Louise M alle. Paul Cox. John Power. P eter Sykes B erna rd o B erto lu cci. F.J. H o ld e n In S e a rc h of Anna.

Index: Volum e 3

Phil Noyce. Eric Rohm er.

John Huston. Blue Fire Lady S u m m e r fle ld .

Chinese Cinem a.

T o m C o w a n , F ra n c o is Truffaut. D elphlne Seyrlg.

The Irishman The Chant of Jim m ie Blacksmith. Sri Lankan Cinem a. The Last Wave

Patrick. S wedish Cinem a.

J o h n D u ig a n . S te v e n S pielb e rg . Dawn! Mouth to Mouth. Film P e rio d ­ icals.

Number 19 January-February 1979

Number 20 March-Aprll 1979

Number 21 May-June 1979

Number 22 July-August 1979

K en C a m e ro n . F re n c h C in e m a . Jim S h a rm a n .

My Brilliant Career Film S tu d y R e s o u rc e s . The Night the Prowler.

Mad Max. V ie tn a m on Film. Grendel, Grendel, G r e n d e l. D a v id H e m m lngs. The Odd Angry Shot. B ox-O ffice G rosses Snapshot

Bruce Petty. A lble Thom s.

N e w sfro n t. F ilm S tu d y R e s o u rc e s . Kost as.

Money Movers. The A u s­ tr a lia n F ilm a nd T e le ­ vision School.

Index: Volum e 5

A n t o n y I. G i n n a n e .

Je re m y Thom as. Blue Fin. A n d r e w S a r r ls . A s ia n C in e m a .

S p o n s o re d D ocum entaries.

Number 26 Aprll-May 1980

Number 27 June-July 1980

The Films of Peter W eir.

C harles Joffe. Harlequin.

N a tionalism in A ustra lia n C inem a. The Little C on­ vict.

Index: V olum e 6

The New Z e a la n d Film In d u s tr y . Th e Z M en.

P ete r Y e ld h a m . M aybe T h lt Tim e. Donald Richie.

Q r e n d e l, G r e n d e l, Grendel.

Number 10 September-October 1976

Number 11 January 1977

Nagisa O shim a. P hllllp pe M ora. Gay C inem a. John Heyer. K rzysztof Zanussl.

M a rc o F e rre ri. M a rc o B ellocchio.

Em ile de A n to nio. A u s ­ tra lia n Film C enso rsh ip .

S am A r k o ff. R o m a n P o la n s k i. Th e P ic tu re Show Man. Don’s Party.

Storm Boy.

Number 17 August-September 1978

Number 18 October-November 1978

B ill Bain. Isabelle H u p ­ pert. Polish C inem a. The Night the Prowler P ierre Rlsslent. Newsfront. Film S tudy Resources.

Index: Volum e 4

John L am ond. Dlm boola.

In d ia n C in e m a . S o n ia B o r g . A la in T a n n e r .

Cathy’s Child. The Last Tasm anian.

Number 23 September-October 1979

Number 24 December 1979 January 1980

Number 25 February-March 1980

A u s t r a lia n T e le v is io n , Last of the Knucklemen W o m e n F ilm m a k e r s J a p a n e s e C in e m a . My B rillia n t C a re e r. T im .

Thirst. Tim B urstall.

Brian T re n ch a rd Sm ith.

P alm B e ac h . B ra z ilia n Cinem a. Jerzy Toeplitz.

C o m m u n ity T e le v is io n .

A rth u r Hiller.

C hain R eaction. D avid P u ttn a m . C e n s o r s h ip .

Stir. E verett de Roche.

Touch and Go. Film and P olitics.

35m m & 16m m N egative C utting

CHRIS ROW ELL PRODUCTIONS 139 Penshurst Street, \W illoughby, N.S.W 2068

A C A D EM Y AWARD W INNER

Best Boy Best Feature Documentary

Telephone (02) 411 2255^

W a t c h f o r r e le a s e BEST BOY (G) UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG (G) DAVID (G) Sharmili Films

27 Stonnington Place, TOORAK 3142 AUSTRALIA Phone: (03) 20 5329. Cable: Sharfilms Director: Natalie Miller !>

>.

C O M IN G S O O N

fSKTUfiri) L

3A OXFORD ST. PADDINGTON 33 4453

M

PADRE PADRONE, ALLEGRO NON TROPPO, THE TREE OF WOODEN CLOGS, HESTER STREET, I CAN JUMP PUDDLES, SCORPIO RISING, Buñuel Classics etc.

A ustralian Film and Television Sch ool FO R S A L E A R R IF L E X 16 B L

SYDNEY

CW two 400 foot magazines. Choice of lens, either ANGENIEUX 12-120 Zoom F/2.5 or ZEISS 10-100 Zoom T/3.3 P rice $3,950 each For information regarding this camera contact John Winbolt (02) 887 1666 Offers in writing to: T ech n ica l C on troller A ustralian Film & T elev isio n S ch o o l B ox 126 PO NORTH RYDE, N .S.W . 2113

Head office: 27 Sirius Road, Lane Cove, Sydney, NSW 2066 Australia Telephone: (02) 428 5300 Telex: A A 25188

MELBOURNE

CINEMA BOOKS SPACE AGE GOGHS PTY LTD

We have a very comprehensive range of publications on the cinema — everything from biographies, scripts and popular pictorials, to critical, historical and educational texts.

Lists of new titles are available regularly. '

CAMERA SOUND LIGHTING

W e a re o p e n 7 d a y s a w e e k .

305-307 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Phone: (03) 6 6 3 1 7 7 7

Interstate office: 25 Lothian Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051 Australia Telephone: (03) 329 5155 Telex: AA35861

LONDON PARIS JOHANNESBURG SYDNEY MELBOURNE ZURICH —P A N A V I S I O N •

N

C

O

M

P

O

M

A

T

K

O

Corporation of California Ltd.

1980 SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL

Sydney Film Festival Continued from P. 347 little spats are patched up with shining eyes and sympathetic smiles; loneliness is relieved by a quick, clean pick-up; household chores occasion a pet and a pout, but they are soon giggling about their sex lives.

