Cinema Papers February 1982

R egistered by A ustralia Post — p u b lic a tio n no. VBP 2121

M ad M ax 2 TheM anfrom SnowyRiver Picture Preview

Kevin Dobson on c SquizzyTaylor TaxNotes Reviews & m ore

Picture Preview

February 1982

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.

35m m TYPE8518*16m m TYPE8528

® j| FUJICOLOR NEGATIVE FILM Distributed in Australia by

1136

m HANIMEX Old P ittw a te r Rd., B ro o k v a le , N .S .W . 2 1 0 0 . Ph: 9 3 8 -0 2 4 0 .

2 82 N o rm a n b y R d., P o rt M e lb o u rn e , V IC ., 3 2 0 7 . Ph: 6 4 -1 1 1 1 .

17 D o ve r S tre e t, A lb io n , OLD ., 401 6. Ph: 2 6 2 -7 5 5 5 .

H in d m a rs h A ve n u e , W e lla n d , S .A ., 5 0 0 7 . Ph: 4 6 -9 0 3 1 .

22 N o rth w o o d S t., L e e d e rv ille , W .A ., 6 0 0 7 . Ph: 3 8 1 -4 6 2 2 .

1 69 C a m p b e ll S tre e t,' H o b a rt, TAS., 7 0 0 0 . 3 4 -4 2 9 6 .

Industrial Division NAM E: ...................................................................................................................................................

ADDR ESS: .................

................................

........... .................................................................... Postcode: .......................................Telephone:

“Film and

tape, have achieved the perfect marriage! ^

“Our new CTR-3 in-optical telefilm recorder has completed the film/video circle. Film conversion to tape has become common place, but we have long waited for a quality tape-to-film conversion.

The major feature of the CTR-3 is the high resolution three-tube display system with its associated dichroic optics. This assures the elimination of the raster line structure without any sacrifice to resolution. When this is combined with the quality of Eastmancolor film from Kodak, the color saturation and color balance are perfect.

The impact of all this is the coming together of the film and video laboratories.

Now a job can be shot on film, have all the optical and titles done on tape and be released on film.

The potential is unlimited and the time saving enormous. At Videolab we are proud to be the first to introduce it to Australia.�

Peter Bowlay, General Manager, Videolab.

(A Division of the Colorfilm Group)

Kodak M otion Picture Film KO D AK (Australasia) PTY. LTD.

K 7/9949R H P

M urray Forrest wants to grow another 40 m illion feet.

Tell us Murray, how does a Scottish economist come to be running the Colorfilm group in Australia?

I came out here in 1964 after finishing my studies in the UK. Things didn’t look too bright in the UK, so I decided to give it a go in Australia. I didn’t have a job, I didn’t know anybody, my intention was to get a job in a bank or a finance company. As it turned out, I landed a job in the film industry by accident. I joined Swift & Bleakley m their accounts department, got into their motion picture department, stayed there one year, and joined Colorfilm. And I’ve been here ever since, fifteen years.

What are the various companies that make up the Colorfilm Group?

As concisely as possible. But first, a little history. The lab operations have been functioning since 1928. That part of the group started life as Commonwealth Laboratories.

Then changed its name to Filmcraft. That was operated by Phil Budden. Then Automatic Film Laboratories started m the 1940’s, and that was owned by Greater Union. They both offered the same service, black and white processing, and release printing for imported features. So when colour came in in the early fifties, they decided to merge. And that became Colorfilm. There are three labs in the group, the main one here at Camperdown, then theres KG Colorfilm in North Sydney to service the ABC, and Cinevex in Melbourne. Then theres Filmlab Engineering.

What prompted that?

We started Filmlab because wed been relying on English, Italian and American processing equipment, and the service was becoming a bit difficult. So we decided to build our own machines, and the success of the homebuilt machines prompted us to start Filmlab.

Does Filmlab only manufacture for the Colorfilm group?

No, we’ve equipped every Australian lab with processing systems, and equipped the New Zealand National Film Unit, as well as some of the government bodies in Asia; Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong. That's a growing side of our business.

What about Video? That’s another growth area.

Definitely, that’s what prompted us into setting up Videolab in 1975. We could see that there was going to be this interface of video and film. And it’s really just an extension of the philosophy we’ve had since 1928. Were in the business of reproducing images, however that’s done now or in the future.

And how do you fit into the picture?

Each company has a Manager, and I’m the Group General Manager.

What other grow th areas do you see?

Well, looking at the film business first. The volume of features produced m the country should steady at about 15 a year, that’s a steady growth.

I can’t however see any major growth unless we get theatrical release printing back. That’s how the lab started, printing release prints of product coming mto the country.

Where is it done now?

In America mainly. I was just over at the MGM laboratories in Culver City and they were doing the release prints for Raiders of the Lost Ark. They were processing 1800 release prints for world release.

The largest run we’ve ever had at one time is 26 for Gallipoli.

So all American films released here are printed in America?

Most, yes. And English films in England, and so on.

And the local product when it’s exported?

- We make the prints for local consumption only If a film is sold overseas, we make a negative, send it over, and they do the prints there for the respective countries. So we tend to lose out both ways.

But you’d think nobody would know how to grade a release print of Gallipoli better than the lab who produced it?

Probably so. But look, we don’t want to inhibit local producers by insisting on our doing prints for overseas release.

Provided that we get to make the prints for the product coming in to the country.

Could you handle it?

We put 40 million feet through the lab last year. In the last eighteen months, we’ve put in a new high speed processing and printing plant. So that now, we could easily double that.

The three things that are always asked are could we match the Americans on service, quality and price. I say yes, we give as good a service as anyone m the world, the quality speaks for itself, and given the opportunity to quote on a bulk release we will match the overseas rate.

The lab operates on throughput.

If we’re going to continue offering a 24 hour service, we have to have that extra plant operating at least 80 percent, and preferably 100 percent of the time. We’ve got to have that footage going through. It’s for the benefit of the industry as a whole as well as for Colorfilm.

and get them working together.

What’s happening overseas, Murray?

Things are pretty grim in the UK, and exactly the opposite in the US. They’re putting people off m the British labs, but in the last 12 months in the US, the four major labs, Technicolor, MGM, Deluxe and CFI, have spent 30 million dollars on new equipment, high speed processors mainly, to handle the tremendous amount of release print footage going through.

What films have you seen lately that you’ve enjoyed?

Well, Gallipoli of course.

In fact, generally, I enjoy the Australian product. Gallipoli and Breaker Morant are two recently that I have thoroughly enjoyed.

Not just because they’re Australian, but they appeal to me. And of course I saw Raiders in Los Angeles. A tremendous film.

As always, why Colorfilm?

Well, we’ve had a commitment, I guess, to the film industry in this country for over 50 years, no doubt about that. ’W hatever we’ve made, we’ve reinvested in our two major resources, equipment and people. Of these two I guess the most important is the people.

We put a tremendous importance on that, on getting people who are just as committed as we are. I’ve just returned from looking at labs around the world, as I do from time to time, and theres no doubt about it, as far as equipment is concerned, we’re You’re an administrator in up with the state of the art. a company of boffins. How And as far as the people, well, much do you have to know truthfully, nowhere else did I about the science of film find the attitude to the industry making? we have here at Colorfilm.

No way I would class myself 35 Missenden Road, as a boffin. But perhaps it’s an advantage not to be. Maybe I’m Camperdown, Sydney, Australia.

Telephone (02) 5161066 pleading a case for ignorance, but I see my job as being able to Telex AA24545 relate to all these technical people, to communicate right across all their areas of expertise

Colorfilm

Leo Burnett 4 3 2 0 8 L

Leo Burnett 4 .3 2 0 8 R

MIXING POST-SYNC RECORDING VOICE-OVERS We have a well equipped sound department with first rate staff and one of Australia’s most talented mixers. A t present we have some spare capacity and invite you to phone for details:STUDIO MANAGER STUDIO SECRETARY MICHAEL ROWAN GREER LEACH

(08)452277

(08)452277

South Australian Film Corporation

We try harder . . . because . . .

We are not the largest, but we are proud to be one of the major international completion guarantors in the world. Motion Picture Guarantors Inc., together with its associated companies, has guaranteed completion of more than 200 films since 1970, including feature length movies with total budgets in excess of $35,000,000.

Our policy is to assist the producer in every possible way with counsel and expertise. We conceive our job as helping the Production Team maintain its objectives: MOVIE FINISHED — ON

TIME - ON BUDGET! Frequently producers have told us that we were of material help in spotting difficulties early and assisting in their solution.

We are able to offer bonding for the largest-budget films as well as smaller, at strictly competitive rates. Our no-claim bonus is the most attractive in the industry.

We will be pleased to consider bonding your next movie and invite enquiries by telex or telephone (collect).

In Australia: In New Zealand: SYDNEY: Film Services (02) 27 8741. Telex AA 24771 W ELLINGTON: 859-049. Telex 31337 MELBOURNE: (03) 699 9077. Telex AA 30900

to marilvn & ron deianey, peak Intellectual capacity means faster, more efficient negative matching.

Our Computamatch technology ensures your production is matched to perfection.

A t Negative Cutting Services, Sydney, Marilyn Delaney has programmed th e latest 2.4 megabyte dual density Data General com puter to provide th e advanced technology required to streamline our negative m atching procedures.

This same com puter provides instant updates on th e BioRhythmic progressions o f each member o f our staff. The concept o f the BioRhythm Cycle has become widely accepted as affecting human capacity in its three principal cycles: The Physical, m e Emotional and The intellectual.

Marilyn and Ron Delaney calculate th e workload o f each Negative C utting Services s ta ff member according to th eir BioRhythmic programme, so as to provide maximum efficiency through avoiding th e "CRITICAL" days indicated on th e ir cycle.

Sounds fantastic?

Just remember this - on January 1,1982, George Orwell's long-awaited "1984� was a mere 730 days away!

Meantime, if you're planning a shoot and w a n t to use each day to th e greatest advantage - let us help by running a BioRhythm p rin to u t fo r you and your crew! A fte r all, th e sm oother th e shoot, tfie b e tte r things will look all round - in the can and on paper!

This service is free - all we need is birthdates, th e scheduled shoot dates and your return address.

Com putamatch will do th e rest in microseconds!

Computamatch *

NEGATIVE CUTTING SERVICES 200 Pacific Highway, Crows Nest, 2065

Telephone: (02) 922 3607 *a Marilyn and Ron Delaney service DESIGNMENT NCS51

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.

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 its 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.

'A G F A -G E V A E R T LIM ITED

Head Office, P.O. Box 48, Nunawading, VIC. 3131.

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

Articles and Interviews

The Man from Snowy River Picture Preview; 54

Kevin Dobson: interview Scott Murray Waterloo Barbara Alysen The True Story of the Kelly Gang Ina Bertrand, Ken Robb Narrative Manipulations: Brian de Palma’s Blow Out Tom Ryan Film Production Design John Dowding Tax Notes Women in Drama Briann Kearney: Interview Sonia Hofmann: Interview Mark Stiles Michael Rubbo: Interview John Hughes Breaker Morant: Patterns of Heroism Thelma Ragas

10 16

18 22 27 32 36 38

Kevin Dobson Interview: 10

40 48

Features The Quarter Picture Preview: Body Heat Edinburgh Film Festival, 1981 Mari Kuttna Film Censorship Listings Picture Preview: The Man From Snowy River The Second Coming of Super 16 Fred Harden Production Survey

8 26 34 46 54 59

63

Reviews Brian de Palma’s Blow Out Analysis: 22

Atlantic City U.S.A. Les Rabinowicz Puberty Blues Jim Schembri The French Lieutenant’s Woman Brian McFarlane Mad Max 2 Almos Maksay Doctors and Nurses Debi Enker The Apple Game Susan Tate

71

Mad Max 2 Review: 74

72 73 74 75 83

Books

Puberty Blues Review: 72

Journey Down Sunset Boulevard: The Films of Billy Wilder Tom Ryan The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in The Movies Dave Sargent Hollywood’s Vietnam: From “The Green Berets” to “Apocalypse Now” Gilbert Coats

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: Trish Hunt. Secretary: Anne Sinclair. Office Assistant: Jackie Town.

78 79 81

Doctors and Nurses Review: 75

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.

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, 31 70. Telephone: (03) 561 2111. Distributors: NSW, Vic., Old, WA, SA: Consolidated Press Pty Ltd, 168 Castlereagh St Sydney, 2000. Telephone: (02) 2 0666. ACT, Tas.: Cinema Papers Pty Ltd. U.S.: T. B. Clarke Overseas Pty Ltd.

© Copyright Cinema Papers Pty Ltd, No. 36, February 1982.

‘ Recommended price only.

Cover: Lawrence Kasdan’s Body Heat.

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 7

Cannes 1982 The 1982 Cannes Film Festival has been shortened by three days to 13 and. runs from May 14 to 26 (curiously, all the press releases count it as 12 days).

Apparently, it was felt the festival had becom e “ to o long and tir in g ” Debatable, but it is true attendances have always dropped dramatically in the last week of screenings.

Another 1982 initiative is to hold back the announcement of the awards until the closing ceremony. Previously they were announced at a press conference, mid-afternoon of the last day. This should help restore some glamor to the closing night.

As predicted by all but the festival press officers, the new Palais will not be finished in time, and the old Palais is to be reprieved for one more year.

On the subject of the delays, there is the case of the official Cannes poster.

Last year it arrived eight days into the festival, and turned out to be the previous year’s with the dates changed.

This year, the poster is to be designed

by Federico Fellini, who may at last have found his true metier.

BFI Museum At the opening of the 1981 London Film Festival, Prince Charles an­ nounced that the British Film Institute was planning to build a Museum of the Moving Image. The Museum would be situated on London’s South Bank among the performing and visual arts complex that already exists there.

As it is envisaged, the Museum will be, in the words of British Film Institute director Tony Smith, “ a wholly novel idea” , and “ unlike any other existing museum” . It proposes to show the vast and complex history of the moving im­ age and provide a first opportunity to see, under one roof, the background to cinema, television and video. It is not intended to be a glass case museum, but one whose exhibits (expected cost £400,000) will evoke the past, present and future technology of the cinema, and draw people’s attention to the in­ dustrial character of the moving image.

The BFI hopes the Museum will be opened in 1983 to coincide with the In­ stitute’s 50th birthday. These plans are being laid on the basis of three dona­ tions totalling £1.5 million, Largest donation of £1 million is from Hong Kong-based shipping and banking magnate Sir Yue-Kong Pao. A further £3 million is needed to complete the project.

A fund-raising committee headed by Lady Howe, wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, is seeking the additional funds.

The Museum of the Moving Image, Exhibition Area 11, Projection and Transmission, TODD-AO.

Censorship Appointments The A ttorney-G eneral, Senator Durack, has announced the appoint­ ment of a new chairman and deputy chairman to the Films Board of Review.

■The chairman is Sir Richard Kings­ land, former Secretary of the Depart­ ment of Veterans’ Affairs. He replaces Dudley McCarthy, who has retired.

Replacing Caroline Jones, who did not seek re-appointment as deputy chairman, is Gavin Souter, a Sydney journalist, who has been a member of the Board since January 1980.

Senator Durack also announced the a p p o in tm e n t of P ro fe s s o r P eter Sheehan, Professor of Psychology at the University of Queensland, as a member of the Board to replace Professor Gordon Hammer. . Rowena Danziger, Headmistress of Ascham Girls’ School, Sydney, and Val S m orgon, a voluntary com m unity worker from Melbourne, were re­ appointed to the Board for a further term.

Senator Durack also announced the appointment of Josephine Marnie as a member of the Film Censorship Board.

Marnie replaces John Pomeroy who resigned from the Board in 1981.

Marnie, an alderman on Willoughby Council, Is closely Involved in local

government and community affairs.

She is chairman of the New South Wales Consultative Committee on Social Welfare and a member of the National Consultative Committee on Social Security.

Senator Durack said it was important that the Film Censorship Board should remain in close touch with the com­ munity it represented. He believed Mamie’s close links with a variety of community-based organizations would enable her to make a valuable con­ tribution to the work of the Board.

National Film Archive Advisory Committee The Council of the National Library of Australia has established a National Film Archive Committee to advise it on matters affecting the archive, and to improve liaison with the film and televi­ sion industry.

Establishment of the committee was recommended in the Working Party Report on the National Film Archive presented to the then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, in October 1980 by the Australian Film Commis­ sion.

Members of the committee will serve voluntarily, in a personal capacity, for a two-year term. The initial appointees to the committee are: Phil Sudden (chair­ man), member of the board of Color­ film; Patricia Lovell, film producer; James Malone, director of the Federa­ tion of Commercial Television Stations; James Mitchell, national director of the Film and Television Producers’ As­ sociation of Australia; Tom Ryan, writer and film teacher; and David Williams, managing director of the Greater Union Organization.

Agfa

Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland, receives a portrait of Senator Florence BjelkePetersen from retiring managing director of Agfa-Gevaert, P. W. Hennessy.

8 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

P. W. Hennessy, chairman and managing director of Agfa-Gevaert Limited, retired on December 31,1981.

Hennessy joined the company in 1957 and was appointed managing director in January 1967 and chairman in 1975. He will be succeeded by E. Harder, who was appointed to the Aus­ tralian subsidiary in 1964. Harder was made d ire c to r of the com pany’s Industrial Division in 1978. *

French Censors Go Liberal

What, Interviewed?

One applauded initiative of tne much-beleaguered Socialist govern­ ment of Francois Mitterrand is a major liberalization of film censorship. From now on, no film can be totally banned by the film review board (though it can be by the Culture Minister), nor can prohibitive tax sanctions be placed on violent X-rated films. The minimum age for adult films has also been lowered from 18 to 16 years.

One retention of the old system is the restriction of hardcore sex films to specialized, and often poorly-located, sex cinemas.

Composition of the review board will also be changed greatly, with eight government representatives being replaced by young people aged between 18 and 25.

So far, several major censorship decisions have been made. Tobe H ooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (still banned in Australia, of course) has had its “X” rating softened to “Adults Only” . Australia’s Mad Max has also finally got an open release.

And Louis Malle’s Murmur of the Heart has now been deemed suitable for general audiences.

The socialist Labor Party of Aus­ tralia promised sweeping censorship liberalization before it came to power in 1972, but retreated into conservatism instead. It is to be hoped that the example of the Mitterrand government will be considered seriously.

Dear Sir, As the Australian correspondent to Screen International, I feel l should put the record straight with regard to the interview with Margaret Kelly and Joan Long, published in the NovemberDecember issue of Cinema Papers (No. 35, pp. 433-37).

In the course of the interview, Joan Long, referring to Bruce Beresford, states: “ ...w e read an article in Screen International which listed all the enormous projects he had in mind . .. Months later, Bruce told us that he never gave an interview to Screen International and it was made up from stuff from other newspapers and journals.”

O b v io u s ly B ru ce B e re s fo rd ’s memory is at fault, as I interviewed him in the offices of the Piaybox Theatre just after he had finished shooting Breaker Morant, and when he was in Melbourne setting up preliminary shooting of The Club. At the time he talked about all the projects he had lined up — and I still have the tape to prove it.

Furtherm ore, when I later saw Beresford on the set of The Club, he mentioned how pleased he was with the interview-article, saying that several people in London had sent him clip­ pings of it.

Raymond Stanley

Australian Film Institute The AFi has a new Board of Direc­ tors following the recent election. The successful candidates were Senator David Hamer, Albie Thoms, John Flaus, Ray Edmondson and Julie JamesBailey. They join Don McLennan and Michael Pate, who, because of a rota­ tion system, did not have to stand for re-election.

Of those newly elected, John Flaus is a film theorist, actor and critic; Ray Edmondson is director of the National Archive, Canberra; and Julie JamesBailey is head of the research and survey unit of the Australia Film and Television School.

Recent staff changes at the AFi include the appointment of Jeremy Hooper as manager of the Research and Information Centre, replacing Helen Zilko who has left to partner independent film distributor, Sylvie Le Clezio. As well, John Thornhill, pro­ motions and publicity officer, has resigned and been re p la ce d by Georgie Brown, formerly assistant publicity manager for ATN-7.

Censorship News The major censorship decisions of the last quarter of 1981 were those involving George Miller’s Mad Max 2.

Completed just in time for a Christmas Eve release, the film was submitted in December and classified “ R” — the same fate that befell Mad Max. The decision was apparently a sur­ prise as Miller and producer Byron Kennedy had carefully attempted to produce an “ M” -rated film to catch the 18-and-under market that had eluded Mad Max. Faced with an “ R” , they ap­ pealed to the Films Board of Review but the rating was upheld.

The film was then cut down from 2593.58m to 2565.70m, or by 61 secs.

This version was submitted for classi­ fication, but Kennedy and Miller were again faced with an “ R” . This version was then taken to the Films Board of Review which, contrary to its usual

Concluded on p.83 _________________

Editor’s note: For the record, one magazine Bruce Beresford doesn’t give interviews to is Cinema Papers.

Innumerable approaches have been made, but all turned down on the grounds that “ I don’t give interviews.”

To recognize and record Beres­ ford’s contribution to Australian film­ making, which would usually have been done with an interview, a 10,000 word monograph was especially written by Keith Connolly and printed in issue No. 28.

Fouled Language Dear Sir, I am becoming less enchanted with the irresponsible nature of our Film Censorship Board awarding several low “ ail age” ratings to films containing language, attitudes and morals very likely to offend a great many filmgoers.

How does a film like Stir Crazy with the word “fuck” used so openly and carelessly get an “ NRC” rating? Surely (and before A Bridge Too Far) “fuck” used in a film’s dialogue — even once — assured it of at least an “ M” rating.

The Front is another example here: the word was used once, the film was rated “ M” . Being a comedy like Stir Crazy doesn’t mean the word is not offensive.

The same goes for 9 to 5's “ NRC” with the “drug smoking can be fun” scene with Jane Fonda extolling the virtues of smoking dope with that charming line, “ This is good pot, hahaha.” it made smoking dope out to be good fun and worth buying to the young and impressionable. Let’s face it, all ages went to see 9 to 5 courtesy of, and trusting in, the “ NRC” rating. “ Everything tastes so good” , says a stoned Jane Fonda. As one 13 year-old said to his friend as he left my theatre, “ I must get some to find out how much better everything tastes,” The next time the Censorship Board irresponsibly awards low ratings to comedies with irresponsible subject matter I will press-gang a representative to visit my foyer and be abused by the irate, upset and misled parents who took their anger out on me and my staff.

This brings me to Cheech and Chong’s Next Movie — buy and smoke drugs and be funny (?) — which rated an astonishing “ M” , which admits all ages, including your kids. Mad Max 2, with its unrelenting violent situations

promoting a need for selfishness, killing and revenge for all ages, got an “ M” rating. Mad Max pales by com­ parison and looks foolish with an “ R” rating. Maybe they’ll lower that to “ M” and compound the error. (I am sure the Censorship Board has become aware of the money to be made at the box­ office if Mad Max plus 2 can go out on a double with the same rating in the not too distant future, when wars no longer exist.)

Then there is Fort Apache The Bronx (“ M” ) with explicit razor killings and sleazy Taxi Driver-style murders — not to mention the subject matter alone.

And then ail those Aussie exercises in unrelenting abuse: Stir rated “ M” with the words “fuck” , “ cunt” , and “cocksucker”, used .and re-used until the ears rung with laughter from the audience (what was left of them) who just couldn't believe a film script could be so moronic. Okay, Stir had a valid point in its portrayal of prison life, but it was definitely not “ M” -rated matter for viol­ ence (like you have never seen before, or, thanks to the Censorship Board, enjoyed — all tastes catered for these modern days), nor for its putrid language. Stir negates itself for being too repulsive, and “ M” -rated, (Where’s the credibility?)

And now, the kids’ shows: Xanadu (“G” ) with the swear word “shit” used as part of normal, everyday life. If it is not used by those who saw Xanadu, then they now know what, censorship level words like “shit” and “ piss off” fall into: General Exhibition. And don’t forget that effervescent “ homo” songand-dance turn-out, Can’t Stop the Music, with its “ NRC” rating offering such thrills as the boys playing in the shower at the YMCA — and, if you’re quick, like all the audience, some soapy big dicks to admire. This show also offers (now) true “ NRC” -rated material like “ drug smoking is good fun” and, as Marilyn Sokol laughs while stoned, “ Next time I’ll get the magic mushrooms.” isn’t it just too lax for words? I am very (to quote a “G” -rated film) “ pissed off” with the whole (quote “ NRC” film) “fucking” situation. My opinion of the Censorship Board is that there is a completely careless and irresponsible attitude to the subject matter and morals of a degenerating way of life not shared by what seems to be the majority of filmgoers — judging by the number of complaints I get at my theatre by concerned, sensible parents and other adults.

Let me quote Raging Bull’s "M” rated soundtrack: “shit” , “arsehole” , “ motherfucker” , “turd” , “cocksucker” , and if you think it is offensive here in a publication, just try sitting in an audi­ torium with strangers and friends having your ears bombarded with such language, coupled w ith sq ualid violence for the eye — after having paid $5.50 for the privilege.

Then on your way out the manager (me) smiles and says goodnight because he hopes you enjoyed your visit (haha), got your money’s worth (I can forget that) and will come again and risk time and money on what could be more of the same. After all, you don’t know what you are going to be faced with or hear since you can’t trust the Censor to classify certain films properly.

The Censorship Board has a no­ confidence vote from me and 1 run a theatre. Imagine how the paying public feels — as few of them as are left. It is becoming plainly apparent the Censor­ ship Board really doesn’t seem to care enough. The next time you hear a 9 year-old saying something is “shit” , or a 13 year-old say “fuck off” , remember they hear this language in film s deemed suitable for them as enter­ tainment for their age group. I think the situation stinks and the censorship classification for the abovementioned films is — to quote “ NRC”-rated Stir Crazy — “fucked” .

Paul Brennan, Avoca Beach Theatre

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 9

Kevin Dobson, who directed his first feature, The Mango Tree, at 24, began in television. Starting as an editor and script consultant at Crawford Productions, he graduated to director on programs such as Homicide. He has also directed three tele-features, and episodes of The Last Outlaw and I Can Jump Puddles. His latest project is Squizzy Taylor, his second feature, now in post-production. He talks with Scott Murray.

Squizzy Taylor

showing the actual car in which Squizzy got shot — although we did use the actual gun.

To what degree was the scripting of So, it’s not bogged down with “Squizzy Taylor” bound by what fact. It is basically a piece of enter­ could be found to have actually tainment. That Squizzy is an happened? infamous character of the 1920s is just a plus.

We tried to get right away from that. It is always hard, though, when What about his speech in the court­ you are dealing with big characters room; is that based on court in history, not to feel the need to be records? accurate. You want to show some of their historical events because Yes, to a certain extent. He did that’s what made them famous. So, get up and give a good account of on one level we didn’t get tied down himself, but it is not accurate word too much; on the other, we did for word. show a couple of things that Squizzy actually did.

What about accuracy in terms of period detail?

So several of the incidents in the film There is not one little piece that are invented . . . is not absolutely correct. Some of The romantic parts have been the places might have been moved invented, but they are traceable around, but that is what Mel­ through history. The events, by and bourne looked like in the 1920s. large, did happen; but not every­ thing is historically correct, as with, Do you see that approach as say, The Last Outlaw. We were necessary in a film set in the past? more interested in creating the era Yes, why not? and tapestry of the 1920s than

What was the basis of the period research?

Well, Roger Simpson’s research was extensive and had been going on since he was writing Power Without Glory.

We also looked at a lot of the literature. The Flinders Street Station sequence, for example, was based on a still from a history book.

Also, Nigel Buesst loaned us his film about Squizzy Taylor, which was the historically-correct docu­ mentary. His research saved a lot of time. There was a lot of original footage in the film, as well.

How difficult was it creating the 1920s in Melbourne?

Very difficult, but we got great co-operation. The police were fan­ tastic, and the Victorian Govern­ ment bodies, believe it or not, were amazing. It is hard to believe that a train can’t run on time when you can see what they can do. When we stopped Flinders Street, they laid on buses as far back as Kew to cope with the backlog of people. It all happened with a minimum of fuss.

In Fitzroy, at G ertrude’ and Brunswick Streets, we took over the entire block on two successive Sundays. We had a great team and were geared for it. We also had a couple of policemen, which made it a whole lot easier in terms of people control. Nothing like a blue uniform when you are making a film!

Did the police read the screenplay?

Presumably they might have been concerned by the representation of police in the film . . .

Well, it was all so long ago. I don’t think it was a worry, just so long as they looked like real people, with real failings. Also, the Vic­ toria Police in those days was having a very difficult time. There were only five or six in that par­ ticular branch and crime was on the run. They were great detectives, but they didn’t have any vehicles. When they’d go to a bust, for instance, they’d arrive on a tram or in hire cars.

It still happens today. Two detec­ tives recently turned up at a raid in a CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 11

Clockwise from top right: Squizzy (David Atkins) during tlie Melbourne influenza plague: the “honest cop” , Piggott (Michael Long), harasses a dying Squizzy: Squizzy and girlfriend Ida (Kim Lewis); an accomplice of Squizzy’s enters as Ida dresses: Squizzy with Dolly (Jacki Weaver); the newspaperman (Robert Harvey) and the policeman with underground connections, Brophy (Alan Cassell); Brophv and Piggott.

Kevin Dobson

taxi because there was no car available . . .

Well, there you go; that’s great.

But they did it a whole lot more in those days, of course. I think the image of 40 cops getting off a tram and surrounding a place is just fantastic.

How much do you see the portrayal of the Alan Cassell character as indicative of the difficulties faced by members of the police force?

The balance, even today, between law and order, and what legislators do and what the courts do, is a very delicate one. There are more crim­ inals in coats and ties than there are walking around with guns. And I am sure if you are involved with the criminal element for a long time, you would set a thief to catch a thief. The police probably know as much about breaking the law as they do about maintaining it — or, shall we say, bending it.

In the film, Squizzy is portrayed as someone created by the media. To what extent does that reflect the actual situation?

That is a really solid point in the film. Because of the nature of Aus­ tralia, because of what it is and where it comes from, in the 1920s we needed an A1 Capone, gang­ sters, Fitzroy vendettas and pro­ hibition. And, when we needed a gangster, Squizzy happened to come along. So it was him. He was just a newspaper machination; something for the middle classes to look at and be thrilled about. And that sold newspapers. I think he was created by the media, almost completely.

Do you think this identity crisis is reflected in our films?

I think it has been. Everyone screams about period films, but I think we need them. Just as there has been the American Western, I think we need to go back and explore as much as we can about Australia’s short but colorful past.

We need to rebuild it through the film and television industry.

At the same time, do you think some filmmakers are emphasizing an Aus­ tralia that doesn’t really exist?

Only in the films that fail. I don’t know if in our historical films we have achieved what the real Aus­ tralia was or has been, but perhaps in the present issue of films that com e o u t, we w ill see an improvement on that.

You mean s o me t h i n g “Heatwave” . . .

l i ke

Yes. There is a good batch of his­ torical and contemporary films. It will make for an interesting year at the Australian Film Institute’s screenings.

Is that where you see them?

background. We got all those crazy shadows on people’s faces, which day-for-night flattens out.

get there, and without it we would be in an awful mess. But we need two Starch Factories in Mel­ bourne, both geared with full facil­ ities: workshops, offices, artists, make-up and dressing rooms, green rooms, canteens. You need that sort of system to support a film industry. You need to be able to have a turnaround, as it is difficult to film in a studio when a set is being built next to it. If there are two studio blocks, you could be pre­ paring one while filming in the other; that would be great.

Filming Squizzy as he takes a ride on a Mel­ bourne tram. Squizzy Taylor.

Are there any major shortcomings in facilities or techniques in Australia?

No, I actually prefer to see them with audiences, at matinees.

Raiders of the Lost Ark would be You used fairly low-light levels boring at the Australian Film inside, even going fairly dark on Awards, but with 200 school­ faces . . . children screaming and yelling, it is really exciting.

Yes, we didn’t always use eyelights. If people walked through a Did you audience-preview “The dark area, it was dark; if people Mango Tree” or “Squizzy Taylor” talked in a dark area, it was dark. to find out that sort of matinee There was not the usual softreaction? lighting ambiance. I think it worked very well.

We didn’t with The Mango Tree, but we will with Squizzy. I think it is a good thing to do.

How did you go about choosing an actor for Squizzy? Were you keen to get someone of 5’2” stature?

No, we decided not to be ruled by that. We just set up the natural process for auditioning people. And in the course of that, David Atkins walked in, did an audition and walked out with the part. He was just perfect. He did things that only a person of 5’2” would do. For the audition, he did the scene in the car where Squizzy talks to Henry Stokes. We just had two chairs and Martin Vaughan reading Henry.

David sat in ‘the car’ and pulled the seat forward then tipped the mirror down. No one else had done that, or had the insight to think of it. Yet to him it was just natural.

What was experience?

A t k i n s ’ acting

He had done some theatre, and bits and pieces in television, but nothing of the size and weight of Squizzy Taylor.

Was that of concern to the producers and investors?

How much studio work did you have?

About 60 per cent. We used Port It caused a lot of talk, because it Melbourne, Armstrongs and Open seems that one needs to have a Channel. You can’t build sets at the name if one makes a film these Starch Factory, so our turnaround days. But when you count up the was larger. Even though we had a names, there really aren’t that studio, say, for two weeks, we many. I don’t think we have many would take two weeks putting the actors who actually make the turn­ set in. So, in that time we would stiles ring. I don’t think one needs a need somewhere else to go.

In our first week, all the police name per se. station sequences had to be shot at Armstrongs. It was a big set, and What about the crew on “Squizzy”? we had geared to put it in a big Were you working with people you area. So it caught us a bit short to had used before, like your camera­ move to Armstrongs; its studio isn’t enormously large for film work. man and editor .. .

We constructed the sets in Yes, I have known Dan Burstall Abbotsford and transported them for about 11 years: we used to make to South M elbourne, so our Homicide together. We get on very workshop wasn’t actually at the well together, and his work on job. To hire the studio space and Squizzy is exceptional. build it would have meant tying the studio up for 18 weeks, rather than There is a lot of night shooting. Did eight. you consider day-for-night?

Armstrongs is a bit small; you can’t I am not a big fan of day-for- nail to the floor at the Starch night. Night-for-night also gave us Factory and there is no lighting the opportunity to have fluorescent grid; and so on. Is there a studio up lights as background lights, which to standard in Australia? gave us more depth and greater control over the modelling of the I think the Starch Factory will

Yes. In Melbourne, there is a lack of adequate mixing facilities and operators. The use of some special effects techniques is beyond us and our labs, but I guess it all boils down to a lack of money. We could also rationalize our produc­ tion more. We have a tendency for two people to run out and make the same film.

You mean like films on property development in inner Sydney . . .

Property development in inner Sydney, young boys growing up in Queensland. It is stupid making two films like The Irishman and The Mango Tree. If all the energy and money had gone into making one of them — either of them, it doesn’t matter to me which one — we might have had one good film instead of two mediocre ones.

Crawford Days You began your career in television, at Crawfords. What did you do there?

Fill kerosene heaters for the writers and get Hector his cheese for lunch. Crawfords used to have a trainee room and that’s where I CINEMA PAPERS January-February - 13

Kevin Dobson

special for Ian Jones, Voice of the Gun. After that, I moved onto editing Homicide, which David Stevens, Igor Auzins and Paul Eddy were then directing.

After Homicide, I moved into the script-editing department, onto Matlock Police. Henry Crawford then took over Matlock and put me out directing Homicide.

Had it been your ambition to direct?

Yes, once I had understood what the Film industry was about. When I First walked in, Crawfords had a sort of horizontal structure. It was hard to see who did what. In those days, they had a videotape director, a Film director and what they called a producer. The producer did all the talking to the actors, the videotape director would direct the videotape and the film director would just be responsible for the Film sequences cutting together.

Then the all-Film programs came along, and Crawfords realized they needed one director. When I First started directing Matlock Police, Tom Burstall and I would do half of the film sequences together. He’d direct in the morning and I’d direct in the afternoon.

handed scene, say, in a wide shot and two close-ups because it would always work. And they liked you to always do it that way because it meant you could achieve the schedule. Anyway, if you made any blatant mistakes, they could always be re-filmed. But once you varied down that corridor, started to come up with your own ideas, you weren’t all that much use to them anymore.

Their machinery relied on output.

I know people say that Craw­ fords directors are trained tech­ nically, but does the Film School only train people of a particular style? I don’t think so. A lot of directors have come through the Crawfords experience and are still around. And they’d be pretty narrow-minded if they were still walking down that same corridor they were pointed in by the Craw­ ford machine..

I have never been an academic, so I missed the hallowed halls. But I wouldn’t swap my Crawford background, in those days of all Film. I enjoyed that precarious exis­ tence of sink or swim. If you didn’t do the job properly — in Craw­ fords’ terms, I admit — then you weren’t much use to them.

Why did you leave Crawfords?

Had either of you any idea what the other had done?

I was removed as a director on Bluey. Crawfords at this stage was We were always there together, floundering; it had lost Homicide, Top: Squizzy makes a leap for a tram. Above: arguing and Fighting about what Division Four and Matlock. As director Kevin Dobson with actress Jacki was best. We did some really well, their Film industry machinery Weaver. Squizzy Taylor. inventive things. had become obsolete. Film was left in the synchronizers and on the What did you learn most at machines, and dead upright moviestarted. I then got a job as a contin­ Crawfords? olas were everywhere. Then they uity girl. But that only lasted a came up with Bluey, which they How to direct movement. No one thought they could continue like week and I went into the sound department, doing sound editing. said I should talk to the actors. I Homicide. They thought the After that it was to the cutting just imagined everybody as pieces machine would just keep rolling — rooms, and onwards and upwards. of celluloid. I would even cut them and it didn’t. halfway through their speeches if I I directed the first episode of What programs were you working knew I wouldn’t use any more. It Bluey and it was a turkey. It was was not until I got away from badly performed and it didn’t have on?

Crawfords that I really realized the gloss of Homicide. But it had I started on Division Four. I then filming performances was what it been produced quickly and had a went onto Matlock Police, which, was about, not just making shots completely new cast. It wasn’t a in those days, was a move up from cut together. well-wound up machine. So, Hector Division Four. They were black and and Ian Crawford stepped in. First, w h i t e fi l m and v i d e o t a p e Does Crawfords train directors to the cameraman got the sack, then integrated. We just cut the film direct in a certain way? one of the actors, then the pro­ segments. ducer resigned. I became, I think, a After Matlock, Ryan came along Yes. Crawfords in those days — victim of a similar thing. Ian then and that was all Filmed in color. I suppose it is still the same today offered me a job as assistant editor Then Homicide turned all Film and — was a prolific machine, and you on documentaries. So off I went to color, and I edited a 90-minute were being trained to do a two­ Grundys. That was in early 1975.

The men from Homicide, on which Dobson worked as an editor, and then director.

14 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Paul Cronin and Vic Gordon in Matlock Police: Dobson worked as a script-editor.

John Waters in Demolition, one o f the tele­ features Dobson directed for the Grundy Organization.

Grundys had a series called Kings Men. I did one episode out of the 13.

You then made a tele-feature for Robert Bruning . . .

Yes, Gone to Ground with Charles Tingwell, Dennis Grovenor and Eric Oldfield. It was loosely based on Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Niggers. Through that I met Michael Pate [producer] and, eight months after Crawfords, I was on location in Queensland making The Mango Tree.

When you had left Crawfords, did you have visions of moving into film that quickly?

I never moved out of Film. It was always Film to me, even in tele­ vision; it still is. It is just how lavish the production is that defines it.

The Mango Tree How do you look back on “The Mango Tree”?

With a great deal of affection.

The Mango Tree was a great exper­ ience. After it, I really felt I had a reason to exist in the industry. But it was a problem Film, though any Film on location thousands of miles from anywhere is inevitably going to be a problem — particularly, I suppose, when you are young. I was only 24 and it was a bit daunting.

Afterwards, everything became easier.

I saw it on television the other night. It obviously has a lot of problems, but I am still very fond of it.

What sort of problems?

As with everything, it started with the script. I also don’t know that I had the confidence at that stage to handle something that big.

One or two performances were a little shonky as well.

Do you see scripts as being a failing ground of Australian film and television?

I don’t think it’s just scripts. The producers have a lot of problems as well. They get a property and have

Elaine Lee, Marion Johns and Eric Oldfield in Kevin Dobson’s Gone to Ground, for Robert Bruning.

to get it out. Often, enough time the U.S., however, and she said that isn’t spent with the script. Writers she had given suggestions to and directors would like to spend Michael. Whether he was acting on more time, but they get caught in them, I don’t know. the situation of having to go into production.

Which version did you see on When I took on The Mango television?

Tree, we had six weeks to get it all together and start filming — then, Michael’s, or whoever’s it was.

47 days to complete it. So, the script got away from all of us. It Tele-features and Commercials became a huge document, about three feet high and 4000 pages, with 96 million rewrites, and nightly After “The Mango Tree”, you did a notes under motel doors. couple more tele-features. Were Then, you bring in the actors, they for Robert Bruning? who inevitably want to put their force in it. The film eventually Yes. Robert was then a part, of takes on its own personality and, the Grundy Organization, so it was once that happens, it can easily get back to Grundys. Everyone was away from you. making tele-features then. Robert did, I think, 12. I made one with Do you think the present inter­ John Waters, called Demolition, pretation of the tax legislation, and Image of Death with two whereby films have to be financed American actresses. That was when and released in one year, could Grundys and Robert were attempt­ worsen this problem? ing to make mid-Atlantic films for the U.S. market. It was pretty illYou should be able to get a film fated. out in a year. It’s just how you gear to that. It doesn’t mean a film has Did all the Bruning films go to air? to be a quickie, though there Some seem to take a long time . . . probably will be some.

I think the legislation has prob­ Yes, eventually. When I was lems, and these need to be looked making The Last Outlaw last year, at. But if people are smart, they Demolition was on television for the should be able to get their acts first time. together. All those producers who haven’t done anything for a while What happened between the last of must have vehicles that are pretty the tele-features and “The Last well polished by now. Probably by Outlaw”? mid-1982 we will see a lot of people gearing to zot out a few Nothing. The world wasn’t going films, and they shouldn’t take any to beat a path to my doorstep. I had more than a year to make and a film running in the city and, though it was getting a thorough release. caning, it kept running. But I didn’t Apparently, “The Mango Tree” get any work. Grundys wouldn’t take me as a television director, and was re-cut after its release . . . at that stage Crawfords and I didn’t Yes. When John Scott [editor] have a great relationship — we and I were working on the film, we have now. So, for eight months I arrived at our cut. That was then went steadily broke. Finally, changed a great deal, but John and someone asked me to make a I were able to change it back to commercial. some of its initial shape. The film was released like that.

What was it?

Then, once I had finished with the film, I believe Michael Pate was For Canada Dry — In the Heat able to get hold of more money and of the Night. That was great. re-cut it again. I think he took out Commercials were completely new another five minutes, which was to me, because I had always sworn probably a good thing. But I wasn’t I’d never get near them. I didn’t involved, nor was John Scott. I think they were real. They weren’t spoke to Geraldine Fitzgerald in Concluded on p. 97

Doreen Harrop, Tony Bonner, Cathey Paine and Sheila Helpmann in Dobson's Image of Death, for the Grundy Organization.

Dobson with actor Adam Garnett, who played the young Alan Marshall, during the filming of the A BC’s I Can Jump Puddles.

n September 1981, the New South. Wales Housing Commission announced that it had changed its plans for the inner­ Sydney suburb of Waterloo. Instead of being scrapped to make way for flats, 200 old houses in the area were to be restored and another 300 built.

That decision was a victory for Waterloo resi­ dents after a nine-year battle to save their homes and the character of their neighborhood. Just a few months before that announcement, the fight to prevent the suburb being razed for high-rise development was chronicled on film.

Waterloo joins what is fast becoming a genre of films dealing with resident action in Sydney (others include Woolloomooloo, by Pat Fiske and Denise White, Richard Cole’s Green City and Donald Crombie’s The Killing of Angel Street).

Like the earlier Woolloomooloo (about another inner-Sydney suburb), Waterloo is an insider’s view of the struggle to preserve some of the city’s traditions. But unlike the earlier two documentaries, Waterloo looks behind the events of the past decade to build up a picture of the area's history. In the process it reveals much about New South Wales state politics, from the post-Depression years to the present.

According to its director, Tom Zubrycki, Waterloo is as much a film about the old-guard Australian Labor Party as a film about housing The “windscreen survey’’ o f Waterloo in the 1940s. Tom and resident action groups. But he did not set Zubrycki's Waterloo. out to make quite so ambitious a document.

I

ubrycki began his working life as a teacher and then a tutor in sociology at the University of New South Wales. In the early 1970s he aban­ doned his PhD thesis and gravitated towards video production and resident action, partly, he explains, as a reaction against the introspective nature of academic life.

The movement he joined was characterized by an uncommon and. for many, inspiring alliance between middle- and working-class residents and a trade union, the NSW Builders Labourers Federation, then under communist and left-wing ALP leadership. The movement was charac­ terized also by attention from a new kind of media — portapak video.

Within the movement, Zubrycki met Warrick 16 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Robbins, one of the first tapemakers to work in Sydney. Robbins had been to North America and had picked up the Canadian program Challenge for Change’s ideas about the use of video for social change. One of his first projects back in Sydney was a half-inch tape on the Waterloo campaign, part of which appears in the film.

Not long after meeting Robbins, Zubrycki was prompted to make his own tape about a road accident near his Balmain home. Balmain is another of Sydney’s older areas. Its narrow streets slope down towards the harbor and were being used by trucks hauling containers to and from the wharf. Resident anger about the environmental problem the trucks posed was pushed to action by an incident in which one

rolled back onto a car, killing two local residents.

Zubrycki made a tape about the trucks to show to a meeting of local residents. He bor­ rowed equipment from an embryonic video access centre and, without knowing anything much about camera work or sound, managed over five days to produce a 40-minute tape which played back without shaking. More important, it was seen by a large number of residents, and he believes it helped their cause. Zubrycki says he still remembers the incredulous looks on the faces of senior public servants when he and the secretary of the action group showed the tape at a lunchtime meeting in Canberra.

Soon afterwards a cheque arrived enabling the group to carry out an environmental impact study. Subsequently Zubrycki made more tapes with inner-Sydney resident action groups. He also began to get commissions for tapes from planning research centres, and state and federal government departments.

Barbara Alysen

n 1977, Zubrycki collected a grant for $4700 from the Australian Film Com­ mission to make a 16mm documentary of 40 minutes length on Waterloo, then zoned for re-development and the subject of a fight between state authorities and local residents. Originally he intended to look merely at the then campaign, which he figured would involve some violent confrontations between residents and the authorities. Those confronta­ tions never eventuated. But the project changed direction with the involvement of Margaret Barry, a secretary turned community worker and resident activist.

In 1972, Barry, her mother Marsha Barry and the occupants of another 500 homes in Waterloo received a letter from the New South Wales Housing Commission. It told them that the area was in line for slum clearance and re-develop­ ment; that the old houses were to be bulldozed to be replaced by blocks of flats. Like proposals to re-develop the Rocks and Victoria St, the Com­ mission’s plans for Waterloo would have drama­ tically changed the area’s character. But in this case it was a state authority and not a private developer which was responsible.

Barry and her fellow residents decided to fight the re-development plan and then spent the next nine years doing so. In the early stages of the battle they were helped by the New South Wales branch of the Builders Labourers Federation, which had also stood by residents in Victoria St, Woolloomooloo, the Rocks and other sites where residents found themselves in conflict with developers of various complexions.

For Barry, the contemporary fight against re­ development was part of a larger and longer battle to save inner-city homes and, at her sug­ gestion, the film’s focus was shifted to take in the history of Waterloo and that of the Housing Commission. The Commission was a state

I

Left: filming Waterloo: Fabio Cavadini (camera), Tom Zubrycki (sound), Margaret Barry (interviewee). Above: protesting demolition. Waterloo.

Labor government’s response to nearly a decade of evictions and, sometimes, violence in Sydney’s inner-city working-class suburbs. It was established in 1941 bv Labor premier Sir William McKell.

A “local boy made good’’, McKell epito­ mized the often well-intentioned administrators who failed to understand the way their plans for slum clearance cut across the feelings of inner-

city residents. From 1949, by which time McKell had bowed out of state politics, streets of terrace houses were listed for demolition, with tower­ blocks intended for their replacement. Not until the early 1970s did residents begin to fight back.

Despite his background in video, Zubrycki says he always envisaged Waterloo as a film pro­ duction: “Video is not yet suited to mass market dis­ tribution in Australia and it is still less versa­ tile than film, especially in post-production stages.”

In fact, the film is a stark contrast to the often rambling tapes made about resident action, being instead a tightly-constructed blend of interviews, re-enactments, archival footage, still photographs and music — especially music. The score, composed for the film by Denis Kevans and Phyl Lobyl, helps pull the story together and keeps it moving along. In addition, Kevans, a South Sydney local and “professional racon­ teur” , acted as a check on the script and helped give Zubrycki a feel for the area whose history he was recording.

he film was also workshopped with a number of academics and com­ munity workers committed to the campaign but not directly involved in it. They raised interpretations of the historical sequences, some of which directl challenged Barry’s views.

Zubrycki says he was then faced with a diffi­ cult ethical choice: to be completely faithful to Barry’s interpretation or pursue a more inde­ pendent line. Inevitably, he says, a compromise was reached.

Waterloo was completed for $20.000, ex­ cluding payments to the director and co-pro­ ducer. Two-thirds of its budget came from the Creative Development Branch of the Australian Film Commission. It was screened first within the South Sydney community. It went on to win the documentary section of the 1981 Greater Union Awards at the Sydney Film Festival amid some_ controversy when Chris N oonan’s Stepping Out. a leading contender for the award, failed to make even the finals.

Since then, Zubrycki, along with Julia Overton, has spent three months screening the film in Europe with the help of a marketing loan from the AFC. He says the film was particu­ larly well received in Britain and The Nether­ lands, and was shown at the Lyon, Bilbao and Florence film festivals.

As his next project, Zubrycki is considering three topics, all involving some aspect of Aus­ tralian history. Having taken four years to finish his last film, Zubrycki says he is in no hurry to begin his next. ★

T

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 17

had such success with film exhibi­ reputation, the first feature-length

he story so fa r ... tion that they ventured into produc­ dramatized narrative film produced he hanging o f Ned Kelly in the Melbourne gaol on N o v e m b e r 11, 1880, brought the bushranging era to a close, but seemed to only enhance Australian interest in the subject. A play about bush­ ranging had been performed as early as 1821 and the theme remained a popular one with managements and audiences.

The career o f the Kelly gang was depicted on the Melbourne stage by George Feitch in August 1881, only nine months after N ed’s death. The success o f the bushranging genre, and the comparative ease o f con­ verting such an outdoor action drama from stage to film, encour­ aged John and Nevin Tait to make Kelly the subject o f their first dramatized film. They had begun as theatrical entrepreneurs and had 18 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

tion: the Kelly film was their second, and as it was much more ambitious than their earlier Moving Melbourne they had gone into partnership with Millard Johnson and William Gibson, another firm o f exhibitors.

Johnson and Gibson had been analytical chemists before taking up film exhibition, so they were able to provide the technical expertise for the project. The film opened at Mel­ bourne’s Athenaeum Theatre on the afternoon o f Boxing Day 1906, and at the Town Hall that night. There­ after, enthusiastic audiences sup­ ported extended seasons in all state capitals as well as country towns.

The film toured New Zealand and England equally successfully in 1907, and was revived frequently throughout Australia over the next 10 years or more.

After this, though it was, by

in Australia, it was not seen for several decades and, by the 1970s, it was listed as one o f the missing the National Film Archive held only a copy o f the program booklet sold for 6d. at each screening, a few stills from this and from other sources, and a copy o f the daybill advertising the film.

For many years, it was believed that a quarter reel, given by Gibson to trade journalist Gayne Dexter and destroyed in the Fondon blitz, was the last surviving piece o f the film. However, though it is now more than 70 years since the film was first produced and the film stock o f that period is notoriously unstable, the long period during which the film circulated, and the many prints which must have been made to supply so diverse a market, kept hopes alive that it might still turn up.

—

The Story o f the Kelly Gang

And then it did. The first dis­ covery was made in February 1976: three feet o f the film was found in Adelaide, and donated to the National Film Archive in Canberra.

This showed a few frames o f the capture o f Ned, recognizable from the stills on the 1906 poster (Figure 1).

Then, in early 1979, a more sub­ stantial find occurred: a tiny can o f 35mm nitrate negative was found in Melbourne. The film was about 150 f t long, and in reasonably good condition, brittle and shrunken, but not otherwise deteriorated. It had two sequences clearly identifiable from stills and from the poster: one in which the constable makes a nuisance o f himself at the Kelly homestead and is rebuffed by Kate and shot in the hand by Ned; and one o f the ambush o f troopers in their Wombat Ranges camp (Figure 2). The discovery o f this fragment prompted new investiga­ tions into the history o f the film.

Now read on... serious analysis of the film is very difficult from the tiny fragments available. The most immediate impression is of the skilful use of .locations, and of action presented naturalistically and economically. There is no use of stage gesture or posturing, and in this regard the film is closer in spirit to the work of Edwin S. Porter in the U.S. or Cecil Hepworth in Britain than to, for instance, the Italian primi­ tives: this is film as action, not as spectacle.

But there is also a most impressive use of the Figure 1. Above: poster for the 1906 The Story of the Kelly frame to create illusions of distance. The Gang, held in the National Library, Canberra. Below: enlargement from 1906 poster. Bottom: frame enlargement positioning of the camera in relation to the actors creates images that are, at the same time, from Adelaide fragment. natural and carefully deliberate. The two police left alone in the camp are seen to the left of the frame, in front of their tent, sighting a rifle at unseen birds in the top right, with the human action dwarfed by the surrounding bush (Figure 3). The ambush scenes move in closer, making the human action predominate once again. The capture of Kelly is particularly interesting: this is shot from a low angle, from the point of view of the police, and, although Kelly is in the middle Figure 3. frame enlargement from Melbourne fragment.

Figure 2. Top: enlargement from 1906 poster. Centre top: photograph from 1906 program booklet. Above: frame enlargement from Melbourne fragment.

distance, the impression is quite powerful as he advances on the camera, and the police in the foreground crouch behind the doubtful protec­ tion of a fallen tree (Figure 4).

What the fragments cannot tell us is how these scenes, individually so impressive, were put together. We know there were no inter-titles, which in other countries came to be used either as a description of the forthcoming spectacle, rather like the captions on a painting, or as com­ mentary on the action appearing just before or after the image, rather like an author’s comFigure 4. frame enlargement from Adelaide fragment.

The Story o f the Kelly Gang

munication with the reader of a novel. In the absence of inter-titles, the links must have been purely visual. There is, for instance, a moment during the capture sequence when the smoke from a pistol fired by the policeman in the lower right corner of the screen obliterates the action.

From the few surviving frames, not necessarily in sequence, we cannot tell how such an effect was used, or, indeed, whether it was recognized as a visual linking device at all.

The fragments, then, are tantalizing and fas­ cinating. But, until more becomes available for study, the problems concerning the history of the production can keep historians well occupied, for over the years of its disappearance apocryphal stories have accumulated around it.

As a result, very little information about the pro­ duction is non-controversial. There are confiict-

ing claims and evidence about almost every­ thing — the origins of the idea for the film, the source of finance, the locations used, the identity of cast and crew, the cost of the film, and so on.

For a researcher trying to sort out these con­ tradictions with hindsight, there are two par­ ticularly confusing items: a poster dated 1910, and an unidentified fragment of film found in Perth. This fragment consists of about five minutes of film, containing sections of two major scenes from the Kelly story: the murder of Sherritt and the capture of the Glenrowan Hotel. The Sherritt scene seems to be complete — at least there is continuity within it — but the Glenrowan scenes are neither complete nor in sequence. The location for both scenes seems to be some sort of botanical gardens, with a man­ made lake and narrow roads. The buildings representing Sherritt’s hut and the Glenrowan Figure 7. frame enlargement from Perth fragment.

Hotel are clearly theatrical flats, and no attempt Figures 5 (top and centre) and 6 (bottom), frame has been made to disguise their two-dimen­ enlargements from Perth fragment. sional character: the two-storey hotel has no roof, the hut shakes in the wind, clearly betray­ come from a film of the same name advertised in ing that its boards are painted on canvas, and 1910. But the cast is clearly not those on the people move in and out from behind both struc­ 1910 poster, and five of the six stills from the tures without pretending they are solid (Figure 1910 poster are interiors, including the one of 5). Other large flats representing trees have been Sherritt being shot. placed strategically round the area, probably So, the Perth fragment is definitely not the disguising inappropriate buildings: again no 1910 film either. It is clearly a very early pro­ attempt has been made to integrate these with duction, probably from before World War 1, the real trees which are also present. There are and no other versions have been listed by no interiors at all: even the murder of Sherritt, historians as early as this. We can only speculate which traditionally took place inside his home, that, with the huge success of the Taits’ produc­ is presented as having occurred outside. tion, pirate versions were saleable, and that this Theoretically, the absence of interiors would may have been one. such film, produced cheaply point to an attempt to avoid theatricality; but by a theatrical company with the appropriate the methods used in this case suggest rather a sets and costumes already available. Though wish to use sets already available for a stage per­ there is much of intrinsic interest in it, as far as formance, and to avoid the technical problems trying to find out about the 1906 film is con­ which would have been inevitable in trying to cerned, this fragment leads only to a dead end. film indoors. The final impression, of over­ he 1910 poster is a different story, whelming theatricality, is confirmed by the per­ however (Figure 8). One seductive formances: Sherritt, in particular, goes through possibility was that the 1906 film — the whole gambit of melodramatic gesture and described in advertisements and pose to indicate temptation by the reward, lack reviews as having been extensively of money in his pocket, his decision to betray the altered, from its first months of screening — w gang, and his invitation to the police to come to in a continual state of alteration/amendm his home for a drink (Figure 6). over its years of exhibition. This would account This is clearly not the 1906 film. Not only does its style belie that of the other fragments for confusion over the length of the film which is and of the repeated descriptions in con­ variously listed from 3000 to 6000 feet, as temporary reviews of the 1906 film as “realistic” different prints might well have developed in and “lifelike”, but the actors who can be seen in different ways, once they were out of the hands this fragment do not bear any resemblance to of the Taits, and so variant versions might be those on the 1906 poster, nor to those in the appearing in different places at the same time.

Unfortunately, the 1910 poster makes this identified 1906 fragment. theory difficult to substantiate. It not only The moral position of the film is also claims that this is “ an Entirely NEW and different. The 1906 version refrains from passing EXQUISITE Pictorial Representation of The judgment, and attempts to present the incidents Thrilling Story of the KELLYS” , but shows six as objectively as possible; the Perth fragment stills from the film in which most of the cast is presents the gang as double-dyed villains and clearly visible, and not the same as those in the distorts the story (in historical as well as in 1906 poster or the 1906 fragments. One back­ legendary terms) to do so. It shows the gang ground, however, could have been the same: in forcing an old woodcutter, at gunpoint, to lure both sets of stills, the interior of the Glenrowan Sherritt outside his hut, then shooting not only Hotel is similar in structure, though with differ­ Sherritt but also the two policemen who are with ences in furnishings (Figure 9). The 1910 poster him. They then shoot round the old man’s feet to says that the film was “ Specially taken by force him to “dance” , before killing him in cold Messrs Johnson & Gibson, Melbourne” , and blood and spurning his body with their feet as this suggests that the film was, in fact, re-shot, they leave (Figure 7). The change to outside the perhaps without the contribution of the Taits hut is in keeping with the camera style already this time, but using some of the original sets, described: the change from one murder to four which could well have been still around, less than allows the film to demonstrate (and so implicity four years later. moralize about) the perfidy and ruthlessness of If there are, as all this suggests, two distinct the gang. versions produced on two different occasions, Another indication that this is a different film this may help to account for some of the major is the presence of Ada Waldron, a character who discrepancies and contradictions with which the does not appear in the 1906 printed synopsis, nor folklore surrounding the production is rife. For in any version of the historical story, but who is there are, broadly speaking, two sets of stories, named twice, even in this brief fragment, as the each one reasonably internally consistent. carrier of important news.

The first group of stories is based on the testi­ For some time this fragment was believed to mony of Gibson, the Taits and John Forde.

J

The Story o f the Kelly Gang

Gibson said that when he was in New Zealand with a touring biograph company, showing Living London, he found that audiences were deserting his show in favor of a stage play about the Kellys, presented by Charles McMahon’s company. Though this claim was made many years after the events (.Everyone’s, July 29, 1931; Sunday Herald, October 9, 1949), it is certainly true that the McMahon company had a very

successful New Zealand repertory season during 1906, and that one of the plays they performed was The Kelly Gang. Gibson’s story is also com­ patible with the claims of Sam Crewes and of John Forde of having played in Kelly plays around Melbourne, for, as has already been noted, there were plenty of these around in the years before 1906. Gibson and Crewes have been credited with the original idea, and the available evidence makes both claims reasonable.

Production occurred, according to this first Figure 8. poster for the 1910 The Story of the Kelly Gang, version of the story, on Wednesdays and held in the National Gallery, Canberra.

Sundays over a six-month period, at and around the Melbourne suburb of Heidelberg. These afternoons were the traditional half-holidays, and might well have been used by the producers as the only time their motley cast and crew could all be available at once. John Forde is quite cir­ cumstantial about it: . . C O M M E N C IN G - “Each Sunday and Wednesday for several weeks the entire company and crew left St Paul’s Cathedral corner in horse-drawn drags for Heidelberg. Salaries ranged from 3/6 to 5/- a day when actually working. Horses were hired from Garton’s livery stable” {The Sun, November 11, 1939).

Viola Tait (younger sister and biographer of the Tait brothers) and Gibson confirm this story, adding that sometimes the company also travelled by train. This was an important issue, as the Victorian Railways Commissioner was said to have provided a real track gang and train for the attempted derailment. Though the sources do not agree on just where the dirty deed was played out, Heidelberg, Rosanna and D a n K e lly a n d S te v e H a r t shoot ea ch Eltham all rate a mention. And as all are on the same line, it is possible that all sources are speaking of the same place. There are no records in the Railways Department which could throw Figure 9. stills from the 1906 (top) and the 1910 (above) light on this: neither are there any in the Rail­ posters. ways Historical Society, and members of that Society have failed to identify the piece of track from the stills available from the poster. rights to the play were bought from E. J. Cole’s M — JOHNSON t. GIBSON, Melbourne Bohemian Company, and that the members of that company provided the actors for the pro­ Mg Tharles Tait’s wife had been Elizabeth duction. Historian Anthony Buckley, working An Entirely 1 Veitch: the Veitch family lived at from sources supplied by the surviving Cole iH? Chartersville Estate in Heidelberg, family, certainly assumes this. Jack Percival, NEW and T h rillin g and were part of the artists’ com­ writing basically about Gibson, and presumably EXQUISITE munity within which the famous after an interview with him, stated in 1949 that, Story “ Heidelberg School” of Australian painting “ actors were hired from Cole’s Dramatic Pictorial developed.

This version of the story has the Company at £1 a day” {Sunday Herald, October Representation Veitch property as the site of most of the 9, 1949). But it would have been very difficult for The K E L L Y S exterior filming, though the buildings visible in the company to have been in the 1906 film, as the stills cannot now be traced. Elizabeth Tait they were engaged throughout 1906 in weeklywas also an expert horsewoman, and was change repertory at the Haymarket Hippo­ credited with either playing Kate Kelly (Forde, drome in Sydney. It would not have been poss­ The Sun, November 11, 1939) or with at least ible for them to have travelled twice a week to a doing the riding for the unknown actress who Melbourne suburb over a period of months, played Kate (Viola Tait, A Family o f Brothers, while working regularly in Sydney, 1000 km away.

P- 26).

• E. J. Tait’s diary (not, unfortunately, kept at However, in March 1907, Cole was reported the time, but written up later, at a date not speci­ to have opened a Melbourne Hippodrome and, fied) credits Charles Tait as director, says John in April, Theatre magazine reports the opening and Charles Tait together wrote the scenario, of the company’s first Kelly play in Sydney. that Sam Crewe was assistant director, and, Cole may well, therefore, have been available, rather ambiguously, adds “ Photographer: with the “new and elaborate scenery” {Theatre, Millard Johnson. Filming: William Gibson” . It April 1, 1907) prepared for the play, to produce seems likely that it was Johnson who operated a new version of the film in' 1910, near the camera, and that Gibson was responsible for Melbourne. the processing of the film, for a story is told of In contradiction of the story of the twicehis developing the film in his bath (Tait diary, p. weekly visits to Heidelberg, there exists a 26), and of his knowledge of chemicals being persistent rumor of the film having been made in useful for obtaining effects such as a red tint for a single week’s location shooting, followed by a the section of the film which showed the forging few extra days back in Melbourne. For instance: of the gang’s armor (Tait diary, pp. 25-6).

“Our lawless gang journeyed by train to a The second group of stories is not so little country town . . . We all stayed at the systematic and interdependent: it is rather a local pub, kept by a more experienced bush­ number of alternative claims to the first story, ranger I remember, and there we made up and independent of each other, but capable of being dressed . . . That day every school-kid in the read as a single narrative, particularly if they are district, male and female, wagged it, and they seen as referring to a 1910 version rather than to the 1906 one. First there are the claims that the Concluded on p. 87

TS

SATURDAY, NOV. 2 6

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 21

other.

ing touches for the horror film whose rough footage precedes the opening credits for Blow Out, is completed, and another circular move­ ment, that of the camera around Blow Out’s f there is something particularly disturb­ central character, Jack Terry (John Travolta), ing about Blow Out, more disturbing than commences but remains unfinished as the screen anything to be found in any other film by becomes dark. Terry’s progression through the Brian de Palma, it is perhaps best located narrative is not distinguished by any particular in that film’s closing moments. A circular growth towards maturity or by any developing narrative movement, around finding the finish­ insight into the way the world works (though,

Tom Ryan

I

indeed, such an insight, and the communication of it to others, has been his expressed goal throughout the film). In fact, that progression is signalled by the film’s single flashback sequence as, more accurately, a regression, a repetition of a past event that continues to haunt him, a product of obsessive drives constantly directed outwards. The incomplete circular tracking movement around Terry can end only at the moment of his physical death, the final retreat from the emotional wasteland he has inhabited throughout the film.

Ostensibly Blow Out belongs to that cycle of films which asserts large-scale conspiracies in contexts which render their protagonists impotent or paranoid (from Blow Up to The Passenger, from Chinatown to The Tenant, through Executive Action, The Conversation, Night Moves and The Parallax View), a cycle of films whose box-office record could only gener­ ously be described as mediocre, whatever the individual merits one might wish to otherwise ascribe to particular examples of the cycle.

Common to all these films is the characteriza­ tion of the hero: an obsessive, locked into his own world and the work he pursues, desperate in his search to locate what he sees as the truth, absolutely destructive to all those around him and, finally, to himself. The nightmare may well be “ out there’’, but it is also deep inside.

Terry is very much in the tradition of these heroes. A sound man for a film production house, his image of himself and his work is arranged around a belief in his independence, in his superiority over those with whom he comes into contact. Yet, as he pursues his ends, inad­ vertently he is going to fulfil the demands of his producer, Sam (Peter Boyden). Urged by him to find “the right scream” for their horror film’s shower murder, Terry instead directs his labor at Jack Terry (John Travolta), sound recordist, listens in on the night sounds o f Wissahickon Creek. Brian de Palma’s Blow Out.

22 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Narrative Manipulations/Brian de Palma ’s Blow Out

expanding the library of sound effects that con­ stitute the organized mess of his studio. He is totally involved in his private world of noises and voices.

The film’s opening credits are linked with a series of split screen images in a sequence which underlines with an admirable precision the pre­ occupations of the film. One half of the frame observes Terry’s restless movement around his sound library', while the other half shows his television carrying a news bulletin, which he is not watching, about a potential presidential can­ didate. Two worlds, the private and the public, are thus linked by the film, Terry’s commitment located firmly in the realm of the former. At the same time, the sequence draws attention to the making of Blow Out itself, the labels on Terry’s collection of sound stripes referring not only to his particular interests but to the effects which are going to recur in the film we are watching (heart beat, clock, footsteps, shot, etc.). rior to shooting Sisters (1973), and after the overtly political concerns and formal experim entation of Greetings (1969) and Hi Mom! (1970), De Palma identified his movement towards the thriller as an attempt to find “ something that reprieves me from the poli­ tical and moral dilemmas of our society for a while”2. Arguably, De Palma’s films, con­ sciously or otherwise, have never abandoned these concerns, just defined them a little more blow-out and the politician’s death. His search Karp (Dennis Franz) and his accomplice, Sally broadly. Blow Out’s representation of sexual becomes one for what he sees as “the truth” , and Manny (Nancy Allen). Blow Out. relations seems particularly pertinent here, as the disbelief with which he is greeted by official­ does its reflexive quality. The kind of space any dom only serves to incite him: “ I’m sick of getting fucked by these guys . . . I Even after he has learned that her role in the film builds between itself and its viewers can be know what I heard and I know what I saw and events leading up to the accident was far from an seen as political as well as moral in its implica­ I’m not going to stop until everyone in the innocent one (together with the photographer, tions, and the construction of this space is Manny Karp, played by Dennis Franz, she had country knows about it.” obviously a matter of the means by which a film He is assisted in his endeavor by the discovery, been part of an elaborate plot to set McRyan up is made.

I attempted to demonstrate in an article based after a shot-by-shot coverage of the accident in a compromising situation for the purposes of around Dressed to Kill in Cinema Papers (No. appears in a weekly journal, that an amateur blackmail), his “interest” in her does not 31, pp.20-25) that there has always been a kind photographer also happened to be at the right change. His intimate revelation to her of his of reflexivity in De Palma’s fictions, drawing place at the right time. Despite the protesta­ guilt about a past incident, when a bugging over­ attention to the processes of creation and of tions of the film producer, he spends his time sight on his part led to the death of an under­ watching, and Blow Out very clearly sustains matching his soundtrack to the film, muttering a cover cop, seems more a strategy (at least, at this concern, not only in the self-referential delighted “Great!” at the finished product after first) to delay her intention to follow the advice segment to which I have already referred, but the sound is perfectly synchronized with the of McRyan’s assistant to leave town, than an also in the way its narrative follows the produc­ image substantiating his thesis about the gun­ expression of his readiness to take her into his tion of two films, focusing on process at the shot. It is a moment which is echoed by his dis­ confidence.

Terry’s account of this incident is represented same time as it adheres, with a daring and inven­ traught “ It’s a good scream” response to his tive stylistic unconventionality, to the con­ producer’s excitement when, at the end of the in flashback and creates a series of reverbera­ film, the appropriate voice-over has at last been tions that echo back and forth throughout the ventional format of the thriller.

The film assumes this generic direction during found for the girl in the shower in the horror film. His pleasure at the apparent effectiveness of his professional expertise turning to dismay as the sequence that finds Terry filling the self- film. he realizes the fatal consequences of his error is imposed isolation of an evening on a bridge over n his pursuit of “the truth”, Terry man­ virtually duplicated in the later sequence when the Wissahickon Creek in search of new sounds. ipulates Sally into assisting him. Like another miscalculation places Sally in a situa­ Armed with his powerful recording equipment him, she has been urged by McRyan’s tion similar to that of the cop. The implications (Robin Wood has evocatively described his assistant (Terrence Currier) to forget the microphone as a “substitute phallus”), he gains incident in order to protect the reputa­ Director Brian de Palma (left), director o f photography Vilmos much pleasure from eavesdropping on a couple and John Travolta. Blow Out. tion of the dead man, and while she seemsZigmond to of lovers, one of whom, on becoming aware of have every intention of doing so, she is also his distant presence, urges their departure (“ What is he? A peeping-Tom or something?”). drawn by her debt to Terry (“ I saved your life.

Shortly afterwards, the accident to which the The least you could do is have a drink with film’s title refers takes place and provides Terry me!”) and attracted by his apparently romantic with an unexpected addition to his sound interest in her. His intentions, however, are collection. McRyan, the political candidate, who single-minded, and at no stage in the film (until, was the subject of the earlier news bulletin in perhaps, it is too late) is there any suggestion which Terry had shown no interest, perishes as that her existence means anything to him other the car plunges into the river, while Terry is able than a way of getting at what he wants to know3. to rescue his companion for the evening, Sally (Nancy Allen).

3. Pino Donaggio’s superb score for the film (Ivan Hutchin­ son will discuss it at greater length in the next issue of From this point, the narrative follows Terry’s Cinema Papers) evokes through its simple love theme an attempts to reconstruct the incident and to anticipation of a romantic coupling. When it does not discover the reason for the gunshot which, he occur a reassessment of the function of the music becomes later discovers from his recording, has caused the necessary. In this new context, its romantic edge seems to

P

I

1. The working title for Blow Out was “ Personal Effects”, and, I suspect, nothing would have been lost by its retention.

2. Joseph Gelmis, The Film Director As Superstar, Doubleday, U.S., 1970, p. 32.

create a kind of counterpoint with the events on the screen, urging the viewer to an ironic distance from the situation with which it has been linked, and especially from Terry whose behaviour is entirely at odds with the expectations initially raised by it, and suggesting a sense of melancholy, of a mourning for lost possibilities.

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 23

Narrative Manipulations/Brian de Palma ’j Blow Out

Looking for a sound: Terry in his studio, holding an erased tape. Blow Out.

of Terry’s lack of consideration of the human factor in his work and of his overriding obses­ sion with uncovering “the truth” have become disastrously clear. His anguished pursuit of her after he has inadvertently placed her in the clutches of McRyan’s killer, Burke (John Lithgow), reveals a desperation which is at least as much a recognition of what the danger he has put her in implies for him as it does for her.

Throughout the film, emphasis is placed on Terry’s inability to recognize the fact of his own blindness. His passionate quest for knowledge is also an attempt to reassure himself of his own power, his failure to achieve anything but the most limited understanding of events (even at the end, after he has disposed of Burke, he has Terry is a restraining influence as Sally tries to leave hospital after her and McRyan's, “accident”. Blow Out.

no awareness of his motives for the killings), a revelation of nothing more than his personal impotence. Again with characteristic insight, Robin Wood has noted that “at the end of a De Palma movie, the pat­ riarchal order has collapsed beyond restora­ tion. Typically the films move towards the castration of the male protagonist.”4 Given the explicit recurrence throughout De Palma’s films of the destructive consequences of male manipulation of women, in which context Blow Out is no exception, Wood’s observation is a particularly useful one for a reading of the films. Terry’s impotence in Blow Out, a product of the fact that he cannot recognize himself outside his professional identity, is fully worked out in his relationship with Sally and is visually reinforced by the wealth of cinematic means at De Palma’s disposal. The recurrent use of over­ head shots (of other characters as well as Terry) evokes the sense of a power at work above the characters, of an individual helplessness which pervades their lives despite their sense of control and their attempts to fix an order on things. The repeated circular tracking and panning move­ ments of the camera around Terry assert a feeling of chaos against Terry’s attempts to create that order (nowhere better illustrated than in the sequence in his studio after he has found all his tapes erased, when the camera’s 360° path refuses the course of his movement, rendering him irrelevant, and moves round and round the jungle of entangled tape) and in Terry himself (as the camera tracks around him while he cradles the body of the murdered Sally in another of the film’s “ blow out” sequences as the fireworks of the Jubilee Day festival give explosive expression to his emotional despair).

T

erry’s ability to capture the right sound effect and to gain the informa­ 5. The parallel with the act of artistic creation seems to be implied here and, though it is never made explicit, in a tion necessary to lead him to the next film so centrally about process it is difficult to avoid the step in his attempt to find “the truth” analogy (or to believe that De Palma was not fully seems totally dependent on chance, on conscious of it and of its implications for him as a the sudden and unexpected appearance offilmmaker). the 6. Hereisthe film recalls the structure of Klute, linking the sought material5. His execution of Burke

4. Robin Wood, “Notes Toward Reading De Palma” , The Toronto Clarion, September 18, 1981, p.17.

24 — Jartuary-February CINEMA PAPERS

similarly an act which indicates his blindness to its consequences. Not only is it too late to save Sally, but it also cuts him off from “the truth” that he thinks he has been seeking, denying him any chance of cathartic release. And if the killing of Burke might appear to have satisfied the demands of the thriller, the epilogue works to indicate the limitations of such a formula response to the film, both in terms of the personal drama (as Terry thrusts his fingers into his ears against the sound effect which will be a constant reminder of his irreparable impotence) and of the public one (the possibility of ever uncovering the chain of responsibility between Burke and the others who have been.a party to his crimes dies along with him).

Further developing a perspective on Terry’s manipulation of Sally is the structural connec­ tion the film pursues between him, Burke, and Manny6. All three have their parts to play at the scene of the accident near the start of the film and all three manipulate Sally for their own ends. Manny, despite his later protestations, had engaged her in a set-up which put her life at risk and over which, ultimately, he had no control. Clearly there is a difference here 'between Manny and Terry, for while Manny takes no precautions to protect Sally and makes no attempt to save her when her life is in danger, Terry does both, even if his efforts are in vain.

Yet the connections remain — both record the event, both take advantage of Sally’s gullibility, and neither is particularly bright in the plans that they lay, though they think they are.

