Cinema Papers September-October 1981

Peter Weir talks about

GALLIPOLI

B ryan Brown and Judy D avis in John D u ig an ’s

,

Winter of Our Dreamsü"»«Pp-•v'.r ~

Septem ber-O ctober 1981

%

Ì .V lssue-34 $3.00*

“Film,from creativeto technician,is a teameffort!

“O n the world scene, the technical quality of Australian feature films stands with the best.

We can thank our dedicated cinematographers for demanding this quality. A nd for recognising the lab technician as an important part of the film crew. This has placed the industry in a situation where the technical arm is now strong enough to allow the creative arm to freely excel and become a world force in itself.

This has in fact already happened in some of our recent overseas successes.

It’s really all a matter of team work between all facets of the film making process. Kodak has always been a member of that team. Consistently matching the quality standards we have come to set for ourselves in the Australian film industry.

If we can all maintain this quality, regardless of the pressures, I’m sure the industry will survive and succeed.”

Raymond D. Beattie Chief Executive, Atlab Australia.

EH

Kodak M otion Picture Film

K cW

KODAK (Australasia) PTY. LTD. K7/9942/KSB

"ITS THE KIND OF SOPHISTICATED FACILITY THE ADVERTISING WORLD HAVE ONLYDREAMED OF' □ 42 ' x 15' scyce wall □ Ample parking □ Complete modem kitchen □ Spacious make-up and change rooms □ 17' x 12' front roller door to studio □ Easy access to shoot cars and trucks □ Rates $250 10 hour shooting day $150 10 hour set-up day

PTP PRODUCTIONS 42 CHARLES ST PRAHRAN ENQUIRES: 264317

□ Total area over 4500 sq ft

the new K800 Series

An international star’s Australian debut.

KEM the sophisticated German editing system has proved itself as a vital tool in Hollywood film production. KEM now introduces the new K800 series 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, For information and appointments contact: FILMWEST Pty Ltd Bennett St (P.O. Box 6125) East Perth. West Australia, 6000 Tel: 325 1177; 325 1423 Cable ‘Filmwest’ Perth Telex AA 94150 FILMWA 75

FILMWEST Pte, Ltd. Suite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road, Singapore 0718 Tel: 3361 509, 3378041 Ext. 185 Cable :'Raflotel’ Telex RS 36389 FLMWST

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 producers for a demonstration and a short trial.

FILMWEST S

B & C Film Productions 75-83 High Street, Prahran Melbourne, Victoria, 3181 Telex 37472 BILCOP Tel: (03) 51 8963

SCOPE Films P.O. Forreston Adelaide, South Australia, 5233.

Tel: (08) 3891091.

FILM PRODUCTIONS SERVICES Pty. Ltd. 102 Chandos Street Crowsnest, Sydney. ’ N SW 2065 Australia Tel: 439 7102

£

ADAIR INSURANCE BROKING GROUP

D A D A I R

Box 3884 GPO Sydney, NSW 2001 ' Cables "Arisen/" Sydney Telex AA24771

' S ARE SERVING THE FILM INDUSTRY ON AN EVEN WIDER

BASIS THAN BEFORE.

A JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT IN LATE AUGUST WAS MADE BY SCOTT MILNE, PRESIDENT OF ALBERT G. RUBEN & COMPANY INC.

(LOS ANGELES),

FILM INSURANCE BROKERS UNDERWRITING FOR THE FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY .

AND

RONALD S. ADAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ADAIR INSURANCE BROKING GROUP OF COMPANIES THAT "ADAIR MANSON BYNG PTY. LTD. HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AS THE SOLE CORRESPONDENTS IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND FOR ALBERT G. RUBEN & COMPANY INC. AND FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY."

NEIL McEWIN, DIRECTOR OF ADAIR MANSON BYNG PTY. LTD. HAS RECENTLY SPENT TIME IN LOS ANGELES AND HEADS OUR TEAM OF SPECIALISTS IN INVITING ENQUIRIES ON ALL ASPECTS OF FILM INSURANCE, INCLUDING ERRORS AND OMISSIONS ETC.

RONALD S. ADAIR MANAGING DIRECTOR Neil McEwin

Adair Manson Byng Pty. Ltd. GPO Box 3884, Sydney 2001 Phone: 290 1588 Telex AA24771

SYDNEY

MELBOURNE

BRISBANE

PERTH

Tom Laskas James C Ailardice

Wayne Lewis

Bob Cook

Harvey Phillips

Adair Insurances (Vic) Pty Ltd GPO Box 74B Melbourne 3001

Adair Insurances (Old) Pty Ltd GPO Box 1371 Brisbane 4001

Australian Insurance Brokers Ltd GPO Box X2252 Perth 6001

Phone 61 2485

Phone 229 2494

Phone 325 9699

Adair Insurances Pty Ltd GPO Box 3884 Sydney 2001 Phone 2 90 1588

GEVAERT

Agfa-Gevaert have just released a new color negative camera film, available in 16mm and 35mm, that will positively enhance the creation of any masterpiece.

New Gevacolor 682 negative camera film.

This film passes even the toughest of tests with flying colours (if you’ll forgive the pun), reproducing skin tones to perfection.

AGFA-GEVAERT

And it doesn’t just offer a wide latitude that compensates for even the most severe exposure variations, but delivers such a fine grain that every frame can be appreciated as a work of art in itself.

Better still, this new film can be processed without any of the problems created by climatic conditions. And it’s compatible with the process employed by most major

Australian laboratories.

So in summary, all we can say is that if you’ve got the creative know-how, and the will, we’ve got the way. New Gevacolor Type 682.

AGFA-GEVAERT LIMITED

Head Office, RO. Box 48, Nunawading, VIC. 3131.

Melbourne 8788000, Sydney 8881444, Brisbane 3916833, Adelaide 425703, Perth 3615399.

Ron Delaney did not m arry Marilyn just for her skills with Computers.

That was just a fringe benefit!

Marilyn, with her wealth of negative matching experience and a natural aptitude for computers, recognised that today's space-age technology - properly applied to negative matching - could streamline the procedure immensely.

Now, at their Sydney company Negative Cutting Services, this new concept COMPUTA MATCH - plays an im portant part in negative matching, making traditional approaches obsolete.

Their exclusive COMPUTA MATCH Service facilitates the conforming of original negative with your w ork print, replacing time-consuming preparation stages with highspeed data printout, ready to commence cutting.

With its amazing hand-held data entry terminal on the matching bench, and the infinite capabilities of a Data General Computer System, COMPUTA MATCH stands out clearly as the world's most-advanced Negative Matching Service! exclusive

aumpuTfi mfnun Motion picture negative matching

Negative Cutting Services Pty. Limited, 200 Pacific Highway, CRO W S NEST 2065

Telephone: (02) 9223607 A M arilyn and Ron Delaney Service.

David Elfick, Producer, Palm Beach Pictures after shooting ‘Star Struck’ on the Artransa stages are under th e one roof. Being our firs t soundstage picture, th e re are huge advantages in te rm s o f controlling th e w hole sh o o t and th e large size o f A rtra n sa enables th e set­ designers to realise th e ir visual c o n c e p t^ fc ^ fc A rtraftsa P ark Film Studios. Television C entre. Epping, NSW. 2121. Phone (0 2 ) 8 5 8 7600.

ARTRANSA PARK FILM STUDIOS AP781

Articles and Interviews Peter Weir: interview

Brian McFarlane, Tom Ryan

322

Blake Edwards

Neil Sinyard

330

Shohei Imamura

Solrun Hoaas

336

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Films . . .

Brian McFarlane

344

Ian Wilson: Interview

Barbara Alysen

350

Connie Field: Interview

Monique Tammer

358

Writing at the Film School

Paul Davies

Peter Weir Interviewed: 322

364

Features The Quarter Letters Picture preview: Wrong Side of the Road Forum

Jeff Peck

316 321 335

Blake Edwards Examined: 330

349

Melbourne Film Festival 1981

Keith Connolly, Tom Ryan, Rod Bishop, Adrian Martin, Rolando Caputo Sydney Film Festival 1981

353

v-

Susan Dermody

360

New Products and Processes

Fred Harden

385 387 405

Production Survey Film Censorship Listings

Television News Making an Award-winning Commercial

Fred Harden

369 372

The Australians

John Langer

The Australians Reviewed: 376

Production Survey The Film and Television Interface

376 379 380

Reviews

Melbourne and Sydney Film Festivals: 353-363

Winter of our Dreams

Keith Connolly

395

Sauve qui peut (la vie)

Adrian Martin

396

Hoodwink

Dave Sargent

397

Excalibur

Don Kennedy

399

It’s My Turn

Debbie Enker The Four Seasons

Brian McFarlane Sigmund Freud’s Dora

Dave Sargent

401 418 419

Books The American Vein

R. J. Thompson

402

Recent Releases

Shohei Imamura Interviewed: 336

Merv Binns

Managing Editor: Scott Murray. Associate Editor: Peter Beilby. Contributing Editors: Tom Ryan, Ian Baillieu, Brian McFarlane, Fred Harden. Editorial Consultant: Maurice Perera. Proof-reading: Arthur Salton. Design and Layout: Keith Robertson, Meredith Parslow, Andrew Pecze. Business Consultant: Robert Le Tet. Office Administration: Nimity James. Secretary: Anne Sinclair.

Office Assistant: Jackie Town. Correspondents: David Teitelbaum (Los Angeles), Mike Nicolaidi (Wellington), Erica Short (Auckland).

Advertising: Peggy Nichols (03) 830 1097 or (03) 329 5983. Printing: Eastern Suburbs News­ papers, 140 Joynton Ave., Waterloo, 2017. Telephone: (02)662 8888. Typesetting: B-P 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.

403

Excaiibur Reviewed: 399

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. 34, September-October, 1981.

Cover: top — Shohei Imamura’s Vengeance is Mine (see interview with Imamura starting p. 336); bottom — Bryan Brown and Judy Davis in John Duigan’s Winter of our Dreams (see review p. 395).

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 315

Tax Concessions

Ian Baillieu, who covered the new tax legislation in the previous issue (“ The New Tax Concessions”, pp. 232-33, 297), reports on recent developments: The early hopes of producers that the new concessions would bring a surge of investment into film produc­ tion have been disappointed. Produc­ tions recently reported cancelled or deferred for lack of finance include The Dunera Boys, Kangaroo, Raven’s Gate

and Bondi Blue. Others are rumoured to be in financial trouble.

There have been two particular problem areas. The first is the time taken by the Department of Home Affairs to process applications for certi­ ficates. Some have been waiting for several months. As the timing of a pro­ duction affects the availability of the tax deductions, such a delay can be critical to a producer’s chances of signing up investors.

The Minister, Ian Wilson, has at last made some progress in clearing the backlog. As at September 8, about a hundred provisional certificates under Division 10BA has been signed. Of course, far from all of those projects will go ahead. Certification is no assur­ ance of commercial viability.

One of the teething problems of the new system has been the swamping of applications for the most professional projects by the volume of applications relating to naively-planned projects which have little chance of competing for the investment dollar and the avail­ able artistic and technical talent.

Besides the unexpected number of applications, and the disruption caused by a change of office premises, the Department's work has been slowed in many cases by the need to obtain supplem entary inform ation from applicants. To overcome this the Department is expected soon to release a more com prehensive application form for use under Division 10BA. The second problem area for pro­ ducers is within the Tax Department, where officers responding to inquiries have generally shown little under­ standing of the com plexities of organizing a major film production, and little sympathy with investors wishing to obtain the 150 per cent deduction.

On the controversial issue of whether investors can obtain the deduction in respect of the portion of the produc­ tion budget spent before they sign up, the Assistant Commissioner in Can­ berra, Mr Carmody, wrote to one pro­ ducer referring to “ investors’ funds used to meet amounts committed under contrac­ tual arrangements entered into prior to investors’ funds being committed to the production . . . In these circumstances, it could not be accepted that the producer was acting on behalf of investors in expending moneys on the produc­ tion of the film.”

Quite so. However, there may be no need for investors to rely on the pro­ ducer expending moneys on their behalf. They may simply pay the pro­ ducer a fee as a production con­ tractor. Section 124ZAJ(2) indicates that a payment by an investor to a pro­ ducer as consideration for the pro­ ducer “ producing, or agreeing to produce, a film or a part of a film” is to be taken as an amount expended by the investor in producing a film.

If for some reason the investors desire to appoint the producer as their agent in the production, it seems necessary to ensure that the project is vested in a separate entity prior to the appointment, after which the producer may acquire it at cost on behalf of the investors.

Ian Baillieu will cover all new developments in the next issue.

A ustralian Film Institute

Peter Crayford, executive director of the Australian Film Institute, has retired. Crayford started at the AFI in March, replacing John Foster who jo in e d A d a m s P a c k e r F ilm Productions.

The Board of the AFI has called for applications and an appointment of a new executive director is expected late September.

Ray Edmondson, director of the Film Section of the National Library of Aus­ tralia, has joined the Board to replace Glenys Rowe, who resigned to become the AFI’s new national exhibition manager. Rowe, who has worked as an independent distributor and as distri­ bution officer with the Australian Film Commission’s Creative Development Branch, will be responsible for the National Film Theatre and the AFI's cinema operations.

With the appointment of Rowe, Les Rabinovich, NFT manager, has left the AFI. The creation of the position of national exhibition manager, located in Sydney, was part of a re-structuring of the AFI’s Melbourne and Sydney offices devised by Crayford. The re­ structuring was seen as upgrading the profile of the AFI in Sydney to help ensure the AFI became a truly national organization.

The AFI has always suffered with a low profile in Sydney, local film industry people seeing the AFI’s strong Mel­ bourne base as somehow being opposed to the body being seen as national. No such complaints have been voiced by these people over the AFC’s Sydney base.

AFC-HBO D eal ■The Australian Film Commission has reported a multi-million dollar break­ through for Australian film producers in the U.S. pay-television market. At a seminar with Australian producers and directors, co-ordinated by the AFC’s general manager, Joe Skrzynski, Home Box Office representatives David L. Meister (vice-president, cinemax and program services) and Fred Cohen (director of co-productions) outlined details of a new program for the development of quality films exclu­ sively for Home Box Office. (HBO is the largest cable television programmer in the U.S., serving six million pay-tele­ vision subscribers in 50 states.)

After a week of intensive meetings with filmmakers, Cohen stated that, “ HBO would like to commission three to four movies from Australia in the next year. Such commissions would be in addition to normal acquisitions.”

During the seminar, Meister said, “We have already bought more than 20 Australian films for HBO, and the product we have seen on this trip reinforces our impression of the quality of Australian films. We are not looking for Hollywood Down Under: Australian filmmakers know how to make good films and we are looking for that distinctive quality.”

The Marketing Division of the AFC has already started discussions on 13 projects with HBO.

Film Censorship

Film censorship again became news with the refusal of the Film Censorship Board to allow the National Film Theatre to show Nagisa Oshima’s Ai no corrida (Empire of the Senses / In the Realm of the Senses) in its original ver­

sion.

The following extract from Hansard (August 25, 1981) covers the debate between Senator Hamer and the Attorney-general, Senator Durack, over the Censor’s decision: Senator Hamer — Is the Attorney­ General aware that the film In the Realm of the Senses by the brilliant Japanese director Oshima was refused showing by the Film Cen­ sorship Board unless it was severely cut? Was this film to have been part of a re tro s p e c tiv e season of Oshima’s work to be shown by the National Film Theatre of Australia to its members? Did the National Film Theatre quite properly refuse to show the film at all as it would have been shown in Oshima’s presence and it would have been a great insult to have shown one of his master­ pieces in a mutilated form, as re­ edited by the Film Censorship Board? Has In the Realm of the Senses been shown uncut at both the Melbourne and Sydney film fe s tiv a ls in the past w ith o u t noticeable harm to those who saw it?

Bearing in mind that the National Film Theatre is a government sup­ ported membership organisation of people interested in the art of film, all aged over 18 years, is not the bann­ ing most perverse? Is the explana­ tion to be found in the recent state­ ment by Mrs Strickland, the Chief Censor, that she does not believe that film festivals should be able to show films that other sectors of the adult population cannot see, on the grounds that it would be elitist to do so? To avoid a repetition of such a peculiar decision by the Film Cen­ sorship Board, will the Attorney­ General consider amending the regulations to provide for the special and reasonable requirements of film festivals and the National Film Theatre?

Senator Durack — The original version of the film In the Realm of the Senses was shown at the Sydney and Melbourne film festivals in 1977 under an informal agreement where­ by films were registered for limited screenings without censorship ex­ amination. An important feature of that agreement was that under no circumstances would permission be given for the screening of a film that had p re v io u s ly been refused registration. Later in 1977 this film was imported for commercial exhibi­ tion but was refused registration by the Film Censorship Board. An ap­ peal was lodged, but the decision was upheld by the Films Board of Review. A reconstructed version of the film was subsequently lodged in 1977, was registered by the Film Censorship Board and was classified R. An uncut print of the film was sub­ m itted for reg istra tion by the National Film Theatre in July 1981 — it is that decision which Senator Hamer is now complaining about — and was refused registration by the Film Censorship Board on the grounds of indecency and obscenity.

The National Film Theatre has ap­ pealed against this decision and the appeal has been listed for hearing by the Films Board of Review on 8 September 1981. In light of that ap­ peal I do not propose to make any further comment on the reasons for the Board’s refusal or, indeed, to make any comment on the decision.

Senator Hamer raises with me some questions about arrangements regarding film festivals which have been made in the past. I am informed that an informal agreement between the Film Censorship Board, the States and the film festivals in 1975 was entered into whereby practically none of the films screened at festivals are screened by the Film Censorship Board. However, the Chief Censor has always reserved the right to call in a film which might have difficulty in obtaining commer­ cial registration and very occasional-

The Quarter

ly has done so. At the moment I am having discussions with the Chief Censor and officers of my Depart­ ment responsible for censorship concerning the present regulations under which the Board operates.

They also will embrace questions concerning film festivals and the arrangements for them. In conclu­ sion I say that I believe the Film Cen­ sorship Board has a very difficult job to do. It has to interpret community standards, which I think is extremely difficult. I do not accept some of the criticisms Senator Hamer seems to have made of it in his question. As to the future of this film, it is in the hands of the Films Board of Review.

As to the relationship between the Board and these film festivals or bodies such as the National Film Theatre to which Senator Hamer refers, as I have said, these are mat­ ters to which I will be giving further consideration.

As Durack suggests, the “ right” of the film festivals and the NFT to import uncut films is in jeopardy of being withdrawn. Strickland’s comments in the newly-published Film Censorship Board Report on Activities 1980 sup­ port this worry.

The issues at stake are major ones and will be dealt with in detail in the next issue of Cinema Papers. In the m eantim e, ce nso rsh ip rem ains precariously balanced, awaiting that tip to the Right — one Strickland seems keen to impart herself.

N Y Cinema f o r Australasian P roduct The U.S. distributor, Satori Produc­ tions, plans to use the D. W. Griffith Theatre in New York as a showcase for Australian and New Zealand films.

Dependent on audience acceptance and availability of product, the aim is to run Australasian films indefinitely.

Greg Coote

Greg Coote has announced that he will leave his positions as co-managing director of Roadshow Distributors and general manager of Village Theatres to become executive director of Rupert Murdoch’s Channel 10. Coote will also join the board of Associated R&R Films and United Telecasters Sydney.

A Touch o f the Jim m ie B lacksm iths In the previous issue of “Cinema Papers”, Barrie Pattison wrote about two collections of American films held ■by Am algam ated D istributors in Sydney (“Collections Testify”, pp. 242­ 43, 305). Here, Pattison reports on the latest, and tragic, developments: The postscript to the “Collections Testify” article is grim but not un­ expected. David Chard of Amalga­ mated Distributors has confirmed that many of the rarer films have already had an axe put through them, with more to come. Neither the press cover­ age of the collections, or the strenuous urgings of the enthusiasts who had viewed the films, weighed as heavily with management as the need to empty out the store room.

It has been claimed that the parent company (MGM in Culver City) has a corporate policy of not placing any material in archives, or with the specialized local distributors to whom such a collection would have been a windfall. Fear of piracy is the motiva­

tion behind this policy. MGM believes it holds masters on all its materials (ask for Victor Seastrom’s Tower of Lies) and that this is all that is required.

But, it is not unknown for corpora­ tions to be over-confident about their archives. And, even if this confidence is well-founded and the three figures of little-known material is adequately represented, it is little help here. Amal­ gamated’s estimates of the cost of landing a new copy vary between $700 and $2000, and sums like that would only be deployed on famous material likely to return the money with reason­ able certainty.

In this context, the loss of near-mint copies from good master materials is particularly agonizing. In fact, this is the way the often unsound judgments of film history are perpetuated. Lack of interest means that the copies are destroyed. Lack of copies means that the titles pass out of movie lore — forever.

It takes a skilful practitioner to reverse this process. Henri Langlois’ popularization of the World War 1 Feuillade serials, when he re-issued them through the Paris Cinema­ theque, is one of the few successful examples.

Just how valid is this fear of piracy on which the seemingly philistine policy rests? Most of the best-documented instances of film piracy — the Mafia making off with Deep Throat, etc. — can be traced back to theatrical 35mm screenings.

Clearly, the only way to avoid piracy is not to show the films. Logically, MGM should begin by burning all the copies of Gone With The Wind where a genuine risk of unlawful use must exist.

It could start with all the blotchy Cinemascope prints with the cast cut off at the knees.

Amalgamated’s experience has shown that the rare films will not return the outlay a serious duper would have to pour into them. On the other hand, these copies could have serviced the specialized market locally well into the next century. They are an even greater loss to American studies groups than to film enthusiasts, but no representa­ tions have come from that area.

Indeed, the whole incident reflects poorly on the local scene. Interested groups had made no move, during its availability, towards what was the best collection of its kind in the country. The only research done on these was by individuals at their own expense.

Maybe Australia does have the film culture it deserves.

Amalgamated comes off badly. For the cost of a broom closet, it is wiping out a collection which could have brought pleasure for decades — and this at a time when interest was being shown, despite the minimal promotion done on the films.

On the other hand, outside of the odd appeal to national chauvinism (Why don’t people complain about destruction of copies of Rats of Tobruk?), Amalgamated has a point when it says it is only following prac­ tices normal in an industry which regu­ larly junks irreplaceable film material as a matter of course. Amalgamated at least attempted to exploit their copies.

But picture the outrage if a similar collection of rare books or paintings were incinerated. I am not sure why we should accept crassness as the norm exclusively in film.

Well, rarities like Clarence Brown’s Looking Forward, set in studio-built London, and standards like George Fitzmaurice’s charming The Emperor’s Candlesticks, are known to have gone, along with many of the films of the first years of sound. The criterion was lack of bookings.

It is a glimpse of the frighteningly casual way what were once the most prestigious, most glitteringly commer­ cial products of the entire film industry are consigned to limbo.

Yes, it is a pity. A few of us bothered

to check . . . But all is not lost: Amalga­ mated has retained its prints of Zombie Flesh Eaters and The First Nudie Musicall

AFC Staffing Changes

Philip Nelson, who has been execu­ tive assistant to the chairman, Ken Watts, for five-and-a-half years and also executive assistant to the general manager, Joe Skrzynski, is to leave the Australian Film Commission. Nelson is taking up an appointment in the policy secretariat at the Special Broadcast­ ing Service in September.

After four-and-a-half years with the Australian Film Institute, Sue Murray took up the position of Information and Public Relations Officer with the AFC on May 21, 1981. Duties include the dissemination of information on the AFC to the film industry and public, providing basic research assistance to AFC staff, designing and developing information brochures to meet industry and community requirements, and, together with the AFC’s publicity con­ sultant Rea Francis, establishing and maintaining media contacts.

The Grundy Organization The president of the Grundy O rga niza tion , Ian Holmes, has announced the formation of a new divi­ sion for the production of documen­ tary, docu-drama and public affairs programming, for distribution world­ wide.

Barry Sloane has been appointed vice-president (special projects). He will head this new division’s produc­ tion operations, using the Grundy Los Angeles office as his base. Sloane will develop and supervise productions for television buyers in the U.S., Australia, Europe and the Far East.

Sloane’s experience in this field ranges through producing documen­ taries and public affairs programs in Britain, the U.S. and Australia. He has produced several special projects for the Grundy Organization for world­ wide sales. In 1979, for example,'he took a Grundy crew to Brazil to make a 90-minute special about Great Train Robber Ronald Biggs.

In announcing the appointment, Holmes said, “We have produced a number of special projects of this type in recent years, but generally on a ‘one-off basis. We are very keen to develop in a bigger way.”

AFC Investm ents Profit-sharing investments and loans made by the Australian Film Commis­ sion in the past 12-week period were released on August 5; they total $1,767,963.

Major projects include $90,500 to Margaret Fink (producer of My Brilliant Career) for the development of a pack­ age of four cinema features: Edens Lost, For Love Alone, The Thriller and Pea Picker. David Elfick (Newsfront, The Chain Reaction, Starstruck) has received a similar package investment of $46,500 for the development of three cinema features: The Whispering, Undercover and Ton Run. Investments in feature and tele­ vision projects, at script development and production stages, total $702,797.

This amount includes $200,000 to Brian Rosen and Maurice Murphy (Fatty Finn, Doctors and Nurses) for Gooseflesh and Horror Movie; Sweet Juliet and the Macho, a comedy from James Davern ($80,000) involving ballet and football in a country town; Eve Ash, creator of the successful educational

package, The Job Interview, has pro­ duction investment of $55,000 for a series along the same lines.

Scripts in various stages of drafting include Frank Moorhouse and Sophia Turkiewicz’s Times Raging ($10,000), to be directed by Sophia Turkiewicz and produced by Joan Long (The Picture Show Man, Puberty Blues); Phil Noyce (Newsfront, Heatwave) and Margaret Kelly (Puberty Blues) have $15,540 towards their Um brella Woman, a contemporary comedy of

errors.

The AFC, realizing that lower-budget features have difficulty attracting com­ mercial completion guarantees, has negotiated a joint arrangement with Film Finances Ltd. The first film to benefit, and test the viability of this scheme, is Moving Out, from Pattinson Ballantyne Film Productions ($56,606).

The idea of the scheme is that the AFC’s liability be limited to the first 10 per cent of the overage or completion guarantee, and Film Finances cover the balance. Film Finances will be charged a three per cent premium and the AFC one per cent, making the total premium cost four per cent. There is no rebate of the premium if the completion moneys are not required.

A separate arm of the AFC, the Creative Development Branch, has expended $432,350 for script develop­ ment and production in 47 separate projects (see p. 418).

Tax Annoyance

Editors and publishers of some of Australia’s larger cultural magazines have joined to request the Govern­ ment revise its proposed 2.5 per cent sales tax on the print media.

In a telex to the Treasurer, John Howard, on August 25, it was pointed out that many small arts publications in Australia received Federal subsidies and that to levy a tax on these maga­ zines and journals would in effect mean that the Government was taxing itself.

The precarious financial situation of cultural magazines was pointed out and Howard was told that a sales tax would further hinder efforts of small arts pub­ lications to be self-supporting.

Economic viability for small arts publications in Australia, it was argued, is not yet possible (cf. IAC Enquiry on Publishing Industry, 17/10/1979; Ch. 2.2.6, Cultural Magazines).

Recognition of this and of the vital necessity for such publications to be available to the public for educational and cultural reasons has prompted the Federal Government to make avail­ able subsidies.

Lyndal Wilson, acting editor of Craft Australia, said, “We have asked the Government to reconsider its proposed sales tax legislation because many of us are on break-even budgets. We’ve had to accommodate postal increases and rising costs of paper and print­ ing. There is a limit to the price that can be charged before people stop and think whether they will buy.

Many small arts publications are already feeling the Government's curtailment of spending on the arts.

Sales tax is another set-back and jeopardizes our survival.” '

Travelling Film Festival Spring Tour The Travelling Film Festival, started eight years ago to provide country audiences with a selection of “ alterna­ tive cinema” , has begun its 1981 Spring Tour. A program has been selected from the films that participated in the

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 317

Cinema Papers

A USTRA LIA N

M O TIO N PICTURE YEARBOOK

1981/82 Edited by Peter Beilby

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that the 1981/82 edition of the Australian Motion Picture Yearbook can now be ordered.

The enlarged, updated 1981/82 edition contains many new features, including: • Comprehensive filmographies of feature film scriptwriters, directors of photography, composers, designers, editors and sound recordists • Monographs on the work of director Bruce Beresford, producer Matt Carroll and scriptwriter David Williamson • A round-up of films in production in 1981 • Actors, technicians and casting agencies • An expanded list of services and facilities, including equipment suppliers and marketing services

AUSTRALIAN

MOTION PICTURE YEARBOOK Edited by Peter Beilby

The Quarter

1981 Sydney Film Festival and which were balloted by the audience as among its favorites. They are: The Boat Is Full, Mama Turns 100, Mon oncle d’Amerique, Blue Collar, The Fiancee and Beads of One Rosary, plus

assorted shorts.

In Brisbane, the program will be ex­ tended to include Christ Stopped at Eboli, Heartland, The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter, 14’s Good 18’s Better, and The Trials of Alger Hiss.

The resultant selection will become the Brisbane Film Festival, and replaces the usually independently-chosen program.

The Travelling Film Festival receives substantial financing from the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Com m ission and the NSW Government Department of Cultural Activities.

For further information, telephone Kathy Turbott on (02) 660 3909.

Super 8 Com petition The Japan Information Service has announced an Amateur Super 8 short film competition. The themes must be on some aspect of Japan or on Australian-Japanese relations, no shorter than 10 minutes or longer than 20 minutes, and produced after January 1981. Entries close November 30, 1981 and additional details can be obtained from the Cultural Affairs Officer, Japan Information Service, Ground Floor, 492 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, Vic., 3004.

Telephone (03) 267 3277, 267 3231.

H eaven ’s Gate to Re-open According to a Screen International report, Michael C im ino’s muchcriticized Heaven’s Gate is to be re­ released (for the second time) under its original title of The Johnson County Wars. It will now run 100 minutes, or 119 minutes shorter than the firstreleased version — i.e., less than half its correct length. The tragedy is almost too awesome to contemplate. (See review, Cinema Papers, No. 33, pp.

234-35.)

M elbourne Film Festival The 1982 Melbourne Film Festival will take place from June 3-14. The Festival’s director, Geoffrey Gardner, said, “The Festival will run over 12 days, instead of the usual 15 days, in response to many subscriber requests that the event be shortened to make it more digestible. The main venue will be the Mayfair Cinema in Collins St, with additional screen­ ings at the State Film Theatre, also in the city.”

Gardner stressed that these and other modifications were the result of a complete evaluation of the Festival format by a special sub-committee in the light of subscriber expectations and needs. He also said that at next year’s Festival there would be a greater range of ticket options than previously.

Customs and censorship regula­ tions required that tickets be sold on a subscription basis, but the type of sub­ scriptions available would be more varied. For example, one immediate benefit of having a city location will be the introduction of repeat screenings of the main evening films during the day­ time (as at the Sydney Film Festival). A subscription ticket will be available admitting people to these daytime screenings, designed to attract those who are unable to attend the Festival in the evening.

The 1982 Festival will comprise an

320 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Opening Gala performance, followed by 27 regular perform ances on evenings and at weekends. To these •will be added two days of special screenings devoted to a particular country or theme. There will also be some alternative screenings, plus day­ time bonus sessions of retrospective material, discussions and collections of new Australian short films.

“All told, we expect to present more than 50 sessions of new films from around the world and from Australia” , Gardner said.

A dvertising R educed?

The Federation of Australian Com­ m ercial Television Stations has decided to reduce advertising to child­ ren in their special “C” time (4 p.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays) by three minutes.

Previously, 13 minutes advertising in the hour was permissible with no restriction on the repetition of the same advertisement. This is compared with the 11 minutes per hour permitted in adult prime time.

Now, advertising is reduced to 10 minutes and no advertisement can be repeated more than twice during this hour. Any repeats must be at least 15 minutes apart.

FACTS says it has acted in response to opinions held by some sections of the community and in opposition to the advertising industry.

Much less publicized was the simul­ taneous and obvious “trade-off” for this minimal alteration in “C” time — per­ mission for a 58 per cent increase in advertising on Sundays and other holy days.

In practical terms, although the con­ cession concedes that less advertising is in the children’s best interest and because repetition is the key to implanting impressions — as well as being a prime irritant — the voluntary restriction on repetition, however small, is welcome.

The Australian Children’s Television Action Committee states unequivoc­ ally that children should not be used, manipulated or influenced by tele­ vision advertising during their own programs and that direct advertising to children should not be permitted at any time.

In a survey of 300 mothers, carried out by B.S.A. for a commercial channel in 1979, these were some of the findings: • Virtually every mother (95 per cent) believed that children really remembered commercials — many said instead of school studies — and resented adver­ tising as it was “aimed at child­ ren’s minds” ; • 78 per cent felt that a lot of child­ ren’s advertising should be banned; and • 72 per cent felt that advertising affects children far too much.

Parents knew children asked for a lot of things they saw on television — 80 per cent of mothers said so. They also said children felt deprived if not given these things. And 80 per cent said they thought a great deal of advertising aimed at children was dishonest.

The survey showed that the most un­ popular items advertised to children, as listed by parents, were: lollies and bubble gum; games and useless toys; soft drinks; breakfast cereals; and junk food.

The National Health and Medical Research Council has been investiga­ ting the effects of television adver­ tising on children’s health. It is con­ cerned that children’s diet and eating habits are being adversely affected by what television sells them. The Council has suggested that counteracting messages against junk food and advocating good dietary habits should be introduced on television.

ACTAC welcomes the Council’s research and concern, but opposes the double-talk plan of enticing with one hand and forbidding with the other.

Adults must have more credibility than that if they want children to take notice.

(From the ACTAC Newsletter.)

3-D Re-appears

Greg Lynch, of Greg Lynch Film Dis­ tributors (see interview, Cinema Papers, No. 31, pp. 36-39, 91), is to install a 3-D system in his two Mel­ bourne cinemas.

Invented by Chris Gordon, this “Stereovision Polarisation Wide-screen Process” utilizes two 70mm pro­ jectors. 3-D has been seen in Australia previously, but mostly on 16mm, with generally poor quality.

Lynch claims the new system will revitalize interest in 3-D. This system requires glasses, which will be sold for one dollar.

The Jan Dawson A ward

The Jan Dawson Award, which was established in 1980 in memory of the late Jan Dawson, is designed to com­ memorate her work as a film critic, writer and program adviser. The Award is intended to assist in the distribution of films and in research and writing on film which reflect her work in pro­ moting a film culture in its widest sense, of the past as well as the present.

(Cinema Papers is a financial sup­ porter of the Award.)

The first Jan Dawson Award for 1981 has been made to: • David Kershaw, the musicologist, to aid his research on the original music score of Sergei Eisenstein’s silent film October, com­ posed by Edmund Meisel. It is anticipated that there will be a live p e rfo rm a n ce of the re c o n ­ s tru c te d score, w ith a fu ll orchestra, at a public screening of October, and that a monograph on Meisel’s film-music (Battle­ ship Potemkin, Symphony of a City, etc.) will be published; and

• Circles, the feminist film distri­ butors, in recognition of its activi­ ties in the distribution of feminist film and video work, and to assist it in making available works that otherwise would not be in public distribution.

Details and applications for the 1982 Award can be received from 84 Chapel Market, London N1.

John R eid John Reid has resigned as general manager of Greater Union Film Distri­ butors to set up his own film con­ sultancy company.

N ation al Film Archive The National Film Archive preserves Australian and foreign films and Aus­ tralian television programs of historic and artistic value. Its operating budget is limited and funds are largely con­ served for the work of copying deteriorating nitrate film or dubbing television videotapes in danger of erasure. Consequently, filmmakers are encouraged to donate or deposit their films in the Film Archive (there are taxrelief provisions for donations).

Every film held by the Archive is essentially for preservation and for study on the Archive’s premises. The Archive will give a formal undertaking

in respect of any film received that it will not be used or copied for any kind of exhibition outside the Archive, in whole or in part, without written permission of the copyright owners.

The Archive tries to get the best sur­ viving copy of a film or videotape for preservation. In most cases this is the original negative, original reversal posi­ tive or master videotape.

Understandably, producers and film­ makers often do not wish to donate such material to the Archive as they need physical as well as copyright control. So, producers and filmmakers are encouraged to deposit such material in the Archive for safe­ keeping. The producer or filmmaker still physically owns the material and may withdraw it at any stage.

If the original material is not avail­ able for deposit in the Archive, a good projection print (on 35mm where avail­ able) is welcome.

The Archive is willing to pay freight to Canberra, for films being deposited or donated, from anywhere in Australia.

Each technical entity comprising the film is given a specific location number, and movement of film within the Archive is strictly controlled to ensure that no films are mislaid. Films are therefore safer in the Archive than in a laboratory vault or other location.

Films are stored at a steady temperature of 23°C and 50 per cent relative humidity. Within three to four years, the Archive hopes to have acetate vaults of 10°C and 50 per cent relative humidity. This colder tempera­ ture will prolong the life of films.

If further printing is required, the Archive provides the service of sending the master material, within 24 hours of receipt of written permission from the copyright owner, to the laboratory of the owner’s choice. The Archive will pay outward and return freight in such cases.

Since the Archive never allows a pre­ servation copy to be projected, even internally, it is useful to have a second print for reference or occasional pro­ jection. The Archive’s budget for pro­ viding such reference copies is limited and dependence is placed on the goodwill of filmmakers to deposit or donate reference prints.

Where such reference prints are received, they will be subject to the same undertaking as the preservation copies; that is, no use will be made of them outside the Archive without the owner’s permission.

For further information, contact Mike Lynskey, acting chief film officer, National Film Archive.

Box-office Grosses Due to a space shortage, “ Box-office Grosses” has been held over to the next issue.

A ddenda an d Corrigenda In the introduction to the Robert Altman interview (Cinema Papers, No. 33, p. 244), it was stated Health and Quintet “ had their only Australian screening at the 1981 Melbourne Film Festival” . This is incorrect, both films having been screened at the Sydney Film Festival as well. In fact, David Stratton, director of the SFF, was instrumental in arranging the screen­ ings. Cinema Papers regrets the error.

In Cinema Papers, No. 32, the review of Flash Gordon (p. 177-78) was attri­ buted to Jim Shembrey. The correct spelling is Jim Schembri.

In the “Collections Testify” article (Cinema Papers, No. 33, pp. 242-43, 305), Robert J. Flaherty was in­ correctly referred to as William Flaherty. The mistake was made during editing. ★

S exist Censors In the middle of the 1981 Sydney Film Festival, a meeting was held at An­ zac House to debate the procedures of the G reater Union Awards. The meeting was organized in reaction to this year’s Awards, which had been an­ nounced on the opening night of the Festival. In particular, the response was directed at Meatheads (Fiction) and Groping (General), which some felt to be sexist.

The Anzac House meeting debated whether films felt to be sexist or racist should be allowed to win awards. It was suggested forcibly that not only should all films be vetted for possible sexist/racist overtones, but that the judges of the Awards be checked for a clean bill of health.

The result of the meeting was a peti­ tion sent to Festival director, David Stratton. It read: “ We the undersigned request that in future the Greater Union Awards be given to films that represent an in­ novative approach and which neither condone nor advocate regressive ideologies such as racism and sex­ ism. Judges should be concerned with the total effect of the film and should not separate form from con­ tent in reaching their decision.”

One of the 1981 judges was Anne Brooksbank. She attended the Anzac House meeting and, in response, sent the following letter to Stratton.

To David Stratton, Director, Sydney Film Festival, Glebe Point Rd, Glebe.

Dear David, I’d like you to regard this letter as a submission in opposition to a number of views about the Greater Union Awards that were aired in the dis­ cussion at Anzac House, and were to be presented to you on paper.

There was a prevailing theory that

Alexander Proyas, Salik Silverstein, Tony Vaccher and Norman Neeson’s Groping, controversial winner in the General Category at the 1981 Greater Union A wards.

the judges should be vetted for their social attitudes, and should be rejected unless these attitudes measured up to certain guidelines, which seemed to be chiefly feminist in nature. There was a further prevailing theory that films would not be accepted for the Greater Union Awards if their content was con­ sidered sexist or in other ways unacceptable according to these guidelines. Both propositions seem to me dangerous and absurd.

I can’t believe that the Film Festival has battled for so long against censor­ ship only to see it reimposed on the subject matter of our films. If you set up any body that arbitrates on the social and moral views of filmmakers and excludes some because of an inter­ pretation of what those views are, we are back to a censorship as ruthless and far-reaching as that of the Hays Office. And a good deal of the argu­ ment was only about interpretation.

What in fact were the social attitudes of the makers of Meatheads? What, in fact, were their attitudes to women?

Were the same attitudes held by all the key people involved in the making of the film (some of whom were women)?

All these questions, which would be directly relevant in establishing whether or not a film qualified under the proposed criteria, could probably only be established in the course of McCarthy-style interrogations in which the weak-kneed are relentlessly harried and filmmakers encouraged to inform on their colleagues.

I refer to Meatheads because it was the film that most concerned me as a judge of the fiction section and one that I am apparently held in contempt by the feminist lobby of Anzac House, and regarded as a traitor to my sex, for daring to like. But where would these hypothetical lines be drawn? Would the same film have been acceptable if it had been about old men on, say, a senior citizens’ night out? Does the answer change if you make the occasion Anzac Day? Would the same film have been acceptable if the leading characters were female meatworkers employed in a chicken factory (as in a celebrated documentary), who in the film get drunk and raucous on a night out, and one of whom gets killed in a motorbike accident? I believe it would have been acceptable.

Does the answer change if the group of women are middle-aged society women, with unliberated attitudes towards their husbands, out on a bridge and sherry night? Who are the human beings whom we are allowed to make films about? Who are the human beings whom we are not allowed to make films about for fear of incurring the wrath of the selection panel and having our films flung out of the Greater Union judging and, presumably, out of the Festival as well, almost the only place where short films are seen by a reasonably wide audience?

The judges of the fiction section did not believe that Meatheads was a great film. It was run close by the other three finalists. But in the end it showed a director’s ability to evoke and control performances, and to tell a story with a good deal of human warmth and pain and sensitivity, and that made it worthy of the fiction prize.

It might be worth putting on record that I was not intimidated by the two male judges into voting for it, and that, on the contrary and somewhat to their relief, I was the one who first spoke in favor of it after the screening.

As far as I could see, at the Anzac House discussion it was assumed that because a film was made about that subject, it then automatically endorsed and celebrated crass male values. I can’t, however, believe that most aud­ iences would see it that way. It seems to me a film about people who are victims of their work and their circumstances, and who have only a few means of escape from these, self-defeating and unsatisfactory as well. It seemed to me

a much sadder and more sensitive film than the one, called I think The Buck’s Night, which won a few years ago.

It was further assumed that I and the other judges believed that a film should be judged orrfy on its technical com­ petence and apart from any con­ sideration of its content. A little wearily now, I say this is not so.

There was a film entered which looked at first like a winner. The direc­ tion as such was excellent. The pictures were good. The camera was cleverly used and always in the right place. But as the film went on the thought, the ideas, the sense of story and the hand­ ling of the subject seemed increas­ ingly dull and derivative, and the film was voted out of the running quite early on. (The subject, however, which was the end of the world, would probably have been quite acceptable under the proposed new guidelines, though perhaps cast into doubt by the fault of having its single lead character a man.)

This whole argument is pretty depressing. It’s been hard enough to survive as a woman and in a pro­ fession as it is. Already I worry about my one year-old daughter, and try to plot and imagine a survival strategy for her. I don’t need to be patronized by the kind of self-righteous idiocy that was floating about at Anzac House. And I hate the fascist overtones of the atti­ tudes propagated there — fascist atti­ tudes towards the films and the audiences that would see them.

Censorship cuts both ways. If you believe that films should not be made about certain subjects, you must, therefore, believe that the people who are to see them are too stupid or delib­ erately blind or too ill-informed to make up their minds about those films. That’s been the basis of most male dictator­ ships over the centuries. I don’t think the female version is any more attractive.

Anne Brooksbank

What, fa iled ?

Dear Sir, Your Jill Kitson’s review (?) of my television series, A Town Like Alice, devotes most of its space to a critique of poor Nevil Shute’s book and ends up with what I feel is a pretty unjustified attack on my personal work.

Kitson generalizes the series into the “failure” class of the two other recentlyscreened programs [The Last Outlaw and Water Under the Bridge]. My track record of success speaks for itself, but let me correct the impression she conveys that Alice “failed” .

The program is the only one bought for screening on Masterpiece Theatre in the U.S. It has been chosen ahead of program s like Edward and Mrs Simpson to lead the new season’s pro­ gram in October.

It is the only Australian drama series to sell to the BBC. It played in prime time across one week on BBC1, and its audience reached 16 million. It was highly praised by English critics, in­ cluding Clive James, who gave it a rave.

In our own country, your critic stands alone in her condemnation, as most reviewers have regarded it as the best series made to date. It has also achieved extremely high audience rating figures.

Despite Kitson’s apparent abhor­ rence, I make no excuses for recog­ nizing an audience and catering for it.

Perhaps if more feature filmmakers considered’ their audiences, we wouldn’t have had so many financial disasters.

Henry Crawford Jill Kitson replies: If 16 million Brits and Clive James can’t be wrong, why worry about my review? ★

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 321

TOWARDS _

Brian McFarlane and Tom Ryan

the

Centre

Central to most o f Peter Weir's films is the attempt to move beyond the surface strata o f behavior, beyond what is readily perceived, to a realm o f experience that is equally ‘real' but less tangible. In this sense, his work reveals a strong impulse towards the abstract, towards the collapse o f the forms o f the everyday into a stream o f "sights and sounds and colors . . . closer to music". This impulse generally belongs to practitioners o f a particular kind o f experimental film, yet here it is firmly rooted in the methods o f a traditional narrative cinema. The sense o f the strange which is evoked in Picnic A t Hanging Rock or The Last Wave is initially a creation o f a narrative arrangement that refuses to explain itself, that denies its viewers access to ready-made explanations. Like Tom (Tony LlewellynJones) in the former film, the viewer might dwell on the old way: "There's a solution somewhere.

There's gotta be!" But part o f the pleasure o f these films lies in the way in which they refuse such expectations o f an easy satisfaction.

The apparent realism o f their fictions is insistently challenged, and enriched, by the intrusion o f incidents which disturb a familiar order. Like his characters, the viewers o f Weir's films are repeatedly faced with the mysteries o f the moment, experiences that refuse to succumb to the kinds o f patterns imposed by conventional understanding. The films seem to hover as if on the edge o f a dream­ world, or a place o f nightmares, and while Weir's work since The Cars That Ate Paris certainly cannot be classified in the realm o f ‘horror' film, at least according to the customary use o f the label, nonetheless they share this element in common with them. They are pervaded by the inexplicable, by the sense o f awe imbedded in a fleeting glimpse o f an unknown terrain, an incursion beyond the looking-glass.

The look which guides the viewer is often that o f a character — Michael (Dominic Guard) as he gazes in wonderment at the "Botticelli angels" in Picnic At Hanging Rock, David Burton (Richard Chamberlain), fearful o f his vision o f ‘the last wave', or Archy (Mark Lee) and Frank (Mel Gibson) faced by the floating funfair, o f the threatening shore in Gallipoli. But the starting-point is always the everyday, fo r without that the film s’ ‘other’ dimension would have no context, no point o f entrance for the viewer. The characters who inhabit this territory o f the familiar seem to exist outside o f psychology, archetypes o f the common person, their individual features serving as particular aspects o f "the greater whole". Their path through the films leads them towards a confrontation with nothing less than their destiny (the rock, the wave, Gallipoli via the pyramids), beyond the repressions o f a Victorian education, beyond the comforts o f middle-class Sydney, beyond the constraints o f an Australia isolated from all but an impression o f the rest o f the world. t.R. CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 323

Peter Weir

Through your films, it is possible to get a sense of somebody who is par­ ticularly aware of the expectations of his audience and able to play around with those expectations.

When you are making a film, how conscious are you of the audience?

Very c o n s c io u s . I t ’s very important for me to be constantly asking myself, in the scripting process or during the shoot, what the audience will understand from this or that, and what it will expect as a consequence. I feel at liberty to play around to the extent that I can control what I want them to know or feel at any given point. And I guess I like to keep them a step behind or to subvert their expecta­ tions.

have been, probably, the early work you did for television. How did you get involved in “Luke’s Kingdom”?

Much is made of the landscape as a full of holes, with great gaps of powerful force in the series . . . reason.

I was broke after finishing Cars That Ate Paris and there was an awful moment when I didn’t know if I could get any work. I con­ tacted the ABC drama department and asked if they knew of me; a guarded “yes” was the answer. So I said, “ Look, I’ve a couple of short stories I’ve written. I’d like to talk to you about developing them into something.” I got a very quick “ no” on that one. They weren’t interested. I don’t know if things have changed.

Yes. I thought he’d chosen a great location on the banks of the Turron River out of Sofala. It was a country I knew of course from Cars, which I had shot in Sofala. In fact, I remember driving to the location with a car full of actors in period costume and passing the rusting wrecks of old Holdens in the backyards of Sofala home­ steads. It was a pleasure to get back, into country to which I had already responded.

But Tony also duplicated a loca­ tion on Smokey Dawson’s Ranch in

What you say has echoes of what Alfred Hitchcock says about the audience. Do you share his black humor?

It’s difficult to see things in any broad view like that; but no, I don’t think so. I’ve seen reviews of some of my films which have seen them in terms of a black humor, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I suppose it depends on the way you see things. Maybe bizarre or strange, but I prefer words like enigmatic, curious or fascinating.

When I think about humor, I don’t break things down into “ black” or anything else. I remember the word “sick” being used in a review of a couple of sketches I did in my uni­ versity days, but that’s a long time ago.

Would you like to make a comedy?

Yes. I have an idea for a comedy I’d like to do.

My beginnings in this whole business really were in comedy, as a writer-performer in university revue-type things. I am a great Monty Python fan and I remember John Lennon saying that instead of being born a Beatle, he’d rather have been born a Monty Python. I wouldn’t have minded that. I love their humor. They may not be on the screens this week, but their humor is in the air.

I shot a commercial with John Cleese and we struck up a sort of friendship. We talked about doing something together someday.

I think my film s are a kind o f questfo r me, even though I don’t consciously think about it when making them . . . the great black joke is that we agree on a certain reality that’s to me plainly fu ll o f holes, with great gaps o f reason. ”

So, I was very glad when Luke’s Sydney. I didn’t get the same Kingdom turned up. I did two feeling from that kind of scrubby, episodes and, once I had accepted city bushland on the edge of the city the terms of the way it was made, I as I’d got from the Turron country. enjoyed it. There were really two There is something unpleasant directors: the producer, Tony about a lot of the countryside Essex, and the director of the around Sydney, I think. episode. Tony directly controlled the scripting and the cutting room. Several ideas seem to run through I think I accepted that as a your work, like the one of the ordi­ challenge: to see what I could do, nary man constantly being under the To what extent do you see yourself two hands behind my back. And, of threat of the extraordinary or the as an ‘auteur’, as the controlling course, I had no control over the one of rational man being pushed casting or the music. influence over your films? into areas where rationality won’t I think I was successful in certain serve him anymore. Are they ideas I do see myself as exercising a sequences, but it was Tony’s that interest you? control, but I am not sure what that show. I was able to experiment, really tells us. I think the word however, and Tony encouraged it.

They did interest me, parti­ auteur has become devalued and we He was more a director than a pro­ cularly in The Last Wave. I think probably have to put it aside. It was ducer and he didn’t care about the my films are a kind of quest for me a very useful word during the late budget. He didn’t care about excess even though I don’t consciously 1950s and ’60s, when the cinema and he even encouraged it. think about it when I am making was so polarized, but with the great Whether it was a very good thing them. When I face questions about changes in the 1970s and ’80s I or not I don’t know, but it was his unreality, the bizarre, black humor, vision and I thought, in accepting any of these areas, I feel the labels don’t think it is so useful. the money, I really had to try and are often the wrong way round. The In a sense, the most anonymous execute his intentions. So it wasn’t great black joke is that we agree on work you would have done would really me there. a certain reality that’s to me plainly

One issue you rarely tackle directly is the question of sex. Why is that?

I don’t know. I think eroticism has been present in my films and it’s an area I find interesting. But I think the subject of sex is dwarfed by larger questions.

I prefer Jung to Freud. I think Freud was a dazzling, original thinker, but I don’t feel his theory was ever tested because it was sub­ merged in a moral debate. It was never really fully explored or talked about, because the key issues were lost in the way moral and religious issues were allowed to interfere.

But I’m more inspired by Jung.

For him sex was a part of the great whole and, in that way, I think sexuality is in my work. I direct with my body; I use my sexuality to direct. I have explored the masculine and the feminine in my own personality to direct actors and actresses, and that’s meant they must explore their duality too. In this way I think I’ve gained from Jung.

When I talk about him, by the way, I must say I have not studied the major body of his work. I have only read the popular works, those half a dozen volumes he wrote for people like me. But it was enough to find some compatibility and to expand my mind.

“Picnic at Hanging Rock” is a film which is very interesting in its exploration of a sort of smothered sexuality, of sexuality in an environ­ ment which represses it . . .

I was never really interested in that side of the film. I didn’t see it as a part of its theme. I remember when I went to London for the pro­ motion, that that was the area which most interested the British critics. Comments ranged from talk of repressed sexuality to the less subtle, talking about lesbianism and so on. But it didn’t interest me.

For me, the grand theme was Nature, and even the girls’ sex­ uality was as much a part of that as the lizard crawling across the top of the rock. They were part of the same whole; part of larger ques­ tions.

It’s interesting that you don’t feel it to be more important, because it does seem very intelligently worked out through the film. For instance, there are the kinds of contrasts you set up between the attitudes of those influenced by Victorian education — the girls and the teachers — and those of the servant, Minnie, and her boyfriend, Tom. Also, there is the contrast between Albert the groom, who makes fairly crude comments about the girls as they go up the rock, and the inhibited, more ‘chivalrous’ response of Michael. I think you can trace that sort of thing through the film . . .

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 325

Peter Weir

Perhaps, but th a t kind of approach is quite foreign to me.

The words and analytical thinking, which come from your side of the table, represent something I have unlearned. It is a tool that I was brought up with through my educa­ tion, something I was trained to use and something I have found I didn’t want to use or live with. I am not trying to imply something mystical, simply that to use words like those, or to think like this, is very distant from me.

I think what I have done in my own sort of personality course over the past 15 years is what enables me to make films, or to make them my way, and I think this sort of approach gets in the way. Of course, I sat with Cliff Green and worked things out, and that was a necessary process to get something on to paper, something an audience can understand — a blueprint for the film.

Perhaps it would have been easy to talk about this closer to the film, but now, as I am left with a horde of images from that film, it’s only the way I began the film, or began thinking about it.

You can identify shifts in a way you can’t if you look at the present, where you are submerged in this mass of apparently contradictory information . . .

Nevertheless, that kind of con­ nection with a story is important for me, a feeling that it is somehow a part of me — that I am part of the process of the film.

Yes, that is if your interest lies in a clear line between the two. Again I think it comes back to concepts, on the way you see things. A ques­ tion that is often asked is, “ Why are you filmmakers *so concerned with the past? Why are you making so many period pictures? What we need are contemporary films that are relevant.” But to me, that just never was a question. Past, present or future — they are all relevant, at least as far as filmmaking goes.

One of the credits for “The Last Wave” reads “based on an idea by Peter Weir”. Does this idea come from the stone head you picked up in Tunisia?

From “The Cars That Ate Paris” onwards, almost all your films, at One of the things that is said about least as far as your comments are your films, and you say it too, is that reported, are conceived from a they avoid politics in the broad sense personal incident, and you seem to of the term. Yet in “Picnic at have rejected “The Thorn Birds” Hanging Rock”, you have a very because you couldn’t get involved. political situation: there is a certain How important to you is that sort of education, a certain class personal incident as a starting point? structure, that the film seems to deal with directly . . .

Since I’ve become aware that I do this, 1 am attempting to stop. If I found it very interesting, as an something becomes self-conscious, Australian whose origins were in and you continue doing it, you are the British Isles, to use the film to just acting yourself out. sort of wander through the ruins of The Last Wave was, in a sense, that class system. And then I went the externalizing of the feeling that back to that from another angle came from picking up a head in with The Plumber: to look at class Tunisia, and the bottle [Eno salts] in contemporary terms, to what we that I picked up, among other might have become in our society items, at Gallipoli was important where we don’t seem to have such a for Gallipoli. But now having done clear working-class, middle-class, interviews where these things have been photographed and looked at, I aristocracy thing. have suddenly become very uncom­ David Hare, the British dramatist, fortable about it. It is as if for The has talked about why he thinks it is Year of Living Dangerously I will important to deal with historical have to go and collect something in subjects rather than contemporary Indonesia, which is obviously ones, arguing that by looking back absurd._______________________ you can see a process of change.1 bridge, March 5, 1978, and reprinted in

of stone with three parallel lines on it. I pulled it up and it was a hand, a fist attached to a head — about the size of a doll’s head. It was a marble figure of some sort, cut from some sort of relief. I later got it dated at the university in Sydney.

I then wondered what was the experience I had passed through, and found myself thinking of it happening to a lawyer or a journal­ ist — someone who dealt with the rational, and with “ facts” . I let that thought hang about for a while and joined it with some other thoughts I’d been having. A pattern formed and a story began to emerge around that of a lawyer who stumbled across areas of the irrational or the unreal.

In this particular incident in Tunisia, we had stopped at some Roman ruins and I had a kind of premonition. The driver was tooting the horn of the car to make us hurry back, but I delayed. I am glad, because I found a little piece

tions. So the search for this story is apparently not following that kind of route.

But the area of creativity is o bviously one th a t can be approached by various avenues.

You have to leave yourself open.

Just as people jog to keep their bodies fit, there is the equivalent mentally. You must somehow have a set of some sort of exercises. I am not talking about some sort of transcendental meditation, because that’s not really worked for me, but you must, somehow, have your mind open like a child. Obviously that is not easy.

In “The Last Wave”, was your point

The scenes that seemed to matter in the film were not the ones of the girls going up the rock so much as those of earthy, more human behaviour — like the ones between Minnie and Tom, which give a context to the rest. Here are people behaving like people and not like those who have been victims of a certain kind of education . . .

It’s an important part of the balance, but it didn’t interest me then, just as it doesn’t now. In the film, what interested me were other areas: sounds, smells, the way hair fell on the shoulder, images — just pictures.

Licking Hitler , Faber & Faber, London,

i.

Lecture given at King’s College, Cam-

326 - September-October CINEMA PAPERS

1978.

To what extent is the notion of the irrational essential for you as a starting point for a film?

I think there are all sorts of other things, too. It may have been important at one point, but I like to feel I am moving in other areas now. We mentioned comedy earlier, and in talking to John Cleese we threw around a couple of ideas and a couple of funny situa­

of interest the details of the Abori­ ginal culture? Was it important to you that the audience received those, or that it received the experience of a white Anglo-Saxon man, faced with the area of mystery, the unknown?

I think it was the latter, because there was so much I didn’t under­ stand about the Aboriginal people.

I still don’t understand and I did not want to draw conclusions on their behalf. Also, I had to use the English language when talking with tribal people, and that further opened up the danger of false con­ clusions.

In talking with them, I had to talk about my character, of course, and what I felt. I had to do that in a particular way to try and get round the language, communication problem. With the tribal people, I did that in a very aggressive way; I had to. The tentative approach just didn’t feel right to me: the sort of approach at the “ white man’s burden” level. I had to come in as an equal, somehow, and that was very difficult.

I also knew that if I thought about it too much, I would never

Peter Weir

start anything. So I came in talking about what I felt was my own “miss­ ing link” and feeling. I tried to explain my attitudes to my own past and the kind of things that I’d felt on finding the Roman head.

1 went to meet Nanjiwarra in Darwin. I just steamed in there, not really knowing what the result might be, but just taking a gamble, an intuitive guess, that I was in the right direction. We communicated rapidly, and I learnt things that I wouldn’t have through another process.

You seem to share many things with Nicolas Roeg, Not only through “Walkabout”, but also “ Don’t Look Now”, where it seems there is a more or less comparable situation of the rational man being forced to surrender his rationality to come to terms with his situation. Have you ever considered any kind of similarity between vour work and his?

I have loved a number of his films and, yes, there are areas where our paths have crossed. But in other areas we diverge. His treat­ ment of sexuality or sex is different from mine or is more predom­ inant. He uses that as part of his tension. 1 use other systems. It’s like waving at someone in the distance and sharing a smile. But that’s about as much as I know about him.

terrible few days wrestling with this ending and pretending I had found a solution to it. But I certainly had no plan that I failed to execute.

achieve it. I think if I did the film today, I would make it less extrava­ gant. For example, I might turn away from the “disaster” element and stay in the law court.

Looking at the film now, do you have an idea of how you might end You say “coming close to some­ it? thing”. Is it possible to be more precise?

No. It’s just that the last chapter is missing. I just have to leave it; No. I think you can look at it in a don’t look back. number of ways. I think it was dealing with some very powerful Do you have a special interest in truth that, in fact, I was working myths? It seems to be the case in out while making the film. I don’t “The Last Wave” and indeed in mean like working out a personal “The Plumber”, where the Judy problem, but the chemistry of the Morris character is very interested people involved and the material we in New Guinea tribal habits . . . were dealing with became more

screenplay for “The Plumber”, but not to direct it . . .

Yes. I didn’t think there was enough in it for me.

Yet, in the context of your work, it looks very much like a Peter Weir film . . .

In the end I couldn’t let it go.

Was it frustrating making it for television?

Only when I saw it come out on television with the commercial breaks and the small screen. There was a sense of some sort of loss.

In some ways, it seemed like a return structurally to “The Cars That Ate Paris”, that is probably much more tightly put together . . .

S o what does ‘anti-war’ mean ? Everyone is anti-war.

I think the term was invented in some publicist’s office.

When the war happened, it happened. . . my interest was not in the causes o f the war but in the men who went. ”

A comparison of “ Don’t Look Now” and “The Last Wave” raises two points of disappointment for me in those films and that is when the mysteries are actually unravelled. In “The Last Wave” it’s when one sees the wave with David Burton (Rich­ ard Chamberlain) in the last shot. I It’s something that comes and have always wished that the film had goes.

I mean, I’d say that, as of this ended with his look .. . moment, I am not interested, but these things don’t go away. They The ending is still a problem for are presumably part of your make­ me. " . up. They come back unless you have worked through it.

In David Stratton’s book, ‘The Last New Wave’, he says you wanted to Would you suggest that is the case do the ending in a much more lavish because myths tend to be a way of way: perhaps streets being flooded coming to terms with things other­ and so on. Was the decision to end wise unexplainable? the film as you did just forced on you by economics or was there an Yes, I think they are an essential artistic choice? part of civilization and it’s given us particular problems as displaced Both elements were involved, but Europeans who chose, for some I think I have to be honest and say extraordinary reasons, to leave our that I didn’t find the solution to the myths behind. I think our films in problem of how to end the film. this period are, at times, an attempt There is no ending and I was to rediscover them or to reinvigor­ painted into a corner. I have seen it ate them or even to create them, as happen with other filmmakers the Americans have done. I think dealing in this kind of area. You that part of their mythology can be can’t end it. You can try to be seen on the screen. They didn’t clever, and I tried a couple of other invent it, but they plugged into endings that did. stop short of any something. wave, but they were just too neat.

In this context, the ending to The The ending just plagued me, and Last Wave becomes less important it was an extremely unhappy to me. It was in the centre of the period. Part way through the film film that my interest lay, in coming we broke over Easter. I remember a close to something and failing to

I always think of it as a com­ panion piece to Homesdale and Cars.

And again, though you may not agree, a sort of black comedy idea seems to go right through these three films particularly . . .

Yes. In the period after “The Plumber”, there seems to be a large gap which I gather is taken up with your time in the U.S. and the abandoned “The Thorn Birds”. Do you still want to work there?

Well, the U.S. to me now, after so many trips and so many projects that weren’t right, has really come down to almost a group of people. I have a number of friends there now, in the business mostly, and I would like to work with them or use them in various capacities. But I feel, at the moment, that it is right for me here. Australia is the most exciting filmmaking country in the world.

How long it will last we don’t know.

These things fade, as film history teaches us.

So, my interest is here now, though if I found something par­ ticularly exciting in the U.S., I would probably go. But it would be going over for a oncer and then coming back.

interesting than the script itself.

There was a highly-charged atmo­ sphere.

As most people know, that’s true of any film set, given that the material has some potential in it, and this was particularly true on The Last Wave. I have never had one quite like that and others would have taken the material in differ­ ent directions. But having Nanji­ warra and Gulpilil in the city, dealing with that material pro­ duced tensions that were quite extraordinary. And all I could do Is it that there are a lot of con­ was try and hold on to it. straints in the U.S., like what It was very exciting, far more happened to “Cars”, that seem to be interesting than the rules for con­ constantly holding you back? structing a dramatic story, even though it may have led me away I don’t think that’s a good from finding a satisfactory conclu­ example because the McElroys sion for the film. [producers] and I were just extremely naive. Those were very early days and we thought we were Is “The Plumber”, then, a return to in with the right people, and we something much safer? weren’t. We just got ripped-off. But even if they hadn’t done what they No, it wasn’t that so much as did with the cut, the film still being in a period where I had no wouldn’t have worked. So I am not project ready to go. I had this short worried about that. story and needed some money.

I think it’s just that they are choked with craft over there. There Your intention was to write the is just too much refinement, too CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 327

Clockwise from top left: In the trenches: Frank (Mel Gibson), left. Billy (Robert Grubb). Barney (Tim McKenzie), and Snowy (David Argue): Archy (Mark Lee), right, with his trainer. Uncle Jack (Bill Kerr): Arcliy and a land­ owner's daughter (Robyn Galwey); Archy at Gallipoli: Frank returns with the counter orders too late: and Archy and Frank on recreational leave in Egypt.

Peter Weir

many filters, too much processing of material. Talk about losing the art! They sure have the craft in -great quantity, but if I hear that word “development” again I think I will just cancel the ticket. It’s great to put the script through the punishing process they invented, but there is a time when you have to make it or drop it, and both those decisions they will defer as long as they can — to the detriment of the projects.

Gallipoli

hurry to get to where it’s going, although it knows where that is . . .

I think that’s something that I have learnt. It’s such a long appren­ ticeship you have to serve in films.

You obviously made a choice not to show very much blood. You showed bodies, but there’s none of the Sam Peckinpah-style stuff, which would have made the impact of the actual process of dying pretty powerful and pretty bloody. Were you concerned dramatically to work away from that?

Would you agree that the title Yes, but I disagree with an aspect “Gallipoli” refers not so much to a of what you have said. I do think place or a battle as to an idea . . . the more you show, the less real it becomes.

Yes. How do you feel about Frank? In a In the desert sequence in “Galli­ sen se , his destiny rem ains poli”, Frank makes reference to unresolved . . .

Burke and Wills. It makes some kind of contact between their enter­ I think we know Frank. He was a prise and the idea of “ Galli­ survivor and a type one can still poli” . . . observe today.

Yes, it was a great idea of Do you agree that the film is less the David’s, linking the two failures. dramatization of an anti-war view­ point than a study of the idea of Your collaboration with David adventure with one’s mates and of Williamson seems to have been a their competitive urge? very productive meeting of different interests. Is he happy with the film?

I saw a headline in the paper today saying, “ Americans claim Yes. I think this is evident from neutron bomb will prevent war” . the fact that we are going into So what does “ anti-war” mean? another one. We had disagree­ Everyone is anti-war. I think the ments, but there were only one or term was invented in some public­ two instances where we walked i s t ’s office. When the war away thinking maybe we won’t get happened, it happened. I didn’t over this one. The film and the really care why it happened. I have ideas involved were bigger than we heard too much about that. I did it were, so we could always meet at school and never believed a word again under those terms. of all the explanations of how it happened. My interest was not in There seems to be a striking simil­ the causes of the war but in the men arity between “Gallipoli” and who went.

“Chariots of Fire”. They are both set in the early years of the 20th The choice of music for your films Century and deal with athletes going seems to be just right. Do you add off to represent the Empire but not music after the final cut or do you really understanding the implica­ have some piece of music in mind en tions of what they are doing . . . route to the final cut?

There are similarities but only minor, superficial ones. The tone is very different. I love the music of Vangelis and had planned to use him for some time, and there he is on the soundtrack of Chariots.

Both, I think. Quite often I have been surprised to find that music which has given me inspiration during the shoot just doesn’t work with the cut. So I have to put it aside; it has served its purpose. In the case of the pan pipes in Picnic, Would you agree that “Gallipoli” is Bruce Smeaton and I were looking for the appropriate sound and the a change of direction for you? closest I ever got was some Celtic Apparently, but at its heart I music of Alain Stivel’s. But it don’t think so. Its source came wasn’t right. Then Jim McElroy from a visit to Gallipoli in 1976, walked in with this beautiful and which was the period when I was appropriate music and said, “ I’ve also working on The Last Wave. So got it.” He’d heard it on television 1 think you have to look at it as and there it was; he was right. within the same period. I feel it’s my most successful film because it Is the choice of the Mozart in the has stripped away cleverness and garden party sequence by the lake in tricks with a process of refining and “Picnic” deliberately there to point simplifying, which I think I began the oddness of the European culture in The Plumber. in this very alien landscape?

It seems to be a very relaxed film without being loose, as if it’s in no

Yes. It struck me as very funny. I also liked the music very much. But

it’s funny how you change with things. At first, my response to that sequence was purely a visual one — all the people in those clothes by the water — and that pleased me. But as we played the Mozart on the day of filming I just drifted into some other area. I thought what beauti­ ful music and who cares about what happened to some British culture and who cares about the point of the British in Australia or the Europeanness in our landscape.

Suddenly all that was too obvious and nothing compared to that piece of music.

This obviously happens as you are directing. You drift into other areas. You forget trying to be clever. I constantly try to strip' myself of cleverness, because I think that old adage is true: that while mastering your craft, you lost your art. So many first films have such vigor, energy and originality, yet later works often gain in craft and lose that fire.

In “Gallipoli”, you manage to create an atmosphere that seems just right. A good example is that extraordinary sense of “a ghostly funfair”, as I think Evan Williams in ‘The Australian’ described it, when the soldiers arrive at Gal­ lipoli . . .

Yes. I think it’s something that’s always come naturally to me and it’s something I know will just happen. But I don’t know how.

The scene you mention came from the description of a veteran, a man called Jack Tarrant who came in as a reinforcement. He said, “ How can I possibly describe it to you? It was a hospital ship and it had its red cross and green lights on. I can’t think of the words to describe it. It was just not what we expected.” And that was enough of an inspiration. I was so grateful for the experience that came through what he said. He had given it to me.

Evan Williams’ description was very apt, I think, for it was exactly how I thought of it.

But it’s not just the images. You seem to spend a lot of time prepar­ ing the soundtrack . . .

I love sound. I work with it con­ stantly. I feel it’s the final creative stage that a director has at his command. I have always worked with Greg Bell and Helen Brown, who are a great team. We have very inventive sessions which can change the tone and mood of a scene.

They are constantly experiment­ ing, mostly with familiar sounds.

They like to work at replacing the natural sound with some other kind of sound. It’s part of the secret of creating that atmosphere when a footstep, in fact, is being created by something either electronic or in­ consequential — crushing a packet of chips or something. It gives the sound an edge. But you’d never pick it. ★ CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 329

EDWARDS r m

uuinm

r

avenge the indignity the hero’s gaze bestows on the desired sexual object (Bo Derek) by subject­ Neil Sinyard ing his own anatomy — nose, mouth, feet — to ceaseless agonizing abuse. lake Edwards is enjoying a new lease The phrase “painfully funny” gains new of life. After a period in the mid- dimensions in Blake Edwards’ work. It is as if 1960s, when it was not uncommon comedy is the energizing force which saves him for him to be talked of as one of the from despair, but also the strategy by which the most talented directors of his genera­ bitterness he feels can be expressed fearlessly tion, his career seemed to falter badly. without With thethe vision becoming either maudlin or type-casting of him as farceur within the inven­ unbearable.

If comedy is deleted from his tive but potentially repetitive Pink Panther vocabulary, his films either slip into flabby series, encyclopaedists such as David Thomson romanticism (Darling Lili, The Wild Rovers, and Ephraim Katz could confidently report that The Tamarind Seed) or erupt into gruelling critics had witten him off as an object worthy of nightmare (Experiment in Terror). serious stud Richard Roud’s Critical Diction­ Even his grimmest film, Days of Wine and ary o f Major Film-makers confirmed the Roses, which charts the descent of a couple into impression with the unkindest cut of all: alcoholism, begins as a romantic comedy. Some Edwards does not even merit an entry. of the most harrowing scenes (the first violent Even at the time the dismissal seemed prema­ argument between husband and wife, and the ture, but with the appearance of 10 and scene where he drunkenly wrecks her father’s S.O.B., and the retrospective light they shed on greenhouse) start out on a note of high hilarity. his previous work, the case of Blake Edwards The drunk has traditionally been a comic rather must surely be re-opened. These two films stand than a tragic figure in Hollywood iconography, virtually alone among recent Hollywood and the mood of Days of Wine and Roses, comedies, in that they are not only well con­ appropriately, has the effervescence of the early structed arid impeccably shot but have dialogue stages of alcohol as well as the mood of grey whose wit the actors seem almost visibly to depression that sets in from alcoholic excess. It relish. They might be compromised in various is the definitive “hangover” movie. ways, but not to the point of diluting their astringency or undermining their moral serious­ rink is a common failing of an ness.

Edwards character, whether he be Edwards as moralist might seem a strange the bemused old soak who watches concept for a director primarily associated with the bewildering final pile-up of cars the slapstick of Inspector Clouseau. But it is no in The Pink Panther, or the stranger than Edwards as humorist, once one drunken waiter in The Party who unsteadilyhas noticed that the source of his comedy is in­ shadows the behavior of the Indian guest, or the variably pain or humiliation. Dreyfus’ demented composer in “ 10” whose sodden self-pity in the vendetta against Clouseau in the Pink Panther bar leads to a depressingly unsatisfactory sexual films is chiefly characterized by the way in which encounter with a lonely female admirer. Even a he inadvertently administers self-inflicted hold-up man in Gunn, who surprises the detec­ wounds; and the whole strategy of “ 10” is to tive in the back of his car, says tersely: “ You

B

“

”

D

Writer-director Blake Edwards and actress Julie Andrews during the filming o f “10”.

330 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

The “gap between dream, desire and attainment": Sam (Julie Andrews) prepares to look at a sexual orgy through a tele­ scope. “10”.

Blake Edwards

drive — I’ve been drinking.”

Edwards’ world is one of delirium and excess, but the style is watchful and withdrawn, the excess being in the characters and submitted to a critical judgment. The gathering chaos of The Party is conveyed through long uninterrupted takes rather than frenzied editing, the scarcity of reaction shots an appropriate device to reflect a world in which people are too self-absorbed to take much note of anyone else.

A party sequence is one of Blake Edwards’ key stylistic signatures. It is the highlight of Breakfast at Tiffany’s and the scene in the film of which he is most proud. In S.O.B., the un­ hinged producer gets the idea of turning his flop musical into a successful porn extravaganza by (literally) dropping in on a typical Hollywood party and noting its resemblance to an un­ inhibited orgy. One has the sense that the party is a key image in Edwards because throwing a party is his analogy for filmmaking. He is the host, responsible for the guest list, for mixing the cocktails, not knowing for sure how the mixture will turn out until after it is all over. The party also provides a conceptual framework for the kind of emotional range that an Edwards film will go through: laughter and loneliness, welcome reunions and brief encounters, and sudden swoops from amused abandon to chill­ ing self-analysis.

Parties fascinate Edwards, because at them people play roles. They are never quite them­ selves: they seek to create an impression. It con­ nects with Edwards’ sense of modern life, as Andrew Sarris once intimated, as an episodic series of auditions rather than a coherent set of meaningful experiences. The party in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, for example, is an elegant show of poses and pretence, an elaboration of a society in which nobody calls each other by the right name and where there is a euphemistic description of what each person does (Holly as “escort” , Paul as “writer”) to disguise the squalor of their true situation. It is a world of deception and appear­ ances. (Indeed when Holly and Paul steal masks from a shop by the simple means of putting them on their face and walking out, no one appre­ hends them because no one notices.)

The emphasis on masks and illusion stresses the fact that many of his characters (like Holly in Tiffany’s, the composer hero of “10” or the mad producer of S.O.B.) are dreamers, en­ thralled by an intoxicating vision. The opening of Breakfast at Tiffany’s shows Holly Golightly coming down Fifth Avenue at dawn, stepping out of a yellow taxi and gazing longingly into Tiffany’s window, the warmth of the photo­ graphy and Henry Mancini’s wordless chorus casting a web of privileged romanticism around the moment. “ I wasn’t expecting to see that . . . vision,” murmurs the hero of “ 10” , whose life is

The party sequence in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, “one o f Blake Edwards’ key stylistic signatures”. Left: the producer (Richard Mulligan) during one o f his many suicide attempts in S.O.B..

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 331

suddenly thrown off course by an impossible obsession. The mad producer in S.O.B. is even shot down clutching his dream, the cans of film that are to save his career, and he dies with the words, “This could mean another ten million at the box-office” , on his lips. ew directors have a greater sense of the vitalizing force of fantasy in people’s lives. Equally, few directors are more ambivalent about charac­ ters who seek sanctuary in fantasy and let obsession get the better of sense. Sooner or later one must surrender this ache of romanticism and adapt to the realms of the poss­ ible.

It is this dualism in Edwards that gives Break­ fast at Tiffany’s a more tragic undertone than is present in Truman Capote’s novella. Too many have interpreted the film as if it were the same as Mancini's “ Moon River” . The song might articulate Holly Golightly’s romantic yearning, but Edwards is concerned with its accompany­ ing potential for anguish and self-deception. No character more movingly reflects Edwards’ sympathy for the dreamer, and his concern for tempering fantasy fulfilment with realistic aspiration. Audrey Hepburn's fragility might be far removed from the heroine's boyish resilience in Capote's novella, but then Edwards, is con­ cerned with the fear that Holly’s flippancy con­ ceals. rather than the sharp confidence it ostens­ ibly refects. it is hard to accept the conventional view that, in any fundamental way. the film softens the story. In the novella. Holly escapes. At the end of the film, although Mancini's chorus croons about “two drifters off to see the world” . Holly is staying in the city and submitting to a more conventional romance, the camera rising to show her final embrace among the garbage cans of New York. This could be representative of the romantic junk that has been emptied from her head, but it also represents the less glamorous reality that she must come to accept.

In the party scene in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, a young woman looks at her image in the mirror and laughs. Minutes later, the same woman is still staring at her refection, but now sobbing uncontrollably. Living in a world of masks becomes dangerous when the mask slips and the image reflected is unexpectedly painful to bear.

Early on in Days of Wine and Roses, the hungover hero (Jack Lemmon) cannot bear the sight of himself in a small hand-mirror, and it is not until much later that a magnified refection of his decline in a cocktail bar window has the impact necessary to propel him towards self­ realization. But his wife, who has earlier let slip that she “likes things to be prettier than they are", needs alcohol to keep the ugliness of life at a distance, to wrap it in a romantic haze. The result for her is an inexorable descent and a life of veils and shadows “enclosed within a dream” (to quote a phrase from the Dowson poem, which gives the film its title). Reality is too fearful.

If dream is an essential element in Edwards’ world, then so is fear. It can be a fear of the harsh disillusionment of reality, which compels the heroine to hide behind drink in Days of VVine and Roses (after a while even their apartment looks more like a bar than a home), and which gives Holly Golightly nightmares in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. It can be apprehension about one’s job, the hero’s dissatisfaction with “ public rela­ tions” being a cause of his alcoholism in Days of Wine and Roses. It can be a fear of failure, which is the motivating impulse behind the producer’s string of suicide attempts that launch the plot of S.O.B., The hero of “ 10” is explicitly afraid of death.

Most emphatically, Edwards’ superb thriller,

F Clockwise from top left: Days of Wine and Roses: Lee Remick in The Grip of Fear: Julie Andrews and Omar Sharif in The Tamarind Seed: Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau in Revenge of the Pink Panther: Gunn; Ryan O’Neal and William Holden in Wild Rovers.

Blake Edwards

Experiment in Terror (known in Britain as The Grip of Fear), shows how the infection of fear can transform the sights and sounds of modern urban life into an irrational network of infinite ambiguity and menace. The heroine’s terror begins in a darkened garage (it is noticeable how often Edwards’ films begin in suspenseful dark­ ness) and does not relent until a grandstand finale in a deserted baseball stadium.

The heroine’s ordeal is brought to an end by the rational, methodical methods of a police inspector who, with difficulty, traps the guilty party and brings the heroine’s nightmare world under control. If the dreamer is a key figure in Edwards’ films, so too is the investigator.

In Experiment in Terror, Gunn, The Carey Treatment and, of course, the Pink Panther films, an investigator attempts to bring order and justice to an unstable world, in the process often being caught up himself in the absurdity and turbulence. Clouseau is finally arrested for the crime he is investigating in The Pink Panther, and the eponymous hero of Gunn finds himself at one stage shooting blindly at infinitelybaffling reflections in a roomful of mirrors. “ No one is to be trusted, nothing is to be believed, and anyone is capable of doing any­ thing” , opines the investigator of The Tamarind Seed. It is a cynicism that Edwards almost, but never quite, embraces. He surrounds his charac­ ters with a palpable gloom, but he does not with­ draw hope from any of them. Even Clouseau preserves an aura of repose against a back­ ground of murderous events. Amid disappoint­ ment, danger and despair, his characters invari­ ably survive and indeed bounce back — like • Edwards himself. hy then did Edwards’ career take such a stumble in the late 1960s and early ’70s? Before that, his judgment had seemed acute, and there seemed no tension between his particular and the taste of the public. In What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? he might have miscalcu­ lated an audience’s satirical sophistication. It is a sharp observation of sloppy American soldiers abroad (as were previous works of his like The Perfect Furlough and his script for Operation Mad Ball). But its ironical attitude to fraterniza­ tion and to “ lovable” occupying Americans came too early to cash in on any anti-Vietnam feeling or the kind of iconoclastic attitude to the American military which M*A*S*H* was soon to exploit.

Gunn, like Richard Lester’s Petulia, had the audacity to expose the dark side of the decade’s permissive sexuality before things had definitely gone sour. The private-eye hero, Peter Gunn, is a sleek and elegant prototype of the era’s glossy amorality and violence, but served up with a cold and critical eye. For audiences accustomed to endorsing the smiling sadism of a James Bond, the tone must have seemed puzzling.

Also, at a time (roughly 1968-1973) when the American cinema became immersed in buddies, exorcism and organized crime, while the country was trying to extricate itself from Vietnam and Watergate, Blake Edwards was discovering Julie Andrews. The experience was clearly delight­ ful, but the timing was unfortunate. Darling Lili was a financial fiasco. As The Great Race and The Wild Rovers have also demonstrated, Edwards has never looked easy in period garb.

His modern sensibility seems unable to recreate a period without also giving the impression that he is simultaneously parodying it. Darling Lili is designed as a homage to a lost world, historical (World War 1) and cinematic (the Minnelli musical). To critics and public, it simply looked anachronistic.

The Tamarind Seed was no happier a col­

W

laboration. In many ways it is a sensitive charac­ ter study of a bruised heroine not wanting to risk the possible pain of commitment to a new rela­ tionship of which she is unsure. As he had shown with the heroines of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Days of Wine and Roses and even The Pink Panther, Edwards has always been a sympathetic observer of the emotional generosity and, there­ fore, vulnerability of women, and this concern also informs The Tamarind Seed.

It was all the more to be valued in what was one of the cinema’s most misogynistic eras. Yet the surrounding spy plot is laboriously ex­ pounded, and the heroine’s beauty of feeling is vitiated by its being lavished on so infiexible a performer as Omar Sharif. The full flowering of the Edwards-Andrews partnership was not to be seen until “ 10” and S.O.B. In between, Edwards had had studio prob­ lems with MGM, who had severely tampered with his final cut of The Carey Treatment and The Wild Rovers. The Carey Treatment is a sty­ lish thriller, though the visual sense is much more intriguing than the plot. James Coburn’s heavy-handed performance as the pathologist gives leaden wings to the self-consciously smart dialogue, his strenuous witticism seeming to retard his ability to solve a straightforward crime. The film is most memorable for a tense finale in a hospital with an overweight lunatic on the loose. Jennifer O’Neill’s part as the dietitian is rather slim.

The Wild Rovers limps in as a rather tired appendage to the buddy movie, engaging never­ theless in its study of the friendship between two incompetent bankrobbers and their impossible dreams of wealth and freedom that are to expire gracefully in Monument Valley.

If one kept faith with him through these com­ mercially and critically lean years, it was because of the intermittent flashes of vintage Edwards, notably conveyed through the wit and the visuals. William Holden dies with an preoccupations exasperated joke on his lips at the end of The Wild Rovers and at the time it might have seemed an appropriate epitaph for Edwards: go down laughing.

As for the visual sense, this is something that has never deserted him. If a bad Blake Edwards film is conceivable (for he is a director brave enough to take risks which might backfire), a badly shot Blake Edwards film is not. The openings of Darling Lili and The Tamarind Seed each offer a visual tour-de-force. In the middle of The Wild Rovers there is a shot of Karl Malden riding into the distance under a louring sky which, in its chilly premonition of death as the clouds darken, is one of the most eerily beautiful images one could see in a film.

also tends to distract from the narrative line, which is the problem of the Pink Panther films and perhaps of Edwards’ films in general. He gives the audience so much to look at that a certain heaviness can set in. The variety of the locations in The Revenge of the Pink Panther is ultimately out of proportion to their actual expressiveness.

Edwards’ return to the series of Pink Panther films must have seemed something of a mixed blessing. On the one hand, one never ceases to marvel at the ingenuity of the destruction, the way in which Clouseau can enter a room and, within five minutes, literally and metaphoric­ ally bring the house down.

Edwards has been adroit in ensuring that the formula keeps pace with film trends. Clouseau has acquired a kung-fu houseboy in The Return of the Pink Panther (their spectacular struggles filmed in obligatory slow motion) and, in The Revenge of the Pink Panther. Clouseau disguises himself as a gangster by shoving wads of cotton­ wool in his mouth like Marlon Brando in The Godfather. In The Pank Panther Strikes Again, the encounter between Clouseau and Dreyfus is a hysterical evocation of the infamous dentist scene out of Marathon Man, performed under an appropriate haze of laughing gas.

The problem with the Pink Panther formula is perhaps attributable to the fact that Clouseau, while physically malleable, is psychologically static. Edwards seems disinclined to explore any emotional or romantic dimensions of the man, so Clouseau remains the legendary detective whose limitless incompetence is so prodigiously unpredictable as to render him invulnerable.

None of the recent films has been able to com­ pensate for this lack of character development with an absorbing enough narrative and the films have, therefore, not significantly advanced on the superb and grossly underrated A Shot in the Dark, which works as a mystery thriller and a succession of land-mines for Clouseau unwit­ tingly to detonate. There have been some splendidly funny moments, like Dreyfus’ funeral oration on behalf of Clouseau in Revenge, punctuated by his uncontainable delighted laughter (perhaps an anticipation of the irreverent funeral which concludes S.O.B.), or Clouseau’s approach to a pretty girl in a bar in Return, raising his glass and murmuring, “ Here is leuking at yer, keed.” But, with three Panther films in a row, Edwards’ career seemed to be marking time.

10 was a magnificent return to form. Its sophisticated sexual politics have been much dis­ cussed and it would be needless to reiterate the arguments here. The most striking thing at the time was the exhilarating intensity with which Edwards embraced themes and strategies that dwards’ eye rarely fails him, even if had seemed to be fading from his work: the his sense of drama sometimes does. grand romantic obsession; the gap between What with his sympathy for women, dream, desire and attainment; the bruising his quizzical romanticism, sensi­ comedy of failed communications; the facility tivity to decor, even his fascination for developing an amusing notion at breath­ with mirrors, he sometimes fleetingly resembles taking length with ever more inventive varia­ a very coarse Max Ophuls whose sensibility tions has (the hero’s dental discomfiture providing been toughened by modern American experi­ the most satisfying sustained comic set-piece in ence. He certainly has an Ophulsian sense of Edwards since the celebrated bedroom scene in visual abundance.

The Pink Panther).

Not many directors would have an ordinary Equally impressive is the maturity of the conversation between hero and villain which characterization, the dignity in disappointment concludes with the villain nonchalantly picking a granted to Julie Andrews’ singer, Robert red rose from a vase and sniffing its scent as he Webber’s lyricist. Brian Dennehv's bartender departs. It is a casual detail from The Return of and Dee Wallace's sad girl at the bar. Looking the Pink Panther which gives a twinge of unusual like a moody Jean-Pierre Cassell. Dudley exoticism to what might otherwise seem a con­ Moore's crumpled composer is a fine perform­ ventional scene. In the same film, when the ance of a typical Edwards character, who is at Phantom goes to see the Fat Man, he has to odds with his own community and outside the walk through a frenzied performance in a one he thinks he desires. His piano improvizaTurkish nightclub to meet him. There is no tions correspond to the formlessness of his life, purpose for this other than visual diversion. until the completion of the song he has worked While providing this on a generous scale, it on through the film signals the end of his mad “

”

E

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 333

Blake Edwards

passion and restores him to normality.

Edwards is, as always, sensitive to structure, and two bedroom arguments — one near the beginning of the film with the hero’s steady girl­ friend (Julie Andrews), the other near the end with the girl of his dreams (Bo Derek) — form the cornerstone of the film’s thesis. Both scenes boldly crystallize the hero’s inability to acknow­ ledge a modern woman’s need for sexual equality, on the one hand, and sexual emancipa­ tion on the other. It is all right for him, he thinks, but not for them. Only in the last 10 minutes does the film seem to lose its grip, pulling back from the full implications of the hero’s sexual fetishism and proprietorial view of romance, and attempting to reconstruct sympathy for a man who has, by now, been subtly demolished.

Edwards at the end tries unconvincingly to toss off what has seemed a deep-rooted chau­ vinistic prejudice in the hero as a temporary aberration. But the ambitiousness of the film’s themes and the intelligence of its execution more than compensate for its contradictions. Despair and darkness lurk beneath the Californian luxuriance.

This is true of S.O.B. also, but the darker qualities of that are hammered a little further underground by the energy of the slapstick surface. The film offers two comic treats quite independently: a tongue-in-cheek revision of the screen persona of Julie Andrews; and a black satire on modern Hollywood. The former is handled with humorous bravado, and the latter with a bilious bitterness.

ticularly relevant. There is the “phone call in a past tense, and Edwards has always moved bed” joke. Numerous characters in the film are with the times while endeavoring to remain true interrupted in that way, their sexual predilec­ to himself. It has sometimes been difficult. tions being revealed with comically casual When the Doctor talks of his deceased producer candor. There are frequent jokes about old men friend as “ adrift in a sea of sour grapes” , the competing in a young man’s world. Frank potency of the phrase seeps through the specific Sinatra croons “ Young at Heart” over William context perhaps to suggest a residual bitterness Holden’s car radio, the song indelibly aligning in Edwards himself. Nevertheless, he survives, this character's heart to the simpler, older world like his characters, through an instinctively of the 1950s, and the lyric reinforcing the theme humorous and ironic outlook that guarantees a of the film (“ You can go to extremes/with certain sanity and perspective in a treacherous impossible schemes/You can laugh when your world. Laughter in the dark is not only what his dreams/fall apart at the seams”). films provide: it is what they are about. ★

ulie Andrews performs in an erotic dream ballet executed as a mischievous pastiche of Bob Fosse’s All That Jazz (it might be remembered that Fosse was the star turn in an early Edwards screenplay, ¡VIy Sister Eileen). After disappear­ ing down the Devil’s deep throat, thus instantly flashing two pornographic references with one movement, she appears topless. She then laughs, as if wondering what all the fuss is about. It is a Protecting his film, the producer is gunned down in S.O.B.. delightfully calculated moment, breaking through the Andrews screen image of purity and asexuality, but doing so with a good humor that is affectionate rather than aggressive. ost prominently, there is the Edwards is the only director to have suc­ “dog on the beach” joke. The ceeded in humanizing Julie Andrews on screen animal whimpers over its master and. in “ 10” and S.O.B.. she gives a fine account who has collapsed with a fatal of the level-headed professional woman who will compete on equal terms with men, not taking herself too seriously but not to be put down or one, for half the film, pays the slightest atten­ exploited either. tion. Typically the joke is extended to the point The other dimension of the film is more sub­ where it becomes more painful than funny. stantial and remarkable. Edwards has had the The absence of concern recalls the self­ brilliant idea of approaching the subject of absorbed Hollywood community in The Party: modern Hollywood through the mode of the whining of the animal (like the humiliation Restoration comedy. What better general model of an elephant in the earlier film) goes com­ for the satirizing of vice, intrigue, folly and pletely unheeded. The dog’s fidelity stands in pretence in a society without a conscience and ironic contrast to the rampant infidelity that is half in love with its own corruption? Thus, the being enacted in the sinister party. Its loyalty characters are presented in the main as two­ counterpoints the egocentric materialism of the dimensional vices, and the wit wavers between humans. Its maudlin sentimentality anticipates the mild (“ Em not a shyster” , protests Robert the Viking funeral contrived for the dead Preston’s doctor with dignity, “ Em a quack”) producer by his three drunken friends. and the malicious (Robert Webber’s harassed The ferocity and vigor with which the vices press agent is succinctly described as “ 180 lbs of and vulgarities of the community are depicted condemned veal”). imply a genuine and savage disgust at its base­ As with the contemporary dramatists’ presen­ ness: to pursue the Restoration drama analogy, tation of Restoration London, Hollywood, in Edwards is closer to the indignation of Wycher­ S.O.B., is offered as a society with two gods: sex ley than the courtliness of Congreve. If he has and money. The greatest of these is money. Sex any sympathy with the characters, it comes is not an expression of pleasure or love, but a through a recognition of what that society form of currency. In S.O.B. it is exchanged with demands of people to survive, something devastating effect by an ambitious young actress Edwards would recognize from personal experi­ (acidly etched by Marisa Berenson), who is ence. The laughter of the characters does not hardly glimpsed upright in the entire film but is convey jollity: it is desperation on a leash. assiduously building her career bed by bed.

“Shake off the rusty shackles of the past” , ■There are three running jokes that are par­ cries the producer in S.O.B., As has often been remarked, Los Angeles is a community without

J

M

334 - September-October CINEMA PAPERS

FILMOGRAPHY As director 1955 Bring Your Smile Along (also script) 1955 He Laughed Last (also script) 1956 Mr Cory (also script) 1958 This Happy Feeling (also script) 1958 The Perfect Furlough (also script) 1959 1960 1961 1962 1962 1963 1964

Operation Petticoat High Time Breakfast at Tiffany’s Experiment in Terror (Grip of Fear) Days of Wine and Roses The Pink Panther (also script) A Shot in the Dark (also prod., script) 1965 The Great Race (also prod., script) 1966 What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? (also prod.,

script)

1967 1968 1969 1971 1972

1974 1974 1976 1978

Gunn (also prod.)

The Party (also prod., script) Darling Lili (also prod., script) Wild Rovers (also co-prod., script) The Carey Treatment The Tamarind Seed (also script) The Return of the Pink Panther (also prod., co-script) The Pink Panther Strikes Again (also co-script) Revenge of the Pink Panther (also prod., co-script)

1979 “ 10” (also co-prod., script) 1981 S.O.B. (also prod., script)

As scriptwriter (apart from above) 1947 Panhandle (also actor) 1953 All Ashore 1953 Cruising Down the River 1954 Drive a Crooked Road 1954 Sound Off 1955 My Sister Eileen 1957 Operation Mad Ball 1962 Notorious Landlady

As producer (apart from above) 1967 Waterhole Three

Clockwise from top left: the Us Mob party in Port Augusta; Ronnie (centre), from Us Mob, remembers his cattle-station days; Bart, drummer from No Fixed Address; Ronnie, bass player from Us Mob, and a highway cop (Chris Haywood); Waller, drummer from Us Mob, is questioned on the roadside.

WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD An INMA Production

Produced by Ned Lander, Graeme Issac Directed by Ned Lander Screenplay by Graeme Issac, Ned Lander

CREW

CAST

Photography............................. Louis Irving Sound recordist..................... Lloyd Carrick Editor...........................................John Scott Production designer...............Jan Mackay Production manager................... Ian Page Music composition........No Fixed Address, Us Mob Musical producers..................Phil Roberts, Graeme Issac

No Fixed Address............ Bart Willoughby Chris Jones John Miller Veronica Rankine Us Mob..................................Ronnie Ansell Peter Butler Wally McArthur Carroll Karpannv and Leila Rankine Gayle Rankine Veronica Brodie Donna Drover

Story Port Adelaide to Point Pearce. Cars, cops, cattle stations, and driving rock and reggae. Two days in the lives of Aboriginal bands, Us Mob and No Fixed Address.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 335

SHOHEI

n tittiita iiitiiiiiittN m iiiiiiiiim iiin m ttttiiitiiiiiii!iiiiu iu iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin itH iH iim iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiH iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiH iiiiiiiy iiiiiiiiiiii!iiii

Shohei Imamura’s Vengeance is Mine was a high­ light o f the 1980 Melbourne and Sydney film festivals.

This year, it was Ee ja nai ka.

With these two features Imamura has gained major recognition outside Japan. But his career dates back to 1958 and includes many other brilliant features (The Insect Woman, The Pornographers) and documen­ taries (Life o f a Prostitute).

In May, Solrun Hoaas spoke with Imamura about his work.

What is your new project?

It is based on Narayama bushiko {The Ballad o f Narayama), written

by Fukazawa Shichiro 23 years ago. It is about an old women who is taken to a mountain-top to die.

Hasn’t it been made into a Film before?

Yes, by Keisuke Kinoshita. It was done in a rather Kabuki-like style. I want to do it realistically. I think it will be a very different thing.

I am looking for old houses with thatched reed roofs — old farm­ houses in the mountains. In the original, there are 22 houses; I can’t film it with a village of less than 15.

In the course of a two-hour film we will have to cover the entire village.

Therefore, it won’t work if there are new buildings and concrete roads.

It will take a lot of money, so I am trying to Find a place as close as possible to the ideal. Japan has changed tremendously in the post­ war period — especially from about 1955. It is hard to Find farmhouses that reflect harmony between people and nature. They have been abandoned.

this village, one hundred people can make a living, but a hundred and one cannot. That one would be asked to go to the mountains, to be left there. There is a resignation to that fate.

For the sake of the whole community, old grandmother Orin wants to die soon. She is ashamed of not dying. That is what I am writing about. It is the problem of sustenance, the population problem, and also that of old people.

Today, the wisdom of old people is something people feel they don’t need. Nobody writes about them in the media or presents them on television; they are in the way.

Japan is becoming more like the West, with the emphasis on just the nuclear family . . .

Yes, the family is becoming smaller. Today hospitals are becoming our obasuteyama (moun­ tains where the old people are left to die).

Will the film be a joint production with another company?

Yes, I am planning to have it distributed by Toei.

Have you found a suitable place?

What about actors?

Yes, Maki in Otari-mura, in the I am considering Ken Ogata as northern part of Nagano Prefec­ ture. It survived as 12 households the son who goes to the mountain for several hundred years; 10 years with his old mother. ago it became depopulated.

Will you touch on Japanese atti­ Will you be treating the film as a tudes to religion? story of the past?

Yes. That is als„ cry much a The story takes place about a part of the original. hundred years ago, and I will set it then. But in many ways it has great What are your thoughts on that? relevance to the present. We have You have often dealt with religion in reached a state where the earth’s your films . . . population is overflowing, with famines in many places. Four I am not sure if we Japanese billion may be able to survive on the really have a sense of faith. I don’t earth where five billion may not. In know if you can call it religion.