There is hardly a moment of genuine observation and it is one of those irritating films in which a woman goes to bed, wakes up and takes a bath in full and unblemished make-up. All is chic: clothes, music, decor.

And Marie­ Christine Barrault, who created a Woman in a Twilight Garden with intelligence, seems to be doing a commercial for Gallic Charm. The end result is a per­ petuation of women’s magazines stereo­ types.

More rewarding studies of two women were elsewhere. Di Drew’s Tread Softly . . . deservedly won the Greater Union Award for Australian short films (fiction category). In warm, glowing images, it considers the situation of one woman offering love to another who can’t accept it. Much of its effectiveness is due to a moving and persuasive performance by Robyn Nevin.

The gifted Dominique Sanda is one of the two women friends in Michel Deville’s Le voyage en douce (Sentimental Journey). In her understated comic mode she is a pleasure to behold: teaching Lucie (Geraldine Chaplin) how to arouse a hotel waiter; stabbing a high heel into the hand of a male ogler (“ Every man is a closet rapist” ); and demon­ strating two kinds of double take.

However, the audience was in no mood to be won. Some were off-side after the puff paste of My Darling which preceded it. Some were already critical of the number of films about bland middieclass people and their jaded sensibili­ ties. Some were reluctant to look again at

women shaving their legs, kissing their armpits and comparing their breasts.

And some were bored by the two friends playing “ Do you remember?” as they ex­ plore their past, and swap memories and fantasies, some of them real and others invented.

But there is substance in this. Their journey of discovery reveals what they are and what they were, and now, through the years, they have slid in and out of the roles of rival and accomplice, teacher and pupil. Often on the edge of the embarrassing, the film is usually saved by sharpness of wit or a light touch of self-send-up. At times it is quite daring technically: one sequence has a start­ ling mis-match of vision and sound­ track, and the time shifts are the tricks of a magician.

Bertrand Blier's Buffet frold (Cold Cuts) are unkind ones. It is a comedy of murders and the bodies fall thick and fast: “ I’ve just finished off five musi­ cians” , says a police inspector who does not like Brahms. Much of the dialogue is delivered, appropriately enough, in a deadpan style and the outrageous is treated as the merely matter of fact: “ There’s a strangled women on the fifth floor,” .. . “ Forget it; she's with us.” Much of it is funny, but it intends to be something other than comedie noire.

Although it is concerned with a variety of ingenious methods of murder and the disposal of bodies, the film ’s wider and pervasive concern is with death. The hero has a nightmarish obsession with The Ultimate Game, and he fingers lethal weapons as if they are prized entry tickets into the undiscovered country.

The two strongest sequences are those which open and close the film. It begins in a deserted railway station (under­ ground, of course): neon signs indicate SORTIE; one escalator moves relent­ lessly up and another down; a man dies with a knife in his back — “ Bon voyage” .

It ends in a silent lake — cold, grey water; flinty cliffs — and a girl in a boat (a latterday Maria Cesares?) rowing purposefully away from the hero, drowning, perhaps

Ross Thompson as the contaminated Heidrich in Ian Barry’s The Chain Reaction. to ferry another passenger to the underworld. This poetic framing gives strength and shape to the film though, on the whole, the control is uneven and the tone uncertain.

Similar weaknesses affect Tomas Alea’s Los sobrevivientes (The Sur­ vivors). It disappointed those who recall his M em orias del su b d e s a ro llo (Memories of Underdevelopment) and La ultima cena (The Last Supper). The central situation of a bourgeois family in post-revolution Cuba, which seals itself off from the despised society outside the plantation, allows Alea to examine the reversal of historical processes, the dis­ integration of bourgeois culture and the inadequacy of its values. This is not far from Luis Bunuel’s central metaphor in The Exterminating Angel, and there is the same kind of mocking detachment from the demise of his Ten Little Cubans.

Romny Schneider as the “watched” and Harvey Keitel as the O/B unit. Bertrand Tavernier’s Death Watch.

394 — Cinema Papers, October-November

The black comedy is often as cruel but rarely as cool as Bunuel’s: it is very much broader.

Although the film is dedicated to Buñuel, it is probably a coincidence that Bunuel’s victims were trapped at a dinner party and Alea’s blackest jokes are reserved for the dinner table: the soup that the family enjoys, though finds a little bitter, turns out to contain the ashes of poor, dead mother; and when the food shortage is severe, sister-in-law is struck by timely lightning, cooked as if by micro-wave, and ready to serve.

Guess who’s coming to dinner .. .

Bertrand Tavernier established him­ self in the 1970s as an important director and his films at recent festivals were striking and stimulating works by an original talent. No doubt that is why his La mort en direct (Death Watch) was selected for showing this year, and why it was anticipated with interest. It didn’t live up to expectations. Indeed, it is curious how one can tell from the first few frames, as from a couple of sniffs, that something is slightly 'off.

The central idea is intriguing and disturbing and, in these days of trans­ plants and the insertion of mechanical bits and pieces into the body, not so much a leap into science fiction as a step beyond science fact. A man has a minia­ ture videotape camera implanted in his brain. He thus becomes a super-mobile O/B unit and whatever he sees goes on tape for a television program called Death Watch which shows the last days in the lives of people who know they are going to die. Audiences get their kicks from watching people dying 'live’ on the screen. It is chilling how popular such a program might be — there was one on Australian screens which fed upon the reactions of the families of car-accident victims: “ How do you feel,” the inter­ viewer asked a distraught mother, “ now your son is dead?”

The film takes a moral stand about the tastelessness of this invasion of privacy, and attacks the promoters who cynically exploit base instincts and the public which gratifies them. I am not so sure, though, that Death Watch isn’t doing much the same kind of thing that it purports to be condemning, rather like those so-called documentaries about porn filmmaking which disguise them­ selves as responsible expose in order to do what they intended all along: i.e., make a porn film. With them it is easy to spot the real motive, because it is apparent from the position of the camera. It is not so easy with Tavernier, but there is a whiff in the air.