Again there are clear differences of motiva­ tion and attitude between Terry and Burke, yet the similarities the film draws between them are fascinating and illuminating. Both are profes­ sionals (whatever else he may be, Terry is shown to be good at the mechanics of his craft, and Burke is a most competent killer) and they are self-assured in the performance of their skills, even if both are eventually undone by them.

Both employ bugging devices in the course of the film, and despite having no overtly sexual interest in women, both feign such an interest in order to achieve their (again very different) ends.

Finally, both are bound together in their res­ ponsibility for Sally’s death, Terry’s micro­ phone, his weapon for uncovering “the truth” , playing its part, even if Burke’s knife, his weapon for covering-up his part in “the truth” , is the actual murder weapon.

Throughout Blow Out, along with Jack, the viewer identifies the character in possession of the film as the one who seems to hold the key to power, the control over the course of narrative events. Burke, having tricked Terry and Sally into handing it over to him, seems to have acquired total power over this narrative movement as he destroys the footage. Terry can kill him, but there is nothing he can do to gain access to the lost power. However, retrospec­ tively, this power over the narrative is identified as an illusory one. What at first had appeared to be a periphery narrative thread — the attempt to find “the right scream” for the soundtrack of the horror film in post-production — assumes a major importance in the film’s closing moments, encouraging a reassessment of Blow Out’s opening sequence which had initially appeared just to be a simple joke at the viewer’s expense (and at the expense of the horror “ quickie”).

detective, John Klute (Donald Sutherland), and the killer, Cable (Charles Cioffi), in their exploitation of the cal! girl, Bree Daniels (Jane Fonda), but with a significantly different resolution.

Narrative ManipulationsíBrian de Palma ’s Blow Out

What had appeared as a source of a rather easy humor works instead to create an all-embracing irony, powerful and disturbing: the film that Terry thought he had been ignoring was the one for which, unawares, he had all along been seeking out the finishing touches. The real power has been in the hands of the film producer from the beginning, and the human waste that Jack has left behind him has been less in the service of a crusade for “ the truth” , than fulfilling the needs of the machinery it was committed to displace, the machinery of fiction.

Like much of De Palma’s previous work, Blow Out offers its viewer a double-vision: of a narrative work (and I can think of few films in the past decade that have equalled either its absolutely gripping narrative flow or the density of its formal arrangement) and simultaneously of a reflection upon the very processes by which it was constructed. Perhaps it is in this kind of direction that the best of the new Hollywood cinema has been fated to go, with sensibilities guided by a blending of old Hollywood cinema and European ‘new waves’, educated by the •social and political upheavals of the late 1960s and early ’70s, and sharpened by the critical and theoretical developments around film during the same period. It is an exciting direction, and Blow ' Out is a good example of what it has to offer.

Right: Terry _flips through a magazine to find photographs of McRyan’s “accident’1. Blow Out. Below: Burke (John Lithgow), a “most competent killer", in the toilets of Philadelphia Station. Blow Out.

CiNEMA PAPERS January-February — 25

Body Heat is a film noir, a genre film inform ed and changed by a modern sensibility. It is also Law rence K a sd a n ’s firs t film as director. Kasdan, a scriptwriter, has written Continental Divide, Raiders o f the Lost Ark and The Bodyguard, and co-wrote The Empire

Strikes Back.

The possessive husband. Edmund W alker (Richard Crenna). top left, stalks the man who has m oved in on his wife. Meanwhile, the lovers. M atty W alker (Kathleen Turner) and N ed Racine (W illiam Hurt), a ll other stills, m ake the m ost o f caught moments. .

...and the 1 Word was lig h t hen the process of moving pictures ceased to be a trav ellin g peekshow and novelty attraction, becoming the enormous entertainment industry it is now, people were attracted from many different areas to have a crack at putting their visions, fantasies, jokes, fears and observations on film. They came from vaudeville, m elodram a, operetta; from sideshows, serious theatre, ballet and the fine arts. They had been dancers, businessmen, painters, drill instructors, dilettantes or photographers. Within 20 years nearly every industrial country in the world was making films, pushing new discoveries to their limits, drawing inspiration and direction from any allied field that might be of use.

W

ilm has some remarkable attributes; it marries all previously established artforms together into one linear piece. Writing, music, painting, sculpture, song and dance, and per­ formance can link arms, hybridize and develop through association with one another in a way

F

that may have been dreamt of, but has not been possible until this century. Cinema has become the dominating artform of the 20th Century; on completion it is paraded around the world in the same way that Botticelli’s most recent painting would have been paraded through the streets of Florence 500 years ago. The new picture, preceded by priests, band and choir,

would have been carried on a float decorated with flowers to wherever it was to hang in honor of the Lord. Today, thanks are offered to a different god.

Ever since the beginning of film, the designer has played an important role, starting with the costumes and sets Georges Melies devised for his own garage productions in France in the early 1900s. But these were little other than tableaux enclosed within the camera frame’s own proscenium arch. A few years later, in Italy, mother of grand opera, the sets became so massive for Giovanni Pastrone’s Cabiria (1913) that the camera was forced to abandon its static position and start roaming about the huge marble halls to get a better look at its surround­ ings. A cinematic innovation had been forced upon the motion picture by the sheer enormity of the building. In 1916, D. W. Griffith advanced the cause of reproducing historical monuments by erecting the mammoth outdoor set for Intolerance, due largely to the fact that he just wanted to outgross the Italians. Judging by the still illustrated, I imagine he succeeded in his ambition.

Now while the early years of creating illusions to use as spectacular backdrops obviously had an element of seeing who could build the biggest and best, it is equally apparent from the photo­ graphs that these early art directors and designers were not copying the world around them or the Findings of their extensive historical research.' What they had all done was to make 1. However, it is claimed of the mysterious Walter L. Hall, who designed that mad courtyard guarded by begging elephants, that: .......... “ He could look at a pictured fragment of a recently un­ earthed archeological find, and from it reconstruct the entire subject, whatever it might have been. What was his secret? Perspective — always perspective.”

John Dowding, production designer. His credits include

Mad Max, Roadgames, The Blue Lagoon, Thirst and Snapshot.

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 27

Film Production DesignJPart One

Above: Georges Melies’ The Eclipse. Right: D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance. Far right: a Walter L. Hill sketch for Intolerance. Below: Giovanni Pastrone's Cabiria.

full use of the opportunity given to them in pro­ viding something new and amazing for each film, and created a special reality for that film, in which everything — the costumes, sets and props — adhered to that new concept. The idea of living in a stable reality had already changed by that time; and the more one now watches film, in one’s mind and memories “the real world where we thought we lived blends with the world of illusions.” .

About the same time, the entire western world was in a state of revolution: people had quite suddenly acquired the ability to travel at hair­ raising speeds on land and even in the air, they could talk to others half-way around the world, poison each other with gas and had thousands of novel inventions that were designed to help make daily life more comfortable. On top of this, the world of thought had been changed by Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and even Oscar Wilde; women were to be thought human, and the art world was in a state of frenzied discovery, much to the chagrin of the public which had made some discoveries of its own: that paintings could be slashed with the pointed end of an umbrella, if they were felt to be distasteful.

Freud discussed other people’s subconscious thoughts and fears, Max Ernst painted his, and Salvador Dali filmed his with Luis Buñuel.

Each new mechanical invention or thought immediately bred a dozen others, giving the pubescent film industry a challenging adoles­ cence, growing up as it was with its many brother and sister arts. In the middle of this first 40-year period of the 20th Century came a world recession, and at the end of it Erich von Stroheim announced that all film should be in color and eventually in three dimensions. “Just wait,” said his critics, “they’re going to invent the theatre!”

28 - January-February CINEMA PAPERS

y the 1930s in the U.S., film was a strong entertainm ent industry, attracting many artists, actors and architects to apply their skills in this new area, since a lot of these men and women were unable to practise for them­ selves on account of the Depression. The resultant flow of labor (a lot of which was avail­ able at vastly reduced rates) helped boost the output of the studios immensely. There had also been a healthy and energetic interchange and exchange of ideas between theatre and film and other arts during the early years. The studio system had been well established since the 1910s and, in later years, saw the involvement of writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald, and artists such as Salvador Dali, who designed a dream sequence for Spellbound in 1945, and even started an aborted animation for the Disney studios.

The design departments of the major studios began to take on the characteristic touch of their department heads. Thus each studio quite self­ consciously gathered together an art depart­ ment that would provide a distinctive trade­ mark. Echoed in Ernst Lubitsch’s observation that, “There is Paramount Paris, and Metro Paris, and of course the real Paris . . . But Para­ mount’s is the most Parisian of them all” , is that point about illusion and reality again.

What Lubitsch is referring to is the fact that the Paramount studios art department, headed

by Hans Dreier until the early 1950s, imparted to film the atmosphere, joy and mystery of Paris better than any reproduction of the city could ever have done. Paramount had cooked up Essence of Paris, in other words, and the very fabric of the backings, streets, curtains and fruit stalls all join forces to insinuate themselves into the heart of the audience until it is enjoying the experience of seeing the city on film as much as if it were in France. The art of illusion had been stretched beyond stage mechanics to embrace actual feelings and experiences. During this time, film reality came of age in the American film industry.

The overlord of the MGM art department

from 1924 until 1946 was Cedric Gibbons. One can see his credit on every MGM film up until 1956 (when he retired with a stroke), because he had it in his contract that only his name should appear as heading the design team. This ego­ maniac is also supposed to have designed the Oscar award, of which he won 11 himself during his long career. Gibbons was undeniably an extremely creative man, despite his unfortunate characteristics, and I use him to illustrate an important point about the acceptance of the new-found film reality.

Throughout the 1930s, the interior decora­ tion trends of the Art Nouveau, combined with influences that were later to emerge as the rigorous, function-orientated Bauhaus school of thought in industrial design, blended into what was then known as the Moderne (what we now call Art Deco). Now examples of houses or apartment buildings executed entirely in the Art Deco manner are extremely rare, due mainly to the fact that commissioners of art and architec­ ture seldom have any foresight: rather they like to see elaborations of what they have seen to work in the past, even the recent past. ibbons saw, as a designer and former architecture student, a chance to develop the Art Deco style to its limits; not to be lived in for years to come, but solely for film. In erecting his sets, therefore, he could push the style to limits that had never been seen in reality — that could never be enjoyed on a Sunday afternoon by its owners — because he knew that when you built something for film you could go beyond the strictures of architecture and engineering laid down in the real world. His set for MGM’s 1935 production of Born to Dance establishes a height of the Deco style that exists only on film, which has since then become reality. The instances of Deco work documented pale beside Gibbons’ flurry of squared-off columnar fireplace, the mirrors repeating the rooms into blackness, and the assymetrical border containing these mirrors, which spells out luxury and a sensual mystery

Film Production Design/Part One

Well, in 1939 David O. Selznik was making Gone With The Wind, and, as producer, he went through four directors for various reasons.

However, the entire film had been planned on paper before it went to the shooting stage by William Cameron Menzies, one of the most i nfl uent i al and proli fic designers in Anglo/American cinema, who had drawn “ a thousand small, perfectly composed sketches for the camera to follow — every shot on paper, even to the light effect — and the various egos submitted to Menzies’ vision” (Mary Corliss and Carlos Clarens, Film Comment, 1978). To keep those various egos happy, Selznik gave Menzies the title of “ Production Designer” , for he had as great a hand in the look of the film as in the dynamics, the rhythm and the lighting.

Corliss and Clarens continue: “ If a film director is perceptive enough not to allow his ego to interfere, he can stimulate his art director to create . . . the inchoate images of his mind and delegate some of his direc­ with admirable economy. This set, like many torial duties to his production designer to others of the decade in the U.S., served to broad­ work with the cameraman.” cast the new fashions of the day: film had started to play the prophet and arbiter of taste and dreams — during a world recession!

It is interesting to consider that this use of the film medium by the designer and producers as two-hour-long, frothy cakewalk parades in ideal home exhibitions could not have been conjured so effectively had it not been for a total control of the tool in hand — film as a malleable art form. The next recognized step was to take total control, not only of the tool and materials and devices, but to start manipulating the artform, in the same way that a sculptor hammers away at a piece of stone knowing that somewhere in there is a virgin and child.

The term production designer had been intro­ duced, not as a gratuitous title, but to describe a concept — that of someone constantly monitor­ ing the look of the project to ensure that the end result is as coherent a package as possible, and to work closely with the director in the planning stages to design whole sequences, or even the entire film, on paper before shooting. This work is combined with designing sets, and over­ seeing other visual departments, leaving the director more time to spend with his actors and editor. I shall say more about this particular role later on.

Meanwhile in Europe, the approach to film­ making had been quite different; not being encapsulated in the U.S. studio system, the European film was the domain of the director, rather than of the studio head. The studio system was more like a large theatre company, with the head of the organization often unknown to its workers. As a result of the independence of the European directors, one can see a far more prolific output, and subsequently a more rapid development of ideas. If you like, this is the

Left: James Basevi sketch, Spellbound. Below left: Spellbound dream sequence by Salvador Dali. Below centre: Max Ernst’s Elephant o f the Celebes. Below right: Luis Buñuel and Dali’s Un chien andalou. Above: William Cameron Menzies' continuity sketches for Gone With The Wind.

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 29

Film Production Design/Part One

Above: The Poet in Jean Cocteau’s Blood of the Poet. Right: Cocteau at work.

realm of the auteur director; it would have been his stamp that was the distinctive trademark upon a film rather than that of an organization.

One cannot imagine Luis Buñuel or Jean Renoir submitting to the visions of their designers — they were the artists, though very much in col­ laboration with others who were specialists in their field.

In Europe, a different style of film developed: one more intimately concerned with the inner feelings of men and women, and reflecting the more traditional values of family, religion and class struggles that the U.S. cinema forgoes.

The European films of the pre-war period were also more closely linked to the concurrent artistic movements of the time, often leading to collaborations like the Bunuel-Dali partnership, or the involvement in film of a poet such as Jean Cocteau.

It is interesting to look back to the formative years of European cinema, where one finds pre­ cedents for modern-day film genres. Jean Vigo’s Zero de conduit (1932) was remade by Lindsay Anderson as If in the 1960s, and his L’Atlan­ : shot largely on location, requiring only a certain tique could just as well be Francis Coppola’s The do not see it as essential that every film degree of refurnishing. But the designer is not Rain People, while such extraordinary notions, have a designer, since many films of a restricted to the large budget film by any manner that may well look clumsy to us today, like The social-realist nature are the brainchild of of means, since by establishing a style of attack Priest and the Seashell, a sceptical look at the the director, who conceives the project for a film, and ignoring the demands of naturalFrench Roman Catholic priesthood’s inner fan­ from beginning to end, with the help of ism for instance, the designer can create environtasies, Cocteau’s Orphee and the entire surrealist group’s involvement in Entr’acte, are important an art director to ensure that the settings look ments and atmosphere^ with the simplest of contributions to the language of film as we now right for the idea. This sort of film might also be devices and backdrops, thus saving the producso readily recognize and use it. These innovative gifts to cinema now make possible the work of Nicolas Roeg, Coppola and the Monty Python team; it does not come from the U.S. cinema. Below left: Jean Vigo's Zero de conduit. Below centre: Cocteau's Orphee. Below right: Francis Coppola’s The Rain People.

But each discipline makes its own contribution to the medium, and each enriches the devices that are now at hand.

1

30 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Film Production Design/Part One

tion company a great deal of money, in return for a film with a coherent overall look. In this manner, it is possible to produce a film for $ 1 million that looks as though it should have cost $4 million, simply by predetermining the approach. However, to do this, it is essential that key creative people on the team are prepared to accept this approach. That may seem rather an odd thing to say, since I hear you asking why would those people be involved if they don’t necessarily all agree with one another? Well, it happens, I can assure you. Unless the director, photographer, designer and costume designer are in accord, and the director trusts those specialists to interpret the brief for the film, then the whole thing will be a shambles.

It is equally important that the director has the same conviction about the film as the producer. But if the producer decides that the “stylization” of a film is a good money-saving device — that the idea can be articulated visually in this manner — and on seeing the results he panics, because he has never seen anything like it before, and urges a more conservative approach, then more money will have to be found to create that naturalistic look. Reproducing naturalism for film is an extremely expensive business.

What this example demonstrates is that the director has the wrong producer, and quite prob­ ably that neither of them has the courage of his convictions to produce an innovative piece of work.

As an example of a low-budget film produced in Australia recently, that has the impact of a far more expensive film, I need only mention Mad Max, conceived, written and directed by George Above: Garbage as set dressing. George Miller’s Mad Max. Below: Man Ray's Object to Be Destroyed.

Miller. George’s singular vision and untiring creativity enthused an equally energetic group of people to realize his extraordinary idea. The film was made in 1977-78 for considerably less than scene, or the extraordinary sight of the govern­ ment official sitting on a broken lavatory dres­ $ 1 million and is to date the highest-grossing Australian film ever. George and producer sed in a Japanese suit of armor while he discus­ Byron Kennedy had planned the film together, ses policy with the police chief. All these ap­ parently thrown away details give enigma and being in complete accord with one another.

The picture had been totally designed in the meaning to the incongruous objects as well as writing stage, relating to crisp, sparsely filled their surroundings at the same time. One learns compositions, a very fast cutting rhythm, bright something about a time in the future when in­ color and a great deal of action within the frame dustry has ceased and its products have become and in the camera’s movements. On the other totems to the people of that time; and one sees hand, there was insufficient money to build any­ those things in unaccustomed places, which thing extra to establish the futuristic vision, so makes their intended function all the more poig­ we had to use everything in an utterly broken- nant, ironic or ridiculous. down condition, the main item of set dressing being garbage and litter, which costs nothing. o, intent and design exist hand in The particular environments could then be glove; in fact the two words are often enhanced with certain key objects, like the car used synonymously. This becomes wreck on the beach at the beginning of the film, clear if one looks at a detail which I the backless bedroom cupboard in the same can best explain in my own terms.

Suppose I have to design a haunted house for a film. I can either turn to one of the many books that have been published about horror films and Below: The Monty Python team in Life of Brian. cqpy one of those gothic buildings, or even create a synthesis of several types of houses from this genre. On the other hand, I can come up with something entirely my own, which would be a portrayal of my (and the director’s) idea of a really spooky place. If I choose the latter, I cannot start drawing until I have a clear idea in my mind of what the finished thing should look like: there is no point in even dirtying a sheet of A great many films fail for reasons of this paper. The pencil will certainly not do the work for me as it is only a tool of my mind and its type. It is an inarticulate meandering, a com­ ideas. Furthermore, once that initial idea has promise of idea or realization. It is not good finally gotten itself down on paper, for the house enough, through timidity, to put something in to be built I must have worked out every detail front of an audience as though saying, “Well, it’s of color, decoration, dimension, texture, and the something like this — do you get the idea?” , apparent age and character that the place is to which only goes to show a lack of planning and have. If I have not, then the end result will show design in the broadest sense.

There must also be the very strong conviction quite clearly that these aspects have not been thought through; that there was no overall that the initial intention, and the direction taken concept. The outcome can then only be that the to achieve it, is right for the film in question. An building will not say “haunted house” to the idea that is only half conceived cannot be audience. The original intention will have failed.

Continued on p. 90

S

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 31

Prepared by the Australian Film Commission. items (e.g., formation expenses of joint he following notes Eligible Films v e n tu re or corporate s tru c tu re s ), and conversely other expenses may be of a have been prepared nature associated with the film, such as a general guide to To qualify for consideration under the new asrevenue publicity and marketing expenses.

Therefore, each category of expense should of Division 10BA of the ITAA, a Investors and Pro­ provisions film has to be an “ eligible film” and one be carefully evaluated, to identify whether it ducers dealing in Australian having “ significant Australian content” . The will fall for assessment as a non-production Minister for Home Affairs and Environment capital expense in terms of the ITAA, a capital films for the purposes of receives applications in this regard, and, if expense for the purposes of Division 10BA or the In co m e Tax A ssessm en t satisfied on the basis of project details sub­ a revenue expense for the purposes of mitted before production, issues a provisional Division 10BA. A c t (ITAA).

Revenue expenses of the film (such as certificate as to the film’s eligibility and publicity) are eligible for deduction; however, content.

Each individual project has It should be remembered that changes to the they are only eligible for deduction against to be assessed on its merits, specifications of a film, especially if they income derived from the same film in relation involve foreign elements, may jeopardize the to which they were originally expended and at and the information below is continuing status of the project in terms of the time that such income becomes assessable. certification and, therefore, prior clearance of of a general nature. any proposed change should be sought. On It is stressed that in cases completion of a film, a further application Production Expenses should be made to the Minister for a final of doubt inquiries should be certificate and provided that the Minister is Legal Expenses: Such expenses relating to m ade to the A ustralian satisfied that the film has been completed production goods and services are generally the details submitted in the application eligible expenses.

For example, legal costs of Tax Office (ATO) for a within for provisional certification, together with any contracting cast and crew qualify. However, changes, a final certificate is ruling on the specific facts of approved legal costs of contracting investors do not expected to be issued without undue delay. qualify in the same manner. the individual project.

T

Eligible Expenses Marketing/Revenue Distinctions The Division 10BA deductions relate to capital expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in the production costs of a film. It is important to note that a typical film investment package may involve the expenditure of moneys which do not, in the hands of the taxpayer, have the nature of capital expenditure with regard to production costs. For example, amounts may be expended by the production company on behalf of the investor which are capital expenditure with respect to non-production 32 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Sets and Props : Items of a capital nature, such as equipment, buildings, sets and props, and other constructions are eligible to the extent of their value consumed during the pro­ duction (e.g., the net cost of set construction qualifies after deducting from the cost of con­ struction the proceeds of sale or other realiza­ tion). Cars and film equipment should also be treated on a net basis.

Completion Guarantees: Standard form completion guarantees relating to the budget and time performance of the film have been held to qualify for eligible production costs.

Producer Fees and Production Over­ heads: These qualify to the extent that they

Tax

relate specifically to the producer’s role of pro­ ducing the film. Care should be taken in rela­ tion to payment for any other services which a producer may render the overall project, such as arranging finance, formation of venture vehicles, etc., as these would not qualify as production costs of the film.

Contingencies: Naturally any amounts originally budgeted as an overall contingency will fall for assessment depending on the way such a budget amount is allocated and the form in which it is actually expended.

Overseas Expenses: Payments in favor of non-Australian taxpayers are understood to stand or fall depending on the character of the payment in the hands of the Australian resi­ dent taxpayer. The general rules described above apply.

Publicity and M arketing: All costs of publicity and marketing are revenue expenses rather than capital cost of production.

Distribution Expenses: In principle, costs of materials produced after the completion of the film, for the purposes of servicing sales, such as multiple prints, etc., are revenue expenses. Completion is generally taken to occur at answer print stage.

Development Expenses ---------------

A film project generally starts with the acquisition of an existing intellectual property, such as a book, or with the creation of an origi­ nal screenplay. From that point, to the point at which a production can start, considerable developm ent work is generally required, including w riter’s and editor’s fees for development of the script, professional fees payable to directors and others for consultation in regard to such development, costs relating to location surveys, selecting and contracting of casts and crews, screen tests and costing of proposed film. This type of expense can be termed as expenses of developing “ The Pro­ perty” . Provided the investors acquire “ The Property” by virtue of an arms-length com­ mercial transaction, in the same way they acquire other units of production required to make the film, then such costs of developing the property are eligible in the hands of the taxpayer as part of the production costs of a film.

A t Risk The “ at risk” test has been held to apply to two separate aspects of a film investment.

Firstly, it relates to the notion of the taxpayer being “ at risk” for the production costs in the sense that those costs are incurred on his behalf. Secondly, the test is applied to any financial transactions that are designed to make the taxpayer’s risk a “ paper risk” only as distinct from a commercial risk.

A t R isk Expenditure: To qualify for Divi­ sion 10BA deductions, the taxpayer has to fully commit his investment to the producer before the producer commits the expenditures which will eventually be met from the pro­ ceeds of the taxpayer’s investment. In other words, the critical relationship is the timing between the investor’s commitment to the producer and the producer’s commitments to the suppliers of production goods and services,

rather than the cash-flow of the investment and the production costs. Care should be taken, therefore, to ascertain the commitment status of expenditures which are proposed to be met from investor commitments.

Finance at Risk: There has been consider­ able debate on the “ at risk” test in relation to borrowed funds and pre-sales. It is understood the situation is as follows: In relation to bor­ rowed funds, the taxpayer remains at risk for the total of his outlays, provided the funds utilized in making those outlays are a true liability for the investor. Any arrangement whereby the repayments of these funds is limited, and whereby the investor is not fully at risk for their repayment, is examinable by the Australian Taxation Office Commissioner under his power to determine to what extent the investor’s contribution to the production costs of the film are truly “ at risk” . For exam­ ple, a non-recourse loan provided to the inves­ tor on the basis that its repayment is limited to the proceeds of the film would generally be taken as not being at risk.

In the normal course of events, it may be possible for the producer to secure a sale of some of the film rights before the production of the film, or even before its investment. Pro­ viding that such a pre-sale arrangement was the result of a normal commercial arms-length transaction, then the income arising from such a pre-sale arrangement will not generally be taken to reduce the taxpayer’s risk of loss.

However, to the extent that income was derived in the one and same arrangement under which the taxpayer has (by loan or otherwise) put in funds to enable the expendi­ ture to be made, the income will be taken into account in determining the amount for which the taxpayer was at risk.

Underwriting As noted above in the “ at risk” commen­ tary, the taxpayer is required to have his investment contractually committed to subse­ quently claim the expenditure of amounts on account of his investment as an eligible expense. Therefore, an arrangement under which a producer proceeds to incur and expend moneys, the funding of which is guaranteed to him by an underwriter, will not, as a rule, lead to such expenses being eligible in the hands of investors subsequently introduced by the underwriter to reimburse such expenses.

However, to the extent that some expendi­ tures of a film need not be committed by the producer until a later stage of the film produc­ tion process, then on an interim basis an underwriter could guarantee the introduction of investors who would be in a position to commit the required level of investment to the producer before the producer having to com­ mit such final stage production expenses.

Therefore, it is possible to plan two-tier financing, whereby early production commit­ ments are covered by early commitments from stage one investors and later commitments are covered by stage two investors, with an under­ writer guaranteeing to the stage one investors and the producer the due performance of stage two investors, so that the total financing of the film is assured.

It should also be noted that the expenditure of funds which will not be the subject of a claim for deduction under Division 10BA is a third level of financing and is not subject to the “ at risk” test. This type of financing can be used in conjunction with a stage one and stage two investment plan noted above.

Allocation o f Individual Investments to Production Costs As previously noted, the overall cost of a film investment involves expenditures for some items other than production costs.

Therefore, the eventual claim by an individual investor will depend on the allocation of his investment to particular expenditures. Only that part of his capital investment, which was expended on production costs, will qualify for the 150 per cent deduction. Care should be taken to contract at the outset with regard to those categories of expenses to be met from the investor’s contribution. The extent to which the investment may be used for items which are either non-production expenses or which are production expenses, but which are not eligible in the taxpayer’s hands because of their prior commitment by the producer, should be specified.

The application of finance from sources not seeking tax deductions (e.g., pre-sales, invest­ ment from tax-free sources) to items of the overall investm ent budget which do not qualify as eligible capital production expenses, m axim izes the deductions available to taxpayer investors.

Timing o f Deduction Effectively the project has to satisfy three main tests to be eligible for Division 10BA deduction. Firstly, the film has to be com­ pleted; secondly, that the taxpayer has to use the copyright of the film for the purposes of producing assessable income or to derive assessable income under some form of “ pre­ sale” ; and, thirdly, the Minister has to issue a provisional certificate in relation to that film.

Additionally, of course, the taxpayer has to fulfil the general conditions, in that he is at risk for his expenditures; that he is a resident tax­ payer; and that he is one of the first owners of the copyright with the intent of using it to pro­ duce assessable income from the film.

Revenue Test One of the pre-conditions for claiming a deduction concerns the derivation by the tax­ payer of assessable income from the use of the film copyright. This has been loosely referred to in the industry as the “ revenue test” . It should be noted that the test bears upon the matters set out in Section 124ZAF and that in principle it is not necessary for the film to be exhibited to the public to satisfy this test.

Other forms of normal industry marketing can produce assessable income for the taxpayer investor. An advance against theatrical distri­ bution or television broadcast, either in Australia or overseas, is an example.

These notes are in the nature of general comments and should not be taken as specific rulings authorized by the ATO. Producers and investors should consult their professional advisers and, as noted before, in case of doubt, application for specific ruling should be made to the relevant ATO office.

The above information is believed to be cor­ rect at the time of publication. However no responsibility can be taken for loss incurred by any person relying thereon. ★ CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 33

Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmlllllllll Austerity dominated the 35th Edin­ where they had an almost closed screen­ burgh International Film Festival. Its ing in tiny rooms. stringency was worse than expected, Unfortunately, Public Enemy Number even in this year of Britain’s nasty reces­ One arrived in a box containing two sion, because the Scottish Film Council, copies of Reel Two, thus depriving Edin­ having purchased a lovely old Methodjst burgh audiences and critics of a chance church in the heart of Edinburgh, is now to judge it fairly. All they saw of Wilfred converting the building to house the Fes­ Burchett’s epic career was his contact tival and to provide a centre for Scottish with the Viet Cong, his friendship with Ho film life. With subsidies eaten away by Chi Minh, leading to the final shock of his inflation,Jhe building fund is still some career: the results of the Cambodian war. $400,000 short, and in view of the This was a great pity, as the early urgency of finishing the reconstruction, material, showing Burchett’s reaction to the cost of the Festival had to be pared to Nazism and his stand in the years pre­ a minimum. ceding World War 2, would have been of Earlier in the year, it had been sug­ more interest to a predominantly Euro­ gested that no Festival should be held in pean public.

1981, but the new director, Jim Hickey, So, it was overshadowed by two knew that a small parsimonious Festival American documentary features, more would still be better than none at all. efficiently packed and dispatched: the Shortened from its usual 15 days to most-praised, colorful and skilled Rosie eight, and shorn of its usual adjuncts like the Riveter; and The Day After Trinity, a lectures, publications and parties, the well-made and well-edited talking-head Festival still had its compensations; documentary about a subject which mainly because it remained true to its could not be handled in any other way: guiding principles. about the character and motivation of It is these principles which had made Robert Oppenheimer and the atmo­ Edinburgh the Mecca of independent sphere in which he and his team built and film m akers, especially documentary detonated the first atom bomb. filmmakers; and also ensured it great The only documentary with local (that honor on the ‘‘alternative festival” round, is, Scottish) connotations was a 56which includes Rotterdam, Mannheim, minute lyrical study of life, poetry and Pesaro and soon, probably, Melbourne. songs as preserved on a small Hebri­ The first of these principles is to be a dean island, called The Shepherds of showcase for new British independents, Berneray. This was researched and and to ensure critical attention for them directed by two Americans, Jack Shea in more leisurely circumstances than and Allen Moore, and financed mainly by anywhere else, especially in the over­ Harvard University on some sort of com­ crowded London Film Festival. The munity-research grant, with a little help second is to maintain the status and from the Scottish authorities. It Is a sens­ importance of documentaries — shortitive film, emphasizing the two main and feature-length. factors which govern the lives of the islanders: th e ir clim ate, and th e ir Some of these had already been shown at other festivals; shown rather remoteness. But it is not necessarily for the sensitive city viewer: the traditional than seen. The two Australian films, methods of castrating sheep, for in­ Public Enemy Number One and Against the Grain, were bespoken in Berlin, stance, disturbed the digestion of critics

Pat Murphy and John Davies’Maeve, which draws “parallels between British rule in Ulster and the male domination endured by Irish women .

34 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

accustomed to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or John Carpenter.

Shortfall o f Features Although in planning the timetables, Jim Hickey aimed at compression rather than cutting, this did not work in prac­ tice. There was not nearly enough mat­ erial from Europe; hardly anything, except for a thick special season of the Portuguese cinema, one Swiss and some German films. Even France cannot be said to have been fairly represented by Nelly Kaplan’s Charles et Lucie, about a gormless couple of unendearing eccentrics.

The only “ country” new to Edinburgh was Israel, with Yaki Yosha’s The Vul­ ture (from the Cannes Directors’ Fort­ night), which has a sharp sense of the texture and feel of everyday life in Israel today. It had created a furore at home, as it allegedly mocks the grief of parents for sons who died in the recent wars.

In the feminist atmosphere of Edin­ burgh, it raised more objections by its so-called sexual politics, as the hero is involved with two girls at the same time; furthermore, one of these involvements begins with a totally unjustifiable rape.

But when the young men are killed off In wars, girls have to accept all sorts of compromises.

For those who liked it (as in Cannes, about half of those who saw it), The Vul­ ture stands out as a strong, if irreverent, statement against war.

British Independents The same anti-war statement, shaped as a regret rather than a protest, suffuses Looks and Smiles by Ken Loach (seen in Competition in Cannes). Loach likewise

emphasizes the coarsening and stupe­ fying effect of army life, whether in the Sinai Desert or the streets of Belfast.

Photographed in a richly varied black and white by Loach’s usual cameraman, Chris Menges, and acted mostly by non­ professionals, Looks and Smiles ranges over many contem porary problems: unemployment, the disintegration of family dependence, the lack of verbal communication among working-class youngsters, replaced by the looks and smiles of the title.

Loach is a master of the hidden con­ struction. Everything'that happens to his characters results in something they cannot or must not do. Each subtle scene places another brick on the walls which constrict their lives.

A film financed largely by the BFI Pro­ duction Board, Maeve by Pat Murphy and John Davies, was chosen for the London press show of the Edinburgh Festival. It runs the danger of looking like a film made to order for Edinburgh, with its minority viewpoint, feminist bias, and com plicated tim e-structure to break down the great bugbear of Edinburgh, linear narrative.

Nonetheless, Maeve has some fine points, even apart from its worthy ideo­ logy of drawing parallels between British rule in Ulster and the male domination endured by Irish women. There are some excellent scenes, mostly location shoot­ ing (in every sense of the word) in Bel­ fast; and towards the end of the film, the family relationships emerge with increas­ ing sensitivity. But it has many faults as well, and these stem from the script.

The photography is more than com­ petent throughout, and some of the acting catches the mood, as well as the intonation, of the militantly Irish speech patterns.

Feminist anger was roused to pamphleteering-pitch by Voice Over, written

Radicalism in an almost soap-opera format: Menelik Shabazz’s Burnine an flh^inr, urnmg un musion.

1981 Edinburgh Film Festival

John Carpenter’s Escape from New York. and directed by Chris Monger, and made with money from the Welsh Arts Coun­ cil. We were all given leaflets protesting against “the brutal misogyny of the film ’’ in which a girl, raped early on by some­ one else, is taken into the care of a radio­ bard, who tells romantic tales over the air, while living in bleak and frustrated domesticity with the girl in her traumatic autism. The protest would be justifiable if the film ’s content were at all relevant. But it is not: Voice Over is a youthful exer­ cise in structuralist fiction.

For content, one must look else­ where: for instance, to another BFI Pro­ duction Board Film, Burning an Illusion,

by Menelik Shabazz, another first-time writer and director who contrives to present a radical subject in a conven­ tional, almost soap-opera format. The heroine, a British-born colored girl, starts by accepting the morality and expectations oil middle-class English society, only to find that these attitudes and aspirations are not shared by the young men of her world. Finally, she is forced by circumstances to look for her roots in African culture and racial con­ sciousness, which develop her dignity and strength.

In spite of slight faults, Burning an Illu­ sion presents the emotional and social issues involved without overt comment or proselytizing.

A documentary which pleased the women’s lib faction as well as the critics was And They Called Me Pussy Dyna­ mite. The directors, Jenny Wilkes and Jennie Howarth, interviewed the nice, suburban dancer who d rifte d into s trip te a s e and p o rn o g ra p h y , w ith astonishing maturity and technical skill, considering that it was their first.-year exercise at the National Film School.

A statue o f an avenging goddess in Ivan Reitman’s Heavy Metal though there was a touch of splendor in closing the week with Abel Gance’s Napoleon In the seven-hour version re­ created by Kevin Brownlow, with a full live orchestra conducted by the score’s composer, Carl Davis.

But all the other galas were of popular and new American films, such as John Carpenter’s Escape from New York, Peter Medak’s cheerful spoof, Zorro the Gay Blade, Michael Mann’s Violent Streets (aka Thief) and the unex­ pectedly b rillia n t, if violent, fu llyanimated science-fiction cartoon, Heavy

Metal. Both Escape from New York and Heavy Metal may yet turn into cineaste cult-films, consistent with the Edinburgh Festival image.

But the American independents were also well represented by Bette Gordon’s non-narrative Empty Suitcases, Nich­ olas Broomfield and Joan Churchill’s Soldier Girls, Babette Mangolte’s The Reno Hotel, and the frenetic, but prom­ ising, Subway Riders by Amos Poe and Johanna Heer. These are all “ difficult” works, which should not be dismissed by a sentence or two in an overall festival

report, except insofar as they character­ ize the sympathy Edinburgh has for avant-garde aspirations.

By showing such films in an atmo­ sphere of controversy, discussion and inquiry, and by giving young filmmakers their chance to meet critics and audi­ ences, the Edinburgh Festival continues its struggle against the philistinism of the British Isles. One can only hope that the worst of financial hardships will be over by 1982, and that the Festival will return to supplying worldwide coverage of new trends, ideas and new films. •¥■

Outnumbered by the U.S. As always, the British and Third World films, even supported by some Euro­ pean material, were far outnumbered by American imports. One reason was that the lack of finance forced the organizers to aim the Gala Premieres towards rais­ ing funds, rather than just adding glitter,

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 35

BRIANN KEARNEY

a

I had been working in and around stills photo­ graphy in the 1960s. I did modelling for a long tim e and a few te le v is io n commercials.

I have also been living with Kevin [Kearney] for about 17 years, and, since I started living with him, he has always worked in film. It is something I have always wanted to do.

Kevin worked in Europe for a while and on our way back to Australia I contracted TB in India; I couldn’t do anything for about three years except write. I wrote a children’s story called Jeremy and the Teapot, and a script for a film, And/Or = One. Later, I applied for money from the Australian Film Commission to make And/ Or=One and they said no. So I made a film of Jeremy and the Teapot, which I did at Jack Thompson’s place. That was the first film I did for myself. What little money we had came from Kevin’s savings. We did And/ Or= One the same way; everybody worked for nothing.

I have finished it and I am just waiting for an answer print. I don’t have the money to get one at the moment. The two people I have shown it to — a Japanese dis­ tributor who was out here early in 1981 and an American marketing man — both liked it. But until I get the money to do a final print, I will have to keep going with it like that.

As far as I am concerned it is finished, so I have started on another one.

Yes, I am trying a long film this time. They have got longer each time. It gets easier. You learn a lot from the first couple. I did a few Will you direct the final film?

Super 8 films in between, from which I also got a lot of experience.

Yes, I hope so. It is the sort of They were good fun to do. thing I would like to make.

I have spent the past couple of Do you have help writing the feature weeks writing a script for Kris — money from the Australian Film McQuade and David Bracks. They Commission, for instance? came up with a really good idea for a film, and they wrote the story­ line. I have really enjoyed doing the script for them, but is was not the sort of thing I would want to make myself.

I really like Nic Roeg’s films. I think they are superb.

Didn’t you have something to do with “Walkabout”. . .

No, I just travelled with them for a while. Kevin was working on it as a second sound recordist, and he was with Nic all the while. I spent some time with them here and later in Britain.

Roeg doesn’t make a lot of films, but I think every one of his you can see again and again. He is a wonderful director, and inspires p e o p le tr e m e n d o u s ly . On Walkabout, they ran out of money a month before they finished filming, and he inspired people to keep working to finish it — and the money came through in the end.

I don’t think he has made an enormous amount of money on his films, but he has always made good films, and they keep coming back.

Yes. It was 23 minutes and done on 16mm. We had a marvellous time making it. Jack was first assistant. There were about 20 people involved. Patrick Thompson played the little boy, Jeremy, and Brian Syron played his imaginary friend, Teapot.

Then I decided to keep going with And/Or = One. It is more an adult film about the emotions that pass through one’s mind while one is doing something. It is a bit abstract, but it was always meant to be like that.

Kris McQuade plays Sam, Bridget Murphy is Rachael and Anna West is Melinda, the girl whose mind we explore. It is about 50 minutes long.

36 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

No. I have written the first draft already and I am just doing the second now. It is called Jindalee Lady.

Which films or filmmakers do you admire?

Was “Jeremy” a children’s film?

What has happened to that?

Are you writing it?

Is there any conspicuous lack in the films being made in Australia?

Briann Kearney.

I think we don’t stray into anything erotic in Australia, which is the sort of thing in which I am

Women in Drama/Part Two

interested. You never see anything terribly erotic, and as soon as so m eth in g com es acro ss in Australian films as being erotic, it is immediately put down as being pornographic. We haven’t really any feeling about eroticism. Most of the films we see are masculine things, with people always doing strong things.

But I don’t spend all my life out there on the basketball court, I spend a lot more time in bed. I think a lot more people do than care to adm it it. And it is something you never hear about, people’s personal feelings. You always hear about how they feel about everything that happens outside, in the outside world. I am more interested in how people react in a sexual situation to other people, because we don’t all react in the same way.

You are not talking about films like “Alvin Purple”. . .

I don’t find films like that erotic.

With someone like Nic Roeg you find that you can deal with erotic things in a wonderful way. He has the most extraordinary love scenes in his films — every one of them. In the love scene in Walkabout, the boy and girl never touch; it is all just done with eyes. We never have anything like that here.

Is it because most films here are Jeremy (Patrick Thompson), ¡eft, and Teapot (Brian Syron) in Briann Kearney’s children’sfilm, directed by men?

Jerem y and The Teapot

Filmography: Briann Kearney 1976 Jeremy and the Teapot 1979 And/Or = One 1981 Jindalee Lady (in preparation)

I have different ideas about it, but I think sometimes men are also stopped. I think they are probably up against the same pressures if they want to do that sort of film.

Ken Cameron probably ran up against a bit of this in Monkey Grip. He had some very gentle and, I think, quite beautiful love scenes.

Helen Garner was there on the set which was a good thing. I am sure it helped keep some feeling of the feminine in those scenes. But I think he could find that audiences will have the same problems.

Somebody else I know made a feature and actually cut the love scene out after having had the film shown at a preview screening. They cut back the love scene because it was a bit strong and people in the audience filled out questionnaires and said they didn’t think this would happen. So, I don’t know.

Lovemaking is a difficult thing to deal with in films. People seem embarrassed by it and shy away from it. . .

I think so. And also some of it is really quite angry and not loving, but I don’t think that is a bad thing.

Concluded on p. 85

“We don’t stray into anything erotic in Australia, which is the sort of thing in which I am interested. . . as soon as something comes across, in Australian films, as being erotic, it is immediately put down as being pornographic.’’Kearney’s AndJOr=One. (In still at left: Anna West, Bridget Murphy, Kris McQuade.)

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 37

RM**«**».

?

SONIA HOFMANN I recently went over to Hollywood to do some marketing of Morris Loves Jack and some other shorts from the Australian Film and Television School. I had been writing a feature script for the past 11 months, and I needed a break. So, I thought I would go across and check it out.

I hired a cinema on Sunset Boulevard and showed my films to Terry Southern, who wrote Dr Strangelove, and Jack Scherr, who has produced countless Hollywood

38 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

epics. Terry called me the “ Renais­ sance of Australian film” and Jack wanted to get me an agent in Holly­ wood. It was very good for my confidence because living in Aus­ tralia you tend to fade into the woodwork; you are just like everybody else. But over there you are someone new, you are someone interesting. They really look at your work.

When I gave them a quick run down on the production report before screening my films, they all nearly keeled over because most of the films were made on non­

existent budgets. Morris Loves Jack was made for $3000 and was shot in five days. Bottoms Up was based on a Roald Dahl short story and I shot that in three days on a budget of $1000, and Jungle Line, a docu­ mentary on King’s Cross, I shot in one night, though it took six weeks to cut.

Hollywood I saw as a dinosaur lumbering around drunkenly on its feet with police helicopters buzzing overhead. I was there when [Presi­ dent] Reagan was shot. It was the last evening of the American Film Market, and they were due to have

a large party. After the shooting it was cancelled.

When they finally did have the party the following evening, I went to the Hilton and there were rows of police six deep and hundreds of yards long: truncheons, guns, walkie-talkies, security. I felt as if I were going to prison rather than a celebration.

Anyway, if you said you were from Australia they would walk towards you with their hands open, ready to shake your hand. There is a common feeling of looking towards Australia as the great new

Women in Drama/Part Two

I

N

D

R

A

M

A

h o p e . E very w r ite r , every propsman, every director I spoke to asked, “ Do you think I could go out there and maybe set up again?”

Also, I couldn’t believe how many scripts were being thrust in my hand. It doesn’t happen here. I wish it did!

But as I read them, I realized that I was not a product of that culture. How can I direct a film in the Bronx about a cute little old Italian? I could do it but, because I h a v e n ’t grow n up in th a t background, I wouldn’t have the same intuition and smell for it. This made me realize that I can make international films here using Aust­ ralian people. Even though I am a Czech directing films in Australia, I have becom e a n a tu ra liz e d Australian. I was educated and grew up here.

“Morris Loves Jack” was your last project at the AFTS . . .

When I presented the script at the Film School they strongly recommended that I not do it because the script wasn’t any good and because it was far too ambitious a project. They felt I would never be able to bring it in on budget and on time. They told me I should attempt some little fiveminute epic — perhaps a docu­ mentary on some safe issue. I had to fight them tooth and nail to be allowed to make it. It taught me Sonia Hofmann directs Bill Hunter during the how to m ake film s d esp ite filming o f Morris Loves Jack. everything — probably the most valuable lesson I had at the Film vast storehouse of energy; if it can School. be guided in the right direction, there is just nothing he can’t do.

What role did Dave Marsh play?

It was Dave’s original idea. He and I co-wrote the first draft. I wrote all the lovey-dovey at-home stuff, and he wrote all the police material and all the masculine roles because he is far more familiar with it. Dave then went off and wrote a draft which we then workshopped with the actors. He wrote the next draft from that. I found that was a very good way of working.

I gave the final script to the actors a week or so before the shoot. We sat down one afternoon and worked our way right through.

We had a reading, pulled it apart, stood it on its head, put it back together again, then Dave worked the final draft from that. It came together very quickly, very naturally. We actually had Kris and Johnny in mind when we wrote it.

The cast in Morris Loves Jack was so supportive. They believed in the script so much that they were willing to work 24 hours a day just to get the film up there properly.

Hayden Keenan was also a very valuable first assistant. He has a

What are you doing now?

I am writing a feature film, which I have been working on since Film School. I will direct it, and edit it if possible. I want to try and keep it small so I can control as much of it as possible. I don’t want it to get out of my hands. I’d like it to be a low-budget feature with a small crew — virtually the same size crew as Morris Loves Jack.

That was 12 or 13 people, plus a smallish cast. You come in on time on a low budget and kill ’em — producers, that is. It’s very impor­ tant for your first film to go into profit.

When you say low budget, do you mean $200,000-$400,000.

I wouldn’t want it to be more than $450,000. I’d like it to be less.

You need a very good production team and a small camera and sound crew, because it is very important to keep that intimate feeling on a set. As soon as you go to these very

large-budget films, with a million people running around, I find that you lose vital energy. A lot of people stand around waiting on other people. If it is small, you can crack that whip much quicker.

Have you been approached to direct other projects since “Morris Loves Jack”?

I had a few scripts sent to me, but they are not in any area that I could really work on. One was a depressing story about a girl with suicidal tendencies, not a subject to set my heart pounding with delight.

The only reason I resort to writing is because I can’t ever find

anyone or any script or property that works in the same mental areas that I do. I am dying to meet such writers but they, as yet, haven’t materialized. So I am forced to co­ write.

I am not a very good writer, I am an ideas person. I am an initiator more than I am a writer. I am much better directing and much better talking than actually putting pen to paper. Editing is a joy, directing is a to tal joy. Casting and p re­ production is also a joy. Writing is like torture. It is the hardest thing in the world. I have so much respect for writers.

Would you always cut your own films? “ Yes, I have cut all my material — with a little help from my friends.

Concluded on p. 85

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 39

40 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Hiding behind the “I ” M ich a e l R u b b o , top A ustralian film m a k e r f o r m a n y yea rs resident in C anada, talks to docum entary director John H ughes.

Explicit personal intervention in You chose to work in the world of your films is very much part of your politics with your first film, “The style. Why did you develop that True Source of Knowledge”. How much did that film have to do with approach? your experiences in Australia, or I did not develop it cold­ with being at an American uni­ bloodedly; I came to it almost versity during the Vietnam war? apologetically. I saw the film Was it equivalent to, say, the exper­ journalist doing his research and iences artists had in relation to covering his subjects in a so-called Spain in 1936? objective way. I could not do that. I had no proper journalistic back­ ground and, to compensate for what I then thought of as a deficiency, I developed a personal style. I used the word “ I” in my narrations, for instance. I hid behind the “ I” .

Why did you feel you had a right to a position that didn’t even pretend to be objective?

At first, I did not think I had a right. I just felt I could not do the other thing. Later, I developed a rationale for what I was already doing.

I had been a painter, and I thought, “ Well, painters have won the right to portray the world as they see it. They sit in front of documentary reality and produce impressions, personal visions. Why can’t a documentary filmmaker do the same thing; be unashamedly impressionistic and personal?” I felt a lot better once I had that worked out.

So, from the beginning you saw yourself as an artist with the right to self-expression . . .

No, it took a while. Then, with growing confidence, I claimed more and more the right to project my vision. But at first, as in Sad Song of Yellow Skin, it was tentative. I did not appear in that film; just my voice. But even there it was a funny subject to be personal about, some­ thing as serious as that bloody and immoral war [Vietnam].

I have never thought of it that way. But the Vietnam war was cer­ tainly the major political event of my life. It was the time when I was most against the society I lived in, which was the U.S., as a student, and then Canada. Certainly, Sad Song came out of a feeling I couldn’t ignore; that I had to say something filmically against that

war. But my efforts came nowhere near the works that came out of Spain.

What was good in my work was that I went against the tide of daily war stories and managed in my oblique personal way to do some­ thing which touched those Americans who saw it. I should say a lot of the credit for Sad Song goes to th e c a m e ra m a n M a rtin Duckworth.

Did you have a conscious criticism of the dominant notions of objectivity? You seem to suggest it was a gesture of humility, but your films argue it was a gesture of defiance . . .

I used to be impressed by socalled objectivity, but now I see it is mostly bullshit. We all see through our lens of partiality and prejudice.

Better to have the lens in sight, so the viewer of the views can measure the angle of distortion for himself.

I am not defiant, but now I am prepared to defend my style. I am not saying it should be copied, but for me it has worked up till now.

Every artist should find his voice and speak with it.

Is that something the National Film Board of Canada allows to happen?

Yes. In a sense, it even en­ courages it. The NFB is a rather disorganized place and due to that disorganization there is a lot of freedom for the filmmaker. There are various veto mechanisms, but the power is in the hands of the filmmakers to a surprising extent.

There is a scene in “Waiting for Fidel” where you argue with Jeff Stirling, who put up the money for the film. Did Stirling see the film at rough cut?

Actually, he didn’t put up the money, though at the time of shooting he thought he had CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 41

how he was treating me for my own protection. I warned him, because it was important for him to realize I was protecting myself.

So, while you describe your approach as gentle, you are con­ scious of the power you have, as a filmmaker, to document . . .

Sure! But in this case it was merely a balance to a bigger power.

He is powerful and rich, while I felt pretty vulnerable. I was just equalizing the situation a little.

Is that a metaphor for how you see yourself as a filmmaker, as some­ body who has a cultural weapon with which to wage war on the dominant powers?

considerable equity in the film.

Yes, he saw the rough cut. He would not sign a release during shooting, so I was pretty nervous about the screening. I could see him squirming during the show and expected a blast when the lights went up. And there certainly would have been if his wife had not turned to him before he could say a word and said, “That’s you Jeff.” He paused and, before he could mar­ shal his objections, Tom Daly [coproducer] 1 came in with his wonder­ ful soothing way and got him around to thinking it was a good piece of work. Now Stirling likes the film a great deal and uses it all the time — for what I am not sure.

Incidentally, I always show my films to people before they are released.

Have you ever had to make changes as a result of an objection?

Actually, Joey Smallwood in the same film did not like a few expletives that came from Stirling.

I substituted amusing little beeps. I was ready to do this because I thought Smallwood had been very generous with him self in the filming.

But usually I don’t make people that angry. I am not a trickster either, like going into Chile pre1. Tom Daly, an NFB producer who has con­ sistently supported Rubbo’s work inside the NFB. He has produced or co­ produced 16 of Rubbo’s last 23 films.

42 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

ten d in g I com e from W est Germany when really I am from East Germany. A film crew did this just after the coup which toppled Salvador Allende. They got away with it. I admire their guts.

But Chile under Pinochet is dif­ ferent from Cuba under Castro .. .

Sure. I did not go in with the equivalent hostility towards Cuba. I felt pretty positive at that time. But even if I had been negative, I don’t have the temperament to pull such a stunt. I’d give myself away, be­ cause I have to establish some rap­ port, if not friendship, with the people I film; I can’t fake that.

Even in Vietnam, in a situation I disapproved of, I sought people I could like and showed my dislike of the general situation by liking them.

The ''Stirling argument”in Waiting for Fidel: Jeff Stirling (left), Joey Smallwood, Mike Rubbo.

examine what they were trying to do and ultimately to do it better. I liked that a lot, for them and for me, in terms of having good film material.

Anyway, I showed Blaker the way I saw him and invited him to look before test-printing, but he de­ clined and so missed his chance to question my vision. Stirling was much more image-conscious.

How did you feel while shooting the Stirling sequence? Were you imagining how you were going to cut it or just concentrating on what you wanted to say?

I think there is no greater high than having something exciting and revealing happening when the In “Persistent and Finagling” , camera is rolling in good hands and though, there is a character, the you are the one who is calling the radio producer [Rod Blaker], who is shot. Under your breath you are very like Stirling in “Waiting for saying, “Jesus, I am getting it! I am Fidel”. He gets fairly heavy treat­ getting it! Great! Great!” It is all the more delicious for being un­ ment . . . expected.

The argument you mentioned in Liking someone during filming is actually a complex thing, when I Waiting for Fidel I filmed in self­ think about it. I suppose I liked defence. Stirling was getting Rod Blaker in the sense that he troublesome, criticizing me all the sharpened the true-life drama I was time for not keeping my footage for getting on film. Word for word he the Fidel interview. I feared he may have been insufferable, but he would ring the NFB in Montreal forced the women, who are the and get them to pull the plug. I heroes of the story, to really thought I had to get evidence of

That is far too strong a term for my style. I snipe, tease and laugh at things. I don’t blast like the East German crew did. I don’t work from the resources of anger that Barbara Koppels fed on for Harlan County.

Documentaries have often had a natural tendency to be an ti­ establishment. They put down and sabotage the official moment that is supposed to inspire awe, except Leni Riefenstahl with her Triumph of the Will which is called a docu­ mentary but is neither that nor an impression, but a corporate mes­ sage orchestrated with infinite care.

In the U.S., the land of the black hats and white hats, so-called documentaries like 60 Minutes are cinematic sheriffs: good guy film journalists hunting down bad guy politicians, loan sharks, etc. The street plays a key part in this game, for it is on the street, and only on the street, that some of the quarry of such programs can be caught.

The street is no-man’s-land, and for a second or two the black hat is ex­ posed as he steps between his fortress building and his limousine.

In one show, a film crew is hot after the hireling of a corrupt mid­ western politician. The man sees the camera in that vulnerable moment and makes the mistake of running along no-m an’s-land.

Exciting footage, guilty footage. He ducks into a car park. The camera follows, opening up for the gloomy interior.

Finally, the camera has the panting guy pinned against a con­ crete wall. There is no escape. The journalist, also puffing, pulls out the facts about the girls this pimp has been supplying on his politician boss’ orders. The man blanches, guilt all over his face. It is amazing.

You have the hunt, arrest, trial and conviction happening right in front of you. True-life cowboys — or is it?

But even those of us who don’t go so far are somewhat on the attack normally. Is it from conviction, a desire to redress the balance, or do we just know what excites?

Even in documentaries made for organizations — and probably most of the documentaries in the

world are sponsored in some way — there is a wish to bite the hand that feeds.

I love Dennis O’Rourke’s Yumi Yet which was made for the Nuigini Government. This doesn’t stop O’Rourke poking fun at a lot of the ritual. A trombone player’s slide seems to be punching the orchestra conductor in the nose.

Prince Charles, looking so clean and crisp, is intercut with a lovely girl with painted face and naked breasts. We have all seen hundreds of films which play such tricks. This one does it particularly well.

Perhaps we all do it to salve our consciences, perhaps to make us look a bit independent-minded. It is an easy vision and I do it too. I play black hat/white hat a bit. But then my film mind wanders to what interests me more: the individual.

Documentaries, for me, are the unconscious search for character. I say “unconscious” because often we don’t realize that what we are looking for is real, revealing characters. The ideas then come out through the character.

I thought I had a good character in my film, The Man Who Can’t Stop.2 He was my uncle, Francis Sutton. I say “thought” because I did not get him across as interest­ ingly as I had hoped. Francis has a, cause, but he is not a ranter. He is a quiet man who never gives up, but also never pushes to the point of rudeness or violence either. To me he epitomizes the difference be­ tween the person who works from convictions and the person who works from ideology.

I separate these two by saying that the former is made up of longheld beliefs built up slowly through life experience, while the latter is more something to be picked up, used and joined. Francis is a man of conviction. The New Philosophers I filmed in Paris were ideologues [cf 2. Co-produced by the NFB with Film Aus­ tralia in 1973, The Man Who Can’t Stop is the story of Francis Sutton, Rubbo’s uncle, who is determined to convince the Australian people that its sewage should be piped inland, toward the dry interior.

Solzhenitsyn’s Children . . . are making a lot of noise in Paris].

I am proud of Francis and my film on him. During World War 2 he was a conscientious objector, which was a hard thing to be in Australia. Later, he took on a demeaning profession, finally to give it up for his environmental cru­ sade, which is the subject of the film.

This film touches on another point: my search is usually for admirable characters, which is a problem because in real life, as in fiction, villains are . often more in terestin g . It is a constant dilemma, whether to film things and people who are admirable or go for the juicy stuff. Francis would have captured more of an audience if he had more violence and less decency in him. But it was his very decency and his convictions which made me want to film him.

It was also with this film that I found it would not be smooth sailing with a personal vision. Some of television’s gate-keepers forgot to look at the man and the story, and got hung up on the fact he was my uncle. How could I be objective about my uncle, they asked. Well who said I was being objective?

It was not till I got to PBS3 in Boston that I found someone who, in the' world of television, would admit to liking my personal .style.

That was David Fanning of World, an excellent program that has recently been slashed. He actually liked the style of Solzhenitsyn’s Children. I couldn’t believe it.

The “coconut monk ” in Rubbo's Sad Song of Yellow Skin.

I don’t think so. Cinema verite people believe in catching life un­ contaminated. I say show the source of contamination. I said in Sydney recently, “ Defend your documentaries in terms of author­ ship, because it is the best defence.”

If you defend them just in terms of content, then the television people are apt to say, “ T h a t’s an And yet your films are really a interesting area, we’ll do some­ logical development from the thing on it ourselves to meet our requirements.” But if you sell a ‘cinema verite’ movement . . . vision, they cannot duplicate that 3. Public Broadcasting Service. Rubbo has vision. worked closely with WGBH, a public broadcasting station in Boston. Waiting for Fidel, Solzhenitsyn’s Children, and Yes or No, Jean-Guy Moreau have been broadcast on PBS. is Sutton, the centre o f Rubbo’s The Who Can’t Stop.

In a way you are returning to some of the early assertions about docu­ mentary — Dziga Vertov, for example — and challenging the con­ cepts of objectivity and “Docu­ mentary” in favor of something that has to do with the integrity of an artist. You are trying to shift reportage into a category called art where it will be safe from that sort of criticism . . .

For me at least it is time to chuck out the word “ documentary” , implying as it does “documents and objectivity” . I don’t know what to call them in ste a d , p erh ap s “visions” . That sounds suitably inspired.

It might seem like I am trying to get off an uncomfortable hook, avoiding being careful and truth­ ful. One must be truthful, but one must admit that around that checkable, repeatable truth there is the fact of personal view and bias.

So let that show.

Is there not a danger when doing that of asserting a new kind of authority? One thinks of the authority that has become

associated with the so-called New Journalism where, because you are who you are, your perceptions have a validity which are not those of ordinary people . . .

All media are powerful, thus all media are authority. So, it is a question of degree. In my films I come across as rather inept and bumbling, which must be my vision of myself. I think I make virtually everyone watching the film feel superior, in fact. It is nice to feel superior, so I think I am per­ forming a function.

But, seriously, the function is to sabotage the audience’s idea of tele­ vision commentators, presenters, anchormen and the rest of the tribe of guides and experts. I do this with my own presence and by peopling my films with disingenuous, charming, forgetful helpers who effectively get in the way of what­ ever I am doing. They paddle in the local mud for me and I shoot their feet.

See how they jump . . .

See how they squelch. I have a tendency to go for whimsical things, but it was not always so. In Sad Song of Yellow Skin, Duck­ worth and I found ourselves fol­ lowing, with almost morbid fascin­ ation, the death and funeral of the woman we called the “opium lady” .

She was called that because she had once played with the French in Hanoi and had become addicted to opium. She was dying in a pathetic cemetery shanty town on the fringes of the war.

We were morbidly curious, as one is about death, but I don’t think we were exploiting her. The interior voice was not saying, “ Great!

Great!” , in quite the same way.

Least, I hope it was not. We did not know what was happening. Really, CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 43

Michael Rub bo

we follow ed spectators.

lik e

equipped

So your films do evolve the way they look . ..

Yes. They are my account of true-life stories. My ideal is to find a story with a beginning, middle and an end, and all in a short time frame.

But your films are really about your life over a long period, as much as they are about the particular subject matter . . .

No, they are not about my real life, my deep life. There is a diary element and I feel incredibly privileged to be able to look back and see what I was doing year by year through the films. But how personal should I get? I don’t think 1 am particularly interesting.

My ex-wife, a Chilean film­ maker, is making a diary film into which she has more or less dragged me. (How could I object, after doing it to others?) There are some pretty intimate things that happen before the camera; our problems come out.

My young sister, Kiffy, recently died. I spent the week after trying to understand her death and the terrible waste of it. Now, as I sit here, I am wondering if I could have filmed that week: the mad dash from Montreal when the ter­ rible phone call came through from Melbourne; the flight delayed by the strike and then by a mechan­ ical fault so that I arrived two hours too late for the funeral. Then get­ ting to know her that week through the friends who loved her so much.

I can see it all, but I don’t think I could film it.

and the use of sound as exclamation marks . . .

Really? I did not think I was very artful with those things. I am often surprised by the high levels of art and craftmanship in other people’s films. For instance, I don’t know much about music in films. I sup­ pose 1 could learn, but usually I am content to slap on some local folkloric music that I get on the spot.

Collecting it at the time makes me feel it is right.

Talking about cutaways, in “Solzhenitsyn’s Children” and Louis Bernard Robitaille, French-Canadian

correspondent in Solzhenitsyn’s Children ...

Two things that really impress me in are making a lot o f noise in Paris, and your films is your use of cutaways director Rubbo.

“Waiting for Fidel” there is a lot of information in the images which looks as if it has been accidentally picked up . . .

Yes, though I think that cut­ aways which break the mood of a thing are very bad unless you con­ sciously want to do that.

In Solzhenitsyn’s Children, there is a marvellous cutaway of Louis Bernard Robitaille4 in the middle of Bernard Henri Levy’s rant against Marx. I am stumbling out a question at that moment and Robitaille looks as if he wishes he could be as far away from this embarrassing situation as possible.

The shot actually came later in the session than the place it now occupies. But it is just right for the mood of that moment. I think I could defend all my cutaways.

Why do you feel the need to justify things in terms of saying it really was that way?

I suppose I am a bit defensive, and I do cheat, but I don’t feel good about it. Somehow, I have trouble saying to myself that a cheating cutaway is my vision, though it sounds plausible, doesn’t it?

I always feel guilty about the way I in te r c u t u n r e la te d ( g e o ­ graphically) activities in Wet Earth and Warm People. Some men were making rafts of bamboo; others elsewhere were doing a dance with similar knives and bamboo. I inter­ cut them as if they were happening on top of each other. I rationalized it by saying that I was showing how close art and artifact were in that society.

In Waiting for Fidel, I made another rare idea connection during the editing by intercutting a dance 4. Robitaille is the French-Canadian cor­ respondent in Paris in Solzhenitsyn’s Children.

44 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

“/ snipe, tease and laugh at things . . . / don't work from the resources o f anger . . . ” Rubbo '.S' Wet Earth and Warm People.

troupe with hard hats with some construction workers. But the shot which puzzles people the most in that film, because they assume it was a similar sort of editorializing, was the one of the ants coming down the tree. Did they stand for the workers of Cuba, some ask?

Actually the ants were on the tree, already in the shot. It was geo­ graphically true, but I confess not minding that other meanings creep in. " At such times, I will admit that filmmakers have one rule: they will do what they can get away with; of course, the cop who stops you, and this is true of me, is often yourself. I am always giving myself tickets and sometimes I pay the fine.

Of your films, “Solzhenitsyn’s Children” has perhaps been the most criticized . . , Yes, perhaps deservedly. I don’t think I would like it if I saw it made by someone else, but I would not be indifferent. Now, I like the fact it makes people angry, whereas at first it bothered me.

I was viciously criticized for this film, by a bunch of British T ro tsk y ites, at the G rierson Seminar in Canada, a few years back. I wish I had a tape of their loathing; it might be healthy to listen to it occasionally.

They were trying to deal with the National Front, I suppose .. .

Well, they didn’t like the politics of the film because on the screen, treated with undue courtesy, are a bunch of French intellectuals, once on the Left, who are now saying that Marxism leads to the Gulag.

Michael Rubbo

To make it worse, the subject is handled in a playful way. They saw it as heresy in very bad taste.

I know what they mean, but I found them totally intolerant of anyone who did not defer to their opinions, and I really don’t think it is my fault that the world does not act out their doctrinaire vision.

I took more seriously the dis­ appointment of Judy Stone, who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle (she is the sister of I. F. Stone). She had liked Waiting for Fidel very much, but whereas my naivety charmed in that Film, it bugged her in this one.

I was also disturbed that my friend Duckworth was very upset when he heard I was going to do Solzhenitsyn’s Children. “ You are giving comfort to the enemies of socialism,” he said. “ Why raise doubts when what we need is solidarity?”

I said if the cause depended on me keeping quiet, then it must be in a shaky state. Perhaps a little healthy debate would make it stronger. Later, he told me that while he could not accept the politics of the film, he loved the style.

To me, the politics of the film are contained in the scene of you and Robitaille walking through the street saying, “What’s wrong with us? We agree with everyone we meet; we find everyone convincing” You call that politics? It is shocking because one is supposed to have made up one’s mind before the camera rolls, and we obviously didn’t. What we had decided was that doubt itself is valid and important. Doubt is the best enemy of fanaticism. We defend the right to doubt in the Film, even when the bullets are flying.

We bring in as a witness the venerable A rth u r London, a member of the Czech parliament who was purged in the 1950s in Stalinist show trials. In spite of un­ just years in prison, he keeps faith.

He quotes Marx as admiring doubt more than any other quality, which surprises a few people. But when Robitaille asks him why he did not voice his doubts earlier in the show trials of the 1930s, also Stalinist, he raises the eternal dilemma: there was the enemy in front — Hitler and Mussolini — and that is not the time to voice doubts. But our Film is saying that is exactly the time.

Later, Robitaille challenges Glucksmann, another New Philo­ sopher, on the same question. Per­ haps there are moments when you have to choose sides, even if your side is behaving abominably; you probably have to shut up about it.

But you have to do it with great wariness, great remorse and mis­ giving.

the Left in the election . . .

Marxism leads to the Gulag: New Philosopher Bernard Henri Levy. Solzhenitsyn's Child­ ren.

But they refuse to be lumbered with that. Glucksmann somehow Doug Kiefer, who shot the Cuba got his hands on an article that film, is a rather stolid, not very Robitaille had written about the excitable person. He would stand New Philosophers and about him­ back and just observe in a calm self and he said, “ You wrote this way. And I think it is really great article about us and you said be­ that in that fight sequence with me cause we weren’t on the Left, you and Stirling the camera is not put us on the Right.” He said, “ I emotionally involved. It is not refuse to accept that categor­ zooming in and out, or hopping all ization: that’s a Gulag; that’s a over the place. The audience can observe everything cleanly and fascist act.” make their own judgments.

In the case of Duckworth, who Yes, or a cold war paradigm . . . did the Vietnam film, the camera Right, and in a way he is correct. became an extension of his own curiosity. If he zoomed in, it was In your films, a lot seems to happen because he wanted to see some­ because of the skill training or back­ thing more closely. And if he ground of the cameramen, rather walked in on something, it was be­ than as a result of your explicit cause of his curiosity.

Once a thing starts, I don’t whis­ direction. One thinks particularly of per in a cameraman’s ear, unless to “Waiting for Fidel” . . . draw his attention to something I know he can’t see. At the end of Rubbo’s “vision” o f Montreal under demoli­ Sad Song, for example, there is this tion, The Walls Come Tumbling Down-

woman being carried out in a cofFin. You can hear my voice on the soundtrack saying, “ Did you get the kid?” because her little daughter was walking in front of the coffin. I wanted it to be clear who she was and what she was doing, and I could see from where Duckworth was that he couldn’t see her.

When I am in front of the camera, I am even more reliant on the cameraman and how he shoots.

In Waiting for Fidel, the first se­ quence where I got in front of the camera was during the argument about the Lenin School. I knew my voice was on the soundtrack, but I didn’t know how much I was in the shot. So when that particular argument finished, I asked Kiefer, “ How much am I in the shot?” and he said, “ You are very much in it.”

I then decided to keep on that way.

Did you see any rushes as you made the Film?

In none of these cases did I see rushes, which was always a prob­ lem. It was particularly bad on Solzhenitsyn’s Children, although since Poulssen was shooting it, I knew it would be technically per­ fect. I didn’t know whether the bits of Robitaille and myself would be usable, so I didn’t go as far as I could have. They were just things that were very often shot off-thecuff, except in the beginning.

A lot of these sequences seem to be more set up than scenes in earlier films . . .

It does look more set up, partly Concluded on p. 89

It is interesting the New Philo­ sophers say that, given that their actions contributed to the failure of I CINEMA PAPERS January-February - 45

FILM CENSORSHIP LISTINGS August 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 For General E xh ib itio n (G) Aasha: F ilm y u g , In d ia , 4 0 0 0 m , S K D F ilm D ist.

The Beads of One Rosary: P o lis h F ilm C o rp ., P o la n d , 3 0 7 2 m , F e s tiv a l o f P e rth

The Frogmen (1 6 m m ): S h u L in , T a iw a n , 1 00 9 m,

S (Sex) ...................................

V (V iolence)...........................

L (Language) ........................

O (Other) ...............................

Explicitness/lntensity

Infrequent

Frequent

Low

Medium

i i i i

f f f f

I I I I

m m m m

Purpose

High

Justified

h h h h

Gratuitous

j j j j

g g g g

C h in e s e C u ltu r a l C e n tre

The Great Muppet Caper: U n lv e rs a l/A F D , B rita in , 2 7 0 5 .1 4

m . H o y ts D ist.

The Grievance of Meng Chia Murder: H a ia C h e n g Yu, H o n g K o n g , 2 3 8 6 m , M a rtin L o u e y Hurray for Betty Boop: D. F le is c h e r, U .S ., 2 1 3 9 .5 0 m, V a lh a lla F ilm s Love on the Wave: N o t s h o w n , H o n g K o n g , 2 3 5 9 m , W. W au My Native Land (1 6 m m ): C h e n Ru L in g , H o n g K o n g , 1217 m , C h in e s e C u ltu r a l C e n tre Napoli terra d'amore: A d e s s i, Ita ly, 2661 m , W o rld F ilm D ist.

On Giant’s Shoulders (1 6 m m ): B B C , B rita in , 1053 m, K. D. S u te r On Sacred Ground (1 6 m m ): R. H u g h e s , A u s tra lia , 6 3 6 .2 6 m . F ilm A u s tra lia Sentimentalist: N o t s h o w n , H o n g K o n g , 241 3 m , M a rtin Louey The Unknown Man’s Story: M o s film , S o v ie t U n io n , 2 6 7 7 .2 5 m , C o m m e rc ia l C o u n s e llo r o f th e S o v ie t U n io n Winds of Change (a): S a n rio , U .S ./J a p a n , 2 1 3 8 .8 0 m, T h e H o u s e o f D a re (a) S e e a ls o u n d e r “ N o t R e c o m m e n d e d fo r C h ild re n " a n d “ F ilm s B o a rd o f R e v ie w ".

Not R ecom m ended fo r C hild re n (NR C ) Blank Generation: R. D e u ts c h , U .S ., 2 1 4 7 .3 8 m , V a l­ h a lla F ilm s , L (i-m -g ) Can be Done , . . Amigo: S a n s o n e & C h ro s c ic k l, Italy, 269 9 m . R e g e n t T ra d in g E n te rp ris e s V ff-l-g ) Das boot ist voll: L im b o F ilm , S w itz e rla n d , 2 7 8 8 .8 0 m.

Le C le z io F ilm s , O fa d u lt c o n c e p ts ) El nido: A P u n to P .G . P ro d s , S p a in , 2 9 5 6 .1 3 m , A .Z. A s s o c ia te d T h e a tre s , O fa d u lt th e m e ) Fabiola U n iv e rs a lia , Ita ly, 3 0 4 3 m , W o rld F ilm D ist..

V (i- m -i) Figlio mio sono innocente: A n a te lli, Ita ly, 260 5 m, W o rld F ilm D ist.. V (i-m -j) Hawk the Slayer: C h ip s P ro d s , B rita in , 2 4 6 8 .8 8 m, H o y ts D ist., V (f-l-g ) Ise stin eok mathe gia tin eok: G re e c e F ilm s /L e fa k is , G re e c e . 2 8 2 8 m , A p o llo n F ilm s , S (i- l-j) The Last of the Blue Devils (1 6 m m ): K e lly /R ic k e r /B e y e r . U .S .. 9 6 5 .3 6 m , S y d n e y U n iv e rs ity F ilm G ro u p . L ( i- l- j) The Monster Club: C h ip s /S w o r d & S o rc e ry , B rita in , 2 7 0 5 .1 4 m , H o y ts D is t.. O fh o rro r) Reunion in the Rain (1 6 m m ): N o t s h o w n , H o n g K o n g .

9 87 m , C h in e s e C u ltu r a l C e n tre , O fa d u lt th e m e ) Rural Teachers: D. K u n ta n g w a tta n a , T h a ila n d , 3 4 7 5 m, T o m K im s o n , V fi-l- j) Urgh — A Music War: L o rim a r, U .S ./B rita in /F ra n c e , 3 3 7 4 .4 5 m . R o a d s h o w D ist., S fi-l- g ) Victory: F irs t F ilm s , T a iw a n , 2 5 0 7 m . G o ld e n Reel F ilm s , V fi-l- j) Winds of Change (a): S a n rio , U .S ./J a p a n , T h e H o u se o f D a re , O fs e x u a l in n u e n d o ) The Young Master: G o ld e n H a rv e s t. H o n g K o n g , 3 0 4 5 .5 0 m . D y n a s ty F ilm C o .. V ff- l-j) (a) S e e a ls o u n d e r “ F o r G e n e ra l E x h ib itio n " a nd "F ilm s B o a rd o f R e v ie w "

For M ature A udien ces (M ) Arthur: W a rn e r B ro s , U .S ., 2 6 7 7 .2 5 m , W a rn e r B ro s (A u s t.), L fi- m - j) Atlantic City: F R 3 -S D IC C , C a n a d a /F ra n c e . 2 8 4 4 .5 8 m, R o a d s h o w D ist., V fi-l- j), L fi- m - j) , O fs e x u a l in n u e n d o ) The Best of Friends: T h e F rie n d ly F ilm C o .. A u s tra lia , 2 6 2 1 .4 7 m . H o y ts D ist., O fs e x u a l in n u e n d o ) Black Alice: T se Y in . H o n g K o n g , 2 7 7 0 m , J o e S iu In t'l F ilm C o .. V fi-m - j) Bustin’ Loose: U n iv e rs a l. U .S ., 253 7.8 1 m , C in e m a I n t i C o rp .. L ft-m -g ) Fade to Black: A m e ric a n C in e m a , U .S ., 2 7 8 8 .8 0 m.

S e v e n K e y s F ilm s . V fi-m - j) Farewell Dearest: T se Y in, H o n g K o n g , 2 5 2 3 m , Jo e S lu In t'l F ilm C o .. V fi-m - j) Gambler’s Duel. K u o H w a M o tio n P ic tu re s . H o n g K o n g , 2 3 5 8 .9 8 m , J o e S iu In t'l F ilm C o .. V fi-m - g ) Hitler: ein film aus Deutschland: H. S y b e rb e r g , W .