336 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

IM AMURA

■ CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 337

Shohei Imamura

N ature worship and ancestor worship we do have, but it is a rather primitive kind of religion.

There are a lot of religions propagated in Japan — Buddhism, Christianity, etc. — but I don’t think the majority of people dedicate themselves to any. They only make use of them for weddings and burials. Yet, I wouldn’t say the Japanese are non-religious, either.

A large proportion hold beliefs closer to nature worship.

It seems to me there is a very practical or down-to-earth attitude to religion in Japan. There are certain things one has to carry out in daily life, in the annual cycle of events. If one doesn’t, there is a feeling of uneasiness . . .

I suppose that is so in a way.

When work begins on a new building, a sacred rope is stretched between poles and prayers are said — to purify the plot of land and ask that there won’t be any trouble in the course of construction. That is always done.

I have a friend who is the head of an architecture firm. When he looks in his diary to see when we can go and have a drink together, he always chooses inauspicious days, because on those days he can’t do any work — so he can drink! That happens a lot.

So, people who would say they have no religious beliefs still follow such signs . . .

Yes. They become mixed in.

Shusaku Endo wrote about it 0kirishitan ) in Silence, which was Yes. In the case of weddings, made into a film. In it a Catholic there are good and bad days. On priest says, “ I don’t know whether the good days there is always a the Christian faith of the people rush. But it is a negative, rather here is the real thing or not.” I than a positive, attitude. It is just a think that is the way it is. They matter of avoiding any potential probably created their own image danger or evil on those days. of Christianity and this is what they worship. But the same goes for I found the relationship between everything that has come into father and son, and the question of Japan. I think it is the same with religious faith, quite fascinating in Buddhism.

“Vengeance is Mine’’. It is a very complex issue . . .

At the end of “Vengeance is Mine,” there is the scene where Enokizu’s Yes. The Christianity in that case father and wife go up to the top of is a very old one — a Christianity the mountain with his ashes and that came into Japan 400 years ago, bones, and throw them out. Did you became more like an indigenous intend some kind of exorcism in religion and changed with local this? beliefs. The Virgin Mary was secretly worshipped in the form of Exorcism? (Laughs.)

Kannon (the Buddhist Goddess of Mercy). It is a good question whether you can really call It is a difficult scene . . .

Japanese kirishitan “ Christianity” , Yes, it is very difficult. I don’t even today. It has been passed really understand it myself. When down through a segment of the Japanese people that in the past Enokizu is dead, the father has was hated, oppressed and butchered won, in a sense. It may sound funny more than anyone. It was kept alive to speak of winning and losing, but through the feeling that there must that he should have won, and that’s be something to it; something to the end of it . . . Somehow I hang on to. In the course of several couldn’t just leave it at that. hundred years, it gradually sank into the earth. R ather than So you had Enokizu get back at evolving, it seemed to be absorbed. him?

Do you think that is typical of the Yes. Japanese absorption of things that come from the outside?

But the father didn’t really win in 338 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

the end; Enokizu still seems alive . . .

Ken Ogata as Iwao Enokizu in Shohei Ima­ mura 's Vengeance is Mine.

Yes, he tries to throw the bones, but they won’t fall. Lie wants to throw them out for good, but he can’t get rid of them. That’s the feeling.

The father has an ingrained sense of morality; the son has none at all . . .

“/ would have liked to approach the subject from the heart, but I have absolutely nothing in common with Enokizu. ” Vengeance is Mine.

Yes, he tramples it underfoot.

But, what I found the most trying part in Vengeance is Mine was — what should I say —- that the film­ making be rational. Of course, a film director has to be rational, but . . .

Shohei Imamura

Enokizu, the innkp'per (right) and her mother, who hor .eturned from prison. V en ­ g e a n c e is y d ie.

Rational, in what sense?

Reason as opposed to the heart, the emotions. To be honest, I would have liked to approach the subject from the heart, but I have absolutely nothing in common with Enokizu. So, I had to approach him through time, and go back into his past. In actual life, there was a criminal named Nishiguchi. The novel is a documentary novel, based on a real case.

By Ryuzo Saki . . .

Yes, Saki investigated it. I did too. I found out a lot of interesting things. At one point I thought of throwing away the novel and basing my film only on the real story, to centre on Hamamatsu, where Maaumi Ogawa had the inn, and where he kills her and her mother.

As I said before, Iwao Enokizu and Shohei Imamura don’t have much in common. I thought I might have Ken Ogata slip into the

character without a script and try to approach him as much as possible in a direct, physical way — then, I might understand him.

There is a sense of fate about it; something very natural.

For the two women, Enokizu’s arrival was entirely accidental, but in a time perspective it seems inevitable.

Seen purely in a spatial The old mother of the woman at the perspective, it is accidental. At first inn is a very interesting character. I 1 wanted to treat the story of would have liked to see more of Enokizu only in space, not time — her . . . without getting into the past, but just by looking at the circumstances Yes, she is very unusual. When as they were, the result. But I didn’t she gets out of prison 15 years after feel it would work; there was also the murder she has committed, she the past. finds her daughter is the mistress of the factory owner; she has changed. The first scene where Enokizu as a It is embarrassing for the daughter, child sees his father beaten and in relation to her benefactor, to ask humiliated by the naval officer that her old mother also be taken bothers me a bit . . . care of. Besides which, the mother is not just an ordinary person; she is Yes, it seems a bit of a forced rather strange. pretext. It was a flaw. It doesn’t Eventually, the old woman gets work. killed by Enokizu, who comes there I wrote a lot more for that scene by chance. There is almost a kind of and the more I wrote the more I inevitability in that — not because found that the son was different of some sort of moral consequence from the father. For a Japanese, — that a person who commits a Iwao Enokizu is a rather unusual crime is bound to be punished. character.

In a small island country like Japan, when a person gets into While you wrote the screenplay, did a mess and kills someone, it is you have a sense of gradually natural that it should end like this. coming to understand Enokizu?

No. The things I didn’t under­ stand at the start, I still couldn’t get to at the end. As a director, I had to try to understand the character. But I couldn’t get a hold of him. No matter what I did, there was always a gap between me and the character.

Have you had more in common with the characters in your previous films?

Yes. In that sense, this film was a fresh and new experience. It was difficult, but very interesting for me.

In Ee ja nai ka, this gap between the main character and myself is much closer. This time it is almost as if he is an offshoot of myself.

Kinzo is a tactician, a schemer: he catches all kinds of tip-offs, makes compromises, goes from one to the other. He is caught up in the changes in his society, and knows he will have to live through them.

So, secretly he makes arrangements to save himself when it looks as if radical changes are taking place.

You have to connect with the next age. The intelligent people of the times were all sending out CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 339

Shohei Itnamura

340 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Shohei Imamura

ÉÉ ML

1 1

1 i

I ■I

I I r

I

Probably because it is useless, pointless, zero! There is nothing in it. In the Edo period, they would have said of him, “ He has a lot of style.” That is the kind of death he wanted. He tried once with the prostitute, but failed — probably because he had drunk too much.

!

?

g m

1

i

f

’

f I

1 1

I |

it is the same woman both times, isn’t it?

1

1

1

j

Yes. She returns home, is blinded and comes back. “ While I could see, 1 gave up the thought of you.

But when I lost my sight, I couldn't forget you,” she says. His image keeps appearing to her, so she has to go back to Edo. Then they try the suicide again and, in the end, succeed. To live and to die — there is not much meaning in it. It’s a kind of nihilism. That’s probably why he dies. I feel as if I can understand that. I feel close in that sense.

....,

That it is better to die for no reason at all than to die for a particular purpose . . .

No, I think it is all right to die for a purpose, as well.

As in the case of Mishima, for instance?

Above: Ee ja nai ka. Left: 10 images from Vengeance is Mine.

signals, putting out their antennas.

It was a time when information equalled money; one sold and bought information. He kept an eye on the situation from the beginning.

He had come out of the old Tokugawa power; he was a magistrate, a government official. He used his contacts to become a new figure of influence. He is a very intelligent man, but also very sly.

In the way he uses people . . .

particularly reliable. But he spends written it all myself; it is not his time in the Yoshiwara pleasure adapted. I am fond of them. I like quarters, and tries to commit people like that. Furukawa, the double suicide with a prostitute. ronin, who wants to become one of His rank is taken away, he is the people at the bottom of society deprived of all rights as a samurai, — I like him. To die for no reason, and ends up in the bottom layer of a senseless death. To commit society — the people living under double suicide for the second time with a prostitute — it is a stupid the bridge.

I probably, have something in thing to do. Nothing comes of it. I like that way of dying. common with him, too. in wanting to mix with the poor, and with people who don’t live by their rationality . . .

Why do you like it?

A sideshow in Ee ja nai ka.

At least he had a theme. This is a no-theme death. Just to die with a woman. It is a kind of love — to have reached a certain point and want to die. Even if you live just for one purpose, there is always the chance of dying before you reach it.

For instance, I would like to make a film that makes people say, “Wow! That was great!” I'd like to make a Film that is much more engaging and has much deeper .meaning.

One that will reach a lot of people . . .

Yes, that people all over the

do mix with them to a point, but I can never really be one of them.

1

Yes. He is the one who, in his relationship to other people, is the least kind.

As a politician . . .

Yes. In that respect, I may have something in common with him. In fact, I think I probably have a lot.

(Laughs.) Then there is the role that Ken Ogata plays, the ronin (master-less samurai). He tries to commit double suicide with an oiran (courtesan) from Yoshiwara.

I would have liked to know more about him. He doesn’t appear that much, and there are so many characters . . .

Yes, they are all mixed up. The samurai that Ken Ogata plays is of the hatamoto rank. Hatamoto is a chokkei (direct line) from the Tokugawa Bakufu, therefore someone who would be considered

Would you like to?

Yes, I would. There is that element in me.

Then there is the role played by Izumiya — Genji, the main character — who has been to the U.S. and come back, but keeps wanting to go to the U.S. He is very simple, straightforward and single­ minded in his ambition. 1 have a lot of that, too.

In that sense, the distance between me and a number of the main characters in this film is much closer than to Iwao Enokizu. I have an affinity with them.

In what way?

In terms of feelings, mood. I can understand why they do these stupid things. For one thing, I have CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 341

Shohei Imamura

“In a very primitive way, women are wor­ shipped in the same way that nature might be: rain falls, the sun shines and things grow. ”Ee ja nai ka (also right).

world can understand. Of course, there are problems, such as the Japanese language, customs, and all kinds of things. In a way, I think my generation doesn’t have to go that far. Having reached this point, I think I just might die.

What I'd really like would be if a woman I had been with at some time suddenly came in this door with a kitchen knife and stabbed me. It might be for love, for jealousy, or all sorts of reasons. In her soul, she might have a purpose, but-it isn’t my purpose. She has a grudge . . . and she kills me.

(Laughs.)

She will have attained her pur­ pose . . .

Yes, she feels that by killing me she will have consummated that love, succeeded in it, make it perfect, because we would die together. If. for instance, she were 342 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

to burst in like that and stab me, I might say, “ No, no. I’m not the one you think.” She might even have mistaken me for another man. It might not have been me at all. She should have gone one floor up, but she came here, and killed me!

Do you like that kind of death?

Yes. If I could. I would like to die like that.

I can see that . . .

(Laughs.) I wonder if you really understand it.

Perhaps not, but the things that have most to do with fate are usually accidental . . .

In what sense?

In Edo, especially, they were all poor; they couldn’t get married.

Edo was a man-made town. Men were in the majority. There were very few women. So, the women could hold their heads high. It was a feudal period. But nothing would come of just putting up with the situation. In the world of the samurai it was different. The wife of the samurai would quietly bear things, but the women of the lower classes were quite tough.

In your films, you often portray women who are very strong, but they seldom have any real consciousness of their own situation, of the extent to which they may be oppressed . . .

That’s true; they don't.

Yes, they are. , Anyway, in that sense, although he may be a bit different, the samurai. Furukawa. and I have something in common. I don’t dislike him: if anything, I rather like him. I like Genji. too. As for the women . . . Actually. I think Japanese women are rather strong.

were becoming strong. But I felt this was not really true and, therefore, women who were very ignorant and unthinking became my main characters.

Of course, they had a certain strength in their ignorance. There is something in the Japanese past, the Japanese w'ay of thinking about the gods, that is a form of primitive worship of women. Women bear children and bring them up and are, therefore, seen as having a sacred quality. In a very primitive way, women are worshipped in the same way that nature might be; rain falls, the sun shines and things grow.

They still are.

In Okinawa, in particular . . .

Yes, there you have the onari( wo me n who be c o me guardian deities for their families).

In Ee ja nai ka, the Okinawan (Ryukyu Islander) cuts a lock of hair to take it home.

g ami

Why is that?

At least in the postwar period — 17 to 18 years after the war — women tried to understand how and by whom th e y w ere bein g oppressed. They began to have a sense of self. People said women

as there a suggestion that, for a split-second, he thought of killing her too at that point?

Shohei Imamura

You find it unsatisfactory in that sense . . .

Yes. In an inverse sense, I am dissatisfied with it. I don’t want to write with a belief that I understand everything, but rather more objectively.

As documentary — although that isn’t necessarily objective, of course.

There is the relationship between the person filming and the person being filmed . . .

Yes, I think that will always be there, no matter what you do. It is impossible to disregard it and only film objectively. Whatever you do, you always get drawn into it. There is a kind of falseness to film that the self has not entered into. Around you is reality, but what you actually shoot with the camera is not necessarily reality — it is just the reality of where the camera was.

If reality is a particular old woman’s life, what we can take with the camera is only a small part of this. It is only from such and such a time, on a particular day in a particular month. To take only this part and try to show the whole is a very difficult thing.

So, unless- there is another camera which records that there is a camera, and for that reason she is there and acting in such and such a way, you can’t call it truth. In the background, you might have a car, buildings, a rice paddy — those things in themselves are reality — but in terms of this woman’s life, they are not necessarily reality, not truth.

When you made “Karayukisan: Life of a Prostitute”, did you spend a long time with the old woman?

were Japanese women who could live a satisfactory life abroad. Many Japanese don’t think that is possible . . .

Yes. I wrote about it in Postwar History o f Japan, too — the question of prejudice. A lot of Japanese like that feel it is easier for them to live abroad.

Do you have any plans for that documentary?

No, I am starting work on Narayama bushiko first; it might be after that. I have several assistant directors who have worked under me here, and I want to produce work done by them. It could be one of them. We recently made a film, about mentallyretarded children, that one of them directed; it was very good.

What was it called?

Yuriko kara no tegami (Letters from Yuriko). We shot it in a small Chinese restaurant in Yoyogi in Tokyo.

Where do you see hope, if any, for the future of Japanese cinema? Are there any particular directors?

The one I probably put most faith in among the young directors is Oguri. I have worked a little with him. He was an assistant to Kiriyo Urayama. His film, Doro no kawa (The Muddy River), has none of the so called “ new film” or “new cinema” elements. It is a very quiet film with long takes.

Do you think your work in documentary has influenced your approach to narrative film?

No, just a month.

No, the performance just wasn’t too good (laughs). The Okinawan is in love with Ine, but because he is reserved he doesn’t say anything and just leaves. Ine is overwhelmed

by Genji’s death, and to her he is just one of Genji’s good friends.

Why does the Okinawan just keep it inside instead of embracing her and saying, “ I love you”? It’s because he sees her as a kami, a sacred spirit. So, he just cuts a lock of her hair instead and takes it with him as protection on the trip.

Women are thought of as having a special kind of strength. They have a kind of awesome and frightening quality.

But in our present society I would like to see women open their eyes more to social problems, and have a consciousness of themselves in relation to society. I don’t think they should just hide in the house and bear children, but rather get out, because they are capable of it.

Yet, I wouldn’t want them to lose that intuitive strength and sense of mystery, and become just like men.

That wouldn’t be very interesting at all. I really would want women to retain some mystery (laughs). But

that’s a man’s wish. Even so, the ideal would be that that strength is not just confined to the individual small world around them, but expands into the much wider world outside.

Seen in the context of that ideal, I think the main female characters I have created so far are lacking in consciousness and living just in the world of their own emotions.

Have you thought of creating women characters who have more intelligence?

Yes, I am thinking of doing it.

But I don’t know if it will work. I don’t think having a lot of knowledge or intelligence is that valuable. The main thing is to find out what a woman’s best quality is and bring that out as much as possible.

Ine is not that different from the other female characters I have written. She, too, is someone I feel I can understand — not like Enokizu. In Ee ja nai ka, it is probably too easy to understand the characters.

Did you spend time with her talking about it first?

We spoke for about an hour one day, then started shooting the next time. Therefore, when I interviewed her, it was all fresh for me; I hadn’t heard any of it before.

How large a team did you use?

Yes. Even when I write, I am very conscious of the position of the camera, who is looking and from where. I don’t want to film from a God‘s-eye-point-of-view. There­ fore, I don’t like to use sets. It is always location shooting.

In the next one I want to use an open set in the mountains. I would like to build real houses — houses that people can live in. But it costs a lot of money. 1

Three.

H ave you any plans for more documentaries or a combination of documentary and narrative film?

Yes, I would like to go to the U.S. and do a documentary on the war brides.

In view of vour “Postwar History of Japan”, it seems a natural thing that you would do it . . .

Your latest productions have been rather big films, compared to earlier ones?

Yes. but they don’t make money.

Big films are not in my nature; I don’t like them. I made Ee ja nai ka. but I don't like it that much. I like much smaller films — those with a smell of poverty.

Sometimes “Ee ja nai ka” has that feeling about it. There are a lot of

(Laughs.) Yes. I have seen a very interesting book of photo-journalism on that subject.

I am sure it came as a surprise to many Japanese to find that there

Concluded on p. 409 1.

Im am ura has not been back to Okinawa since he made his film The Profound

Desire of the Gods/Kuragejima: Tales from a Southern Island there in 1 9 6 8 .

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 343

EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT

FILMS - A n d

No Longer N eed Fear to A sk

Brian McFarlane

hen I was very young and desperate for in­ form ation about the movies, the only sources read av aila b le (to an A u stra lia n country schoolboy, at least) were the fortnightly copies of the British fan magazines, P ic tu re S h o w and P ic tu r e g o e r . T hese genteel publications had at least the merit of giving cast lists, which interested me most, for every new film , as well as esoterica like actors’ birthdays (which also interested me — I found it hard to believe that any­ one who looked in reasonable repair could be more than 30), the odd biography and brief reviews.

W ithin their lim itations, they were reliable and informative, but they certainly didn’t answer all I wanted to know.

W

344 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Film Encyclopedias

or more substantial information, the above two journals offered “ Annuals” (publication resuming after the war), with chatty articles about star marriages and leisure time activities which showed the stars doing homely things like cooking and generally yearning for the simple life. There were also slim volumes of the Who’s Who kind, limited to actors active in their profession.

On a higher — and glossier — level were F. Maurice Speed’s annual Film Review (now in its 37th year) and John Willis’ Screen World (now in its 31st). But these were, and still are, resumes of the year just past, valuable for what they do include but in no sense aspiring to the kinds of comprehensive reference texts that have become so abundantly available in the past decade.

I am not talking about criticism or theory, but about accumulations of facts. Many such books, of course, go beyond providing factual informa­ tion (ill-advisedly on occasion) but in regard to the latter there is virtually nothing about English-speaking films, at least, which one can’t find out now by reference to one or other expen­ sive volume. And several of them go beyond the English-speaking cinemas to keep us up to date with Alexander Kluge and Akira Kurosawa, Alain Tanner and Jan Troell.

Further, these reference works are no longer limited to actors, but are apt to include all major collaborators (directors, producers, cameramen, music directors, etc.). They do not always stop at individual names, but sometimes give brief potted histories of film companies, technical in­ formation and historical developments, genre and thematic groupings. To one who spent his formative years reading Picture Show and Picturegoer from cover to cover, the plethora of resources now available is astounding, and as they compete for one’s attention one is apt to become critical of their lapses and lacunae, scarcely grateful enough that the old days of deprivation are gone — almost, in fact, feeling that some of them are unnecessary.

The volumes piled before me at the moment, all of them setting out to be comprehensive ac­ cording to their organizational procedures, are only the tip of the iceberg. I don’t take account here of the indefatigable James Parrish’s ex­ haustive compilations devoted to The Fox Girls or The Paramount Pretties, or Citadel’s The Films o f . . . (everyone from Alice Faye to Laurence Olivier), or books about Hollywood cameramen or scriptwriters. Sometimes I think there can be nothing left for film scholars to tackle but an in-depth study of the Films of Lesley Selander or Mary Beth Hughes.

How, then, could one account for this deluge of film reference works over the past 10 or 12 years? It is not just reference works, of course.

There has been a seemingly endless stream of books about every aspect of cinema, catering to a wide range of interest, from the most arcane theoretical exegeses, criticism from genrist, auteur and other approaches, histories of national cinemas, monographs of directors great and small, biographies and autobiographies of almost everyone (the life and times of Britt Ekland, indeed!) to the mindless film fan gush of Bill Collins’ Book o f the Movies. It is in this context of insatiable demand for reading about and around films that the reference book glut needs to be considered.

Partly the glut is, I expect, to be explained by the rapid increase in the serious study of film, by students in educational institutes and critics and theorists working what was, until fairly recently, more or less virgin territory. If one is going to make a critical study of the Hollywood Western, one will need an authoritative reference work that will help map out the contours of the field.

The territory has been somewhat extended (in several succeeding editions by Halliwell himself, as well as by numerous others), but his principle of comprehensiveness and the blend of fact and opinion set a pattern which has persisted. It is not easy to be genuinely comprehensive and perhaps only Ephraim Katz in The International Film Encyclopedia has truly set himself this aim.

The criteria for inclusion — and, often more in­ teresting, exclusion — are not always clear or consistent, nor are the overall aims of the com­ pilers. And some, Halliwell especially, would be better advised to stick to facts (and get them right) and to avoid opinions. To be comprehen­ sive, factually accurate and critically stimulating over 500-1000 pages may be more than one can ask for — or expect to find.

If one is teaching a course on French Cinema since the New Wave or on German expres­ sionism, it will be important for students to have access to the factual information (the actual films, their directors and other collaborators) which underpins such a study. Above all, it is perhaps a matter of the rapid acceleration in respectability attaching to film, as a subject for serious study and intelligent discussion.

When I was a university student in the 1950s, it was held frivolous to be as interested in films as I was. It was safe enough to talk about Laurence Olivier's Hamlet or the Italian neo­ realists, but unthinkable to engage in sustained discussion of a John Wayne Western or a Douglas Sirk romantic melodrama. To buy an encyclopedia of film would not have been an enterprise on a par with buying the Oxford Com­ panion to English Literature (supposing, that is, you could afford the latter or find the former).

Well, that has all changed. It is not that all the volumes under consideration — dictionaries, en­ cyclopedias, companions, etc. — are of high repute or equally serious in their intention, but it is interesting (and comforting) to know that they are there. Little did Leslie Halliwell know what he was unleashing when his weighty Filmgoer’s Companion made its debut in 1967. Others have overtaken him in various ways, but, in general, he staked out the territory (for English-speaking film anyway) with a thoroughness no one before him had aspired to — to my knowledge at any rate.

y latest Halliwell (the 6 th Edition, 1977) is more than 800 pages, generously laced with stills and entertaining adver­ tising posters, alphabetically arranged, with a useful appendix of cross­ Atlantic title changes, and a “ List of Recom­ mended Books” in which Halliwell has revealingly starred his own favorites. Even more revealing is his list of “ My Hundred Favourite Films” . At least one knows where one is with Halliwell, though one may well not wish to be there. “ My taste in fiction is very middlebrow” , he rightly claims, suggesting that his list (it includes Genevieve, Wuthering Heights, The Jolson Story and Thank Your Lucky Stars) “ has a usefulness as a corrective against [his] more prejudiced pronouncements” .

His “ critical” pronouncements are not, generally, illuminating and it would be better if, in the 8 th Edition, he devoted his attention to in­ creasing the accuracy of his factual information.

Some of his errors have persisted from edition to edition (e.g., the films of Alan Marshall did not include The Barkleys of Broadway and The Op­ posite Sex contrary to what Halliwell has been telling us for a decade) and the true value of a book like his would be in offering really reliable facts.

The thematic entries (also listed alphabeti­ cally) are a preposterously eclectic group (kings and queens, rain, social conscience, transves­ tism, kidnapping, bathtubs, to choose six at ran­ dom); the entries for production companies are so skimpy and selective as to be worthless and so are the comments on technical terms (“tracking shot — One taken with a moving camera, usual­ ly forwards or backwards, and often on an ac­ tual track” ); and the listing of individual films in the body of the text seems to me a mistake for a number of reasons. ' It is impossible to be other than selective in this matter; H alii well’s personal prejudices in­ fluence not merely the selection but the kind of critical comment offered on each (i.e., his doggedly middle-class, simplistic approach in­ hibits serious discussion); and non-English­ speaking and modern films are very sparsely represented. His Film Guide. a massive compa­ nion to the Companion, sticks to an alphabetical list of films, with basic information about cast and credits, a brief plot synopsis and generally worthless critical comment. Despite its strange omissions (e.g., Robert Siodmak’s splendid Uncle Harry), this is a valuable reference book for English-speaking films, and I believe Halli­ well would do well to concentrate on increasing its scope and removing the individual film list­ ings from the Companion.

The strength of the Companion is in the listing of actors, directors, producers, cameramen, film composers, etc. The omissions, to take actors only, are sometimes hard to understand: Shelley

Film Encyclopedias

Duvall is in, but equally active, equally signifi­ cant ’70s players, such as Michael Murphy and Madeline Kahn, are not; uninteresting Richard Jordan is in but Dorothy Jordan (a star at RKO in the ’30s and back again for Ford in the ’50s, unforgettably in The Searchers) is not; Molly Lamont, regularly employed as a leading lady in Britain in the '30s and as character actress in Hollywood in the ‘40s (The Suspect, Ivy, etc.), is a household name compared with some of the obscurities who do rate a mention.

Nevertheless, it is hard to fault Halliwell in any serious way on the basis of criteria for in­ clusion: almost everyone is listed, even if. in some cases, it took him several editions to repair omissions. What he has produced is a cosy com­ panion for those who like cosy cinema, for those whose spiritual home was the old Athenaeum or the Collins St Metro.

brought up to date since the 1st Edition; for each entry Thomson offers a critical essay, with insights, opinions, reflections and information; and the whole is suffused with a strong sense of the writer’s personality.

For the buff and devoted filmgoer, there is great pleasure to be had in the way Thomson en­ capsulates his sense of an actor or director’s whole career succinctly and wittily: on Mark Robson, “ Suffice it to say that he manages to make [Robert] Wise seem a respectable direc­ tor” , after a brief resume of his downward career since leaving Orson Welles and Val Lew­ ton; on Sylvester Stallone, “ Stallone is the most self-conscious noble savage since Mussolini” ; and on Luise Rainer’s two Oscars and subse­ quent disappearance, “ Her career crumbled so completely afterwards, that they might have been voodoo idols.”

But if he has a flair for the pithily picturesque, he is also equal to the challenge of the sustained nd yet, it is the idiosyncrasies of the essay called up by the more influential figures compiler that not only give a from the Lumiere brothers, through D. W. Grif­ particular flavor to such volumes, fith, Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman et al, to but which make browsing through Robert Altman and Bob Rafelson. He is not them compulsive. That, of course, is awed by Great Names but he knows how to no guarantee of their value as reference tools. value achievements that are intrinsically exciting One of the most valuable and reliable the andof historically important. That he should be latter is Denis Gifford's The British Film willing to allow Rafelson, with only four films to Catalogue 1895-1970. It eschews editorial his credit at the time, as much space as Jean-Luc comment on the films listed and settles instead Godard is a sign of his willingness to go out on a for being “ the first complete catalogue of every limb; the subsequent release of The Postman British film produced for public entertainment Always Rings Twice confirms his perceptive since the invention of cinematography” . As analysis of Rafelson’s “ remarkable virtues” . His such, it is indispensable. For each title, it gives account of Andy Warhol, one of the longest in running time, censorship rating, studio, pro­ the book, offers further evidence of openness to ducer. director, screenplay and cast, as well as the idea of rewards in unlikely places. generic category (Drama, Crime, etc.) and a generally absurd one-sentence summary of plot (The Flesh is Weak: “ Soho vice king uses handsome brother to lure girls into prostitu­ tion” ; The Buttercup Chain: “Children of twin sisters have love affair with Swede and Ameri­ can"; A Touch of Love: “ Research graduate bears bastard baby requiring heart operation” ). S Ì Despite these often hilarious one-liners, I hope f i n Gifford is updating his catalogue; two or three further pages should see him through British cinema in the '70s.

A A

/ilk

ttM?* 1 t'ie

end of the scale from Gifford’s enterprise is David Thom­ so n ’s provocati ve, sometimes JL maddening, always lively Bio­ graphical Dictionary o f the Cinema (Revised Edition, 1980). Thomson's book is selective, quite openly opinionated and with the opinions argued literately and cogently, and listing actors, directors, and producers who “seem to be most central to the history of the cinema” . He has avowedly aimed, “ to give an account of them that will be ap­ propriate, useful and stimulating for the film student, the critic and the buff, for the devoted filmgoer or for anyone who enjoys film and who believes that cinema contributes to the makeshift culture of our time” .

It is a formidable goal which he just about achieves. A man who declares boldly “that Angie [Dickinson] is his favourite actress” has much to commend him. even if he does say of Merle Oberon (“ renowned beauty with a graven face") that “ Alas she was often a dull actress.”

As a rule, though. Thomson is not so much idiosyncratic as strong-minded and, compared with Gifford's stark dossier, his book is eminent­ ly readable, designed for readers to lose themselves in it as they pursue their special in­ terests. Few books about film are so beguiling: the facts are remarkably accurate and the lists of films for each entry are complete, many of them

m

s

0 PP0 Site

346 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

can’t help sounding somewhat assertive in trying to come to grips with so sprawling a career, but the irritations are so sharply put (“The Quiet Man is an entertainment -for an IRA club night”) that, much as I disagree with them, I should like to see them argued at length.

Thomson has offered a rarity: a reference book that is valuably informative and persistent­ ly individual. It is generous, scholarly, quirky and provocative, an immense pleasure for the browser and a boon for teachers and students.

Now that its second edition (new' essays on the likes of Woody Allen and Wim Wenders) is available in paperback, it is probably the best value for money in the field. normously good value for twice the money is Ephraim Katz’s The Inter­ n a tio n a l Film E n c y c lo p e d ia , published by Macmillan in 1980 and the most recent such wmrk to come my'way. The dust-jacket boldly proclaims “The Most Comprehensive Encyclopedia of World Cinema in a Single Volume” and, for once, the blurb is probably right. What Katz offers is a thinking man’s Halliwell. In setting out, quite explicitly, to provide what the dust-jacket claims, he has wisely eschewed “ the factual and critical survey of specific motion pictures” for reasons Halliwell should have attended to.

The listings include actors, directors, producers — all major collaborators, and even definitions of “ best boy” and “ key grip” — as well as a remarkably comprehensive account of technical terms, much more incisive and infor­ mative summaries of the activities of the major

m

Wm

WM yg& M ÌfciiV Cp.Fd

„SssfB?,

wmm

IP ? te Ém i-SìiCf&l

m It is not necessary to be in sympathy with Thomson to find him stimulating. I could hardly be more at odds with his appraisal of John Ford's career, but the essay doesn’t read like mere perversity, as if he just relished dealing a major figure a bunch of fives. I think he is wrong to conclude that Nicholas Ray, Arthur Penn, etc., have “disproved those rosy, statuesque im­ ages" of Ford’s West; they have been concerned, rather, with using the Western to explore dif­ ferent aspects of social and/or psychological realism, w'hereas Ford’s interest has most often been in the way the mixture of fact and legend surrounding the opening up of America’s West have helped shape a national consciousness.

Thomson conscientiously argues his temperamental antipathy into some sort of ob­ jectivity and the concession allowed The Searchers (“ a very moving and mysterious film, that does not cheat on a serious subject”) strengthens this impression. In 600-odd words he

studios than Halliwell offers, and excellent es­ says on film-producing countries. Without dis­ rupting the crisp encyclopedic format, Katz is able to devote, say, 10 closely-printed double­ column pages to the British film industry or 14 to the American, including enough detail to flesh out his sense of the larger, formative moments in the artistic and commercial activity that has created the film history of each country.

Thus his account of the postwar decade in American filmmaking covers fluently the bursting of the postwar boom bubble, with a glance at some of the economic factors involved (e.g., the 1947-8 British import duty on Ameri­ can films) the House Un-American Activities Committee horrors whose “ psychological effects . . . were to last long after the hysteria and the blacklisting had ceased” , and the legislature ordering the big studios to get rid of their theatre holdings. And the films themselves are convin­ cingly scanned: those which dramatized read-

Film Encyclopedias

justment to civilian life; the social-conscienceon-the-sleeve dramas; the rise of the film noir reflecting “ the alienation of the individual in a hostile, or at best indifferent, environment” ; the quest for realism that led film companies on to the streets (and out of the red); the fine flowering of the MGM musical; and the coming of age of the Western.

In case he has missed anything crucial, Katz finishes this section with a list of 30-odd “ other notable films of the immediate postwar years” , and his meticulous cross-referencing shows the reader where to look for further information.

For each of the listed individuals, Katz gives a concise account of biographical details and career outlines of varying lengths, the length of the piece quite finely attuned to the significance of the entry, so that, for example, Arthur Penn gets about 800 words, while Jean Renoir is allowed more than 3000 and Gordon Douglas a mere 150. A director like the latter, “ known more for his technical efficiency and visual polish than for a singular personal style or mes­ sage” , has earned and needs considerably less space than one whose name, like Renoir's, “had become synonymous with greatness in French and international cinema” . Katz understands that a claim like this has to be substantiated at some length if it is to mean anything.

Katz is not as witty or distinctive as Thomson — and he doesn’t need to be: his is a different sort of enterprise — but his combination of fact and opinion is characterized by extraordinary thoroughness and by a sustained intelligence. Of course, there are lapses in 1260 pages — of fact, which need correction, and of judgment, too.

Among the former — and these can be easily at­ tended to — are the erroneous idea that Jack Lemmon had co-direction and co-screenplay credits for Agatha, that Ann Dvorak “ appeared in three British films” , the oddly recurring errors about the films of Alan Marshall. And it is curious that a compiler who relishes his character players should omit three splendid ones; hatchet-faced Almira Sessions (the un­ doing of Charles Chaplin’s Monsieur Verdoux), hoity-toity Norma Varden (untypically touching in VVitness for the Prosecution) and majestic Marie Lohr (Pygmalion’s Mrs Higgins).

As to judgments, these are generally kept terse in the individual entries and, even when one disagrees with them, they help to give this mas­ sive work a flavor beyond the drily factual.

Given the enormous scope of Katz’s work, it is remarkably up-to-date, with 1979 the cut-off point of credits listed for the still-active. Each entry concludes with a list of credits, complete and incomplete lists carefully distinguished. For its thoroughness, accuracy and literacy, this is an indispensable reference work for all libraries.

Vertigo, Girl in Every Port or Virgin Spring, whereas, say, Passport to Pimlico, Moulin Rouge and Martin Ritt’s The Outrage are there), but also contrives to make everything sound much the same. This is partly the result of the “com­ mittee prose” which favors the abstract and the general over the concrete and specific, whereby Monsieur Vincent is “ notable for the unforced beauty of the photography” , Mon Oncle’s mean­ ing “is emphasized by carefully-planned con­ trasts in the use of colour and sound” , and, in Queen Christina, Rouben Mamoulian “ handled the historical spectacle with panache” . The critical comment is safe, more or less unexcep­ tionable and rather dull. “ Contributors” , the Preface tells us, “have had to combine special knowledge with a talent for succinct, expressive writing—and the second quality has been harder to find than the first.”

Much harder. Further, “ inordinate pains have been taken to make the Companion accurate in the information it gives.” Up to a point it is ac­ curate, but failure to give complete credits (even if comprehensiveness is disclaimed in the Preface) for major entries limits the usefulness of its information to students, and its quaint practice of giving a film’s running time to the nearest quarter of an hour is hardly justified by the statement that “ films are so frequently shorn of footage by accident or design that such at­ tempted accuracy would have been misplaced.”

If the editor is interested in accuracy, the next edition may correct the Rock Hudson entry which claims that after Written on the Wind (a “ splendid Hollywood tear-jerker” ??), “ he became a big, money-spinning name in similar romances, often partnering Lana Turner, for ex­ ample, imitation of Life.” Not only was he not in that film, but he never co-starred with Turner.

.'ri;.'’’'

railing, if not clouds of glory, at least intimations of high respectability, The Oxford Companion to Film is a staid dud. Though the work of many hands, some of them genuinely distinguished (like Thorald Dickinson and Roy Armes), the overall effect suggests a committee effort kM wherein every touch of individuality has been ■ carefully expunged. It lists Mike Same, for {£%: instance, without any suggestion of the new depths of awfulness he plumbed in Joanna and Myra Breckinridge. Of The Searchers, it con­ cludes: “The film demonstrates Ford's major w t strengths as a Film-maker: vigour, economy, down-to-earth humour, and authoritative hand­ m m ling of actors.”

Like Halli well and unlike Katz, Oxford (edited by Liz-Anne Bawden) has elected to in­ clude individual films. However, in doing so, it ir'srél'ACr not only works with curious selectivity (no

■<-p

In passing, too, it might be noted that Douglas Sirk was born in Germany, not Denmark (ac­ cording to his own statement — to Jon Halliday — and I think we should be guided by this); that the Isabella Elsom listed in the cast of Monsieur Verdoux is in fact Isobel; and that Otto Preminger’s first brush with the wide screen was River of No Return, six years before Exodus.

As well as listing individual films, with brief credits and actors, directors, etc., the book is generally sound on such matters as genres, in­ dustrial terms (e.g., “trade show” , “trailer”) te ch n ica l in f o r m a tio n (e.g., “ p a n ” , “ Panavision” and “ panchromatic film" offer three brisk defining accounts in succession); there are useful essays on major developments like the history of sound and color in the cinema: and there is a very perceptive survey of British film history. The entries for the major studios are too compressed to give much sense of the flavor of the work done in them (Katz is much better in this area): the average space devoted to each is between one-and-a-half and two columns, roughly the space given to, say, John Huston. This sounds nit-picking, but there is often a curious sense of disproportion in the book, so that, for example. Scott Litzgerald and John Lord are given roughly equal treatment.

If all this sounds rather grudging about a volume which tries to do for the cinema what its companion Companions do for the other arts. I do find it an uninviting work. Because it has avoided comprehensiveness, it is not the reference book I would go to for quick informa­ tion and because of its generally drab respec­ tability it does not encourage enjoyable brows­ ing. In its sense of the fitness of things, it often reminds me of the Oxford Companion to Literature which just barely acknowledges D. H. Lawrence while it gives a full plot synopsis of Lom e Doone, or merely notes that The Awkward Age appeared in 1899 while it gives half a column to Ayala’s Angel. oy Pickard's A Companion to the Movies is the only one of these volumes I have read from cover to cover consecutively, and this is not a procedure I can recommend. To be fair to its author. 1 don't imagine he would recommend it either, but having undertaken it I have to say that it reveals the book's limitations clearly. The author claims that this 1979 revised version (it first appeared in 1972) “ still remains [author's tautology] the only film book to explore in detail the various popular genres of the cinema". It is not the only book about popular genres — Stuart Kaminsky's American Film Genres, for one. leaps to mind — and it certainly does not explore any genre “ in detail".

Its format is to devote a chapter to each of the following: Comedy, Lantasy, Thrillers and Crime. Westerns, Musicals. Romance. Epics.

War, Swashbucklers, Adventure and Anima­ tion, and for each of these gives a brief paragraph and main credits on about a dozen popular examples of the genre, followed by a Who’s Who of the chief contributors to the genre. It is hard to know what Pickard means by “explore in detail". There is no sense of ex­ ploration: no attempt to understand or define the conventions of the genre, or its sources, or how its exponents conform to or subvert the genre expectations.

The growth and endurance, the bursts of pop­ ularity at particular times of particular genres are fascinating subjects for exploration, and others have undertaken this exploration in rela­ tion to one genre or the other: Will Wright’s Six Guns and Society and John Russell Taylor and Arthur Jackson's The Hollywood Musical, for CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 347

Film Encyclopedias

example, in their different ways are infinitely more rewarding.

As for “detail” , just consider the chapter on Westerns. The 12 films listed for special treat­ ment are The Iron Horse (1924), Stagecoach (1939), Red River (1948), She Wore a YellowRibbon (1949), Broken Arrow (1950), High Noon (1952), Shane (1953), The Magnificent Seven (I960), The Wild Bunch (1969), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid (1972) and The Outlaw Josev Wales (1976). Pickard's criteria for such singling out are “ critical importance or box­ office success” ; I can't be sure about the latter, though I'd be surprised if True Grit didn’t out­ sell The Great Northfield Ylinnesota Raid.

On the score of critical importance, much more subjective territory certainly, I find it hard to accept a list which excludes The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Rio Bravo, Guns in the Afternoon, or any reference to Anthony Mann or Budd Boetticher and yet in­ cludes Fred Zinnemann’s portentous allegory.

High Noon looks increasingly like the Silas Marner of the Western, and indeed Pickard’s whole list tends to favor that kind of tidymindedness over more adventurous undertak­ ings in the genre.

The comments he offers on each of his dozen choices are not foolish but merely bland: Stagecoach is “ a handsomely photographed work and the one western that everyone knows and likes” ; The Magnificent Seven is “ the public's favourite western and the one that spawmed Elmer Bernstein's wmrld famous music score” . These penetrating introductory remarks are followed in each case by a brief glance at plot, key performance(s), and comments on, for instance, “ marvellous colour photography” (Yellow Ribbon) or “ one of the finest scores in the western genre” (Red River). There is more sense of the scope and excitement of the genre in Walter C lapham ’s pop-history, Western Movies, in the Movie Treasury series.

The entries in the Who's Who attached to each genre’s chapter are generally accurate, but it is in the end frustrating to have to dart about through several chapters to see how a particular actor or director’s Western films fits in with his whole career. For instance, if you want to know the range of Michael Curtiz’s achievements, you have to look up p. 35 (Fantasy), p. 61 (Thrillers and Crime), p. 92 (YVesterns), p. 214 (Swash­ bucklers); at last, having done so, you should have memorized his birthdate and nationality, which appear each time. Even then you won't learn that he directed Life with Father. Mildred Pierce, Mission to Moscow, Yankee Doodle Dandy and a dozen other musicals. He is not even 1isted in the Musicals chapter.

Similarly for How-ard Hawks, perhaps the most accomplished multi-genre director: you'll have to look him up in five different places. A serious exploration of genre filmmaking would surely enable the reader to grasp easily the ex­ tent of a significant director’s work across a number of genres. It is not as though the entries are even consistently cross-referenced to make all this unnecessary page-flicking any easier.

Pickard's Companion hasn’t even the com­ pensation of the personal quirkiness that makes Halliwell browsable. His critical comments on individual entries are limited to “underrated” (his favorite, unsubstantiated epithet), “ effective contribution” , “ at his best in vigorous outdoor roles” , “one of the most talented dancing stars” and others of that unilluminating ilk. The usual reference book combination of fact and opinion seems to fail on both counts: the facts are inade­ quate and the opinions jejune. For the $29.50 asked for this volume, one w'ould be better off

348 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

with a three-year subscription to the Monthly Film Bulletin — or seeing five or six films.

fascinating to conjecture; unfortunately, star biographies and, especially, autobiographies are not noted for their insights into what made the stars of the films as they are.

jomfortably bridging the film fan/ student gap are David Shipman’s two volumes, The Great Movie Stars.

The first, subtitled “The Golden Years” , which embrace Mary Pick­ ford who began working in films in the 1900s and the likes of Orson Welles and Mickey Rooney who are still active in the 1980s, first ap­ peared in 1970 and then in a revised edition in 1979. Sadly, many of those listed are now beyond revision. (Others, like Ray Milland, Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis have soldiered on and their records are now up­ dated.

he Golden Years volume has a lucid and lively introduction, tracing the birth of the star system from Florence Fawrence, through Mary Pickford and Charles Chaplin, and consider­ ing the function of the studios in “ making and then maintaining a star” : “ In the star-vehicles which constituted the major output of all the studios, infinite care and skill went into costumes and lighting so that a star appeared to best advantage.”

The second, subtitled “The International Years” (whatever that may mean), has also gone through two editions (1972 and 1980), and avowedly includes stars who have come to prominence since World War 2. “ . . . there were stars before the war and stars afterwards, but it seemed to us that films after the war w-ere dif­ ferent,” Shipman offers by way of explanation.

There is nothing remotely highbrow about either of these volumes; they do not attempt the sustained critical approach of David Thomson’s Critical Dictionary; but their function does go beyond mere film fan gratification. Whatever doubts one may feel about their criteria for in­ clusion and the reliability of the judgments of certain performances and films, to read these two volumes through (and they are lively enough to permit this) is to gain a remarkably com­ prehensive view of “ wmrld cinema in the [prewar and] postwar years — at least of those industries which were tied to the star-system” .

The importance of the star system in the history of the films, as well as sociologically, as a 20th Century phenomenon, is presumably now beyond question, but there is still surprisingly lit­ tle serious writing about it. Shipman’s books are scarcely “serious writing” (as, say, Richard Dyer’s slim 1979 volume, Stars, for the BFI is) but they do give a sense of the immense range of personality types and acting styles, as well as of the studio conditions that enabled stars to fourish and thereby create some of the great iconographic images of the 20th Century.

Even the faces of famous politicians and sportsmen can scarcely have commanded such instant recognition from so wide a public as, say, Clark Gable or Audrey Hepburn. (Possibly only that other celebrated performer, the Queen, has been so recognizable for so long to so many.)

The effect of star personae on the very nature of the films we see (saw is perhaps more accurate: stars having declined in number and maybe in influence in the ’70s) is incalculable, though

Nevertheless, as he notes, no amount of studio packaging even of “ people who seemed to have the requisite looks, personality and talent” could make stars of them (Anna Sten is a prime ex­ ample), whereas there are plenty of examples of “artists deficient in all three who become world­ wide favourites” (Abbott and Costello?).

Shipman ponders rather than probes the phenomenon, but at least draws attention to matters like the variable importance of acting ability, and the way in which “The system was firmly rigged against the individual in favour of the machine” , in view of which “ it is hardly sur­ prising that it destroyed talents who never knew how to come to terms with it.” He raises the “ question of what constitutes star quality” but cannot arrive at anything more useful than this: “The great stars were all great originals and any description more precise founders on their in­ dividuality.”

There are some surprising — though welcome — inclusions in each volume. One is hardly prepared to find Flora Robson, Roland Young or Alice McMahon included as stars of the “golden years” though I’d take any one of them in preference to Nelson Eddy, Lana Turner and Betty Hutton as a job lot. Shipman is actually quite sharp about the enduring plasticity of Turner: “ Lana Turner has been a film-star for 30 years. She has no other identity than that of film-star — and that in its most obvious sense: a glamour girl from a mould, a fabulous creature who moves, on screen, among beautiful furnishings, and who, off-screen, is primarily noted for a series of love-affairs and marriages . . . It is presumably due to this that she ow'es the longevity of her career, which has consistently triumphed over appalling per­ sonal notices. Even her admirers would admit that she couldn’t act her way out of a paper bag.” .

Concluded on p. 414

Film Theory and Film P ractice Jeff Peck The schism between theory and practice seems to manifest itself in almost all human endeavours, and this is certainly the case in the realm of the cinema. Those involved in the film indus­ try in Australia today find the concerns of film scholars to be pedantic, mysti­ fying or simply absurd. Film theoreti­ cians and serious critics, on their part, feel distinctly uncertain about what connection, if any, they have with the makers and making of local films.

Indeed, academics are even split among themselves along a film theory-film practice line of demarcation.

Institutions of higher learning in A u s tra lia o ffe rs courses in history/theory/criticism or in production.

Rarely are the two combined, as if they were separate activities — that the work of the filmmaker is a world apart from that of the film scholar. There are even parallel but separate lists of publications which reflect the division.

Film production texts usually ignore the issue of theory, or simply reject it as irrelevant. “You will not find theories here, but facts, tested and proven over a long period by diverse filmmakers all over the world . . . ” This disarmingly naive proclamation in the introduction to Daniel Arijon’s exhaustive Grammar of the Film Language sums up the position taken by most such texts.1 Production manuals present them­ selves as neutral, collections of tech­ nical instructions which somehow are “ pure” of, or “ precede” , theory. In essence, they assume that normative practice is a given, rather than an issue for debate. The dominant ideology is offered as a lack of ideology. Obvious examples which contradict this analysis are such books as Bela Belazs’ Theory of the Film or Noel Burch’s Theory of Film Practice, which combine critical and theoretical observations with technical data. However, even in these cases, the theoretical positions of the authors must be gathered more through implication and inference than direct exposition.

As for w ritten texts on film history/theory/criticism, they are generally more concerned with the product than with the process. This is much more pro­ nounced now than in years past, for the following reasons:

The Changing Relationship Between Film Theory and Practice If there was a shared position between the early formalist thinkers of the cinema and the realists, it was a common sense of a teleology of the art of film. Thus, for Sergei Eisenstein and Andre Bazin alike, the cinema was determined by a sort of vitalism — it moved inexorably toward an ultimate end, motivated in part by a prin­ ciple that was self-determining and selfevolving, distinct from merely mechani­ cal forces. In both cases, the practice of theory was seen as a process of dis­ covery rather than creation.

The destiny of thecinema would be re­ vealed through theoretical discourse and cinematic experimentation. But the ulti1. D. Arijon, Grammar of the Film Language, Focal Press, London, 1976, p. xiv.

mate end was seen as a product of a natural evolution of forms (that.end being variously defined, according to the specific ideology of the theorist/position). Within such a teleological frame­ work, some cinematic codes could be considered progressive, while others could be viewed as regressive or deadended. The language of the film did not simply become more complex, it became better, or worse, as it approximated more/less closely its ideal or ultimate formulation.

The theorist’s work, then, involved not simply examining how the cinema does operate or even how it can operate as a system of communication, but also to distinguish between progressive and regressive codes. In this sense, form­ alism and realism were intellectual m ovem ents w hich in c o rp o ra te d prescriptive as well as descriptive elements. .

Given this scenario, the work of the theorists could be seen as having a direct and obvious bearing upon the practice of film production. The manifestos and debates on the pages of iskusstvo kino or Cahiers du cinema could be trans­ lated relatively directly into cinematic expression. In essence, theory created an intellectual framework in which experiment within certain codes for meaning-production was encouraged, while work in other areas was discour­ aged. (Roughly, formalism favored the syntagmatic axis of meaning-produc­ tion, and realism, the paradigmatic.)

The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a significant shift in the direction of film c o n te n t. The in fu s io n of s e m iology/structuralism into film studies dis­ placed the idealist aspects of former positions. The practice of film theory became largely oriented around the material conditions of language and social ideology as the determinants of the cinema and its development.

Theory, as a scientific examination of the conditions and processes which define all cinematic expression (especi­ ally within narrative fiction), became essentially e pistom ological in its essence. In other words, semiology/ structuralism took up and greatly extended the descriptive aspects of former movements in film thought, but rejected the prescriptive ones. Thus, one can easily conjure a picture of a formal­ ist, realist or neo-realist film, but it is hard to imagine what a structural film would be. In fact, it would be no film at all, or all films, or both.

Of course, prescriptive notions did not entirely die out in the 1960s and 1970s.

Feminists, radical leftists and diehard realist/humanists kept the tradition alive throughout the decade. But the main­ stream of film thought departed from this endeavour. The result was that the rela­ tionship between the practice of film theory and that of film production grew distant. Work in the dominant theoreti­ cal sphere no longer provided any guidance to filmmakers about what direction their medium might take, or, rather, should take. Vitalism as a concept was largely rejected in favor of material­ ism and, without the driving force of the former, film thought lost its critical vision.

In the vacuum which followed, it is no wonder that the more innovative and critically remarkable films were either deconstructivist (which works against all convention), such as Alain Robbe-Grillet or Jean-Luc Godard’s experiments; minimalist (motivated by an almost

scientific sense of reductionism), such as Michael Snow, Michael Rimmer or Andy Warhol’s work; or a range of feminist efforts at creating arr alternative form of cinematic expression.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this period also witnessed the legitimizing, even deification, of Hollywood in theoretical and critical circles. The primary focus of the structuralists and semioticians was, after all, the dominant cinema — cer­ tainly not some unrealized, ideal form that could only be viewed as one of any number of possible formulations of cine­ matic practice.

Filmmakers (as well as that of the an­ cillary coterie of journalistic film critics), however, have remained committed to a teleological vision of their art. In their minds, the cinema must develop and improve. And they view theory as the logical source for the prescriptive com­ ment that should lead the way. But, while semiology-structuralism may have pro­ vided them with new and useful tools for film analysis, it refuses the prescriptive role. This refusal is seen as a sort of be­ trayal by some filmmakers, as well as by some of the members of the older schools of film thought. In fact, I would suggest that at least some of the antag­ onism which flared up at the Second National Film Conference in Perth last summer (and reflected in consequent articles in Cinema Papers2) was, at heart, related to this disparity of opinion con­ cerning a prescriptive function for film theory.

“As we move into the era of post-struc­ turalism” , J. Dudley Andrew said in 1976, “thinkers in all fields are talking about the emergence of a fruitful dialogue between a scientific, external structuralism and an internal, reflective phenomenology or hermeneutics.”3 This obituary for the pre-eminence of structuralism was, of course, premature (especially in Aus­ tralia, where it still seems to be gaining strength rather than waning).

So far, the talking has remained just that. While noble gestures on the parts of people like Brian Henderson or Marc Gervais have given some hope of new directions, no real cohesive intellectual movement along the lines of Gervais’ vaguely defined “ new-humanism” has emerged. Certainly, film theory will not be able to go back to naive notions of a natural evolution of the cinema, nor prescriptive comment based upon ideologies formulated in the 1920s through the 1950s. Where exactly film theory will go in the 1980s, however, is still relatively uncertain. In a way, this is a moment of considerable opportunity, especially in the Australian situation.

The Role o f Theory in the Australian Context In a country with a small population and a neophyte, but growing, feature film industry, the possibilities for experiment seem narrowly limited. The practicalities of the market now demand, more than ever, that Australian films be successful overseas. Experiment, however, requires either very large minority audiences which can support it (as in the U.S. or France) or booming industrial strength, which is willing to accept losses in order to promote the development of artists and/or film form (which exists practi­ cally not at all in the '80s).

Neither condition, of course, is present in Australia. The producers feel, under these circumstances, that they must operate according to what they see as

Concluded on p. 411 2. B. McFarlane. Adrian Martin, ‘ The Second Australian Conference". Cinema Papers.

No. 31, pp. 40-41. 101; Bob Hodge, Peter Jeffery. “ Letter to the Editor” , Cinema Papers. No. 32. p. 114.

3. J. D. Andrew, The Major Film Theories, Oxford University Press, London, 1976 p. 182.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 349

discusses the new

an Wilson was something of a dark horse for a job in the ministry when a position became vacant early this year, with the departure from politics of the Minister for Home Affairs and former Attorney-General, Bob Ellicott.

Ellicott joined the Federal Court, after missing out in his much-publicized ambition to succeed his cousin, Sir Garfield Barwick, as Chief Justice of the High Court. He represented a seat in New South Wales and, because of the delicate balance of state and coalition interests which is maintained in the ministry, it was assumed another New South Welshman would be appointed to fill the vacancy.

At the same time, South Australia was under-represented in the ministry, so the possibility of a South Australian appointee had to be seriously considered.

Ian Wilson is from South Australia. His name was among those tossed around during the guessing game that preceded the ministerial appointment, but it was not prominent in that field, and his selection came as a surprise to many Canberrawatchers.

In fact, before joining the ministry, Ian Wilson maintained a fairly low political profile. On the day his appointment was announced, reporters in Canberra had to scour their personality files for some mention of the new minister. Only one newspaper had a file marked 'Jan Wilson” and it merely revealed that he was the “hardworking member for Sturt”, the outer-suburban Adelaide seat Wilson has held for all but three (1969-72) of the past 15 years.

I

350 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Ian Wilson

Now if there are no changes in those applications, then obviously the view I will take of them is the one I took initially.

There were, of course, other applications in that group, and among those that have come before me since are ones in respect of a completed film. It’s up to the film­ maker or producer to determine whether they come to us before or after they start production. They might be absolutely satisfied that their project is going to qualify for the tax concession. They are in the business of making films and they can come to us after the film is made and say, “Well, here it is.

Give us, in effect, the final cer­ tificate.”

Others come before the film has started production, because I am sure they use the indication that it is likely to qualify as a means of encouraging their investors to put up the money.

There are others who approach us when their film is in the course of already have and we are also using all the generalities of the legis­ production [See Box 1], information from the AFC because lation. its staff have some expertise in Now if it’s all that’s needed to There have been queries about the making judgments as to whether qualify for the -concession, why number of investors who can be the sorts of criteria I have to apply issue a certificate? Why not let the involved in a single production. Is are relevant to a particular film. filmmakers determine their own there a restriction? eligibility and produce a film?

Not under Commonwealth law; There are some fears that the people So they put in those applications who will make the decisions on cer­ because they thought they would there is under certain state laws. tification won’t be able to read the secure their place in the queue and That is a matter for filmmakers to industry jargon, or the technical that hasn’t been the case. We have take up with the states. been trying to look at applications details listed in a film outline . . . with a view to being as fair to every­ How will your department work out whether a film has generated one as we can.

1 don’t think those fears are wellThe other factor that has revenue in order for it to qualify for founded. I think the people who have been handling the applica­ influenced the issue of certificates the write-off in a specific year? For tions have the ability, as well as was that the legislation was intro­ example, can you screen a film once now having enough experience duced with one change from the in Wagga, generate some revenue through having looked at a variety original [October 1980] statement. and then claim the tax concession? of proposals, to be able to under­ Then the amendment [June 9] was The legislation requires that the superimposed on that. There were stand that jargon. film is made for public exhibition some film proposals that were and, of course, the generation of There has been talk of undue delays lodged before the changes which revenue demonstrates that it has are clearly being withdrawn. in films being processed for cer­ In fact, we are now writing to the been publicly exhibited. But defin­ tification . . . producers of many of the films I ing that is really a matter that the taxation authorities have to deal I don’t think that’s correct. dealt with before the legislation with. I don’t have to determine came in, because they have to, in There have been cases where people that. have been in touch and indicated effect, apply under the legislation. that there are special problems We are asking them to write in con­ Do you have any idea how they will surrounding their particular pro­ firming the facts as they previously go about it? posal and we have endeavored, in stated them, so that the confirma­ No. looking at the applications, to deal tion becomes the application. with them in a sensitive way.

In some cases, the undue delay Box 1 A P P L IC A T IO N S LO D G E D FO R C E R T IF IC A T IO N idea got going because of the length of time between lodging an applica­ a t A u g u s t 28, 1981 tion and getting certification. That isn't necessarily a measure of delay, Total number of films for which applications for certification have because in the early days there was been lodged ................................................................................................ 181 a view among people in the film comprising: 92 features 67 documentaries industry that applications were 7 mini-series/teievision dramas going to be dealt with in the order 4 animated features in which they were lodged.

11 tele-features Number of films for which provisional certificates has been issued ....... 97 So, sometimes people would Number rejected .........................................................................................

2 simply write in saying, “ Here's a Number about to go before the Minister for consideration , 70 proposal for an Australian film, the Number in preparation for the Minister's consideration / ' working title is such and such” , and Remainder — 12 (includes films for which producers have to re-apply under the then in answer to all the questions legislation — i.e.. the original applications were lodged before the legislation was passed) they would put “ this will be an Aus­ tralian investment, Australian Note actors, Australian this that and the Before the Act was proclaimed on June 24, there had been 251 notifications. Of those, 138 other” . In other words, they have re-applied for certification under new law. There have been 50 new applications; 106 supplied very little details and vir­ have not re-applied; and 7 have withdrawn altogether. tually repeated in particular form

Now aged 49, Wilson was educated at Adelaide University and won a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford in the mid-1950s. After university, he worked as a solicitor before succeeding his father, Sir Keith Wilson, in Federal Parliament in 1966.

Wilsons parliamentary record, before he joined the ministry, suggests a morethan-passing interest in urban affairs and the environment. He served on two parliamentary committees concerned with those issues and in 1975 — the year the then Labor government was dismissedfrom office — he was Opposition spokesman on Urban Affairs.

But the issue for which he became best known was his championing of income tax splitting for husbands and wives. Feminists claim such a system would advantage well-heeled single-income families at the expense of working mothers and single-parents, and they were quick to denounce his appointment to the Home Affairs portfolio (which takes in Women s Affairs).

But filmmakers knew very little about their new minister except, perhaps, that he was unlikely to be as sympathetic to their interests as his predecessor.

That lack of familiarity continues and is now particularly unfortunate since Ian Wilson is responsible for administering the Government’s film tax-incentives scheme. This interview, by Barbara Alysen, provides some guide to his thinking.

Why did the Government have so much trouble in assessing the cost of the tax concession? At first it said it would cost $2 million a year, then S10 million, then perhaps S30 million. How do you explain those massive changes?

I don’t know how the calcula­ tions were done in the first instance.

I was not minister then and I don’t know what advice was sought.

Of course, it has been possible of late to look at the number of proposals that have come in for cer­ tification or provisional certifica­ tion. We have been able to list the proposed budgets for those films and say, if one makes the assump­ tion that all the money going in is in fact spent, and having been spent is money that would otherwise have attracted tax at 60 cents in the dollar, the cost of revenue is so much. And those are the sorts of figures that have been done.

What was not brought into account in making the most recent assessment was the proportion of proposals that would materialize in a given year as copyrighted films.

And we still don’t know what the answer to that will be, because I am advised there is a limit to the capacity of the film industry in Australia.

There is a suggestion that the Aus­ tralian Film Commission supplied the original S2 million . . .

I don’t know.

Will your department be trying to find specific staff from outside to work on administration of the tax incentives scheme, or will you use the staff already there?

We are working with the staff we Barbara Alysen is a regular contributor to Cinema Papers and works as a political correspondent fo r a national commercial radio network.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 351

Ian Wilson

Now that there is, presumably, a lot of public money flowing into film production, what role do vou see for the AFC? The AFC has played a very sig­ nificant role in the development of the film industry. I think in light of the concessions we will need to have a look at the emphasis of that role, because now money is beginning to flow, with people showing con­ fidence in the industry itself as a result of the reputation the industry has built.

In that situation, there does arise a question on the role the AFC should play. I think for at least the next 12 months the AFC really has to keep to the sort of role it has been performing, but that over that period it will need to keep an eye on which way the industry is moving to see how it can best build on the foundations it has helped to estab­ lish. So, I just see a changing mix in its role.

Do you feel the AFC might even­ tually get out of feature financing and concentrate on other areas, like marketing, script development and so on?

It is in all of those areas now and I think the mix of its involvement will necessarily need to be looked at with a view to putting the Govern­ ment's effort where the film industry itself needs further support and encouragement so that, in the future, I guess we would all be hoping we could build an industry that is self-sufficient.

The support the Government needs to give has to be of an on­ going nature, but not the kind of pioneering work the AFC has provided, or the sort of tax incen­ tives that are being provided.

Former NSW Liberal senator Chris Puplick had some savage things to say about the AFC and its general manager in one of his speeches [see Box 2]. Flave you any comment on those remarks?

No, I haven’t. I know there have been some feelings within the film industry about the role of the AFC, but I think one has to recognize that it has had a particular role to perform. The industry is where it is today, with its high reputation, in part because of the role the AFC has played, but also, very signifi­ cantly, because of the nature of the people who make up the Aus­ tralian film industry.

Haven’t you, in removing much film financing from the public sector, vir­ tually ensured that taxpayers will foot a higher bill when you consider the loss to consolidated revenue?

Well you could argue that. On present indications the cost to revenue will be higher than was originally in contem plation,' although, as I said earlier, it is going to depend on how many films 352 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Box 2 Senator P u p lick ’s speech (extract from Hansard,

June 11, 1981) “ In summary I say these things: first. I am extremely unhappy about the role which the Australian Film Commission has played in this whole, sad saga of these recent changes to film industry tax legislation. I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wilson, will get round to putting a radical broom through the Australian Film Commission and to putting into effect some of these Peat, Marwick and Mitchell recommendations about the Australian Film Commission. I certainly hope he will get round to doing something about the role of the general manager of the Australian Film Commission which, within the history of the development of this film legislation, will be seen in retrospect to have been a disgrace and to have been contrary to the best interests of the Australian film industry. I do not believe that the AFC is the appropriate vehicle for the channelling of all government moneys into the production of films. It Is certainly a good socialist solution to the question of how to encourage the film industry. It is not a solution that commends itself to anybody who does not believe in government control extending further and further, especially In artistic and cultural endeavours. When one looks at some of the investment decisions of the Australian Film Commission, its members would certainly be the last persons whose judgment in this matter I would trust. When one looks at the commercial success of films such as Mad Max. one is constantly reminded of the success of commercial films that have never been able to get — or have not sought — a cent out of the Australian Film Commission."

are made and how many people making films take advantage of the tax concessions.

But the policy was taken quite deliberately by the Government because it wanted to maintain support for and encourage the Aus­ tralian film industry.

Having been satisfied that there is this talent among actors, film­ makers, producers, those with artis­ tic control of films, we want to be able to have them as highlights, not only on the Australian film menu but also to ensure that we can get them onto the world market on the major international circuits. And we want our films shown, not just among the “ foreign films” in a variety of countries, but rather as part of the ordinary offering of films from Britain, the U.S. and, we hope, Australia as well.

Surely the problem isn’t just one of producing films for this market, it is also one of distribution. Did you

ever consider giving the tax conces­ sion to cinema owners in return for showing Australian films, or placing a levy on cinema tickets, with the revenue being channelled into local production?

1 think the area where we need to look at distribution arrangements is how we distribute our films over­ seas. I think our films are getting fairly good distribution in Aus­ tralia. But the success of the local film industry will depend as much, if not more, on our ability to improve the distribution arrange­ ments we have in the major film markets around the world.

Australia's film market is a pretty small one, and while we like seeing the home-grown product and seeing successful Australian films on Australian screens, the future success of the industry and its ability to move from where it is now to being a significant part of the world film industry will depend on

Box 3 FILM TAX INCENTIVES O c to b e r 1, 1 9 8 0

O c to b e r 15, 1 9 8 0

D e c e m b e r 18, 1 9 8 0

D e c e m b e r 22, 1 9 8 0 F e b r u a r y 17, 198 1 M a r c h 19, 1981 M a y 27, 1981

J u n e 9, 1 9 8 1

J u n e 11, 1981

CHRONOLOGY

The Prime Minister outlines generous tax concession for investment in Australian films as part of the Liberal Party’s election policy speech. The concession allows 150 per cent of capital expenditure in the acquisition of the initial copyright in new Australian films to be eligible for write-off in the first year of expenditure and an exemption of an amount of net earnings by an investor in such a film up to 50 per cent of his or her investment.

Treasurer John Howard and Home Affairs Minister Bob Ellicott issue joint statement clarifying that the write-off will apply from October 1, 1980.

Home Affairs Minister Bob Ellicott issues a detailed, eightpage statement covering eligibility for the concession, certification and safeguards.

Initial application forms made available.

Home Affairs Minister Bob Ellicott resigns.

Ian Wilson appointed Minister for Home Affairs.

Treasurer John Howard introduces Income Tax Assess­ ment Amendment Bill 1981 in House of Representatives.

Contrary to initial statements, the Government has changed the legislation so that the deduction becomes available only when the film has been completed and used to produce income.

After concerted lobbying by film producers, Treasurer John Howard announces that the legislation will be amended so that investors who committed money after October 1, 1980 and before May 27, 1981, will qualify for the deduction in the year of expenditure. Investors who enter into contracts after May 27 will still have to wait until the film is completed and producing income before becoming eligible for the concession. .

Amended Bill is passed in the Senate and hence through Parliament.

our capacity to get into the major world markets.

Some would say that the problem for Australian films in getting a local release is the fact that only three companies own almost all the cinemas in Australia. Does that con­ centration of ownership worry you?

I haven’t examined that situa­ tion closely, other than to raise the issue of distribution arrangements.

I think we need to examine dis­ tribution arrangements very closely and I don’t just limit that examina­ tion to within Australia.

We have to ask ourselves whether our distribution arrange­ ments on the world market, includ­ ing Australia within the world market, are ensuring that Aus­ tralian filmmakers and film pro­ ducers are getting the returns that one would expect if the films were made in other countries.

If we are not getting those sorts of returns, what should we be doing to ensure adequate returns for Aus­ tralian talent: whether script­ writers, artists, producers, camera­ men and so on? We should make sure they not only get the benefit of the wages they are paid for the work they do, but that they get the benefits of the returns coming into the industry — of which they are a significant part.

A lot of people within the industry are worried that the tax concession won’t last, that it will cost too much and the Government will can it after maybe 12 or 18 months. How do you maintain industry confidence in the face of that kind of uncertainty?

The Treasurer made a statement earlier that the concession would be reviewed after a period and, of course, we will keep it under review.

1 think with the generous con­ cession, and in light of the review period that was always contem­ plated, the industry needs to approach the matter in a mature and responsible way.

The major filmmakers and people with a genuine involvement in the industry have that concern and the months ahead are going to prove that.

There was talk that because we said the films had to be copy­ righted before the concession would be available, all the cheap and nasties and quickies would be pro­ duced. I think the film industry is far more responsible than that.

There will be some; that’s inevit­ able in a diverse industry.

But, generally speaking, the industry will respond to the oppor­ tunities it now has through the tax concession and, I hope, produce for Australia some remarkable films that are not only great so far as Australian audiences are con­ cerned, but are seen to be great by world audiences.

Isn't there a danger though that the Concluded on p. 413

FILM FESTML

MELBOURNE 1981 Keith Connolly, Tom Ryan, Rod Bishop, Adrian Martin and Rolando Caputo.

Seldom has the Melbourne Film Festival shown a group of films possess­ ing so much immediacy as this year’s trio from Poland: Feliks Falk’s Szansa (Chance), Krzysztof Zanussi’s Kontrakt (The Contract) and Kasimierz Kutz’s Paciorki jednego rozanca (The Beads of One Rosary). In different ways, each

reflects the angry dissent sweeping Poland. They illustrate, too, the extent to which Polish film m akers are em­ boldened to move from parable to open criticism.

This is most apparent in Kontrakt (made, incidentally, for television, but wholly cinematic in approach).

A blackly satirical comedy, the film openly derides and denounces highlyplaced party and government officials who. having enriched themselves with the perks the regime offers a favored few, indulge themselves in petit-bour­ geois “ high living’’. It is the most scathing, the most amusing and the most pointedly didactic film yet from Zanussi.

Some festival regulars were affronted by what they perceived as a lack of philosophical depth in the film, as though the director had in some way “sold out” .

They compared Kontrakt most un­ favorably with Struktura krysztaiu and llluminajca. though it is highly arguable whether, strictly speaking, these films are really comparable, being made under differing conditions, with varying intent.

It must be said, however, that, while Kontrakt is certainly less complex (and, therefore, more accessible), its detrac­ tors appear to be mistaking exigency for profundity in their evaluations of Zanussi's earlier works. Ready exemplification of how he has cut his cloth to diverse pat­ terns was to be had soon after the Festival, when the 1977 Barwony ochronne (Camouflage) was screened com­ mercially for the first time in Melbourne.

In essence. Kontrakt and Barwony ochronne are quite similar. Both are satirical in tone, derisorily critical of careerists and time-servers battening on the Polish nation, yet almost tolerant of others who get along as best they can within this demoralizing state of affairs.

But whereas Kontrakt, made only last year, makes no bones about who is under attack, the 1977 film is more cir­ cumspect. Inferentially, it depicts Poland in microcosm through a university sum­ mer camp and the criticisms are far more oblique. The real difference is that the films were made three years apart — and a great deal has happened to Poland in that time.

Not everyone is yet so bold, of course.

Falk's Szansa. completed last year, also has a provincial academic background (in this case, a senior high school) and an attitude towards its characters very like Zanussi's.

This film, too, seems to be offering a metaphor for Poland itself when an auto­ cratic. thwarted careerist of a sports­ master (Krzysztof Zaleski) is able to impose a disastrous regimen suited to his personal ambitions. Because he produces short-term results, he enjoys the backing of the principal and the local factory boss. At first, only one teacher (Jerzy Stuhr of Falk's earlier Top Dog and Krzysztof Kieslowski’s delightful Camera Buff) stands up to his aggres­ sive. crash-through methods which produce severe strains on the student body and between the staff.

The self-sacrifice of one sensitive, gifted boy is the catalyst of the instruc­ tor’s overthrow. There seems little doubt that the villain of the piece represents hardline party and/or bureaucratic careerists who, for their own venal ends, make use of the system and the befud­ dled incompetents who run it.

Bribery as a way o f life in modern Poland: Krzysztof Zanussi's The Contract.

The virtual collapse of the Polish economy (largely, it would seem, from mismanagement) and the wholesale purging of deadwood in the administra­ tion. both of which have occurred since this film was made, would seem to sub­ stantiate its contentions.

And, if the conclusion of Szansa strikes one as being unduly, and unreal­ istically, optimistic, that too is in keeping with recent Polish events.

Falk, who was a guest at the Festival, is representative of a dynamic new move­ ment in Polish cinema, called (among other things) “the cinema of moral dis­ sent’'. Kieslowski, another prominent member of the new school, describes it as being “ irreconcilable with everything that is unjust, amoral and repugnant” in Polish society. Fighting words. They proclaim a far more belligerent state of mind than that of the last great Polish film wave, the “ Polish School” typified by Andrzej Wajda in the late 1950s.

Somewhere between the two is the veteran Kutz’s Beads of One Rosary. which appears to accept the permanency of the regime while castigating it for moral duplicity.

In his story of an honored, retired miner who refuses to leave his comfor­ table old home for a new high-rise flat.

Kutz combines the more lyrical style of the earlier school (and something it usually eschewed: a lapse into tacky sentimentality) with the hard-nosed stance of the moral dissenters.

Just how far down the road of free ex­ pression the Polish filmmakers have travelled may be seen in this film’s open scorn for Marxist dogma, its insistence on the primacy of the individual, and, less creditably, its elements of sexism and racism.

In the same vein as the Polish films,

and equally as outspoken, is Fiungarian Peter Gothar's Ajandek ez a nap (A Priceless Day). If there has been a more bitter attack on just about every aspect of contemporary Fiungarian life, it surely hasn't been released.

Writer-director Gothar has nothing good to say about present-day Flungary.

In fact, the film seems to be contending that cramped, sleazy living conditions, circumscribed opportunities, the petty subterfuges and evasions necessary to make life bearable have had a demoralizing effect upon Hungarians in general.

Gothar's outlook is deeply pessi­ mistic. relieved only, and almost as an a fte rth o u g h t, by an a m b iv a le n t relationship between the two most putupon characters, the wife and the mis­ tress of an opportunistic "fixer who is himself as much victim as he is victimizer.

A reminder that not all currents in East European cinema are running as strong­ ly as Poland comes from the congealed nostalgia of Czech Karel Kachyna’s Lasky mezi kapkami deste (Love Be­ tween the Raindrops). This memoir of deprived childhood in between-wars Prague is bathed in the reverent after­ glow that characterizes too many of the Soviet films one has been able to see here in recent years.

Kachyna’s new film is so consistently bittersweet in flavor that one begins to suspect self-parody. (Youth and child­ hood always have been his speciality — as in the 1971 Europeanized adaptation of Alan Marshall's / Can Jump Puddles.)

The b ea uty-am ong-the-bedbugs cheerfulness of Raindrops is almost as irritating as its twee boy-meets-loses-girl romance is predictable. There are saving graces, notably in the wry humor of the shoemaker father's losing struggle

A “bitter attack . . . o f contemporary Hungarian life": Peter Gothar’s A Priceless Day.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 353

1981 Melbourne Film Festival

against the Bata monopoly, as well as Jan Curik’s soft-pastel cinematography.

Next to the Polish, the most significant national -cinema at this year's Festival was Spain's. Five of six Spanish films screened are variously non-realist, rang­ ing between fey noirism and absurdist surrealism.

But easily the most impressive of the six, Pilar Miro’s El crimen de Cuenca (The C uenca C rim e) is u nco m ­ promisingly realist in style and pas­ sionately explicit in theme. Yet there is a lyrically expressive quality in this precise account of a monstrous miscarriage of justice that occurred in the province of Cuenca between 1910 and 1926.

Two peasants (played with a rough dignity by Daniel Dicenta and Jose Manuel Cervino) are accused of murder­ ing a third man who has disappeared.

Due mainly to the fatefully coinciding needs of two power groups — a newbroom magistrate seeking to establish his competence, the local landowners struggling to keep fractious peons in line — confessions are brutally obtained by the Guardia Civil. (The two wings of the establishment are represented, inciden­ tally, by Spain's best-known screen ac­ tors — Hector Alterio is the magistrate and Fernando Rey the leading land­ owner.)

Although director Miro has said that she depicted only a fraction of what ac­ tually happened, the long torture se­ quences are harrowing in the extreme (and one can't but wonder how a male Spanish crew reacted to her direction of the scene in which one of the men is suspended by the penis to make him talk).

Many Melbourne festival-goers were dismayed, to put it mildly, by the torture sequences — some of the most shocking footage I have ever seen — their reac­ tions matching those of some Spaniards (though for different reasons). When the film was completed. Spain's Guardia Civil, ever mindful of its honor, expres­ sed outrage at the very idea that, almost 70 years before. Guardia men had tor­ tured prisoners.

But a good case may be made for the emphasis Miro places on the torture.

How else would these tough-minded, anti-authoritarian sons of the soil have confessed to a capital offence they didn't commit?

It is a matter of record that they did in­ deed indict themselves. The film implies that barbarous treatment alone didn't break them — the confessions come only after State-appointed defence counsel argues that they can escape the garrotte

of Pilar Miro no doubt gives pause to other filmmakers).

Mama is also a quirkily humorous film ’ in its own right, full of the director’s marvellous gifts for visual mimicry and the good old-fashioned sight gag. But within that witty framework, Saura is ob­ viously commenting on the Spanish "convalescence” .

Seen in this light, the matriarch is Spain, idolized, then betrayed, by the Frartquistas. her wayward children (one of whom is publicly mourned at frequent intervals). Dependent upon, yet still dominating them, she finally turns to the next generation, which, though also not without flaws, gives some hope for the future.

A magnificent actor, Fernando Fernan Gomez (who looks like a slightly seedy Leo McKern) plays the incompetent hang-glider of Mama and is a key character in Manuel Gutierrez Aragon’s Maravillas. This is a fey, elusive and oc­ casionally surreal black comedy that links the generation gap with the anomalous position in Spanish society of Sephardic Jews.

Fernan Gomez is a defeated, dissolute middle-aged man distanced from his co­ religionists and his daughter (Christina Marcos). The gift of courage given the girl at her Christian confirmation by one of her Jewish "godfathers” is a blessing, yet it is also a curse. The audience is in­ vited to make much of this, as well as a sub-plot involving a venal priest.

Bunuellian influences, suggested in numerous ironic flights of fancy, come to the fore in the anti-clericalism of the priest's inquisitorial and ambivalent search for a stolen emerald, property of the church.

A torture sequence from Pilar Miro’s harrowing T he C u e n c a C r im e .

only by complete admissions of guilt.

In 1926. both men are on parole, after serving jail terms, when the "murdered" man turns up. Miro’s closing shot of the two men embracing outside the magis­ tracy is moving and thought-provoking.

One wonders what these embittered men did only 10 years later when peasants all over Spain wreaked vengeance on an establishment capable of such cold­ blooded injustice.

Certainly, the present-day Spanish judicial and administrative apparatus were distinctly unamused. The film, made in 1979, was shelved temporarily and a government grant withdrawn.

Spain Is. at the time of writing, a parlia­ mentary democracy, though recent events like the Guardia invasion of the

Carlos Saura's comment on the Spanish "co n va le scen ce M a m a T urns O n e H u n d r e d .

354 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Cortes (the world's first televised coup attempt) show bow insecure it is while much authority remains with survivors of the Franco regime.

Speaking not long after Franco's death, noted Spanish writer Juan Guytisolo said: "A people who have lived nearly 40 years in a state of irresponsibility and impotence are a people necessarily ill, whose c o n v a le s c e n c e w ill be prolonged in direct proportion to the duration of the illness” .* Several other Spanish films at the Festival deal, in widely differing styles, with this convalescence. The most effec­ tive. cinematically and philosophically, is Carlos Saura s Mama cumple cien anos (Mama Turns One Hundred). It is virtual­ ly a sequel to his 1972 Ana y los lobos (Ana and the Wolves) which got him into trouble in Franco days for lampooning recognizable personalities and charac­ teristics of the regime.

The decaying household visited by American girl Ana (Geraldine Chaplin) is inhabited by establishm ent types representative of the army, the church and the bureaucracy. In the new (1979) film. Ana returns to the house for the 100th birthday of its matriarch, played by Rafaela Aparicio like a decrepit, but im­ pishly puissant, kewpie doll.

Some of the old gang have died, but others survive, including a pathetic would-be general whose collection of uniforms transforms him from milksop to martinet and a metaphysically-touched eccentric (presumably representing the church) vainly attempting to get the hang of hang-gliding.

Whereas it was once obligatory for him to unleash his sardonic barbs meta­ phorically. Saura here seems to be doing so for the hell of it (though the harassing ’ Quoted by Roger Mortimore in "Reporting from Madrid". Sight and Sound. Summer.

1980.

The other Spanish films must be dealt with briefly. Somewhat surprisingly after his A un dios desconocido (To an Unknown God), Jaime Chavarri's Dedi­ catoria (Dedication) seems to be yearn­ ing for the macho certainties of the past.

Jaime Camino's La Campanada (the English title, Changing Horses, is neither apt nor literal — something like ‘‘the awakening” would have been better) is an Iberian offshoot of The Arrangement.

Camino's glum protagonist, a dis­ illusioned advertising man. has much in common with Elia Kazan's, but comes to a sorrier (and. arguably, more convin­ cing) end. The film, however, is not a patch on Camino’s Las vacaciones iargas de 1936 (The Long Vacation of 1936).

Fernando Colomo’s La mano negra (The Black Hand) spoofs escapist illu­

sions in a parody of the cloak ’n’ dagger genre and also takes passing swipes at social and sexual contradictions in modern Spain.

Another national group that has become a striking regular feature of the Melbourne Festival, the U.S. indepen­ dents, was represented strongly again this year. For my money (or, to put it more precisely, in closest accord with my personal preferences) the most absorb­ ing four-and-a-half hours of the entire fortnight was the Saturday afternoon screening of two documentaries: Connie Field’s The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter and John Lowenthal’s The Trials of Alger Hiss. Both filmmakers were pre­ sent at the screenings and — something it cannot always be relied upon to do — the Festival audience stayed to hear them and, with one embarrassing excep­ tion. asked relevant and productive questions.

Rosie is a deft 65 minutes of social and historical exposition, slicing into sexist and racist attitudes with hardly a didactic word, but a convincing abundance of vivid, witty and succinct evidence.

Connie Field filmed interviews with hundreds of U.S. women who worked in

1981 Melbourne Film Festival

skilled trades during World War 2. She skilfully intercuts the reminiscences of five of them between appallingly jocose, condescending, wartime propaganda films and newsreels which, almost in the same breath, extol and belittle the women war workers.

In their proud, wistful recollections, the women (two of them black) repeatedly emphasize not only that women proved they could handle skilled engineering jobs at least as well as men, but could be trained quickly when urgent need arose.

Significantly, the only time they recall the hoary “ no facilities” barrier being raised is in an attempt to enforce a color bar!

After the war, when their hastilyacquired and eagerly-used skills were no longer required, these tradeswomen were dumped like the hot potatoes they had become to an administration anx­ ious to fulfil its obligation to home­ coming GIs. One woman tells, in tones still inflected by hurt and humiliation, how she went from one engineering shop to another, trade papers and references in hand, in search of a job for which she was now well-qualified. All she got was rejection, scorn and insult. For the next 20 years she worked as a kitchen-maid.

I found this spare recital as moving as anything I saw in a Festival full of emo­ tive pieces, fact and fiction. The mani­ fest happiness, fulfilment and — let it not be forgotten — more adequate financial reward granted, then denied, these female proletarians, as well as the cynical manner in which they were used, makes Connie Field's film a salient historical document.

The film fairly bristles with indignation, yet makes nearly all its points infer­ entially. The effect, however, is so com­ pelling that, when one of the women draws the inescapable connection between her experience and the lot of women in general, the Palais rever­ berated with applause.

The Trials of Alger Hiss, now in com­ m ercial release, is a rem arkably proficient and assured first documen­ tary. It is helped, of course, by the fact that the director knows his subject so thoroughly.

As a law student, John Lowenthal had attended the trials and hearings seen in the 165-minute documentary. Fie makes good use of many newsreel clips to recap the tortuous (and well-nigh incredible) path that led Hiss, a former prominent U.S. State Department official, to 44 months in jail, and the destruction of reputation, career and marriage. Into these flashback vignettes, insensitively blithe in tone and peopled by shock troops of the Cold War like Richard Nix­ on and J. Edgar Hoover, Lowenthal stirs his own recent unsettling footage.

Much of this modern material is con­ cerned with revelations, obtained through freedom of Information laws passed in the 1970s, that cast grave doubt on Hiss’ conviction for perjury.

(Originally, Hiss was accused before the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee of being a Soviet agent, but the Statute of Limitations prevented his arraignment on the more serious allega­ tio n s of the p a th e tic W h itta ke r Chambers.)

Lowenthal says he sought “some good advice” when he resolved to take a sab­ batical from his chair of law at Rutgers University to make this documentary (the advisers included Emile D’Antonio and Frederick Wiseman). He certainly shows considerable skill, and dramatic flair, in confronting politicians, HUAC officials and jurors with his new-found evidence.

Unsurprisingly, Nixon declined to be interviewed (with masterly restraint, Lowenthal refrains from mentioning Watergate).

For a first effort, Alger Hiss is remarkably sophisticated. Its approach

Sayles pictures one of the group's periodic reunions, when they review old times, and disclose new enthusiasms, directions — and lovers.

I warmed to the way the writerdirector, obviously operating on a meagre budget, achieves a blend of studied artlessness and poise. These people (played by an engaging cast of “ unknowns” ) are not so much disen­ chanted as they are wryly aware that what might well have been the highpoint of their lives has passed. What they have preserved almost intact In the greyer present is a mutually supportive regard for each other.

A nim ble scrip t sketches their nostalgic, resigned, occasionally challenging, exchanges with irony, wit and the odd moment of poignancy.

Though some bits of byplay go on too long (Sayles reveals a certain ingenue fascination for visual and aural gim­ micks), the overall effect is pleasingly concise.

Richard Nixon, one o f the “shock troops o f the Cold War’’: John Lowenthal’s T he T ria ls o f A Ig e r H iss .

Another impressive national group at the Festival was the British. I didn't see Peter Greenaway’s The Falls, but, speak­ ing as a lifelong admirer who has lamented the decline of British film­ making, drew considerable satisfaction from three other quite disparate features from Britain.

The Festival was opened by an un­ pretentious, but nonetheless significant, crime thriller. John MacKenzie's The Long Good Friday. Significant, because it underlines how distinctive British tele­ vision series like The Sweeney and Minder have contributed to the evolution of a filmmaking sub-genre.

The mockingly amoral tone of the tele­ vision series is extended (and deepened) into a waspish analogy of British mores in general. Barrie Keeffe’s tart script enhances this allusive element just as it oils MacKenzie’s wry depiction of an all­ powerful Cockney godfather (Bob Hoskins) faced with an enemy — the IRA — he neither respects nor understands.

His reaction to them, and to the Mafia who turn him down, as well as his ■patriotic’' London pride, all have a par­ ticular mordancy.

The Long Good Friday opened com­ mercially in Melbourne the week after Its Festival debut and didn't fare at all well at the b o x -o ffic e . T his no d o u b t strengthened the reservations many dis­ tributors and exhibitors have about their films receiving festival exposure — but there are other factors to be considered in this instance.

One can't help wondering how much the execrable presentation of the film at

There were other interesting anti­ establishment U.S. feature documen­ taries of equal assertiveness, if fewer skills (Lan Brookes Rltz’s Annie Mae — Brave Hearted Woman, Mary Lampson’s fictionalized Until She Talks) but the other outstanding film that can be placed in this category is fictional: John Sayles’ The Return of the Secaucus Seven. This

wryly self-mocking reappraisal of the rebellious generation of the 1960s, 10 years on, is wistful, yet not a little sad­ dening. It is, however, a gently amusing film, almost self-parodying In its detach­ ment and loosely-hung structure.

If Sayles’ style borders on the gauche, it is an artfully contrived homeliness — one that enhances the credibility of his characters.

The seven — the title is an arch reference to their arrest on the way to one of the great Washington anti­ Vietnam demonstrations — were all ac­ tivists of a period that seems as distant from today’s U.S. as the New Deal.

Scene from Peter Greenaway’s T he F alls.

John MacKenzie’s “pretentious b u t . . significant’’ T he L o n g G o o d F r id a y .

is one of tendentious balance: the State’s case gets a reasonable run (someone even having a kind word for Chambers), yet Lowenthal leaves no doubt as to his belief that not only was Hiss unjustly con­ victed, he was framed.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 355

1981 Melbourne Film Festival

the Palais — film breaks, dim projection, m uffled sound — contributed to audience reaction (and the subsequent, presumably adverse, word-of-mouth). It certainly induced much soul-searching about the Festival’s future venue.

The other British features that impres­ sed me were Richard Woolley’s Brothers and Sisters and Stephen Frears’ Bloody Kids (made, incidentally, for television).

The former, which investigated such touchy topics as racism, sexism and class-structure against the background of a murder and its investigation, doesn’t quite come off. But full marks to Woolley for his Invention and perclpience, even though in execution the film falls short of his ambitions.

Bloody Kids, too, is boldly inventive within a recognizably realist frame: a kitchen-sink drama in which the tap has been left running to create an overflow of surreal, piquant inflections. I was reminded of early Lindsay Anderson by this odyssey of two alienated workingclass schoolboys creating havoc, for the sheer hell of It, In formalized adult society.

Finally (and by no means exhaus­ tively) one comes to the by-now-famillar Angelopoulos orgy. Even since his stun­ ning (or soporific, according to your taste) epic. The Travelling Players, was seen at Melbourne in 1976, the films of Theodor Angelopoulos have been a matter for lively debate In festival-going circles.

I remain an unrepentant admirer of this (In every sense) revolutionary Greek director who, I am told, has even more opponents at home than abroad.

This year’s 0 megalexandros (Alex­ ander the Great) relates less directly to present-day Greek politics (but is just as close to socio-political history) than Travelling Players or The Huntsmen.

It Is another massive pageant full of slow 360 deg. pans, long single-take setpieces and surreal jumps, about a party of British aristocrats held hostage by political brigands (the film was made a little too soon to earn them the con­ venient label, “terrorists").

Just as his films sprawl across the time slots of festival programs, Angelopoulos demands far more attention than can be given in this review.

0 megalexandros is, I recognize, even more puzzling and, quite arguably, flawed, than his other works. Neverthe­ less, It does little to damage the standing of Angelopoulos as one of the great originals of modern cinema.

Keith Connolly

One of the major thematic strands woven into Nicholas Ray’s Hollywood films is the bond between-the power of the individual, the attempt to construct some kind of morality and the fact of mortality. The heroes of films like In A Lonely Place, Rebel Without A Cause, Bigger Than Life and Bitter Victory seem

to exist simply to find a creative outlet for their extraordinary energy. Indeed, the thrust of these films seems to be a search for a moral order in which such heroes might find a means of survival without compromise; but the search is always in vain. Stylistically their battleground is defined In terms of a conflict between patterns of claustrophobic framings, measuring a constraining social environ­ ment and a remarkably edgy, often abrasive, cutting method.

Formally, Wim Wenders' Lightning Over Water (credited to Wenders and Ray) is a long way from these films. Its construction seems far more concerned with producing a sense of distance, a characteristic feature of “the new German cinema" to which Wenders belongs, a self-consciousness underlining the gap between the viewer and The spectacle of the film. Yet the circumstances of the film, which traces the last weeks of the dying Ray, create a conflict between this approach and the viewer’s under­ standing of the film’s “content” , render­ ing such a detachment almost impos­ sible.

Critical response to Lightning Over Water seems largely to have been couched In terms of outrage: how dare Wenders intrude upon Ray’s last hours on earth in such a fashion? Jon Jost’s passionate anger is the most extreme ex­ ample of this: “The film business has long been noted for cruelty and harshness. In his last months. Nick Ray needed something for himself, though perhaps he didn’t know what that was. It cer­ tainly wasn’t this movie, which clearly he did know. What Ray needed, simp­ ly, was love. Instead he got a crew who seemed to perceive life only’through the mechanical devices of film. They rolled over him with a movie-making machine, and now they even choose to display the carnage." (Sight and Sound, Spring, 1981, p. 96.)

The humanitarian character of Jost’s concern may deserve respect, but his ethical assertions are far more problem­ atical. At what point does a person facing death in the immediate future lose the right to choose? To what extent do those who cannot know what that means have the right to impose their view of this per­ son's needs?

The words from Ray’s diary, “To ex­ perience death without dying seemed

Wim Wenders (left) and Nicholas Ray discuss the script o f L ig h tn in g O v e r W a te r.

356 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

like a natural goal for me”, seem to con­ struct a rationale for the film, and, cer­ tainly, Wenders’ use of them Is an at­ tempt to do that for himself and for the audience. Yet such a rationale rings false, for Wenders and the audience can only be in the position of watchers and, however moved, cannot “experience death without dying” .

One is left with the fact of Ray’s presence in the film, and the implied choice that this represents: Ray has at last been able to become, literally, the hero of his own fiction. And the agonis­ ing sequence of what appears to be his attempt to withdraw (“Jesus! I’m sick” ) as he faces the camera in the hospital and asks Wenders to turn It off becomes an enigma. Wenders refuses to take responsibility, demanding that Ray give the order if it has to be given. Ending a stream of invective, Ray groans, “Cut it . . . Cut it!” , at which point the sequence ends.

Yet, despite the inevitable, and under­ standable, protestations that this is an example of human exploitation of the worst kind, what is evoked is an enigma.

Is Ray’s rambling a performance for the camera, a fiction produced in a “docu­ mentary” , or is it “for real”? And, further, does Wenders’ role In the sequence mark his eye for the aesthetic, for the most appropriate way in which to dramatize Ray’s last appearance in the film? Or does it signify a moral choice of the most liberating kind, that it is proper that Ray should make the decision to end his life as a screen presence?

To these questions there are no answers, and, in a sense, that is the point — for Ray and for Wenders. .

In the lecture that Ray gives at Vassar College after a screening of The Lusty Men. he observes, “The film is about a man who wants to bring himself all together before he dies . . . a regaining of self-esteem.” It is unlikely that he was un­ aware of the implications of his comment for his own condition and for the film, in­ itiated by and entrusted to Wenders, which he would probably never see: this film as a chance to challenge the dis­ integration of his own death.

After the hospital sequence. Wenders selects another passage from Ray’s diary: “Telling the truth becomes very dull — but not always. It can be very ex­ citing when you tell it and you didn't ex­ pect to . . .” In other words, the purity or otherwise of Wenders’ motives for realis­ ing the film and for releasing it are irrele­ vant to the "truth" that it offers. To betray Ray’s trust in him as the director of the film about his death would have been to deny him the right to choose.

The film’s closing images are of a Chinese junk sailing off en route to the

Richard Woolley’s B r o th e r s a n d S is te r s .

Orient (where Ray had hoped to find a ginseng cure for his cancer). They evoke the sense of a journey only just begun, a testimony to Ray’s quest to live and to his request, expressed earlier in the film, that it should end this way. This ending also carries with it the legacy of the un­ resolved tensions which characterize the terminations of so much of Ray’s best work. and. at the same time, it pays homage to a spirit that can never rest in peace.

Mitsuo Yanagimachi’s 19-Sai no chizu (A 19-year-old’s Plan) belongs to a genre of Japanese cinem a which seems to have attracted a wide audience and a large number of film­ makers, the “seishun-elga” . But it is less interested in the forays into the violent acts of delinquency that characterize the genre than it is in drawing a psycho­ logical portrait of Masaru (Yuji Honma), its troubled protagonist. The terms of its analysis are, however, almost solely political, and Masaru’s behaviour pat­ terns constantly create a distorted reflec­ tion of the State which has produced him.

A student, he supplements his income by running a paper delivery round, main­ taining files upon those of his clients whom he deems to be “ undesirables” , and charting the homes of these “ guilty” on a map of his town. A self-appointed knight of justice, he sees his enemies as those who refuse to pay their debts, who mistreat others, and who contravene his puritanical sexual codes.

Avoiding personal confrontations enables him to detach himself from any kind of human contact with these “ scum ”, and thus from any need to deal with the human complexity of their situa­ tions. As he says to his boxing friend in an early sequence in the film, “You should kick your opponents in the face.

Don’t think they're human beings.”

The means by which he hands out his justice is usually the anonymous telephone call, delivering threats of per­ sonal mutilation against his targets or declaring his intention to hang them up for public display.

The monster he represents carries echoes of the Dirty Harry syndrome of American cinema, but with a key dif­ ference. Films like the Dirty Harry trilogy and Death Wish concern themselves with the problems of a constraining law and thus with the moral ambiguities of their heroes whose practice underlines its deficiencies. The line between Good and Evil is clearly drawn with the function of a proper law-enforcement seen as the main issue.

On the other hand, 19-Sai no chizu

1981 Melbourne Film Festival

When the British film industry fell into difficulties early In the 1970s, many of the promising and talented film directors found em ploym ent in television.

Arguably the best of these is Stephen Frears. a director whose track record for telefeatures has been acclaimed by those lucky enough to see them.

Frears has made only one feature film for theatrical release, Gumshoe (1971), a private-eye parody that bombed with the public and was harshly dealt with by the critics. The experience proved so bitter for Frears that he went back to television and, despite the mauling handed out to Gumshoe (and the pressure of a small but fanatical cult of supporters for that film), Frears has never returned to the cinema. Little, if any, of his highlyacclaimed work for television has been seen outside Britain.

Bloody Kids, a telefeature Frears made in 1979 for Lord Lew Grades’ Black Lion Films, was unearthed at this year’s Festival. Written by Stephen Poliakoff and produced by Barry Hanson (Out, Theodoros Bafaloukos’ Jamaican feature, Rockers.

identifies a world of characters, including its hero, those upon whom he preys, and his one friend, Konno (Keizo Kanie), who have all been socially betrayed and who, yet. continue to adhere to the myths that have been socially produced. It declines any kind of hostility towards those whom Masaru deems to be wrongdoers, with the single exception, perhaps, of the father who beats his son. Instead it locates them as victims in the same framework of suffering that encloses Masaru — the framework of a modern capitalist Japan and a tradition of sexual repression, whose insidious workings are rarely far from the surface in the film.

Masaru is a veritable collection of the traits of the State, pursuing its processes of secret dossiers on those who transgress its rules, even if they never step outside the law to do so, and handing out punishments of a kind that is beyond the capacity of any legal juris­ diction. It is but a short step from his moral righteousness about the suitability of his clients to that of the employer’s selection of the “ appropriate” applicant.

Though working outside the law, Masaru is, nonetheless, a product and a victim of its contradictions. His detach­ ment from any human considerations carries with it a self-hatred, a rejection of those of his own impulses which might lead him away from the independence he believes essential to his moral quest.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in his m eeting w ith M aria (H id eko Okiyama), the prostitute with whom he seems to think Konno has betrayed him.

His brutal humiliation of her seems as much directed at himself, and its conse­ quences are painful for both, leaving her e m o tio n a lly d e stro ye d and him irredeemably isolated.