Maybe it’s the smell of money. It is a

1980 SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL

smooth, glossy commercial product, packaged with expertise and aimed at an in te rn a tio n a l m arket, like Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes. It has no personal conviction or individual stamp. Com­ puterised and calculated, it smacks of a novel written by a committee. The ingredients are patronizing music, pretty scenery (Scotland), a French/German co-production, and an international cast of actors — American, Austrian, British, Swedish, French — with an inevitable assortment of accents and styles and, al­ though the film is not dubbed, that odd sound of voices not quite belonging to the speakers. The film seems to belong nowhere and I don’t think this can be justified by saying that it is set in the near future — or that the international elements are inherent in the original story. Perhaps the real death watch Is the spectre of internationalism that hovers over filmmaking.

This problem is close to home. It was discussed at a forum session which asked, “What direction for Australian cinema?” Make it international, or make it Australian? This was hotly debated and space doesn’t allow more than a simplification of a complex issue: that producers, on the whole, want profit first and art second, and that actors and writers generally prefer it the other way around, because a film is more likely to have integrity if it uses largely local resources ancTexpresses what Bob Ellis calls ‘‘a cultural exactness” .

At least Ian Barry’s The Chain Reaction is firmly rooted in an Austra­ lian context. For all that, it, too, is set in the near future and is concerned with a leakage from a nuclear plant — which could happen anywhere — but there is no mistaking where we are, geographic­ ally or socially. As well, there is some dialogue with fine iaconic humor and sequences with flair and impact: the search for the break in the long, under­ ground tunnels below the plant (lit eerily

by Russell Boyd); the throttling of the old postmistress; and two exciting car chases staged by George Miller with mad-maximum effect.

Last year, Derek Malcolm of The Guardian suggested that the two weak­ nesses of Australian films are script­ writing and directing actors, and there is some evidence of both in The Chain Reaction. S till, there is much to commend in its energy and ambition.

One of the joys of any festival is finding old subjects treated In a fresh new way.

Heartland took the audience by surprise.

It was voted No. 3 in the Gold subscribers’ Best Ten. (No. 2 was Ger­ many, Pale Mother and No. 1 was The

Heathcote Williams and Toyah Willcox in Derek Jarman’s The Tempest.

Tin Drum.) Based upon letters written by

a woman pioneer in Wyoming, it describes her life in 1910 when she worked as a housekeeper for the dourest of Scots, a farmer whom she marries for practical reasons — money is short and the winter is long. It is a harsh existence: cattle freeze, food Is scarce, their baby dies. The director, Richard Pearce, says that he wanted to make, “ a different kind of Western, a truer kind of Western, one that would be about struggle and isolation and real economic work, where the simplest things — things that films too often take for granted or make seem easy — would sometimes be the most difficult and hard won.”

It Is a spare film that proceeds at its own careful and unhurried pace, stripping away narrative and mythical impetus, and allowing the incidents time

Bridget Armstrong, Grant Tilly and Dorothy McKegg in John Reid’s Middle Age Spread.

to take their shape through the accumulation of detail.

The film refuses to give easy emotional coloring through music, apart from the occasional use of a plaintive version of “What a friend we have in Jesus” , and it plays Its big scene, the wedding cele­ bration, quietly, not building it up into a Fordian set piece. There are no self­ consciously beautiful compositions, yet the film is undeniably beautiful, and it is illuminated by an outstanding central performance by Conchata Ferrell as the woman who goes West and finds no promise of a new life except, perhaps, in the magic moment when a heifer is born.

John Reid’s Middle Age Spread is not new te rrito ry . The old ground of suburban mores has been ploughed countless times before, often enough by David Williamson. But this has a gentle­ ness not found in Williamson (or not, anyway, until Travelling North). When the characters are knocked down, they are set on their feet again with a tender care for their dignity. That alone makes It fresh.

As well, it manages to take a stage play, highly successful in New Zealand, and make it feel more or less like a film. It helped that the play was structured like a film to start with: 19 scenes which flashed back from an ongoing dinner party.

These have become 54 scenes, some of the extra ones to show the High School Deputy Principal attending to his middleage spread and his middle-age itch by jogging through the night. But they don’t seem like mere openings-out: they intensify the humor and the pathos.

Much credit for this is due to Grant Tilly, who performs for film, not stage. But whether it’s film or play, the lines are funny, and why can’t a film have goc lines?

Shakespeare’s richly suggestive p \y, The Tempest, was given, by Dt k Jarman, a highly original setting in the decaying splendor of Stoneleigh Abbey in Warwickshire. It was an inspired choice, the house so huge and isolated

that it was admirably suited for the 'other world' of The Tempest, its shabby magnificence adding to the sense of dis­ placed royalty of Prospero and Miranda.

However, the hazards of such a choice were soon clear, the temptation of shots of faces glimpsed through baroque candelabra or framed against mysterious and shadowy family portraits proving too great to resist. Consequently,, though the film is a total visual delight, the coherence of the play is lost, a situation not helped by cutting the dialogue to shreds.

Prospero is for once not an ageing guru, but young-middle-aged, so that the possibility of having made the mistakes which led to his exile is completely believable, as is the m ixture of benevolence and vindictiveness in his behaviour. Caliban has an Interesting suggestion of former playfellow turned greedy ravisher in his dealings with the plausibly country-gauche Miranda. How, though, did Caliban, who had been taught to speak by Prospero, develop a Birmingham accent?

Replacing the masque of the original is a high camp rendering of “ Stormy Weather” , danced by Busby Berkeley lines of sailors, which the audience seemed to find a show-stopper (perhaps because one didn’t have to tussle with coherence?) though it left me fairly luke­ warm. In spite of its limitations, the film stays in the mind in a series of images: the grossly fleshy Sycorax giving suck to the adult Caliban; Ferdinand emerging bewildered from a soft-focus, dusky sea; Prospero and Ariel whispering in a Paliadian doorway.

Skal vi danse forst (Shall We Dance First?) is a first feature by Danish

director, Annette Olsen. She looks at adolescence in the spirit of Milos Forman and Jiri Menzel, but with a freshness of vision all her own.

Susanne (Lene Gurtler), an average 16 year-old with childhood behind her and adulthood beckoning, explores the possibilities in-between. Sexually aware and testing her powers, she gets Cinema Papers, October-November — 395

1980 SYDNEY FILM FESTIVAL

aspects of alienation under advanced capitalism, though neither took a politically-partisan stance.