G e rm a n y , 1 0,9 72 m , N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre o f A u s ­ tra lia , V fi-m - j), O fs e x u a l in n u e n d o e s ) Honky Tonk Freeway: E M I, U .S .. 2 9 2 8 .2 4 m , G U O F ilm D ist.. L fi- m - g ) . O fs e x u a l a llu s io n )

Jesse and Lester — Two Brothers in a Place Called Trinity: R. H a rris o n /F . P ia zza. U .S ., 2 5 4 8 .2 0 m , R e g e n t T ra d in g E n te rp ris e s , V ft- m -g ) The Kid with a Tattoo: S h a w B ro s . H o n g K o n g , 2 8 1 0 m, J o e S iu In t'l F ilm C o ., V ff- m -j) King Cobra (a): B. W ils o n , U .S .. 2 5 3 7.8 1 m , U n ite d A rtis ts (A sia ), O fh o rro r) Lunch Wagon: M . B o rd e . U .S ., 2 45 4 m . R o a d s h o w D ist., L ft- m - g ) Mama Turns 100: E lia s Q u e je re ta P ro d s .. S p a in , 2 6 8 8 .1 4 m , S h a rm ill F ilm s . S fi- l- j) , L fi- m - j) The Man who left his Will on Film (1 6 m m ): Y a m a g u c h i, J a p a n , 9 8 7 .3 0 m , N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre o f A u s ­ tra lia . S (i- m -j) , V fi-l- j) Money is Lovely: E ast A s ia (H K ) F ilm C o ., H o n g K o n g , 2 4 0 6 15 m , G o ld e n R e el F ilm s , V ft- m -g ) N ightkill: C in e -A rtis t, U .S .. 2 7 0 5 .1 4 m . R o a d s h o w D ist., V fi-m - g )

The Patriot: K a iro s F ilm , W . G e rm a n y , 2 8 3 4 .9 3 m , G o e th e In s titu te , O fa d u lt c o n c e p ts ) Peeping Tom: M ic h a e l P o w e ll (T h e a tre ), B rita in . 2 74 3 m N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia , V fi-m - j)

46 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Sir the Struggle: S h in S h in F ilm E nt. (H K ) C o rp ., H o ng

Video Strip 1 (v id e o ta p e ): S w o rd h e a d , B rita in , 56

K o n s, 2 3 2 8 m , C o m fo rt F ilm E n te rp ris e s , V ft-m -g )

m in s , In te w is io n , O fs trip te a s e )

Stripes: C o lu m b ia , U .S ., 2 9 0 0 .3 5 m . F o x C o lu m b ia

Wild and Beautiful on Ibiza: L is a /G e is e lg a s te ig , W.

F ilm D ist., L ff - m - j) , O fn u d ity )

Suppose I Break Your Neck: S te fa n o F ilm , Italy, 2 4 9 6 .1 3 m , N.S . P ro d s , V ft-m -g ) Take This Job and Shove It: A v c o E m b a s s y , U .S ., 2 6 2 1 .4 7 m , H o yts D ist., L ff-l-g ) Tarzan the Apeman: M -G -M , U .S .. 3 1 2 3 .4 6 m , C in e m a In t'l C o rp ., V fi-m - g ) . L (f-l- g ), O fn u d ity ) Two Wondrous Tigers: G o ld lg , H o n g K o n g , 2 53 3 m, C o m fo rt F ilm E n te rp ris e s , V ff-l-g ) Wrong Side- of the Road (1 6 m m ): In m a P ro d s , A u s ­ tra lia , 8 55 m , In m a P ro d s , L ff- m - j) (a) S e e a ls o u n d e r " F ilm s R e g is te re d w ith E lim in a ­ tio n s " a n d “ F ilm s B o a rd o f R e v ie w ".

For R estricted E xhib itio n (R) Britt Blazer (1 6 m m ) (a): C ro m w e ll P ro d s , U .S ., 6 4 7 .2 3 rri, 14th M a n d o lin , S ff- m -g ) Bruce Lee’s Greatest Revenge (1 6 m m ): N o t s h o w n , H o n g K o n g . 9 5 4 .3 9 m , V id e o C la s s ic s , V ft-m -g ) Cheech & Chong’s Nice Dreams: C & C B ro w n , U.S., 2 3 7 0 .4 8 m, F o x C o lu m b ia F ilm D ist., O fd ru g s , s e x u a l in n u e n d o ). L ft-m -g ) Death Dimension (v id e o ta p e ): H a rry H o p e P ro d s . B rita in /U .S ., 84 m in s , In te rv is io n V id e o , V ft-m -g ) Death Game (v id e o ta p e ): L. S p ie g e l, U .S ., 85 m in s, In te rv is io n V id e o , V ft-m -g ) Diamond Fight: Lei W e i S h a n g , H o n g K o n g , 2 6 6 0 .7 0 m . L ilo n d , V ft-m -g ) Dracula’s Virgin Lovers (v id e o ta p e ): J a n u s F ilm s, S p a in , 78 m in s , L & M Im p o rts , V ft-m -g ) Frank Zappa's 200 Motels (1 6 m m ) (b ): J. G o o d /H .

C o h e n , B rita in , 1 0 5 3 .1 2 m , V a lh a lla F ilm s’, L ft-m -g ) Gums (r e c o n s tr u c te d v e rs io n ) (c): C u m L a u d e F ilm s, U .S .. 1 7 2 9 .0 6 m , B la k e F ilm s , S ff- m -g ), L ft-m -g ) Hot Bubblegum /Lem on Popsicle III (d ): G o la n / G Jobus, Is ra e l, 2 5 9 3 .5 8 m , F o x C o lu m b ia F ilm D ist., S ff- m -g ), L ft- m - g ) International Red Tape 2 (v id e o ta p e ): R ed T a p e P ro d s , B rita in , 59 m in s , P a ris N e o c le o u s , S ff- m -g ), V fi-m -g ) International Red Tape 2 (v id e o ta p e ): R ed T a p e P ro d s , B rita in . 59 m in s , E le c tric B lu e A u s tra la s ia , S ff- m -g ), V fi-m -g ) Kleinhoff Hotel: T ru s t In t'l F ilm s . Ita ly. 2 4 6 8 .7 0 m , A .Z .

A s s o c ia te d T h e a tre s . S ff- m -g ) L'em pire de la passion (1 6 m m ): A r g o s / O s h lm a , F ra n c e /J a p a n , 1 11 8.9 4 m , A u s tra lia n F ilm In s titu te , S fi- m - j) , V fi-m - j) Miss O : G o ld ig F ilm s (H K ), H o n g K o n g , 2 3 9 8 .3 7 m, C o m fo rt F ilm E n te rp ris e s , S fi-m - g ) . V fi-m -g ) Naked Fist: M a s o n In te rn a tio n a l, P h ilip p in e s /U .S ., 2 1 1 9 .4 9 m . R o a d s h o w D ist., V ft- m -g ), S fi-m - g ) Outrage (v id e o ta p e ): M. G re e n . U .S ., 74 m in s , S ta r V id e o , V ft- m -g ) Peggy (r e c o n s tr u c te d v e rs io n ) (1 6 m m ) (e): N o t s h o w n , U .S .. 581.41 m . 14th M a n d o lin . S ff- m -g ), V fi-m -g ) Truck Stop: C o n s u l In t’l F ilm s , Ita ly, 2 4 6 8 .7 0 m, A p o llo n F ilm s , S ff- m -g )

G e rm a n y , 2 3 9 8 .3 7 m , F ilm w a y s A 's ia n D ist., S ff - m - g ) X-rated Loves (r e c o n s tr u c te d v e rs io n ) (1 6 m m ) (f): C a lifo rn ia C la s s ic s , U .S ., 4 9 3 .6 5 m , 14th M a n d o lin , S ff- m -g ) Zeta One (v id e o ta p e ): T ig o n B ritis h , B rita in , 85 m in s , G .L. F ilm E n te rp ris e s , S ff- m -g ) (a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on F e b ru a ry 1981 list. (b ) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on F e b ru a ry 1972 lis t as 200

Motels (c) (d ) (e) (f)

P re v io u s ly s h o w n o n J u n e 1981 list.

S ee a ls o u n d e r “ F ilm s B o a rd o f R e v ie w ".

P re v io u s ly s h o w n o n A p r il 1981 list.

P re v io u s ly s h o w n on A p r il 1981 list.

Special condition: T h a t th e film be s h o w n o n ly to its m e m b e r s b y th e N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia in Its 1981 “ N a g ls a O s h im a ” se a s o n .

Koshikei (Death by Hanging) (16mm): S o z o -S h a P ro d s , J a p a n , 1301 m , N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre o f A u s ­ tra lia Special condition: T h a t th e film w ill b e s h o w n n o t m o re th a n tw ic e e a c h in S y d n e y , M e lb o u rn e a n d C a n b e rra u n d e r th e a u s p ic e s o f th e In d o n e s ia n H e a rt F o u n d a ­ tio n b e tw e e n A u g u s t 29, 1981 a n d S e p te m b e r 7, 1981 (b o th d a te s in c lu s iv e ) a n d th e n e x p o rte d .

Bukan (Not a Play) sandiwara: S ju m a n D ja ya , In d o ­ n e sia , 4 1 1 5 m . In d o n e s ia n H e a rt F o u n d a tio n

Disini cinta pertama kali bersemi (Here Love First Blossomed): W im U m b o h . In d o n e s ia , 4 1 1 5 m , In d o ­ n e s ia n H e a rt F o u n d a tio n

Pelajaran cinta (Love’s Lesson): N o t s h o w n , In d o ­ n e sia . 4 1 1 5 m , In d o n e s ia n H e a rt F o u n d a tio n

Films Registered With Eliminations For M ature A udiences (M ) King Cobra (a): B. W ils o n , U .S ., 253 7.8 1 m , U n ite d A rtis ts (A ’s ia ). O fh o rro r) D e le tio n s : N o t m a d e R e a so n fo r D e le tio n s : O fs e x u a l v io le n c e , a n im a l c ru e lty ) Mr Mike's Mondo Video: N e w L in e , U .S ., 2 2 0 3 .1 5 m.

V a lh a lla F ilm s , O fb la c k h u m o r, a n im a l c ru e lty ) D e le tio n s : 134 m (1 m in . 53 se cs) R e a s o n s fo r D e le tio n s : O fa n im a l c ru e lty )

For R estricted E xh ib itio n (R) Flying Sex ( r e c o n s tr u c te d v e rs io n ) (b ): F u lv ia Film , Ita ly. 2 2 1 9 m . A .Z . A s s o c ia te d T h e a tre s , S ff- m -g ) D e le tio n s : 5 m (11 se cs) R e a so n fo r D e le tio n s : S fi-h -g ) The Mermaid': A rg o n P ro d s , U .S ., 2 21 9 m . C in e ra m a F ilm s . S ff- m -g ), V fi-m -g ) D e le tio n s : 11 m (2 2 se cs) R e a so n fo r D e le tio n s : O fs e x u a l v io le n c e ) (a) S e e a ls o u n d e r “ F o r M a tu re A u d ie n c e s " a n d "F ilm s B o a rd o f R e v ie w ". (b ) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on M a y 1981 list.

Films Refused Registration Black Deep Throat (v id e o ta p e ) (a): R a n d a ll/S p e c ta c u la r F ilm S ff- h -g )

P ro d .,

Ita ly, 86 m in s ,

L & M

Im p o rts ,

The Budding of Brie: G a rd P ro d s , U .S ., 2 1 2 7 .1 0 m .

R e g e n t T ra d in g E n te rp ris e s , S ff- m -g ), L fi- h - g )

The Captives (Vi fangni): B. K o b e n h a v e n , D e n m a rk , 1 7 6 6 .2 0 m . C in e ra m a F ilm s , O fs e x u a l v io le n c e , d ru g abuse) Carnal Games ( p re -c e n s o r c u t v e rs io n ): B. G rip e , U .S ., 1 4 5 6 .8 0 m . A .Z . A s s o c ia te d T h e a tr e s , S ff - m - g ) , O fs e x u a l c ru e lty ) Cruel Passion (v id e o ta p e ) (b ): C. B o g e r, B rita in , 92 m in s , In te rv is io n V id e o , O fs e x u a l e x p lo ita tio n o f a m in o r) Dans l’empire des sens (1 6 m m ) (c): A rg o s y /O s h im a .

J a p a n /F r a n c e , 1 1 0 9 .9 0 m , N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia . S fi-h -g ), O fs e x u a l v io le n c e ) Dracula Sucks (v id e o ta p e ) (d ): D. M a rs h a k , U .S ., 91 m in s , V id e o C la s s ic s , S fi-h -g ) Emanuelle, Queen of Sados: A n d ro m e d a P ro d s , G re e c e , 2 4 7 0 ,1 0 m , A p o llo n F ilm s , O fs e x u a l e x p lo ita ­ tio n o f a m in o r) Escort Girls (v id e o ta p e ) (e): D. W in te r, B rita in , 105 m in s , L & M Im p o r ts , S fi-h -g ) The Harder They Fall ( r e c o n s tr u c te d v e rs io n ) (1 6 m m ) (f) : S c o r p io P ro d s , U .S ., 6 1 1 .2 0 m , 1 4th M a n d o lin , O fs e x u a l v io le n c e ) Lolita Goes to College ( r e c o n s tr u c te d v e rs io n ) (1 6 m m ) (g ) : C in e c a l P ro d ., U .S .. 4 5 1 .1 0 m . 1 4th M a n d o lin , S fi-h -g ) Possession of Emanuelle (1 6 m m ): L.A . P ro d s , U .S ., 4 8 1 .2 0 m , G .L. F ilm E n te rp ris e s , S fi-h -g ) Private Lessons (v id e o ta p e ): R. B e n E fra im , U .S ., 86 m in s . S ta r V id e o , O fs e x u a l e x p lo ita tio n o f a m in o r) Slaves in Cages (Slaver i bure): B. K o b e n h a v e n , D e n ­ m a rk , 1 9 0 6 .4 0 m , C in e ra m a F ilm s , O fs e x u a l v io le n c e ) Twin Games (v id e o ta p e ): N o t s h o w n , F ra n c e , 52 m in s , L & M Im p o rts , S ff- h -g ) (a) P re v io u s ly re g is te re d in a p re -c e n s o r c u t v e rs io n (M a y 1979 list). (b ) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on F e b ru a ry 1981 list. . (c) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on N o v e m b e r 1977 list. (d ) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on M a rc h 1980 list. (e) P re v io u s ly s h o w n o n A p r il 1974 lis t a s All Lovers

are Strangers (f) P re v io u s ly s h o w n o n F e b ru a ry 1981 list. (g ) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on M a rc h 1981 list.

Films Board of Review Hot B ubblegum /Lem on P opsicle III (a ): G o la n / G lo b u s . Is ra e l, 2 5 9 3 .5 8 m . F o x C o lu m b ia F ilm D ist., S ff- m -g ). L (f-m - g ) D e c is io n R e v ie w e d : C la s s ifie d “ R " b y F ilm C e n s o rs h ip B o a rd .

D e c is io n o f th e B o a rd : U p h o ld d e c is io n o f F ilm C e n ­ s o rs h ip B o a rd .

King Cobra (b ): B. W ils o n . U .S ., 2 53 7.8 1 m , U n ite d A rtis ts (A sia ) D e c is io n R e v ie w e d : R e g is te r " M " w ith e lim in a tio n s by th e F ilm C e n s o rs h ip B o a rd .

D e c is io n o f th e B o a rd : R e g is te r "M ".

Winds of Change (c): S a n rio , U .S ./J a p a n , 2 1 3 8 .8 0 m , T h e H o u s e o f D a re D e c is io n re v ie w e d : C la s s ify “ N R C " b y th e F ilm C e n ­ s o rs h ip B o a rd .

D e c is io n o f th e B o a rd : C la s s ify “ G ". (a) S ee a ls o u n d e r “ F o r R e s tric te d E x h ib itio n ". (b ) S e e a ls o u n d e r “ F o r M a tu re A u d ie n c e s " a n d "F ilm s R e g is te re d W ith E lim in a tio n s ” . (c) S e e a ls o u n d e r “ F o r G e n e ra l E x h ib itio n " a n d “ N o t R e c o m m e n d e d fo r C h ild r e n ” .

September 1981

Films Registered Without Eliminations For General E x h ib itio n (G ) The C osm ic

Man (16m m ): A llie d A rtis ts , U.S., 987.30 m, The C astellorizian Club Earthbound: Taft Int'l, U.S., 2700 m, Sunn Classic Prods Fighting Chance: K. M errill, U.S., 2984.02 m, Sunn C lassic Prods The Frogmen: Not shown, Taiwan, 2783.23 m, Joe Siu In t'l Film Co. From Mao to Mozart: Isaac Stern in China (16m m ): H a rm ony Film G roup, U.S., 888.57 m, C o nsolidated E xh ibitors Harukanaru yama no yobigoe (A Distant Cry From Spring): S h ochiku , Japan, 3346.46 m, A rclig h t He Never Gives Up: Mei Chang Ling, Hong Kong, 2967.58 m, G olden Reel Film s O kotsos ke i exogeini: K a rag iannis & Co., G reece, 2491 m, A p ollon Film s

Concluded on p. 89

Photography by Peter McIntosh.

Australia’s finest Sound Studios now have a 40'x40' water floor available for cine or stills.

Call Maryanne Morss (02) 858 7600 for full details. y

/4RTRANSA PARK FILM STUDIOS Television Centre, P.O. Box 120, Epping, NSW. 2121 Telegrams: "Artfilm" Sydney. Telex AA20250

BREAKER MORANT

Patterns of heroism Thelma Ragas

eresford’s motif of vertical and recurring pattern of American hero­ and wealth, the prerogative of the elite, as well horizontal lines in the interior and ism identified by Anthony Hopkins as the British Imperialist connotation. This is a exterior sequences in Breaker in a brief essay, “Contemporary sharp contrast to the sparseness and neutral Morant signifies the core of the Heroism — Vitality in Defeat” , in color of the Australians’ environment. This con­ polarization and areas of domina­ Heroes o f Popular Culture1 provides trast is set up early in the film with a cut from the attack tion for the heroes and society, in “the unequ a useful framework for analysing the nature of on the Boer farmhouse by the Car­ bineers struggle between individual vitality and soci Australian heroism in Breaker Morant.

Hop­to Kitchener’s office.

Lord Kitchener (Alan Cassell), his aide, organization” . Until the final execution scene, kins identifies four major features which can be Lieutenant Colonel Denny (Charles Tingwell), the Australians are shown to be in control of the correlated with the Australian film: 1. “The hero possesses exceptional natural and Major Bolton (Rod Mullinar) are the arche­ exterior landscape, “through his innate, native vitality, both in terms of masculine energy typal Imperialists in manner, speech and groom­ abilities — intelligence, skill, tenacity as an and spiritual integrity . . . his virtues are ing. It is significant that Denny, the ruling individual” .

Shots of the unbroken horizontal line of the native rather than civilized, tending toward officer at the court-martial, and prosecuting potency rather than purity, cunning rather counsel Major Bolton, share this scene with Kit­ veldt are dominated by the line of Bushveldt chener: the symbolic effect will be carried over Carbineers. Horsemen are shown from frame than honor.

2. “ Society is inherently and massively to the courtroom where they will be the admin­ edge to frame edge — the veldt occupies threequarters of the frame, intensifying the imagery repressive, by its nature and in its opera­ istrators of British order and justice.

At a significant point in the court-martial, of dominance. The blending of the khaki tions opposed to vitality, eccentricity, where tension has been gradually built up by uniforms with the veldt suggests their being in individuality, and independence.

3. “ Despite increasing social pressure, the cutting to flashbacks of the event in question, unity with their environment: their more immed­ hero remains non-conforming. The hero — interspersed with close-ups of the person under iate enemy, the Boers, are shown in dark colors, who possesses neither social power nor cross-examination, and the fate of the three an ironic contrast. Other panoramic shots of the influence — stands alone in essential accused depends on the validity of Kitchener’s veldt have the Australians dominating the front spiritual opposition to social forces issuing standing orders to take no prisoners-of- of the frame.

The groupings and placement of tables in the encroaching ever more progressively upon war. Bruce Beresford cuts to Kitchener’s office.

Kitchener. Commander of the British Army in courtroom emphasize the formal structure of his independence and freedom.

4. “The hero suffers defeat, destruction, South Africa, surrounded by the color red, is British Imperialist society and its “operation” . reflected in the mirror. The mise-en-scene of this The courtroom is continually shot down the death.”

The two prime elements of the pattern, the shot has a powerful effect: this double image vertical line of the accused’s table to the hori­ nature of the hero as cited in ( 1 ) and the nature signifies the Janus face of British Imperialism, zontal line of the court-martial committee’s of society as cited in (2 ), are continually juxta­ the deceit and the resultant miscarriage of table. The table dominates the top of the frame, posed by the editing, throughout the linear and justice that will be perpetrated to preserve the signifying the top ruling element of society. The vertical line of the tables running to the top of diegetic development of Breaker Morant, until status quo.

The power of this society is also signified by the frame is emphasized by the painted line of (4) is realized.

Director Bruce Beresford’s mise-en-scene and the bust of Victoria, reflected beside Kitchener; the wall; the accused Australians, unless shot in framing are crucial to the projection and inten­ the Empire reached its zenith under this close-up, are seen below this dominant line. This sification of the “ polar incompatibility” be­ monarch. The legal process of this society is a is in direct contrast to their dominant position in tween the inherently repressive society of 19th farce, by its “operations” designed to subjugate the framing of the exterior veldt sequences.

Century/early 20th Century Imperialist Britain “ individuality and independence” when In the prison quarters the heroes are over­ and the Australians of the Bushveldt Car­ necessary. powered by the structure; the lines of the roofing bineers, the “ irregular” mounted unit of the British Army, during the Boer War. The Carbineers’ task was to eradicate Boer guerrillas: the three Australian officers — Morant (Edward Woodward), Handcock (Bryan Brown) and Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald) — have been accused of unlawfully executing Boer prisoners and a German civilian. The framing and mise-en-scene of the interior scenes are con­ trasted with the exterior scenes. The interior sequences in the courtroom, Kitchener’s head­ quarters and the prisoners’ quarters symbolize the all-pervading power and dominance of British Imperialism, its “nature” and its “ opera­ tion” .

Kitchener’s office at Army headquarters is dominated by the color red, symbolic of power

A

]. Hopkins. A.. “Contemporary Heroism — Vitality in Defeat” . Heroes o f Popular Culture, edited by Ray B. Browne, Bowling Green, Ohio, Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1972.

48 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

B

A plea for justice singularly out o f place in the smug sureness o f British Imperialism: Major Thomas (Jack Thompson) watched by an aide (Vincent Ball), appeals to Lord Kitchener (Alan Cassell), right, on behalf o f the accused. Breaker Morant.

2nd Glance/Breaker Morant

arches bear down upon them, and their defending counsel, Major Thomas, as they talk over their case and possible fate. In the scene outside the prison cells, when the youthful Witton and the larrikin Handcock debate the most serious charge of shooting the German civilian missionary, and the consequences of telling the truth to Thomas, the prison wall fills three-quarters of the frame, dwarfing the men.

The heroes, in the realm of society, are below the unbroken horizontal line of the wall. This framing emphasizes “the individual standing alone in essential spiritual opposition to the social forces encroaching ever more progres­ sively upon his independence” , as Hopkins states.

Ironically, the viewer is aware that the fate of the heroes has been predetermined; they are the victims of social pressure and institutions, as Hopkins suggests, and further elaborates that no one “ seems to have any degree of significant directional influence” . Major Thomas (Jack Thompson), the defence counsel, tries in vain to influence the institution of British military law to the less inimical stance towards individual action. But, in this case, the British army and nation must appease the German Kaiser in the eternal political power game.

Irony is threaded through the narrative accen­ tuating the hypocrisy of the British Imperialist society, which nurtured a doctrine of altruism.

Jeffrey Richards says of this doctrine in “ Imperial images: the British Empire and Monarchy on Film” , in Conflict and Control in the Cinema, “It incorporated the Protestant work ethic and a Calvinistic belief in the British as ‘the elect’, who with their traditions of parliamen­ tary democracy, freedom of speech and the equitable administration of justice and with all the technological advances of the Indus­ trial Revolution, had a responsibility to pro­ vide the world . . . with these benefits: Peace, Order, Justice. ” 2 The policy of altruism is smugly mentioned by Major Bolton in one of the two scenes shot in Kitchener’s office, which sets up the nature of British Imperialism, the dominant society of Breaker Morant. The music in the film is strongly nationalistic, full of “noble” senti­ ments, and carries this ironic thread along, lending weight at crucial points in the courtmartial; it effectively undercuts the supposed democratic process of the law.

The diverse characters of the two counsels, Major Thomas for the defendants and Major Bolton for the prosecution, encapsulate and reflect the “unequal struggle between individual

The courtroom, with the over-bearing roofing and the unbroken line on the wall: the accused are dominated by it, whereas the British officers on the elevated dais break through and surmount it. Breaker Morant.

2. Richards, J., “ Imperial images: the British Empire and Monarchy on Film” , Conflict and Control in the Cinema, edited by John Tulloch, South Melbourne, Macmillan, 1977.

vitality and social organization” . Bolton is the epitome of the British legal system, cool and competent in his knowledge of court procedure, and the delivery of his well-prepared case: the letter of the law must be adhered to. He refers to Thomas, the Australian, as “my learned colonial colleague” , with its strong overtones of patronization to one outside “the elect” , as the latter initially fumbles his way through his brief.

Bolton is the mouthpiece of British Imperial­ ism; justice must be seen to be done for justice’s sake, to ensure the perpetuation of the system.

The Australian Thomas is in complete con­ trast to Bolton: he is inept, and inexperienced in the machinations of the legal system. But he believes in the cause of the individual, that all men are equal before the law. He struggles to develop his case, moving outside accepted pro­ cedural practices to substantiate his case. He forces Kitchener to make an outright denial, through his representative, that he issued the crucial standing orders to take no prisoners.

He has that quality of spiritual integrity iden­ tified by Hopkins, which is reflected in his

Major Thomas “is in complete contrast to Bolton: he is inept, and inexperienced in the machinations of the legal system’’.

Breaker Morant.

Major Bolton (Rod Mu Hinar), “epitome o f the British legal system, cool and competent in his knowledge o f court procedure. . . ” Breaker Morant.

eloquent final plea for justice to prevail.

The final irony is that Thomas’ tenacious pursuit of right seals the fate of the three accused; by endeavoring to prove that the Car­ bineers had previously carried out these orders with impunity, the Australian counsel had threatened the integrity of British justice. The ultimate victory of “the social organization” — British Imperialism — over the individual is sig­ nified by the final shot of the courtroom; it is framed from overhead through the heavy criss­ cross of beams.

he remaining prime element of Breaker Morant, and one of the four major features of the pattern of hero­ ism in Hopkins’ article, is the nature of the hero. The “masculine energy” and “ natural vitality” of the Australian Bush veldt Carbineers are contrasted with the British soldier, the representative of the British Army, the tool of the repressive society in the film, who, unlike the ruggedly-dressed Australians, is kilted and constantly on foot. This irregular unit is shown to be effective at the work the regular soldier is incapable of carrying out successfully.

This is brought home by the scene where the three accused are temporarily released from their prison cells to ward off a Boer attack on the prison headquarters, and are largely responsible for the attack’s failure.

The former British leader of the predom­ inantly Australian Carbineers acknowledges at the court-martial that it was impossible to main­ tain discipline with the Australians. They exploited situations to their own advantage with native entrepreneurial skill, unlike their British counterpart; their breaches of the rules of war, the “ operations” of the repressive society, were the most effective. Breaker Morant, the leader of the unit, after the death of Hunt, is viewed as “ a renaissance figure” by the British officers at the dinner attended by the Australian Major Thomas.

The feeling of this new life, this “ intense impulse toward life” , as Hopkins puts it, is an unknown quantity to the British. This is con­ veyed by the mise-en-scene of the dinner scene.

A wide shot is taken down the dinner table, with

T

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 49

“It contains just about everything the Australian film industry one could ever wish to know .“ National Times “A must for anyone interested in the localfilm industry.

A ustralian Playboy “Everything one could possibly want to know about the Australian film industry seems to be contained in the Australian Motion Picture Yearbook . . . a reference book no one seeking information about the film industry Down Under can afford to be without.

Screen International Cinema Papers

A U S T R A L IA N

M O TIO N P IC T U R E YEARBO O K 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 19 81/82 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

Contents

PART 2: Feature Rims 1980 and 1981

PART 1 : Australian Rim Industry Round-up Local Production; Distribution and Exhibition; Government and the Film Industry; Film Organizations; Festivals; Awards and Competitions; Visitors; Television; Censorship; Technology; The Media.

Overseas Introduction; Sales and Releases; Festivals, Awards and Competitions; Overseas Media.

PART 3: Profiles Bruce Beresford, Matt Carroll and David Williamson.

PART 4: Feature Rim Personnel ^ Producers. Directors, Screenwriters, Directors of Photography, Editors, Production Designers and Art Directors, Composers, Sound Recordists.

PART 5: Directory

PART 6: Media

Organizations Services and Facilities

Print, Radio, Television, Overseas Media Representatives, Film Bookshops and Record Shops.

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.

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: 19 7 0 ­ 1980 Capital City Maps Advertisers’ Index

F ill out order form fo r the 1980 and 1981/82 Editions on page 8 o f this special insert.

2

lE W fro m H CINEMA PAPERS in association with Thomas Nelson

AUSTRALIAN TV The firs t 25 years records, year by year, all the important television events. Over 600 photographs, some in full color, recall forgotten images and preserve memories of programmes long since wiped from the tapes.

The book covers every facet of television programming — light entertainment, quizzes, news and documentaries, kids’ programmes, sport, drama, movies, commercials... Contributors include Jim Murphy, Brian Courtis, Garrie Hutchinson, Andrew McKay, Christopher Day, Ivan Hutchinson.

AUSTRALIAN TV takes you back to the time when television for most Australians was a curiosity — a shadowy, often soundless, picture in the window of the local electricity store. The quality of the early programmes was at best unpredictable, but still people would gather to watch the Melbourne Olympics, Chuck Faulkner reading the news, or even the test pattern!

At first imported series were the order of the day. Only Graham Kennedy and Bob Dyer could challenge the ratings of the westerns and situation comedies from America and Britain.

$

1 4 . 9 5

Then came The Mavis Bramston Show. With the popularity of that rude and irreverent show, Australian television came into its own.

Programmes like Number 96, The Box, Against the Wind, Sale of the Century have achieved ratings that are by world standards remarkable.

AUSTRALIAN TV is an entertainment, a delight, and a commemoration of a lively, fast­ growing industry.

F ill out order form fo r Australian TV on page 8 o f this special insert.

3

208

pps, 2 8 cm x 2 0 .5 cm ( i i � x 8 ")

^ x In this major work on the Australian film industry s dramatic rebirth, 12 leading film writers combine to provide a lively and entertaining critique. Illustrated with 265 stills, including 5$ in full color, this book is an invaluable record for all those interested in the New Australian Cinema.

T he chapters: T he Past (Andrew P ike), Social Realism (K eith Connolly), Comedy (G eoff M ayer), Horror and Suspense (Brian M cFarlane), Action and Adventure (Susan D erm ody), Fantasy (Adrian M artin), Historical Film s (Tom R yan), Personal Relationships and Sexuality (M eaghan M orris), Loneliness and Alienation (R od Bishop and Fiona M ackie), Children’s Film s (Virginia D uigan), Avant-garde (Sam Rohdie).

F ill out order form fo r The New Australian Cinema on page 8 o f this special insert.

4

ù

ù

i

In November last the Film and Television Production 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 success.

Tape recordings made of the proceedings have been transcribed and edited by Cinema Papers, and published as the Film Expo Seminar Report.

Copies can be ordered for $25 each.

Contributors

Contents

Arthur Abeles

»

Chairman, Filmarketeers Ltd (U S )

Barbara D. Boyle Executive Vice-President, and Chief Operating Officer, New World Pictures (U S.)

Ashley Boone Worldwide Marketing and Distribution Head, Ladd Company (U.S.)

Mark Damon

Theatrical Production The Package: Two Perspectives Perspective I: As Seen by the Buyer (i)

Partial versus complete packaging, or starting from scratch with an idea. (ii) Evaluating for different markets, different costs (budgeting).

Speakers: Barry Spikings; Mike Medavoy

President, Producers Sales Organization (U.S.)

Perspective II: As Seen by the Seller

Michael Fuchs

The role of the agent in packaging.

Speaker: Harry Ufland

Senior Vice-President. Programming, Home Box Office (U.S.)

Samuel W. Gelfman Independent Producer (U.S.)

(i)

Klaus Hellwig President, Janus Film Und Fernsehen (Germany)

Lois Luger Vice-President, Television Sales, Avco Embassy Pictures Corporation (U.S.)

Professor Avv. Massimo FerraraSantamaria Lawyer (Italy)

Theatrical Production Business and Legal Aspects

.

Mike Medavoy Executive Vice-President, Orion Pictures (U.S.)

Simon O. Olswang Solicitor. Brecker and Company (Britain)

Rudy Petersdorf President and Chief Operating Officer, Australian Films Office Inc. (U.S.)

Barry Spikings Chairman and Chief Executive, EMI Film and Theatre Corporation (Britain)

Eric Weissmann Partner, Kaplan, Livingston, Goodwin, Berkowitz and Selvin

Harry Ufland President, The Ufland Agency (U.S)

Sources of materials (published, original screenplays, etc.). (ii) Forms of acquisition agreements and/or writer's agreements. (iii) Talent agreements (“ pay or play" defer­ ments, “ going rates", approvals). (iv) Insurance. (v) Guild and union requirements (foreign and domestic production). (vi) S u b sid ia ry rig h ts. P u b lish in g music, merchandising, etc.

Speaker: Eric Weissmann

Distribution Outside the United States Distribution terms Relationship and terms with sub-distributors and exhibitors. Recoupment of expenses. C ross-collateralizing territories Dubbing. Censorship Speakers Arthur Abeles: Klaus Hellwig(Northern European perspective); Massimo Ferrara (Italian and European perspective).

Television Production and Distribution Production for network or syndication. Deficit financing. Tape versus film Licensing "off-net­ work” . United States and foreign. Commercial versus public broadcasting Speaker: Lois Luger

Financing of Theatrical Films Major Studios Control, approvals, overhead, over-budget provi­ sions, total or partial financing Negative pick-up Speaker: Rudy Petersdorf

Financing of Theatrical Films Independent Studios Rise of independent financing. Tax motivated and otherwise. Completion financing.

Speaker: Sam Gelfman

Distribution in the United States

Presale of Rights

(i)

Separating rights by media Pay television free television (network syndication) Speaker: Michael Fuchs

Mapping the distribution sales campaign' When and where to open. How to allocate advertising budgets. Number of theatres.

70mm and stereo Reissues. Ancillary markets — hold back for pay and free television. (ii) Exhibition terms. Advances and guaran­ tees; split of box-office (90-1 0 with “ floor", “ house-nut", etc.); blind bidding; policing Speaker: Ashley Boone

Producer/Distributor Relationship Terms: Differences where distributor financed production. How d istrib u to r expenses are recouped. Distributor fees. Advertising commit­ ment. if any Outside sales representative.

Speaker: Barbara Boyle

Presale by Territory Advantages and problems. Interim and comple­ tion financing Term of distribution rights Speaker: Mark Damon

Multi-National and Other Co-Productions Availability of subsidies. Treaties. Tax incentives Government investments Speaker: Simon Olswang

F ill out order form fo r the Film Expo Sem inar R eport on page 8 o f this special insert.

5

BACK ISSUES Take advantage of our special offer and catch up on your missing issues. M ultiple copies less than 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 illiamson. Ray Harryhausen. Peter Weir.

Gillian Armstrong. Ken G. Hall. Tariff Board Report.

Antony I. Ginnane. The Cars That Ate Paris.

Violence in the Cinema.

Alvin Purple. Frank Moorhouse. Sandy Harbutt.

F ilm U n d e r A lle n d e .

Nicholas Roeg. Between Wars.

Jo hn P a p a d o p o lo u s .

Willis O'Brien. The McDonagh Sisters. Richard Brennan. Luis Buñuel.

The True Story of Eskimo Nell.

Jennings Lang. Byron Haskin. Surf Films. Brian Probyn. Sunday Too Far Away. Charles Chauvel.

Index: Volum e 1

M ilos Form an. M iklos Jancso. Luchino Visconti.

Robyn Spry. Oz. Mad Dog Morgan. Joan Long.

Index: Volum e 2

Number 12 April 1977

Number 13 July 1977

Number 14 October 1977

Number 15 January 1978

Number 16 April-June 1978

Kenneth Loach. Tom Haydon. Bert Deling. Piero Tosi. Jo h n S co tt. John D ankworth. The Getting

Louise M alle. Paul Cox. John Power. Peter Sykes.

B ernardo Bertolucci. F.J.

Phil Noyce. Eric Rohmer.

John Huston. Blue Fire

Tom C o w an, F ra n c o is Truffaut. Delphine Seyrig.

Lady

H old en . In S earch of Anna.

Index: Volum e 3

Chinese Cinema.

The Irishman. The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. Sri Lankan Cinem a. The Last Wave '

Patrick. Swedish Cinema.

J o h n D u ig a n . S te v e n Spielberg. Dawn! Mouth to Mouth. Film P e riod­ icals.

of W is d o m . J o u r n e y Among Women.

S u m m e r f ie ld .

Number 10 September-October 1976

Number 11 January 1977

Nagisa Oshima. Phillippe Mora. Gay Cinema. John Heyer. Krzysztof Zanussi.

M arco Ferre ri. M arco Bellocchio.

Emile de Antonio. Aus­ tralian Film Censorship.

S am A r k o ff. R o m a n Polanski. T h e Pictu re Show Man. Don’s Party.

Storm Boy.

Number 17 August-September 1978

Number 18 October-November 1978

Bill Bain. Isabelle Hup­ pert. Polish Cinem a. The Night the Prowler. Pierre Rissient. Newsfront. Film Study Resources.

John Lam ond. 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.

Index: Volum e 4

C IP ^ p il

Number 19 January-February 1979 A n t o n y I. G in n a n e .

Jerem y Thom as. Blue Fin. A n d re w S a r r is . A s ia n C in e m a .

S p o n s o re d Docum entaries.

»

Number 20 March-April 1979

Number 21 May-June 1979

Ken C a m e ro n . F re n c h C inem a. Jim S h arm an.

My Brilliant Career. Film S tu d y R e s o u rc e s . The

Mad Max. V ietnam on Film. Grendel, Grendel, G re n d e l. D a v id H e m mings. The Odd Angry Shot. Box-O ffice Grosses.

Snapshot.

Night the Prowler.

Number 22 July-August 1979 Bruce Petty. A lbie Thoms.

N ew sfront. F ilm S tu d y R e s o u rc e s . K o s ta s .

Money Movers. The Aus­ tra lia n F ilm and vision School.

T e le ­

Index: Volum e 5

a & ssa m

Number 23 September-October 1979

Number 24 December 1979 January 1980

A u s tr a lia n

T e le v is io n .

Last of the Knucklemen.

W o m e n F ilm m a k e r s .

Japanese Cinem a. My B rillia n t C a re e r. T im .

TMrat. Tim Burstall.

Brian Trenchard Smith.

Palm Beach. B razilian Cinema. Jerzy Toeplitz.

C om m unity Television.

Arthur Hiller.

Number 25 February-March 1980 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

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

The New Z ea land Film Industry. T h e Z Men. Peter Y e ldha m . Maybe This Time. Donald Richie.

G r e n d e l, G r e n d e l, Grendel

M ax: Volume 6

Number 28 August-September 1980

Number 29 October - November 1980

Number 32 May-June 1981

Number 33 July-August 1981

Number 34 September -October 1981

The Film s of Bruce Beresford. Stir. M elbourne and S ydney Film Festivals.

Breaker Moran.t. S tacy K each Roadgam es

Bob Ellis. A ctors Equity D e b a t e . U r i W in d t .

Judy Davis. David William­ son. Richard Rush. Cuban Cinema. A Tow n Like A lic e . F la s h G o rd o n .

Channel 0/28.

John Duigan on Winter of Our Dreams. Government and the Film Industry. Tax and Film. Chris Noonan.

Robert Altman. Gallipoli.

Roadgames. Grendel.

Peter Weir. B lake E d­ wards. Shohei Imamura.

Winter o f O ur Dreams.

Melbourne and Sydney Film Festivals. Hoodwink.

C r u is in g T h e L a s t Outlaw. Philippine C in­ ema. The Club.

Note: numbers 4, 6, 7, 8, 30 and 31 are out of print.

Number 35 November-December 1981 Mad Max II. M a rg a re t Kelly and Joan Long on Puberty Blues. M aurice Murphy. Roman Polanski.

W omen in Drama . \

1 or 3 or 5 or 7 or

2 copies $4 4 copies $3 6 copies $2 more copies

each each (save $1 per copy) each (save $2 per copy) $1.80 each (save $2.20 per copy)

F ill out order form fo r Cinema Papers back issues on page 8 o f this special insert.

Drowsy Summer Reading and a great Christmas Gift idea !

1 year ( 6 issues) $18 2 years (12 issues) $32 Save $4 on single issue purchase price

3 years (18 issues) $4 6 Save $8 on single issue purchase price Overseas Rates

(All remittances in Australian dollars only) Bound Volum es

Subscriptions

Ezibinders

Back Issues

18 issues

(each)

(each)

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

$46.40 (Surface)

$67.70 (Surface)

$33.30 (Surface)

$19.00 (Surface)

$1.20 (Surface)

$32.50 (Air)

$65.00 (Air)

$92.70 (Air)

$36.50 (Air)

$19.90 (Air)

$2.80 (Air)

$25.20 (Surface)

$46.40 (Surface)

$67.60 (Surface)

$33.30 (Surface)

$19.00 (Surface)

$1.20 (Surface)

536.70 (Air)

$72.00 (Air)

$105.30 (Air)

$37.10 (Air)

$20.95 (Air)

$3.50 (Air)

3. Hong Kong India Japan Philippines China

$25.20 (Surface)

$46.40 (Surface)

$67.60 (Surface)

$33.30 (Surface)

$19.00 (Surface)

$1.20 (Surface)

$42.60 (Air)

580.40 (Air)

$117.90 (Air)

$40.00 (Air)

$22.00 (Air)

$4.10 (Air)

4. North America Middle East Canada

$25.20 (Surface)

$46.40 (Surface)

$67.60 (Surface)

$33.30 (Surface)

$19.00 (Surface)

$1.20 (Surface)

$48.90 (Air)

$88.80 (Air)

$130.50 (Air)

$43.20 (Air)

$23.95 (Air)

$5.15 (Air)

$25.20 (Surface)

$46.40 (Surface)

$67.60 (Surface)

$33.30 (Surface)

$19.00 (Surface)

$1.20 (Surface)

$53.10 (Air)

$93.00 (Air)

$136.80 (Air)

$45.00 (Air)

$25.00 (Air)

$5.85 (Air)

Zone 1. New Zealand Niugini

2. Malaysia Singapore H ji

5. Britain Europe Africa Sth America

6 issues

12 issues

$25.20 (Surface)

'

-

N O T E : A “ Surface Air Lift" (airspeeded) service is available to Britain, G erm any, Greece, Italy and North America. Subscriptions: 6 issues — $43.80; 1 2 issues — $83.60; 18 issues — $1 23.40. Bound Volum es (each) — $35.20. Ezibinders (each) — $20.75. Back Issues — add $4.30 per copy.

B O U N D VO LU M ES

EZIBINDERS

ORDER VOLUME 7 NOW (numbers 25-30)

Volumes 3 (9-12), 4 (13-16), 5 (17-20) and 7 (21-24) are still available.

, ,

Handsomely bound in black with gold embossed lettering Volume 7 contains 5I2 lavishly-illustrated pages o f # Exclusive interviews with producers, directors, actors and technicians. e Valuable historical material on Australian film . production # f ilm and book reviews.

0 Production surveys and reports from the sets o f local and international production.

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

A A /v • Includes I2pp Index y w U per volume

S T R IC T L Y L IM IT E D E D IT IO N S P L K A S E N O T E : Volum e I (numbers I -4) and Volum e 2 (numbers 5-8) A R E N O W U N A V A IL A B L E .

F ill out order form overleaf fo r Cinema Papers Subscriptions G ift Subscriptions Bound Volumes and Ezibinders.

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

7

Subscriptions

Please enter a su b scrip tio n fo r 6 issues ($18) □

Please start □

renew □

12 issues ($32)

d

1 8 issues

($46)

d

my subscription with the next issue. If a renewal, Delivered to your door post free

please state Record No. (Details) Subscriber’s name Address ................

O f f ic e u s e o n ly NP

Postcode

Gift Subscriptions

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

□ Back issues

OK

Gift-subscription from (name of sender)

1 or 3 or 5 or 7 or

2 copies $4 4 copies $3 6 copies $2 more copies

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 issues, and fill out the form below. If you would like multiple copies of any one issue, indicate the number you require in the appropriate box.

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D O 1

Bound volumes

2

3

□

□

□

29

32 33

5 9

□

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

20

21

Ezibinders

19

4 (issues 13-16)

□

22

23

24

25

26

2728

□

34 35

Please send me bound volumes of

d

3 (issues 9-12)

d

Allow four weeks fo r processing.

□

18

6 (issues 21-24)

Please send me O

□

7 (issues 25-30)-

□

8 (issues 31-35)

5 (issues 17-20)

at $30 per volume.

copies of Cinema Papers' Eziblnder at $15 a binder.

2. Australian M otion Picture Yearbook d Please send me d

(a) Please send me

copies of the 1981 /82 Yearbook at $19.95 a copy (Foreign: $30 surface; $40 airmail).

(b)

copies of the 1980 Yearbook at $19.95 a copy (Foreign: $30 surface; $40 airmail).

3. Australian TV, The First 25 Years Please send me

d

copies of Australian TV at $14.95 a copy (Foreign: $17 surface; $26 airmail).

4. The New Australian Cinema Please send me

d

copies of The New Australian Cinema at $14.95 a copy (Foreign: $17 surface; $26 airmail).

5. Film Expo Sem inar R eport Please send me

d

copies of the Film Expo Seminar Report at $25 a copy (Foreign: $27 surface; $32 airmail).

Name.....

Address .................................................. :............................Postcode.......................

A ll fo reig n orders sh ou ld be accom panied by bank drafts only.

Total amount enclosed:

A ll quoted fig u res are in A ustralian dollars.

NB: Please make all cheques to: Cinema Papers PfLy 644 Victoria St,

North Melbourne 3051.

Offers close March 10, 1982.

If you’re a film producer we’ve got room for you too.

AUSlrdidv Television Centre Epping, NSW 2121, Australia Telephone: (02) 858 7500 Telex: AA70917 Cables: Telecentre, Sydney

This Christmas $15,000,000 in grosses

2nd Glance/Breaker Morant

The Busliveldt Carbineers, under Morant (Edward Woodward), make a counter-attack out on the veldt. B re a k e r M oran t.

“. . . the painted line o f the wall; the accused Australians [Witton, Handcock, Morant], unless shot in close-up, are seen below this dominant line. ” B re a k e r M oran t.

the British and pro-British Boers on either side emphatically “ Rule 303” to a flashback to the to Thomas at the end, representing the Aus­ action, with a close-up of the riñe, showing the tralians — all watch silently as he begins to eat. number 303 imprinted on the stock. This The silence conveys the feeling that the group is incident establishes the Australians as fighting in the presence of an unpredictable quantity, by the law of the gun. whose actions and impulses have not been The pragmatic Carbineers match and outwit the Boers at their own brand of warfare. This is inhibited in the same fashion as their own.

The “ individuality and independence” of reaffirmed in a following veldt scene when Morant is conveyed early in the film, after the Breaker Morant says coolly of a raid on a Boer ill-fated attack on the Boer farmhouse. When camp, “ I got one, . . . crept up while they were the band of Carbineers returns to Fort Edward, asleep” .

The fourth element in the pattern of heroism one of the men calls emphatically, “Get the Breaker” , conveying the sense of an individual identified by Hopkins, “The hero suffers defeat, power. This is built upon in a later scene, when destruction, death” , is realized in the execution Witton questions him: “ You believe in the scene by “ means that are either socially accep­ Empire, don’t you Harry?” “ Do 1?” , Morant table or officially sanctioned” .

The victory of the “social organization over replies. The Breaker’s native cunning is alluded to in the scenes depicting the camaraderie of the individual vitality” , through the physical death unit; there are hints of escapades outside the law of the heroes, is potently shown by the mise-enand social convention.

The scene which opens with the Australians ranged along a table running along the line of the horizon is significant in the development of the narrative. The encroachment of the social forces upon the individuality and freedom of the heroes is signified by the Union Jack flying over the table. This exposition of the hero’s charac­ ter is interrupted by a cut to show the arrival of a group of Boer prisoners — the means by which society will finally exert its control over the heroes. The shooting of Boer prisoners by the Carbineers will precipitate the decisive con­ frontation between society and the heroes at the court-martial.

scene of the execution scene. A red rising sun signifies the ascendancy of British Imperialism as it moves above the horizon of the bare veldt, the horizontal line that has formerly signified the area of dominance for the Carbineers. The red glow of the sun is reflected on Morant’s and Handcock’s faces as they wait, seated, for death.

Their spiritual opposition is still evident as they refuse the black eye-bandages, and Morant calls to the firing squad, “Shoot straight, you bas­ tards. Don’t make a mess of it!” . ★ B ib lio g ra p h y Breaker Morant (film), Adelaide, South Australian Film

Corporation, 1980.

Clancy, J., “ Breaker Morant” , Cinema Papers, No. 28, August-September 1980, p. 283.

Connolly, K., “The Films of Bruce Beresford”, Cinema Papers, No. 28, August-September 1980, insert.

andcock’s disregard for auth­ ority is expressed in his irrev­ erent sense of humor. He constantly undercuts British pom posity. His potency is underlined through the function of women in Breaker Morant: they are seen as being purely for sexual gratification. When Handcock is cross-examined by Bolton at the court-martial over the shooting of Hesse, the German, and his alibi, this is clearly evident. Bolton: “Who were you visiting?” Handcock: “Nobody, Sir. Only one of the ladies.” Bolton: “ These were married women.” Handcock: “They say a slice of a cut loaf is never missed.”

The potency and individuality of the heroes is crystallized in the scene where Morant is crossexamined by Bolton, regarding the shooting of the Boer prisoners at Fort Edward. “What rule did you shoot them under?” There is a rapid cut Morant and Handcock, their figures almost one, face death from their British executioners. from the close-up of Morant as he replies

H

B re a k e r M o ra n t.

CINEMA PAPERS J a n u a ry-F eb ru a ry — 53

9f t

M

i l l e r ’s

(F ob

mj p H B

T

he

B u l l e t i n .)

There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around ■ ■» That the colt from old Regret had got away And had Joined the wild bush horses—he was worth a thousand pound— So all the cracks had gathered to the fray. V A ll the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far Had mustered at the homestead over-night, For the bushmen love hard-riding where the fleet wild horses are, .

And thestoc&horse snuffs the battle with delight.

Opposite: the “man from Snowy R iver”, Jim Craig (Tom Burlinson), and his girlfriend, Jessica (Sigrid Thornton), in the high country. Left: Jim during-“the ride”. Below: Jim a t the funeral o f Henry Craig.

Top left: Clancy (Jack Thompson) and Spur (Kirk Douglas), the mountain man.

Top centre: Clancy and Spur. Above: Jessica. Top right: Jim Craig alone in the high country. Right: mustering horses across a swirling river.

Top right: Jim and his “race­ horse u n d e rsize d ”. C en tre right: Jessica. Bottom right: Spur and Jim. Below: the

AATON On special offer from Filmwest

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.

For inform ation a n d a pp o in tm en ts c o n ta c t: FILMWEST Pty Ltd 75 Bennett Street East Perth 6000 Western Australia Tel: 325 1177, 325 1423 C a b le s “ Filmwest” Perth Telex A A 94150 FILMWA

FILMWEST Pte Ltd Suite 185, Raffles Hotel 1-3 Beach Road S in ga pore 0718 Tel: 336 1509, 337 8041 Telex RS 36389 FLMWST C a ble s “ Raflotel”

Alex M cPhee Filmwest Pty Ltd M e d ia Specialists 71 Palmerston Cres, South M e lb o u rn e 3205 V icto ria Tel: 699 9677

cl-

r i l M l l / C C T R | Importers and distributors of r l L l Y l V v C D I u u AATON cameras throughout Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and M alaysia.__________________________

□ 4 2 'x 15'scycewaU □ 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 $25010 hour shooting day $150 10 hour set-up day □ Total area over 4500 sq ft

FTPPRODUCTIONS 42CHARLESSTPRAHRAN ENQUIRES: 264317

The Second Coming o f Super 16 While researching this article, Bruce Williamson of Atlab said that we were witnessing the “ second coming of Super 16" and the phrase does capture some of the religious quality that conversation about Super 16 engenders.

When Rune Ericson, the Swedish cinematographer who developed the Super 16 format, published the first article in A m e r i c a n C i n e m a t o g r a p h e r in 1970, a film m aker friend of mine immediately resolved to attack the gate of his Eclair NPR with a file and shoot his next feature in widescreen. After the initial fervor had died, because of the lack of laboratory services, the idea was put aside until recently I heard he had bought an Aaton, the one camera that could truly ciaim to have renewed the interest in Super 16.

The Aaton has a Super 16 option incorporated in the initial camera design.

In under an hour, with replacement of the aperture plate, viewing screen and changing the optical centre of the lens, the camera is converted from standard 16 mm to Super 16. The ready avail­ ability of this camera and the required conversion of equipment being made by laboratories to handle and print Super 16 has led to Atlab’s recent high quality 16 mm to 35 mm blow-up of the first Aus­ tralian Super 16 feature, Centrespread.

Already four new features and six docu­ mentaries have been announced as shooting in the Super 16 format this year.

This article is an overview of the technical and economic reasons for the interest crew s and producers are showing in the format. There is also a short interview with the director and editor of Centrespread, Tony Paterson, talking about post-production in Super 16.

The Development Shooting in 16 mm and blowing up the image to 35 mm for theatrical release is not a new technique. The Australian film industry has owed some of its more noticeable successes to films as early as Stork, and recently Mouth to Mouth, to the 16 mm to 35 mm blow-up. In the standard Academy ratio 16 mm and 35 mm have the same proportion frames 1.37:1, but the universal use in cinemas of .a widescreen ratio of 1.85:1 crops a large portion of the image area top and bottom from the 16 mm frame. When this reduced area is blown up, the image quality is noticeably inferior to 35 mm projection.

What was required was a way to use the maximum area on the 16 mm original in the closest proportion to the final 35 mm blow-up. This was achieved by enlarging the camera aperture by 2 mm so that the image extended into the area left on single perforated stock for the soundtrack on the 16 mm print.

Because the 16 mm would only be used for supplying the blow-up image,

this was no disadvantage and gave a frame proportion of 1.66:1, which is much closer to the 35 mm widescreen aspect. Since there is less cropping and more useable area, the result is a finer quality blow-up.

The Super 16 frame is about 20 per cent wider than the standard 16 mm frame, yet when blown up to 35 mm widescreen there is in fact about 46 per cent more useable area. This comes from the 20 per cent extended frame plus extra top and bottom which need not be cropped since it already fits comfort-

in the extended frame area. It can be argued, however, that scratching on the workprint is of little importance.

Most editors, if they have seen the rushes projected in wide screen, find little difficulty cutting with a reduced area flatbed, but manufacturers such as Kern, Prévost and Steenbeck offer Super 16 modifications.

Other equipment the producer or film­ maker will need to consider is the pro­ jector on which he will screen the Super 16 rushes. And, when neg. matching is carried out, it would need to be on a synchronizer with narrow shoulders to avoid scratching in the extended frame area. Normal checkerboard technique is used when conforming the negative.

Where the laboratory is concerned, it is necessary that all rollers and equip­ ment on processors, printing machines, optical printers and synchronizers have been modified for Super 16.

There is usually no extra cost involved in processing and printing Super 16

the laboratory will need to know when a particular consignment is Super 16 as special consideration is necessary when printing. The reason for this is that a different mask is used to produce the Super 16 frame.

Shooting For A Blow-up (Regular or Super 16) When shooting 16 mm with the view of blowing up to 35 mm it is essential to keep tight control over exposing the negative. Exposure is important, as any deficiencies in this area will be passed on, probably to a greater extent, to the blow-up.

Where negative film is concerned, under exposure is not desirable. If in doubt, a slight overexposed negative is far better than an underexposed one.

Grain will begin to appear, particularly in weak shadow areas, on the under­ exposed negative. It is not recommended to force process in this case, if the extent of under exposure is up to 1 stop.

Modern negative emulsions have a good latitude. However, when force proces­ sing is introduced, the grain size is increased. This grain appeared most noticeable in the examples I was shown, in the areas of a light- to mid-tone grey (1 8 per cent).

The best results so far have been on Kodak 7247 exposed normally and then blown up to CRI 5249.

Main Titles Different methods of producing the titles for a blow-up may be recom­ mended, depending upon the scenes used and the complexity of the job.

Generally, the 16 mm background shot is blown up to a 5243 interpositive. Then the titles, shot on 35 mm, are added to produce a 5243 interdup. This is now added to the 5249 blow-up CRI.

Super 16 Equipment As previously mentioned, a modified or specialized camera is necessary to shoot Super 16. In all outward appear­ ances it will be no different from a normal 16 mm camera; but, from inside, the picture aperture must be enlarged and the lens will have to have a wide enough field to cover the extended frame or be re-centred, or perhaps both. The view­ finder will also need to be wide enough to accommodate the extended picture area.

Some cameras are easier than others to modify. The Eclair NPR was the first Super 16 modification. All guide rollers and magazine surfaces that touch the film edge have to be recessed to avoid damage. Bolexes and Arriflexes have also been converted in this way. The major limitation is in the lenses that have extra covering power for the wider frame.

Editing of the Super 16 film is carried out on the Super 16 rushes supplied by the laboratory. Since the rushes contain the extended frame area, it is necessary to have an editing machine that can project it. As with the camera, the editing machine will need to have a wider aper­ ture and, of course, a screen size that will accommodate Super 16. The rollers on the machine will need to have a narrower shoulder so that no scratching will occur

Raw stock

16 mm (Super 16) 40,000 at .15c per foot

Laboratory Costs Developing 1 Light workprint Corrected workprint from 16 mm A & B Blow up CRI 35 mm 2nd A/P

$ 6000

Super 16

40,000 at 40,000 at

10c per foot 17.5c per foot

4000 at 52c per foot 10,000 at $1.70 per foot 10,000 at 30c per foot Total laboratory costs Plus raw stock

4000 7000

(print all)

2080 1 7,000 3000 $33,080 6000 $39,080

Laboratory Costs Developing 1 Light workprint A/P from A & B rolls Contact CRI 35 mm 2nd A/P

35 mm

100,000 60,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

at 10c per foot at 17.5c per foot at 58c per foot at $1.26 per foot at 30c per foot

Total laboratory costs Plus raw stock

10,000 10,500 (print 60%) 5800 12,600 3000 $41,900 24,630 $66,530

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 59

Possibly the lowest priced, best quality editing machine available on the market today.

/

Already in use by Film Australia Motion Picture Associates Pty Ltd Post Production Services Malcolm Douglas Films with many more on order for various clients.

n

T here are m an y fín e F ilm E d itin g M ach in es a v a ila b le 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. »S uper 8, 16mm and 35mm capabilities, as well as dual format combination units readily available.

• 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

New Products and Processes

To maintain maximum quality on titles and optical effects, it may be advisable to shoot the background scenes entirely in 35 mm. It is best to consult the optical department of the laboratory for the best procedures on titles that will give optimum quality.

Cost Savings Although Super 16 was not designed to replace 35 mm, the cost savings of using Super 16 can be considerable depending on the production. The most noticeable saving is in raw stock and laboratory costs. Negative costs on 16 mm are about 40 per cent less than the same footage in 35 mm. Also, the running speed of 35 mm (90 ft/min) is more than double that of 16 mm (36 ft/ min).

Atlab has supplied the boxed labora­ tory costs as a comparison. They are based on a billing footage of 10,000 feet of 35 mm and the equivalent of 4000 feet in 16 mm for the final prints.

A ratio of 10:1 is used for calculating

the amount of raw stock necessary for the production.

The costs above were correct at the time of printing. Raw stock was Kodak Eastmancolor 7247 and 5247, and the laboratory prices are from Atlab’s feature price list.

It is common practice to print all takes for 16 mm, whereas on 35 mm the average takes printed runs at about 60 per cent, so these factors have been taken into consideration. Also, note that the blow-up CRI rate is inclusive of all A & B roll, fades and dissolves, and wetgate, and that the contact 35 mm CRI has included the ‘B’ roll only.

Many laboratory charges have been omitted since they would be somewhat similar for both: e.g., negative-matching, force-processing and opticals.

These figures show a total saving of about $27,500 for the Super 16 route.

This saving would be more or less according to the type of production and doesn’t take into account the production saving for the ease and portability of the lighter 16 mm equipment which could be considerable.

Tony Paterson, right of camera, on location for Centrespread, Australia’s first Super 16feature.

Tony Paterson M elbourne-based editor, Tony Paterson, describes him self as a freelance drama cutter. For television “ back in the old d a ys” he edited Tandarra and parts of Cash and Co, and he w orked on a large num ber of features and many 16 mm to 35 mm blow-ups. Among them were three film s for John Duigan, The Trespassers, Dimboola and Mouth to Mouth, the tw o Fantasms, Mad Max, Blue Fire Lady, The Survivor, Centrespread and has ju st finished Silent Reach. I talked to him at his editing and mixing studio in Elsternw ick, Melbourne, in prem ises he shares with R.G. Film Laboratories.

There seems to be two ways to approach feature production. The first is where your full-up cost is that of making the film itself — all the laboratory costs, production costs — and you end up with no money at the end of it and one release print. You then bash your way around the world and claw your way to the top on the quality of your product.

There are a number of things that have been done like that — almost everything in Australia is done like that. I don’t think Breaker Morant would have had a big budget for selling the product to the audience after its completion.

The other way of looking at production is where the cost to get to the release print is 25 to 30 per cent of the total budget, and the rest is publicity money which tells the people how good the film is. It doesn’t have to be good, as long as people believe you when you tell them. In a situation like that, Super 16 is no real

advantage; its cost saving is not signifi­ cant.

Also, in those circumstances, you have to cover your losses if they might occur.

So, consequently, you have to shoot on 35 mm for the flexibility. More people can cut it all over the world, you can change this and that, finish it quickly in the U.S. — whatever.

• So Super 16 is restrictive in p o s t­ production .. .

No, you still have flexibility. But you have to be with a good laboratory that will do it. You really are restricted to a quality laboratory with Super 16. We are doing a good job here, and there are a few spots around the world. But if you go to a laboratory in the U.S. with a roll of Super 16, they drop the can on the floor as a matter of course.

Maybe I shouldn't say that, but in my by putting Academy leader in the gate experience, and talking with Richard and remembering the cut off.

Franklin [director] about Fantasm, they On Centrespread, we used up to a No. 3 diffusion filter because we wanted to handle all 16 mm like 35 mm: spool it at massive speeds and rip it in the - cut down the contrast. By comparison, there are parts of Mouth to Mouth that synchronizer. It is not the American way to handle little fid d ly th in g s; the are actually too sharp. They are too clear Europeans are more careful. and too bright. I suppose it is contrast, but they just look too sharp. There Now that may be a fearful generaliza­ tion, but in the U.S. there is a certain should have been a little more atmo­ style, and that style is 35 mm. You can sphere so one’s brain could imagine wind it faster, throw it around the room, what it is seeing a little bit. run it up and down the street, and it will On Centrespread, though, there were still project. The actual dirt and muck you no problems; it was there every time. It find on 35 mm prints you wouldn’t was just like cutting a 35 mm film; your eye does the same scan across the believe if you held it in your hand, but you frame. just don’t see it on the screen. With Super 16 or 16 mm, you just can’t treat it like that; you have to much more careful.

And was that all shot on the Aaton?

There aren’t many Super 16 projectors around for instance, and you could be Yes, Geoff Simpson had just bought it. tempted to just throw it up on your Other than a blow-out on the first day on regular 16 mm and scratch your workthe first 400-ft roll, where everyone print to bits. Because you tend to be pointed fingers at each other, the camera working in low-budget situations with shot rock steady from the first foot. It is Super 16, you also tend to be under more an excellent machine. panic situations; there are more oppor­ In Australia, we used to live in a cul­ tunities to damage your film. With 35 mm, tural backwater and the cultural cringe you can give it virtually to anybody: it’s a came with it Not knowing what the world known quantity; you don’t have to re­ standard was, we would buy the best align light sources, etc. books and try to get our equipment up to We have it pretty well set up here and the highest standard. So when we got have modified equipment to do it, but it is stuff of poor standard back from somewhat of a hassle to go somewhere overseas it was almost unbelievable. else where you have to move your I did a Filmways job the other day with screen masks, and re-centre your lens a soundtrack from the U.S. where the line and light source in the projector. You can up tones and levels were all over the very easily get a situation where you are place. This was on a film that had cost $1 g iv in g a s u b -s ta n d a rd s c re e n in g million to mix! We thought our equipment because one half of the screen is black had broken down because we are and people go away with the wrong meticulous with our technique and impression, no matter how much you say couldn’t believe that something from it will be all right on the day. overseas could be so sloppy.

When we shot Centrespread in South The blow-up of Fantasm was done Australia, we modified a Bauer. It was an overseas. While we were worrying about arc, I think, and a massive light source, whether we were getting the boom so there was no trouble in re-centring shadow in shot and taking care of our the light. It looked quite spectacular on framing, once it went into the sausage the screen because the last thing I did machine over there, splat! If you got it, there was The Survivor and that was in you got it. That was in the budget area we ‘Panawank’ and it was shot under lowwere working in. The laboratories here light levels because it was mostly a night do it to the optimum. Atlab does it the shoot. My experience of looking at those same way as Dr Magnusson does it in rushes, and then six weeks later going Sweden. back to see the Centrespread material that was fully lit and crisp, was that you Framing is such a primary concern. wouldn’t believe Centrespread was What happens with framing for te le ­ 1 6 mm. Both were shot well, but your eye vision? gets hungry on a big screen after a while.

It is all right when it’s cu t but looking at You always frame for television. The hours and hours of rushes of dark Aaton has television framing in the view­ images you start suffering from color finder — in fact, it has everything in the starvation. The Super 16 looked great by viewfinder. If you get tired, you can play comparison.

Space Invaders in the viewfinder!

Did you do many tests to prepare for the blow -ups?

So, what are your feelings about Super 16?

I did a couple of skin tests early on in the piece and they looked all right.

Screening them against a first genera­ tion 16 mm workprint, they looked a bit grubby but quite adequate. Without the comparison, they looked terrific.

Super 16 is important, in that you maximize your returns. It mightn't be important for the big money guys, but indirectly it is because small product is what really keeps the thing going, with new ideas and new people. If you keep relying on the people with the big money to give you ideas, you find after a while that they want to service their own ends (as we all do). But we should be getting a big turnover of people. Lots of new things, lots of change. Super 16 is a reasonable way of getting those ideas up on the screen reasonably cheaply.

It was this philosophy of keeping things small and open to new people that led to setting up this mixing studio. It was also because I wanted to go home to my family on weekends, and the only way l could do it and not be at the whim of producers was to build my own dubbing theatre. It is an expensive toy with some pretty flash gear, but we do a lot of student and experimental work with a lot of young people who need help to get their ideas realized that you know are impossible. They are always ready to

Were all the opticals shot Super 16?

We shot a mixture. All the opening super-imposition titles were shot Super 16, and they worked very well. It was a re a s o n a b ly c o m p lic a te d m u lti­ generation-type trick, and it was very close to my memory of the original. You can’t tell where it goes in and out of opticals.

So, overall, you were happy with Super 16 results?

Yes. Shooting Super 16 is much more controllable than when we used 16 mm on Mouth to Mouth, for instance. The framing on that was a bit of a guess because we didn’t have a scribed view­ finder. No one, even at the projection stage, really knew where the top of the frame was. I got to be able to work it out

Concluded on p. 85 CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 61

Between Super 16 and 35m m fh ereis

...The first Super 16 lab in A ustralia, and still tfae best!

X 533

FEATURES P R E -P R O D U C T IO N

BUSH CHRISTMAS P ro d, c o m p a n y

.................. B ush C h ris tm a s P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r ...................................... P aul B a rro n D ire c to r ..................................H o w a rd R u b ie S c rip tw rite r ...............................T ed R o b e rts P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ..................... M a rie B ro w n C a s tin g ............................................... Dee N e ville L e n g th .................................................... 96 m in s G auge ........................................................ 3 5 m m S h o o tin g s to c k ......................... E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e .........................M a y 1982 Cast: G a ry M c D o n a ld (B ill), J o h n H o w a rd (S ly).

Synopsis: A re -m a k e o f th e A u s tra lia n c in e m a c la s s ic . A n a d v e n tu re in v o lv in g the m a n a g e r a n d le ad s in g e r o f a b a n d th a t g o e s b u s t. F o u r te e n a g e rs se t o ff to p u rs u e th e tw o ro g u e s w h o , “ s tra n d e d " w ith o u t fu n d s , a re fo rc e d to tu rn to a life o f c rim e a nd stea l a v a lu a b le ra c e h o rs e .

THE C LIN IC P ro d u c e r ................................... R o b e rt Le T e t D ire c to r .................................... D a vid S te ve n s N o fu r th e r d e ta ils s u p p lie d .

FOR LOVE ALONE P ro d , c o m p a n y ........... M a rg a re t F in k F ilm s P r o d u c e r .................................... M a rg a re t F in k D ir e c t o r .................................. S te p h e n W a lla c e S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................Fay W e ld o n B ase d o n th e n ove l b y ...........................................C h ris tin a S te a d Synopsis: T h e s to ry o f T e re s a H a w kin s, h ig h -m in d e d , p a s s io n a te and in d e p e n d e n t, a nd h e r a tte m p ts to fu lfil h e r id e a ls o f love, firs t w ith h e r te a c h e r, th e s e lf-s e e k in g J o n a th o n C ro w , w h o sh o w s h e r w o rld s o th e r th a n th e p ro s a ic o ne s h e 's k n o w n , a nd la te r, a fte r b itte r s tru g g le s , in L o n d o n , w ith th e A m e ric a n b u s in e s s m a n , J a m e s Q u ick.

MOVING OUT P ro d u c e r .............................. J a n e B a lla n ty n e D ire c to r ................................M ic h a e l P a ttiso n N o fu r th e r d e ta ils s u p p lie d .

P a in t e r s ..................................... R u th E d e lm a n , M ID N IG H T SPARES K im M a rd e n , P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................... W e d n e s d a y S te ve H u n te r, N e ris s a M a rtin , In v e s tm e n ts , P ro d , c o m p a n y ......... W a ya n g P ro d u c tio n s A F ilm c o P re s e n ta tio n M a rg a re t B u tle r, D ist. c o m p a n y ......... M e tro -G o ld w y n -M a y e r P ro d u c e r ...................................... T o m B u rs ta ll K im C ra s te P r o d u c e r ........................................ J im M c E lro y D ire c to r ......... ...................... Q u e n tin M a s te rs In b e tw e e n e rs ...................... V ic k i R o b in s o n , D ir e c t o r ............................................... P ete r W e ir A s trid B re n n a n , S c rip tw rite r ...................................T e rry L arsen S c r ip t w r it e r .........................D a vid W illia m s o n P h o to g ra p h y ................................ G e o ff B u rto n B re n d a M cK ie , B ase d on th e S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................... L lo y d C a rric k P au l M a ro n n o ve l b y .......................... C h ris to p h e r K och E d ito r ........................................A n d re w P ro w se A n im a tio n a s s is t a n t .........

R o b e rt M a lh e rb e P h o to g r a p h y ................................R ussell B oyd C h e c k e rs a nd c le a n e rs . . .A n im a tio n A id s, P ro d , d e s ig n e r .......................G e o rg e L id d le S o u n d re c o rd is t .........................G a ry W ilk in s B ru c e W a rn e r, C o m p o s e r ................................C a m e ro n A lle n E d i t o r .............................................B ill A n d e rs o n Ja n C a rru th e rs E xec, p ro d u c e r .................. J o h n F itz p a tric k P ro d , d e s ig n e r ............................. W e n d y W e ir L a b o ra to ry .............................................

C o lo rfilm P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ............. C a th y F la n n e ry A ss o c , p r o d u c e r ........................ R oy S te ve n s L e n g th ...................................................... 80 m in s P ro d , m a n a g e r ..............................J e n n y Day P ro d .

U n it m a n a g e r ..............................J o h n W a rre n G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m c o -o rd in a to r . . . C a ro ly n n e C u n n in g h a m S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................ E a s tm a n c o lo r F in a n c ia l c o n tro lle r ........... R ic h a rd H a rp e r P ro d , m a n a g e r P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ......................K a re n V o lic h S c h e d u le d re le a se .................... M a rc h , 1982 (S y d n e y ) ...............................G re g R ic k e ts o n 1st asst d ire c to r ........... D e re k S e a b o u rn e Cast: D rew F o rs y th e (S a n ta C la u s ).. ( P h ilip p in e s ) ............................. T im S a n d e rs voices: B a rb a ra F ra w le y (D ot), 2 nd A s s t d ire c to r ................P e te r W ille se e S y d n e y lo c a t io n s .......................................... J o h n W igCharacter g in s 3 rd A s s t d ire c to r ........................... Ian K e n n y Ross H ig g in s.

P ro d , s e c re ta ry Synopsis: T h e c o n tin u in g a d v e n tu re s o f D ot C o n tin u ity ........................................A n n W a lto n ( P h ilip p in e s ) ........................... S a lly B la x la n d a nd h e r se a rch fo r th e m is s in g jo e y . D ot P ro d u c e r's a s s is ta n t .. . M a rg a re t R o b e rts P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .................E la in e C ro w th e r D ire c to r's a s s is ta n t ........... M a rd i K e n n e d y m e e ts w ith a h o b o in h e r o u tb a c k h o m e B u s in e s s m a n a g e r ..............M ic h a e l W ilc o x to w n , th e h o b o b e c o m e s S a n ta C la u s, C a stin g c o n s u lta n ts ........... M ic h a e l L ynch , P ro d , a s s is ta n t........................ L y n d a H o u se Rae D a vid so n a nd ta k e s D o t on a w o n d e rfu l a d v e n tu re 1st a sst d ire c to r ......................... W a yn e B a rry F o cu s p u lle r .........................D a vid F o re m a n 2 nd asst d ir e c t o r ......................................... C h ris W e w b bitn e s s in g v a rio u s C h ris tm a s c e re m o n ie s C la p p e r/lo a d e r ......................... G illia n L ea h y 3 rd asst d i r e c t o r ............................................ K en R ic ha arordu snodn the w o rld .

K ey g rip ...................................... L e ste r B is h o p C o n tin u ity ........................................ M o ya Ice to n A s s t g rip ..................................N ick R e yn o ld s P ro d u c e r’s s e c re ta ry ......... W ilm a S c h in e lla 2nd u n it p h o to g ra p h y . . . . B ill G rim m o n d C a s tin g .............................................A lis o n B a rre tt FAR EAST G a ffe r ............................. G ra h a m R u th e rfo rd C a s tin g e x tra s ................................ S u e P a rk e r E le c tric ia n ....................................... M a rk V e rd e C a m e ra o p e ra to r ...................... N ix o n B in n e y P ro d , c o m p a n y ................ A lfre d R o ad F ilm s B o o m o p e ra to r ...................... T o iv o L e m b e r F o cu s p u l l e r ..................P e te r M e n zie s, ju n .

P r o d u c e r .................................... R ic h a rd M a so n A rt d e p t c o -o rd in a to r ......... Ja n e n e K n ig h t C la p p e r/lo a d e r ........................G e o ff W h a rto n D ir e c t o r ............................................J o h n D u ig a n A sst a rt d ire c to r ........... R ic h a rd H o u g h to n c r ip t w r it e r .....................................J o h n D u ig a n K ey g r i p .............................................................. Ray B ro S wn M a k e -u p ....................................... C a ro l D e vin e A s s t g r i p ....................................................... S tu a rt G reB en ase d o n th e o rig in a l W a rd ro b e ........................... R uth d e la L a n d e G a f f e r ................................................................ B ria n B a n s gidroevae b y ...................................... J o h n D u ig a n W a rd , a s s is ta n t ..........................K a th y J a m e s E le c tr ic ia n s ......................................C o lin C h ase , P h o to g r a p h y ..................................B ria n P ro b y n P ro p s b u y e rs .........................D a vid B o w d e n , P e te r O ’B rie n S o u n d re c o rd is t .........................P e te r B a rk e r G e ra ld in e R o yds B o o m o p e ra to r .................... M a rk W a s u ita k E d i t o r ..............................................H e n ry D a n g a r S ta n d b y p ro p s ...................... N ick M c C a llu m A rt d ir e c t o r ......................................................H e rb P in te r d , d e s ig n e r ................................Ro ss M a jo r P ro S p e c ia l e ffe c ts .........................A la n M a xw e ll, A s s t a rt d ire c to r ...................A n n ie B ro w n in g E xec, p ro d u c e r ...................................... F ilm c o P e te r E vans C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ........................ T e rry Ryan A ss o c , p r o d u c e r .......................... J o h n M a so n C h o re o g ra p h y .................... E liza b e th B u rto n M a k e -u p ............................................J u d y L o ve ll P ro d , m a n a g e r .......................... J u lia O v e rto n C a rp e n te r ...................................