A recurring feature of the narrative films at this year’s Festival was a preoc­ cupation with conditions of social disenchantment. Films like Rockers and Bloody Kids focused upon questions of rebellion against a social repression, either recognized or felt, while others, like 19-Sai no chizu and Kontrakt, turned towards a condition of malaise linking the different characters to pat­ terns of behaviour whose sources, the films suggest, are ideological, omni­ present but never articulated.

One of the most unobtrusive of the lat­ ter group is L’Homme a tout faire (the neat irony of the title is lost in the English translation, The Handyman). Its gentle comedy traces the attempts of its central character, Armand Dorion (Jocelyn Berube), to adjust to the life of a single man after his wife leaves him, taking with her their two young sons. Withdrawn and

'‘History is written in certain ways fo r historical reasons”: Alexander Kluge’s T he P a tr io t.

unassuming, he seems to lack the kind of resilience needed to survive in a world which pays attention only to those who can assert themselves.

His male friend, an ugly example of that kind of self-assertion, charges him with lacking the toughness necessary to handle sexual relationships: “ Listen, women are like steak: you have to beat them to get them tender.” For Armand, such an attitude would be entirely out of character, though his shunning of its sex­ ism is more the product of a lack of con­ fidence than of any broader awareness of the possibility of human relationships.

Socially, his naivety dooms him. His friend’s observation that the world is made up of “sharks and suckers” , and that he belongs among the latter number, becomes a realistic assessment and an indictment of a world in which there seems to be no place for the Ar­ mands. His brief encounter with the in­ sensitive adolescence of Marion, with whom he is infatuated but for whom he is merely “an experience” , underlines his inability to comprehend the motivations of others. The result for him is a blind confusion and a sense of irrelevance.

The perspective constructed by the film towards Armand is essentially a sympathetic one and it locates him as a product of forces of which he has no understanding. His affaire with a married woman, Therese (Andree Pelletier), which occupies a major portion of the film, sees him swept along with her pas­ sion, but quite unaware of what it is that draws her to him.

When she flees her home and her un­ happy marriage and turns to him, her lover, for advice, he can only resort to homilies, telling her that the only proper thing she can do is return to her hus­ band. He seems totally blind to the needs of others, and it is this as much as anything which renders him irrelevant.

Retrospectively, the reasons for his own marital breakdown, and his incompre­ hension in the face of it, become clear.

His isolation is inevitable in such a con­ text, his conservatism obliterating any sense of himself or anyone else as an in­ dividual.

The film ’s ending, pointing its character towards suicide, then holding back from that, sustains the narrative logic and the dramatic tone that has been initiated. However, it might have resisted the gratuitous sentimentality of the clos­ ing image of the model boat in the shape of a heart wedged between some rocks in the river above which Armand had pondered his desolate future. The words of the song over the ending, nonethe­ less, reinforce the notion of ideological entrapment: “ I never knew that I wasn’t

the driver of my own car.”

Die patriotin (The Patriot) is unique in at least one respect. It is the first film to offer the off-screen voice of a knee as its narrator. The knee identifies itself as that of Corporal Wleland, killed in battle at Stalingrad, and refers to its owner as one who “wanted to live but found himself in the wrong history” .

Of itself, and of its role as narrator, it observes, “ I’m the connection, I’m the joint . . .” , thus linking its human function and its role in the formal arrangement of the film. And it is the idea of history as a human construction which lies at the centre of Die patriotin: “ History is written in certain ways for historical reasons.”

It would be impossible to discuss the complexities of Alexander Kluge’s 20th film in the context of a festival review, even if one could grasp them from a single viewing. Indeed, part of the design of the film seems to be a refusal of any kind of summary analysis directed at drawing out aesthetic patterns according to a particular order of thematic mean­ ing. Its mixture of stock footage, fiction (largely around the character of Gabi Teichert which first appeared in Ger­ many in Autumn in 1978), sketches, paintings, photographs, interview material and newsreels works to resist the repressive, and misleading, attempts to discover explanations through the identification of particular systems of meaning: “The closer one looks at a word, the further it recedes from sight: (for example) GERMANY.” The film's endeavor is not a negation of meaning, but rather an exploration of the problems entailed in its construction.

In its fictional sections, it dramatizes the dilemma of its own project. Frau Teichert (Hannelore Hoger) is “ a history teacher, a patriot: that is, one who has an interest in all of Germany’s dead", who is constantly under attack from her fellows and her superiors for her lack of organization, for her refusal to follow traditional methods of teaching history in her classes. Instead, she is teaching it through fairytales, love stories, the top­ ography of a city, people’s sense of suf­ fering, and the words they use.

Her approach is oblique, difficult to decipher, and its route to understanding seems a constant detour away from the accepted substances of a conventional form of education. So it is also with the style of Kluge’s film, which, through its various movements, seems as much a reflection on the ways in which meanings are constructed through film as it is an exploration of the production of history.

Tom Ryan

The Naked Civil Servant), Bloody Kids

tells the story of two 11 year-old boys from a large British seaside town who stage a prank to test the fallibility of the local police.

One Saturday afternoon, as the local soccer game finishes and the crowd leave the stadium, Leo and Mike stage a mock fight. Mike is to pretend to be stab­ bed and burst stage blood over his stomach. The motivation is to fool the police and show them up for what they are — pale imitations of their television counterparts.

But the prank backfires. Leo is taken to hospital with a real knife wound and Mike finds himself alone on the streets, pursued by the police. Both boys cease the opportunity to capitalize on the mis­ fired prank and a ch ild ish game designed to show their cleverness be­ comes a test of how quickly they can grow up.

From his hospital bed, Leo tells anyone w ho'll listen that Mike is dangerous and unbalanced. He ridicules the police with barbed, ironic com­ parisons to Minder and The Sweeney and. throughout the night, he success­ fully misleads the police, improvizing his way out of trouble whenever their suspi­ cions are aroused.

Out on the streets, Mike is picked up by a gang of older teenagers and befriended by their macho, flashy leader.

He spends the night with the gang in dis­ cos, bars and stolen cars, helping them vandalize a shopping complex and terrorize passengers on a bus in the dead of the night.

Bloody Kids explores familiar territory: urban alienation, youth unemployment, peer group pressure and that special kind of dangerous enjoyment drawn from the boredom of the streets. The odd “spaghetti western” music that is used extensively throughout the film works as obvious counterpoint to the heroic posturings of these kids, but it also provides unexpected pathos to the ex­ periences of Mike and Leo. Peter Clark (Mike), and Richard Thomas (Leo) give brilliant portrayals of 11 year-olds caught in a sink-or-swim relationship with the real world. At the end of the night, when they finally meet again in the hospital, they instinctively notice the changes in each other. They have condensed years of experience into 12 hours ana. in so doing, have crossed from the frustrations of childhood into the confusions of adolescence.

Not only have they survived the dire consequences of their childish prank, they have separately dealt with the adult world, controlling not only their own ac­ tions, but frequently manipulating others around .them. In the final frame, they face

Continued on P.416 CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 357

In the late 1960s, I worked with a group called Boston Newsreel Films, which made and distributed political films in the U.S. I started in distribution before working as an assistant editor, on documentary ■and dramatic Films. I then joined a group called Cinemanifest, which was a collective for producing poli­ tical dramatic films. It broke up, but two of the members produced a film called Northern Lights, which has been shown in Australia.

While I was there, one of the members had read about a “ Rosie the Riveter“ reunion and told me about it. I went to the reunion and met a lot of women. It was put on by a group w7ho w7ere working with older women, trying to get retrain­ ing to re-enter the labor force. It was also to bring together younger women, who had tried to get into the skilled trades, with women w'ho had all done that.

I became interested for a couple of reasons. I have a background in women’s history, which I did at graduate school, and I also have a firm grounding organizing the women’s movement in the U.S., starting in 1967.

In the beginnings of the second wave of the movement, as we call it in the U.S., we read a lot. That wras how7 we educated ourselves.' We were all involved in study groups, so we read everything we could lay our hands on.

As well, I felt the Rosie the Riveter situation w7as about an economic phenomenon endemic to our system, and not just an event. It was something I believed would be relevant for a long time. Some of the issues that affected working women in the 1940s affect us today — like the need for childcare and equal pay for comparable work.

How much time did you spend in pre-production?

There was about a year of full­ time fundraising. It is difficult to raise funds in the U.S. for inde­ pendent films, but I was able to get grants from a number of private foundations. But these are usually only small dips and dabs, S 10 0 0 or $2000. Eventually, I also raised money from the National Endow­ ment for Humanities.

On top of that, there was about two years of original research. The production and editing took about a year.

What >vas the budget?

S200.000.

What guidelines did you use in doing the research?

First, I read original source material as there was very little secondary source material. There 358 —September-October CINEMA PAPERS

The L ife a n d Tim es o f R o sie the R iv e te r is a powerful documentary about the training, exploitation and sacking o f American women during and after World War 2. Its director, Connie Field, was a guest o f the Sydney and Melbourne film festivals. Here she talks with Monique Tam mer.

wasn’t a book I could read on what happened to women durine World War 2.

We have a Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor in the U.S. and I read a lot of their original documents, as well as newspaper reports. I focused on about four or five major unions to see what went on with women at that time.

There was also oral history research, which consisted of inter­ viewing 700 women from all over the U.S., though we primarily interviewed in Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay area, Detroit and New York. I was unable to do the southern part of the country because I didn’t have the money.

For oral history, we first inter­ viewed people by telephone. There w7ere five of us who did this research and we used stock questions. We were looking for certain things. The women had to be working-class because I was telling the story of working-class women during World War 2. If they were black, we wanted someone who had done domestic work because that was primarily where black women worked. I wanted rural women from the South w;ho migrated West, because more than two million people moved during the war looking for jobs, primarily in the Detroit area, Chicago and the West Coast of the U.S. I wanted people who could talk about things that were going on his­ torically. One was the organizing of the unions, which was a big movement in the 1930s in the U.S., but also went on during the war.

For in s ta n c e , F o rd M o to r Company was not organized until 1941 — it was the last of the big automobile firms to do so. I chose people on the basis of whether they could tell us some of that story.

Also, there was a black struggle for employment, because blacks weren’t being hired in U.S. defence plants. A huge march was planned, but it never happened as President Roosevelt didn’t want 10,000 black people marching in the streets of Washington. So he created some government legislation that gave people something to work on. It was supposed not to discriminate in plants and, since all the plants had government contracts, they could fight it legally if they were discrim­ inated against.

I also looked for people who could talk about racism on the job, of which there was really a lot — the U.S. is very racist.

We taped the conversations and made a selection. We then did in­ person interviews on tape with about 250 women, before we selected 40, whom we videotaped.

The final selection was made from these videotapes.

Connie Fields

Your selection process seems based on political and ideological grounds.

Did you also look for women who had particular personal qualities?

J | o | “ | | D

Yes, that was part of the selec­ tion process. That was why I video­ taped.

What were the personal qualities you were looking for?

How did you decide where to film the women? Lyn, for example, was filmed on the ship and yet her present occupation has nothing to do with ships . . .

People I cared about, that struck me in some way. I wanted people who could talk about a number of different things, as I didn’t want to use more than five women in the film. They also had to say things in a way that would communicate on film to an audience. That was the most painful part of the selection process, because one woman, in particular, was just amazing in the things she could talk about and had experienced. But she wasn’t engag­ ing enough in her manner or presentation, so I couldn’t use her.

There was also another woman who was quite incredible, but she was so bitter about things that it took one aback. There is a certain kind of bitterness that I didn’t think would have worked in this film.

Cl CD

o I e i t h e r w a n t e d t o f i l m t h e m in !. t h e i r o w n e n v i r o n m e n t , l i k e t h e i r g hom es or where they w ork today, ° or where they used to w ork. I w a n t e d t h e b a c k g r o u n d t o sayso m eth in g ab o u t w h at they were talking about. W e shot Lyn on a ship as she u sed to b u ild ships d u r i n g t h e w a r . L o l a w a s s h o t in front of the factory w h e re she used t o w o r k : W a n i t a w a s p u t in f r o n t o f t h e pi a n t w h e r e s h e w o r k e d i n D etroit.

How long did you spend in produc­ tion?

How did you select the 700 you interviewed by phone?

We sent a press release to the local papers in an area, which said we were doing research for a film and that I wanted to talk to women about their experiences. I described the mythology of who these women were, how they were seen as middle-class women w'ho took jobs for patriotic reasons and who, after the war, gladly went home to the suburbs, had 2.5 kids and lived happily ever after. Of course 1 was finding from my research that the truth was very different, and that women took jobs primarily for economic reasons.

Once the press releases were printed, women called us. In the Bay area alone, we had 400 women call in two weeks; it was the same in many other areas.

- We did the largest amount of research in the Bay area, largely because our project was located there. But we also did the same thing with newspaper articles in Detroit, a little in New York and Los Angeles.

Presumably, you did find women who fitted the mythology, who did go to work for patriotic reasons and who were quite happy to raise a family afterwards. Why did you decide against using those sorts of women?

What I found with most of the women I interviewed, even when their only reason for going to work was money, was that World War 2 was a very popular war. It was a war against fascism. Everyone felt, in that sense, a kind of patriotism.

But even the more middle-class women needed money, if their

h u s b a n d s w e r e in t h e s e r v i c e , t h e y w e r e n 't g e ttin g m u c h a n d a lot o f the w o m e n w ho w ent h o m e afterw a r d s w e r e b a c k in t h e l a b o r f o r c e in t h e ' 5 0 s , o n c e t h e i r c h i l d r e n h a d g r o w n a l i t t l e . T h e y j u s t c o u l d n ’t a ffo rd to stay h o m e .

1 d o n ’t r e c a l l b e i n g c a l l e d b y t o o m a n y w o m e n w h o fitted th e m y t h ­ ology.

“The Rosie the Riveter situation was about an economic phenomenon endemic to our system, and not just an event. ”

T h e p ro duction was quite quick, b e c a u s e I o n ly film e d for o n e d a y with e ac h w o m a n . T h a t w a s larg e ly b e c a u se I c o u ld n 't a ffo rd to hire a cre w7 f o r m o r e t h a n a d a y in e a c h case. A n d I had a different crew for alm o st each shoot, b ecause I couldn't afford to fly t h e m to w herever the w o m e n were.

By the t i m e I g o t to s h o o t the w o m e n w h o h ad been selected, I kn ew their c o m p le te histories. So w h a t I did w a s pick c ertain stories th ey had told m e b e fo re a n d design a question that w ould lead th em into telling the story again.

T h e sta te m en t that Lola m ak e s at the e n d o f th e film , h o w e v e r , h a d n e v e r b e e n s a i d in an y o f t h e i n t e r ­ views I h a d d o n e with her. I a sk e d h e r a very s i m p le q u e s t io n , like “ W h a t h a p p e n e d to y o u ? “ , a n d she said w h a t she said.

A lot of the crev\ was female. Was this deliberate?

1 trie d to use w o m e n w h e r e v e r I could, but I d idn't have a firm p o l i c y a b o u t it. 1 j u s t t h o u g h t it w ould m a k e the w o m e n I w as in te r­ viewing m ore com fortable.

The w o m e n w o u l d k n o w th e y w o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d by e v e r y o n e th ere: t h e y c o u ld be m o r e r e la x ed . B ut .som e m ale c a m e ra m e n are w onderful, an d they really k n o w h o w to put people at ease. 1 have w o r k e d with p e o p l e l i k e t h a t b e f o r e a n d i t ’s b e e n great.

O t h e r t i m e s , t h e y d o n ’t b e c a u s e they a r e u sed to d o i n g c o m ­ m e r c i a l s a n d v e r y f a s t w o r k . T h a t is not very good.

When you were conceiving the film, did you work out exactly how you were going to edit it?

Continued on p. 409 CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 359

This year, the Sydney Film Festival cautiously tried on an optional or bonus series called "New Cinema” (which left the mainstream of the Festival curiously open to being considered “ old” , in one way or another), and a daytime “Green Series” re-screening of the Festival mainstream at half-price, for students, unemployed, parents of schoolchildren, etc. The Green Series was well-sub­ scribed and has apparently justified itself financially, keeping the Festival in the State to which it has grown accustomed, even carrying it into profit. And the New Cinema seems not to have shaken the Festival audience to its foundations.

Half of the New Cinema screenings were scheduled against the Green Series on weekday mornings, timed so that they forced Green Series viewers to choose between one New Cinema film, and oneand-a-half Old Cinema films. Even then one often had to be up to a fast fiveminute sprint across Hyde Park between the State Theatre and the unheated, uncom fortable Anzac A uditorium .

Forums also frequently clashed with Green Series films.

It was evident that the potential aud­ ience for both Forums and New Cinema screenings would be (and was) largely Green Series subscribers. So, the Green Series institutes a new, sizeable, financially-crucial Festival audience, and at the same time under-privileges it — possibly to justify an imaginary sense of justice on the part of Gold Series patrons, who pay twice as much for their evening seats.

Pragmatically, once a Green Series ticket has been purchased, it is finan­ cially immaterial to the Festival whether a subscriber “chooses” to be present at the daytime screenings of the Festival mainstream, or chooses one of the con­ flicting offerings instead. But the aud­ iences for the marginal, the experi­ mental. the analytical and participatory aspects of the Festival were artificially depleted by the logic of scheduling these events against the Green Series.

So. if there is an interesting partial fail­ ure to be read from the experiment of the "new cinema”, it must be judged from the way these films seemed peculiarly inert and defused in their presentation con­ text, rather than from the size of their audiences. I missed the Forum on the subject of the New Cinema program so as not to miss the solitary Asian film selected for the Festival, Shohei Imamura's Ee ja nai ka, and the Green Series schedule meant that I missed many of the New Cinema films, as well. Conse­ quently, I cannot really venture any final diagnosis of the trouble with the program.

David Stratton, director of the Festi­ val. stated in a letter to Fi/mnews (August, 1981) that the New Cinema films were ranked as either “ key” or “secondchoice” films, the second-choice films ending in the undeniably second-rate screening circumstances of the Anzac Auditorium. I am not nearly as sure as Dave Sargent (August Fi/mnews) that these second-choice films have “structures, narratives and modes of address which are meant to present an 360 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

opposition to the sorts of conven­ tional ‘quality films’ that are show­ cased in the sumptuously decorated State Theatre as objets d'art” , and that they were relegated to such an unattractive venue to minimize the effects of their “ potential ‘oppositional punch' ” , The political force — intended or actual — of their oppositional practice is very hard, maybe impossible, to gauge.

Certainly, films like Beastly Treat­ ment and City Farm (“ British minimal cinema” , in the Festival program) seemed to offer strong aversion therapy, distinct un-pleasure, for some tradi­ tional Festival audience members I spoke to. But when it comes to account­ ing for the majority of the audience, it is obvious that a politically motivated/justified oppositional film prac­ tice, as Sargent describes it, has been finding an audience and becoming what is almost a knowable genre from the early 1970s onwards. And it is a kind of self-flattery for those who have followed the polemic and acquired the taste to think of this area of film practice as a political time-bomb — if it ever reached the “ mainstream” audience, and if only they could be persuaded or permitted to see it.

My doubts are about the orthodox line of argument (the Colin MacCabe line, it might be called) that defends this film practice in political terms, and not at all about the intrinsic interest — necessity — of experimenting with narrative, struc­ ture and mode of address. There are fas­ cinating possibilities of conducting poli­ tical and formal analysis together in film­ making: Sigmund Freud’s Dora and Meuda memoria e massacre (Meuda: Memory and Massacre) in the New

Cinema program, for example, and 0 megalexandros (Alexander the Great) in the “ mainstream” Festival. But the ques­ tion of the political life of a film, and the project of “ making films politically” , as

Jean-Luc Godard put it, first raises issues of method of production, distribu­ tion, exhibition and audience, all of which give political context to questions about formal traditions, their modes of address and ways of positioning people.

This leads back to the now traditional dilemma of avant-gardeism: how do you break out of the circuit, of making mar­ ginal (revolutionary) films for a marginal, established (and evidently non-revolu­ tionary) audience? It is an uncomfor­ table dilemma that Implicates everyone — filmmakers, film programmers, the audience won for a film and the aud­ ience not won for it. The discomfort of the dilemma was as tangible as the draughts and bad seating.

If there are ways of breaking out of it, they probably include making more strategic use of the Festival program notes and the large, diverse, semi­ captive audience that the Festival rep­ resents. More question-raising and infor­ mative accompanying notes, speaker-led discussions after certain screenings and, above all, the elimination of the distinc­ tion, the distinguishing series titles, that come between the Festival proper and the “other” cinema dubbed “ New” in 1981. Meanwhile, the Forums could afford to be less trivial, and off-the-cuff, fewer panels, more prepared, committed speakers, and more polemical (rather than descriptive) Forum topics.

The in a u g u r a tio n of th e Ian McPherson Memorial Lecture is a good idea, but it is to be sincerely hoped that something more worthwhile than the platitudinizing of John Gillett, about the avuncular outsider’s view of Australian film, will be risked next year.

Claire Pajaczkowska and Jane Weinstock's collectively-produced Sigmund Freud’s Dora is a witty study of the return of Freud's own repressed hysteria in his case-study of Dora, and of kinds of film enunciation and psycho-analytical dis­

course. The film is full of sharp visual and verbal jokes (the half-cocked, unashed cigar which Freud stabs towards Dora to punctuate his comments, the juxtaposi­ tions of advertisements and porno­ graphy; and of histories, as in “ 1889: Dora wets her bed;-Second International founded in Paris” ), and the cutting edge of the humor is constantly put to work.

The Brazilian “cinema novo” director, Ruy Guerra, made Mueda: Memory and Massacre in two days by recording the annual re-enactment in Meuda, Mozam­ bique, of a massacre by Portuguese troops of the local people in 1960. The play dictates the film. It is a kind of lehr­ stuck, conducted for the participants to recreate and re-learn the history lesson with a special detachment, a conscious­ ness of demonstrating something to themselves, and a wry pleasure in the strength and satire that the community can draw from its shared history lesson.

Some of the acting is self-caricature, some of the participants were naive collaborators with the Portuguese in their own oppression, 20 years ago; Guerra includes interviews with them.

Wim Wenders’ Lightning Over Water was another of the New Cinema films screened in the State to all subscribers.

Wenders’ film about the dying of Nicholas Ray, the classic American auteur for Europeans (and Americans) of a certain generation, is repulsive. It is, at least, as much about Wim Wenders’ wholesale purchase of the Romantic myth of the author/genius (which is entailed by the notion of auteurism) as it is about Ray. The film invites specula­ tion about “succession” : if there is a danger that Wenders is thinking of Ray as the father, as he ponders, then Wen­ ders must be the son and heir: “Are we more involved with the movie than with Nick?” ; “When is reality not fantasy?” .

The lengths to which the filmmakers go to achieve the proper anguish about ethical questions, even while they capitalize on the horrors of Ray’s deter­ ioration, are almost farcical, and are followed by scenes where the cameras swoop like predators on Ray in his hospital bed (“We heard that Nick had been admitted to hospital, so we took the video camera and hurried to the hospital . . .” !).

Somewhere in the film, Ray describes a film he’d like to be making about his life (his death). It’s about a man who wants to bring himself together before he dies, to “ regain self-esteem” . He is a painter, who tries to buy or steal back all his p a in tin g s , and u n d e rs ta n d th e ir meanings. His best friend is a Chinese laundryman downstairs, and together they are “trying to face cancer with humor” .

Lightning Over Water has the alter-, native title Nick’s Movie; why didn’t Wim make Nick’s movie and remember the humor, instead of invading Nicholas Ray’s space of meaning with his own conceits.

It is true that Ray let him in, obviously liked him very much, maybe even wanted to name a “son”, but I am glad Ray can’t

1981 Sydney Film Festival

deadly-accurate assessment of his career, motives and conduct of his life, given by his wife, Marta (Krystyna Janda, W ajda’s fa vorite actress of late).

Whereas Zanussi offers the possibility of sudden insight, this assessment changes nothing and yet everything.

I am not sure now, from a single viewing, whether The Conductor yields very much from the equation it begins to set up, between death and sexual differ­ ence (the death of the great expatriate conductor, Jan [John Gielgud], in Poland, collapses the sexual tension that has built in the young couple because of the “father romance” between Marta and Jan, who once loved her mother; and Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, under prac­ tice by the provincial orchestra through­ out the film, is analyzed at one point in terms of a conflict to the death between the sexes), and between the conductor and leadership, the orchestra and Poland, music and national/personal life.

ever see the film. Wenders’ possibly unintentional candor about his own self­ seriousness and self-importance in this film will probably alter subsequent re­ viewings of his other films, which I have liked very much. The moral is plain: film­ makers shouldn’t be seen on film unless they can act — and laugh.

Claudia von Alemann’s Blind Spot (New Cinema) gradually seemed a little empty, a little long. The idea was good: a woman goes to Lyon, separating herself for that time from her child and lover, to try and track down clues about the life of Flora Tristan, a militant unionist and feminist in Lyon between 1830 and 1846 among the weavers (“the most intelli­ g e n t F re n c h w o r k e r s she had found . . .” ). She wants to find direct traces of the reality of Flora, not “things already known” about her, despite the fact that there are three wars between herself and the woman buried by his­ torical indifference.

She finds the washing place at the river, the life of Lyon pigeons, the closedoff steep streets, and on her tape­ recorder the sound of footsteps on the stones. She realizes she is hearing what Flora heard, and that she can start to connect with her at such levels. Of course, her own footsteps are on the tape as well — she is hearing herself, with Flora’s ears.

It is something of a journal film, recording-the woman’s journey and daily routine along with her gradual new his­ torical sense, overwritten like a palimp­ sest by Flora’s writings. The occasional Intrusion of didactic conversation setpieces, like the woman who amasses news clippings in an attempt “to know everything” , begin to break the film up when it is stretched out a little too long and too thin.

In the Festival mainstream, a number of groupings suggest themselves. The largest is the East European, parti­ cularly Polish, specialization, which is not referred to as such in the Festival program. The Polish films were espec­ ially welcome and interesting because of the extraordinary shift in Polish politics at present (that is, 12 to 18 months ago, given that the films one sees in the 1981 Festival are mostly from the 1979-80 world festival circuit).

In the “ present” of the Polish films this year. Solidarity could be sensed as a subtext of almost every film, in more or less apparent ways, transposed into humanist rather than political terms.

Krzysztof Zanussi’s Constans (Constant Factor), Feliks Falk’s Szansa (Chance), even perhaps Kazimierz Kutz’ Paciorki

W Ê m tm ■

Rebecca Pauly in Claudia von Alemann’s B lin d

S p o t.

The Contract, however, is less appar­ ently ambitious but, retrospectively, seems to have a very large scale. The most interesting process in the film is the characterization of the wife of the bride’s father (an eminent and crooked cardio­ logist); she is ubiquitous, present in almost every scene, mopping up the s p ills , p ro p p in g up the sagging company, searching for the bad smell that periodically reaches the noses of the guests.

But in the final scene, a walk in the forest outside their country villa where the wedding breakfast has been held, she reveals to the bride (who refused to complete the ceremony because of her sudden sense of the terms of the con­ tract) her clear perception of the threat of violence and the perpetual rot going on within human relations (“ mess all around . . .” ).

Her endless busywork to keep things going is finally seen as a form of kind­ liness, the only real kindliness seen in the film, the refusal to bully or manipulate.

jednego razanco (Beads of One Rosary),

all treat the subject of the contra-deal as a way around every blockage in the system — for the astute dealer. And, of course, the deal circumvents the block­ age. and leaves it in place. (Falk’s Top Dog, not in the Festival, deals with this system of getting around the system in all its trivial, fascinating detail.)

Andrzej Wajda’s Dyrygent (Conduc­ tor) and Zanussi’s Kontrakt (Contract) also make oblique commentary on the national crisis, by using a provincial orchestra and a wedding party, respec­ tively, to signify aspects of “ Poland” .

It was interesting that both films, shown side-by-side, could be seen to use the same device of cutting early on the curve of a climax in a scene (including the final one), which gives a sense of compression and prompts the audience to complete meanings and not to expect release, or relief. The Conductor, however, builds an undischargable ten­ sion into its final scene and shot, an uncomfortably close reaction shot of Adam (Andrzej Seweryn)-, the husband/young orchestra conductor. Fie receives, with no possible defence, the CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 361

1981 Sydney Film Festival

And so she is the one who first sees the stag only just ahead among the trees, the cleanest image In the film, the most direct gaze of any reaction shot, and stops her companion from blundering closer, telling her, “ Look” .

The image completely redeems her from one’s first sense of her, as idiot and comic buff, and offers at least the idea of a moment of seeing clearly, even if what has to be clearly seen is that social con­ tracts accumulate the debris of com­ promises and dishonesties until they become untenable. But they maintain the conditions of life and so must be main­ tained.

This process of meaning in the film is quietly conducted behind a smoke­ screen of comedy. Weddings have ever been essentially comic events; arche­ typally they are a kind of attempt to bring order to intensely disordering forces, the establishment of community in the face of its own improbability. Zanussi pro­ vides an array of rich caricatures, and farcical moments, but what is most interesting Is what is going on behind them.

The Beads of One Rosary, directed by Kazimierz Kutz and using non-pro­ fessional, typecast actors, was one of the most easily lovable films of the Festival.

The film is a wise convergence of issue into character, and character into issue, compromising neither.

The issue is rehousing. Old-style m iners’ housing — wooden, semi­ detached, with fuel stoves, no hot water, outside toilet, oil lamps, tool sheds, apple trees, pig runs, rabbit hutches: a style of housing that sustained traditional, pre­ industrial household economies — is in the way of the expansion plans of an industrial plant.

The workers are to move into rabbitwarren apartment blocks, with hot water and inside toilets. But Habryka (Aug-

362 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

ustyn Halotta), who Is a retired champion coalminer and war hero, has been given his house by the State in recognition of his stature, and he refuses to budge.

The film follows the process of resis­ tance, attrition, compromise (he is given a kind of middle-management town­ house, with characterless grounds and frighteningly slippery and modern interior) and death — not a tragic death resulting from displacement, but a tragi­ comic death because there is nothing else much to do when the fight against the establishment is called off.

The characterization of Habryka and Branka (Marta Straszna), his wife, and their small, intensely loyal dog, is as impossible to go past as the issue. They spar verbally from the moment of waking (“You’ll be up before God soon!” ; “At last I’ll have someone interesting to talk to” ) in a comfortable ritual of subordina­ tion and insubordination. Sharp-witted, humanist naturalism is not as easy to resist as some film theory would prefer it to be.

Usch Barthelmess-Weller and Werner Meyer’s “perceptive and sharp’’ T he K id s o f 67.

streetgame level of the children of a Berlin apartment block, and The Life­ boat probes the conscience of the Swiss and finds the exposed nerve of guilt about the forced repatriation of Jewish German refugees by Swiss authorities, and, perhaps deeper still, the nasty contradictions in the Swiss position of neutrality in general.

I found The Kids of 67 perceptive and sharp, but finally more descriptive than analytical; if it was made (as its directors

claim) to make sense of the fascist accession to power, especially for children of the 1970s and ’80s who experience this period of German history as a curious ellipsis in the history books, then I wonder if it supplies enough analy­ tical context for the mysteries it des­ cribes so well — the transformation of football into volkerball, kids’ gangs into Hitler Youth, friends into traitors.

The first Icelandic feature film, Agust

Another smaller, and perhaps more coincidental, group of films continued the excavation of the repressed German decade, 1933-45, begun in films like last year s Die blectrommel (Tin Drum) and Deutschland bleiche mutter (Germany Pale Mother). This year, Gunther Rucker and Gunter Reisch’s Die verlobte (The Fiancee), made in East Germany,

Usch Barthelmess-Weller and Werner Meyer’s Die kinder aus 67 (The Kids of 67), made in West Germany, and, to a lesser extent, Markus Imhoof’s Das boot ist voll (The Lifeboat Is Full), made in Switzerland, each continue the rehabilitation of this former danger zone, although The Fiancee occupies it almost as if it’s a simple matter.

Kids, meanwhile, attempts to gauge the exact moment of the turning point of 1932-33 at the courtyard, playground,

Probing the conscience o f the Swiss: Markus Im hoofs T he L if e b o a t I s F u ll.

1981 Sydney Film Festival

Gudmundsson’s Land og synir (Land and Sons), was an intelligent and unwordy study of the end of a family’s tie with its farm in the 1930s, when the younger generation, pared down to a solitary son left by the death of his father with insufficient desire to stick to the land, sells up what now belongs to the bank anyway, and takes the bus to the city. The harshness of the place (winter without electricity is described by someone as “cold, complaints, dark­ ness, rheumatism", and drunken stupor is explained by “Without a drink, there is only rain and wind” ) is as strong as Its bleak sort of grandeur.

The only moments of excess are maybe the occasional strains of a male choir (when the valley is particularly green?); otherwise, the film is as pared down as the family in question, reduced to scenes as isolated in feeling as the human features in the landscape. And at the heart of it is a conversation in a well­ sprung car between the father, on his way to hospital for the last time, and a plump Icelandic expatriate (to Den­ mark), in which the lean, worn farmer Is shown as the man of spirit, while the fat man is unmoored and without bearings, even without curiosity, because he sold out to the metropolis.

Shohei Imamura’s Ee ja nai ka and Carlos Diegues’ Bye bye Brasil (Bye Bye Brazil) are films about the strangeness of the culture and history of their countries.

Imamura's film is fascinating for its essay into the “Why not?” (“Ee ja nai ka”) move­ ment in Kyoto and Tokyo in 1867. which was probably encouraged as a screen for a coup d’etat against the Tokugawa Shogunate. The movement involved “spontaneous” mass demonstrations of nihilistic openness to Western (primarily American) cultural influences; for example, the last sequence builds up from a can-can tent show spilling over into the crowds, and beginning a kind of frenzied dance-demonstration against the Shogun militia.

Imamura describes his film as a “ his­ torical documentary”; while Ee ja nai ka may be described as having allegorical meanings for Japan in the present, the intertwined narratives of the four main characters do not (at least on a single viewing) cohere with the allegorical intentions of the whole, in the almost ruthless way that the study of a criminal becomes a means of exploring the psychic economy of-the culture in last year's Fukushu suru-wa ware ni ari (Ven­ geance is Mine).

Bye Bye Brazil is a Gabriel Garcia

Marquez kind of narrative, with Brazil as a fantasy land (in the minds of a caravan

of travelling players) full of real deaths.

The allegorical possibilities it opens up are (deliberately. I think) too rich, too tempting, spread thickly like a joke.

Salome (Betty Faria), for example, who self-knowingly postures, or prostitutes, herself to live, and appears at the end lit up like the Strip in Vegas, could far too readily be Brazil, on the one hand, the cinema (in fruitless competition with tele­

Brazil as a fantasy land: Carlos Diegues’B y e B y e B r a z il

vision. in even the remotest villages), on the other.

The other lovely road-movie of the Festival was Flenry Jaglom's Sitting Ducks, a sort of cross between Slither and Kill Charley Varrick. and between New York humor and West Coast freakishness, but travelling south, to Miami, where it completes some nice

twists on the classic story of the smalltimers who take on The Mob. Jagiom casts himself as the bad guy in a minor, almost incognito part, and his wife and brother in two of the five major roles.

So. it has a knowing strain of homemovie in it as well; only, the comedy, in this case, is timed, intended and delightful. ★

Henry Jaglom’s S ittin g D u c k s . “a sort o f cross . . . between New York humor and West Coast freakishness”.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 363

Paul Davies examines the writing courses at the Australian Film and Television School and Writing Workshop, As the needs and commitments of writers tend to vary a great deal, the Australian Film and Television School in Sydney offers a range of courses in writing for the screen. There is the original one-year course for scriptwriters of a certain “ proven” ability. This involves a sixmonth technical orientation in Film production and a six-month residency, working closely with the Full Time Program, supplying material which is then produced on film or tape by student directors. In 1982, it is hoped there wifi also be a full three-year course, so that script­ writing will, like camera, sound, editing and pro­ duction management, be a major course of study within the AFTS. Operating for the Frst time this year, and sup­ ported by the Literature Board, is a three to four-month crash course in scriptwriting designed for established novelists, playwrights, journalists and poets. The cross-fertilization of novel-writing or play-writing with writing for the screen is seen as an exciting one. What the AFTS is looking for here, apart from quality of ideas, is a certain kind of visual consciousness.

According to Keith Thompson, new head of the Writing Workshop. Australian filmmakers can't, or don’t, talk about films in a very creative way. He sees the writer as the spearhead through the prevailing low standard of television drama.

Until now, writers have copped the Fak, but what is more at fault is some sort of general con­ ception of what filmmaking actually is—or can There is probably some kind of synthesis of European, American and British traditions. But the odd thing is you can’t actually relate Australian literature to Australian films, as you can, say, with the British cinema. You just can’t relate the bush ballad and histori­ cal experience to the urban land­ scape; the narrative breaks down in the city.

A key component of American films has always been the possi­ bility of movement through a society or through a landscape.

These are two movements around which you can build a firm struc­ ture. In Australia, we have ex­ plored landscape in a photographic sense, but not movement through a landscape — and we have an ideal country to explore this, with shifts of migration and so on.

The problem with the British 364 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

be. Thompson wants to “exploit” the notion of what scriptwriting can deliver — from the writers’ point of view and for the industry at large. He sees the AFTS as the place where the debate must start.

Thompson describes the AFTS as a crucial resource, one to be exploited by not just the writers enrolled there but also by people outside the school. He has developed the notion of the Writing Workshop at 10 Lyonpark Rd, North Ryde, as a drop-in centre. A number of open seminars are being organized, a kind of “ mini­ writing festival” with papers from people like Everett de Roche (Patrick), Howard Griffiths (ABC), Tony Morphett (The Sullivans) and British scriptwriter Barry Took (Monty Python).

The intention is to keep things as free form as possible. At the very least, it is a place where one can find writers at work; at best, and in concert with organizations like the Writers Guild, it is a place where one can get a second opinion on a script; even a place where one can find actors ready to read a script and perhaps put bits of it on tape.

This aspect of the Writing Workshop fits in with the general aspirations of the Open Program of the AFTS, but Thompson and Austin Steele, writing consultant to the Open Program, also see the drop-in centre as recruit­ ment for the major courses. Steele, in conjunc­ tion with the South Australian Film Corpora­ tion, has been running workshops in Adelaide

and it is hoped to extend these activities to Mel­ bourne, Brisbane and Perth.

As a by-product of his teaching function, Thompson is keen to isolate three major film styles or languages and to examine their inFuence on what might be seen to be an Australian film style. Firstly, there is the British film language, a kind of documentary realist tradi­ tion rooted somewhere in the puritan work ethic and a style that best accounts for Britain’s success with television. The British doco-drama, Thompson feels, is perfectly suited to the sort of naturalistic medium that sits in a corner of one’s living room.

Secondly, there is an American film style — the traditional three-act play structure — and, finally, a European style — the Frst person singular film. Of course, this is by no means an exhaustive list, but it is felt these are the dominant inFuences on Australia’s tradition.

The danger is that the inFuences operate in Aus­ tralian work rather haphazardly. When one doesn't know where the inFuences are coming from, the result is a bit of a mess — first person singular Films, say, operating as dramatized documentary.

In the following interiew with Thompson, I began by asking if he had come to any early con­ clusions about a separate, Australian tradition actually emerging.

dramatized documentary is that, because it comes out of the puritan work ethic culture, from Cromwell onwards, you can’t allow yourself the freedom to dramatize. It is austere, without decoration, and enormously concerned with reality.

It is as if the whole British psyche won’t allow that Fowering unless it is first rooted in realism. The most advanced British work, if you like, is still expressionist documentary: Rock Follies and Naked Civil Ser­ vant. Pennies from Heaven is another good example, because though it is rooted in naturalism, it is looking to Fower.

It does have the fantastic about it: the sudden bursting into song in the bank manager’s office and so on . . .

Head o f the Writing Workshop, Keith Thompson (right), and Austin Steele, writing consultant to the Open Program.

Yes. Whereas in Spanish cinema, s a y , even in an o r d i n a r y

“It contains j u s t a b o u t everything the A u stra lia n film industry one could ever wish to kn o w . ” N ation al Times “A m u st f o r a n y o n e interested in the local film industry. ” A ustralian P layboy

“E verything one could po ssib ly w ant to k n o w a b o u t the A u stra lia n film industry see m s to be co n ta in ed in the A ustralian M otion Picture Yearbook 1 9 8 0 . . . a reference b o o k no one seekin g in fo rm a tio n a b o u t the film industry D o w n U nder can a ffo r d to be without. ” Screen International

f o

Cinema Papers

%

AUSTRALIAN

MOTION PICTURE YEARBOOK Edited by Peter Beilby Cinema Papers is pleased to announce that the 1981/82 edition of the Australian Motion Picture Yearbook can now be ordered.

T h e enlarged, updated 1981/82 edition contains many new features, including: • Comprehensive filmographies of feature film scriptwriters, directors of photography, composers, designers, editors and sound recordists • Monographs on the work of director Bruce Beresford, producer Matt Carroll and scriptwriter David Williamson • A round-up of films in production in 1981 • Actors, technicians and casting agencies • A n expanded list of services and facilities, including equipment suppliers and marketing services PART 2: Feature Films

Contents

1 980 and 1981

PART 1 : Australian Film Industry Round-up

PART 3: Profiles

Local

Overseas

Introduction; Sales and Releases; Festivals, Awards and Competitions; Overseas Media.

PART 4: Feature Rim Personnel Producers, Directors, Screenwriters, Directorsof Photography, Editors, Production Designers and Art Directors, Composers, Sound Recordists.

1980 Order Form (1st Edition)

---------------------------------------- X

Organizations Services and Facilities

Print, Radio, Television, Overseas Media Representatives, Film Bookshops and Record Shops.

Production Companies Distributors and Exhibitors

PART 7: Reference Film and Television Awards Film Festivals Legislation

Tax, Copyright, Export Incentives, Censorship.

Statistics Bibliography Feature Film Checklist: 1 9 7 0 ­ 1980 Capital City Maps Advertisers’ index

1981/82 Order Form (2nd Edition) & X . ----

Please send m e................ copies of the 1980 Motion Picture x n\ v Yearbook at Aust. $19.95. Outside Australia: Aust. $30 (surface mail);

Aust. $40 (airmail).

PART 6: Media

Film Stock, Sound Stock, Equipment Suppliers, Equipment Rental, Lighting Rental, Actors and Actresses’ Agencies, Technicians’ Agencies, Casting Consultants, Laboratories, Film Studios and Sound Stages, Editing and Post-Production Facilities, Preview Theatres, Recording and Mixing Studios, Animation, Titles and Graphics, Special Effects, Negative Matching, Edge-numbering, Film Production and Re-dimension, Publicists, Marketing Services, Caterers, Insurance, Customs and Shipping Agents, Car and Truck Rental, Media Research.

Bruce Beresford, Matt Carroll and David Williamson.

Production; Distribution and Exhibition; Government and the Film Industry; Film Organizations; Festivals; Awards and Competitions; Visitors; Television; Censorship; Technology; The Media.

PART 5: Directory

x^ Ns.

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

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

>

Please send me...............copiesof the1 981 /82 Motion Picture Yearbook at Aust. $1 9.95. Outside Australia: Aust. $30 (surface mail); Aust. $40 (airmail).

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

nn

N

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

........................................................................... Code.......................

Enclosed: Aust. $ .................................................................................

Please make cheques/money orders out to Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria St., North Melbourne, Vic., Australia 3051. Tel.: (03) 329 5983.

Note: Bank drafts only for overseas orders. Please allow up to 4 weeks for processing.

Enclosed: Aust. $.........................

Please make cheques/money orders out to Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria St., North Melbourne, Vic., Australia 3051. Tel: (03) 329 5983.

Note Bank draftsonly for overseas orders. Please allow up to 4 weeks for processing.

BACK ISSUES SALE T a ke advantage o f our special offer a n d catch up on y o u r m issing issues. M u ltip le copies less th a n half-price!

Number 1 January 1974

Number 2 April 1974

Number 3 July 1974

Number 5 March-April 1975

Number 9 June-July 1976

David W illia m son . Ray Harryhausen. Peter Weir.

Gillian Arm strong. Ken G. Hall. Tariff Board Report.

Antony I. Ginnane. The Cars That Ate Paris.

Violence in the Cinema.

Alvin Purple. Frank Moorhouse. Sandy H arbutt.

F ilm U n d e r A lle n d e .

Nicholas Roeg. Between Wars.

John P a p a d o p o lo u s .

Willis O’Brien. The McDonagh Sisters. Richard B re n n a n . Luis B u ñ ue l.

The True Story of Eskimo Nell.

J e n n in g s Lang. B yron Haskln. Surf Films. Brian Probyn. Sunday Too Far Away. Charles Chauvel. index: Volume 1

M ilo s F o rm a n. M lk lo s Jancso. Luchino Visconti.

Robyn Spry. Oz. Mad Dog Morgan. Joan Long.

Index: Volume 2

Number 12 April 1977

Number 13 July 1977

Number 14 October 1977

Number 15 January 1978

Number 16 April-June 1978

Kenneth Loach. Tom Haydon. Bert Deling. Piero Tosi. John Scott. John Dankworth. The Getting of W is d o m . J o u rn e y Among Women.

Louise Malle. Paul Cox. John Power. Peter Sykes.

Bernardo Bertolucci. F.J. Holden In Search of Anna.

Index: Volume 3

Phil Noyce. Eric Rohmer.

John Huston. Blue Fire Lady S u m m e r f le ld Chinese Cinema.

Tom C ow an, F ra n c o is Truffaut. Delphine Seyrig.

The Irishman. The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. Sri Lankan Cinema. The Last Wave.

Patrick. Swedish Cinema.

J o h n D u lg a n . S te v e n Spielberg. Dawn! Mouth to Mouth. Film Period­ icals.

Number 19 January-February 1979

Number 20 March-April 1979

Number 21 May-June 1979

Number 22 July-August 1979

Ken C a m e ro n . French Cinem a. Jim Sharm an.

My Brilliant Career. Film S tu d y R e so u rce s. The Night the Prowler.

Mad Max. Vietnam on Film. Grendel, Grendel, G re n d e l. D avid H em mings. The Odd Angry Shot. Box-Office Grosses.

Snapshot.

Bruce Petty. Alble Thoms.

N ew sfront. Film S tu d y R e s o u rc e s . Kost as.

Money Movers. The Aus­ tra lia n Film and T e le ­ vision School.

Index: Volume 5

A n t o n y I. G in n a n e .

Jeremy Thomas. Blue Fin. A n d re w S a m s . A s ia n C in e m a . S p o n s o r e d Documentaries.

Number 26 April-May 1980

Number 27 June-July 1980

The Films of Peter Weir.

Charles Joffe. Harlequin.

Nationalism in Australian Cinema. The Little Con­ vict.

Index: Volume 6

The New Zealand Film In d u s try . The Z Men. Peter Yeldham . Maybe This Time. Donald Richie.

Grendel, Grendel, Grendel.

2 copies $4 4 copies $3 6 copies $2 more copies

Number 11 January 1977

Nagisa Oshima. Phillippe Mora. Gay Cinema. John Heyer. Krzysztof Zanussi.

M a rc o F e rre ri. M a rco Bellocchio.

Emile de Antonio. Aus­ tralian Film Censorship.

Sam A r k o ff. R om an P o la n s k i. The P icture Show Man. Don’s Party.

Storm Boy.

Number 17 August-September 1978

Number 18 October-November 1978

Bill Bain. Isabelle Hup­ pert. Polish Cinema. The Night the Prowler. Pierre Rissient. Newsfront. Film Study Resources.

Index: Volume 4

John Lamond. Dimboola.

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 Tasmanian.

Number 23 September-October 1979

Number 24 December 1979 January 1980

Number 25 February-March 1980

A u s tr a lia n T e le v is io n .

Last of the Knuckiemen.

W o m e n F ilm m a k e r s .

Ja pa n e se C in e m a. My B rillian t C areer. Tim .

Thirst. Tim Burstall.

Brian Trenchard Smith.

Palm Beach. B ra z ilia n Cinema. Jerzy Toeplitz.

C o m m u n ity T e le v is io n .

A rthur Hiller.

Chain Reaction. David P u ttn a m . C e n s o rs h ip .

Stir. Everett de Roche.

Touch and Go. Film and Politics.

CINEMA

Order Form

1 or 3 or 5 or 7 or

Number 10 September-October 1976

each each (save $1 per copy) each (save $2 per copy) $1.80 each (save $2.20 per copy)

To order your copies place a cross in the box next to your missing the form below, it you would like multiple copies of any one issue, indicate the number you require in the appropriate box. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 1 2 3 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 Name. each.

Address Postcode

Please make your cheque pr money order payable to: Cinema Papers Pty Ltd

644 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Victoria, 3051, Australia

B eat the. . ,CINEMJMR|r. p rice rise!

Save

1 year (6 issues) $15.7 0 2 years (1 2 issues) $ 3 0.0 0 3 years (18 issues) $ 4 2.3 0 Please enter a subscription for 6 issues D

$ 4 .30 on single issue purchase price $6 .0 0 on single issue purchase price $ 1 1 .7 0 on single issue purchase price 12 issues [ H

18 issues D

Please start □ renew □ my subscription with the next issue. If a renewal, please state Record No. (Details) I Delivered to your door post free Subscriber’s name.....................................................................................

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

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

□

Gift subscription, from (name of sender)

Office use only

Enclosed is a cheque/money order for $ ..................................

NP

made out to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Victoria, 3051, Australia.

OK

The above offers applies to Australia only. For overseas rates, see below. This offer expires on November 1,1981

ORDER FORM

BOUND VOLUMES

BOUND VOLUMES

ORDER VOLUME 7 NOW (numbers 25-30)

$30.00 (including post) per volume.

Volumes 3 (9-12), 4 (13-16), 5 (17-20) and 6 (21-24) are

Please send me □ □ □ □ □

Handsomely bound in black with gold embossed lettering Volume 7 contains 5I2 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.

• Includes I2pp Index

copies of Volume 3 copies of Volume 4 copies of Volume 5 copies of Volume 6 copies of Volume 7

EZIBINDERS Please send me □ copies of C in e m a P a p e r s Ezibinder at S 15 per binder.

Total amount enclosed S A u s t .---------N A M E ................................................................................

A D D R E S S ........................................................................

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.

C in e m a P a p e rs

S T R IC T L Y L IM IT E D E D IT IO N S

V

PLEASE NOTE: Volume I (numbers I-4) and Volume 2 (numbers 5-8) ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE.

Overseas Rates

s

............................. Postcode.......

For overseas rates, see below.

Cinema Papers Pty. Ltd., 644 Victoria Street.

North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3051

/

Please allow up to four weeks for processing.

(All remittances in Australian dollars only) Subscriptions

6 issues

12 issues

18 issues

S 20.50 (Surface)

$ 39 .60 (Surface)

$ 56 .70 (Surface)

S 32.50 (Air)

$ 6 5 .00 (Air)

$ 20 .50 (Surface)

Bound Volumes

Ezibinders

Back Issues

(each)

(to th e p r ic e o f e a c h c o p y , a d d th e fo llo w in g )

$ 33 .30 (Surface)

$ 19 .00 (Surface)

$0.80 (Surface)

$ 92 .70 (Air)

$ 36 .50 (Air)

$ 19 .90 (Air)

$2.80 (Air)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$ 33 .30 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .00 (Surface)

$0.8 0 (Surface)

$36 .70 (Air)

$ 7 2 .0 0 (Air)

$ 1 0 5 .3 0 (Air)

$37 .10 (Air)

$20 .95 (Air)

S3 50 (Air)

S20.50 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .60 (Surface)

$ 56 .70 (Surface)

$ 33 .30 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .00 (Surface)

$0.8 0 (Surface)

Philippines China

$ 4 0 .9 0 (Air)

$ 8 0 .40 (Air)

$11 7.90 (Air)

S40.00 (Air)

$22 .00 (Air)

S4.20 (Air)

4. North America Middle East Canada

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .60 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .70 (Surface)

S33.30 (Surface)

$19 .00 (Surface)

SO.80 (Surfacel

$ 4 5 .1 0 (Air)

$ 88 .80 (Air)

$ 13 0 .5 0 (Air)

$43 .20 (Air)

S23.95 (Air)

$4.9 0 (Air)

$ 2 0 .5 0 (Surface)

$ 3 9 .6 0 (Surface)

$ 5 6 .7 0 (Surface)

$33 .30 (Surface)

$ 1 9 .0 0 (Surface)

SO.80 (Surface)

$ 4 7 .20 (Air)

$ 93 .00 (Air)

$ 13 6 .8 0 (Air)

$45 .00 (Air)

$ 2 5 .00 (Air)

S5.25 (Air)

Zone 1. New Zealand Niugini

2. Malaysia Singapore Fiji

3. Hong Kong India

5. Britain Europe Africa Sth America

y

(each)

NOTE: A "Surface Air Lift" (air speeded) service is available to Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy and North America. Subscriptions: 6 issues — S28 20: 1 2 issues — $54.96, 18 issues — S79.74 Bound Volumes (each) — $35.20. Ezibinders (each) — $20.75. Back Issues — add $1.10 per copy.

Cinema Papers is pleased to announce the publication o f

FILM EXPO ’80 SEMINAR PAPERS In November the Film and Television Pro­ duction Association of Australia and the New South Wales Film Corporation brought together 15 international experts to discuss film financing, marketing, and distribution of Australian films in the 1980s with producers involved in the film and television industry.

The symposium was a resounding suc­ cess.

Tape recordings made of the proceedings have been transcribed and edited by Cinema Papers, and published as the Film Expo ’80 Seminar Papers.

Copies can be ordered now for $25 each.

Contents 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 26$ stills, including $$ in full color, this book is an invaluable record for all those interested in the New Australian Cinema.

pps, 2 8 cm x 2 0 .5cm ( 11 " x 8 ") .

The chapters: The Past (Andrew Pike), Social Realism (Keith Connolly), Comedy (Geoff Mayer), Horror and Suspense (Brian McFarlane), Action and Adventure (Susan Dermody), Fantasy (Adrian Martin), Historical Films (Tom Ryan), Personal Relationships and Sexuality (Meaghan Morris), Loneliness and Alienation (Rod Bishop and Fiona Mapkie), Children’s Films (Virginia Duigan), Avant-garde (Sam Rohdie).

208

Theatrical Production.The Package: Two Perspectives Theatrical Production. Business and Legal Aspects Distribution in the United States Prod ucer/Distri butor Relationships Distribution Outside the United Sta tes Television Production and Distribution Financing of Theatrical Films: Major Studios Financing of Theatrical Films: Independent Studios Presale of Rights Presale by Territory Multi-National and OtherCoProductions

Contributors Arthur Abeles

Chairman, Filmmarketeers Ltd. (U.S.) Barbara D. Boyle

Executive Vice-President, and Chief Operating Officer, New World Pictures (U.S.) Mark Damon

President, Producers Sales Organization (U.S.) Michael Fuchs

Senior Vice-President, Programming, Home Box Office (U.S.) Samuel W. Gelfman

Independent Producer (U.S.) Klaus Hellwig

President, Janus Film Und Fernsehen (Germany) Lois Luger

Vice-President, Television Sales, Avco Embassy Pictures Corporation (U.S.) Professor Aw. Massimo Ferrara-Santamaria

Lawyer (Italy)

Mike Medavoy

Executive Vice-President, Orion Pictures (U.S.)

Order Form

Simon O. Olswang

Solicitor, Brecker and Company (Britain)

Please send me........copies of Film Expo ’80 at Aust. S2 5 . Outside Australia Aust. S30 (surface mail) ; Aust. S35 (airmail).

Please send me ....... copies of The New Australian Cinema (§ Aust.S1 4 .9 5 .

Outside Australia: Aust.S20 (surface mail); Aust.$25 (airmail).

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

Barry Spikings

Chairman and Chief Executive, EMI Film and Theatre Corporation (Britain) Eric Weissmann

Address Code Enclosed: Aust.S Please make cheques/money orders out to Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, 644 Victoria St, North Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 3051. Tel: (03) 329 5983 Note: Bank drafts only for overseas orders.

Please allow up to 4 weeks for processing.

Rudy Petersdorf

President and Chief Operating Officer, Australian Films Office Inc. (U.S.)

Partner, Kaplan, Livingston, Goodwin, Berkowitz and Selvin Harry Ufland

President, The Ufland Agency (U.S.

Writers at the Film School

emphasis on historical features.

I also wonder about the odd pre­ dilection of most Australian male writers, myself included, to write about women. That is a way of not writing about themselves directly.

It is a device men have of getting women to carry their emotional content. To that extent, it is a cop­ out.

But I would have thought “Gail” was an example of the reverse. You used an inversion of personalities — yours into hers — to come up with a particularly credible character . . .

cops’n’robbers thriller, there are overtones of surrealism, which is ritual and Catholicism. The British tradition is inherent through their literature. There is a line connect­ ing their television and their litera­ ture, which isn’t there in Australia — it is broken.

I have a perception of the tralian industry — of which I part; I am not saying that migrant — as being distanced

Aus­ am a as a from

It was interesting because it got below people’s belts, and that’s what I think plays should do. I showed it to school teachers — psyche and guidance people — and they wouldn’t talk about the play, they would talk about “ I” ; they’d seen themselves in it.

That emotional response is what I am looking for, and I don’t know how much that just reflects what I am. I don’t like the distance writers and directors put between them­ selves and their material.

One of the advantages of a place like the AFTS is that you can ex­ plore on two levels: you can ex­ plore the “ out there” , the contem­ emotional content. It holds emo­ porary lifestyle, and you can bring tional content at arm’s length. In the material home and explore it fact, it holds most issues at arm’s within yourself. That’s why it is an length. That’s partly reflected in the AFTS priority to get out into the

What about the connection between the playwriting of the early 1970s and the consequent surge in Austra­ lian filmmaking?

Perhaps. I wasn’t here in the early 1970s, so I am not quite sure.

It is very difficult to say just where the Australian industry is heading now.

But here, at the Australian Film and Television School, you are in a key position to influence that direction The School is, as a whole, con­ scious of this. I would say it has a commitment to exploring the Aus­ tralian contemporary lifestyle.

Does that tend to put it in the British mould of documentary realism?

I wouldn’t like to limit it to that extent. What the School, and cer­ tainly the Writing Workshop, should be doing is seeing where the individual interests of the students lie, and working towards those interests. We have to develop skills and push them to the limit — al­ though that probably just reflects my puritan work ethic.

But it is also economic, isn’t it? It is easier to make a contemporary film set in the streets than an elaborate historical epic . . .

After the early success of some of his work with the BBC, Keith Thompson came to Australia to work on the last few episodes of the long-running Homicide series. This included a special 90-minute episode called “Stopover", which won him the Awgie and Sammy awards for 1976. Later, at the ABC, he originated the Truckles series and produced his most highly-acclaimed work, Gail, the story of a young girTs struggle with her family. Since then he has been working on a number of feature scripts and was appointed to the AFTS in mid-1980.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 365

Writers at the Film School

real world, research and look at contemporary Australian life, and bring student consciousness to bear on that. The two things have to mould, somehow. It is also part of the general “ seeing if there is an Australian film language" — the “ critical" function of the School.

It is interesting being British and being brought up in that documen­ tary realist tradition. I was 18 when Cathy Come Home went on tele­ vision. I'd seen the Ken Loach things that preceded it. I realized I used the standard devices of docu­ mentary drama that the British in­ corporate into their films — shots of people walking in the streets, so that you think you are in a realistic setting. I had done that uncon­ sciously for years, because that's where I come from. But when I came here. I don't know what tra­ dition to put myself into; I didn't feel like I was on any kind of river.

In Australia, you have to start from scratch; you have to discover the Australian style for yourself.

Maybe, as writers, we are just too close to the Australian industry to see if it has a voice.

Is this the fault of the critics? Per­ haps the Australian media hasn’t provided a sufficient analysis of its own work?

I feel quite strongly that there is no critical establishment — cer­ tainly in television. There are some exceptions, though, like the stuff 3RRR puts out — John Flaus and so on.

So, the best analysis comes from the academics, and not the media . . .

Yes. with one or two exceptions like Brian Courtis [The Age}. There isn't, as a rule, any debate about television — not by anyone who understands television. But. generally, the criticism that is around just isn't working to the benefit of the film or television pro­ gram maker. It is working on an academic level, within the colleges; that's why it is vital that we incor­ porate it as an aspect of the AFTS. But it isn't working on a craft/ criti­ cism level, or even a gut level, which the best overseas criticism does.

Does the School have the chance to develop new formal possibilities with film and television, or is there a counter-pressure to merely provide a training facility for the industry?

Is that a consequence of the present economic climate?

1

think it has always been like

that.

How about camera and writing?

There has been about a dozen people through the Writing Work­ shop and. as far as I know', they are all working in the industry. Steve Wallace did the one-year course; Rifka Hartman and Patricia John­ ston were in the same year. And the three people from last year are all T hat seems the main advantage over writing features. the apprenticeship system at the big production houses, or the ABC, How many people apply for the where one is narrowed to a specific courses? It must be hard settling for job of writing without having the only three or four for each (three- chance to explore the technical and month, one-year, three-year) course formal aspects of the crafts . . .

There is about a one in 30 or 40 chance of getting in. But. like creative development submissions, the good ones leap out at you.

But an almost guaranteed job at the end of it . . .

I suppose you could say guaran­ teed job. if not funding.

There is certainly that pressure at the moment, with the tax incen­ Surely it is also the chance to make tives. but again it is a matter of a film here that is so attractive . . . responding to people who come I have tried to re-emphasize what into the School. There are those who come to acquire craft skills the writing unit should be about. It and don't avail themselves of the used to be a three-week technical chance to do direction. They are orientation with an 1 1 - month just here to polish skills. In that residency. 1 have tried to balance sense, the School is very success­ that out. so that it is half and half. I ful. For example, there is a 100 per­ think it is unrealistic to expect to cent employment rate out of the take writers out of their prime working circumstances, estab­ sound workshop.

366 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

lished over a number of years, bring them into those four offices down the corridor and expect them, no matter what creative input they are getting from the rest of the School, to suddenly come up with a major work of their lives. It is more important that they come here, .absorb everything around the place, do some writing — it is important that they write something — and then go away and let this place react on them over the next eight or 10 vears — whatever.

Yes, and even less so now than when we were working for them. In those days, I think there really was something to be learnt from a Homicide episode. Structurally, you could play with the rules and get something out of it. But “ soap opera" is so much a committee pro­ cess. that there is less of a learning experience than on series dramas, like the all-film Homicides. What we are getting now is a whole generation of writers growing up never having written “The End". In the old series, you created charac­ ters for your episode and it had an ending. Sure you couldn't experi­ ment to a great extent, but at least at Crawfords you were able to slip something in every now and then, which is what Everett de Roche savs.

Writers at the Film School

What happens when people come through the School and end up in the “committee” system?

One of last year’s graduates is doing that already, at Grundy’s.

It’s hard to say, but I think the process is valuable, for a year or so, if only for what seems to happen to the people who do it. The people who were there when we were are, now, six years later, commis­ sioners of the AFC, or producing a lot of Film and television. It gives you a few names and that’s of value, if nothing else.

There is also the value of having your stuff played. You write a lot of material and see it on the screen very quickly. It’s sort of like Kleenex tissues — out once and thrown away. But you must learn something from that.

Can we expect a challenge to that system coming out of the School?

ting it down on tape. I still think it’s good enough to be done outside. In fact, it has already picked up some interest from actors who have workshopped it.

I bring in actors and we just sit around and do script readings. It is important that each student gets the chance of having a 50-minute personal statement-type play done.

How does it work in practice? Does a full-time student tell the writers, “I want a film about so and so. Can you do it?”, or does it go the other way, with a writer trying to sell his/her idea to the filmmaker?

I am trying to keep this as loose as possible. It certainly happens a lot, and directors say, “ I want to do a film about this, but I can’t write it.” You then try to make a m arriage with your writing students. I also feed it back the other way, and go to a student director and say, “ Have a look at

It gets back to visual conscious­ ness. Scriptwriting is essentially about image against image, and not necessarily words (dialogue). How to get a visual vocabulary is some­ thing I am exploring here. My feel­ ing, on the one level, is that the writing students should spend half their time as, say, film editors, because that’s the beginning and end of the same process.

Editing as a form of writing . . .

Yes. I have learnt a lot from going to double-heads and listen­ ing to soundtracks — not just the dialogue, but the rest of the sound.

As soon as you learn to use a sophisticated sound or visual track, you are saving on dialogue, on words. It is basic structure and that is the sort of area into which I am interested in pushing writers. It is difficult if you come out of a literary tradition, but then that’s what scriptwriting is; it doesn’t matter how the script actually reads.

I have been making conscious efforts to get more emotion into the dialogue and change my style. That was one reason I came here. I started writing when I was 18 at film school [Ravensbourne College, Kent] and stopped last year. That’s 12 or 13 years of solid writing — the last six or seven professionally, and it all seemed part of the one process. It was one trip.

So you wanted to make some sort of break . . .

That is what’s happening now. I suppose I had idealized what the break might be, and I had fan­ tasies about being charged up by heady students, from nine to Five, then going home and doing a masterpiece or two in the evening.

But that hasn’t happened. I am ex­ hausted by the “ nine to five” and just want to go home to bed. But I did want the break, because I wanted to look at language, at style.

That is School policy. But, being realistic, the only way you can break the pattern of commercial television is to do so politically, through legislation.

Is there no way of challenging the system in a qualitative sense?

You would hope so. You would hope the mini-series have started to do that. That is the ambition you have to believe in — if you didn’t, you would go crazy.

What scripts are being developed at the School?

Of the three full-time students, Cory Taylor, has just finished Fer­ tility R ite, a 50-minute television play which I think is one of the best I’ve read anywhere. The secondyear students used it as the basis of an actor/director workshop, two weeks rehearsal and a week of put­

this.” The significance for the writer, again, is that you go right through the production process with it.

Is the writer usually involved in a film’s post-production?

Can you relate that to anything you are working on now?

It’s hard to put into words, but I think the reason I stopped writing was because I had realized I had As much as they can be. I want turned some corner. Maybe it them also to direct their own scared me a bit. I realized the material and see how that feels. writing I could do from now on Most of the writers in the full year could actually come from inside me will make a short video — what­ and I didn’t need the prop of a par­ ever. We can’t afford much, but ticular series format, or whatever, they get to make something. This that had sustained me through the way, the whole process is de-mysti- years.

1 also believe there is a sort of fied for them. When the tech­ nology is later thrown up as an cumulative exhaustion that builds obstacle, they know how to handle up over a certain time when you it. This applies more to television have had to write a lot of tele­ than Film, because video develop­ vision. So I am just letting the projects that hang around my ment is racing ahead so much. neck for years fade into the Yet commercial television seems distance. I’ll pick it up in a year or surprisingly slow to take advantage so, when I really want to start writing. of it . . .

How do you get an idea — and this relates to the students as well?

Where does it generate from?

For me the idea has always sprung out of character; it has always been based on an inter­ change between one character and another. That has been the First sparking point for me.

What I believe now is that there are more ideas around than there are people who can transpose them.

I am particularly interested in structure, because structure is how you state the idea. This is some­ thing that is apparent from the amount of scripts that I have to read for recruitment here, and also because 1 have been on Creative Development panels for the AFC. I suppose I read about 400 scripts last year, a staggering amount. And you could say there would be hardly a bad idea among them. The con­ cepts are there in the First page synopsis, but it is the realization of the idea that is at fault. And realization is structure.

Is that what the School is teaching?

Sure. I don’t want to suggest that I am under-valuing ideas; I just want to explore the different ways of conceptualizing ideas into struc­ ture. I don’t think an idea for me is ever dissociated from its emotional content. But this dissociation is evident in a lot of work in this country. It strikes me as a major problem. We are being “ nine to five” about a lot of writing here.

One has to Find the metaphor, to find the lens that is going to take one’s perception and invert it — as I did with Gail. I didn’t want to write about a guy, so writing about a girl was like looking through the lens that inverts the image, that turns it upside down.

And that gives you the distance, the objectivity, to write . . .

It is not distance. I don’t want distance, because it is important to be able to pour all the light through the lens. But it gives you the objec­ tivity to look back into yourself somehow; the lens is the research period. Through the research period, which is vital, you Find the structure of your lens, you Find the quality of the lens that you are going to put your perception through so that it comes out differ­ ently.

Is the lens your perspective or a technique?

It is technique, research. It is the filter through which you work.

Somehow, maybe it changes it from First person into third person.

It is like when you start using “he” or “she”, instead of “I”. Until then, it is autobiography or diary writing Concluded on p. 4h CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 367

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY DIRECTORY

AUDIOVISION Perry Sandow

Perth’s leading Equipment Hire facility will hire (or do deals) with film industry professionals on:

Television Lighting Director Film Gaffer

■ L IG H T IN G TR U C K S AND E Q U IP M E N T ■ B L IM PE D G EN ERA TO RS ■ 3 5 M M & 1 6 M M CAMERAS ■ E D I T I N G A N D S O U N D G E A R , etc.

to service proposed features, T V series, commercials etc. being planned in W .A .

fruii Location Lighting Truck & H.M.L

For further details, contact Daryl Binning.

Audiovision Pty Ltd, 15 Denny Way, Alfred Cove, W.A. 6 1 5 4 . Telephone ( 0 9 ) 3 3 0 5 0 7 0 .

united au/tiala/tan film/

r O

f f y

F ilm ¿ T e l e v i s i o n

L ig h tin g

P.O. Box 37, Wanneroo, W.A. 6065. Phone: (09) 4 0 5 1 3 4 0

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

V

&

THE PRODUCER’S STATE

Western Australia’s Grip Service @Elemack Dolly with Tracks ® Jib Arm • Limpet Mount • Tripods and Spreaders • Platform Dollies • Location Truck • 20' Scaffolding Aluminium Tower • Hand-Held Communication System ® Grips and Runners

Phone KAREL AKKERMAN (0 9 ) 3 8 2 1 8 8 3 P.O. BOX 3 0 8 , Subiaco, PERTH, W.A. 6 0 0 8

A frame from the RAC/s Marine Insurance TV. commercial pro­ d u ced by Herring B&C for Ogilvy & Mather The shooting script c a ll­ ed for some dramatic shots of a boat narrowly missing the cam era and smashing Into a reef It had to be filmed right first up. There was no room for error, that's why they chose

FRESH LANDSCAPES & STORY MATERIAL SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT & PRODUCTION FUNDING CONSISTENTLY GOOD WEATHER CONTACT: The Executive Director The Western Australian Film Council 524 Hay Street Perth W.A. 6000 Tel: (09) 325 9065

FILM PRODUCTION

Contact: Graham Varney

I I I AUSTRALIAN IN TER NATION AL FILMS BARKER HOUSE BUSINESS CENTRE

D E N IS R O B IN S O N

49 HAY STREET, SUBIACO, WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6 0 0 8 WINNER-“Best C a m p a ig n ” Golden Key Awards (March 1981)

17/37 PRESTON POINT ROAD, EAST FREMANTLE, W.A. 6158. (09) 339 3759

NATIONAL (09) 381 2444 - (09) 271 5351 INTERNATIONAL + 61 9 381 2444 TELEX: A A 93374 MEMBER OFTHE FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

S A L E S 'R E N T A L S * SERVICE -L I G H T I N G FILM •T E L E V IS IO N * ST A G E

G

■'

■

Lv-v‘

A&J Casting Agency C a s tin g a n d M o d e llin g C o n s u lta n ts

5 Axford Crescent, Oakleigh Sth. 3167

Telephone (03) 570 4407

P a u l H ogan

C h ild ren ’s Foundation The Australian Children’s Television Foundation has been given the green light following allocation of funds from the Victorian and South Australian governments. Victoria has contributed $160,000 and South Australia $40,000.

A further $600,000 is being sought from the Federal Government.

Announcing Victoria’s grant, the Minister for the Arts, Norman Lacy, said the ACTF would encourage and supply finance for worthwhile projects.

Dr Patricia Edgar is director of the task force, which is setting up the foundation.

S u b-titles f o r Television The Federal G overnm ent has announced a special grant of $600,000 for the establishment of a caption centre to provide sub-titles to tele­ vision program s for those with impaired hearing.

The sub-titles would be transmitted by stations via a coded signal and descrambled by a “ black box” hired or sold by the centre.

It is anticipated that by 1982, 20 hours a week of television will carry the coded sub-titles.

S anyo Video D isc Sanyo has announced plans to market its video disc system in Aus­ tralia by April 1982. The optical laser system — the same as that tipped to be introduced by Pioneer and Philips about the same time — will sell for about $800, with the digitally-encoded discs costing between $15 and $25.

The discs are pre-recorded. The units cannot record from television.

Each disc has a playing time of about two hours, which can accommodate most feature films. The unit reads the disc with a laser head which moves out from the centre, and translates the digital Information stored on the disc into pictures.

The video disc units have variable speed, forward, reverse and stopaction capabilities.

closing down of some country area transmitters.

Apart from the basic allocation, an extra $12 million was provided for the 1982 Commonwealth - Games cover­ age. The ABC is host telecaster of the Brisbane games and will provide facil­ ities for participating nations.

Also in the budget, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal received $3.7 million, and the Special Broadcasting Service $26 million, which will allow It to operate on the same levels as in the previous year. The ABC’s allocation allows for “a slight increase in activity” .

M on te M iller Former Crawfords and ABC script­ writer Monte Miller died recently in Melbourne, aged 59.

A B T Figures Figures recently released by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal show an increase of more than 27 per cent in spending on production of local pro­ grams by Australia’s commercial stations in the financial year ended June 30, 1980.

The 15 metropolitan and 35 country stations spent $54.8 million on buying overseas programs and $163.9 million on local productions.

Metropolitan stations made a net profit after tax and licence fees of $28.6 million from a revenue of $386.9 million, while country stations cleared $13.4 million from a revenue of $87.6 million.

A B C B u dget There were sighs of relief at the ABC, following the recent federal budget which Increased the ABC’s allocation from $171 million to $206 million.

Contingency plans drawn up in the event of a decrease or only slight increase would have resulted in the loss of 250 jobs and several programs, including Four Corners, and the

Paul Hogan.

D ream ers on the Line Production has started on a new ABC drama series set in a Melbourne car factory. Starring Brian James and Tina Bursill (both formerly of Craw­ fords’ Skyways), the series is titled Dreamers on the Line.

James plays Doc, the company’s resident medico. Bursill plays his daughter.

The series was written by Howard Griffiths and will be produced by Douglas Sharp and directed by Keith Wilkes. It is scheduled for screening early next year.

Young Talent Time Despite close bidding from opposi­ tion channels, the Ten Network has secured a further 12-month contract for Young Talent Time. It is understood the Nine Network was bidding for the show, which has run on Ten for the past 10 ye§rs.

The variety series is produced by compere Johnny Young for the Ten Network.

Football Rights Kerry Packer’s Nine Network and Rupert Murdoch’s Ten Network are involved in bids to win rights to cover VFL football. Both are understood to have made submissions to the VFL, with promises of more sophisticated production, marketing and national promotion, among other things.

As it stands, only the ABC and Channel 7 have replay rights for VFL football, with Seven providing a direct telecast interstate of the match of the day.

U.S. television interests have paid about $1 million for 26 half-hour Paul Hogan comedy shows. The first of the series is to be screened late in Sep­ tember in New York and Los Angeles during the first week of the new U.S. ratings season.

Hogan’s manager, John Cornell, who clinched the deal, is also negotiating sales in Japan and Europe.

The programs sold will be compiled from Hogan’s comedy specials for the Seven and Nine networks. All the musical segments will be deleted to concentrate on the comedy content.

The "Spider G ang ” from

The

S ecret

V a lle y .

Reg Grundy The Reg Grundy Organization has signed a co-production deal with the French production company, Teleclip, and major networks in Spain, Italy and The Netherlands for two children’s programs.

The shows are Runaway Island — a telefeature which will act as a pilot for a proposed series — and Secret Valley, a 26-part series of half-hour episodes.

Neither program has been sold locally, although the Nine Network has an option on Secret Valley.

Tina Arena, from Y o u n g T a le n t T im e , and friend.

CINEMA PAPERS Sepiember-October - 369

C in e F ilm L aborato P

ty.

L

B H

r y

1

im ited

14 WHITING ST., ARTARMON, 2064, TELEPHONE: (02) 439 4122 (02)43 2957

SERVICES PROVIDED

Rosco filters and gels?

MIGHT 7247/F U Ji/A G F A PROCESS & WORK PRINT 7240/50 PROCESS ONLY. DAY Full 16mm service:7247/FU Jl/G E V A PROCESS & WORK PRINT. 7240/50 PROCESS & WORK PRINT, B /W NEG. POS & OPTICAL SOUND NEGS. WET GATE (AT NO CHARGE), ANSWER PRINTING ON E/COLOR & EKTACHROME. WET GATE (AT NO CHARGE), CRI, 1/NEG, 1/POS, INTERDUPE. BULK RELEASE PRINTING. REDUCTION FROM 35mm PICTURE & SOUND. B /W RELEASE PRINT. NEG MATCHING. PRINTS FROM PRINTS.

For further information on the largest range of lighting filters in the world, contact the sole Australian agents for Rosco.

P IC S A u s tra la s ia P ty L td r

^

B

l a

B

NSW: H0 8 Dungate Lane. Sydney 2000 Tel 264 1981 Tlx AA26664 VIC: 77 City Rd, Sth M elb , 3205 Tel: 62 1133 Tlx AA30912 OLD: 28 Baxter St Fortitude Valley. 4006 Tel: 52 8816 Tlx AA42054 WA: 121 Hill St. East Perth 6000 Tel: 325 3910 Tlx AA93582

'

IF YOU'RE L O O K IN G FO R THE B EST... ...W E HAVE THEM. ★ CINEM ATO G RAPH ERS ★ S O U N D RECORDISTS ★ HELICOPTER PILOTS ★ FILM EDITO RS

SOUTH LAND FILMS AUSTRALIA Pty Ltd ...oil the professionals you need under one roof.

PH O N E O R WRITE FO R DETAILS

©

2

)

9

0

-

6

7

1

2

P.O. B O X 1260. C R O W S NEST. 2065 .

Television News

Channel 0/28, broadcasting in Mel­ bourne and Sydney, proved no com­ petition for the royal couple, either, and returned lower-than-usual figures.

Although each network had iden­ tical coverage of the wedding via BBC link, Channel 9 scored the highest figures, almost double those of its closest rival Channel 10, followed by the ABC and Channel 7.

M ich a el P arkin son British interviewer Michael Parkin­ son has returned to London after com­ pleting the first season of his Aus­ tralian show for Network Ten. He has pre-recorded programs to last until October 24.

In London, Parkinson will be working on a new breakfast news show with David Frdst.

S m ith B anned

H om e B ox Office Executives of Time Incorporated’s cable television network, Home Box Office, were recently in Australia to woo local producers and directors. The company to date has licensed several Australian films, including Breaker Morant, Mad Max and My Brilliant Career, and is on the lookout for more product.

The Home Box Office company has more than six million subscribers in the U.S., each of whom pays $10 a month to see commercial-free screenings of uncensored, uncut films. HBO has 65 per cent of the U.S. pay-television market.

The visit by company executives was organized by the Australian Film Com­ mission.

Sonia Humphrey in T o w a r d s 2 0 0 0 .

Victoria Nicholls and Tom Burlinson in T he R e s tle s s Y e a rs.

American actress Jaclyn Smith of the television series Charlie’s Angels, in Australia to appear in a series of tele­ vision commercials, was refused permission from Actors Equity to appear on Network Ten’s Parkinson Show. Equity said this was in line with its policy of protecting the jobs of Aus­ tralian performers.

N ew Show s The R estless Years Network Ten has decided not to renew its contract with the Reg Grundy O rganization for the series The Restless Years. Production on the soapie, which first went to air in 1977, will cease on September 25 at Ten’s Sydney studios.

The network says it has enough episodes in the can to keep the series running until early 1982, and at this stage that is the plan.

The Restless Years first struck trouble with the emergence in the same timeslot of Nine’s Sale of The Century, losing many viewers to the glittering game show. A change of timeslot now places it up against Ford Superquiz, which, in late August, was rating in the high-30s.

Over the years, the series provided a proving ground for a number of actors and actresses who have since gone on to better things, such as David Argue (Gallipoli), Tom Burlinson (Man From Snowy River) and Margie McRae

While Network T e n js working on plans for two current affairs shows — one weekly and one five-nights-a-week — in response to the success of Nine’s 60 Minutes, Nine is working on a morning news show to rival Ten’s Good Morning Australia.

Initially, the morning show was to be packaged by Haydn Price Productions — Mike Walsh’s company — but now Nine are doing the job themselves. A series of test runs'is being done to sort out the format.

Ten’s proposed current affairs shows are still embryonic, but extra staff are being hired.

Meanwhile, Mike Walsh’s partner, David Price, is working on a variety-talk show for Ten, which will feature Mel­ bourne disc jockey Greg Evans as host.

Price, who earlier this year was director for several months of The Don Lane Show at Nine, is now based in Melbourne. No air date has been given for the new show.

Ten’s general manager, Gordon French, says a series of pilots will be made for the new show to find the right format.

(Winter of Our Dreams).

Tow ards 2000 Sonia Humphrey, dumped from ABC-TV Nationwide last year to make way for Peter Couchman, has returned to the small screen as a reporter on the series Towards 2000.

Thirteen episodes of the series — which investigates the potential effects of technology on everyday life — will be made this year.

The series’ budget allows its team of five reporters to travel the world collecting stories. So far they have been to Japan, Britain, the U.S. and Canada.

E xten ded H oliday Network Ten has commissioned another 50 episodes of the Crawford Productions series Holiday Island. This is despite the series not being a ratings success — in some instances it dropped as low as nine points, a figure which most observers believe would spell the end for any other commercial television series.

Obviously, the failure of Bellamy and the cancellation of The Restless Years, coupled with the shelving earlier this year of the series Punishment, has put the network in a position where they must attempt to make their investment in Holiday Island — to date more than $300,000 — pay off, at least until some­ thing better comes along.

It is understood that the Grundy Organization and Crawfords are developing new concepts for series to replace those recently axed.

Ten announced that it had cancelled the series — which was up for renewal at the end of August — as the Grundy Organization was preparing to cele­ brate the 1000th episode of its Nine Network series The Young Doctors, which went to air late in 1976 and is now tipped to break the record held by Number 96 (1218 episodes) as Aus­ tralian television’s longest-running soapie.

Ten also announced that it would not go into a second series of the Sydneyproduced police drama Bellamy, which was made by the Grundy Organization and starred John Stanton. Twenty-six one-hour episodes of the series were made, but initial ratings performance sealed its fate.

Lead actor Stanton said he was glad there would be no second series, and is now involved in making the feature Kitty and The Bagman with Liddy Clark.

Another casualty at Ten is the Sydney-produced comedy show Rat­ bags, which has been cancelled after the initial 13 episodes. Producer John Eastway has been retained to for­ mulate a new comedy series for the network.

H om e Sw eet H om e The ABC has sold 26 episodes of its comedy series Home Sweet Home to an Italian television network.

The series, which stars John Bluthal as Enzo Pacelli, is co-produced by the ABC and Thames Australia, the local arm of Thames Television Inter­ national.

A W G IE S At the Australian Writers' Guild annual awards (AWGIES) presented in Melbourne, at the National Gallery, on August 14. West Australian Ken Kelso took out two m ajor awards for Manganinnie: outstanding script and best feature film adaptation.

In television, awards were received by: Laura Jones for best original work for Cold Comfort (ABC), Tom Hegarty for best television adaptation with A Town Like Alice (Seven Network), Laura Jones for best television series with “ One More Season” , an episode of Sporting Chance (ABC) and Peter Shreck, best television serial for episodes 811 and 812 of The Sullivans (Nine Network).

Trevor Farrant won best television comedy award for Davey and Dyer, Rob George best documentary award for The First Ninety Days, Michael Noonan best children’s television adaptation for The Patchwork Hero and Judith Colquhoun for best original children’s script with Cornflakes For Tea.

C olquhoun’s series, although already sold internationally to several European countries and in South America, has aroused little interest locally. One network programming executive described the series as “ a pleasant little show” , but “ not enter­ taining enough” .

Israel S w itzer Another recent visitor was Israel Switzer, a Canadian physicist respon­ sible for the introduction of cable tele­ vision in his homeland, the U.S., Israel and Bermuda.

Addressing a press conference in Melbourne to launch IREECON, a tech­ nology convention, Switzer said cable television would be obsolete by the end of the 1980s, and warned Australia against introduction of such a service.

He said the country would be better off concentrating on applications of the domestic satellite, scheduled for 1985.

Switzer first became involved with cable television, where programs are fed to user by land-line, in 1955.

Because of poor reception, he cabled U.S. programs into Canada. The system was introduced into the U.S. in the 1970s and has expanded from a three-channel operation in one town into a 54-channel service serving numerous cities across the U.S. The introduction of cable and paytelevision into Australia is the subject of an inquiry by the Broadcasting Tri­ bunal, which is expected to start public hearings in September. *

The W edding A documentary on deadly ants and a John Wayne film failed to draw tele­ vision viewers in Adelaide away from the telecast of the Lady Diana-Prince Charles wedding. Adelaide’s Channel 7 was the only metropolitan commercial station to provide alternative program­ ming on the night of the wedding — and bombed in the ratings.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 371

M A K IN G ^ W iR D W IN N IN G C O M M E R C IA L A

Fred H arden

Right and fa r right: Paul Cronin, standing, in T he C a r d g a m e , one o f four new commercials for the drink/drive campaign. The special visual effect o f the series o f commercials is that the live secondary characters (the card­ players in these images) “freeze ” in motion, while Cronin does not. The “freezing" is done optically, not by having the actors stop moving, giving the commercials a striking visual quality.

372

— S e p te m b e r - O c to b e r CINEMA PAPERS

N

y ^ ’f g j T ' ^ h e r e a r e t w o m a j o r a d v e r t i s i n g i n d u s t r y a w a r d s in • Hi ’ A u s tra lia each y e a r for th e best television c o m m e r ­ cials. T h e A u s t r a l i a n W r i t e r s a n d A r t D ir e c t o r s ( A W A R D ) give th e ir selective a p p r o v a l to televiJ bS L - s i o n , c i n e m a , r a d i o a n d p r i n t a d v e r t i s i n g , a n d t h e F e d eratio n o f C o m m e r c ia l Television S ta tio n s ( F A C T S ) h av e an a w a r d for television c o m m e r c ia ls only.

T h i s y e a r is t h e 2 5 t h y e a r o f c o m m e r c i a l t e l e v i s i o n in A u s t r a l i a a n d , in t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t e r v i e w s , I h a v e t r i e d t o g i v e

FACTS Awards

wrote back saying I didn’t think that would work, suggesting that the freezing of motion had to be an optical effect, rather than just people standing still. I didn’t know how it would work, but it was the only way I wanted to do it.

I then suggested that for some test money I could show them something. To their credit, they accepted. Obviously we were the dearest quote, doing it the most expensive way and wanting test money to prove our theories.

We investigated many ways of doing it. We talked to people in Los Angeles about film opticals and to optical people here. We went to Custom Video because of the very good freezes they could do on the Quantel. I had an idea they could get really good chroma keys.

Nowadays, when you look at the chroma keys on the news, it is pretty good. Custom Video came up with the variation on a straight chroma key.

We were looking at shooting on tape, which worried me because I don’t like tape much. It suddenly hit me that film was in fact a live key. If you do it with a video camera on tape, you have to do the keying on the run, and this can be Steve’s. There was enormous haphazard. That idea, and the research on it. h a n d - p a i n t i n g , w e re th e breakthroughs for me.

At what stage did you become involved with the project?

Why did you employ hand-painting?

some idea of the craft and creativity involved in the produc­ tion of the commercial that was nominated by the FACTS award judges as the commercial of the year.

There are many reasons why production companies and agencies support and enter these awards, and the international Cannes and Clio competitions. To be singled out and recognized by one’s peers probably outweighs the appreciation of the client for selling more of his product. The desire to maintain and increase the integrity and standards of the in­ dustry can be easily lost in the market place.

When an advertising agency is retained to produce a cam­ paign for a public service organization, as FCB/Spasm were for the “ .05 drink/driving” campaign, the considerations and responsibilities are even greater. The skill in communication required to reach, in 60 seconds of its only partial attention, an audience that is being asked to change life-long habits and prejudices is considerable.

The commercials were made in Melbourne by Corbett Cambridge and it was in their South Melbourne office that I talked to the series director Peter Corbett. We were joined later by the commercials cameraman, Gary Hansen, and also talked to Ian Pietsch from Custom Video, where the final assembly was done.

Peter Corbett has directed a number of award-winning commercials. The .05 series also won a Silver Lion and a Diploma for Special Effects at the Cannes Advertising Festival.

When I first saw the commercials I was pleased to feel that emotional tug one gets when a commercial is working . . .

That’s because the scripts were very good and not just dependent on the effects. They were written by Steve Bennett, in collaboration with Alex Dumas; I think the idea of everyone standing still was

The agency [FCB/Spasm] sent Because I didn’t want to use the scripts and asked for a quote. It double chroma keys, which would was a four-way quote and the have m eant s e p a r a t in g my original brief was that they wanted background and foreground action. everyone to stand still — just stop People had to feel and act moving, like a piece of theatre. I realistically. If they didn’t, I would

have been selling the script short for the sake of the technique. So, we did a lot of tests.

What in fact happened was that we keyed Paul Cronin [lead actor], who was shot against blue screen.

He is a controllable actor and could react to something that wasn’t there. We keyed him against the whole scene, but then drew the foreground back in with a handdrawn matte done on the spot. We put a television camera up with the cameras, fed it back in and replaced the foreground where we painted.

The advantage with this method over the Film matte was that any imperfection in the matte didn’t register as a black line but registered the old background. We might have lost a bit of Paul Cronin’s coat as he moved, but it didn’t matter because you can see details of something else. The foreground matte is cleaner than the background chroma key.

Paul then went overseas and we had to delay the shoot four weeks, so I had time to think about it all.

Variations came in as I thought of what I could do with this technique.

It suddenly occurred to me, for instance, that if Paul cleared the foreground for one frame [in Cardgame] we could move the foreground hand-drawing back into the background and he could walk through the group again — which always fools people.

Gradually, the technique became more and more complicated — not from shooting experiments, but by taking the time to think things out.

The series looks consistent in style . . .

We had to do the four scripts in one hit, which is probably why they are so even — including the barbecue one, which was the most difficult because we had to match the outdoor lighting with Paul in the studio. Cardgame just happened to end up the best. It probably should have been Pub because it is the most obvious of them.

Somehow Cardgam e works because of the smaller cast and the involvement of them all. The secret was probably that the opening of Cardgame was all ad lib. The other scripts were so tight that they didn't happen — the old story!

What creatively did you add to the scripts?

When I first got the script it had no shot descriptions: “ tracking shot” , “ close up", etc. What I received, which I think is the best form for this sort of thing, was a prose description of the action and dialogue.

Once I get a job I draw rough storyboards, deciding where the camera should go. With these scripts, because of the technical problems, there was only one way of editing. So, it was all planned and controlled precisely.

The other thing I did was to use C IN E M A P A P ER S

September-October — 373

quite long shots through the spots. and chatting. Because I wanted In Pub I think the first shot was 13 them all to ad lib, I didn’t give them seconds long and the final shot 17 any dialogue. All that stuff in the seconds long, which is unusual for a opening of Cardgame are their lines; the only words scripted were television commercial.

Paul’s lines. Most of the key people That must have made Paul Cronin’s were good actors and could do that. timing of moves even more difficult . . .

This must have made the quote pretty expensive . . .

Not really. Paul was only keyed in for the few critical shots. What It should have been more! I think was a problem was that Paul had to the four came in at about $80,000. look the same whether or not he Since there were three sets, one of was keyed in. So, all the tracking which was a full pub, that’s pretty shots are of Paul actually there in a good. real crowd. The surprise of Paul We shot them in our studio at coming in real, and then coming Armstrong St, which was a bit of a into the crowd again and everyone squeeze. And we shot each stopping, was the whole effect. It commercial on the same day. We had to be good. did the pub stuff, the whole 60 It is easy to key, but very hard to seconds, and then shot all the blue key and not make it look like a key. screen stuff on the same day. There The skill in doing that is due a lot to was a very good reason: it helped Gary Hansen; his cinematography everybody to remember how the is absolutely superb. lights were, and how the lighting Another thing we did was put at worked. Because it was shot on the end of each commercial a long film, we had no real way of end shot where Paul sums up by memorizing how the lighting saying, “ When you’re out with a looked, other than by Gary’s mate who’s a bit under the weather, memory. You get atmosphere in a offer to drive him home.” This is a pub that is very hard to duplicate; consistent message as he walks we couldn’t have done it out of a through the people and we get s tu d io w ith o u t t h a t u ltr a tighter and tighter on him. When he controllable lighting. finally asks, “ What sort of friend We brought in a special Panaflex are you?” , there is a freeze and we with a video split. The whole gate move right into a close-up of his we had flown in from Britain, so face. that we could get a proper video That was all our contribution split with a good registration film and, in this case, it was a “live” camera. freeze: the people did actually stop.

Because you have seen those terrific Was that just the monochrome video freezes earlier, you think that one is image? good too.

Yes, but a good one. We were Did you have final say on casting? relying entirely on the registration of video split, and we had multiple Yes. I don’t think I even cassette units. The matching was presented alternatives. The agency very complicated and Paul Cronin also let me have a fairly free hand was amazing. He was talking to Cin terms of organization — set stands for position. A-nd trying to designs and things like that. They walk between two people, when are all sets [by Bulldog Design], of they are not there, is very difficult. course, shot in a studio.

What I did on casting, especially How long were the shooting days? with the pub sequence which has about 40 people, was hand-pick We ended up shooting four 13 to every extra. We looked at hundreds 14-hour days. The budget was of people. good, but not that good. I think we For Cardgame, we gathered in all spent about $8000 on videotape the extras and got a lot of beer in costs which none of the other for the final screen test. I wandered companies that quoted would have around with a hand-held video had in their costs. We also spent camera and taped them drinking $2500 on tests. So, we had to keep 374 - September-October CINEMA PAPERS

tight on what we were doing.

The post-production went smoothly with the agency. It was relatively simple because we had done so much pre-production and explained the structure so carefully.

Also, how do you say to the client, “ This is the roll with all the background and this is the roll with the blue screen; now, imagine them together.” We tried to do it by inter-cutting, putting in twice as many cuts to give some idea where Paul was moving. It was an amazing feeling, despite all the testing we had done, to sit at Custom Video with all this incredibly expensive film, financed by this little production company and not knowing, until the final moment, whether it was going to work.

For three days we tied up the entire facilities of Custom Video: the tape machines, telecine and Quantel control room. We needed the telecine all the time to get the live key. We had a little OB van for one day to do a chroma key check on the lighting. We shipped the first day's rushes to Custom Video and had them check the key out. We modified things slightly as we went: the-pub was the first one and by the time we got to the third, which was

the cardgame, we were quite confident.

The sound was interesting, too. I used Gary Wilkins on sound and we recorded on multiple Nagras.

I just wasn’t happy with the old routine of everyone “ talking” silently, opening and closing their mouths, then doing a buzz track.

So we close-miked Paul with a radio mike and recorded that on a separate Nagra. I was also trying to get snippets of conversation as he walked by.

Doing a Robert Altman . . .

Exactly. Gary and I talked a lot about Altman. Gary had just come off Bruce Beresford’s film and Bruce works like that now. It worked well. We did one quiet and it looked totally different. Paul’s got a good voice and it was the perfect commercial to do that.

I guess you know they only went to air in Tasmania. Then the Razor Gang slashed and that was the end of them — after spending an unbelievable amount of money.

They researched in Hobart and Launceston and compared the results, then it died. It’s like so many government projects; it’s an awful shame.

ary Hansen is known for his feature photography on Manganinnie, the New Zealand feature Bad Blood and has just completed We of the Never Never. He is about to start on Tony Williams’ Before the Night Is Out. He has worked on a number of commercials for Peter Corbett and I asked him about the problems he faced in photographing the drink/drive campaign.

G

Gary: The video splits that were available in Australia did not have the quality we needed. So, we had Samuelsons import a Panaflex. It was the best video split I have seen.

It is a partially rebuilt camera with the television tube sticking up over the viewfinder. There is no degrada­ tion of the image in the viewfinder.

You would have been totally dependent on the television image for positioning of Paul Cronin later . . .

Peter: Yes. We first shot the background on film with the video split being recorded on a U-matic.

When we saw an area we thought had the potential of a good freeze frame, we found a frame by freezing the ta p e with the pause/still frame button. We actually had two U-matics, one e a c h fo r f o r e g r o u n d and background.

When we picked a freeze, we drew the outlines with a chinagraph pencil on the monitor. We placed everybody back in position using the video feed to get them lined up exactly. Then we put Paul Cronin into the set and videotaped him walking around and doing his lines with everyone still. We used that as a guide when we were doing the

blue screen later, so we knew where When we were lighting, we made he should be looking. It was most sure that we always had a backlight important that his eye-lines were in the style, so that there was a little correct. kicker of light on the hair. When we Gary: That was another thing did Paul against the blue screen, we with the lighting th a t was used a slightly amber light as a important. When he walked among backlight. It was Peter’s idea to the people and when he was against cancel out any blue bleedthrough. the blue screen, we went to a lot of It w-orked quite well. The wholejob effort to make sure that, for was quite demanding on Paul. He example, when in the cardgame he said it was the toughest thing he bends over next to someone's face, had done — not just performance, we could match the shadow that but the incredible mechanics falls on his face. That was one of involved.

Peter: Although it was a budget the trickiest things to watch from req u ire m en t to shoot each my point of view. commercial in the one day, it Did you have to strike the sets helped us to remember the set-ups.

The cardgame was the toughest. before setting up the blue screen?

We did 38 takes to get that walk Peter: No, they were set up side between the people.

Gary: When we shot the by side. Everything was carefully logged and timed, Polaroids and background scenes that Paul was videotapes were taken. So, by the keyed into, we tried to shoot the end of the day, with our brains still scene with the focus accurately set racing, we shot Paul against the on where he would have been. That blue screen and matched his action. helped to give the right perspective He had enormous restrictions: when he was matted in.

Peter: Actually, we later had to when he had to walk between two people he had to imagine where defocus the telecine slightly to get the right feeling, which Gary didn’t they were.

As 1 said, we put up C-stands, know about. It was a subtle thing bits of wood and blocks to give him on a couple of scenes; because of positions. They were not a problem the smoky atmosphere, it seemed to because we masked them out with need it. When we tried to match the video wipes. As long as we got Paul smoke on the blue screen shots, the absolutely clean, with a little bit of screen just went grey. Getting the space around him, we were right. I key was fairly easy; the fine-tuning don’t know exactly how many took hours and hours. wipes we used, but we had at least three on one shot of him walking And paid off in believability . . . around.

Gary: Actually, we got very used Was the blue screen a true rear-lit to shooting. people who weren't there. It would have been great to screen or just a painted eye? be able to combine the videotape Gary: Just a standard blue eye. 1 images on a monitor to check, but don’t know where the colored paint we just didn't have the gear.

We shot the whole series clean comes from, but each time I do one with no filters, to get a stylish look. it’s different. On film it’s more of a hassle because when shooting on We shot at low light levels, so the tape you can look at a monitor and lenses were working slightly wide immediately modify it. On film you open. One of our objectives was not are only working with exposure to compromise the quality just balance between the background because we were going to key Paul in. and the light on the subject.

The first day’s shooting was sent to Ian at Custom Video and he said Which is one of the main reasons it would key, although it was that chroma keys often look dodgy. The blue came out false . . . extremely light. It’s only with Gary: Yes. That's where it makes experimentation that you know where you are. For example, if the it look obvious. It would have been eye was originally white that seems much quicker to light Paul to come through even with lots of somewhat badly just to get a good key. blue coats over it.

an Pietsch is the operations manager at Custom Video in Sydney. I asked him to elaborate on the video techni­ ques involved.