Stefan Jarl’s Ett anstandigt liv (A Respectable Life) took the subjects of his earlier film Dorn kallar oss mods (They Call us Mods) and showed them 12 years later. The naive rebelliousness of the working-class youth has now been replaced by the pain and despair of heroin addiction.

The film is very graphic in its presenta­ tion of the realities of addiction, but it is not simply about this addiction. Parallels are drawn between heroin and the more socially-acceptable alcoholism of the previous generation. Jarl is obviously very angry about what he sees as a deepseated malaise in Swedish society and wants to shock his audience into thinking about the lives of the people in the film.

A Respectable Life is also unusual because so much of it has obviously been recreated for the camera. But there are few moments when one does not think the film is an honest representation of the lives of these people.

pregnant and has an accidental abortion.

Susanne’s getting of wisdom is observed with sympathy and with comic detachment: the skinny legs and white shorts of the older man who is teased in to ra p e ke ep th e e m o tio n a l temperature well down. The scenes be­ tween the girl and her parents (fault­ lessly played) are wry comments upon the generation gap and, when the gap is bridged in a boldly-held sequence in which the girl dances with her mother, the mood is touching and thoughtful.

Throughout, there is a cinematic sensuousness. Within a budding grove, young girls and flowers, gardens and grass drenched in sunlight, all is green and youth is greening. It evokes a place and a time. There is nothing self­ consciously Proustian about this remembrance of things past, though the details of a particular summer have the sharpness of recall induced by a madeleine. It is a matter of connection and perspective.

Coming as it did near the end of the Festival, when we were red-eyed and weary, this small, quiet comedy, bright with talent, was a timely reminder that film can replenish and delight.

John Fox This year, the Festival highlighted a series of new documentary features, as well as a retrospective of the work of Mike Rubbo and the screening of a new print of Frank Hurley’s Pearls and Savages. Most of the documentary features were from the U.S., and most had a more-or-less overtly political theme.

Ira Wohl’s Best Boy was the most pop­ ular docum entary shown. A very emotional and engaging film portrait of Wohl’s retarded cousin Philly and his family, it is difficult to be critical of Best Boy without seeming to be cold and cynical. Certainly, it does make you think about the problems of handicapped peo­ ple, but not in a very constructive way.

The problem is, I feel, that Wohl is not being entirely honest when he says that he only wanted to help his cousin. In ac­ tuality he may have done the best that could have been done for Philiy.

However, the film never gets past a kind of Reader’s Digest most-unforgettablecharacter-l-ever-met feel.

It is not Philiy and his family who are exploited by the film, as some of the audience worried in the discussion after the film, but the audience itself. Wohl is so skilful at eliciting a response at an emotional level that one is made to forget about the need for information and analysis.

In contrast, Barbara Chobocky’s Pins and Needles is a more useful film for dis­ abled people because it deals with the social and political aspects of their plight, as well as the private and emotional. It shows that the two are inextricably linked.

Poto and Cabengo, by Jean-Luc Godard’s former collaborator, Jean­ Pierre Gorin, was the most formally in­ triguing documentary and probably one of the two or three best films shown at the Festival.

Poto and Cabengo are identical twins, living in San Diego, who became the centre of media attention when it was discovered that they may have invented their own language. The mystery of this “secret” language is explained by the bizarre nature of the family and the society in which the twins live.

The film is much more than a narrative of this discovery and, like the best of Godard, is a meditation upon the dis-courses of cinema and society. Gorin questions his own role as narrator and filmmaker, and asks us to question the

396 — Cinema Papers, October-November

Ira Wohl’s portrait of his retarded cousin Philiy. Best Boy.

conventions of documentary form and cinematic language. Poto and Cabengo’s uncertainties and tentative conclusions undermined the assumptions of Best Boy and served to highlight for me the problematic nature of that film.

Four of the documentaries dealt with overtly political subjects. The Wobblies looked at the history of the International Workers of the World in the U.S., through the recollections of those “wobblies” still alive and a lot of historical footage. Yet what was a potentially very exciting story is told in a rather pedestrian way. But, no doubt, it is an important film for Americans to see since it reminds them of a history of struggle that has been sup­ pressed.

Nearer the experiences of a contem­ porary audience was The War at Home, which chronicled the anti-Vietnam war movement in the mid-Western city of Madison. The filmmakers mean Madison to stand as a microcosm of American society by starting the film with a 1948 newsreel announcing that Madison had been voted by Life as the best place in the U.S. in which to live.

Like The Wobblies, The War at Home mixes the recollections of participants with extensive historical footage. It cer­ tainly succeeds in conveying the sense of why vast numbers of people grew in political awareness as a result of their opposition to the war. But its linear ap­ proach to history is its biggest weakness, since it fails to show how the lessons of the anti-war movement were used in other struggles. For example, we are never told how one of the student leaders who figures prominently in the film came to be Mayor of Madison.

Although not very well made, Joan Harvey’s film about Three Mile Island, We are the Guinea Pigs, is one of the most effective anti-nuclear films I have seen. It is a perfect example of how the strength of the content can override deficiencies of construction. Mainly com­ posed of interviews with anti-nuclear scientists, government officials and local residents, it effectively shows the awesome ramifications of an accident that still continues. Anyone who sees the film will find it difficult to take seriously

the evasive rationalizations of those who talk of the “safety” of nuclear power.

Allan Frankovich’s mammoth threehour film on the CIA, On Company Business, at times seemed about to coiiapse under the sheer weight of infor­ mation it contained. What mattered in the end was not the detail but the examina­ tion of the methodology of the CIA, and the perverted priorities of American foreign policy. The early history of the CIA in Europe is shown, but the main focus is upon Latin America and Africa.

The already well-traversed history of the coup in Chile is complemented by an ex­ amination of the 1964 coup in Brazil, the Bay of Pigs, Angola and CIA-trained tor­ ture squads in Uruguay.

Exhaustively researched, the inter­ views with “stars” , such as Philip Agee and Victor Marchetti, are supported by the evidence of other company men: directors, agents and ambassadors.