R o b in W a rn e r H a ir d r e s s e r ..................................................... J u d y L o ve ll U n it m a n a g e r ..............................................C o rrie S o e te rb o e k S e t c o n s tru c tio n ......................D e n is D o n e lly W a rd ro b e ................................A n th o n y Jo n e s, P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............................ J u lie F o rs te r A s s t e d ito r .................................

R o b e rt G ra n t M e lo d y C o o p e r P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .................... P e te r S jo q u is t D u b b in g e d ito r ............................... G re g B ell W a rd , a s s is t a n t ................................ P hil E ag le s 1st a sst d ire c to r ................... M ic h a e l F a llo o n A s s t d u b b in g e d ito r ................H e le n B ro w n P r o p s ...................................................S tu a rt W ay, 2 n d a sst d ir e c t o r ........................ S a b in a W yn n P a d d y R e a rd o n , 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ...................................... G e ra ld B o sStotucnkts c o -o rd in a to r ......................V ic W ils o n S till p h o to g ra p h y ...........

G e o ff M c G e a c h in C o n tin u ity ...........................................J o W e e ks M a rta S ta te s c u D ia lo g u e c o n s u lta n t ..............Ja c k R o zycki S ta n d b y p r o p s ............................... C la rk M u n ro P ro d u c e r's a s s is ta n t............ M ic h a e l F a llo o n M e c h a n ic ..................................

D a vid Thom as S c e n ic a r t i s t s .................................................. B illy M a lc , g ............................................................. M itc h M a th e w s C oalm s tin B e st b oy .................................... A la n G lo s s o p M ic h a e l C h o rn e y C a s tin g c o n s u lta n ts ........... M itc h M a th e w s R u n n e rs ........................................

J a n e t M c lv e r, S e t c o n s tru c tio n C a m e ra o p e ra to r .........................P e te r M o ss P au l A rn o tt m a n a g e r .....................................................P e te r T e mFpole cutos np u l l e r ................................................ A n d re F le u ren P u b lic ity ...........

B ro o k s W h ite O rg a n iz a tio n A sst e d ito r ..............................J e a n in e C h ia lv o C la p p e r/lo a d e r ............................. C o lin D ean C a te rin g .........................................M a rk N e ylo n, E d itin g a s s is ta n ts .............................L ee S m ith K ey g r i p .............................................. Ray B ro w n R o b yn H a rtig a n S till p h o t o g r a p h y ...........................J im T o w n le y A sst g r ip / s .................................... S tu a rt G re e n M ix e d at ..................................... U n ite d S o u n d B est b o y ........................................ P au l G a n tn e r G a f f e r .......................................... W a rre n M e a rn s L a b o ra to ry ...........................................

C o lo rfilm U n it p u b lic is t ............................. B a b e tte S m ith E le c tr ic ia n ..................................................... A lle y n M e a rn s Lab. lia is o n ....................................... B ill G o o le y C a t e r in g ........................... J o h n & S u e F a ith fu l B o o m o p e ra to r ................................ K e ir W e lch B u d g e t ................................................ $ 2 ,5 8 3 ,9 2 4 L a b o ra to ry ...........................................C o lo rfilm A s s t a rt d ire c to r .................................Ig o r Nay L e n g th ................................................. 100 m in s Lab. lia is o n ........................................... B ill G o o le y (Jo stu m e d e s ig n e r .........................J a n H u rle y G auge ..........................................................3 5 m m C a s t : M e l G ib s o n ( G u y H a m il t o n ) , M a k e -u p ........................... M a rg a re t L in g h a m C a st: J a m e s L a u rie (S teve ), G ia C a rid e s S ig o u rn e y W e a v e r (J ill B ry a n t), D a v id W a rd ro b e ................................. R o b in a C h a ffe y A tk in s (B illy K w a n).

P ro p s b u y e r s .....................................................Ian A lle(R n , uth ), M a x C u lle n (T o m a s), B ru c e S p e n c e (W im p y ), D a vid A rg u e (R a b b it), T o n y B a rry S y n o p s i s : F ilm a d a p t a t io n o f th e P eta L aw so n (H o w a rd ), J o h n C la y to n (V in c e n t), G ra e m e C h ris to p h e r K o ch n o ve l.

S ta n d b y p r o p s .............................. J o h n D a niell B lu n d e ll (S id e b o tto m ), J o n a th a n C o le m a n C a rp e n te r ...........................................T e rry L o rd (W ayn e ), J o h n G o d d e n (C h ris th e Rat).

S e t c o n s tru c tio n ........................ D a n ie D a e m s S y n o p s is : T h e s to ry o f y o u n g p e o p le , th e ir A s s t e d ito r ...................................P am B a rn e tta S u n s h in e C ity c a r ‘c u lt u r e ’ , th e m o to r N eg. m a t c h in g ......................................C o lo rfilm s p e e d w a y a nd th e c rim in a l w o rld o f c a r-p a r t S o u n d e d ito r .......................... A n d re w S te u a rt ste a lin g .

E d itin g a s s is ta n t ..........................R o b in J u d g e

THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY

PRODUCERS, DIRECTORS AND PRODUCTION COMPANIES To ensure the accuracy o f yo ur entry, please conta ct the e d ito r o f this colum n and ask fo r copies o f our Pro­ d u ctio n Survey blank, on w h ich the details o f yo ur p ro du ction can be entered. All details must be typed in

upper and lower case.

The cast entry should be no more than the 1 0 main actors/actresses — the ir names and character names. The le ngth o f the synopsis should not exceed 50 words.

Editor's n ote : A ll entries are sup­ plied by producers/p ro d uctio n co m ­ panies, o r by their agents. Cinema Papers c a n n o t, th e re fo re , a c c e p t responsibility for the correctness of any entry.

S y n o p s is :

N o r m a n is a s e n s i t i v e , p re c o c io u s 13 y e a r-o ld p re p a rin g fo r h is B a r M itzva h . S is te r-In -L a w R ose, th e o b je c t o f his p a s s io n , b e c o m e s p re g n a n t to th e g re a t s u rp ris e o f h u s b a n d M ic h a e l (fo r y e a rs u n a b le to s a tis fy h e r d e s ir e f o r c h ild re n ), to th e d e lig h t o f p a re n ts -in -la w w h o a t la s t c a n b a s k in t h e m a n y e x c la m a tio n s o f “ M a z e lto v l” , b u t N o rm a n ’s re s p o n s e ra is e s a p re p o s te ro u s q u e s tio n — w h o is th e fa th e r?

NOW AND THEN P ro d . c o m p a n y ......... A u s tra lia n F ilm A c a d e m y P r o d u c e r s .................................. T re is h a G h e n t, M ic h e lin e K e lle r D ir e c t o r .................................. R ic h a rd C a s s id y S c r ip t w r it e r ........................... R ic h a rd C a s s id y B ase d o n th e n ove l by ................................................D a n ie lle S te e l E xec, p r o d u c e r ......... C a rn e g ia F ie ld h o u s e A sso c, p ro d u c e r .......................Rae F ra n c is Cast: C h e ry l L a d d , R o b e rt C o le b y . ' Synopsis: A m a rria g e is s tra in e d w h e n th e h u s b a n d is a c c u s e d o f ra p e .

THE RETURN OF CAPTAIN IN V IN C IBLE

P r o d u c e r .................................................... A n d re w G a ty D ir e c t o r ......................................... P h ilip p e M o ra S c r ip t w r it e r s ............................................. A n d re w G aty, S te ve n d e S ou za THE SUNBEAM SHAFT B ased o n th e o rig in a l P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... R .M .L. P ro d id e a by .......................................A n d re w G aty P r o d u c e r .......................................M ira n d a B ain P h o to g r a p h y ................................................... M ik e M o llo y D ir e c t o r ........................... R ic h a rd L o w e n ste in S o u n d re c o rd is t .................. K en H a m m o n d S c r ip t w r it e r .................... R ic h a rd L o w e n s te in E d i t o r s .............................................................. Jo h n S co tt, P h o to g r a p h y ........................ A n d re w De G ro o t C o lin W a d d y S o u n d re c o rd is t ........................ L lo y d C a rric k P ro d , d e s ig n e r .........................D a vid C o p p in g 2 nd s o u n d a s s t .......................... J u lie G e lh a rd E d i t o r ......................................................J ill B ilc o c k M u s i c ...................................................... B e sta ll & S till p h o to g r a p h y ........................D a vid P a rke r, E xec, p ro d u c e r ..............................C h ris O liv e r R e y n o ld s M a n a g e m e n t NORMAN LOVES ROSE C a ro ly n J o h n s A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ...........................J e n n y C a d d E xec: p ro d u c e r ................. B ria n D. B u rg e s s T itle d e s ig n e r ................................. Fran B o u rk e P ro d , m a n a g e r ........................ R o b e rt K ew ley U n it m a n a g e r .............................

W a rw ic k Ross P ro d , c o m p a n y ...................... N o rm a n F ilm s W r a n g le r ........................................E la in e M a so n 1st a sst d ire c to r ................ T o n y M c D o n a ld P ro d , s e c re ta ry ..............R o sslyn A b e rn e th y P r o d u c e r s ................................... H e n ri S a fra n , R u n n e r ................................. A n th o n y H e ffe rn a n S c rip t a s s is t a n t ......................................B a rb a ra M a ze l N S W FC p ro d , a s s t .............

J o a n n e R o on e y B asil A p p le b y P u b lic ity ..................................R h o n d a G a lb a lly L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ...................... P au l E llio t DOT AND SANTA C LAUS P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ...........................Lea C o llin s D ir e c t o r ........................................... H e n ri S a fra n C a t e r in g ...........................................................

P e te r D ru ry C la p p e r/lo a d e r ................................ J o h n E llio t A s s t a c c o u n ta n t.............................................

K a te H ig h fie ld S c r ip t w r it e r .....................................H e n ri S a fra n (Furthe r A dventures of Dot and the S tu d io s ...................................... S u p re m e S o u n d C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..............S te ve M c D o n a ld rond , a s s is ta n t.................... H e le n H a ze lw o o d P h o to g r a p h y ................................................. V in c e M o nPto Kangaroo) M ix e d at ......................................

U n ite d S o u n d 2 nd u n it p h o to g ra p h y ..............Da ve C o lly e r 1st a sst d ire c to r ................ B o sie V in e -M ille r S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... Ross L in to n L a b o ra to ry .............................................C o lo rfilm P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................Y o ra m G ro s s B o o m o p e ra to r ............................. J a c q u i Fine a sst d ir e c t o r ..........................................K e ith H e yg a te E d i t o r ...................................................................Don S a u2nd n d e rs F ilm S tu d io Lab. lia is o n ......................................................... B ill G o oPlero y d , d e s ig n e r ............................. D a rre ll Lass A rt d ir e c t o r ...............................J o s e p h in e F o rd 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ......................................... P e te r K e a rn e y D ist. c o m p a n y . . . S a to ri P ro d u c tio n s Inc., L e n g th .................... ............................... 100 m in s W a rd ro b e ..........................................R ose S to n e C o n tin u ity ...........................................L in d a Ray P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ......................B a sil A p p le b y N e w Y ork G a u g e ....................................................

35 m m S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .....................C o n ra d R o th m a n T e le p h o n is t ............................. M a rg u e rite G re y P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ...................... S usa n W ild P ro d u c e r .................................... Y o ra m G ro s s S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................ E a s tm a n c o lo r S o u n d e d ito r .............................T e rry R o d m a n P ro d u c e r’s s e c re ta ry . . . .S a n d ra W h e a tle y L o c a tio n m a n a g e r ..................A n d y W illia m s D ire c to r ...................................... Y o ra m G ro ss C a s t: B rya n B ro w n (M o rg a n K ee fe), H elen M ix e r ............................................D a vid H a rris o n C a s tin g ................................................ Liz M u llin a r U n it m a n a g e r ................................. K im A n n in g M o rs e (J o R e e v e s ), J o h n B e ll (P e te r S c r ip t w r it e r s ..............................J o h n P a lm e r, R u n n e r .......................M ic h a e l C la y to n -J o n e s C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........................... L ou Irv in g ­ P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .........................A la n M a rc o Y o ra m G ro ss R e e v e s ), S in a n L e o n g (N e n e ) , R a in a L a b o ra to ry ..................................................V.F.L. F o cu s p u l l e r .................................................. P e te r R o g e rs 1st asst d ire c to r .................... S te ve C o n n a rd M c K e o n (R osita ), H e n ry Feist (D e C ru z), B ill L e n g th ......................................................100 m in s B ase d on the C la p p e r/lo a d e r .............................. S tu a rt Q uin 2 nd a sst d ir e c t o r ............................... Ian P age H u n te r (W a lk e r), J o h n G a d e n (T a lb o t). o rig in a l id e a b y .................... Y o ra m G ro s s S c h e d u le d re le a s e ..............F e b ru a ry , 1983 Key g r i p ....................................G ra e m e M a rd e ll C o n tin u ity ...............................T h e re s e O ’ L eary S y n o p s is : A p o litic a l th r ille r w h ic h e x p o s e s P h o to g r a p h y ........... B o b E vans (a n im a tio n ), S y n o p s is : In 1936, th e m in e rs in th e sm a ll G rip ................................................... G a ry C a rd in P ro d u c e r’s a s s is ta n t. . .S u za n n e D o n n o lle y C h ris A s h b ro o k (live a c tio n ) th e v io le n t a nd e x p lo ita tiv e re a litie s o f m u lti­ S o u th G ip p s la n d to w n o f K o r u m b u r r a F ro n t p ro je c tio n o p e ra to r . . . P au l N ic h o lla C a m e ra o p e ra to r .....................N ixo n B in n e y n a tio n a l c o m p a n ie s in a S o u th -E a s t A sia n S o u n d re c o rd is t fo r b a rric a d e d th e m s e lv e s in th e m a in s h a ft of F ro F o cu s p u l l e r ..................................................... K im B a tte rhnatmp ro je c tio n a s s t .................. K en A rlid g e c o u n try . A g a in s t th is b a c k g ro u n d , th re e c h a ra c te r v o ic e s ......... J u lia n E llin g w o rth the S u n b e a m C o llie ry , d e m a n d in g b e tte r G a f f e r ....................................... B ria n B a n s g ro v e C la p p e r/lo a d e r ..................... R o byn P e te rse n A u s tra lia n s ric o c h e t b e tw e e n s ta b ility a nd C h a ra c te r d e s ig n .................... Ray N o w la n d p ay a nd w o rk in g c o n d itio n s . T h e ir s to ry is 1stcee le c tric s ....................................C o lin C h ase K ey g r i p ............................................................G re g W a lla d e s p e ra tio n .

C o m p o s e r .................................. M e rvyn D ra ke th a t o f th e A u s tra lia n L a b o u r M o v e m e n t in B o o m o p e ra to r .................... A n d re w D u n ca n G a f f e r ...........................................M ile s M o u lso n A sso c, p r o d u c e r ..................... S a n d ra G ro ss th e 1930s.

A rt d ir e c t o r s ...........................O w en P a te rso n , G e n e ra to r o p e ra to r .................. D ick O ld fie ld P ro d, m a n a g e r .........................V irg in ia K elly Ron H ig h fie ld B o o m o p e ra to r ..........G ra h a m M c K in n e y P ro d , s e c re ta rie s / A s s t a rt d ire c to r ....................R o b yn C o o m b s M a k e -u p ........................................T ris h C u n liffe GINGER MEGGS A d m in is tr a t io n ....................... M e g R ow ed, A rt d e p t a sst ........................... V iv ie n n e E lg ie H a ir d r e s s e r ............................

Ja n Z e ig e n b e im TIM E ’S RAGING M a rg a re t L ove ll A rt asst ...................................... P h illip C o lv ille W a rd ro b e ............................. J e n n y C a m p b e ll P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .................. W illia m H a ue r P ro d u c e r ...................................... J o h n S e x to n W a rd , a s s is t a n t ...........................................H elen H o oCpoesrtu m e d e s ig n e r .........................K a te D u ffy P ro d, c o m p a n y . . . L im e lig h t P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r’s a s s is ta n t................K e lly D u nca n No fu rth e r d e ta ils s u p p lie d .

M a k e -u p ............................... R o b e rt M c C a rro n S ta n d b y p r o p s .............................. Jo h n D a n ie ll P ro d u c e r .......................................... Jo a n Long C a s tin g ........................... In te rn a tio n a l C a stin g M a k e -u p a s s t .............................................. R o b yn A u s tin D ire c to r ............................. S o p h ia T u rk ie w ic z S et d e c o r a t o r ............................... M a rtin O ’ Neil S e rv ic e s H a ir d r e s s e r ................................................... J e n n y B ro w n S et c o n s tru c tio n ................S ta n W o lv e rid g e S c rip tw rite rs .................... F ra n k M o o rh o u s e , C a m e ra o p e ra to r .......................... B o b E vans A s s t h a ird re s s e r ....................C h e ry l W illia m s S o p h ia T u rk ie w ic z A sst e d ito r ........................................ Ian M u n ro C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ............L yn e tte H e nn e ssy W a rd , a s s is t a n t ................J e n n y C a rs e ld in e B ased on th e s h o rt s to rie s S till p h o to g r a p h y .....................C h ic k S trin g e r A rt d ir e c t o r ..................................Ray N o w la n d S ta n d b y w a rd ro b e ............................. Lea H aig fro m F u tility a n d O th e r B est b o y ....................................R ic h a rd C u rtis S c e n ic a r t i s t ............................................... A m b e r E llis P ro p s b u y e r ...........................D e rric k C h e tw y n T ra in e e r u n n e r ........... G e ra ld in e C a tc h p o o l A n im a ls by .................. F ra n k M o o rh o u s e Neg. m a t c h in g .................... M a rg a re t C a rd in S ta n d b y p r o p s .............................. Ig o r L a z a re ff L e n g th .................................................... 90 m in s P u b lic ity ........... T h e Rea F ra n cis C o m p a n y C h ie f a n im a t o r ........................... Ray N o w la n d S p e c ia l e ffe c ts s u p e rv is o r . M o n ty F e ig uth T r a in e e .........................................J u lie P lu m m e r G auge ........................................................ 3 5 m m A n i m a t o r s ...................................P aul M c A d a m , S p e c ia l e ffe c ts a sst ................. S te ve C o u rtly Synopsis: C o n flic t b e tw e e n a c a re e r w o m a n C a t e r in g ..................................L isa H e n n e sse y A n d re w S ze m e n ye i, S p e c ia l a s s t ........................... R o b e rt H ild itc h L a b o ra to ry ............................................ C o lo rfilm — a la w y e r — w h o w a n ts to have a ch ild A th o l H enry, S c e n ic a r t i s t ..............E liza b e th L e szczyn ski P ro g re s s ...........................................

P ro d u c tio n b e fo re it is to o late, a nd h e r jo u rn a lis t C y n th ia Lee ch, A sst se t fin is h e r .................... B ria n N ic k le s s h u s b a n d w h o d o e s n ’t.

C a s t: T o n y O w en (N o rm a n ), C a ro l K an e N ic h o la s H a rd in g C o n s tru c tio n m a n a g e r ......... D a n n y B u rre tt (R ose), W a rre n M itc h e ll (N o rm a n ’s fa th e r), A s s t a n im a t o r ................................................... K ay W a tts A sst c o n s tru c tio n m a n a g e r . . R o g e r C lo u t M y ra d e G ro o t (N o rm a n ’s m o th e r), D avid B a c k g ro u n d a r t i s t .................................... A m b e r E llis C a rp e n te rs ..........................P aul V o s iliu n o s , D o w n e r (N o rm a n 's b ro th e r), B a rry O tto R o g e r B rig g s , (M ic h a e l's p a rtn e r), S a n d y G o re (C h a rle s ’ G o rd o n M c In ty re , w ife ).

P h ilip C h a m b e rs

P R O D U C T IO N

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 63

M u s ic p e rfo rm e d b y ................D on W a lk e r, S ta g e h a n d s ............................................ S te p h e n V o lic P hro, d , s u p e r v is o r .......................................... J o h n C h a se NEXT OF KIN FIGHTING BAC K C o ld C h ise l T im o th y H ig g in s P ro d , s e c re ta ry ................................A n n M u d ie S o u n d e d ito r ......................... A n d re w P ro w se P ro d u c e r ....................................R o b e rt Le T e t A s s t e d ito r .................................. L in d a W ils o n P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . S a m s o n P ro d u c tio n s P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ..................G ra e m e W rig h t D ire c to r ...................................... T o n y W illia m s E d itin g a s s is ta n ts .................... R o b e rt G ra n t, 2 nd a s s t e d ito r ................ M o n iq u e W illia m s P ro d u c e rs .....................................S u e M illik e n , P ro d , a s s is t a n t .....................D e b o ra h H a n so n L in d y H a rris o n N o f u r th e r d e ta ils s u p p lie d .

M u s ic c o n s u lt a n t .................. L a n c e R e y n o ld s T o m J e ffre y 1st a sst d ire c to r ...................... R o ss H a m ilto n M ix e r ....................................................

P h il J u d d , S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r .......................M a x A s p in D ire c to r ................................M ic h a e l C a u lfie ld 2 n d a sst d ir e c t o r ....................... E uan K e d d ie P hil H a y w o o d P r o je c t io n is t ...................................... J im Jo n e s S c rip tw rite rs ........................... M ic h a e l C ove, 3 rd a s s t d i r e c t o r ........................ S tu a rt W o o d THE PIRATE MOVIE S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ....................D e n n is H u n t S till p h o t o g r a p h y ............................. B liss S w ift T o m J e ffre y C o n tin u ity ......................................... J u lie B ate s S t u n t s .................................................................... V ic W ilsPoro n ,d , c o m p a n y .................. JH I P ro d u c tio n s S tills p ro c e s s in g ........................C o lo r C o n tro l B a se d on th e n o ve l by ___ J o h n E m b lin g C a s t in g ................................................H e le n W a tts D ire c to r o f B la c k a n d w h ite ........................... D a rk R o o m M ik e R eid, P ro d u c e r ...................................... D a vid J o s e p h L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ......... R oss B e rry m a n Ian J a m ie s o n , D ire c to r .......................................... K en A n n a k in M o d e l m a k e r s ................................ T a d P rid e , F o cu s p u l l e r ........................................................Ian J o n e s p h o to g ra p h y ............................. J o h n S e a le H a n s V a n G yen S o u n d re c o rd is t ..........................T im L lo yd S c rip tw rite r ..............................T re v o r F a rra n t C la p p e r/lo a d e r ........................ B ria n B re h e n y D a vid P rid e S till p h o t o g r a p h y ......................... J im T o w n le y P h o to g ra p h y ........................... R o b in C o p p in g A s s t m o d e l m a k e r ........................... J o h n C o x K e y g r i p ..............................................................N o e l M u d E ied ito r ............................................ R on W illia m s O p t ic a ls ............................................................A tla b A rtis ts ' t r a n s p o r t ..............................C a b c h a rg e E xec, p ro d u c e r ........................P h illip A d a m s S o u n d re c o rd is t .............................P au l C la rk A s s t g rip ..........................................B a rry B ro w n T e ch , a d v is e r ........................... J im S h e p p a rd P ro d .

P ro d , d e s ig n e r ......................... J o n D o w d in g U n it c a r s ........................... T h rifty R e nt A C a r G a f f e r ........................................... L in d s a y F o o te M e c h a n ic ..........................................................M a rk A lleC n ,o m p o s e r .....................................T e rry B ritte n c o -o rd in a to r . . .C a ro ly n n e C u n n in g h a m B e s t b o y .......................................P au l G a n tn e r B o o m o p e ra to r .................. C h ris G o ld s m ith J a m e s S ta m m e rs P ro d , m a n a g e r ....................Su A rm s tro n g E xec, p ro d u c e r .........................T e d H a m ilto n R u n n e r ........................................... M e ry l C ro n in A rt d ir e c t o r .........................................P au l J o n e s B est b o y .......................................T re v o r T o u n e A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ................. D a v id A n d e rs o n U n it p u b lic is t ............................ S h e rry S tu m m L o c a tio n m a n a g e r .......................T o n y W in le y M a k e -u p ............................................J o s e P erez, R u n n e r s ..................................

J a n e t S y m o n d s , C a t e r in g ............................................................ J o h n F a ith fu l P ro d u c e rs ' s e c re ta ry ........... M a ry W illia m s P ro d , e x e c u tiv e .......................R ic h a rd D a vis J o a n P etch J o h n G o ld n e y P ro d , c o - o r d in a to r ..............R e n a te W ils o n A s s t c a te rin g .................................. S ue F a ith fu l P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t . . M o n e y p e n n y S e rv ic e s H a ir d r e s s e r ........................................ J o s e P erez P u b lic it y ........................................................... P h ilip P ikeP ro d , s e c re ta ry ........................ A n n e O ’L e a ry (C ra ig S c o tt) S e c u r it y .......................W o rm a ld In te rn a tio n a l W a rd ro b e .........................................A n n a J a k a b C a t e r in g ........................................F ria rs T u c k e r P ro d , m a n a g e r ..............................T o m B in n s E q u ip m e n t s u p p lie s .................... S a m u e ls o n s W a rd , a s s is t a n t .......................................M e la n ie V e lin1st o s a sst d ire c to r ................... S te v e A n d re w s S t u d io s .................. S .A .F .C . N o rw o o d S tu d io 2 n d a s s t d ir e c to r ...................C h ris M a u d s o n I n s u r e r s ........................................................... A d a ir L o c a tio n m a n a g e r .................... H e le n W a tts P r o p s ................................M a tth e w C u m m in g s T r a in e e s ................ (c o n tin u ity ) A n n e W a lto n , 3 rd a s s t d ir e c to r ............................. P hil R ich S o u n d t r a n s f e r s .................... F ilm P ro d u c tio n P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ......... G & S M a n a g e m e n t S ta n d b y p r o p s .................... H e le n K a v a n a g h (b o o m S w in g e r) R o b C u tc h e r S e t d e c o r a t o r ....................... A s h le y L e ig h to n C o n tin u ity ........................... C a ro lin e S ta n to n S e rv ic e s S e rv ic e s M ix e d at .......................................F ilm A u s tra lia S e t c o n s tru c tio n . . . . P h lu m m u p F ilm S ets C a s tin g c o n s u lta n t ................H e le n R o lla n d A c c o u n ts a s s is ta n t .......................P e te r D o ns L a b o r a to ry .............................................C o lo rfiim L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b A s s t e d ito r ..............................P e te r C a rro d u s (H R c o n s u lta n t) P ro d , a s s is ta n t ................... M ic h a e l M c In ty re C a s t: A la n A rk in (C a p t. In v in c ib le ), C h ris ­ L a b . lia is o n ................................. G re g D o h e rty E x tra s c a s tin g ................................ D in a M a n n 1st a sst d ir e c to r .................... M u rra y N e w e y S till p h o t o g r a p h y ...................... D a vid P a rk e r to p h e r L ee (M r M id n ig h t), K a te F itz p a tric k , L e n g th ........................................................ 95 m in s F o cu s p u lle r .................. R ic h a rd M e rry m a n 2 n d a s s t d ir e c to r .................. A n d re w M o rs e B e st b o y ...................................... G a ry S c h o le s B ill H u n te r, G ra h a m K e n n e d y , M ic h a e l G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m C la p p e r/lo a d e r ..............................D e rry Fie ld 3 rd a sst d ir e c to r .................. M u rr a y F ra n c is R u n n e r s ............................................................B ria n G ilm o re , P ate , H a ye s G o rd o n , J o h n B lu th a l, M a g g ie S h o o tin g s t o c k ....................................... E a stm a n K ey g rip ..................................P au l T h o m p s o n C o n tin u ity ................................J e n n y Q u ig le y M ik e M c In ty re D e n ce , N o rm a n E rs k in e .

S c h e d u le d re le a s e .......................

E a ste r 1982 A s s t g rip .............................

B re n d o n S h a n le y C a t e r in g ...........................................................

H e le n W rig h t P ro d u c e r’s s e c re ta ry . . G in n y M u ld o w n e y S y n o p s is : A m a d c a p , m u s ic a l c o m e d y C a s t: J o n B la k e (R on ), C a n d y R a y m o n d G a ffe r ............................................. Reg G a rs id e C a s tin g ...................................... .H e le n R o w la n d S t u d io s .................... P o rt M e lb o u rn e S tu d io s a d v e n tu re w h e re th e fly in g s u p e r h e ro ( A n n ie ) , J a d C a p e lja ( S a lly ) , C h a r le s B o o m o p e ra to r ....................

J a c k F rie d m a n C a m e ra o p e ra to r ..........................D a vid B u rr L a b o ra to ry ............................................. C in e v e x c ru s h e s N a zis, th re a te n s b o o tle g g e rs , h e lp s T in g w e ll (C a s s id y ), M a x C u lle n (F a c to ry A rt d ire c to r .................. C h ris to p h e r W e b s te r L e n g th .................................................... 100 m in s F o c u s p u lle r ........................... B a rry H a llo ra n b o y s c o u ts a n d b a ttle s M o s c o w .

C le rk ), C h ris H a y w o o d (P h il), Reg Lye (O ld M a k e -u p ..............................................J ill P o rte r C la p p e r/lo a d e r ......................... B en S e re s in G a u g e ....................................................... 3 5 m m F a rm e r), J o h n C la y to n (C .E .S . O ffic e r).

W a rd ro b e .................... R o b yn S c h u u rm a n s K ey g rip ................................................... Ian P a rk C a s t R o b in N e d w e ll (T o b y ), J u lie t J o rd a n S y n o p s is : R on, fire d fro m h is jo b a t an W a rd , a s s is ta n t ........................... J e n n y M ile s A s s t g rip s .................................... K e rry B o yle , (W e n d y ), J o h n E w a rt (H u g h e s ), J a n e C lifto n e n g in e a s s e m b ly p la n t, a tte m p ts to s a tis fy P ro p s b u y e r ........................ M ic h a e l T o le rto n (Fay), C az L e d e rm a n (S a lly), D in a M a n n R ic h a rd T u m m e l, RMNNIN’ ON EMPTY h is fa n ta s ie s b y s te a lin g a P o rs c h e T u rb o .

S ta n d b y p ro p s ............................C o lin G ib s o n (B a rb a ra ), A m a n d a M u g g le to n (E va), J u lie J a im e L e c h ie T h is has c a ta s tro p h ic re s u lts fo r h im s e lf S e t c o n s tru c tio n ......................... H a ns T h e ile N ih ill (P a m ), L u lu P in k u s (A d d y ).

G a ffe r ......................................... S te w a rt S o rb y a n d th o s e try in g to p u t h im in h is p la ce .

A sst e d ito r ..............................C a th y S h e e h a n P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................F ilm C o rp o ra tio n E le c tric ia n s ......................... D a v id P a rk in s o n , Neg. m a tc h in g .....................M a rg a re t C a rd in o f W e s te rn A u s tra lia G e o ff M a in , S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ................H e ath H a rris P ro d u c e r ......................................... P o m O liv e r P h il G o lo m d ic k , A c tio n v e h ic le D ire c to r ........................................... J o h n C la rk T e x F o o te KITTY AND THE BAG M AN SOUTHERN CROSS m a n a g e r ................................B a rry B ra n s e n S c rip tw rite r ..............................B a rry T o m b lin P la y b a c k o p e ra to r .....................G re g S te e le S till p h o to g ra p h y .......................J im T o w n le y B a se d o n th e o rig in a l id e a P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . F o re s t H o m e F ilm s fo r B o o m o p e ra to r ................ C h ris G o ld s m ith P ro d u c e rs ................................L ee R o b in s o n , A c to rs tu to r ................................W ilfre d F lin t b y .....................................................J o h n C la rk A rt d ire c to rs ..............................T o n y W o lla rd , A d a m s P a c k e r F ilm P ro d s.

J o h n M c C a llu m M e c h a n ic ......................................D ave T h o m a s P h o to g ra p h y ...............................D a v id G rib b le P r o d u c e r ................................ A n th o n y B u c k le y N ic H e p w o rth N o fu r th e r d e ta ils s u p p lie d .

B est b o y .................................. S a m B ie n s to c k S o u n d re c o rd is t .................S yd B u tte rw o rth A rt d e p t m a n a g e r .......................D a vid S e a rl D ir e c t o r .................................. D o n a ld C ro m b ie R u n n e r .................................... R ic h a rd U ssh e r E d ito r ..................................... S tu a rt A rm s tro n g C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r . . .A p h ro d ite D o w d in g S c r ip t w r it e r s ......................... P h illip C o rn fo rd , P u b lic ity .........................................D a vid W h ite P ro d , d e s ig n e r ....................N o rm a M o ric e a u M a k e -u p ....................................L o is H o h e n fe ls J o h n B u rn ie (B ro o k s W h ite O rg a n iz a tio n ) E xec, p ro d u c e r ..............................D a vid R oe D ire c to r o f p h o to g ra p h y . . .D e an S e m m le r M a k e -u p a s s is ta n ts ................P a tty P ayn e , P le a s e se e p re v io u s Issue fo r d e ta ils of: C a te rin g .......................................N e ne M o rg a n , A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ...................... M a rk E g e rto n S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... J o h n P h illip s N ic k D o m in g , SARAH C h ris tin a N o rm a n P ro d , m a n a g e r ...................... B a rb a ra G ib b s E d i t o r ......................................T im o th y W e llb u rn R o b y n P ic k e rin g S tu d io s .........................J o h n M o rte n S tu d io s U n it m a n a g e r ................... M ic h a e l B o u rc h ie r H amird P ro d , d e s ig n e r ............................................. O w e n W illia s re s s e r . . ........................... J o a n P e tch M ix e d at ......................................U n ite d S o u n d P ro d , s e c re ta ry ..................... A d rie n n e R ead E xec, p ro d u c e r .........................P h illip A d a m s A s s t h a ird re s s e rs .................... K e rrie D avis, L a b o ra to ry .........................................C o lo rfiim P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .........................C ra ig S c o tt A sso c, p ro d u c e r ........... J a c q u e lin e Ire la n d A m a n d a R o w b o tto m Lab. lia is o n ....................................... B ill G o o le y N S W F ilm C o rp . a tta c h m e n t P ro d , m a n a a e r ............................... L yn n G a ile y W a rd ro b e .......................................P am M a lin g L e n g th ..................................................100 m in s (tra in e e 1 st asst P ro d , s e c re ta ry .................. A n to n ia B a rn a rd S ta n d b y w a rd ro b e .....................D a vid R o w e G auge ........................................................ 3 5m m d ire c to r) .............................. D e ue l D ro o g a n P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ............H o w a rd W h e a tle y W a rd , b u y e r .................................... V iv W ils o n S h o o tin g s to c k ..............E a s tm a n c o lo r 5247 1st a sst d ire c to r ...................... M a rk E g e rto n 1st a sst d ir e c to r .................. S tu a rt F re e m a n S ta n d b y p ro p s ................................B a rry H a ll 2 n d a sst d ire c to r ................T o n y W e llin g to n C a st: L ew is F itz -G e ra ld (Jo h n ), P au l S m ith 2 nd a sst d ir e c t o r ..........................................C o lin F le tcShpeerc ia l e ffe c ts ......................... R. J. H o h m a n , 3 rd a s s t d ire c to r ................... R ic h a rd H o b b s (T o m ), K ris M c Q u a d e (T o m 's m u m ), C a ro ­ 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ..........................................C h ris S h o rt J o h n E g g e t, C o n tin u ity ..............................T h e re s e O 'L e a ry lin e G illm e r (R o s e m a ry ), C a th e rin e W ilk in C o n tin u ity ............................................. J o W e e ks A BURNING MAN C o n ra d R o th m a n (M a ry ), B e n G a b rie l ( M o r e la n d ) , W yn C a s t in g ..................................... M itc h M a tth e w s C a s tin g .......................................... S u s ie M a ize ls S p e c ia l e ffe c ts a s s t .................. R ic k C lis e R o b e rts (P a yne ).

P ro d , c o m p a n y ........... M c E lro y S M c E lro y (M itc h C o n s u lta n c y ) C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........... D a n n y B a tte rh a m C h o re o g ra p h y ........................... D a vid A tk in s C a m e ra o p e ra to r ..........................D a vid B u rr P ro d u c e r ................................J a m e s M c E lro y S y n o p s is : A re m a rk a b le re la tio n s h ip b e ­ F o c u s p u l l e r ..................................................S te ve D o bA so n c h o r e o g r a p h y ......... C a m ille E d w a rd s sst tw e en a y o u n g te a c h e r a n d a d e e p ly - C la p p e r/lo a d e r .................. A n d re w M c L e a n D ire c to r ................................Q u e n tin M a s te rs F o c u s p u lle r .................................. B en S e re s in S e t d re s s e r ........................................... J ill E de n d is tu rb e d 13 y e a r-o ld b oy. T o m is w ritte n C la p p e r/lo a d e r ........................... C liv e S m ith S c rip tw rite rs .........................D a vid A m b ro s e , K e y g r i p ................................M e rv M c L a u g h lin S c e n ic a rtis t ................................B illy M a lc o lm o ff as a d e lin q u e n t by m o s t a d u lts u n til A s s t g r ip / s ....................................... P a t N ash, C a m e ra g rip ...................... G ra h a m L itc h fie ld Q u e n tin M a s te rs C a rp e n te rs .................................... D e n n is Lee, J o h n , the te a c h e r, fig h ts a g a in s t all o d d s to C a r g rip ........................................W a lly W ilm o tl B ase d o n th e n o ve l by ...........K it D e n to n A la n F le m in g , B ria n E d m o n d s s tra ig h te n o u t his life .

G a ffe r .........................................M ile s M o u ls o n P h o to g ra p h y ............................. P e te r H a nn a n G a f f e r .................................................................J o h n M o rto n R o ry F o re st, E le c tric ia n .................................. S te p h e n D ean S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................... Don C o n n o lly E le c tr ic ia n ......................................................J a s o n R o g e rs llm a r K g ru s o , B o o m o p e ra to r ........................... N o el Q u in n E d ito r ........................................... R ic h a rd C la rk H o d g e s & R ic h te r B o o m o p e ra to r .............................. Ray P h illip s A rt d ir e c to r .....................................G re g B ro w n P ro d , d e s ig n e r ..............................B o b H ild itc h Co A r t d ir e c t o r ......................................................J o h n C a rro ll n s tru c tio n m a n a g e rs ........... P h il W o rth , FREEDOM M a k e -u p ................................... M o n ic a Fetzer C o m p o s e r .................................. G ro o v e M y e rs A s s t a rt d ire c to r .......................J u d ith R u ssell K e n H a z e lw o o d H a ird re s s e r ............................... M o n ic a F etzer P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ................S o u th A u s tra lia n P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ..............T e rry F o g h a rty S h ip s lia is o n o ffic e rs ............Ian G o d d a rd , C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ..............J u d ith D o rs m a n W a rd ro b e .................................... R o g e r M o n k F ilm C o rp o ra tio n M a k e -u p .................... L e s le y L a m o n t-F is h e r P ro d , m a n a g e rs ..................P e te r A p p le to n , G o rd o n K irb y E n d e a v o u r C o m m u n ic a tio n s C o rp . H a ir d r e s s e r ....................................................... W illi K e n M W a rd , a s s is ta n t ............................J e n n y M ile s G re g R ic k e ts o n ricuks ic a l a rra n g e rs .................. P e te r S u lliv a n , P r o d u c e r .........................................M a tt C a rro ll P ro p s b u y e r .........................M ic h a e l T o le rto n U n it m a n a g e r ........................... D a vid F in d la y R o g e r S a vich W a rd , a s s is t a n t s ............................................. Lyn A ske w , D ir e c t o r .............................................S c o tt H ic k s S ta n d b y p ro p s ............................C o lin G ib s o n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ................... W ilm a S c h in e lla D u b b in g e d ito r .......................T e rry R o d m a n K e rri B a rn e tt S c r ip t w r it e r ......................................................J o h n E mPero ryp s b u y e r s ................S te p h e n A m e z d ro z , S p e c ia l e ffe c ts .................. R e ece R o b in s o n P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ..............E la ine C ro w th e r S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ....................G ra n t P ag e B a se d o n o rig in a l C a r s u p e rv is o r ........................... A n d y W a ts o n 1st a sst d ire c to r ..............M ic h a e l M c K e a g F e n c in g in s tru c to r .................. J o h n F a th e rs B illy A lle n , id e a by .........................................J o h n E m e ry 2 n d a sst d ire c to r ......................... J o h n R o o ke S c e n ic a rtis t ................................ D a vid M c K a y S till p h o to g ra p h y .........................B a rry P e a ke S u e H o yle S c rip t e d i t o r .................... G ra e m e K o e ts v e ld 3 rd a sst d ire c to r ..............................Ian K e n n y S e t c o n s tru c tio n .................. K ie ra n H a n so n B e s t b o y .................................... P e te r M o lo n e y S ta n d b y p r o p s ................................ P au l J o n e s P h o to g r a p h y ..............................Ron J o h a n s o n C o n tin u ity ..............................Roz B e rry s to n e A s s t e d ito r .................................... D o u g F ra s e r B e s t b o y (2) ..............................C o lin W illia m s S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ......... A lm a x S p e c ia l E ffe c ts S o u n d re c o rd is t ............................ T im L lo yd C a s tin g .........................................Rae D a v id s o n S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ..............F ra n k L e n n o n C h o re o g ra p h y ......................... A n n e S e m m le r R u n n e r ................................K e ith H a n s c o m b e E d i t o r ..................................................P h ilip R eid C a m e ra o p e ra to r ......................K e ith W o o d s D ia lo g u e c o a c h .......................J e n n ife r W e s t S c e n ic a r t i s t s ....... .......................N e d M c C a n n , P u b lic ity ............................................D a v id W h ite P ro d , d e s ig n e r ........................ H e rb e rt P in te r F o cu s p u lle r ................................ S te ve M a so n B e st b o y .................................. R ic h a rd C u rtis (B ro o k s W h ite O rg a n iz a tio n ) J o y c e M a c F a rla n e C o m p o s e r .......................................................... D o n W aClkaerpr e n te rs ..................................L en M e tc a lfe , C la p p e r/lo a d e r ...........................S tu a rt Q uin R u n n e r .......................................A n n ie P e a c o c k C a te rin g ............................. H a ro ld J e n e K o c h E xec, p ro d u c e r ..............................J im G e o rg e C a te rin g ..............................................R ay F o w le r K ey g rip ........................................ D o n A n d re w s C a s t: K ris ty M c N ic h o l, C h ris to p h e r A tk in s , H a n n e s F in g e r P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .................. B a rb a ra R ing L a b o r a to ry ..............................A tla b A u s tra lia A s s t g rip ...................................... P hil S h a p ie ra T e d H a m ilto n , G a ry M c D o n a ld , B ill K e rr, S e t c o n s tru c tio n ....................R ic h a rd W e ig h t P ro d , m a n a g e r .........................V a le rie H a rd y E le c tric ia n ......................................D e re k J o n e s L a b . lia is o n ..................................G re g D o h e rty M a g g ie K irk p a tr ic k .

A s s t e d ito r .......................A n n a b e lle S h e e h a n U n it m a n a g e r ........................R o b B ro o k m a n B o o m o p e ra to r ........... G ra h a m M c K in n e y L e n g th .................................................... 104 m in s S y n o p s is : L o o s e ly b a s e d o n G ilb e r t a n d N eg. m a t c h i n g ...................... M a rg a re t C a rd in P re -P ro d , s e c re ta ry .S h e rre e G o ld s w o rth y A s s t a rt d ire c to r .........................J o h n C a rro ll G auge .......................................................... 3 5 m m u lliv a n ’s ‘T h e P ira te s o f P e n z a n c e ” . F ilm S till p h o t o g r a p h y ...................................... P a tric k R iv ieSre P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .................. M ic h a e l C u rtis C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ..............M a rta S ta te s c u S h o o tin g s to c k .......................................... K o d a k in c lu d e s fiv e G ilb e r t a n d S u lliv a n so n g s, B e s t b o y ...........................................Ian P lu m b e r 1st a sst d ire c to r ........................... J a n M a rn e ll M a k e -u p ........................................... J o s e P erez P ro g re s s ............................................ P ro d u c tio n a n d s ix n e w o n e s . S to r y h a s a c o n ­ R u n n e r ......................................... A n n ie P e a c o c k 2 n d a sst d ir e c t o r .................. .. C h ris W illia m s H a ird re s s e r .......................................J o s e P erez C ast: T e rry S e rio (M ik e ), D e b o ra C o n w a y m p o ra ry b e g in n in g a n d e n d ; m o s t is a P u b lic ity ...............................................................R ea F ra nte c is 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r .................... Ron S tig w o o d W a rd , a s s is ta n t .................... C a trio n a B ro w n lo n g fa n ta s y s e q u e n c e .

(J u lie ), V a n g e liz M o u rik is (T o n y), R ic h a rd L a b o ra to ry .............................................C o lo rfiim C o n tin u ity .................................. S h irle y B a lla rd P ro p s b u y e rs ......................................Ian A lle n , M o ir (F o x), M a x C u lle n (R e b e l), G ra h a m e L ab . lia is o n ..........................................................B ill G o o le y P ro d u c e r’s s e c r e ta r ie s .................. P at S e rg o , S u e H o yle B o n d (J a g g e r), G e o ff R h o e (R am ), K ris P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n A lis o n B a rre tt (S yd .), S ta n d b y p ro p s ................................ P au l Jo n e s G re a v e s (S ta r te r ) , J e r r y S o n t ( V ic to r ) , STARSTRUCK C a s t: L id d y C la rk (K itty O ’R o u rk e ), V al A u d in e L e ith (A d e l.)

S p e c ia l e ffe c ts ................ C o n ra d R o th m a n , P e n n e H a c k fo r th -J o n e s (D ave), L e h m a n (L il D e la n e y), J o h n S ta n to n (T h e L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ........... Ron J o h a n s o n P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................... P alm B ea ch C h ris M u rra y , Synopala: A y o u n g fa c to ry w o rk e r, M ik e , B a g m a n ), G e ra rd M c G u ire (C y ril V ik k e rs ), F o cu s p u l l e r .................................. H e n ry P ie rc e A la n M a x w e ll, P ic tu re s (S ta rs tru c k ) a n d h is o b s e s s io n w ith c a rs a n d s o m e o n e C o lle tte M a n n (D o ris d e S a lle ), Reg E van s C la p p e r/lo a d e r ..............................J o h n F o ste r P r o d u c e r s .......................................D a vid E lfick, P e te r A rm s tro n g , e ls e 's g irl, J u lie . T h e film fo llo w s M ik e 's (C h ic k a D e la n e y ), K y lie F o s te r (S a ra h K ey g r i p ............................................ R o b M o rg a n J o n a th o n D a vid R ic h a rd B re n n a n s t r u g g le to w in J u lie a n d s u rv iv e th e J o n e s ), T e d H e p p le (S a m ), D a n n y A d c o c k A sst g rip s .............................. G ra e m e S h e lto n , D ir e c t o r ............................... G illia n A rm s tro n g S e t c o n s tru c tio n .........................J o h n P a rk e r c h a lle n g e o f h e r v ic io u s b o y frie n d to a (T h o m a s ), J o h n E w a rt (T h e T ra in D riv e r).

S c r ip t w r it e r ........................ S te p h e n M a c L e a n M ic h a e l W h ite A s s t e d ito r .................................... D o ug F ra ze r s e rie s o f ille g a l s tre e t ra ce s.

S y n o p s is : A p e rio d c o m e d y d ra m a s e t in 2 n d u n it p h o to g ra p h y . . . D a vid F o re m a n , B a se d o n o rig in a l id e a S o u n d e d ito r ................................ J o h n F o ste r S y d n e y a b o u t tw o c rim e q u e e n s , K itty P au l D a lw itz.

S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ..............F ra n k L e n n o n b y ........................................ S te p h e n M a c L e a n O ’R o u rk e a n d B ig Lil D e la n e y. T o g e th e r, P e te r S m ith , P h o t o g r a p h y ................................R u sse ll B o yd S till p h o to g ra p h y ........... G e o ff M c G e a c h in th e s e tw o re m a rk a b le w o m e n ru le d th e G e o ff S im p s o n , S o u n d re c o rd is t ................................P hil J u d d B est b o y ........................................ M a tt S la tte ry A S LIC E OF LIFE u n d e rw o rld o f s ly -g ro g s h o p s , g a m b lin g G us H o w a rd E d i t o r ..................................... N ic h o la s B e a u m a n R u n n e r ........................................R ic h a rd H o b b s h o u se s, p ro s titu tio n a n d h o ld -u p m e rc h a n ts P ro d , d e s ig n e r .......................... B ria n T h o m s o n G a f f e r ................................G ra e m e R u th e rfo rd U n it p u b lic is t ......................... B a b e tte S m ith P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... J o h n L a m o n d in th e rip -r o a rin g 1920s, p la y in g , la u g h in g E le c tr ic ia n .................................. K e ith J o h n s o n A s s o c , p r o d u c e r ............... S te p h e n M a c L e a n C a te rin g .................................... N e ne M o rg a n .

M o tio n P ic tu re E n te rp ris e s a n d fig h tin g w ith a g u s to th e c ity h as n e ve r B o o m o p e ra to r .......................J a c k F rie d m a n P ro d , m a n a g e r ........................ B a rb a ra G ib b s C h ris tin a N o rm a n D ist. c o m p a n y .................................. R o a d s h o w k n o w n sin c e .

A rt d ir e c t o r ................................H e rb e rt P in te r L o c a tio n m a n a g e r ..................R ic h a rd U ssh e r L a b o ra to ry ......................................... C o lo rfiim D is tr ib u to r s A u s tra lia P ro d , s e c re ta ry ........................... L y n n G a ile y M a k e -u p ..............................M a rg a re t L in g h a m C a st.

T o m S k e r ritt (H o w a rd A n d e rs o n ), Ian P r o d u c e r .....................................J o h n L a m o n d P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .....................D ig b y D u n ca n W a rd ro b e ........................R u th d e la L a n d e G ilm o u r (S te ve A d a m s ), J a m e s M a so n D ire c to r ......................................... J o h n L a m o n d P ro p s A s s is t a n t ............................................P e te r C o llia s A c c o u n ts a s s is t a n t ......... V ic k i M o n tg o m e ry (G e o rg e E n g e ls), W e n d y H u g h e s (S o p h ie S c r ip t w r it e r ................................ A la n H o p g o o d P ro p s b u y e r ..............................A n n i B ro w n in g 1st a s s t d ire c to r .......................M a rk T u rn b u ll M c C a n n ), K im D e a co n (M a g g ie A n d e rs o n ), S o u n d re c o rd is t ........................... P au l C la rk e S ta n d b y p r o p s ............................. S te w a rt W a y 2 n d a s s t d ir e c t o r ......................C h ris M a u d s o n Ray B a rre tt (W e b s te r). N o rm a n K aye (P e rcy E d i t o r ......................................................... J ill R ice F a rle y), G u y D o le m a n (J u lia n Fane), M a rtin S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ........................... B ria n P e a rce 3 rd a s s t d i r e c t o r .......................................... C o lin F le tc h e r C o m p o s e r ........................................... B ria n M ay A s s t e d ito r ..........................C a th e rin e M u rp h y H a rris (C u rly C h e s te r), M ic h a e l P e tro v itc h C o n tin u ity ...................................A d r ie n n e R ead E xec, p ro d u c e r ........... C in e m a E n te rp ris e s Neg. m a t c h i n g ............................................. A tla b P ro d u c e r's s e c re ta ry ...................S uzi P a rk e r (Jo e L a lin ie i).

A s s o c , p r o d u c e r ..................... M ic h a e l H irs c h M u s ic a l d ire c to r ......................... Don W a lk e r C a s t in g ....................................................................Liz M u llin a r

(working title)

P O S T -P R O D U C T IO N

■ 64 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

G a s tin g c o n s u lta n ts ..............M & L C a s tin g S e a m s tre s s 1 .................................. R u th T ic k le C a s t: A la n C a sse ll (R ay S a n g s te r), A n n a Cast: M ik e P re s to n (R ay), G a ry D ay (T e rry ), BREAKFAST IN PARIS P ty L td S e a m s tre s s 2 ............................. R u th M u n ro e J e m is o n (N ic k i), S ve t K o vich (M ik e S a n g ­ W e n d y H u g h e s (B a rb a ra ), D ia n n e C ile n to E x tra s c a s tin g W a rd ro b e a s s is ta n t ..............Fio n a N ic h o lls P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... J o h n L a m o n d ste r). D ia n a D a v id s o n (M a rth a S a n g s te r), (M a rg o t). M ic h a e l P ate (G ie s m a n ), V a n e ssa c o - o r d i n a t o r ................C h ris tin e W o o d ru ff S ta n d - b y p r o p s .................................Ro B ru e n M o tio n P ic tu re E n te rp ris e s R o w e n a W a lla c e (L iz L le w e lly n ), R ic H u tto n L eig h (D ia n n e ), W a rw ic k C o m b e r (B ria n C a m e ra o p e ra to r ...................... N ix o n B in n e y S ta n d - b y p ro p s a s s is t a n t ___ G re g N e lso n D ist. c o m p a n y .................................. R o a d s h o w (S a m B ite l), P eg g y M o rtim e r (R u th ie B itel), In g e rs o ll). R od M u llin a r (O v e rla n d ), C la ire F o c u s p u l l e r ..............................J o h n S w a ffie ld S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .................... R e ece R o b in s o n P ro d u c e r .................................... J o h n L a m o n d O ria n a P an o zzo (S u sa n B ite l), W a rre n G o ld B in n e y (J a c k i N e s b itt), S ig rid T h o rn to n C la p p e r /lo a d e r ................ G e o ffre y W h a rto n A sst s p e c ia l e ffe c ts .................... P e te r G lo ss D ire c to r ...................................... J o h n L a m o n d (B e n B ite l), S a lly C o o p e r (P a tric ia ).

(C a ro lin e ).

K e y g r i p ...............................................................Ray B ro w A nrt d e p a r tm e n t a s s is ta n t . S te ve F u lle rto n S c r ip t w r it e r ................................... M o rris D a lto n S y n o p s is : A c o n te m p o ra ry s to ry o f se xu a l Synopsis: A c o n te m p o ra ry film .

A s s t g r i p s ..................................................... S tu a rt G re A e nrt, d e p a r tm e n t a n im a ls ..............Earl G an o S o u n d re c o rd is t .........................J o h n R o w le y riv a lry a nd o b s e s s io n ; of lo st y o u th a n d G e o rd ie D ryd e n H o rs e m a s t e r ..........................Ray W ln s la d e E d i t o r .........................................................J ill R ice fa lse m a n h o o d . A tria n g le w h ic h le a d s to G a f f e r .......................................B ria n B a n s g ro v e A s s t e d ito r .................................... K a re n W h ite r C o m p o s e r ...........................................B ria n M ay d is a s te r.

B e s t b o y .........................................P au l G a n tn e r S till p h o t o g r a p h y .................. P e n n y T w e e d ie E xec, p ro d u c e r ........... C in e m a E n te rp ris e s EARLY FROST E le c tric ia n W r a n g le r s ................................J im W illo u g h b y .

A s s o c , p ro d u c e r .......................M ic h a e l H irsh DEAD EASY g e n e r a to r o p e r a t o r .................................C o lin C h ase P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................D a vid H a n n a y B a rry G ro v e s P ro d , s u p e r v is o r .......................................... J o h n C h ase E le c tr ic ia n ....................................................... P e te r O 'B W riera n n g le rs ’ a s s is t a n t ...................................... J a n M itcPhro D ire c to r .........................................B e rt D e aling e lld , s e c re ta ry ............................... A n n M u d le P ro d u c tio n s B o o m o p e ra to rs .................. J a c k F rie d m a n , P ro d u c e rs ..................................D a vid H a nn a y, B est b o y ...................................... R ic h a rd C u rtis (N o fu r th e r d e ta ils s u p p lie d ) P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ..................G ra e m e W rig h t P at F iske U n it r u n n e r s ......................A n to n y S h e p h e rd , 1st a sst d ire c to r ......................R oss H a m ilto n G e o ff B ro w n A s s t to P ro d u c tio n S c rip tw rite r ............................. T e rry O 'C o n n o r Ian B illin g 2 nd a s s t d ir e c t o r ......................... B illy B a x te r DOUBLE DEAL D e s ig n e r ........................... A n d re w S a n d e rs B a se d on an o rig in a l U n it n u r s e ................' . ...................S a lly W a lk e r 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ......................... S tu a rt W o o d A rt d ir e c t o r ........................................................ K im H ildA e rb o rig in a l a d v is e r ........................................ V ik k i C h ris 'd e a b y ............................... T e rry O 'C o n n o r P ro d , c o m p a n y ..................R y c h e m o n d Film C otie n tin u ity ...........................................J u lie B ate s A s s t to a rt d ir e c t o r .......................R o b e rt D ein D r i v e r ................................................................ P e te r B o uPrnroed u c e r's a s s is ta n t........... M ic h e le W ie n e r P h o to g ra p h y ................................. D a vid E g g b y P ro d u c tio n s A rt d e p a r tm e n t ' L a b o ra to ry .............................................C o lo rfilm S o u n d re c o rd is t ...........................M a rk L e w is D ist. c o m p a n y ..................................(o v e rs e a s ) D ire c to r’s a s s is t a n t ........... D e n ise P a tie n c e a s s is ta n ts .................................D a vid M cK a y, Lab. lia is o n ...................................... B ill G o o le y E d ito r ................................................... J im S tre e t H e m d a le L e is u re C o rp .

L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ......... R oss B e rry m a n S c o tt R o b e rts L e n g th ...................................................... .9 0 m in s P ro d , d e s ig n e r ........................... B o b H ild itc h F o cu s p u l l e r ....................................................... Ian Jo nPe rso d u c e r s ............................. B ria n K a v a n a g h ,' C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ..............L u c ia n a A rrig h i G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m L yn n B a rk e r C o m p o s e r .................................... M ik e H a rve y C la p p e r/lo a d e r .......................D a vid S te ve n s W a rd ro b e c o - o r d i n a t o r ................T e rry Ryan S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r ire c to r .....................................B ria n K a va n a g h E xec, p ro d u c e r .................. J o h n F itz p a tric k K e y g r i p ............................................................. N o el M uD d ie M a k e -u p .........................................E la in e C a re w S c r ip t w r it e r .............................. B ria n K a va n a g h C a s t: A n g e la P u n ch M c G re g o r (J e a n n ie A s s t g rip ..........................................B a rry B ro w n (F ilm c o ) H a ir d r e s s e r ..............................C h e ry l W illia m s B ase d on th e P ro d , m a n a g e r .........................J u lia O v e rto n G a f f e r ..............................................L in d s a y F o ote G u n n ), A rth u r D ig n a m (A e n e a s G u n n ), T o n y W a rd ro b e s u p e r v is o r ...............A n to n y J o n e s o rig in a l id e a b y .................B ria n K a va n a g h U n it m a n a g e r ..................................Di N ic h o la s B a rry (M a c ), M a rtin V a u g h a n (D a n ), L ew is B o o m o p e ra to rs ...................S te ve n H a g e rty, W a rd ro b e a s s is ta n t ........... M e lo d y C o o p e r P h o to g r a p h y ............................. R oss B e rry m a n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ......... ...........B e lin d a M a so n F itz -G e ra ld (J a c k ), J o h n J a rra tt (D a n d y), A n d re w R a m a ge O n -s e t w a r d r o b e .................. S u e A rm s tro n g S o u n d re c o rd is t ......................... J o h n P h illip s C e c il P a rk e s (C h e o n ), D a n n y A d c o c k P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ......... H o w a rd W h e a tle y A rt d ir e c t o r ................................S te p h e n W a lsh P ro p s b u y e rs / E d i t o r .................................................... T im L ew is (B ro w n ), T o m m y L e w is (J a c k a ro o ), D o n a ld 1st asst d ir e c to r ..................S tu a rt F re e m a n A sst a rt d ire c to r .................... E ric G ra d m a n se t d r e s s e r s .......................S a lly C a m p b e ll, C o m p o s e r ................................B ru c e S m e a to n B litn e r (G o g g le Eye).

2 nd a sst d ire c to r .......... M ic h a e l B o u rc h ie r C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r L issa C o o te E xec, p ro d u c e r ................................J o h n D aly 3 rd a sst d ire c to r ..................A n n ie P e a c o c k S y n o p s is : A s to ry o f th e h a rd s h ip fa c e d by fo r M s P a rk in s .......................... P ru e A c to n S ta n d b y p r o p s .............................................. C la rk M u nnro A sso c, p r o d u c e r ......................... C a rlie D e an s C o n tin u ity ..............M a rg a re t Rose S tr in g e r e w ly -m a rrie d J e a n n ie G u n n w h ic h re c a lls M a k e -u p .............................................J o se P erez C h o re o g ra p h y .............................. D a vid A tk in s P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ........................... J o h n C h ase P ro d u c e r’s a s s is ta n t ......... V a n e ssa B ro w n th e c o u ra g e , v ita lity a n d h u m o r o f e a rly H a ir d r e s s e r ......................................... J o s e P erez A s s t c h o r e o g r a p h e r ................................ A n d ris T o pcpaettle m e n a n d A b o rig in a l s to c k m e n in a P ro d.

L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ..............D a vid E g g b y W a rd ro b e c o - o r d i n a t o r .............. Ja n e H o w a t S c e n ic a r t i s t ..............E liz a b e th L e szczyn ski c o -o rd in a to r . . . C a ro ly n n e C u n n in g h a m C a m e ra o p e ra to r ......................D a vid E g g b y h a rs h , b u t m e m o ra b le N o rth e rn T e rrito ry S ta n d b y p r o p s .................... H e le n K a va n a g h C a rp e n te rs .................................. R o ry F o rre st, P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ........................ L ynn B a rk e r F o cu s p u lle r .............................. D a v id C o n n e ll e n v iro n m e n t.

S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ............................... B ria n P e a rc e C h ris Jo n e s, P ro d , a s s is ta n t..................................Lyn D e vin e C la p p e r/lo a d e r .............................E rik a A d d is C a rp e n te rs ..................................H u g h B a te u p , G u y M ille r 1st A s s t d i r e c t o r ...................R o ss H a m ilto n C a m e ra a s s is ta n ts ......... S a lik S ilv e rs te in , R o b e rt H e rn , S e t c o n s tru c tio n .......................A la n F le m in g 2 nd A sst d ire c to r ........................... B ill B a ste r P e te r H e rn , S a lly E c c le s to n P le a se se e p re v io u s Issu e f o r d e ta ils of: A s s t e d ito r ................................D u n c a n T a y lo r 2 nd u n it d ir e c t o r ...................B ria n K a va n a g h K ey g rip ................................M e rv M c L a u g h lin S te v e n P o o le GOOSE FLESH M u s ic a l d ire c to r .......................M a rk M o ffa tt A sst g rip s ............................. B re tt R o b in s o n , C o n tin u ity ...................................S h irle y B a lla rd S et c o n s tru c tio n ...................................Ian D olg HORROR M OVIE S u p e rv is in g P ro d u c e r's a s s is ta n t......... H elen K a va n a g h S till p h o t o g r a p h y ................ G ra e m e W e b b S r R o b e rt V e rk e rk s o u n d e d ito r .........................P au l M a x w e ll 2 nd u n it p h o to g ra p h y ..............P e te r Levy, B est b o y ...................................... G a ry S c h o le s F o cu s p u l l e r .........................'. .......... Ian Jo n e s D u b b in g a s s is t a n t .................... A n n e B re s lin C la p p e r/lo a d e r ............................... P hil C ro ss P u b lic ity ........... T a k in g C a re O f B u s in e s s S a m B ie n s to c k E d itin g a s s is ta n t ........................... L in d y T ro s t G a ffe r ...............................................R o g e r W o o d U n it p u b lic is ts ...............................J u d y G re e n , S p e c ia l fx ..............................C o n ra d R o th m a n S tu n ts .................................................. D a le A s p in , E le c tric ia n ....................................... P e te r W o o d G a f f e r ............................................. L in d s a y F o ote P e te r M u rp h y R e ece R o b in s o n B o o m o p e ra to r ............................ S te ve M ille r C a t e r in g ......................... K e rry B y rn e C a te rin g B o o m o p e ra to r ..............................R ay P h illip s A e r ia l is t ...............................................................T im C o ld w e ll A rt d ire c to r .................................... B o b H ild itc h A rt d ir e c t o r ......................................... J ill E den S tu d io s .......................P o rt M e lb o u rn e S tu d io S till p h o t o g r a p h y ............................. B lis s S w ift A s s t a rt d ire c to r ...................... R o b e rt J o n e s L a b o ra to ry ............................................... C in e v e x A sst a rt d ire c to r .............................P hil E ag le s S in g in g c o a c h ............................. J a n ic e S la te r L ab . lia is o n ........................................A la n Ja m e s M a k e -u p .......................

D e ry c k De N ie se M a k e -u p ..................................R in a H o fm a n is B a n d c o a c h ................................ B uzz B id s tru p Ha H a ir d r e s s e r ....................................................P ie tra R o b in s ird re s s e r ............................. R in a H o fm a n is L e n g th ........................................................ 90 m in s W r a n g le r ............................................D a le A s p in W a rd ro b e ...........................................B o b L lo y d G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m W a rd ro b e ...................................... A n n a J a k a b R u n n e r ................................................ P e te r P ag e W a rd , a s s is ta n t .....................R o b in a C h a ffe y P ro p s b u y e r .............................. N ick H e p w o rth S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r U n it p u b lic is t ...................................Fra n M o o re S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........... N o v e m b e r, 1981 S ta n d b y p r o p s ........................ K en H a ze lw o o d P r° P s ..................................................T o n y H u n t C a t e r in g ................................C e c il B, De M e a ls P ro p s b u y e r ......................................... |a n A lle n C a s t: B a rb a ra P a rk in s , Rod M ullinar..

S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .....................C o n ra d R o th m a n O n W h e e ls S ta n d b y p r o p s ................................... T o n y H u n t C o n s t r u c t io n ...................... G e o ff R ic h a rd s o n , THE BEST OF FRIENDS S y n o p s is : T h e ro m a n c e th a t d e v e lo p s S t u d io s .........................A rtra n s a P a rk S tu d io s S p e c ia l e ffe c ts ...........................B ria n O le sen , b e tw e e n a s u c c e s s fu l d re s s d e s ig n e r a n d a Ian D oig P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................T h e F rie n d ly M ix e d a t ....................................... F ilm A u s tra lia A sst e d ito r ......................................K en S a llo w s p h o to g ra p h e r. S e t a g a in s t th e b a c k d ro p o f A la n M a x w e ll, F ilm C o m p a n y L a b o r a to ry .................................A tla b A u s tra lia ro m a n tic P aris, it tra c e s th e re s o lu tio n of S till p h o t o g r a p h y ............................ S uzy W o o d P e te r E vans D ist. c o m p a n y ................H o yts D is trib u tio n L a b . lia is o n ........................... G re g D o u g h e rty , th e ir c o n flic ts a n d th e ir fin a l u n io n .

B est b o y ........................................G a ry S c h o le s C a rp e n te rs ................................R u sse ll J o n e s , P ro d u c e r ......................................... T o m J e ffre y C h e ry l R o d g e rs R u n n e r .............................................. S tu a rt W o o d M o rris E vans, D ire c to r ........................... M ic h a e l R o b e rts o n L e n g th .................................................... 105 m in s P u b lic ity ........................................... C a rlie D e ans A d r ia n S to re y S c rip tw rite r .................... D o n a ld M a c d o n a ld G a u g e ............................................................ 3 5 m m U n it p u b lic is t .............................. P e te r M u rp h y S et c o n s tru c tio n ....................... J o h n P a rk e r, B ase d on th e o rig in a l S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r L a b o ra to ry ...........................................C o lo rfilm M ic h a e l O s b o rn e P ro d , c o m p a n y ...................................... N a d ira id e a b y .......................D o n a ld M a c d o n a ld n e g a tiv e 5247 Lab. lia is o n ......................................... B ill G o o le y A s s t e d ito r .................... C a th e rin e S h e e h a n P r o d u c e r ......................................... T o m H a ydo n D ire c to r of S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................... M a rc h , 1982 B u d g e t .................................................................... S1m illioNeg. n m a tc h in g ........................... G o rd o n P eck D ire c to r ...........................................P au l H a rm o n p h o to g ra p h y .........................D a vid G rib b le Cast: J o K e n n e d y (J a c k ie M u lle n s ), R oss S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r M u s ic a l d ire c to r ........................ M ik e H a rve y S c rip tw rite rs ....................... M ic h a e l B rin d le y , S o u n d re c o rd is t ........................... T im L loyd O ’D o n o v a n (A n g u s M u lle n s ), P at E viso n M u s ic p e rfo rm e d C a s t: A n g e la P u n ch M c G re g o r (C h ris tin a P au l H a rm o n E d ito r ...........................................R on W illia m s (N a n a ), M a rg o L ee (P e a rl), M a x C u lle n S tirlin g ). L o u is J o u rd a n (P e te r S tirlin g ). by ...................................... D o ug P a rk in s o n , B ase d on o rig in a l id e a C o m p o s e r .........................................B ria n K in g (R eg ), N ed L a n d e r (R o b b ie ), M e lis s a J a ffe r D ia n e C r a ig (J u n e S te v e n s ), W a rw ic k N a o m i W a rn e . by ..................................................Pau l H a rm o n P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ............. J u lie K e n n e d y (M rs B o o th ), J o h n O 'M a y (T e rry L a m b e rt), C o m b e r (yo u n g m a n ), B ru ce S p e n c e (D o u g M a lc o lm M c C a llu m , P h o t o g r a p h y .....................................................PaulO n o ra to P ro d , m a n a g e r ...................... Su A rm s tro n g D e n n is M i lle r ( L o u ) , N o r m a n E r s k in e M itc h e ll). P e te r C u m m in s (D e te c tiv e M ills ), D a vid S p a ll, S o u n d re c o rd is t ..................K en H a m m o n d U n it m a n a g e r ....................... T o n y W e llin g to n (H azza ), P hil J u d d , D w a yn e H illm a n a nd Ian P atty C r o c k e r (C h ris tin a 's m o th e r), K e rry S te ve K ie ly E d i t o r .............................................. R od A d a m s o n P ro d u c e r's s e c re ta ry . . . E liza b e th B a rto n G ilro y o f “ T h e S w in g e rs ” as "T h e S w in g ­ W a lk e r (S ib y l A n d e rs o n ). D a ne e L in d s a y S o u n d e d ito r ................................. K la u s J a n tz P ro d , d e s ig n e r ............................R ic h a rd K en t P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ......... H o w a rd W h e a tle y e rs ". ( ju n io r s e c r e ta r y ) , J u n e J a g o (M rs E d itin g a s s is ta n t ....................

T e rry M ooney C o m p o s e r ................................. M ic h a e l C a rlo s 1st a sst d ire c to r ................... E d d ie P ry lin s k i Synopsis: S ta rs tru c k , a c o m e d y a n d fa s t­ C o o lid g e ).

M ix e r ..................................................... P hil J u d d A sso c, p ro d u c e r ................. M ic h a e l B rin d le y 2 nd a sst d ire c to r .................... C o lin F le tc h e r p a c e d ro c k m u s ic a l, is a b o u t tw o te e n ­ S y n o p s is : A p s y c h o lo g ic a l th rille r, its p lo t is S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r s . . .P e te r A rm s tro n g , P ro d , s u p e r v is o r .................................... M ic h a e l M cK e a g 3 rd a s s t d ire c to r ...................... T o n y W in le y a g e rs a n d th e ir e c c e n tric fa m ily w h o ru n an a m y s te ry of m a n ip u la tio n a nd d o u b le ­ H e rb N e lso n P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ...................... lia n a B a ro n C o n tin u ity ................................A d rie n n e Read in n e r-c ity , w o rk in g -c la s s p u b . A n g u s , 14, d e a lin g a b o u t th e e le g a n t , b e a u t if u l S tu n ts .................................................

G le n D avis, U n it m a n a g e r ...................................... Ian K e n n y C a s tin g c o n s u lta n ts .................... Dee N e v ille m a n ip u la te s th e m e d ia in an a tte m p t to tu rn B ev T e ag u e, P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............................. Lyn M o rris C h ris tin a S tirlin g , h e r u rb a n e , s u c c e s s fu l C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................... N ix o n B in n e y h is c o u s in , J a c k ie , 18, in to a s in g in g sta r. m a n o f t h e w o r ld h u s b a n d , P e te r, a M a tth e w H e ssia n, P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t .............................A n d ro u lla F o cu s p u lle r ..................P e te r M e n z ie s ju n .

D ee Ja m e s .

1st asst d ire c to r ................... D a vid B ra c k n e ll d a u n tin g , s e n s u o u s y o u n g m an a nd P e te r's C la p p e r/lo a d e r ............. G e o ffre y W h a rto n C h ris H e ssia n .

2 nd a s s t d ir e c t o r .......................................... J o h n R oeoffic ke ie n t, d e v o te d s e c re ta ry .

K ey g rip ....................................Paul T h o m p s o n WE OF THE NEVER NEVER R o c k y M c D o n a ld 3 rd a s s t d i r e c t o r ............................................

K en R ic h a rd s o n A s s t g rip ............................. B re n d o n S h a n le y S till p h o to g ra p h y ....................... C h ic S trin g e r C o n tin u ity ................................Roz B e rry s to n e P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ....................A d a m s P a c k e r G a ffe r .......................................... M ile s M o u ls o n O p tic a ls ..................................... A n d re w M a so n C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........... D a vid W illia m s o n DUET FOR FOUR P ro d u c tio n s , E le c tric ia n .................................... D ick O ld fie ld T itle d e s ig n e r .................................... M ik e B e rry F o cu s p u l l e r ..............................J e re m y R o b in s F ilm C o rp . o f W .A . (fo rm e rly P a rtn e rs ) B o o m o p e ra to r .................... J a c k F rie d m a n B est b o y ..........................................P e te r W o o d C la p p e r/lo a d e r ..................... R o b yn P e te rso n P r o d u c e r .......................................................... G re g T e pAprt e r d ire c to r ....................................J o h n C a rro ll R u n n e r .................................... M a rd i K e n n e d y K ey g r i p ..........................................................

R o b in M o rg a n D i r e c t o r ...............................................................Ig o r A u zAinsss t to th e a rt d e p t ..............S im o n Q u a ife D ist. c o m p a n y ............................................. G U O P u b lic ity .......................C a rlie D e a n s P ty L td A sst g rip ..................................G ra h a m S h e lto n C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ......................C a ro l B e rry S c r ip t w r it e r ................................P e te r S c h re c k P r o d u c e r s ................................... T o m B u rs ta ll.

U n it p u b lic is t ................... E liz a b e th J o h n s o n G a f f e r ............................................................W a rre n M e a rn s P h o t o g r a p h ......................................................G a ry H a nse M ank e -u p ............................................. Liz M ic h ie T im B u rs ta ll C a te rin g ........................................ P au l S a rg e n t, E le c tr ic ia n ..................................................... A lle y n M e a rn s H a ird re s s e r .........................................L iz M ic h ie S o u n d re c o rd is t ..................L a u rie R o b in s o n D ire c to r ........................................... T im B u rs ta ll E ric L a rse n , B o o m o p e ra to r .....................A n d re w D u n ca n E d i t o r ................................................................... C liff H a yes W a rd ro b e (s ta n d b y ) . . . L e sle y M c L e n n a n P h o to g r a p h y ..................................................... Dan B u rs ta ll S h e lle ys.

A s s t a rt d ire c to r ......................D a vid B o w d e n P ro d , d e s ig n e r ..............J o s e p h in e F o rd P ro p s b u y e r ...................................... S ue H o yle S o u n d re c o rd is t ........................... P hil S tirlin g ...

P lu m C ra z y C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ...........................Liz K eo g h S ta n d b y p ro p s ...................... A n n i B ro w n in g E xec, p ro d u c e r ..........................P h illip A d a m s E d i t o r .................... E d w a rd M c Q u e e n -M a s o n M ix e d at ......................................U n ite d S o u n d M a k e -u p ........................................ V iv M e p h a m A s s t e d ito r ..................... C a th e rin e S he e h a n A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ...........................B ria n R o sen A rt d ir e c t o r ..................................H e rb e rt P in te r L a b o ra to ry ............................. A tla b A u s tra lia W a rd , a s s is ta n t ......................... F io n a N ic o lls N eg. m a tc h in g .................... M a rg a re t C a rd in P ro d , c o - o r d in a to r .................. J a n e t M c lv e r C o m p o s e r ................................... P e te r S u lliv a n Lab. lia is o n ........................... J a m e s P a rs o n s P r o p s .........................................N ick M c C a llu m U n it m a n a g e r ...................................................P au l A rnSoottu n d e d ito r ........................... P au l M a xw e ll A sso c, p r o d u c e r ......................C h ris tin e Suli L e n g th .................................................... 9 0 m in s S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .................. C o n ra d R o th m a n E d itin g a s s is ta n t .......................A n n e B re s lin P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .................... H e le n L isto n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ...........................T o n i B a rn a rd G auge .........................................................3 5 m m C a rp e n te rs .........................J a m e s T h o m p s o n , M ix e r .............................................. P e te r F e nto n P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ....................... J o h n F o ste r P ro d , s e c re ta ry ........................... H e le n L isto n S h o o tin g s to c k ........... E a s tm a n c o lo u r 5247 M az F e u trill, A s s t m ix e r ................................. G e th in C re a g h P ro d , a s s is t a n t ...................M ic h a e l B o u rc h ic r P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ........................... P atti S c o tt C a st: D ia n a M c L e a n (V al M e a d o w s ), Jo n M ic h a e l P a tte rs o n S till p h o to g ra p h y .......................B ria n M o rris 1st A s s t d i r e c t o r ....................... J a m e s P a rk e r T ra n s p o rt m a n a g e r ..............G a ry R e b e rg e r B la ke (P e te r M e a d o w s ). Ja n K in g s b u ry S et c o n s tru c tio n .........................Ian M c G ra th T itle d e s ig n e d b y .....................................X TO ?