The fact that we could do the mattes and keying on a frozen frame made thejob possible. If they had kept moving, we would have had to do a hand-painted matte for every frame of the sequence. It was also easier to have Paul step into frame after the freeze happens. It saves drawing frame for frame again.

In the commercial where he drops the key, we did do that one frame at a time. It's a piece of animation.

them in: they became the back­ ground roll for the chroma key.

The next step was to chroma key Paul over that roll. After we had done that, shot by shot, we wept back and put the composite chroma key and background in sync with the original background roll. We then did the hand-drawn matte to bring the foreground up.

The section with the hand-drawn mattes took about two days; the other day was allocated for the chroma keys and freezes.

And the freeze frame selected came from the digital frame store on the Quantel?

Were there any problems doing the chroma key from the telecine?

Yes. The only reason we used the Quantel 5001 instead of a freeze frame from our 1-inch was that it gives a perfectly-registered, accurate freeze frame every time.

How was the hand-painted matte made?

It was done on white paper with pentel pens and black ink, with white correcting fluid for mistakes.

The technique was a simple key.

We had the freeze frame up on the monitor sitting next to the white sheet, so that as we drew it you could see exactly what was happening.

The sequence of events was this: first, we did the background A&B roll transfers, then we did the freeze. This was accurately worked out by Mike Reed, who calculated, by frame count, the exact length of all the shots, and the length the freeze had to be. Then, we did the freezes on the Quantel and dropped

No. A few of the scenes were a bit dodgy, but with the heavybacklighting of the subject it all keyed very well. We could now probably do a better job with our Ultimatte IV, but it hadn’t then arrived in the country. (For details of the Ultimatte, see Cinema Papers, No. 32, “ New' Products” , p. 167.) The chroma key was straight R.G.B. from the CDF 480 mixer. We were happy with the results.

Crew Director: Peter Corbett. Photography: G ary Hansen. A sst cameraman: Peter Van Santen. Sound: G ary W ilkins. Gaffer 1: Brian Adams. Gaffer 2: Colin Chase. G rip 1: Paul Ammitzboll. G rip 2: Peter Kershaw.

Boom op.: M a rk Wasitak. Art directors: Jo Ford, Ray W ilkinson. Unit manager: Anne M oody. Prod, assts: Helga Sullivan. Ewan Burnett. Make-up: Annie Pospichel 1. Editor: M ik e Reed post productions. Lab.: V F L .

Equipment: Samuelsons.

T

he decision not to run these commercials after the test screening in Tasmania is apparently under review by the Australian Government Advertising Service (AGAS). So, people may get the chance to judge the series of four 60-second commercials for themselves.

If, for study purposes, anyone would like to buy a cassette of the video cassette of the four spots, FCB/Spasm have agreed to make them available. For price and aetails contact Alex Dumas. FCB/Spasm. 10 Dorcas St. South Melbourne, Vic., 3205. * CINEMA PAPERS September-Ociober — 375

John L anger A publicity sheet d istrib u ted by Peter Luck P r o d u c t i o n s o n t h e t e l e v i s i o n s e r i e s The Aus­ tralians s t a t e s t h a t , “ i n a s e n s e . The Australians t a k e s o v e r f r o m w h e r e This Fabulous Century left off. T h e first se r i e s t o o k us t h r o u g h t h e p a s t 1 0 0 y e a r s t ill n o w , a n d The Australians l o o k s a t w h a t m a k e s us tick t o d a y " . In a n o t h e r sense, the series h as a m o r e p ro fo u n d political a n d social location, a n d can be related to th at lengthy and, at tim e s, ob sessiv e s e a rc h for w h a t R ussell W a r d h a s called “ a specific A u s t r a l i a n o u t l o o k " . 1 In h i s b o o k o n l i b e r a l i s m a n d “ n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r " , T im R o w s e po in ts to an e n d u rin g p re o c c u p a tio n with notions of n ational “ c h a r a c ­ ter" or “ e th o s ” a m o n g A u s tra lia n writers, critics, a n d h isto ria n s. H e a r g u e s t h a t this p r e ­ o c c u p a t i o n b e g a n in e a r n e s t in t h e l a t e 1 9 3 0 s , with w riters an d critics m o v e d by c o m m i t m e n t to a p o p u list view o f c u lt u r e a n d a s t r o n g sense of o p p o sitio n to d o m in an ce from the “ m etropolis".

Basic to th e ir d e fin itio n o f the A u s t r a l i a n m y s t i q u e w a s a n a n t i - e l i t i s m g r o u n d e d in a p r a g ­ m atic outlook, a straightforw ard stance and a hostility to abstract ideas.

Literature thus b e c a m e the l o c a tio n for e x p re s s in g the c o m m o n A u s t r a l i a n e x p e rie n c e , a n d th e m e d i a t o r for social an d m o ra l values, including th at key v i r tu e , e g a l i t a r i a n i s m . By t h e 1960s, w ith t h e e m e r g e n c e o f w h a t R o w s e calls the “ p o p u lis t new critics" — Donald Horne and C raig M c G r e g o r , for e x a m p l e — this d i s c o u r s e on “ national c h a ra c te r" had b e co m e increasingly e n t r e n c h e d as a w a y o f w r itin g a b o u t A u s tr a l ia .

T h e new critics’ w o rk w as shaped by the belief t h a t this A u s t r a l i a n e th o s c o u ld be b est r e v ea le d by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on an e v o c a ti o n o f th e e v e r y ­ d a y , th e t a k e n - f o r - g r a n t e d w a y s o f living t h a t displayed the basic c o m m o n sentim ents of the “ typical A u s tr a l ia n " .2

1. R. Ward. The Australian Legend, Oxford University Press, 1964. p.3.

2. T. Rowse, A ustralian Liberalism and N ational Character, Kibble Books, 1978. See Introduction, and pp. 255-259.

Pro Hart, an

"anything but typical” Australian. T he

A u s tr a lia n s .

376 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Z elm an

Cowen

and

Je ff St.

John.

W hen

the

T h e stra te g y m o s t used to discuss this “ expressive m ic r o c o s m " w as the illustrative vignette which w as su p p o sed to c a p tu re the te x tu re a n d tru th o f this A u s tra lia n ethos.

D o m e s t i c lifestyles, s u b u r b i a , b e a c h a n d p u b culture, gam bling, sense of h u m o r and a certain e g alitarian taxi driver c o m p rise d the fam iliar im a g e ry associated with the essential aspects of t h e A u s t r a l i a n c h a r a c t e r . A s R o w s e s e e s it. t h e r e w a s a distin ct shift a w a y f r o m an “ e x p l a n a t o r y m o d e " , s t r o n g l y b a s e d in a s e n s e o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l an d the social, t o w a r d an e m p h a s is on the “ e v o c ­ a t i v e r e n d e r i n g " t h r o u g h w h i c h h i s t o r y is d ra in e d a w a y a n d by w hich “ political events an d i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e h e l d t o h a v e t h e i r o r i g i n s in t h e b a s i c o u t l o o k s o f ‘a v e r a g e A u s t r a l i a n s ’ ’V A t f i r s t g l a n c e , t h e t i t l e o f t h e s e r i e s , The Aus­ tral i a ns, c o n n o t e s t h i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d d isc o u rse , a n d th e title s e q u e n c e itself h o ld s the p r o m i s e t h a t t h e “ t y p i c a l l y ” A u s t r a l i a n will be the su b je ct o f th e p r o g r a m . H e r e o n e view s, a l m o s t l i k e a h o m e s l i d e n i g h t , a s e q u e n c e o f still p h o t o g r a p h s : classic, o n e m ig h t even say cliched, im a g e s o f the faces a n d the g e o g r a p h y asso c iated with quintessential A u stralian-ness. A s Peter A l l e n w a r b l e s o n t h e s o u n d t r a c k t h a t h e “ still c a l l s A u s t r a l i a h o m e " , o n e s e e s in r a p i d succession a long, straig h t ro a d bisecting the f l a t t e s t o f l a n d s c a p e s , a c o n g e s t e d s t r e e t in M e l ­ b o u r n e w i t h a t r a m p r o m i n e n t l y f o r e g r o u n d e d in t h e f r a m e , a n A b o r i g i n a l in c l o s e - u p w e a r i n g a s t o c k m a n ’s h a t , s m a l l b o y s p l a y i n g A u s t r a l i a n rules foo tb all, a s u r f lifesaver sp r i n g i n g into action, several p ictu resq u e sunsets with “ fiery” e v ening skies an d even the g lo rio u s silh o u ette o f a k a n g a ro o , that m o st identifiably A u s tra lia n of al l A u s t r a l i a n a n i m a l s — a c o f f e e t a b l e b o o k o n A u s t r a l i a at its fines t. Y e t s t r a n g e l y , e v en p e rh ap s perversely, the subject m a tte r of the p r o g r a m s w ith in th e series s e e m s to belie th ese over-m ythologized im ages.

F a r from dealing with the “ typical” or the “ a v e r a g e " A u s t r a l i a n , th e series s e e m s m o s t fascinated, a lm o st fixated, on the atypical an d t h e u n a v e r a g e . O u t o f 2 0 e p i s o d e s , 14 f o c u s o n A u s tra lia n s w ho are a n y th in g but typical, such as J im H a rd y , D avid W illia m so n , P ro H a rt, Sir

series d o e s try to build a version o f the typically A u s t r a l i a n , it is c a s t i n t o c a t e g o r i e s t h a t c o n j u r e so m e past era, so m e part of A u stra lia n culture w h i c h is a l l b u t l o s t o r s u r v i v e s a s s o m e historical r e m n a n t fro m a b e tte r or sim p le r tim e.

Shearers, co u n try -to w n deb u tan tes, survivors o f the K o k o d a T rail b e c o m e the focus for a t t e n t i o n , b u t i n s u c h a w a y t h a t t h i s f o c u s is c a s t b a c k w a r d , into a fo rm o f n o sta lg ic lo n g in g or the desire to retra ce and rekindle m em o ries .

T his occurs m o st specifically a n d m o st p o in te d ly in t h e e p i s o d e c a l l e d “ T h e T r a i l ” w h e r e t h r e e o l d d iggers literally re tra c e th eir p ro g re ss alo n g the K o k o d a T rail, to erect a m o n u m e n t for their d e a d m a te s. T h e use o f old w a r fo o tag e , the diggers' r e -e n a c tm e n ts o f sk irm ish es with the e n e m y a n d t h e r u n n i n g d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t h o w it “ a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d " s e r v e a s e l e m e n t s in t h e reconstitution of a “ real" past tim e.

If m e m o r y a n d n o s t a lg i c lo n g in g o p e r a t e as one of the m o re consistent th e m a tic projects of t h e s e r i e s , t h e o t h e r is i t s c o n c e r n w i t h t h e u n e x p e c te d , th e p o w e r f u l, th e rich, t h e p r i v ­ ileged, th e su ccessfu l a n d th e m a r g i n a l , m o tif s w h i c h s e e m t o sit v e r y u n c o m f o r t a b l y w i t h a n y notions of the average or typical A u stra lia n . W e e n co u n ter the truck-driving m u m . the G o v e r n o r ­ G eneral. the successful playw right, the eccentric w o rk in g -c la ss artist, the v e n e ra b le old V ic­ t o r ia n hotel s e rv in g th e n e e d s o f th e rich a n d fam ous, the m ulti-m illionaire wine m e rc h an t and y a c h tsm a n , the o u tb a c k circus clow n, the paraplegic rock singer an d the experim ental r a d io st a ti o n ru n by te e n a g e r s .

F r o m the v i e w p o in t o f this telev isio n series, the “ sp ecifically A u s t r a l i a n o u t l o o k " a p p e a r s to h a v e ta k e n on a r a th e r d iffe re n t k in d of m e a n i n g . T h i s m a y b e e x p l a i n e d in p a r t b y t h e fact t h a t th e r e n d e r i n g o f th e “ ty p ic a l A u s ­ tralian" has entered a different kind of d is c o u rs e , for th e c o n c e p t h a s b e e n r e i t e r a t e d so o f t e n t h a t it h a s l o s t i t s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l e d g e , o p e ratin g now m erely th ro u g h the w ell-form ed c o n t o u r s o f c l i c h e a n d s t e r e o t y p e . A s a r e s u l t , its p o w e r as an analytical or descriptive tool has been seriously eroded.

3. Ibid, p.257.

F o rm s of culture an d exposition have a ten d en cy to m o v e th ro u g h p h a se s over tim e. T h e

Producer Peter Luck (right) interviews Sir Zelman Cowen for an episode (T he Q u e e n ’s M a n ) o f T he A u s tr a lia n s .

Toots , the truck-driving mum ”. T he A u s tr a lia n s .

Western as a recognizable genre, for example, evolved through a series of stages — the first serious, the period of classicism in which conventions and themes were developed and fixed; the second involving additional sophistica­ tion and realism with the psychologization of the Western hero; the third in which the genre entered a phase of “ reflexive consciousness” , where the Western stereotypes could be openly acknowledged and affectionately mocked.

At this point, the conventions of the form are so well known and so familiar that they can be easily played with so as to become a source of comedy. This is the baroque phase of the Western which saw the growth of such self-con­ scious parodies as Cat Ballou, Support Your Local Sheriff. Blazing Saddles and The Frisco Kid. The discourse on the typical Australian as a “form” of analysis of national character may, like the Western, have entered a phase of self­ conscious reflexivity. Those codes and conven­ tions, the grammar that was defined by the new critics as constituting the typical Australian, has passed on into the popular idiom. This grammar has become familiar enough, and as a result unthreatening enough to be maintained as a source of uninhibited mockery or affectionate parody.

The typical Australian enters the television discourse, then, not in terms of some serious attempt to explore national character, but in terms of humor — hence the rise and popularity of such television personae as Paul Hogan, Norman Gunston, Ted and Thelma Bullpit, or Dame Edna Everage. The notion of the typical Australian may have outlived its usefulness as a critical element in the populist discussion of Australian culture, so much so that it can now survive only in an altered state, as a source ot amusement and fun.

Residues of the typical Australian do, however, surface within the television discourse: advertising uses the evocation of daily life as a standard practice to sell products and promote consumerism, and quiz shows are built on making a space for the average Australian to “have a go” , but once again only within the context of a consumerist ethic.

If the typical Australian and the evocation of daily life has fallen on hard times, becoming primarily the butt of satire or the principal vehicle through which to promote consumer­ ism, is there some other development which works as a substitute? In the case of television it may be the cult of the celebrity.

In this sense The Australians is not very far removed from The Don Lane Show, The Mike Walsh Show or Parkinson in Australia. In varying degrees each of these programs is pre­ occupied with what might be referred to as the pursuit of especially remarkable people. On the one hand there are the “elite persons” who are visibly connected with social positions of prestige, money or institutional power, whose very-being-as-they-are makes them easy con­ tenders for celebrity. The Australians, like The 4. See A. Tudor, Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology o f Film, Allen and Unwin, 1974. pp.184-218.

Don Lane Show, abounds with these elite personages.

On the other hand, there are those unsus­ pecting “ ordinary people” who have no privilege or institutional status, but are made celebrities because their activities create the necessary conditions for the dramatization of the unusual.

Celebrity bestowed on ordinary people works in terms of their acting-as-they-do: how they behave to breach our expectations about the world gives them access to those moments of media glory.

Those “ interesting” / “ amazing” / “ extraordinary characters” that Peter Luck is so fond of mentioning during his narration for each episode —- Toots the truck-driving mother who has “ become a bit of a legend” in the far north; Pro Hart, “w'hose unorthodox style and unusual hobbies have always kept the critics guessing”; or those “ philosophers on four wheels” , the Sydney cabbies — are just as likely to be in a guest spot chatting amiably to a talk show host as in The Australians. The typical Australian doesn’t make for good television, unless cast in a comic mode; the especially remarkable Aus­ tralian, cast as a celebrity, does.

Celebrity is not just an expression of being or performance in the public domain. It operates by establishing and cultivating the realm of the private. What especially remarkable people are or do must always be juxtaposed with an emphasis on what they are “ really” like “as people” , what they think or feel about what they are or do. The interplay between the spheres of the public and the private — the generation of the intimacy effect — constitutes the basic structure of celebrityhood.

In these terms, once again, The Australians is not unlike the talk show. Through its carefully orchestrated informality the talk show promotes what gets defined as personal disclosure. Guests are encouraged to reveal aspects of their “private selves” and access to these “ private selves” is set up to serve as a guarantor of truth about the person, to create a sense of intimate and private knowledge. The private sphere is somehow valued as “ more real” , more sincere, or more genuine than actions or events in the public arena.

The Australians is permeated with this

ideology of personalization. Like the guests on the talk show, those Australians selected for the series are encouraged to reflect on the events and actions that make up their lives. Thus the Boorowa debs discuss how it feels “to be intro­ duced to society” , the old diggers talk about how they felt during the Kokoda Trail campaign or Sir Zelman Cowen ponders on his warm feelings during an investiture ceremony at Yarralumla.

Each episode is systematically punctuated by these “ intimate moments” of self-disclosure.

Apart from the literal content of the talk, however, another level of meaning operates to give the appearance that the private self is being revealed. Simply put, what is important is not so much what you actually say but the fact that you can be seen saying it for yourself.

The very act of speaking for oneself is a type of disclosure. Talking for yourself and being “caught” doing so individuates you, making you a “ real person” whether you are Sir Zelman Cowen or a teenage disc jockey. We see the private reflection taking place before our very eyes. The actual scene/seen of disclosure is there for us to know and judge. “ Pictures. . . are more imperative than writing, they impose meaning at one stroke without analyzing or diluting it.”5 When the subject is framed by the camera in a relatively close-up shot of the face, the intimacy effect becomes doubly articulated, generating an even more compelling view of the private domain. Special psychological significance is widely claimed for the close-up. It is this kind of shot, out of possible shots, that is thought to provide the optimal conditions for the disclosure of human subjectivity. Thus, speaking for oneself in The Australians also means speaking through the language of facial expression.

Together, these two encoding operations work to produce the realm of the private, saturating it with a sense of intimacy.

It should be noted that neither, in the instance of speaking for oneself nor of being framed in close-up, is television merely operating as a transparent medium through which the “ real s e lf may be glimpsed. The reading of facial Concluded on p. 413 5. R. Barthes, from S. Hall, “The Determinations of News Photographs” , in S. Cohen and J. Young, The Manufacture o f News, Constable, 1973, p. 178.

Retracing the Kokoda Trail: T he T r a il episode o f The

A Boorowa girl makes her debut in B o o ro w a D e b s ( T he

A u str a lia n s .

A u s tr a lia n s ) .

CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 377

Or dusty docos, cracked commercials, sparkled specials.

All caused by hair, dust or dirt landing on the neg.

Our new Telecine Clean Room sees to that.

We filter the air before it goes into the room.

We filter the air circulating

over the film during video transfer.

We keep the air pressure slightly higher inside the room so no dust can blow in.

We even lonically filter the air to equalise the ions produced by air conditioning that can cause magnetic attraction of dust onto the film surface.

We built our Clean Room because we know that once its on the neg, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s on for good.

And that means a poorer result for you. Come and see for yourself: the dust never settles at Videolab.

A division of the ( Uiorfilrn group of companies.

Leo Burnett 4 2877

S ta n d b y w a rd ro b e ................R o s a le a Hood D a n c ers . D a n c es of Asia.

P ro p s b u y e r ........................... A le th e a D e an e S y n o p s is : S p e c ta c u la r m u s ic a l v a rie ty p ro g ra m with top artists from Asia and S ta n d b y p ro p s .......................N ick M c C a llu m A ustralia.

S e t d re s s e r ............................ H a rv e y M a w so n S et con stru ctio n .......................Phil W orth, H ans T h ie le D u b b in g e d ito r ........................John H ollan ds M u s ic e d ito r ............................G a rry H a rd m a n B est boy ........................................ P e te r M oyes P rod, c o m p a n y ......... F e rry m a n Tele v is ion R u n n e rs ........................................ M ik e F a ra n d a , T H E A L C H E R IN G A S T O N E P rods S te ve O tton Dist. c o m p a n y ..........................C h a n n e l 0 /2 8 P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................A A V -A u s tra lia C a te rin g ................................... Fillum C a te rin g P ro d u c e r ........................................Eric Fullilove P ro d u ctio n s M ix e d at ....................................................V id e o la b D ire cto r .................................W illiam Fitzw a ter Dist. c o m p a n y ..................... D. L. T a ffn e r Ltd L a b o ra to rie s .................... C o lo rfilm , V id e o la b P h o to g ra p h y ....................... B ob M c D o n n e ll P r o d u c e r ................................................................. JillR o bLab. b liaison ................................. P e te r B ow lay S o u n d re c o rd is t ..............................Leo Pollini D ire c to r ...........................................H o w a rd R u b ie Length ...................................................... 60 m ins Exec, p ro d u c e r ........................Ian M a c A rth u r S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................... T e d R o b e rts G auge ......... 1 6 m m and 2 inch v id e o ta p e Assoc, p ro d u c e r .................... J a n e t E astm an B a se d on a novel by .......... O s m a r W h ite S hoo tin g s t o c k ..............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P rod, m a n a g e r . . M a rg a re t Rose S trin g e r S o u n d R e c o r d is t ......................... D on C o n n o lly P ro g res s ..............................................P ro d u ctio n C a m e ra o p e ra to rs (film ) . . A lan B lackw ell, E d i t o r ....................................................................To n y P aters on John S ta n to n (B e lla m y ), Tim Elston C ast: Phil Dority, C o m p o s e r .............................................................R ay C ook (M itc h e ll), J a m e s C o n d o n (D a le y ), A d a m Kevin Rigby A sso c, p r o d u c e r .............. S p yro s S id e ra to s G a rn e tt (G in g e r).

C a m e ra o p e ra to rs (v id eo ) . . .T erry Busch, P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .......................... C hris H erd S y n o p s is : A h a r d -h ittin g p o lic e a c tio n G a ry W right, P ro d , m a n a g e r .................................Iren e Korol s eries a b o u t th e to u g h es t cop in tow n, with S te p h e n Banks, U nit m a n a g e r ....................................................... BillAustin the to u g h es t jo b in tow n.

G reg Boswell P ro d , s e c r e t a r y ................ Rosslyn A b e rn e th y Vision m ix e r ................................D ennis Busch P rod, a c c o u n ta n t .................... C o n n ie Dellios V id e o e d ito r .............................

John C a m e ro n 1st ass t d ire c to r .......................... John W a rre n A udio m ixe r ..................................D avid W rig h t 2n d asst d ir e c t o r ............................................... Les C u rrie T e c h n ic al d ire c to r ...........................C hris D ent 3 rd asst d i r e c t o r ...........................................G e rry E ld er Vision control ...................Paul O 'D o n o g h u e C o n tin u ity .........................................S ia n H u g h e s P rod, c o m p a n y ......... F e rry m a n T elevision Length ........................................................

56 m ins C a s t in g ............................... M itc h C o n s u lta n cy .

P rods S c h e d u le d re le a s e ......... S e p te m b e r 1981 C asting c o n su ltan ts . . .M itc h C ons u lta n cy , Dist. c o m p a n y .......................... C h a n n e l 0 /2 8 C a s t: G u ille r m o K eys A r e n a s . D a v o o d A b o rig in a l Artists A ge nc y P ro d u c e r ........................................Eric Fullilove T a b rizi an d S a s h a S ay d . K o le d a C ro a tia n Lighting c a m e ra m a n .....................E rnie C la rk P h o to g ra p h y ................................ John M c L e an F olkloric E n se m b le. Lao L a n ex a n y D ancing Focus p u l l e r ...................................................M a rtin T u rn e r M usical d ire c to r ..................... Jack G rim s ley G r o u p . L o s T r a n s a n d in o s , P a n a g ia C la p p e r /lo a d e r ............................G e o ff T a n n e r Exec, p ro d u c e r ......................... B rian W o o d s S o u m e la w ith G e o r g e K o n s ta n tin id is , Key g r i p ................................... Lester C. B ishop P ro d , s u p erv iso r ....................... B re n d a P am S u m ra an d Fa ro u k. Swiss Y o d elle rs and Asst g rip ................................. A n d re w D ouglas P rod, m a n a g e r ..............M ic h ae l B o u rc h ier A lp e n h o rn G ro u p . S yd n e y D o m ra G a f f e r ..................................................T e d W illiam s C o n tin u ity /s c rip t .................... Bryon Q uigley E nse m b le.

B oom o p e ra to r .............. G ra h a m M c K in n e y C asting ........................................... C olin B a ke r S y n o p s is : S p e c ta c u la r m u s ic p ro g ra m A rt d i r e c t o r .....................................John R obe rts C asting c o n su ltan ts . . . U niversal C asting b a s e d on th e S h e ll N a tio n a l F o lk lo ric Asst art d ire c to r ...............................B rian Keys C a m e ra o p e ra to rs ......................... John Bott, Festival of 1981.

M a k e -u p ...............................M a r g a re t Lin g h a m , T re v o r Busch, W a r d r o b e .......................................... A n n a J a k a b G ary W rig h t, W a rd , assistan t .................................Gail M a y es P e te r S ca n lan P rops b u y e r ..................................................... John W atson Key grip ......................................... 'N oel M e n zie s S ta n d b y p r o p s ................................................P e te r Burgess G a ffe r ................................... G e o rg e H arrin g to n S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ...................C o n ra d R o th m an n M a k e -u p ........................................... S te ve S h aw P rod, c o m p a n y .................... C ra w fo rd P rods S e t c o n stru ctio n .........................B arry H u ghes H a ird re s s e r . . .............................G ay G a lla g h e r Dist. c o m p a n y ...................... C ra w fo rd P rods A sst e d ito rs ............................ N o rv ale W a ts o n , C h o re o g ra p h y .........................Lucy J u m aw a n P ro d u c e r ....................................G w e n d a M a rsh J en n y P atte rs on Floor m a n a g e r ......................W a rre n C a n te llo D ire cto rs ........................................C olin Budds.

N eg. m a t c h in g ................................... R icky M ain Vision m ix e r ...............................D ennis Busch M a rk e Joffe, S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ..........P e te r A rm s tro n g A u d io re c o rd is t ..............................J oe P a lm e r B re n d a n M a h e r, S t u n t s ................................. S a m m y A rm s tro n g , A udio m ix e r ..................................D avid W right G eo ffre y N otta ge, A n d y C la rk e V id e o e d ito r ........................Paul O D o n o g h u e Bill Hughes L a b o ra to ry ................................................. C in e ve x S tu d io s ...........................................................N B N -3 , S o und re c o rd is t .............. A T V C h a n n e l 10 Lab. lia i s o n ......................................A llen J a m e s A rtra n s a E ditor ...................................... P eter A n d rik id is B u d g e t ................................................$ 1 .8 m illion Length ........................................................ 6 0 m ins C o m p o s e r ................................... M ik e P e rja n ik Length ............................................... 5 x 4 7 m ins First re le a s e d .....................................J u n e 1981 Exec, p ro d u c e rs ..............H e cto r C ra w fo rd , G a u g e ...............................................................1 6m m C ast: Francis Y ip . D a le A d ria tico , R a h im ah Ian C ra w fo rd S h o o tin g s t o c k ..............................E a s tm a n c o lo r R ahim . P e te r K w an, J oyce H o e v e n a a rs , P rod, c o -o rd in a to r ........................ S u e Evans S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. F e b ru a ry 1982 U u is n a N y o m e n , T h e C h in e s e S c a r f P rod, m a n a g e r ..................... Ray Hennessy C a st: R o b e rt V a u g h n (S te v e S in cla ir), H elen M o rs e (A n to n ia R ussell), G ra h a m K e n n e d y ( C h a s s e r F i t z p a t r i c k ) , L e o n a r d T e a le (H a m ilto n W rig h ts o n ), Ilona R ogers (P atti M o u n tfo rd ), John H o w a rd (P e te r M o u n t­ fo rd ), T o m m y Lew is (B en B u rn ie ), Tony B la c k e tt (D av id C a rlin ), Kuku Kaa (H u sk isson), R obin R a m sa y (F a th e r B rid g e s).

S y n o p s is : M u lti- m illio n a ir e in d u s tr ia lis t H a m ilto n W rig h tso n is e n ra g e d by th e ra n ­ d o m , s ee m in g ly u n w a rra n te d a tta c k s ta k in g p lac e , with in cre a sin g fre q u e n c y , th ro u g h ­ out his v ario u s e n te rp ris e s by u n k n o w n , u n ­ d e te c t a b le s a b o te u r s . H e h ire s e x - C IA a g en t, S te v e S in c la ir, to u n c o ve r th e iden tity of th e a tta c k e rs . W ith the a ss istan c e of W rig h tso n 's b e au tifu l a ssistant. Toni R u s ­ sell, S in c la ir re le n tle ss ly pu rs u es his q u a rry acros s s o m e of A u s tra lia ’s h a rsh e s t la n d ­ s ca p e .

S E R IE S

FESTIVAL FOLKLORIC

CLUB ORIENTAL

HOLIDAY ISLAND

BELLAM Y P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . G ru n d y O rg a n iza tio n Dist. c o m p a n y ...............................10 N etw o rk E xec, p r o d u c e r ...............................D on Battye In c h a rg e of p ro d u c tio n ............D avid Lee, Jan B la d ie r D ire cto rs ......................................Pino A m e n ta , C olin E ggleston S crip tw rite rs ...............................Ron M c L e a n , Rick M a ie r B a se d on th e orig in al id ea by ....................................... Ron M c L e a n P h o to g ra p h y ......................................K evin Lind S o u n d re c o rd is t ...............................Phil J u d d E ditor ............................................... F ra y n e D yke Art d ire c to r ......................... O w en P atte rs o n P ro d , s u p e rv is o r ..........................P e te r P in n e P rod, c o -o rd in a to r .......................D a le A rth u r U nit m a n a g e rs .......................... M ik e F a ra n d a , S te v e O tton 1st asst d ire c to rs ........................M a rk P ip er, G ra h a m M u rra y C o n tin u ity ..........................C a th e rin e S a u te r, Roz B e rrys to n e C a stin g ..............................................S u e M a n g e r, M a ry -A n n W illis C la p p e r /lo a d e r ...........................T ra c y K u b le r C a m e r a a ss istan t ................J e re m y Robins Key g rip ..................................... B re tt M c D o n e ll G a ffe r .................................................C ra ig B ry ant B oom o p e ra to r .............................D e an G aw in M a k e -u p ...................................... M ic h e lle Low e H a ird re s s e r ................................. M ic h e lle Low e W a rd ro b e .............................H e a th e r M c L a re n

Unit m a n a g e r .......................... G reg C a m p b e ll P rod, s e c re ta ry ..........................Inese V o g ler P rod, a c c o u n ta n t ............................. Ron Sinni 1st asst d ire c to rs ........................H o w a rd Neil, Ross P o rte r C ontin uity ................................... J a n e Lindsay, A n d re a J o rd an P ro d u c e r's assistant ................ John V o m e ro C asting ................................................G ail M e illon Lighting c a m e ra m a n . . . A T V C h a n n e l 10 C a m e ra o p e ra to r ............A T V C h a n n e l 10 Key G rip .................................A T V C h a n n e l 10 G a ffe r ........................................A T V C h a n n e l 10 E lectrician ...............................A T V C h a n n e l 10 A rt d ire c to rs ..........................R o b e rt P erkins, B ra d le y Ross M a k e -u p ................................. A T V C h a n n e l 10 H a ird re s s e r ............................ A T V C h a n n e l 10 W a rd ro b e ...............................A T V C h a n n e l 10 W a rd , assistant ...................A T V C h a n n e l 10 P rops ........................................A T V C h a n n e l 10 P rops bu y er .......................... A TV C h a n n e l 10 S ta n d b y pro p s ..................... A T V C h a n n e l 10 S p e c ia l effe cts ..................... A T V C h a n n e l 10 S et co n stru ctio n ..............A T V C h a n n e l 10 M usic p e rfo rm e d by ......... M ic h a e l Leyton Still p h o to g ra p h y .................A T V C h a n n e l 10 D ia lo g u e c o ach ..................... B unney B ro o k e R unner .......................................... Rob O 'C o n n e ll P ublicity ................................... A T V C h a n n e l 10 S tudios ......................................A T V C h a n n e l 10 M ix ed at ................................. A T V C h a n n e l 10 Length ........................................................4 5 m ins G auge ..................................... 2 -in ch v id e o ta p e P rogres s ............................................... In re le a s e C ast: Nick T a te (N eil S cott), S te ve n G rives (J a s o n S c o tt). C a z L e d e r m a n (A n g e la S cott). M a rily n M a y o (D usty D avies). Alyson B est (Lisa K e n d a ll), G a y n o r M a rtin (K ylie M a c A rth u r). T o m O liver (W ally S im m o n s ), Frank W ilson (" B a n jo "), P atric ia K en n e d y (M rs E m ily M u ld o o n ), Ronne A rn o ld (A lex da C ru z).

KICKING AROUND P rod, c o m p a n y ..........................B arro n Film s P ro d u c e r ........................................ Paul B arron D ire cto r ......................................... D avid R a ps ey S crip tw rite r ................................Jo an A m b ro s e B ased on the original idea by .............................................. Joan A m b ro s e P h o to g ra p h y .......................M a lc o lm R ichards S o u n d re c o rd is t ..........................N oel B olden Editor ....................................................G eo ff Hall C o m p o s e rs .................................G reg S chultz, B ru c e Devenish E xec, p ro d u c e r .......................... Paul B arron Assoc, p ro d u c e r ............................J oe S icari P rod, m a n a g e r ...................G le n d a H a m b ly P rod, a c c o u n ta n t .............. M a rie C. Brow n

P rod, a ss istan t ................... S u sa n C a m p b e ll 1st asst d ire c to r ........................ S te ve J o d rell 2nd asst d ire c to r ................Lynne M c G u ig a n C ontin uity ......................... M a ria n n e S k e rm a n Lighting c a m e ra m a n ..M a lc o lm R ic h ard s C a m e ra o p e ra to r ......... M a lc o lm R ic h ard s Focus pu ller ................................. John O g d e n C la p p e r /lo a d e r .................. G ra e m e M c L e o d Key grip .......................................... C a rlo Buralli G a ffe r ............................................... Ray T h o m a s B oom o p e ra to r ..................... Ian M c L o u g h lin A rt d ire c to r .......................... P hillip M o n a g h a n M a k e -u p .............................................Jan S to k es W a rd ro b e .......................................... Jan S to k e s W a rd , assistan t ......................... S u e B irtw istle S ta n d b y p ro p s ............................ Phil E n gland Asst e d ito r ................................... G e n e H ow ell N eg. m atch in g ............G e o rg e K a rp a th a k is S o u n d e d ito r ...............................Noel Bolden M ix e r ........................................................Kim Lord S tunts c o -o rd in a to r ......................P e te r W e s t ■ S tunts ................................................. P e te r W e s t Still p h o to g ra p h y .................K eith G o tts c h alk Title d e s ig n e r ................................. Don T e lfo rd Te ch , a d v is e r .............. ..................B rian K irby R un n e r .......................................... D aun C ro zie r P ublicity .......................................... A nn M a c b e th C a te rin g .............................. L a w re n c e C a te rin g M ix ed at ........................................A B C (P e rth ) L a b o ra to ry ............C o lo u rfilm L a b o ra to rie s B udge t ......................................................... S 7 2 .0 0 0 Length ........................................................ 24 m ins G auge .............................................................1 6m m S h ooting stock ............................................. 7 2 4 7 P rogress ................................................In re le a se C a s t B e rn ie D avis (H o d d y ), A ilsa P ip e r (Le ig h ). Alan C a ss e ll (C h a irm a n ): B a rrie B a rkla (L lo y d ). M a u rie O g d e n (J.L. O ffic ial), John S c a ffid i (T o n y). Z e lim e r P ad o v a n (S te p h e n ). D u g a ld N e e s o n (T in k ), J ay W alsh (R ay ). D e s H arris (M a rio ).

S ynop sis K ic kin g A ro u n d is th e story of A us tra lia n . Italian and S la v kids in th e ir early teens in a w o rk in g -c la s s a re a of an A u s tra lia n w a te rfro n t city. T h e ir p ro b le m s , c onflicts and e s c a p a d e s in te rw e a v e with all the action an d s p e e d of o n e of th e m ost p o p u la r g a m e s in the w o rld , s o cc e r. 1 2 -p a rt television series.

THE SATURDAY SHOW P rod, c o m p a n y

.............................. A u s tra lia n B ro a d c as tin g C o m m is sio n Exec, p ro d u c e r ............M ic h a e l S h rim p to n P ro d u c e r ..........................................Fra n k W a rd D ire cto rs ..........................................G ra n t Rule.

Ted E m ery S c rip tw rite r ................................... P e te r W a lsh B ased on th e original idea by ..................... M ic h a e l S h rim p to n , Frank W a rd D e s ig n e r, ........................................... Des W h ite A rra n g e rs ................................. Kevin H oc k in g , G eo ff H ales.

J ac k W e s tm o re .

P e te r M a rtin .

P e te r D evisser P rod, m a n a g e r ............................ B ob S to re y P rod, s ec re ta ry ....................... S u e F ra tc zak 1st asst d ire c to r ....................... P e te r W alsh 2nd asst d ire c to r ..................... John S la ttery P ro d u c e r’s assistants ............Lee H e m in g s, Julie P hillips E lectronic lighting d ire c to r ......... C live Sell E lectronic sine c a m e ra o p e ra to r ............R o g e r M c A lp in e C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r .............. C a ro le H a rve y M a k e -u p ..................................... P ad d y O p w a ld W a rd ro b e ........................................Betty J acks W a rd , assistant ............................. M a ry R olfe C h o re o g ra p h y .............................. J o e Latone.

C o ra l D e a g u e M u s ica l d ire c to r ...................Kevin H oc k ing S c h e d u le d re le a se ..................... J u n e. 1981, A B C N ational Te le v is ion C a s t: D a rry l S te w a r t. L o u e tta F a r r a r , M ic h ae l C o le , J a n e S ca li. B a rth o lo m e w John. Bill N e w m a n . Tikki T a ylo r, R onnie S h a n d . J u n e S a lte r. M a u rie Fields. Val J ellay.

S y n o p s is : A m u s ic a l s e rie s fe a tu r in g highlights fro m s o m e of th e g re a t m us ic a ls of the century.

SECRET VALLEY

The Saturday Sho w

P rod, c o m p a n y . . . G ru n d y O rg a n iza tio n s Dist. c o m p a n y ..........................................T e le c ip P ro d u c e r ................................... R o g e r M ira m s D ire cto r ......................................H o w a rd R u b ie S c rip tw rite r ................................. D avid P hillips P h o to g ra p h y ................................Rory O S hey S o u n d re c o rd is t ....................Lloyd C o le m a n P rod, d e s ig n e r ....................... M ic h a e l R alph P ro d , s u p e rv is o r ..........................P e te r P in n e P rod, m a n a g e r ....................... C a ro l W illiam s Length ............................................ 26 x 3 0 m ins G auge ........................................................... 1 6 m m S h ooting stock ............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g res s ..............................................P ro d u ctio n C a s t: M ic h a e l M c G lin c h e y . M ile s B u c h a n an , H e len H a sk a s, Kelly D ingw ell, M a ria n n e H o w a rd , T o m Farley.

S ynopsis: A g ro u p of c o u n try c h ild re n a c ­ tivate an old m ining tow n as an a d v e n tu re c a m p s ite for city c h ild re n .

■£>

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 379

The Film and Television Interface A technical series p repared by K o d a k * in association with C in e m a P apers Off-line Editing

Part 4 : Film Post­ production on Videotape

In a t t e m p t s t o r e d u c e t h e t a s k o f v i d e o t a p e , p ro g ram assem bly to m o re m an a g e a b le proportions, e q u ip m e n t an d m e t h o d s ha ve been devised e nabling d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t o b e c a r r i e d o u t in q u i e t e r l o c a t i o n s , aw ay from the m ain recording and p layback centre.

In a t y p i c a l o f f - l i n e e d i t i n g o p e r a t i o n , p r o g r a m re co rd i n g s a re d u b b e d o n t o a l o w e r-c o st helical sca n form at, usually 3/4-inch cassettes. T h e cassettes can be t a k e n a w a y by th e p r o d u c t i o n t e a m a n d pl ay e d b a c k o n r e l a ti v el y i n e x p e n s i v e heli cal s c a n m a c h i n e s .

A s m u c h t i m e as n e ed ed ca n th en be d e v o te d to editing decision-m aking. T h e S M P T E tim e and c o n ­ t rol c o d e , i d e n t i f y i n g i n d i v i d u a l v i d e o f r a m e s , c a n be k e y e d i n t o t h e p i c t u r e s w' hen t h e r e - r e c o r d i n g s o n 3 / 4 inch c a s s e t t e s a r e b e in g m a d e f r o m t h e o ri g i n a l s.

On-line Editing In m o s t t e l e v is io n b r o a d c a s t i n g s t a t i o n s a n d p r o g r a m p r o d u c t i o n c e n t r e s , t h e r e is a s e p a r a t e v i d e o t a p e m a c h i n e r o o m w h e r e all o r i g i n a l r e c o r d i n g s are m ade, and com p leted videotape p ro g ram s are as­ s e m b l e d or released o n - a ir to th e public. T h e 2-inch q u a d r u p l e x v i d e o t a p e r e c o r d e r ( F i g . 10) h a s b e e n u t i l i z e d f o r m a n y y e a r s in p r o f e s s i o n a l t e l e v i s i o n r e c o r d i n g a n d p l a y b a c k o p e r a t i o n s , a n d in a l a r g e c e n t r e s e v e r a l o f t h e s e m a c h i n e s a r e l i k e l y t o b e in c o n s t a n t use to ke ep pa ce with p r o d u c ti o n an d scheduling dem an d s.

O n - lin e ed iting refers to th e a s s e m b ly o f p r o g r a m s with th e s a m e m a c h i n e s used to m a k e th e original record ings . S im p le pro d u c tio n s, with only straight cuts be tw ee n scenes, can be a s s e m b l e d with two m a c h i n e s . B u t t o b e a b l e t o p u t in e f f e c t s s u c h a s f a d e s a n d dissolves, th re e m a c h i n e s an d s o m e a d diti ona l e l e c t r o n i c f a c i l i t i e s m u s t b e s e t a s i d e ( d e d i c a t e d ) f or edit in g sessions.

O n - l i n e editin g t ec hn iq ue s, w o r k e d o u t originally o n 2 - i n c h q u a d r u p l e x r e c o r d e r s , c a n b e u t i l i z e d a s wel l w i t h t h e n e w e r 1 - i nch h e l i c a l s c a n v i d e o t a p e m a c h i n e s

Edit List for Program Assembly

Datation computer-assisted Tempo 76 editor for on-line program assembly.

F ig . 11.

b e g i n n i n g t o c o m e i n t o s e r v i c e in p r o f e s s i o n a l recording operations.

A n in teres ting on-line editing m e t h o d has been d e v e l o p e d a t t h e C B S S t u d i o 51 in N e w Y o r k . T w o 1inch V T R s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y re co rd th e o u t p u t o f the s t u d i o - s w i t c h e r . T h e n t h r e e 1-inch m a c h i n e s a r e us ed f o r e d i t i n g ; t w o in t h e p l a y b a c k m o d e a n d t h e o t h e r f or r e c o r d i n g t h e e d i t s . T h e d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l reco rd ings are placed on the tw o p lay b a ck m a c h in es a n d t h e i r o u t p u t s a r e fed i nt o a c o m p u t e r - c o n t r o l l e d p r o d u c t i o n s w i t c h e r . P r o g r a m m a t e r i a l s e l e c t e d by t h e p r o d u c t i o n p e r s o n n e l f r o m t h e s e o r i g i n a l s , i n­ clud ing effects such as cuts, dissolves, wipes o r key t r a n s i t i o n s b e t w e e n s c e n e s o r o t h e r s o u r c e s , c a n be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e m a s t e r p r o g r a m t a p e b y a n e d i t o r as p ro g ram assem bly proceeds.

O n - l i n e e d i t i n g c a n b e c a r r i e d o u t in m a n y w a y s — fr o m m a n u a l sc en e- b y- sc en e a s s e m b l y to the use o f co m puter-assisted a u to m a tic search and m ach in e c o n ­ t r o l s y s t e m s ( F i g . 11). W h a t e v e r m e t h o d is e m p l o y e d , o n - l i n e e d i t i n g is d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y t h e a m o u n t o f c o s t ­ ly m a c h i n e t i m e t a k e n u p w i t h e d i t i n g d e c i s i o n ­ m a k i n g in a b u s y , u s u a l l y v e r y n o i s y , m a c h i n e r o o m .

T o m a k e the m o s t effective use o f th e t im e avai lab le f or an o n - l i n e e d i t i n g s es si on, d e t a i l e d e d i t i n g n o t e s a n d r e c o r d i n g l o g s , a s we l l a s a s c r i p t m a r k e d w i t h t h e r e c o r d e d t a k e s , m u s t b e in h a n d b e f o r e t h e w o r k is s t a r t e d . K n o w i n g in a d v a n c e w h a t is n e e d e d o n t h e m a s t e r t ap e not only saves m u c h tim e a n d fr u st rat io n for the t r a n s f e r st u d io p er so n n el , but also saves m o n e y . T h i s is b e c a u s e a s u p e r v i s e d t r a n s f e r ( o n e o n w h i c h d e c i s i o n s m u s t be m a d e w hi l e s o r t i n g t h r o u g h s c e n e s ) c a n c o s t u p t o five t i m e s m o r e t h a n a n u n ­ s u p e r v i s e d t r a n s f e r (ai l d e c i s i o n s a r e left t o t h e d i s c r e ­ t ion o f a v i d e o t a p e e d it o r) .

380 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

As the p ro g ram m aterial on the 3/4-inch cassettes is b e i n g r e v i e w e d , a n e d i t list is p r e p a r e d , s h o w i n g t h e t i m e - c o d e n u m b e r s f o r all t h e in a n d o u t e d i t p o i n t s .

A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, helical scan r e co r d e r s usua lly have slow m otion and freeze-frame capabilities; these fe at ure s p e r m it eas ier selection o f the edit points.

W i t h t h i s m e t h o d , n o w ' o r k p r i n t is g e n e r a t e d — t h e p r o g r a m is e d i t e d o n p a p e r — a n d t h e e d i t i n g d e c i ­ s i o n s a r e u s e d l a t e r in c o n f o r m i n g t h e s c e n e s in t h e original recordings onto the p ro g ra m m aste r tape.

U s u a l l y , t h i s is d o n e b y p u n c h i n g a p a p e r t a p e f r o m t h e e d i t list a n d t h e n u s i n g t h e p u n c h t a p e t o a u t o m a t i c a l l y a s s e m b le the p r o g r a m on the 2-inch m a s t e r t a p e . S o m e t i m e s a m a g n e t i c f l o p p y d i s c is used to re co rd the editing d a ta .

W h e n t h e e d i t is b e i n g p r e p a r e d , e f f e c t s s u c h a s fades a n d dissolves c an be in d ica ted by the tim e co des at a n a p p r o p r i a t e p o i n t ( u s u a l l y a b o u t h a l f w a y t h r o u g h ) in t h e t r a n s i t i o n . D u r i n g t h e a s s e m b l y o f t h e m a s t e r t a p e , t h e t r a n s i t i o n s wi l l b e p r o d u c e d a u to m atically by the c o m p u te r controlling the as­ sem bly operation, providing th at the pro p er instruc­ tions h av e been p u n c h e d into the p a p e r c o n tr o l t ap e o r r e co r d e d on the floppy disc.

A s the use o f c o m p u t e r i z e d v i d e o t a p e edit in g sy ste m increases, e dito rs h av e to deal m o r e an d m o r e wi th n u m b e r s t h a t p r o v i d e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s f or t he o p eration o f the a u to m a te d p ro g ra m assem bly e q u ip ­ ment. C o m p u ter-assisted editing system s are c o n ­ cern e d exclusively with t im e co d es a n d f r a m e / l u m b e r s . M a n a g i n g t h e s e n u m b e r s t o p r o d u c e ed it l i s t s t h a t will s u c c e s s f u l l y ( a n d c r e a t i v e l y ) a s s e m b l e a m a s t e r p r o g r a m t a p e is o n e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t aim s o f the videotape editor.

E d i t i n g a n d a s s e m b l i n g a p r o g r a m in t h i s m a n n e r is not d ependent on the source of the pictures and sound — t h a t is, t h e r e c o r d i n g s c a n b e f r o m a l ive t e l e v i s i o n c a m e r a , a v i d e o t a p e r e c o r d i n g , a f i l m r u n n i n g in tel eci ne, o r a m i x t u r e o f t h e s e s o u r c e s . In m a n y s i t u a ­ tions. r e co r d i n g s m a d e with television c a m e r a s c an be used to a d v a n t a g e to s u p p l e m e n t t r a n s f e r s f ro m film c a m e r a footage. T h ere m a y be so m e detectable dif­ f e r e n c e in p i c t u r e q u a l i t y b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o s o u r c e s , b u t wi t h t h e w i d e - r a n g e p i c t u r e m o d i f y i n g f acilities now- a v a i l a b l e , it s h o u l d n o t b e d i f f i c u l t t o g e t a n acceptable picture m atch.

A s a rule, v id e o t a p e re c o r d s pi ct u re s a n d s o u n d on t h e s a m e t a p e in a s i n g l e - s y s t e m f o r m a t ( F i g s 7 a n d 8).

Electronic editing erases and re-records sound and

Film and Television Interface

o p e r a t o r , s i n c e s c e n e - t o - s c e n e v a r i a t i o n s in t h e c a m e r a orig inals ha ve a lr e a d y been s m o o t h e d o u t by the film t i m e r wh en th e pri nt w a s being m a d e .

O rd erin g a print adds to the cost of a p ro g ram , and t h i s m a y b e s u f f i c i e n t i n d u c e m e n t in s o m e s i t u a t i o n s to a r r a n g e for the tr a n s f e r to t a p e o f th e edited c a m e r a o r i g i n a l s . B u t b e f o r e t h i s s t e p is t a k e n , t h e p r o g r a m p r o d u c e r s h o u l d m a k e sure t h a t an effective chan nel o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n has been estab lished b e t w e e n t h e film e d i t o r , r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e f i l m , a n d t h e t e l e v i s i o n t e c h n i c i a n s w h o wi l l b e t r a n s f e r r i n g th e film to t a p e lat er on.

T h e c a m e r a originals m a y be on 3 5 m m or 16mm f i l m ( o c c a s i o n a l l y s u p e r 8). A s a r u l e , c o l o r n e g a t i v e f i l m is u s e d t o m a k e 3 5 m m o r i g i n a l s , b u t b e c a u s e 1 6 m m p ro d u c ti o n co vers such a wide va rie ty o f fi lm ­ ing si tuatio ns, either reversal or ne g at iv e c ol o r films a r e u s e d . R e v e r s a l f i l m y i e l d s p o s i t i v e c o l o r i m a g e s in a single pr oc ess in g m a c h i n e o p e r a t io n . T h e original e x p o s u r e s on a c a m e r a reversal film a re ch em i ca ll y c o n v er ted d u r in g pr oc ess in g into positive c olor pic­ tu re s t h a t ca n be seen and , w i t h o u t fu r t h e r t r e a t m e n t , t h e y c a n b e used f or d i r e c t p r o j e c t i o n o n a s c r ee n .

W h e n n e g a t i v e f i l m is u s e d in t h e c a m e r a , h o w e v e r , pr oc ess in g th e film p r o d u c e s c o lo r i m a g e with r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y ; t h a t is, t h e i m a g e s a p p e a r i n t h e i r c o m p l e m e n t a r y colors, an d a print m u s t be m a d e to ge t p os it iv e c o l o r p i ct u re s . W h e n fi lms a r e b e i n g t r a n s f e r r e d t o v i d e o t a p e , n e g a t i v e . c o l o r i m a g e s c a n be inverted ele ctr on ically to ge t positive c ol o r television pictures.

p o s s i b l e by t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f or p r e c i s e vi d eo s y n ­ c h ro n iz a tio n which enab les m a c h in e s to be locked t o g e t h e r a u t o m a t i c a l l y w h e n t h e s t a r t b u t t o n is depressed.

Double-system Videotape Editing?

Practical m ethods o f double-system videotape ed iting ar e being d ev elo pe d for tr a n s f e r r in g the a ud io fr o m th e edited video m a s t e r to a m u lt i p le - t r a c k a u d io r e c o r d e r , t o e n a b l e o v e r d u b b i n g o r ‘s w e e t e n i n g ’, l a y ­ i ng in m u s i c , d i a l o g u e , sp e c ia l e ffects , a p p l a u s e , a n d s o o n . S y n c h r o n i z a t i o n is m a i n t a i n e d b y r e c o r d i n g t h e S M P T E t im e a n d c o n tro l c o d e on the a ud io tape.

A f t e r t h e s c o r i n g a n d e f f e c t s h a v e b e e n a d d e d , a f i nal m i x d o w n is m a d e a n d l ai d b a c k o n t h e m a s t e r p r o g r a m t a p e . ( S e e “ A N e w S y s t e m f or S y n c h r o n i z ­ ing M a g n e t i c T a p e a n d M a g n e t i c F i l m T r a n s p o r t s for T elev isio n Po st P r o d u c t i o n ” , G. R. S w e tla n d , SMPTE Journal, J u l y 1979, p. 4 8 3 . ) T h e s e m e t h o d s ar e being devised as a m e a n s o f o v e r c o m in g the lim ita tio n s o f the v id eo tap e single­ s y s t e m p i c t u r e a n d s o u n d - r e c o r d i n g p r oc e ss . But w he n t r a n s f e r s f ro m film ar e being m a d e to prov ide t h e v i d e o t a p e r e c o r d i n g s f or p r o g r a m a s s e m b l y , t he s o u n d p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o g r a m c a n b e h a n d l e d in a d i f ­ f e r e n t m a n n e r . In p r o f e s s i o n a l f i l m p r o d u c t i o n , s o u n d is u s u a l l y r e c o r d e d d o u b l e - s y s t e m o n a s e p a r a t e m a g n e t i c f i l m o r t a p e . T h e s o u n d c a n b e —- a n d o f t e n is — r e p r o d u c e d in t e l e c i n e o n a m a g n e t i c r e p r o d u c e r i n t e r l o c k e d ( F i g . 12) w i t h t h e p i c t u r e f i l m t r a n s p o r t s .

O n l y r a r e l y d o t e l e v i s i o n p r o d u c e r s t a k e full a d v a n -

Editing Films Before Transfer to Videotape S u b s t a n t i a l s a v i n g s in p r o g r a m a s s e m b l y t i m e o n c o s t l y e l e c t r o n i c e q u i p m e n t c a n b e e f f e c t e d "by e d i t i n g the film be fore tr an s fe rs to v id e o t a p e ar e m ad e . T h e a m o u n t o f e d i t i n g t h a t is d o n e c a n b e m i n i m a l , a s in eli m in a t in g u n w a n t e d fo o t ag e an d splicing t o g et h e r selected t a k e s to re duce m a c h i n e t im e an d th e a m o u n t o f v i d e o t a p e t h a t h a s t o be a l l o c a t e d f or t h e t r a n s f e r s .

A t t h e. o p p o s i t e e nd o f t h e scale, e d i t i n g m a y be c a r r i e d o u t e n t ir e ly on t h e film, a n d a t i m e d c o lo rc o r r e c t e d p r i n t , w i t h e f f e c t s a n d t i t l es , c a n b e s u p ­ p l i e d , r e a d y f o r t r a n s f e r t o t a p e in s i n g l e u n ­ interrupted m achine operation.

M i n i m a l film e d i t i n g n o t on l y saves t r a n s f e r t i m e b u t , m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , it a v o i d s m u c h o f t h e t i m e ­ c o n s u m in g electro nic editing w o rk t h a t w ould be re­ q u i r e d . C o m p l e t e l y e d i t i n g a film p r o g r a m a n d m a k ­ i ng a p r i n t f o r t r a n s f e r e l i m i n a t e s e l e c t r o n i c e d i t i n g an d a s s e m b ly a lt o g e th e r an d shifts the d ec is io n­ m a k i n g i n t o t h e f i l m e d i t i n g a r e a o n s i m p l e , l ess e x ­ p e n s iv e film e q u i p m e n t .

E d iting th e c a m e r a originals an d m a k i n g a prin t for t ra n s fe r to t ap e offers th e a d v a n t a g e t h at these two o p e r a t io n s can be d o n e in d ep e n d en tl y , w i th ou t need f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n e x c e p t in s o m e s i t u a t i o n s t o s p e c i f y t h e f i l m f o r m a t t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r f a c i l i t i e s will a c c o m ­ m o d a t e . A t im e d, c o lo r - c o r r ec te d prin t also m a k e s t h e t r a n s f e r o p e r a t i o n e a s i e r f or t h e t el ec in e v i deo

F ig. 13.

Editing bench, with equipment.

T h e sim p le st a n d least e x p en siv e p r o d u c ti o n m e t h o d is t o u s e 1 6 m m c o l o r r e v e r s a l f i l m in t h e c a m e r a an d splice t o g e t h e r th e c a m e r a originals, scene-by-scene, to m a k e up a p ro g ra m o f the desired length. T hi s w o rk can be d o n e on an editing be n ch fit­ ted with a pa ir o f rewinds, a sm all p ict u re viewer, a s pl icer, a film s y n c h r o n i z e r , a n d a s o u n d r e a d e r (F ig.

13). U s u a l l y , a n i l l u m i n a t e d p a n e i is s e t i n t o t h e w o r k ­ i ng s u r f a c e o f t h e e d i t i n g t a b l e f o r e x a m i n i n g t h e i m ­ a g e s in s i n g l e p i c t u r e f r a m e s . T h e v i e w e r e n a b l e s a c ­ t i o n in t h e f i l m t o b e o b s e r v e d a t a n y r a t e d o w n t o still f ra m e, while the s y n c h r o n i z e r m e a s u r e s th e length o f t he film o n a l a r g e s p r o c k e t e n g a g i n g t h e fiim p e r f o r a ­ t i o n s (i n t h e 1 6 m m f o r m a t 4 0 f r a m e s / f t a n d a s t a n ­ d a r d p ro jection ra te o f 24 f r a m e s / s e c or 3 6 f t / m i n ) .

A m a g n e t ic stripe a long one ed ge o f 1 6 m m reversal film p e r m i t s t h e c a m e r a o p e r a t o r t o r e c o r d t h e s o u n d in t h e c a m e r a ( s i n g l e - s y s t e m s o u n d ) a s t h e p i c t u r e f i l m is b e i n g e x p o s e d , w i t h t h e s o u n d l e a d i n g t h e p i c t u r e b y 28 f r a m e s . . T h e e d i t o r u s e s t h e s o u n d r e a d e r t o s e l e c t a p p r o p r i a t e p o i n t s in t h e s o u n d t r a c k a n d t h e p i c t u r e a c t i o n in t h e s o u n d t r a c k t o c u t a n d s p l i c e t h e c a m e r a originals. T a p e splices sh ou ld be used w he n c a m e r a o r i g i n a l s a r e b e i n g e d i t e d in t h i s m a n n e r . E v e n t h e m o s t c a r e f u l l y - m a d e c e m e n t s p l i c e s wi l l e n c r o a c h i n t o the picture frames, causing a m o m e n t a r y disturbance, s i n c e t h e w i d t h o f t h e s t a n d a r d 1 6 m m s p l i c e is g r e a t e r th an the spa ce be tw ee n successive fr am es .

T h e edited originals can be directly projected on a screen or pr in ted o n t o a n o t h e r c o lo r reversal film or t r a n s f e r r e d t o v i d e o t a p e in t e l e c i n e . W h i l e t h i s m e t h o d o f e d i t i n g a f i l m p r o g r a m is q u i c k a n d e a s y , it h a s t h e disadvantage that the transitions between scenes are limited to st r a ig h t cuts w h e r e the splices oc cur . A n d with th e s o u n d leading th e p ict u re by 28 fr a m e s , s o u n d editin g m a y be a n o t h e r p r o b l e m w h e n splices ar e needed.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 381

lOoutoflO of our AATON owners are already thinking about their second AATO N !

To use an AATON is to want to own one. And when you own one, you want another. Simply because AATON is the best camera in its class. Consider these advantages: Super 16 format for high resolution enlargement to 35mm. Lightweight, mobile, portable operation in virtually every use situation. And the quietest Super 16 camera on the market (23db ± 1db).

These are only a few sound reasons for choosing AATON. There are many more. Ask today.

Why?

For information and appointm ents contact: FILM WEST Ply Ltd 75 Bennett Street East Perth 6000 Western Australia Phone 3251177, 3251423 C ables “ Filmwest” Perth Telex AA 94150 FILMWA

FILMWESTEi m r

rrrr

tttt t

h t

FILMWEST Pfe Ltd Suite 185, Raffles Hotel 1-3 Beach R oad S ingapore 0718 Tel: 3361509, 337 8041 Telex RS 36389 FLMWST C a b le Raflotel

Importers and distributors of AATON cameras throughout Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and M alaysia.

tttf

New Film Technology

cinematic services ...

Electronic Edgenumbering System Can be installed in most super-8, 16mm and 35mm flatbed editing consoles. Utilising existing LED frame counter, actual frame numbers can be encoded on and read back oft magnetic stripe on negative and workprint and second or lower track on mag film. Eliminates hand numbering of sound track. Edgenumbering and neg cutting can be done “ in house” on flatbed. Additional modules such as automatic frame search, cue sheet preparation and video transfer interface coming soon.

Basic system is specially suited to super-8 gauge where physical edgenumbering is a costly and highly specialised service. Advise gauge, make, model and serial number of flatbed when requesting specifications.

Low Budget Widescreen System Lens system for filming in 16mm for release blow-up to 35mm 1.85:1 flat widescreen. Entire 16mm frame area is used without cropping. Unlike super 16, does not require any 16mm equipment modifications apart from camera viewfinder. Advise 16mm camera, front lens thread diameters, finders and mounts used when requesting specifications.

Computer Based Film Production Accounting System A feature film production accounting system based on a micro computer. Designed to make life easier on production accountants and producers alike. Reporting formats can be adjusted to comply with those used by major film production corporations or film industries in specific countries.

Feature Film Scriptwriting/Breakdown/Budgeting/Production Planning System A fully integrated system driven by a computer. Reduces pre-production time and costs. Takes the iterative process out of scheduling and provides optima! plan on basis of data given. Presently in design stage but suggested features welcome.

Cinema Montage brings high technology to the film industry. All systems designed by filmmakers to make movies easier.

THE PROFESSIONALS

Making the latest 35mm production equipment available to the Australian Film Industry.

Our Rental Inventory now includes: M O V IE C A M 3N . . . the quiet revolution C O O KE 2 0 - 1 00m m Varotal Zoom, C O O K E 2 5 - 2 5 0 m m Varotal Zoom KINO PTIK 9.8m m .. . BNC or Arri mount ZE IS S SUPER SPEEDS 1 8, 25, 35, 50, 85 ARRI I I I . . . Crystal & variable speeds ARRI III High Speed Attachment SACHTLER 7 + 7 FLUID HEAD M ITCHELL LIGHTW EIGHT GEARED HEAD MINI KINO DOUBLE HEAD PROJECTOR

AND MUCH MORE Contact the professionals at:

c i n e m a t i c s e r v i c e s p t y Etd 8 CLARENDON STREET. ARTARMON 2064 (02) 439 6 14 4 Telex AA20149 att. ST 102

C

i n e m a M o n t a g e P t y L t d P.O. Box 323 Bondi Junction 2022 AUSTRALIA Telephone National (02) 389 6144 International 61 2 389 6144

SALES - RENTALS i

IB

n i b b h »k

i

n

i

n r a r a n

m

i

i

i i i wbsimMSmKm r

Alex M cPhee Filmwest Pty Ltd c /- M e d ia Specialist 71 Palmerston Cres, South M e lb o u rn e 3205 Victoria.

Phone: 69 9671

i

i

n

wumssm sam

Film and Television Interface

Adding Effects E ffects suc h as fades, dissolves, a n d s u p e r i m p o s e d l e t t e r i n g c a n b e a d d e d in t w o w a y s . T h e f i r s t a n d , in m a n y s i t u a t i o n s , t h e e a s i e s t , is t o c r e a t e t h e e f f e c t s e l e c t r o n i c a l l y . T h e e d i t o r , in p r e p a r i n g t h e c a m e r a o r i g i n a l s f o r t r a n s f e r t o v i d e o t a p e , s h o u l d lift o u t t h e s c e n e s in w h i c h e f f e c t s a r e n e e d e d a n d p u t t h i s f o o t a g e o n a s e p a r a t e f i l m r e e l . T h e n t h e s p a c e s in t h e e d i t e d fi lm p r e v i o u s l y o c c u p i e d b y t h e e f fe ct s f o o t a g e s h o u l d b e filled wi t h s e c t i o n s o f w h i t e l e a d e r o f t h e s a m e length.

A f te r th e tran s fers to t a p e have been m a d e , d u p l i c a t e r e c o r d i n g s o f th e effects f o o t a g e ca n be p lay ed b a c k into a video s w it c h e r - m ix e r to p r o d u c e t h e e f f e c t s . T h e o u t p u t o f t h e s w i t c h e r is t h e n r e c o r d e d on a n o t h e r v i d e o t a p e a n d e le c tro n ic a lly ed ited ( i n s e r t e d ) i n t o t h e p r o g r a m m a s t e r t a p e t o fill t h e b l a n k s p a c e s l ef t i n t h e t r a n s f e r t o t h e p r o g r a m m a s t e r b y t h e s e c t i o n s o f w h i t e l e a d e r in t h e e d i t e d o r i g i n a l s .

T h e s e c o n d m e t h o d f o r c r e a t i n g e f f e c t s is t o e d i t t h e c a m e r a o r i g i n a l s i n t o A & B rolls. W i t h t h is m e t h o d , a l t e r n a t e s c e n e s a r e s p l ic e d i n to s e p a r a t e rolls, wi t h b l a c k l e a d e r in p l a c e o f e a c h s c e n e in t h e o t h e r rol l ( F i g . 6). A & B r ol l f i l m a s s e m b l y is u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y in 1 6 m m f i l m p r o d u c t i o n , w h e r e f i r s t t h e A r ol l a n d t h e n t h e B r ol l a r e p r i n t e d o n t o a n o t h e r r ol l o f f i l m s t o c k .

A t a f a d e , t h e e x p o s u r e f o r t h e o u t g o i n g s c e n e in t h e A r ol l is g r a d u a l l y r e d u c e d , w h i l e t h e e x p o s u r e f o r t h e i n g o i n g s c e n e in t h e B r ol l is i n c r e a s e d . T h e p r i n t e r o p e r a t i o n a t a d i s s o l v e is s i m i l a r , e x c e p t t h a t t h e s c e n e s in t h e A & B r o l l s o v e r l a p , a n d t h e e x p o s u r e s f o r the o u tgoing and ingoing portions o f the scenes are superimposed.

W h e n f i l m p r o g r a m s a r e b e i n g a s s e m b l e d on v i d e o t a p e , t h e A & B rol ls c a n be t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m telecine, o n e after th e other, o n to two s e p a ra te v i d e o t a p e s . T h e s e t w o A & B v i d e o t a p e s c a n t h e n be p lay ed b a ck into a video s w it c h e r - m ix e r to p r o d u c e a c o m p l e t e p r o g r a m a s s e m b ly , i nc lu d in g effects. T h e o u t p u t o f t h e s w i t c h e r , a s w i t h t h e f i r s t m e t h o d , is r e c o r d e d on a n o t h e r m a c h i n e to set the m a s t e r p r o g r a m t a p e . H o w e v e r , f r a m e a c c u r a c y in s w i t c h i n g b a c k a n d f o r t h b e t w e e n s c e n e s in t h e A & B f i l m r ol l s can be a s s u r e d on ly if th e t r a n s f e r s h a v e been m a d e on a t e l e c i n e in w h i c h t h e f i l m t r a n s p o r t is l o c k e d i n t o t h e television s y n c h r o n i z i n g signal.

A ROLL ) )

SMPTE LEADER

SCENE 1

OP A QU E LEADER

Post-production Facilities Edited original c a m e r a footage often shows c o n ­ s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n s in d e n s i t y a n d c o l o r s c e n e - t o s c e ne . In a film p r i n t i n g o p e r a t i o n , t h e t i m e r e s ­ t i m a t e s t h e c o r r e c t i o n s n e e d e d t o c o m p e n s a t e f or these variations.

The corrections are m ad e a u t o m a t i c a l l y in a p r i n t e r c o n t r o l l e d b y a p u n c h e d p ap er tape.

S p e c i a l i z e d e q u i p m e n t is n o w b e i n g d e v e l o p e d a n d i n s t a l l e d in p o s t - p r o d u c t i o n c e n t r e s t o a p p l y c o m ­

l ]

B ROLL ) )

SMP TE LEADER

OPAQU E LEADER

T SCENE 2

OPAQU E LEADER

7 SCENE 4

<,

F ig. 6.

p a r a b l e t e c h n o l o g y in t h e t r a n s f e r o f o r i g i n a l c a m e r a f o o t a g e t o v i d e o t a p e . O n e e x a m p l e is t h e S y s t e m T M (co m puter-controlled color com p en satio n ) developed by C orporate C om m unications C onsultants, H o l b r o o k , N Y , a n d u s e d in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h R C A T K 2 8 B t e l e c i n e c a m e r a . A n o t h e r is t h e R a n k C i n t e l C o l o r g r a d e an d T o p s y e q u i p m e n t su pp lied with their M a r k III flying sp o t sc a n n er . A lar g e n u m b e r o f a d ­ justm en ts, altering picture a p p ea ran c e over a wide r a n g e , c a n b e m a d e w i t h t h e s e e q u i p m e n t s , s t o r e d in a c o m p u t e r m e m o r y , a n d a p p l i e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y in a r e p l a y o f t h e film a t t h e s t a r t o f e a c h s c e n e as t h e film is b e i n g t r a n s f e r r e d t o v i d e o t a p e .

It w o u l d b e d e s i r a b l e t o p r e p r o g r a m t h e s e c o r r e c ­ t i o n s w h i l e t h e f i l m is b e i n g e d i t e d in w h a t m i g h t b e t e r m e d “ o ff-l ine p i c t u r e g r a d i n g ” . T h i s m i g h t be d o n e in a m a n n e r s i m i l a r t o f i l m t i m i n g , u s i n g a n e l e c t r o n i c c o l o r f i l m a n a l y z e r ( F i g . 14). T h i s d e v i c e c o u l d b e u s e d w i t h e q u a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a p u n c h e d p a p e r t a p e f o r t e l e c i n e c o n t r o l t o p u t in selected p ict u re c o r re c ti o n s a u t o m a t i c a l l y as the c a m e r a originals are being transferred to tape. A t the s a m e tim e, this or a n o t h e r p u n c h e d p a p e r t a p e cou ld be used for a u t o m a t i c a l l y o p e r a t in g th e video s w i t c h e r - m i x e r in c o m b i n i n g t h e A & B f i l m r ol l s . T h i s m ig h t be d o n e by m a k i n g use o f the c o m p u t e r - a s s is te d v i d e o t a p e e d i t i n g s y s t e m s a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e in m a n y television st a ti o n s a n d p o s t - p r o d u c t i o n centres.

The Need fo r Sync is Universal W h e n t h e s e faci li ties a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e , as in a television st a ti o n w h e r e the telecine p r o je c to r s ar e d r i v e n f r o m t h e p o w e r l i ne, f r a m e a c c u r a c y c a n still b e m aintained by u s i n g tw o t e l e c i n e s to m a k e s i m u l t a n e o u s t r a n s f e r s t o A & B v i d e o t a p e s . B u t it is u n l i k e l y t h a t t w o t e l e c i n e p r o j e c t o r s wi l l r u n u p t o speed at the sa m e rate from c o m m o n start m ark s, even t h o u g h th e p r o jec to rs are wired to a single st a rt b u t t o n . O n e w a y t o d e a l w i t h t h i s p r o b l e m is t o s p l i c e several length s o f S M P T E universal n u m b e r e d lea d er a t t h e h e a d e n d s o f t h e A & B film rolls, a n d t h e n switch th e lead ing p ro je c to r on a n d off to m a k e the leader n u m b ers coincide before the transfer of the pic­ tu re s begins.

H ere we have an e x am p le o f inad eq u ate technical faci li ties t h a t w e m e n t i o n e d e a r li er . F o r t u n a t e l y , n e w e q u i p m e n t is n o w b e c o m i n g a v a i l a b l e t h a t c a n e l i m i n a t e th ese c lu m s y , inefficient m e t h o d s . F o r e x ­ a m p l e , t h e f i l m t r a n s p o r t in t h e R a n k C i n t e l f l y i n g spot scan n er has a cap stan drive referenced to station sync, i n d e p e n d e n t o f po w e r- lin e fre q u e n c e or vo lta ge v a r i a t i o n s . A n d t h e d r i v e m o t o r s in t h e R C A s e r i e s F R se r v o c o n t r o l le d telecine film p ro j ec to rs c an be lo ck e d to television vertical sync, th us e n su ri n g p r e c i s e f r a m e a c c u r a c y in s u c c e s s i v e t r a n s f e r s t o vi d eo t a p e. O n e o f these p r o j e c to r s c an serve as a m a s t e r w h e n m u lt ip le i n te rlo ck e d m a c h i n e s a re slaved o n it.

OPAQUE LEADER

SCENE 3

The Double-system A Iternative S o far, only film p r o d u c t i o n with 1 6 m m co lor reversal film with sin gle- sy stem s o u n d has been c o n ­ sidered. M o s t pr of es sio n al film p r o d u c t i o n utilizes c o l o r n e g a t i v e f i l m f o r t h e c a m e r a o r i g i n a l s in e i t h e r t h e 1 6 m m o r 3 5 m m f o r m a t , a n d u s u a l l y t h e s o u n d is r e c o r d e d o n a s e p a r a t e 1/ 4 - i n c h t a p e ( d o u b l e - s y s t e m ) s y n c h ro n ize d with the p ict ure c a m e r a .

In p r e p a r a t i o n f o r e d i t i n g t h i s t y p e o f f o o t a g e , it is c u sto m a ry to m a k e prints (rushes) from the c a m e ra o r i g i n a l f o o t a g e . T h i s p r i n t f o o t a g e is t h e n e d i t e d in ro u g h f o r m to p r o d u c e a w o r k p r i n t . A t this st a g e the s o u n d is t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m t h e 1/ 4 - i n c h t a p e t o ful lc o a t , p e r f o r a t e d m a g n e t i c film. T h e p r i n t s f r o m t he c a m e ra originals and the acc o m p a n y in g m agnetic s o u n d film ca n then be p laced on a m u lt i p la t e editing t a b l e a n d r u n b a c k w a r d s o r f o r w a r d s in l ip s y n c a s t h e editing decisions are being m ade.

T h e w o r k p r i n t c a n b e p r o j e c t e d in a f i l m v i e w i n g r o o m t o a s s e s s t h e e d i t e d p r o g r a m s t r u c t u r e a n d it c a n be revised as editing p ro ce ed s. A f t e r th e w o r k p r i n t has been a p p r o v e d , the c a m e r a original a n d w o r k p r i n t are

cut a n d spliced to m a t c h , sc ene -by -sce ne, using f o o t a g e n u m b e r s on t h e e d g e o f t h e o r i g i n a l s a n d prin ted into the w o r k p r in t.

In 3 5 m m f i l m p r o d u c t i o n , e f f e c t s s u c h a s f a d e s , d i s ­ sol ves, a n d s u p e r i m p o s e d t itles a n d c r e d i t s a r e p r o d u c e d in a n o p t i c a l p r i n t e r a n d s p l i c e d i n t o t h e edited c a m e r a originals. M o s t 1 6 m m p r o d u c ti o n f ro m c o l o r n e g a t i v e s u s e s t h e f a m i l i a r A & B rol l a s s e m b l y m e t h o d , n o t o n l y t o p u t in t h e e f f e c t s , b u t a l s o t o h i d e th e o v e r la p p in g edg es o f c e m e n t splices t h at w o u l d o t h e r w i s e a p p e a r in t h e p i c t u r e f r a m e s . A s p r i n t s a r e b e i n g m a d e , t h e s o u n d is t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m t h e e d i t e d m a g n e t i c s o u n d f i l m t o t h e p r i n t s e i t h e r as a n o p t i c a l t r a c k o r o n t o a m a g n e t i c s t r i p e on t he p r i n t film.

E q u i p m e n t su ch as the R a n k C i n t e l M a r k III flying s p o t s c a n n e r , in u s e in m a n y p o s t - p r o d u c t i o n c e n t r e s an d television sta tio ns , ca n be s w itc he d fro m positive to n e g a t i v e , i n v e r t i n g th e c o l o r film i m a g e s elec tro nica lly to p r o d u c e positive c o lo r pictu re s at the output. Also, a sep arate double-system so undtrack c a n be t r a n s f e r r e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w'ith t h e p i c t u r e film by e l e c t r i c a l l y i n t e r l o c k i n g t h e t r a n s p o r t mechanisms.

Untouchable Negatives S o m e p r o g r a m p r o d u c e r s m a y be r e l u c t a n t t o entrust their valuable color originals to m echanical f i l m t r a n s p o r t s in t e l e c i n e s , e s p e c i a l l y in s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e t h e fi lms h a v e to be c y c l ed b a c k a n d f or t h o v e r scenes that require corrections. A m eth o d that safeguards the originals consists of m ak in g an inter­ positive fr o m the neg atives on E a s t m a n C o l o r I n t e r m e d i a t e II F i l m 5 2 4 3 / 7 2 4 3 a n d t h e n c u t t i n g a n d s p l i c i n g t h e i n t e r p o s i t i v e s t o m a k e u p t h e p r o g r a m in t h e u s u a l w a y . T h i s t y p e o f f i l m is i n t e n d e d f o r m a k ­ ing c o lo r m a s t e r positives f ro m n eg ati v e orig inals an d c olor d u p lic a te negatives fr o m the m a s t e r positives.

T h e color d uplic ate negatives can be inter cut with the o r i g i n a l n e g a t i v e s w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t s in p i c t u r e a p p e a r a n c e in t h e p r i n t s .

I n t e r p o s i t i v e s m a d e in t h i s w a y r e t a i n t h e c o n t r a s t . , p ict ure g r a d a t io n , an d c olor c ha r a c te ri s ti c s o f the origina l negatives. A n a d d e d a d v a n t a g e o f w o r k in g w i t h c o l o r i n t e r p o s i t i v e s is t h a t a n y d i r t o r d u s t o n t h e o r i g i n a l s wi l l b e r e p r o d u c e d a s s m a l l b l a c k s p e c k s in t h e t e l e v i s i o n p i c t u r e s , f a r l ess a n n o y i n g t h a n t h e white sp ec ks fro m color negatives.

Double-system Sound It is o n l y w i t h d o u b l e - s y s t e m s o u n d r e c o r d i n g t h a t t h e lull p o t e n t i a l o f t h e f i l m m e d i u m c a n b e a c h i e v e d .

W hen sound and picture are recorded separatelv d u r ­ i ng t h e o r i g i n a l f i l m i n g , t h e h i g h e s t q u a l i t y s o u n d r e c o r d i n g e q u i p m e n t is u s e d , a n d t h e s o u n d t r a c k c a n b e m o d i f i e d l a t e r , i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e p i c t u r e f i l m.

Yet. at any stage during p ro g ram prep aratio n , the s o u n d t r a c k c a n b e r e p r o d u c e d in lip s y n c w i t h t h e p i c ­ t u r e film, o n s e p a r a t e i n t e r l o c k e d t r a n s p o r t s w i t h t h e s p r o c k e t s e n g a g i n g the film p e rfo ra t io n s .

T h e g r e a t e s t single a d v a n t a g e o f d o u b l e - s y s t e m s o u n d is t h e c o n t r o l t h a t is p o s s i b l e o v e r e a c h e l e m e n t in t h e s o u n d t r a c k . E a c h m u s i c a l n o t e , e f f e c t , o r v o i c e w o r d c a n b e p l a c e d in s y n c w i t h t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g picture fram e: these re latio nships can be re tained t h r o u g h o u t the entire editing a n d a s s e m b l y process, right up to the print or tr a n s f e r to t ap e stages.

S e p a r a t e m u si c an d effects t r a c k s ca n be m ix e d with d i a l o g u e fro m s e p a r a t e m a g n e t i c films r u n n i n g on in­ terlocked transports. ★

CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 383

O P T IC A L &

G R A P H IC PTY. LIMITED.

B O W H IT IN G S T R E E T ,

ARTARMON, N.S.W., 2064.

439 - 5611

TITLES - EFFECTS for MOTION PICTURE & AUDIO-VISUAL Shooting in:- Anamorphic, wide screen, T.V., Film strip and Audio-Visual formats

In Singapore, Malaysia, the Far East, Indonesia and Australia . .. you’re in

FILMWEST COUNTRY Since 1967 we've been making films that promote and entertain. Cinema and television commercials that sell. Also, we make films and documentaries for sale.

We are fully equipped, fully staffed with the best equipment and some of the most creative people in the business, capable of handling everything from scripts to music, shooting to screening.

Along the way we've won many awards. So if you'd like to win an award for your next film or commercial, call us, in Perth or Singapore.

We'd like to show you what we can do.

H e re 's w h e r e y o u 'l l f i n d us:

FILMWESTIS FILMWEST Pty Ltd 75 Bennett Street, East Perth 6000, Western Australia. Phone 3251177, 3251423.

Cables "Fllmwest" Perth Telex AA 94150 FILMWA FILMWEST Pte Ltd Suite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road, Singapore 0718 Tel: 3361509, 337 8041.

Telex RS 36389 FLMWST. C able Raflotel

importers & distributors of AATON cameras, Sachtler Tripods, KEM Editing Machines and other famous name equipment.

There are many fíne Film Editing Machines available today BUT: Only SCHMID can offer the following facilities in what is the best value package available in Australia today.

• 4, 6, and 8 plate designs, e Super 8, 16mm and 35mm capabilities. @ Studio Quality, Sound Transfer, Re-recording and Mix facilities.

These features release you from the frustrations and delays you have experienced and enable you to have total

in-house control over your Sound and Editing functions.

There is an extensive range of models and options to suit every need.

Call us for further information.

FILMTRONICS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

33 HIGGINBOTHAM ROAD, GLADESVILLE. N.S.W. PHONE: (02) 807 1444. TLX: AA25629

The New Products section this issue appears in a shorter form due to the coverage o f Peter Corbett and Gary Hansen's description o f the special effects on the FACTS' Commercial o f the Year, “The Cardgame'' (see pp. 372-375). Also, at the time o f going to press, the TREE is holding IREECON International in Melbourne, and ‘Cinema Papers' will be presenting a fu ll report on the new equipment released in the next issue. Also in the next issue will be an article on Com­ puter Graphics and Motion Graphics with a look at the Oxberry computer-controlled animation stand and the work o f Film Graphics in Sydney .

Demonstrated recently at industry meetings in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane was Agfa’s new color negative stock Gevacolor negative 682. This film is Agfa-Gevaert’s re-entry into the market in competition with Eastmancolor and Fuji negative camera stocks. The previous Agfa-Gevaert 680 stock was made process compatible with Kodak’s ’54 material, just in time for Kodak to in­ troduce the current '47 film and its ECN-2 processing. The 680 stock was used on two Australian features, Patrick and The Irishman. Cameraman Peter James’ choice of that negative material gave The Irishman a very distinct style.

The new 682 film, however, is made to be compatible with Eastman processing and print stocks, and looks and performs iaa similar fashion to that Kodak stock. It has the same speed (100 ASA-21 DIN in 3200k light) and in the examples I have seen appears to have similar fine grain and contrast. Obviously, because the color dye chemistry is each individual manufacturer’s secret, there will be dif­ ferences in color rendition.

As this falls into the area of personal preference, I asked Rob Copping, who had shot some of the footage in the demonstration, for his first impressions of the stock. Bruce Lowery and Alan Healy from Agfa were at Bilcock and Copping’s screening room in Prahran when we looked at the tests, and Cop­ ping talked about the film and difficulties of coming to terms with a new stock. “ I think one of the most noticeable things is the slightly iridescent look in the rendition of the greens. I don’t mean it's excessive, just a pleasant dif­ ference. It’s noticeable in the outdoor footage, especially in the examples from Europe. “ In my tests, I don’t really feel that I have done enough to examine the film’s capabilities. I would like to try more under- and over-exposure, and low-light nighttime street shooting, say pushed two stops, to see what color shifts there are.

“The main thing that interests me is that it is giving me, the cameraman, another option for color rendition for a particular application, be it feature or a commercial. I find my biggest frustra­ tion in commercials is not having the time to do the art direction properly, *Fred Harden is a film and television producer for the advertising agency John Clemenger Pty Ltd Melbourne.

Presenting new Gevacolor film stocks at Aus­ tralian Cinematographers Society meeting: Bruce Lowry (left), Terry Phillips, Alan Kealy, Robert L u ff Vic John.

which should include the choice of stock.

“Tests on filmstocks have to be followed through to the intermediate prints and this is where the current problems are. The labs have to make allowances for the fact that, although the processing is the same, the slight differences in color dyes means that it will take a while to educate the printers into the differences. Once these fac­ tors are okay, there is no reason why anyone shouldn’t welcome another option. “ In grading, you can match skin tones from Kodak to Agfa to probably any other. The differences in stocks then become apparent between the skintones and the background colors or the costumes. “ I think the differences in this case are very subtle and on the telecine you would probably lose those anyway. It is when the 682 is printed onto Agfa print stock that the subtlety shows in the projected image. In the studio shots that Ross Nichols did and the 16mm studio footage I took, where I changed the ACL’s magazines for each shot us­ ing the Kodak and 682 stocks, I felt there was a pleasing ‘European’ quality to the result. “ Once the labs take the time to treat 682 seriously and eliminate any problems, I would have no hesitation in using the stock on a job that I think is right for it.’’

For details of prices and laboratories contact Agfa-Gevaert, Melbourne (Tele­ phone: 878 8000), Sydney (888 1444), Brisbane (391 6833), Adelaide (42 5703), or Perth (361 5399).

Arriving too late to be included in the

last issue were details of additions to their Eiki range of 16mm projectors an­ nounced by Hanimex at a trade presen­ tation at the Sydney Opera Flouse.

Among several new developments in 16mm projector techniques was the first showing in Australia of a 16mm laser sound stereo projector.

This projector is a major break from past limitations in frequency response on single channel sound. Mr Sekino, vice­ president of the Eiki Industrial Company of Osaka, Japan, who attended the Australian release with other Eiki execu­ tives, said, “This projector can be made available commercially as soon as the film in­ dustry is able to produce suitable software. There is no technical reason for this to be delayed.”

Two new projectors were added to the range. The Eiki Repeater Projector: this projector is a specialized version of the basic SL-1 model with additional func­ tions to permit continuous operation up to 600m (2000ft). The unit can be programmed to repeat separately multi­ ple segments of the film as the total film, and can operate at varying preset time intervals.

Of considerable interest to scientific users or to filmmakers interested in refilming will be the Analyzer Projector: the new Eiki Analyzer is the first all servocontrolled projector in its price class and is based on the existing Eiki NT-1 model.

It will operate as a standard sound pro­ jector at 24fps, or can be run at 12, 8, 6, 4, 2 or 1 fps — forward or reverse — totally without flicker. Unlimited hold time on a single frame is possible without damage or loss of focus, with no drop in light output. A remote control unit incor­ porates electronic frame counter.

Another new development — with im­ mediate availability — is a wireless remote control system which can be used with some existing Eiki projectors.

A small wireless handset controls forward and reverse projection, sound volume and activates the on/off switch.

Also released was a non-stop repeating system for screening up to 600m (2000ft) of film. It consists of a microprocessor with sensors which are activated by metal strips on the film.

When the film reaches the end of the program, sound and projection lamp are automatically turned off, the motor stops and “ Fast In-path” rewind begins. The

The Eiki 4000P Xenon 16mm projector.

system automatically senses the arrival of the leader and projection resumes.

Hanimex Audio Visual manager Bert Heyman said, “These new units extend the range of Hanimex-Eiki projectors from small portable units to highpowered xenon theatre projectors.”

For details contact Hanimex Pty Ltd. Until now, most fog and smoke systems used in theatre and television were adapted from other industries. The fog machines were usually modified in­ secticide sprayers and the fog fluid not much more than kerosene and mineral oil. The fluids were flammable and fre­ quently irritated the skin, eyes and throats of performers and patrons. The combination of sprayer design and petroleum-based fluids often left a dangerous oil residue on the stage floor.

The introduction of Rosco’s new Fog and Smoke system should meet the needs of theatre and television people.

One example of a sensitivity to theatrical needs is the design of the nozzle. It’s recessed and protected to minimize fluid teaks, reducing inadvertent hazards to passing performers or dancers.

Smoke is activated by the switch on the machine, or by a separate switch on the remote control extension. A valve allows one to ‘tune’ the smoke for a variety of effects. The machine has an anodized black metal finish and a rugged construction. It has only two moving parts and comes complete with tools, ac­ cessories and is backed by Rosco warranty.

Rosco’s new Fog Fluid is a chemical formulation that contains no kerosene, no mineral oil and no petroleum-based components. It has no unpleasant odors and won’t irritate eyes, skin or vocal cords. It’s claimed to be safe for use on stages or in film or television studios.

The Fog Fluid was deve lo pe d specifically for Rosco’s Fog and Smoke machine. It is sold in one-litre containers, more than enough for most theatrical performances. The fluid creates realistic smoke. When used in conjunction with dry ice, the fog will lie low on the stage or studio floor.

For more information contact Pics Australasia Pty Ltd with offices in Sydney (02) 264 1981, Melbourne (03) 62 1133, Brisbane (07) 52 8816 and Perth (09) 382 1355.

R. E. Miller has announced the intro­ duction of a quick action clamp called Millmount for mounting cameras up to 30lbs (13.6 kg).

Millmount is designed for the travelling cameraman who does not wish to carry bulky tripods. It is also ideal for small tight locations and special applications where normal tripods are not suitable. It can be quickly attached via its unique sliding arrangement to fences, doors, cars, piping and any other solid plat­ forms. There are two attachment points plus the ball cup can be rotated to any angle desired giving it versatility to clamp even in restricted locations. Senior F, Light Professional, Pro Junior and Arri ball cups can be used. It is made from selected high strength aluminium and steel construction.

Available through R. E. Miller Pty Ltd, 30 Hotham Pde, Artarm on, NSW, 2064. Telephone (02) 439 6377. Telex 23655. ★ CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 385

Will y o u r n e x t TV o r m ovie m u s ic s c o r e w in a n a w a rd ?

The composers listed here are available to the film, TV and advertising industries. Their diverse talents cover the musical spectrum through classical, jazz to contemporary music.

Kevin Peak

Kevin Peak, after receiving a classical musical education in Adelaide, went to the U.K. to pursue his musical studies at the Royal Academy of Music and Trinity College of Music. He became one of the most sought-after session guitarists in Europe with such names as Manfred Mann, Tom jones, Olivia Newton-John, Mary Hopkin, Shirley Bassev and Mel Torme.

He has made his name internationally as a classical solo guitarist on the concert platform but of late he has turned more and more to composition. Some of his film and TV work includes Animal Olympics (BBC); Tales of the Unexpected (Anglia), (sold in 45 countries); and The Long Good Friday (feature), in conjunction with Francis Monkman.

As a member of the famous "Sky'' group he has also composed and arranged many of their most successful hits.

Kevin is now intending to spend much of his time in Australia with his family.

John Vallins

John Vallins hails from a musical Melbourne family. In 1 965, at the age of 15, he became a professional bass player and had his first chart success the same year with the Melbourne band "Kinetics". He toured Australia with rock and roll bands until 1971 when he left for the U.K. to join Steve Kipner and Steve Groves in the band "Tin Tin" under the management ot Robert Stigwood.

Whilst touring the USA with the Bee Gees, "Tin Tin's" single Toast and Marmalade for Tea reached the top of the American charts.

During 1 973-79 John was back in the U.K. writing in partnership with Nat Kipner for such a

For further details of dates, times and availability of the above artists please do not hesitate to contact:

wide variety of performers as Acker Bilk to the Pedlars. He returned to Australia in 1 978 and shortly afterwards received international acclaim for the song he wrote with Nat Kipner, Too Much Too Little Too Late for Johnny Mathis and Denise Williams (No. 1 world-wide with millions of record sales). In 1 980 he was awarded the B.M.I. Music Writing Award (USA).

At present he is under contract to Alberts and is specifically working with Russell Dunlop and Bruce Brown in composing music for record release and advertising purposes.

Ron Goodwin

Ron Goodwin, with more than 70 film scores to his credit, is an undisputed master of his craft.

His music ranges from jazz to classical treatments.

He is a perfectionist with an enormous sense of tun, which has earned him the deep regard of his colleagues throughout show business. He broadcasts, records, composes film music and appears on the concert platform.

As a result of touring Australia and New Zealand as guest conductor with the major symphony orchestras, he has formed a very special relationship and fondness for the industry here and the Antipodean landscape.

The following are just a few of his outstanding credits: 1958-60 Village of the Damned, I'm All Right lack 1 960 Trials of Oscar W ilde (Warwick Films) 1962 Day of the Triffids 1963 633 Squadron 1964 Of Human Bondage 1965 Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines 1966 That Riviera Touch 1968 Where Eagles Dare 1969 Battle of Britain 1972 Frenzy 1 973 The Little Mermaid ‘Cartoon feature) 1974 The Happy Prince (Cartoon feature) 1977 Candleshoe (Disney) 1978 Force Ten from Navarone

Dudley Simpson Dudley Simpson was born and educated in Melbourne. He is currently living in the U.K.

where he is regarded with the highest esteem for his work in the field of composing/arranging for TV, films and documentaries.

His talent for producing some of the most recognizable signature tunes and incidental music may be heard in the following list of credits: Moonstrike (1960); Lorna Doone; Kidnapped; The Last of the Mohicans; The Expert; The Man Outside (1970); ' The Long Chase; The Ascent of Man; The Brothers; Madame Bovary; The Tomorrow People; North & South; Katy; Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm; Target; The Nixon/Frost Interview; The Lost Boys (Ian Holme BAFTA Award 1 980); Sense & Sensibility (1980); Hamlet; The W inter's Tale.

A new score for Marguerite & Armand (Liszt) for the Covent Garden Orchestra.

Currently working on "Storky & Co" (Kipling) and on the film Flame from the Forest Countless episodes of Dr. Who Countless episodes of Blake's Seven (18,000 singles of orch. playing the main theme sold to date).

Chris Neal Chris Neal has a background of classical study of piano, general music (included in arts degree course at Sydney University) and professional football ! In the early stages it was a toss-up between these two diverse spheres.

However, music won out with this talented and intelligent musician. His career has proceeded with highly acclaimed successes as a performer, composer and songwriter, record producer, sound engineer and expert in the field of computer synthesis.

He is currently working on the sound/ music for Wall to Wall (Feature), A Load of Old Rubbish (short feature) and his second solo album.

A partial list of film, TV and audio visual soundtracks is: Composition and Production — Age of Consent; Wilderness; Metropolis (1926) ; M utiny on the Western Front; Ballooning; The Last Great Rally; The Watnut River.

Features (Synthesiser Work) — Lost Island; Is Anybody There?; Dot and the Kangaroo; Auntie Jack; Norman Gunston; Little Boy Lost.

Partial Discography — "Man-Child" 1972 (Cast LP) LP; "Winds of Isis" 1974 (Solo LP) LP; "Newcastle Song" 1974 (Bob Hudson) LP; "Rak Oft Normie" 1 975 (Maureen Flkner) Single; "The Word Was Gough" 1975 (Peter Luck/Mike Carlton) LP; "Picnic at Hanging Rock" 1976 (Nolan/Buddle Quartet) Single.

M IC H A E L W IL S O N & A S S O C IA T E S 4/123 Macquarie Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. Telephone: (02) 27 5880

Key g rip ............................. Graham Mardeil Asst grip ................................. Garry Carden G affer......................................... John Morton FEATURES Boom operator ................Chris Goldsmith FOR LOVE ALONE Art d ire c to r........................ Graham Walker Art department Prod, company ..........Margaret Fink Films assistant .. ..................... Pauline Walker P ro d u c e r............................... Margaret Fink Make-up ....................... Lesley Vanderwalt P R E -P R O D U C T IO N Director .............................Stephen Wallace Make-up assistant ............... Karla O'Keefe Scriptw riter............................... Fay Weldon Costume designer ..........Norma Moriceau Based on the novel • W ardrobe m a s te r ....................Roger Monk b y ..................................... Christina Stead LADY, STAY DEAD Pre-production S ynopsis: The story of Teresa Hawkins, DOT AND SANTA CLAUS wardrobe m is tre s s ..........Shelley Lodge high-minded, passionate and independent, Prod, company ........Ryntare Productions (Further Adventures of Dot and the Wardrobe m achinists..............Pam Maling. and her attempts to fulfil her ideals of love, P ro d u c e r................................................. TerryBourke Kangaroo) Terry Lamera, first with her teacher, the self-seeking Director .....................................Terry Bourke Margaret Thomas Jonathon Crow, who shows her worlds Scriptw riter..............................................TerryBourke Prod, company ..............-___ Yoram Gross Special props on the original idea Film Studio other than the prosaic one she’s known, and designer/m aker ........... Melinda Brown For details on G oose Flesh and H o rro r Based by .........................................Terry Bourke Dist. company . . . Satori Productions Inc.. later, after bitter struggles, in London, with Props b u y e r..............................Ian McGrath M o v ie see issue no. 32.

Photography........................... Ray Henman New York the American businessman, Jam es Quick.

Art department runner . . . . Peter Dastaldi Sound recordist ..................... Bob Clayton P ro d u cer/d irecto r................Yoram Gross Standby p ro p s .......................... John Daniell E d ito r..........................................................RonWilliams Scriptw riters..........................John Palmer.

Special effects chief...........Jeffrey Clifford • F O R T R E S S C o m p o se r......................................

Bob Young Yoram Gross Special effects team ........Monte Fieguth, Exec, producer ............Alexander Hopkins Based on the Prod, company ..........Associated R and R David Hardy, P R O D U C T IO N Assoc, producers ...................John Hipwell. original idea b y ................................YoramGross Films Steve Courtley Eric Cook Photography..........Bob Evans (animation).

Director ............................Bruce Beresford Special effects ru n n e r...........

Mark Clayton Prod, su p erv iso r.................................... John Hipwell Chris Ashbrook (live action) Based on the novel by . . . . Gabrielle Lord Special effects w e ld e rs........Brian Hunter, Prod, secretary ..........................Pam Brown Sound recordist for Exec, producer ....................... Hilary Heath Greg Mulhearn Prod, accountant ........................ Ross Lane character v o ic e s ........Julian Etlingworth Photography........................... Ross Nichols THE DARK ROOM Prosthetic make-up ........... Bob McCarron Prod, a ssistan t..................Mary-Anne Halpin Character design ..................Ray Nowland Sound recordist ..................... Gary Wilkins Construction managers . . . . Dennis Smith, 1st asst director .................. Eddie Prylinski C o m p o se r............................. Mervyn Drake Prod, company .................................Nadira E d ito r............................... William Anderson Kerrin Stevens Assoc, producer ....................Sandra Gross P ro d u c e r................................... Tom Haydon 2nd asst director..............David Trethewey Synopsis: A country school teacher and her Construction team ..........Fredrick Santos, Prod, m anager ......................Virginia Kelly pupils are kidnapped. After recovering from Director .....................................Paul Harmon Continuity ............................... June Henman George Zukiwskyj, Prod, secretaries/ the initial shock, they set about organizing Scriptwriters ....................Michael Brindley, C asting.............................................. Eric Cook George Tsoutas.

Paul Harmon Casting consultants ..................... Eric Cook A dm inistration.....................Meg Rowed. their escape The plan leads to revenge Michael Lehmann, Management Margaret Lovell against those who have violated the e s­ Based on original idea Peter De Bono, Prod, accountant ................William Hauer by ...........................................Paul Harmon Lighting cameraman ............ Ray Henman tablished pattern of their lives.