Seen in isolation, each case could ap­ pear an aberration. When taken together they amount to a convincing condemna­ tion of the U.S. as the prime offender against human rights in the Third World.

There were only two documentaries from Europe, but both of these examined

Monarch, from West Germany, begins as a seemingly light-hearted portrait of a man who makes his living by winning jackpots of poker machines. He appears to have found the ideal way to make a liv­ ing and is the envy of those who still have to work.

As the film progresses it becomes bleaker, and we realize that he still re­ mains firmly tied to the consumer ethic and that he has to work harder and harder to keep ahead, since the machines that he knows how to crack are slowly going off the market.

Worth mentioning is D. A. Pennebaker’s Town Bloody Hall. Coming so long after the event which it records, it now assumes the role of a curious historical document. It is, in fact, a kind of ethnographic film about an exotic and preposterous ritual that could only be performed by the New York Jewish intel­ ligentsia.

Finally, there is Brian McKenzie’s ex­ cellent Winters Harvest, winner of the Rouben Mamoulian Award. This film reminded me of Frederick Wiseman at his best in the subtlety of its construction.

It is one of the more original documen­ taries to have come out of Australia for some time. It was unfortunate that the bulk of the Festival audience was denied the opportunity of seeing all ex­ cept the most sensational scene on the closing night of the Festival, when the award was presented. ★

Nick Herd

*'*' ****

D. A. Pennebaker’s Town Bloody Hall, an “ ethnographic film about an exotic and preposterous ritual

THE QUARTER

SOUND STUDIO FOR HIRE offer a fast and thoroughly professional neg cutting service to the film and TV industries. We have a fully equipped cutting room that can handle both 16mm and 35mm productions and is air-conditioned throughout.

We also have a prompt pick-up and delivery service. We promise total professional care for your film 24 hours a day.

Cive ADAM BAHOUDIAN a call on (03) 568 2147 anytime and know that your film is in the right hands.

FILM NEG CUTTING SERVICES

Suitable for Film, Video and Stills at:

FILM SETS 88 Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, MELBOURNE 3166

Features; documentaries, commercials, industrial and short films.

650 Warrigal Road, Chadstone Victoria 3148.

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, PHONE: Alex Simpson, (03) $68 00$8, (03) $68 2948 AH (03) 2$ 3838 The Quarter

Continued from P.313 The Treasurer also said (so far as relevant to Australian films): “ It is of note that a number of these schemes that are to be covered by the expenditure recoupment legis­ lation feature a benefit in the form of what has become known as a ‘non­ recourse’ loan. This is a loan in respect of which the lender has no recourse beyond particular income or particular assets of the borrower. “ Needless to say, the schemes are structured on the basis that little, if any, income will be received or the assets will be, in comparison with the amount of the loan, of nominal value.

“To the extent that the loan is for these reasons not repaid, the taxpayer effectively recoups his or her claimed outlay. “ The following are simplified examples of the latest recoupmenttype schemes against which the Government is acting: Film Investment Schemes

“ A tax-exempt body channels fu nd s — fu nd s th at it would otherwise have invested directly — into a film through a non-recourse loan made to a partnership of taxable investors. The partners contribute a relatively small amount from their own resources and that amount, as ‘geared up’ by the loan, is expended by them and sought as a deduction.

“Gearing of 3 or 4 to 1 is common with the result that each investor seeks tax deductions of up to $5 for each $1 funded from his or her own resources. “ Any income from the film is shared among the various partici­ pants. The taxable partners are not entitled to income from overseas

exhibition of the film and their effective profit share arising from local exhibition is based simply on their personal contributions. “ Correspondingly, [a] tax-exempt body’s effective profit share is calculated as if the amount lent to the partners had been risk capital contri­ buted by it, as in reality it is. “ Should the partners receive income totalling more than their personal contribution the excess would be earmarked for repayment of the loan. The terms of the loan are such that, otherwise, it does not have to be repaid.

“A producer enters into an agree­ ment with a promoter to pay the promoter, by way of a procuration fee, 94 per cent of all amounts received from investors introduced by the promoter. The promoter then introduces a partnership of investors who engage the producer to produce and market films on their behalf for a fee of $1 million. “ Of that amount, only $150,000 is contributed personally by the partners, the remaining $850,000 being provided by way of a non­ recourse loan from a company associated with the promoter.

“The $940,000 procuration fee is a ttrib u te d by the p ro d u c tio n company as a tax-deductible cost of producing the film and is paid to the promoter.

“Any income derived from the film in the first year is minimal so that when interest on the loan falls due the partnership, as pre-arranged, defaults and this causes the rights in the film to be transferred to the lender, thereby extinguishing the debt. “ An associate of a promoter acquires a copyright in a film and disposes of it to an investor for an in fla te d p ric e . The in v e s to r personally contributes 15 per cent only of the purchase price and the

balance is left to be paid at a later date. The full purchase price is claimed to be deductible.

“The investor then assigns rights to 85 per cent of the income to a finance company associated with the promoter which, in consideration of the assignment, agrees to pay the investor’s outstanding debt.”

The Treasurer indicated that there would be no deduction at all in such cases.

Clearly, the Government has taken a very broad axe to what it regards as tax avoidance, and there are complaints fro m w ith in the in d u s try th a t “ legitimate” investment has been penalized along with the artificial schemes. The point is made that the type of non-recourse loans involved In such legitimate investment involved tax deferral rather than tax avoidance.

The most serious problem for producers Is that the Government has not yet tabled any legislation to implement the proposed amend­ ments, and it is not known when it will be tabled. People with venture capital are staying away from investment in films until they see what the legislation says. Consequently, the climate is very bleak for raising production money.

Stop press: On September 26, after a meeting with an eight-member delega­ tion, Howard told the press he would re-examine tax laws as relevant to film.

More next issue.

YUGOSLAV FILMS The Ambassador for Yugoslavia, Mr Aleksandar Sokorac, has deposited a collection of about 20 Yugoslavian films in the National Library of Australia’s film lending section. Of these, one deals with the life of the former President of Yugoslavia, Marshal Tito; It was completed shortly before Tito’s death in May. Another presents a view of the summit conference of non-

aligned countries, held in Cuba in September, 1979.