C o n s tru c tio n m a n a g e r ...............R ay P a ttls o n 2 nd A s s t d ire c to r .......................S tu a rt B e a tty (P e g P re n tic e ), D a v id F ra n k lin (D a v id A sst e d ito r ..................................J u lia G e lh a rd B e st b o y ........................................ G o rd o n N u tt 3 rd A s s t d ir e c t o r s ..............M a rc u s S k ip p e r.

A s s t c o n s tru c tio n P r e n t ic e ) , D a n ie l C u m e r f o r d (J o e y M u s ic a l d ire c to r .....................M ic h a e l C a rlo s m a n a g e r ..............................D a n n y C o rlo ra n R u n n e r ..................................D a vid T re th e w e y D u n c a n M a c a rth u r M e a d o w s ), G uy D o le m a n (M ik e H ayes).

S o u n d e d ito r ............................. P aul M a x w e ll P u b lic ity ........................................ D a vid W h ite 1st a s s t d ire c to r ........................... T im H ig g in s C o n tin u ity .................................... C a rm e n H u go J o a n n e S a m u e l (C h ris), K it T a y lo r (P a u l E d itin g a s s is ta n t .........................R o b in J u d g e (T h e B ro o k s W h ite O rg a n iz a tio n ) 2 n d a s s is t d i r e c t o r ........... B re n d a n L a ve lle C la p p e r/lo a d e r ...........................P h illip C ro ss S lo a n e ).

S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r .............. F ra n k L e n n o n C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........... P e te r V an S a n te n ' 3 rd a s s t d i r e c t o r ........................................... J e ss T a pCpaete r rin g ......................................J e m s C a te rin g S y n o p s is : A s u b u rb a n c o m m u n ity is b lis s ­ S till p h o t o g r a p h y .....................................C a ro ly n J o h n s M ix e d at ..................................... U n ite d S o u n d K ey g r i p ...........................................................D a vid C a ssa r u n a w a re th a t a k ille r s ta lk s the stre e ts.

C o n tin u ity ..................................C h ris tin e L ip a ri fu lly R u n n e r ...................................... R ic h a rd H o b b s L a b o ra to ry ........................................... C o lo rfilm A s s t g rip ................................... P e te r K e rs h a w C a m e ra o p e ra to r .......................G a ry H a nse n A m o th e r a nd h e r tw o so n s s u rv iv e in a d is ­ P u b lic it y ..............E liza b e th J o h n s o n P ty Ltd L ab . lia is o n ....................................... B ill G o o le y G a f f e r ................................................................ B ria n A d ain mte s g ra tin g re la tio n s h ip . T h e se tw o e le ­ F o c u s p u l l e r .......................P e te r V an S a n te n C a t e r in g ..........................................................F illu m C a te rin g L e n g th .................................................... 96 m in s B o o m o p e ra to r ..............................Ray P h illip s C la p p e r /lo a d e r ................................. P hil C ro s s m e n ts c o m e to g e th e r to fo rm th e b a sis of M ix e d at ..........................................................A tla b G auge .......................................................... 3 5 m m M a k e -u p ...................................L o is H o h e n fe ls K e y g r i p .......................................N o el M c D o n a ld th is m y s te ry -th rille r.

L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b S ho H a ir d r e s s e r ..............................N d u m s k y S a lo n A s s t g r i p s .................................................... W a y n e M a rs ao ll,.tin g s to c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r L ab . lia is o n ......................................................G re g D o h e rty W a rd ro b e ........................................Ja n e H yla n d J o h n J a s iu k o w ic z C a s t: A n g e la P u n ch M c G re g o r (M e la n ie ), L e n g th .................................................... 105 m in s P ro p s b u y e r ........................... P a tric k R e a rd o n G a f f e r ..................................................................M ic k M o rr G is ra e m e B lu n d e ll (T o m ), R u th C ra c k n e ll G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m S ta n d b y p r o p s ............................................... Jo h n P o w d itc h G e n e o p e r a t o r ................................................T o m R o b(Iris), in s o n H e n ri S zep s (L ilo ), G ra h a m R ouse S h o o tin g s t o c k .................................... E a stm a n S et d e c o ra to r . . N ic h o la s V an R o o se n d a e l (F a th e r J a m e s ), M o y a O 'S u lliv a n (M rs B o o m o p e ra to rs .......................... G re g S te e le , P ro g re s s ...........................................P ro d u c tio n M a lc o lm C ro m ie S till p h o t o g r a p h y ........................... S uzy W o o d M a lo n ), Les F o x c ro ft (M r M a lo n e ). M a rk Lee S c h e d u le d re le a s e .......................J u n e . 1982 (B ru c e ), S o n ja T a llis (P a m m ie ), S e rg e A s s t a rt d ir e c to r ........... G ra e m e D u e s b u ry B est b o y ...................................... G a ry P lu n k e tt L a z a re ff (C o lin ).

C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ......... C a m illa R o u n tre e C a t e r in g ......... M o b ile M o v ie M e a l M a c h in e M a k e -u p .........................................S a lly G o rd o n S y n o p s is : M e la n ie a nd T o m w e re th e b est L e n g th ....................................................100 m in s o f frie n d s . . . u n til th e y fa ll in lo ve. W ill th e y M a k e -u p a s s is ta n t ......... R o b e rn P ic k e rin g G a u g e .........................................................35 m m H a ir d r e s s e r ....................................................... W illi K e nlive rlc k h a p p ily e v e r a fte r?

S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r

A W A ITIN G R E LE A S E

THE DARK ROOM

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 65

s ix -p la te fo r 16 mm. film

IIMTERCIIME s ix -p la te fo r

16m m .

and

35m m

film

Electron ic control of m otor speeds fo rw a rd and re v e rs e T ra n s is to ris e d a m p lifie rs give high quality sound re p ro du c tio n Film loading in a straight pattern

E l e c t r o n i c c o n t r o l of m o t o r s p e e d s f o r w a r d a n d r e v e r s e T r a n s i s t o r i s e d a m pl i fi er s give high quality s oun d r e p rod uc ti on

N O W R E P R E SE N T E D B Y

D o u b l e s i z e 1 6 mm. a n d 3 5 mm. s p r o c k e t s f o r t r a c k

S t u d io * VARIOUS FORMATS AVAILABLE

S o u n d

S y s te m

s

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION RING JOHN FARMER (02) 888 1746 13 KEPPEL RD RYDE 2112

* A TTRA CTIVELY PRICED * BROCHURES SU PPLIED ON REQUEST

THERESALWAYS SOMETHINGNEW ANDEXCITING

„TULIP CRANE

ATSAMUELSONS

Tulip Crane In Use Specifications T o ta l w e ig h t c o m p le t e o n # 5 0 5 4 P e d e s ta l w ith # 5 0 5 7 F e e t. N o c a m e ra o r o p e r a to r s .

M in im u m H e ig h t — c o m p le te o n # 5 0 5 4 P e d e s ta l w ith # 5 0 5 7 F e et.

M a x im u m H e ig h t — C o m p le te o n # 5 0 5 5 .

P n e u m a tic C o n v e r s io n K it.

T y p ic a l H e ig h t w ith C r a n e C o m p le te o n # 5 0 5 4 P e d e s ta l m o u n te d o n o n e to n t r u c k .

M a x im u m R e c o m m e n d e d L o a d - F r o n t E nd .

M a x im u m H o r iz o n ta l R e a c h — to t y p ic a l c a m e r a le n s . ‘

T h e Tulip Unfolding

8 5 0 lb ( 3 8 5 k g ) 2 4 in. (61 c m ) N e g a tiv e to F o o t P la tfo rm .

1 8 6 in. (4 7 3 c m ) to t y p ic a l c a m e ra le n s w it h o u t c a m e ra r is e rs .

2 2 2 in. ( 5 4 6 c m ) to t y p ic a l c a m e r a le n s w it h o u t c a m e ra ris e rs .

5 5 0 lb. ( 2 4 9 k g ) 1 4 4 in. ( 3 6 6 c m )

M a x im u m P a n D ia m e te r in H o r iz o n ta l M o d e .

M in im u m T u r n in g R a d iu s w ith C a m e ra P la tfo rm fu lly e le v a te d .

2 8 8 in. (7 3 2 c m ) 4 8 in. (1 2 1 c m )

M in im u m T u r n in g R a d iu s w ith C a m e ra P la tfo rm in lo w e s t p o s itio n .

9 0 in. ( 2 2 8 c m )

$200 per day. $600 per week.

SAMUS N 0

film

s e r v ic e

A u s tr a lia p t y . ltd .

Head Office: 1 Giffnock Avenue, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2113 Australia Telephone: 888 2766 Telex: AA251 88

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

AUSTRALIAN MANAGING ASSOCIATES FOR

Fea tures: C e rtifie d a n d re g is te re d m e c h a n ic a lly safe.

C o m p u te r d e s ig n e d . F o am fille d tu b u la r s tru c tu re . Pan, T ilt a n d S e a t T u rre t D rag C o n tro ls . U n lim ite d p o rta b ility a n d v e rs a tility . T o ta l A c c e s s o ry P a c k a g e . F a st s e t u p a n d s trik e tim e . P n e u m a tic W h e e ls ; F lo ta tio n T ra c k W h e e ls ; P u s h /P u ll B a r In s ta lla tio n ; H a rd S tu d io W h e e ls ; Feet.

' A N A V I S I O N LOS ANGELES, U.S.A.

C la p p e r/lo a d e r ........................... D e rry F ie ld s G a f f e r ...................................... C h ic k M c D o n a ld GOODBYE PARADISE E x tra s c a s tin g THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ......... P e te r M e n z ie s J n r E le c tric ia n o n e .........................A lle y n M e a rn s c o - o r d i n a t o r .......................J e n n y G o d d a rd P ro d , c o m p a n y ........... P e te rs h a m P ic tu re s K ey g r i p ............................................................... R ay B ro w n E le c tric ia n s t w o ........................... B u d H o w e ll, C a m e ra o p e ra to r ....................... L o u is Irv in g P ro d , c o m p a n y .......................M ic h a e l E d g le y P ty L td A sst g rip s ......................................S tu a rt G re e n , D o u g la s W o o d F o c u s p u l l e r .......................... D a vid B ro s to ff In te rn a tio n a l, P r o d u c e r .............................................ja n e S c o tt G ra h a m Y o u n g B o o m o p e ra to r ................................K e ir W e lch C la p p e r /lo a d e r .................. A n d re w M c L e a n C a m b rid g e F ilm s D ire c to r ........................................... C a rl S c h u ltz G a f f e r ................................................................ M ile s M o u ls o n A rt d i r e c t o r ............................................. B o b H ill K e y g r i p ................................................. R ay B ro w n P r o d u c e r .................................. G e o ff B u rro w e s S c r ip t w r it e r s ......................................... B o b E llis, B est b o y ...........................................G e o ff M a in e M a k e -u p ..................................' . S a lly G o rd o n S e c o n d g r i p ................................... S tu a rt G re e n D ir e c t o r ....................................................... G e o rg e M ille r D e n n y L a w re n c e H a ir d r e s s e r ............................. Ja n Z e ig e n b e in A d d it p h o t o g r a p h y ...................C o lin D eane, S c r ip t w r it e r s ................................................... J o h n D ixoEnle , c tr ic ia n ........................................D ic k O ld fie ld B a se d o n o rig in a l id e a B o o m o p e ra to r ........................ P au l S c h n e lle r W a rd ro b e ................................C a trio n a B ro w n F re d C u l C u lle n S te p h e n D o b s o n by ......................................... D e n n y L a w re n c e A rt d i r e c t o r ........................................................Ron H ig h fie ld P ro p s b u y e r .........................S a n d y W in g ro v e G a f f e r .......................................B ria n B a n s g ro v e B ase d o n th e p o e m b y . . . B a n jo P a te rs o n S o u n d re c o rd is t ................S yd B u tte rw o rth k eff-u p ........................................... J u d y L o v e ll S ta n d b y p r o p s ............................................ B evan C h ild B e s t b o y .......................................P au l G a n tn e r P hs ,o to g r a p h y ................................................... K e ith W aM g sata E d i t o r ......................... R ic h a rd F ra n c is -B ru c e H a ir d r e s s e r ......................................................J u d y L o v e ll N ic k M c C a llu m G e n e ra to r S o u n d re c o rd is t .........................G a ry W ilk in s P ro d , d e s ig n e r ......................... G e o rg e L id d le W a rd ro b e ....................................... K a th y J a m e s S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .................... R e ece R o b in s o n E d i t o r ............................................................. A d ria n C a rr o p e r a t o r / e le c t r ic ia n .................C o lin C h a se C o m p o s e r .......................................... P e te r B est W a rd 1st a sst e d ito r .............. A n to in e tte W h e a tle y C o m p o s e r , ....................................................B ru c e R o w la n d , a s s is ta n t ...............................C a th y F a rr E le c tr ic ia n s ...................................Reg G a rs id e , P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .................... F io n a G o sse P ro p s b u y e rs / 2 n d a sst e d ito r ....................... M o ira M c L a in e E xec, p ro d u c e rs ................... M ic h a e l E d g le y, S a m B ie n s to c k P ro d , m a n a g e r ........................... J ill N ic h o la s set d r e s s e r s ...................... E liz a b e th H e a rn , N eg. m a t c h in g ........................... G o rd o n P o o le S im o n W in c e r B o o m o p e ra to r .................. C h ris G o ld s m ith T ra n s p o rt/ L lo y d C a se y A rt d e p t m a n a g e r .......................................D a vid S e aMrl u s ic a l d ire c to r .............................B o b Y o u n g P ro d , s u p e r v is o r ........................ M ic h a e l L a ke U n it m a n a g e r ......................................... P e te r L a wCleoss S ta n d b y p r o p s ................................Ig o r L a z a re ff M u s ic p e rfo rm e d b y ....................B o b Y ou n g P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .............................J a n S to tt n s tru c tio n m a n a g e r ........... D a n ie D a em s P ro d , s e c re ta ry ...........................L yn G a lb ra ith S c e n ic a r t i s t .............................

Len A rm s tro n g O rc h e s tra W a rd ro b e d e s ig n e r ...................... T e rry Ryan U n it m a n a g e r ................................................G e o ff H u n t F in a n c ia l c o n t r o lle r ..............R ic h a rd H a rp e r S e t c o n s tru c tio n ................. P e te r T e m p le to n S o u n d e d ito r ............................ P au l MaxweJI M a k e -u p ...................................... S a lly G o rd o n P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............................... T ris h Fo le y P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ....................... K a re n V o lic h A s s t e d ito rs ..........................

L e s lie M a n n is o n , E d itin g a s s is ta n ts ........................

P e te r F o ste r P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ......................J im C ra n fie ld M a k e -u p a s s is ta n ts . . . . R o b e r n P ic k e rin g , L o c a tio n m a n a g e r ....................J a n e n e K n ig h t R o s e m a ry L ee M ix e r ................................................P e te r F e nto n 1st a sst d ire c to r .................... M u rra y N e w e y E d w in a A rc h e r 1st a s s t d ir e c to r .................. N e ill V in e -M ille r R o ck m u s ic S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ..............F ra n k L e n n o n H a ir d r e s s e r ................................ M e lis s a J a ffe r 2 nd a sst d ir e c t o r ....................S te w a rt W rig h t 2 n d a s s t d ir e c t o r ..........................................P e te r W ille e e J e m is o n ’s S t u n t s ...............................................................G ra n t P age, 3 rd a s s t d i r e c t o r ............................................. Ja n E llio t p e rfo rm e d b y .............................. T h e D iv in y ls Msiss 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ..........................................P e te r K e a rn h e ya ir d r e s s e r ..............................C a ra ly n T a y lo r Sno,u n d e d ito rs .................... A s h le y G re n v ille , Dee Jo n e s, 2 nd u n it d ir e c t o r s ........................................J o h n D ixo C o n tin u ity ........................................... P am W illis M a rk L e w is C h ris H e ssio n S im o n W in c e r W a rd ro b e s u p e r v is o r .............A n th o n y Jo n e s C a s t in g ............................ M ic h a e l L y n c h M ix e r ............................................. P e te r F e n to n S till p h o t o g r a p h y .........................................

D a vid M ille r W a rd , a s s is t a n t ....................J illia n M a h o n e y C o n tin u ity ........................................... Ja n T y rre ll A sst m i x e r ....................................G e th in C re a g h C a s tin g c o n s u lta n ts . . F o rc a s t C o n s u lta n ts T itle d e s ig n e r ..................O p tic a l & G ra p h ic s S ta n d b y w a rd ro b e .................... Ja n H u rle y 'C a s tin g c o n s u lta n ts ............................. M IT C H S till p h o t o g r a p h y .............................................. Ian P o tte r C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........... D a n n y B a tte rh a m D og w r a n g l e r ............................. E va n n e H a rris P ro p s b u y e rs /s e t C a m e ra o p e ra to rs .....................D an B u rs ta ll, T itle d e s ig n e r .................................................. Fra n B u rk e F o c u s p u l l e r .................................. S te ve M a so n C a m e ra g a f f e r ......................................... C o n ra d S la ck d re s s e rs ..............................S a lly C a m p b e ll, D a vid E gg b y, C la p p e r/lo a d e r .........................R u sse ll B a co n C h ild re n 's d ia lo g u e c o a c h ......... Ja n e O e h r R u n n e r ................................................................A le x P o lia k M a lc o lm R ic h a rd s R o b e rt F la h e rty , K ey g r i p ....................................... P au l T h o m p s o n R u n n e r ..........................................L isa H e n n e s s e y P u b lic ity .................................................................Liz J o hFnoscu to ns p u l l e r .........................D a vid W y n -J o n e s L is 6 a C o o te A s s t g rip ..............................B re n d a n S h a n le y M ix e d at ...................................... U n ite d S o u n d C a t e r in g ............................................................K a o s K a te A s s t se t d re s s e r ...............................P e te r H a rt C rin la pgp e r/lo a d e rs ............................. Ian Jo n e s, 2 nd u n it p h o to g ra p h y ................Ja n K en n y, L a b o ra to ry .............................................C o lo rfilm M ix e d at ....................................... U n ite d S o u n d S ta n d b y p r o p s ............................. J o h n D a n ie ll Joe C onnor L ab . lia is o n .......................................B ill G o o le y F ra n k H a m m o n d L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b S p e c ia l e f f e c t s .................... R e ece R o b in s o n , C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .................. B ria n B ro h e n y G a f f e r .................................. G ra h a m R u th e rfo rd B u d g e t .................................................. $ 1 ,1 4 7 ,6 6 5 L ab . lia is o n .............................

G re g D o u g h e rty K ey g r i p ..................................G e o ff R ic h a rd s o n A la n M a xw e ll B o o m o p e ra to r ..............................N o el Q u in n g th B u d g e t ...................................................... $ 61 0,0 00 C h o re o g ra p h y .......................C h ris tin e K o lta i A sst g r i p s ............................................................Ian B e nLneanllic k , ................................105 m in s (a p p ro x .)

A rt d i r e c t o r .................................... J o h n C a rro ll G a u g e ............................................................ 3 5 m m L e n g th ......................................................

92 m in s S p e c ia l e ffe c ts m a k e -u p . . . .S a lly G o rd o n , B ru c e T o w e rs S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r A rt d e p t, c l e r k ..................................... G e ra ld in e R o yd s G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m R o b e rt M c C a rro n , 2 nd u n it p h o to g ra p h y ............. J o h n H a d d y M a k e -u p ................... L e sle y L a m o n t-F is h e r C a s t: N on! H a z le h u rs t (N o ra ), C o lin F rie ls S h o o tin g s t o c k ................5247 E a s tm a n c o lo r J u d y L o ve ll, G a f f e r ........................................... R o b b ie Y o u n g H a ir d r e s s e r ................................................... J e n n y B ro w n (J a v o ). A lic e G a r n e r ( G r a d e ) . H a ro ld E k ta c h ro m e P h illip p a N o yce E le c tr ic ia n ..................................P e te r M a lo n e y H o p k in s (W illie ). C a n d y R a y m o n d (L illia n ), W a rd ro b e ........................................... K a te D u ffy S c h e d u le d re le a s e ...........

D e c e m b e r, 1981 C a rp e n te r ................................B ru c e H illh o u s e B o o m o p e ra to r ..........................M a rk W a s ita k M ic h a e l C a to n (C live ), T im B u rn s (M a rtin ), W a rd , a s s is ta n t .................. L e sle y M c L e n n a n (J a p a n ) U n it r u n n e r .............................. R ic h a rd U s s h e r A rt d ir e c t o r .........................................Les B in n s C h ris tin a A m p h le tt (A n g e la ), D o n M ille r ­ P ro p s a s s is ta n t ....................................Ig o r Nay Cast: C h a rd H a y w a rd (G o rd o n M a so n ), A s s e m b ly e d ito r ........... F ra n s V a n d e n b e rg C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r .........................R o b in H all R o b in s o n (G e ra ld ), L isa P e e rs (R ita).

P ro p s b u y e r ......................................... Ian A lle n L o u is e H o w itt (J e n n y N o la n ), D e b o ra h A s s t film e d ito r .................................. S u e S c o tt M a k e -u p ................................V ivie n M e m p h a n S y n o p s is : N o ra , 33, a s in g le m o th e r liv in g in S ta n d b y p r o p s ................................................. Ig o r L a zSaore ff C o u lls (M a rie C o lb e y ), Les F o x c ro ft (B illy u n d e d ito rs ....................................G re g B ell, H a ir d r e s s e r .................................. R o c h e lle Fo rd a la rg e , lo o s e ly c o n s tru c te d c o m m u n e , S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ..................... C h ris M u rra y S h e p h e rd ), R o g e r W a rd (O ffic e r C ly d e C o lH e le n B ro w n , W a rd ro b e .......................................J e n n y A rn o tt w a S p e c ia l e ffe c ts a s s is ta n t . . . . D a vid H a rd ie lin g s ) , J a m e s E llio t t ( P a tr o lm a n R e x S te lla S a vva s W a rd , a s s is t a n t ....................................... F ra n k ie H o g a nn ts a lo ve w ith “ no fa d e fro m d is ta n c e in D u n b a r).

C h o re o g ra p h y .........................R oss C o le m a n “ E d e n ” d e s ig n .........................P au l P h o le ro s P ro p s b u y e r .................................................. P e te r K e nit". d a llW h a t sh e g e ts is J a vo , a 23 y e a r-o ld a c to r, w h o s e life is "a m e s s y h o lid a y o f S c e n ic a r t i s t ................................N e d M c C a n n Synopsis: A yo u n g w o m a n , lo o k in g a fte r M o d e l b u ild e rs ..............A & M P a rtn e rs h ip S ta n d b y p r o p s .......................J o h n P o w id itc h liv in g o ff h is frie n d s " . He is a ju n k ie , b u t it's C a rp e n te r .................................. R o b in W a rn e r h e r s is te r’s h o u s e w h ile sh e is a w ay on lo c a ­ A rc h ite c tu ra l c o n s u lta n ts . . P a u l P h o le ro s , S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ..................................R ick C lise tio n , is u n a w a re th a t h e r s is te r a nd th e c a re ­ S et c o n s tru c tio n m a n a g e r . .D e n is D o n e lly S te ve L e siu k S c e n ic a r t i s t ................................................... Dave O 'GNrao dray w h o 's a d d ic te d . “ S m a c k h a b it, lo ve h a b it — w h a t’s th e d iffe re n c e , th e y ca n b o th ta k e r h ave b ee n m u rd e re d . T h e m u rd e re r A sst e d ito r ....................................... M a rk D a rcy S o u n d m ix e rs .......................... P e te r F e nto n, S et c o n s tru c tio n ...............................Ian D o ig k ill y o u ." re tu rn s to k ill th e w o m a n , a nd so b e g in s a S o u n d e d ito r ........................ A n d re w S te w a rt G e th in C re a g h , A sst e d ito r ...................................... K en S a llo w s b a ttle o f w its.

E d itin g a s s is ta n t ................A s h le y G re n v ille P h illip H e yw o o d N eg. m a t c h i n g .................... M a rg a re t C a rd in S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r .................. D e n n is H u n t S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ......................M a x A s p in M u s ic a l d ire c to r .................... B ru c e R o w la n d MYSTERY AT C ASTLE HOUSE S tu n tm e n .........................................V ic W ilso n .

S ta n d -in f o r M s D avis . . T e re s a W ilk in s o n S o u n d e d ito r .............................T e rry R o d m a n LONELY HEARTS M ik e R ead, S tu n t d o u b le s ................................M a x A s p in , E d itin g a s s is ta n t ...........................K en S a llo w s P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................... In d e p e n d e n t Ian L in d , M ix e r ................................. J u lia n E llin g s w o rth D a le A s p in , P ro d , c o m p a n y ...................... A d a m s P a c k e r P ro d u c tio n s Dog h a n d l e r .................................. D e n n is H u n t F ra n k A rro w s m ith , S tu n ts c o -o rd in a to r ................... H e ath H a rris F ilm P ro d s P r o d u c e r ...................................................B re n d o n L u n n e y S till p h o t o g r a p h y ......................... Jim T o w n le y S te p h e n S h e rw o o d S t u n t s ............................................... G e ra ld Egan, P r o d u c e r ....................................J o h n B. M u rra y D ir e c t o r ...................................... P e te r M a x w e ll B est b o ys ..................................J a c k K e n d ric k , S a fe ty c o -o rd in a to r ...................... B o b H ic k s B ill W illo u g h b y D ir e c t o r ..................................................P au l C o x S c r ip t w r it e r s ..............................S tu a rt G lo v e r, A la n G lo s s o p V o ice c o n s u lta n t .....................G e o rg e O g ilv ie S till p h o t o g r a p h y ......................... D a vid P a rk e r S c r ip t w r it e r s ..................................J o h n C la rk e , M ic h a e l H o h e n s e e R u n n e r ..............................................................M e ry l C roSntill in p h o t o g r a p h y .........................................D a vid P a rk e r, O p t ic a ls ......................................

R o g e r C o w la n d P au l C o x B ase d on th e o rig in a l id e a P u b lic it y ........... B ro o k s W h ite O rg a n iz a tio n R o b e rt M c F a rla n e T itle d e s ig n e r .................... D a vid L a n c a s h ire B ase d o n th e o rig in a l b y .................................................... G e o ff B e a k .U n it p u b lic is t ..................................D a vid W h ite C a te rin g . . . .C e c il B. d e M e a ls on W h e els, T e ch, a d v is e r ................................... J a c k L o v ic k id e a b y ............................................. P au l C o x P h o t o g r a p h y .........................................P hil P ike C a t e r in g .........................................J o h n F a ith fu ll T e ch , a d v is e r/ K e ith H e yg a te P h o t o g r a p h y ......................................Y u ri S o k o l S o u n d re c o rd is t ........... R o w la n d M c M a n is S t u d io s .......................................................A rtra n s a C a te rin g a s s is t a n t .......................................... K en T a y lo r H o rs e t r a i n e r .................. D e nze l C a m e ro n S o u n d re c o rd is t .....................K en H a m m o n d E d i t o r ................................................................... B o b C o g g e r M ix e d at ........................................U n ite d S o u n d W r a n g le r s ...........................................J o h n B a ird .

T itle s .........................................R o g e r C o w la n d E d i t o r ....................................................T im L ew is E xec, p ro d u c e r ............................. G e n e S c o tt L a b o ra to ry ............................................. C o lo rfilm O p t ic a ls ........... O p tic a l & G ra p h ic Pty. Ltd. L a u rie N o rris , P ro d , d e s ig n e r ................................................. N eilA n g w in A ss o c , p r o d u c e r ...................................... R u sse ll H u rle y Lab. lia is o n .......................................................... B ill G oC o le y u r g ra d e r .................. A rth u r C a m b rid g e o lo B ill W illo u g h b y C o m p o s e r ................................... N o rm a n K aye P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ..................... P e te r A b b o tt B u d g e t ................................................................ $ 1.8 m illio L anb o ra to ry lia is o n ............................................ B ill G o o E lexec, y B est b o y ....................................C o lin W illia m s p ro d u c e r ........................P h illip A d a m s P ro d, m a n a g e r ......... C h ris to p h e r G a rd in e r L e n g th .................................................... 1 1 0 m in s R u n n e r .....................................T o n y M c D o n a ld N e g a tiv e c u ttin g ..................M a rg a re t C a rd in A sso c, p ro d u c e r ............................ E rw in R a d o P ro d , s e c re ta ry .................. W e n d y C h a p m a n G a u g e ............................................................ 3 5 m m P u b lic ity ......... M ic h a e l E d g le y In te rn a tio n a l L a b o ra to ry .......................C o lo rfilm Pty. Ltd. A s s t p ro d u c e r .........................Fra n H a a rsm a P ro d , a s s is ta n t...............................................S e a n M c L o u ry S h o o tin g s to c k . . .E a s tm a n C o lo r N e g a tiv e P o s t-p ro d u c tio n U n it p u b lic is t . ..............................S u zie H o w ie P ro d , m a n a g e r .....................J a n e B a lla n ty n e 1st asst d ire c to r . .. .C h ris to p h e r G a rd in e r S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........................... M id 1982 C a t e r in g ........................................... H e le n W rig h t f a c i lit ie s ........................... S tu d io C lip J o in t P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ........... N a ta lie H a m m o n d 2 nd a s s t d ir e c t o r ........................................... P au l C a lla g h a n S tu d io s ........................................ S ta rc h F a c to ry C a st: Ray B a rre tt (S ta c e y ), R o b yn N evin P ro d u c tio n fa c ilitie s ...........................F ilm s id e 1st A s s t d i r e c t o r .................... B e rn a rd E dd y C o n tin u ity .............................. C a th e rin e S a u te r M ix e d at ..........................................................A tla b S p e c ia l lig h tin g e ffe c ts ........... R o g e r Foley, (K a te ). J a n e t S c riv e n e r (C a th y M c C re d ie ).

C o n tin u ity ..................................J o a n n a W e e ks C a s t in g ................................M itc h C o n s u lta n c y L a b o ra to ry .............................................C o lo rfilm K a te F itz p a tr ic k (M rs M c C re d ie ), L ex E llis D. F ogg C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................. B a rry M a lse e d C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........................ K e ith B ry a n t Lab. lia is o n ........................................... B ill G o o le y M u s ic a n d s o u n d -m ix in g M a rin o s (C o n ), J o h n C la y to n (B ill T o d d ), F o cu s p u l l e r ............................. N in o M a rtln e tti K ey g r i p ................................M e rv M c L a u g h lin B u d g e t ......................................................$3 m illio n G u y D o le m a n ( Q u in e y ) , P a u l C h u b b f a c i lit ie s .....................................................U n ite d S o u n Cdla p p e r/lo a d e r ................................ C h ris C a in 2 n d u n it p h o to g ra p h y ..................P hil D o rity .

L e n g th ....................................................100 m in s S o l ic it o r .......................H a rt F itz p a tric k & Co. (C u rly ).

K ey g r i p .......................................... D a vid C a ssa r G a rry M a u n d e r G a u g e ............................... 3 5 m m A n a m o rp h ic C o n s u lta n t to th e d ire c to r Ja n S h a rp S y n o p s is : S h e w a s all a ny o ld fo o l c o u ld a sk G a f f e r ...............................................J o h n E n g e le r G a f f e r ........................................................ Ray A ng S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r L e n g th ...................................................... 90 m in s 'f o r — a b e a u tifu l m a s o c h is t w ith an E le c tra B o o m o p e ra to r ............................ G ra n t S tu a rt B o o m o p e ra to r .............................Ja n M c H a rg S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................... E aste r, 1982 G a u g e ............................................................... 1:85 c o m p le x . S h e k n e w h e r life w as a g re a t p re ­ M a k e -u p ........................................ V iv M e p h a m A rt d ir e c t o r ................................................... J a k o b H o rv a t C a st: K irk D o u g la s (H a rris o n , S p u r), J a ck d e s tin e d a d v e n tu re , a n d , if it e n d e d lik e S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................... M a rc h 1 9 8 2 H a ir d r e s s e r ..................................... V iv M e p h a m W a rd ro b e ..................................... F io n a S p e n c e T h o m p s o n (C la n c y ), T o m B u rlin s o n (Jim ), C a st: J u d y D a vis (K a te D e an ), R ic h a rd M o ir B o n n ie a n d C ly d e , so be it. It w a s fo r g irls W a rd ro b e ..................................F ra n k ie H o gan P r o p s .................................................................B ria n E d m o n d s S ig rid T h o rn to n (Je ssica ), L o rra in e B ayly (S te p h e n W e st), C h ris H a yw o o d (P e te r lik e th is th a t o ld fo o ls lik e A g a m e m n o n d ie d P ro p s b u y e r ................................. P h illip E agles A s s t e d ito r ...........................M ic k e y O 'S u lliv a n (R o s e m a ry ), C h ris H a yw o o d (C u rly ), T o n y H o u s e m a n ), B ill H u n te r (R o b e rt D u n ca n ), — A g a m e m n o n a n d M ik e S ta c e y . E x ­ A s s t e d ito r ..................................P e te r M c B a in N eg. m a t c h in g .............................................. C h ris R o w e ll B o n n e r (K a n e ). D a vid B ra d s h a w (P a te rs o n ), J o h n G re g g (P h ilip L a w so n ), A n n a J e m is o n D e p u ty P o lic e C o m m is s io n e r , M ic h a e l Neg. m a t c h i n g .................... M a rg a re t C a rd in S till p h o t o g r a p h y ......................................... F io n a S p e n c e , G us M e rc u rio (F rew ), T e rry D o n o va n (H e n ry S ta c e y Q BE . ( V ic to r ia W e s t), J o h n M e illo n (F r e d d ie M u s ic re c o rd in g ........... A la n E ato n S o u n d G a rry M a u n d e r C ra ig ).

D w ye r).

S o u n d e d ito r . . . ^ . ................P e te r B u rg e s s P u b lic ity ........................................................ W e n d y C h a m b e rs S y n o p s is : A n e p ic a c tio n a d v e n tu re s to ry A s s t s o u n d e d i t o r ..............C h ris R a tn a ra ja n L a b o ra to ry ..................C in e F ilm L a b o ra to ry b a se d on B a n jo P a te rs o n 's c la s s ic p o e m .

M ix e r ............................................. P e te r F e nto n L ab . lia is o n ......................................................... C a l G a rd in e r HEATWAVE S till p h o t o g r a p h y ........................R o b e rt C o lv in L e n g th ......................................................85 m in s T itle d e s ig n e r .............................................Al Et Al G a u g e .............................................................1 6 m m P ro d , c o m p a n y .................... H e a tw a ve F ilm s MONKEY GRIP B est b o y ............................. M ic h a e l M a d ig a n S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r D ist. c o m p a n y .................................. R o a d s h o w P ro d , c o m p a n y ......... R yn ta re P ro d u c tio n s R u n n e r ............................................. T o m B a cska i P r o d u c e r ................................... H ila ry L in s te a d C a s t: A ile e n B ritto n (M is s M a rk h a m ), H e n ri P r o d u c e r ...................................... T e rry B o u rk e P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................P a v ilio n F ilm s C a t e r in g ........................................................... K e rry B yrn C o - p r o d u c e r ........................... R oss M a tth e w s D ire c to r .........................................T e rry B o u rk e S z e p s (M r W ilb e r f o r c e ) , J o h n C o b le y Per o d u c e r .................................... P a tric ia L ove ll S o u n d t r a n s f e r s ............................G a ry W ilk in s (M o rris ). Ray M e a g h e r (S ta k o v ic h ), S im o n e D i r e c t o r ......................................... P h illip N o yce D ire c to r .........................................K en C a m e ro n S c r ip t w r it e r ..................................T e rry B o u rk e P o s t-p ro d u c tio n fa c ilitie s . . . .

T h e J o in e ry B u c h a n a n (K a te ), S c o tt N ic h o la s (B e n ), S c r ip t w r it e r s .......................M a rc R o s e n b e rg , B a se d on th e o rig in a l id e a S c r ip t w r it e r ................................. K en C a m e ro n , M ix e d at .................... U n ite d S o u n d S tu d io s J e re m y S h a d lo w (S p id e r), R o b e rt G e a m m e l P h illip N o yce by ................................................T e rry B o u rk e in a s s o c ia tio n w ith L a b o r a to ry .............................................C o lo rfilm (R o c c o ), T o n y L ee (A h L e o n g ).

B a se d o n th e o rig in a l P h o t o g r a p h y ................................ Ray H e n m a n H e le n G a rn e r Lab. lia is o n ......................................................... B ill G o oBlease y d on th e n o ve l by ......... H e le n G a rn e r S o u n d re c o rd is t .........................B o b C la y to n S y n o p s is : W h e n th re e c h ild re n c ro s s th e s c re e n p la y by .................. M a rk S tile s a nd L e n g th ........................................................95 m in s E d i t o r ............................................. Ron W illia m s r b o r to e x p lo r e C a s tle H o u s e — a T im G o o d in g P h o to g r a p h y .................................................. D a vid G o bh bale G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m s tra n g e , u n o c c u p ie d m a n s io n — th e y e n ­ P h o t o g r a p h y ........................... V in c e n t M o n to n C o m p o s e r .........................................B o b Y o u n g S o u n d re c o rd is t ........................... M a rk L ew is S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r c o u n te r s in is te r b a d d ie s , a k id n a p p in g a n d E xec, p ro d u c e r ..............A le x a n d e r H o p k in s S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................L lo y d C a rric k E d i t o r ........................................... D a vid H u g g e tt C a st: W e n d y H u g h e s (P a tric ia ), N o rm a n A s s o c , p ro d u c e rs .................... J o h n H ip w e ll, a h ila rio u s , e c c e n tric la d y . E x c ite m e n t, E d i t o r ..................................................J o h n S c o tt P ro d , d e s ig n e r ................................C la rk M u n ro K aye (P e te r), J o n F in la y s o n (G e o rg e ), J u lia E ric C o o k m y s te ry a n d n o n -s to p a c tio n a n d ro ll- in P ro d , d e s ig n e r ............................... R oss M a jo r C o m p o s e r ................................. B ru c e S m e a to n B la k e (P a m e la ), J o n a th o n H a rd y (B ru c e ).

P ro d , s u p e r v is o r .......................J o h n H ip w e ll th e -a is le c o m e d y fo r c h ild re n .

M u s ic .......................................... C a m e ro n A lla n E xec, p ro d u c e r .........................D a n n y C o llin s S y n o p s is : A tra g i-c o m ic lo v e s to ry a b o u t P ro d , s e c re ta ry ............................. P am B ro w n P ro d , m a n a g e r ........................... L yn n G a ile y A ss o c , p r o d u c e r .................... T re is h a G h e n t P e te r T h o m p s o n , a m id d le -a g e d b a c h e lo r, P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ............................ R o ss Lane P ro d , m a n a g e r ........................... L ynn G a ile y P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r .................................. B ria n n a n d P a t r ic ia C u r n o w , a 3 0 - y e a r - o ld P ro d , a s s is t a n t ................... M a ry -A n n e H a lp in U n it lo c a tio n m a n a g e r ...........P eta L a w so n U n it m a n a g e r s .................................................S ue P a rk e r, s p in s te r.

1st a sst d ire c to r ..................... E d d ie P ry lin s k i A sst, lo c a tio n m a n a g e r ......... M a rk T h o m a s W ill D a vie s P ro d , s e c re ta ry ........................... F io n a G o sse 2 nd a sst d ir e c t o r ............D a vid T re th e w e y P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ............... .T e r ry M c G ra th P ro d , a c c o u n ta n c y . .M o n y p e n n y S e rv ic e s , 1st asst d ire c to r ................... S tu a rt F re e m a n C o n tin u ity .....................................J u n e H e n m a n 2 nd a sst d ir e c t o r .................... C o lin F le tc h e r A la n M a rc o C a s t in g .................................................... E ric C o o k 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ........................................... T o m B la c k e t C a s tin g c o n s u lta n ts ......................... E ric C o o k 1st a s s t d ire c to r .....................S te ve A n d re w s M anagem ent C o n tin u ity .................................. J a c k ie S u lliv a n 2 n d a s s t d ir e c t o r ..........................................C h ris M a u d s o n L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ............. R ay H e n m a n P ro d u c e r's a s s is ta n ts . . . . N ic k y R o w n tre e , 3 rd a sst d i r e c t o r ..............................P hil H u rs t C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................... Ray H e n m a n 2 n d u n it c a m e r a ..............F ra n k H a m m o n d , E la in e M e n zie s C a s t in g ..........................................A lis o n B a rre tt F o cu s p u l l e r ................................P e te r R o g e rs R ic h a rd M ic h a la k C la p p e r/lo a d e r .......................R o b e rt M a rrio tt C a stin g c o n s u lta n t .................. A lis o n B a rre tt C o n tin u ity ............................... T h e re s e O 'L e a ry L ig h tin g c a m e ra m a n ............. D a vid G rib b le C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .................... P e te r R o g e rs C a s t in g ..............M & L C a s tin g C o n s u lta n ts C a m e ra o p e ra to r .................... N ix o n B in n e y, K ey g r i p ............................................................P e te r M a rd e li, C a s tin g F ilm U n it D a n n y B a tte rh a m c o n s u lta n ts M & L C a s tin g C o n s u lta n ts F o cu s p u l l e r .................... P e te r M e n zie s J n r A s s t g rip .................................... M ic h a e l N e lso n

LADY, STAY DEAD

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 67

Like any product, a movie has to be packaged properly if it’s going to be a success.

And success in the movie business means business at the box office.

So how do you go about publicising the fact you’ve got a terrific new movie?

Enter D. Worland & Company.

We specialise in promoting new films and have been involved in the successful launch of many fine Australian productions.

Everything from logo design, market research and press ads to a total launch including television and radio commercials, posters and press kits.

W E ’L L M A K E Y O U R M O V IE M A K E M O N EY.

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FOR FILM PRODUCERS AND EDITING PERSONNEL

CUTTING CONTACTS A BRAND NEW SERVICE TO THE FILM INDUSTRY A service to Producers and Film Editing Personnel.

Comprehensive lists are being com piled of the locations and schedules of Editing Personnel.

One phone call will tell you who's available and where to call them. This is not a recommendation service — it is a co nta ct service.

PRODUCERS note this number for future reference. You will need it 958 1088.

EDITORS AND ASSISTANTS ring now and list yourselves.

SOUNDSENSE

Film Productions FTy. Ltd.

343 Sailors Bay Road Northbridge Sydney NSW 2063 P.O. Box 97 Northbridge NSW 2063 Telephone (02) 958 1088 (3 lines)

So, if you want your movie to be shown in the best light, contact Diane Worland or Omar Sehic at D. Worland & Company.

They’ll give you an audience.

IX W orland & Co.

The Basement, 418 St. Hilda Road, Melbourne, 3004. Phone (03) 26 6124.

POSITION VACANT

ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN - FILM An organisation engaged in the installation of film and recording studios, sale, manufacture and maintenance of audio and editing equipment is looking for an experienced electronic technician with a mechanical aptitude, familiar with the following equipment or similar: • WESTREX RECORDING & PROJECTION EQUIPMENT • INTERCINE EDITING TABLES • NAGRA RECORDERS • MAGNA-TECH RECORDING EQUIPMENT • MOVIOLA EDITING EQUIPMENT There is also design and research work in digital and audio fields to be undertaken. Video experience would be an advantage.

The person appointed should be capable of working alone and using own initiative.

Only experienced persons need apply.

Contact: John Farmer, STUDIO SOUND SYSTEMS 13 Keppel Road Ryde 2112 Phone (02) 888 1746

RUN REBECCA, RUN!

FO XBAT AND THE DEMON

A s s t a rt d ire c to r .................. M ic h a e l B a n ke s G ra h a m G re e n e P re s e n ts P a n a m a — C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r .................... T e re s a B ia ly S A F C ; te le v is io n d o c u m e n ta ry ; re s e a rc h fo r M a k e -u p ........................................ Jo a n M u rp h y 1st d ra ft — $ 5 0 6 0 E ffe c ts m a k e -u p .................. J o h n L a w re n c e Itc h y F in g e rs — P h ilip R ya ll, P h ilip W itts; H a ir d r e s s e r ......................................................J o a n M u rp h y c in e m a fe a tu re ; 2 n d d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 3 0 0 0 W a rd ro b e .......................... T e re s a G a w z in s k i G le n n ’s S to r y — M a rk S tile s ; c in e m a S p e c ia l e f f e c t s ..................... F ra n k G rig o n s fe a tu re ; 1st d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 3 5 0 0 S e t d e c o r a t o r ..........................J o h n L a w re n ce T h e C r o s s in g — R a n a ld A lle n , E s b e n BURKE AND W ILLS C a rp e n te r ........................ C h ris to p h e r H e a rn e S to rm ; c in e m a fe a tu re ; 3 rd d ra ft fu n d in g — No. o f s h o t s ..................................a p p ro x . 230 P ro d , c o m p a n y ............................G & W F ilm s $ 2 6 ,1 0 0 S o u n d e d ito r .................. G e o rg e M a v ro v e n i P r o d u c e r ................................G e o ff G ra n th a m In S e a rc h o f T h e D re a m G ia n ts — D ie te r S till p h o t o g r a p h y ...................S im o n C ro s b ie D ir e c t o r ...................................... P e te r W ilts h ire C h id e l: c in e m a fe a tu re ; 2 nd d ra ft fu n d in g — T itle d e s ig n e r ......................... J o h n L a w re n c e S c r ip t w r it e r ................................J u lie S h e rm a n 5 1 1 ,0 0 0 C a t e r in g .................................. A n n a b e lle W o o d P h o t o g r a p h y . ................................T o m C o w a n T h e S e t t le r s — P a u l B e n d a t; c in e m a L a b o ra to ry ............................................... C in e v e x E d i t o r ..............'........................P e te r S o m e rv ille fe a tu re ; re s e a rc h a n d s to ry lin e fu n d in g — B u d g e t ............................................................ $ 35 00 H is to ric a l c o n s u lt a n t ............... M a n n in g C la rk $ 30 00 L e n g th ...................................................... 24 m in s Synopsis: T h e d ra m a o f th e ill- fa te d P ro d u c tio n In v e s tm e n ts G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m e x p e d itio n o f 196 0-61 .

S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... F u ji re v e rs a l F a r E ast — A s tra F ilm P ro d u c tio n s ; c in e m a P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n fe a tu r e ; p r e - p r o d u c tio n in v e s tm e n t — JERVIS BAY — A STUDY IN LAND S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................. Feb 20, 1982 $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 ; c o n d itio n a l a p p ro v a l p ro d u c tio n AND RESOURCE MAN AGEM EN T Cast: H e le n B ia ly (C a ro l), P au l C a ffre y in v e s tm e n t — $ 8 5 ,0 0 0 (N a th a n ia l), P e te r H u b b a rd (C a rlo ), D a ryl P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . . E d u V is io n E n te rp ris e s M a n n e ll (P a tric k ), J o h n M u rp h y (S im o n ), P r o j e c t s a p p r o v e d a t A u s t r a l i a n F il m P r o d u c e r ............................................................. Eve W ith e rs J e n n ife r O s b o rn (V e rg e r), P aul J. S te ve n s C o m m is s io n m e e tin g o n D e c e m b e r D ir e c t o r .................................... G ra h a m W ith e rs (D u n c a n ), C h e rry W o lfe (M iria m ), F ra n k 16, 1981 S c r ip t w r it e r ............................. G ra h a m W ith e rs W o o d (H ig h P rie st). ' P h o t o g r a p h y ........................... G ra h a m W ith e rs Synopsis: T h e s to ry o f N a th a n ia l, a yo u n g S c r ip t a n d P r o d u c t io n D e v e lo p m e n t S o u n d re c o rd is t ............................Eve W ith e rs m a n o n ly w e e ks fro m h is p a r tic ip a tio n in a E d i t o r .................................................................... Eve W ithI ne vrse s t m e n t s b ru ta l a d u lth o o d in itia tio n ritu a l, a nd his L e n g th ........................................................ 30 m in s m e th o d s o f e x p re s s in g h is o b je c tio n to It. S c r ip t D e v e lo p m e n t G a u g e ................................................ S u p e r 8 m m S h o o tin g s t o c k ......................K o d a c h ro m e 40 T h e C a p t a in — R o z a m u n d a W a r in g ; THE W IND IN MY HEART P ro g re s s ..................

In re le a s e c in e m a fe a tu re ; re s e a rc h , n e w d ra m a tiz e d Synopsis: A k it fo r s e c o n d a ry a n d te rtia ry tre a tm e n t fu n d in g — $ 4 9 9 2 P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... R o c k e t P ro d s s tu d e n ts c o n ta in in g a 3 0 -m in u te U -M a tic S c ra p Ir o n K id — K a te W h ite , P e te r D ist c o m p a n y ........................... S w in b u rn e L td v id e o c a s s e tte .

V a u g h to n ; c in e m a fe a tu re ; 1st d ra ft fu n d in g P r o d u c e r .................................... L u c y M a c la re n — S 13.150 D ir e c t o r ........................................................... D a vid C o lly e r A rc h a n g e l — E te rn ity P ic tu re s (M ic h a e l THE BRIDGE THE MADIGAN LINE S c r ip t w r it e r .................................................... D a vid C o lly e r F a llo o n ); c in e m a fe a tu re — $ 2 3 ,4 8 6 P h o t o g r a p h y ......................................................T im S m a rt P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................... R a b id F ilm s Q u a d ra p h re n ia — P e te r S tr a tfo rd , J o c e ly n P ro d , c o m p a n y ................D N M P ro d u c tio n s S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... R o b H o w a rd D ist. c o m p a n y ..............................R a b id F ilm s Lee; c in e m a fe a tu re : 1st d ra ft fu n d in g — D ist. c o m p a n y .................. D N M P ro d u c tio n s E d i t o r s ......................................... R o b e rt G ib s o n , P r o d u c e r ....................................... M a rk F o ste r $ 53 00 P r o d u c e r .......................P h ilip p e d e M o n tig n ie A n d re w J o n e s D ire c to r ........................................... M a rk F o ste r A lie n H u n te r — R ic h a rd B ra d le y P ro ­ D ir e c t o r ........... ...........P h ilip p e d e M o n tig n ie P ro d , d e s ig n e r ......................... B e a m is h E llio t S c r ip t w r it e r ...................................M a rk F o ste r d u c tio n s ; c in e m a fe a tu re : 2 nd d ra ft fu n d in g S c r ip t w r it e r ...................P h ilip p e d e M o n tig n ie P ro d , a s s is ta n t.................... C h ris tin a D e P op B a se d o n o rig in a l — $ 1 7 ,2 0 0 B ase d on th e o rig in a l C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .................. W a rw ic k Field id e a b y ......................................... M a rk F o ste r M a rk T w a in U p s id e D o w n — C e c il H o lm e s ; id e a b y .......................P h ilip p e d e M o n tig n ie , A rt d ir e c t o r ................................ P au l G o ld m a n P h o t o g r a p h y ................................ M a rk F o ste r, c in e m a fe a tu re ; 2 n d d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 63 50 M u rra y G a rtn e r B est B o y ....................................................... Evan E n g lish B ro n w y n N ic h o la s he P h o t o g r a p h y .................................................. D a vid H a sW k in s re E a st M e e ts W e s t — B o b H ill; te le ­ B u d g e t ...........................................................$ 88 97 E d i t o r ..................................................M a rk F o s te r v is io n d o c u m e n ta r y ; s u rv e y a n d s c r ip t S o u n d re c o rd is t ...............................Ian W ils o n G a u g e .......................................... G e v a c o lo r 6 82 C o m p o s e r .........................................M a rk F o s te r d e v e lo p m e n t fu n d in g — $ 75 00 E d i t o r s .................................... D a vid P u lb ro o k , P ro g re s s ................................................In re le a se L e n g th ........................... ...........................18 m in s X PX — V e n tu re F ilm s A u s tra lia (D o n a ld B o b G rie v e s Cast: S a m S e ja u k a , J a c k ie K e rin , D avid G a u g e ........................................................... 1 6m m P h ilp s , M a rtin P h e la n ); c in e m a fe a tu re ; 2 nd E xec, p ro d u c e r . . . . P h ilip p e d e M o n tig n ie H ir s t h o u s e , M a r g a r e t M c C lu s k y , 3 3 P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 6 5 0 0 A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ........................... J a c k S m ith b u d g e rig a rs .

Cast: A n g u s D o u g la s , B ro n w y n N ic h o la s .

T hne M o s t W a n te d M a n — U k iy o F ilm s A u s ­ U n it m a n a g e r ................................................L in d a C h ilto Synopsis: J a c k has a c u t fin g e r a nd th re e S ynopsis: A t r a g i - c o m e d y e x p lo r in g tra lia ; c in e m a fe a tu re ; 1st d ra ft fu n d in g — S c e n ic a r t i s t ..............................H e a th e r T o w n s d a y s to live . He trie s to im m o rta liz e his in te r d e p e n d e n c e in d o m e s tic re la tio n s h ip s . $90 80 Neg m a tc h in g ............................ F ilm N e g a tiv e b lo o d in e s s .

T h e T u e s d a y G a m e — Ian F ie ld (P rin c e M a tc h in g S e rv ic e s fie No o f s h o t s ........................................................

4 0 0 (a p p roldx .) P ro je c ts ); c in e m a fe a tu re ; 2 nd d ra ft HAPPY ENDINGS fu n d in g — $ 50 00 M ix e d at ........... F ilm S o u n d tra c k A u s tra lia B a d H a b its — J o h n M e a g h e r; c in e m a P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................... S m ile y F ilm s L a b o ra to ry .................. C in e v e x L a b o ra to rie s fe a tu re ; tre a tm e n t fu n d in g — S1000 P r o d u c e r ...................................R ic h a rd B re n n a n B u d g e t ...................................................... $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 D ire c to r ........................................... M e g S te w a rt T h e B ig S m o k e — A lb ie T h o m s ; c in e m a L e n g th ........................................................ 48 m in s fe a tu re ; 2 n d d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 5 0 0 0 S c r ip t w r it e r ......................................M eg S te w a rt G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m S w e e t P o is o n — C C P (J o h n C re w , J o h n B ase d o n o rig in a l S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a stm a n 7247 P o w e r); c in e m a fe a tu re ; 1st d ra ft fu n d in g — id e a b y ...............................................M e g S te w a rt P ro g re s s ................................... P o s t-p ro d u c tio n $ 7000 Synopsis: A re - e n a c tm e n t o f th e fir s t P h o t o g r a p h y .......................D a vid S a n d e rs o n G re e d — E d g e c liff F ilm s (M ic h a e l T h o rn ­ s c ie n t if ic c ro s s in g o f A u s tr a lia 's a rid S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................L lo y d C a rric k h ill): c in e m a fe a tu re ; 1st d ra ft fu n d in g — S im p s o n D e s e rt in 1939. T h e n in e -m a n E d i t o r ........................................... H e n ry D a n g a r $ 2 7 ,27 5 p a rty , tra v e llin g o n c a m e ls , to o k 23 d a y s to P ro d , m a n a g e r .......................B a rb a ra G ib b s P le a se s e e p re v io u s is s u e fo r d e ta ils of: T h e P la n te r o f M a la ta — C e c il H o lm e s, c ro s s fro m A n d a d o to B lr d s v ille , A s s t d ir e c t o r ........................... R ic h a rd B re n n a n SQ U IZZY TAYLO R D o ro th y H e w e tt; c in e m a fe a tu re ; 1st d ra ft d is c o v e rin g s e v e ra l o f th e o rig in a l c a m p C o n tin u ity .................................... A n n e W a lto n SAVE TH E LADY fu n d in g — $ 80 00 PETROV AND PHILBY: THE s it e s a n d u p d a t i n g b o t a n ic a l a n d C a m e ra o p e ra to r ........... D a vid S a n d e rs o n W A LL TO W A LL E r ic a — B r ia n W illia m s P r o d u c t io n s ; o rn ith o lo g ic a l d a ta .

In c lu d e s ra re fo o ta g e of HEDGEHOG AND THE FOX C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .........................J o h n B ro c k SW EET DREAMERS c in e m a fe a tu re ; 2 n d d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 75 00 firs t c ro s s in g , G rip ................................................S tu a rt G re e n TURKEY SHOOT P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . P ro g ra m D e v e lo p m e n t S h a rk A tta c k — F re s h w a te r F ilm s (R o g e r G a f f e r ............................................. P e te r O ’ B rie n P r o d u c e r ...........................................B ill B e m is te r W y lie ); te le v is io n d o c u m e n ta ry ; a d d itio n a l B o o m o p e ra to r ..............................M a rk L ew is MODERN M AID AND STAFF S c r ip t w r it e r ...................................... B ill B e m is te r d e v e lo p m e n t fu n d in g — $ 10 00 A rt d ir e c t o r .................................... L issa C o o te (w orking title ) B ase d on the T h e L a s t R e u n io n — B ria n J o n e s . B e rn a rd M a k e -u p ...................................... S a lly G o rd o n o rig in a l id e a b y ........................... B ill B e m is te r D avis (G o d a ic h a M o v ie s ); c in e m a fe a tu re ; P ro d , c o m p a n y ............................ A u d io -V is u a l W a rd ro b e .......................................L issa C o o te P h o t o g r a p h y ................................................... T o n y W ils o n st d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 1 2 .0 0 0 E d itin g a s s is ta n t ...................... .P a m B a rn e tta R e s o u rc e s B ra n c h S o u n d re c o rd is t .............................. Ian W ils o n K ic k in g A ro u n d — B a rro n F ilm s (P a ul D ist. c o m p a n y .............................................A V R B S till p h o t o g r a p h y .......................... Ian G ilm o u r E d i t o r ........................................... M ik e C h irg w in B a rro n ); te le v is io n s e rie s ; 11 fir s t d ra fts P r o d u c e r .................................................Ivan G aal R u n n e r ........................................... J u lie A d a m s , A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ......................... J o h n H ip w e ll fu n d in g — $ 3 0 ,8 0 0 D ir e c t o r .....................................H a rry M e h lm a n J o h n W itc h e r-Q ld .

P ro d , c o -o rd in a to r ........... L u c in d a S tra u s s A r c h e r — A n n e B r o o k s b a n k ; c in e m a L a b o ra to ry .............................................C o lo rfilm S c r ip t w r it e r s ........................................ Ivan G aal, P ro d , m a n a g e r ............................J o h n H ip w e ll fe a tu re ; 3 rd d ra ft fu n d in g — $ 6 0 0 0 L ab . lia is o n ...................................... B ill G o o le y J a n T in e tti P ro d , s e c re ta ry ................................G ail S to n e L e o n s k l — W illia m N a g le E n te rp ris e s , P h o to g r a p h y .................................... T o n y P aice L e n g th ...................................................... 5 0 m in s P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t . . . . C o o p e rs & L y b ra n d c in e m a fe a tu r e ; 3 rd d r a ft f u n d in g — S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... Di O 'C o n n o r G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m D ra m a tiz a tio n d ir e c t o r ............. T e rry B o u rk e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 E d i t o r ................................................................ H a rry M e h lm a n S h o o tin g s t o c k ................................K o d a k 7247 A s s t d ir e c t o r .................................. J o h n H ip w e ll THE B LA C K PLANET C o m p o s e r .................................... L a u rie B a im e r P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n P a c k a g e D e v e lo p m e n t P ro d u c e r’s a s s is t a n t .................................. P a u la M cR a e E xec, p ro d u c e r ..........................L a u rie W h ittle Cast: J o h n H a rg re a v e s (S te p h e n ), P en n e P ro d , c o m p a n y ................ F a b le F ilm P ro d s T e ch , a d v is e r ....................... M ic h a e l T h w a ite s A d a m s P a c k e r P a c k a g e — A d a m s P a c k e r; G a f f e r ......................................... R ob M c C u b b in H a c k fo rth -J o n e s (A n g e la ), E sbe n S to rm P r o d u c e r .........................................P au l W illia m s P u b lic it y ............................................................P e te r B la zey c in e m a fe a tu re : s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t fu n d in g A n im a tio n ..........................................P am A b b e y (re s ta u ra n t o w n e r).

D i r e c t o r ...........................................P au l W illia m s S t u d io s ............................................................ N .B .N . fo r six p ro je c ts — $ 1 2 3 ,0 0 0 M ix e d at ...................A m s tro n g A u d io -V is u a l Synopsis: A s c rip tw rite r s ta y s on a fte r a S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................P au l W illia m s M ix e d a t ........................................U n ite d S o u n d B u d g e t .........................................................S 22.000 c o n fe re n c e fo r a h o lid a y in a g la m o ro u s C o m p o s e r .................................... K e vin H o c k in g L a b o ra to ry ..................................................... A tla b P r o d u c t io n I n v e s tm e n t L e n g th ........................................................ 30 m in s S c rip t e d i t o r .................................................. S o n ia B o rgs e ttin g .

B u d g e t ...................................................... S 510.000 T h e D o lp h in T o u c h — R o b e rt L o a d e r; te le ­ G a u g e ........................... B VU to 2 " v id e o ta p e M u s ic re c o r d in g ...................B ru c e A d d e rle y L e n g th ............................................. 116 m in u te s v is io n d o c u m e n ta ry ; c o n d itio n a l a p p ro v a l ^ S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................................B 'c a s t q u a lity D ia lo g u e r e c o r d i n g ..................................... W a lly S h a w G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6 m m TOTEM p ro d u c tio n in v e s tm e n t — S 20 .00 0 B VU syste m A n im a tio n ................................ G u s M c L a re n , S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................. F u ji 250 A S A T h e R e in c a rn a tio n E x p e rim e n ts — S o u n d ­ P r o g e s s ................................................ P ro d u c tio n P ro d , c o m p a n y . . H e d g e h o g M e d ia P ro d s P au l W illia m s P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n se n s e F ilm P ro d u c tio n s ; c in e m a fe a tu re ; Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta r y o n w o r k e r s ’ A s s t a n im a t io n ..........................................M a g g ie G e dPdreosd u c e r s .....................................................A n g u s C a ffre S yyn, o p s i s : T h is f i l m c o n c e r n s th e c o n d itio n a l a p p ro v a l p r o d u c tio n in v e s t­ p a r tic ip a tio n in d e c is io n m a k in g , a nd th e A n d re w M u rp h y R o s tru m c a m e r a .......................D ia n e B u lle n , re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n tw o of h is to ry 's m o s t m e n t — $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 c h a n g e th a t m a d e it p o s s ib le a fte r th e 1979 D i r e c t o r .........................................A n g u s C a ffre y T e rry R u ssell c o n tro v e rs ia l sp ie s : V la d im ir P e tro v and ta k e -o v e r at th e M o d e rn M a id a n d S ta ff g as S c r ip t w r it e r s .............................. A n g u s C a ffre y , P ro d u c tio n c o -o rd in a to r s . . . J a n e t P ie rce , " K im " P h ilb y , th e fo r m e r B ritis h d ip lo m a t oven fa c to ry .

Loans Joanne N ewm an A n d re w M u rp h y a n d n o w K G B G e n e ra l. T h e film w ill be B a sine d o n th e o rig in a l B a c k g ro u n d a s s t ........................................ J u lia n E p ste p a rtly d ra m a tiz e d a n d u se in te rv ie w s m ix e d D e a d E asy — F ire b ird F ilm s (J o h n W e ile y); id e a b y ............................... A n d re w M u rp h y , P a i n t e r s ..............................................L y n n V an y, w ith s to c k fo o ta g e . P ro d u c tio n c o m m e n c e d c in e m a f e a t u r e : c o n d it io n a l a p p r o v a l . A n g u s C a ffre y N a n c y B e n tle y, e n h a n c e m e n t lo a n — $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 in E u ro p e e a rly N o v e m b e r. T h e film is P h o to g r a p h y ................................P e te r R e a d in g J e w e l B e rin g e r, N .B .; T h e $ 1 3 4 .0 0 0 c o n d itio n a l p ro d u c tio n s c h e d u l e d f o r c o m p le t io n b y m id S o u n d re c o rd is ts .................... S te ve n B ates, R o s la n d F lu ck, D e c e m b e r. in v e s tm e n t f o r H e n r i S a fra n 's N o rm a n G e o rg e M a v ro y e n i J a n e t C o u s in s L o v e s R o se lis te d in th e p re v io u s is s u e (N o.

E d i t o r ............................................... C h e rry W o lfe L a b o r a to ry ........................................................ V FL 35, p. 492 ) h as b e e n a m e n d e d to a S 16.000 P ro d , d e s ig n e r ...............................................J o h n L a w re n c e L e n g th .........................................................75 m in s s c rip t in v e s tm e n t.

A s s o c , p ro d u c e r ........... B re n d a n C ra w fo rd G a u g e ............................................................. 1 6m m U n it m a n a g e r ....................................................T im R ic h a rd s o n W o m e n ’ s F il m F u n d S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................E a s tm a n 724 7 P ro d s e c r e ta r y ..............................R u th M u rp h y P ro g re s s .............................................. P ro d u c tio n A d e le S z ta r (V ic ); A u s tra lia n W o m e n C o m ­ Projects approved at A ustralian Film A s s t d ir e c t o r .......................B re n d a n C ra w fo rd V o ic e s : R o s s W illia m s , B ria n H a n n a n , p o s e rs ; 1 6 m m d o c u m e n ta r y ; 25 m in s ; C om m ission m eeting on O ctober 26, 2 n d u n it d i r e c t o r ......................... J o h n M e a k in C a ro le -A n n A y le tt, T e rry G ill. p ro d u c tio n in v e s tm e n t — $ 73 27 1981 C o n tin u ity .................................... R u th M u rp h y Synopsis: T h e d is ta n t p la n e t T e rre V e rte is L e e W h itm o r e (N S W ); N e d W e th e re d ; C la p p e r/lo a d e r ...................R o b e rt L a w re n c e r a p id l y r u n n in g o u t o f e n e r g y . T w o 3 5 m m a n im a tio n ; 8 m in s ; p ro d u c tio n in v e s t­ S crip t and P roduction D evelopm ent C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .......................C o lin J o lliffe c o m p e tin g is la n d s in v o lv e d in a n a rm s a n d m e n t — $9293 Investm ents K e y g r i p ............................................................ J o h n M c D o n a ld s p a c e ra c e a re re a d y to c o m e to b lo w s . T w o C a ro le K o s ta n ic h (N S W ); S in g le P a re n ts ; 2 n d u n it p h o to g ra p h y ......... D e re k M e a k in w a rh a w k s h a tc h a s in is te r p lo t to d e c id e 1 6m m d o c u m e n ta ry ; 27 m in s ; p ro d u c tio n S crip t D evelopm ent G a f f e r .......................................................... E d m u n d A n d re w s w h o th e v ic to rs w ill be. in v e s tm e n t — $ 6 2 7 0 E le c tr ic ia n ................................B re n d a n M u rra y Heat Haze In Half Life — L e s lie M u rra y , V ic H e le n G ra c e . G le n y s R o w e (N S W ); S e rio u s B o o m o p e ra to r .................R a y m o n d B ose ie y H u n te r; c in e m a fe a tu re ; 1st d ra ft fu n d in g — U n d e rta k in g s ; 1 6 m m s tru c tu ra lis t; 25 m in s; A rt d i r e c t o r ......................................................J o h n L a w re n c e $6650 p ro d u c tio n in v e s tm e n t — $ 6 0 0 0 P ro d , c o m p a n y

......................... In d e p e n d e n t P ro d u c tio n s P ro d u c e r ................................ B re n d o n L u n n e y D ire c to r .....................................P e te r M a x w e ll S c rip tw rite r ..............................C h a rle s S ta m p B a s e d o n th e o rig in a l id e a b y ..................................... G a ry D e a co n P h o to g ra p h y ....................................... P hil P ik e S o u n d re c o rd is t ............R o w la n d M c M a n is E d ito r ................................................ B o b C o g g e r C o m p o s e r ...................................S im o n W a lk e r E xec, p ro d u c e r ........................... G e n e S c o tt F e a tu re s m a n a g e r . . . . W e n d y C h a m b e rs P ro d , s u p e rv is o r ....................C h ris G a rd in e r P ro d , m a n a g e r .......................... P e te r A b b o tt P ro d , s e c re ta ry ...............W e n d y C h a p m a n P ro d , a c c o u n ta n t ......................P e te r L a y a rd P ro d , a s s is ta n ts ...................... S e a n M c C lo ry , F io n a M a rk s 1st a s s t d ir e c to r ........................K e vin P ow ell 2 n d a s s t d ir e c to r .................. P a u l C a lla g h a n C o n tin u ity .............................C a th e rin e S a u te r C a s tin g ..............................M itc h C o n s u lta n c y C a m e ra a s s is ta n t .......................K e ith B ry a n t K ey g rip .................................M e rv M c L a u g h lin 2 n d u n it p h o to g ra p h y . . . .G a ry M a u n d e r, P hil D o rity G a ffe r ......................................................R ay A n g B o o m o p e ra to r ........................... J a n M c H a rg A rt d ir e c to r ..................................J a k o b H o rv a t M a k e -u p ...................................... F io n a S p e n c e W a rd ro b e ....................................F io n a S p e n c e W a rd , a s s is ta n t ..................K e rry T h o m p s o n P ro p s ......................................... B ria n E d m o n d s A s s t e d ito r ....................................G in a L e n n o x N e g. m a tc h in g ............................. C h ris R o w e ll S o u n d e d ito r ................................ B o b C o g g e r M ix e r .................................... J u lia n E llin g w o rth S till p h o to g ra p h y ...................G a rry M a u n d e r A n im a ls a rra n g e d b y ............................A n im a l T a le n t P ty L td C a te rin g ...................... S a lly G re v ille ; S m ith M ix e d a t ........................................................ A tla b L a b o r a to ry ................C in e F ilm L a b o ra to ry L ab . lia is o n ........................... C a lv in G a rd in e r L e n g th .....................................................85 m in s G auge ........................................................... 1 6m m S h o o tin g s to c k ........................................

7247 S c h e d u le d re le a s e ................ J a n u a ry 1982 C a s t : H e n r i S z e p s ( M a n u e l) , S im o n e B u c h a n a n (R e b e c c a ), A d a m G a rn e tt (R o d ), M a ry A n n S e v e rn e (M rs P o rte r), J o h n S ta n to n (M r P o rte r), P e te r S u m n e r (M r D im itro s ), R on H a d d ric k (S p e a k e r o f P a rlia ­ m e n t), J o h n E w a rt (M in is te r fo r Im m ig r a ­ tio n ), M a rtin V a u g h a n (C ra n k y M e m b e r), C o rn e lia F ra n c is (M e m b e r fo r S o u th d o w n ).

S y n o p s is : A y o u n g g irl ta k in g p h o to g ra p h s o f h e r p e t c o c k a to o is p re v e n te d fro m le a v in g a lo n e ly is la n d b y a n ille g a l im m ig ra n t, w h o fe a rs d e p o r ta tio n . A fte r a w id e s p re a d s e a rc h , s h e m a n a g e s to e s c a p e w ith th e h e lp o f a b o y s c o u t. S y m p a th e tic to th e im m ig ra n t's p ro b le m s , sh e p le a d s his c a u s e in P a rlia m e n t.

P r o d u c e r ....................................... J o h n S k ib in s k i D i r e c t o r ......................................... J o h n S k ib in s k i B a se d o n th e o rig in a l id e a b y ................................... J o h n S k ib in s k i C o m p o s e r ..............................................J a c k L ee S c rip t a s s is ta n t ............................C h ris M c G ill N o. o f s h o t s .......................................................225 A n im a tio n ................................... J o h n S k ib in s k i C e ll p a in t e r s ............................. A n n a B ru e n je s , S te v e n R a dic, M a ria n H ill, J o h n S k ib in s k i B a c k g ro u n d a r t i s t ....................M a rg re t C o o k B u d g e t .........................................................$ 2 8 ,2 4 5 L e n g th .................................. .................... 1 0 m in s G a u g e .............................................................1 6m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .................................... E a stm a n P ro g re s s ........................................... P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e ........................M a y, 1982 Synopsis: A n a n im a te d film a b o u t a g ro u p o f a n im a ls h e ld c a p tiv e b y a d e m o n , a nd h o w o n e p ris o n e r — a fly in g fo x — on g a in in g h is o w n fre e d o m , h as fo b rin g a b o u t th e d o w n fa ll o f th e d e m o n b e fo re he is a b le to fre e th e o th e r p ris o n e rs .

SHORTS

SHORTS

DOCUMENTARIES FEATURES

1

ANIMATION

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

Project Development Branch

Concluded on p. 95

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 69

S T U D IO F A C IL IT IE S

ss ~

~ 5 T 5S

Metro Television Limited Paddington Town Hall P0 Box 299 Paddington NSW 2021

Metro Television offers the following facilities at very competitive rates: Telecine & video editing, studio dry space with lighting, screen testing and interviewing facilities.

Phone Metro Television: (02) 33 5318.

IF IT M O V ES W E 'L L S H O O T IT Tasmanian Film Corporation, 1-3 Bowen Road. Moonah, Tasmania, Australia 7009 Telephone (002) 30 3531 Telegrams: Tasfilm Hobart. Telex: Tasfilm 57148

SALLY BARTLE, F1LMCREWS FREELANCE AGENCY. 3RD FLOOR. STANBETH HOUSE. 26 CUSTOM ST EAST. AUCKLAND. NEW ZEALAND. PHONE 779*033.

SOUND STAGES FOR HIRE In a busy production schedule we still have some spare capacity in our production department,undoubtedly one of the finest in Australia.

We have two air conditioned sound stages (30.5 m x 16.2 m and 24.5 m x 16.2 m) with full vehicle access, supplemented by production offices, make-up, wardrobe, laundry and green room. Our set construction department has a comprehensive collection of props and flats for hire.

The studios are close to downtown Adelaide and we can help with locations and all other services.

FOR DETAILS PHONE: MICHAEL ROWAN GREER LEACH (08)452277 (08)452277

South Australian Film Corporation

Sally (Susan Sarandon), the oyster-bar waitress, and Lou (Burt Lancaster), the one-time mini hood. Louis Malle’s Atlantic City U.S.A.

Atlantic City U.S.A. Les Rabinowicz

Since Louis Malle’s feature film debut in 1957 with A c e n s e u r p o u r l’ e c h a f a u d ( L i f t to the S c a f f o l d ) , his films have been subject to conflicting critical appraisals. If the character of these has changed from a questioning of Malle’s artistic integrity, oc­ casioned by chameleon-like changes in sub­ ject matter, especially in the genre pieces made during the 1960s to the varying assess­ ments of his treatment of controversial is­ sues in most of the films of the 1970s, it would, with the release of A t l a n t i c C i t y U . S . A . , now appear that this has been replaced by an adulatory consensus.

Such is the praise for this compassionate and gently humorous tale about the humble aspirations and delusions of a handful of characters that it is tempting to sharpen one’s reservations about this polished film.

The central figure, Lou (Burt Lancaster), is a one-time mini hood who, now in old age, prefers to remember himself in grandiose terms. He spends most of his time running numbers and looking after Grace (Kate Reid), an ex-gangster’s moll who came to Atlantic City during the 1940s for a Betty Grable lookalike contest (she came third) and stayed. Then, there is Sally (Susan Sarandon), an oyster-bar waitress and would-be croupier. Naturally attractive, if somewhat inexperienced and uncultured, Sally dreams of escaping from Atlantic City to Monte Carlo.

Atlantic City, the once fashionable seaside resort, forms the backdrop for the film.

Malle has captured this old township with its famous boardwalk, half-way between decay and renewal. Billboard-size posters proudly exclaim, “ Atlantic City, you’re on the map again” , while the old hotels are torn down to make way for new gambling casinos.

The story starts with the arrival of a hip­ pie couple: Dave (Robert Joy), Sally’s estranged husband, and her pregnant sister, Chrissie (Hollis McLaren). The couple had managed to steal a cachet of cocaine which results in Dave being tracked down and killed by mobsters. The cocaine falls into Lou’s hands and this creates the circum­ stances in which all realize their dreams and aspirations.

For Lou, the cocaine provides a chance to be somebody again — the chivalrous

gangster-cum-hit-man he likes to think he has been — and to enjoy an affaire with his youthful neighbor, who unknowingly awakened the old man’s desires by washing her breasts with lemon juice every night (later we learn that this suggestive ritual is an attempt to get rid of the fishy smell of the oyster bar). The pair are forced to flee after Lou, much to his own surprise, kills the two mobsters. In one of the film’s more touching scenes, they part; Lou returning to his old lady, Grace (Kate Reid), while Sally moves on to start a new life.

A t l a n t i c C i t y is not, however, a crime or gangster film. And if Malle has embraced some of their generic features, it is only to re-work these to create an endearing portrait of a group of otherwise ordinary characters.

His achievement, and it would seem that this is an ambiguous one, has been to fashion a film which evokes pleasant and compas­ sionate sentiments for its unlikely subjects: society’s harmless misfits and losers.