Philip Henderson-Wilson, Producer’s a ssista n t..............Kelly Duncan Photography............................. Paul Onorato Camera operator ................. Ray Henman Derek Wyness C asting........................International Casting Sound recordist ............... Ken Hammond Focus p u lle r........................................... PeterRogers Asst editor .................................Les Fiddess Clapper/loader ................. Robert Marriott E d ito r................................... Rod Adamson Services G IR L W IT H A M O N K E Y Editing assistant ...................

Alison Pickup Camera assistant : ................................Peter Rogers Prod d e sig n e r....................... Richard Kent Camera operator ..................... Bob Evans Dubbing editor ................. Bruce Lamshed P ro d u c e r................................... David Perry Key g rip ................. .„............. Peter Mardeil.

C o m p o se r........................................... MichaelCarlos Camera assistant ..........Lynette Hennessy Mixer .....................................Roger Savage Scriptw riter............................. Frank Harvey Film Unit Assoc, producer ...............Michael Brindley Art d ire c to r............................. Ray Nowland Post-production sound . . . . AAV Australia Prod, su p erv iso r............... Michael McKeag Asst grip ............................... Michael Nelson Scenic a r tis t......................................... AmberEllisBased on the novel by ...........Thea Astley Stunt co-ordinator .....................

Max Aspin Prod, co-ordinator .................... liana Baron G affer................................. Chick McDonald Neg. m a tc h in g ................... Margaret Cardin Assoc, producer ............... Peter Campbell Stunt team ......................... Gerry Gauslaa, Electrician o n e ...................................... AlleynMearns Synopsis: A film following the events of a Unit m a n a g e r..............................................IanKenny Chief an im ato r....................... Ray Nowland Glen Boswell, lonely, young school teacher in a small Prod, secretary ......................... Lyn Morris Electricians tw o ........................................BudHowell.

A nim ators............................. Paul McAdam.

Kim Noyce, Douglas Wood Prod, accountant . . ......................Androulla Andrew Szemenyei. North Queensland town. Her loneliness Guy Norris, 1st asst director .................David Bracknell Boom operator ........................... Keir Welch Athol Henry, leads her into having an affair with an older Bradley Patterson Art d ire c to r.......................................Bob Hill 2nd asst d irector.....................John Rooke Cynthia Leech, man.

Acrobatic stunts .....................

Vern Dietrich Make-up ...................................Sally Gordon 3rd asst d ire c to r......................................KenRichardson Nicholas Harding Truck precision driver . .. .Dennis Williams Continuity ............................. Roz Berrystone H airdresser......................... Jan Zeigenbein Asst anim ator.............................................KayWatts Music c o m p o se r.........................Brian May Wardrobe ........................... Catriona Brown Camera operator ..........David Williamson Background a rtis t............................... AmberEllis KITTY AND THE BAGMAN Still photographer.................Carolyn Johns Props b u y e r ......................................... Sandy Wingrove Focus p u lle r.........................

Jeremy Robins P a in te rs ................................. Ruth Edelman.

Animal handler/trainer ........... Dale Aspin Prod, company ..........Forest Home Films.

Standby p ro p s ......................................BevanChilds. ................. Robyn Peterson Kim Marden.

Best B o y ....................................Paul Moyes Adams Packer Films Clapper/loader Nick McCallum Key g rip .................................................. RobinMorgan Steve Hunter, Asst electrician ....................... Dean Bryan Dist. company ...................................G.U.O. Special e ffe c ts......................................Reece Robinson grip .............................Graham Shelton Nerissa Martin.

R unner...................................... Kevin Cross P ro d u c e r......................... .Anthony Buckley Asst 1st asst editor ........... Antoinette Wheatley affer................................................... Warren Mearns Margaret Butler, Traffic S upervisors................. Ian Mitchell, Director ............................... Donald Crombie G 2nd asst editor ....................Moira McLaine Electrician..............................................AlleynMearns Kim Craste Scriptw riters...........................................PhilipCornford.

Dean Keenan Boom operator ..................Andrew Duncan Neg. m a tching ....................... Gordon Poole In betweeners .................. Vicki Robinson, Unit n u rs e s ..................... Angelika Wyness, John Burney Asst Musical director .........................Bob Young art director ...................David Bowden Astrid Brennan, Based on original idea Athnea Willcocks Costume designer ....................... Liz Keogh Music performed by ................. Bob Young Brenda McKie. C aterer........................................................ RayFowler by ......................................Philip Cornford.

Orchestra Make-up ...................................Viv Mepham Paul Maron Asst caterer .............................. Peter Moyes John Burney Ward assistant ..................... Fiona Nicolls Sound editor ........................... Paul Maxwell Animation assistant ........Robert Malherbe Producer’s secretary . . . Catherine Phillips Photography........................... Dean Semler Editing assistants .....................Peter Foster P r o p s .........................................................NickMcCallum Checkers and cleaners . . .Animation Aids, Sound recordist ................... John Phillips Producer’s a ssistan t............... Linda Bates Special e ffe c ts..................Conrad Rothman Mixer ......................................... Peter Fenton Bruce Warner, E d ito r........................................ Tim Wellburn Bookkeeper ............... Jennifer Lee Lewes Carpenters ..................... Jam es Thompson, Stunts co-ordinator ............. Frank Lennon Jan Carruthers Prod, d e sig n e r....................................... OwenWilliams Sydney office liaison ............... Dixie Betts Maz Feutrill. S tu n ts...........................................Grant Page.

Laboratory .....................

Colorfilm Exec, producer ......................Phillip Adams Telephonist............................

Sandy Laidiaw Dee Jones.

Michael Patterson Length ............................................... 80 mins Documentary Assoc, producer . . . . . . Jacqueline Ireland Chris Hession Set construction ..................... Ian McGrath Gauge ....................................................35mm Prod, manager ............Jacqueline Ireland photography................................... Andrew Lesnie Asst editor .............................Julia Gelhard Still photography....................... David Miller Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Unit m a n a g e r..................... Diana Nicholas Helicoptor P ilo t...................................... John Hurrel Musical director ..................Michael Carlos Title designer . . ..........Optical & Graphics Progress .............................. Pre-production Prod, secretary ................. Antonia Barnard Gyro copter pilot............... Gerry Goodwin Dog w ra n g le r.........................

Evanne Harris Sound editor ......................... Paul Maxwell Scheduled release ..................March, 1982 Transport m anager ............... Ralph Clark Prod, accountant ..........Howard Wheatley Editing assistant ..................... Robin Judge Camera g a ffe r........................ Conrad Slack Cast: Drew Forsythe (Santa Claus).

Prod, a ssistan t..........................................Sue Ramadan Unit driv ers.............................John Brand.

Stunts co-ordmator ........... Frank Lennon R unner.......................................................AlexPoliak C haracter voices: Barbara Frawley (Dot), 1st asst director ..............Stewart Freeman Jack Skyver Publicity........................................................LizJohnston Still photography............................... CarolynJohns Ross Higgins.

Continuity .....................................Jo Weekes .R Security Guards .................... Hugh Gooley, u n n e r................................. Richard Hobbs ^Catering....................................................KaosKatering Synopsis: The continuing adventures of Dot C asting........................... Mitch Consultancy David Jeffery Mixed at ..................................United Sound Publicity............Elizabeth Johnson Pty Ltd and her search for the missing joey. Dot Camera operator ..........Danny Batterham Truck mechanic ................... Arthur Henley C atering..................................Fillum Catering Laboratory ..............................................Atlab meets with a hobo in her outback home Clapper/loader ................. Andrew McLean Motorcycle mechanics . . . . Barry Bransen.

Lab. liaison.........................

Greg Dougherty Mixed at .................................................

Atlab town, the hobo becom es Santa Claus, Key g rip ......................... Merve McLaughlin • GuyNorris Laboratory ............................................. Atlab B u d g e t.............................................. $610,000 and takes Dot on a wonderful adventure G affer........................................................John Morton Chief car mechanic .............. Dave Thomas Length ...............................................92 mins Lab. liaison .............................................. GregDoherty witnessing various Christmas cerem onies Boom operator ..........................Ray Phillips Mechanics team .......................

Allan Mills, Gauge ................................................. 35mm Length .............................................105 mins around the world.

Art d ire c to r............................................StuartBurnside George Bischoff.

Gauge ................................................... 35mm Shooting s to c k ............. 5247 Eastmancolor Costume designer ............Judith Dorsman Bill Anderson, Ektachrome Shooting s to ck ...............................

Eastman Make-up ..................Lesley Lamont Fisher Gordon Parr.

Scheduled release ..........December. 1981 Progress ..................................... Production Hairdresser . .............................Willie Kenrick FIGHTING BACK Marshall Read.

(Japan) Scheduled release ...................

June.

1982 Ward, assistant ......................... Lyn Askew Stuart Johnson.

Cast Alan Cassell (Ray Sangster), Anna Cast Chard Hayward (Gordon Mason).

Prod, company ........Samson Productions Props ......................................... Jenny Green John Murch, Jemison (Nlcki). Svet Kovich (Mike Sang- Louise Howitt (Jenny Nolan). Deborah P ro d u c e rs ............................... Sue Milliken.

Props b u y e r...................Stephen Amezoroz Clive Smith Coulls (Marie Colbey), Les Foxcroft (Billy Tom Jeffrey Standby p ro p s .......................................... Sue Hoyle Shepherd). Roger Ward (Officer Clyde Col- Additional unit director . ,. Byron Kennedy Director ..............................Michael Caulfield Scenic a r tis t............................................. BillyMalcolm Additional unit 1st asst lings). Ja m e s Elliott (P atrolm an Rex Scriptw riters.............................Tom Jeffrey.

Carpenter ...............................Hannes Finger director ............................... Mark Thomas Dunbar).

Michael Cove Set construction ..................Rob Rickettson Synopsis: A young woman, looking after Additional unit Based on the novel Tom by John Embling Asst editor ................... Annabelle Sheehan photography....................................... GeoffSimpson her sister's house while she is away on loca­ Photography............................................ John Seale Still photography.................................Patrick Riviere tion. is unaware that her sister and the care­ Additional unit Sound recordist ........................... Tim Lloyd C atering................................................... KevinVarnes camera assistant ................. John Brock taker nave been murdered. The murderer E d ito r.......................................................... RonWilliams S tu d io s.............................................Mort Bay returns to kill the woman, and so begins a Additional unit grip ..........Graham Carter Exec, producer ..................... Phillip Adams Main unit second Mixed at ..................................United Sound battle of wits..

Prod, su p e rv iso r..................Su Armstrong Laboratory ...................................Colourfilm cam era o p e ra to r....................................BillGrimmond Prod, co-ordinator . .Carolynne Cunningham Lab. liaiso n ................................................. BillGooley Main unit second Unit m a n a g e r.......................................... TonyWinley Ca 3 t: Liddy Clark (Kitty), Val Lehman (Big cam era assistant ........Peter Lipscombe Prod, accountant ..................... Penny Carl Lil). John Stanton (The Bagman).

Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm M A D M A X li 1st asst director ................ Steve Andrews Synopsis: A caper about two Sydney crime Lab. liaison.................................Bill Gooley 2nd asst directo r....................................Chris Maudson Prod c o m pany......................Kennedy Miller Color g rad in g ........................................ArthurCambridge To ensure the accuracy of your queens, set in the early 1920s.

3rd asst d ire c to r.......................................PhilRich Entertainment Optical effects ..................... Roger Cowland entry, please contact the editor of this Dist. company ............................. Roadshow Continuity ......................... Caroline Stanton column and ask for copies of our Pro­ Neg. cutter ......................... Margaret Cardin MARNI C asting......................................Helen Holland P ro d u c e r............................. Byron Kennedy duction Survey blank, on which the Length .............................................! 90 mins P ro d u cer/d irecto r............................... Darren Boyce details of your production can be Director ....................................George Miller Gauge ....................................................35mm Focus p u lle r..................Richard Merryman C lapper/loader ........................... Derry Field Scriptw riter...........................................Darren Boyce entered. All details must be typed in Scriptw riters........................................... TerryHayes.

Shooting sto c k ........................ Eastmancolor Based on the original Key g rip ............................... Paul Thompson George Miller. Cast: Mel Gibson (Max). Bruce Spence upper and lower case Brian Hannant (Gyro Asst grip ............................Brendon Shanley idea by ................................ Darren Boyce The cast entry should be no more Captain). Mike Preston (Pappagallo).

Photography.......................... Dean Semler G affer.......................................... Reg Garside Photography.........................................Darren Boyce than the 10 main actors/actresses — V ern W ells (W e z), K jell N ils s o n Sound recordist ................... Lloyd Carrick E lectrician................................................. Sam Bienstock Sound recordists .....................Simon More their names and character names. The (Humungus).

Emil Minty (Feral Child), Max E d ito r............................... Michael Chirgwin Boom operator .................... Jack Friedman Darren Boyce length of the synopsis should not P h ip p s (T o ad ie), Syd H eylen (C u r­ Prod, m anager ................. Patrick Clayton Art d ire c to r................. Christopher Webster E d ito r.....................................................Darren Boyce exceed 50 words. mudgeon).

Virginia Hey (Warrior Woman), Location m a n g e r............ Steve Knapman 1st asst, d ire c to r.......................................KimTaylor Make-up ......................................... Jill Porter Entries made separately should be Steve J. Spears (Mechanic).

Prod.

Wardrobe ................... Robyn Schuurmans Script assistant ..................... Michal Bladen typed in upper and lower case Synopsis: The sequel to the box-office hit se c re ta ry ........Rosanne Andrews-Baxter Ward, assistant ..........................Jenny Miles C asting...................................................Darren Boyce following the style used in C in e m a Pre-production co-ordinator ...Je n n y Day Mad Max. Camera operator .................. Darren Boyce Props b u y e r ....................................... MichaelTolerton Prod, accountant ..........Catherine Barber Special fx photography........Darren Boyce Standby p ro p s ....................... Colin Gibson Completed forms should be sent to: 1st asst director ................. Brian Hannant Electrician..............................................SimonMore Stunts co-ordinator ................ Heath Harris 2nd asst director...................Toivo Lember P r o d u c t io n S u rv e y , C atering .................................................... PlumCrazy Make-up ....................................... Kim Taylor THE PIRATE MOVIE 3rd asst d ire c to r......................... Phil Hurst Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm O p tic a ls.................................................Darren Boyce C in e m a P a p e rs P ty L td , 4th asst d ire c to r....................Andrew Plain Prod, company ......................... JH! Prods B u d g e t...................................................S3000 Lab. liaiso n ...............................Bill Gooley 6 4 4 V ic t o r ia St, Continuity .....................................Linda Ray Dist. company . . . .Twentieth-Century Fox Length ................................................ 60 mins Gauge .................................................... 35mm N o r t h M e l b o u r n e , V ic ., 3 0 5 1 C asting........................... Mitch Consultancy Producer ............................... David Joseph Shooting s to c k .............. Eastmancolor 5247 Cast: Sally Minter (Marni), Kim Torres T e le p h o n e : (0 3 ) 3 2 9 5 9 8 3 Camera operator ...............Dean Semler Director ................. Richard Franklin Progress ........................................Production (Mark), Mandy Smith (Bitch). Kim Taylor Focus p u lle r..................Richard Merryman S criptw riter'..................... .’ . Trevor Farrant Synopsis: Tom. who is 12 years old, is emo­ (Doctor).

Ciapper/ioader .............. Andrew McLean Photography ....................... Robin Copping tionally and socially deprived. John, a Synopsis: A psychip horror story. young trainee school teacher, helps him fight back to gain a full and healthy life.

T H E P E R F E C T F A M IL Y M A N

Producer ............................... Natalie Miller Director ..................... Malcolm Robertson Scriptwriter ......................... Alan Hopgood Photography ................. Malcolm Richards Editor ................................... Robert Gibson Assoc, producer ................... Carlie Deans Prod, co-ordinator ................... Tessie Hill Prod, m anager ..................Robert Kewley S ynopsis: The film charts the fortunes of Gerald Percival, a 38 year-old business ex­ ecutive who is married with two young children, as he em barks on his search for self-realization.

ster). Diana Davidson (Martha Sangster).

Rowena Wallace (Liz Llewellyn), Ric Hutton (Sam Bitel). Peggy Mortimer (Ruthie Bitel).

Oriana Panozzo (Susan Bitel), Warren Gold (Ben Bitel). Sally Cooper (Patricia).

Synopsis: A contemporary story of sexual rivalry and obsession: of lost youth and false manhood. A triangle which leads to disaster.

PRODUCERS, DIRECTO RS AND P R O D U C T IO N CO M PA N IES

Papers.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 387

Sound recordist .........................Paul Clark Editor ................................. Richard Hindley Prod, designer ................... Jon Dowding Co-producer ............................. Barbi Taylor Prod, supervisor ........................Tom Binns Prod, co-ordinator ............Renate Wilson Prod, secretary ........Virginia Muldowney Continuity ............................. Jenny Quigley Casting .................................Helen Rowland Camera operator ..................... David Burr Focus puller ......................... David Brostoff Clapper/loader ....................... Ben Seresin Key grip ............................................Ian Park Gaffer ................................... Stewart Sorby Boom operator ................ Chris Goldsmith Art directors ........................Nick Hepworth, Tony Woolard Costume designer ___Aphrodite Kondos Make-up ............................ Lois Hohensels Hairdresser .................................Joan Petch Wardrobe ..................................Pam Maling Choreography .........................David Atkins Stunts co-ordinator .................Grant Page Still photography ....................... Barry Peak Publicity ................................... David White Catering .................................. John Faithfull Laboratory ..................................... Colorfilm Lab. liaison ..................................Bill Gooley Budget ..............................................o million Gauge ....................................... 1 :85. 35mm Shooting stock ....................... Eastmancolor Scheduled release ............June 18, 1982 Cast: Kristy McNichol (Mabel). Christopher Atkins (Frederic), Ted Hamilton (Pirate •king). Bill Kerr (Maj. General), Garry McDonald (Police sergeant).

Synopsis: Based on the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

Boom operators .............. Steven Hagerty, Titles ................................... Roger Cowland Peter Smith, C atering...................................John Faithfull Andrew Ramage Geoff Simpson, Studios............................................... Artransa O p tic a ls..........Optical & Graphic Pty. Ltd. Art d ire c to r......................... Stephen Walsh Gus Howard Mixed at ............................^..U nited Sound Colour grader ................Arthur Cambridge Asst art director ................. Eric Gradman Laboratory liaison........................Bill Gooley.

G affer........................... Graeme Rutherford Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm Costume designer Electrician................................................KeithJohnson Negative cutting ............... Margaret Cardin Lab. liaison ................................................. BillGooley for Ms Parkins ..................... Prue Acton Laboratory ....................Colorfilm Pty. Ltd. Boom operator ...................Jack Friedman B u d g et.......................................................S1.8million Make-up .....................................Jose Perez Post-production Art d ire c to r............................. Herbert Pinter Length .............................................. 110 mins H airdresser...................................Jose Perez Make-up ....................... Margaret Lingham facilities.......................Studio Clip Joint Gauge ....................................................35mm Wardrobe co -o rd in ato r............Jane Howat Wardrobe ....................... Ruth de la Lande Production facilities.........................Filmside Shooting stock . .Eastman Color Negative Standby p ro p s ..................Helen Kavanagh Props A ssistant..................................... Peter Collias Special lighting effects ..........Roger Foley, Progress .............................. Post-production Special e ffe c ts......................... Brian Pearce Props b u y e r.............................................AnniBrowning Ellis D. Fogg Scheduled release ........................ Mid 1982 Carpenters ..............................Hugh Bateup. Standby p ro p s ......................... Stewart Way Cast: Ray Barrett (Stacey). Robyn Nevin Music and sound-mixing ■ Robert Hern, Special e ffe c ts.....................'. Brian Pearce facilities............................................. UnitedSound (Kate). Janet Scrivener (Cathy McCredie), Peter Hern, Asst editor .........., ......... Catherine Murphy Kate Fitzpatrick (Mrs McCredie), Lex Solicitor....................Hart Fitzpatrick & Co. Steven Poole Neg. m atching.......................................Atlab Marinos (Con). John Clayton (Bill Todd), Consultant to the director ........Jan Sharp Set construction ..............................Ian Doig Musical director ..................... Don Walker Guy D oleman (Quiney). Paul Chubb Length ...............................................90 mins Still photography...............Graeme Webber Music performed by ............. Don Walker, (Curly).

Gauge ........................................................1:85 Best boy .................................. Gary Scholes Cold Chisel S ynopsis: She was all any old fool could ask Progress .............................. Post-production Publicity............. Taking Care Of Business Sound editor ...................... Andrew Prowse to r—a beautiful masochist with an Eiectra Scheduled release ................. March 1982 Unit publicists ...........................Judy Green, Editing assistants .................. Robert Grant, complex. She knew her life was a great pre­ C ast: Judy Davis (Kate Dean), Richard Moir Peter Murphy Lindy Harrison destined adventure, and. if it ended like (Stephen West), Chris Haywood (Peter C atering..................... Kerry Byrne Catering Houseman), Bill Hunter (Robert Duncan), Mixer .........................................,. Phil Judd. Bonnie and Clyde, so be it. It was for girls S tudios....................Port Melbourne Studio John Gregg (Philip Lawson), Anna Jemison Phi! Haywood like this that old fools like Agamemnon died Laboratory .........................................Cinevex Stunts co-ordinator ................Dennis Hunt — Agamemnon and Mike Stacey. Ex­ (Victoria West), John Meillon (Freddie Lab. liaiso n ...............................................AlanJamSes tu n ts.......................................... Vic Wilson, Dwyer).

Deputy Police Commissioner. Michael Length .................................................90 mins Mike Reid, Stacey QBE, Gauge ................................................... 35mm Ian Jamieson.

Shooting sto c k ........................ Eastmancolor Hans Van Gyen THE MAN FROM SNOWY Scheduled r e le a s e ...November, 1981 Still photography..................... Jim Townley HEATWAVE RIVER Cast: Barbara Parkins, Rod Muilinar.

O pticals................................................... Atlab Synopsis: The rom ance that develops Tech, a d v ise r..........................Jim Sheppard Prod, company ................. Heatwave Films Prod, company ................... Michael Edgley between a successful dress designer and a M echanic.....................................Mark Allen, Dist. company ............................. Roadshow International, photographer. Set against the backdrop of Jam es Stammers P ro d u c e r..............................Hilary Linstead Cambridge Film? romantic Paris, it traces the resolution of Best boy .................................Trevor Toune C o-producer....................... Ross Matthews P ro d u c e r............................. Geoff BurrowesPhillip Noyce their conflicts and their final union.

R unners............................... Janet Symonds, D irector...............

Director ................................... George Miller John Goldney Scriptw riters................... Marc Rosenberg.

Scriptw riters........................... John Dixon, Phillip Noyce Publicity....................................... Philip Pike Fred Cul Cullen Based on the original C atering...................................Friars Tucker Based on the poem by . . . Banjo Paterson CLOSE TO THE HEART screenplay by ........I .. .Mark Stiles and Studios............... S.A.F.C. Norwood Studio Photography............................................KeithWagstaff Tim Gooding T rainees............. (continuity) Anne Walton, Prod, c o m p a n y ..........Adams Packer Film Sound recordist ..................... Gary Wilkins (boom Swinger) Rob Cutcher Photography....................... Vincent Monton Prods.

E d ito r.........................................Adrian Carr RUN REBECCA, RUNl Mixed at .................................Film Australia Sound recordist ................... Lloyd Carrick P ro d u c e r..............................John B. Murray C o m p o se r.............................................. BruceRowland Laboratory ............................................. Atlab E d ito r........, ................................ John Scott Director ...........................................Paul Cox Exec, producers ................ Michael Edgley, Proa, company . Independent Productions Lab. liaison.............................Greg Doherty Prod, d e sig n e r........................................ RossMajor Scriptw riters............................................John Clarke, Simon Wincer P ro d u c e r........................................... Brendon Lunney Length ................................................95 mins M u sic ................................................Cameron AllanProd, su p erv iso r............................... MichaelLake Paul Cox Director .................................Peter Maxwell Prod, manager ....................... Lynn Gailey Gauge ...................................................

35mm Based on the original idea Prod, co-ordinator .........................Jan Stott Scriptw riter...........................Charles Stamp Shooting s to ck ............................... Eastman Prod, manager ....................... Lynn Gailey by ................................................ Paul Cox Unit m a n a g e r..............................Geoff Hunt Based on original idea Unit location manager . . . . . . .Peta Lawson Progress ..............................Post-production Photography.............................................

Yuri Sokol Prod, secretary ..........................Trish Foley by .........................................Gary Deacon Scheduled release .................. Easter 1982. Asst, location m a n a g e r........Mark Thomas Prod, accountant ..............

Jim Cranfield Director ot pho to g rap h y .............. Phil Pike Sound recordist ................. Ken Hammond Cast: Jon Blake (Ron), Candy Raymond Prod, secretary ........................ Fiona Gosse E d ito r.............................................Tim Lewis 1st asst director ................. Murray Newey Sound recordist ..........Rowland McManis (Annie), Jad C apelja (Sally), G harles Prod, accountancy . .Monypenny Services.

Prod, d e sig n e r...................... Neil Angwin 2nd asst director..................Stewart Wright E d ito r......................................................... BobCogger Alan Marco Tingwell (Cassidy), Max Cullen (Factory Exec, producer .................... Phillip Adams 3rd asst d ire c to r.......................................Jan Elliot Exec, producer ......................... Gene Scott Clerk), Chris Haywood (Phil), Reg Lye (Oid 1 st asst director ............... Steve Andrews Assoc, producer ........................ Erwin Rado 2nd unit d ire c to rs................... John Dixon, Features m anager ........Wendy Chambers 2nd asst director............... Chris Maudson Farmer). John Clayton (C.E.S. Officer).

Asst producer .....................

Fran Haarsma Simon Wincer Prod, supervisor . .. .Christopher Gardiner Prod, manager ..................Jane Ballantyne Synopsis: Ron, fired from his job at an 3rd asst d ire c to r.......................................PhilHurst Continuity ..................................... Jan Tyrrell Prod, manager ........................ Peter Abbott engine assembly plant, attempts to satisfy 2nd unit camera ............Frank Hammond.

Financial adviser .................... John Foster Casting consultants ......................... MITCH Prod, secretary ..............Wendy Chapman Richard Michalak his fantasies by stealing a Porsche Turbo.

Prod, accountant ..........Natalie Hammond Camera operators ................. Dan Burstall, ■ Prod, a ssistan t..................... Sean McClory This has catastrophic results for himself Continuity ..........................Therese O'Leary 1st asst director ................. Bernard Eddy David Eggby, 1st asst director ......................Kevin Powell Continuity C asting............M & L Casting Consultants and those trying to put him in his place. ..............................Joanna Weeks .

Malcolm Richards 2nd asst director..................................... PaulCallaghan Casting Camera operator ............... Barry Malseed Focus p u lle r...................

David Wyn-Jones Continuity ..........................Catherine Sauter Focus p u lle r......................... Nino Martinetti consultants . M & L Casting Consultants Clapper/loaders ......................... Ian Jones, C asting........................... Mitch Consultancy Extras casting Clapper/loader ............................Chris Cain GOODBYE PARADISE Joe Connor Camera assistant .....................Keith Bryant Key g rip ...................................................DavidCassar co-ordinator.................. Jenny Goddard Camera assistant ................. Brian Broheny Key g rip ........................... Merv McLaughlin Camera operator ..................... Louis Irving Asst grip .................................. John Engeler Prod, company ..........Petersham Pictures Key g rip ...........................

Geoff Richardson G affer..........................................................RayAngBoom operator ........................ Grant Stuart Pty Ltd Focus p u lle r...................... David Brostoff Asst grips ............................. Ian Bennallick, Boom operator .........................Jan McHarg Make-up ....................................Viv Mepham P ro d u ce r...................................... Jane Scott Clapper/loader ............... Andrew McLean Bruce Towers Art d ire c to r............................. Jakob Horvat H airdresser.................................................VivMepham Director .....................................Carl Schultz Key g rip ......................................................RayBrown 2nd unit photography ............John Haddy Wardrobe ............................... Fiona Spence Second g r i p ..........................................StuartGreen Ward, assistant .................... Frankie Hogan Scriptw riters...................................Bob Ellis.

G affer.....................................

Robbie Young P r o p s ....................................................... BrianEdmonds Denny Lawrence Addit p h o tography............... Colin Deane.

Props b u y e r..........................................PhillipEagles Electrician............................. Peter Maloney Neg. m atch in g ....................................... ChrisRowell Stephen Dobson Based on original idea Sound editor ....................... Peter Burgess Boom operator ......................

Mark Wasitak Sound editor .......................... Bob Cogger Best boy .......................... Michael Madigan by ...................................Denny Lawrence G affer.................................Brian Bansgrove Art d ire c to r....................................Les Binns C atering....................... Sally Greville-Smith Sound recordist ..............Syd Butterworth Best boy .................................Paul Gantner R u n n er...................................................... TomBacskai Costume designer ..................... Robin Hall Laboratory ............... Cine Film Laboratory Generator E d ito r..................... Richard Francis-Bruce C atering...................................................KerryBoyle Make-up ........................... Vivien Memphan Lab. liaison............................................CalvinGardiner operator/electrician............. Colin Chase Prod, d e sig n e r.......................George Liddle Laboratory ...........,.........................Colorfilm H airdresser..............................Rochelle Ford Length ................................................85 mins Length .............................................. 100 mins C o m p o ser....................................Peter Best Electricians............................. Reg Garside.

W ardrobe ..................................Jenny Arnott Gauge ................................................... 16mm Gauge .................................................. 35mm Prod, co-ordinator ................. Fiona Gosse Sam Bienstock Ward assistant .................... Frankie Hogan Shooting sto c k ....................................... 7247 Shooting s to ck ....................... Eastmancolor Prod, manager ....................... Jill Nicholas Boom operator ............... Chris Goldsmith Props b u y e r............................................Peter Kendall C a s t: Henri S zep s (M anuel), Sim one Art dept m a n a g e r..................... David Searl Cast: Wendy Hughes (Patricia), Norman Transport/ Standby p ro p s ................... John Powlditch Buchanan (Rebecca). Adam Garnett (Rod), Kaye (Peter), Jon Finlayson (George), Julia Unit m an ag er................................... Peter Lawless Construction m a n a g er..........Danie Daems Special e ffe c ts............................. Rick Clise Mary Ann Severne (Mrs Porter), John Blake (Pamela), Jonathon Hardy (Bruce).

Prod, secretary ...................... Lyn Galbraith Wardrobe designer ................. Terry Ryan Scenic a r tis t.......................................... DaveO'Grady Stanton (Mr Porter), Peter Sumner (Mr Synopsis: A tragi-comic love story between Financial controller........... Richard Harper Make-up .................................Sally Gordon Set construction ............................. Ian Doig Dimitros).

Peter Thompson, a middle-aged bachelor, Prod, accountant ................. Karen Volich Make-up assistants . .. .Robern Pickering, Asst editor .................................Ken Sallows S ynopsis: A young girl taking photographs Edwina Archer and Patricia Curnow, a 30 year-old spinster. Location m an ag er.................Janene Knight Neg. m atch in g ................... Margaret Cardin of her pet cockatoo is prevented from leav­ 1st asst director ................Neill Vine-Miller H airdresser....................................... MelissaJaffer Musical director ................. Bruce Rowland ing a lonely island by an illegal immigrant, 2nd asst director....................................PeterWillesee Miss Jemison's Sound editor .........................Terry Rodman who fears deportation. After a widespread 3rd asst d ire c to r....................................PeterKearney h a ird re sse r..................................... CaralynTaylor Editing assistant ..................

KenSallows DEAD EASY search, she m anages to escape with the Wardrobe supervisor.......... Anthony Jones Continuity .....................................Pam Willis Mixer ............................. Julian Ellingsworth help of a Boy Scout. Sympathetic to the Director ...................................Bert Dealing C asting.................................................MichaelLynch Ward, a s s is ta n t................. JilMan Mahoney Stunts co-ordinator ................ Heath Harris immigrant's problems, she pleads his cause (No further details supplied) Casting consultants . . Forcast Consultants Standby wardrobe ................. Jan Hurley S tu n ts.....................................................Gerald Egan, in Parliament.

Lighting cam eraman ............... John Seale Props buyers/set Bill Willoughby Camera operator ..........Danny Batterham dressers ......................... Sally Campbell, Still photography................................... DavidParker Focus p u lle r...........................................Steve Mason Robert Flaherty, O p tic a ls.................................Roger Cowland Clapper/loader ..................... Russell Bacon Lissa Coote FREEDOM Title d e sig n e r..................David Lancashire Key g rip .............................. Paul Thompson Asst set dresser ......................

Peter Hart Tech, a d v ise r...........................................Jack Lovick Prod, com panies.............

South Australian Asst grip .........................

Brendan Shanley Standby p ro p s .........................

John Daniell Tech, adviser/ P O S T -P R O D U C T IO N Film Corporation 2nd unit photography ............. Jan Kenny.

Special e ffe c ts................. Reece Robinson.

Horse tra in e r................Denzel Cameron Endeavour Communications Corp.

Frank Hammond Alan Maxwell W ra n g le rs................................................ John Baird, P ro d u c e r...................................Matt Carroli G affer............... ’..........Graham Rutherford Choreography ................... Christine Koltai Laurie Norris, D irecto r...................................... Scott Hicks Boom operator ...........................Noel Quinn Special effects make-up . . . .Sally Gordon, Bill Willoughby Scriptw riter.............................................. John Emery Robert McCarron.

Art d ire c to r..............................................John Carroli Best boy ............................... Colin Williams Based on original Art dept, c le rk ............................... Geraldine Royds Judy Lovell, R u n n er................................Tony McDonald idea by ...................................John Emery Make-up ................ Lesley Lamont-FIsher Phillippa Noyce BREAKFAST IN PARIS Publicity........Michael Edgley International Script e d ito r..................Graeme Koetsveld H airdresser............................................Jenny Brown Carpenter ........................... Bruce Hillhouse Unit publicist .............................Suzie Howie Photography.......................... Ron Johanson Unit ru n n e r..........................Richard Ussher Wardrobe .....................................Kate Duffy C atering..................................... Helen Wright Prod, company ......................John Lamond Sound recordist .........................Tim Lloyd Ward, assistant ............. Lesley McLennan Assembly editor ..........Frans Vandenberg S tudios...................................Starch Factory Motion Picture Enterprises E d ito r..........: .............................. Philip Reid Props assistant ..............................Igor Nay Asst film editor ............................. Sue Scott Mixed at ..................................................Atlab Dist. company ............................. Roadshow Prod, d e sig n e r...................... Herbert Pinter Props b u y e r...................................Ian Allen Sound editors ............................. Greg Bell, Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm P rod u cer/d irecto r................. John Lamond C o m p o se r............................................... DonWalker Standby p ro p s ..........................................IgorLazareff Helen Brown, Lab. liaison..................................................BillGooley Scriptw riter............................. Morris Dalton Exec, producer ..........................Jim George Special e ffe c ts....................................... ChrisMurray Stella Savvas B u d g e t.......................................................... $3million Sound recordist ......................John Rowley Prod, co-ordinator ................Barbara Ring Special effects assistant . . . . David Hardie Eden" design ..................... Paul Pholeros Length .............................................100 mins E d ito r.................................................Jill Rice Prod, manager ..................... Valerie Hardy Choreography .....................Ross Coleman Model builders ............A & M Partnership Gauge ........................... 35mm Anamorphic C o m p o se r..................................... Brian May Unit m a n a g e r................... Rob Brookman Scenic a r tis t..............................................NedMcCann Architectural consultants .. Paul Pholeros, Shooting s to c k ....................... Eastmancolor Exec, producer ..........Cinema Enterprises Pre-Prod, secretary .Sherree Goldsworthy Carpenter .............................. Robin Warner Steve Lesluk Scheduled release ................. Easter, 1982 Assoc, producer .................... Michael Hirsh Prod, accountant ................Michael Curtis Set construction manager ..Denis Doneliy Sound mixers ........................ Peter Fenton.

Cast: Kirk Douglas (Harrison, Spur), Jack Prod, su p erv iso r....................... John Chase 1st asst director ........................Jan Marnell Asst editor ................................. Mark Darcy Gethin Creagh, Thompson (Clancy), Tom Burlinson (Jim), Prod, secretary ........................... Ann Mudie 2nd asst d irecto r............. Chris Williams No. of shots ...................

Phillip Heywood Linda Wilson Slgrid Thornton (Jessica), Lorraine Bayly Prod, accountant ............... Graeme Wright 3rd asst d ire c to r.................. Ron Stigwood Sound editor ..................... Andrew Stewart Stunts co-ordinator ................... Max Aspin (Rosemary). Chris Haywood (Curly), Tony 1st asst director ...................Ross Hamilton Continuity ............................. Shirley Ballard Editing assistant ............. Ashley Grenville Stand-in for Ms Davis .. Teresa Wilkinson Bonner (Kane), David Bradshaw (Paterson), 2nd asst d irecto r.........................Billy Baxter Producer's secretaries...............Pat Sergo, Stunts co-ordinator ............... Dennis Hunt Stunt doubles ........................... Max Aspin, Gus Mercurio (Frew), Terry Donovan (Henry 3rd asst d ire c to r...................... Stuart Wood Alison Barrett (Syd.). Stuntm en..................................... Vic Wilson, Dale Aspin, Craig), " ' Audine Leith (Adel.)

Continuity ................................... Julie Bates Mike Read.

Frank Arrowsmith, Synopsis: An epic action adventure story Producer's a ssistan t..........Michele Wiener Lighting cam eraman ..........Ron Johanson Ian Lind, Stephen Sherwood based on Banjo Paterson’s classic poem.

Director's a ss is ta n t..........Denise Patience Focus p u lle r............................. Henry Pierce Dog h a n d le r............................. Dennis Hunt . Safety co-ordinator ................... Bob Hicks Lighting cam eraman ........Ross Berryman Clapper/loader ......................... John Foster Still photography......................Jim Townley Voice c o n su ltan t................................George Ogilvie Focus puller ................................ Ian Jones Key g rip ..................................... Rob Morgan Best boys ............................ Jack Kendrick.

Still photography................................... DavidParker, MONKEY GRIP C lapper/loader ..................... David Stevens Alan Glossop Asst grips ......................... Graeme Shelton.

Robert McFarlane Key g rip ........................................ Noel Mudie Michael White R unner.....................................................MerylCronin Catering . . . .Cecil B. de Meals on Wheels, Prod, company ......................Pavilion Films Asst grip .................................... Barry Brown 2nd unit photography ....D avid Foreman, Publicity..........Brooks White Organization Keith Heygate P ro d u c e r............................... Patricia Lovell Paul Dalwitz, Unit publicist ........................... David White G affer....................................... Lindsay Foote Catering a ss is ta n t..................... Ken Taylor Director ................................... Ken Cameron

388 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Art d ire c to r................... Virginia Bieneman Focus p u lle r......................... John Swaffield Scriptw riter.......................... Ken Cameron, SARAH Wardrobe ..................................... Bob Lloyd Costume designer . . . . Aphrodite Kondos Standby p ro p s ..............................Tony Hunt Clapper/loader ..............Geoffrey Wharton in association with (The Seventh Match) Make-up ............................. Bob McCarron Asst editor ......................... Cathy Sheehan Key g rip ...................................................... RayBrown Helen Garner Annie Pospichil Prod, company ......................Yoram Gross Sound editor ............................. Klaus Jaritz Asst grips ................................ Stuart Green, Based on the novel b y ........Helen Garner H airdresser..........Maureen W roe-Johnson Film Studio Editing assistant .................

Terry Mooney Geordie Dryden P hotography........................................... DavidGribble W ardrobe .............................Pamela Mailing Dist. company ....................... Yoram Gross Still photography................... Chic Stringer G affer................................. Brian Bansgrove Sound recordist .......................Mark Lewis Stand-by wardrobe ..................David Rowe Film Studio Publicity................................... Carlie Deans Best boy ...................................Paul Gantner E d ito r....................................................... DavidHuggett Ward, assistant ................... Julia Mansford P ro d u cer/d irecto r..................Yoram Gross Unit publicist ..................... Roger Collier Electrician Prod, d e sig n e r........................................ClarkMunro Props b u y e rs ....................................... AdrianCannon, Scriptw riters............................Yoram Gross, Mixed at ..................Spectrum, Willoughby generator o p e ra to r............................ ColinChase C o m p o se r............................Bruce Smeaton Paul Dulieu Elizabeth Kata Cast: DianeMcLean, Jon Blake, Janet Electrician............................................... PeterO'Brien Exec, producer ...................... Danny Collins Property m a k e rs ........................ David Pride, Based on the Kingsbury, Kit Taylor, Joanne Samuel, Boom operators ............... Jack Friedman, Assoc, p ro d u c e r....................Treisha Ghent Tad Pride original idea b y ..................Yoram Gross Danny Adcock, David Franklin, Daniel Pat Fiske Prod, co-ordinator ........................... Briann Standby p ro p s ....................................George Zammit P hotography............................Jenny Osche, Cumerford, Guy Doleman.

Asst to Production Unit m a n a g e rs .......................................... Sue Parker, Assistant standby Bob Evans (animation), Synopsis: A seemingly unconnected series D e sig n e r........................Andrew Sanders Will Davies Lloyd Freidus of “accidental” deaths goes unnoticed. A Art d ire c to r................................................ KimHilder p r o p s ...........................Jonothan Barraud Prod, accountant .................Terry McGrath Special e ffe c ts.........................................John Stears (live action — New York) normal suburban community remains bliss­ Asst to art d ire c to r................... Robert Dein 1st asst director .................Stuart Freeman Assts special Sound recordist ......................... Gary Rich fully unaware that “something wicked” is Art department 2nd asst directo r.................................... ColinFletcher effects ......................... Peter Hutchinson, (live action — New York) happening — that death stalks the streets. assistants ............................David McKay, 3rd asst d ire c to r..................................... TomBlacket Bernie Corfield E d ito rs.......................................... MoyaWood, Scott Roberts Continuity ..............................Jackie Sullivan Scenic a r tis t............................ Billy Malcolm John Palmer Costume designer ........... Luciana Arrighi Producer’s assistants . . . . Nicky Rowntree; Construction c a rp e n te rs ............Brian Cox, Character design ......................Athol Henry W ardrobe c o -ordinator............. Terry Ryan Elaine Menzies SQUIZZY TAYLOR Ken Sticker Assoc, p ro d u c e r..................... Sandra Gross Make-up ...................................Elaine Carew C asting....................................Alison Barrett Standby carpenter ................

Graeme Sang Prod, m anagers ..........David B. Appleton Prod, company . . . . Simpson Le Mesurier H airdresser..........................Cheryl Williams Casting c o n su lta n t.............. Alison Barrett Construction m a n a g er....................Bill Howe (New York), Films W ardrobe supervisor.............Antony Jones Lighting cam eram an ............David Gribble Asst editor ............................... Karen Foster Virginia Kelly (animation) Dist. company ............................... Filmways W ardrobe assistant ..........Melody Cooper Camera operator ................. Nixon Binney, Edge n u m b e re r......................Sandy Laidlor Unit m a n a g e rs .......................... Yoram Gross P ro d u c e r....................... Roger Le Mesurier On-set w ard ro b e................Sue Armstrong Danny Batterham Neg. m atch in g ................... Margaret Cardin (animation), D irector.................................. Kevin Dobson Props buyers/ Focus p u lle r.................. Peter Menzies Jnr Unit n u rs e ................................Toni Okkerse David B. Appleton Scriptw riter............................................

Roger Simpson set d re s s e rs ....................Sally Campbell, Clapper/loader ....................... Derry Fields Stunts co-ordinator ..............Kerry Rossall (New York) Based on the Lissa Coote Camera assistant ........Peter Menzies Jnr S tu n Prod, sec re ta rie s................Margaret Lovell, original idea b y ................................ RogerSimpson Standby p ro p s ....................................... ClarkMunro ts ........................................Glen Boswell, Key g rip ......................... ............. Ray Brown Richard Boue, Meg Rowed Photography..............................................DanBurstall Choreography .......................... David Atkins Asst grips ............................... Stuart Green, Zev Eleftheriou Administration .....................Margaret Lovell Sound recordist ....................... Phil Sterling Asst ch o re o g ra p h er........................... AndrisToppe Graham Young Still photography....................................BarryPeake Meg Rowed E d ito r.......................................................DavidPulbrook Scenic a r tis t............Elizabeth Leszczynski G affer......................................Miles Moulson Best boy .................................Colin Williams Prod, accountant ..................William Hauer Prod, d e sig n e r.......................Logan Brewer Carpenters ..........' ..................Rory Forrest, Best boy .................................... Geoff Maine Publicity......................Carlie Deans (Aust), Prod, a ss is ta n t..................................Jeanette Toms C o m p o se r........................... Bruce Smeaton Chris Jones, Electrician............................... Dick Oldfield Dennis Davidson & Assoc. (L.A.) 1st asst director ..........David B. Appleton Exec, producer ................. Roger Simpson Guy Miller Boom operator ................... Paul Schneller Unit publicist ............................ Ben Mitchell (New York) Prod, s u p erv iso r............

Brian D. Burgess Set construction ................... Alan Fleming Art d ire c to r............................... Ron Highfield C atering................................... David Williams Producer’s a ssistan t...............................KellyDuncan Prod, m anager ..................... Christine Suli Asst editor ........................... Duncan Taylor Make-up ................, ................... Judy Lovell Laboratory .....................................Colorfilm C asting................June Cann Management, Location m a n a g er............... Warwick Ross Musical director ..................... Mark Moffatt H airdresser.............................................. Judy Lovell Lab. liaison ................................. Bill Gooley Shanahan Management Prod, secretary ........................ Ann O'Leary Supervising W ardrobe ............................... Kathy Jam es Length ....................... .......................94 mins Casting consultants . . .

Mitch Consultancy Prod, accountant ........................ Patti Scott sound editor ..................... Paul Maxwell Ward, assistant ........................... Cathy Farr Gauge ........................... 35mm Anamorphic Camera assistant ..........Lynette Hennessy Prod, a ssistan t......................... Wendy Miller Dubbing a ss is ta n t..................Anne Breslin Props buyers/ Panavision Key g rip ..............Bob Shulman (New York) 1st asst director ............Philip Hearnshaw Editing assistant ....................... Lindy Trost set d r e s s e r s ................... Elizabeth Hearn, Shooting s to c k ..........Kodak Eastmancolor E lectricians............................... Raffi Feruci, 2nd asst director..................... Paul Healey S tu n ts .......................................... Dale Aspin, Lloyd Casey Cast: Steve Railsback (Paul Anders). Olivia Tom Drake (New York) 3rd asst d ire c to r................................Marcus Skipper Reece Robinson Standby p ro p s ........................... Igor Lazareff H ussey (Chris W alters), Noel Ferrier Make-up ............David Forrest (New York) Continuity ..............................Anne McCleod A erialist......................................................TimColdwell Scenic a r tis t........................ Len Armstrong (Mallory), Carmen Duncan (Jennifer), H aird resser........David Forrest (New York) Lighting cam eraman ............. Dan Burstall Still photography......................... Bliss Swift Set construction ...............Peter Templeton Lynda S to n e r (R ita). M ichael C raig Wardrobe . . . .

Marsha Pattern (New York) Camera operator ................... Dan Burstall Singing coach ......................... Janice Slater Asst editors .......................Leslie Mannison, (Thatcher), Roger Ward (Ritter), Michael Scenic a r tis t...............................Amber Ellis Focus p u lle r...........................Barry Halloran Band coach ......................... Buzz Bidstrup Rosemary Lee Petrovitch (Tito), Gus Mercurio (Red), John (animation) Clapper/loader ................... Warwick Field W rangler.................................... Dale Aspin Rock music Ley (Dodge), Bill Young (Griff).

Backgrounds ............................. Amber Ellis Key g rip ............................... Paul Ammitzbol R u n n er........................................ Peter Page performed b y ..........................The Divinyls Synopsis: The year 1995 — the world is run Neg. m atch in g ................... Margaret Cardin Asst grip ................................ Peter Kershaw Unit publicist ............................. Fran Moore Sound editors ...................Ashley Grenville, by a strict regime. If you step out of line you Music performed by ............Gior Feidman G affer.........................................

Brian Adams C atering........................... Cecil B. De Meals Mark Lewis are labelled a "Turkey". Further failure to N arrato r.......................................................MiaFarrow Boom operator ..................... Geoff Wilson On Wheels Mixer ....................................... Peter Fenton conform means you are a candidate for the Chief an im ato r............................Athol Henry Art d ire c to r.............................

Logan Brewer Studios..................... Artransa Park Studios Asst m ixer..............................Gethin Creagh “Turkey Shoot ".

Animators ....................... Nicholas Harding, Asst art director ..................... Frank Jakab Mixed at ..................................Film Australia Still photography........................................ IanPotter Cynthia Leech, Costume designer .................. Jane Hyland Laboratory ............................Atlab Australia Title d e sig n e r........................................... Fran Burke Andrew Szemenyei, Make-up ................................ Lois Hohenfels Lab. liaison....................... Greg Dougherty, Children's dialogue coach ........Jane Oehr Ray Nowland. H airdresser.............................................Suzie Clements Cheryl Rodgers R u n n er........................................................ LisaHennessey WALL TO WALL Kevin Roper, W ardrobe .................................. Jane Hyland Length .............................................105 mins Mixed at .................................. United Sound Ty Bosco Ward, a s s is ta n t................... Margot Lindsay Gauge ................................................... 35mm Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm Animation assistants ........Jeanette Toms, P r o p s ..................Nicholas van Roosendael Shooting s to c k ........................ Eastmancolor Lab. liaison .....................................Bill Gooley Prod, company ....................... Wall to Wall Robert Malherbe, Props buyer . . . . Nicholas van Roosendael negative 5247 B u d g e t........................................... $1,147,665 P ro d u c e r...................................................ErrolSullivan Lynette Hennessy Standby p ro p s .......................... Harry Zettel Scheduled release ................. March, 1982 Length ........................... 105 mins (approx.)

Director .................................... Mark Egerton Asst anim ator.......................................... KayeWatts Special e ffe c ts.................................... KonradRothman Cast: Jo Kennedy (Jackie Mullens), Ross Gauge .................................................... 35mm Photography........................................VincentMonton In betweeners ....................Vicki Robinson, Set d e co rato r......................Patrick Reardon O'Donovan (Angus Mullens), Pat Evison Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Sound recordist ......................John Phillips Astrid Brennan, Set construction ..................... Rowan Flude (Nana), Margo Lee (Pearl), Max Cullen Cast: Noni Hazlehurst (Nora), Colin Friels E d ito r......................................... Colin Waddy Brenda McKie, Asst editor ......................... Brett Southwick (Reg), Ned Lander (Robbie), Melissa Jaffer (Javo), Alice G arner (Gracie), Harold Prod, d e sig n e r................... Larry Eastwood Paul Maron Sound editor .......................Louise Johnson (Mrs Booth), John O'May (Terry Lambert), Hopkins (Willie), Candy Raymond (Lillian), C o m p o se r....................................... Chris Neil P a in te rs ................................. Ruth Edelman, Editing assistant ...................Ann Beresford Dennis Miller (Lou), Norman Erskine Michael Caton (Clive), Tim Burns (Martin), Exec, producer ..................Ross Matthews Kim Craste, Still photography.................................... Susy Woods (Hazza), Phil Judd. Dwayne Hillman and Ian Christina Amphlett (Angela), Don Miller­ Prod, m anager ....................... Julie Monton Kim Marden, Best boy ..................................Gary Plunkett Gilroy of “The Swingers" as “The Swing­ Unit m a n a g e r.............................Tony Winley Robinson (Gerald), Lisa Peers (Rita).

Steve Hunter, R unner...................................................... Jake Atkinson ers”.

Synopsis: Nora, 33, a single mother living in Prod, secretary ....................... Cara Fam es Nerissa Martin, Publicity........................... Lynette Thorburn Synopsis: Starstruck. a comedy and fast­ Prod, accountant ....................... Penny Carl a large, loosely constructed commune, Margaret Butler C atering........................... Ann Dechaineaux paced rock musical, is about two teen­ wants a love with "no fade from distance in 1 st asst director ............... Steve Andrews Checkers and cleaners .. .Animation Aids, . S tudios......................................................AAV, agers and their eccentric family who run an it". What she gets is Javo, a 23 year-old 2nd asst director.......................................PhilRich Bruce Warner, Open Channel, inner-city, working-class pub. Angus, 14, actor, whose life is "a messy holiday of Continuity ....................................... Jo Weeks Jan Carruthers Port Melbourne Studios manipulates the media in an attempt to turn living off his friends". He is a junkie, but it’s C asting........................... Mitch Consultancy Mixed at ..................................United Sound his cousin, Jackie, 18, into a singing star.

Nora who's addicted. "Smack habit, love Title d e sig n e r............................. Tony Ablen Camera operator ..........David Williamson Mixed at ...........................

Atlab (Australia), Laboratory .........................................Cinevex habit — what's the difference, they can both Focus p u lle r........................................... Steve Dobson Magno Sound (New York) Lab. liaison................Stanley Lopuszamski kill you.”

C lapper/loader ................. Robyn Peterson L aboratories..............Colorfilm (Australia), B u d g e t....................................................S1.7m TURKEY SHOOT Key g rip .............................................. Geordie Dryden Movielab (New York) Length .............................................105 mins Asst grip ................................. Terry Jacklin Length ............................................... 80 mins Gauge ....................................................35mm Prod, company ...................... Second FGH PARTNERS G affer............................................ Pav Govind Film Consortium Gauge ....................................................35mm Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Boom operator ..........................Ray Phillips Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Dist. company ....................................... GUO Cast: David Atkins (Squizzy Taylor), Jackie Dist. company (foreign)............... Hemdale Make-up .........................................Liz Michie Leisure Corporation Cast: Mia Farrow (Sarah).

P ro d u c e rs ...............................Tom Burstall, W eaver (Dolly Grey), Kim Lewis (Ida H airdresser.................................................. LizMichie Tim Burstall C haracter voices: Joan Bruce (mother and Pender), Robert Hughes (Harvey), Steve P ro d u c e rs ..................... Antony I. Ginnane, Wardrobe ................................... Jenny Miles g ra n d m o th e r) , S h a n e P o rte o u s William Fayman Director ..................................... Tom Burstall Bisley (Cutmore), Cul Cullen (Stokes), Alan Ward, assistant .................Miranda Skinner (blacksmith, partisan, soldier), Ron HadP hotography.............................Dan Burstall Cassell (Brophy), Michael Long (Piggott), Director ............... Brian Trenchard Smith Props b u y e r........................................... DavidBowden drick (father, partisan, soldier).

Sound recordist ....................... Phil Stirling Tony Rickard (Dutch), Simon Thorpe (Pad­ Scriptw riters............................ Jon George.

Standby p ro p s ..............Karan Monkhouse Synopsis: The poignant story of a young E d ito r..................Edward McQueen-Mason Neill Hicks dy).

Special e ffe c ts.......................................... IvanDurrant Art d ire c to r............................. Herbert Pinter child, orphaned by war, and her struggle to Synopsis: A film based on the life of the Based on story by ........George Schenck, Asst editor ........................... Christine Spry survive. It is representative of the plight of C o m p o se r...............................Peter Sullivan Robert Williams. notorious Melbourne gangster of the 1920s, Sound editor ....................... Vicki Ambrose children in war-torn countries and acts as David Lawrence Assoc, producer ....................Christine Suli "Squizzy” Taylor.

Still photography.....................................

BlissSwift the voice of all children against the suffering Photography............................................ John McLean Prod, co-ordinator ..................Helen Liston Best boy ........................................ Andy Reid and hardships imposed by all wars.

Sound recordist ......................... Paul Clark Prod, secretary ....................... Helen Liston R u n n er................................... Mark Lamprell E d ito r............................................Alan Lake Prod, accountant ....................... Patti Scott STARSTRUCK C atering........................... Cecil B. de Meals Prod, d e sig n e r.......................Bernard Hides 1st Asst d ire c to r....................Jam es Parker on Wheels Prod, company .........................

Palm Beach C o m p o se r....................................

Brian May 2nd Asst director ..................Stuart Beatty SOMETHING WICKED S tudios.......................................................MortBay Pictures (Starstruck) Exec, producers ......................... John Daly, 3rd Asst d ire c to rs............Marcus Skipper, Cast: Gary Day (Ed Ballinger).

Penny DowProd, company .....................

David Hannay P ro d u c e rs ..................................

David Elfick.

Duncan Macarthur David Hemmings nie (Cindy), Kim Deacon (Jane). John Ewart Richard Brennan Assoc, p ro d u c e r....................................BrianCook Productions and Continuity ................................Carmen Hugo (Mr Stollier), Jill Forster (Mrs Stollier), Peter OB Productions Director .......................... Gillian Armstrong Unit m a n a g e r......................... Michael Fuller Clapper/loader ....................... Phillip Cross Collingwood (Mr Hollister). for Filmco Scriptw riter.................... Stephen MacLean Prod, secretary ....................... Jenny Barty Camera assistant ..........Peter Van Santen P ro d u c e rs ...............................................DavidHannay, Based on original idea Facilities manager ................... Chris Short Key g rip ................................................... DavidCassar by ................................. Stephen MacLean Prod, accountant ......................... Dean Hill Geoff Brown Asst grip .................................Peter Kershaw WE OF THE NEVER NEVER Director ..................................Brian McDuffie Photography........................... Russell Boyd Prod, a ssistan t............... Barbara Williams G affer....................................... Brian Adams Scriptw riter.............................................

Terry O'Connor Sound recordist ........................... Phil Judd 1st asst director .............Terry Needham Boom operator ..........................Ray Phillips Prod, company ....................Adams Packer E d ito r................................................. NicholasBeauman 2nd asst d irector..................... John Rooke Make-up ................................ Lois Hohenfels Based on the original idea Productions Prod, designer,....................................... BrianThomson 3rd asst d ire c to r..................... Mark Jaffee H airdresser...................................... Ndumsky Salon b y ......................................................... TerryO'Connor P ro d u c e r.................................................. Greg Tepper Photography...........................................DavidEggby Assoc, producer ............Stephen MacLean Continuity ...........................Therese O'Leary W ardrobe ................................. Jane Hyland Director ........................................ Igor Auzins Prod, manager .................... Barbara Gibbs Producer’s a ssistan t........... Sylvia Van Wyk Props b u y e r ........................Patrick Reardon Sound recordist ........................ Mark Lewis Scriptw riter..............................................PeterSchreck E d ito r.......................................................... TimStreet Location m an a g er..............Richard Ussher C asting................................................ Carmen Duncan Standby p ro p s ........................................ John Powditch P hotograph...............................................GaryHansen Prod, secretary ........................ Lynn Gailey Camera operator ..................... David Burr Set decorator .. Nicholas Van Roosendael Prod, manager .......................Julia Overton Sound recordist ............... Laurie Robinson Prod, secretary ....................Belinda Mason Prod, accountant ..................Digby Duncan Focus p u lle r........................... David Brostoff Still photography....................... Suzy Wood E d ito r..............................................Cliff Hayes Accounts a s s is ta n t........Vicki Montgomery Clapper/loader .........................Ben Seresin Best boy .............................

Gary Plunkett Prod, accountant ..........Howard Wheatley Prod, d e sig n e r.............................. Josephine Ford 1st asst director ................. Mark Turnbull Continuity ............Margaret Rose Stringer Key g rip ........................... Graham Litchfield C atering........Mobile Movie Meal Machine Exec, producer ...................... Phillip Adams 2nd asst director....................................Chris Maudson Producer's a ssistan t........... Vanessa Brown Asst grips .................................David Head.

Assoc, producer ....................... Brian Rosen Length ............................................. 100 mins Camera operator ..................David Connell 3rd asst d ire c to r................... Colin Fletcher Robert Verkerk Gauge ................................................. 35 mm Prod, co-ordinator ..................Janet Mciver Continuity .............................

Adrienne Read Focus p u lle r............................................Erika Addis 2 nd unit camera Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Unit m a n a g e r................................Paul Arnott Producer's secretary ............... Suzi Parker Key g rip s ......................... Merv McLaughlin, operator ............................... Bob Hughes Cast: Mike Preston (Ray), Gary Day (Terry), Prod, secretary ....................... Toni Barnard C asting..........................................................LizMullinar Brett Robinson 2 nd unit focus Wendy Hughes (Barbara), Dianne Cilento Prod, accountant ......................John Foster Casting consultants ............M & L Casting p u lle r........................... Ray Scarborough (Margot), Michael Pate (Giesman), Vanessa G affer......................................................RogerWood Prod, a ssista n t.............. Michael Bourchier Pty Ltd 2 nd unit Leigh (Dianne), Warwick Comber (Brian Boom operator ..........................Steve Miller Transport manager ............Gary Reberger Extras casting c lapper/loader..................... Colin Deane Ingersoll). Rod Mullinar (Overland), Claire Art d ire c to r................................................BobHilditch Construction m a n a g e r.............Ray Pattison co-ordinator................................. ChristineWoodruff G affer.......................................Ian Dewhurst Binney (Jacki Nesbitt), Sigrid Thornton Asst art director ..................... Robert Jones Asst construction Make-up ................................ Rina Hofmanis Lighting cam eraman . . . See Photography E lectricians..................................Tex Foote.

(Caroline). manager .......................... Danny Corloran Camera operator ................... Nixon Binney H aird resser............................................... RinaHofmanis Ian Philp Synopsis: A contemporary film.

1st asst director ....................... Tim Higgins

CINEMA PAPERS September-October— 389

C atering.......................................... John and 2nd assist d ire c to r..........Brendan Lavelle (Dr Juan Peron), Mary Anne Davidson C a s t: E liz a b e th A le x a n d e r . J o h n (Iris), Henri Szeps (Lilo), Sonja Tallis (PamSusan Faithfull 3rd asst d ire c to r..................... Jess Tapper (Isobel Gold). Terry Bader (Mr Gleeson). mie), Moya O'Sullivan (Mrs Malone), Les Hargreaves. Reg Lye. Mixed at ................................................. Atlab Continuity ............................. Christine Lipari Foxcroft (Mr Malone). Graham Rouse Synopsis: The loves, the lives, the dreams Synopsis: A tale not just of corruption, but Laboratory ..............................................Atlab Camera operator ................... Gary Hansen (Father James). Serge Lazareff (Colin), Alan and the fears of the incredibly young doc­ of c o u ra g e, d eterm ination and self­ Length ............................................ 90 mins Focus p u lle r................... Peter Van Santen Becher (Jim), Mark Lee (Bruce). tors and nurses. But, in this adaptation of realization. A film about a woman who at­ Gauge ....................................................35mm Clapper/loader ............................ Phil Cross Synopsis: Melanie and Tom have been the the oft-told story, the doctors and nurses tempts something that an ordinary in­ Shooting s to ck .........................Eastmancolor Key g rip ................................. Noel McDonald best of friends since pre-school. Thirty are played by children, the patients by dividual would never think herself capable Scheduled release . . . December 10, 1981 adults.

Asst grips ..........................Wayne Marshall,. years later they become lovers. Will they of achieving — a woman who sets an Cast: Nell Schofield, Jad Lapelja, Geoff John Jasiukowicz ever live happily ever after? example to the rest of us in taking on Rhoe, Tony Nogaes, Jay Hackett, Ned G affer.........................................Mick Morris authority.

DOUBLE DEAL Lander, Sandy Paul, Leanda Brett, Charles Gene o p e ra to r.........................................TomRobinson A BURNING MAN Tingwell, Kirrilly Nolan.

Boom operators ...................... Greg Steele, Prod, company ............... Rychemond Film MYSTERY AT CASTLE HOUSE Malcolm Cromie Prod c o m p an y ........McElroy and McElroy Productions P ro d u c e r...............................................Jam es McElroy Asst art director ..........Graeme Duesbury Dist. company ............................. (overseas) Prod, company ........................Independent SAVE THE LADY D irecto r............................. Quentin Masters Costume designer ........Camilla Rountree Hemdale Leisure Corp.

Productions Make-up ...................................Sally Gordon Scriptw riters.........................David Ambrose Prod, company ........................... Tasmanian P ro d u c e r...........................

Brendon Lunney Brian Kavanagh.

P ro d u c e rs...............................................

Quentin Masters Make-up assistant ........Robern Pickering Film Corporation Lynn Barker D irector.................................Peter Maxwell Based on the H airdresser............................................... WilliKenrick Dist. c o m p a n y ........Young Australia Films Director ................................Brian Kavanagh Scriptw riters......................... Stuart Glover, original idea b y ....................... Kit Denton Seam stress 1 .............................. Ruth Tickle P ro d u c e r...................................

Barry Pierce Scriptwriter............................................. BrianKavanagh Michael Hohensee Seam stress 2 ...........................Ruth Munroe Photography........................... Peter Hannan Director ........................................ Leon Thay Based on the original idea Based on the Wardrobe assistant ............Fiona Nicholls Sound recordist .....................Don Connolly Scriptwriters ...........................

John Palmer, original idea b y ..................................BrianKavanagh b y .............................................Geoff Beak E d ito r.......................................Richard Clark Stand-by p r o p s .......................................... RoBruen Yoram Gross Photography......................... Ross Berryman Photography................................Phil Pike Prod, designer ..................... Bob Hilditch Stand-by props assistant . . . .Greg Nelson Photography.............................................

GertKirchner Sound recordist ......................John Phillips Sound recordist ..........Rowland McManis Asst designer ....................... Robert Jones Special e ffe c ts......................................Reece Robinson Sound recordist ........... John Schiefelbein E d ito r.............................................Tim Lewis E d ito r.........................................Bob Cogger Prod, co-ordinator ..............Terry Fogarty Asst special effects .................. Peter Gloss E d ito r.......................................................... Jon Bowling C o m p o ser............................Bruce Smeaton Exec, producer ......................... Gene Scott Prod, manager .................. Peter Appleton Art department assistant . Steve Fullerton C o m p o se r............................ Peter McKinley Exec, producer ........................... John Daly Assoc, p ro d u c e r....................Russell Hurley Prod, accountant ............Elaine Crowther Art department animals ............Earl Gano Exec, producer ....................... John Honey Assoc, p ro d u c e r..................................

Carlie Deans Prod, co-ordinator ..................

Peter Abbott 1st asst director .......................David Finlay Horse m a s te r............................................ RayWinslade Prod, manager .................... Damian Brown Prod, su p erv iso r.................................... John Chase Prod, manager ........Christopher Gardiner Asst editor ...............................Karen Whiter 2nd asst director....................... John Rooke Prod, secretary .........................Pat Caspers Prod.

Prod, secretary .............

Wendy Chapman Still photography................. Penny Tweedie 3rd asst d ire c to r...........................Ian Kenny 1st asst director .................... Jack Zalkalns co-ordinator . . . Carolynne-Cunningham Prod, a ssistan t..................... Sean McLoury Continuity ...........................Roz Berrystone W ra n g le rs........................... Jim Willoughby, 2nd asst director........................ Ian Berwick Prod, accountant .................

LynnBarker 1st asst director . . . .Christopher Gardiner Prod, a ssistan t................... Wilma Schinella Barry Groves 3rd asst d ire c to r...................... Gaye Arnold Prod, a ssistan t.............................Lyn Devine 2nd asst d irector..................................... PaulCallaghan C asting....................................................... RaeDavidson Wranglers' a ss is ta n t.................................Jan Mitchell Continuity ........................... Daphne Crooks 1st Asst d ire c to r................. Ross Hamilton Continuity ..........................Catherine Sauter Best boy .................................Richard Curtis Camera operator ................... Keith Woods Focus p u lle r................... John Jasiukowicz 2nd Asst director ........................

Bill Baster C asting...........................

Mitch Consultancy Focus p u lle r............................Steve Mason Unit ru n n e rs ....................Antony Shepherd, Clapper/loader ........................Jan Dallas 2nd unit d ire c to r....................................BrianKavanagh Camera assistant .....................Keith Bryant Ian Billing Clapper/loader ......................... Stuart Quin Key g rip ................................ Gary Clements Continuity ..............................Shirley Ballard Key g rip ...........................

Merv McLaughlin Key g rip ..................................................... DonAndrews Unit n u r s e ................................................SallyWalker Boom operator ...................... David Creagh Producer's a ssistan t........Helen Kavanagh 2nd unit photography ............... Phil Dority, Aboriginal ad v iser................... Vikki Christie Asst grip .................................. Phil Shapiera Art d ire c to r................................................. Jon Bowling' Lighting cameraman ........Ross Berryman Garry Maunder Electrician..............................................DerekJones D river....................................................... PeterBourne Make-up ........................... Felicity Newman Focus p u lle r............................................. IanJones G affer................................................Ray Ang Boom operator ............Graeme McKinney Laboratory ...................................... Colorfilm Make up assistants ........Margaret Pierce, Clapper/loader ............................ Phil Cross Boom operator ....................... Jan McHarg Costume designer ............Marta Statescu Lab. liaison..................................................BillGooley Patty Agerldis Special fx ..........................Conrad Rothman Art d ire c to r.............................. Jakob Horvat Make-up ...................................... Jose Perez Length ...............................................90 mins Asst editor .............................Megan Purcell G affer.......................................Lindsay Foote W ardrobe ................................Fiona Spence H airdresser..............................................Jose Perez Gauge ....................................................35mm Mixer ................................... Peter McKinley Boom operator ..........................Ray Phillips P r o p s .................................... Brian Edmonds Ward a ssistan t...................

Catriona Brown Shooting s to c k ........................ Eastmancolor Length ...............................................80 mins Art d ire c to r................................... Jill Eden Asst editor .......................Mickey O’Sullivan Props b u y e r...................................Ian Allen Cast: Angela Punch McGregor (Jeannie Cast: Wallas Eaton (Trotter), John Ewart Asst art director .........................Phil Eagles Neg. m atch in g ........................... Chris Rowell Gunn), Arthur Dignam (Aeneas Gunn), Tony Standby p ro p s ......................................... PaulJones (Uncle Harry), Bill Kerr (MacDuff), Desmond Make-up ............................ Deryck De Niese Still photography...................................Fiona Spence, Barry (Mac). Martin Vaughan (Dan), Lewis Special e ffe c ts........................Brian Olesen Tester (Captain), John Cobley (Menial), H airdresser............................................ Pietra Robins Garry Maunder Alan Maxwell Fitz-Gerald (Jack), John Jarratt (Dandy), John Wardrobe ...................................Anna Jakab Publicity................................................ Wendy ChambersUnicomb (Minister), Barry Ruggles Carpenters ...........................Robert Shearer Cecil Parkes (Cheon), Danny Adcock (Col). Frankie Davidson (Blue), Miranda Props b u y e r..........................Nick Hepworth Laboratory ............... Cine Film Laboratory Trevor Fidock (Brown), Tommy Lewis (Jackaroo), Donald Cartledge (Jo). Robert Clarkson (Specs).

Standby p ro p s ..........................................KenHazelwood Lab. liaison................................................. CalGardiner Mike Osbourne Blitner (Goggle Eye).

Synopsis: Four country children find an old Special e ffe c ts..................Conrad Rothman Length ..............................................

85 mins Synopsis: A story of the hardship faced by Set construction ..................... John Parker steam ferry which is about to be demolished Construction................... Geoff Richardson, Gauge .................................................. 16mm Stunts co-ordinator ....................Max Aspin newly-married Jeannie Gunn which recalls by the Maritime Transport Commission.

Ian Doig Shooting s to c k .......................

Eastmancolor Still photography . . . . Geoffrey McGeachin the courage, vitality and humor of early They are able to foil the demolition plans Asst editor ................................ Ken Sallows Cast: Aileen Britton (Miss Markham), Henri Best boy ...................................Matt Slattery cattlemen and Aboriginal stockmen in a and save the ferry, the “Lady Hope". A Still photography.................................... SuzyWood Szeps (Mr W llberforce), John Cobley R u n n er................................ Richard Hobbs harsh, but memorable Northern Territory comedy for children.

Best boy ..................................

Gary Scholes (Morris), Ray Meagher (Stakovich), Simone Unit publicist .........................Babette Smith environment.

R u n n er.................................\ . .Stuart Wood Buchanan (Kate), Scott Nicholas (Ben), C atering........................... Christina Norman Publicity..................................................Carlie Deans Jeremy Shadlow (Spider), Robert Geammel Scheduled release ........December, 1981 Unit publicist .......................... Peter Murphy (Rocco), Tony Lee (Ah Leong).

SWEET DREAMERS Cast: Tom Skerritt (Howard Anderson). Ian Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm Synopsis: When three children cross the Gilmour (Steve Adams). Jam es Mason Lab. liaison...............................................

Bill Gooley harbor to explore Castle House — a Prod, company ..............T.C. Productions (George Engels).

Wendy Hughes (Sophie AW AITING RELEASE B u d g et.......................................................... $1million Producer ................................Lesley Tucker strange, unoccupied mansion — they en­ McCann), Kim Deacon (Maggie Anderson), Shooting s to ck ........................ Eastmancolor counter sinister baddies, a kidnapping and Director .....................................

Tom Cowan Ray Barrett (Webster). Norman Kaye (Percy Cast: Angela Punch McGregor (Christina a- hilarious, eccentric lady. Excitement, Scriptwriters ............................ Tom Cowan, Farley). Guy Doleman (Julian Fane), Martin Stirling). Louis Jourdan (Peter Stirling), mystery and non-stop action and roll-inLesley Tucker Harris (Curly Chester), Michael Petrovitch Diane Craig (June Stevens), Warwick the-aisle comedy for children.

Based on the original Idea THE BEST OF FRIENDS (Joe Laliniei).

Comber (young man). Bruce Spence (Doug by ..........................................

Tom Cowan, Synopsis: A film covering the events of Prod, company ....................... The Friendly Mitchell), Peter Cummins (Detective Mills), Lesley Tucker Film Company bushfires in Sydney's Blue Mountains, dur­ Patty Crocker (Christina's mother), Kerry Photography ............................Brian Probyn PUBERTY BLUES ing a hot Christmas summer.

Dist. company ....................Hoyts Theatres Walker (Sibyl Anderson), Danee Lindsay Sound recordist ............... Paul Schneller P ro d u c e r............................. Tom M. Jeffrey (junior s e c re ta ry ). J u n e Ja g o (Mrs Prod, company . . . . Limelight Productions Editor ......................................... Tom Cowan Director ......................... Michael Robertson Coolidge).

Art director ............................ Lesley Tucker company ............................. Roadshow DOCTORS & NURSES Scriptw riter....................Donald Macdonald Synopsis: A psychological thriller, its plot is Dist.

C o m p o se r................................... Brett Cabot Long, Based on the original a mystery of manipulation and double­ P ro d u c e rs ...................................Joan Prod, company ............................. Universal Margaret Kelly Sound editor ................ Peter Somerville idea by ..................... Donald Macdonald dealing centering around elegant, beautiful Mixer ............................... Julian Ellingworth Entertainment Corporation Director ...............................Bruce Beresford Photography.............................. DavidGribble P roducer/director.............................MauriceMurphy Christina Stirling, her urbane, successful Length .............................................96 mins Sound recordist ........................... Tim Lloyd Scriptw riters.................. Morris Gleitzman. m an-of-the-w orld hu sb an d . Peter, a Scriptw riter............................ Margaret Kelly Gauge .................................................16mm Based on the novel Editor . . . . - ............................... Ron Williams daunting, sensuous young man and Peter’s Doug Edwards. b y ...................................... Kathy Lette and Scheduled release ..............August, 1981 C o m p o se r............................................... BrianKing efficient, devoted secretary.

(Dendy Martin Plaza) Robyn Moase, Gabrielle Carey Script co n su ltan t.....................Betty Archer Cast: Richard Moir (Will Daniels), Sue Tony Sheldon Photography.......................... Don McAlpine Prod, manager ................ Su Armstrong Smithers (Josephine Russell), Adam Bowen Based on the Sound recordist .................... Garry Wilkins Unit m a n a g e r................... Tony Wellington (Stuart), Frankie Raymond (Landlady), original idea b y ..............Maurice Murphy E d ito r............................... William Anderson THE KILLING OF ANGEL STREET Prod, secretary ................... Julie Kennedy Richard Tipping (Busker), Maisie Turner Photography................................John Seale Composers ................................ Les Gock, Prod, accountant ..........Howard Wheatley Sound recordist ........................Tim Lloyd Tim Finn (Young actress). Gabriel (Waitress).

1st asst director .................. Eddie Pyrlinski E d ito r..........................................Greg Ropert Prod, company ............Forest Home Films Synopsis: Two young Australians meet in Dist. company .......................................GUO Prod, manager ...................Greg Ricketson 2nd asst d irecto r.................................. ColinFletcher London and inspired by their dream s of C o m p o se r................................................ MikeHarvey P ro d u c e r........................... Anthony Buckley Location m anagers.................................. PhilRich, 3rd asst d ire c to r....................... Tony Winley Prod, secretary ............Harriet Ayre-Smith making films in Australia fall in love and Director ............................. Donald Crombie Sue Parker Continuity ........................... Adrienne Read Prod, accountant ............... Richard Harper Scriptw riters...........................Michael Craig, Prod, secretary ......................... Helen Watts celebrate.

Producer's secretary . . . . Elizabeth Barton Management Cecil Holmes.

Prod, accountant .....................

Penny Carl C asting........................................... Dee Neville 1st Asst d ire c to r........Charles Rotherham Evan Jones Prod, a ssistan t..................... Renata Wilson Camera operator ................... Nixon Binney 2nd Asst director ......................Pam Brown Photography.............................Peter Jam es WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD 1st asst director ..................

Mark Egerton Focus p u lle r................ Peter Menzies, jun. Continuity .......................... Caroline Stanton Sound recordist ................... John Phillips 2nd asst director..............Marshall Crosby Prod, company ............INMA Productions Clapper/loader ..............Geoffrey Wharton Focus p u lle r................... Richard Merryman E d ito r........................................ Tim Wellburn 3rd asst d ire c to r.................

Renata Wilson P ro d u c e rs ..................................................NedLander, Key g rip .....................................................PaulThompson Clapper/loader ............. Geoffrey Wharton Prod, d e sig n e r.......................................DavidCopping Continuity ................................. Moya Iceton Graeme Issac Asst grip ......................... Brendon Shanley Key g rip ............................Graham Litchfield Prod, manager ............Jacqueline Ireland Producer's a ssistan t........Cynthia Blanche Director .......................................Ned Lander G affer....................................................... MilesMoulson G affer..........................................................RegGarside Unit m a n a g e r...........................

Richard Cole C asting....................................Alison Barrett Scriptw riters...........................Graeme Issac, E lectrician........................................... RichardOldfield Electrician...............................Sam Bienstock Location M anager................... Richard Cole Camera operator ................Don McAlpine Ned Lander, Boom operator .................... Jack Friedman Boom operator ....................Jack Friedman Prod, secretary ........................... Dixie Betts Focus p u lle r................................. David Burr in collaboration with cast Art d ire c to r................................. John Carroll Art d ire c to r.......................................Bob Hill Prod, accountant ..........: . . Digby Duncan Clapper/loader ........................... Derry Field Photography.............................. Louis Irving Asst art director .................... Simon Quaife Costume designer ...........Judith Dorsman 1st Asst d ire c to r............................... Andrew Williams Key g rip ............................Merv McLaughlin Sound recordist .....................Lloyd Carrick Make-up .......................................Liz Michie Make-up ................................... Viv Mepham Asst grip ............................... Peter Masden E d ito r..........................................John Scott 2nd Asst director ................. Peter Jacobs H airdresser.....................................Liz Michie H airdresser...........................Gayle Edmonds 3rd Asst directo r...................

Simon Dibbs G affer............................................. Rob Young Prod, d e sig n e r...........................................Jan Mackay W ardrobe ................................... Carol Berry Wardrobe ................... Robyn Schuurmans Continuity .....................................Linda Ray Electrician.......................... Sam Bienstock M u sic ...................'......... No Fixed Address, Ward, assistant ............... Lesley McLennan Props b u y e r........................Sandy Wingrove C asting........................... Mitch Consultancy Boom operator ................. Mark Wasiutuk Props b u y e r..............................................Sue Hoyle Us Mob Standby p ro p s ...................................

Richard Walsh Camera operator ..........Danny Batterham Art d ire c to r........................ David Copping Prod, manager ............................... Ian Page Standby p ro p s .........................................AnniBrowning Asst editor ....................... Micky O'Sullivan Focus p u lle r..........................................Andre Fleuren Costume designer ............Sue Armstrong Unit m a n a g ers.......................................Cathy Elderton, Asst editor .................... Catherine Sheehan Musical director ...................... Mike Harvey Clapper/loader ....................Andrew Lesnie Make-up ......................................Judy Lovell ■ Alec Morgan Neg. m atch in g ................................ MargaretCardin Mixer ....................................... Peter Fenton Key g rip ...........................Graham Litchfield H airdresser..............................................Judy Lovell Prod, a ssistan t.......................................GayleRankine Musical director .......................... Brian King Still photography.................................. MikeGiddens Asst grip ................................ Richard Walsh Ward, a s s is ta n t....................... Cathy Jam es Asst d irector...............................Phil Roberts Music orchestrations .. .George Brodbeck Dialogue coach ........................... Dina Mann G affer................................................... WarrenMearns P r o p s ................................ Derryck Chetwyn Camera assistant ............Jeremy Robbins Sound editor ........................... Paul Maxwell Tech, a d v iso r.......................................NeridaTrick Boom operator ..................... Geoff Wilson Props b u y e r............................ Wendy Sugar Boom operator .............................. Pat Fiske Asst sound e d ito r....................Anne Breslin R u n n er..............................David Oxenbould Art d ire c to r.........................................Lindsay Hewson Standby p ro p s .................

Derryck Chetwin Musical producers ..................Phil Roberts.

Mixer ....................................... Peter Fenton Publicity.................................... Lyn Thor burn Asst art director ................. Robyn Coombs Asst props ......................... Dennis Manson Asst m ixer................................Gethlin Creag Catering Graeme Issac ......................... Cecil B De Meals Costume designer . . . . . . . .Judith Dorsman Asst editor ....................... Jeannine Chialvo Dubbing editor .............................Peter Butt Still photography....................................BrianMorris On Wheels Make-up .......................................Jill Porter Sound editor ................. William Anderson Editing .......................Sherree Goldsworthy Title d e sig n e r......................................... XTO? Mixed at ..................................United Sound H airdresser.............................................WillieKenrick Editing assistants ................... Mark D'Arcy, Mixer ........................................ Peter Fenton Best boy ................................... Gordon Nutt Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm Ward, assistant ................... Katrina Brown Denise Haslem Asst dubbing e d ito r............. Roger Hudson R u n n er.....................................................DavidTrethewey Props b u y e r.........................................Neville Duguid Lab. liaiso n ..................................................Bill Gooley Mixer ...................................Douglas Turner Still photography....................................CarolRuff Publicity...................................................DavidWhite Asst editor ........................... Vicki Ambrose Length ............................................... 90 mins.

Asst m ixer....................... Julian Elllngworth C atering................................................... Jem s Catering R u n n ers............................... Mardi Kennedy, Best boy ............................... Alleyn Mearns Gauge ................................................... 35mm S tu n ts...................................................... GrantPage Mixed at .................................. United Sound Mary Stutters Shooting s to c k ........................

Eastmancolor R u n n er.................................................

Janene Knight Still photography........................... Mike Roll Length ...............................................80 mins Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm C atering....................................................John Faithfull Scheduled r e le a s e ..........Christmas. 1981 Title d e sig n e r............................... Fran Burke Gauge ....................................................35mm Lab. liaiso n ..................................................BillGooley Cast: Bert Newton (Mr Cody). Pamela Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm Best boy ............................... Colin Williams Length ...............................................95 mins Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Stephenson (Ms Wave). Graeme Blundell Lab. liaison .................................. Bill Gooley R unners.............................. Mardi Kennedy, Cast: No Fixed Address (Bart Willoughby, Gauge ....................................................35mm (Mr X). Andrew McFarlane (Milligan). June Length ........................................... 100 mins.

Richard Hobbs Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor C hris J o n e s , Jo h n M iller, V eronica Salter (Mrs Cliquot). Drew Forsythe (Katz). Gauge ................................................... 35mm Publicity................................ Roadshow and Rankine), Us Mob (Ronnie Ansell, Peter Cast: Angela Punch-McGregor (Melanie).

Richard Meikle (President). Miguel Lopez Shooting s to c k ........................ Eastmancolor Limelight Productions Butler, Wally McArthur, Carroll Karpanny), Graeme Blundell (Tom), Ruth Cracknell

390 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

L e ila R a n k ln e , G a y le R a nk lrte, V e ro n ic a B ro d ie , D o n n a D ro v er.

Synopsis: T w o d a y s in th e liv e s o f A b o rig in a l ro c k b a n d s N o Fixe d A d d re s s a n d U s M o b . T h e story o p e n s in P ort A d e la id e w ith th e b a n d s play in g to an A b o rig in a l a u d ie n c e at th e to w n hall. Us M o b Is s ing ing "G e n o c id e " w h en th e police arriv e.

Cast: Patrick Dolan (Singood), Zoh Watt,

AN IM A TIO N

SH O R TS

THE DISC OF MAGALA

THE APPLICANT

estate, she finds decom posed bodies slumped around the house. Sue is thought to be the only Maddlson alive. She meets Charles (a psycho). Yearning for the family's return, he retrieves their bodies, and brings them back to the estate to live again as a ‘family’.

O rig in a l id e a by R a y m o n d B a rtra m Produced with the support P h o to g ra p h y .................................E rn es t C lark of . The John Simon Guggenheim S o u n d re co rd is t ......................... P e te r B a rk e r Memorial Foundation.

E d i t o r .....................................................................T im S ullivan The Nahona! Endowment for C o m p o s e r ..................................................... R o b e rt P a rk e r the Humanities (USA).

P ro d s u p erv iso r G e ra rd O d e r Rice University Media Centre. Houston, P rod s e c re ta ry ...................... D e b ra M e re d ith The National Film School C o n t in u it y ..................................... B e tje W tffers of G t Britain, Lighting c a m e ra m a n ................ E rnes t C la rk With the assistance and co-operation of C a m e ra o p e ra to r ....................... E rnest C la rk C a m e ra assistant ...........R o b e rt C a m p b e ll The National Museums of Kenya Prod, company ..............A Most Attractive Neg. matching ....................... Pat Smith Man Productions B o o m o p e ra to r ...................... M ic h a e l C la rk e Teiecuttmg Ltd. P ro d u c e r................................... Gillian Coote P ro p s . .........................................G ary T h o m a s Director ..................................Rivka Hartman N e g m a t c h in g ........................... . . . C o lo rfilm Trties.................................Optical 8 Graphic M ix e r ..............................................

J a m e s C u rrie Laboratory Reeds Colour Film Scriptw riter..................... Christine Stanten Sound recordist .............................Pat Fiske Title d e s ig n e r .............................. G e o rg e Z ikas Laboratories Ltd, E d ito r..................................... Denise Hasiem M ix e d at ................................................

SAFC Motion Picture Laboratories, Inc Prod, manager ......................Jo Horsburgh L a b o ra to ry .............................................. C o lo rfilm B u d g e t.................. ..........$25,000 Prod, accountant ................Digby Duncan La b. l ia is o n ..................................................W a rre n K eev Leersn g th ........................ . . . . 70 mms 1st Asst d ire c to r..................... Sabina Wynn B u d g e t .......................................................... S 3 0 .0 0 0 Gauge .......... ..................16mm P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................M a g a la Film s P r o d u c e r ........................................P hillip R o o p e 2nd Asst director .............. Roslyn Gillespie L ength ..........................................................3 8 m ins Shooting stock . . .

7252 Ektachrome D i r e c t o r s ..............................R ic h ard C h a ta w ay , D ire cto r .................................R ic h ard W h e rre tt Continuity .......................... Caroline Stanton G a u g e ..............................................................1 6m m Progress . . . . . . . Post-production S c r ip tw r ite r ................................... P hillip R oope M ic h a e l C us a ck C asting.................................... Gillian Coote, S hooting s to c k ............................. E a s tm a n c o lo r 7247Scheduled retease October. 1981 P h o to g r a p h y ................................... D a vid P erry S c r ip tw r ite r s .......................R ic h ard C h a ta w ay , Rivka Hartman. P r o g r e s s .................................................... A w aitin g re le a se New York.

M ic h a e l C us a ck S o u n d re co rd is t ............................ R ob S ta ld e r Ros Gillespie S c h e d u le d re le a s e ....................O c to b e r 1981 Margaret Mead Film Festival B a se d on the original E d i t o r .............................................................. K im b le R endall Lighting ...........................................Paul Tait, Cast: T o m Burlinso n (John). D on B a rk e r Synopsis. The final feature documentary in Id e a by ........................... R ic h ard C h a ta w ay , P ro d , d e s ig n e r ..................................... Lisa Elvy Erika Addis (J a c k ). Jo h n Dick (M ik e ), Les D a ym a n the “Turkana Conversations" trilogy, covers P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ....................... R ic h ard Keys M ic h a e l C us a ck Camera operator ...................... Erika Addis (C o n s ta b le ). the period before filming The Wedding Live so u n d re c o rd is t ............S u sa n F o rm b y Camera assistant ................ Renee Romeril Synopsis: T h re e reclus iv e opa l m in ers 1st asst d ire c to r ....................... M a rk T h o m a s Camel* an inquiry into how people in a E d i t o r s ...................................R ic h ard C h a ta w a y , G affe r...................................................... TanyaMillen C o n tin u ity ................................A n d re w W illiam s strike a fortune, w hich b e c o m e s the catalyst nomadic society view marriage John C h a ta w a y C a s t in g ....................................R ic h ard W h e rre tt, Boom operator .......................... Jacqui Fine for a rousing old d iffe re n c e s b e tw ee n them P ro d , d e s ig n e r .......................................... M ic h a e l C u s a ck Ann C h u rc h ill-B ro w n Art d ire c to r.................................................JeffBruer T hey w res tle w ith feelings of g re e d , fe a r C o m p o s e r ..........................................Tim S ex to n Focus p u l l e r ............................... F a b lo C ava d in l Asst art director .................. Jinks Dulhunty and. finally, re ve n g e .

E xec, p ro d u c e r .............................. R o g e r Ford C la p p e r /io a d e r ....................... F a b io C a va d in i W ardrobe .............................. Jinks Dulhunty P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ............................Jim G e o rg e B oom o p e ra to r .................... M ic h a e l C utcliffe Set construction ........................ Tony Coote P ro d , c o - o r d i n a t o r ................ Jo h n C h a ta w a y M a k e -u p ...................................M ic h e lle A ntru m Asst editor .............................. Joel Peterson P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ............................... Lyall A ird W a rd ro b e .............................................. Lisa Elvy Sound editor ....................... Denise Hasiem S c rip t assistant ...............................J im G e o rg e W a rd , a s s is t a n t .............................................P e te r B urnStill e tt photography.................................... MarkJackson P rops ................ S y d n e y T h e a tre C o m p a n y , Lighting c a m e ra m a n . . .R ich a rd C h a ta w a y Publicity.....................................................GillyCoote, A p ro p o s , K ey g r i p .......................

Roy W e b b Rivka Hartman E liza b e th a n T h e a tre Trust, Asst g rip ........................................... O sc a r W e b b C atering .........................Susan Warburton, Artes G a f f e r ................................................. T in a C us a ck Wendy Doyle S et d e c o ra to rs .......................... P e te r B urnett, Laboratory .......................................Colorfilm E le c tr ic ia n ......................................................... N igel C ook D avid A d a m s Lab, liaison..................Richard Piorkowski A rt d ir e c t o r ............................ .M ic h a e l C us a ck C a rp e n te r ............................ P e te r R asm ussen Asst art d ire c to r .......................... Keith B a k e r B u d g e t.................................................$50,000 (working iitie) S c e n ic a r t i s t s .................... B a rb a ra B ro o k s b y, N e g . m a t c h in g ................... N e g a tiv e T hinkin g Length .............................................45 mins Prod company Minotaur Film Prods.

Neil W a d d in g to n No. of shots ........................................................ 141 Gauge .................................................... 16mm Director Luis Lima S et c o n stru ctio n .................. M ic h a e l C u s a ck , S o u n d e d ito r ..........................K im b le R endall Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Photography ............... Jeff D«x Keith B a ke r.

Still p h o to g r a p h y ....................... Regis Lansac Progress ....................................... Production Editor . (working title) Lu« Lima A rth u r L e m on, O p t i c a l s .............................. O p tic al 8 G rap h ic s C ast: G rigor Taylor (Dorian), C arole Research Ten Koch T e ch , a d v i s e r ..................................... Tony Mills K urt Flo rim o n d , Skinner (Frances), Julie McGregor (Judy).

Synopsis The Dutch were not the first to W r a n g l e r ..................................... G a ry D ennison D ou g la s M e lville Anna Volska (Vija), Dennis Miller (Mick). Prod c o m p a n y ........... Australian Institute ot Aboriginal Studies Film Unit discover Australia This film deals with the C a t e r in g ............................................ G avin M a lm Cathy Downes (Merryl), Morgan Lew (Billy).

N eg. m a t c h in g ....................................... C o lo rfilm discovery and mapping of Australia by Por­ Jane Weir (Jane). Bradley Miller (Toby). Dist company ..............Australian Institute S tu d io s ..................................... M e tro Television M u s ic p e rfo rm e d by ...........C h ris C h a ta w a y of A b o r ig in a l S t u d i e s Film U nit tuguese navigators in the earfy 15!h Cen­ John Stone (Clerk).

M ix e r .......................................................J im C u rrie L a b o ra to ry ...................................................... A tlab . David and Judith MacDougall tury B u d g e t .......................................................... $ 2 1 ,0 0 0 A n im a tio n ................................ M ic h a e l C u s a ck , Synopsis: Living in the 1980s, on the Producers Directors . .David and Judith MacDougall K eith B a ke r pension with three children and a lodger. P Length ........................................................25 m ins hotography..................

David MacDougall Frances faces life with gritty humor. But the T e c h , a d v i s e r ..................................................T e rry J o nes G a u g e ..............................................................1 6m m recordist ........Judith MacDougall S hoo tin g s t o c k ...................................Fuji colo ur lodger is dodgy about his rent. She fancies Sound M ix e d at .......................................................... S A F C Editors . . . David and Judith MacDougall L a b o ra to ry .............................................. C o lo rfilm P ro g res s ....................................P o st-p ro d u c tio n him. somehow it doesn't balance out.

Prod s e c re ta ry ........................Michele Day L ength .......................................................... 30 m ins S c h e d u le d re le a s e .. S e p te m b e r 25, 1981 Prod company Michael Dillon Prod, a c c o u n ta n t....................Tibor Varga S yd n e y G a u g e ...............................c . ..........................1 6m m Film Enterprises Camera a s s is ta n t..........Cohn MacDougall C ast: B ra n d o n B u rk e (P hil), S u e R oy lan c e S h o o tin g s to c k ..............................E a s tm a n co lo r Producer Michaei Dillon Narrators . . .

B. Massey Pootchemunka (D e e ), D. J. F oster (G a v), Di C ra ig (S o n n ie ), P ro g re s s ............................................... P rod u ctio n Director .

Michael Diiion E Pootchemunka S c h e d u le d r e l e a s e ................................O c to b e r 1981J o h n P a r a m o u r (A n g u s ), M e r c ia D e a n Photography Michael Diiion.

I. Pootchemunka Prod, company . . . . Steam er Pictures and Johns (E va). A lan D a le (J o n a th o n ), D iana Voices: Keith G alla sc h (R a ia d in . M a g a la ), Ted Hughes Shimmer Films L a b o ra to ry .....................................Cine Film D a vidson (P hil's m o th e r), K im b le R endall G e o ff R evell (S n o z), Jon Firm an (G la d e ), Sound recordist Aiasdair MacFariane Lab. lia iso n ...............................

Michele Day Dist. company ........................... Tasmanian (K im D ay).

R on H o e n ig (D ra ig e l, D ra g o n ), D avid Kirk Editor Roy Mason Film Corporation L e n g th ............................. 60 mins (approx.)

Synopsis: Phil, a te a c h e r, a p p lie s for a job (G lo m ), T in a A n d e rs so n (O ra c le ).

Assoc producer Dick Smith Gauge ...................................................16mm P ro d u c e rs ............................... Ian Rochford. as a re p o rte r on a c h ild re n ’s television Synopsis: T he g o o d w izard R a iad in w ith his Narrator ¡an Johnstone Shooting s to c k ..............Eastmancolor 7247 Peter Campbell. show . D uring the next 3 0 days, Phil an d the s id e k ic k S n o z set out to d e stro y th e evil Laboratory Cotorfiim David Perry P r o g r e s s ............................. Post-production o th e r young hop e fu ls a re put throug h the M a g a la w h o , w ith h is m a g ic a l d is c , Length 50 mint Director ............................... Peter Campbell S yno p sis A portrait of three Aboriginal hoops by th e s how ’s lordly c o m p e re and his th re a te n s th e w o rld . A fantasy for child re n Gauge 16mm stockmen from three generations of a single Scriptw riter..............................................Peter Campbell p ro d u c e r. in c lay a n im a tio n .

Shooting stock Eastmancolor

Mynx Martin, Robyn Sainty, Ashley Jones, Mark Benson. Alan Harold.

S y n opsis: A scie n c e -fic tio n , m usical cartoon using rotoscoped animation about an unemployed teenager who fantasizes about his adventures in a post-nuclear holocaust Sydney of the 21st Century.

A MOST ATTRACTIVE MAN

D O C U M E N T A R IE S FEATURES

SH O R TS

AUSTRALIA: THE DISCOVERY

INHERITANCE

BEYOND EVEREST

RAYMOND, DANIELLE AND MUM TAKE TEA

P hotography............................... David Perry Sound recordist ..................... Mark Thorn GREETINGS FROM E d ito r..................................... Douglas Craig C o m p o se r........................... Michael Harvey WOLLONGONG THE THIEF OF SYDNEY Assoc, producer ..................... Peter Grace Prod, co-ordinator ..........Leonie Highfield P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............S te el C ity P ictures Prod, company ......................G utter-snipes Lighting c a m e r a m a n ............... David Perry P r o d u c e r ...................................... N ina S au n d ers P r o d u c e r.....................................Toby Zoates D i r e c t o r ..............................................................M a ry C a lla Camera ghan assistant ...............Peter Howard Director ......................................Toby Zoates Art ..

Andrew Blaxland S c r ip tw r ite r ...................................................... M a ry C a lla g h adirector n Scriptw riter.................................Toby Zoates Design a ss o c ia te s ............

Derrick Cox. B ased on the original id ea Based on the original idea by ............................................. M a ry C a lla g h a n Fay Knight. b y .............................................Toby Zoates Leigh Hobbs P h o to g r a p h y ..................................... Louis Irving Photography..................................Peter Gray Costume designer .. Anthony Thompson S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................John W h itte ro n Sound recordist ....................... John Donan E d i t o r .............................................. Tony S tevens M a k e -u p .............................

Sally Gordon E d ito r...............................

Toby Zoates C o m p o s e r ..................................C a m e ro n Allan Wardrobe . . Costume Design Centre.

Prod d e sig n e r........................... Toby Zoates Assoc, p r o d u c e r s ......... M ic h a e l C a lla g h a n , Sydney C o m p o se rs ............................................ TobyZoates.

M a ry C a lla g h a n P r o p s ................. .......... Peter Grace John Donan Asst editor ...................

Stephen Morell P rod, m a n a g e r ....................... N in a S a u n d e rs Assoc, p ro d u c e r........................Glen Lewis Neg matching . Negative Thinking, P ro d , a s s is ta n ts ............................T e rry Q uinn, Prod, a ss is ta n t..................................Monique Francis G a ry R obinson, ' Sydney Continuity ...................................... Gary Lane M a rie F a u lkn e r Musical d ir e c to r ............... Michael Harvey Script assistant .............................Gary Lane C ontin uity ....................... S te p h a n ie R ichards Music performed by .. .Michael Harvey.