The rem ain in g film s , m ostly documentaries on themes ranging from architecture to travel, include two or three cartoons from the famous animated film studies in Zagreb. Most of the films are in color and have commentaries in English.

AFI STAFF Les Rabinowicz has been appointed the manager of the National Film Theatre, replacing Verina Glaessner who is returning to Britain.

Keith Lumley, formerly company secretary for J. C. Williamson’s Pty Ltd, is the AFI’s new business manager.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA In the credits for Dirt Cheap on p. 283 of the last issue (Cinema Papers, No. 28), Marg Clancy, David Hay and Ned Lander are listed as co-directors.

In fact, David Hay was the director.

On p. 224 of the previous Issue, in the item entitled “An Equitable Survi­ val?” , an inaccuracy appears in the paragraph dealing with house expense figures. The example given is, in fact, only one of a number of possible exhibition-distribution deals.

A film can, under some arrange­ ments, earn film hire even if the weekly box-office gross is less than the house expense figure. Breaker Morant is one film on such a deal, though it is in the fortunate position of having a weekly gross that well exceeds the house expense figure.

The introduction to the interview with Bob Godfrey (No. 28, p. 230) refers to Godfrey’s presence at the Melbourne Film Festival, but not at the Sydney Film Festival. The SFF director, David Strat­ ton, points out that Godfrey’s visit was a SFF initiative and Cinema Papers regrets the lack of mention of the SFF’s involvement. ★ Cinema Papers. Oclober-November — 397

S L IP P E R Y S L ID E /D O N O T PA SS G O

Film Reviews

Continued from P. 381 of those characters in other Crombie films who are victims of sociallysanctioned male manipulation (unlike the heroines of Caddie and Cathy’s Child, h owever, they remain relatively passive).

From this clumsy courtroom scene, Slippery Slide moves into the present.

Two of the children (the third has died) are now teenagers living near each o th e r in the hom es of W elfareappointed foster-parents. The film’s protagonist, Steve Cameron (Simon Burke), is an outgoing, bright high­ school student living with a middlea g e d , m i d d l e - c l a s s c o u p l e he unaffectedly calls “ M um ” and “ Dad” .

He soon has reason to renounce the ostensible intimacy of the relationship when the foster-mother puts her elderly father in the boy’s room.

From that point, Steve’s relationship with his foster-parents rapidly dissolves — so completely, in fact, that a lecture the new Welfare officer David Wilding (John Waters) reads to the foster­ mother about the damage done to the b o y ’s p sy c h e h as a l r e a d y been overtaken by events: the foster-parents no longer want Steve in their home.

The homily does, however, serve to establish the officer’s humanitarian bona fides, significant in his subsequent struggles to temper the bureaucracy’s less-than-fiexible attitude towards its wards.

Steve is sent to a Welfare home, but decamps in search of his natural father.

More disappointm ent follows: the father turns out to be not the successful professional fisherman he purports, but a pipe-dreaming barfly.

Steve next harbors hopes of living with his real mother, and is encouraged in this by his sister Alana (Arkie Whiteley) and Wilding. But although his mother welcomes him, she has started a new family — and her de-facto husband won’t have Steve at any price. The downward spiral continues when Alana enlists Steve’s help in a shop-breaking to pay for an abortion. The burglary is bungled ludicrously and Steve lands in a detention centre.

This sequence is stiffly unconvincing, comparing unfavorably with a final confrontation between Steve and the foster-parents. In the latter scene, C ro m b ie unexpectedly ab a n d o n s deadpan realism for a minute of dramatic hyperbole which, though out of kilter with the film’s general tone, works far better than it has any right to.

C ro m b ie ag ain sh ifts g ea rs emotionally at the end, when Steve delivers a dejected monologue directly into the camera. By this time. Steve is in gaol — where he has been heading from the beginning. He reaches this situation by way of a violent assault on Alana’s boyfriend for violating the only personal haven he has enjoyed since the break with his foster-parents. Steve had been sharing a flat with his sister, thanks to the insight of David Wilding, who had persuaded the authorities to agree to establish brother and sister in a home of their own, with Alana’s baby.

But this arrangement is disrupted when Alana’s boyfriend tries to evict Steve who is predictably dismayed and enraged.

So thoroughly has Crombie prepared us for it, that Steve’s outburst seems natural and inevitable. The boyfriend’s d e m a n d — which A la n a glum ly condones — is the proverbial 400th blow. The parallel with Francois 398 _

Cinema Papers, October-November

naturalism that arises from so many camera-conscious people earnestly pretending to be themselves — or, at least, themselves as they would have l i i others see them. Far more detrimental fiB iS is the aur a of sweet reason that pervades almost every official action I mb and response. It’s probably expecting too much for this to be otherwise — but the film’s credibility suffers as a result.

U n d e r these circ u m s ta n c e s , de Montignie works wonders. An elliptical storyline by Russell Porter drapes this sanitized skeleton with slight, but lifelike, dramatic flesh.

Ma r g i e , 15, a r u n a w a y f r o m stereotype — incompatible parents (boozily insensitive father, lachrymosely inadequate mother) — is deemed to be in moral danger after policewomen find her living with three youths.

The film infers, without spelling it out, the essential illogicality of the girl’s court appearance — strictly speaking, she isn’t on trial, but is treated, however leniently, as if she is (“ Sit up straight!” commands the magistrate).

S te v e ( S im o n B u rk e ) n u rs e s th e b a b y as A l a n a ( A r k i e W h ite le y ) t a lk s to W e l f a r e officer Steve, 16, a more straight-forward D a v i d W i l d i n g ( J o h n W a t e r s ) . D o n C r o m b i e ’s Slippery Slide. case, is up for car theft. His father is d e a d , his m o t h e r a p p a r e n t l y Truffaut is inescapable, though this fostering as doing more harm than disinterested and he gets 12 months in a modest little tele-feature scarcely good? (Few people in the film show any training centre.