James Monaco, in a brief yet perceptive entry in Richard Roud’s Cinema: A Critical Dictionary, recognized a uniformity in Malle’s projects: “ ‘I’m always interested in exposing something’, Malle explains, ‘a theme or a character or situation which seems to be unacceptable. Then I try to make it work.’ ” This has led Malle to explore incest in L e s o u ffle

au

coeu r

(M u rm u r

of

the

H e a rt,

1970), French collaboration with the Gestapo during the Occupation in L a c o m b e L u c ie n (1974), and child prostitution in P r e t t y B a b y (1978). “ Making it work”, however, has produced a variety of stylistic accommodations, the least not being Malle’s avowed directorial attitude of restraint and objectivity in the face of these controversial issues.

The same methods are at work in A t l a n t i c C i t y , just as are the deficiencies of many of Malle’s previous efforts. In L e s o u ffle au c o e u r , for instance, all the provocative ele­ ments — the loss of virginity in a whorehouse, brothers measuring their sexual organs and masturbating, and the somewhat rosily-conceived incest between mother and son — are presented with the utmost tact and discretion.

In P r e t t y B a b y , a story about a 12-yearold girl, the daughter of a prostitute who has been brought up in a New Orleans brothel and her marriage to an older man, Malle somehow manages to find a way of not presenting any scenes containing explicit sex. And now in A t l a n t i c C i t y , the love scene between Lou and Sally is played more as a

consummation of wishful thinking than sexual passion.

Malle, especially in his more recent films, has been careful not to challenge or shock his audiences. In A t l a n t i c C i t y he has preferred to win them over with charm. And though the screenplay by John Guare (a New York playwright probably best known for his collaboration with Milos Forman on T a k i n g O f f ) touches some emotionallysordid incidents — Dave stealing his wife’s purse, his parents refusing to accept her reverse-charges call to tell them that their son is dead — Malle skips quickly over these shaky gestures of understanding.

And if Malle has sought to give his film some bite by including potentially-satirical scenes — Robert Goulet singing Paul Anka’s trite, “ Atlantic City My Old Friend,” and a caricature of American television news, for instance — the end result seems somewhat bland and pointless.

One could possibly be forgiven for surmis­ ing that Malle has refrained from any com­ ment about his characters in A t l a n t i c C i t y .

In his mammoth documentary, P h a n t o m In d ia , Malle exposed some of the childish foibles of the hippie generation. In A t l a n t i c C i t y he goes further by likening the two hip­ pies (this time they are from Canada and not France) to Lou and Grace, and by making Chrissie a mindless twit and Dave a little punk out of his depth in the real world.

None of this is to say that A t l a n t i c C i t y is not an accomplished piece of filmmaking.

Malle’s craftsmanship and control, essential in a film which balances four characters and a handful of cameo appearances (including an extended one by Michel Piccoli as a croupier teacher) within a sdenario that takes place over a two-day period, is ad­ mirable to say the least. Yet alongside Malle’s best film, L a c o m b e L u c ie n , A t l a n t i c C i t y pales. The significance of theme and moral complexity of the former highlights the superficial and inconsequential character of the latter.

Atlantic City U.S.A.: Directed by: Louis Malle.

Producer: Denis Heroux. Executive producers: Joseph Beaubien, Gabriel Boustany. Screenplay: John Guare. Director of photography: Richard Ciupka. Editor: Susanne Baron. Art director: Anne Pritchard. Sound: Jacques Maumont. Com­ poser: Michel Legrand. Cast: Burt Lancaster (Lou), Susan Sarandon (Sally), Kate Reid (Grace).

Michel Piccoli (Joseph), Hollis McLaren (Chrissie), Robert Joy (Dave), A! Waxman (Alfie), Robert Goulet (Singer), Moses Znaimer (Felix), Harvey Atkin (Bus driver), Eleanor Beecroft (Mrs Reese). Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm 105 mins U.S. 1981.

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 71

Puberty Blues

Puberty Blues Jim Settembri Although Bruce Beresford’s P u b e r t y B lu e s (based on the novel by Kathy Lette and G a b ­ rielle Carey) will probably enjoy consider­ able popularity with teenagers, to write th e film off as a purely commercial v e n tu r e exploiting the Australian surfing cult w o u ld be most unjust. It would be even more so to add that it pretentiously uses concepts o f social comment as a vehicle.

The film has no automatically gener­ alized elements assaulting the audience w ith any blatant messages. Rather, the m a in characters, their adolescent problems, an d the surfie clique are depicted as specific entities in themselves, not necessarily as typical samples of a generalized whole.

This makes P u b e r t y B lu e s more valuable and accessible as a film an audience can relate to and identify with on an individual basis, rather than an attempt of the reverse.

This absence of any assumed stereotyped models in the film, either in its exploration of certain teenage problems, or of the surfie group, gives the film an intelligent specificity in dealing with its subject matter.

As well as this, P u b e r t y B lu e s has m a n y comic, dramatic and visual virtues that deal, with occasional force, with the pressures, problems and environment of the two main characters, Sue Knight and Deb Vickers (played well by Jad Capelja and par­ ticularly Nell Schofield respectively), as they join and become involved with a local surfie clique.

The delineation of the Greenhill Gang’s heirarchy, attitudes and rituals marks it as highly peculiar and all but self-contained in these respects within its social environment.

The respective idol/worshipper relationship between the surfers and their girlfriends, the almost brutal singularity of the girls’ sub­ servient sex-maiden roles, the desperation with which Deb and Sue, through their eagerness and false regard for the group, join the surfies, and the boredom the girls must tolerate further accentuates the specificity of the group, and outlines the implications and consequences inherent with the privilege of its membership.

The opening shots of P u b e r t y B lu e s show Deb and Sue on a crowded beach, greeting friends as they walk. A brief narration from Deb points out the main divisions of the beach: “ Dickheadland”, from where Deb admits she and Sue hail, and Greenhills, where the surfies and their girls hang out.

The arrival of the girls, amid cries of “crawlers” and “ molls”, and their willing­ ness to “suck up” to the surfie girls to gain entrance to the group, shows what Deb and Sue are prepared to endure in their desperation to join the clique.

When the girls are caught giving answers in the moderately funny, but unnecessarily exaggerated, exam-cheating scene, they are afforded a prime opportunity to impress the surfie girls by not telling on them. This pays off and, in their first friendly contact with the surfie girls, they are invited for a smoke in the toilets. An overhead shot (typical of Don McAlpine’s expressive Panavision cine­ matography throughout the film) in the school ground, showing a large “OUT OF BOUNDS” sign painted on the asphalt, captures the essence of this invitation as Deb and Sue enter a new, highly-exclusive world.

The almost mindless adoration and devo­ tion the girls feel for the surfers is estab­ lished near the film’s beginning as Deb and Sue gaze and sigh in admiration of the surfers. When Deb is told by Cheryl (Leanda Brett) that one of the boys is rapt in her, she enthuses with excitement before asking who the surfer is, as though a remote, secondary consideration to being a potential girlfriend to any of the boys.

In this scene, where the girls are on their way to meet the surfers and introduce Bruce (Jay Hackett) to Deb, there is an excellent flow of shots that show the girls moving from the suburban society of their upbring­ 72 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Commitment tension: Deb (Nell Scho­ field) and boyfriend Garry (Geoff Rhoe) in the old beach house. Bruce Beresford’s Puberty Blues. ing into the realm of the surfie gang. They are first seen moving down a suburban street, turning off the road and trekking through a municipal bushland. They meet the boys lazing under some trees in the fore­ ground, while in the distant background, at the top of the frame, is the hustle of cars and life of the society from which they remove themselves.

The ritual-like pairing of Deb and Bruce outlines the group’s respective sex roles. As Deb stands wordless and motionless, like some sacrificial giving, Bruce goes through the ritual’s motions. Prompted and teased by his mates to make his move, he removes his chewing gum, kisses Deb and flatly asks, “ Wanna go out with me?” She accepts dumbly and, after replacing his gum, Bruce walks off with her, marking the ritual’s completion.

The totality with which Deb and Sue adopt their subservient sex-maiden roles, once accepted, is apparent as they interact and assimilate with the group. In one scene, while the boys are surfing, cuts to dismem­ bered shots of the girls silently sunbaking on the sands depict them as mere possessions, with set functions of worship and servitude.

In fact, when the boys return from the water, Bruce criticizes Deb for not watching him surf. She and Sue then prepare to get food and, in a demeaning exchange, receive a stream of food orders from the boys, in a tone of casualness that suggests their being accustomed to such services from the female members of the group. As Deb and Sue head toward “ Dickheadland”, Deb comments in self-delusion, “ Isn’t this great?”

Even the curiosity Deb and Sue express for surfing is immediately suppressed by the gang’s code of “girls don’t surf’ because, as Strach (Ned Lander) puts it, “They might dig it.” This repression of the girls’ desires, as an instance of the inflexible expectations accorded their roles, is reinforced by the fight between the surfies and the lifeguards.

Although the scene makes its point as the girls cheer their idols on in battle, the Bud Spencer/Terence Hill type fight, with

boards failing to yield one bloody nose or misplaced tooth, is too forced and silly, and upsets the incidental tone of most of the film’s comedy.

When Deb, knowing that she must have sex with Bruce as part of her membership, asks Vicki (Joanne Olsen) for advice on what to do, she is told matter-of-factly, “Nothing; just lie there.” Indeed, at the drive-in, the girls’ primary function as sex­ objects is emphasized with some force.

While Sue is in the front seat of the panel van, being mesmerized by Danny’s (Tony Hughes) cigarette tricks, Deb is in the back with Bruce. Without a word, and still chewing gum, Bruce roughly pulls down his trousers and underwear, and drops on Deb lik e a r o c k . H e h a s d if f ic u lt y and issu es

about. She responds obediently, her ner­ vousness to please him keeping her from saying anything about his animal-like attitude.

While pulsating, Bruce bumps his head on the van’s ceiling and Deb automatically apologises. This apology makes apparent the drastic distortion of mutual responsibility for gratification between sexual partners forged by the group’s rigid role allocation of the girls as sex objects. This unbalanced feeling of inadequacy is further demon­ strated at Sue’s house where, even with the aid of vaseline, Bruce continues to have diffi­ culty, and Deb apologetically resigns that his penis is too large!

This purely sexual obstacle prompts Bruce to break off with Deb and indicates the s h a llo w n e s s a n d s in g le -m in d e d p u r p o s e (at

s h o rt,

le a s t a s f a r a s t h e b o y s a r e c o n c e r n e d ) o f a n y

s a lv o e s

of

c o ld

pu nch es

and

com m ands

b lo w s

fo r

w ith

D eb

to

s u rf­

sh ift

The French Lieutenant's Woman

relationship. The indirect, word-of-mouth manner by which Deb finds out she is dropped also shows the effect the group has in stunting any notions of responsibility among the boys.

This point manifests again through the close relationship that develops between Deb and Garry (Geoff Rhoe), another surfie.

After giving her a friendship ring which she treasures (this contrasts nicely to Cheryl’s growing collection of friendship rings) and admitting some genuine feelings for Deb, Garry is hit with the threat of Deb’s pos­ sible pregnancy. However, his affections for Deb cannot overwhelm the internalized attitudes of the surfie clique of which he is so much a part.

The responsibility he should be actively expressing for Deb’s condition is suppressed into withdrawal from surfing and from the rest of the group. When Deb tries to bring Garry to face the problem, he is wordless with mental anguish, feeling responsible through his regard for her, yet numbed into inactivity by his association with the surfies.

In frustration, Deb says, “You couldn’t give a fuck about anyone but yourself,” and storms out, realizing that he is not going to help her.

The boredom the girls are forced to endure because of the boys’ preoccupation with surfing underscores several scenes, but is most apparent near the film’s end in the scene at Bruce’s beach-house. Rain has pre­ vented the boys from surfing and, as they play cards, Deb suggests they “go to a movie, or see a band, or something” . There is surprise at this and laughter from the other girls (except Sue) as Deb claims that, “There’s more to life than just surfing.” Her outburst is intercut with shots of her through a rain-splattered window, showing the growing dislocation of Deb as a member of the Greenhills gang, and of her thoughts being incompatible with those of girls in the group, who must accept the boredom.

Garry’s death by hard drugs (which, although given some limited build-up, is left to the audience to assume) brings to a head Deb’s conviction that the surfies are not worthy of her membership. The funeral on the beach highlights the group’s futile values and hypocrisy. The surfies did not care or help Garry once he withdrew into depres­ sion (indeed, when Deb asks one surfie where Garry is, she receives a nonchalant, “He doesn’t surf much any more”), yet upon his death, for which their apathy and drug involvement were at least partly respon­ sible, they see fit to honor him with a ritual farewell, as though a valued and beloved member.

This prompts Deb to get a board and, with Sue, ostensibly defy the “girls don’t surf’ code, thus symbolizing — though somewhat cornily — their freedom from the surfies.

The film’s concentration on Deb’s prob­ lems and development, and the limited insight into her friend Sue, and the pathetic, identity-searching Freda (Tina Robinson) helps strengthen the specificity in recog­ nizing adolescent problems as components of individual processes. In Freda’s case, this tangential treatment is appropriate as she is not directly involved with the surfies. There are glimpses of her desperation for atten­ tion, her degradation into a “moll” and her naivety as she is cruelly tricked into having sex with three boys before being dumped on a footpath.

With Sue, however, there is an irritating lack of a more detailed development which her propinquity with Deb seems to require.

There are conflicting signs in her character that are never reconciled. Her docility, for example, has her frequently and almost unquestioningly having sex with Danny. She even admits to Deb that, “ Danny would drop me if I didn’t root for him.” Yet her concern with turning into a mindless “ root­ ing machine” indicates some developmental process within Sue. She tends, though, to “tag along” with Deb throughout most of the film and this is, unfortunately, most apparent in the final scenes of P u b e r t y B lu e s .

Deb watches with remorse as the boys take Garry’s board out into the surf during

the funeral, and she mutters in disgust, “ It stinks.” Sue then asks “What does?” , as though unaware of what Deb is feeling, despite having been with her throughout her trials. In the film’s final exchange, after the girls have “freed” themselves from the surfies, Sue suggests, “ I think we’re dropped”, to which Deb replies, “Who cares?” The shot of the girls standing on a sand dune freezes when Sue’s voice repeats, “ Yeah, who cares?” This gives the (prob­ ably unintentional) impression that Sue is merely echoing Deb’s sentiments.

Deb is seen and felt to earn her freedom from the Greenhills gang, whereas Sue’s emancipation seems a mere consequence of her proximity to Deb, rather than as a result of any maturing process.

Of all the aspects concerning adolescence that P u b e r t y B lu e s can claim to explore, the one that comes across most comically, and poignantly, is the ignorance of teenage life harbored by the education system and the parents, those supposedly responsible for the moral fibre and integrity of their com­ munity’s youth. Here, the incidental nature of the film’s comedy works best to make its points as sharp as, if not sharper than, any serious, dramatic counterpoint could have managed.

The surly headmaster of the school (delightfully played by Bud Tingwell) rep­ resents the ignorance on the scholastic front and is well typified in his farcical speech concerning his disgust at rumors of smoking on the school bus.

A close shot of the headmaster giving his speech shows his grimaced, serious face. A second shot, taken further back, shows his comic attire of conservative shorts, long socks and cardigan. A cut to a third shot from the back of the aisle between the assembled students reveals pupils fooling around in the back row, ignoring their head­ master’s solicitous speech. Sue aptly mocks the headmaster’s outdated concerns by offering Deb some jaffas and then deliberately dropping the box.

The brief episodes with the parents make their point with according humor and potency. When the party at Sue’s house is interrupted by her mother (Rowena Wallace), the room is quickly restored to some state of normality as joints are hur­ riedly put out and beer cans are stuffed under T-shirts. When Mrs Knight leaves again for her pottery class, the room returns to its former state (although too quickly) and marks her ignorance of the teenage set and its indulgent practices which she has unwittingly interrupted.

When Bruce arrives to meet Deb’s parents, Mrs Vickers (Kirrily Nolan) stares in astonishment as his panel van pulls up in front of her. In the subsequent tea scene, a slow zoom shot of Vickers and Bruce crowded around a table sustains the humor­ ous air of uneasiness created by Bruce’s inar­ ticulate speech, Deb’s obvious embarrass­ ment and her parents’ stunned faces as they view this sample of their daughter’s peers.

Later, as Deb prepares to leave for the “ pictures”, her mother warns her not to sit near the aisle. Deb is curious at this advice and asks why. “Or else,” her mother reasons with absurd certainty (and the film’s best line), “some pusher might come along and jab heaven knows what into your arm!”

But the ignorance of Deb’s parents is dis­ played most strikingly during her preg­ nancy scare, which occurs without their knowledge. When Deb is in bed with depres­ sion, the only acknowledgment her mother gives is an offer of tea, toast and Vegemite.

Even Deb’s frequent visits to the toilet, during the purchase of the new family car, causes them little concern.

It is certainly no coincidence that the major release dates of P u b e r t y B lu e s are during the summer school holidays of its main target audience. However, the pro­ ducers’ faith in the film having more than a purely sensational appeal seems to be reflec­ ted in its soundtrack. Rather than clogging the film with a stream of cliched beach songs and tracks from the national Top 40, which, one imagines, must have been a tempting

bandwagon with which to help promote the film, the soundtrack comprises a surpris­ ingly sparse but well-chosen selection of tracks that relate to the events on the screen.

It would be a pity if the highly-commercial veneer of P u b e r t y B lu e s were to prompt audiences to overlook the many other merits that give considerable substance and value to the film.

Puberty Blues: Directed by: Bruce Beresford. Pro­ ducers: Joan Long, Margaret Kelly. Screenplay: Margaret Kelly. Director of photography: Don McAlpine. Editor: Bill Anderson. Art director: David Copping. Sound: Gary Wilkins. Music: Les Gock, Tim Finn. Cast: Nell Schofield (Debbie), Jad Capelja (Sue), Geoff Rhoe (Garry), Tony Hughes (Danny), Sandy Paul (Tracey), Leanda Brett (Cheryl), Jay Hackett (Bruce), Ned Lander (Strach), Joanne Olsen (Vicki), Julie Medara (Kim), Kirrily Nolan (Mrs Vickers), Alan Cassell (Mr Vickers), Rowena Wallace (Mrs Knight), Charles Tingwell (Headmaster). Production company: Limelight Productions. Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 90 mins. Australia. 1981.

The French Lieutenant’s Woman Brian McFarlane Film versions of great or famous novels run a perilous course with public and critics alike. The public, it is said, would never have permitted anyone but Clark Gable to play Rhett Butler, and is apt to complain bitterly when favorite characters or episodes are tampered with.

The critics are likely to be equally fractious about dogged, literal-minded faith­ fulness to the text, at the expense, say, of its

vivifying passion. This was largely the case brought against Roman Polanski’s T e s s earlier this year. Polanski seemed to have caught everything about Tess o f the D ’Urbevilles except what made the eponymous heroine behave as she did. True to Thomas Hardy at almost any given point, the sum of its beautiful parts was not a film equivalent for his passionate account of “A Pure Woman”.

To move from Tess of the D’Urbevilles to John Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman is to move from a great to a merely famous novel. In general, I should prefer to see film versions of second- (or even third-) rate than first-rate novels. The latter so often depend on unfilmables like the author’s tone, the quality of mind that makes itself felt in the prose, all that is going on other than narrative action, that a film version can only be either successful or faithful but not both.

Fowles’ novel strikes me as having been much over-rated: it is a compelling “read” first time through and the cleverness of writing a Victorian novel with late 20th Century hindsight is at least provocative. On a second reading, I found it had nothing more to offer (and a great novel thrives on re-reading) and, indeed, it began to look merely tricksy, little more than a novelistic jeu d’esprit. What it offered initially — a solidly-crafted story of a proposed Vic­ torian marriage of aristocracy and trade and its disruption by the man’s infatuation for the French lieutenant’s woman — is what might have made the basis for a satisfying film.

Fowles, of course, wasn’t satisfied to tell such a story and fills his novel with often interesting, sometimes startling, reflections on the characters and action he has created.

Other novelists (Anthony Trollope, George Eliot) have addressed their audiences

Charles (Jeremy Irons), in the Lakes District, while searching for the ‘wayward’ Sarah (Meryl Streep). Karel Reisz’s The French Lieutenant’s Woman.

CINEMA PAPERS January-February - 73

The French Lieutenant’s Woman

directly, in doing so drawing attention to figure, walks out of the cluttered film-set on their craft, to their fiction; but no author I the streets of Lyme on to the Cobb, until she can think of has so insisted on our regarding is a single distant figure, centre-screen, at its the lives he has created as mere fictions end. This is followed by a substantial slab of whom he is manipulating and who have no the Victorian story (leading up to Charles’ being other than what he chooses, to give proposal to Ernestina in a lushly-foliaged, them. As well, I can think of no other case softly-lit conservatory) before a telephone where an author so consciously sets himself bell recalls us sharply to 1980, with Mike apart from — above? — his characters, so as and Anna in bed. to consider them from moral and psycho­ This distinctively modern sound jars in the logical viewpoints utterly unavailable to way that Fowles’ authorial intrusion does in them. the book, but its effect is not sustained by the The story of Sarah Woodruff, the rest of the modern scene in the way that ambiguous titular figure, Charles Smith­ Fowles’ written comment often is. It is son, the gentleman with archaeological merely jarring and adds nothing to one’s interests, and Ernestina Freeman, the pretty grasp of 1867 England; nor does the next flower of vulgar commerce, might have interruption when Anna reads to Mike about made a straightforwardly-engrossing film, the incidence of prostitution in 1860 London with, perhaps, some casting changes. Clearly and how respectable women were likely to this would not have been a “faithful” film stray into it. In the third modern sequence, version of Fowles’ novel.

Anna is rehearsing Sarah’s fall on catching This novel is both narrative and exegesis her dress on some brambles; it is obvious upon narrative, and Karel Reisz’s film based and unilluminating to cut to Sarah’s on Harold Pinter’s screenplay has tried to be “ actual” fall in the Victorian setting. adventurous and faithful in meeting the By this time, the modern parallel — demands of the book on its various levels. though it is nothing like parallel in intensity My view is that Reisz has been unneces­ — begins to have a debilitating effect on the sarily awed by the book’s reputation and by Victorian narrative. There is an over-riding his sense of the importance of Fowles’ sense of contrivance. A film’s impact — at commentary on the action of the novel. This least where a sustained narrative is con­ has led to a major miscalculation: whose cerned — depends importantly on the invention — Reisz’s or Pinter’s — lam not suspension of audience disbelief. What sure, and Harlan Kennedy’s interview with happens here is that the audience is made Reisz in Film Comment (Sept-Oct., 1981) more and more aware of actors acting and of doesn’t make it clear. actors acting acting. As Sarah tells her story By this, I mean the decision to film the to Charles (“I gave myself to him . . . so that Sarah/Charles story within the framework I should never be the same again”, etc.), we of a fictional film in production, based on are as aware of Anna as of Sarah. The The French Lieutenant’s Woman. The stars quality of audience involvement with Sarah of this film-within-the-film, Anna and Mike, is thereby diminished and in a way that was are having an affaire that falls apart when not true of the book. the filmmaking is over. They are played by Reisz’s film finds no equivalent for the Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons who also novel’s way of pulling back from its charac­ play Sarah and Charles in what becomes the ters to consider them and their behaviour film-within-the-film-within-the-film, and from a modern perspective. Reisz and Pinter other players in the Victorian story (e.g., have been caught between faithfulness to the Leo McKern as Dr Grogan) turn up at book’s procedures (i.e., they haven’t sought various times as themselves (i.e., as the just to tell a 19th Century story of sexual actors they are also playing) in the modern- obsession and repression) and adventurous­ day episodes. ness (i.e., they have tried — and failed — to It is clear what Reisz and Pinter intend by find an appropriate way to offer a contem­ this device: they are looking for a cinematic porary gloss on this story which would equivalent of Fowles’ 1970 perspective on replace Fowles’ authorial intervention).

1867 England. It is equally clear that they Fowles’ book is at least partly a novel have failed to find it. For one thing, the about novel-writing; the film fails to be a quality of the comment offered by Anna and film about filmmaking. It cannot sustain — Mike on the roles they are playing is intel­ as Fowles more or less does — a supple sense lectually threadbare. Fowles’ discussion does of playing with facts and fiction, with truth not strike one as erudite, but it is often lively and falsity, with inevitability and and entertaining; Anna and Mike are given manipulation. nothing memorable to say.

The novel apparently means more to Their affaire, used no doubt as a counter­ many people than it does to me. Valuing it point to the Sarah/Charles affaire, is devoid less for its own sake, I should have cared less of interest, so that to use its unhappy ending to see it gutted and the film’s makers is no way of dealing with the book’s two concentrate on recreating the book’s sexual suggested endings. The film shows Sarah drama in the social and moral context of and Charles rowing away from the idylVictorian England. In doing so, the idea of lically-situated house where, in the modern the woman’s determined creation of and scene, a post-production party is being held, clinging to her individuality, an issue in which the film, like the novel, is clearly inter­ and Mike gloomily sitting in an empty room above. I assume this is Reisz-Pinter’s way of ested, might have emerged more fully. dealing with the book’s self-conscious ambi­ Meryl Streep is a notably sharp and sensi­ valence at the end — but it doesn’t work. tive actress, but as Anna she is given little to work on, and, unfortunately, Anna keeps To spread the possibilities between two sets of characters is not the same as suggest­ interrupting just as she is beginning to interest one in Sarah’s ambiguities. As well, ing alternatives for the same set; and the fact she hasn’t quite the presence that would give that Anna and Mike’s modern romantic authority to some crucial but unimag­ problems are so much less compelling than inatively directed scenes, particularly that in those of Victorian Sarah and Charles also which she tells her “story” to Charles. She works against the potential of this balancing looks, as everyone has noted, a pre-Raphael­ act. The film creates some concern for the ite vision, but the enigmatic core of the outcome of the Sarah/Charles affaire, none woman keeps dissolving instead of refocus­ whatever for that of its modern couple. ing and opening out, to muddle metaphors.

A further distressing result of the bland­ She does not get enough assistance from ness of the contemporary scenes is that, Jeremy Irons who plays Charles with too instead of providing a jab of contrast or unvaried intensity and whose angst-ridden familiarity in juxtaposition to the Victorian Mike seems to have no centre at all. story, they become little more than irritants.

Some of the others make their little go They distract from the Sarah/Charles story further. Leo McKern’s free-thinking Dr and one becomes edgy waiting for the sign Grogan draws on but is not limited by his that will provide the transition in time. (It is Rumpole persona and he is briefly amusing possible to become quite expert in predict­ in red skivvy and gold medallion in a modern ing this over two hours, but that is hardly the satisfaction one is looking for.) sequence. Patience Collier takes what is left In the first moments of the film, a clapper of Mrs Poulteney, Sarah’s tyrannical, canting employer, and gives her an approp­ board announces the opening of the inset riate thin-lipped viciousness which Lynsey film and Anna/Sarah, a dark-cloaked 74 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

Mad Max 2

Baxter’s Ernestina, in a couple of welljudged moments, suggests she could emulate. The servants — Sam (Hilton McRae) and Mary (Emily Morgan) — are scarcely there at all, and their function, important in Fowles’ concept as a commen­ tary on the comparative sexual inhibitions of their superiors, goes for little.

The Film’s procedures simply preclude a satisfying construction of characters or relationships. What one is left with is, above all, cameraman Freddie Francis’ exquisite pictures of Victorian England, all soft, glowing interiors, lush foliage, and pic­ turesque cobbles, these offering a striking visual contrast with the brightly-lit, hardedged scenes of the present day.

It is no pleasure to record disappoint­ ment in an enterprise so lovingly under­ taken, but, while T h e F r e n c h L ie u t e n a n t ’ s W o m a n is never actually boring, its striking visual beauties are not enough to conceal its unwarranted sense of its own importance.

French Lieutenant’s Woman: Directed by: Karel Reisz. Producer: Leon Clore. Associate pro­ ducers: Tom Maschler, Geoffrey Helman. Screen­ play: Harold Pinter. Director of photography: Freddie Francis. Editor: John Bloom. Art director: Assheton Gorton. Sound: Ivan Sharrock. Cast: Meryl Streep (Sarah/Anna), Jeremy Irons (Charles/Mike). Hilton McRae (Sam), Emily Morgan (Mary), Charlotte Mitchell (Mrs Tranter). Lynsey Baxter (Ernestina), Jean Faulds (Cook), Peter Vaughan (Mr Freeman), Colin Jeavons (Vicar), Liz Smith (Mrs Fairley), Patience Collier (Mrs Poulteney). Production company: Juniper Films. Distributor: United Artists. 35mm.

123 mins. U.K. 1981.

Mad Max 2 Almos Maksay I liked Mad Max, and I like Mad Max 2.

Perhaps such a statement may not mean very much to the majority who obviously share the same response; some others, however, will recoil in horror and start thumping out the pile-driver phrases (“exploitationist farrago” , “violent right­ wing vengeance phantasy” , et al) that have been used to flatten the first film into critical non-existence and doubtless will be used again to do as much for the second.

The verbs “liked/like” , as used above, characterize an undifferentiated statement of primary response which requires evalua­ tion on at least two levels. On the first, an attempt has to be made to explain the per­ sonal basis for the acceptance of these films, which in my case relates largely to what I see as the successful sci-fi aspects of both the films. On the second level, the social basis for acceptance must be explored, and here one must take a c c o u n t o f th e e sta b lish e d

status of at least the first film as a mani­ festation of mass culture. On this level, I do not discriminate my reactions from those of a mass audience: I am fascinated by these films because of the vicarious experience that they provide, of an unmatched realism and intensity.

As will be clear by now, I find it difficult to separate the two films and would prefer to discuss them as parts of an integrated unity.

This may lead to some complications, but I hope that it will become apparent that it is the second film which provides the site where the two approaches delineated above intersect.

First, to deal with my personal response, something which can be differentiated from the criteria that support the mass appeal of these films, I find that I am strongly reminded of some of the writing of William Burroughs when I look at these films, at least those works of his that are convention­ ally described as sci-fi. In an attempt to pin­ point this reaction, I’ve been reading Port o f Saints, the latest of Burroughs’ works to appear in Australia. The writing displays a degree of alienation between the human subject and his imagination on the one hand, but also between the sentient being and his senses on the other. This alienation leads to a polarization into fiercely conflicting opposites developing into a crisis of mad­ ness and violence. A passage such as the one below illustrates some of these things: “That host withered and dropped like flies in flytox. The Blue Mongoose danced in for the kill and the way back was blocked by the Exterminator. Dazed survivors stumbled about in a pile of corpses from Los Alamos to Illinois as wave after wave of invaders swept down from the Bering Straits and up from the Mexican border destroying every vestige of the American nightmare, levelling the hideous cities and slaughtering the surviving Norms like cattle with the aftosa. Anyone who used the words RIGHT and WRONG was IMMEDIATELY KILLED. The Norms were then ploughed under for fertilizer.”

The fusing of madness and violence may not be confined to our age or civilization, but it seems as if the rediscovery of this link could be regarded as one of the monu­ mental creative acts of our time. The above passage is permeated by this pairing and, al­ though the verbal description does not hint at the kind of landscape that would provide an appropriate setting for the action to take place, can one imagine anything more fitting than the locations chosen for the two M a d M a x films and photographed with such care?

The thing that struck me about the first film was the skill with which the camera was used to evoke exactly the right setting. I know the country between Melbourne and G e e lo n g

f a i r ly

w e ll a n d

I w a s a m a z e d to

Mad Max 2

Doctors and Nurses

The last image of Max, not “yet a hero figure; he has not yet identified his quest; he has not universalized his struggle’’. M a d M a x 2 . recognize locations that were familiar, photographed at a certain time in a certain season to give an exact cinematic analogue of established conventions of color and per­ spective in sci-fi illustration. This aspect is handled with as much skill in the second film, to achieve a surface authenticity sup­ ported by the carefully-controlled connota­ tions of the image. It is worth referring back to the interviews with Byron Kennedy and George Miller in Cinema Papers' to note the reasons — for instance, the choice of format, as well as the tribute paid to the Colorfilm laboratory for its work. Interestingly, the second film stayed with the same laboratory.

The other aspect of the choice of a sci-fi setting is that it allows the films to be grafted on to a theme that is well established in the sci-fi genre: the thematic preoccupations around which the narratives of the two films are constructed can, therefore, simply be alluded to, not needing further development or elaboration in the films themselves. The filmmakers, thereby, are freed to con­ centrate on their main concern: to produce a visual spectacle involving cars, speed and nightmarish smash-ups.

The theme alluded to in the M a d M a x films is the advent of a new dark age: with the decay of modern technological civiliza­ tion, man has entered a time analogous to periods of historical stagnation in the past.

During such times, resurgent barbarian elements, animated by primitive, primordial instincts and motivated by greed, are able to prey on the decaying culture, using the sophisticated technology available as a weapon against the culture itself. This bizarre mixture of elements, taken from a bleak past and a future-less future, negates any notions of progress, development, perfectability and produces a pessimistic maze from which no individual can escape.

In the two films, casting, costumes, props and make-up all contribute exceptionally well to achieve this total effect.

It will be interesting to see whether the second film will achieve as much success as the first, at the box-office as well as at specialized venues such as sci-fi film festivals. I am assuming that it will: M a d M a x 2 is sufficiently like the first film in that it repeats many of the successful patterns; yet it is different enough to be interestingly 1. Cinema Papers, No. 21, pp. 366-71.

new. There are important developments in plot and story, some of them admittedly rather incongruous, like the veritable deus ex machina in the form of an autogyro pilot (Bruce Spence). Perhaps Miller and Kennedy might even write a golden unicorn into the next episode that will surely come.

More seriously, though, with this second film, there is something like the quality of a saga that is starting to evolve. It is as if one is watching the structural growth of an enunciation from what in the first film could only be evaluated as an utterance. Perhaps it is even possible to conceive that in some distant decadent phase the action sequences will be almost totally pushed out of the films, or at least reduced to a kind of formal convention, leaving almost the entire film open for an effloration of story, plot and characterization. I suppose that such developments are already beginning to appear in an incipient form in such crazy interpolations as the incident with the razorsharp metal boomerang during the con­ frontation between the rival factions in M a d M a x 2 . Such things may be symptomatic of what might come, but, for the moment, the chase sequences are still there in massive doses.

In attempting to come to terms with the popular appeal of the films, the fast chase sequences must be given central place, since they constitute the dominant central core of the narrative. Everything leads to these violent outbursts of manic energy. The generalization that springs to mind is that we are all essentially thrill seekers. The trouble with this statement is that it is so much a truism and smacks too much of the universal to be of great significance in understanding what lies behind the response to these films.

One must look a little further to find the factor that marks these films as “culture specific” ; the answer is the car, .tne single most important artifact that plays a critical and determining role in people’s lifestyles. I don’t want to appear to challenge the importance of the television set; but a tele­ vision is not an artifact in the same sense as the car. Each of these objects determines the lives of people in out/ culture in quite different ways.

The thrills that the M a d M a x films purvey become “culture specific” because of the actual form that they take, revolving around the centrality of the car to culture. But more

than this, they also reveal the anxiety that is associated with the car, stemming from the various forms of violent death that this ubiquitous artifact has made possible. So, despite the sci-fi setting, the two films can make a claim to a form of hyper-realism not often seen on cinema screens, based on the careful documentation and faithful recon­ struction of the most horrifying aspects of our lives in and with cars. It is hardly poss­ ible to escape the anxiety because of the journalistic documentation of death on our roads through photography, the press and, of course, television.

Byron Kennedy, in the interview quoted previously, comments on how he and Miller did three months of very intensive radio locum work, an experience which provided a lot of anecdotes and stories for the film, because it brought them in contact with many road accident victims who had come through all kinds of frightening traumatic experiences. George Miller, in his interview, also makes the point that cars, and the violence and death associated with them, played a central part in his adolescent years.

This point hardly needs to be labored.

Recently in NSW, a petrol tanker driver’s legs had to be amputated to save him from the risk of incineration. The films recreate this reality, and the fears and anxieties associated with it: it is only the context within which the incidents are placed that is fictionalized.

The discussion of M a d M a x 2 could effec­ tively stop here: thrills are what it’s about and this is what it delivers. In fact, it is almost with a sense of unease that I venture further, but I should because the developing saga of M a d M a x must take account of its central character. He is not yet a hero figure; he has not yet identified his quest; he has not universalized his struggle. His outburst of homicidal violence in the first film is pro­ voked by a personal loss and is, therefore, a purging of that latent violence which is integral to every modern individual, deter­ mined as he is by the social, political, technological and historical forces that specify our culture. Instead of being a great hero, Max (Mel Gibson) can more correctly be characterized as the unexceptional individual caught at the centre of conflicting forces, a figure around whom all the important extremes in the fictionalized world of these films converge, but who

exercises no actual control over them.

In the first film, it is the dialectical clash of forces to which Max is subjected that pro­ duces the climactic release of energy, result­ ing in the consummation of the vengeance theme that becomes the central motivating impetus of the narrative. Max, therefore, is qualitatively different to the hero figures that dominate the S t a r W a r s saga, who can be seen to fit into the stereotypes linked to the psychoanalytical rebellion against patriarchy and who belong to the world of adolescence rather than adulthood.

Once the consummation of the vengeance theme is achieved, there is no possible road open to Max than the one that leads to the desert. This is the setting for M a d M a x 2 .

There are some curious aspects to the diegesis of this second film. I have already mentioned the autogyro pilot; there is also the dog and the feral child. The total repres­ sion of sexuality warrants a careful analysis, as does the curious sojourn on the mountain­ top overlooking the arena of action where the conflicting groups are competing for control of the fuel supply.

In fact, the crazy conflict that Max dis­ covers, and into which he intervenes, can be regarded as revolving around a reification of the capitalist supply-demand market relationship. As if to emphasize once more Max’s negative status as a hero, he does not intervene to break the deadlock that the situation has reached; he comes merely as one more consumer, interested solely to gain access to the source of supply. Yet in a countermovement that is advanced through a line of narration, Max is made to approach the mythic stature of a hero, especially toward the end of the film. The only awkwardness in all this arises because the identity of the narrator is kept hidden to the end of the film.

If the linking of madness and violence is one of the keys of the film, then perhaps we can posit the direction in which the con­ tinuing saga might develop. Lacan has said: “ . . . the being of man not only cannot be understood without madness, but it would not be the being of man if it did not carry madness within it as the limit of its liberty.”

The meaning of Max’s madness is violence. It is his ability to live and remain alive within the context of total violence that affirms his absolute commitment to liberty.

It might also be through violence that he is moving towards that limit point where mad­ ness and liberty are balanced.

Mad Max 2: Directed by: George Miller.

Producer: Byron Kennedy. Screenplay: Terry Hayes, George Miller, Brian Hannant. Director of photography: Dean Semler. Editors: Michael Chirgwin, David Stiven. Tim Wellburn. Art director: Graham Walker. Sound: Lloyd Carrick.

Composer: Brian May. Cast: Mel Gibson (Max), Bruce Spence (Gyro captain), Mike Preston (Pappagallo), Vernon Wells (Wez), Kjell Nilsson (Humungus), Emil Minty (Feral child), Max Phipps (Toadie), Syd Heyien (Curmudgeon), Virginia Hey (Warrior woman), Steve J. Spears (Mechanic). Production company: Kennedy Miller Entertainment. Distributor: Roadshow. 35mm. 94 mins. Australia. 1981.

Doctors and Nurses Debí Enker To rely on a film’s title and its cast as an indication of what to expect, would lead a potential viewer to believe that they were about to watch 91 minutes of a prepub­ escent exploration of sexuality; the modified version of show and tell. D o c t o r s an d N u r s e s ignores the allusion to that universal child­ hood game and heads squarely down the road of its more adult counterpart, the tele­ vision soap opera. While it is indeed a game that children play when they pretend to become the powerful, disciplinary figures that dominate their lives, it is simul­ taneously a film that owes its form, plot, narrative and characters to the more adult

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 75

Soundtrack Albums New Sound Tracks and Cast Recordings

—

-----------------------

Australian Film and Television School

Ǥ

Nosferatu $10,99; Cats (original London cast) $12.50; Marjorie M orningstar $11.99; Marry Me A Little (original Broadway cast, Stephen Sondheim) $12.99; Last Tango in Paris $10.99; Investigation of A Citizen Above Suspicion $12.99; Borsalino $13.99; Don’t Look Now $13.99; French Lieutenant’s Woman $11,99; New York New York $15.98.

Action!

in 1982

Mali Orders welcome; add $1.20 post/packing

------READINGS RECORDS & BOOKS------132d Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA. Telephone (03) 267 1885 We

are open

7

days a week

Take

Films, Videos, Books

As from 15th January 1982, I am no longer associated with Hedon Productions, the motion picture Stone, or Sandy Harbuti Enquiries about any of the above should be directed to: Hedon Productions, P.O. Box 666, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. (signed) David Hannay

&

Short Courses Catalogues & Course Guides Free from: Australian Film and Television School Open Program PO Box 126 2113 ph (02) 887 1666

The m ost talked about unseen film.

After 50 years Bunuel's surrealist masterpiece graduates from scandal to classic.

N E W H A R T D IF F U S IO N an d S H A R M IL L FILMS are h o n o u r e d to p resen t th e A u str a lia n P rem iere S e a so n s o f LUIS B U N U E L 's

W a n te d investors in documentary on life and works of Aboriginal artist Tirawala MBE. W ould consider co-production.

M orning Star Productions P.O. Box 439, Potts Point, N SW 2011 Phone: (02) 357 4194

"A part o f the surrealist heritage o f the tw entieth century — L ’A G E D 'O R can he understood more clearly today as Bunuel's spiritual autobiography. " — Andrew Sarris, VILLAGE VOICE. "A visual poem . . . Buñuel im pudently undercuts the m ost delicate foundations o f W estern culture." Annette Insdorf, NY TIMES. "The newest, funniest, m ost radical and exhilarating French ilm in to w n ." — Richard Corliss, SOHO NEWS.

FOOD FOR BUSINESS On-site film and television catering

"The m ovie is a w o rk o f un­ paralleled insolence — a vicious, fun n y, thoroughly undom esticated masterpiece. " — David Denby, NEW YORK MAGAZINE "The stinking chaos which Buñuel assembles under his magic baton is the sum total o f the madness o f hum an endeavours after 10,000 years o f civilisation. " — Henry Miller

Ca

FOOD FOR PLEASURE t e r in g

Production parties

------------------------- Brand new 35mm p rin t.-------------------------

F O O D F O R E V E R Y O C C A S IO N

SPECIAL FOUR WEEK SEASONS: M e lb o u r n e : V A L H A L L A , 21 6 V ic t o r ia S t , R ic h m o n d , F r o m

1 4 th to A p r i l 8 t h .

G le b e . F r o m

M arch

S y d n e y : V A L H A L L A , 166 G le b e P o in t R d ,

A p r il 10 th

to M a y 7 th .

N e w fa r m , B ris b a n e , F r o m

B ris b a n e : V A L H A L L A ,

M a r c h 5 th to M a r c h

11th .

Phone (0 2) 9 9 7 1 6 1 1 (0 2) 9 9 7 5 1 7 1

P .O . B o x 2 6 9 , N ew p o rt B each , 210 6

Doctors and Nurses

preoccupations of

T h e Y o u n g D o c to rs

and

G e n e r a l H o s p it a l.

Children have performed a variety of diverse functions in cinema. They have been the powerless, abused victims of adult values and whims in 40 0 B lo w s and S a b o t a g e , and the provocateurs that knowingly shatter the careful, fragile standards by which adults live in L o l i t a , P r e t t y B a b y and D e a t h in V e n ic e . They may be the instigators of adult action, or simply the unfortunate recipients of its force.

Their most familiar form is the pre­ cocious, seemingly independent and street­ wise role in a host of American films. P a p e r M o o n ’ s Addie Prey, Shirley Temple’s dimpled matchmaker in R e b e c c a o f S u n n y b ro o k

F arm ,

G e n t le m a n

P re fe r

B lo n d e s ’

husky-voiced millionaire Charles Spofford • I I I and Alice’s son Tommy in A l i c e D o e s n ’ t L iv e H e r e A n y m o r e : these are the brash, knowing, articulate kids who are effort­ lessly able to direct adults on to the right path. However, even these brazen children can ultimately be reduced to the person­ ification of responsibility for adults; the devices by which the narrative forces an adult to make particular decisions and act in a certain way, sometimes out of character, but generally with a token effort toward parental responsibility.

At the pinnacle of the spectrum rests the truly independent, resourceful child, whom the audience knows, and the hero belatedly finds, is worth his weight in gold — the feral child in M a d M a x 2 .

C hildren have also functioned as narrators, providing a unique perspective of the world of B a d la n d s and D a y s o f H e a v e n , simplifying and clearly stating the motiva­ tions and actions from their own point of view, yet eventually falling prey to the game of decision-making that is not their own.

They can become a device by which a film manipulates the emotions of its audience, highlighting the idiosyncratic nature of prevailing social customs by inflicting them on a defenceless child. In their naivete and responsiveness, they can also serve as examples, embracing the aliens in C lo s e E n c o u n t e r s o f T h e T h ir d K in d , or lovingly, responsibly caring for an invalid parent in S m a ll C h a n g e .

Although they have been millstones, mur­ derers, prostitutes, thieves and unwanted appendages, they have never been doctors and nurses. In this film, as in B u g s y M a l o n e , the only childlike attributes of the charac­ ters are their height and resonance of voice.

D o c t o r s an d N u r s e s duplicates the hack­ neyed format of “ a day in the life . . . ” In this case the hospital is the Royal Elizabeth and the day is Christmas Eve. The audience is invited to witness the trials and tribula­ tions of the patients and professionals at the hospital. The entire storyline and every character in the film could ostensibly have come directly from a television soap opera, some of them would even be quite at home in The In te rn s or H o s p it a l.

Although the most urgent and critical case tackled by the film is the removal of a splinter, all of the characters demonstrate a seriousness and dedication to their patients and to medical ethics that has made the pro­ fession one of the more revered bastions of any society. The film banks on the assump­ tion that if our overexposed professionals are of primary school age and their patients are adults, the fantasy of role reversal will, in itself, provide sufficient freshness and satire to sustain an audience.

The sequence of events, the interchange between the characters and the mandatory happy ending make no attempt to juggle the format or the content of the traditional hospital film. It simply relies on the aud­ iences’ familiarity with the cliches to intro­ duce and establish the characters, and, in keeping with the notion of fantasy, over­ looks any medical problem that could possibly result in permanent disability or death.

While the film has a great deal of charm, and an appeal to children and adults alike, the extent of its vision is a Utopia where children have the power and the knowledge to dominate adults and gently guide them on

Adult-childhood reversal: Mr X (Graeme Blundell), left, and Dr Bernard Christian (Brent Gowland'). Maurice Murphy’s Doctors and Nurses. and left with a useless sack of soybeans for to the right path. As the director Maurice Murphy maintains, in this film the children ~ his pains. Greed does not pay. The battle of the sexes, competently waged by Dr Mercia win rather than lose.' It is unfortunate that King (Rebecca Wigg), is fought and left they are bound to use the methods that so dangling by the wayside as her female col­ many adult veterans of the hospital saga leagues lament that they are more than have perfected, in order to succeed. simply the professional manifestations of Our day at Royal Elizabeth begins with “well-oiled life-saving equipment” . the arrival of an unconscious V.I.P., who On the sexual frontier, Belinda Sweetacre regains his presence of mind briefly to (Larissa. Burnett) sums up the score in a request a rare hamburger. He is the Pres­ fashion that would do credit to Marilyn ident of the United States, with three inept Monroe: “ A man chases a girl until she G-men in tow, who are partially concealed catches him.” The customary struggle is behind large black plastic sunglasses. A succinct introduction to the hospital staff enacted with the expected results: Dr King’s talent is recognized; the hardworking, shy follows, with each employee identified by the twin secures her man to the disappointment well-worn phrases of soap opera jargon: the of her flirtatious sister; and Sister Gray is diligent, highly-efficient Sister Mary Gray left to lament for her long-lost love with the (Sara Lambert), who secretly craves love but guarded respect of her workmates, but not finds only professional kudos; the platinum their affection. Only the bumbling psych­ blonde Sweetacre twins in love with the same iatrist, Dr Bernard Christian (Brent man; the talented, suave surgeon; and the Gowland), is denied his true love in the end. ubiquitous, well-meaning klutz intern, who The audience is shown the importance of falls over her own small feet at the slightest compassion and understanding in prefer­ excuse. Every character is instantly familiar ence to a bedpan and band-aid attitude to to an audience weaned on television.

The patients, all played by adults, are sim­ medicine. The derelict teaches the com­ placent, upwardly mobile Dr Juan Peron ilarly stereotyped: Ms Veuve Cliquot (June (Miguel Lopez) the meaning of trust and Salter), the blue rinse misanthrope complete mutual respect, while Sister Gray and Drs with matching poodle-bags of taxable King and Able (Jason Samuels) provide income and no heart; Mr Cody (Bert examples of dedicated professionalism while Newton), the derelict; Milligan (Andrew healing the sick.

McFarlane), the scar-faced criminal from Murphy’s preference for verbal humor is the wrong side of the tracks; Ms Permanent evident. While visual comedy requires Wave (Pamela Stephenson), the talented, tighter, more rigidly choreographed direc­ ageing child star who was cruelly denied a normal worm-eating, spider-catching child­ tion, Murphy has relied largely on the exchange of one-liners and witticisms, to hood; and the mandatory veteran of any selfmaximize spontaneity from his cast. respecting hospital, the amnesiac Mr X With the exception of the omnipresent (Graeme Blundell), the man with no name, food trolley, laden with jellies of every color no past and no future. and shape that is inadvertently sent career­ As the day continues, all of the expected ing down the corridor by the clumsy intern avenues of the plot are charted, played out and resolved. The derelict is redeemed by to deposit its contents on the deserving Ms astute diagnosis; the spinster Sister shows Cliquot, there is a relative absence of her heart of gold; the surgeon’s bravery is visually reliant humor. Ms Wave rests regally in her bed, enshrined in a cloud of tested and proved as is that of the competent colored tulle and gravely informs us that in Nurse Jones (Ruxana Sachinwalla) who her latest feature, Charlie’s M u m , she is to tackles and wins the trust of Prisoner Milligan. Finally the delicate operation is play the Queen.

She arrives at Royal Elizabeth with a successfully performed on the President, and sprained ankle, but the ever-increasing size everyone lives happily and healthily ever of the bandage on her foot assures us that after. intern Isobel Jones (Mary Anne Davidson) There are no surprise twists, no loose ends, no chronically-ill patients and no reve­ has succeeded in breaking it. Mr Gleeson (Terry Bader), the self-abuse patient, whose lations. The concept of role reversal, the predicament has been borrowed from Catch imaginary world where children rule and guide adults, is relied upon to provide 22's unfortunate Soldier in White, is encased from top to toe in yards of bandages, with sufficient entertainment to compensate for his arms propped at precarious angles to his the lack of enterprise of the plot. body. He spends most of the film hazard­ Even the issues raised by the narrative ously teetering down corridors or grunting through the interaction of its characters and moaning at appropriate intervals from would do T h e Y o u n g D o c t o r s proud. his bed.

Doctors who are unsympathetic to the plight Most of the film’s humor is derived from of their patients are forced to concede and verbal exchanges between the doctors and repent. The dollar-chasing director of Royal nurses, and the constant drone of the public Elizabeth, a lisping knight with braces and address system, modelled on M*A*S*H’s an enormous appetite for Minties, is foiled 4077 Korean base. It is this verbal humor that provides an adult viewer with a few 1. Cinema Papers, No. 35, pp. 444-47. chuckles beyond the amusement of watching

a group of talented children and their motley assortment of adult patients playing hospital. The formidable Ms Cliquot is described before her entrance as a reluctant philanthropist, a woman with a taxation percentage like a humidity reading in Bang­ kok. The adults in the audience giggle know­ ingly. Ms Cliquot responds with studied contempt for the hospital’s board of management. She flings a single, scathing glance at their names and honorary pos­ itions, and declares, “ You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.”

The public address system that regularly punctuates the film dredges from audience memory many of the famed medical prac­ titioners of literary and cinematic history.

While Dr Finley’s missing casebook is located. Dr Zhivago reports to theatre-and D r Frankenstein to spare-parts surgery, the hospital boasts the presence of Drs Who, Jekyll and even the amiable alien Spock, who are at various times summoned to suitable areas of the hospital to start duty. It is the existence and continual usage of the public address system that most concisely sums up the film’s approach to comedy.

On one level, the film invites children to enter a make-believe world, where they are the professionals, with the authority to make decisions that they can impose on adults.

The adults in the audience are led to chuckle about all of the films and television shows in their past that have created different fantasies featuring doctors.

Murphy’s contention that he would be embarrassed if he had made a film that could be categorized as a “Children’s Film” is most relevant in terms of the verbal humor, because it does expect and allow for the presence of adults in the audience. It even provides a special type of humor for their benefit, and enjoyment.

Similarly, a narrative in which all of the familiar stereotypes, complete with wellobserved and satirized mannerisms, have been assumed by a cast of children breathes some life into the banal storyline. The film seems refreshing, if totally predictable.

However, it might be sufficient for the children in the audience to lose themselves in these dreams of power over wayward adults; but, for an adult, seeing the old hospital soapie holds no surprises.

The film’s premise is to rely on the role reversal to sustain the action throughout the film. Its progress towards the final climax — Milligan’s capture of the President, Milli­ gan’s surrender to Nurse Jones and the sub­ sequent operation to remove the President’s splinter — is too faithfully reliant on its characters plodding toward their familiar, predestined goals. For a concept that reverses the role structure of the world, one would expect a more adventurous attitude to the narrative; a few unexpected twists of the plot to further establish its premise. Why can’t the spinster Sister fall madly in love and live happily ever after?

While the film.successfully establishes the structure that Murphy desired — a situa­ tion where children are not the manipulated victims of adult discipline and whim, where the children win rather than lose — the winners should not necessarily be bound to the strategies perfected by their soap opera predecessors. Even in terms of the film’s appeal to the fantasies of children, a certain delight comes with the unpredictable; the character who does not succumb to a pre­ determined destiny, and the incident that deftly erodes the carefully-constructed framework.

An effective fantasy ventures on to newground and supplies its own definitions and limitations. It is not bound to work through the structure established by years of G e n e r a l Hospital. It is more effective to establish the familiar pattern and then to toy with it, rather than to accept its perimeters from the outset. It would have resulted in a more sustained, more completely entertaining film, rather than simply an appealing one.

The adult should not always be allowed to sit by and see the patterns and the characters that they feel comfortable with, going

Concluded on p.83 CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 77

Journey Down Sunset Boulevard: The Films Of Billy Wilder Neil Sinyard and Adrian Turner BCW Publishing Limited, Ryde, Isle of Wight, Great Britain, 1979

Tom Ryan

th e se n sib ility th e y a r e a b le to id en tify th ro u g h th em : “ A c y n i c w o u l d a d m i t n o c h a n g e in h u m a n n a tu re for th e b e tte r. A f u n d a m e n t a l e l e m e n t in W i l d e r ’s s t r u c t u r e s is t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f re d em p tio n , a m a tu rin g o f th e hero to w ard s a m o re h u m a n e o u tlo o k .”

T h e r e are tim e s w hen th eir ow n r e a d in g s se e m to c o n tr a d ic t th is in ­ t r o d u c t o r y c l a i m , m o s t n o t a b l y in t h e i r e x c e l l e n t c o m m e n t a r y o n The Fortune Cookie ( 1 9 6 6 ) . N o t i n g t h a t “ t h e v a l u e s o f A m e ric a n cap italism p ro v id e th e ideological fra m e o f referen ce for th e film ” , they observe th a t th e kind o f re la tio n s h ip stru c tu re d b e tw ee n th e sh y ster, W illie (W a lte r M a t th a u ) , a n d t h e a u d i e n c e is s u c h t h a t “ g i v e n a s o c i e t y in w h i c h e v e r y o n e seem s m istru stfu l a n d on th e m ak e , W i l d e r a s k s i f it is r e a l l y b e t t e r t o r e s ig n in m o r a l i s t i c d e s p a i r o r m a n o e u v r e a situ a tio n f ro m w ith in to o n e ’s o w n a d v a n t a g e a n d p u r p o s e . ” The Fortune Cookie a l l o w s f o r n o p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n and s u r v i v a l , a n d so c o n f r o n t s its a u d i e n c e w i t h a to ta lly u n p a la ta b le set o f o p tio n s . It w o u ld be difficu lt to d e sc rib e th e s e n ­ s i b i li t y l a i d o u t t h r o u g h t h i s f i lm a s o th er th a n “ c y n ic al” .

Y e t, finally, t h e r e s e e m s to b e little p o in t to th is k in d o f d e b a te . T h e label, “ c y n i c a l ” , s e e m s t o c a r r y l ess o f a p e j o r a t i v e w e i g h t t o d a y t h a n it d i d w h e n S a r d s ’ c o m m e n t a r y a p p e a r e d in 19 6 8 . I n t h e c o n t e x t o f f i lm c r i t i c i s m o f t h e 1 9 8 0 s, w h o s e c u r r e n c y is l ess a q u e s ­ t i o n o f t h e “ b r e a d t h o f t h e A r t i s t ’s v i­ sion o f M a n ” a n d m o r e o n e o f s tr u c tu r e a n d ideology, th e fo re g ro u n d in g o f such a co n cern seem s p re tty m u ch beside the p o i n t .1 R e g a r d le s s o f th e k in d o f v a lu e o n e m ig h t w a n t to give to th e a tt i tu d e s e s p o u s e d t o w a r d s h u m a n b e h a v i o u r in W i l d e r ’s f i lm s , m a n y o f t h e m ( a n d The Fortune Cookie is n o e x c e p t i o n ) b e c o m e q u i t e e x t r a o r d i n a r y in t h e c o n ­ text o f th e A m e ric a n c in e m a o f the p e r i o d f o r t h e w a y s in w h i c h t h e y m a n a g e to go a g ain st th e g ra in , for th e k in d s o f p ro v o c a tiv e re la tio n s h ip s th ey bu ild w ith th e ir view ers.

Journey Down Sunset Boulevard is co n ce rn ed to defen d W ild e r as the A r t i s t g iving a n a e s th e tic e x p r e s s io n to a b itte r-e d g e d r o m a n tic is m . Its a u te u rist f o u n d a t i o n s c o n v i n c i n g l y i d e n t i f y a re c u rre n t set o f th e m a tic s acro ss W i l d e r ’s w o r k ( i n c l u d i n g h i s e f f o r t s as a sc rip tw rite r for o th e r d irec to rs)

B illy W i l d e r ’s v i t a l w i t h a s e a r n e d him a p ro m in e n t place a m o n g th o se w h o s e b i t i n g s a t i r e is n u r t u r e d b y a n A m e ric a n e n v iro n m e n t an d directed at its m o r e s . H i s f i lm s , o r a l a r g e n u m b e r o f t h e m , s p a rk le w ith a flu rry o f e v o c a tiv e o n e -lin e rs d e liv e re d a t th e k i n d o f s p e e d t h a t s u g g e s t s t h e r e is n o tom orrow .

T h e c o m m u n ist, O tto (H o rst B uch­ h olz), b e f o r e his c o n v e r s io n th r o u g h l o v e in One, Two, Three ( 1 9 6 1 ) , tel l s t h e C o c a - C o la im p erialist, M acN am ara ( J a m e s C a g n e y ) , s t a t i o n e d in W e s t B e r li n : “ C a p i t a l i s m is l i k e a d e a d h e r r ­ i n g in t h e m o o n l i g h t : it s h i n e s b u t it s tin k s .” T h e n , m a n ip u la te d in to a c h an g e o f c o stu m e , th o u g h n o t yet a tti­ t u d e , a h a l f - d r e s s e d O t t o ’s d e f i a n t c ry : “ I ’ll s t a r t a w o r k e r s ’ r e v o l t ” , h a s t o y i e l d in t h e b a t t l e o f w i t s t o M a c N a m a r a ’s p r e c i s e r e t o r t , “ P u t y o u r p a n t s o n , S p a r t a c u s . ” M a c N a m a r a ’s subsequent id en tific atio n o f th e A m e r ic a n c o n trib u tio n to w o rld h isto ry s o m e w h a t u n d e r m i n e s th e d e b a t e w ith an e x e m p la ry piece o f c o u n te r ­ p ro d u ctiv ity : “ A n y w o rld th a t can p ro d u c e W illia m S h a k e sp e a re , th e T aj M a h a l a n d s t r i p e d t o o t h p a s t e c a n ’t b e all b a d . ” T h e w orld o f journ alists re p resen ted in Ace in the Hole ( 1 9 5 1 ) a n d The Front Page ( 1 9 7 4 ) s i m i l a r l y p r o v i d e s a s i t e f o r i r r e v e r e n c e . T a t u m ( K i r k D o u g l a s ) , in t h e f o r m e r film , b a r k s c y n i c a l l y a t h is o ccu p a tio n : “ T o m o rro w t h i s ’ll b e y e s t e r d a y ’s p a p e r a n d t h e y ’ll w r a p a fish in i t . ” A n d m o r e t h a n 2 0 y e a r s l a t e r , t h e t o n e h a s n ’t c h a n g e d a s H i l d y ( J a c k L e m m o n ) in d ic ts th e e m p tin e s s o f h is e d i t o r ’s p r i o r i t i e s : “ T h e o n l y t i m e y o u e v e r g e t it u p is w h e n y o u p u t t h e p a p e r to b e d .”

T h o s e la c k in g th is k in d o f ve rb al flo u rish a re u n lik e ly to su rv iv e th e k in d o f d isc o m fitu re s w hich p e rv a d e th ese a n d o th e r s o f th e film s w r itte n a n d 1. Though I should add that it’s far more in­ d ir e c te d by W ild e r. P o w e r b e lo n g s to teresting than the demand, repeatedly uttered in th o s e w h o k e ep th e ir w its a b o u t th e m , film reviews (most notably those in The Age), reg ard less of w h at o th er p ersonal that films should somehow ascribe to “the real” , c h a r a c t e r i s ti c s th e y h a v e b e en given. which is rather like picking your nose in the midst of an ecstatic coition, if you catch my T h a t w hich d e te rm in e s a c h a r a c te r drift. re a lly h a s n o w h e re to g o b u t d o w n for t h e c o u n t is t h e o b s e r v a t i o n , “ H e ’s g o t no sense o f h u m o r ” , th e a p p lic atio n o f it t o t h e G e r m a n s p y in t h e p r i s o n e r - o f w a r c a m p d u rin g th e clo sin g m o m e n t s o f Stalag 17 ( 1 9 5 3 ) b e i n g s o a p ­ p r o p r i a t e t h a t o n e is f o r c e d t o w o n d e r h o w h e e s c a p e d d e t e c t i o n b e y o n d h is f i r s t a p p e a r a n c e in t h e f i lm .

I t is p r o b a b l y t h i s e l e m e n t in W i l d e r ’s w o r k w h i c h h a s led t o it b e i n g l a b e l l e d a s “ c y n i c a l ” . I n h i s b o o k , The American Cinema , A n d r e w S a r r i s i n ­ clu d es W ild e r a m o n g th o s e d ire c to rs w h o s e w o r k is a d j u d g e d a s c o n t a i n i n g “ less t h a n m e e t s t h e e y e ” , i n t r o d u c i n g h is n o t e o n t h e d i r e c t o r w i t h t h e c u r i o u s c o m m e n t t h a t “ B illy W i l d e r is t o o c y n ic a l to b e lie v e e v e n his o w n c y n ic ism .” N eil S in y a rd an d A d r i a n r T u r n e r ’s b o o k m i g h t b e s e e n a s a n e x ­ t e n d e d a t t e m p t t o c o u n t e r t h i s v i e w as, via a d e ta ile d a n a ly s is o f e a c h o f W i l d e r ’s f i l m s , t h e y e x p l o r e m o r e f u l ly

78 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

th ro u g h th e film s’ v a rio u s, a n d o ften u n e a s y , s h i f t s in m o o d a n d t o n e . I t is c o n s t a n t l y i l l u m i n a t i n g w i t h its p e r c e p ­ tio n s a b o u t th e d e ta ils o f in d iv id u al film s a n d a b o u t th e c o n n e c tio n s b e t w e e n f i l m s , p o i n t i n g t o t h e w a y s in w hich tra its lin k ed to m in o r c h a r a c te rs in o n e f i l m a r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r s f o r d e v e l o p m e n t in a n o t h e r , a n d u se fu lly in itia tin g a d isc u ssio n o f t h e f u n c t i o n o f W i l d e r ’s “ r e t i c e n t sh o o tin g style” .

T h e b o o k is f l u e n t l y w r i t t e n a n d , f o r th is r e a d e r a t lea st, p r o v id e d th e m o s t p ro d u c tiv e re ad o f any b o o k a b o u t a d i r e c to r a n d his film s fo r a c o n s i d e r a b le t i m e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , it h a s i t s l i m i t a ­ tio n s, o f th e k in d w hich seem an in ­ e v i t a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e o f its a u t e u r i s t m e t h o d o l o g y . T o o o f t e n it r e v e a l s its esse n tia l p u r p o s e as e u lo g y r a t h e r th a n analysis: “ W i l d e r ’s d i s m i s s i v e c o m m e n t s o n r e c e n t f i l m s l i k e The Exorcist a n d Shampoo t e s t i f y e l o q u e n t l y e n o u g h to his c o n te m p t fo r t h o s e w h o seek to shock for th e sa k e o f c o m m e rc ia l b o o n s. F ilm s lik e th es e a re a cts o f v io latio n a g a in st th e c in e m a a n d not, l i k e W i l d e r ’s, a c t s t o w a r d s e n h a n c i n g a n d l ib e r a tin g its p o t e n t i a l . ” W h a t kind o f rh e to rica l g o b b led y g o o k is t h is ? G o o d t a s t e sp i l ls o v e r i n t o p u r ita n is m a n d b e c o m e s n o t sim p ly an a ttitu d e b u t a decree, p ro h ib itio n seeks to disg u ise itself as lib e ratio n , a n d th e c i n e m a ( b y w a y o f a h a n d y m e t a p h o r ) is id en tified as a n E ve n o t to b e u n d o n e by all t h o s e m o n e y - g r u b b i n g A d a m s . A d ­ m i r a t i o n f o r t h e w o r k o f a d i r e c t o r is o n e t h in g — a n d , to b e fa ir, I c a n t h in k o f n o disapproving b o o k - l e n g t h s t u d y of a d irec to r — b u t the kind o f c eleb ra ­ tio n im p lied h e re n eed s to b e tr e a te d w ith m o r e t h a n su sp ic io n .

S i n y a r d a n d T u r n e r ’s c o m m i t m e n t t o W ild e r does not, how ever, ex clu d e the expression o f s o m e re serv a tio n s a b o u t s e v e r a l o f h is f i lm s : t h e l a s t c h a p t e r is e n title d , a fte r S h e rlo c k H o l m e s ’ u n d e r ­ s t a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n t o Q u e e n V i c t o r i a in

The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes. “ W e A ll H a v e O u r . O c c a s io n a l F a ilu re s.”

T h e p ro b lem , then, seem s to have l ess t o d o w i t h t h e a u t h o r s ’ d e c l a r e d a d m ira tio n for W ild e r a n d th e ra re q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f it, a n d m o r e w i t h t h e w a y in w h i c h it u n d e r w r i t e s t h e t h r u s t o f th e b o o k , m a k in g W ild e r th e focal po in t o f th e en terp rise, an d th u s re d u c ­ i n g its c o m m e n t a r y t o t h e t h e m a t i c p a r a m e t e r s p r e s c r i b e d a s W i l d e r ’s re c u rre n t co n cern s. T h ese c o n ce rn s, as I h a v e e n d e a v o r e d to su g g e st, a re illu­ m in a tin g a n d they a re p u rsu e d th ro u g h th e 27 film s e x a m i n e d a t le n g th w ith an e x e m p l a r y r i g o r a n d in a m o s t a c c e s s i ­ ble fa s h io n , b u t by t h e i r v e ry n a t u r e th ey a r e lim itin g . T h e a u th o r s se e m to c o n c e d e t h i s ( t h o u g h t h e y d o n ’t d e c l a r e it a s l i m i t i n g ) w h e n t h e y n o t e in t h e i r i n ­ t r o d u c t i o n t h a t t h e i r s “ is n o t t h e o n l y w a y o f a p p r o a c h i n g t h e s e f i l m s b u t it is . . . a v a lid o n e ” .

T h e q u e s t i o n o f i d e o l o g y in r e l a t i o n t o W i l d e r ’s f i l m s is d e a l t w i t h a s i f it is read ily a v a ila b le to b e re ad o ff th e s u r ­ f a c e o f t h e f i l m s — in t e r m s o f t h e E u r o p e / U . S . o p p o s itio n s to w h ic h W i l d e r s e e m s t o r e t u r n r e p e a t e d l y , in th e o v e r tly c ritic a l p o s itio n s his film s s e e m t o t a k e o n t h e U . S . , a n d in t h e w a y s in w h i c h h i s n a r r a t i v e s a r e o f t e n a t p ain s to c o u n te r p a r tic u la r g e n eric e x ­ p e ctatio n s — r a th e r th a n u n d e rly in g t h e s e , in t h e a s s u m p t i o n s w h i c h c o n t r o l t h e n a r r a t i v e f l o w , in t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s e x u a l d i f f e r e n c e , a n d in t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e a u d i e n c e ’s p o s i t i o n re g ard in g th e tone, th e c o u rse o f events a n d th e c h a ra c te rs on th e screen.

Book Reviews

T h u s , in t h e i r a n a l y s i s o f t h e e x t r a ­ o r d i n a r y Ace in the Hole ( a l s o k n o w n a s The Big Carnival), t h e y d i l i g e n t l y o u t ­ l i n e t h e t h e m a t i c s t r u c t u r e o f t h e f ilm a n d a c c u ra te ly id en tify th e criticism d i r e c t e d b y it a t t h e a v a r i c i o u s v i e w e r , h u n g r y fo r s e n s a tio n a n d h o p in g for blo o d , b u t ig n o re th e r a th e r d u b io u s tr e a tm e n t d e a lt o u t to th e c h a ra c te r o f L o r r a i n e M i n o s a ( J a n S te rlin g ). In passing, they m en tio n th a t “ T a t u m is p r o b a b l y W i l d e r ’s m o s t e x tre m e p o rtrait o f avarice and a m ­ b itio n , b u t th e m a jo r th ru s t o f W i l d e r ’s s c o r n is d i r e c t e d n o t a t h i m b u t a t L e o ’s w i f e L o r r a i n e . . b ut th e im p lica tio n s o f th a t o b se rv atio n f o r t h e f i l m ’s i d e o l o g i c a l s t a t u s a r e ig n o red .

U l t i m a t e l y T a t u m is, a t l e a s t p a r ­ t i a l l y , r e d e e m e d b y a c o n f e s s i o n o f h is g u i l t , a n d h is c u l p a b i l i t y is r e d u c e d b y t h e w a y h e is d e p i c t e d a s y e t a n o t h e r v i c t i m in t h e c o m p l e x o f n e e d s a n d a m ­ bitio n s th a t c o n stitu te th e A m e ric a n ta p e s tr y o f m ala ise. B u t no such s y m ­ p a t h y o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g is e n c o u r a g e d for th e c o ld -h e a rte d L o rra in e , her c h a ra c te r re m a in in g u n re p e n ta n t and m o rally doo m ed .

S in y a rd an d T u r n e r go even fu rth er t h a n W i l d e r , s i t u a t i n g L o r r a i n e ’s s t a b ­ b i n g o f T a t u m after h e r h u s b a n d L e o ’s d e a t h ( w h e n , in f a c t , it p r e c e d e s it) a n d a t t r i b u t i n g t o h e r , a l o n g w i t h t h e im m e d ia te physical th re a t posed by a h o stile T a t u m , th e m o tiv e t h a t sh e h as b een “ fo rced to c o n f ro n t th eir m u tu a l i n v o l v e m e n t in L e o ’s d e a t h ” .

T h e i n a c c u r a c y h e r e is o n e t h a t c o u l d b e passed over as an a b e rra tio n (and I s h o u l d a d d t h a t t h e b o o k is g e n e r a l l y i m p r e s s i v e f o r t h e a c c u r a c y o f its d e t a i l s ) , w e r e it n o t t h a t it u n d e r l i n e s t h e w a y in w h i c h its a u t h o r s d e a l w i t h t h e i d e o l o g y e m b o d i e d in t h e f i l m s so u n p r o b l e m a t i c a l l y . I d o u b t it w o u l d h a v e o c c u r r e d h a d t h e b o o k ’s p r o j e c t b e e n l ess r e v e r e n t t o W i l d e r t h e A r t i s t a n d th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f his t h e m a ti c s , a n d m o r e q u e s tio n in g o f t h e film s a n d t h e i r i d e o l o g i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s . Ace in the Hole is a r e m a r k a b l e f i l m , a s S i n y a r d a n d T u r n e r d e m o n s t r a t e s o e f f e c ti v e ly ; b u t t h e r e is m o r e t h a t c o u l d , a n d s h o u l d , h a v e b e e n s a i d a b o u t it.

A sim ilar p o in t can be m a d e a b o u t t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f Irma La Douce ( 1 9 6 3 ) w h e re th e in terests o f h o m o g e n e ity seem to p ro h ib it a th o ro u g h , d e ta ch e d a n a ly sis o f a p a r ti c u l a r case. T o illus­ t r a t e a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f t h e w a y s in w hich “ a W ild e r h e ro tra d itio n a lly h as to e n d u r e e x tr e m e in d ig n itie s to a rriv e a t w h a t he w a n ts” , the c o m m e n ta ry observes th at, “ th e re la tio n sh ip w hich d evelops betw een N e s t o r (Ja c k L e m m o n ) an d I r m a ( S h i r l e y M a c L a i n e ) is e f f e c ­ tiv e ly a p r o c e s s o f m a k i n g h im m o r e m a s c u l i n e , n o t s i m p l y in t h e s e n s e o f s e x u a l e x p e r i e n c e b u t in t h e i n ­ c rea sin g ly p ro te c tiv e a ttitu d e he t a k e s t o w a r d s h e r a n d his in s is te n c e on su p p o rtin g her ra th e r th an allo w ­ ing h e r to s u p p o r t h i m . ” T h e v i e w o f f e r e d h e r e is b y n o m e a n s a n in a c c u ra te o ne, b u t th e e x p o sitio n a r o u n d it h a s n o t h i n g t o s a y a b o u t t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e t e r m s o f N e s t o r ’s e d u c a t i o n i n t o h i s se x r o l e f o r a n u n d e r ­ sta n d in g o f th e deeply c o n serv ativ e n a tu r e o f th e sexual id eo lo g y w hich in­ f o r m s ( o r , r a t h e r , m i s i n f o r m s ) t h e f i lm .

L est I be seen, th ro u g h th ese tw o e x ­ a m p le s, o f in d u lg in g th e view th a t W i l d e r ’s f i l m s a r e e i t h e r n a s t y o r n a i v e in t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f s e x u a l d i f ­ ference, an a b b re v ia te d m e n tio n o f tw o fu rth er ex am p les co m p lica te s and c o n ­ tra d ic ts such a ch arg e.

T h e c e n t r a l i n t e r e s t h e r e o f Wilder’s f i r s t film a s d i r e c t o r , The Major and the Minor ( 1 9 4 2 ) , lies in its p l a y f u l n e s s w i t h ro les, w ith rep resen tatio n s.

The d ev elo p m en t o f th e re la tio n s h ip b e t w e e n P h i l l i p ( R a y M i l l a n d ) and S u san (G in g er R ogers), th e latter h a v ­ ing d is g u is e d h e rself, fo r r e a s o n s to o c o m p l i c a t e d t o o u t l i n e in t h i s c o n t e x t , a s a t e a s i n g , p i g - t a i l e d 1 2 y e a r - o l d , can b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s “ i n n o c e n t ” in t h e t e r m s in w h i c h S i n y a r d a n d T u r n e r d e a l w i t h it. H o w e v e r , w h a t t h e f i lm c a n a l s o b e se e n t o e v o k e is l es s t h e i r “ i d e a l i z e d visio n ” th a n a p r e -N a b o k o v c o n fro n ta ­ tio n w ith a p a r tic u la r m a le fa n ta sy , lea d in g t h e v i e w e r t o w a r d s an aw aren ess o f one of the c o n trad ictio n s t h a t lies a t t h e h e a r t o f o u r r e p r e s e n t a ­ tio n s o f ch ild ren .

C e r t a i n l y t h e f i lm h a s its s a f e t y - v a l v e — t h e v i e w e r k n o w s S u s a n is n o c h i l d a n d t h u s t h a t P h i l l i p i s n ’t r e a l l y s t r u g ­ g l i n g w i t h p a e d o p h i l i a c d e s i r e — b u t in the c o n te x t o f H o lly w o o d codes o f decency, th e ab sen ce o f w h a t D ouglas S irk h a s so ap tly •d escrib ed as an “ e m e rg e n c y e x it” fo r th e view er w o u ld h a v e p r e v e n t e d t h e f i lm m o v i n g f a r b e y o n d a n o th e r a b an d o n e d screenplay.

T h e w orking th ro u g h o f the O edipal p a t t e r n in The Apartment2 s h a t t e r s a n y illusion t h a t th e t r e a t m e n t o f se x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s in ‘t h e f i l m s o f B illy W ild e r ’ can be sa tisfac to rily d esig n ated a cc o rd in g to so m e c onsistent schem e.