Lighting cam eram an ...................Gary Lane John Ockweii, B oom o p e ra to rs ............M ic h a e l C a lla g h a n .

Camera operator ........................Peter Gray Clarry Davis.

M a rie M c M a h o n Focus p u lle r................................... Gary Lane Francis Ravel P rops ..........................................M a rie M c M a h o n C lapper/ioader .............................Gary Lane Editing assistant ............G a b rie lta Finnane Sound editor . . . . . . .

Douglas Craig Cam era assistant .........................Gary Lane Still p h o to g r a p h y ..........................................M a rie M c MMusic a h o n R e c o rd is t..................... Peter Grace Special fx p h o to g rap h y .............. Peter Gray.

Al Forster C a t e r in g .......................................................... Louise S a mStudio m u e is Assistant ..

Toby Zoates L a b o rato ry .............................................. C o lo rfilm Still photography.................Peter Howard Art d ire c to r...............................................TobyZoates Tech adviser... .. . .

Karen Lee L ength ........................................................4 0 m ins Costume designer ................... Toby Zoates Post-production Reel Productions G a u g e .............................................................. 1 6 m m Make-up .....................................Mynx Martin S h o o tin g s to c k ........................... E a s tm a n co lo r Mixed a t ..............

Sound on Film.

W ardrobe ..........................Jessica Deeistra P ro g res s ....................................P o st-p ro d u c tio n Sydney Ward, a s s is ta n t............ Mary Aibequerque Laboratory , ......................... ......Atlab Cast: Tina W a lle r (D e b ). L o rra in e P a ia m a ra P r o p s .........................................................TobyZoates (G i n a ) , K e v in B u d g e n ( S t e v e ) . D a v id length . . . . . ! .......................

26 mins C h o re o g ra p h y .........................................TobyZoates Gauge .................... 16mm (35mm bfow up) H o rrid g e (H ic k ey ).

Set d e c o ra to r...........................................TobyZoates Shooting stock .. . . . .

FujtcoJor Synopsis: A look at youth u n e m p lo y m e n t Set construction ..................... Patrick Dolan w Progress .................. Awaiting release ith in th e c o n te x t o f an in d u s tria lfy Musical director ....................... John Donan C a s t Daivid Lowe. Pat McDonald. Brian d o m in a te d c o m m u n ity.

Music performed by .............. John Donan.

Chant. R obert Dallas. Robyn Bowtell.

Toby Zoates Ginger Bensen. Lillian Tanner Sound editors .......................... John Donan, THE MADDISON MANSION Synopsis.

A black comedy about a middleToby Zoates aged bank officer who attempts to confront P r o d u c e r .......................................D a rre n B oyce Still photography ............Monique Francis his conservative, bowls vice-president mum D i r e c t o r ....... ..................................D a rre n B oyce Animation ...................................Toby Zoates with his other life as Danielle. a part-time, S c r ip tw r ite r .................................. D a rre n B oyce Title designer ............................. Toby Zoates rather gross drag-queen O rig in a l id e a b y .........................D a rre n B oyce Tech, a d v is e r........ Eddie van der Madden P h o to g r a p h y ................................D a vid P avilch Mixed at .........................Wirra-willa Studios B u d g e t .......................................................... $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 Laboratory ..........■.............. Colorfilm REVENGE B u d g e t..................................................$20,000 Le n g th ........................................................ 6 0 m ins Prod, c o m p a n y ......................... Fame Films P ro g res s ................................... P re -p ro d u c tio n L e n g th ................................................10 mins Dist. company ...........................Roadshow C a s t: H e le n G o t t s t i e n ( S u e ) . P ie t e r Gauge .....................................................16mm Producer ........................Raymond Bertram F u llw o o d (Ia n ), R o d P a rtia l (C h a rle s ).

Shooting s to c k ..............,..........Kodachrome D ire c to r............................Raymond Barham Synopsis: S u e inh e rits th e fa m ily e state Progress ...........

Production Scriptw riter......................Raymond Bartram a fte r h e r fa th e r d ies . W h e n visiting the Scheduled r e l e a s e .................. March, 1982

family who work on an all-Abortgina! cattle station in their traditional clan country, south ot Aurukun. in northern Queensland.

Synopsis Sir Edmund Hillary builds his 22nd school for the S her pa children, then travels with the migrating yaks to a sacred ¡ake near Everest

TWO LAWS Producers

.

Carolyn Straehan.

Alessandro Cavadini, John Avery.

Borroiooia Aboriginal Community Directors Borroiooia Aboriginal Community with Carolyn Straehan, Aiesandro Cavadini Scriptwriters Borroioota Aboriginal Community Photography Alessandro Cavadini Sound recordists Carolyn Straehan.

Linda McDmny Editors ..

Carolyn Straehan Alessandro Cavadini Asst editors isa McDmny Linda McDmny Neg matching Chris Rowel!

Laboratory .

Cine Film Lab liaison Cai Gardmer Budget $70,283 Length 130 mins Gauge 15mm Shooting stock .

Eastmancolor Scheduled release September. 1981 Synopsis Film of the Borroiooia people s struggle lor the recognition of Aboriginal iaw

A WIFE AMONG WIVES Prod company MacDougait Films Dtst company Extension Media Center, University of California. Berkeley Producers David and Judith MacDougall Directors . David and Judith MacDougais Photography . .. Dav.c MacDougall Sound recordist . . .

Judith MacDougall Editors David ana Judith MacOougafi O T H E R C R E D IT S

Field assistants English translations

Joseph Anpon Breda Lokichama Michael Lokuruka.

Maiachy Ekaf.

Joseph Lotuiia.

Augustine Lokwang.

David Amodoi

B IC Y C L E SA FETY Prod company Producer Director Scriptwriter Photography Sound recordist Editor Continuity Produce? s assistant Camera operato' Camera assistant Length Gauge Shooting stock Progress

WAVE Prods Ray Costello Ray Costeho Peita Letchford David Budd Dawd Nolan A! K e m o

Carolyn C'abfc Paul Pasztetrus David Sudd Henry Sanrsik 5 6 mins 16mm Eastmancolor

Producilo«

Scheduled release

February 5982

Synopsis Designed to improve the atti­ tudes of schock children to road safety rules, the film ¡.s structured around the research oroiect undertaken ö y an i t yearold student

DEPO PROVERÀ «working titlei Prod company Dtst company Producer Director Scriptwriter

Assoc producer

Red Heart Pictures Rea Heart Pictures Sarah Gibson Sarah Gibson Sarah Gibson, P Ryan, J Rudd.

R. Dryers P Ryan.

J Rudd.

R Dcyen

Length 15 m m s Gaud» .

16mm Progress Pre-production Scheduled release January 1932 Synopsis A discussion film on the contro­ versial new injectable contraceptive. Depo Proverà, The film is an alternative p erspec­ tive to that poshed by the manufacturer.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 391

CAMERON'S M A N A G E M E N T

( 0 2 ) 3 5 8 6433

You’re going to find it hard to make a movie in Australia without talking to us because we represent. . .

G CP (Melbourne) ------- Colorlab------For quality color printing at com petitive rates from negatives or positives.

Credits include Roadgames, Partners, Turkey Shoot, Squizzy Taylor and commercials etc.

Phone Gerard Groeneveld on (03) 529 1297

DIRECTORS: Bruce Beresford Adam Bowen Bert Deling Roger Donaldson Di Drew Feliks Falk Haydn Keenan Richard Michalak Phil Noyce David Stevens Esben Storm WRITERS: Ranald Allen Ann Brooksbank Patrick Cook Bob Ellis Graham Foreman Bill Harding Michael le Moignan Cathy Lette Ginny Lowndes Stephen McLean Marc Rosenberg Dennis Whitburn Sue Woolfe

(Melbourne) 75-83 High Street, Prahran Vic 3181.

G

ACTING CLASSES SPEECH & DIALOGUE COACHING TV/FILM PRODUCTION & DIRECTING Tutors: BRIAN ADAMS, BASIL APPLEBY, ALLAN CHAPPLE, ZDENKA GOVAERS, JOY SARGENT, JOHN WINBOLT. For further details phone Peter or Dennis 110 Bathurst St. Sydney 2 67 3231 or 2 67 3301

SUPER-a SERUICES PTY. LIMITED

EDITORS: William Anderson John Scott

MAKE-UP: Lesley Lamont-Fisher SCRIPT EDITORS: Graham Foreman John Walters PRODUCTION DESIGNERS: George Liddle Martin Sharp

But you’re going to love talking to us because we’re so reasonable, This ad was conceived, written, authorised and paid for by Richard Harper.

Jane Cameron refused to be a party to it.

P

THE AUSTRALIAN TV-FILM INDUSTRY WORKSHOP

CINEMATOGRAPHERS: Peter Hannan David Sanderson

MUSICAL DIRECTORS: William Motzing Phillip Roberts Philip Scott .

C

A PROFESSIONAL SUPER-8mm LABORATORY Nowoffering high quality video duplicating as well asour regular services.

• • • • • • • •

Reduction Printing — 16mm to Super-8mm Super-8mm to Super-8mm Duplication Blow-ups Super-8mm to 16mm Super-8mm to Video Transfers Magnetic Striping Pre-striped Prints Cartridge Loading Sound Transfers

For further details contact S U P E R -8 S E R V IC E S P T Y L IM IT E D Suite 2,1 st Floor, Adler House 8 West Street, North Sydney 2060 Phone: (02) 929 4690 •

THE MADIGAN LINE

S o und re co rd is t ................ L aurie R obinson E d i t o r ..................................... R.G . Film S erv ice P rod, m a n a g e r .............................. N a n c y P eck P rod, a á s is ta n t.......................... To m C o ltra in e P roduction a cc o u n ta n t ..............A n g e la Rea C ontin uity ...................................A n n ie M c L e o d C a m e ra assistants ...................M u rra y W a re , (w orkin g title) Brian G ree n in g P rod, c o m p an y . . . . S ix p e n c e P roductions Key g r i p ....................................... Ian T h o rb u rn Prod, company ............Seven Dimensions Dist. c o m p a n y ......... S ix p e n ce P roductions Boom o p e ra to r .............................. G reg S teel P r o d u c e r ............................................................ A le c M oDist. rg a n company . . . . Focal Communications C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ................ J o a n n a S eid e l P rod, c o m p a n ie s ...................................M & L, D i r e c t o r ...............................................................A lec M oP rgro a nd u c e r...........................................Eve Ash M a k e -u p ..................................... M o n ic a Brow n T h e Big P ic tu re C o m p a n y , , S crip tw rite rs .............................. A le c M o rg a n , Director ................................... Ted Robinson H a ir d r e s s e r ................................. M o n ic a Brow n Film A u s tra lia Scriptw riter............................. Ian McFadyen H e a th e r G oodall M ix e r ............................................S te ve E d w ard s P r o d u c e r s ................................ H ilary Linstead, Martin McGrath P h o to g r a p h y ................................................M a rth a A nPhotography........................ sara Still p h o to g r a p h y ...........................S u e H e lm e G illian A rm s tro n g , Sound recordist ..............Laurie Robinson S o u n d re co rd is t .................Law rie Fitzgerald Title d e s ig n e r ................................ G lo ria S te m T im o th y R ead E d i t o r ..................................................... John S cott E d ito r........................................................TonyPaterson C a te r in g ...............................................................E N A D i r e c t o r .................................. G illian A rm strong Prod, manager ......................... Nancy Peck C o m p o s e r ..............................Ralph S c h n e id e r M ix ed at ...............................R .G . Film S erv ice S c r ip tw r ite r ........................... G illian A rm s tro n g Prod, a ssistan t......................................... TomColtraine Assoc, p ro d u c ers ..............G era ld Bostock, L a b o rato ry .....................................................V .F .L .

P h o to g r a p h y .......................M a lc o lm R ichards, Production accountant ............Angela Rea M a d e lin e M c G ra d y B u d g e t ..........................................................$ 3 1 ,0 0 0 T o m C ow a n , P rod, s ec retary ..................... Lester Bostock Camera assistant ................... Murray Ware Length ......................................................... 2 2 m ins K erry Brow n Key g rip ....................................................... IanThorburn P rod, a cc o u n ta n t .....................D ig b y D uncan G au g e ............................................................. 1 6 m m S o u n d re co rd is ts ............L a w rie Fitzg e rald , P rod, a s s is ta n t..............................John Bayles Electrician.................................................NoelCarius P rod, c o m p an y ..............S even D im ensions S hooting s to c k ................. E as tm a n co lo r 7 2 4 7 Rod P ascoe 1st asst d ire c to r ............M a d e lin e M c G ra d y Boom operator ........................... Greg Steel P rogress ....................................P o st-p ro d u c tio n Dist. c o m p a n y ___ Focal C o m m u n ic atio n s E d i t o r s ............................................ S a r a B ennett, Asst edito rs .....................M a d e lin e M c G rad y , Make-up ................................ Monica Brown P r o d u c e r ...................................................Eve Ash S ch e d u le d re le a se .................. O c to b e r, 1981 J an e H a nc ke l John Bayles H airdresser............................ Monica Brown D i r e c t o r ................................................................T e d R obinson C ast: G ra e m e B lundell (Liquid P ap e r), Julie M u s i c .......................................... E liza b e th D ra k e Set construction .........................Paul Casey S c r ip tw r ite r .......................................................... Ian M c FMausical d ye n d irec to r ..................R alph S c h n e id e r M c G re g o r (P a p e rm a te K ilo m étric o P en), L y r ic s ................................................ Jan C ornall ix ed at .....................................D ubbs and Co. Mixer ..................................... Steve Edwards R o b b ie M c G re g o r (H .B . P encil), Lan ce P h o to g r a p h y ................................................. M a rtin M c GMrath S ung b y ................ J ay of th e T e e n y W e enys La b o rato ry ................................ C olourfilm Ltd. Still photography...................... Sue Helme C urtis (S e c re t A gent), J onathon H a rd y (IH Q S o und re co rd is t ................ L aurie R obinson P la y ed by ....................................... Nick A 'H e rn , Lab. lia is o n ..................................................... K e rry J enkins Title d e sig n e r........................... Gloria Stern E d i t o r ............................................R o b e rt G ibson Boss), Ian M c F a d y e n (J a rg o n A g e n t), P eter G ary Evan, B u d g e t ..........................................................$ 6 0 ,0 0 0 C atering.....................................................ENA P rod, m a n a g e r .............................. N ancy Peck M oon (J arg on A ge nt), E d d ie Z a n d b e rg D on B u rk e (of th e Eyes), Length ......................................................... 58 mins Studios.................................................... Open Channel (J arg on A gent), D e b b ie Force (w aitress).

P rod, a s s is ta n t................................................ To m C oltraine P e te r S im pson G au g e ..............................................................16m m Mixed at ........................R.G. Film Service Synopsis: A s p y -th rilie r in w hich th e h eroes P roduction a cc o u n ta n t ..............A ng e la Rea Asst, p r o d u c e r .................................A le x E zard S hooting s to c k .............................................. 724 7 Laboratory ............................................ V.F.L. C a m e ra assistant .....................M u rra y W a re — H .B . P encil, P a p e rm a te Pen and Liquid U nit m a n a g e r ....................................J en n y Day P rogress ................................... P re-p ro d u ctio n B u d g et................................................ $31,000 Key g r i p ......................................... Ian T h o rb u rn P a p e r — ta c kle th e forces o f J A R G O N , an P ro d , a s s is ta n t........................M a rd i K en n e d y S ch e d u le d re le a se ......................... A pril, 1982 Length ...............................................22 mins Boom o p e ra to r ................................ G reg S teel inte rnatio nal con sp ira cy to o b fu sc ate all M ix e r .................................................. G e o rg e H a rt S ynopsis: A com p ila tio n d o c u m e n ta ry on C o s tu m e d e sig n e r .................. J o a n n a S eid e l Gauge ....................................................16mm w ritten com m u n ic a tio n s . Using plan nin g, Length ......................................................... 50 mins th e A b o r ig in e s P r o te c t io n A c t ( 1 9 0 9 ) Shooting sto c k ........................Eastman 7247 M a k e -u p .......................................M o n ic a Brow n lay -o u t and lots of liquid w h ite -o u t th e trio G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m N .S .W ., th e e ffects the Act had on A b o ri­ Progress ..............................Post-production H a ir d r e s s e r .................................. M o n ic a Brow n once m ore resto res clarity and hum anity to S hoo tin g s t o c k ............................ E as tm a n co lo r ginal c om m unities , the resistan ce to it, and Scheduled release ............... October, 1981 S et construction ............................. Paul C asey the civilized w ord.

First r e le a s e d .................................................. M a y , 1981M ix e r .............................................S te ve E dw ards the A borigina l political m o v em e n t that got Cast: Lance Curtis (Sam Nesiac), Julie th e Act abolished in 1943.

M cG regor (Jill and Tracey), Robbie Still p h o to g r a p h y ...........................S u e H e lm e McGregor (John), Tom Coltraine (Mr Title d e s ig n e r ................................ G lo ria Stern R o b e r t s o n ) , C h e r y l H a e z e lw o o d C a te r in g ...............................................................ENA (Customer), Eddie Zandberg (Cleaner).

S tu d io s ...............................................................O p en C hannel Prod, company ............Seven Dimensions Synopsis: Sam Nesiac is a salesman who is Dist. company . . . . Focal Communications M ix ed at .............................R.G . Film S erv ice P ro d , c o m p a n y ..............S ev e n D im ensions P rod, c o m p an y ............................D N M P rods. always forgetting things: names, appoint­ P ro d u c e r...........................................Eve Ash L a b o rato ry .....................................................

V .F.L. Dist. c o m p a n y . . . . Focal C o m m u n ic atio n s P r o d u c e r s ......................................................... Jock Rankin, ments, phone numbers. Rendered uncon­ D irector......................................................TedRobinson B u d g e t ..........................................................$ 3 1 ,0 0 0 P ro d u c e r . . .■............................................ Eve Ash Q uentin Fogarty scious after an accident resulting from his Scriptw riter................................................. IanMcFadyen Length .........................................................

27 m ins D ire cto r ....................................... T e d Robinson D irecto rs ......................................... J ock Rankin, forgetfulness, Sam finds himself in the Photography..........................................MartinMcGrath G au g e ............................................................. 16m m S c r ip tw r ite r ................................... Ian M c F a d ye n Q uentin Fogarty Memory Department of his own brain where S hooting s to c k ................. E as tm a n co lo r 7 247 Sound recordist ..............Laurie Robinson P h o to g r a p h y ............................. M a rtin M c G rath S c r ip tw r ite r s ................................ Jock R ankin, the Memory Operator, Tracey, shows him P rogress ....................................P o st-p ro d u c tio n E d ito r.....................................Tony Paterson S o u n d re co rd is t .................. Lau rie R obinson Q uen tin Fogarty how he can im prove his ability to S ch e d u le d re le a se .................. O cto b er, 1981 Prod, manager ..........................Nancy Peck E d i t o r .....................................................................Te d R obinson P h o to g r a p h y ................................T e rry C arlyon. remember.

C ast: Julie M c G re g o r (H a rrie t, the M a rty r), Prod, a ssistan t.........................................TomColtraine P rod, m a n a g e r .............................. N ancy Peck Alex M c P h ee , L a in n cee C u rtis (R ic k , th e M a s te r ), R ob Production accountant ........... Angela Rea P rod, a s s is ta n t.................................................To m C o ltra David O lney, M e ld ru m (T o m , the M a te ), Alan H opgo od Continuity ............................. Annie McLeod P rod u ctio n A c c o u n ta n t............. A n g e la Rea M artin M c G rath (D r W a r r e n B u rro w s ), A vril M c Q u e e n Camera assistant ................. Murray Ware C ontin uity .................................... A n n ie M c L e o d S o und recordists ..................... S ea n M e ltze r.

(C aro l), P ete M o o n (D avid and T h e J u d g e), Key g rip ...................................Ian Thorburn Prod, company ............Seven Dimensions C a m e ra assistant ................ B rian G ree n in g M ic h ae l M inter, Boom operator ......................... Greg Steel Dist. company . . . . Focal Communications Key g r i p ..................................................................Ian T h oTrboumrn C o l t r a i n e ( C li v e ) , J o h n C l a r k e Bill Doyle (c lea n e r).

P ro d u c e r.......................................... Eve Ash Make-up ............................... Monica Brown B oom o p e ra to r .............................. G reg S teel E d i t o r ............................................... P eter Dodds H airdresser............................Monica Brown Synopsis: T h re e o ffice types — To m the Director ............................... Ted Robinson M a k e -u p .......................................M o n ic a Brow n S o u n d tr a n s fe r s ................................ Des Bone Mixer ..................................... Steve Edwards no Scriptw riter..................... Jenny Pausacker H a ir d r e s s e r ................................................. M o n ic a Brow n n -as se rtiv e boss, Rick the com pulsive S ound S ervices, Still photography...................................... Sue Helme perfe ctio n is t and H a rrie t the long-suffering Photography.......................

Martin McGrath S et construction ............................. Paul C a se y G ary W ilkinson Title d e sig n e r.............................Gloria Stern hero in e — are on their w ay to w o rk. S u d ­ M ix e r ............................................S te ve E dw ards C atering.....................................................ENA d enly the train stops in the u n d e rg ro u n d Still p h o to g r a p h y ..........................S u e H e lm e and an e c c en tric psychiatrist, Dr W a rre n Mixed at ........................ R.G. Film Service Title d e s ig n e r .................................G lo ria S tern Laboratory .............................................V.F.L. Burrow s, begins to psychoanalyse the th re e C a t e r in g ............................................................... ENA of them .

B u d g et................................................ $31,000 S tu d io s ...............................................................O p en C hannel Length .......................................Series of six M ix ed at ............................ R .G . Film S erv ice 3 to 4 minute films B u d g e t .......................................................... $ 3 1 ,0 0 0 Gauge ....................................................16mm Length ......................................................... 2 0 m ins Shooting s to ck .............. Eastmancolor 7247 G a u g e ................................................1" v id e o ta p e Prod, company ..............WAVE Production Progress ..............................Post-production P ro g res s ....................................P o st-p ro d u c tio n P ro d u c e r.................................................... RayCostello Scheduled release ..............October, 1981 S c h e d u le d re le a se .................. O cto b er, 1981 D irecto r...........................................Al Kemp Cast: Lance Curtis, Ian McFadyen, Julie Cast: G ra e m e B lundell (Leon and Noel Scriptw riter................................................ RayCostello McGregor, Peter Moon. Avril McQueen, H u s tle ), A v ril M c Q u e e n (A n n e ) , T o m Tom Coltraine, Rob Meldrum.

Photography.......................................... HenryBartnik C o ltra in e (C o p ).

Sound recordist ..................... David Nolan Synopsis: Six short comedy films about Synopsis: A fter a disastrous sales m eeting, E d ito r................................... Ross Hutchens problem s of communicating to and in Leon H ustle is confro n te d in th e e xecu tive Camera operator .................. Henry Bartnik groups: speakers who won’t stop talking w as h ro o m by his own reflection — Noel — and groups that won’t start, visual aids that Length ...............................................20 mins w ho forc e s him to ta k e a good look at backfire, small groups trying to reach Gauge .................................................. 16mm him se lf an d see that th e c a re e r path and agreement, committee members reluctant Shooting s to ck .......................

Eastmancolor perso n a l style he has chosen d o not m a ke to speak out and briefing sessions side­ Progress ..................................... Production the m ost of his in h e re n t abilities. r a is in g q u e s t io n s o f m e d ic a l s a fe ty , in fo rm e d consent, and w h e th e r it is the lo n g -h o p e d -fo r a n sw e r to the c o n tra c e p ­ tive d ile m m a .

FOURTEEN’S GOOD, EIGHTEEN’S BETTER

P rod, c o m p a n y ............................. D N M Prods.

P r o d u c e r .............................. Phil de M o n tig n ie D ire cto r ................................ Phil de M o n tig n ie S c r ip tw r ite r ..........................Phil de M on tig n ie P h o to g r a p h y .............................. D avid H askins S o u n d re co rd is t ............................... Ian W ilson E d i t o r ..........................................D avid P ulbrook P rod, a s s is ta n t............................... Linda Chilton B u d g e t ..................................................... $ 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 Length ....................................................... 4 8 mins G au g e ............................................................ 16m m Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry covering th e re ­ e n a c tm e n t of th e first scientific crossing of th e S im p s o n D esert. Th e crossing involves a te a m of 14 m en and 13 c am els.

S ynopsis; A look at the e xp e rie n c e s and lifestyles of single m oth e rs in re lation to the changing structure of the fam ily.

SIXPENCE

Synopsis: T h re e film s on the TA A A irbus.

Each film is d e signe d to inform TA A staff a b o u t th e a irc ra ft’s construction in T o u ­ louse. France, and to re cord th e plane's arrival in A ustralia.

THANKS FOR THE MEMORY

MATES, MARTYRS AND MASTERS

WORKING TOGETHER

GETTING TO KNOW ME

TAA AIRBUS

WIPE OUT THE JARGON

PEOPLE OF THE PILBARA

HOW TO AVOID DECISIONS

tracked into gossip.

Scheduled r e le a s e ............February, 1982 Synopsis: A general overview of the Pilbara region of Western Australia, as it pro­ gresses into the 1980s.

A ZOO IN THE TREES

P rod, c o m p a n y .............. S ev e n D im ensions Dist. c o m p a n y . . . . Focal C o m m u n ic atio n s P r o d u c e r ...................................................Eve Ash Prod, company . . . Dick Smith Adventure D i r e c t o r ................................................................ Te d Robinson d un c e r.....................................Dick Smith S c r ip tw r ite r ........................................................... Ian M c FParo d ye ............................... Bob Connolly, P h o to g r a p h y ................................................. M a rtin M c GDirectors rath Michael Dillon S o u n d re c o rd is t ................ L aurie Robinson Photography......................... Michael Dillon, E d i t o r ............................................R o b e rt G ibson Shalagh McCarthy P rod, m a n a g e r .............................. N ancy Peck Sound P rod, a s s is ta n t.................................................T o m C o ltra in e recordists ..................Chris Hooke, Ken Hammond P rod u ctio n A c c o u n ta n t.............. A n g e la Rea E d ito r...........................................Roy Mason C ontin uity ...................................A n n ie M c L e o d N arrato r.................................. Bob Connolly C a m e ra assistant ...................Brian G ree n in g Laboratory ............................................. Atlab Key g r i p ..........................................Ian T h o rb u rn Length ...............................................47 mins B oom o p e ra to r .................................G reg S teel Shooting s to c k ........................ Eastmancolor M a k e -u p ..................................... M o n ic a Brow n Synopsis: Bob Beer, an ex-alcoholic, sets H a ir d r e s s e r ................................ M o n ic a Brow n out to be the first man to run across the S et d e c o r a to r ................................... M a rth a Ash Simpson Desert — and succeeds.

S et construction ............................Paul C asey M ix e r .............................................S te ve E dw ards Still p h o to g r a p h y ...........................S u e H e lm e Title d e s ig n e r ................................ G lo ria S tern (w orkin g title) C a te r in g ............................................................ E NA M ix e d at ............................ R.G . Film S erv ice P rod, c o m p an y ..............Rose S tre e t Film s L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... V .F .L. P r o d u c e r .............................. C a ro le K ostanich B u d g e t ........................................................$3 1 ,0 0 0 D i r e c t o r ................................ C a ro le Kostanich Length ......................................................... 20 m ins S c r ip tw r ite r ..........................C a ro le Kostanich G a u g e ..............................................................1 6m m P h o to g r a p h y ............................. M a rth a A n sara S hooting s to c k ............................. E as tm a n co lo r 7 2 4 7 S o u n d re co rd is t ............A nnie C o c k s h e d g e P ro g res s ....................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n E d i t o r ........................................... S ara h G ibson S c h e d u le d r e l e a s e .................. O cto b er, 1981 P rod, m a n a g e r ....................... N ina S au n d ers Cast: G ra e m e B lundell (A rt D o d g e r), Lance C a m e ra assistant .................Robyn P eterson C urtis (C h u c k ), D avid A rg u e (P e te r), Julie E diting assistant ............D o m in iq u e Fusy M c G re g o r (s e cre ta ry).

Still p h o to g r a p h y ........................................S a n d y E dw ards Synopsis: An e xciting re p la y of th e W o rld L a b o rato ry ..............................................C olorfilm C h a m p io n s h ip D e cis io n -A v o id in g T o u rn a ­ Length ....................................................... 27 m ins m e n t, w h e re office m a n a g e r A rt D o d g e r G a u g e ..............................................................16m m successfully d e fe n d s his title as C h a m p io n S hooting s to c k ............................. E as tm a n co lo r D ecision A v o id er, d e s p ite all the e fforts of P rogres s ....................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n his s taff to th e contrary.

THE RUNNER

SINGLE MOTHERS

Prod, company .................. AVRB Film Unit Dist. company ..........................Audio Visual Resources Branch P ro d u c e r................................................... RobMcCubbin D irector..................................... Louise Jonas Scriptw riters................. Maree Teychenne, Louise Jonas Photography.................................Frank Few Sound recordists ................David Hughes, Louise Jonas E d ito r.........................................Robert Martin Exec, producer .............Ross R. Campbell Neg. m atching..................... The Neg Room Sound editor ....................... David Hughes Mixer ..................................... David Hughes N arrator..................................... DesleyBlanch Title d e sig n e r....................Alexander Milsky Tech, a d v ise rs .......................................DavidLangdon, Chief Curator, Melbourne Zoo; Gaye Hamilton, Deputy Chief Education Officer, Melbourne Zoo; Neil Morley, Curator, Sir Colin Mackenzie Fauna Park, Healesville; Kevin Mason, Senior Animal Keeper, Sir Colin Mackenzie Fauna Park, Healesville Mixed at .................................................V.F.L. Laboratory .............................................V.F.L. Length ...............................................30 mins Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting s to c k ............................. ECN 7247 Progress ........................... Awaiting release

Wipe Out the Jargon.

Continued on p. 406

CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 393

Clark Film Services FOR: Air conditioned make-up wardrobe trucks.

Air conditioned individual artist’s facilities.

All your transport management needs.

R IN G S Y D N E Y (02) 997 2368 (Ralph and Sue Clark) ( 02)

981

IÓ 22

(Agent)

SOUND STUDIO FOR HIRE Suitable for Film, Video and Stills at: FILM SE T S 88 Warrigal Road, Oakleigh, MELBOURNE 3166 Studio 7 5 ’ x 46’ with 14 ’ to lighting grid.

Large three sided paintable fixed eye.

Good access to studio for cars and trucks.

D esign and set construction service available.

D ressing rooms, wardrobe, and m ake-up facilities.

S T U D IO B O O K IN G S , P H O N E : A lex Simpson,

(03) 568 0058, (03) 568 2948

A H (03) 2$ 3858

Dialogue Coach Major film and TV series producers use a dialogue director to rehearse and correct actors’ delivery of lines. No director has the time to give acting lessons on the set. Often it’s needed.

Reduce costly retakes. Over-projecting, inarticulate delivery, incorrect meaning, wrong emphasis and inflections can be corrected and performance dramatically improved prior to the shoot.

BRIAN ADAMS 2 7 years

DIALOGUE DIRECTOR

experience: Toronto-New York-Hollywood-Sydney.

Contact: Briad Productions Suite 6 4 , 1 1 0 Bathurst St, Sydney 267 3231 Bedford Pearce Management 273 Alfred St, N. Sydney 929 4833

R ob e rt M c F a rla n e

Winter of our Dreams Keith Connolly John Duigan’s Winter of our Dreams more than fulfils the high expectations that were aroused by his Mouth to Mouth and foreshadowed in The Trespassers. It also puts the unfor­ tunate mis-step of Dimboola in perspec­ tive.

The new film, intelligent, moving, thought-provoking, has much in com­ mon with the first two. A couple of the principal characters are first-cousins to the deprived teenagers in Mouth to Mouth, others are The Trespassers push a decade later.

But Winter of our Dreams towers above either film as an artistic achieve­ ment. Its chief virtue is something the razzmatazz school of filmmaking vociferously rejects: economy — not of means (though the film clearly is no

big-spender), but of emotional and histrionic gesture.

There is, to be sure, a good deal of dramatic incident in writer-director Duigan’s script —- a junkie struggles to kick her addiction, a desperate girl suicides, a man both abets and resents his wife’s affaires — but these are effec­ tive, not causal, and rigorously subor­ dinate to the whole. The material is designedly spare, in narrative structure and character formulation. Duigan asks audiences to lend him their in­ telligence — which is pretty naughty of a would-be commercial filmmaker in our glorious summer of the fast-buck.

Past misunderstandings have taught this reviewer to be wary of making comparisons, but passages of Winter recall L’Avventura (for its insinuation of the fragility and shifting complexity of human relationships) and II deserto rosso (in its equation of the heroine’s crisis with her tawdry environment).

However, I am not, repeat not, hailing Duigan as the Australian Antonioni.

Judy Davis as the prostitute, Lou, in John Duigan 5 W in te r o f o u r D r e a m s .

I am prepared to state, however, that Duigan possesses some of Antonioni’s skills. Indeed, his ellipses are more pr of ound than many anot her Australian director’s considered state­ ments. A nicely-judged shot, near the end, of Bryan Brown silently con­ templating the implication of his ac­ tions is the most potent thing of its kind seen in an Australian film since Andrew McFarlane sat, dejected yet relieved, at the wheel of his flivver in the closing scene of Ken Hannam’s under-valued Break of Day. On the surface. Winter is simple to the point of flimsiness, and is plotted in a thoroughly artless manner. Yet it ex­ plores psychological, emotional and ideological territory of some complex­ ity. In a brief establishing sequence, a distraught young woman, Lisa (Margie McRae), tries unsuccessfully to contact CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 395

Winter o f Our Dreams

an old friend, R o b M c G r e g o r (B ro w n ), a n d l e a v e s h e r g u i t a r w i t h K i n g ’s C r o s s p r o s t i tu t e L o u ( J u d y Davis). L ate r, when Rob, proprietor of an alternative b o o k s h o p , l e a r n s o f L i s a ’s s u i c i d e , h e d e c i d e s t o vyrite a n a r t i c l e a b o u t t h e f a t e o f t h e “ p r o t e s t g e n e r a t i o n ” , t o w h i c h he and Lisa belonged.

His investigations lead to a m ee tin g with Lou. an d their re latio n sh ip d e v e l o p s a r o u n d r e c o l l e ct i o n s o f Lisa.

R o b l o o k s b a c k r e g re t f u l l y , b u t wi th s o m e t h i n g l es s t h a n a n g u i s h , a t t h e radical-activist past when he knew the d e a d gi rl .

T w o things a b o u t R o b flabbergast L o u — his uncritical a c c e p t a n c e o f her, a n d hi s o w n o p e n m a r r i a g e . R a t h e r u n ­ re al is ti cal l y, s h e sees in h i m a s a v i o r f r o m h e r d r u g - r i d d e n , d e s p e r a t e life — n ot t h a t he gives h e r m u c h e n c o u r a g e ­ m e n t , a p a r t fro m a few laconically friendly gestures, w hich she m isin te rp re ts . W h e n L o u a t t e m p t s to d e e p e n t h e i r r a p p o r t wi th a few spi cy c on fid en ce s a b o u t her tr ad e, R o b cuts h e r s h o r t . L a t e r , he , n o t u n k i n d l y , d e c l i n e s h e r s e x u a l a d v a n c e s . “ I t ’s h o p e le s s , i sn't it?” s h e finally c o n c e d e s .

T h es e events oc cu r ag ai n st a terrain a n d within a m ilieu th at are u n ­ m istakably Sydney, to those who know it, b u t m a t t e r n o t a t all t o t h o s e w h o d o n ’t. M u c h t h e s a m e m i g h t b e s a i d a b o u t t h e l e a d i n g r o l e s . L o u is a p r e t t y universal type, b u t I very quickly d e c i d e d t h a t R o b is b a s e d o n a we l l kno w n Sydney personality. W h eth er t h i s P h r y g i a n c a p f i t s o r n o t is u n i m p o r ­ tant, however.

T h e un b lin k in g scru tin y to which D u i g a n s u b j e c t s h i s c h a r a c t e r s is l a r g e l y functional. T heir b ack g ro u n d s are s k e t c h e d o n l y l i g h t l y (i n t h e c a s e o f L o u n o t a t al l ) b u t t h e i r p r e s e n t s t r a i n s , regrets an d anxieties are wart-plain.

T h e b i g g e s t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Winter a n d Mouth to Mouth lies in D u i g a n ' s d e v e l o p i n g c a p a c i t y f o r t hi s s o r t o f naturalistic observation . . . and having actors of the calibre o f Ju d y Davis and Bryan Brown, both o f w h o m can c o n ­ v e y so m u c h w i t h a n e c o n o m y o f gesture m atch in g the writer-director's s t yl e.

T h e c h a r a c t e r o f R o b is m o r e c o m ­ pl ex a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i n t er e st in g , b u t a g o o d d e a l l es s s y m p a t h e t i c , t h a n t h a t o f L o u ( t h o u g h s h e is b y n o m e a n s a conventional floosie-with-a-heart-ofg o l d ) . H e is a d e t a c h e d , r a t h e r t h a n d i s ­ i l l u s i o n e d , n o t - s o - o l d L e f t i e , in s t u d e n t d a y s a re d- ho t activist, n o w m at e ria lly c o m f o r t a b l e but given to m o m e n t s o f s e l f - r e p r o a c h . R o b l i ves in a t r e n d y B a l ­ m a i n h o m e ( w h i c h h e is r e n o v a t i n g ) with Gretel (C athy D o w n e s ) , his s e x u a l l y - l i b e r a t e d , a c a d e m i c wi f e. ( O n e suspects th a t G retel's middle-class p a r e n t s , h e a r d only o f f - c a m e r a , h a v e c o n tr i b u t e d to the co uple's affluent lifestyle.)

Brow n p l ay s R o b wi th t h e q ui zz ica ll y t r o u b l e d a i r o f s e l f - d o u b t t h a t l ent c o n ­ v i c t i o n t o s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r r o l e s in N e w s f r o n t an d First Per so n Plural. As the p assio n s o f M o r a t o r i u m days recede fur th er into the past, R o b has l i t t l e b e t t e r t o d o t h a n c o n t e m p l a t e hi s ow n e m o tio n a l an d spiritual in a d e ­ quacy.

T h e only ch all eng e c o n f ro n tin g him n o w is f r o m hi s c o m p u t e r c h e s s set .

B u t . i f R o b is n o l o n g e r p o l i t i c a l l y a c ­ t i ve. hi s s e n t i m e n t s c a n b e a r o u s e d — as w h e n he t a r t l y a s s u r e s L o u t h a t “ o f c o u r s e ' " t h e a n t i - u r a n i u m m o v e m e n t is “ i m p o r t a n t " . H e f eel s g u i l t a b o u t t h e d e a d gi r l . L i s a (it t r a n s p i r e s t h a t h e h a d once been her l e s s - th a n - in f a tu a te d l o v e r ) , a n d is w' ar i l y s y m p a t h e t i c t o L o u . Bu t h e c e r t a i n l y d o e s n ' t c o n ­

396 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Sauve qui peut (la vie)

t e m p l a t e a r o m a n t i c l i a i s o n , t h o u g h hi s wi fe u r g e s h i m t o find “ s o m e t h i n g el se ” , as s h e has.

B r o w n n i ce l y f u r t h e r s t h e s c r i p t ’s suggestion of self-protective a m ­ b i v a l e n c e in R o b ’s a t t i t u d e t o b o t h w o m e n ( p e r h a p s h e d o e s it too s u b t l y ; w h a t o t h er e x p la n at i o n cou ld t h er e be f o r hi s f a i l u r e t o w i n a n A u s t r a l i a n F i l m A w a r d s ’ best-actor nomination?)

R o b r e a l i z e s t h a t hi s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h L o u is i m m e a s u r a b l y m o r e s i g n i f i ­ c a n t t o t h e u n h a p p y gi r l t h a n it is t o h i m . W h e n h e s o f t l y r e p u l s e s L o u ’s s e x ­ ual a d v a n c e s , he r e a s s u r e s h e r t h a t he finds h e r a tt r a c t iv e . L a t e r , he u n ­ th in k in g ly deals her t a tte r e d ego a n o t h e r blow by off- h an de d ly p o s t p o n ­ i ng a d a t e u p o n w h i c h s h e h a d c l e a r l y p l a c e d m u c h s t o r e , in f a v o r o f a s o c c e r m a t c h . H e m a k e s it w o r s e b y t h e a d ­ m i s s i o n t h a t t h e m a t c h is “ j u s t a n e x ­ cuse for a b o o z e - u p ” .

O t h e r f l a w s in R o b ’s f a c a d e a r e r e v e a l e d in h i s e n c o u r a g e m e n t o f G re te l's affaire with a f o r m e r stude nt.

T h e i m p r e s s i o n h e r e is t h a t , a s w i t h p o l i t i c s . R o b . is a d h e r i n g t o a n a t t i t u d e h e n o l o n g e r d e e p l y f eel s, b u t is s t u c k w i t h . T h e r e is a l s o a s u g g e s t i o n o f v i c a r i o u s t i t i l l a t i o n : “ H o w ’s it g o i n g ? ” he r e p e a t e d l y a s k s G r e t e l , wi th a s l ig h t ­ ly s h e e p i s h g r i n .

L o u is all u p - f r o n t , o r n e a r l y all.

J u d y Davis p o rtray s beautifully her easily-cracked bravado, her trem ulous aspirations, her gawkiness, her pathetic m ix ture of ignorance and insouciance.

It is, in s h o r t , a p e a c h o f a p a r t f o r a n y y o u n g a c t r e s s a n d M s D a v i s d o e s it m o r e t h a n p r o u d . H e r h a i r in t i g h t b l o n d e ri nglet s, s he p o r t r a y s L o u as s o m e o n e twitchily vulnerable, y e ar n in g f or s o m e t h i n g b e t t e r , b u t u n s u r e o f what.

T h e d i a r y o f h e r d e a d f ri en d i n­ cr easin gly obsesses Lou, pa rti cu la rly p a s s a g e s r e c o u n t i n g L i s a ’s a s s o c i a t i o n w ith Rob. L o u ’s d i s l o c a t i o n is h eig ht en ed, too, by glim pse s o f Gre tel a n d R o b ’s c u l t u r a l l y ( a n d m a t e r i a l l y ) rich lifestyle — i ns ight s t h a t u n d e r m i n e h e r abil ity t o go on wi th h e r o w n ugly existence. So she t ak e s the plunge, p u t ­ ting the M cG regors' professed l i b e r a l i s m to t he t es t by c o l d - t u r k e v i n g o u t o f h e r o i n a d d i c t i o n w h i l e s t a y i n g in their house. N o t alt ogeth er happily, they look afte r her.

T h e o r d e a l r e i n f o r c e s L o u ’s r e s o l v e to m a k e a fresh start. S h e rejects the gui lel ess a t t e m p t o f y o u n g p u s h e r P e t e (B az L u h r m a n ) to revive her ad diction, t h e n m o v e s i n t o L i s a ’s o l d r o o m . Bu t s h e is l a y i n g h e r s e l f o p e n t o f u r t h e r hurt.

T h e m o r e Lou identifies with Lisa, t h e m o r e s h e b e l i e v e s h e r s e l f in l ove w'ith R o b . S h e p r e c i p i t a t e l y fl ees t h e M c G r e g o r h o u s e h o l d w h e n it is b r o u g h t h o m e to her ju st h o w far a p a r t th ey are. t h e n t r i e s t o c r e a t e a n e n v i r o n m e n t in which she a n d R o b can m ee t on m o r e e q u a l t e r m s . Bu t t h i s , t o o , is o n l y wishful thinking and Lou finally r e a l i z e s it.

T h e r e h a v e b e e n few' m o r e q u i e t l y m o v i n g s c e n e s in a n A u s t r a l i a n f i l m t h a n t h e f i nal s e q u e n c e o f Winter.

D u i g a n c r a f t i l y a r o u s e s o n e ’s f e a r s t h a t L o u is a b o u t t o t a k e h e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i th L i s a t o its u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n . H e is c a r e f u l l y s u b t l e a b o u t it. t h o u g h . A n u m b er o f people 1 questioned after a preview were a lm o s t eq ually divided be tw ee n th ose w ho d re w a pessimistic c o n c l u s i o n f r o m t h e f i nal s h o t a n d t h o s e w h o f o u n d it e m o t i o n a l l y u p l i f t i n g .

D u i g a n m a i n t a i n s an u n flurr ied pace t h r o u g h o u t , in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e t e n o r o f hi s n a t u r a l i s t i c p u r p o s e . I f s o m e o f hi s c h a r a c t e r s b e h a v e j u s t a l it t le t o o s w e e t ­

ly (as w h e n t h e M c G r e g o r s l o o k a f t e r L o u , a n d in t h e “ c o m e - a n d - j o i n - u s ” bonhom ie of the uranium d e m o n ­ s t r a t o r s ) s u c h b e h a v i o u r is n o t i n c o n ­ si st en t wi t h su ch p e o pl e, o r a t lea st wi th their self-image.

T h i s is d u e , in p a r t , t o t h e t e n s i o n D u i g a n i n d u ce s b e t w e e n t w o realities: the radical-chic “ h a v es” , with their d in­ ner parties, b o o k J a u n c h i n g s , patio b a rb e c u e s an d p erm iss ive sexuality, an d the shap eless sleaze, th e d r u g an d sex ­ ual m e r c h a n d i s i n g o f L ou a n d Pete.

film w r y l y s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e l u c k y c o u n tr y d o e sn 't need to go to the ex­ t r e m e s o f s o m e o t h e r p l a c e s in d e a l i n g with intellectual firebrands who ch all eng e the sta tus quo.

Fu r th e r , m o r e i m p o r t a n tl y (a n d only i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h i s t h e m e ) , is a n equally-wry co n tem p latio n o f the dis­ tu r b in g nexus b etw ee n self-expression a n d p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In e x a m i n i n g t his by m e a n s o f t w o unu su al , but by no m e a n s u n i q u e , A u s t r a l i a n s , D u i g a n is b e a t i n g

Rob (Bryan Brown), the “detached . . . notso-old Leftie’’, now “materially comfortable”.

the b o unds o f the natu ralism that has b e en his m e t i e r . O n e w o n d e r s w h e r e he goes f r o m there.

W in te r o f o u r D r e a m s .

These K i n g ’s C r o s s kids are s o m e t h i n g l ess t h a n a p o l i t i c a l . Li f e s i m p l y h a s n ’t g i v e n t h e m a n y e x t e r n a l consciousness. A fte r Lou has been reading L i s a ’s d i a r y a b o u t t h e M o r a t o r i u m d a y s , P e t e , in hi s h o l e - i n ­ c o r n e r pad, tu rn s fro m the television w ith t h e w o r d s : “ I t ’s a b o u t s o m e w a r o r o t h e r ! " ( T h e f i l m is T o m J e f f r e y s ’ The Odd A n g r y Shot!) L o u a n d P e t e , l i ke t h e y o u n g p e o p l e in Mouth to Mouth, ar e a m o n g the p o s t - V i e tn a m kids w ho hav e m isse d out on ju s t a b o u t ev eryth ing our affluent society should offer th em — including a sense o f pe r­ s o na l value.

A s in t h e i r p r e v i o u s f i l m s , D u i g a n ’s r a p p o r t with c i n e m a t o g r a p h e r T o m C o w a n is o b v i o u s , m a t c h i n g u n ­ o b trusi ve v er is m o to delicate im ag er y.

T here are one or two bolder strokes, l i ke t h e s h a f t o f e v e n i n g s u n l i g h t on t h e H a r b o r t h a t s u g g e s t s L o u ’s b r o a d e n i n g h o r i z o n s . A s i m i l a r i n c i d e n t a l vi s u a l m e t a p h o r i nvolves a s e a b o u n d f r e ig h te r ( a n o t h e r r e m i n d e r o f II deserto rosso).

D u i g a n p o k e s s o m e u n m a l i c i o u s fun, t oo . at a few s to c k c h a r a c t e r s : t h e ef­ f us i ve l a d y a u t h o r r e a d i n g h e r w o r k a t a bo o k lau nch ing, the c hee ry radicals w ho se activism has c o m e d o w n to t u r n ­ i ng o u t f or t h e B a l m a i n T r o t s s o c c e r t e a m ( n o , J o y c e , it is a r e f e r e n c e t o t h ei r pol it ical a ffi li at ions ), t h e stylish y o u n g a c a d e m i c w h o has lea rnt to ask “ A re vou W O R K I N G ? ” ra th e r than “ W hat do Y O U do?”

Finally (a nd by w a y o f reply to a co u p le o f o b jec to rs to m y r e c e n t e n t h u s i a s t i c r e c e p t i o n o f Winter in a daily n e w s p a p e r review), on e m u st ask: W h a t is t h i s d e l i c a t e l i t t l e f i l m “ a b o u t " ? T h e a n s w e r n either leaps from the screen nor o n t o the page, but it n e e d s t o b e f r a m e d , i f o n l y t o s a t i s f y th ose in tra n sig en t souls w h o d e m a n d the kind o f certai nty fro m the c in e m a t h a t t h e y h a v e c o m e t o e x p e c t f r o m Cop Shop.

O b v i o u s l y , in its p o r t r a i t o f R o b , t h e

Winter of our Dreams: Directed by: John Duigan.

Producer: Richard Mason. Screenplay: John Duigan. Director of photography: Tom Cowan.

Editor: Henry Danger. Production designer: Lee Whitmore. Music: Sharon CalcraftU Graham Lowndes. Sound: Lloyd Carrick. Cast: Judy Davis (Lou). Bryan Brown (Rob). Cathy Downes (Gretel). Baz Luhrman, Peter Mochrte, Mervyn Drake. Zoe Lake. Kim Deacon. Mercia DeaneJohns. Marion Johns. Production company: Vega Film Productions. Distributor: GUO. 35mm.

89 mins. Australia. 1981.

Sauve qui peut (la vie) Adrian Martin The nam e of Jean-L uc G odard carries a historical weight far to o heavy f o r Sauve qui peut (la vie) t o b e a r . O n e h a s to b e lie v e G o d a r d w h e n he d e s c r i b e s it a s h i s “ s e c o n d f i r s t f i l m ” ; o n e n e e d s a b s o l u t e l y t o f o r g e t Pierrot le fou. Weekend or Tout va bien t o s e e w h e r e Sauve qui peut is w o r k i n g , a n d w h a t p l e a s u r e s a n d i n s i g h t s it o f f e r s .

For those whose m o st recent experi­ ence o f G o d a rd dates back to the “ D z i g a V e r t o v ” f il ms o f t h e l at e 1960s a n d e a r l y ’7 0 s — a n d t h a t is m o s t o f us — Sauve qui peut c a n s e e m l i k e a m o n s t r o u s regression: no M a r x , no B r e c h t , n o l evel o f a r g u m e n t t h a t w o u l d c o nv en ti on al ly be d e si g n a t e d “ poli­ t i c a l ” . B u t t h e r e is a p o l i t i c s in t h e f i l m , a d e e p l y f el t a n d r i c h l y e x p r e s s i v e pol it ics o f d e si re, e x p e r i e n c e a n d s u b ­ j e c t i v i t y . 1 Sauve qui peut is p o l i t i c s f r o m th e inside, an a t t e m p t to c o n s t it u t e an d c r e a t e t h e f l ux o f “ l a v i e ” in a m a t e r i a l world.

1. Probably the greatest influence on Godard since 1972 has not been Brecht, but the French “philosopher of desire” Gilles Deleuze. One of the finest com­ mentaries on Godard (specifically his television work) is Deleuze’s “ On and Under Communication: Godard/Mieville's Six Fois Deux” in Afterimage No. 7. Summer 1978, pp. 110-119.

Sauve qui peut (la vie)

F o r G o d a r d n o w , t h e r e is n o d i s t a n c e betw een sp e a k in g and show ing, b e t w e e n a f o r m a n d a c o n t e n t . Sauve qui peut is c o n s t r u c t e d a s a “ d e s i r i n g m a c h i n e ” , a s p a c e in w h i c h a g r e a t assem b lag e o f elem ents — narrative, discursive, de scriptiv e — ar e t a k e n up in a g a m e o f i n t e r r e l a t i o n a n d c o m ­ b i n a t i o n , in w h i c h all d i v i s i o n s a r e b l u r r e d , all s y s t e m s d e c e n t r e d . T h e f r e q u e n t use o f s t o p - m o t i o n , for i n s t a n c e , i s n ’t j u s t t h e r e i n t h e Film t o m a k e sig n ific a n t p o in ts a b o u t the c h a r a c t e r s — t h e l evel o n w h i c h it h a s b een a l m o s t exclusively t a k e n by r e v i e w e r s — it r e g i s t e r s a s a t a n g i b l e , and beautiful, gesture of a p erson­ a l i z e d “ w r i t i n g ” o f t h e Film a s it u n f o l d s : a wi l l t o s l o w d o w n , s t r e t c h , l o o k closel y.

Sauve qui peut e x p l o r e s m i n u t e l y t h e c r a c k s , t h e i n t e r s t i c e s in d a i l y life w h e r e s o m e t h i n g escap es a n d resists the alienation im posed by work situations and m o n o g a m o u s heterosexual rela­ t i o n s . It is, a t o n e l evel , a r a t h e r n ih il ist ic o b s e r v a t i o n o n h o w s i m p l y t o sta y alive a n d persevere.

F o r the prost itu te Isabelle (Isabelle H u p p e r t ) , f or i n s t a n c e , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e response to the econom ic exploitation o f h e r p i m p s is t o l i k e w i s e e x p l o i t h e r own sister by pre ssing her into the business.

Bu t, at a m o r e p r o f o u n d level, G o d a r d is f o c u s i n g o n w h e r e b o t h political and personal revolutions b e g i n , t h o s e m o m e n t s in w h i c h r e l a ­ tions are shifted an d displaced, w hen a “ l i ne o f f l i g h t ” o f f e r s a m o v e in a n e w d i r e c t i o n . T h e film l it er al ly d e c o m ­ pose s the wo rld into the h e te r o g e n e o u s h u m a n gestures and perceptions where, a s is s a i d o n t h e s o u n d t r a c k , “ t h i n g s c a n still h a p p e n ” .

Both the F re nc h an d th e English title — Every Man for Himself — s i g n a l , in an ironic fashion, the pr incip al c onc e rn o f t h e Film. I t w o u l d b e a m i s t a k e , I th in k, to i n te rp re t G o d a r d as c h a m ­ p io n in g a w i t h d r a w a l into h u m a n i s t i n d i v i d u a l i s m , a n a c q u i e s c e n c e in t h e s u r v i v a l o f t h e Fi t test in a c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y . F o r , a t e v e r y l evel , t h e Film s e t s ab out u n d erm ining the notion of the “ s e l f ’ as a centre, an origin, a u n iq ue p o i n t o f h u m a n p e r c e p t i o n a n d feeling.

T h e c h a r a c t e r s in Sauve qui peut h a v e no con sis ten cy , no ego; th ey a r e c o n ­ st a n tl y spli nter in g of f into multip lic i­ ties o f s t a t e s a n d o r i e n t a t i o n s . T h a t , a b o v e al l , is t h e “ m e a n i n g ” o f t h e s t o p m otion sequences: to m ark the sudden, s u b t l e c h a n g e s in p e o p l e ’s a c t i o n s a n d behaviour.

T h e r e is a b r e a t h t a k i n g s c e n e in w h i c h , in s t o p - m o t i o n , P a u l G o d a r d ( J a c q u e s D u t r o n c ) is g r e e t e d b y hi s lover, D enis e ( N a t a l i e Baye). S h e gives him a w arm , alm o st ecstatic embrace, t h e still f r a m e s c o n v e y i n g t h e b o d i l y force o f this c o n ta c t. O v e r this, the s o u n d t r a c k p r o c e e d s in c o n t i n u o u s time; she as ks hi m , “ Will y o u love m e m uch longer?” W h en the im age returns to 24 fram es per second, they are i m m e d i a t e l y in t h e t h r o e s o f a h e a t e d argument.

T h e i r h a t r e d f o r o n e a n o t h e r is n o l es s i n t e n s e o r a u t h e n t i c t h a n t h e i r l ove, a n d o n e d o e s n ’t f o l l o w t h e o t h e r in a definite c h r o n o lo g ica l seque nce: the p o i n t is p r e c i s e l y i n t h e f l u x , t h e m o v em e n t between one state and another.

S im il a rl y , the film c re a te s a p e r ­ vasive sen se o f an i n te r ch a n g e ab i l it y between characters, of words and e m o t i o n s t h a t b e l o n g t o n o one b u t sp ri ng collectively fro m m a n y . P a r ­ t i c u l a r l y w i t h t h e w o m e n in t h e f i l m , G o d a r d shows an im age o f one person

Hoodwink

w h i l e a n o t h e r , m y s t e r i o u s l y , in a differ ent t im e an d place, se e m s to sp ea k t h e First p e r s o n ’s t h o u g h t s — e v e n w h e n , f o r i n s t a n c e , it is a s h o t o f Isabelle faking o rg asm during w orking h o u r s . T h e m o s t “ p r i v a t e ” m o m e n t s in th e film a re th e ones t h a t a re s h o w n to be s h a r e d , e x p e r i e n c e d coll ect ivel y.

A nd banal, conversational phrases c i r c u l a t e , t o o — “ W h a t ’s t h a t m u s i c ? ” , “ Y o u c a n ’t cal l t h a t p a s s i o n . ” A p a r t i c u l a r l y m o v i n g s e q u e n c e in the film exem plifies the w a y G o d a r d d is trib u te s and c o m p lic a te s the p e rs o n al t r a n s a c ti o n s t h at o c cu r on screen.

D enise w aits on a train p l a t f o r m . N e a r b y a n u g l y s c e n e is g o i n g on between tw o m en a n d a w o m a n ; one o f the m en slaps the w o m a n while d e m a n d i n g t h a t she c h o o se which m a n s h e will g o w i t h .

As Denise looks, and the m o m e n ts of violent e x ch a n g e are frozen, one c o m ­ p r e h e n d s t h a t s h e is p r o j e c t i n g h e r s e l f i n t o t h a t s c e n e — t h a t s h e is s u b j e c t t o a different, psychic kind o f violence fro m P a u l , a v i o l e n c e s y m b o l i z e d by t h e r u s h o f a train which blows he r hair an d c a u s e s h e r e yel id s to f l u tt e r wildly. A t the s a m e time, she does not have to i n v o l v e h e r s e l f d i r e c t l y in t h e p r o b l e m o f this o t h e r w o m a n , a n d , l ike so of t en h a p p e n s in t h e f i l m , s h e d i s e n g a g e s herself, refuses the c o n n ec tio n , an d t ur ns i nw a rd o nce again , while the w o m a n d e c i d e s t o g i v e in a n d c h o o s e a particular m an.

G o d a r d ’s g e n i u s in t h i s Film is t o h a v e i n v o l v e d hi s o w n “ s e l F ’ in t h i s l os s , t h i s s p l i n t e r i n g . I f Sauve qui peut is hi s r e t u r n t o n a r r a t i v e , it is a v e r y s p e c i a l an d open kind o f narrative, a space of w o n d e r f u l p o s s i b i l i t i e s . T h e r e is n o t on one h a n d a “ n a r r a t o r ” a n d on a n o th e r a “ n a r r a t e d ” ; n o t a Fi c t i onal w o r l d a n d its i n v i s i b l e c o n t r o l l e r . R a t h e r , t h e f i l m is a s e r i e s o f u t t e r a n c e s , o f l o o k s , o f reflections which can be t ra ce d to c h a r a c t e r, d i r e c to r an d a u d ien ce alike.

W h e n P a u l g a z e s a t his d a u g h t e r a n d a s k s hi s m a l e c o m p a n i o n , “ H a v e y o u ever w a n t e d to fuck y o u r d a u g h t e r up t h e a r s e ? ” , w h o is s p e a k i n g t h i s ? In term s of conventional character p s y c h o l o g y , t h e r e m a r k is g l a r i n g l y u n m o t i v a t e d . B u t t h i s is G o d a r d ’s strateg y: to set e v ery th ing adrift, to a n c h o r n o th in g, to allow th e play o f a c u r io u s a n d fa scina ted desire.

Sauve qui peut is a l m o s t l i t e r a l l y a f i l m w h i c h d o e s n ’t “ h o l d ” , w h i c h r e j e c t s a c e n t r e . In n a r r a t i v e t e r m s , t h e r e is n o p r i n c i p a l c h a r a c t e r , a n d a som ewhat bizarre a sso rtm en t of f l o a t i n g e x t r a s ( a n a c c o r d i o n p l a y e r ’s

f a m i l y , a b i c y c l e t e a m ) a r e m o v e d in a n d out o f scenes to d elib e ra tely distract our attention.

G o d a r d ’s mise-en-scene r i g o r o u s l y denies an y kind o f spatial o rien tat io n, either within or betw ee n the va riou s lo c a tio n s o f th e film — visual i n f o r m a t i o n re g ar d i n g a r o o m , for e x a m p l e , is r e d u c e d t o a s i n g l e c l o s e - u p o f a face, pl us v a r i o u s s o u n d effects.

O n e is i n v i t e d t h u s t o s p e c u l a t e , t o b r i n g “ t h e i m a g i n a r y ” (a title o f o n e o f t h e Fi l m’s s u b - s e c t i o n s ) i n t o p l a y .

G o d a r d ’s m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e s o u n d ­ t r a c k in t h i s Film h a s b a f f l e d m a n y . It d ep en ds , I suspect, on a distinction m a d e in F r e n c h f i l m t e r m i n o l o g y between sound “ in” and sound “ ofF ’ ( o r “ o v e r ” , a s o n e w o u l d s a y in E n g l i s h ) — in o t h e r w o r d s , s o u n d m o t i v a t e d d i r e c t l y by t h e f i ct io n al i m a g e as oppose d to ad ditional c o m m e n t a r y or m usic a d d e d to the image .

T h e film s y s t e m a t i c a l l y b l u r s a n d c o n f u s e s this i n / o f f m e t a p h o r , c al ling i n t o q u e s t i o n a g a i n G o d a r d ’s o w n p l a c e a s n a r r a t o r . T h e r e is s o u n d r e f e r r e d t o a s “ i n ” t h e i m a g e ( “ W h a t ’s t h a t m usi c? ” ) which we c a n n o t hear, and t h e r e is s o u n d “ o f F ’ s u d d e n l y m a t e r i a l ­ i z e d in t h e i m a g e ( t h e o r c h e s t r a in t h e f i nal s h o t ) t o w h i c h t h e c h a r a c t e r s a r e o b l i v i o u s , a s wel l a s t h e “ n e a r b y ” s o u n d o f an o p e r a s i n g e r wh i ch fol lows Pau l t h r o u g h a succession o f different s h o t s a n d s p a c e s . It is a s if G o d a r d h a s opened a p athw ay between the world of

Jean-Luc Godard's “second first film ”, S a u v e q u i p e u t (la v ie ).

t h e Fi cti on a n d t h e “ r e a l ” w o r l d o f hi s cr eative activity as a f i lm m ak e r .

T h e r e a r e t h e m a t i c t h r e a d s in Sauve qui peut I h a v e n o t b e g u n t o t o u c h in t h i s r e v i e w: t h e u s e a n d a b u s e o f s e x u a l ­ ity, t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n w o r k a n d p e r s o n a l life, t h e s l i g h t l y m e l a n c h o l y an d self-pitying ge stu rin g o f G o d a r d t o w a r d s a feminist “ s i s t e r h o o d ” which he an d his fictional n a m e s a k e c a n n o t s h a r e i n 2 — b u t it is n e c e s s a r y t o i ns i s t they spring from, and are not merely i ll u s t r at e d by, t h e “ m a c h i n e ” o f the film i tsel f as a n a ct o f l a n g u a g e a n d thought.

Sauve qui peut is a r e s p o n s e t o t h e s t a t e m e n t m u c h s p o k e n in t h e f i l m t h a t

2. In a remarkably silly review of Sauve qui peut (Filmnews, April 1981, p.9), Laleen Jayamanne “celebrates” the film solely in terms of its male director who “seems to be aware of his inability, as man, to con­ struct the space/time which may be called the feminine” .

a n y t h i n g l es s t h a n e r o t i c l o v e “ c a n ’t b e c a l l e d p a s s i o n ” — it is i t s e l f a p a s s i o n ­ a t e g e s t u r e , a Film o f d e s i r e .

Sauve qui peut (la vie): Directed by Jean-Luc Godard. Producers: Alain Sarde, Jean-Luc Godard. Associate producer: Martin Karmitz.

Screenplay: Anne-Marie Mieville, Jean-Claude Carrière, Jean-Luc Godard. Directors of photography: William Lubtchansky, Renato Berta, Jean-Bernard Menoud. Editors: Anne­ Marie Mieville, Jean-Luc Godard. Music: Gabriel Yared. Sound: Jacques Maumonl, Luc Yersin, Oscar Stellavox. Cast: Isabelle Huppert (Isabelle). ' Jacques Dutronc (Paul), Natalie Baye (Denise), Roland Amstutz (2nd client), Anna Baldaccini (Isabelle’s sister), Fred Personne (1st client), Nicole Jacquet (Woman), Dore de Rosa (lift attendant), Monique Barscha (opera singer).

Production company: Sonimage/Sara Films/Sage Productions. Distributor: Valhalla. 35mm. 89 ■ mins. Switzerland. 1980.

Hoodwink Dave Sargent Hoodwink q u i c k l y , d e l i b e r a t e l y , a n d in a n o f t e n - e x a g g e r a t e d f a s h i o n , a t ­ te m p t s to con v ey a ce rtain friendliness to an i n t e n d e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l a u d i e n c e .

It d o e s t h i s b y u s i n g a s i m p l y constructed. rom antic-crim e narrative t h a t is g r e a t l y e n h a n c e d b y s p l e n d i d l y seductive cin em atography, co m p eten t direction and so m e very n o tew o rth y p e r f o r m a n c e s . A s a result, t h e film i n­ termittently gleams.

Bu t , m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t l y , Hoodwink f l as h e s s o m e s i g n a l s t h a t p o i n t t o a r e a s f o r d i s c u s s i o n in w h i c h s o m e i m p o r t a n t i ss u e s e m e r g e t h a t r e l a t e t o t h e p r e v a i l ­ i n g c o n j u n c t u r e in a c o n t i n u a l l y de velo ping — thoug h not necessarily p r o g r e s s i n g — A u s t r a l i a n film i n d u s t r y a n d film c ul tu re.

O n e ga la x y th at a flashing signal p o i n t s t o is t h e . e v e r - e x p a n d i n g a n d increasingly lustrous “ star s y s te m ” .

W h e t h e r it is d e s i r a b l e , o r c a n b e resisted in t h e present social/ e c o n o m i c / p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n , is h i g h l y d e b a t a b l e . B u t it s e e m s t h a t t h e s t a r ­ m a k i n g m a c h i n e r y has forged on regardless o f the d e b a t e (or m o st ly lack o f it): a n d in t h e c a s e o f t h i s f i l m t h e stars have tw o obvi ou s functions. First, t h e y h a v e a n e c o n o m i c f u n c t i o n , in t h a t t h e y a r e c o m m o d i t i e s a n d t h e y will a t ­ t r a c t a u d i e n c e s t o t h i s f i l m , w h i c h in t e r m s o f s ub j ec t m a t t e r m i g h t be d e s ­ c r i b e d as “ s l i g h t ” . S e c o n d l y , a n d in r e l a t i o n t o t h e s t o r y ’s s l i g h t n e s s , t h e y en co de a gr e at deal o f m e a n i n g into the f i l m by t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e i r p e r f o r m ­ ances.

Hoodwink f e a t u r e s J o h n H a r g r e a v e s an d o t h er ac to rs such as J u d y Davis, W e n d y H ug he s, De nnis Miller, Kim D e a c o n a n d C o l i n Friels. T h e y t a k e a gr e at deal o f their off-screen i m a g e (basically constructed through sur­ ro u n d i n g m e d i a texts, m o s t o f which are desig n ed to dazzle re ad e rs by p o l i s h i n g t h e s u r f a c e s o f “ O z ’s o w n ” s ta r s) i nt o t h ei r roles, a n d b ui ld f r o m there.

H a r g r e a v e s plays M a r t i n S ta n g , a c o n ( v i c t e d ) m a n w h o bl uffs a n u m b e r o f people to gain a re d u ce d p rison s e n t e n c e . It is a r o l e t h a t w o u l d b e a cha llen ge to any acto r, an d H a r g r e a v e s ’ s u c c e s s ( f o r w h a t i t ’s w o r t h ) is r e f l e c t e d in b e i n g a w a r d e d t h e 1981 S a m m y A w a r d f o r B e s t F i l m A c t o r f o r hi s p e r ­ f o r m a n c e in t h i s f i l m. H i s r o u g h d i a m o n d physical presence, an d the ex pe ri en ce t h at he has g ain ed playing m a j o r r o l e s in s u c h f i l m s as Don’s Party, Fong Weekend a n d The Odd Angry Shot, h e l p s h i m t o b r i n g a n o c k e r q u a l i t y to his “ l i k e a b l e l a r r i k i n ” CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 397

Hoodwink

B e T h e Day a n d All Creatures Great And Small, w a s “ i m p o r t e d ” t o d i r e c t Hoodwink. A s i d e f r o m t h e e t h i c a l ,

Having escaped from the police, Martin (John Hargreaves) picks up an unemployed dancer, Marian (Kim Deacon). Claude C hatham ’s Hoodwink. characterization. This characterization is a r g u a b l y a r e f l e c t i o n o f a c u l t u r a l st e re o t y p e linked with A u s t r a l i a 's c o n ­ v i c t p a s t a n d s h e ' l l - b e - r i g h t p r e s e n t ; i t' s one which recent f i l m m a k e r s have gon e to g r e at lengths to co n st ru ct as being p a r t o f th e na tio na l m al e identity.

W h e t h e r it is o r n o t , o r w h e t h e r t h e r e is such a thing as a “ nati on al m al e i de n­ t i t y ” , is e x t r e m e l y c o n t e n t i o u s .

T he chara cte rs of Lucy (W endy Hughes), M arian (Kim Deacon) and S a r a h ( J u d y D a v i s ) a r e all r e f l e c t i v e o f cu ltu ra l s te re ot y pe s o f a n o t h e r kind.

T h e y are “ th re e w o m e n w h o help cre ate the p r o b l e m s (for M a r t i n ) ” . Lucy d e s e r t s h i m f o r t h e “ s e c u r i t y ” o f life as a c r o u p i e r a n d a f l at o f h e r o w n .

M a r i a n , a v o l u p tu o u s d a n c e r an d “ pick u p ” , b e t r a y s h i m . A n d S a r a h , a wife o f a l ay p r e a c h e r — “ qu iet , r eli gi ous, s e x ­ u a l l y r e p r e s s e d ” — fal l s in l o v e w i t h him . Lo v e c re ate s the “ biggest dif­ ficulty o f all” .

H u ghes and Deacon's perform ances, t h o u g h s u i t a b l y e x e c u t e d , a r e l i m i t e d by the constraints of a narrative that c o n ­ s t r u c t s t h e i r c h a r a c t e r s l ike c u t - o u t p a p e r dolls — as w o m e n ar e often (mis) r e p r e s e n t e d in f i l m . O n e c a n o n l y s u r ­ m i s e t h a t t h e i r “ p r e t t y p r e s e n c e ” in t h e film, th o u g h integral to the c h a r a c t e r s t r u c t u r i n g in t h e n a r r a t i v e , is b a s i c a l l y a b o x - o f f i c e p l oy.

T h i s c o m m e n t is a l s o p e r t i n e n t t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f J u d y D a v i s , b u t t h e r e is a n o th er elem ent to her characteriza­ t ion . T h e rol e a ll o w s us t o see J u d y D a v i s “ a s w e ’v e n e v e r s e e n h e r b e f o r e ” .

It g i v e s h e r a c h a n c e t o c h a l l e n g e he rs el f as an acto r. A l t h o u g h she proves h e r ab il i ty t o d e v e l o p a c h a r a c t e r wi th a q u i r k , t h e r o l e is r e a l l y t o o s m a l l f o r h e r tale nts a n d m a g n itu d e . Sh e virtually d i s r u p t s t h e f i l m , w h i c h is in c o n t r a s t t o t h e f i l m ’s i n t e n t i o n a l s t y l e ( a n d is n o t m e a n t to be seen as a d is ta n c in g t e c h n i ­ q u e ) ; a n d i t ’s d i f f i c u l t n o t t o s e e h e r a s a n y th i n g m o r e t h an J u d y Davis slipping o n a n e w role.

N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e r o l e t h a t s h e is r e ­ q u i r e d t o p l a y is y e t a n o t h e r c o m m o n f e m a l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s is p a r ­ t i c u l a r l y d i s t r e s s i n g in r e l a t i o n t o t h e

398 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

w a y th e n a rra tiv e resolves her conflict a n d s t r u g g l e in a v e r y c o n s e r v a t i v e m a n n e r ; a n d , in a g e n e r a l s e n s e , it b e g s t he q ue s ti on : w h a t s o r t s o f r oles a re n o w a v a i l a b l e f or A u s t r a l i a ' s w o m e n actors?

T h i s l ea ds t o a n o t h e r si gnal whi ch points to a very un ex pl o re d galaxy: th at i s, t h e r e a l m o f A u s t r a l i a n f i l m narrative. This galaxy has som etim es e x p e r i e n c e d f l a s h e s o f b r i l l i a n c e (Stir, Palm Beach. Manganinnie, e t c . ) b u t f or t h e m o s t p a r t it h a s r e m a i n e d p r e t t y dim . T h is se em s to have resulted from m a n y f i lm m a k e r s ' lack o f u n d e r ­ standing a b o u t the functions of n a r r a t i v e , a n d t h ei r u n w i l l in gn e ss t o i n­ vent f o r m s whi ch m i g h t p oss ibl y be m o r e relevant an d a p p r o p r i a t e to the A u s tr a l ia n co nd ition. M a n y ha ve been c o n t e n t to set tl e for b o x - of f ic e f or ­ m ulas, which m ainly have been Am erican-originated narrative forms, as m o d e l s t o tell t h e i r s t o r i e s .

Hoodwink is s u c h a f i l m; it fits i n t o the r o m a n t i c / c r i m e genre, an d focuses o n a n individual a n t i - h e r o . M o s t o f hi s b e h a v i o u r is i n t e r p r e t e d i n p s y ­ chological term s, an d m o st strikingly ( b u t n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y ) t h e r e is l i t t l e a t ­ t e m p t t o s i t u a t e hi s s t o r y in a s o c i a l c o n t e x t (i .e., s e x, c l a s s , e t c . ) . T h i s is u n ­ d e r s t a n d a b l e in l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t com m ercial A u s t r a l i a n c i n e m a is, again , m ai n l y base d on the A m e r i c a n m o d e . A n d this w o u l d be e x p l a i n e d as “ gi vin g t he a u d i e n c e w h a t t h e y w a n t ” .

B u t t o m e it is c a l l e d d i s t o r t i n g t h e soci al a n d pol it ical p r a c t i c e o f c i n e m a in t h e n a m e o f “ e n t e r t a i n m e n t ” .

Hoodwink m i g h t h a v e b e e n m o r e t h a n j u s t a n o t h e r “ e n t e r t a i n i n g ” film w i t h “ p o p u l a r ” a p p e a l i f its f i l m m a k e r s h a d t r i e d t o tell t h e s t o r y f r o m a d i f ­ ferent perspective, o r h a d e m p l o y e d a non -c o n v en t io n a l na r ra t iv e f o rm which m i g h t h a v e o p e n e d it u p f o r m o r e l eve l s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . B u t , n o n e t h e l e s s , it is e n t e r t a i n i n g a n d m u c h o f t h i s is o b ­ v i o u s l y a r e s u l t o f C l a u d e W h a t h a m ’s direction.

T h i s l e a d s t o a f i nal g a l a x y , t h a t nebulous space called authorship.

C l a u d e W h a t h a m , w h o d i r e c t e d That’ll

professional and trade-union question^ t h a t this raises, w h a t a ls o n e e d s t o be a s k e d is w h a t s o r t o f m e a n i n g d o e s W h a t h a m e n c o d e i nt o t h e film?

H e se em s to inject a va gu ely British t o n e i n t o t h e f i l m ’s s t y l e , m o o d a n d pace. Despite the fact t h at the u n ­ obtrusive environm ental' b a ckdrop f i r m l y l o c a t e s t h e f i l m in A u s t r a l i a , it c o u l d b e t a k i n g p l a c e a n y w h e r e in t h e w o r ld . A s a vi si tor to this c o u n t r y , W a t h a m is a b l e t o t a k e a f r e s h l o o k a t t h e A u s t r a l i a n l a n d s c a p e a n d h a v e it suit ab ly p h o t o g r a p h e d to c onv ey s y m ­ b o l i c m e a n i n g . T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y n o t i c e a b l e in a s c e n e in S a r a h ’s h o u s e where a picture window neatly fram es t h e s p l e n d o r o f A u s t r a l i a ’s r o a m i n g o u t b a c k in all its g l o r y .

H o w e v e r , W a t h a m d o e s n ’t s e e m t o m a k e a n y s i g n i f i c a n t c o m m e n t a r y in re lation to th e cultural specificity o f the s to r y , c h a r a c t e r s o r soci al s i t u a t i o n .

T his m ig h t be u n d e r s t a n d a b le , c o n ­ side ring t h a t W a t h a m did n ot o ri gina te the project, or m a y ha ve been un d e r p r o d u c e r s ' o rd e rs to c o m e up with a c e r t a i n s o r t o f f i l m. N e v e r t h e l e s s , it h a s r e s u l t e d in a f i l m t h a t is g r e a t t o l o o k at, b u t h a s little s u s t e n a n c e . A n d this l e a v e s o n e u l t i m a t e l y f e e l i n g t h a t it is ni ce t o be w i n k e d at, b u t f ar b e t t e r t o be touched.

Martin and Sarah (Judy Davis), the wife o f a lay-preacher who falls in love with him.

Hoodwink.

H o o d w in k

Hoodwink: Directed by: Claude Whatham.

Producers: E'rrol Sullivan, Pom Oliver.

S c re e n p la y : Ken Q uinnell. D ire cto r of photography: Dean Semler. Editor: Nicholas Beauman. Production designer: Ross Major.

Music: Cameron Allan. Sound: Gary Wilkins.

Cast: John Hargreaves (Martin), Judy Davis (Sarah), Dennis Miller (Ralph), Max Cullen (Buster), Wendy Hughes (Lucy), Les Foxcroft (Baldy), Wendy Strehlow (Martin’s sister), Paul Sonkilla (Lancaster). Production company: CB Films. Distributor: Hoyts. 35mm. 90 mins.

Australia. 1981.

Excalibur Don Kennedy H a v i n g b e e n w e a n e d o n Lord o f the a n d bein g an u n a s h a m e d “ sw o rd a n d s o r c e r y ” fan , I w as fa irly s u re I w o u l d e n j o y Excalibur — a n d d i r e c t o r Jo h n B o o rm a n does n ot d isa p p o in t. H e h a s c r e a t e d a film o f e p ic p r o p o r t i o n s w h i c h c o n t a i n s all t h e e l e m e n t s t h e g e n re d e m a n d s — m ag ic, h e ro ism , r o m a n c e a n d th e e v e r - n e c e s s a r y c la sh b e t w e e n g o o d a n d e v il. I t is r i c h in t h e s y m b o lis m o f le g e n d a n d , as e n te r ta i n ­ m e n t , is a n e x c i t i n g a n d v i s u a l l y d ra m a tic perfo rm an ce.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , it is a f l a w e d m a s t e r ­ piece. T h e su ccess o f th e w h o le g o es a lo n g w a y to c o n c e a lin g th e fa u lts o f th e v a rio u s p a rts. M a n y tim e s I fo u n d m y s e l f w i s h i n g t h a t B o o r m a n ’s e r r a t i c b rillia n c e h a d b een te m p e r e d w ith th e m o r e p e rs is te n t a tte n tio n to d e ta il a n d p e rio d o f s o m e o n e such as D av id L ean .

S o m e t i m e s h e even v e ers r a t h e r c lo se to th e P y th o n e s q u e . T w o se q u e n c e s w h e re a w e a p o n cu ts o ff an a r m ju s t b elo w th e s h o u ld e r, w ith c o p io u s s p u r t ­ ing b lo o d , r e m in d e d m e r a t h e r u n c o m ­ fo rta b ly o f th e h ila rio u s b a ttle b e tw ee n

Rings,

E x c a lib u r

t h e b l a c k k n i g h t a n d K i n g A r t h u r in M o n t y P y t h o n ’s m e d i e v a l f a r c e .

T h e a r m o r w o r n b y B o o r m a n ’s K n i g h t s o f t h e R o u n d T a b l e is j u s t t o o lig h t — r a th e r o b v io u sly w a y b e y o n d th e te c h n o lo g y o f th e tim e s, a n d p r o b ­ a b l y t o d a y ’s, t o o , i f it w e r e n ’t f o r p lastics. E ls ew h ere , lo n g c o lu m n s o f k n i g h t s g a l l o p a t full t i l t a c r o s s h i l l ­ sides, ra is in g la u g h te r fro m th e a u d i ­ en ce w ith th e ir c a v a lry -to - th e - r e s c u e o v e rto n e s. W h ile g a llo p th e k n ig h ts no d o u b t d i d , o n e h a s t o b e a r in m i n d a u d i ­ e n ce p re c o n c e p tio n s o f th e p erio d . A sta te ly c a n te r w o u ld h a v e been m o r e fit­ tin g fo r K in g A r t h u r a n d his f o llo w e rs .

T h e scene a fte r A r th u r (N igel T e rry ) has d ra w n E x ca lib u r fro m th e ro ck then rid es to reliev e th e siege o f a s u p ­ p o r t e r ’s c a s t l e is a n o t h e r s u c h m o m e n t .

T h e y o u n g A r th u r , ta k in g on th e b esieging a r m y a lm o s t sin g le-h a n d ed a n d , w ith v a rio u s S u p e r m a n lea p s a n d b o u n d s , v a n q u is h in g th e foe, lo w e rs th is p a r t o f t h e f i l m a l m o s t t o t h e lev e l o f farce.

T h e r e a re a few to o m a n y c in e m a c l i c h e s a s w e l l, s u c h a s K i n g A r t h u r ’s e v il h a l f - s i s t e r , M o rg a n a (H elen M irre n ), tu rn in g in to an a n cien t h ag at t h e e n d — s h a d e s o f R i d e r H a g g a r d ’s

She. B o o r m a n fo rg ets th a t, j u s t as th e re a r e d e f i n e d l i m i t s in a l l a r e a s o f l ite r a tu r e , s w o rd a n d s o r c e r y a lso h a s its o w n t i g h t b o u n d a r i e s . It is a s f o r ­ m alized an a rt form as any o th e r and, as su ch , th e m o r e s o p h is tic a te d sectio n o f its a u d i e n c e d e m a n d s a d h e r e n c e t o th e principles.

P erh ap s because of B o o r m a n ’s l o n g a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h H o l l y ­ w o o d , a n d d e s p i t e h is o b v i o u s l y d e e p r e s e a r c h i n t o Morte d’Arthur, h e h a s been u n a b le to g ain q u ite a tr u e e n o u g h f e e l i n g f o r t h e p e r i o d f o r it n o t t o b e o v e r c o m e a t tim e s by a tt e m p t s to

p r o d u c e t h e C e c i l B. d e M i l l e - t y p e g l o s s y e p i c . T h i s is a g r e a t p i t y in a n o t h e r w is e e n c h a n t i n g film .

B u t t h i s is n o t t h e K i n g A r t h u r legend sa n itiz e d for c h ild re n . T h e d i r e c t o r c o n t r a s t s w e ll t h e v e n g e f u l a n i m a l s i d e o f m a n in t h e e a r l i e r p a r t s o f th e film w ith th e r o m a n c e a n d c h iv a lr y o f t h e lik e s o f A r t h u r a n d L an celo t.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , B o o r m a n h a s c o m e in for m u ch c ritic is m for d e b a s in g M a l o r y ’s Morte d’Arthur, m u c h o f it h i s o w n f a u l t . I f h e h a d n o t b e e n so s t r o n g in h is i n s i s t e n c e t h a t h i s a n d R ospo P a l l e n b e r g ’s s c r e e n p l a y had a d h e r e d c l o s e l y t o t h e b o o k , w h e n it d o e s n ’t, t h e n t h e c r i t i c s m i g h t h a v e b e e n less h a r s h . T h e r e is le s s o f M a l o r y h ere th a n B o o r m a n w o u ld h a v e us b e l i e v e . L e g e n d s o f s w o r d s in l a k e s a n d s w o r d s in s t o n e b e c o m e s l i g h t l y m i x e d up; S ir P erceval c o m e s fro m n o w h e re to d o m i n a t e th e o t h e r k n i g h ts a n d find th e G ra il; a n d p o o r old S ir G a l a h a d d o e s n ’t e v e n r a t e a m e n t i o n .

B u t I w o n d e r i f a n y o f t h i s is r e a l l y i m p o r t a n t . D i d M a l o r y , in t h e f i r s t p lace, w rite d o w n fa ith fu lly w h a t he h e a r d , o r d id he, lik e H o m e r a n d m a n y o th e rs , c o lo r the a n c ie n t tale s to m a k e th em m o r e in te restin g for late r g e n e r a ­ tions? S h a k e s p e a r e w as n o t a fra id to t a m p e r w i t h h i s t o r y w h e n it s u i t e d h is p lo t o r th e p o litical s ta n c e o f th e d ay .

S i m i l a r l y , a f ilm d i r e c t o r h a s t o b e a l l o w e d t h e f r e e d o m t o i n t e r p r e t f o r h is o w n m e d i u m a n d t i m e s . In t h i s c o n ­ tex t, B o o r m a n h as d o n e an ex cellen t j o b w ith th e a n c ie n t leg en d .

T h e f ilm b e g i n s in t h e p r e - A r t h u r i a n s a v a g e r y o f p ig -lik e b e a s ts w h o s e on ly v o c a t i o n is c o n t i n u a l l y t o s l a u g h t e r e a c h o t h e r . It m o v e s t o t h e g o l d e n a g e c r e a t e d b y t h e y o u n g k i n g — w i t h still t h e s e e d s o f d e s t r u c t i o n w h i c h all g o o d

Kissing Excalibur, Sir Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) swears undying allegiance to King Arthur (Nigel Terry). John Boorman’s Excalibur

m y th an d S h a k e s p e a ria n tra g e d y c o n ­ ta in s. T h e n th e d e s p a ir , th e loss o f hope, th e sh e e r b o r e d o m o f th e K n ig h ts o f the R o u n d T a b le an d th e descen t a g a in in to c h a o s as A r t h u r loses to th e e v e r - p r e s e n t f o r c e s o f e v il. T h e r i s e is m a g i c a l , t h e f a ll d u e e n t i r e l y t o t h e f a i l ­ in g s o f m a n . F in a lly , n e i t h e r g o o d n o r evil t r i u m p h s , o n l y m a n is d e s t r o y e d .

E x c a l i b u r is t h r o w n b a c k t o t h e w a t e r w h e n c e it c a m e a n d “ O n e d a y , a n o t h e r k in g shall c o m e ” — th e h o p e for th e future.

C h a n g e th e n a m e s , th e p laces an d the p e r i o d a n d it is t h e b a s i c s t u f f o f all m y th , legend a n d , n o w a d a y s , science fictio n . B o o r m a n m a y h a v e c h a n g e d M a l o r y ’s s t o r y l i n e t o t r a n s f e r it t o t h e screen , b u t he h a s r e m a in e d tru e to th e in te n t a n d th a t m a tte r s m o re , surely, t h a n w h e t h e r it w a s S i r G a l a h a d o r S i r P e r c e v a l w h o f o u n d t h e G r a i l . A s in t h e D a rk A g e tim e o f the se n n a ch ie and the b a l l a d e e r , t h e t e l l i n g is a s i m p o r t a n t a s th e tale.

I f t h e r e is a n y l e a d r o l e in t h i s f i l m , a p a r t f r o m t h e s w o r d o f t h e t i t l e , t h e n it b e lo n g s to M e rlin . M a n y w rite rs h a v e t a c k l e d t h e s t o r y o f K i n g A r t h u r in v a r io u s f o r m s a n d w ith v a r y in g d e g re e s o f success. M o s t hav e fo u n d M e rlin a m o re in te res tin g figure th a n A r th u r .

T h e s a m e s e e m s t o b e t r u e o f Excalibur’s d i r e c t o r . T h e r a n g e S c o t t i s h - b o r n N ic o l W illia m s o n b rin g s to th e ro le gives th e w iz a rd a d iffe re n t a n d o fte n w h i m s i c a l t o u c h . W h i l e it is f a r f r o m t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , it is s u c c e s s f u l . H e r e is n o t t h e f a i n t l y r i d i c u l o u s f i g u r e in c o n i c a l h a t w i t h r o b e s c o v e r e d in s t a r s a n d c r e s c e n t s , b u t a m a n fi ll e d w i t h a n c i e n t a n d l o n g fo rg o tte n m y stical pow er.

I found the c h a ra c te riz a tio n d isc o n ­ c e r t i n g a t f i r s t , b u t B o o r m a n ’s M e r l i n rings far, m o r e tru ly o f th e a rc h d ru id th a n did m y p r e c o n c e p tio n s . T h e ra n g e o f voice W illia m s o n b rin g s to th e ro le e m p h a siz e s M e rlin th e p u p p e t c o n ­ tro lle r, th e s h a p e r o f h u m a n d e stin ie s, a M e r lin w h o s e p o w e r s w e re so m u c h g re a te r th an th e m e re m o rta ls a ro u n d h im t h a t , a p a r t f r o m his d r e a m o f u n ify in g th e k in g d o m u n d e r o n e s tro n g a n d h o n o r a b l e m a n , all t h e r e s t w a s pu re th eatrics.

T h e y o u n g A rth u r, p layed by N igel T e r r y , is a c a l l o w y o u t h , b r o u g h t u p a s a s q u i r e in t h e c o u n t r y . A g a i n B o o r ­ m a n d e m o lish e d m y p u rely r o m a n tic n o tio n s. A r t h u r as a b oy w as far m o re l i k e l y ter b e B o o r m a n ’s c o u n t r y b u m p ­ k in , to ta lly m a n i p u l a t e d by M e rlin , t h a n m y d i g n i f i e d l a d . O n l y r e a l l y in h is d e s p a i r d o we, see s o m e o f t h e d e p t h s in th e m a n d e stin e d to be a leg en d , a f la m e f o r t h e f u t u r e . B u t a t all t i m e s h e a n d his f a th e r , U t h e r P e n d r a g o n , a fierce, vio len t a n d a m b itio u s m a n , a re th e p u p p e t s a t t h e e n d o f M e r l i n ’s s t r i n g s — a n d is it a n y w o n d e r t h a t m a n y t i m e s h e b e c o m e s d is g u s te d w ith th e p o o r c la y h e h a s to w o r k w ith.

H elen M irre n v a m p s b e a u tifu lly a c r o s s t h e s c r e e n a s M o r g a n a . A r t h u r ’s s c h e m i n g h a l f - s i s t e r , b u t t h e evil is m i s s i n g . S h e is t h e a n t i t h e s i s o f all A r t h u r is t r y i n g t o c r e a t e a t C a m e l o t , th e b e a u tifu l fru it w ith th e ro tte n m a g g o t in its c o r e . B u t Excalibur’s M o r g a n a is m o r e h u m a n f r a i l t y t h a n p u r e u n a d u l t e r a t e d e v il. A n d f o r t h e v i e w e r w h o is n o t w e ll f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e A rth u ria n legend, B o o rm a n does n o t p r o v i d e e n o u g h r e a s o n f o r M e r l i n ’s g i v i n g h i s p o w e r t o M o r g a n a . I t w a s , in fa ct, th e c la ssic ta le o f a n old m a n b e c o m in g b e s o tte d w ith a b e au tifu l y o u n g g i r l.

M e rlin , a t the en d , w as a v ictim o f h u m a n frailty ju s t as m u c h as the p e o p le h e tr ie d to m a n i p u l a t e . B o o r-

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 399

=

S

h

a

r

m

i l l

F

i l m

s

=

W e a re p le a se d to a n n o u n c e th e a c q u is itio n o f the o u ts ta n d in g d o c u m e n ta r y Im a g e B efore M y Eyes.

A n d to g e th e r w ith R O N I N FIL M S, the w o n d e rfu l c o m e d y su c c ess f r o m th e M e l b o u r n e Film F estiv al M a m a T u r n s 100, d irec te d b y C a rlo s S au ra.

M a m a T u r n s 100 w ill b e re le a s e d a t th e D E N D Y C I N E M A , M A R T I N P L A C E i n D e c e m b e r a n d is c o m i n g s o o n t o t h e L O N G F O R D C IN E M A , S O U T H Y A R R A . '

engeaitce .

W rite to S H A R M IL L FIL M S fo r fu rth e r in fo rm a tio n , 27 S t o n n i n g t o n P l a c e , T o o r a k 3 1 4 2 o r p h o n e (03) 2 0 5 3 2 9 , 2 0 1 3 8 9 .

T elex: A A 3 9 0 8 9 .

IdHUne

D IST R IBU T O R S OF: The Tree o f W ooden C lo g s (G), B e s t B o y (G), Padre P a drone (M), I Can J u m p P u d d le s (G), A lle g ro N on T roppo (NRC), a n d m a n y m o re q u a lity film title s .

v

A film by SHOHEI IM AM URA Japanese dialogue - English subtitles

16mm double band.

"ONE OF THE DECADE'S TEN BEST" - Tom Allen, Village Voice (New York), surveying the 1970's "One of the finest, m ost resonant film s from Japan fo r years... a superb dissection of the grim underbelly of an outw ardly rich and flourishing society."

- Derek Malcolm, The Guardian (London)

Rent or buy

"M a g n ific e n t... b eautifu lly d irect... goes fa r beyond the ordinary police dram a in its existentialist exam ination of crime and self-punishm ent."

- John Hinde, ABC Radio

Available from

or convert your Hokushin SC-10.

Contact Barry Brown on (02) 438 2086.

ROIM IN F IL M S 136 Blarney Crescent, Campbell, A.C.T. 2601 Phone Canberra: (062) 480851

Decibel International.

5 0 Atchison S tre et, St. L eo n a rd s N S W 2065.

W

E

T R Y

H

B E C A

A U

R D

E R . . .

S E . . .

W e are not the largest, but we are proud to be one of the major international completion guarantors in the world. M o tio n Picture Guarantors Inc., together w ith its associated companies, has guaranteed com pletion of more than 200 films since 1970, including feature length movies w ith total budgets in excess of $35,000,000.

Our policy is to assist the producer in every possible way w ith counsel and expertise. W e conceive our job as helping the Production Team maintain its objectives: M O V IE FINISHED â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ON TIME â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ON B U D G E T !

Frequently producers have told us that w e were of material help in spotting difficulties early and assisting in their solution.

W e are able to offer bonding for the largest-budget films as well as smaller, at strictly com petitive rates. O u r n o - c la im b o n u s is th e m o s t a ttr a c tiv e in th e in d u s try .

W e will be pleased to consider bonding your next movie and invite enquiries by telex or telephone (collect).

In Australia.

Sydney: Film Services (02) 27 8741. Telex AA 24771 Melbourne: (03) 699 9077. Telex AA 30900 In New Zealand: W ellington: 859-049. Telex 31337

Excalibur

m a n o c c a s io n a lly h in ts a t th is, b u t d o e s n o t d e v e l o p t h e i d e a f u l ly e n o u g h . T h e f o r c e s o f e v il a r e s h o w n b e s t in t h e c h a ra c te r o f M o rd re d , th e incestuous son c o n ce iv e d th ro u g h A r th u r a n d M o r g a n a , w h o s e a n g u is h a n d co ld s a v a g e r y a r e th e d o w n f a ll o f his f a th e r.

A n d so to th e c a r d b o a r d re p lica o f S i r L a n c e l o t . B o o r m a n ’s S i r L a n c e l o t is h a n d s o m e , g o o d , a n e x p e r t j o u s t e r and sw ordsm an, a m an of honor and in te g rity — a n d th o ro u g h ly , u tte rly b l a n d . E v e n w h e n S i r L a n c e l o t f a ll s fr o m g r a c e w ith his love fo r G u in e v e re , t h e i r l o v e - m a k i n g is t h e s t u f f o f rh a p s o d y a n d g ra c e — q u ite u n lik e th e a n im a l ru ttin g o f U th e r a n d Ig rain e.

T h i s is n o t t o s a y t h a t Excalibur’s S i r L a n c e l o t is w r o n g ; it is p r o b a b l y v e r y clo se to th e g o d -lik e fig u re o f th e a n c i e n t l e g e n d . B u t a s it is h u m a n t o s i n , f e w c a n h a v e a n y t h i n g in c o m m o n w i t h S i r L a n c e l o t . I t is a p i t y t h a t s u c h g o o d n e s s is b o r i n g , b u t s o m e h o w a b i t o f lasciviousness m a k e s m en m o re h u m a n a n d in terestin g .

T h e t w o l e a s t s a t i s f y i n g p o r t r a y a l s in th e film a r e o f I g r a in e a n d G u in e v e r e .

I g r a i n e is p u r e l y a s e x s y m b o l , t h e r e c i p i e n t o f U t h e r ’s l u s t , a n d n o t r e a l l y th e strik in g c h a ra c te r o n e w ould expect to b r e a k k in g d o m s a p a r t. T h e v ap id G u i n e v e r e is t o o s h a l l o w a n d f l i g h t y t o be th e s tu f f to b rin g g r e a t m e n to th e ir knees.

F o r a ll t h a t , t h e f i lm is t e c h n i c a l l y e x ce lle n t. T h e b a ttle scen es a n d jo u s ts e x c e l in a c t i o n a n d v i o l e n c e , a n d t h e c a m e ra c a p tu re s m a g n ific e n tly the m o o d a n d c o lo rs o f th e p erio d . F ilm e d in t h e m i s t s a n d d a r k m o u n t a i n s o f I r e l a n d , w h e r e B o o r m a n n o w liv es, c in e m a to g r a p h e r A lex T h o m p s o n b rin g s a tim e le ss n e s s to th e sc ree n , a b a c k d r o p o f a m a g ic a l w o rld lo n g v a n ish ed fro m th e e a rth .

Y e s , t h e r e a r e m a n y j a r r i n g n o t e s in t h e f i l m , n o t t h e l e a s t b e i n g its f o o l i s h use o f W a g n e r for th e s o u n d tr a c k in ­ ste a d o f h a v in g t h e m e m u sic sp ecially w ritte n , b u t really th ese a re ju s t m in o r a n n o y a n c e s in w h a t is o v e r a l l a w e llp r o d u c e d epic.

KxcaJibur: Directed by: John Boorman. Producer: John Boorman. Executive producers: Edgar F. Gross. Robert A. Eisenstein. Screenplay: Rospo Pallenberg, John Boorman. Director of photography: Alex Thompson. Editor: John Merritt. Production designer: Tony Pratt. Music: Trevor Jones. Cast: Nigel Terry (Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana), Nicholas Clay (Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Guinevere), Paul Geoffrey (Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Robert Addie (Mordred), Gabriel Byrne (Uther), Keith Buckley (Uryens), Katrine Boorman (Igraine).

Production company: Orion. Distributor: Road­ show. 35mm. 140 mins. Ireland. 1981.