T he f i l m’s mo s t i l l u mi n a t i n g aspires to such lofty comparison. It is sympathy for Steve’s plight, and the p e r h a p s best m e a s u r e d a g a i n s t briefly-glimpsed Welfare ‘ho m e’ is passages are those in which the two are Crombie’s Do I Have to Kill My Child?, almost as impersonal as the detention adm itted to their respective youth training centres. In the first instance, which I would rate as the most effective centre itself.)

Slippery Slide is on firmer ground in neither has been convicted, but they piece of d id a c tic fiction by any contrasting the concerned practicality might as well have been. One feels here Australian filmmaker.

Slippery Slide is some way behind of the field worker with the divided that the system reveals a little more of itself than it intends to, or perhaps this, less in technique than in certainty c o n c e r n s o f t h e d e s k - b o u n d of purpose (the subject matter, it should b u r e a u c r a c y , p o i n t i n g u p an understands.

Margie is sent to live in a depart­ be said, is broader and less readily unfortunate dichotomy that rebounds mental hostel for 12 months and the defined). But there are times when one on the department’s charges. is frankly unsure of what Crombie is Crombie elicits good results from two finally meet at a party when their driving at.

Simon Burke in conveying Steve’s terms have elapsed.

Her e the n a r r a t i v e b e c o me s What are we to make, for instance, eroding confidence and from Waters in of the foster-parents, who may be suggesting the frustration of the well- economically terse, though not at the accused of starting Steve down his intentioned Welfare officer. Arkie expense of intelligibility. We next see a Slippery Slide? They are shallow, petit­ Whiteley’s Alana is less persuasive, but pregnant Margie arguing with Steve bourgeois folk who give Steve a home the role is tritely drawn (some of her about the money he needs to supply his drug addiction (acquired in the train­ because they feel a responsibility to the lines border on soap). ing centre!) community, but drop him when he most Caught breaking into a chemist shop, needs sympathy and understanding.

The Victorian Do Not Pass Go began (One never meets A la n a ’s foster­ as a training film for Welfare officers. he is gaoled (“ You have failed to learn parents, dismissed as being unap­ Nearly everyone appearing in it acts your lesson” , says the Bench this time) out his or her real-life role (naturally and Margie, now a mother, is under proachable and “ religious” .)

Is Crombie suggesting that only the enough, they are usually seen in the great stress. When she distractedly most resolute, stable families should most favorable light). The young seeks a brief respite from her wailing undertake to foster wards of the state (a characters, another Steve and a girl baby, a beady-eyed neighbour dobs her not unreasonable proposition), or is he named Margie, are played by Rob Saul in. Once again, Margie’s future is the condemning the whole concept of and Claire Brunner, who are drama subject of court deliberations.

For all its self-imposed limitations, students at Rusden S tate College, Do Not Pass Go is an accusing, quietly Melbourne.

Writing about this 48-minute fic­ angry film and so is Slippery Slide. tionalized documentary, Eva Learner, Ne i t h e r is at all expl ici t in its director of the human resource centre accusations, nor do they propose at LaTrobe University, somewhat remedies. Both end on a defeatist note, euphorically proclaimed: “ If I could albeit a challenging one, confronting persuade the powers-that-be to release society with a failure of its institutions this film to the public, I would do so.” 1 and, more importantly, of its humanity.

If this pricks the mass television Apparently enough such voices were raised for the film to be taken up by the audience, then both films must be rated qualified successes. ★ Nine Network.

Do Not Pass Go gains greatly in authenticity from its factual locations Slippery Slide: Directed by: Don Crombie.

— courts, detention centres, police Producer: Damien Parer. Screenplay: Don Crom­ stations, even Pentridge — and use of bie. Director of photography: Chris Morgan.

Editor: Kerry Regan. Music: Michael Carlos. real personnel. But it pays a penalty, Sound recordist: John Schiefelbein. Cast: Simon too. As the VFC’s production notes Burke (Steve), John Waters (David), Arkie acknowledge, the film “ had to be as Whiteley (Alana), Jon Slake (Doug). Production technically accurate as possible without c om p an y: T a s m a n i a n Film C o r p o r a t i o n .

Distributor: Tasmanian Film Corporation. 16mm. becoming didactic or contrived?”

55 min. Australia 1980.

Inevitably, this has an effect not only Do Not Pass Go: Directed by: Phil de Montignie. on the film’s emotional impact (not, of Executive producer: Kent Chadwick. Screenplay: course, the primary concern of the Russell Porter. Director of photography: David Haskins. Editor: David Pulbrook. Music: Michael o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t i o n ) but , mo r e Drennan. Sound recordist: Ian Wilson. Cast: Claire i m p o r t a n t l y , on i ts p o w e r s of Brunner (Margie). Rob Saul (Steve). Production persuasion. c o m p a n y : V i c t o r i a n F i lm C o r p o r a t i o n .

Rob Saul as Steve in Phil de Montignie’s I would not quibble about the stilted Distributor: the Nine Network. 16mm. 48 min.

Do Not Pass Go.

Australia. 1980.

1.

The Age.

D e c e m b e r 14, 197 9.

M ilt ELJSET A

NEW

CONCEPT

t o ’ ’ " THE

IN

\ £ T F IL /li / ,

ENTERTAINMENT

’ DISTRIBUTOR

MARK

DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS AVAILABLE FOR

M USIC FOR FILM S

APPROXIMATLY RATED

Optical Effects 16mm to 16mm Super 8 to 16mm Standard 8 to 16mm 16mm to Super 8 Super 8 to Super 8 Standard 8 to Super 8 Slides to film

J

WEST AUSTRALIA. (ALL

HINTON

Téléphone: (03) 57 8 9 0 32

SOUTH AUSTRALIA, TASMANIA QUEENSLAND

SFP |

• • • • • • • •

10 0

TITLE S

CENSOR APPROVED)

New Soundtracks in Stock

Rj M, NRC, & G.

ALL ENQUIRIES

TO

14th 4^/fylandokin

p .L .

11 Charnwood Grove St. Kilda, 3182 (Vic) Australia Phone (03) 534 5628

VERTIGO (Herrmann) $10.99. 1001 ARABIAN NIGHTS (Duning) $10.99. SPARTACUS (North) $9.99. THE ROBE (Newman) $9.99. DAYS OF HEAVEN (M orricone) $10.99.