F o r , i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e , The Apartment c a n b e s i n g l e d o u t a s t h e o n e film d ire c te d

by W ild e r w h ich s i m u l t a n e o u s l y p r o d u c e s and c r i t i c i z e s a p a t r i a r c h a l s t r u c t u r e (it is a l s o t h e r e , b u t l es s fu lly w o r k e d t h r o u g h in Avanti, 1 9 7 2 ), its p a r t i c u l a r n a r r a t i v e i n e x t r i c ­ a b ly b in d in g to g e th e r c o m m e rc e , p o w e r a n d sex u ality .

S h e l d r a k e ( F r e d M a c M u r r a y ) is t h e D i r e c t o r o f P e r s o n n e l in t h e o f f i c e w hich p r o v id e s th e se ttin g fo r a m a j o r p a r t o f t h e f i l m . H e is t h e f i l m ’s m o s t p o w e r f u l figure: th e b o ss , t h e r e p r e s e n ­ t a t i v e o f a u t h o r i t y , ‘t h e f a t h e r ’. F r a n ( S h i r l e y M a c L a i n e ) is h is m i s t r e s s , t h e w o m a n w h o w o r k s t h e lift in t h e b u i l d i n g a n d a f t e r w h o m all t h e l e s s e r m a le e x ec u tiv e s d e c la re th e ir lust, b u t w h o is u n t o u c h a b l e b y v i r t u e o f t h e f a c t t h a t s h e “ b e l o n g s t o ” , is p o s s e s s e d b y , t h e b o s s , ‘t h e f a t h e r ’, a n d w h o , t h u s , a c ­ c o r d i n g t o h e r p l a c e in t h e p a t t e r n , s y m ­ b o l i c a l l y b e c o m e s ‘t h e m o t h e r ’.

B a x t e r ( J a c k L e m m o n ) is a n a m ­ b itio u s w o r k e r on a lo w e r floor, se e k in g t h e k e y t o t h e e x e c u t i v e w a s h r o o m , h is d e s ire fo r F ra n s u b lim a te d in to frie n d s h ip by his fe ars o f se x u a l in a d e ­ q u a c y ( l i n k e d w i t h h is i n f e r i o r p r o f e s ­ sio n a l s ta tu s ) a n d by his d is c o v e ry t h a t s h e “ b e l o n g s t o ” S h e l d r a k e , h is s y m ­ b o l i c s t a t u s a s ‘ the s o n ’ e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h his p riv ile g ed r e la tio n s w ith F ra n an d S h e ld rak e . T h e latter tak es B a x te r on as his c h a r g e as r e w a r d fo r a c c e s s t o t h e k e y t o B a x t e r ’s a p a r t m e n t w h e r e h e p u r s u e s his r e la tio n s h ip w ith F r a n in s e c r e t . H e t h u s p r o v i d e s B a x t e r w ith a ro u te to p r o m o ti o n a n d , ul­ tim a te ly , w ith th e k ey to th e e x ec u tiv e w a s h ro o m , p o ssessio n o f w hich re n d ers h im p o w erfu l, p ro fessio n ally a n d sex ­ u a ll y .

B a x t e r ’s e v e n t u a l r e j e c t i o n o f t h e k e y in e f f e c t r e p r e s e n t s a s y m b o l i c c a s t r a ­ tio n w ith in th e p a tr ia r c h a l o rd e r, a r e f u s a l o f t h e p o w e r a c c o r d e d t o ‘t h e f a t h e r ’ w i t h i n it. T h e p e r v a s i v e c o n ­ t i n u i t y o f t h a t o r d e r is s i g n a l l e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e f i l m b y i ts r o m a n t i c m u sic th e m e , w h ich first a p p e a rs

2. I am indebted to a film study class at Melbourne State College, and to Henry Vhynal in par­ ticular, for initiating this reading of the film.

Is it ‘‘really better to resign in moralistic despair or manoeuvre a situation from within to one’s own advantage?” Gloria Swanson and William Holden in Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard.

b e h i n d t h e o p e n i n g c r e d i t s b u t w h i c h is situ a te d la te r as an icon fo r th e re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n F ran and S h e l d r a k e w h o m a k e it t h e i r t u n e a f t e r t h e p i a n i s t in t h e r e s t a u r a n t p l a y s it f o r th em . It recurs on the s o u n d tra c k at n u m e ro u s po in ts, a c o n s ta n t re m in d e r o f S h e l d r a k e ’s p o w e r , f o r it is h e w h o possesses F r a n a n d , th u s, th e m usic.

(A n a lte rn a tiv e re ad in g co u ld lo c a te the m u sic as p o ssessing S h e ld ra k e , fu n c­ tio n in g as an e m b le m o f th e p a tr ia r c h a l o r d e r in w h i c h h e a n d h is r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith F r a n a r e fixed.)

T h e o f t - d i s c u s s e d e n d i n g t o t h e film (w h ich S in y a r d a n d T u r n e r rig h tly see a s “ t h e s t r a n g e s t h a p p y e n d i n g in m o v i e s ” ) is a g a i n u n d e r s c o r e d b y t h e m u sic , a final a s s e r tio n o f th e p o w e r o f ‘t h e f a t h e r ’. B a x t e r a n d F r a n a r e a t l a s t t o g e t h e r , b u t t h e r e is n o l o v e r s ’ e m b ra c e an d any suggestion o f sexual u n i o n is s e t a s i d e , t h e p e r s i s t e n t a n d , b y now , c le arly iro n ic lo v e th em e s u g g e s t i n g w h y . I t is t h e o r d e r o f t h e p a tria rc h y w hich h as su b v e rted th e n a r r a t i v e ’s m o v e m e n t t o w a r d s t h e e x ­ p e c te d h a p p y e n d in g . T h e d e stru c tiv e logic o f p a t r i a r c h a l p o w e r h a s ra re ly b e e n d e a l t w i t h a s fu lly a s it is in The

Apartment.

S in y a rd an d T u r n e r note, w ith a c h a ra c te ris tic sensitivity to n u a n c e , th e d istu rb in g feel o f t h e f i l m ’s c l o s i n g sequence: “ B ax ter and F ra n m ig h t have opted ou t o f th e ra t-ra c e an d regained their s e l f - r e s p e c t in t h e p r o c e s s , b u t t h e d e n u d e d a n d g l o o m y a p a r t m e n t is W i l d e r ’s h a r s h r e m i n d e r o f w h a t t h i s re je c tio n m ig h t in v o lv e .”

B u t w h a t t h e y h a v e s a c r i f i c e d in n o t a t ­ te m p tin g to p r o b e to o fa r b e n e a th th e s u r f a c e o f The Apartment, in t y i n g t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f it t o a t r a d i t i o n a l a u t e u r i s t m e t h o d o l o g y , is a c c e s s t o a n o th e r kind o f re ad in g w hich m ig h t h a v e f u r t h e r i l l u m i n a t e d t h e film .

I f t h is b o o k r e v i e w s e e m s a n e x ­ t e n d e d o n e , it is a l s o f a r t o o b r i e f . T h e r e s u lt o f v iew in g th e film s u n d e r d is c u s ­ s i o n a n d r e a d i n g S i n y a r d a n d T u r n e r ’s

e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e m is t h e u r g e t o e n g a g e in d i a l o g u e , a n d t h e r e still r e m a i n s m u c h t o b e s a i d . B u t Journey Down Sunset Boulevard is a n e x c e l l e n t s t a r t i n g p o i n t a n d a n e s s e n t i a l i t e m in any c o lle c tio n of books about A m e r ic a n c in e m a.

The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality In The Movies Vito Russo Harper And Row, New York, 1981

Dave Sargent S in c e 1969, w h ic h m a r k s t h e b e g in ­ ning o f m o d e r n g ay lib e ra tio n m o v e ­ m en ts across th e w orld, m o re an d m o re f i lm t h e o r i s t s , c r i t i c s , r e v i e w e r s a n d w riters (g ay a n d o th erw ise) h av e e x ­ p ressed c o n ce rn a b o u t h o w lesb ian s a n d h o m o s e x u a l s h a v e b e e n r e p r e s e n t e d in film s, a n d h o w h o m o s e x u a l i ty h a s be en d e a l t w i t h in f ilm n a r r a t i v e s . T h e t y p e o f w r i t i n g t h a t h a s “ c o m e o u t ” in a n a s ­ so rtm e n t o f p u b licatio n s has ra n g ed fro m the m erely d escriptive “ p o o f-an d d y k e - s p o tte r s ” v a rie ty to in -d ep th a n a ly sis th a t a tte m p ts to p la c e h o m o s e x u a l s a n d h o m o s e x u a l i t y in film s in to a firm s o c i a l / h i s t o r i c a l / po litical co n tex t.

A recen t and g re atly w e lco m ed c o n ­ trib u tio n to th is g ro w in g b o d y o f w r i t i n g is V i t o R u s s o ’s The Celluloid

Closet: Homosexuality In The Movies.

D i v i d e d i n t o fiv e m a j o r c h a p t e r s , a n d p resen tin g an a d d itio n al film o g ra p h y a n d n e c r o l o g y ( a lis t o f h o m o s e x u a l s w h o h a v e d i e d in f i l m s ) , t h e b o o k is a “ subjective” histo ry o f th e v a rio u s w ays in w h i c h l e s b i a n s a n d g a y m e n h a v e been p o rtra y e d on th e screen.

R u s s o ’s a p p r o a c h is “ b o t h c h r o n o ­ logical a n d th e m a tic , m o v in g fro m d e c a d e to d e c a d e b u t w eav in g in to eac h

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 79

INTERNATIONAL FILM GUIDE 1982

e«

* , by Peter Cowie T he

in te r n a

A n n u al

FILM GUIDE

S u rv ey of

1982

.

Edited by Peter Cowie

Movie and video magazines; cinema books and paperbacks; video cassettes; original cast and soundtrack albums; cards, movie posters; personality photographs; blank video tapes.

th e

Open seven days a week: Mon-Fri 10.30am - 5.30pm; Sat 9am - 5pm; Sun 12 noon - 5pm.

Shop 4, 4 Avoca Street, South Yarra, 3141 (off Toorak Road).

Phone: (03) 267 4541. Car parking nearby.

W o r ld 's C in e m a In d u stry

M

l

AVAILABLE

JANUARY '82

DISTRIBUTED BY:

SPACIA0I BOOKS

! |

305/307 SWANSTON ST, M TRADE ENQUIRIES INVITED

Always at the centre of controversy, award-winning actress and politician - she is more extraordinary than anyone would have guessed.

This is an unusually engaging account of her life.

■

.

■

i

| I | j

$17.95 m p

Price: $25.00

f *

•

A NELSON BOOK Available from all good booksellers.

,

V

I E

B G

the indispensable annual far anyone in love with the movies

- v - - £>: w-

O

-

-

.

,

_

U E

F T

F O

.

S N

E

O u r n e w illu s t r a t e d c a t a lo g u e o f C in e m a B ooks, M o v ie Posters, F ilm M a g a z in e s , L o b b y C a rd s , S o u v e n ir B ro c h u re s a n d S tills is n o w a v a i la b l e . C o n ta in s o v e r 6 0 0 e n tr ie s o i A m e r i c a n B ritis h a n d A u s t r a lia n o r i g in r a n g i n g o v e r th e p a s t 6 0 y e a rs . M a n y o u t- o f- p r in t a n d s c a r c e ite m s a t r e a s o n a b le p ric e s .

T h e h o tte s t m a t e r i a l s e lls fa s t so b e q u i c k fo r M o n r o e , E a s tw o o d , J a m e s B o n d a n d E lvis. W e h a v e p o s te rs w it h C h a p l i n B o g a r t W a y n e 8c G a b le . J a g g e r i n N e d K e lly .

S p e c ia l S ci-F i 8c W e s te rn s e c tio n s . P o s tc a rd s f r o m th e 3 0 ’s a n d m u c h m o re .

To o b t a in y o u r FREE c o p y o f C IN E M A C A T A LO G U E 2 w r it e to ’

SOFT FOCUS, P.O. B o x 98, CP, 7, E liz a b e th C o u r t R in g w o o d East, V ic., 3135

Book Reviews

th e re c u rre n t m o d es o f h o m o se x u al e x p r e s s i o n in t h e m o v i e s ” .

F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e f i r s t c h a p t e r is e n ­ t i t l e d “ W h o ’s A S i s s y ? : H o m o s e x u a l i t y A c c o r d in g T o T in s e lto w n ” . I t b e g in s w i t h t h e 18 9 5 T h o m a s E d i s o n S t u d i o f i l m , The Gay Brothers, a n d a m b l e s th r o u g h th e fo llo w in g y e a rs — A Florida Enchantment ( 1 9 1 4 ) , Pandora’s Box ( 1 9 2 9 ) , Blood Money ( 1 9 3 3 ) , Laura (1 9 4 4 ), etc. — to m a k e a very s tr o n g a n d i m p o r t a n t p o in t: “ H o m o s e x u a l i t y in t h e m o v ie s , w h e th e r o v ertly sexual o r n o t, h as a l w a y s b e e n s e e n in t e r m s o f w h a t is o r is n o t m a s c u l i n e . . . A f t e r a ll , it is s u p p o s e d t o b e a n i n s u l t t o c a ll a m a n e f f e m i n a t e , f o r it m e a n s h e is l i k e a w o m a n a n d th e re fo re n o t as v alu a b le a s a ‘r e a l ’ m a n . T h e p o p u l a r d e f i n i ­ t i o n o f g a y n e s s is r o o t e d in s e x i s m .

W e a k n e s s in m e n r a t h e r t h a n s t r e n g t h in w o m e n h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y b een seen as th e c o n n e c tio n b etw een sex ro le b e h a v io u r a n d d e v ia n t sex­ u a lity .” (p p . 4-5) R e p e a t i n g t h i s p r o c e d u r e in e n s u i n g c h a p t e r s , R u s s o d o c u m e n t s a n d cites e x a m p l e f r o m m o r e t h a n 30 0 film s to d e m o n s tra te th e negative m eanings w hich hav e been e n co d e d in to re p re se n ­ tatio n s o f h o m o se x u als a n d h o m o se x ­ u a l i t y in f i l m s . ' The Celluloid Closet is v a g u e l y s i m i l a r t o P a r k e r T y l e r ’s l e s s p o l i t i c ­ a l l y m o t i v a t e d Screening The Sexes: Homosexuality In The Movies w h i c h w a s p u b l i s h e d in 1 9 7 2 . H o w e v e r , R u s s o b rin g s a g a y lib e ra tio n is t p e rsp ec tiv e to h i s b o o k t h a t l e a d s h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s in q u ite d iffere n t d irec tio n s th a n T y ler.

A l s o , R u s s o ’s w r i t i n g s t y l e ( t h o u g h s o m e tim e s stra in in g u n d e r th e w eig h ty c o n t r i v a n c e s o f “ c u t e c a m p e r y ” ) is n o t a s p r e t e n t i o u s a s T y l e r ’s; a n d R u s s o places far m o re e m p h a sis on th e im ­ p o rta n c e o f co n n ec tin g w o rd s a n d im ­ a g e s b y i n c l u d i n g m o r e t h a n 12 0 r e v e a l ­ ing p h o to s w h ich o ften “ sp e a k lo u d er th an w o rd s” .

T h is last fe a tu re a lo n e m a k e s the b o o k a v a lu a b le c o n trib u tio n an d w o rth y o f a tte n tio n , p a rticu la rly to t h o s e w h o still b e l i e v e t h a t e x a m i n i n g re p resen tatio n s o f ho m o sex u als and h o m o s e x u a l i t y o n t h e s c r e e n is n o t a le g itim a te p ro ject.

R u s s o r ig h tly b e lie v ed t h a t su c h a p ro je c t w a s valid, u rg e n t a n d i m p o r t a n t d u rin g an A m e r ic a n c o n ju n c tu re w hich s a w a g e n e ra l sw in g b a c k w a r d s in to c o n se rv a tism a n d an a n ti-g ay b ack lash .

A g re a t deal o f energy an d c o m m itm e n t w e n t in to re se a rc h in g , in terv iew in g , v iew in g a n d w r itin g d u r i n g a s e v e n -y e a r g e s ta tio n p erio d .

H o w e v e r , The Celluloid Closet is n o t an im m a c u la te co n cep tio n . T h e re a re w e a k n e s s e s in t h e b o o k ’s s t r u c t u r e , c o n t e n t a n d s t y l e t h a t a ll s e e m d i r e c t l y re la te d to co n fu sio n w hich m a y h av e s u r ro u n d e d p ro d u c tio n o f a text th a t deals w ith h o m o se x u a ls a n d h o m o s e x ­ uality : c o n fu s io n a b o u t p ro je c te d c o n ­ su m e rs o f th e tex t, a n d c o n fu sio n a b o u t R u s s o ’s o w n t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n . T h i s s e e m s t o b e s u p p o r t e d in

1. In February and March, the Australian Film In­ stitute and National Film Theatre will be presenting a series of films entitled “The Celluloid Closet” in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney.

The purpose of the season is to critically analyze representations of homosexuals and homosex­ uality in films by presenting a select group of films which feature negative and positive portrayals. Some of the films screening include

Glen Or Glenda, Olivia, Maedchen In Uniform, The Deputy, Victim, Nighthawks, Flesh On Glass, Je tu il elle, and Un chant d’amour.

2. Babuscio, Jack, “There Never Have Been Les­ bians Or Gay Men In Hollywood Films. Only Homosexuals”, Gay News, No. 225, October 1­ 14, 1981, pp. 21, 22.

an in terv iew t h a t R u s s o d id w ith Ja c k B a b u s c i o in L o n d o n ’s Gay News.1 W hen B a b u sc io asked w h e th er p u b lish ers h a d trie d to e x ert th e p o w e r o f c ensorship, R u sso responded: “ O n ly a t th e very b eg in n in g , w h en w e d efin ed o u r te rrito ry . T h e y w a n te d to m a k e it v e r y c l e a r t h a t t h i s w a s n o t t o be a b o o k th a t n a m e d na m e s. A lso, t h e y w a n t e d it t o b e liv e l y a n d f u n n y a n a n a r r a t i v e a n d i n t e r e s t i n g a n d not a p o litical tr a c t. A n d a t t h a t t im e I w a s still u n c l e a r a b o u t t h i s , s e e i n g m y s e lf as a m il i ta n t g a y a ctiv ist. In m y h e a d , I w a n t e d it t o b e a p o l i t i c a l d ia trib e , b u t I re alised , u ltim a te ly , t h a t it w o u l d n ’t w o r k . T h a t n o b o d y w o u l d w a n t t o r e a d a yell. B u t i t ’s n o t a coffe e ta b le b o o k . Y o u k n o w , w ith p i c t u r e s o f sis s ie s a n d f u n n y c o m ­ m e n t s . E s s e n t i a l l y i t ’s a b o o k f o r t h e c o m m o n r e a d e r — a b o o k fo r lay p e o p l e , l i k e m y p a r e n t s , w h o a r e not c ritics . . . ” T h e confusion a b o u t co n su m ers and p r o d u c e r s o f t h e t e x t , w h i c h is r e f l e c t e d in t h i s s t a t e m e n t , p e r t a i n s to : a r g u a b l e n o tio n s o f “ c o m m o n ” readers; q u e stio n a b le co n ce p tu a liz atio n s o f w h a t c o n s titu te s a “ p o litical t r a c t ” ; d is­ to rtio n resu ltin g fro m co llap sin g te rm s su c h as “ t r a c t ” , “ d ia t r i b e ” a n d “ y ell” on to o n e a n o th e r, a n d suggesting th a t t h e y c a n ’t b e “ l i v e l y ” , “ f u n n y ” , “ n a rra tiv e ” or “ in te re stin g ” ; and, f i n a l l y , R u s s o ’s p e r c e p t i o n s o f h i m s e l f as a “ m ilita n t g a y activ ist” a n d (an elitist) film critic. T h e s e a ls o se rv e as i n d e x e s t o The Celluloid Closet’s c h i e f d e fic ie n c y — a p ro b le m a tic m eth o d o lo g ic al fra m e w o rk .

R u s s o ’s a p p r o a c h t o f i lm c r i t i c i s m , h is to r io g r a p h y a n d p o litica l stra te g ie s, w h e t h e r s e l f - i m p o s e d o r o t h e r w i s e , is c o u c h e d w ith in a W e s te rn lib eral t r a d i ­ t i o n . F o r m e , t h i s t r a d i t i o n e li c it s a w h o le series o f th e o re tic a l a n d p o litical q u e s t i o n s in r e l a t i o n t o its f u n c t i o n s , u se fu ln ess a n d / o r valid ity . It se e m s to p re sen t n o p ro b le m s for R usso.

R a th e r, he struts th ro u g h an e x tra ­ o r d i n a r y n u m b e r o f f i l m s in a “ ch ro n o lo g ical an d th e m a tic ” m a n n e r, a n d m a n a g e s to w rite a “ subjective h isto ry ” th a t seem s em p iricist and t r a n s - h i s t o r i c a l in n a t u r e ; t h a t is l i n e a r in c o n s t r u c t i o n ; t h a t is b a s e d o n t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f i n d i v i d u a l s ; t h a t is h e a v i l y b i a s e d ( n o t in v i e w p o i n t b u t in q u a n tity ) to w a rd s A m e r ic a n cin em a; a n d , t h a t h a s v ery little m a te ria l basis o utside th e re a lm s o f psychology and b iology.

T h i s u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t s in a d e s c r i p ­ t i v e b o o k t h a t is i n v a l u a b l e b e c a u s e o f t h e w a y it d r a w s o n e ’s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n e g a tiv e w ays th a t le sb ia n s an d h o m o se x u a l m en hav e been rep resen ted a n d c o n s t r u c t e d in f i l m s . B u t b e y o n d t h i s , it l e a v e s a l o t t o b e d e s i r e d .

R u s s o a p p e a rs to be u n a ffe c te d by re ­ c e n t a n d e x te n s iv e film t h e o r y w h ic h h a s e m a n a te d fro m fem inist, M a rx is t, n e o -M a rx ist an d sem io tic trad itio n s (an d c o m b in a tio n s thereof) and has a n a ly z e d th e c o m p le x re a lm of re p re se n ta tio n . I f h e h as been affected b y s u c h w r i t i n g , h e b r i n g s f e w o f its v a lu a b le in s ig h ts in to his b o o k .

R u ss o m ig h t d e fen d h im self, as he d i d in t h e Gay News i n t e r v i e w , b y s a y ­ in g , “ M y b o o k is o n e e x a m p l e o f h o w t o b e a g a y f i lm c r i t i c . ” C o i n in g a n o t h e r p h r a s e o f his f r o m t h e s a m e in terv iew : “ A b s o lu te ly . A n d t h a t ’s h i s r i g h t . ” B u t t h o u g h h i s “ s t y l e ” o f c r i t i c i s m m a y b e e x t r e m e l y w ellin te n tio n e d an d m a y p ro d u c e a n u m b e r o f p o s i t i v e a n d p r o g r e s s i v e e f f e c t s , it needs to be critically scru tin ized , es­ p e c i a l l y w h e n it r e s u l t s in s u c h a n u n ­ even, t h o u g h positive, b o o k .

Hollywood’s Vietnam : From “The Green Berets” to “Apocalypse Now”.

Gilbert Adair Proteus (Publishing) Ltd, U.S., 1981 "

Gilbert Coats F i l m s a b o u t w a r will s h o w w h a t it is lik e , a t b e s t . E v e n d o c u m e n t a r y w a r film s c a n b e d e c e p tiv e . T h e r e f o r e , r e a l i s m in w a r f i lm s is s o m e t h i n g m o s t o f us a r e n o t a b le to c o m m e n t on. A s B o b ( B r u c e D e r n ) s a y s in C o m i n g H o m e , “ I t s u r e a s h ell d o n ’t s h o w w h a t it i s . ” G i l b e r t A d a i r ’s b o o k a r g u e s t h a t t h e V ie tn a m W a r has been tre a te d poorly in A m e r i c a n f e a t u r e f i l m s . I n t h r e e d e c a d e s o f i n v o l v e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g 10 y ears o f d irec t larg e-scale in terv en tio n , H o lly w o o d p ro d u ced one m ajo r p o p u l a r f i lm o n t h e w a r , T h e G r e e n B e re ts (1968), b a se d on th e only m a j o r p o p u la r novel th a t a lso sp a w n e d th e o n ly m a j o r p o p u l a r so n g (as J u lia n S m i t h c o m m e n t s in h is b o o k Looking A way: Hollywood and Vietnam, S c r i b ­ n e r s , U . S . , 1975 : “ . . . m a k i n g a t o t a l o f th r e e a r tis tic d is a s te r s — fo u r if y o u c o u n t t h e w a r i t s e l f ’).

S i n c e t h e w a r e n d e d , t h e o n l y f i lm s w o rth y o f c o m m e n t on th e subject h av e been th e refle ctiv e C o m in g H o m e (1978), an a p o lo g e tic T h e D e e r H u n te r (1978) a n d th e a m b ig u o u s A pocalypse N o w (1979). T h e s e film s h a v e d e a lt d ir e c tly a n d su c c essfu lly w ith th e ir t o p i c s , i f n o t t h e w a r its elf. H o w e v e r , t h e p r o b l e m is n o t w i t h t h e s e f i l m s as m u ch as th o se th a t hav e n o t been p r o d u c e d , y e t. .V ietn am w as indeed a c o n tro v ersial w a r . S t i ll , t h e r e is a p a r a l l e l w i t h W o r l d W a r 2. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e c o m i n g o f F a s c i s m in E u r o p e w a s n o t t r e a t e d d i r e c t l y in m a j o r A m e r i c a n f e a t u r e s u n t il T h e M o r t a l S t o r m (1 9 4 0 ) .

A s B o s l e y C r o w t h e r a s k e d in r e s p o n s e t o t h a t film : “ W h e r e w a s H o l l y w o o d w h e n t h e l i g h t s in G e r m a n y w e n t o u t . . .?”

T h e re aso n s for W o rld W a r 2 and V ie tn a m w e re d e a lt w ith m o r e d ire c tly in c o n t e m p o r a r y d o c u m e n t a r y film .

N o t a b l e in t h e 1 9 3 0 s w a s t h e T i m e M a r c h e s O n n e w s r e e l s , a n d in t h e 1 9 6 0 s r e g u la r telev isio n n e w s c o v e r a g e a n d special p r o g r a m m i n g . B ut d o c u m e n ­ t a r y f ilm is n o t a . p o p u l a r m e d i u m b e c a u s e it is d i d a c t i c . T h e p o p u l a r r e s p o n s e t o f i c t i o n f ilm is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e it p r o v i d e s f e e d b a c k t h a t allo w s p ro d u c e rs to d isc o v e r w h a t p e o p le p re fe r to believe a b o u t t h e m ­ s e lv es . F o r t h e a u t h o r , p o p u l a r f i c t i o n film o f f e r s “ a f a r r i c h e r v e in o f i d e o ­ l o g y t h a n d o c u m e n t a r i e s . . .” U n f o r ­ tu n ately , th e c o n seq u en ces o f th e id eo ­ l o g i c a l c o n t e n t o f f e a t u r e f i lm s is n o t e x p l o r e d in A d a i r ’s b o o k .

Hollywood's Vietnam is a w o r k o f “ m e r e d o c u m e n t a t i o n ” in t h e a u t h o r ’s v iew . A t o t a l o f 75 A m e r i c a n f i lm s f r o m S a i g o n ( 1947) t o A S m a l l C i r c l e o f F rie n d s (1980), re fe r r in g d ire c tly to th e w a r o r its c o n s e q u e n c e s , a r e d i s c u s s e d c r i t i c a l l y . T h e a u t h o r ’s c o n c l u s i o n is, not surprisingly, th a t th e co nsequences o f th e w a r at h o m e w e re m o r e sig­ n ifican t to m o st A m e ric a n s th a n th e r e a s o n s f o r w h i c h it w a s f o u g h t , o r t h e co n se q u en c es for V ie tn a m . C o n sid e r E a s y R id e r (1969), T h e S tr a w b e rr y S ta te m e n t (1970), Z a b r is k ie P o in t ( 1 9 7 0 ) , O n e F l e w O v e r t h e C u c k o o ’s N e st (1975), T a x i D river (1976), J u s t a L ittle Inconvenience (1977) a n d T w i­ lig h ts L a s t G le a m in g (1 9 7 7 ) for o p en ers, o r th e n o stalg ic A m erican

G ra ffiti (1 9 7 3 ). E v en th e A m e r ic a n a n ti-w a r d e m o n s tr a to rs disp lay ed m o r e i n t e r e s t in a t t a c k i n g t h e i r o w n g o v e r n ­ m e n t a n d in stitu tio n s th a n a d v o ca tin g H a n o i ’s v i c t o r y (Jan e Fonda n o tw ith stan d in g ).

W h a t then o f the p a rab les C heyenne A u tu m n (1964), S o ld ie r B lue (1970) a n d L it t le Big M a n ( 1 9 7 6 ) ? D o t h e s e f i l m s s t a n d a l o n g s i d e AH Q u i e t o n t h e W e s ­ t e r n F r o n t ( 1 9 3 9 ) , w i t h its v i e w o f a c o m m o n h u m a n ity as v ictim o f a m u tu a l m isu n d e rs ta n d in g ? U n lik e th e tw o W o rld W a rs , th e U .S . w a s fighting p e a s a n t s in V i e t n a m . A f t e r t h e N o r t h h ad been b o m b e d b a ck in to th e S to n e A ge, th e c o m m o n h u m a n ity o f the e n e m y , w ith th o se su ffe rin g a t h o m e , w o u ld h a v e b e en h a r d to re co n c ile . B ut, m o r e t h a n t h i s , it is t h e r a c i a l e l e m e n t in all w a r p r o p a g a n d a , i n c l u d i n g p o p ­ u l a r f i c t i o n , t h a t is e x e m p l i f i e d in t r a d ­ i t i o n a l w a r film s . A r e t h e V i e t c o n g t o be c o n sid e re d as n o b le sa v a g e s, r a th e r t h a n g o o k s t h e n ? I n t h e a u t h o r ’s w o r d s , “ . . . these w orks, eschew ing th e m y th -m a k in g rh e to ric o f th e b e st­ lo v ed t r a d i t i o n a l W e s te r n s , o n l y c o n ­ f i r m e d t h a t H o l l y w o o d ’s c h r o n i c t e n ­ d e n c y t o m y t h o l o g i s e e v e r y t h i n g it t o u c h e d h a d r e n d e r e d it i n c a p a b l e o f d e a lin g c o n c e p tu a lly w ith m a jo r h isto ric c u r re n ts ” .

B e y o n d f i lm c r i t i c i s m Hollywood’s Vietnam d o e s n o t g o . W h e r e a s J u l i a n S m i t h ’s b o o k Looking Away f u m b l e s t h e b i g i s s u e s o f t h e r o l e o f f i lm in A m e r ic a n society, A d a i r d o e s n o t even r a i s e t h e m . T h u s , S m i t h ’s o b s e r v a t i o n th at, “ . . . V ie tn a m did n o t g e n e r a te a g r e a t m a n y film s, b u t m a y h a v e be en A m e r i c a ’s f i r s t f i l m - g e n e r a t e d w a r . . . to g row o u t o f a ttitu d e s s u p p o r­ ted, p e rh a p s even c re a te d by, a g e n e ra tio n o f m o v ie s d e p ic tin g A m e r i c a ’s m i l i t a r y o m n i p o t e n c e is u n v e r i f i a b l e s o c i o l o g y , t h o u g h a p p e a lin g to an e s ta b lis h e d p re ju d ic e .

S m i t h ’s s i m p l e - m i n d e d i d e a t h a t a n o th e r E rro l F ly n n co u ld h av e m a d e t h e w a r p o p u l a r d o e s n o t a p p e a l a t all.

Y e t , t h e r e is a n e e d t o e x a m i n e t h e th in k in g u n d erly in g th ese o b se rv a tio n s a n d th e p o litical re a litie s o f th e A m e r i ­ c a n f ilm i n d u s t r y . T h e H o l l y w o o d T e n a n d b lack listin g co n tro v e rsies g av e th e i n d u s t r y a r a d i c a l i m a g e t h a t is b e l i e d by th e p ro d u c t (c o m p a re th e p o w e r o f E d w a r d D m y t r y k ’s T h e C a i n e M u t i n y (1954), a n d T h e Y o u n g L io n s (1 9 5 8 ), a f t e r h e s a w t h e l ig h t , w i t h H i t l e r ’s C h ild re n (1943) a n d C ro s s fire (1947), w h ic h w e re th e e x te n t o f his po litica l r e a c h b e f o r e h is t r i a l a n d c o n v i c t i o n ) .

A d a i r o b s e r v e s w ell t h a t m a i n l i n e H o l l y w o o d is r e a c t i o n a r y , “ . . . w i t h a f e w o f its g r e a t e s t d i r e c t o r s — G r i f f i t h , F o rd , V id o r, C a p ra , F u ller — flag ra n tly s o ” .

T h is leav es us w ith A p o c a ly p se N o w (1 9 7 9 ) w h ic h is u n i q u e if o n ly b e c a u s e it is H o l l y w o o d ’s f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y t o m y t h ­ o l o g i z e a m a j o r A m e r i c a n d e f e a t in w a r . A d a i r sees t h e f i lm a s a m b i g u o u s a n d c o n f u s i n g , w i t h its v e r y s c a l e a n d po in tlessn ess a m e ta p h o r fo r th e w a r its elf. M o r e t h a n a n y o t h e r f i l m , a m o n g t h e sl i m p i c k i n g s a v a i l a b l e , A p o c a l y p s e b r i n g s o u t t h e a u t h o r ’s p o i n t o f v i e w o n t h e w a r , i f it w a s e v e r in d o u b t . S o w e k n o w w h e r e o u r m a n is c o m i n g f r o m , b u t w h e r e is h e g o i n g ? T h e a u t h o r su g g ests t h a t A p o c aly p s e N o w d o e s for t h e w a r w h a t S t a n l e y K u b r i c k ’s 2001 did fo r space: “ . . . a n y sc ien c e fictio n m o v ie h o p i n g t o b e t t e r it w o u l d h a v e t o b e s h o t o n l o c a t i o n . . . i f b y ‘o n l o c a ­ t i o n ’ w e m e a n t h a t it m u s t b e m a d e by th e V ie tn a m e se th e m se lv e s .” i t

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 81

PROFESSIONAL MAGNETIC FILM STOCK -

\^ r ^ <a-^ ^ ^ ^ °^ ..

N<a

-i'‘°

.^ «-

—

SALES »RENTALS »SERVICE -LIGHTINGFILM » TELEVISION »STAGE

MAGNA-TECHTRONIC (AUST.) PTY. LIMITED ADVISES AND CONFIRMS THAT IT IS THE SOLE AUSTRALIAN DISTRIBUTOR FOR ALL PERFORATED MAGNETIC FILMS MANUFACTURED BY PYRAL S.A. OF CRETEIL FRANCE «

lohn B. Masson & Associates Pty. Ltd, 78-80 STANLEY STREET, COLLINGWOOD VICTORIA, 3066. AUSTRALIA. Telephone: (03 ) 41 4245 A fter hours: (03 ) 850 2020

IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE BEST... ...WE HAVE THEM. ★ CINEM ATOGRAPHERS ★ SOUND RECORDISTS ★ HELICOPTER PILOTS ★ FILM EDITO RS

SOUTH LAND FILMS AUSTRALIA Pty Ltd

...oil the professionals you need under one roof.

PHONE O R WRITE FO R DETAILS

90-6712 P.O. BO X 1260, CROWS NEST. 2 0 6 5

«

#

MAGNA-TECHTRONICS IS ALSO PLEASED TO ANNO UNCE ITS APPO INTM ENT AS SOLE AUSTRALIAN AND ASIAN DISTRIBUTOR FOR A LL PRODUCTS FROM FILM PROCESSING CORP. INC. (FP C )O F LOS ANGELES, C ALIFO R NIA. FPC PRODUCTS INCLUDE: 16, 17.1/2, 35mm TRIACETATE MAGNETIC FILM, 35mm STRIPED FILM, PAINTED LEADERS, ETC. A ll e n q u irie s to:

The Quarter

Film Reviews Continued from p.77 through the motions they anticipate. To really deserve its sub-title as a “story of hopes” , it can do more than reverse roles; it should create them.

Doctors and Nurses: Directed by: Maurice Murphy. Producer: Brian Rosen. Screenplay: Morris Gleitzman, Doug Edwards, Robyn Moase, Tony Sheldon. Director of photography: John Seale. Editor: Greg Ropert. Art director: Bob Hill.

Sound: Tim Lloyd. Composer: Mike Harvey.

Cast: Bert Newton (Mr Cody), Pamela Stephen­ son (Ms Wave), Graeme Blundell (Mr X), Andrew McFarlane (Milligan), June Salter (Ms Cliquot), Drew Forsythe (K atz), R ichard Meikle (President), Miguel Lopez (Dr Peron), Mary Anne Davidson (Isobel), Terry Bader (Mr Gleeson). Pro­ duction company: Universal Entertainment Corporation. Distributor: Classic Films. 35mm. 91 mins. Australia. 1981.

Apple Game Susan Tate Rotten apples . . . forbidden fruit . . . an apple a day . . .

Images of apples and their various and opposed connotations — decay, fulfilled and unfulfilled lust, health — abound in speech and literature, and also in this film by Vera Chytilova, the highly-respected Czechoslo­ vakian director of several films, including S o m e t h in g D if f e r e n t (1963), D a is ie s (1966), F r u i t s o f P a r a d i s e (1969) and, more recently, C a l a m it y (1979).

Apples .. . crates of them lie rotting in the fields; others hang invitingly before being picked — people munch them, skewer them, roast them. Their constant reappearance throughout the film, with their common and traditional connotations, highlight the concerns of the film: the tyranny of nature, the tyranny of relationships and sexuality, and the interrelationship of the three.

The game element implied in the title also runs through the film in conjunction with these concerns — games and tricks are played between and on people, by each other and by nature. The comic nature of the film, realized by a yvitty script and skilful improvization by the actors, adds to this game element. Serious touches are worked into the film in counterpoint to give it a balance and to express something “deeper about the film” 1, as Chytilova states should be the intent of every film.

The focal point for that which is natural is a Prague maternity hospital, where mothers groan and heave, give impromptu birth in the waiting room, doctors cut and clip from behind their bloodied aprons, nurses mop E H. Poll, A Film Should Be a Little Flashlight.

An interview with Vera Chytilova. Take One (Vol. 6, No. 12, Nov. 1978) p. 43.

The Quarter Continued from p. 9 sycophantic role, upheld the appeal and rated the film “ M” . The film has now been passed for all ages and, by the time of going to press, is already on the way to being the most successful Australian film in its home market.

Another interesting decision was the banning of Sigmund Freud’s Dora, which had been shown uncut at the 1981 Sydney and Melbourne film festivals. Distributor Glenys Rowe then cut the film by 11m (23 secs) to gain an “ R” rating. No appeal was made over the original decision.

Private Lessons, the inane banning of which was reported in the previous issue, went to appeal in December, but the Films Board of Review rejected the film. Australia, it seems, is about the only country that won’t be seeing this film.

Despite protests to the contrary by the Chief Censor, Janet Strickland, the

The Apple Game

brows and cleaners the floors. This “ r h y t h m of life” and the earthiness of the b ir th process are accentuated by intercutting to fertile rural settings, the abundant a p p le s and love-making scenes between the v a r io u s characters. The clinical whiteness of th e hospital atmosphere is contrasted by th e color and apparent disorder of these a lt e r ­ nating scenes. It is a film of polarities.

The hospital is also the focal point for th e formation and quick stagnation of the rela­ tionship between Anna Simova ( D a g m a r Blahova) and Dr John (Jiri Menzel), and th e later termination of that between Dr J o h n and his colleague and friend over the small matter of a shared mistress and wife respec­ tively. This sifting and sorting of affairs is commented on ironically by intercutting images of a cage of white mice which claw and scrabble over each other ruthlessly as each fights for a foothold and a guarantee of place.

It is not only a barn dance of battling for partners, competition is also rife in the hospital for promotion and recognition. Dr John misses a birth while explaining the finer points of his research project to his superior.

The same research project is later inadver­ tently destroyed and, along with it, Dr John’s hopes for advancement.

The clambering nature of the lives of the characters is further emphasized by the apparent lack of any planning in their lives.

Events occur haphazardly, as when Dr John first takes out Anna because his mistress has abandoned him for the night. His mistress’ marriage later breaks down when her husband catches her at Dr John’s home away from home where their clandestine meetings always take place.

Anna, when she first appears as the new nurse in the hospital, fresh from a rural background, is out of synch with the official­ dom and bureaucracy she finds there. She expresses her lack of ease in her new situa­ tion through her nervous clumsiness — fumbling with the doctor’s mask, dropping things and tangling phone cords — and touchingly explains, “ I always mess things up when I try hard.”

However, she manages to conduct a com­ petent delivery when left, unwittingly on Dr John’s part, to her own devices. She per­ forms with similar confidence and skill later in the film when she and Dr John are visiting his sister in the country. She saves the life of a calf that is having a difficult birth and who Dr John has condemned as a hopeless case.

Anna’s jerky bodily movements also take on a new liquidity in the rural scenes — her day in the country with Dr John and the final scene when she is living in the expectant mothers’ home — her angularity softened by her pregnant state. Her clumsiness in the hospital scenes renders her vulnerable to the irritable commands of Dr John, who, like the man who shouts at his wife after being abused by his boss, barks orders at his sub­ servients in the hospital after taking them from his mother, with whom he lives quite number of films and videotapes being banned has reached alarming propor­ tions. In August, 15 films were banned; in September, 13; in November, 15; and in December, 7. Most, inciden­ tally, are freely available on videotape through a number of mail order houses or over the counter in Sydney.

Needless to say, it makes a mockery of Strickland’s dictatorial attempts to make Australian cinemagoers conform to her, and her colleagues’, sense of morality.

(The issue of censorship and video will be discussed in full in the first issue of C h a n n e l s , free in the M arch­ April issue of C i n e m a P a p e r s .)

Jungian Film Festival The Jung Society of Melbourne will present a Jungian Film Festival on May 22-23 at the ERC, Melbourne State College, Carlton.

The theme of the festival is “ Jung’s

Anna Simova (Dagmar Blahova) and the adored Dr John (Jiri Menzel). Vera Chytilova’s A p p le Gam e. claustrophobically, about everything from what to eat to what to wear.

• When he is not abusing the nurses, he is seducing them, and Anna becomes his latest target. Grateful for the more gratifying attention after a day of rebukes and dark looks from behind the surgical mask, Anna agrees to his suggestion of dinner when they bump into each other on the street after work. In the dating situation, it is Anna who is more comfortable and it is she who drinks Dr John under the table, stuffs him in a taxi, takes him to her apartment and jumps into his car the next morning for their day out in the country.

Dr John is attracted by Anna’s zany and excited personality, but at the same time expresses a desire to “tame her” , waging the same war against her that man has always waged against nature. Frustrated in these attempts and confused by her changes of mood, Dr John maintains his affection for, and continues his pursuit of, his mistress, who measures her sexual satisfaction with him in a calculating fashion, explaining, “ I must have an orgasm with you because I don’t love you.”

In the hospital, Anna continues to exacer­ bate Dr John with a succession of interrup­ tions and perverseness, culminating in pretence of a pregnancy, gaining compas­ sion from Dr John on the strength of it and her adept delivery of the calf, and losing it when she admits to her deceit.

The game continues in the style of Peter and the Wolf when Anna finds that she actually is pregnant and Dr John refuses to believe her. She resigns from the hospital and retreats to have her baby alone. His dis­ covery of the very pregnant Anna at the maternity home involves a final chase and an unresolved outcome of the game between the two.

Initially, Anna won’t be “tamed” by Dr John and finally she appears to make a final assertion of her will when she pedals off angrily, then merrily, into the woods which surround the hospital. In the delivery room of the hospital, the supremacy of nature con­ in flu e n c e on film d ire c to rs and makers’’. Included in the program are Jerome Hill’s Film Portrait, James Broughton’s Dreamwood, Federico Fellini’s Juliet of the Spirits and 81/z, William Friedkin’s Cruising, Bruce Balllie’s Quick Billy, Basil Wright’s Song of Ceylon and Harry Smith’s

Heaven and Earth Magic Feature.

Each day, a panel of film critics will offer opinions and respond to ques­ tions.

All applicants will receive, by post, a summary of the films, as well as some details about the directors and the in­ fluence of the ideas of Carl Jung on them.

For further Information and applica­ tion forms contact J. F. Noack, 2 Devon St., Eaglemont, Vic., 3084. Telephone A.H. (03) 459 3530.

Filmco Following the death of financier Peter Fox, Richard Toltz has been

stantly asserts itself in the powerful scenes of labor and birth.

Scenes at the hospital also emphasize the cyclical nature of life and relationships. The development and breakdown of affaires and marriages are intermixed with scenes of sex and birth. This is most precisely emphasized when Dr John tells his mistress that their affaire has finished — ironically, as she has always denied him anything more than a sexual relationship. Immediately after he has made the break, a surgeon cuts into the stomach of a pregnant woman to perform a caesarean birth. Out of disruption comes growth.

The potency of this film relies more heavily on the montage of a rapid succes­ sion of images and the naturalistic and snappy camerawork than on the develop­ ment of the unresolved narrative. The images are drawn from the shots of nature: trees, fields, the apples, the farm; women giving birth: huge stomachs, new-born babies, umbilical cords, placenta; and the steel and chrome of the hospital. The poesy of the film lies in the fact that the images are immediately evocative, are understood in a holistic fashion, rather than being individ­ ually symbolic, and in the way they are, like good poetry, successfully juggled and coupled to compound the effect of each other.

Dagmar Blahova, whose wide experience in avant-garde theatre and mime is evident in the film, gives an engaging performance as Anna, the pleasingly-complex character with the mercurial temperament. She adds delightfully joyous moments in her exub­ erance during her trip to the country with Dr John and her playful teasing of her brother with whom she shares her apartment.

Jiri Menzel as the dour Dr John stoutly conveys the character’s thick-headed inability to understand Anna, which, along with his final recognition of his affection for her late in the piece, serves as a catalyst to one’s appreciation of her. Dr John’s prag­ matic mistress who panics about shoppinglists in between moments of passion, and his strident mother, forcing tomatoes down his throat at the breakfast table, are amusing and convincing characters.

Chytilova brings a fine sense of humor and personal integrity to this film, which, combined with its freshness and a certain restrained vitality, make it entertaining and thought-provoking.

Apple Game: Directed by: Vera Chytilova.

Producer: Antonin Vanek. Associate Producer: Jaroslav Gigler. Screenplay: Kristina Valchova, Vera Chytilova. Director of photography: Frantisek Vlcek. Editor: Alois Fisarek. Production designer: Vladimir Labsky. Music: Miroslav Korinek. Cast: Dagmar Blahova (Anna), Jiri Menzel (Dr John), Evelyna Steimarova-Rytirova, Jiri Kodet, Nina Poplikova. Production company: Kratky Film. Distributor: Curzon. 35mm. 90 mins.

Czechoslovakia. 1976.

appointed chairman of Filmco. Toltz was already a board member.

Joining the board is Philip Selbe, a chartered accountant. John Fitzpatrick will remain managing director.

Australian Video Association The Australian Video Association has announced that several overseas video distributors (from Europe and the U.S.) are attending the Australian Home Video Convention at the Sydney Hilton, February 14-17. They have shown keen interest in acquiring the rights to distribute Australian and New Zealand film and video productions in their territories. Interested producers and distributors should contact: Sue Raye C/o A.V.A. 155 Drummond St Carlton, 3053 Phone: (03) 347 5076 ★

CINEMA PAPERS Janu ary-F eb ru a r y — 83

KITTY & THE BAGMAN LIDDY CLARK COLETTE BROWN DAVID BRADSHAW

TOGETHER TONIGHT LOUISE PHILIP

SONS & DAUGHTERS ANDREW McKAIGE

HOLIDAY ISLAND JOHN BLACKMAN

ERIC JUPP

P . 0 . Box 385 P a l m Beach, Q u een s lan d , 4 2 2 1 P h o n e ( 0 75 ) 35 0878

Location Advisors on Aborigines Research undertaken, from extensive archives of music, field notes, film, sound graphics, art and artefacts. 25 years expertise.

Sandra and Am anda Holmes M orning Star Productions P.O. Box 439, Potts Point, NSW 2011 Phone: (02) 357 4194

MAD MAX IE VERN WELLS

LONGFORD CINEMA

OKLAHOMA

DOUBLE HEAD WORK

ROB HARRISON

At the Longiord, we offer you an ideal environment. A modern air-conditioned 296 seat commercial cinema, equipped with the latest double-head 16mm/35mm, projection facilities and cap ab le of screening in all formats onto a 24' screen.

Recent double-head work for films include “Squizzy Taylor” and “The Man From SnowyRiver”.

CLIVE HEARNE

HOME DARREN SOLE PAUL SPANO LEAH STEVENTON CINDY UNKHAUF

For further information about our competitive rates phone 26 5256

V ID E O R E P ACTIVE CASTING FTY. LTD. VALERIE ARDERN PETER FELMINGHAM

(OS) 26 3S22

A NON PROFIT ORGANISATION AIMED AT IMPROVING YOUR SKILLS IN:• SCRIPT WRITING • ACTING FOR TELEVISION • STUDIO TECHNIQUES CALL SYDNEY (02) 356 1820 FOR WORKSHOP DETAILS

Women in DramafPart Two

New Products and Processes

Briann Kearney Continued from p. 37 I w as to ld a t o n e o f th e A F C a sse ss m e n ts th a t p e o p le w o u ld lau g h at th o se so rts o f scenes, th ro u g h e m b a rra ssm e n t. P e rh a p s t h e y w o u l d , b u t I d o n ’t t h i n k t h e y do.

I

go

to

see

th e

odd

Film

th at

c o m e s a l o n g t h a t is a l i t t l e b i t m o r e e r o t i c t h a n m o s t , a n d I d o n ’t s e e p e o p le lau g h in g . I h a v e fo u n d th e a u d ie n c e s q u ite o p e n a n d re ce p tiv e , esp ecially th e w o m e n .

One of the problems with the depiction of lovemaking on the screen is the sameness. . .

B u t is it a n y d i f f e r e n t f r o m s e e ­ in g p e o p le c o n tin u a lly b e in g sh o t?

H o w m a n y d iffere n t w ay s c an yo u sh o o t so m e b o d y ? T h e y h a v e trie d every w ay!

B u t i t is n o t t h e a c t u a l p h y s i c a l a c t o f lo v e m a k in g o r fu c k in g o r w h a t e v e r i t i s; i t is t h e e m o t i o n a l th in g s th a t lea d to w a rd s th a t p o in t

Sonia Hofmann Continuedfrom p. 39

Would a condition of directing something for someone else be the right to cut it?

Y e s, to h a v e th e rig h t o f th e c u t, u n t i l t h e F i l m is s c r e e n e d t o a t e s t a u d i e n c e . T h e n , w h e n it h a s b e e n in f r o n t o f a n a u d i e n c e , I ’ll g o b y t h a t ; I a m q u ite w illin g to ta lk f u r th e r on th e m a tte r . U p u n til th e n I th in k i t ’s t h e d i r e c t o r ’s r i g h t .

I am s till v e r y m u c h in t h e w r itin g p r o c e s s w h e n I e d it: fo r m e , i t is a s m a j o r a p a r t o f t h e w r i t i n g p ro c e ss a s th e s h o o tin g a n d w ritin g .

T h e m u s ic a n d s o u n d tr a c k a r e also v ery im p o rta n t.

M u s ic , th e so u n d tra ck and th e su b lim in al so u n d s th a t are p u t on a so u n d ­ trac k in m o s t f i lm s a r e v a s t ly u n d e r r a t e d . T h a t f o r m e is o n e a r e a o f F i l m t h a t is i m p e r a t i v e b e c a u s e th e re y o u a re la y in g th e w h o le p sy c h o lo g ic a l a tm o s p h e re ; y o u are c o n so lid a tin g d r a m a tic p o in ts th a t o n ly y o u k n e w y o u w e re m a k in g anyw ay.

in w h i c h I a m i n t e r e s t e d . I t is v e r y d iffic u lt to g e t an a c tre s s a n d an a c t o r t o g e t h e r in a m o m e n t l ik e th a t, w ith a g ro u p o f p e o p le a ro u n d t h e m , a n d m a k e t h e m f e e l l i k e i t is a m o s t p r i v a t e m o m e n t . I t h i n k i t is i m p o r t a n t t h a t i t is e x p l a i n e d i n t h e film . I th in k th e r e h a s to be a le a d u p t o i t.

Did you experiment with this on “And/0r = 0ne”?

T h a t f i l m is m a i n l y s e t i n b e d — a w h o l e s e r i e s o f b e d s . I t is a b o u t a g i r l w h o is w o r k i n g a s a p r o s t i t u t e and she has a c u sto m e r w ho m a s tu r b a te s w h ile sh e c o u n ts o u t m o n e y . A n d w h ile th is g o e s on, she r e f l e c t s o n d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s in h e r life, a b o u t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a c o u p l e o f d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e . T h a t ’s r e a l l y w h a t t h e f i l m is a b o u t — a love scen e b e tw e e n tw o w o m e n a n d th e m an , a n d th en a n o th e r one b e tw e e n th e tw o w o m e n , o n e w o m a n w h o is v e r y s t r o n g i n h e r life .

It w a s h a rd to do, b u t I w a s lu c k y in t h a t all t h e p e o p l e w h o w o r k e d

D i r e c t i n g is a b i t m o r e d e l i c a t e in t a k i n g o n o t h e r p e o p l e ’s w o r k , b u t I d o e n jo y e d itin g o t h e r p e o p l e ’s film s. I h a v e b e e n o ffe re d a f e a tu r e to c u t n e x t y e a r. I e n jo y e d c u ttin g Flamingo Park b e c a u s e it i n v o l v e d m u s i c a n d c u t t i n g t o m u s i c . T h a t is a n o th e r im p o r ta n t th in g a b o u t m y w o r k a s m u s i c in f lu e n c e s m e a lo t. I resp o n d v ery m uch to v isu a l r h y t h m s . A n d i n Flamingo Park I h a d a lot o f m u s ic a n d im a g e to cut to g e th e r. It w a s q u ite s tim u la tin g .

“Morris Loves Jack” has a very intimate feel to it. . .

F ilm s sh o u ld be in tim a te . I h ave a p ro b lem w ith a lo t o f th e A u s t r a l i a n Film s I h a v e s e e n to d a t e . W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f Love Letters From Teralba Road, n o n e o f t h e m a r e e m o tio n a l. A lo t o f th e m o b se rv e p e o p le g o in g th ro u g h th e s to ry lin e , b u t v e ry few film s g e t rig h t to th e h e a rt. T h e y te n d to a v o id e m o tio n a l issues.

I th in k S t e v e W a l l a c e ’s Love Letters From Teralba Road w a s a m a r v e l l o u s F i l m . I c a l l t h a t t h e F irst i n t e r n a l A u s t r a l i a n f i l m . I t ’s b a s e d on em o tio n al spaces ra th e r th an

TO ADVERTISE IN

o n th e film w e r e v e ry p r o f e s s io n a l a b o u t w h a t w as g o in g on. T h e re w a s n ’t a n y f e e l i n g o f e m b a r r a s s ­ m e n t . W e r e a l l y d i d n ’t h a v e t h a t m a n y p e o p le th e re , w h ic h often m a k e s it h a r d .

E v ery o n e , fo r so lo n g , h a s b een t a u g h t t h a t a ll o f t h i s is s o t e r r i b l e , y et n o b o d y th in k s tw ice a b o u t p e o p le b e in g b a tte re d o r b ru ta liz e d o r a n y t h i n g l i k e t h a t . A c t o r s w ill ta k e th e m o st h o rrib le p a rts, ones th a t a re re ally c ru d e , a n d y e t th e y w ill d o t h o s e in p r e f e r e n c e t o d o i n g s o m e th in g th a t m ig h t h a v e a love s c e n e i n i t.

How do you feel about the way women are portrayed in Films?

I t h i n k t h e r e a r e g a p s in t h a t .

S in c e m o s t o f th e film s w e see a re w ritte n a n d m a d e b y m en , th e re a re a r e a s t h a t f o r w o m e n d o n ’t e v e r r i n g q u i t e t r u e . W h a t h a p p e n s is y o u w r i t e s o m e t h i n g a n d c o l o r it d iffere n tly . I f y o u a re a m a n , th e m a le c h a r a c te r s u s u a lly h a v e a lot m ore d e p th th a n th e w om an c h a ra c te rs , a n d v ice -v ersa. In th a t

e x te r n a l p lo t lin es.

I guess I am an in stin c tu al d ire c to r ra th e r th a n an in te lle ctu a l o n e . A ll m y s u b je c t m a t t e r a lw a y s e v o lv e s around som e e m o tio n al i s s u e . I t ’s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o m e , o t h e r w i s e I r e a l l y d o n ’t h a v e a F i l m .

Is there a wild generalization you can make — that if Australia is making Films in which the charac­ ters don’t seem to have an emotional life, it is because the Films are made by men?

I w o u l d n ’t s a y t h a t . I t h i n k t h a t ’s a very d a n g e ro u s g e n e ra liz a tio n . I h a v e seen lo ts o f film s m a d e b y m e n th a t h a v e an in te n se e m o tio n a l im p a c t. I w as talk in g m o re a b o u t an A ustralian quality; the A u s tr a l ia n p sy c h e . I h a v e se e n a lo t o f e m o tio n a l s ta te m e n ts m a d e by m a le F ilm m ak ers: P e te r W a tk in s , D u san M ak av ejev .

I t is e a s y t o m a k e a n i c e , c l e v e r s t o r y b y j u s t g o in g f r o m A to B to C , b u t y o u c a n also b e a c o w a r d a n d not delve into the whys and w h e re fo re s , in to w h e re p e o p le c o m e f r o m . T h a t ’s t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g part a b o u t life : t h e m o tiv a tin g

New Products and Processes Continued from p. 61 criticize you and say what a corrupt animal you are, which is good. It is better than complacently sitting at home being a corrupt animal and not knowing it!

Further references

Ring Peggy N icholls: Melbourne 830 1097 or 3 2 9 5 9 8 3

“ Super 16 As A Feature Format” , A m e r i ­ c a n C i n e m a t o g r a p h e r , June 1 970.

Details of the first use of Super 16 by Rune Ericson in Sweden and converting the Eclair NPR. “ Why Shoot In Super 16?” , A m e r i c a n C i n e m a t o g r a p h e r , February 1981. Rune Ericson reviews the position of the inter­ vening 10 years.

Atlab A u stra lia (Television Centre,

w a y , it w o u ld b e g o o d to b e a b le to w o rk m o re fre q u e n tly w ith o th e r p e o p le on sc rip ts. T h a t A m e r ic a n id e a o f h a v in g a few p e o p le w o rk in g o n t h e s c r i p t is r e a l l y q u i t e g o o d .

This is usually seen as being an attack on the writer’s integrity. . .

Y e s , if y o u a r e t h i n k i n g o f it in t e r m s o f b e in g a s c r ip tw r ite r . B u t if y o u a r e t h i n k i n g o f it in t e r m s o f m a k i n g a film — o f th e fin a l th in g — t h e n i t i s n ’t , r e a l l y . I t is g o o d t o h a v e d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e ’s i d e a s o f h o w scenes a ctu ally h a p p e n . W h e n you a r e w r i t i n g , it is m u c h e a s i e r t o b e a b le to m a k e u p six o r se v e n c h a ra c te rs a n d h a v e th e m a ll b e l i e v a b l e w h e n y o u a r e w o r k i n g in a g r o u p . T h i s is s o m e t h i n g I n e v e r th o u g h t I w o u ld h a v e lik ed .

I d o n ’t k n o w h o w w o m e n s h o u l d b e p o r t r a y e d in F ilm s. I t h i n k y o u c a n o n ly ju s t s ta rt lettin g w o m e n m a k e F i l m s . I t is l i k e w a t c h i n g f i l m s a b o u t In d ia m a d e b y th e B ritish a n d t h e n s e e i n g a n I n d i a n F ilm a b o u t t h e s a m e t h i n g . I t is q u i t e d iffe re n t. ★

forces th a t driv e p e o p le to d o w h a t t h e y d o . T h a t is t h e d e l i g h t i n t h e h u m a n r a c e o r t h e t r a g e d y o f it. I t is t h i s m o r e p o e t i c s i d e t h a t is l e f t o u t in a l o t o f A u s t r a l i a n f i l m s .

I a m re ally a ttr a c te d b y film s t h a t h a v e h u m o r , t o o . T h e r e is n o t e n o u g h l a u g h t e r in o u r f i l m s . H o w m a n y film s d o y o u w a lk o u t o f lau g h in g , ta p p in g y o u r to es a n d sm ilin g , h a v in g re a lly b e en given so m e th in g t h a t ’s c h e e r f u l , o p tim is tic ? N o t a lo t. I a m re a lly concerned about this w ave of m o rb id ity . T h e c o n sc io u sn e ss o f o u r s o c i e t y is v e r y l o w .

In H o l l y w o o d , I f o u n d m o s t o f th e film s b e in g m a d e w e re h o r r o r film s.

M ost o f th e b illb o a rd s a r o u n d w e re o f th is m a n , n a k e d from th e w aist up , h o l d in g a w o m a n ’s s e v e r e d h e a d w i t h b l o o d a l l o v e r i t. I a m r e a l l y c o n c e r n e d th a t p e o p le p a y $5 to g et th e m se lv e s t e r r i f i e d . I t h i n k i t ’s i m p o r t a n t t o g iv e p e o p le w h o a r e s p e n d in g th e ir m o n e y s o m e t h i n g t h a t ’s p o s i t i v e , in fo rm a tiv e a n d even h y ste ric a lly fu n n y , so th a t th e y leav e th e th e a tre w ith a se n se o f h a v in g b e en giv en s o m e th in g an d n o t h a v in g h a d so m e th in g ta k e n aw ay . ★

Epping, NSW, 2121, Telex: AA 20250, Phone: (02) 858 7500) have five pages of “ Information on Super 16” that I have drawn from extensively for this article.

Bruce Williamson from Atlab also kindly supplied the strips of film.

Tony Paterson can be contacted at 482c Glenhuntly Rd. Elsternwick, Vic., 3185, Phone: (03) 528 201 1.

Aaton cam eras are d istrib u te d in Australia by Samuelson, Sydney (02) 888 2766, Melbourne (03) 329 5155.

In New Zealand, the Aaton agent is Orly Productions Ltd, 209 Salisbury St, Christchurch, Phone: 62-047 or 35 George St, Newm arket. A uckland, Phone: 778-543.

Arriflex have announced the availability of factory modified 16 mm Arri BL’s and on special order Arri 16 SR's converted for Super 16. ★

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 85

16mm double band.

POSITION VACANT

Rent or buy

MALE OR FEMALE SENIOR SALES REPRESENTATIVE

or convert your Hokushin SC-10.

Contact Barry Brown on (02) 4382086.

Decibel International.

50 Atchison Street, St. Leonards NSW 2065.

e DKUSHINIt

el and

AATON 1C MM MOVIE CAMERA FOR SALE

A well known organization with interests in the television and motion picture industry seeks the services of a top class technical representative to handle the range of all their principals products including lenses, lighting products, editing machines, editing equipment, globes, battery charging equipment for E.N.G. cameras and portable VTR's, electronic animation equipment plus many other products too numerous to mention. Only applicants who have had considerable experience within the industry (male or female) will be considered. The position will entail interstate travel and at a later date possibly overseas trips to attend various trade exhibitions. Age is of no importance. The person will be a self starter and well motivated with considerable experience in the industry. As this is a senior position, it is expected that the applicant will earn in excess of $25,000 per year by way of salary and commission.

An air conditioned company car will be supplied or CTA rates for own car. Enquiries in the first instance should be made to Miss Kim Dal Santo for an interview with the executive director.

FILMTRONICS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

W ith lightmeter, tw o magazines and soft blim p, manual erect image viewfinder, tw o onboard batteries, tw o spare batteries, nikon arri adaptors, 1 0 -1 0 0 mm T3.1 zeiss zoom, 13 tiffen filters and m attebox, samcine custom case, 12 months old, in im m aculate condition. Sell for $ 1 7 ,0 0 0 . Firm.

In associa tio n w ith : FRANCIS LORD MFG, ANGENIEUX AUST. PTY. LTD., CHRISTIE ELECTRIC ASIA, MEOPT AUST. PTY. LTD. 3 3 HIGGINBOTHAM ROAD GLADESVILLE, N .S .W . 2 11 1 PHONE: ( 0 2 ) 8 0 7 1 4 4 4 TELEX: 2 5 6 2 9 MEOPT

Phone Sydney (0 2 ) 3 8 7 5 492

EDIT W ITH THE BEST OF THEM ON KEM Make KEM, the sophisticated German Editing Table, part ot your editing team.

It doesn't matter what type of film or commercial you're editing, you'll do it better on the KEM RS Series.

Interchangeable modules available for S8, 16, S16 and 35mm — picture and sound. *■ *

PERTH Filmwest Pty. Ltd. 75 Bennett Street, Western Australia 6000 Phone: 325 1177/325 1423 Telex: AA94150 FILMWA

F o r in fo r m a t io n c o n t a c t :—

FILMWEST B

SYDNEY Percy Jones M otion Picture Services 17 Lochinvar Parade, C arlingford New South Wales 2118 Phone: (02) 871 2253

MELBOURNE Doug Stanley Nom ad Films International Pty. Ltd. 71 Palmerston Crescent, South M elbourne V ictoria 3205 Phone: (03) 699 7244 Telex: AA31290 NOMFIL

SINGAPORE Filmwest Pte. Ltd. Suite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road, S ingapore 0718 Phone: 338 6044/336 1509 Telex: RS36389 FLMWST

The Story o f the Kelly Gang

because Johnson and Gibson were involved in both productions. As time passed their memories of the two could have become entangled, so that when Gibson talks about film­ never returned to their studies till we left the ing on Sundays he is speaking of the 1906 pro­ town a week later” (Norman Campbell, duction, but when he denies that any of the Taits acted in the film he is speaking of the 1910 Theatre Magazine, June 1, 1923). version.

Buckley also says that, But then, what about the evidence of John “ Exteriors were completed in six days, and the ‘interiors’ were shot in Gibson’s backyard on Forde? If he was in both, this may account for the seventh day against a backcloth and props his memory of the name Frank Mills, which so from Cole’s stage play” {Masque, June/July confuses the question of the cast (Figure 11). But if that is so, then how did he come to be the only 1969, p. 9).

As Gibson was one of the producers in 1906 and actor to be in both? Did he later join the Cole 1910, this statement of location is equally company? And why does he refer to incidents reasonable for both, but the six-day shooting and locations that do not fit either story — such schedule is, in this case, directly linked with the as that the Glenrowan Hotel was at Kangaroo Ground, and the fire was staged at Dreamland, Cole company, suggesting 1910.

Linked with these claims, is the siting of the in Luna Park? Luna Park is, admittedly, at St production at Mitcham, now a suburb of Mel­ Kilda, and there is no reason why it would not be bourne, but in those days easily qualifying as a suitable for such a scene, particularly if his claim “little country town” . A number of sources that interiors were shot at the rear of Johnson relate how the railway line was pulled up at and Gibson’s shop were accurate. And, if he is Mitcham, and how the Glenrowan Hotel was “ a speaking, here, of the second production, then he small cottage standing off the Whitehorse must have been in both, as the stills in which he R oad” , which passes through Mitcham is identifiable are definitely of the 1906 version. I suppose it is just possible that he is the only actor (Buckley). in the 1910 stills who consistently holds his gun just at the height to make his face difficult to MM A rrie Perry, one of the famous Perry see . . . tB S B family connected with early film JB$ production for the Salvation Army B in Australia, claimed to have been cameraman for the Kelly film: even if Johnson’s claim did not seem stronger, Perry could not have shot the 1906 film as at the time it was being produced: he was touring with a Biograph Company in New Zealand. In any case an article in Everyone’s (December 13, 1933) specifically mentions him as cameraman for “The Kelly Gang (Second edition)” , which again could be the 1910 version.

So, by selection of those aspects of each story which hang together, it is possible to present a consistent tale of two separate productions. Un­ fortunately, the sources do not allow this to stand unchallenged. For, in addition to the information so conveniently selected, there are statements and claims that appear to bridge the two films/stories.

Central to these disagreements is the question of the cast. To support this theory, we should find that the Taits appear in 1906 and the Coles in 1910. But it is not as simple as this. The members of Cole’s company were listed in December 1906 as Vene Linden, Ruth Owen, Belle Cole, Amy Sherwin, W. H. Ayr, P. Goodwin, G. Marshall and John McGowan.

There is no mention in that list of Norman Campbell, the man who wrote that piece in Theatre Magazine in 1923 describing how the company went to the “little country town” .

But there are more serious objections than this. John Forde’s family can identify him from the stills of the 1906 production (Figure 10): there is no doubt that he played Dan in this, and he claims that the other players were Frank Mills as Ned, Will Coyne as Joe Byrne, Jack Ennis as Steve Hart, Charles Tait as the head of police and John Tait as the schoolmaster. But Figure 10. Top: photograph from the 1 9 0 6 program booklet, from the Cole family records, Tony Buckley showing John Forde as Dan Kelly. Figure 11. Above: Frank concluded that the members of the Cole Mills, the actor believed to have played Ned Kelly in the 1906 company who took part were Bella Cole, Vera production.

Linden, Ollie Wilson and Frank Mills. In Even more complicated (but interesting) addition, there is a persistent rumor that the speculation can arise from further exploring the actor who played Ned absconded during the relationship of the Cole company to the film. shooting of the 1906 film and the rest of the film Cole had written, produced and acted in bush­ had to be shot in long shot or with a stand-in. ranging plays for more than 10 years. He was How, then, could Frank Mills have played in credited with writing the play Thunderbolt in both, and still have absconded before the end of 1890, and that was certainly one of several bush­ the first one? And why does his name occur as ranging plays in his 1906 repertoire at the the only common element of the two lists? A Sydney Haymarket Hippodrome. possible solution is that the problem has arisen Of most concern to us are two plays which

The Story o f the K elly Gang Continued from p. 21

were said to be about a totally fictitious bush­ ranger, Captain Midnight: Captain Midnight the Wantabadgery Bushranger was presented in March 1906, and Bail Up was performed in both July and December. The latter may have been the same play renamed, but it is described in Theatre magazine, rather confusingly, as a “ new play” in the review of the December perform­ ance. It certainly does not seem to have been a Kelly play, and the first clear evidence of the Cole company performing such a play is in April 1907, when Hands Up! or Ned Kelly and His Gang was advertised as being “ produced as the Easter attraction, with new and elaborate scenery, illustrative of the Victorian border” (Theatre, April 1, 1907).

Cole’s well-known preference for action­ stories, if possible with an Australian setting, makes the only surprising aspect of this the late­ ness of his entry into the Kelly field. In December 1907, he was lecturing at the Mel­ bourne Hippodrome, using biograph, on the history of the Kelly gang. The police censorship records do not make clear what form the biograph took: was it, for instance, a copy of the Tait film, to which Cole added his own com­ mentary? The police description of the lecture as covering the history of the family from the grandfather in Ireland to the death of Ned makes this unlikely, as the Taits’ film did not include either of these. But the records distinctly mention “biograph” rather than “lantern” , so presumably it was a moving picture.

It would be tempting to guess that this is the Perth fragment, were it not so clear that the cast is not the same as those on the 1910 poster, and though members of the company were not identical throughout the period, the principals usually were. The Victorian police did not inter­ fere with the presentation, and were pleased that Cole “appears inclined to make the police the heroes of the piece” (Victorian Chief Secretary’s Office records B8920, December 10, 1907).

Is it possible, then, that this is yet another Kelly film, perhaps accounting for another rumor that a Kelly film was burnt in a ware­ house fire in 1909? There must have been many copies of the Tait film, for it to have been shown simultaneously in several states as well as in Britain and New Zealand: it seems unlikely that all prints of that film could have been either burnt or worn out at the same time. But a single film, made for or of the Cole company, might well have had a limited life, and might also have been sufficiently successful for Johnson and Gibson, who had done well out of the Taits’ pro­ duction, to try again. Such a theory might also account for the 1910 release in Sydney being entitled Bail Up, a name already associated with Cole, though with another story. Cole would have felt every right to play around with titles in this way, in those days of lax copyright laws and gentlemen’s agreements.

Finally, is it purely a coincidence that, in February 1907, when the producers of the 1906 film could not persuade a Sydney management to take the risk of showing their extraordinary film, they screened it in a huge tent at the Haymarket, which was crowded every night that rain allowed the performance to proceed, and was directly next door to where the Cole company had their Sydney headquarters in the Haymarket Hippodrome? Cole was a showman, with a nose for public preferences — and his first Kelly play was put on in April 1907.

Isn’t this mere conjecture? Wild speculation?

Yes, but it is still intriguing . . . More evidence, which is bound to turn up sooner or later, might show it to be correct, partly correct, or perhaps totally on the wrong track.

To be continued...

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 87

A D ELA ID E FILM S ER V IC ES TEL 2 6 4 2 2 3 7 M OTION PICTURE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT RENTAL

OFFICE 3 Patterson C lose Vista S A 5091 POSTAL ADDRESS P Q Box 4 3 6 Nth. A de l S A 5006

In Singapore, Malaysia, the Far East, Indonesia and Australia . . . you’re in

FILMWEST COUNTRY O P T IC A L Si G R A P H IC

P T Y . L IM IT E D .

BO

W H IT IN G

STREET,

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 fo rm a ts

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.

Here's where you'll find us:

FILMWEST B FILMWEST Pty Ltd 75 Bennett Street, East Perth 6000, Western Australia. Phone 3251177, 3251423.

Cables "Filmwest” Perth Telex AA 94150 FiLMWA FILMWEST Pte Ltd Suite 185, Raffles Hotel, 1-3 Beach Road, Singapore 0718. Tel: 3361509, 3378041.

Telex RS 36389 FLMWST. Cable Raflotel

Importers & distributors of AATON cameras, Sachtler Tripods, KEM Editing Machines and other famous name equipment.

Penguin Award Best Single TV Drama

1981

"TH E LIBERATION OF SKOPJE" Sammy Award Best D ocum entary Program

1980 / * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- \

Ferryman Television Productions welcomes the challenge of 1982.

W e produce, imaginatively and well, series, drama, light entertainment ana documentary programs for TV. Also, we make films for cinema and for non-theatrical use. W e produce "live", on tape or on film.

v_____________________________________________________________ 7 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"S O N G FOR MELBOURNE" _________ ________ 7

Film Censorship Listings

Michael Rubbo

Film Censorship Listings Continuedfrom p.46 Space Firebird (re d u c e d v e rs io n ) (a ): T o k o L eo L td , J a p a n , 2 2 0 6 .5 7 m , T h e H o u s e o f D a re Veggos The Magnificent (1 6 m m ): N o t s h o w n , G re e c e , 9 8 7 .3 0 m , T h e C a s te llo riz ia n C lu b (a) R e d u c e d b y im p o rte r 's c u ts fro m 3 2 9 0 .7 8 m (A p ril 1981 list)

N ot R ecom m ended fo r C hildren (NRC) The Bodyguard: U z b e k film , S o v ie t U n io n , 2 35 2 m, C o m m e rc ia l C o u n s e llo r o f th e S o v ie t U n io n , V (i-l-j) Chu Chu and the Phiily Flash. J. W e s to n , U.S., 2 4 5 9 .6 2 m , R o a d s h o w D ist., L (i-l-g ) Evita Peron: M . C h o m s k y , U .S ., 2 8 8 0 .1 5 m , C in e m a In t’ l C o rp ., S (i- l-i) King Stach Rides Again: S o v e x p o rtfilm , S o v ie t U n io n , 3 0 1 7 .3 m , C o m m e rc ia l C o u n s e llo r o f th e S o v ie t U n io n , V (i-l-j), O (n u d ity ) The Legend of Broken Sword: H o n g K o n g (E a s t S ea) F ilm C o ., T a iw a n , 2 5 5 5 m , G o ld e n R eel F ilm s, V (i-l-j) Plan 9 From Outer Space: E. W o o d , U .S ., 2 2 3 1 .0 4 m , V a lh a lla F ilm s , V fi-l- j) The Restless Cricket: M . F o n g /R . S h a w , H o ng K o n g , 2 5 4 7 .8 7 m , J o e S iu In t'l F ilm C o ., V (i-l-j) Sexuality and Y o u r Q uality of Life ( v id e o ta p e ): L a n g u a g e o f L o ve , A u s tra lia , 60 m in s , J. V ic k e rs -W illis , O fd is c u s s io n o f s e x u a lity ) S h oc k T re atm en t: J. G o ld s t o n e , B r it a in / U . S . , 2 5 0 9 .9 2 m , F o x C o lu m b ia F ilm D is t . , O f s e x u a l in n u e n d o ) Under the Rainbow: O rio n P ic s ./W a r n e r B ro s , U .S ., 2 7 3 3 .0 2 m , W a rn e r B ro s , O fs e x u a l in n u e n d o )

For M ature A udiences (M ) An American Werewolf in London: P o ly g ra m P ic ­ tu re s , B rita in , 2 6 7 7 .2 5 m , R o a d s h o w D ist., S (i-m -g ), V (i-m -i) The Big Boss (o rig in a l v e rs io n ) (a ): G o ld e n H a rve st, H o n g K o n g , 2 8 1 6 .6 9 m , F ilm w a y s A 's ia n D ist., V (i-m -g ) Blowout: F ilm w a y s , U .S ., 2935.01 m , R o a d s h o w D ist., S fi-m - g ) , L ff-m -g ) Body Heat: W a rn e r B ro s , U .S ., 2 7 7 0 .4 3 m , W a rn e r B ro s (A u s t.), S (i- m -j) , L ff- m - j) The Boogens: T a ft In t'l, U .S ., 2 6 4 9 .3 6 m , S u n n C la s s ic P ro d s , V (i-m -j) Chanel Solitaire: G a rd e n ia F ilm s /F o re s t, F ra n ce, 3 3 7 4 m , G U O F ilm D ist., S fi-m - j) Cutter’s Way: G u e ria n E n te rp ris e s , U .S ., 2 92 8.2 4 m, U n ite d A rtis ts (A 's ia ), L ff-m -i) , O fs e x u a l in n u e n d o ) Deadly Blessing: K e lle r & H e n s k o v ic , U .S ., 2 74 3 m, R o a d s h o w D ist., V (t-m -g ) De dood van een non: A . G u ille a u m e , B e lg iu m , 2 9 5 6 m , B e lg ia n C h a m b e r o f C o m m e rc e , S (i- l-j) , 0 ( a d u lt th e m e s ) Dragon Fist: L o W e i M o tio n P ic tu re C o ., H o n g K o n g .