It’s My Turn Debi Enker A lthough C l a u d i a W e i l l ’s s e c o n d fe a tu re re states m a n y o f the th e m a tic c o n c e r n s o f h e r d i r e c t o r i a l d e b u t , Girl­ friends, it l a c k s t h e v i g o r a n d s h a r p p e r ­ c ep tio n o f c h a r a c te r th a t d istin g u ish e d h e r f i r s t f i l m , a n d r e p l a c e s it w i t h a g lossy v e n ee r o f w itticism . T h e m o st t e l l i n g e v a l u a t i o n o f It’s My Turn c a m e fro m th e d ire c to r, w h o said, “ T h e t r u t h o f w o r k i n g in t h e s y s t e m is t h a t i t ’s n o t m y m o n e y ; f i n a l l y , I d o n ’t o w n t h e f i l m . I m i g h t h a v e b r o u g h t it t o t h e m . I t m i g h t b e m y p r o j e c t . B u t , f i n a l l y , i t ’s n o t m y film .” ' 1. C l a u d i a Weill, Film Comment, N o v e m b e r -D e c e m b e r , 1980, p. 36.

It's M y Turn

Jill Clayburgh as the “at the crossroads’’ Kate Gunzinger. Claudia Weill’s I t ’s M y T urn .

It is u n d o u b t e d l y t h i s a t t i t u d e , a n d t h e c o m p r o m i s e s th e $7 m illio n b u d g e t n e c e s s i t a t e d , t h a t b e s t e x p l a i n t h e f i l m ’s lack o f p u n c h an d p e rso n al reso lu tio n .

T h e m a t i c a l ly , b o th film s c o n c e n ­ tr a te on th e trib u la tio n s o f an a m b i­ t io u s , t a l e n t e d w o m a n w o r k i n g to fu r th e r h e r p ro fe s sio n a l e x iste n c e , w hile e x a m in in g th e valu es o f h e r p e rso n al life, h e r f a m i l y , f r i e n d s a n d l o v e r s , a n d the d e g ree o f c o m m itm e n t th a t binds t h e m t o g e t h e r . Y e t t h e t w o f i l m s a r e as d i s s i m i l a r a s t h e i r h e r o i n e s . It’s My T u r n ’s K a t e G u n z i n g e r ( J i l l C l a y ­ b u rg h ) t r a n s f o r m s in to a m o r e a t t r a c ­ t iv e , b u t ' e q u a l l y a w k w a r d , s h a d o w o f her predecessor, S usan W ein b latt ( M e l a n i e M a y r o n ) . In t h e p r o c e s s s h e a n d t h e f i lm m i s p l a c e m u c h o f t h e g ra tify in g h o n e sty a n d a c u te in sig h t e v i d e n t in Girlfriends.

T h e f ilm b e g i n s b y d e f i n i n g K a t e a t t h e c r o s s r o a d s . S h e is a t a l e n t e d m a t h e ­ m a t i c i a n w o r k i n g a t a u n i v e r s i t y in C h i c a g o in a p o s i t i o n t h a t e n a b l e s h e r t o p u r s u e r e s e a r c h s h e b e l i e v e s is i m p o r t a n t a n d finds s tim u la tin g . Y e t th e p o ssib ility o f a m o r e p re stig io u s, l es s c h a l l e n g i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s t a t C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y in N e w Y o r k is a te m p ta tio n th a t she c a n n o t o v e r­ l o o k . H e r p e r s o n a l life h a s r e c e n t l y stab ilized to the e x te n t th a t she has m o v e d in w i t h H o m e r ( C h a r l e s G r o d i n ) a n d c o m m itte d h e rself to a c o m f o r t­ a b le , g e n ia l re la tio n s h ip w hich a llo w s h er the “ s p a c e ” th a t she d e e m s neces­ sa ry to sa tisfy h e r e m o tio n a l n eed s a n d p rofessional d e m an d s.

H o w e v e r , h e r s e c u r i t y is j e o p a r d i z e d w hen she trav e ls to N e w Y o rk to a tte n d a n i n t e r v i e w , a n d h e r f a t h e r ’s s e c o n d m a r r i a g e . S h e f i n d s t h a t s h e is d i s ­ o r ie n te d , to th e p o in t o f h o stility , a t th e p r o s p e c t o f h e r f a t h e r s h a r i n g h i s life w ith a n o t h e r w o m a n , a n d a lso t h a t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h H o m e r is c h a l l e n g e d by h e r a tt e n ti o n to Ben L ew in ( M ic h a e l D ouglas), h er p ro sp ectiv e ste p -b ro th e r.

H e r trip to N e w Y o rk b e c o m e s the n a rra tiv e c u lm in a tio n o f h er p ro fes­ sional a n d p e rso n al d ile m m a s .

T h e s u b t l e t i e s o f K a t e ’s c h a r a c t e r a r e a d ep tly illu strated th ro u g h her w a r d ­ r o b e . S h e is s t y l i s h , b u t t o t a l l y l a c k i n g in s i m p l i c i t y o r c o n s c i o u s d e f i n i t i o n .

O f t e n h e r l a c k o f o v e r a l l c o h e s i o n is h e r w o r s t e n e m y . S h e is u n a b l e t o e f f e c ­ tiv e ly le c tu re h e r c la s s w ith o u t re m o v in g h e r high heels a n d c u m b e r ­ so m e jew ellery. W h en she arriv es h o m e tired a n d g r u m p y , a n d m a n a g e s to ju g g le a b u n d le o f o versized cush io n s f r o m h e r V o l v o t o t h e e l e v a t o r in a single trip , h e r p re c a rio u s heels tu rn a re la tiv e ly sim p le p ro c e d u r e in to a s i g n i f i c a n t v i c t o r y . B u t K a t e is a t r i e r w h o l o v e s t o s u c c e e d , w h e t h e r it is so lv in g a m a th e m a tic a l p ro b le m , p lay in g ping p o n g o r ju g g lin g cu sh io n s.

I r o n i c a l l y , f o r a f i lm m a d e b y a n d a b o u t a w o m a n , a n d w ith an u r b a n e s c re e n p la y by E le a n o r B erg stein , the a u d i e n c e g a i n s its m o s t p e r c e p t i v e , c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f K a t e t h r o u g h B e n ’s b e m u s e d eyes. H e w a tc h e s w ith o b v io u s p le a su re as she p o u rs lib eral q u a n titie s o f sa u c e o v er h er food, o b liv io u s to th e c alo rie c o u n tin g a n d c h o le stero l c o n ­ s c i o u s n e s s s u r r o u n d i n g h e r . H e is in trig u ed and e n c h a n te d by her d e te r ­ m in a tio n to d e fe a t h im a t a n y th in g — p in g p o n g , c o m p u te r b a se b a ll or s i m u l a t e d s o c c e r . In h e r h o t e l r o o m , h e in stin ctiv ely senses h e r v u ln e ra b ility a n d u n d e r s ta n d s a t least p a r t o f h er h e sita tio n a t th e p ro sp e c t o f sleep in g w ith a v irtu a l s tr a n g e r .

D o u g l a s ’ p e r f o r m a n c e a s B e n is a g ra tify in g b a la n ce o f se n su a lity , sen si­ tiv ity a n d a t e n d e n c y t o w a r d th e a ll­ A m e ric a n jo ck . T h e u n m ista k a b le c h e m is try b e tw ee n C la y b u r g h a n d D o u g l a s o n t h e s c r e e n is o n e o f t h e f i l m ’s m o s t t a n g i b l e a s s e t s .

U n f o r t u n a t e ly , Ben su ffe rs fr o m th e lack o f d e v e lo p m e n t a n d d efin itio n th a t b l u r s all t h e m a l e c h a r a c t e r s in t h e f i l m .

H i s c h i v a l r y is s e e n w h e n h e r e s c u e s K a te from her e m b a rra s s m e n t at h a v in g le a p t to h e r feet w h e n h e r fa th e r, J a c o b ( S te v e n H ill), a n n o u n c e s t h a t h e w i s h e s t o w a l t z w i t h h is “ f a v o r i t e g i r l ” a n d t h e n t u r n s t o h is p r o s p e c t i v e b r i d e ,

E m m a ( B e v e r l y G a r l a n d ) . B e n is u n ­ h a p p ily m a rrie d , h as a d a u g h te r a n d his p r o m i s i n g c a r e e r a s a p r o f e s ­ sional baseb all p lay e r has a b r u p tly te r ­ m i n a t e d t h r o u g h i n j u r y . H e t o o is facing c o n s id e ra b le p e rso n a l a n d p r o ­ fessio n al d ecisio n s, yet th e y a re on ly r e l e v a n t t o K a t e a n d t o t h e f i l m i t s e l f in te r m s o f th e ir effect o n her.

S im ila rly , H o m e r ex ists ex clu siv ely as a c o n te m p o ra ry R alp h B e llam y [His Girl F r i d a y ] . H e is a b u i l d e r ; d e p e n d a b l e , h o n e s t a n d f u n n y . In K a t e ’s w o r d s , t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p is “ nice” , b u t th e early scenes o f th e tw o t o g e th e r serve o n ly to h ig h lig h t th e d efic ie n c ie s o f t h e ir r e la tio n s h ip for K a te . It r e m a in s th e ro le o f th e h e r o to c o m p le te th e tr ia n g le a n d fo rce K a te to reco g n ize th a t th e a ttrib u te s o f th a t c o m fo rtab le re la tio n s h ip a r e n ’t suffic ie n t.

W ith H o m e r , K a te can be to ta lly se lf-ab so rb e d , p u zzling o v er h e r m a th s p r o b l e m s in b e d a s h e a m i a b l y c h e w s g u m , o r d e m o n s tr a tin g a su perficial i n t e r e s t in h i s w o r k , t h a t m e r e l y i n v o l v e s c o r r e c t i o n o f h is g r a m m a r r a t h e r t h a n a n y g e n u i n e i n t e r e s t in t h e c o n cep ts th a t he has developed. S ad ly , Ben, H o m e r , J a c o b an d even C o o p e rm a n ( D a n i e l S t e r n ) , K a t e ’s a s p i r i n g s tu d e n t g e n iu s, a r e o n ly effectiv ely d e v e l o p e d a n d r e l e v a n t in r e l a t i o n to K a t e a n d h e r n e e d s . O n e b e g in s to w o n d e r w h o s e t u r n it r e a l l y is.

K a te e v en tu ally realizes t h a t th e ty p e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t s h e d e s i r e s is t h e o n e t h a t h e r fa th e r s h a r e d w ith h e r m o th e r a n d n o w w ith E m m a . W h e n E m m a an d J a c o b d a n ce to g eth e r, they c o n c e n tra te to ta lly on one a n o th e r.

T h e r e is a p o w e r f u l u n d e r c u r r e n t o f respect and u nderstanding b etw een th e m , a p ro d u c t o f th e fact th a t they are w i l l i n g t o s a c r i f i c e a n d c o m p r o m i s e in r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e o t h e r ’s n e e d s . T h e r e is a d e g r e e o f c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e o t h e r ’s w e l f a r e t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e m f r o m t h e o t h e r c h a r a c t e r s in t h e f i l m .

E v e n t h e s t r e n g t h o f K a t e ’s d e v o t i o n to h e r f a th e r c a n n o t initially t r a n s f o r m h e r j e a l o u s y a t his r e m a r r i a g e to th e g e n u i n e p l e a s u r e felt b y B e n f o r his m o th e r. A s Ben says to w a r d s th e e n d o f t h e f i l m , K a t e ’s s e l f - a b s o r p t i o n h a s n ev er a llo w ed h e r to m a k e t h a t d e g ree o f c o m m itm e n t to anyone.

T h e stro n g e st a n d m o st p lea su ra b le q u a l i t y o f It’s My Turn, a n d o n e t h a t it s h a r e s w ith th e e p is o d ic d e v e l o p m e n t o f Girlfriends, is W e i l l ’s a b i l i t y t o e n c a p ­ su la te the e m o tio n a l in v es tm e n ts o f c h a r a c t e r s in a v a r i e t y o f s i t u a t i o n s , w ith a m in i m u m o f d e ft a c tio n . A s B r o o k s R i l e y o b s e r v e d , W e i l l ’s f l a i r fo r c o m e d y “ elev ates th e c lu m sin e ss of h u m a n e n c o u n t e r t o a n a e s t h e t i c ” .2 T h e f i lm e x u d e s a k e e n p e r c e p t i o n a n d e m p a t h y t o w a r d s its c h a r a c t e r s , e v e n w h e n t h e y b e c o m e s e l f is h a n d o b t u s e . In its b e s t m o m e n t s , it c r e a t e s a ten s io n w ith in th e e v e ry d a y e n c o u n te r th a t m a k e s o n e s q u ir m w ith th e e m b a r r a s s m e n t o f reco g n itio n .

H o w e v e r , I t ’s My T u r n is a n a l o g o u s t o K a t e a n d , o n c e a g a i n , it is B e n ’s o b s e rv a tio n th a t rings tru e s t — “ N o g u t s ” . I t s c o n c l u s i o n p l a c e s h e r b a c k in C h ic a g o , e n d in g h e r r e la tio n s h ip w ith H o m e r a n d a t t a c k i n g life w i t h t h e c o n ­ v i c t i o n t h a t in h e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , a s in h e r r e s e a r c h , s h e h a s b e e n l o o k i n g f o r s o l u t i o n s in t h e w r o n g p l a c e s . H e r a d m i s s i o n t h a t t h i s p h i l o s o p h y is “ j u s t a b e g i n n i n g , t h e t o u g h p a r t is w o r k i n g it o u t ” is t h e m o s t a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t

Continued on p. 418 2. Brooks Riley, Film C om m ent , November-December, 1980, p. 34.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 401

The American Vein Christopher Wicking and Tise Vahimagi Dutton paperback, 1979 R. J. Thompson In t h e U . S . , t h e r e a r e m a n y 2 4 - h o u r a - d a y r a d i o s t a t i o n s . Some b r o a d c a s t n e w s , s o m e s p o r t s ; t h e best d o j a z z .

S o m e p l a y “ g o l d e n o l d i e s ” : r o c k ’n ’ro ll o f t h e 1 9 5 0 s a n d ’60s. W h a t I h a v e a l w a y s w a n t e d is a 2 4 - h o u r “ g o l d e n o ld ie s ” tele v isio n c h a n n e l. S u c h a n o u tle t w ould b e a m an u n in te rru p te d s t r e a m o f Richard Diamond, Burns and

Allen, 1 Spy, Rawhide, The Jack Benny Show, Peter Gunn, Maverick, Police Story, The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson, You’ll Never Get Rich, Sgt. Bilko, The Rockford Files, Starsky and Hutch . . . s t o p m e b e f o r e I kill a g a i n .

I ’d l o v e t o w a t c h it a n d t o p r o g r a m it.

W i c k i n g a n d V a h i m a g i ’s b o o k is p a r ­ tic u la rly d ire c te d to th o se w h o s h a re th is fa n ta sy .

S o m e w h e r e in t h e 1 9 6 0 s ( a r e m a r k ­ a b le place: th e a u t u m n a l m o m e n t s o f th e old c la ss ic sty le sid e by sid e w ith a n e w H o l l y w o o d f i lm w h i c h s e e m e d t o h a v e s e v e r e d its r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e e a r l i e r p h a s e ) t h e B Fdm w a s t h o u g h t t o h av e d ied o f in d u stria l o b so le sc en c e, a n d t e l e v i s i o n s e r i e s w o r k l o o k e d l ik e the n ew t r a in in g g r o u n d fo r film ­ m akers.

T h e b u l k o f A m e r i c a n f i l m s h a d n ’t been lo o k ed at seriously o r s y s te m ­ a t i c a l l y u n t il t h i s p o i n t in t h e m i d 1960s: S a r d s ’ The American Cinema g a v e an o r g a n iz e d w a y to d o so. U n til th e n , m o s t film s w e re seen r a t h e r u n t h i n k i n g l y ( f r o m t o d a y ’s v i e w p o i n t ) .

P e o p l e l o o k e d a t t h e m in t e r m s o f s t a r s a n d p e rfo rm a n c e s , subjects an d th em e s, p r o d u c ti o n v alu e a n d sp e c ta c le .

T h a t's how w riters have c o n tin u e d to lo o k at tele v isio n , by a n d la rg e , w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f a la rm e d so c io lo g ists.

W i c k i n g a n d V a h i m a g i ’s b o o k will c h a n g e th is s itu a tio n .

The American Vein: Directors and Directions in [American] Television: th e title a n d s t r u c tu r e o f th is b o o k l o c a t e it in t h e s c h o o l o f S a r d s ’ The American Cinema ( a l o n g w i t h R i c h a r d C o r l i s s ’ Talking Pictures, w h i c h d o e s n ’t sh a re the b re a d th o r taste o f th e o th e r tw o). T h e a u th o r s p ro v id e (o ften p a r tia l) c re d its fo r te le v isio n d ire c tin g (a n d so m e tim e s w ritin g an d p ro ­ d u c in g ) a n d c a r e e r p ro files fo r a b o u t 275 d ire c to rs , o r g a n iz e d in to seven p a n th e o n categories.

T h e s e a re p re fa c e d w ith a n e x tre m e ly useful “ C h r o n o l o g y o f T e le v is io n 1948­ 1978” , listing th e d e b u ts , hig h p o in ts a n d c a n c e lla tio n s o f series a n d key o n eo ff telefeatu res.

T h e b o o k f i n i s h e s w i t h a lis t o f “ T h e G r e a t S h o w s ” (60 series) w h ich t r i­ a n g u la te s the ta s te o f th e a u th o r s , a n d so c la r if i e s th e j u d g m e n t s and o m is s io n s w h ich p iq u e th e r e a d e r t h r o u g h o u t th e m a in t e x t ( n o t listed a m o n g t h e g r e a t s : I Love Lucy, All In

The Family, Starsky and Hutch, The M ary

T y le r

M o o re

Show ,

The

Outsider). p u b l i s h e d The in a 1963 tw o cases w h i c h t r a n s f o r m e d t h i n k i n g a b o u t Film ( h e d i d n ’t m a k e t h e m First a n d d i d n ' t m a k e th e m best, b u t he m a d e t h e m w ith the m o s t im p a c t): he p ro v id ed a m u ch m o re c o m p le te and c o m p re h e n s iv e m o d el o f the A m e r ic a n c in e m a , in te ­ g r a ti n g i n d u s t r ia l f a c t o r s w ith indivW hen

S arris

fi r s t

American Cinema m a t e r i a l , Film Culture, h e p u t f o r w a r d

402 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

idual o eu v res; a n d he d e ta ile d th e o p e r a t i o n s o f a u t h o r s h i p t h r o u g h o u t all lev e l s o f t h a t m o d e l .

• S a r r i s ’ w o r k ( a n d t h e w o r k it s t o o d for, by M a n n y F a r b e r , E u g e n e A r c h e r , t h e Cahierists, Movie, e a r l y Screen w ith W ic k in g h im self) re triev e d th e bu lk o f A m e r ic a n c in e m a fro m a v a c u u m o f n e g l e c t a n d l o c a t e d it w h e r e w e s e e it t o d a y , a t t h e c e n t r e o f f i lm th o u g h t.

W ick in g and V ah im a g i have u n d e r­ ta k e n th e s a m e p ro je c t fo r telev isio n d irec to rs. T h e ir w o rk h as been m o re d i f f i c u l t t h a n S a r r i s ’: t h e y w r i t e f r o m B rita in , w h e re a c c e ss to th e te le v isio n p r o g r a m s is s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t e d ; t h e y w ere o ften sty m ie d by lack o f c o - o p e r a ­ tio n fr o m tele v isio n n e tw o r k s , p r o d u c ­ tio n c o m p a n i e s a n d d i s tr ib u to r s ; a n d (as a n y o n e k n o w s w h o h a s trie d to re se a rc h th is a re a ) th ey fo u n d t h a t th e d e v elo p m en t and o rg a n iz atio n o f d a ta a b o u t tele v isio n p r o d u c ti o n h a s b a re ly b e g u n in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h s i m i l a r w o r k on t h e a t r i c a l film p r o d u c t i o n d e ta ils .

D esp ite th ese h a n d ic a p s , The American Vein is a s p r o v o c a t i v e a n d u s e f u l a c a t a l y s t f o r t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d in A m e r i c a n t e l e v i s i o n a s S a r r i s w a s in 1963 f o r s t u d e n t s in n e e d o f a w a y t o t a c k l e t h e H o l l y w o o d c i n e m a ( t h e r e is a ro u g h c o r re s p o n d e n c e o f scale b etw een th e film in d u stry p ro d u c in g , on a v e r a g e , 150 Films a y e a r f o r 6 0 y e a r s , a n d a tele v isio n in d u s try p ro d u c in g , on a v era g e, 4 0 0 e p iso d es a n d te le fe a tu re s o v e r 30 y e a r s ) .

T h e b o o k is h i g h l y r e c o m m e n d e d .

But th ere are p ro b le m s. T h e research d i f f i c u l t i e s n o t e d r e s u l t in o m i s s i o n s f r o m c r e d i t lis ts . M u c h o f t h e w o r k c ite d h a s n o t be en seen by th e w r ite r s .

E ven b irth a n d d e a th d a te s for the d ire c to rs p ro file d a re m o re o ften m issin g th a n p resen t.

O n th e plus side, W ic k in g a n d V a h i ­ m agi pro v id e a m uch richer a cc o u n t of t h e p r o d u c t i o n f a b r i c w o v e n , a s F ig u res m o v e b a c k a n d forth th ro u g h w ritin g , directin g , a ctin g a n d p ro d u c in g , th an S a r r i s f o r f i l m . A f t e r t h e b o o k ’s i n i t i a l su c c e ss a t m a p p i n g th e t e r r a in , th is c o m p le x vision o f w o rk w ith in th e i n d u s t r y is its g r e a t e s t v a l u e .

Q u ic k ly a p p a re n t, th o u g h u n sta te d , is t h a t t h e b o o k is i n t e r e s t e d o n l y in a c e r ta in s o r t o f te le v isio n d ire c tin g , th e s o r t a n a l o g o u s t o f e a t u r e Films. T h e new s, so a p s, g a m e show s, q uiz show s, talk sh o w s a n d v a rie ty show s are n ot m e n t i o n e d , w h i c h is f a i r e n o u g h .

R e v u e s (Laugh In, Saturday Night Live) a r e o m itte d , as a re clo w n sh o w s (R e d S k e l t o n , E r n i e K o v a c s , Your Show of Shows); J e r r y L e w i s is m e n t i o n e d f o r a s i n g l e e p i s o d e o f The Bold Ones w h i c h he d irected .

S a rris, and W ic k in g an d V a h im a g i, su c c e e d a s th e y a r e w illin g to t a k e an e x ce ed in g ly w id e ra n g e o f m a te ria l w ith equal seriousness, s ta rtin g from each i t e m ’s o w n t e r m s a n d w o r k i n g o u t f r o m th ere . B u t th is b o o k , a lo n g w ith S a rris , is u n d e r m i n e d b y a ‘p e r v a s i v e , i m p l i c i t c u ltu ral p re ju d ice a g a in st c o m e d y .

R e la tiv e ly few re fe re n c e s a r e m a d e to c o m e d y series, a n d n o m a j o r a tte n tio n is f o c u s e d u p o n t h e m . C o m e d y , it a p p e a r s , is n o t a s w o r t h y o f c o n s i d e r a ­ tio n a s ‘ s e r i o u s ’ d r a m a . Y e t in A m e r ic a n telev isio n , a n d p a rtic u la r ly at th e v o latile c r o sso v e r p o in t o f d ir e c t­ i n g / w r i t i n g / a c t i n g / p r o d u c i n g w hich The American Vein t a k e s a s its c e n t r e , c o m e d y h a s e s t a b l i s h e d its m a j o r c l a i m .

In t h e 1 9 5 0 s a n d e a r l y ’6 0 s , a n d c r u c i a l l y d u r i n g t h e ’7 0 s , s i t c o m s w e r e , if n o t t h e c e n t r e , o n e o f t h e t w o o r t h r e e c e n tre s o f e x cellen ce a n d in te res t on th e U .S . tube. F o r ex am p le, W ic k in g a n d V a h i m a g i give o v e r o n e o f t h e ir seven

p a n th e o n c a te g o rie s to p r o d u c e r s / s e r i e s c r e a t o r s ; in t h i s c a t e g o r y t h e r e is n o e n t r y f o r N o r m a n L e a r , B u d Y o r k i n , o r J a m e s L . B r o o k s , a n d s o All

In The Family, Maude, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Mary Hartman a n d all th eir sp in o ffs a n d co u sin s a re disenfran ch ized .

T h e w rite rs give a n o t h e r o f th e ir p a n th e o n c ateg o rie s to a c to rs w h o have b e c o m e d ir e c to r s (a m a jo r p h e n o ­ m e n o n in A m e r i c a n t e l e v i s i o n ) , b u t t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n h e r e — o r in a n y o th e r c a te g o ry — o f J e rry P aris, a m a j o r F ig u re in c o m e d y d i r e c t i o n . N o r is t h e r e a m e n t i o n — d e s p i t e t h e w r ite r s ’ g e n e ra l sen sitiv ity to e n s e m b le a c t i n g a n d its d i r e c t i o n — o f N o a m P itlik a n d his o u t s t a n d i n g e n s e m b l e w o r k o n Barney Miller; T e d F l i c k e r is p r o f i l e d , b u t h is r o l e a s c r e a t o r o f Barney Miller is a b s e n t f r o m h i s c red its.

W e m a y a l s o a s s u m e t h a t t h i s b o o k is a b o u t p r im e - tim e telev isio n , a n d a c c ep t th e a b se n c e o f a tte n tio n to s o a p o p e ra d r a m a on t h a t a c c o u n t — a p ity, b e c a u s e t h e ‘s o a p s ' h a v e p r o v i d e d s o m e o f th e best e n se m b le a ctin g a n d d ire c t­ ing a v a ila b le o n tele v isio n . B ut th e im p o rta n t d e v elo p m en t o f p rim e -tim e ‘s o a p s ’ g e t s s c a n t a t t e n t i o n in t h e b o o k (Dark Shadows a n d Peyton Place g e t an o ccasio n al m en tio n , u n d e rv alu in g t h e l i n e f r o m Peyton Place t h r o u g h Mary Hartman, Soap, Dallas, e t c ).

A g ain , b ecau se o f research lim ita ­ t i o n s , t h e b o o k ’s a c c o u n t o f t e l e v i s i o n w o r k in t h e 1 9 7 0 s is t h o r o u g h ; it g r o w s w e a k e r a n d s c a n t i e r a s it m o v e s f u r t h e r in to th e p a st.

T h e b o o k is i n t e r e s t e d in d i r e c t o r s w h o h a v e s w itc h e d f r o m te le v is io n to film ( o r v ic e -v e rs a , o r b a c k a n d f o r th ) , a n d r i g h t l y so: t h i s is a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in t e l e v i s i o n d i r e c t i n g .

S o m e ti m e s th e te n d e n c y to v alu e film w o rk m o r e h ig h ly lea d s W ic k in g a n d V a h im a g i to give lo n g a n d e la b ­ o r a t e p r o F i l e s t o Film d i r e c t o r s w i t h v e r y few te le v is io n c r e d its , w h ile g iv in g d ire c to r s w ith m a n y telev isio n c red its a n d few ( o r n o ) f i lm c r e d i t s s h o r t s h r i f t .

T h e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n tele v isio n a n d Film w ork, w h ich h o v e rs o v e r eac h p a g e o f t h e b o o k , i s n ’t a d d r e s s e d d i r e c t l y ; it n e e d s t o b e . F i l m c r e d i t s s h o u ld b e listed w ith te le v isio n c re d its .

T h e b o o k w o u ld be h e lp e d by an in tro d u c tio n d iscu ssin g th e sim ila rities a n d d i f f e r e n c e s o f Film a n d t e l e v i s i o n w o r k , n o w a n d a t k e y s t a g e s in t h e p a s t .

S u c h an in tro d u c tio n w o u ld be the place to talk a b o u t p ro d u c tio n a n d a e s th e tic d iffere n ce s a m o n g series ep iso d es, p ilo ts a n d te le fe a tu re s (a n d to n o te th a t a favored h an d fu l o f tele­ visio n d ir e c to r s , v iew ed a s th e m o s t su ccessfu l, a re th e sp e c ia lists c alled on to d o pilo ts — such as P a u l B o g a rt, J e rry L o n d o n , J e r r y P aris).

T h is in tr o d u c tio n w o u ld also b e th e p l a c e t o Fill in t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p r o ­ d u c e rs, series c r e a to r s a n d sto ry e d ito rs, a n d to e x p la in th e n a tu r e a n d f u n c t i o n o f a s e r i e s ’ ‘b i b l e ’ — t h e r o a d m a p / g r o u n d rules sh eet w hich d irec ts s c r ip tw r ite r s ’ o p tio n s a n d lim its fo r th e c h a r a c te rs , s itu a tio n s , v alu es, a n d sty le for each s c re e n p la y (teleplay?).

T h e o r i g i n a l S a r r i s Film Culture m a te ria l h a d n o in d ex to titles, a n d I s p e n t a w eek m a k in g m y o w n in d e x so t h a t as film s c a m e u p o n te le v is io n o r a t t h e a t r e s I c o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e m . The American Vein n e e d s s u c h a n i n d e x t o titles o f se rie s e p is o d e s a n d to te le ­ f e a t u r e s ; t h i s w ill i n c r e a s e its u s e f u l ­ ness a n d sa v e m e a b o u t 1000 3x5 c a r d s .

T h e c ritic ism s s o u n d as if I sim p ly w a n t a b ig g e r b o o k w ith m o r e i n f o r m a ­ t i o n in it, a r r a n g e d a l i t t l e b e t t e r . T r u e .

Book Reviews

L e t ’s h o p e t h e b o o k is s u c c e s s f u l e n o u g h to w a rra n t an e x p a n d e d second e d itio n .

T h e r e is a f i n a l a r e a o f c o m p a r i s o n w ith th e S a r r i s m o d el. L ik e S a rris , W ic k in g an d V a h im a g i have w onderful ta s te . T h e y v iew w ith n e ith e r w o rs h ip n o r c o n d es ce n sio n . T h e y k n o w the p l e a s u r e a n d t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f I Spy,

Starsky and Hutch, The Rockford Files.

T h e y give i m p o r t a n t e m p h a s i s to su ch o ften o v e rlo o k e d fig u res as R o y H u g g in s a n d S te p h e n J. C a n n e d (a n d b l e s s ’e m f o r t h e i r E d g a r G . U l m e r n u ttin e ss, even L e e “ R o l l ’e m ” S h o lem ).

W ic k in g and V a h im a g i m a tc h S arris w e l l in t h e f i r s t p a r t o f t h e i r t a s k , dev elo p in g an a d e q u a te ly co m p le x a n d useful m o d e l o f in d u s try o p e ra tio n s a n d i n d i v i d u a l c a r e e r s . B u t in t h e s e c o n d m a j o r p a r t o f th e ir w o r k — s h a r e d w ith S a r r i s — t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f details o f ind iv id u al a u th o rs h ip , th ey c o m e o ff a slow second.

S a r r i s m a y a g g r a v a te w ith his self­ c o n s c io u s p ro s e style, b u t m a n y o f th e p r o f i l e s in The American Cinema a r e a c u te ly o b s e rv e d d e s c rip tio n s w hich e stab lish a t least a c le a r im p re ss io n a n d often th e larg e r ele m en ts o f a p ersonal style.

W i c k i n g a n d V a h i m a g i c a n ’t s e e m t o g e t in c l o s e e n o u g h t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l sty le s o f th e ir su b je c ts; th e y p ro file c a r e e r e v e n ts, th e y like s o m e pieces o f w o r k , d islik e o th e rs . B ut, finally, m o s t o f th eir d e sc rip tio n s co u ld , by c h an g in g th e titles in v o lv e d , be r e a r r a n g e d u n d e r th e n a m e s o f o th e r d ire c to rs , an d n ot be n o t i c e a b l y l ess a c c u r a t e o r p e n e t r a t i n g th an they a re now.

T h i s is c e r t a i n l y n o t t r u e o f S a r r i s ; a n d it is t h e m a j o r d i s a p p o i n t m e n t o f

The American Vein.

Recent releases Mervyn Binns This column lists books released in Australia, as at July 1981, 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 dis­ tributor is indicated, the book is imported (Imp:).

The recommended prices listed are for paper­ backs, unless otherwise indicated, and are subject to variations between bookshops and states.

The list was compiled by Mervyn R. Binns of the Space Age Bookstore, Melbourne.

Popular and General Interest Grendel, Grendel, Grendel Based on the novel by John Gardner Penguin/Penguin Aust., $7.95 The book of the animated feature film.

The Hollywood Musical Clive Hirschhorn Wattle Books/Gordon and Gotch, $29.95 (HC) The book captures the perennial world of makebelieve and incisively assesses every Hollywood musical — from The Jazz Singer of 1927 to the 1980 version. It also discusses more than 1344 films, with illustrations.

The Story o f Gallipoli Bill Gammage and David Williamson Penguin/Penguin Aust., $3.95 The book provides a compelling record of that illfated military campaign at Gallipoli in 1915 (with historical photographs and the complete screen­ play of the film).

Biographies, Memoirs and Experiences in Filmmaking and Filmographies The Divine Garbo Frederick Sands and Sven Broman NEL/W. Collins, $4.50 The best book yet on the life and career of the famous star of the 1930s. Now in paperback.

Repulsion (The Life and Times of Roman Polanski) Thomas Kiernan NEL/APC, $23.50 (HC) One of the most tragic, astonishing and sobering of recent biographies.

Sidney Poitier: The Long Journey Carolyn H. Ewers

CINESERVICES ’ Comprehensive information services to the film community.

CINESEARCH — An information brokerage service where specialists will carry out research for you. No matter whether your enquiry is small or large, simple or complex, we undertake to answer it to the degree of detail specified. A research fee is charged. Just phone of write detailing your requirements and CINESEARCH will provide you with the information you need. There is a discount to AFI members.

Alternatively, you can personally visit the library and carry out your own research, with as much assistance from our specialist staff as needed, and it's free!

CINEDEX — An index of all 35mm films available for theatrical release in Australia, constantly up-dated with censorship classification and distributor. ' CINEBOOKS — A bookshop service dealing with major filnrf/TV publications (including BFI). Comprehensive prices with further discounts to AFI members. Write for catalogues and details.

The Library's resources are extensive and include books, periodicals (250 titles currently subscribed to), stills, comprehensive material on film festivals, distributors' catalogues, scripts and extensive indexes to material in the collection.

WE'RE MAKING FILM/TV MORE ACCESSIBLE . . . SO WHY NOT CONTACT US FOR ALL YOUR FILM AND TELEVISION INFORMATION NEEDS?

George Lugg Library

Signet/Methuen, !. 4.95 (HC) ^ The book discusses penly his tempestuous private life and presents a vivid insider’s view of film­ making.

Steve McQueen Malachy McCoy Coronet/Hodder and Stoughton, $3.95 The inside story of his maverick past, his films, his marriages and his desperate battle to survive.

Directors The Oscar Directors I. G. Edmonds and Reiko Mimura Barnes/Oak Tree, $13.95 The book offers entertaining and enlightening reading to anyone interested in the special role the creative genius of directors has played in the history of films.

Critical Combat Films 1945-1970 Steven Jay Rubin McFarland/McFarland, $14.95 Eight stories about filmmaking covering the period between the end of World War 2 and the begin­ ning of the 1970s, during which filmmakers strove to find and present the truth about war.

Horror Film Stars Michael R. Pitts McFarland/McFarland, $16.95 .

The book looks at the films of performers in the fantasy field and the genre’s effect on their careers.

Modern European Filmmakers and the Art of Adaptations Edited by S. Horton and J. Magretta Ungar/R. Walls, $20.95 (HC) Provocative examination of the origin of out­ standing films suggests that the prevailing theories about the generic differences between literature and film need to be re-examined.

Reference Who's Who o f the Horrors and Other Fantasy Films David J. Hogan Barnes/Oak Tree, $27.50 (HC) An entertaining encyclopedia on the more than 1100 people involved in creating virtually every horror, fantasy and science fiction film ever made.

It has more than 300 illustrations.

Filmmaking Magic in the Movies Jane O'Connor and Katy Hall

Doubleday/Tudor, $10.75 (HC) The book explains how special effects are created, describing optical illusions, the use of miniature and full-scale models, weather effects and much more!

Secrets o f Films and Television Gordon Hill Knight/Hodder and Stoughton, $2.95 The making of a television program or a film is described — from “Action!” to “Cut!” Special Optical Effects Zoran Perisic Focal/Butterworth, $33.95 (HC) A comprehensive and thoroughly practical account of how to produce special optical effects on film.

Television Television Today: A Close-up View Edited by Barry Cole Oxford/Oxford University Press, $11.95 A selection of 65 articles from TV Guide that address the important questions people are asking about contemporary television.

Media and Education Texts Visual Aids and Photography in Education Michael J. Langford Focal/Butterworth, $18.95 (HC) A practical manual on the production of educationally-sound visual aids with step-by-step proce­ dures.

Non-cinema Associated Titles Side Effects Woody Allen NEL/APC, $17.95 (HC) The third collection of comic writing on a range of topical subjects.

Novels and Other Tie-ins Caligula William Howard Futura/Tudor, $4.95 The Elephant Man Christine Sparks Futura/Tudor, $4.50 Endless Love Scott Spencer Penguin/Penguin Aust., $4.95 Fort Apache, The Bronx Heywood Gould Sphere/Nelson, $4.95 ★

SPACE AGE

6

0

0

KS PTY LTD

CINEMA BOOKS, MAGAZINES, POSTERS & RECORDS A BARGAIN SPECIAL! JEAN RENOIR The World of His Films

by Leo Braudy (Bound) $4.95 Write now for a free current list of titles available.

W E AR E O P E N 7 D A Y S A WEEK

305-307 SWANSTON ST, MELBOURNE 3000 Phone: (03) 663 1777; 662 3040

Soundtrack Albums Recent additions to our large stock: Borsalino (Bolling) $10.99; The Legend of the Lone Ranger (Barry) $11.99; Mon Oncle D’Amerique (Dzierlatka) $10.99; Walk on the Wild Side (Bernstein) $11.99; John Wayne and The Cowboys (John Williams) $14.99; Some­ where in Time (Barry) $10.99; Altered States (Corigliano) $11.99; The Story of Christ in Song (Rozsa) $11.99.

Mail orders welcome; add $1.20 post/packing

Australian Film Institute, PO Box 165, C arlton South, V icto ria 3053.

---READINGS RECORDS & BOOKS---

Tel: (03) 347 6888. Telex: A A 37942 AUS FIL

132d Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA. Telephone (03) 267 1885 We a re o p e n 7 d a y s a w e e k CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 403

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM M A G N A -T E C H tronics (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED New, antiquarian and technical cinema books; video cassettes; original cast and soundtrack albums; posters; personality photographs; cards.

Open seven days a week: Mon-Fri 10.30am —6pm; Sat 9am —5pm, Sun 12 —5pm.

Shop 4, 4 Avoca Street, South Yarra 3 141.

Phone: (03) 267 4541.

•

MAGNA-TECH ELECTRONIC CO. INC. OF U.S.A. marries film techniques to video with the advent of the VIDIMAG. This is a 16mm sprocketed video tape recorder which locks to all Magna-Tech machines for normal sound track rock and roll mixing to provide edited studio T.V. pictures with film-type sound.

• DOLBY STEREO SOUND. Magna-Techtronics

35m m & 16mm N egative C utting

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS 139 Penshurst Street, N.S.W2068 Telephone (02) 411 2255^

advises its offices are open to all producers and their executives for use in direct liaison with Dolby in any aspect relating to Dolby productions in Australia. All types of Dolby professional Noise Reduction Units are available ex stock Sydney.

• NEVE Consoles for Film, Television, Recording and Radio. Sales in Australia now approaching 200 units. Neve feature a wide range of standard consoles and also custom built.

• PYRAL Magnetic Film. Quantities of 1 6, 1 7.1 /2 and 35mm full coat high quality film available.

Special prices for bulk purchases.

• WESTREX OPTICAL FILM EQUIPMENT. Complete Westrex Mono and Stereo 16 and 35mm Optical Recorders, solid state light-valve or galvanometer electronic updates are now available via Magna-Techtronics. Also the superb new Optical Sound Track Analyser and Cross Modulation Test Sets.

For further information contact:

D o n 't let Tasm an ia's size fool you W e re a c o m p lete production house fo r features, T V. series, docu m en taries, com m ercials, video prod u ctions, audio visuals, stills and hire e q u ip m en t.

MAGNA-TECH TRONICS (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED

1 4 Whiting Street, ARTARMON N.S.W. 2 0 6 4 G ive us a bite at your next project.

Tasmanian fUm Corporation 1 3 Bow en Road, M oo nah , Tasmania 7 0 0 9 Telephone ( 0 0 2 ) 3 0 3 5 3 1 Telex A A 5 7 1 4 8

The Complete Film Sound Company for Australasia Phone: (0 2 ) 4 3 8 3 3 7 7

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS May 1981

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: Frequency

Films Registered Without Eliminations

Infrequent

For General Exhibition (G) The Dream That Never Dies (16mm): Lauron, Canada,

877m, Filmways A'sian Dist.

Ha llegado un angel (16mm): C. Gonzalez, Spain, 1304m, Spanish Films Jane Austen in Manhattan: Contemporary Films, U.S., 3039.79m, Ronin Films Let There Be Rock — AC/DC: High Speed Prods, France, 2370.48m, G.L. Film Enterprises Portrait of the Artist as Filipino: Diadem Prods, The Philippines, 3017m, Consul-General of The Philippines Ta pedia tis piatsas: Not shown, Greece, 2713m, Apollon Films

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) Badjao: LVN Pictures Inc., The Philippines, 3048m,

Consul-General of The Philippines, V (i-l-j) Beware of Pickpockets: Cinema City and Films Co., Hong Kong, 2527m, Golden Reel Films, V (i-l-g ) Biyaya ng lupa (16mm): LVN Pictures Inc., The Philip­ pines, 1097m, Consul-General of The Philippines, V (i-l-i)

The Cannonball Run: Golden Harvest, U.S., 2621.47m,

Fox Columbia Film, V (i-l-j) L. Turman/D. Foster, U.S., 2432.88m, United Artists (A’sia), V (i-l-g) Clash of the Titans: MGM, U.S./Britain, 3151.34m, Cinema Inti Corp.. V (i-l-j) Gallipoli: A sso ciated R & R P ro d s, A ustralia, 3011.90m, Roadshow Dist., O (adult concepts) Kung Fu Kids Break Away: East Asia (H.K.) Film Co., Hong Kong, 2641.76m, Joe Siu Inti Film Co., V (f-l-g) Orodziny mlodego Warszawiaka (16mm): Film Polskl/llyzjon, Poland, 1151.90m, Polish ConsulateGeneral, S (i-l-j), V (i-l-j) Return to the 36th Chamber: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 3050.3m, Joe Siu Inti Film Co., V (i-m -j) The Revenge of Trinity : Fair Film, Italy, 2593.58m, Regent Trading Enterprises, V (i-l-g ) The Saviour-Monk: Gouw and Hiap, Hong Kong, 2355m, Comfort Film Enterprises, V (i-l-j) Soupcon: R. Durham, France, 2509.92m, European Film Dist., S (i-l-j) Twin Troubles: Chiang Hih Shan, Taiwan, 2593.58m, Joe Siu Inti Film Co., O (em o tional stress) Caveman:

For Mature Audiences (M) All Night Long: Coldberg and W eintraub, U.S.,

2352.68m, Cinema Inti Corp., L (i-m -j), O (adult them es)

Challenge of the Gamesters: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong,

2872.56m, Joe Siu Inti Film Co., V (f-m -g) Encounter of the Spooky Kind: Bo Ho Films, Hong Kong, 2726.97m, Peter Chang, V (f-m -j), O (horror) Excalibur: J. Boorman, Ireland, 3820.66m, Warner Bros (Aust.), S (i-m -j), V (f-m -j) Flying Home: C.J. Shen, Hong Kong, 2725.6m, Joe Siu Inti Film Co., O (a d u lt concept) Fox and Hounds: Goldig Films, Hong Kong, 2611m, Comfort Film Enterprises, S (i-m -g) Heaven’s Gate: J. Carelli, U.S., 4136.45m, United Artists (A'sia), S (i-l-j), V (f-m -j) The Heroes: Kao Fei, Hong Kong, 2684.45m, Joe Siu Inti Film Co., V (f-m -j) Hog Wild: Manson Inti, Canada, 2593.29m, Road­ show Dist., S (i-l-g), V (i-l-g), L (i-l-g) Je vais craquer (The Rat Race): Trinacra Films, France, 2370.48m, G.L. Film Enterprises, L (f-m -j) L’etat sauvage: Films 6 6 /Gaumont S.A., France, 3039.79m, House of Dare, S (i-l-j), V (i-m -j) Love Massacre: David and David Investment Prod., Hong Kong, 2486.35m, Golden Reel Films, V (f-m -g) Outland: Warner Bros, U.S./Britain, 3039.79m, Warner Bros (Aust.), V (i-m -j), L (i-m -j) S a v ag e H a rv e st: H ow ard a n d H e ife r, Britain/Kenya/Brazil, 2342.59m, United Artists (A’sia), V (i-m -j)

Shogun: M a tt h e s o n /T o h o /P a r a m o u n t, U .S ., 4155.31m, Cinema Inti Corp., V (i-m -j) Sinful Life of Franciszek Bula (16mm): Film Polski, Poland 1118.94m, Polish C onsulate-G eneral, S

(i-m -j), V (i-l-j)

The Sword: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 2564.27m,

Peter Chan, V (i-m -j)

Their Private Lives: Goldig

Films, Hong Kong, 2459.62m, Comfort Film Enterprises, S (i-l-j), O

(nudity)

Un moment d’egarement: R en n /S F P , France, 2286.82m, House of Dare, O (adult concepts) Vermisat: C. Tuzii, Italy, 2325.94m, National Film Theatre of Aust., S (i-l-j), O (adult concepts)

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Blue Fantasies (videotape): Video Movies, W. Ger­

many, 75 mins, Focus Video, S (f-m -g) Confessions from the David Galaxy Affair (video­

tape): Tlgon Film Dist., Britain, 94 mins, Focus Video, S (f-m -g)

Confessions of the Sex Slaves (videotape): Elite/Avia, Switzerland/France, 71 mins, Focus Video, S (f-l-g) Death Hunt: M. Shostak, U.S., 2649.36m, Fox Colum­ bia Film Dist., V (f-m -g ) The Ecstasy Girls (reconstructed pre-censor cut ver­ sion) (a): H. Lime, U.S., 1978.39m, A.Z. Associated Theatres, S (f-m -g ) The Fan: R. Stigwood, U.S., 2565.70m, Cinema Int’l Corp., V (f-m -g) The Final Conflict: Twentieth Century-Fox. U.S./Bri­ tain, 2956.13m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., S (i-m -g), V (i-h-g)

Friday the 13th Part 2: Paramount, U.S., 2325.94m, Cinema Int'l Corp., V (f-m -g), O (horror) The Funhouse: M. Neufeld/D. Power, U.S., 2486.35m, Cinema Int’l Corp., V (f-m -g), O (horror) Game of Death, R. Chow, Hong Kong, 2743m, Filmways A’sian Dist., V (f-m -g )

S (Sex) ..................................

V (Violence)...........................

L (Language) ........................

O (Other) ...............................

Frequent

i i i /

Happenings: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 2885.53m, Peter Chan, V (f-m -g) The Incredible Melting Man: S. Gelfman. U.S., 2342.59m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., O (horror) Magic Curse (videotape): Filmline Enterprises, Hong Kong, 91 mins, Focus Video, S (i-m -g), V (f-m -g) Man on the Brink: Century Motion Pics, Hong Kong, 2555m, Golden Reel Films, V (f-m -g) My Bloody Valentine: Canadian Film Corp., Canada, 2454.14m, Cinema Int'l Corp., V (f-m -g) Night Hawks: M. Poll, U.S., 2620m, Cinema Int'l Corp., V (f-m -g) The Postman Always Rings Twice: B. Rafelson, U.S., 3374,45m, Roadshow Dist., S (i-m -g), V (i-m -g) The Wonderful Hong Kong: Yip San Pao, Hong Kong, 2299.21m, Golden Reel Films, S (i-m -g), V (i-m -g) (a) Previously shown on March 1981 list.

Special condition: That the film will be exhibited only at the 1981 Sydney/M elbourne/Brisbane/Perth and/or Adelaide film festivals and then exported.

Annie Mae — Brave Hearted Woman (16mm): Brown Bird Prods, U.S., 975m, Melbourne Film Festival Asphalt Night (Asphaltnacht): Tura Film, W. Germany, 2506m, Melbourne Film Festival The Beads of One Rosary: Kadr Unit, Polish Film Corp., Poland. 2962m, Sydney Film Festival Beastly Treatment: Barton Wrens Ltd, Britain, 2578m, Sydney Film Festival Blind Spot (Die reise nach lyon): (16mm): Alemann Filmproduktion. W. Germany, 1170m, Melbourne Film Festival Bloody Kids (16mm): ITC Entertainment Ltd, Britain, 975m, Melbourne Film Festival The Bodyguard: Uzbekfllm, USSR, 2468m, Sydney/Melbourne film festivals The Bogeyman (Kummatty): General Pictures, India, 2468m, Melbourne Film Festival Bye Bye Brazil: L.C., L. and B. Barreto, Brazil, 2770m, Sydney Film Festival Carmen: Not shown, France, 2660m, Sydney Film Festival Chance: X Unit, Polish Film Corp., Poland, 2578m, Sydney Film Festival Changing Horses: Jose Frade Producciones Cinema­ tográficas S.A., Spain, 2962m, Melbourne Film Festival Christopher’s House: Svenska Filmlnstiutet, Sweden, 2685m, Melbourne Film Festival The Conductor: B. Pec-Slesiecka, Poland, 2688m, Sydney Film Festival The Constant Factor: Tor Unit, Polish Film Corp., Poland, 2688m, Sydney Film Festival The Cuenca Crime (El crimen de cuenca): Incine S.A., Spain, 2526m, Sydney/Melbourne film festivals Dedicatoria: E. Querejeta, Spain, 2715m, Sydney Film Festival Demon Pond: Shochiku Co. Ltd, Japan, 3390m, Mel­ bourne Film Festival Distant Cry from Spring: Shochiku Co. Ltd, Japan, 3448m, Melbourne Film Festival Eijanaika: Shochiku Co. Ltd, Japan, 4226m, Mel­ bourne Film Festival El nido: A. Punto, Spain, 2900m, Melbourne Film Festival Empty Suitcases (16mm): The Jerome Foundation, U.S.. 657m. Sydney Film Festival Father and Son: Feng Huang Motion Picture Co., Hong Kong, 2658m, Melbourne Film Festival Flame Top: Jaakko Talaskivi/Claes Olsson, Finland, 3704m, Sydney Film Festival The Grass is Singing: M. Forstater, Zambia/Sweden, 2743m, Sydney Film Festival Grey Zones (Grauzone): Cactus Films, Switzerland, 2715m, Melbourne Film Festival Grown Ups: L. Marks, Britain, 2468m, Sydney Film Festival Health: R. Altman, U.S., 2798m, Sydney Film Festival In Search of Famine: Dhiresh Kr Chakraborty, India, 3374m, Sydney Film Festival In the Shadow of the Sun (16mm): Dark Pictures, Bri­ tain, 700m, Melbourne Film Festival Juno and the Paycock: British Int’l Pics, Britain, 2331m, Sydney Film Festival The Kingdom of Diamonds (Klrok rajar deshe): Govt of West Bengal, India, 2970m, Melbourne Film Festival Le tendre ennemie: Eden Productions, France, 1810m, Sydney Film Festival Let There Be Light: United States Army, U.S., 1645m, Sydney Film Festival The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter (16mm): C. Field, U.S., 777m, Sydney Film Festival The L ife b o a t is Full: L im bo Film AG with DRS/ZDF/ORF, Switzerland, 2715m, Sydney Film Festival The Long Vacation of Lottee Eisner (16mm): Marten Taege Filmproduktion, W. Germany, 660m, Mel­ bourne Film Festival M: S. Nebenzal/Columbla, U.S., 2414m, Sydney Film Festival Malou: R. Ziegler, W. Germany, 2551m, Sydney Film Festival Mueda — Memory and Massacre: Instituto Nacional de Cinema, Mozambique, 2194m, Sydney Film Festival No More Easy Going: Angle-ATG, Japan, 3122m, Mel­ bourne Film Festival

The

Explicitness/lntensity Low

f f f f

I I I I

Medium m m m m

Purpose

High

Justified

Gratuitous

j j j j

g g g g

h h h h

Nomugi Passl: Shinnihon Eiga Prod., Japan, 4205m,

Melbourne Film Festival The North Star: Samuel Goldwyn Prods, U.S., 2825m,

Sydney Film Festival Olympics 40: X Unit, Polish Film Corp., Poland, 2633m, Sydney Film Festival Pass Your Exam First: Les Films du Livardois, France, 2350m, Sydney Film Festival Piccadilly: J. Maxwell, Britain, 2441m, Sydney Film Festival A Priceless Day: Mafilm Budapest Studio, Hungary, 2380m, Melbourne Film Festival Prix de beaute (Miss Europe): Not shown, France, 2523m, Sydney Film Festival Quintet: R. Altman, U.S., 3237m. Sydney/Melbourne film festivals Raft of the Medusa: B. Srdlc, Yugoslavia, 2551m, Sydney Film Festival The Return of the Secaucus Seven (16mm): Salsipuedes Prods, U.S., 1200m, Melbourne Film Festival Right Out of History (16mm): T. Tyson, U.S., 896m, Sydney Film Festival Rockers: Rockers Film Corp., U.S., 2700m, Mel­ bourne Film Festival September Wheat: P. Krieg, E. Germany, 2606m, Sydney Film Festival The Story of an Unknown Man: Mosfilm, USSR, 2510m, Melbourne Film Festival

Films Registered With Eliminations For Restricted Exhibition (R) Beast of Pleasure (Bete a plaisir) (reconstructed ver­

sion) (a): Makifilms, France. 1898.18m, Blake Films, S (i-m -g)

Deletions: 12.7m (28 secs) Reason for Deletions: S (i-h-g) Dead and Buried: R. Shusett/R. Shentress, U.S., 2565.7m, Roadshow Dist., 1/ (f-m -g) Deletions: 0.4m (1 sec) Reason for Deletion: V (I-h-g) Let Me Die a Woman: Hygiene Films, U.S., 2119.49m, Video Classics, O (transsexualism ) Deletions: 26.8m (59 secs) Reason for Deletions: O (gross s u rg ic a l detail) Zombi Holocaust (rec o n stru c te d version) (b): Flora/Fulvia Film. Italy, 2406.15m, Hoyts Dist., V (f-m -g)

Deletions: 22.1m (48 secs) Reason for Deletions: V (i-h-g) (a) Previously shown on April 1981 list. (b) Previously shown on December 1980 list.

Films Refused Registration Country Cuzzina (videotape) (a): B. Buckalew, U.S., 90

mins, K and C Video, S (i-h-g) The Dirty Mind of Young Sally (videotape) (b): B.

Buckalew, U.S., 95 mins, K and C Video, S (i-h-g) Emanuelie 3: D. Randall, Italy, 2408.8m, A.Z. As­

sociated Theatres, S (f-h-g) Flying Sex: Fulvia Film, Italy, 2305.3m, A.Z. Associated Theatres, S (i-h-g) Maniac: A. Garron/W. Lustig, U.S., 2397.1m, House of Dare. V (f-h-g) Massage Parlor Wife (videotape) (c): B. Spinello, U.S., 81 mins, K and C Video, S (i-h-g) Nympho Cycler (16mm): Valeo Prods, U.S., 654.7m, 14th Mandolin, S (i-h-g) Southern Comforts (videotape) (d): B. Buckalew, U.S., 80 mins, K and C Video, S (i-h-g) Tobacco Roody (videotape) (e): B. Buckalew, U.S., 85 mins, K and C Video, S (i-h-g) (a) Rejected (December 1973 list): a reconstructed version classified “R “ (June 1976 list). (b) Previously shown on December 1980 list. (c) Rejected (July 1975 list): a pre-censor cut version registered “R" (January 1979 list). (d) Rejected (August 1975 list): a pre-censor cut ver­ sion registered “R" (February 1979 list). (e) Rejected (August 1975 list): a pre-censor cut ver­ sion registered “R" (January 1979 list).

Films Board of Review Caligula (modified version) (a): Penthouse Int’l Corp./Felix Cinematografica, Italy, 4073.5m, Road­ show Dist.

Decision Reviewed: Register “R” (modified version special condition) by the Film Censorship Board.

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

Scanners (b): C. Heroux, Canada, 3374.45m, Road­ show Dist.

Decision Reviewed: “R”. classification by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board. (a) Previously shown on March 1981 list.

(B) Previously shown on April 1981 list.

June 1981 Films Registered Without Eliminations For General Exhibition (G) Chulas fronteras (16mm): Brazos Films, U.S., 625.9m,

Ronin Films Equinox Flower (16mm): Schochiku, Japan, 1290m,

National Library of Australia Go For It (16mm): Hal Jepsen/W . Chamberlain, U.S.,

1053m, Dennis McDonald In Search of Famine: D.K. Films, India, 3597.55m, Aus­

tralian Film Institute The King and Mister Bird: P. Grimault, France, 2358m,

Melbourne Film Festival My Darling Princess: Great Wall, Hong Kong, 2781m,

Golden Reel Films Oh Mr Porterl: Gainsborough, Britain, 2286.82m, Sydney Film Festival O Kyrios Stathmarhis: Not shown, Greece, 2467m, Apollon Films Ski People (16mm): Warren Miller Prods, U.S./Bri­ tain, 987.3m, Will McDonald

Not Recommended for Children (NRC) And Quiet Rolls the Dawn: M. Sen, India, 2482.03m,

National Film Theatre of Australia, O (em o tional stress) Carbon Copy: Hemdale/RKO, U.S., 2482.03m, Filmways A'sian Dist., L (i-m -j) " The Children of No. 67: Road Films Prod., W. Ger­ many, 2825m, Melbourne Film Festival, L (i-l-j), O (adult themes)

The Conductor (Dyrygent) (16mm): Polish Film,

Poland,

1097m,

Polish

C on su late-G en eral,

O

(em o tional pitch)

La G ueville/Gaumont, France, 2513.09m, Newhart Diffusion, O (adult concepts) The Crazy Chase: Lo Wai Motion Picture Co., Hong Kong, 2780.44m, Golden Reel Films, V (f-l-g) Cry in the Wind: Huntsman, Greece, 2288m, Apollon Films, O (em o tional pitch) Dulhan wahi jo piya man bhaaye: Not shown, India, 4114.5m, SKD Film Dist., V (i-l-j) Dynasty Today: Cinema Documento Prods, Hong Kong, 2299.21m, Golden Reel Films, O (war scenes) E zoi moy sou aniki: Athena Film Prod., Greece, 2702m, Apollon Films, V (i-l-j), O (nudity) Gefsi apo ellada: Not shown, Greece, 4231m, Apollon Films, O (adult concepts) Jurmana: Debesh Yhosh, India, 4000m. SKD Film Dist., Courage fuyons:

O (adult theme) Kiepon (Kierion): G. Papalios, Greece, 2398.37m,

Apollon Films, V (i-l-j) Moscow Distrusts Tears: Mosfilm, USSR, 3956.78m, Commercial Counsellor of USSR, O (adult concepts) Patkon ki chhaon mein: N. Baria/A. Khalia, India, 3564m, Apollon Films, O (em o tional pitch) Private Eyes: Tri Star, U.S., 2370.48m, Roadshow Dist., V (i-l-g). O (sexual innuendo)

Raiders of the Lost Ark: Lucas Film Prod., U.S., 3151.34m, Cinema Int’l Corp., V (f-l-j) This is Elvis: D. Wolper, U.S., 2760.91m, Warner Bros (Aust.), L (i-m -j)

For Mature Audiences (M) American Pop: Bakshi/Aspen, U.S., 2593.58m, Fox

Columbia Film Dist., O (drugs) The Children of Sanchez: Carmel Enterprises, U.S.,

3208.2m, Filmways A'sian Dist., O (sexual in nuendo ) The Coldest Winter in Peking: CMPC, Taiwan, 3208.2m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., V (i-m -j) Daggers 8: Honest Films (H.K.), Hong Kong, 2379.41m, Comfort Film Enterprises, V (f-m -j) Dead Kids: South St Films, New Zealand, 2753.7m, GUO Film Dist., V (f-m -j) Duet for Cannibals (16mm): Sandrew , Sweden, 1151.85m, National Library of Australia, S (i-m -j) Escape From New York: City Films, U.S., 2677,25m, Hoyts Distribution, V (f-m -j) Eye of the Needle: Kings Road Prods, Britain, 2969.58m, United Artists (A’sia), S (i-m -j), V (i-m -j) Fighting Fool: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2668.3m, Joe Siu Int’l Film Co., V (f-m -g) The Four Seasons: Martin Bregman Prods, U.S., 2928.24m, Cinema Int’l Corp., O (adult concepts) Frankenstein’s Castle of Freaks: G. Straub, Italy/U.S., 2482.03m, Regent Trading Enterprises, S (I-m -g), V (f-i-g)

Galaxina: M. Mack, U.S., 2314m, GUO Film Dist., L (i-m -g), O (sexual innuendo)

A Hairsbreadth’s Escape: Not shown, Hong Kong, 2782m, Golden Reel Films, V (i-l-g ) The Hellfire Angel: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong,

2593.29m, Peter Chan, V (f-m -g)

Concluded on p. 411 CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 405

P roduction Survey

Continued from p. 393 Scheduled r e le a s e .........August 20, 1981, State Film Centre Synopsis: Intimate observations of arbor­ eal animals, feeding, grooming and caring for their young, with emphasis on their adaptations to the trees they inhabit.

Roche’s Riders — Pisces Productions (Michael Pate): cinema feature; 1st draft funding — $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

Project Branch Package Development Investments Voyager Package No. 3 — Palm Beach Pic­ tures (David Elflck); package investment in the development of three cinema features: The Whispering. Undercover: Ton Run —

$46,500 Margaret Fink Films Package — Margaret Fink Films; package investment in the developm ent of four cinema features: Edens Lost: For Love Alone; The Thriller: Pea Picker — $63,130

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BRANCH Projects approved at Australian Film Commission meetings on June 29 and July 27, 1981.

Script and Production Development Investments See How She Runs — Craig Lahiff; cinema feature; 1st draft funding — $5000 The S ea-C h an g e of Melvin Brown — Rowan Ayers Productions; cinema feature; 2nd draft funding — $5000 Dead Certainty — Nadine Burch, John McQuaid; cinema feature: 1st draft funding — $ 1 0 .0 0 0 Blood Relations — Ross Matthews: cinema feature; 2nd draft funding — $13,500 Antidote — Pisces Productions (Michael Pate): cinema feature: 1st draft funding — $12,750 ' The User — Cash Penny Productions (Nancy Cash, Graham Pennefather); cin­ ema feature; 1st draft funding — $6758 Time’s Raging — Sophia Turkiewicz, Frank M oorhouse; cinema feature; 4th draft funding — $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 Son of a Gun — Jill Kavalek; cinema feature, 2nd draft funding — $7500 Before Your Very Eyes — Hilton Jam es Bonner: cinema feature; 1st draft funding — S15.000 Selling Out — Rob George; cinema feature; 3rd draft funding — $7500 Hold Your Horses — Alastair MacDonald Film: telefeature/series; 1st draft funding — $9000 Errol Flynn’s Great Big Adventure Book for Boys — Prospect Films (Rob George); VTR telefeature. 1st draft funding — $6500 The Mystery of the Patriarch — Anne Whitehead. Tasmanian Film Corporation: children's television series; 1 s t/ 2 nd draft funding — $9600 Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot — Anne Brooksbank: cinema feature; 1st draft funding — S5450 Cold Chisel — From the Heart — Albert Falzon Creations: cinema feature; 1st draft funding — 59625 Australian Music — John Heyer Film; tele­ vision docu-drama; treatment funding — $2000

Margaret Fink Films Package — Margaret Fink Films: additional package investment — $11.870

Project Branch Production Investments Horror Movie / Gooseflesh — Universal E n tertain m en t C orporation (M aurice Murphy, Brian Rosen); cinema feature; con­ ditional approval — $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 Dot and Santa Claus — Yoram Gross Film Studio; cinema feature; conditional ap­ proval — $50.000 Sweet Juliet and the Macho — J.N.P. Films (Jam es Davern): cinema feature: con­ ditional approval — $80.000 E ducational Training Films — Seven Dimensions (Eve Ash); documentary films: conditional approval — $55,000

Project Branch Investments — Other Assistance Restoration investment. For the Term of His Natural Life — National Film Archives — S68.030 Travel Grant — Jennifer Hooks, Puppetstuff — $690 Motion Control Camera System — David Pride and John Cox return investment — $15,000

Project Branch Loans The Killing of Angel Street — Forest Home

Films (Tony Buckley); cinema feature; bridging loan — $35.000 The Comeback — ASPAC Productions (Kit

Laughlin): documentary; post-production loan — $ 1 2 .0 0 0 Secret Valley — Grundy Organization; tele­ vision series, bridging loan — $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0

Completion Overage Loans Starstruck — Palm Beach Pictures (David

Elfick); cinema feature; bridging overage facilities — $ 1 0 0 .0 0 0 Moving Out — Pattinson Ballantyne Film Production (M ichael P attinson, Jan e B allantyne); cinem a feature; limited overage facilities as part of joint completion guarantee with Film Finances — S51.606 E ducational Training Films — Seven Dimensions: limited overage facilities — $28.980

CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH Grants and Investments approved at Australian Film Commission meeting

The Unscrambled Egg — Ken Hayles; on June 29, 1981 cinema feature: 1st draft funding — $7700 Thicker Than Water — Robin Mowbray, Production cinema feature: 2 nd draft funding — $6000 Alessandro Cavadini, Carolyn Strachan The Bird — Pladar (Phillip Emanuel); (NSW): investment in Two Laws — $27,434 cinema feature; 1st draft funding — $5250 Wendy Doyle (NSW): grant for We’re Alive Carnage — Bernard Vance; cinema feature; — $1500 1st draft funding — S9750 Alec Morgan, Heather Goodall (NSW); in­ Interspace: A Science Fiction Movie — vestm ent in Lousy Little Sixpence — Ultra Art (Paul Walton); cinema feature; 1st $36.544 ' draft funding — $9950 Phillip Roope (NSW); investment in The Ap­ Boys with Bright Futures — Storyteller plicant — $20.000 Enterprises (Michael Cove): cinema feature; John Sharpe (NSW): post-production grant 3rd draft funding — $9350 for A New Beginning — $3500 Doomsday — Geoff Beak; cinema feature; Steve French (Vic.); investment in Dudu and revised treatment funding — $ 1 0 0 0 the Line — $22.404 Malinowski — Floating Bridge Productions Brian McKenzie (Vic.); investment in Five (Ian Stocks); television docu-drama; 1st Men Tell Their Story — $25,000 draft funding — $8460 Stephen Radic. Miranda Bain (Vic.); invest­ Jenny Kissed Me — Andromeda Produc­ ment in The Devil Called — $23,000 tions (Aust.) (Trevor Lucas); cinema feature; Margaret Dodd (SA); grant for This Woman 2nd draft funding — S5250 is Not a Car — $8500 The Umbrella Woman — Margaret Kelly: Kate White (SA); investment in Four Friends cinem a feature; 3rd draft funding — — S36.000 $15,450 Sally Wiadrowski. Marg Haselgrove (SA); V anished — Edgecliff Films (Michael grant for further scripting on The Experi­ Thornhill); cinem a feature: additional mental Dress — $350 funding — $3066 Loretta Fisher (Old.); grant for further The Thriller — Margaret Fink Films; cinema scripting on She’ll be Safe in Here — $900 feature: 2nd draft funding — $15.500 Pam Abbey (Vic.); grant for Tiddalik — Indian Pacific — Edgecliff Films (Michael S1882 Thornhill); cinema feature; additional in­ Bruno Annetta (Vic.); grant for Balanced — vestment — $31.138 S2575 Miracle at Mulga Springs — Bruning Bell & Kathie Armstrong (Vic.); grant for Mother Partners (Robert Bruning); cinema feature; Miser — $3220 additional investment — $4000 David Collyer (Vic.); grant for The Wind in The Ballad of Oz — Phillip Howe, tele­ My Heart — S6958 feature: 1st draft funding — S5000 Robert Randall, Frank Bendinelli (Vic.); The Wiz Kid — Universal Entertainment grant for Spaces — $6848 C orpo ratio n (M aurice M urphy, Brian Ann Turner (Vic.); grant for Flesh on Glass Rosen); cinema feature; treatment funding — S10.138 — S1500 Tju Min Young (Vic.j; grant for Love Me — Same Difference — Mora Productions (Rita S9729 Wilmington, Basil Appleby); cinema feature; Stuart Wood (Vic.); grant for further new 1 st draft funding — $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 scripting on Internal Haemorrhage — $350 Emerging — Max Richards; cinema feature; Paddington Television Centre Users As­ 1st draft funding — S6750 sociation; grant — S131.000 Vocations — Samson Productions (Tom Jeffrey): cinema feature; 2nd draft funding — $17.000

406 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL THE ADDED DIMENSION P ro d u c e r...................................Eric Halllday Director ...........................................Ian Bone Scriptw riter.......................................Ian Bone Gauge ............................... 1-inch videotape Progress ..........................Post-production Synopsis:Music and effects: their use in adding a further dimension to film.

Assoc, producer ................. Ron Hannam Unit m a n a g e r.............................................. IanAdkins Lighting ................................... Bruce Gailey Prod, company ..................................... AFTS Camera assistant ............... Geoff Wharton G affer................................... Gary Clemence P ro d u c e r..................................Eric Halliday Photography (2nd unit) . . . . John Hosking, D irector................................................... Peter Thompson Kerry Brown Scriptwriter/presenter . . . Peter Thompson Length ...............................................36 mins Prod, a ssistan t................. Nancy Wahlquist Gauge ...................................................35mm Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting s to ck ....................... Eastmancolor Progress ............................. Pre-production Progress ......................................... In release Synopsis: Part 10 in the Lessons In Visual First re le a se d ........................... June 5, 1981 Language Series.

Synopsis: Documentary about the 1926 film. For the Term of His Natural Life.

VISUAL LANGUAGE SERIES — SOUND

WRITING A FEATURE FILM SCRIPT

A FAIR GO Prod, company ..................................... AFTS P ro d u c e r.................................. Eric Halllday Prod, company . . . . ; ............ Film Australia Director ........................... Sophia Turkiewicz Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Scriptw riter.......................................... Sophia Turkiewicz P ro d u c e r............................. Elisabeth Knight THE BUSH MYTH IN Gauge ...........................................16mm film Director ..........................Jam es Ricketson Progress ............................. Pre-production AUSTRALIAN FILMS Photography............................................ TonyWilson Sound recordist ......................... Bob Hayes P ro d u c e r....................................................EricHalllday E d ito r..................................... Rod Adamson D irector......................................Eric Halliday Asst producer ................... Macek Rubetzki Scriptwriter/pr-esenter..........Bruce Mollcry Unit m a n a g e r..................... Daro Gunzberg Gauge ............................... 1-inch videotape Lighting ................................... Bruce Gailey Progress ............................. Pre-production Camera assistant ........Wolfgang Knochell Synopsis: Investigates the “bush myth" as Length .........................................7 x 10 mins expressed in Australian films.

Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor Progress .. ; ........................ Post-production THE AUSTRALIAN EYE Synopsis: Seven films about people with COMEDY SCRIPTWRITING (Nos. 18, 20, 21, 22) disabilities. Co-sponsored by Film Aus­ Prod. company ..................................... AFTS tralia and the D epartm ent of Social Prod, company ...................... Film Australia P ro d u c e r...................................Eric Halllday Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Security.

Director .....................................Eric Halliday Scriptw riter/presenter............... Barry Took P ro d u c e r................................. Malcolm Otton Director .........................................David Muir Gauge ............................... 1-inch videotape Progress ....................................... Production Scriptw riter.............................................DavidMuir JOB REDESIGN AT PHILIPS Photography........................... : . David Muir Sound recordist .......................George Hart Prod, company ..................... Kestral Films Dist. company ....................... Film Australia E d ito r......................................................Susan Horsley Asst producer ......................... Ron Hannam P ro d u c e r...................................................TomManefield PICTURES AND MUSIC Lighting .................................... Ian Plummer Director ................................. David Morgan Prod, company ..................................... AFTS Camera assistant ......................... Jim Ward Scriptw riter..................Phillip de Montignie P ro d u c e r...................................Eric Halliday Length .........................................4 x 10 mins Photography...........................Alex McPhee Director ............................. Peter Thompson Gauge .......................................16mm/35mm Sound recordist ..............Laurie Robinson Scriptw riter....................... Peter Thompson Shooting stock . ....................... Eastmancolor E d ito r........................................ David Greig Gauge ...........................................16mm film Asst producer .................... Macek Rubetzki Progress .......................................In release Progress ............................. Pre-production Synopsis: These four films (Flying Over the Length ...............................................12 mins Shoalhaven River, Victory Girls. Mining Gauge ...................................................16mm Town. Stringybark Creek), together with Progress .............................Awaiting release The Expressionist, were produced in colla­ Synopsis: A dopting the p articipative POST SYNCHRONISATION boration with the Australian National approach of the com pany's European Prod, company ..................................... AFTS Gallery. management. Philips in Victoria decided to P ro d u c e r....................................................EricHalliday introduce radical changes to "its organiza­ Director .......................................Gilly Coote tion and technical structure. The film Scriptw riter............................. Sara Bennett records these changes.

THE BOUNTY EXPERIMENT Sound recordist ................... Bruce Emery E d ito r.......................................... Ted Otton Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Prod, manager .................Nancy Wahlquist P ro d u c e r...................................... John Shaw KOKO POPS 1st asst director ..........Glenyss Steedman D irector.........................................John Shaw Continuity ......................... Therese O'Leary Scriptw riters............................................John Shaw, Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Lighting cameraman ..........Andrew Lesnie Ed Howard, Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Camera assistant ...............Robert Trendall John Edwards P ro d u c e r............................... Robin Hughes G affer...........................................Ian Bosman Photography.................................. John Shaw Director .................... Antoinette Starkiewicz Make-up ..................... Marilyn McPherson Sound recordist ............... Richard Hindley Scriptw riter.....................................AntoinetteStarkiewicz P r o p s ...............................Therese Makinson Asst producer ......................... Ron Hannam Photography............, .............Jenny Osche Photography (2nd u n it)........Howard Spry Asst editor ............................... Peter Evans Unit m a n a g ers................ Pamela Williams, Neg. m atching........................Chris Rowell N arrator........................................................ EdHoward Alison Gentle Length ...............................................48 mins Mixer .......................................Bruce Emery Producer's a ssistan ts................Alex Ezard, P resen ter................................. Sara Bennett Gauge .................................................. 16mm Macek Rubetzki Animation ..............................David Johnson Shooting s to c k ............. Eastmancolor 7247 M u sic ................................... Sharon Calcraft R unner...................................................Jam es Harvey Progress ............................. Post-production A nim ators............... Antoinette Starkiewicz, Length ...............................................40 mins Synopsis: A look at the descendants of the Don Ezard Gauge ...........................................16mm film mutineers on HMS Bounty, living on Pit­ Asst anim ators............................. Peter Will, Progress ....................................... Production cairn and Norfolk Islands.

Philip Pepper Cast: Robert Grubb, Barti. Cornelia Francis.

Length ............................................10 mins Peter Thompson.

Gauge ....................................................35mm Synopsis: A film explaining the different DEFENSIVE DRIVING AND Shooting s to c k .........................Eastmancolor methods of post-syncing a 35mm dramatic OCCUPANT RESTRAINT Progress l ..................................... Production sequence — following it from location Scheduled release .................................. July shooting to the final mix.

Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Synopsis: A short animated film about the history of music from the beginning of time P ro d u c e r...........................................Elisabeth Knight to Punk Rock. Made for secondary school Director .................................. Greg Reading VIDEOCRITS, APPROACHES children and general audience release.

TO AUSTRALIAN FILMS: THE Asst producer ........................... Pam Ennor Length ......................................... 2 x 20 mins PERSONAL CINEMA OF Gauge ....................................................16mm I WASN’T MADE TO BE A Shooting s to ck ........................ Eastmancolor CHARLES CHAUVEL SECRETARY Progress ............................. Pre-production P ro d u c e r...................................Eric Halliday Synopsis: A film on safe driving techniques Director ........................................ Erik Steen for the less experienced drivers. Spon­ Scriptwriter/presenter ............... Bill Routt Prod, company ...................... Film Australia sored by the Department of Transport.

Assoc, producer ............... Chris Nicholson Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Gauge ..............................%-inch videotape P ro d u c e r............................. Elisabeth Knight Progress ............................. Pre-production D irector................. David Haythornthwaite ENERGY Synopsis: A study of the work of famous Photography....................................... Andrew Fraser Australian director Charles Chauvel.

Sound recordist ....................... Bruce Nihill Prod, company ..................... Film Australia E d ito r....................................... Nick Torrens Dist. company ....................... Film Australia, Asst producers ..................Rosemary Gow, Dept, of National Development Julia Overton and Energy VIDEOCRITS, APPROACHES Unit m a n a g e r....................Pamela Williams ro d u c e r............................................... MacekRubetzki TO AUSTRALIAN FILM: “THE PDirector Lighting ....................................

Ian Plummer ............................. Philip Robertson TRUE STORY OF THE KELLY Asst producer .............................Gerry Letts Camera assistant ............... Paul Fitzgerald Length ...............................................20 mins Length ................................................ 20 mins GANG” Gauge ....................................................16mm Gauge ...................................................16mm P ro d u c e r.................................................... EricHalliday Shooting s to c k ........................

Eastmancolor Shooting s to c k ...............Eastmancolor 7242 Director ...................................Ron Anderson Progress ............................. Pre-production Progress .............................. Post-production Scriptw riter/presenter..............................InaBertrand Synopsis: A short film designed to stim­ Synopsis: A look at developments in the Photography..............George Petrykowski. area of renewable energy technologies in ulate discussion among school-leavers, Craig Watkins. Australia. particularly girls, about future careers.

Neil Maloney Sound recordist .................. Robert Judson Assoc, producer ................ Chris Nicholson EPIC NAC VOTING Prod, a ssistan t................. Maddy Whitworth Boom operator ......................... Larry Price Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Prod, company ..................... Film Australia Floor m a n a g e r........................................ John Luscombe Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Dist. company ..................... Film Australia, Vision switcher ................... John Agapitos P ro d u c e r............................... Graham Chase Australian Electoral Office Make-up ...............................Amanda Beech Director ................................. Graham Chase P ro d u c e r............................. Macek Rubetzki Videotape ...............................Guy Campbell Scriptw riter........................... Graham Chase Director .........................................Stan Dalby Technical directo rs...................................JimTumeth.

Photography............................Andrew Fraser Scriptw riter................................... Stan Dalby Rod Bower Sound recordist ......................... Tim Lloyd Photography.......................... John Hosking Gauge ............................... %-inch videotape E d ito r..................................... Graham Chase Sound recordist ..................Rod Simmons Progress ...................................... In release Music ................................... Jimmy Stewart, E d ito r................................................Les Lyons Synopsis: The film looks at the history of Doug Ashdown Asst producer ............................Gerry Letts The True Story of the Kelly Gang.

Exec, producer ...........................Don Harley Length ................................................. 5 mins

FILM AUSTRALIA

Gauge ...................................................16mm Shooting s to c k ..............Eastmancolor 7247 Progress .......................................In release Synopsis: A short film on voting pro­ cedures for the forthcoming election for m embers of the National Aboriginal Con­ ference.

OPERATION CELLULOID

Unit m a n a g e r....................Pamela Williams Lighting ...................................Ian Plummer Camera assistant ............... Paul Fitzgerald Length .............................................. 20 mins Gauge ................................................... 16mm Shooting s to c k ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ..............................Post-production Synopsis: A film designed to stimulate dis­ cussion among school-leavers about the apprenticeship system and to help them make informed decisions about their careers.

Prod, company ................. Kingcroft Prods.

Dist. company ........................Film Australia P ro d u c e r................................................. Peter Johnson Director ...................................Terry Ohlsson A WOMAN’S PLACE Scriptw riter.............................................TerryOhlsson Prod, company ..................... Film Australia Length ....................... „.....................20 mins Dist. company ....................... Film Australia Gauge .......................................16mm/35mm P ro d u c e r........................... Elisabeth Knight Shooting s to ck ........................ Eastmancolor Director ............................ Virginia Westbury Progress ............................. Pre-production Photography.................................. Ross King Synopsis: Apublic relations film for the Sound recordist ................... Rod Simmons Australian Army.

E d ito r............................................. Tom Foley N arrator........................... Margaret Throsby Asst producer ....................Macek Rubetzki PRIMARY PERSONAL Unit m a n a g e r....................... Colleen Clarke Lighting .....................................Gordon Nott DEVELOPMENT Length .............................................. 15 mins Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Gauge ............................. %-inch videotape Dist. company ........................Film Australia Progress ................................

Production P ro d u c e r............................. Tom Manefield Synopsis: Made forthe office of Women's Directors .....................................Ian Munro, Affairs to explain the function of its Shop­ Sandra Richardson. front Information Service in Canberra.

Graham Chase Producer’s a ssistan t..........Macek Rubetzki Length .................................. 10 x 10 mins Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting s to c k ............................... Fujicolor Progress ....................................... Production Scheduled release ..............October, 1981 Synopsis: A series of 10 discussion starters on children's attitudes, to be used as resources in personal development pro­ grams in primary schools.

TASMANIAN FILM CORPORATION

SANDRINGHAM PROJECT Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Dist. company ........................Film Australia P ro d u c e r............................. Elisabeth Knight Director ................................... Greg Reading Asst producer ........................... Pam Ennor Length ...............................................30 mins Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting s to c k ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ....................................... Production Synopsis: A sponsored film for the Depart­ ment of Transport on the traffic mpdification project in Sandringham, Melbourne.

A TASTE OF WINE Prod, company ............. Film Australia for the Australian Wine Board Dist. company ....................... Film Australia P ro d u c e r........................... Peter Thompson Director ..................... Paul Woolston-Smith Scriptw riter............... Paul Woolston-Smith Photography............... Bruce Hillyard ACS Sound recordist ........... ............Bob Hayes E d ito r.................................. Wayne Le Clos Unit m a n a g e r...........................Grant Harris Producer’s a ssistan t.........Macek Rubetzki Camera assistant ............. Peter Viskovich 2nd unit photography . . . . Ross King ACS Gaffer ..................................... Ian Plummer Length ...............................................15 mins Gauge ................................................... 35mm Shooting s to c k ........Eastmancolor Progress ..................................... Production Scheduled r e le a s e ........September. 1981 Synopsis: A song of praise for Australian wine and the people who make it.

THREE MEETINGS

CHAINSAW SAFETY

Prod, company ..................Tasmanian Film Corporation Dist. company ....................Tasmanian Film Corporation P ro d u c e r...................................John Honey SHOPAROUND FIND OUT — TALK ABOUT Director ................................... Jack Zalkalns Prod, company ................. Tasmanian Film Prod, company ...............................Victorian Scriptw riters.............................John Honey.

Corporation Jack Zalkalns Film Corporation Dist. company ................... Tasmanian Film Sound recordist1’................................... PeterMcKinley and Ukiyo Film Productions Corporation D irector...............................Don McLennan E d ito r...............................Mike Woolveridge P ro d u ce r.....................................John Honey Scriptw riters.......................Venetia Wright, Unit m a n a g e r................................ Peter Cass Director ................................... Jack Zalkalns Prod, secretary .........................Pat Caspers Terence McMahon Scriptw riter.........................Ian M. Berwick Camera operator ..................Chris Morgan Photography........................Peter Friedrich Sound recordist ..........................Ian Sherry Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Camera assistant .................... Jan Dallas E d ito r...............................Mike Woolveridge Prod, manager ..................... Sonny Naidu Editing assistant ...................Megan Purcell Prod, manager ........................... Peter Cass Camera assistant .......................Phil Cross Mixer .....................................Peter McKinley Prod, secretary .........................Pat Caspers Length .............................................. 24 mins Laboratory ...................................... Cinefilm Camera operator .................. Chris Morgan Gauge ................................................... 16mm Length .........

17 mins Camera assistant ........................Jan Dallas Shooting sto ck ...................... Eastmancolor Gauge ...............................................16mm Key g rip ................................ Gary Clements Progress ............................ Awaiting release Progress ...................................... In release Make-up .......................................... Kay Alty Synopsis: A film about migrant children Synopsis: A chainsaw safety instruction film Wardrobe ........................................ Kay Alty form ing frie n d s h ip s a c ro s s cu ltu ra l for the professional and weekend user.

Props ...................................... Chris Harvey b o u n d a rie s. The b e g in n in g s of the Set construction ...................... Jon Bowling developm ent of a multicultural society Asst editor ............................ Megan Purcell breaking down of prejudices through A FISH FOR ALL SEASONS Mixer ....................................... Peter Mclnley language. Made for the Department of photography............. Jacquie Gardner Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Prod, company .................. Tasmanian Film Still Laboratory .......................................Cinevex Corporation Length ................................................25 mins Dist. company ....................Tasmanian Film Shooting s to ck ..........Fuji 16mm 8528 Neg Corporation 4 MUSIC FILMS ' (250ASA) P ro d u c e r...................................Barry Pierce Progress ...........................Awaiting release Prod, company .............................Victorian Director .................................Peter Richman Cast: Phillip Priest. Fiona Stewart. Barry Film Corporation Camera operator ............Russell Galloway Pierce.

Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Camera assistant ........John Jasiukowicz Synopsis: Ian and Pam feel that all their Adviser.................................. Lorraine Milne Length ....................................... 1 0 x 5 mins humble, happy and strange little world Animation .......................Graham Jackson, Gauge .................................................. 16mm lacks is some good loud, hi-fi rock 'n' roll.

David Atkinson Progress .....................................Production Particularly since their antiquated tranny Length ................... ....................4 x 4 mins Synopsis: A series of short films exploring developed a habit of fizzing into silence Gauge ................................................... 16mm various Tasmanian seafoods. Produced for has in the middle of their favorite songs. Progress .......................................Production the Tasmanian Fisheries Development right But they soon find that buying a stereo ain't Synopsis: A series of animated films about Authority. no game. Produced for the Tasmanian Con­ music for educational use. Made for the sumer Affairs Council.

Education Department.

Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Dist. company ........................Film Australia HELICOPTER TASMANIA P ro d u c e r............................. Elisabeth Knight Director ..........................................Keith Gow Prod, company .................Tasmanian Film Scriptw riter.....................................Keith Gow Corporation Photography............................. Kerry Brown Dist. company ...................Tasmanian Film Sound recordist ..................... Leo Pollins Corporation E d ito r......................................................Susan Horsley P ro d u c e r................................. Don Anderson Asst producer ................... Macek Rubetzki Director ...............................Philip Mark Law Unit m a n a g e r.....................Daro Gunzberg Scriptwriter............................. Don Anderson Lighting .................................... Ian Plummer Photography..................... Russell Galloway Camera assistant ....................... Rod Hines Sound recordist ..............Peter McKinley Length ...........................................16Vi mins Laboratory .....................................Colorfilm Gauge ....................................................16mm Length .............................................. 17 mins Shooting s to c k ........................ Eastmancolor Gauge .......................................35mm color Progress ..............................Post-production Progress ............................ Post-production Synopsis: A dramatized, sponsored film for Synopsis: A look at Tasmania, its scenery, the Trade Union Training Authority about industry and the people as seen through the how to conduct effective meetings. eyes of a commercial helicopter pilot. Pro­ duced for the Premier's Department Tas­ mania.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT YOU LIKE THE JOB

Exec, producer ....................... John Honey Additional photography.......Leigh Tilson Prod, manager .................... Damian Brown Sound recordist .............................Ian Ryan Prod, secretary .........................Pat Caspers E d ito r......................................Robert Martin 1st asst director ....................Sherry Jam es Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick 2nd asst director............ Edward Granville Length ................................................ 17 mins Continuity ........................... Daphne Crooks Gauge .................................................. 16mm Camera assistant ..................... Peter Cass Progress .....................................Production Key g rip ................................ Gary Clements Scheduled release .................. August 1981 G affer...................................Rod Thirkelsen Synopsis: The Duke of Edinburgh Award Boom operator ........................... Ian Sherry Scheme. Made for the Department of Youth Art d irecto r................................................Jon Bowling Sport and Recreation.

Make-up ........................... Margaret Pierce Wardrobe ........................... Keitha Granville P r o p s ..................................................Barbara Singh CRIME DETECTION Still photography............ Jacquie Gardner Prod, company ...............................Victorian Length .......................................5 x 25 mins Film Corporation Gauge ...............................1-inch videotape Progress .......................................Production Scriptwriter...................................Lyn Ogilvy Cast: Rowena Wallace (Linda), Robin Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Ramsay (Adrian), Adam Garnett ('an). Length .............................................. 25 mins Michelle Jarman (Kay), Ursula Granville Gauge ................................................... 16mm (Emma), Hazel Alger (Evelyn), Barry Pierce Progress .......................................Production (P olice in s p e c to r), L indsay Arnold Synopsis: A training film on the techniques of crime detection, for the Victoria Police.

(Bernard).

Synopsis: A man's attempt to inherit a country property and commit a murder, using his power of hypnotism, is foiled by DRAMA two children he is attempting to adopt as his Prod, company ........................Victorian legal heirs.

Film Corporation P ro d u ce r.........................Vincent O'Donnell D irector...........................Vincent O’Donnell Photography.................................Alan Cole OUR TRIP TO THE TOP OF 2nd camera o p erato r..................Inge Helbig TASSIE Sound recordist ............... Don Boardman Prod, company ..................Tasmanian Film Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Corporation Education Dept, liaison..........Lyn Harwood .............. Penny Robins Dist. company ...................Tasmanian Film Prod, assistant Corporation 1st asst director ........................ Kim Dalton Camera assistant ..................Natalie Green P ro d u ce r...................................Barry Pierce G affer........................................... John Irving Director ................................ Jack Zalkalns Boom operator .........................Peter Evans Scriptwriter.........................Lindsay Arnold Length ................................................ 15 mins Length ...........................................20 mins Gauge ...................................................

16mm Gauge .................................................. 16mm Progress ..............................Post-production Progress ............................. Pre-production Synopsis: A simulated home movie of the Cast: Students fromSt. Josephs/Trinity College, Colac. sights of Northern Tasmania seen through the lens of Ciarrie and Madge. Produced for Synopsis: A short film on the teaching of dram a tech n iq u es. Produced for the the Tasmanian Department of Tourism.

Education Department.

THE MESMERIST

Prod, company ...................... Film Australia Prod, company ................. Tasmanian Film Dist. company ........................ Film Australia Corporation P ro d u c e r........................... Elisabeth Knight P ro d u c e r...............................Don Anderson D irecto r.................. David Haythornthwaite Director .....................................Marcus Cole Photography....................................... Andrew Fraser Scriptw riter...............................John Honey Sound recordist ....................... Bruce Nihill Photography........................... Gert Kirchner E d ito r.........................................................NickTorrens Sound recordist ............John Schiefelbein Asst producers .................. Rosemary Gow, E d ito r........................................ Kerry Regan ‘ Julia Overton

VICTORIAN FILM CORPORATION ALCOHOLISM Prod, company ...............................Victorian .

Film Corporation Scriptw riter...........................Russell Porter Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Adviser.................................. Dr Jan Fraillon Length .............................................. 20 mins Gauge ................................................... 16mm Progress .......................................Production Scheduled release .................................1981 Synopsis: A short film about early detection of alcohol abuse. Produced for the Health Commission.

AWARD Prod, company ............................... Victorian Film Corporation Director ......................... Vincent O’Donnell Scriptw riter............................ John Sullivan Photography.................................Alan Cole

IF YOU’RE MISSING ART — YOU’RE MISSING OUT

Laboratory ............................................. Atlab Length .............................................. 40 mins Gauge ................................................... 35mm Shooting sto ck ........................ Eastmancolor Progress ..............................Post-production Synopsis: A feature documentary about Melbourne for international release. Made for the Melbourne Tourism Authority and the Victorian Government Tourist Authority.

THE 1934 LONDON TO MELBOURNE AIR RACE Prod, company .................... Victorian Film Corporation D irector............. (English unit) Mike Harris Scriptwriter............................. Jeremy Press Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Length .............................................. 30 mins Gauge .................................................. 16mm Progress .....................................Production Synopsis: A documentary about the classic air race produced for Victoria's coming 150th anniversary celebrations. Being filmed in England and Australia. Made for the Department of the Premier.

A SPECIAL FREEDOM Prod, company ............................... Victorian Film Corporation and The Moving Picture Company Director ...................................... Ivan Hexter Scriptwriter ...................... Wendy Jackson Photography.............................................AlanCole Sound recordist ......................John Rowley E d ito r...................................................... DavidPulbrook Exec, producer ................... Kent Chadwick Camera assistant ................... Murray Ware Neg. m atching..........................................VFL Animation .................................... Ray Strong Graphic designer .......................Ray Strong Length ................................................17 mins Gauge ................................................... 16mm Shooting sto ck ........................ Eastmancolor Progress .........................................In release Synopsis: A documentary about therapy care for mentally-handicapped children, set in Kew C ottages C hildren's C entre, M e lb o u r n e . M ad e for th e H e a lth Commission.

STREET KIDS Prod, com panies............................. Victorian Film Corporation, York Street Films Dist. company Victorian Film Corporation Directors ...................................Leigh Tilson.

Rob Scott Scriptw riters......................... Adrian Tame, Kent Chadwick Photography............................Leigh Tilson Sound recordist ..................... Rob Scott Exec, producer ................. Kent Chadwick Length ................... ........................48 mins Gauge ....................................................16mm Shooting sto c k ........................ Eastmancolor P r o g re s s ...........

Production Scheduled release ................................. 1981 Synopsis A feature documentary of the urban street life of homeless children. Made for television release.

THE UNSUSPECTING CONSUMER Prod, c o m p a n y ...............................Victorian Film Corporation Dist. company ............................. Victorian Film Corporation Director .. ........ . Peter Green Scriptwnler . ............. Peter Green Exec producer . ........ Ken! Chadwick Length .............................

10 mins G a u g e ................................................... 16mm Shooting s to ck ........................ Eastmancolor Progress . Post-production Scheduled release . September 1981 Synopsis An animated film on the pitfalls of ¡be marketplace Made for the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Prod, c o m p a n y ...............................Victorian Film Corporation Scriptwriter.........................................Jeremy Press THE WET FLYMAN’S DREAM Exec, producer ....................Kent Chadwick Length .............................................. 15 mins Prod, c o m p a n ie s ........................... Victorian Gauge ................................................... 16mm Film Corporation.

Progress .................................... Production The Film House Scheduled release ............November 1981 D irector......................... . . . Gordon Glenn Synopsis: A short film about the arts in Scriptw riter...........................Russell Porter Victoria. Made for the Ministry for the Arts.

Photography........................ Ellery Ryan Sound recordist . . . .

IanWilson E d ito r................................. Graeme Preston MELBOURNE Exec, producer ............... Kent Chadwick Prod, company ............................... Victorian Camera assistant .......... . Jam es Grant Film Corporation Neg. m atching ................. Victorian Neg and Cambridge Film Productions Cutting Services D irector...................................... John Dixon Sound mixer .....................David Harrison Laboratory .........................

VFL Scriptw riters.............................John Dixon, Kent Chadwick L e n g th ............... .............................. 20 irons Photography........................................... MarkHaywood.

Gauge .........

16mm Keith Wag staff Shooting sto c k ........................ Eastmancolor Sound recordist ......................Gary Wilkins Progress .......................................In release Synopsis: A documentary on the native E dito r...................................................... DavidMilner Exec, p ro d u c e r...................................... KentChadwick fishing resources of Victoria's rivers and the need to conserve them. Produced for the Prod, manager ..................... Ewan Burnett Ministry for Conservation (Fisheries and Camera assistant ..................... Chris Caine Wildlife Division).

Neg. m atching ............. . Warwick Driscoll

CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 407

Today’s Lighting Directors have a brighter future with Strand Strand have been for years the top runners in TV, Theatre, Film and Photographic lighting equipment - whether the demand is for luminaires, lighting control, lighting suspension for sale or hire.

We supply the versatile range of Quartzcolor laniro luminaires, renowned for their lightweight construction and performance, for both studio and location requirements.

We are now pleased to announce the introduction of the hew ARRI HMI range of lighting equipment from the 4kW location unit to the 200 watt battery/mains Reporter Unit.

Our second to none knowledge of professional lighting enables you to make light work of any project.

CLIFFORD HAYES EDITOR Film and Videotape Joint Winner of 1979 AFI Best Editing Award (Mad Max).

TV Series include: Homicide, Cash & Co., The Sullivans, Young Ramsay, Skyways.

Phone: (0 3 )

592 3695

Mail to: 50 Warleigh Grove, North Brighton, Victoria 3186

LIGHTING DIRECTOR, D.O.P.

J O H N M cD O W A L L Video______________________ Film

R A N K E L E C T R O N IC S 16 Suakin St, Pymble NSW 2073. Ph 4 49 5666.

60 Rosebank Av, Clayton South Vic 3169. Ph 541 8444.

101-105 Mooringe Av. Camden Park SA 5038. Ph 2 95 0 211.

19 McDonald St. Osborne Park WA 6017. Ph 443 1811.

Old Agent Harvey Theatrical Lighting. 21 Crosby Rd. Albion 4010.

Ph 2 62 4622.

Tas. Agent K. W. McCulloch, 44 Canning St. Launceston. Tas 7250.

Ph 31 8935.

• • • • • • •

Specialist in drama lighting D.O.P. for film and video Single and multi-camera set-ups Studio or location Experienced still photographer Long or short term Go anywhere

Ring Cathy Lomas Melb. (0 3 ) 5 9 8 5 1 0 4

Connie Fields

Shohei Imarnura

Shohei Imamura

Connie Field

Continuedfrom p. 343

Continuedfrom p. 359

very dark shots with figures moving about in obscurity . . .

I worked out basically what the film was going to say, and its emotional curve. I made a decision to do it chronologically because that would give the most impact.

But when I sat to edit, I found it very hard; I had too many things in my head. I had picked the individuals for so many different reasons and they had so many things to say.

I then brought in another film­ maker, Peter Adele, who had made Word Is Out, among others. He had a very good sense of interviews and helped me a lot in terms of the final shape of the film.

Yes, I guess that’s so.

Sometimes in the cutting, too, you cut very quickly after someone is killed, for instance, and just move on. Does that have something to do with your liking for senseless death?

(Laughs.) I had a time limit. I found it very difficult. In my school, where I am teaching, there are quite a few who, like you, make their own films; they do their own camerawork, sound, editing — everything. It is the only way they can do it without spending much money. There is no need to spend that much. Keep at it and make what you want — that’s a better approach.

You asked me about the future of films in Japan. I think that’s where it’s at. I don’t have much hope for the big productions. I watched Francis Coppola’s Apocalypse Now with great expectations, thinking some great philosophical point would come out of it, but I don’t think anything did. I was interested in his attitude to Asians and watched it from that point of view, but it was just war as spectacle.

That’s all.

Did you ever consider making “Rosie the Riveter” longer, for theatrical distribution?

“Kagemusha” had much of the same quality . . .

Yes. And a film must have something to say; there has to be a result.

In the mammoth productions, what one wants to say so often becomes obscured. I would like to stop doing large-scale productions that require a lot of money. I don’t want to become diffused.

So far, Japan has always been looking to the West for cultural influences. Only recently has there been more interest in South-east Asia. But, on the whole, the Japanese attitude is that of oppressors in relation to South-east Asia. There still isn’t much real respect for South-east Asian culture . . .

No, not really. I think Japanese history too has to be seen in a wider context th-an just that of the Imperial line — to look at the relationship to China, Korea, Polynesia.

The “Ee ja nai k a ” crowd has crossed the bridge and defied the feudal government. E e j a n a i ka.

University. I am a bully of a father.

I made him go where I wanted him to. He wasn’t very happy at first, but now he likes it.

What is he studying?