THE SHINING (new Kubrick) $7.99. THE WILD BUNCH (Fielding) $10.99. BILITIS (Lai) $8.99. FAME (soundtrack) $8.99. OUTRAGEOUS (soundtrack) $9.99.

Mail orders welcome; add $1.20 post/packing

--------R E A D IN G S R E C O R D S & B O O K S -------132d Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA. Telephone (03) 267 1885 We are open 7 days a week

ACME TITLES OPTICALS GRAPHICS

Cinevex Film Laboratories, Melbourne.

ANIMATION QUALITY SERVICE 1 4 - 1 6 W hiting St., Artarmon, N.S.W . 2 0 6 4 438 2993

If you are going to produce a 35mm feature, a 16mm or 35mm documentary or a commercial originating on film, come and speak to us here at

15-17 Gordon St„ Elsternwick, or phone (03) 528 6188.

Australian Film and Television School

TODAY'S TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT GUIDE is proud, to announce our new STAGE & SCREEN SECTION

COMING ATTRACTIONS

WE A IM TO S E RV IC E FILM & THEATRE PATRONS

Our Guide Is Actively Followed by Over 100,000 Readers Every Fortnight In Melbourne & Sydney.

IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN ASSIST IN GETTING ACROSS TO THE PUBLIC FOR YOU???

For Information Phone George Ciotti on (03) 62 1221 or Grant Morgan on (02) 6608267 All Promotional Material Should Be Sent To: P.O. Box 372, Prahran. Victoria. 3181.

M ELBO URNE

Script and Narration Writing Director/Actor Relationships State of the Art Law in relation to the Media

CA NBER RA

Super 8 Production Script and Narration Writing

BR ISBA NE

The Documentary

PERTH

Script and Narration Writing

A D EL A ID E

The Documentary

SY D N E Y

Scriptwriting for Television Colour Video Studio Advanced 16mm Production Documentary Workshop Chromakey Colour Video Production Television Lighting

For information on these and other courses and seminars C o m in g S o o n T o Y o u r N e ig h b o u r h o o d , call Marisa Cappello on (02) 887-1666. Or you can write to her at: T h e O p e n P ro g ra m A u str a lia n F ilm a n d T e le v is io n S c h o o l P O B o x 126, N O R T H R Y D E , N SW 2113

THE PAPER OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

Sight & Sound, the authoritative film quarterly published by the British Film Institute, features news, reviews, informative and controversial articles covering the best of the world’s cinema.

Published in January,April, July and October, Sight & Sound is now available from all good newsagents or by subscription from: The Australian Film Institute, George Lugg Library, PO Box 165, Carlton South, Victoria 3 0 5 3 , Australia.

Please specify the month in which you wish your subscription to begin

edited by Peter Noble

ESSENTIAL READING FOR ALL FILM ENTHUSIASTS

Europe’s leading film industry paper keeping you informed with Reviews Reports from Film Festivals News of Films in Production Technical Developments

S

l

G

H

&so

T

O'* rue R eportfrl Str^ e/Jaii n

^

°888

IS P

Cecile Starr-

^ e r i t e d Z o n * m in e s the ßv eraj Women of e ° ° tn otes

to s to r y

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

2

^ J U M N /98o

PICT»i>c us TFes“? £ e Z ï tbe^

u n

SM * ••• CW

s? g ^ « o ,

im vith aehm tive »answers to professional needs Introducing the new Fujicolor Negative Film, crowning long years.«* of development by meeting today’s needs with tom orrow’s technology.

• Living, natural skin tones and greens.

• Ultrafine-grain high-definition images.

• A reliable performer under difficult conditions.

Data: Fujicolor Negative Film 35mm type 8517,16 mm type 8527

\

• Tungsten Type 3200K • Exposure Index Tungsten Lamps 100 (ASA equiv.)

Daylight 64 (ASA equiv.) (with Fuji Light Balancing Filter LBA-12 or Kodak Daylight Filter No. 85) • Perforation Types 35mm N-4.740mm (BH-1866) 16mm 1R-7.605mm (1 R - 2 9 9 4 ) a p ^ ^ 3 ^ ^ P ^ r * « A • Packaging 35mm 200ft (61 16mm 1"W

.

122

400

b

m

H A IM IM E X

; -

In d u s tria l D ivisio n

Old P i t t w a t e r Rd ., B ro o k v a l e , N .S .W . 2 1 0 0 . Ph: 9 3 8 - 0 2 4 0 .

2 8 2 N o r m a n b y Rd ., Port M e l b o u r n e , V I C , 3 2 0 7 . Ph: 6 4 - 1 1 1 1 .

4 9 Angas S t r e e t , A d e la id e , S .A . 5 0 0 0 . Ph: 2 1 2 - 3 6 0 1 .

2 2 N o r t h w o o d St., Le e de rv il le , W . A . , 6 0 0 7 . Ph: 3 8 1 - 4 6 2 2 .

1 6 9 C a m p b e l l S t r ee t , H o b a r t , T A S , 7 0 0 0 . Ph: 3 4 - 4 2 9 6 .

N A M E : .....................................................................................................................................................

ADDRESS" ........................................

...................... ...............

..............................................

...................................................................................Po stcode: ................................... T e l e p h o n e : Please send me m or e i n f o r m a t i o n on

lJ

F u j i c o l o r N eg ati ve F i lm

DID YOUR IDEA r e t a in

When was the last time you got to the final stages of editing and wished for one more close up, perhaps a small zoom or even a reframed shot.

And you know that each time you see it on air it’s going to bother you to think of what it could have been.

rrs H

FLAVOUR ? l

But if you finish at Custom Video Australia you will know that when you see your commercial on air, it will be just what you wanted, because we have the equipment, the people and the expertise to make it so.

So after your image becomes ours, your image gets better all the time.

It’s the finish that counts.

CUSTOM ▼ ID EO AUSTRALIA Television Centre, Epping NSW Australia 2121 Telephone (02} 858 7545. Telex: AA 20250 CVA/93/AK & A