2452 m , C o m fo rt F ilm E n te rp ris e s , V (f-m -g )

Fat Angels: J. V ic u n a , U .S ., 259 3 m , C o n s o lid a te d E x h ib ito rs , S fi-m - g )

First Monday in October: P. H e lle r, U .S ., 2 7 0 5 .1 4 m , C in e m a In t'l C o rp ., S (i-m -g )

The

French Lieutenant’s Woman: J u n ip e r

F ilm s, B rita in , 3 3 4 6 m , U n ite d A rtis ts (A 's ia ), S (i- m -j) , O fa d u lt th e m e s ) .

The Gangster Wars: S. C o h e n , U .S ., 3 2 3 6 .7 4 m, C in e m a In t’l C o rp ., V (f-m -j) Green Ice: L ew G ra d e P ro d s , B rita in , 2935.01 m , H o yts D ist., V (i-m -g ) Heavy Metal: I. R e itm a n /L . M o g e l, U .S ., 2 4 0 6 m , Fox C o lu m b ia F ilm s D ist., 0 ( a d u lt c a rto o n ) Hide in Plain Sight (1 6 m m ): M -G -M , U .S ., 9 65 m, A m a lg a m a te d (1 6 m m ) F ilm D ist., L (f-m - j) Instant Pictures (1 6 m m ): M . va n H e y n in g e n , N e th e r­ la n d s , 8 8 5 .5 7 m , E s s e n tia l F ilm s, S (i- l-j) Kentucky Fried Movie (re d u c e d v e rs io n ) (b ): U n ite d F ilm C o ., U .S ., 2 1 5 3 .6 m , R o a d s h o w D ist., S fi-m - g ) The Killing of Angel Street: F o re s t H o m e F ilm s, A u s ­ tra lia , 2 7 7 0 .4 3 m , G U O F ilm D ist., V (i-m -j), O fa d u lt c o n c e p ts ) La ch am bre rouge: J - P B e r c k m a n s , B e lg iu m , 2 4 1 3 .8 4 m , B e lg ia n C h a m b e r o f C o m m e rc e , S (i-l-j), O fa d u lt th e m e s ) Loulou: G a u m o n t, F ra n c e , 2 8 2 5 .2 9 m , A .Z . A s s o c ia te d T h e a tre s , S (i- m -i) , L (f-m - i) The Master: S h a w B ro s , H o ng K o n g , 2 6 3 1 .7 m , J o e S iu In t’l F ilm C o ., V ff-m -j), S (i-l-g ) Monstroid (Monster): K. H a rtfo rd , U .S ., 2 1 9 4 .4 m , F ilm w a y s A ’sia n D ist., L (i-m -g ) Only When I Laugh: C o lu m b ia , U .S ., 3 2 3 6 .7 4 m , F o x C o lu m b ia F ilm D ist., O fa d u lt th e m e s ) Opname (In For Treatment): H. W e rk te a te r, N e th e r­ la n d s , 2 70 5 m , E s s e n tia l F ilm s , 0 (e m o tio n a l s tre s s ) Partners: B u rs ta ll C o m p a n y , A u s tra lia , 2 6 2 1 .4 7 m , G U O F ilm D ist., L (i-m -i) , 0 ( a d u lt c o n c e p ts ) Polyester: N e w L in e C in e m a , U .S ., 2 3 7 0 m , H o y ts D ist., S (i-m -g ), V (i-m -g ), L (i-m -g ) Priest of Love: M ile s & D o n a lly , B rita in , 3 3 7 3 .8 9 m, R o a d s h o w D ist., 0 ( a d u lt c o n c e p ts ) Puberty Blues: L im e lig h t P ro d s , A u s tra lia , 2 2 7 6 .6 9 m , R o a d s h o w D ist., S (J-l-i), L fi-m - j), O (d ru g s ) Spiritual Kung Fu: Lo W e i M o tio n P ic tu re C o ., H o n g K o n g , 2 5 7 8 .4 2 m . C o m fo rt F ilm E n te rp ris e s , V ff-m -g ) Swift Sword: R. S ha w , H o ng K o n g , 2 4 6 7 .9 9 m , J o e S iu In t'l F ilm C o ., V (f-m -i) True Confessions: U n ite d A rtis ts , U .S ., 2 92 8 m , U n ite d A rtis ts (A ’sia), L (f-m - i) (a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n o n J a n u a ry 1981 list. (b ) R e d u c e d by im p o rte r fro m 2 27 6 m to q u a lify fo r lo w e r c la s s ific a tio n (p re v io u s ly s h o w n o n J u ly 1981 list).

For R estricted E xhibition (R) Ask, Arvu ve sllia (vide ota pe ): K u n t Film s, Tu rke y, 72 m in s , K & C Im p o rts , S fi-m -g ), V (i-m -g ) Astro Zombies (v id e o ta p e ) (a): T. M ik e ls , U.S., 84 m in s , V id e o C la s s ic s , V (f-m -g )

M ichael Rubbo

D e le tio n s : 17 m (1 m in . 36 se cs) R e a so n f o r d e le tio n s : S (i-h -g )

Tender and Perverse Emanuelle: B ru x In t’ l F ilm s , F ra n c e , 2 2 8 6 .8 2 m , F ilm w a y s A 's ia n D ist., S fi- m - g ) D e le tio n s : 48 m (1 m in . 4 5 se cs) R e a so n fo r d e le tio n s : S (i-h -g ) (a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n o n M a y 1981 list. (b ) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on M a y 1981 list.

Films Refused Registration The Best of the New York Erotic Film Festival (v id e o ­ ta p e ) (a): S a liv a F ilm s /H a r m o n y V is io n , U .S ., 105 m in s, V id e o C la s s ic s , S (i-h -g ) Co-ed Fever (v id e o ta p e ): H. L im e , U .S ., 80 m in s , A .

F a im a n , S (f-h -g ) Documentary of a Madam (v id e o ta p e ): E. W a rd , U.S., 58 m in s , L & M Im p o rts , S fi-h -g ), O fs e x u a l v io le n c e ) Don’t Answer the Phone (re c o n s tru c te d v e rs io n ) (b ): H a m m e r & C a stle , U .S ., 2 3 6 3 .3 m , G U O F ilm D ist., V (f-m -g ), O fs e x u a l v io le n c e ) Electric Blue 006 (v id e o ta p e ): A. C o le , B rita in , 60 m in s , E le c tric B lu e A ’a sia , S ff-h -g ) The First Tim e (p re -c e n s o r c u t v e rs io n ): A . S c h a tz , U .S ., 168 1.3 m , 14th M a n d o lin , S ff- h -g ), L (i-h -g ), O fd ru g a b u s e ) Pink Flamingos (v id e o ta p e ) (c): J. W a te rs , U .S ., 95 m in s , V id e o C la s s ic s , S fi-h -g ), V fi-h -g ), O fc o p ro phagy) San Francisco Cruisin’ (v id e o ta p e ): J a c k F ilm s , U .S ., 60 m in s, V. M a rtin , S ff- h -g ) Scream Bloody Murder (v id e o ta p e ) (d ): M . R ay, U .S ., 83 m in s , G ru n d ig S a le s a n d S e rv ic e , V ff-h -g ) Sigmund Freud’s Dora (1 6 m m ) (e): A. M c C a ll, U .S ., 3 83 m , G le n y s R o w e F ilm D ist., S fi-h -g ) Talk Dirty To Me : J. R oss, U .S ., 169 7.8 m , R e g e n t T ra d in g E n te rp ris e s , S ff- h -g ) Tapestry of Passion: E ssex P ic tu re s , U .S ., 1 88 4.8 m , 14th M a n d o lin , S ff-h -g ) Women In Peril (r e c o n s tru c te d v e rs io n ) (1 6 m m ) (1): N o t s h o w n , U.S., 6 3 3 .7 m , 14th M a n d o lin , S ff- h -g ) (a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on A p r il 1975 list. (b ) P re v io u s ly s h o w n o n A p r il 1981 list. (c) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on J u n e 1 97 6 list. (d ) N o t id e n tic a l w ith film o f s a m e title s h o w n on J a n u a ry 1976 list. (e) S ee a ls o u n d e r “ Fo r R e s tric te d E x h ib itio n ” . (f) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on M a rc h 1981 list.

Films Registered With Elim inations For R estricted E xhibition (R)

Films Board of Review

Emanuelle 3 (re c o n s tru c te d v e rs io n ) (a): D. R a n d a ll, Italy, 2 2 8 6 .8 2 m , A .Z . A s s o c ia te d T h e a tre s , S (f-m -g ) D e le tio n s : 12.5 m (27 se cs) R e aso n f o r d e le tio n : S (i-h -g ) Kung Fu Executioner: E x te rn a l F ilm , H o ng K on g , 2 64 9.3 6 m , J o e S iu In t'l F ilm C o., V (f-m -g ) D e le tio n s : 19 m (42 se cs) R e aso n fo r d e le tio n s : V (i-h -g ), O fa n im a i c ru e lty ) Nympho Cycler (1 6 m m ) (re c o n s tru c te d v e rs io n ) (b): V a le o P ro d s , U .S ., 5 1 5 .59 m , 14th M a n d o lin , S (f-m -g )

Dans L’Empire des sens (1 6 m m ) (a): A rg o s y /O s h im a .

J a p a n /F ra n c e , 110 9.9 m , N a tio n a l F ilm T h e a tre of A u s tra lia D e c is io n re v ie w e d : R e fu sa l to re g is te r by th e F ilm C e n s o rs h ip B o a rd .

D e c is io n o f th e B o a rd : U p h o ld th e d e c is io n o f th e F ilm C e n s o rs h ip B o a rd . (a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on A u g u s t 1981 list.

N o te : T itle o f film s h o w n as Zorro the Gay Blade (J u ly 1981 list) h as b e e n a lte re d to Zorro Swings Again.

I—

I

f

Wl I f f f W

I i f M

f M

a

M

a

B

this?” My defence was that people ought to have a style, and that was Filmography my style, for better or worse.

The strange thing about the NFB 1965 The True Source of Knowledge 30 mins, black and white, 16mm is that everybody who works there 1966 The Long-Haul Men 17 mins, color, spends most of their time bad16mm mouthing the place and saying it is 1966 Adventures 10 mins, color, 16mm Sir! 20 mins, black and white, on the brink of collapse, or that it 1968 Sir! 16mm should be swept away. But when 1969 Mrs Ryan's Drama Class 35 mins, you go outside, you see that its black and white, 16mm vision is certainly not the norm. It 1970 Here’s to Harry’s Grandfather 58 mins, color, 16mm is a very special environment.

1970 Sad Song of Yellow Skin 58 mins,

Continued from p. 45 because we were in this very rigid country [France], where every­ thing is done by appointment.

People do not let you into their pri­ vate lives. We would have liked to follow Glucksmann for a while, but he said, “No, I’ll come to your apartment at such and such a time, and that will be it.”

So, we fell into a more formal mode, whereas Waiting for Fidei was really a free-for-all. There we didn’t know what was going to hap­ pen next because of this sort of chemical interaction between us and the Cubans, and between our­ selves.

Avengers From Hell: S h a w B ro s, H o n g K o n g , 2 513 m, J o e S iu In t’l F ilm s C o ., S (i-m -g ) Corpse Mania: M . F o n g , H o n g K o n g , 2 2 4 9 .2 6 m , Jo e S iu In t'l F ilm C o ., V (f-m -g ) Final Exam: J. C h a m b lis s /M . M e is e l, U .S ., 2 4 5 4 m, H o yts D ist., V (f-m -g ) Force Five: F. W e in tra u b , U .S ., 2 5 6 5 .7 m , U n ite d A rtis ts (A 'a s ia ), V ff-m -g ) Gurbetciler Donuyor (v id e o ta p e ): T u rk e y , 75 m in s, K & C Im p o rts , V (t-m -g ) Insatiable: M ira c le F ilm s, U .S ., 189 2.6 7 m , B la k e Film s, S (f-m -g ) Kill the Shogun: W o rld W id e E n te rta in m e n t, H o ng K o n g , 2 8 7 2 .4 6 m , 14th M a n d o lin , V (f-m -g ) Kiss Me Quick (v id e o ta p e ): S. T u c k is , U .S ., 65 m in s , K & C V id e o , O (s trip te a s e ) The Massage Parlor (p re -c e n s o r c u t v e rs io n ) (1 6 m m ): N o t s h o w n , U .S ., 4 93 .65 m , 14th M a n d o lin , S ff- m -g ) Montenegro: V ik in g - S m a r t E g g -E u ro p a , S w e d e n , 2 6 4 9 .3 6 m , R o a d s h o w D ist., S (i- m -j) Oh Calcutta (o v e rs e a s m o d ifie d v e rs io n ) (v id e o ta p e ) (b ): H. E lk in s , U .S ., 97 m in s , L & M Im p o rts , S ft- m -j) Pink Narcissus (p re -c e n s o r c u t v e rs io n ): S h e rp ix , U .S ., 1729 m , G .L. F ilm E n te rp ris e s , S (t-m -g ) Poor Albert and Little Annie (v id e o ta p e ): M a n s o n In t'l, U .S ., 83 m in s , K & C V id e o , O fs e x u a l v io le n c e ) Pretty Babe Videogram: Phantasy (v id e o ta p e ) (c): V id e o g ra m In te rv is io n , B rita in , 60 m in s, R o lin D ist., S (i-m -g ) Richard Prior Live in Concert: D. J a c k /J . T ra v is , U.S., 2084 m , R o ck F ilm D ist., L (f-m -g ) Sexy Career Girls: G o ld e n F ilm s (L u i C h i) C o ., H o ng K o n g , 2 81 6 m , J o e S iu In t’l F ilm C o ., S (i-m -g ), O fs c a ta lo g ic a l re fe re n c e s ) Sigm und Freud’s Dora ( r e c o n s tr u c te d v e rs io n ) (1 6 m m ) (d ): A. M c C a ll, U .S ., 3 7 2 m , G le n y s R ow e F ilm D ist., S (i-m -)) Smokey Bites the Dust: N e w W o rld P ic tu re s , U.S., 2 35 2 m , R o a d s h o w D ist., V (f-m -g ) Vahsi ve tatli (v id e o ta p e ): Y a sa m Film , T u rk e y , 65 m in s, K & C Im p o rts , S (f-m -g ), O fs e x u a l vio le n c e ) (a) P re v io u s ly s h o w n on M a y 1979 list. (b) P re v io u s ly sh o w n on M a y 1973 list. (c) P re v io u s ly re g is te re d as Phantasy (F e b ru a ry 1981 list). (d ) S e e a ls o u n d e r “ F ilm s R e fu se d R e g is tra tio n ".

Is that what coming to Australia does for you?

Michael Rubbo, puffing on a Cuban cigar, watches W aitin g f o r Fidel.

strange it is for a film crew to be Do you think the skill your crews there to do one thing but then to have is something that has to do with change direction on the spur of the moment. That is fascinating, be­ news training? cause most people feel they couldn’t They haven’t had news training, do that.

I certainly don’t think I could but rather direct cinema, or cinema verite. They also have to think on have done it a few years earlier. I their feet a lot, because only rarely would have done more what I was are there scripts in NFB films. The supposed to do, although in the case tradition of the NFB is to propose of Sad Song I was supposed to do outlines and then find the subject. something else. I sent a telegram to The NFB has always believed there Tom Daly saying I couldn’t do is a truth out there and that you what we had planned, and he re­ can’t write it down. If you try to pin plied that I should do what I felt it down with too many pre­ was right.

I remember at an NFB program conceptions, you will miss it.

I suppose the reason Waiting for committee that quite a few of my Fidel is an interesting film to other colleagues were very sceptical filmmakers — more so perhaps about my style, and I ran into a lot than to audiences in general — is of flack. I was asked questions like, because filmmakers recognize how “ How much do you plan to be in

Yes. I am caught in a bit of a trap, because in a way I would really like to be back in Australia, for kinship and cultural reasons. I feel 1 have been away too long. Yet, at the same time, I know I can’t bring the resources or working methods from the NFB with me.

What is your next project?

I have found a story in the woiid of science that I might be able to do. I have never wanted to do fiction just for the sake of having a feature to my name. But now I have a story that I can really respond to, since it relates to my growing up.

My father was a scientist and it is his world.

It is a long way off yet, but scarcely have I felt so right about something ahead of time. With documentaries so-called, or my “visions” if you will allow, one plunges off and plunges in. Quite different.

color, 16mm 1971 Persistent and Finagling 56 mins, black and white, 16mm 1971 Summer’s Nearly Over 29 mins, color, 16mm 1971 Wet Earth and Warm People 59 mins, color. 16mm 1972 O.K. . . . Camera 27 mins, color, 16mm 1973 Jalan, Jalan: A Journey in Sundanese Java 20 mins, color, 16mm 1973 The Man Who Can’t Stop 58 mins, color. 16mm 1973 The Streets of Saigon 20 mins, color, 16mm 1974 Waiting for Fidel 58 mins, color, 16mm 1975 1am an old Tree 57 mins, color, 16mm 1976 Low Cost Housing in the Solomon Islands 20 mins, color, 16mm 1976 The Digesters 12 mins, color, 16mm 1976 Bate’s Car: Sweet as a Nut 16 mins, color, 16mm 1976 Log House co-directed with Andreas Poulson, 28 mins, color, 16mm 1976 The Walls Come Tumbling Down co­ directed with Pierre Lasny and William Weintraub, 26 mins, color, 16mm 1977 I Hate to Lose 57 mins, color, 16mm 1978 Tigers and Teddy Bears 32 mins, color, 16mm 1978 Solzhenitsyn’s Children . . . are making a lot of noise in Paris 87 mins, color. 16mm 1980 Yes or No, Jean-Guy Moreau 58 mins, color, 16mm

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 89

Film Production DesignfPart One

LEGGED SQUIRM f

U h m E nÉ F ( f * ■"J¥

y ïïp p o c h

jg |

/P P 1

x

Mvyi

Jü

Above: Randall Kleiser’s Grease. Left: Olivia Newton-John and Gene Kelly in Xanadu.

film Xanadu, but in reality all of these elements — each a viable money-spinner in their own right — did not work on film to produce any­ thing especially captivating; and the audiences stayed away from the film. In both cases, a failure to realize the intent results in straight­ forward failure.

Film Production Design Continued from p. 3 / expressed properly, two perfect examples of which are the “underground” art film and, at the other extreme, the commercial venture that deliberately sets out to capitalize on the topical fame of a shooting star or fashion that must inevitably pass. In the first case it has not been unusual to see. from the underground, a jumble of moving images cut together with no apparent plan or cohesion that creates a mental and visual blur, from which the audience tries to derive some sense, given the information in front of it.

The fact that everybody often leaves the theatre having derived dozens of different mean­ ings from the film may only serve to reflect the filmmaker’s own inability to express himself and/or lack of conviction in his ideas. This kind of muddle is often responded to by the film­ maker or artist, when challenged, by some self­ elevating remark such as “the world is not ready for me yet”, or perhaps even “ Don’t show your own ignorance by asking such a stupid question, man.” “Why not?” , you might ask, “ I thought you might know the answer.”

By the same token, the commerciallyintended film that is based on notions alreadyaccepted by the public that are fashionable fads will not always w-ork if the concept of making money has not been married happily with some minor innovations to an established storyline.

Grease worked very well with two popular stars: and putting Olivia Newton-John, Gene Kelly and the Electric Light Orchestra together might have seemed like a good idea on paper for the 90 - January-February CINEMA PAPERS

have indulged in dozens of other passing delights, can only be seen as a seriously regres­ sive step by dedicated followers of fashion.

There does exist, however, a kind of fashion trend within filmmaking itself, within its own time sphere. This leads to spates of films being released each year or so that take as a starting point something within the industry rather than something successful outside the industry. Thus a veritable rash of shock-horror films was set upon the public in the late 1970s, which were generated by one or two successful films. In this genre, a psychopathic killer would pop out at his pretty victim just when we could see him, but she could not. The largely adolescent audience would cream their pants at once, their screams of shock comfortably concealed behind a simul­ taneous blat on the soundtrack.

Dozens of pale imitations have been made with increasingly less and less content. Jaws provoked a similar epidemic in its own genre.

But after the relative plausibility, sophistication and humor of that film, it became necessary (to re-use such a splendid formula) to come up with a host of equally vicious antagonists. Within an identical storyline we were challenged to be horrified in turn by hideous sharks, a whale, rats, frogs, (reptiles are always good), a grizzly bear, a bunch of feral dogs and, at the end of it all, even by the bees in Swarm — which leads me to think that it probably all started with Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds.

While I may seem to be wandering off the sub­ ject, consider that one has an idea for a really good film within the above-mentioned genres — butchering ghoul, marauding hideous creature, or a disaster involving a gigantic hotel burning down — and that the basic idea supersedes any

ilm is not a topical medium with the same immediate feedback that news­ papers and television enjoy, where events of that very day can be dis­ cussed, avoided or laughed at.

Journals and television news rely upon immediacy, on-the-spot reporting and topicality, upon the exclusive story and the “scoop” for their continued existence in a world that they themselves have promoted as frantically busy and harum-scarum. From the inception of a film through to its general release, one, two or even more years could have elapsed; so the very idea of its subject matter being immediate and fashionable is quite out of the question, due to the lengthy production times involved.

To make film according to fashion is not only fatuous, but shortsighted, making the mistake of attributing to the medium a quality that it does not possess. It is not a reporting medium and should not be used as such, unless handled with the awareness and control that is necessary for such documentary styles of work. To capitalize on a fashion trend, which is by its very nature a shortlived animal, and to rush out a film before the season ends, only results in an ill-considered job with too many rough edges. All this is not to say that filmmakers should not be aware of trends of thought, dress, popular heroes and modes of visual presentation, for it is essential that they are. Not to be in touch with contem­ porary developments is a sure sign that one has ceased to develop oneself. But to latch on to a prevailing trend, to work on it for a year or two, fashioning it into a film, and then to expect the public to respond enthusiastically to an idea that is fading from their consciousness while they

F

Film Production Design/Part One

of these. And one is not keen on the idea because a vault on to the bandwagon seems to be in order. Well, simply because there has been a spate of films like the one in question, is absolutely no reason to reject it, as though the pitch has been ruined. To do so would be to do oneself the dishonor of assuming that the final film is going to look too similar to those before it, which is no basis for the creative process. On the contrary, it should in that case stimulate an original approach to the subject, such as setting it in the future, for instance. Intent and design.

Above left: Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. Above: Marlon Brando as Kurtz in Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. Above right: Alfred Hitchcocks The Birds. Below: Warren Newcombe, The Wizard of Oz.

o, design in film is the task of marry­ ing together the directing concepts, written ideas, editing plan, photo­ graphic approach, settings, props and costumes into one visual whole, or a style, so that the whole film looks like it is meant to be all together in the one hour and a half, rather than like a dozen or so different ideas strung beside each other.

Perhaps the other most important considera­ tion is that of the design of a film, giving it the necessary dramatic context and back-up, even to the extent of the settings virtually becoming members of the cast, like the astonishing land­ scapes created for The Wizard of Oz, which were as important as the little girl, the lion and the scarecrow, etc.

By placing certain scenes against comple­ mentary or jarring colors in contrast to the action taking place within them, one can manipulate the emotional effect of what the players are saying or doing. The hideaway of Lex Luther in Superman reveals the villain’s aspirations to the grand life; his petty criminal’s mind in the stolen pieces with which he has decorated his rooms; and his disregard for tradi­ tion when you realize that he is living in the future on the second floor of what used to be one of New York’s oldest restaurants, having had the ground floor flooded to make a swimming pool. That set tells a lot about Luther, while the character speaks for himself; the set and the mood indicated through the lighting and the fact that a large portion of the main scene in there was one repeated wide shot that showed the whole room clearly. This last point would have been planned by director and designer together as the room was being drawn up. We already knew Superman and Lex Luther, so, while they spoke, there was a perfect opportunity to have a look around, and get a better idea of the city of Metropolis, and a few laughs.

Besides adding additional information, the decision for another film scene might be to do away with a background altogether, and shoot only the subject in a spot of light, the device Coppola used for the introduction of Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. The two examples above are at extreme ends of an infinite scale of possibilities for heighten­ ing the impact of film, and while they are decisions that may be made by director, photo­ grapher, writer or designer, they are nonethe­ less design issues. The natural world, with all its shapes, colors and infinite configurations, along

S

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 91

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) 528 6188 (5 iines) Telex: GINX AA38366

Cinevex Film Laboratories Pty Ltd

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T h e q u ie t r e v o lu tio n

Available through the Cinematic network SYD N E Y: MELBOURNE: Cinematic Services Cine rentals 8 Clarendon Street, Artarmon NSW 2064 Phone: (02) 439 6144

15-17 Gordon Street, Elsternwick Vic. 3185

(previously known as B & C Movie Rentals)

30 Snkerman Street, St Kilda, Victoria 3182 Phone: (03) 534 4883, 537 1570

ST-6016 16mm HIGH SPEED PROJECTOR

W

e

s

t r e

x

35m m CINEMA PROJECTOR SERIES

* 9000 SERIES PHOTOGRAPHIC SOUND RECORDING SYSTEMS (35mm/16mm IN STEREO AND MONO) * ST 6000 MAG. FILM RECORDERS AND REPRODUCERS (ELECTRONIC DRIVE) * HIGH SPEED PROJECTORS FOR MIXING STUDIOS (HOLOSCOPE PRISM TYPE) S T -6 0 0 0 SERIES REPRODUCERS

* ST 3000 MIXING CONSOLES

AND RECORDER REPRODUCERS

* 2000 SERIES 35mm CINEMA PROJECTORS AND EQUIPMENT * ELECTRONIC FOOTAGE COUNTERS

WESTREX 9000

FOR FULL RANGE OF WESTREX EQUIPMENT AND OTHER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO THE FILM INDUSTRY, CONTACT

JOHN 0 , FARMER

STUDIOmm SYSTEMS 13 Keppel R d . , RYDE, 2112. A u s t r a l i a Ph. 02-888.1746 T e l e x : AA72108 SOUNDS

Film Production Design/Part One

with the vast source of images that Man has scratched and scribbled since he came down from the trees go to make up the material with which filmmakers can work. While the painter has his tubes of color, the writer his vocabulary and typewriter, and the musician his scales, the filmmaker has the entire world as his pailette, being able to manipulate anything — absolutely any thing — to create an atmosphere, sensation or spectacle for the public’s enjoyment.

hat is rather a wide scope of source material, but, again, the juxtaposi­ tion does not have to relate to the real world when placing objects together in film, any more than architecture has to faithfully follow any particu­ lar style, even when attempting to evoke a par­ ticular period. There is no reason why one cannot use the most disparate elements and make them look like they have been bed- John De Cuir sketch for The King and /. partners for ever.

To gain the full emotional potential from the infinite amount of material that exists (apart from what can be invented), it is surely permiss­ ible to use anything to make the point. If a certain image is required to illustrate an associa­ concepts that would be hard to explain verbally, tion, memory or joke in film, but it looks at first or to show effects that cannot exist in the real that'it just will not fit, then perhaps that offend­ world about us. ing image can be transposed into a form where it Here is a little story about the making of The will blend perfectly or counterpoint harmoni­ King and I (1956), extracted from Film ously with the rest of the film. In the middle of Comment (May/June 1978) rather than using Werner Hertzog’s 19th Century story set in my own words: Bavaria, The Enigma of Kasper Hauser, there is “A weak mise-en-scene can be dominated by another story about a blind Arab leading his strong art direction — seemingly a contradic­ tribe through the desert. His remaining faculties tion, but not in overly departmentalized of touch, taste and smell enable him to deter­ Hollywood. A director could possibly resent a mine from a handful of sand which way lies contribution that he thought upset the balance North, and therefore the direction that his of a picture, or stole the honors from him, or people should take. How do you make the diminished his authority. He could retaliate expansive compositions from the Sahara by giving the designer a stomach ulcer, but a compatible with the awkwardly-cluttered strong designer would stand his ground, fight Bavarian town? In fact it is not a tricky one at every foot of the film, and send him to all, since the tribesmen wear ageless robes. But hospital with a heart attack. This is in fact the the desert sequence was shot in such a way as to substance of the battle that raged between suggest pictorial reproduction of the period to Walter Lang and designer John De Cuir which the main story belongs. The desert scene during the making of The King and I. At one had the quality of a stereo-option slide; the point De Cuir had to win Yul Brynner and colors were faded, and the image did not have Deborah Kerr over to his side by shooting a the sharpness that the rest of the story had. test reel using the controversial sets to demon­ There was a picturebook quality that made us strate that a pink palace in no way detracted accept the sequence without the slightest shock. from the king’s royalty and that a boldly Given that the initial design concept of a film stylized decor with a few oriental props would is strong enough, it should be possible to blend only enhance Anna’s crinolines. Lang ended together any number of disparate ingredients; up with a heart attack. De Cuir ended up with and for that concept to be strong enough to an Academy Award — the ultimate vindica­ tolerate the possibility of ideas occurring to tion in the eyes of the industry.” the director during the shooting of a film that had not been considered before, and to absorb the new ideas or improvization without harming the overall picture. If the designer has his pulse on his own creation, then nothing can look out of place (that is not intended to do so). A fruit salad can be blended together by adding a noggin of brandy to the bowl — it is as simple as that — but if that subtle flavor is not consistent through­ out the plateful as one eats, then each ingredient stands out as separate from its neighbour. The salad is not homogeneous.

Likewise, one can place many different styles side by side within one film — each one express­ ing your point in the way it does best. One can make reference to other artforms knowing that within a certain image lies an idea or an associa­ tion that the majority of the audience will recog­ nize. This offers a very wide frame of reference within any one film, and it is all due to the fact that the visual vocabulary and its attendant Werner Herzog's The Enigma of Kasper Hauser. associations is no doubt more expansive for most of us than our spoken or literary vocabularies, and can be employed to express

T

ilm is a visual medium, but I am by no means advocating design for design’s sake, when it comes to film; for precisely that reason — that one designs for film, and not within the film, or separate from it. A weak concept can truly be dominated by strong art direction, often with the end result having the appearance of the designers having gone off on tangents of their own.

The latter half of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 presents one with some memorable environ­ ments, from which the art department obviously derived a great deal of satisfaction. The space­ ship interiors and exteriors helped to revolu­ tionize the approach to such things, and these sets acted as useful precedents for ensuing space­ fiction films. But what will remain memorable about 2001 are these visuals rather than the sub­ ject matter, on which it seems that Kubrick had nothing but a very flimsy grasp, let alone an understanding. To try and explain the indescrib­ able with inarticulately-colored-kaleidoscopes may have been fashionable, but hardly enlightening.

I see filmmaking to be exactly like a large number of people getting together to do a painting that takes at least an hour and a half to look at. Each technician supplies every little detail from the initial idea to the lighting, at the instruction of the director, until after a year or so they have a completed film. To this end the project requires a committed team working towards the same end; ensuring that each ingredient of the film takes its place in the final picture because it helps the understanding of the overall idea, rather than being a collection of the various crew members’ idiosyncracies. In the same way, the compositional elements of a painting serve to focus attention on to the main subject or theme by providing a balanced field of complementary and opposing forms and colors.

To achieve this kind of balance in putting together a film setting it is essential to choose certain colors and forms to exaggerate; to twist reality. Since film uses the real world as its material, and therefore uses objects with which one is often very familiar, certain things have to be overstated, otherwise they would not be recognized as playing a part in the dramatic scheme of things. Rather, they would be taken for granted as they are in what we laughingly call the real world, and audiences might well be forgiven for confusing a constructed drama with a documentary or newsreel film. In other words, the settings are as instrumental in telling the story, in the absence of a narration, as are the dialogue and reactions of the players; but not unless those settings are directed with as much conviction as are the actors. ★

F

To be continued next issue.

CINEMA PAPERS January-February — 93

AVOID THE RUSH FOR 82 stills, editing,

¡T

SO U N D STU D IO FOR H IR E scripts, special f.x.

- .

*

ssg&a*

Suitable for Film, Video and Stills at: F IL M S E T S 88 W arrigal R oad , Oakleigh, M E L B O U R N E 3166

A S '*

TASMAN FILM PRODUCTIONS FILM QUIP 18myrtle av. kew FILM PROPS 803520X870*8609

Studio 75’ x 46’ with 14’ to lighting grid.

l %\

10 Y E A R S I N TH E B U SIN ESS OF SHOR T FILM P R O D U C TIO N 40

INTERNATIONAL

Large three sided paintable fixed eye.

Good access to studio for cars and trucks.

Design and set construction service available.

Dressing rooms, wardrobe, and make-up facilities.

AWARDS STUDIO BOOKINGS, PHONE:

IF

YOU

NEED

PRODUCTION

CONTACT P.O.BOX

ASSISTANCE

ANDREW 30 0

VIAL

CROWS

FILM

NEST

OR

WANT

PROD.

N.S.W.

A

FILM

MADE

P/L

2065

PHONE ( 0 2 ) 922-3297

Alex Simpson, (03) 568 0058, (03) 368 2948

F IL M IN G IN

S U P E R

16?

THE STATE OF THE ART LOCATION RECORDING

We’ve got Australia’s first Cooke Vario Kinetal Super 16mm zoom lens, and the latest Super 16 Aaton LTR 7 ■ — all for hire.

FOR SALE PREVOST 35/16—8 plate editing machine—’68 vintage—good condition $5,000.

Lemac Cine Rentals 2 3 7 C h u r c h St R ic h m o n d , V i c . , 3 1 2 1 (0 3 ) 4 2 9 2 9 9 2 Not only but also, Arriflex, cinema products, Eclair NPR, DR70, GSAP, and Bolex cameras, Zeiss superspeed lenses and Aspheron converters, Angenieux zooms from the Superfast T1.3 1644 to the 12-240mm zoom, filters, camera and suction mounts, camera prompters, lighting and sound gear — get our new catalogue! m -^ 2

2E 2 22 ^5 ^2 E 53 5 E B 3 33 ^E S 5 S 35 52 & 23 5 3S E 33 H E S S S 9H S 5 5 S 2 S 22 S

94 — January-February CINEMA PAPERS

STUDIO/LOCATION LIGHTING: laniro & manfrotto—soft lights, blondies & reds, spot, lamp stock, stands and cases, pole cats $4,000.00

DARKROOM EQUIPMENT—tub, trays, paper etc.

PH (02) 27 4718

Production Survey Continuedfrom p. 69 C h ris tin e C ra n s w ic k (N S W ); A w a k e a n d A w a re ; 1 6m m d o c u m e n ta ry ; 23 m in s; p o s t­ p ro d u c tio n in v e s tm e n t — $ 40 00 S a lly E c c le s to n (N S W ); T h e S e n d e r o f D re a m s ; 1 6m m s h o rt d ra m a ; 12 m ins; p ro d u c tio n g ra n t — $ 2 6 5 5 H e a th e r W illia m s (W A ); J u s t F rie n d s ; 16m m s h o rt d ra m a ; 1 0 m in s; p ro d u c tio n g ra n t — $ 3824 R o s a lin d G ille s p ie (N S W ); T h e C h o r e o ­ g ra p h e r; fe a tu re ; s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t g ra n t — $ 25 60 Ja n e O e h r (N S W ); M ir r o r M irro r; fe a tu re ; s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t g ra n t — $ 25 00 A n n e S a r g e n t , S h ir le y H e p p in g s to n e , E liza b e th R a p a cy (W A ); Is o b e l; fe a tu re ; s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t g ra n t; $46 00 K aty W ild (N S W ); N o D e to u rs ; fe a tu re ; s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t g ra n t — $ 32 00 S u s y P o in t o n (N S W ); T h e G r e e n in g ; fe a tu re ; s c rip t d e v e lo p m e n t g ra n t — $ 25 00

C reative D evelopm ent Branch Grants approved at A ustralian Film C om m ission m eeting in July, 1981 S cript Developm ent M a rk S to w S m ith (N S W ); g ra n t to d e v e lo p R e ve n g e to 2 n d d ra ft — $25 00 O liv e r R o b b (N S W ); g ra n t to b rin g L in k B oy to 2 nd d ra ft — $ 26 00 J e n n ife r N u s s in o v (N S W ); g ra n t to b rin g T h e A n z a c B o y to 2 nd d ra ft — $ 2 5 0 0 C y n th ia B la n c h (N S W ); g ra n t to b rin g T h e M u s ic R o o m to 2 n d d ra ft — $ 2 1 2 0 T o n y C a rto u c h e (O ld ); g ra n t to fu rth e r d e v e lo p T h e S h o w O ff — $800 F ra n c is C h a lm e rs (Q ld ); g ra n t to b rin g L iv ­ in g in A u s tra lia to 1st d ra ft — $ 14 00 D a v id Y o u n g (N S W ); g r a n t to b r in g T h re s h o ld to 1st d ra ft — $ 2 4 0 0 P ie rre C o c h ra n e (N S W ); g ra n t to fu rth e r d ra ft T h u n d e rb o lt — $15 00 M ic h a e l C re ig h to n (N S W ); g ra n t to fu rth e r d ra ft R u b b is h — $70 0 B a rry B illin g s , T o m Z u b ry c k i, J u lie O v e rto n (N S W ); g ra n t to re s e a rc h A g e n t O ra n g e — $25 00 J o h n W h ite (N S W ); g ra n t to b rin g T h in g s F a ll A p a rt to 1st d ra ft — $24 00 R a y m o n d H a rd in g (N S W ); g ra n t to fu rth e r d ra ft O n c e M o re w ith F e e lin g — $ 20 00 S te p h e n W a ts o n (N S W ); g ra n t to fu rth e r d ra ft O m e g a B o y — $ 1 4 0 0 r W illia m H a n n a n , D a vid W o o d g a te , Dean A s h e n d e n (N S W ); g ra n t to b rin g L e a v in g to 1 st d ra ft — $ 28 68 Ro H u m e (N S W ); g ra n t to fu r th e r d ra ft D e a d lin e s — $ 1 3 0 0 F a b riz io C a la fu ri, G w e n d o ly n C a s trik u m (V ic.); g ra n t to b rin g S ta rtin g O v e r to 1st d ra ft — $ 34 00 C la ire J a g e r (V ic.); g ra n t to fu r th e r d ra ft T h e R ig h t P la c e to G o W ro n g — $ 14 00 H e n ry T e fa y (V ic.); g ra n t to fu r th e r d ra ft D r e a m tim e T ra v e lle r — $ 22 00 P au l D a vie s (V ic.); g ra n t to fu r th e r d ra ft F rid a y o n m y M in d — $ 34 75 D e nise M o rg a n (V ic.); g ra n t to fu r th e r d e v e lo p H o o p — $ 2 4 0 0 K e vin B re w e r (V ic.); g ra n t to fu r th e r d e v e lo p T h e B o o m Y e a rs — $ 17 00 J o h n R u an e , P e te r T a m m e r (V ic.); g ra n t to d e v e lo p F ro n t E n d L o a d e r — $ 2 3 5 0 G e o ffre y W rig h t (V ic.); g ra n t to fu r th e r d e v e lo p S k in H e a d s — $ 2 7 0 0 S u sa n B ig n e ll, N in o M a rtin e tti (V ic.); g ra n t to fu r th e r d e v e lo p T h e W a ite r — $ 10 00 E liz a b e th M a n s u tti (S A ); g ra n t to fu r th e r d e v e lo p T ild a — $ 20 00 K a th y M illa r d (S A ); g r a n t to re s e a rc h W o m e n in th e L a b o u r M o v e m e n t — $15 15 M a rk B lu m e r, J o h n R o b in s o n (W A ); g ra n t to fu r th e r re s e a rc h O n B e in g o n th e D o le — $ 14 00

C reative D evelopm ent Fund Grants and Investm ents approved at A ustralian Film C om m ission meeting in O ctober, 1981 P roduction P e te r C a lla s (N S W ); g ra n t to m a k e O u r P o te n tia l A llie s II — $ 78 75 B ru c e C u rrie (N S W ); g ra n t to m a k e F la n k B re e d e r — $ 30 30 G e o rg e G itto e s (N S W ); g r a n t to m a k e C u rra c u rra n g — $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 M a rio n e tte T h e a tre o f A u s tra lia (N S W ); in v e s tm e n t to m a k e R u b b is h — $ 2 0 ,00 0 D a v id R o b e rts , M a rth a A n s a ra (N S W ); in v e s tm e n t f o r P a c ific P e a c e m a k e r — $ 60 00 Jo h n W h itte ro n (N S W ); s c rip t g ra n t fo r A nd y — $350 W im m in is fiim s C o lle c tiv e (N S W ); g ra n t to m a k e B re a d a n d D r ip p in g — $ 17 70 H elen G a y n o r (V ic.); s c rip t a n d p re -p r o d u c ­ tio n fo r T h e T ro m b o n is t — $ 15 00 C h ris K n o w le s (V ic.); g ra n t to m a k e D o c to r D a rk — $43 82 P e te r L y s s io tis (V ic.); g ra n t to m a k e T h e O c c u p a n t — $63 67 Ian P rin g le (V ic.); in v e s tm e n t to m a k e T h e P la in s o f H e a v e n — $ 6 0 ,5 4 6 J o h n S k ib in s k i (V ic.); in v e s tm e n t to m a k e F o x b a t a n d th e D e m o n — $ 2 5 ,5 0 0 D e n n is T u p ic o ff (V ic.); in v e s tm e n t to m a ke D a n c e o f D e a th — $ 1 9 ,6 1 0 R o b e rt W y a tt (Q ld ); g ra n t to m a k e L a n d — $14,431

HOSPICE (w orking title )

FILM A U S T R A L IA AFTER SCHOOL SPECIALS P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................F ilm A u s tra lia D ist. c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia P r o d u c e r ................................. M a c e k R u b e tzki R e s e a r c h e r ............................ D a ro G u n z b u rg A sst, p r o d u c e r ...................................G e rry L etts L e n g th ................................................6 x 23 m ins' G a u g e ............................................................ 16m m P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d r e le a s e .....................................1983 Synopsis: D r a m a tiz e d te le v is io n s e rie s a b o u t a d o le s c e n ts a n d yo u n g a d u lts.

THE CREATIVE EYE

THE W EEKLY’S WAR

IF YOU’RE M ISSIN G ART

P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................F ilm A u s tra lia D ist. c o m p a n ie s ........... F ilm A u s tra lia , P B L P ro d , c o m p a n y ........................ F ilm A u s tra lia P r o d u c e r ..................................S u z a n n e B a k e r D ist. c o m p a n y ...........................F ilm A u s tra lia D ir e c t o r ................................. S te p h e n R a m se y P r o d u c e r .................................... S u z a n n e B a k e r S c r ip t w r it e r .......................... S te p h e n R a m se y D ire c to r ...................................S te p h e n R a m se y P hseoyto g r a p h y ..................................K e rry B ro w n S c r ip t w r it e r .............................................. S te p h e n R a m S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................Rod S im m o n s L e n g th ........................................................5 0 m in s E d i t o r ............................................... Ray T h o m a s G a u g e ............................................................16m m A sst, p r o d u c e r ...................... N ig e l S a u n d e rs S h o o tin g s t o c k ........................... E a s tm a n c o lo r U n it m a n a g e r .................................. G e rry Letts P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n Synopsis: The s to ry o f th e jo y a n d triu m p h G a f f e r ............................................. B ru c e G a ile y L e n g th ................................................150 m in s e x p e rie n c e d b y th e d y in g a nd th o s e n e a r to G a u g e ............................................................ 16m m th e m as th e y a re g u id e d th ro u g h th e "fin a l S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................ E a s tm a n c o lo r stag e o f g ro w th ” w ith th e te c h n iq u e s o f th e P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n H o s p ic e M o v e m e n t.

S c h e d u le d re le a se ...................................... 1983 Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry d ra m a a b o u t THE MOST A N CIEN T MODERNS A u s tra lia in b a ttle a n d o n th e h o m e fro n t d u rin g W o rld W a r 2, se e n th ro u g h th e eyes P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................F ilm A u s tra lia o f th e new s fe a tu re d e p a r tm e n t o f th e P r o d u c e r ........................................R o b M c A u le y A u s tra lia n W o m e n 's W eekly.

S c r ip t w r it e r ................................Jo h n E d w a rd s

A sst, p r o d u c e r ................................................P am E n n o r G a u g e ............................................................ 16m m P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................Film A u s tra lia P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n D ist. c o m p a n y ........................... F ilm A u s tra lia Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry th a t lo o k s at th e P r o d u c e r .......................................M a lc o m O tto n o ld e s t m o d e rn h u m a n s ye t d is c o v e re d .

D ir e c t o r ................................................ D a vid M u ir T h ey live at L a k e M u n g o , W e s te rn A u s tra lia .

S c r ip t w r it e r ..........................................D a vid M u ir A u s tra lia .

P h o t o g r a p h y ....................................... D a vid M u ir S o u n d re c o rd is t .........................G e o rg e H a rt E d i t o r ...................................................... E d ith M u ir NATIO N AL ROADS A sst, p r o d u c e r .................................................Ron H a nn a m P ro d, m a n a g e r .........C o rrie S o e te rb o e k P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................F ilm A u s tra lia ALCOHOLISM L ig h tin g ......................................... B ru c e G a ile y P r o d u c e r ........................................ Rob M c A u le y C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..............................J im W a rd P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... V ic to ria n Film D ire c to r ...........................................T o n i M cR a e N a r r a t o r ..........................................................C e c ily P o iso S cnr ip t w r it e r .................................... T o n i M cR a e C o rp o ra tio n L e n g th ........................................................ 13 m in s E d i t o r ............................................L in d s a y F ra s e r S c r ip t w r it e r ................................R u ssell P o rte r G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m A sst, p r o d u c e r ................................................P am E n nEoxec, r p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r A d v is e r ........................................ D r J a n F ra illo n L e n g th .................................................. 5 x 4 m in s P ro g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n L e n g th ........................................................20 m in s G a u g e ............................................................ 16m m S c h e d u le d re le a s e ......................M a rc h , 1982 G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m S h o o tin g s t o c k .......................................

7247 Synopsis: In te n d e d as a b a c k g ro u n d to th e P ro g re s s ............................................. P ro d u c tio n P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n "A u s tra lia n E ye ” se rie s. P ro v id e s c re a tiv e S c h e d u le d re le a s e .........................A p ril, 1982 Synopsis: T h e s to ry o f w h a t is h a p p e n in g a rtis ts of in s ig h ts by 10 c o n te m p o ra ry Synopsis: A s h o rt film a b o u t e a rly d e te c tio n a ro u n d A u s tra lia in an e ffo rt to im p ro v e d iffe rin g style s. o f a lc o h o l a b u se . P ro d u c e d fo r th e H e alth C o m m o n w e a lt h G o v e r n m e n t- fu n d e d C o m m is s io n . n a tio n a l h ig h w a ys.

V IC T O R IA N FILM C O R P O R A TIO N

P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................V ic to ria n F ilm C o rp o r a tio n S c r ip t w r it e r .................................................J e re m y P re ss E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k L e n g th ........................................................ 15 m in s G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6 m m P ro g re s s ...........................

P ro d u c tio n S c h e d u le d re le a s e .........................A p r il, 1982 Synopsis: A s h o rt film a b o u t th e a rts in V ic to ria . M a d e fo r th e M in is try f o r th e A rts.

THE 1934 LONDON TO MELBOURNE AIR RACE P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ..................................V ic to ria n Film C o rp o ra tio n , O u trid e r F ilm s L o n d o n D ire c to r (B ritis h u n i t ) ..................................M ik e H a rris S c r ip t w r it e r ........... » ................................. J e re m y P re ss E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k L e n g th ........................................................ 48 m in s G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n Synopsis: A d ra m a tiz e d d o c u m e n ta r y a b o u t th e c la s s ic a ir ra ce , b e in g film e d in A u s tra lia a n d E n g la n d fo r V ic to ria 's 1 50 th a n n iv e rs a ry c e le b ra tio n s .

STREET KIDS

P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ..................................V ic to ria n Film C o rp o ra tio n , Y o rk S tre e t F ilm s D ist. c o m p a n y ............................V ic to ria n Film C o rp o r a tio n P r o d u c e r ..................................... K e n t C h a d w ic k D ir e c t o r s ......................................................... L e ig h T ils o n , R o b S c o tt S c r ip t w r it e r s .................................................. L e ig h T ils o n , R o b S c o tt, K e n t C h a d w ic k , • A d ria n T a m e P h o t o g r a p h y .................................. L e ig h T ils o n S o u n d re c o rd is t ................................R o b S c o tt R e se a rch a d v is e r ..............A le x M c D o n a ld R e s e a rc h a s s is t a n t .................................... L in d a J o s e p h DOWN THE H ILL TO BERRY’S BAY L e n g th ........................................................ 4 8 m in s RIGHT HERE AND NOW CRIME DETECTION P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................Film A u s tra lia G a u g e ........................................................... 1 6 m m D ist. c o m p a n y ................................................ AFC S h o o tin g s t o c k ................................................F u ji P ro d , c o m p a n y . . . .K e ith H o u n s lo w P ro d s P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... V ic to ria n Film P r o d u c e r ...................................................M a lc o lm O ttoPnr o d u c e r ........................................ R o b M c A u le y S c h e d u le d re le a s e ................. : . . . Feb. 1982 C o rp o ra tio n D ir e c t o r ................................................ D a vid M u ir Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry o n th e u rb a n D ir e c t o r ............................................................ K e ith H o uSncs rloipwt w r it e r .........................................................Lyn O g ilv y S c r ip t w r it e r ..........................................D a vid M u ir s tre e t life o f h o m e le s s c h ild re n . S e t in S c r ip t w r it e r ..................................................... K e ith H o uEnxec, s lo w p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k M e lb o u rn e . M a d e fo r te le v is io n re le a se .

P h o to g r a p h y ........................................D a vid M u ir P h o t o g r a p h y .................................. K en H e itm a n L e n g th ........................................................25 m in s S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... G e o rg e H a rt S o u n d re c o rd is t .................... D o n B o a rd m a n G a u g e ............................................................1 6m m E d i t o r .............................................................. S u sa n H o rsle P ro g re s s ............................................. P ro d u c tio n E d yi t o r ..................................................... Ron B ro w n A TO AST TO MELBOURNE A sst, p r o d u c e r .................................................R on H a nAnsst, a m p r o d u c e r ..................................P am E n n o r Synopsis: A tra in in g film on th e te c h n iq u e s U n it m a n a g e r .................. C o rrie S o e te rb o e k L e n g th ........................................................ 12 m in s o f c rim e d e te c tio n , fo r th e V ic to ria P olice.

P ro d , c o m p a n ie s .................................. V ic to ria n F ilm L ig h tin g ......................................... B ru c e G a ile y C o rp o ra tio n , G a u g e ............................................................1 6m m C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..............................J im W a rd C a m b rid g e F ilm s S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................................. 7247 AN EXPERIMENT IN DRAMA N a r r a t o r ..........................................................C e c ily P o iso n g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n D ist. c o m p a n ie s .................................... V ic to ria n F ilm P ro L e n g th ........................................................ 10 m in s C o rp o ra tio n , Synopsis: D e sig n e d to e n c o u ra g e in te re s t P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ..................................V ic to ria n Film G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m C o rp o ra tio n , F ilm w a ys in b e c o m in g an a p p re n tic e in th e A rm y .

S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................ E a s tm a n c o lo r P r o d u c e r .................................. K e n t C h a d w ic k V in c e n t O 'D o n n e ll P ro d u c tio n s P ro g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n D ir e c t o r ............................................... J o h n D ixo n D ir e c t o r ................................V in c e n t O ’D o n n e ll SAVING ENERGY IN INDUSTRY S c h e d u le d re le a se ......................M a rc h , 1982 S c r ip t w r it e r s ....................................................J o h n D ixo n , P h o to g r a p h y .................................................... A la n C o le Synopsis: S tu d y o f R o la n d W a ls e lin 's 1916 P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................F ilm A u s tra lia K e n t C h a d w ic k S o u n d re c o rd is t .................. D o n B o a rd m a n p a in tin g (N o. 24 in se rie s).

P h o t o g r a p h y ............................. M a rk H a yw o o d E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k P r o d u c e r ........................................ Rob M c A u le y A d d itio n a l p h o to g ra p h y . . . K e ith W a g s ta ff, P ro S c r ip t w r it e r .................................................... D a vid B a rro w d, a s s is ta n t...........................P en n y R o b in s R o b C o p p in g , d ir e c t o r ..................................................... K im D a lto n A sst, p r o d u c e r ................................................P am E n nA o sst r ENERGY E lle ry Ryan, 2 nd c a m e ra o p e r a t o r .................................. In g e H e lb ig L e n g th ........................................................2 0 m in s G o rd o n G le n n P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................F ilm A u s tra lia C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ..................... N a ta lie G re e n P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n D ist. c o m p a n y ............................ F ilm A u s tra lia G a f f e r ................................................................ J o h n IrvinSgo u n d re c o rd is t ..........................G a ry W ilk in s Synopsis: A film d e s ig n e d to e n c o u ra g e P r o d u c e r ....................................M a c e k R u b e tz k i E d i t o r ................................................................D a vid M iln e r D ra m a a d v is e r ...........................Lyn H a rw o o d e n e rg y c o n s e rv a tio n .

D ire c to r ............................P h ilip R o b e rts o n C o m p o s e r ................................B ru c e R o w la n d B o o m o p e ra to r ............................. P e te r E vans S c r ip t w r it e r ..............................P h ilip R o b e rts o n A d d itio n a l m u s i c ...........................................M ik e B ra d y, L e n g th ........................................................28 m in s SYDNEY 1942 P h o to g r a p h y ..................................K e rry B ro w n J o e D o lce , G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m S o u n d re c o rd is t ...................R od S im m o n s P e te r S u lliv a n P ro g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................F ilm A u s tra lia E d i t o r ......................................... P h ilip R o b e rts o n P ro d , m a n a g e r .......................... E w an B u rn e tt Cast: S tu d e n ts fro m St. J o s e p h s T rin ity Dist. c o m p a n y ................................................A FC A sst, p r o d u c e r ....................... N ig e l S a u n d e rs C o s tu m e d e s ig n e r ......................J a n e H yla n d P r o d u c e r .................................................. M a lc o lm O ttoC n o lle g e , C o la c.

U n it m a n a g e r ................................J o e l P e te rs o n Synopsis: A d o c u m e n ta ry o n th e te a c h in g S o u n d e d ito r ................................. K en S a llo w s D ire c to r .............................................D a vid M u ir A d d itio n a l s o u n d .................... P e te r M u m m e C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ................F e lic ity S u rte e s o f d ra m a te c h n iq u e s . P ro d u c e d f o r th e S c r ip t w r it e r .........................................D a vid M u ir L e n g th ........................................................25 m in s S o u n d m i x in g ........................... C u s to m V id e o E d u c a tio n D e p a rtm e n t o f V ic to ria .

P h o to g r a p h y ...................................... D a vid M u ir L e n g th ...................................................... 4 0 m in s G a u g e ............................................................ 16m m S o u n d re c o rd is t ..........................G e o rg e H a rt S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a stm a n 7247 G a u g e ............................................................ 3 5 m m E d i t o r ............................................ S usa n H o rsle y 4 MUSIC FILMS S h o o tin g s t o c k ................................................. Fuji P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n A sst, p r o d u c e r .................................................Ron H a nn a m P ro g re s s ................................................In re le a se S c h e d u le d re le a s e ......................... A p ril, 1982 P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................V ic to ria n Film U n it m a n a g e r ..................C o rrie S o e te rb o e k Cast: T h e p e o p le o f M e lb o u rn e , w ith Synopsis: T h e d e v e lo p m e n t a n d u se of L ig h tin g ........................................... B ru c e G a ile y C o rp o ra tio n a p p e a ra n c e s b y B a r ry H u m p h r ie s , Ian re n e w a b le e n e rg y te c h n o lo g y in A u s tra lia .

D ire c to r o f a n im a tio n . . G ra h a m e J a c k s o n C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ............................. J im W a rd M e ld ru m , P h illip A d a m s , M ik e B ra d y , J o e Cn o m p o s e r ..................................D a vid H e rtzo g N a r r a t o r ..........................................................C e c ily P o iso D o lce a nd P e te r S u lliv a n .

E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k ENERGY CONSERVATION L e n g th ........................................................ 10 m in s Synopsis: A fe a tu re d o c u m e n ta ry a b o u t M u s ic a d v is e r ...........................L o rra in e M iln e G a u g e ..........................................................35 m m M e lb o u rn e fo r in te rn a tio n a l c in e m a re le a se .

P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................F ilm A u s tra lia L e n g th .................................................. 4 x 4 m in s S h o o tin g s t o c k ...........................E a s tm a n c o lo r P r o d u c e r ......................................... R o b M c A u le y G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6m m P ro g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n A sst, p r o d u c e r ............................. P am E n n o r P ro g re s s ..............................................P ro d u c tio n Synopsis: S ali H e rm a n , at 84, has b ee n THE UNSUSPECTING CONSUM ER L e n g th ........................................................ 10 m in s Synopsis: A s e rie s o f a n im a te d film s a b o u t p a in tin g h is u n iq u e v is io n o f S y d n e y ’s city G a u g e ....................

35m m P ro d , c o m p a n y ......................... V ic to ria n Film m u s ic f o r e d u c a tio n a l d is trib u tio n . M a d e fo r life fo r 44 ye a rs. He ta lk s a b o u t his m e th o d s P ro g re s s .................................. P re -p ro d u c tio n C o rp o r a tio n the V ic to ria n E d u c a tio n D e p a rtm e n t. a nd a ttitu d e s to p a in tin g (N o. 27 in s e rie s).

Synopsis: A s h o rt film d e s ig n e d to e n lig h te n D ist. c o m p a n y ............................V ic to ria n Film p e o p le a b o u t t h e n e e d f o r e n e r g y C o rp o ra tio n A GOOD SCHEME W ATERFALL POLYPTYCH D ir e c t o r ............................................................P e te r G re e n c o n s e rv a tio n .

S c r ip t w r it e r .....................................................P e te r G re e n P ro d , c o m p a n ie s ..................................V ic to ria n Film P ro d , c o m p a n y .........................F ilm A u s tra lia E xec, p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k C o rp o ra tio n , THE HARBOUR FROM M cM AHONS D ist. c o m p a n y ................................................A FC L e n g th ...................................................... 12 m in s V in c e n t O 'D o n n e ll P ro d s P r o d u c e r .................................................. M a lc o lm O tto n POINT G a u g e ............................................................ 1 6 m m D ire c to r ................................V in c e n t O 'D o n n e ll D ir e c t o r ........... ....................................D a vid M u ir S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro d , c o m p a n y ..........................F ilm A u s tra lia S c r ip t w r it e r ....................................................D a vid M u irS c r ip t w r it e r ................................. Jo h n S u lliv a n P ro g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n D ist. c o m p a n y ................................................ A FC P h o to g r a p h y ..................................................D a vid M u irP h o t o g r a p h y .................................................... A la n C o le S c h e d u le d re le a s e .................... M a rc h , 1982 A d d itio n a l p h o t o g r a p h y ........... L e ig h T ilso n P r o d u c e r .....................................M a lc o lm O tto n S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... G e o rg e H a rt Synopsis: A n a n im a te d film on th e p itfa lls of S o u n d re c o rd is t ..................................Ian Ryan D ire c to r ................................................D a vid M u ir E d i t o r ............................................ S u sa n H o rsle y th e m a rk e tp la c e . M a d e fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t S c r ip t w r it e r ..........................................D a vid M u ir A sst, p r o d u c e r ................................................ Ron H a n E n admi t o r .............................................R o b e rt M a rtin o f C o n s u m e r A ffa irs .

Exec, p ro d u c e r .................... K e n t C h a d w ic k P h o t o g r a p h y ....................................... D a vid M u ir U n it m a n a g e r ..................C o rrie S o e te rb o e k T e c h n ic a l a d v is e r .................. E liza b e th R aut S o u n d re c o rd is t .......................... G e o rg e H a rt L ig h tin g ........................................ B ru c e G a ile y L e n g th ........................................................20 m in s E d i t o r .......................................... S u sa n H o rsle y C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........................... J im W a rd Ga A sst, p r o d u c e r ..............................Ron H a n n a m N a r r a t o r ..........................................................C e c ily P o iso n u g e ............................................................16m m P ro g re s s ............................................. In re le a se U n it m a n a g e r .................. C o rrie S o e te rb o e k L e n g th ........................................................ 10 m in s S y n o p s is : A d o c u m e n t a r y o n t h e L ig h tin g ........................................ B ru c e G ailey G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m in v o lv e m e n t o f fo u r y o u n g p e o p le in th e C a m e ra a s s is ta n t ........................... J im W a rd S h o o tin g s t o c k ............................ E a s tm a n c o lo r D u ke o f E d in b u rg h 's A w a rd S c h e m e in N a r r a t o r ........................................ C e c ily P oison Synopsis: E x a m in a tio n o f th e fa m o u s Fred A u s tra lia . M a d e fo r th e D e p a rtm e n t of L e n g th ........................................................ 10 m in s W illia m s la n d s c a p e . T h e a rtis t a ls o g ive s Y o u th S p o rt a nd R e c re a tio n .

G a u g e ............................................................3 5 m m in s ig h ts in to h is m e th o d s . (N o. 26 in se rie s.)

S h o o tin g s t o c k .............................E a s tm a n c o lo r P ro g re s s ...................................P o s t-p ro d u c tio n Synopsis: S tu d y o f o n e o f L lo yd R e es’ m o st p o w e rfu l p a in tin g s . T h e v e te ra n a rtis t ta lk s a b o u t h is m a n y w o rk s . (N o. 25 in se rie s.)

CINEMA PAPERS January-February - 95

B

S U P E R -a S E R U IC E S

3 H

PTY. LIMITED

A PROFESSIONAL SUPER-8mm LABORATORY u s in g

filters

For further information on the largest range of Lighting 0 ters in the world, contact the sole Australian agents for Rosco.

PICS Australasia Pty Ltd

_

NSW: 8 Oungats Lana, Sydney 2000 Tel: 264 1981 Telax:AA26664.

VIC: 77 City Rd. Sth Melbourne 3205 Tel: 62 1133 Telex:AA30912 QLD: 28 8axter St.. Fortitude Valley 4006 Tel: 52 8816 Telex:AA42054 WA: 172 Railway Pde., Leederville 6007 Tel: 381 7707 Telex:AA93625 SA: 239 Anzac Highway. Ptymptjn 5038 Tel: 293 2692 Telex:AA89857

ACM E

TITLES

Now offering high quality video duplicating as well as our 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

SUPER-8 SERVICES PTY LIMITED Suite 2,1 st Floor, Adler Flouse 8 W est Street, North Sydney 2060 Phone: (02) 929 4690

Today’s Lighting Directors have a brighter future with Strand f

OPTICALS GRAPHICS. ANIMATION

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 new 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.

QUALITY SERVICE 1 4 - 1 6 W hifing St., Artarmon, N.S.W . 2 0 6 4 438 2993

RAIMK ELEC TR O N ICS 16 Suakin St. Pymble NSW 2073. Ph 449 5666.

60 Rosebank Av, Clayton South Vic 3169. Ph 541 8444.

101-105 Mooringe Av, Camden Park SA 5038. Ph 295 0 2 11.

19 McDonald St. Osborne Park WA 6 017. Ph 443 1 8 11.

Old Agent Harvey Theatrical Lighting. 21 Crosby Rd. Albion 4010.

Ph 262 4622.

Tas. Agent K. W. McCulloch. 44 Canning St. Launceston. Tas 7250.

Ph 31 8935.

Kevin Dobson

Kevin Dobson Continuedfrom p. 15

relevant to what I was doing. I couldn’t imagine spending three weeks getting two minutes of film; it seemed preposterous. But having done it, I can now understand why.

Have you continued to make commercials?

[producer], David Stevens [direc­ tor] and the actors. But whimsical romances aren’t really up my alley, per se.

I didn’t like Water Under the Bridge because I didn’t think it merited eight hours. I thought that the performances were brilliant.

Dan Burstall’s photography was excellent, again. I enjoyed elements of it, but as a punter it didn’t really do a lot for me.

I didn’t like The Last Outlaw, because it shouldn’t have been a mini-series. It was too big a story.

The only episodes of The Last Outlaw I really liked were One and Four, because One showed young Ned grow up into a man, and Four saw him come undone. They were of more value to me. The two middle episodes, which were the heart of the story, didn’t come across for me. I thought they were a Constable Hall (Stephen Millichamp) and little boring.

Yes. A while ago I went to New Zealand to do the original Norsca commercials. That was great. We dammed up a river in Arrowtown and flooded it just to get backlit shots of horses running through water. We choppered into in­ accessible parts of Fiordland to take shots of pinecones. I also got to work with aeroplanes, and had a camera bolted on the nosecones, so we could drift around boats.

Ned Kelly (John Jarratt) fight it out in Then I went to the U.S. to do Episode 1 o f The Last Outlaw, directed by some tags for the American Dobson.

Express commercials, with Karl Malden. When I came back, I got a director when you have a producer phone call from Geoff Pollock at with a strong personal and creative Crawfords asking me to direct interest . . . three episodes of Young Ramsey.

I didn’t mind. I found him an interesting guy, and his knowledge Was that the second series? of Australia between the 1850s and Yes. That led directly to The early 1900s is enormous. So it Last Outlaw, I Can Jump Puddles wasn’t all that difficult, although when you are in production it is and Squizzy Taylor. hard not to see people as being in “Young Ramsey” never seemed to the way. It is hard to accept the get the public recognition many stopping- of film ing because someone’s button isn’t right. people felt it deserved . ..

Anyway, it doesn’t matter what I think it was on at a funny time. happens when you are directing; Was it Saturday nights at 6.30, you still have the practical creative which is like saying that it’s on in power. No one can ever take that Venezuela next week? But I had no away from you. Otherwise, you are great affection for it as a series. It not directing, someone else is. And wasn’t enormously inspiring to me, Ian certainly didn’t do that. though it was sad to see it go — particularly for Crawfords. I think After “The Last Outlaw”, you did Crawfords should concentrate on “I Can Jump Puddles” for the ABC bringing something like that back.

The Last Outlaw and Tele-series When did you become involved with “The Last Outlaw”?

I came in quite late. George Miller, whom I knew from Crawford days and Young Ramsey, was ori­ ginally going to do all four twohour episodes. But his load became too much and he asked me to relieve him of the third episode. I did that, and then as the episode before the huge shoot-out at Glenrowan loomed, I also took over episode one. So we ended up splitting 50/50. But George had been working on that series a year before. I was just the second director.

Yes, the first four episodes. That was amazing. It was the first filmintegrated program I had done.

Many years after it had all been over for everyone else, the ABC chose to do I Can Jump Puddles on film and videotape.

Nevertheless, working with Adam Garnett, who was 12, and Alan Marshall, who was 76, was just great. I loved it and think of the show with much affection.

What is your feeling about the mini­ series format . ..

As long as people watch and enjoy them, then it is fine. It would be sad the day they stop.

In her review of “A Town Like Alice”, Jill Kitson ended by saying: “One further point worth noting is that the best performances in all these series [referring to “Water”, “Last Outlaw” and “Alice”] come from actresses and actors who have made their names in the Australian cinema, not in television. Perhaps the best hope for future mini-series is if their producers, directors and script editors also come from the cinema, where originality and integrity are still prized above soap-opera for­

I don’t know Jill Kitson, and I don’t know what she is saying. Who came from the cinema? Who is she referring to?

To people like Helen Morse and Bryan Brown. She is also suggest­ ing that more television should be directed by film people, rather than television people . ..

It is wrong to make a distinction between film and television people.

Most of the people who have been around for a long time, apart from the New Wave, have come from television. And one of those actors you are talking about has been gracing the small screen for years. I can’t see why directors and actors can’t use both mediums — after all, neither is big enough to sustain a huge industry.

If you want to be a director, it is your job to tell stories. So, how can there be a division? Igor Auzins has made two feature films, David Stevens is poised at any time to knock off a feature film, and George Miller, who has just made The Man From Snowy River, all began in television with me. You take a camera and a film crew and tell a story. You might be telling it for the cinema or for television, it doesn’t matter, so long as you .tell that story correctly. +

We set the scene with the most in-depth news coverage for the gay community. O ur interviews, special features and stories keep you involved as well as aware of events here and around the world. Comprehensive reviews enliven the show. And our cartoonist adds to the fun.

To complete the per­ formance, each month Campaign's classified sup­ plement brings people closer together through­ out the country.

See the best show in town at your newsstands every month - Campaign Australia's leading gay newspaper.

Subscribe by phone (outside NSW) Call Toll Free

How did you feel about “Water Under the Bridge” and “Alice”?

How much would you say it was Ian Jones’ project?

I didn’t like any of them — The Last Outlaw, Water Under the It was his and Bronwyn Binns’ — Bridge or A Town Like Alice. I am told A Town Like Alice was enor­ totally, completely and utterly. mously successful, which is great, It must be difficult for you as a particularly for Henry Crawford

mulas.” What’s your reaction to that?

/O 0 8

2 2 2 ­

0 8 8

v.

To subscribe: send $18.00 for 12 issues to Campaign, PO box J41, Brickfield Hill, NSW, 2000. j CINEMA PAPERS January-February - 97

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY DIRECTORY HELPING MAKE MOVIES HAPPEN IN AUSTRALIA SINCE 1958!._____ ___ — ---------------q

a.

—

^

Perry Sandow Television Lighting Director Film Gaffer

I— ¡F IL M & T V PRODUCTION!— * *— ® TECHNICAL SE R V IC E S <—J I— | A ND S U P P L IE S j

a AUDIOVISION q

Füit Location Lighting Track

Contact Daryl Binning: AUDIOVISION PTY LTD. ★ Location film and TV lighting services.

Ph. (09) 330 5070. ★ Equipment rental — L ighting, cameras, 15 Denny Way, Alfred Cove, W. A editing, generators, etc.

united ciusifcilnsicin film / ^

-

Western Australia’s Grip Service © E le m a c k D o lly w ith T ra c k s © Jib Arm © L im p e t M o u n t © T rip o d s and S p re a d e rs © P la tfo rm D o llies © L o c a tio n T ru c k . © 2 0 ' S c a ffo ld in g A lu m in iu m T o w e r © H a n d -H e ld C o m m u n ic a tio n S ystem © G rip s and R u n n e rs

P hone K A R E L A K K E R M A N (0 9 ) 3 8 2

1883

P.O. BOX 308, Subiaco, PERTH, W.A. 6008

D EN IS R O B IN S O N j

Perry Him¿Televisionlighting P.O. Box 37, Wanneroo, W.A. 6065. Phone: (09) 405 1340

WESTERN AUSTRALIA THE PRODUCER’S STATE 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

C on ta c t: Graham Varney H i AU STR ALIAN IN TER N A TIO N A L FILMS BARKER HOUSE BUSINESS CENTRE

49 HAY STREET, SUBIACO, WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6008 NATIONAL (09) 381 2444 - (09) 271 5351 INTERNATIONAL+ 61 9 381 2444 TELEX: AA93374 (0 9 )3 3 9 3 7 5 9 17/37 PRESTON POINT ROAD,

MEMBER OF THE FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA 8

D O N ’T M IS S T H E B U S !

[71 u

m

CHARLES CRAIG has a range of vintage buses i

l

FOR HIRE!

i

m

35mm & 16m m N egative C utting

■ • • c o v e rin g th e 1 9 3 0 s /

.4 0 S j

,5 0 S j

,6 0 s

a n (j

7 0 s

CHRIS ROWELL PRODUCTIONS 139 Penshurst Street, . Willoughby. N.S.W 2068

Telephone (02) 411 2255

C h a rle s C ra ig 722 D o n c a s te r R d., D o n c a s te r 31 08

T e le p h o n e (03) 5 6 8 7971 A .H . (03) 848 1465

Cl BA PRINTS! At CPL we produce top quality hand enlarged colour prints from your original trannies and from artwork. All instructions for cropping, composition and colour bias are carefully followed resulting in fine photographic prints suitable for use in industry, commerce and advertising.

SIZE 10 " x 8 "

STATS DISPLAY REPR0 $15.00 $18.00 $35.00

12 "x10 "

$23.00 $ 27.0 0 $40.00

PHONE 5 3 446 6 7

DISPLAY : Quality Prints suitable for sales brochures, folio presentation, wall decoration and communication.

STATS: Fast colour prints to

16 " x 1 2 "

$30.00 $35.00 $48.00

2 0 "x16 "

$ 3 7.0 0 $42.00 $60.00

24" x 20"

$45.00 $50.00 $70.00

T IM E

4 hours

36 hours

accurate sizes but with minimal colour correction. Suitable for layout purposes and general reference.

REPRO: Reproduction quality prints hand enlarged to your size and colour ' specifications. Care is taken to colour match product samples.

2 days

For ClBASTATS, work in by 5pm - ready by 9.30am.

This service must be booked with Margret Cameron or Nigel Clarke.

For CIBASTATS from FLAT ARTWORK 5" x 4â&#x20AC;? COPY TRANSPARENCY $20.00 10" x 8" COPY TRANSPARENCY $40.00 SALES TAX: Above prices do not include sales tax. Unless a V.S. number is supplied sales tax will be added at a rate of 30%.

OVERTIME: Overtime by negotiation.

LIABILITY: Every care is taken with clients film/order. However in case of loss or damage CPL liability is limited to replacement with Unexposed film.

316 St Kilda Road-St Hilda. PHONE 534 0341

C in e F ilm Laboratory P ty. L imited

W hy are the world s

technitians using _ micron radio t!T o 1 microphones?

WHITING ST., ARTARMON, 2064, TELEPHONE: (02) 439 4122 (02)43 2957 14

SERVICES PROVIDED NIGHT 7247/FUJI/AG FA PROCESS & WORK PRINT 7240/50 PROCESS ONLY.

DAY

DRIVE one and find out!

For further information contact the sole Australian distributor PICS Australasia Pty L td . r

.W

^ 1 ■

P

H

NSW: 8 Oungate Lana. Sydney 2000 Tal: 264 1981 Telex:AA26664.

VIC: 7 7C lty Rd, Sth Melbourne 3205 Tel: 6 2 1 1 3 3 Telex:AA30912 OLD: 28 Baxter St., Fortitude Valley 4006 Tel: 52 8816 Tetex:M42054 WA: 172 Railway Pde., LeederviUe 6007 Tel: 381 7707 Telex:AA93625 SA: 239 A nne Highway. Ptympton 503 8 Tel: 293 2692 Talex:AA89857

GUEST

FILMS

CAMERA © SOUND • SCRIPT © EDITING

Full 16mm service:7247/FUJI/GEVA 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 enquiries contact one of our experienced directors: Jack Gardiner

343 S ailors Bay Road, NORTHBRIDGE, NSW, 2063.

Tel: (02) 958 1420

, C ine F ilm L aboratory

— Q u a lity

C o n tro l

Cal Gardiner — P ro d u c tio n /C u s to m e r L ia is o n .

NIGHT RECEPTION IN CURRY LANE

f

day ^ r e c e p t io n '

14 WHITING ^STREET J

A&J Casting Agency Casting and Modelling Consultants 5 A x fo r d C re s c e n t, O a k le ig h Sth. 3 1 6 7

T e le p h o n e (03) 5 7 0 4 4 0 7

Now you can record Dolby Stereo Optical Sound for your next feature without leaving the country Colorfilm has taken delivery of a Dolby Stereo Optical Sound Camera.

Its the first in the Southern Hemisphere, the third of its kind and only the sixth Dolby camera in the world.

The Dolby System is a remarkable combination of full optical stereo sound, with frequency response to 12kHz, and Dolbys own noise reduction system.

W hat that means to you is sound on the screen as good as the sound you get at home from your hi-fi.

The same sound system used in ‘Star Wars’ ‘Apocalypse Now’ ‘Quadrophenia’ and ‘Superman’ to name just a few.

Give Les McKenzie a ring, and he’ll tell you how to work with us so your next picture sounds as good as it looks.

Colorfilm.

35 Missenden Road, Camperdown NSW 2050.

Australia.

Telephone (02) 5161066