He is playing the shamisen and studying literature — the omoro (ancient poetry of Okinawa). I think you have to approach it from there, or else you can’t understand Japan. When it comes to political I almost got the impression that organization, the development of Okinawa is more ‘international’ in the culture, etc., it is not a disadvantage to be in Okinawa. It a way . . . helps one see Japan in a wider Yes, it certainly is. It is very perspective. interesting.

Have you any other projects?

Have you thought of making I have been interested in making another film there? a film about a character named My son is there now, at Ryukyu Muraoka Iheiji, based on his diary.

He was born in the Meiji Period and lived until about 1940. He was a pimp and exploited karayukisan (girls sent into prostitution overseas from Japan). He got daughters of escaped convicts. He was also a real nationalist, and an upholder of the Im perial system, through his business.

After the Sino-Japanese War (1895), an increasingly strong sense of nationhood began to grow — a great extent due to education at the time. I would have liked to do a film about him. It would be partly set in Borneo.

I presented both this project and the Narayama bushiko project to Toei. It became a question of whether I should go walking in the mountains of Nagano Prefecture or the mountains of Borneo. It became the former. ★

O riginally, but when I had passed out leaflets at labor and community group conferences, saying “Coming soon. Rosie the Riveter, 90 m inutes” , people begged me to make it shorter. It would have been too difficult for them to use at meetings and have discussions afterwards. So, I made it shorter. This meant I couldn’t get into some of the more complicated things that I had planned. But, overall, I am glad because the film is a wonderful discussion piece.

I got a grant from the Govern­ ment to produce a study guide to go along with the film, to fill in a lot of the background historical informa­ tion. This helped our distribution.

We were very lucky. I have been able to take the film to union locals and community groups all through the Midwest — Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland. People really pick up a lot in the film.

One thing everybody does when they see it is testify to their own experiences. Because the women in the film are not heroines, just regular folks, people don’t feel that they are watching a film about people who are so different to them.

Do you see yourself as a feminist or documentary filmmaker?

My politics are socialist feminist — it is a particular brand. I tend to lean towards a kind of Marxist per­ suasion of analysis. I am not a radical feminist, and I am not anti­ male; my analysis does not tell me that men are the main enemy. They are certainly carriers of some bad diseases, and there is certainly a big discrepancy in economic equality, but that’s not my analysis.

So, “socialist feminist” is prob­ ably a more accurate term than “feminist filmmaker” . I don’t, for example, believe that women can achieve liberation inside a capital­ ist society; I don’t think anybody can. Nor do I believe that women Concluded on p. 411 CINEMA PAPERS September-October - 409

INFA SET SERVICES the P erf-F iX system for film perforation repair

EXCLUSIVE AGENTS FOR

COMPLETE RANGE OF 35MM PORTABLES INCLUDING

KALART

DOUBLE HEAD MACHINES

FULL RANGE OF AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT KALART/VICTOR PROJECTORS MODEL 90/25

MODEL 70/15

mmumUfM SERVICES \ INFASET

RE PA IRS/PROTECTS 1 6MM

35MM *

\iin T m u u m in m r

70MM

CINE FILM & FILM STRIPS WORK P R I N T S & N E G A T I V E S P E R F O R A T I O N & FULL FRAME P R O T E C T I O N

8 1 RACECOURSE ROAD, NORTH MELBOURNE, 3 0 5 1 PHONE:(03)

3281257

N .S .W .(02)8881746

M P-30M

Q U EST CAMERA •

TELEX:

36509

W .A .(09)2726997

F ILM S

SOUND •

S C R IP T •

E D IT IN G

Australian Film and Television School m

MEDIA TRAINING IN

\

1

rlüde iäü 0

1

m

*

ACTION We offer Australia:

SHORT COURSES, VIDEO TAPES, FILMS and BOOKS, on all areas of p r o d u c t io n .

Course Guides and Catalogues Free from: Australian Film and Television School Open Program PO Box 126 NO RT H RYDE 2113 ph (02) 887 1666 .......................... ............................-

............... ................ .................................................... ....

N npppw N P i

m

n

'

—- -

\

m

•

T T l

343 Sailors Bay Road, NORTHBRIDGE, NSW, 2063.

Tel: (02) 958 1420

Cine Service Hi _ compact video _ ☆ * ☆ ☆ ☆

FILM V ID EO & P R O D U C T IO N SPECIA LISTS SO U N D RECO R D IN G DUBBING AND ED ITO R IA L SERVICES FILM T O V ID EO TAPE TRANSFERS 16MM & SUPER 8MM Q U A LIT Y FILM D U P LICA TIN G & R ED U CT IO N PRIN TIN G

w V IC T O R IA N AGEN TS FOR T U SC A N REELS & CA N S

235 moray st. sth. melbourne 3205 p.o. box 328 phone C03) 699 6999

ForumJConnie Field/Film Censorship

Forum Continuedfrom p. 349 the “state of art” — a certain set of codes and conventions that will appear essen­ tially styleless to overseas as well as domestic audiences. This avenue of development, of course, promotes a national film culture which can never be more than a pale reflection of Hollywood — American films made in Australia.

Even the minor trends in Australian film history which have not been derivative cannot survive long in this climate of cul­ tural imperialism.

It might be noted here, however, that commercial exigencies are not the only dampers on experimentalism in Aus­ tralia. When one looks at the non-com­ mercial output of such institutions as the Australian Film and Television School or the projects supported by the Australian Film Commission’s Creative Develop­ ment Branch, one finds, primarily, either attempts at classic narrative (although often self-reflexive or satirical) or works derivative of the avant-garde move­ ments of other times and other places — from surrealism to neo-realism.

If there is any blame here, it cannot be with the filmmakers alone. They are, after all, working in an intellectual atmos­ phere that does not offer them direction; an atmosphere in which the only alterna­

Connie Field Continued from p. 40 9 can achieve liberation in a socialist society without there being a women’s movement inside that society, because so far historically that hasn’t been true.

In terms of how I identify myself as a filmmaker, I have made a documentary; I want to be able to do dramatic films also. 1 have two projects* and I’ll see whether I can get them funded. They are both about labor issues which, I guess, is my primary interest. I don’t think I’d ever be drawn towards making very personal films, nor would I be drawn towards making any exper­ imental films. Basically I am a pretty political animal.

Also, I am very interested in trying to communicate to a mass audience. Most experimental films in the U.S. have not reached many

Film Censorship Listings Continued from p. 405

tives to traditional filmic practice seem to be articulated by voices from the past — the manifestos and examples of men and women committed to a radical ideal cinema of one form or another. Cer­ tainly, the mainstream of discourse among Australian film scholars at the moment has little to inspire the experi­ mental filmmaker.

Yet, there is a feeling that somehow commercial cinema in Australia should be able to be economically successful and, at the same time, develop in a unique and individual direction which reflects national character and circum­ stances — and, further, that a native avant-garde should be able to coalesce among Australian experimental film­ makers. It is possible these things will occur, with or without the direct par­ ticipation of film theorists. But the process might be made more certain and immediate if that participation did exist.

The problem is, however, how to re­ establish the give-and-take relationship between theory and practice. Whether it is done through some resurrection of humanism, a dialogue between phen­ omenology, hermeneutics and struc­ turalism, or something else is a matter for debate, but it seems that the essen­ tial aim must be to find a way to re-incor­ porate prescriptive elements into theoretical discourse. Ultimately, debate needs to be generated around not only

what Australian film is or was, but what it might be, indeed, what it o u g h t to b e — realistically, within practical reach, given the existing conditions of production (at commercial and experimental levels).

But first, the theoretical groundwork has to be done concerning the precise basis upon which prescription can be inte­ grated into prevailing theoretical practice.

The relatively undetermined direction of film theory in the ’80s may be some advantage. The dominance of French and American film thought is weakened during these periods of transition, and there is greater opportunity for inde­ pendent thinking. It is possible, after all, that the film theory of small (in terms of population) or third-world countries needs to develop in somewhat different directions to that of countries like the U.S. or France. In this line, I would suggest that the re-emergence of some form of prescriptive film comment is of much greater consequence to Aus­ tralian film theory and practice than it would be, for instance, to the Ameri­ cans. With extremely limited room for experiment, and with more to lose (the sense of a national cinema), off-the-shelf theory may not be adequate to Aus­ tralian purposes.

Of course, striking out in novel direc­ tions presents a challenge of major proportions, especially for a relatively

new academic circle of film scholars.

Perhaps one should give at least some part of the Third National Film Con­ ference to debate over the relationship between theory and practice in Aus­ tralia. One might focus some effort on such issues as the current and possible interactions between Australian film practice and film theory; the future of Australian film form; or, more generally, the whole issue of how or whether prescriptive elements should be part of an Australian film theory. More practi­ cally, the academics among us could try to put our own house in order by first dis­ cussing how the teaching of film theory and film production are/are not related, possibly going on to debate how the two might be integrated in academic coursework, especially at the tertiary level.

The issue of the relationship between the practice of film theory and the practice of film production has histori­ cally not been given much attention.

Before semiotics/structuralism, the rela­ tionship was perhaps a bit too self­ evident for comment; and since, theory and practice have seemed too remote to compare. Perhaps one is now back to a point where the ties can be re-estab­ lished, but upon new terms, appropriate to current intellectual and also, possibly, to specific national conditions. ★

people. I don’t want that to happen with a major work.

Rosie really has been a very popular film in the U.S. It has done very well and has gotten a lot of exposure. It has been reviewed all over the place and we have never had a bad review — which is very unusual. I have been called up by all the studios and they do this and that, and dilly-dally around some­ what, but, in a year, they’ll forget you. And that is a lot of pressure.

I like to take time to figure out what I would be interested in. I feel like I am just kind of surfacing, like I am living in the 1940s when I have time to look around and see what’s going on, to figure out a film that would be needed. But I feel a lot of pressure to take off pretty soon, to do something.

compromise in what you say?

inside the Teamsters, which is our largest union in the U.S., having about three million members. It is absolutely huge and extraordin­ arily corrupt.

The Teamsters used to be quite radical in the earlier days, which is true of most of our trade unions, so I have had the idea of taking a grandfather who was part of that generation, a father who was part of the sort of bureaucracy and a daughter who is driving a truck and becoming a part of the Teamsters. I want to explore the questions of trade unions and the questions of reform.

Another idea would be to follow a family that moves from the industrial North-east to the South.

A lot of families are leaving the North because industry is dying.

Now, the Sun Belt is not unionized and they are “ right to work” states.

I would follow the family and its adjustments to new situations. ★

When you say you would like your films to reach a mass audience, do you see that it might mean a Vice Squad 633: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 2639.86m, Peter Chan, V (f-l-g) Winter of Our Dreams: R. Mason, Australia, 2454.14m, GUO Film Dist., O (drugs, pro s titu tio n ) (a) Reduced by producer’s cuts from 2705.14m (Oc­ tober 1980 list).

For Restricted Exhibition (R) Heroes Shed No Tears: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 3095.57m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., V (f-m -j) Hoodwink: C.B. Films, Australia, 2432.88m, Hoyts Distribution, V (i-m -i), L (i-m -j), O (nudity) Knockabout: Golden Harvest, Hong Kong, 2790m, Peter Chan, V (i-m -g) The Legal Illegals: Wing Scope Co., Hong Kong, 2771.64m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., V (i-m -g ) Lili Marleen: Roxy-CIP-Rialto, W. Germany, 3179.23m, Filmways A'sian Dist., S (i-m -g), V (i-m -j) The Magnificent Kick: Friendship Films, Hong Kong, 2547.56m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., V (f-l-g ) Middle Age Spread (16mm): Endeavour Prods, New Zealand, 1075.06m, Sharmill Films, S (i-l-j), L (i-m -j) The Pit: B. Fode, Canada, 2621.47m, Crystal Film Corp., S (i-l-g), V (i-m -g) The Rebel Intruders: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2673.5m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., V (f-m -j) Revenge of a Kabuki Actor: Yukino Jo-Henge, Japan, 3095.57m, Quality Films, V (i-l-j), O (revenge them e) Shadows Unseen: Embrozio/Martini, Italy, 2788.8m, N.S. Productions, V (i-m -g ) S.O.B.: Lorimar, U.S., 3318.67m, Roadshow Dist., O (bla ck com edy)

The Survivor (reduced version) (a): Tuesday Films, Australia, 2386m, GUO Film Dist., V (i-m -j) 10 Magnificent Killers: Pan Am Films (H.K.) Co., Hong Kong, 2379.41m, Comfort Film Enterprises, V (f-m -g) Tiger Over Wall: A. Gouw, Hong Kong, 2523.5m, Com­ fort Film Enterprises, V (f-m -g) Two Wrongs Make-A Right: Feng Huang Motion Pic­ ture Co., Hong Kong, 2783m, Golden Reel Films, L (i-m -g), O (sexual in n u e n d o )'

Angel of Vengeance: Navaron Films, U.S., 2231.04m, Warner Bros (Aust.), V (f-m -g) Computer Games: Triumph, U.S., 1701.17m, Filmways A'sian Dist., S (f-m -g) The Daughter of Emanuelle (videotape): D. Randall, France/ltaly, 84 mins, Focus Video, S (i-m -g) Electric Blue 005 (videotape) (reconstituted version): Electronic Prods, Britain, 60 mins, Electric Blue A'sia,

S (f-m -g) Erotic Inferno (videotape): English Film Co., Britain, 87 mins, Focus Video, S (f-m -g) Happy Birthday To Me: Columbia, U.S./Canada, 3011.9m, Fox Columbia Film Dist., V (f-m -g) Immoral: Japhila Prods, France, 2314.7m, GUO Film Dist., S (f-m -g) Inseminoid: Jupiter Film Prod., Britain, 2486.35m, Roadshow Dist., V (f-m -g ) Journal of Love (16mm) (reconstructed version) (a): Sun Films, U.S., 581.41m, 14th Mandolin, S (f-m -g) A Man For Sale: Polo Films, Italy, 2539,82m, N.S. Prods, S (f-m -g) The Notorious Cleopatra (videotape): A. Stootsberry, U.S., 86 mins, K & C Video, S (f-m -g) Queen of the Blues (videotape): Tigon, Britain, 62 mins. Focus Video, S (n ffg ) Return of the Dead: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2825.3m, Joe Siu Int'l Film Co., S (i-m -g), V (i-m -g ) The Sales Girls (16mm) (reconstructed version) (b): Not shown, U.S., 449.77m, 14th Mandolin, S (f-m -g) Thief: R. Caan/J. Bruckheimer, U.S., 3346.56m, United Artists (A'sia), V (i-m -g), L (f-m -g) The Ups and Downs of a Super Stud: E. Doia, Italy, 2537.81m, Blake Films, S (f-m -g)

No, I don’t think it has to do that. The best films I have seen let the audience think. Rosie the Riveter has a distinct point of view, a distinct analysis about an exper­ ience, that is given in the way the film is structured and how the information is given. The audience then deduces. The film doesn’t tell people what to think, particularly.

Political films often fall into the pit­ fall of being a bit too didactic; people stop listening.

You said you have two major films in mind. What are they?

1 am basically interested in labor.

In the U.S., we have various rank and file movements that are operating inside the trade union movements, none of which is too powerful. But one is quite large and has about 15,000 members. It is A Woman in the Night: Daimo Cinematografica, Italy.

2565.7m, Blake Films, S (f-m -g) (a) Previously shown on March 1981 list. (b) Previously shown on February 1981 list.

Special condition : That the film be shown only to its members by the National Film Theatre of Australia in its 1981 "Mrinal Sen" season.

Akash kusum: Cactus Films, India, 3074m, National Film Theatre of Australia Baishey stravana: Cactus Films, India, 2713m, National Film Theatre of Australia Bhuvan shome: Cactus Films, India, 2716m, National Film Theatre of Australia Matira manisha (Two Brothers): Cactus Films, India, 2137m, National Film Theatre of Australia Mrigayaa: Cactus Films, India, 3101m, National Film Theatre of Australia Oka oorie katha: Cactus Films, India, 3154.68m, National Film Theatre of Australia Parashuram: Cactus Films, India, 2743m, National Film Theatre of Australia Special condition: That the film will be exhibited only at the 1981 Sydney/M elbourne/Brisbane/Perth and/or Adelaide film festivals and then exported.

The Girl From Maxim’s: A. Korda, Britain, 2900m, Mel­ bourne Film Festival Harmony Heaven: Not shown, Britain, 1900m, Mel­ bourne Film Festival The Phantom of the Moulin Rouge: R. Clair, France, 2000m, Melbourne Film Festival

Films Registered With Eliminations Cry of a Prostitute (reconstructed pre-censor cut ver­ sion): (a): M. Righi, Spain/ltaly, 2377m, House of Dare, V (f-m -g) Deletions: 12m (26 secs) Reason for Deletions: V (i-h-g) Love Camp: Elite Films, Switzerland, 2147.38m, Filmways A'sian Dist., S (f-m -g), V (f-m -g) Deletions: 74.5m (2 mins, 43 secs) Reason for Deletions: V (f-h-g)

Pleasure Cruise: Kirt Films. U.S.. 1617.5m, Filmways A'sian Dist.. S (f-m -g), V (i-h-g) Deletions: 4.3m (9 secs) Reason for Deletions: S (i-h-g) This Love For Hire (16mm): Not shown, U.S.. 614m, 14th Mandolin, S (f-m -g) Deletions: 9.6m (45 secs) Reason for Deletions: S (f-h-g) Virgins on the Run: Elite Films, Switzerland, 2231.04m, Filmways A’sian Dist.. S (f-m -g ) Deletions: 26.4m (57 secs) Reason for Deletions: S (i-h-g) (a) Previously shown on December 1980 list.

Films Refused Registration The Ecstasy Girls (videotape) (a): H. Lime, U.S., 75

mins, A. Faiman, S (f-h-g) Erotic Adventures of Candy: Caribbean Films, U.S., 2193.2m, Cinerama Films, S (f-h-g) Gums: P. Cohen, U.S., 1800.5m, Blake Films, S (i-h-g), L (f-h-g)

.

Hot Times: L. Mishkin. U.S., 2210m. Blake Films. S (i-h-g)

The Lost Souls: Shaw Bros, Hong Kong, 2365.3m, Joe

Siu Int'l Film Co., V (f-h-g) Teenage Bride (videotape) (b): G. Troy, U.S.. 87 mins,

K & C Video. S (f-h-g) (a) Rejected in a pre-censor cut version (March 1981 list); subsequently reconstructed and passed “R" (May 1981 list). (b) Registered in a pre-censor cut version (September 1978 list).

Films Board of Review Maniac (a): A, Garron/W. Lustig, U.S.. 2397.1m, House of Dare Decision Reviewed: Refusal to register by the Film Censorship Board.

Decision of the Board: Uphold the decision of the Film Censorship Board. (a) Previously shown on May 1981 list. ★

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 411

Why are the world s technicians using micron radio microphones?

Heard the News?

Cinevex Film Laboratories are wet gate continuous printing your i6mm A & B rolls and will soon have an optical effects printer with aerial image.

For more information phone: (03) $28 6188 ($ lines) Telex: C IN X AA38366

DRIVE” one For further information contact the sole Australian distributor PICS Australasia P ty L td S k y

NSW: HO: 8 Dungate Lane, Sydney 2000 Tel: 264 1981 Tlx AA26664 VIC: 77 City Rd, Sth Melb., 3205 Tel: 62 1133 Tlx AA30912 OLD: 28 Baxter St Fortitude Valley, 4006 Tel: 52 8816 Tlx AA42054 WA: 121 Hill St. East Perth 6000 Tel: 325 3910 Tlx AA93582

Do you know what these films have in common? . . .

“And Now For Something Completely Different” “Monty Python And The Holy Grail” “Jabberwocky” “Monty python’s Life Of Brian”

C in e v e x F i l m L a b o r a t o r ie s P t y L td 15-17 Gordon Street, Elstemwick Vic. 3185

16mm & 35/17.5m m EDGE NUMBERING & SYNCHRONIZING Good edge numbering can save you more than it costs. FILMSYNC introduces a new fast edge numbering process equal to the best available in the world. Whether your film is 1000 ft or 100,000 ft, FILMSYNC can help lighten the post-production burden.

THE LARGEST BACKGROUND MUSIC LIBRARY IN THE WORLD

DE WOLFE MUSIC How will YOU be scoring your next soundtrack?

For further Information and catalogues contact

PRODUCTION MUSIC LIBRARIES

120 CHRISTIE STREET, ST. LEONARDS, NSW, 2065 TELEPHONE: (02) 439-6688 TELEX: 22872

don 't edge about g e t numbered! "

388 CLARENDON STREET SOUTH MELBOURNE V IC 3 2 0 5

(0 3 )6 9 9 9 0 7 9

The Australians

Ian Wilson Continuedfrom p. 352 Government could wind down public financing of the film industry because of the tax concession and then suddenly curtail that as a result of the review? Isn’t there a danger that the industry could be left high and dry?

What the Government has done for the industry, through the AFC and the public funding it involves, and through the tax concessions, is a clear demonstration that it wants a viable, forward-looking and highclass film industry. To suggest that things would be wound down, or that the carpet would be pulled from under, is to misread the Government’s intent.

But having said that, of course, we need to keep these sorts of schemes under review. The industry has said that it wants these sorts of concessions to ensure that, ulti­ mately, it can become gradually more self-reliant.

1 hope the partnership between the Government, whether it is through direct funding or indirect funding such as the tax system, can continue to enable that common objective to be achieved in a way that doesn’t involve fits and starts and rugs being pulled from under just because concessions were thought to be more expensive than originally anticipated. But the result will depend very much on the way in which the partnership be­ tween government and industry works.

Ian Wilson

cially viable, and that’s the experi­ mental and short film section. Can you guarantee that government funds will continue to be made available in those areas, through the AFC?

(housed in the National Library) does get adequate preservation facil­ ities?

I am hoping to have some dis­ cussions with the National Library to see in detail what are the immed­ iate problems. As you rightly say, the Government has deferred the provision of additional storage space. But we did that in the belief that while it would be nice to have the space provided immediately,, there is adequate space to store all the films they hold.

between those two bodies.

Would the concept of a single, national film archive ever win your support?

I guess one needs to look at the working relationships between the National Film Archive and the Australian Archives, and keep under review the whole question of whether the present arrangements ensure that we have a proper mech­ anism to retain our film archives.

This matter was raised by former senator Puplick and a number of others, and 1 went into it. For the worried that one provision in the moment I am satisfied the arrange­ Archives Bill, due to be re-intro­ ments between the Australian duced into Parliament early in the Archives and the National Library budget session, will give the Aus­ are satisfactory, but if they are not, tralian Archives the power to co-opt I am determined to ensure that the film s made by Com m onwealth films are properly retained and I institutions — the ABC, Film Aus­ wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of tralia, perhaps even films with AFC examining alternatives if there were investment. It is likely an amend­ some breakdown in the present ment to change that will be moved in arrangements.

The AFC has to determine certain priorities about how it will allocate the resources which are available to it and I would hope the Commission, as it sees the main­ stream of the film industry gain viability through the tax conces­ sion, will then find it can focus its concerns in the sorts of areas to Many people in the Film industry are which you refer.

The Government has had the report o f the W orking Party on the National Film Archive since last November. Is it likely to take further action on it?*

I am waiting for details of that report. I am very concerned to ensure that we do maintain an effective program of film preserva­ the Senate. Would such an amend­ tion and that, in doing so, we take ment Find support in Parliament? account of the film stock in a range I don’t think so, because three of places — in the Australian Ar­ major bodies are holding films. The chives, the National Library and War Memorial is perhaps unique the Australian War Memorial. because of the nature of the Films it holds.

But I have had discussions The Archive was to have gained a new color-acetate storage vault as with representatives of the other part of extensions to the National two [the Australian Archives and Library. But construction has been the National Film Archive] and I put off for two years. What steps is am satisfied they have satisfactory the Government taking to ensure working relationships. I am deter­ that the National Film Archive mined that there will be satis­ factory working relationships to *The Government has acted on some of its ensure that the nation’s film heri­ recommendations, such as a new nitrate tage is properly retained. storage vault and the establishment of access Whether those films are held as centres, but not to recommendations that the part of the Library or part of the Archive be given a big increase in its staff There is one section of the Film ceiling and also a substantial increase in Australian Archives is a matter industry which cannot be commer­ funding —Ed. which will be sensibly worked out

The Australians Continued from p. 377 expressions derives from several complex sets of artistic, social and textual conventions: subject­ ivity does not just “ appear” restrained in closeup.

Similarly, individuals seen in episodes of The Australians do not in fact “speak for them­ selves” , but are thoroughly structured by each episode in terms of their “ reality-for-theprogram” .6 Nonetheless, the powerful interplay of these encoding procedures, and their con­ sistency throughout the series, gives the sustained impression of intimacy so important for the maintenance of the public/private dimensions of celebrity.

The other strategy that The Australians employs to draw attention to the realm of the private is the use of the visual anecdote. These are another form of “ intimate moment” elon­ gated into discrete autonomous sequences of images and action where the camera and micro­ phone appear to gently and unobtrusively record apparently insignificant events as they happen as if no one were watching.

The inflection of these sequences is supremely naturalistic: the “characters” are seen in their own habitat, comfortable and unselfconscious, 6. C. Brunsdon and D. Morley, Everyday Television: Nationwide , B.F.I. Monograph 10, 1978, p.61.

“ acting naturally” — in a lounge room, at a pub, during a meal, in a paddock, playing the organ — just “ being themselves” while the unassuming camera looks on. Snatches of conversation full of personal names and references, awkward and sometimes cramped camera work, unmodified sound cluttered with echoes, scraping chairs or clattering pots drowning out voices, the use of available light sources all impose an unavoid­ able sense of “ being there” , witnessing the actuality and the casualness of the event. One finds Lady Anna Cowen leisurely chatting with her personal secretary about the kind of dress to wear to a forthcoming official function, Pro Hart lifting weights in his shed/gym and chasing a wayward sheep out the door, Toots and her husband Ron sharing an open fire meal during a marathon haul to the gulf country, one of the Boorowa debs standing on a dining table, having her dress shortened by her mother.

Ironically, these visual anecdotes are not entirely dissimilar to the “ illustrative vignette” used by the populist new critics: each form expresses a need to examine the “revealing” minutiae of daily life? What distinguishes the concerns of the new critics from those of the series The Australians is the use to which this examination is put. For the cultural observers of the 1960s, the microcosm of everyday life captured in the illustrative vignette was a way to illustrate the essential features of the “ Aus­ tralian ethos” . The egalitarian taxi driver was one of many clues collected together to construct

Outside of your ministerial respon­ sibility, how much interest do you have in films?

A lot, and yet probably a little in the sense that with parliamentary work I don’t get much time to see films. But I can see that we have done remarkably well in our Film industry and I am very excited to have some involvement with it now at ministerial level. I guess I will see more films now as a result of that.

Do you have a favorite Australian film?

1 suppose I am partisan towards South Australia, really. Picnic at Hanging Rock would be a favorite and also Breaker Morant. ★

a narrative on “ national character” .

For The Australians, however, the visual anecdote is a method by which to construct the tangible biography of individuals, and illustrate that behind the public facade there lurks a “ real” person. The private sphere that is the pre­ occupation in The Australians reveals not that Australians have a “national character” or identifiable cultural “ethos” but that Aus­ tralians, no matter where they are from, what background they have, or what they are doing now, are, in the final analysis, just “ human” , ordinary folk with the same worries, joys, troubles, fears and desires. Despite privilege, status, power, wealth, or the lack of them, “what makes us tick” and unites us as Australians is not “ national character” but “human nature” .

Although the populist critics and The Aus­ tralians differ in orientation, the ideological implications of their use of the illustrative vignette/visual anecdote are the same. Both the discourse on national character and on human nature posit an imaginary unity or coherence that transcends contradiction and difference, the former in terms of the nation state, the latter in terms of the universality of forms of human sub­ jectivity. Both represent the foundations of political and social life as non-antagonistic totalities, masking and displacing the real unities of class, power, exploitation and interest, thus effectively ruling out any radical interpretation of Australian history or society, and sustaining the myth of the egalitarian “ lucky country” . ★ CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 413

F ilm

E n c y c lo p e d ia s

Continuedfrom p. 348

entries for Gone With the Wind or Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, it is probably n the International Years volume, it is true to say that no other reference work has surely misleading to present Eve Arden, gathered together so many distinguished writers Kathleen Harrison and Thelma Ritter as on film (e.g., Robin Wood, Jan Dawson, stars, however often they delighted audi­ Richard Corliss, Molly Haskell inter alia) or ences, frequently by acting the nominal provided substantial critical pieces on so many stars off the screen. Personal preference mayimportant be filmmakers in one (two-volume) showing here, but surely Geraldine Fitzgerald, work. As a publishing job, it is handsome (at $75 Janet Leigh and Evelyn Keyes were stars in a it needs to be); as an enterprise, it is heroic, sense that none of the three named character doomed and invaluable — and the brief space players were, and is it possible that more people devoted to it here is not intended as dismissive. preferred Tab Hunter and Sandra Dee or had even heard of Victor Lanoux (all of whom are included)? Further, I’d say Phyllis Calvert, who is not included, was, unquestionably, a star of British films and Kathleen Harrison was not.

One could go on arguing about who’s in, who’s out, but these are entertaining and un­ demanding volumes, packed with generally ac­ curate information, lightly readable and sometimes better than that. Each entry tends to begin with a brisk summarizing paragraph or so, follows this with a brief biographical account of the early years, then moves through the films chronologically, and, with those still plying their trade, is commendably up to date (e.g., the entry for Angela Lansbury concludes with The Mirror

I

These last two volumes are carefully researched and each, with its somewhat different emphasis, has obvious value to student and in­ terested layman. (Your true buff, I take it, will stop at nothing and read anything.) They provide an interesting — and, possibly, overdue — resting place for this viewer’s guide to viewers’ guides. The quality of their research, the seriousness of their approaches, the range and thoroughness of their interest and knowledgeability are a sign of the encouraging and (in the light of the later books) continuing

Crack’d).

Shipman engagingly marries his own response to the stars with a shrewd sense of what made them popular. Acknowledging that “ Diana Dors is a living demonstration that the British can’t make sex queens” , he also recalls that “ When she was young, she was very funny: she did a neat parody of the man-mad teenager, the nubile cousin who ogles the best man at the wedding­ breakfast, the office junior ready for a bit of slap-and-tickle behind the filing cupboard. She was the best thing about most of her early films.” That sums up half a career neatly and aptly.

And nothing could nail Greer Garson’s deadly gentility better than Shipman’s comment on her return in The Singing Nun: “ She played with all the old mischievous twinkle, alas.” Or, indeed, an aspect of the British film industry with this comment on Joan Greenwood: “ She was not, of course, the stuff of which British female stars were made: she had sex-appeal, style, and a striking individuality.”

These two volumes in fact offer a shrewd, wide-ranging account of the course of commer­ cial cinema and public response to it in the guise of accessible, lively and frequently witty bedside reading.

trend towards harnessing the vast amount of in­ formation necessary to the proper study of the he volumes I have discussed by no 20th Century’s own art form. means represent an exhaustive list; Everyone interested in film must be grateful they tend to be those which I have for the dedicated efforts of the editors, authors used most and known best. There are and compilers of all — well, most — of the two other weighty works deriving volumes discussed here. If I have sounded less from 1972 which, for no special reason, have than grateful about some of them, it may be that been less part of my equipment: TheI Inter­ have not yet got used to the change from the national Encyclopedia o f Film (general editor, deprivation of more than 25 (that is to say, 35) Roger Manvell) which is the work of many years ago to being spoilt rotten. notable writers on film and which lists chief collaborators and offers essays on various national cinemas and technical developments; Chief Texts Discussed n a recent issue of Cinema Papers (No. and The World Encyclopedia o f Film (edited by 31, pp 72-73), Tom Ryan gave a full ac­ Tim Cawkwell and John M. Smith) which sticks count of Richard Roud’s Cinema: A strictly to proper names and which claims that L i z - A n n e B a w d e n , The Oxford Companion to Film, O U P 19 76 Critical Dictionary; I want to do no more its “centre is in its choice of directors” . The T i m C a w k w e l l a n d J o h n M . S m i t h , The World En­ than note it here in the context of this sur­ Manvell, superbly illustrated, is the more hand­ cyclopedia of Film, G a l a h a d B o o k s , 19 72 vey of reference books. It is a wildly ambitious, some publication; the other is in some ways (e.g., D e n i s G i f f o r d , The British Film Catalogue 1895-1970, maddeningly irritating book. The very nature of complete filmographies for most directors) more M c G r a w - H i l l , 1973 the enterprise practically ensured that some of it useful.

L e s li e H a l l i w e l l , Film Guide, G r a n a d a , 19 77 would seem dated by the time the book was pub­ Given that the two appeared at almost the L e s li e H a l l i w e l l , The Filmgoer’s Companion, 6 t h E d i ­ t i o n , G r a n a d a , 1977 lished and the author’s own comments, at the same time, with titles that seem to solicit confu­ end of most of the essays, do little to rectify the sion, one can’t help wondering why they didn’t E p h r a i m K a t z , The International Film Encyclopedia, M a c m i l l a n , 19 80 problem. pool their resources. Between them they might Inevitably, in a work compiled by so many have produced the most impressive reference R o g e r M a n v e l l ( e d ) , The International Encyclopedia M i c h a e l J o s e p h , 19 72 hands the quality is uneven, but the pluralist ap­ work on film so far. The Manvell book is light- R o yofP Film, i c k a r d , A Companion to the Movies, F r e d e r i c h proach which Roud has adopted produces more on as to actors, but its longer essays (e.g., on M u l l e r , 19 79 gains than losses. The book then offers a variety publicity, music and film) are often valuable; the R i c h a r d R o u d ( e d ), Cinema: A Critical Dictionary (2 of critical methodologies and, in a work of this other crams in a great deal of information, in­ vols), S e e k e r a n d W a r b u r g , 19 8 0 scale, this is welcome: it would be a numbing ex­ cluding more biographical facts than might be D a v i d S h i p m a n , The Great Movie Stars: The Golden Years, R e v i s e d E d i t i o n , A n g u s a n d R o b e r t s o n , perience to read 1100 pages on the major film­ thought possible in the space. The latter volume 1979 makers by even the most readable of the critics also has a uniquely useful Index to about 20,000 represented here. Perhaps the effect is to make it films for each of which year of release, director, D a v i d S h i p m a n , The Great Movie Stars: The Inter­ national Years, R e v i s e d E d i t i o n , A n g u s a n d less a dictionary and more a symposium, es­ producer, and chief acting credits are regularly R o b e r t s o n , 198 0 pecially since it makes (and sustains) no claims given as well as running times, English titles for D a v i d T h o m s o n , A Biographical Dictionary o f the to comprehensiveness. foreign films, production companies, and Cinema, R e v i s e d E d i t i o n , 1 9 8 0 , S e e k e r a n d W a r ­ Whatever the inadequacies of Roud’s sometimes other information like literary b u r g , 19 8 0 enterprise, and despite oddities like special sources.

I

414 —September-October CINEMA PAPERS

T

Writers at the Film School

Writing at the Film School

Another major problem with a lot of professional writers is that, if they have some sense of their own advancement, once they have done Mike Jenkins was out last something, they want to move on to Friday, doing a seminar, and he something else. And, over five or so made the terrific point about how, years, you close certain doors; you when you are actually at the type­ narrow your possibilities; you have writer “ writing” , it is not inside, to feel as a writer that you are get­ but a sort of three-dimensional ting better. That is the only thing image dancing in front of you. it that keeps you sane. But getting needs to be that much outside of better with narrower possibilities — you, but not distanced. It has to that is the hassle. have that emotional quality, because films are emotion.

Continuedfrom

p .

whatever, to go back and write it.

367

A feature these days seems to be a b o u t a th r e e -y e a r p r o je c t, especially if an individual is going to be involved right through. It is a huge commitment . . .

God knows why films take that long. I feel relatively confident with a 50-minute television single shot. I like that form and I know I can write it in a couple of months. But why do films take so long — and you are kidding yourself if you think it is anything less than a year?

How writers sustain themselves through three-year projects is really unexplored.

I have been working the past couple of years on feature ideas and I am into them for a year at least, sometimes two, just on the script. 1 find it really debilitating when I am going further and further out on a limb, with no guarantee that when I have Finished, it is going to get made.

For a scriptwriter, just having the work here, watchable, reinforces a hell of a lot of conceptions about just what you think of yourself as a person, as a writer, and you buy into the feature number and you are away from that for two years. I haven’t had anything made this decade.

Perhaps, then, one function of the Open I>rogram could be some sort of consultancy service, where a number of people could look at a work . . .

That’s exactly what we should be doing. If something can be done here on portapak, within the corri­ dors of this building one Saturday, then people could look at it and see it. It might give them the strength,

It also gives you something to show somebody . . .

Yes, it is a realization of your work.

Despite the technical competence of a lot of Film school Films, some people seem uncertain about what they are trying to say. The tendency is to see them as just technical exer­ cises with no desperate great ideas bursting through . . .

There has to be a greater emphasis on the idea and on the translation of that idea into Film.

The idea needs to be transposed in a strong way. The actual idea’s quality, I suppose, is something that has been faulty. It is part of the Writing Workshop’s function to initiate that, and it hasn’t been operating as such in the past couple of years.

I don’t know the answer, but I think my function here is to encourage people to work to the limits. It is not good enough for people to say, “ Oh look, I can do this type of Film.” The incentive should always be to work to the limits, to Find out what you didn’t know you knew — that discovery of what all writing’s about.

Within the industry at large, there has always been that tendency to make films about w'hat you knew when you started; so, there is no discovery. Gutsiness of ideas, a sophisticated world view is always linked to exploration and experi­ mentation, and maybe its absence is a manifestation of keeping things at arm’s length and all those other things I have mentioned.

I’d like to make a more cogent statement out of it, but I can’t. All I can say is, this is the place where we must begin to examine these issues.

The film school is where the debate must start.

So how do you know when to stop, to give a particular project away?

It gets competitive with me: it is “ it” or me, if it ever comes to a choice. I wish I knew the answer to that. There are projects where it would have been better for me to say, “ Enough is enough.”

Thus far, the effort to make the Writing Workshop more accessible seems to be having distinct practical benefits. Other projects under­ way early this year include a three-week workshop with NIDA students. The effect of associating actors with writers/filmmakers has made the various groups involved particularly aware of each other’s respective needs and diffi­ culties.

For the actors, the ability to be involved in the development of a script was a novel one.

Normally, they felt themselves merely the “ interpreters” or something that is fixed. For writing student Ian David, the experience gave him the chance to determine just precisely how much information he can hand to an actor: “ When a writer gives a script to a person, and it goes wrong — in the dialogue or some other sense — perhaps it is simply because he

didn’t give enough information, or because it was impossible for him to give that informa­ tion. It is also important for the writer to know when to shut-up, because one can write something that sounds a bit flat, but in another person’s hands suddenly it is vibrant and it works.”

For their part, the NIDA students felt film and television technicians rarely understood their particular difficulties as performers. The AFTS experience is seen as a first step towards overcoming this difficulty later on. They saw themselves as moving out into the industry in concert with the film students they are working with now. Despite management commitment to the formulas, they felt they could begin the process of making the industrial, working situation a more “ human” one.

Another film being shot at the moment, by

third-year director Di Priest, is based on a script

by Nick Delaland, who has a background in theatre. Delaland sees the production of his script as a personal breakthrough. Sam, Johnno, and . . . You deals with the plight of a young man seeking casual work at an abattoir. It is a care­ fully observed and beautifully economic work with a great deal of that emotional involvement that Keith Thompson says he is looking for.

Sam, Johnno, and . . . You has the potential to reverse the trend in film school films. Its characters come across as fully-realized people, and it doesn’t hold issues at arm’s length, because it has the validity of a certain “ lived” experience. It, therefore, remains to be seen what next year’s class of established novelists and playwrights, with the assistance of Keith Thompson, Austin Steele and the Literature Board, will actually come up with. ★ CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 415

1981 Melbourne Film Festival

1981 M elbourne Film Festival

Continued from P.357 the challenge of this transformation and look towards the coming years with more than a hint of dangerous intent.

Despite the low budget, the blow up and the label of “telefeature”, Bloody Kids stood head and shoulders above most of the “real” films shown in this year’s Festival.

Although nearly four years old, the Jamaican feature Rockers (1977) was also given a Festival screening.

Directed by Theodoros Bafaloukos from his own rambling script, Rockers begins as a social documentary. It centres on Leroy “Horsemouth” Wallace, a reggae drummer who fights to survive from the occasional record ses­ sion and live “gigs” for white tourists at Montego Bay. Horsemouth wants to improve on the borderline existence he scratches from the shanty towns of Kingston and at the same time placate his wife and children, the real victims of his economic poverty.

He borrows enough money to buy a motor-cycle and begins distributing records to the record shacks sprinkled around the island.

Unlike The Harder They Come, the early part of this film deals heavily with the Rastafari cult and the audience is treated to several anthropological se­ quences of herb smoking and chants to the Almighty (Haile Selassie). But as the film progresses, these cultural offerings are replaced by a simpler (and safer) narrative of revenge. Horsemouth’s motor-cycle is stolen by the Mafia and with his friends, an assorted group of noted reggae musicians, he ransacks the private houses of the Mafia bosses and distribute the loot — furniture, clothes, food, television sets — to the poor of Trenchtown.

While it may be reassuring, and even heartwarming, to have the exponents of this scam get away, the film ends abrupt­ ly and without warning. The social ex­ position of the first half somehow gets lost in the police-and-thieves comedy of the film’s end.

The musical cast includes Jacob Miller, Gregory Isaacs, Robbie Shake­ speare and Lee Perry, but the best musical moment in Rockers comes from Winston Rodney, vocalist with the reggae band, Burning Spear. Horsemouth, his bike stolen, his records gone, his recording dates missed, dejectedly seeks solace from Rodney at his north coast beach shack. Late in the night, Rodney takes Horsemouth to the beach and, as the waves lap in the darkness, sings him a eulogy to Haile Selassie (Jah) the figurehead for the Rastafarian move­ ment, who died shortly before the film was shot.

The sequence lasts only a few minutes, but it gives Rockers a moment of power and reality — a single emotional insight in an otherwise palpably commer­ cial outing.

The Second Journey to Uluru, a new feature-length work by Arthur and Corinne Cantrill, premiered at the 1981 Festival and will be reviewed in the next issue.

Rod Bishop James Benning is an American in­ dependent filmmaker whose work has barely been documented or discussed beyond the interviews which have ap­ peared in W id e A n g le and F ra m e w o rk .

On the strength of Grand Opera, for me the outstanding film of the Festival, he deserves to be ranked with his contem­ poraries — most of whom appear in his film — Michael Snow, Yvonne Rainer and 416 — September-October CINEMA PAPERS

Yvonne Rainer’s Working Title: Journeys From Berlin 1971.

Hollis Frampton.

Beginning with a quote from Stan Brakhage, whose attempt to define an “essence” of film leads him to banish sound altogether (sound lends an un­ wanted quality of absurd melodrama or “grand opera” to the purity of the image), Benning’s film is on a formalist level a dazzling demonstration of the ways in which sound and image can be made to work with one another or against one another in film. This is a project familiar to devotees of Snow (Rameau’s Nephew) or Frampton (Hapax, Logomena). But what is distinctive and delightful about Benning’s contribution to such research is his extraordinary familiarity with the varieties and nuances of sound — divided into speech, music, noise, silence, direct and synchronized sound, in-frame and off-frame sound — and the ways they have been layered and com­ bined conventionally.

Thus, one is treated at one moment to a condensed, parodic biographical narrative, constructed entirely of a voice­ over commentary, pans across streets of various American towns and snatches of familiar folk and rock tunes which have come to represent the times in which they were made — a “story” which takes the viewer through a particular temporal and geographical progression, but which tells just about nothing. At another mo­ ment, Benning dispenses with all play with filmic familiarity, and demands his juxtapositions be received and read anew: a breathtaking sequence in which a series of visually insignificant shots are edited together by virtue of the pitch or tone of their accompanying direct sounds, an elaborate melody being com­ posed out of disparate hisses, words, hums and noises.

What makes Benning more than a for­ malist is his constant concern with the pre-existing meanings which objects, events or sounds carry. The many “still life” images which punctuate the film, always somehow strange and slightly un­ re a lis tic , do not amount to a photographic diary of the artist a la Brakhage, but rather a virtual catalogue of the signs and codes which comprise American culture and lifestyle. Benning, unlike the generations of avant-gardists that preceded him, does not disregard fiction and its rhetorical conventions — he is interested in how the audience, as social subjects, gets caught up in the structures of fiction, why it succumbs to

grand opera.

The entirety of the film is built on a paradox: pieces of the real world which Benning chanced upon in his travels were used to generate a complex fic­ tional intrigue, which was then as­ sembled as a “historical romance” (the film's subtitle) that testifies to the American obsession with the mystical and transcendental. When the original “found” shots finally appear, they are both a fitting climax to the narrative illu­ sion and an undoing — a demystification of that illusion.

Grand Opera is historical in another sense, too: full of jokes and pastiches relating to American avant-garde cinema, it functions as a witty and con­ cise “state of the art” commentary, open to the diverse trends and tendencies within such cinema. Its richness stood in contrast to Fabrice Ziolkowski’s L.A.X., the entire analytical drift of which was to present the audience with a series of static long takes of various sites around Los Angeles, plus an occasional voice­ over quotation to say what was patently obvious in the image itself: this is not reality but photography, not a window on the world but a specific viewpoint.

Yvonne Rainer’s W orking Title: Journeys From Berlin 1971, another im­ portant avant-garde film presented at the Festival, is surely the most Freudian film ever made, not only on the level of con­ tent — a long tortuous monologue from a patient (Annette Michelson in a remarkable performance) to a chameleon analyst occupying perhaps half of the film’s running time — but in the entire conception and structuration.

Journeys is like an extended, elaborate exercise in free association based primarily on the inter-relationship of personal life and political struggle.

One always leads to or sets off the other without any clear cause-and-effect hierarchy: Rainer clearly wants to shove Freud at Marxists and Marx at Freudians.

The individual is lost in a sea of historical determinations; yet, it is the individual’s anguish and impotence which the film registers so powerfully.

The film attempts to mimic the work­ ings of the unconscious, with its n o n s e q u itu r s , criss-crosses, condensations and displacements. It is as if Rainer wanted to replace conventional narrative economy, where every element has a precise functional place, with the “ libidinal economy” Jean-Francois Lyotard speaks of — objects (photos, toys), words, situations are distributed across the entire textual span of the film, belonging to no single character or time­ space. Indeed, Rainer at times seems to be harking back to the Surrealists and

their (equally Freudian) technique of “automatic writing”, with all the humor and strangeness of incongruity that can result.

For all the admiration one feels for Rainer’s project here, and the many in­ sights it produces, Journeys From Berlin is a failure precisely where her previous films like Lives of Performers were so radically progressive. Too much of the historical raw material of the film — reported facts, written documents, newsreel footage — is taken un­ problematically as direct presentations of reality; all one needs do, it seems, is discover the profound connections between these various fragments in political practice and in the psyche (although Rainer doesn’t reach an ex­ plicitly positive conclusion of this nature).

But this material has another, equally important history: the history of the language, the rhetoric, the conventions it uses to speak in a certain way. The film tries to ignore these layers, but they weigh, heavy and unanalyzed, atop its manifest intentions. One gets the feeling that Rainer went for broke in Journeys to produce her “great artistic statement”, but her less pretentious works are the more sophisticated.

Adrian Martin Generally speaking, it is correct to say that the success or failure of any given film festival programming is dependent on the range and quality of the feature films. The audience drawcard is, by necessity, the festival’s features and this remains true even of the Melbourne Film Festival whose prize competition is devoted solely to short films. The Festival audience’s talking point is the features, as is the case with the daily press film reviewers who neglect to review the shorts, and even the local film journals devote little space to the discussion of a festival’s short films.

The blanket neglect of the short films raises a number of questions. I would argue that, fundamentally, the shorts at the Festival and the audience’s frame of mind towards these films is not all that different from one’s disposition towards the shorts which supplement the feature at the commercial theatre outlets.

Once saying this, one should stress the basic differences between the Festival and commercial programming: i.e., the Festival does not operate within the bounds of the commercial network of distribution and exhibition. So many of the Festival’s shorts are adequately suited to being support shorts at com­ mercial theatres. S ki-P eru , Sam,

James Benning’s examination of the relation between sound and image. Grand Opera.

1981 Melbourne Film Festival

Children Painters of Lijiang River, The Ritz, and others such as Little Pierre, Bridget Riley, Like Two Mountaineers,

are all, formally and stylistically, very conventional documentaries ranging in subject matter from a skiing expedition, a dramatized documentary about a crip­ pled boy, Chinese children painters, London’s chic set, et al.

Therefore, one can understand the critic who steps away from the aesthetic and artistic abyss represented by the short films. As long as the screening of sub-standard-level shorts persists, they will remain to function as do the shorts at commercial theatres — that is, to delay, forestall, and often frustrate, the audience’s desires invested in the an­ ticipated pleasure of the features (whether or not the feature film confirms that anticipated pleasure is another question).

Like the features, the relative success of the short film program rests on the potential value of a handful of films. This year’s Festival did provide a significant collection of very interesting films which cannot be relegated to the margins or fringe areas of contemporary film prac­ tice. Most of the credit for the progres­ sive nature of the shorts programming must go to the Festival director, Geoffrey Gardner.

As a member of the jury panel, I have already critically staked my claim to cer­ tain films. I found the most significant shorts to be: New York Story, Amyl, New Jersey Nights, And They Called Me Pussy Dynamite, Sigmund Freud’s Dora, In The Shadow of the Sun, Godard ’80, Nicaragua 1979: Scenes from the Revolution, and, of the animation, The Cat and Drama in the Forest.

This year’s Grand Prix winner, Jackie Raynal’s New York Story, is engaged in an avant-garde film practice and can be situated within the broad New York avant-garde movement, of which Yvonne Rainer’s Working Title: Journeys From Berlin 1971 'and James Benning’s Grand Opera are further examples (both these films being outside of competition).

New York Story is about the cinematic apparatus and how it has been con­ ceived by certain filmic practices, historically and ideologically, for the production of narrative, story, fiction. It is a film, one could say, concerned with the politics of illusionism, the relation between the spectator and the spectacle.

One of the reference points of the film is the formal and stylistic codes of certain film traditions: surrealism, documentary, cinema verite, Hollywood and avant­ garde. Therefore, it is a film about the history of film form.

The film is threaded together through

Controversial winner o f the Grand Prix fo r shorts, Jackie Raynal’s New York Story.

the interweaving of a psychoanalytic dis­ position of the quarrel and the hitting of course around notions of fantasy, dream, golf balls (can this be a pun on the idea of jokes and, obviously, desire. From it's dreams being the resultant mani­ surrealist opening prologue about the festation of repressed desires?).

Eventually, he finds a young lover and Seaweed Hotel to the last shot of the film, which discloses the pun, New York Story presents him to his wife, who is surprised builds a web of dreams and fantasies. and hesitant about it all. By finding his The fantastical nature of the events at the wife a lover, the husband has effected Seaweed Hotel Intensifies the hermen­ the ultimate displacement — that is, his eutics of the fiction, each shot is about an own — for he has given his place within enigma that’s always being two-fold — the couple to another. He leaves the posed by the fiction and by the audience, apartment and falls to his death down an given that any film has a paradigm of elevator shaft, the last image of the film possible directions in which it could being of a meatball and a voice-over say­ progress and that narrative film plays on ing, “And all because of a meatball”.

I cannot give the film the closer audience expectations.

Whereas classic narrative film analysis it demands and deserves, but progressively moves to a reduction of enough has been said to suggest that the potential paradigms to effect eventual film is an analysis of the relation between closure of the fiction, New York Story fiction, dreams, narrative codes and film seems to suspend the tale of the hotel form. It is a film also directed to the in­ and shifts to a supposedly much more terests in psychoanalysis and film to be naturalist story about a married couple. found in film theory and film practice.

Sigmund Freud’s Dora also takes The scene between the husband and wife plays on the conventions of melodrama psychoanalysis as its subject matter but and the film makes a number of puns for a different end than New York Story. directed at a certain psychoanalytic dis­ The film is a deconstruction of Freud's course which determines and informs case history of a patient he named Dora, the genre; one could almost say that and makes apparent certain tendencies melodrama becomes the plaything of the in Freud’s writing of case histories: i.e., film. . the novelistic effects and narrative The wife having had a dream about a figures in the writing. Freud’s case meatball interprets the dream, very histories are representations; there is a much along the lines of the Freudian transference of the dream work through notions of condensation and displace­ language from patient to analyst. The ment, as her desire for a young lover. patient is the narrator of meaning which The husband feels compelled to find his is interpreted and read by the analyst. In wife a lover and, therefore, fulfil her the writing process, a narrative is con­ desires, which makes him the subject or structed and meaning is subjected to a agent of a certain other desire. His representational coherence as the effect search leads him to a cinema which is of writing. The film questions the relation screening Buster Keaton’s Sherlock between Freud’s 18 year-old patient and Junior, a fiction about dreaming and the Dora of which Freud writes: has he detection, but also one very much con­ not constructed a character not unlike cerned with the nature of the cinematic the fictional characters in novels? illusion, which in a sense makes New The formal composition of the film is York Story and S herlock Junior directed away from the classic represen­ refracted doubles. tational mode; there is no re-enactment At the theatre, the husband falls of the drama, but rather a conversation asleep and dreams, his dream being a setpiece with two actors quoting Freud further double of Sherlock Junior; it is and Dora. They are not playing the role of given as a silent picture and he repeats Freud and Dora, rather they are signified the action of Keaton’s hero by entering through the speech and gesture of the the screen and being the hero of his actors. This is aided by the framing: the dream fiction/film. actor’s body is never fully represented His dream film is about a domestic but, rather, the shot spatially fragments quarrel between a husband and wife and the body — i.e., shots of lips, heads, the hitting of golf balls. This seems, at hands, etc. The conversation setpieces first, a strange combination until one are interrupted by segments from adver­ realizes the nature of the metaphoric pun tisements and pornographic films which — the linguistic pun based on the rhyme represent the image of women as a of the words “meatball” and “golf ball” is sexually-coded object. assuredly intentional. His dream film is Like Freud’s patient, like Freud’s case itself the displacement and condensation history, like dreams, Sigmund Freud’s of his wife’s dream and the domestic Dora is structurally and formally com­ scene at home. His dream reveals an posed around fragments. undercurrent of violence given the juxta­ Peter Wollen and Laura Mulvey’s Amyl

Claire Pajaczkowska, Jane Weinstock, Anthony McCall and Andrew Tindall’s Sigmund

is also concerned with the images of women and the determinations of patriarchal and cultural discourses upon that image. Amy! is part of a trilogy of Wollen and Mulvey’s filmwork, which in­ cludes Penthesilea (1974) and Riddles of the Sphinx (1976). Although the film takes as its pro-filmic subject fragments from the life of Amy Johnson, she is never represented, only traces of an ex­ istence: i.e., her plane, letters, buildings she was associated with, etc. The film analyses the nature of legend but, more specifically, what kinds of legends are produced about women by a culture.

In this respect, Amy! shares the sub­ ject of analysis in Penthesilea, that being the legend(s) of the Amazons, given cultural representation as phallic women.

The film looks at the disjuncture between the material existence of Amy Johnson and the one whose identity and subject­ ivity is constructed through legend — i.e., the relation between the ‘real’ and the ‘imaginary’.

Peter Tammer’s Mallacoota Stam­ pede, which was awarded the Erwin Rado Prize, is a very conventional film whose aesthetics is that of naturalism.

The film seems to ascribe to Bazin’s notion of the camera as a window on the world; therefore, the film effaces its means of production and transparently reproduces “a slice of life” as seen in “reality”. The film records and, by neces­ sity, organizes (the fallacy of naturalism) the events of a summer vacation at the seaside resort of Mallacoota.

Although the film Is aesthetically simple-minded, it does have a number of interesting scenes, most of which have to do with the presence of two transves­ tites who have come from the city to per­ form at the local hotel. What surfaces through the presence of the female impersonators is the sexual repressions and sexual immaturity of a number of the local young men. Where the film fails (and this is a result of its aesthetic) is that it does not analyse the nature of that sex­ ual repression and the cultural dis­ courses which produce it.

I found most of the Australian entries within the shorts category fairly disap­ pointing, with the possible exception of two avant-garde films, the Cantrills’ Warrah and Paul Winkler’s Sydney Bush: they revealed a degree of use and think­ ing about the filmic apparatus outside the strictly representational mode.

The Australian short which seemed to attract the most attention was Alexander Proyas and Salik Silversteln’s Groping, a film mentioned in relation to its technical excellence, especially in its use of time­ lapse photography. This argument alone does not convince me of a film’s value.

Groping’s themes are to do with social alienation and isolation as the condition of modern man; in the context of the film I found these themes utterly pretentious, as I did the quote from Ultravox which accompanies the film’s entry in the program: “Waiting, we were waiting, as the traf­ fic moved through our heart and mind, but things were different then for the quiet man.”

When does one let go of the romantic sensibility?

The core of the film is the representa­ tion of a rape and equally brutal repeated knifing of the woman to death. This scene is observed by a character looking out of his high-rise apartment. The use of time-lapse photography prolongs the scene and makes the events seem slight­ ly unnaturalistic and dream-like.

Because of these effects, the audience's voyeuristic relation to the events represented is intensified. The film misunderstands the nature of cinematic voyeurism, given the audience/screen relation; this is doubly problematic, given the nature of the events represented. ★

Freud's Dora.

Rolando Caputo CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 417

I t ’s M y Turn

Film Review s

Continued from p. 401 a b o u t t h e f i l m i t s e l f . It i d e n t i f i e s p r o b le m s a n d g ra p p le s w ith d e fin in g th e m , b u t finally la c k s a n y re s o lu tio n o th e r th an op tim ism .

It's My Turn: Directed by: Claudia Weill.

Producer: Martin Elfand. Executive producer: Jay Bresson Allen. Associate producer: Norman Gan. Screenplay: Eleanor Bergstein. Director of photography: Bill Butler. Editors: Bryon Brandt, Marjorie Fowler, James Coblentz. Art director: Jack de Govia. Music: Patrick Williams. Sound: Charles Wilborn, Cabell Smith. Cast: Jili Clayburgh (Kate). Michael Douglas (Ben), Charles Grodin (Homer), Beverly Garland (Emma), Steven Hill (Jacob), Teresa Baxter (Maryanne), Joan Copeland (Rita), John Gabriel (Hunter), Charles Kimbrough (Jerome). Production company: Columbia Pictures. Distributor: Fox-Columbi'a.

35mm. 90 mins. U.S. 1980.

The Four Seasons Brian McFarlane d a n g e r in w r i t i n g a b o u t The is t h a t o f o v e r p r a i s i n g it, b e c a u s e it is s o w e l c o m e f o r its w i t a n d g o o d h u m o r , a n d its g e n e r o s i t y a b o u t p e o p le . S o , let m e g e t o u t o f th e w a y at once w o rries a b o u t a c ertain softness at t h e c e n t r e o f its c o n c e p t i o n a n d a c ertain b lan d n e ss th a t th re a te n s the in­ t e l l i g e n c e a n d c h a r m o f its d i r e c t o r w rite r-sta r A la n A lda.

C e r t a i n l y h e d o e s n ' t a l w a y s p u s h his in sig h ts h a r d e n o u g h . H e u n d e r s ta n d s t h e d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t in a n y h u m a n re la tio n s h ip , b u t s o m e tim e s g la n c e s at t h e m w i t t i l y i n s t e a d o f f i x i n g h is e y e o n th e m lo n g a n d firm ly e n o u g h to c o n ­ s i d e r t h e i r p o t e n t i a l l y d e s t r u c t i v e e f f e c t.

A n d s o m e t i m e s h e l e t s V i c t o r K e m p e r ’s c a m e r a lin g e r o v e r th e n a tu r a l b e a u tie s o f , s a y , V e r m o n t w i t h National Geographic i n d u l g e n c e ; a n d t h e V i v a l d i - d r e n c h e d s o u n d t r a c k is p e r h a p s in ev itab le r a th e r t h a n orig in a l.

H a v i n g s a i d a ll t h a t — a t s o m e p e r ­ s o n a l c o s t b e c a u s e I l i k e t h e f i lm s o m u c h — I w o u l d a l s o a d d t h a t I d o n ’t w a n t to read the p re d ic ta b ly sn o o ty r e v i e w s in B r i t i s h p u b l i c a t i o n s ( e .g . , Sight and Sound , Monthly Film Bulletin o r The Observer) w h i c h I f e a r (I h o p e I a m w r o n g ) w i l l r e m a i n s u p e r i o r t o t h e f i l m ’s p l e a s u r e s , a f r a i d o f m i s t a k i n g feeling fo r s e n tim e n ta lity .

G e n e r i c a l l y , The Four Seasons is, I suppose, a “ ro m an tic c o m e d y ” , from ro u g h ly th e s a m e stab le as tw o e arlier 19 8 1 f i l m s — C h a r l e s L a n g ’s A Change of Seasons a n d J a c k S m i g h t ’s Loving Couples — b u t it h a s m o r e w a r m t h t h a n th e f o r m e r a n d m o r e w it t h a n th e la tte r.

I t is m o r e r o m a n t i c a n d m o r e c o m i c t h a n e i t h e r : it is r o m a n t i c — w i t h o u t f a l s i f i c a t i o n — in its b e l i e f in t h e p o s ­ s i b i l i t i e s o f h u m a n r e l a t i o n s h i p ; a n d its c o m e d y g ro w s o rg a n ic ally fro m situ a ­ t i o n a n d c h a r a c t e r . L a n g ’s f i lm h a d a n e n jo y a b le t a r tn e s s b u t failed to es­ tablish a su b s ta n tia l sense o f co n n ec tio n b e t w e e n a n y o f its c h a n g i n g p a r t n e r s a n d Loving Couples t r i e d t o o h a r d f o r s o p h is tic a tio n a n d e n d e d by b e in g d u m b . B oth h a d S h irley M a c L a in e an d n e ith e r m ad e e n o u g h use of her g e n e r o u s re s e rv e s o f w it a n d ta le n t.

The Four Seasons is n o t a g r e a t c o m ­ e d y ; it is j u s t m o r e t o l e r a n t , e n g a g i n g and h u m o ro u sly a cu te th an an y th in g e ls e r e l e a s e d t h i s y e a r . It is e s s e n t i a l l y a f i lm a b o u t f r i e n d s h i p , a n d f i n d s p a i n a n d c o m e d y in its e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h r e e co u p les w h o h o lid ay to g e th e r four tim es a year.

W h e n t h e f ilm b e g i n s it is s p r i n g a n d t h e six f r i e n d s a r e s p e n d i n g a w e e k e n d a t a c o u n tr y re tr e a t w hich th ey reach The

Four Seasons

418 - September-October CINEMA PAPERS

The Four Seasons

b e h i n d t h e ‘c r e d i t s , in a b u r s t o f p o s t ­ c a r d b l o s s o m s a n d h ig h - s p ir ite d V iv a ld i on th e s o u n d tr a c k . D u rin g th is w e ek e n d t h e r e is a v e r y a t t r a c t i v e s e n s e o f u n ­ forced c a m e ra d e rie a m o n g the w o m e n — K a te ( C a ro l B u rn ett), C la u d ia ( R ita M o re n o ), a n d A n n e (S a n d y D ennis) — a s t h e y h u d d l e o v e r A n n e ’s v e g e t a b l e p h o to g rap h s, and a m o re raucous b o n h o m ie a m o n g the m en — Ja c k (A lda), D a n n y (Ja ck W esto n ), and N i c k ( L e n C a r i o u ) — a s , in a n u n ­ o b tru s iv e rev ersal o f sex roles, th ey p r e p a r e a C h in ese m eal.

T h e r e is p e r h a p s s o m e o v e r - e x p l i c i t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e m e in t h i s e a r l y e p i s o d e a s in J a c k ’s s p e e c h a b o u t “ w h a t b o n d s [th e m ]” an d p ro tec ts th em “ fro m the cold w in d s o f d iv o rc e ” th a t a re b lo w in g t h r o u g h t h e i r f r i e n d s ; o r , l a t e r in t h e s a m e w e e k e n d , “ to be w ith frien d s s i p p i n g w i n e — t h i s is w h a t it is t o b e h a p p y ” . H o w ev e r, th e fu n c tio n s o f these con scio u sly -b in d in g r e m a rk s , and o f t h e s h o t o f all six s i t t i n g in a still b o a t o n a still l a k e , t h e c o u p l e s i n t a c t , s e p a r a t e b u t h e l d t o g e t h e r in t h e s h o t by t h e b o a t , b e f o r e t h e y all j u m p in t o fix t h e d a y ’s h a p p i n e s s in t h e i r m e m o r i e s , b e g in s to b e c le ar.

T h e r e h a s b e e n a s e n s e o f u n e a s e in A n n e w h e n D a n n y t a l k s o f “ t h e w o r l d ’s m ost an cien t em o tio n s: fear and p a n ic ” , a n d one sees w hy as th e c a m e r a c u ts fro m th e b o a t sc e n e to J a c k a n d A n n e ' s h u s b a n d N i c k w a l k i n g in t h e w m o d s. T h e c a m e r a t r a c k s t h e m , as they w alk g a th e rin g w o o d a n d Ja c k t a l k s a b o u t h is h a p p i n e s s , a n d it s t o p s f o r N i c k 'to s a y t h a t h e h a s n e v e r felt t h i s h a p p i n e s s w ith A n n e : “ S h e ’s n o t j u s t s t a b l e , s h e ’s i n e r t . . . I w a n t a w o m a n I c an be ex cited b y .”

In a s e r i e s o f r e v e r s e s h o t s t h e c a m e r a a sk s — a n d g e ts — a g r e a t d eal f r o m A l d a a n d C a r i o u in t h i s s c e n e , k e e p i n g s y m p a t h y f o r b o t h , and f o r A n n e a s it i n t e r c u t s t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n w ith s h o ts o f h e r w a lk in g ten sely a n d s o lita r ily . A ld a , as d ir e c to r , relies h e a v i l y o n t h e e x p r e s s i v e f a c e s o f h is a c ­ to rs, a n d on th eir p h y sical presen ces, to c r e a t e a lo t o f t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e f i l m ’s r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a n d t h i s r e l i a n c e is ju stifie d a g ain a n d again.

A s p rig h tly b u rs t o f V ivaldi in ­ tro d u c e s th e s u m m e r seq u en ce, w ith a c u t t o s h o t s o f t o r t o i s e s , fish , c o r a l a n d then an o v erh ead sh o t o f th e y a ch t dis­ c u s s e d in t h e s p r i n g e p i s o d e . T h i s is p ro b a b ly th e funniest o f th e fo u r m ain ep iso d es. T h e c o m e d y c e n tre s on the r e a c t i o n o f Jack a n d K a t e , D a n n y a n d C l a u d i a to Nick’s n e w a n d g o r g e o u s mate, Ginny (Bess Armstrong), r e p l a c ­

ing the anxious analysand, Anne, and

o n G i n n y ’s r e v e r e n c e f o r h o w “ a c ­ c o m p l i s h e d ” N i c k is a t e v e r y t h i n g — re al e s ta te , w ine, sailin g , n o t to m e n tio n how m uch he know s a b o u t actu arial tables.

B u t i f t h e e p i s o d e is p e r s i s t e n t l y f u n n y ( C l a u d i a , h o p i n g t h e y a c h t w o n ’t m ove, m u tte rs, “ If th a t a n c h o r c o m es o u t o f t h e w a t e r , t h e r e is n o G o d ” ), it a lso m a n a g e s to be a c u te a b o u t th e d is ­ l o c a t i o n w r o u g h t a m o n g t h e six b y G i n n y and g e n e r o u s a b o u t G i n n y . “ I c a n ’t e v e n e n j o y h a t i n g h e r ” , K a t e c o m ­ p l a i n s . T h e i r s c e p t i c i s m a b o u t G i n n y is g r a d u a lly u n d e r m in e d by h e r guileless g o o d n a t u r e a n d s h e in t u r n , in a l a t e r e p iso d e, g ets h e r c h a n c e to ex p lo d e a b o u t th e s u ffo c a tin g p o te n tia l o f th e se frien d sh ip s.

N i c k a n d G i n n y ’s s u s t a i n e d a n d e n e rg e tic c o u p lin g s each n ig h t m o tiv a te s so m e a m u s in g ly scrip ted w akefulness fro m D a n n y and C lau d ia (“ I g et d e p ress ed every tim e I lo o k at h e r” ) a nd, p a rticu la rly , from J a c k and K a te . A ld a a n d B u rn e tt p la y th is w ith w it, s y m p a t h y a n d a p e r v a d i n g se n se o f lo n g -ac cu s to m e d relatio n sh ip . .

T h e sq u a b b les b etw een th ese tw o p a ir s a t this s ta g e a r e c h a r m i n g a n d fu n n y , b e c a u s e e ac h p a ir c r e a te s a real s e n s e o f a m a r r i a g e — in w a y s o f l o o k ­ i n g a t a n d t o u c h i n g e a c h o t h e r , in b o u n c in g o ff and sp a rrin g at each o th er v e rb a lly . T h e ir re s p o n s e s to th e n ew n ess of N ic k and G i n n y ’s re la tio n s h ip c o n v in c in g ly b len d envy a n d a n g e r , a feeling fo r th e d is p la c e d A n n e w o r k in g a g a in s t a r e lu c ta n t lik in g for G in n y , a n d effo rts to b u ttre ss th e frie n d s h ip a g a in s t th is c ru c ia l c h a n g e o f p e rso n n e l. “ H o w c o u ld he h a v e b r o u g h t h e r h e r e w i t h usV’ is t h e k e y t o t h e i r c o m p l a i n t s a n d t h e f i lm a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t it is a s m u c h a m a t t e r o f r e s e n t ­ m e n t o f G i n n y ’s y o u t h a n d b e a u t y a s o f d isru p tio n o f their reg u lar p a tte rn .

H o w e v e r , in t h e a u t u m n a n d w i n t e r e p i s o d e s , t h e f i l m g o e s o n , still w i t t i l y b u t m o r e so b erly , to q u e stio n the p e r h a p s s t u l t i f y i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s in t h e s e t - u p . I n a u t u m n , t h e six f r i e n d s a r r i v e for p a r e n ts ’ w e e k e n d at th e h a n d s o m e c o l l e g e w h e r e J a c k a n d K a t e ’s d a u g h t e r a n d N i c k ’s d a u g h t e r a r e s t u d e n t s , a n d A n n e is a l s o t h e r e t o m a k e a n a w k w a r d s e v e n th . T h e y p la n to b e c ivilized a b o u t th is : “ W e ’ll j u s t s a y h e l l o ” ( K a t e ) a n d “ have a nervous b re a k d o w n ” (D an n y ).

B ut th e m e e tin g w ith A n n e , th o u g h fu n n y , h a s a g o o d d eal o f tr u th f u l p a in in it, a n d A l d a s h o w s h e r e — a s i n d e e d t h r o u g h m o s t o f th e film — a s u r e in ­ stinct for th e e m o tio n a l c en tre an d r e s o n a n c e o f a s c e n e . A n n e ’s i n s i s t e n c e

that she’s all right, but “it’s been pure

s h it” a n d th e c u rre n t o f real, friendly co n cern for her fro m C la u d ia a n d K ate are to u ch in g and acc u rate .

A sim ilar u n d e rsta n d in g o f w h at m a k e s a s c e n e w o r k e m o t i o n a l l y is e x ­ h i b i t e d in t h a t s c e n e in w h i c h N i c k t r i e s t o c o a x h is h u r t , s u l k y d a u g h t e r i n t o g o o d h u m o r a n d is f o r c e d t o w a l k a w a y w i t h o u t m a k i n g h e r s m i l e , a n d in t h e u n e rrin g ly w ell-w ritten q u a rre l b e tw ee n K a t e a n d J a c k . T h i s is t h e k i n d o f quarrel a good m a rria g e can have and s u s t a i n a n d a d e e p e n i n g o f t h e f i l m ’s to n e , as K a te insists t h a t sh e w a n ts to be alo n e, ju s t th e tw o o f th e m a p a r t fro m th e ir friends, a n d c la im s t h a t J a c k is i r r e s p o n s i v e t o h e r n e e d s . T h i s o u t ­ b u r s t gives a sp e c ia l q u ie t u rg e n c y to h e r r e m a r k in t h e l a s t ( w i n t e r ) e p i s o d e : “ I d o n ’t w a n t t o b e o n e o f t w o p e o p l e a l o n e in t h e w o r l d a t t h e e n d o f m y life.”

I f t h e f i lm is in t h e e n d a h y m n o f p ra is e to frien d sh ip (a n d t h a t w o u ld m a k e it r a r i t y e n o u g h ) , it is n o t a h y m n th a t sm o o th e s o u t d is c o rd a n t notes.

T h e th re e re m a in in g co u p le s g et tire d o f their “ four c o n sta n t c o m p a n io n s ,” but th e v a lu e o f frien d sh ip h as been tested w ith e n o u g h to u g h -m in d e d n e s s to c o n ­ v i n c e t h e m — a n d t h e a u d i e n c e — o f its w orth.

I d o n o t t h i n k t h e f i l m ’s o p t i m i s m in th is resp ect sh o u ld b e m is ta k e n for se n ­ t i m e n t a l i t y . T h e o p t i m i s m is n e i t h e r m i n d l e s s n o r u n e a r n t ; t h e f ilm o f f e r s ' a m p l e e v i d e n c e f o r w h e r e it c o m e s from .

T h e use o f the fo u r s e a s o n a l h o lid a y s as a f r a m e w o r k for o b s e rv in g th e p r e s ­ s u r e s a n d p l e a s u r e s a t w o r k in t h e f r i e n d s h i p s is s a t i s f a c t o r y a s a n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g d e v i c e , b u t it is n o t a l l o w e d t o s c h e m a t i z e t h e f i l m ’s d e v e l o p m e n t .

In b r o a d t e r m s , t h e s p r i n g e p i s o d e se e m s to offer a g en tle b u rg e o n in g o f a ffectio n , w h e rea s th e w in te r o n e b rin g s a new s o b r ie ty to th e r e la tio n s h ip s . B ut t h e f i lm r e s i s t s s u c h e a s y c o r r e s p o n d ­ e n c e s : it is, f o r i n s t a n c e , in s p r i n g t h a t t h e fir s t m a j o r r if t in t h e s u r f a c e h a r ­ m o n y a p p e a r s a n d b e fo re th e final a f fir ­ m a tio n o f the w in ter ep iso d e (very fu n ­ ny a b o u t sk iin g in c a p a c ity ) th e re h av e been m a jo r e x a s p era tio n s an d anger.

T h e seasonal m o tif has a m o re g e n e r a l i z e d s i g n i f i c a n c e in i m p l y i n g tim e s o f g ro w th a n d stasis, o f difficu lty a n d r a r e s a t i s f a c t i o n , in a y e a r — o r life — o f a f r i e n d s h i p . T h e r e is n o t h i n g h o m ile tic ,- e x c e p t w h e re in te n d e d i r o n i c a l l y , in e i t h e r A l d a ’s s c r e e n p l a y o r in h is d i r e c t i o n , b u t r a t h e r a n u n ­ o b t r u s i v e a c c e p t a n c e o f p l u r a l i s m in a n approach to re la tio n s h ip s (b e tw ee n s p o u s e s a s w ell a s b e t w e e n f r i e n d s ) t h a t p arallels th e n ecessary a c c e p ta n c e o f t h e y e a r ’s c h a n g i n g r e w a r d s a n d d e ­ m a n d s . S o m e , lik e J a c k , a lw a y s insist on c le a r in g th e air; N ic k w o u ld r a t h e r h a v e his te e th d rille d ; e a c h — a n d th e o t h e r s , t o o — is g i v e n a c h a n c e t o b e h i m s e l f in t h e s e t - u p .

A t th e s ta r t o f th is re v ie w , I re lu c ­ ta n tly referred to a “ c ertain so ftn ess at t h e c e n t r e o f its c o n c e p t i o n ” ; t h e m o r e I t h i n k o f it, t h e m o r e t h i s s e e m s m e r e l y a m a t t e r o f to le ra n c e . T h e p e o p le in­ volved a re m a d e to be a w a r e o f th e d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t in i n c e s s a n t c l o s e n e s s , b u t p re fe r to re ta in th e clo sen ess a n d keep an eye on the d a n g ers. A n d the visual b e a u ty I q u ib b le d o v e r re m in d s m e o f F r a n c o i s T r u f f a u t ’s p h r a s e a b o u t D o u g l a s S i r k ’s u s e o f c o l o r in Written on t h e Wind, w h e r e it is d e p l o y e d t o d i f ­ f e re n t e ffe c t, o f c o u rs e : “ A ll th e s e h u e s a r e v i v id a n d f r a n k . . . t h e y a r e . . . t h e c o lo rs o f A m e r i c a ” .1 A l d a k n o w s j u s t

L Francois Truffaut, The Films in M y Life , Allen Lane, p. 149.

The Four Seasons

w h a t he w a n ts d o n e w ith th e c a m e r a a n d V ic to r K e m p e r o b lig es u n e rrin g ly .

T h e a c t i n g is a l m o s t u n i f o r m l y f i n e .

I t is a l o n g t i m e s i n c e 1 s a w s u c h r e l a x e d , l iv e l y a n d s y m p a t h e t i c e n s e m ­ b l e p l a y i n g in a f i l m . C a r o l B u r n e t t is w a r m a n d w i t t y ; R i t a M o r e n o is c o o l a n d w itty . B oth reveal new c a p a c itie s as screen actresse s; n e ith e r h as ever been s o w ell u s e d b e f o r e , a n d t h i s is p r o b a b l y tr u e o f th e u su a lly m o n s t r o u s S a n d y D e n n is w h o se c h a r a c te ris tic tics a n d t w i t c h e s a r e s u b d u e d in t h e s e r v i c e o f lim n in g real a n x ie ty a n d ten sio n .

T h e m en a re a lm o st eq u ally g o o d a n d J a c k W e s to n as D a n n y (“ th e M u h a m m ed A l i o f m e n t a l i l l n e s s ” ) is m a rv e llo u s ly fa llib le a n d fu n n y . O n ly A l d a ’s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y c i v i l i z e d p e r ­ s o n a is p e r h a p s s p r e a d a l i t t l e t h i n , b u t c o n s i d e r i n g h i s t r i p a r t i t e f u n c t i o n t h i s is an u n g ra c io u s quib b lin g .

A s h i s f i r s t f i lm a s d i r e c t o r , A l a n A l d a ’s The Four Seasons is fu ll o f t h e m o s t h e a rte n in g pro m ise: he k n o w s w h e r e t h e h e a r t o f a s c e n e is a n d h o w t o g e t t o it n a t u r a l l y a n d s k i l f u l l y ; a n d t h e f i l m ’s u n s e n t i m e n t a l e n d o r s e m e n t o f h u m a n e v a l u e s is t r u t h f u l , f u n n y , a n d to uching.

Directed by: Alan Alda.

Producer: Martin Bregman. Executive producer: Louis A. Stroller. Associate producer: Michael Economou. Screenplay: Alan Alda. Director of photography: Victor J. Kemper. Editor: Michael Economou. Production designer: Jack Collis.

Sound: Gary Cunningham. Cast: Alan Alda (Jack), Carol Burnett (Kate), Len Cariou (Nick), Sandy Dennis (Anne), Rita Moreno (Claudia), Jack Weston (Danny), Bess Armstrong (Ginny), Elizabeth Alda (Beth), Beatrice Alda (Lisa), Robert Hitt (room clerk). Production company: Universal. Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm.

100 mins. U.S. 1981.

The Four Seasons:

Sigmund Freud’s Dora Dave Sargent In t h e m a g n i f i c e n t l y r e s t o r e d S t a t e T h e a tr e , d u rin g th e 28 th S y d n e y Film F e stiv a l, a s h o c k e d a u d ie n c e liste n e d as th ese w o rd s flow ed fro m th e ta n ta liz in g screen im a g e o f a lick erish p a ir o f ru b y lips: “ I to ld h im t h a t p s y c h o a n a ly tic t h e o r y is i m p r e g n a t e d t h r o u g h a n d t h r o u g h w ith b o u rg e o is id eo lo g y . . .

1 s a i d , ‘Y o u ’ve b e e n i n i t i a t e d i n t o t h i s l a n g u a g e g a m e a n d y o u s u p p o s e it t o o ffer y o u reality . Y o u c an only r e p e a t y o u rse lf, a n d by reco g n izin g y o u r s e l f in y o u r r e p e t i t i o n s y o u feel c o m f o r t a b l e . . . Y o u ig n o re th e real p ra c tic e o f p s y c h o a n a ly sis, w hich now fu n c tio n s a lm o s t as an i d e o l o g i c a l s t a t e a p p a r a t u s , a n d its in te llectu al h isto ry w hich h a s been a history o f fa sh io n s.’ “ H e s a i d , ‘T h e d i s c o v e r i e s o f p sy c h o a n a ly sis c a n n o t be ig n o red a n d n e i t h e r c a n t h e y b e a v o i d e d — it is f o r y o u , t o o . ’ “ I said, ‘Y o u c an only salv ag e y o u r p ra c tic e a n d y o u r c o n sc ie n c e by ta lk in g o f the perv ersio n o f p sy c h o ­ a n a ly tic th e o ry as th o u g h so m e h o w , s o m e w h e r e , it w a s o r i g i n a l l y i n n o ­ c e n t . B u t t h e s u b j e c t is n o t a n i m ­ m a c u l a t e c o n c e p t i o n a n d it d i d n o t d r o p fro m th e sky. M e d ic a l o rig in s s t ill m a r k its p r a c t i c e , a n d t h e i n ­ d iv id u a l — o u ts id e o f real h isto ry a n d r e a l s t r u g g l e — is its f o c u s . . .

S o , its r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a n d r e a p ­ p ro p ria tio n to c a p ita lis t ideo lo g y an d e c o n o m y is n o t a n a c c i d e n t ; it is t h e n a tu ra l place for a b o u rg e o is p se u d o ­ scien ce.’ ” F o r m o s t o f th e a u d ie n ce , th e w o rd s c a m e as a b it o f a s h o c k . T h o s e sittin g

Sigmund Freud’s Dora

on th e rig h t side o f th e t h e a t r e w e re e x ­ p e c t i n g Sigmund Freud’s Dora t o b e a r e c r e a t i o n o f a “ h i s t o r i c a l d r a m a ’’ in a tra d itio n a l n a rra tiv e form — c o m p le te w ith tru e - to - th e - p e r io d fro ck s.

T h o s e s ittin g on th e left sid e o f th e t h e a t r e d i d n ’t e x p e c t t o h e a r “ t h e i r o w n w o r d s e c h o i n g in t h e i r e a r s ” , w o r d s fo rm in g p a rt o f a general disco u rse w h ich , recen tly , has b r o u g h t p eo p le t o g e t h e r over t h e p r o j e c t o f r e d e f i n i n g and reassessing p sy c h o a n aly sis and h i s t o r y in f e m i n i s t t h e o r y , around i s ­ sues a b o u t the p lac e(m e n t) o f w om en a n d m e n in n a r r a t i v e s a n d o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l f o r m s , a n d under th eo ry a b o u t “ estab lish ed stru ctu res, d isc o u rse s a n d p ra ctic e s w hich a re th e sites o f th e f u n c tio n in g o f sp ecific p o w e r relatio n s, a n d e n su re th e t r a n s ­ m issio n o f th o se r e la tio n s .” 1 T h is c o m p lic a te d an d e v er-e x p an d in g d i s c o u rs e h a s h a d d iffic u lty fin d in g a “ s p a c e t o s p e a k ” in v a r i o u s m e d i a f o r ­ m a t s a n d in v a r i o u s e n v i r o n m e n t s ( r a n g i n g f r o m th e p u b , to t h e c la s s ­ r o o m , t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n r o o m — e v e n to t h e b e d r o o m ) . S o , t h e f a c t t h a t Sig­ mund Freud’s Dora w a s a l l o w e d t o sp e a k u n in te rru p te d for 40 m in u te s was e n o u g h to e xcite m e.

B u t e v e n m o r e e x c i t i n g is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e f ilm will b e a b l e t o “ s h o c k ” o t h e r a u d i e n c e s w h e n it is s c r e e n e d o u t ­ s i d e t h e F e s t i v a l . T h i s , a n d t h e f i l m ’s th o u g h t-p ro v o k in g c o n te n t and form , m a k e it o n e o f t h e m o s t f a s c i n a t i n g a n d p o litic a lly i m p o r t a n t film s to be s c r e e n e d in A u s t r a l i a t h i s y e a r .

T h e f i lm is a p r o d u c t o f a c o l l a b o r a ­ tio n b e tw e e n A n t h o n y M c C a ll, C la ir e P a jac zk o w sk a , A n d re w T y ndall and Ja n e W ein sto ck . T h ey are p a rt o f a t r a d i t i o n in f i l m m a k i n g t h a t h a s its o r i g i n s in t h e e a r l y 1 9 6 0 s. It is a t r a d i ­ t i o n in w h i c h t h e o r i s t s a n d c r i t i c s h a v e g a in e d access to th e m e a n s o f p r o d u c ­ tio n , a n d h av e a tt e m p t e d to fo re g ro u n d t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l a n d c r i t i c a l c o n c e r n s in their w o rk .

A s E. A n n K a p l a n b e s t e x p l a i n s , s u c h f i l m m a k e r s a r e “ a ll i n v o l v e d in a th e o re tic a l c ritiq u e o f b o u rg e o is c in e m a tic stra te g ie s, p a rtic u la rly re a lis m , a n d w ith th e d e b a t e a b o u t th e c i n e m a t i c a p p a r a t u s in r e l a t i o n t o i d e o ­ lo g ic a l c o n t e n t ” . T h e i r film s “ e x p lo re a n d e x p o se th e c o d es th r o u g h w hich m e a n i n g is s i g n i f i e d , a n d r e p r e s e n t e d

1. See Language, Sexuality & Subversion , Paul Foss and Meaghan Morris (eds), Feral Publications, 1978. '

w ith in c u ltu re , esp e cially as th e s e a ffe c t i m a g e s o f w o m e n ” .2 Sigmund Freud’s Dora “ e x p l o r e s ” an d “ e x p o se s” th ro u g h an e x tre m e ly w e ll-c rafte d n a r ra tiv e s t r u c tu r e th a t w o r k s t o o p e n u p t h e f ilm a t a n u m b e r o f lev e ls. T h e f i r s t p a r t c o n s i s t s o f t h e i m a g e o f t h e lip s a n d t h e d i s c o u r s e m e n ­ t i o n e d in t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s r e v i e w .

W h i l e t h e l ip s s p e a k in t h e t h i r d p e r s o n , a n d h isto ric a l (w ith th e e m p h a s is on his) f a c t s f l a s h in t h e l o w e r l e f t - h a n d o f the fram e , pro v id in g a m a te ria l basis in w h i c h t o l o c a t e D o r a , t h e f ilm s e t s u p a w id e-ran g in g p ro b lem atic.

M ajo r q u e stio n s (sp o k e n and u n sp o k e n ) e m e r g e a b o u t t h e p l a c e o f w o m e n in h isto ric a l a n d p sy c h o a n a ly tic a l d is­ course — m o st im p o rta n tly , those w hich d e al w ith h o w w o m e n h a v e been tra d itio n a lly placed o u tsid e th o se d is­ c o u rs e s a n d w h a t th is m e a n s .

T h is in itial se c tio n t a k e s a tt e n ti v e c o n c e n tr a tio n on th e p a r t o f th e a u d ie n c e b e c a u se o f th e e q u a l focus th a t is g i v e n t o t h e v i s u a l i m a g e o f t h e lip s, th e s p o k e n d ia lo g u e a n d th e w ritten h isto ric a l facts.

T h is se c tio n also w o r k s r a th e r e ffe c ­ tively to e s ta b lis h th e in te r e s t o f th e au d ie n ce , w hile at th e s a m e tim e se t­ tin g u p th e n e x t se c tio n d iv id e d in to fo u r scenes: “ T h e K iss” , “ T h e E x ­ c h a n g e ” , “ T h e First D r e a m ” an d “ T h e E n d ” . T h e s e a re th en d iv id ed in to th ree in trig u in g sc e n es lin k in g a telev isio n c o m m e r c i a l w i t h a p o r n f i lm s e q u e n c e , a n d fin a lly to an e x c h a n g e , u sin g F r e u d ’s o w n n o v e le sq u e a c c o u n t \ b e tw e e n th e s c re e n D o r a ( S ilv ia K olb o w sk i) a n d F re u d (Joel K ovel).

F o r e x a m p l e , in “ T h e E x c h a n g e ” a n a d v e r tis e m e n t for P in e Sol c e n tre s on t h e f a c t t h a t t w o w o m e n will “ g e t a l o n g fin e ” b e c a u s e th e y use th e s a m e c le a n ­ ing liq u id . T h is p a r a lle ls ( a n d o p p o s e s ) t h e p o r n f o o t a g e f o l l o w i n g it in w h i c h t w o w o m e n , in v a r y i n g s t a t e s o f u n ­ d ress, a re sh o w n kissin g a n d c are ssin g .

T h e d ia lo g u e th a t en su e s b etw een D ora and Freud “ e la b o ra te s F re u d 's in te rp re ta tio n o f D o r a ’s p o s i t i o n in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n h e r f a m i l y a n d K ’s. W h i l e D o ra m a in ta in s th a t she w as an ob-

2. E. Ann Kaplan, “ Feminist Approaches to History, Psychoanalysis and Cinema, In ‘Sigmund Freud’s Dora” , Millenium Film Journal, pp 173-185.

3. Sigmund Freud, “ Fragments of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria” , Dora: An Analysis o f a Case o f Hysteria,

j e c t o f e x c h a n g e b etw een h e r f a th e r a n d H e r r K . , ‘t h e p r i c e o f ( H e r r K ’s) to le ra tin g th e re la tio n s b etw een m y f a t h e r a n d h i s w i f e ’, F r e u d i n t o n e s t h a t ‘t h o u g h t s o f t h i s k i n d c l o a k o t h e r s ’, t h a t D o r a ’s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f F r a u K . a r e in w o r d s , ‘m o r e a p ­ p r o p r i a t e to a lo v e r th a n to a d e f e a t e d r i v a l ’ ” .J T h is lesb ian lin k -u p o p e n s up a n u m b e r o f spaces for n o t only m o r e — a n d im p o r ta n t — q u e stio n s re la tin g to h isto ry a n d p sy c h o a n a ly sis, b u t also q u estio n s a b o u t th e re p re se n ta tio n o f w o m e n in c o m m e r c i a l s a n d p o r n .

T h e t h i r d s e c t i o n o f t h e f ilm is a n e a t t i e - u p o f all t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d in t h e f i r s t t w o s e c t i o n s o f t h e n a r r a t i v e s in a n o p e n - e n d e d m a n n e r . T h i s is a c h i e v e d b y D o r a ’s m o t h e r / “ a n y ” m o t h e r ( A n n e H eg ira) reading m essages from p o st­ c a r d s t h a t reflect im a g e s f r o m th e p re c e d in g sectio n s, a n d p re se n t n ew a n d sig n ifican t im ages. T h e s e ra n g e from L e o n a r d o d a V i n c i ’s M a d o n n a , t o p h o t o g r a p h s by C h a r c o t , to im a g e s o f C h e G u e v a r a , C h r i s t a n d E lv i s P r e s l e y .

T h e m essages them selves, th o u g h s o m e tim e s p u rp o se ly stilted , a re c learly a n d p ro v o c a tiv e ly d eliv ered . F o r e x ­ a m p le , w hile th e m o th e r re ad s fro m a p ­ p r o p r i a t e p o s tc a r d s t h a t re la te to th e lesb ian seq u e n ce , she s ta te s a n d ask s, “ In p o r n o g r a p h y , i m a g e s o f s e x u a l re la tio n s b etw een w o m e n a re c o n ­ s tr u c te d to th is m a s c u lin e s p e c ta to r a n d c e l e b r a t e his p o s itio n as v o y e u r , b u t in w h a t w a y , e x a c t l y , d o e s t h i s i n ­ fo r m m y p h y sic al r e la tio n s h ip w ith o th er w om en? So m an y unansw ered q u estio n s. Love, D o r a .”

It is j u s t t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e f i l m , t h e f a c t t h a t it a s k s m a n y q u e s t i o n s a n d leav es m a n y u n a n s w e r e d , t h a t m a k e s t h e f i lm v e r y l i k e a b l e . E q u a l l y l i k e a b l e a r e t h e m a n y lev e l s a t w h i c h t h e f ilm fu n c tio n s, esp ecially th a t a t w hich the film b u i l d s in a c r i t i q u e o f i t s t h e o r e t i c a l p r o j e c t , a s w e ll a s t h e f i l m ­ m a k i n g p r o c e s s its elf.

A l s o , m u c h t o its c r e d i t , is t h e w a y t h e f ilm u s e s c o l o r t o i m p l y m e a n i n g , th e use o f i c o n o g r a p h y to e n c o d e m u lti­ ple m e a n i n g s , a n d th e c o m i c t o n e w h ic h e f f e c t i v e l y l i g h t e n s t h e f i lm b u t d o e s n ' t u n d e r m i n e it. In a d d i t i o n t o t h i s , t h e so u n d h as a very i m p o r t a n t p a rt to play, an d th e r h y th m ic p a tte rn o f w o rd s w o r k s in c l o s e h a r m o n y w i t h s o m e skilful a n d p u rp o s e fu l ed itin g .

Sigmund Freud's Dora is s u r e t o b e the c e n tre o f s o m e c o n tro v e ry an d m u ch discussion. A n d , o f c ourse, the m e a n in g s w hich o n e ta k e s a w a y fro m t h e f i lm will v a r y a n d b e d e p e n d e n t o n a n u m b e r o f facto rs, in cluding k n o w le d g e and u n d e rsta n d in g o f psy ch o an aly sis, fem in ism , d isc o u rse th eo ry , h isto ry , f i lm t h e o r y a n d so o n . A l t h o u g h s o m e m a y h a v e lim ite d a cc ess to th e t h e o r e t i c a l lev e l s o f t h e f i lm , t h i s d o e s n o t a c t to d e t r a c t f r o m th e film .

R a t h e r , it s e r v e s a s a s u c c e s s f u l p o i n t o f engagem ent. ★

4. Sarah Bernstein, “ Fragments of an Analysis of 'Sigmund Freud's Dora' ” , Cinetracts. 1980, pp 39-42.

Sigmund Freud's Dora: Directed by: Anthony

McCall, Claire Pajaczkowska. Andrew Tyndall, Jane Weinstock. Producer: Sigmund Freud’s Dora Collective. Screenplay: Anthony McCall. Claire Pajaczkowska. Andrew Tyndall? Jane Weinstock.

Ivan Ward. Director of photography: Babette Mangolte. Editors: Anthony McCall. Claire Pajaczkowska. Andrew Tyndall, Jane Weinstock.

Sound: Deedee Halleck. Cast: Silvia Kolbowski (Dora). Joel Kovel (Freud). Anne Hegira (Dora's mother). Suzanne Fletcher (talking lips).

Production company: The Jay Street Film Collective. Distributor: Gienys Rowe. 16m m 40 mins. U.S. 1979.

Collier, New York, 1979.

CINEMA PAPERS September-October — 419

TRAVIS KEYES

PUBLICITY STILLS

Available for: Stage, film, TV or V/O.

DIRECT FROM PRINTS

'

Portfolio/synopsis available on enquiry.

—

Modelling Agent

VIA

FRAME BLOW-UPS

Associated Models (0 3 ) 6 9 0 4 9 4 4 690 4709

Acting: . 35 mm. STILL COLOUR and/or BLACK AND WHITE INTER­ NEGATIVES from standard format 16 mm. and 35 mm. COLOUR and BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER or RELEASE PRINTS.

The Australian Casting Services (0 3 )5 2 9 3 1 44

• ALSO available from 16 mm. and 35 mm. PANAVISION format.

Phone 2 4 hours

• COLOUR and/or BLACK and WHITE PRINTS from INTER­ NEGATIVES and COPY TRANSPARENCIES direct from prints.

(0 3 ) 391 2 6 8 3

• Professional quality and reliable service.

LYNSEY MARTIN PHOTOGRAPHY (03) 380 5882

».TULIP CRANE

ATSAMUELSONS Tulip Crane In Use Specifications Total weight com plete on # 5 0 5 4 Pedestal w ith # 505 7 Feet. No camera or operators.

Minimum Height — com plete on # 5 0 5 4 Pedestal with # 5 0 5 7 Feet.

Maximum Height — Complete on # 5 0 5 5 .

Pneum atic Conversion Kit.

Typical Height w ith Crane Complete on # 5 0 5 4 Pedestal mounted on one ton truck.

Maximum Recommended Load-Front End. Maxim um Horizontal Reach — to typical cam era lens.

Maxim um Pan Diameter in Horizontal Mode.

Minimum Turning Radius with Camera Platform fully elevated.

Minimum Turning Radius with Camera Platform in lowest position.

The Tulip Unfolding

8 50 lb (385 kg) 24 in. (61 cm) Negative to Foot Platform.

186 in. (473 cm) to typical cam era lens w ithout cam era risers.

222 in. (546 cm) to typical cam era lens w ithout cam era risers.

5 5 0 lb. (249 kg) 144 in. (366 cm) 288 in. (732 cm) 48 in. (1 21 cm) 90 in. (228 cm)

$ 2 0 0 per day. $ 6 0 0 per week.

Sm U U SO H film servieè Australia pty. ltd.

Head Office:

Interstate Office:

1 Giffnock Avenue, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2113 Australia Telephone: 888 2766 Telex: AA251 88

25 Lothian Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051 Australia Telephone: 329 51 55 Telex: AA35861

AUSTRALIAN MANAGING ASSOCIATES FOR

—P A N A V I S I O N

Features: Certified and registered mechanically safe.

Computer designed. Foam filled tubular structure. Pan, Tilt and Seat Turret Drag Controls. Unlimited portability and versatility. Total Accessory Package. Fast set up and strike time. Pneumatic Wheels; Flotation Track Wheels; Push/Pull Bar Installation; Hard Studio Wheels; Feet.

LOS ANGELES, U.S.A.

Nothing dampens your creative energy more than film that can’t capture the scene you want. But now there’s a film that’s as sensitive as you are.

It’s Fujicolor A250 ... the world’s first high-speed tungsten type color negative movie film with an exposure index of 250.

Imagine the possibilities. Now you can capture the soft facial features of a woman in a dim room. Or the misting greys of a gentle rain at dawn. Or even the kaleidescope of colors at a night-time festival. All in natural light. All without coarse grain. All on Fujicolor A250.

So the next time your film is too slow, try Fujicolor A250.

It’s just your speed.

3 5 m m T Y P E 8 5 1 8 * 1 6 m m T Y P t8 5 2 8

B j ) FUJICOLOR NEGATIVE FILM Distributed in Australia by

m H A N IM E X

Old Pittwater Rd., Brookvale, N.S.W. 2100. Ph: 938-0240.

282 Normanby Rd., Port Melbourne, VIC., 3207. Ph: 64-1111.

17 Dover Street, Albion, OLD., 4016. Ph: 262-7555.

Hindmarsh Avenue, Welland, S.A., 5007. Ph: 46-9031.

22 Northwood St., Leederville, W.A., 6007. Ph: 381-4622.

169 Campbell Street,' Hobart, TAS., 7000. 34-4296.

Industrial Division NAME: .....................................

ADDRESS: ...............................

Postcode:

Telephone:

IS YOUR FILM A W ORK OF A R T? The world s masterpieces are the result of creative flair, insight and mastery of a medium.

At Custom Video Australia, we are artists in our own medium—from correcting skin tones to even framing the picture.

So if your film is a work of creative art surely we should finish it for you .. . you’ll love the reproduction.

g

CUSTOMI V

ID E O

AUSTRALIA

Television Centre. Epping NSW Australia 2121 Telephone (02} 8587545. Telex: AA 20250 It’s the finishing touch that counts.